[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884) › c20 # Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c20: Section XIV. The Yâdavas of Devagiri—Early History of the Family Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c20 - **Language:** English ### Section XIV. The Yâdavas of Devagiri—Early History of the Family ### [c20.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.1) THE YÂDAVAS OF DEVAGIRI ### [c20.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.3) THE genealogy of the Yâdavas is given in the introduction to the Vratakhaṇḍa attributed to or composed by Hemâdri who was a minister of Mahâdeva, one of the later princes of the dynasty Some of the manuscripts of the work, however, do not contain it, and in others it begins with Bhillama, as it was he who acquired supreme power and raised the dynasty to importance Others again contain an account of the family from the very beginning, the first person mentioned being the Moon who was churned out of the milky ocean From the Moon the genealogy is carried down through all the Purânic or legendary ancestors to Mahâdeva But it is not difficult from the account itself to determine where the legend ends and history begins Besides, the names of most of the historical predecessors of Bhillama agree with those occurring in the copper-plate grant translated by Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl Indrajı¹ He considered the Yâdava dynasty mentioned in his grant to be different from that of Devagiri and called it "A New Yadava Dynasty," as, of course, in the absence of the information I now publish, he was justified in doing But it is now perfectly clear that the princes mentioned in the grant were the ancestors of the Devagiri Yadavas The following early history of the family is based on the account given in the Vratakhaṇḍa² and on the grant published by the Paṇḍit The latter, however, brings down the genealogy only to \[99\] Seunachandra II who was on the throne in 991 Śaka or 1069 A D, and omits the names of some of the intermediate princes Two other grants by princes of this dynasty found at Samgamner and ### [c20.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.4) ¹ Ind Ant, Vol XII, p 119 \*et seq\* ### [c20.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.5) ² The edition of the Vratakhaṇḍa in the Bibliotheca Indica contains neither of these two introductions ### [c20.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.6) portant \*Praśastis\* I have therefore had recourse to manuscripts There is one manuscript only in the Government collections deposited in the Library of the Dekkan College and that is No 234 of Collection A of 1881-82 which was made by me It contains the shorter Praśasti beginning with the reign of Bhillama There is another copy in the collection belonging to the old Sanskrit College of Poona, which contains the longer Praśasti Unfortunately, however, the third and fourth leaves of the manuscript are missing, and the second ends with Parammadeva the successor of Seunachandra II, while the fifth begins with some of the last stanzas of the introduction referring to Hemâdri and his works The valuable portion therefore was in leaves 3 and 4, but that is irretrievably lost I therefore endeavoured to procure copies from the private collections in the city of Poona and obtained one from Khâsgivâle's library It contains the shorter Praśasti only My learned friend Gangâdhar Śâstri Dâtâr procured another In it the two, the shorter one and the longer, are jumbled together There are in the commencement the first seventeen stanzas of the shorter, and then the longer one begins, and after that is over, we have the remaining stanzas of the shorter This is the only manuscript of the four now before me which contains the whole of the longer Praśasti, and the information it gives about the later princes of the dynasty known to us from the inscriptions is also valuable and new, but the manuscript is extremely incorrect I therefore caused a search for other copies to be made at Nâsik, Kolhâpur, and Ahmedabad, but none was available at those places I give the two Praśastis in Appendix C \[Since the first edition was published I have obtained and purchased another copy of the Vratakhaṇḍa for the Government collections The introductory portion here is more correctly written, and I have used it in revising this section and the Praśasti in Appendix C\] ### [c20.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.7) Kalas-Budruk of earlier dates³ have been recently published, and these also have been compared. ### [c20.