Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7: Part II. Pre-Sātavāhanas and Sātavāhanas

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7

Language
English

Contents

Part II. Pre-Sātavāhanas and Sātavāhanas

v1.c7.2

*by* PROFESSOR GURTY VENKET RAO, M.A., LL.B. *Head of the Department of History and Politics, Andhra University, Waltair*

v1.c7.3

I. Pre-Sātavāhana Period. II. Identity and homelands of the Sātavāhanas. III. Name and Caste of the Sātavāhanas. IV. Early Sātavāhanas—Chronology. V. Later Sātavāhanas—Chronology. VI. The Sātakarṇi of the Gimār Inscription. VII. Political History of the Sātavāhanas.

I. Pre-Sātavāhana Period

v1.c7.s1.2

THE early inhabitants of the Deccan had developed a distinct form of civilization long before they came into contact with the Āryans. At first the advent of the latter into the Deccan was perhaps peaceful. It was the work of the Vedic Rishis who in quest of peace and solitude ventured to enter the Daṇḍakāraṇya to establish hermitages on the banks of rivers in the thick of the forests. The local inhabitants, called ‘Asuras and Rākshasas’ by the Āryans, may have committed forays against their settlements, destroyed their sacrifices, and interrupted their penance. The memory of these episodes is preserved in the tradition regarding the advent of Agastya, or a namesake of his, into the south. It is told in the *Rāmāyaṇa* that Agastya met Rāma during his exile in the Daṇḍakāraṇya and narrated to him how he had reclaimed the forest regions; how the hermitages of Rishis had sprung up in the wake of his pioneering work; how the Rākshasas oppressed the Rishis; and how Rāma could help them by destroying the Rākshasas. The *Rāmāyaṇa*, when purged of all exaggerations, interpolations, and anachronisms, is evidence of the solid central fact that Rāma championed the cause of Āryan culture, that he fought against the Rākshasas, and that he gave an impetus to the spread of Āryan ideals and institutions in the Deccan. The different legends regarding the origin of the Andhras, Puṇḍras, Śabaras, Pulindas, and Mutibas, are not without significance. According to the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, they were the descendants of the fifty sons of Viśvāmitra condemned by his curse to live on the borders of the Āryan settlements. The *Mahābhārata* regards them as created by Vasiṣṭha from his divine cow to be enemies and opponents of Viśvāmitra. *Śaṅkhāyana Śrauta-Sūtra* treats the Śabaras as degenerate people. Shorn of all myth, what lies behind the legends is probably the separation of a section of the Āryan community from the main stock and their fusion with the non-Āryans—the ‘Dasyus’.¹ Such a cleavage in Āryan society was not without precedent. In earlier ages the Iranians had followed a similar path of schism and had become the progenitors of the Persians. The Andhras, Śabaras, and Pulindas are known from the *Mahābhārata* and the *Purāṇas* to have been tribes of the Deccan. Typical among the Āryan tribes which for the first time conquered portions of the Deccan were the Ikṣvākus in Dakshiṇa Kosala, the Bhojas (Yādavas) in Vidarbha, and the Haihayas in Mahiṣmati. Vidarbha (or Western Berar) is mentioned in the *Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa*, and a Bhīma, prince of Vidarbha, in the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*. From these references it may be inferred that the Āryans had during the Brāhmaṇa period pushed their conquests into the Deccan as far as Berar.¹ Pāṇini, who flourished about the seventh century B.C., makes mention of Aśmaka which was in the interior of the Deccan watered by the Godāvarī, that is, the south-east portion of the Hyderabad State. Kātyāyana’s explanations of the terms Pāṇḍya, Chola, and Kerala show that the Āryans had made contact with these peoples of Southern India during the period subsequent to Pāṇini. Tradition refers Kātyāyana to the time of the Nandas.

v1.c7.s1.3

¹ Dasyus, Rākshasas, Asuras, Vānaras, Nāgas, &c., were the names given by the Āryans to the Muṇḍas, Dravidians, and other early inhabitants of India.

v1.c7.s1.4

¹ Prof. Martin Haug assigned the composition of the bulk of the Brāhmaṇas to the years 1400-1200 B.C.; Sir R. G. Bhandarker was for placing them in 1200-900 B.C. (See his Report on Sans. MSS., 1885.)

v1.c7.s1.5

The caste system accompanied the spread of Brāhminism from its stronghold in the Gangetic Doab into the Deccan and South India. Those who were opposed to the Āryan system retreated to mountain caves and forests, where they have kept up their primitive customs, habits, and languages to the present day.

v1.c7.s1.6

There is hardly any definite information regarding the early history of the Āryan states which arose in the Deccan; but there is sufficient evidence to show that two forces hastened the pace of the Āryanization of the lands south of the Vindhyas: the imperialism of the Nandas and the Mauryas, and the missionary activities of the followers of the protestant creeds of Jainism and Buddhism.

v1.c7.s1.7

The concept of imperialism in India, which had its origin in the age of the Brāhmaṇas, aimed at political integration of the country under the adhirāṭ or ekarāṭ (sole monarch). The custom of celebrating its achievements by elaborate rituals of vājapeya, rājasūya, and aśvamedha sacrifices had also come into vogue in this age. At first this imperialism was confined to Northern India, but later it came to embrace as much of the Deccan and South India as possible. This was achieved by the Nandas and the Mauryas who held their court at Pāṭaliputra, the modern Patna, in the province of Bihār. The Purāṇas say that Ugrasena-Mahāpadma of the Nanda dynasty up-rooted all the Kshatriyas, brought the whole earth under one royal umbrella and established himself as ekarāṭ.² An inscription of the early thirteenth century A.D. shows that first the Nandas and then the Mauryas ruled over Kuntala which included the Western Deccan and Northern Mysore.³ Another inscription of the eleventh century A.D. found in the Hyderabad State indirectly hints about the prevalence of the Nanda era in South India, which would not have been possible if Nanda rule had not been established over the Deccan.⁴ That there was a Nanda era is made certain by the Hāthigumphā inscription of Khārvela.⁵ A passage in this inscription also states that King Nanda carried away to Magadha as a trophy the statue of the first Jina. In view of the certainty of Nanda’s conquest of Kaliṅga, the subjugation of the territories lying farther south does not seem to be altogether improbable. The existence on the Godāvarī of a city called ‘Nau Nanda Dehrā’ (Nander) also suggests that the Nanda empire included a large portion of the Deccan.¹ From a commercial point of view also the south began to grow in importance at this time. Kauṭilya wished to maintain communications with the Dakṣiṇāpatha ‘for the sake of its diamond and gold mines, pearl and chank fisheries, and numerous opulent marts’.²

v1.c7.s1.8

² c. 375-350 B.C.

