Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 52
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 295
________________ OCTOBER, 1923] rule of Châstana and Rudradâman, and remarks that Apart from the possibility of such an event in India, nobody having ever thought or tried to prove conjoint reigns of two monarchs except Messrs. Bhandarkar, there is sufficient evidence in the Andhau inscriptions themselves to prove that the author of the record was quite ignorant as to the exact relationship between Châṣṭana and Rudradâman.' This is a strange statement. Every student of ancient Indian history, who has an acquaintance with either the Greek authors or the Arthasâstra of Kautilya, knows that there are distinct references to conjoint rule in Ancient India. In the chapter on Raja-rajyayor=vyasana-chinta Kautilya distinctly refers to dvairâjya or the rule of a country by two kings, while the constitution of the city of Tauala as described by Diodorus is apparently conjoint rule of that type. The Mahdvasas also refers to the conjoint rule of the sons of Kâlâsoka. Again we do not understand how a trained archaeologist of Mr. Banerjee's eminence could disregard the evidence of Indian numismatics and epigraphy. The joint coins of Lysias and Antialkidas, Strato I and Agathocleia, Strato I and II, Azes and Azilises, and Vonones and Spalahores clearly indicate conjoint rule in ancient India. The conjoint rule of Huvishka and Kanishka of the Ara inscription is also supported by some scholars. Thus it is quite clear that there is distinct evidence for the existence of conjoint rule in India. The next question that arises in this connection is, why the name of Jayadaman has been given the fourth and the last place in the list of the Kshatrapa names occurring in the Andhau inscription and not third as would normally have been the case if the inscription had really belonged to Rudradâman alone (Rajno Châṣṭanasa Ysâmotikaputrasa rájño Rudradamasa Jayadamaputrasa......)? In all Kshatrapa inscriptions, when the writer gives the pedigree of the reigning king, we have first the name of the remotest ancestor, next the name of his son and so on, as in the Gunda and the Jasdan inscriptions edited by Mr. Banerjee himself. (If Châstana and Jayadâman were dead, both ought to have been mentioned similarly, i.e., either Jayadâman would also have been given the honorific "rajan" as in the Gunda and Jasdan inscriptions, or Châstana would, equally with Jayadâman, have been mentioned without it.) With reference to the ignorance of the scribe we might well ask Mr. Banerjee, how is it that he knew the relationship between the great-grandfather (Ysamotika) and the grandfather (Châstana) of the reigning king, but did not know the relationship between the grandfather (Châstana) and the grandson (Rudradaman)? It seems rather strange that the man should know a relationship so remote and yet be ignorant of one so recent. THE ANDHAU INSCRIPTIONS. 5 4 279 Again the omission of the title "rája" in the case of Jayadaman, which is found in the Gunda and the Jasdan inscriptions, is, significant, if we take into account the order of mention of the names in the Andhau inscriptions.10 The names of Châṣṭana and Rudradâman are mentioned exactly in the same way, preceded by the royal title and then the father's name. The father of Châstana is also without any title honorific or otherwise. Consideration of the above facts leaves little doubt that the inscriptions belong to the joint sovereigns Chastana and Rudradâman, and not to Rudradâman alone as advocated by Dr. Dubreuil and Mr. Banerjee. (I am indebted to Dr. H. C. Raychaudhuri for some of the suggestions contained in the paper.) 5 "Deccan of the Satavahana Period," ante, vol. XLVII, p. 154, footnote 26. Mysore edition, 1919, p. 325. cf. Do-rajja of the Aydramgasutta. 7 Ancient India, its invasion by Alendander the Great, ed. by McCrindie, p. 296. Geiger's Eng. trans, p. 27. • Whitehead's Catalogue of Coins in the Lahore Museum, pp. 6, 81, 132, 141. 10 Epigraphia Indica, vol. XVI, 1922, p. 233.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568