Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c17.s2.71

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.