The coinage of the Mahākṣatrapas and Kṣatrapas of Surāṣṭra and Mālava (Western...

8/7/2019 The coinage of the Mahkatrapas and Katrapas of Surra and Mlava (Western Katrapas) / by E.J. Rapson

1/52

357

Art. XII.?The Coinage of theMahdksatrapas and Ksatrapasof Surdstra and Mdlava (Western Ksatrapas). ByE. J. Rapson, M.A., M.R.A.S. Together witha Note on the order of succession, and Dynastic and

Genealogical Tables, by Colonel J. Biddulph.More than eight years have passed since the publication inthis Journal of a posthumous article by Pandit Bhagvanlitl

Indraji on "The Coinage of the Western Ksatrapas."1With the exception of a chapter in "Coins of MediaevalIndia," by the late General Sir A. Cunningham, little ofimportance has since been written on the history of thisdynasty. The Pandit's article is still the best and fullestaccount of the subject taken as a whole. So much newinformation has, however, been obtained from the coins?partly from specimens recently brought to light, and partlyfrom a more minute scrutiny of specimens previously known?that a supplementary account has become necessary. Thefollowing notes profess merely to supply addenda et corrigendato the article in question, and are not intended in any wayto supersede it.The most important results have been obtained from thecollection of the coins of the Western Ksatrapas made byColonel J. Biddulph, while Resident at Baroda, and manyof the new facts now published are due to his patient andpainstaking observations.When our manuscript was about to be sent to theprinter, I received a very interesting letter from the Rev.H. R. Scott, giving an account of the investigation by

1 J.R.A.B., 1890, p. 639. In the following pages, this article is referred toas Bh.


2/52

358 MAHAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASMr. Vallabhji Haridatta and himself of the Ksatrapa coins?two or three hundred in number?in theWatson Museumat Rajkot. These observations, which confirm our conclusions in some instances, and suggest further possibilitiesin others, have been added to our notes.

The Obverse Inscriptions in Greekf Characters.As is well known, the coins of the Ksatrapas, throughoutthe whole duration of the dynasty, generally bear on thoobverse traces of what seems to be undoubtedly an inscription?or rather, perhaps, in most cases, an imitation of an

inscription?in Greek characters. This is clearest duringthe period when the workmanship is at its best, i.e. approximately from the reign of DiiniajadasrI, sou of Rud radii inan,to that of Vijayasena, 6on of Damasena; and, in theirendeavours to decipher theso enigmatical coin - legends,numismatists have naturally selected for 6tudy those specimens on which they were most clearly and completelyexpressed.1 There seems to be little doubt, however, thatat this time (roughly from about 90 to 170 of the Ksatrapaera = a.d. 168 to 248), this Greek inscription had lostall meaning, and continued to be reproduced mechanicallyand unintelligently as a sort of ornamental border. If so,the failure of the numismatists to give any satisfactoryexplanation is not to be wondered at. The best hope ofrecovering the lost meaning lay evidently in a study ofthe earliest coins of this class?those of Nabapiina andCastana?which belonged to a period when these Greekinscriptions possibly still had some significance; but, unfortunately, all the known specimens of Nahapslna aud Castanawere lamentably deficient and fragmentary in this respect.An unusually well preserved coin of Castana, belongingto Colonel Biddulph, supplies, I believe, the clue to the

proper explanation of these obverse inscriptions in Greek1 Rapsou, "Indian Coins" [Buhlcr's Grondriss, ii, 3b], ? 81, for references

to (he various attempts made to explain these coin-legends.


3/52

OP SURAbTRA AND MALAYA. 359

characters; and the recognition of this fact is due, in thefirst place, to Mr. G. F. Hill, who immediately saw thatthe name of Castana actually appears here as GIACTANCA(inf., p. 370, PI. 2). From this observation, the naturalinference followed that these Greek inscriptions are, afterall, nothing but what might have been expected, i.e. eithertranslations or transliterations of the Indian inscriptionson the reverse. If the attempt to restore these fragmentarycoin-legends be made from this point of view, it will bequite evident that they are not translations. There areno traces, for instance, of the word BASIAEOS, whichwould naturally have been used to translate rdjno; butthere will be very good reason to suppose that they aretransliterations.

In the case of the coins of Nahapiina, for example, theIndian inscriptions on the reverse are?Rdjno KsahardtasaNahapdnasa (Brahmi), and Rano Chaharatasa Nahapanasa(Kharosthi). Tho obverse inscriptions on all the availablespecimous are, unfortunately, very fragmentary. Theremaining traces, if read from the top downwards?tliodirection in which the corresponding Indian inscriptionson the reverse invariably proceed at this period?are asfollows l v-?

(1) . A.CCNAACIIA] Bh.(2) ANNIU)IATAAACCNA[??JNA[ Bh.(3) PANCN].[n]A[?]NACC Col. Shepherd.

Now there can surely be no doubt that the first wordPANNIU) is intended to represent rdjno or rano, and thatthe third word NAA[n]A[?]NACC contains in blunderedfashion the name Nahupana in the genitive. With regard

1 It may he mentioned that in these copies the restorations within bracket*are in every cane probable, and seem to be justified by the trace* which remainof tlio letters. A note of interrogation has been substituted whenever thevisible traces do not suggest a probable restoration. It is interesting to notethat Colonel Shepherd's coin alone of all the available coins of Nahapana andCastana preserves the letter P of PANNIU) distinct, and thus verifies a conjecture which had been made before its appearance.


4/52

360 MAHAKSATRAPASAND KSATRAPASto the second word, the greater part of which is to be seenon only one of the three coins, there is less certainty.IATAAACC can scarcely, after all allowance for blunderinghas been made, be intended for a transliteration of Ksahardtasa or Chaharatasa, the title which Nahapiina usually bearson his coins; but a little correction would make it intoJATAnACC, and this might very well represent a Graecizedform satlapasax=zk$atrapasa or chatrapasa, a title whichhe bears in some of his inscriptions,2 and which, indeed,may possibly even have been used in the Indian legendson the reverse of this particular coin, for both the Brahmfaud the Kharosthf inscriptions are too imperfect iu the caseof this word to admit of any certain reading.In the case of Castana, the obverse legend in Greekletters is plainer. The two coins which are clearest in thisrespect read:?

(1) . ANNIWIA.NCA [Bh.(2) . ANNtlUHIATEP] . . . . [CI3ACTANCA

[Col.Biddulph.This seems undoubtedly to be a transliteration of Rq/noksatrapasa Ca$tanasa. It must bo noticed, however, thatit does not correspond with tho Indian (Brahml) inscriptionon the other side, which gives to Castana the higher titleof Mahaksatrapa and calls him the son of Ghsamotika(v. inf., p. 370, PI. 2). The silver coin attributed by

Bhagvanlal (p. 645) to Jayadaman also has [-]^NNIUJquite distinct; but, as will be seen (inf., p. 372), it isextremely doubtful whether this coin should not rather beassigned to Castana ruling as Ksatrapa. Generolty it maybe said that no attempt to explain as significant theinscriptions in Greek characters on coins subsequent to thetime of Castana has hitherto been successful; and that

1 For the initial letter t, cf. the Greek transliteration of the word ksatrapaon the coins of Castana (inf., p. 370). The representation of r by / both inSanskrit and in the Prakritic dialects is common enough; cf. Wackeraagel,Attindisehe Grammatik, ? 191.3 Cf. Archaeological Survey of Western Iudia: Ka^hiauad and Kaohh, p. 1G.


5/52

OF SURlSTRA AND MALAYA. 361the probability is that they then ceased to have any meaningaud continued to be imitated or repeated simply as a sortof ornamental border.

They are, nevertheless, not altogether unworthy of study;and, for the purpose of illustrating our observations, it maybe worth while to quote a few of the most perfect.

(1) uvo*)2Moiivvcm:>oiiv.M0cuon a coin (B.M., Cunn., 94, 5-7, 677) of Rudrasiipha, sonof Rudradiiman, as Ksatrapa in the year 102. With theexception of tho first two characters, this is repeated ona coin struck in the following year, 103, by the same princeruling as Mahaksatrapa (B.M., Bh. Coll., 22).

(2) ^k: hoivoioih iohoioiThe same ruling as Ksatrapa (for the second time) inthe year 112. (B.M., Bh. Coll., 21.)

(3) n^^yicivioivAwcucRudrasena, son of Rudrasimha, Mahaksatrapa, year 134.

(B.M., Cunn., 94, 5-7, 678.)(4) *?p[?] .... iOKWMUVO

Damasena, son of Rudrasimha, Mahaksatrapa, year 15*.(B.M., Bh. Coll., 154.)

(5) 1^9* IlVUOTJCVAtllVOThis inscription has been traced from three specimens

of Yijayasena, son of Damasena, Mahaksatrapa, year 163(B.M., Bh. Coll., 204, 208, 210); but it appears to be thereading on all his coins without exception. Indeed, thisparticular combination of characters seems to have beengenerally adopted as the recognized form after the reign ofDamasena, son of Rudrasimha; aud it is interesting totrace its growth and gradual predominance from a stillearlier time [cf., for example, (5) with (4), and (1) with


6/52

362 MAILlKSATRAPAS AND K8ATRAPAS

(3)]. After the time of Vijayasena, son of Damasena, theobverse inscriptions become more fragmentary, but thefragments can, in by far the greater number of instances,be referred back to this stereotyped form.1 There are,however, exceptions to this general rule, e.g.:

(6) * AlOAVlCtVlllA '


7/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 363which the Ksatrapa coinage was copied.1 The letters ofthe obverse inscriptions of Nahapana and Castana areundoubtedly Greek, but, on the later coins, there seemoften to be reminiscences of such commonly recurringRoman formulae as AVG? COSIII, etc. It is most probable,then, that the Ksatrapa coins owe something to both GraecoIndian and Roman sources.

