Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c17.s2: Section II. The Sātavāhanas and the Chetas

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c17.s2

Language
English

Contents

Section II. The Sātavāhanas and the Chetas

c17.s2.1

While the Śuṅgas and Kāṇvas were engaged in their petty feuds, new powers were rising in trans-Vindhyan India. These were the Sātavāhana¹ (the so-called Andhra or Andhra-bhṛitya²) kingdom of Dakshiṇāpatha and the Cheta or Cheti kingdom of Kaliṅga.

c17.s2.2

¹ The form Sātivāhana is found in the Bhāgalpur Grant of Nārāyaṇapāla and the form Sālivāhana in literature. See also Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, *EHD*, Section VII.

c17.s2.3

² The designation 'Andhra-jātīya' or 'Andhra' is found in the *Purāṇas* which represent the founder as a bhṛitya or servant of the last Kāṇva king. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, following apparently the *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, styles the dynasty founded by Simuka Andhra-bhṛitya, i.e., Andhras who were once servants. But that designation should properly be applied to the seven Ābhīras who are mentioned as the successors of the line of Simuka on page 45 of Pargiter's *Dynasties of the Kali Age* (cf. *Vishṇu*, P. IV. 24. 13).

c17.s2.4

The founder of the Sātavāhana dynasty was **Simuka** whose name is misspelt as Śiśuka, Sindhuka and Śipraka in the *Purāṇas*. Those works state that the "Andhra" Simuka will assail the Kāṇvāyanas and Suśarman, and destroy the remains of the Śuṅgas' power and will obtain this "earth". If this statement be true then it cannot be denied that Simuka was for some years a contemporary of Suśarman (40-30 B.C.) and flourished in the first century B.C. *Rapson*, *Smith* and many other scholars, however, reject the unanimous testimony of the *Purāṇas*. They attach more importance to a statement about which there is not the same unanimity, that the "Andhras" ruled for four centuries and a half. Accordingly, they place Simuka towards the close of the third century B.C., and say that the dynasty came to an end in the third century A.D.

c17.s2.5

A discussion of Simuka's date involves the consideration of the following questions:—

c17.s2.6

1. What is the age of the script of the Nānāghāṭ record of Nāyanikā, daughter-in-law of Simuka (or of his brother and successor, Kṛishṇa) ?

c17.s2.7

2. What is the actual date of Khāravela's Hāthī-gumphā Inscription which refers to a Sātakarṇi, who was apparently a successor of Simuka ?

c17.s2.8

3. What is the exact number of the so-called Andhra kings and what is the duration of their rule ?

c17.s2.9

As to the first point we should note that according to Mr. R. P. Chanda the inscription of Nāyanikā is later than the Besnagar Inscription of Bhāgavata, possibly the penultimate king of the "line" of Pushya-mitra mentioned in the *Purāṇas*.¹ Consequently Simuka may be placed in the Kāṇva period, *i.e.*, in the first century B.C.—a date which accords with Purāṇic evidence.¹

c17.s2.10

¹ MASI., No. 1. pp. 14-15. In *IHQ*, 1929 (p. 601) Mr. Chanda points to the agreement of the Nānāghāṭ script with the Besnagar Inscription of the time of Antialkidas. But the exact date of Antialkidas is uncertain. He may have belonged to the latter half of the second century B. C. or the first half of the next century. Mr. R. D. Banerji, while disagreeing with the views of Mr. Chanda in regard to certain points, admits, after a detailed examination of certain epigraphs, that "the Nānāghāṭ inscriptions show the use of a very large number of Ksatrapa or early Kusana forms side by side with older ones" (*Mem. Asiat. Soc. Bengal*, Vol. XI, No. 3, p. 145). According to Rapson (*Andhra Coins*, lxxvii) the form of the *akshara* *'da'* found in the Nānāghāṭ record resembles that of a coin-legend which is assignable to the first or second century B. C. It is not suggested that either Banerji or Rapson placed the Nānāghāṭ record in the first century B.C. But some of the facts they have placed before us do not preclude the possibility of a date in the first century B. C. The theory that the record belongs to the second century B.C. rests in some measure on the assumption tacitly accepted by the older generation of scholars that Khāravela's thirteenth year corresponds to the year 165 of the time of the Maurya kings (Bühler, *Indian Palaeography*, 39; Rapson xvii).

c17.s2.11

¹ Bühler also observes (ASWI., Vol. V, 65) that the characters of the Nānāghāṭ inscriptions belong to a period anterior by about 100 years to that of the edicts of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi and his son Pulumāyi. Scholars who place the Nānāghāṭ record in the first half of the second century B.C., and the epigraphs of the time of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi in the second century A.D., will have to account for the paucity of Sātavāhana records during a period of about three hundred years (if that be the actual length of the interval between the age of the husband of Nāganikā and the reign of the son of Balaśrī). Mr. N. G. Majumdar (*The Monuments of Sāñchī* Vol. I, pt. iv, p. 277) places the Nānāghāṭ record during the period 100-75 B.C.

c17.s2.12

As to the second point Mr. R. D. Banerji gives good grounds for believing that the expression *Ti-vasa-sata* occurring in the passage "*Paṁchame che dāni vase Namdarāja ti-vasa-sata.........*" of the Hāthīgumphā Inscription means not 103 but 300.² This was also the view of Mr. Chanda and, at one time, of Dr. Jayaswal.³

c17.s2.13

² JBORS, 1917, 495-497.