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.8) ³ Mr. Cousen's impression of the first of these grants was seen by me before it was published by Prof Kielhorn in \*Epigraphia Indica\*, Vol II, p 212 \*et seq\*, and its contents embodied in the copy of this work revised for this second edition I have, however, since availed myself of one or two points made out by Prof Kielhorn and not noticed by me The second grant is published in \*Ind. Ant\*, Vol XVII, p. 120, \*et seq\* ### [c20.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.9) Subâhu who belonged to the Yâdava race was a universal sovereign. He had four sons among whom he divided the whole earth ruled over by him The second son Dṛiḍhaprahâra⁴ became king in the south or Dekkan. The Yâdavas, it is stated, were at first lords of Mathurâ, then from the time of Kṛishṇa they became sovereigns of Dvâravatî or Dvârakâ, and came to be rulers of the south from the time of the son of Subâhu, \*viz.\*, Dṛiḍhaprahâra His capital was Śrînagara according to the Vratakhaṇḍa, while from the grant it appears to have been a town of the name of Chandrâdityapura, which may have been the modern Châmdor in the Nâsik district. He had a son of the name of Seunachandra who succeeded to the throne. The country over which he ruled was called Seunadeśa⁵ after him, and he appears to have founded a town also of the name of Seunapura. Seunadeśa was the name of the region extending from Nâsik to Devagiri, the modern Daulatâbâd, since later on we are told that Devagiri was situated in Seunadeśa and that this latter was situated on the confines of Daṇḍakâraṇya.⁶ This name seems to be preserved in the modern Khândeś. In a foot-note on the opening page of the Khândes Volume, the Editor of the "Bombay Gazetteer" observes that the name of the country was older than Musalman times, and it was afterwards changed by them to suit the title of Khân given to the Fâruki kings by Ahmed I of Gujarât Seunadesa, therefore, was very likely the original name and it was changed to Khândes, which name soon came into general use on account of its close resemblance in sound to Seunadesa The country however extended farther southwards than the present district of Khândes, since it included Devagiri or Daulatâbâd, and probably it did not include the portion north of the Tâpî ### [c20.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.10) ⁴ He is called Dṛiḍhaprahâri (from \*sam\*) in the \*TSS.\*, stanza 20, Appendix C I. ### [c20.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.11) ⁵ Stanza 22, Appendix C I. ### [c20.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.12) ⁶ Stanza 19 Appendix C. II. ### [c20.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.13) Seunachandra's son Dhâdiyappa⁷ became king after him and he was succeeded by his son Bhillama After Bhillama, his son Śrîrâja according to the grants, or Râjugi according to the other authority, came to the throne, and he was succeeded⁸ by his son Vaddiga or Vâdugi Vaddiga is in the Samgamner grant represented as a follower of Krishnarâja who was probably Krishna III of the Râshtrakûta dynasty, and to have married Voddiyavvâ, daughter of a \[100\] prince of the name of Dhorappa. Then came Dhâḍiyasa,⁹ who was the son of Vâdugi according to the Vratakhaṇḍa. Two of the grants omit his name, probably because he was only a collateral and not an ancestor of the grantor in the direct line, and the third has a line or two missing here. Dhâḍiyasa was succeeded by Bhillama, who was the son of Vaddiga or Vâdugi and consequently his brother.¹⁰ ### [c20.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.14) ⁷ Called Dhâḍivasa in the MSS, Appendix C I, stanza 23 ### [c20.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.15) ⁸ \*Ibid\* Pandit Bhagvânlâl translates the words \*arvâk tasya\* (see note 10 below) occurring in the Yâdava grant as "before him" and placing Vaddiga before Śrîrâja, conjectures that he was Bhillama's son and that Śrîrâja his uncle deposed him and usurped the throne, (Ind Ant, Vol XII, pp 125\*a\* and 128\*b\*) But \*arvâk tasya\* can never mean "before him," and must mean "after him," and hence the conjectures are groundless I have never seen a \*preceding\* prince mentioned in the grants after his successor, with such an introductory expression as "\*before him\* so and so became king" By the occurrence of the word भजन्निह in stanza 23, line 2, Appendix C I, it appears Râjagi was the son of Bhillama I ### [c20.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.16) ⁹ Appendix C. I. stanza 24. If he had been mentioned in the grant, he would probably have been called Dhâḍiyappa. ### [c20.