Ancient History of the Deccan c4.s1.t2: No. 2—The early Pallava kings

Ancient History of the Deccan c4.s1.t2

Language: English

No. 2—The early Pallava kings

c4.s1.t2.1

Three sets of copper-plates written in Prākṛit in a very archaic alphabet prove that, in the III century of the Christian era, there reigned on the southern banks of the Kṛishṇā, the dynasty of the Pallavas of Bhāradvāja gôtra who had Kāñchīpuram for their capital.

c4.s1.t2.2

(1) The plates found at Mayidavôlu (Guntūr district) (Ep. Ind. Vol. VI., page 84) say that in the 10th year of the reign of his father whose name is not given, the heir-apparent (Yuva-mahārāja) Śivaskandavarman gave an order to the governors of Dhaññakada, i. e. Amarāvati.

c4.s1.t2.3

(2) The plates (Ep. Ind., Vol I., page 2) found at Hirahaḍagalli (Bellary district) are dated in the 8th year of the reign of Sivaskandavarman who confirms a gift made by his father whose name is not given, but who is designated by the title of Bappa-dēva. These plates mention the province of Sātāhani which we know (from the Myākadoni inscription) to be a portion of the Bellary district.

c4.s1.t2.4

(3) The plates found in the Guntūr district (Ep. Ind. Vol. VIII., page 143) are dated in the reign of Vijayaskandavarman and commemorate a grant made by Chārudēvi, wife of the heir-apparent (Yuva-mahārāja) Vijaya-Buddhavarman and mother of a prince whose name ends in "kura". J. F. Fleet who was the first to edit these plates in the Indian Antiquary (see plate facing page 101 and note 23, page 101) has said : "two letters, containing the first part of a proper name, are illegible here". Dr. Hultzsch, in reediting this document, believed he could read the whole name as Buddhyaṅkura. In that case, it seems to be a surname and not the name.

c4.s1.t2.5

It is possible to identify Yuva-Mahārāja Śiva-Skandavarman of Māyidāvolu with the king Śiva-Skandavarman of Hira-haḍagalli. The king is called Śiva-Skandavarman in the Hirahaḍagalli plates and Vijaya-Skandavarman in those of the Guntūr district. But the words Śiva and Vijaya are prefixes and we shall see in the Kadamba documents such names as Śiva-Mṛigēśavarman, Śiva-Māndhātṛivarman, and also Śiva-Kṛishṇa (Bennur plates; Belur, 245; Ep. Carn., Vol. V). We find even the prefix Śri-Vijaya-Śiva (Ep. Carn., Vol VII., page 7.). Besides, a similar identification has been made in regard to the dynasty of the Nāgas: we have identified Śiva-Skanda-Nāga of Banavāsi with Skanda-Nāga of Kaṇhēri. The alphabet of the Hirahaḍagalli plates closely resembles that of Charudēvi's grant.

c4.s1.t2.6

I therefore think that there is no serious difficulty in putting together the three documents, Māyidāvôlu, Hirahaḍagalli and Guntūr district and establishing the following genealogy :

c4.s1.t2.7

A king (designated by the title of "Bappa-Dēva" in the Hirahaḍagalli plates)

c4.s1.t2.8

The king Skandavarman (with the prefix Śiva in the Māyidavôlu and Hirahaḍagalli plates; and with the prefix Vijaya in the plates of the Guntūr district.)

c4.s1.t2.9

The prince Buddhavarman (with the prefix "Vijaya"; husband of Charudēvi)

c4.s1.t2.10

A prince (designated by the surname of [Buddhyaṅ]kura in the plates of the Guntūr district).

c4.s1.t2.11

In what epoch did these princes reign? It is certain that they succeeded the Śātavāhanas; in fact, the three documents prove that they reigned on the southern bank of the Kṛṣṇâ (particularly at Amarâvati) and in the Sâtâhani district; since the Śâtavâhana dynasty probably subsisted up to the first quarter of the III century, and since the Mâyidavôlu plates are certainly contemporaneous with those of Kondamûdi [it is certain that these plates were engraved, as we shall see, shortly after the fall of the Ândhras] it is probable that the king surnamed Bappa-dêva reigned in the second quarter of the III century (225-250 A. D.).

