Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19.s2: Section II. The Restoration of the Sātavāhana Empire

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19.s2

Language
English

Contents

Section II. The Restoration of the Sātavāhana Empire

c19.s2.1

**Gautamīputra's** victory over the Kshaharātas led to the restoration of the Sātavāhana power in Mahārāshṭra and some adjoining provinces. The recovery of Mahārāshṭra is proved by a Nāsik inscription, dated in the year 18,¹ and a Karle epigraph addressed to the *Amātya* or the king's officer in charge of Māmāla (the territory round Karle, modern Māval in the Poona district). But this was not the only achievement of Gautamīputra. We learn from the Nāsik record of queen Gautamī Balaśrī that her son destroyed the Śakas (Scythians), Yavanas (Greeks) and Pahlavas (Parthians), and that his dominions extended not only over Asika,² Asaka (Aśmaka on the Godāvarī, a part of Mahārāshṭra),³ and Mūlaka (the district around Paiṭhan), but also over Suratha (South Kāṭhiāwār), Kukura (in Western or Central India, possibly near the Pāriyātra or the Western Vindhyas),⁴ Aparānta (North Koṅkaṇ), Anupa (district around Māhishmatī on the Narmadā), Vidarbha (Greater Berar), and Ākara-Avanti (East⁵ and west Mālwa). He is further styled lord of all the mountains from the Vindhyas to the Malaya or Travancore hills, and from the Eastern (Mahendra) to the Western (Sahya) Ghāṭs. The possession of Vejayantī in the Kanarese country is possibly hinted at in the Nāsik inscription of the year 18. The names of the Andhra country (Andhrāpatha) and South Kosala are, however, conspicuous by their absence. Inscriptions, coins and the testimony of Hiuen Tsang prove that both these territories were at one time or other included within the Sātavāhana empire. The earliest Sātavāhana king whose inscriptions have been found in the Andhra region is Pulumāyi, son of Gautamīputra. It is, however, possible that some vague claim of suzerainty over the areas in question is implied in the boast that Gautamīputra was lord of the Vindhyas and the Eastern Ghāṭs (Mahendra) and that his chargers “drank the water of the three oceans” (*tisamudatoya-pīta-vāhana*). Moreover “Asika” seems to have included a considerable portion of the valley of the Kṛishṇā.

c19.s2.2

¹ The Nāsik Edict was issued from the camp of victory of the Vejayantī army (*Ep. Ind.*, VIII. 72) and was addressed to the *Amātya* or the king's officer in charge of Govardhana (Nāsik). According to Sircar 'Vejayantī' is not a city but an epithet of *Senā* (army).

c19.s2.3

² On the Kṛishṇaveṇā, *i.e.*, the river Kṛishṇā (Khāravela's ins., *IHQ*. 1938 275); *cf.* Ārshika, Patañjali, IV, 2.2.

c19.s2.4

³ Shamasāstry's translation of the *Arthaśāstra*, p. 143, n. 2. Its capital Potana probably corresponds to Bodhan in the Nizam's dominions.

c19.s2.5

⁴ *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, XIV, 4.

c19.s2.6

⁵ Eastern Mālwa was possibly under Vāsishka, the successor of Kanishka I, in the year 28 of the Kushān Era which corresponds to A.D. 106 according to the system of chronology adopted in these pages. Ākara has been identified with Āgar, 35 miles north-east of Ujjain, *Bomb. Gaz.*, Gujarat, 540; *Ep. Ind.*, xxiii. 102.

c19.s2.7

In the Nāsik *praśasti* Gautamīputra figures not only as a conqueror, but also as a social reformer. “He crushed down the pride and conceit of the Kshatriyas, furthered the interest of the twice-born, apparently the Brāhmaṇas, as well as the lowest orders (*Dvijāvarakuṭubavivadhana*)¹ and stopped the contamination of the four *varṇas* (castes).”

c19.s2.8

¹ *Kuṭumba* means ‘a household’, ‘a family’ and *avara-kuṭuba* may be taken to mean ‘households or families of the lowly’. The use of the word *kuṭuba* may suggest that the ‘lowly’ order or orders, whose families or households are referred to, are the traders and agriculturists (*kuṭumbika*).