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.17) ¹⁰ \*Ibid.\* Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl omits this prince though he is mentioned in his grant. The last two lines of the fourth stanza in this are— ıncarnate " In thıs way we have here another kıng Bhıllama, as mentıoned ın the Praśastı ın the Vratakhaṇḍa ın the passage cıted above ### [c20.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.18) Bhillama married according to the grants ### [c20.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.19) पाताञ्चस्य बभूव भूतलमहरिः श्रीवद्दिगाख्यो नृप तस्माच्चोदरवन्निसर्गचरितपुर्तेः प्रत्यक्षधर्माभवत् ॥ ### [c20.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.20) The Paṇḍit translates this—“Before him was the illustrious king Vaddiga, a Hari on earth, and therefore he was exactly like the illustrious good Bhillama in his actions.” I have already remarked that instead of “before him,” we should have “after him” here. The word तस्मात् is translated by ‘therefore.’ ‘Wherefore?’ I would ask. No reason is given in the first of these lines for his being exactly like Bhillama, and therefore, it will not do to translate तस्मात् by “therefore.” Again, the Paṇḍit’s interpretation of प्रत्यक्षधर्मा as ‘exactly like in actions’ is far-fetched and unnatural. The thing is, the genitive or ablative तस्मिंस्त cannot be connected with any word in the line, and is therefore one of the innumerable mistakes which are to be found in this grant and most of which have been pointed out by the Paṇḍit himself. What is wanted here is the nominative चिसिर्गत for विनिर्गत and then the whole verse applies to Bhillama and तस्मात् will have its proper sense of ‘after him,’ or ‘from him.’ The correct translation then is:—“(After Dhrâhaṇasa) a king of the name of Vaddiga, the predecessor, like a Hari on earth, and after him out of him (he having passed away) came the prosperous great Bhillama in whom virtue was incarnate.” ### [c20.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.21) Lakshmî or Lachchıyavvâ,¹¹ the daughter of Jhañjha, who was probably the Sılahâra prınce of Thânâ of that name Lachchıyavvâ sprang on her mother's sıde from the Râshṭrakûṭa famıly, and through her son became "the upholder of the race of Yadu ,"¹² ### [c20.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.22) ¹¹ This lady, accordıng to my translatıon, becomes the wıfe of Bhıllama, who ıs the kıng mentıoned ımmedıately before and not of hıs father Vaddıga as the Paṇḍıt makes out ### [c20.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.23) ¹² Here there ıs another dıfficulty arısıng from a mıstake ın the grant whıch Paṇḍıt Bhagvânlal has ın my opınıon not succeeded ın solvıng, and he bases upon that mıstake conjectures whıch are rather too far reachıng (p 125\*a\*, Ind Ant , Vol XII ) The stanza ıs — ### [c20.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.24) भार्या यस्य च भंभूराजतनया श्रीलस्थियव्वाह्वया धर्मत्यागविवेकशुद्धिसगुणा राष्ट्रकूटान्वया । या जाता नवबालनाजसमये यदन्वयाधारिता सप्तांगोद्यतराज्यभारधरणायद्यात्रयार्थ्या तत ॥ ### [c20.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.25) The Paṇḍıt's translatıon ıs —"\*Whose wife was the daughter of kıng Jhañjha Lasthıyavvâ by name, possessed of the\* (three) \*good qualıtıes of vırtue, lıberalıty, and hospıtalıty, who was of the Râshṭrakûṭa race, as beıng adopted\* (by them) \*at the tıme of the rule of the young prınce\* (durıng hıs mınorıty) \*and who therefore by reason of bearıng the burden of the kıngdoms, wıth ıts seven angas, was an object of reverence to the three kıngdoms "\* I agree wıth the Pandıt ın readıng श्री before राष्ट्रकूटान्वया and takıng रायवय as राज्यवय, and, generally, ın hıs translatıon of the fırst two and the fourth lınes But the translatıon of the thırd lıne, that ıs, the portıon ıtalıcısed ın the above, ıs very objectıonable The Paṇḍıt reads राज from नाज and says that the य ın यदन्वया ought to be long for the metre, but would make no sense Now, ın seekıng the true solutıon of the dıfficulty here, we must bear ın mınd that ın the fourth lıne the lady ıs spoken of as "an object of reverence to the three kıngdoms " Whıch are the three so that she was connected with three ruling dynasties and flourishing kingdoms The Sangamner grant appears to have been issued by this Bhillama in the Śaka year 922, i e 1000 A D, and the prince mentioned in \[101\] the grant as having struck a blow against the power of Muñja and rendered the sovereign authority of Ranarangabhîma firm seems also to be he himself Raṇarangabhîma was probably ### [c20.