The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s3.171

c8.s3.171

Thus, the Vâyu has seventeen princes and 272 years and a half, and the Mâtsya, thirty and 448 and a half. The Vishnu gives twenty-four names and the Bhâgavata, twenty-two. This last Purâna has in many cases corrupted the names and confounded Hâla with the Arishtakarman of the Vishnu, whom it names Anishtakarman Hâleya. It also omits the fifth prince of the Vishnu Purâna. The details given in the Mâtsya come very close to the general tradition and thus confirm it. Should we then attribute the very great discrepancy between these details and those of the Vâyu to the corruption of the text of the latter? Two or three names might drop away in this manner, but the omission of thirteen names and the reduction of the total duration by 176 years must I think be accounted for in some other way. Besides the tradition about 456 years, there is a statement in the Vâyu Purâna, in a verse below, to the effect that the "Andhras will have possession of the earth for three hundred years,"¹ which seems to point to another. That such a tradition existed is indicated by the mistake in the Bhâgavata by which the Kânvas are assigned three hundred and forty-five years. The original account, which the author of this Purâna must have seen, probably assigned forty-five years to the Kânvas and three hundred to the next or Andhrabhṛitya dynasty. But since that dynasty was also assigned another duration, *viz.* 456 years, he connected the "the three hundred" with the preceding, and gave 345 years to the Kânvâyana family. Now, the manner in which the two traditions are to be reconciled is by supposing that the longer period is made up by putting together the reigns of all the princes belonging to the several branches of the Andhrabhṛitya dynasty. That the younger princes often reigned at Paiṭhaṇ and the elderly ones at Dhanakaṭaka appears clear when we compare the inscriptions with the statement in Ptolemy. When the throne at the principal seat became vacant, the Paiṭhaṇ princes succeeded. But some probably died before their elders and never became kings of Dhanakaṭaka. From an inscription found at Banavâsî by Dr. Burgess it would appear that another branch of that dynasty ruled over Kânarâ. The period of three hundred years and the seventeen names given in the Vâyu Purâṇa refer probably to the main branch. The Mâtsya seems to me to put together the princes of all the branches, and thus makes them out to be thirty. The total of the years assigned to the several reigns in the Vâyu is 272½, and if we should suppose one or two reigns lasting for about twenty-eight years to have dropped out by the corruption of the text, it would become 300½. Thus then the Vâyu and the Mâtsya Purâṇas each give a correct account, but of different things. The Vishṇu, which gives twenty-four princes, is not entitled to so much credit as the Vâyu. It is a later work and the author's purpose being sectarian, he probably did not care so much for the accuracy of his details, and hence omitted even the duration of each reign. The Bhâgavata is still more careless, as has already been shown.