History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c9: Chapter IV. Early Pallavas of the Sanskrit Records

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c9

Language: English

c9.s1 Vīrakūrcha and His Period — 1 part
c9.s2 Was Vīrakūrcha the First Pallava King? — 107 parts

Chapter IV. Early Pallavas of the Sanskrit Records

c9.2

Sources of Information and Their Nature.—We may now proceed to construct the order of succession of the Pallava kings mentioned in the various copper-plate charters inscribed in Sanskrit in their genealogical order. This is the period ranging from about A.D. 350 to 600. The most important copper-plate records of this period are those addressed from Tāmrāpa, Palakkada, Mēnmātūra, Daśanapura, Pikīra, Ōngōdu (I and II), Darśi, Rāyakota, Chandalūr, Udayēndiram, Uruvappalli, and the stone inscriptions of Vāyalūr and Amarāvatī. These charters have for their object the recording of gifts of land to learned Brahmans or temples, and only incidentally mention the ancestral history of the ruling sovereign who issued the grant. Like the earlier charters they are not dated in any known era such as the Śaka which might enable us to fix their date with precision; but they are merely dated in the regnal year of the ruling sovereign. These records are almost all of them written in the Sanskrit language in the early Grantha-Pallava script peculiar to the Pallava records, and have been assigned on purely palæographical grounds to the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. The practice of inscribing a part of the record in Tamil was adopted only from the seventh century onward, the Kūram plates of Paramēsvaravarman being the earliest known Pallava Sanskrit-Tamil charter. To these we may also add the four or five important copper-plate charters of this variety belonging to the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries A.D. which also furnish, in the donative part of the gift, a long genealogy of the earlier sovereigns in the Pallava dynasty. These are the Kaśākkuḍi, Vēlūrpāḷayam, Korranguḍi, Taṇḍantōṭṭam, and the Udayēndiram plates. These records enable us to check the accuracy of the information contained in the earlier grants.

c9.3

*The Nature of these Records and some Important Synchronisms.*—The actual chronological position and the genealogical order of the Pallava kings of this period are, in the present state of knowledge, bound to be tentative and far from strictly accurate. Fortunately an element of certainty in the case of certain of the sovereigns of this period has become possible by two or three important synchronisms. The most valuable of these is contained in the Penugoṇḍa plates of the Western Ganga king Mādhava II, which, unlike most other early Ganga plates, has been accepted to be a genuine record.¹ By stating that Arivarman (equivalent of Harivarman or Āryavarman) and Simhavarman and Skandavarman were installed on the Ganga throne by Simhavarman and Skandavarman of the Pallava family this record gives the valuable information that Āryavarman and Simhavarman of the Western Ganga dynasty were contemporaries of the Pallava kings Simhavarman and Skandavarman, and in all probability their feudatories as well. Dr. Fleet, who has made a special study of these plates, has given it as his opinion that the period when these kings flourished must have been about the last quarter of the fifth century A.D., and that A.D. 475 is a very good date for the record.

c9.4

¹ Fleet, J.R.A.S., 1915, pp. 471-85.

c9.5

The *Lokavibhāga* Datum.—The next important work which introduces some certainty in the early Pallava chronology is the Digambara Jain work known as *Lokavibhāga* which is dated in Śaka 380, i.e. A.D. 458.² This date, we understand from the work, corresponds to the twenty-second year of Simhavarman, the king of Kāñchi. Dr. Fleet, who was generally suspicious of early Śaka dates, examined this date carefully, and making a few corrections, arrived at the conclusion that it was equivalent to A.D. 458. As this year corresponded to the twenty-second year of Simhavarman the initial year of his reign may be calculated back as the year A.D. 436. This datum, which was first brought to the notice of scholars by Mr. R. Narasimhacharyar of the Mysore Archæological Department, helps us to fix the period of two of the Pallava kings Simhavarman and his son Skandavarman in the second and third quarters of the fifth century. Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil however underrates the value of this testimony¹ and regards it as rather suspicious especially as it does not say which Simhavarman it was and to what branch of the Pallava family he belonged.

c9.6

² Mys. Archl. Rep. for 1909-10, para 112.

c9.7

¹ The Pallavas, p. 18.

c9.8

*Avantisundarikathāsāra.*—Another valuable synchronism which has been discovered recently, is obtained from the Sanskrit manuscript known as *Avantisundarikathāsāra* the historical introduction of which gives an account of Bhāravi and Daṇḍin. We learn from this that Bhāravi visited the courts of Viṣṇuvardhana, Durvinīta, and Simhaviṣṇu. From the fact that the poet is described to have visited these three kings we may infer that these kings were contemporaries. As it is known that Durvinīta belonged to the later part of the sixth century, and as we also know that Viṣṇuvardhana is assignable to the same period, we may feel certain that the members of the Pallava kings of the Sanskrit charters belong to a period anterior to the seventh century. From the seventh century onward there is not much uncertainty either in the actual order of succession of the Pallava kings or their dates. The light thrown by the *Avantisundarikathā* upon the political history of South India and chronology is discussed both in the Proceedings of the Oriental Conference Second Session (1922) and in the Mythic Society's Journal, by Messrs. M. Ramakrishnakavi and A. Rangaswami Sarasvati.²

c9.9

² Another MS. of the original prose *Avantisundarikathā* by Acharya Daṇḍin has been discovered by Pundit G. Harihara Sastri at Trivandrum. This confirms the contemporaneity of Bhāravi, Viṣṇuvardhana I, Durvinīta and Simhaviṣṇu. It makes however Daṇḍin the great grandson of Damodhara, a friend of Bhāravi, and not Bhāravi himself, the modification being due to a slight error in reading. Summary of papers, Fourth Oriental Conference, pp. 44-7. Ed.

c9.10

We have already pointed out that the connection of the Pallava kings referred to in the Prakrit charters such as Śivaskandavarman, Vijaya-Buddhavarman, etc., with those of the Sanskrit charters such as Skandavarman, Simhavarman, Simhavishṇu, etc., is not definitely known. But the fact that in both the sets of copper-plates the kings are spoken of as belonging to the Bhāradvāja-gotra, and the general resemblance of the names in both lead us to conclude that these kings were members of one family.