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.26) kingdoms? First evidently, that of Jhañjha, her father, who is spoken of in the first line, and secondly, that of the Râshṭrakûṭas from whose race she is spoken of as having sprung in the second line Now, we must expect some allusion to the third kingdom in the third line The third kingdom was clearly that of the Yâdavas into whose family she had been married I, therefore, read यदन्वया० for यदन्वया० and thus the difficulty about the metre is removed, the य becoming prosodially long in consequence of the following द्ध In the same manner I think बालगनाम is a mistake for बालज्ञान The word ज्ञान the writer must have taken from his vernacular and considered it a Sanskrit word, or probably not knowing Sanskrit well, he must have formed it from the root जन् on the analogy of माद from मद्, गाद from गद्, मान from मन् &c Or बालगनाज may be considered as a mistake for बालजन्म, the sense being the same, viz "birth of a child" The compound यदन्वयाधारिता is to be dissolved as आधारिता यदन्वय यया। आधारिता being made the second member according to Pāṇini II 2, 37 Or, the line may be read as या याता नवबालअग्रसमर्थे यदन्वयाधारता, the dot over ता being omitted by mistake, and याना written as साता in consequence of the usual confusion between य and स The translation of the line, therefore, is "who became the upholder of the race of Yadu on the occasion of the birth of a new child," i e through her child she became the upholder of the Yadava race In this manner the supposition of her being adopted by the Râshṭrakûṭas during the young prince's minority becomes groundless She must have belonged to the Râshṭrakûṭa race on her mother's side Tailapa, and thus it follows that the Yâdava prince Bhillama II assisted Tailapa in his war with Muñja which we have already noticed Vaddiga was a follower of Kṛishṇa III of the Râshṭrakûṭa family, whose latest known date is 881 Śaka, and Bhillama II of Tailapa The date 922 Śaka of Bhillama's grant is consistent with these facts The Yâdavas appear thus to have transferred their allegiance from the old to the new dynasty of paramount sovereigns as soon as it rose to power The next king was Vesugî¹³ called in Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl's grant Tesuka, which is a mistake or misreading for Vesuka or Vesuga He married Nâyaladevî, the daughter of Gogı, who is styled a feudatory of the Châlukya family,¹⁴ and was perhaps the same as the successor of the Ṭhânâ prince Jhañjha The Râshṭrakûṭas must have been overthrown by the Châlukyas about the end of Jhañjha's reign, and thus his successor became a feudatory of the Châlukyas ### [c20.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.27) ¹³ Stanza 24, Appendix C I ### [c20.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.28) ¹⁴ The expression चालुक्यान्वयमण्डलीक in the grant admits of being taken in the manner I have done, मण्डलीक being a mistake for माण्डलिक The Paṇḍıt understands Gogırâja as belonging to the Châlukya race I consider my interpretation to be more probable ### [c20.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.29) \[102\] The Vratakhaṇḍa places Arjuna after Vesugı,¹⁵ but the two grants omit his name, and perhaps the former mentions Arjuna not as a Yâdava prince, but Arjuna the Pâṇḍava, meaning to compare Vesugı with him and his enemies to Bhîshma The next king was Bhillama¹⁶ who according to the KalasBudruk grant was Vesugı's son He married Hammâ, the daughter of Jayasimha and sister of Âhavamalla, the Châlukya emperor, under whose standard he fought several battles¹⁷ The Kalas-Budruk charter was issued by this prince in 948 Saka The cyclic year being Krodhana, 948 Saka must have been the current year, corresponding to 1025 A D Pandit Bhagvanlal's grant then proceeds at once to the donor, the reigning prince Seuna, who is spoken of in general terms as "having sprung from the race" of the last-mentioned king, and is represented to have defeated several kings and freed his kingdom from enemies after "the death of Bhillama" This Bhillama was his immediate predecessor, but he was a different person from the brother-in-law of Ahavamalla, since Seuna, is spoken of not as the son of the latter or any such near relation but simply as "having sprung from his race" The Vratakhanda supplies the names of the intermediate princes The elder Bhillama was succeeded by Vadugi,¹⁸ his son, "whose praise was sung by poets in melodious words" After him Vesugi¹⁹ became king, but how he was related to Vadugi we are not told He humbled a number of subordinate chiefs who had grown troublesome Then came Bhillama, and after him Seuna²⁰ who issued the