Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v1.c15: Chapter IX

History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v1.c15

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX

v1.c15.1.1

In the Gupta year 300-619 A. D., a king named Mādhavarāja II of the Śailodbhava family acknowledged the suzerainty of a Mahārājādhirāja Śaśāṅka. This was a problem presented to historians at the time of the discovery of the Ganjam plates, February 1900. The actual locality where these plates were found is not known to us. They lay in the office of the Collector of Ganjam till 1900 and were subsequently sent to the Government Central Museum, Madras. The special importance of this new inscription lay in the fact of its being dated and of the mention in it of Śaśāṅka, the celebrated adversary of the great Emperor Harshavardhana of Thanesar and Kanauj. The Śailodbhava dynasty to which Mādhavarāja II belonged was already known from the Buguda plates of Mādhavavarman, which is the earliest known inscription of this dynasty, discovered at Buguda in the Ghumsur Taluka of the Ganjam district. The inscription on these plates is not dated. According to it there was a person named Pulindasena, famous among the peoples of Kaliṅga. He did not covet sovereignty for himself but worshipped Brahman. Brahman granted his wish and created the Lord Śailodbhava, apparently out of a rock (Śilā), who became the founder of a distinguished family. In that family was born Raṇabhīta, whose son was Sainyabhīta ; in his family was born Yaśobhīta, whose son was Sainyabhīta II. The late Dr.

v1.c15.1.2

Keilhorn at first supposed that king Mādhavavarman was the son of Sainyabhīta II, but later on when he published the fac-simile, he gave up this idea and acknowledged that Sainyabhīta II was the same person as Mādhavavarman.¹ The Ganjam plates of the Gupta year 300 supply us with a simpler genealogy by stating that the donor Mādhavarāja II was the son of Yaśobhīta and the grandson of Mādhavarāja I. The late Dr. Hultzsch was correct in stating that in the Buguda plates Sainyabhīta was a *biruda* of Mādhavarman.² No fac-similes of the Buguda plates were published at that time, but the late Dr. Hultzsch was of the opinion that the characters of the Buguda plates belong to a much later date than the Ganjam plates of 619 A. D. The Ganjam plates do not give the legend about the birth of Lord Śailodbhava but mention that Mādhavarāja II was born in the Śilodbhava family and that he was a subordinate chief (*Mahāsāmanta*) with the title of *Mahārāja*. The object of the inscription was to record the gift of the village of Chhavalakkhya in the district (*Vishaya*) of Krishnagiri in the year of the Guptas 300.³ The Buguda plates record the gift of the village of Puipina in Khadira-pāṭaka in the district (*Vishaya*) of Guḍḍā.⁴ In the Buguda plates it is stated that Mādhavarman-Sainyabhīta was in residence at Kaingoda. The Ganjam plates state that the order was issued from the victorious camp at Koṅgoda.

v1.c15.1.3

A third inscription of the same dynasty was discovered at Khurda and a fourth at Parikud in the Puri district. We have, therefore, four inscriptions of this dynasty, two of which come from Southern Orissa or the Ganjam district and two others from Central Orissa or the Puri district. Out of these four inscriptions the Parikud plates of Madhyamarāja carry the genealogy of the Śailodbhava dynasty farthest. In this inscription also Pulindasena is stated as being famous among the peoples of Kaliṅga. The legend about the origin of the Lord Śailodbhava is mentioned and the genealogy, in its earlier part, is a close copy of that in the Buguda plates. In the family of Śailodbhava was born Raṇabhīta, his son was Sainyabhīta I and in his family was born Yaśobhīta; his son was Sainyabhīta II. Thus far the genealogy agrees with that of Buguda plates. The Parikud plates carry the genealogy two generations farther. Yaśobhīta II was the son of Sainyabhīta II and then came Madhyamarāja. The Parikud plates do not clearly indicate the relationship between Yaśobhīta II and Madhyamarāja. While Yaśobhīta II is stated to be the son (tanuja) of Sainyabhīta II, Madhyamarāja is simply stated to have ascended the throne of his father (Rājyam pituḥ prāhtavān). Madhyamarāja is stated as being born in the Śailodbhava family and to have performed the Aśvamedha and Vājapeya sacrifices.

