BUDDHIST RELIQUARIES

FROM ANCIENT INDIA

MICHAEL WILLIS

WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY JOE CRIBB AND JULIA SHAW

Published for The Trustees of

The British Museum by

~
BRITISH MUSEUM Tii1TITI
~
PRESS
 3
Early Indian History
Placing the Buddhist and predominantly local history given
in the preceding chapters within a larger political framework
poses a number of problems due to the fragmentary and seem-
ingly contradictory state of the historical evidence. This situ-
ation is a common feature of Indian history but not unique to
it, there being similar gaps in the ancient Near East and else-
where. The problem of establishing a general and workable
chronology for ancient India is not insurmountable, but it
does require an examination of the relevant evidence as a
whole and, more critically, not treating any historical ques-
tion in isolation. While the following essay is not encyclope-
dic in this regard, it presents an overview of the crucial data in
sufficient detail to provide a viable chronology of the two
centuries at the beginning of the current era. 1
There are two important starting points for an examina-
tion of Indian chronology in the centuries immediately after
the start of the common era. The first is coastal western India
where there was contact between the ports controlled by local
Indian rulers and incoming traders from the Mediterranean
world. The second is the kingdom of the Ku~iii;tas which had
contacts with the Chinese military regime in Xinjiang. Both
these points of contact were documented in written sources
which can be dated with reasonable precision in terms of the
common era.
Two ancient Greek texts, dated with some certainty,
record the links with western India. The earliest is the
Peri.plus of the Erythraean Sea, an anonymous record of navi-
gation and trading conditions in the Indian Ocean, written in
Greek by an unknown traveller in the region, probably based
in Alexandria in Egypt. As we will detail below, his account
of conditions in northern and southern Arabia show that he
was documenting events during the period AD 40-70, describ-
ing the political conditions in western India, naming its local
kings and centres of political and economic power. The
author of the Periplus mentions a king called Manbanos,
based in Broach, who controlled the international trade of
western India. This king can be identified as the ruler of
Broach known from coins and inscriptions as Nahapana. The
39
information provided by the Periplus and by the coins and
inscriptions provide evidence of Nahapana' s relationships
with the Satavahana kings with whom he was competing for
power. The second Greek text is the Geography of Ptolemy,
compiled in the early decades of the second century and
completed c. AD 130. Also written in Alexandria, it records
that the two political centres controlling western India were
Ujjain (where the ruler was Tiastanes) and Baithan (where the
ruler was Ptolemaius). These rulers can be identified as
Ca~tana and PuJumavi who, according to numismatic and
epigraphic evidence, followed soon after Nahapana.
An examination of this information, taken up in detail in
the following pages, allows for a reasonably accurate
chronology of Nahapana, Ca~tana and their southern neigh-
bours, the Siitavahanas. Following from this, the connections
of the western Indian rulers with north India has implications
for the chronology of the Saka, Parthian and Ku~iii;ta kings.
Chinese contacts with the Ku~iii;tas, which offer a second
point of external datable evidence, provide necessary corro-
boration in the context of coins and inscriptions.
Western K~atrapas
A convenient and useful point of entry for a discussion of
chronology is provided by the coin finds and hoards which
show that there were two series of rulers who called them-
selves k~atrapa or mahiik~atrapa (satrap or great satrap). One
series consisted of three rulers: Aubheraka, Bhumaka and
Nahapana (fig. 16). 2 They used the family name K~aharata.
The second series consists of a long line of up to thirty-four
rulers beginning with Ca~tana (fig. 16), his son Jayadaman
and his grandson Rudradaman. 3 These rulers are not given a
family name. The coin designs of Nahapana (the last of the
first series) and ofCa~tana (the first of the second) are so simi-
lar as to suggest that the issues were contemporaneous or,
perhaps more likely, that the first series of coins was followed
almost immediately by the second.
 INTRODUCTION
Saka era
Unusually for Indian coins, the second senes provides
evidence for the chronological context of their issuers. From
the reign of Rudrasirilha I, son of Rudradaman, the coins are
dated in a consecutive era. This has long been accepted as the
Saka era, commencing in AD 78 and still used as an official
calendar in India. The earliest date on the coins is 100 (AD
177-8). 4 There is little dispute about the identification of this
era as the Saka era, but the main reasons used to establish it
are worth repeating here.
(a) The prime evidence comes from the synchronism of the
Saka era and the Gupta era. The latest recorded dates on coins
in the second series are 314, 324 and 337, i.e. AD 391, 401 and
414. 5 The series was followed by coins of the Gupta king
Candragupta II dated year 90 + [x] in the Gupta era. 6 The
close similarity of the K~atrapa and Gupta coins indicates that
they were issued in the same period, with general historical
considerations making it likely that Gupta coins were poste-
rior. According to al-Biruni, the Gupta era began 241 years
afterthe Saka era, i.e. the Gupta era began inAD 319-20. 7 The
dates on the coins show a correspondence between the Saka
and Gupta calendars (Saka years 314, 324 and 337 would be
Gupta years 73, 83 and 96). The first Gupta coins (copied
from K~atrapa examples) are dated Gupta year 90 + [x], i.e.
AD 410 + [x], and this accords with the appearance of
Candragupta II in an inscription of Gupta year 82 (AD 401)' 8
This is at Udayagiri in territory which may have once been
under the K~atrapas.
(b) The earliest evidence for the Saka era appears in western
India where the coins were circulated. 9
(c) The foundation of the Saka era is traditionally associated
with Ujjayini, the capital of Ca~!ana, the first ruler of the coin
series using the dates.
The dated coins therefore place the K~atrapa rulers in a
period that spans the late second to early fifth centuries AD.
The chronological position of the earlier K~atrapa rulers in
this line whose coins do not carry dates is not so clear cut.
Some evidence from coins indicates family relationships.
Jayadaman is the father of Rudradaman, who is the father of
Damajadasri. Rudradaman is also identified on coins as the
father of Rudrasirhha who issued coins as successor to his
brother Damajadasri. These are dated from Saka year 100
(AD 177-8).
This sequence of rulers is supplemented by information
taken from stone inscriptions. Ca~!ana is named as the father
40
of Jayadaman in later K~atrapa inscriptions. 10 Several
inscriptions and Ca~!ana's own coins name his father as
Ghsamotika, but no coins have been recovered for him. On
the basis of this evidence it is possible to construct a family
tree of the ruler issuing coins before Saka year 100. Some
dates can be added to this family tree by reference to dated
inscriptions relating to some of these rulers. Ca~!ana is named
in three dated inscriptions: year 6 (Daulatpur), 11 (Andhau)
and 52 (Andhau). 11 Rudradaman appears in inscriptions,
which name both Ca~!ana and Rudradaman, whether Ca~!ana
is being named as the grandfather of Rudradaman or as his
long-lived co-ruler. The family tree and relevant dates are
summarized in the following genealogical table:
TABLE 3. Genealogical table of the early K~atraparulers
Ghsamotika
year6 CastJna
year 11 ··1
Jayadaman
I
year 52 Rudradaman
year72
I
Damajadasri
12
year 100 Rudrasirhha
The sequence of rulers, established by their genealogy,
coins and dated inscriptions suggests that the Saka era used by
these kings reaches back to the beginning of their rule.
Cunningham first suggested that the era is an extension of the
regnal dates of Ca~!ana. The era has also been attributed to the
Ku~ai;i.a king (either Kai;i.i~ka I or Vima Takto) responsible for
bestowing power on Ca~!ana and his family .13
Dating Nahapana
The dating of the first series of K~atrapas, i.e. Aubheraka,
Bhumaka and Nahapana, does not yield to so straightforward
a solution. Their coins do not bear dates and their family rela-
tionships are not indicated on their coins or in inscriptions.
They are nevertheless all identified on their coins as
K~aharatas and need therefore to be considered as a group.
Their coin designs suggest a similar connection and point to a
sequence. Aubheraka and Bhumaka both issued copper coins
with a design depicting the linked standards of Vasudeva
Kf~i;i.a (cakra) and Sarhkarsana Balarama (plough with
 EARLY INDIAN HISTORY
lion/elephant heads). 14 Aubheraka's coins had a Greek
winged victory in the other side, Bhumaka's a thunderbolt-
and-arrow motif. This same motif appears on Nahapana's
silver coins, which have his portrait on the other side, and
on his copper coins which have a tree on the front. It is
therefore suggested that the coins of the K~aharatas were
issued in the following order: Aubheraka, Bhumaka,
Nahapana(fig. 16).15
Support for this sequence can also be drawn from the
connections between the K~aharata coins and those issued by
their northern neighbours, the Indo-Parthians of ancient
Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. The Greek winged
Victory on Aubheraka's coins is close to that on the coins of
Gondophares, the first Indo-Parthian ruler, issued in the
Kabul region. 16 Nahapana's coins, however, are recorded
overstruck by the coins of Sasan, the second successor of
Gondophares who was ruling about ten or twenty years after
the end of Gondophares's reign (fig. 16). l7
The same connection also offers some evidence for
dating the reigns of the K~aharata K~atrapas. If it is accepted
that the Indo-Parthian Gondophares ruled in the Kabul and
Taxila regions during the period c. AD 20-45, then this places
the parallel coinages of the K~aharatas during and shortly
after the same period, i.e. Aubheraka before and Nahapana
after AD45.
Dating Gondophares
The evidence for dating Gondophares to AD 20-45 is as
follows:
(a) Gondophares is mentioned as king of north-western India
in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, a second- or third-
century-AD Christian text documenting a widely held tradi-
tion of the apostle Thomas's mission in India c. AD 40. The
same source refers to the king's brother Gad whose name also
appears on coins of the period of Gondophares. 18
(b) Gondophares's Kabul-region coins copy their winged
Victory design from an Iranian coin design first used on the
issues of the Parthian king Vonones I who ruled c. AD 8-12. l9
(c) Gondophares issued a copper coin (probably in the Taxila
region) with a design featuring a king on horseback being
greeted by a goddess holding a wreath. This was copied from
an Iranian issue of AD 26, minted for the Parthian king
Artabanus rpo
(d) The ancient Greek text chronicling the life of the philoso-
41
pher Apollonius ofTyana records his visit to an Indo-Parthian
