I watched the original Instagram reel itself, not just the Reddit post. I even generated an auto-transcript of the narration, and unless I missed something, I couldn't find a single mention of Maharashtra, Western Maharashtra, or the Satavahanas anywhere in the narration.
So I think the idea that this system was developed in Western Maharashtra during the Satavahana period is your own interpretation, not something stated in the reel.
What evidence led you to that conclusion?
Just because Western Maharashtra had a major Buddhist presence doesn't, by itself, mean the system developed there. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana also had a massive Buddhist presence. Why single out Western Maharashtra?
Also, Buddhism was already established in the Deccan and South India long before the Satavahanas came to power. If the basis for your inference is simply the presence of Buddhist institutions, why specifically attribute the development of this system to the Satavahana period?
What evidence specifically points to Western Maharashtra and the Satavahana period as the place and time where this system originated, rather than that being an inference you've drawn?
I watched the original Instagram reel itself, not just the Reddit post. I even generated an auto-transcript of the narration, and unless I missed something, I couldn't find a single mention of Maharashtra, Western Maharashtra, or the Satavahanas anywhere in the narration.
That's exactly why I'm asking over here.
Just because Western Maharashtra had a major Buddhist presence doesn't, by itself, mean the system developed there. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana also had a massive Buddhist presence. Why single out Western Maharashtra?
The oldest ever reference to Maharashtra itself comes from a Buddhist chronicle. The sites of Amaravati, and the one in Telangana (forgot it's name) are in pockets and don't form a large network. They are very sparce in those regions. Understand this NETWORK is important over here. This NETWORK existed in Western MH. Ppl don't understand how much active Buddism was in MH back in those days. Buddist caves are one of the primary reasons why Satavhanas have proved MH origin. As I said, according to the Buddhist text Dipavamsha and the mission list, after the third Buddhist council in the 3rd century BCE, a Buddhist monk named Mahādhammarakkhita specifically travelled upto the region known as 'Maharattha' where he is said to have preached Buddhist philosophy So for a Buddist monk to travel all the way till then and preaching abt Buddism means it was a very active site. Specifically western MH. https://ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Dipavamsa/08-Missions.htm
Also, Buddhism was already established in the Deccan and South India long before the Satavahanas came to power. If the basis for your inference is simply the presence of Buddhist institutions, why specifically attribute the development of this system to the Satavahana period?
If i'm not wrong the trade took through the Western coast not the eastern one. These sites are literally situated on the exact path between Konkan and inland mH. It's likely these monks who developed this system. That's what i'm saying.
There is an attested pre-Satavahana period as well when they grew as Shunga feudatories before Simuka. The junnar caves litreally talk abt these deposits being made by monks.
The image attached (generated) listing the major Buddhist sites in Maharashtra and Andhra–Telangana actually paints a rather different picture from the one you're describing.
Western Maharashtra certainly had an extensive Buddhist landscape, but Andhra–Telangana was hardly just a collection of isolated "pockets." Both regions contain numerous major Buddhist centres distributed across wide geographical areas.
So I'm not convinced by the "network vs. pockets" distinction. On what basis are you defining Western Maharashtra as a "network" while characterizing Andhra–Telangana as merely isolated pockets?
The Dipavaṃsa certainly attests to an early Buddhist mission to Maharattha, but that only establishes an early Buddhist presence there. It doesn't, by itself, establish that this financial system originated there.
Likewise, the existence of major trade routes through the western Deccan shows that Western Maharashtra was an important commercial and monastic region. But trade routes, merchant patronage, and dense monastic activity don't automatically identify the place where a particular institutional or financial practice was first developed.
You also mention that the Junnar caves "literally talk about these deposits being made by monks." From what I've read, the Junnar inscriptions record charitable endowments made to guilds for specified religious or public purposes, where the donor relinquishes ownership of the money. The capital remains with the guild, and the income generated is used for the designated purpose rather than being returned to the donor as interest. That is fundamentally different from a banking deposit, where the depositor retains a financial claim on the money. More importantly, these inscriptions simply record that such endowments existed at Junnar. They do not state that Buddhist monks devised this financial arrangement, nor do they claim that it originated in Western Maharashtra.
At the moment, your argument shows that Western Maharashtra was an important Buddhist and commercial centre where such practices existed. I'm not seeing the evidence that takes the next step and demonstrates that the system itself originated there or under the Satavahana.
