sunga-kanva rule in magadhashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/66072/6/06_chapter 2.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER II
SUNGA- KANVA RULE IN MAGADHA
Pushyamitra rose to the power at Pataliputra by c. 187 B.C.
The Matsya PuriitJa says 1-,
(
Pushyamitras-tu senanlr-udhritya Sa
B,rihadratham-Karishyati Sa Vai raivam- Shaurims'ati
sama n,ripah ~
that is, 'Pushyamitra, the Commander -in - Chief, will uproot B~ihadratha
and rule for 36 years.'
The Vishnu Purar:a says2,
(" Tatah Pushvamitrah Senapatih Svaminarn hatwi r(yyam
Karishyati ~
that is, 'Senapati Pushyamitra will rule having killed his master.'
The Bhagavata PuraiJ.a makes the same statement' while
the Harsacharita of Ban a states4 : .
'Pratij iUi durbalam cha-bala-dars'ana- Vyapadesa
darsitaiesha- sainyah-seniinir-aniiryam
Mauryam-B!ihadratham pipesha Pushpamitrah swiminam ~
that is, 'And reviewing the whole army under the pretext of showing him
his forces the mean general Pushyamitra crushed his master Brihadratha,
the Maurya, who was weak of purpose'(who is too weak to keep his
promises5 or who is weak in keeping his coronation oath6).
From the above it is clear that Pushyamitra, the
Commander-in- Chief of the Maurya empire, occupied the Magadhan
29
throne atlcr killing his master Brihadratha, the last imperial Maurya who
was too weak to protect his inherited throne. Thus Pushyamitra
established the rule of a new dynasty at the centre of the empire that had
been under the Imperial Mauryas.
The constant threat of Greaco-Bactrian invasion in the North
- Western frontiers of the empire seems to have paved the way towards
Pushyamitra's accession to power. Because, the last Maurya had failed
to offer an effective resistance due to his personal and territorial
limitations. Further the king's pass1ve policy created a sense of
insecurity among his subjects at a time when various power- centres and
provincial units of the empire had shaken otT their allegiance to the
feeble central authority and the secession of regions of the erstwhile
empire reduced the imperial bodypolitic to the status of a mere kingdom.
In the background of emergence of small independent states and threat of
foreign invasions Pushyamitra's coup d'etat may be considered.
Pushyamitra's title Senani: Justification
In most of the texts7 Pushyamitra 1s styled as senZmi or
senapati, that is the Commander-in-Chief of the Maurya army. In such a
way much stress was laid upon his military strength or on the control
and command over the basic pillar of strength of the Kautilyan state that
is a force behind active policy. Although Pushyamitra dispossessed his
master of his crown he refrained from appropriating royal title to himself
and remained content with the military statusx. One thinks'~ that
Pushyamitra may have wanted to atone for his crime (assassination of his
master) by endeavouring to give a different colour to the whole shO\v and
30
thus refrained from taking the people to understand that he had no
hankering for it, hut that his aim was only to save them from foreign
domination and misrule. At this juncture of Indian history, the time
forced the senapati Pushyamitra to play vital role which was the need of
the time. He was a product of the age 10• The s'uriga ruler rose equal to
the occasion and had to kill his master B~ihadratha Maurya. The tirst and
the foremost task hefore the new ruler was to invigorate the body politic
with a new spirit. His successful revolution can be much better
accounted for by his hold over the army than his headship of a band of
discontented Brahmanas''.
Pushyamitra's role as a champion of Bnihma~ical Revolution
Pushyamitra was regarded as a champion of Brahmaryical
reaction against the pro-Buddhist policy of Asoka and pro-Jaina policy of
his successors 12• The utter dissatisfaction and reaction culminated in the
usurpation of the throne of Magadha by Pushyamitra s'unga, a Bn1hmana
by origin. Against this theory of brahmanical revolution headed by
Pushyamitra a large number of arguments have been put forward by
scholars". Inspite of these counter arguments it can hardly be denied
that Pushyamitra was a Bnihmana himself (whether he took the
leadership or not) and rose to the power resorting to a kind of revolt or
coup (either organised by the discontented Bnihmat:tas or not) We have
also numismatic evidence from Kaus'ambi, Jagatgram, Yaudheya etc
territories I-t of the time concerned to prove that Pushyamitra's action
might have been an expression of Brahmat~ical revivalism after a long
period of pro-Buddhist and pro-Jaina policy ofthe Mauryas.
31
I-I is rise as a leader of one of the partisans among the bureaucracy
The coup-d'-etat which placed Pushyamitra in power 1s
presented as a palace coup''. The organisation of the state was, by now,
at such a low ebb that subordinates were willing to accept any one who
could promise them a more efficient organisation. It is stated'" that
during the reign of Brihadratha Maurya there were two partisans or
factions in the capital rather in the palace, one headed by senapati or
Commander-in-Chief of the Maurya army, the other headed by the king's
sachiva. when the senapati organised his coup, he killed the king and
imprisoned the minister.
Rise as a leader or representative of revolting region of the empire
(Vidisa)
However, it appears from the above that the basic of
strength behind Pushyamitra's coup-d'-etat and rise to the imperial thr0rH'
was his generalship that is his control and command over the military
force, confidence and support of a major section of the imperial
bureaucracy and of the people in general, the weakness of the emperor in
person and the situation created by the threat of foreign invasion. In such
a state of things, it \\·ould not be unreasonable to assume his action as an
ambitious representative of the revolting rrovincial centres of power of
the declining empire, a person who proceeded step by step to fulfil his
aim of controlling the imperial power as the supreme head by utilising
the suitable situation. We have ample evidence to prove that
Pushyamitra followed the due course.
Thcoritical and practical basis of Pushyamitra's action
Pushyamitra's coup or snatching of the imperial power had
its support from political bases and \vas no exception to the historical
tradition of Magadha. Apart from the extant ancient literary sources the
Manusmriti (8.349-350) allows a Brahma~a to raise sword on different
crucial occasions. Again his action had lot of precedence. The early Pali
texts like the Malu:ivwhsa 17 state that Bimbisara, the real founder of
Magadhan imperial tradition, had been appointed king by his father who
was a petty chief of south-Bihar. Young Bimbisara bore the epithet of
· ( ·k ) I K semya srem a . It has been opined 1'1 that Bimbisara was either
installed on the throne of Magadha by his father or he himself effected a
military coup with the help of his father who \Vas a general retired. f
Whi lc accordin12. to the Mahavwiz.w/ 1', Sis'una12.a the founder of the
~ ~
dynastic rule of Magadha was a minister worthy of being elected by the
people who had banished Nagadasaka of Bimbisara's family. The
Pur[qws state21 that 'hatwi tesam yas'ah krtsnam Sfs'unago Bhavisyati,' I
which means that 'Sisunaga (might be an amatya) had the military under
his centro), may be he was the last Commander-in-Chief of the last king
and seized the throne by a coup with the tacit support of the
bureaucracy22• Curtius K. Rufas23
, contemporary Classical historian of
Alexander, states that the father of Agrammes (that is Ugrasena
Mahapadma Nanda, founder of the Nanda dynasty at Magadha) was a
barber who was a paramour of the queen and through her influence
gained the confidence of the reigning king, treacherously murdered him
and then under the pretence of acting as the guardian of the royal
children usurped the supreme authority putting the young princes to
,-, _) _)
death. The Har:\·ucharita of Bana~~ has most probably alluded to the
event when it states that Kakavarna s'is'unaga had a dagger thrust into his
throat in the vicinity of his city. Even the A4ahavamsatika has cited a
description which proves that the first Nanda captured Magadhan throne
by force 2'. By the combined testimony of the Classical writers, the
Mahavamsa (V -15-18) and the Purc11Jas. we are informed that the last
Nanda king of Magadha was detested by his subjects for his low origin
and tyrannical misrule and young Chandragupta, with the help of
Chanakya, might have hatched a plot against him and taking advantage
of the situation had slain the king and captured the power.
I
Origin of the Surigas
An attempt may be made to examme the possibility of
Pushyamitra's rise. step by step, as the leader of one of the revolting
regions of the empire. A number of conflicting opinions have been put
forward by scholars as to the origin and place of origin of Pushyamitra
and his successors. Accordidng to the A!j[cidhyr ~vi of Pat;til)i 26 the SGrigas
are connected with the Vedic Brahmarya family of Bharadvaja, as much
the same narrated in the Puniryic genealogies of the chief Brahma~a - I I
family. In the As·~·a/ayana Srauta Szitra and the Katyayana Srauta Siitra /
the Surigas are referred to as teachers. It should be mentioned here that
the Punipas only apply the name Sunga to the sovereigns constituting the
dynasty which Pushyamitra founded. The Malavikagnimitram of
Kalidasa27, on the other hand, makes Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra, a
scion of the Baimbika family. The BauJiulyana s/auta Szitra2x represents
the Baimbikas as K<l.s~·apas, In the flarivamsa 2'1 the Brahmana senani
restoring the As'vamedha sacrifice i~ mentioned as a Kasyapaya. This
Brahmana Sl.!!l(llli is identified by some scholars''' as Pushyamitra. It is
interesting to note here that neither the .\hllm·ik(lgnimitram nor the
Din·avadima used the name Sunga for the dynasty, whereas the
Harsacharita used this desiQ.nation SurH!a to onh one of the latest kin12.s . .._ .._ .. -in the Puranic list. l {owe\·er, the Brahm ana ori12.in of the S
1
wigas is . ~ ~
almost certain' 1• Of course their gotra may he either Kas'yapa or
Bharadvaja.
Pushyamitra is presented as lineally descended from the
Mauryas on the basis of the Dt\y(n·odcilw which makes Pushyamitra as
the last king of the .\1aurya dynast:. This theory seems to support the
llarsaclwrita account. While according to the Br:1hmanical tradition the . ~ . ' Mauryas were Sudras. But the Sudra ongtn of the Mauryas is not
definitely proved.
It ha::, been SUg!!eSted'' that the s'ul112.d Jvnastv Wd::, Pet sian . .._~ \ .._ .; ,.,
worshippers of the Sun,'Mitra', there by they are of foreign origin. But
this suggestion is abandoned later on by the author himself and the
s'uri.gas are considered as brahmar_1a;;. Likewise some scholars'~ have
connected the Su~1gas with the family of Bimbisara and thereby indicated
their Kshatriya origin.
Pushyamitra hailed from the West
As to the place of s'unga origin. some scholars-'' locate it, on
the basis of the versions of the Matsya Pur(11.w and of the analysis of the
place of action of Pushvamitra, to eastern India for, according to the . ~
.\!arsya Puru~w ( 163.h6-67) S{uiga \\as a Janapada of eastern India. But
35
it is now generally accepted by most of the scholars'6 that it is with the
kingdom of Vidis'a that the S/ungas \\ere especially associated in
literature and inscriptions. It is more probable that the epithet, Baimbika
given to Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra. in the Malavikagnimitram is
connected with the river Bimbika mentioned in the Bharhut inscription of
Dhanabhuti". We arc also informed by the Mcilarikagnimitram that the
crown prince served as the father's viceroy at Vidis'a where he was
afterwards given the epithet, R4ia~ Even a1ler the death of his father he
did not move to Pataliputra to become king there and stayed on at Vidisa.
The Bharhut Inscription of Ohanabhuti points to eastern
Malawa as the locality with which the S1
urigas of the I st century B.C. are
to be especially connected. One scholar suggests'~ that Vidisa- was the
hereditary kingdom of Pushyamitra. The importance of Vidisa is also
attested by the Besnagar Garuqa Pi! br Inscription which records the
coming of the Greek ambassador I devotee Heliodorus to the court of ;
Suriga king Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, sent by Greek king Antialkidas, and
the erection of Garu9advaja of Vasudeva by him. It has been pointed
out'9 that numismatic history of central India to some extent proves that /
Vidisa should have been the orginal home of the Surigas. We may now
conclude that Pushyamitra was a sGriga whom Paryini connected with the
Vedic Brahmarya family of Bharadvaja. As the two peoples, Vitahavya
and Yitihotras, being of the Bharadvaja gotra, belonged to the territory
which, under the Maurya empire, was included in the viceroyality of
Ujjainl, it is with the kingdom of Vidisa forming a part of this region
that the Surigas were especially associated in the literature and epigraphic
sources. It is not known for certain when and whv the famil\ ol
36
Pushymitn exchanged the quill for S\,vord 411 like the Kadamhas of u later
date. But it is known from the Epic-Puriir)ic tradition that the Bharadvaja
could assert either Kshatriva or Brahmana ori1!in and continue the status - . ,_
and functions of Kshatriya and Brahma~a. In view of all these, it is quite
possible that Pushyamitra belonged to one Brahma-Kshatra family and
his military profession was due to his family tradition than to anv
extraodinary circumstances. The incident in which Brihadratha was
assassinated shows that already Pushyamitra was carefully preparing the
ground for his coup-d-etat by seducing the army from its loyality to the
Maurya king41• It was obviously a part of such a scheme that a minister
of the late Maurya king B_rihadratha was imprisoned4='.
It might have been that Pushyamitra found a place in the
Maurya administration under the viceroyal ity of A vantl in the latter part
of the post-Asokan period. In a growing situation created by the mutual
bickering among the scions of the imperial MaL!f)'3 famil~:, h) the
secession and revolting attitude of the different regions of the empire
and the constant threat of foreign aggression, Pushyamitra began to
cherish his ambitions and to step up to the power ladder. That is why,
most probably, in the Harivamsdn, the Brahmarya senani identified with
Pushyamitra is given the epithet Audbh[jjo means one who suddenly rises
from underground44, though it also means one who has taken his dynastic
name from vegetation (Tree totem). In this connection it should be
mentioned that while the Purar:tas attribute a period of 137 years to the
Mauryas, the Thenivalr of Meruturiga, Jain author, splits the period into
two-parts : I OR years for the Mauryas and 30 years for Push: amitra.
lntcrestingly enough in the A:(okavwl£inu 1'. Pushvamitra is stated to be
37
the sixth successor to Asoka and fifth successor to Samprati. The fact
remains that the Jain account is written from the point of view of Avant),
while the Pural)a account is written from the view point of Pataliputra.
Thus it seems that Pushyamitra had acquired considerable power before
he seized the Mauryan throne and his final coup-d-etat was to bring the
whole Mauryan dominion under his control. We may conclude that for
the last few years of the Maurya rule Pushyamitra was the de-facto ruler
in the Avanti region and held simultaneously the position of Commander
- in Chief uner the Mauryas. For this reason only when the Vayu and
Bramanda PuriuJas state that Pushyamitra ruled for 60 years, they take
into account a portion of his rule in the Avant! region prior to his
accession to the throne at Pataliputra.
Significance of the horse-sacrifices
Having thus, usurped the imperial throne Pushyamitra tried
to achieve his mission of consolidating his power for unifying the whole
country once again, fighting against the forces from within and without.
The group of the rival partisans among the bureaucracy was either
imprisoned or suppressed by show of arms at his command and by
generating confidence with a prospect of better and efficient government
(service security and salary security). Though in that age the empire and
the imperial power rested mainly upon the military power, the popular
support to the goverment for its long duration was no negligible matter
and an astute ruler was expected to attract the confidence among his
subjects. Pushyamitra was popularly known as seniipati. The Purar:tas
refer to him as senimi. The Malavikagnimitram calls him senapati. while
38
it gives the epithet Riijan to his son Agnimitra. The Har~acharita also
styles him only a seniini. It is only in the Divyavadana that Pushyamitra
is called as a rajan46. The Buddhist writer Taramitha also refers to him as
a Brahmal}a king. This reference to Pushyamitra as king in the Buddhist
literature which alleged him as the persecutor of Buddhism and the
absence of this eithet rather presence of the epither senapati in most of
the Brahma~ical literature related to him may be explained by the fact
that Pushyamitra might have intended to show that what he did was in
the interest of the motherland. Very soon after his accession to the
throne of Magadha Pushyamitra restored the time-honoured Vedic rite of
horse sacrifice after its long abeyance. It is known from the Mahabha~ya
of Patanjali and the Ayodhya Inscription of Dhanadeva. The
horse-sacri flee, no doubt, exposed the undisputed sovereignty of a king.
