History of Indian and Eastern Architecture

Chapter LIV: Appendix: A (1)

Text size

ON SOME DISPUTED POINTS OF INDIAN CHRONOLOGY.

Throughout the preceding pages the dates of kings’ reigns, where quoted, have been assumed as known, and the eras from which they are calculated as ascertained. This has been done in order not to interrupt the narrative of events by introducing a chronological disquisition at every point where a date occurs; but no one at all familiar with the subject needs to be told that the dates of mediæval dynasties in India are far from settled, and that few are universally acquiesced in. Great progress has, it is true, been made in the last ten or twenty years in clearing away the difficulties that surround the subject. So much is this the case, that there are only one or two dates of sufficient importance to affect our reasoning which still remain in doubt; but though this may be true, there are many others about which the world in general feel considerable hesitation. It consequently becomes almost indispensable to state briefly the grounds on which the chronology used throughout this work is based, in order that the correctness of most of the inductions stated in it may be estimated at their true value.[660]

* * * * *

The earliest reasonable statement bearing on the subject which we possess is in the 9th chapter of Arrian’s ‘Indica.’ It is there stated--quoting from Megasthenes--“That from Bacchus (Ixwaku) to Sandrocottus (Chandragupta), the Indians reckon one hundred and fifty-three monarchs, who reigned during the space of six thousand and forty-two years.”

The first part of this statement is eminently satisfactory, as it seems clear from it that we possess in the Puranas the same lists as were submitted to the Greeks in the fourth century B.C. In the Solar lists, we have in the Treta Yug sixty-two reigns, from Ixwaku to Rama.[661] There is no complete Lunar list in that age. For the Dwapar age we have three Solar lists: one for Kusha to Vrihadsana, thirty-five reigns; another from Dishta to Janamejaya, thirty-three reigns; and a third, from the son of Swadhaja, the father of Sita, wife of Rama, to Mahabasi, thirty-four reigns. In the Kali Yug we have no complete Solar list, but the Lunar list gives fifty descents from Jarasandha to the last Nanda. This gives 145 or 146 reigns, or rather too few. But the Lunar lists, from the Dwapar Yug, give forty-four from Puru to Yudhishihira, and fifty from Yadu to Krishna, so that the average is as nearly as may be that stated by Megasthenes.

The second part of the statement, giving these kings’ reigns an average duration of nearly forty years, must of course be rejected, but it is satisfactory to find that, at that early age, the falsification of the chronology had only gone to the extent of duplication, and that the monstrous system of Yugs, with all their attendant absurdities, had not then been invented.

Though it may not at present be capable of direct proof, I have myself no doubt that the date assigned by the Hindus for the Kali Yug (3101 B.C.) is a true date, though misapplied. It either was the date when the Aryans assumed that their ancestors had first crossed the Indus, or when they had first settled on the banks of the Saraswati or the Ghoghra. It forms no part of any subsequently invented system, and seems the only one fixed point in a sea of falsification. Assuming it for the present, and deducting Chandragupta’s date from it, we have 3101-325 = 2776 years from Ixwaku to Chandragupta, which, divided by 153, gives the reasonable number of eighteen years for the duration of each king’s reign. Of course it is not contended that these lists are absolutely to be depended upon--many names may be lost, and many misplaced, from the carelessness of copyists, or from other causes; but, on the whole, when treated in this manner, they afford a reasonable framework for the reconstruction of the ancient history of India, and one that accords perfectly with all we at present know about the ancient history of the immigrant Aryans.

If this view can be sustained, the events which are described in the Ramayana--not of course the poem, which is comparatively modern--took place about 2000 years before Christ. Adhering to the above average, we gather that the events described in the ‘Mahabharata,’ in like manner, occurred 900 years before Chandragupta, or 1225, or more precisely, according to the Puranic chronology, thus--

B.C.
Chandragupta 325
Sisunagas, 360 years 360
Sunakas 128
Sabadeva to Ripunjaya, 23 reigns at 18 years 414
----
1227
----

which may probably be taken as very near the true date.

It must for the present remain an open question whether the dates just quoted can be so established as to stand the test of the exigencies of modern critical acumen. It would be very satisfactory if this could be so accomplished. In the first place, because it would afford a firm basis for all our reasoning regarding the ancient history and ethnography of India, but also because it would prove that the Puranas do contain the germs of truths which, when properly investigated, may lead to the most important deductions. My own impression is entirely in favour of the existence of the requisite materials for the purpose; but the fashion has been lately to pooh-pooh the whole thing, and no attempt has been made--so far as I know--by any competent scholar, to investigate the matter on scientific principles.

