Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Girnar is situated a mile to the east of Junagadh in Kathiawar, Gujarat. It has inscriptions by a. King Priyadarsi b. Rudradaman and c. Skandagupta It is mentioned as Girinagar in Brhat samhita (XIV,II). Skanda purana and other sources mention that the mountain here is sacred here for Hindus and Jains. The famous Girnar or Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman talks about an artificial lake called 'Sudarshan' , which has been originally built by Vaisya Pusyagupta, the Governor of Chandra gupta Maurya and later developed by Tushapha, the Iranian regent of Asoka Maurya. I quote : .... " ordered to be made by the Vaishya Pushyagupta, the provincial governor of the Maurya king Chandragupta; adorned with conduits for Ashoka the Maurya by the Yavana king Tushaspha while governing; and by the conduit ordered to be made by him, constructed in a manner worthy of a king (and) seen in that breach, the extensive dam.. " Skanda gupta also mentions it as a source of water supply to Girnar, especially for agriculture. Coming to Rudradaman, he was a 'Western Satrap " who have left the earliest important inscription in correct Sanskrit, a long panegyric recording his martial exploits as well as his reconstruction of the above lake. A S Altekar mentions that he had been elected by his council to be a king and the lake was reconstructed against the advises of this council. (A L Basham, p 100) He has entrusted this job to a trustworthy and non corrupt minister (p 224, Early India, Romila Thapar) The inscription also makes him a contemporary of one Satakarni, who was the Lord of Daskinapatha. I quote: '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' Curiously, the name of Asoka is as mentioned as 'Ashoka the Maurya ' and not as Priyadarsi, when in the very next mile we have the Girnar inscription of Priyadarsi available which mentions the king as Priyadarsi and neither as Asoka nor more definitely as 'Asoka the Maurya' The Aramaic insciption als mentions the king as Priyadarsi and not as Asoka Maurya. In fact, Priyadarsi does not mention anything about the construction of lake in his times. More importnatntly, there was never an instruction to the Governor of Aparanta, in which country Girnar falls. The Mauryans are more concerned about very basic needs of the people, like food and water. The copper inscriptions of Sohgaura and Mahasthan, which are clearly Mauryan since they bear the same kind of signs that the punch marked coins of Mauryans bear, refer to the relief works undertaken during a great famine occured during the period of Chandra Gupta Maurya. However, Priyadarsi though concerned with the welfare of the people, catered to the higher social needs such as health and travel facilities. Apparently, his times did not have the need for infrastucture facilities, perhaps more because they became the responsibilty of the local governments rather than the regents. This wil place Rudra daman prior to Priyadarsi., ie prior to 3rd century. This falls very neatly into place with our ealier arguements that Priyadarsi is not Mauryan and Xandrames mentioned by Greeks must be a Satavahana king. However, it is very difficult to place him exactly since there are no other evidences and the list of Satavahana kings has many Satakarnis mentioned in them. However, the search continues.... regards, kishore patnaik -- Love is a fruit in season at all times, and within the reach of every hand.~:~ Mother Theresa ~:~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 > > Informative. Can you also tell me some things about the significance of Rudradaman in history? He is seen as one of the most important kings of Sakas and ruled the western India. He seemed to be more directed the traditional values of a king - respecting Brahmins and cows, and to increase his religious merit and fame, without oppressing the inhabitants of the towns and country by taxes or forced labour and by undertaking acts of affection. He was the grand son of Chastana and conquered the countries of western Akaravanti, the Anups country, Anarta, Surashtra, Svabhra Maru, Kachchha, Sindhu-Sauvira, Kukura, Aparanta and Nishada. Very clearly, most of these countries are part of Gujarat. He is said to have destroyed Yaudheyas, whose name comes once again in connection with Samudra gupta. Dholka seal and a stone casket inscription was from Devnimori brick stupa seem to be mentioning his name but these are inconclusive and controversial. In any case, they do not seem to be of much help in dating Rudradaman. He belonged to the family of kardamaka,as mentioned in Kanheri inscription,the name of which as per scholars has been derived from a river in Persia. He seemed to have given his daughter to one of the Satavahana kings yet made it a point to fight with them. The work of repairs was entrusted to Suvishakha, the son of Kulaipa, a Pahlava, who was regent of Anarta and Surashtra. Dating Rudradaman is very difficult since the king of Satavahanas associated with him is not exactly identified, as I have pointed out in my earlier mail. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 >> Dating Rudradaman is very difficult since the king of Satavahanas >>associated with him is not exactly identified, as I have pointed out >>in my earlier mail. >Wikiepedia gives the same date(150 AD): Is there anything wrong? Dear Chandra Hari, Thanks for your mail. All the dates given are merely conjectures and are not substantiated at all. If you take some other text book, you will see that it would be mentioning another date, moving the date arbitrarily. This happens because the models built for the dating of these kings have no basis and you will end up with different dates when you start with different facts. These confusions can be averted only if you arrive at the same date, with marginal error, with which ever inscription you start with. The best example for confusions on dates during this period is compare the datings of Satavahanas. Rudra daman is a contemporary of Satavahanas. Very funnily, you can find half a dozen satavahana kings with the name Satakarni and you can identify any one of them as the son in law of Rudra daman. Any one is as good as the other king! The other evidences that pertain to rudra daman are controversial and I am yet to look into them. regards, Kishore patnaik > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Alas, the inscription contains the word " Yavana " , which makes it post-499 BC, the year when the