07-09-2008, 04:26 PM
Dear Ashok,
Sorry for the delay of my response. Vikramaditya's empire didn't last long, because the Shakas of Minnagara and Chukhsa area were pressing and the Kushana 'Shakas' Kujula of Bactria were about to enter the Gandhara area of some late Yavana ruler.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since Shalivahana captured ujjayinI within a century of vikramAditya's rein, may be official accounts of vikramAditya were erased, who knows. Shalivahana did start a new era the shaka-era, so it is clear that he wanted to uproot the original vikrama-era. I suspect there was a strong undercurrent for undermining vikrama by later rulers, which might explain lack of available physical evidence. But that couldn't erase the memory of the peoples and writers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe that Shalivahana wanted to erase the name and fame of his Ujjain kinsmen, the Vikramadityas. These last lost all power and independacy ('Shunya-vamsha' of a jaina source) in the middle of the 1st century CE, most probably to Nahapana, who had extended his dominion upto Nasik.
Shalivahana perhaps didn't want to start an era, but wanted to commemmorate the date of 78 CE when inflicted crushing defeats upon the combined enemies of Shakas, Pahlavas and Yavanas. His in my opinion Shaka allies, the Hinduised Kardamakas of the house of Chashtana, counted their regnal years from this date of their sovereign. Chashtana initially ruled as subordinate, but under his grandson Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman, they became independant masters of Ujjain, the capital of their dominion in 150 CE. As they were still counting in Shalivahana or Shalivahana Shaka-adhipati (overlord) years, they supplanted with the 78 CE date officially the Vikrama 57 BCE date in Ujjain. [I do not know whether the Vikramas themselves really used this date as the beginning of an era. Even if they did, the Chashtanas had supplanted this.]
The Chashtanas had tremendous respect for the Shatavahanas. Rudradaman had given his daughter in marriage to a Vasisthiputra, and even after defeating his former Satavahana overlord (Yajnashri) twice, treated him with respect.
Vikrama Era revival
Robert Bracey: <i>The term Vikrama is fairly late, and was not the original appellation of the era. Before the ninth century the Vikrama era was known as the Malwa era. This Malwa era can be traced to a group of inscriptions of the fifth century, found to the south of Mathura in Rajasthan. These inscriptions include the word 'Krita' and this allows them to be linked to a group of inscriptions dated 295, 284, 282 (ie the first half of the third century) from the same region. This is where the trail stops. These are the oldest inscriptions known with certainty to be dated in the era of 58 BC.</i>
I believe that under the influence of Jaina and Vaishnava/Shaiva bards of south Rajasthan, probably hailing from Ujjain originally, the memory was revived of a major Krta beginning, and that it was connected to Malava. (You do not have to name the era Malava, if it would have been in use in the area of Malava. )
An Ujjain Vikramaditya is also connected with the liberation of Indraprastha, and also with founding the town of Dhilli (called Daidala close to Indapara=Indarpat by Ptolemy). If there is some connection of Vikramaditya to the north with Dhilli, perhaps this act may have had some influence on the morale of the northern republican Ganas, like the Yaudheyas, Arjunayanas, Audumbaras, Kunindas, etc. in the first century BCE.
Yaudheya coins have 3 periodical sequences, as per K.D. Bajpai in his Indian Numismatic Studies, p.28):
1. the Vrsha-Gaja type (2nd century-1st century BCE) with the text: yaudheyânâm bahudhânaka
2. the Shanmukha-Karttikeya type with the texts: svâmino brahmanya or bhâgavata svâmino brahmanyadevasya kumârasya.
3. Karttikeya-Devasena type (early 3rd century CE): with the text: yaudheya-ganasya jayah
B.t.w., there is a third Vikramaditya who had crushed foreigners (in the beginning called Shakas too, later of course Turukka or Turushka), who was Hemachandra, better known as Raja Hemu, ruler and liberator of Delhi and Agra.
regards,
Ishwa
The Shaka threat of the 1st centuries BCE and CE:
<i>After this region, where the coast is already deeply indented by gulfs caused by the land advancing with a vast curve from the east, succeeds the seaboard of Skythia, a region which extends to northward. It is very low and flat, and contains the mouths of the Sinthos (Indus), the largest of all the rivers which fall into the Erythraean Sea, .... The river has seven mouths, all shallow, marshy and unfit for navigation except only the middle stream, on which is Barbarikon, a trading seaport. Before this town lies a small islet, and behind it in the interior is Minnagar, the metropolis of Skythia, which is governed, however, by Parthian princes, who are perpetually at strife among themselves, expelling each the other.