But in the case of Pushyamitra it had other significance, for it brought
under his canopy a major section of old fashoined people who clung to
bloody sacrifices, cow-killing and meat-eating. The sentiment in favour
of respecting animal life, technically called the 'Ahimsa doctrine', had a
large share in the people; burdensome rules of conduct. The propagation
of 'Ahimsa' by Asoka necessarily produced a sharp conflict of ideas and
principles of conduct between the adherents and the old fashioned
people47• This brought a reaction against the sancity to animal life, from
the highest to the lowest, all tuned against it48 Pushyamitra might have
utilised that sentiment.
Pushyamitra's dominions
Pushyamitra, after occupying the throne, established himself
as the sovereign of the erstwhile Maurya dominion. He tried his best to
unify the fast disintegrating empire by bringing as much as possible all
the power centres of the Maurya empire within the sub-continent. The
dominions of Pushyamitra extended to the river Narmada and included
the cities of Pataliputra, Ayodhya, Vidisa and if the anthors of the
Divyavadana and 'History r~l Buddhism in India' of Taramitha are to be
believed, Jalandhara and Sakala44• It appears from the evidence of
Divyavadana that he continued to reside in Pataliputra which still
remained, as of old, the capital of the new dynastic rule The
Ma!avikagnimitram proves that Vidisa was given in charge of crown
prince Agnimitra who served as his father's viceroy. While a cousin of
Agnimitra, namely Vlrasena was given the charge of frontier fortress on
the bank of the Narmada in order to check the unwillingness of the South
- West regions to acknowledge the suzerainty of the S~riga monarch.
The Malavikiignimitram50 (Act-V) also refers to Agnimitra's war with the
adjoining state of Vidarbha which resulted in the acknowledgement of
the suzerainty to the house of Pushyamitra by the ruler of Vidarbha. In
the Ayodhya Inscription, Dhanadeva, king of Kosala, claims to be the
sixth in descent from senapati Pushyamitra. In that case it is not unlikely
that Dhanadeva's forefather, a near relative of Pushyamitra was the
governor of Kosala under his suzerainty and thus the region seems to
have been included in the dominions of Pushyamitra. And as the local
dynastic coinage of Kausambi, Mathura and Panchala did not start on a
regular basis before the latter half of the 2nd century B.C. these kingdom
40
are also likely to have been included within Pushyamitra's empire' 1 • In
the Act V of the Af(i/avikagnimitram. Kalidasa refers to a contlict
between prince Vasumitra who escorted. as the Commander-in-Chief of
the am1y of Pushyamitra along with other hunderd princes, the sacrificial
horse for the second horse-sacrifice and a Yavana on the south bank of
the Sindhu. Though there is controversv as to the identification of this ~ .
river Sindhu, we may accept the generally accepted view that this Sindhu
was the famous river Indus of the Punjab'2. We are also infonned that
Vasumitra returned safely with the sacrificial horse after defeating the
Yavanas. If the testimony of the Rajatarangil:zr is to be believed, it is
proved that Pushyamitra's sword took him to the gate of Kashmir, that is
Darabh i sara.
In the Ayodhya Inscription of Dhanadeva, Pushyamitra is
credited with the performance of two horse-sacrifices. It is held53 that the
first horse-sacrifice was celebrated after the victorious war with Vidarbha
and the second after the defeat of the Yavanas. While others believe54
that the first sacrifice was performed immediatey after the coup-d-etat
and the second durings the closing years of Pushyamitra, referred to in
the Miilavikiignimitram. It is also interesting to note that while one
scholar has suggested55 that Pushyamitra performed the second horse
sacrifice to vindicate his position after he had suffered at the hands of
Kaliriga king Kharavela, the first sacrifice coincided with the siege of
Saketa and Madhyamika56• It is opined by a scholar57 that the Yajiia
being performed by Patanjali mentioned in the Mahahha.\ya was the first
horse sacrifice which was celebrated after the Yavanas had left the
41
country. That the second horse sacrifice, which wa:-; performed atkr the
defeat of Menander was more glorious.
However, on the basis of epigraphic evidence we may
undoubtedly accept that Pushyamitra I ,
Sunga performed two
horse-sacrifices. But it can hardly be admitted that they were performed
to celebrate either Pushvamitra's victorv in the Vidarbha war or after the - -
Yavanas had left the country or after the defeat of Menander by
Vasumitra on the bank of the Sindhu or to vindicate his position after he
had sutTered at the hands of Kharavela or the first sacrifice coincided
with the siege of Saketa and Madhyamika. We have no evidence to
prove that Pushyamitra performed these two horse sacrifices with such
intentions behind it. Though it is true that such incidents occurred before
or after the first and the second horse sacrifices it was not pre-destined
that Pushyamitra would let loose the second sacrificial horse with a large
army and armed princes under the charge of his grandson Vasumitra and
expected its arrival near the south bank of the Indus and safe return to
Pataliputra after the victorious war with the Yavanas. Again, the
palaeography of the Hathigumpha Inscription definitely proves that
Kaliriga king Kharavela could not be a contemporary of Pushyamitra.
Pushyamitra who performed the two horse sacrifices just to claim that he
was the undisputed master of North India at a time when the country was
suffering from utter disintegration and insecurity from foreign
aggression. In order to proclaim his sovereignty he undertook the
performance of the time honoured Vedic rite which was regarded as a
symbol of royal glory 511• One may find in it the revival of Hinduism or a
way to satisfy the sentiment of the old-fashioned people who clung to
42
bloody sacrifice, cow-killing and meat eating as against the ethics of
Ahitil.w1 propagated by the Mauryan emperors. BY these two
horse-sacrifices he demonstrated that he had thoroughly consolidated his
position over a greater part of the empire for no monarch could let loose
the sacrificial horse without making sure of its safe return.
Greek Phenomenon in Pushyamitra's reign
The most important single factor that repeatedly challenged
the supremacy of Pushyamitra from outside was the Yavana invasions as
referred to in both the indigenous and foreign literary sources and proved
by the numismatic evidence. In this connection we like to examine the
role of the Greek phenomenon in the history of Magadha and the part
played in this context by Pushyamitra. Both the Greek intruders and
Pushyamitra were helped by each other. We are informed bv the
accounts of the Classical writers and the Yuga Purc1t.w section of the
Gargi Smnhita that the Yavana (Indo-Greeks in this context) invasion of
India actually started after c. 206 B.C. and their regular attacks and
inroads into the heart of the sub-continent must have created a sense of
insecurity (political,social,economic and cultural) and constant threat
among the people of the Mauryan empire. This factor naturally led to the
assassination of the last Maurya emperor Brihadratha who failed to check I
the Yavana inroads and the rise of Pushyamitra Suriga.
There is great disagreement among the scholars about the
number, date and leader of the Yavana invasion. While one believe54 in
only one Greek invasion in India in about 150 B.C. under the leadership
of Menander, there are scholars who believe60 that there was more than
4J
one Greek incursions in India. The 1irst one referred to in the
A1ahahha.\Ta of Patarijal i and Yw.;a Purana occurred he fore Pushvamitra - ~ ~ ( .. ..
actually ascended the throne~> 1 under the leadership of Demetrius I. son of
Euthydcmus , while the second invasion, referred to in the
Malavikagnimitram. took place during the last years of Pushyamitra's
retgn.
However. \\e know from the Puranic evidence that
Pushyamitra ruled at Pataliputra for 36 years from C-187 B.C.to 15 I B.C.
Then if any foreign invasion or invasions had taken place upto
Pataliputra or within the dominion of Pushyamitra.it must have taken
place within this time-period. From the description of Polybius it
appears that Euthydemus got a free hand to acquire and control virtually
all land-routes between India and the West probably after 200 B.C.62• It
is almost universally accepted that it was Demetrius I who crossed the
Hindukush and made himself master of the Kabul and the Indus valley"<
It has been assertedM that 'he ruled from the Jaxartes to the Gulf of
Cambay, from the Persian desert to the Middle Ganges'. The extension
of his rule to the south east of the Hindukush (or the north-western
regions) is also supported by the numismatic evidence, if the bilingual
coins of Indian standard (other than the bust wearing a flat cap or Kausia
coins of Demetrius 11~>5 ) are attributed to him. After ascending the throne
in c. 189 B.C. ~>~>Demetrius I might have utilised a few years to
consolidate his position in Bactria and made incursion into the Gangetic
valley (Madhyadcsd) upto Patalilputra by about 180 B.C.07 (others place
the date in between c. I 73 -167 B.C.('"'or189-170 B.C."9). However. the
Indian invasion of the Indo-Greeks under Demetrius I ended just
44
sometime before he sieged Eucratidcs bv about 170 l3.C. What the ~ ~
A1dlavikagnimitram of Kalidasa mentioned of the victor\· of
Pushyamitra's army under Yasumitra on the south bank of the Sindhu
over the Yavana was the second Greek incursion probably under
Menander and it is not referred to in the Puninas or in the Mahahll(i:'Ya.
the 3rd chapter of which \Vas written between c. 144-142 B.C. 70 There has
been some controversy regarding the identification of the river. Rapson
thinks70a that "the choice seems to lie between the Kalisindhu, a tributary
of the Cham1anvatl (Chambal) tlowing within a hundred miles of
Madhyamika (near Chiter) and the Sindhu, a tributary of the Jumna
which would naturally be passed by the invading forces on the route
between Mathuni and Prayaga. A third alternative, suggested bv
R.C.Majumder 70h , ts also possible and the river Sindhu may be
identified with the great river Indus which is most important in Indian
history by its popular tradition.
Pushyamitra and the Greek invasions
Being the Commander-in-Chief of the army of the Maurya
emperor for a long time, Pushyamitra observed the situation very well
and he might have fought the Yavanas. Subhagasena, a successor of
Asoka, or Jalauka of Kashmir, also a son and successor of Asoka might
have checked the Yavana (mlechchha) inrush by entering into an alliance
with the Yavana leader Antiochus III or by military force. Thereafter,
the Indo-Greeks under Demetrius I found no power on the borderland or
in the interior to make alliance of the previous nature or to be resisted
actively. The last Maurya ruler Brihadratha failed to keep his coronation
45
oath of protecting his subjects by checking the Ya\ ana inroads. It is very
likelv that Brihadratha was slain bv his amw chief. The sudden . . .
disappearance of the king at centre must ha\·e created a bit of uneasiness
and uncertainty among the people. It was under such political condition
that the Bactrian Greeks invaded the country, sieged the power centres of
the tast disintegrating empire and finally knocked at the gate of the
capital. Pushyamitra got an opportunity to consolidate his power and
position and to unify the breaking empire once again. But in which way?
The Indo-Greek incursions had a great impact upon the political, social
and cultural life of the Indian people. Inspite of state patronage,
Buddhism did not have the same popular base as the traditional
Brahmaryism had upon the Indian people.
We have already stated in the first chapter that during the
post · Asokan period there emerged a clash of interest between the
adhcrenb of 'Ahimsa' \that IS protection and respect of animal life) and
old fashioned people who clung to Brahmanical rites of cow killing and
meat-eating. The Buddhist population might not have readily reconciled
itself to Pushyamitra's action in overthrowing a dynasty which had come
to be looked upon as the bulwark of Buddhism. They sought for
aspiration and help from the Yavana invaders in the north-west. In the
Punjab, Buddhism seems to have openly allied itself with the Greek
invaders, and this must have given Pushyamitra sufficient cause for
meting out to them the treatment which all traitors deserve 71• On the
other hand, it is claimed 72 that the aim of Demetrius was to restore the
huge derelect empire of the Mauryas but under the Greek rule and with
himself on the throne of Asoka. The Indo Greek advance to Magadha
46
mieht have been caused bv their intention to save their brother-in-!~1ith ~ ~
(mainly the Buddhist) from the hands of the Brahm ana kine. Thev were. . ~ . by that time. more influenced by Buddhist religion as proved by the
bilingual coins of Agathocles (Demetrius's son) bearing' Stupa : Tree'
symbol.
In almost all the Pura1_1as the panicky condition of the
Madhyadesa created by the Yavana invasion is depicted in a detailed
description of the 'Kali Age' which represents a deviation from the
established order of things. 'Kali' means the neglect of rituals.
predominance and influence of heretical sects and of foreign
non-brahmanical rulers, non-performance of the functions assigned to
different social varf!as by the Dharmasastras etc. 7' The Age or period is
characterised by foreign invasions. instability. social tensions, contlicts.
and heterodox sects and teachings. 7 ~ The Yuga PurdiJa says :
'Dharmamita tama-v:iddha janamhhok~_vanti nirhhaydh '(meaniP..g e!!b:~r
that the elders whose dharma would be completely destroyed or who
would become too timid to proclaim dharma-devour the people or
fearlessly rule the people). However, Pushyamitra rightly conceived the
situation and demand of the time. He extended state patronage to
Bnihmal)ical system, himself performed two horse sacrifices expressing
his sovereign authority all over Madhyades'a and military superiority over
the Indo-Greeks on the south bank of the Indus, and ensured the
maintenance of Brahmary.ical culture for the time- being. Thus. he
secured the support of a large section of the population clung to
Bnlhmaf)ical faith to his newly established empire.
47
The Oq~anisation of the empire under the Sungas
To deal with the problem of S~riga imperial organisation. we
would like to reconsider, on the basis of available sources, the extent of
the empire(if it practically existed), the nature of the organisation -
whether divided into viceroyalities and vassal states or whether a
continuation of the Mauryan system or whether a 'feudal' or a 'federal'
state. It has alreadv been shown that Pushyamitra snatched the imperial
power and ascended the throne of Pataliputra, the core centre of the
Magadhan empire and consolidated his authority with the army at the
hack. At the same time the other po\ver centres of the Maurya empire
began to shake ofT their allegiance to the central authority and began to
operate autonomous power. The city coins (earliest inscribed coins) of
Vara~asl. Kausambl. Ayodhya, Vidis'a. Ujjainl. Tripuri and Mahismati,
TaxiUi testify to the matter. In many cases the city coins or local coins
were followed by dynastic coins and tribal coins.
I
Suriga Empire
We have stated earlier that Pushyamitra, after consolidating
his power at Pataliputra, extended his sway over the greater part of
northern India up to the Indus and few portions of central India and north
western Deccan. This dominions of Pushyamitra must have included
certain provincial centres of the Maurya empire like Ayodhya, Kaus'ambi,
Panchala, Mathura, Vidisa etc. It might have been extended upto Sakala
or Jalandhara and the Indus regions in the north-west. Apart from
I iterary and epigraphic sources, the extension of his dominions is actively
proved by his performance of two horse sacrifices. This dimension of
48
I
the Suriga emptre might have been the same up to the retgn of his
grandson Vasumitra who escorted the sacrificial horse for the second
horse sacrifice of Pushvamitra and returned victorious rebuftinu. the - ~
Yavana inrush on the Sindhu. The dismemberment of the Suriga empire
set in with the murder of Vasumitra in about 132 B.C. by Muladeva who
is supposed, on the basis of coins, to he the founder of the independent
principality of Kosala. With the defection of Kos'ala (Ayodhya) the I
Suriga hold over the territories to the west of Magadha must have been
lost, as it is proved by the issuance of different independent series of
coins by local dynasties and tribes. By the time of the last s'unga king
Devabhuti, the so-called s'uriga empire might have consisted of the
kingdom of Magadha proper if not reduced any more.