c17.s2.14

³ JBORS, 1917, 432; *cf.* 1918, 377, 385. The older view was changed in 1927, 238, 244. According to the usually accepted interpretation of a passage in the Hāthīgumphā record Khāravela, in his fifth year, extended an aqueduct that had not been used for "*ti-vasa-sata*" since Nandarāja. If "*ti-vasa-sata*" is taken to mean 103 years, Khāravela's accession must be placed 103—5=98 years after Nandarāja. His elevation to the position of Yuvarāja took place 9 years before the date, *i.e.*, 98—9=89 years after Nandarāja (*i.e.*, not later than 324 B.C.—89=235 B.C.). Khāravela's father was apparently on the throne at that time, and he seems to have been preceded by his father. But we learn from Aśoka's inscriptions that Kaliṅga was actually governed at that time by a Maurya Kumāra under the suzerainty of Aśoka himself. Therefore "*ti-vasa-sata*" should be taken to mean 300, and not 103 years. The figure 'three hundred' (a round number) is in substantial agreement with the Purāṇic tradition about the interval between the Nandas and Sātakarṇi I, 137 (period of the Mauryas)+112 (of the Śuṅgas)+45 (of the Kāṇvas)+23 (of Simuka)+10 (of Kṛishṇa)=327.

c17.s2.15

If *Ti-vasa-sata* means 300, Khāravela and his contemporary Sātakarṇi may have flourished 300 years after Nandarāja, *i.e.*, in or about 24 B.C. This agrees with the Purāṇic evidence according to which Sātakarṇi's father (or uncle) Simuka assailed the last Kāṇva king Suśarman (*c.* 40-30 B.C.).¹

c17.s2.16

¹ Simuka may have ascended the throne (in the Deccan) several years before the date 40-30 B.C. when he assailed the Kāṇvāyanas possibly in Central India. The period of his rule after the defeat of the Kāṇvas may have been less than 23 years. Thus the actual interval between the Nandas and Sātakarṇi may well have been a little less than 327 years.

c17.s2.17

We now come to the third point, *viz.*, the determination of the exact number of Sātavāhana kings, and the duration of their rule.

c17.s2.18

Regarding each of these matters we have got in the Purāṇas quite a number of different traditions. As to the first the *Matsya Purāṇa* says—

c17.s2.19

“*Ekona-viṁśatir*² *hyete Andhrā bhokshyanti vai mahīm*,”

c17.s2.20

² Variant *ekoṇa-navatiṁ* (DKA, 43).

c17.s2.21

but it gives thirty names.³

c17.s2.22

³ Pargiter points out (p. 36) that 3 Matsya Mss. name 30, and the others vary the number from 28 to 21.

c17.s2.23

The *Vāyu Purāṇa*, with the exception of the ‘*M*’ manuscript, says—

c17.s2.24

*Ityete vai nṛipās triṁśad Andhrā bhokshyanti ye mahīm*’’ (these thirty Andhras will enjoy the earth); but most of the *Vāyu* manuscripts name only seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen kings.

c17.s2.25

As to the duration of the Andhra rule several *Matsya* manuscripts assign to them a period of 460 years.

c17.s2.26

“*Teshāṁ varsha śatāni syuś chatvāri shasṭir eva-cha*.”

c17.s2.27

Another *Matsya* manuscript puts it slightly differently:—

c17.s2.28

“*Dvādaśādhikaṁ eteshāṁ rājyaṁ śata-chatusḥṭayam*”

c17.s2.29

*i.e.*, the period of their sovereignty is 412 years;

c17.s2.30

while the reigns of kings mentioned in certain *Vāyu* Mss. amount, according to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, to only 272 years and a half.

c17.s2.31

Obviously according to one tradition there were about seventeen, eighteen or nineteen kings, whose rule lasted some three centuries, while according to another tradition there were thirty kings, the length of whose reigns covered a period of more than 400 years. In the opinion of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar the longer list includes the names of princes belonging to all the branches of the so-called *Andhra-bhṛitya* dynasty, and that the longer period represents the total duration of all the princes belonging to the several branches. The period of about three centuries, and the seventeen, eighteen or nineteen names given in the *Vāyu Purāṇa*, and hinted at in the *Matsya*, refer to the main branch. That there were several families of Sātavāhanas or Sātakarṇis, distinct from the main line that had its *principal* seat in the upper Valley of the Godāvarī, cannot be denied. The *Kāvya Mīmāṁsā* of Rājaśekhara and several other works as well as epigraphs in the Kanarese country and elsewhere testify to the existence of Sātavāhanas and Sātakarṇis who ruled over Kuntala¹ (the Kanarese districts) before the Kadambas. The fullest *Matsya* list includes a group of kings (Nos. 10-14), including one named "Kuntala" Sātakarṇi, who are (generally speaking) passed over in silence by the *Vāyu*.² Skandasvāti, No. 11 of the full list, reminds one of *Skanda-nāga-Sātaka*, a prince of a Kanarese line of Sātakarṇis mentioned in a Kanheri inscription.¹ As to Kuntala Sātakarṇi (No. 13), the commentary on Vātsyāyana's *Kamasūtra* takes the word "Kuntala" in the name Kuntala Sātakarṇi Sātavāhana to mean *"Kuntala-vishaye jātavāt tat-samākhyaḥ."*² It is, therefore, fair to conclude that the Matsya MSS. which mention 30 Sātavāhana kings include not only the main group of kings but also those who were closely associated with Kuntala.

c17.s2.32

¹ A Sātavāhana of Kuntala is referred to by the *Kāvya-Mīmāṁsā* (1934, Ch. X, p. 50) as having ordered the exclusive use of Prākṛit in his harem. He may have been identical with the famous king Hāla (cf. *Kunta'a-janavaya-iṇena Hālena*, ibid, Notes, p. 197.)

c17.s2.33

² Even Hāla (No. 17) is omitted in the *Vāyu Ms.* (*DKA*, p. 36) and the *Brahmāṇḍa P.* (Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, lxvii).