Achaemenids transferred Ionians/Yonas/Yavanas from Miletos to their eastern satrapies. This contradicts your theory that Ashoka lived beyond 900 BC. KE >----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- >Van : kishore patnaik [kishorepatnaik09] >Verzonden : donderdag , september 4, 2008 10:17 AM >Aan : , 'indiaarchaeology', >bharatiyaexpertsforum >Onderwerp : Dating Rudradaman > >Girnar is situated a mile to the east of Junagadh in Kathiawar, Gujarat. It >has inscriptions by > >a. King Priyadarsi b. Rudradaman and c. Skandagupta > >It is mentioned as Girinagar in Brhat samhita (XIV,II). Skanda purana and >other sources mention that the mountain here is sacred here for Hindus and >Jains. > >The famous Girnar or Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman talks about an >artificial lake called 'Sudarshan' , which has been originally built by >Vaisya Pusyagupta, the Governor of Chandra gupta Maurya and later developed >by Tushapha, the Iranian regent of Asoka Maurya. I quote : > >... " ordered to be made by the *Vaishya* *Pushyagupta*, the provincial >governor of the *Maurya* king *Chandragupta*; adorned with conduits for * >Ashoka* *the* *Maurya* by the Y*avana king Tushaspha* while governing; and >by the conduit ordered to be made by him, constructed in a manner worthy of >a king (*and*) seen in that breach, the extensive dam.. " > >Skanda gupta also mentions it as a source of water supply to Girnar, >especially for agriculture. > >Coming to Rudradaman, he was a 'Western Satrap " who have left the earliest >important inscription in correct Sanskrit, a long panegyric recording his >martial exploits as well as his reconstruction of the above lake. > >A S Altekar mentions that he had been elected by his council to be a king >and the lake was reconstructed against the advises of this council. (A L >Basham, p 100) He has entrusted this job to a trustworthy and non corrupt >minister (p 224, Early India, Romila Thapar) > >The inscription also makes him a contemporary of one Satakarni, who was the >Lord of Daskinapatha. I quote: > >'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' > >Curiously, the name of Asoka is as mentioned as '*Ashoka* *the* *Maurya* ' >and not as Priyadarsi, when in the very next mile we have the Girnar >inscription of Priyadarsi available which mentions the king as Priyadarsi >and neither as Asoka nor more definitely as 'Asoka the Maurya' The Aramaic >insciption als mentions the king as Priyadarsi and not as Asoka Maurya. > >In fact, Priyadarsi does not mention anything about the construction of lake >in his times. More importnatntly, there was never an instruction to the >Governor of Aparanta, in which country Girnar falls. > >The Mauryans are more concerned about very basic needs of the people, like >food and water. The copper inscriptions of Sohgaura and Mahasthan, which are >clearly Mauryan since they bear the same kind of signs that the punch marked >coins of Mauryans bear, refer to the relief works undertaken during a great >famine occured during the period of Chandra Gupta Maurya. > >However, Priyadarsi though concerned with the welfare of the people, catered >to the higher social needs such as health and travel facilities. Apparently, >his times did not have the need for infrastucture facilities, perhaps more >because they became the responsibilty of the local governments rather than >the regents. > >This wil place Rudra daman prior to Priyadarsi., ie prior to 3rd century. > >This falls very neatly into place with our ealier arguements that Priyadarsi >is not Mauryan and Xandrames mentioned by Greeks must be a Satavahana king. > >However, it is very difficult to place him exactly since there are no other >evidences and the list of Satavahana kings has many Satakarnis mentioned in >them. > >However, the search continues.... > >regards, > >kishore patnaik > > > > > > > > > >-- >Love is a fruit in season at all times, >and within the reach of every hand. >~:~ Mother Theresa ~:~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 > Alas, the inscription contains the word " Yavana " , which makes it post-499 BC, the year when the Achaemenids transferred Ionians/Yonas/Yavanas from Miletos to their eastern satrapies. This contradicts your theory that Ashoka lived beyond 900 BC. Certainly not. I did consider this point and we went on this before. Panini's date is in 7th or 6th C, bce, very well taking the word Yavana into account he has mentioned. If Indian chronology is fixed deeper, then so will be that of iranians. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 Kishore Patnaik wrote: >The famous Girnar or Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman talks about >an >artificial lake called 'Sudarshan' , which has been originally >built by >Vaisya Pusyagupta, the Governor of Chandra gupta Maurya and later >developed >by Tushapha, the Iranian regent of Asoka Maurya. I quote : > >... " ordered to be made by the *Vaishya* *Pushyagupta*, the >provincial >governor of the *Maurya* king *Chandragupta*; adorned with conduits >for * > Ashoka* *the* *Maurya* by the Y*avana king Tushaspha* while >governing; and > by the conduit ordered to be made by him, constructed in a manner >worthy of > a king (*and*) seen in that breach, the extensive dam.. " > Koenraad Elst replied: > Alas, the inscription contains the word " Yavana " , which makes it >post-499 BC, the year when the Achaemenids transferred >Ionians/Yonas/Yavanas from Miletos to their eastern satrapies. This >contradicts your theory that Ashoka lived beyond 900 BC. > Koenraad, Although I do not agree with pushing Mauryan kings' dates back I have to comment that " Yavana " can be traced to the word IAWONE from Linear B writing in Mycenaean culture at 1400 to 1200 BC period. This, on the other hand, could fit within the period of Mahabharata astronomical observations you pointed out elsewhere. I suspect sanskrit " Yavana " is more ancient than c. 500 BC (more ancient than Pali/Prakrit Yona) and could refer to Ionians prior to Achaemenid resettlement. Best regards, Carlos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atushabharucha Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Rudradaman's earliest date is 130 AD from the joint inscription of Chashtana and Rudradaman from Andhau in norther Kachchh's Pachchham island. A translation of the inscription is found in Epigraphia Indica Vol 16. The last known inscription is the Girnar rock inscription near Junagadh dated to 150 AD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.