A Chronology of Indian Sculpture: The Stavhana Chronology at Nsik

Author(s): Jeanne L. Trabold

Source: Artibus Asiae, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1970), pp. 49-88
Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3249527 .
Accessed: 17/10/2011 13:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus Asiae.

http://www.jstor.org

JEANNE L. TRABOLD

A CHRONOLOGY
THE SATAVAHANA

OF INDIAN

SCULPTURE:

CHRONOLOGY

AT NASIK

original study of which this paperis a part proposed a method of analysiswhich would
make it possible to set in a rough chronological order most of the important works of
Indian sculpturefalling between about z5o B.C. and A.D. 550o.Even at the scale of a dissertation the materialdealt with proved too voluminous for detailed arguments.The final results
were presented in a series of charts, while one important area was studied intensively as a
demonstrationof method. Here, with more stringent space limitations, it is necessaryto make
the demonstrationfor its own sake, without going on to its original application; and so the
paper will deal only with the Buddhist rock-cut shrines at Nisik during the Sitavihana or
Andhra dynasty.
The chronology of the Sitavihana regime has been worked over for many yearsby scholars.
All have been vehement in presenting and defending their own interpretationsof the inscriptions and the externalhistoricalevidence, and equallydeterminedto refute the theories of their
colleagues. The highly controversial results will be shown in this first section, which will

The

andOrissd,*as well as related

recordsof thedynastyin
involvethe earlyinscriptional
Mahdr.stra
of the middleAndhrakings.
inscriptionsof the Ksatrapaswho were contemporaries
PART I
THE EARLIEST SATAVAHANA KINGS:

In the

lists, the firstAndhranameis variouslygiven, as follows:

Pur.nic
Matsya: Sisuka

Sindhuka
VT7ayu:

Visu: Sipraka

Bhdgavata:
Vrsalobali (i.e. strong idra)

Chismaka
Brahmanda:
All of these names are generallyaccepted as corruptions of the name Simuka,who is considered to be the founder of the Sitavihana line'.
noted above give Krisna as the second of the line. The third is given as
All the
Purdnas
in the Vayu,
and Visu, and Sri-SintaSri-Mallakarniin the Matsya,Sri-Sitakarrni
Brahmde.da,
karna(Rapson's spelling) in the Bhdgavata.
* To facilitate
pronunciation, ch is used instead of c, and ri instead of in the transliterationof Indian words.
.r
SE.J.Rapson, BMC (1908), p. lxiv; Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji, BG, XVI (Bombay: Government Printing Office,
I883), p.6Iz.

49

TheNdndghdt
Inscriptions:
reigncomesfrom a cave in the
Epigraphicalsupportfor the initiationof the Satavahana
Here arefound on the backwall of a rest chambera seriesof
Ndndghdtpass in Mahdrdstra.
labelsoverwhatwere probablyportraitstatues,and on the right and left wallstwo sacrificial
In parttheyaretranslatedas follows:
inscriptionsof a QueenNdyanikd.
On the left wall, numberone:
... whoseruleis unopposed,[of the Lord]of the Dekhan... by ... the daughterof
the increaserof the Arhgiyarace,... [who is the] wife of ... sri, the
the Mahdrathi,
Lordwho gives sons, boons... [who is the] motherof Vedisriand the motherof
the illustriousSaktiz.
The inscriptionon the rightwall,numbertwo, appearsto be the continuationof the list of
sacrificeswhichwas begunon the left wall. Sincetherearemanygapsin the epigraph,it is not
reallyclearwhetherthe queenor someoneelse madethe sacrifices.Someof the nameswhich
appearin this inscriptiondo not appearin the labels3.
The labelsare translatedby Indrajibeginningwith numberone as follows: RdydSimuka
Sdtavdhano
andQueenNdyanikd;the fourth
Sirimdto;the secondandthirdareKing Sdtakarni
is princeBhdya;in the fifthandsixthboththe statuesandthe inscriptionsarelost; the seventh
is Maharathdgrianka
Yiro;all of the eightandninthstatuesaregone (thefeet aresaidto remain
on some)whilethe inscriptionsreadprinceHakusiriandprince
Sdtavdhana4.
the illustrious
Btihlerreadstheseepigraphsthus:numberthree,"KingSimukaSdtavdhana,
the
number
of
and
the
the
illustrious
four, "[The images]
one";
queen, Ndganikd,
king,
number
"The
number
"The
Mahdrathi[feudal
five,
Sdtakarni";
six,
royal prince Bhdya";
number
"The
number
seven,
baron]Tranakayira";
RoyalprinceHakusiri";
eight, "Theroyal
princeSdtavdhana"5.
Bt*hlerandIndrajido not agreeon the relationshipof thosenamedin the inscriptions.It is
Indraji'sopinionthatin the traditionof suchinscribedstatuesthe donorwouldbe represented
as would his parents,brothers,and sons accordingto their ages6. If this were the case, the
the founderof the line, Sdtakarni,
Simuka'sson, and
sequencewould be SimukaSdtavahana,
Thenextfigurewouldbe KumdraBhdya.Since he is calledKumdra
wife,Ndyanikd.
Sdtakarni's
is not reallyclear.Eventhoughthereis
or prince,he cannothavebeena king.His relationship
a blankareawherestatuesfive and six with theirinscriptionsshouldbe, Indrajithoughtthat
king Vedisiri and his wife must have been representedat this point, becauseit seemed unlikely
that the person who was said to have made the inscription would not appearin the group of
statues7.Statuesseven, eight and nine are not kings. They representan officer and two princes.
Indraji'schartedgeneology follows":
2

G. BUhler, "The

3 Ibid.

Ndndgh.t

Inscriptions", ASWI, V (1883), pp.6o-6x.

Indraji, op.cit., pp.6x1-61z2.

s The number is Biuhler'sfor the inscriptions, op.cit., pp. 61-64.
6 Indraji, op.cit., p. 611.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., p.61iz2.

50

I
PrinceBhdya

I
SimukaSatavdhana

Sdtakani(marriedNdyanikd)
VedisiriSdtakani

PrinceStavdhana

PrinceHakusiri

In the chartPrinceBhdyawouldappearto be the brotherof Simuka.Accordingto the five

in use here, the secondking of the Sdtavdhanas,
Krisna,was the brotherof Simuka.
Purdnas
However,no one seemsto equatePrinceBhdyawith Krisna,nor doesthe latternameappearin
the epigraphsat the Ndndghdt.The reasonfor this in Indraji'sopinionis,
The omissionof his statuein the Ndndghdtchambermaybe due to his having
beenthe brotherof Simuka,as copperplateandotherinscriptionsnot unusuallyomit
to mentionbrothersq.
Somedifficultydoes arisethenas to whatrelationshipKrisnawas to Simuka.In his inscriptionalrecordat NasikCavei9 (Indraji'snumber23), he is called"of the Sdtavdhana
family"o;
it seemedunlikelyto Indrajithat such a phrasewould be used concerninga brotherof the
founderof the dynasty.
hazardsno guessesaboutthe two missinginscriptionswhichIndrajifelt werethose
Btihler
of Vedisiriandhis wife,butin referenceto his inscriptionnumbernine,he thinksit belongsto a
or Pulumdyi.In his opinion,it is
laterperiod,possiblyto the time of Gautamiputra
Sdtakarni
with the othersin the chamber,".
not contemporaneous
B ihler'sGeneology
King and Lordof the Deccan
*-w3 SimukaSdtavdhana

-t 6 Mahdrathi
Tranakayiro
in
(mentioned *"i, father
of the sacrificingqueen)

I
*- 4 Queen Ndyanikd

(who offered the sacrifices in

-.V

5 Kum IraBhIya

King STtakarni
(mentioned as

([la] not found

the Lord...

in +x)

sini in -WI,

line 4)
* 7 Kumira Hakusiri
i
(-" Sati)
9 Ibid., p. 6I3.

xo Ibid.

12

Bidhler, op. cit., p. 64.

Ibid., p. 6 8.

5I

8 Kumira Sitavihana
(Vedisiri in *"1)iz

Both Rapsonand Bthler assumethat QueenNiyaniki was the motherof Vedisiriand Satisiri
Haku-Siri),andthatshe governedduringthe minorityof Vedisiri.Theyidentify
(Sati-Sirimata
SatiSirimataof the inscriptionwith Hakusiriof the relief13.Rapson'sgeneologicalarrangement
is the sameas that of Biihler'sabove, but he has no placein his schemefor PrinceBhaya.
is not a name,but an epithet(Biruda),and the ... siri mustbe
Biihlerbelievesthat Sdtakarni
the endof his secondname.Also, it is possiblethatHakumaybe a Prakritcorruptionof Sakti.'1
who
A fourthopinionon the line of descentat Ninighit, was expressedby Gopalachari,
believedthatthe two missingrelievosheld statuesof Vedisiriand Satisiri.Neitherof theseare
the two princeswho were mentionedin the sacrificial
inscription,since neitherof them is the
that
the
sacrificial
This
the
Kumdra.
means
or
eldest
epigraphis laterthan the labelsof the
reliefs.Furtherhe concludesthatHakusiriandSatisiriarenot one andthe sameas bothRapson
and Bthlerdo's.
The pointsthatthesefour scholarsdo seemwillingto acceptarethat Simukais the firstof
thatKrisna,the secondruler,doesnot appear
the kingsreigningunderthe nameof Satavdhana;
and
that
the
thirdkingis namedSitakarni.The datestheyassign
in the epigraphsat Ndndghdt;
these inscriptionsvary more widely than do their translations,partlybecauseof the Purdnic
and partlybecauseof the interpretation
of two otherinscriptionsmentioninga
discrepancies
King
Satakar.ni.6
TheHdthigumphd
Inscription:
cavernin Orissd,the
The first(not necessarilyin time)of the two is foundin a semi-natural
at Khandagiri,Udayagiri.It recordsthe eventsin the life of King Khdravelaof
Hdthigumphd
who heldlandsto the west of Kalifiga.Of all the epiKalifigaandmentionsa King Sdtakarni,
this representsthe epigraphicrecordswhichcontaininformationregardingthe Sdtavdhanas,
andconfusion.The datingof this recordrangesfromthe secondcentury
tome of disagreement
of the firstcenturyA.D.
decades
the
B.C. to
early
Indrajiturns to this inscriptionin order to date the Sdtakarniof the Ndndghdtrecord
because,"Exceptfor the formof theirearlyinscriptionsthereareno materialsfromwhichthe
'7." It was once the opinion of several
age of these earlyAndhrakings can be determined
recordcontaineda
scholars,some of whom have changedtheirminds,thatthe Hdthigumphd
era.
If
this
if
were so, and the Sdtakarni
of Khdravela's
datein the Mauryan
secondyearwas
a
date
for
the
would
Andhras
be
a
established.
is
What
follows
I,
resumdof the proGStakarni

blems presentedby the implementationof this record.

Indrajitranslatedand interpretedit as follows:

"In the second year [after Khiravela's installationas king]

protecting
Sitakarni
and chariots."In
the west sends wealth consisting chiefly of horses, elephants,men,
the thirteenthyearof his reign king Khiravela recordsthe makingof pillarsand other
works at Udayagiri,and gives as the date of the making of the work, and also it may
'3

Rapson, op.cit., p.xlvi; Biihler, op.cit., p.68.

'4

Ibid., p.69; K. Gopalachari does not accept this view. Early History of theAndhra Country(Madras: University of

Madras, 1941), p. 33xs

Ibid.,
p. 3 3.
16 The Purinas
give the name Stakarni for between 5 and 9 of the Andhra Kings.
17
Indraji, op.cit., p.61 3.

52

be assumedof the writingof the inscription,... "In the one hundredandsixty-fifth

yearof the Mauryarule,afterone hundredandsixty-fouryearshadpassedaway18."
in the 154thyearof the Mauryaneraof Kalifigaandraises
Indraji,therefore,datesSdtakarni
the question,does this erabeginwith Chandragupta
or Agoka?SinceAdoka'sthirteenthedict
sayshe took Kalifigain his eightyear,this couldbe the basisfor establishinga Mauryanerain
Kalifiga19.
Indraji used the dates which Sir A.Cunningham established for Aooka's accession to the
throne, 260 B.C.0zo.Dr. P. H. L. Eggermont believes that Agoka ascended the throne in 268
B.C.2z. If the base date is taken as 268 B.C. minus the eight yearshe ruled before conquering
Kalifiga, 260 B.C. would then be the time for the establishmentof a Mauryanera. This date
minus 164 or 165 would provide a date of 95 B.C. for the thirteenthyear of Khdravela.It would
put him on the throne first about io8 B.C., and since the mention of Stakarni comes in Khdravela's second year, date Sdtakarniabout io6 B.C. With the given date of 260 B.C. for AMoka's
accession to the throne, his eighth year would be 252 B.C. This would be (if this line of interpretationis followed) the initial year for the Mauryanera in Kalifigaand date Khdravelaabout
90 B.C., and ~itakarni, 88 B.C.
However, a number of questions have arisen about the translation of line sixteen in the
inscription:

Sathivsasate
chachoyatha
vochhine
Panatariya
rajamuriyakile
agasatikutariyano22z.
Does it reallysay:"Inthe one hundredandsixty-fifthyearof the Mauryarule,afterone hundred
andsixty-fouryearshadpassedaway?"If it does,then one mustdecidewhenthe Mauryanera
Why are thereno Mauryanrecords
began. Did it begin with Adokaor with Chandragupta?
datedin this era?
of the readingof the wholeinscription23.
In 1917,K. P.Jayaswalundertookthe clarification
He readline sixteenin the samefashionthatIndrajihad,andclaimedthatit wasa clearlymarked
sentencein propergrammar24.In regardto the initiationof the erahe disagreed,andput it at
the time of Chandragupta
Maurya'scoronation.He felt therewas more justificationfor this
B.C. His
was a Jain2s. He dates the Khdravelainscriptionca.
since Chandragupta
160-165
chronologybasedon his datingof the erais as follows:
236 B.C., Deathof Adoka
213 B.C., FoundationofStavrhana dynasty
197

B.C., Birth of Khiravela

18

Ibid., p.614.
19 Ibid.
20 A more recent
analysis of the problem of A'oka's regnal dates has been advanced by Dr. P.H.L.Eggermont, The
of the Reignof Afoka Moriya(Leiden: E. S. Brill, 1956).
Chronology
21 Ibid., p.
126.
22
Indraji, op.cit., p.
613.
comment of scholars before they begin their translation of this epigraph is that the years have dealt
2a The most frequent
the
and that there are many gaps in the inscription due to erosion and age.
with
stone,
roughly
24 Jayaswal,JBORS, IV (1917), pp. 449-50.
25 Ibid., p.452. In a note to his article in the same
year, JBORS, IV (1917), PP.474-485 ff., he offers the possibility that it
might have begun with Chandragupta'sabdication to become a Jain ascetic.