king at Taxila in the AD 40s. 21
(e) Gondophares's name appears in an inscription found in
Gandhara. 22 This inscription is dated in the twenty-sixth year
of his reign or era and also 103 in the Azes era. The Azes era
has been identified with the Vikrama era beginning in 58-7
Bc. 23 If this identification is accepted, then the dates in the
inscription place the beginning of Gondophares' s reign or era
in AD 20 and its twenty-sixth year in AD 45. 24
Nahapana before Ca§tana
The dating of the K~aharatas which results from this dating of
Gondophares places them before the K~atrapas of Ca~tana's
line. This confirms the evidence suggested by Ca~tana's coins
which are based on those of Nahapana. The sequence
Nahapana-Ca~tana is demonstrated by the evolution in
design observed on the coins of Ca~tana. Both Nahapana's
and Ca~tana's have a bust on the obverse surrounded by
an Indian inscription written in Greek letters pavvto
~ariapmas- Narianava (for Nahapana) and pavvto
~a'tpanas 't<X<Havacra (for Ca~tana). Their reverses have
similar designs, showing a motif in the centre surrounded by
an Indian inscription. Nahapana uses the thunderbolt-and-
arrow motif with the inscription: rajflo ktjaharatasa nahapii-
nasa in briihmi characters on its right and ratio caharatasa
nahapanasa in Kharo~thi characters on its left. Ca~tana uses a
crescented hill motif surrounded by sun, moon and ocean
symbols as his central motif. At first the inscriptions followed
Nahapana's coins: rajtio ktjatrapasa catjtanasa (on the right in
briihmi) and ratio catrapasa catanasa (on the left in
Kharo~thi). This underwent a gradual process of development
with the briihmi expanding and the Kharo~thi contracting.
The patronymic ghsamotikaputrasa was added in briihmi and
Ca~tana was re-titled mahiiktjatrapasa. The Kharo~thi portion
was reduced to just catanasa. On his last issue the Kharo~thi
was no longer used and the same applied to the coins of his
successor Rudradaman. In Ca~tana's latest coins and
Rudradaman's issues the Greek inscription has become blun-
dered (fig. 16). 25
Nahapana 's dated inscriptions
There is one problem which appears to contradict this analy-
sis of the dating of the K~aharata K~atrapas. It is the existence
 INTRODUCTION
of a group of inscriptions naming Nahapana dated 41-6 in
an unspecified era. 26 It has been suggested that these are
dated in the Saka era. This has led to the reign of Nahapana
being dated to the early second century AD (Saka years
41-6 being equal to c. AD 118-23). As will be discussed
below, these inscriptions were made shortly before N ahapana
lost the region where they were found (Nasik, Junnar and
Karla), thus Nahapana's reign has been thought to end in
C. AD 124. 27
Such an interpretation of the dates in these inscriptions
does not take account of the evidence about Nahapana which
we have presented in the foregoing paragraphs; additionally it
does not accord with information about Nahapana and his
successors and neighbours that can be gleaned from (a) the
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a Greek text that describes
trading conditions around the Indian Ocean, and (b) the rela-
tionships of the K~aharatas and Saka K~atrapas with the
Satavahanas, their southern neighbours.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
It has been suggested by many scholars that the Periplus actu-
ally describes the kingdom of Nahapana. 28 This proposal is
based on the identification of Nahapana with a king who is
named in the text as Manbanos and described as controlling
the ports of western India. The equation of Nahapana with
Manbanos was based on the location of their respective king-
doms and the resemblance of their names. The strength of this
argument is reinforced by comparing what is testified by the
Periplus with what is now known about Nahapana.
Periplus account
The king's name is Manbanos in the earliest manuscript
traditions, not Mambaros as in some later manuscripts. 29
N ahapana evidence
Manbanos can be explained as a copyist's error for
Nambanos, which is the most likely transcription into
Greek of the name N ahapana. 30
Periplus account
The centre of Manbanos's kingdom was Barygaza
(modem Broach) at the mouth of the Narmada, with
Ozene (modem Ujjain) as the former capital; he also
controlled the coast westwards as far as the Gulf of
Kutch and south as far as the Bombay region, controlling
the port Kalyan and the hinterland as far as Paithana
(modem Paithan).
42
Nahapana evidence
Most of the surviving examples of Nahapana's coins
were found in the Jogalthambi hoard, discovered near
Nasik. His inscriptions come from the same region.
These point to his control of the Bombay region. A
smaller hoard has been found also in Gogha,
Kathiawad. 31 While this illustrates his rule west of
Broach, as yet no coins have been found in Broach
itself.
Periplus account
Manbanos' s neighbours to the west were Parthians
ruling the lower Indus region (Sind).
N ahapana evidence
N ahapana' s coins were overs truck by and on the coins of
Indo-Parthian rulers from Sind, Sasan and Satavastres. 32
Periplus account
Before Manbanos took control of the Bombay region, it
had been under the control of the ruler called Sarganus
the Elder. This is thought to be the Satavahana ruler
Satakan:ii, to whom we shall return below.
N ahapana evidence
Satavahana coins circulated in the Bombay region
before the time of Nahapana's coins and inscriptions.
The local Pai than-region copper coins of the Satavahana
king Gautamiputra Sri Satakall)i have been overstruck
by Nahapana. 33 In the Jogalthambi hoard, Nahapana's
silver coins were in their tum overstruck by the same
Satavahanaking (fig. 16).34
Periplus account
The very war-like Bactrians (i.e. the Ku~ai:ias) ruled over
regions to the north, beyond the peoples of Gandhara
(Gandaraioi), the Kabul region, Arachosia, and the
Punjab.
N ahapana evidence
Some of the Sind lndo-Parthian coins overstruck on
Nahapana were issued by Sasan, the last Indo-Parthian
ruler in Gandhiira and the Punjab before the Ku~ai:ia
conquest of those regions (fig. 16). The Ku~ai:ia ruler
Kujula Kadphises, who was responsible for the
conquest, also issued coins in Sind after the issues of
Sases overstruck on Nahapana's coins.35
Periplus account
Old Indo-Greek coins of Menander and Apollodotus
were to be found in the Barygaza market.
 EARLY INDIAN HISTORY
Nahapana evidence
The Gogha hoard ofNahapana coins (mentioned above)
also included a large number of coins of the lndo-Greek
king Apollodotus II.36
Periplus account
Roman coins were accepted in Barygaza for exchange
with local currency.
N ahapana evidence
Analyses of the silver content of Nahapana's coins
shows that they were probably made from melted-down
Roman silver coins.37
On the foregoing evidence it is difficult to separate Manbanos
from Nahapana. There is certainly no other candidate to be
proposed as an alternative for the role played by the king
named in the Periplus. The date of the text must therefore be a
significant component in the dating of Nahapana. This itself
has been a subject of considerable debate, partly because of
the proposal, discounted above, that N ahapana' s known years
be dated according to the Saka era.38
Date of the Periplus
Given the evidence as a whole, thePeripJusshould bedated to
the mid-first century AD, within the limits AD 40-70. These
limits have been set by the identification of Malichus, the
king of Petra named in the Periplus, with Malichus II king of
the N abateans in AD 70.39 Objections raised by Pirenne to this,
on the basis of the analysis of south Arabian history as
described in the Periplus, have now been completely removed
by the discovery of several inscriptions in the Yemen. These
show that the political situation in south Arabia described by
the Periplus only existed in the first century AD. 40
Fussman has also pointed out that the description of the
Ku~a9as (the war-like Bactrians) as beyond Gandhara, etc.
only fits with the period before Kujula Kadphises's conquest
of Gandhara. 41 He dated this to c. AD 50 but a little later would
be more acceptable, i.e. shortly before AD 65 (Azes era 122)
when the first recorded Ku~a9a inscription from Gandhara
was made. 42 This later date is necessary to accommodate
certain coinages between Gondophares (ruling after AD 20
and until about AD 40) and Kujula. These coinages are those
of Abdagases, Aspavarma and Sasan, the Indo-Parthian
successors of Gondophares in Gandhara. Therefore the
chronological context of north-west India as described in the
Periplus matches that found for both north and south Arabia.
43
K~atrapas and Siitaviihanas
The relationships between the K~atrapas and their
Satavahana neighbours also provides evidence that
Nahapana's reign predated that of Ca~tana. Nahapana's
contacts with the Satavahanas are well documented by coin
overstrikes and inscriptions. The references in the Periplus
mentioned above also record the same situation. Nahapana
appears to have conquered the coastal provinces of the
Satavahana kingdom, perhaps as far inland as their capital
Paithan. This took place in the reign of Gautam1putra Sri:
Satakar9i, sometime after Gautamlputra's samvat 7 but
before his samvat 18, the date of two inscriptions at Nasik. 43
Apart from this evidence for N ahapana' s capture of the region
during the early part of Gautamiputra Sri Satakafl)i's rule,
there are Nahapana's overstrikes of the Satavahana's
Paithan-region copper coins. 44 Gautamiputra recaptured his
territory within a few years and in tum overs truck Nahapana' s
silver coins. The dated inscriptions show that Nahapana's
control of Satavahana territory lasted for less than eleven
years.
The Satavahanas appear to have held their own until the
period of K~atrapa Rudradaman who, by the time of his
Gimar inscription of Saka era 72 (AD 149-50), could claim
that he had twice defeated the Satavahana king Satakafl)i.
This Satakafl)i appears to be either (a) Vasi~thiputra Sri:
Satakafl)i, the second Satavahana king after Gautam1putra, or
(b) Gautamiputra Sri Yajfia Satakafl)i, the third king after
Gautamiputra. The reign dates of the Satavahanas docu-
mented by inscriptions show approximately how many years
elapsed between Gautarniputra's defeat of Nahapana and
the victories of Rudradaman. Gautamiputra's successor
Vasi~thiputra Sri Pujumavi ruled for at least twenty-four
years (fig. 17); Vasi~thiputra Sri: Vijaya Satakafl)i, the next
king, ruled for at least thirteen years; after him Gautarniputra
Sri Yajfia Satakaf9i ruled for at least twenty-seven years (fig.
17; see Table 4).
The length of these reigns allows two calculations. The
first supposes that Rudradaman defeated Vasi~thiputra Sri:
Satakafl)i. If this was the case, then we need to add (a) the
remaining five years ofGautamiputra's reign after his defeat
ofNahapana with (b) the known length of Pujumavi's reign
(at least twenty-four years) with (c) the approximate number
of years in Vasi~thiputra Sri: Vijaya Satakafl)i's reign before
he was twice defeated by Rudradaman (perhaps as much as
thirteen years, the total documented length of Vasi~thiputra' s
reign) . This yields thirty years at a minimum (i.e. 5 + 24 + 1)
and forty-two years as a maximum (i.e. 5 + 24 + 13). 45 The
 INTRODUCTION