Therefore, the orgnisation of the Sunga empire could not be
the same throughout the long period of 112 years duration and it varied
from time w time according to the po\ver and ability of the ruler at the
centre and the extent of the empire. S.K.Chattopadhyaya has opined 7'
that the Sungas continued, more or less, the Maurya administrative
system with minor changes. If it happened to be so, Pushyamitra must
have then a central administration at Pataliputra assisted by a Council of
ministers and bureaucrats and his empire should have been divided into
provincial set up under the charge of governors of the royal blood and a
council to assist it. It was also to accomodate within it certain tribal
regions having autonomous power. We do not know as to what extent I
the Surigas followed the Mauryan administrative organisation, for it
might be of the time of As'oka or of B~ihadratha whose empire was
reduced to the extent of a mere kingdom having perhaps no provincial set
49
up. But it is already shown that the dominions of Pushyamitra was much
more extensive than that of Brihadratha. However, Patarijali refers 7(' to
Pushyamitra's sahha along with Chandragupta's sahha - thus a
comparison is made here between the administrative system of the two
emp1res. This sahha might have been a Council of ministers or an
Assembly, an important element in the central government. [tis stated in
the Malavilaignimitram that Agnimitra, the Viceroy at Vidisa-, had a
Council of ministers. We have also evidence to justify that the princes of
the royal blood were appointed either as governors or
Commander-in-Chief Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra was the governor
of Vidisa. The Ayodhya inscription of Dhanadeva proves that one of his
forefathers had been the governor of Kosala and he was related by blood
to Pushyamitra. Vasumitra, grandson of Pushyamitra, was
the Commander-in- Chief of the s'unga army.
The problem lies with other regions or provmces like
Kausambl, Paiichala, Mathura etc. It is not clear whether they were
either directly administered by the emperor himself or by the provincial
governors of the royal blood or by the vassal states having autonomous
power in certain respect. The two horse-sacrifices must have established
the fact that Pushyamitra held all these regions up to the Indus and
Sakala. On the otherhand, numismatic evidence prove the existence of a
number of local royal families having the right to issue seperate series of
coins and that the title of most of the members of these families ends in
'Mitra' similar to that of the imperial Sungas signifying their parallel
entity with the imperial Sungas.
The theory of eight sons of Pushyamitra serving as his governors
Suriga Federation '?
On the basis of the interpretation of some Puninic versions,
it has been held by a scholar17 that Pushyamitra had eight sons who ruled
simultaneously as his provincial governors during his life-time. While
one passage (in most Mss of the .\fat.\~l'a. Vayu and Brahmimda Pura"!as)
states that Pushyarnitra made others rule (Karayishati-vai-rajyam ), the
other passage (which reads, Pushvamitra sutas cha
=ashtauhhavish_vanti-sama-f~ripah) indicating that Pushyamitra had eight
sons, occurs in some Vayu ,~ss. The author also gives the names of the
eight sons. Three of them were Sujyeshtha., Agnimitra, Dhanadeva and
other five are picked up from amongst the so-called mitra-rulers of
northern India. It has been contended that 'Sunganam rajye' mentioned
in the Bharhut inscription of Dhanabhuti suggests the rule of the S~ti.gas,
because thi:, i~ a genitive plural. It is also interesting to note here mat
some of the scholars 7x have tried to identify some of the names of kings
ending in 'mitra' found in the coins of Panchala, Kausambl, Mathura and
Ayodhya i.e. Bahasatimitra, Agnimitra, Je~hamitra, Bhadraghosa etc.
with the Stniga kings of Magadha found in the Puranic list or tried to
hold them belonging to a 'single mitra dynasty' ruling at different Suriga
provinces as viceroys. On the basis of such interpretation it has been held
that the Suti.ga empire was a 'federal empire.'
While rejecting the above theory of Pushyamitra's eight sons
servmg as provincial governors of the S/unga federation, a scholar
formulated 79 a theory that Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra had eight sons
named after the eight Vasus of Indian legend, the very important gods of
51
the Gaya locality. Vasujye~~ha \\aS the elder. Yasumitra was one of them.
Coins of kings hearing these names are found along with those kings
\vho were Sungas beyond doubt. He concludes that these sons at tirst
became kings of eight different provinces of the s'unga empire i.e.
Yasumitra at Magadha, Jye?tha at Kosam.
Sunga Polity
We have also few such versions related to the organisation
of the S~ngas of Magadha in later s'unga period. It is stated xo that the
minister Vasudeva, forcibly over throwing the dissolute king Devabhuti.
will become king among the Sungas. It is reterred to by an author xi that
Devabhuti, ruler of Magadha, was nominal head of the S/uriga federation
and Vasudeva Kanva usurped that position by assassinating him, but did
not interfere with other Sunga principalities. It has been concluded x::>
that the s'unga government was a sort of 'feudal-monarchy'. It is claimed
by another83 that the 'Mitras' of Panchala, Kausambl, and Mathuni were
offshoots of the main S~riga dynasty and the 'Mitras' of the 1st century
B.C. had some connection with the celebrated S1
unga family. The S~nga
empire seems to have been divided into a number of petty principalities
with the emperor of the head. M
Before coming to a conclusion to this problem, it would be
appropriate here to refer to the problem of the 'Mitra coins' and to sketch
out in this context the extent of the S'unga dominions during the reign of
Pushyamitra and thereafter.
I I
Chronology of Coins :- Sunga and Post-Sunga period
It is a !lr~at fortune for us that the emerg~nce of a number of ~ ~
s~ri~s of coins of several indigenous political authorities helps in many
respects in delineating the histor: of India of the period concerned. \Ve
may throw light on the political status of different regions supposed to be
included within the Sunga empire beginning from Ayodhya. (Kos'ala)
adjucent to the kingdom of Magadha, to the north-\\·est on the basis of
the palaeography and chronology of the coins.
Some early types of uninscribed cast coins are known to
have been found at Ayodhya.x~ Allan regards these Ayodhya pieces as
'city coins' and dates them about the end of the third or the beginning of
the second century B.c.s~> The dynastic issues of Ayodhya fall into two
very distinct classes : "one of 'square cast coins' showing no trace of
foreign influence, and one of round struck pieces which have types rather
than symbols. "g" The square cast coins (class II of BMC) generally bear
on the obverse the figure of a bull or rarely an elephant before a symbol
(not always distinct) and on the reverse, a group of several symbols in
various combinations like 'Lakshmi standing (sometimes seated) between
two elephants anointing her' etc. On the basis ofthe epigraphy of the coin
legends of class II the names of the early rulers of Ayodhya should be
arranged chronologically as follows Praushthadeva, Muladeva,
Vayudeva, Dhanadeva, Vis'akhadeva, Slivadatta, Naradatta and
Jye?!hadatta. Of these rulers, Dhanadeva is mentioned as the sixth in
descent from senapati Pushyamitra (the performer of two horse
sacrifices) in his Ayodhya inscription dated to the end of the first century
B.C.'-<x Thus if the line of Dhanadeva originated during the time of
Pushyamitra, then the dynasty began to rule from the middle of the
second century B.C'x''. The end of the rule of the princes represented by
these coins of class II may therfore by dated about the later part of the
first century A.D. it is likely that the early ruling dyanasty of Ayodhya
was brought to an end by Kaniska hiself as proved by his inscription
found at Set-Mahet. Independent coinage of Ayodhya rulers mostly
'Mitras' appeared again by about the middle of second century A.D. with
the round die-struck coins (Class III) which are distinct from the
square-cast coins of earlier rules. These die struck coins bear a bull on
the obverse and a cock-on the post or a Nandipada or a palm tree etc on
the reverse.
Numerous coms found at different parts of Kausambi are
grouped into four distinct classes. Class I consists of the earliest
independent local 'round cast pieces' termed as 'City coins'. These coins
mostly uninscribed bear the figure of 'lanky bull' or Gaja-Lakshmi and
other symbols on the obverse and the tree-in-railing, Ujjain symbol,
svastika, etc on the reverse. The 'City issues' started either about the end
of the third century B.C.''0 or the beginning of the second century B.C.91
Class II comprises the die-struck coins of a large number of rulers and
the main devices which prevail throughout the series are a 'bull' on the
obverse (sometimes a 'liLm'; a 'horse' or a rude male figure) and a
'tree-in-railing' and other sysmbols92 • About 26 rulers are sofar known
from the coins of classes I and II. Here I like to present the chronology
of those rulers who are supposed to have ruled from the date of their
independent beginning to the first century A.D. Starting from Sudeva we
find the names of Brihaspatimitra I, Bhavaghosa, Praushthamitra.
54
Jyeshth.ammiitra, Jyeshthabhuti, Agnimitra, B~ihaspatimitra ll, Agaraja, . .
Ramamitra, Udaka, Varu':lamitra, Parvata and Asvaghosa. This
chronological arrangement has been made on the typological
interconnection of the coins and the epigraphy of some inscriptions like
the Mora inscription of Yas'amata, Pabhosa inscription of Ashadhasena
etc. On the basis of the analysis of the coins and epigraphs available so
for it is opined'~' that the ruling family of Kausambl could not have come
into existence much earler than the middle of the second century B.C.
while the last two rulers namely Parvata and Asvaghosa are placed about
the end of the I st century B.C. and the beginning of the first century A.D.
Coins ascribed to Kanauj bear the so-called 'Ujjaini symboL
the tree-in-railing, the ' triangle headed standard' etc. These coins are
closely interconnected by symbols with two others series of coins which
bear the appellation of 'Udehaki' or 'Sudavapa' for their issuer's name 94
(Suryamitra). From the coins of the place we are supplied with the
names of Brahmamitra,Gomitra, and Stiryamitra who are also occurred in
the Mathuni series of coins. The square incuse of the Gomitra coins
suggest that he was an early ruler. On palaeographic ground Gomitra's
coin may be assigned a date about the later part of the second century
B.C. Coins of Brahmamitra and Suryamitra are assignable to the first
century B.C.95 The coin of Vish!ludeva bearing the common symboL
'tree-within-railing' with other unusual symbol like 'a hare in the crescent
moon', Caduceus like sign etc has come to light on the obverse of the
coins of Kanauj. Another coin bearing exactly the same symbols reveals
the name of one Sungavarman 1.)7 who is supposed by one to be a
Kausambi ruler'~~<. However, the coin-legend makes S~ngavarman earlier
55
in date than Visnudeva. s'ungavannan may be assigned a date about the .. second half of the second century B.C. while Vishnudeva's date may be
taken to be the first century B.C.'l<l It is not unlikely that Sungavannan
f()unded the dynasty of Kanyakubja about the later part of the second
century B.C. but he was not propably long in power after the first century
B.C. since no ruler after Vishnudeva is so far known and other rulers
might have come between them.
The coin types of the local Hindu rulers of Mathura are
singularly uniform. The obverse shows the figure of 'Lakshmi' holding a
lotus in her uplifted right hand, between several symbols on either side.
The reverse usually depicts three elephants with riders. The Hindu rulers
appear to have been succeeded by the Saka-Kshatrapas whose coins fonn
a different series. Out of the thirteen rulers known from the Muthuni
coins first six rulers with mitra ending names preceded the Sakas who
occupied Mathuni by about the later part of the second cen~t.rj B.C.
(according to Amohini Votive Tablet inscription of So<;hisa). These
rulers were, according to chronology Gomitra, Stiryamitra,
Brahmamitra, Dridhamitra, Vishl)umitra and S'atamitra. On the basis of
the coin legend and the epigraphy of the Ganeshra brick inscrip!ion of
Gomitra, the ruler is found undoubtedly the earliest of the rulers of
Mathura and he seems to have come to power about the later half of the
second century B.C. after the termination of Pushyamitra's reign 1 i~'.
Allan is of opinion that the coins issued by the Hindu princes covered the
period from the end of the third to the middle of the first century B.C.'"'
although D.C. Sircar assigns them to the first century B.C. 1112
Numismatic evidence re\·eals the existence of an
independent dynasty ruling in northern Pai1chala during the time of the
Later-Sungas and post-Sunga period. The EKt that the names of most of
the PaiKhala rulers end in 'mitra', as in the case of some of the Sunga
kings, has led some scholars to hold that the Pai1chala Mitras were
identical \';ith the Sungas. But this was not the case for the coins of
Panchala "fom1s one of the longest and most unif(mn series of Ancient
Indian coins" 111'. They arc characterised by the presence, on the obverse,
of three constant symbols with the king's name in a square incuse, and
on the reverse, generally the figure of a deity whose name forms a
component part of the issuer's name 1114 The study of Pailchala coins
suggests the following chronological sequence of Panchala rulers -
Damagupta, Varigapala. Bhagavata, Asadhasena, Visvapala,
Phalgunimitra, Rudraghosa, Bhadraghosha, Bhanumitra, Suryamitra,
Agnimitra. Bhumimitra. Indramitra Vishnumitra, Jayarnitra,
Prajapatimitra etc. Allan is of opinion that the dynasty of Panchala
covered the period from about 200 B.C. to the end of the first century
B.C. The dynasty was in existence before the Sungas and survived not
only the Surigas but also the Kanvas, probably disappearing with the
latter before the Sakas 105. Smith, judging from the script of the legends,
thinks that the date of the Panchala coins might range between I 00 B.C.
and I 00 A.D. 1116 while D.C. Sircar assigns them to the three centuries '-
following the middle of the first centurv B.C. 107 On the basis of the ' -
Pabhosa inscription of Ashadhasena assignable to the second half of the
first century B.C. Varigapala, grandfather of Ashadhasena is placed in
the first half of the first century B.C. And as Damagupta probably ruled
57
somewhat carl icr, the local dynasty of Panchala seems to have been
founded about the closing vcars of the second or the bee.innin!! of the .__ .. ..._ ..__
first century B.C . 111x Dr. S.K. Chatterjet? thinks 104 that Panchala became
independent atter the death of the senapati and hence the Panchala series
of coins may be supposed to have started about C -150 B.C.
There also appeared a number of series of coins from among
the tribal janapada or f:aiW states of the Punjab and Rajasthan areas
issued in the names of particular tribes. or them mention may be made
of the Agreya janapada situated in the Hissar district, the Malavas,
perhaps migrated from the Upper Punjab in the valley of the Ravi to
Eastern Rajputana where their coins are found at Karkotanagar in the
Joypur district. Their coins arc assigned to a date not earlier than the
second century A.D. 110 though their establishment in Rajputana area has
been proved by the seal found at Rairh 1' 1• The absence of their coins in
the centuries immediately before the christian era can not be
satisfactorily explained. The Rajanya coms bear the legend
'Rajana-Janapadasa' and they come mainly from the Hoshiarpur district I
of the Punjab 112• The coins of the Sibis, the ancient tribe of the
Indus-Chenub region have been found from the Chitor region. Their
coins, belonging to the second century B.C., bear the legend '--'
Majhamikaya-Sibi-janapadasa 113• The Trigarta coins, bearing the legend
'Trakata-janapadasa' in Brahmi characters of the second centuy B.C.,
have been found from the Jalundhar district -a tract between the Ravi and
the Sutlej 114• The find spots of coins and coin-moulds coupled with the
evidence of inscription 'Yaudheyanam-Bahudhanya' seem to indicate that
the Youdheya territory comprised an area around the Haryana tract of the
58
Punjab which includes Rohtak. Allan says that "the com of the
Yaudheyas t~tll into three periods. Class 1.2 and 5 of the late second and
tirst centuries B.C. indicating a period of independence, from the fall of
lthe Mauryas to the coming of the Ku?anas 1 w. Their political career,
hmvcver, seems to have begun ahout the later half of the second century
B.C. after the rule of Menander in the eastern Punjab when the first
period of their history hegins 11r.. Literary references point to a location
of the Audarnbaras supported by the find spots of their coins which come
from Pathankot, Jwalirnukhl, lrippal and Hoshiarpur that is a well
defined area in the north eastern Punjab 11-. Their coins bear on the
obverse the figure of Kartikeya standing with a spear and on the reverse
an elephant always with a rider 11x . On the ground of palaeography of
both the Brahm) and Kharoshthi legends, Cunningham. R.D.Banerjee and
Allan assigned these coins to the first century B.C 11 '~. The Kulutas were
the eastern neighbours of the Audambaras 170• Th\~ir coins consi::.t of a
group of symbols both on the obverse and the reverse like the mountain,
Nandipada and Svastika 121 bearing the names of Vijayamitra, Vlrayas'as.
