A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Sātavāhana Chronology at Nāsik
-
Upload
safarali-shomahmadov -
Category
Documents
-
view
242 -
download
1
Transcript of A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Sātavāhana Chronology at Nāsik
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
1/41
A Chronology of Indian Sculpture: The Stavhana Chronology at NsikAuthor(s): Jeanne L. TraboldSource: Artibus Asiae, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1970), pp. 49-88Published by: Artibus Asiae PublishersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3249527.
Accessed: 17/10/2011 13:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Artibus Asiae Publishersis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArtibus Asiae.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibushttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3249527?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3249527?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibus -
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
2/41
JEANNE
L.
TRABOLD
A
CHRONOLOGY OF INDIAN
SCULPTURE:
THE
SATAVAHANA CHRONOLOGY
AT
NASIK
h e
original
study
of which this
paper
s a
part proposed
a method of
analysis
which
would
make it
possible
to set
in
a
rough
chronological
order most
of the
important
works
of
Indian
sculpture
falling
between
about
z5o
B.C. and
A.D.
5
50o.
Even at
the scale
of a
disser-
tation
the materialdealt with
proved
too voluminous
for detailed
arguments.
The final
results
were
presented
in
a series of
charts,
while
one
important
area
was studied
intensively
as
a
demonstrationof method. Here, with more stringentspacelimitations,it is necessary o make
the demonstration
or
its
own
sake,
without
going
on
to its
original application;
and so the
paper
will deal
only
with the Buddhist
rock-cut shrines
at
Nisik
during
the
Sitavihana
or
Andhra
dynasty.
The
chronology
of the
Sitavihana
regime
has
been worked over
for
many yearsby
scholars.
All have been vehement
in
presenting
and
defending
their own
interpretations
of
the
inscrip-
tions
and
the externalhistorical
evidence,
and
equally
determined o
refute the
theories
of their
colleagues.
The
highly
controversialresults
will be shown
in this first
section,
which
will
involve
the
early
nscriptional
ecords
f the
dynasty
n
Mahdr.stra
and
Orissd,*
s well as related
inscriptions
f the
Ksatrapas
ho
were
contemporaries
f the middle
Andhra
kings.
PART I
THE
EARLIEST
SATAVAHANA KINGS:
In the
Pur.nic
lists,
the
first
Andhra
name s
variously
iven,
as follows:
Matsya:
Sisuka
Visu:
Sipraka
VT7ayu:
indhuka
Bhdgavata: rsalobali (i.
e.
strong idra)
Brahmanda:
hismaka
All of these names are
generally accepted
as
corruptions
of the name
Simuka,
who is con-
sidered to
be
the founder of
the
Sitavihana
line'.
All
the
Purdnas
noted
above
give
Krisna
as the second of the line. The third is
given
as
Sri-Mallakarni
n
the
Matsya, Sri-Sitakarrni
n
the
Vayu,
Brahmde.da,
and
Visu,
and
Sri-Sinta-
karna
(Rapson's
spelling)
in the
Bhdgavata.
*
To facilitate
pronunciation,
ch
is used instead of
c,
and
ri
instead of
.r
in
the
transliteration of
Indian
words.
SE.J.Rapson,
BMC
(1908),
p.
lxiv;
Pandit
Bhagwanlal Indraji,
BG,
XVI
(Bombay:
Government
Printing
Office,
I883), p.6Iz.
49
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
3/41
The
Ndndghdt
nscriptions:
Epigraphical
upport
or the initiationof the Satavahana
eign
comes from
a cave
in
the
Ndndghdt ass
in Mahdrdstra. ere are found on the
back
wall of a rest chamber
seriesof
labelsoverwhatwereprobablyportrait tatues, nd on the rightandleft walls wo sacrificial
inscriptions
f a
Queen
Ndyanikd.
n
part hey
are
ranslated s
follows:
Ontheleft
wall,
number ne:
... whoserule s
unopposed,
of
the
Lord]
of
the Dekhan ..
by
... the
daughter
f
the
Mahdrathi,
heincreaser f the
Arhgiya
ace,
..
[who
is
the]
wife of ...
sri,
the
Lordwho
gives
sons,
boons...
[who
is
the]
mother
of
Vedisriand the
motherof
the
illustrious
aktiz.
The
inscription
n the
right
wall,
number
wo,
appears
o be
the
continuation f the list of
sacrifices
hichwas
begun
on
the left
wall. Since hereare
many
gaps
n
the
epigraph,
t is not
really
clearwhether
he
queen
or
someoneelse made he
sacrifices. ome of
the names
which
appearn thisinscription o not appearn the labels
.
The
labelsare translated
y
Indraji
beginning
withnumberone as
follows:
Rdyd
Simuka
Sdtavdhano
irimdto;
he second
and hirdare
King
Sdtakarni
nd
Queen
Ndyanikd;
he
fourth
is
prince
Bhdya;
n
the fifthandsixth
both the
statues ndthe
inscriptions
re
ost;
the
seventh
is
Maharathdgrianka
iro;
all
of the
eight
and
ninthstatues re
gone
(the
feet
aresaid o
remain
on
some)
while the
inscriptions
ead
prince
Hakusiri nd
prince
Sdtavdhana4.
Btihler
eads hese
epigraphs
hus: number
hree,
"King
Simuka
dtavdhana,
he
illustrious
one";
number
our,
"[The
images]
of
the
queen,Ndganikd,
nd the
king,
the
illustrious
Sdtakarni";
umber
ive,
"The
royal
prince Bhdya";
number
six,
"The
Mahdrathi
feudal
baron]
Tranakayira";
umber
even,
"The
Royal
prince
Hakusiri";
umber
eight,
"The
royal
prince
Sdtavdhana"5.
Bt*hler
ndIndraji o notagreeon therelationshipf thosenamedn the
inscriptions.
t is
Indraji's pinion
hat
n
the tradition f such
nscribed tatues he donorwould
be
represented
as would
his
parents,
brothers,
and
sons
according
o their
ages6.
If this werethe
case,
the
sequence
would be
Simuka
Sdtavahana,
he founderof the
line,
Sdtakarni,
imuka's
on,
and
Sdtakarni's
ife,
Ndyanikd.
he next
igure
would
be
Kumdra
Bhdya.
ince
he
is calledKumdra
or
prince,
he
cannot
havebeen
a
king.
His
relationship
s
not
really
lear.Even
though
here s
a blank
areawhere statues
ive
and
six
with their
inscriptions
hould
be,
Indraji
hought
hat
king
Vedisiri
and his
wife must have been
represented
at
this
point,
because
t
seemed
unlikely
that
the
person
who was said to have made the
inscription
would not
appear
n the
group
of
statues7.
Statues
seven,
eight
and
nine
are not
kings.
They
represent
an
officerand two
princes.
Indraji's
charted
geneology
follows":
2
G.
BUhler,
"The
Ndndgh.t
Inscriptions",
ASWI,
V
(1883), pp.6o-6x.
3
Ibid.
4
Indraji,op.cit.,
pp.6x1-61z2.
s
The
number is
Biuhler's
or
the
inscriptions, op.
cit.,
pp.
61-64.
6
Indraji,
op.
cit.,
p.
611.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.,
p.61iz2.
50
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
4/41
I I
Simuka
Satavdhana
Prince
Bhdya
I
Sdtakani
married
Ndyanikd)
VedisiriSdtakani
Prince
Hakusiri
Prince
Stavdhana
In
the
chart
Prince
Bhdya
would
appear
o
be
the
brother
f Simuka.
According
o the
five
Purdnas
n
use
here,
the second
king
of
the
Sdtavdhanas,
risna,
wasthe brotherof
Simuka.
However,
no one seems
o
equate
Prince
Bhdya
with
Krisna,
nor
does
the lattername
appear
n
the
epigraphs
t the
Ndndghdt.
he
reason or this
in
Indraji's
pinion
s,
The omissionof
his
statue
n the
Ndndghdt
hamber
may
be
due to
his
having
been
the
brother
f
Simuka,
s
copperplate
ndother
nscriptions
ot
unusually
mit
to mentionbrothersq.