c4.s1.t2.12

On the other hand we know that in 338 A. D. Samudra-Gupta had as his adversary a king of Kâñchî named Viṣṇugôpa. This king was therefore probably an immediate successor of [Buddhyaṅ]kura, if this prince ascended the throne.

c4.s1.t2.13

Thus then, with the historical information in our possession, we can imagine the following chronology:

c4.s1.t2.14

(1) “Bappa-dêva” . . . 2nd quarter of the III century.
(2) Skandavarman . . 3rd quarter of the III century.
(3) Buddhavarman . . 4th quarter of the III century.
(4) [Buddhyaṅ]kura . . 1st quarter of the IV century.
(5) Viṣṇugôpa . . . 2nd quarter of the IV century.

c4.s1.t2.15

No. 3—The origin of the Pallavas.

c4.s1.t2.16

Before handling the subject of the origin of the Pallavas, we must here specify an important point.

c4.s1.t2.17

If we suppose that the word “Pallava” signifies a tribe, we must inquire by which invasion this tribe got possession of the kingdom of Kâñchîpuram; if, we admit that the word “Pallava” is the name of a family, it is enough, to explain the presence of the Pallavas in Kâñchî, to find out by what political event one of the members of this family succeeded to the throne; here, no doubt is possible, because, the Mâyidavôlu, Hirahâḍagalli and Guṇṭûr district plates, which come up to the III century of the Christian era, never mention a Pallava nation but only speak of a royal family one of whose members was king at Kâñchî, and we shall now proceed to answer the following question: what political event was it that placed on the throne a prince who belonged to a family named “Pallava”?

c4.s1.t2.18

In 1917 ("The Pallavas", page 23,) I drew the attention of the readers to a document which I can give us the key to this problem : verse 6 of the Vēlūrpālaiyam plates, (S. I. I., Vol II, Part V; page 510) in giving a summary of the history of the Pallavas, says that the first member of this dynasty that became king, got the throne by marrying the daughter of a Nāga king and that the son born of this union was named Skanda. Can this tradition that we find in the Pallava documents be verified by authentic history?

c4.s1.t2.19

A large number of coins having for emblems the "ship with two masts" on the obverse and the "Ujjain symbol" on the reverse has been found on the Coromandel coast between Madras and Cuddalore. These ship-coins seem to be special to that part of the coast that is in the neighbourhood of Kāñchīpuram. The "Ujjain symbol" indicates the Śātavāhana dynasty. Mr. Rapson (page 22) has been able to decipher the inscription on these coins; he has read it to be "Śrī Puḷumāvi"; thus, all that part of the Coromandel coast which is in the vicinity of Kāñchīpuram was under the domination of the Śātavāhanas. So, the Pallavas established themselves at Kāñchīpuram after the Śātavāhanas. The alphabet of the Māyidavôlu plates proves that Śiva-Skandavarman was nearly contemporary of the last Āndhra kings. So, it is at the time of the fall of the Śātavāhanas that a member of the Pallava family ascended the throne of Kāñchī; it is quite possible that this first king was "Bappa-dēva" father of Śiva-Skandavarman. We also note that the son of "Bappa-dēva" was called Skanda and tradition has it that the first Pallava king having married a Nāga princess had a son named Skanda.

