User talk:Supi.enet

'''CHAPTER II

DATE OF KHARAVELA'''

The HATHIGUMPHA inscription furnishes the main source materials for ascertaining the life and time of Kharavela, but it being damaged at some places gives rise to important problems regarding the chronological position of this great king. The satisfactory solution of these problems will help in correct apprisal of the history and chronology of ancient India. After decipherment of this inscription by Prinsep, the lacuna gave scope for speculation and scholars tried to place the king of the record in different periods of history ranging from the 4th century B.C. to 1st century B.C. Rajendra, Lal Mitra1 who following Prinsep declared the king as one Aira or Aila ascribed him to the 4th century B.C., while scholars like Fleet2 and Luders3 who came after him placed in the 3rd century B.C.. His reading of the inscription was an improvement upon version of Prinsep5 and R.L. Mitra6 and he was supported by Sten Konow7, K.P. Jayaswal8,R.D. Banerji9 and several other scholars represented by R.P. Chanda10, H.C. Ray Chaudhuri11, B.M. Barua12, N.N. Ghose13 and D.C. Sircar14 placed Kharavela in the 1st Century B.C.. The wide divergence of opinion among scholars makes the problem all the more perplexing and it appears to be a formidable challenge to ascertain in the correct date of Kharavela and to place him in proper sequence of history.

It may be said that the idea of ascribing Kharavela to the 4th or the 3rd century B.C. is based on wrong reading and interpretation of the inscription. Moreover, this appears to be, in the face of it, contrary to known facts of history. Kharavela could not have flourished in the 4th century B.C. when Mahapadmananda occupied and ruled over Kalinga and also in the 3rd century B.C. when Asoka and successors held sway over that territory. So the attempt to assign King Kharavela either to 4th or 3rd century B.C. appears abortive and this can not be considered tenable. It is, however, worthwhile to ascertain which of the two other theories relating to the 2nd century B.C. and the 1st century B.C. be preferred to be correct from the stand point of history. The Hathigumpha inscription provides both direct and indirect evidences with  the help of which we may arrive at a conclusion regarding the date of Kharavela and so these evidences should be properly scrutinised.

The Hathigumpha inscription refers to four important rulers of ancient Indian history in connection with the activities and achievements of Kharavela and the correct determination of the chronological position of any one of them will go to solve the problem. The rulers are Nandaraja, Yavanaraja, Bahasatimita (Brhaspatimitra) and Satakarni. Moreover, the mention of some alleged Maurya era and the expression like “Tivasa Sata” showing the time gap between Kharavela and Nandaraja require careful examination for the purpose.

Before analysing the problems relating to the four historical rules mentioned above, we may scrutinise the question in connection with the Maurya era. The theory regarding the Maurya era was first propounded by Bhagwan Lal Indraji1 on the basis of line-16 of the Hathigumpha inscription, and in accordance with that he stated that the 13th regnal year of King Kharavela corresponded to the 165 year of the Maurya era. He counted this era from 255 B.C. the supposed date of Asoka’s conquest of Kalinga and came to the conclusion that Kharavela’s accession took place in 103 B.C. (255 B.C. -165+13).

Buhler1 accepted the reading of Indraji as “Raja Muriya Kala” and assumed that the era began with the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya which fell within 322-312 B.C. On the basis of that V.Smith2 suggested that although Chandragupta began to reign in B.C. 322 or 321 he was not crowned or anointed till some years later, and so the Maurya era may be synchronous or identical with the seleucidan era of B.C. 312. J.F. Fleet3 did not accept the suggestion of Bhagwan Lal regarding Maurya era and remarked – “The whole passage does not present any date, but tells us that Kharavela restored some texts (still to be identified in the words supposed to give the above meaning) and the sixty-fourth chapter or other division of collection of seven Angas which had been neglected since the time of the Maurya king or kings.”

Jayaswal4 and R.D. Benerji5 in 1917 took the expression ‘Muriya kala’ as Maurya era and counted from the date of accession of Chandragupta Maurya. But sten know6 in 1923 found no era in that expression and explained it as meaning the time of the Maurya king Chandragupta. R.P. Chanda7 also regarded the expression in line-16 as a “very unusual way of stating a date.” Subsequently R.D. Banerji8 gave up the idea of the Maurya era and although Jayaswal continued to hold the reading ‘Muriya kala’ he alongwith Banerji declared in 1930 that “there is no date in Maurya era in the 16th line”9. B.M. Barua10 in 1938 read, ‘Makhiya kala’ in place of ‘Muriya kala’ and D.C. Sircar11 following him read the expression as ‘Mukhiya kala’. Sircar explains the expression ‘Mukhiya Kala Vochhinam’ as chef arts that consist of singing and dancing. This, however, cannot be tenable because ‘Vochhinam’ (Vyavachhinam) which means ‘cut-off’ or ‘suspended’ cannot be taken to mean ‘Samanvitam’ i.e., ‘comprising’ of ‘consisting of’.

