^{page 106 note 1} In the Jasdan Stone Inscription of Rudrasena I appears the expression Putrapapautra which definitely means putra-prapautra (i.e. son of great grandson) (see Epigraphia Indica, vol. xvi, p. 238).

^{page 107 note 1} In ancient Indian epigraphs the names of the ancestors of the ruling king occur generally to indicate the relation of each of them with the reigning monarch.

^{page 107 note 2} PFIOC, vol. i, p. 565.

^{page 108 note 1} For similar interpretation of a similar expression, see, Bhandarkar, , A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, Nos. 1038, 1195–1197, 1267, 1270, 1275, etcGoogle Scholar.

^{page 108 note 2} Rapson, , Catalogue of Coins of the Andhra Dynasty, the Western Kṣatrapas, the Traikutakas Dynasty, and Bodhi Dynasty, pp. 155 ffGoogle Scholar.

_{page 108 note 3} Journal of the Numismatic Society of India, vol. xiv, p. 85.

^{page 108 note 4} The last dates, supplied by the coins of Western Kṣatrapas, are 310 + x and (3)12 (see CCADWK., p. 192; Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1937; Numismatic supplement, vol. xlvii, p. 90 f.). Candragupta II's silver coinage, probably issued after his victory over the Western Kṣatrapas, gives the year 90 + x of the Gupta Era. (Allan, , Catalogue of Coins of Gupta Dynasties and of Saśaῐka, the king of Gauda, p.49Google Scholar.) Hence the Kṣatrapa rule ended some time between (310 + x + 78 =) a.d. 388 or (312 + 78 =) a.d. 390 and (90 + x -f 319–20 a.d. =) a.d. 409–10. It has recently been claimed that of some Kṣatrapa coins discovered at Uparkot in 1958–59 one refers to the year 314, i.e. 392 a.d., and another also possibly does the same (JNSI, vol. xxii, pp. 119–20).

^{page 108 note 5} The Nasik Inscription of Ābhīra Iśvarasena is dated in the year 9. Sometimes this is taken to refer to the so-called Traikūtaka-Kalachuri Era of a.d. 248–9. (Mirashi, , Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. iv, pt. 1, pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar.)

^{page 109 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 109 note 2} This and other memorial Yaṣfis of the age concerned have really the appearance of stone slabs.

The expression bhavanaṁ ca has not been translated, for portions of the line, before and after it, have been mutilated.

^{page 110 note 1} CCADWK, pp. 179 ff.; NS., vol. xlvii, pp. 90 ff.

^{page 110 note 2} CCADWK., pp. 155 ff.; JNSI., vol. xiv, p. 85.

^{page 111 note 1} CCADWK., pp. 162 ff.

^{page 111 note 2} See reference no. 11.

^{page 111 note 3} CCADWK., pp. 170 ff. Narain thinks, on the basis of the reading of the legend appearing on one Kṣatrapa coin, that the correct name of this ruler is Rudrasena. (JNSI., vol. xii, p. 167.) But we cannot be definite about Narain's reading, and so it is better to follow the reading generally accepted. Moreover the name Rudrasaha (i.e. Rudrasiṁha II) can be definitely read on some coins.

^{page 111 note 4} We are not sure as to whether svāmi-Jīvadāman II, father of Rudrasiṁha II, actually ruled in any part of Central or Western India. In page no. 32 of the Annual Progress Report of Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle, for the year 1909–10, appears the report of the “discovery of a fragment of a stone inscription written in “old Sanskrit”. It is stated to be an inscription of Rudrasiṁha, son of the Kṣatrapa king Jīvadāman. The date of the record is “Vaisākha Shud 7” of the year 228 (i.e. a.d. 228 + 78 = 306). The record was found in the course of digging done in connection with the construction of the Shahpur-Kutiyana Railway near Vanthali in the state of Junagaḍh” (now in the Junagaḍh region of Gujarat State). If Jīvadāman II is actually referred to in this inscription as a Kṣatrapa, he may be considered to have ruled for some time in a part of Western India. It is, however, difficult to take the evidence of this report as conclusive, since no facsimile of the record has been published.

