I.1. The Sungas, Kanvas, Republican Kingdoms and Monarchies, Mahameghavahanas

Editorial Note

[The Mauryas leave the scene making us confront whatmust be admitted as a largely fragmented political scene.Geographically, their most important successor was theSunga dynasty, the direct epigraphic evidence of whichoccurs at Ayodhya, Bharhut and Vidisha. The linkbetween the Bharhut gateway inscription and thePuranic dynasty of the Sungas has been questioned bysome recent scholars but on the whole the correlation issatisfactory. The Malavikagnimitram testimony suggestsSunga presence in Vidarbha and the western bank ofthe Indus, and for a time at least they held back theGreeks and/or Indo-Greeks. The evidence is disjointedbut nonetheless suggests that a large part of northernand central India held together as a unified kingdomunder the Sungas, and possibly this holds true of theirsuccessor dynasty, the Kanvas, as well. The basiccharacter of this ëunificationí is however far from beingcertain because in the newly emerging ërepublicsí andmonarchical kingdoms one witnesses the growth of newterritorial formations. It is probable that these territorialformations were nascent and hidden from view duringthe Mauryan period and that they assumed visibility soonafter the Mauryan state passed into oblivion. The newJanapadas like Agacha (Agroha in the outskirts of Hissar)seem to be new Janapadas and cannot apparently belinked to the Mahajanapada phase of the sixth centuryBC. This seems to suggest a process of secondary stateformation in post-Mauryan India, which is very clear inthe Kalinga and Odishan belt when Kharavela carvedout a powerful kingdom. If Kharavela belongs to thesecond century BCóand historically it appears to be thecase as we believe that palaeography is an insecuremethod of dating an inscription in the short run of abouta centuryóthe second century BC was a period ofexpansion of regional polities.

The situation in the northwest was in a sense linked towhat happened in that region earlier: the Achaemenidannexation of the Indus Valley and the subsequent

I.1. The Sungas,Kanvas, RepublicanKingdoms andMonarchies,Mahameghavahanas,Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians

Political History and Administration

4

invasion of the region by Alexander as the successor ofthe Achaemenids. It is, however, obvious that thecontemporary fluidity of the political situation in post-Mauryan India left many gaps in the defences of northIndia: the Greek march under Demetrius both toRajasthan (Nagari) and central Ganga Valley (Saketa/Ayodhya) and even as far east as Magadha, providedthe reading of Dimitra in the Hathigumpha inscriptionis correct.

In a sense the Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian presence in the northwest prepares the groundfor the subsequent Kushana presence in that region andthe Kushana control of Central Asia and a vast stretch ofthe subcontinent which incorporated a large section ofthe Ganga Valley up to Bhagalpur, in the outskirt ofwhich the ancient city of Champa is located. This seemsto be clearly indicated by the Rabatak inscription.]

h

THE SUNGAS

One inscription mentions the founder of theSunga dynasty, Pushyamitra, by name and thedynasty itself is mentioned in anotherinscription. Palaeographically, the formerinscription is dated in the first century AD, whilethe second one is put in the second half of thefirst century BC.

To take up the second inscription first, it isfound inscribed on a pillar of the easterngateway of Bharhut (Barua and Sinha 1926,Sircar 1965):

within the dominion of the Sungas the gateway hasbeen caused to be made and the workmanship instone produced by Vatsiputra Dhanabhuti, son ofGotiputra Agaraju (and) grandson of kingGargiputra Visvadeva.

It is not clear from the text if the donor ofthe gateway, grandson of a king and possiblythe son of another royal person, was directlyrelated to the Sungas or was the feudatory rulerof the Bharhut region. The inscription in any

case proves that this region lying on the corridorbetween Rewa and Jabalpur was within theSunga domain.

The second inscription is found on a flatstone slab at the foot of the eastern entrance ofthe burial complex of Baba Sangat Baksh, whichwas built in the time of Nawab Shuja-ud-Daula,a Nawab of Oudh in the second half of theeighteenth century. The shrine complex is inthe western portion of a large walled enclosureknown as Ranopali between Ayodhya andFyzabad. It is a two-line inscription, althoughthere may be one or more lines on that portionof the inscribed slab which lies hidden underthe doorsill. The left hand portion of the secondline is completely effaced.

In the version given by D.R. Sahni (1933),the inscription

records the erection of a shrine or other memorialin honour of Phalgudeva, the father of theDharmaraja... Dhana (deva, bhuti, etc.), lord ofKosala, son of Kausiki, the sixth of the senapatiPushyamitra, who has performed the Asvamedhatwice.

The shrine or some other type of memorialwas erected by Dhanadeva or Dhanabhuti(ëDhanadevaí is suggested because of theDhanadeva coins found in the Ayodhya area),the sixth in the line of descent from Pushyamitra,who was the lord of Kosala and the son ofKausiki, in honour of his father Phalgudeva. Thisinterpretation is not entirely free from confusionbecause neither Dhanadeva nor his fatherPhalgudeva figures in the names of the directlineage of the Sunga kings found in the Puranas.Whatever Sunga lineage this inscription may bereferring to, Kosala, when the inscription wasengraved, fell within the orbit of the Sungas.

The third source of judging the extent of theSunga power is Kalidasaís Malavikagnimitram

The Sungas, Kanvas, Republican Kingdoms and Monarchies

5

which shows that Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra,was based in Vidisha and that the forces of thekingdom of Vidarbha were defeated by him,leading to the division of the Vidarbha kingdomwith the Varada or Wardha River as its dividingline. The southern part of the Vidarbha king wentto Madhavasena and the northern part toYajnasena. However, it is important to note thatthe Wardha flows from the north to the southand thus the states of which the Wardha can actas the separating line have to be western andeastern ones and not the northern and southernparts as the Drama says. Vidarbha seems to havebeen territorially divided into two segments,withthe Wardha River as the dividing line. The Sungasuzerainty over Vidarbha is not, however, indoubt. Another evidence of Malavikagnimitramis important.

From the sacrificial enclosure, the commander-in-chief Pushyamitra sends this message to his long-lived son Agnimitra who is in Vidisa country,affectionately embracing him: be it known to thee:I having been consecrated for the Rajasuya sacrifice,let loose a horse, free from all restraint, which wasto be brought back at the end of a year, andappointed Vasumitra as its defender, girt round by ahundred princes; the same horse while wanderingon the right bank of the Indus was claimed by acavalry squadron of the Yavanas (Devadhar 1966).

A fierce struggle ensued between the twoarmies and Vasumitra brought back theAsvamedha horse. It has to be noted that thebattle with the Yavanas was fought on the rightbank of the Indus, i.e. in the NorthwesternFrontier Province itself. The Yavanas in this casedenoted the Indo-Greeks.

Thus, we get three or more fixed points ofthe area of the Sunga power: Vidisa, Vidarbha,Kosala, Pataliputra, and the right bank of theIndus. The implication is that the Sungas cameto rule over virtually the whole of northern India

and also retained control of Vidarbha at one ofthe gateways to the Deccan.

I.1. PUSHYAMITRAíS HOSTILITY TO BUDDHISTS

The Asokavadana legend (Strong, 1983) and theDivyavadana legend (Upreti, 1995) seem to beidentical, although the genealogical referencesare more detailed in the Asokavadana. Thecompilation of the Divyavadana text may be putin the 3rd and 4th century AD, whereas theAsokavadana is put in the 2nd century AD.

