South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURI CHEDI - ERA

the victory he donated filed to the Buddhist monks living in the caves near Nasik.¹ The Kshaharāta Satrap defeated by Gautamīputra is not named, but he was probably Nahapāna himself; for we know of no successor of the latter. Besides, Gautamīputra is known to have called back and restruck Kshatrapa coins in order to proclaim the establishment of his rule. The Jogaltembhi hoard, discovered in 1906, contained hundreds of coins of this type. But among them there was not a single coin of any successor of Nahapāna, which shows that Gautamīputra came immediately after Nahapāna.²

Now, the last known date of Nahapāna is 46, which it seems best to refer to the Śaka era. It is thus equivalent to circa 124 A. C. Supposing that Nahapāna suffered a defeat in this very year, 124 A. C. becomes the 18th year of Gautamīputra’s reign. Gautamīputra may, therefore, have come to the throne in circa 107 A.C. The Purānas name the successors of Gautamīputra and give their reign-periods as follows:-

Gautamīputra	21 years	circa	107-127 A.C.
Pulumāvi II	28 years	"	128-155 A.C.
Sātakarni	29 years	"	156-184 A.C.
Sivaśri Pulumāvi III	7 years	"	185-191 A.C.
Śivaskanda	3 years	"	192-194 A.C.
Yajñasri	29 years	"	195-223 A.C.
Vijaya	6 years	"	224-229 A.C.
Chandaśrī Śāntikarna	10 years	"	230-239 A.C.
Pulumāvi	7 years	"	240-246 A.C.

The find of potin coins at Tarhālā in the Akola District of Berar plainly indicates that all these kings³ continued to hold Maharashtra to the end of the Sātavāhana age. The reign-periods mentioned in the Purānas are not, however, absolutely trustworthy. In the first place, there are many variants, and even if we take the readings supported by the best MSS., their statements are in some cases contradicted by contemporary inscriptions. The Purānas, for instance, assign a reign-period of only 21 years to Gautmīputra, but from a Nasik cave inscription⁴ he is known to have reigned for at least 24 years. There may, therefore, be similar discrepancies in other reign-periods also. Besides, it is not certain that the battle between Gautamīputra and Nahapāna was fought in the Śaka year 46 and not later. Notwithstanding these circumstances which render the accuracy of the dates doubtful, we may say that the Sātavāhanas continued to rule in Maharashtra till the middle of the 3rd century A. C. The Purānas say that the successors of the Andhras ( i.e., the Sātavāhanas) were the Ābhīras. And it is worthy of note that we do find an inscription of the reign of the Ābhīra king Īśvarasēna, the son of the Ābhīra Śivadatta, at Nasik.⁵ Its characters and the predominance of Sanskrit in its language suggest that Īśvarasena flourished later than the Sātavāhanas, all of whose records are in Prakrit.Īśvarasēna’s father Śivadatta bears no princely title. This indicates that Īśvarasēna was the
_____________________ .

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, pp. 71 ff.
² See P. H. A. I.(fourth ed.), p. 490.
³ J. N. S. I., Vol. II, pp. 83 ff. The hoard contained coins of Sātakarni (probably identical with Gautamīputra),Pulumāvi, Śivaśrī-Pulumāvi, Skanda (probably identical with Śivaskanda),Yajñaśrī, Vijaya, Karna, probably the same as Chandaśrī-Śāntikarna and Puluhāmavi (probably identical with Pulumāvi IV). Some of the coins with legend Sātakanisa can, on palæographic grounds, be referred to a Sātakarni later than Gautamīputra. They were probably issued by the (Vāsishthīputra) Sātakarni who according to a MS. of the Vāyupurāna succeeded Puļumāvi and ruled for 29 years.D. K. A., p.42.
⁴ Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 73.
⁵ No. I.