Talk:Satavahana dynasty/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Satavahana dynasty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Andhra Satavahanas

Satavahanas were referred to as Andhra Satavahanas in ancient literature. It would be appropriate to have a separate section: "Andhra Satavahana Dynasty".

I was under the impression that Andhra and Satavahana's are synonymous that is why I suggested that the Andhra dynasty section be merged with the Satavahana section. If there are anymore names it is known by we can redirect them to this page. IF the Andhra Satavahana Dynasty is a seperate entity and not just a different then ok make a new section and merge the Andhra dynasty with that section. I am leaving this for those who know more than me to clarify and do, if there is something technical holding anyone back on how to do this please ask I will help with that but lets get this sorted out.

--Tigeroo 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Reply: It is not a serious issue because both are almost synonymous.

Satavahanas from Maharashtra is just speculation

Dear unknown,

What is the basis for your story.If so what were they doing in Madhya Pradesh,Andhra Pradesh and Vidharba regions instead of ruling in the actual heartland of Maharastra.And the whole so called Aryan theory has been laughed at by recent historians.

--Fort5000 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop prmotoing pro-andhra agenda here

Everyone knows Satavahana's ruled from present Maharashtra and they had lineage in northern eastern India. The language used by Satavahana was Prakrit (pro-marathi).

Get real and stop falsifying facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.113.48.11 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Telugu/Marathi

It is an acepted fact that Satavahanas were Andhras. They preferred Prakrit because Telugu was evolving from Proto-Dravidian at that time. Andhra is Sanskrit name for Telugu. Al-Biruni mentioned in his Kitab-ul Hind that a language by name Andhri was spoken in South India. Telugu words were found in Gathsaptasati. The Proto-Dravidian words in Satavahana coins were undoubtedly Proto-Telugu.Kumarrao 07:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference for Marathi was also used for official purposes http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?LangID=93&menu=004

Incorrect map

The map shows the Pandyan kingdom located somewhere around the Karnataka region. This is incorrect and should be fixed. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Move Satavahanas to Andhra

There is some resistance to move Satavahanas to Andhras. The newest articles about the Andhras are listed here: http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/17/stories/2009011750700200.htm http://www.thehindu.com/2009/01/17/stories/2009011759910600.htm http://www.thehindu.com/2007/12/25/stories/2007122560660400.htm

MS Encarta also includes Satavahanas in its Andhra dynasty article: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577583/Andhra_Dynasty.html After the newest findings, i found that this would be appropriate too for wikipedia.

--Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello friend!! take this move proposal to WP:RM. you have encarta proof, this may help.

the article should be moved to --> Andhra Dynasty.

-Hoysala Maharaja (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm able to this move by myself. Anyway, thanks for your support in this case. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the current location of the article is better than the proposed move. While Andhra dynasty is an acceptable alternate name for the Satavahana, the latter term is far more common in scholarly literature on the subject (compare 1170 google scholar hits for "Satavahana", versus 111 for "Andhra dynasty"). The Encyclopaedia Britannica article too is at "Satavahana dynasty" I am not even sure how the Hindu stories linked above support the proposed move; especially since even the books and conferences edited and organized by experts mentioned in the article use Satavahana in their titles, for example:

• "New Satavahana sculptures from Andhra Amaravathi", by P. Sitapati and V.V. Krishna Sastry.
• "Satavahana special : Dr. N. Ramesan commemoration volume", V.V. Krishna Sastry (ed)
• "Satavahana Seminar, 26th to 28th March, 1981" P. Sitapati, V.V. Krishna Sastry (ed)

Abecedare (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You completely ignored the fact, that Satavahanas is only a period of the Andhras. There maybe two articles of Andhras and Satavahanas, but to cover the whole story, the Satavahanas must be included in the Andhra article. Hence the article must be moved, just for logistic reasons. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Satavahanas are from Maharashtra

Satavahanas are supposed to be aryans mixed with local natives of sahyadri forming capital at Junnar near Pune.

Marathi_language was offical language of Satavahana kings.

Can you provide some evidence?Kumarrao (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Accepted Fact? by Whom!!! Andrait will accept whatever suits them

• If Satavahana's were Andhras, why they accepted Prakrit as language of Court ?
• If Satvahana were from Andhra, Wierd they came from North East and were called Sakas by all historians?
• The map which is pasted clearly shows Prathisthapana-Paithan, in heart of Maharashtra (well away 300 km from Andhra state, as capital (indicated by star) of Satavahana kingdom
• The Satavahanas established Western Satrap kingdom after defeating Vikramaditya
• Looks like Satavahana ditched Andhraites and without any regard for Andhra-land, Satavahana's improved and flourished present Gujarat, Maharashtra states

Not sure what will be acheived by distorting history on wiki-page where anyone can edit/add anything... still if it helps (looks like Andhra do not have any king to be proud of) let's keep your version on this anybody-can-edit page...

History version that I am aware of - Satavahana's were from Maharashtra (mix of north-eastern migrants and local maharashtrian tribes), they established capital in Junnar and promoted local prakrit language. They ruled as far as possible on east (andhra) and west(gujarat). After expanding in new area's they supported the local cultures in new areas and established another cities in new area.

It is unfortunate that linguistic theories are playing a role in Indian History. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Satavahana dynasty is perhaps the earliest dynasty that ruled in Andhra Pradesh. This was during the second century B.C and they were also known as the Andhras. Amravati, on the banks of river Krishna was their capital. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ship coinage

Indian ship on lead coin of Vasisthiputra Sri Pulamavi.

Here's a example of a two-masted Indian ship on lead coin of Vasisthiputra Sri Pulamavi, testimony to the seafaring and trading capabilities of the Satavahanas during the 1st-2nd century CE. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: maharashtri

Hello Meghanand,

I just wanted to point out that maharashtri is not a type of earlier marathi. It is a prakrit, much like magadhi and saurasheni were. I know great figures/dynasties of history are always in great demand, but given the accomplishments of Shivaji maharaj, Maharashtra is certainly not lacking in this department. Let us avoid an edit war that will waste both our time and avoid needlessly expending this site's resources. Thank you.

Devanampriya (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: mahaarashtri

कर्णाटकाश्च तैलंगा द्राविडा महाराष्ट्रकाः, गुर्जराश्चेति पञ्चैव द्राविडा विन्ध्यदक्षिणे || (Karnatakaashcha Telangaa Dravidaa Maharashtrakaaha, Gurjarashcheti panchauva dravidaa, vindhyadakshine) who live in south of Vidhya mountains are called Pancha-Dravidas.

• Karnataka
• Telugu
• Dravida (Tamil Nadu & Kerala)
• Maharashtra
• Parts of Gujarat

Drava means water. Peninsula surrounded by water which is south of vindhyas was antiently called Dravida. It has nothing to do with linguistics. Please stop this Maharashtra- Andhra war. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is another linguistic thoery which suggest that Dravida is a corrupted or sanskritised term which refers to Tamila or Damila so called in Prakrit.But what you are saying is relevant too.--Tan Meifen (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Should references to Satavahana be added to main India page

There is a discussion going regarding main "India" page to either add reference to Satavahana as rulers of Central India between 230BC to 220BC which is over 450 years. Please express your views on that page so that appropriate action can take place. Did they contribute enough to be mentioned along with other Ancient dynasties of India?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India#Add_content_for_230_to_220_BCE Lanet303 (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pure parochialism

The only historical controversy is whether Satavahanas were of Andhra or Mahrashtra origin? Satavahanas were Brahmins of Aryan descent. One wonders how they became Dravidian Tamils? May be, in your imagination!!!

Provide evidence that Satavahanas were of Dravidian descent.Kumarrao (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Satavahana rulers may not have been Tamils, they look more like Prakritis. The languages of the masses there are shown to be Prakrit and Tamil from the coin inscriptions clearly. The inscriptions show exact Tamil translations of the Prakrit obverse note -Gautami-Putra Sri Satakarni as Gotami-makanaaku Thiru SataKannaKoe And the first Telugu writing starts only from 6-7ce. -- Senthilkumaras (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop this non-sense telugu propaganda.== == Indians..pls accept that you have a common ancestry instead of using this kind of language on wikipedia

What is this non-sense andhra dynasty thing, Just because you find reference of satavahana in andhra language, does not make satavahana of current telugu Andhra origin. These references are in many languages including prakrit, sanskrit, marathi. In old time everything south of Vindhya was called Dravida/Andhra etc. It does not link automatically to present Andhra State. Even telugu references are mentioning Satavahana ruled from near Pune. I can produce such articals written by selfish reporters, every month for you, there are plenty of idiot reporters in media if you watch tv, u will know how they do anything for their selfish motives, publicity, politics.