In the Asokavadana scheme, Sampadinísson was Brihaspati whose son was Vrishasena,and Vrishasenaís son was Pusyadharman.Pushyamitra was Pusyadharmanís son. In thistestimony, Pushyamitra is shown as belongingto the Mauryan dynasty, because the text clearlymentions that with the death of Pushyamitra, theMauryan lineage came to an end. Reputedly,Pushyamitra had a Brahmin priest who wasmean and faithless, and at his instigation,Pushyamitra first went to invade theKukkutarama monastery of Pataliputra. Hereputedly heard a lionís roar at its gate andretreated to Pataliputra. This Buddhist miracledid not apparently prevent him from attackingBuddhist monasteries of the land, including onein Jalandhar. When he was unsuccessful eventhere, he went to the monastery of Koshthakawhich remains unidentified. Pushyamitraís deathcame because of supernatural interference. TheYaksha Krimisha ìtook up a great mountain andset it down on top of Pushyamitra, his troopsand chariots.î

The Divyavadana also associatesPushyamitra with the Maurya dynasty. AsKalpana Upreti (1995: 116-17) points out, ìthewords Maurya and Mauryavamsa have comein the text only in the context of a few, i.e. inthe context of Asoka, Kunala and lastly of


6

Pushyamitra and not in the cases of other kings.Asoka has been called Mauryasri in the text.î

The much later text of the Tibetan monkTaranathís history of Buddhism (Taranath bornin AD 1575) also contains a reference to the storyof Pushyamitraís hostility to Buddhism(Chattopadhyay 1980.) Curiously, the section(Chattopadhyay 1980: 120-21) begins with thename of a king, Nema-Chandra, who ruledAparantaka or north Konkan. ìSoon after Nema-Chandra ruled the kingdom, BrahmanaPushyamitra, the royal priest, revolted againstthe king and assumed powerî. According toTaranath, Pushyamitra usurped the power of aking of Aparanta, and not of Magadha. Taranathfurther states that Pushyamitra,

along with other tirthikas started war and thus burntdown numerous monasteries from Madhyadesa toJalandhara. They also killed a number of vastlylearned monks. But most of them fled to othercountries. As a result, within five years the Doctrinewas extinct in the north.

Whether Pushyamitra actually persecutedthe Buddhists or not, the tradition is strong, broad-based and long-lasting. It also receives somesupport from the archaeological fact that at anumber of sites including Pataliputra, Sanchi,Dharmarajika stupa of Taxila and the stupa ofDeur Kothar near Rewa, there are signs of fireand the breaking of pillars.

I.2. PUSHYAMITRA AND THE YAVANAS OR INDO-GREEKS

Pushyamitra came to power at the end of theMaurya rule in c. 187 BC, and thus his accessionis earlier than Patanjaliís Mahabhashya which issupposed to date from c. 150 BC. Thiscommentary on the grammarian Panini mentionsthe Yavana siege of Saketa/Ayodhya and Nagarior Madhyamika in the past sense. This invasion(or these two invasions, if there were two

separate invasions) could take place only at theend of the Maurya rule, i.e. during Pushyamitraísreign, or sometime during the time of Asokaíssuccessors. Patanjali is a contemporary ofPushyamitra because the Mahabhashya refersto him in the present tense (i.e. in the sense ofmaking him perform a sacrifice).

The Yuga Purana section of the GargiSamhita, which is dated in the second half ofthe first century BC or the first two centuries AD,gives a detailed account of the Yavana invasion(K.P. Jayaswalís translation, Journal of the Biharand Orissa Research Society, Vol. 14):

After having conquered Saketa, the country of thePanchala and the Mathuras, the Yavanas, wickedand valiant, will reach Kusumadhvaja (ìThe townof the flower-standardî, Pataliputra). The thick mud-fortifications at Pataliputra being reached, all theprovinces will be in disorder, without doubt.Ultimately, a great battle will follow, with tree-likeengines (siege engines). (Gargi-Samhita Paragraph5, Yuga Purana.)

The Yavanas (Greeks) will command, the Kingswill disappear. (But ultimately) the Yavanas,intoxicated with fighting, will not stay in Madhadesa(the Middle Country); there will be undoubtedly acivil war among them, arising in their own country(Bactria), there will be a terrible and ferocious war.(Gargi-Samhita, Yuga Purana chapter, No. 7).

On the authority of the Roman historianStrabo who in turn based himself on thetestimony of Apollodoros of Artemita, VincentSmith (1924) identified the Yavana invader withMenander who supposedly conquered the Indusdelta, Saurashtra and a part of western Indianamed Sigerdis. Smith puts the Yavana invasion,presumably by Menander, in 156-53 BC. Heassumes that Pushyamitra died after a reign of36 years in 149 BC, assuming that the Mauryanrule ended in 185 BC (and not in 187 BC, as isnow generally assumed).


7

Smithís opinion is accepted by W.W. Tarn(1938) but the Indo-Greek invasion has also beenattributed to Demetrius (cf. Chattopadhyay 1958,pp. 5-8). Chattopadhyay infers that the Yavanainvasion of Pataliputra took place immediatelyafter the murder of the last Maurya kingBrihadratha and that this invasion underDemetrius did not affect in any wayPushyamitraís reign. This is also the opinion ofProfessor Jagannath in his article on the post-Mauryan dynasties in the second volume of AComprehensive History of India (Jagannath1957).

It may be noted that the invasion which ledto the fall of Kusumadhvaja or Pataliputra waslikely to have passed through Saketa orAyodhya, and as Saketa is directly linked withSakala or Sialkot, the capital of Menander, it ispossible that the invasion of Pataliputra wasundertaken by Menander. It is unlikely that theinvasion of Nagari near Chitor could be part ofthe same invasion. In that case, it was a separateinvasion and possibly undertaken by Demetrius.No specific conclusion is possible on the basisof the obscurity of sources. What is clear is thatPushyamitra Sunga maintained his control overnorth India as long as he was on the throne ofPataliputra.

I.3. PURANIC GENEALOGY OF THE SUNGA AND

KANVA DYNASTIES

The Vishnupurana, Book IV, Chapter 24, offersa description of the Sunga and Kanva genealogy,with the Sungas coming after the Mauryas. Thismay be taken as a typical Puranic testimony onthis phase of Indian political history.

The dynasty of the Sungas will next becomepossessed of the sovereignty; for Pushpamitra, thegeneral of the last Maurya prince, will put his masterto death, and ascend the throne: his son will beAgnimitra; his son will be Sujyeshtha; his son will be

Vasumitra; his son will be Ardraka; his son will bePulindaka; his son will be Ghoshavasu; his son willbe Vajramitra; his son will be Bhagavata; his son willbe Devabhuti. These are the ten Sungas, who willgovern the kingdom for a hundred and twelve years.

The Sunga genealogy is thus clear, and itstotal time span is clearly laid out. If the Mauryanend happened in c. 187 BC, the Sungas ruled tillc. 75 BC, provided they ruled for 112 years inall.

Pushyamitraís name has been given asPushpamitra also in the chapter 6 of BanaísHarshacharitam (Cowell and Thomas 1897) ìabase-born general, Pushpamitra, pounded hisfoolish Maurya master Brihadratha, havingdisplayed his whole army on the pretext ofmanifesting his power.î This text describes theend of the Sungas in the following fashion: ìIn afrenzy of passion the over-libidinous Shungawas at the instance of his minister Vasudevabereft of his life by a daughter of Devabhutiísslave woman disguised as his queen.î Thisbroadly tallies with what we learn from thePuranas.

Sudhakar Chattopadhyay (1958, p. 8) citesthe evidence of the Theravali, genealogical orsuccession table of the kings of Ujjayini,composed by the Jaina author Merutunga of thefirst half of the 14th century AD. The Puranas arenot unanimous regarding the length ofPushyamitraís reign. According to the Jainaauthor Merutunga, he ruled for 30 years and theMauryas for 108 years. Chattopadhyay suggeststhat Merutungaís testimony may be explainedby accepting the possibility that Pushyamitraruled over the Avanti or Ujjayini area as a defacto ruler during the last years of the Mauryanrule.

In his article in A Comprehensive History ofIndia, I vol. 2, the Mauryas and Satavahanas,Professor Jagannath (1957) discusses the reigns


8

of Pushyamitraís successors: Agnimitra whosupposedly ruled for 8 years and whoseviceroyalty at Vidisha has been mentioned inMalavikagnimitram. Unless the Panchala coinsbearing the legend Agimitrasa belong to him,there is no evidence of coins, etc. from his reign.His successor was Sujyestha who ruled for sevenyears but without leaving behind any tangibleevidence such as coins inscribed with his name.According to Jagannath, his successor wasSumitra on the basis of Banaís Harshacharitaalthough the Puranas name Sujyesthaís successoras Vasumitra. Sumitra was supposedly killed byMuladeva whom Jagannath considers the founderof the separate principality of Kosala.Interestingly, Dhana(deva) of the Ayodhyainscription counts his lineage from Pushyamitraand thus Jagannathís idea that Kosala passed outof the Sunga control is based on his claiming thetitle ëlord of Kosalaí for himself. This does notnecessarily mean that Kosala seceded from theSunga dominion covering Pataliputra, Vidishaand other areas. Two pillar inscriptions, onesetting up a flag-staff of Vishnu in a temple ofVidisha and the other inscribed on the famousGaruda pillar of Heliodorus at the same site, referto the Sunga king of the time of Bhagabhadrawho reputedly enjoyed a long reign of 32 years.He was succeeded by Devabhuti, the last Sungaking who ruled for 10 years and was killed byhis minister Vasudeva.