TABLE 4. Indo-Parthian, K~atrapa and Satavahana rulers

Gregorian year Indo-Parthian Satavahana

20 Gondophares (Simuka?) Satavahana
25 Sr!Satak~i
30 Aubheraka
35
40 Abdagases (Azes [= VS] 98)
45 Gondophares Bhumaka
(samvat26/Azes [= VS]103)
50 Nahapana Gautarnlputra Satak~i
(regnal years 1-24)
55 Sasan
60 Gondophares sam vat 41
65 Kujula (Azes [=VS] 122) Gondophares samvat46
70 Vasi~thlputra Sri Pujumavi
75 Kujula (Azes [= VS] 136) Ca~tana (regnal years 1-24)
80
85 [samvat6]
90 samvatll
95 Vasi~thlputra Sri Satakan:ii
100 (regnal samvatl-13)
105 Sri Y ajila Satakan:ii
110 (regnal samvat 1-27)
115
120
125 Rudradaman Vasi~!hlputra Sri Vijaya
130 samvat 52 (regnal samvatl-6)
135 Gautarnlputra Sri Candra
140 (regnal samvat 1-3)
145
150 samvat72
155
160 Damajadasri
165
170 Rudrasiriiha
175 samvat 100

second option is that Rudradaman defeated Gautamiputra Sri
Yajfia Satakarl).i. 46 If this was the case, then the above calcu-
lations still hold, but we need to add an additional number of
years, perhaps as many as twenty-seven, to account for the
time that Sri Yajfia was on the throne before his defeat by
Rudradaman. This option yields forty-three years at mini-
mum and sixty-nine years as a maximum.
These calculations are important as they show the
amount of time between Nahapana's defeat at the hands of
Gautam1putra and Rudradaman' s subsequent victory over the
Satavahanas. Now if Nahapana' s inscriptions are reckoned in
the Saka era, then the gap between Gautam1putra's defeat of
Nahapana (after Saka year 46) and Rudradaman's defeat of
Satakarl).i (before Saka year 72) can be no more than twenty-
six years (i.e. 72 - 46 = 26). But, as we have just noted,
Satavahana regnal dates show that the gap between these two
military events is thirty years at a minimum and sixty-nine
years at a maximum. This is enough to demonstrate that
Nahapana's dates are not in the Saka era. The use of the Saka
era simply does not provide enough time when we take the
Satavahana regnal dates into account. It needs to be stressed
that thirty years is the smallest possible gap; in our view the
discrepancy is actually significantly greater as Rudradaman' s
victories probably came either toward the end of
Vasi~thiputra Sri Satakarl).i' s reign or, even more likely, in the
reign of a subsequent Satavahana king. 47 The logical conclu-
sion, therefore, is that Nahapana's dated inscriptions are not
to be reckoned in the Saka era. The only known dating system