The real and accepted fact is both Telugu and Prakrit are court & regional language of Satavahana region. Marathi has nothing to do here...provide a citation which says Marathi is also a court language. till then stay off from here. Hoysala Maharaja (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

you can find Inscriptions in Telugu and not in marathi. Hoysala Maharaja (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

shouting text
EVERYBODY KNOW ARCHAELOGICALLY, LITERATURE WISE, TELUGU APPEARED ONLY AFTER 7TH CENTURY AD. THEN WHY THESE BLATANT LIES? CLAIMING A TAMIL SCRIPT AS A TELUGU ONE. TAMIL AND PRAKRIT WERE THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF SATAVAHANA KINGDOM. Senthilkumaras (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do NOT cite regional political scholars from present andhra state and biased hindu newspapers, quote some creditable references. Also If kings ruled the empire from Junnar, why so much resistance accepting the contribution of Rashtriks. Just because invaders refered everyone with andhra/dravid tags, does not make everything andhra/dravid. Everyone knows Pune / Paithan / Junnar is heart land of Rashtriks or what is present Maharashtra. About inscriptions, great kings history is always written in many languages. Ashoka's inscriptions are in Sinhali, does not make ashoka a king from shri lanka. Some of Shivaji's coronation songs were written in Bhojpuri does not make shivaji from Bhihar. Prataps stories are abundant in Oriya language, does not make pratap from Orissa.

Due to extremely activities in western region, Maha-Rashtra being first state on gate way to South always faced persian, schythian, islamic, british attacks. The language took the turns over and over again, called by different names Maharashtri, Praktri, Maha-ratti, Marathi, chagned the scripts but that does not make it alien. What scholar you want to know these attacks on india or changes in scripts and names of language.

You have to accept, that Andhras were a Telugu dynasty. The new findings speak a clear language. Don't post original research material. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ther is no hype, just boldly say whether the script in coins of king Vashishtiputra Shri Pulumavi (r. 130-158 CE), read in brahmi (with the unknown character read as "s") as "Arasanaku Vasitti makanaku Tiru satakaniko" is closer to which lang, ?telugu, or tamil, or prakrit, are THIRU/MAKAN/ARASAN/KO/AKU(AAGU+), words of telugu? i can understand if telugu is like malayalam an offshoot from tamil, but they still claim it as a direct from proto-drav, thankgod they are not claiming prakrit script also as telugu. God only knows

can anybody giv telugu reading scripts in archaeological excavations during this particular period?none .

everybody know telugu as a distinct langu from literary works from >6-7 cen ce only,

shouting text

NAMING ASOKA'S EDICT IN MEERUT INSCRIPTION IN THE PHOTO HERE IN SATAVAHANA PAGE AS TELUGU-BRAHMI SCRIPT IS ATROCIOUS AND STUPID AND JOKE; PEOPL HAV BLOCKED THIS FROM EDITING ALSO. SUCH COMEDIES DEPICT WIKIPAGES AS A STUPID PROJECTIONS AS WELL; AND WITH ONLY KANNADA AND TELUGU ONLY ADMINISTRATORS/ MODERATORS CONTROLLING THE WHOLE SOUTH INDIA HISTORYI PAGES, EXPECTING GENUINITY IN LOCAL HISTORY PAGES IS HOPELESS,

-- Senthilkumaras (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

shouting text

SORRY FOR BEING LITTLE HARSHER, BUT TRUTH HURTS; THE REFERENCE given for THE TELUGU in satavahna coins: "LANGU OF GODS:SANSKRIT, CULTURE, AND POWER" sheldon,2003, ive read, it contains -WITH DUE RESPECT-some horrible mistakes and just a reprintlike of an older version with 19th century primitiv information without updates... it says "magadha is in south bihar, colas period as 900ad, pantyas as 600ad, kurushetra in cambodia,karuvur and vanci both are same, achaemenids in india in 550bc, ...and many more apparent flaws. how can any one accept this reference as credible, with these blatant misguessings on geograph/hisstorical facts?so telugu script ON COINS in 1st cent bc-2nd cent ce IS STILL A DUBIOUS CLAIM, NOBODY YET HAVE ANSWERED THE ABOVE QUERIES ON PHONETICS/LEXICON DUBIOUS CLAIMS TO BE OF TELUGU LANGUAGE.. Senthilkumaras (talk)

Tamil revival leaders produce propaganda that often creates warriors who want to prove everything was originally Tamil. I grew up listening to Tamils saying that Red Indians were Tamils. That Harappa Mohanjodaro was a Tamil Settlement. Sir, lets have some limits to dreams :) Conquests such as these don't succeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellasitis (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Tellasitis (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

shouting text
WHAT I TALKED WAS PROOF OF TAMIL IN VASISHPUTRA COINS , AND BLATANT FALSE CLAIMS OF NONTAMILS WITH ARGUABLE REASONING LOGICAL ONES. what yu r talking is some childhood fables/legends of Tamils. Incongruency man Senthilkumaras (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Why dont you Indians accept that you have a common ancestry instead of using this kind of language on wikipedia

What is this non-sense andhra dynasty thing, Just because you find reference of satavahana in andhra language, does not make satavahana of current telugu Andhra origin. These references are in many languages including prakrit, sanskrit, marathi. In old time everything south of Vindhya was called Dravida/Andhra etc. It does not link automatically to present Andhra State. Even telugu references are mentioning Satavahana ruled from near Pune. I can produce such articals written by selfish reporters, every month for you, there are plenty of idiot reporters in media if you watch tv, u will know how they do anything for their selfish motives, publicity, politics.

The real and accepted fact is both Telugu and Prakrit are court & regional language of Satavahana region. Marathi has nothing to do here...provide a citation which says Marathi is also a court language. till then stay off from here. Hoysala Maharaja (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

you can find Inscriptions in Telugu and not in marathi. Hoysala Maharaja (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

shouting text
EVERYBODY KNOW ARCHAELOGICALLY, LITERATURE WISE, TELUGU APPEARED ONLY AFTER 7TH CENTURY AD. THEN WHY THESE BLATANT LIES? CLAIMING A TAMIL SCRIPT AS A TELUGU ONE. TAMIL AND PRAKRIT WERE THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF SATAVAHANA KINGDOM. Senthilkumaras (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do NOT cite regional political scholars from present andhra state and biased hindu newspapers, quote some creditable references. Also If kings ruled the empire from Junnar, why so much resistance accepting the contribution of Rashtriks. Just because invaders refered everyone with andhra/dravid tags, does not make everything andhra/dravid. Everyone knows Pune / Paithan / Junnar is heart land of Rashtriks or what is present Maharashtra. About inscriptions, great kings history is always written in many languages. Ashoka's inscriptions are in Sinhali, does not make ashoka a king from shri lanka. Some of Shivaji's coronation songs were written in Bhojpuri does not make shivaji from Bhihar. Prataps stories are abundant in Oriya language, does not make pratap from Orissa.

Due to extremely activities in western region, Maha-Rashtra being first state on gate way to South always faced persian, schythian, islamic, british attacks. The language took the turns over and over again, called by different names Maharashtri, Praktri, Maha-ratti, Marathi, chagned the scripts but that does not make it alien. What scholar you want to know these attacks on india or changes in scripts and names of language.

