Vol. X, No. 6.] The Date of Chashtana. 225 



[N.S.] 



"After the destruction of Nahapana the local government 



'of the west was entrusted to oneChashtana who seems to have 



been a Saka and to have acted as viceroy under the Andhra 



conqueror." 



Rudradaman 



Chashtana, had assumed the government of the western 



provinces." 



V. Smith makes no mention of Jaydaman, but we 

 know from coins that he certainly ruled between Chashtana 

 and Rudradaman (Rapson, ibid., p. 76). Chashtana ruled both 

 as Kshatrapa and Mahakshatrapa, his son ruled as Kshatrapa, 

 and all these are comprised within two to three years. I be- 

 lieve every impartial mind would at once reject this scheme 



as wholly improbable. 



If then Chashtana is not the successor of Nahapana what 

 would be his probable date ? It is generally assumed that four 

 generations of kings cover one century. We may apply this 

 with more confidence in this case as we know that the three 

 generations of kings, viz Rudradaman, his son Damajadasri and 

 his grandson Jivadaman, ruled between the years 52 and 120 

 of Saka years, i.e. for about 70 years. If we hold the first 

 three kings also to have ruled for 70 years Chashtana's accession 

 falls about the year 2 of the Saka era. The last date of 

 Damajadasri, fourth in descent from Chashtana, is 100 Saka 

 era. This also places Chashtana at the beginning of the era. 

 Again the two lineal successors of Rudradaman ruled from a.d. 



72 to 120 or 48 years. 



period 



two predecessors the accession of Chashtana falls about the 

 year 4 of the Saka era. Lastly as the beginning of Rudrada- 

 man's reign almost coincides with the end of Nahapana's, 

 Rudradaman's two predecessors' may be held to be contem- 

 porary with Nahapana and his predecessor Bhumaka. Now 

 these two are known to have reigned for about 46 years. This 

 also agrees with the other conclusions we have arrived at 

 regarding the date of Chashtana. 



Thus we arrive at a probable date of Chashtana within 

 2 to 4 years of the era uniformly used by the W. Kshtrapas. 

 Bearing in mind that Chashtana is described in all the 

 genealogies of the W. Kshatrapas as the founder of that 

 dynasty the conclusion is almost irresistible that he should be 

 held to be contemporary with the foundation of the era. 

 That era has unanimously been taken to be the Saka era and 

 the most probable date for Chashtana is therefore a.d 78. 



I have already answered to some extent the objection that 

 will possibly be raised that Chashtana is thus made consi- 

 derably earlier than Ptolemy. I have said that the statement 

 in Ptolemy " Oozene, the royal residence of Tiastenes " does 

 not necessarily signify that Tiastenes was a contemporary of 

 Ptolemy. I shall now prove this beyond all doubt. Now 



