Later Satavahana Chronology

The correctness of 271 B.C. as the starting point of the Satavahana rule under Simuka, may be verified and established from the known dates of Kshatrapas and other foreign kings. The foreign powers such as the Sakas and the Pahlavas in the closing years of the 1st Century B.C. and in the beginning years of the 1st century A.D. became powerful and established their sway in Malwa, Surashtra and other western areas. It was mainly on account of these foreign onslaughts, the power of the Satavahanas for sometime had to register a shart decline, subsequent to the reign of Pulomavi. The king who once again retrieved the fallen fortunes of the Satavahana dynasty to its former glory was Gautamiputra Sri Satakarni, the 23rd king in the Matsya list. His mother Gautami Bala Sri, registering a gift at Nasik in the 19th regnal year of her grandson Pulomavi II, describes the great qualities of her son Gautamiputra Sri Satakarni as the destroyer of the Sakas, Yavanas and Pahlavas and the annihilator of the line of the Kshaharatas. Another inscription at Nasik recorded in the 18th regnal year of Gautamiputra furnishes details of a campaign. A large number of Nahapana's coins found in the Jogelthembi hoard were restruck by Gautamiputra. All the regions mentioned in Bala Sri's inscription as belonging to Gautamiputra Satakarni were referred to in the inscriptions of Usavadata, the son-in-law of Nahapana and his minister Ayama, as were in the occupation of Nahapana. These inscriptions were issued in Nahapana's years 41, 42, 45 and 46 at Nasik. Karle and Junnar. Whether the above years refer to Saka era or the regnal years of Nahapana is the problem. Prof. Rapson believing the years to be of Saka era, tried to fix the date of Gautamiputra on the basis of the Gimar record. The Girnar inscription dated 72 Saka, i.e. 150 AD., shows most of the territories of Gautamiputra as included in the kingdom of Rudradaman, the Kardamaka ruler of Ujjain. Rapson who based his chronological scheme on Nahapana-Gautamiputra synchronism, and on the date of
the Girnar record observed that it would not be improbable that Nahapana's reign could not have extended much beyond the last recorded year = 46 = 124 A.D. Gautamiputra's conquests of Nahapana seems undoubtedly ....to have taken place in the 18th year of his reign. We therefore have the equation : Gautamiputra's years 18 = 124 A.D. or 124 A.D. + x. On this synchronism, on the recorded regnal dates in the inscriptions of Andhra kings, on the known date 72 Saka = 150 A.D. of Rudradamana as Mahakshtrapa rests at present the whole foundation of the later Andhra Satavahana chronology. On the basis of the above observation. Prof. Rapson placed the starting year of Gautamiputra Satakarni's reign in 106 A.D. and as he is said to have ruled for 24 years, the reign, according to him came to an end in 130 A.D. But the discovery of Andhau inscriptions of Chastana and Rudradaman, the Kardamaka rulers proved Rapson's view erroneous. The Andhau inscriptions are dated 20 years earlier than Girnar record, i.e., 72 Saka —20 = 52 Saka = 130 A.D. According to these inscriptions, Chastana was in possession of all lands between Andhau and Ujjain, i.e. from Kutch to Malwa. The Greek Geographer Ptolemy in his account {130 A.D.) referred to one Testenes', identified as Chastana as ruling at Ozene (Ujjain)- If, according to Rapson, in 124 A.D. Gautamiputra, in his 18th regnal year launched on a career of conquest after the death of Nahapana, we would have to ponder that could he have effected the conquest of so vast a territory, which according to Bala Sri's record of Nasik include Anupa, Aparanta, Akara, Avanti, Suratha and Kukura kingdoms, and extended his sway as far as the Aravalis in the north. To effect conquests of such a vast area in a short period of 6 years is hardly sufficient. Even if we agree with the learned Professor that so great a warrior like Gautamiputra could have effected conquests of such magnitude with such lightening rapidity within a short span of 6 years, we must also agree to the fact that all these magnificent conquests were made only to be lost after 6 years, for the Andhau inscriptions of 130 A.D. tell us that all these lands, said to have been conquered by Gautamiputra, were in the occupation of Chastana and Rudradaman of the Kardamaka dynasty. From this we are to presume that the areas that were conquered by Gautamiputra between 124 A.D.-130 A.D. were occupied by the Kardamakas, immediately after his death. If this supposition is accepted, we must conclude that the glory of the Andhras was short-lived. But a close study of Bala Sri's record of Nasik would not allow us to cling to this supposition.