You have to accept, that Andhras were a Telugu dynasty. The new findings speak a clear language. Don't post original research material. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ther is no hype, just boldly say whether the script in coins of king Vashishtiputra Shri Pulumavi (r. 130-158 CE), read in brahmi (with the unknown character read as "s") as "Arasanaku Vasitti makanaku Tiru satakaniko" is closer to which lang, ?telugu, or tamil, or prakrit, are THIRU/MAKAN/ARASAN/KO/AKU(AAGU+), words of telugu? i can understand if telugu is like malayalam an offshoot from tamil, but they still claim it as a direct from proto-drav, thankgod they are not claiming prakrit script also as telugu. God only knows

can anybody giv telugu reading scripts in archaeological excavations during this particular period?none .

everybody know telugu as a distinct langu from literary works from >6-7 cen ce only,

shouting text

NAMING ASOKA'S EDICT IN MEERUT INSCRIPTION IN THE PHOTO HERE IN SATAVAHANA PAGE AS TELUGU-BRAHMI SCRIPT IS ATROCIOUS AND STUPID AND JOKE; PEOPL HAV BLOCKED THIS FROM EDITING ALSO. SUCH COMEDIES DEPICT WIKIPAGES AS A STUPID PROJECTIONS AS WELL; AND WITH ONLY KANNADA AND TELUGU ONLY ADMINISTRATORS/ MODERATORS CONTROLLING THE WHOLE SOUTH INDIA HISTORYI PAGES, EXPECTING GENUINITY IN LOCAL HISTORY PAGES IS HOPELESS,

-- Senthilkumaras (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

shouting text

SORRY FOR BEING LITTLE HARSHER, BUT TRUTH HURTS; THE REFERENCE given for THE TELUGU in satavahna coins: "LANGU OF GODS:SANSKRIT, CULTURE, AND POWER" sheldon,2003, ive read, it contains -WITH DUE RESPECT-some horrible mistakes and just a reprintlike of an older version with 19th century primitiv information without updates... it says "magadha is in south bihar, colas period as 900ad, pantyas as 600ad, kurushetra in cambodia,karuvur and vanci both are same, achaemenids in india in 550bc, ...and many more apparent flaws. how can any one accept this reference as credible, with these blatant misguessings on geograph/hisstorical facts?so telugu script ON COINS in 1st cent bc-2nd cent ce IS STILL A DUBIOUS CLAIM, NOBODY YET HAVE ANSWERED THE ABOVE QUERIES ON PHONETICS/LEXICON DUBIOUS CLAIMS TO BE OF TELUGU LANGUAGE.. Senthilkumaras (talk)

Tamil revival leaders produce propaganda that often creates warriors who want to prove everything was originally Tamil. I grew up listening to Tamils saying that Red Indians were Tamils. That Harappa Mohanjodaro was a Tamil Settlement. Sir, lets have some limits to dreams :) Conquests such as these don't succeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellasitis (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Tellasitis (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

shouting text
WHAT I TALKED WAS PROOF OF TAMIL IN VASISHPUTRA COINS , AND BLATANT FALSE CLAIMS OF NONTAMILS WITH ARGUABLE REASONING LOGICAL ONES. what yu r talking is some childhood fables/legends of Tamils. Incongruency man Senthilkumaras (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Telugu on the Coin

This a clear proof that Telugu was used during Satavahana times contrary to the general opinion that Prakrit was the court language. The sentence has vowel-ending Telugu words. Words in other Dravidian landuages rarely end with vowels.Kumarrao 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Stop the hyper-enthusiasm of claiming Tamil to be present in the coin. "Ko" word exists in Telugu too.Kumarrao (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ther is no hype, just boldly say whether the script in coins of king Vashishtiputra Shri Pulumavi (r. 130-158 CE), read in brahmi (with the unknown character read as "s") as "Arasanaku Vasitti makanaku Tiru satakaniko" is closer to which lang, ?telugu, or tamil, or prakrit, are THIRU/MAKAN/ARASAN/KO/AKU(AAGU+), words of telugu? i can understand if telugu is like malayalam an offshoot from tamil, but they still claim it as a direct from proto-drav, thankgod they are not claiming prakrit script also as telugu. God only knows

can anybody giv telugu reading scripts in archaeological excavations during this particular period?none .

everybody know telugu as a distinct langu from literary works from >6-7 cen ce only,

shouting text

NAMING ASOKA'S EDICT IN MEERUT INSCRIPTION IN THE PHOTO HERE IN SATAVAHANA PAGE AS TELUGU-BRAHMI SCRIPT IS ATROCIOUS AND STUPID AND JOKE; PEOPL HAV BLOCKED THIS FROM EDITING ALSO. SUCH COMEDIES DEPICT WIKIPAGES AS A STUPID PROJECTIONS AS WELL; AND WITH ONLY KANNADA AND TELUGU ONLY ADMINISTRATORS/ MODERATORS CONTROLLING THE WHOLE SOUTH INDIA HISTORYI PAGES, EXPECTING GENUINITY IN LOCAL HISTORY PAGES IS HOPELESS,

-- Senthilkumaras (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.140.118 (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You dont have consonant sign for letter HA in Tamil... how can u say these are tamil words.... the original sentence is ARAHANAKU MAKANAKU VAHITTI TIRU PULUMAVIKU.... what does ku stands for in tamil???? when u dont have consonant ha in tamil then u should not claim its tamil.. its might be protodravidian which gave rise to telugu tamil and kannada....if tamil was protodravidian then tamil should have ha consonant or sound in their script or dialect.... since the sentence have consonant ha sound then they should not be tamils.... so proto dravidian which gave rise to telugu tamil and kannada.... there was a inscription in telugu ANDHRAPATHAMU related to andhras(telugus) or shatavahanas because shatavahanas were called as andhras.... what does meaning for PATHAMU in tamil???..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhharma (talk • contribs) 09:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of the article are you talking about? (Please remember to sign your posts as explained on your talk page.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouting

Dear all, shouting by writing capitalized text is prohibited. I just reverted somebody's contribution with shouting. To be fair to all concerned, I am going to collapse any other posts here that used shouting. Please feel free to remove the capitals and uncollapse them if you wish. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Satavahana dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070313210732/http://igmlnet.uohyd.ernet.in:8000/gw_44_5/hi-res/hcu_images/G2.pdf to http://igmlnet.uohyd.ernet.in:8000/gw_44_5/hi-res/hcu_images/G2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061211011832/http://www.mssu.edu:80/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm to http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080528090505/http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/History-I/chapter_2.pdf to http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/History-I/chapter_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Connecting Sahatavahanas to Marathas

It is gross misrepresentation of history to call the Shatavahanas as "a Maratha clan". The concept of Maratha is a recent one arising with the popularity of Marathi language after 14th centuary AD. Calling Shatavahanas as "a maratha clan" is an ignorant misrepresentation of history. I have heard some unsubstantiated theroies that even lord Krishna was a Maratha which I think is "frivolous" at best. Please provide historical evidence from a "non Marathi Historians" of repute to justify this claim or rest is peace. Decendents of the Shatavahanas probably became Kadambas of North Karnataka, Chutus of Maharashtra, Ikshavakus of A.P. Their decendents went on to be called Chalukyas of deccan, Rashtrakutas of Deccan etc. Eventually we see the rise of Marathas after 17th centuary.

Dinesh Kannambadi

The SATAVAHANAS were the commanders of the Nanda/Mauryan army:The words S’atavahan and S’atakarini appear to be pure Sanskrit words and not based on any derivatives of the Prakrit language. The meaning of the word S’atavahana is as follows- S’ata means a hundred and Vahana means a vehicle or vehicles/ Chariots. Thus S’atavahana means a commander of a hundred or a few hundred chariots.( शत वाहन = श त = hundred + वाहन = vehicle/vehicles/ chariots). Similarly the word- S’ataKarani- means the ‘commander of a hundred or a few hundred elephants’ (.शत + करिणी = शत ( hundred ) + करिणी ( elephant/elephants ). These are the titles given to the commanders of the Mauryan army which comprised of four types of divisions in the army, namely the elephant division, the chariot division, the cavalry and the infantry. They were similar to the centurions of the Roman or the Greek army. These people were employed originally by the Nanda rulers and subsequently the Mauryan emperors as commanders or generals of their elephant and chariot divisions. Since they claimed to be Brahmins, it can be safely assumed that they were originally the sons of the royal house-maids who belonged to the Brahmin community. The fact that these kings always mentioned the name of their mothers before their name , for example Gautami-putra, Vasishti-putra, Phulamayi( son of the mother who was called Phullo’-flower’,mayi =mother ) shows that these Brahmin house-maids of the palace descended from the Tibet- Bhutan region where the society followed the matriarchal system. It is interesting to note that during the last years of Gautamiputra Satakarni the administration of the kingdom was apparently handled by his mother Gautami Balasri. The Satavahanas ,being Brahmins by the caste of their mothers respected Brahmanism but personally followed Jainism in the beginning and later shifted to Buddhism during the times of emperor Ashoka. It looks as though these commanders were despatched to Nasik in the west coast and Amaravathi in the east coast of India to protect the coastal areas of India and also to take control of the inland navigation on the rivers Godavari and the Krishna. Thus the Satavahanas and the then kings of Maharashtra belonged to the same stock. That is why even when these two royal families fought bitter battles at a later date, they did not kill each other. The Pandya kings of the south who also belonged to the Brahmin community and who were also closely associated with the Satavahanas were also perhaps from the same stock. Banda.krishna (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)krishna satyanarayana

Tribes, Clans, Rulers all this been in India for Centuries

Why there is resistance to acknowledge earlier Maharashtrian Kingdoms, prior to 16 th century Maratha Empire.

