“Satraps Beyond the Satavahanas:
The Rise and Legacy of the Kshaharata and Kardamaka Houses in Western India”
By Cdr Alok Mohan
Abstract
This study examines two successive Saka houses in western India—the Kshaharata dynasty (House of Chashtana) and the Kardamaka dynasty—based on epigraphic records, numismatic evidence, and ancient inscriptions. It explores their political ascendancy, religious patronage, and rivalry with the Satavahanas.
Introduction
Historical context: 1st–4th centuries CE, era of Indo‑Scythian (Saka) rule in Western India.
Two dynasties in focus: the Kshaharata (early Satraps including Nahapana) followed by the Kardamaka (Chashtana and Rudradaman I).
Sources: Nasik, Karla, Junnar and Junagadh inscriptions; coinage; Ptolemaic references.
1. The Kshaharata Dynasty
1.1 Origins and Early Rulers
Term: Kshaharata (variants: Chaharada, Khakharata, Khakharata) attested in Taxila copper plates and Sri Pulamavi’s Nasik inscriptions.
Earliest known: Abhiraka; followed by Bhumaka, who issued coins with the title “Satrap” and Buddhist symbols like the dharmachakra and lion capital.
1.2 Nahapana (son of Bhumaka)
Reign: c. 1st–2nd century CE (dates range around 24‑70 CE or around 119‑124 CE based on coin legends.
Territories: Malwa, southern Gujarat, northern Konkan—from Bharuch to Sopara, including Nashik, Pune, Junnar regions.
1.3 Coinage and Iconography
Silver coins with Greek and Brahmi legends: profile of ruler and thunderbolt—a symbol drawn from Indo‑Greek prototypes.
Minted design elements: arrow, thunderbolt motifs distinctive of Kshaharata house.
1.4 Religious Patronage and Inscriptions
Numerous cave inscriptions: six in the Nasik Caves, one at Karla, and one at Manmodi Cave at Junnar on behalf of Nahapana’s minister Ushavadata.
Grand inscription in Karla Cave: by Ushavadata, detailing massive donations (300,000 cows, villages, gold, brahmin gifts) and establishment of cisterns for ascetics of all sects.
1.5 Conflict with Satavahanas
Defeat: Gautamiputra Satakarni (c. c.124 CE) overthrew Nahapana; his Nashik inscription proclaims destruction of the Khakharata family and reclaiming of Buddhist grants given earlier.
2. The Kardamaka Dynasty (House of Chashtana)
2.1 Founding by Chashtana
Reign: 78–130 CE; identified with start of the Saka era in 78 CE.
According to Ptolemy: ruled territory from Patalene to Ujjain and south toward Barygaza; capital at Ujjain (Ozene)
2.2 Coinage and Royal Symbolism
Coins: Greek-style portrait with Brahmi legend, dynastic symbol of three‑arched hill with crescent, sun, and moon—distinct from Nahapana’s thunderbolt motif.
2.3 Succession and Family
Successor: his son Jayadaman (brief reign), followed by grandson Rudradaman I. Chashtana thus bridges between dynasties.
2.4 Rudradaman I (c. 150 CE): Zenith of Kardamaka Power
Junagadh rock inscription (150 CE): a Sanskrit prashasti lauding his rule across Malwa, Gujarat, Marwar, Sindh, and Rajasthan; victorious campaigns, patronage of Brahmanical culture and arts.
Marked shift in language usage—from Prakrit inscriptions to Sanskrit as instrument of legitimacy.
3. Epigraphic Corpus and Chronology
Key inscriptions for Kshaharata: Nasik Cave inscriptions (two from time of Nahapana, circa Saka years 119–124 CE), Karle Cave inscriptions, and Junnar cave inscription by Ushavadata.
Key inscriptions for Kardamaka: Andhau Stone (Chashtana & Rudradaman, Saka year 52 / 130 CE), Junagadh rock inscription (Rudradaman I, Saka 72 / 150 CE), Devnimori, Gadha (Jasdan), Gundā, Wandhi, Kinākarī, Gondal fragment, coin legends with dates (e.g. silver coins of Jivadaman and Rudradaman with Brahmi numerals corresponding to Saka eras) – as per your listed epigraphic sources.
You can align Saka years to CE for clarity (e.g. Saka 52 = 130 CE, Saka 72 = 150 CE, etc.), and cross‑reference regnal titles (Mahakshatrapa, Rajno, etc.).