It may, however, be said that the word ‘Muriya kala’ in line -16 is a definite reading and the letter ‘ri’ of the word is recognized by all epigraphists invariably from the time of Prinsep to the time of Chanda. This portion of the inscription, as indicated elsewhere, means that Kharavela received ‘Tauryatrika’ (performance of dance, song and concert) included in sixty four branches of art that had been suspended during the period of the Mauryas.

The line-16, therefore, speaks of the Maurya rule and not of a Maurya era. So this can not be help us in determining the date of Kharavela as supported by some earlier scholars.

We now turn to the question relating to the four historical Kings and take up their problems one by one.

Nandaraja : The Nanda King finds mention in Hatigumpha inscription twice in connection with his occupation of Kalinga, Line-6 reveals that he excavated a canal in Kalinga, which was extended in the 5th regnal year of Kharavelato Kalinganagari through Tabasuli (Tosali) and the line-12 states that he took away the Kalinga jina and jewels from the royal house of Kalinga which were brought back by Kharavela along with the treasures of Anga and Magadha. The identification of this Nandaraja has given rise to difference of opinions among scholers. K.P.Jayaswal and R.D. Banerji identify this ruler with Nandivardhana, the Saisunaga king 1 mentioned in the Puranas and the Mahabodhivamsa, while K.C. Panigrahi2 following B.M. Barua3 takes his as Asoka, the illustrious aurya emperor. It may be pointed out that Kharavela at both the places of the inscription refers to the Nanda king (Nandaraja) who, to all possible reasons, belongedto the Nanda dynasty and not to either the Saisynaga or the Maurya dynasty as our learned scholars are inclined to believe. Strangely enough, Jayaswal and Benerji attempted to indentify a legendary character named Purvananda in the Katha Sarit Sagarof Somadeva and Vrhatkatha manjari of Ksemendra (both belonging to the 11 th century A.D.) with the Nandivardhana who in his turn is identified by them with the Nanda King of hatigumpha inscription1. It may be said that Purvananda is not represented as a King in the above works although we find there one Yogananda described as the reanimated corpse of a Nanda king2. It is clear that these two characters are fictitious by nature and they have been given a fairy touch by the imagination of the story tellers. So the attempt to identify the Saisunaga king Nandivardhan with Purvananda is a shadowy figure in Indian history and he no where credited with any conquest. So the attempt to identify him Nandaraja, the conqueror of Kalinga has no historical basis.

K.C. Panigrahi identifies Nandaraja of the inscription with Asoka on the ground that Asoka’s grandfather Chandragupta Maurya is called Nnandanvaya in the Mudraraksasa, a drama attributed to Visakhadatta of the 6th Century A.D. and also that he is known as ‘Purvananda suta’ in the Katha Sarit Sagara of Somdeva. It may, however, be pointed out that Visakhadatta knows Chandragupta as a scion of the Maurya family and he calls him as Mauryaputra3 ( descendent of the Mauryas), Maurya Vrsala4 (bull among the Mauryas) and Mauryendu5 (moon of the Maurya family) at several places in his drama6. This cannot be reconciled with the expression ‘Nandanvaya’ which should be taken here to convey the meaning of succession rather than of descendence. The fact that Chandragupta Maurya succeeded the last Nanda king appears to have confounded Vishadatta to refer to him as Nandanvaya1. Further it has been explained above that Purvananda of the Katha Sarit Sagara of Somadeva or Vrhatkatha manjari of Ksemendra is a character more legendary than historical2 and it would be contrary to sober history if Chandragupta Maurya be made identical with his nickname, the son of Purvananda. Ksemendra knows Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta as belonging to Maurya clan and in his Avadana Kalpalata he calls him a ‘ lion of the great forest of the glorious Maurya family’. Thus the attempt to identify the Nanda king of Hatigumpha inscription with Asoka on the basis of some basis medieval literature has no historical basis and is proved to be abortive.

