Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient History of the Deccan c6: Chapter VII. The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts

Ancient History of the Deccan c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII. The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts

§ 1. The Kadambas

c6.s1.1

The genealogy of the Kadambas may probably be the following:

c6.s1.2

Mayûraśarman (340-360 A. D.)

c6.s1.3

Kaṅgavarman (360-385 A. D.)

c6.s1.4

Bhagîratha (385-410 A. D.)

c6.s1.5

| . . . . .
| |

c6.s1.6

Raghu (410-425 A. D.) Kâkusthavarman (425-450 A. D.)

c6.s1.7

| . . . . .
| |

c6.s1.8

Santivarman (450-475 A. D.) Kṛiṣhṇavarman I.

c6.s1.9

| | . . . . .
| | |

c6.s1.10

Mṛigêśavarman Mândhâtṛivarman Viṣhṇuvarman Dêvavarman (475-488 A. D.) (488-500 A. D.) |

c6.s1.11

| | . . . . .
| | | |

c6.s1.12

Ravivarman Bhânuvarman Śivaratha Simhavarman (500-537 A. D.) |

c6.s1.13

| Kṛiṣhṇavarman II.
| (550-565 A. D.)

c6.s1.14

Harivarman Kumaravarman | (537-550 A. D.) | Ajavarman

c6.s1.15

Mandhata-Râja Bhôgivarman (Shimoga plates) | Viṣhṇuvarman A part of this genealogy has been published by Professor Kielhorn (Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII., page 30) and admitted by Mr. Rice in his work “Mysore and Coorg from inscriptions” [“jyêshṭha-pitṛi,” in the Birûr plates, means a father’s elder brother].

c6.s1.16

The genealogy given above differs from those published by Messrs. Kielhorn and Rice because I have taken into account the discovery of the Shimoga plates in 1911 and those of Tagare in 1918. The Tagare plates (Annual Report, Mysore Archæological Department, for 1918, page 40, No. 71) give us the following genealogy:

c6.s1.17

Krishṇavarman

c6.s1.18

Ajavarman

c6.s1.19

Bhôgivarman

c6.s1.20

Vishṇuvarman

c6.s1.21

Relying on the form of the letters, I thought that it was not possible to admit that this Krishṇavarman was Krishṇavarman I; but that he was, on the contrary, very probably Krishṇavarman II.

c6.s1.22

The Shimoga plates (Annual Report, Mysore Archæological Department, for 1911, page 31), say that the king Mândhâta-Râja, son of Kumâravarman reigned at Uchchangi (Uchchangidurga=Uchchaśṛiṅgi). This town belonged to Śivaratha in the 4th year of the reign of Harivarman (Halsî plates, Ind. Ant., Vol., page 30); that is why we can suppose that Kumâravarman was the son of Śivaratha or Harivarman; the Shimoga plates do not give us any information about his filiation.

c6.s1.23

The chronology of the Kadambas has not yet been fixed on a sure basis. It is only a complete study not only of this dynasty but also of all the other dynasties of the Deccan that will enable us to arrive at a satisfactory result. In the genealogical table, I have just given, I have put within brackets, beside the name of each king, the approximate date of his reign, according to the chronology I have adopted. I shall now try to justify this chronology.

c6.s1.24

(1) We have said, when speaking of the copper plates of the Pallava dynasty, that palæography was generally a bad auxiliary to the chronology of dynasties; very often, two documents dated in the same reign differ much from each other. However there is a special case to which I must draw the reader's attention. We know that in the middle of the V century the Gupta-Vâkâṭakas were very powerful in the Deccan. I call Gupta-Vâkâṭakas those kings of the Vâkâṭaka dynasty who were the sons, grandsons or great-grandsons of queen Prabhâvati, daughter of Dêvagupta (Chandra-Gupta II). We know that this queen was the regent of the kingdom during the miniority of her son; and the plates of Professor Pâtak (Ind. Ant., 1912, page 215), which are dated in the time of this princess, bear on the seal not the genealogy of the Vâkâṭakas but of the Guptas. The descendants of this queen considered themselves to be as much Guptas as Vâkâṭakas. They adopted a very peculiar alphabet which spread as a queer fashion in the V century, in the empire of the Guptas, at the time of Chandra-Gupta II (Bühler "Ind. paleography" Ind. Ant. Vol XXXIII, page 64). This has been styled the "box-headed" alphabet. I distinguish two sorts of "box" placed at the head of the letters :

c6.s1.25

The "true box"; it is thus described by J. F. Fleet: "formed by sinking four short strokes in the shape of a square and leaving a block of stone or copper in the centre of them" (Gupta Inscriptions, page 19).

c6.s1.26

The "false box" is more simple: the sculptor or engraver has simply removed a sufficiently large square surface at the head of each letter.

c6.s1.27

As an example of the "true box" we may take the Balaghat plates (Ep. Ind. Vol. IX., page 268) of Pṛithivishêṇa II and all the plates of Pravarasêna II (Chammak, Siwanî and Dudia).