53

B.C., Fall of Mauryanline

Accession of PusyamitraSufiga
18o B.C., SitakarniI
188

16o

B.C., Date of Hdthigumphd inscriptionz6

It can be seen from Jayaswal'schronolgy that he believed that Kharavelaand Pusyamitra

SuAgawere contemporaries,and that the Sdtakarniwhom Khdravelamentions in his second
year is the S8takarniof the Ndndghdtinscription27. His chronology would establishthe Sdtavdhana'sat Paithanabout 210-2z13 B.C. Stakarni I would come to the throne 33 yearslater.
Also in 1917, R.D. Banerjiwrote on the same inscription and supported the dating in the
Mauryanera. He flatlyrejectedFleet'sand Ltider'sopinion that therewas no datein the Mauryan
era78, on the basis that Fleet and Laider'sdating and reading of certain numbers resulted in
inconsistency 29.
Again in 1927, 1928, and 1930, Jayaswal and Banerji published the results of their intensive

re-examinationof the rock inscription. The opinions they then voiced completely eliminated
the possibility of dating Khdravelain a Mauryanera. The translationof this vital section in line
sixteen was brought more into line with that of Fleet, and readvariously:

and

The four-foldAAfiga-Saptika
of sixty-foursectionslost
in the timeof the Maurya[king]he restores
30.
he causesto be compiledexpeditiouslythe [text]of
the seven-foldArigas [sic]of the sixty-four[letters]3'.

As a substitutionfor the now nonexistentMauryanera, line six (in 1927) was said to refer
to a Nandaerawith the numeralsti-vasa-sata
readeitheras o103or as 30032. By 1930, Jayaswal
andBanerjiwerequitecertainit mustbe 10o3 . Theirtranslationof lineeightalsowassuggested
as a meansof datingthe inscriptionby the synchronismof the Greekking, DemetriosI, and
Khdravela.Formerlythe mitaor mitraof this linewascorrelatedwiththe Suigas 3.
In 1929 anotherscholar,B. Barua35 publishedhis translationof the Khiravelarecordin
whichhe foundamongotherpointsof disagreement:
no statementabouta GreekkingDimitaDemetriosabandoningMathura;no mentionof a Mauryanera; no allusionto a Nandaera;
26

Ibid., p.468.
Other points which Jayaswal raises at this time (1917), and which become points of disagreement in later translations
concern: (i) the identification of King Nanda; (2) the translation of ti-vasa-sata,does it mean 103 or 300; (3) is the
Mitra pursued to Mathurdin the eighth year Pusyamitra?(4) is Bahdsamitraor Brihaspatimitrathe same as Pusyamitra
or Vasujyestha?
28 R.D. Banerji,JBORS, III, pp.489ff.; J.F.Fleet, JRAS (1910o),pp.242ff., 824; H. Liders, El, X (1910o),pp.
16o-x6i
27

I345.

It was Fleet's opinion that the MauryaKal, and the numbers referred to the loss of sixty-four Aigas (Jain scriptures)
in the time of the Mauryans. Liiders read ti-vasa-sataas 10
o3 years since King Nanda, or since the Nanda Kings. Thus
the fifth year of Khdravelawould be counted 103 years from some point during the reign of King Nanda or the Nanda
Kings.
30 Jayaswal,JBORS,
XIII (1927), p.235.
a3 K.P.Jayaswal and R.D.Banerji, El, XX (1930), p.89.

29

32

Jayaswal, op.cit., p.237.

33 Jayaswal and Banerji, op.cit., p.75.

34
Ibid.h,p.76.
3s Old Brdhmi Inscriptions in the Udayagiri and Khanagiri Caves (Calcutta: University of Calcutta,

54

1i929).

no referenceto a corpus of Jain canon, and that there was a slight possibility that the name of
Sdtakarnidid occur in the record. He elaboratedon these theories at great length and came to
the conclusion that it was impossible to get an indisputabledate for Khiravela.
Barua'sopinion is well supported by the various interpretationswhich have been given to
this epigraph. This being the case, there is no secure way to date the Andhras by synchronization with Khiravela. Even if the date of the Hithigumphi record were secure, there is still
the problem of deciding which Sitakarni of the Andhra line may have been mentioned36.
Attempts have been madeto date both the Ninighit and Hithigumphi recordson paleographic
comparisonsbetween themselves and epigraphs at Sifichi and Besnagar.That both are early
is generallyacceptedby scholars,but how early is still a matterof disagreement.If the internal
evidence of the Hithigumphi inscriptionwere less open to argument,the paleographicevidence
might be more convincing. But a detailed discussion of paleographyis outside the scope of
this study.
TheSifichiInscription:
The second of the two inscriptions related to the Nnighdt record, is found at S.fichi in
Bhopal State.It is a donative epigraphfound on the back of the top bracketof the south torana
of StzpaOne, incised on the dome of the centralsti~pashown in the panel. It reads:
Gift of Anarhda,the son of Visithi (Vdsisththi),the foreman of the artisans (dvesanim) of rdjn Siri-Sdtakani36.
According to Marshallthe south gateway of St7pa One is the earliest of the toranasat SdfichI.
He is loath to identify this Sitakarnispecifically,but is "practicallycertainthat the king referred
to is one of the Sitakarniswho appearlater in the Paurdyic lists... 7" and is not the same as
Sitakarni of the Ninighit and Hithigumphi inscriptions.
Marshall'sreasoning in dating the SdfichiSitakarnipost-Nindghit was based partly on the
internal evidence of the Hithigumphi. He believed that the Sitakarni at Sifichi was the same
mentioned in Khdravela'sdescriptionof his attackto the West. He was of the opinion that this
must have occurred after the reign of the Sufiga dynasty in the West, because they were not
mentioned. He feels that had the Sufigasstill been in control of the Westernareassome recognition of this fact would surely have been found in the epigraph3as.As it is, Marshallthinks the
area was under control of several governors and not a single powerful dynasty39. The logic
seems to be thatthe presenceof SitakarnIi's
nameas a rijan at Sifichi, a former ufigastronghold,
would then equatehim with the time of Khiravela. However, this is not the only reasonMarshall
has for identifying the Sitakarniof Safichiwith
II of the
He believes that on
Sitakarni
Purdnas.
of
the
was
earlier
than the Sifichi or the Hithigrounds paleography
Nnighit inscription
which
were
gumphi
contemporary.
36

John Marshall, Guideto Sdchb (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1918), pp.Iz, 48; J.Marshall and
A.Foucher, The Monumentsof Saicbi (3 Vols.; Calcutta, n.d.), pp. 36-37; H. Ltiders, "List of Brdhmi Inscriptions",
Appendix, EI, X
346, p.42.
37Marshall,
op.cit., p. 13.
38 K.P. Jayaswal in his
early translation of the Khdravelainscription thought that the gufigas were mentioned. Later he
thinks it is a Greek king. Supra,p. 54, n.27 and n. 34.
39Marshall and Foucher, op.cit., pp.275-277.

55

Jayaswaltendedto agreewith Marshallthat the Sfiichi I inscriptionbelonged to 8dtakarniII

who reigned for fifty-six years. He also based this judgment on the style of the charactersat
Nin4ghdt, Hdthigumphi,and Sifichi with the first of these two being the older. Jayaswal'sdate
for SdfichiI then would be ca. 120 B.C.40. Marshall'swould be the middle or the latter half of
the first century B.C.*".
Many other opinions have been voiced on the identificationof the Sitakarni at Sdfichiand
the date of this inscription. Some of these are cited below. The oldest interpretationsare based
on informationof paleographicstyle which was availablebefore the discovery and translation
of the BesnagarGarudapillar inscription. This pillar, although noticed by Cunninghamin his
survey reports of 1873 to 187742, was not cleaned of its coating of red lead until 19o8-19o943,

at which time the inscription was found. It apparentlycomes from the Sufiga period, and is
dated variously 140-108 B.C.

Once the Besnagarepigraphwas translated,it could be used as a stylistic tool. Previously

the AMokaninscriptionsof the third century B.C. were the only early dated controls for paleography. This discovery changed some minds**.
RamiprasddChanda45is one of the principle sources most scholarshave consulted in their
examinationof the Sdfichiinscription46.Chandafelt that the Sdfichiinscriptionof Sdtakarniwas

the Bhdrhuttorazainscription
laterin datethanAMoka's
edicts,the BesnagarGarudastambha,
of the Sufigas,andthe Ndndghdtepigraphs.He basedhis opinionon the shapeof the letters*47.
B hler48felt thatthe SdfichiandNdndghdt
inscriptionswereidenticalin style,andput them
in the secondcenturyB.C. partlybecauseof the Khdravela
Inscription.
Chanda's
to
seemed
who
rejectedhis identificationof the
sequence
accept
Gopalachari
as the sixth in the line, who reignedfrom 75 to 25 B.C., becauseGopalachari's
S~itakarni
chronologywouldput numbersix about180- 130oB.C. He could see no reasonfor not picking
for the one at Sdfichi.Further,he rejectedBiihler'sequationof Sdfichiand
a later Sdtakarni
Ndndghdt.He wouldput Sifichilater49.
In reviewingthesetheories,Spinkcommentedthatthe Sdfichiscriptseemedrelatedto the
two
Suilgaand post-Sufigainscriptionsof the nearbyregions,while neitherof the other
recordsshow these elements.Then he statedthat paleography
(Ndndghdtand Hdthigumphd)
may only be used up to a point. Otherinformationwas then neededto fix the datesof an
inscription within narrow limits so.
40

Jayaswal and Banerji, op.cit., p.74.

4 Marshall, op.ci., p. 13.

42 A.Cunningham, ASI, X (1874-1875 and 1876-1877),
pp.41Iff.
43
J.Marshall, JRAS (1908), pp. 1953ff.; J.Ph.Vogel, ASIAR (1908-09), pp. iz6ff.; J.F.Fleet, JRAS (1909), pp. io87ff.;
D.R. Bhandarkar,ASIAR (I913-14 and 1914-15), pp. 186-234 and pp.66-88; D.R. Bhandarkar,JBBRAS, LXIV,
Vol. 23 (London, 1910), pp. o104ff.

**HCIP,II, p.195, n.Li.

4s

from Salcbh(Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing,

RamdprasddChanda, MASI, No. i, VotiveInscriptions
1919).

46

Some who have cited his opinion in apparent support of its sequence are: Barua, op.cit., pp. 15off.; Gopalachari,
op.cit., p.29, n. Io; W. Spink, "Rock-cut Monuments of the Andhra Period: Their Style and Chronology" (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, 1954), P. 86.

4'
48

Chanda, op.cit., p. 6.
Biuhler, IA, XXXIII

(1904), p. 86-pre-Besnagar.
49 Gopalachari, op. cit., p. 29, n. Io0.
so0 Spink, op.cit., p.89; Jayaswal and Banerji, op.cit., p.73.

56

Thus far it is obvious that neither the Purdnasnor the inscriptions have provided either a
securedate or a confidentidentificationof
Of the epigraphsso far discussedonly one
is found in relationship to sculpture which
lends itself to a stylistic examination. That is at
S.takarni.
Safichi.
THE LATER SATAVAHANAS AND THE KSATRAPAS:
TheNdsik Caves:NineteenandEighteen:
It is the intent of this studyto provide the furtherdating informationSpink speaksof through
stylistic analysisof sculpture.Therefore,the model site to be examinedin some detail is Nasik.
Here there are a number of Sdtavahanaepigraphs found in connection with sculpture. The
descriptive material for Nasik is derived from photographss, and Indraji's, Ndsiks5. The
inscriptions are taken from Indraji;s3from the ASWI Vol.IV, pp.98 to i16; and from E.
Senarts4.There are some twenty-four caves at Nisik, six of which contain inscriptions of the
Sdtavdhanas.The numberingruns from west to east. The two earliestcaves are presumedto be
numbers Nineteen and Eighteen.
Cave Nineteen is a vihdrabeyond Eighteen and below Twenty's court. It is in three parts:
a veranda,a hall, and six cells. The hall is 14 feet broad, 14 feet deep, and 8 feet high; in the
back wall and in each side wall are two cells. Over the doorway of each cell is a horseshoe arch,
and between each pair or archesis an undulatingband of rail traceryone foot broad. The cells
are about 6 feet 4 inches by 7 feet z inches deep. The entryto the hall is 3 feet wide with windows
one to each side with stone tracery.On the upper side of the right window is the well preserved
inscription number twenty-two.
When Krishna of the Sdtavdhanafamily was king [this] cave [was] made by the
great Sramanaminister, [an] inhabitantof Ndsikass.
The verandais 16 feet broad, 4 feet z inches deep, and the ceiling is 7 inches lower than that of
the hall. There are two pillars and two pilasters.They are eight sided in the middle of the shaft
and squarein the upper part. Indrajisays these are similar in style to Girndrin Kathidwadand
Udayagiriin Orissa.Above the pillaris a belt of rock dressedlike timber. The roof, now broken,
projected over thiss6.
The Purdeasrecord that the successor of the Andhra King Simuka would be his brother
Kisinas7. Though it seemed strange to find the brother of the founder of a dynastyreferredto
in such a manner,Indrajifelt that just on the paleographicevidence
Nineteen's epigraph
could not be separatedby too long an intervalfrom that of N~nighit.N.sik
Thus it could be assumed
that the inscriptions of this cave may have been carved just prior to the
epigraphs,
Ninigh.t
s'

Taken by Gary Tarr and J. L.Davidson.

s2 BG, XVI, pp. 541-629.

3saIbid.
s4 EI, VIII (1905), pp. 59-96.
Indraji, op.cit., p.593.
55ss
s6 Ibid.; Gopalachari, op.cit., see P1. xii.
s1

Supra,p. 51.

57

and that it was possibly contemporaneouswith the reign of the second SatavahanaKrisnass8.
Unfortunately there is not sufficient sculptural material at the Nandghdt site to make any
stylistic appraisalor comparison,with any Ndsik material.
The exterior of Nindghdt appearsto have been completely restored and screenedins9. On
the interior only the feet of the relief figures remain. These are frontal and show no shift of

bodilyweight6o.
In Indraji'sdiscussionof a chronology for Ndsik and the Sdtavdhanas,he suggested that the
pillars of the facade of Cave Nineteen resembledthose found in Orissd6I. It is not known to
which Orissdncave he referred.It could not have been the Hdthigumphdas that is a natural
cavern without pillars. Besides it has alreadybeen shown that no specificdate is ascertainable
through the Hdthigumphdinscription.
The next cave related to Cave Nineteen by inscriptional evidence is Cave Eighteen, the
chaityahall. The inscription,numbernineteen, which is on the fifth and sixth pillarsof the right
hand row is as follows:
[This] chapel or cave is made on the Trirasmi mountain by the royal minister
Arahalayaand by Sdtariyd [Sk.Satdrya],the daughter of Lisilanaka, the fostermother (?) of the great king Hakusirl [Sk.Hakusri], the female storekeeperof the
royal minister Agiyatanaka [Sk.Agneyatanuka],and the mother of Kapainanaka
62.
[Sk.Kripanaka?]

