Indian Antiquary Vol 49

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

Page 37

FEBRUARY, 1920 ]
DEKKAN OF THE BATAVAHANA PERIOD
33
personages of the warrior class to state the names of their mothers ;' and names of the latter such as VAaish thi, Gautami, Kaubiki, Hariti, and so forth are met with in many old inscriptions, not as mothere of the Satavahana kings only, but also of princes of other families and tribes, such as Maharathi, Mahâbhoja and so forth 10 The name Madhari also is not unknown to Indian epigraphy of this period. Jaggayyapeta stūpa, e.g., has an inscription of the third century A.D., and referring itself to the reign of Virapurushadatta of the Ikahvaku family.11 This king is, therein called Madhariputra. Similarly, the Abhira prince isvarasena is called Madhariputra in a Násik inscription of about the same date.15 The view, therefore, that the terms Gautamiputra, Våsishthîputra and Madhariputra must denote, by themselves in inscriptions of the early period, the kings of the Satavahana dynasty only, has no grounds to stand upon.
I shall now proceed to consider the second view which regards Viļivậyakura and Sivalakura as local titles, and Gautamiputra, etc., as metronymics,-both belonging to the Satavahana kings. This view was first started by Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji, and has been adopted, as we have seen, by Prof. Rapson. But to look upon Viļivåyakura and Sivalakura as local titles is a mere gratuitous supposition without the least foundation in fact. Again, if they had been titles, some explanation would have been offered of them, but, as Prof. Rapson himself admits, "no satisfactory explanation has yet been given of the forms Vilivayakura and Sivalakura." Next, a sort of inconsistenoy is, I am afraid, perceptible in his identification of Vâsish thîputta Visivyakura. At one place, he says, as we have seen above, that the evidence of the re-struck coins shows that he cannot possibly be identified with Vâsishthiputra Pulumavi but with the predecessor of Madhariputra in tho Kolhapur District, implying that this Viļivậyakura was somewhere between Puļumavi and Sakasena (Sri-Sata). But at another place he says that “two of Puļumavi's predecessors seem to have borne the title 'Viļivayakura' in the district of Kolhapur only,"18 clearly mentioning here that the Visivayakura in question was prior to Pulumavi and not posterior to him as implied at first. But what is most inexplicable is that while commenting on the passage of Ptolemy where Puļumavi and Viļivậyakura are mentioned, he says that both "might well be one and the same person," and adds in support of his statement that “a foreigner might be excused for not knowing that in our country, the Prince of Wales, the Earl of Chester and the Duke of Cornwall were the same person."14 This means in unmistakeable terms that according to Prof. Rapson, Puļumavi and Viļivậyakura were one and the same person, and how this is to be reconciled with his previous statement that "the evidence of the re-struck coins shows that he cannot possibly be identified with the best known Vâsishthiputra, viz. Pulumâvi," is not quite clear to me.
This theory, again, is open precisely to the same objection to which, as we have said, the view first discussed was open. For, if Viļivê yakura and Sivalakura are mere titles why are they to be taken as referring to the Satavahana kings, unless we suppose that the metronymics Gautamiputra, etc., can, even though standing by themselves, denote these princes only. This supposition has been discussed above and shown to be untenable. These metronymics, as stated above, were at this period used in the case of the persons belonging to the Kshatriya class generally and were never employed by themselves without the addition of personal names, not even in the case of the Satavahanas, as shown by their numerous inscriptions.
Abovo, 81. 1 Ibid., No. 1137.
10 Lüders' List, Nos. 1058, 1100, ato. 18 O10.-AN, xl.
11 Ibid., Nov. 1202-4. 14 Ibid., and n. 1.