The Nasik inscription was issued by Bala Sri, the mother of Gautamiputra in the 19th regnal year of her grandson Pulomavi- ll, the son and successor of Gautamiputra. In this inscription, she recounted the exploits of her son with pride. If by 130 A.D. Chastana could occupy all these lands between Andhau and Ujjain during the life time of Gautamiputra itself, according to Rapson, his mother would not have sung the glories of her son which were only euphemeral. Another supporting factor is that there is no scope to take the view that these lands were lost during the time of Pulomavi, for there is nothing in the inscriptions of Pulomavi to suggest any reduction of his dominions during his reign. Therefore it is inconceivable that Gautamiputra must have lost a part of his dominions to Chastana and Rugradaman in 130 A.D.

Like Rapson, R.G. Bhandarkar also thought that the years of Nahapana belong to Saka era and in order to avoid chronological improbabilities, suggested a conjoint rule for Gautamiputra and Pulomavi II. He came to this conclusion on the basis of Bala Sri's statement that she was 'Maharajamata and Maharaja Pithamahi'.

Neither the equation of Nahapana's years with the Saka era nor the conjoint rule of Gautamiputra and his son Pulomavi. as postulated by R.G. Bhandarkar can be accepted. The mere mention of Maharajamatha and Maharajapitamahi, the appearance of Gautamiputra's name in the Nasik inscription of Pulomavi as 'Dhanakatakasami' and the mention of Ptolemy to Polemios (Pulomavi) as the ruler of Paithan cannot establish the fact of a conjoint rule of the father and son. The probable position would be that in the 24th regnal year, Gautamiputra had donated an excavated cave to the Buddhist monks at Nasik. After 19 years of his death, his mother who outlived him for a longtime, during the reign of her grandson Pulomavi II, gifted a cave and in the inscription that was issued on that occasion, praised the great qualities of her son, who was no more by that time. In the Nasik inscription issued in the 24th regnal year of Gautamiputra, Bala Sri referred to him as one living (Jivasuata). In another Nasik inscription, issued by Pulomavi II in his 19th regnal year, it has been stated that the merit of the gift is said to have been made over to his father (Pitupatiyo). Such transfer of the merit of gifts are made only in favour of deceased persons. Another point which disproved the supposition of a conjoint rule of the father and the son is that had Gautamiputra been alive and ruling over the territories as the senior king, the necessity of dating the inscription in the regnal period of Pulomavi II would not have arisen. Therefore the theory of conjoint rule of Gautamiputra and his son Pulomavi, as advocated by R.G. Bhandarkar cannot be accepted.

Regarding the years 41. 42, 45 and 46 of Nahapana, different views have been expressed. Some scholars like Banerji feel that they were the regnal years of Nahapana. Accepting the view of Cunningham, Prof. K.A.N. Sastri held them to be of Vikrama era. Rapson and Bhandarkar feel that they indicate the Saka era. This last supposition has been disproved by the discovery of Andhau inscriptions. If the view that they belong to Vikrama era is taken into consideration, we are forced to place the 41st year of Nahapana in 17 B.C. (58 B.C.—41 = 17 B.C.) and his last recorded date 46 in 12 B.C. If we agree with Rapson that Nahapana's reign could not have extended much beyond the last recorded year 46. 12 B.C. would be the uppermost limit of Nahapana's rule. The interval between Nahapana and Gautamiputra must have been short which could not have permitted the successors of Nahapana to issue new coinage. But, if we accept the view that the years of Nahapana were of Vikrama era, we should place the end of his rule 12 B.C. in which case there would occur a gap of more than 95 years seperating him from Gautamiputra. Therefore the reckoning of the years of Nahapana in Vikrama era cannot be made.

The mention of 'Nambanus' whom the scholars have identified as Nahapana in the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea would help us to solve the problem of Nahapana's time. Schoff assigns the 'Periplus' to 60 A.D. According to 'Periplus', the kingdom of Nambanus lay on either side of the gulf of Combay. His power was great ail along the sea board of 'Surastrane' (Saurashtra) and the Greek ships going to Satavahana ports of Kalyan were diverted to Barygaza (Broach). On the authority of 'Periplus', it can be told that Nahapana must be the ruling king of that area by 60 A.D.