charter translated by Pandit Bhagvanlal What relationship the last three princes bore to each other is not stated Seuna is represented to have saved Paramardideva, that is, Vikramaditya II, who is styled the "luminary of the Chalukya family" from a coalition of his enemies, and to have placed him on the throne of Kalyana²¹ This appears to be a reference to the coalition between the Vengi prince and Vikramaditya's brother Somesvara The Yadava prince Seuna was thus a close ally of the Châlukya monarch and their dates also are consistent with the fact Seuṇachandra's grant is dated Śaka 991 Saumya Samvatsara, while Vikramâditya II got possession of the Châlukva throne in Śaka 998 Nala The grant mentions the relations of previous Yâdava princes to the Châlukyas of Kalyâna, while the important service rendered by Seuṇachandra to Vikramâditya is not recorded, and he is spoken of only in general terms as having vanquished "all kings" This itself shows that in all likelihood the fact mentioned in the Vratakhaṇḍa of Seunachandra's having delivered that prince from his enemies and placed him on the throne took place after Śaka 991, and we know it as a matter of fact that Vikramâditya became king in Śaka 998 ### [c20.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.30) ¹⁵ Stanza 24, Appendix C I ### [c20.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.31) ¹⁶ Stanza 26, \*Ibid\* ### [c20.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.32) ¹⁷ This appears to me to be the general sense of stanza 9 and not that he fought with Ahavamalla as Pandit Bhagvanlal understands I need not discuss the matter in detail ### [c20.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.33) ¹⁸ Stanza 26, Appendix C I ### [c20.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.34) ¹⁹ Stanza 27, \*Ibid\* ### [c20.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.35) ²⁰ Stanza 28, \*Ib\* ### [c20.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.36) ²¹ Stanza 29, \*Ib\* ### [c20.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.37) \[103\] Seunachandra was succeeded by Parammadeva who was probably his son, and after him came Simharâja²² or "King Simha," whose full name was Singhaṇa²³ and who appears to have been his brother He is said to have brought an elephant of the name of Karpûratilaka from Lañjîpura and thus did a piece of service to Paramardin, who appears to be Vikramâditya II of the Châlukya dynasty ²⁴ He was succeeded by his son Mallugi, who took a town of the name of Parnakheṭa from his enemies, and while residing there carried away by force the troop of elephants belonging to the king of Utkala or Orissa ²⁵ Then followed his son Amaragângeya²⁶ whose name is mentioned in a copper-plate grant issued in the reign of a subsequent king ²⁷ After him came Govindarâja who was probably his son. Govindarâja was succeeded by Amaramallagi, a son of Mallugi, and he by Kâliya Ballâla. This prince was in all likelihood the son of Amaramallagi, though it is not expressly stated. Ballâḷa’s sons were set aside and the sovereignty of the Yâdava family fell into the hands of his uncle Bhillama,²⁸ who was possessed of superior abilities. Bhillama being represented as the uncle of Ballâḷa must have been another son of Mallugi, and he is so spoken of in the grant referred to above.²⁹ He got possession of the throne after two of his brothers and their sons, wherefore he must have been a very old man at the time. Hence it is that he reigned only for a short time, having come to the throne in Śaka 1109 and died in 1113. It was this Bhillama who acquired for his family the empire that was ruled over by the Châlukyas. ### [c20.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.38) ²² Stanzas 30 and 31, Appendix C I ### [c20.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.39) ²³ Ind Ant, Vol XIV, p 315 ### [c20.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.40) ²⁴ Stanza 32, Appendix C I ### [c20.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.41) ²⁵ Stanzas 33 and 34, \*Ibid\* ### [c20.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.42) ²⁶ Stanza 35, \*Ibid\* ### [c20.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.43) ²⁷ Jour B B R A S, Vol XV, p 386 ### [c20.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.44) ²⁸ Stanzas 35-37, Appendix C. I. ### [c20.