The Coin-Dates and their Representation.Most important modifications in the dynastic list, as

arranged by Pandit Bhagvanlal, have resulted from thediscovery of specimens bearing new dates. At the sametime, scarcely less has been gained by a more precise andrigid method of dealing with the dated specimens already,known. It is important to distinguish always between thecertain and the probable. It is almost equally importantto abstain from all conjecture as to mere possibilities. Inthese pages, therefore, a note of interrogation has beenadded to every reading of a date as to the absolute accuracyof which there can be the slightest shadow of a doubt, andthis note of interrogation has been used only to denote whatis in itself probable and apparently justified by tracesremaining on the coin or other satisfactory evidence, neverto denote what is possible but wholly conjectural. Theletter x has been used to indicate a digit which is quiteuncertain, and, where it is possible to assign limits to thisuncertainty, theso have been added within a bracket.With regard to the reading of these dates, some ambiguityremains apparently ou one point only?the determinationwhether, in certain cases, the character which appears inthe unit's place should be read as 8 or 9. There is nodoubt about the normal forms of these numerals. Theyboth occur in inscriptions in cases where the number is

1 Roman coins belonging to the period from Augustus to Antoninus Pius were,as we know, pleutiful in India (to the references giveu in Indian Coins, ? 14,add Hill, Num. Chron., 1898, p. 304), and there are undoubted instances ofRoman influence ou Indian coinage?e.g., iu the bust on the small brouze coiusof Koxola Kadaphi-s, and in tint style of the ttytires of divinities represented onthe gold coinage of the Kusaua monarch* Kauiska and lluviska.


8/52

364 MAIIXKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPAS

represented both in figures and words, e.g., eight = V? ^iaud ? (Arch. Surv. West. Ind.: Buddhist Cave Temples,pi. xlvi, Mahad, 1 and 2) and nine = J (id., pi. Hi, 18,from Nasik). The doubt arises when we find on the coinsforms which, by a little ingenuity, admit of explanation aseither. Such a form is ^, which is of frequent occurrence(e.g., B.M., Bh. Coll., No. 25). Biihler assigns the valuenine to this figure (Indische Palaeographie, Tafel ix), while

Bhagvanlal invariably reads it as eight. The coin from thoBhagvaulai Collection just referred to is one of Rudrasimha,6on of Rudradaman, and has the date


9/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 365the use of the word varsa (as opposed to samvatsara) todenote 'year' in inscriptions. From an examination ofall the known instances he concludes that " the greatpreponderance of the word varsa in the technical languageof the &aka dates must, no doubt, be regarded as a distinguishing feature of the Saka era." After referring tothe dates on the inscriptions of the Western Ksatrapas,he says " the word for 'year' everywhere is varsa (or itsPrakrit equivalent), and this oiroumstance seems to meto connect these dates in an unmistakable manner withthe dates which are distinctly referred to the Saka era,in which the word varsa decidedly predominates. In fact,the way in which varsa is used both in the dates of the

Western Ksatrapas and in the Saka dates universallyso called, tends, in my opinion, to support the views ofthose scholars who have assigned the former to the Sakaera, on historical grounds." l This acute deduction appearsto me to make practically certain what was before a veryprobable theory.General Cunningham (Coins of Mediaeval India, p. 3)tentatively assigned the years found in Nahapana's inscriptions, 41, 42, and 46, to " the era of the Malavas,beginning in ii.cj. 57." It is extremely improbable thatNahapana and Castana were separated by any such intervalas would be necessitated by this theory ; and ProfessorKielhorn's rule would show that Nahapana's dates likethose of theWestern Ksatrapas are in the Saka era.

The Representation of the Eye in thePortraiture of DifferentPeriods.The types of the silver coinage remain the same fromthe beginning to the end of the dynasty?from the reign ofCastana to that of Rudrasimha, son of Satyasimha?a period

of about two centuries and a half; but, in spite of thisconservatism in regard to main features, which is characteristic of other Indian coinages also, slight variations are

1 Jnd. Ant., 1897, p. 153.


10/52

366 MAHAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPAS

naturally to be observed in the art and workmanship ofdifferent periods. Some of these?e.g. the different methodsof representing the eye and lips in the portraits on the obverse,and the various forms assumed by the caitya, star and crescent,on the reverse?were noticed by Newton in 1862,1 and it isinteresting to observe (op. cit., table facing p. 26) how theresults which he obtained from a minute examination ofthese details generally confirm the order of succession ofthese princes as determined by their inscriptions and dates.These observations are often useful as criteria of date.

The different methods adopted in the representation of theeye seem, in particular, to be determinable with greataccuracy. The chief methods are shown in the accompanying sketches, which I owe to the kindness of Mr. Hill;and the period during which each one of these prevailedcan be dated in most instances almost to the exact year..


11/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 367the earlier form of eye given in Fig. 1. The earlier coinsof Rudrasena, son of Rudrasimha, follow the rule.(3) Mks. Rudrasena, yr. 136: B.M., Bh. Coll., No. 121.After the year 126, the curve which indicates the eye-ballis attached to the middle of the line representing the uppereye-lid; and, in the reign of Damasena, apparently aboutthe year 153, the curvature of the line representing theeye-brow is greatly inoreased (see Fig. 4).

(4) Mks. Vijayasena, yr. 170: B.M., Bh. Coll., No. 263.A tendency to make the upper line of the eye straighterand the curve of the eye-ball more circular is observablefrom about the year 170, in the reign of Vijayasena, andthis style seems to last until after the year 211, in the reignof Bhartrdaman.(5) Mks. Bhartrdaman, yr. 214: B.M., Bh. Coll., No. 51

(the eye-brow copied from No. 445).A coin of Bhartrdaman, dated 211, follows the styleshown in Fig. 4, but on all his coins of a subsequent date,the curve representing the eye-ball has become a completecircle. As will be noticed (inf., p. 393), the dates on thecoins of Vitfvasimha and Bhartrdaman are in such anunsatisfactory condition that it was, until quite recently,doubtful which of the two reigned first. The evidence fromstyle is, in this case, important. Of the sixty-nine specimensof Visvasimha's coinage in the British Museum, not onehas a portrait with the eye formed according to the fashionprevalent during the latter part of Bhartrdaman's reign?a fact which, of itself, seems to show that ViSvasimha ruledbefore Bhartrdaman.

(6) Mks. Rudrasimha, yr. 230: B.M., Bh. Coll., No. 59.During the reign of Rudrasimha, son of Jlvadaman,before the year 230, we find what seems almost to bea reversion to the style shown in Fig. 4. The onlydifferences appear to be that the curve indicating the

eye-ball is attached nearly to the end of the upper lineof the eye, and that the lower line is shorter. The dateson most of Rudrasimha's coins are.very indistinct, and itis impossible to date the introduction of this style very


12/52

368 MAHlKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPAS

accurately. It certainly prevails after 230; but of thecoins reading 22a?, some follow this style and some thatshown in Fig. 5.

(7) Ks. YaSodaman, yr. 240: B.M., Bird, 64, 5-29, 12.On the coins of Yasodaman (240-249), the lower line ofthe eye is much reduced?often it becomes a mere dot?and the curve indicating the eye-ball is much smaller, andis attached to the extremity of the upper line. This styleseems to prevail until about the year 290, in the reign ofRudrasena, son of Rudradiiman.

(8) Mks. Rudrasena, son of Rudradaman, yr. 292: B.M.,Bh. Coll., No. 67.In this reign, after about the year 290, we seem to finda new style, in which the eye-brow is made much thicker,and the eye-ball represented by a circle at the end of the

upper line, existing side by side with the style shown inFig. 7. Both of these styles seem to occur together untilthe end of the dynasty, but the one described last andshown in Fig. 8 seems to predominate.The Silver Coinage.

Nahapana, tub Ksaiiarata {Bh., p. 642).[Ksatrapa: dated inscription 41 P, 42; Mahaksatrapa: datedinscription 46.]Obv. Bust to r., PAN[N].[n]A[P]NACC[.

Rev. Arrow and thunderbolt: Ratio Chaharatasa Nahapanasa (Kharosthi): -nasa (Brahmi).

Colonel Shepherd. *65,wt. 30 grains; PI. 1.As has been already mentioned (sup., p. 359), this coin

is important as preserving quite distinct the initial P ofPANNIU) = ram, and thus making certain a reading whichwas previously somewhat problematical.1 Another noteworthy feature is its perfect Kharosthi inscription in bolddistinct characters.

1Thomas (Arch. Surv. West. Ind., Kathiawad and Kachh, p. 46 ff.) contended with much learning and ingenuity that the Greek title TYPANNOYwas to be restored here. In J. R. A. S., 1881, p. 626, he suggested

TYPANNOYNT02E?-no doubt on the analogy of the coins of Miaus.


13/52

A ^ A


14/52

OF SURlSTRA AND MlLAVA. 369The Pandit's statement (on p. 641) that the title Chaharataused

by Nahapanaoccurs also "on the Taxi la copper-platedated in the seventy-eighth year of the great king Moga,"must be accepted with some reservation. Hofrath Dr. G.

Biihler, in his edition of this copper-plate inscription(Epigraphia Indica, iv, p. 54 ff.), while admitting (p. 5o,note 7) that the reading Chaharatasa was "not absolutelyimpossible," preferred to read the passago as Ckahara[sa~\Cukhsasa ca Chatrapasa, and to interpret it as meaningthat "Liaka ruled as Satrap over the districts of Chaharaand Cukhsa." It is, therefore, not yet satisfactorily provedthat we know of any other ruler of the Ksahaiilta familybesides Nahapana. My account of the Ksaharatas, inIndian Coins, ? 78, should be amended accordingly. Thestatement, moreover, that Nahapana is " known as a Sakafrom the inscriptions of his son-in-law Usavadata" shouldbe qualified. The fact is merely that Usavadata himself?not Nahapana?is, in all probability, but still not quitecertainly, called a Saka in one of the Niisik inscriptions(Arch. Surv. West. Ind.: Buddhist Cave Temples, p. 101,note 3).

There can be no reasonable doubt that the Ksaharatafamily is to be identified with the Khakharilta family, whichthe Andhra king Yasithiputa Pujumiiyi boasts of havingdestroyed, in the Nasik inscription dated in the nineteenthyear of his reign (id., p. 108). In another inscription thetitle appears as Khahaiata (id., p. 101, No. 6).

Nuhapilna is styled llaja Ksaharata Ksatrapa in aninscription dated in the year 42, and having a postscriptin which the years 41 and 45 are mentioned (id., p. 102,No. 9); but he appears as [Haja] Mahaksatrapa Sviiiniin an inscription of his minister Ayama dated in the year46 (id., p. 103, No. 11). He seems to bear the highertitle only on this inscription, and on no coin hithertodiscovered. It is, perhaps, scarcely safe to conclude fromthis one piece of evidence, that, on the assumption of thehigher title Mahaksatrapa, he discontinued the use of hisfamily-name Ksaharata.

j.h.a.8. 1899. 24


15/52

370 MAIIAESATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASGhsamotika.

From the coins of Castana we learn that he was the son ofGli8ainotika. This would seem to be the Indian transliterationof some foreign?probably Persian?proper name; but untilthis point can be definitely decided, the alternative may beborne in mind that Ohsamotikaputra may possibly be some titleformed on the analogy of rdjaputra, devaputra, and the like. IfGhsamotika be a proper name, it is somewhat strange that it isuuaccompauied by any title whatsoever. All the genealogicaltables given in the inscriptions begin with Castana, and nomention whatever is made in them of his father. This isto bo explained, according to our adoption of one or otherof the alternative suggestions just mentioned, as due to thefact either that the father was a private person withoutany titles, or that ghsamotikaputra simply means ' son of thefeudal lord,' 'knight/ 'esquire/ or something of the kind.In Thomas's article on the " Epoch of the Guptas," inthe Journal for 1881, p. 524, he says: " Mr. Burgessinforms me that a coin of the father of Castana has latelybeen found. Tho name appears in its archaic form asi^ a X +>^ftf^j Syatnotika." A very slight correctionin this reading would, of course, give us Ghsamotika.

Unfortunately, this interesting coin has disappeared. Dr.Burgess tells me that he distinctly remembers seeing itin the Pandit's collection, and being told that it came fromKathiawad. The Pandit's collection is now in the BritishMuseum, but all attempts to find this particular coin havebeen in vain.

Castana, son of Ghsamotika {Bh., p. 643).[Ksatrapa aud Mahaksatrapa: no dated coins or inscriptions.]

Wbv. Bu8ttor.,[]ANNl!W]IAT[P] ..... [CI1ACTANCA1 As tho types of the silver coinngo of tbo Ksatrapas remniu tho same fromthis lime to the end of the dynasty, it will not bo nocessary to repeat tho

description of them iu every ease.The Rev. H. R. Scott informs me that there is a specimen of Ca?tana'scoinage, similar to the one here described, in the Watson Museum at Rajkot.It is "thinner than the ordinary Ksatrapa coin, a little broader, aud a fewgrains less in weight."


16/52

OF SURlSTRA AND MlLAVA. 371Rev. Caitya; r., star; 1., crescent; Rdjno Mahdkfatrapasa

Ohsamotikaputrasa Castanasa (Brahmi); Catanasal(KharosthI).

Col. Biddulph. '6, wt. 305 grains; PI. 2.The importance of this coin as being the first to afforda clue to the explanation of the fragmentary obverse

inscriptions in Greek characters has already been pointedout (sup., p. 359).The suggestion (Bh., p. 644) that " the name of Castana

may possibly denote that he belonged to the Casta or Cutsatribe, which is mentioned in the Taxila copper-plate grant,19cannot be entertained since Biihler has shown (Ep. Ind., iv,p. 56) that the true reading is Cuksa% or possibly Cuska.As the Pandit (Bh., p. 644) remarks, there are two typesof reverse on Castana's coins:?(1) a crescent and a staror rayed sun, and (2) the caitya accompanied by thesesymbols. This latter type is universal for the silver coinagefrom this time until the end of the dynasty. Of the formerthere appears to be no specimen in England, and none hasbeen published anywhero. We have in the BhagvanliilCollection only a cliche' in lead, from which the castphotographed in tho Plate has been made. We have noinformation where the original coin, from which this click6was taken, is at present.

Rev. R., star ; 1., crescent; Rdjno Ksatrapasa Ohsamotikaputrasa [....] (Brahmi) ; [.] 3

(KharosthI) B.M., Bh. Coll. PI. 3.The sum-total of our knowledge of Castana's reign isindeed meagre. From this coin,4 and possibly from another,1 The reading of tho second syllable as -fa is not quite certain on any of thecoins, but it is more probable than any other. The last syllable -sa on this coinis also very peculiar. Want of space is, perhaps, a sufficient explanation of theseabnormal characters.2 Dowson's original reading, J.R.A.S., 1863, p. 221.3 There is no certain trace of a Kharosthi inscription. It is inferred on the

analogy of other coins. There is certainly not room enough for the wholeinscription. It may possibly have been Rano Ca\anasa or even Rano ChatrapasaCatanasa.4 The actual name of Onstana does not occur on this coin, but there canscarcely have been auothor (ihsamotikaputra.


17/52

372 MAHAKSATRAPAS AKD KSATRAPASwe learn that he reigned as Ksatrapa, while air the othercoins and all the inscriptions in which he is mentioned givehim the higher title of Mahiiksatrapa. In the inscriptionsof his successors, he is universally regarded as the founderof the dynasty ; but we have no dates on coins orinscriptions to aid us in determining the limits of his reign.The other coin just mentioned as possibly attributableto Castana as Ksatrapa is assigned doubtfully by the Pandit(7?//., p. 645) to his son and successor, the Ksatrapa Jayadiiinan. Its reverse inscriptions are?

Rfijiio Kfatapasa [ ] (Brahmi):RaTw Cha[.] (Kharosthi).So far as the epigraphy is concerned, the missing namemay be restored as Castanasa or as Jayaddmna/i with equalprobability.There are, however, some points in favour of an attributionnot only to Castaua, but also to an early period of hiscareer.

(1) As the Pandit remarks {Bh., p. 645), "The coinis in many respects like those of Nahaj ana; both style andletters are similar."

(2) In these early coins there is a distinctly noticeabletendency to curtail the Kharosthi inscription. On the coinsof Nahapana it is quite full and of equal importance withthe inscription in Brahmi characters. On tho coins ofCastana, as Mahiiksatrapa, on the other hand, the barename, without an)r titles whatever, appears in the Kharosthitransliteration. If we are to assign the coin in questionto Jayadiiman, we must suppose that the Kharosthi, aftera period of decliue, had again risen into importance. It ismore reasonable, surety, to assume that the gradual disuseof the Kharosthi inscription finds its explanation in changedconditions of time or place, and that, after the time ofCastana, the Kharosthi inscription, if it occurred at all,might be expected to contain merely the name, without anyof the titles.


18/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 373

(3) The portrait is certainly not unlike those on theundoubted coins of Castana.For these reasons we shall probably be justified in transferring the coin to Castana, and in supposing that, as

Ksatrapa, he issued silver coins of both his reverse types.

Jayadaman, son of Castana (Bh., p. 645).[Ksatrapa: no dated coins or inscriptions.]

A most interesting coin was published by the late GeneralSir A. Cunningham in his Coins of Mediaeval India, p. 6,pi. i, 7, and attributed to Jayadaman. This attributioncannot, unfortunately, be regarded as quite certain untilthe reading of the name is confirmed by further specimens;but it is, in itself, not improbable, and, if it can be proved,it will supply an important link between the coins ofUjjainl and the Ksatrapa coinage.General Cunningham's description of his coin requirescorrection. It should be?

Ohv. Elephant to right: [.']ijada(?)ma(?)[^.Rev. Four circles joined by a cross?the symbol of Ujjain.The oft-quoted passage of Ptolemy (vii, i, 63), ^O&vh

ftaolXetop Tiasravov, leaves very little room for doubt thatUjjain was Castana's capital, or rather, perhaps, one of hiscapitals; and if this coin, undoubtedly bearing the symbolwhich is characteristic of nearly all the ancient coins foundat Ujjain, can be proved to bear also the inscriptionJayaddmasa, it will be practically certain that Ujjain continued to form part of the kingdom of his successor, theKsatrapa Jayadaman ; and, at the same time, we may withgreat probability assign the Ujjain coinage, from whichthis symbol appears to be borrowed, to a period anteriorto that of the Ksatrapa coinage.

1 Cunningham, Coins of Ancient India, p. 91, pi. x.


19/52


Damaghsada (or DamajadasrT), son of Kudradaman{Bh., p. 648).

[Ksatrapa and Mahiiksatrapa: no dated coins or inscriptions.]Hitherto only coins of this prince ruling as Ksatrapahave been known. He appears, however, as Mahaksatrapaon a specimen in the Cunningham Collection?l

Rev. Rdjno Mahdk?atrapasa Rudraddmna{h) putrasa RajiioMahdksatrapasa Ddmajadairiya (A).B.M., Cunn. Coll. -65, wt. 30.

No adequate explanation has yet been given of the secondpart of this" name. We seem to have here an undoubtediustance of a hybrid formation. The first part is Sanskritand the second apparently Persian. Is it possible that-ghsada or -jada is simply the Persian zdda 'son' P Thereare three princes bearing this name, and this explanationwould give a satisfactory meaning in two cases out of thethree?(1) son of Hudraddman, (2) son of Ddmaaena; butthe third case?DamajadasrI, son of Rudrasena?defies anysuch solution. Some other explanation must, therefore,probably be sought for. It is much to bo wished that somecompetent Persian scholar would decide whether or notthese nam68 occurring in the earlier Ksatrapa dynasty?Ghsamotika, Castana, Damaghsada?can be traced to Persiansources.

The final syllable of the name is always spelt with thelingual da by Bhagvanliil; but on the coins it is not easyto recognize any difference between it and the initial dental

Da. This may, of course, be due to the fact that the lettersare too small to allow of the distinction, which is often notver)r great, being represented. On stone inscriptions itwould be unmistakable, but, unfortunately, not one of themseeins to contain this particular name.

1 "Of Rudradanian's son, Damajadas>i, we have two coins, neither with date,and both call Damojada Mahaksatrapa." (Rev. II. R. Scott.)


