________________
144
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ August, 1926
they were inherited by him. A glance at the map of India would show the improbability of the assumption that these provinces were held by the Satavahanas, while the Kshaharât&s were in ascendency. It seems, therefore, that these provinces were included in the dominion of Nahapana and were further under the direct rule of the Mahakshatrapa.
This being then the extent of Nahapana's dominions, we can now look for his capital amongst the provinces,over which he himself ruled. The mere fact that so many of Ushavadata's benefactions are recorded at Nasik is not sufficient justification to warrant the inference that Nasik was his capital. It is not possible at the same time to place his capital so far distant as Dashapura or the modern Mandasor. Various objections can be raised against this latter identification. Mr. Kennedy has shown that the Periplus was written in about 70-71 A.D., and that the identification of Mambaros with Nahapana is wrong. It may he, however, that the Periplus refers to one of the successors of Nahapana, of whom there were many, as evidenced by the varying effigies on their coins. And since the capital of Nahapana must have continued to be their capital also, the Minnagara of the Periplus must have been the capital of Nahapana himself. The question remains, however, whether it was the modern Mandasor. An inscription of Nahapana's minister is found at Junnar, a large collection of his coins was found at Nasik, while Mandasor or Dashapura was more or less on the borders of his kingdom. It seems hardly probable, therefore, that this place, though in all probability known as Minnagara in ancient times, was the capital of Nahapana.
Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar is wrong in holding that "it was impossible for Ushavadate not to have made any benefactions at the capital town of Nahapâna." It has been generally admitted that the place names in the inscriptions of Ushavadata indicate the provinces that were consigned to his charge by Nahapana. In the provinces that were in his charge, Ushavadata was free to make any benefactions he liked ; but not in the capital city of his lord. This view will be confirmed also by the nature of Ushavadata's benefactions. We can certainly understand Ushavadata granting lands and villages and erecting quadrangular rest-houses at places which were within the provinces consigned to his charge ; but it is difficult to see how one of the places of Ushavádata's benefactions must be regarded as the capital of Nahapana.
It was Sir Ramkrishna Bhandarkar, who first suggested the probability of Junnar being the capital of Nahapana. "The capital of Nahapana was probably Junnar, since the inscriptions of the place show the town to have been in a flourishing condition about that time, and we have record there of the gift of his minister."1 Junnar was a very important town. It was on the Nana Pass route and thus occupied an important position. There are nearly one hundred and fifty caves round about Junnar and as many as thirty-two inscriptions, all of which have been dated on paleographic grounds between 150 B.C.-150 A.D. It was 88 great and flourishing a town as Nasik, Dashapura or Bharukachchha. If we do not find any record there of Ushavadata's benefactions, the only explanation is that it was outside the territory which was in his charge.
Even at Junnar the visitor is pointed out the remains of an old city; and the name may mean either the old city'or, like our modern Junagad, 'the city of the Yavanas'! Very likely it means the city of the Yavanas' and the name is a coruption of the old name, Min. nagara. "In support of this suggestion it may be noticed that at the head of Ptolemy's Nanaguna (which apparently is the Nana Pass, though Ptolemy makes it a river) to the south of Nasik and to the east of Sopara, is a town called Omenogara which, as the Yavanas were call. ed Mins, may be either Minnagara or Yavananagara, that is, Junnar." 8 The latitude and
6 Smith, E.H.1., pp. 217, 291. 7 Bom. Gas., vol. I, pt. ii, p. 160.
• JRAS., 1918. • Bom. Gax., vol. Xvlil, pt. ii, p. 2131.
