The Chronology of the Ksatrapas and the Andhras
Summary
The analysis of the Nasik cave inscriptions challenges the theory of joint rule between Gautamiputra and Pulumayi, as the language and past-tense references suggest Gautamiputra's conquests occurred earlier, with Pulumayi's panegyric composed later. The absence of joint mentions in inscriptions further undermines the conjoint rule hypothesis. Nahapana's dating remains debated, with scholars proposing the Vikrama era or regnal years, though the Periplus (c. 80–106 AD) identifies him as ruling before its composition. The Periplus details his territories, including Barugaza, Paithana, Tagara, and regions near Ujjain, suggesting his influence extended into parts of Maharashtra. Inscriptions like Ayama's (c. 46 AD) align with Nahapana's reign, supporting a timeline where Gautamiputra's defeat of the Ksaharatas (c. 96 AD) preceded Nahapana's rule, possibly ending around 70 AD. The text emphasizes the importance of epigraphic and literary sources in reconstructing chronology, though uncertainties persist regarding exact dates and territorial extents.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges the conjoint rule theory of Gautamiputra and Pulumavi, demonstrating through linguistic and epigraphic evidence that their reigns were sequential rather than concurrent. The study highlights the chronological implications of Queen Balaeri’s inscription, emphasizing the past-tense narrative and the absence of joint mentions, which undermine the co-rule hypothesis. Additionally, the investigation into Nahapana’s dating reveals complexities in aligning his reign with historical sources like the Periplus, suggesting a pre-90 AD timeline. The findings contribute to a refined understanding of Ksatrapa and Andhra chronology, stressing the need for rigorous re-examination of traditional assumptions through primary epigraphic and textual evidence.