The coins of the Kulutas are placed by Rapson and Allan to a date round
about A.D. 100 122•
However, it is noticed from the analysis of above coins that
the coins bearing the issuers' names became popular in India after the
advent of the Indo-Greeks and they should preferably be assigned to a
date later than the early decades of the second centuy B.C 123• Pushyamitra
most probably pushed his conquests upto the Indus beyond Sakala, where
Menander is known to have ruled, presumably atler the former. The
Punjab states, therefore, are not likely to have risen to power before the
t:nd of \knander's rule sometime about tht: third quarter of the second
centur\ B.C. And as a result of long association with the neighbouring
foreign po\', ers. the tribal states of the Punjab reveal a good deal of
foreign influence on their coinage-i.e. usc of Kharoshthi and Brahm!
• h • )JO.j sen pts on t e coms - .
Thus we tind no common and evident stamp of imperial
authorit\ discernible on these distinctive series of coins and hence they
could not have been the different local issues of the rulers of a single
imperial dynasty, though we do not know whether the imperial Sungas
had anY dynastic coinage of their own. No individual rulers can be
scperated from the coinage of a particular localilty and connected with
another of a different place. It is significant that none of the above
mentioned local dynasties find any mention in the Puraryas. We should
bear in mind that the conservatism of Indian coins is well known 1 ~' •
Mere similarity of names ending with 'mitra' aione is not a sutTicient
proof for the identity of two families. All the Siuiga rulers also did not
have 'mitra' ending with their names and at the same time it was not
confined to the Surigas alone. Although it can not be denied that some of
the local dynasties like those of the Panchala, Kaus'ambl and Mathura
were connected matrimonially with each others-is proved by the
epigraphical evidence like the Mora Inscription of Yas'amata, daughter of
Bahasatimita I of Kausambi, who was married to an unnamed Mathura
King. The Pabhosa Inscription of Asadhasena of Panchala, the maternal
uncle of Bahasatimita II of Kausamhl etc.
Coming hack to the question whether the S~nga government
was sort of feudal monarchy or whether there was Sunga federation
60
ha\ ing rrm,incial set up under the eight sons either of Pushyamitra or of
Agnimitra or hy princes related to the main Suriga dynasty and by vassal
states, we should mention here that the onset of the feudal polity with all
its ladders in the Indian context was a later phenomenon 1 ~ 11 • On the other
hand a federal system of government can be organised in two ways-! ) by
a centrifugal process from the core centre and 2) by a centripetal process
from the periphery-that is a state can discharge its administrative duties
through creating provincial set up or through local powers like vassal
states having some sort of authorities can be organised as a core for a
certain common interests retaining among themselves certain
autonomous power.
From whatever we know from the combined testimony of
the literary and epigraphic sources of the extent of the empire at least of
' the first Suriga monarch, most of the local kingdoms of the Madhyades'a
seems to have been included within the Sunga dominion. It is not,
therefore, impossible that the local ruling houses in Ayodhya, Kausambi,
Paiichala, Mathura, Vidisa etc. originated with Pushyamitra's provincial
governors. Some of whom might have been either members of his family
(as in Vidisa) or matrimonially connected with it as that of Dhanadeva's
family of Ayodhya 127• His successful performance of two
horse-sacrifices clearly prove that the whole of northern India including
the part of northern Deccan was under the complete subjugation of
Pushyamitra. It is with this description at the backgrond,we may refer to
the term.'Romi-mukhya' applied most probably to Pushyamitra Sunga by
the Aryamanjzis'rimzilakalpa. Only by this term we can not suggest that
Pushyamitra established a Suriga Federation after capturing the imperial
61
rower and military conquests allowing some sort of autonomy to the
provincial governers and himself remained the chief Muklzya'- of that
federation. . d. II I d I 'X 'l' . I Aeam accor me to emac 1an ra -·, vomm means a ~ ~
warnor. Pushyamitra was a senapati. So he might be regarded as
'gomimukhya ( Chief of the warriors). Therefore, it would be a misnomer
to think of a 'S.uriga federation' of prm·incial seats and vassal states. So
far as the existence of separate local royal families and their independent
coinage are concerned in the case of Kausambi, Panchala and Mathura
etc. before and during the reign of Pushyamitra, we may say that these
local dynasties, whether related to the Sungas or not, were brought under
his sovereignty and perhaps remained as vassal states of the empire with
some sort of autonomy. It has been opined Jc'l that Pushyamitra was
virtually their overlord who permitted them to strike their own coinage.
But in what circumstances they were conceeded this right would be
discussed later. Now. what we find ir. the later Sunga period or in the
S'uriga-Kanva period ? There is little evidence to determine the actual
extent of the dominions of Pushyamitra's successors at Pataliputra. We
have much doubt about the existence of the so called s'uriga empire of
Pushyamitra after his death, more specifically after the murder of
Vasumitra by Mitradeva, who is supposed to be the founder of the
independent dynastic rule at Kos'ala. The numismatic evidence testifies to
the independent existence of the local dynasties of Panchala, Mathura,
Kausambl and Ayodhya etc. from the middle of the 2nd century B.C.
Vidis·a was separated from the control of Pataliputra by another branch of
the Main Suriga f~unily ( Kasiputra Bhagavata Line). These provincial
governors and \assai states seem to have gradually waived their
62
allegiance to Pushyamitra's successors. The 13st imrerial Sunga
Devahhuti, seemed to have ruled not much beyond the regions around
Patalirutra. The Pahhosa inscription of I )hanahhuti clc:lr!y marks the
dcclininu staue of the s'un!.!:l:' and the s'llll!.!3 empire or i\b!.!adh:l. h\' thi:-; ....__ ..._ ...__ ..__ .__ ...
time. was most probably reduced to the dimensitHl of :1 kingdom. Tt1e
allegiance of the provinci:Ji governors and vassal St31t.'S of the [13Sl
empire could no longer he expected. We arc informed by the Puranic
evidence and the epigraphic sources like the Pahhosa inscription of
Dhanabhuti, the Bodhgay{1 inscription of Karungi, wife of lndnignimitra,
the Kosambl coins etc. that the Kanvas, who usurped the Magadhan
throne from Devabhuti, could not enjoy their power at Pataliputra
unchallenged and there were parallel ruling of other petty kings some of
whom were later Sungas and with mitra ending names. Thus in this
period also, the concept of the federation of petty subjugated states
rotating round Magadha is out of question.
The readers would be curious to know that if the s'ungas had
little family connection with and influence upon the other local dynasties
of north India, then why so many rulers of widely scattered areas of
northern India chose to bear the names ending in Mitra and to naming
their successors after the deities or Nakshatras. It is suggested, uo "It is
not unlikely that these numerous petty chiefs, followers of the
Brahma1_1ical faith adopted the names ending in 'Mitra' from that of the
Pushyamitra S'uriga, the most illustrious upholder of Brahmaf1ism, and
the reviver of the Asvamedha sacrifice in the 'Kali Age'. To bear the
surname 'Mitra' was possibly the fashion of the day to denote that they
wen~ mitras (i.e. friends or patrons) of the deities or Naks/wtras whose
names they bon?.
We like to represent the prohkrn from a different angle. It
has been pointed out by a scholar 1:
1 that the post Maurya period
\Vitnessed continuous expansion of state pol icy and the final eel ipse of
the Clana-sangha system of polity. lie emphasises on the poliltical
geography of the subcontinent, frequent shift of the centres ofpmver, and
the ingoing process of the formation of new politics as a result of
transition from pre-state to state societies 1'2
. Here we may exam me
Dr.Chattopadhyaya's deduction of an important formulation of the
post-Maurya period that is the 'Segmentary state' which as applied by one
1" in the case of Chola empire. had some sort of semblance with the
Sunga-Kanva political formulation.
The segmentary State has I) Limited territorial sovereignty
which further weakens gradually as one moves from the core to the
perephery and often shaded off into ritual hegemony; 2) the existence of
a centralised core with quasi-autonomous foci of administration; 3) the
Pyramidal repetition of administrative structure and functions in
perepheral foci A) absence of absolute monopoly of legetimate force at
the centre and 5) the shifting of allegiance of the perephery of the system
134• The king at centre exercised the spiritual authority and the temporal
anthority; importance of the 'Bhakti-cult' having some bearing upon the
problem; naming of the deity enshrined after the name of the ruling king
or vis-a-vis. Although we have no evidence to show that Pushvarnitra ~ -
and his successors had some deities enshrined after their names. we have
ample evidence to show that they patronized 'Brahmar:'isrn' and later on
6-t
'Bhagavatism', Vedic cults and deities, priest class, named their sons and
successos after the name of the Vedic deities or Nakshatras I ike
Agni.Bh<igavata.Brihasrati. BhLuni,V<lsu. Indra, Brahma, Phalguni etc.
The local dynasties \'.'ho came into existence from the 2nd century B.C.
also followed this wav even more than that of the s'uiw.as. From this . ~
persrective. the local dynasties under the subjugation of Pushyamitra
were allowed to strike their own coinage,in the fac1.? of constant foreign
threat for the Qreater interest of the countrv. Above all the mitra ending '-- . ~
of most of the kings of the period must have some unified implication.
The idea underlying the concept of 'mitra' is that of 'bondage'. Mitra
presides over the pacts and connects among men and thus keeps them
together. Broadly speaking, he may be said to be, in respect of human
I i fe what Varuna is in respect of the cosmic lifel.'~. Thus it seems likely
that the title 'mitra' used by the Post-Mauryan Hindu dynasties of
northern India might have acted as a tie to the central system probably in
the face of foreign attack and the expansion of foreign culture. Mitra
refers to ally in contrast with 'ari' or enemy 136• Kautilya (VI. I) has also
indicated the necessity of deplomatic alliance. Dr.Barua has interpreted
the term 'mitra' to mean 'the true bond of friendship 136a.
Geneology and Chronology of the s'urigas
By about 151 B.C. Pushyamitra departed after a long
glorious reign saving the Magadhan empire from disintegration for the
time being. But the future history of his empire has been sought by
scholars to he gloomy one. It has been opined by one writerm that there
was no evidence that his empire sur\·ived him. North-India became
divided into a number of petty states while the successors of Pushyamitra
remained content v.ith a kingdom in and around Vidisa. \\hilc on the
basis of the e\·idence of the Pahhosc-, inscription one holds 1 ~x that it
seems impossible to trace the extension of the rule of those kings of
Vidisa. who reigned after Pushyamitra beyond the region in which the
Jumna and the Ganges meet i.c.the ancient kingdom of Vatsas and the
present district of Allahabad. Similarly another scholar 1''
1 has tried to
shov.,' that Pushyamitra. had eight sons and he divided his empire into
sub-kingdoms over which his eight sons ruled jointly. Rejecting the
theory of rule of eight sons of Pushyamitra, one scholar 1 ~'' has suggested
that Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra had eight sons named after the eight
Vasus of the Indian legend. However, we have little concrete evidence
to prove both the above theories.
We are hardly helped by the archaeological evidence to
frame the history of the imperial s'ungas at Magadha. What we know of
them is mainly from literary sources specially the Puninic accounts. And
here lies our difficulty for not only do they vary with regard to the names
of the Suriga kings, tenure of their reign period, the aggregate of their
total reign period, but the different Mss of the same Pura'!a often gives
us divergent lists. As for example, the name of Pushyamitra is absent in
the Bhiigavata Puraf}a, while that of Agnimitra in the Matsya
:Vasujye~tha of the Matsya is found as Sujyest_ha in all the other Punil}as.
Antaka of the Matsya is spelt Andhraka in the Vcivu. Bhadraka in the
Brahmiinda etc. The 7th in the Puranic list of kings of Magadha of the
time concerned is found Yomegha or Momegha in dfgin Mss (Matsya).
in other Puninas it is found as Ghosa or Ghosavasu etc. Again the
66
Alatsva refers to I 12 vears rule for I 0 kings, the other generallv fix I 12 • *' \...- ...___ .,1
vears t<x I 0 Sun gas. The duration of the Suntuls is therefore I 12 vears 111
• • ..__ .__ *'
lnspite of that we find an aggregate of the total reign differently in the
different Puninic lists i.e.ll4 in MT.- a-n-Mss, I 09 years in other MT
Mss,l49 years in the V(iyu and 142 years in the Bhahmimda Pura,_w.
In this situation, we should select the thread of such sources
resorting to which we shall be able to sketch out more precisely. the
history of Magadha during the so-called Sl.uiga period. We may base our
discussion on the account of the Matsya Puni'}a for, as Pargiter has
shown,'the Matsya Pura:ra. although based on the same original source
from which other Pura'}as have also derived their materials, has a
character of its own distinct from that of the Vlil·u and the Brahmanda
Purii~ws and is earlier than the Vish!Ju and Bluigavata Pura'}as.
Moreover, it narrates the history of the dynasties or kings or people who
reigned or dominated Magadha from the B_rihadratha dynasty onwards.
One may find 142 the names of Andhraka, Pulindaka, Yomegha I Ghosa in
the Matsya list of this period as chronological anomaly irronously crept
into the list. But we shall see later that they were extraneous to the
S~nga dynasty ruling at Pataliputra, but not to the list of kings of
Magadha of the time and the exclusion of their names from the list would
raise other problems. We do not know whether it was a fashion of the
editors of the Purcu;as to fix the number of 1 0 kings for almost all the
dynasties ruling at Magadha, though the number was not always that.
The ommision of the name of Agnimitra in the Matsya Puriu;a list of the
Surigas is no accumulated error because in no other source Agnimitra is
found to succeed his father at Pataliputra and ruled there. Finally the
67
.\futsyo Puni1_w assigns 112 years for I 0 kings, but nol for I 0 ~;UI1gas. It
11' . l ' l has been suggested ' that the Puranic evidence mav t 1erefore, le
accepted at its t~1ce \ alue and a period of 112 years be assigne-d to this
dynasty. Consulting the Puranas with their Mss, we may present the
following table of the king of Magadha during the so-called s'uriga
period.
\/,,rwu 10 kin~' I I 2 :-ear\
\
7 years
iVa~umitra or Sumitra-d·Mss :I 0 year-;
112 \ear\.
Push\ amitra (J() year'
·\~nimitra
7 years
'Vasumitra · I 0 :-ear-;
iAntaka 2 years or 7 i Andhraka I 1\J M "') ,;ears sa 'J ss _years
Pulindaka 3 years Pulindaka 3 years
Yomegha or Ghosa 3 years Momegha d-fgim Mss- 3 years
Yajramita 9 years Vajramitra - 14 years c Ms
l'u\h\ am itra , 60 :-ears
· A~nimitra X years
· 7 'ears
[ Vasumitra : I 0 :ear'
~~hadraka ·-years
Pulindaka 3 years
Ghosa 3 years
Yajramitra 7 years
I n hnu I 0 W/(/g,~~ ·a~<-:10.[ Da;~!3c-:. · Stn·l~a\ I 12 j Stm~as 112
1
j\ear~ i\~ars J t;u~h~~~nni~~;l-tushpamitra (ls7- l.'il : .. - -J - _____ J__ __ _ i Agnimitra ; Agnimitra [ 159-1.'\ I
i
~ujy~~~;-·- t 151-1--i-i-. ' 1--
! Sui:-e~tha
j- -~-- -1144-1 '4
. •·
I Vasumitra : Va-,umitra I .