c9.11

Vishṇugopa. Circa 340.—The next point concerns Vishṇugopa, the contemporary of Samudragupta. A perusal of the genealogical portion of the early Pallava charters shows that there were several members bearing this name such as Yuvamahārāja Vishṇugopa, Vishṇugopavarman of the Uruvapalli and the Pikīra plates, besides a Mahārāja-Vishṇugopa who figures twice in the Chura plates.¹ Then again we have, in the Vāyalūr pillar inscription, the name of Vishṇugopa repeated thrice and also the name of Vishṇudāsa. The earliest of these is probably to be identified with the adversary described in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta. It has been suggested recently that the orthodox estimate of Samudragupta's southern expedition has been considerably exaggerated and that the Allahabad inscription has been misinterpreted. Thus for instance Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil in his *Ancient History of Deccan*² says:—

c9.12

¹ *Ep. Rep. for 1914.*

c9.13

² Jouveau-Dubreuil, *Anc. His. Dec.*, p. 60.

c9.14

After all these rectifications that we have just made the expedition of Samudragupta 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, Samudragupta left his capital Pāṭaliputra and marched directly towards the south. First he conquered Southern Kosala where the king Mahēndra was reigning in the vicinity of Sirpur and Sambalpur. He then crossed the forests that are to the south of Sonpur and found there the small kingdom of Mahākāntāra which means the " great forest " and where

c9.15

Vyāgrarāja the "Tiger-king" was reigning.¹ Then he reached the coast of Orissa. Maṇṭarāja, king of Koṛala, Mahēndra of Piṣṭāpura, Svāmidatta of Koṭṭura, a citadel on the top of a hill and Damana of Ēraṇḍapalle tried to stop him but were captured. Samudragupta now prepared to make new conquests when he was opposed by a confederacy of all the kings that reigned near the mouth of the rivers Godavari and the Krishna, the most powerful of them being Viṣṇugopa the Pallava king of Kāñchi. The other kings were Nilarāja of Avamukta, Hastivarman of Vengi, Ugrasēna of Pālakka, Kubēra who reigned in Dēvarāṣṭra and Dhananjaya whose capital was at Kusthalapura. Samudragupta being repulsed by the kings of the Eastern Deccan abandoned the conquests he had made in the coast of Orissa and returned home.'

c9.16

¹ About the identification of this Vyāgra see *Ind. Ant.*, vol. lv, pp. 103ff and 223ff. *Ed.*

c9.17

Thus according to this view the Allahabad pillar does not speak of Pollachi, Palghat, Mahēndragiri, Colair lake, Ērandol and Mahārāṣṭra. The identification of Āiraṇḍapalla with Ērandol appears in the light of the facts known from the Siddhāntam plates of Dēvēndravarman to be near Chicacole.² Similarly Dēvarāṣṭra which has been hitherto identified with Mahārāṣṭra, thus misleading scholars into the impression that Samudragupta went to Mahārāṣṭra, figures in an Eastern Chāḷukya grant.³ discovered in the Vizagapatam District. All the kingdoms mentioned in the inscription are situated in the east coast of the Dakhan. Again according to the same authority Samudragupta did not advance as far south as Kāñchi to defeat Viṣṇugopa, but was effectively subjugated by him on the banks of the Godavari or the Krishna. This is merely a hypothesis which has not been proved; there is no evidence against the orthodox view that Samudragupta did advance against Kāñchīpuram and most scholars are inclined to accept this view. There is nothing to sustain the view that the defeat inflicted upon Vishṇugopa and his colleagues have been exaggerated as presumed by Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil in his *Ancient History of the Deccan*.¹ The distinction made in the Allahabad pillar inscription in regard to the various groups of states Samudragupta came into contact with, is clear evidence of an actual invasion and conquest in regard to these trans-Vindhyan states.

c9.18

² *Ep. Ind.*, vol. xii, p. 212.

c9.19

³ *Ep. Rep.*, 1908-1909, p. 109. These identifications cannot yet be regarded as final. Places in East Khandesh have vestiges which would support Fleet's identification yet. See *J. I. H.*, vol. v, p. 399. A note on Vakāṭakas by Y. R. Gupte. *Ed.*

c9.20

¹ Ch. iii, pp. 58-61.

c9.21

A doubt has been raised² whether the Vishṇugopa mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription is to be regarded as a member of the Pallava dynasty or otherwise. The Vishṇugopa, described as belonging to Kāñchi, could be no other than a member of the Pallava dynasty although he is not described as a Pallava affiliated to the Bhāradvāja-gotra as the kings of the copper-plate charters are. The consideration which makes the surmise almost certain is that the name is a characteristic Pallava name in the same manner as Nandivarman may be regarded as peculiar to the Pallava dynasty. The name does not occur in any other royal dynasty so far known to us. There is moreover no probability of any other royal dynasty having ruled at Kāñchīpuram just at the period of Samudragupta’s raid, other than the Pallava. All these considerations taken along with the fact that the chieftains mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription are associated only with the capital city of their kingdoms and not with their dynastic or family names, lead to the conclusion that Vishṇugopa, of Kāñchi, the adversary of Samudragupta, was a member of the Prakrit or early Sanskrit charters. We are not at present in a position to know anything more about him except his encounter with Samudragupta, and the probability of his being devoted to Vishṇu as is apparent by the name. No copper-plate, which may be expected to throw light on his reign, has been brought to light yet. But the passage in the Allahabad inscription makes it plain that in the middle of the fourth century A.D., there reigned on the banks of the Godavari and the Krishna and in their vicinity a number of powerful chieftains such as Hastivarman of Vengi, presumably identical with the Sālankāyana king of that name, Nīlarāja of Avamukta, Ugrasēna of Palakka and others.

c9.22

² *South Ind. Jainism*, p. 143.