20/52

OF SURlSTRA AND 'MALAYA. 375

Rudrasimha, son of Rudradaman (Bh., p. 650).[Ksatrapa: coin dated 102 and inscription dated 103.

Mahaksatrapa : dated coins 103-110. Ksatrapa(second time): dated coins 110-112. Mahaksatrapa(second time): dated coins 113-118.]

Rudrasimha, son of Rudradaman, has hitherto been placedafter Jivadaman, son of Dumajada, but a revision of thedates leaves no possible doubt that this order must bereversed.1

About Rudrasimha a considerable amount of new information has been obtained. When Bhagvanlal wrote hewas generally known to have ruled as a Ksatrapa on theevidence of an inscription only.2 This evidence is nowsupplemented by a coin in the Cunningham Collection, dated102, the obverse inscription of which has been referred toabove (p. 361). The reverse inscription is?

Rdjno Mahdksatrapasa Rudraddmaputra[sa~] Rdjn\o]Ksatra[pasa] Rudras\i]hasa.3

In the following year, 103, Rudrasimha appears asMahaksatrapa, and retains this title on all the coins datedbetween this year and 110. Of those dated 110 some bearthe title Mahaksatrapa and some the title Ksatrapa. Forsome cause or other, then, Rudrasimha abandons the superiorand assumes the inferior title within the year 110. Noneof his coins in our collections seems to be dated 111, buthe retains the title of Ksatrapa on all the coins as yet found

1 For the facta see tlio following paragraph on Jivadrimon, son of Ditinajada.2 Tho (lute of this inscription is 103 an stated in Bh. There is no douht ontho subject, ns tho date in given both in words and figures Tho reading onthe facsimile of this inscription, given in Bhuvnagar hwcriptious, pi. xvii, inundoubtedly [wijrp trinUarasalc ? 103. Huhler, however, road dvyuttarasaU- 102. His statement (bid. Ant., x, p. 167) that the date (102) is no new one,ns it occurs on the coins, was no doubt the result of his own observation; hutit appears not to hate been published. The Rev. H. R. Scott tells me thata coin in the Watson Museum at llajkot appears to he dated 102.9 Iludrasika seems to be the regular form of the name on the coins, thoughthe vowel i is not always visible. The same form is found in inscriptions, cf.Biililer, 2nd. Ant., x (1881;, p. 157.


21/52


bearing the date 112. He appears again as Mahiiksatrapaon ali the coins as yet found bearing the date 113, andkeeps this title until tho year 118, which is the last yearof his reign appearing on the coinage.These facts in the history of Rudrasimha are of greatinterest, in so far as they add to the data which we alreadyhave for determining the relations which existed betweenthe offices of Mahaksatrapa and Ksatrapa within thisdynasty, and perhaps between this dynasty and some otherpower claiming and sometimes exercising a sort of suzeraintyover it. At a later period it seems probable both that thedynasty was independent and that the title Ksatrapa wasgiven?as will be seen from Colonel Biddulph's table (inf.,p. 407), not regularly, but frequently?to the heir-apparent,who became Mahaksatrapa in due course on the death ofthe

sovereign.But it is doubtful whether such was the

case originally. Bhagvanlal assumes throughout that theseprinces were at first feudatories of some greater power.There seem to be certain indications that this was the fact,but it can scarcely be said to be proved, and some ofBhagvslnlaTs historical deductions cannot be maintained.The whole question of the history of Nuhapana and Castana,their relation to each other, and the relation of both to theAndhra power, requires careful re-examination in the lightof the available inscriptions. Too much has hitherto beentaken for granted. It must suffice here to state the factswhich are known as to the use of the titles Ksatrapa and

Mahaksatrapa by the earlier members of the dynasty: ?(1) Nahapana and Castana bear both titles, proceeding fromthe lower to the higher; (2) Jayadfiman is Ksatrapa only ;(3) Rudradaman is Mahaksatrapa only, and boasts in hisgreat inscription of having won this title for himself;(4) Rudrasimha proceeds from Ksatrapa to Mahiiksatrapa,then for between two and three years uses the title Ksatrapa

only, and eventually resumes the title Mahaksatrapa. Fromall this it seems very probable that these princes originallywon the higher title for themselves, as Rudradaman boastsof doing, and were forced to take the lower when their


22/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAVA. 377

power suffered a temporary eclipse. We know from theinscriptions that Nahapana and Rudradaman came intoconflict with the Andhras, and it is extremely probable thatthis feud was carried on, according to the Indian fashion,almost year by year with varying fortune. The title

Mahaksatrapa may possibly have depended on this fortune,and may perhaps originally have been attached to someparticular province wrested from the Andhras. Thissuggestion is put forward merely as possible, and asapparently not contradicted by anything we know.The probable Persian character of the earlier namesoccurring in this dynasty has been referred to above(p. 374). Can it be that these princes are to be identifiedwith the Pahlavas of the inscriptions ? It is doubtful if wehave sufficient evidence on which to decide this question;

but indications in favour of the identification are as follows:(I) The work commemorated in the inscription of Rudradaman was executed by the " Pahlava minister Suvisiikha,the son of Kulaipa" (Arch. Surv. West. Ind.: Kdthidwddand ICachh, p. 130); (2) tho Andhra king VasithiputaPulumiiyi boasts that he " humbled the pride and arroganceof the Ksatriyas .... destroyed the Sakas, Yuvanan,and Pahlavas ....

entirely destroyedthe Khakha

rata race .... restored the fame of the Sittavahanarace" (id., Buddhist Cave Temples, p. 109). Some sort ofexplanation can be given of all tho other names here

mentioned; aud this makes it not improbable that thoremaining name, Pahlavas, is here used to designate the

Ksatrapa power, with which the Andhras are ki?own to havebeen sometimes at feud.In the reverse type of the Ksatrapa coins, the star or

rayed sun almost invariably appears to the right of thecaitya and the crescent to the left. On the available coinslissued by Rudrasimha in the year 110, after the diminutionof bis power described above, this order is reversed.

Whether this fact is merely curious, or whether it has some1Two in the R.M.: Cunningham, 94, 5-7, 679 ; and Bh., 91.


23/52


significance, it is difficult to say.1 No coins bearing thedate 111 have yet been published, but on those dated 112,while Rudrasimha still bears the title of Ksatrapa, we finda reversion to the usual arrangement?star to right andcrescent to left.

Jivadaman, son of Damajada (Bh., p. 649).[Mahaksatrapa: dated coins 119, 120.]The Pandit's statement that the only date found on thecoins of Jivadaman is 100, needs correction. An examination

of the four dated specimens now in the British Museumgives the following results:?

(1) Bh., 18, dated lxx. Only traces of the 100 figureare now visible; but there is nothing to show that a decimaland a unit figure were not also intended.

(2) Bh., 17, dated 11a?. The decimal figure 10 can berestored with certainty. The tail of the unit figure can beseen, so that itmust have been undoubtedly one of the figuresfrom 4 to 9. As Jivadaman's predecessor was ruling in 118,the date on this coin may be restored as either 118 or 119.

(3) Bh., 20, dated 119. There can be no doubt aboutthis date. The reverse of the coin has been double struck,so that the designation Ddmajadasa putrasa appears twice,while the name Jivaddmasa is altogether absent. It is justpossible, therefore, that this coin may belong to Satyadaman,the other known son of this Damajada. This is, however,extremely improbable, because of (1) the date, and (2) thefact that Satyadaman's coin-legend is in pure Sanskrit.

(4) Cunn., 94, 5-7, 676, dated 120. There can be nodoubt about this date.There is, therefore, no proof of the existence of the date100. What has been so read should be given as lxx. Onthe other hand, the dates 119 and 120 may be regarded

aa certain.1 So far as has been noticed, only ono other instance is knowu, on a coin ofMk$. Sviimi Rudraseua, son of Mks. Svami Rudradaman, published by Newtonin the Journ, Bomb. Br. M.A.S., 1SG2, p. 9, rig. 9.


24/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 379

Satyadaman, SON OF Damajadasri.[Ksatrapa: coin dated \xx."\

Obv. Traces of date Xxx, and of inscription in Greekcharacters.

Rev. Rdjno [Ma]hdksatra[pa]sya Ddmajadairiya[h] putrasyaRdjno Ksatrapasya Satyaddmna\Jf\.

Colonel Biddulph. -6, wt. 29 grs. ; PI. 4.This most interesting and important coin was broughtto me by Colonel Biddulph in April 1897. It reveals tous a member of this dynasty of whom no other record has

yet come to light. Unfortunately, there are traces onlyof the hundred figure in the date on his coin, and we are,therefore, unable to determine his position with absolutecertainty. There is nothing to show definitely whether hewas the elder or the younger son of Damajadasri, and, aswill be seen from Colonel Biddulph*s table of Mahaksatrapasand Ksatrapas (inf., p. 407), there are several gaps in theline of Ksatrapas which might quite possibly have beenfilled by him. With our present data, the easiest solutionof the problem seems to be to suppose that he was thoyounger son of Damajadasri, and that ho was Ksatrapaat the time when his elder brother Jlvaditman was Mahaksatrapa, i.e. during the years 119 and 120. This positionmay be provisionally assigned to him for the present; butof course it must bo borne in mind that future discoveriesmay quite possibly show that he was Ksatrapa at sometime during the two periods 103-110 and 113-118, whenbis uncle Rudrasimha reigned as Mahaksatrapa, or evenearlier still during the reign of his father Damajadasri.

Satyadaman's coin-legend forms an exception to thegeneral rule. It is written in Sanskrit, whereas all theothers are written in Prakrit. All its genitive forms, forinstance, are quite regular. The sandhi in Rdjno Ksa??found also in inscriptions, cf. Hoernle, Ind. Ant., xii (1883),

p. 32?is the only point in which it at all varies from theordinary usage of Sanskrit.