Early literary sources- Brahmanical, Jaina and Buddhist- invariably agree with the fact that Chandragupta was a scion of the Maurya family (Mauryaputra) and all those authorities make clear distinction of the Maurya dynasty from the Nanda dynasty. So it is quite unhistorical to regard Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, to be Nanda king. Mahaksatrapa Rudradaman, the Brahmanical Saka ruler in his Junagarh Rock insciprion (dated in Saka era 72 i.e. 150 A.D.) declares both Chandragupta and his grandson Asoka as Maurya kings4. It becomes inexplicable why Kharavela would represent Asoka as a Nanda king when Rudradaman knows him as a Maurya king. That Kharavela knew of the Mauryas as distinct from the Nandas is revealed by the Hathigumpha inscription where in line-16 it is stated that he revived the Tauryatrika included in sixty-four branches of art that had been suspended during the time of the Mauryas. It is needless to say that Nandaraja of the Hathigumpha inscription is not a Maurya king and he cannot in any case be taken as Asoka.

History knows only of one Nanda ruling dynasty in which nine Kings including Mahapadmananda flourished1. Te Puranas’s, Jaina works3 and the Cylonese chronicles4 are unanimous in the fact that nine Nanda kings ruled in the dynasty of the Nandas. Nandaraja of the Hatigumpha inscription can be no other thanone of the kings of this historical Nanda dynasty. According to the Puranas, Mahapadmananda, destroyer of all the Ksatriyas (Sarvaksatrantaka) occupied Kalinga after annihilating the ruling Ksatriys dynasty and as such, there can not beany reasonable doubt in identifying this Nanda king, the conqueror of Kalinga with Nandaraja of the Hatigumpha inscription where he is represented as a conqueror of that territory.

In connection with this it is worthwhile to examine the meaning of the expression ‘Tivasa sata’ which occurs in line -6 of the inscription. It is stated there was Kharavela enlarged the aqueduct in his 5th King Nanda. Scholars like Luders5 and V. Smith6 take the expression ‘Tivasa sata’ as 103 years and according to Sten knows7 and R.C. Majumdar8 it represents a reckoning of an era. Sten Knows postulates it to be a reckoning in the Mahavira era, while Majumdar, is of opinion that it is a Hindu era commencing from 458 B.C. as mentioned by Alberuni. But according to Alberuni the era which commence from 458 B.C. is known as Harsavardhana as Nandavardhana10. The correction suggested by R.C. Majumdar is accepted by K.P. Jayaswal and R.D. Banerji and according to that view the aqueduct referred to at line -6 of the inscription was excavated in 335 B.C. (485-103)1. It may be said that earlier in 1917 both Jayaswal2 and Banerji3 strongly criticized Luders for taking ‘Tivasa sata’ as 103 years and they explicitly declared that “it can only mean 300 and not 103 years”. But both of them changed their views in 1927 and also in 1929-30, when they asserted the view that ‘Tivasa sata’ means 103 years representing a date of the Nanda era4. In support of this view they referred to the Yodarave inscription of Chalukya Vikramaditya VI which states –“Having said, why should the glory of the kings Vikramaditya and Nanda be a hindrance any longer? He with a loudly uttered command, abolished that (era) which has the name of Saka and made that (era) which has the Chalukya counting”5. It may be pointed out that neither in the work of Alberuni, nor in the Yodarave record, there has been an explicit mention of a Nanda era, and no historical document of ancient India so far known, has been dated in such an era. So the suggestion that the expression ‘Tivasa sata’ reckons a date in the Nanda era appears conjectural and arbitrary.

Tivasa sata in line-6 cannot be 103 years because this rendering goes against historical facts and grammatical usages. Mahapadmananda occupied the thorne of Magadha in 362 B.C. and ruled upto 334 B.C. After coming to the throne he devoted considerable part if his career to the conquest of the territories of the Iksvakus, Panchalas, Kasis, Haihayas, Kurus, Maithilas, Surasenas, Vitihotras, etc. located in Northen India and after consolidating his newly acquired empire in the North, led his campaign towards the South. His conquest of the South Indian territories like Assaka (Asmaka) and Kalinga very likely occurred towards the later part of his imperial career. The excavation of the aqueduct in Kalinga must have been undertaken by him after full consolidation of his rule in that territory. The work may, however, be said to have been completed before 334 B.C. the year of his death. The tentative date of completion of this bold project may be fixed at 335 B.C. if ‘Tivasa sata’ be taken as 103 years, the extension of the aqueduct by Kharavela would fall in 232 B.C. and that being his 5th regnal year, his accession, in that consideration, will be ascribed to 237 B.C. That was the time when a Kumara Viceroy of Asoka was ruling over Kalinga and as such there is no place for a Kharavela in that territory by that time. Moreover, in line -16 of the inscription 105 has been expressed as ‘Panatariya sata’ and of the same inscription would have meant 103 in line-6, there would have been an expression like “Titariya sata vasa” and “Tivasa sata”. The language of the Hathigumpha inscription being akin to Pali its grammar. In the Jatakas we find, the expression “Panchahi sakata satehi’ meaning 500 carts1. The Chullaniddesa2 a work of the 1st century B.C. while giving the number of Jatakas as 500, express it as ‘Pancha Jataka satani’. In the light of his, the expression ‘Tivasa sata’ must be 300 years and not 103 years3. In line-11 it has been stated that Kharavela shattered the territorial confederacy of the Tamil states that was in existence for 1300 years (Terasa vasa sata). So such expressions must be explained in conformity with the grammatical rules and usages and with sober historical knowledge.

