Interpreting Ancient India; Survey of Sources

    Simuka is mentioned as the first king in a list of royals in a Satavahana inscription at Nanaghat. According to Jain legends, he adopted Jainism; but, in the last years of his life, he became a tyrant, for which he was deposed and killed.

    The Puranas state that the first Andhra king ruled for 23 years and mention his name variously as Sishuka, Sindhuka, Chhismaka, Shipraka etc. These are believed to be corrupted spellings of Simuka, resulting from copying and re-copying of manuscripts.

    Simuka cannot be dated with certainty based on available evidence. Based on the following theories, the beginning of the Satavahana rule is dated variously from 271 BCE to 30 BCE.

• According to archaeologist Charles Higham, the coin-based evidence The Matsya and Vayu Puranas mention that the first Andhra king overthrew the Kanva ruler Susharman (c. 40-c. 30 BCE). Based on
• identification of Simuka with this king, some scholars believe that Simuka's reign started in 30 BCE. Scholars supporting this theory include D.C. Sircar, H.C. Raychaudhuri and others.
• The Matsya Purana mentions that the Andhra dynasty ruled for around 450 years. It is known that the Satavahana rule continued till the beginning of the early 3rd century. Therefore, the beginning of the Satavahana rule can be dated to 3rd century BCE. In addition, indica by Megasthenes (350-290 BCE) mentions a powerful tribe named "Andarae", whose king maintained an army of 100,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry and 1,000 elephants. If Andarae is identified with the Andhras. this can be considered additional evidence of Satavahana rule starting in 3rd century BCE. According to this theory, Simuka was an immediate successor of the Mauryan emperor Ashoka (304-232 BCE). Its proponents argue that the Kanvas were interregnal rulers who grabbed power from the Satavahanas. The last Kanva ruler Susharman was overthrown by a Satavahana successor of Simuka. Scholars supporting this theory include A.S. Altekar, K.P. Jayaswal, VA. Smith and others. Sudhakar Chattopadhyava also supports the Kanva interregnum theory, but argues that it was Simuka who overthrew the Kanva rule.

  Chronologies of the Satavahana kings (as "Andhra" dynasty) are mentioned in the following Puranas : Matsya, Vayu, Vish, Brahmanda and Bhaganate. The various Puranas give different chronologies of the Andhra kings. Even among the different manuscripts of the same Purana, there are substantial differences between the number of kings stated, the number of kings actually named the names of the kings and the length of their reigns. In some manuscripts, the number of kings is mentioned as 30 and their total reign is mentioned around 450 years. However, many of these actually name only 17-19 kings and their total reign adds up to around 300. Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya explains these inconsistencies as follows: The original Satavahana rule started somewhere in the second half of the 3rd century BCE. From this point, around 30 Satavahana kings ruled for nearly 450 years until 220-225 CE. During this period, there was a Kanva interregnum. According to Chattopadhyaya, the Brahmanda Purana states: "the four Kanvas will rule the earth for 45 years, then (it) will again go to the Andhras". This indicates that after overthrowing the Kanvas, the Satavahanas regained their power: from this point, around 17-19 kings ruled for nearly 300 years until 220-225 CE. He further argues that Simuka was the person who overthrew Kanvas; the compiler of the Puranas confused him with the founder of the dynasty.

    Simuka was succeeded by his brother Kanha (also known as Krishna), who extended the kingdom up to Nashik in the west. His successor Satakarni conquered western Malwa, Anupa (Narmada valley) and Vidarbha, taking advantage of the turmoil caused by Greek invasions of northern India. He performed Vedic sacrifices including Ashvamedha and Rajasuya. Instead of the Buddhists, he patronised Brahmins and donated a substantial amount of wealth to them. The Hathigumpha inscription of the Kalinga king Kharavela mentions a king named "Satakarni" or "Satakamini", who some identify with Satakarni-I. The inscription describes dispatching of an army and Kharavela's threat to a city. Since the inscription is only partially legible, different scholars interpret the events described in the inscription differently. According to R.D. Banerji and Sailendra Nath Sen, Kharavela sent out an army against Satakarni. According to Bhagwan Lal, Satakarni wanted to avoid an invasion of his kingdom by Kharavela. So, he sent horses, elephants, chariots and men to Kharavela as a tribute. According to Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya, Kharavela's army diverted its course after failing to advance against Satakarni. According to Alain Danielou, Kharavela was friendly with Satakarni and only crossed his kingdom without any clashes.