25/52

380 MAHlKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPAS

Rudrasena, son of Rudrasimha {Bh., p. 652).[Ksatrapa : dated coins 121 ; Mahaksatrapa: dated in

scription 122 P, dated coins 125-144.]For our knowledge that Rudrasena held the position of

Ksatrapa we are again indebted to Colonel Biddulph, whofirst called attention to the following coin in his collection:?Obv. Date 121; remains of inscription in Greek characters.Rev. Rdjno Mahdkfatrapasa Rudras[t]hasa putrasa Raj no

ICsatrapasa Rudrasenasa.Colonel Biddulph. -6, wt. 32*5 grs.; PI. 5.

There are now two other specimens in tho BritishMuseum on which Rudrasena appearsas

Ksatrapa. Thedate of one of these?Cunn., 94, 5-7, 680?seems undoubtedly to be 121. On the other?Bird, 54, 5-29, 18?the unit figure is indistinct. On one of BhagvanlaTs coins,No. 109, the date is apparently, though still not quitecertainly, 122; but the inscription is incomplete, and it isimpossible to say whether it is a coin of Rudrasena as

Ksatrapa or Mahaksatrapa.It may be inferred from what the Pandit says abouta stone slab bearing an inscription of Rudrasena that hewas reigning in 122 as Mahaksatrapa. A further examination of this inscription is much to be desired. The two

points on which more precise information is required are?(I) Is the date undoubtedly 122 P and (2) is Rudrasena

undoubtedly called Mahaksatrapa? Regarding this inscription, Dr. Burgess most kindly wrote to me as follows:?"The Muludsar inscription (I think the J.R.A S. spellingis wrong) was either the first or second Ksatrapa inscriptionI got a copy of?how long ago I cannot remember; butit was on thin calico?a tracing made by some politicalor police officer who had come across it in Okhamandal.I gave the tracing to General Cunningham in 1870 andheard no more of it. But before leaving Bombay in 1889,


26/52

OF SURlSTRA AND MALAYA. 381I saw the stone in the lobby at the foot of the stairs of theBombay Asiatic Society's Library. It is very much weatherworn, and would hardly yield an estampage or any othersort of copy: the reading of it is difficult, as the largeletters have got worn to mere irregular depressions.Mulwiisar is on the Gulf of Kachh, W.N.W. from Dwarka,if my memory serves me." It is to be hoped that theletters are still sufficiently clear to enable some scholar whohas access to the original to determine the date and title.It is important to verify the Pandit's statements as givenin the Journal for 1890, as this article was compiled by mefrom his rough notes, and it is quite possible that I maysometimes have been mistaken in my representation ofhis views.

An inscription, published in Bhdvnagar Inscriptions, p. 23,pi. xix, is attributed to the time of a Mks. Rudrasena, audthe date read as 232. This reading is certainly not correct.The decimal figure seems undoubtedly to be 20. Thequestion remains whether the hundreds' figure may notpossibly be 100. From the facsimile, which is, unfortunately,not a very good one, this numeral seems at first sight to be200; but, on closer examination, it will be seen that theshort line attached to the right, which appears

on thefacsimile, may well be due either to a flaw in the stoneor to some imperfection in the squeeze. A similar line,undoubtedly a flaw, is seen to be attached to several othercharacters in this inscription?e.g. to the numeral 20 inthe date. Tho difficulties in the way of accepting a date222 for another Rudrasena are so considerable, that on thewhole it seems extremely probable that the correct dateof this inscription is 122. If so, this date must be addedto our list of Mahaksatrapas.Colonel Biddulph has pointed out to me that Sir E. CliveBayley, in his article " On tho Genealogy of ModernNumerals" (J.R.A.S., 1882, p. 373), assigns a date 122to Rudrasena, son of Rudrasimha, but gives no informationas to whether he bears the title Ksatrapa or Mahaksatrapaon the coin in question.


27/52

382 MAHAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASThe coins dated 125 are still the earliest on which Rudra

sena is known with certainty to appear as Mahaksatrapa.A coin iu the British Museum, Bh. Coll., No. 29, has thedate 144 or 146. The dates of Sanghadaman and Damasenashow that the former must be the correct reading.

Sanghadaman, son of Rudrasimha {Bh., p. 652).[P Ksatrapa ;Mahaksatrapa : dated coin 144]

According to Bhagvanlill, " on a coin belonging to theNaeb Dewan of Bhaunagar, Sanghadaman bears the titleof Ksatrapa." Now, curiously enough, the inscription onthe coins of Sanghadaman is very liable, in the case ofimperfect specimens, to be mistaken for that of the Ksatrapa

YaSodtTman, son of the Mahiiksatrapa Rudrasimha, wholived nearly a hundred years later. A minute examinationof the lettering would, indeed, iu all cases, dispel any doubtas to the correct attribution, even if the syllables composingSangha- or YaSo* were not clear; but only those who havehad much to do with these coins can realize how very easyit is to confuse the two. As instances in point, it may bomentioned that we originally attributed one of ColonelDiddulph's specimens to a Ksatrapa Sanghadaman, and thata similar mistake was made in arranging the series in theBritish Museum. Pandit Bhagviinlal may possibly havefallen into a similar error. In the absence of positive proofone way or the other, it will be safest for the present to adda note of interrogation to Saiighadaman's name in the listof Ksatrapas.No query need be added to the date 144 as the readingof the coin on which he appears as Mahiiksatrapa, although,as Bhagviinliil remarks, the unit figure is somewhat indistinct. The fact is that traces of a cross line show thatthe unit figure must either have been a 4 or a 6. Thedate can scarcely have been 146, as Damasena began hisreign as Mahaksatrapa in 145 (v. inf.). There can, therefore, be practicalljr no doubt whatever that the unit figureon Saiighadaman's coin must be restored as a 4.


28/52

OF SURXSTRA AND MiLAVA. 383

Prtiiivisena, son of Rudrasena (Bh., p. 653).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 144.]

The Pandit believed his specimen to be unique, butColonel Biddulph has siuce acquired another specimen.Obv. Date 144; portion of inscription in Greek characters.Rev. Rdjno Mahdksatrapasa Rudra[senasa putrasa Rd]jno

Ksatrapasa PrthivUenasa.Colonel Biddulph. *55, wt. 21*5 grs. (much worn); PI. 6.Colonel Biddulph informs me that he received from theState of Junagadh the photograph of yet another specimenof this coinage.1

Damasena, son of Rudrasimha (Bh., p. 653).[Mahaksatrapa: dated coins 145-157.]

There seems to me to be no possible doubt that thePandit's reading, 148, as the earliest date appearing onDiimasena's coins should be corrected to 145. He probablyregarded the curve to the right, which is characteristic oftho figure 5, as a fragment of the usual inscription in Greekcharacters. On careful examination, however, this curveis seen to be connected with the other part of the numeral,and the whole constitutes a 5 of quite normal character.The limits of Damasena's reign as given by the coinsshould, therefore, be corrected as above.

Damajadasiu, son of Rudrasena (Bh., p. 654).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 154, 155.]

Sir E. Clive Bayley (J.R.A.S., 1882, p. 374) gives 155as the date of one of his coins of this Ksatrapa. As heused this coin for the form of the figure 5 given in his1 "Wo have a specimen in this Museum in fairly good preservation, withinscription as figured in your plate, in well-shaped letters .... date

14*.'* (Rev. 11. R. Scott.)


29/52


plate of numerals, there seems to be no reason for doubtingthe correctness of his reading. This date should, therefore,be added to the one previously known.It may be worth while to state that, on incomplete or

badly preserved specimens, there is considerable risk ofconfusion between this Ksatrapa Damajadagri, son of theMahaksatrapa Rudrasena, and the Mahaksatrapa Diimajadasri, son of the Mahaksatrapa Damasena, who ruledlater (v. inf., p. 389). Our Ksatrapa has accordingly, inconsequence of this confusion, been supposed to have reignedalso as a Mahaksatrapa. There is, however, as yet no reallygood specimen to prove this. The probability is that hedoes not occur as a Mahaksatrapa on the coinage.

ISVARADATTA {Bh., p. 656).[Mahaksatrapa: dated coins 'first' and 'second' year.]

That this monarch belonged to the Abhira tribe, asconjectured by Bhagvanlal, is extremely probable. Thecauses which led to his intrusion into this dynasty are stillas mysterious as ever. All that is certain is that tho periodhitherto assigned to him can now no longer be supported.As will be seen from our discussion of the coins ofDiimajadasrI, son of Damasena (inf., p. 390), the gap whichwas formerly supposed to exist between the reigns of theMahaksatrapas Vijayasena and DamajadaSii?from 171 to176?has been shown by newly-discovered coin-dates not toexist. Is>aradatta can, therefore, no longer find a place here.All that we know of him directly from his coins is thathe reigned as Mahaksatrapa for two years. The reverseinscriptions are dated in words either as " in the first year "or " in the second year"; and it is almost certain thatthe discover}' of more complete specimens will show thatthese dates are repeated in numerals in the usual placeon the obverse. Two coins in the British Museum, Bh.

Coll., Nos. 708 and 46, seem to show distinct traces ofthe numerals

?and H respectively.


30/52

OF SURA8TRA AND MALAYA. 385From a glance at the dated list of Mahaksatrapas it willbe seen that there are several gaps in the chronology asat present fixed by the coins and inscriptions. It remainsto ascertain what evidence there is in favour of any oneof these possible dates for Isvaradatta.At first sight the most tempting view is that (he

degradation in rank of Rudrasimha, son of Rudradaman,during the period from tho year 110 to the year 112 wasdue to the rise of this Mahaksatrapa ; but, as will be seen,this view cannot be maintained. Other gaps which mightpossibly have been partly filled by Isvaradatta's reign arebetween Jivaduman, son of Damajada, and Rudrasena, souof Rudrasimha?120 to 125 ;l and between Damasena, sonof Rudrasimha, and his son Yasodaman?157 to 161. Thegaps which occur after the decline in the style of thecoinage which sets in towards the end of the reign ofVijayasena (v. inf., p. 389) need not be considered, as it isquite certain that the coins of Isvaradatta show no signsof this decline, and are, therefore, earlier than the latterpart of the reign of Vijayasena (162 P-172 ?).The evidence derived from considerations of portraitureand epigraphy is as follows :?

