Ancient History of the Deccan c6.s2: § 2. The Gangas
Ancient History of the Deccan c6.s2
- Language
- English
§ 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).