c6.s1.28

When examining the Uruvupalli plates (see the plate in Ind. Ant. Vol. V, page 51) which are dated from Palakkada in the 11th year of the reign of the Pallava king Simhavarman and which have been engraved by order of Yuvamahârâja Vishṇugôpa, I made the important remark, which no one has done up to the present, that the alphabet of this documents was "box headed"; nay more, it is not the "false box"

c6.s1.29

but the "true box" so much that these plates can be shown as an excellent specimen of the "true box". Simhavarman and Vishṇugôpa have reigned between 475 and 500 A. D. and the Uruvupalli plates are probably dated 486 A. D. The plates of Mâṅgalûr and Pikira of the son of Vishṇugôpa are not box-headed; we may therefore say that from 500 A. D., the box method disappeared. The same phenomenon is to be seen in the Kadamba documents: the plates of Mṛigêśa and Mân-dhatṛi are box-headed, but those of Ravivarman are not. There is room to think that Mṛigêśa and Mândhâtṛi reigned from 475 to 500 A. D. and were contemporaries of Simhavarman and Vishṇugôpa; and that Ravivarman reigned after 500 A. D. when the box method has disappeared from the Deccan.

c6.s1.30

(2) We know that about 550 A. D., Pulakêśin I seized Vâtâpi and founded the Chaḷukya kingdom: but if we look at the map, we see that the geographical position of Bâdâmi (Vâtâpi) allows us to affirm that Palâśikâ (Halsi) could not belong to the Kadambas when the Chaḷukyas were in Bâdâmi. It may therefore be asserted that all the plates found at Halsi and dated from Palâśikâ (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, pages 23, 25, 28, 29, 31,) are anterior to 550 A. D. We may therefore say that Harivarman who, in the 5th year of his reign (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, page 31) held Palâśikâ, reigned there before the middle of the VI century. It has to be noted that we do not know of any Kadamba document dated from Palâśikâ which is posterior to the one we have just mentioned; it is therefore probable that Harivarman was almost the contemporary of Puḷakêśin I and was vanquished by him. The Sangoli plates (Ep. Ind., Vol. XIV, page 165) mention an astronomical phenomenon and Mr. K. N. Dikshit of Poona has observed that during the VI century this phenomenon could have occured only thrice: in 507, in 526 and in 545. The Sangoli plates being dated in the 8th year of Harivarman's reign, this king must have come to the throne only in 526-8=518 A. D. or in 545-8=537 A. D., if we believe that this event happened in the VI century. The latter date agrees perfectly well with the chronology we have adopted; we shall therefore admit that Harivarman ascended the throne in 537 A. D.

c6.s1.31

Let us now proceed to sum up the history of this dynasty.

c6.s1.32

The Taḷaguṇḍa inscription (Ep. Ind., Vol VIII, page 30) gives a version, probably historical, of the origin of the Kadambas. There was a brahman belonging to the Mânavya gôtra named Mayûraśarman who was a native of Sthânakundur (Taḷaguṇḍa) and belonged to a family called Kadamba since a kadamba tree sheltered their house. He came to the capital of the Pallava empire to study the Vêdas and there had a quarrel with a horseman. Hearing it said that the brahman caste was inferior to that of the Kshatrias, he got angry, put himself at the head of a band of adventurers and attacked the Pallavas in the forests of Sri Parvata. With the help of Bṛihad-Bâna and other kings, he succeeded in founding the kingdom of which Banavâsi (Vaijayanti) was the capital. Mr. K. G. Sankara Iyer of Trivandrum in his excellent article on "The age of Kâlidâsa" published in the "Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society," (Bangalore, Vol. VIII., July 1918) says: "It is probable that Mâyuraśarman took advantage of the confusion caused by Samudragupta's southern expedition to set himself up as an independent ruler". This hypothesis accords with the chronology we have adopted.

c6.s1.33

Dr. A. Venkatasubbiah, the learned officer of the "Mysore Archæological Department", has written an article on "The Kadamba prâkṛit inscription of Malavalli" Ind, Ant., Vol. XLVI, page 154), in which we find the exact tenor of that document. It is a Kadamba inscription, but the name of the king is not mentioned. However, as it is in prâkṛit we may suppose that he was the most ancient king of the dynasty and that the document is dated in the reign of Mayuraśarman, that is, the middle of the IV century.

c6.s1.34

The 8th verse of the Ajaṇṭā inscription (cave No. XVI, Arch. Surv. W. Ind., Vol IV, pages 53 and 124) says that the Vākāṭaka king Prithivishêṇa I. vanquished the king of Kuṇṭala, i. e. the Kadamba king. It is certain that Prithivishêṇa I. reigned for a long time : tradition says that he reigned for about a hundred years and Mr. Vincent A. Smith is of opinion that it means "from about forty to sixty years". We know that his son Rudrasêna II. married the daughter of Chandra-Gupta II. about 395 A. D. We may therefore be almost sure that Prithivishêṇa I. reigned between 350 and 390 A. D. According to our chronology he must have been the contemporary of the Kadamba king Kaṅgavarman (360-385 A. D.) and it is probable that this king of Kuṇṭala is the one whose defeat is mentioned in the Ajaṇṭâ inscription; and the Tâlguṇḍa inscription seems to confirm this supposition, as it says that Kaṅgavarman accomplished "lofty exploits in terrible wars".

