Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c13.29.3

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.