c17.s2.34

¹ Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, liii. The fact that he was a prince at the time of the record need not prove that he never came to the throne. The Purāṇic lists themselves often include names of princes (*e.g.*, Arjuna, Abhimanyu, Siddhārtha) who never ruled as kings. Certain *Matsya* Mss. insert the group to which Skandasvāti belongs after no. 29, *i.e.*, Chaṇḍaśrī (*DKA*, p. 36).

c17.s2.35

² He was so named because he was born in the Kuntala country. *Cf.* names like Uruvela-Nadi- and Gayā Kassapa (*Dialogues of the Buddha*, I. 194).

c17.s2.36

On the other hand, the *Vāyu*, *Brahmāṇḍa* and certain Matsya MSS., generally speaking, show a tendency to omit the Sātavāhanas of Kuntala and the rulers of the period of Śaka revival under Rudra-dāman I, and mention only about 19 kings most of whom belonged to the main line whose rule may have lasted for about three centuries. If the main line of Sātavāhana kings consisted only of about nineteen princes, and if the duration of their rule be approximately three centuries, there is no difficulty in accepting the Purāṇic statement that Simuka flourished in the time of the later Kāṇvas, that is to say, in the first century B.C., and that his dynasty ceased to rule in the Northern Deccan in the third century A.D. The sovereignty of the Sātavāhanas and Sātakarṇis of Kuntala lasted longer and did not come to an end probably before the fourth century A.D., when it was ended by the Kadambas. Thus the total duration of the rule of all the lines of Sātakarṇis is really more than 400 years.¹ The kings of the Kuntala group (Nos. 10-14 of the DKA list) are no doubt usually placed before the great Gautamīputra and his successors. But Pargiter points out that in certain *Matsya* MSS. Nos. 10-15 are placed after the penultimate king of the line (No. 29).² As to Hāla (No. 17) if he is really the author of the *Gāthāsaptaśatī*, he could hardly have flourished before the fourth century A.D. The references to *Vikramāditya-charita*, *Aṅgāraka-vāra* and Rādhikā make it difficult to assign to him a date before the Great Gautamīputra. We have many other instances of the inversion of the order of kings in the *Purāṇas*.³ The fact that the extant Purāṇic texts do misplace kings appears abundantly clear from the important discovery of a coin of Śiva Śrī Āpilaka whom Mr. Dikshit connects with the *later* Sātavāhanas though the *Purāṇas* place him *early* in the list.⁴

c17.s2.37

¹ The period '300 years' (*Vāyu P.*) may refer to the rule of the Śrīparvatīya Andhras (DKA, 46). Even then it is important to remember that the cessatio of "Andhra" rule in the upper Deccan in the third century A.D. is not incompatible with a date for the founder in the first century B.C. For the rule of the Sātakarṇis survived in Kuntala till the rise of the Kadambas. Thus the *Purāṇas* are right in assigning to the entire line of 30 kings a period of about four centuries and a half.

c17.s2.38

² DKA, p. 36. On pp. 20, 35, Pargiter gives other instances of 'misplacement' of kings by the Purāṇic MSS.

c17.s2.39

³ See pp. 104, 115f *ante*.

c17.s2.40

⁴ See *Advance*, March 10, 1935, p. 9. The coin belongs to the Mahākosala society of Raipur (C P.). It bears the figure of an elephant with Brāhmī legend on the obverse. The reverse is blank. On numismatic grounds the place of this ruler is according to Mr. K. N. Dikshit, more with the later kings of the dynasty than with the earlier ones as indicated in the *Purāṇas*. For the late date of Hāla of the Kuntala country see *R.G. Bhand. Com. Vol.*, 189. *Cf.* Reference to Rādhā in the *Saptaśatakam* (*Ind. Ant.*, III 25n.). Mr. K. P. Chattopādhyāya deduces from the discrepant lists of the *Matsya*, and *Vāyu Purāṇas* and from epigraphic and numismatic evidence, certain Nāyanikā and a brother-in-law of Sātakarṇi (No. 3 of the list) and a son of Mahāraṭhi Tranakayiro. This is negatived by the Nānāghāt epigraph which refers to the Mahāraṭhi as *Aṁgiya* (or *Ambhiya*) *kulavardhana*, whereas both the Sātakarṇis belong to the family of Simuka Sātavāhana according to Purāṇic evidence. Gautamī-Balaśrī who is turned into a sister or clan-sister of Śivasvāti (JASB, 1927, 590) refers merely to her position as a *badhū*, *mātā*, and *pitāmahī*, but never for once suggests that she herself sprang from the family the restoration of whose glory is referred to in exulting terms.

c17.s2.41

Regarding the original home of the Sātavāhana family there is also a good deal of controversy. Some scholars think that the Sātavāhanas were not Andhras (Telugus)

c17.s2.42

theories about (1) the existence of two contemporary Sātavāhana kingdoms *ruled by son and father* respectively, (2) cross-cousin marriages and (3) matrilineal succession, which he discusses in *JASB*, 1927, 503ff and 1939, 317-339. In his opinion the discrepancies in the Purāṇic lists cannot be due to any oversight or slip on the part of the editors (1927, p. 504). They are to be explained by the theory of an original version (that contained in the *Matsya*) which gives the full list of Gautamīputras as well as Vāsiṣṭhīputras, and a 'revised text" (contained in the *Vāyu* and *Brahmāṇḍa*) which retains the Gautamīputras but from which certain names were deliberately expunged as the rulers in question were not considered by the revising authorities to possess the privilege of having the names preserved in the purāṇas (ibid p. 505). Kings (e.g., Vāsiṣṭhīputra Pulumāvi), whose names are "expunged" from the "revised text" of the *Vāyu* and the *Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇas*, belong to a "set" which is genealogically connected with the other, *viz.*, the Gautamīputra group, whose names are retained in the revised versions, but "the succession did not coincide with the mode of descent." For instance, Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi, according to the revised list, was succeeded not by his son Pulumāvi, but by another Gautamīputra, *viz.*, Yajña Śrī (p. 509). It is further added that 'on the coins of the Sātavāhanas the royal prefix and the mother's clan-name are associated together and also disappear together except in the case of the third king of the line.' In the inscriptions also the association is invariable (excluding the doubtful case of Sivamakasada), except in the case of the third king, Śrī Sātakarṇi of the Nānāghāṭ Cave Inscriptions. It is, therefore, to be concluded that, except for the third king of the line, the royal title and relationship to the mother went together. In other words, the succession was matrilineal (p. 515); "The son succeeded to the conquered realm, and the sister's son to the inherited kingdom" (p. 527).