c9.23

*Vishnugopa to Simhavishnu. A. D. 340 to 550.*—This period covers roughly 200 years and is commonly spoken of as the age of the Pallava kings of the Sanskrit charters, as the records of this period are invariably in Sanskrit and not in Prakrit as hitherto. The effects of the invasion of Samudragupta on the Pallava dynasty must have been far-reaching. One of these was probably to weaken the authority of Vishnugopa, and, after his death, to promote dynastic quarrels among his successors. It is very difficult to establish the exact order of succession of kings enumerated in the historical portion of the copper-plates of this period. Nor is it possible to say definitely whether all the kings, whose names figure in these records, actually ruled or occupied the Pallava throne. The extent of the territory over which their rule probably extended is also uncertain. We have already pointed out that it is possible to establish some connection, at present unknown, between the Pallava kings of the Sanskrit charters and those of the Prakrit records (A. D. 215-350). We do not know who the first member of the Pallava dynasty of the Sanskrit charters was. In this respect the Vēlūrpālayam copper-plate charter ascribed to the later Pallava king Nandivarman III of the ninth century and the Kaśākkuḍi plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla throw some light on the manner in which the first member of the Pallava dynasty acquired sovereignty.¹

c9.24

¹ Vēlūrpālayam plates, *S. I. I.*, vol. ii, p. 507.

c9.25

The historical portion of the Vēlūrpālayam grant which supplies a detailed genealogy of the Pallava kings after giving the legendary origin of the Pallavas from Vishnu to Pallava, through Brahma, Angirasa, Brahaspati, Samyu, Bhāradvāja, Drōna, Aśvatthāman, etc., proceeds to enumerate certain quasi-historical names such as those of Aśokavarman, Kalabhartr and Chūta-Pallava. The break after the king Aśokavarman indicated in the record (verse 5)¹ suggests that the Pallava kings of the Prakrit charters—Śivaskandavarman, Vijaya-skandavarman, Buddhavarman have to be included here. The omission of these names is probably attributable to the fact that the writer of the document had only a foggy notion of the kings of the early period, living as he did several generations after these kings, when their memory had almost faded away. The historicity of Kalabhartṛ, Chūta-Pallava and Vīrakūrcha is confirmed by the mention of these names in the Vāyalūr pillar inscription of Rājasimha apparently in the order of succession. This latter contains many repetitions and should be used with much care. For example, although it is one of the earliest known list of Pallava kings and belongs to the seventh century, it is impossible to regard that all the kings mentioned in it were ruling kings. On the other hand it appears to have been a list made up in the reign of Rājasimha by a writer, who was obviously labouring under the difficulty of accommodating a number of real and quasi-real kings that tradition and copper-plates had preserved, and who, in doing so, was unable to allow for similarity of names. Being in these difficulties he put together all the names he got at, in an order of his own. This seems to be the only explanation for the repetitions that one notices in the list on the Vāyalūr pillar when compared with other genealogies. Prof. G. Jouveau-Dubreuil in his *Pallavas*² expresses the opinion that the Vāyalūr inscription gives a complete list of the Pallava kings in the order of their succession. . In the portion earlier than Mahēndravarman I, the Vāyalūr record includes names like Vimala, Konkaṇika, which occur exclusively in Western Ganga lists of kings. Viṣṇugopa is mentioned three times, Kumāra-viṣṇu twice, which is just possible. However Skandavarman is mentioned five times and Simhavarman four times which appears less probable. But the record is doubtless of great value to us as establishing a connection between the members of the Prakrit, Sanskrit, and Simhavishnu dynasties which have been hitherto looked upon as different dynasties. As we have seen it is impossible to agree with those who hold that the Vāyalūr list¹ gives a complete list of forty-two names of the Pallava kings in their order of succession.

c9.26

¹ S. I. I., vol. ii, part 5, p. 508.

c9.27

² p. 18 ff.

c9.28

¹ Cf. list of fifty-four names given in *Ep. Ind.*, vol. xviii, p. 151 and the whole epigraph as edited in pp. 145-152, *ibid.*—ED.

c9.29

*The Vāyalūr Pillar Genealogy*

c9.30

c9.31

A careful study of the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates shows that the members represented in this record from Kālābhartṛ, who is called Kāṇagopa in the Kāśakuḍi plates, belonged to what we have called the period of Sanskrit charters. As it is clear from this record the members mentioned in verses 5 to 8 as Aśokavarman and others in whose family Kālabhartṛ is said to have been born, included the members of the Prakrit charters such as Bappa, Śivaskandavarman, etc. We cannot rely very strictly upon the order of succession in this record as there are several breaks and gaps in it. We may therefore proceed to make one or two observations regarding the kings of this period.

Vīrakūrcha and His Period

c9.s1.1

¹ Pallavas, p. 29,

Was Vīrakūrcha the First Pallava King?

c9.s2.1

that Vīrakūrcha was the first Pallava king. In the second place it is possible that Vīravarman’s immediate ancestor, presumably his father or grandfather, might have lost hold of the sovereignty of the Pallava kingdom owing to some unknown cause, one of which might have been the invasion of Samudragupta. If this were so, his date would have to be sought somewhere after Viṣṇugopa. Again, in the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates it is not stated that Vīrakūrcha who married the Nāga princess, was the first member in the family of the Pallavas or the first to acquire a kingdom and a kingly position in that family. This view is also in agreement with that of Dr. S. K. Aiyangar¹ who in his account of the Pallavas ascribes the marriage of Vīrakūrcha to the period immediately following the invasion of Samudragupta into the south and the consequent disruption. According to his interpretation, ‘Put in plain language this (the Nāga marriage) would mean that he married a Nāga princess and thereby acquired the title of sovereignty of the region over which he ruled. This obviously has no connection with the birth of Toṇḍamān-Iḷam-Tiraiyan, who, according to tradition embodied in the classical poem *Perumbāṉārruppaḍai*, was the son of a Chōḷa king through a Nāga princess . . . Neither the detail of the marriage nor the acquisition will agree with the story of Iḷam-Tiraiyan. . .’

c9.s2.2

¹ *Origin and Early History of the Pallavas*, p. 43.

