No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The relations between the later Śātavāhana Kings and the “ Western Satraps ” have formed the subject of many discussions already. The matter is, however, still in an unsatisfactory state. Mr. Smith's Early History of India (4th ed.), for instance, says that Nahapāna “ may be assigned approximately to the middle of the first century after Christ, or possibly earlier ” (p. 221); but this may not be done if “ it is possible that the Kshaharāta records are dated in the Śāka era (in the same way as those of the Castana line) ” (p. 232) ; and yet we are told in the same place that all the data seem to harmonize admirably. They do nothing of the kind, and it seems to be still true that “ the whole question of the history of Nahapāna and Castana, their relation to each other, and the relation of both to the Andhra power, requires careful re-examination in the light of the available inscriptions. Too much has hitherto been taken for granted ” (Rapson, JRAS., 1899, p. 376).
page 645 note 1 See his note on “ Śatakarni of the Girnar inscription ” in the JBBRAS. xxiii, p. 66. This note has been discussed also by Banerji, R. D. in his article on “ Nahapana and the Saka Era ” in JRAS., 1917Google Scholar. Also Bhandarkar's, D. R. “ Deccan of the Satavahana Period ”, IA., 1918Google Scholar.
page 646 note 1 See also Dubreuil, Anc. History of the Deccan, pp. 38–9.
page 647 note 1 See also the remarks of MrBanerji, R. D.., JRAS., 1917, p. 281Google Scholar.
page 648 note 1 1917, p. 281–4 ; also Jan., 1925.
page 649 note 1 The slight departure from the ordinary form seems to be necessitated by the fact that the king reigns, but the queen-mother governs, and the message is to be delivered in the name of both.
page 649 note 2 Cf. also Nasik No. 15 of the ninth year of Abhira Iswarasena ; No. 24 of the year seven Sri Yajna ; No. 25 of the year two of Siri Pulumavi. Also Karle No. 14 of the seventh year of Sri Pulumayi; as also the wording of Nasik No. 23 of the reign of Kanha (Krsna). See also Kanheri inscr. of the eighth year of Madhariputa Swami Sakasena (?) in JBBRAS., xii, p. 407.
page 650 note 1 JRAS., 1890, p. 642.
page 652 note 1 I am unable to see how Banerji claims Buhler's support for his view on this particular point. See IA., 1908, p. 43.
page 652 note 2 JBBRAS., xxii, p. 223.
page 652 note 3 See esp. his note on p. 230 (ibid.).
page 653 note 1 EHI., iv, p. 232.
page 653 note 2 EHI., iv, p. 241 n.
page 653 note 3 Cunningham surely made a mistake (see Rapson catalogue, p. 64, n. 2).
page 653 note 4 It may be noted that the Kharosthi legend is found in an abbreviated form only “ on coins that preserve the most correct form of the Greek legend ”.
page 653 note 5 See JRAS., 1899, p. 372, and 1904, p. 373.
page 654 note 1 With this exception I accept, like Mr. Banerji, Mr. Bhandarkar's demonstration of the utter impossibility of keeping to the present arrangement of the chronology of the age ; but, while Mr. Bhandarkar gets over the difficulty by the theory of simultaneous rule of the two Śātavāhana rulers, others prefer the solution referring Nahapāna's dates to another era.
page 654 note 2 Senart, EI., viii, 62.
page 655 note 1 EI., xiv, p. 139.
page 656 note 1 Anc. Hist. Deccan, pp. 21–2.
page 656 note 2 Catalogue, xxvii.
page 657 note 1 EI., viii, p. 71.
page 657 note 2 Senart, EI., vii, p. 56, and Bhandarkar, IA., 1918, p. 73.
page 657 note 3 EHI., iv, p. 232.
page 658 note 1 Catalogue, intro., § 50 and § 72.
page 658 note 2 See IA., xii, pp. 273–4.
page 659 note 1 EI., viii, p. 47.
page 659 note 2 I am unable to accept Mr. Rapson's summary of the history of N. Maharashtra and Aparanta in his introd. § 95. See Banerji in JRAS. 1917. The two doubtful Kanheri inscriptions of Sakasena seem to need careful reconsideration.
page 659 note 3 EI., xvi, p. 23 ft. M. Dubreuil's treatment of these records, pp. 26–8 of his Anc. Hist. Deccan, is very unsatisfactory.
page 660 note 1 JRAS., 1917, p. 276 n.
page 660 note 2 Mr. Banerji refuses to accept this on the score that “ nobody ever thought or tried to prove conjoint reigns of two monarchs except Messrs. Bhandarkar ”. EI., xvi, p. 22.
page 660 note 3 Cat., intro., p. c.
page 661 note 1 IA., 1918, p. 154. Bhandarkar overlooks the reason stated in the inscription itself for the men of all castes choosing Rudradāman for their ruler. The reference is clearly to a formal investiture or coronation ceremony.
page 661 note 2 Sten Konow thinks it was Yasāmotika = Bhūmaka.
page 661 note 3 EHI., iv, p. 232.
page 661 note 4 If Nahapāna = Nambanus, the Periplus may be taken to support this view. Schoff's date for the Periplus is a.d. 60.
page 662 note 1 See Scott, H. R., JBBRAS., xxii, p. 237Google Scholar.
page 662 note 2 Rapson, Catalogue, introd., p. cxv.
page 664 note 1 This was written by West in 1862, JBBRAS., vii, p. 44.
page 665 note 1 The statement of Mr. Banerji that “ after the death of Gautamīputra Śatakarni, his mother caused the cave to be enlarged by adding chambers, which she claims to be her own benefaction ” (JRAS., 1917, p. 283) is not accurate. If by “ chambers ” he means “ cells ” he is clearly wrong. These inscriptions carefully distinguish between caves (lena) and cells (ovarako), and the queen-mother makes a gift of a “ lena ” (cave)—line 10 of Nasik Inscription No. 2.