I I I
_J_ ____ ~ ~
[ Adraka or ~~~hadraka-- ~-~ 34~13'21 <>d k h M ru a \ I S · _:___---+-· 1--------- ------< ---Pulindaka l'ulinda 1)2 - 129 i
,]q_ 126 1 Ghosavasu Ghosa 3 years
Yajramitra Yajramitra
Samabhaga Bhagavata Bluigavata Bhiigavata Bhiigavata
126~ 117- 85 i
32 years 32 years 32 years
Devabhumi Devabhumi I 0 Devabhumi 10 Devabhuti Devabhiiti 85 - 7.'\ I 0 years years years
I 12 years dfgim 149 vears 142 years MSS: I 14 years -a'n MSS: 109 I ' I
I
I
years- other MSS I ! I
- _]__ -- -·· ~--------·-L_ __
-- --
The historicity of Pushyamitra. Agnimitra and Vasumitra is
proved by other data besides the Punlnos 1 ~ 1 • Agnimitra was undoubtedly
the son and possible successor to the throne of Pushyamitra at Magadha.
But as the .\tatsya fJurww does not contain his name in the dynastic list
of the Sungas, it raises some doubt as to his accession to the imperial
throne. We learn from the !Hvlm·ik(1gnimitram11
' that the crown prince
Agnimitra served as his father's viceroy at Vidisa assumed the title 'rajan'
and ruled there practically independently. Lven alter his father's death,
he did not move to Pataliputra hut stayed at Vidisa. But why'? Some
says that Vidisa was then the capital of the later Sur.1gas. Another
scholar 111' speaks that Pushyamitra had two sons, the first Vasujye~tha,
being the elder, ,,·as at the capital as heir apparent while the younger
Agnimitra was the viceroy at Vidisa. The fraternal j~:alously, so common
in the princes of blue blood, might have an additional cause of his anger
which is clear from his father's letter to his son inviting him to attend the
second horse sacrifice. To compose their difference. Vasumitra son of
Agnimitra, was appointed Commander-in-Chief. Thus it is probable that
after Pushyamitra's death in about 151 B.C. Vasujye~~ha succeeded his
father at Pataliputra and was succeeded after 7 years by his nephew
Vasumitra. It has been opined by one 147 that the reason behind the
uncordial relation between Pushyamitra and his son Agnimitra was that
father did not like his son's Buddhist leanings for political reasons as
proved by the lvfalavikaKnimitram. It has been suggested 14x that
Agnimitra did not survive his father long to succeed him on the throne
and his rule did not extend much beyond Vidisa. It is pointed out J.jl/ that
it seems that after Pushyamitra the s'unga kingdom gradually broke
up. In the Vidisa area Agnimitra and his successors might have ruled for
sometime.
Successors of Pushvamitra
\lm' comine to the historv of Magadha after Pushvamitra. ~ ~ ~ ~
we lind that the third kine Vasujvestha succeeded his Lither at Pataliputra ........ . ... . '
and that is why. he is found in the second place in the Mastya Punil)a list.
I k can not he identi tied with Jethamitra of the Kaus'ambi coins as some
have tried to shmv 1'
11 for the coins hearing such identical names found
either in Kaus'amhi. Panchala. Mathura or Ayodhya arc of distinctive
local series and not a single name can he singled out to adjust the
chronology. One scholar thinks 1'
1 that the downfall of the Suriga empire
began during the rule of this king. But we arc not sure about the
disruption of the empire at this moment.
Vasumitra succeeded his uncle Vasujye~~ha to the throne at
Pataliputra in about 144 B.C. All the Purw_ws arc unanimous about his
succession to the imperial throne. His valour and importance during the
time of his grandfather are well attested by the Malavikagnimitram. He
might have combined the two kingdoms of Magadha and Vidis'a after the
death of his father Agnimitra and appointed Kasiputra Bhagabhadra of
the Besnagar Guruda pillor Inscription as governor of Vidisa. Nothing
more is known about him. The flarsacharita informs us that this hero
after his accession gave himself up to a life of pleasure and ease. This
atTorded a good opportunity to the forces of disruption and disintegration
of the empire set in. 1'2• We are told by Bana that Vasumitra I Sumitra
was killed by Muladeva v,:ho is regarded by scholars 1 '~ as identical in all
probability with the king \Vhosc coins have been found at Ayodhya and
may be regarded as the founder of the independent principality of Kos'ala.
But he can also he assumed to he the king's minister of the familv of
70
KimvJ-Vasudeva of later period 1'
1 or the founder of the 'Later Sunga'
dynasty or Magadha 1". There was no shifting of the scat or imrwrial
power to some places at central India as conjectured by some scholars 1 '''.
What seems likely, however, that some sort of palace intrigue \Vhich
started at this time ultimately brought about the confusion and the
consequent decline of the Sunga power. rhat is why, we find the rule of
next three rulers. rather outsiders at Pataliputra amounting to only ~
years. \Vith the defection of Kosala under Muladeva. the Sunga hold
over the territories to the west of Magadha might have been lost. It is
probably at this time that the independent lines of rulers. made known to
us by their coins, came into existence Ill Panchala. Mathura,
Kaus~unbi 1 '~. These kindgoms were founded bv the gmernors of the
Sunga family and they ceased to recognise the anthoritv at the centre
from the middle of the second century B.C.
The next three names in the Puranic list of kinu.s of . ~
Magadha during this period are found variously in different manuscrir~ts
of the Purw;as. They unanimously denote them not a single name or
king but a total tribe not attached in any way to the Sunga family. The
first is called Andhaka, generally Antaka in the Mal.\~l'a. Andhraka in the
Vayu, Odruka in the other Puratws. It's identification with Udaka of the
Pabhosa Inscription by some scholars 1"x or with Bhagabhadra of
Besnagar Guru9a Pillar inscription No. I lacks possibility on the ground
of palaeography and years of reign period. Taking advantage of the ·
tunnoil consequent on the murder of Sumitra or Vasumitra, the Andhras
appeared to have raided Magadha. In this persuit they must have been
allied with another Deccan tribe the Pulindas who occupied Pataliputra
71
for 2 vears a Iter the Andhras. It is interestin1! to note that these l\\ n . ~
Deccan tribes arc f(HJnd conjointly as 'Afhirantas' in the R. E. XIII. nf
:\s~_)ka. It should he mentioned here that during the post-;\sokan period ~i
kind of confused atmosrhere \\as created hy the revival and acti\·itics of
di ffcrcnt rei igious sects. Brahmanism was revived under the direct
kingly ratronage of Pushyamitra after the glorious days of Buddhism. /\
new threat came in the Quisc of the t(lrei1!n invaders like the Circcb . .__ .__
Sakas etc. who accepted Buddhism. Saivism or Vaishnavism and
advanced to Patalirutra, the centre of rolitical gravity perhaps, in order
to suprort their 'brother-in-faith'. Meanwhile most of the north Indian
kings became ratrons of Brahmar)ism as found from the evidence of their
coins and rerformance of Vedic sacrifices. In this situation the
non-kshativa trihes like the Andhra-Satavahanas v1ied for becoming the - .__
upholder of Brahrna~ism in the Deccan after a long spell of Buddhist
asccndancv. In this background it may be conjectured that these two
Deccan tribes occupied Magadha and held it totally for 5 years. And on
account of this unrecorded raid resulting in a temporary occupation of
Pataliputra that the two names got into the list of :Sunga kings. If we
assume that the Andhras began to rule independently sometimes betore
or after the emergence of S~rigas, then the Andhra leader to launch a
good career of conquest up to Magadha was SatakartJi I or Mallakami
who, as informed by the Nanaghat Inscription of Nayanika, performed
two horse sacrifices, one Rajasuya and many other Vedic sacri ticcs.
perhaps to surpass the glory of Pushyamitra and gave 68,000 Karsapana
(coins mainly of northern India) along with other as 'f)akshimi' to the
Brahmanas. On the other hand YorneQha or Momc:2ha 1 ''i the 7th in thL'
'-- ~~ "!
Ptmlnic list mav have heloneed to the Maharneeha l~unilv or the Chedis . .... ..__ ~ .,
of the Kalinga country. Perhaps during this troublesome situation of
Magadha. they shifted their scat of power ti·mn the nmth (Chcdi
janarada) to Kaliriga occupying Pataliputra for three years after the
Pulindas on their way to Kaliriga. llowc\'Cr, it may safely be said that the
total reign of X years of these outsiders make no irrclc\,ancy in the total
duration of 112 vears of the I 0 kines. Thev arc extraneous to the s'ung_a .., ..._ ., ..__
dvnastv but not to the historv of Magadha. .... ..1 -' .._
Vajramitra is found to be the 8th king in the Puranic list.
The BhaJ!.avata Purna~w describes him as the son of Ghosa, hut one
author opines 11'0 that he might be a son of Vasurnitra. Most probably
Vajramitra \Vas successful in recovering the Sunga authority over the
capital or Magadha with the help of the then king. of Vidisa
Bhagabhadra who, referred to in the Besnagar Guruqa Pill3r inscription,
still then showed his loyality to the imperial Sungas of Magadha . He is
assigned a reign of 9 years by the Afatsya Purana. I fe was succeeded by
Bhagavata to the Magadhan throne by C. 117 B.C. But his relationship
with Vajrarnitra is not given in the Puranas. This Bhagavata is identified
by some 1 ~> 1 with Bhagabhadra of the I st Besnagar pi 11 ar of Heliodorus or
with Bhagavata of the Stone PiJI.ar of Goutamiputra. But this
identification can not be accepted because there is a variation in the form
of two names and the lineage was different i.e. Bhagabhadra was
Kasiputra. Bhagavata of Pataliputra was Sunga. The long 32 years of his
reign might indicate that he was capable of cstabl ishing peace and
prosperity for a time before the downf~1ll of the Sunga dynasty. lie was
succeeded by Devabhuti in C. 85. B.C.
7\
Devahhuti. the last of the Sun12,a list of the Puranos \\as~~ ~ '
son of Bha12,avata. Devahhuti \\as amon!.!, those Sur)!.!,as who ruled sureh - .._ ..._ -
at Pataliputra and the Purar_1as are unanimous about his rule of ! 0 years.
Bima tells 1 ~> 2 us that a Sunga king \\ho was over fond of women's
comrany lost his life at the hand of the daughter of Devahhuti's sl::l\e
woman at the instance of thL' kings minister Vasudeva. Since the
Puru~ws speak of the overthrow of the last Sunga monarch Devahhuti.
described as dissolute. at the hand of his Brahmin minister Vasudeva. it
is reasonable to infer that Bana's account relates to Devabhllti. Thus \\ith
his assassination ended the dynasty founded hv Pushyamitra at
Pataliputra by 75 B.C. But they did not disappear altogether from the
stage of Magadha history. The Punl~w.,· 1 "; state that Vasudeva shall he
king along with the Surigas and that the Andhras \Viii destory the Kamas
and the remains of the Surigas.
End of the S~riga Rule in Magadha
It has already been explained that the murder of the last
imperial Sunga, Devabhuti, by his minister Vasudeva was the final phase
of the process that started very soon after the death of Pushyamitra. The
murder of Vasumitra signalled the percelling out of the so-called Sunga
empire covering most of the portions of the Madhyadesa and northern
portion of the Deccan. Most of the provincial components of the empire
like Kos'ala, Kousambi, Panchala, Mathura etc. ceased to show allegiance
to the centre and seceded from the empire reducing it to the limit of a
mere kingdom. Vidisa still remained to he a stronghold of the Sun gas ol
colateral f~1milv. While the centre Magadha \vas being trampled by the
74
outsiders like the Andhras, Pulindas, Mahiuneghas or Chedis for the time
being. Alter the eclipse of X years, Vajrarnitra, might be a son of
V asumitra I~>~ became successful in getting control of the capital. During
his long reign of 32 years Bhagavata might have recovered some prestine
glory of the imperial S'ur1gas. But the Sungas again fell in that vicious
circle \vhich many a times doomed, the fate of the Magadhan empire.
We arc inf(xmed by the Puranic statement and the Har~acharita of Bana
that the dissolute, over libidinous SunQa Devabhuti was bereft of his life '-
by his minister Vasudeva with the help of the daughter of Devabhuti's
slave woman. What is gleaned from this incident and others like that
occurred before this event that a group of ambitious power hankers
always remained within the palace either among the ministers or
bureaucrats and they utilised the best opportune moment that is the
weakness of the political head and snatched the power.
Scats of Suriga imperial power
Here we like to be entangled with the question, raised by
some scholars that there was a shift of the seat of imperial power of the
S~rigas from Pataliputra to some places like Ujjainl, Vidisa, Bharhut or
any other places of the S~riga empire. It is claimed 165 that with the
murder of Devabhuti the main Sunga line ruling at Vidisa came to an
end. Assuming that Vidisa was the capital of later Sungas, one scholar
suggests 166 that the Kanvas also continued to rule there as the Kanvayana
mayor of the palace gained power by ousting the last S~nga king
Devabhuti. It is opined by another writcr 1(]
7 that as the Puriinas mention
that the Andhras will assail the Kanvayana Susarman and destroy the
75
remains of the Sunga power, the capital of the later-Sungas and thereafter
of the Kanvas could not be Pataliputra for the Andhras were a Deccan
power. Since Ayodhya, Kaus'ambl, Parichala and Mathura could not be
the places of this shift as proved by their independent coinage, from the
middle of the 2nd century B.C. Vidisa also could not be the capital of
later S~ngas for there is no reliable evidence of the K:inva rule at Vidisa.
The strong probability is Bharhut where Vajramitra, the fifth s'~nga king
had to shift his capital in the face of confusion and chaos created by the
murder of Vasumitra. It was a place in the southern region of
Madhyadesa and northern part of the Deccan near the earliest known
territories of the Andhras. Bhagabhadra of the Besnagar Gura9a Pillar
might have been the contemporary ruler at Vidisa, though he did not I
belong to the main Suriga line, acquired much political importance to be
reckoned with by the Greek king Antialkidas. He was not mentioned in
the PuniQas as he did not mentioned in the Puranas as he did not beiong
to the main line of the Surigas. The ninth king Bhagavata who ruled for
32 years from Bharhut, seems to have revived the glory of the imperial
Sungas and brought Vidisa under his control after the death of
Bhagabhadra there. The Bharhut Inscription of Dhanabhuti also proves
that this region was within the dominion of the Sungas.
Both the literary and epigraphic sources suggest that Ujjainl
and Vidisa had been the two important administrative centres of the
Magadhan empire down from the Maurya period. Vidis'a was within the
viceroyality of Ujjaini. We are informed by the Dipavamsa 168, and
Samantapasadikii and the Pali chronicles that before his accession to the
throne at Pataliputra Asoka had been the viceroy of Ujjaini and he had
76
family establishment of Devi/Mahadcvi, the queen consort, at Vidisa. It
is known from the S.R.E.I . that the three Kurmira viceroys were
stationed at Toshali, Ujjaini and Taxila. The Jain traditions testifv that
Sampriti had been the viceroy of Ujjaini before his accession to the
throne and he had two capitals one at Pataliputra and another at Ujjaini.
We arc informed from the Theravalikatha that Pushyamitra Sunga
before his snatching of the imperial power had been a de-facto ruler of
Avanti for 30 years. We have no evidence that Avanti, the capital of
Ujjaini was lost to the Sungas during the life time of Pushyamitra. The
Mafavi/Wgnimitram informs us that his son Agnimitra was the viceroy at
Vidisa and he placed Virasena as the frontier guard on the Narmada.
