Collapse
Indian dynasty (2nd century BCE–Early 3rd century CE)
Fetching the article from Wikipedia…
The Satavahanas (; Sādavāhana or Sātavāhana, IAST: Sātavāhana), also referred to as the Andhras (also Andhra-bhṛtyas or Andhra-jatiyas) in the Puranas, were an ancient Indian dynasty. Most modern scholars believe that the Satavahana rule began in the late 2nd century BCE and lasted until the early 3rd century CE, although some assign the beginning of their rule to as early as the 3rd century BCE based on the Puranas, but uncorroborated by archaeological evidence. The Satavahana kingdom mainly comprised the present-day Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Maharashtra. At different times, their rule extended to parts of modern Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka. The dynasty had different capital cities at different times, including Pratishthana (Paithan) and Amaravati (Dharanikota).
The origin of the dynasty is uncertain, but according to the Puranas, their first king overthrew the Kanva dynasty. In the post-Maurya era, the Satavahanas established peace in the Deccan region and resisted the onslaught of foreign invaders. In particular their struggles with the Saka (Western Satraps) went on for a long time. The dynasty reached its zenith under the rule of Gautamiputra Satakarni and his successor Vasisthiputra Pulamavi. The kingdom had fragmented into smaller states by the early 3rd century CE.
The Satavahanas were early issuers of Indian state coinage struck with images of their rulers. They formed a cultural bridge and played a vital role in trade and the transfer of ideas and culture to and from the Indo-Gangetic Plain to the southern tip of India.
The date and place of origin of the Satavahanas, as well as the meaning of the dynasty's name, are a matter of debate among historians. Some of these debates have happened in the context of regionalism, with the present-day Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Maharashtra, being variously claimed as the original homeland of the Satavahanas.
Śātavāhana, Śālivāhana, Śātakarṇi seem to be Sanskritised versions of the indigenous name Sātakaṇi, which appear as Sālavāhaṇa in Prakrit vernacular.
According to one theory, the word "Satavahana" (Brahmi script: 𑀲𑀸𑀤𑀯𑀸𑀳𑀦 Sādavāhana or 𑀲𑀸𑀢𑀯𑀸𑀳𑀦 Sātavāhana, IAST: Sātavāhana) is a Prakrit form of the Sanskrit Sapta-Vahana ("driven by seven"; in Hindu mythology, the chariot of the sun god is drawn by seven horses). This would indicate that the Satavahanas originally claimed association with the legendary solar dynasty, as was common in ancient India. According to Inguva Kartikeya Sarma, the dynasty's name is derived from the words sata ("sharpened", "nimble" or "swift") and vahana ("vehicle"); the expression thus means "one who rides a nimble horse".
Another theory connects their name to the earlier Satiyaputa dynasty. Yet another theory derives their name from the Munda words Sadam ("horse") and Harpan ("son"), implying "son of the performer of a horse sacrifice". Several rulers of the dynasty bear the name or title "Satakarni". Satavahana, Satakarni, Satakani and Shalivahana appear to be variations of the same word. Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi theorised that the word "Satakarni" is derived from the Munda words sada ("horse") and kon ("son").
The Puranas use the name "Andhra" for the Satavahanas. The term "Andhra" may refer to the ethnicity or territory of the dynasty (see Original homeland below). It does not appear in the dynasty's own records.
The Tamil epic Cilappatikaram mentions a "Nurruvar Kannar", who helped Chera king Senguttuvan during his Himalayan campaign. The direct translation of the term Nurruvar Kannar is "the hundred Karnas" or "Satakarni"; Nurruvar Kannar has therefore been identified with the Satavahana dynasty.
The Kathasaritsagara ascribes a mythical etymology in which a widowed, childless king named Deepakarni was prophesied to find a lion-riding child as his heir. During a jungle hunt, he found such a child riding a yaksha-turned-lion named Sāta. After adoption, the child became the king eventually and came to be known as Sātavāhana or Sāta-supported.