Some
difficulty
oes arise
hen asto what
relationship
risna
was
to Simuka.
n
his
inscrip-
tional
record
at
Nasik
Cave
i9
(Indraji's
umber
3),
he is called
"ofthe Sdtavdhana
amily"
;
it
seemed
unlikely
o
Indraji
hat
such
a
phrase
would
be used
concerning
brotherof the
founder
of the
dynasty.
Btihler
hazards
o
guesses
about
he
two
missing nscriptions
which
Indraji
elt
were
those
of Vedisiri
ndhis
wife,
but
n reference
o
his
inscription
umber
ine,
he
thinks
t
belongs
o a
later
period,
possibly
o
the time
of
Gautamiputra
dtakarni
r
Pulumdyi.
n
his
opinion,
t
is
not
contemporaneous
ith
the others
n the chamber
".
B
ihler's
Geneology
-t
6
Mahdrathi
ranakayiro
King
and Lordof
the Deccan
(mentioned
n
*"
,
father
*-w
Simuka
Sdtavdhana
of
the
sacrificing ueen)
*-
4
Queen
Ndyanikd
(who
offered
the sacrifices
in
-.V
-
King
STtakarni
-
5
Kum Ira
BhIya
(mentioned
as
([la]
not
found
the Lord...
in
+
x)
sini
in -W ,
line 4)
*
7
Kumira
Hakusiri
-
8 Kumira
Sitavihana
(-"
i
Sati)
(Vedisiri
in
*"
)iz
9
Ibid.,
p.
6I3.
xo
Ibid.
I
Bidhler,
op. cit.,
p.
64.
12
Ibid.,
p.
6
8.
5I
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
5/41
Both
Rapson
and
Bthler
assume
hat
Queen
Niyaniki
wasthe mother
of Vedisiriand Satisiri
(Sati-Sirimata
aku-Siri),
ndthatshe
governedduring
he
minority
f
Vedisiri.
They dentify
Sati
Sirimata
f the
inscription
with
Hakusiri
f the
relief13.
apson's eneological rrangement
is
the
sameas
thatof
Biihler's
above,
but
he has no
place
n his scheme or
Prince
Bhaya.
Biihler
believes hat
Sdtakarni
s not a name,but anepithet Biruda), ndthe ... sirimustbe
the
end
of his
secondname.
Also,
it is
possible
hatHaku
may
be a Prakrit
corruption
f
Sakti.'1
A
fourth
opinion
on the line
of
descent
at
Ninighit,
was
expressed
y
Gopalachari,
ho
believed
hatthetwo
missing
relievosheld
statuesof
Vedisiri
and
Satisiri.Neither
of
theseare
the two
princes
who were mentioned
n
the sacrificial
inscription,
ince neither
of
them
is
the
eldest
or the Kumdra.This means
hat the sacrificial
epigraph
s
laterthan the
labels
of
the
reliefs.
Further
e
concludes
hat
Hakusiri
nd
Satisiri
re
not one and
he
sameas
both
Rapson
andBthler
do's.
The
points
hat
thesefourscholars
o
seem
willing
o
accept
arethatSimuka
s
the
first
of
the
kingsreigning
under he name
of
Satavdhana;
hat
Krisna,
he
second
uler,
doesnot
appear
in
the
epigraphs
t
Ndndghdt;
nd hat hethird
king
s
named
Sitakarni.
Thedates
hey
assign
these
inscriptions
ary
more
widely
than do theirtranslations,
artly
becauseof the
Purdnic
discrepancies
nd
partly
becauseof the
interpretation
f two other
inscriptions
mentioning
King
Satakar.ni.6
The
Hdthigumphd
nscription:
The
first
not
necessarily
n
time)
of the two
is found
n
a
semi-naturalavern
n
Orissd,
he
Hdthigumphd
t
Khandagiri,
dayagiri.
t
records
he
events
n
the life of
King
Khdravela
f
Kalifiga
ndmentions
King
Sdtakarni,
ho
held ands o the
west of
Kalifiga.
Of all
the
epi-
graphic
ecords
which contain
nformation
regarding
he
Sdtavdhanas,
his
represents
he
epi-
tome
of
disagreement
nd
confusion.
The
dating
of
thisrecord
ranges
romthe
second
century
B.C.to
the
early
decades
f the
first
century
A.D.
Indraji
urns to this
inscription
n orderto date the
Sdtakarni
f the
Ndndghdt
ecord
because,
"Except
or
the form
of their
early
nscriptions
hereareno
materialsromwhich
he
age
of
these
early
Andhra
kings
can
be
determined
7."
It
was once the
opinion
of several
scholars,
omeof
whom have
changed
heir
minds,
hat the
Hdthigumphd
ecord
contained
date
n
the
Mauryan
ra.If this
were
so,
and
if
the
Sdtakarni
f
Khdravela'second
year
was
GStakarni
,
a date or the
Andhras
would
be
established.What ollows s
a
resumd
f the
pro-
blems
presented
by
the
implementation
of
this
record.
Indraji
ranslated
and
interpreted
t
as
follows:
"In
the second
year
[after
Khiravela's installation
as
king]
Sitakarni
protecting
the
west
sends wealth
consisting
chiefly
of
horses,
elephants,
men,
and
chariots."
In
the thirteenthyearof his reignkingKhiravelarecords he makingof pillarsand other
works
at
Udayagiri,
and
gives
as
the date of the
making
of the
work,
and also
it
may
'3
Rapson, op.cit.,
p.xlvi;
Biihler,
op.cit., p.68.
'4
Ibid.,
p.69;
K.
Gopalachari
does
not
accept
this
view.
Early History
of
the Andhra
Country
Madras:
University
of
Madras,
1941),
p.
33-
x
s
Ibid.,
p.
3
3.6
The
Purinas give
the name
Stakarni
for between
5
and
9
of
the
Andhra
Kings.
17
Indraji,
op.cit.,
p.61
3.
52
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
6/41
be
assumed f
the
writing
of the
inscription,
..
"In
the one
hundred
nd
sixty-fifth
year
of the
Maurya
ule,
afterone hundred
nd
sixty-four ears
had
passed
away18."
Indraji,
herefore,
ates
Sdtakarni
n
the
154th
year
of the
Mauryan
raof
Kalifiga
nd
raises
the
question,
does
this era
begin
with
Chandragupta
r Agoka?Since
Adoka's hirteenth
dict
says
he
took
Kalifiga
n
his
eight
year,
his could be
the
basis or
establishing Mauryan
ra n
Kalifiga
9.
Indraji
used the dates
which
Sir
A.Cunningham
established for
Aooka'saccession to the
throne,
260
B.C.0zo.
Dr. P. H. L.
Eggermont
believes
that
Agoka
ascended
the
throne
in
268
B.C.2z.
If the base date is taken
as
268
B.C.
minus
the
eight
years
he
ruled
before
conquering
Kalifiga, 260
B.C. would
then
be
the
time for the establishmentof a
Mauryan
era. This date
minus
164
or
165
would
provide
a date of
95
B.C. for the thirteenth
year
of
Khdravela. t would
put
him
on
the throne first
about
io8
B.C.,
andsincethe mention of Stakarni
comes
in Khdra-
vela's
second
year,
date
Sdtakarni bout io6 B.C. With
the
given
date of
260
B.C.
for AMoka's
accession
to
the
throne,
his
eighth
year
would be
252
B.C. This would be
(if
this line of inter-
pretation s followed) the initialyearfor the Mauryanerain Kalifigaand date Khdravelaabout
90
B.C.,
and
~itakarni,
88
B.C.
However,
a number of
questions
have arisen about the
translation
of line sixteen in the
inscription:
Panatariya
athivsasate
rajamuriyakile
ochhine
ha
choyatha
gasatikutariyano22z.
Does
it
really
ay:
"In
he
onehundred nd
sixty-fifth ear
of the
Maurya
ule,
after
one hundred
and
sixty-four ears
had
passedaway?"
f
it
does,
thenone mustdecidewhen the
Mauryan
ra
began.
Did
it
begin
with
Adokaor with
Chandragupta?
hy
are there
no
Mauryan
ecords
dated
n
this
era?
In
1917,
K.
P.
Jayaswal
ndertook
he
clarificationf
the
reading
f
the
whole
inscription23.