c6.s1.35

We have not got any information about Bhagîratha.

c6.s1.36

Raghu "subdued enemies by his valour". It is probably in his reign that his brother Kâkustha bore the title of Yuvamahârâja and ruled over Palâśikâ (Halsi in Belgaum) in the year 80 of an unknown era which probably began with the founding of the dynasty by Mayûraśarman. In that case, the Halsi plates (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, page 23) would be dated about the year 420 A. D. and Kâkustha would have come to the throne in 425 and reigned till 450 A. D.

c6.s1.37

The Balaghat plates (Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, page 268) say that Narêndrasêna was the grandson of Prabhâvati-Guptâ and that he married the daughter of the king of Kuṇṭala named Ajjhitabhaṭṭarikâ. When did this marriage take place? We have admitted with Mr. Vincent A. Smith (J. R. A. S., April 1914, page 326) that the marriage of Rudrasêna II with the daughter of Chandra-Gupta II, the queen Prabhâvati-Gupta, took place about 395 A. D.; we may suppose that the marriage of their grandson took place 50 years later. So the marriage of the prince Gupta-Vâkâṭaka with the daughter of the king of Kuṇṭala must be placed about 445 A. D. We have said above that it is certain that the Kuṇṭala kingdom was no other than the kingdom of the Kadambas (see Ep. Ind., Vol. XIII, page 299, verses 58—62). We may therefore put the question: who was the Kadamba king that reigned in 445 and gave his daugter in marriage to the Gupta-Vâkâṭaka king? In our chronology Kâkusthavarman is shown to have reigned from 425 to 450 and it is quite possible that in 445 he had a daughter of marriageable age: and the celebrated inscription of Tâlguṇḍa which contains the eulogy of Kâkusthavarman and is writhen in the "box-headed" alphabet says that Kâkusthavarman gave his daughters in marriage to the Guptas and other kings.

c6.s1.38

The plates of Mṛigêśa and Mândhâtṛi, "the sons of Śântivarman, are also written in the same alphabet.

c6.s1.39

Two sets of copper plates discovered at Dêvagiri (Ind. Ant., Vol. VII, page 35 and page 37) are dated in the 3rd and 4th years of the reign of Mrigêśa; the Halsi plates (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, p, 24) and the Hire-Sakuna plates (Ep. Carn., VII, page 12), are dated in the 8th year of the same reign. The Hiṭṇahabbâgilu (Ep. Carn., IV, p. 136) and Tâḷguṇḍa records are not dated. The last document (Mysore Archæological Report for 1910-11, page 35, and Plate IV, 2) mentions the wife of Mrigêśa, who was born in the Kaikeya family, and was called Prâbhâvati. In the first 8 years of his reign, about 480 A. D. Mrigêśa utprooted the Gaṅgas, and was a very fire of destruction of the Pallavas (Halsi plates, Ind. Ant., VI, p. 24). Mrigêśa reigned at Vaijayanti. It is probable that he did not reign long, since the documents we have got do not go beyond the 8th year of his reign.

c6.s1.40

It is probable that Mrigêśa was succeeded by his younger brother Mândhâṭrivarman who also reigned at Vaijayanti: the Kûḍgere plates (Ep. Ind., Vol. VI., p. 14) are dated in the 2nd year of his reign. His private secretary Dâmôdaradatta was probably the Dâmôdara of Koṇṇûr (Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI., p. 93).

c6.s1.41

In the absence of more precise information, we may admit that Mrigêśa reigned from 475 to 490 A. D. and Mândhâṭri from 490 to 500 A. D.

c6.s1.42

When Śantivarman, Mrigêśa and Mândhaṭri were reigning at Vaijayanti, the northern provinces (Belgaum, Kaladgee and Darwar), which had Palâśikâ (Halsi) and Triparvata (probably Dêvagêri) for their capitals, were governed by princes belonging to the younger branch of the Kadamba family. Kṛishṇavarman I., son of Kâkustha and elder brother of Santivarman, reigned at Triparvata (probably Dêvagêri, in the Karajgi taluk of Dhârwâḍ District). He had the prince Dêvavarman as yuvamahârâja (Dêvagêre plates, Ind. Ant., Vol. VIII., p. 33). Almost at the same time, Vishṇuvarman, the elder (Birur plates) son of Kṛishṇavarman I, made a grant in the Sindhuthaya-rashtra (Bijapur District) with the permission of his consin Santivarman (Birur plates; Ep. Carn., Vol. VI., p. 91; Kadur No. 162) Vishṇuvarman was the son of a Kaikêya princess who had married Krishnavarman I. Who were the Kaikeyas? Nothing is known about them. The kingdom of Palâśikâ (Halsi), which was governed by Vishṇuvarman, belonged to the Kadambas of Vaijayanti; in fact, when Mrigêśa was reigning at Vaijayantî (Ind. Ant., vol. VI, page 24), he gave orders for the construction of a temple at Palâśikâ.