Be this as it may, when we come to the Anjana era, 691 B.C.,[662] and the life of Buddha, we tread on surer ground; and it is fortunate for our purposes that it so, as with the life of Buddha the mediæval history of India may be said to commence, and unless his date and that of his successors can be established with at least approximate certainty, the history of architecture in India must remain unintelligible. In this instance, however, the materials, I believe, exist in abundance. They have not, it is true, been as yet investigated to such an extent as to render any point certain, but the difficulties are daily disappearing, and as every point gained adds materially in throwing light on others that have hitherto been considered unsettled, we may hope before long to see the whole satisfactorily resolved.

* * * * *

There is perhaps no single point in the whole early history of India on which the chronicles of Ceylon and Further India are so distinct and unanimous than that Buddha died--as they express it, attained Nirvana--at the age of eighty years, in the year 543 B.C., or in the year 148 of the Eetzana[663] or Anjana epoch.[664]

Attempts have recently been made, it appears to me on the most illogical and insufficient data, to invalidate this conclusion. There is an admitted falsification in the Ceylonese annals, as set forth in the ‘Mahawanso,’ of sixty years about this date; but as Turnour, who first pointed it out, explained also the reason for it,[665] the rectification is easy, and the result clear. It seems that Vijaya, the first Indian immigrant or conqueror of Ceylon, landed in the island 483 years B.C., or thereabout; and the reigns of his successors, down to Devenampiyatisso, the contemporary of Asoka, when added together, amount to only 236 years. When the annals came to be expounded in the ‘Mahawanso,’ it was thought expedient, for the good of religion, that the coming of Vijaya should be coincident with the death of Buddha; and as the sacred era could not be disturbed, Asoka’s reign was carried back so as to admit of the adjustment. This was effected principally by reducing the epoch of the nine Nandas from 100 years, at which the Puranas place them, to forty-four, and by other slight alterations. The sixty years was afterwards recovered by small increments to subsequent reigns, not of much consequence, but injuriously affecting the correctness of the whole chronology of the ‘Mahawanso,’ down to about A.D. 400, when it was compiled in its present form. As the date of Asako’s reign is perfectly well known (272-236 B.C.), we have only to reject the most improbable coincidence of Vijaya landing on the day of Buddha’s Nirvana, which there is nothing to support, and the whole becomes clear, and everything falls into its place.[666]

Besides the Ceylonese lists, and those quoted by Crawfurd from the Burmese annals,[667] the Puranas afford us two, quoted below, which are of great interest to us, and the whole are so marvellously coincident, that there seems very little doubt of their general authenticity.

With regard to the first or Solar list, Professor Wilson remarks, that “Sakya is no doubt the name of the author or reviver of Buddhism, but is out of place, as he was the son and not the father of Suddhodana.”[668] This, however, is only one of the numerous instances in which the grandson takes his grandfather’s name, and which is an interminable cause of confusion in Indian chronological inquiries.[669] Gautama, as we know, never ascended the throne, but devoted himself to his religious duties, but his son Ratula succeeded his grandfather. In like manner, the Prasenajit in the list is not the cousin and companion of Buddha, but the grandson, or grand-nephew of that earlier king of the same name. Sumitra, the last name mentioned in the Bhagavat Purana, seems to have ascended the throne about 451. There are no exact dates for fixing this event, and with him perished the long line of Solar monarchs, who for more than twenty-six centuries--if our chronology is correct--had influenced in so marked a manner the destinies of India.

It was during the reign of Kalasoka, the eleventh king of this dynasty, that the second convocation was held, 100 years after the Nirvana. This, too, it has recently become the fashion to doubt. The accounts, however, in the ‘Mahawanso,’ and the pointed mode in which it is referred to in the Burmese annals, seem sufficient to settle the point. Like Vijaya’s landing in Ceylon on the day of Buddha’s Nirvana, Prome is said to have been founded 443, the year of this convocation.[670] They must have believed strongly, or they would not have attempted the adjustment.

As before mentioned, we have neither buildings, nor coins, nor inscriptions belonging to this period, nor indeed any material facts that would enable us to verify the chronological data. It is, however, so near the time when these became abundant, that it does not seem unreasonable to hope that some such evidences may turn up. Till something is found, the absence of all such materials must remain as a curious piece of evidence regarding the important influence that the contact of the nations of the West had on the arts and civilization of India at the time.

MAURYA, SUNGA, AND KANWA DYNASTIES.

CHRONOLOGY. BUILDINGS.

_Maurya Dynasty, 130 years._

The chronology of these three dynasties, as recorded in the Puranas, may admit of some adjustment in detail; but the whole is so reasonable and consistent that it can hardly be to any great extent. The whole, too, is now found to be so perfectly in accord with the architecture of their age, and with such inscriptions as have been found, that I see no reason whatever for doubting its general correctness.