44
 EARLY INDIAN HISTORY
that fits in the context suggested by the K~aharata numismatic
evidence is the regnal era of Gondophares. As noted above,
this commenced in c. AD 20; thus Nahapana's year 45 should
be c. AD 65 (i.e. 20 + 45 =65). The link between the coins of
Aubheraka and Gondophares suggests that the K~aharatas
could have become K~atrapas under Gondophares and
retained his dating system as they moved towards indepen-
dence.
IfN ahapana' s dates are in the regnal era of Gondophares,
then years 41-6 in his inscriptions show him in possession of
Satavahana territory during the period c. AD 60-65 . It is not
clear whether this is the full extent of his period of possession,
which could extend earlier or later. It could not have lasted
much more than eleven of the eighteen years of Gau-
tam1putra' s reign, which had elapsed by the time Nahapana
was defeated. 48 Nahapana's control of Gautamiputra's terri-
tory, as reported in the Periplus, therefore cannot have begun
more than about eleven years before AD 65 (i.e. AD 54).
Neither could Nahapana' s control of Gautamiputra' s territory
have continued for more than about eleven years after AD 60
(i.e. until AD 71). This bracket of AD 54-71 corresponds well
with the chronology of the events described in the Periplus
based on the date of Malichus II of Petra, i.e. AD 40-70, and
further on the date of the Ku~arya invasion of Gandhara, i.e.
before AD 65. The Periplus seems therefore to be describing a
brief episode in the political history of western India between
c. AD 54 and 65. On the basis of this view it seems likely that
Nahapana's reign came to an end a short time before the
beginning of Ca~tana's reign.
Sa ta vahana synchronism
The dating of Nahapana to the middle decades of the first
century AD has considerable bearing on the chronology of the
Satavahanas. As the overstruck and overstriking coins show,
Gautamiputra Sr1 Satakari:ii' s reign is contemporary with that
ofNahapana. Building on this foundation, a relative structure
can be built for the chronology of his successors on the basis
of the lengths of their reigns as recorded in inscriptions.49 If
Gautam1putra ruled in about AD 48-71 (i.e. his year 18 is
about AD 65), then his successor Pujumavi reigned in about
AD 71-94, his successor Vasi~th1putra Sri Satakari:ii in about
AD 94-106, his successor Gautamiputra Sri Yajfia Satakari:ii
in about AD 106-132, his successor Vasi~thiputra Sri Vijaya
Satakari:ii in about AD 132-8 and his successor Gautamiputra
Sri Candra Satakari:ii in about AD 138-40.
The sequence of Satavahana kings used here is
45
suggested on the basis of numismatic and inscriptional
evidence. An inscription at Nasik indicates that Pujumavi
immediately followed Gautam1putra. 50 The coin design used
by these kings makes it clear that Vasi~thiputra Sri Satakari:ii
is the direct successor of (and probably the brother of)
Pujumavi. Sri Yajfia Satakari:ii's coin designs follow next, but
for the last two kings, Vijaya and Candra, the sequence is not
clear. The sequence for them used here is derived from the
Purii{la texts which seem to provide a reasonably reliable
guide to this period, including both the order of the kings after
Gautamiputra and the length oftheirreigns. 51
Another piece of evidence placing Pujumavi in the
period c. AD 71-94 and thus as a contemporary of Ca~tana (c.
AD 78-130) is the description of western India given by the
Greek geographer Ptolemy writing in the c. AD 130s. Ptolemy
(7: 1: 63) was apparently using a slightly dated source which
identified Paithan as the capital of Sri Pujumavi (Siro
Ptolemaios) and Ujjain as the capital of Ca~tana (Tiastanos).
Early Satavahanas
The Satavahanas before Gautamiputra Sri Satakafl)i are not
so well served by inscriptions or by the Purii{la tradition.
From the numismatic evidence it can be shown that there
were at least two Sataviihana kings before Gautamiputra who
issued significantly large coinages. Their names were
Satavahana and Satakary.i. 52 There are also smaller groups of
coins which could be issues of these two kings or of separate
rulers. Preserved names on coins are: Siri Sata or Sati (possi-
bly an abbreviation of Satakary.i or Satavahana), Chimuka
Satavahana, Kanha, Kosikiputa Satakary.i and Kochiputa
Satakary.i (fig. 17). 53
The sequence of these rulers and the areas they
controlled is difficult to determine with any degree of preci-
sion but three stone inscriptions relate to these rulers and
provide some hints. The first, on one of the Sanchi gates,
mentions king Siri Satakary.i. 54 This ruler can be connected
with the coins giving the name Satakary.i and Sata; these coins
appear to be derived from the local copper issues of Eran,
Vedisa and Ujjain. 55 Although there was perhaps more than
one early king with the name Satakary.i, there can be little
doubt that the Satakal).i coins from Malwa and Tripuri were
issued by the Satakai:i.i of the Sanchi gate inscription.
The second stone inscription which mentions the early
Satavahanas is at Nanaghat. 56 The main inscription records a
sacrificial performance and mentions some royal personages
not directly relevant to the present discussion; accompanying
 INTRODUCTION
this record are some inscribed labels for a set of royal portrait
sculptures (the images themselves have been destroyed with
only traces of the feet remaining). One of the labels gives the
name of king Simuka Satavahana Sirimata; a second gives the
names of queen Nayanika and king Siri Satakani. Simuka is
apparently the father of king Satakani; it seems likely that he
was the progenitor the Satavahana dynasty and that he is
represented by the coins with the name Satavahana. 57 The
second king, Satakani according to the Nanaghat label, can be
none other than the ruler of the same name in the Sanchi gate
inscription. The coins of Satakani are often more primitive
than those with the name Satavahana, but this may be due to
the local conditions under which they were minted. In any
event it appears that Satakani ruled for an extended period,
perhaps as much as twenty-five or thirty years. This is
suggested by the rich variety of issues giving his name (or
variants of it), their wide distribution and the fact that most
subsequent rulers included Satakani as part of their name. The
last stone inscription is at Nasik and gives the name Kanha. It
describes him as being of the Satavahana family. 58 Coins and
a seal have also been found with the name Kanha, although
the coins are not typologically related to other issues gener-
ally recognized as Satavahana. The accounts in the Purii.I}a
texts suggest that Kanha was a brother of Simuka. 59
The dates of (Simuka) Satavahana, Satakai:ii and Kanha
are not given in the inscriptions. Attempts to date the
Nanaghiit inscription in palaeographic terms have led to
suggestions ranging from the second century BC to the first
century AD. The only concrete evidence comes from the close
link of the coins of (Simuka) Satavahana, Satakai:ii and
Gautamiputra. This shows they are not far removed from each
other in time and that they belong in the first half of the first
century AD. Satakai:ii is most probably 'Sarganus the Elder',
named in the Periplus as a previous ruler (i.e. before
Nahapana/Manbanos).6° He appears to be called the 'Elder'
to distinguish him from the second Satakai:ii, i.e.
Gautamiputra Sri Satakari:ii, who, at the time the Periplus was
written, had lost to Nahapana all the territory which would
have brought him into contact with Graeco-Roman traders.
The epigraphic and numismatic evidence does not accord
well with the Pural}a traditions, one of which places Simuka
and Satakai:ii in the mid-third century BC, succeeded by about
twenty other kings before the time of Gautamiputra. The
Purana record before Gautamiputra is obviously not as reli-
able for chronological evidence as the record of the kings
after him.
46
Summary
The evidence presented and discussed thus far suggests that
the K~aharata K~atrapas are to be dated before c. AD 70.
Nahapana can be identified with Manbanos in the Periplus,
which describes his control of western India at some time
during the period AD 54-65. The western K~atrapas
succeeded to part of Nahapana's domain from about AD 78.
The Satavahanas preceded the time of Nahapana by a rela-
tively short period during which Satakai:ii, Satavahana and
other members of the same clan ruled and Gautamiputra
began his long reign. Table 4 is intended to give an approxi-
mate summary of the chronology worked out so far in this
study.
North-west Indian contacts
The foregoing discussion has focused mainly on the western
Deccan but it is necessary to tum to north-west India in order
to clarify the chronological relationship between the K~atra­
pas, Satavahanas and their Indo-Parthian neighbours and the
early Ku~ai:ia rulers from central Asia. The dating of the
Ku~ai:ias has been a subject of considerable controversy. Like
the other royal houses discussed in this section, they used a
continuous calendar (the Kai:ii~kha I era), the absolute
chronological position of which is uncertain. However, the
relatively recent discovery of a long Bactrian inscription
giving a genealogy of the first four Ku~ai:ia kings has helped
clarify some of the main historical problems and has
explained the context of the records of Chinese contact with
the early Ku~ai:ias. The inscription in question was found in
1993 on a hill locally known as Kafirs' Castle, in the region
called Rabatak, 40 kilometres north of Pul-i Khumri. 61 The
text of the inscription has been studied and published by
Professor Nicholas Sims-Williams and the implications of
the reading explored by the present writer in several places. 62
To facilitate the present discussion, the translation is given
here; for original text and detailed philological comments, the
reader is referred to the articles of Professor Sims-Williams
which have been cited in the notes.
Text of the Rabatak inscription 63
(1) ... of the great salvation, Kanishka the Kushan, the
righteous, the just, the autocrat, worthy of divine
worship, (2) who has obtained the kingship from Nana
and from all the gods, who has inaugurated the year one
 EARLY INDIAN HISTORY
(3) as the gods pleased. And he issued a Greek edict
(and) then he put it into Aryan.
(4) In the year one it has been proclaimed unto India,
unto the whole realm of the Kshatriyas, that (5) (as for)
them- both the (city of) Wasp and the (city of) Saketa
and the (city of) Kausambi and the (city of) Pataliputra,
as far as the (city of) Sri Campa (6)-whatever rulers
and other powers (they might have) he has submitted
(them) to (his) will, and he had submitted all (7) India to
his will.
Then king Ka9ishka gave orders to Shafar the karalrang
(8) at this ... to make the sanctuary which is called
B ... ab in the plain of the (royal) house, for these (9)
gods, whose service here the ... glorious Umma leads
(namely:) the above-mentioned Nana and the above-
(lO)mentioned Umma, Aurmuzd, the Gracious one,
Sroshard, Narasa, (and) Mihf.64
And he (11) gave orders to make images of the same,
(namely) of these gods who are written herein, and (12)
he gave orders to make (them) for these kings: for king
Kujula Kadphises, (his) great (13) grandfather, and for
king Vi ma Taktu, (his) grandfather, and for king Vima
Kadphises (14), (his) father, and also for himself, king
Ka9ishka.
Then, as the king of kings, the devaputra (scion of the
race of the gods) (15) ... had given orders to do, Shafar
the karalrangmade this sanctuary. (16) [Then ... ] the
karalrang and Shafar the karalrang and Nukunzuk the
ashtwalg(l 7) performed the (king's) command. (As
for) these gods who are written here, may they [keep]
the (18) king of kings, Ka9ishka the Kushan forever
healthy, fortunate (and) victorious.
(19) And [may] the devaputra, rulerof all India from
the year one to the year one thousand (20) ... the sanctu-
ary was founded in the year one; then in the third year
[it was] completed (21) according to the king's
command, also many rites were endowed, many atten-
dants endowed, also many ... (22) ... the king gave an
endowment to the gods and for these ... which [were
given] to the gods (23) ... [traces only].
Historical implications and numismatic context
The most striking fact in the Rabatak inscription is that it
names (in line 13) a previously unrecognized king Vima
47
Tak[to], whose position among the early Ku~a9as is clearly
indicated. Now that we know his name, we can recognize his
portrait sculpture and his name in stone inscriptions and coin
legends (see fig. 17). Previously these finds were associated
with the king identified in the Rabatak inscription as Vima
Kadphises. The portrait sculpture is a massive seated figure
found at the Mat sanctuary near Mathura. It can now be iden-
tified as Vima I's portrait on the basis of its inscription which
calls him vematak$uma (in briihml).65 He is also the Vima of
the Dasht-e Nawiir inscription, where he is named 'Ooemo
Tak ... ' (in Bactrian). 66 As to the coins, Vima Tak[to] can also
be recognized as the anonymous issuer of the Ku~a9a 'Soter
Me gas' type. His name appears on three different groups. The
first are the bull-and-camel coins with the name Verna Takho
(in Kharo~!hi). 67 The second consists of two coins of the
'Soter Megas' type, with both Greek and Kharo~!hi inscrip-
tions. The Greek and Kharo~thi inscriptions are normally
anonymous, but on an example in the Lahore Museum and on
another in the British Museum the king's name Verna has
been added at the end of the Kharo~!h1 legend. The third series
is represented by a single coin, now in the British Museum.
This coin is a copper drachma with a seated image in the
same posture as the Mat sculpture. He is accompanied by the
Soter Megas symbol and the Bactrian inscription 'Ooemo
Tak .. .'.68
Although the identification of a new king is of the utmost
historical importance, the context in which Vima Tak[to] is
mentioned in the Rabatak inscription is especially critical for
Ku~a9a history and chronology. Vima Tak[ to] is named as the
second of three ancestors of Ka9i~ka I, whose family relation-
ships are also described, with the great grandfather being
Kujula Kadphises, the grandfather being Virna Tak[to] and
the father being Vima Kadphises. This gives a firm structure
for the history of the early Ku~a9a kings, affirming Ka9i~ka' s
direct connection to the Ku~a9a rulers before him. The
Rabatak inscription, which refers to the first year of Ka9i~ka
and was probably produced in his third year, makes it clear
that the Ku~ai:ia rulers traced the origin of their dynasty to
Kujula Kadphises and that they considered the following
kings down to Kai:ii~ka to have been part of a direct royal
succession. All four were designated shao (king) and were
therefore thought to have their own distinct reigns.
Early Ku~iiJJaS in coins and inscriptions
The sequence of four early Ku~ai:ia kings established by the
Rabatak inscription can be correlated with the sequence of
 INTRODUCTION

