HISTORY

Subject : History
(For under graduate student)

Paper No. : Paper-I

History of India

Topic No. & Title : Topic-9

Post Mauryan Developments

Lecture No. & Title : Lecture-3

Satavahana, Satrapa, Iksaku,
Chola, Chera, Pandya

Satavahana, Kshatrapa, Iksvaku, Chola, Chera,

Pandya

Thanks to the military and political success of major

Kushana rulers like Kujula Kadphises, Vima Kadphises,
Kanishka I, Vashiska, Kanishka II, Huvishka, Vasudeva,
Kanishka III, and Vasudeva II, they could dominate a
large area including major portions of north India for
nearly two hundred and fifty years. The rise of the
Kushanas, like their fall was intimately linked to Bactria.
The loss of Bactria at the hands of the Sassanid ruler
Shapur I in 262 CE., spelt the death blow to Kushana
power and gradually led to their exit. After 265 AD there
was hardly any Kushana political presence in the main
land of the sub continent.

While the Kushana power was on the rise, the Deccan

(the peninsular part of India), also began to make its
presence felt, and gained considerable visibility in
political history for the first time. The main focus of the
political history of the Deccan in this period centred
round the Satavahanas in the Deccan and to some extent
the Sakas in Gujarat and western India.

Peninsular India experienced a monarchical polity for the

first time, with the emergence of the Satavahanas. The
Satavahanas are known from their own inscriptions, as
well as from the very large variety of coins they issued.
They are also mentioned in the Puranas but under a
different name. In the Puranas they are called the
Andhras or the Andhrabhrityas. It is significant however
to note that the inscriptions never referred to them as
Andhrabhrityas or Andhras, while the Puranas never
called them Satavahanas. The list of kings in the Puranas
is large, with nearly thirty rulers being mentioned. Yet
the inscriptions mention only nineteen Satavahana rulers.
A comparative study of the two, suggests that it would be
preferable to stick to the names common to both the
inscriptions and the Puranic lists. This puts the actual
number of Satavahana rulers who ruled, at a figure of
nineteen or twenty.

The Satavahanas possibly came into prominence from

the late first century BCE. The monarchical polity was no
doubt first seen in the case of the Satavahanas, but it
was not a sudden development. We come across Rathis
and Bhojas in the Asokan inscriptions, which were then
transformed to being referred to as Maharathikas,
Mahabhojas, in the post-Mauryan period. From
Bhattiprolu in eastern Deccan, we come across a chief
called Kubiraka. B D Chattopadhyaya argues that it was a
very slow process of transition from a pre-monarchial
polity to a fully fledged monarchial polity. Thus the
grounds for a monarchical polity were getting ready since
the pre Satavahana phase.
Coins indicate the existence of localities under chieftains
that correspond to the experiences of Janapadas in North
India before the sixth century BCE. It is against this
background that one has to study the emergence,
foundation, and consolidation of Satavahana rule. Their
Puranic name Andhra often leads scholars to believe that
they hailed from eastern Deccan. This is questionable
because all the earliest Satavahana inscriptions come
from western Deccan, like Nasik, Karla, Junnar, and the
area around Nevasa (in the Ahmadnagar district of
Maharashtra). Their capital was located at Pratisthan or
present-day Paithan in Aurangabad district. The records
and activities of their earliest rulers seem to be
associated primarily with western and central Deccan,
rather than the eastern part of the Deccan, (Andhra
Pradesh area). It would appear therefore that the rise of
the Satavahanas was possibly from the area around
Nasik, Nevasa and Pratisthan regions in Aurangabad
district.

Earlier scholars around the 1940s and 50s believed, on

the basis of the Puranic descriptions, opined that the
Andhras were originally a part of the Mauryan realm
under Asoka, and began to get independent soon after
the dissolution of the Mauryan Empire. Their span
according to these scholars thus seems to be from the
late third century BCE. to 225 CE. - a period of four
hundred and fifty years. These views have now been
revised.

Present scholarly opinion holds that the paleography of

the Satavahana inscriptions (i.e. dating of alphabets, the
script used) from Nasik and Nevasa, indicate that they
cannot be prior to late first century BCE. One of the very
early Satavahana rulers named Satakarni figures in
Kharavela’s (Chedi king) inscription. If Kharavela
belonged to the late first century BC, his contemporary
Satakarni, an early Satavahana ruler could not belong to
the second or third century BCE. Present scholars thus
feel that it would be more accurate to locate them
chronologically in and around the second half of the 1st
century BCE and that their political existence continued
up to 225 AD. The entire range points to a political
existence of the Satavahanas for about two hundred and
seventy five or eighty years.