(Periplus Maris Erythraei, 38)</i>
Thus, the Kshaharata Shakas of Minnagara were in the Indus area in the middle of the 1st century CE, and had by then Pahlava or Parthians governors in their capital. (The Imperial Pahlavas were beyond this Indus Shakastan) The leader of these southern Shakas was Kshatrapa Nahapana, a vassal of Pahlavas. The Kshaharata predecessors of 3.Nahapana were 2.Bhumaka and 1.Abhiraka and possibly one with the title 0.Yapirajaya. The son-in-law of Nahapana, 5.Usavadata (Rshabhadatta), was in Nasik in year 46 of Nahapana. In my opinion he was ruling after Nahapana on his behalf. Gautamiputra retook his possessions.
The presence of the Sakas in Sakastan in the 1st century BCE is mentioned by Isidore of Charax in his "Parthian stations" (1st century BCE). He explained that they were bordered at that time by Greek cities to the east (Alexandria of the Caucasus= Kapisa and Alexandria of the Arachosians), and the Parthian-controlled territory of Arachosia to the south:
<i>17. Beyond is Zarangiana, 21 schoeni. There are the city of Parin and the city of Coroc.
18. Beyond is Sacastana of the Scythian Sacae, which is also Paraetacena, 63 schoeni. There are the city of Barda and the city of Min and the city of Palacenti and the city of Sigal; in that place is the royal residence of the Sacae; and nearby is the city of Alexandria (and nearby is the city of Alexandropolis), and 6 villages.
19. Beyond is Arachosia, 36 schoeni. And the Parthians call this White India; there are the city of Biyt and the city of Pharsana and the city of Chorochoad and the city of Demetrias; then Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia; it is Greek, and by it flows the river Arachotus. As far as this place the land is under the rule of the Parthians.</i>
As to the date of the work of Isidore, as it mentions the second revolution of Tiridates against the Parthian king Phraates, which took place in 26 B.C., it must be later than that date; and a subsequent reference to a king named Goaesus of the "Incense Land" in South Arabia, while his dates are not definitely known, suggests as Glaser has shown, a time very near the Christian era.
This picture is at the end of the reign of Azes II. Hereafter the Pahlavas will be the dominant factor in Indus Shakastan. (see Periplus)
Sorry for the delay of my response. Vikramaditya's empire didn't last long, because the Shakas of Minnagara and Chukhsa area were pressing and the Kushana 'Shakas' Kujula of Bactria were about to enter the Gandhara area of some late Yavana ruler.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since Shalivahana captured ujjayinI within a century of vikramAditya's rein, may be official accounts of vikramAditya were erased, who knows. Shalivahana did start a new era the shaka-era, so it is clear that he wanted to uproot the original vikrama-era. I suspect there was a strong undercurrent for undermining vikrama by later rulers, which might explain lack of available physical evidence. But that couldn't erase the memory of the peoples and writers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe that Shalivahana wanted to erase the name and fame of his Ujjain kinsmen, the Vikramadityas. These last lost all power and independacy ('Shunya-vamsha' of a jaina source) in the middle of the 1st century CE, most probably to Nahapana, who had extended his dominion upto Nasik.
Shalivahana perhaps didn't want to start an era, but wanted to commemmorate the date of 78 CE when inflicted crushing defeats upon the combined enemies of Shakas, Pahlavas and Yavanas. His in my opinion Shaka allies, the Hinduised Kardamakas of the house of Chashtana, counted their regnal years from this date of their sovereign. Chashtana initially ruled as subordinate, but under his grandson Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman, they became independant masters of Ujjain, the capital of their dominion in 150 CE. As they were still counting in Shalivahana or Shalivahana Shaka-adhipati (overlord) years, they supplanted with the 78 CE date officially the Vikrama 57 BCE date in Ujjain. [I do not know whether the Vikramas themselves really used this date as the beginning of an era. Even if they did, the Chashtanas had supplanted this.]
The Chashtanas had tremendous respect for the Shatavahanas. Rudradaman had given his daughter in marriage to a Vasisthiputra, and even after defeating his former Satavahana overlord (Yajnashri) twice, treated him with respect.