In a footnote to the translationhe admitted difficulty in the translationof the word Bhatapdlikd.
A second translationof this epigraphwas given by Senart63.
By Bhatapdlikd[granddaughter]of Mahdhakusiriand daughter of the royal officer
Arahalayafrom Chalisilana,wife of the royal officer Agiyatanaka,of the treasure
has been caused to be perfected on
this chaityagtriha
office, mother of Kapalnanaka,
this mount Tiranhu.
Two other inscriptions,numberstwenty and twenty-one,occur in connectionwith this cave.
The first is found under the arch of the entry and readsas follows:
NIsika6-.by the inhabitantsof
The gift of the village of Dhambika
The second is found on the molding of the doorway to the proper left and above the Yaksa
figure.
The middle railingand Yaksha made by ... and Nandasri6s.
history.
ss8Indraji, op.cit., p. 613. This would necessarily be the sequence according to Purdanic

so Gopalachari, op.cit., P1.VIII, I.

6o Ibid., P1.II.

61 Indraji, op.cit., p.

613.
Ibid., p. 590.
63 EI, VIII, p. 91.
64 Indraji, op.cit., p. 590.
6s Ibid.,
p. 591I.

62

58

of inscriptionnumbertwenty,Indrajisuggestedthatit could
In a footnoteto his translation
be takento meanthat the people of Ndsik gave a village,Dhambika,to someoneunnamed.
Thisis unusualsinceit is usuallya kingwho woulddonatea village.Forthis reasonhe offered
a secondmeaningwhichread"[This arch]the gift of the guild of graindealers,inhabitantsof
Ndsika"66.Senartinterpretedthe inscriptionas evidencethatthe cavewas originallydonated
by these people and was finishedby those of the inscriptionnumbernineteen67.LUiders
renderednumbertwentyin almostthe samefashionas Indraji,but he changedthe phrase"by
the inhabitants"to "of the Ndsikakas"68.No difficultyappearedto exist in the translationof
numbertwenty-one.
Returningto epigraphnumbernineteen,the variationsin the renderingbetweenthat of
wouldmakethe dateof the cavevaryby two to threegenerations.Indraji
Indrajiand Senart69
put the dedicationof the cave in the reign of the great king Hakusiriby his foster mother
Lisilanaka.Hakusiri,accordingto the Ndndghdt
inscription,is one of the sons of Stakarniand
Ndyanikd.If Indraji'schronologicalschemeis followed,Hakusiriwouldbe on the throneabout
70 B.C.70.The kingKrisna(Kanha)of the Purd
naswouldhavebeenthe greatuncleof Hakusiri
if the geneologyis correct.This assumptiondoes not placemorethana generationanda half
betweenKrisnaand Hakusiri.It is basedon the possibilitythat Vedisiri,Hakusiri'sbrother,
was on the thronefirst. [Seepage 5i1].He was followedwithina generationby Hakusiri.The
Purdas areof no usein this assumptionsincethesenamesdo not appearafterKrisna.Further
- who said of this inscriptionof Mahdhakusiri
complicationswere suggestedby Gopalachari
that:
"Sincehe does not bearthe title of RdjdnwhichSdtavihanakingsinvariablydo, we
cannotsubscribeto the view of Rapsonand Bihler thatthe Hakusiriof our inscription ascendedthe throne71."
He does identifythe Plrnotsafituof the VdyuPurdnawith Satisiri72.
If Senart'sinterpretation
of this CaveEighteeninscriptionis next examinedit saysthatthe
cavewasnot excavatedby thefostermotherof Hakusiri,butby the grand-daughter
of Hakusiri.
Thisincreasesthe timespanbetweenCaveNineteenof KrisnaandCaveEighteenby two more
generations.(UsingIndraji'sdates andtakingtwenty-fiveyearsas the meanfor a generation,
we have70 B.C. for Hakusiriminusfiftywhichgives zi B.C.for CaveEighteen.)
Oncemorethelackof consensuson theinterpretation
of aninscriptionreducesits usefulness
as a tool for determining even a relative chronology. Thus the style of the decoration of the
cave itself compared to the style of others at Nisik and elsewhere must be the criterion to
determinea proper sequence.
66
Ibid., p. 590, n. 3.67 Senart, op.cit., p. 91.
68 Liiders, EI, X, Appendix numbers I141-1143, pp. I28-129.

69 Ibid., number 1141 is the same as Senart's.

70o takarni 1-98 B.C.; Simuka-1i 30 B.C.;

io B.C.; Satasiri-9o B.C.; and Hakusiri-70 B.C. Indraji, op.cit.,

Krina-i
p. I64.
71 Gopalachari, op.cit., p. 38.
72 Ibid.; Rapson's Purdniclist of the Andhra Kings does not show a Pironstantuin the
Vdyu, but a PArenotsatga
appears
in the Matsya, Brahmdinda,
Visnu and Bhdgavatalists., op.cit., pp. lxvi and lxvii.

59

THE LATER SATAVAHANAS AND THE KSATRAPAS:

Thirteen
Thereare at Ndsika total of twenty-fourcaves.Of these,twenty-threewere vihdras.
mentions
an
the
of thesemonumentshaveinscriptions.Whilenone of
era,fourof
inscriptions
themhavewhatmustbe regnalyears.The sequenceof theseinscriptionsin regnalyearsseems
to begin with CaveTen and includeCaveThree,Cave Two, and an excavationnear Cave
CaveTwo'sinscriptionwas datedin the sixthyearof Pulumayi,son of Vdsithi;
Twenty-three.
butinsofarasits styleis concerned,it will be of littleuseat thistimein helpingto placeNineteen
sect at some time muchlaterthan the
becausethe cave was apparentlyrecutby a Mahdydna
all thatremainsis the inscriptiondated
inscription.As for the excavationnextto Twenty-three,
in the secondyearof Pulumdyi.Thusthe controllingepigraphicandstylisticmaterialsremaining
anda vihdra
at this site arein CaveThreeandCaveTen. (Relatedto thesearethe Kdrlechaitya
from Junnar.)These two caves are closely linked to each other by reasonof inscriptional
evidence.Forclarity'ssaketheseinscriptionswill alsobe quotedas theyhavebeentranslated
by
in
instances
of Senartand Btihler those
PanditBhagvdnldlIndraji,with the interpretations
wherethereis a divergenceof opinion.
Ndsik CaveTen:
Four of the inscriptionsof Cave Ten are locatedin the veranda,numbersten through
thirteen.Numberten is on the backwall of the verandabelow the ceiling;it coversa spaceof
about40 feet, andis not dated"3.
To the Perfectone. This dwellingcave or layanaand these two cisternswere
constructedin the Trirasmihill in the Govardhana[district]by the charitable
thesonof Dinikaandson-in-lawof Kshatrapa[Satrap]Nahapdna
[ofthe]
Ushavaddta,
thousand
hundred
three
of
the
donor
is
Kshahardta[dynasty],who [Ushavaddta]
cows; who has madegifts of gold and steps [reachingto the water]at the river
Bdrndsa;who has fed hundredsof thousandsof Brahmansevery year; who has
given [in marriage]eight wives to Brahmansat the holy placePrabhdsa;who has
at Bharukachha[Broach],
presentedrest-houseswith four verandasandpratisrayas
and providedgardensand wells; who has
Dasapura,Govardhana,and Sorpdraga,
madethe riversIbd, Pdrid, Damana,Tdpi,Karabend,and Ddhanukdfordableby
anddescentsto those riverson
meansof boatsfree of charge;who has madesabhds
both banks; who has bestowed in gift thirty-two thousand cocoanut trees in the
village of Ninamgola to the Charakapriesthoods of Pinditakivada, Govardhana
and Rimatirthain Soparaga.At the commandof Bhattiraka [NahaSuvarlnamukha,
pina], I [Ushavadita] went in the rainy season to release the Uttamabhidra [who
was] besieged by the Milavas. Those Milavas fled away simply by the great noise
[of my coming] andI madethem dependentsof the UttamabhidraKshatriyas.Thence
I went to Pushkaraand there I bathed and gave three hundred thousand cows and
a village.
He [Ushavadita]also gave a field having bought it through the BrahmanAsvibhiiti, son of Varihi, paying the full value of four thousand Kirshipanas. It is in the

73

It shouldbe noted thatthe numberingof inscriptionsin ASWI, Vol. IV, is not the sameas Indraji'sor Senart's.

6o

possession of his [Asvibhiti's] father and [is situated]on the north-west of the city
limits. From it will arise the [means of supplying] the chief [articlesof] food to the
mendicantpriesthood of the four quartersliving in my dwelling cave or layana74.
Senart translated this in essentially the same fashion7S.He did occasionally change the
wording, but the basic meaning is the same. Btihler translatedthe last, "as the field on the
boundariesof the town belonging to his own father"76.
Inscriptioneleven is over the doorway of the left cell of the veranda.
To the Perfect one. The meritorious gift of a cell by Dakshamitrd,daughter of
the KshatrapaKing Nahapdna[of the] Kshahardta[dynasty]and wife of Ushavaddta,
the son of Dinika77.
Unless otherwise noted, it should be assumed that Senart'sand Btihler'stranslationswere in
agreementwith Indraji's.
Inscription number twelve is found close to number eleven and below it on the back wall
of the veranda.
To the Perfect one. In the year 42, in the month of Vaisdkha,Ushavaddta,the
son-in-law of KshatrapaNahapana [of the] Kshahardta[dynasty]and son of Dinika
gave this dwelling cave to the assemblageof the four quarters,and he also gave three
thousand (3000) Kdrshipanas as permanent capital to the assemblage of the four

arefor the priceof clothesandkusanas

for thosewho
quarters,which [Kdrshdpanas]
havebeenentrustedto the guildsliving
live in thisdwellingcave.TheseKdrshapanas
in Govardhana,2000ooo
with one guild of weavers [yielding]interestone hundred
padikas,and iooo with anotherweaverguild [yielding]interestseventy-five
padikas.
arenot to be given back;theirinterestis to be enjoyed.Of these
Thesekdrshdpanas
from the two thousandfor clothes, yieldingone hundredpadikas
[Kdrshdpanas]
interest,a cloth for the rainyreason(sic) [season]is to be given to each of the
twentymendicantsliving in my dwellingcave duringthe rainyseason;and [from]
interest[is to be given]the priceof kusana.
the thousandyieldingseventy-fivepadikas
[Also]eight thousandcocoanutpalms [havebeen]given in the villageof Chikhalapadrain the Kdpuradistrict.All thishasbeenrelatedbeforethe councilof merchants;
andit has been engravedon the doorwayfrontand speaks [my]work78.
Again what he [I] gave [had resolved to give] formerly in the 41st year on the
fifteenth [day] of the bright half of Kirtika, this former gift has been settled on the
venerable gods and Brahmanson the fifteenth [of Kirtik?] in the 45th year. [This
gift is] seventy thousand KMrshipanas,the value of two thousand suvarnascounting
for one suvarna. [This inscription] sets forth [my] work
thirty-five kdrshdpanas
[standing]on the front of the doorway79.
74 Indraji, op.cit., pp.
571-572.
7s Op. cit., p. 79.
76

Buiihler, ASWI, IV (1883), p.100.

77 Indraji, op.cit., p.573.

78 Biihler's translation op.cit.,
p. 103 stops at this point. In a footnote he said he was "unable to make out the second
postscript" but that "it contains another date, 'the year 45', and appearsto record a large donation of 70,000 kirshipanas
made to gods and Brahmanas".
79 Indraji, op.cit., pp.
574-575.

61

Senart'stranslationhad the following variations:

... stems of cocoanut trees; and all this has been proclaimed [and] registeredat the
town's hall, at the recordoffice, accordingto custom. Again the donation previously
made by the same in the year 41, on the 15th of the bright half of Kdrttika,has in
the year 45, on the 15th ... been settled on the ... [This is registered] at the record
office accordingto custom80.

Inscriptionnumberthirteenwhich is found over the doorway of the cell to the right of the
verandais the same as numbereleven. Senartmade no variationin the meaning of this inscription.
Two other inscriptions were noted by Indrajiin the court of this cave, numbers fourteen
and fifteen. Number fourteen is badly worn by the weather, and gives therefore a very incomplete record of Usavaddta'sgifts and deeds. Among the names of places mentioned is
Ujeniya (Ujjain)81. Inscription number fifteen is in the ninth year of the King of the Abhira
Isvarasenaand reads as follows:
To the Perfect one. On the thirteenthday of the fourth fortnight of summerin
the year nine of the King the Abhira Isvarasena,son of Abhira Sivadattaand son
of Mddhari [the Queen]; on the aforesaidday a permanentcapital for the welfare
and happiness of all beings, by the female worshipper Vishnudattd,a Sakanikd,
daughter of Sakdgnivarman,wife of GanapakaRebhila and mother of Ganapaka
Visvavarman,for medicine for the sick among the assemblageof mendicantsfrom
the four quarters,living in the Trirasmimountain monastery, was deposited with
the present and future [come and to come] guilds residing in... Among them
krshdpanas have been placed in the hands of the Kularika or weaver guild;
iooo1000
two (2) thousand with the Odayantrika guild; five hundred with the ... guild;
... hundreds with the oilmen guild; these Kdrshapanas8z.

Even though these inscriptionsdesignate the donor of the cave as the son-in-lawof Nahapanain what must be the forty-first,forty-second,and forty-fifthyears of Nahapdna'sreign, no
erais cited. Thus the question of first importanceis what relationshipdo these yearsbear to the
Christianera? For the moment, the argumentsof Rapson, Spink, Gopalachari,etc. which put
them in the Saka era and date Nahapdnaabout A.D. 124, will be set aside83.Later it will be
era cannot apply to the dates of Nahapina. Aside from the inscriptions at
shown that the
Saka
Nisik which mention Nahapina, his name also appears at Karle, Junnar, on coins, and in the
to this
Periplus of the Erythrean Sea. A discussion of the latter and its dates and relationship

problem may provide some dating boundariesfor Nahapina84.

80soSenart, op.cit., p. 83.
z81Indraji, op.cit., p.