c9.s2.3

What were the circumstances, political and otherwise, which brought about the matrimonial alliance of Vīrakūrcha, a member of the Pallava family with the daughter of a Nāga king which gave him virtually a wife and a kingdom? To this question no definite answer is possible in the present state of our knowledge relating to the political condition of the Dakhan in the fourth century A.D. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar has however attempted to solve the problem. In the course of his valuable contribution on the Pallavas he identifies² the Nāga family with which Vīrakūrcha became connected with the family of Skaṇdanāga, the Śātavāhana viceroy of the region round Adoni and who probably belonged to a clan of the family of Śātavāhanas other than that which ruled in the Dakhan but connected by blood, and perhaps even by alliance, with that clan. ‘At one time under the rule of the later Sātavāhanas these Nāgas appear to have extended their territory and even acquired a considerable portion of the kingdom of the Sātavāhanas themselves. If the Pallava chieftain in the neighbourhood made himself sufficiently distinguished, a marriage alliance with these Nāgas, from whom came the early Sātavāhana queen Nāganika, would have been possible for him. The hint, vague as it is, in the inscription seems to let us into the secret of the rise of the dynasty of the Pallavas to power.’

c9.s2.4

² *Ibid.*, p. 44.

c9.s2.5

As regards the probable period when this happened, he indicates that this must have happened at a time when the Sātavāhanas as a ruling dynasty had passed away, and the attempt at the assertion of the Gupta power over this region under Samudragupta had in a way shaken the authority of the older dynasties to allow of a new dynasty to spring into prominence. The character of the invasion of Samudragupta itself makes it clear that the whole of the western portion or the empire of Āndhras was in the hands of a power whom for some good reason Samudragupta did not attack. One such reason might have been that they held possession of the territory with some power, such as the Vākāṭakas in Berar and Central India. It is likely that their authority was not readily acquiesced in by the smaller chieftains, feudatories of the Sātavāhanas, along the east coast. If this surmise should turn out correct it is possible to conceive that the southwestern portion was held by a powerful family of the Nāgas, relatives of the Sātavāhanas, and the Pallavas were among the feudatories who showed a ready inclination to throw off the Sātavāhana yoke. When Samudragupta had come and gone, the western power, whatever that was, might have entered into a marriage alliance with the Pallavas and recognized them in the position to which they had already risen by their own efforts.

c9.s2.6

Skandasishya (Skandavarman).—From the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates again (verse 7) we learn that the son of Vīrakūrcha, who is probably identical with Vīrakūrchavarman of the Darśi copper-plate fragment, was Skaṇdaśishya. He is described in this record as the ‘moon in the sky of this family’ and is said to have seized the ghaṭika of the twice-born from King Satyasēna. This achievement of his enables us to fix his period more or less definitely, although the identity of Satyasēna has not been completely worked out. The reference to a ghaṭika at this early period is interesting. There is also a reference, in the Tālaguṇḍa inscription of Kakutsthavarman, ascribed to the first half of the sixth century, to Kāñchī being called a ghaṭika. But no one has attempted to identify the King Satyasēna mentioned in the Vēlūrpālayam plates. In his introductions to these plates published in the South Indian Inscriptions, Mr. H. Krishna Sastri says that he remains unidentified.¹ Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar suggests the possibility that the Satyasēna here referred to may be Mahākshatrapa Svāmi Satyasēna of the coins whose time would be the ninth decade of the fourth century A.D.² It is uncertain whether the power of the Kshatrapas extended sufficiently southward so as to make them come into hostile contact with the Pallava kings. The probability is that the Pallavas co-operated with the dynasty of Western Dakhan, the Vākāṭakas, in inflicting a defeat on the Kshatrapas and this interpretation of the situation, therefore, seems to be in accordance with the general trend of Vākāṭaka history as this is the period to which the conquest of Kuntala by the Vākāṭaka-Prithvīsēna I is ascribable. ‘Such an advance,’ as has been pointed out, ‘is possible only by the overthrow of the Kshatrapas, and other successors of the Āndhras in this region.’

c9.s2.7

¹ S.I.I., vol. ii, part v, p. 502.

c9.s2.8

² ‘The Pallavas,’ J. I. H., vol. ii, part i, p. 39.

c9.s2.9

The Probable Period of Skaṇdaśishya (Skaṇdavarman).—This identification of Satyasēna with Svāmi Satyasimha, father of Mahākshatrapa, Svāmi Rudrasimha III, whose date according to Prof. Rapson, is somewhat anterior to A.D. 388, enables us to fix the dates of Skaṇdaśishya as well as his father Vīrakūrcha of the Vēlūrpāḷayam record. Allowing a period of about thirty years for these two kings we arrive at about A.D. 358 for the date of the accession of Vīrakūrcha. According to Mr. Krishna Sastri, this Skaṇdaśishya is perhaps identical with the Skaṇdaśishya of the Tirukkaḷukkuṉṟam inscription,¹ who made a grant to the Mūlasthāna temple at the above-mentioned village and spoken of as a former king. The late Mr. Venkayya in his article on this inscription suggested that Skaṇdaśishya is identical with Skaṇdavarman; but as there are several Skaṇdavarmans in the Pallava record it is difficult to identify the exact individual mentioned in the Tirukkaḷukkuṉṟam inscription.

c9.s2.10

¹ See Venkayya, *Ep. Ind.*, vol. iii, p. 276.

c9.s2.11

*The Sanskrit Charters.*—We may now proceed to examine in detail the genealogical portion of other copper-plate charters of this period. We have already pointed out that these charters have been assigned on palæographical grounds to the fifth and the sixth centuries of the Christian era. One peculiarity of the charters of this period is that they do not furnish any genealogical list prior to the great grandfather of the ruling sovereign who is the donor. The habit of including a mythical and quasi-historical pedigree, along with the immediate ancestral line, appears to have originated only in and after the seventh century in the Pallava family. About six of these Sanskrit charters have been discovered mostly in the northern districts, and have been edited with text and translations in the *Epigraphia Indica*. Four of these refer to royal camps from which the respective grants were issued, viz. Palakkada,² Daśanapura, Mēnmatūra, and Tāmrāpa. Almost all these grants furnish four generations of kings including the donor. There is considerable difference of opinion as to the order in which these kings are to be chronologically represented. In other words the relative position of the kings mentioned in these records and the chronology to be adopted for them are uncertain and far from settled. There exists also considerable difference of opinion among scholars as regards the identification of the various royal camps from which these charters were issued. None of these places Tāmrāpa, Palakkada, Daśanapura, or Mēnmatūra has been identified definitely although a suggestion had been made by the late Mr. Venkayya¹ that they are to be looked for in the vicinity of the region comprised by the modern Nellore District. According to certain scholars the fact that the charters of these Pallava kings are addressed from these camps, and not from the capital city of Kāñchīpuram, indicates that the Pallava kings who issued these charters had lost hold of Kāñchīpuram through some cause now unknown, and retired to the Telugu districts bordering on Nellore where they continued their rule. This line of argument was adopted by the late Mr. Venkayya,² and is still maintained by some of the officers of the Epigraphy Department.³ They advocate what has been called the theory of a Chōḷa interregnum during the Pallava rule according to which the Pallava kings soon after the period of the members of the Prakrit charters were driven away from Kāñchi by the Chōḷa king Karikāla. According to the exponents of this view the Pallavas would appear to have taken possession of the city only in the days of Kumāravishṇu who is described in the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates to have captured Kāñchi. We shall revert to this theory of a Chōḷa interregnum a little later.