c4.s1.t2.20

When speaking of the famous inscription of Bala-Śrī at Nāsik, we have said that Gautamiputra vanquished the Palhavas (Ep. Ind., Vol VIII., Pl I, No. 2, line 5) in 78 A. D. Again, we learn from the Girnar inscription that Suviśākha who was the minister of Rudradāman in 150 A. D. was a Pahlava (Junagadh inscription; Ep. Ind., Vol VIII., page 37 and Plate line 19). Thus the word which was written Palhava in 78 A. D. was written Pahlava in 150 A. D., and we note, when whe see the Girnar inscription, that the compound letter "hla" resembles the double ll. Besides, in Māyidavôlu plates written in Prākṛit: this question of letters has been solved in a very simple manner they wrote Palava. This can correspond to Pallava for in Prâkṛit the consonants are not doubled. In the Hiraḥadaɡalli plates it is written as Pallava though they are also in Prâkṛit. Later on, when the documents were written in Sanskrit, the word Pallava will be understood to mean "sprout". The identity of names leads us to think that the ancient kings of Kâñchî belonged to the same family as the minister of Rudradâman. He lived in 150 A. D. and we know Pallava kings reigning at Kâñchî in aboui 225 A. D. How did a member of this family that we find in Surâṣṭra in 150 A. D. establish himself in Kâñchî? The Vêlûrpâḷaiyam plates give the answer to this question : a Pallava became king by marrying the daughter of a Nâɡa king : and all the documents in our possession regarding the Nâɡas and the Pallavas seem to confirm this proposition. The Girnar inscription says that Rudradâman reigned in the province of Aparânta, that is, in the neighbourhood of Kaṇhêri, and that his minister was a Pahlava : and it is in this same Aparânta in Kaṇhêri that we find : (1) the inscription of the daughter of Rudradâman, (2) the inscription of Nâɡa-Mula-Nika, mother of Skanda-Nâɡa-Śâtakarṇi. The latter inscription is written in such an archaic alphabet that it was first believed to be an inscription of Puḷumâvi (Rapson, page LIII). Thus the minister of Rudradâman and the mother of the Nâɡa prince have lived almost at the same time and in the same country. We must not forget that the daughter of Rudradâman married a Śâtakarṇi. Moreover, the Hiraḥadaɡalli plates have been found in the Bellary district, not far from Chitaldroog, where have been found the coins of the Mahâraṭhis; these plates are written in an alphabet almost identical with that of the Banavâsi inscription; the Hiraḥadaɡalli plates are dated in the reign of Śiva-Skanda-Pallava and the Banavâsi inscription mentions Śiva-Skanda-Nâɡa. Thus the Nâɡas were the neighbours and the contemporaries of the Pallavas.

c4.s1.t2.21

There is again a very peculiar point of resemblance between these two dynasties; we have said that Śiva-Skanda-Nâɡa was a Mahâraṭhi who reigned in the Chitaldroog region where the coins of a Mahâraṭhi have been found. These coins bear for emblem a "humped bull standing" (Ep. Ind. Vol. VII, page 51, plate III., figures A, B, C; and Rapson, Pl. VIII, No. 233, and page 57), and it is the "humped well standing"

c4.s1.t2.22

that is represented in the seals of the Guntūr district plates of Skandavarman (see Ep. Ind., Vol VIII, plate facing page 144); we know that the bull was the crest of the Pallavas.

c4.s1.t2.23

All that we have said above seem to show that a Pallava prince who was a native of the territory adjoining Aparānta married the daughter of Śiva-Skanda-Nāga, and became king of Kāñchi, after the downfall of the Śātavāhana dynasty; and that the son born of the marriage of the first Pallava king with the Nāga princess bore, according to the custom of the Hindus, the name of his grandfather Śiva-Skanda.

c4.s1.t2.24

Upon the whole, the history of the Deccan in the III century is not well understood; however, all the documents in our possession seem to show that in the first quarter of the III century the last Śātavāhana king was called Pulumāvi; the empire was governed by the Maharathis who belonged to certain families that were related to one another and bore the names of Chuṭu, Nāga and Pallava; it is these families that replaced the Śātavāhanas.

c4.s1.t2.25

§ 2. The expedition of Samudra-Gupta.

c4.s1.t2.26

We know that a pillar in the fort of Allâhâbâd contains an inscription which is not dated but which has been engraved during the reign of Samudra-Gupta. This inscription which is intended to glorify the emperor and which gives us the history of his reign has been published by J. F. Fleet in his work "Gupta inscriptions".

c4.s1.t2.27

The interpretation of this inscription has given room to numerous errors and some of them great ones. A few of them have been corrected. For instance, the text contains the word "Kaurâla"; Fleet (Gupta Insc., page 7, footnote 1.) has said that this word "is obviously a mistake" and has corrected it into "Kairala" and then into Kêrala; thence it has been concluded that Samudra-Gupta advanced as far as the Chêra kingdom in South India. This identification of Kaurâla with the Malabar coast seemed to be confirmed by two other identifications: Kauttura with Kôttûra=Pollâchi (Coimbatore District) [see J. R. A. S., 1897, page 29] and Palakka with Pâlghât. But now Kauttura is identified with Kothoor in Ganjâm, and Palakka with a capital of the same name which was situated to the South of the Krishnâ and which is mentioned in many Pallava copper-plates (J. R. A. S., 1905, page 29). Moreover, I have myself, in 1917, in my work "The Pallavas," pages 14 and 15, said that the Pallavas reigned on the banks of the Krishnâ having their capital at Kâñchî; so, Samudra-Gupta was able to fight with Vishnugôpa of Kâñchî without any necessity to advance to the capital: and I ventured the opinion that they probably met on the banks of the Krishnâ and perhaps even in the north of the river as we may suppose that the Pallava king went forward to meet the Gupta emperor. Thus Samudra-Gupta's expedition turns out to be considerably reduced. However, I think that there are yet numerous errors to be corrected and that the whole history of Samudra-Gupta must be set right.