578.
Ibid., p. 580.
83 Rapson, op.cit.; Spink, op.cit.; and Gopalachari, op.cit.
84 J.W.McCrindle, IA, VIII (1879), o107-151; W.H.Schoff,
8z

The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (New York: Longmans,

Green and Co., 1912); M.Reinaud, "On the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea", IA, VIII (1879), 330-338; J. A. B.Palmer,

"The Identification of Ptolemy's Dounga", JRAS (1946), pp. 165-173; J. Pirenne, "Un Probl6me-clef pour la Chronologie de l'Orient: La Date du P'riple de la Mer Erythree", JA, CCXLIX (1961), 441-459; P.H.L.Eggermont,

"The

Date of the Periplus Maris Erythraei", G.L.Adhya and N.K. Wagle, "Summary of Discussions at the Conference",

62

This documentby an anonymous,seafaringmerchantprovidesinformationabout trade,

ports of call, and rulersin Indiaduring(whatis generallyassumedto be) the last half of the
translationthe date was given as fallingbetweenA.D. 80
first centuryA.D. In McCrindle's
and 8985. He believedit was writtenbeforePtolemy'sgeography,andafterthe work of Pliny,
becausePtolemy'sdescriptionof the geographyof Indiabeyondthe Gangeswasmoreaccurate.
He placedit post-PlinybecausePlinyspeaksof these traderoutes,betweenEgypt and India,
as if theywererecentlyopened.The writerof the Periplus
impliestheyhadbeenin usefor some
time. Ptolemyis datedin the early second centuryA.D. (ca.130-140) while Pliny died in
A.D. 79. However,WilfredSchoffdisagreedwith this dating,and preferredA.D. 60 for the
writingof the Periplus86.One of his key reasonsfor placingit beforePlinywas Pliny'sbrief
mention,almostin passing,of the discoverymadeby Hippalus.Hippalushaddiscoveredthat
sea travelwas morerapidduringthe monsoonseason.The authorof the Periplussaid,"from
thattimeuntilnow voyagescouldbe madedirectlyacrossthe oceanby monsoon".Schofftook
this to indicatea close relationshipin time to the discoveryof Hippalus,which he placed
shortlyafterA.D. 4187.In contrastto these two scholars,M.Reinaudsuggestedthat,in fact,
the authorof the Periplusis more accuratein his geographicdescriptionof the coastof India
thanis Ptolemy,andthereforewouldappearto be later.He did admitthatit was quitepossible
that the Peripluswas originallywrittenin the firstcenturyA.D., andthen underwentvarious
re-editingsuntilit reachedits finalformaboutA.D. 246-24788.
Giventhe Periplus'referencesto the politicalsituationin Indiaat thattime, the latterdate
seemsunlikely.In section38, the authorof the Periplusmentionsthe Scythianseacoastat or
nearthe mouthof the IndusRiverandits capitalof Minnagara
whichwasapparently
subjectto
is an Indiantermmeaningcity
(ThenameMinnagara
frequentinvasionsby Parthianprinces89.
of the invaders.)90
Furtheron in section47, the authornotes the verywarlikeinlandnationof
the "Bactrians".
Untilabout145 B.C.the Kingdomof Bactriahadbeenruledby Macedonians
and Greeks.Thenit was invadedandconqueredby a nomadictribefromthe westernborders
of China,the Ta Yfieh-chihg'.By aboutA.D. 45 the Ytiieh-chih
hadagainbecomeaggressive,
and underthe rule of KujulaKadphiseshad begunto expandbeyondthe bordersof Bactria
southwestinto ParthiaandsoutheasttowardKabul.It appearsthatKujula'ssuccessorreached
Taxila9z.This expansionin the middleof the first centuryA.D. by the "Bactrians"would
accountfor the Periplus'referencesto difficultiesin Scythiaandsuggestthatthe Periplus,at the
earliest,would dateafterA.D. 45.
Paperson the Date of Kaniska,editor, A. L. Basham, (Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1968) 94-96, 405. Eggermont suggested a date
for the Periplusof A.D. 30. His arguments for the early writing of this document were based on supposed clarifications
of the date and identity of certain Arabian rulers by J.Ryckmans in 1953. Dr.Maricq indicated that Arab sources were
not in full agreement, and that Dr. J. Pirenne had worked out a differentchronology for this area, for which see above.

8s Op.cit., p. io8.
86 Op.

cit., pp. 7"ff.

87

In the reign of Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41), a Ceylonese embassy came to Rome, and the discovery by Hippalus must
have been soon after. J.W.McCrindle, Ancient India as Describedin ClassicalLiterature(Westminster, 19o01);Pliny,
Natural History, VI, 24; Schoff, op.cit., p. 8.

88 Reinaud,
op.cit., p. 331.
89 Schoff,
op.cit., pp. 8, 37.
90 Ibid., p. 8, I8o.
9'

Ibid., pp. 184ff.; H.Raychaudhuri, PHAI (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1953), 422-463.
92 Ibid., pp.460-461; S.Chattopadhyaya,Early History of North India... (Calcutta:
Progressive Publs., 1958), pp.64-65;
S.Konow, CII, II (Calcutta: Government of India, 1929), pp.lxivff.

63

The commenton the powerfulBactriannationmightalso serveas a terminus

postquemfor
andNahapina,forin the subsequenteastwardexpansionof the Yieh-chih(Kusana)
the Periplus
into CentralAsiatheyseemto havecomeinto conflictwith the ChineseHanGeneralPanChao
Sincethe authorof the Periplus
aboutA.D. 90 and accordingto the Chinesewere defeated93.
wasawareof thepoortradeconditionsto andfromChina,asnotedbelow,it is possiblehewould
also havelearnedof anysuchloss of faceon the partof the Bactrians.Thusit is probablethat
the Peripluswas writtenbeforeA.D. 90.
The chief historicalsupportfor the activitiesof the Ta Ytieh-chih(Kusina)comes from
whichcoversthe period
Chinesesources.The earliestof theseis the Shihchiby Ssu-ma
Ch'ien9,
up to about99 B.C.; next the Ch'ienHan shu,Annalsof theFirst Han Dynasty;and then the
HouHan shu,Annalsof theLaterHan Dynasty.The formerappearsto cover the periodup to
A.D. 24 andthe latterfromaboutA.D. 25 to A.D. 12595s.
Furthersupportfor an earlydatefor the Peripluscomesfromthe apparentpowerexercised
by Kaniska.OnceKaniskasucceededto the Kusinathrone,thatmostpowerfulof kingsseems
the areastretchingfromKutchto at leastMathurd.Thiswould
to havecontrolledby Satraps96
refutethe contentionin the Periplusthat Kathiawarwas unsettledand subjectto constant
quarrelsof "Parthianprinces".
Even if the finalredactionof the Periplusdoes datefromthe thirdcenturyA.D., it is suggestedthatthe principlechangesin it would concerngeographyandnot the politicalclimate.
Beyondthis, in section64, the authorof the Periplusmentionedthe stateof "Ts'in"to which
few travelled97.
However,Pan Chaoopenedthe silk routesto ChinabetweenA.D. 73 and
A.D. 94 and sucha statementwould havebeen unlikelyif tradehad been establishedandthe
nomadictribessubdued.In section48, of the Periplus,Ozene,modernUjjain,the Avantiof
capital.Thus,if the theorythatNahapdnaprecededCastana
earlyliterature,is calledaformer98
is accepted,the Periplusmust be placedat a datebeyondthe acceptedrule
and Rudraddman
of Castana,A.D. 130at Ozeneor be placedin the firstcenturyA.D. beforeCastanais saidto
callsOzenethe capitalof Tiastaneswho is identified
be rulingin Ozene.(Ptolemy'sGeography
On examiningthese statementscontainedin the Periplusand attemptingto
with Castanaw9.)
synchronizethem with other sources,it appearsobviousthat a datein the latterpartof the
firstcenturyA.D. suggestsitselfoverthatof laterdates.Schoff'spublisheddatefor the Periplus
VincentSmith,in a footnotei0osaidthatSchoffhadwrittento himprivatelyto
was A.D. 6oI0oo.
indicatethe dateof A.D. 8o was now preferable
ioz.
the authordescribes
In
section41 of the Periplus
of
the
date
affect
this
How does Nahap-na?
Chattopadhyaya,op.cit., p.78; Schoff, op.cit., pp. I86-187.
0s
94
F.Hirth, JAOS,

05

XXXVII,

J.Wylie, JAI, III (1874),

Chapter

pp.401

123

(1917), pp. 89ff.

ff., X (i 88i), pp. 20off.; Konow, op.cit., pp.lxxi-lxxii; E.G.Pulleyblank, "Chinese

Evidence for the Date of Kaniska", in Basham, op.cit., pp.247-258.

96 J.M.Rosenfield, The DynasticArts of the Kusbans(Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1967), p. 122, notes i, z, 3,

does not accept Satrapalrule under the Kudnas.

97 Schoff, op.cit., p. Ii.

98 My italics.

99 R.C.Majumdar, The ClassicalAccountsof India(Calcutta:

100

Firma K.L.Mukhopadhyay, 1960), p.373.

Op.cit., p. 15.

V.A. Smith, EHI (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), p.245.

101o
McCrindle, op.cit., pp. 107-15 1-.

102

64

the Gulf of Barake103and its relationshipto "Barugaza [Broach] and the mainlandof Ariake,
a districtwhich forms the frontier of the kingdom of Mombaros(Nambanus,Nahapdna)and all
of India". It has alreadybeen noted in inscription ten of Ndsik104that Usavaddtahad given a
rest house to certainpeoples of Bharukachhaor Broach, and he in turn was the son-in-law of
Nahapdna,the king of this area. At Ndsik, the dates of Nahapdna'sreign fall in the years 41,
42, and 45; at Junnarthere is an inscription of Nahapdna'sminister Ayama dated in the fortysixth year os. This is the last known year for Nahapdna.It is thereforeassumedthat he reigned
Since Nahaforty-six years and no more, to be defeatedfinallyby GautamiputraSri
S.takarni.
time. No mention
pdnais mentionedas king in the Periplus,he mayhave been in power for some
is made of this being a recent rise to kingship. Two other kings are noted in connection with
ports of call:
The market-townsof this region are, in order, after Barygaza:Suppara,and the
city of Calliena,which in the time of the elder Saraganusbecame a lawful markettown; but since it came into the possession of Sandaresthe port is much obstructed,
and Greek ships landing there may chance to be taken to Barygazaunder guardio06.
It has been supposed, and appears logical, that Saraganusmay have been an earlierSitakarni whose people had been displaced by the suzerain, Sandaresor Sandanes,under whom
from the statements in the Periplus
Nahapdnabecame Ksatrapaand Mahdksatrapa
I07. Again
it
that
seems
about the internalstrife at the time,
unlikely
Nahapana'sdates can be referredto
the Saka era 08.It is equally improbablethat they refer to the Vikramaera (which markedthe
defeat of the Sakas)because of the close paleographicrelationshipof Nahapana'sinscriptionto
those of GautamiputraSri Sdtakarni,who appearsto have reigned shortlybeforeRudradamano09.
o103Ibid., p. 144; Schoff,
104 Supra, pp. 6o.
105

op.cit., p. 39.

Biuhler, ASWI, IV, p. 103.

io6 Schoff,
op.cit., p.43.

much controversy over the identification of the latter. Schoff attempted to identify him with SundaraStakarni,
the twentieth king of the Matsya,Brahmdnda,and Visnu Purdnas,op.cit., pp. 198-199 and Rapson, op.cit., pp.lxvi-lxvii.
Vincent Smith dated this king between A.D. 8o-81, op.cit., see facing p.232. However he did not equate him with the
It is also possible that Sandanes
Sandanes of the Periplus,who he thought must have been a Saka official, op.cit., p. zz226.
was the Parthian Sanabares.Marshall thought that he might be Sapedanes. J. Marshall, A Guideto Taxila (Calcutta:
Superintendent of Government Printing, 1918), p.6o, n. 3. While Chattopadhyayawas not certain who he was, he was
positive that Sandaneswas not a Sdtavdhanaprince, op.cit., pp. 66-67. Konow, op.cit., p. xlvii, cites a coin of Sanabares,
who ruled in Seistan.
Source of Merutufiga's List of Kings", in Basham, op.cit., pp. 83-84, produced the
P.H.L.Eggermont, "The
Pur.na
for Nahapdna, Gautamiputra,Pulumayi, Castana,and Rudradaman:
following tentative chronology

o107There is

i08

Andhrakings
A.D.

61-85 Gautamiputra - 24 years

85-109 Pulumdyi
Visisthiputra - 24 years
- 8 years
o109-117 Midhariputra
Caturapana
117-130

?aka satraps
Nahapdna

Ca.tana
Castana

Visisthiputra - 13 years Castana(?) with Rudradaman

Unfortunately he overlooks the fact that Pulumayi and Castanaappear to have been contemporaries as noted in Ptolemy's Geography.
Supra,page 64 and infra,page 73. Andre Maricq, "The Date of Kaniska", Basham, op.cit., pp. 193-198,
accepts the contemporaneity of Captanaand Pulumdyi and does not believe that Nahapdnafounded the Saka era.
109 K.A.Nilakanta Sastri,JRAS, (October, 1926),
pp.643-665.

65

The relationships between Nahapdna,GautamiputraSri Sitakarni, and Rudraddmanare discussed at greater length in my dissertationI0,
Thus if the span of dateswhich appearsmost appropriatefor the Periplusis taken as A. D. 6o
to 8o; if we assumethatNahapina hadbeen on the throneabout ten yearsbefore the writer made
his voyage; and if we allow about five yearsfor the actualwriting of the Periplus,the following
hypotheses are established:
(A) 60 minus 15 years = 45. Regnal period 45 plus 46 = 91
(B) 70 minus 15 years -= 55. Regnal period 55 plus 46 -= i oi
(C) 80 minus 15 years -= 65. Regnal period 65 plus 46 = i i i
The preferablealternativesare (A) and (B), which are based on the synchronizationof
The latter'sinscriptionsand those of his son PuluNahapdnawith GautamiputraSri S~itakarni.
mdyi are dealt with next, in order to substantiatethis preference,'.
The most importantinscriptionsof GautamiputraSri ~itakarni and Pulumayi are found at
Nasik Cave Three. All are found on the verandato the proper right of the center door, being
numberedtwo, three,four, and five. Numbersthreeand five are postscriptsto numberstwo and
four respectively.Numbers four and five are at the east end of the veranda. As in the case of
Nahapdna'sinscriptionsin Cave Ten, Indraji'stranslationsare quoted, with the changes proposed by Senartand Btihlernoted. Regardlessof the fact that four and five must be the earliest
in the series, the numericalorder will be followed.
Inscription number two:
On the thirteenth(13) day of the second (2) fortnight of the summermonths in the
nineteenth(19) year of the illustriousKing Pulumdyi,son of Vdsithi [Sk.Vdsisthi]a
dwelling-cave,a meritoriousgift, in its great perfection equal to the best of celestial
chariots,was caused to be made on the summit of Trirasmihill, [a summit] like the
top of... mountain, by the Great Queen Gautami Bdlasri,a lover of truth, charity,
forbearance,and respect for life; eagerly engaged in penance, self-control, mortification,and fasts; fully bearingout the title 'Wife of the Royal Sage'; mother of the
illustrious SdtakarniGautamiputra[son of Gautami],King of Kings, equal in greatness to the Himavat,Meru, and Mandaramountains;King of Asika, Susaka,Mulaka
[or Mundaka], Surath [Sk.Surishtra], Kukura [Sk.Kukkura], Aparita [Sk.Aparinta], Anupa [Sk.Anfipa],Vidabha [Sk.Vidarbha],Akara and Avanti; lord of the
Vijha [Sk.Vindhya], Richhavat [Sk.Rikshavat], Pirichita [Sk.Phriyvtra],Sahya,
Siritana [Sk. Sristhina], Malaya, Mahinda
Kanhagiri [Sk. Krishnagiri], Mancha,
[Sk.Mahendra],Setagiri [Sk.Shadgiri],and Chakoramountains; whose commands
are obeyed by the circles of all kings; whose face is like the pure lotus opened by
the rays of the sun; whose [army]animals have drunk the water of three oceans;
whose appearanceis as beautifuland lovely as the disc of the full moon; whose gait is
L.Trabold, Unpublished dissertation "An Investigation of the Styles and Chronology of Indian Sculpture",
(Los Angeles: University of California, 1968), p. 195.
' Editorial, "The Date of the Kdrle Chaitya", Lalit Kala Akademi,Nos. 3-4 (April, 1956 to March, 1957), pp. 11-25.
O10Jeanne