4. Comparative Analysis: Kshaharata vs. Kardamaka Houses
Political trajectory: The short-lived Kshaharatas under Nahapana, then a transition to the longer, more stable Kardamakas under Chashtana and Rudradaman.
Territorial reach: Kshaharatas centered on western Deccan & Gujarat; Kardamakas expanded into Malwa, Marwar, Sindh, and beyond.
Numismatic evolution: shift from thunderbolt-and‑arrow symbols to the three‑arched hill emblem.
Cultural policy: Nahapana supported both Buddhism and Brahmanical institutions; Rudradaman advanced Sanskrit inscriptions, Brahmin patronage, and royal Sanskrit ethos.
Relations with Satavahanas: Nahapana was defeated; Rudradaman engaged in both conflict and diplomacy—marital alliance with Vashishtiputra Satakarni (Satavahana).
5. Conclusion
The Kshaharata family under Nahapana set the foundation for Indo‑Scythian rule in western India, establishing coinage, cave patronage, and Saka political presence.
The Kardamaka dynasty, initiated by Chashtana, represented continuity and transformation—culminating in the powerful reign of Rudradaman I, whose inscriptions, conquests, and cultural patronage mark the high point of Western Satrap power.
Together, these dynasties shaped the early centuries CE political-religious landscape of western India, providing a transition between Indo‑Scythian and later Gupta dominance.
Suggested Structure for the Paper
Introduction & historiography
Origins and identity of Kshaharata and Kardamaka clans
Political history of Nahapana and Chashtana dynasties
Numismatics and royal symbolism
Epigraphic survey: inscriptions catalog and analysis
Religious and cultural patronage
Relations with neighboring powers (Satavahanas, Kushans)
Comparative assessment and legacy
Conclusion
All statements above are supported by epigraphic, numismatic, and secondary academic sources—including coin catalogues, Ptolemy, historical inscriptions, and modern scholarship.
1. Nāśik Cave Inscriptions (Nahapana & Ushavadata)
These inscriptions, especially Cave No. 10 (the “Nahapana Vihāra”), are key to understanding the Kshaharata dynasty:
Uṣavadata’s dedicatory inscription (c. 120 CE) is one of the earliest uses of Sanskrit in western India, although in a hybrid form, mixing Prakrit and Sanskrit stylistic features (Everything Explained Today). It records the purchase of land and donation of cave No. 10, along with 3,000 karṣapaṇas and coconut trees, to support monks’ clothing and medicines—an inscription that reveals ritual, economic, and institutional detail.
The donation text lists remote centers (Govardhana, Bharukaccha, Dashapura, etc.), reflecting the geographical spread of Kshaharata philanthropic activity.
Critical perspective: While glorifying the dynasty, these inscriptions may overstate Uṣavadata’s generosity or political influence. The precise economic figures (interest and investment details) point to formal institutional practice rather than mere royal largesse. The hybrid language also hints at the elite striving for Sanskrit legitimacy without full fluency.
Nāśik Cave 3 inscription (Satavahana’s reassertion) issues a strong rebuttal: it claims Gautamiputra Satakarni “destroyed the Khakharata race” and “restored the glory of the Satavāhana family”. A Reddit paraphrase underscores this as a propagandistic text:
“Who crushed down … the Sakas … root[ed] out the Khakharata race … restored the glory of the Satavahana family”
Critical reading: This inscription is unmistakably partisan and should be weighed carefully. It serves to legitimize Satavahana dominance by erasing Western Satrap influence, tapering claims to moral superiority and divine sanction.
2. Karle & Junnar Cave Inscriptions
At Kārle Cave, Ushavadata’s donations (cisterns, pilgrims’ shelters, gardens) are celebrated in inscriptions praising his piety and urban works across Bharukaccha, Dashapura, Sopara, and Nasik etc. The cave inscriptions themselves serve as living monuments to infrastructure and religious patronage.
The Junnar Cave inscription (Cave VI, Bhimaśaṅkar group) attributed to Ayama (prime minister of Nahapana) describes a “meritorious gift” in year 46 (roughly 124 CE), where Nahapana is explicitly styled Mahākṣatrapa—a kingly title—suggesting independent political authority by that time.