The line -6 of the inscription clearly indicates the date of King Kharavela as his 5th regnal year corresponds to c. 35 B.C. (335 B.C. -300) when he extended the aqueduct of king Nanda.

Bahasatimita : The line -12 of the Hathigumpha inscription reveals that king Bagasatimita (Brhaspatimitra) of Magadha surrendered before Kharavela and paid obeisance at his feet. K.P. Jayaswal1 identifies this king with Pusyamitra Sunga, who laid foundation of the rule of Sunga dynasty in Magadha in 185 B.C. The identification proposed by Jayaswal is based on the astronomical interpretation of the planetary function of Brhaspati (Jupitor). He argues on the authority of Samkhyayana Grahya Sutra (1.26.6) that Brhaspati (other name Jiva) is the regent (Naksatradhipa) of the zodiacal asterism pusya (Tisya) in the constellation Cancer, and so Pusyamitra is represented as Brhaspatimitra or Bahasatimita in the Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela. The identification of of Bahasatimita with a well known historical ruler like Pusyamitra Sunga created a thrill in the field of research and Jayaswal was accepted by a number of well-versed scholars like R.D. Benerji2, Sten Konow3, V.Smith4 and Jouveau Dubreuil5, althrogh his argument was based more on conjectural assumption than on convincing evidence. Later on Ray Chaudhuri6 pointed out that the name Brhaspati cannot be equated with Pusyamitra simply because in literature Brhaspati, Pusyadharman and Pusyamitra occur as names of distinct individuals. R.P. Chanda7 refuted this identification and argued: “Even if we admit that Brahaspati was also indentified by the ancient Hindus with Pusya, that does not justify the identification of Brhaspatimitra with Pusyamitra any more than the denotation of the same god by the terms Skanda and Kumara justifies the identification of Skandagupta with Kumaragupta”. So Bahasatimita of the inscription should be regarded as a distinct individual and need not be taken as identical with Pusyamitra Sunga. The speculation of Jayaswal is farfetched and unacceptable and astronomical explanation should not in this case be allowed to distort facts of history.

In some records of the post-sunga period the name of Brhapatimitra occurs in various manners and even some coins found from Kausambi and Achichhatra regions bear the legend ‘Brhaspatimitra’ indicating that an important ruler of that name flourished in Northern India sometime after the Sungakanva period :- (i) The inscribed brick tablet found at Mora near Mathura2, which commemorates the construction of a temple by Yasamita, the daughter of Brhasvatimita (Brhaspatimitra) and (ii). One of the two Pabhosa incriptions3 near Kausambi commemorating the excavation of a cave by Asadhasena, the maternal uncle of Bahasatimitta (Brhaspatimitra) in the tenth year of King Udaka. Bahasatimitta of the Pabhosa inscription is also represented as the son of Gopali who happened to be a daughter of the Royal family of Ahichhatra. It may be pointed out that in the second Pabhosa inscription Asadhasena, the maternal uncle of Bahasatimitta is described as a king of Ahichhatra. Thus from these two inscriptions Brhaspatimitra is found to be closely related with the royal families of Mathura and Ahichhatra regions the king of Mathura region was his son-in-law and the king of Ahichhatra was his maternal uncle. On paleographic consideration the Mora brick tablet and the Pabhosa inscription cannot be wide apart in time and to all likelihood Brhasvatimitra mentioned by the former and Bahasatimitta referred to by the latter are identical and both the names are out that both Asadhasena and Yasamaita are proud of their relations with king Brhaspatimitra indicating that this king enjoyed considerable political power and prestige during that time.

The identification of king Udaka mentioned in the Pabhosa inscription No. 1, presents some difficulties. Jayaswal4 identifies this king with Odraka, the fifth Sunga ruler mentioned in the Puranas. But this fifth king of the sungas is variously represented as Andhraka, Bhadraka, Ardraka, Antaka, Odraka ruled only for two years2 while according to the Pabhosa inscription No. 1 Asadhasena excavated the cave for the Arhats in the 10th year of the reign of Udaka3.

