The Satavahana - Western Kshtrapa Relations
The Andhra Satavahanas ruled for four centuries and a half in the Deccan. During their rule they came into contact with their neighbouring kingdoms, the prominent of which was that of the Western Kshatrapas.
During the Indo-Parthian rule, the Satraps or Governors were appointed to rule over various areas conquered by them. One of those satrapal seats was Malwa and Saurashtra. The chronology of the Satavahanas and the early phase of the Kshatrapa rule have been controversial. The Kshatrapa rule includes that of the Kshaharatas like Bhumaka and Nahapana and of the Kardanraka family from Chashtana onwards. Of the Kshaharatas, Bhumaka was the first ruler. From the palaeography of his coin legends, he is regarded as the predecessor of Nahapana; but the actual relationship between the two is not known. The coins of Bhumaka mention him as a Kshaharata Kshatrapa.
The coins show the symbol of the Lion-capital. These coins were found in Gujarat and rarely in Malwa which might indicate the area of rule of Bhumaka. The figure of the thunder-bolt appearing on Nahapana's coins resembles that of the Mathura Kshatrapas. It is also known that some of the inscriptions of the Mathura Kshatrapas were incised on a lion capital. These show that the two families were alike. There are scholars who conclude from these resemblances that the Kshatrapa Kshaharatas were originally subordinates of the Mathura Kshatrapas and that they declared themselves independent after the death of the great Mathura Kshatrapa Rajula in 17 A.D.
The Satavahanas 37 Nahapana succeeded Bhumaka on the western Kshatrapa throne. During his rule, the kingdom seems to have been extended, as is known from the inscnptions. An inscription at Nasik refers to the gifts given by Ushavadata, the son-in-law of Nahapana at places like Govardhana, Sopara, Dasapura, Prabhasa. Barulachchhg and Pushkara. Nahapano's inscriptions were discovered at Nasik, Karle and Junnar. These taken together show that in the north Nahapana's empire extended upto Rajasthan and in the south to Maharashtra.
The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea composed in 60 A.D. records the hegemony of Nahapana in this area and refers to
the trade activity of Western India with the Red Sea ports, which was grabbed by Nahapana after defeating the Satavahana rivals probably Sundara Satakarni and Chakora Satakami, The Satavahana ports like Kalyan and Sopara lost their commercial importance to Barygaza. In the inscriptions, mention of Nahapana's years 41-46
was made. There has been a controversy with regard to the ere to which these years should be assigned. Scholars like R.G. Bhandarkar, D.R. Bhandarkar, Prof. Rapson, Roy Chowdhuri, D.C. Circar and V.D. Mirashi assign them to the Saka era. Another set of scholars like Cunningham, V.S. Bakhle, K.A.N. Sastry and G.V. Rao think that they were dated in the Vrkrama era. But the difficulty in these two propositions is that Nahapana would be placed either in the 2nd century A.D. or in the 1st century B.C. respectively, both of which are improbable in view of evidence of the Periplus.
The evidence of the Periplus leading to a 1st century A.D. date for Nahapane has to be accepted. The difficulties in the
assignment of Nahapana's years to one of the two eras have been exposed by scholars like R.D. Banerji, A.S. Altekar etc.
Taking these years as the regnal years of Nahapana, these scholars placed him in the second half of the 1st century A.D.
There is also a belief that these years could be the independent years of rule of the Kshaharatas in Malwa and Saurashtra, probably when there was weak succession on the Mathura Kshatrapa throne. Anyway Nahapana's rule cannot be extended beyond 60 or 70 A.D. because at the time when Periplus was writing, Nahapana's power was at its zenith. So it is quite ikely that the years referred to in the inscriptions could be
equivalent to 60 or 70 A.D. Nahapana's rule was put to an end by Gautamiputra Satakarni, the first of the later Satavahanas. His main credit was the destruction of Kshaharata power and the restoration of the fortunes of the Satavahana family.