Heread ine sixteennthesame ashion hatIndraji ad,andclaimedhat twasaclearlymarked
sentence
n
proper
grammar24.
n
regard
o the initiation f
the era
he
disagreed,
nd
put
it
at
the time of
Chandragupta aurya's
oronation.
He felt there was more
justification
or
this
since
Chandragupta
as a
Jain2s.
He dates the
Khdravela
inscription
a.
160-165
B.C. His
chronology
based
on
his
dating
of the era s as follows:
236
B.C.,
Death
of Adoka
213
B.C., Foundation f tavrhana dynasty
197
B.C.,
Birth
of
Khiravela
18
Ibid.,
p.614.
19
Ibid.
20
A more recent analysis of the problem of A'oka's regnal dates has been advanced by Dr. P.H.L.Eggermont, The
Chronology
f
the
Reign
of
Afoka
Moriya
Leiden:
E.
S.
Brill,
1956).
21
Ibid.,
p.
126.
22
Indraji, op.
cit.,
p.
613.
2a
The most
frequent
comment of
scholars before
they begin
their
translation of this
epigraph
is
that the
years
have dealt
roughly
with
the
stone,
and that
there are
many gaps
in the
inscription
due to
erosion
and
age.
24
Jayaswal,JBORS,
IV
(1917),
pp. 449-50.
25
Ibid., p.452.
In
a note
to
his
article in
the same
year,
JBORS,
IV
(1917),
PP.474-485ff.,
he
offers the
possibility
that it
might
have
begun
with
Chandragupta's
abdicationto become
a
Jain
ascetic.
53
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
7/41
188
B.C.,
Fall
of
Mauryan
ine
Accession of
Pusyamitra
Sufiga
18o
B.C.,
Sitakarni
I
16o
B.C.,
Date
of
Hdthigumphd
inscriptionz6
It
can
be
seen from
Jayaswal's
chronolgy
that
he
believed that
Kharavela
and
Pusyamitra
SuAga
were
contemporaries,
and
that
the
Sdtakarni
whom
Khdravela
mentions
in
his
second
year
is the
S8takarni
of
the
Ndndghdt
nscription27.
His
chronology
would
establish
the
Sdtavd-
hana'sat
Paithan
about
210-2z13
B.C.
Stakarni
I
would come
to the
throne
33
years
ater.
Also
in
1917,
R.D.
Banerji
wrote
on the same
inscription
and
supported
the
dating
in
the
Mauryan
ra. He
flatly
rejected
Fleet's
and
Ltider's
opinion
that
there
was no
date
n
the
Mauryan
era78,
on the
basis that
Fleet
and
Laider's
dating
and
reading
of
certain
numbers
resulted in
inconsistency
29.
Again
in
1927, 1928,
and
1930,
Jayaswal
and
Banerji
published
the
results of
their
intensive
re-examination
of the
rock
inscription.
The
opinions they
then
voiced
completely
eliminated
the possibilityof datingKhdravelan a Mauryan ra.The translationof this vital sectionin line
sixteenwas
brought
more
into line with
that of
Fleet,
and
read
variously:
The
four-fold
AAfiga-Saptika
f
sixty-four
ections
ost
in
the
time
of the
Maurya
king]
he
restores
0.
and
he
causes o
be
compiled
xpeditiously
he
[text]
of
the
seven-fold
Arigas
[sic]
of the
sixty-four letters]3'.
As a
substitution or the
now
nonexistent
Mauryan
ra,
line
six
(in
1927)
was
said
to
refer
to a
Nanda
ra
with
the
numerals
i-vasa-sata
eadeither
as
o103
r
as
30032.
By
1930,
Jayaswal
and
Banerji
were
quite
certain t
mustbe
10
o3
.
Their
ranslation
f line
eight
also
was
suggested
asa meansof dating he inscription y the synchronismf the Greekking,Demetrios , and
Khdravela.
Formerly
he
mitaormitra f
this line
was
correlated ith
the
Suigas
3.
In
1929
another
cholar,
B.
Barua35
published
his
translation f
the
Khiravela
record
n
which
he
found
among
other
points
of
disagreement:
o
statement
bout
a
Greek
king
Dimita-
Demetrios
abandoning
Mathura;
o mention
of a
Mauryan
ra;
no
allusion
o a
Nanda
era;
26
Ibid.,
p.468.
27
Other
points which
Jayaswal
raises at this time
(1917),
and
which become
points
of
disagreement
in
later
translations
concern:
(i)
the
identification of
King
Nanda;
(2)
the
translation
of
ti-vasa-sata,
does
it
mean
103
or
300;
(3)
is
the
Mitra
pursued
to Mathurd n the
eighth year
Pusyamitra? 4)
is
Bahdsamitra r
Brihaspatimitra
he
same
as
Pusyamitra
or
Vasujyestha?
28
R.D.
Banerji,
JBORS,
III,
pp.489ff.;
J.F.Fleet,
JRAS
(1910o),
p.242ff.,
824;
H.
Liders, El,
X
(1910o),
pp.
16o-x6i
I345.
29
It
was
Fleet's
opinion
that the
Maurya
Kal,
and the numbers
referred
to
the
loss
of
sixty-four
Aigas
(Jain
scriptures)
in the time of the Mauryans.Liiders read ti-vasa-sata s 10o3 years since King Nanda, or since the Nanda Kings. Thus
the fifth
year
of Khdravela
would
be counted
103
years
from some
point
during
the
reign
of
King
Nanda or the
Nanda
Kings.
30
Jayaswal,JBORS,
XIII
(1927), p.235.
a3 K.P.Jayaswal
and
R.D.Banerji,
El,
XX
(1930),
p.89.
32
Jayaswal,
op.cit.,
p.237.
33
Jayaswal
and
Banerji,op.cit., p.75.
34
Ibid.h,
.76.
3s
Old
Brdhmi
Inscriptions
in
the
Udayagiri
and
Khanagiri
Caves
(Calcutta:
University
of
Calcutta,
1i929).
54
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
8/41
no
reference o
a
corpus
of
Jain
canon,
and that there
was a
slight
possibility
that the name
of
Sdtakarni
id occur
in
the record. He elaboratedon these theories
at
great length
and came
to
the conclusion that
it was
impossible
to
get
an
indisputable
date for
Khiravela.
Barua's
opinion
is
well
supported
by
the various
interpretations
which have been
given
to
this epigraph.This being the case, there is no secureway to date the Andhrasby synchroni-
zation with
Khiravela.
Even if the date of the
Hithigumphi
record
were
secure,
there is
still
the
problem
of
deciding
which
Sitakarni
of the Andhra line
may
have been
mentioned36.
Attempts
have been
made to date
both the
Ninighit
and
Hithigumphi
records
on
paleographic
comparisons
between themselves and
epigraphs
at Sifichi and
Besnagar.
That
both
are
early
is
generally
accepted
by
scholars,
but
how
early
is still a matterof
disagreement.
f the
internal
evidence of the
Hithigumphi
inscription
were
less
open
to
argument,
he
paleographic
vidence
might
be
more
convincing.
But
a
detailed
discussion of
paleography
s
outside the
scope
of
this
study.
The
Sifichi
Inscription:
The second of the two
inscriptions
related to the
Nnighdt
record,
is found at
S.fichi
in
Bhopal
State.
It
is
a
donative
epigraph
ound
on the
back of the
top
bracketof the
south
torana
of
Stzpa
One,
incised on the
dome
of
the
central
sti~pa
hown
in
the
panel.
It
reads:
Gift of
Anarhda,
he son of
Visithi
(Vdsisththi),
the
foreman of the
artisans
(dve-
sanim)
of
rdjn
Siri-Sdtakani36.
According
to
Marshall he
south
gateway
of
St7pa
One is
the earliest of
the
toranas
t
SdfichI.
He is
loath
to
identify
this
Sitakarni
specifically,
but is
"practically
ertain
hat the
king
referred
to
is one of the
Sitakarnis
who
appear
ater
in
the
Paurdyic
lists...
7"
and is not
the same
as
Sitakarni
of the
Ninighit
and
Hithigumphi
inscriptions.
Marshall's
reasoning
n
dating
the
Sdfichi
Sitakarnipost-Nindghit
was
based
partly
on the
internal
evidence
of the
Hithigumphi.