v1.c7.s1.9

³ EC, vii, pt. i, no. 225; Bomb. Gaz., i, pt. ii, p. 284.

v1.c7.s1.10

⁴ IA, viii, 187; Bomb. Gaz., i, pt. ii, p. 447.

v1.c7.s1.11

⁵ EI, xx, 79-80.

v1.c7.s1.12

¹ Macauliff’s Sikh Religion, v, 236.

v1.c7.s1.13

² Arth., vii, 12.

v1.c7.s1.14

But Ugrasena Mahāpadma Nanda and his sons were unpopular because of their low origin and their oppressive government. Discontent gathered strength, and the outlying parts of the empire appear to have declared their independence. Finally the Nanda dynasty itself was overthrown by Chandragupta Maurya aided by Kauṭilya about 322 B.C. Traditional accounts of this sanguinary conflict are preserved in the Purāṇas, the Mudrārākṣasa, the Mahāvaṃsa-Ṭīkā, and the Jaina Pariśiṣṭaparva. According to Plutarch, Chandragupta overran and subdued the whole of India with an army of 600,000 men.³ The Junagadh Rock inscription of Rudradāman, which records the construction of the famous Sudarśana lake by an officer of Chandragupta, shows that the first Mauryan emperor pushed his conquests as far as Surāṣṭra (Kathiāwar).⁴ Jaina references in literature and epigraphs associating his name with Śravaṇa Belgola in Mysore may be accepted as proof of his acquisition of this part of the peninsula as well.⁵ At the same time a large portion of the Cis-Vindhyan lands appears to have remained unsubdued. For according to Megasthenes the king of the Kaliṅgas had in his service 60,000 foot-soldiers, 1,000 horsemen, and 700 elephants in ‘panoply of war’, while the Andhras possessed numerous villages, 30 fortified towns, and an army of 100,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants.⁶ Kaliṅga was conquered by Aśoka after a terrible war in which ‘one hundred and fifty thousand were slain and many times that number died’.⁷ No other conquest is attributed to this great sovereign. Some parts of the Deccan may have been taken by force of arms during the reign of his father, Bindusāra (297-272 B.C.), who was known to the Greeks as Amitrochates which, in its proper Sanskrit form, Amitraghāta, means ‘slayer of the foe’.⁸ According to Tāranāth, the kings of sixteen towns were destroyed by Bindusāra, and ‘he made himself master of all the territory between the eastern and western seas’.⁹ Tamil literature contains vague allusions to Mauryan invasions of South India which occurred most likely in the time of this monarch.¹⁰ Rapson seems to think that the Deccan lay beyond Aśoka’s dominions, and that the people of the plateau were not his subjects, though regarded as coming within his sphere of influence.¹⁰ But according to some scholars this surmise is untenable in view of the fact that Aśoka's *Dharmamahāmātras* were employed amongst them to revise and modify judicial sentences in deserving cases.¹ In the Raichur Doab his Minor Rock Edicts have been found at Maskī and Kopbal, at the latter place, on the Gavimaṭh and Palkigunda hills. His Rock Edicts I to XIII were brought to light at Yerragudi in Kurnool District.² A considerable portion of the Deccan was indeed ruled by the vice-regal princes of Suvarṇagiri and Tosali, the *Mahāmātras* of Isila and Samapa, and the officers in charge of the *Āṭavi* or forest country.³ The southern frontier of Aśoka's empire did not extend much beyond the locality of the southernmost group of his inscriptions discovered at Siddāpur, Jaṭinga-Rāmeśwara, and Brahmagiri in the Chitaldrug district of Mysore. Roughly speaking, it touched the line which may be drawn along the north latitude 14°. Beyond this line to the south lay the independent states of the Cholas, Pāṇḍyas, Keralaputras, and Sātiyaputras.⁴

v1.c7.s1.15

³ Plutarch’s Alexander, lxii.

v1.c7.s1.16

⁴ EI, viii, 46-7.

v1.c7.s1.17

⁵ Lewis Rice, Sravana Belgola, Mysore and Coorg.

v1.c7.s1.18

⁶ M’Crindle, Ancient India (Megasthenes and Arrian), pp. 137-41.

v1.c7.s1.19

⁷ RE, xiii.

v1.c7.s1.20

⁸ Jayaswal, ‘The Empire of Bindusāra’ in the JBORS, ii, 82.

v1.c7.s1.21

⁹ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, Beginnings of South Indian History, pp. 81-103; Mr. S. S. Desikar in the IHQ, iv, 135 ff.

v1.c7.s1.22

¹⁰ CHI, i, 514, 515.

v1.c7.s1.23

¹ RE, v. ² Dines Chandra Sirkar, *Select Inscriptions*, i, 52. ³ Suvarṇagiri = Kanakagiri in the Hyderabad State. Isila = Siddāpur. ⁴ RE, ii and xiii. ⁵ Geiger, *Translation of Mahavamsa*, p. 82. ⁶ After the second Buddhist council at Vaisāli in 386 B.C., the church divided itself into two schools: the Sthaviras and the Mahāsānghikas. A section of the latter appears to have attached great importance to the worship of the *stūpa* or *chaitya* and got the name of Chaityakas. See N. Datta, 'Notes on Nāgārjunakonda Inscriptions' in *Ind. Hist. Quart.* vii, 468 ff.; B. Bhattacharya, *Buddhist Iconography*, p. x.

v1.c7.s1.24

The Nanda and Maurya imperialism must have exerted enormous influence on the lives of the people of the Deccan. It may have given them a uniform system of administration based upon Āryan polity which served as a model for the future indigenous governments in the south. More than this, the ideas of the Cis-Vindhyan peoples were gradually moulded in the cast of Vedic, Jaina, and Buddhist creeds. A strong Jaina colony was established at Śravaṇa Belgola in Mysore about the end of Chandragupta Maurya's reign. In due course of time the Jaina influence in the Deccan manifested itself in their early religious and secular works which are composed in what is known as Jaina Mahārāshṭri, a vernacular closely allied to early Marāṭhi. After his conversion to Buddhism Aśoka sent missions to various places in and outside India. In order to implement his scheme of evangelism, Mahādeva worked in Mahiṣamaṇḍala and Mahādharmarakṣita in Mahārāshṭra.⁵ The former established his school of Buddhism known as Chetyavāda at Amarāvati.⁶ The Deccan also served as a cauldron in which Āryan and non-Āryan languages were fused to create a Prākṛit dialect which obtained wide currency even in those parts where Dravidian languages are spoken to-day. The direct manner in which Aśoka addressed the peoples of the south indicates widespread literacy among them. The failure of Aśoka's successors to maintain their hold on the Deccan for any considerable length of time not only checked this progress of Āryanization but even caused the loss of some vantage-ground which had been won under their great predecessors.