The cardinal point on which the whole hinges is the twelfth year of Asoka’s reign after his consecration--the sixteenth from his inauguration. In that year he published his rock-cut edicts, in which he mentions his allies, Antiochus and Antigonus, Ptolemy (Philadelphus), Magas (of Cyrene), and Alexander (of Macedonia).[671] As it happens, all these five names are mentioned together in Justin’s abridgment of Trogus Pompeius (xxvi. 2, 3 and xxvii. 1), though without giving any date. As Magas, however, died B.C. 257, and the only year in which all five were alive together was either that year or the preceding, we may safely assume that the sixteenth of Asoka was B.C. 256 or B.C. 257. If that is so it seems impossible to bring down the date of the accession of Chandragupta to a time more modern than one or two years after B.C. 325. The Ceylonese annals allow him thirty-four years,[672] but our knowledge of what happened in India in Alexander’s time forbids any such extension. On the other hand, his accession happening in the year, or the year after, the defeat of Porus, is not exactly what we would expect from the context; but there is nothing, so far as I know, to controvert it.

Even if it were not so certain as it appears to be from the statements just quoted, there can be no doubt that the chronology of this period can easily be settled from the numerous inscriptions found in the rock-cut excavations quoted in the table, as well as from coins and other materials that exist. These dynasties thus become a fixed starting-point for all our inquiries, either backwards or forwards.

ANDRA, OR ANDRABRITYA DYNASTY.

CHRONOLOGY. BUILDINGS.

For this dynasty, as for the preceding three, we are dependent on the Puranas; but its chronology, like theirs, is so reasonable and so consistent with what we learn from other sources that I see no reason whatever for doubting its general correctness. There are slight discrepancies of course, not only as to names but as to the duration of this dynasty in the different Puranas. Thus the Vishnu Parana, according to Wilson, enumerates thirty kings, reigning 456 years; the Vayu and Bhagavat the same. The Matsya gives only twenty-nine kings, but makes them reign 460 years; but none of them give all the names, nor does the addition of the longest list extend beyond 435 years.[673] The whole, from Chandragupta to the last, are also added together (p. 232), and make up 751 years, or bringing the last of the Andras down to A.D. 426. The actual fixation of these dates will probably be found in Nassick cave inscriptions. Two of these bear dates: one, apparently in the reign of Pulomavi, or Padma, is dated nineteen from an unspecified era; the other is in the twenty-fourth year of the “modern era,” and the act recorded is, apparently, by order of Gautamiputra.[674] As it is, however, almost certain that the Gupta era, A.D. 319, was established in the reign of the last-named king, it seems probable that when these inscriptions are more carefully examined than they hitherto have been, they will fix these reigns with even greater certainty than we obtain from the Puranic dates; the one element of uncertainty being that the new era does not seem to be dated either from the accession of the king or from any great event, but four cycles of sixty years, or 240 years from the Saka era it was intended to supersede.[675]

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. Nahapana 79 -- Ushavadata -- -- Swami Chastana -- -- Jaya Dama -- -- Jiva Dama -- -- Rudra Daman 72 151 Rudra Sinha 102 181 Rudra Sah 104 183 Sri Sah -- -- Sangha Daman -- -- Daman Sah 144 223 Yasa Daman -- -- Damajata Sri -- -- Vira Daman -- -- Isvara Datta -- -- Vijaya Sah 170 249 Damajata Sri -- -- Rudra Sah 197 276 Visva Sinha -- -- Atri Daman -- -- Visva Sah 200 279 22. Rudra Sinha 270 -- Asa Daman 271 280 Swami Rudra Sah 292 371[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.

Another point of more importance is, that the dates on the Sah coins--from whatever era calculated--extend only to 270-271, or doubtfully to 292.[682] If these are calculated from the Vicramaditya Samvat, they must have ceased to reign in A.D. 214, or at the latest A.D. 236, and there would have been no Khagaratas for Gautamiputra to humble after A.D. 312. On the other hand, if calculated from A.D. 79, their final extinction would have been in A.D. 349, or at latest A.D. 371. So that, though humbled by Gautamiputra, they overlap the Gupta era to some extent, which it seems is almost indispensable to account for the mode in which the Sah coins overlap and run into those of the Gupta series, on which Mr. Thomas so strongly and, it appears to me, so correctly insists.[683]

One of two things seems necessary: either that the Guptas shall be carried back so as to overlap the Sahs, dating either from the Vicramadityan or Selucidan eras, or that the Sahs be brought down so as to overlap them, if dating from the era bearing their name. Mr. Thomas and General Cunningham prefer the former hypothesis. For the reasons just stated, and others to be given further on, I feel convinced that the latter hypothesis is the only one that is in accordance with the facts of the case as we now know them.

This substitution of the Saka era for the Samvat brings what we know of the history, with what we learn from the inscriptions, and gather from the coins, so completely into accordance, that I can hardly doubt now that it is the correct view of the matter, and certainly more in accordance with the facts than that I previously adopted.

GUPTAS.