Besides the mention of Nahapana (Nambanus), a reference has been made to two other kings, Sandanas and Saraganes whom the scholars have identified as Sundara and Chakora (33-35 A.D.) respectively who were of the Satavahana family and whose successive reigns were too insignificant to mention, for their duration was only 11/2 years. Cakora's successor, Sivasvati enjoyed a long reign of 28 years, during whose rule, the Satavahana power regained new strength and was on the road of recovery. According to the chronology adopted by us, Siva Svati's reign must have come to an end by 63 A.D. That was also the time of Nahapana's end if we agree with the supposition that Nahapana and Nambanus are one, and that the time of the Periplus is about 60 A.D. and that the 46th year of Nahapana was his last year as stated by Prof. Rapson. This supposition may be strengthened on other grounds as well. Gautamiputra is described in the Nasik inscription as the annihilator of the line of Kshaharatas. These Kshaharatas were the Kshatrapas of Saurashtra and Malwa. In the opinion of V.S. Bakhle, the Kshaharatas were Pahlavas, and the Kardamakas were Sakas. The rulers of Kshaharata and Kardamaka families assumed the official titles as Kshatrapas and Mahakshatrapas respectively. Both these rulers were perhaps feudatories of the Saka-Pahlava power of Mathura, to which that great king Rajula belonged. Rajula passed away in 17 A.D. (f we presume Nahapana to be a Kshatraoa of Rajula, he must have become independent after his death and started his rule in his own right as an independent king in Saurashtra. His rule must come to an end by 63 A.D. (17 A.D. + 46 = 63 A.D.). That was the year also in which Gautamiputra Satakarni ascended the throne at Dhanakataka, according to the chronological scheme that we have adopted.

Gautamiputra, the successor of Siva Svati who became ruler in 63 A.D. in his 18th regnal year launched on a career of conquest and occupied all the lands that were once acknowledged the sway of Nahapana between 81 A.D. and 87 A.D and after him his son Pulomavi It. The Kardamakas rose to power and their chief Chastana, with the help of his illustrious grandson Rudradaman succeeded in occupying the lands from Andhau to Ujjain between 115-130 A.D. These conquests must have been effected during the weak rule of Siva Sri and Siva Skanda (115 to 129 A.D.) In 129 A.D. Yajna Sri Saiakarni occupied the throne and came into conflict with the Kardamaka ruler Rudradaman with a view to reconquer the tost territories. The Girnar inscription describes how Rudradaman defeated one Satakarni king twice and seized him but released him as he was closely related to him.

From the above discussion the following points can be gleaned namely (1) that Siva Svati and Nahapana were contemporaries and that their respective periods of rule came to an end by 63 A.D., (2) that Gautamiputra who succeeded Siva Svati, occupied all lands described in Bate Sri's inscription between 81 A.D. -87 A.D. from the Kshaharatas; (3) that these lands which were occupied by Gautamiputra were in possession of the Andhras till the end of Pulomavi II's rule; (4) that the said lands from Andhau to Ujjain were occupied by Chastana and Rudradaman, the Kardamaka rulers after the death of Pulomavi II, and lastly (5) that Yajna Sri who was a contemporary of Rudradaman tried to regain the lost possessions from the Kardamakas, but was twice defeated.

The contemporaneity of Yajna Sri with Rudradaman has been accepted by Haricharana Ghosh. According to him, Yajna Sri's accession to the throne took place in 127 A.D. He came to this conclusion on the basis of Yajna Sri's Kanheri inscription and Rudradaman's Girnar inscription. According to him Yajna Sri was in possession of Aparanta upto 16th year of his sovereignty as may be inferred from his record at Kanheri. The Girnar inscription dated 72 Saka = 150 A.D. shows that the territory of Aparanta was in the possession of Rudradaman. Hence an inference can be made that Yajna Sri lost Aparanta some time after his 16th regnal year. This 'sometime' according to Ghosh may not be more than 10 years. He felt that the repairs to the lake were effected in 150 A.D. (72 Saka) but the issue of the inscription was made after some time which according to him was 3 years, i.e. in 153 A.D. (75 Saka). Hence Yajna Sri's accession to the throne must have taken place in 153 A.D.-16-10 = 127 A.D.

On the basis of Yajna Sri's year of accession to the throne, the initial year of the Satavahana rule may be fixed. Yajna Sri's rule was preceeded by 26 kings, whose total rule according to Matsya was 396 1/2 years. Therefore the year of Simuka's accession to power would be 396 1/2 -127 = 269 1/2 + y or 271 A.D. This is in accordance with the chronology adopted by us earlier.