________________
DEKKAN OF THE SATAVAHANA PERIOD
153
JUNE, 1918]
in the cave presented to them? Further, as Inscription No. 2 is dated in the reign of Pulumâvi notwithstanding that his father Satakarni was alive, the only possible conclusion. is that the former was ruling over Maharashtra and the latter over the old Andhra territory, and that consequently all the dates of the inscriptions just noted must refer to the reign of Pulumâvi alone, 19
Klaudios Ptolemaios, writing his ge, raphy of India shortly after A.D., 150 speaks of at least three kings ruling over different parts of Western India. Thus he tells us that Ozene was the capital of Tiastenes, Baithana of Siro Polemaios, and Hippokoura of Baleokouros.20 Ozene is, of course, Ujjain, and Baithana is Paithan on the Godavarî, the ancient Pratishthâna, in Nizam's dominions. Hippokoura has not been definitively identified, some taking it to be Kolhapur and others Hippargi in the Bijapur district.21 Of the royal names Tiastenes obviously corresponds to Chashtana, the founder of the second Kshatrapa dynasty, which we know wielded away over Kathiawar, Gujarat and Malwa and which seems to have immediately succeeded Nahapâna's family. Siro Polemaios is Śrî-Pulumâvi, son of Gautamiputra Satakarni, and Baleokouros is Vilivâyakura, name of a king whose coins have been found at Kolhapur. These three princes have, therefore, been regarded as contemporaries of one another.
Diverse views have been expressed in regard to the relation in which Chashṭana stood with Nahapana, on the one hand, and with Gautamiputra Satakarni, on the other. Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji to the last held that Chashtana was a contemporary, though not a subordinate, of Nahapana.22 According to Dr. Fleet Chashtana was Nahapâna's co-regent or viceroy at Ujjain just as Bhûmaka was in Kathiâwar.23 Prof. Oldenberg and Dr. Burgess regard Chashtana as the satrap of Gautamiputra Satakarni, the Andhra con queror of Nahapana.24 Prof. Rapson and Mr. V. A. Smith, however, consider that he was a satrap of the Kushana sovereigns who ruled over North India.25 Now, Chashtana's coins have been found in Kathiawâr and Gujarât and even as far north as Ajmer and Pushkar. His capital, as Ptolemy tells us, was Ujjain. It seems that if we exclude the Poona and Nasik districts, his dominions were co-extensive with those of Nahapana. It is not, therefore, probable that both Nahapâna and Chashtana ruled simultaneously or that Chashtana was a viceroy of Nahapâna. Again, his foreign title Kshatrapa and the use of the Kharoshthi alphabet on his coins clearly show that Chashtana was a viceroy, not of Gautamiputra Satakarni, but of some northern alien power. The view held by Prof. Rapson and Mr. Smith, viz. that he was a satrap of the Kushana family, is therefore, the only plausible one. It appears that after the destruction of the Kshaharâta family, the Kushana overlord appointed Chashtana to be a satrap and dispatched him to save as much of Nahapana's territory as was possible from the clutches of the Satavahanas. Chashtana seems to have performed his task not unsatisfactorily, because, as the find spots of his coins show, the Poona and Nasik districts were the only two provinces from Nahapana's territory which he did not hold.
But it may be asked: how is it that Nasik Inscription No. 2 makes Gautamiputra Satakarni the lord not only of Akaravanti (Mâlwa) but also of Surâshtra (Kâthiâwâr )
19 For a full discussion of the subject, see my article in JBBRAS., XXIII. 69 and ff.
21 EHD., 44; BG., I. i. 541
23 JRAS., 1913, 993 and n. 1.
25 CIC.-AMK., Intro, evi; EHI., 210-11
20 Above, XIII, 359 and 366.
22 BG., I. i. 32.
24 Above, X. 226; ASWI., iv. 37, n. 4.