TABLE 5. Ku~al).a king list based on epigraphic and numismatic evidence

Ruler's name Rabatak inscription Dated inscriptions Coins

Kujula Kadphises KO/;OAO KaO<J>tcro Kii~aga KOZOYAO KA.M>IZOY
years Azes era 122-36 (Kharo~thi: kujula kasasa)
Vima I Tak[to] 001'"!µ0 'tCXK'tOO Vima Tak[to] ~QTHPMErAL
year279 (Kharo~thi: vema takho)
Vima II Kadphises ooriµo KaO<J>tcro Vima Kadphises OOHMO KAil<l>ILfil
year 284 or 287 (Kharo~thi: vima kathpisasa)
Kagi~kal KCXVTJpKO Kagi~ka Greek: KANH]JKOY
years 1-23 Bactrian: KANH]JKI
Huvi~ka Huvi~ka OOH]JKI
years 26--64
Vasudeval Vasudeva BAZOilHO
years 64--98
Kagi~kall Kagi~ka KANH]JKO
years 5-17
Vasi~ka Vasi~ka/V ajhe~ka BAZH]JKO
years22-30
Kagi~ka III Kagi~ka KANH]JKO
year41
Vasudevan Vasudeva BAZOilHO
year 170 ( briihmI: vasu)

Saka Saka (briihmI: §aka)

(subject to Samudragupta)
Kipunada (briihmI: kipunada)

surviving coins and inscriptions. The coins attributable to the
early Ku~aI).aS suggest a series of four rulers which parallels
the Rabatak inscription: Kujula Kadphises, the anonymous
Soter Megas (now identifiable as Vima Tak[to]), Vima
Kadphises and Kal).i~ka I. There are several groups of coins of
Kujula Kadphises. Their position at the beginning of the
Ku~al).a series is clear from their designs which are derived
from lndo-Greek, lndo-Parthian, lndo-Scythian and Roman
coins. Overstrikes and copied designs show that Kujula
Kadphises issued coins south of the Hindu Kush as a contem-
porary and successor to the Indo-Parthian rulers Gondo-
phares and Abdagases in Kabul, to Abdagases and Sasan in
Gandhara/Taxila and to Sasan in Sind, and as conqueror of
their Indo-Scythian neighbour the satrap Zeionises (Jihonika)
in Kashmir. 69
The next Ku~al).a coins are the Soter Megas series (fig.
17), demonstrably issued after Kujula Kadphises because the
designs are copied from and overstruck on the coins of Sasan,
the last Indo-Parthian ruler in Taxila and a contemporary of
Kujula Kadphises. Alongside the Soter Megas coins are those
issued in the name ofVima Tak[to], already identified above,
some of which (bull-and-camel types) follow the issues of
Kujula Kadphises. After the Soter Megas types, the next
Ku~al).a issue consists of the coins in the name of Vima
Kadphises. These copy the script style and part of the inscrip-
tion of the Soter Megas coins; they also continue the use of the
'Attic' weight standard reintroduced for the Soter Megas
coinage, but with new denominations, including gold. This
use of gold was continued by Kal).i~ka I. The script style and
use of Greek language on Kal).i~ka's first issue exactly copy
the last issues ofVima Kadphises. The reign after Kal).i~ka I is
confirmed as that ofHuvi~ka by a die link between a late coin
of Kal).i~ka I and an early coin of Huvi~ka. 10
Like the coins, stone inscriptions feature four early
Ku~al).a kings, but outside the Rabatak record the first king is
called 'Ku~al).a' rather than Kujula Kadphises. Despite this
difference, the sequence of rulers is in agreement with their
dated records. The year 279 Dasht-e Nawiir inscription of