In the family of Pusyamitra Sunga only one king named Bhaga or Bhagavat, who is the ninth Sunga king, is known to have ruled for more than ten years4, it is, however, not possible to identify Udaka of the Pabhosa inscription with this ninth king as he himself is represented as the fifth Sunga king is the Puranic chronology. The Sunga king Kasiputra Bhagabhadra to whose court Helidoros, the Yavana ambassador came and installed in his 14th regnal year a Garudadhvaja pillar at Vidisa5, has been identified by scholars either with the fifth king Odraka or with the ninth king Bhagabhadra6. The genealogical history of the Sunga rulers, thus presents some problems but neither of the above two rulers can be taken to been identical with Udaka of the Vidisa region. There is no convincing evidence to show that king Udaka of the Pabhosa inscription belonged to the Sunga dynasty and his identification with any of the Sunga kings of the list furnished by the Puranas is far from satisfactory. Udaka flourished at a time when the rule of the Sungas had already been annihilated by the Satavahana king Simuka and the epigraphic record indicates that he was more likely the ruler of the Kausambi region than of Vidisa7.

The coins of Brhaspatimitra are of great importance for determination of his time and the kingdom over which he ruled. The coins bearing the name Brahaspatimitra are generally found from Kausambi region and are restruck  coins. It is. however, noticed that at least one of these coins is paleographical earlier than the other coins of this variety suggesting that there were two kings having the name Brhaspatimitra. John Allan 1 who examined these Kosambi coin writes, “……closely connected with preceding in style, types and date are two inscribed coins bearing the name of Sudeva and Brhaspatimitra, which cannot be later than the first half of the 2nd century B.C. and might even be as early as the 3rd century B.C. This Brhaspatimitra is a different ruler from the Brhaspatimitra who issued struck coins (Non. 16-25) which are comparatively common. Apart from the striking differences in fabric and type the epigraphy is quite different and earlier. (Compare, for example, the forms of ya, sa and ta in the two.) The epigraphy of the former is still roughly speaking Asokan while that of the latter is Sunga.” This earlier Brhaspatimitra may be the Maurya king referred to in the Divyavadana as one of the successors of samprati the grandson of Asoka2.

We are, however, concerned with the later Brhaspatimitra whose coins are found in large number form Kosam (ancient Kausambi) and Ramnagar (ancient Ahichhatra) and are found restruck. Brhaspatimitra of the pabhosa inscription is usually identified with this King and if the provenance of the coins indicates the extent of his territory, it may be said that he had political sway over Kausambi and Ahichhatra regions. In that case he probably obtained suzerainty over Ahichhatra after the death of his maternal uncle Asadhasena, who was ruling over that place when the pabhosa inscriptions were engraved

The date of Brhaspatimitra can be determined by the palaeographic evidence of his coin legends. R.P. Chanda1 points out that the form of medial ‘I’ in the legend is also found in the inscriptions of the Kusanas, as well as, of the Guptas. Moreover, ‘ha’ and ‘sa’ have perfectly equalized vertical lines and ‘sa’ closely resembles with the ‘sa’in the inscription of Sodasa. Under this consideration the coins of Brhaspatimitra cannot be ascribed to the first half of the 2nd century B.C. as suggested by Jayaswal2 and they can be assigned to the second half of the 1st century B.C. The same arguments may also be advance in determining the date of the Pabhosa inscription of Asadhasena. D.C sircar3 point out that the characters of this inscription exhibiting angular froms and sheriff have common peculiarity with the inscription of the Sakas of Mathura. The developed from of medial ‘i’ and medial ‘u’ as well as, the curved base of ‘na’indicates without any doubt a period which cannot be earlier than the second half of the 1st century B.C. So Brhaspatimitra whose coins have been found at Kosam and Ramnagar may be ascribed to the second half of the century B.C.                  Bahasatimita, the adversary of Kharavela has been described in the Hathigumpha inscription as the king of Anga and Magadha and as pointed out earlier, Jayaswal and many other scholars have identified this King with the famous Sunga ruler Pusyamitra. But the palaeography of the Hathigumpha inscription cannot be as early as the time of Pusyamitra Sunga. In the development of the Brahmi letter forms, the characters of the Hathigumpha are to be placed later than those of the Besnagar Garuda pillar inscription of the time of Bhagabhadra identified with the penultimate Sunga king. The angular forms and horizontal base of some of the letter like ‘va’, ‘ma’ , ‘pa’ , ‘ha’, ‘ya’ of the Hathigumpha indicate a definite advance from the Sunga script5 and such peculiarities find striking similarity with the characters of the Pabhosa inscription and of the coin legands of Brhaspatimitra. Jayaswal himself notes that “the characters on the coins of Brhaspatimitra belong to the age of Kharavela’s inscription. The form f every letter in the coin can be pointed out in the inscription except probably of ‘ha’ which got both bars on the coin equal”

