Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7.s5: The Sātakarṇi of the Girnār Inscription

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c7.s5

Language
English

The Sātakarṇi of the Girnār Inscription

v1.c7.s5.1

T HE process of snatching away the Sātavāhana provinces begun by Chashṭana continued with repeated and increasing aggressions so that by the year A.D. 150, Chashṭana's grandson Rudradāman could claim to have twice defeated Sātakarṇi, the Lord of Dakshiṇāpatha, in fair fight, and even won fame for leaving him personally unharmed because their relationship was not remote. This Sātakarṇi can only have been Gautamīputra Yajña Śrī Sātakarṇi who ruled from A.D. 128 to 157. But the not remote *sambandha* between them is not specified. There can be little doubt, however, that this relationship must have been the result of a marriage referred to in a record from Kānheri.¹ This record registers the gift of a water-cistern by Sateruka the confidential minister of the *Devi* of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi. She was descended from a family of Karddamaka kings and was the daughter of a ‘mahākshatrapa Ru...’ ‘Ru...’ must have been Rudra and the letters of the Kānheri inscription being an exact counterpart of the Girnār record, this Rudra has been identified by Bühler and other scholars with Rudradāman.²

v1.c7.s5.2

¹ *Lüders*, 994; Bühler, *ASWI*, v, p. 78, no. 11.

v1.c7.s5.3

² But Mr. H. C. Ghosh thought that the Ru... might stand for Mahākshatrapa Rudradāman and Mahākshatrapa Rudra Simha, *IHQ*, 1931, p. 122.

v1.c7.s5.4

But the identity of this Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi of the Kānheri record and his relationship to Yajña Śrī Sātakarṇi are not easily settled. Prof. Rapson and Dr. Smith were definitely wrong in taking him for Vāsiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi. The latter is not known to have ever affixed ‘Sātakarṇi’ to his name. Puḷumāvi could not possibly have married his own contemporary’s great-granddaughter. Had he been the son-in-law of Rudradāman, he would not be termed a ‘non-remote’ relation. The confidential Minister Sateruka can be assumed to have known about his own master. Vāsiṣṭhīputra’s wife, the princess of Karddamaka descent, could not well have been ignorant of her own husband’s name.

v1.c7.s5.5

Hence the son-in-law of Rudradāman, Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi, must be sought for among the successors of Puḷumāvi or their closest of kin. Pandit Bhagavanlal Indraji discovered an inscription at Nānāghāṭ,³ wherein the king is referred to as Chatarapanasa Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi. Pandit Bhagavanlal and Dr. Bühler believed that this Sātakarṇi was identical with that of the Kānheri record who was Rudradāman’s son-in-law. According to the Pandit, a coin of Yajña Śrī found at Sopārā bears the legend *Chatarapanasa Gotamīputakumāru Siri Sātakarṇi*. He concluded that Chatarapana was the father of Yajña Śrī. Prof. Rapson rejected both this reading of the legend and the inference drawn from it.¹ As regards the Nānāghāṭ inscription, he remarked that Pandit Bhagavanlal ‘was no doubt correct in his estimate of the period to which the inscriptional characters belong; but it is impossible to determine whether this king Vāsiṣṭhīputra Chatarapana Sātakarṇi is a member of a dynasty otherwise unknown...’. Prof. Nilakanta Śastri could only suggest that the Sātakarṇi of the Girnār record ‘may have been Śiva Śrī Sātakarṇi, the successor of Puḷumāvi.’² ... The husband of the Karddamaka queen, the daughter of Mahākshatrapa Rudra, may have been the brother or son of Śiva Śrī Sātakarṇi and his successor, viz. Vāsiṣṭhīputra Śrī Chandra Sāti.’

v1.c7.s5.6

³ *JBBRAS*, xv, 313.

v1.c7.s5.7

¹ Op. cit., paras 50 and 72.

v1.c7.s5.8

² JRAS, 1926, p. 659.

