However this may be settled, it cannot disturb either the initial or the final dates of this dynasty, nor affect to a greater extent than say ten or twelve years the period of 751, which extended from the accession of Chandragupta to the final overthrow of the Andras in or about A.D. 426.

This being so, it is evident that these four dynasties form the backbone of our mediæval chronology of India to which all minor events must be fitted, and fortunately most of them do so without any difficulty. It was the great period of Buddhist supremacy in India. There were, it is true, Buddhists in India before Asoka, but they were then only a sect, and Buddhism was a religion for two centuries after the fall of the Andras. It was then, however, a struggling faction. The modern Hindu religion was gradually raising its head under the Gupta and Ujjain princes, and in the 8th century it superseded Buddhism in most parts of India.

A great part of the uncertainty that of late years has crept into the chronology of this period is owing to the neglect with which these dynasties have been treated by modern investigators. This has arisen principally from the extreme rarity of their coins, while it has been principally from numismatic researches that progress has been made in the elucidation of many dark passages of Indian history. Coinage was, however, a most distinctly foreign importation into India. The Bactrian Greeks were the coiners par excellence, and it is through their coins, and those only, that complete lists of their kings down to 130 B.C. have been compiled. It is only from their coins also that we know the names of the barbarian kings who succeeded them, or those of the Sah kings, who appear next in our list. But the four dynasties from Chandragupta to Chandrasri were of native kings, who had only indirectly, if at all, come in contact with the Greeks, and had never learnt the art of coining, or, at least, used it to a sufficient extent to enable us to identify their names or succession from their coins. Their caves, and the inscriptions with which they covered their walls, are fast supplying the information their coins, if they had existed, would have afforded; but the investigation has not been taken up by those who have the ear of the public to the same extent as the numismatists. Enough, however, has been done to show that the materials exist for establishing the history of these dynasties on a sure basis; and when this is done from inscriptions combined with architecture, the results are more satisfactory than when dependent on numismatic evidence alone.

Sah Kings of Saurastra.

Coin Dates.A.D.
Nahapana79—
Ushavadata——
Swami Chastana——
Jaya Dama——
Jiva Dama——
Rudra Daman72151
Rudra Sinha102181
Rudra Sah104183
Sri Sah——
Sangha Daman——
Daman Sah144223
Yasa Daman——
Damajata Sri——
Vira Daman——
Isvara Datta——
Vijaya Sah170249
Damajata Sri——
Rudra Sah197276
Visva Sinha——
Atri Daman——
Visva Sah200279
22. Rudra Sinha270—
Asa Daman271280
Swami Rudra Sah292371[676]
Swami Rudra Sah II.——

The evidence on which the dates in the above list are founded is in curious contrast with that on which those of the previous dynasties rest. It is almost wholly numismatic. The founder of the dynasty, Nahapana, describes himself as the viceroy or satrap of King Kshaharata,[677] certainly a foreigner, who conquered the country and held it in subjection for nearly 300 years.

The one point that interests us here is to ascertain from what era the dates on the coins are to be calculated. When I previously wrote on the subject,[678] I felt inclined to adopt a suggestion that Nahapana was the founder of the era known afterwards as that of Vicramaditya, B.C. 56. I did this principally because I felt certain that no king of that name reigned in the first century B.C., and I could discover no event occurring about that time so important as to deserve to be commemorated by an era.

On the other hand, a foreign conquest and the foundation of a new dynasty were just such events as would be so celebrated; and, pending further evidence, this assumption seemed to account for what was otherwise inexplicable in the foundation of this era. Since then, however, a more careful study of Rudra Daman’s Bridge inscription,[679] and the architectural evidence detailed in the preceding pages, have convinced me that such a theory was untenable. The Bridge inscription is dated in the year 72, from the same era from which all the coins of these kings are dated. In it he boasts “that, after twice conquering the Sata Karni, Lord of Dakshinapatha, he did not completely destroy him on account of their near connexion, and thus obtained glory.” And he boasts of conquering, among other countries, Anupa, Saurastra, Asva Kutcha, Kukura, Aparanta, &c.[680]

A little further on in our history, Gautamiputra, in whose reign the era was established which was afterwards adopted by the Guptas and Ballabhis, boasts, in an inscription in a cave at Nassick, that he had conquered, among others, all the countries above enumerated, and as having re-established the glory of the Satavahana dynasty, and destroyed the race of Khagarata.[681] All this reveals a state of matters that will not accord with the Vicramaditya era, but does perfectly agree with that of Salivahana.

Assuming that the Sata Karni dynasty is correctly represented in the Puranas, as enumerated above, Rudra Dama would, on the assumption that the dates were Samvat, have been reigning A.D. 16 (72-56), immediately after the establishment of the dynasty, and before the long and prosperous reign of Sata Karni II., which could hardly have taken place had his family been smitten so early in their career. But if we assume that it was A.D. 151 (79+72), it would coincide with the reign of the third king of that name, and at a time when, so far as we can judge from the length of the reigns, and the careless way they are enumerated in the Puranas, the fortunes of the family were considerably depressed; and it is little more than a century and a half after this time that Gautamiputra restored the fortunes of his family. Had 300 years elapsed between these two events, the family could hardly ever have attained the position it did.