The Gazetteers Department

As province after province fell out of the empire of Ashoka and formed itself into a separate kingdom under some chief, a branch of the Satiyaputras who are mentioned in the Edicts of Ashoka took advantage of this opportunity and founded a kingdom in what was known as Maharashtra [Bakhle, 45.]. In the light of the information supplied by the Hathigumpha inscription of Kharevela and that at Nane Ghat, we get 220 B. C. as the approximate year in which Simuka founded the dynasty of the Satavahanas [Bakhle, 48; Sir R. Bhandarkar and D. R. Bhandarkar, however, advocate 75 B. C. as the date of the rise of their dynasty.]. The independent State of Satiputra

army was situated along the western ghats and the konkan coast below [Sir R. Bhandarkar c/f Bakhle, 51.]. Their territory extended from sea to sea [Chitgupi, 28.].

Satakarni was probably contemporary with Pushyamitra and the performance of the Ashvamedha sacrifice recorded in the Nane Ghat inscription can be explained by supposing that he was the actual conqueror of Ujjain [Bakhle, 53.]. The sacrifices and fees paid to the Brahmans testify eloquently to the wealth of his realm and his Ashvamedha sacrifice bespeaks his sarvabhaumatva. But after Kuntala, the Satavahanas were forced to take refuge in Southern Maharashtra.

In this work of conquests, the Satavahanas were helped by the Rathikas and Bhojas who were duly rewarded with offices, titles and matrimonial alliances [Nilkanta Sastri, History of South India, 88.].

SAKAS. (78 A. D.)

The great empire of the Mauryas went to pieces in the 2nd century B. C. The western coast was a bone of contention between the Salea commanders and the Andhra monarchs, who maintained the feud for at least a century, with varying success. The Western Kshatrapa or saka Satraps, who subsequently defeated the Andhras, annexed all the Konkan coast [Schoff, 197; Bakhle fixes the earliest date of Nahapana as 17 B. C. and as the reign of his predecessor Bhumla, probably very brief-the conquest must be placed in about 25-20 B. C, p. 69.

Nilkanta Sastri, 90.]. A half century later the Andhras under Vilivayakura II or Gautamiputra Satakarni, reconquered the coast-line, only to lose it to the Satraps after another generation [Schoff, 198; Bakhle, 65, 66.]. In about 78 A. D. the Kshatrapas were exterminated and it is natural, therefore, that the era founded in that year whether by Kanishka or by Vima-kadphises or by Castana came to be associated in the south with the defeat of the Sakas by the Shalivahana king [Bakhle, 69.]. However, it has to be noted that the district was under Rudradaman, the Mahakshatrap, in about 130-150 A.D. [Bhandarkar (Bapat), 65; Bakhle, 78.].

GREEKS.

In the years 155-153 B. C. Greek King Menander, apparently a brother of Appolodotus, whose capital was Kabul, annexed the entire valley of Indus, the peninsula of Saurashtra and other territories on the western coast [Schoff, 184.].

LATER SATAVAHANAS. (78 B. C. to A D) about 225.

The power of the Kshatrapas in Western India was necessarily weakened by the wars between the Kushanas and the Shakapallavas in the North-west provinces and in a decisive battle, a deadly blow to the supremacy of Shakapallavas, in this region was inflicted and thenceforward for about a century, this part continued under the power of the Satavahanas. Gautamiputra (C. 80-104 A. D.) is also styled as the lord of the mountains from the Vindhya to the Malaya (lowermost portion of the Deccan) and from the Mahendra (probably in the east) to the Sahya (i.e. Western Ghats [Dikshit, 27; Bakhle, 71. Schoff, 39, 75, 197.Jayaswal, Saka-Satavahana Problems, U. B. R. S. XVIII, 8-9.]). The inscription of his mother Balashri enumerates the vast possessions of his, which included obviously Maharashtra and the coast-line along the Arabian sea [Bakhle, 73. Chitgupi; 28.]. The inscription of Balashri gives us the truest description of him. Re-conquering the country which had remained under foreign domination for about a century, he re-established the glory of his family. He was very agreeable in appearance, brave, courageous and physically well-built. All the neighbouring princes trembled before him and devoutly obeyed his behests. The subjects found in him a kind and solicitous king; in their weal was his happiness, in their woe, his misery. A great champion of Brahmanical Hinduism, he took particular care to re-establish the caste-system, which was getting weaker under the foreigners. Reasonable taxation, liberal gifts bestowed on his subjects and his polished manners, contributed immensely to his popularity among his subjects. The mother's tearful praise of her departed son indicates his devotion to her and it was but proper that she should finish off, before her own death, the cave which was begun by him to commemorate his victory. He ruled for 18 years over the territory he had inherited from his predecessor and only for five years after his conquest and had it not been for his premature death, he would have ranked as one of the greatest kings of India. Yet as a king he was undoubtedly great, a king of whom any nation would be proud [Bakhle, 73-74.]. His son Pulumavi had retained the title "the Lord of Dakshinapatha ". While Pulumavi was engaged in his conquest of the Andhradesa, Castana, who was a satrap of the Kushahana kings conquered Malva, Gujarat and Kathiavar. Vasishthaputra Satakarni, conquered much of this territory while it was under Jayadaman, son of Castana and the latter made peace with him by a matrimonial alliance [Bakhle, 73-74.]. When Yajnashri (C. 170-99 A. D.) succeeded to the kingdom, his dominions extended as far as Gujarat and Kathiavar. But he was not only deprived of these two provinces but also of Maharashtra and Aparantha; this inference is corroborated by the Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman. Rudradaman had won the tide of Mahakshatrap which was lost by Jayadaman. Rudradaman had defeated twice the Lord of the Dakshinapath [Junagadh inscription-Bakhle 83.], and even before 150 A. D. had conquered Maharashtra and Aparantha, and driven the Satavahanas out of this part [Bhandarkar, 80; Bakhle, 84-85. Bhandarkar takes it as 180 A. D.].

In the Satavahana period, both Buddhism and Brahmanical Hinduism flourished. Prakrit literature was much encouraged and developed. Trade guilds and commercial corporations appear to have been in existence, promoting a vigorous internal and international trade [Chitgupi, 28.].

The successors of Yajnyashri were Vijaya and finally Pulumayi. The names of other Satavahana kings-Kama, Kumbha and Rudra Satakarni are known from their coins. Other princes of Satavahana extraction governed minor kingdoms but nothing is known of the causes that brought about the downfall of the main dynasty [Nilkanta Sastri, 92.]. Though the Satavahana empire was very vast, its policy was simple and local administration was left largely to the feudatories subject to the general control of royal officials. Kingship was hereditary in the male line though matronymics were freely prefixed to the names of kings and nobles. The king was the guardian of the established social order and was expected to raise taxes justly and to further the prosperity of the poor equally with the rich. Feudatories were of three grades; Rajas who struck coins in their own names; Mahabhojas and Maharathis who were confined to a few families-the latter being connected with the Satavahanas by marriages and relatively late in the history of the empire was created the office of Mahasenapati, which continued under later dynasties. The State was divided into aharas each under a minister (amatya). Below these came the villages, each with its own headman (gramika). More interesting was the total assimilation of foreigners, Sakas and Yavanas, either as Buddhists or as degraded Kshatriyas, many of them bearing such thoroughly Indian names as Dharmadeva, Rishabhadatta and Agnivarman. The Grecco-Roman influence had a great share in fashioning the stupas of the times [Ibid., 93.].

ABHIRAS AND CHUTUS.

After the fall of the Satavahana empire, the Abhiras ruled in the north east and the Chutus in Maharashtra and Kuntala. The Puranas state that ten Abhiras ruled for 67 years. The Nasik inscription speaks of king Madhuriputra Ishvarasena, the Abhir and a son of Shivadatta. This dynasty originated in A. D. 249-50, an era called Kalachuri or Chedi in later times. Some historians consider the Chutus to be a branch of the Satavahanas, while others postulate a Naga origin for them. They were supplanted by the Kadambas [Nilkanta Sastri, 95-96.].

A ninth century tradition affirms that Virakurcha, an early Pallava king of great fame, seized the insignia of royalty together with the daughter of the Naga king. This may be an echo of the Pallava conquest of the Chutus. About the middle of the fourth century A. D. Samudragupta fought with his opponent Vishnugopa Pallava, the ruler of Kanchi [Nilkanta Sastri, 98.].

THE TRAIKUTAS. post-satavahana and pre-Gupta Period.

The Traikutas appear to have held the Konkan in the fourth century, but early Rashtrakutas (375 to 400 A. D.) also held possession of the Konkan [Nairne, 13.]. The sway of the Traikutas, Darhasena and his son Vyaghrasena, seems roughly to have extended upto Southern Gujarat, Konkan and even in the Ghats. These must have been very powerful rulers as may be noticed from a new era in which their grants are dated. The Mahayan Buddhism was well spread during the rule of the Traikutas. Thereafter the Vakatakas ruled over this part [Dikshit, 43, 45, 54; Chitgupi, 30.].

TOP