198
Satraps after another generation. From the Saka era of 78 A. D. for 46 years, there are coins of a monarch named Nahapana, by whom the line of the Satraps was established. This is thought to be the same as the Mambarus of § 41, whose name should be written Nambanus.
The Andhra kings are enumerated in the Puranas, which, to- gether with the coinage, afford almost the only information concern- ing them. A dynastic name, borne by many of these monarchs, was Satakarni, and this is supposed to be the Saraganus of § 52 (probably Arishta Satakarni, who reigned about 44-69 A. D.); while Sandancs is probably the same as Sundara Satakarni, whose short reign of a year, succeeded by another of six months, is affirmed by at least two of the Puranas. The reign of this Sundara (the texr should be altered to Sandares) is fixed by Vincent Smith and others at 83-4 A. D.
From these facts it has been supposed that the Periplus itself must be dated in the same year, 83-4 A. D., but this does not necessarily follow. Its date is considered in the introduction, pp. 7-15, and upon ample evidence — Roman, Arabian, and Parthian — is fixed at 60 A. D.
If Nambanus of § 41 is the same as Nahapana, it must yet be shown that he is the same as the great satrap whose victories over the Andhras and conquest of the Konkan are cited as one of the numer- ous events thought to be commemorated by the Saka era of 78 A. D. At least one predecessor, formerly thought to be identical with that Nahapana, has now been distinguished under the name of Bhumaka, and the materials are not yet at hand for affirming, or denying, the possibility of others, in the so-called Kshaharata line which preceded the achievements of the Satraps.
And if Sandares of § 52 is the same as Sundara Satakarni, there is a great difficulty in the way of identifying the Periplus with the single year of his reign. Calliena, his own port, he must be supposed to have closed, in order that its foreign trade might be diverted to Bary- gaza, the port of his Saka rival and bitter enemy! He, the Andhra monarch, must have done this, for the port was still “in his posses- sion;” not, be it observed, in that of the Satraps. The Konkans were still nominally, though evidently not effectually, an Andhra de- pendency.
The inference is unmistakable that the Periplus is describing a state of things prior to the recognition of the Kshatrapa power and its annexation of the Andhra coast; prior, that is, to the Saka era of 78 A. D. It describes clearly enough an Andhra port, still subject to the Andhra kingdom, but harried and dominated, obstructed” as