66

as stately as that of a great elephant; whose arms are as muscular,rounded, broad,

long, and beautiful as the body of the lord of serpents; whose hand is fearless and
wet by the waterheld in grantingfreedom from fear; who is prompt in the service of
his mother [even when she is] free from illness; who has well arrangedthe place and
the time for the three pursuitsof life [trivarga];who is a companionof all the townsmen [his subjects] equal in happiness and in misery; who has humbled the conceit
and vanity of Kshatriyas;who is the destroyerof Sakas,Yavanasand Palhavas;who
makes use of [nothing but] the taxes levied according to justice; who never desires
to kill an enemy though at fault; who has increased [the prosperity of] the families
of Brdhmansand others; who has rooted out the dynasty of the
[Sk.
Khakhar.ta
at whose feet
Kshahardta];who has establishedthe glory of the Sdtavdhanafamily;
all [royal] circles have bowed; who has stopped the fusion of the four castes; who
has conqueredmultitudes of enemies in numerous battles; whose banner of victory
is unconquered;whose excellent capitalis unassailableto [his] enemies; whose great
title of King has descendedfrom a successionof ancestors;the depositary(sic) of the
Sdstras;the asylumof good men; the abode of wealth; the fountainof good manners;
the only controller; the only archer; the only hero; the only holy man; equal in
valour to RMma,Kesava, Arjuna, Bhimasena;who invites assemblieson the festive
occasion [which take place] on the declining ayana;equal in majesty to Ndbhhga,
Nabusha, Janamejaya,Sagara,Yaydti,Rdmaand Ambarisha;who has immeasurably,
without loss, without being confounded, and in a way [the like of] which never
happened, conquered the host of enemies in the front of the battle, witnessed by
Pavana, Garuda, Siddhas, Yakshas, RMkshasas,Vidyddharas,Bhfitas, Gandharvas,
Chdranas,the moon, the sun, the constellations, and the planets; who has pierced
the surfaceof the sky like the summit of a mighty mountain; [and] who has raised
the family to great wealth.
This great queen, the mother of the great King and the grandmotherof the great
King, dedicates this dwelling-cave to the congregation of the mendicant assembly
of the Bhadrayanischool. For painting the cave, ... the hereditarylord of Dakshinapatha(?), desirous to serve and desirous to please the venerable lady, has given to
Dharmasetuthe village of Pisdchipadraka,with all its rights, to the south-west of
the TrirasmihillII.
In readingIndraji'stranslation,it is significantthat there is constantuse of the presenttense
in referenceto the deeds of GautamiputraSri-Sitakarni.Senart'stranslationput all references
to his conquests, valour and characterin the past tense. Further,at the end of the inscription,
Senartreads"makingover the merit of the gift to his father""3. Since the inscriptionwas dated
in the reign of Pulumlyi, the son, it is logical to assume that the father was then dead, and had
been for nineteen years. However, inscriptionsnumber four and five are the father's. Before a
discussion of this problem they should be quoted.
x112

113

Indraji, op.cit., pp. 552-554.

Senart, op. cit., pp. 61-62. Btihler also used the past tense. On p. iio, ASWI, IV, in part he indicated that Gautamiputra
Satakarnihad prepared the cave, and that Balasri gave it to the monks. The footnote indicates Burgess and Buthler
thought this was in the reign of Pulumdyi; and the father was dead.

67

Inscriptionnumberthree:
To the Perfectone. The new lord, the illustriousPulumavi,son of Vdsithi
the Govarcommandsin the presenceof Sivakhadila[Sk.Sivaskandila],
[Vdsishthi],
dhanaministerin theyear19,on thethirteenthdayof thesecondfortnightof summer:
herein the Trirasmimountainby the Dhanakatarecluses... the villageof Sudisana
on the southernroadin the Govardhanadistrict [whichserved]as
[Sk.Sudarsana]
permanentcapitalto do hospitalityto mendicantscoming to this his cave, was
rejectedandgivenup by the mendicantslivingin the Queen'scave [whoare]of the
sect. In lieu of this grantedvillageof Sudisanawe give the village of
Bhadrdyani
in the easternboundarywithin the districtof
(sic) [Sk.Sdlmalipadra]
Samalipada
to Dharmsetuto serveas
This [thegrantof] the villageof Sdmalipada
Govardhana.
permanentcapitalto show hospitalityto mendicantsof this cave,is a gloriousact of
The mendicantslivingin the Queen'scave,Bhadrdthe greatpreceptorsor dchdryds.
yanisby sect,havingtakenit ... We grantimmunityfromplough-taxof this village
for the [use of the] mendicants.It is not to be entered,not to be
of Sdmalipada
injured,not to be workedfor salt(?),free from the ordinary[royal]privilegeof
[enjoyedin] the country,enjoyingall kindsof immunities(?). On accountof these
immunitiesno one shouldtake [anything]away [fromthe village].The villageof
has been granted [with the immunities].The fixing of this document
Sdmalipada
hereabout... of the villagehasbeendoneby the documentwriters[Vinibandhakara]
It has been orderedby the greatcommander-in-chief
of Sudasana[Sk.Sudarsana].
Medhuna.[Thedocument]hasbeentouched[bythe King]in Binikatavdsaka
andthe
platetouchedby hand,was given on the seventhdayof the fortnightof summerin
the yeartwenty-two,for the sakeof Sdtakarni.
The descriptionof the lord [King]has been given by Vishnupdlafor imparting
pleasureto the inhabitantsof Govardhana.Salutationto the greatJina, Buddha,
who has no rival14.
Senart'stranslationvariedslightlyandis quotedonly in part:
commandsSivakhanSuccess!The lord of Navanara,Siri-Pulumdvi
Vdsithiputa,
dila, the officerat Govadhana:The village of Sudisanahere in the Govadhana
districton the Southernroad,whichby us, in the 19thyear,on the 13thdayof the
2nd fortnight of summer.... Written by the Mahdsendpati
Medhuna..., kept (?) by

the ... of deeds (?). The deed was delievered in the year 22, the 7th day of the
...
fortnightof summer;executedby ... (?)with a view for the well-beingof the inhabitants of Govadhana,Vinhupila proclaimsthe praise of the Lord: Obeisanceto the
Being exalted in perfection and majesty,the excellent Jina, the Buddha" .

Inscriptionnumberfour:
To the Perfect one. From Benikataka of Govardhana,which is the camp of
victory of the Vaijayantiarmy, the illustrious lord Sitakarni,son of Gautami,corn114 Indraji, op.cit., pp. 557-558.
1s

Senart, op.cit., p. 67.

68

in Govardhana,
mandsthe ministerVishnupdlita
that [whereas]thereis at thepresent
ownedby Rishabhadatta,
daya fieldin the villageof Aparakakhadi
[Aparakakshdti?]
and [measuring]2oonivartanas,
this our field [measuring]2oonivartanas,
we give to
the Tekirasiasceticsof this [mountain].We grantrights [immunity?]
in connection
with this field.It is not to be entered,not to be injured,not to be workedfor salt(?),
to be freedfromall ordinarylocal dues(?) Thesearethe immunitiesgrantedto this
field. This documenthas been writtenhere by Suviya [Suvirya];it has been commandedby the ministerSivaguta[Sivagupta];touchedby the greatlord. The plate
[whichwas] kept [was]given on the firstday of the secondfortnightof the rainy
seasonin the year18 for the use of the reclusesi6.
The basicvariationin Senart'stranslationconcernsthe executorof this document.Senart
gives the nameTdpasawhile Indrajicalledhim Suviya'7.
Inscriptionnumberfive:
To the Perfectone. The gift by the ministerSdmakafromthe Queen.Healthto
at the commandof Jivasuti,the
be inquiredof Sdmaka,the ministerat Govardhana,
andhe to be told
Sdtakarni,
queenDowager,the greatqueenof King Gautamiputra
'Herewe hadgivena fieldin the eastin the villageof Kakhadito the reclusemendicantslivingin the cave,charitablygivenby us in mountTrirasmi.Thatfieldis being
cultivated [but] the village is uninhabited.Such being the case we now give a
hundred(ioo) nivartanas
of the royalfield in our possessionon the confinesof the
city to the reclusemendicantsof Trirasmi.
We grantparihdra[immunity?]to this field. It is not to be entered,not to be
injured,not to be dug for salt,andto be freefromthe ordinaryduesof the country,
with all kindsof immunities.Suchbeingthe immunitieslet none takethe field.'Do
you recordhere the parihdra[immunity?]of this field',is the commandof Suviya
[Suvirya].In the year24 on the fifth(5) dayof the fourthfortnightof the monsoon
months,the writingon the plate has been engravedhere at the commandof the
Queen.The documentsfor the ascetics [hadbeen]preparedin the year 24 on the
tenthday of the secondfortnightof the summermonthsi18.
Thereis a noticeabledifferencein the translationby Senart,whichis quotedin full:
Success! Order of the king, to be made over to Simaka, the officerat Govadhana.
In the name of the king Sitakani Gotamiputaand of the king's queen mother whose
son is living, Simaka, the officer at Govadhana shall be addressed with the usual
civility and then shall be told thus: "We have here on mount Tiranhuformerlygiven
to the mendicantascetics dwelling in the cave which is a pious gift of ours, a field in
the village of Kakhasdi;but this field is not tilled, nor is the village inhabited.Matters
being so, that royal village of ours, which is now here on the limit of the town, from
that field we give to the mendicantasceticsof Tiranhuone hundredoo--nivartanas
116

Indraji, op.cit., pp. 560-561.

Senart, op.cit., p. 72, for comments on Upavddata who formerly owned the field.
x118Indraji, op.cit., pp. 561-562.

"17

69

of land,andto thatfieldwe grantimmunity,(makingit) not to be entered(by royal

officers),not to be touched(by anyof them),not to be dug for salt,not to be interferedwithby the districtpolice,and(in short)to enjoyall kindsof immunities;invest
it with thoseimmunities,andtakecarethatthe donationof the fieldandthe immunities are duly registered."Verballyordered;the deed writtendown by Lotdi9,
the door-keeper;(thecharter)executedby Sujivinin the year24, in the 4thfortnight
of the rainyseason,on the fifth-5-day. Thedonationhadbeenmadein theyear24,
in the 2ndfortnightof summer,on the ioth
dayI-o.

Thesefour inscriptionshave been the sourceof muchdiscussionand argumentover the

both set forth the idea thatinscriptionnumber
and R.G. Bhandarkar
years.D.R. Bhandarkar
two indicateda jointrulefor Pulumayiandhis fatherGautamiputra,
becausein Indraji'stranslationGautamiputra
is spokenof in the presenttense and inscriptionsnumberfour and five
appearto be his1, .

The questionis, how wouldit be possiblefor this inscription,numbertwo, to be datedin

Pulumdyi'snineteenthyear if his father were still reigning. Others, Rapson, Gopalachari,
was dead.
Spink,and Sastri'2,2,assumedthat therewas no joint rule, and that Gautamiputra
Why then the double dedicatorytype of inscriptions?Whileinscriptionsfour and five concern themselveswith grantsof land, these grantsare madefor the mendicantasceticswho
were living in his cave, and his inscriptionsindicatethatCaveThreewas the cave intended.
Inscriptionstwo and three also concernCave Three.Numbertwo indicatesthis cave was
dedicatedby GautamiBali'ri,the queenmotherof Gautamiputra
and grandmotherof Pulumdyi.Whilenumberthreegives a grantof landfor the supportof the inhabitantsof this cave.
Sastri,BanerjiandSpink123 set forththe hypothesisthattherewereat leasttwo (in Spink'scase
three)campaignsof cuttingon the cave. Sastri,takingBanerji'sandWest'sposition,believed
that the verandawas the originalcave dedicatedby Gautamiputra
in or abouthis eighteenth
and
that
after
died
he
his son andmotherfinishedthe cavein the son'snineteenth
regnalyear
went
further
and statedthat stylisticallythe cave appearsto have been
regnalyear124. Spink
firstcut duringthe swayof Nahapinaover this area,and was left unfinishedwhen GautamiSdtakarni
maythen have done some work on it but died before
putraroutedthe Ksahardtas.
it was finished,and it was completedby Pulumdyiy2s.
The opinionhere is that there were
certainlytwo campaignson the cave as evidencedby apparentrecuttingof portionsof the
veranda. However, the supporting stylistic argumentsfollow below, and for the moment it is
sufficient to state the position. Gautamiputra Sri-itakarini began work on Cave Three sometime
around the year eighteen of his reign. From the list of his conquests given in Balairi's inscriptions one could assume that military activity occupied a great deal of his time and probably of
his money. Therefore, by his twenty-fourth and last regnal year the cave remained unfinished.
Inscription number five may mean that he was already dead when the change of grants con1

Biihler translatesthis so that

is the chief lady-in-waiting to the Queen, op.cit., p. o106.

