07-04-2008, 02:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jul 3 2008, 07:20 PM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 3 2008, 07:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Relevant for discussion of Vikrami era:
A Gap in Puranic History Bridged
http://www.boloji.com/history/027.htm
[right][snapback]83748[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Ashok and Bodhi,
A very critical scholar of the equation Azes Era = Vikram Era is Robert Bracey, see:
http://www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/azesvikrama.htm
In his last point he gives the proponents of the equation the change to prove this: "The Azes era may well be identical with the 58 BC Krita/Malwa/Vikrama era but scholars will have to establish that synchronism independently."
In my opinion, the Azes Era either started around the rule of Azes II close to 30 BCE or around 62 BCE with Azes I, which Bracey mentions too (agreeing with a 4 years gap upto Vikrama as referred to in Jaina sources).
The Jaina work Pavapurikalpa of the Vividhatirthakalpa says:
caaliisam NaravaahaNassa terasa Gaddabhillassa cattaari Sagassa tao
Vikamaaicco: of Naravahaana 40, of Gardabhilla 13, of Sakas 4 and
then Vikramaditya.
The Jainas place this Vikamaaicco in ShriiViiraat 470 (from a date 527 BCE for Mahavira), which gives 57 BC. There is also the following the information: "ShriiViiranirvaaNaat 550 Vikramavamshastadanu 38 shuunyo vanshah; ShriiViiraat 605 Shakasamvatsarah." (a MSS as noted by Muni Kalyanavijaya).
527 BCE
470 => 57 BCE Vikramaditya
550 => ca. 22 CE upto this time the Vikramavamsha
38 => ca. 22-60 CE Shunyavamsha Nahapana rule
605 => ca.7 8 CE Shaka-samvatsara the Shaka Era
[the date of 22 CE corresponds with an Era started by Gondophernes]
Another Jaina manuscript, as noted by Muni Kalyanavijaya in Nagaripracharini Sabha Patrika X, p. 615:
Shriiviiraat 470
KaalantareNa keNavi uppaaDitaa sagaaNam tam vasam |
Hohaa maalavaraayaa naameNa vikamaadicco ||1||
To satanavaii vassaa paalehii vikkamo rajjam |
AriNattaNeNa sovi hu vihae samvatsaram niyayam ||2||
Vikramaditya king of the Malavas, is thus placed in 57 BCE, after having defeated Shakas. There was a rule of 97 years of the Vikrama-Rajya, and with him is also remembered a Samvatsara coupled with the defeat of his enemies.
This manuscript adds the information that the Vikramavamsha ruled from 57 BCE upto ca. 40 CE. As the powerful Vikramavamshiyas ruled upto ca. 22 CE, the weaker ruler(s) ruled upto 40 CE, till they were ousted from Ujjain.
Vetalapacavimshati and other sources name two Vikramas: Vikramaditya and his son Vikramasena. This is conform Nahapana's rising power. Ujjain remained weak upto the time of the Chashtanas under Rudradaman. This is substantiated by the Periplus (p. 42) with the words "Ozene, formerly a royal capital". Avanti was conquered by Gautamiputra.
The Kathasaritsagara gives these names: Vikramaditya â Vishamashila Vishamaditya â Pratapashila Shiladitya. The third one may be the weak ruler from 22-35 CE. Hereafter there may have been Vikramavamshiyas who were powerless vassals of Ujjain, till Nahapana was defeated by Gautamiputra.
At 78 CE the Salivahana Shaka(nrpa) Era was introduced by Salivahana (the king over) Shaka(s) = the Shakraditya in Bauddha sources (Arya Manjushri Mula Kalapa).
At any rate, the Jaina sources, quite familiair with the Ujjain Vikramas and their tradition, are unanimous in their information and dating of Vikramaditya.
The Kshaharata Shaka king Nahapana, who ruled for 40 years (from ca. 20-60 CE, conquering from 22 CE on) based on the Jaina information above, was defeated by Gautamiputra Salivahana around 60 CE. (The Periplus of the Erythraea, written in the 1st century, ca. 70-80 CE: mentions Saraganus and Nambanus, resp. a Satakarni and Na(b)hapana). Gautamiputra then must have had to deal with the Kushanas (seen as Shakas) under Vima Takto at Mathura. I assume that Gautamiputra had defeated them close to 78 CE.
Salivahana Samvat
Ujjain was not a royal capital in the seventies, during the start of the Salivahana Era. If Chashtana ruled as Kshatrapa or vassal, see his early coins, for Gautamiputra or anyone in Ujjain, he cannot have initiated any Era, as he was a subordinate. He must have adopted the Era of the Salivahana sovereign., as that Era is also and most certainly connected with the name Salivahana.