According to the Puranas as well as inscriptions, the

earliest ruler of the Satavahana Dynasty was Simuka or
Shishuka, who appears to be the same He is possibly the
Satavahana king whose name appears in a coin found
from the excavations at Nevasa. Excavated material
gives us a better chronological position. This ruler seems
to have been in power around the late first century BC.
The earliest inscriptions from Naneghat in Nasik indicate
that two of the early rulers, Simuka and Krisna I rose to
power from western-central Deccan, with their capital at
Pratisthan or Paithan. The Satavahana ruler mentioned
by Kharavela (Chedi king), in his Hathigumpha
inscription, is also known as Satakarni I (there will be
many Satakarni’s later). His name figures in an
inscription from Sanchi in Eastern Malwa. This could
indicate, though not conclusively, that he possibly made
conquests in the eastern Malwa region.
While the Satavahana power was growing, they had to
come up against a stiff political challenge in western-
central Deccan from the Saka adversary called Kshatrapa
Nahapana. We know about Kshatrapa Nahapana from
inscriptions and coins. Nahapana’s inscriptions have been
found from Nasik, Junnar, and Karla, which were areas
that had earlier been under Satavahana occupation. It is
obvious therefore that the Saka ruler rose to power at
the cost of the Satavahana power in this area. His
inscriptions also indicate that he was in occupation over
an area called Dashapura (Mandasore), and the region
around Ujjaini, and Prabhasa (in Kathiawar peninsula),
thereby indicating that the Sakas under Nahapana’s
energetic and powerful military rule were posing a major
challenge to the rise of the Satavahanas.

The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, written by an

anonymous author in the late first century CE.. speaks
vividly of the situation in coastal western India. The
Greek author indicated that Nahapana ( Nambanus) put a
blockade on the port of Kaliana (or Kalyan, a suburb of
present day Mumbai), which was at that time a well
known port, and forced visiting ships to go to his own
port Bhrigukuchcha (Broach), at the mouth of the
Narmada. Politics and long distance commerce got
intertwined, in this manner. The economic blockade of
Nahapana proved to be successful as Kalyan lost its
importance for a long period of time after the first
century CE. This marked the first phase of Saka-
Satavahana rivalry, in which the latter were definitely
cornered.

The tables were turned with the arrival of Gautamiputra

Satakarni, the greatest of the Satavahana rulers, who
ruled possibly about 106 AD to 130 AD. He is best known
from a Prashasti or eulogistic inscription (Nasik
inscription), which is attributed to his mother Gautami
Balasri (the name Gautamiputra may have been due to
this). It is categorically stated therein that Gautamiputra
Satakarni established the fame and glory of his family
(the Satavahana family) by exterminating the Saka-
Kshaharatas, the dynasty to which Nahapana belonged.
Along with this clear statement about Gautamiputra
Satakarni’s victory over his Saka rival, the best
corroborative evidence comes in the form of thousands of
Nahapana’s coins found from the Jogalthambi hoard in
Nasik district, which include coins that were re-struck,
and bore the legends and motifs of Gautamiputra
Satakarni’s coins, which constitutes a clear indication that
the Satavahana ruler had indeed defeated his Saka rival.

In the Nasik Prashasti, Gautamiputra Satakarni is

credited with wide spread conquests of areas not merely
located in Maharashtra, but in areas to the north of
Maharashtra, like the area of Aparanta (Konkan coastal
area), the area of Mahismati (Mandhata to the south of
Narmada), Akara (eastern Malwa) and Avanti (Ujjaini
region). He was the first Satavahana ruler to have
conquered the eastern Deccan region or the Andhra
coastal area lying between the Godavari and Krishna
deltas.

Gautamiputra is eulogistically described, as the destroyer

of the Sakas, Pahlavas and Yavanas, the uprooter of the
Kshaharatas, the restorer of the glory of the Satavahanas
and also as one whose chargers (cavalry) drank the
waters of the three seas i.e. Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal
and perhaps even the Indian Ocean, which seems to
suggest that his army reached the three extreme coastal
areas. There may have been some amount of typical
court poetical exaggeration in this claim, but his control
over the western coast and also the eastern coast in the
Deccan is beyond any doubt. He is also known to have
been the master of the coastal region around Vijaydurg in
Karwar.

He was thus a very powerful ruler, who fittingly assumed

the title ‘Dakshina Patha Pati’ or the Lord of the Deccan.

At the height of Satavahana power they had to face

another stiff challenge from the Sakas, but this time from
a different branch. If the first resistance came from the
Kshaharata family, now the challenge came from another
line of the Sakas called the Kardamakas under
Rudradaman I, who were based essentially in the
Kathiawar and Ujjaini areas. Rudradaman I first appears
in an inscription as a junior co-ruler along with his senior
co-ruler, Chastana (his grandfather) in 130 AD. By 150
AD (Saka era 72) Rudradaman had commissioned the
Junagarh rock inscription, - a Prashasti, and the first to
be written in high flowing court poetical Sanskrit. This
inscription proclaims his wide conquests over areas
including Malwa, Saurashtra, Gujarat, northern Konkan
and the Maheshwar area on the Narmada. It also states
that he defeated Satakarni, lord of the Dakshinapatha
twice, but that he did not destroy him, out of
magnanimity. The Junagarh Inscription shows
Rudradaman in possession of areas that were earlier held
by Gautamiputra Satakarni, which point to Satavahana
territory being conquered by the Saka ruler.