Lot.
op.cit., p.73.
12,
Gopalachari, op.cit., p. 63; D.R.Bhandarkar, JBBRAS, XXIII (1909), p.66.
122
Rapson, op.cit., p. xxxvii; Gopalachari, op.cit., pp. 17, 63; Spink, op.cit., pp. 175-185; Sastri, op.cit., p. 663.
123 Ibid.; R.D. Banerji, "Nahapdna and the Saka
Era",JRAS (1917), p. 283; Spink, op.cit., p. 168.
124 Sastri,
op.cit., p. 645.
125s Spink, op.cit., pp. i68ff.
120o Senart,

70

cerning a village was made. Indraji called Jivasiitdthe dowager Queen, "the great queen of
King Gautamiputra"x26."Dowager" indicatedshe was a widow. Senartgave the inscriptionin
a joint donation of Sitakarniand "the king's queen mother whose son is living"x27.One could
interpretthis to mean either Gautamiputra'smother or his wife. If it were his mother, as some
have gathered,then it seems he was indisposed even though alive. If it were his wife, it would
refer to a living son, who may not have been Pulumdyi,because his name was not givensz8.
Whicheverinterpretationis accepted,it is generallythought that this is the last yearof Gautamiputra'sreign. It cannot be referredto Pulumdyi'sif the translationof Senartis accepted,which is
fully in the past tense with referenceto Gautamiputra,plus the phrase toward the end when
Pulumdyimakes over the merit of the cave to his father. This seems very indicative that Pulumdyiwas ruling alone, his father dead for probablynineteen years.
drove
Within the long eulogy of inscriptionnumbertwo, it is mentionedthat Gautamrniputra
out the K'ahardtarace.In numberfour, we readthat a field which had been owned by Rishabhadatta (U'avddata)was rededicatedby Gautamiputrato a group of monks. Both of these statements indicate that Nahapdnaand Gautamiputrawere contemporaries.It is usuallyacceptedby
scholarsthat they were. Gopalacharibelieved that this was not necessarilyso; that it could have
been one of Nahapdna'ssuccessorswho was defeatedby Gautamiputra,and that the Rishabhadatta of inscription number four was not necessarilythe same as the son-in-law of Nahapdna.
However, the great Joghalthembihoard of Nahapdnacoins which were restruckby Gautamiputra would indicate that Nahapdnawas the last of his line in the area,for the coins bear only
his name and that of Gautamiputra'soverstrikes 2,9.
If they are accepted as contemporaries,the next problem is to locate the forty-six years of
Nahapdnaand the twenty-four years of Gautamiputrain a fashion so they can be related to
either A.D. or B.C. Most scholars since Rapson have believed that this era was the Saka era,
and have used the date A.D. 124 for the defeat of Nahapdnain the eighteenth year of Gautamiputra. The foundationsfor this argumentare the inscriptionsof Castanaand Rudraddmanin the
year 52 at Andhau130,for Rudraddmanin the year 72 at Junagadh13',and Ptolemy's mention of
Tiastanesruling at Ozene ca. A.D. 130. Even though no mention of the era is given in either
one of these inscriptions,Rapson and his followers assumedthat Castanaand Rudraddmanwere
satrapsof the Kusanasand that the Kusanas founded the Saka eras32.
If for the moment the Saka dating for Castanaand Rudraddmanis acceptedwith 52 and 72
equated as the years A.D. 130 and i5o, how does this chronology synchronize with what is
known of Nahapdna,Gautamiputra,and Pulumiyi? First of all, the Andhau inscription reads
as follows:
126
127

Indraji, op.cit., p. 561, inscription 4

5.
Senart, op.cit., p. 73.

It is also possible that since there was a lapse of time between the grant and the recording of the grant, which was
carefully noted in the last of the inscription, that the recorder Sujivin felt impelled to note this time variance simply
because GautamiputraSri Sdtakarnihad died in the interval between the original grant and the final recording of it.
129 Gopalachari,op. cit., pp. 5Iff.; H.R. Scott, "The Ntsik (Joghalthembi) Hoard of Nahapdna'sCoins", JBBRAS, XXII,
128

No. 62 (1907), PP. 223-244.

130 R.D. Banerji, El, XVI (1921),

pp. 19ff.

F.Kielhorn, EI, VII (1905), pp. 36-48.

132 Majumdar,op.cit., p. 373. Since Ugavidata mentions Ujjain (Ozene) in connection with some gifts which he, the sonin-law of King Nahapdna, gave, it seems likely that this donation is before
was ruling in this city. Indraji,
4 14.
Ca.ana
op.cit., p. 578, inscription

13,

71

In the year fifty two on the second day of the darkhalf of Phalgunaof (the reign
of) the king (rdjan)Rudraddman,son of Jayadaman(the grandson) of the king
Chastana,son Ysamotikaa33.
This seems to indicate a rule of a series of viceroys since they are only called kings. By
A.D. 1o50Rudraddmanis calleda Mahdk'atrapaand is ruling over manyof the sameregions that
had conqueredas noted in Ndsik inscriptionnumbertwo. The JunagadhinscripGautamriputra
tion says that he (Rudraddman),
... who obtained good report because he, in spite of having twice in fair fight
completelydefeatedSdtakarni,the Lord of Dakshindpatha,on accountof the nearness
of their connection did not destroy him34,.
Rapson took this to mean Puluma-yi,and he assumedthat this same Pulumayiwas mentioned
in a Kanheri inscription of Queen VasisthiputraRu [dra]13s. Rapson believes that Pulumayi
VasisthiputramarriedRudraddman'sdaughter, and thus they were father-in-lawand son-inlaw. Gopalacharibelieves this GStakarniof the Junagadhinscription is the successor of PuluGri-Stakarnii-VasisthiputaCatarapanaSri-StakarniI36.
m.yiIt seems unlikelythat Rapson'stheory can be supportedby simple logic. If all these datesare
referredto the Saka era, the following geneology and chronology is obtained: NahapdnaA.D.
78+46 = 124; CastanaA.D. 78 + 52 ==130; Gautamiputra'syear 18 coincides with Nahapdna's
year 46, thus both equal A.D. 124. These men were all contemporaries.Nahapdnawas old
enough to have a son-in-law,who must have been the nominal ruler of the areasaroundNasik
and Kdrle;Gautamiputrahad a son, Pulumayi,who in six years,A.D. 130, would take over the
throne; and Castanawho had not only a son who was possibly ruling, but a grandsonwho was
assumed by Banerjito be ruling with him37,. It would appearthat this grandson Rudraddman
might be younger than Pulumayi,yet Rapson thinks that the older man, Pulumdyimarriedthe
daughterof the younger Rudraddman.The span of generationseems too wide for this assumption. On the other side, there is Gautamiputrawho destroyedall the foreignersin this region,
who by A.D. 124 ruled over an extensive territory,and in the inscriptionof his son Pulumayi's
nineteenth year (A.D. 130 +19= 149 A.D.), these conquests are still listed with pride. Yet in
the inscription of Rudradamanof the year 72 (A. D. 15o), he claims some of these very territories, and mentionsdefeating some
twice-obviously the gain of the territoriescame
indicatesthat Pulumlyi lost any of his lands or his
Sitakarn.i
from this defeat.No evidence of inscriptions
father's lands His last inscription is in his twenty-fourthyear; if the Bakaera is used, this
I3.
It does not seem possible to synchronize the evidence with this Saka
would be A.D.
54.
chronology. Therefore, it is assumed that Nahapina did not date in an era, but by his own
regnal years.
13

Banerji, op.cit., p. 24.

Kielhorn, op.cit., p.47.
35sRapson, op.cit., p. xxxviii; Biihler, ASWI, V, p.78.
136 Gopalachari, op.cit., p. 66.
137 Banerji, op.cit., p. 22.
138 Gopalachari, op.cit., p. 66.
134

72

Now to returnto Nahapdna'sdates as derived from the Periplus.

(A)
Nahapdna

Gautamiputra'si8th
Pulumdyi

A.D.45

+46 =

(A.D.9I) + 6
A.D.97

91

97

+ 19 = 116

(B)
Nahapdna
Gautamiputra's i8th
Pulumayi

A.D. 55 + 46 101ioi
=
+ 6
o107
A.D. 97 + 19 126

(C)
Nahapdna
Gautamiputra's i8th
Pulumdyi

A.D.65 + 46
iii
= 117
+ 6
A.D. i17 + 19 = 136

The first and second chronologies allow for the loss of Gautamiputra'sprovinces and the
supremacyof Rudraddmanwithout a direct conflict with Pulumdyi'sposition. The third allows
more time than if the Saka era were used, but it conflicts badly with the dating of the Rudraddmanand Castanainscriptions. One of the strongest arguments for dating the latter by the
in which he names both a Sirio Ptolomeois (taken to be
Saka era is Ptolemy's Geography139,
Pulumdyi)and a Tiastanesruling at Ozene (taken as the Castanaof the Andhau inscriptions).
Formula B giving o107-z126 for Pulumayi and 130 for Castana harmonize quite successfully. It

has not seemed possible to discuss the problems of these inscriptionswithout citing alternative
dates to those generallyaccepted.
This lengthy examinationof the inscriptionalrecords of the Sdtavdhanaswas to illustrate
not only the method in which all the contingent epigraphsof this study were analyzed,but also
to indicatethe insecurityof some datesbasedmostly on these data.Some chronologicalsequence
for the excavation of the Ndsik caves is suggested by the inscriptionalevidence. This would
place Cave Ten first, portions of the verandaof Cave Three next, and the interiorof Cave Three
would representthe last of the sequence. However, these inscriptionsonly indicatethe relative
positions of these two vihdrasin time. Other informationis needed to give them secure dates.
Since the intent of this study is to provide these secure dates through the examination of
sculptural style, the next portion will be devoted to the analysis of the carvings connected to
these caves.

39 Majumdar, op.cit., VII, p. 376, SS 82 and p. 373, SS 63-

73

PART II
Analysisof Style
The procedurefollowedin the stylisticanalysisof sculpturethroughoutthis studyis set forth
below. Thesecriteriawill firstbe appliedin directreferenceto the sculptureof Ndsik.At this
of the methodpointno dateswill be suggested.Theprincipalconcernhereis the establishment
ology whichhasbeenusedthroughoutthe studyin orderto placethe monumentsin a chronoits usage.
logicalsequence,andto demonstrate
The stylisticelementswhich have been consideredin plottinga chronologicalsequence,
pertainto both decorativeand figurativesculpture.Since the Indiantemplein its earliest
is not structural,but cut fromthe living rock140,whatwouldbe conremainingmanifestation
in the Westernworld is here consideredas a sculpturalartifact.
architectural
sideredpurely
Theseincludethe pillars,capitals,anddecorationof the facadesof cavetemples.The elements
areas follows.
i. The mannerin which the stone is workedor cut. Is there reliefor incised
decoration?Is the reliefhigh or low? Is theresofteningof the edges of the planes?
Is it deeplyunder-cut?
2. The compositionof figuresanddecorativeelements.Is the organization
simple
or complex?Is it symmetrical?
Is a backgroundindicated?How is it treated?How
manyfiguresappearin the composition?Do they move withinthe compositionto
createa flowfromone partto another?
3. The mannerin whichspacewithinthe compositionis handledor approached.
Is it two-dimensionalin effector three-dimensional?
Are there definiteregisters
whereactionoccursor is therean overlappingof elementsinto the background?
Is
fore-shorteningused to any extent?
4. The poses of the figures.Are the figuresstiff,static,and rigidlyfrontalor are
anddynamic?Do the figureshavea naturalisticqualityor
they relaxed,articulated,
one whichis highlyconventionalized?

Now thatthe methodof procedurebothfor examininginscriptionsandstylehasbeenoutlined,the discussionwill concentrateon the styleof the cavesnotedin the sectionon epigraphs.
CaveNineteen,a vihdra(Platei) has a simplefacadeof two pillarsandtwo pilasters.These
rise from the verandaas squareshaftswhich end about one-fourthof the way up in a semicircle.
The centralportion of the shaft has been facetedinto eight partswhich terminatewith the same
semicircularpattern and have a squaredtop at the lintel beam'4'.
In contrastto this, the chaitya,Number Eighteen, displaysa greatdeal of ornamentalcarving.
Its facadeis divided into three horizontal registers.The centrallylocated entry is framedby an
omega-shapedarch which penetratesand divides the first horizontalband of rafter,beam, and
railpattern.The end of every other rafterhas been carvedto representa humanhead14,. On the
140

For example, Lomas Risi, Ndndhgdt, Bhdjdand Nisik.

Gopalachari, op. cit., P1. XII, i.

142 This decorative element is also found on the facade of Ndsik Cave Four.
'4'

74

properrightof the entryis a guardianfigurewhichis aboutsixfeetin height.The secondmajor

horizontaldivisionis bisectedby the sun windowwhichis also omegashaped.On eitherside
at the baseis a railpatternfromwhichthreereliefpillarsrise.Thesepilastershavethe octagonally facetedshaft,and are cappedwith invertedpot capitals,three steppedplates,and two
animalsseatedbackto back.The one in the properleft cornerhasbeensquaredoff ratherthan
faceted,whilethatin the properrightcornerwasleft in a roughsemi-roundform(seeP1.2).
the
Whileit is truethatearlychaiyasareusuallymoreheavilydecoratedthanareearlyvihdras,
contrasthere seemsto indicatemorethan simplya differenceof function.Whenarchitectural
areput to use as purelydecorativemotifs,it implies
forms,suchas pillars,pilasters,andgavdksa,
that they have been in functionaluse for some time. Yet the pillartypesin the facadeof the
chaiyaarenot foundon the facadeof the vihdra.Thoseof Nineteenareverysimplesupporting
members,while thosein the secondhorizontalregisterof CaveEighteenaremorecomplexin
theirmakeup.On thesegroundsalonethe Krisnacave(NumberNineteen)canbe saidto be the
of the inscription
earliestof the two. How muchearlierdependsnot only on the interpretation
with othersat this
of NumberNineteen(p. 57),but also on the comparisonof Krisna'svihdra
site. Just suchan analysis,whichfollows in detail,leadsto the conclusionthat Senart'stranslationof this inscriptionis correct,and that Krisna'scave is olderthanthe chaita by four to
five generations,i.e., seventy-fiveto one hundredyears143.
The next vihdraof valuein the stylisticand epigraphicinformationit can provideis Cave
numberTen (P1.3).
of this cave'sfacadeis quitedifferentfromthatof the Krisnacave.InscripThe appearance
werepresentat Ndsikat an earlydate,theyhadbeen
tionsindicatethatthoughthe Sdtavdhanas
This shift in political
displacedfor at least five yearsby the WesternKsatrapa,Nahapdna144.
controlmusthave come sometimeafterCaveEighteenwas finished.It maybe possibleto fill
in thisintervallater.
CaveTen hasa veranda37 feet 4 inchesbroadby 9 feet 4 inchesdeepandan i i foot 9 inch
high ceiling.Its flooris the samelevel as thatof the hall.At eachend of the verandathereis a
cell with a grooveddoor. On the verandaarefour pillarsandtwo pilasters.Thesepillarsand
pilastersareunlikethose of eitherNineteen'sor Eighteen'sfacade(thoughthey arerelatedto
those on Eighteen.)Theirbasesare madeof four steppedplates.On the top plateis a round
mouldingandon thisrestsa large,wellformed,sphericalwaterpot base.Themouthis the same
widthas the basemoulding.The shaftwhichrisesfromthis is octagonal.It in turnpassesinto
an inverted-potcapitalwhichis long, andsomewhatbulbousin shape.Abovethis, andresting
on a smallflutednecking,is a boxedcushionform.Thebox, carvedwith railpatternandpillars
is cut free of the cushion inside (P1.4). The replicasof rail pillars at the corners of the box are
with squarebases which form semicircularmedalsimilarto the
Krisna (Cave Nineteen) pillars
lions in the center and are then faceted. The upper and lower edges of the box are carved in a
plain rail pattern.Inside is a fluted cushion shape. Its upper edge appearsto be decoratedwith
petal forms. Above this topping of five inverted "T" plates, is a series of animalsseatedback-to43 This is based on the combined information of the Sdtavdhanageneology from the Purdinasand Nandghit and takes
into consideration that the cave was begun by someone other than Hakusiri's granddaughter. It allows for twenty to
twenty-five years for a generation.
144Supra,p. 6off.