c17.s2.43

This footnote cannot afford space for an exhaustive review of the dissertation of Mr. Chaṭṭopādhyāya. Nor is it concerned with theories and speculations about social organisation based on 'mother right or father right', cross-cousin marriage in general, and royal successions, that are not germane to the discussion about the Sātavāhana dynasty. We shall try to confine ourselves to the points that are really relevant to an enquiry about that illustrious line itself. *A study of the Purāṇic lists analysed by Pargiter (Dynasties of the Kali Age, pp. 35ff.) would show that the discrepancies in the Purāṇic lists are not capable of as simple a solution as that proposed by Mr. Chaṭṭopādhyāya. It cannot be said, for example, that Gautamīputra (No. 23) is mentioned in all Matsya texts and retained in all Vāyu MSS., and that his son Pulumāvi (No. 24) of the so-called "Vāsiṣṭhīputra group" is always mentioned in the Matsya and omitted only in "later revised versions" of the Vāyu, etc.* Gautamīputra is omitted in *Matsya* MSS., styled *e, k* and *l* by Pargiter (p. 36), and also in the *e Vāyu* MSS., while his son Pulumāvi is omitted in *Matsya e, f* and *l* MSS. but mentioned in the *Viṣṇu* and *Bhāgavata* lists, *notwithstanding the activities of the so-called revisers.* The *theory of succession of sisters' sons in the so-called revised list of the Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, etc., is clearly negatived by numerous passages where a* but merely Āndhra-bhṛityas, servants of the Āndhras,

c17.s2.44

successor is distinctly referred to even in these Purāṇas as the son of a predecessor (*cf.* the cases not only of the first Śrī Sātakarṇi but also of Sātakarṇi II, Lambodara, and even Yajña Śrī—*DKA*, p. 39, fn. 40, 44; p. 42, fn. 12.). The use of the expression *tato* (*DKA*, 39) in the *Matsya Purāṇa* to indicate the relationship between Sātakarṇi I and Pūrṇotsaṅga when taken along with the words *tasyāpi Pūrṇotsaṅgaḥ* (*Viṣṇu* IV. 24. 12). and *Paurṇamāsastu tat sūtaḥ* (Bhāg. XII. 1. 21) leaves no room for doubt that Purāṇic evidence represents Pūrṇotsaṅga-Paurṇamāsa, as the son and immediate successor of Sātakarṇi I and not a 'distant' offspring or a remote offshoot of a 'cross-cousin marriage', who got the throne by the rule of matrilineal succession. There may be no valid reason as asserted by Mr. Chaṭṭopādhyāya for identifying him with Vediśrī of the Nānāghāṭ record. But the reading Vediśrī as pointed out by K. Sāstri is wrong. The proper reading is Khandasiri—Skandaśrī. This prince has been plausibly identified with Pūrṇotsaṅga's successor, the fifth king of the Purāṇic list. It is, therefore, difficult to agree with the view (JASB, 1939, 325) that the prince in question (the so-called Vediśrī) 'never came to the throne'. Pūrṇotsaṅga may have been some other '*kumāra*'. *Cf.*, the nameless prince (*kumāra*) 'Sātavāhana' of the Nānāghāṭ record who is mentioned along with 'Hakusiri' (Śaktiśrī). It is also to be noted that even the so-called older version of the *Matsya* speaks of only 19 kings in one passage.

c17.s2.45

The Gautamīputras and the Vāsiṣṭhīputras did not rule over distinct regions. Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi is represented as the Rājā of Mūlaka, *i.e.*, the district round Paiṭhan, along with other territories. Pulumāvi, too, ruled over Paiṭhan as we learn from the *Geography* of Ptolemy. The epithets "*Vijha*......... *Malaya-Mahida*........*pavata pati*" and "*tisamudatoyapīta-vāhana*" applied to Gautamīputra suggest that he was as much entitled to the designation *Dakshiṇāpathapati* as his son.

