Epigraphia Indica Vol 20

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 89

74
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XX.
belongs to the same period as the earliest inscription from Mathură edited by Bühler1, and it cannot be earlier than the beginning of the 2nd century B.C. or later than that of the 1st century B.C. For na, na and other letters a reference is invited to the detailed palæographical analysis by RDB, elsewhese."
There are two symbols, one over the other at the beginning, and one at the end of the record. At the beginning the first symbol looks like a crown. KPJ. identifies it with the Vaddha-mangala. The second is the Svastika. The last symbol is the Sacred Tree within a square enclosure or railing. There is an elaborate system of spacing in this record, the larger, corresponding to full stops. There is space before almost every proper name. The smaller spaces indicate clauses of a sentence.
It has been proved by repeated examinations of the rock that there is no date in a Maurya era in the 16th line of this inscription, as supposed by the late Bhagvanlal Indraji and ourselves formerly. The date will therefore depend upon synchronisms. The first of these synchronisms is with Satakarni. It is now absolutely certain that the family name of the dynasty founded by Simuka is Satavahana and not Satakarni. The Nanaghat inscriptions supply the label Raya Simuka-Satavahano for the statue of Simuka. There were more kings than one of the name of Satakarni, and the first king of that name is called Siri Satakamņi both on his coins and in the label on his statue at Nanaghat. Subsequent Satakarnis with whose names we meet in epigraphical records added their metronymics to distinguish themselves from their predecessors, e.g., Gautamiputra Satakarni, Vasishṭhiputra Siva-Sri Satakarni and Gautamiputra Śrī Yajña Satakarni. It is therefore evident that this record refers to a Satakarni who was a contemporary king in the Western regions. The name is not to be taken as a reference to an unidentified dynastic title. And the only king of this dynasty who can safely be ascribed to the period when Kharavela was ruling is Śri Satakarni, the husband of Nayanika, and not Gautamiputra or Siva-Sri or Sri Yajña. About Gautamiputra Satakarni it is to be observed that the long record in cave No. 3 in the Päṇḍuleņa group does not mention the king or the country of Kalinga, and thereby proves that Kalinga or Orissa was not included in his conquests and, very probably also, that he did not come in close contact with Kharavela or any other king of Kalinga, though the Amaravati and China inscriptions of Pulumavi and Sri Yajña prove definitely that the whole of Kalinga had passed under their dominion. The other kings of the name of Satakarni are excluded as being, inter alia, too late to be Kharavela's contemporaries. According to the Puranic lists Satakarni II comes 36 years after Satakarni I. RDB. has proved that the dissentient view about the Häthigumpha inscription being later than the Nanaghat records is untenable. Therefore the Satakarni of the Häthigumpha inscription must be Satakarni I. The statement in 1. 6 about Kharavela's subjugation of the Rathikas and Bhojakas shows that up to the 4th year of the reign of Kharavela they existed as sepa. rate states, as in the time of Asoka, but subsequently these states must have been swallowed up by the Satavahanas. Therefore, Kharavela's conflict with Satakarni must have taken place
1 Ante, Vol. II, p. 198.
Memoirs, A. 8. B., Vol. X, pp. 133 ff.
J. B. O. R. 8., Vol. III, p. 429.
KPJ. put it forward in 1914 in bis Brahmin Empire, and the view has been confirmed by the discovery of the last record of the family-name, clearly. Ante, Vol. XIV, p. 153. Satavahana as the family-name is fully borne out by literature. [See J. B. O. R. 8., Vol. XVI, pp. 258 ff. on Satavahana history.-K. P. J.]
Ante, Vol. X, App. Nos. 1248 and 1340.
Memoirs, A. 8. B., Vol. X, p. 145. [See also J. B. O. R. 8., XVI, pp. 258 ft.-K. P. J.]