He
believed that
the
Sitakarni
at
Sifichi
was
the same
mentioned
in
Khdravela's
description
of
his
attack
to the
West.
He
was of
the
opinion
that
this
must
have
occurred after
the
reign
of
the
Sufiga
dynasty
in
the
West,
because
they
were not
mentioned. He
feels that
had the
Sufigas
still
been
in
control of the
Westernareas
some
recogni-
tion
of this fact
would
surely
have
been found in
the
epigraph3as.
As
it
is,
Marshall
hinks
the
area
was under
control of
several
governors
and
not a
single
powerful
dynasty39.
The
logic
seems to
be
that the
presence
of
SitakarnIi's
ame
as
a
rijan
at
Sifichi,
a
former
ufiga
stronghold,
would then
equate
him
with
the time
of
Khiravela.
However,
this
is not
the
only
reason
Marshall
has for
identifying
the
Sitakarni
of Safichi
with
Sitakarni
II
of
the
Purdnas.
He
believes that
on
grounds
of
paleography
the
Nnighit
inscription
was earlier
than
the
Sifichi
or
the
Hithi-
gumphi
which
were
contemporary.
36
John
Marshall,
Guide o
Sdchb(Calcutta:
Superintendent
of
Government
Printing,
1918),
pp.Iz, 48;
J.Marshall
and
A.Foucher,
The
Monuments
f
Saicbi
(3
Vols.;
Calcutta,
n.d.),
pp.
36-37;
H.
Ltiders,
"List of
Brdhmi
Inscriptions",
Appendix,
EI,
X
-
346,
p.42.
37
Marshall,
op.
cit.,
p.
1
3.
38
K.P.
Jayaswal
in
his
early
translation
of the
Khdravela
nscription
thought
that
the
gufigas
were
mentioned. Later
he
thinks it is a
Greek
king.
Supra, p. 54,
n.27
and
n.
34.
39
Marshall
and
Foucher,
op.cit.,
pp.275-277.
55
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
9/41
Jayaswal
ended
to
agree
with
Marshall
hat
the
Sfiichi
I
inscription belonged
to
8dtakarni
I
who
reigned
for
fifty-six
years.
He also
based
this
judgment
on
the
style
of
the
charactersat
Nin4ghdt,
Hdthigumphi,
and
Sifichi
with the first of
these
two
being
the older.
Jayaswal's
date
for
Sdfichi
then
would be
ca. 120
B.C.40.
Marshall'swould be
the
middle or the latter
half
of
the first
century
B.C.*".
Many
other
opinions
have
been
voiced
on the identificationof
the
Sitakarni
at
Sdfichi
and
the
date of this
inscription.
Some of these
are cited
below.
The
oldest
interpretations
re
based
on information of
paleographic
style
which
was availablebefore
the
discovery
and
translation
of the
Besnagar
Garuda
pillar
inscription.
This
pillar,
although
noticed
by
Cunningham
n
his
survey
reports
of
1873
to
187742,
was not cleaned of its
coating
of
red lead
until
19o8-19o943,
at
which
time
the
inscription
was found.
It
apparently
comes
from the
Sufiga
period,
and is
dated
variously
140-108
B.C.
Once the
Besnagar
epigraph
was
translated,
t could
be
used as a
stylistic
tool.
Previously
the AMokan
inscriptions
of
the
third
century
B.C.
were the
only early
dated controls for
paleo-
graphy.
This
discovery
changed
some
minds**.
Ramiprasdd
Chanda45
s
one of the
principle
sourcesmost scholarshave consultedin their
examination
of
the Sdfichi
inscription46.
Chanda
elt
that the
Sdfichi
inscription
of Sdtakarni
was
later
n datethanAMoka's
dicts,
he
Besnagar
Garuda
tambha,
he Bhdrhutoraza
inscription
of
the
Sufigas,
nd
the
Ndndghdt
pigraphs.
He
based
his
opinion
on the
shape
of the
letters*47.
B
hler48elt that he Sdfichi
nd
Ndndghdtnscriptions
ere dentical
n
style,
and
put
them
in thesecond
century
B.C.
partly
because
f
the Khdravela
nscription.
Gopalachari
ho
seemed
to
accept
Chanda's
equencerejected
his identification f the
S~itakarni
s
the
sixth
in
the
line,
who
reigned
rom
75
to
25
B.C.,
because
Gopalachari's
chronology
would
put
number
ix about
180-
130o
B.C.
He
could
see
no
reasonfor not
picking
a later
Sdtakarni
or
the one
at
Sdfichi.
Further,
he
rejected
Biihler's
quation
of
Sdfichi
nd
Ndndghdt.
He would
put
Sifichi
ater49.
In
reviewing
hese
theories,
Spink
commented
hat
the
Sdfichi
cript
eemed
elated o the
Suilga
and
post-Sufiga
nscriptions
f
the
nearby
regions,
while neitherof
the
other
two
(Ndndghdt
nd
Hdthigumphd)
ecords
how
these
elements.
Then
he stated
hat
paleography
mayonly
be
used
up
to
a
point.
Other
nformation
was
then needed
to
fix
the dates
of
an
inscription
within
narrow
limits
so.
40
Jayaswal
and
Banerji,
op.cit.,
p.74.
4
Marshall,
op.ci., p.
13.
42
A.Cunningham,
ASI,
X
(1874-1875
and
1876-1877),
pp.41Iff.
43
J.Marshall,
JRAS
(1908), pp.
1953ff.;
J.Ph.Vogel,
ASIAR
(1908-09),
pp.
iz6ff.;
J.F.Fleet, JRAS
(1909),
pp.
io87ff.;
D.R.
Bhandarkar,
ASIAR
(I913-14
and
1914-15),
pp.
186-234
and
pp.66-88;
D.R.
Bhandarkar,
JBBRAS,
LXIV,
Vol.
23
(London,
1910), pp.
o104ff.
**
HCIP,II,
p.
195,
n. i.
4s
RamdprasddChanda,MASI, No. i, VotiveInscriptionsrom Salcbh Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing,
1919).
46
Some
who
have
cited
his
opinion
in
apparent
support
of
its
sequence
are:
Barua,
op.cit.,
pp.
15off.;
Gopalachari,
op.cit.,
p.29,
n.
Io;
W.
Spink,
"Rock-cut
Monuments
of
the
AndhraPeriod:
Their
Style
and
Chronology"
(unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
Harvard
University,
Cambridge,
1954),
P.
86.
4'
Chanda,
op.
cit.,
p.
6.
48
Biuhler, IA,
XXXIII
(1904), p.
86-pre-Besnagar.
49 Gopalachari,
op.
cit.,
p.
29,
n.
Io0.
so0
Spink, op.cit.,
p.89;
Jayaswal
and
Banerji, op.cit.,
p.73.
56
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
10/41
Thus far it is
obvious that neither
the
Purdnas
nor the
inscriptions
have
provided
either
a
securedate
or a confident
dentification
of
S.takarni.
Of the
epigraphs
so far discussed
only
one
is
found in
relationship
to
sculpture
which
lends itself to a
stylistic
examination.
That
is
at
Safichi.
THE LATER
SATAVAHANAS
AND THE
KSATRAPAS:
The
Ndsik
Caves:
Nineteen nd
Eighteen:
It is the
intent
of
this
study
to
provide
the
further
dating
information
Spinkspeaks
of
through
stylistic
analysis
of
sculpture.
Therefore,
the
model
site to
be
examined n
some
detail is
Nasik.
Here
there are a
number
of
Sdtavahana
epigraphs
found
in
connection with
sculpture.
The
descriptive
material
for Nasik
is
derived from
photographss,
and
Indraji's,
Ndsiks5.
The
inscriptions
are
taken
from
Indraji;s3
rom the
ASWI
Vol.IV,
pp.98
to
i16;
and
from E.
Senarts4.
There
are some
twenty-four
caves at
Nisik,
six
of
which
contain
inscriptions
of
the
Sdtavdhanas. he numberingrunsfrom west to east.The two earliestcaves arepresumedto be
numbers
Nineteen
and
Eighteen.
Cave
Nineteen
is a vihdra
beyond
Eighteen
and
below
Twenty's
court.