v1.c7.s1.25

The vast empire of Aśoka disintegrated soon after his death. He himself had initiated the process, though unconsciously, by outlawing war in remorse for the horrors involved in the conquest of Kaliṅga. He called upon his sons and grandsons to avoid fresh conquests, and to take pleasure in patience and gentleness.¹ Such a policy of pacifism must have seriously impaired the military efficiency of the empire. At any rate it proved inadequate to maintain cohesion in the time of his successors when disruptive forces were let loose by the insubordination of vassal states, the disloyalty of ambitious ministers, and the aggression of foreign foes.

v1.c7.s1.26

¹ RE, xiii.

v1.c7.s1.27

It is unnecessary here to wade through the uncertain genealogy, chronology, and history of the later Mauryan kings who reigned during the interval between the death of Aśoka and the final overthrow of his dynasty.² The *coup-de-grâce* to the Mauryan empire was given at a military review by Puṣyamitra Śuṅga, the Commander-in-Chief, who there slew his master Bṛhadratha. It was merely the last scene of the drama which closed the Mauryan epoch and installed the Śuṅgas on the throne of Pāṭaliputra. According to the *Purāṇas* this revolution took place 137 years after the accession of Chandragupta, i.e. *c.* 185 B.C. Pushyamitra acquired by his bloody deed only an apology for an empire. His efforts to extend the kingdom over wider regions are described in the drama *Mālavikāgnimitra* by Kālidāsa. Therein is also related the story of the bitter struggle between Pushyamitra and the ruler of Vidarbha from which the former emerged victorious. But the very existence of the struggle itself clearly signifies that Magadha was no longer the overlord of the Deccan, which appears to have seceded from the empire soon after the demise of Aśoka. Both the Sātavāhana or the Andhra kingdom of Dakṣiṇāpatha and the Cheta or Cheti kingdom of Kaliṅga figure prominently among the Cis-Vindhyan lands at this time.

v1.c7.s1.28

² *CHI*, i, 511-13.

Identity and Homelands of the Sātavāhanas

v1.c7.s2.1

THERE is a great deal of controversy about the origin of the Sātavāhanas, and the date of their emergence into power. Inscriptions found in the caves of Nānāghāṭ and Nāsik in the Western Deccan mention the names of several kings of ‘Sātavāhana-kula’. These names as well as their order of succession are mostly in agreement with those of the Paurāṇic genealogies of the kings of ‘Andhra-jāti’. Some Purāṇas style them as Andhrabhṛtyas. Hence on the basis of certain names common to various kings mentioned in the two sources some scholars identified the Sātavāhanas of the epigraphical records with the Andhras of the Purāṇas; others strongly objected to this identification because in no inscription or coin are the Sātavāhanas called Andhras and similarly in no Purāṇa are the Andhras mentioned as Sātavāhanas.¹

v1.c7.s2.2

¹ For inscriptions see *ASWI*, v; *EI*, viii; for coins see *CIC*; and for *Purāṇas* see *DKA*.

v1.c7.s2.3

According to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar,² the earliest writer on the subject, ‘the Andhrabhṛtya dynasty of the Purāṇas is the same as the Sātavāhana dynasty of the inscriptions’. He explained the term ‘Andhrabhṛtya’ as meaning Andhras *who were once servants* or dependants. They came to power under the leadership of Simuka who uprooted the Śuṅgas and the Kaṇvas in 73 B.C. In his opinion Dhānyakaṭaka (near modern Dharaṇikoṭa in the Guntur District) was their eastern capital. Dr. J. Burgess wrote in 1887 that ‘the Sātavāhanas or Andhras held sway for about four centuries from the second century B.C. till the end of the second or the beginning of the third century A.D. . . . their conquests extended far to the north and to the western coast. . . . Their first capital is said to have been on the Kṛṣṇā at Śrīkākulam about 19 miles west of Masulipatam, and founded according to legend by Sumati, a great emperor; by whom is probably meant Simuka the first of the dynasty. It was afterwards transferred to Dhānyakaṭaka or Dharaṇikoṭa, and thence to other places.’³ According to Dr. V. A. Smith,⁴ the Andhra community in the days of Megasthenes occupied the delta of the Godāvarī and Kṛṣṇā rivers and possessed a military force second only to that of the Mauryas; the capital of the state ‘is believed to have been then Śrīkākulam’, on the lower course of the Kṛṣṇā; in the days of Aśoka, their rājā appears to have been in some measure subordinate to him; and soon after the close of the reign of that great emperor or possibly even before its close, they asserted their independence about 240 or 230 B.C. under a king named Simuka, and within a short period their authority spread as far west as Nāsik. Smith also says that ‘the Āndhra kings all claimed to belong to the Sātavāhana family and many of them assumed the title or bore the name Sātakarṇi’. Prof. E. J. Rapson is of the same opinion as Dr. Smith;¹ he adds, however, that at the time of Puṣyamitra Śuṅga’s incursion into Vidarbha the Andhras had ‘extended across the Deccan from the eastern coast’. Dr. L. D. Barnett states that their earliest capital was Śrī-kākulam,² then Dhānyakaṭaka, and finally in the first century A.D. it was at Pratiṣṭhāna in the centre of their western provinces.

v1.c7.s2.4

² *EHD*, p. 41.

v1.c7.s2.5

³ *BSAJ*, pp. 3-4.

v1.c7.s2.6

⁴ *EHI*, pp. 217-19; *Oxford History of India*, p. 119.

v1.c7.s2.7

¹ CHI, i, 519.

v1.c7.s2.8

² Ibid., p. 599.

v1.c7.s2.9

Prof. P. T. Srinivasa Ayyangar,³ while accepting the Andhra-Sātavāhana identity, treated the theory of an eastern origin of the Sātavāhana power in the Andhradeśa as misconceived. He put forth arguments to show that the Andhras were a Vindhyan tribe, that their kings originally ruled over Western India, and spoke Prākṛit and not Telugu, and that the extension of their authority was from the west to the east down the Godāvarī-Kṛiṣṇā valley. When their power declined in the west, the name Andhramaṇḍalam travelled to their eastern districts and became established there.

v1.c7.s2.10

³ IA, xlii, 276 ff.