Agnimitra waged war against Vidharbha and won favourably. This
indicates his control over the region before the emergence of the
Satavahanas. It is probably that Ujjaini (Western Malawa) was
conquered by Satakall)i I just after the death of Pushyamitra and his son
Agnimitra. But Vidis'a still remained to be the stronghold of the S~ngas.
It has been suggested 169 that Bhagabhadra of the Besnagar Pillar
Inscription was probably appointed governor of Vidis'a during the reign
of Vasumitra. He also asumed the title king but remained loyal to the
successors of Pushyamitra to the last. He raised the banner of Suriga
dominion there during the time of confusion at Pataliputra after the
murder of Sumitra. It was with the help of this king that Vajramitra of
the main S~nga line recovered his position at Magadha. But in no way
the centre of political gravity was shifted there from Pataliputra because
the Puraryas 170 mention the Sungas distinctively among the rulers of
Vidisa but the Kanvayanas are not mentioned. It is questioned 171 that had
77
Bhagabhadra, identified \vith the 5th Suriga king Bhadraka, been living at
Pataliputra, there is no reason why the Taxilan envoy would go to the
Gwalior region on his wav. \Ve have already shown that this
Bhagabhadra of the Bcsnagar Pill·a.r Inscription, though belonged to a
colateral s'unga family, can not be identified with Bhadraka, wrongly
assumed to be the 5th Suriga king at Pataliputra. Again it may be
mentionedm that it is not said in the inscription that Heliodorus went to
Yidisa to present his credentials to Bhagabhadra. Central India was an
early centre of Vaishnavism and the Greek ambassador came here mainly
for religious purpose. It might be that the Greek king Antialkidas fell in
evil days then and sought help from Bhagabhadra. As to the possibility
of Bharhut to be the centre of shifted political power one scholar
opines 173 that the very openmg words of its (Bharhut Ins.)
acknowledgement on the gates of the pillor indicaltes its location that it
was situated within the dominion of the s'ungas who came into power
about the middle of the 2nd century B.C. and held sway over northern
India with their capital at Pataliputra or Patna. This inscription has been
classified 174 with the epigraphs of Indragnimitra and Brahmamitra
(Bodhgaya Ins. of Karungi) and assigned to the earlier part of the 1st
century B.C. while one suggests 175 that at this time the S'unga power was
at the decline. We have shown that Bhagavata, the 9th king of the
Puraoic list might have recovered some portions of the previous S~nga
empire including Bharhut during the long reign of 32 years. Above all,
the Purii!Jas, while referring to all the important events at Pataliputra or
Magadha never indicate such important incident like the shift of centre of
political gravity.
7R
Kanva rule in Maoadha b
The Kanvas came in p()\Ver in 75 B.C. 17 ~, after 112 years rule
of the Surigas(187-112). The Pun·z~ws clearly state that the s;oiga
Bhritya 1\.an\'(iyana kings will enjoy the earth for 45 years. In succession 1--:-
to them the earth will pass to the Andhras . Four Kanva kings arc
mentioned in the ,\latsya Pun11Ja namely Vasudeva, his son Bhumimitra,
his son Naravana and Susimnan, the son of Naravan, ruled for 9, I 4, 12 . . and I 0 years respectively. Our infom1ation about the Kanvas, derived
mainly from the Pura~ic statement is very meagre. No inscription or
coins of any Kanva king has yet been discovered. Certain coins of
Panchala fabric bearing the name of one Bhumimitra 17x are ascribed bv ~ .
scholar 17') to the second Kanva king. But such identification can not be
accepted tor the Panchala coins are of a distinct series and no one can be
singled out from it. The history of Magadha during the Kanva period is
left rather simple. But our effort to sketch out the territorial limit of the
Kanva Magadha will show that the history of Magadha of this period is
one of the most complicated phases of ancient Indian history. It was a
time when vigorous political activities of new emerging powers, revival
of different religious sects, inroads of the foreign intruders like the
Scytho-Parthians, Ku~ffi:las and the thriving economic activities of the
Indo-Roman commercial era began to act and react with each other.
The Kanvas, most probably, could not enjoy the earth - that
is the Magadhan sceptre unchalleged. They were either pressurised by
the so-called Mitra or the remains of the Sungas from the south-eastern
portion of Magadha around Rajagriha, Bodhgaya and the adjoining
territories; Kausambi king like Brihasatimitra II from the north-western
79
portion of Magadha and the Kalinga king Kharavela from the south.
Thev might have also been threatened bv the Andhras from the . ~ . south-western direction. The Sunga power was not altogether
extinguished after the tragic end of Devabhuti 1x11• The Purci~ws state that
Vasudeva shall be king along with the Sungas and that the Andhras will
destroy the Kanvas and whatever is left of the S~riga power 1x1• It is clear
that the reference is to the continuance of Sunga rule somewhere at
IM' ' · Magadha-region. It has been suggested by scholars - that the Sungas
and Kanvas for sometime ruled contemporaneously. It is believed by one
that the rulers of 'Mitra' dynasty found by Mitradeva ruled somewhere in
Magadha as known to us from epigraphic records'x'.
Two of the 'mitra' rulers of Magadha Indragnimitra and
Brahmamitra arc known from the Bodhgaya dedicatory inscriptions of
the respective queens, Karungi and Nagadevi'x.t. While one
Bahasatimitra (Brihaspatimitra) is, known from the Hathigumpha
Inscription of Kharavela, likely to be the contemporary ruler of
Magadha 185• Attempt has been made by scholars 1x6 to identify
Indnignimitra with Indramitra of Panchala coins and of a coin found at
Kumrahar excavation 187 and Brahmamitra with his namesake found in the
Mathura coins 188• One hold 189 that Brahmamitra, Indramitra,
Bahasatimitra were Paikhala kings ruling over Magadha one after
another while another writer 190 postulates that the mle of the Paiichala
kings over Magadha was the result of their invasion in company with
Indo-Greeks and the people of Mathura during the march of Menander to
Pataliputra by c. 150 B.C. It is interesting to note that one scholar''~'.
while rejecting the theory of Panchala kings' rule ov~r Magadha, accepts
so
their identification either with their namesake of Panchala kings or
Mathura kings.
I {owe\·cr it is true that rei igious donations he made h\· , ~ .
persons from different regions at different holy places like Sanchi,
Bharhut, Bodhgaya etc, and stray finds of coins can be explained by
assuming that visitors from different regions for trade or religious
purpose might have brought these coins to places like Pataliputra,
Baranasl etc. But in the case of Indragnimitra and Brahmamitra of the
Bodhgaya Inscription --- this assumption is not applicable. For if the
Panchala kings ruled over Magadha for so many generation down to the
time of the invasion of Kharavela, at least the Puranas which are
referring to all imperial dynasties including the Andhras of the Deccan
who occupied \-1agadha for some time, would not have ignored this great
historical change. Again there is no reason why the same name should
be written as Indnignimitra in the Inscription and lndramitra on the
coins 1192• Again from the mere identity of name we can not be sure if
Brahmamitra of Bodhgaya inscription was the :same person as his
namesake of the Mathura coins. It is no doubt probable for a queen of a
distant kingdom to dedicate gift in other place of pilgrimage like
Bodhgaya; but, in that case the inscription should have mentioned the
name of reigning king of the place where the donation was made. Such
information is found in the Pabhosa Inscription of Asadhasena. But since
Indnignimitra and Brahmamitra are mentioned in the inscription as king
only, both of them were rulers of the region where the inscription have
been found. The chronological order of the two kings is clear for the
donation was made by Karungi rather when she became queen dowager
XI
to the kin~!. l3rahmamitra than when she remained in her full glory as the ~ ~ .
queen of king Indragnimitra. As the Bodhgaya inscriptions arc generally
considered to be somewhat earlier than the Hathigumpha inscription
which ''1' is assigned in the middle of the first century B.C., Indnignimitra
and Brahmamitra can be placed about the I st half of the first century
B.C. They were belonged to a co lateral branch of the imperial S~ngas 14-1
is proved by the comparative study of the epigraphs of the Ayodhya
inscription of Dhanadeva, the 6th in descent of the senapati Pushyamitra
and the Bodhgaya Inscription of lndragnimitra. In these two inscriptions
the epithet Kausikiputra, is attached with both the names of the kings,
which ultimately signifies a common ancestor on the maternal side .
Ayodhya Inscription is assigned to c. 68 B.C 19'. Thus it is clear that
Sunga rulers of colateral families continued to rule in the Bodhgaya,
R~jagriha and surrounding regions contemporaneously with the Kimvas
at Pataliputra. It seems likely that one Bahasatimitra, referred to in the
Hathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela is related to Magadha in this age.
Here arises the difficulty of identifying these two kings with their
approximate date. Some scholars 146 identify this Bahasatimitra with
Pushyamitra Sunga. But such identification is not possible on the ground
of palaeography of the Hathigumpha inscription 1963 which was of a much
later date. He is again identified with the king Gopaliputra Bahasatimitra
of the Pabhosa inscription of Asadhasena 1n and Brihaspatimitra of the
Kaus'ambi coins 198• This identification is quite possible. It makes no
chronological difficulty in identifying him with the Magadhan king at
that time,contemporary of Kharavela. In that case, Brihaspatimitra
would figure as a mighty king having his sway over Magadha as well as
X2
part of Kausambi . But we can not agree with the view, smce
Brihaspatimitra is explicitly called a king of Magadha, there can he no
doubt that he belonQed to mitra t~m1ilY of Magadha itselt'i'~'~, because the ~ . ~
extention of his rule, at that time to K.aus'imbl and Pahchala can not be
determined.
Since the mitra kinQs are associated with Panchala, Mathura,
Kausamhl and Ayodhya, other than the Suriga mitras of Magadha, there
arc the possibilities21)(
1 that either a mitra dynasty from outside Bihar ruled
up to Magadha or one from Magadha held sway upto Panchala, Mathura
and Kaus·ambi or that a local mitra dynasty flourished in Magadha
independently. Mitra coins are not abundant at Pataliputra as are found
in Kausambi. Panchala and Mathura. Secondly, only three of the mitra
kings ( lndn1gnimitra, Brahmamitra, Bahasatimitra / B~ihaspatimitra ) of
this period are definitely known to have associated with Magadha,
Thirdly the fabric of the coins found at Pataliputra do n0t show any
individuality but show similarity either with Panchala or Kausambl coins.
Hence some scholars201 hold the opinion that the 'mitras'of Mathura,
Panchala and Kausambl ruled at times upto Pataliputra. At the same time
there are evidences202 that tend to suggest that a mitra dynasty ruled
independently in Magadha. On the other hand Bahasatimitra referred to
in the Hathigumpha inscription is also surely associated with Magadha
directly or indirectly. But neither the mitra kings of lndragnimitra group,
placed in the l st half of the I st century B.C. nor Bahasatimitra of the
Hathigumpha inscription and the Pabhosa inscriptiton placed in the 2nd
half of the I st century B.C. can at all he regarded as king of Magadha
83
defeated by Kharavela. If any of them would have been the rukr of
Magadha, the Purat~as must have mentioned their names.
It has been suggestcd~0 ~ that the term Afagadhwi](:/w-
Riijanwh Bahasatimitwh referred to in the Hathigumpha inscription may
mean Magadha and Bahasatimitra separately. In that case it is not
impossible that Kharavela after raiding Magadha, also defeated
Bahasatimitra, king of Kausambl or Pai1chala. We have to consider
whether Kharavela went to Kaus~1mbi or Panchala in order to defeat
Bahasatimitra or defeated him while he was in occupation of Magadha.
In any case the contemporaneity of Bahasatimitra and Kharavcla has to
be presumed. It has been held~ 11..J that Kharavela coumennarked the coins
of Brihaspatimitra ( Bahasatimita'?) of Kausambi with the 'Nandipada'
symbol after defeating him. The basis of the argument is that this
particular symbol occurs both on the coins of Brihaspatimitra and in the
Hathigumpha inscription. Again, no coins of B,rihaspatimitra has hecn
found by the Pataliputra exacavation205. But we: do not find any
indication in the Hathigumpha inscription to warrant such presumption.
We have already mentioned that there is no chronological
difficulty in identifying Bahasatimitra of the Hathigumpha inscription
with B,rihaspatimitra II of Kausambi flourishing towards the end of the
2nd century B.C. and 1st half of the 1st century B.C. The said ruler is
known from the Pabhosa inscription. I of Asadhasena and coins of the
Pafichala and Kaus'ambi series. According to the Pabhosa inscription,
this Brihaspatimitra, predecessor of Udaka, is to be placed in the 1st half
of the 1st century B.C. In that case Brihaspatimitra I I should be taken to
be a great king of his time ruling in the greater part of Panchala, northern
S4
part of Kaus.ambi and also a part of Magadha. On the other hand. the
occun·ence of counter striking symbol 'Nandipada' as component part of
the obverse device of the coins of Kausambi appears to be significant. It
is proved by the newly discovered Ramamitra coins that 'Nandipada' was
likely to be the personal symbol of the kings and that on his authority the
coins of Prausthamitra. Jvesthamitra, Agnimitra, Brihaspatimitra were - . '
overstruck with this symbol. Again, the non-availability of
Brihaspatimitra's coins in Magadha does not necessarily suggest anything
against his rule in a portion of Magadha. His control over the region for
a short period precluded the possibility of a wide circulation of his coins.
Gupta coins are rarely found in Magadha which was the seat of Gupta
authority for a long time. However, it would not be unreasonable to
hold that during the closing years of the imperial s'unga rule In
Magadha,the Kausambi king B,rihaspatimitra availed of the opportunity
and succeeded in occupying some portioin of northern Bihar. Later,
however,he had to suffer defeat at the hands of the Kalinga king
Kharavela. That is why, it is suggested")07 that the 'Mitras' known from
the epigraphs of the Magadha region were actually rulers of Kausambi
and not of Magadha, major part of which was under the sway of the
Kaus'ambi kings.
Contemporaneity of Kharavela with the Kanvas
The Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela, king of Kalinga
clearly proves his three consecutive raids of north India (Bharatavar.~a)
including Magadha creating panic among the kings and refers to his
contemporaneity with the Mitra and Kanva rulers of Magadha,
85
Bahasatimita of Kau~ambi (?) and Satakami of the Deccan. The
inscription, the sole record of this king's achievement, is badly damaged.
The scholars arc not unanimous about the reading of the portion actually
discemible and the date of the king concerned. The inscription itself
contains no date. Therefore. it has. in fact, baffled the historians.
However, the chronological position of Kharavela is quite relevant 1n
appreciating his role in contemporary history of Magadha.
There are two main views regarding the date of Kharavela.
According to a view held by scholars like V. Smith, Rapson, Jay·as\val.
Panigrahi etc, Kharavela flourished in the second century B.C. and \vas
contemporary of Pushyamitra Sunga who is identified with Bahasatimitra
mentioned in the inscription. This assumption has been made on the
basis of the interpretation of two conflicting passages contained in the
inscription. B.L. lndraji has marked204 the year 103 B.C. as the year of
Kharavela's accession to the throne, while Buhler places210 his accession
between I 70 B.C. and I 60 B.C. accepting the 13th year of Kharavela as
corrresponding to the I 65th year of the Maurya era (Muriya-Kala) that
started either in 255 B.C.( eighth year of the Kalinga conquest by Asoka)
or in 322-21 B.C. (date ofChandragupta's accession). Another scholar 11
has fixed the fifth year of Kharavela in 154 B.C. taking Ti- Va~asate to
mean I 03 that stands for the year 257 B.C.(the date of the RE of Dhaull
and Jaugada).