c17.s2.46

The statement that, except for the third king, the royal title and relationship to the mother went together, is not borne out by recorded facts. In the Myākadoni Inscription, for example (Ep. Ind., XIV, pp. 153 ff.) We have the passage—*Raño Sātavahanānaṁ s* (*i*) *ri-Pulum* (*ā*) *visa* without any mention of the metronymic *Cf.* also the passage *Raño SiriChaḍa-sātisa* (Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, p. 32). As to cross-cousin marriages, several recorded cases, *e.g.*, those of the wives of Śrī Sātakarṇi I and Vāsiṣhṭbīputra Śrī-Sātakarṇi of the Kanheri Inscription, do not support the theory propounded by Mr. Chaṭṭopādhyāya. The kings in question may, doubtless, have been polygamous. But that the extra queens, if any, included cousins is only a guess. The marriages actually hinted at in the epigraphic records of the Sātavāhanas (unlike those of the Ikshvākus) are not of the 'cross-cousin' type. Indian history knows of cases where a queen or other royal personage takes as much pride in the mother's family as in that of the father (*cf.* *ubhayakulālaṅkārabhūtā* Prabhāvatī, JASB, 1924, 58). Does Nāyanīkā lay any claim to a Sātavāhana origin? The table of cross-cousin marriage on p. 325 of JASB, 1939 would make Sātakarṇi (No. 6 of the list) a brother of of Kanarese origin. Mr. O. C. Gangoly points out¹ that in some class of literature a distinction is suggested between the Āndhras and the Sātavāhanas. In the *Epigraphia Indica*,² Dr. Sukthankar edited an inscription of Siri-Pulumāvi, "king of the Sātavāhanas," which refers to a place called Sātavahanihāra.³ The place finds mention also in the Hīrahadagalli copper-plate inscription of the Pallava king Siva-skandavarman in the slightly altered form of Sātāhani-raṭṭha. Dr. Sukthankar suggests that the territorial division Sātavahani-Sātāhani must have comprised a good portion of the modern Bellary district of the Madras Presidency, and that it was the original home of the Sātavāhana family' Other indications point to the territory immediately south of the *Madhyadeśa* as the original home of the Sātavāhana-Sātakarṇis. The *Vinaya Texts*⁴ mention a town called "*Setakaṇṇika*" which lay on the southern frontier of the *Majjhima-desa*. It is significant that the earliest records of the Sātakarṇis are found in the Northern Deccan and Central India; and the Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela, king of Orissa, refers to the family as 'protecting the West.' The name 'Andhra' probably came to be applied to the kings in later times when they lost their northern and western possessions and became a purely Andhra power, governing the territory at the mouth of the river Kṛishṇā.¹ The Sātavāhanas themselves never claim an 'Andhra' ancestry.

c17.s2.47

¹ *JAHRS*, XI, pp. 1 and 2, pp. 14-15. The Andhras contributed one melody which is recognised in the musical literature of India as Andhri, while the Sātavāhanas contributed another named after them as Sātavāhanī according to the text of the *Bṛihat-Deśī*.

c17.s2.48

² Vol. XIV (1917).

c17.s2.49

³ See also *Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute*, 1918-19, p. 21, 'On the Home of the so-called Andhra Kings.'—V. S. Sukthankar *Cf.* *JRAS.*, 1923, 89 f.

c17.s2.50

⁴ *S. B. E.*, XVII, 38.

c17.s2.51

¹ *Cf.* the transformation of the Eastern Chālukyas into Cholas from the time when Kulottuṅga I mounted the Chola throne. For the origin and meaning of the names Sātavāhana and Sātakarṇi see also *Camb. Hist. Ind.*, Vol. I. p. 599n; *JBORS.*, 1917, December, p. 442n; *IHQ.*, 1929, 388; 1933, 88, 256 and *JRAS.*, 1929, April; also *Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies*, London, 1938, IX. 2. 327f. Both Barnett and Jayaswal connect them with the Sātiya-putas. Przyluski thinks that the names may have been Sanskritised from Austro-Asiatic terms signifying, "Son of horse." For other interpretations see Aravamuthan, *the Kaveri, the Maukharis*, p. 51n. (*karṇi* = ship; *Vāhana* = Oar or Sail); Dikshitar, *Indian Culture*, II, 549ff.

c17.s2.52

There is reason to believe that the so-called "Andhra," "Andhra-bhṛitya" or Sātavāhana kings were Brāhmaṇas with a little admixture of Nāga blood. The *Dvātriṁśat-puttalikā* represents Sālivāhana (*Prakṛit* form of Sātavāhana) as of mixed **Brāhmaṇa and Nāga origin.**² The Nāga connection is suggested by names like Nāga-nikā³ and Skanda-nāga-Sātaka, while the claim to the rank of Brāhmaṇa is actually put forward in an inscription. In the Nāsik *praśasti* of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi the king is called "*Eka Bamhaṇa*," *i.e.*, the unique Brāhmaṇa. Some scholars, however, are inclined to take *Bamhaṇa* to mean merely a Brāhmaṇical Hindu, but this interpretation cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Gautamīputra is also called "*Khatiya-dapa-māna-madana*," *i.e.*, the destroyer of the pride and conceit of Kshatriyas. The expression "*Eka-bamhaṇa*" when read along with the passage "*Khatiya-dapa-māna-madana*" leaves no room for doubt that Gautamīputra of the Sātavāhana family not only claimed to be a Brāhmaṇa,⁴ but a Brāhmaṇa like Paraśurāma who humbled the pride of the Kshatriyas. As a matter of fact in the *praśasti* the king is described as "the unique Brāhmaṇa in prowess equal to Rāma."¹

c17.s2.53

² *Cf. E. H. D.*, Sec. VII.

c17.s2.54

³ Bühler, *ASWI*, vol. v, p. 64 n4.

c17.s2.55

⁴ In *Indian Culture*, I, pp. 513ff. and *Ep. Ind.*, XXII. 32ff. Miss Bhramar Ghosh and Dr. Bhandarkar seem to reject the interpretation of the expressions "*Eka Bamhaṇa*" and "*Khatiya-dapa-māna-madana*" proposed by

c17.s2.56

¹ A pun is here intended as Rāma seems to refer to Bala Deva as well. The use of the name of Rāma, instead of Bala (*cf.* Bala-Keśava in *Hariv*, *Vishṇuparva*, 52, 20) is significant. Taken in conjunction with *ekabamhaṇa* it undoubtedly implies comparison with Bhṛigu-Rāma or Paraśu-Rāma as well. The comparison of a militant ruler claiming Brāhmaṇahood and fighting against Kshatriyas, with Paraśu-Rāma is a favourite theme of writers of *Praśastis*—*cf.* *Bhṛigupatiriva dṛipta kshatrasaṁhāra-kārin* which is applied to Ambāprasad in the Chitor-gaḍh ins. of 1274 A.D.