Chashtana's son Jayadaman was still a Kshatrapa, but the first Mahakshatrapa is Rudradaman. A date 72 of Rudradaman places him in 150 CE. This date comes close to Ptolemy's work, referring to Tiastenes of Ozene and Siro-Ptolemaios of Baithan. Rudradaman may have become independant from the Salivahanas.
Gautamiputra, as Shaka-adhipati (like Vikramaditya, who was called Shakadhipati in the Kathasaritsagara), was a Shaka-nrpa: adhi-pati = nrpa or king over (Shakas).
Legends, like in the late Vikramacarita, refer to a battle between the Vikramadityas (of Malva) and the Shalivahanas (of Paithan) for supremacy. The powerless Vikramavamshiyas may have had some aspirations, but most probably, in my scenario, were made vassals in Ujjain by Gautamiputra, upto the battle with the Kushanas. Gautamiputra ruled from ca. 60-84 CE. His victorious 18th year coincides with 78 CE.
The earliest attested date of Chashtana is year 6, which is 84 Salivahana Era. It is roughly the year when Gautamiputra died. Svamin Chashtana Kardamaka may have adopted the era of Salivahana, because perhaps he was initially an ally or mercenary of Gautamiputra.
Ptolemy gives the information that Ozene is the capital of Tiastenes (Chashtana) and Baithan of Siro Ptolemaios (Siri Pulumayi). He refers to the the Chashtanas and the Pulumayis after ca. 150 CE. This corresponds to the reign of Rudradaman, becoming an independent Mahakshatrapa. He was matrimonially related to the Satakarnis and despite two battles remained on friendly terms with them: "who obtained good report because he, in spite of having twice in fair fight completely defeated Satakarni, the lord of Dakshinapatha, on account of the nearness of their connection did not destroy him". This is when Ujjain became powerful enough to become a royal capital under the Chashtanas, independant from the Salivahanas of Paithan.
I have explained why the Salivana Era was adopted by the Ujjain Shakas of Chashtanas house. It cannot be explained the other way around. Why should Indians adopt an Era of a people who weren't ruling by then in the plains, let alone in Malava. The Kardamaka Shakas, who did ruled from Ujjain, were completely Hinduised (Shaiva) and used (Hybrid) Sanskrit in an era of Prakrit dominance. The Era they used was rather related to (Gautamiputra) Salivahana, who defeated first Kshaharata Shaka king Nahapana (Nambanus in the Periplus) and then the Kushana 'Shakas' in 78 CE.
In my opinion, the Shakas (generic word for Central-Asian foreigners and also indigenous NW tribes: Kamuiya and Moga were Kambojas of Gandhara: Kamuiya=Kambojikâ) Mathura Shakasiya, who) who were also defeated by Gautamiputra, are the Kushanas of Vima Takto in Mathura, aided by a Kshatrapa or subordinate leader, named Chashtana Kardamaka (his statue is in the devakula of Mathura) .
Indians would never accept an Era of Shakas, if they remembered how the foreigner Shakas massacred people in those days, as per Yugapurana. The re-edited epics and Puranas remembered the Mahakala episodes of the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE too.
Shaka incursion, an Indian perspective, Garga Samhita,YugaPurana, vv.54,84:
caturbhaagam tu shastreNa naashayiShyanti praaNinaam |
shakaah sheSham hariShyanti caturbhaagam svakam puram |
vinaShTe shakaaraajye tu shuunyaa prthvii bhaviShyati ||
This is a clear case of a horrible period, indicating that a quarter of the population was killed, another quarter was being enslaved and carried away to their cities. This means that there was a massacre of grand proportions during the Shaka raids, a precursor to the Arab-Turk-Afghan-Mughal raids and mass morders and mass deportations.
Vikrama of 57 BCE
The Salivahanas of Paithan started the Salivahana Shaka(ditya/nrpa) Era. The Vikramavamsha ruled in Ujjain. Who was this Shakari king of Ujjain, called Kalkin by Jaina tradition, and whose fame did influence Chandragupta II Devagupta to adopt his title of Vikramaditya ?
Jaina tradition (like Trailokya Prajnapti, Jaina Harivamsha, etc.) place the Rasabhas or Gardabhas before Nahapana. This dynasty corresponds well with the Gardabhillas or with Indra's son Gandharvasena the Donkey (father of Vikramaditya) of the Sanskrit sources.