v1.c15.1.4

The grant mentions that in this Koṅgoda Maṇḍala, in the division (Bhukti) and district (Viṣaya) of Kaṭaka, the king granted a village the name of which has been lost. The grant was issued from Kaṭaka or Cuttack in the 26th year of the king’s reign and most probably in the 88th year of the Harsha era, i. e., 693 A. D. The learned South Indian Epigraphist for the Government of India, the late Rao Bahadur V. Venkayya, could not understand the system of dating in this inscription. He mistook the date to be 28 and stated :

v1.c15.2

¹ *Epi. Ind. Vol. VII. pp. 100-101*

v1.c15.3

² *Epi. Ind. Vol. VI, p. 144.*

v1.c15.4

³ *Ibid., pp. 143-46.*

v1.c15.5

⁴ *Ibid., Vol III, pp. 41-46.*

v1.c15.6

"From the accompanying photo-lithographic-plate it will be clear that the date here is very badly damaged. What is seen is a circle which may denote 28. It is just possible that the regnal year of the King is simply repeated in numerical symbols preceded probably by the word *Samvatsare.*"¹ It was not possible for this deceased scholar to understand that in North Indian Epigraphy at least, a circle *can not* denote 20 and that the regnal year having been expressed in words as being 26 it can not be repeated in another part of the same inscription as being 28, or two years later unless something special happened at that time. What is more probable is that the regnal year having been expressed in one place in words, the date is given in numerals at the end of the inscription in some recognised era. At this period only two eras may possibly have been used in Orissa. These are the Gupta-Valabhi era of 319-20 A. D., and the Harsha era of 605-6 A. D. Most probably the year 88 of the Parikud plates is expressed in the latter era and is equivalent to 693-4 A. D. If expressed in the Gupta-Valabhi era it must be taken to be in the fourth century of that era, *i. e.*, 388-707-8 A. D.

v1.c15.7

¹ *Epic. Ind., Vol. XI, p. 282, note 1.*

v1.c15.8

The fourth inscription of this dynasty is to be found on the Khurda plates, which were discovered after the publication of the Buguda plates. The late Mr. Gangā-mohan Laskar, while editing the Khurda plates, committed the signal mistake of confusing the account of the Buguda plates with that of the Khurda inscription. In the Khurda inscription only three generations of kings are mentioned. Sainyabhīta I was the grandfather and Yaśobhīta the father of Mādhavarāja. It can not be understood how Mr. Laskar could bring Pulindasena, Raṇabhīta and Yaśobhīta II into this dynasty, because they are not mentioned in this inscription. As in other inscriptions of this dynasty, Mādhavarāja is called "born in the Śailodbhava family" and "the master of all Kaliṅgas" in the Khurda plates. The grant was issued from the royal residence at Koṅgoda. The inscription records the grant of a village or some land belonging to the village of Āharaṇa in the district (Vishaya) of Thoraṇa. This inscription is not dated.¹

v1.c15.9

¹ *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*, Old series, Vol. LXXIII. 1904 part I, pp. 282-6.

v1.c15.10

We are faced with the problem of the genealogy of the Śailodbhavas in the first instance. The genealogies in the Buguda and the Parikud plates agree to a very great extent :—

v1.c15.11

| BAGUDA PLATES. | PARIKUD PLATES. |
| Śailodbhava | Śailodbhava |
| *(in his family)* | *(in his family)* |
| | |
| Raṇabhīta | Raṇabhīta |
| | |
| Sainyabhīta I | Syinyabhīta I |
| *(in his family)* | *(in his family)* |
| | |
| Yaśobhīta | Yaśobhīta |
| | |
| Mādhavavarman Sainyabhīta | Sainyabhīta II |
| II | |
| | Yaśobhīta II |
| | Madhyamarāja |

