- The Pauranic genealogies refer to the kings of 'Andhra-Jati'.
- While some Puranas style them as Andhrabhrityas.
- The Nanaghat and Nasik cave inscriptions and coins discovered in the Deccan mention the names of several kings of 'Satavahana-Kula'.
- On the basis of names, some scholars identified the Satavahanas epigraphical records and coins with the Andhras of the Puranas.
- On the contrary, the Puranas never use the term 'Satavahana' and the inscriptions and coins do not refer to the Satavahanas as the Andhras. On the basis of this, some scholars strongly objected to the identification.
Several scholars made their supporting
theories regarding the identity of satavahanas:
R.G. Bhandarkar: The Andhrabhritya dynasty of the
Puranas is the same as the Satavahana dynasty of the inscriptions'. He
relied on names occurring in the
inscriptions , coins and the order (of their
succession) with those
given in the Puranas under the
Andhrabhritya dynasty. He explained 'Andhrabhritya' as meaning
'Andhras who were once servants or dependents.'
Dr. K. Gopalachari : Satavahanas
were Andhras by tribals who accepted
service in the western
Deccan under the Mauryans and after Asoka's
death their descendants
declared independence.
J. Burgess,
V.A. Smith, E.J.
Rapson, L.D. Barnett
and P.T. Srinivasa Ayyangar held the same opinion as that of
Bhandarkar as regards
the Andhra-Satavahana identity.
Jayaswal : Satavahanas
are representatives of the Satiyaputras of the Asokan
records.
V.S.
Suktankar, H.C Roychaudhuri and V.S.
Bakhle rejected the
Andhra-Satavahana equation. The following arguments were put forth by
them:
1.
The Andhras were in the eastern part of
Deccan. If the Satavahanas were
Andhras, how was
then the inscriptions end coins of the early
Satavahana rulers were discovered only in Maharashtra but not in Andhra?
2.
On many inscriptions and
coins found no satavahana ruler mentioned
anywhere as Andhra.
3.
The language of the
Andhras is Telugu.
However the Satavahana records are
in Prakrit.
4.
The kings were mentioned in Puranas as either Andhras or Andhra bhrityas
but not Satavahanas.
5.
The Satavahanas established their
authority first in Maharastra. After
sometime, they conquered
the Andhra country. Among these
rulers, the last 7 or 8 rulers reigned only Andhra proper.
However the
above arguments may be refuted
on the following grounds :—
1.
The Andhras were
not simply confined
to the eastern Deccan. They were found even in Bastar area of
Madhya Pradesh, Northern Kamataka,
some parts of
Maharashtra and Orissa as
well. The Satavahanas,
starting from Andhra,
conquered Maharashtra and
settled there for some
time. Hence records of the
early rulers were
found there. Also the
recently discovered coins from
Kondapur and Kotilingala (Karim- nagar
district) in the
eastern Deccan refer
to Early Satavahana ruler Simuka, the founder
of the Dynasty. So this argument
has no merit in it.
2.
It is true that inscriptions and coins do not refer to the
Satavahanas as Andhras.
Generally rulers give
the names of their
dynasties and not
the racial affinity. For
example, the rulers of the Post-Satavahana dynasties
like Ikshvaku, Pallava, Salankayana, Vishnukundin and even
Reddi, which ruled over Andhra did not claim themselves in their
inscriptions as Andhras. But there is no denying
the fact that they were
Andhras. The Nasik and Karle inscriptions refer to Nahapana's dynastic
name (Kshaharata) and not
his race (Saka-Pahlava known
from other sources). Similarly
the Kanheri inscription refers to Rudradaman's dynasty
(Kardamaka) and not his race
(Saka). Hence Satavahana is
the name of
the family (Kula).
3.
No doubt, Telugu
is the language of
the Andhras and it had
its origins probably
in the Desi
of first century
A.D. However the use of Prakrit might be the
custom of that period because of it being language of
masses. It was used in inscriptions not simply
by the Satavahanas, but also by their
predecessor Asoka, their
contemporaries Sungas and their
successors Ikshvakus and early
Pallavas. Even the Buddhists
also wrote books in
Prakrit.
4.
It is true the
Puranas refer to them either as Andhras or Andhrabhrityas but
not as Satavahanas. The
term 'Andhra- bhritya' need
not be interpreted as 'the
servants of the Andhras (as Dr.
Suktankar did). It
may mean the Andhras
that were servants. Further
K.P. Jayaswal suggested
that when the centre of political
gravity shifted from
Magadha, the Puranas describe the imperial
dynasties with reference
to their place of origin
as in the case of Vakatakas who were described in the Puranas as the
Vindhyakas. So also the Satavahanas
were called Andhras in
the Puranas. Moreover Matsya
Purana clearly states that Simuka was an 'Andhra Jatiya'.
5.
There is evidence to show that the Satavahanas
conquered Vidisa, Maharashtra and
even Pataliputra. But
there is no evidence to their conquest of Andhra
area. This is because of the fact that
they were Andhras and had their political career started first in
the Andhra area and
then extended to Maharashtra and
other areas. The compilers of some of
the Puranas were so near in point of time to the Satavahana kings that they
could not have in their ignorance
foisted the name Andhra on to the Satavahana princes simply because they found
or knew them only as rulers of Andhra.
The fact is that the Pauranikas were
dealing with them
in the larger context of their
tribal or communal affinity.
In view
of certain common
names and the order
of succession, one has to say that two
different dynasties with same
names of kings ruled over the same area during the same period, which is
impossible. Thus it appears most likely
that the Satavahanas belonged to the Andhra Community.
Advertisements
No comments:
Post a Comment