c9.s2.12

² An unsuccessful attempt is made to identify Pālakka and Palakkada with Nellore in the *Madras Christian College Magazine* for January 1927, p. 42.

c9.s2.13

¹ *An. Rep. Ep. for 1905*, p. 47.

c9.s2.14

² *A. S. R. for 1906-7*, p. 224.

c9.s2.15

³ *S.I.I.*, vol. ii, p. 503.

c9.s2.16

*Various Orders of Succession.*—According to Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil the series of kings Skaṇdavarman—Kumāravishṇu—Buddhavarman I—Kumāravishṇu (donor) of the Chandalūr plates, ruled in Kāñchi before the series, Simhavarman (mentioned in the Uruvappalli plates) Skaṇdavarman and Naṇdivarman, and that, owing to the resemblance of the Chandalūr plates and the Uruvappalli plates, Kumāravishṇu I would have been the immediate predecessor of Simhavarman of Kāñchi. But a close examination of the copper-plates of this period shows that the Chandalūr plates are by no means the most ancient of these, as in the opinion of M. Jouveau-Dubreuil. The style and the language employed, from the use of numerical symbols and the citation of date after the manner of the earlier Prakrit charters and the spaces marked between words, almost clearly suggest proximity to the Āndhra period.¹ If such be the case the Ōmgōḍu grant (No. 1) is the most ancient of the Sanskrit charters that we have.

c9.s2.17

¹ See *Ep. Ind.*, vol. xv, p. 251, footnote 2.

c9.s2.18

We have already seen that the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates supply the following names among the early members of the Sanskrit period:—

c9.s2.19

Kālabhartṛ

c9.s2.20

Chūta-pallava

c9.s2.21

Virakūrcha

c9.s2.22

Skandaśishya

c9.s2.23

Kumāravishṇu, etc.

c9.s2.24

The Ōmgōḍu (No. 1) charter gives the following order:—

c9.s2.25

Kumāravishṇu

c9.s2.26

Skandavarman

c9.s2.27

Vīravarman

c9.s2.28

Vijayaskandavarman

c9.s2.29

Mr. Krishna Sastri identifies Vīravarman of this charter with the Vīravarman of the published copper-plate charters and with the Virakūrchavarman of the Darśi record. ‘If Vīravarman’s identity is thus established, it must be easy to see that his father Skandavarman would be the first king of that name mentioned in the published copper-plate grant and that Vijayaskandavarman, his son, would be identical with Skandavarman II. Kumāravishṇu, the first king mentioned, and the father of Skandavarman I, is probably to be identified with Kālabhartṛ of the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates¹ though there may be very little in common between the two names.’ Thus Mr. Krishna Sastri would identify the first four kings mentioned in the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates with those mentioned in the Ōmgōḍu (I) copper-plates which may be represented as follows :—

c9.s2.30

¹ S.I.I., vol. ii, p. 503.

c9.s2.31

c9.s2.32

Before examining the view of Mr. Krishna Sastri let us state the genealogical information from the other charters for his period. The Uruvappalli plates,² dated in the eleventh year of Simhavarman, although the donor was Yuvamahārāja-Viṣṇugōpavarman, give the following genealogy :—

c9.s2.33

² Ind. Ant., vol. v, p. 51.

c9.s2.34

Skandavarman

c9.s2.35

Vīravarman

c9.s2.36

Skandavarman

c9.s2.37

Y. M. Viṣṇugopa (donor)

c9.s2.38

From the fact that the Uruvappalli plates are dated in the eleventh year of Simhavarman it was held by the late Dr. Fleet that Y. M. Viṣṇugopa was a younger brother of Simhavarman, and that he probably never reigned at all.

c9.s2.39

The Mangaḍūr grant³ gives the succession in the following order :—

c9.s2.40

³ Ibid., vol. vi, p. 155.

c9.s2.41

Vīravarman

c9.s2.42

Skandavarman

c9.s2.43

Y. M. Viṣṇugopavarman

c9.s2.44

Dharmamahārāja Simhavarman The Pikira plates¹ furnish us with the accompanying order, which is almost similar to the previous one :—

c9.s2.45

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, vol. viii, p. 159.

c9.s2.46

Vīravarman

c9.s2.47

Skaṇdavarman

c9.s2.48

Viṣṇugopavarman

c9.s2.49

Simhavarman (donor)

c9.s2.50

Thus these three plates together supply five generations of kings ; the Chandalūr plates, which, as we already mentioned, appear to be posterior to these records in point of antiquity give three further generations of kings from Skaṇdavarman, who, we might regard, was identical with Skaṇdavarman II. The Chandalūr² plates, we saw, supplies the following names in the order noted below :—

c9.s2.51

² *Ibid.*, vol. viii, p. 233.

c9.s2.52

Skaṇdavarman

c9.s2.53

Kumāraviṣṇu I

c9.s2.54

Buddhavarman

c9.s2.55

Kumāraviṣṇu II (donor)

c9.s2.56

The Udayēndiram plates³ supply the series :—

c9.s2.57

³ *Ibid.*, vol. iii, p. 142.

c9.s2.58

Skaṇdavarman

c9.s2.59

Simhavarman

c9.s2.60

Skaṇdavarman

c9.s2.61

Nandivarman (donor).