48
 EARLY INDIAN HISTORY
Vima Tak[to] precedes the year 284 (or 287) of the Khalatse
inscription ofVima Kadphises. 71 The inscriptions of the king
simply called 'Ku~a1,1.a' are dated 122 and 136 in the Azes era.
This is nineteen and thirty-three years after the inscription of
the twenty-sixth year of Gondophares which is dated year 103
(in the Azes era). 72 The king named 'Ku~a1,1.a' was therefore a
contemporary of the successors of Gondophares and occu-
pied the same chronological slot as the coins of Kujula
Kadphises. The dated inscriptions thus confirm the sequence
Kujula Kadphises, Vima Tak[ to] and Vima Kadphises.
Further support for the sequence of early Ku~a1,1.a kings
comes from the inscription on the sculpture from Mat that
represents Vima Tak[to]. The inscription describes him as
ku$ii-{laputro, i.e. son of Ku~a1,1.a. This points to the identifica-
tion of 'Ku~a1,1.a' with Kujula Kadphises, the father, as we now
know from the Rabatakinscription, ofVima Tak[to]. The so-
called Heraus coins were also issued in the name of king
'Ku~a1,1.a' but identified on a bilingual issue as coins ofKujula
Kadphises. 73
The inscriptions of Ka1,1.i~ka I started a new era, initially
based on his regnal dates, a practice already apparent in
Ka1,1.i~ka's first year according to the Rabatak inscription.
Subsequent inscriptions of the Ku~a1,1.a kings clearly name
successors for at least a century. The various sources of infor-
mation on the Ku~a1,1.a kings are summarized in Table 5.
The picture of Ku~a1,1.a history established by the Rabatak
inscription and correlated with inscriptional and numismatic
data can now be reviewed in the light of chronological
evidence relevant to the absolute dating of the early Ku~a1,1.a
rulers.
Chinese connections
The identification of Kujula Kadphises as the first significant
ruler of the Ku~a1,1.a dynasty gives support to the suggestion
that he is the same person as the Ku~ a1,1.a chieftain Qiu-jiu-que
named in the Han chronicle Hou Han Shu.74 According to this
source, Qiu-jiu-que, leader of the Ku~a1,1.a clan, conquered and
unified the Great Yuezhi tribes and invaded the territory of
the lndo-Parthians (the Kabul valley, Gandhara and Kashmir)
before dying at the age of eighty. The Rabatak inscription
suggests that Kujula's son Vima Tak[to] ought to be identi-
fied as the king called Yan-gao-zhen who, according to the
Chinese source, succeeded his father Qiu-jiu-que as Ku~a1,1.a
king and went on to add India to his dominion.
The identification of the first two Kusana rulers in the
Chinese sources with Kujula Kadphises and Vima Tak[to]
49
agrees with the distribution of their coins. Kujula Kadphises' s
coins are found across the territories conquered by Qiu-jiu-
que as the first Ku~a1,1.a coins issued in the area. They are
followed by coins in the name of Vima Tak[to] in Kashmir
(bull-and-camel coins) and by his Soter Megas coins else-
where. The role of Vima Tak[to] as Yan-gao-zhen, the
Ku~a1,1.a king who added India to the Ku~a1,1.a realm, is
supported by his apparent role at Mathura deep in Indian terri-
tory. The inscription of the Mat portrait sculpture names him
as the ruler under whom the shrine was first established; the
earliest Ku~a1,1.a coins found in the vicinity are also a local
series of his Soter Me gas coins.
The Chinese account of the Ku~a1,1.as provides some
evidence for the absolute chronology of the Ku~a1,1.as. The
story of Qiu-jiu-que and his son was included in the Hou Han
Shau as part of a report on the activities of the Chinese general
Ban Chao who was in Chinese Turkestan (Xinjiang) between
AD 73 and 107. The information was recorded by his son Ban
Yong before he also became a general in Central Asia in AD
126. 75 Ban Chao's last direct contacts with the Ku~a1,1.as were
in AD 86, when they sent ttibute, and in AD 90, when he
defeated their army of invasion. If, however, the information
was gained indirectly, then it could have been gathered as late
as AD 107 when Ban Chao went back to China. From AD 107
to 126 there was no Chinese military or political presence in
Central Asia. 76 On the basis of the suggested link between the
first two Ku~a1,1.a kings in the Rabatak inscription and the first
two Ku~a1,1.a kings in the Chinese account, it can be proposed
that Vima Tak[to] had been occupying the Ku~a1,1.a throne
long enough before AD 107 (and perhaps even before AD 90)
to have 'conquered India'. This is clearly an important
consideration for any understanding of Ku~a1,1.a chronology
and history.
Khotanese connections
The above references to Ban Chao' s campaigns suggest there
is a close link between Chinese Turkestan and the early
Ku~a1,1.as. This is given a concrete dimension by the discovery
of coins of the first four Ku~a1,1.a kings at the ancient site of
Khotan, Ban Chao's military base between AD 73 and 107.
Hermaeus imitations (posthumous imitations of the coins of
the lndo-Greek king Hermaeus) attributed to Kujula
Kadphises were used as blanks for overstriking by a
Khotanese king. Kujula Kadphises' bull-and-camel coin
design was copied by another Khotanese king on his coins. A
bull-and-camel coin of Vima Tak[to] and a few regular
 INTRODUCTION
copper coins of Vima Kadphises have also been found at
Khotan. More than twenty small copper coins of Ka9i~ka I
have been found in the vicinity of the site, some together with
coins of the Khotanese kings. One Khotanese king copied the
denomination system of these small Ka9i~ka I coins. These
Khotanese kings, associated through their coins with Kujula
Kadphises, should be dated before Ban Chao' s occupation of
Khotan in AD 73 while the coins associated with Ka9i~ka
should be placed after Ban Chao's departure in AD 107.77
Indo-Parthian connections
The relationship of the Indo-Parthian king Gondophares to
the rulers and coins of western India has already occasioned
detailed discussion (see pp. 41-3). To briefly summarize,
Gondophares ruled from c. AD 20 to 40 and his successors
were Abdagases and Sasan, the second being the last Indo-
Parthian before the Ku~a9a conquest. Sasan controlled
Gandhara and the lower Indus and issued coins there. His
Sind issues were overs truck on coins of N ahapana. The lower
lndus Parthian coins were followed by copies in the name of
Kujula Kadphises. 78 These facts indicate that Kujula
Kadphises was subsequent to Gondophares and that he over-
lapped with the last Indo-Parthians. This is confirmed by his
stone inscriptions. To again summarize ground already
covered, the twenty-sixth year of Gondophares is dated Azes
year 103; thefirstknownrecordofking 'Ku~a9a' (i.e. Kujula
Kadphises) is dated Azes year 122. This works out to c. AD
46-7 andAD 65-6 respectively.
Sasanian connections
There are no immediate links between the kings named in the
Rabatak inscription and the Sasanians, but later Ku~a9a rulers
can be associated with the Sasanian princes who ruled parts of
what was once Ku~a9a territory and bore the title kushanshah.
Overstrikes and coins hoards establish that either Vasi~ka or
Ka9i~ka III were ruling when the Sasanians conquered west-
ern parts of the Ku~a9a realm. On the basis of this and related
evidence, the reign of Ka9i~ka III can be placed in the range of
c. AD 230 and270. 79 As Ka9i~ka11Iruled about 130-141 years
after Ka9i~ka I (according to the Ara inscription), this
provides a bracket of c. AD 100-120 for Ka9i~ka I's first
year.so
50
Gupta connections
The relationship between the Ku~a9a and Gupta kings of
north India can be ascertained from both inscriptional and
numismatic evidence. The earliest Gupta coins are gold
issues in the name of king Samudragupta. His coins are of two
types: a main Gupta-style series copying features from the
gold coins of the Ku~a9a kings from Ka9i~ka II to Vasudeva
II; and a Ku~a9a-style issue of base gold copying the design of
the late Ku~a9a rulers Saka and Kipunada. Both these
coinages show Samudragupta to be a contemporary of the late
Ku~a9as. This is confirmed by the Allahabad pillar inscrip-
tion where king Saka is said to rule under Samudragupta's
authority. 81 Samudragupta's reign can be placed between the
reign of his father Candragupta I, who began the Gupta era in
c. AD 319, and his son Candragupta II, whose recorded dates
begin in c. AD 401. 82 These connections place the late Ku~a9as
after Vasudeva II in the opening years of the fourth century.
As an inscription of Vasudeva II is dated 170 in the Ku~a9a
era, this provides another indication that Ka9i~ka I was ruling
in the first part of the second century AD. 83
C:hronologicalsuII1111ary
The evidence of the Rabatak inscription and the above exter-
nal connections of the early Ku~a9as produces a workable
chronology for the Ku~a9a kings. The nature of the evidence
means that this chronology remains approximate, but by iden-
tifying Vima Tak[to] and fixing his position in the dynasty,
the Rabatak inscription confirms the chronological impor-
tance of the Chinese sources. The summary of the evidence
put forward about the Ku~a9as is summarized below in
Table 6.
The first- to second-century Greek sources relating to
Nahapana and his contemporaries in western India and the
second-century Chinese sources concerning the Ku~a9as in
north-western India provide an absolute chronology for the
events within India which have been revealed by the study of
coins and inscriptions. Overstruck coins link the reigns of
Nahapana with the Satavahanas in the south and Parthians in
the north. Both the Parthian king Sasan and the Satavahana
king Gautamiputra Sri Satakafl).i overstruck with their own
designs coins previously issued by Nahapana. Nahapana's
own coin designs have been recorded overstruck on coins of
Sasan's predecessor in the Sind, Satavastres, and on early
issues of Gautamiputra Sri Satakafl).i. Further north Sasan's
coins were overs truck with the designs of the second Ku~a9a
 EARLY INDIAN HISTORY

TABLE 6. Ku~aJ:i.a kings and their dates

Ku~a1,1a kings Local eras from inscriptions approximate AD dates

earliest latest

Kujula Kadphises Azes era years 122-136 30-78

VimaITak[to] unknown era year 279 78-90 78-110
Vima II Kadphises unknown era year 284 or 287 90-100 110-20
Ka1,1i~ka I Ka1,1i~ka era years 1-23 100-126 120-46
Huvi~ka Ka1,1i~ka era years 26-64 126-64 146-84
VasudevaI Ka1,1i~ka era years 64-98 164-200 184-220
Ka1,1i~kaII Ka1,1i~ka era years [1]05-[1] 17 200-222 220-42
Vasi~ka Ka1,1i~kaera years [1]22-[1]30 222-40 242-60
Ka1,1i~kaIII Ka1,1i~kaera years [1]41 241-70 261-90
Vasudevan Ka1,1i~ka era year 170 270-310 290-330
Saka contemporary of Samudragupta 310-45 330-65
Kipunada 345-65 365-85

king Vima Takto. These connections and the relative dates of
the external Greek and Chinese sources place these events in
the first and second centuries AD creating a clearer account of
the history of the region during these centuries.
The results of this overview also provide some accurate
detail to a previously confused account. We can now be
certain that the Saka era is not the era of Kal).i~kha. We can
also be certain that the inscriptions of N ahapii.na are not in the
Saka era. This has relevance for dating sites where K~atrapa
and Sii.tavii.hana inscriptions appear in relation to early sculp-
ture, and suggests a framework for comparing the develop-
ment of sculptural styles between the different regions of
India during the first and second centuries AD.
JOE CRIBB