The above discussion clearly brings out the fact that King Bahasatimita of Magadha who submitted to Kharavela is identified with Bahasatimitta of the Pabhosa inscription and of the Kausambi and Ahichhatra coins. As known from epigraphic eviences this ruler was ruling over an extensive territory comprising Angady, Magadha, Vatsa (Kausambi) and Panchala (Ahichhatra) during second half of the 1st century B.C. 2. So the date of Kharavela may well be ascribed to that period.

Yavanaraja: In line-8 of the Hathigumpha inscription occurs the name of one Yavanaraja which has been greatly damaged and difficult to be deciphered. K. P. Jayaswal3 reads the name as ‘Yavanaraja Dimata’ and he identifies him with the famous Indo Greek king Demetrius, the contemporary of Pusyamitra Sunga. His reading and identification of this damaged name seems to be for corroboration of his view regarding identification of Bahasatimita with Pusyamitra Sunga. In his attempt to decipher the Hathigumpha inscription jayaswal did not trace the work ‘Dimata’ in any of his reading before 1919. That year he along with R.D.Banerji made a fresh attempt to examine the inscription and subsequently in 1927 Jayaswal declared that he read the work ‘Yavanaraja’ followed by the name ‘Dimata’ and as regards ‘Dimata’he stated that he found the clear trace of the syllable ‘ma’4. Banerji was at one with Jayaswal in his reading of the proper name ‘Dimata’ and sten Konow1 announced: “ I can see ‘Yavanaraja’ as read by Jayaswal and of his ‘Dimata’ the ‘ma’ is quite legible”. Finally Jayaswal and Branerji jointly stated that ‘ma’ could be distinctly read and the first and the third syllable could be made out with great difficulty2. In line-8 of the inscription the work ‘Yavanaraja’ can be clearly read but in the next work noting is visible except a trace of the letter ‘ma’. The restoration of the name ‘Dimata’ is, therefore, conjectural and cannot be accepted to be definite. Scholars like R.P.Chanda and Ray Chaudhuri are not prepared to agree with this arbitrary restoration and while the former questions “what evidence is there to show that this Demetrius can be no other than the son and successor Euthydemos of Bactria? 3, the latter: states that “even if the reading ‘Dimata’ be correct, the reference may be to Diyumata or Diomedes (Whitehead, Indo Greek Coins, p. 36) and not necessarily Demetrius”4. It may be pointed out that Diyumata and Diomedes belonged to the house of Eukratides and hence, their activities can not be extended as far as Pataliputra and Mathura, they being confined to the North-Western part of India5. Not only that the name of the Indo Greek king in the Hathigumpha inscription can not conclusively be read but also his identification either with Demetrius or with Diomedes can not be accepted because it is not possible now to restore the correct name of this King from the damaged portion of the inscription. A fresh attempt has been made by Jagannath6 to receive the theory of Jayaswal regarding identification of the Yavanaking of Hathigumpha inscription with the famous Indo Greek king Demetrius. He argues: “ The most decisive piece of evidence is the mention of the Greek invader who hastily retreated to Mathura on learning of the advance of Kharavela’s army to Rajagrha. It was only once that the Greek armies marched into the Ganges valley and penetrated as far as the metropolis of the recent past i.e. before the rule of Pusyamitra commenced. From the ‘Yugo Purana’ also we learn that the viciously valiant Greek had to beat a hasty retreat on account of a deadly war having broken out among them. There can be no doubt that the references are to the invasion of India by Demetrius who had to hasten back on account of the appearance of his rival Eukratides.” But Jagannath’s arguments are based on various inferences which require scrutiny. He points out that the invasion of Demetrius took place before the accession of Pusyamitra’s accession.

