Of the many complicated problems that the Andhras have presented, the most important one is the problem of their chronology. Divergent views have been expressed by different scholars about the beginning of the Andhra Satavahana rule, but so far no unanimous conclusion has yet been arrived at by the historian on this point of issue.
The foundation of the dynasty, which is known by its tribal name Andhra in the Puranas and by its family name Satavahana in the epigraphs, is attributed to one Simuka. The Puranas misspelt the name Simuka as Sisuka (Matsya) Sindnuka (Vayu), and Sipraka (Vishnu). Five out of the 18 Puranas namely the Matsya, the Vayu, the Vishnu, the Bhagavata and the Brahmanda, furnish dynastic lists of rulers who ruled Magadha till the rise of the Guptas. Besides the mention of the dynastic lists, they recorded the reigning period of each dynasty and even tire names of the princes. The Matsya and Vayu shed more light by furnishing in addition the regnal period of each prince. The statements found in the Puranas would have been accepted as the mast authentic but for the glaring discrepancies in their versions, and also for their self-contradictory statements between the genera! and the specific statements in the same Puranas.
Regarding the Andhra dynastic list, the Matsya mentioned in its general statement 29 kings with a total reign of 460 years and in its particular statement, 30 kings with a total reign of 448 1/2 years. The Vayu's genera! statement refers to 30 kings with a reign of 441 years, while the particular state ment mentions the names of 17 kings with a total reign of 272 1/2 years. Both the Vishnu and the Bhagavata, in their general statements gave the names of 30 kings with a total reign of 456 years. In these contradicting statements, there is at least one point of uniformity in the Puranic tradition, that the Andhra kings were 30 and that they ruled for over four centuries. There is another unanimous statement in all the Puranas, viz : 'Sisuka (Simuka) of the Andhra race, having destroyed Susarman of the Kanva family with main force, and whatever will have been left of the power of the Sungas, will obtain possession of earth', It has been agreed on all hands that the Kanva Susarman's rule was ended in 28 B.C. If the Puranic statement that Simuka was the Andhra king who slew Susarman of the Kanva family in 28 B.C. is accepted, then the most complicated problem would arise as to the duration of the reign of the Andhra kings. If the Puranic statement that the Andhras ruled for more than 4 centuries is taken into account, the rule of the Andhra dynasty would come to an end in the 5th century A.D.
which is untenable due to the claims of other dynasties which came to dominate over their territories. Therefore of the two satements, the most reasonable one should be taken into consideration, rejecting the other. In view of the fact that the rule of the Andhras cannot be extended beyond 2nd century A.D., the Puranic tradition, that Simuka ended the rule of the Kanvas may be rejected and the other statement that the Andhras enjoyed a reign of more than 4 centuries can be relied upon. V.A. Smith rejected the former tradition with an observation, "the Andhra king who slew Susarman cannot possibly have been Simuka'.
R.G. Bhandarkar accepted the first tradition, i.e., Simuka slew Susarman of the Kanva family. Yet he fixed 73 B.C. as the initial year of the Satavahana rule. Bhandarkar took Vayu Purana as his authority and relied upon its specific statement of 17 kings and 2721/2 years rule. In his view, the Matsya furnished the names of those princes (who were 13 in number) belonging to the collateral branches of the dynasty in addition to the 17 kings of the main line, given in the Vayu Purana. By interpreting the clause 'Whatever will have been left of the power of the Sungas' to mean that the Sungas and the Kanvas were simultaneously ruling the territories. Bhandarkar placed the two successive dynasties as contemporary dynasties and came to the conclusion that the 112 year rule of the Sungas also included the 45 year rule of the Kanvas. On the basis of this reasoning, he fixed the initial year of the Satavahana rule at 73 B.C. (137 + 112 = 249; 322 B.C. - 249 = 73 B.C.). Bhandarkar's reasoning cannot be accepted because his interpretation goes counter to the Puranic testimony which is confirmed by Bana that Devabhuti, the 10th and last Sunga king was slain by Vasudeva, the first Kanva ruler who usurped the throne of Magadha for himself. In such a case it would be impossible to make Susarman, the 4th and hast Kanva king, a contemporary of Devabhuti. Another improbabiliy in Bhandarkar's argument is that Matsya mentioned the kings of both main and collateral lines of the Andhra dynasty, while Vayu gave only the kings of the main line, and that Vayu's statement that 17 kings ruled for 300 years. The point to be borne in mind is that Vayu also in its general statement mentioned 30 kings with a total reign of 411 years. If in Bhandarkar's view, Vayu gave only the names of the kings of the main line, it had surprisingly omitted the name of Pulomavi II, who was a king of the main line, succeeded to the throne after Gautamiputra. Therefore, the argument and the view expressed by R.G. Bhandarkar may be rejected and the Matsya Purana may be accepted in preference to the other Puranas as our authority, for it is fuller in details with regard to the number and names of the Andhra kings and also as it is in harmony with the general statements of the other Puranas including the Vayu which allot more than 400 years to the Andhra dynasty.
Dr. Smith accepted the general statement of the Puranas that there were 29 or 30 kings who ruled successively for a period of four and half centuries and placed the beginning of the Andhra rule in the last quarter of the 3rd century B.C. He observed, "the independent Andhra dynasty must have begun its rule about 240 or 230 B.C. long before the depression of the Kanvas about 28 B.C. and the Andhra king who slew Susarman cannot possibly have been Simutea". Rapson, like Smith, held that 'the most complete of the extent lists can only be interpreted as indicating that the founder Simuka began to reign before 200 B.C.
