________________
JUNE, 1918]
DEKKAN OF THE SATAVAHANA PERIOD
155
Nasik Inaoription No. 5 tells us that he was alive at least up to the 24th regnal year of Pulumavi, which must correspond to A.D. 150—the date of the Junagadh inscription. Now, in what relationship could this Satakarņi have stood with Rudradiman? In this connection one Kapheri inscription is invariably referred to. It records the grant of a minister of the queen of Våsishthipatra Satakarni. Her name is lost, but she is said to have been the daughter of a Mahakshatrapa called Rudra. Rudra may of course stand for Rudradaman, Rudrasimha or Rudrasena-all belonging to Chashtana's family. But, according to Bühler, the form of the letters is of the time of Rudradâman. Vasishthiputra Satakarni was thus Rudradaman's son-in-law. The metronymic Vâsishtbiputra clearly shows that the former was, like Puļumávi, a son of Gautamiputra Satakarni. Gautamiputra Sitakarņi was, therefore, the father of Rudradáman's son-in-law. Sátakarni's connection with Rudra. daman was thus by no means intimate and can be described as “not remote,” as has been done in the Junagadh inscription.39
Gaute miputra Satakarpi was succeeded by his son Puļumâvi. We have seen above that he was ruling conjointly with his father, the former over Maharashtra and the latter over Andhra-deba. After the death of Satakarņi, Puļumavi seems to have become ruler of Andhra desa also. For we have an inscription on the Amaravati stúpa in the Kistné district which distinctly refers itself to his reign.80 His coins also have been found in the Kistna and Godavari districts 81 showing olearly that he had succeeded to his ancestral kingdom. Puļumavi died about A.D. 158, and was succeeded by his brothers, Siva-SriSatakarni and Sri-Chandra-Sati. Coins of these two last have been found, which, so far as the numismatic style is concerned, are closely connected with those of Puļumávi.32 Besides, they three have the common metronymic Vasishthiputra. This shows that they must all be brothers. According to the Matsya Purana, Puļumávi was succeeded by Siva-Sri, who can, therefore, be no other than Siva Sri-Satakarni of the coins. With this prince I identify Vesishthiputra Satakarņi, son-in-law of Rudradaman, who, as I have remarked before, has been mentioned in a Kanheri cave inscription. Siva-Sri-Satakarni must thus have been succeeded by Sri Chandra-Sáti. We do not know who came immediately after this last king. But of the two Satavahana princes who remain to be noticed, Sakaeena Was certainly earlier than Yajña Satakarni on palæographic grounds. The name of the first prince occurs in two records inscribed in a cave at Kapheri," but seems to have been wrongly deciphered. Three years ago I had occasion to examine the ingcriptions personally. I also took estampages of the portions which contained his name. And on a careful comparison I was convinced that the real name of the king was not Sakasena but Siri-Sáta. Commonsense also would lead us to doubt the correctness of the first reading. For the first line has been read as : Sidhai raño Madhariputasa Suami-Saka senasa. Now, it is worthy of note that wherever we meet with a Satavahana name in an inscription, it is invariably prefixed with the honorific Siri (=Sri). Thus we have Siri-Satakani, SiriPulumávi, Siri-Yajna-Satakani, and so forth. And the two Kayheri inscriptions just referred to alone beoome an exception, if we read Sakasena. Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji
29 For a detailed consideration of this question see JBBRAS., XXIII. 72.3. * Lüders' Liat, No. 1848.
91 GIO.-AM k., 20-3. # Ibid, Intro. xl.
33 ASWI., V. 79 and 82.
