A subject of controversy regarding the Satavahanas is their homeland or origin. There are conflicting theories and contradictory opinions regarding this. Earlier scholars like D.R. Bhandarkar conjectured that the land of the Andhras must have at the early period consisted of certain parts of the Central Provinces together with the Visakhapatnam district and may have also included the Godavari and Krishna districts. The eastern Deccan was not called Andhra after its conquest by the Satavahanas. Andhradesa existed where it is today even before the Satavahanas came into prominence.
BELLARY OR CANARESE ORIGIN
Dr. Suktankar viewed that the Satavahanas did not belong to the Andhra area as the field of their early activity was confined to the west of India and Paithan was their capital. He postulated the theory that Bellary was the original home of the Satavahanas. He based his theory on the evidence of Macadoni inscription of Pulomavi (IV), the last of the Andhra Satavahanas and the Hirahadagalli copper plate grant of an early Pallava ruler, wherein references were made to 'Satavahana ahara' and 'Satavahani rashtra' respectively. According to him, both these names might be derivatives from Satavahanas only. The Satavahanas reigned several regions but no other places were known after them. Hence, Suktankar concluded, those two places located in the Bellary region must be the area of original inhabitance of the Satavahanas and the latter subsequently conquered Maharashtra and later Andhra.
However V.S. Bakhle did not accept Suktankar's identification of the original home of the Satavahanas with the Bellary region which they made their home in later times. The two inscriptions prove that the Satavahanas ruled the Bellary region in their last years of rule. But they do not prove that it was their original home. There was a gap of more than 400 years between the time of the issue of the two inscriptions and the founder of the dynasty who had nothing to do with the Bellary region. Moreover there are several hills and villages in different parts of Deccan which were known by the name of the Satavahanas. So the argument of Suktankar that except the two places mentioned in the inscriptions, no other places were known after the Satavahanas is incorrect.
VIDARBHA ORIGIN
Vasudeva Vishnu Mirashi postulated the theory that Vidarbha was the home of the Satavahanas. His argument was on the strength of two other inscriptions. One is the Nasik inscription of Bala Sri, wherein Gautamiputra Satakarni was described as 'the Lord of Bervakata'. Mirashi identified Benakata with the region on either side of the Wainganga. The other inscription is Kharavela's Hathigumpha inscription, wherein mention was made that Kharavela marched westwards, heedless of Satakarni, upto Kannabenna. According to Mirashi, Kannabenna is identical with the Kanner near Nagapur. Since Satakarni's dominions ware mentioned to be in the west of Kalinga, Vidarbha wherein Kanner flows must have been the original home of the Satavahanas.
However the river Krishnaveni and the city of Dhanyakataka have better claims to be identical with Kannabenna and Benakata. Benakata or Benakataka just like Kalyana Kataka, can only be the name of a city but not of a region. With regard to the argument that Satakarni's dominions lay in the west and Andhra lay to the south of Kalinga, is not correct, Satakarni was 'Dakshinapathapati', i.e., the lord of the whole of Deccan. Then it must be understood that his dominions were not confined only to the west of Kalinga and moreover Bastar and the neighbouring regions which lay to the west of Kalinga were portions of Andhradesa from very early times.
MAHARASHTRA ORIGIN
There is a strong belief among some scholars that Maharashtra was the original home of the Satavahanas. P.T. Srinivasa Ayyangar, who accepted the Andhra-Satavahana identity, put forth arguments to show that the Andhras were a Vindhyan tribe, that their kings originally ruled over Western India and spoke Prakrit and not Telugu and that the extension of their authority was from the west to the east down the Godavari-Krishna valley. When their power declined in the west, the name Andhramandalam travelled to their eastern districts and became established there. Jogelkar further strengthened this theory. His contention was that the Satavahanas were Andhras, but not Andhras of the east coast. They were known as Andhras because they lived on the banks of a river by name Andhra in Pune district of Maharashtra. These Andhras ted a great revolution and drove away the foreigners (Kshaharatas), united the various tribes of Deccan and established a new rashtra. So Maharashtra was known as Navarashtra.
The protagonists of the theory of the Maharashtra origin of the Satavahanas put forth in general the following arguments:-
(1) The Puranas describe Simuka only as Andhrajatiya but not as Andhradesiya;
(2) politically Andhra then was not independent but part of Kalinga;
(3) The metronymics and the Prakrit language of the Satavahanas indicate their western or Maratha origin;
(4) The early Andhra Satavahana rulers were connected with Paithan and their records are found only in the west.