c6.s1.43

It is probable that on the death of Mândhatṛi, the crown of the Kadambas came, as a matter of right, to Ravivarman the son of Mândhatṛi; this prince being young, his cousin Viṣṇuvarman tried to size upon the throne with the help of the Pallavas; but Ravi killed his adversary. In fact, a set of Halsi plates (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, page 32) say that Râvivarman "acquired the regal power by the strength and prowess of his own arm", and another set of Halsi plates (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, page 29) also add that Râvivarman "having slain Śri-Viṣṇuvarman and other kings, and having uprooted Chaṇḍadaṇḍa, the lord of Kâñchî has established himself at Palâśikâ". The Nilambur plates (Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII., page 146) are dated in the 5th year of Ravivarman's reign; and there are three sets of plates (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, page 25, 28 and 29) that are dated in the same reign from Palâśikâ. The Ajjibad-Sirsi plates (Progress Report, Arch. Surv. West. Ind., for 1917-1918, page 35) are dated in the 35th year of his reign which corresponds probably to circ. 535 A. D. and it is likely, that, having come to the throne about 500 A. D. when sufficiently young, he reigned for about 40 years and died in 537 A. D. The inscription on the stone at Kavaḍi (Sorab 523, Shimoga; (Ep. Carn., Vol. VIII, page 167) mentions the death of Ravi and of his wife who probably became a sati.

c6.s1.44

His son Harivarman succeeded him at Vaijayantî (Sangoli plates; Ep. Ind., Vol. XIV., page 165; 8th year of the reign) and at Palâśikâ (Halsi plates, Ind. Ant., Vol. VI., page 31; 5th year of his reign). We have said that he ascended the throne in 537 A. D.

c6.s1.45

About the year 550 A. D., Pulakêśin I. of the Chaḷukya family installed himself at Vâtâpi (Bâdâmi). This town being situated exactly in the middle of the northern provinces of the Kadamba kingdom, it is almost certain that Harivarman lost, about 550 A. D., all the country that had for its capitals Palâśikâ (Halsi) and Triparvata.

c6.s1.46

We have seen that Ravivarman killed Viṣṇuvarman, his cousin and settled at Palâśikâ; Siṃhavarman, the son of Viṣṇuvarman, probably remained in an inferior position during the reign of Ravivarman; but the son of Siṃhavarman who was called Kṛiṣṇavarman II. ascended the throne of Vaijayantī. The Beṇṇur plates (Ep. Carn., Vol. V., page 594; Belur 245) speak of a military expedition and the Bennahalli plates (Ep. Carn., Vol. V, Be. 121; and Ep. Ind., Vol. VI., page 18) say that Kṛiṣṇavarman II. "has gained the fortune of royalty by his heroism". The kingdom of Kṛiṣṇavarman II. extended between the Chaḷukya kingdom in the north and that of the Gaṅgas in the south. Mâdhava II. of the Gaṅga dynasty married the sister of Kṛiṣṇavarman II. Probably, it was Kṛiṣṇavarman II. that was defeated by the Chaḷuka Kīrtivarman I. shortly before 570 A. D. and whose country was ruined by the Pallavas (Aṇaji insc., Ep. Carn., Vol. XI, Dg, No. 161).

c6.s1.47

For a long time it was believed that the dynasty was completely destroyed. However, the discovery of the Tagare plates (Mysore Arch. Report for 1918, page 40 and plate XI) seems to prove that the son of Kṛiṣṇavarman II. who was called Ajavarman, did not reign, but that Bhôgivarman, the son of Ajavarman, was the "acquirer of an extensive kingdom by the strength of his own arm". It is probable that this kingdom did not last long, for it appears that this country was occupied, shortly after, by the Gaṅgas (Tagare plates of Polavīra, Mysore Arch. Report for 1918, page 41). Viṣṇuvarman son of Bhôgivarman probably lived in the beginning of the VII century.

c6.s1.48

The Châḷukya king Puḷakeśin II besieged Banavâsî (Aihole insc.) and, in the Kadamba country there are inscriptions of Puḷakeśin II (Sh, 10), Vikramâditya (Sa. 79), Vinayâditya (Sh. 154) and Vijayâditya (Sk. 278).

c6.s1.49

At the end of the VIII century, the Pallava king Dantivarman married Aggaḷanimmaṭi, "the daughter of the celebrated king, a crest jewel of the Kadamba family" (Vêlûrpâḷaiyam plates, vers 18; S. I. I., Vol. II., Part V., page 511).