Although the Puranas conduct us in so reasonable and satisfactory a manner to the end of the Andrabritya dynasty, their guidance forsakes us there. After that, all the subsequent contemporary dynasties were thrown into hotch-pot--to use a legal expression--and a system of fraud and falsification commenced which is the reproach of Indian history. It is not, however, difficult to see the causes of this new and monstrous invention. For six centuries and a half Buddhism had reigned supreme in India, and the system of the Brahmans, though probably never extinct, was at least subdued and subordinate. With the decline of the Andras this state of affairs was altered. The Guptas, who immediately succeeded them, are shown, both by their coins and inscriptions, to have been followers of Vishnu and Siva,[684] and their buildings at Erun tell the same story.[685]

Though the Guptas may have inaugurated the new system, it was by the great Vicramaditya of Ujjain that it was established, A.D. 515-550. He did for the new religion what Asoka had done for Buddhism some seven and a half centuries before his time. He made a state religion in India, and established it so firmly that little more than a century after his death it seems to have superseded Buddhism altogether. It is in his reign, apparently, that the Puranic system was invented--not that the Puranas were written or all the falsifications of history invented in his day, but a commencement was then made, and by the 10th or 11th century of our era it was brought to the complete perfection of fraud in which it is now found.

One of the first necessities of the new system was to throw back the period when India was Buddhist, and to place a gulf between them and their successors. To effect this, the Puranas enumerate the following:--“After these” (the Andrabrityas) “various races will reign--seven Abhiras, ten Gardabhilas, sixteen Sakas, eight Yavanas, fourteen Tusharas, thirteen Mandas, eleven Maunas or Hunas[686]--seventy-nine princes will be sovereigns of the earth for 1399 years. Then eleven Pauras will be kings for 300 years; when they are destroyed, Kailakila Yavanas will be kings, the chiefs of whom will be Vindhya Sacti, &c.--106 years.” After various others: “The nine Nagas will reign in Padmavati, Kantipura, and Mathura; and the Guptas of Magadha along the Ganges to Pryaga.”[687] Although we cannot identify all these dynasties with certainty, we know, at all events, that, instead of succeeding one another during more than 2000 years, they were all more or less contemporary--certainly that none were earlier than the Gupta era (A.D. 319)--and that none of them survived Vicramaditya (A.D. 550). The Sakas and Maunas, or Hunas, may be those destroyed by him, but of this hereafter. The Vindhya Sactis were contemporary with the Guptas, and the Gardabhilas are somehow connected with Bahram Gaur the Sassanian; and others we recognise dimly, but they are not sufficiently important to be discussed here.

* * * * *

Of all these the most important are the Guptas, and fortunately their date is one of the most clearly established facts in mediæval Indian chronology.[688]

DYNASTY. COINS AND DATES ON INSCRIPTIONS. A.D.
Sri or Raja Gupta -- --
Maharaja Ghatotkacha -- --
M. R. adhiraja Chandra Gupta I. 82, 93+319 = 401, 412. Caves 16 to
20 Ajunta. Buildings
at Erun.
“ Samudra “ -- --
“ Chandra Gupta II. -- --
“ Kumara “ 124+ “ = 443
“ Skanda “ 130, 137, 141, 146+ “ = 449, 456, 460, 465
Mahendra a minor -- --
Maharaja Sri Hastina 163+ “ = 482
Raja Buddha 165+ “ = 484
M. R. adhiraja Toramana 182+ “ = 501

The three last named can hardly be considered as belonging to the great dynasty, though they date from the same era, and the two first were comparatively insignificant characters. It was only Chandra Gupta I., A.D. 401, who assumed the title of Maharaja adhiraja, and founded the greatness of his race on the ruins of that of the Andrabrityas.

In addition to the above chronology, compiled from coins and dated inscriptions, Major Watson has recently supplied a most important item to their history from written records existing in Gujerat.

From this we learn that Chandra Gupta II. reigned twenty-three years after the conquest of Saurastra by his son; that Kumara Pal Gupta reigned twenty years; and that Skanda Gupta succeeded him, but lost Saurastra by the rebellion of his Senapati Bhatarka, the founder of the Ballabhi family. Two years after this event Skanda Gupta died, and, as we are informed, “at this time the Gupta race were dethroned by foreign invaders.”[689]

The era from which these dates are taken never appeared to me doubtful; and this confirms more and more the conviction that it was from the era that bears their name, A.D. 319. It could not be from the Saka era, as has generally been assumed, from the fact that Albiruni asserts that the era that bears their name, was “apparently” that of their destruction,[690] because in that case Skanda Gupta must have lived and reigned for ninety-four years in addition to the sixteen we already know, from inscriptions, he occupied the throne. A reign of 110 years seems impossible; and, if it is not so, it seems certain, for the reasons stated in my previous paper, that the Gupta era, 319, is that from which their coins and inscriptions are dated.