v1.c7.s5.9

The twice defeated Sātakarṇi of the Girnār record can be no other than Gautamīputra Yajñaśrī himself, as may be seen from the chronology suggested above. Obviously he was no son-in-law of Rudradāman, who was a Vāsiṣṭhīputra. The Girnār date, A.D. 150, being the 16th regnal year of Śrī Yajña+y, the marriage of the Karddamaka princess, Rudradāman’s daughter, with Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi of Kānheri, must have been celebrated earlier than that year, viz. A.D. (128+16) = 144+y. For after that occurred the defeat and release of Śrī Yajña by the prowess and grace of Rudradāman. But Vāsiṣṭhīputra Chandra Sāti was definitely a later king, coming second in succession after Yajña Śrī.

v1.c7.s5.10

Among the predecessors of Yajña Śrī Sātakarṇi, the Purāṇas mention only two kings, Śiva Śrī and Śivaskanda, as successors of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi. Whilst Śiva Śrī’s name does figure on both coins and inscriptions, Śivaskanda’s is completely absent from both. We need not wonder either, for this is true of the majority of the Sātavāhana rulers and does not constitute a denial of their existence. Mr. V. S. Bakhle made a similar assertion with regard to Chatarapana Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi of the Nānāghāṭ epigraph dated in the 13th year of his reign and maintained that ‘the Purāṇas have probably ignored this king since his rule was confined to Western India’.³ According to Mr. Bakhle, ‘Śiva Śrī ruled only in Āndhradeśa and his name is indeed very dissimilar from that of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi of the Kānheri grant; Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi’s name is sufficiently distinctive to identify him with the ruler of the Kānheri record; he was the real and immediate successor of Puḷumāvi; he appointed a viceroy over the eastern provinces; this was probably Śiva Śrī; Śiva Śrī and Śivaskanda are similar names; together they ruled for fourteen years, according to the Purāṇas; the same period must be assigned to Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi, whose Nānāghāṭ record is dated in his thirteenth year. ‘The Purāṇas have given two names of one and the same king, the Śiva Śrī of the coins. The Purāṇas mention only the viceroy who was ruling in the Āndhradeśa, instead of the king himself who ruled over Mahārāṣṭra,’ for the Āndhradeśa was nearer Magadha, where the Purāṇic account grew up. Yet the real king, who was Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi, won such resounding successes against the Kshatrapas that after his death, Rudradāman avenged himself on this Vāsiṣṭhīputra’s successor Yajña Śrī by twice defeating him and wresting away all the western regions of his dominions.¹

v1.c7.s5.11

³ JBBRAS, iii, 80.

v1.c7.s5.12

¹ JBRAS, iii, pp. 79–84 and also pp. 97–100.

v1.c7.s5.13

We cannot accuse the compilers of the Purāṇas of ignorance just when it suits our convenience. If the Purāṇas ignored the existence of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi of the Kānheri record, they had good reasons for that, as will be indicated below. It is not necessary to suppose that the Sātakarṇi of the Kānheri record must have necessarily ruled as one in the line of succession of the Sātavāhana kings. I agree with Pandit Bhagavanlal, Dr. Bühler, and Mr. Bakhle that the Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi of the Kānheri record is identical with Chatarapana Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi of the Nānāghāṭ epigraph. Since the latter inscription is dated in the 13th year of the king, I shall even accept the suggestion that the Sātakarṇi of the Kānheri record may have ruled over those regions where the inscriptions are found. But when did he rule, and in which capacity? These are questions of great importance and far-reaching implication. We can be certain of one fact only, viz. that the marriage alliance between a Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi and Rudradāman preceded the defeats of Yajña Śrī Sātakarṇi by the Mahākshatrapa. For aught we know Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi may have governed those western regions during the times that followed Yajña Śrī’s discomfiture.

v1.c7.s5.14

But Mr. V. S. Bakhle would assume the existence of an independent rule by this Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi over lands so extensive that he found it necessary to appoint viceroys in the east. According to him Śiva Śrī, a king in the Purāṇic lists, was his choice for the post. We hope that Mr. Bakhle did not suggest this hypothesis as a counter-blast to the earlier theories of an eastern capital for the kingdom and a western viceroyalty at Paiṭhan. Mr. Bakhle also gauged this Vāsiṣṭhīputra’s prowess by the absence of the title of Mahākshatrapa with the name of Jayadāman. He argued that Chashṭana was the ruler of Ujjain, Malwa, Kāṭhiāwāḍ, and Gujerāt. ‘This territory, which was lost by Puḷumāvi, was certainly not reclaimed by him; and it must have been his successor, Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi, who did this.’ Mr. Bakhle, therefore, hazarded a conjecture that ‘Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi conquered that country while it was under Jayadāman; and the latter made peace with him by a matrimonial alliance’.²

v1.c7.s5.15

² Ibid., pp. 82 and 89.