c19.s2.9

According to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar and Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, Gautamīputra reigned conjointly with his son Pulumāyi. They give the following reasons in support of their theory:—

c19.s2.10

(1) In Gautamî's inscription (dated in the 19th year of her grandson Pulumāyi) she is 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.

c19.s2.11

(2) If it were a fact that Gautamîputra was dead when the queen-mother's inscription was written, and Pulumāyi alone was reigning, we should expect to find the exploits of the latter also celebrated in the inscription. But there is not a word in praise of him. A king dead for 19 years is extolled, and the reigning king passed over in silence.

c19.s2.12

(3) The inscription dated in the year 24, engraved on the east wall of the Veranda of the Nāsik Cave No. 3, which records a grant made by Gautamîputra and the "king's mother whose son is living", in favour of certain Buddhist monks "*dwelling in the cave which was a pious gift of theirs*," presupposes the *gift of the Nāsik Cave No. 3* in the 19th year of Pulumāyi. Consequently Gautamîputra was alive after the 19th year of his son.

c19.s2.13

As regards point (1), it may be said that usually a queen sees only her husband and sometimes a son on the throne. Queen Gautamî Balaśrī, on the other hand, was one of the fortunate (or unfortunate) few who saw grandchildren on the throne. Therefore, she claimed to be the mother of a great king and the grandmother of a great king.

c19.s2.14

As to point (2), is the silence satisfactorily explained by the theory of conjoint rule? Those who prefer the opposite view may point out that although it is not customary for an ordinary subject to extol a dead king and pass over a reigning monarch in silence, still it is perfectly natural for a queen-mother in her old age to recount the glories of a son who was associated with her in a previous gift.

c19.s2.15

As to point (3), it is not clear that the gift referred to in the postscript of the year 24 was identical with the grant of the year 19 of Pulumāyi. The donors in the postscript were king Gautamīputra and the *rājamātā*, the king's mother, apparently Balaśrī, while the donor in the year 19 of Pulumāyi was the queen-mother *alone*. In the inscription of the year 24, the queen-mother is called *Mahādevî Jīvasutā Rājamātā*, the great queen, the king's mother, whose son is alive. In Pulumāyi's inscription the epithets *Mahādevî* and *Rājamātā* are retained but the epithet "*Jīvasutā*." "*whose son is alive*," is significantly omitted. The donees in the former grant were the *Tekirasi* or Triraśmi ascetics in general, the donees in the latter grant were the monks of the *Bhadavānīya* school. The object of grant in the former case may have been merely the *Veranda* of Cave No. 3, which contains the postscript of the year 24, and whose existence before the 19th year of Pulumāyi is attested by an edict of Gautamīputra of the year 18. On the other hand, the cave given away to the *Bhadavānīya* monks was the whole of Cave No. 3.

c19.s2.16

If Gautamīputra and his son reigned simultaneously, and if the latter ruled as his father's colleague in Mahārāshṭra, then it is difficult to explain why Gautamīputra was styled "*Govadhanasa Benākaṭakasvāmi*," "lord of Benākaṭaka in Govardhana" (Nāsik),¹ and why he addressed the officer at Govardhana directly, ignoring his son who is represented as ruling over Mahārāshṭra, while in the record of the year 19, Pulumāyi was considered as so important that the date was recorded in the years of his reign, and not in that of his father who was the senior ruler.¹

c19.s2.17

¹ The use of the expression "*Govadhanasa*" suggests that there were other localities named Benākaṭaka from which this particular place is distinguished. A Bennākaṭa in the eastern part of the Vākāṭaka kingdom is mentioned in the Tiroḍi plates of Pravarasena II (? III) (IHQ, 1935, 293; Ep. Ind. XXII, 167 ff). Beṇā or Bennā is apparently the name of a small stream in each case.

c19.s2.18

¹ *Cf.* R. D. Banerji, *JRAS*, 1917, pp. 281 *et seq.* Note also the epithet (Dakshiṇā) patheśvara 'lord of the Deccan,' applied to Pulumāyi in the *praśasti* of the year 19.

c19.s2.19

The generally accepted view is that Pulumāyi came after Gautamīputra.