It is in three
parts:
a
veranda,
a
hall,
and six
cells.
The hall
is
14
feet
broad,
14
feet
deep,
and
8
feet
high;
in
the
back wall
andin
each
side wall
are
two cells.
Over the
doorway
of each
cell
is
a
horseshoe
arch,
and
between
each
pair
or
arches s an
undulating
band of
rail
tracery
one
foot
broad.
The
cells
are
about
6 feet
4
inches
by
7
feet z
inches
deep.
The
entry
o the
hall
is
3
feet
wide with
windows
one to
each
side
with stone
tracery.
On
the
upper
side
of
the
right
window is
the
well
preserved
inscription
number
twenty-two.
When
Krishna
of the
Sdtavdhana
family
was
king [this]
cave
[was]
made
by
the
great
Sramana
minister,
[an]
inhabitant
of
Ndsikass.
The
veranda
s 16 feet
broad,
4
feet z
inches
deep,
and the
ceiling
is
7
inches lower
than
that
of
the
hall.
There are
two
pillars
and two
pilasters.
They
are
eight
sided
in
the middle
of the shaft
and
square
n
the
upper
part.
Indraji
says
these are
similarin
style
to
Girndr n
Kathidwad
and
Udayagiri
n
Orissa.
Above
the
pillar
s
abelt of
rock
dressed ike
timber.
The
roof,
now
broken,
projected
over
thiss6.
The
Purdeas
record
that
the
successor
of the
Andhra
King
Simuka
would be his
brother
Kisinas7.
Though
it
seemed
strange
to
find
the
brother
of the
founder
of
a
dynasty
referred o
in such
a
manner,
Indraji
elt
that just
on the
paleographic
evidence
N.sik
Nineteen's
epigraph
could
not
be
separated
by
too
long
an
intervalfrom
that
of
N~nighit.
Thus it
couldbe
assumed
that the inscriptions
of this
cave may have
been carved
just prior
to
the
Ninigh.t
epigraphs,
s'
Taken
by
Gary
Tarr
and
J.
L.Davidson.
s2
BG,
XVI, pp.
541-629.
3sa
bid.
s4
EI,
VIII
(1905),
pp.
59-96.
55ss
ndraji,
op.cit.,
p.593.
s6
Ibid.;
Gopalachari,
op.cit.,
see
P1.
xii.
s1
Supra,
p. 5
1.
57
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
11/41
and that it
was
possibly
contemporaneous
with
the
reign
of the
second
Satavahana
Krisnass8.
Unfortunately
there
is
not sufficient
sculptural
material at the
Nandghdt
site
to make
any
stylistic
appraisal
or
comparison,
with
any
Ndsik
material.
The exterior of
Nindghdt appears
o
have
been
completely
restored and screened ns9. On
the interior
only
the feet of the relief
figures
remain. These are frontal and show no shift of
bodily
weight6o.
In
Indraji's
discussion
of a
chronology
for Ndsik
and
the
Sdtavdhanas,
e
suggested
that the
pillars
of
the facade of Cave Nineteen resembled
those found
in
Orissd6I.
It
is not
known to
which
Orissdn
cave he referred.It could not
have
been
the
Hdthigumphd
as
that
is
a natural
cavern
without
pillars.
Besides it has
already
been shown
that
no
specific
date
is
ascertainable
through
the
Hdthigumphd nscription.
The next
cave
related to
Cave
Nineteen
by
inscriptional
evidence is
Cave
Eighteen,
the
chaitya
all. The
inscription,
number
nineteen,
which is on the
fifth and
sixth
pillars
of the
right
hand
row is
as
follows:
[This] chapel or cave is made on the Trirasmimountain by the royal minister
Arahalaya
and
by
Sdtariyd
[Sk.
Satdrya],
the
daughter
of
Lisilanaka,
the foster-
mother
(?)
of
the
great
king
Hakusirl
[Sk.
Hakusri],
the female
storekeeper
of
the
royal
minister
Agiyatanaka
[Sk.
Agneyatanuka],
and the mother
of
Kapainanaka
[Sk.
Kripanaka?]
2.
In
a footnote to
the translationhe
admitted
difficulty
in the
translationof the word
Bhata-
pdlikd.
A
second translation
of this
epigraph
was
given
by
Senart63.
By Bhatapdlikd
granddaughter]
f
Mahdhakusiri
nd
daughter
of the
royal
officer
Arahalaya rom Chalisilana,wife of the royal officer Agiyatanaka,of the treasure
office,
mother of
Kapalnanaka,
his
chaityagtriha
as been caused
to be
perfected
on
this mount
Tiranhu.
Two
other
inscriptions,
numbers
wenty
and
twenty-one,
occur
in
connection
with
this
cave.
The first is
found under
the
arch
of
the
entry
and
reads
as
follows:
The
gift
of the
village
of Dhambika
by
the inhabitants
of
Isika6-.
The second
is
found on
the
molding
of
the
doorway
to the
proper
left
and above the
Yaksa
figure.
The
middle
railing
and Yaksha made
by
... and
Nandasri6s.
ss8
Indraji, op.
cit., p. 613.
This
would
necessarily
be
the
sequence
according
to
Purdanic
istory.
so
Gopalachari,
op.cit.,
P1.
VIII,
I.
6o
Ibid.,
P1.
II.
61
Indraji,
op.cit.,
p.
613.
62
Ibid.,
p.
590.
63
EI,
VIII,
p. 91.
64
Indraji,
op.cit.,
p.
590.
6s
Ibid.,
p.
591I.
58
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
12/41
In a footnote o his translation
f
inscription
umber
wenty, ndraji
uggested
hat
t
could
be takento mean hat
the
people
of Ndsik
gave
a
village,
Dhambika,
o someone
unnamed.
This
s unusual
ince
t is
usually king
who woulddonatea
village.
Forthis reasonhe
offered
a second
meaning
whichread
"[This
arch]
he
gift
of
the
guild
of
grain
dealers,
nhabitants
f
Ndsika"66.
Senartnterpretedhe inscription s evidence hatthe cave wasoriginally onated
by
these
people
and was finished
by
those
of the
inscription
number
nineteen67.
LUiders
rendered umber
wenty
n almost
he same
ashionas
Indraji,
ut
he
changed
he
phrase
"by
the inhabitants"
o
"of the
Ndsikakas"68.No
difficulty
ppeared
o existin
the
translation
f
number
wenty-one.
Returning
o
epigraph
number
nineteen,
he
variations
n
the
rendering
etween
hat
of
Indraji
nd Senart69 ould make he date
of
the
cave
varyby
two to
three
generations.
ndraji
put
the
dedication
f the
cave
in
the
reign
of
the
great
king
Hakusiri
by
his
foster mother
Lisilanaka.
akusiri,
ccording
o the
Ndndghdt
nscription,
s one of
thesonsof
Stakarni
and
Ndyanikd.
f
Indraji's
hronological
chemes
followed,
Hakusiri
wouldbe onthe throne
about
70
B.C.70.
The
king
Krisna Kanha)
f
the
Purd as
would
have
beenthe
great
uncleof
Hakusiri
if the
geneology
s correct.This
assumption
oesnot
place
morethana
generation
nd a half
between
Krisna
and
Hakusiri.
t
is basedon the
possibility
hat
Vedisiri,
Hakusiri's
rother,
was
on
the throne irst.
[See
page
5 1].
He
wasfollowedwithin
a
generation
y
Hakusiri.The
Purdas
are
of
no use
n
this
assumption
ince hesenamesdo
not
appear
fter
Krisna.
Further
complications
ere
suggestedby
Gopalachari
who
said of this
inscription
f
Mahdhakusiri
that:
"Sincehe does not
bear
he
title
of
Rdjdn
which
Sdtavihana
ings
nvariably
o,
we
cannot
ubscribeo the
view of
Rapson
and Bihler
thatthe
Hakusiri f
our
inscrip-
tion
ascended he
throne71."
He
does
identify
he
Plrnotsafitu
f the
VdyuPurd a
with
Satisiri72.
If
Senart's
nterpretation
f
this Cave
Eighteen
nscription
s next
examined
t
says
hatthe
cavewasnot
excavated
by
the
fostermother
f
Hakusiri,
ut
by
the
grand-daughter
f
Hakusiri.