On the basis of these arguments, scholars concluded that the Andhras lived with Rathikas etc. in Maharashtra and uniting ail of them rose to political prominence. It was either Gautamiputra Satakarni or his son Vasisthiputra Pulomavi that conquered Andhra desa.
However the above arguments may ably be controverted. In the first place, the term Andhrajatiya applied to Simuka does not preclude the possibility of his being Andhradesiya. Secondly, the argument that the then Andhra was not politically independent but part of Kalinga is proved false by the Jatakas and Indica which mention Kalinga and Andhra as two separate and contiguous Janapadas. The Edicts of Asoka place the Andhras in present Andhradesa, and indicate it unreasonable to huddle them together with the others in Maharashtra. Thirdly, the metronymics argument is not strong one as only the later Satavahanas took them. Further Prakrit was inherited by the Satavahanas from the Mauryas along with political power. Fourthly, the early Satavahana connection with Paithan and the provenance of their records in the west only indicate that in view of the threat from the aliens like Yavanas, they bestowed more attention on the north-west.
ANDHRA ORIGIN
The theory that the eastern part of Deccan, i.e. Andhradesa was the homeland of the Satavahanas, is championed by scholars like E.J. Rapson, V.A. Smith, R.G. Bhandarkar, J. Burgess and others. Suktankar and others held this opinion that the Satavahanas came to power from Andhradesa as unwarranted mainly on four grounds:
(1) Their earliest records, epigraphic and numismatic, have been discovered at Nanaghat and Nasik in the Western Deccan;
(2) In Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela, the dominions of the contemporary Satakarm are spoken of as being to the west of Kharavela's own kingdom of Kalinga;
(3) Bala Sri's inscription while recounting the territorial possessions of her son, Gautamiputra Satakarni makes no mention of any locality in the Andhra area; and
(4) the first available Satavahana records begin to appear in Andhradesa only during the reign of his successor Vasisthiputra Pulomavi.
These arguments are the result of inadequate appreciation of the available information. The preconceived notion, that the Satavahanas had nothing to do with Andhradesa until the reign of Pulomavi I, blurred the vision of Suktankar and others in holding the Andhra origin as unwarranted. It is forgotten that Satakarni (II) of the Nanaghat record, who performed two Asvamedhas, one Rajasuya and other sacrifices, bore the title 'Dakshinapathapati', i.e. the lord of Deccan. Deccan naturally includes Andhradesa which is its eastern part. If it is conceded that the Satavahanas were Andhras and that they were masters of the Deccan, then the sentence 'heedless of Satakarni, he sent his forces to west' in Kharavela's inscription does not mean that Satakarni's dominions were confined only to the west of Kalinga and had no connection with the Andhra area. Further Bala Sri's record has not completely ignored the Andhra area. It refers to Siritana (Srisailam), Mahendra (the Eastern Ghats) and 'Assaka' (the south-east province of Hyderabad state and the Godavari district), as within her son's dominions.
Moreover the earliest coins known hitherto were those of Satakarni I, the third member of the dynasty. Some very important coins have come to light recently. Of such coins the Kondapur coins bear the legend 'Sadvahana'. On palacographical grounds, this Satavahana can be placed in 3rd century B.C. Dr. P.V. Parabrahma Sastri collected very recently over hundred early coins near the village Kotitingala on the eastern side of the hillock called Munulagutta on the right bank of the river Godavari in the Peddabankur taluk of the Karimnagar district of Andhra Pradesh. These included seven coins belonging to the first Satavahana ruler Simuka. This discovery is of momentous importance for the history of the Satavahanas. It leaves no doubt about the association of the Satavahanas with Andhra from the very start. The legend on these coins strengthens the possibility that king Satavahana of Kondapur coins is none other than Simuka himself who is called Simuka Satavahana in a Nanaghat label inscription also. The Jain sources mention Satavahana as the first Andhra king. The Kathasarrtsagara contains a story about Satavahana. Therefore Satahana or Simuka Satavahana of the Kondapur and Kotilingala coins respectively is the same Satavahana who founded the imperial Andhra line and his successors called themselves Satavahanas.
With regard to the capitals of the Satavahana kings, unreliable and much later legend points to Srikakulam in the Krishna district, which cannot stand for scrutiny. Dhanyakataka (Dharanikota in the Guntur district) seems to be the eastern capita] and when Maharashtra became part of Andhra empire and when the Satavahanas concentrated their more attention on western Deccan because of the Saka-pahlava menace. Paithan became the seat of their government in the west.
No comments:
Post a Comment