75

backwith humanfiguresridingthem. This portionis so carvedas to give the impressionof

woodenbracketconstruction.Thereis a beamformcarvedfromone sideof the verandato the
otherandthis appearsto restin the centerof thesefiguralblockssomewhatin the samefashion
as the beamsof Persepolis.It is not quiteidentical,for herethe animalsandridersmoveparallel
to the cross beamand not at right anglesto it. The long beamrestsbelow the level of the
animals'heads,yet abovetheirfeet.
Above the capitalsand projectingover them, the stone was cut into replicasof wooden
rafterswhichpiercethe overhangas plainoblongbosses.Abovethis is a plainrailpattern.
A varietyof animalswas depictedwith severalriderson the outerand innerfacesof the
brackets.Theyrepresentlions, oxen,elephants,rams,sphinxes,etc.
Insidethe vihdraon the centerof the backwall, flankedon eachside by threecells,is what
remainsof a reliefstipa(P1.5). At sometimeafterBuddhistoccupation,this was recutinto the
formof a Bhairava.The portionof this panelwhichlooks contemporary
with the excavation
of the cave, consistsof two femaleattendants,one to a side, the rail-likeharmika,
invertedT
plates,and threeumbrellas.The rest of the interioris plain.The entriesto the cells and the
stzpapanelitselfreston the samelevel as the floor.
CaveThree'sfacadeis bothsimilarandyetdifferentthanCaveTen's.SeeP1.6.Thetwo pillars
to the extremeproperleft andportionsof the railhavebeenrestored.Therearesix pillarshere,
andratherthanrestingon pot bases,the octagonshaftsreston a bench-likeplatforminsidethe
verandaandbehindthe rail.At eitherend of the verandaarerectangular
pilasters.The faceof
eachof theseis ornamented
with two semicircular
lotusformsat top andbottom;in the center
is a full medallion.Theseareflankedby single,profilelotusblossomsrestingon the two outside
concavefacets.At the verytop of the pilasteris a rectangular
panelof rosettesandlotusforms.
Thisis separated
fromthe majorportionof the columnby a narrowborderof decorationmade
up of verticalbandsalternatedwithfourpetalledflowers(see P1.7).
The shaftsof the pillarspass into a heavycircularmoulding,which is the mouthof the
invertedpot capital.The neckof the pot is smallerthanthe mouth,andthe body of the pot is
broaderand flatterthanthose at CaveTen. On the very upperportionof the pots are relief
patternsof variousleaves.Next arethe boxedcushionforms.The cornersof theseboxeson the
fourcentralpillarsarefigural,whilethe two outsidepillarshaveplain,squareboxesaroundthe
cushion.Above the cushionare the inverted"T" plates,which form the basesfor the same
type of riderandanimalcapitalsas foundat CaveTen. The treatmentof the lintelbeamis the
same also. However, the upper facadeis different.First there is a long panel which runs from
one end of the verandato the other. It is made up of an undulatingvine which is inhabitedwith
animals,elephants,oxen, geese, etc. This forms the base for an ornate rail panel in which both
the uprightsand the crossbarsare carvedinto high relief medallionforms. The crossbarpatterns
are in higher relief than the verticalportions of the rail. See P1.8. Over the rail patternis a final
band of decoration consisting of half rosettes banded by semicirculargarlandswhich are tied
into swags between each rosette.
The facade as a whole is supported by atlantid-typefigures at the base of the verandarail.
There are three of these to a side and they are badly worn. Those on the proper right hold the
carved end beams with their left arms. Those on the left support the end beams on the palms
76

of theirrighthand.Abovethemandbelowthe shaftof the pillarsis the sametypeof decoration

seenabovethe facade.
On the backwall of the verandaas at CaveTen, arethe centralentryto the hall,two windows, and two cell doors. Aroundthe centerdoorwayand reachingfrom the floor to the
ceilingis a panelwhichhas been recessedand carvedin the shapeof a torana(P1.9).This has
two architraveswhich end in a shallowlydelineated,three segmentedspiral.Seven rosettes
appearbetweenthe top bracket'sterminalspirals.The cuttingof theirpetalformsis also very
shallow.A squarerecesswhichoccursin the centerof eachrosettemayhaveheld somesortof
woodenframework.Beneaththeserosettesis a seriesof smallpanelswhichareseparatedfrom
eachotherby roundedpilasters.Withinthesepanelsarefive malefigures,a tree,a stzpa,anda
wheel. The secondarchitravehas four half rosettesframedby the sametype of garland-andswagpatternfoundin theupperandlowerfacade.Two of theseswags,thoseon the outeredges,
havebeencut awayto makeroomfor someformof doorframe.
Down eachside of the doorwayarecarvedimitationtoranaposts. Thesearedecoratedwith
a seriesof narrativepanels.Thereare six panelsto a side, and the bottompanelshave either
Ganasor atlantidfigures,whicharelargerthanthose of the otherten divisions.At the outer
edge of the secondhalf of the secondpanelsare "T" shapedplatesfrom which a leogryph
springs.His headactsas the supportfor the lowestbracket'sspiral.Thistoranaappearsto be a
duplicationin reliefof a structuralone. Simplerailpatternsact as the divisionsbetweenthe
panelson the toranaposts. This reliefis the samedepthas the recessedspaceit occupies.
In a deeperrecess,at both the rightandthe left havebeencarvedguardianfigures.Theyare
6 feet 2 inchesin height.The spacetheyoccupyis irregularin shape,andseemsto havebeencut
afterthe planfor the toranahadbeencompleted.
Insidethe vihdrain the sameplaceas in Ten on the centerof the backwallis a panelraised
on a plinth,whichcontainsa stzpain halfrelief(P1.io). On eitherside at the baseof the stzpa
are two femalefigures.Above the attendantto the properleft is a wheel, then an Apsaras
with a basketor bowl of flowers.Abovethaton the properrightis a frontallyseatedlion, and
anotherApsaraswith a garland.
The stfipahas a high basewhichrestson a lotus moulding.The baseis crownedby a rail
patternabovea patternof rafters.The uprightsof the railpatternhavethreerosetteson their
faces. From this springsthe dome which is spheroidin shape.It is surmountedby a plain
moulding,a railpattern,anda "T"of fourplates.The top is decoratedwithfivezigguratforms
in high relief,cut straightbackto the wall.Also, fromthe top issuefive umbrellas,one directly
over the center and two to each side, supportedon a long tubularvine.
Of the three vihdrasdescribed so far, Number Three has the most elaborate decorative
scheme,and that of Nineteen is the most restrained.On inscriptionalevidencealone, CaveThree

would post-dateCaveNineteen145. How muchlaterit may be is indicatedmore on stylistic

grounds than on epigraphicevidence. It has alreadybeen noted that the pillarsof Krisna'scave
are completely unlike the relief pillars of the chaitya.Partly on this basis it was suggested that
the chaityamight be separatedfrom the vihdraby four or five generations. How then do the
pilastersof the chaityafacade and its interior pillars relate to those of Caves Ten and Three? It
could be said that the Nahapina pillarsand those of the Gautamiputracave are alike. They both
145sThe

Kri.na

of Cave Nineteen's inscription is given as the second of the Andhra Kings, suprap.
5I.

77

~-

l-

Capitalfrom Ndsik
Cave Eighteen

Capitalfrom Ndsik
Cave Ten

Capitalfrom Ndsik
Cave Three

Figure i

reflecta specific type of column which occurs at Nasik, first as decorativerelief on the chaiya.
This pillar type most likely derives from the AMokanmemorialcolumns which have elaborate
inverted bell or petal formed capitals, and are surmountedeither by addorsed lions or single
animals. One such pillar was found at Safichibearing an AMokanedict 46. It has alreadybeen
shown by inscription that one of the Sitakarni'swas connected with the erection of the south
toranaof the great stfipa(see p. 55). Thus it is possible, though this must be discussedat greater
length elsewhere, that the use of this type of pillar decoration on Cave Eighteen will allow
for closer dating of both Eighteen and Safichi.(See the proper left toranapost of East Gate,
Stfipa1147.) A close look at the style of the chaityafacade capitals shows them to be crudely
facetedwith a double band of mouldings at the mouth. The facets may be a debased petal form
pattern,which takes the shape here of an inverted bushel basket and fits loosely over the shaft.
The capitalsat Cave Ten are unfacetedand cut with a greater swell at the pot base than those
of the chaitya,but the two types still seem imitative of the earlierinverted bell form. When the
style of the pillar capitalsat Cave Three is consideredin relationshipto the other two, they also
must spring from the same source, but here the sculptor has improvised on the theme. These
pots are now less obviously derivativefrom the AMokancolumns. They are shorter and have
a wider melon-like swell (see Figure i).
Inscriptionsin these last two caves indicatethat Number Ten was carved some time before
Number Three. This same sequence is indicated by the evolution of the water pot capital's
profile.Two other stylisticelementsfound in relationto the pillarsfurthersupportthis sequence
of excavation.The first concerns the bracketanimals.The second concerns the boxed cushion
form. At the chaityathe animalsare riderless,while at Caves Three and Ten there are riderson
all of the animalsof the outer face of the cave, with driversadded to the elephants.The boxed
cushion form does not appear beneath the "T" plates on the chaitya, ratherthere are three
primitive square mouldings. The large one is sandwiched between the smaller ones. At the
Nahapina cave, the cushion and box motif is fully developed, and the corners of the boxes are
cut completely free from the fluted cushion. In some instances, at the proper left hand side of
the first and second pillars on the inner face, P1.4, the corner posts show evidence of having
146 Marshall, Guideto Sdichi, p. 93; E.Hultzsch, JRAS (1911), pp. 168-169.

47 H.Zimmer, The Art of IndianAsia, a vols. Bollingen Series, XXXIX (New York: Pantheon Books, 1960), P1. 14.

78

been mortised into place. These posts are basicallythe same type of pillars as those found on
the Krisna vihdra.Now they are employed as minor decorativeelements to the more advanced
type of column, and act as supports for the carefully delineatedrail pattern of the upper and
lower edges of the box shape. At Cave Three, two of the cushions, those to the extremeproper
left, and most of the shafts of these columns have been completely restored, and so cannot be
considered;but the pillarsto the right do indicate that the cushion was to be cut free. The first
proper right pillaris a simple box and the cushion is cut free. The next three pillarshave figures
at the corners. Unfinishedand worn as these Ganasappearthey all must have been planned as
cut free from the cushion. (See the P1.8 of the capital first to the proper right of the entry.)

The secondfrom the properleft has a Ganain the centerholdingup the platesof the capital,
muchlike an atlantidfigure.Thusin both theseareasthe designmovesfromthe simpleto the
complex.Whileit is truethatstylecan,on occasion,movefromthe complexto the simple,the
epigraphicevidencehere supportsthe developmentof a relativelysimpleschemeto a highly
articulatedfacade.
Otherpointswhichhavebearingon the chronologicalrelationshipdo not occurequallyin
all threecaves.The chaityaby its very naturewould be treateddifferentlyon the interiorthan
CaveEighteen'sinterioris somewhatirregularin its plan(P1.i i). Thiswould
wouldthe vihdras.
give supportto Senart'ssuggestionof two phasesof carving.The columnsdirectlybehindand
on the properleft of the stipamayhavebeendonein the secondcampaign.Thoseon theproper
righthave simpleoctagonalshaftswhichrisefrompot basessimilarto those of the Nahapana
cave,but they haveno capitals.Threeof those pillarsbesideandbehindthe stfipahavefaceted
shaftswhichflareout at the floor,and at the top aresquareblock-likecapitalssupportingthe
curvedlintel. Those columnswhich move towardthe front on the left also have the square
blockat the top, the octagonalshaft,andthe pot vasesrestingon fourplates.Thesecolumnsdo
Thiselementalongwiththe
slopein towardthe center,but not to the degreefoundat BhajaI48.
styleof the sunwindow,mustbe discussedin contextwith otherchaityasin orderto locatemore
exactlyits placein the overallchronologicalscheme.
evidencewouldseemto solve the problemof sequencebetweenCaveTen and
Inscriptional
CaveThree.However,thereis the questionwhetherCaveThreemaynot have been recutat
least once. WalterSpinkbelieved thatit was begun not by GautamiputraSri Sdtakarni,but under
the reign of the K'atrapa Nahapdna,and what follows is a condensation of his argumentson
this point 149.First it was his opinion that the areaaroundNasik, Knrle,and Junnarwas occupied
by the Sakas only during the recorded years of Nahapina's reign; i.e., the years 41 to 46. He
believed that Cave number Three at Nisik was begun by Nahap naiand left unfinishedwhen
Gautamiputra Bri Sitakarini drove the Ksaharatas out of the area. The foundation of this argument rests on the similarity in plan of Cave Three to Nisik number Ten and the Ganeia Leni
at Junnar, which was also left unfinished. Moreover, he believed that the placement of the cell
in the northeast corner of Cave Three (it is in the back wall and not in the end) is indicative of
three stages of excavation. He completely rejects R.D. Banerji's and Sastri's theory that the
Another point he used to
veranda was once the interior of the earlier stage of two cuttings
5o.

K.A.Sastri, Comp.HI, II (1957), p. 745.

Spink, op.cit., pp. 157ff.5soSastri,JRAS, p. 663; Banerji, op.cit., p.283.

148

14

79

wasCaveOneat Ndsikwhichwasleft unfinished.Thathas

dateit withinthe reignof Nahapdna
a long narrowveranda,a middleandtwo sidedoors,two squarewindows,fourpillarsandtwo
pilasters(these are barelyroughedout in the shaft),and a cell in each end of the veranda.
Especiallysignificantfor himwasthe verandarail,whichthoughunfinishedshowson its outer
facean elaboratefriezeverylike thatof NumberThree.In additionto this cavewhichhas no
epigraph,SpinkfoundCaveTwenty-four,whichdoeshavean inscriptionof a certainVidhika,
the DamachikaSaka,as addedsupportfor his sequenceof carvingat CaveThree.The lower
partof this caveis badlydamaged, but the upperportionof the facadehasa friezealso very
of the inscriptionrelatedit to
similarin styleto thatof CaveThree.Spinksaidthe paleography
the Ksaharata
period,and the occurrenceof the motif in this connectionindicatedthatCave
Threewas also begununderthe Ksaharataauspices.Once he establishedthe firstactivityat
CaveThreein the reignof Nahapdna
throughthe use of similarmotifsandplansat cavenumber
One andnumberTwenty-four,he indicatedthatthesesamemotifson CaveThree'sfacade,the
carveduprightsandcrossbars,weredonein Pulumayi'sreign.Otherareasof the cavewhichhe
founddecoratedin a relatedmanner,andthus in Pulumdyi'sreign,arethe railpatternsof the
andthe upperregisterof the
stfpa inside,the festoonedgarlandswithlotusmotifsof the torana,
facaderail. Spinkalso found the atlantidfiguresand guardiansof the sametype and styles52,.
The main difficultywith his argumentis that he used the same materialto prove two
differentthings.First,he basedhis threestagesof developmentof CaveThreeon the similarity
of designsfound on three other caves which he believeddate from the time of Nahapina.
None of themhaveNahapdna
inscriptions.Thenhe pointedout thatthesesamedesignmotifs
belong to the portionof Cave Threedone in Pulumdyi'snineteenthyear. The ornaterail
patternof CaveThreeis dateableeitherto Nahapanaor to Pulumayi,butnot to both.According
to Spink'sown chronologythey are not contemporary;
Pulumdyicamenineteenyearsafter
Nahapina.
Thepreviousdescriptionof CaveTenandCaveThreeillustrateboththeirpointsof similarity
fall mostlyin the layout.One majorexceptionis the lack
The similarities
andtheirdifferences.
of a cell in the properrightend of the veranda,which Spinktook to indicatethreestagesof
excavation.Indrajitook this pointto indicatethatCaveFourantedatedThree,andthe end cell
of Threewould have brokenthroughthe wall of Four. NumberFourhas no inscriptionsto
of its facadeit seemscloselyrelatedin styleto CavesEighteen
dateit, but fromthe appearance
for Indrajinotedthat only
and Ten. The pillarsnow in place,see P1.12, mustbe restorations,
the capitalswereleft with the exceptionof the properleft-handpilaster13. The linkageof this
caveto Eighteenis foundin the end bossesof the upperfacade.Theyhavebeen carvedalternately plain and with women's faces. This is just as at the chaitya.Furthermorethe rail pattern
of the upper facadeis plain and in this sense relatesthe decorationto that of Cave Ten. Therefore, all the lack of the cell in the right end of the verandaof Cave Three indicatesis that Cave
Four is the older of the two. The cave itself, the way it is carved,and the consistenciesor inconsistencies can better plot the portions done under Gautamiputraand his son, Pulumayi.
At the proper left end outside the verandaof Cave Three is a series of rail pattern,pilaster,
's5

Indraji thought the columns had been of wood; op.cit., p. 604.