§ 2. The Gangas

c6.s2.1

Up to the moment of writing this, the genealogy of this dynasty has remained unsettled for the following reasons: The first documents that were discovered were no doubt spurious. They gave the following genealogy: Koṅgaṇivarman,

c6.s2.2

Mâdhava (I),

c6.s2.3

Harivarman,

c6.s2.4

Kishṇugôpa,

c6.s2.5

Mâdhava (II),

c6.s2.6

Avinita, etc.

c6.s2.7

In 1913, were discovered the Penukoṇḍa plates which give the following genealogy: Koṅgaṇivarman,

c6.s2.8

Mâdhava,

c6.s2.9

Âyyavarman,

c6.s2.10

Madhava.

c6.s2.11

This document was certainly a genuine one; it was admitted that the genealogy given in the spurious records is erroneous and that the only reliable one is what is given in the Penukoṇḍa plates. It has therefore been admitted that the following is the correct genealogy: Koṅgaṇivarman,

c6.s2.12

Mâdhava I,

c6.s2.13

Âyyavarman,

c6.s2.14

Mâdhava II.,

c6.s2.15

Avinita, Here the donor of the Penukoṇḍa plates is mentioned as the father of Avinīta. I strongly protest against these suppositions. I affirm that the genealogy given in the spurious records is quite correct, but that, till now, no one has understood the true reason for the disagreement that exists between the Penukoṇḍa plates and the other documents. F. Fleet says (J. R. A. S., 1915, page 472): "It must be obvious that two such different statements cannot both be true". There lies the mistake : I am of opinion that both the genealogies are correct; but they are of two different dynasties.

c6.s2.16

First of all, I have to declare most emphatically that the genealogy given in the spurious records is quite correct. In the Mysore Archæological Report for 1916, Mr. R. Narasimhachar has published two sets of copper plates : the Sringeri plates of Avinita and the Uttanur plates of Durvinita; and, as for the Gummareḍḍipura plates of the same king published in 1912 § 69, "there are no indications, that would lead one to suspect the genuineness" of those records. The dynasty referred to in these documents is that of the "Gaṅgas of Talakāḍ".

c6.s2.17

I now proceed to prove the existence of a second dynasty which I shall call the dynasty of the "Gaṅgas of Paruvi". We possess two documents of this dynasty which has remained unknown till now :

c6.s2.18

1) The Penukoṇḍa plates issued by the king Mādhava when making a grant of land situated near the tank of Paruvi in Paravivishaya (J. R. A. S., 1915, page 480 and "Report on Epigraphy" for 1913-1914, Madras, page 83-84);

c6.s2.19

2) The Beṇḍigânhalli plates of Kṛiṣhṇavarman, son of Mādhava, which mentions the grant of Kuraura in Paruvishaya (Mysore Archæol. Annual Report for 1914-1915, plate XVIII). Paruvi is identical with Parigi seven miles north of Hindupur in the Anantapur district.

c6.s2.20

The capital of this dynasty was perhaps Kavaipāṭa from which place are dated the plates of Kṛiṣhṇavarman.

c6.s2.21

The chronology of the Gaṅgas has till now remained so very uncertain that the authors who have treated the subject sometimes differ by several centuries.

c6.s2.22

However, all of them are almost agreed on the one point, that Mādhava II, the father of Avinita, married the sister of Kṛiṣhṇavarman I, the son of Kākusthavarman of the Kadamba dynasty ; but it is quite certain it was not the case. The documents say that Mâdhava II. married the sister of the Kadamba Kṛiṣhṇavarman, but this king was, I am sure, the second of that name and not the first. I declare that Mâdhava II. married the sister of Kṛiṣhṇavarman II.

c6.s2.23

The first king, of whose date we are sure, reigned in the VIII century : in 1918, Mr. R. Narasimhachar discovered at Halkûr (Sira taluk) an inscription on a stone belonging to the reign of Śripuruṣha and dated Ś. 710 or 788 A. D. This king was the son of Śivamâra (Vallimalai insc., No. 91 of 1889), and grandson (Śuḍi plates, Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 181), of Bhûvikrama. Since Śripuruṣha reigned in 788 A. D. we may suppose that his grand father Bhûvikrama ascended the throne in the first quarter of the VIII century (700-725 A. D.). The father of Bhûvikrama named Śrivikrama must have reigned therefore in the 4th quarter of the VII century (675-700 A. D.) and his grandfather Mushkara in the 3rd quarter of the same century (650-675 A. D.). We know that Durvinîta the father of Mushkara reigned for a long time : the Gummareḍḍipura plates (Report, Archæol. Depart. Mysore, for 1912; paras 65-69) are, in fact, dated in the 40th year of his reign, and, as it is probable that he lived a few years more, we may give him a reign of 45 years which will extend from 605 to 650 A. D. His father Avinîta probably reigned for an equally long period, for, the Śringêri plates, which are dated in the second year of his reign, say that he obtained the "sovereignty while still on the lap of his divine mother" and the grant of Ep. Carn., 9, Doḍḍa-Baḷḷâpûr, 68, is dated in the 29th year of his reign. We may therefore believe that he reigned for a further period of 11 years after making the latter grant and that his reign lasted about 40 years. Avinîta would therefore have reigned from 565 to 605 A. D. According to these calculations, Mâdhava II., the father of Avinîta, would have reigned from 540 to 565 A. D. and this is exactly the epoch we have assigned to the Kadamba Kṛiṣhṇavarman II. If we now bear in mind that the Gaṅga Mâdhava II. and the Kadamba Kṛiṣhṇavarman II. both reigned over Mysore, the one in the North and the other in the South, and that, in consequence, they were neighbours, it would seem to be quite natural that Mâdhava II. should marry the sister of Kṛiṣhṇavarman II. It is clear that it is absolutely impossible that Mâdhava II, who lived in the middle of the VI century, should have married the sister of Kṛiṣṇavarman I. who lived in the middle of the V century. We shall therefore conclude by saying: "Mâdhava II, the father of Avinīta, married the sister of the Kadamba Kṛiṣṇavarman II. and reigned from 540 to 565 A. D.".

