Origin of Brahmin Gotras

Author(s): Dharmanand Kosambi
Publisher: D D Kosambi

Page 5

ORIGIN OF BRANIMIN QOTRAS
25
Some gotras are found in inscriptions. A well-known casc is that of the Säravahanas, who have a Visinthiputra (Puļumāvi) at least onc Gotamiputra (Yajñasri Sitakarni), a Mathariputra ctc., whilc Rijavagopa, the commandcr-in-chicfor Yajñasri's army is called a Kausika in the Nasik cavc inscription. Though thcy gave plentifully to the Buddhist Saingha, ilic Ninaghāti inscription (of Naganika?) as well as the Nasik inscription of Puļumiyi show that these kings were completely Bralıminized, conscious followers of Brahmanic ritual. The same doublc loyalty without conflict appears in Hüla's Saglašali. Now it is remarkable that thc gotra-namncs are all found in Brahmin lists, and this would give support to the current rule that the kgatriya is to be known by his purohita's golra. We need not stop to consider whether thc rcfcrcncc by matronymic is indicativcofa matriarchal system ; such rcfcrcncc is also to bc found in thc gcncalogy at the end of the Bșhadiranyaka Upanişad, for the succession of Brahmin teachers.
Thc Satavihana kings are about thic last complete linc found in thc Purinas* as would be expected from thic probablc date of rcvision of thc documents, and the dynasty's closc association with Bralımins. But Ict us go back to the prcvious dynasty, thc Kinyāyanas, the last of whom was killcd by Simuka Satavāhana. These kings were thicmsclvcs Brahmins according to the explicit statement of thic Puriņas, and the first Kūnvāyana Väsudeva was a minister who usurpcd the throne after killing thc last of the Sungas. Now both the Sungas and thc Kínvāyanas arc to be found in gotra lists. Wc have noted the Sauiga-Saisiri confusion abovc; a famous sülra of Pāṇini (4.1.117) ascribes Vikarna, Suuga, Chagala to the Vatsa, Bhardavāja and Atri groups respectivcly, Thcrc is no nccd to doubt thic genuineness of this sūtra in spitc of its not having been commcntcd upon by Kityiyana or Patañjali, for it is simplc cnough not to need any comment and in any casc thc detailed attention which Pāņini pays in the cntirc scction to gotra derivatives shows both the actual cxistence of thcsystem in his day as well as its grcat importance. Turning to our gotra lists, we only find a Vikarncya ascribcd to thc Kaśyapas by a variant of the Matsya Purana (GPN. 103.20), whcncc it may bc assumcd that thc gotra was extinct by that time. In antiquity, thc 21 Vaikarnayas arc against Sud
Sudās and overthrown (vii.18.11). Chagala is still an Atri gotra. Suäga and Saunga are both given among the Bharadvājas (GPN.57.14 & 62.15), whilc thc Kanvāyanas are uniformly enrolled as Bharadvājas though Kanva and Mahūkanva arc put by thc Matsya among thc Vasişthas (GPN.177.23 & 113.12). However, the concordance is good cnough, and again shows agrccmcnt between a king's gotra and that of his pricsts, admitting that thc pricst was likclicst to becomc a minister.
*F.B. Pargitcr : "The Purana Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Agc", Oxford 1913. The Kin. vāyanas are the only proper Brahmin (p.30) kings while we have thic statement (p.26) that after Mabapadmu Nanda, all succeeding kings would bc Südras or kūdra-like. This would nican primarily that they did not claim vcdic ancestry nor observe the pure vodic ritual, and there is no rcason to doubt this, for the Mauryas certainty did not.