Kalliena

KALLIENA (Ancient Greek Καλλίενα) — A port city in Western India on the bank of the Ulhas River mentioned in ancient sources of the early centuries AD.

Name

The Ancient Greek toponym Καλλίενα is an exact rendering of the Ancient Indian Kalyāṇa (‘Beautiful’), which corresponds to the modern city of Kalyan.

Main sources

Kalliena is mentioned in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (52: 17. 18; 53: 17. 22) (Fig. 1) as the third port in the region of Dachinabades (Ancient Indian Dakṣiṇāpatha — ‘southern region,’ i.e., the area south of the Narmada River) after Akabaru and Suppara (the latter already identified as modern Nala Sopara) from north to south.

The scarce mentions of Kalliena in ancient sources contrast its exceptional significance in the political history of India in the 1^st–2^nd centuries as well as the history of transoceanic trade between South Asia and the Mediterranean. It is surprising that Kalliena is not mentioned in Ptolemy’s Introduction to Geography, which otherwise names all the coastal settlements around Kalliena listed in the Periplus.

Location

Ancient Kalliena is located close to modern Mumbai (state of Maharashtra), approximately 50 km from the coastline (Fig. 2). Its location at a distance from the shore was characteristic of other ports on the western Indian coast, such as Muziris and Nelkynda. Their establishment close to — but not directly on — the coast was likely designed to protect them from the elements (floods, tsunamis, storm winds, etc.), which can be especially severe along the coast but less destructive at a distance. The port for Kalliena was Suppara, which was situated directly on the shore.

If Kalliena can be identified as modern Kalyan, then its location would tally with that of the two ports that followed. According to the Periplus, the ports of Semylla (Σήμυλλα) and Mandagora (Μανδαγόρα) (53: 17. 22) were located south of Kalliena. Semylla has been identified as modern Chaul, and Mandagora as modern Mandad in the Bay of Janjira [Shinde et al.2002: 78; Fig. 1]. Mandagora is also mentioned by Ptolemy (VII, 1, 7). Both Chaul and Mandad are located south of Kalyan in the same order as mentioned in the Periplus.

Historical importance

Kalliena’s location was marked by the converging interests of the Sātavāhana dynasty, which ruled the Andhra Kingdom, and those of the Indo-Scythians during the reign of King Nahapāna. A reconstruction of the relevant historical context of the second half of the 1^st century described in the Periplus is difficult, since the interpretation of Ancient Greek proper names and their correlation with figures from Ancient Indian history is itself a problematic issue, making it almost impossible to study either the history of Kalliena or that of broader subjects, such as the conflict between the Sātavāhanas and the Indo-Scythians (Western Kshatrapas). Based on the account of Kalliena provided by the Periplus’ unknown author, the city was under the control of the Sātavāhanas during his time, but experienced periods of both prosperity and decline under their rule, most likely due to a naval blockade imposed by the Indo-Scythians, who controlled the more northerly regions, including the port of Barygaza.

This particular situation is described in the Periplus (52: 17. 17‒21) as follows: during the reign of the ‘previous’ King Saraganos (or ‘elder Saraganos’ — ἐπὶ τῶν Σαραγάνου τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου), the city of Kalliena was a port of trade where everything ‘went according to the law’. However, following its occupation (καρασχεῖν) by Sandanes (Σανδάνης), it became largely inaccessible, and Greek ships accidentally entering the port area were redirected under escort to Barygaza, which was controlled by the Indo-Scythians led by King Nahapāna.

The main questions here are connected to the interpretation of Ancient Greek proper names. Should the information from the Periplus be understood as indicating separate ruling houses for the ‘elder Saraganos’ and Sandanes? Were the new difficulties faced by Kalliena due to the replacement of the previous ‘lawful’ authority by a new (unlawful) one? The designation of the preceding king as ‘elder’ (τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου) suggests that the next king, Sandanes, might also have been a Saraganos, albeit a ‘current’ Saraganos (the ‘younger Saraganos’), and thus bore two names. In this case, there would have been no dynastic change in Kalliena, but instead a shifting balance of power in the region under the new king for various reasons. This is further indicated by the fact that Greek ships began to be intercepted and convoyed to Barygaza, suggesting that the Indo-Scythians had managed to establish a naval blockade.

However, attention should be paid to the verb καρασχεῖν, which describes how Sandanes (the ‘younger Saraganos’?) rose to power. Interpreting this verb as meaning ‘to seize’ (not the only interpretation, but a possible one) might indicate that there were other rulers between the ‘elder Saraganos’ and Sandanes. If so, the change of the ruling dynasty in Kalliena not once, but twice, may have been responsible for the difficulties in trade, due to which the Sakas were forced to provide protective escort to the Greek-Roman ships venturing south of their administration to Barygaza, a territory controlled by Nahapāna.

An inscription found in the Pandavleni caves near the city of Nāsik and dating to the 19^th year of the reign of Vasishthiputra Pulumavi from the Sātavāhana dynasty mentions that the king ‘eradicated’ the Nahapāna’s dynasty: “khakharātavasa niravasesakarasa (15) sātavāhanakulayasapatithāpana (16)…” [which translates to ‘eradicated the Kshaharata race and restored the glory of the Sātavāhanas…’ [Senart 1905‒1906: 60; Mirashi 1981: 45. l. 5]]. In his Introduction to Geography, Ptolemy mentions Vasishthiputra Pulumavi as Siriptolemaios (Σιριπτολεμαίος) (VII, 1, 82), who ruled the city of Paithana (Sanskrit: Pratiṣṭhāna; Prakrit: Paiṭṭhāṇa; modern Paithan). According to the Periplus (51: 17. 9), this city was under the control of the Indo-Scythians (Nahapāna). 

This makes the situation more complicated. If, however, we assume that the difficulties described in the Periplus (52: 17. 11) in transporting goods from Paithana to Barygaza, i.e. to the territories of Nahapāna, were due to the takeover of Paithana by the Sātavāhanas (rulers of Andhra [Palmer 1947: 138], and at the same time Siriptolemaios = the ‘elder Saraganos’, i.e., Vasishthiputra Pulumavi), then the contradiction between the two sources would be resolved.

In this case, the name Sandanes (Σανδάνης) must be interpreted as the Ancient Greek rendering of the dynastic name Sātavāhana, and Saraganos (Σαραγάνος) as the clan name Śātakarṇi. In the period covered by the Periplus, the territories of the Sātavāhanas would have extended to Kalliena and Paithana, while the region of Barygaza would have been controlled by the Indo-Scythians (Nahapāna).

This is but one of various scenarios that have been reconstructed in scholarly literature [MacDowall 1964: 271‒279; Casson 1983], yet it is certainly one of the most plausible.