The use of the names "Andhra" and "Andhra-Jatiya" in the Puranas has led some scholars, such as E. J. Rapson and R.G Bhandarkar, to believe that the dynasty originated in the eastern Deccan region (the historic Andhra region, present-day Andhra Pradesh and Telangana). At Kotilingala in Telangana, coins bearing the legend "Rano Siri Chimuka Satavahanasa" were found. Epigraphist and numismatist P. V. P. Sastry initially identified Chimuka with the dynasty's founder Simuka, Coins attributed to Simuka's successors Kanha and Satakarni I were also discovered at Kotilingala. Based on these discoveries, historians such as Ajay Mitra Shastri, D. R. Reddy, S. Reddy, and Shankar R. Goyal theorised that Kotlingala was the original home of the Satavahanas. Ajay Mitra Shastri stated that the finding of the coins at Kotilingala give "a clear pointer to the region where we have to locate the original center of the Satavahana political authority." However, the coin samples from Kotlingala are small, and it is not certain if these coins were minted there or reached there from somewhere else. Moreover, the identification of Chimuka of Kotilingala with the dynasty's founder Simuka has been contested by several scholars including P. L. Gupta and I. K. Sarma, who identified Chimuka as a later ruler. P. V. P. Sastry also later changed his view and stated that the two kings were different. In addition to the Kotilinga find, a coin of the Satavahana prince Saktikumara, who was in the fourth generation of the founder, has been reported as a stratified find from the Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh. As for the Puranas, these texts could have been compiled at a later date and it is not certain if the Satavahanas were referred to as Andhras during their time.
Another section of scholars believe that the Satavahanas originated in western Deccan (present-day Maharashtra). All four extant inscriptions from the early Satavahana period (c. 1st century BCE) have been found in and around this region. One of the earliest known Satavahana inscriptions was that found at Cave No.19 of the Pandavleni Caves in Nashik district, which was issued during the reign of Kanha (100–70 BCE). An inscription found at Naneghat was issued by Nayanika (or Naganika), the widow of Satakarni I; another inscription found at Naneghat has been dated to the same period on a paleographic basis. A slightly later inscription dated to the reign of Satakarni II has been found at Sanchi in Madhya Pradesh, located to the north of Maharashtra. The majority of the other Satavahana inscriptions have also been found in western Deccan. On the other hand, the epigraphic evidence from eastern Deccan does not mention the Satavahanas before the 4th century CE. At Nevasa, a seal and coins attributed to Kanha have been discovered. Coins attributed to Satakarni I have also been discovered at Nashik, Nevasa, and Pauni in Maharashtra (besides places in eastern Deccan and present-day Madhya Pradesh). Based on this evidence, some historians argue that the Satavahanas initially came to power in the area around their capital Pratishthana (modern Paithan, Maharashtra) and then expanded their territory to eastern Deccan. Carla Sinopoli cautions that the inference about the western Deccan origin of the Satavahanas is "tentative at best" given the small sample of early inscriptions.
Kanha's Pandavleni mentions the term maha-matra (officer-in-charge), which indicates that the early Satavahanas followed the Mauryan administrative model. C. Margabandhu theorised that the Satavahanas were called Andhras because they were natives of eastern Deccan (the Andhra region), although they first established their empire in western Deccan after having served as Mauryan subordinates. Himanshu Prabha Ray (1986) opposes this theory, stating that the Andhra was originally an ethnic term, and did not come to denote the geographical region of eastern Deccan until well after the Satavahana period. According to Vidya Dehejia, the writers of the Puranas (which could have been written after the Satavahana period) mistook the Satavahana presence in eastern Deccan as evidence for their origin in that region, and wrongly labelled them as "Andhra".
