King Satavahana of the Coins
Summary
This article discusses three coins attributed to a king named Satavahana (also read as Sitavahana or Sadavahana) that have been published recently—two by V.V. Mirashi and one by B.V. Dikshit and M.N. Joglekar. All three coins bear legends that, despite slight differences in reading, appear to contain the royal name, and one coin is made of lead while the others are copper. On the basis of these coins, Mirashi argued that a king called Satavahana flourished in the Deccan in the last quarter of the third century B.C. and that he founded the Satavahana dynasty, predating the traditionally recognised founder Simuka by several generations. He further suggested that this king might be identified with a shadowy figure from the Puranic lists. The present author re‑examines the evidence. He notes that the legends are fragmentary and that the lead coin differs markedly from the copper coins; the paleographic features of the inscriptions do not allow a secure placement earlier than the second century B.C. The author highlights contradictions in Mirashi’s own dating: although Mirashi originally suggested the copper coin’s script was earlier than the Nanaghat inscription, he later equated the lead coin’s script with Nanaghat, implying a first‑half second‑century B.C. date for both coins. The author argues that the three coins likely belong to the same period and cannot be separated by several generations. He further contends that the title “Rano Sirisadavabanasa” on the coins aligns with Kumāra Satavahana of the Nanaghat relief inscription rather than with a separate founder predating Simuka. Thus, the coins attest to a Satavahana prince or sub‑king contemporary or slightly later than Satakarni I, not to a dynastic founder. The article emphasises that Puranic genealogies are incomplete and cannot be used to dismiss the coin evidence but warns against constructing elaborate dynastic chronologies on the basis of a few ambiguous legends.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Re‑evaluating three coins attributed to a king Satavahana, the author concludes that they do not prove the existence of a dynastic founder predating Simuka. Differences among the coins are insufficient to postulate distinct rulers, and palaeography points to a date around the early second century B.C., contemporary with known Satavahana rulers. The coins more plausibly refer to Kumāra Satavahana, mentioned in the Nanaghat relief, who likely reigned after Satakarni I. The study cautions against overinterpreting fragmentary legends and stresses the need to integrate numismatic evidence with inscriptions and literary records.