    Satakarni's successor Satakarni-II ruled for 56 years, during which he captured eastern Malwa from the Shungas. He was succeeded by Lambodara. The coins of Lambodara's son and successor Apilaka have been found in eastern Madhya Pradesh

     The Early Vedic economy was mainly pastoral and cow was the most important form of wealth. Agriculture had secondary importance in the life of the Early Vedic people. The Early Vedic society was tribal and basically equalitarian. Clan and kinship relations formed the basis of the society and family was the basic social unit. Social division based on occupations had started but there was no caste division. In the Early Vedic polity the tribal chief or the Rajan and the priest or the Purohita had important positions. Among several tribal assemblies the Sabha and the Samiti played very important role. Though there was no well-defined political hierarchy in the Early Vedic set-up, the tribal polity was not completely equalitarian. The Early Vedic people personified the natural forces, e.g., wind, water, rain, etc. and worshipped them as God. They worshipped God not through any abstract philosophical concept but for material gains. There was growing importance of sacrifices in the Vedic religion. What we must remember is that this society was not static but dynamic. Between about 1500 B.C. society was constantly evolving and newer elements in the economic, social, political and religious spheres operating to transform its structure.

     The Later Vedic society came to be divided into four varnas called the brahmanas, rajanyas or kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. The growing cult of sacrifices enormously added to the power of the brahmanas. Brahmanas conducted rituals and sacrifices for their clients and for themselves and also, officiated at the festivals associated with agricultural operations. But when the two upper orders had to deal with the lower orders they made up their differences. From the end of the Later Vedic period on it began to be emphasized that the two should co-operate to rule over the rest of society. The vaishyas constituted the common people and they were assigned to do the producing functions such as agriculture, cattle-breeding, etc. Some of them also worked as artisans. All the three higher varnas shared one common feature: They were entitled to upanayana or investiture with the sacred thread according to the Vedic mantras. The fourth varna was deprived of the sacred thread ceremony and with this began the imposition of disabilities on the shudras. Generally the Later Vedic texts draw a line of demarcation between the three higher orders on the one hand and the shudras on the other. In the family we notice the increasing power of the father, who could even disinherit his son. The institution of gotra appeared in Later Vedic times. Ashramas or four stages of life were not well established in Vedic times. In the post- Vedic texts we hear of four Ashramas.

The historiography of ancient and early medieval India reveals significant changes over time; these can be understood against the background of the political and intellectual contexts in which they emerged and flourished. There was considerable variety within the schools; some of them co-existed in dialogue or conflict with one another, and there are examples of writings that go against the grain and do not fit into the dominant historiographical trends of their time,

Antiquarians' Domination - Apart from the study of ancient texts, the 19th century witnessed developments in epigraphy, numismatics, archaeology, and the study of art and architecture. The decipherment of Ashokan Brahmi and Kharoshthi scripts were breakthroughs. The analysis of coins contributed to the construction of a framework of political history. Officers of the Geological Survey discovered prehistoric stone tools and laid the basis of Indian prehistory. The Archaeological Survey of India, established in 1871, has over the decades made important contributions to unearthing and analysing the material remains of India's past. The contributions and breakthroughs of the 18th and 19th centuries were rooted in a colonial context, and this is evident in certain features of Ideological writing. The Brahmanical perspective of ancient Sanskrit texts was often uncritically taken as reflecting the Indian past. Social and religious institutions and traditions were critiqued from a Western viewpoint. Indian society was presented as static, and its political systems despotic, over the centuries. Race, religion, and ethnicity were confused with one another, and there was a tendency to exaggerate the impact of foreign influence on ancient India.