Again, there are a number of historians who fix the date of the
Hathigumpha inscription in the first century B.C. although the exact date
is uncertain. A schalor writes213, 'looking to all the evidence
ennumerated above we have to conclude that Kharavela did not flourish
86
in the second century B.C. and must be assigned a date in the first B.C.
preferably in the last quarter'. It is suggested by some~ 1 -l, taking
Ti- Vasa-Sara in the sense of 300 years, that it is reasonable to assume
that the rise of Kharavela svnchronised with the fall of the Sunua - ~
dynasty. Kharavela was anointed, according to some215, Maharaja of
Kaliriga in C:-28 B.C. On the ground of palaeography the inscription is
assigned not earlier than the beginning of the second century B.C. and
not later than first centUl)' B.C.216 It is suggested:"' that the date of the
Sanchi inscription of Satakan:i II on the south-gate of Stupa I an.d the
Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela may be fixed in about 50 B.C.
R.P. Chanda places21x his accession in e:-80 B.C. It is observed by one
scholar 19 that since there is substantial agreement about the reading of
Satakall)i, Bahasatimitra and Nandaraja, the correct identification of any
of them will go a long way in fixing up the date of Kharavela.
The reading of the name Satakami, Bahasatimitra, and
Nandaraja found in the Hathigumpha inscription appears to be
acceptable. Bahasatimitra and the king of Magadha defeated by
Kharavelaare probably two different persons, for the Magadhan
antagonist of Kharavela is called Rajagahanapa220, one who resided in
the city of Rajagriha. Bahasatimitra may be identified with
Brihaspatimitra II of the Kaus'ambi coins and Pabhosa inscription of -
Asadhasena. Nandaraja is none but Sarvakshatrantaka Mahapadma
Nanda who is said in the Pural)as to have brought the Kalingas under his
indisputed sovereignty. The identification of Bahasatimitra with
Pushyamitra Suriga is not acceptable. Again, the explanation of the
tenns., !vfuriva-Kale to mean a Maurya llj
era~~
' P(inam
X7
tariva-Sathi-J'asa-Silte to mean I 65th referring to that Maurva era. and r • '-- ""
Panclwme-Cha-!Xmi- Vase NandariJia- Ti- Vasa-Sella to mean 300 vears . . . after Mahapadma Nanda makes no chronolgical d1 tliculty in placing
Kharavela in the first halfofthe first century B.C.
In an ancient Jaina Mss222 we find an era of Samprati. The
Divyi.!vadana and the Pataliputrakalpa inform us that he was a devoted
Jain and did for Jainism what Asoka did for Buddhism. llc became very
powerful during the last days of As'oka and during the reign of his father
Kunala. As viceroy of Ujjaini he administered practically independently
from c. 226 B.C. It was not unexpected that he started an era from c. 226
B.C. or c. 219 B.C. when he became Maurya emperor with two capitals
one at Pataliputra and another at Ujjaini. Similarly it was not unusual for
a Jain king like Kharavela to have used that era to retcr to an important
event of his reign in the 13th regnal year. Thus, if we refer the year 164
(I 65th) to this era, the 13th regnal year of Kharavela would be either c.
62 B.C. (226-164) or 55 B.C. (219-164) and the date of his accession to
the throne would either be c. 74 B.C. (62+12) or c. 67 B.C. (55+12).
Again, we get the same date for Kharavela, if we take the term,
Ti-Va~va-Sata Nandariija to mean 300 years after Mahapadma Nanda
corresponding to the 5th year of Kharavela's reign. The beginning of the
de-facto rule of Mahapadmananda at Magadha has been assigned to c.
368 - 367 B.C. on the basis of the suggested chronological table of the
kings of Magadha223, in the background of the story of the murder of
Kakavarna Sisunaga contained in the Har~wcharita of Banan~ and the
rise of the Nandas contained in the Mahavamsa and the reference to the
king by Xcnophonc in his "Cyropaedia". Xcnophone is assigned to c.
<JO
430-354 B.C. Xenophone's description of the Indian monarch may have
been rcminscent of his own days and the Nanda dynasty had probably
come to power before his death sometime atler 355 B.C. 226 Thus, we are
led by the available sources, to fix up a date in the middle of the first half
of the first century B. C. or 72 B.C.(367-300 = 67+5) for Kharavela. But
it is difficult to accept the date c. 28 B.C.227 for Kharavela. We have
already shown above that Satakan;ti II, identified with Satakan;ti of the
Hathigumpha inscription and B~ihaspatimitra of the Hathigumpha
inscription, were comtemporaries of Kharavela along with the kings of
Magadhan regions.
The Kanva Magadha, the Theatre of Political actions
In the above backdrop it may be stated that Vasudeva Kanva I
snatched the authority from Suriga Devabhuti and became the king at
Pataliputra about 75 B.C. But he could not enjoy the fruits of his action
unchallenged. The confused political situation caused by the murder of
the last Suriga emperor made Magadha again the threatre of action of
contemporary political powers. The Kausambl king Bha~atimitra or
B_rihaspatimitra II began to penetrate into the northern portion of
Magadha and perhaps became successful in capturing some portions in
northern Magadha. The 'remains of the Sungas' maintained their
precarious position in the Bodhgaya and the surrounding regions of
Rajag.riha- a place more than 100 miles south-east away from Pataliputra.
The Satavahanas. very probably under Satakall)i ll, were engaged in
their commercial competition with the Saka-Kshatrapas. They even
brought a greater portion of north- western Deccan and some areas of
Central India like Tripurl (in Jabbalpur), Awra. (in Mandasor district,
Malwa) etc. 22 x under their control. That is why S~ttakall)i II avoided
confrontation with Kharavela who advanced as far as Musikanagara, the
Satavahana capital.
Kharavela, according to the Hathigumpha inscription, made
his first invasion of north India in the 8th year of his reign most
probably about 66 I 65 B.C., came to Rajgir, stormed the Gorathagiri
(Barabarhills) and laid siege of the city of Rajagriha. But no mention is
made of the king of the place.
In the I Oth year (in c. 65 I 64 B.C.) Kharavela agam
invaded Bharatvarsa. It is uncertain whether it means the region whose
capital was Magadha. It is however, likely that Kharavela marched
through the regions north, north west and north east of Kalinga. The
routes must include diftTerent parts of Magadha.
In the 12th year (c. 63162 B.C.) he appeared in the north for
the third time, frightened the kings of Uttarapatha ( Uttariipatha- r(~jna)
causing great fear in the mind of the people of Magadha, defeated the
'king of Magadha' ( Magadham -Ca- Rajanam) and Bahasatimitra (II)
and brought treasure including the statue of Jain Tirthankara, ~savadeva
from Magadha and Anga. The mode of expression in the l-lathigumpha
inscription suggests that the campaign was directed against Magadha as a
revenge of the earlier Magadhan expedition to Kalinga by Mahapadma
who had tab:n away the sacred Jaina image. Therefore, it can surely be
assumed that Kharavela directed his campaign against that king of
Magadha whether staying at Pataliputra or at R~1jagriha who might have
inherited that image. And that king might be of the Kanva dynasty -
<)()
BhC11nimitra (c. 66- 52 B.C.) or of the S'UJ1ga family Brahmamitra. both
being Kharavela's contemporary. Both of them however, are not found
in their respective centres during the first and second invasions of
Kharavela.
I
Puranic evidence regarding the otherthrow of the Sunga - Kanva
powers
The Puraryas staten' that, "the Andhra Simuka or Sis'uka with
his fellow tribesmen, the servants of Susarrnan will assail the I
Kanvayanas and him (Susarman) and destroy the remains of the Sunga
power and will obtain the earth". But the question \Vhen, where and who
did this political operation against the Kan vas and the remains of the
S~rigas has confused the historical enquiries. Deducing the Pural}ic
chronology of the kings of different dynasties of Magadha with the reign
periods, most of the scholars are unanimous in assigning the date of the
above historical event in about 30 B.C. 2 -'~> or 27 B.C.:''' As to the place
\Vhere the last vestige of the rule of the Kanvas and remains of the I •
Sungas were put to an end, some scholars like D.C. Sircar.
S.K.Chattopadhyay etc. 2's locate it in the Vidisa region, probably the
capital of the later S~nigas on the ground that the S[ltavahanas of the
Dakshinc1patha had no connection either with Magadha or any parts of
north India. It has been suggested2''
1 that the so-called Andhras who are
represented as destroying the K~m \a sovereignty apparently in eastern
I\lah\ a. do no appear to have ruled in Magadha proper. It is suggested
b) a scholar: 1" that Bh~u·hut \Vas the stronghold of the Kanvas wherefrom
the\ were ousted by the Andhras. The earlv '\ndhra coins of
91
' western Malwa fabric with the legend, Rano-Siri-Satasa and the
inscription of the southern gate-way of Stupa I of Sanchl, mentioning
king Satakan:ti may suggest the early extension of the Andhra power over
that region, most probably after the extirpation of the Kanvas and the
'remains of the S~ngas'. Even we find not a single coin of the Andhras in
Magadha, Altekar has opined241 that they had no doubt advanced as far as
Jabbalpur and Raipur, but so far no epigraphic or numismatic evidence
has come forth to establish their rule in Magadha. However, attempts
have been made on the basis of the versions of the Puranas and the
interpretation of the findings from archaeological excavations at place
like Nevasa etc. to fix up the initial period of the Satavahana rule in the
latter part of the first century B.C. or not earlier than c. first century
A.D.242 Simuka or sisuka and his fellow tribesmen (Pulinda?), according
to the Purar:ms, overthrew the Kanvas from power. This Simuka has been
identified with the founder of the Andhra dynasty, king Satavahana or
Kumara Satavahana or Chhimuka Satavahana of the inscription and
coins2-l
3 bearing the 'elephant', so-called 'Ujjainl symbol'. Thus the
foundation of the independent Satavahana rule has been assigned by the
above scholars to a date near about the closing years of the first century '
B.C. But we can hardly accept the above view that Siimuka or Sis'uka or
Chhimuka, the founder of the Andhra dynasty of the Deccan destroyed
the Kanvayanas and Susarman along with the remains of the Surigas at
Vidisa or Bharhut region by about c. 30 B.C. There is least doubt that
the Kanvayana rule came to an end, according to the generally accepted
Pura~ic chronology, by c. 30 B.C. It is curious enough that the above
scholars intend to locate the centre of political action of the Andhras
92
against the Kanvas and the remains of the Sungas somewhere in the
southern region of Madhyadesa, particularly eastern Malawa and Bharhut
areas nearest to the earliest known territories of the
Andhra-Satavahanas, without taking any cognition of the possibility of
their appearance in Magadhan region as conquerers.
We are dealing with the history of Magadha and m this
attempt we derive substantial evidence from the Pura~tas, though it must
be admitted that there are variant readings of the Puranas and that we
have meagre archaeological evidence to corroborate the Puraf!ic
evidence. The paucity of archaeological evidence of the respective
period does not indicate the fault of the extant sources . Writing an
introduction to the Purii!Ja Text of the Dynasties of Kali Age Pargiter
observes2+t "though the account is said to have been narrated to Paurava
kings or rishis in Naimisa forest, yet the ground from which the historic
changes are viewed is Magadha". It should be noted here that in the
section of the 'early contemporary dynasties' the PuniQaS summarise the
history of all dynasties except the Magadhas about whose history from
the Brihadratha dynasty the Pural)as give details. All other dynasties of
north India are noticed only in aggregate with the exception of the
dynasty of Yidisa. It is also interesting to note that the Surigas are
found as ruling dynasties both in Magadha and in Vidisa in the dynastic
lists of the PuraQaS, though the exact period of their rule is not stated in
many cases.
In the chronological dynastic list of the ruling families of
Magadha, it is stated. in succession to the Kanvayanas, the'earth' will go
to the Andhras. Whereas in the dynastic history of Vidisa, it is stated
93
that when the family of the Stnigas ends. Sisunandi will reign. Hi~
daughter's son named Sisuka (Bd-Sisiko, Jvs-Sibhuka, Kvs-Susika) was
king of Purika. This description of the Vidisa dynasty is not mentioned in
the Matsya Puriu:za but found in the V ayu and the Brahmimda Puriu:as.
Again, in the case of Vidisa this connotation of 'earth' is nowhere
mentioned. It is beyond our doubt that Magadha had deep connection
with Vidisa till the days of the Si.n1gas as they are found included in the
list of the ruling families of both Magadha and Vidisii. In no case Vidisa
was the 'earth' , the centre of political gravity of the then Bhiiratvar~a. In I '
the Purat:"Jic hi3tory of both Magadha and Vidisa, Sisuka < . .:-:,imuka is
found but the name-variants indicate that those did not belong to the
same person related to the sametime with Magadha and Yidisa.
According to the inner political dictum of the Puraryas, the
importance lay not in the persons or dynasties, but in the place, that is,
Magadha, the seat of arbiter of many political events, the creator of the
history of ancient India which attracted the attention of ambitious
conquerers both inside and outside the sub-continent. Whatever that
might be, the Puniryas mention those who captured, for whatever period,
the centre of age-long political tradition. It would not be a misnomer to
think that the Andhras with their fellow tribesmen (Pulindas), who
probably appeared on the political scence of Magadha to fish in the
troubled waters created by the murder of Vasumitra about 134 B.C.,
would not lose another chance created by the ravaging expeditions of
Kharavela of Kaliriga repeatedly over Magadha to capture the traditional
centre of political gravity. Most probably, that is why, it has been opined
by a scholar~ 15 'In the drama Ahilavikdgnimitram K~tlidasa mentions a
victory of th~ Sungas over the Andhras which was doubtless an episode
in the sturggle which ended with the tina! victory of the Andhras'.
Therefore, Magadha was the place where the Andhras along with their
fellow-tribesmen launched their actions and destroyed the Kanvayanas
and the remains of the Surigas. Then if the events of Magadha did
happen so, the Andhras must have started their independent political I
career in the south long before c. 30 B.C. and Simuka (supposed to be the
founder of the dynasty) could not have been a contemporary of Kanva
Susannan246• There seems to be some error on the part of the ancient
editors of the Pural)a texts. There would be no historical anachronism if
we relate the history of the beginning of independent Satavahana rule . f
after the departure of the great Suriga monarch Pushyamitra Sunga in
about 151 B.C. They might have availed of the opportunity of confused
political situation caused by the murder of Vasumitra in c. 134 B.C.
under the leadership of Satakall)i I who is said in the Nanaghat
inscription ofNayanika to have performed two Asvamedha sacrifices and
other numerous Vedic sacrifices perhaps to surpass the glory of
Brahmal)ite Pushyamitra. If we accept the Puranic version of the reign
period of Simuka of Magadha round about 30 B.C. it is difficult to adjust
18 \'ears reil!.n of Krishna and a few vears of Satakami I to mark the .. '- • ..1 •
second year of Kharavela's rule in about 28 or 27 B.C.~~ 7or to adjust the
rule of the Satavahanas for at least 300 years between Satakarf!i I and
Gautamlputra Satakar~i of the Nasik Pras·asti who is definitely placed in
the middle of the second century A.D. or to comprehend so extensive an
empire of Satakar'!i ! covering the greater part of northern Deccan and
95
portion of central India touching the western limit of the kingdom of
Kharavela within a very short time.