v1.c7.s2.11

Dr. V. S. Sukthankar questioned the very basis of the Andhra-Sātavāhana identity.⁴ His main arguments are: (i) nowhere in their records are the Sātavāhanas called Andhras; (ii) other contemporary or nearly contemporary records, as the Hāthi-Gumphā, Girnār, and Talagunda inscriptions, always refer to them as Sātavāhanas and never as Andhras; (iii) Khāravela says that he ‘without entertaining any fear of Sātakarṇi, sent a large army to the west’. If this Sātakarṇi was in fact ruler of the Andhras, Khāravela’s army should have been sent to the south; (iv) all their inscriptions and coins were discovered in Western India. They had undoubtedly overrun and conquered the Andhra country; but their earliest possessions were, as revealed by archaeological discoveries, in Western India. The terms ‘Sātavāhanihāra’ and ‘Sātāhani-raṭṭha’ occurring in the Myākadoni inscriptions and Hirahaḍagalli plates were considered by Sukthankar as sufficient pointers to the solution of the problem. Myākadoni and Hirahaḍagalli being in the modern Bellary District, he suggested that this region or round about it should be taken as the original habitat of the Sātavāhanas. He drew support for his theory from the fact that at one time it was a common practice in many districts to name the country after its early inhabitants. Sātavāhanihāra, he suggested, was so named. His whole theme is that the Sātavāhanas did not belong to the Andhra area, as the field of their early activity was confined to the west of India, and Paiṭhan was their capital. If the Paurāṇic statement, he said, be accepted literally as implying that the Sātavāhanas were Andhras, he had two suggestions to make: either that the Sātavāhanas ‘separated themselves from the main stock of the Āndhras’ of the Godāvarī and Kṛiṣṇā deltas even before the time of Simuka (the founder of the Sātavāhana dynasty) and settled in the west; or that the Andhras themselves at first occupied Sātavāhani-hāra and then migrated from that centre towards the west and towards the east. But in his view the Sātavāhanas ‘may not have been Andhras’. Their connexion with the Andhradeśa was, according to him, the result of a migration from the west to the east. He further argued that ‘some of the Purāṇas call these kings Andhras; others call them Āndhrabhṛtyas; and there are others still who call them by both names’. In his opinion the correct designation of this dynasty is really Āndhrabhṛtya, a tatpuruṣa, meaning ‘the feudatories of the Andhras’. The feudatories of the Andhras need not necessarily be themselves Andhras.

v1.c7.s2.12

⁴ ABI, i, 21 ff.

v1.c7.s2.13

Mr. K. P. Jayasval also denied the Andhra-Sātavāhana equation.¹ He regarded the Sātavāhanas as probably representatives of the Sātiyaputras of Aśoka’s records, their oldest coins being struck in the name of Sāta. He thus indirectly supported the theory of the non-Andhra origin of the Sātavāhanas.

v1.c7.s2.14

¹ JBORS, iii, 441 note.

v1.c7.s2.15

Prof. Raychaudhari appears to subscribe to the views of Dr. Sukthankar but adds: ‘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 mouths of the river Kṛṣṇā.’²

v1.c7.s2.16

² PHAI, 3rd edition, p. 280.

v1.c7.s2.17

Mr. V. S. Bakhle is inclined to identify the Sātavāhanas with the Satiyaputras.³ He enumerates more or less the same arguments as those advanced by Dr. Sukthankar and says: ‘to assert that the Sātavāhanas came from the Andhradeśa is going further than is warranted by evidence.’ He, however, does not accept Dr. Sukthankar’s identification of the original home of the Sātavāhanas with Sātavāhani-hāra in the Bellary District, which they ‘made their home in later times’. He emphatically declares that the Sātavāhanas were not Andhras. Why the Sātavāhana kings of the epigraphical records are treated as Andhras by the Purāṇas is explained by this critic as follows: ‘The Purāṇas were written only after the third century A.D., when the Sātavāhanas, driven out of Western India by the powerful forces of the Kṣatrapas, had migrated to the Andhradeśa. . . . That [fact] explains the mention of these kings as Andhras.’³ Dr. K. Gopalachari, like the above two scholars, maintains that the centre of gravity of the early Sātavāhana power lay in the Western Deccan, that the early Sātavāhanas did not rule over the Andhradeśa, and that the first authentic Sātavāhana records begin to appear in the Andhradeśa only with the reign of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Śrī Puḷumāvi; but unlike them he asserts that they were Andhras by tribal connexion.⁴ He suggests that either they were the scions of the royal family in the Andhradeśa or Andhra fortune-hunters who accepted service in the Western Deccan under the Mauryan suzerains, thereby getting the Paurāṇic appellation Āndhrabhṛtya, and that after Aśoka’s death their descendants may have struck a blow in their own interests in the land of their adoption. But he himself finally characterizes this suggestion as a mere conjecture, in favour of which ‘at present we have no evidence’.

v1.c7.s2.18

³ JBBRAS (new series), iii, 44 ff.

v1.c7.s2.19

⁴ EHAC, pp. 15-16, 26-7.

v1.c7.s2.20

Amidst this medley of conflicting theories and contradictory opinions one has to move warily to arrive at answers to two questions: (1) were the Sātavāhanas Andhras, or were they called Andhras by the Paurāṇic writers simply because they were found ruling in Andhra at the time of the compilation of their works, and (2) where did they begin their political career?

v1.c7.s2.21

It is true that no inscription or coin calls the Sātavāhanas Andhras. But it should be clearly borne in mind that in those days the custom was merely to note the family name in inscriptions, as is demonstrated by the records of the Śālaṅkāyanas, Bṛhatphalāyanas, Viṣṇukuṇḍins, Pallavas, Gaṅgas, Kadambas, Cālukyas, Vākāṭakas, &c. None of these dynasties made any reference to their community, tribe, or race. The same is the case with regard to the records mentioning Nahapāna and Rudradāman. The former is called a Khakharāṭa (Kshaharāṭa) and the latter a Karddamaka. This custom had such a strong grip that the inscriptions of even the latest Sātavāhana princes discovered in the Andhra area do not call them Andhras although their rule was confined only to the Andhra districts. When the Purāṇas call them Andhras, it can be reasonably assumed that they gave only the community or tribal (*jāti*) names of kings who actually belonged to the family (*kula*) of the Sātavāhanas.

v1.c7.s2.22

The term ‘Andhrabhṛtya’ does not militate against this assumption, when, as interpreted by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, it means Andhras who were servants. Dr. Sukthankar’s interpretation of the term creates unnecessary difficulties; if the Sātavāhanas were not Andhras but the servants of these, and if at the time of their rise the Andhras were ‘powerful potentates in the Deccan,’ it is inexplicable how no vestige of the power of the latter is to be found in the contemporary records—literary, epigraphic, and numismatic. Since the selfsame kings are termed by the Purāṇas both ‘Andhrabhṛtya’, and ‘Andhra-Jātīyah’, it must be that the terms were interchangeable. These kings were, then, Andhras by community, and at the same time acquired power as servants of some other sovereign. The Paurāṇic testimony should not be lightly dismissed. The mention of Śrī-yajña as the reigning prince found in three independent manuscripts of the Matsya Purāṇa moves the date of its compilation well into the second century A.D. Moreover the earliest Purāṇa, the Bhaviṣya, from which the Matsya, Vāyu, Bhāgavata, and Viṣṇu derived their account, stops with the fall of the Andhras and the rise of ‘their servants’.¹ Thus so near were the compilers of the Matsya and the Bhaviṣya in point of time to the Sātavāhana kings that they could not have in their ignorance foisted the name Andhra on to the Sātavāhana princes simply because they found or knew them only as rulers of Andhra. The fact is that the Paurāṇikas were dealing with them in the larger context of their tribal or communal affinity. Thus it appears most likely that the Sātavāhanas belonged to the Andhra community.