Indian scholars of the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century made major contributions to constructing a connected narrative of ancient India. The data from texts, inscriptions, coins, and other material remains to show the contours of the ancient Indian past. Contributors were in the field of political history. South India was brought into the narrative and the study of regional polities progressed, their search for golden ages, which led to their exalting the age of the Vedas and the Gupta Empire. Non-monarchical polities were discovered and celebrated to counter the idea that India had never known anything but despotic rule. The periodization of the Indian past into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods was, however, retained.

In the long run, the Marxist historians shifted the focus from an eventa-centred history dominated by political narrative to the delineation of social and economic structures and processes, especially those related the class stratification and agrarian relations. Marxist historiography contributed to uncovering the history of non-elite groups, some of which had suffered subordination.

Appeals to the ancient and early medieval past are often dictated by nationalist or communalist agendas. Marxist historiography continues to be an influential force in early Indian historiography.

A critical understanding of historiography, one that recognizes the contributions and limitations of past and present ideological and theoretical frameworks, is essential to understanding where the history of ancient and early medieval India stands. Archaeologists have not adequately explored the historical implications of archaeological data. Correlations between literature and archaeology tend to be simplistic and devoid of reflection on methodology. We need to consider whether, given their inherent differences, textual and archaeological evidence can be integrated, or whether we should simply aim at its proximity.

Histories of early India should ideally represent the various regions and communities of the subcontinent in their diversity. However, while the heartlands of great empires and kingdoms are well represented, many regions are not.

India's varied and complex cultural traditions need attention. While these continue to be the focus of research among scholars working in South Asian studies, religious studies, and art history departments abroad, they have in recent decades remained somewhat marginal to mainstream historical writing in India. There is a close relationship between history and identity; the past has, therefore, always been contested terrain. In contemporary India, the ancient past is invoked in different ways in political discourse, including propaganda with chauvinistic or divisive agendas. There are debates over the state's right to project and propagate certain interpretations of the past.

In a charged and intolerant atmosphere, there are several dangers - of the deliberate manipulation and distortion of the past to achieve political ends, of historical hypotheses being judged on the basis of their political implications rather than academic merit, and of historians being criticized for writing objective history.

The historiography of ancient and early medieval India reveals significant changes over time; these can be understood against the background of the political and intellectual contexts in which they emerged and flourished. There was considerable variety within the schools; some of them co-existed in dialogue or conflict with one another, and there are examples of writings that go against the grain and do not fit into the dominant historiographical trends of their time.

Antiquarians' Domination - Apart from the study of ancient texts, the 19th century witnessed developments in epigraphy, numismatics , archaeology, and the study of art and architecture. The decipherment of Ashokan Brahmi and Kharoshthi scripts were breakthroughs. The analysis of coins contributed to the construction of a framework of political history. Officers of the Geological Survey discovered prehistoric stone tools and laid the basis of Indian prehistory. The Archaeological Survey of India, established in 1871, has over the decades made important contributions to unearthing and analysing the material remains of India's past. The contributions and breakthroughs of the 18th and 19th centuries were rooted in a colonial context, and this is evident in certain features of Indological writing. The Brahmanical perspective of ancient Sanskrit texts was often uncritically taken as reflecting the Indian past. Social and religious institutions and traditions were critiqued from a Western viewpoint. Indian society was presented as static, and its political systems despotic, over the centuries. Race, religion, and ethnicity were confused with one another, and there was a tendency to exaggerate the impact of foreign influence on ancient India.

