________________
488 POLITICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA rule of Chashtana and his grandson is supported by the fact that Jayadāman did not live to be Mahākshatrapa and must have predeceased his father, Chashtana, as unlike Chashtana and Rudradāman, he is called simply a Kshatrapa (not Mahākshatrapa and Bhadramukha ) even in the inscriptions of his descendants. We have already noticed the fact that the title rājā, which is given to Chashtana and Rudradāman in the Andhau inscriptions, is not given to Jayadāman.
Mr. R. D. Banerji says that the inscriptions of Nahapāna cannot be referred to the saine era as used on the coins and inscriptions of Chashtana's dynasty because if we assume that Nahapāna was dethroned in 46 Ś. E., Gautamiputra must have held Nāsik up to 52 Ś. E. (from his 18th to his 24th year), then Pulumāyi held the city up to the 22nd year of his reign, i.e., up to at least 74 Ś. E. But Rudradāman is known to have defeated Pulumāyi and taken Nāsik before that time. Banerji's error lies in the tacit assumption that Rudradāman twice occupied Nāsik before the year 73 of the Saka era. There is no clear evidence to suggest that the śātavāhanas lost Poona and Nāsik to that great satrap though they may have lost Malwa and the Konkaņ. Another untenable . assumption of Mr. Banerji is that Rudradāman finished his conquests before the year 52 or A. D. 130, whereas the Andhau inscriptions merely imply the possession of Cutch and perhaps some adjoining tracts by the House of Chashtana.
The theory of those who refer Nahapāna's dates to the Śaka era, is confirmed by the fact pointed out by
Epic ; of Eukratides and his son in Justin's work; of Strato I and Strato II ; of Azes and Azilises, etc., etc. The Mahāvastu (III. 432) refers to the conjoint rule of three brothers :-"Kalingeshu Simhapuram nāma nagaram tatra trayo bhrātaro ekamātrikā rājyai kārayanti." See also IA, 6, 29. Cf. Nilakanta Sastri, Pandyan Kingdom, 120, 122, 180.
1 Cf. the Guņda and Jasdhan inscriptions.