v1.c7.s2.23

¹ EHAC, pp. 22-3.

v1.c7.s2.24

Much has been made of the language of the inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas in order to deny their connexion with the Andhras. The form of Prākrit they used is likened to ‘some kind of Proto-Mahārāṣṭrī, having no affinity with the Telugu, the language of the Āndhradeśa.’¹ It is implied in this statement that Prākrit was the mother tongue of the Sātavāhanas, which is far from being true of the Andhras. But as has been ably pointed out by Mr. Somasekhara Sarma,² it is not true that the language of the inscriptions was necessarily the language of the country where these Sātavāhanas had their home, nor is it by any means certain that this was introduced into the Andhra country by the successors of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi. For the much earlier Bhaṭṭiprolu, Ghaṇṭasāla, and Amarāvatī inscriptions in the Andhra area are inscribed in Prākrit. Indeed Prākrit was the language of the inscriptions not only of the Sātavāhanas but of all the other ruling families of India, with very few exceptions, from 300 B.C. to A.D. 300. It was the language of the court and of the cultured. It was the sacred medium of religious literature and orations. The teachings of Buddha and Mahāvīra were immensely popular during these times and the Pāli they employed for their purposes was only the earlier form of Prākrit written and spoken in those days. As Sanskrit was to the Vedic age, so was Prākrit to this epoch. Whatever had any touch of religion or culture about it came to be expressed in Prākrit. The Sātavāhana and other records of the times registered gifts to Śrāmaṇas and institutions, Buddhist or Jaina. Hence the employment of Prākrit in Sātavāhana records. The celebration of Vedic sacrifices by Śrī Sātakarṇi (II) does not affect this argument in the least. For some time later when Sanskrit was restored to its former eminence Nannaya Bhaṭṭa, the first and greatest Telugu poet, wrote his Telugu grammar in Sanskrit. Therefore, it cannot be said positively that the language of the Sātavāhanas was ‘Proto-Mahārāṣṭrī’. The Prākrit of their inscriptions does not in any way militate against Sātavāhana–Andhra identity.

v1.c7.s2.25

¹ P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, *IA*, xlii, 278.

v1.c7.s2.26

² *Bharati*, Prabhava, Vaiśākh, pp. 96-9.

v1.c7.s2.27

Assuming now that the Sātavāhanas were Andhras, the area of their early political activity can be ascertained only after correct location of the habitat of the Andhras in the earliest historical times. Whatever be the difference of opinion regarding Andhra–Sātavāhana affiliation, almost all scholars are agreed that the home of the Andhras then, as in later times, was the Telugu country, on the eastern side of India between the rivers Godāvarī and Kṛṣṇa. As the Choḷas and Pāṇḍyas appear to have from time immemorial occupied approximately the same geographical positions in which they are found at the dawn of history, it is very likely that the Andhras did the same. Buddhist literature of an earlier period locates the Andhra country south of Telivāhana, a tributary of Mahānadi. The Andhras existed as a great power in the days of Chandragupta with considerable military force and ‘thirty walled towns’. These walled towns may well have been held by a number of Andhra chieftains. In Aśoka’s Rock Edict XIII these appear to have nominally accepted his suzerainty. They are classed together with other semi-independent peoples of the Deccan. Of them, since the Bhojas are located in the Western Deccan, the Andhras with their thirty walled towns must have been in the Central and Eastern Deccan. On the whole it would appear that, as suggested by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, the land of the Andhras must have at this early period consisted of certain parts of the Central Provinces together with the Vizagapatam District, and may have also included the Godāvarī and Kṛṣṇā districts.¹ Thus there is no question of the Eastern Deccan having been called Andhra after its conquest by the Sātavāhanas. Andhradeśa existed where it is to-day even before the name of the Sātavāhanas came into prominence.²

v1.c7.s2.28

¹ Aśoka, 2nd edition, pp. 35-6.

v1.c7.s2.29

² K. R. Subramanian, BRA, pp. 8-10.

v1.c7.s2.30

Whether the Sātavāhanas started their political career in the Andhradeśa proper or outside it is another difficult problem. That they came to power from the Andhradeśa is held to be unwarranted mainly on four grounds: (1) their earliest records, epigraphic and numismatic, have been discovered at Nānāghāṭ and Nāsik in the Western Deccan; (2) in Khāravela’s inscription the dominions of the contemporary Sātakarṇi are spoken of as being to the west of Khāravela’s own kingdom of Kaliṅga; (3) Gotamī Balaśrī’s inscription recounting the territorial possessions of her son, Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi, makes no mention of any locality in the Andhra area; and (4) the first available Sātavāhana records begin to appear in Andhradeśa only during the reign of his successor Vāsiṣṭhīputra Śrī Puḷumāvi.