Indian scholars of the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century made major contributions to constructing a connected narrative of ancient India. The data from texts, inscriptionis, coins, and other material remains to show the contours of the ancient Indian past. Contributions were made in the field of political history. South India was brought into the narrative and the study of their exalting the age of the Vedas and the Gupta Empire . Non-monarchical politics were discovered and celebrated to counter the idea that India had never known anything but despotic rule. The periodisation of the Indian past into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods was, however, retained.

In the long run, the Marxist historians shifted the focus from an event-centred history dominated by political narrative to the delineation of social and economic structures and processes, especially those related to class stratification and agrarian relations. Marxist historiography contributed to uncovering the history of non-elite groups, some of which had suffered subordination.

Appeals to the ancient and early medieval past are often dictated by nationalist or communalist agendas. Marxist historiography continues to be an influential force in early Indian historiography.

A critical understanding of historiography, one that recognizes the contributions and limitations of past and present ideological and theoretical frameworks, is essential to understanding where the history of ancient and early medieval India stands. Archaeologists have not adequately explored the historical implications of archaeological data. Correlations between literature and archaeology tend to be simplistic and devoid of reflection on methodology. We need to consider whether, given their inherent differences, textual and archaeological evidence can be integrated, or whether we should simply aim at its proximity.

Histories of early India should ideally represent the various regions and communities of the subcontinent in their diversity. However, while the heartlands of great empires and kingdoms are well represented, many regions are not.

India's varied and complex cultural traditions need attention. While these continue to be the focus of research among scholars working in South Asian studies, religious studies, and art history departments abroad, they have in recent decades remained somewhat marginal to mainstream historical writing in India. There is a close relationship between history and identity; the past has, therefore, always been contested terrain. In contemporary India, the ancient past is invoked in different ways in political discourse, including propaganda with chauvinistic or divisive agendas. There are debates over the state's right to project and propagate certain interpretations of the past.

In a charged and intolerant atmosphere, there are several dangers - of the deliberate manipulation and distortion of the past to achieve political ends, of historical hypotheses being judged on the basis of their political implications rather than academic merit, and of historians being criticised for writing objective history

The importance of coins and inscriptions as a source for history writing is very much. As compare to the literary sources, there are very little chances of manipulating the archaeological sources like coins and inscriptions. Thus, the authencity of the archaeological sources get enhanced. Inscriptions are the most important of all the archaeological sources. Most of the inscriptions of ancient Indian are found engraved on stone or metal sheets. Due to the engravising on the stone or metal sheet there are almost no chances of manipulation with it. But the problem of dating remains with the inscriptions. The dating is done mainly on the basis of calligraphy of the inscriptions. The most ancient inscriptions available to us belong to the period of King Ashoka of Mauryan period. These inscriptions throw light on the theories of Kingship of Ashoka and also on his religious ideas. Ashokan inscriptions are mostly in Brahmi script. Some of the inscriptions are also available in Kharoshti and Aramaic script. The inscriptions found after Ashoka can be divided into two groups: Official inscriptions and Individual inscriptions. The Official inscriptions are either the eulogies written by the court poets or are land charters. At times, there many exaggerations found in the inscription. So, they must be used carefully. The inscriptions engraved on the stones or pillars give us the idea of the extent of the empire of a particular king. Individual inscriptions are generally found in the temples or are engraved on the idols. The information’s given on these idols gives us the idea about their origin. This also throws light on the architecture and sculpture of the period.

The coins are also an important source for the study of history. There are many signs engraved on the ancient coins. There are no other information mentioned on these coins. We don't know the exact meaning of these signs. These coins were probably issued by the traders, trading guilds etc. These coins do not help the historians much. But when the Greek rulers started ruling over the north-western parts of India, they Started issuing coins on which many information’s were mentioned. Many a times apart from other information’s, the figures of the rulers was also put on the coins. The findings of coins in bulk from one place indicates that the particular place must have been in under one particular state. The dates mentioned on the coins indicate the time period of the rulers. The religious figures on the coins give us the idea about the religious conditions. The content of gold gives us the idea about the economic condition.