(1) The treatment of the eye on the coins of ISvaradatfais such as we have seen to prevail during the period fromabout the year 127 in the reign of Rudrasena, son of Rudrasimha, as Mahaksatrapa, to about the year 170 in the reignof Vijayasena, son of Damasena (v. sup., p. 367, fig. 3).

(2) Bhagvanlal supposed (Bh., p. 656) that the bust onthe obverse of Isvaradatta's coins was imitated sometimesfrom that of Viradaman (Ksatrapa, 156-160), and sometimesfrom that of Vijayasena (Ksatrapa and Mahaksatrapa, 160172?). Newton also notices the general resemblance inportraiture and epigraphy between the coins of Isvaradattaand Vijayasena?" The coins of Isvara Datta bear a strikingresemblance to those of Vijaya Sah (r. Vijayasena); someapparent differences in the character of the legends beingaccounted for by the circumstance that on Isvara Dattu's1 It is extremely doubtful, however, whether such a gap exists (v. sup., p. 3 SO).

j.n.A.fl. 1899. 25


31/52

386 MAHAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPAScoins the difficulty is to extend the legend over the spaceallotted to it; but ou Vijaya Sah's to compress it withinthat space. I do not doubt that the reigns of the twokings were not separated by any long interval." lThe degree of resemblance between the different portraitsof these three?or four, if we add another ruler of thoperiod, Yasodaman (Ksatrapa, 160; Mahaksatrapa, 161)?is no doubt to a great extent a matter of opinion. Whatremains certain is that these four portraits have in commona likeness, which distinguishes them from those of rulerswhom we know to have been earlier or later iu date.

(3) In judging of the date of Ksatrapa coins from theirepigraphy, three characters?k?a, pa, and ha?are especiallyserviceable for compnrUon, both because their differentchanges in form can be dated with a fair amount ofaccuracy, aud because they all appear on every completespecimen. The change from one form of ha to the other?from Ix to h?comes in very early,2 and does not concernus here.

The form of ksa occurring on Isvaradatta's coins is Jjwith a very distinct sharp curve at the bottom. This formseems to come into use during the reign of Rudrasena, sonof Rudrasimha, but probably not until after the year 130?it does not occur on his coins as Ksatrapa (121) andapparently not on the earlier coins (125-130) struck byhim as Mahaksatrapa. It is very distinct on the coinsof Prthivlsena (144), Diimnsena (145-157), Viradiiman(Ksatrapa, 156-160), and Vijayasena (160-172 P). Afterthis date the curve tends to become more rounded, but thesharp

curve does not disappear entirelyuntil after the

reignof Bhartrdaman (2:r.r-214). Tho evidence of this letter,therefore, only helps us to determine the earliest possiblelimit for I^vnrndatta's reign. He can scarcely have come'

between Jivadaman and Rudrasena, even if they wereseparated by an interval (120-125).

1 Jonrn. Bomb. Br. R.A.S., 1802. p. 9.2 Generally after the time of Castana; but the earlier form still appearsoccasionally on coins of a later date (inf., p. 397).


32/52

Or SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 387The letter pa on Isvaradatta^ coins is distinctly rounded

at the bottom, like a capital U; at a later period it becomesquite angular, like a V; and it is possible on the coinage totrace the transition between the two forms. There seems tobe no instance of the pointed form before about the year 159.On the coins of Viradaman (Ksatrapa, 156-160) the roundedform is by far the more common, and wherever the dato canbe read it seems to be either 159 or 160 on the specimenson which the pointed form appears. Yasodaman's coins(160 and 161) have both, and so have the earlier coins ofVijayasena; but the 'rounded' form at this period sonearly approaches the angular that it is not always easyto distinguish between them. There can be little doubt,however, about the very definitely rounded form whichoccurs on the coins of Isvaradatta. It almost certainlysignifies that his date is before the year 160.It will be seen then that the evidence derived frombroad features of resemblance and from minute details ofportraiture and epigraphy alike points to the same conclusion?that the most probable position of Isvaradatta is betweenDamasena and Yasodatnan (157-161), and that he was

Mahaksatrapa while Viradaman was Ksatrapa.

Viradaman, son of Damasena (Bh., p. 654).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 156-160.]

Here again a revision of the readings of specimenspreviously known necessitates a considerable change in thechronology. The coin, of which Bhagvanlal read the datedoubtfully as 176, is unquestionably dated 156. The limitsof Viradaman's career as Ksatrapa are, therefore, accordingto the coins, 156 and 160. This emendation simplifiesmatters greatly. The suggested date 176, which can nowno longer be upheld, was a fruitful cause of difficulty.Since both Yasodiiman and Vijayasena appear as Ksatrapasin the year 160, we were driven to the supposition eitherthat Viradaman, after being deposed, had regained his


33/52


position, or else that there were two or more Ksatrapasreigning at the same time {Bh., p. 655). To the samesource we may trace the assumption {Bh., p. 657), thatwhile the interloper Igvaradatta had usurped the positionof Mahaksatrapa, " the Ksatrapa Viradaman remained unmolested all through this period (i.e. 171, 172), as testifiedby the dates on his coins." Apart from this conjecturaldate, the coins testify to nothing of the kind.

Yasodaman, son of Damasena {Bh., p. 655).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 160; Mahaksatrapa: dated coins 161,]

The Pandit's account requires slight correction. Thereare eight coins of this Yasodilman in his collection?five asKsatrapa and three as Mahaksatrapa.

Vijayasena, son of Damasena (Bh., p. 655).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 160; Mahaksatrapa: dated coins162 P, 163-171, 172P]

As we have just seen, the hypothesis that "Viradaman,Ya^odiiman, and Vijayasena,

sons of Damasena, were allKsatrapas?probably governors of provinces?at the sametime," is now no longer necessary. They all strike coinsas Ksatrapas in the same year, 160, but there is no reasonwhatever for supposing that they did not hold that officesuccessively.

Bhagvanlal gives the dates as? Ksatrapa, 160-162;Mahaksatrapa, 163-171. But there is some doubt on thesubject. On the coins available for examination, the onlycertain date borne by coins struck by Vijayasena as Ksatrapais 160. The dates 161 and 162 are merely possible onsome incomplete specimens. On the other hand, a coinstruck by Vijayasena as Mahaksatrapa has the remains ofa date which can scarcely have been 163, but may quitepossibly have been 162. It is the custom in Vijayasena'stime to arrange the three short strokes, which represent


34/52

OF SURARTRA AND MALAVA. 389the numeral 3, in a vertical line, thus E; and thenumerous good specimens with the date 163 give ampleevidence of the space usually ocoupied by these strokes.On the coin in question there seems not to be space enoughfor all three, but there is certainly sufficient to admit ofthe two lower ones, if the date had been 163. On theother hand, there is probably not sufficient space to showthe upper of the two strokes which would have denoted2, Z; while the stroke still visible seems to be too lowdown to have been intended for 1, the stroke for whichseems regularly to occupy the midway position. It is notimprobable, then, that this coin affords us evidence of thefact that Vijayasena was reigning as Mahaksatrapa in the

year 162.For similar reasons it is probable that the date 172 shouldbe restored on another coin, Bh. Coll., No. 206.The Pandit remarks that "all the years from 160 to 171inclusive are represented with the single exception of 169."If the view propounded above (p. 363) as to the representation of 8 and 9, is to be accepted, viz., that **= 8,and } = 9, we may say that, with the doubtful exceptionof 161, every year between these two limits seems to berepresented.So far as concerns workmanship and distinctness in therepresentation of inscriptions and dates, the coins of Vijayasena are the most satisfactory in the whole series. Butalready in his reign, about the year 167 or 168, we notethe beginning of a gradual degeneration in style, whichcontinued until the end of the dynasty.

DamajadasrT, son of Damasena (Bh., p. 658).[Mahaksatrapa: dated coins 172 (or 3P)-176.]

On the chronology of this Mahaksatrapa, some additionallight has been thrown by General Cunningham's coins.

Bhagvanlal only reads one date, 176, on his coins, and thisremains the extreme limit assignable to his reign from


35/52

390 MAILAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASthis source. But the new coins undoubtedly prove that thereign began earlier than has been hitherto supposed. Thedate on Cunn., 94, 5-7, 702, is certainly to be restored aseither 172 or 173. Here again, as in the precisely similarcase of a coin of Vijayasena discussed above, the balanceof probability is in favour of 172?the solitary Btroke visibleseems to bo too low down to be intended for 1, and thespace above it too great to admit of its being the loweststroke of a 3."With regard to other dates of this Damajadasri?175is certain on five of General Cunningham's coins, and 174is possible as an alternative to 176 on one of Pandit

BhagvaulaTs own specimens, No. 365.The probability, therefore, is that this MahaksatrapaDamajadasri, son of the Mahaksatrapa Damasena, began hisreign

asearly

as the year 172; and, as we have seen, hispredecessor aud brother Vijayasena was reigning in 171.The Pandit had supposed an interval of five years (171-176)to have elapsed between these two reigns, and this was thechief reason for placing the usurper Isvaradatta here (Bh.,p. 656).! Another reason was derived from considerationsof style and fabric. The Pandit saw a great difference inthese respects between the coins of tho two reigns; andit must be confessed that the contrast between the bestcoins of Vijayasena and the ordinary coins of Damajadasriis sufficiently striking. But, as we have seen, the processof degeneration had already begun during Vijayasena'sreign, and the difference in point of art between his latercoins and those of his successor is so slight as to be scarcelyappreciable.

The question of the probable position of Isvaradatta isdiscussed elsewhere (p. 384).1 The Rev. II. R. Scott says: "We have a coiu of Damasena's son Dama

jadasri which appears to he dated 173, in which case the gap meutioned by thePandit would be filled up and no room left for Isvaradatta between Vijayaseuaaud this kiug."


36/52

OF SURlSTRA AND MALAYA. 391

Rudrasena, son of VIuadaman (Bh., p. 658).[Mahaksatrapa: dated coins 17a? (6-9)?194.]

Both of the limits of this reign (180-190) as given byBhagvanlal must be corrected in accordance with coins inthe collection of Colonel Biddulph.

Obv. Date, 17[s].Rev. Rd/nah JQatrapasa Viraddmaputrasa Raj no Ma\Jid]ksalrapasa Rudra[senasa].