Besides this, there is an inscription on the rock at Junaghar, engraved by the same Skanda, the last of the great Guptas. This was not translated by Prinsep, though a copy of it was in his hands before his last illness.[691] Had he lived to translate it, my impression is that the controversy as to the age of the Guptas never would have arisen--its evidence seems so absolute. Be this as it may, it never appeared, so far as I know, in a complete form and translated, till this was accomplished by the late Bhau Daji in the sixth volume of the Bombay Journal of 1862. In it we have three dates--the Sadarsana lake is said to have burst its banks in 130, to have been repaired in 137, and a temple to Vishnu built in 138, and twice it is repeated “_counting from the era of the Guptas_” (Guptasya Kala). The stone is worn where the middle date occurs, but there is just space enough for these words. The same king, on the Kuhaon pillar, dates his inscription in 141,[692] but without mentioning the era, which seems to have been so usual in Bengal as not to require being specified.

Besides this, the 146[693] years from 319, which we know from their dated inscriptions that they reigned, is just the interval that is required to fill up the gap between the Ballabhis and their era which they adopted on usurping the inheritance of the Guptas, two years before Skanda Gupta’s death.[694]

One other point of considerable importance to Indian history which arises from the fixation of this date (A.D. 465-70) for the destruction of the Guptas is, that it was almost certainly the White Huns who were the “foreign invaders” that struck the blow that stopped their career. At least, we learn from Cosmas Indicopleustes, writing seventy years after this time, that the Huns were a powerful nation in the north of India in his day, and we may infer, from what he says of them, had been settled there some time.[695]

On the Bhitari Lât, Bhau Daji reads--somewhat doubtfully, it must be confessed--the fact that Skanda Gupta had fought, apparently with success, against the Hunas.[696] But the great point is that it was just about this time that the White Huns broke loose and extended their incursions east and west, so that there is not only no improbability of their being the “foreign invaders” alluded to, but every likelihood they were so. No one, indeed, can, I believe, with the knowledge we now possess, read De Guignes’ chapter on the White Huns,[697] without perceiving that it contains the key to the solution of many mysterious passages in Indian history. It is true India is not mentioned there; but from the time of Bahram Gaur in 420, till the defeat of Feroze in 475, the Persians were waging an internecine war with these Huns, and nothing can be more likely than that the varying fortunes of that struggle should force them to seek the alliance of the then powerful Guptas, to assist them against their common foe.

Precisely the same impression is conveyed by what is said by Ferishta and the Persian historians[698] of the history of that time. Nothing can now, however, be more easily intelligible than the visit of Bahram Gaur to India when first attacked by the White Huns. His marriage with an Indian (? Gupta) princess of Canouge; the tribute or assistance claimed by Feroze and his successors on the Persian throne, are all easily explicable, on the assumption that the two nations were at that time engaged in a struggle against a common enemy. This, too, explains the mention of the Shah in Shahi on Samudra Gupta’s Allahabad inscription.[699] Hence, too, the decided Persian influence on the gold coinage of the Canouge Guptas,[700] and the innumerable Sassanian coins of that period found in all parts of the north of India.[701] In all this the Sassanians seem inseparably mixed with the Guptas. The Persians, however, came eventually victorious out of the war. The great Guptas were struck down at some date between 465-70, or very shortly afterwards. The struggle, however, was apparently continued for some time longer by a subordinate branch of their successors; inasmuch as we learn from an inscription found at Aphsar in Behar,[702] that the fourth of that dynasty, Damodara Gupta, “successfully encountered, at the battle of Maushari, the fierce army of the Western Huns.” This event may have stopped the career of the Huns in India, in which case it could not well have taken place before the year 535, when Cosmas Indicopleustes is supposed to have written his ‘Topographia Christiana;’ but it is by no means clear that he was not describing events that took place when he was himself in India some time previously. But be this as it may, it brings us to the time when the battles of Korûr--of which more hereafter--and Maushari freed India from the Sakas and Hunas, who had long held her in hated subjection. As I shall presently attempt to show, it appears to me hardly doubtful that these two battles were fought between 524 and 544; and they thus fix one of the most important epochs in mediæval Indian history. Indeed, so near each other are these two events in date, that I sometimes feel almost inclined to fancy they may be only different names for the same battle. At all events, they almost certainly represent parts of the same campaign which freed India in that age from the Yavanas; and that it was to commemorate the glories of these struggles that the Vicramaditya Samvat was instituted. This expulsion of the Yavanas was, too, the first serious blow that was struck at Buddhist supremacy, and from the effects of which it never afterwards completely recovered.

BALLABHI DYNASTY.