There were Satakarnis in the first century BCE. one of these or a scion of a branch may have been the powerful ruler of Ujjain, having issued coins in that century.
Nayanika's Naneghat Inscription, in my opinion, refers to this king in the guise of Shri Shatakarni:
He conquered reconquered W-Malava, Vidarbha and Anupa. He performed 2 Ashvamedhas and a Rajasuya and became a Samrat. He used the titles of Dakshinapathapati and Apratihatacakra. This Samrat had two minor sons: Vedisiri and Satisiri. Queen Nayanika ruled till one of her sons became older.
regards,
Ishwa
In the past I had made this chronology, backcalculating from 60-85 CE, when Gautamiputra ruled:
Andhra-bhrtya Satakarnis (of Vidarbha and Ujjain)
01. shimuka (koshikiputra) 243-220 BCE
02. kRSNa (I) 220-202 BCE (Kanha I)
03. shrI SAtakarNi I 202-(192
04. pUrNotsanga 192-174
05. skandhastambhi 174-156
06. shrI sAtakarNi II 156)-146 BCE = Yajnasena of Malavikagni.?
07. lambodara 146-128 BCE
08. dvivilaka/ApAdabaddha/ApItaka 128-116 BCE
09. meghasvAti svati = sati 116-98 BCE
10. sAtakarNi III 98-80 BCE
11. skandasvAti 80-73 BCE
12. mRgendra svAtikarNa 73-70 BCE = Mahendra?
13. kuntala svAtikarNa 70-62 BCE = Gandharvasena?
14. svativarNa 62-61 BCE (Shakasena) = Satvara of Yugapurana?
15. pulomAvi I 61-25 BCE = Vikrama Shi Shata?
16. nemi kRSNa (II) /gorakSa kRSNa 25 BCE-0 CE = Kanha II
17. hAla 00-05 CE = Saraganus The Elder
18. mantalaka 05-10 CE
19. purIndrasena 10-31 CE
20. sundara sAtakarNI 31-31 CE = Sandares of Periplus
21. cakora sAtakarNI (rajAdasvAti) 31-32 CE
22. shivasvAti 32-60 CE
23. gautamIputra (salivahana sakaditya) 60-85 CE = (Saraganus the Younger)
Pulomavi I Shri Satakarni is the most probaly candidate to be Vikramaditya.
Nemi and Goraksha may be the names of his sons Vedisiri and Satisiri.
A Gap in Puranic History Bridged
http://www.boloji.com/history/027.htm
[right][snapback]83748[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Ashok and Bodhi,
A very critical scholar of the equation Azes Era = Vikram Era is Robert Bracey, see:
http://www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/azesvikrama.htm
In his last point he gives the proponents of the equation the change to prove this: "The Azes era may well be identical with the 58 BC Krita/Malwa/Vikrama era but scholars will have to establish that synchronism independently."
In my opinion, the Azes Era either started around the rule of Azes II close to 30 BCE or around 62 BCE with Azes I, which Bracey mentions too (agreeing with a 4 years gap upto Vikrama as referred to in Jaina sources).
The Jaina work Pavapurikalpa of the Vividhatirthakalpa says:
caaliisam NaravaahaNassa terasa Gaddabhillassa cattaari Sagassa tao
Vikamaaicco: of Naravahaana 40, of Gardabhilla 13, of Sakas 4 and
then Vikramaditya.
The Jainas place this Vikamaaicco in ShriiViiraat 470 (from a date 527 BCE for Mahavira), which gives 57 BC. There is also the following the information: "ShriiViiranirvaaNaat 550 Vikramavamshastadanu 38 shuunyo vanshah; ShriiViiraat 605 Shakasamvatsarah." (a MSS as noted by Muni Kalyanavijaya).
527 BCE
470 => 57 BCE Vikramaditya
550 => ca. 22 CE upto this time the Vikramavamsha
38 => ca. 22-60 CE Shunyavamsha Nahapana rule
605 => ca.7 8 CE Shaka-samvatsara the Shaka Era
[the date of 22 CE corresponds with an Era started by Gondophernes]
Another Jaina manuscript, as noted by Muni Kalyanavijaya in Nagaripracharini Sabha Patrika X, p. 615:
Shriiviiraat 470
KaalantareNa keNavi uppaaDitaa sagaaNam tam vasam |
Hohaa maalavaraayaa naameNa vikamaadicco ||1||
To satanavaii vassaa paalehii vikkamo rajjam |
AriNattaNeNa sovi hu vihae samvatsaram niyayam ||2||
Vikramaditya king of the Malavas, is thus placed in 57 BCE, after having defeated Shakas. There was a rule of 97 years of the Vikrama-Rajya, and with him is also remembered a Samvatsara coupled with the defeat of his enemies.