Vikrama Era revival
Robert Bracey: <i>The term Vikrama is fairly late, and was not the original appellation of the era. Before the ninth century the Vikrama era was known as the Malwa era. This Malwa era can be traced to a group of inscriptions of the fifth century, found to the south of Mathura in Rajasthan. These inscriptions include the word 'Krita' and this allows them to be linked to a group of inscriptions dated 295, 284, 282 (ie the first half of the third century) from the same region. This is where the trail stops. These are the oldest inscriptions known with certainty to be dated in the era of 58 BC.</i>
I believe that under the influence of Jaina and Vaishnava/Shaiva bards of south Rajasthan, probably hailing from Ujjain originally, the memory was revived of a major Krta beginning, and that it was connected to Malava. (You do not have to name the era Malava, if it would have been in use in the area of Malava. )
An Ujjain Vikramaditya is also connected with the liberation of Indraprastha, and also with founding the town of Dhilli (called Daidala close to Indapara=Indarpat by Ptolemy). If there is some connection of Vikramaditya to the north with Dhilli, perhaps this act may have had some influence on the morale of the northern republican Ganas, like the Yaudheyas, Arjunayanas, Audumbaras, Kunindas, etc. in the first century BCE.
Yaudheya coins have 3 periodical sequences, as per K.D. Bajpai in his Indian Numismatic Studies, p.28):
1. the Vrsha-Gaja type (2nd century-1st century BCE) with the text: yaudheyânâm bahudhânaka
2. the Shanmukha-Karttikeya type with the texts: svâmino brahmanya or bhâgavata svâmino brahmanyadevasya kumârasya.
3. Karttikeya-Devasena type (early 3rd century CE): with the text: yaudheya-ganasya jayah
B.t.w., there is a third Vikramaditya who had crushed foreigners (in the beginning called Shakas too, later of course Turukka or Turushka), who was Hemachandra, better known as Raja Hemu, ruler and liberator of Delhi and Agra.
regards,
Ishwa
The Shaka threat of the 1st centuries BCE and CE:
<i>After this region, where the coast is already deeply indented by gulfs caused by the land advancing with a vast curve from the east, succeeds the seaboard of Skythia, a region which extends to northward. It is very low and flat, and contains the mouths of the Sinthos (Indus), the largest of all the rivers which fall into the Erythraean Sea, .... The river has seven mouths, all shallow, marshy and unfit for navigation except only the middle stream, on which is Barbarikon, a trading seaport. Before this town lies a small islet, and behind it in the interior is Minnagar, the metropolis of Skythia, which is governed, however, by Parthian princes, who are perpetually at strife among themselves, expelling each the other.
(Periplus Maris Erythraei, 38)</i>
Thus, the Kshaharata Shakas of Minnagara were in the Indus area in the middle of the 1st century CE, and had by then Pahlava or Parthians governors in their capital. (The Imperial Pahlavas were beyond this Indus Shakastan) The leader of these southern Shakas was Kshatrapa Nahapana, a vassal of Pahlavas. The Kshaharata predecessors of 3.Nahapana were 2.Bhumaka and 1.Abhiraka and possibly one with the title 0.Yapirajaya. The son-in-law of Nahapana, 5.Usavadata (Rshabhadatta), was in Nasik in year 46 of Nahapana. In my opinion he was ruling after Nahapana on his behalf. Gautamiputra retook his possessions.
The presence of the Sakas in Sakastan in the 1st century BCE is mentioned by Isidore of Charax in his "Parthian stations" (1st century BCE). He explained that they were bordered at that time by Greek cities to the east (Alexandria of the Caucasus= Kapisa and Alexandria of the Arachosians), and the Parthian-controlled territory of Arachosia to the south:
<i>17. Beyond is Zarangiana, 21 schoeni. There are the city of Parin and the city of Coroc.
18. Beyond is Sacastana of the Scythian Sacae, which is also Paraetacena, 63 schoeni. There are the city of Barda and the city of Min and the city of Palacenti and the city of Sigal; in that place is the royal residence of the Sacae; and nearby is the city of Alexandria (and nearby is the city of Alexandropolis), and 6 villages.
19. Beyond is Arachosia, 36 schoeni. And the Parthians call this White India; there are the city of Biyt and the city of Pharsana and the city of Chorochoad and the city of Demetrias; then Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia; it is Greek, and by it flows the river Arachotus. As far as this place the land is under the rule of the Parthians.</i>
As to the date of the work of Isidore, as it mentions the second revolution of Tiridates against the Parthian king Phraates, which took place in 26 B.C., it must be later than that date; and a subsequent reference to a king named Goaesus of the "Incense Land" in South Arabia, while his dates are not definitely known, suggests as Glaser has shown, a time very near the Christian era.
This picture is at the end of the reign of Azes II. Hereafter the Pahlavas will be the dominant factor in Indus Shakastan. (see Periplus)