DATES ON INSCRIPTIONS. A.D. Bhatarka Senapati -- 465 or 470 Dharasena “ -- -- Dronasinha -- -- Dhruvasena Maharaja -- } Cotem. Vicramaditya Dharapatta -- } Dynasty Grihasena -- } of Ujjain, Sridhara Sena -- } 470 to 550. Siladitya I. -- -- Charagriha I. -- -- Sridhara Sena II. 272 591 Dhruvasena II. -- Cotem. Hiouen Thsang Sridharasena III. -- -- Siladitya II. 356 675 Charagriha II. -- -- Siladitya III. -- -- Siladitya Musalli 400 718

However mistaken Albiruni may be in his dates, there is little doubt that he is quite correct in his statement to the effect that “L’ère de Ballabha est postérieure à celle de Saca de 241 ans. Apparemment Ballabha suivit immédiatement les Gouptas, car l’ère des Gouptas commence aussi 241 de l’ère de Saca.”[703] This we learn also, with the particulars how it happened, from Colonel Watson’s account of the transaction; while Colonel Tod’s celebrated Puttun Somnath inscription makes it also certain that the Ballabhi era commenced A.D. 319.[704] This being so, it seems difficult to understand why the era should have been called that of Ballabhi as well as that of the Guptas, unless it were that it was adopted by the first-named dynasty, and that they dated from it their acts and inscriptions, which are extremely numerous. There may be reasons why this should be otherwise; but, though the point has been generally and fiercely contested by eminent Indian chronologists, I fail to appreciate the arguments brought forward in favour of either the Vicramaditya or Saka eras,[705] and look upon their own era (A.D. 319) as certainly the one from which all the Gupta inscriptions are dated.

My impression is, that this would never have been considered doubtful but for an incautious statement by Colonel Tod that Ballabhi was destroyed by the Parthians A.D. 524,[706] in the reign of a Siladitya, its last king. Its inhabitants were, according to this account, slaughtered with the usual romantic incidents; but after a while a remnant established themselves in Sidhapore, and finally built a new capital, which they called Anhilwarra.

The utter falsity of the information so supplied to Colonel Tod is proved by the fact that when Ballabhi was visited by Hiouen Thsang, 115 years after its reputed destruction, he found it not only standing, and neither Sidhapore nor Anhilwarra thought of, but the old capital still remaining one of the richest and most prosperous cities of India, and its king one of the three greatest kings of northern India. The king’s name was Dhruvapaton, and he was a nephew or grand-nephew of Siladitya of Malwa, and the son-in-law of Siladitya, the reigning king of Canouge.[707] Lastly, we have the dates in copper-plates of a Dhruvasena, one in 310+319=629; the other 322+ 319, or 641,[708] the very year that Hiouen Thsang met him at Allahabad, if we assume them dated from the Ballabhi Samvat.

It would be satisfactory if we could determine the date of the destruction of Ballabhi with precision, as it is one of these events that mark an epoch in Indian history. It was one of the concluding acts of the old drama that closed the mediæval period of Indian history, and ushered in the dark ages which lasted more than two centuries from that time.

The materials for this hardly exist at present, though it may be approximated. We have numerous inscriptions of this dynasty, dated 310, 326, 338, 348, &c.,[709] or A.D. 629, 645, 657, 667 respectively, if the figures are all correctly read, which is not quite clear; and lastly, Mr. Burgess reports one dated 400, or A.D. 719, belonging to the last Siladitya, and consequently approaching very nearly to the event. Two accounts are current as to the mode in which the destruction was effected: one, that it was caused by an earthquake, which may have happened at any time;[710] the other (by Tod), that the city was destroyed by the Parthians. If it was by a foreign foe, it could only have been by the Mahomedans. They were on the Indus in strength in 22 Hegira,[711] or A.D. 644, or before Hiouen Thsang had left India, and no foreigner could have crossed the Indus or attacked Ballabhi after that time, or for some years before it, without being noticed by Mahomedan historians. They remained there in strength till after Mahomed Kasim, 711-715,[712] and it was to him that I was at one time inclined to ascribe the destruction. If, however, Mr. Burgess’s date is correct, his death was three years too early. But I do not think it at all improbable that Ballabhi is one of the cities--Barus and Uzain--said to be plundered by Junaid in A.D. 725 or 726.[713] Barus looks very like Baroach, and Uzain is almost certainly Ujjain--but whether Maliba is Ballabhi, I must leave others to determine.

All the accounts agree that Anhilwarra Puttun was founded Samvat 802, or A.D. 746,[714] which may be correct within a year or two; but from the accounts we have, it is clear that an interval of from twenty to thirty years must have elapsed between the two events, during which the inhabitants of the destroyed city sought refuge at Punchâsur and Sidhapore before they undertook the building of their new capital. If, therefore, we assume 725 as the date of the destruction of Ballabhi, we shall probably not err more than a year or two either way.