c6.s2.24

This chronology is in perfect accord with all the documents. We shall presently see that Ayyavarman was placed on the throne about 480 A. D., by Siṃhavarman, the Pallava king that reigned from 475 to 500 A. D., and that the son of Ayyavarman was crowned by the Pallava Skandavarman (500-525 A. D.).

c6.s2.25

We get therefore the following genealogy and chronology: Koṅṇivarman, (of the Kaṇvāyana gôtra),

c6.s2.26

Mâdhava I.,

c6.s2.28

Ayyavarman (480-505) Harivarman

c6.s2.29

Mâdhava (505-530) Viṣṇugôpa

c6.s2.30

Kṛiṣṇavarman Mâdhava II (540-565) (acc. circ. 530) | (Paruvi dynasty) Avinīta (565-605)

c6.s2.31

Durvinīta (605-650)

c6.s2.32

Mushkara ) second half

c6.s2.33

| of the

c6.s2.34

Śrivikrama ) VII century

c6.s2.35

Bhūvikrama ) first half

c6.s2.36

| of the

c6.s2.37

Śivamāra ) VIII century

c6.s2.38

Śripurusha (788 A. D.) etc.

c6.s2.39

We shall now try to give the history of these kings.

c6.s2.40

We have said that, about 480 A. D., the Kadamba Mṛigeśa fought with the Gangas and was "a very fire of destruction of the Pallavas" (Halsi plates, Ind. Ant., Vol. VI., page 25). This information is very important as it proves that about 480 A. D. the Pallavas aided the Gangas in their fight with the Kadambas. The Pallava king at this epoch was probably Simhavarman who reigned at Kāñchī and to whom we have assigned the date 475 to 500 A. D.; and this fact is confirmed by the Penugoṇḍa plates that say that the Ganga king Ayyavarman "was duly installed on the throne by Simhavarman Mahārāja, the lord of the prosperous Pallava family (Rep. on Ep. for 1913-14; G. O., No. 920, 4th Aug. 1914). The son of Ayyavarman who was called Mādhava alias Simhavarman was "installed on the throne by the illustrious Pallava (king) Skandavarman". We have said that Skandavarman of Kāñchī, son of Simhavarman reigned from 500 to 525 A. D. It is probable that this Pallava king had also to contend with the Kadambas for strengthening the sovereignty of the Ganga king for, the Halsi plates (Ind. Ant., Vol. VI., p. 29) say that Rāvivarman struggled against "Chaṇḍadaṇḍa, the lord of Kāñchī". Since we do not know of any Pallava king of that name, we may suppose that the name "Chaṇḍadaṇḍa" was a "biruda" of Skandavarman who reigned at this epoch (500-525 A. D.)

c6.s2.41

Mādhava alias Simhavarman, who made the grant commemorated by the Penugoṇḍa plates, reigned over Paruvivishaya and must be identified with the Madhāva of the Beṇḍigānhalli plates (Mysore Archæ. Report for 1914-15, plate XIII) whose son Vijaya-Kṛishṇavarman reigned over Paruvishaya. This king Kṛishṇavarman must have reigned in the middle of the VI century, for, the alphabet of the Beṇḍigānhalli plates is almost identical with that of the Bannahalli (Ep. Ind, Vol. VI, p. 18) and Chikkulla (Ep. Ind., Vol. IV., p. 196) plates. Kṛishṇavarman is the last known king of the Paruvi dynasty.

c6.s2.42

The king Mādhava II, who belonged to the dynasty of the Gangas of Talakāḍ, "bought the sovereignty with the strength of his own arm", and married the younger sister of the Kadamba Kṛishṇavarman (II), who, in the middle of the VI century, reigned over a large part of Mysore.

c6.s2.43

His son Avinīta (565-605 A. D.) married the daughter of Skandavarman king of Punṇāṭa.

c6.s2.44

We must here say a few words about the kings of Punnâḍ. The capital of this province was Kitthipura or Kittur (Hg. 56, Ep. Carn., Vol. IV) on the river Kabbani, to the west of Talakâḍ. In 1917, Mr. R. Narasimhachar discovered (Mysore Archæol. Report for 1917, page 40, No. 87) the Mâmballi plates that give us reliable information about this dynasty. The spurious plates of Kômaraliṅgam (Ind, Ant., Vol. XVIII; page 362) give further details which are very probably historical.

c6.s2.45

The genealogy of this dynasty would be the following: Râshṭravarman (of the Tâmra-Kâśyapa family)

c6.s2.46

Prithivîpati (the eldest) Nâgadatta Bhujaṅga (who married the daughter of Siṅgavarman) Skandavarman.

c6.s2.47

It is probable that this Skandavarman gave his daughter in marriage to the Gaṅga Avinita (565-605 A. D.), king of Talakâḍ. The issue of this marriage was Durvinita who annexed Punnâḍ to the kingdom of the Gaṅgas.

c6.s2.48

Durvinita (605 to 650 A. D.) is known "as having his broad chest embraced, of her own accord, by the goddess of sovereignty, though she was intended by his father for another son", as the victor in the battles of Andari, Âlattûr, Poluḷare, Pernagara (in Salem district); as the lord of Paṇṇâḍa and Punnâḍa; as the author of three works, namely a Śabdâvatâra, a sanskrit version of the Vaḍḍakatha or Brihatkatha, and a commentary on the 15th sarga of the Kirâtârjuniya (Mysore Archæol. Report, for 1916, page 45).