c19.s2.20

The date of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi is a matter regarding which there is a wide divergence of opinion. There are scholars who believe that the epithets *varavāraṇa-vikrama*, *chāru-vikrama*, "whose gait was beautiful like the gait of a choice elephant," and *Śaka-nishūdana*, destroyer of Śakas, suggest that he was the original of *Rājā* Vikramāditya of legend who founded the era of 58 B.C. But, as already pointed out, the use of regnal years by Gautamīputra and his descendants indicates that no era originated with the dynasty. Further, Indian literature clearly distinguishes between Vikramāditya of Ujjain and Śālivāhana or the Sātavāhanas of Pratishṭhāna. The view accepted in these pages is that Gautamīputra was the conqueror of Nahapāna and that his 18th year fell after the year 46 of the Śaka era, the last recorded date of his vanquished opponent. In other words the conquest of Nāsik by Gautamīputra took place some time after A.D. 78+46 = 124, and his accession after A.D. 124—18 = 106. As he ruled for at least 24 years, his reign must have terminated after A. D. 130.

c19.s2.21

In the Purāṇic lists compiled by Pargiter the immediate successors of Gautamīputra are Pulomā, his son, and Sātakarṇi. Pulomā is doubtless identical with Siro P(t)olemaios of Baithana mentioned by Ptolemi and Vāsishṭhīputra Svāmi Śrī Pulumāvi of inscriptions and coins. Sātakarṇi is perhaps to be identified with **Vāsishṭhīputra Śrī Sātakarṇi** of a Kanheri Cave Inscription, or with Vāsishṭhīputra Chatarapana Sātakarṇi of a Nānāghaṭ record. His exact position in the genealogical list cannot be determined with precision. The Kanheri epigraph represents Vāsishṭhīputra Śrī Sātakarṇi as the husband of a daughter of the *Mahākshatrapa* Ru(dra). Rapson identifies this Rudra with Rudradāman I. There can hardly be any doubt that the Sātavāhana king mentioned in the Kanheri record, or one of his close relations who bore a similar name, was identical with Sātakarṇi, lord of the Deccan, whom Rudradāman "twice in fair fight completely defeated, but did not destroy on account of the nearness of their connection." Dr. Bhandarkar's identification of Vāsishṭhīputra Śrī Sātakarṇi of Kanheri with Vāsishṭhīputra Śiva Śrī Sātakarṇi of coins and Śiva Śrī of the *Matsya Purāṇa* cannot be regarded as more than a conjecture. The ruler mentioned in the Kanheri Inscription may have been a brother of Pulumāyi.

c19.s2.22

We have seen that the capital of **Pulumāyi** was Baithan, *i.e.*, Paiṭhan or Pratishṭhāna on the Godāvarī identified by Bhandarkar with Navanara or Navanagara, *i.e.*, the new city. Inscriptions and coins prove that the dominions of this king included the Krishṇā-Godāvarī reign as well as Mahārāshṭra. It has already been pointed out that the Andhra country is not clearly mentioned in the list of territories over which Gautamīputra held his sway. It is not altogether improbable that Vāsishṭhīputra Pulumāyi was the first to establish the Sātavāhana power firmly in that region. Sukṭhankar identifies him with Siri Pulumāyi, king of the Sātavāhanas, mentioned in an inscription discovered in the Adoni tāluk of the Bellary district. But the absence of the distinguishing metronymic makes the identification uncertain and probably indicates that the king referred to in the inscription is Pulumāyi I of the Purāṇas or some other prince of the dynasty who bore the same name. D. C. Sircar identifies him with the last king of Pargiter's list. Numismatic evidence suggests that the political influence of a Pulumāyi extended to the Coromandel coast, and possibly to the Chanda district of the Central Provinces. But in the absence of epigraphic corroboration the matter cannot be regarded as definitely proved. Moreover, the absence of the metronymic Vāsiśhṭhīputra makes it uncertain in some cases as to whether the son of the great Gautamīputra is meant.

c19.s2.23

Vāsiśhṭhīputra Pulumāyi must have come to the throne some time after A. D. 130. He is known from a Karle epigraph to have ruled for at least 24 years, so that his reign terminated after A.D. 154.

c19.s2.24

The successors of Pulomā according to the Purāṇic lists compiled by Pargiter are Śiva Śrī¹ Pulomā and Śivaskanda (or Śivaskandha)² Sātakarṇi.