NOTES
1 Michael Willis asked me to prepare a numismatic and historical
introduction to his catalogue following our conversations about
early Indian chronology and the relevance that numismatic studies
might have for clarifying the history of early Indian sculpture. The
following essay draws heavily on my papers, Cribb, 'Western
Satraps and Satavahanas: Old and New Ideas of Chronology' in
Ex Moneta: Essays on Numismatics, History and Archaeology in
Honour ofDr David W. MacDowall, ed. Amal Kumar Jha and
Sanjay Garg (Nasik, 1995), pp. 151-64 and Cribb, 'The Early
Kushan Kings: New Evidence for Chronology', in Coins, Art and
Chronology: Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Inda-Iranian
Borderlands, ed. M. Alram and D. Klimburg Salter (Vienna,
1999), pp. 177-205.
2 Aubheraka was originally identified as Aghudaka by M.
Mitchiner, Inda-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage, 9 vols
(London, 1975-6), 9: 823, no. 1249. He has been more correctly
named as Abhiraka by R.C. Senior, 'Agudaka?-A New
Discovery Gives a Clearer Reading', NS 3 (1993): 35-8. Other
specimens have been published by A.S. Altekar, 'A Kshaharata (?)
Copper Coin', JNSI12 (1950): 5-7; H.V. Trivedi, 'Notes on Some
Western Kshatapa Coins', JNSil 7 (1955): 89-90; D. Rajgor,
'Coin of an Unknown Kshaharata Kshatapa', ND (1988-9):
12-16; Amiteshwar Jha and Dilip Rajgor, Studies in the Coinage
of the Western K$atrapas (N asik, 1994), pp. 21-2, 79-80.
Mitchiner also attributed coins to two other K~aharata rulers,
Ladhanes (op. cit., no. 1244-5) and Piyasu (op. cit., nos 1246-8).
R. Senior, 'Goodbye Ladhanes', ONS Newsletter(l996), has
shown that these coins were misread and that they do not mention
the word K~aharata in any form. Senior has made further amend-
ments to the reading of the coins of the first K~aharata satrap:

51
 INTRODUCTION
obverse in Greek reads Aubirakou and reverse in Brahm! reads
Aubheraka (pers. comm.). For coins ofBhumaka and Nahapiina
see Jha and Rajgor, Studies, pp. 22-9, 80-109.
3 For coins of Ca~~ana, Jayadiiman and Rudradiiman see Jha and
Rajgor, Studies, pp. 29-32, 110-27.
4 Ibid., pp. 134-5; Rajgor, 'An Inventory of Dates Known on the
Coins and Inscriptions of the Western Kshatrapas', NS2 (1992):
87-105.
5 Jha and Rajgor, Studies, pp. 241-6.
6 John Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties
(London, 1914), pp. 49-50.
7 P.L. Gupta, The Imperial Guptas (Varanasi, 1974), pp. 169-222,
for evidence relating to the Gupta era.
8 CII3 (1981), no. 7.
9 Jha and Rajgor, Studies, p. 68; for K~atrapa coins in Sanchl and the
neighbourhood, ibid., pp. 71, 75.
10 Rajgor, 'Inventory of Dates', details this information.
11 V.V. Mirashi, The History and Inscriptions of the Siitaviihanas and
the Western Kshatrapas(Bombay, 1981), nos 63, 45 and46-9.
The attribution of the year 6 inscription to Ca~tana is questionable.
12 In Jha and Rajgor, Studies, pp. 8 and 130, coins with the name
Diimaghsada are taken to indicate another son ofRudradiiman
ruling between Damajadasr! and Rudrasirilha.
13 A. Cunningham, Coins ofAncient India (London, 1891 ), pp.
106-7, and Coins ofMedievalindia(London 1893), pp. 2-5; A.
Mariq, 'The Date of Kanishka', in Papers on the Date ofKanishka,
ed. A. Basham (London, 1968), pp. 179-99, summarizes argu-
ments on this point; Cribb, 'Numismatic Evidence for the Date of
the Periplus', in Indian Numismatics, History, Art and Culture:
Essays in the Honour ofDr P. L. Gupta, ed. D. MacDowall et al.
(Delhi, 1992), pp. 131-45, further explores CaHana's association
with the Saka era; more recently in Cribb, 'Early Kushan Kings',
the idea has been put forward that the Saka era may have been
inaugurated by Vima Tak[to], as the Ku~a1_1arulerby whom
Ca~~ana was made a satrap.
14 The wheel and lion/elephant plough standards are paralleled by the
types on a unique coin in the British Museum, J. Allan, Catalogue
of the Coins ofAncient India (London, 1936), p. 281, no. 17.
15 For coins of Aubheraka, Bhumaka and Nahapiina see above,
note 2.
16 Mitchiner, Coinage, nos 1082-5, 1087.
17 Cribb, 'DateofthePeriplus'.
18 Acts of Thomas 2: 17-29 as translated by M. R. James, The
Apocryphal New Testament(Oxford, 1924). This describes the
encounter between the apostle and king Gondophares and his
brother Gad. For coins with the name Gad, see Mitchiner,
Coinage, nos 1094-9.
19 For relevant Gondophares types see Mitchiner, Coinage; for the
Vonones type see D. Sellwood, An Introduction to the Coinage of
Parthia (London, 1980), pp. 194-5 (type 60).
20 For the relevant Gondophares type, Mitchiner, Coinage, no. 1080;
for Artabanus II type, Sell wood, Coinage ofParthia, p. 202, type
63.
21 Philostratus, Life ofApollonius ofTyana, trans. F.C. Conybeare
(London, 1912) describes a Parthian kingdom in north Pakistan
about AD 46 ruled by a king Phraotes from Taxila.
22 CII2 (1929): 57-62 'maharayasa guduvharasa vash[e] 20 4 11 '.
52
23 G. Fussman, 'Nouvelle inscriptions Saka: ere d' Eucratide, ere
d' Azes, ere Vikrama, ere de Kanishka', BEFE067 (1980): 1-43;
A.D.H. Bivar, 'The Azes Era and the Indravarma Casket', South
Asian Archaeology 1979 (Berlin, 1981 ), pp. 369-76; Cribb, 'Early
Kushan Kings'.
24 The publication of a Kharo~thl inscription dated year 98 of the
Azes era in the reign of Abdagases suggests that the Gondophares
'year 26' was during the reign of his nephew and successor
Abdagases. It would therefore follow that year 26 of Gondophares
represents a date in Gondophares' s era rather than in his reign. A.
Sadakata, 'Inscriptions kharo~thl provenant du marche aux antiq-
uites de Peshwar', Journal asiatique (1996): 301-24.
25 Cribb, 'Date of the Periplus', and P.J. Turner and Cribb in
'Numismatic Evidence for the Roman Trade with Ancient India'
in The Indian Ocean in Antiquity, ed. J. Reade (London, 1994),
pp. 309-19.
26 Liiders, EilO (1912): appendix, no. 1133 (Nasik, samvat4l, 42,
45), no. 1174 (Junnar, samvat46).
27 For this interpretation, David MacDowall and D.G. Wilson, 'The
References to the Kushans in the Periplus and Further Evidence
for its Date', NC(1970): 221-40
28 L. Casson, The Periplus Maris Erythraei, Text with Introduction,
Translation and Commentary(Princeton, 1989), pp. 197-8. This
edition represents a republication of the Periplus based on the most
reliable versions of the text; all discussion here is based on this
edition.
29 Ibid., pp. 76-7.
30 This is the reading in Casson, Periplus; the lingusitic arguments
linking Nahapiina and Manbanos are given in Fussman, 'Le
Periple et historie politique de l'Inde', Journal asiatique (1991):
31-8.
31 For this hoard, J. Deyell, 'In do-Greek and Ksaharata Coins from
the Gujarat Seacoast', NC(1984): 115-27.
32 Cribb 'Date of the Periplus'; Turner and Cribb, 'Numismatic
Evidence'.
33 The coins are examples of Nahapiina' s copper types overstruck on
examples of Gautamlputra Sr! Satakar1_1i's copper types. See E.J.
Rapson, Coins of the Andhra Dynasty(London, 1908), nos 252
and 59-86; also Jha and Rajgor, Studies, pp. 105-6.
34 Ibid., pp. 99-104.
35 Cribb, 'Date of Periplus'; Turner and Cribb, 'Numismatic
Evidence'.
36 Deyell, 'Coins from the Gujarat Seacoast'; Osmund Bopearachchi,
Monnaies greco-bactrienne et Indo-grecques: Catalogue raisonne
(Paris, 1991).
37 P.J. Turner, 'An Investigation of Roman and Local Silver Coins in
South India' (PhD thesis, University of London, 1984). Turner has
analysed the silver content of the silver coins ofNahapiina,
Ca~tana and the later satraps. She found that only Nahapana's
coins had the same fineness as contemporary Roman silver coins;
Turner and Cribb, 'Numismatic Evidence', pp. 312-13.
38 Fussman, 'Le Periple', rightly pointed to the unresolved conflict
between the evidence of the assocation between N ahapana and the
Peri plus and the second-century date previously assigned to him.
39 Such a date, or slightly narrower versions of it, have been argued
by Casson, Periplus Maris Erythraei; Fussman, 'Le Periple'; C.
Robin, 'L' Arabie du sud et la date du Periple de lamer Erythrae',
 EARLY INDIAN HISTORY
Journal asiatique (1991 ): 1-30; Cribb, 'Date of Periplus'; Turner
and Cribb, 'Numismatic Evidence'.
40 Robin, 'L' Arabie du sud', has effectively refuted Pirenne's argue-
ments in 'La date du Periple de lamer Erythree', Journal asiatique
(1961): 441-59.
41 Fussman, 'Le Periple'.
42 Fussman, 'Nouvelle inscriptions', builds a chronology using an
earlier dating for Kujula Kadhphises than now seems acceptable;
see further below.
43 Liiders, EilO (1912): appendix, no. 1146 (sarhvat 7);
Gautamiputra's inscription of samvat 18 (ibid., no. 1125) refers to
lands formerly enjoyed by Usabhadata, the son-in-law of king
Nahapana, which shows Gautamiputra had taken the area from the
K~atrapas.
44 Jha and Rajgor, Studies, pp. 105-6.
45 In the thirty-year option we are allowing one year for Va~thiputra
before his two defeats; extreme sceptics may reduce the total to
twenty-nine years on the assumption that Rudradaman defeated
him twice during his first year of rule. That Va~\:hiputra should
have continued to rule for thirteen years after such an ignoble start
is possible but unlikely.
46 The Kanheri inscription was taken by Rapson, Coins of the Andhra
Dynasty (p. li), as referring to the queen of Vasi~thiputra Sri
Pu!umavi. The inscription speaks of the queen ofVasi~thiputra Sri
Satakaf1.1i as the daughter of the great satrap Rudra. This could
represent Pu!umavi' s brother Satakaf1.1i. There was, however,
another later Satavahana ruler named Vasi~thlputra Vijaya Sri
Satakaft.1i who appears to be a more likely candidate for the great
satrap Rudra's son-in-law.
47 Jha and Rajgor, Studies, pp. 5-6, pursues the same calculations
following a different route and concludes that Nahapana's dates
are regnal years. However, the final conclusion is the same,
namely thatNahapana's dates cannot be in the Saka era.
48 The eleven years is the difference between Gautamiputra' s inscrip-
tions of samvat7 and 18 at Nasik which we have already noted; see
above, note43.
49 Mirashi, History and Inscriptions of the Satavahanas, pp. 1-94.
50 Liiders, EilO (1912): appendix, no. 1123.
51 Ghulam Yazdani, ed., The Early History of the Deccan, 2 vols
(London, 1960), discusses the use of the Puriifla texts and the
dating of the Satavlihana kings.
52 For coins reading raflo siri siilak8f!isa found in Tripuri, see I.K.
Sarma, Coinage of the Satavahana Empire (Delhi, 1980), p. 190
(pl. IX J2); for those of Satavahana, ibid., pl. IV; for a more up-to-
date list, Chandrasekhar Gupta, 'A Patin Coin of King Satavahana
from the Deccan', Studies in South Indian Coins 3 (1993): 73-80.
53 For a square punch-mark coin reading [ra]flo siri siitasa found in
Hoshangabad district (not far from Sanchl), see S.L. Katare, 'A
New Coin of the Satavahana Sri Sata Satakaft.1i', JNSI12 (1950):
95. For those with the name Kanha, see Amiteshwar Jha and P. D.
Chumble, 'Rare Coins of Satavahana King Krishna', in Ex
Moneta, pp. 147-9. For circular die-struck coins with standing
figure and legend reading raflo siri siitasa, see Rapson, Coins of the
Andhra Dynasty, pl. 1(2); more recently, R.R. Bhargava, 'Coins of
Datta and Satavahana Rulers from Tripuri', ND 16 (1992): 35-9.
For coins reading [s1]ri chimuka siitavii[hanasa] from Karirnnagar
district, Andhra Pradesh, see P.V. Parabrahma Sastry, 'Unknown
53
Coins of the Satavahanas and their Predecessors', ND 2 (1978):
10-11; for coins reading kosiki[puta]sa siri satakaf!i and kochiputa
siri sataka[f!i?] , P.D. Chumle, 'Rare Satavahana Coins' , ND 15
(1991): 43-6. The last have often been found in the area of Paithan
and Nevasa. The Kosika family is mentioned in a Nasik inscrip-
tion, Liiders, EilO (1912): appendix, no. 1146, suggesting perhaps
that the Sataka1.1i with this name was part of a collateral branch of
the family; the gotta name is a common one and appears also on
reliquaries, see cat.no. 5 and Table l (above).
54 The full text and translation of this inscription is given below in the
discussion of sculpture chronology, p. 58.
55 Allan, Coins ofAncient India, pp. xc, cxli.
56 Sircar, Select Inscriptions, l: 190 (no. 76)
57 It is tempting to identify Simuka with the coins of Chimuka
Satavahana but some questions have been raised about this possi-
bility; see P.L. Gupta, 'Kotalingala Find of Post-Mamyan Coins',
ND2 (1978): 24-33 .
58 EIS (1905--6): 93
59 Sanna, Coinage of the Sala vahana Empire, p. 13, for seal reading
kanhasa; for the coins, Jha and Chumle, 'Rare Coins of Satavahana
King Krishna'.
60 Casson, Periplus, pp. 83, 215.
61 W. Ball, Archaeological Gazetteer ofAfghanistan (Paris, 1982).
The proximity to Surkh Kotal suggests this might be the founda-
tion inscription of the temple at that site.
62 Nicholas Sims-Williams and Joe Cribb, 'A New Bactrian
Inscription of Kanishka the Great', Silk Road Art and
Archaeology4 (1995-6), pp. 75-142; Sims-Williams, 'A Bactrian
God', BSOAS 60 (1997): 336-8; ibidem, 'Further Notes on the
Bactrian Inscription ofRabatak', Proceedings of the Third
European Conference of Iranian Studies, Cambridge, 1995
(Wiesbaden, 1998), pp. 79-92; Cribb, 'The Early Kushan Kings:
New Evidence for Chronology'.
63 After Sims-Williams, 'New Bactrian Inscription', pp. 77-81 and
'Further Notes', pp. 81-3.
64 Interlinear text above the list of gods: ' .. .and he is called Maaseno
[mahasena] and he is called Bizago [Visakha]'.
65 Liiders, Mathuriilnscriptions(Gottingen, 1961), p. 135; J.P.
Vogel, La sculpture de Mathurii, Ars Asiatica 15 (Paris, 1930),
pl. II.
66 Fussman, 'Document epigraphiques kouchans', BEFE061
(1974): 1-75; G.D. Davary and H. Humback, Diebaktrische
Inschrift IDN 1 von Dasht-eNiiwiir(Afghanistan) (Mainz, 1976).
67 Sims-Williams and Cribb, 'A New Bactrian Inscription', pp.
111-23, figs 11-15, describe and list the relevant coin types. R.
Gobi, Don um Bums, die Kusanmiinzen in Miinzkabinelt Bern und
die Chronologie(Vienna, 1993), no. 57; misread by the present
author in Cribb, 'A New Coin ofVima Kadphises', in Coins,
Culture and History in the Ancient World, ed. M.J. Price and L.
Casson(Detroit, 1981),pp. 29-37.
68 Sims-Williams and Cribb, 'A New Bactrian Inscription', p. 118,
fig. 15, for further details and illustration of this coin.
69 Joe Cribb, 'The Heraus Coins: Their Attribution to the Kushan
King Kujula Kadphises' in Essays in Honor ofRobert Carson and
Kenneth Jenkins, ed. M. Price et al. (London, 1993), pp. 107-34.
70 R. Gobi, System und Chronologies der Miinzpragung der
Kusanreiches(Vienna,1984), nos 80 and 314.
 INTRODUCTION