c9.s2.62

The Vāyalūr pillar inscription becomes acceptable from No. 29, and agrees with the Vēlūrpāḷayam grant thus continuing the succession to the time of Simhavishnu as will be seen by the following :— Simhavarman (Vāyalūr list 29)

c9.s2.63

Vishnugopa

c9.s2.64

Simhavarman

c9.s2.65

Simhavishnu

c9.s2.66

Mahēndravarman I

c9.s2.67

The whole series of Pallava kings from the beginning to the days of Simhavishnu may be represented by the following table :— Bappa

c9.s2.68

Śivaskanda (Circa. A.D. 220)

c9.s2.69

Buddhavarman

c9.s2.70

Vishnugopa (A.D. 340)

c9.s2.71

Kālabhartṛ (Ōmgōḍu-Uruvapalli plates) (Kumāravishṇu)

c9.s2.72

Chūta-pallava (Skandavarman) (Ōmgōḍu-Uruvapalli plates) (Married Nāga princess)

c9.s2.73

Virakūrcha (Vīrakūrchavarman)

c9.s2.74

Skandaśishya (Donor, Ōmgōḍu Plates)

c9.s2.75

| . . . . .
| | |

c9.s2.76

Simhavarman Y. M. Vishnugopa Kumāravishṇu I or | Skandavarman Vishnugopavarman Buddhavarman

c9.s2.77

Nandivarman I Simhavarman II Kumāravishṇu II. (Udayēndiram) | Vishnugopavarman

c9.s2.78

Simhavarman III

c9.s2.79

Simhavishnu

c9.s2.80

Mahēndravarman, etc.

c9.s2.81

The above table is only tentative and subject to alteration if necessary on other more satisfactory interpretation of the charters, or when the discovery of new inscriptions, or copper charters should call for such. It is just possible that there might not be any direct connection between the members of the Prakrit charters, those of the Sanskrit charters and the members of the Simhavishṇu dynasty, as is assumed here. But this arrangement is based on the evidence of the Vāyalūr pillar record and that of Vēlūrpāḷayam plates strengthened by the consideration that the Pallava kings of these charters style themselves in these records as members of the Bhāradvāja-gotra. The position of Vishṇugopa, the adversary of Samudragupta in the table, is uncertain. We have already hinted the possibility of his being identical with the first of the Vishṇugopas mentioned in the Vāyalūr pillar record of Rājasimha’s reign. We have also alluded to the date suggested by Mr. Shama Sastri in his new light on the Gupta era which at the present state of discussion need not be regarded as having been established beyond doubt.

c9.s2.82

The earliest member of the Sanskrit charters figures as Kālabhartṛ in the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates, a name which along with his son’s name Chūta-pallava, sounds more eponymous than real. Kālabhartṛ is presumably identical with Kāṇagopa of the Kaśakkuḍi plates.¹ In the above arrangement we have indicated the possibility of Kālabhartṛ being identical with the Kumāravishṇu I of Ōmgōḍu No. 1 and Chūta-pallava with Skaṇdavarman I. Mr. Krishna Sastri who also makes this identification says that there is nothing in common between Kālabhartṛ and Kumāravishṇu.² The description of Kālabhartṛ as the ‘head-jewel of the family’ and as Vishṇu the husband of Indira (Lakshmi) in verse 6 of the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates lends support to the identification of this king with Kumāraviṣṇu of the Ōmgōḍu grant which suggests that his other name was a synonym of Viṣṇu. It is even possible that this Kumāraviṣṇu whom we identified with Kālabhartṛ was the same person as Viṣṇugopa, the adversary of Samudragupta. This identification has not been made hitherto, although there is nothing unreasonable in this view.

c9.s2.83

¹ S.I.I., vol. ii, p. 307.

c9.s2.84

² Ep. Ind., vol. xv, p. 251. Also vol. xviii, p. 149, where he definitely gives up the identification. This is hardly justified as the writer of the Vāyalūr pillar inscription has merely put the lists one after the other without attempting to find out actual relationship between the different succession lists. Ed.

c9.s2.85

As was already indicated, the actual dates and the duration of the individual reigns of the Pallava kings of this period are approximate so far. Obviously it is not possible for all the sixteen kings and more to have been on the Pallava throne within the short period of about 200 years (A.D. 350 to 550). It is evident from the charters themselves that certain members of the dynasty referable to this period were simply Yuvamahārājas or princes only, as in the case of Viṣṇugopa—the prince of the Uruvapalli plates. We have already indicated the facts known regarding Kālabhartṛ (Kumāraviṣṇu) and Chūta-pallava (Skandavarman) from the copper-plates of this period. We have shown that Chūta-pallava alias Skandavarman might have been the chief who married the Nāga princess and acquired simultaneously a wife and a kingdom. His son was Virakūrcha, identical probably with Virakūrchavarman of the Darśi fragment.¹ His son was Skandavarman (II) the donor of Ōmgōḍu plates who is described in this record as one ‘who was true to his word, who day by day increased religious merit by gift of cows, gold and land, and who always desired to serve Gods and Brahmans, and ably understood the purport of all Śastras.’ From the date of the engraving of the grant which is mentioned as the Vijayasamvatsare-trayatrimśe (that is in the victorious year thirty-three which was the third fortnight of the winter and the thirteenth day) we may conclude that Skandavarman’s reign lasted at least for thirty-three years.

c9.s2.86

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, vol. i, p. 397.