c19.s2.25

¹ Mirashi in the *Journal of the Num. Soc.* 11(1940), p. 88 attributes to him the coins of "Śivaśrī Pulumāyi III" of the Tarhāla hoard. He draws a distinction between this king (who was a Pulumāyi) and Vāsiṭhīputa Sivasiri Sātakaṁṇi who is known to Rapson's *Catalogue*. The *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, however, represents Śivaśrī as a Sātakarṇi (and not a Pulumāyi). The matter must, therefore, be regarded as *sub judice*.

c19.s2.26

² Mirashi (*ibid.* 89) identifies him with King Sirikhada or Skanda Sātakarṇi of the Tarhāla hoard (Akola district) and other coins whose name was wrongly read as Chaḍa Sātakarṇi by Smith and Rudra Sātakarṇi by Rapson. This "Rudra" was represented as a ruler of the Andhra-deśa.

Yajñaśrī Sātakarṇi

c19.s2.t1.1

³ In *JRAS*, July, 1934, 560ff, Dr. D. C. Sircar suggests that the name of this king was Śrī Yajña Sātakarṇi as stated in inscriptions, and not Yajña Śrī (as stated in the Purāṇas). It should, however, be remembered that *Śrī* is here an honorific and it is frequently used as a suffix in the names of members of the Sātavāhana royal house (*cf.* Veda or Skanda-Siri, Haku-Siri, Bala-Śrī, Siva-Śrī, etc.; Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, pp. xlvii, l, lii). The mere fact that in certain documents Śrī precedes the name of a king does not prove conclusively that it was never used as a suffix. In the famous inscription of Khāravela the king is called both Siri Khāravela and Khāravela-Siri. In the *Mudrārākshasa* Śrīmat Chandragupta is also styled Chanda-Siri. *Cf.* Aśoka Śrī in *Pariśishṭa-parvan*, IX. 14.

c19.s2.t1.2

The immediate successor of Śivaskanda according to the collated text of Pargiter was Yajña Śrī. If the Purāṇas are to be believed his accession took place more than 35 years after the close of the reign of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi, *i.e.*, after A. D. 165 and ended after A.D. 194. Yajña Śrī's inscriptions, which prove that he reigned for at least 27 years, are found at the following places, *viz.*, Nāsik in Mahārāshṭra, Kanheri in Aparānta, and China in the Krishṇā district. His coins are found in Gujrāt, Kāṭhiāwār, Aparānta, the Chanda District in the Central Provinces, and the Kṛishṇā district of the Madras State. There can be no doubt that he ruled over both Mahārāshṭra and the Andhra country and recovered Aparānta (N. Koṅkaṇ) from the successors of Rudradāman I. Smith says that his silver coins imitating the coinage of the Śaka rulers of Ujjain probably point to victories over the latter, and that the coins bearing the figure of a ship suggest the inference that the king's power extended over the sea. He thus anticipated the naval ventures of the Kadambas of Goa, of Sivājī and of the Angrias.¹

c19.s2.t1.3

¹ Rapson, however, says (*Coins of the Andhra Dynasty*, p. 22) in reference to certain lead coins (of the Coromandel coast): "*obv* Ship with two masts. *Inscr.* not completely read, but apparently *Siri-Pu (lumā) visa.*"

c19.s2.t1.4

Yajñaśrī was the last great king of his dynasty. After his death the Sātavāhanas probably lost North-Western Mahārāshṭra to the Ābhīra king Iśvarasena.² The later Sātavāhana princes—Vijaya, Chaṇḍa Śrī (variant Chandra Śrī) and Pulomāvi of the Purāṇas—seem to have ruled in Berar, the Eastern Deccan and the Kanarese country.¹ The existence of Vijaya seems now to be confirmed by numismatic evidence.² Chaṇḍa Śrī may have been identical with Vāsiṣṭhī-putra "Sāmi-siri Chaṁḍa Sāta" of the Kodavali rock-cut well Inscription discovered near Piṭhāpuram in the Godāvarī region, while Pulomāvi is, in the opinion of Dr. D. C. Sircar, to be identified with the king of the same name mentioned in the Myakadoni inscription of the Bellary District. Coins disclose the existence of a few other Kings of the line who must be assigned to the latest Sātavāhana period. Sātavāhana rule in the Kṛishṇā, Guṇṭūr and Bellary districts was eventually supplanted by the Ikshvākus¹ and the Pallavas.²