This manuscript adds the information that the Vikramavamsha ruled from 57 BCE upto ca. 40 CE. As the powerful Vikramavamshiyas ruled upto ca. 22 CE, the weaker ruler(s) ruled upto 40 CE, till they were ousted from Ujjain.
Vetalapacavimshati and other sources name two Vikramas: Vikramaditya and his son Vikramasena. This is conform Nahapana's rising power. Ujjain remained weak upto the time of the Chashtanas under Rudradaman. This is substantiated by the Periplus (p. 42) with the words "Ozene, formerly a royal capital". Avanti was conquered by Gautamiputra.
The Kathasaritsagara gives these names: Vikramaditya â Vishamashila Vishamaditya â Pratapashila Shiladitya. The third one may be the weak ruler from 22-35 CE. Hereafter there may have been Vikramavamshiyas who were powerless vassals of Ujjain, till Nahapana was defeated by Gautamiputra.
At 78 CE the Salivahana Shaka(nrpa) Era was introduced by Salivahana (the king over) Shaka(s) = the Shakraditya in Bauddha sources (Arya Manjushri Mula Kalapa).
At any rate, the Jaina sources, quite familiair with the Ujjain Vikramas and their tradition, are unanimous in their information and dating of Vikramaditya.
The Kshaharata Shaka king Nahapana, who ruled for 40 years (from ca. 20-60 CE, conquering from 22 CE on) based on the Jaina information above, was defeated by Gautamiputra Salivahana around 60 CE. (The Periplus of the Erythraea, written in the 1st century, ca. 70-80 CE: mentions Saraganus and Nambanus, resp. a Satakarni and Na(b)hapana). Gautamiputra then must have had to deal with the Kushanas (seen as Shakas) under Vima Takto at Mathura. I assume that Gautamiputra had defeated them close to 78 CE.
Salivahana Samvat
Ujjain was not a royal capital in the seventies, during the start of the Salivahana Era. If Chashtana ruled as Kshatrapa or vassal, see his early coins, for Gautamiputra or anyone in Ujjain, he cannot have initiated any Era, as he was a subordinate. He must have adopted the Era of the Salivahana sovereign., as that Era is also and most certainly connected with the name Salivahana.
Chashtana's son Jayadaman was still a Kshatrapa, but the first Mahakshatrapa is Rudradaman. A date 72 of Rudradaman places him in 150 CE. This date comes close to Ptolemy's work, referring to Tiastenes of Ozene and Siro-Ptolemaios of Baithan. Rudradaman may have become independant from the Salivahanas.
Gautamiputra, as Shaka-adhipati (like Vikramaditya, who was called Shakadhipati in the Kathasaritsagara), was a Shaka-nrpa: adhi-pati = nrpa or king over (Shakas).
Legends, like in the late Vikramacarita, refer to a battle between the Vikramadityas (of Malva) and the Shalivahanas (of Paithan) for supremacy. The powerless Vikramavamshiyas may have had some aspirations, but most probably, in my scenario, were made vassals in Ujjain by Gautamiputra, upto the battle with the Kushanas. Gautamiputra ruled from ca. 60-84 CE. His victorious 18th year coincides with 78 CE.
The earliest attested date of Chashtana is year 6, which is 84 Salivahana Era. It is roughly the year when Gautamiputra died. Svamin Chashtana Kardamaka may have adopted the era of Salivahana, because perhaps he was initially an ally or mercenary of Gautamiputra.
Ptolemy gives the information that Ozene is the capital of Tiastenes (Chashtana) and Baithan of Siro Ptolemaios (Siri Pulumayi). He refers to the the Chashtanas and the Pulumayis after ca. 150 CE. This corresponds to the reign of Rudradaman, becoming an independent Mahakshatrapa. He was matrimonially related to the Satakarnis and despite two battles remained on friendly terms with them: "who obtained good report because he, in spite of having twice in fair fight completely defeated Satakarni, the lord of Dakshinapatha, on account of the nearness of their connection did not destroy him". This is when Ujjain became powerful enough to become a royal capital under the Chashtanas, independant from the Salivahanas of Paithan.
I have explained why the Salivana Era was adopted by the Ujjain Shakas of Chashtanas house. It cannot be explained the other way around. Why should Indians adopt an Era of a people who weren't ruling by then in the plains, let alone in Malava. The Kardamaka Shakas, who did ruled from Ujjain, were completely Hinduised (Shaiva) and used (Hybrid) Sanskrit in an era of Prakrit dominance. The Era they used was rather related to (Gautamiputra) Salivahana, who defeated first Kshaharata Shaka king Nahapana (Nambanus in the Periplus) and then the Kushana 'Shakas' in 78 CE.
