Andhra in Magadha

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

Perhaps this must be one of the most exciting and important discovery

in the traditional chronology, that there is another Andhra tribe

that has ruled Magadha apart from Andhra bhrityus.

 

We have established earlier that Andhra bhrityus (who could be telugu

or Marathi speaking) are not the Andhra Kings, especially since if

they were ruling at the time of annexure of Alexander, the classical

literature also mentions another powerful coutry of Andhras.

 

Matsya purana mentions that : " 'When the dominion of the Andhras has

ceased, there shall be other Andhras, kings of the race of their

servants; " i.e. Andhras have ruled before Andhra bhrutyus. This

aspect is not explicitly mentioned in most of the puranas.

 

Now, Puranas also mention that it is 1500 years from Parikshit (3102

bce) to the time of Nands (1602 bce; I have earlier noted that the

date of Nandas is 1634 bce, but this has to be modified)

 

It is also mentioned that from the time of Nandas till end of teh

rule of " ANDHRAS: " , it is 836 years.(ie till 766 bce) Nandas, Sungas

and Kanavs together have ruled for 394 years ( ie till 1208 bce).

Thus, Andhras have ruled for 432 years between 1208 bce to 766 bce.

 

But who are these Andhras, who have ruled Palibothra at the conflunce

of soan and Ganga (Soan-ganga) and continued to be present

powerfully, after their debacle at Panta?

 

Assikas:

 

Asmaka or Assika, one of the oldest kingdoms in India, lies at Potala

(Bodhan, Nizamabad dt., Andhra pradesh)It was the only kingdom of

South India to be listed among the 16 Mahajanapadss.

 

King Asmaka, probably bearing a personal name of Rudrayan, was

mentioned in Mahabharat as being a Rajarshi(Royal sage). The Buddhist

Literature says that he was ordained by Mahakatyana, a contemporary

of Buddha.

 

Andhras, who have ruled Magadha must have hailed from this dynasty.

It is Kadambi who has connected Assikas with Magadha.

 

In all possibility, Andhra bhrityus from maharashtra must have been

the vassals of Andhras, even before Andhras have captured Patna,

since Bodhan is very near to Maharashtra.

 

It is interesting to note that Godavari that flows somwhat nearly

by is called SoanGanga, the combination of the same rivers that

flow about Pataliputra.

 

Hope I will hear from the learned friends,

 

regards,

 

Kishore patnaik

[Guest guest]

SATAVAHANAS; More Information

Many references from Jaina literature suggests the intimacy and patronage of the Satavahanas, the earliest rulers of Andhradesa. Salivahana, king of Paithana,himself a devout Jaina, extended royal support to the flourishing state of the Nirgranthamata.The Avashyakasutra ( 500 CE)in Prakrit has provided more details.52 Officers in the Satavahana army commissioned 52 Jaina templesnamed after their own names,which has been recorded in the Kalpapradipa of Jinaprabhasuri( c.14th century). A certain Satavahana king requested his Jain preceptor to postpone a discourse so that he could alsomake it possible to participate.

Authentic account of the Satavahana period establish the early advent and a strong footing of Jaina faith in their kingdom.Bhagiyabbe, wife of Jianavallabha( 950 CE), younger brother of poet Pampa( 941CE),greatest poet of Kannada literature, hailed from Paithana, capital of the Satavahanas. The Kuvalayamala( 778CE), a Prakrit classic authored by Udyotanasuri, narrates that in the metropolis Pratishtanapura( Paithana), many Jaina families from Karnataka were more affluent holding important positions.On account of the influence of and intimacy with the Satavahanas, the Gangas of Karnataka, who were jains ab initio to ad finem, took administrative models from the former. Durvinita( 6th-7th Century),the illustrious Ganga king and a litterateur, translated the Brihatkatha of Gunadhya( 2nd-3rd century CE), who wrote his immortal classic in the reign of the Satavahanas.The celebrated Jaina poet and aprotege of the Gangas, Adigunavarma(

900CE) authored his major poem the Shudraka, taking clue and model from the Brihatkatha. Interestingly the system of matriarchy followed in the Tulunadu Jaina families owes its origin to the Satavahanas.Many more information about the Satavahanas come from the Jaina sources.

Dr. Hampa.Nagarajaiah

Professor Emeritus

Bangalore--- On Fri, 12/9/08, Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Andhra in Magadha Date: Friday, 12 September, 2008, 3:39 PM

 

 

