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