v1.c7.s2.31

But these arguments are based upon inadequate appreciation of the available records. If the discovery of records is to be taken as the *only* criterion for determining territorial possessions of a power, then the early Sātavāhanas will lose their title even to the Central and Southern Deccan. It is true that their earliest records have been found in the Western Deccan; but they are only two in number for twenty predecessors of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi. Apart from this the inference drawn from them is not quite independent. It is derived from the preconceived notion that the Sātavāhanas had nothing to do with Andhradeśa until the reign of Puḷumāvi. It is forgotten that the earliest great Sātavāhana king Sātakarṇi (II), of the Nānāghāṭ record, who performed two *Aśvamedha*, one *Rājasūya*, and other sacrifices, bore the title *Dakṣiṇāpathapati*. The author of the *Periplus* distinguishes the market-towns of ‘Dachinabades’ from those of ‘Limyrika’, i.e. the Tamil lands. In this context Dakṣiṇāpatha, whether as mentioned in inscriptions or as noticed by the Greek writer, appears to cover the whole of the Deccan in contrast to the Tamil lands of the south. If it is conceded that the Sātavāhanas were Andhras, and that they were masters of the Deccan, then the sentence ‘heedless of Sātakarṇi, he sent his forces to the west' in Khāravela's inscription does not mean that Sātakarṇi's dominions were confined *only* to the west of Kaliṅga and had no connexion with the Andhra area. That the earlier Sātavāhana rulers included the latter in the countries over which they ruled is proved by one of the *Gāthas* in Hāla's *Sattasai*, which states that there was no royal house equal in prowess and nobility to that of the Sātavāhanas in all the country wherein the Godāvarī rises, flows, and falls into the sea. Another Prākṛt work, *Līlāvatīpariṇiya*, contains a tradition of Hāla's marriage on the banks of Saptagodāvarī, identified with the tank at Dakṣārām in the East Godāvarī District.¹ Gotamī Balaśrī's inscription cannot be said to have completely ignored the Andhra area: it refers to Siritana, Mahendra, and ‘Assaka’, as within her son's dominions. The first is the Śrīśaila hill in the Kurnool District; the second refers to the Eastern Ghats; and the last, even according to Bakhle, comprised the south-east province of the Hyderabad state and the Godāvarī District. The same record also notices that her son restored the glory of the Sātavāhanas by uprooting the Śakas, Yāvanas, and Pahlavas. Surely it cannot be maintained that the Śakas were masters of the area comprising Siritana, Mahendra, and ‘Assaka’. A more probable sequence of events would be that the Sātavāhanas had been masters of both Andhra and Mahārāṣṭra since at least the downfall of the Mauryan empire. When Nahapāṇa ousted them from the west coast they retained their hold over the rest of the empire including Andhra, and when Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi put an end to the alien rule, the Sātavāhana power was restored over the entire Deccan. It is this event which enabled his son Puḷumāvi to resume the title of (*Dakṣiṇa*)patheśvara which is reminiscent of the title of the earlier Sātavāhana ruler Sātakarṇi (II) of the Nānāghāṭ record. When the Sātavāhanas were finally driven out of Mahārāṣṭra by Rudradāman they retired to their homelands in the Andhra area.

v1.c7.s2.32

¹ Cited by Prabhakara Sastri, *JAHRS*, iv, 29-30.

v1.c7.s2.33

As regards their capitals, the suggestion of Śrīkākulam cannot stand scrutiny, since it is based upon unreliable and much later legend.² Dhānyakaṭaka (Dharaṇikoṭa in Guṇtūr District) appears to have been one of the early strongholds of Andhra power. It may indeed have been one of the ‘thirty walled towns’. When Mahārāṣṭra also became part of the Andhra empire, Paiṭhan became the seat of Sātavāhana government in the west. It is significant that in one of the inscriptions Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi is called ‘Lord of Dhanakaṭa’³—a reminiscence of his early position before his victory over the Khakharāṭas—and his son Puḷumāvi,¹ who had inherited the conquests of his father, resumed the title of ‘the lord of the Deccan’.

v1.c7.s2.34

² *IA*, xlii, 276.

v1.c7.s2.35

³ Nāsik No. 3 in *EI*, viii, 63 contains the term *Dhanakaṭasamanehi*. Its equation with *Dhanakaṭaramanehi* is out of the question for reasons given by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar and Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar (see *EHD*, 3rd edition, p. 30, note 13; *IA*, 1913, p. 280). M. Senart suggested Benakaṭa as an alternative reading for Dhanakaṭ ‘considering the general similarity of *b* and *dh*’. But he himself was not prepared to maintain his suggestion ‘against those who worked from the stone itself’. Hence Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's equation of *Dhanakaṭa-samanehi* with *Dhanakaṭa-sāminehi*, i.e. ‘lord of Dhanakaṭa’, must stand. Dhanakaṭa = Dhanakaṭaka = Dhānyakaṭaka.

v1.c7.s2.36

¹ This name is variously spelt: in inscriptions it is Puḷumāvi or Puḷumāyi; in the Purāṇas the variants are Puḷomāvi, Puḷomat or Puḷomā (*Matsya*), Paṭimāvi or Paṭumāvi (*Vāyu*), and Paṭumān or Puḷimān (*Viṣṇu*). In this chapter the form PUḶUMĀVI is adopted.

v1.c7.s2.37

The events leading to the occupation of Mahārāṣṭra and the establishment of government at Paiṭhan by the Sātavāhanas are shrouded entirely in mystery. The Purāṇic epithet ‘Andhrabhṛtya’ applied to them perhaps offers a clue to the riddle. This term, as pointed out before, means Andhras who were servants. In Aśoka’s Rock Edict XIII Andhras figure in a somewhat subordinate position. From such a position it was easy to assert themselves after the death of Aśoka, and to build up a state much more extensive and powerful than it had been in the days of the first Mauryan Emperor and Megasthenes. The growing menace of the foreigners may have necessitated the fixing of their headquarters at Paiṭhan.

Name and Caste of the Sātavāhanas

v1.c7.s3.1

WE have pointed out above that Sātavāhana was the dynastic or family name of the kings of the Andhra race. But Sātavāhana is only one of the many forms found in the *Purāṇas* for these rulers. Sātakarṇi is very often used besides the other forms such as Śātakarṇi, Svātikarṇa, and Santikarṇi. Hemacandra's grammar gives Śālivāhana as an *apabhraṃśa* of Sātavāhana.

v1.c7.s3.2

Various derivations have been suggested for the term Sātavāhana. According to the *Abhidhānacintāmaṇi*, it means 'he who enjoyed a comfortable mount'.¹ The *Kathāsaritsāgara* has it that the name Sātavāhana was derived from Sāta, a Yakṣa who carried the prince.² Recently it has been suggested that the term may mean 'one who obtained a *vāhana*, alluding to a high position in Mauryan military service.³ Sātakarṇi may have first appeared as a by-name,⁴ later becoming the family name.⁵ But these are merely conjectural explanations. The actual origin of the word is unknown.

v1.c7.s3.3

¹ *JBBRAS*, x: *Sātam dattasukham vāhanam Yasya iti*.

v1.c7.s3.4

² *Sātena Uasmād ūdhobhūt tasmāt tam Sātavāhanam nāmnā Cakāra*, &cc.

v1.c7.s3.5

³ *EHAC*, p. 31.

v1.c7.s3.6

⁴ The colophon to Dr. Peterson's *Manuscripts of Sattasai*, 3rd Report of Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts, p. 349, reads '*Satakarṇopanāmakah*'.

v1.c7.s3.7

⁵ V. S. Bakhle, op. cit., p. 32.

