The rule of the Sātavāhanas

In order to establish the survival and continuity of the monastic site we again take recourse to the chronological sequence of the Mahāstūpa. In this regard mention may be made of the third period. The third period dates 1^st–2^nd Century C.E. In this layer Rouletted Ware, Red Polished Ware, Polished Black Ware, copper, potin and lead coins of the Sātavāhanas (Pl 31b), sculptural crossbars and coping stones are found^[1]. The antiquities reveal that during this period the stūpa attained its glorious epoch. This phase coincided with the reign of the later Sātavāhanas.

During the reign of the later Sātavāhanas the region enjoyed peace and prosperity^[2]. It is worthy of mention that during the terminal years of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi’s reign, the Sātavāhanas extended their control to the eastern coast. His mother Gautamī Balaśrī in the Nāsik inscription mentioned that her son was the overlord of many mountains including Siriṭana, Malaya, Mahida and Seṭagiri ranges. These ranges are situated in the coastal Andhra region. Among them Siriṭana is near Siridhānya, that is, Dhānyakaṭaka.

Vasiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi consolidated the empire to the eastern coast with Dhānyakaṭaka as the centre of his political activity. He shifted the capital from Pratiṣṭhāna (Paiṭhan) to Dhānyakaṭaka^[3] in 150 C.E. The Sātavāhanas made it their capital when Pratiṣṭhāna was destroyed by the Ksaharatas, a branch of the Sakas. Thereafter the Sātavāhanas ruled the region for next seven generations without any interruption^[4]. The epigraphical records of Vasiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi and Gautamīputra Yajn Sātakarṇi confirm that this region was under the control of the Sātavāhanas. Puḷumāvi was the contemporary of Nāgārjuna who built a railing around the Mahācaitya.^[5]

The Sātavāhana regime ushered in a Golden Era in Deccan and the prosperity of the epoch was reflected in the art activity at Amarāvatī^[6]. The intensive structural and sculptural activity in Period III of the Mahācaitya already mentioned above bear testimony to this. During this time trade with Roman Empire was at its height. The importance of Amarāvatī is further attested by Puḷumāvi’s coins and an inscription found on the stūpa of Amarāvatī. In his regime the monument began to be refurbished and rebuilt.

The donative inscriptions during the Sātavāhana epoch are significant in this respect.

Text:-

Gotami namo…..dānaṃ^[7]

Translation: -

Gift …. of Gotamī.(Pl 31c)

T.G Aravamuthan believes that the statue on the dress of which this inscription is incised is Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi But this cannot be accepted with certainty.^[8]

Text:-

i) [Si] dham Rāno Vasiṣṭhīputasa sāmi Pulumāvisa savachharam…
piṃda sutariyanaṃ
Kahutara gahapatisa Purigahapatisa chaputasa Isilasa Sabhātukasa……………..
ii) Sa (Bha?) ginikasa bhayanachasa
Nākanikāya saputakasa…. [?Bhagava)] to
mahā cheitya chetakiya
naṃ nikā (ya) sa parigahe aparadāre
dhamachaka de dhaṃmam (mātā) pitu [udisa?]^[9]

Translation:-

“Hail! In the year… of the illustrious lord the king Pulumāvi son of Vasishṭha (mother). The merit of the gift of a Dhammachaka (Wheel of law) on the western doorway in the great Chaitya of Bhagavat (Buddha) in possession of the Chetika school by two Piṃdasutris -the householder Kahutara and Isila, the sun of the householder Puri, with his brother, his sister, his wife Nāganika with (their) son.”

In this inscription we do not find the direct involvement of the king but it refers to the period of Śrī Vasiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi and mentions the name of queen Nāganika.

Text:-

i) Sidham rājno Gotamipu (trasya) Śrī Yajna (sā) ta karnisya Samvatsara–vasa–pa -5 divasa 8 uijjayinī upāsakena
ii) Jayilena-mahācetiye-karitam
iii) Dhanakata cetiya^[10]

Translation:-

Success! During the regnal year of Goutamīputra Śrī Yajna (Sātakarṇi) on the 8^th day of 5^th pakṣa, Upāsaka Jayila of Ujjaini made a gift to the mahā-caitya of Dhanakaṭa.

The inscription is in Sanskrit and belongs to the reign of Gautamīputra Śrī Yajna (Sātakarṇi) and does not refer to any direct involvement of the king. But we definitely get the information that the Mahācaitya was highly venerated and donee came from Ujjain.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Sarma I. Karthikeya, 1974, Op.cit, p 61.

[2]:

Dhavalikar M.K, 2004, Sātavāhana Art, Delhi, p 17.

[3]:

Ibid, p 23

[4]:

Prasad P.R.K, 1991, ‘Pre-Sātavāhana Phase at Amarāvatī Dharaṇikoṭa’ Op.cit, p 334.

[5]:

Rao Vinay Kumar, 2010, Op.cit, Delhi, p 4.

[6]:

Dhavalikar M.K, Op.cit, p 21

[7]:

Sivaramamurti C, Op.cit, No 6, p 274. Chanda Ramprasad, 1982, ‘Some unpublished Amarāvatī Inscriptions’, Thomas F.W (ed), Epigraphia Indica, Vol-XV, 1919-20, Calcutta, No 39, p 270.

[8]:

Aravamuthan T.G, 1930, South Indian Partraits, London, p 1.

[9]:

Burgess Jas, 1972, Notes on Amaravati Stupa, No. 121, Varanasi, pp 26-27 Sivaramamurti C, Op.cit, No. 51, p 283.

[10]:

Jyoti Rohilla Rana, 2013, The Sculptural Art of Amaravati, Delhi, No. 3, p 132