This ncreaseshe
time
span
between
CaveNineteen
of
Krisna
ndCave
Eighteen
by
two more
generations.
Using
Indraji's
datesand
taking
wenty-five
ears
asthe
mean or
a
generation,
we have
70
B.C.
for
Hakusiri
minus
ifty
which
gives
z
B.C. for
Cave
Eighteen.)
Oncemore
he ack
of
consensus n the
nterpretation
f
an
nscription
educes
ts
usefulness
as a tool for
determining
even a
relative
chronology.
Thus
the
style
of
the
decoration
of the
cave
itself
compared
to the
style
of
others
at
Nisik
and
elsewhere
must
be
the
criterion to
determine a
proper
sequence.
66
Ibid., p.
590,
n.
3.-
67
Senart,
op.cit.,
p. 91.
68
Liiders,
EI, X,
Appendix
numbers
I141-1143, pp.
I28-129.
69
Ibid.,
number
1141
is
the same as
Senart's.
70o
takarni
1-98
B.C.;
Simuka-1i 30
B.C.;
Krina-i
io
B.C.;
Satasiri-9o
B.C.;
and
Hakusiri-70
B.C.
Indraji,
op.cit.,
p.
I64.
71 Gopalachari,
op.cit.,
p.
38.
72
Ibid.;
Rapson's
Purdnic
ist
of the Andhra
Kings
does not show a
Pironstantu
n
the
Vdyu,
but
a
PArenotsatga
ppears
in
the
Matsya,
Brahmdinda, isnu
and
Bhdgavata
ists.,
op.cit.,
pp.
lxvi and
lxvii.
59
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
13/41
THE
LATER SATAVAHANAS
AND
THE
KSATRAPAS:
There
are at
Ndsik
a total
of
twenty-four
aves.
Of
these,
wenty-three
were
vihdras.
hirteen
of these
monuments ave
inscriptions.
While
none of
the
inscriptions
mentions n
era,
our of
themhavewhatmustbe regnalyears.
The
sequence
f these
inscriptions
n
regnalyears
eems
to
begin
with Cave
Ten and
includeCave
Three,
Cave
Two,
and
an excavationnear
Cave
Twenty-three.
ave
Two's
inscription
was
dated
n the sixth
year
of
Pulumayi,
on
of
Vdsithi;
but nsofar
s ts
style
s
concerned,
t will be
of
littleuse
at thistime
n
helping
o
place
Nineteen
because
he cave
was
apparently
ecut
by
a
Mahdydna
ect
at some
time
much aterthan
the
inscription.
As
for
the
excavation
ext
to
Twenty-three,
ll
thatremainss
the
inscription
ated
in the second
year
of
Pulumdyi.
hus
he
controllingpigraphic
nd
stylistic
materials
emaining
at this site
are
n CaveThree
and
Cave
Ten.
(Related
o these
are
the Kdrle
chaitya
nd a
vihdra
from
Junnar.)
These
two caves
are
closely
linkedto each
other
by
reason
of
inscriptional
evidence.For
clarity's
ake
hese
nscriptions
ill alsobe
quoted
as
they
have
been
ranslated
y
Pandit
Bhagvdnldl
ndraji,
with
the
interpretations
f Senart
and
Btihler
n
those
instances
where here s a divergence f opinion.
Ndsik
Cave
Ten:
Four
of
the
inscriptions
f Cave
Ten
are located
n
the
veranda,
numbers
en
through
thirteen.Number
en is on
the back
wall
of the veranda
elow
the
ceiling;
t
covers
a
space
of
about
40
feet,
and
s
not dated"3.
To
the Perfect
one.
This
dwelling
cave
or
layana
nd
thesetwo
cisterns
were
constructed
n the Trirasmi
hill in the
Govardhana
district]
by
the
charitable
Ushavaddta,
he son
of
Dinika
and on-in-law
f
Kshatrapa
Satrap]
ahapdna
of
the]
Kshahardta
dynasty],
who
[Ushavaddta]
s
the donor
of
three
hundred
housand
cows;
who has
made
gifts
of
gold
and
steps
[reaching
o
the
water]
at the
river
Bdrndsa;
who has fed hundredsof thousandsof
Brahmans
very year;
who has
given
[in marriage]
ight
wives
to
Brahmans
t the
holy
place
Prabhdsa;
ho
has
presented
est-houses
with
fourverandas
nd
pratisrayas
t Bharukachha
Broach],
Dasapura,
Govardhana,
nd
Sorpdraga,
nd
provided
gardens
and
wells;
who
has
made
he
rivers
Ibd,
Pdrid,
Damana,
Tdpi,
Karabend,
nd
Ddhanukd
ordable
by
means
of
boats
ree
of
charge;
who
has
made
sabhds
nd
descents
o thoserivers
on
both
banks;
who
has bestowed
in
gift
thirty-two
thousand
cocoanut
trees in
the
village
of
Ninamgola
to the Charaka
priesthoods
of
Pinditakivada,
Govardhana
Suvarlnamukha,
nd
Rimatirtha
n
Soparaga.
At the command
of
Bhattiraka
[Naha-
pina],
I
[Ushavadita]
went
in
the
rainy
season
to release
the
Uttamabhidra
[who
was] besieged by
the Milavas.
Those
Milavas
fled
away simply
by
the
great
noise
[of
my
coming]
and
I made
them
dependents
of the
Uttamabhidra
Kshatriyas.
Thence
I went to Pushkara
and there
I bathed
and
gave
three
hundredthousand
cows
and
a
village.
He
[Ushavadita]
also
gave
a
field
having
bought
it
through
the
Brahman
Asvi-
bhiiti,
son
of
Varihi,
paying
the
full value
of four thousand
Kirshipanas.
It is in
the
73
It shouldbe
noted
that
the
numbering
f
inscriptions
n
ASWI,
Vol.
IV,
is
not
the
same
as
Indraji's
r
Senart's.
6o
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
14/41
possession
of his
[Asvibhiti's]
father and
[is
situated]
on the
north-west of
the
city
limits.
From it
will
arise
the
[means
of
supplying]
the chief
[articles
of]
food to
the
mendicant
priesthood
of the four
quarters iving
in
my
dwelling
cave or
layana74.
Senart translated
this
in
essentially
the same
fashion7S.
He did
occasionallychange
the
wording,
but
the
basic
meaning
is
the
same.
Btihler
translated
the
last,
"as the
field
on
the
boundaries
of the town
belonging
to his own
father"76.
Inscription
eleven
is over the
doorway
of
the
left
cell
of
the
veranda.
To the
Perfect
one.
The
meritorious
gift
of a cell
by
Dakshamitrd,
daughter
of
the
Kshatrapa
King
Nahapdna
[of
the]
Kshahardta
[dynasty]
and
wife of
Ushavaddta,
the
son
of Dinika77.
Unless
otherwise
noted,
it
should be assumed that Senart's and
Btihler's
ranslations
were
in
agreement
with
Indraji's.
Inscription
number
twelve is found close to
number eleven
and
below it
on
the
back
wall
of
the veranda.
To the
Perfect one. In the
year
42,
in the month of
Vaisdkha,
Ushavaddta,
he
son-in-law
of
Kshatrapa
Nahapana
[of the]
Kshahardta
[dynasty]
and
son
of
Dinika
gave
this
dwelling
cave to the
assemblage
of the four
quarters,
and
he
also
gave
three
thousand
(3000)
Kdrshipanas
as
permanent capital
to
the
assemblage
of
the
four
quarters,
which
[Kdrshdpanas]
re or the
price
of
clothes
and
kusanasor
those
who
live
in this
dwelling
ave.These
Kdrshapanas
avebeenentrustedo
the
guilds
iving
in
Govardhana,
000ooo
ith one
guild
of
weavers
[yielding]
nterest
one
hundred
padikas,
nd iooo withanotherweaver
guild [yielding]
nterest
eventy-five
adikas.
These
kdrshdpanas
renot to be
given
back;
heir
nterest s to be
enjoyed.