71 The Khalatse inscription was previously misread as 184 or 187; and Relevance to Kushan Chronology', NC(l984): 128-52 and
see Cribb 'Numismatic Perspectives on Chronology in the (1985): 136-49.
Crossroads of Asia' in Gandharan Art in Context, ed. Raymond 77 Ibid.
Allchin et al. (New Delhi, 1997), pp. 215-30. 78 Cribb, 'Date of the Periplus' ; Turner and Cribb 'Numismatic
72 The inscriptions of 122 ( C//2, pt 1 [1929]: no. 26) and 136 ( CI/2, Evidence'.
pt 1 [1929]: no. 27); the inscription of 103 (C//2, pt. 1 [1929]: no. 79 Cribb, 'Numismatic Evidence for Kushano-Sasanian
20) has been discussed above. Chronology', Studialranica 19 (1990): 151-93.
73 Cribb, 'The Heraus Coins'. 80 Sircar, Select Inscriptions, 1: 154; CI/2, pt.1 (1929): no. 85 .
74 E. Zilrcher, 'The Yueh-Chih and Kaniska in Chinese Sources' in 81 CI/3 (1981): 218.
Papers on the Date of Kanishka, ed. A. Basham (London, 1968), 82 Ibid., p. 242.
pp. 346--90. 83 B .N. Mukherjee, The Rise and Fall of the Kushiil)a Empire
75 Ibid. (Calcutta, 1988), p. 620, for inscription of 170 in Asian Art
76 Cribb, 'The Sino-Kharoshthi Coins ofKhotan: Their Attribution, Museum, San Francisco.

54