c9.s2.87

Simhavarman.—The next Pallava king was Simhavarman in whose eleventh year the Uruvapalli plates of Y. M. Viṣṇugopa is dated. It is not apparent why Y. M. Viṣṇugopa should have addressed the grant in the reign of Simhavarman. The probability is that he did not reign and therefore dated the record in the reign of his elder brother, or possibly in that of his. In the latter case this Simhavarman becomes identical with the donor of the four grants, the Ōmgōḍu plates dated in the fourth year of his reign in the month of Vaiśāka Śuklapaksha-panchami addressed from Tāmrāpa, the Pikira grant dated in fifth year and issued from Mēnmatura, the Uruvapalli plates dated in the eleventh year of his reign, and issued from Palakkada, and the Mangalūr grant issued from Vijaya-Daśanapura and dated in the eighth year of Simhavarman II. Thus we have for this king at least four different copper-plate charters dated in the different years of the reign and issued in different places which were obviously the places where the king happened to be in camp just when the grants were issued. It has been already pointed out that these places Vijaya Tāmrāpasthāna, Mēnmatura, Daśanapura and Palakkada have not been identified though the suggestion has been made that they should be looked for in the Nellore District. The late Mr. Venkayya writes in his *Ancient History of the Nellore District*,¹ ‘that it is not impossible that Daśanapura was the ancient name of the modern village of Darśi. It is called Darśi and Dariśi in inscriptions of the fourteenth century found as the place.’ He also thinks that the place might have been the capital at the time that the Mangaḍūr grant was issued in the eighth year of Simhavarman. If this is so why is it not possible to hold Palakkada, Tāmrāpa, and Mēnmatura also at the capital of Simhavarman? But such an assumption does not seem to be justified unless we have good reason for regarding that this period was one of constant warfare, and that the kingdom of Simhavarman was frequently threatened, with the result that he had to be continuously changing his capital from one seat to another. But there is no definite evidence to prove that this was a fact. It is assumed by certain scholars that the Pallava kings of this period had lost their possession of Kāñchi and retired to the Telugu districts in and around Nellore, wherefrom they continued to rule and issue their copper-plates. This explains according to them the charters of Simhavarman and others during this period being addressed not from Kāñchīpuram as in the case of earlier copper-plates but from places in the Telugu districts. For instance Mr. Krishna Sastri says :— . . . ‘ About A.D. 350 the Pallavas,—perhaps on account of the disturbances caused by the victorious campaign of Samudragupta from the north or owing to the rise of the Kadambas mentioned in the Tālgunda inscription¹ were dispossessed of their territory round Kāñchi and pushed back further into the interior.’ Again the same authority says² :—

c9.s2.88

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1908, p. 283.

c9.s2.89

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, vol. viii, p. 28.

c9.s2.90

² *Ibid.*, vol. xv, No. 11, p. 249.

c9.s2.91

‘ Thus we get from several copper-plates published so far, six generations of Pallavas, with names of nine Pallava kings who called themselves Pallava-Mahārājas and Pallava-Dharma-mahārājas, of the Bhāradvāja-gotra until one of them, Kumāravishṇu I (II?) reconquered Kāñchīpura, evidently from the Chōḷas, who had taken possession of it sometime subsequent to Vishṇugopa the contemporary of Samudragupta and had established themselves in the Toṇḍa-country.’ Thus according to this view there was a Chōḷa interregnum at Kāñchi and a break in the line of Pallava kings during the period of the Sanskrit charters.

c9.s2.92

*Is the Chola Interregnum Possible?*—This interregnum according to which a number of Pallava kings in the fourth and the fifth century are supposed to have lost possession of Kāñchi some time in the fourth century has become a favourite notion among the epigraphists which however does not appear to be supported by the historical facts of the period known to us. Even the late Mr. Venkayya has expressed himself in favour of the theory of a Chōḷa interlude in the midst of the Pallava rule. In his ‘ Ancient History of the Nellore District ’³ for instance, dealing with the Pallava kings of this period he says, ‘ The extent of Pallava dominions during this period from the fourth century to the end of the sixth century A.D. cannot be ascertained. At any rate they appear to have been in possession of the modern Nellore District or at least a portion of it. In fact four of the above-mentioned grants are from that district. Kāñchi which was the capital during the reign of Śivaskandavarman and Viṣṇugopa, figures as such only in the last two ¹ of the above-mentioned grants which are evidently later than the rest.' 'If this is not due to a mere accident it may be that the Pallavas had to retreat from Conjeevaram owing, perhaps to a coalition among the Chōḷa, Pāṇḍya and the Chera kings, or to the domination of one of them. In this case, the Pallavas, had probably to confine themselves to the Nellore District or to a portion of it, where the villages granted in two of the copper-plate inscriptions may be traced.'

c9.s2.93

³ *Ind. Ant.*, 1908, p. 284.

c9.s2.94

¹ Chandalūr and Udayēndiram records.

c9.s2.95

*Some Objections.*—But as against this mere supposition, there are serious difficulties in the way of our accepting the assumption of any break in the main line of Pallava kings from the earliest times. At any rate the mere fact of certain copper-plates being addressed from places situated in the Telugu districts far away from the capital city cannot be held to support the view that the king or kings who issued them should necessarily have lost possession of Kāñchi. Such at any rate is not the indication that we get from the large numbers of copper-plates and stone records of the Pallava kings obtained in various parts of the country. In these records there is not the remotest suggestion that the Pallava kings at any period in their rule lost possession of the city of Conjeevaram for any appreciable length of time. A reference in the Vēlūrpāḷayam plates ² of Nandivarman III to the capture of Kāñchi has curiously been interpreted as meaning that Kumāraviṣṇu for the first time after the capture of the city by the Chōḷas in the days of Karikāla, recaptured it. Such an assumption appears however to be unwarranted. In the first place it is just possible that the capture of Kāñchi alluded to in the Vēlūrpāḷyam plates is a reference to his having obtained possession of the city from a collateral cousin, or some other foreign power, such as the Kadambas, which had obtained possession of the city for a short period. In the second place if the fact of the capture of Kāñchi from the Chōḷas is at all true, it is strange that the Vēlūrpāḷyam plates should not have made mention of the fact in recording such a distinguished achievement, more especially as Buddhavarma another king is mentioned as the ‘submarine-fire to the ocean-like army of the Chōḷas’ *Chola-sainyārṇava-vāḍabhāgni* (verse 8). But the insuperable difficulty in postulating a Chōḷa occupation in the interval between the Pallava kings of the Prakrit charters and those of Simhavishṇu, based merely upon the stray reference to the recapture of Kāñchīpuram by Kumāravishṇu and on the fact of the charters of the Pallavas for some period being dated from places outside the capital at Kāñchi, lies in the impossibility of accommodating the reign of Karikāla and all the events connected with the history of his reign to this period. According to any rational scheme of chronology it is very difficult to find a place for Karikāla and his successors midway between the Pallava kings of the Prakrit charters and those of the Sanskrit charters as suggested by the epigraphists. The facts relied upon by them as evidence for this position for Karikāla are derived from late Eastern Chāḷukya copper-plates some of the facts being incredible in themselves.¹ Altogether the data for the Chōḷa occupation of Kāñchi during the Pallava rule are too meagre and unsatisfactory to be seriously considered as justifying the assumption of a Chōḷa interregnum.

