belongs to the later-phase of Satavahana history. A stupa in Kanaganahalli village of Karnataka, dated between the first century BCE and first century CE, features limestone panels depicting portraits of Chimuka (Simuka), Satakani (Satakarni) and other Satavahana rulers. As per historian Parmanand Gupta, in the medieval times, Srisailam region or the Sriparvata area was known as Kannadu and Kannavisaya which is the contracted form of Satakarninadu and Satakarnivisaya, which seem to be identical with the territorial indicator Satavahanihara of the Myakadoni inscription of Pulumayi or the Satavahaniratta of the Hirahadagalli grant consisting of the Ballari region indicated to be the original homeland of the Satavahanas as per another historian V. S. Sukthankar. Ptolemy (100-170 CE) mentions a Satavahana king Sire Polemaios, who is identified with Sri Pulumayi (or Pulumavi), whose name is derived from the Kannada word for Puli, meaning tiger. Some scholars indicate that the name Pulumayi is actually Kannada's 'Puli Maiyi' or 'One with the body of a tiger' indicating native Kannada origin for the Satavahanas. Varna The varna of the dynasty is debated by modern scholars, who have variously argued for Shudra, Kshatriya, and Brahmana origins of the dynasty. The Puranas call the founder of the Satavahana family a vṛṣala (Shudra or low-born). The Nashik inscription of Gautami Balashri describes her son Gautamiputra Satakarni as eka-bamhana (Sanskrit: eka-brahmana). Some scholars, such as V.V. Mirashi, have interpreted the term as "sole Brahmana", and argued that Satavahanas were Brahmanas. Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri interprets the term as "unique Brahmana", and notes that the inscription also describes Gautamiputra as "the destroyer of the pride and conceit of Kshatriyas", which according to him strongly suggests that Gautamiputra claimed to be a Brahmana. The critics of this theory point out that Gautamiputra's family had matrimonial relations with the non-Brahmana Shakas, and the Satavahanas could not have been Brahmanas because the same inscription also describes Gautamiputra as the one who stopped admixture of varnas (vinivatita chatu vana sankara). Historian V. Sundara Rama Sastry argues that the interpretation of the term "eka-bamhana" as "the only Brahmana" does not make sense as the king was obviously not the only member of his varna: instead, he interprets the term as an epithet indicating that the king "excelled even the Brahmans". Historian R. G. Bhandarkar interprets the term "the only protector" of the Brahmanas. Some Jain works and the Dvātriṃśat-Puttalikā represent Shalivahana (whom some modern scholars identify as