c19.s2.t1.5

² The earliest reference to the Ābhīras to which an approximate date can be assigned is that contained in the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali. The *Mahābhāshya* as well as the *Mahābhārata* connects them with the Śūdras—the Sodrai of Alexander's historians. Their country—Abiria—finds mention in the *Periplus* and the geography of Ptolemy. In the third quarter of the second century A. D., Ābhīra chieftains figured as generals of the Śaka rulers of Western India. Shortly afterwards a chief named Jśvaradatta, probably an Ābhīra, became *Mahākshatrapa*. His relation to the Abhīra king Mādharīputra Iśvara Sena, son of Śiva Datta, remains doubtful. But some scholars are inclined to identify the two chiefs. It is also suggested that this dynasty of Iśvara Sena is identical with the Traikūṭaka line of Aparānta, and that the establishment of the Traikūṭaka era in A.D. 248 marks the date at which the Abhīras succeeded the Sātavāhanas in the Government of Northern Mahārāshṭra and the adjoining region. The last known rulers of the Traikūṭaka line were Indradatta, his son Dahrasena (455-56 A. D.), and his son Vyāghrasena (489-90), after whom the kingdom seems to have been conquered by the Vākāṭaka king Harisheṇa.

c19.s2.t1.6

¹ The Berar (Akola) group includes certain princes, not included in the Purāṇic lists, *e.g.*, Srī Kumbha Sātakarṇi, Srī Karṇa Sātakarṇi (unless he is identified with the so-called Svātikarṇa, the fourteenth king of Pargiter's list) and Srī Saka Sātakarṇi (Mirashi, *J. Num. Soc.*, II, 1940). Mirashi thinks that the real name of the so-called Kṛishṇa (II) of the Chanda hoard was Karṇa. Among kings of uncertain identity mention may be made of Śrī Śivamaka Sāta of the Amarāvatī inscription and Māṭharīputra Śrī Sāta of Kanheri.

c19.s2.t1.7

² Mirashi, *Journal of the Nums. Soc. of India*, II (1940), p. 90. The only clear letters are *ya-Sātakaṇi*. The ascription to Vijaya must be regarded as tentative.

c19.s2.t1.8

¹ The *Ikshvākus* are known from inscriptions discovered on the ruins of the Jagayyapeta *stūpa* in the Kṛishṇā District and also at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa and Gurzala in the Guṇṭūr district (Ep. Ind., 1929, 1f.; 1941, 123 f). They were matrimonially connected with the Kekayas, probably a ruling family of Ancient Mysore (Dubreuil, *AHD*, pp. 88, 101). The most well-known rulers of the Ikshvāku family of the Eastern Deccan are Chāṁtamūla, Śrī-Vīra-Purusha-datta, Ehuvala Chāṁtamūla II and possibly 'Rulupurisadāta' (Ep. Ind., xxvi. 125). The Ikshvākus were succeeded by the "Ānanda" kings of Guṇṭūr, the Bṛihat-phalāyanas of Kudurāhāra (near Masulipatam), the Śālaṅkāyanas of Veṅgī (*cf.* IA, 5. 175 and the Salakenoi of Ptolemy), and the Vishṇukuṇḍins of Leṇḍulura (near Veṅgī).