The most important political event duringthe reign of the Sungas was their victory overthe Yavanas or the Indo-Greeks on the west bankof the Indus in connection with the control ofthe horse of Pushyamitraís Asvamedha sacrifice.The context is clear and there is no justificationto identify the river Sindhu in this context withthe Kalisindh River of central India. WhichYavana or Indo-Greek king did the Sunga armycome in conflict with ? Again, it can be eitherDemetrius or Menander.

There is reluctance among scholars toassume that the Sunga power retained controlover Vidisha, Pataliputra and Ayodhya, i.e. thethree indisputable foci of their strength after thedeath of Pushyamitra at c. 151 BC. Assuming thePuranic testimony to be correct, the Sunga ruleof north India lasted for 112 years from c. 187BC, and this in turn means that the Kanva rulebegan around 75 BC and lasted for 45 years,taking the end of the Kanva line to c. 30 BC.

II. THE KANVAS OR THE KANVAYANAS

On the Kanva kings, the following succession-list in the Vishnu Purana is noteworthy:

Devabhuti, the last Sunga prince, being addicted toimmoral indulgences, his minister, the Kanwa namedVasudeva will murder him, and usurp the kingdom:his son will be Bhumimitra; his son will be Narayana;his son will be Susarman. These four Kanwas will bekings of the earth for forty-five years. Susarman theKanwa will be killed by a powerful servant namedSipraka, of the Andhra tribe, who will become king,and found the Andhrabhritya dynasty.

The dynasty is also called Sungabhrityas orthe ëservants of the Sungasí in the Puranas. It ispossible that the Vidisha area was ruled by theSungas even after the Kanvas became the rulersof Magadha. It is said that by this period thecontrol of the area to the west of Magadhapassed into the hands of the Mitra kings and thatthe Kanvas controlled basically only Magadha.Virtually nothing is known about the rule of theKanvas except that they snatched control fromthe Sungas and were replaced in their turn byan attack on Magadha by the Andhra kingSipraka (Simuka ?).The fact that the powerof the Kanvas as somewhat short-lived rulersof Magadha was apparently confined tothe Magadhan territory alone is a reflection onthe new webs of political powers in northernIndia.


9

III.TRIBAL/REPUBLICAN AND MONARCHICALKINGDOMS

By and large, the second-first century BC seemsto be the time when we can isolate a fewregional powers in north India almostexclusively on the basis of coins, some of whichare occasionally called ëtribal coinsí because theinscribed legends on them refer to certaingroups of people such as Yaudheyas,Arjunayanas, Udumbaras, Kulindas, Kulutas andothers (cf. Narain 1968, Dasgupta 1974, Lahiri1974, Handa 2007). In certain cases theycontinue as distinct power groups till the Guptasin the 4th/5th centuries AD, but this is the timewhen we become aware of them for the firsttime. There were also royal issues of coins incertain areas like Ahichchhatra, Kosala, Mathuraand Kausambi. The names of the kings of theseissues have been identified on the basis of thelegends and they have been dated mostly onthe basis of palaeography. It may be noted thatwithin short chronological ranges thepalaeographic method of dating is notparticularly reliable. The Panchala kingsidentified on the basis of the legends inscribedon their coins are not less than twenty, with theearliest of them going back to the mid-secondcentury BC. The coins have been found mostlyin the Ahichchhatra area. Multiple royal nameshave also been traced on the coins of the pre-Christian era from Kausambi, Kosala and Mathura.The Yaudheya coins are widely distributed inPanjab (cf.Sunet in the outskirts of Ludhiana) andHaryana (cf. Naurangarh near Bhiwani), somewith the legend Yaudheyanam and some withthe legend Maharajasa. The Arjunayana coinsare found in the Delhi-Agra-Jaipur belt. TheAudambara/Udumbara area covered the uppercourses of the Ravi and the Beas and theKunindas the upper courses of the Beas and theYamuna along the foothills. The Kulutas were

located in the modern Kulu area, i.e. in theupper course of the Beas. In the Kangra-Jalandhar belt of Punjab, there were Trigartasand in southeast Rajasthan, at Nagari orMadhyamika near Chitor, there were Sibis. Therelationship of these ëtribalí coins and royalissues of coins with the main Puranic dynasticlines of the Sungas and Kanvas is not clear. Thesedenoted ëtribalí or ëmonarchicalí principalitiesin their own rights and possibly owned up theSungas and Kanvas as their sovereigns. It is alsopossible that the genesis of all these principalitiestook place while the Mauryas were in power,but they lay hidden from view during the timeof the Mauryas only to emerge as historicalpowers under the Sungas and the Kanvas. Analmost complete list of these coin-types is thefollowing: Agreya (Agroha near Hissar,Agrodaka Janapada), Arjunayana, Kausambi,Malava (Ravi Valley and later, eastern Rajasthan),Mathura, Panchala, Rajanya (Hoshiarpur area),Sibi, Trigarta, Udehika (provenance uncertainbut possibly southwest of Kanauj), Vatasvaka(near Taxila), Yaudheya, Almora, Audumbara,Ayodhya, Kuninda, Mathura, Vemaka (in theAudambara area), Vrishni-Rajanya andKausambi.

This premise is also strongly supported bythe Pabhosa inscriptions of the King Asadhasenaof the first century BC. (Fleet, 1914)

There are two inscriptions at Pabhosa on theleft bank of the Yamuna near Kausambi, one inthe left corner of the entrance to the Pabhosacave and the other on the west wall inside thecave. The inscription on the outside reads thefollowing:

By Asadhasena, maternal uncle of the RajanGopaliputra-Bahasatimittra (and) son of Gopali theVaihidari, (this) cave has been caused to be made,in the tenth year of Udaka (?) (for the use) of theKassapiya Arahamtas.


10

The inscription inside the cave reads:

caused to be made by Asadhasena, son of theVaihidari and son of the Rajan TevaniputtraBhagavata, son of Vangapala Rajan of Adichhatraand son of Sonakayana.

Fleet feels that the two inscriptions are datedabout 50 years apart but on the whole, he acceptsG. Buhlerís opinion that they belong to thesecond century BC. This date fits well with theprobable date of Odraka, the 5th king of thePuranic list of the Sungas, provided Odraka ofthe Puranas can be identified with Udaka of theinscription. Palaeographically, S. Chattopadhyay(1958, pp. 18-19) puts its date not earlier thanthe last quarter of the first century BC. One is notsure that the palaeographic dating can be asprecise as this, and in that case the identificationof Udaka with Odraka is not improbable.

Thus, the post-Mauryan political situation innorthern India is marked to some extent byfragmentation. It does not seem to befragmented on a large scale but one clearly seesit marked by the spread of small secondarystates in certain areas. The formation ofmonarchies at places like Mathura, Ahichchhatraand Kausambi is noticeable, and the widegrowth of tribal or republican units in the sub-Himalayan belt and elsewhere, especially inPunjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and parts of Malwasuggests a new channel of politicaldevelopment.

IV.THE MAHAMEGHAVAHANAS OR THE KINGKHARAVELA OF KALINGA

The state as evidenced by the Hathigumphainscription of the Kalinga king Kharavela wasnot a secondary state, as state formations of bothKalinga (southwest Orissa and northeast Andhra)and the Orissan coast go back to the earlierMahajanapada stage. It is, however, through the

Hathigumpha inscription that the state of Kalingaemerges into full historical light. This inscriptionhas had a long research history since itsdiscovery in the 1820s, the definitive versionof Epigraphia Indica being published only in itsvolume 20 of 1929-30 (Jayaswal and Banerji1929-30).