In my opinion, the Shakas (generic word for Central-Asian foreigners and also indigenous NW tribes: Kamuiya and Moga were Kambojas of Gandhara: Kamuiya=Kambojikâ) Mathura Shakasiya, who) who were also defeated by Gautamiputra, are the Kushanas of Vima Takto in Mathura, aided by a Kshatrapa or subordinate leader, named Chashtana Kardamaka (his statue is in the devakula of Mathura) .
Indians would never accept an Era of Shakas, if they remembered how the foreigner Shakas massacred people in those days, as per Yugapurana. The re-edited epics and Puranas remembered the Mahakala episodes of the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE too.
Shaka incursion, an Indian perspective, Garga Samhita,YugaPurana, vv.54,84:
caturbhaagam tu shastreNa naashayiShyanti praaNinaam |
shakaah sheSham hariShyanti caturbhaagam svakam puram |
vinaShTe shakaaraajye tu shuunyaa prthvii bhaviShyati ||
This is a clear case of a horrible period, indicating that a quarter of the population was killed, another quarter was being enslaved and carried away to their cities. This means that there was a massacre of grand proportions during the Shaka raids, a precursor to the Arab-Turk-Afghan-Mughal raids and mass morders and mass deportations.
Vikrama of 57 BCE
The Salivahanas of Paithan started the Salivahana Shaka(ditya/nrpa) Era. The Vikramavamsha ruled in Ujjain. Who was this Shakari king of Ujjain, called Kalkin by Jaina tradition, and whose fame did influence Chandragupta II Devagupta to adopt his title of Vikramaditya ?
Jaina tradition (like Trailokya Prajnapti, Jaina Harivamsha, etc.) place the Rasabhas or Gardabhas before Nahapana. This dynasty corresponds well with the Gardabhillas or with Indra's son Gandharvasena the Donkey (father of Vikramaditya) of the Sanskrit sources.
There were Satakarnis in the first century BCE. one of these or a scion of a branch may have been the powerful ruler of Ujjain, having issued coins in that century.
Nayanika's Naneghat Inscription, in my opinion, refers to this king in the guise of Shri Shatakarni:
He conquered reconquered W-Malava, Vidarbha and Anupa. He performed 2 Ashvamedhas and a Rajasuya and became a Samrat. He used the titles of Dakshinapathapati and Apratihatacakra. This Samrat had two minor sons: Vedisiri and Satisiri. Queen Nayanika ruled till one of her sons became older.
regards,
Ishwa
In the past I had made this chronology, backcalculating from 60-85 CE, when Gautamiputra ruled:
Andhra-bhrtya Satakarnis (of Vidarbha and Ujjain)
01. shimuka (koshikiputra) 243-220 BCE
02. kRSNa (I) 220-202 BCE (Kanha I)
03. shrI SAtakarNi I 202-(192
04. pUrNotsanga 192-174
05. skandhastambhi 174-156
06. shrI sAtakarNi II 156)-146 BCE = Yajnasena of Malavikagni.?
07. lambodara 146-128 BCE
08. dvivilaka/ApAdabaddha/ApItaka 128-116 BCE
09. meghasvAti svati = sati 116-98 BCE
10. sAtakarNi III 98-80 BCE
11. skandasvAti 80-73 BCE
12. mRgendra svAtikarNa 73-70 BCE = Mahendra?
13. kuntala svAtikarNa 70-62 BCE = Gandharvasena?
14. svativarNa 62-61 BCE (Shakasena) = Satvara of Yugapurana?
15. pulomAvi I 61-25 BCE = Vikrama Shi Shata?
16. nemi kRSNa (II) /gorakSa kRSNa 25 BCE-0 CE = Kanha II
17. hAla 00-05 CE = Saraganus The Elder
18. mantalaka 05-10 CE
19. purIndrasena 10-31 CE
20. sundara sAtakarNI 31-31 CE = Sandares of Periplus
21. cakora sAtakarNI (rajAdasvAti) 31-32 CE
22. shivasvAti 32-60 CE
23. gautamIputra (salivahana sakaditya) 60-85 CE = (Saraganus the Younger)
Pulomavi I Shri Satakarni is the most probaly candidate to be Vikramaditya.
Nemi and Goraksha may be the names of his sons Vedisiri and Satisiri.