c4.s1.t2.28

(1) Mr. Vincent A. Smith believes that Samudra-Gupta carried on his campaign in the valley of the Ganges before making that of the Deccan and that the latter ended about 350 A. D. However, the author of the inscription speaks of the expedition against the kings of Dakshiṇâpatha before speaking of the expedition against the kings of Âryyâvartta. I cannot but think that he has followed the chronological order; I am therefore of opinion that the expedition to the south took place at the beginning of the reign, about 335 or 340 A. D.

c4.s1.t2.29

(2) Certain authors affirm that the hill Mahêndragiri is mentioned in the inscription. However, the passage "paishṭapurakamahendragirikauṭṭurakasvâmidatta" means: Mahêndra of Paishṭapura and Svâmidatta of Girikauṭṭura, that is to say, the fort of Koṭṭûra which is on the hill. There is therefore no reference in the inscription to the hill named Mahêndragiri.

c4.s1.t2.30

(3) Mr. Kielhorn in studying the Aihole inscription (Ep. Ind., Vol. VI., No. 1, page 3) has identified "the water of Kunâla" mentioned in this inscription with the kingdom of Kaurâla mentioned in the Allâhâbâd inscription. This interpretation has been adopted without any discussion and now everybody admits that Samudra-Gupta defeated the king who was reigning "on the banks of the Kollêru (Colair) lake." I do not however see any reason why Kaurâla should be identified with Kunâla. The names themselves do not resemble each other. I think that the word Kaurâla must be read as Korâla and must be translated as "the Korâla kingdom" and that the Colair lake is not mentioned in the Allâhâbâd inscription.

c4.s1.t2.31

(4) In 1898 (J. R. A. S., 1898, page 369) Fleet affirmed that Airaṇḍapalla must be identified with Eraṇḍôl, the chief town of a subdivision of the same name in the Khândêsh district of the Bombay Presidency. The only poof was the similarity of the names. At once, all the historians admitted this interpretation and supposed that Samudra-Gupta, after having gone as far as Kâñchî returned to the North of India travelling through the vicinity of Bombay; and then, they identified the "Daivarâstra" of the Allâhâbâd inscription with Mahârâshṭra.

c4.s1.t2.32

This identification of Airaṇḍapalla with Eraṇḍôl is surely wrong. In the Allâhâbâd inscription, Airaṇḍapalla is mentioned immediately after the citadel of Koṭṭûra hill; it is therefore on the coast of Orissa that we must search for Eraṇḍapalla. The

c4.s1.t2.33

Lawrence P. Briggs, Siddhantam plates of Dêvêndravarman (Ep. Ind. Vol. XII, page 212) were issued to make a grant to an inhabitant of Eraṇḍapali, a town probably near Chicacole and which is, in all likelihood, the Airandapalla of the inscription of Samudra-Gupta.

c4.s1.t2.34

(5) The identification of Dêvarashtra with Mahârâshṭra is quite wrong. A set of copper-plates discovered in 1908-9 (No. 14) at Kâsimkôṭa in the district of Vizagapatam mentions the grant made by the E. Chalukya king Bhima I. of a village situated in Elamañcha Kalingadêśa which formed part of the province called Dêvarâshṭra. "Elamañchi-Kalingadêśa is perhaps to be interpreted as "the Kalinga-country of which Elamañchi (The modern Yellamanchili) was the chief town" (see Report on Epigraphy for 1908-1909; G.O. n. 538; 28 July 1909. Part II, No. 59, page 109).