Kharavela is introduced in this inscription asthe overlord of Kalinga and a descendant of theKing Meghavahana of the Chedi dynasty. Fornine years before his accession to the throne,he served as Yuvaraja or heir-apparent. One ofhis earliest tasks after coronation was to carryout repairs to the gates, walls and buildings ofthe city of Kalinga (modern Dantavruktanagara,north of Srikakulam), which were damaged bystorm and to construct the embankments of alake and various tanks and cisterns, apparentlyboth in and outside the capital city. He alsorestored the gardens, possibly of the city itselfand its neighbourhood. His first militaryexpedition, which ignored the contemporarySatavahana king, was in the direction of thevalley of the Wainganga and one of hertributaries where he threw the city of theMusikas (possibly Adam, southeast of Nagpur)into consternation. He apparently followed thisup by defeating the Rathikas and Bhojakas ofthe modern areas of Berar and Khandesh, i.e.the whole of the eastern Maharashtra. In the 5thyear of his reign he apparently re-opened acanal excavated 103 or 300 years ago by a kingof the Nanda dynasty and brought to the capitalfrom the road of Tanasuliya which remainsunidentified as a place. The confusion about103/300 arises from the meaning of the originalterm ti-vasa-sata which may be translated bothas 103/300. Considering that the canal went fromhere to the modern Dantavruktanagara,Kharavelaís capital, Tanasuliya may have had alink with the modern Vamsadhara River. In the


11

8th year of his reign, he sacked Gorathagiri orthe area of the Barabar hills near Gaya and thuscaused pressure on Rajagriha, the first Magadhancapital. This also caused the Yavana or the Greekking Dimi(ta) to retreat to Mathura. As ProfessorJagannath (1957) points out,

There can be no doubt that that the reference is tothe invasion of India by Demetrius, who had tohasten back on account of the appearance of hisrival Eucratides. The invasion of Demetrius has tobe placed before the accession of Pushyamitra... Asthe last invasion of Northern India by Kharavela tookplace in his twelfth regnal year, he must haveascended the throne a little more than twelve yearsbefore Pushyamitraís rise to power... The mentionof the Rathikas and Bhojakas as independent rulingpowers also indicates a proximity to the Asokantimes rather than to any later period when thesepowers ceased to exist as separate political entities.This everything seems to point to the beginning ofthe second century BC as the date of Kharavelaísaccession to the throne.

In the 10th year of his reign, he moved inthe direction of Bharatavasa (meaning in this casepossibly a part of southern India) and defeatedkings there. The city of Pithumda in the GodavariValley was razed to the ground and he also brokeup the 113-year-old confederacy of the Tamilkings which had been a source of danger toKalinga. In the 12th year of his reign, he movedagainst Uttarapatha, i.e. northern India, defeatingBahasatimita, the Magadhan king, and broughtback, along with the riches of Anga andMagadha, the figure of Jina which was takenaway from Kalinga by a Nanda dynastic king.He built a settlement for 100 masons, exemptingthem from land revenue, and apparently boughtlarge quantities of pearls from the Pandyakingdom. It appears in the 13th year of his reign,he subjugated the area of Kumari hill or themodern hill complex of Udayagiri-Khandagirinear Bhuvaneshwar, embellishing the whole

area in various ways including the setting uppillars of stone. It was meant for the residenceof the Jaina monks but Kharavela has beencalled the ërespecter of all sectsí and ëtherepairer of all templesí.

The Hathigumpha inscription is not the onlyinscription of the Kumari hill or the modernUdayagiri-Khandagiri complex. There are morethan 30 caves in these two hills, many of theminscribed and studied by R.D. Banerji inEpigraphia Indica, 1915-16, Vol. 13 and B.M.Barua in Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. 14.Two inscriptions in the Manchapuri cave (upperstorey) are donative inscriptions of Kharavelaíschief queen, ìthe great granddaughter ofHathisiha (Hasti Simha) and the daughter ofLalaka or Lalarkaî, and Kharavelaís successor,ìMaharaja Kudepasiri, the overlord of Kalingaî.There are two more interesting inscriptions, onementioning ëthe cave of Bhuti, the city judgeíand the other mentioning the cave of Mahamador Mahamatra Nakiya and Bariya. The name ofthe city or the king the two Mahamatras servedremains unmentioned.

The Mahameghavahana dynasty ismentioned also in a second-first century BC

inscription from Guntupalle, a rock-cut cavecomplex and a monastic stupa site located in ahill range north of the Godavari Valley. The kingwho has been mentioned is ëthe great king Sada,lord of the Kalinga-Mahisaka country andbelonging to the Mahameghavahana dynasty.Assuming that Mahisaka here represents theKrishna Valley, it is assumed that the KrishnaValley was once under the control of Kalinga.

The text and the chronology of theHathigumpha are uncertain, there beingconsiderable controversy about both the issues.Regarding the chronology, the debate is aboutwhether it is second century BC or first centuryBC. It has been argued that the palaeography of


12

the inscription points towards first century BC.At the same time, palaeography cannot beconsidered the cast iron basis of the dating of aninscription within tight borders. On the otherhand, if the name of the Yavana king Timi(ta)has been read correctly, he is more likely to beDemetrius who invaded India than anybodyelse. A second century BC date, as we havepointed out before, is thus probable. On theother hand, the Magadhan contemporary ofKharavela is called Bahasatimitra, who is notlisted in any of the Puranas as a Magadhan king.One does not know how he fits in the Sungaand Kanva genealogy, but considering only hisname, it is possible that he comes under one ofthe post-Pushyamitra Sungas. No chronologicalfixed point can be reached by the name of theMagadhan king. There is also not much point indebating the problem of 103 or 300 years afterthe invasion of Kalinga by a Nanda king as thedebate cannot be conclusive. The major fixedpoint seems to be the mention of the Greek kingDim(ita) and if so, the date falls in the secondcentury BC. It is worth pointing out, however,that no less a scholar of Indian political historyas H.C. Raychaudhuri prefers to date Kharavelain the first century BC.

The post-Mauryan political history ofnorthern India including the modern Orissa-Andhra coast may be said to have been markedby a lot of complexityóthe Sunga-Kanva lineagecentred around Magadha, Kosala, Vidisha andVidarbha (the latter under pressure fromVidisha); miscellaneous tribal/republican andmonarchical kingdoms scattered along the sub-Himalayan belt and in the pockets of the Ganga-Yamuna plain; the Greek movements from thenorthwest; and finally a firm regional powerbased along the Andhra-Orissa coast under theMeghavahanas or the Chedi dynasty of Kalinga,which made considerable inroads in eastern

Maharashtra or Berar and Khandesh, disarrayedan old Tamil confederacy and played a majorrole in Anga and Magadha and presumably otherparts of northern India.

V. INDO-GREEKS

The rule of the Indo-Greek kings in thenorthwest including parts of Central Asia, thewhole of Afghanistan, and the Indus Valley, isknown from sketchy references in the Graeco-Roman literature and the study of innumerablesurface finds of their coins. Although king-listshave been prepared on the basis of the royalnames on these coins, the nature of theirsuccessions and geographical territories is by nomeans precise. The situation has been furthercomplicated by the propensity of Westernscholars to seek a permanent imprint of theHellenistic civilization on Indian numismatics,art, iconography and philosophy, which iscontrasted by the Indian scholarly tendency totrace the impact of Indianisation on these Indiankings of Greek origin. A vast amount ofliterature, mostly coin catalogues, hasaccumulated on this problem including thecatalogue of a Cambridge exhibition (organizedby the Ancient India and Iran Trust)whichvirtually tried to underline the whole thingas a march of Western civilization in thenorthwestern part of the subcontinent (forintroduction to the Indo-Greek problem, onwhich, there is a voluminous literature, Tarn1938, Narain 1957, Banerjee 1957, Guillaume1990, Errington and Cribb 1992, Mairs 2006).

The Greeks, especially those from AsiaMinor, have been known in India since theperiod of the Achaemenids who had Greeks intheir employ. The Achaemenids entered Indiain the last part of the sixth century BC. Thefamiliarity increased manifold with Alexanderísinvasion of India in 327-26 BC and the subsequent


13

presence of the Greeks in Pataliputra and ofGreek ambassadors, the most famous of whomwas Megasthenes, in the Mauryan court. Asokamakes clear in one of his edicts that the Mauryanpower was familiar with all the post-AlexanderGreek political powers up to north Africa andthe Mediterranean.