v1.c7.s3.8

Like the derivation of the name Sātavāhana, the question of the caste of these princes has also given rise to much controversy. Evidence bearing on the issue is available only in the later Sātavāhana records, those of Gotamī Balaśrī, at Nāsik. In these the title *ekabamhaṇa* is applied to Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi. Senart translates it as 'the Unique Brāhmaṇa'.⁶ Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, however, stands by Sir R. G. Bhandarker's rendering as 'the only protector of Brāhmaṇs',⁷ which is far from making Sātavāhanas Brāhmans. Mr. V. S. Bakhle is emphatic that the epigraphic evidence 'points definitely to the Sātavāhanas as Brahmins', and that Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi 'was not a Kṣatriya but a Brahmin'. Jayaswal says that both the Śuṅgas and the Sātavāhanas were Brāhmans.⁸ Dr. Gopalachari on the other hand maintains with Dr. Bhandarkar that 'the Sātavāhanas were Kṣatriyas and bore the *gotras* of their mothers. They got this institution of tracing descent by mothers through intermarriages with Kṣatriya families in certain localities'.⁹

v1.c7.s3.9

⁶ *EI*, viii, No. 2, pp. 60 ff.

v1.c7.s3.10

⁷ Ibid., xxii, 32 ff.

v1.c7.s3.11

⁸ *JBBRAS*, (n.s.), iii, 52; *JBORS*, xvi, 259, 265.

v1.c7.s3.12

⁹ Op. cit., p. 48.

v1.c7.s3.13

There seems to be no reason why we should not understand the *ekabamhaṇa* of the record as we do the other epithets in the same inscription given to Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi, namely, that he was the *ekadhanudara*, ekasūra, &c., unless, of course, there is anything so very repugnant in Sātavāhanas being Brāhmans. For aught we know, during that Buddhistic age which lowered the prestige of the Vedic faith, when the Kshatriyas, who had been the protectors of Brāhmans and Brāhmanism for centuries, became converts to Buddhism in their hundreds, many Brāhmans may have felt it necessary to call themselves Kshatriyas directly in order to protect the Vedic faith so dear to their hearts. The Śuṅga and Kaṇva dynasties of Magadha were dynasties founded by the Brāhmans. A similar and contemporaneous development in the Deccan was certainly to be expected. It is true that the Sātavāhanas showed admirable toleration for men of other faiths to whom they gave many a benefaction. No persecution of non-Brāhmanical opinion or practices existed. But that Brāhmanism itself was again ascendant may easily be gathered from the Nānāghāṭ inscription in which King Sātakarṇi is stated to have celebrated numerous Vedic sacrifices.

v1.c7.s3.14

Nor can we ignore the expression Khatiyadapamāna madanasa applied to Gautamiputra and the extent to which it reinforces the ekabamhaṇasa of the same epigraph. Dr. Bhandarkar went far out of the way to identify this Khatiya not with the obvious Kshatriya caste but with an obscure tribe of the name, the Xathroi of Arrian, placed by him on the confluence of the Chenāb and the Indus. According to Dr. Bhandarkar these were the Kshatriyas of Kauṭilya, Manu, and Ptolemy. The ‘Bhraṣṭarājās’ of the Girnār inscription whom Rudradāman restored to their thrones may well have been the Khatiyas of the Nāsik record who are said to have suffered at the hands of Gautamiputra Sātakarṇi.¹ Gotamī Balaśrī was, however, certain in her mind that the Khatiyas were definitely distinct from the bamhaṇa that was her son.

v1.c7.s3.15

¹ EI, xxii, 33

v1.c7.s3.16

The only fact that lends support to the Kshatriya affinity of the Sātavāhanas is that in the inscription in question Gotamī Balaśrī describes herself as one who fully worked out the ideal of Rājarṣi’s wife. It is true that Rājarṣis are distinct from Brahmarṣis and Devarṣis. But the term Rājan is suggestive indeed of royalty, of position, but not of caste, though it is true that the kings were mostly Kshatriyas. As has been shown above, Brāhmanism demanded urgently that Brāhmans should hold the reins of government and administration and the Sātavāhanas did not fail to respond to this demand. As a result of the long sway of Buddhism the old social order had become very much impaired. The attempt to build it anew was bound to allow for some sort of relaxation in all those rules of conduct laid down of old for the four castes of Hindu society. Otherwise no Brāhman would have been eligible for the kingly office. But Śuṅgas and Kaṇvas were Brāhmans and yet were kings. No Brāhman was permitted to perform Aśvamedha and Rājasūya sacrifices which were carried out exclusively by ambitious princes of the Kshatriya clan. Yet Puṣyamitra Śuṅga did perform Aśvamedha. It is against this background that we must picture and interpret the actions of Śrī Sātakarṇi described in the Nānāghāṭ record. To establish his sovereignty he performed these sacrifices, which had long come to be regarded as the preserves of Kshatriya princes alone. In spite of all such practices Pushyamitra remained a Brāhman. We need not at all surmise either that Śrī Sātakarṇi lost his caste. We should, therefore, always bear in mind that after the fall of the Mauryas the rājās were no longer necessarily of the Kshatriya caste. A good many of the ruling families came to be Brāhman by caste. And if Gotamī Balaśrī adhered so strictly to all those observances as to merit the appellation rājarṣivadhū, we need not deny her Brāhman caste, but rather praise her for remembering and practising all her life the observances and functions taken over and maintained by her husband and his forefathers.

Early Sātavāhanas—Chronology

v1.c7.s4.1

THE Andhra-Sātavāhana kings may be divided into two groups, the one earlier and the other later. The break in their rule in Western Mahārāṣṭra, Gujerāt, and Malwa explains this division. Until very recently, not much was known of the history of kings 4 to 22 of the Matsya list. A closer study of the potin and copper coins of Western India bearing the legend Rano Sātakamnisa seems to reveal a second Sātakarṇi, the 6th of the Matsya, the 3rd of the Vāyu, and the 5th of the Viṣṇu lists. A large copper coin from the Central Provinces gives us the name of Apilaka, the 8th king on the Matsya list; and the Bṛhatkathā, Saptaśati, and Līlāvatī offer some account of Hāla, the 17th king on that list. Even of these rulers the available information is too meagre to give an idea of the extent of their dominions. After the rule of a few early Sātavāhanas their sovereignty over the western regions of their dominions gave way to that of foreign invaders. These latter held control over those lands for a considerable time, until finally Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi appeared on the scene, recovered these regions from the aliens, destroyed the Śakas, Yavanas, and Pahlavas, and put an end to the dynasty of the Khakharāṭas. Thus the rulers of this dynasty, from Simuka to Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi, are treated as Early Sātavāhanas and the rest as the Later Sātavāhanas.