Dear all, Perhaps this must be one of the most exciting and important discovery in the traditional chronology, that there is another Andhra tribe that has ruled Magadha apart from Andhra bhrityus. We have established earlier that Andhra bhrityus (who could be telugu or Marathi speaking) are not the Andhra Kings, especially since if they were ruling at the time of annexure of Alexander, the classical literature also mentions another powerful coutry of Andhras. Matsya purana mentions that : "'When the dominion of the Andhras has ceased, there shall be other Andhras, kings of the race of their servants;" i.e. Andhras have ruled before Andhra bhrutyus. This aspect is not explicitly mentioned in most of the puranas. Now, Puranas also mention that it is 1500 years from Parikshit (3102 bce) to the time of Nands (1602 bce; I have earlier noted that the date of Nandas is 1634 bce, but

this has to be modified) It is also mentioned that from the time of Nandas till end of teh rule of "ANDHRAS:", it is 836 years.(ie till 766 bce) Nandas, Sungas and Kanavs together have ruled for 394 years ( ie till 1208 bce). Thus, Andhras have ruled for 432 years between 1208 bce to 766 bce. But who are these Andhras, who have ruled Palibothra at the conflunce of soan and Ganga (Soan-ganga) and continued to be present powerfully, after their debacle at Panta? Assikas: Asmaka or Assika, one of the oldest kingdoms in India, lies at Potala (Bodhan, Nizamabad dt., Andhra pradesh)It was the only kingdom of South India to be listed among the 16 Mahajanapadss. King Asmaka, probably bearing a personal name of Rudrayan, was mentioned in Mahabharat as being a Rajarshi(Royal sage). The Buddhist Literature says that he was ordained by Mahakatyana, a contemporary of Buddha.

Andhras, who have ruled Magadha must have hailed from this dynasty. It is Kadambi who has connected Assikas with Magadha. In all possibility, Andhra bhrityus from maharashtra must have been the vassals of Andhras, even before Andhras have captured Patna, since Bodhan is very near to Maharashtra. It is interesting to note that Godavari that flows somwhat nearly by is called SoanGanga, the combination of the same rivers that flow about Pataliputra. Hope I will hear from the learned friends, regards, Kishore patnaik

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

 

Thank you for the interesting information.

If we start with again with identification of Sandrocottus with Mauyan

king , it has created so much confusion. For e.g., if Chandragupta maurya has

taken over around 327 bce, say in 321 bce, then the mauryans have ruled for 137

years i.e. until 184 bce. Then sunga and kanvas have ruled for 112 + 45 years

i.e. until 72 bce and 27 bce respectively. Then where is the place for

Satavahanas who have fought with Rudra daman. Chestina, Kharavela and so on? Most

of these names have certainly preceded the date of 28 bce. More over, if 28 bce is taken into account,

then Satavahans rule must have extended until 5th century which is

again not possible. So what did they do?

Very simple. They have rejected the evidence of Puranas in toto. They called it

muddled or whatever and thought it is totally unreliable. Agreed, but were they

capable of creating a genealogy list with out the help of Puranas? No. So,

again they base their information on Puranas. This has always created a big muddle where

Indian historian did not know what he

was talking about. Indian historiography

has become a tabloid of rumors - ultimately you never know how much of what you

are writing is based on truth!

On the other hand, if we begin with Puranic chronology and

then try to construct the history in the light of archaeology and numismatic

evidence, all the pieces fall in place and we arrive at a perfect

historiography, corroborated by most of various independent traditional

sources.

Puranic evidence clearly states that Satavahanas (identified

as Sreeparvateeya Andhras) are a remnant branch of Andhra Bhrityus. The

original Andhra bhrityus have ruled in Magadha during 766 bce and 316 bce. All

the 30 kings starting with Simuka as given in the Puranas refer to these

Magadhan kings and not the sreeparvateeya Andhras or Satavahanas. That Andhra bhrityus have ruled Magadha during

4th C. tallies with the

classical writing that one Chandramasi (Xandremes) was ruling Magadha at the

time of Greek invasion.

More over, not a

single name thrown up by the inscriptional and numismatic

evidence is found in Puranic lists, thereby rubbishing the mainstream historians' false identification of Satavahanas with the

Magadhan list of 30 kings.

On the other hand, the Puranas identify that there are

totally 14 kings in this remnant branch, 7 of them are unnamed.

The first ruler of the remnant branch is Gotami putra Satakarni, who is wrongly

identified as 23rd king of the Puranic lists (Gomati putra satakarni). . The

inscription of Balasri, his mother, eulogizes him that he has reestablished the

fame of his ancestors, thus indicating that the good old dynasty of

Andhrabhrityus has once again come into glory. In fact, Gotamiputra Satakarni has stuck coins

in commemoration of Simuka.

Tiloyapannatti, a Jain work, identifies that these kings

have ruled Avanti after Naravahana (or Nahapana) for 241 years. It is rather interesting that this totally

corroborates the inscriptional evidence that Gotamiputra satakarni has defeated

Nahapana and over struck his coins. If

we tentatively take this time to be late

1st C, bce or early 1st

CE, we can safely aver that Satavahanas have ruled till 3rd C.

This again falls in place with the usual beginning of Saka

era ie 78 CE, since the numismatic

evidence talk of a satavahana king called Sakasena (who never figures in the 30

kings list)

All said and done, the accurate dating of Satavahanas is

very difficult unless we rely on Jain works which are mostly very inaccurate so

far as chronology is concerned.

I request you to kindly examine the Jain works in the light

of my comments above and see whether they point to any accurate dating of

Satavahanas.

best regards,

Kishore patnaik