What is important in the present context isto note that Alexander established a largenumber of cities, basically called Alexandrias,in Turkmenistan (ëAlexandria in Margianaí/Merv), Tadjikistan (Alexandria Eschate/Khodzent), Afghanistan (Alexandria inArachosia/Kandahar, Alexandria in theCaucasus/Charikar-Begram) and Pakistan(Nicaea and Bucephala on the opposite banksof the Jhelam/ modern Pakistani city of Jhelam?,Alexandria on the Hyphasis/Uch in Pakistan?,another town at the confluence of the Indus andChenab/ north of Rorhi ?, Patala /Brahminabad,and Rhambacia/ Bela in Las Bela). Among themonly Ai Khanum at the junction of the Kokchawith the Oxus has been excavated in somedetail, showing a Greek city stretched for about2 km along the bank of the Oxus and completewith temple complex, palace and administrativequarter, theatre, gymnasium and burial area.Many statues, several coin hoards, inscriptionsand plenty of pottery reveal that this city foundedin the 4th century BC had a close connection withthe Greek world and come to an end possiblyaround the middle of the second century BC. Onemay safely assume that Ai Khanum was aprincipal city of the ancient Greek kingdom ofBactria whose capital was Bactra near Mazar-i-Sharif. The ruins of Bactra remain to be properlyexcavated.

The Bactrian Greek kingdom began as asatrapy of the Seleucid empire carved out of theeastern possessions of Alexander, whichimpinged on the east on the possessions of

Chandragupta Maurya. Some conflict was almostinevitable, although the result of that in about305 BC was a kind of compromise, with the areasouth of the Hind Kush going to Chandraguptawho was also given the hands of the daughterof Seleucas in marriage. Seleucas received about500 war elephants in return. Antiochus I Soter,Seleucasí son and Antiochus II Theos werepressed with the affairs in the western part oftheir territory, and towards the end of AntiochusIIís reign, around the middle of the 3rd centuryBC, Parthia (northeast Iran) under Arsaces andBactria under Diodotus I seceded from theSeleucid empire. However, under Antiochus III(223ñ191 BC) the empire had apparently arevival of power, with Antiochus III laying siegeto the Bactrian capital and obtaining warelephants from the Indian king Sophagasenus,possibly of the Kabul Valley. According toPolybius (11.39), a Greek historian (c. 200ñ118BC),

he (Antiochus) crossed the Caucasus and descendedinto India; renewed his friendship withSophagasenus the king of the Indians; received moreelephants, until he had a hundred and fiftyaltogether; and having once more provisioned histroops, set out again personally with his army:leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus the duty of takinghome the treasure which this king had agreed tohand over to him

The establishment of the Parthian power cutoff Bactriaís direct contact with the Greek world,and both Diodotus I and Diodotus II joined theParthians in their struggle against the Seleucidpower.

If the overthrow of the Seleucid power byDiodotus I marked the first independent phaseof the Bactrian power, the overthrow of theDiodotus dynasty by Euthydemus in 230/220 BC

marked its second phase. His power extendedbeyond Bactria to include Ferghana and


14

Sogdiana or the area of Samarkand in CentralAsia. One of his major coin-types shows thediademed head of the king within dotted borderson the obverse, and the reverse shows nakedHeracles seated on a pile of boulders. Anotherof his coin-types shows a prancing horse on thereverse. Euthydemus was attacked by theSeleucid power under Antiochus III, and afterlosing the battle of Arius against him, hesuccessfully withstood a three-year siege of thecapital Bactra, after which Antiochus III cameto terms with him and gave his daughter inmarriage to Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus,around 206 BC. Traces of Bactrian expansion tothe eastern part of Central Asia have been tracedas far as Kashgar and Urumchi in ChineseTurkestan. An interesting feature of the Indo-Greek coinage of this period was the use of analloy made of copper and nickel in theproportion of 75 per cent copper and 25 percent nickel. The coins made of this alloy wereissued by Euthydemus, Euthydemus II,Agathocles and Pantaleon around 170 BC. Forinstance, a cupro-nickel coin of Euthydeus IIshows the laureate head of Apollo on the obverseand a tripod and the royal name in Greek on thereverse. Around 126 BC, the Chinese envoyZhang Qian visited Bactria and this visit openedup Bactria and the neighbouring areas ofFerghana and Parthia, leading in turn to thedevelopment of the Silk Route from the end ofthe second century BC. Regular contacts with Indiadate from a much earlier period, and during thetime of Asoka in the third century BC, some of theGreeks present in his kingdom (cf.Dharmarakshita) even played a role in the spreadof Buddhism. Dharmarakshita, for instance,preached Buddhism in Aparantaka or Gujarat andSind. There were Buddhists in Bactria too. In thesecond century AD, Clement of Alexandriareported Buddhist Sramanas in Bactria.

Around 180 BC, Demetrius, son ofEuthydemus, undertook an invasion of Indiareaching as far as Pataliputra and laying siege toSaketa and Madhyamika. This fits in with thereading of the Indian version of the Indo-Greekname Dimitra in the Hathigumpha inscription ofthe King Kharavela, according to which this Indo-Greek king advanced as far east as Magadha buteventually retreated to Mathura. There is noreason to believe in the opinion of some scholarsthat the Indo-Greek king who advanced as fareast as Magadha was not Demetrius butMenander around the middle of the secondcentury BC. The Epigraphia Indica reading of theIndo-Greek name in the Hathigumphainscription is Dimitra. There is no place forMenander here.

The Gargi Samhita section of the Indian textYuga Purana of c. 2nd century AD gives someaccount of the Greek invasion of northern India,corroborating the references in this connectionin Patanjaliís Mahabhashya: ëthe Yavanasconquered Saketaí; ëthe Yavanas conqueredMadhyamikaí, i.e. the Yavanas or the Indo-Greeks conquered Saketa or Ayodhya and theYavanas conquered Nagari (near Chitor inRajasthan). The Gargi Samhita mentions thatìafter having conquered Saketa and the Mathuras,the wicked and valiant Yavanas will reachKusumadhvaja or Pataliputraî. The fortificationsof Pataliputra will be breached by employingtree-like engines or seige-engines. The Yavanaswill be powerful but they will retreat fromMadhyadesa because of a civil war among themin their own country, Bactria. The generalcharacter of this evidence has been borne outby the testimony of the Roman historian Strabo(c. 64/63 BCñAD 24) who wrote on the basis ofearlier authors that the Indo-Greeks advancedas far as Pataliputra. Thus, the Indo-Greekpenetration, however short-lived, of a large


15

chunk of northern India, is not in doubt. Althoughthere are different readings of the Hathigumphainscription and different opinions regarding itsdate, the presence of the word Dimitra in theauthoritative version of its text in EpigraphiaIndica cannot be wished away, and the sum totalof the related evidence, including the fact thatPatanjali of c. 150 BC referred to the Yavanainvasions of Saketa and Madhyamika in the pastsense, will suggest that this Yavana invasion ofnorth India as far east as Pataliputra took placein the first half of the second century BC, i.e.before Menander became an independent kingin his own right. The probability is that thisinvasion took place during the reign ofDemetrius.

The elephant scalp shown in Demetriusícoin may symbolise his Indian conquest. Heissued an extensive series of coins in gold, silverand copper, one of his gold coins being issuedin the name of Antiochus, his Seleucid master.The reverse of this coin type shows Zeus whichis his preferred type in place of Apollo preferredby Antiochus. It has to be pointed out that thepurely Bactrian or Graeco-Bactrian coins carrylegends only in Greek whereas the Indo-Greekcoins carry legends in both Greek and Kharosthi(occasionally in Brahmi). The Indo-Greek issueswere meant for the area south of the Hindu Kush.This and the other Indo-Greek coins issued byEucratides demonstrate that he had an extensivekingdom in Gandhara in addition to his Bactriandomains.

The Euthydemid line of kings wasoverthrown by Eucratides around 170 BC. Thelast Euthydemid kings were Antimachus I andAntimachus II. Eucratides I ruled from c. 171 to145 BC and on his silver tetradrachms the legendreads ì(of) King Great Eucratidesî. One of hisgold coin types was supposedly the largest goldcoin minted in antiquity and represents his

parentsóLaodice (mother) and Heliocles(father) on the obverse. A silver coin type of hisshows on the obverse helmeted and diademedbust of king seen from behind with ruledborders around. The helmet is plumed anddecorated with the ear and horn of a bull, andthe king is shown holding a spear in throwingposition. On the obverse is the representationof dioscuri riding prancing horses (prancingright) and carrying spears and palms. EucratidesI possibly controlled a large part of northwesternIndia, which is proved by the widespreadoccurrence of his coins in the region. He wasdefeated by the Parthian king Mithridates I whoalso came to control the territory between theIndus and the Jhelam. Heliocles I succeededMithridates I, but by this time the process ofYuezhi expansion, which happened in CentralAsia between c. 176 BC and AD 30 and eventuallydid away with the Bactrian kingdom, began.Heliocles was the last Bactrian king, and hemoved to the Kabul Valley on the eastern sideof the Hindu Kush. Some of his descendantscontinued to hold their territory in this sector,Hermaeus of c. 70 BC being the last notable king.The Kharosthi legend on the Hermaios coinsreads Maharajasa Tratarasa Heramayasa and itshows a horse prancing right.The Yuezhicontrolled Bactria for more than a century andeventually moved to India, setting up theKushana empire.