Synchronization of the Dynasties of the Deccan

c6.s3.1

| Circ. A.D. | Pallavas | Vakatakas | Vishnukundins | Kadambas | Gangas |
| 425-450 | Viravarman \| Skandavarman | Pravarasēna II. | | Kākustha \| Sāntivarman | Konkanivarman \| Mādhava I. |
| 450-475 | | A son \| Narēndrasēna | Mādhava I. \| Vikramēndra I. | Krishnavarman \| Mrigēśa | |
| 475-500 | Simhavarman \| Skandavarman | Y.M. Vishnugōpa \| Dēvasēna \| Harishēna | Indrabhattaraka | Vishnuvarman \| Ravivarman | Ayyavarman \| Mādhava | Harivarman \| Vishnugōpa |
| 525-550 | Nandivarman | Vishnugōpa | Vikramēndra II. | Simhavarman \| Harivarmam | Krishnavarman \| Krishnavarman II. | Mādhava II. |

c6.s3.2

Pravarasēna II being the grandson of Chandra-Gupta II (375-413) was certainly living in the second quarter of the V century.

c6.s3.3

The box-headed alphabets of the Kadamba kings Mrigēśa and Māndhatri are contemporaneous with the box-headed alphabet of the Balaghat plates of Prithivishēna II who was the son of a Kadamba (Kuntala) princess.

c6.s3.4

The Uruvapalli plates of Yuvamahārāja Vishnugōpa are box-headed as the plates of the Kadamba kings Mrigēśa and Māndhatri.

c6.s3.5

The alphabets of the Bendiganhalli (Mysore Arch. Rep. for 1914-15, plate XVIII) Chikkulla (Ep. Ind. Vol. IV, p. 196) and Bannahalli (Ep. Ind. Vol. VI., p. 18) plates are so similar that there is no room for doubting that the Ganga Krishnavarman, the Vishnukundin Vikramēndravarman II and the Kadamba Krishnavarman II were contemporaneous; the sister of this latter king married the Ganga Mādhava II.

c6.s3.6

It is very probable that the Kadamba Harivarman ascended the throne in 537 A. D. and so, was contemporaneous with the Pallava king Vishnugōpa (525-550), grand father of Simhavishnu whose date 575-600 is not doubtful.

§ 3. The Châḷukyas

c6.s4.1

The genealogy and the chronology of the Western Châḷukyas present no difficulty: Jayasimha (of the Mânavya gôtra)

c6.s4.2

Raṇarâga

c6.s4.3

Raṇavikrama Puḷakêśin I (circ. 550 A. D.)

c6.s4.4

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

c6.s4.5

Kîrtivarman I (566-597), Maṅgaḷêśa (597-608),

c6.s4.6

Puḷakêśin II., Kubjâ-Viṣṇuvardhana (609-642) (founder of the Eastern Châḷukya dynasty)

c6.s4.7

The origin of this dynasty is obscure [the legend given in the “grant of Vira-Choḍa,” S. I. I., Vol. 1., page 50, has nothing historical in it ]. In 1905, (J. R. A. S., for 1905, page 360) Fleet found out that the hypotheses formed on this subject were all of them baseless. I shall, however, make a remark: the grant of Uṇḍivâṭika (Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII., page 163) which is probably dated in the first half of the VI century says that the commander of the fort of Harivâtsakoṭṭa was a certain Jayasimha (see also Ind. Ant., Vol XXX). Can this Jayasimha be the founder of the Châḷukya dynasty?

c6.s4.8

Puḷakêśin I., who probably came from a town called Indukânti installed himself about 550 A. D., at Vâtâpi (Bâdâmi). We have said that this military operation could have been effected only by having defeated the Kadamba king (probably Harivarman) who reigned, with Halsi for capital, over the modern provinces of Kaladgee, Belgaum, and Dharwar. The historical documents say that he performed a horse sacrifice. We know also (Bâdâmi insc., Ind. Ant., Vol. III, page 305; Vol. VI, page 363; Vol. X, page 58) that he married Durlabhadêvî of the Batpûra family. This family lived probably not far from Goa at Rêvatîdvîpa (Goa plates; J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. X., page 348). His eldest son Kirtivarman I. succeeded him in 566-7 A. D.

