DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2371#0211
BUDDHIST REMAINS IN KATHIAWAK. 189
at Ujjain reigned a dynasty, calling themselves Kshaharata Ksha-
tr'apas, (satraps) of which the principal king known to ns was Naha-
pana, variously placed from b.c. 60 to a.d. 120. The dates in his
inscriptions are 40 to 42, and if these are in the Saka era, which
seems hardly doubtful, they fix his age about a.d. 118-120,
Ushavadata, the son of Dinika, the son-in-law of Nahapana, is
mentioned in several inscriptions, but we do not know that he ruled.
Gautamiputra I., a powerful Andhra king of the Dekhan, in an in-
scription at Nasik, says he entirely destroyed these Kshaharatas. The
succeeding kings, apparently descended from Bhadramukha Svaint
Chashtana, assume the title of Mahakshatrapas, though often errone-
ously styled by antiquaries as Sahs. The early chronology of this
dynasty as gathered from inscriptions and coins stands thus :—
Dates in a.d.1
Chashtana, son of Ysamotika - - - cir. 122
Svami Jayadaman, his son - - ,, 135
Svami Rudra Daman, his son, date 722 - - „ 150
1 This assumes that they dated from the Saka era, A.D. 78.—J. B. I entirely
concur in this assumption. In the first place because I can find no trace of any king
^ icrnmaditya in the first century B.C., from whom the only other known era could be
derived. His name does not occur in any inscription nor on any coin. He is not
mentioned in lists in the Pauranas or elsewhere. He was avowedly a king of the
Brahmans, whereas the whole country from the Bay of Bengal to the Western
Ocean was, as we know from the caves, Buddhist in the first century B.C., and, lastly,
the mode in which his history is narrated is so improbable as to prove its absurdity.
He is said to have established his era 56 b.c, and 135 years afterwards to have
defeated the Buddhist Saka king in the battle at Karour, so giving rise to the esta-
blishment of that era 78-79 a.d., and this last was the only era used by the defeated
Buddhists afterwards during the whole of their supremacy.
% conviction is that the great Vicramaditya of Ujain did defeat the Sakas in a
peat battle in or about a.d. 514, and that afterwards the Brahmans in the eighth or
"'nth century, wishing to establish an era antecedent to that of the Buddhists, chose
a <1ate 10 cycles of 60 years each or 600 years anterior to that event, and fixed on 56
••' •!—044 + 56,—as the one, which they afterwards employed,
i embodied my reasons for this conviction in a paper I intended to publish, in 1875,
e Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, but was deterred from doing so by
'•armg that Dr. Biihler had found Vicramaditya's name in one of the Pauranas, and
consequently thought it better to print it for private circulation, which I then did.
As nothing has come of Dr. Biihler's discovery, and I have since seen no reason
""•modifying my conclusions, I now intend to publish them.—J. F.
Oa the Girnar inscription. For Rudra Daman's inscription, see hid. Ant. vol. vii.
* $; and for further information, Archceoloqical Survey of Western India, Hep.,
vol-»-p.l28fF.
at Ujjain reigned a dynasty, calling themselves Kshaharata Ksha-
tr'apas, (satraps) of which the principal king known to ns was Naha-
pana, variously placed from b.c. 60 to a.d. 120. The dates in his
inscriptions are 40 to 42, and if these are in the Saka era, which
seems hardly doubtful, they fix his age about a.d. 118-120,
Ushavadata, the son of Dinika, the son-in-law of Nahapana, is
mentioned in several inscriptions, but we do not know that he ruled.
Gautamiputra I., a powerful Andhra king of the Dekhan, in an in-
scription at Nasik, says he entirely destroyed these Kshaharatas. The
succeeding kings, apparently descended from Bhadramukha Svaint
Chashtana, assume the title of Mahakshatrapas, though often errone-
ously styled by antiquaries as Sahs. The early chronology of this
dynasty as gathered from inscriptions and coins stands thus :—
Dates in a.d.1
Chashtana, son of Ysamotika - - - cir. 122
Svami Jayadaman, his son - - ,, 135
Svami Rudra Daman, his son, date 722 - - „ 150
1 This assumes that they dated from the Saka era, A.D. 78.—J. B. I entirely
concur in this assumption. In the first place because I can find no trace of any king
^ icrnmaditya in the first century B.C., from whom the only other known era could be
derived. His name does not occur in any inscription nor on any coin. He is not
mentioned in lists in the Pauranas or elsewhere. He was avowedly a king of the
Brahmans, whereas the whole country from the Bay of Bengal to the Western
Ocean was, as we know from the caves, Buddhist in the first century B.C., and, lastly,
the mode in which his history is narrated is so improbable as to prove its absurdity.
He is said to have established his era 56 b.c, and 135 years afterwards to have
defeated the Buddhist Saka king in the battle at Karour, so giving rise to the esta-
blishment of that era 78-79 a.d., and this last was the only era used by the defeated
Buddhists afterwards during the whole of their supremacy.
% conviction is that the great Vicramaditya of Ujain did defeat the Sakas in a
peat battle in or about a.d. 514, and that afterwards the Brahmans in the eighth or
"'nth century, wishing to establish an era antecedent to that of the Buddhists, chose
a <1ate 10 cycles of 60 years each or 600 years anterior to that event, and fixed on 56
••' •!—044 + 56,—as the one, which they afterwards employed,
i embodied my reasons for this conviction in a paper I intended to publish, in 1875,
e Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, but was deterred from doing so by
'•armg that Dr. Biihler had found Vicramaditya's name in one of the Pauranas, and
consequently thought it better to print it for private circulation, which I then did.
As nothing has come of Dr. Biihler's discovery, and I have since seen no reason
""•modifying my conclusions, I now intend to publish them.—J. F.
Oa the Girnar inscription. For Rudra Daman's inscription, see hid. Ant. vol. vii.
* $; and for further information, Archceoloqical Survey of Western India, Hep.,
vol-»-p.l28fF.