The foregoing is the basic frame of thepolitical history of the post-Alexander Greekpower in India. The details are filled up by onlywhat scholars think of the many coin finds ofabout thirty related kings and two queens. TheCambridge History of India volume on AncientIndia groups them into three geographical areas:west of the Jhelam, the northwest including theKabul Valley, and eastern Panjab. Rulersbelonging to the house of Eucratides were


16

powerful to the west of the Jhelam whereaseastern Panjab was controlled by the rulersbelonging to the house of Euthydemus. Whetherthe Indo-Greek kings and queens followedstraight lines of dynastic successions or followeddifferent lines in different power centres or areasis not particularly relevant because the verynature of sources, which is mostly surface findsof coins, precludes any satisfactory analysis inthis regard. The major centres of power wereindisputably Sakala/Sialkot in eastern Panjab andTakshasila/Taxila to the west of the Jhelam, butthe claim of Pushkalavati west of the Indus orthat of other smaller centres in various areascannot be denied. No major centre has beenlocated yet in Sind but the presence of such acentre there is probable.

The first Indo-Greek king to rule only in partsof India, i.e. without any control of Bactria, waspossibly Apollodotus I who struggled to powerfrom his position as a former general ofDemetrius I in about 180 BC or a little later. Hiscoins have been found in Panjab, Sind andGujarat, and among them, there are manybilingual Indian-standard square coins showingëelephant with decorative beltí and Greeklegend ë of saviour king Apollodotusí on theobverse, and on the reverse, a bull withKharosthi legend Maharajasa Tratarasa, which isthe Indian counterpart of the Greek legend. Healso issued purely Greek coins like the one withhis head on the obverse and ëPallas Atheneíholding nike on the reverse. On certain coinshis name Apollodotus has been given an IndianversionóApaladatasa.

Menander I was a successor of Apollodotus,and came to power around the middle of thesecond century BC. In addition to his numerouscoins, he is known principally from his positionin the Buddhist text Questions of Milinda. Theassociation is straightforward and shows beyond

dispute that this famous Indo-Greek king whoruled from Sakala or Sialkot became a Buddhist.

An important epigraphic reference toMenander occurs in Bajaur where a Buddhistreliquary bears a dedicatory inscription whichmentions the 14th day of the month of Karttikaof a certain year in the reign of Maharaja Minadra(Minandrasa Maharajasa Katiassa Divasa). Thiswas the date on which the corporeal relic of theSakyamuni, which is endowed with life, wasestablished (Majumdar 1937) at that place. Atextual reference to Menander lies in Periplus(chapter 47) of c. mid-first century AD.

To the present-day ancient drachmae are current inBarygaza, coming from this country, bearinginscriptions in Greek letters, and the devices of thosewho reigned after Alexander, Apollodorus (sic) andMenander.

ëApollodorusí in this case is Apollodotus.

The most important textual testimonyregarding Menander lies in the ìQuestions ofMilindaî or ìQuestions of Menanderî, a Paliversion of which is Milinda. The Buddhist monkwith which the king had carried on hisdiscussions was Nagasena. The king has beenmentioned as the king of the Yonakas reigningat Sagala: ìMilinda by name, learned, eloquent,wise and able, and a faithful observerî. ThatMenander, born at Alasanda (Alexandria whichin this case has been assumed to be an island ofthe Indus), had acquired deep knowledge ofBuddhist philosophy to conduct a detaileddiscussion with a Buddhist monk was in itself aproof that by this time, the Indo-Greeks hadconverted themselves into an Indian power.Regarding the location of Sagala or Sialkot asthe capital city of Menander, what is noticeableis that it was conveniently located for routescoming from Kashmir to this part of Panjab and


17

also for the major trunk route which led fromSialkot to the Ganga plain.

Menanderís concern with Buddhism wasmatched by another Indo-Greekís devotion toVaishnavism, the most famous evidence in thisregard being the Heliodorus pillar of Besnagaror ancient Vidisha. The Annual Report (1908-09) of the Archaeological Survey of India haspublished the relevant inscription:

Text A:

This Garuda-standard was made by order of theBhagavata.......... Heliodoros, the son of Dion, a manof Taxila, a Greek ambassador from King Antialkidas,to King Bhagabhadra, the son of the Princess fromBenares, the saviour, while prospering in thefourteenth year of his reign.

On the other side of the pillar, the followinginscription is found: -

Text B:

Three are the steps to immortality which ............followed lead to heaven, [namely] self-control, self-denial and watchfulness.

Because of his mention in this inscription,Antialcidas becomes the third most importantIndo-Greek king after Apollodotus andMenander. The King Bhagabhadra, the son of aprincess from Banaras, was likely to be a Sungaking, considering the date of the inscriptionaround 110 BC. The fact that the Sunga kingsduring the last phase of the Sunga rule was inclose diplomatic relationship with the Indo-Greek kings of Panjab and possibly elsewhereis noteworthy, but possibly more noteworthy isthe fact that by this time the Indo-Greeks weresignificantly Indianized and had become familiarwith the Indian philosophical tenets of ëself-control, self-denial and watchfulnessí.

The Indo-Greek phase of Indian historyreveals in great detail the geo-political

implications of the areas north and south of theHindu Kush. Excavations at Ai Khanum haveconclusively shown the closeness ofrelationship between this area and the Hellenismof the Mediterranean world down to the levelof the pottery details. At the same, itsgeographical position ensured its role inmaintaining links with, and receiving culturalimpulses from, Turkmenistan, Samarkand,Ferghana and Chinese Turkestan or modernZingziang. In a sense, it was a melting pot ofcultural stimuli from various directions. Once thefocus of the Greek rule shifts to the Hindu Kushor strictly speaking, the focus of the primaryGreek rule over Bactria includes the areas southof the Hindu Kush, the shadow of South Asialooms large in an otherwise Hellenisticassemblage. The coins north of the Hindu Kushare unmistakably inspired by Greece but southof the Hindu Kush, their round shapes becomerectangular and the royal names acquire anunmistakable Indian sound and are expressedin Indian scripts.It is apparent that the issuingkings of this series of coins were trying to caterto the taste and demands of their Indian subjects,without discarding very much the key Greekelements like the representation of variousGreek deities such as Apollo, Zeus, Dioscuri andothers. It is through these devices that therepresentations of comparatively new divinitiessuch as those of the Mithraic cults make theirappearance in this belt. Through therepresentations on coins are introduced notmerely new concepts of divinities but also newart-motifs. Zeus or Apollo or the royal heads onthe coins of the period do not conform toanything that we know of the traditional Indianart styles. There is little doubt that the variousglyptic devices that we find on the Indo-Greekcoins manifested themselves in what came tobe known as the Gandharan art of sculptures


18

and stuccos of the later period. It is through theIndo-Greek period that the Hellenistic classicalelements of the Greek kingdom of Bactriacontinued to survive in the Indo-Iranianborderlands, especially in the sections close toAfghanistan and Central Asia and in the last twoareas themselves. This is something tangible,something which one can visually appraise.

The extent to which intangible forms ofexchange in the field of ideas were operativein this region is far more difficult to establish.There is no reason why philosophical conceptscould not travel from one area to another, butwhat one can see quite clearly is the imprint ofIndian religions on the Greeks who settled onthe south side of the Hindu Kush extending upto the eastern limits of Panjab. Taxila could giverise to a Greek royal ambassador who was aworshipper of Vishnu and a believer in three ofthe fundamental principles of Indianspiritualismóëself-denial, self-control andwatchfulnessí. One may safely assume that bythis time, Buddhism too had spread its influenceall over the concerned region. The Bajaur reliccasket inscription of Menander and the text ofthe Questions of Milinda provide eloquenttestimony in this direction. In fact, in the presentstage of knowledge, it is the shadow of Indianreligion which seems to be paramount duringthis period all over the concerned region. Theeastward movement of various central, westAsiatic or Hellenic divinities is not yet quiteapparent. The numismatic evidence may not bethe only dependable category of evidence inthis direction. Excavations at Sirkap in Taxilahave revealed the shrine of the double-headedeagle dating from c. first century BC. It is so calledbecause of the presence of double-headed eagleon the top of two arches in the wall at the plinth-level. One of the niches to the right of the stairsshows the façade of a Greek temple while the

other two niches, the ones with eagles, showarches of Indian inspiration. Economically, fromthe second century BC onward, Central Asiaincluding Afghanistan becomes a major area ofinteraction between the Chinese world to theeast and the Hellenistic world to the west. Thisleads to the development of ëSilk Routeí to whichthere were feeder routes from India.