v1.c7.s5.16

This argument in the manner of Rapson but in a different context ignores the evidence of the Andhau inscriptions, which show Chashṭana alive and ruling conjointly with his grandson Rudradāman in A.D. 130. Bakhle’s chronology for these kings (viz. Chashṭana A.D. 86–110, Jayadāman A.D. 110–25; Rudradāman A.D. 125–50) overlooks the fact that Chashṭana survived his son and the question, therefore, of the latter’s purchasing peace by matrimony does not arise. There is no evidence to prove that while he was the contemporary of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi (A.D. 86–114), Chashṭana extended his sway anywhere beyond the kingdom of Ujjain. The superstructure built on this doubtful premiss of Chashṭana’s suzerainty over Kāthiāwāḍ and Gujerāt cannot, therefore, stand.

v1.c7.s5.17

But if the information of the Andhau inscriptions be properly appraised, this difficulty does not arise at all. During the later part of Puḷumāvi’s reign Chashṭana seized Ujjain from him. Puḷumāvi died soon after this, in A.D. 114. His two successors, Śiva Śrī and Śivaskanda, had brief reigns of seven years each. These kings were probably less enterprising. Taking advantage of the change on the Sātavāhana throne, Chashṭana began to extend his sphere of political power over wider regions. This policy had proved eminently successful as early as A.D. 130, as the location of the Andhau inscriptions shows. Chashṭana was fast getting old. So his son Jayadāman probably took the field against the opposing Sātavāhana forces. His death as a mere Kshatrapa and during the lifetime of his father may be explained as having occurred during the conflict with the Sātavāhanas over these regions of Malwa, Gujerāt, and Kāthiāwāḍ. Rudradāman intervened to retrieve the position. His victories brought him recognition in the form of the extension of the empire of Ujjain over Malwa, Gujerāt, Kāthiāwāḍ, and Cutch. He was also hailed as a Mahākshatrapa and as an associate of his grandfather Chashṭana in the government of the country.

v1.c7.s5.18

By that time, in A.D. 128, Yajña Śrī Sātakarṇi had assumed the crown of the Sātavāhana empire. The discovery of a large number of his coins in Kāthiāwāḍ and Gujerāt does not necessarily prove that Yajña Śrī’s authority extended over those regions. But it is certain that the prosperity of his kingdom encouraged the flow of commerce across the various frontiers. Either on the advice of Chashṭana, who was now becoming an old man, or because of his own military needs, Rudradāman desired the division of the Sātavāhana house. He befriended Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi. The latter must have been a brother of Śiva Śrī Sātakarṇi. He may well have distinguished himself in the Sātavāhana conflicts with the Kshatrapas of Ujjain and thereafter have felt greatly disappointed that Yajña Śrī should get the throne and that he should lead a life of comparative insignificance in the north-west. But with his marriage into the family of the Kshatrapas of Ujjain, who were the traditional enemies of the Sātavāhanas, Vāsiṣṭhīputra’s chances of succeeding to the throne became still further diminished. If he was indeed identical with the Vāsiṣṭhīputra of the Nānāghāṭ record, his name, with the prefix ‘Chatarapana’ added to it, would seem to indicate how profoundly he was influenced by Kshatrapa traditions. He could never hope to be a lawful king of the Sātavāhanas and he never became one. Hence the omission of his name in the Purāṇic list. The Kānheri record furnishes a strong proof of this Vāsiṣṭhīputra’s submission to Kshatrapa authority and influence. Admittedly the script of his record is the ‘exact counterpart’ of that of the Girnār inscription.