c17.s2.57

According to the Purāṇas Simuka (*c.* 60-37 B.C.) gave the *final coup de grace* to the Śuṅga-Kāṇva power. He was succeeded by his brother **Kṛishṇa** (*c.* 37-27 B.C.). This king has been identified with Kaṇha "*Rājā* of the Sādavāhana-*kula*" mentioned in a Nāsik inscription.

c17.s2.58

Senart and Bühler. It is suggested that the word *bamhaṇa* may stand for *Brahmanya*, that *Khatiya* may refer to the Xathroi or Khatriaioi tribe mentioned by classical writers, and that the expression *Rājarisi-vadhu* used in reference to Gautami Balaśrī is enough to show that the Sātavāhana rulers never claimed themselves to be Brahmarshis or Brāhmaṇa sages. It is nobody's case that the Sātavāhanas claimed to be mere "Brāhmaṇa sages." But is it not a bit too ingenious to imagine that the well-known terms Brāhmaṇa and Kshatriya are not to be taken in their ordinary sense, and that they really stand for non-Brāhmaṇas and non-Kshatriyas? As to the use of the expression *Rājarisi-vadhu*, would not Brahmarshi be a singularly inappropriate description of a family of kings even though they were Brāhmaṇas? The term *Rājarshi* is not used exclusively to denote non-Brāhmaṇa rulers. In the *Padma Purāṇa* (*Pātāla-khaṇḍam*, 61, 78), for instance, Dadhīchi is styled a *Rājarshi*. In the *Vāyu Purāṇa* (57, 121ff.) the epithets "*Rājarshayo mahāsattvāḥ*" are used in reference to Brahma-Kshatramayā nṛipāḥ, 'Brahma-kshatrādayo nṛipāḥ, according to the reading of the *Matsya* text, 143, 37-40) In the *Matsya Purāṇa* (50. 5-7) the epithet *Rājarshi* is applied to a king who sprang from the family of the Maudgalyas who are called *Kshatropetā dvijātayaḥ* and one of whom is styled *Brahmishṭhaḥ*. The *Annadāmaṅgala* refers to Kṛishṇa Chandra as *Rāja-Rājachakravartī Rishi-Rishirāja*.

c17.s2.59

Attention may no doubt be invited to the Purāṇic statement that the founder of the "Andhra" dynasty was a '*vṛishala*' (DKA, 38). But the explanation will be found in the *Mahābhārata*. The great epic (XII. 63. 1ff.) informs us that 'drawing the bowstring, destruction of enemies... are not proper (*akāryam paramam*) for a Brāhmaṇa. A Brāhmaṇa should avoid royal service (*rāja preshya*). A Brāhmaṇa who marries a Vṛishalī and takes to royal service (*rāja preshya*) and other work not legitimate for him is *akarmā*, a Brāhmaṇa so-called (*Brahma-bandhu*). He becomes a Śūdra. The Sātavāhanas actually drew the bowstring and intermarried with Dravidians and Sakas as the Mauryas had intermarried with Yavanas.

c17.s2.60

The record tells us that a certain cave was caused to be made by a high official (*Śramaṇa Mahāmātra*) of Nāsik in the time of King Kaṇha.

c17.s2.61

Kaṇha-Kṛishṇa was succeeded according to the *Purāṇas* by Śātakarṇi (c. 27-17 B.C.). This Sātakarṇi has been identified with—

c17.s2.62

(1) King Śātakarṇi *Dakshiṇāpatha-pati* (lord of the Deccan), son (or nephew) of Simuka Sātavāhana, mentioned in the Nānāghāṭ Inscription of Nāyanikā¹;

c17.s2.63

¹ The usual view among scholars is that Sātakarṇi I is a son of Simuka. If he is a nephew (son of Kṛishṇa, brother of Simuka) as the *Purāṇas* assert, it is difficult to explain why Kṛishṇa's name should be omitted from the family group, mentioned in the Nānāghāṭ records, while the name of Simuka as well as that of the father of Sātakarṇi's queen should find prominent mention. The final decision must await future discoveries.

c17.s2.64

(2) Sātakarṇi, lord of the west, who was defied (or rescued?) by Khāravela, king of Kaliṅga;

c17.s2.65

(3) *Rājan Śrī Sātakarṇi* of a Sāñchi Inscription;

c17.s2.66

(4) The elder Saraganus mentioned in the *Periplus*;

c17.s2.67

(5) Śātakarṇi, lord of Pratishṭhāna, father of Śaktikumāra, mentioned in Indian literature; and

c17.s2.68

(6) Siri-Sāta of coins.²

c17.s2.69

² *Andhra Coins* (Rapson), p. xciii. *CHI*, 531.

c17.s2.70

The first, fifth and sixth identifications are usually accepted by all scholars. The second identification is also probable because the *Purāṇas* place Sātakarṇi, the successor of Kṛishṇa, after the Kāṇvas, *i.e.*, in the first century B.C., while the Hāthīgumphā Inscription seems to place Khāravela 300 years after Nanda-rāja, *i.e.*, possibly in the first century B.C.