c4.s1.t2.35

To conclude : a )Airandappalla is situated in the Ganjam district and Dêvarâshṭra is in the Vizagapatam district. I think I have now proved that Samudra-Gupta never went to the western part of the Deccan.

c4.s1.t2.36

So the Allâhâbâd inscription does not at all speak of Kêraḷa, Pollâchi, Pâlghât, Mahêndragiri, Colair lake, Eraṇḍôl in Kândêsh and Mahârâshṭra. All the kingdoms mentioned in the inscription are situated on the east coast of the Deccan. The expedition was solely confined to this coast. How far did Samudra-Gupta advance? Since Vishṇugôpa of Kâñchi reigned on the banks of the Krishṇâ it is probable that he met with Samudra-Gupta in that region.

c4.s1.t2.37

(6) It has always been admitted till now that the expedition of Samudra-Gupta was a very glorious one. However the inscription contains a detail which indicates the contrary : in fact, it is said that Samudra-Gupta captured the kings and afterwards released them; and it is confirmed by the fact that none of the kingdoms of the Deccan remained in the possession of the Guptas. It is probable that Samudra-Gupta first subjugated some kings, but that very soon he encountered superior forces and was therefore obliged to relinquish his conquests and return rapidly to his own state. After all those rectifications that we have just made, the expedition of Samudra-Gupta presents itself before our eyes in quite another form : it is no more a new Alexander marching victoriously through South India; it was simply the unfortunate attempt of a king from the North who wanted to annex the coast of Orissa but completely failed. About A. D. 340, Samudra-Gupta left his capital Pâṭaliputra and marched directly towards the South. First he conquered Southern Kôsala where the king Mahêndra was reigning in the vicinity of Sirpur and Sombalpur. He then crossed the forests that are to the south of Sonpur and found there the small kingdom of Mahâkântâra which means "the great forest" and where Vyâghra-râja, "the tiger king" was reigning. Then he reached the coast of Orissa. Maṇṭarâja, king of Korâḷa, Mahêndra of Pishtapura, Svâmidatta of Koṭṭûra, a citadel on the top of a hill, and Damana of Eraṇḍapali tried to stop him but were captured. Samudra-Gupta now prepared to make new conquests when he was opposed by a confederacy of all the kings that reigned near the mouths of the Gôdâvari and the Kṛishṇâ, the most powerful of them being Vishṇugôpa, the Pallava king of Kâñchî. The other kings were Nilarâja of Âvamukta, Hastivarman of Veṅgi, Ugrasêna of Palakka, Kubêra who reigned in Dêvarâshṭra and Dhanañjaya whose capital was Kosthalapura. Samudra-Gupta being repulsed by the kings of the Eastern Deccan, abandoned the conquests he had made in the coast of Orissa and returned home.

c4.s1.t2.38

Of all the kings mentioned in the Allâhâbâd inscription, there is only one who is known in other ways; it is Vishṇugôpa of Kâñchî whose name figures in the Vâyalûr inscription (see The Pallavas" pages 20 and 23).

c4.s1.t2.39

§ 3. The Pallavas from 340 to 610 A. D.

c4.s1.t2.40

We now propose to study the history of the kings who have reigned after Vishṇugôpa, the adversary of Samudra-Gupta about 340 A. D., up to Mahêndravarman I, the adversary of Pulakêśin II. about 610 A. D.

c4.s1.t2.41

In chapter II of my work "The Pallavas", I have shown that the Vâyalûr inscription enables us to construct the following genealogy:

c4.s1.t2.42

Kumâravishṇu

c4.s1.t2.43

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.44

Viravarman

c4.s1.t2.45

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.46

| . . . . . | . . . . .
| |

c4.s1.t2.47

Simhavarman Yuvamahârâja Vishṇugôpa

c4.s1.t2.48

Skandavarman Simhavarman

c4.s1.t2.49

Nandivarman Vishṇugôpa

c4.s1.t2.50

Simhavarman

c4.s1.t2.51

Simhavishṇu

c4.s1.t2.52

Mahêndravarman I.