c19.s2.t1.9

² The *Pallavas*—a people of unknown origin, claiming descent from Aśvatthāman and Nāga princesses, are the most important of all the dynasties that succeeded the Sātavāhanas in the Far South. The claim of descent from Brāhmaṇas of the Bharadvāja *gotra*, the performance of the *Aśvamedha* and patronage of Sanskrit learning, connect the dynasty with the Śuṅgas, while the Brāhmaṇa-Nāga connection, (*cf. Saṁkīrṇa-jāti*, *Brahma-kshatra*, *SII*, Vol. xii, Nos. 7, 48) the performance of Vedic sacrifices including the horse-sacrifice, early association with the Sātavāhana Janapada in the Bellary district and the use of *Prākṛita* in their early records, connect the family with the Sātavāhanas. There is no question of any Parthian affinity as the genealogical lists of the family are singularly devoid of Parthian nomenclature. The elephant's scalp used as a crown is no test of race. The well-known hostility of the family to the Cholas and the decidedly northern character of their culture preclude the possibility of a pure Tamil extraction. The first great Pallava king, Śiva-Skanda-varman, is known from the inscriptions found at Mayidavolu (in Guṇṭūr) and Hīrahaḍagalli (in Bellary) to have ruled over an extensive empire including Kāñchī, Andhrāpatha and Sātāhani *raṭṭha*, and performed the *Aśvamedha* sacrifice. About the middle of the fourth century A.D. the emperor Samudra Gupta invaded Southern India, defeated the reigning Pallava king, Vishṇugopa, and gave a severe blow to the power and prestige of the empire of Kāñchī which, in the long run, probably led to its disruption. The evidence of the Penukoṇḍa Plates, the Tālagunda inscription and the Hebbata grant (IHQ, 1927, 434) seems to suggest that the Pallava supremacy continued for some time to be acknowledged by the early Gaṅgas of Anantapura and East Mysore and the early Kadambas of Vaijayantī (Banavāsi) and Mahisha-Vishaya (Mysore). The history of the Pallavas
* Kings marked with asterisks may have been identical. But this is by no means certain. The settlement of early Pallava genealogy and chronology must still await future discoveries.

Provincial Government under the Sātavāhanas

c19.s2.t2.1

A word may be said here regarding the internal organisation of the Sātavāhana empire. The sovereign himself seems to have resided in Pratishṭhāna or in "camps of victory" in Govardhana (Nāsik district),

c19.s2.t2.2

during the fifth and sixth centuries is obscure. Certain inscriptions disclose the names of the following kings, but little is known about them :—

c19.s2.t2.3

[Figure: Kings of Kṛishṇā, Guṇṭūr and Nellore districts | King of Kāñchī Omgoḍu I and II Uruvupalli, Māṅgalūr, Pīkira, Vilavatti and Chūra grants. Kumāravishṇu | Skandavarman I | Vīravarman* | (1) Vijaya Skandavarman II (Tāmbrāpa²), | (2) Yuva-mahārāja Vishṇugopa (Palakkada). | (3) Siṁhavarman (Daśanapura, Menmātura and Veṅgorāshṭra). | (4) Vijaya-Vishṇugopa Varman (Vijay-Palotkaṭa) Vishṇugopa I | Skandamūla | Kāṇagopa | Vīrakūrcha II* | Skandavarman I (Skandaśishya) | Kumāravishṇu I, recovered Kāñchī. | Buddhavarman, defeated Cholas. | Skanda II | Kumāravishṇu II | Buddhavarman | Skandavarman III | Vishṇugopa II | Vishṇudāsa | Skandavarman IV | Siṁhavarman I¹ | Vīravarman* | Skandavarman V | Siṁhavarman II A.D. 436 ? | Skandavarman VI | Nandivarman I | Siṁhavarman III, IV, (two kings of this name) | Vishṇugopa III | Siṁhavarman V | Siṁhavishṇu | Mahendravarman I | Narasiṁhavarman I Contemporary of Pulakeśin II. Vāyalūr, Velūrpalaiyam, Darśi and Chendalūr grants. Udayendiram grant. Lokavibhāga A.D. 458 and Penukoṇḍa plates ?]

c19.s2.t2.4

¹ A Siṁhavarman is mentioned in the Palnād inscription. But his identity and date are uncertain.

c19.s2.t2.5

² Tāmbrāpa is identified with Chembrolu.

c19.s2.t2.6

Vaijayantī (in North Kanara) and other places.¹ The imperial dominions were divided into administrative units called *āhāra* or *janapada* and placed under rulers who fell into two classes, *viz.*, (*a*) *amātyas* who were ordinary civil functionaries and (*b*) military governors and feudatories styled *mahāsenāpati*, *mahāraṭhi*, *mahābhoja*, and even *Rājan*. *Amātyas* are mentioned in connection with Aparānta (North Koṅkaṇ), Govardhana (Nāsik), Māmāḍ(l)a (Poona), Banavāsī (North Kanara) and Khaḍḍavali (Godāvarī region). *Mahāraṭhis* are found associated with Chitaldrug, Nānāghaṭ, Karle and Kanheri (in the North Koṅkaṇ). They intermarried with the imperial family (and at times adopted its nomenclature) and also with the Chuṭu, Kauśika and Vāsiashṭha² clans. The *Mahābhojas* had close relations with Chuṭu rulers of Banavāsī. *Mahāsenāpatis* are found in Nāsik in the days of Yajña Śrī and in Bellary in the time of a Pulumāyi. The rule of these military governors, some of whom belonged to the Kuśika³ family or were matrimonially connected with it, was very much in evidence in the last days of the Sātavāhana empire. Potentates with the title of *rājā* ruled in the Kolhapur region. The most notable among these were: Vāsiashṭhīputra Vilivāyakura, Māṭharīputra Śivalakura and Gautamīputra Vilivāyakura (II). The Vilivāyakura group cannot fail to remind one of Baleokouros of Hippokoura mentioned by the Greek geographer Ptolemy (*c.* 150 A. D.)