Prof. G.V. Rao, and Dr. O. Ramachandraiya while rejecting the views of Bhandankar and Roy Choudhury and agreeing with the conclusion of Dr. Smith and Rapson as nearer to truth, placed the beginning of the Andhra Satavahana rule in 271 B.C.
On the assumption that the 15th king of the Matsya list, Pulomavi I was the slayer of Susarman of the Kanva family and the conqueror of Magadha in 28 B.C., the learned professors came to the conclusion that 271 B.C. was the year in which the foundation of Andhra Satavahana rule was laid.
The reason for bestowing this greatness on Pulomavi may be imagined from two points : (1) The Vayu while giving only important names of the dynasty, by way of passing reference mentioned the first four rulers by name, kept silent tilt the advent of Pulomavi, and from him onwards gave a complete and fuller list of kings which fully corresponds with the detailed Matsya list upto Gautamiputra. By the very mention of Pulomavi as the first in the second group of its list, the Vayu indirectly hints the prominence of the ruler who in all probability might be the ruler who slew Susarman in 28 B.C.
The fondness shown by he Satavahana rulers in bearing that name undoubtedly indicate the importance of the king who first appeared with that name. His successors must have regarded him as a great ruler whose memory must be cherished- We find four rulers, who came after Pulomavi, with that name, and that name was very much coveted next to the name of Satakarni. The importance of the name is further heightened by the statement in the Matsya, viz: "As to the Andhras, they are the Pulomas". To cherish his memory by his successors and descendants, Pulomavi's achievements must have been very great and ever remembering. This memorable achievement in all probability might be his conquest of Magadha after slaying Susarma in 28 B.C.
On the assumption that Pulomavi I was the conquaror of Magadha and slayer of Susarman in 28 B.C., we may determine the initial year of Simuka, the founder of the dynasty. The total reign of the 4 immediate predecessors of Pulomavi, was 19 years. During this period, the dynasty had to face considerable decline in its fortunes. To regain the lost glory and to set the house in order, Pulomavi, must have spent a considerable part of his reign. If we allot a period of 15 years to entrench himself fully in his seat, his attack on Magadha and its conquest must have taken place in 28 B C. + 15=43 B.C. Before him, there were 14 kings whose total reign covered a period of 228 years Hence the first ruler Simuka, the founder of the dynasty must have come to prominence in 228 + 43 BC =271 BC.
The accuracy of 271 B.C. as the starting point of the Andhra Satavahana 'defacto' rule by Simuka may be verified and found correct by following another independent line of reasoning, outside the equation of Pulomavi I with the slayer of Susarman. The Hatigumpha inscription of Kharavela and the Nanaghat inscription of Naganika help us in this quest. In the Hatigumpha inscription, the name of one Satakarni was mentioned. King Kharavela (of Kalinga) in his second regnal year, sent his armies west "heedless of Satakarni". The date of the Hatigumpha inscription is not known. But it furnishes the scholars a clue, by mentioning Dimita, the name of a Yavana king who retreated before Kharavela in the later's eigth regnal year. This Dimita has been identified with Demetrius I, the son of Euthydemos, whose invasion against India failed because of Kharavela's opposition and also on account of troubles at home. This fact has been confirmed by Gargi-Samhita of Yugapurana. According to Meyer the return of Demetrius occured in 175 B.C. This was the 8th regnal year of Kharavela. Six years earlier Kharavela sent his armies against Satakarni. Therefore in 181 B.C., 'A Satakarni' was ruling the Andhra kingdom. (175+(8-2) =181 B.C.) The Nanaghat inscription of Naganika refered to one Satakarni. Both the inscriptions, the Nanaghat and the Hatigumpha, on palaeographical grounds, were accepted by all scholars as contemporary documents for 'the alphabet of the former agrees generally with that of the latter'. Satakarni of Nanaghat record had been styled as Aprathihatacakra, and Dakshinapadhapathi. The 6th ruler of the Matsya and the 3rd ruler of the Vayu was one Satakarni. Both the Puranas have given him identical reign of 56 years. The name of the third ruler in other Puranas was variously given. Satakarni of the Nanaghat record was a staunch follower of Brahmanism and is said to have performed a number of Vedic sacrifices, including two Aswamedhas and one Rajasuya. Therefore, Satakarni, who appeared in the Nanaghat and Hatigumpha inscriptions, can be equated with Satakarni, who appeared as the 6th of the Matsya and 3rd of the Vayu lists. On the basis of this identification, we can say that Satakarni of the Satavahana dynasty was the ruling king of the Andhra Kingdom in 181 B.C., when Kharavela sent his armies west. with out paying any heed of his existence. To entrench himself in his seat and become a powerful rival to a great king like Kharavete, Satakarni must have come to the throne some 3 or 4 years before the dispatch of the armies by Kharavela against west. The five predecessors (according to Matsya) rules for 87 years. Therefore Simuka must have founded the) dynasty in 271 B.C. (181+3 + 87 = 271 B.C.) This date is fully in accordance with the calculation made by suppossing that Pulomavi I was the king who slew Susarman in 28 B.C. and that some 15 years before that he must have sit on the throne Of the Andhra country (28 + 15 + 228 = 271 B.C.).
No comments:
Post a Comment