The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s3.116

c8.s3.116

Since Gotamî is spoken of as the mother of a king and the grandmother of a king, and the wife of her son Gotamîputra Sâtakarṇi is represented as the mother of a king, and since the only other king besides Sâtakarṇi mentioned in these inscriptions is Puḷumāyi, it appears that this last was the grandson and son respectively of these two ladies. He was therefore the son and his mother Vâsishṭhî the wife of Gotamîputra Sâtakarṇi. Sâtakarṇi issued the charter contained in the second inscription in the year 18, which must be the eighteenth year of Puḷumāyi's reign, since dates referring to his reign only are found at Nâsik and Kârli and not to that of Gotamîputra. Even the date of the large inscription noticed above in which Gotamîputra's great deeds are recorded is referred to Puḷumāyi's reign. And the grant of the village alluded to in that inscription and the one below appears to have been made by Gotamîputra, since he is spoken of as "the lord of Dhanakaṭaka," though the portion of the rock containing the words that would have rendered the sense clear has been cut away. Gotamî is spoken of as dedicating the cave in the present tense, wherefore it must be understood she was alive at the time. The father and the son appear thus to have reigned at the same time, the son on this side of the country since the inscriptions are dated in his reign, and the father at Dhanakaṭaka, which has been identified with Dharaṇikoṭ in the Gantur district of the Madras Presidency. And this is confirmed by the fact, mentioned above, of Gotamî's having been called the mother of the great king and the grandmother of the great king. This statement would be pointless if she were not both at one and the same time.¹ Since the charter of the year 24, intended as supplementary to that of 18, was issued by Vâsishṭhî, while the first was issued by her husband, it appears probable that Gotamîputra had died in the interval and Vâsishṭhî reigned as regent at the capital, while Puḷumāyi continued to govern the Dekkan or Mahârâshṭra. The years given in the charter must be those of Puḷumāyi, since even the large inscription is dated in the nineteenth year of his reign. These kings belonged to the Sâtavâhana dynasty.