v1.c7.s4.2

But like every other problem of Andhra-Sātavāhana history the question of their chronology is very difficult to solve. Except for the testimony of the Purāṇas and a couple of difficult but possible synchronisms, we are indebted entirely to palaeography for our scanty knowledge of the regnal periods of these princes. And palaeography seems to authorize such widely divergent views that we are never absolutely sure of anything at all. The Nānāghāṭ inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas, for instance, are assigned, for palaeographical reasons, to anywhere between the middle of the second century B.C. and the latter half of the first century B.C.,¹ to any time ‘between the Besnagar pillar inscription of Heliodorus (about the beginning of the first century B.C.) and the Hāthigumphā inscription of Khāravela (end of first century B.C.)’.²

v1.c7.s4.3

¹ R. P. Chanda, MASI, No. 1, H. C. Raychoudhari, PHAI, 4th edition, pp. 337 ff.

v1.c7.s4.4

² R. P. Chanda, op. cit., and D. C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions, p. 186, n. 1 and p. 206, n. 1. The dating of the Hāthigumphā epigraph itself varies from the beginning of the second century B.C. to the end of the first century B.C.

v1.c7.s4.5

The Purāṇas themselves hardly appear to improve matters, for they are replete with contradictory statements. The four Purāṇas—Matsya, Vāyu, Viṣṇu, and Bhāgavata—contain statements regarding several of the ancient Indian dynasties, the total duration of rule by each dynasty, the number of princes making up each of the ruling families, and in most cases their names as well. Allowing for a few discrepancies, they are all agreed that the Mauryas ruled for 137 years, the Śuṅgas for 112, and the Kaṇvas for 45 years. Of the Andhras, the *Vāyu*, *Viṣṇu*, and *Bhāgavata* declare that there were 30 princes, while according to *Matsya* there were only 29 of them. Their total regnal period was 460 years according to *Matsya*; 456 years according to *Viṣṇu* and *Bhāgavata*; and 411 or 300 years according to *Vāyu Purāṇa*. Though not much discrepancy is discernible here among their general statements, this is far from the case when they begin to give more exact particulars of the individual reigns. The following table illustrates these disagreements:

Andhra Kings

v1.c7.s4.t1.1

| | *Vāyu* | *Matsya* | *Viṣṇu* | *Bhāgavata* |
| | No. of princes | Total reign | No. of princes | Total reign | No. of princes | Total reign | No. of princes | Total reign |
| General statements | 30 | 411 or 300 | 29 | 460 | 30 | 456 | 30 | 456 |
| Details | 17 | 272½ | 30 | 448½ | 24 | .. | 22 | .. |

v1.c7.s4.t1.2

It will be noted in the above table that the number of names actually enumerated by each authority differs from the number given in the general statement, and that consequently the total of their regnal years also differs from the total duration of each dynasty mentioned in a general way.

v1.c7.s4.t1.3

Sir R. G. Bhandarkar sought to reconcile the conflicting statements of the *Vāyu* and *Matsya Purāṇas* about the duration of the dynasty and the number of princes, by supposing that the longer period and the corresponding list of princes are made up by putting together the reigns and names of the several branches of the Andhra dynasty. He accepted the particulars given in the *Vāyu Purāṇa* in preference to those given in the *Matsya Purāṇa*. Commenting on a statement of *Vāyu*, ‘Andhras will have possession of the earth for three hundred years’, Sir R. G. Bhandarkar writes: ‘the period of three hundred years and the seventeen names given in the *Vāyu Purāṇa* refer probably to the main branch. The *Matsya* seems to me to put together the princes of all the branches and thus makes them out to be thirty. . . . Thus then both the *Vāyu* and the *Matsya Purāṇas* each give a correct account, but of different things.’¹

v1.c7.s4.t1.4

¹ EHD, pp. 57-8.

v1.c7.s4.t1.5

This argument is hardly tenable. The compiler of the *Matsya Purāṇa* might well be spared this somewhat arbitrary justification of his alleged inability to distinguish the crowned from the uncrowned princes of the Sātavāhana line. A glance at the table will show that both the *Vāyu* and the *Matsya* list are in agreement about the names of the kings from Paṭimāvi the 5th of the former and Puḷumāvi the 15th of the latter to Gautamīputra the 13th and the

The Matsya and Vāyu Lists of Andhra Kings

v1.c7.s4.t2.1

(See EHD, pp. 55-6; CIC, pp. lxvi-lxvii)

v1.c7.s4.t2.2

| | Matsya | | | Vāyu | |
| *No.* | *Names of kings* | *Years of reign* | *No.* | *Names of kings* | *Years of reign* |
| 1 | Śiśuka (= Simuka of Inscr.) | 23 | 1 | Sindhuka | 23 |
| 2 | Kṛṣṇa (Kaṇha of Inscr.) | 18 | 2 | Kṛṣṇa | 10 or 18 |
| 3 | Śrī-Mallakarṇi | 10 | | | |
| 4 | Pūrṇotsaṅga | 18 | | | |
| 5 | Skandastambhi | 18 | | | |
| 6 | Śātakarṇi¹ | 56 | 3 | Śātakarṇi¹ | 56 |
| 7 | Lambodara | 18 | 4 | Apilavā | 12 |
| 8 | Apilaka | 12 | | | |
| 9 | Meghasvāti | 18 | | | |
| 10 | Svāti | 18 | | | |
| 11 | Skandasvāti | 7 | | | |
| 12 | Mṛgendra Svātikarṇa | 3 | | | |
| 13 | Kuntala Svātikarṇa | 8 | | | |
| 14 | Svātikarṇa | 1 | | | |
| 15 | Puḷomāvi | 36 | 5 | Paṭimāvi or Paṭumāvi | 24 |
| 16 | Gaurakṛṣṇa | 25 | 6 | Nemikṛṣṇa | 25 |
| 17 | Hāla | 5 | 7 | Hāla | 1 |
| 18 | Maṇḍulaka | 5 | 8 | Maṇḍulaka | 5 |
| 19 | Puriṇdrasena | 5 | 9 | Purikasena | 21 |
| 20 | Sundara Svātikarṇa | 1 | 10 | Śātakarṇi | 1 |
| 21 | Cakora Svātikarṇa | ½ | 11 | Cakora Śātakarṇi | ½ |
| 22 | Śivasvāti | 28 | 12 | Śivasvāti | 28 |
| 23 | Gautamīputra | 21 | 13 | Gautamīputra | 21 |
| 24 | Puḷomat (Puḷumāvi of Inscr.) | 28 | | | |
| 25 | Śiva Śrī | 7 | | | |
| 26 | Śivaskanda | 7 | | | |
| 27 | Yajñaśrī | 29 | 14 | Yajña Śrī | 29 |
| 28 | Vijaya | 6 | 15 | Vijaya | 6 |
| 29 | Caṇḍaśrī | 10 | 16 | Daṇḍaśrī | 3 |
| 30 | Puḷomāvi (Puḷumāvi of Inscr.) | 7 | 17 | Puḷomāvi | 7 |

First 94 of 479 passages. Read on

Linked texts (46)