Of
these
[Kdrshdpanas]
rom the
two
thousand
or
clothes,
yielding
one
hundred
padikas
interest,
a cloth for the
rainy
reason
(sic) [season]
s
to be
given
to
each
of
the
twenty
mendicants
living
in
my
dwelling
cave
during
he
rainy
eason;
and
[from]
the thousand
ielding
eventy-fivepadikas
nterest
is
to
be
given]
he
price
of
kusana.
[Also]
eight
thousand
ocoanut
palms
[have
been]
given
in
the
village
of
Chikhala-
padra
n
the
Kdpura
istrict.
All
this
has
beenrelated efore he
council
of
merchants;
and
t has
been
engraved
n the
doorway
ront and
speaks
[my]
work78.
Again
what he
[I]
gave
[had
resolved to
give] formerly
in
the
41st
year
on
the
fifteenth
[day]
of the
bright
half of
Kirtika,
this former
gift
has been
settled on
the
venerable
gods
and
Brahmans
on the
fifteenth
[of Kirtik?]
in
the
45th
year. [This
gift
is]
seventy
thousand
KMrshipanas,
he
value of
two
thousand
suvarnasounting
thirty-five
kdrshdpanas
or
one
suvarna.
[This
inscription]
sets
forth
[my]
work
[standing]on the front of the doorway79.
74
Indraji,
op.cit., pp.
571-572.
7s
Op.
cit.,
p. 79.
76
Buiihler,
ASWI,
IV
(1883),
p.100.
77
Indraji,
op.cit.,p.573.
78
Biihler's
translation
op.cit.,
p. 103 stops
at this
point.
In
a
footnote he said he
was
"unable
to make out
the
second
postscript"
but that
"it
contains another
date,
'the
year
45',
and
appears
to
record
a
large
donation
of
70,000
kirshipanas
made to
gods
and
Brahmanas".
79
Indraji,
op.cit.,pp.
574-575.
61
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
15/41
Senart's
ranslationhad the
following
variations:
... stems
of cocoanut
trees;
and
all this has
been
proclaimed
[and]
registered
at the
town's
hall,
at the
record
office,
according
o
custom.
Again
the
donation
previously
made
by
the same
in
the
year41,
on
the
15th
of the
bright
half of
Kdrttika,has
in
the
year
45,
on the
15th
... been
settled
on the
...
[This
is
registered]
at the record
office
according
to
custom80.
Inscription
numberthirteen
which is found
over the
doorway
of the cell to the
right
of
the
veranda
s
the same
as number eleven. Senartmade no variation
n
the
meaning
of this
inscrip-
tion.
Two
other
inscriptions
were noted
by Indraji
n
the
court
of this
cave,
numbersfourteen
and
fifteen.
Number
fourteen is
badly
worn
by
the
weather,
and
gives
therefore
a
very
in-
complete
record of
Usavaddta's
gifts
and deeds.
Among
the names of
places
mentioned
is
Ujeniya
(Ujjain)81.
Inscription
number fifteen
is
in
the
ninth
year
of the
King
of
the Abhira
Isvarasena
and
reads as follows:
To the Perfect one.
On
the thirteenth
day
of the fourth
fortnight
of summer
n
the
year
nine of the
King
the Abhira
Isvarasena,
on of Abhira
Sivadatta
and son
of
Mddhari
[the
Queen];
on
the
aforesaid
day
a
permanent
capital
for the welfare
and
happiness
of
all
beings, by
the female
worshipper
Vishnudattd,
a
Sakanikd,
daughter
of
Sakdgnivarman,
wife of
Ganapaka
Rebhila
and
mother
of
Ganapaka
Visvavarman,
or medicine for
the
sick
among
the
assemblage
of
mendicants rom
the four
quarters, iving
in the
Trirasmi
mountain
monastery,
was
deposited
with
the
present
and future
[come
and
to
come]
guilds residing
in...
Among
them
iooo1000
rshdpanas
have been
placed
in
the
hands
of
the Kularika
or
weaver
guild;
two
(2)
thousand
with the
Odayantrika
guild;
five
hundred
with the ...
guild;
... hundreds with the oilmen guild; these
Kdrshapanas8z.
Even
though
these
inscriptions
designate
the
donor
of the
cave as the son-in-lawof Naha-
pana
n
what must be
the
forty-first, orty-second,
and
forty-fifthyears
of
Nahapdna's
eign,
no
era
s
cited.
Thus
the
question
of
first
importance
s what
relationship
do these
years
bear
to the
Christian
era?
For the
moment,
the
arguments
of
Rapson, Spink,
Gopalachari,
etc.
which
put
them
in the
Saka
era and date
Nahapdna
about
A.D.
124,
will be set
aside83.
Later
it
will
be
shown
that the
Saka
era cannot
apply
to the dates of
Nahapina.
Aside
from the
inscriptions
at
Nisik
which
mention
Nahapina,
his name also
appears
at
Karle,
Junnar,
on
coins,
and in the
Periplus
of
the
Erythrean
Sea. A discussion
of the latter and its
dates and
relationship
to
this
problem
may
provide
some
dating
boundaries
or
Nahapina84.
80so
enart,op.cit.,p. 83.
z81
ndraji,
op.cit.,
p. 578.
8z
Ibid., p.
580.
83
Rapson, op.cit.; Spink, op.
cit.;
and
Gopalachari,
op.
cit.
84
J.W.McCrindle, IA,
VIII
(1879), o107-151;
W.H.Schoff,
The
Periplus
of
the
Erythraean
Sea
(New
York:
Longmans,
Green
and
Co.,
1912);
M.Reinaud,
"On
the
Periplus
of
the
Erythrean
Sea", IA,
VIII
(1879),
330-338;
J.
A.
B.Palmer,
"The Identification
of
Ptolemy's
Dounga", JRAS
(1946), pp.
165-173; J.
Pirenne,
"Un
Probl6me-clef
pour
la Chrono-
logie
de l'Orient:
La
Date du
P'riple
de la
Mer
Erythree",
JA,
CCXLIX
(1961),
441-459; P.H.L.Eggermont,
"The
Date
of
the
Periplus
Maris
Erythraei",
G.L.Adhya
and
N.K.
Wagle, "Summary
of Discussions at
the
Conference",
62
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
16/41
This
document
by
an
anonymous,
eafaring
merchant
rovides
nformation bout
trade,
ports
of
call,
andrulers
n India
during
what
s
generally
ssumedo
be)
the
lasthalfof
the
first
century
A.D. In McCrindle'sranslation
he date was
given
as
falling
betweenA.D.
80
and
8985.
He
believed
t
was
written
before
Ptolemy's
eography,
nd
after
he
workof
Pliny,
becausePtolemy's escriptionf thegeography f Indiabeyond heGangeswas moreaccurate.
He
placed
t
post-Pliny
because
Pliny
speaks
of these trade
routes,
between
Egypt
and
India,
as
if
they
were
recently pened.
The writerof the
Periplus
mplies
hey
hadbeen nuse for
some
time.
Ptolemy
s
dated
n the
early
second
century
A.D.
(ca.
130-140)
while
Pliny
died in
A.D.
79.
However,
Wilfred
Schoff
disagreed
with
this
dating,
and
preferred
A.D.
60
for the
writing
of
the
Periplus86.
One of his
key
reasons or
placing
t
before
Pliny
was
Pliny's
brief
mention,
almost
n
passing,
of the
discovery
made
by
Hippalus.
Hippalus
had
discovered hat
sea
travel
was
more
rapidduring
he
monsoon
season.The authorof
the
Periplus
aid,
"from
that imeuntilnow
voyages
couldbe made
directly
cross
he ocean
by
monsoon".
Schoff
ook
this
to
indicate
a
close
relationship
n
time to
the
discovery
of
Hippalus,
which
he
placed
shortly
after
A.D.
41
87.
In
contrast
o
these
two
scholars,
M.Reinaud
suggested
hat,
n
fact,
the authorof the Peripluss more accuraten his geographic escription f the coastof India
than s
Ptolemy,
and hereforewould
appear
o be later.Hedid admit hat
t
was
quitepossible
that
the
Periplus
as
originally
written
n the
first
century
A.D.,
and
then
underwent
arious
re-editings
ntil
t
reached
ts
final orm
about
A.D.
246-24788.