Fact remains Maratha land has produced best of local warriors (Satavahanas, Rashtrakutas, Yadava, Marathas) in India who challeged forign rule time to time.

Terms Maharatta and Maharatti may have come from common orgin Maharashtri, some time during 9-10th century, but these ruling / warrior families (now referred as Clans) were present even before that.

Interestingly Warriors from Maharashtra did not observed Caste System. All the tribal warriors fought together or idependentely. Caste system entered maharashtra with northern migrants. Even in Shivaji's army Mahars and Marathas have own battles togehter.

Clan's are in place for centuries, superiorities of casts is later introduced(during 8-9th century) by forigners

Satavahanas & Rashtrakutas are not Maharastrians.Till end of Rastrakutas the area of Modern Mahrastra was under rule of Satavahanas & Rastrakutas who hail from Modern Karnataka,Telangana,AP regions. Marathi as a language Came into picture only after 10-13 century.Where as Telugu,Kannada,Tamil are very Old. This is why Telugu,Kannada,Tamil are declared as Classical languages, that have Old history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan144 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin section

@103.57.133.48: As the article states (with Carla Sinopoli's 2001 article as reference), the Satavahana origin debate has happened in the context of regionalism, with various modern states being claimed as their original homeland. The "Telangana is nucleus of Satavahana dynasty" theory is a favorite among historians from Andhra-Telangana region, but it is not an undisputed fact. All the artifacts discovered at Kotilingala are not from the Satavahana period. Based on the discovery of the coins of the early Satavahana kings, these historians have theorized that Kotilingala was a major center (or even first capital or original homeland) of the Satavahanas. But this theory has not found much favour among other historians, because coins can spread via trade (the article has references for this too).

The article already states the coin-based theory with attribution: "...the earliest extant Satavahana coins have been found in eastern Deccan, at Koti Lingala, in present-day Telangana. Based on this, some historians such as D. R. Reddy and S. Reddy have argued that Kotilingala was the original homeland of the Satavahanas."

You are simply repeating these points without attribution, which is POV-pushing. These details are unnecessary for this article, and are covered in Koti Lingala article (which is linked from the origin section). utcursch 19:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Utcursch. first of all,i want to remind you that there was **NO Conclusion theory** on Original homeland of Satavahanas. All these were Views of various historians. for an argument,we need to mention counter argument so that history doesnt become One side as there was no conclusion. No Coins of Simukha-founder of Satavahana dynasty were found elsewhere except Kotilingala.I've attatched Scholar Peer reviewed Journal where u can find various Sources of above theory not just of author of this journal but many others. & Prathisthana as 1st Capital is also not Concluded as Most of historians from Maharastra favour this theory.

Coins of Satavahanas are bilingual,again this proves that there is connection with regional languages but not Marati. Again i want you to notice here that Marathi as a regional language came into picture only after 10-12th century CE,where as Satavahanas ruled till 3rd century CE.

Ur Statment-"As coins can travel via trade",again here there was no established evidence of Coins travel.this is just assumption of various historians.

Ur Statment-"historians crtical of this theory conclude that the Satavahanas initially established their rule over Pratishthana, and then expanded their rule to the eastern Deccan" there is no conclusion based on established Fact.here,it is assumption.

U have said that - "All the artifacts discovered at Kotilingala are not from the Satavahana period". I differ here as Coins of early Satavahana rulers are found no where except Kotilingala. There was evidences of Iron Smelting found in this region suggest that Coins were Minted here. Along with Satavahana Coins,terra cotta coins of Pre-Satavahana period have been found. Mud forts mentioned in Megasthenes Indica book have been found here. It is very clear from various books,journals that satavahanas are Sub-ordinates of Mauryan Kings.

Once again,I want make my Statement Clear. There is no Conclusion on homeland of Satavahanas. If u want to mention about arguments/view of authors,please mention counter arguments of views of other.This is how Wikipedia works,not just one side view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan144 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention Marathi, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The article doesn't cite any "historians from Maharastra". Also, the article doesn't mention "just one side view". It clearly mentions the coin-based theory. It mentions the "coins can travel via trade" rebuttal to this theory, because that's what several historians have argued (e.g. Roman coins have also been found at Kotilingala).

In your edit, you have introduced claims not supported by sources. E.g. you replaced "C. Margabandhu also believes..." with "historians suggests that...". I am going to undo that. utcursch | talk 14:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the source cited by you states that "till the Kotilingala find, none yield the coins of Simukha" (as of 1980), but it doesn't support the statement that coins of three kings have been found nowhere except Kotilingala. utcursch | talk 14:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Utcursch

The article doesnt mention about either Marati or Historian from Maharastra. But,In ur earlier post u have described how Telangana was favourite among. 'historians from Andhra-Telangana region'. In my previous post i have mentioned how Historians from Maharastra & Marati Speakers Favour About Coin trade & Pratistathi as 1st Capital theory. Now,i hope u have got it.

I Want to ask Some Questions : Who are Historians Critical of theories related Satavahana dynasty? Who are Historians Concluded that Coins travelled by trade & established Western Deccan as 1st Capital? Was Pratistathi as 1st Capital established Fact or just assumptions of Various historians?

Again,u have got Wrong. Nashik Inscription was issued by Gautami Balashri mother of Gautami Satakarni after Subduing Shakas & Yavanas during reign of Gautamiputra Satakarni(106 to 130 A.D). U have Mentioned that it was issued during Kanha reign who ruled from 1Century BCE,that roughly 150-200 years difference. I going to Edit it with Original Fact.

Is that Scholar Journal Published not a Source. It wis Peer reviewed ,reffered & Published by American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences.

Once again I Want to make Clear that Origin of Satavahanas is Controversial.

Ur Statement:"Moreover, Andhra has been used as a both tribal and territorial name.......ethnicity or because of their territory". I've read ur Source,no where it is mentioned So going to Undo it.

Ur Statement: "Most of Inscriptions found in Western Deccan". If that is true then Source which i've cited mentioned "Coin of Simuka found no where except Kotilingala" is also true.Only 2 Major inscription @ Nashik & Nanaghat were found in Maharastra region.

U have mentioned that epigraphy & literary evidences Suggested western deccan is Satavahanas homeland. Actually,Literary evidences Suggested Satavahanas as Andhras who lived in eastern deccan.Even,No Where in Inscription it was mentioned that Western as their 1st Capital.

Edited name of Queen from Nayanika to Naganika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan144 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the origin of the Satavahans is debated among historians, and the article already states that, with references, at the very outset of the origin section. Your addition "It can be concluded that Historians are divided on whether Satavahanas initially came to power in the eastern or western Deccan" is redundant.