Critical reflection: These cave inscriptions celebrate both piety and political power intimately. Yet inscriptions from ministers rather than rulers suggest the dynasty used intermediaries to extend influence and legitimize rule through religious benevolence. The retrospective dating may be symbolic rather than strictly chronological.
3. Junagadh Rock Inscription (Rudradaman I, c. 150 CE)
This is the first long royal inscription entirely in (almost classical) Sanskrit, demonstrating literary advancement and Indianization of a foreign-origin dynasty.
The text begins with eight lines summarizing the history and public works on Sudarśana Lake from Mauryan through Aśokan periods, culminating in Rudradaman’s third reconstruction of the dam—explicitly undertaken without taxing the people.
The remaining twelve lines eulogize Rudradaman’s personal virtue, skill in arts & grammar, compassion, and fair rule—e.g. claims of expertise in grammar, politics, scripture, music and logic .
Critical evaluation: While rich in administrative and cultural detail, the inscription clearly functions as elite-state propaganda. The article “Junagadh Rock Inscription: Communal Propaganda Ancient Indian Style” argues that such texts often exaggerate benevolence or dismiss opponents (Tuna). Scholarly insights note that the Sanskrit is nearly classical but contains dialectical or clerical inconsistencies (e.g. irregular sandhi and spelling), marking a transitional stage in epigraphy.
4. Andhau, Devnimori, Gadha, Gondal, Kinākarī, Wandhi etc. (Kardamaka inscriptions)
While less studied individually in modern accessible scholarship, collectively these local inscriptions—from Saka years 52 to 273 (130–348 CE)—provide a granular view of governance, coin markup, regnal claims, and territorial reach of Chashtana, Jayadaman, Jivadaman, Rudrasena and Rudradaman’s successors.
Critical gaps: Many are fragmentary or preserved on coins or stone slabs, limiting full textual parsing. Their fyl-ling dates (silver coins of Jivadaman and Rudradaman I with Saka years, e.g. 72 = 150 CE; 127 = 205 CE) establish chronological succession but avoid expansive narrative.
They are important for confirming Saka-era chronology, titulature (Mahakṣatrapa vs. Kṣatrapa), and succession order—but they rarely match the rhetorical flourish of the Junagadh edict.
Comparative Summary
Kshaharata Inscriptions
Language: Mixed Prakrit/Sanskrit (hybrid)
Focus: Religious donations, philanthropic works
Authority Often issued by minister/daughter (Ushavadata, Ayama)
Perspective Demonstrates assimilation of Indian religious norms
Bias and Propaganda Ministerial praise and local goodwill.
Kardamaka Inscriptions
Language: Mostly Sanskrit in Junagadh; local stone legends in Prakrit/Brahmi on coins
Focus: Restoration (e.g. lake), public works, regnal eulogy
Authority: Monumental royal eulogy by Rudradaman
Perspective: Shows deliberate assertion of legitimacy via Sanskrit literacy
Bias and Propaganda: High-state propaganda stressing moral rule and dynasty continuity
Concluding Critical Observations
Propagandistic Purpose: Each inscription—whether by Uṣavadata or Rudradaman—aims to legitimize authority: one through Buddhist charity, the other through classical Sanskrit discourse and infrastructural legacy.
Linguistic Transition: Uṣavadata uses hybrid Sanskrit, whereas Rudradaman writes in largely standard Sanskrit—indicating Indians accepted Saka rulers through literary assimilation.
Selective Self‑Presentation: While Satavahana inscriptions demonize the Sakas, Kshaharata and Kardamaka inscriptions do not describe military setbacks—rather they emphasize virtues of the dynasty.
Regional vs. Imperial: Kshaharata inscriptions operate at regional cave sites and involve private wealth channeled into public religious works. The Junagadh inscription is imperial, monumental in scale, speaking to empire and infrastructure.
Scholarly Caveats
Inscriptions must be read contextually, acknowledging both their historical data (place names, dates, donations) and rhetorical aims (self-legitimation, moral projection).
Internal chronological consistency between Saka‑era dating and regnal numbering must be cross‑checked with external sources.
The literary style and orthographical irregularities in the Junagadh inscription reflect transitional epigraphy; these should not be mistaken for fully classical Sanskrit use.
Together, these inscriptions offer a rich corpus for reconstructing political, religious, economic, and cultural histories—while also teaching a sharper lesson in reading ancient texts: what is recorded is as important as what is omitted. They remain central to any critical study of Kshaharata and Kardamaka rulers.