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.45) ²⁹ In an inscription at Gadag published by Dr Kielhorn (\*Epigraphia Indica\*, Vol. III, p. 219) Bhillama is represented as the son of Karṇa, who is said to be a brother of Amara-gângeya. In the many inscriptions of the Yâdava dynasty and in the Praśastis given in several books the name Karṇa does not occur even once. The Gadag inscription makes Mallugi the son of Sevaṇṇadeva, while in the Vratakhaṇḍa and the Paithan plates he is represented as the son of Siṅghaṇa, who according to the former authority was one of the successors of Seunachandra and was probably his younger son. The inscription is here opposed to two authorities which agree with each other. Hence this must be a mistake, and that makes it probable that the other is also a mistake. These suppositions are strengthened by the fact that the composer of the Gadag inscription does not mention a single particular fact with reference to any one of the princes, thus showing that he had no accurate knowledge of them. Such a merely conventional description is characteristic of a forged charter. I am, for these reasons, inclined to think that the Gadag grant published by Dr. Kielhorn is a forgery. ### [c20.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.46) Paṇḍit Bhagvânlâl has published a stone-inscrip tion³⁰ existing in a ruined temple at Añjanerî near Nâsik, in which a chief of the Yâdava family, named Seunadeva, is represented to have made some grant in the S'aka year 1063³¹ to a Jaina temple From the account given above, it will be seen that there were two princes only of the name of Seuṇa in the Yâdava family, and that the later of the two was an ally of Vikramâditya II , and consequently reigned about the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century of the S'aka \[104\] era The Seunadeva of the Añjanerî inscription therefore can not be this individual, and no other prince of that name is mentioned in the Vratakhaṇḍa Besides Seuṇadeva calls himself pointedly a \*Mahâsâmanta\* or chief only, while about 1063 S'aka, when the Châlukya power had begun to decline, it does not appear likely that the Yâdava of Seuṇadeśa should give themselves such an inferior title It therefore appears to me that the Seuṇadeva of Añjanerî belonged to a minor branch of the Yâdava family dependent on the main branch, and that the branch ruled over a small district of which Añjanerî was the chief city ### [c20.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.47) ³⁰ Ind Ant, Vol XII, p 126 ### [c20.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.48) ³¹ The correct year has been shown to be 1064 S'aka by Prof Kielhorn, Ind Ant, Vol XX, p 422 \* The relations of those whose names are marked with an asterisk to their predecessors are not clearly stated ### [c20.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.49) The number of princes who reigned from Dṛiḍhaprahâra to Bhillama V inclusive is 22 There are in the list a good many who belonged to the same generation as their predecessors and consequently these twenty-two do not represent so many different generations Allowing, therefore, the usual average, in such cases of 18 years to each reign, the period that must have elapsed between the accession of Dṛiḍhaprahâra and the death of Bhillama V is 396 years The dynasty, therefore, was founded about 757 Śaka or 795 A D, that is, about the time of Govind III of the Râshṭrakûṭa race Possibly considering that Vaddiga I was contemporary of Kṛishṇa III, one might say that the dynasty was founded in the latter part of the reign of Amoghavarsha I ### [c20.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20.50) \*Genealogy of the early Yâdavas or the Yâdavas of Seunadesa\* ## Linked texts (7) - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi.2.2.37) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Epigraphia Indica](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.ei) - [Vratakhaṇḍa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.vrata.vratakhanda) — Hemādri, Sanskrit - [Paiṭhaṇ plates of Rāmachandra.—Śaka 1193 (ed. Fleet 1885)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.south.varia.paithan-plates-of-ramacandra-saka-1193*fleet1885) — Sanskrit - [Bassein copper-plate grant of Seuṇachandra II, Śaka 991](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.yadava.bassein-copper-plate-grant-of-seunachandra-ii-saka-991) — Sanskrit - [Copper-plate grant of Narendramrigaraja-Vijayaditya II (ed. Fleet 1891)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.eastern-calukya.korraparru-grant-of-vijayaditya-ii*fleet1891) — Sanskrit - [Añjanēri Jain temple inscription of Seuṇachandra III, Śaka 1063](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.yadava.anjaneri-jain-temple-inscription-of-seunachandra-iii-saka) — Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.bhandarkar-1884.c20) · Pramāṇa