Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c9.s2: Was Vīrakūrcha the First Pallava King?

History of the Pallavas of Kanchi c9.s2

Language
English

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

| Kālabhartṛ | ... | Kumāraviṣṇu |
| Chūta-pallava | ... | Skaṇḍavarman |
| Vīrakūrcha | ... | Vīravarman |
| Skaṇḍaśishya | ... | Vijayaskaṇḍavarman |
| Kumāraviṣṇu | ... | Kumāraviṣṇu. |

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

c9.s2.104

¹ *Ep. Ind.* vol. xv pp. 252-55.

c9.s2.105

¹ J. I. H., vol. ii, p. 56.

c9.s2.106

Successors of Simhavarman II.—Very little is known about the successors of Simhavarman II till we come to the accession of Simhaviṣṇu. The Vāyalūr pillar inscription which is relied upon by Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil for this period gives the names of the following kings in the order of succession mentioned below:— Simhavarman II (A.D. c. 436–460). Viṣṇugopavarman II. Simhavarman III. Simhaviṣṇu (A.D. c. 575–600).

c9.s2.107

The Vēlūrpāḷayam plates give the following names for this period. After a host of kings passed away with Viṣṇugopa, came Nandivarman who is reported in this record to have caused a ‘powerful snake’ to dance. Then followed Simhavarman who is said to have wiped off the pride of his enemies. After him came Simhaviṣṇu. As we already saw there is a slight discrepancy in the order of succession herein stated and those given in other plates. The probability seems to be that soon after the reigns of Simhavarman II and Skaṇdavarman II the contemporaries of the Western Ganga kings Ayyavarman and Mādhavavarman II about the close of the fifth century A.D., the Pallava kings Kumāraviṣṇu II who captured Kāñchi, Nandivarman I, Simhavarman III, occupied the Pallava throne before Simhaviṣṇu, about the last quarter of the sixth century, commenced to rule at Kāñchīpuram. Practically nothing is known of the reign of these kings from the copper-plates and inscriptions of this period until we arrive at the reign of Simhaviṣṇuvarman, or Mahēndravarman I, his son and successor, whose accession marks the commencement of the age of the Great Pallavas which lasted for two centuries and a half from about A.D. 600 to 850.

Linked texts (7)