Given
the
Periplus'
eferences
o the
political
ituation
n Indiaat that
time,
the
latter
date
seems
unlikely.
n
section
38,
the
authorof the
Periplus
mentions
he
Scythian
eacoast t or
near he
mouth
of the
Indus
Riverand
ts
capital
f
Minnagara
hich
was
apparently
ubject
o
frequent
nvasions
by
Parthian
rinces89.
The
name
Minnagara
s
anIndian
erm
meaning
ity
of the
invaders.)90
urther n in section
47,
theauthor
notes
the
very
warlike nland
nationof
the
"Bactrians".
ntil
about
145
B.C. the
Kingdom
of Bactria adbeen
ruled
by
Macedonians
and Greeks.
Then
t
wasinvadedand
conquered
y
a
nomadic ribe rom the
western
borders
of China, he Ta
Yfieh-chihg'.
y
aboutA.D. 45 the
Ytiieh-chih
ad
again
become
aggressive,
and
under he rule of
KujulaKadphises
ad
begun
to
expand
beyond
he
bordersof
Bactria
southwest
nto Parthia
nd
southeast owardKabul.
t
appears
hat
Kujula's
uccessor
eached
Taxila9z.
This
expansion
n
the middle of
the
first
century
A.D.
by
the
"Bactrians"
ould
account or the
Periplus'
eferences
o
difficulties
n
Scythia
nd
suggest
hat he
Periplus,
t
the
earliest,
woulddateafterA.D.
45.
Papers
on the Date
of
Kaniska,editor,
A. L.
Basham,
(Leiden,
E.J.
Brill,
1968)
94-96,
405.
Eggermont
suggested
a
date
for the
Periplus
of A.D.
30.
His
arguments
for the
early writing
of
this document
were based on
supposed
clarifications
of
the date and
identity
of
certain
Arabian
rulers
by J.Ryckmans
in
1953. Dr.Maricq
indicated
that Arab
sources
were
not in full
agreement,
and
that
Dr.
J.
Pirenne had
worked out
a
different
chronology
for this
area,
for
which
see
above.
8s
Op.cit., p.
io8.
86
Op.
cit.,
pp.
7"ff.
87
In the reign of EmperorClaudius(A.D. 41), a Ceylonese embassycameto Rome, and the discovery by Hippalus must
have been
soon
after.
J.W.McCrindle,
Ancient India as
Described
n
Classical
Literature
Westminster,
19o01);
Pliny,
Natural
History,
VI,
24;
Schoff,
op.cit.,
p.
8.
88
Reinaud,
op.cit., p. 331.
89
Schoff,
op.cit.,
pp.
8,
37.
90
Ibid., p. 8, I8o.
9'
Ibid.,
pp.
184ff.;
H.Raychaudhuri,
PHAI
(Calcutta:
University
of
Calcutta,
1953),
422-463.
92
Ibid.,
pp.460-461;
S.Chattopadhyaya,
Early
History
of
North
India...
(Calcutta:
Progressive Publs.,
1958),
pp.64-65;
S.Konow,
CII,
II
(Calcutta:
Government
of
India,
1929),
pp.lxivff.
63
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
17/41
The
comment
n the
powerful
Bactrian ation
might
also serveas a
terminus
post
quem
or
the
Periplus
nd
Nahapina,
or nthe
subsequent
astward
xpansion
f the
Yieh-chih
Kusana)
into
Central
Asia
they
seem
o havecome
nto conflictwith
the
Chinese
Han
General
Pan
Chao
about
A.D.
90
and
according
o the
Chinese
were
defeated93.
ince he authorof the
Periplus
wasaware f thepoor rade onditionso and romChina, snotedbelow, tispossiblehewould
also
have
earned
f
any
such
oss
of faceon the
part
of
the
Bactrians. hus
t
is
probable
hat
the
Periplus
aswritten
before
A.D.
90.
The
chief
historical
upport
or
the
activitiesof the Ta
Ytieh-chih
Kusina)
omes from
Chinese
ources.
The
earliest
f these s
the
Shih
chi
by
Ssu-ma
Ch'ien9,
which
covers
he
period
up
to
about
99
B.C.;
next the
Ch'ien
Han
shu,
Annals
of
the
First Han
Dynasty;
nd then
the
Hou
Han
shu,
Annals
f
theLater
Han
Dynasty.
he former
appears
o
cover
the
period
up
to
A.D.
24
and
thelatter
rom
about
A.D.
25
to A.D.
12
5
95s.
Further
upport
or an
early
date or the
Periplus
omes romthe
apparent
ower
exercised
by
Kaniska.
Once
Kaniska
ucceeded
o the
Kusina
hrone,
hat
most
powerful
of
kings
seems
to
have
controlled
y
Satraps96
he area
tretching
rom
Kutch o
at
least
Mathurd.
his would
refutethe contention n the
Periplus
hat Kathiawarwas unsettledand
subject
o constant
quarrels
f
"Parthian
rinces".
Even
if the
finalredaction
f the
Periplus
oes
date
rom the
third
century
A.D.,
it
is
sug-
gested
hat
the
principle
hanges
n
it
wouldconcern
geography
nd
not
the
political
limate.
Beyond
his,
in
section
64,
the author
of the
Periplus
mentioned
he state
of
"Ts'in" o
which
few
travelled97.
owever,
Pan
Chao
opened
the
silk
routes
to ChinabetweenA.D.
73
and
A.D.
94
and
such
a statement
would
have
been
unlikely
f
tradehadbeen established nd
the
nomadic
ribes
subdued.
n
section
48,
of the
Periplus,
Ozene,
modern
Ujjain,
he
Avantiof
early
iterature,
s
called
aformer98apital.
Thus,
f
the
theory
hat
Nahapdna
receded
Castana
and
Rudraddman
s
accepted,
he
Periplus
mustbe
placed
at
a
date
beyond
he
accepted
ule
of
Castana,
.D.
130
at
Ozene
or be
placed
n the first
century
A.D.
beforeCastana
s
saidto
be
ruling
n Ozene.
Ptolemy's
Geography
allsOzene hecapital f Tiastaneswho is identified
with
Castanaw9.)
n
examining
hese
statements
ontained
n the
Periplus
nd
attempting
o
synchronize
hem
with
other
sources,
t
appears
bvious
thata date
n the latter
part
of the
first
century
A.D.
suggests
tself
over
thatof
later
dates.
Schoff's
ublished
ate or the
Periplus
was
A.D.
6oI0oo.
incent
Smith,
n a
footnote
i0o
said
hat
Schoff
hadwritten o him
privately
o
indicate
he
date
of A.D.
8o
was
now
preferable
oz.
How
does
this
affect
he
date
of
ahap-na?
Insection
1
of
the
Periplus
he
author
describes
0s
Chattopadhyaya,
op.cit.,
p.78;
Schoff,
op.cit., pp.
I86-187.
94
F.Hirth,
JAOS,
XXXVII, Chapter 123 (1917), pp.
89ff.
05
J.Wylie,
JAI,
III
(1874),
pp.401
ff.,
X
(i
88i),
pp.
20off.;
Konow,
op.
cit.,
pp.lxxi-lxxii;
E.G.Pulleyblank,
"Chinese
Evidence for the Date of Kaniska", in Basham, op.cit., pp.247-258.
96
J.M.Rosenfield,
The
Dynastic
Arts
of
the
Kusbans
Berkeley: University
of California
Press,
1967),
p.
122,
notes
i,
z,
3,
does
not
accept
Satrapal
rule
under
the
Kudnas.
97
Schoff,
op.cit.,
p.
Ii.
98
My
italics.
99
R.C.Majumdar,
The Classical
Accounts
f
India
(Calcutta:
Firma
K.L.Mukhopadhyay,
1960),
p.373.
100
Op.cit.,
p.
15.
101o
.A.
Smith,
EHI
(2d
ed.;
Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
1908),
p.245.
102
McCrindle,
op.cit.,
pp.
107-15 1-.
64
-
7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik
18/41
the Gulf of Barake103
and its
relationship
o
"Barugaza
[Broach]
and the mainlandof
Ariake,
a district
which forms the
frontier of the
kingdom
of
Mombaros
Nambanus,
Nahapdna)
nd all
of India". It has
already
been noted
in
inscription