The next inference of Jagannath is that hero of the Greek army referred to by Patanjali and ‘Yuga Purana’ was Demetrius, the son of Euthydemos, and he further assumes that Pusyamitra’s accession to the throne, Kharavela’s invasion of Rajagrha and Demetrius retreat from Madhyadesa are all simultaneous events in history. According to the Yuga Purana, the viciously valiant Yavanas invaded when Vijaya, the brother and successor of Salisuka was ruling over Magadha. Pusyamitra Sunga by that time had not come to the political picture as he came to power after two generations kings. If the invasion and the retreat of the Yavanas be associated with Kharavela’s attack on Rajagrha, the Yavanaraja of the Hathigumpha inscription might be supposed to be Demetrius. But in that case the identification of Bahasatimita of the inscription either with Vijaya or with Pusyamitra Sunga will be unwarranted. The supposition that the invasion of the Yuvanas referred to by the Yuga Purana, as well as by Patanjali, took place at the time of Kharavela’s campaign against Magadha is quite uncalled for, firstly, because the name of the Yavana king in line-8 can not be restored with any amount of certainty and secondly because the King Bahasatimita of Magadha mentioned in line-12 can not be identified with Pusyamitra Sunga. As pointed out above, Brhaspatimitra ( Bahasatimita) was a king of the 1st century B.C. referred to in several epigraphs of the period and known from some of his coins. He can on no account be pushed back to the first quarter of the 2nd century B.C. when the Yavanas (under Demetrius) invaded Madhyadesa. So the Yavana king of the Hathigumpha record must be later than and distinct from Demetrius, and he must also be placed some time in the second half of the 1st century B.C. We know of the Yavanas (Indo-Greeks) penetrating as far as the territories of the Satavahanas even as late as the 2nd century A.D. when they were crushed by Gautamputra Satakarni (106 A.D.-130 A.D.1). It is therefore, not impossible that Yavana king proceeded upto Mathura in the second half of the 1st century B.C. It was during that time that the Indo-Greek kings belonging to the house of Euthydemos were lingering in Eastern Punjab2. They were Zoilus, Apolophanes, Dionysius, Nicias and Hippo statas whose coins are found in considerable number in that region3. The Yavanaraja of Kharvela inscription might possibly be any one of these Kings, but noting definite can be said about this so long as new date are available to throw further light on the identify can be said about this so long as new data are available to throw further light on the identity of this Yavana king. Satakarni : The Hathigumpha inscription refers to the Satavahana king Satakarni who was an elder contemporary of Kharavela. According to line-4 of the inscription Kharavela in the 2nd year of his reign challenged the power of Satakarni and without caring for his military strength sent to the West a large army consisting of horse, elephant, infantry and chariot. The army of Kalinga marched as far as the banks of the river Krsna and struck terror to the city of Asika. Satakarni is known to history from several epigraphical sources, as well as, from numismatic evidences and he being a contemporary of Kharavela, the determination of his proper identification and time is absolutely necessary in connection with the problem of Kharavela’s life and time.

King Satakarni of the Hathigumpha inscription has been identified by Buhler4 with Sri Satakarni of the Sanchi inscription and Nanaghat inscription, as well as Satakarni I of the Puranas. Rapson5 supports the view of Buhler as regards the identification of Satakarni of the Hathigumpha and Nanaghat inscription and the Puranas. But according to him Satakarni of the Sanchi record may be one of several Satakarnis who appear later in the Puranic list. Jayaswal and Banerji identify Satakarnis of the Hathigumpha record with “the third King of the Satavahana dynasty, the husband of Queen Nayanika of the Nanaghat inscription “6. But R.P. Chanda7 suggest identification of Satakarni of the Hathigumpha inscription with Satakarni II of the Puranic genealogy. Ray Chaudhuri1 is inclined to identify Ssatakarni II of the puranas with Satakarni, the successor of Krsna (Kanha) and Satakarni of the Hatigumpha record.