c4.s1.t2.53

In fact, the Ômgôḍu No. 1 plates (G. O. No. 99, 29th Aug. 1916, Part II, No. 3), Ômgôḍu No. 2 (G. O. No. 99, 29th Aug. 1916, Part II, No. 4), Pikira (Ep. Ind., Vol VIII, p. 159,) Mâṅgaḷûr (Ind. Ant., Vol. V, page 154) and Chûra (G. O. No. 920, 4th Aug. 1914, Part II, No. 1) give us the following genealogy:

c4.s1.t2.54

Kumâravishṇu

c4.s1.t2.55

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.56

Viravarman

c4.s1.t2.57

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.58

Yuvamahârâja Vishṇugôpa

c4.s1.t2.59

Siṃhavarman

c4.s1.t2.60

Vishṇugôpa.

c4.s1.t2.61

It must be noted that the Chûra plates which are dated in the reign of the last king give him for grandfather Vishṇugôpa with the title of Mahârâja, whereas the other documents call him Yuvamahârâja. This detail is of very little importance, for the documents sometimes give us incorrect details about the grandfather of a reigning sovereign. This genealogy can therefore be accepted with certainty.

c4.s1.t2.62

The copper plates of Uruvupalli (Ind. Ant. Vol. V, page 20) give us the succession : Skandavarman, Viravarman, Skandavarman, Yuvamahârâja Vishṇugôpa, which conforms absolutely to the one given above; but these plates are dated in the reign of a king named Siṃhavarman whose relationship to the other kings is not given. The most natural supposition would be to take this Siṃhavarman to be the elder brother of Yuvamahârâja Vishṇugôpa and consequently the son of Skandavarman. The Udayêndiram plates (Ep. Ind. Vol III. p. 142) give the following genealogy :

c4.s1.t2.63

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.64

Siṃhavarman

c4.s1.t2.65

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.66

Nandivarman

c4.s1.t2.67

in which we find a Siṃhavarman, son of a Skandavarman. One may therefore be tempted to believe that the Siṃhavarman of the Udayendiram plates was the grandson of Viravarman.

c4.s1.t2.68

The Vâyalûr inscription (see "The Pallavas", chapter II) has thrown a final solution on this problem since it gives us the following series:
(23) Viravarman,
(24) Skandavarman,
(25) Simhavarman,
(26) Skandavarman,
(27) Nandivarman.

c4.s1.t2.69

The Vêlûrpâlaiyam plates (South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. II., Part V, give us a brief history of the Pallavas of Kâñchî; after having spoken, in verse 9, of Nandivarman, these plates say: "Then from the king named Simhavarman...was born the victorious Simhavishṇu". According to this passage it would appear that Simhavarman, the father of Simhavishṇu was the successor but not the son of Nandivarman, because we have here "then" and not "from him" and this supposition has been completely confirmed by the Vâyalûr inscription which gives the following series:
(29) Simhavarman,
(30) Vishṇugôpa,
(31) Simhavarman,
(32) Simhavishṇu,
(33) Mahêndravarman (I).

c4.s1.t2.70

Thus it follows that Simhavishṇu was the grandson of Vishṇugôpa of the Chûra plates. Indeed, in the Vâyalûr inscription, as well as in the Chûra plates, this Vishṇugôpa figures as the son and successor of a king named Simhavarman.

c4.s1.t2.71

So then, in my opinion, the genealogy I have given at the beginning of this chapter can be considered as correct.

c4.s1.t2.72

We have thus utilised all the documents that we have, with the exception only of the Chendalûr plates (Ep. Ind. Vol. VIII, page 233), which give the following genealogy: Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.73

Kumâravishṇu (I.)

c4.s1.t2.74

Buddhavarman

c4.s1.t2.75

Kumâravishṇu (II.) king of Kâñchî.

c4.s1.t2.76

Up to this time, all the authors that have tried to connect this genealogy with the one that we just examined have completely failed. I humbly confess that the theory I have propounded in my work "The Pallavas" pages 17 and 22 is entirely "untenable." I have supposed that these plates were a copy of a document dated at the beginning of the IV century. I now admit that this is not possible, for if the text of these plates belonged to circ. 300 A.D., it will probably be in Prâkṛit; but the Chendalûr plates are in Sanskrit and their phraseology clearly points to the middle of the V century, that is to say, circ. 450 A.D.

c4.s1.t2.77

Recently I made a special study of this question and these are the results I have arrived at:

c4.s1.t2.78

(1) There is so great a resemblance between the phraseology of the Chendalûr plates and those of Uruvapalli that there can be no doubt that the two grants were nearly contemporaneous. Professor Hultzsh has remarked that whole sentences were common to both these documents.