• I've not removed American International Journal, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I've only pointed out that your edit implied that coins of Simuka, Kanha and Satakarni have not been found anywhere except Kotilingala, which is not what the source states.
• As for the purported coins of Simuka, you state that as if it's an undisputed fact, which his not true. The coins found at Kotilingala do not mention "Simuka" -- they bear the legend "Rano Siri Chimuka Satavahanasa". P. V. P. Sastry, who discovered these coins identified their issuer as Simuka in 1978. Subsequently, others such as K. D. Bajpai (and the author of the above-mentioned journal article) also agreed with this identification. However, this identification has been challenged by several scholars including P. L. Gupta and I. K. Sarma, who believe that the Chimuka of Kotilingala was a later ruler. In fact, P. V. P. Sastry also changed his view later, and stated that this king was not same as the Simuka of Naneghat inscriptions. (See The Age of the Sātavāhanas, p. 306; direct quote: "P.V.P. Sastry has now changed his earlier view and does not equate Chhimuka Satavahana of Kotalingala coins with Simuka, the founder of the Satavahana dynasty."). Other scholars point out that even if the coins at Kotilingala were issued by early Satavahana rulers, it is not certain how these reached there. The article mentions these with references (Carla M. Sinpoli, for example).
• As for the inscriptions, it's not me who has got it wrong: the caves have multiple inscriptions. Gautami Balashri's prashasti inscription is about the achievements of her son Gautamiputra, and records the grant of a village to Buddhist monks. The inscription from Kanha's reign is a completely different inscription that records the excavation of a cave for the monks.
• The "both a tribal and territorial name" bit and "epigraphic and literary evidences" bit occur on the stated source on p. 172. Although I agree that "literary" part should be removed since the source does not elaborate how literary evidences support a western origin (I'd presume it refers to Maharashtri Prakrit literature from Satavahana era).

utcursch | talk 20:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Utcursch

Do you know what Coin of Vasistaputra Satakarni mentions his name? It mentions him with following Statement:

• In Brahmi Script: "Siri Satakanisa Rano ... Vasithiputasa"
• In Tamil Brahmi Script: "Arah(s)anaku Vah(s)itti makanaku Tiru H(S)atakani ko" - which means "The ruler, Vasitti's son, Highness Satakani" - -ko being the royal name suffix

Here is link of Coin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satavahana_Bilingual_Coin.jpg

Bilingual Coins by Satavahanas has Prakrit which is either in Telugu or Kannada/Tamil. Most of them are written in Tamil Brahmi Script which makes it diffcult to identify the language used. Infact,Similar(Tamil Brahmi) Script was used for Vijayanagar empire coins which makes it difficult to ascertain whether if it is written in Telugu or Kannada.

I Want to make it clear that :

1-Prakrit used in Coins of Satavahanas is either Telugu or Kannada that are dravidian but not Marati language which came only after 10-13 century CE. No Where i've read about Maharastrian Prakrit in Books/Journals with regard to Satavahanas. Maharastrian historian purporates(or recreates) to associate Satavahanas with Maharastri prakrit that actually does'nt exist during Satavahana era

2-"Chimukha" or Simukha whatever,Historian agree that it Points to One Person. In Coin of Vasistaputra Satakarni- it mentions him as 'Siri Satakanisa Rano ... Vasithiputasa' & 'Arah(s)anaku Vah(s)itti makanaku Tiru H(S)atakani ko'. Here Vasistaputra is mentioned as Vasithiputasa & Vahsitti.

Nashik Inscription during Kanha reign- Give me Link of Source,im unable to find it. Yes,there are multiple inscription but as far as i know,Oldest was by Gautami balashri.

Existence of Andra tribe to its earliest point was known to us from Puranas written during Gupta Period.Puranas mention that Andhras lived along Godavari river which means Every Place from Nashik in Maharastra to Godavari delta can be claimed as there was no fixed boundary lines of empires during that era. Apart from Puranas,Most of Maharastra from was under South empires till Chalukyas & Rastrakutas downfall till 7th-8th CE century. Marati as a language came into play only after 10-13 centuryy CE.

PVP Sastry,IK Sharma,K. D. Bajpai & Many others changed their View after recent excavation in & around Kotilingala that "It is infact earliest region inhabited by Satavahanas." Simlilarly,People like Sinopoli State that they're western Deccan Many respectable historians of present day such as Upender singh,Romilla thapar agree that it was Controversial. So,one cannot claim or Conclude that Satavahanas are from eastern or western deccan.

Sinopoli Said that western Deccan origin of the Satavahanas appears more likely, but he/she did not conclude,its just his view. Ur Statement in Origin Section- "this inference is "tentative at best" given the small sample of inscriptions"" this statement purports Western deccan as Original Homeland.

I Feel that the Origin Section must be concluded with a Statement which supports Neutral View not biased one that Origin is Controversial & historians are divided. & this view that historians are divided on Satavahanas Origin is accepted by famous present day historians including Upender Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan144 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sinpoli's view is not presented as "conclusion"; in fact, it states exactly the opposite: that this inference is "tentative" (Some synonyms from thesarus: unsettled, unconfirmed, undecided). The origin section begins with the assertion that the historians are divided: repeating it at the end is of no use.

The sources for Kanha's inscription are present in this article as well as in the article Kanha (Satavahana dynasty).

If you have any reliable sources to support the claim that "PVP Sastry,IK Sharma,K. D. Bajpai & Many others" have changed their view, please feel free to add them to the article.

As for the language, the origin section doesn't mention anything about Prakrit. But for the record, Maharashtri Prakrit (which is not same as Marathi) very well existed during the Satavahana period, and in fact, the only extant literary work by a Satavahana king (Gaha Sattasai) is composed in that language. As for the coins, your statement "Prakrit used in Coins of Satavahanas is either Telugu or Kannada" makes no sense, because the term Prakrit refers to Indo-Aryan languages; Telugu and Kannada are Dravidian languages. This is terrible OR. The bilingual coins feature Prakrit/Brahmi and Dravidian/Tamil Brahmi legends. utcursch | talk 05:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This is clear POV-pushing. Like I said, if you have any sources that these authors have changed their view, please add them to the article -- don't remove existing sourced content. utcursch | talk 06:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Utcursh

American Journal itself says that "PVP Sastry,IK Sharma,K. D. Bajpai & Many others" have Changed their View after Simukas Coins that were discovered no where except at Kotilingala & this was published in 2004.

identifying Prakrit used in bilingual coin or in Gaha Sattasai with term 'Maharastri Prakrit' is obviously non-sense,horrific. term 'Maharastri' was clearly to purport Regional identity to Satavahana's by Maharastrian historians. Use of Tamil brahmi which reads Telugu-Kannada on Coins represents themselves dravidian. Many books refer them as Natives of deccan region. there was neither Maharastri Prakrit nor Marati/Marati regionalism during Satavahanas. Marati/Marati regionalism came only after 10-13th century. as far as Hala Gaha Sattasai is concerned,it borrows many traditions from tamil literature & Gaha Sattasai itself describes about region around Godavari region. & No Where in books written by historians who are reliable never mentioned about Maharastri Prakrit with regard to Satavahanas

Vijayanagara king,Krishnadevaraya himself written Telugu Poems which doesnt make him Telugu king even though Telugu's represent him as Telugu King.

Infact,Legends on Coins of Satavahanas are in telugu-Kannda is a fact & is already mentioned in article,My explanation is baseless.If u could find any Source that it is not true ,give me Source here.

Why Coins of Simuka are never found in Western Deccan? No one explains. But,If they're found in Other places People assume that it was travelled by trade,thereby reducing image of so-called Capital 'Prastisthana' to dust.

The use of Phrase 'tentative at best' Changes whole Conception.It gives an avearage reader the idea that satavahanas Origin is from Wester deccan which is not. Origin Section in present article goes like this at 1st it mentions that there was a debate among historian -> then explains about eastern origin & counter arguments -> then explains about western origin -> then it falsely concludes Western origin theory as best. My Point is Why should one take Sinpolis view. Why not Upender Singh or any other. All of them said that it was Controversial.This must be clear. Neutral View is one of the Core Policy of Wikipedia. People like you who have preoccupied mind will never accept others view or will dominate others view, thereby Subjugating Neutral Policy of Wikipedia. Good Bye to Wiki!