v1.c15.12

Doorway of tympanum of arch—Sri or Gaja Lakshmi—

v1.c15.13

was very young at the time of her father's death. Immediately after Prabhākara's death, a king of Mālava, whose name most probably was Devagupta, invaded the United Provinces and killed Grahavarman. The intimation of this disaster compelled Rājyavardhana II to start hastily for Kanauj. He succeeded in defeating Devagupta, if he was the King of Mālava, but he himself was killed in a duel in the camp of the King of Gauḍa. Bāṇabhaṭṭa accuses this King of Gauḍa of a breach of faith and there are reasons to suppose that this King of Gauḍa was nobody else but Śaśāṅka. The Chinese pilgrim Yuan Chwang gives us the name in Chinese. The devout pilgrim points out that Śaśāṅka was a demon, who was a confirmed enemy of Buddhism. Śaśāṅka is said to have uprooted the Bodhi tree at Mahābodhi or Bodh-Gaya. For his supposed misdeeds the Chinese pilgrim thought that Śaśāṅka went to hell.¹ The narrative of the events after the death of Prabhākaravardhana proves that, as soon as the strong arm of that king was removed from the affairs of the State, the Kings of Mālava and Gauḍa combined to overthrow the newly imposed suzerainty of the Kings of Thanesar. The King of Mālava had advanced too hastily and was caught by Rājyavardhana II before the King of Gauḍa could join him. He was defeated, but Rājyavardhana II was caught either in a trap laid by Śaśāṅka of Gauḍa or was overwhelmed by superior numbers. After his death, his cousin Bhaṇḍin retreated with the spoils of the victory over the King of Mālava. When the news of Rājyavardhana's murder or death reached Harsha, he started with a large army and succeeded in rescuing his sister Rājyaśrī.

v1.c15.14

¹ Watters on Yuan Chwang, Vol. II, pp. 113-17.

v1.c15.15

who had escaped from the prison at Kanauj into the forests on the Northern slopes of the Vindhyas. Harsha had taken a vow not to rest until he had avenged himself of his brother's murder. The *Harshacharita* of Bāṇabhaṭṭa ends at this place. Just after setting out on his campaign against Śaśāṅka, King of Gauḍa, Harsha received an embassy from *Kumāra* Bhāskaravarman, the Crown Prince of Assam (*Pragjyotisha* or *Kāmarūpa*), who sought his alliance. By this alliance Harsha succeeded in securing both flanks of the Kingdom of Śaśāṅka. Śaśāṅka's capital was Karṇasuvarṇa, now called Rāṅgāmāṭi in the Kandi subdivision of the Murshidabad district of Bengal. The city was situated on the Western bank of the Bhāgirathi in Northern Rāḍhā and certain ruins associated with the name of Śaśāṅka in the Midnapur district tend to show that Śaśāṅka's dominions extended from the Northern part of Murshidabad district to that of Balasore. By securing the alliance of the King of Assam, Harsha secured the advantage of being in a position to attack Śaśāṅka both from the east and from the west. Yuan Chwang's statements prove that for some time at any rate Śaśāṅka was in possession of South Bihar or Magadha. A seal-matrix of Śaśāṅka has been discovercd in Rohtasgaḍh fort which proves that the country to the west of the Sone was also in his possession at some time. In the seal Śaśāṅka is called a *Mahāsāmanta*.¹ The Ganjam plates of Mādhavarāja II prove that in the first place Śaśāṅka had assumed the title of *Mahārājādhirāja* some time before 619 A.D., and in the second place that his dominions consisted of Karusha, Magadha, Rāḍhā, Oḍra and Koṅgoda or in other words extended over the modern districts of Arrah or Shahabad, Patna, Gaya, Munger, Bhagalpur, Murshidabad, Hooghly, Burdwan, Howrah, Midnapur, Balasore, Cuttack, Puri and Ganjam. Śaśāṅka was, thus, the master of the whole of North-eastern India with the exception of Assam, because we do not know what was the position of North Bihar and North Bengal in the political map of India in the 7th century A. D. In the third place the Ganjam plates of Mādhavarāja II prove that inspite of his vow Harsha had not succeeded in uprooting Śaśāṅka up to the 15th year of his reign. We do not know the exact date of the death of Śaśāṅka. It seems to be certain that he died before Yuan Chwang's arrival at Kanauj or Bodh-Gaya. At some time during the war Bhāskaravarman occupied Karṇasuvarṇa. His Nidhanpur plates were issued from the Royal Camp at Karṇasuvarṇa.¹ It is not possible to determine the exact date of the occupation of Śaśāṅka's capital by his enemy.