c6.s4.9

The inscription of Mahâkûṭa (near Bâdâmi) [Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, page 7] says that Kirtivarman gained victories in the following countries : Vaṅga and Aṅga (E. and W. Bengal), Kaliṅga, Vaṭṭûra, Magadha, Madraka, Kêraḷa, Gaṅga, Mûshaka, Pâṇḍya, Dramiḷa, Chôḷiya, Âḷuka (the Âḷuvas or Âḷupas, in the N.-E of Banavâsi) and Vijayanti. Again, the Aihole inscription says that Kirtivarman was a "night of doom to the Naḷas, the Mauryas and the Kadambas." The Naḷas probably occupied Naḷavâḍi (mentioned in plates of Vikramâditya I) near Bellary and Karnûl districts. The Mauryas were a people of Northern Koṅkaṇ (see Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, Part. II., page 282). A stone discovered at Vâḍa in the Thâna district (see Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. XIV, page 373) mentions the Maurya Seketuvarman. We have already spoken of the defeat of the Kadambas a little before 570 A. D. It would appear that Kirtivarman defeated a confederation of Kadamba princes probably Kṛishṇavarman II and his feudatories. In the 12th year of his reign, Kirtivarman had as Yuvamahârâja his young brother Maṅgaḷêśa; and it is this prince that had one of the caves of Bâdâmi dug in the year 500 of the Śaka era, which corresponds to 578 A. D. (Ind. Ant., Vol. III, page 305; Vol. VI, page 363; Vol. X, page 58). Kirtivarman married a princess of the Sêndraka family who was the daughter of Sênânanda râja (Chipḷuṇ plates, Ep. Ind., Vol. III, page 51). Of this union was born a son named Puḷakêśin II. This prince was probably very young when his father died and the crown passed to Maṅgaḷêśa, the brother (or half-brother, Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX., page 15) of Kirtivarman I.

c6.s4.10

The inscription of Mahâkûṭa which is dated in the 5th year of the reign of Maṅgaḷêśa i-e. 601-602 A. D. say (Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, page 7) that this king vanquished Buddha, and the Nerûr plates (Ind. Ant., Vol. VII., page 166) say that he "put to flight Śaṃkaragaṇa's son Buddharâja and killed Swâmirâja of the Châlikya family (see also Ind. Ant., Vol. VI, page 363). We have already spoken of the defeat of Buddharâja when studying the Kalachuri dynasty. The Aihole inscription (Ep.

c6.s4.11

Ind., Vol. VI, No. 1, page 8) says that Maṅgalêśa “took in marriage the Fortune of the Kaṭachchuris” and seized upon the isle of Rêvatî; it was perhaps in this island that Svâmirâja reigned. The Aihole inscription adds: “when his elder brother’s son named Pulakêśin had formed the resolution to wander abroad as an exile, that Maṅgalêśa abandoned together with the effort to secure the kingdom for his own son, both his kingdom and his life”. This event took place in 608 A. D. Pulakêśin was formally crowned in the following year.

c6.s4.12

The Aihole inscription (Ep. Ind. Vol. VI, page 4) gives us the following description of the exploits of Pulakêśin II.

c6.s4.13

Two chiefs, Appâyika and Gôvinda having tried to conquer the country to the north of the river Bhîma, one is repulsed and the other submits and becomes the ally of the Châlukyas. Pulakêśin then lays siege to Vanavâsî and subdues the Gaṅgas, the Âlupas who reigned in this region, as also the Mauryas of Koṅkan. He then besieges Purî, an important town on the coast of the western ocean (Arabian sea); the Lâṭas, the Mâḷavas and the Gûrjaras surrender as well as the inhabitants of the Vindhyas, the banks of the Rêvâ and the three Mahârâshṭras. In the North-east, Pulakêśin subdues the kingdoms of Kaliṅga and Kôsaḷa. He seizes the citadel of Pishṭapura and fights near the waters of the Kunâḷa; then he turns to the south, routs the king of the Pallavas (Mahêndravarman I.) of Kâñchî, crosses the Kâvêrî, causes “prosperity to the Chôḷas, Kêraḷas, Pâṇḍyas” and returns to his capital Bâdâmi. These exploits took place at the beginning of his reign, circ. 609 A. D. The conquest of the Telugu country comprising the districts of Godavari, Krishna and Guntur is a landmark in the history of the Deccan, owing to the creation of an important kingdom, that of the Eastern Châlukyas.

c6.s4.14

It is noteworthy that the Aihole inscription which bears the date 634 A. D. makes no mention of king Harsha Vardhana. The documents posterior to it mention the victory gained by Pulakêśin over Harsha. It is probable that it was about the year 636 A. D. that Harsha vanquished Dhruvasêna II, king of Valabhi; Harsha wished to extend his conquests much more, but was stopped by Pulakêśin. This event probably took place about 637 or 638 A. D.

c6.s4.15

We close the "Ancient History of the Deccan" with the year 610 A. D. At this epoch, Puḷakeśin II. has become master of the whole of the Deccan; the Pallavas have been repulsed in the south, and all the other old dynasties have been destroyed. From 610 A. D. the documents have become more numerous, and chronology has become more precise; we enter into a new epoch in the history of the Deccan, the middle ages.

c6.s4.16

Pondicherry, December 1919.

Linked texts (25)