The earliest date of this family yet discovered is one on a copperplate of Dharasena II., which has been read by Professor Bhandarkar as 272,[715] or, according to the views here adopted, 591. It is hardly probable that any much earlier will be found; for it must be borne in mind that though the Ballabhis wrested the sovereignty of Gujerat from the Guptas two years before Skanda’s death (_ante_, p. 724), neither the first nor second of the race ventured to assume even the modest title of Raja; they were content to remain Senâpatis, or Generals. The third calls himself Maharaja; but their greatness only culminated in or about A.D. 650, when one of them, Sri Dharasena III., became Maharaja Adhiraja--King of kings or Emperor of Northern India.[716] The reason of this, as we shall presently see, was that the family that really succeeded the Guptas in the place of supreme authority in India was that of Ujjain, the second or third monarch of this race being the celebrated Vicramaditya, whose date, for reasons to be given hereafter, seems almost certainly to have been from 515 to 550. Be this as it may, as we shall presently see, it seems quite certain that a great Brahmanical revival took place in the beginning of the 6th century, which quite overshadowed all the Buddhist dynasties in northern India. For a while these were again eclipsed by a reflex wave of Buddhism, which for a century--A.D. 550-650--again illumined India. It was a last expiring effort, however, and after the last-named date it was only a struggle for existence on the part of the Buddhists, and in another century they are known no longer in those central countries where they had so long reigned supreme.

CHALUKYA DYNASTIES.

WESTERN BRANCH. | EASTERN BRANCH. CAPITAL KALYAN. | CAPITAL RAJMEHENDRI. 1. Jaya Sinha Vijayaditya. | 2. Raja Sinha, Rana Raga, Vishnu Vardhana.| 3. Vijayaditya II. | 4. Pulakesi, A.D. 489? | 5. Kirtti Varma I. | 6. Mangalisa. | 7. Satyasraya began to reign 609. |1. Vishnu Vardhana II., or Kubja | Vishnu Vardhana, conquered | Vengi A.D. 605. 8. Amara. |2. Jaya Sinha I. 9. Aditya. |3. Indra Raja, his brother. 10. Vikramadiya I. |4. Vishnu Vardhana III. 11. Vinayaditya, Yuddha Malla, began |5. Manga Yuva Raja. to reign A.D. 680. |6. Jaya Sinha III. } 12. Vijayaditya III. began to reign A.D. |7. Kokkili. } brothers. 695. |8. Vishnu Vardhana IV. } 13. Vikramaditya II. began to reign |9. Vijayaditya I. A.D. 733. |10. Vishnu Vardhana V. |11. Narendra Mriga Raja. 14. Kirtti Varma II. |12. Vishnu Vardhana VI., or Kali | Vishnu Vardhana. 15. Kirtti Varma III., cousin of the |13. Vijayaditya II., or Guna Gunanka last, A.D. 799. | Vijayaditya, conquered Kalinga. |14. Chalukya Bhima I., his brother. 16. Tailapa. |15. Vijayaditya III., or Kollabhiganda | Vijaya. 17. Bhima Raja. |16. Amma Raja. |17. Vijayaditya IV., or Kaudagachita 18. Ayya, or Kirtti Varma IV. | Vijaya. |18. Talapa. Usurper. 19. Vijayaditya IV. |19. Vikramaditya V., the son of a brother | of Amma Raja I. 20. Taila Bhupa II. or Vikramaditya III., |20. Yuddha Malla. in A.D. 973 restored the monarchy | which had been for some time | usurped by the Ratta Kula. He | died A.D. 997. | 21. Satyasraya II. Irivi Bhujanga Deva, |21. Raja Bhima II. A.D. 997. | 22. Vikramaditya V. began to reign |22. Amma Raja II. about A.D. 1008 (?) | 23. Jaya Sinha Deva, Jagadeka Malla, |23. Dhanarnava. Interregnum of | twenty-seven years. about A.D. 1018 (?) | 24. Someswara Deva I., Trailokya |24. Kirtti Varma, son of Dhanarnava. Malla Ahawa Malla, about A.D. | 1040. | 25. Someswara Deva II., Bhuneka Malla |25. Vimaladitya, his brother. A.D. 1099, expelled by his brother. | 26. Vikramaditya VI., Kali Vikrama, |26. Raja Raja Narendra. Tribhuvana Malla, in A.D. 1076. | 27. Someswara Deva III., Bhuloka |27. Rajendra Chola. Malla, A.D. 1127. | 28. Jagadeka Malla, A.D. 1138. |28. Vikrama Deva Kulottunga Chola. 29. Tailapa Deva III., Trailokya Malla, |29. Raja Raja Chola, viceroy for one year. A.D. 1150. | 30. Someswara Deva IV., Tribhuvana |30. Vira Deva Kulottunga Chola, or Malla, A.D. 1182. Dethroned by | Saptama Vishnu Vardhana. Viceroy Bijjala Deva of the Kalabhuriya line. | from A.D. 1079 to 1135. After this the southern part of these |After Vira Deva Kulottunga Chola the country dominions fell under the sway of the |fell under the sway of the Kakatya dynasty of Hoisala Bellalas, whose rise in the | Worangul, of whom Pratapa Rudra was the chief Mysore dates from A.D. 984; their |(A.D. 1162). The latest of their inscriptions is destruction by the Mahomedans in 1310. |dated A.D. 1336.

