Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c12: Section V. Native and Foreign Princes Mentioned in the Inscriptions—Identification of the Former with the Andhrabhṛityas of the Purâṇas

Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c12

Language
English

Section V. Native and Foreign Princes Mentioned in the Inscriptions—Identification of the Former with the Andhrabhṛityas of the Purâṇas

c12.1

NATIVE AND FOREIGN PRINCES MENTIONED IN THE INSCRIPTIONS—IDENTIFICATION OF THE FORMER WITH THE ANDHRABHṚITYAS OF THE PURÂṆAS

c12.2

THE first thing that will strike one on looking at the list given at the end of the last section, is that the name Kshaharâta Nahapâna is not Indian but foreign The title Kshatrapa or Mahâkshatrapa also used in the case of that king, is not Indian, though it is the Sanskritised form of a foreign one, very likely the Persian *Satrap* From the statement in the inscription of Gotamîputra that he destroyed the Śakas, Yavanas, and Pahlavas, it appears that the country was at that time very much exposed to the inroads of these foreigners Yavanas were the Bactrian Greeks, but Kshaharâta Nahapâna does not look a Greek name He must, therefore, have been either a Śaka or Pahlava Again, we are told that Gotamîputra left no remnant of the race of Khagârâta or Khakhârâta which name seems to be the same as Kshaharâta or Khaharâta as it is spelled in the Kârlı̂ and Junnar inscriptions It follows, therefore, that the Śakas or Pahlavas made themselves masters of the country some time between the second king in the above list and Gotamîputra Sâtakarṇi, and that they were driven out by Gotamîputra who, by thus recovering the provinces lost to his dynasty, re-established, as stated in the inscription, the glory of the Sâtavâhana race to which he belonged All the other kings named above belonged to that dynasty

c12.3

Now, in the Purâṇas we have lists of kings and dynasties that ruled over the country The earliest dynasty with which we are here concerned is the Maurya founded by Chandragupta in B C 320, as determined by his relations with Seleucus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander the Great It ruled over Northern India for 137 years according to the Purânas, and the last king Bṛihadratha was murdered by his general Pushyamitra or Pushpamitra, who founded the Sunga dynasty This was in power for 112 years and was succeeded by the Kâṇva family which ruled for forty-five years The Kânvas were overthrown by Sipraka, Sindhuka, or Śisuka, as he is variously named, who founded what the Purâṇas call the dynasty of the Andhrabhṛityas, that is, Andhras who were once servants or dependents The second king of this dynasty was Kṛishṇa according to all, the third was Śâtakarṇi or Śrîsâtakarṇi according to the Vâyu or Vishṇu, while the Bhâgavata corrupts the name slightly to Śântakarṇa The Mâtsya interposes three more kings between Kṛishṇa and Śâtakarṇi, while the Vishṇu has another Śâtakarṇi to correspond with that of the Mâtsya Gotamîputra is the thirteenth prince according to the Vâyu, fifteenth according to the Bhâgavata, seventeenth according to the Vishṇu, and twenty-second according to the Mâtsya Pulimat, Purîmat or Pulomat was his successor [24] according to the Vishṇu, the Bhâgavata, or the Mâtsya These are so many mislections for the Puḷumâyi of our inscriptions and coins The Vâyu omits his name altogether His successor was Śiva Śrî according to the Vishṇu and the Mâtsya, while the Bhâgavata calls him Vedaśiras, and the Vâyu does not notice him Yajña Śrî occurs in all, being placed after Śivaskandha, the successor of Śiva Śrî, by all except the Vâyu, which assigns to him the next place after Gotamîputra

c12.4

Thus then, the names occurring in the inscriptions and on the coins as well as the order sufficiently agree with those given in the Purâṇas under the Andhrabhṛitya dynasty to justify us in believing that the kings mentioned in both are the same There is, however, no trace of Chatushparṇa Sâtakarṇi unless we are to identify him with Chaṇḍasrî Sâtakarṇi The name Mâḍharîputra Sakasena also does not occur in the Purâṇas, and he appears to have belonged to a branch of the dynasty We shall hereafter assign to him his place in the list Simuka, whose name occurs in the Nânâghât inscription, and who, as I have already observed, was an earlier occupant of the throne than the reigning prince Sâtakarṇi the third in the Purâṇic list, must be the same as Śiśuka, the founder of the dynasty For the Devanâgarî *ma* is often so carelessly written as to look like *sa*, hence the true Simuka was corrupted to Siśuka, Śisuka, or Śisuka, in the course of time The Sindhuka of the Vâyu and the Sipraka of the Vishṇu are further corruptions This identification is rendered probable also by the consideration that he who caused the cave to be constructed, and the statues of himself and the younger princes to be carved, might, to give dignity to his race, be expected to get the founder of the dynasty also represented there, especially as he was removed only one degree from him In this manner the Andhrabhṛitya dynasty of the Purâṇas is the same as the Sâtavâhana dynasty of the inscriptions

Linked texts (8)