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan144 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• The American Journal article cites a 1979 article of Sastry as a reference. So, no, it is not talking about the latest discoveries. It does not state anything about the "changed views" of I. K. Sarma or K. D. Bajpai. I. K. Sarma believed that Kotilingala was a mint centre, but he analyzed the coins and realized that "Chimuka" of Kotilingala was not same as Simuka the dynasty's founder. Like I've said earlier, if you've a source that states that any of these scholars changed their view after "latest" (not 1980s) discoveries, please do add them to the article.
• I did not say that the language on the coins is Maharashtri Prakrit. I was replying to your statement that "Maharastri prakrit that actually doesn't exist during Satavahana era". Gatha Sattasai was written in Maharashtrian Prakrit, and every single historian believes that. Try a Google Search. You're just using straw man argument by rambling about "Marathi" here, when nobody has said that Satavahanas were "Marathi" or "Maharashtrian".
• The vast majority of the Satavahana coins are in Prakrit written in Brahmi script, not in Kannada and Telugu. A few are bilingual, in Prakrit + one Dravidian language.
• As stated earlier, the coins attributed to Simuka were not necessarily issued by the dynasty's founder: "Strong doubts have been raised about identifying Chhimuka on the coins with Simuka".
• Sinpoli's statement is actually countering the Dahejia / Margabandhu's conclusion about western origin of Satavahanas by stating that this inference is "tentative at best given the small sample of inscriptions". And for the umpteenth time: the article starts with the assertion that the origin is controversial. Just because something is later, doesn't mean it's "conclusion". If it makes you feel any better, change the order of paragraphs, putting eastern Deccan origin at the end.

Let me make this clear: My mother tongue is neither Marathi, nor Telugu. And I understand that Maharashtra, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh did not exist until a few decades back. So, I've got no agenda here. On the other hand, your insecurities are quite evident. What makes it difficult to argue with you is that you're completely clueless about Satavahana history: you've categorized Telugu and Kannada as Prakrit languages, you've confused Gautami Balashri's inscription with Kanha's inscription, you've confused Maharashtri Prakrit with Marathi and are insisting that the former didn't exist during Satavahana period, you insist on considering now-debunked hypotheses as facts etc. Please read some latest books written by non-Telugu, non-Marathi scholars. utcursch | talk 15:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The user said "good bye." Let us assume that he/she is gone. Thank you for answering all the issues patiently! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

at first ,you have said that Kotlingala has no mint centre but tried hard to prove that coins travelled by trade. again,U changed it & admitted that Kotilingala has mint centre.Just as Origin controversy, Chhimukha & Simuka identity is also a Controversy but not Settled as u mentioned in article. What American Journal (published in 2013) was that No coins of Chhimukha(Simuka) are found else where except Kotilingala.

This is by far Biggest Joke ive heard,Gatta Sattasai is written in Prakrit. Till 4th Century Prakrit was used even in telugu regions of present day Telangana,AP. Even Inscriptions by Satavahanas discovered in amaravati,ap are in Sanskrit & Prakrit.So,Do Satavahanas employed Maharastri Prakrit in Telugu regions ? U Say most historians agree,but the books i've read(non-telugu,non marati) mentioned that it was Prakrit not Maharastri Prakrit.There was no Special emphasize on Maharastri Prakrit as Prakrit used by Hala. Maharastra as a language came up only 10-13 century,again Prakrit that prevailed in those regions before birth Marati,telugu,Kannda languages is termed Maharastri Prakrit.

http://asi.nic.in/asi_epigraphical_sans_language.asp This is why most Coins are in Prakrit.

Another Joke - first u have said prakrit was employed in bilingual coins & the langauge on those coins is not Telugu-Kannada Tamil but prakrit in two Scripts. again u've changed ur view stating that Less number of bilingual coins with Telugu/Kannda language are issued. Actually,bi-lingual means 'two langauges'. AFAIK,All Inscriptions in Dharanikota area are by far written in Sanskrit & Prakrit but not Mahrastri Prakrit.

American Journal was published in 2013,so i go with Journal that has some reputation. & you are Saying that I.K Sharma has changed views after 1980,the Latest Source mentioned in article is taking me no where. If u have Source that these people changed view,Pleas post link here.

I Suggest you,get some time to read books & conceive views by intellect not by senses. Good Bye Kautilya,Utcursh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan144 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: the biggest joke you have heard:

* Page 173 of Sailendra Nath Sen's Ancient Indian History and Civilization (which is cited in this article): [Hala] himself composed Sattasai or Gathasaptasati, an anthology of 700 erotic verses in Maharashtri Prakrit.

* Page 136 of A Brief History of India by Alain Daniélou: The seventh king of the Satavahana dynasty was Hala [snip] was himself a poet in Prakrit-Maharashtri

FYI, I've also reverted your changes to the Maharashtri article.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Chan144, now you're just making up stuff and criticizng it. Straw man all over the place.

• I've not said that "the langauge on those coins is not Telugu-Kannada Tamil but prakrit in two Scripts". Quite the opposite, actually. Here's a direct quote from my previous comment: "A few are bilingual, in Prakrit + one Dravidian language."
• I have not said that "Satavahanas employed Maharastri Prakrit in Telugu regions" or that "most historians agree" with this claim. I only stated that Gatha Sattasai is written in Maharashtri Prakrit, in response to your claim that Maharashtri Prakrit didn't exist during Satavahana era. See my previous comment or Cpt.a.haddock's comment above for sources.
• Anyway, your ramblings about language are irrelevant. The origin section doesn't even mention Maharashtri or any other language, nor it ever did. That said, the term Maharashtri Prakrit doesn't refer to "Prakrit that prevailed in those regions before birth Marati,telugu,Kannda languages", as you claim. You're completely clueless about lingustics as evident in your latest IP edit, where you once again claim that Telugu was a Prakrit language.
• I have not said that Kotilingala did not have a mint centre. It was me who added I. K. Sarma's suggestion (that Kotilingala might have been a mint centre) to the article. I removed it after realizing that I. K. Sarma has not said this in context of Chhimuka's coin or the origin of the Satavahanas. In fact, he has stated that this coin was not issued by Simuka. The source is cited in the article (Shimada 2012, p. 45; Sarma is mentioned in the footnote).
• I've not said that "I.K. Sharma has changed views after 1980". I. K. Sarma was the one who disputed the identification of Kotilingala's Chhimuka with the founder Simuka (see above). It was P. V. P. Sastry who has changed his views. The source for that is mentioned in my previous comment above (with a direct quote), as well as in the article. I'm guessing you didn't read it, so here it is again: The Age of the Sātavāhanas by A. M. Shastri, p. 306. In case you don't have access to this book, you can read a fragment on Google Books. Just because American Journal article was published in 2013 doesn't make it the "latest" source. It cites a 1979 article as a source, while A. M. Shastri's book was published in 1999, and covers P. V. P. Sastry's view after 1980. Like I said, if you've a source which states that P. V. P. Sastry has changed his view again, please feel free to add it to article. I've absolutely no problems with it.
• The article still states "...Kotilingala the only place where coins attributed to Simuka have been found". In addition to it, it states (with references) that multiple scholars have raised doubts have been raised over this attribution. Now, if you don't like this second part, that's your problem. It is well-sourced content. Similarly, "It is not known how these coins reached Kotilingala" or "coins can travel via trade" are not my views. These are view of certain scholars, and are mentioned in the article with citations.

Lastly, a word of advice: linking to an off-topic blog post by someone who was blocked for copyright violations isn't a good way to garner sympathy. I edit under my real name, so I get such off-wiki hate all the time. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for recommended way to resolve disputes. utcursch | talk 17:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See ur last edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satavahana_dynasty&oldid=728944514 in above edit,u have crafted a sentence like this " However, the number of coins found at Kotilingala is small, and it is not know where they were minted". Dont make a fales statement true. I have Updated article which said Kotinlingala has a mint Centre but u have designed above sentence.

Another thing is that i dint Say - Telugu as a Prakrit langauge. U have repeatedly mentioned that Prakrit is used in bilingual coins with 2 Scripts,adding to that u have said that 'Telugu-Kannda language' on bilingual coins as baseless. Again u have edited that 'less bilingual coins are issued' than Coins with Prakrit langauge.

U have given Snippet as a Source-that merely 4 to 5 Sentences. How can u assume that the author of book havent changed his view later in Same book with other explanation. The Snippet Provided is not enough. at Same time,any Person would go along with Scholar Journal even though it has taken earlier view. another thing is Scholar Journal is Peer reviewed,reffered & Published by respected institute/publisher.adding to that it was published in 2013. Now,who's view we must consider,Scholar Journal or Ur Snippet. leave about Scholar Journal,Reddy's book was very recent,Why cant you mention his View -Only Inscriptions in two places in present day maharastra argument does'nt hold any good to suggest paithan as Capital. It Clearly showing that U are mixing different Views & writing arguments that favour ur conception.