The two lists in the preceding page are among the most interesting and most important of those we possess, inasmuch as they contain the backbone of all we know regarding the Chalukyas, and are, in fact, what justify us, historically, in erecting their style into a separate division, different from the other forms of architecture known in India.

What we know of these dynasties is almost wholly due to the intelligent zeal of Sir Walter Elliot, who, during his residence in India, made a collection of 595 inscriptions from various parts of the Dekhan. From these he abstracted the lists he first published in the fourth volume of the Royal Asiatic Society; but afterwards much more in detail in the ‘Madras Journal,’ in 1858, from which these lists are copied verbatim.[717] Some of the inscriptions were translated and published with those papers, and others by Major--now General--- Le Grand Jacob, in the Bombay Journal (vol. iii. p. 206, _et seqq._), and other notices of them are found among Mr. Wathen’s inscriptions in various volumes of the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.’ But we shall not know more than a fraction of what we ought to, and might know, till Sir Walter Elliot’s inscriptions are translated and published.[718] When this is done, and the architecture of the Nizam’s territory explored, the Chalukyan style will take its place worthily between the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan styles, and will, if I mistake not, be found equal to either, both in importance and in artistic merit.

* * * * *

Fortunately there is no mistake or doubt about the era from which the Chalukyan inscriptions are dated: the Ballabhi branch succeeding to the possessions of the Guptas in Gujerat, naturally adopted their era, but the southern branch being entirely detached from any such association, adopted the Saka era (A.D. 79), which was then, so far as is known, the only other era at that time in use in India. What is equally important is, that there seems only one doubtful date among all those quoted in the lists--that of 411 Saka (A.D. 490), attached to the name of Pulakesi I. In his first paper,[719] Sir Walter Elliot thought it so improbable, that he rejected it altogether; and Professor Eggeling tells me he has strong reasons for suspecting the copperplate on which it is found to be a forgery.

As an initial date it does not appear impossible, if my views are correct, though certainly improbable. If Bhatarka Senapati wrested Gujerat from Skanda Gupta two years before his death, or in 463 or 468, it is by no means impossible that the fourth from him may have been reigning in A.D. 490, but the difficulty is the other way. There seems no doubt, from Mr. Burgess’s Badami inscriptions,[720] that Mangalisa succeeded his brother Kirtti Varma in 567, and it does seem impossible that he should have been the son of one who was reigning in 490, especially if he continued to reign till 609. If Mangalisa was the son of Pulakesi, which there seems no reason for doubting, it is evident that the central figure of his date must be altered to a higher number; but to what extent we shall not know till it is ascertained whether Vijaya was the son or grandson of Bhatarka Senapati. In the meanwhile, however, if we, as an hypothesis, add fifty years to the date of 411, and make it 461, or A.D. 540, it will allow Pulakesi a reign of twenty-seven years before the accession of Mangalisa in 567, which will bring the whole within the limits of probability, and seems perfectly consistent with the context.

With the seventh king we tread on surer ground. He was the king who, when bearing his grandfather’s name, Pulakesi, Hiouen Thsang visited in 640,[721] and was, as his inscriptions tell us,[722] the hero of those wars with Harsha Verddhana, or Siladitya of Malwa, which Ma-twan-lin so graphically describes as occurring in 618 to 627. From that time the dynasty seems to have flourished till the death of Vicramaditya II. He ascended the throne 733, and died about 750, or twenty-five years more or less after the destruction of the Ballabhi branch. After this, as Sir Walter Elliot expresses it, “the power of the Chalukyas was alienated for a time, or had suffered a partial obscuration, till the time of Teila, who is described as restoring the monarchy in 973.”[723] After this it enjoyed two centuries of prosperity, till it was finally extinguished--their northern possessions passing to the Kalabhuryas--their southern to the Hoisala Bellalas of Dwarasamudra or Hullabîd.

The history of the younger branch of this family will be more interesting to some future historian of Indian architecture than it is to us at the present day. Their possessions lay principally below the Eastern Ghâts, on the shores of the Bay of Bengal, in what are generally known as the three Circars, extending from Gangam--in their day I believe--to Mahavellipuram; but of their architecture we know nothing. No traveller educated in architectural matters has yet visited that country; and though it sounds like a paradox to say so, what we do know of it we learn from buildings not erected by them, and in a country they never seem to have possessed. It is only from the buildings of Pratapa Rudra at Worangul and elsewhere above the Ghâts that we can appreciate the perfection to which they had brought their style.

Previous Next

Comments

History of Indian and Eastern ArchitectureChapter LIV: Appendix: A (1)

0%36 min left in chapter