c19.s2.t2.7

¹ *E.g.*, Navanara—perhaps really identical with the port of Calliena (Kalyāṇa, an ancient name of which, according to the *Bombay Gazetteer*, XIV. 114, is Navānagara).

c19.s2.t2.8

² Vasiashṭhas figure as rulers of Kaliṅga in later times.

c19.s2.t2.9

³ A Kauśikīputra Sātakarṇi is known from a coin (*Bibliography of Indian coins*, Part I, 1950, p. 36).

c19.s2.t2.10

It is from the ranks of military governors and feudatories that the princes who carved out independent principalities on the dissolution of the Sātavāhana empire, evidently sprang. The Śālaṅkāyanas (Salakenoi), for example, who appear to have been a feudatory family in the Andhra country, afterwards set up an independent sovereignty. The Pallavas were doubtless connected with the military governors of the Bellary district.

The Śātakarṇis of Kuntala

c19.s2.t3.1

In the days of the great Gautamīputra, son of Bala Śrī, Banavāsi or Vaijayantī (Kanara) seems to have been the capital of an imperial province under an *amātya* named Śivagupta. By an obscure transition the sovereignty of the territory passed into the hands of a family, possibly styled Chuṭu in inscriptions,¹ whose connection with the Sātavāhana-Śātakarṇis is not known. The evidence of the Myakadoni inscription and notices in the *Kāmasūtra* of Vātsyāyana, the *Gāthāsaptaśatī* and the *Kāvya Mīmāṁsā*, probably suggest that a group of **Sātavāhanas** preceded the so-called Chuṭu *kula* in Kuntala or the Kanarese country. Some of them were great patrons of Prākrit learning. The most famous amongst them was Hāla. Another king of the group was Kuntala Sātakarṇi, mentioned in the *Kāmasūtra* whom the Purāṇas regard as a predecessor of Hāla. The **Chuṭu line** is represented by Hārītīputra Vishṇukaḍa-Chuṭu kulānanda Śātakarṇi, *Rājā* of Vaijayantīpura, and his daughter's son Śiva-Skandanāga Śrī who is identified by Rapson with Skandanāga Sātaka of a Kanheri Inscription, and also with Hārītīputra Śiva-[Skanda]-varman, lord of Vaijayantī, mentioned in a Malavalli record (in the Shimoga district of Mysore). The last identification seems to be doubtful as the mother and daughter of Vishṇukaḍa could hardly have belonged to the same *gotra*. Hāritīputra Śivavarman was apparently succeeded by the Kadambas.¹

c19.s2.t3.2

¹ Some scholars do not accept the theory that Chuṭu is a dynastic designation. They regard it as a personal name. *Prog. Rep. of the ASI. W. Circle*, 1911-12, p. 5.

c19.s2.t3.3

¹ The Kadamba line was founded by Mayūraśarman, a Brāhmaṇa, who rose against the Pallavas and helped by "Vrihad Bāṇa" and other kings, compelled the lord of Kāñchī to confer on him the Paṭṭabandha of military governorship. He soon pushed his conquests to the western ocean. His great-grandson Kākustha varman gave his daughters in marriage to the Gupta and other kings. Kṛishṇa varman I performed the Aśvamedha. Mṛigeśa varman defeated the Gaṅgas and Pallavas and had his capital at Vaijayantī. Junior branches of the family ruled at Palāśikā, Uchchaśṛiṅgī and Triparvata. The Kadambas were finally overthrown by the Chalukyas. See Moraes, *Kadamba-Kula*; Sircar, *JIH*, 1936, 301 ff.

Linked texts (18)