5 ) 



224 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [June, 1914. 



brilliant array of formidable opponents that Chashtana cer- 

 tainly did flourish before Nahapana and as such was not the 

 viceroy of the Andhra Kings, who conquered the latter, and that 

 there is every reason for the belief, and none against it, that 

 he flourished as early as a.d. 78. I give my reasons below. In 

 page 35 of the " Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey 

 of W. India for 1905-6, Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar describes six 

 very old inscription stones at present situated at Bhuj in 

 the stores of the Engineering Department. "Five of these 

 stones," says he, " are on the whole, well preserved and belong 

 to the time of the W. Kshatrapas .... Of these lour refer 

 to the reign of Rudradaman and all bear the same date, viz. 

 the year 52 on the second day of dark half of Falguna. 

 This inscription conclusively proves that Rudradaman ascended 

 the throne some years (call it x) before a.d. 130. We also know 

 that the latest inscriptional date of Nahapana is 46 (a.d. 124); 

 he must therefore have ceased to reign some years (call it y) 

 after that. We further know that Chashtana and Jayadaman 

 both preceded Rudradaman. If therefore we assume that 

 Chashtana succeeded Nahapana it follows that: 



Chashtana' s reign (both as Kshatrapa and Mahaksha- 

 trapa) + Jayadaman's reign + x + y — 6 years (i.e. 52 — 46). 

 Assuming x and y to be each even equal to 2 years, the 

 two reigns of Chashtana and Jayadaman are comprised within 

 only two years. This is obviously impossible as Chashtana 

 cannot certainly be held to be an ephemeral king in view of 

 the honorific mention of his name by Ptolemy in connection 

 with Ujjayini. Such a mention unmistakably shows that Chash- 

 tana ruled for sufficiently long time to have his name closely 

 associated with the city which had once been his capital. It 

 may of course be argued that Ptolemy mentioned his name 

 because he was the reigning king at the time Ptolemy wrote 

 his accounts and hence such a mention does not indicate 

 anything regarding the length or importance of the reign But 

 I shall hereafter show that Chashtana was not the reigning 

 king at the time of Ptolemy. 



Rapson assigns Chashtana to the "period between Saka 

 46 and 72 = a.d. 124 and 1 50." It is not a little strange that a 

 scholar of his type should have failed to notice the important 

 inscriptions which push back the date of Rudradaman by 20 

 years. These inscriptions were made known at least two 

 years before the book was published, and yet we do not find 

 any allusion to them in the book. 



Mr. V. Smith has of course noticed the inscriptions but 

 then he seems to have clung to his old opinion still. A simple 

 statement of his chronological scheme, will, I believe, throw 

 the whole of it into discredit 



In the year a d. 126 the Andhra King Vilivayakura II 



• > 



utterly destroyed the power of Nahapana." 