There are indications in other sources that the

Satavahanas and Rudradaman had entered into a
marriage alliance (Rudradaman’s daughter seems to have
married Gautamiputra’s son, Vashishthiputra Pul umayi).
Rudradaman may have spared him on account of the
closeness of relations with the Satavahana ruler. But the
Satavahanas did not find themselves in a comfortable
position, as all their territories beyond the Narmada in
Gujarat and in Avanti, Eastern Malwa were definitely lost
because of the powerful Saka king, Rudradaman. If the
Satavahana ruler who was defeated twice by his Saka
adversary happened to be Gautamiputra himself, this
goes to indicate that the victories of the latter were short
lived. However it could even have been Gautamiputra’s
immediate successor Sri Pulumayi who was known in
Ptolemy’s geography as Seropulemaeos.

Sri Pulumayi or Vashishthiputra Pulumayi was a powerful

ruler whose inscriptions have come from Nasik, in the
western Deccan. The capital remained intact in
Pratisthan. His coins have been found from in different
parts of Andhra Pradesh, which proves that he was
definitely in command over the eastern part of the
Deccan. A special type of Satavahana coins showing
double-masted sailing ships were specifically minted and
circulated in the Coromandel Coast area. Some scholars
feel that it was he, who happened to be the king defeated
by Rudradaman, while a third possibility is that it was
Vashisthiputra Satakarni, another Satavahana ruler, who
could also have been a contemporary of Rudradaman and
may have been defeated by him.

The last known great Satavahana ruler, was Yajnashri

Satakarni, who seems to have revived the struggle
against the Sakas, and to recover the area of Nasik and
western Deccan from them. He was probably the last
Satavahana ruler to have been in control over both the
eastern and western Deccan, after whom the
Satavahanas gradually began to decline and fade out.

There were some lesser known later Satavahana rulers,

who were not mentioned in the Puranic king-lists and
were known only through their coins. Among them were,
Gautamiputra Vijaya Satakarni, Chanda Satakarni,
Vashishthiputra Vijaya Satakarni and Pulumavi. With the
waning of their power, the Satavahanas began to lose
control over their traditional strong hold area in western-
central Deccan. They now remained confined to the
eastern Deccan in the Andhra area, and in the Bellary
district of Karnataka. These were the last two areas held
by the Satavahanas in the very last phase of their rule till
by about 225 AD the last vestiges of Satavahana rule in
eastern Deccan were erased.

They were replaced by a new dynasty called Ikshvaku in

Andhra. They were perhaps originally feudatories of the
Satavahanas and bore the title of Mahatalavara. Four
Ikshvaku kings ruled from Vijayapuri, or the
Nagarjunakonda area in Andhra Pradesh from 225 AD to
325 AD. Santamula I is supposed to have founded the
dynasty, and was followed by rulers like, Sri
Virapurusadatta and Santamula II.

In the meanwhile the early kingdoms of Tamilakam, or

the land between the Tirupati hills, and the southernmost
tip of the peninsula also known as the Dakshin desha,
was witnessing the rise of important principalities like
that of the Cholas, in the Kaveri delta and basin, the
Pandyas in the Vaigai delta and basin, and the Cheras in
the western part of the Kaveri valley. The major sources
of information on their political history are laudatory
poems comprising the Sangam literature. It is difficult to
date this text, but could be assigned between 200 BC and
300 AD. The main theme of these poems in Tamil
language is the praise of heroes in battle, which often
exaggerate the achievements of the rulers. Tamil-Brahmi
inscriptions corroborate the historicity and rough dates of
some of the rulers mentioned in these texts.

Unlike the situation in north India, this part of the

subcontinent did not have a regularly established
monarchical polity. There were many chieftains and small
clans which dominated the different areas of Tamilakam,
who have been referred to as vendar (crowned kings) in
Sangam literature, possibly because the Cholas, Cheras
and Pandyas outshone other contemporary clans.

Udiyanjeral was the earliest known Chera king. His son,

Nedunjeral Adan has been described as having defeated
seven crowned kings and winning the exalted title of
adhiraja. Two almost identical second century BC
inscriptions at Pugalur, mention three generations of
Chera princes of the Irumporai line.
The Chola king Karikal is associated with many heroic
exploits in Sangam literature. He is credited with having
defeated a confederacy including the Pandyas, Cheras
and their allies. Another important Chola ruler,
mentioned in the poems, is Tondaiman Ilandiraiyan. The
early Pandyan kings include Nediyon, Palshalai
Mudukudumi and Nedunjeliyan, who have been credited
with many victories over contemporary clans.

It is interesting to note that all these three major

chieftaincies were located in rice-growing areas of rich
agricultural potential. Moreover the Cholas and the
Pandyas had access to the coastal areas as well. These
areas participated in the flourishing trade networks of the
time, the major port of the Cholas being Puhar or
Kaveripumpattinam, the major Pandya port being Korkai,
while Tondi and Muchiri were the important Chera ports.
Tamilakam poses a political scenario, where there was
still no full-fledged monarchical setup, and was
dominated by chieftaincy, the likes of which according to
Romila Thapar had been observed in north Indian
conditions before the days of the Mahajanapadas.