Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c13.29

Language: English

c13.29.1

If the twenty-eight years assigned to Puḷumâyi in the Mâtsya Purâna are to be reckoned from the year of Gotamîputra's death, he must be considered to have begun to reign at Dhanakaṭaka in A. D. 154, and to have ceased in A. D. 182. He reigned at Paiṭhan from A. D. 130 to A. D. 154, that is, for about twenty-four years, and we have seen that the latest year of his reign recorded in the inscriptions at Nâsık and Kârlı is the twenty-fourth. Altogether then his reign lasted for fifty-two years. But if the twenty-eight include the twenty-four for which he ruled at Paiṭhaṇ, he must have died in 158. This supposition looks very probable. He was succeeded by Śıvasrî, whose coin found in the Tailangana districts has been described by Mr. Thomas in the *Indian Antiquary*, Vol. IX., p. 64.

c13.29.2

He appears to have been Puḷumâyi's brother, since he also is styled on the coin Vâsiṭhî-puta, *i.e.*, Vâsishṭhîputra, or the son of Vâsishṭhî He had a reign of seven years and must have died in A D 165 Śivaskanda was the next king, to whom also seven years have been assigned There is no trace of these two princes on this side of the country, while the name of the next, Yajña Śrî, occurs frequently as we have seen in inscriptions and coins He appears to have been Puḷumâyi's immediate successor at Paiṭhaṇ His full name was Gotamîputra Yajña Śrî Śâtakarṇi, and he is, as observed before, the Gotamîputra of the Kolhâpur coins Some copies of the Mâtsya assign him twenty-nine years, others nine, and twenty, and the Vâyu, twenty-nine, while the Brahmâṇḍa allows him nineteen Probably he reigned in Mahârâshṭra for eighteen or nineteen years, since the sixteenth year of his reign is his latest recorded date, and for twenty-nine years at Dhanakaṭaka since, according to our supposition, the Vâyu Purâna gives an account of the Dhanakaṭaka branch and his coins are found in Tailangaṇa And this is confirmed by what we have already said Puḷumâyi reigned at Dhanakaṭaka for four years and his two successors for fourteen All this while, *i.e.*, for eighteen years, Yajña Śrî was ruler of Mahârâshṭra He must thus have ceased to reign in the last country in about A D 172 and died in about A D 202 The next three reigns lasted, according to the Vâyu, for sixteen years No trace of any of these has yet been found on this side of the country, but coins of Chandra Śrî are found near the original seat of government, and two of these are described by Mr Thomas in the paper mentioned above Thus the [35] latest Andhrabhṛitya date is A D 218 Maḍharî-puta Sakasena of the Kânheri inscription, the same as the Mâdharîputa of the Kolhâpur coins, has been identified with Śiva Śrî, the successor of Puḷumâyi, by Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl, and I also at one time concurred with him.

c13.29.3

But the identification is not, I think, tenable. He was probably led to it by his reading Sirisena for Sakasena, but I have shown that the reading is incorrect. Mr. Thomas has described a specimen of eleven coins found at Amrâvatî near Dharaṇikoṭ, the legend on which he reads as *Sakasakasa*, but it is not unlikely *Sakasenasa*, "of Sakasena." Besides, Mâḍharîputra Sakasena could not have been the immediate successor of Puḷmâyi for a reason which I have already given. One of the Kolhâpur coins figured by Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl Indrajı bears the names of both Gotamîputa and Mâḍharîputa, showing that the piece originally bearing the name of one of them was re-stamped with the name of the other. Mr. Thomas thinks that it was originally Mâḍharîputa's coin. I think it was Gotamîputa's, for, if we see the other figured coins we shall find that they are so stamped as to leave some space between the rim and the legend. This in the present case is utilized and the name of Mâḍharîputa stamped close to the rim, which shows that the thing was done later. Mâḍharîputra Sakasena, therefore, must have been a successor of Gotamîputra Yajña Śrî Śâtakarṇi. But, as we have seen, none of his three Purâṇic successors bore the name, and the name Sakasena is one which has nothing like it on the long list of the Andhrabhṛityas. Still that king must have reigned at Dhanakaṭaka also if my surmise that Mr. Thomas' Sakasaka is the same as Sakasena is correct.

c13.29.4

In the same manner, as observed before, Chatushparṇa Śâtakarṇi's name does not appear in the Purâṇas. But the Puraṇâs cannot be expected to give accurate information on these points. In the Mâtsya Purâṇa another Andhra dynasty of "seven princes sprung from the servants of the original Andhrabhṛitya family will," it is said, "come into power after that family becomes extinct."¹⁴ The Vâyu has got a similar verse the reading of which, however, is corrupt, but it appears that this new dynasty is there meant to be spoken of as having sprung from the Andhrabhṛitya family itself and must have constituted a separate branch cut off from the main line. And we can very well understand from the points already made out how such a branch could have constituted itself after Yajña Śrî's ceasing to reign. Vâsishṭhîputra Śâtakarṇi whom I have identified with Chaturapana married a Kshatrapa lady. The Kshatrapas, as I have before observed, were foreigners, most probably Sakas who had become Hindus. Mâdharîputra was not unlikely the son of that lady. And thus he and his father Chaturapana formed, from the very fact of this marriage, a distinct line of princes. Chaturapana appears to have succeeded Yajña Śrî, and Mâdharîputra to have reigned after Chaturapana. The durations of these reigns cannot be made out, but the latest date of the former is the thirteenth year of his reign, which probably corresponds [36] to 185 A.D. and of the latter the eighth.

c13.29.5

The dates of the later Sâtavâhanas are therefore these: