Monday, March 8, 2010


oots of satavanhana ???

In the first edition of this work, R. G. Bhandarkar had advanced the

view that the rise of the Satavahana power should be placed during

the second quarter of the first century B. C.1 This view

has been subsequently accepted by D. R. Bhandarkar2, H. C. Roy

Chaudhuri 3 and D. C. Sircar.

The arguments in favour of this view are not without weight. The most

cogent evidence insupport of this theory is the unanimous statement of

the Puranas that Simuka, the first Andhra (i.e.Satavahana king),

will rise to power after overthrowing the last Kanva ruler Susarman and

destroying what remained of the Shunga power5. It is generally assumed

that the Shungas ruledfrom c. 187 to 75 B. C. and the Kanvas from c.

75 to 30 B. C. It is therefore maintained by thisschool that the rise of

Simuka, the founder of the Satavahana dynasty, should be placed in the third

quarter of the first century B.C.

This would lead to the conclusion that the dynasty ruled for about two

and a half centuriesonly; we can now well understand why one Puranic

tradition asserts in round number that the rule ofthe Satavahanas lasted

for three centuries only.

Normally speaking about 17 or 18 kings only can flourish during this period,

and we ca nnow well understand why one Puranic tradition enumerates

18 Andhra kings only.

If we assume that the Satavahana dynasty consisted of about

thirty kings who ruled for about 450 years, we have to assume a

big gap of about 150 years between the earlier and later Satavahana

kings, known to us from inscriptions3and coins. This gap disappears

almost altogether I fwe place the rise of Simuka in c. 30 B.C.

R. P. has drawn attention to the palaeographical difficulties in

accepting the theory that Satakarni, the 3rd Satavahana

My view is that when Puranas shed light ,when there is no other

evidence present ,

No comments:

Post a Comment