v1.c15.16

¹ Fleet's *Gupta Inscriptions*, p. 284,

v1.c15.17

¹ *Epi. Ind., Vol. XII, p. 73.*

v1.c15.18

The embassy of Haṃsavega to Harsha, when the latter was on his way to fight with Śaśāṅka, is extremely significant, and it may tend to throw some light on the origin and ancestry of Śaśāṅka. In the mediaeval period all powerful kings of Bengal, from Dharmapāla to Lakshmaṇasena, had or claimed to have overrun Assam. It is interesting to note that Mahāsenagupta of Magadha had defeated Bhāskaravarman's father Susthitavarman on the Banks of Brahmaputra. Here lies the true cause of Bhāskara's attempts to ally himself with the king of Thanesar. Mahāsenagupta's son, Mādhavagupta, was the contemporary of Harsha and therefore of Śaśāṅka's as well. Śaśāṅka is known to have been a Śaiva from his coins, on which we find the figures of Śiva and Lakshmī. The figures of Lakshmī are exactly the same as those to be found on the coins of Kumāragupta II and Chandragupta III.¹ The Guptas were Vaishṇavas and the Śaiva figures on Śaśāṅka’s coins indicate a separate origin for him. But the policy he pursued, the exact type of the seated nimbate figures of Lakshmī and his alliance with Devagupta of Mālava possibly indicate that he belonged to the Gupta dynasty of Magadha in which we know of no Mahārājādhirāja before the time of Ādityasena. Śaśāṅka and Devagupta of Mālava probably tried to restore the prestige of the Gupta dynasties of India immediately after the death of Prabhākaravardhana, and Bhāskaravarman of Assam may have felt the weight of Śaśāṅka’s arms before he sent an ambassador to Harsha, to seek his alliance.

v1.c15.19

¹ Allan—Catalogue of Indian Coins, Gupta dynasties, pp. 147-48, pl. XXIII,

v1.c15.20

Whatever be the real origin of Śaśāṅka, there is no doubt about the fact that eventually he was driven out of Karṇasuvarṇa. It is quite possible that this event had taken place before the date of the Ganjam plates and that time he had lost his possessions in Bengal and was the master of Orissa only. His conquest of Orissa was undoubtedly real and the adherence to his cause of the Śailodbhava chiefs was so strong that long after Śaśāṅka’s death, Harsha had to undertake another campaign in the Koṅgoda Maṇḍala.² Some modern writers are distinctly wrong when they state that Orissa was included in the Empire of Harsha.³ Even towards the end of his reign Harsha had to spend a long time in Orissa,¹ because not only was Mādhavarāja II or his successor hostile to him but the great Emperor Pulikeśin II of the Early Chālukya dynasty of Badami was approaching north-wards along the Eastern coast. Harsha's last campaign in Koṅgoda was directed more against the Chālukyas than the Śailodbhavas. Already before 634 A. D., Pulikeśin II had conquered Southern Kośala and Kaliṅga.² Even after Harsha's last campaign in Koṅgoda and Orissa, the Śailodbhavas remained independent. No king of that dynasty ever acknowledged the suzerainty of the great Emperor of Thanesar. While the Ganjam plates of Mādhavarāja II show that the Śailodbhava king was the vassal of Śaśāṅka, the Khurda plates prove definitely that he had become independent. Mādhavarāja II must have declared his independence after the death of Śaśāṅka, and the characters of the Khurda grant prove the identity of its grantor with that of the Ganjam plates. The characters of the Parikud plates are very closely allied to those of the Khurda and the Ganjam plates, showing that Madhyamarāja was the grandson of Mādhavarāja II. The characters of the Buguda plates still offer very great difficulties. They are certainly later than those of the Parikud plates but the arrangement and even the exact wording of the genealogy show that the writer intended Mādhavavarman Sainyabhīta II to be the same as Sainyabhīta II, the father of Yaśobhīta II and the grandfather of Madhyamarāja of the Parikud plates. We must wait for fresh evidence before we finally agree about the identity of the grantors of the Ganjam, Khurda and Buguda plates. The Parikud plates of Madhyamarāja prove that Harsha was not able to destroy the Śailodbhavas and that the descendants of Mādhavarāja II continued to rule in Koṅgoda.