c17.s2.71

Marshall objects to the third identification on the ground that Śrī Sātakarṇi who is mentioned in the Nānāghāṭ and Hāthīgumphā Inscriptions reigned in the middle of the second century B.C.; his dominions, therefore, could not, in his opinion, have included Eastern Mālwa (the Sāñchī region) which, in the second century B.C., was ruled by the Śuṅgas and not by the “Andhras”.¹ But we have seen that the date of the Hāthīgumphā Inscription is possibly the first century B.C. (300 years after Nanda-rāja). The *Purāṇas*, too, as is well-known, place the kings mentioned in the Nānāghāṭ Inscription not earlier than the Kāṇvas, *i.e.*, in the first century B.C. As Śuṅga rule had terminated about this time the identification of the successor of Kṛishṇa of the Sātavāhana family with Śātakarṇi of the Sāñchī Inscription, therefore, does not conflict with what is known of the history of Eastern Mālwa in the second century B.C. Lastly, it would be natural for the first Śātakarṇi to be styled simply Śātakarṇi or the elder Śātakarṇi (Saraganus, from a *Prākṛit* form like Sāḍaganna), while it would be equally natural for the later Śātakarṇis to be distinguished from him by the addition of a geographical designation like Kuntala, or a metronymic like Gautamīputra or Vāsiśhṭhīputra.

c17.s2.72

¹ *A Guide to Sāñchī*, p. 13.

c17.s2.73

We learn from the Nānāghāṭ Inscriptions that Sātakarṇi, son(?) of Simuka, entered into a matrimonial alliance with the powerful Aṁgiya or Ambhiya² family, the scions of which were called Mahāraṭhi, and became sovereign of the whole of Dakshiṇāpatha. He seems also to have controlled Eastern Mālwa and undoubtedly performed the *Aśvamedha* sacrifice. The conquest of Eastern Mālwa by his family is possibly implied by coins and the Sāñchī Inscription when read along with the Purāṇic statement that in succession to the *Śuṅgabhṛitya* Kāṇvāyana kings, the ‘earth’ will pass to the ‘Andhras’. The inscription records the gift of a certain Ānaṁda, the son of Vasiṭhî, the foreman of the artisans of *Rājan* Siri-Sātakaṇi.² Sātakarṇi seems to have been the first prince to raise the Sātavāhanas to the position of paramount sovereigns of Trans-Vindhyan India. Thus arose the first great empire in the Godāvarî valley which rivalled in extent and power the Śuṅga empire in the Ganges valley and the Greek empire in the Land of the Five Rivers. According to the evidence of Indian as well as classical writers,³ the principal capital of the Sātavāhana Empire was at Pratishṭhāna, “the modern Paiṭhan on the north bank of the Godāvarî in the Aurangabad District of Hyderabad.”

c17.s2.74

² *ASI*, 1923-24, p. 88.

c17.s2.75

² The conquest of West Mālwa is probably suggested by round coins of Śrī Sāta (Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, xcii-xciii).

c17.s2.76

³ *Cf.* Jinaprabhasuri, *Tīrthakalpa*, *JBBRAS*, X, 123; and Ptolemy *Geography*, vii, 1. 82. See also *Āvaśyaka Sūtra*, *JBORS*, 1930, 290; Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, *EHD*, Sec. VII.

c17.s2.77

After the death of Sātakarṇi his wife Nāyanikā or Nāganikā, daughter of the Mahāraṭhi Tranakayiro Kalalāya, the scion of the Aṁgiya (?) family, was proclaimed regent during the minority of the princes Vedaśrī (? Khandasiri or Skandaśrī) and Śakti-Śrī (Sati Sirimat) or Haku-Siri. The last-mentioned prince is probably identical with Śakti-kumāra, son of Śālivāhana, mentioned in Jaina literature.⁴

c17.s2.78

¹ *I.e.*, the Vidiśā region, etc., in Eastern Mālwa. For the connection of the Śuṅgas with Vidiśā, see Pargiter, *DKA*, 49. The Kāṇvāyanas had become King ‘among the Sungas’ (*Śuṅgeshu*, *DKA*, 34), apparently in the Vidiśā territory. *Cf.* also Tewar Coins, *IHQ*, XXVIII, 1952, 68f.

c17.s2.79

⁴ *Vīracharitra*, *Ind. Ant.*, VIII, 201. *ASWI*, V, 62n.