The Nasik prasasti ssued in his son's reign gives a good description of the achievements of Gautamiputra over the Kshaharatas and the Sakas, Yavanas and the Pahlavas. It is not known as to whether the Scytho-Parthians who ruled until the establishment of Kushana power effectively in northern India, came to the rescue of the Kshaharatas who were definitely defeated by Gautamiputra. In addition to the achievements recorded by Gautamiputra at a later time, we have a little information from one of the inscriptions. The Nasik inscription dated in the 18th year was issued from the battle field after his success over an unnamed enemy. The same inscription also records the grant of the land to the Buddhist monks and it is stated that the land was in possession of Ushavadata earlier. From this, scholars conclude
that the erstwhile Kshaharata possession went into the hands of Gautamiputra by his 18th regnal year.
The list of areas mentioned in his son's inscription shows that Saurashtra, Aparanta, Malwa and parts of Rajasthan were occupied by Gautamiputra. After this victory, he seems to have restruck the coins of Nahapana as is known from the Jogelthambi hoard of coins. Gautamiputra retained all these areas during his life time.
He died in circa dated 87 A.D. and was succeeded by his son Vasisthiputra Pulomavi. The latter ruled for 28 years, i.e. from 87 A.O. to 115 A.D. Till his 19th regnal year, the areas of rule under Gautamiputra must have been retained by Pulomavi, The Satavahanas 39 because the Nasik inscription of that year refers to Gautamiputra's areas of rule and also styles Pulomavi as 'Dakshinapatheswara'. During the last 9 years of rule, he must have lost the Malwa region to Chashtana, who was the founder of the Kardamaka line. The Kardamakas were at first subordinates to the Kushanas. Later on they might have become independent.
According to Ptotemy, Chashtana of Ujjain was ruling at the time when Pulomavi was ruling at Paithan. So the seizure
of some of the Satavahana possessions must have taken place between 106 A.D. and 114 A.D. The clashes between the Kardamakas and Satavahanas continued during the rule of Siva Sri and Siva Skanda on one side and Chashtana and Jayadaman on the other. During these conflicts must have occured the death of Jayadaman who predeceased his father Chashtana. The latter could have obtained the territory in between Malwa and Kutch including Saurashtra by about 130 A.D. The Andhau inscriptions of Chashtana issued along with his grandson Rudradaman show the western limit of the Kardamaka empire.
Meanwhile by 129 A.D., Yajna Sri Satakarni came to the Satavahana throne. During his rule, he had to contend against
the power of Rudradaman who came to the throne in or after 130 A.D. In the Girnar inscription of Rudradaman, dated in the year 72 corresponding to 150 A.D., the king is said to have defeated the 'Dakshinapathapati' Satakarni and liberated because of his non-remote relationship. This ruler could have been Yajna Sri Satakarni. The Aparanta region seems to have been the arena of conflict between the two empires. Yajna Sri's defeat must have occured after his 16th year of rule because his inscription dated in that year comes from Kanheri. The Aparanta territory thenceforth became a Kshatrapa possession. After the reign of Yajna Sri, the rulers of the Satavahana family could not regain these areas and had to be contended with parts of the Andhra area.
While there had been conflicts throughout between the Satavahanas and the Western Kshatrapas, evidence also points to one matrimonial alliance between the two families (Kardamakas and Satavahanas). This is known from an inscription at Kanheri which mentions the daughter of one Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman, who was the queen of one Vasisthiputra Satakami. The identity of Vasisthiputra Satakami and his relationship with Yajna Sri are problematic. Scholars like Rapson and Smith identify him with Vasisthiputra Pulomavi. This is improbable because of the contemporaniety of Vasisthiputra Pulomavi with Chashtana. tt is likely that Vasisthiputra Satakarni was a successor of Pulomavi who must have had some clashes with the other Satavahana rulers for succession to the throne and who thereby must have entered into this matrimonial alliance with the Kshatrapas. This might also explain the
absence of reference to his name in the Puranic list of the Andhra kings. He must have been benefitted by this alliance as an inscription at Nanaghat was issued by him in his 13th year which indicates that the Aparanta region went into the hands of Vasisthiputra Satakarni with the consent of his fatherin- law Rudradaman.
Thus during the first and second centuries A.D., fortune favoured for a time the Kshaharatas, later the Satavahanas and afterwards the Kardamakas in the possession of Western India. There had been throughout a conflict between the Satavahanas and the Western Kshatrapas. The areas that were conquered by Rudradaman to a large extent retained by his successors The Satavahanas confined themselves to the Andhra region for nearly a quarter of a century more when their power eclipsed finally.
.....poke me when you discovered a decent rock cut architecture in your country,
