________________
486 POLITICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA
R.D. Banerji and G. Jouveau-Dubreuil are of opinion that Nahapāna's dates are not referable to the Saka era. They say that if we admit that the inscriptions of Nahapāna are dated in the Saka era, there will be only an interval of five years between the inscription of this king, dated 46 and the inscriptions- of Rudradāman, dated 52. Within these years must have taken place :
(1) The end of Nahapāna’s reign ; . (2) The destruction of the Kshaharātas ; (3) The accession of Chashtana 'as Kshatrapa, his
reign as Kshatrapa, his accession as a Mahā
Icshatrapa, and his reign as Mahākshatrapa ; (4) The accession of Jayadāman as Kshatrapa, his
reign as Kshatrapa, and perhaps also his reign as
Mahākshatrapa ; (5) The accession of Rudradāman and the beginning
of his reign.
There is no necessity, however, of crowding the events mentioned above within five years (between the year 46, the last known date of Nahapāna, and the year 52, the first known date of Rudradāman). There is nothing to show that Chashtana's family came to power after the destruction of the Kshaharātas. The line of Chashtana may have been ruling in Cutch and perhaps some adjacent territories, as the Andhau inscriptions of the year 52 suggest, while the Kshaharātas were ruling in parts of Mālwa and Mahārāshtra. Moreover, there is no good ground for believing that a long interval elapsed from the accession of Chashtana to that of Rudradāman. Drs. Bhandarkar and R. C. Majumdár have pointed out that the Andhau inscriptions clearly prove that Chashtana and Rudradāman ruled conjointly in the year 52. Professor J. Dubreuil rejects their view on the ground that