The basic political history of the Indo-Greeksis known only in its scaffoldings, and that toomostly on the basis of unstratified and widelyscattered coins. However, the phase itself, aswe have noticed, is important in various ways.What is also worthy of note is that the Indo-Greek power under Demetrius who did notsever his links with Bactria and beyond, couldlead his army not merely to Saket andMadhyamika but also to Pataliputra. The geo-politics of the middle Ganga plain wherePataliputra is located was apparently linked withthe affairs in the extreme northwest. It was underthe Kushanas that this geo-political elementcame clearly in the limelight.

VI. INDO-SCYTHIANS

That the movement of possibly nomadic tribalgroups in the heart of Central Asia and itsassociated desert plains and high lands couldhave major political impacts on the north,northwest and western sections of thesubcontinent is clearly suggested by the growthof Scythian power in all these areas. The spring-board of their push to India was mainly Seistanwhere the Scythians better known in the Indiansources as Sakas settled after a history ofinteractions with the Graeco-Bactrians andParthians. By the first century AD when thePeriplus of the Erythraean Sea describes theSakas well-settled in the Indus delta, the Sakashad also a kingdom in Taxila and two majorSatraps, one in Mathura and the other in


19

Saurashtra or the Kathiawar peninsula. The Sakasin northwestern India in the first century BC

suggests that there they were contemporary withthe surviving remnants of the Indo-Greek kings.

The first identifiable Indo-Scythian king wasMaues who took control of the Taxila area andthe area west of the Indus in about 80 BC. Mauesíkingdom ended after his death, and we find theIndo-Greek kings ruling the area again. This isevident from the abundance of the coins ofApollodotus II and Hippostratos in this area. Thesecond major Indo-Parthian king Azes defeatedHippostratos in about 55 BC and took control ofnorthwestern India. Apart from his coins, Azeshas a significant archaeological presence. Hiscoins are a continuation of the style laid downby the Indo-Greeks. The obverse of one typeshows him in a military dress carrying a spear.The obverse of another type shows Zeus withspear and an outstretched hand. Greek legendis on this side. The reverse of this type showsNike holding wreath and palm and the legendin Kharosthi reads Maharajasa RajarajasaMahatasa Ayasa. Layer 4 of Sirkap has beencalled an early Saka layer and this layer yieldedmany coins of Azes I. Stone toilet trays have beenfound in this layer. These trays are supposed tobe imitations of similar trays found in the earlierIndo-Greek layers. The most magnificent findof this period is the Bimaran reliquary of gold(7 cm high and made in gold-repousse) foundby Charles Masson at Jalalabad in Afghanistanin the 1830s. The relic was found inside aninscribed steatite casket. The date is not fixed.The steatite casket itself contains coins of AzesII (c. 30 BC). There are representations of theBuddha surrounded by Brahma and Sakra insidearched niches. There are two groups of identicalBrahma-Buddha-Sakra or Indra, with twodevotees in between and two rows of rubies.

The inscriptions on the steatite casket record thatit was a gift of Suivarakshita, son of Munjavamda.The term bhagavata sarirehi in the inscriptionssuggests that the corporeal relics that thecontainer contained could belong to the Buddhahimself.

That the Indo-Scythians were votaries ofBuddhism is also clear from the Mathura lioncapital dated in the first century AD. It has aKharosthi inscription stating that a stupa with arelic of the Buddha was gifted by the queen ofthe Indo-Scythian or Saka satrap of Mathura,Rajuvala. The inscription includes the genealogyof the Mathura satraps. Strato II, the last Indo-Greek ruler of Sakala, was removed by Rajuvalaof Mathura who was preceded by satraps likeHagamasha and Hagana. After Rajuvala severalMathura satraps ruled as representatives of theKushana power. Some of their names wereVanasphara and Kharapallana. The westernSatraps ruled in Malwa and Gujarat, forming adistinct block of history with the Satavahanas ofthe Deccan. A major evidence of the Indo-Scythians being votaries of Buddhism is theTaxila copperplate Kharosthi inscription whichhas been translated by Stein Konow (1969reprint)in the following fashion:

In the seventy-eighth, 78, year of the Great King,the Great Moga, on the fifth, 5, day of the monthPanemos, on this first, of the Kshaharata andKshatrapa of Chukhsa - Liaka Kusuluka by name -his son Patika - in the town of Takshasila, to thenorth, the eastern region, Kshema by name.

In this place Patika establishes a (formerly not)established relic of the Lord Shakyamuni and asangharama (through Rohinimitra who is theoverseer of work of this sangharama)

For the worship of all Buddhas, worshipping hismother and father, for the increase of the life andpower of the Kshatrapa, together with his son and


20

wife, worshipping all his brothers and his blood-relations and kinsmen.

At the jauva-order of the great gift-lord Patika

To Patika the Kshatrapa Liaka

Scholars suggest that Patika, also known froma Mathura lion capital inscription, belongs to thebeginning of the first century AD, but the text,ì78, year of the Great King, the Great Moga,îseems to imply the existence of a royal eraassociated with Maues, an Indo-Parthian kingwho preceded Azes. If true, this will mean thatin the Taxila area, there was the beginning of aroyal era sometime in the first century BC. It isalso interesting that the month of ëPanemosírefers to a Macedonian month. The Indo-Scythians find frequent depictions in Gandharanart where loose tunics with folded lines andpointed caps represent them. For instance, astupa of Butkara, Swat, of c. 1st century BC showsthe Buddha seated between two Corinthiancolumns.

The political history of the Indo-Scythians isbased almost entirely on surface finds of coins.The names of the kings which ruled in thenorthwestern area were Maues (c. 90 BC),Vonones (c. 75 BC), Spahalahores (c. 75 BC),Spalarises (c. 60 BC), Spalagadames (c. 50 BC),Azilises (c. 60 BC or earlier), Azes I (c. 60 BC),Zeionises (c. 10 BC), Kharahostes (c. 10 BC) andHajatria. The Kshaharatas were Liaka Kusulaka,satrap of Chuksha, Kusulaka Patika, Bhumakaand Nahapana, the last the founder of theWestern Kshatrapas. Some of the Mathurasatraps have already been noted.

A smaller group of Indo-Scythian rulers hasbeen noted in Bajaur under the rubric of theApracharajas. The most important source is thegroup of five or six Kharosthi inscriptions foundon a silver Buddhist reliquary published by

R.Saloman (1996). The object, a museumacquirement, is supposedly from Bajaur butmight have been fabricated in Taxila. The silverreliquary comprises two parts, the base and thecover, and both are fluted. The cover is toppedby the figure of a long-horned ibex. Thereliquary was originally a wine goblet which wasreused by the Apraca king Indravarman as areliquary in a stupa raised by him. It was likelyto have originally belonged to the KingKharaosta who possibly used it as a ceremonialdrinking goblet. In the ibex form and also in theflutings of both parts of the body, the reliquarycarries Central Asian and possibly even Iranianinfluence and underlines a hitherto unperceiveddimension of the cultural traditions in the remoteborderland valleys. The six inscriptions on thebody of the reliquary are the following:

Inscription I: [Name (initial or monogram of theartisan who made the artefact).]

Inscription II: [(Property) of the son ofMahaksatrapa, of Yaguraja Kharayosta. 28(sateras), 4 (dhånes?), 2 m(åsas?).]

Inscription III: [(Property) of princeIndravarmana. 28 s(taters), 1 dra(chma).]

Inscription IV: [(Property) of princeIndravarmana. 43 s(taters).]

Inscriptions V & VI: [Prince Indravarman, sonof Commander Vispavarman together with(his) wife establishes these body-relics inhis own stupa. Commander Vispavarmanand the commanderís wife Sisirena are(hereby) honoured. The Apraca rajaIndravasu and (his wife) Vasumitra,(mother) of living son, are honoured.Commanderís wife Uttara is honoured.And the Avaca king Viyemitra, togetherwith wife, is honoured. The communityof his relatives is honoured. And all beings


21

are honoured. All beings are caused toattain nirvana.]