I can show you many number of books that argue Kolingala as 1st Capital & books that counter former argument. It is obvious that Historians are divided. But,Ending Section with taking into one author's view as tentatively best is Malafied.

U have Said that Prakrit is used with two Scripts. I cant deal with u anymore. It doesnt matter if u use Pen name or real name,whatever. Fact is that U Straw man all over the place. Hatsoff to u for taking Snippet(4-5 sentences) as a Source to prove ur point.

• The article still states "...Kotilingala the only place where coins attributed to Simuka have been found". No author in Journal have raised doubt. Infact the Journal was written to prove that Eastern deccan as Nucleus of empire.

The Journal States that 'In addition to Simuka coins,Roman Coins & Coins of Kings Gobhada and Samagopa are found'. Journal points out to Parabhrahma Sastry, who suggests that these kings most likely belonged to the Sunga Dynasty of Vidisa who had their authority in these parts and to whom the early Satavahanas were sub-ordinates. Coming to Trade theory- Journal states that Routes need not necessarily have passed through the area(Kotilingala) as there is no direct evidence to prove.Overall Journals wants to Prove that this area has Strong community with mint Centres,presence of Irone ore,with evidences ranging from Neolithic Period ,evidences of Megalithic burials,Microlithic implements.

I Cant Say anything more,Straw man all over the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chan144 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"However, the number of coins found at Kotilingala is small, and it is not know where they were minted".

The statement is attributed to a non-Marathi, non-Telugu scholar Carla M. Sinpoli, with a source. It's not a "fales statement".

"I have Updated article which said Kotinlingala has a mint Centre but u have designed above sentence."

That's a lie. It was me who introduced that sentence with this edit: "I. K. Sharma suggested that Kotilingala was a mint centre.". I removed it later, because the source (American Journal) doesn't state it in context of the Chhimuka coin. In fact, the journal article puts foward the theory that the Satavahanas originated in eastern Deccan (see quotes below). The suggestion that Kotilingala could have been a mint centre was put forward by I. K. Sarma, who also disputed the identification of "Chhimuka" with Simuka. So, mentioning "mint centre" in context of Chhimuka coin in origin section is improper synthesis. I realized my mistake and removed the bit I had added. You didn't add anything about a mint centre.

"i dint Say - Telugu as a Prakrit langauge."

Here are direct quotes from your edits:

• "Prakrit used in Coins of Satavahanas is either Telugu or Kannada"
• "Only Prakrit used on Coins of Satavahanas is either Telugu or Kannada/Tamil"

"u have edited that 'less bilingual coins are issued' than Coins with Prakrit langauge."

I haven't made any such edit to the article. I've stated on the talk page that "the vast majority of the Satavahana coins are in Prakrit written in Brahmi script, not in Kannada and Telugu". That is a true statement, and I linked to a source in my comment. And I stated this in response to your ludicrous claim that "Prakrit used in Coins of Satavahanas is either Telugu or Kannada. It has nothing to do with the origin section.

"U have given Snippet as a Source-that merely 4 to 5 Sentences. How can u assume that the author of book havent changed his view later in Same book with other explanation."

Just because you can see a snippet doesn't mean that nobody can read the full page. Feel free to purchase a copy, read it and add contradictory theories to the article. And yes, the author of the book actually has a different view than P. V. P. Sastry. That doesn't render it invalid as a source.

it was published in 2013. Now,who's view we must consider,Scholar Journal or Ur Snippet.

I've not removed the journal article, or the claim made in it. I've only added a statement about how other scholars have doubted the claim made in it, which you tried to remove with a misleading edit summary ("cleaned up..."). Also, please read the actual journal article instead of repeating "2013" again and again. Here's a quote: "...till the Kotilingala find, none yield the coins of Simukha (P.V. Parabrahma Sastry 1980)".

"Reddy's book was very recent,Why cant you mention his View -Only Inscriptions in two places in present day maharastra"

The article already mentions that the inscriptions have been found at two places: "Pandu Leni (Nashik) and Naneghat". It also states that this is not conclusive evidence, "given the small sample of inscriptions", with a non-Marathi, non-Telugu scholar as reference.

"I can show you many number of books that argue Kolingala as 1st Capital"

Please do, and feel free to add that theory with a reliable source. I've myself tried to search for these sources, but all I could find were some news articles in The Hindu, which are not acceptable sources for such a claim. Like I said, my mother tongue is neither Marathi, nor Telugu. So, I'm not obsessed with proving or disproving a theory at any cost. I'd be happy to see addition of an alternative theory to the article with proper sources.

"Infact the Journal was written to prove that Eastern deccan as Nucleus of empire."

I do understand that English is not your first language, but that's no excuse for your inability to comprehend the article that you've been citing all this while. Here are direct qutoes from the the journal article you're talking about:

It will not, therefore, be an idle presumption that the Satavahanas, hailed from in the Eastern Deccan with their centre of power in the Andhra Valley and the delta. But it is rather other way around. They tried to take the fullest advantage of this coastal trade of the entire peninsula including Krishna-Godavari Valley only at a later stage, loosing hold on Western Deccan.

— page 112

It is well-known that the Early Satavahanas were located in the Western Deccan of which Paithan was the capital city and at the same time, a market town too..."

— Page 111

I could have insisted on adding these to the article, if I had "Malafied" intentions, as you claim. But these points are already covered in the article, and I'm not here to push a particular point-of-view.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of this. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if you still have a problem with the content. I'll not be wasting my time in repetitive arguments with you. utcursch | talk 21:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Me too,no point in discussion with you as this is not a forum.

U can find more information about Kotilingala here:

Try Google Search

I Said- Use of Tamil brahmi which reads Telugu-Kannada on Coins represents themselves dravidian.

I think there was a small gap in understanding between you & me. My intention was not to paint prakrit as a dravidian language,which i did not do it either. It is about language which was used in bilingual coins.

I Said that 'Prakrit used in Coins of Satavahanas is either Telugu or Kannada' in the sense that u assumed Dravidian language with Tamil brahmi script as a Prakrit language.

have a look at this:

Google Search

Google Search

Google Search

i mentioned above Snippets above only for reference not to cite them as sources

as far as i know,the meaning of tentative means- for the time being" and is subject to change.

Please have a look at this:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Sources which are cited must be easy to verify,but U have used 4-5 sentences in Snippet to claim.What if author in book changed his view later in book.Cite other Verifiable sources which can be verified by other editors.

Here are direct qutoes from the the journal article you're talking about:

It will not, therefore, be an idle presumption that the Satavahanas, hailed from in the Eastern Deccan with their centre of power in the Andhra Valley and the delta. But it is rather other way around. They tried to take the fullest advantage of this coastal trade of the entire peninsula including Krishna-Godavari Valley only at a later stage, loosing hold on Western Deccan.

— page 112

Above journal says that 'Eastern Deccan Origin should not be taken as idle presumption '. Arguments by others opined that Coins are travelled by trade . It was only later stage satavahanas who used costal & krishna-godavari trade at it fullest advantage. also Journal mentioned in Page:4 that (Trade)Routes need not necessarily have passed through the area(Kotilingala) as there is no direct evidence to prove .

Article clearly arguments against so called 'Coins travelled by trade theory'

Page no:5 in Journal-

periplus mentions an Elder Saraganus and Sandares (Ray Chaudhari H.C. Op. Cit) as having been in control of Considerable parts of this region(Western Deccan).That the Elder Sarganus and Sandares, whatever their respective identifcaitons, were Satavahana kings, would hardly be doubted.What is being sought to be argued is that even before the (later)Satavahanas had found themselves in the eastern Deccan, they had already acquired the knowledge and experience of what this Indo-Roman trade could mean to the Peninsular India.It will not, therefore, be an idle presumption that the Satavahanas, hailed from in the Eastern Deccan with their centre of power in the Godavari-Krishna Valley(Telangana,AP) and the delta.

But it is rather other way around. They tried to take the fullest advantage of this coastal trade of the entire peninsula including Krishna-Godavari Valley only at a later stage, loosing hold on Western Deccan.

Journal in both above para's Clearly mentions that 'Eastern Origin theory is not merely an idle presumption as cited by others'.

I dont know if u're able to understand what Journal Points out.