Colonel Biddulph. '55, wt. 28-5 grs.; PI. 7.Obv. Date, 194; traces of inscription in Greek characters.Rev. Rdjnah Ksatrapasa Viraddmaputrasa Rdjho [Mahd]

ksatrapasa Rudra[sc] nasa.Colonel Biddulph. -55, wt. 32 grs.; PI. 8.

As Rudrasena's predecessor Damajadasri was reigningin 176, the date of the former of the two coins heredescribed must be between 176 and 179. Another ofColonel Biddulph's specimens affords the date 19#, probably= 191.

According to the Rev. II. R. Scott, there is a coin ofViradaman in the Rajkot Museum dated 196 (or 194) andanother 192. If the date 196 can be proved, it will, ofcourse, necessitate the extension of the reign by two years ;but it must be remembered that 6 and 4 are very easily

mistaken on these coins.

VlSVASlMHA, SON OF RUDRASENA (Bh., p. 658).[Ksatrapa:

dated coins 19#, 199, 200,2[xx] ;Mahaksatrapa:

no legible dates.]The dates on the coins of this prince and his brotherBhartrdaman are in a most unsatisfactory state. Bhagvanlal

gives the limits of ViSvasimha's dated coinage as 198 and203. It is quite possible that the unit figure, of whichtraces are to be seen on many specimens, may have beenan 8; but it seems to me that the only certain unit of all


37/52

392 MAHlKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASthe coins dated 19a? is undoubtedly a 9. The Pandit'sreading is perhaps due to the confusion which has so oftenbeen made between these two numerals (v. sup., p. 363).On the other hand, I cannot think that his reading 203can be absolutely proved for any of his specimens in theBritish Museum. There are numerous specimens in whichthe figure 200 is probably followed by another, but whatthat other is, is quite uncertain.

Our knowledge of the fact that Visvasimha also reignedas Mahaksatrapa is again the result of Colonel Biddulph*sinvestigations. He possesses four specimens on whichVisvasimha bears this title?in the case of three of themquite certainly, in the case of the fourth most probably.

Obv. Date illegible.Rev. Rdjno Mahdksatrapasa Rudrasenaputrasa Rty'iio Mahd

ksatrapasa Viivaslhasa.Colonel Biddulph. -55, wt. 31 grs.; PI. 9.

The British Museum also possesses two specimens?one(Bh., 502) quite certain, and the other (Bh., 468) more orless doubtful. Unfortunately not one of these coins hasa legible date.

As has been already remarked (p. 375) -simha regularlyappears as siha on the coins. It may be added that mostfrequently no distinction is made between the I of Vi&vaand the i of -siha. On the greater number of specimens(cf. Bh., Nos. 64, 461, 481, 498, 501) the name appearsas VUvaslha; but the proper distinction is sometimes made

between the two vowels (e.g. on Bh., No. 515).The coin, dated 198 (recte 199), to which the Panditrefers as reading Rdjnah Ksatrapasa (sic) Rudrasenaputrasa,

etc., is probably his specimen, No. 53. It would indeedbe remarkable if this reading could be proved. Rudrasena,as we know from his own coins, was certainly Mahaksatrapafrom 17a? to 194, and it would be passing strange to findhis son describing him afterwards, in 199, as a Ksatrapa.The reading cannot, however, be supported; and it is quite


38/52

OF SURlSTRA AND MALAYA. 393

easy to explaiu how the Panditfell into this mistake. Theletters Mahd- certainly do not appear on the coin, since,iu consequence of the manner of striking, only portions ofthose letters can be seen which reach beneath the line.

There is, however, ample space for them, and there is noreason whatever to doubt that the reading is Rdjho Mahd'kfatrapasa. Ou the coins of Vitfvasirnha the correct sandhiis preserved in the writing of his own title RdjnahIffatrapasa; and the Pandit was probably confirmed inhis reading by two of the cluster of dots which occur onthis portion of the coin, and might easily bo mistakenfor the visarga (h).

Hitherto, some doubt has been possible as to the orderof succession of Vidvasimha and his brother Bhartrdatnan.Indeed, it has seemed most probable that Bhartrdatnan wasthe earlier. But the dates, incomplete as they are, seemto prove, so far as they can be certainly deciphered, thatthe opposite was the case. The evidence in favour of thisorder is supported, in a very curious and interesting manner,by an argument derived from the treatment of the eye inthe portraiture of Ksatrapa coins (v. sup., p. 367).

Bhartrdaman, son of Rudrasena (Bh., p. 658).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 2(xx); Mahaksatrapa: dated coins

2(xx), 203-214.]'

Bhartrdaman was known only as a Mahaksatrapa untilColonel Biddulph obtained the following coin on which heappears as Ksatrapa.

Obv. Date illegible.Rev, Rdjho [Mahdkfatrapasa'] Rudra[sena]putrasa RdjhahKsatrapasa Bhartrddmnah.

Colonel Biddulph. -55, wt. 27-5 grs.; PL 10.I subsequently went over all the numerous specimens ofBhartrdaman's coinage in the British Museum, and found

several on which he appears as Ksatrapa?e.g., Eden, 53, 3-1,


39/52

394 MA1IAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPAS

309; India Office Coll., No. 927; Bh. Coll., No. 459?andothers on which the same reading is most probably to berestored?e.g., Bh. Coll., No. 451.The Rev. II. R. Scott says: "We have three coins of

Bhartrdaman V styling him Ksatrapa; one of these has dateapparently 204." This suggested reading must, surely, beincorrect, as Bhartrdaman appears as Mahaksatrapa ona coin?Bh. Coll., No. 441?of which the date seems tobe without doubt 203. But if it can be proved, it startsa problem, the solution of which is not apparent. He alsomentions a coin of Bhartrdaman as Mahaksatrapa, on whichthe date "appears to be 220, but is not very clear." Thisis much more probable, but this date must remain verydoubtful until a better specimen is found.With regard to the name of this prince, there has beena division of opinion among scholars. Newton and Thomasread the name as Atri; the reading Bhartr is that ofPrinsep, Stevenson, and Bhagvanlal.1 There are two pointsto be decided?(1) Is the first aksara ^ or ^ ? (2) Is thesecond fa or ?? With regard to the former, it must beadmitted that very often on these coins the character looksquite as much like a as bha, but there are instances (e.g.,on two coins of Bhartrdaman's son Visvasena in the BritishMuseum?Steuart, 53, 4-5, 56 and 61) of what seems tobe an undoubted bha of the ordinary form; with regardto the latter, there is no doubt on most specimens as tothe reading rtr (often with the superscript r, but sometimeswithout) as opposed to tri. If, then, the possibility ofa doubt be admitted as to the initial character, the secondis surely sufficient of itself to decide the question. Atri^jf^f can surely never have been written Artr ^i$. Tho

probability, therefore, is in favour of the name Bhartrgenerally written with a somewhat abnormal initial bha.Some specimens of Bhartrdaman's coinage, both asKsatrapa and as Mahaksatrapa, have traces of the hundreds'

1 Cf. Thomas, J.R.A.S., 1850, p. 58.


40/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 39-i

figure (200) of a date; and, in some cases, it seems probablethat there was nothing following this. But as this is notquite certain, it will be best to write this date as 2(xx).

PSlMHASENA, SON OF RUDRASENA (Bh., p. 659).The evidence on which this Mahaksatrapa is admitted intothe dynasty is so extremely unsatisfactory that it is

aquestionwhether it will not be safest to omit him altogether. Atall events, if he is provisionally retained in the list, hisname should always be accompanied by a note of interro

gation, and it should always be borne in mind that hisexistence depends on the evidence of a single coin, thereading of which is most uncertain.The Pandit admits that " the style of his coin differsconsiderably from those immedistely preceding" (Bh.,p. 659). This fact is by itself sufficient to throw doubton the attribution proposed. But in addition to this tholettering is also different. Both style and lettering belong,in fact, to an earlier period, when the rounded pa U hadnot as yet given place to the pointed v (cf. the inseriptionsas given in iny lithographed plate attached to the Pandit'sarticle).Let us now examine the legend of this coin. ThePandit's reading is?

Rdjho Mahdksatrapasa Rudrasenam put rasa Rdjho Mahak?alrapasa Simhasenasa*

Now, in the first place, the name of the father is moreprobably spelt -sahasa, i.e. -sihasa, or -simhasa (v. thelithographed plate referred to above); and, secondly, thename of the reigning Mahaksatrapa himself is altogetherdoubtful. The first two aksaras are quite uncertain; thelast three are probably simhasa or -scnasa.From these considerations?the form of the letter pa, the

mime of the father, and the termination of his own name?it follows that we have here the coin of some Mahaksatrapa,


41/52

396 MAHAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASwho was the son of Rudrasimha, son of Rudradaman (v, sup,,p. 375), and whose name ended in -simha or -sena.We know the following as sons of Rudrasimha?Rudrasena, Sanghadaman, and Damasena. The second is quite outof the question here; and the corrupted letters can scarcelyhave been intended to represent any aksaras reaching belowthe line such as the Ru und dra of the first. The last isjust possible; but it must be admitted that the beautifullyneat letters of Dumasena's ordinary coinage offer a strikingcontrast to the straggling characters on this specimen. Atthe same time, it must be borne in mind that the differencebetween the two consists not in form but in the degreeof finish. They almost certainly belong to the same period.Either, then, this is a coin unusually badly struck ofDamasena, or it belongs to some other sou of Rudrasimha.

VisVasena, son of Bhartrdaman (Bh.f p. 659).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 216-225.]

The limits of date, as given by Bhagvanlal, were 216 and223. There are, however, two coins in the British Museum?Steuart, 53, 4-5, 66, and one from Prinsep?which readquite clearly 225.

The Rev. H. R. Scott mentions two coins of Visvasenain the Rajkot Museum with probable dates 224 and 226.It is to be hoped that new specimens will be found toplace the latter date beyond suspicion.

Rudrasimha, son of Svami JTvadaman (Bh., p. 660).[Ksatrapa: dated coins 22*-231, 233 (P).]