Considerably later than the general range ofIndo-Scythians is the Parataraja dynasty of theLoralai region of Baluchistan which has yieldedtheir coins, one of them mentioning the KingYolamira who also figures in a Kharosthiinscription on pottery from the same area. Thedistinctive feature of the Parataraja coins is theswastika with legend on the reverse with thebust of the king on the obverse. The legendsare usually in Brahmi on the silver coins whereasthe legends are in Kharosthi on the copper coins.Most of these coins belong to the second-thirdcentury AD date-range and are said to possesssome affinity with the coins of the WesternKshatrapas.

VII. INDO-PARTHIANS

Somewhere in the narrow chronological spacebetween the Indo-Scythians and the advent ofthe Kushanas and possibly sharing power withboth, although briefly, were the Indo-Parthianswhose most famous king seems to beGondophares. He could come into power by thelast decade of the first century BC, and by c. AD

100 the Indo-Parthian power may be said tohave ended. The power was based in Taxila,but in the later stage, Kabul or Peshawar seemsto be a power-base too. The power ofGondophares, literally ëholder of gloryí,extended over Arachosia or south Afghanistan,Seistan or the Helmand Basin, the Indus Valleyand Kabul, basically the entire slice of territoryfrom the eastern segment of Afghanistan to theIndus Valley. Like other kings of this and relatedperiod, he is also known principally from hiscoins, showing him wearing a headband,earrings, a necklace and a jacket with rounddecorations. It is probable that the Gondopharesdominion of this whole region was based on a

general suzerainty over various regional rulers.He seems to have been followed by multiplesuccessors: Gondophares II or Sarpedones,Abdagases and other kings includingGondophares III and Gondophares IV. By c. AD

100 the Indo-Parthian power was eclipsed bythe emergent Kushana power. It is one of theselater Gondophares kings who found mention inthe Takht-i-Bahi inscription: MaharayasaGuduvharasa. His association with Gudnapharand its variants in the early Christian Apostlictradition has been long debated but the consensusof scholarly opinion is that there is nothing toassume that his court was visited by St. Thomas,the Apostle. An interesting archaeological relicof the period is the Jandial fire temple in Taxila,which has been assigned to the Parthian phase.It has also been assumed that the Greekphilosopher Apollonius of Tyana, as narrated byPhilostratus in his life of the philosopher, visitedTaxila in about AD 46, i.e. the period of theParthian rule.

In many ways, the period of the Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian rules was acontinuation of the tradition set up by the Indo-Greeksóan assortment of kings knownprincipally from their coins, among which it isthe Indo-Greek issues which dominate attention.As J.N. Banerjea (1957b: 220) wrote,

The Saka coins are in many cases mere adaptationsof those of the Indo-Greeks... The continued use ofthe Greek and Kharosthi monograms on the coinsprobably shows that the services of both Hellenicand Indian die-cutters were requisitioned by therulers. The Sakas, like most of the Indo-Greeks, didnot strike gold, their coins being mostly in silver andcopper; the Pahlavas also had no gold coins butstruck billon, copper and, in rare instances, silvermoney.

Looked at geographically, the stream ofHellenism which began with the foundation of


22

a Greek kingdom in Bactria in the wake ofAlexanderís invasion and continued to the closeof the pre-Christian era and interactedthroughout its duration with the cultural impulsesfrom Central Asia, Parthia, Afghanistan and thesubcontinent itself forms a remarkablyinteresting chapter of ancient Indian history. Thepolitical colour of the region went on changing.At one point the Indo-Greeks were confined

only to the Indian territories, but, after them, theScythians and Parthians had their links withAfghanistan and Iran, and in one sense theirpolitical influence was spread in the form ofKshatrapas up to Mathura, Gujarat and Malwa,i.e. with more extended base in India than theearlier Indo-Greeks. It is in this context that theperiod of the Kushana rule in the subcontinentbecomes more understandable.

REFERENCES

Banerjee, J.N. 1957a. The Bactrian Greeks in India. InK.A. Nilakanta Sastri (ed.), The Mauryas andSatavahanas, 325 BC ñ AD 300. Calcutta: OrientLongmans, pp. 138-85.

óñ. 1957b. The Scythians and Persians in India. In K.A.Nilakanta Sastri (ed.), The Mauryas andSatavahanas,325 BC ñ AD 300. Kolkata: OrientLongmans, pp. 186-221.

Barua, B.M. and Gangadhar Kumar Sinha. 1926. BarhutInscriptions. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.

Chattopadhyay D. (ed.). 1980. Taranathís History ofBuddhism in India. Translated from the Tibetanby Lama Chimpa and Alaka Chattopadhyay.Calcutta: K.P. Bagchi.

Chattopadhyay, S. 1958. Early History of North Indiafrom the Fall of the Mauryas to the Death ofHarsha, c. 200 BC ñ AD 650. Calcutta: ProgressivePublishers.

Cowell, E.B. and F.W. Thomas. 1897. The Harsa-Caritaof Bana. Translated by E.B. Cowell and F.W.Thomas. JRAS, 1897, Chapter 6, pp. 164-96.

Dasgupta, K.K. 1974. A Tribal History of Ancient India:A Numismatic Approach. Calcutta: NababharatPublishers.

Devadhar, C.R. (ed.). 1966. Malavikagnimitram.Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Errington, E. and J. Cribb (eds.). 1992. Crossroads ofAsia: Transformation in Image and Symbol inthe Art of Ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan.Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust.

Fleet, J.F. 1914. The Pabhosa Inscriptions. JRAS: 89-93.

Frohlich, C. 2004. Indo-Parthian Dynasty. InEncyclopaedia Iranica (updated March 2012) ñinternet.

Guillaume, O. 1990. Analysis of Reasonings inArchaeology: The Case of Bactrian and Indo-Greek Numismatics. Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress.

Handa, Devendra. 2007. Tribal Coins of Ancient India.Delhi: Aryan Books.

Jagannath, Prof. 1957. Post-Mauryan Dynasties (184 BC

to AD 200). In K.A. Nilakanta Sastri (ed.), TheMauryas and Satavahanas, 325 BC ñ AD 300.Calcutta: Orient Longmans.

Jayaswal, K.P. and R.D. Banerji. 1929-30. TheHathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela. EpigraphiaIndica 20: 71-89.

Karttunen, K. 1997. India and the Hellenistic World.Studia Orientalia 83.

Konow, Stein. 1969 (reprint). Kharosthi Inscriptions:With the Exception of Those of Asoka. Varanasi:Indological Book House.

Lahiri, Bela. 1974. Indigenous States of Northern India(circa 200 BC ñ 320 AD). Calcutta: University ofCalcutta.

Mairs, R. 2006. Hellenistic India. In New Voices inClassical Reception Studies. Issue 1 (internet).

Majumdar, N.G. 1937. The Bajaur Casket of the Reign ofMenander. Epigraphia Indica 24: 1-7.

Narain, A.K. 1957. The Indo-Greeks. Oxford: Clarendon


23

óñ. (ed.). 1968. Seminar Papers on the Local Coinsof Northern India. Varanasi: Banaras HinduUniversity.

Sahni, D.R. 1933. A Sunga Inscription from Ayodhya.Epigraphia Indica 20, inscription no. 4.

Saloman, R. 1996. An Inscribed Silver Buddhist Reliquaryof the Time of King Kharaosta and PrinceIndravarman. Journal of American OrientalSociety 116: 418-52.

Senior, R.C. 2005. Indo-Scythian Dynasty. InEncyclopaedia Iranica (internet).

Sircar, D.C. 1965. Select Inscriptions. Volume 1. Calcutta:University of Calcutta.

Smith, V. 1924. Early India and Pakistan. Oxford:University Press.

Strong, J.S. 1983. The Legend of King Asoka, A Studyand Translation of the Asokavadana. Princeton:Princeton University Press, pp. 292-94.

Tarn, W.W. 1938. The Greeks in Bactria and India.Cambridge: University Press.

Upreti, Kalpana. 1995. India as Reflected in theDivyavadana. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

[DKC]

I.1. The Sungas, Kanvas, Republican Kingdoms and Monarchies, Mahameghavahanas

Documents

Transcript of I.1. The Sungas, Kanvas, Republican Kingdoms and Monarchies, Mahameghavahanas