The Puranas present detailed discussion about the genealogical accounts of the Andhra kings who are no other than the Satavahanas. In the Purnic list we find Satakarni I as the third King and Satakarni II as the sixth King of the dynasty2. It is know from the accounts of the Puransa that Simuka or Sisuka, the founder of the dynasty killed Susarman Kanavayana and brought to an end the remnant of the rule of the Sunga dynasty. According to the chronology furnished by the Puranas, Simuka ruled for a period of 23 years3 and after him his brother Kanha (Krsna) ruled for 18 years4 .Kanha was succeeded by Satakarni I, the son of Simuka and he ruled only for a period of 10 years5. In the Nanaghat inscription of Queen Nayanika, the widow Queen of Satakarni I, we find reference to King Satakarni as the lord of the Deccan (Daksinapathapati)6. The Hathigumha inscription corroborates the claim of Nayanika regarding the political authority of her husband over the Deccan. The record mentions King Satakarni not only as the lord of the territory to the West of Kalinga but also indicates that he had political sway over the region watered by the river Krsna and as far as the city of Asika. This leaves no doubt in the fact that Satakarni of the Hathigumpha inscription in the same as that of the Nanaghat cave inscription and that he is identified was Satakarni I the son of Simuka of the Puranic list. The Hathigumpha records speak of him as a powerful ruler in connection with the military campaign of thearmy of Kalinga in the 2nd regnal year of Kharavela. The result of the campaign that year was uncertain. But in the 4th regnal year when the heart of the Satavahana kingdom was invaded and a crushing defeat was inflicted on the Rathikas and Bhojakas the name of Satakarni finds no mention in the account of the Hathigumpha inscription for that year. The omission appears to be significant and can not be considered accidental. Obviously, Satakarni, the performer of two horse sacrifices and the lord of the Deccan, was not there in the 4the regnal year of Kharavela to protect his own territory from the aggression of the army of Kalinga. His short reign of only ten years ended prior to that invasion and his death may thus be assigned to the 3rd regnal year of Kharavela. Form the above discussion it appears clears that Satakarni, the son of Simuka and the husband of Nayanika is identical with Satakarni described in the Hathigumpha inscription as the adversary of Kharavela and also that the 9 th regnal year of King Satakarni coincides with the 2nd regnal year of Kharavela2. While discussing the chronological problem connected with Nandaraja it has already been shown above that the 5th regnal year of Kharavela corresponds to c. 35 B.C and as such, the 2nd regnal year of kharavela, as well as, the 9 th regnal year of Satakarni may be ascribed to c. 38 B.C. Thus the relative chronological position of the Satavahanas and the Mahameghavahanas in the history relating to the 1 st century B.C. may be ascertained on reasonable ground. The controversies relating to the dates of the early Satavahana kings can be resolved in the light of the facts deduced from the Hatigumpha inscription. According to the above consideration Satakarni I, the third ruler of this dynasty ruled from c. 47 B.C. to 37 B.C. and his uncle Kanha or Krsna from c. 65 B.C.to 47 B.C. The rule of Simuka, the first historical ruler of the Satavahana dynasty, who was the elder brother of Kanha and the father of Satakarni I may be ascribed to the period from c. 88 B.C. to 65 B.C.             In the previous chapter (Ch.I) it has already been pointed out that the puranas describe Sumuka, the founder of the Andhra (Satavahana) powers, to have killed Kanva Susarman and uprooted not only the Kanvas but also the remnant of the Sunga rule in Magadha. This evidently indicates that the Sungas and Kanvas were continuing simultaneously till they were deprived of their ruling power by Simuku. It is apparently clear that the intention of these authorities is to indicate that the period of 112 years assigned to the Sunga rule includes 45 years assigned to the Kanvas. In that consideration Simuka destroyed the Sunga-Kanva power simultaneously in 73 B.C. which coincided with his 15th regnal year. The inevitable conclusion is that Kharavela’s 2 nd regnal year and the 5 th regnal year correspond to c.38 B.C and c. 35 B.C respectively and as such, he ruled as the crown prince from c. 49 B.C. to 40 B.C. and was anointed as Maharaja in c. 40 B.C.           The dates arrived at from the above analysis are tentatively correct and in the light of that the activities of Kharavela may be ascribed to the third quarter of the 1 st century B.C. This is supported by the study of the development of art and architecture in India through Barhut, Sanchi, Udayagiri and Khandagiri hills1, and also by the study of evolution of palaeography culminating in the forms of Brahmi letters of the Nanaghat and Hathigumpha 2. The language of Hatigumpha inscription further represents a stage of development from the Old Magadhi found in Asoka’s edicts and the inscription of the Sungas, towards a language akin to Pali and this Pali trend in the inscriptional language of Eastern India indicates a period later than the 2nd century B.C. when both official and non-official records were being issued mainly in Magadhi prakrit. The literary style of the Hathigumpha exhibits a developed form of versification, as well as, of rhythmic prose which is considered to be the Kavya style and the use of this style points to a definite advancement from the plain and simple and simple writing of the Asokan edicts and also of the Sunga inscriptions. The royal titles ‘Maharaja’ and ‘Chakravarti’found in the Hathigumpha and the Manchapuri inscriptions are noticed for the first time in the epigraphic records of ancient India. The titles like ‘Maharaja’ and ‘Maharajadhiraja’ used by the Indian rulers were distant echo of the royal epithets like Basileon , Megaloy and so forth borne by the Greek rulers in India and this also suggests the period later than the 2 nd century B.C.

All these supporting evidences confirm dating of Kharavela in the 1 st century B.C