The Satavahanas

Identity of the Satavahanas

The Pauranic genealogies refer to the kings of 'Andhra-Jati'. 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 certain names, and their order of succession common to various kings mentioned in the two sources, some scholars identified the Satavahanas of the epigraphical records and coins with the Andhras of the Puranas. However 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.

According to R.G. Bhandarkar, The Andhrabhritya dynasty of the Puranas is the same as the Satavahana dynasty of the inscriptions'. The basis, he relied upon, is that the names occuring in the inscriptions and on the coins as well as the order (of their succession) sufficiently agree with those given in the Purarras under the Andhrabhritya dynasty. He explained the term 'Andhrabhritya' as meaning 'Andhras who were once servants or dependents.' Dr. K. Gopalachari asserted that the Satavahanas were Andhras by tribal connection. He suggested that either they were the scions of the royal family in the Andhradesa or Andhra fortune-hunters who accepted service in the western Deccan under the Mauryan suzerains, thereby getting the Puranic appelation 'Andhrabhritya' and that after Asoka's death their descendants might have struck a blow in their own interests in the land of their adoption.

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.

However V.S. Suktankar, K.P. Jayaswal, H.C Roychaudhuri and V.S. Bakhle rejected the Andhra-Satavahana equation. Jayaswal regarded the Satavahanas as probable representatives of the Satiyaputras of the Asokan records. All these scholars who denied the identity of the Satavahanas with the Andhras put forth the following arguments :-

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. Many inscriptions and coins of the Satavahanas were found and no ruler is mentioned any where as the Andhra.

3. The language of the Andhras is Telugu. However the Satavahana records are in Prakrit. If the Satavahanas were the Andhras, then their records be issued in Telugu itself but not in Prakrit.

4. The kings mentioned in the Puranas were either Andhras or Andhrabhrityas 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. Simply because of this the contemporary Pauranic writers might have mistaken and described the Satavahanas as Andhras.

However the above arguments may be refuted on the following grounds :—

1. The Andhras were not simply confined to the eastern Deccan, They were to be 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 sometime. Hence records of the early rulers were found there. However the recently discovered coins from Kondapur and Kotilingala (Karimnagar district) in the eastern Deccan refer to Simuka Satavahana, the founder of the Dynasty. In view of this, the argument of the Scholars who denied the identity on the basis that records of early Satavahanas are not found in Andhradesa does not hold good.

2. !t 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). They might have been part and parcel of the Andhra race.

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. 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 which was perhaps the language of the masses.

4. It is true the Puranas refer to them either as Andhras or Andhrabhrityas but not as Satavahanas. The term 'Andhrabhritya' 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.

Further, if the Satavahanas and Andhras are not identified as one and the same, then number of difficulties will arise. 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.