1s2

Spink, op.cit., pp. 185 ff.

1s3 Indraji, op.cit., p. 562.

80

PI. I

Facade of Cave
Nineteen,
the
Cave, a-sik
Kris.na

4dlsi

P1. 2
Facade of Cave Eighteen, Aiasik

i!

v~vt

. ......

. .,:s,

NA

MI

MmvZ

..

.........
a

P1. 3
Facade of Cave Ten, ANsik

Pl. 4
Cave Ten, detail of capitals

-11,
".

g:
7?
UX

CK

*X,
PhO

M
?Wx

W,

WIVO

)RI

&I,

R,

...............

Ag.

7A.

v2P

?y

IMP-1

Min"

iliEw

.2

AiLia

pm,

lip!

..

M
ME
Mmugg

U.

. ........
............
wa,

Z.4

P1. 6
Facade of Cave Three, Ndsik
.

..

P1. 5
Cave Ten, relief panel with stupa

ilel

. ..
xv:

~.....

P1. 8
Cave Three, capitals at proper right of veranda

P1. 7
Cave Three, pilaster at proper right of veranda

. . . .. .. .......

~71 ~

.. . .

**?

K2.'.4/'4wi
<TY'~AA.2;'
Kor.
2>PA

P1. 9
Cave Three, doorway frame with simulated torana

Pl. 10

Cave Three, relief panel with st pa

,2/2

?2

MM,'"
A10.

. . . . . "fow
WN

Al

-'g

AM,

W,

at-

Weil.

24Q

/2/2>2

27"

722/

UZ
i.,:
mwx

as

Aft
A-Al"R

i';.qv

1w
?CA

rC

'SM2

7.'

-e.

IF
I
MAN
MIN
X,
.....
..
...

Mw

il

ixVI

Vil

Us

Pl. ii

Pl. 12

Cave Eighteen, interior

Caves Three and Four (at far left), facades

JI:

;4ii

tw'i<

!ii

i iiiiiiiiiiiii~~iiiiiiiiiii~..................

ei

il?!!I~?!!!l

.
:. ?
..... .
..
....

......II

7N

t
'i~iiii'
i,iii!!~i~!iiii~~iilA

;....
'A...

)
~ii~~ii~iiiiiiiii..........iiii~iiii

P1. 13 Cave Three, outer wall adjoining end of veranda

.....
..............

PI. 14

Cave Eighteen, figure of guardian deity

4"I

{ :i:;.!4:iiili~ii0
{ {}{
#7{{

.......

Cave Three, Atlantid figures at proper left of facade

P1.

Mill:
I

to

./
.'

WM,4/4//

P1. 16 Cave Three, Atlantid figures at proper right of facade

P1.17 Cave Three, worshipper in stzpapanel, properright

roundels, and figural reliefs which are quite unsophisticatedin carving comparedto those of
the facadeproper. Part of the centralrail panel patternin this section has uprights which seem
very close in style of those of the rail beside the guardianof Cave Eighteen, see P1.13 and 14.
Both are very simple forms of the highly developed rail patternsfound at Amardvatias well as
in the pilastersof cave three itself. Above and below this centralrail are garlands,swags, half
rosettes, and an inhabitedvine scroll with animals.Both the patternsare again simplerversions
of the same motif on the facade proper. The bottom rail patternis plain. The top is also plain,
but it is bounded by the same borders as the center panel. Connectingthis center section to the
upper frieze is a pilasterwhich is unfinished.The upper partappearsto have been intendedas an
inverted pot with the "T" plates mounted by a single animal.Above this and standing on the
animal'sback is a female figure. Two more figures occur to her right in the corner, and on her
left atop what remainsof a pilasteris4. The cutting of this whole end section is in lower relief
than any of the facade of the cave proper, and the rosettes look almost like sunken relief. It has
that the verandawas once the cave proper dedicatedby Gautamibeen suggested by
SastriI55
putra, and it is possible this is what remainsof the original decorative scheme of the facade.
The generalrule for carving of rock sanctuariesseems to have been to rough them out first,
top to bottom, and then proceed to the finishing of individualportions. So it is suggested that
the following was the scheme of cutting at Cave Three. The large courtyardwas planned. The
columns and the rail area were roughed out. The verandawas excavated,and because no cell
was possible in the right end, Gautamiputra'sinscription was assigned to this position. The
areasfor the doors and windows were planned and a shallow recess was set to frame the door
with a torana.It should be noted that the rosette and swag patternsof the toranaare in the same
low relief as those of the panel out to the left courtyard,and not in the high relief of the veranda
rail. Also the figures of the upper bracketespecially,and to some extent those of the side panels,
beara strikingresemblancein pose to those of this same courtyardsculpture.The upperbracket
figures are frontal with their feet turned to the sides in profile, as in the case of the female
figure on the top of the courtyardpilaster. This is equally true of the female figure to her far
right who holds up her arm to a tree. The female ascetic to the left faces frontally,but one foot
is raisedas if walking. Both feet are shown in profile. Some of the poses in the toranaside panels
are more relaxedthan the upper figures, but this may only indicate the narrativewhich is displayed while the other figures are representativeof the clergy and are thus hieraticallyposed.
This is probably as far as the design of the verandawas carriedunder Gautamiputra;though
from the appearanceof the outer face of the verandarail it might have been worked on intermittently from the time of Gautamiputra'slast inscription until Balairi'sdedication.
What is especiallynoticeableabout the outer face is the atlantidfigures. Those to the proper
left aremuch cruderin cutting, less well conceived than those of the properright (Pls. i5 and 16).
Their faces are very broad and flat, the eyes are large and archaicin appearance,and the mouth
and lower jaw take up about one half of the face. The atlantidfigures on the right still have the
large squaretype of head, but the featuresare better proportionedto the whole. Also, the right
panels seem to be largerand to fit the figuresbetter than those to the left.
On the uppermost area is what appears to be an inscription. No notice of an inscription in this location is made in any
of the Ndsik sources consulted, however.
55ssOp. cit., JRAS, pp. 543-665.

154

85

two areasof recuttingprobably

Whetheror not the workwas carriedon withinterruptions,
Thatthe torana
done underthe reign of Pulumayiarethe door guardiansflankingthe
torana.
existedbeforethe guardiansor the inscriptionof Balasriis evidencedby the placementof the
three.Theinscriptions,one appendedto the other,runfromthe rightsideof thebackwallupto
therecessfor the torana.The inscriptionhas not been damagedby cutting(P1.9).This recess
frameworkfor the door andtorana;but broken
appearsto havebeenplannedas a rectangular
into it 6 feet 2 inchesfromthe floor,in an irregularpattern,is a secondrecess.It is so cut that
it removespartof the stonefrom the lower cornersof the windows,and the presenceof the
windowsin the wallalreadyis probablythe reasonthe recessis irregular.All the othersculpture
connectedwith this caveandsite is plannedto fit into a rectangular
panel.Therefore,the idea
of doorguardiansflankingthe toranamusthavebeenandafterthought.The guardiansaremassive figures,stockyin buildwith ill-formedfeet. Theirpose is staticandrigidlyfrontal.Both
have their right handsraisedholdingbunchesof flowers,and their left handsrest on their
thighs.Thefeetarefrontalin a widespreadstance.
As faras costumegoes, bothareclothedin a similar,thoughnotidenticalmanner.Theheaddressesarein a trefoilpatternwith a raisedknobon the centralpartof the turban.Theirupper
torsos have no indicationof clothingand they wear only braceletsand earringsfor jewelry.
Theirdhoti'shangin heavyill formedfolds,whichflareto the sideandfill the niche.Theseare
girdledoverwithheavyrope-likeloops,andthe excessmaterialis broughtinto a large,ungainly
knot to the right hip. The carvingis not deep becauseto attaina greaterdepthin the panel
would havebrokenthroughthe wall. The surfacesof the bodyplanesare softerat the edges,
but not undercutat the stones surface.The facialfeatureshave muchin commonwith the
atlantidfigureson the properrightverandaface.
On examiningthe reliefstipa panelof the inside(P1.io) the most noticeableelementis its
high relief.A rectangularpanelhas been markedoff as a frame,but the stzpa, figures,and
umbrellasall projectfrom the surfaceof the wall beyondthe framingborder.This indicates
thatit was all cut backfromthe plinthwhichprojectsinto the hallandformsthe stepsup into
the cells. The figuresof the femaleattendantsarejustas ill formedas those of the door guarwiththem.On the basisof theirstylethe door
dians,andarehereassumedto be contemporary
guardians,thestipapanel,andprobablyportionsof the lowerfacadearethencontemporaneous
with the dedicationby Bala'ri.
The interiorplan of CaveTen is identicalwith that of Three,which was one reasonthat
Spink gave for thinking that Nahapina began Three. But how similarare the styles of cutting?
Both hadpanelsfor st/paswith femaleattendants.How do they compare?At CaveTen the sthpa
was set in a recessedpanel (P1.5). At this time it is impossible to be certainof the projectionof
the stipa, but since the laterfigure of Bhairavadoes not projectbeyond the surfaceof the niche,
and since in the areaover his left shoulderthe recuttingpiercedthe wall into the chamberbehind
the panel, one could theorize that the stipa was in a lower relief than the stipa of Cave Three.
The female figures stand on what must have been the stipa's plinth. They are about 3 feet high.
The female to the proper right standsin the crossed-legged,hip-shot position of the attendant
in the same place in Cave Three. Her hands are clasped over her head. When comparedto the
figure in Cave Three, however, Cave Ten's attendant seems to be more sensitively cut and
modelled. The hips and calves do not seem as chunky and out of proportion as they are on the
86

figure of Cave Three. The same organic error in placing the left hip too far out and down
occurs in both figures, but seems more successfullyhandledin Cave Ten. If carefulplotting of
these two attendantsis done the following would be the main points of contrast.
In Cave Ten, from the point where the handsjoin above the head to the position of the right
foot, there is a gracefulflowing arc. The axis of the body follows this flow. When the sculptor
approachedthe areaof the knees as they cross he seemed to understandthe organic connection
of the left leg above the knee and below. The curve seems to move comfortablyunderneath
the right leg.
In Cave Three this arc is attempted(P1.i 7), but not successfully.Here the sculptor still has a
verticalaxis despite the bend on the left side of the body, and in attemptingto shift the weight
behind the crossed knees he has lost the continuity of the upper left thigh and the lower left leg.
The two parts do not connect.
From this one could assume either of two things. One, the carving of Cave Three's figure
was done earlier when the artisans did not understandthese anatomicalproblems, while in
Cave Ten the artisanhad solved the concept successfully.Or, two, the work in Cave Ten was
the earlier,done by a skilled workman,and that in Cave Three was but a poor attemptat copying some of the poses of Ten, by a man who was anxious but not able to achieve the grace of
the earlierfigure. Copies frequently look stiff and unwieldly because the copier does not consider the figure as a whole, being too engrossedin reproducingpartsof another'splan.
Other materialwould seem to supportthe line of reasoningfollowing in the second assumption. Overall the decor of Cave Ten does not seem as elaborateas that at Cave Three, but the
carving is finer, and more carefullyconceived. This includes the treatmentof the facadepillars
and animal capitals. The stfpa panel in question in Cave Ten must have carrieda stipa which
was about 3 feet smallerthan that in three. The stipa in Three is about 8 and 2 feet in height
from its lotus petal base to the top of the central umbrella. The space which most likely contained the base, plinth, and dome of the stipa in Ten is about 5 and ? feet in height. At Ten
there are only three umbrellas,and the shallowness of the niche is inadequateif the mannerof
rendering them is noted. The artist tried to show the diameterof the umbrellasnot by foreshortening, but by tipping the back down and making a rectangularellipse. The umbrellasat
Three project at right angles from the wall. It has alreadybeen noted from the hole above the
Bhairavathat the wall between the hall and the chamberwas thin. The artisan,realizingthat he
could not cut deeperinto the recess to allow the umbrellasto projectout over the stipa without
destroyingthe wall, resortedto this device to give the illusion of depth.
Thus the whole concept of the interior design is simpler at Ten than Cave Three. In Cave
Three there is a platformwhich projectsin front of the cells on the back and sides of the cave.
This bench or step extends into the hall ' foot 8 inches. It is on this plinth that the stzpaand the
figures stand. The framing niche for the stipa at Cave Three was planned so that the composition would project out from the cave wall and not as in Ten be recessed. At Ten there is no
step up to the cells. Their entry is level with the floor of the cave. The recession of the chaitya
panel is similarto the framing device of the toratiaat Cave Three. This could indicate that the
stapapanel also was an afterthought and not originally planned. There is also a noticeable
differencein the interior organizationof the two stipa panels, that at Ten being simpler with
only the three umbrellasand no Gandharvas.Instead of these decorationsthere are two flags.
87

The attendantof the properleft of the stipa at Ten could be comparedto that on the proper
left of the stipa of CaveThreein the samemanneras the other attendant.Her figureis also
moregracefulandrelaxed.
of her son is obviousfromherinscription.
That Balairiwas proudof the accomplishments
Whatbetterreasonwouldshe havethanto tryto surpassthe carvinganddesignof Nahapdna's
had defeated.How else save by copying
cave,a cave which representeda manGautamiputra
and elaboratingon certainmotifscan one explainthe debasedsculpturalstyleof Three,which
on all inscriptionalevidencemustpost-dateCaveTen?
No matterwhichformulais usedto dateGautamiputra
Sri Sdtakarni
thosesuggestedabove
or those found in some of the otherreferences,it is clearthatfrom these datesbasedon the
inscriptions,and surroundedby contradictory
interpretations,
nothingconclusiveis possible.
It is only the styleof the sculptureitselfwhichcouldplacethesecavesin a relativepositionin
the chronologyof Indianart.In orderto do this the sculpturemustbe comparedto securely
datedmonuments;and these such datedmonumentsbegin to occur only earlyin the fifth
centuryof our era,duringthe Guptanperiod.The resultsof this comparisonaredealtwith at
lengthin my dissertation,but mustbe omittedhere.

88