The Satavahana Kings Hala and Sati
Summary
The piece critiques a recent suggestion that coins inscribed ‘Sati’ or ‘Satiśa’ represent separate Sātavāhana kings named Sati. Prof. V. V. Mirashi had read an unclear legend on two coins as ‘Sa…ti sa’ and linked it to the poet‑king Hāla (author of the Gāhāsattasaī). P. L. Gupta accepted the reverse legend but reinterpreted the obverse as ‘Rājño Sālīputasa Śrī Satiśa’, arguing that there were three kings named Sati. The author counters that the obverse legend is heavily worn; only a few letters are legible. Reading it as ‘Rājño Satiśa’ is speculative. Coins often abbreviate long names; ‘Sa’ or ‘Sati’ could simply stand for Satakarni or Sātavāhana. Gupta’s attempt to identify three different Sati kings—one on the coins, one (Sātī) in the Naneghat inscription and one in Kanheri inscriptions—is dismissed: the Kanheri inscriptions actually read ‘Satasa’, and scholars generally agree that the Naneghat Sati is an abbreviated form of Satakarni. The article warns that misreading fragmentary legends leads to unwarranted speculation. It emphasises that there is no evidence for separate kings named Sati; the coins likely refer to known Satakarni kings. Careful epigraphic analysis is essential to avoid creating phantom rulers.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
A critical examination of coin legends shows that the supposed king Sati does not exist as a separate historical figure. The fragmentary inscriptions on the coins can be explained as abbreviations of Satakarni or Sātavāhana names. By highlighting methodological flaws in previous readings, the article reinforces the need for cautious interpretation in numismatics and epigraphy.