Puranas called the Satavahana kings as Andhras, Andhra-bhṛtya, or Andhra-jatiya. Andhras is both a tribal and a territorial name. The term Andhrabhrityas (Andhra servants) may imply two things, one being that the Andhras were originally servants of the Mauryas or the Sungas. The other one, as per some scholars is that the expression is taken to indicate the servants of some other Andhra rulers. These scholars also suggest Kannada origin for the Satavahanas meaning that the dynasty originated in present-day Karnataka, and initially owed allegiance to some Andhra rulers. A Satavahana inscription found on a slab of the upper drum (medhi) of the Kanaganahalli mahastupa mentions year 16 of Vasisthiputra Sri Chimuka Satavahana's reign, which can be dated from ca. 110 BCE. V. S. Sukthankar theorised that the territorial division Satavahani-Satahani (Satavahanihara or Satahani-rattha), in present-day Bellary district, was the homeland of the Satavahana family. However, Dr. Gopalchari challenged Sukthankar's theory by pointing out that not a single inscription of the early Satavahanas is found in Bellary District and that the only Satavahana inscription in Bellary District was that of Pulumavi, who belongs to the later-phase of Satavahana history. A stupa in Kanaganahalli village of Karnataka, dated between the first century BCE and first century CE, features limestone panels depicting portraits of Chimuka (Simuka), Satakani (Satakarni) and other Satavahana rulers. As per historian Parmanand Gupta, in the medieval times, Srisailam region or the Sriparvata area was known as Kannadu and Kannavisaya which is the contracted form of Satakarninadu and Satakarnivisaya, which seem to be identical with the territorial indicator Satavahanihara of the Myakadoni inscription of Pulumayi or the Satavahaniratta of the Hirahadagalli grant consisting of the Ballari region indicated to be the original homeland of the Satavahanas as per another historian V. S. Sukthankar.
According to Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi, the Satavahanas, likely originated in Western Maharashtra. Jain literature traces the Pratishthāna (present-day Paithan in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra) as the early Satvahana ruler's capital, Saktikumara. Similarly, the ancient geographer Ptolemy mentioned a king called Puļumāvi ruled from the same city sometime in around 140 CE. Now, the question is, why are these rulers referred to as "Andhra"? This can be explained through the dynastic lists recorded in the Puranas, which were likely compiled around 320 CE. He infers that these lists do not reference dynasties or rulers after this period, and the Satavahanas had already declined by circa 230 CE. By the time of their decline, the center of Satvahana power had shifted to the Andhra region. An inscription of the later king Gautamiputra Vijaya Satakarni was found at Nagarjunakonda in Andhra Pradesh, where he is said to have made Vijayapuri, the city mentioned as Nagarjunakonda, his capital. His coins also do not exist in Western Maharashtra, which was then the dominion of another king known as Chutukula Satakarni.
The varna of the dynasty is debated by modern scholars, who have variously argued for Shudra, Kshatriya, and Brahmana origins of the dynasty.
The Puranas call the founder of the Satavahana family a vṛṣala (Shudra or low-born).
The Nashik inscription of Gautami Balashri describes her son Gautamiputra Satakarni as eka-bamhana (Sanskrit: eka-brahmana). Some scholars, such as V.V. Mirashi, have interpreted the term as "sole Brahmana", and argued that Satavahanas were Brahmanas. Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri interprets the term as "unique Brahmana", and notes that the inscription also describes Gautamiputra as "the destroyer of the pride and conceit of Kshatriyas", which according to him strongly suggests that Gautamiputra claimed to be a Brahmana.
The critics of this theory point out that Gautamiputra's family had matrimonial relations with the non-Brahmana Shakas, and the Satavahanas could not have been Brahmanas because the same inscription also describes Gautamiputra as the one who stopped admixture of varnas (vinivatita chatu vana sankara). Historian V. Sundara Rama Sastry argues that the interpretation of the term "eka-bamhana" as "the only Brahmana" does not make sense as the king was obviously not the only member of his varna: instead, he interprets the term as an epithet indicating that the king "excelled even the Brahmans". Historian R. G. Bhandarkar interprets the term "the only protector" of the Brahmanas.
Some Jain works and the Dvātriṃśat-Puttalikā represent Shalivahana (whom some modern scholars identify as a Satavahana king) as of mixed Brahmana and Naga origin. Based on this, some scholars, such as D.C. Sircar, theorise that the Satavahanas were originally non-Brahmanas who started claiming Brahmana status after establishing matrimonial relations with some Brahmana families.
Information about the Satavahanas comes from the Puranas, some Buddhist and Jain texts, the dynasty's inscriptions and coins, and foreign (Greek and Roman) accounts that focus on trade. The information provided by these sources is not sufficient to reconstruct the dynasty's history with absolute certainty. As a result, there are multiple theories about the Satavahana chronology.
Text from the Wikipedia article “Satavahana dynasty”, available under CC BY-SA 4.0.