Early Sātavāhanas

c17.s2.t1.1

``` Sātavāhana-kula Aṁgiya (Ambhiya) kula │ │ ┌────────┴────────┐ Kalalāya Mahāraṭhi │ │ │ Rāyā (Rājā) Simuka Kṛishṇa Aṁgiya (Ambhiya) kula-vardhana Sātavāhana Mahāraṭhi Tranakayiro ¹ │ │ Son or nephew │ Sātakarṇi I, King of Dakshiṇāpatha = Devī Nāyanikā │ │ ├────────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Kumāras Vedaśrī (? Khandasiri or Sakti Srīmat Sātavāhana Skandaśrī ² and Bhāya? ```

c17.s2.t1.2

¹ On page 57 of Rapson’s *Andhra Coins* Kalalāya Mahāraṭhi bears the name "Sadakana" (=Sātakarṇi). His other name or epithet "Tranakayiro" reminds us of "Tanaka" which occurs as a variant of the name of the 18th "Andhra" king of Pargiter’s list (DKA, 36, 41).

c17.s2.t1.3

² *ASI. AR*, 1923-24, p. 88; A. Ghosh, *History of Central and Western India*, 140. Mr. Ghosh identifies him with the fifth king of the Purāṇic list.

c17.s2.t1.4

The Sātavāhanas were not the only enemies of the decadent Magadha empire in the first century B.C. We learn from the Hāthīgumphā Inscription that when Sātakarṇi was ruling in the west, **Khāravela of Kaliṅga** carried his arms to Northern India and humbled the king of Rājagṛiha.

c17.s2.t1.5

Khāravela belonged to the **Cheta** dynasty. Mr. R. P. Chanda points out that Cheta princes are mentioned in the *Vessantara Jātaka*.³ The *Milinda-pañho* contains a statement which seems to indicate that the Chetas were connected with the Chetis or Chedis. The particulars given in that work regarding the *Cheta* king *Sura Parichara* agree with what we know about the *Chedi* king *Uparichara*.⁴

c17.s2.t1.6

³ No. 547.

c17.s2.t1.7

⁴ Rhys Davids, *Milinda*, SBE, XXXV, p. 287; Mbh. I, 63, 14. According to Sten Konow (*Acta Orientalia*, Vol. 1, 1923, p. 38) *Ceti* (not *Ceta*) is the designation of the dynasty of Khāravela occurring in the Hāthīgumphā Inscription.

c17.s2.t1.8

Very little is known regarding the history of Kaliṅga from the death of Aśoka to the rise of the Cheta or Cheti dynasty probably in the first century B.C. (three hundred years after the Nandas). The names of the first two¹ kings of the Cheta line are not clearly indicated in the Hāthīgumphā inscription. Lüders Ins. No. 1347 mentions a king named Vakradeva (Vakadepasiri or Kūdepasiri ?) But we do not know for certain whether he was a predecessor or successor of Khāravela.

c17.s2.t1.9

¹ For *Purusha-Yuga* (generation) see Hemachandra, *Pariśishta-parvan*, VIII, 326 *gāmī purusha-yugāni nava yāvattavānvayaḥ*.

c17.s2.t1.10

During the rule of the second king, who must have reigned for at least 9 years (c. 37-28 B.C.), Khāravela occupied the position of Crown Prince (*Yuvarāja*). When he had completed his 24th year, he was anointed *Mahārāja* of Kaliṅga (c. 28 B.C.). His chief queen was the daughter of a prince named Lalāka, the great-grandson (according to some) of Hathisiṁha. In the first year of his reign he repaired the gates and ramparts of his capital, Kaliṅga-nagara. In the next year (c. 27 B.C.), without taking heed of Sātakarṇi, he sent a large army to the west and with its aid, having reached the Kṛishṇaveṇā, struck terror into the hearts of the people (or city) of Musika (Asika ?)-nagara.² According to another interpretation, “he went to the rescue of Sātakarṇi and having returned with his purpose accomplished, he with his allies made gay the city.” He followed up his success by further operations in the west and, in his fourth year, compelled the *Raṭhikas* and *Bhojakas* to do him homage. In the fifth year (c. 24 B.C.) he had an aqueduct, that had been opened out 300 years back by Nandarāja, conducted into his capital.

c17.s2.t1.11

² *Cf.* Ep. Ind. XX. 79, 87. Barua reads Aāvaka or Ṛṣika (*Old Brāhmī Ins.*, p. 176; Asika IHQ, 1938, 263). Dr. F. W. Thomas, too, finds in the passage no reference to a Musika capital (JRAS., 1922, 83). The alternative interpretation in the next sentence is his. *Cf.* Bühler, *Indian Palaeography*, 39.

c17.s2.t1.12

Emboldened by his successes in the Deccan the Kaliṅga king turned his attention to the North. In the eighth year he stormed Gorathagiri (Barābar Hills near Gayā) and harassed (the king of ?) Rājagṛiha.¹ If Dr. Jayaswal is right in identifying this king with Bṛihaspatimitra, then king Bṛihaspati must have ruled over Magadha after the Kāṇva dynasty.

c17.s2.t1.13

¹ Some scholars find in line 8 of the Hāthīgumphā Ins. a reference to the *Yavana-rāja* (Di) *ma* (ta), *i.e.*, Demetrios who “went off to Mathurā in order to relieve his generals who were in trouble” (*Acta Orientalia*, I. 27; *Cal. Rev.*, July, 1926, 153). But the reading is doubtful (*cf.* Barua, *Old Brāhmī Inscriptions in the Udayagiri and Khaṇḍagiri Caves*, pp. 17-18; IHQ., 1929, 594). Even if the reading *Dimata* be correct, the reference may be to Diyumeta or Diomedes (Whitehead, *Indo-Greek Coins*, p. 36) and not necessarily to Demetrios.

c17.s2.t1.14

The attack on Northern India was repeated possibly in the tenth and certainly in the twelfth year. In the tenth year the Kaliṅga king, in the opinion of some scholars, overran countries in *Bhārat-varsha*, which are surmised to refer to those in Upper India. In the twelfth year he claims to have terrified or harassed the kings of *Uttarāpatha* and watered his elephants in the Gaṅgā (Ganges).² The north-western expeditions apparently led to no permanent result. But in north-eastern India the Kaliṅga king was more successful; the repeated blows certainly “struck terror into the Magadhas,” and compelled the Magadha king (Bṛihaspatimitra?) to bow at his feet.

c17.s2.t1.15

² Some scholars find here a reference to the Sugāṅgīya palace (Ep. Ind., xx. 88).

c17.s2.t1.16

Having subjugated Magadha, and despoiled Aṅga, the invader once more turned his attention to Southern India. Already in his eleventh year “he had had Pithuḍa ploughed with a plough drawn by an ass.”³ Levi⁴ identified this city with **Pihuṇḍa** of the *Uttarādhyayana* (21), and ‘Pitundra metropolis’ of Ptolemy in the interior of the country of Masulipatam (Maisoloi). The conqueror seems to have pushed further to the south and made his power felt even in the Tamil country by princes amongst whom the most eminent was the king of the Pāṇḍyas. In the thirteenth year Khāravela erected pillars on the Kumārī Hill (Udayagiri in Orissa) in the vicinity of the dwelling of the Arhats (Khaṇḍagiri?).

c17.s2.t1.17

³ Barua interprets the passage differently. But *cf.* Nilakanta Sastri, *The Pandyan Kingdom*, p. 26.

c17.s2.t1.18

⁴ Ind. Ant., 1926, 145. Sea-faring merchants are represented as going by boat from Champā to Pihuṇḍa in the days of Mahāvīra, the Jina. *Cf.* Mbh. I. 65. 67, 186, VII. 50.

Linked texts (26)