v1.c15.21

² Life of Hiuen Thsang, p. 172.

v1.c15.22

³ V. A. Smith—Early History of India, p. 354

v1.c15.23

¹ Life of Hiuen Thsang, p. 159.

v1.c15.24

² Epi. Ind., Vol. VI, pp. 6, 11.

v1.c15.25

We do not know what happened to the Śailodbhavas after Madhyamarāja. One branch of the family probably ruled in some part of the Central Provinces, as we know from the Ragholi plates of Jayavardhana II, who claims descent from the Śaila family.¹ Mahāmahopādhyāya Dr. Haraprasād Sāstri has published a single plate of an inscription of a king named Madhyamarāja. The learned editor of this inscription is of the opinion that, because two Princes in this inscription are called Madhyamarāja and one Mānabhīta, this Madhyamarāja is a King of the Śaila or Śailodbhava family. In the first place, this plate, as the learned editor has already observed, is the second or the third plate of a set of four or five. Even the genealogical portion is not complete in it. In the second place, these kings are not mentioned as being born of the Śailodbhava family and there is no mention of Koṅgoda. Therefore it is impossible, at the present state of our knowledge, to identify this line of kings as belonging to the Śailodbhava dynasty.² At some subsequent date the Śailas or the Śailodbhavas migrated to the Malay Peninsula, where their inscriptions have been discovered. A king named Śrībalaputradeva was the contemporary of Devapāla of Bengal (800-50 A. D.).³

v1.c15.26

¹ Ibid., Vol. IX, pp. 41, 47.

v1.c15.27

² Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. IV, 1918, pp. 162-7.

v1.c15.28

³ Epi. Ind. Vol. XVII, pp. 323, 326.

v1.c15.29

Two other Kings, Māravijayottuṅgavarman and Saṅgrāmavijayottuṅgavarman, were the contemporaries and subordinates of the great Choḷa Emperors Rājarāja I and Rājendra Choḷa I.

v1.c15.30

The next king of the dynasty whose records are known to us is Dharmarāja. Two grants of this king have been brought to light up to this date. A set of plates belonging to the Uttara-Pārśva temple of Puri bear a grant of this king, Dharmarāja, of the Śailodbhava dynasty. The inscription on another set of plates of this king was brought to public notice for the first time by the late Mr. Tarini Charan Rath, B. A., formerly Munsif of Chodavaram in the Godāvari district of the Madrās Presidency.¹ Recently the inscription on the Puri plates has been published by Mr. Satyanarayana Rajguru of Parlakimedi. According to the published text we find that Pulindasena, famous among the people of Kaliṅga, is mentioned first of all (1.5). Then comes Śailodbhava, the ancestor of the dynasty. In that family (Kulaja) was born Raṇabhīta, a name rendered Araṇabhīta, which is more natural and at the same time grammatical. His son was Sainyabhīta I. In the family of Sainyabhīta I was born Yaśobhīta or, as Mr. Rājaguru puts it, Ayaśobhīta. His son was Sainyabhīta II. His son was Ayaśobhīta II. Then comes Madhyamarāja, who is perhaps the same as the donor of the Parikud plate. His son is the donor of the Puri plate, Dharmarāja. The object of the charter is to record the grant of a field in the village of Domgi, in the district (vishaya) of Varttini in the maṇḍala of Koṅgada by Dharmarāja. The grant was issued from Mātṛchandrapāṭaka (1. 40). The plates examined by the late Mr. Tarini Charan Rath were issued from the royal residence (Vāsaka) at Somapura.¹ There is one other point of resemblance besides the genealogy. It is stated in the 16th verse that Dharmarāja, having succeeded to the kingdom by the right of primogeniture, banished a person named Mādhava from the kingdom after defeating him in battle at a place called Phāsika. The baffled Mādhava sought shelter with a king named Tīvara and both of them were again defeated at the foot of the Vindhyas. The same incident is also mentioned in Mr. Rath's plates where Mr. G. Venkoba Rao misread Tīvara as Śrivara. "He is said to have defeated at Phāsika a certain Mādhava who thereafter sought the help of a king called Śrivara but was killed by Dharmarāja at the foot of the Vindhya hills." Mr. Rath's plates are dated Samvat 800 according to Mr. Venkoba Rao, *i. e.*, 744 A. D. According to the summary given in appendix A, this grant "records the tax-free gift of half of the village Kondoḍḍa in the Khiḍḍiṅgahāra-viṣaya to the Agnihotrī and Bhaṭṭa Gonadevasvāmi of the Kauśika-Gotra and Vājasaneya-caraṇa. "The Puri plates record the grant of the field to a Brāhmaṇa named Golasvāmi alias Māsika of the Kāṇva śākhā and the Vājasaneya caraṇa and the Jātukarṇa gotra, whose pravaras were Vasiṣṭha, Ātreya and Jātukarṇa. The Dūtaka of the grant was the Mahāsāmanta Goshāladeva and it was written by the Mahābhogī and sāmanta Paṭapāla. It was incised by the Sthavira Vṛddha. This inscription is also dated and the date has been read by Mr. Rajaguru as Samvat 512 Vaiśākha śudi. It is impossible to accept this date as correct; in the first place because Mr. Rath’s plates were issued in V. S. 800 and in the second place both grants mention a king named Tīvara who was defeated at the foot of the Vindhyas and therefore must belong to the Somavaṁśī dynasty of Śrīpura or Sirpur, who is known from a number of inscriptions. This Tīvara is undoubtedly Mahāśivagupta Tīvaradeva, the brother of Chandragupta and the uncle of Harṣagupta of the same dynasty. As Chandragupta is almost certainly the same king who is mentioned as the opponent of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Govinda III in the Sanjan plates of his son, Amoghavarṣa I,¹ it is impossible to think of Tīvaradeva as belonging to the 6th century: The date must therefore be V. S., 812-756 A. D., or the regnal year 12. Mr. Venkoba Rao mentions that Dharmarāja of Mr. Rath’s plates is also called Mānabhīta.