The limits hitherto accepted aro 231 and 240, but anexamination of the specimens in the British Museum andthose in Colonel Biddulph's cabinet shows that there areundoubted instances of a date 22a?.1 The traces of theunit figure are invariably those of one extending below

1 Con6rmed bj the Rev. H. R. Scott's account of the coins in the RajkotMuseum.


42/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 397the line, i.e. from 4 to 9; and, as we know that VUvasena

was Ksatrapa in 225, our choice here is limited to thosebetween 5 and 9.Obv. Date, 22a? (5-9); traces of Greek inscription.Rev. Svdmi J[i]vaddmaputrasa Rdjhah K$atrapasa Rudra

simhasa:Colonel Biddulph. -55, wt. 325 grs.; PI. 11.

It seems doubtful whether the two dots : so generallyfound at the end of this coin-legend are a misplaced visarga,or simply intonded as a stop.The revival of tho older form of the letter ha lr on someof these coins is interesting. It is also important, as atthis period the two characters for ha and na have becomeso very similar, that, without its evidence, we might havebeen in some doubt whether to read the name of thisKsatrapa as Rudrasimha or Rudrasena.

Bhagvanlal gives the latter limit of date as 240, andit is quite possible that he may have had good reasons forthis. It must be said, however, that from the coins nowavailable to us, we can be certain neither of this readingnor of the reading 234 also given. The latest probabledate on the specimens in the British Museum is 233, andthe latest certain date 231.

Yasodaman, son of Rudrasimha (Bh., p. 660).[Ksatrapa : dated coins 240-249.]

Quite a number of new dates have been discovered oncoins of this Ksatrapa, since Bhagvanlill wrote. ColonelBiddulph's collection supplies the dates 242, 244, and246 P; and the British Museum the dates 243 (Cunn. Coll.,94, 5-7, 731) and 249 (Bird, 54, 5-29, 15). The descriptionof the last mentioned is as follows:?

Obv. Date, 249.Rev. Rdjha\Ji\ K?atrapasa Rndras[i\haputrasa Rdjha\Ji]

Ksatrapasa Yaioddmna[h'\.B.M., Bird. -55, wt. 315 grs.; PI. 12.


43/52

398 MA1IAK8ATRAPAS AND KSATRAPAS

Rudrasena, son of Rudradaman (Bh., p. 661),[Mahaksatrapa : dated coins 270-298, 300 (?).]

Colonel Biddulph points out to me that Sir E. CliveBayley l reads the date of one of his coins as 300. Thereis little reason to doubt this, and we shall be justified inregarding the reading as probably correct until it can bedefinitely proved.

No coins have yet been found of Rudrasena's father, theMahaksatrapa Rudradaman. His reign must have filledsome part of the great gap which is now left in our list ofMahnksatrapas between the years 214 and 270?the latestof Bhartrdiiman and the earliest of Rudrasena; but as yetwe can give no certain answer to the questions how he cameinto this dynasty and what relation he bore to his predecessors. The dotted line in Colonel Biddulph's genealogicaltable (p. 406) denotes that the position there assignedto him as a son of Svami Jivadaman is purely conjectural,and remain8 to be proved or disproved by subsequentdiscoveries and researches. There are, of course, otherpossibilities?he may have been the brother or son of Yasodaman, or he may have been related in some way to thoold line which seems to us to end with Visvasona (216-225),son of Bhartrdaman.

The reading of the name as Rudrasena and not Rudrasimhaseems to be undoubtedly correct. On the greater number ofthese coins it is not easy to distinguish the letters ha and na,but some specimens, e.g. Bh. Coll., Nos. 554, 563, 574, 580,have the name Rudrasena without any possibility of doubt.

SlMHASENA, SISTER'S SON OF RUDRASENA (Bh., p. 660).[Mahaksatrapa: dated coin 304.]

Very important alterations have to be made in our accountof this Mahaksatrapa. In the first place, BhagvanlaTs coinis no longer unique. There are now two others from the* J.R.A.S., 1882, p. 374.


44/52

OF SURlSiRA AND MlLAVA. 399

Cunningham Collection in the British Museum, and ColonelBiddulph possesses a fourth. One of the Cunninghamcoins, 94, 5-7, 331, published by General Cunningham inhis Coins of Mediaeval India, p. 8, pi. i, 14, undoubtedlybears the date 304. It is, therefore, necessary to placeSimhnsena some forty or fifty years later than was contemplated by Bhagviinlal, who supposed him to be a nephewof Rudrasimha, son of Jivadaman, and a cousin and successor of Yasodiiman (Ksatrapa, 240-249). That he shouldhave reigned for fifty-five years after the latest date onhis predecessor's coins might be possible, but would be, tosay the least, remarkable. But there is another difficultyin the way of this supposition, which is noted by Bhagvanlalhimself. Rudrasimha is known from his own coins andthose of his son Yasodiiman only as a Ksatrapa. He wouldappear, if this attribution were correct, on those of hisnephew as a Mahaksatrapa.General Cunningham, seeing these difficulties, supposedhim to be the sister's son of the Mahaksatrapa Rudrasimha,son of Satyasimha, who himself strikes coins in the year310 (Coins of Med. Ltd., p. 4). This correction does not

make matters altogether plain. It gives us a Mahaksatrapawho strikes coins in 304 and calls himself the sister's sonof another Mahaksatrapa who reigns after him in 310 !Suppositions of revolution and counter-revolution will alwayssuggest a way out of these little chronological difficulties ;but they are quite unnecessary here.The plain fact is that Simhasena is sister's son of Rudrasena, not of Rudrasimha. The difficulty of distinguishingbetween tho letters ha and na on these late coins has beenpreviously referred to ; and it may be granted that it isnext to impossible to discriminate between the two on theCunningham coin figured in Coins of Med. Ind., pi. i, 14,and on the Pandit's own specimen (cf., for instance, theha and the na of the word Simhasenasa as it appears in thefacsimile in my lithographed plate to the Pandit's article).On Colonel Biddulph's coin, however, and on the Cunningham coin given in Med. Ind., pi. i, 15, a distinction between


45/52

400 MAHAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASthe two characters is certainly made iu this word (Simhasenasya on the Cunningham specimen); and if the otherproper name?absent, unfortunately, from Colonel Biddulph'scoin?be examined in the light of this distinction, theremaining traces of the character in question certainly showthat it was na and not ha.

The description of the specimen still unpublished is asfollows:?Obv. No distinct traces of date or inscription.Rev. Mahdrdja-k$atra[pa-.]

Rqjho Mahdksatrapasa Svami Simhusenasya.Colonel Biddulph. 55, wt. 26 grs.; PI. 14.

There is, therefore, some positive evidence in favour ofthe change of the old reading Rudrasimha to Rudrasena;but, even if the confusion of the two letters ha and na werequite hopeless, we should be justified in making this changeon purely chronological grounds.In addition to this, the inscriptions of all these coins ashitherto given require correction. The readings of Bhagvanliil (Bh., p. 660) and Cunningham, Med. Ind., p. 8,pi. i, 14, should be amended by the substitution of svasrif/asya or possibly svasriyasya, ^faTJ^J or ^^ffaj^J, for theimpossible form svasryasya ^*f^T^l (Bh.), and for svasriyasa(Cunn.). The distinction between r and ra (ri, ri) appendedto a consonant is almost invariably observed on these coins.

According to General Cunningham's reading of his othercoin (Med. Ind., p. 8, pi. i, 15), Simhasena is called theson of Rudrasimha (rede Rudrasena). It would indeed bestrange to fiud the same person described sometimes as theson and sometimes as the nephew of another I But thisis not the case. Tho reading is wrong. It should be?

Maharaja - ksatrapa - svami- Rudrasena- svasriya[sya] RdjTioMahdksatrapasa Svdmi- Simhusenasya.

The impartial use of the Prakrit and Sanskrit genitiveterminations on these coins is curious.


46/52

OF SURASTRA AND MALAYA. 401It will be noticed that the two classes of Simhasena's

coins show that Rudrasena bore the titles sometimes of RajaMahaksatrapa Sviimi and sometimes of Maharaja KsatrapaSvami. Whether there was any difference in rank denotedby these two designations is not certain.

[PRudra]sbna, son of Simhaskna.[Mahaksatrapa: no dated coins or inscriptions.]

Colonel Biddulph's recently acquired specimen of thisMahaksatrapa is at present unique.

Obv. No date visible ; remains of Greek characters.Rev. Rdjno Mahdksatrapam Svdmi-Simhasenaputrasa Rdjno

Mahdksatrapasa Svdmi-[? Rudra'jsenasa.Colonel Biddulph. -55, wt. 295 grs.; PI. 13.

Unfortunately we cannot be quite certain of the first partof the name of this Mahaksatrapa. The first syllable isprobably ra or ru, or perhaps some compound of which oneor other of these forms the second portion. The secondsyllable seems more like tr or dr than dra. It is possiblethat the name may prove to bo Trdtrnena, or some suchform; but, on the whole, it is perhaps more probable thatthe name is Rudrasena, with the second character ofa somewhat peculiar shape.

Rudrasimha, son of Satyasimha (Bh., p. 662).[Mahaksatrapa : dated coin 310.]

The date 310, quoted by Bhagvanhll on the authorityof Dr. Biihler and General Cunningham, is quite beyonddoubt. It occurs on two of the Cunningham coins?theone published inMed. Ind., p. 7, pi. i, 13, was held to besomewhat doubtful until the discovery of the other (Cunn.,94, 5-7, 744) dispelled all doubt as to the correctness ofthe reading. The only question now is whether the date

may not have been 31.r.j.u.a.b. 1899. 26


47/52

402 MAHAKSATRAPAS AND KSATRAPASThe Mahaksatrapa Satyasimha is still unrepresented in

our collections by any coins of his own. His relationshipto his predecessors is therefore doubtful, and the positionprovis

The coinage of the Mahākṣatrapas and Kṣatrapas of Surāṣṭra and Mālava (Western...

Documents

Transcript of The coinage of the Mahākṣatrapas and Kṣatrapas of Surāṣṭra and Mālava (Western...