Archaeological evidence appears to strengthen the above
v1ew. An inscription on the southern gateway of Stupa I of Sanchi'
mentioning king Satakan:ti is generally attributed to S~Ltakarni 11248 • This
Satakami is also identified with Satakarni II of the Bhilsa record of
Vasi~~iputra Ananda, the foreman of the artisans of the time of
Siri-Scitakarn/ .. 4 . The date of the Saiichi inscription of Satakarni I has
been assigned to the period about 50 B.C. 2 ~0 Sataka~i-1 is also placed in
the second century B.C.2'
1 Recent excavations at Nevasa (Ahmednagar
dist.), and Kotalingala have brought to light coins of Chhimuka
Satavahana, fragments of amphore, red polished pottery, rouletted
objects and Andhra criss-cross painted wares etc from the stratum IV. It
shows that the period IV ranges from the second century B.C. to the
beginning of the Christian era2'2
• Attempts have been made by some2'' to
ascribe these objects and coins of these places to a period not much
earlier than c. A.D.-I. But excavations at places like Kaundanpur'-t
(Amraoti-district-Maharastra) Ami2" (on the bank of Arunavati in
Yavatmal dist. ), Bahai 2'h (in east Khandesh dist), Nasik 2
'7 (Nasikya on
the Godavari), Kausam2'x (in Aurangabad dist) c I early prove that they
were all major Satavahana sites and the findings like 'Rouletted and
Kaolin wares,' russet-coated painted ware and brick construction, Black
and Red ware', Red polished ware, a few sherds with criss-cross designs
typical of the 'Andhra' ware. glass beads, tine ring-\vells or soak-pits,
copper and lead coins one of which carries the name of the Satavahana
king Si1takarr.1i 2''
1 while the Satavahana phase commenced in Kaundanpur
around c. I 00 B.C. it ranges from c. 200 B.C. to 100 A.D. or 200 A.D. m
case of Bahal, Nasik and Kausam (Aurangabad-dist).
The Andhra ruler who conquered Magadha from the Kanvas
might have been a king (other than Simuka) who ruled much later. His
identity can hardly be ascertained 260 • As no coins or inscription of a
single Andhra king have so far been discovered from any archaeological
site in Magadha, it seems likely that after a brief period of occupation
the Andhras left Magadha to its fate, for the absence of archaeological
evidence does not disprove their brief occupation of Magadha. The
imperial Gupta, who ruled from Magadha beyond doubt, had no coins
found in the Magadha region. In the openion of a scho)a(?61 "probably a
Satavahana king penetrated up to Pataliputra and occupied the Magadhan
capital, but the duration of his occupation of Magadha must have been
short lived".
References
I. DKA. P.31 and n 6 (Text), P. 70 (Trans)
1 Ibid, P. 3 L n 1
3. Ibid, P. 6 (Text)
4. /far. Ch.. P. 193
5. IRAS, 1963. P. I S-19
6. EHI, P. 208. n 1
7. DKA, P. 6 (Text), P. 31: 1/arivamsa, BK 2, Ch. II, 3. 2. 40
8. Wilson. H.H., The Theatre o(the Hindus, II P. 347-48, 353.
9. lSNI, P. 28
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
,, _ _).
Sinha, B.C., History (~(the Sim'ga Dynasty, P. I 0 I.
AIU,P.91
JASB, 1910,P. 259-60
PHAI, New ed, P. 314-320
JAAR, 1957-58, P. 48-49; BMC (AI), P. XL VII
Thapar, R., Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, P. 201
PHAI; P. 331
!vfahavwnsa, IV trans. by Geiger, P. 12
PHAI, P. 181
Chattopadhyaya, S., From Bimbisara to As'oka, P. 3
Mahavamsa, IV P. 5-6
DKA, P. 21
Chattopadhyay, S., op. cit. P. 52
Q. Curti us, IX. 2, (The Invasion (~{India hy Alexander the Great as
described hy Arrian. Q. Curtius, Diodorus Plutarch and
Justin. by McCrindle, New ed. 1896.)
24. liar. Ch. 4th ed. 1918. P. 199.
25. Chattopadhyaya, S .. op. cit. P. 59
26. Piit:zini, 1. 4. 1 17
27. Jvfalavikil, 4. 14
28. Boudhayana S;·awa Szitra, ed. W. Caland, III. P. 449
29. Jlarivarnsa. 3. 2. 40
30. PHAI, P. 328 - 329.
31. Ibid. P. 329
32. JASB.I912.P.287./JIQ,lll,P. 731
33. 11/Q, 1926. II. P. 247
34. !HQ, 1926, I I. P. 24 7
35. !SNI, P. 36-37~ Pandit Bhagavaddatt, Bharat
varsa-ka-Brihat-ltihasa, Part II. P. 277 . '
36. CHI. I. P. 322-323~ Num. Chro, 1870, P. 226
37. PHAI, P. 328, fn. I
38. Tarn, W.W., The Greeks in Bactria and India, P. 176 No. I
39. Sinha, B.C., op. cit. P. 70
40. PHAI, P. 329
41. AIU, P. 95
42. Camp. His. Ind., II. P. 96
43. Harivamsa, 3. 2. 40
44. Sinha, B. C., op. cit. P. 9
45. Pryzalaski, Le Legende deL' Emperor Asoka, P. 301
46. Div. P. 434.
47. 0111, P. 38
48. Samaddar, J. N., Glories (~{Magadha, P. I 14
49. PHAI, P. 308
50. Afalavika, Act.l, 7. 8~ Act V, 15-17
51. ISNI, P. 37
52. Num. Chro .. 1970, P. 227 t; Journal o{the Ganonath Jha Research
Institute, VII I. 1951, P. 202
53. PilAf, P. 345
54. EHI. (N.N. Ghosh), P. 162
55. JBORS. X. P. 205
56. Sinha, B. C. or. cit. P. 97 f
57. Puri. B.N., India in the Time (dPatwy·ali, P. 32.
l)C)
58. Comp. His. Ind. II P. 97
59. Narain, A.K., The Indo Greeks, P. 35- 37
60. PHAI, P. 336; Sinha, B.C., op. cit. P. 96
61. CHB, I, P. 744
62. Dubbins, K. W., 'Dem~rtrius II and Euthydemus II --The Sequence
of Bactrian Coins', India-History and Thought, P. 28 f.
63. Narain, op. cit. P. 28
64. Tarn, op. cit. P. 96
65. Narain, op. cit. P. 51; PHAI, P. 649
66. Tarn, op. cit. P. 82
67. Ibid, P. 132-133
68. Sankrityayana, R. History (?[Central Asia, P. 91
69. PHA!, P. 651
70. Ind. Ant. I . P. 302; Gold Stucker, Sanskrit and Culture.
P. 125-126.
70a. CHI, I. P. 520
70b. IHQ, I. P. 217
71. JBORS, 1918, P. 263
7,.., ·r · 1) 1 -,.., -· arn, op. cit. . )_
73. Shanna, R.S., 'The Kali Age- A period of Social crises',
lndia-f!istm~l· and Thouxht, A.L. Basham commemoration
volume, P. 187
74. Hazra, R.C., Studies in the Pur(mic Records on Hindu Rites and
Customs. P. 216 f.
75. EIINI, P. U
76. Patanjali, I. P. I 77
100
77. JBORS, X. 205-206~ XIII P. 247-248
78. Ibid, III. P. 479~ PHA!, P. 391 f.
79. JBRS. 1949, XXXV P. 50-51
80. DKA, P. 34 f.
81. IHQ, V, P. 612
82. JBORS, IV. P. 263-64
83. CHB, I. P. 753
84. IHQ, V. P. 608 f.
85. BMC (AI), P. 129
86. Ibid, P. LXXXVI
87. Ibid, P. LXXXVIII
88. Sf, P. 96
89. ISNI, P. 141-142
90. B1'v!C (Al}, P. XCVI
91. JSNI, P. 78
92. B1'v!C (AI), P. XCIV
93. ISNI, P. Ill
94. B1'v!C (AI), P. 14 7
95. Ibid, P. XCIII
96. Ibid, P. 147
97. JNSI, XXVII, P. 188-189
98. JNS/, XXVI P. 3
99. Ibid, XXVII P. 187
100. JSJVI, P. 159
I 0 I. B1'vfC (AI), P. CX
102. AIU, P. 171
1 () 1
103. 8/VIC r:l/), P. CXVI
I04. Ibid, P. CXVI-CXVII
105. Ibid, P. CXX-CXXI
106. INC, (Smith), P. 185
I 07. AIU, P. 172
108. ISNI, P. 187
109. EHNI, P. 51
1 1 0. BMC (AI), P. CVI
111. AS! (AR), Excavation at Rairh, P. 71
112. BA1C (AR), P. CXXII-CXXIII
1 13. Ibid, P. CXXIII
114. Ibid, P. CXL
1 15. Ibid, P. CUI -CUll
116. ISNI, P. 205
II 7. BAIC fA/), P. LXXXVI
II8. Ibid, P. LXXXVI
II9. Ibid, P. LXXIV
I20. AI. (Cunningham), P. 529
I21. Marshall, J., Tcnila. II. 820, Nos. 252-255
I22. JRAS, I900, P. 53 7; BMC (AI}, P.C.
I23. A!U, P. I 59
124. ISNI, P. 198-99
125. BAIC fAndhra), P. XI
126. PlHC. XLVI. P. 4 f.
127. /SV/, P. I 05
128. llemachandra. Anekartha Smigraha, P. 264
102
129. Sinha, B.C., op. cit. P. 50
130. ISNI, P. 106-107
131. PIHC. XLVI P. 5 f.
132. Chakraborty, R., Warfarefor Wealth, P. 207 f.
133. PIHC, XLVI P. 15 f.
134. Ibid, XLVI P. 15-16
135. Dandeker, R.N., 'Indian Mythology', Cultural Heritage of India, II.
P.227
136. KSIS, P. XVIII
136a. Barua, B.M., As'oka and His Inscriptions, P. 16
137. EHNI, P. 19-20
138. CHI. I. P. 475
139. JBORS, X. P. 202
140. JBRS. 1949, XXXI. P. 50-51
141. DAK, P. 30, 70
142. Comp. His. Ind. II P. 10 I
143. Puri. op.cit. P. 23
144. PHAI, P. 645
145. /1.-fa/avika, Act. VI. 14. 20
146. Puri. op. cit. P. 30 f.
147. Sinha, B.C., op. cit. P. 1 II
148. ISNI, P. 50
149. PHAI, P. 645
150. Ibid, P. 324
151. Sinha, B.C. op. cit. P. 116
152. Ibid, P. 117
]())
153. Comp. His. Ind. II. P. 100-101
154. CHI, I. P. 469
155. JSNI, P. 52
156. Ibid, P. 62
157. Comp. His. Ind., II P. 101 f.
158. JBORS, III. P. 473-75
159. DKA, P. 32, fn 31, (see for 'sa-Momegha')
160. Sinha, B.C., op. cit. P. 119-120
161. Comp. His. Ind. II P. 102
162. Har. Ch., P. 193
163. DKA, P. 33, 34, 38
164. Sinha. B.C., op. cit. P. 120
165. Chattopadhyaya, B., 'Ayodhya in the Post-Maurya Period',
Ayodhya-1/istory, Archaeolof{v and Tradition, P. 32
166. Pf!AI. P. 352-353
167. ISNI, P. 62
168. Barna. op. cit. P.35; Dipavamsa, VI 15
169. Sinha. B.C., op. cit. P. 119-120
170. DKA, P. 48-49, 72 -73
171. Chattopadhyay, B., op. cit. P. 30
172. CIIB. I. P. 762, fn 72
173. Barna. B.M., Paper on the topic in the Third Or/ental Conference.
P. 251
174. Raychaudhuri, R.C., Studies in Ancient Antiquities, P. 220
I 75. Sinha. B.C.. op. cit. P. 3 I
176. KSIS. 'Introduction' P. XXII
104
177. DKA, P. 31, 71
178. BMC (AI), P. 198; P. XXVIII
179. JBORS, Ill. P. 4 79, 215
180. PHAI, P. 330
181. DKA, P. 49
182. CHI, I. P. 522
183. ISNI, P. 62
184. AS/ (AR), 1907-08, P. 40, 225; 1908-9, P. 147
185. Sf, I. P. 206
186. AS/ (AR); 1907-08, P. 40, 225; IHQ, VI P. 7f.
187. AS/ (AR), 1912-13, P. 79,84-85
188. BMC (AI), P. 173, P. 1 -XXV
189. IHQ, VI P. 7f.
190. Narain, op. cit. P. 86-91
191. CHB, l. P. 756-57
192. /SN/,P.67
193. A1ASI, l. P. 14-15; Sf, P. 206; ISNI, P. 68
194. Chattopadhyaya, B., op. cit. P. 70
195. Comp. His. lnd, II. P. 105
196. JBORS, III P. 73-79;
196a. PHAI, P. 332; BA1C (AI) P. XXVII
197. JBORS, III P. 443 f.; Sf, P. 97
198. BMC (AI), P. XCVIII, 152
199. ISNI, P. 68
200. CIIB, l. P. 704 f
20 I. A/U, P. I I; Narain, op. cit. P. 170
10:'
202. AS'/ rARJ. 1908-09, P. 147~ Barua, Gaya and Boclhga_wi P. 1-11,67
203. CIIB, P. 754
204. JHORS, Ill P. 428
205. AS/ fARJ. 1912-13, P.84, Nos. 6, 10, 79
206. BJv!C fA!), P. XCVI
207. JNSI, XXVI, P. 2
208. EHI, P. 209; IHQ, 1929, P. 587
209. lndrajit, B.L. 'Papers on the Subject in the Congress-d'e-Leyden,
1883, P. 135.
210. Ep. Ind., II. P. 58
211. JASB, XIX. I. 1953, P. 26-27
212. AI, 1919, P. 189
213. Mittal, A. An History ofOrissa, P. 294
214. Sinha. B.C., op. cit. P. 86
215. PI/AI. P. 370
216. S'f. P. 206, No. I
217. Majumdar. N.G. lvlonuments ofSciiu:hi, I. P. 21 1-12
218. AlAS/. V P. 587-613
219. JASB. 1953, XIX No.I P. 26-27
220. Luders. App. No. 1345; JBORS, 1917, P. 459
221. JRAS. 1910, P. 242; .·10, I. P. 14-21
''" PI/AI. P. 334, fn I
223. Ibid. P. 20 I
224. ffar. Cha. II P. 193
225. Xenophonc's C)·ropaeclia, trans. by Welter Miller. Ill. P. ll-25.
226. Sastri. K.A.N., ;/ge of'the Namlas and Alawyas, P. 12
106
227. PH AI, P. 12
228. Sharma, R.S., Urhan Decay in India, P. 65 f.
229. JBORS, VI 5; XIII 228
230. Ep. Ind.: XX. 76, 84
231. AO, I. P. 27
232. Narain, op. cit. P. 43
233. Sf, P. 208; JHQ, XIV. P. 261 f.
234. Sankrityayana, op. cit. P. 101
235. DKA, P. 38
236. PHAI, P. 359
237. Camp. His. Ind. II P. 103
238. AIU, P. 1 95; PHAI, P. 354-55
239. PHAI, P. 354-55
240. ISNI, P. 65-66
241. Altekar, A.S., Kumrukar Excavations (I 951-55), P. I 0
242. PHAI, P. 357, 666, 682
243. PHAI, P. 682
244. DKA, P. X, 71 f.
245. Sastri, K.A.N., A History q{South India, P. 93
246. Camp. His. Ind., II P. 103-104
247. PHAI, P. 357
248. Sf, P. 207, n.7
249. Comp. His. Ind.. II P. 303, 94
250. Majumdar, N.G. op. cit. P. 271-72
251. Rao, Rarna, Glimpses (~{Deccan 1/istory, P. 63
252. Dutta. I\:1 .•. ·1 Stl/(zv o(!he Siitavalwna CoinaRe, P. 27-28, 246-247
107
253. PHAI, P. 666
254. IAAR, 1961-62, P. 29-30; Sharma, R.S., op. cit. P. 75
255. IAAR, 1978-79, P. 71
256. Ibid. 1956-57, P. 17
257. Sharma, Y.D., 'Remains of Early Historical Cities' Archaeological
Remains. Monuments and Museum, Pt. I P. 74
258. Sharma, R.S., op. cit. P. 79-80
259. IAAR, 1978-79, P. 71
260. Camp. His. Ind., II. P. 104
261. CHB, I. P. 763