v1.c15.31

¹ Annual Report on Epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1921, Archæological Survey of India, Southern Circle, p. 15. No. 3.

v1.c15.32

¹ Ibid., p, 94.

v1.c15.33

¹ Epi. Ind., Vol, XVIII, pp. 240, 245,

v1.c15.34

Fragment of tympanum of arch and part of frieze—the four-horsed chariot of the Sun-God—Ananta Gumpha—Khandagiri, Puri District

v1.c15.35

The genealogy which we now obtain is the longest known of the Śailodbhava dynasty :—

v1.c15.36

Śailodbhava (in his family)

v1.c15.37

Araṇabhīta

v1.c15.38

Sainyabhīta I (in his family)

v1.c15.39

Ayaśobhīta I

v1.c15.40

Sainyabhīta II

v1.c15.41

Ayaśobhīta II

v1.c15.42

Madhyamarāja

v1.c15.43

Dharmarāja.

v1.c15.44

It is evident from these two charters of Dharmarāja that Mādhava was probably a younger brother and a rival for the throne. The dates of the two grants indicate that the Śailodhavas ruled up to the middle of the 8th century, when they were most probably supplanted by the Karas.

v1.c15.45

A single plate of another charter of a king named Madhyamarāja was discovered in Tekkali in the Ganjam district. This plate is the second or third plate of a set of four or five plates. The composition agrees with that of the Parikud plates of Madhyamarāja I and his son Dharmarāja. The genealogy begins with Madhyamarāja I, then comes his son Dharmarāja, surnamed Mānabhīta or perhaps Amānabhīta. His son was Madhyamarāja II. Then comes another son of Mānabhīta whose name has not been read. The son of Madhyamarāja II was Raṇakshobha. His brother was a prince named Petavyālloparāja. His son was Madhyamarāja III, who was called Taillapa when he was the crown prince. The inscription ends at this place before the close of the metrical portion and therefore it is uncertain whether there were any other princes in the Śailodbhava family after Madhyamarāja III.¹ Though the earlier part of the inscription is missing and Pulindasena, Śailodbhava and the earlier princes are not named, it is fairly certain that these descendants of Dharmarāja belong to the Śailodbhava family.

v1.c15.46

¹ Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. IV.

Linked texts (10)