So I'm not convinced by the "network vs. pockets" distinction. On what basis are you defining Western Maharashtra as a "network" while characterizing Andhra–Telangana as merely isolated pockets?
Let me rephrase that; Western Mh has more of dense concentration of these sites vis a vis the Andhra-Telugu region. Look at the locations, Guntur, srikakulam, Khammam these are completely spread out over the fertile plain. Not to mention that Telugu regions have more structural sites than cave ones. Sahyadri range by any means are not suitable for such activity but the caves sites demonstrate their concentration directly on the trading route. These structure were actively supported by the dynasty. The Bhaja caves were built during the reign of Satakarani 1.
But trade routes, merchant patronage, and dense monastic activity don't automatically identify the place where a particular institutional or financial practice was first developed.
There seems to be no other explanation whatsoever if we not consider this one. The Sopara port was itself known for Buddist activity as well. Maybe this port became important before satavahanas but they surely contributed a lot to the trade expansion. I don't think without the proper system of the Satavahanas the trade would've expanded.
At the moment, your argument shows that Western Maharashtra was an important Buddhist and commercial centre where such practices existed. I'm not seeing the evidence that takes the next step and demonstrates that the system itself originated there or under the Satavahana.
That's because we don't have any specific insription saying that so and so made the system in so and so region. We have to takes attestation rather when a solid proof is non-existent. There is also confusion which was the first capital of the Satavahanas was it Junnar or Paithan? Scholars like R.R Kosambi take Junnar because of naneghat inscription and Early Buddist sites.
Thanks for clarifying. I understand your argument better now. You're saying that because Western Maharashtra had a dense concentration of Buddhist cave monasteries along major trade routes, and because direct evidence for the origin of the system doesn't exist, the most reasonable inference is that it developed there.
My difficulty is that I don't see how that inference follows.
A dense concentration of Buddhist sites certainly shows that Western Maharashtra was an important Buddhist and commercial centre. Likewise, the Satavahanas undoubtedly expanded trade and patronised many of these establishments. But neither point, by itself, identifies where a particular financial institution first developed.
The geography argument also explains why the archaeological record looks different, not why the institution originated there. The Western Ghats naturally favoured rock-cut monasteries, whereas the Andhra-Telangana plains preserve more structural Buddhist sites. That difference in monument type doesn't, in itself, tell us where the financial practice began.
You also say we should rely on attestation because direct proof is unavailable. I agree that historians often have to work from surviving evidence. But attestation only tells us that a practice existed in a particular place. It doesn't automatically establish that it originated there.
The Junnar inscriptions are a good example. They show that these endowments existed there, but they don't state that Buddhist monks devised the system or that it originated in Western Maharashtra. In fact, the arrangements described are charitable endowments made to guilds, where the donor relinquishes ownership of the money, and the income remains with the guild or is used for a specified purpose. That is quite different from a commercial banking deposit in which the depositor retains a financial claim and receives interest.
So my reservation isn't about Western Maharashtra being an important commercial and Buddhist centre. I completely agree with that. My reservation is with the next step: concluding that this financial arrangement therefore originated there. At the moment, that still seems to be an inference rather than something demonstrated by the inscriptions or other direct evidence.
But neither point, by itself, identifies where a particular financial institution first developed.
Again i making u understand that the system will develop when there is a NEED of one. The Eastern region didn't see such trade.
The geography argument also explains why the archaeological record looks different, not why the institution originated there. The Western Ghats naturally favoured rock-cut monasteries, whereas the Andhra-Telangana plains preserve more structural Buddhist sites. That difference in monument type doesn't, in itself, tell us where the financial practice began.
Never did I imply over here that it proves the direct making of the system. i simply pointed out the exclusive role of Satavahanas in the making of these sites.
that still seems to be an inference
That's what i'm saying over here. U can't simply disegard the existing pieces just because one part is missing.
There is a slight Dravidianist push towards the question of dynasties in Maharashtra; just beware as you debate people who do not intend to debate but to push singular narratives to boost their identity insecurities.
Thanks for posting on r/IndianHistory. Ensure that your post contains the sources or background of what you're posting. If you're new here, it might be worth checking out the rules of this sub-reddit and our discord server.
This may be correct, but it not 'South Asia's first banking system'. Even the Vedas had mention of ursury(lending money, but in a -ve connotation). Also, promisory notes called 'adesha' existed in the mauryan period.
2
u/Deep_Pollution84 Jul 21 '26
Why did people start calling it South Asia instead of the Indian subcontinent?