Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7.s3: Name and Caste of the Sātavāhanas

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7.s3

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (7)