Banerji, R. D. edited a fragmentary inscription from Junagadh (EI., vol. xvi, pp. 339 if.)Google Scholar. It refers to one Kṣatrapa svāmi-Jīvadāman. R. D. Banerji has read Mahākṣatrapa, but actually the word “Kṣatrapa” is visible in the facsimile. The date of this record can be read either as 100 + x or 200 + x. Thus it could have been issued in the time of either Jīvadāman I or Jīvadāman II. Hence the evidence of this epigraph does not necessarily prove Jīvadāman II's reign. The fact that coins of Rudrasiṁha II, son of Jīvadāman II, do not ascribe any title of authority to the latter probably discounts the probability of his ever ruling as a Kṣatrapa or a Mahākṣatrapa.

^{page 112 note 1} This victory might have had viceregal titles such as Mahākṣatrapa or Šāhī, or Šāh.

_{page 112 note 2} CCADWK., pp. 175 ff.

^{page 112 note 3} The author of the present article is trying to show elsewhere—on the basis of the evidences of the Annals of Ṭabāri, the Naqs-i-Rustam record of Šāpūr I, a Persepolis inscription of Šāpūr Šakānsāh, brother of Šāpūr II, and another Persepolis inscription, the Raghuvaṃśa of Kālidāsa (iv, 60–5) and the Kṣatrapa coinage—that the rulers of the house of Jīvadāman probably acknowledged the suzerainty of the Sassanid emperors Hormiz II, Ādharnarseh, and Šāpūr II. Rudrasiṁha II and Yaśodāman may have served under Šāpūr Šakānsāh, the Sassanid Viceroy.

This Sassanid invasion is probably indicated by the well-known Jaina legend Kālakācāryya-Kathānaka. A critical study of different verions of this legend shows that it probably commemorates an invasion of the Ujjayinī region in Hinduga deśa from an area which was situated to the western side of the Indus and was known both as “Scythian Bank” and as “Persian Bank”. It appears from other descriptions contained in the legend that the region concerned included part of the Indus delta lying to the west of the Indus. The ruler of the region was called Sāhī and his superior overlord was known as Ṣāhānu Ṣāhī.

It appears that the invasions of the Ujjain area happened at a time when the Indus delta—the Scythia of the Periplus of the Ertyhraean Sea—or at least the portion of it lying to the west of the Indus, was under the Persian occupation and when the Persian king was called as Ṣahānu Sāhi and his viceroy as Sāhī or Ṣāh. Such conditions could be fulfilled only during the Sassanid period, when the Indus delta to the west of the Indus might have been known to the Indians both as Scythia or Sākastāna and as (a province of) Persia and when a Persian king and his viceroy used the respective titles mentioned above.

The present author is trying to show elsewhere that as a result of the Sassanid invasion, indicated by the Jaina legend in question, the house of Jōvadāman came under the influence of the Persians.

It is often stated that the Paikuli Inscription refers to the suzerainty of the Sassanids over the rulers of Avanti and over other Satraps of Saurāṣtra and Gujarat. But actually no such reference occurs (see Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. xiv, pp. 514 ff.).

It may be added here that the historical event, referred to above, was later incorporated in the cycle of legends of Kālaka and the tradition was vitiated. It may also be noted that some scholars have tried to give other interpretations of this legend.

^{page 113 note 1} Indian Historical Quarterly, June, 1959, pp. 140 ff.; Proceedings of Indian History Congress, 1959, pp. 119–20. The present writer discussed this possibility in these two articles. Unfortunately in an article published recently in JNSI (vol. xxii, pp. 121–22) this has not been acknowledged.

^{page 113 note 2} CCADWK., p. 173 ff.