c4.s1.t2.79

(2) From a palæographic point of view, Professor Hultzsh has compared the alphabet of the Chendalûr plates and those of Uruvapalli, Mâṅgalûr, Pikira and has established that the letters "ra" and "ka" seemed to be more developed in the Chendalûr document and that it must therefore be more modern. When I myself examined the alphabet of these four documents, I observed that, if the letters "ra" and "ka" were in fact developed a little more, there were as a set-off other letters such as "ha," "ya," etc, which were developed a little less and that all that one can say on comparing the letters individually is that the Chendalûr document was contemporaneous with the other three.

c4.s1.t2.80

But, if, instead of comparing the letters, we compare the general aspect of the writings, the Chendalûr plates appear to be a little irregular and disorderly which is a characteristic of the ancient documents, whereas, the plates of Uruvapalli, Mâṅgalûr, Pikira possess the order and regularity that belong to more modern writings. However, I do not believe that, in general, a comparison of the alphabets can give us any very correct information. Not only the plates of the Pallavas but also those of the Gaṅgas and the Kadambas prove that the alphabets differ much according to the scribes who have engraved the plates; and the documents of the same reign do not sometimes resemble one another. Lastly, I think that there is no need to compare the Chendalûr plates dated from Kâñchîpuram with those of Uruvupalli dated from Palakkada, Mâṅgalûr dated from Daśanapura, and Pikira dated from Mênmatura: the towns of Palakkada, Daśanapura and Mênmatura were probably in the Guṇṭur district, that is, far away from Kâñchîpuram and the difference of the countries fully explains the difference in the alphabets.

c4.s1.t2.81

(3) We have said that the Chendalûr plates were surely almost contemporaneous with those of Uruvupalli and we have also pointed out that the alphabet of the plates does not enable us to say if Kumâravishṇu II. of Chandalûr who reigned in Kâñchî was the predecessor or successor of Siṃhavarman of Uruvupalli who probably reigned at Kâñchî while his brother the Yuvamahârâja Vishṇugôpa reigned over the province of Palakkada. Now we shall find that it is certain that Kumâravishṇu II. did not reign after Siṃhavarman. In fact, the grand-son of the latter, Nandivarman, reigned at Kâñchî (Udayendiram plates) and we learn from the grant of Vêlûrpâḷaiyam that Nandivarman had for successors Siṃhavarman and Siṃhavishṇu who was surely reigning at Kâñchî because he conquered the Chôḷa kingdom; after Siṃhavarman, we cannot find a place for the dynasty of Chendalûr. Besides, the Vâyalûr inscription places the series Skandavarman-Kumâravishṇu-Buddhavarman before the series Siṃhavarman-Skandavarman-Nandivarman; and the Vêlûrpâḷaiyam plates place Kumarâvishṇu and Buddhavarman (mentioned in verse 8) before Vishṇugôpa and Nandivarman (mentioned in verse 9).

c4.s1.t2.82

There is therefore room to think that the series of kings:

c4.s1.t2.83

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.84

Kumâravishṇu (I.)

c4.s1.t2.85

Buddhavarman

c4.s1.t2.86

Kumâravishṇu (II.) (the donor of the Chendalur plates)

c4.s1.t2.87

have reigned at Kâñchî before the series : Simhavarman (mentioned in the Uruvupalli plates)

c4.s1.t2.88

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.89

Nandivarman, and owing to the resemblance between the Chendalûr and Uruvupalli plates, Kumâravishṇu II would have been the immediate predecessor of Simhavarman at Kâñchî.

c4.s1.t2.90

At the end of 1915, Mr. C. R. Krishnamachari, Telugu Assistant in the Epigraphical Office of Madras, has made a discovery which I consider to be of very great importance for the history of the Pallavas, I mean the discovery of the Ômgôḍu No. 1 plates (Report on Epigraphy, G.O. No. 99, 29th Aug. 1916; Part. II., page 113) which gives us the following genealogy : Kumâravishṇu

c4.s1.t2.91

Skandavarman

c4.s1.t2.92

Viravarman

c4.s1.t2.93

Skandavarman.