v1.c7.s5.19

If then the language of the Girnār *praśasti* was Sanskrit at a time when Prākṛit held a position of supreme dominance, it was not a solitary linguistic island in the midst of the Prākṛitic ocean. There exists a second example in Vāsiṣṭhīputra’s Kānheri record. When we recall that the language of the Andhau records is Prākṛit it is not difficult to assume a later date for this Kānheri record. When after some years of preparation Rudradāman took the field against Yajña Śrī Sātakarṇi about the sixteenth regnal year of the latter, and after inflicting two crushing defeats on him, robbed him of his western provinces, this Vāsiṣṭhīputra Sātakarṇi, the son-in-law of Rudradāman, was holding his court in the west as a feudatory of Ujjain. The Nānāghāṭ inscription of his thirteenth year may be taken to indicate the duration of his newly found authority.

v1.c7.s5.20

| No. of kings | | | Reigns in years | | | |
| *Vāyu* | *Matsya* | Names of Sātavāhana kings | *Vāyu* | *Matsya* | Accepted | Period assigned |
| | | | | | | B.C. |
| 1 | 1 | Simuka . . . . . | 23 | 23 | 23 | 271-248 |
| 2 | 2 | Kṛiṣṇa . . . . . | 18 | 18 | 18 | 248-230 |
| | 3 | Sātakarṇi (I) . . . | .. | 10 | 10 | 230-220 |
| | 4 | Pūrṇotsaṅga . . . | .. | 18 | 18 | 220-202 |
| | 5 | Skandastambhi . . | .. | 18 | 18 | 202-184 |
| 3 | 6 | Sātakarṇi (II) . . | 56 | 56 | 56 | 184-128 |
| | 7 | Lambodara . . . | .. | 18 | 18 | 128-110 |
| 4 | 8 | Apilaka . . . . | 12 | 12 | 12 | 110-98 |
| | 9 | Meghasvāti. . . | .. | 18 | 18 | 98-80 |
| | 10 | Svāti . . . . . | .. | 18 | 18 | 80-62 |
| | 11 | Skandasvāti . . . | .. | 7 | 7 | 62-55 |
| | 12 | Mṛgendra . . . | .. | 3 | 3 | 55-52 |
| | 13 | Kuntalasvāti . . | .. | 8 | 8 | 52-44 |
| | 14 | Svātikarṇa . . . | .. | 1 | 1 | 44-43 |
| 5 | 15 | Puḷumāvi (I) . . | 24 | 36 | 24 | 43-19 |
| 6 | 16 | Gaurakṛiṣṇa . . | 25 | 25 | 25 | B.C. 19-A.D. 6 |
| 7 | 17 | Hāla . . . . . | 1 | 5 | 1 | A.D. 6-7 |
| 8 | 18 | Mandulaka . . . | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7-12 |
| 9 | 19 | Purīndrasena . . | 21 | 5 | 21 | 12-33 |
| 10 | 20 | Sundara-svātikarṇa | 1 | 1 | 1 | 33-34 |
| 11 | 21 | Chakora Svātikarṇa | ‡ | ‡ | ‡ | 34-34 |
| 12 | 22 | Śivasvāti . . . | 28 | 28 | 28 | 34-62 |
| 13 | 23 | Gautamiputra-Sātakarṇi | 21 | 21 | 24¹ | 62-86 |
| | 24 | Puḷumāvi (II) . . | .. | 28 | 28 | 86-114 |
| | 25 | Siva Śrī . . . | .. | 7 | 7 | 114-121 |
| | 26 | Śivaskanda . . . | .. | 7 | 7 | 121-128 |
| 14 | 27 | Yajña Śrī . . . | 29 | 29 | 29 | 128-157 |
| 15 | 28 | Vijaya . . . . | 6 | 6 | 6 | 157-163 |
| 16 | 29 | Chandra Śrī . . | 3 | 10 | 3 | 163-166 |
| 17 | 30 | Puḷumāvi (III) . | 7 | 7 | 8¹ | 166-174 |

v1.c7.s5.21

¹ Throughout this chapter, *Vāyu* regnal periods have been accepted wherever available; a departure, however, has been made in the case of Gautamiputra Sātakarṇi and Puḷumāvi (III) in view of the epigraphic evidence. In the other cases, the *Matsya* data have been followed. Regarding Kṛiṣṇa, see *infra*, p. 114, n. 2.

Linked texts (4)