Lets look here on how Statements changed everyday regarding Kotilingala as mint centre:

this edit mentioned that IK Sharma has suggest it has Mint centre:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satavahana_dynasty&oldid=729075315

in this edit,sentence with kotilingala as mint centre was removed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satavahana_dynasty&oldid=729089799

im not garnering Sy******.Wiki is just a place where normal people can get information.Moreover,this is my not workplace & i would not hover around it all my time. i just pointed out bhatiyajantatalji blog's grievance.

Anyway,there is clear misunderstading by both of us. Lets end here. Next time,i'll use other way,talk page has become very long Chan144 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Satavahana dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720024602/http://www.tamilartsacademy.com/books/roman%20karur/chapter04.html to http://www.tamilartsacademy.com/books/roman%20karur/chapter04.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no chauvinism here

Telugu was already prevalent as a separate language from Proto Dravidian at Satavahana times. So, the legend on the reverse side of the coin in question is either in Tamil or Telugu. There is no possibility of that being in Proto-Dravidian. Now, that Prakrit was the literary language used officially in the Deccan is well established. The only other languages that used Brahmi letters with local adaptations were Tamil, and to a certain extent, Sinhalese. This fact is also established : Ref: "Early Tamil Epigraphy -From earliest times to Sixth Century A.D." - Iravatham Mahadevan [Harvard University Publication 2003]. There are no known Telugu inscriptions until a much later period. There is no need for either Tamil or Telugu Chauvinism here. The reverse side of the Satavahana coin is indeed in Tamil Brahmi. This only raises the possibility that Satavahana suzerainty may have extended into the Tamil regions, where the literary (and official) language remained the native language of the area. If anyone continues to edit it as "Telugu" legend, then they only give a wrong information about a vital aspect of their own history. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.212.214 (talk • contribs) March 2017

Sir,

Please don't conclude that there were no Telugu inscriptions prior to 6th Century AD.

Bhattiprolu Inscription of Pre-Mauryan Era (4th Century BC), contains Early Telugu words in Pre-Brahmi Script.

Inscriptions of Ashoka, Satavahanas, and later Kings like Ikshvakus also contain Telugu names of Places & Persons, though Language of Inscription was Prakrit in Brahmi Script.

Coins of Srimukha (Founder of Satavahana Dynasty) and other Kings of Pre-Satavahana Era (Narana, Gobada, Samagopa) found Excavation at Kotilingala (Telangana) also contain words with early Telugu features

Coming to Bilingual Coins of Satavahanas, which contain Prakrit sentence on one side (Rajno Vasithi putasa Siri Pulumavisa), is in Shashti Vibhakti. Sentence on other side "Arasanaku Vachitti Makanaku Tiru Pulumaviku" contains Shashti Vibhakti in Telugu Language (Ku). Shashti Vibhakti in Tamil is "KKU", and same in Kannada is "KKE". The words (vocabulory) of the Coins is not in present usage of Telugu Language, (ofcourse still in usage of Kannada & Tamil). However it's understood from linguistic research that these words continued in Telugu upto 10th (Makana/ndu - Son) & 16th (Arasu - King) centuries.

This sentence contains features of Present day Telugu, Vocabulary of Present day Kannada & Tamil.

My request again, Please don't conclude or prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.140.229 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2018

This edit request to Satavahana dynasty has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"thse" = "these" 2605:E000:9149:A600:5DBE:2F33:2113:1C07 (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Satavahanas were not the first native indian rulers to issue coins

"They were thought to be the first native Indian rulers to issue their own coins with portraits of their rulers, starting with king Vashishtiputra Shri Pulumavi (r. 130-158 CE), a practice derived from that of the Indo-Greek kings to the northwest."

I have tried to rectify this mistake, but it is repeatedly re-edited. Please find latest information on this at http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/01/28/stories/2007012800201800.htm (which I had added on when I initially edited.)

Also, "Arahanaku Vahitti makanaku Tiru Hatakaniko." legend on the reverse of the coin is not Prakrit. What is the difference between "Prakrit" and "Prakrit Brahmi" legend, as user PHG is insisting below the coin pictures? The legend on the front is in Prakrit Brahmi, and reverse legend is in Tamil Brahmi. Which means, there were different languages using the same Brahmi-type letters. See http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/26/stories/2004052602871200.htm for some details. The language "Arahanaku Vahitti makanaku Tiru Hatakaniko" is clearly Tamil. Thanks.

"Arahanaku Vahitti makanaku Tiru Hatakaniko." Simply stating the words "Araha"/"Arasu" (Meaning : King), Makana (Meaning : Son) & Tiru (Meaning : Mr.) are in usage in Current day Tamil, doesn't mean Language on Coins is Tamil. These are Proto-Dravidian Words, which are common for all Dravidian Languages. In fact, "Arasu", "Maka" are still being used in Kannada with same meaning. Telugu Inscriptions of Pre-Nannayya Era, also contain "Maka"nru/"Maka"ndu in the same meaning i.e "Son".

"Arasu" is also the same case. It's the common in Dravidian languages, words will not start with Consonant sound "Ra". Instead it becomes, "Ara".

"Raja" (Sanskrit) = "Rajna" (Prakrit) = "Arasa"/"Araha" (Dravidian Languages like Tamil/Kannada/Proto-Telugu) "Ratham" (Sanskrit) = "Aradam" (Telugu - Nannayya's Mahabharatam)

Other side of Coins was in Prakrit "Rano Vasithi Putasa Siri Pulumavisa", which is Sixth Vibhatki (Declension) of Prakrit Language. This Sentence literally means "(belongs) To King, To Vasisthi's Son, To Mr. Pulumavi". The prefix "ku" in the sentence "Arahanaku Vahitti makanaku Tiru Hatakaniko", also in Sixth Vibhakti (Declension) of Telugu language. Sixth Vibhakti in Tamil is "kku", & in Kannada it will be "ge"/"kke".

If it just Vocabulary, the word belongs to all Dravidian languages. If it is Vibhakti (Declension), it's bit closer to Telugu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subramanya sarma (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The words are not lost in Telugu. Most of them did not even exist in Telugu in the first place. Clearly, the inscription is in old Tamil. The word 'arasan' meaning king exists in modern Tamil even today. There is no evidence that this word was ever present in telugu. Similarly, makan meaning son is also attested and prevalent in tamil. The old tamil of this age also had noun endings. Contrary to sarma's claims, puta is prakrit for son and such a word again does not exist in Telugu. It even has 'pulli' which is the characteristic of Tamil language. The script is Tamil Brahmi and not the variant of brahmi found in bhattiprolu. This makes sense because the satavahanas considered themselves 'trisamudra toya pita vahana' and such a claim made sense only when they laid claim to atleast some regions of Tamilakam. We except tamil when the script is tamil brahmi and we find nothing but tamil.

Rightly so, most historians have considered the language Tamil including prominent ones such as Keith. Not even one word of this sentence is Telugu, even the grammatical elements show Tamil affiliation. At best it can be called as a Pre-Telugu language, but Telugu is out of picture. Such language cannot be called telugu even if spoken in krishna region.

Bilingual prakrit Tamil coins- see https://books.google.co.in/books?id=v8UeAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA235&dq=satavahana%20coin%20old%20tamil&pg=PA235#v=onepage&q=satavahana%20coin%20old%20tamil&f=false & https://books.google.co.in/books?id=E0aYeR67booC&lpg=PA82&dq=satavahana%20coin%20old%20tamil&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q=satavahana%20coin%20old%20tamil&f=false for some details.

The language "Arahanaku Vahitti makanaku Tiru Hatakaniko" is clearly Tamil. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.59.127 (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nurruvar Kannar

I've removed "Nurruvar Kannar" from the lead: first of all, this name occurs in a single work of fiction, and is not notable enough for the lead. Secondly, the identification of "Nurruvar Kannar" is just a guess (as stated in the source - Zvelebil), and is contested. For example, see K. Vaidyanathan (2002). History of Vaishnavism in South India Before Sankara. Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. p. 161.: "Kanagasabai Pillai takes the Nurruvar Kannar who had helped Senguttavan in his northern expedition for the Satakarnis. The identification is not convincing." utcursch | talk 21:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, that the single mention doesn't warrant the mention in the lead. I don't agree with the statement that Silappatikaram is a fictional work though. Kannagi is a goddess today. If she was fiction.... --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)