c9.s2.96

² Verse 8, S.I.I., vol. ii, p. 508.

c9.s2.97

¹ A.S.R., 1906-7, p. 225.

c9.s2.98

We have already referred the four Sanskrit charters issued respectively from Ōmgōḍu, Pikīra, Daśanapura and Palakkada between the fourth and the eleventh years of Simhavarman to this reign. The probable date of this king is derivable from purely epigraphic and palæographic evidence as the middle of the fifth century. But the discovery of the *Lokavibhāga*, a Jain manuscript, has gone a great way towards fixing the actual period of rule of this king.

c9.s2.99

The *Lokavibhāga* Datum.—This leads to the initial date of the Pallava king Simhavarman as A.D. 436. According to the Digambara, Jain manuscript, *Lokavibhāga*, Śaka 380 corresponded to the twenty-second regnal year of Simhavarman, king of Kāñchi, the year in which the work was completed. The reference makes it clear that the first year of this king must have been A.D. 436, and that this king continued to rule for at least a period of twenty-two years.

c9.s2.100

Śaka 380 is apparently the year in which the copying work was finished by Sarvanandi and the author of the work Simhasūri, probably flourished at an earlier period. The twenty-second stanza was sent to Mahāmahopādhyāya Sudhākara Dvivedi, Benares, for favour of calculation. There is no question about the correctness of the date. Pāṭalika, the village in which Śarvanandi copied the work, is perhaps identical with Pāṭalipura in South Arcot District, at which according to *Periyapurāṇam* there was a big Jaina monastery in the seventh century A.D. . . Pāṇarāṣṭra may be identified with *Perumbāṇappāḍi* (the Bṛhad Bāṇas laid under tribute by Mayūra Śarman, Kadamba) the province over which the Bāṇas ruled.

c9.s2.101

As regards the actual period of Simhavarman (II) we have already pointed out that being probably identical with the king of the name referred to in the Penugoṇḍa plates of the Western Ganga king Mādhavavarman II, his reign must have been at the same period as that of Harivarman the Ganga prince whom he is said to have installed on the throne. Judged palæographically the characters of the Penugoṇḍa plates point to their having been inscribed in the fifth century A.D. Dr. Fleet was also of opinion¹ that ‘A.D. 475 seems a very good date for it.’ If the plates which are dated in the reign of Mādhava II, are dated about the year A.D. 475, Simhavarman the contemporary of Ayyavarman whom he installed on the Ganga throne must have flourished immediately before. Hence it is not improbable that Simhavarman II began his rule sometime about the third decade of the fifth century which is also the date that we arrive at by the *Lokavibhāga* datum, equating the twenty-second year of Simhavarman with the Śaka year 380. This yields for Simhavarman, as we saw, the year A.D. 436 as the initial year, which tallies both with the palæographical indications of Penukoṇḍa and the Ōmgōḍu plates as well as the other considerations relating to the date of the Pallava kings who followed him. A calculation backward from the known date of Simhavishṇu also leads us to the same period.

c9.s2.102

¹ See J.R.A.S., 1915, p. 482.

c9.s2.103

An attempt made to belittle the value of this datum furnished by the *Lokavibhāga* for the initial date of Simhavarman II requires careful consideration. Mr. H. Krishna Sastriar, relying upon what he interprets as a reference to an eclipse in the Ōmgōḍu plates, lines 31-32, dated in the fourth year of his reign, considers the datum of the *Lokavibhāga* invalidated. The fourth year of Simhavarman II, according to the *Lokavibhāga*, corresponds to the year A.D. 440 in which year there happens to be no solar eclipse during the month of Chaitra. But this objection of Mr. Sastriar is based upon a wrong interpretation of the object of the grant of the Ōmgōḍu plates and of the expression *grahananimittam* in line 31. In the first place the plates are dated in the fifth day of the bright fortnight, of Vaiśāka, whereas if the occasion of the grant had been the solar eclipse the record would have been dated on the new moon day. This difficulty Mr. Krishna Sastriar gets over by supposing that the grant which was actually made on the new moon day of Chaitra, a possible day for the nearest solar eclipse, was actually engraved ‘on the plates five days later.’¹ The explanation does not appear to be at all satisfactory. The expression ‘*grahananimittam*’, appears to convey, as has been pointed out, the meaning of ‘for the sake of acceptance’ rather than ‘on account of the eclipse’, as it looks strange that the copper-plate record should not mention the character of the eclipse and other circumstances connected with it. ‘It is very unusual,’ says Prof. Krishnaswami Aiyangar to indicate an eclipse in this manner, without saying what eclipse it is, and otherwise defining the *Puṇyakāla*. What is worse in the interpretation of the epigraphist is that the date of the grant is actually specified in the concluding portion. “*Sa vijayarājya-Saṃvatsare-Caturthe-Vaiśāka-Śukla-pakṣa-Pañcamyām dattam.*” This is quite unequivocal. In the face of this it would be difficult to prove that the grant was made on an eclipse day from the document. The difficulty and inconsistency are the results of the interpretation, and neither the author nor the scribe could be held responsible for the blunder which is not theirs.’¹

First 134 of 141 passages. Read on

Linked texts (15)

பெரிய புராணம் — Cēkkiḻār, Tamil
Cendalūra grant, time of Kumāraviṣṇu, year 2 — Sanskrit
Epigraphia Indica
Pāṭaliputra
South Indian Inscriptions
Sonpur
Rāyakōta
Vayalur
Chandalur
Darsi
Avantisundarīkathāsāra — Sanskrit
Avantisundarīkathā — Daṇḍin, Sanskrit
Balagāmve stone inscription of the Kalachuri Saṅkamadēva — Kannada
Sahasrām edict — Prakrit
Siddāpura Edicts of Aśoka, No. II — Prakrit

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c9: Chapter IV. Early Pallavas of the Sanskrit Records

Contents

Chapter IV. Early Pallavas of the Sanskrit Records

Vīrakūrcha and His Period

Was Vīrakūrcha the First Pallava King?

Linked texts (15)