Indian Antiquary Vol 49

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 36

32
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[FEBRUARY, 1920
(Śátakarņi) mentioned in the Purâņas as Gautamiputra's predecessors." It will thus be seen that Viļivậyakura and Sivalakura are taken by Dr. Smith as personal names and of kings pertaining to the Satavahana dynasty. But Prof. E. J.Rapson, whose is considered to be the most important view expressed on this subjeot, supposes them to be local titles, and identifies Mâdhariputra Sivalakura with Madhariputra Sakasena and Gautamiputra Vilivâ yakura with Gautamiputra Satakarņi.8 With regard to the third name, he says the following "The identification of No. 1, Våsthîputra : Vilivyakura, must remain doubtful. The evidence of the re-struck coins shows that he cannot possibly be identified with the best known Vâsishthiputra, viz. Puļumåyi, who was the son of Gautamiputra ; but this metronymic was common in the dynasty, and there is no difficulty in supposing that it was borne by the predecessor of Mathariputra in the Kolhapur District."
Such are the views expressed by various scholars of repute with regard to the names occurring in the legends on the Kolhapur coins. I will now put forth my own view of the matter, in order that it might be taken for what it is worth by the antiquarians. In the first place, Vilivåyakura and Sivalakura cannot possibly be regarded as viceroys of any kings, if the legends on the coins actually are as they have been read. For what this view comes to is just this, viz. that rafto Vasi thíputasa, raño Madhariputasa and rano Gotamfputasa, the first halves of the legend, are to be supposed as containing the names of sovereigns, and Viļiváyakurasa and Sivalakurasa, the second halves, as giving the names of their viceroys. Such a division of the legends is arbitrary and unknown to Indian numismatics, 80 far as my knowledge goes. Whenever coins of any viceroys or feudatories Are found, their names are, as a rule, specified on the reverse and those of their sovereigns on the obverse. Sometimes, no doubt, but very rarely, the names of the former alone occur without those of the latter being engraved. But not a single instance can be pointed out wherein the names of both the sovereign and the viceroy are specified in one single line in one and the same legend without the introduction of any word indicative of the subordinate rank of the latter. The numismatic evidence is, therefore, against Gautamiputra, etc., being considered as names of sovereigns and Viļivậyakura and Sivalakura as those of their viceroys.
Secondly, this view involves the supposition that Vasishthiputra, Madhariputra and Gautamiputra can be used by themselves to denote any individuals, and here, in partic. ular, the Satavahana princes themselves. But not a single inscription has been found in which any one of these metronymics is used by itself to denote a Satavahana. If it is Pulumâvi that is spoken of, he is called in inscriptions not simply V Asishthiputra, but Vasishțhiputra Puļumávi; if it is his father, he is referred to not simply as Gautamiputra, but as Gautamiputra Satakarņi. Similarly, Sakasena (Sri-Sata) is never called simply Madhariputra, but Madhariputra Sakasena (Sri-Sata). Gautamiputra, Vásishthiputra, and Madhariputra of the Kolhapur coins cannot thus, by separating them from what follows and taking them by themselves, be regarded as denoting any Satavahana rulers. Nor can it be maintained that, although the terms Gautamiputra, eto., are not used by themselves to denote the Satavahana princes, they, especially the metronymio Madhariputra, were about this period conjoined to their names only. For it was a custom of this period with
1 EHI., 217 and chart facing p. 318.
CIO-AMk., intro., XL. and LXXXVII.