c4.s1.t2.94

We must note, first of all, that the last of these kings did not probably reign at Kâñchî since the document is dated from Tâmbrâpa. Who then reigned at Kâñchî when Skandavarman reigned in the Guṇṭûr district ? As this Skandavarman is the father of Simhavarman and the Yuvamahârâja Vishṇugôpa of the Uruvupalli plates, we may suppose that the king who reigned at the time of Viravarman and Skandavarman of Ômgôḍu No. 1 was Kumâravishṇu II of Chendalûr.

c4.s1.t2.95

But there is something more : the Ômgôḍu No. 1 plates mention a king called Kumâravishṇu, a name which we find mentioned twice in the Chendalûr genealogy; but since Kumâravishṇu II. probably reigned at the time of Viravarman and his son Skanda, it is Kumâravishṇu I. who can be identified with the one of Ômgôḍu No. 1.

c4.s1.t2.96

So we obtain the following genealogy which agrees with all the documents that we possess :

c4.s1.t2.97

Skandavarman (350-375 A. D.)

c4.s1.t2.98

Kumâravishṇu I. (375-400 A. D.)

c4.s1.t2.99

Buddhavarman Skandavarman (400-425 A. D.)

c4.s1.t2.100

Kumâravishṇu II. Viravarman (425-450 A. D.) (King of Kâñchî) | Skandavarman (450-475 A. D.)

c4.s1.t2.101

Simhavarman Y. Vishṇugôpa (475-500 A. D.) (King of Kâñchî) (Governor of Palakkada.)

c4.s1.t2.102

Skandavarman Simhavarman (500-525 A. D.)

c4.s1.t2.103

Nandivarman Vishṇugôpavarman (525-550 A. D.) (King of Kâñchî) (King of Palakkada)

c4.s1.t2.104

Simhavarman (550-575 A. D.)

c4.s1.t2.105

Simhavishṇu (575-600 A. D.) (King of Kâñchî)

c4.s1.t2.106

Mahêndravarman I. (600-625 A. D.)

c4.s1.t2.107

It is to be observed that in the Ômgôḍu No. 1 plates the name of Viravarman is not preceded by any title. It is therefore probable that he did not reign but died young: so that Kumâravishṇu II of Kâñchî was the contemporary of Skandavarman of Tambrâpa and the immediate predecessor, at Kâñchî, of Simhavarman.

c4.s1.t2.108

In the chronology given above, we have admitted that Mahêndravarman I. ascended the throne about 600 A. D. and we have allowed for each generation an average of 25 years.

c4.s1.t2.109

It is probable that the first of these kings, Skandavarman (350-375), was the son and successor of Vishṇugôpa of Kâñchî who reigned there from 325 to 350 at the time of Samudra-Gupta.

c4.s1.t2.110

It is more easy for us to construct the genealogy of these kings than to compile their history, because the copper-plates give us always the names of the great-grandfather, the grandfather and the father of the donor, but these names are not followed by any historical details. They have words of praise added to them which are purely conventional and are applied indiscriminately in a haphazard manner to any king.

c4.s1.t2.111

The only thing we know is that from 400 A.D. to 550 A.D. the empire remained always divided into two kingdoms: Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam in the south with Kāñchī for its capital and the present districts of Guṇṭūr and Nellore in the north with Tāmbrāpa, Palakkada, Menmaturā and Daśanapura for capitals.

c4.s1.t2.112

We can also have some additional information when we proceed to study the Gaṅgas and the Kadambas.

c4.s1.t2.113

From the time of Siṃhavishṇu the history of the Pallavas becomes clear. I think it is useless to repeat here what I have said in my book "The Pallavas," page 36; I shall be content with saying here again that Siṃhavishṇu vanquished the Malaya, Kaḷabhra, Mālava, Chōḷa, Pāṇḍya and Siṃhala king and the Kēraḷas, conquered the Chōḷa kingdom and took possession of the banks of the Kāvērī; that Mahēndra was pursued by Pulakēśin II. up to the banks of the Kāvērī, that he succeeded in defeating his adversary at the battle of Pullalūr and preserved the country of Kāñchī; but he lost the districts of Guṇṭūr and Nellore which remained in the hands of the Chāḷukyas.

Linked texts (2)

Mattavilāsaprahasana — Mahendravarman I, Sanskrit
Kanheri Inscription (No. 15) — Sanskrit