Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Naga–Vakataka Imperial Period c15: Part II. The Vākāṭaka Kingdom (248 A.D.–284 A.D.): The Vākāṭaka Empire (284 A.D.–348 A.D.) with an Appendix on the Later Vākāṭaka Period (348 A.D.–550 A.D.)

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Nāga–Vākāṭaka Imperial Period c15

Language
English

Contents

Part II. The Vākāṭaka Kingdom (248 A.D.–284 A.D.): The Vākāṭaka Empire (284 A.D.–348 A.D.) with an Appendix on the Later Vākāṭaka Period (348 A.D.–550 A.D.)

c15.1

The Vākāṭaka Kingdom (248 A.D.–284 A.D.):

c15.2

The Vākāṭaka Empire (284 A.D.–348 A.D.)

c15.3

with an Appendix on the Later Vākāṭaka

c15.5

¹ The later history of the Vākāṭakas [348 A.D.—550 A.D.] is included owing to its cultural importance and for its not having been treated before.

c15.6

‘Vākāṭaka-lalāmasya kramaprāpta-Nṛipa-śriyaḥ.’—[Vākāṭaka Seal.]

VII. The Vākāṭakas

c15.s1.1

52. From the Vākāṭaka inscriptions the following facts are well-established. A dynasty, which took for its name Vākāṭaka, came into existence about a century before Samudra Gupta’s conquests. The first king of the dynasty was Vindhyaśakti², a Brahmin. Their gotra was Viṣṇu-vṛddha—a subdivision of the Bhāradvājas. The second king of the dynasty was Pravarasena; the kings coming after him all assume their regnal names ending in °sena. Pravarasena, son of Vindhyaśakti, to be known hereafter as Pravarasena I, not only performed four aśvamedha sacrifices but also assumed the title of Samrāṭ, i.e. the Emperor of India. He had a long reign, so much so that his eldest son Gautamīputra could not succeed him, but his grandson Rudrasena I succeeded him. His son Gautamīputra was from a Brahmin lady, which is clear from his name. But Gautamīputra himself was married to the daughter of the Bhāraśiva king Bhava Nāga—a Kshatriya. The son of this union was Rudrasena, grandson of Pravarasena I and Bhava Nāga. We have to call him Rudrasena I, as names were repeated in consonance with the orthodox Hindu law—a practice also followed by the Guptas. Rudrasena’s son was Pṛthivīsheṇa I, by whose time the family had existed for 100 years:

c15.s1.2

² This seems to be an assumed name, an abhiṣheka-nāma, after the name of the country of his rise.

c15.s1.3

1 ‘Varsha-śatam-abhivardhamāna-kośa-daṇḍa-sādhana-’ meaning:

c15.s1.4

‘—whose treasure and means of government had been accumulating for a hundred years’—(Fleet, G. I., p. 241). This Pṛithivīsheṇa, whose political wisdom, heroism and good government are praised, subjugated the king of Kuntala, which was the name for a part of the Karṇāṭaka country and the Kadamba kingdom, with which we shall deal later. Rudrasena II, son of Pṛithivīsheṇa I, was married to the daughter of Chandra Gupta II, Vikramāditya, whose name was Prabhāvatī Guptā, born of the Empress Kubera Nāgā, a princess of the Nāga dynasty. Prabhāvatī Guptā ruled as regent after the death of her husband Rudrasena II, as guardian to her minor son Yuvarāja Divākarasena who was in his thirteenth year when the Poona Plates were issued by the Queen-Mother, and subsequently to another son called Damodarasena-Pravarasena who succeeded Divākarasena and who issued a charter in his nineteenth year, which has come down to us.² The double name Damodarasena-Pravarasena proves the practice that these kings had two names, one the pre-coronation, and the other the coronation name which in the Champā (Cambodia) inscription is called the Abhisheka-nāma.³ Similarly the Gupta Emperor Chandra Gupta II had two names, one Deva Gupta and the other Chandra Gupta.⁴ Damodarasena-Pravarasena would have assumed kingship when 25 years of age, as that is the age laid down by the Śāstras for obtaining coronation.⁵ Prabhāvatī Guptā had thus a regency of about 20 years during the minority of her two sons. Neither Prabhāvatī Guptā nor her son when he came of age, ever used the Gupta Era. We may, therefore, conclude with certainty that the position of the Vākāṭakas was such as the Gupta Era was not required to be used in the Vākāṭaka dominions during the reigns of Chandra Gupta II and his successors. Although the Vākāṭakas after Samudra Gupta were in the Empire of the Guptas, they were full sovereigns. From the Ajaṇṭā inscriptions and the Bālāghāṭ plates it is also clear that they had their own feudatories and they made war and peace on their own account. They subdued the kings of Trikūṭa, Kuntala, the Andhras, etc. and kept them as their feudatories. Their kingdom commenced in the western portion of Bundelkhand where Bundelkhand begins, in Ajaygarh and Pannā, and covered the whole of the Central Provinces and Berars, and with the Trikūṭa territory which was situated in northern Konkan, they were also masters of the northern part of the Maratha country, up to the sea. They were next-door to Kuntala, i.e. Karṇāṭaka, and the Andhra country. Their direct rule covered all the land on the table-land of the Vindhyas and the valley between the Vindhyas and the Satpura with the Maikal range. They controlled the passage through the Ajaṇṭā ghats to the South. Their empire included S. Kosala and Andhra, Western Malwā and Northern Hyderabad (§§ 73 ff.), apart from their Bhāraśiva inheritance. They had thus a very large kingdom under their direct control, which in the reign of Samudra Gupta had been reduced, but which in the next reign was fully restored and revived, and very likely it was so restored in the reign of Samudra Gupta himself, as Pṛthivīsheṇa I waged war against the newly constituted Kadamba kingdom and reduced its king to a subordinate position (§§ 82, 203).

c15.s1.5

¹ The Chamak, Dudia, and Bālāghāṭ plates (See § 61A.).

c15.s1.6

² Second Poona plates. I.A., 53, p. 48.

c15.s1.7

³ Champā, by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, p. 157.

c15.s1.8

⁴ J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, p. 38.

c15.s1.9

⁵ Hindu Polity, II, p. 52.

c15.s1.10

53. Their history remains mostly uninterpreted without the aid of the Purāṇas and without reference to the history of India under the Bhāraśiva empire. With their aid we shall now relate the Vākāṭaka history. It is really the history of India for over half a century which we have to call the Vākāṭaka Period. Its importance is very great, both for the period and as explaining the rise and course of the next imperial period, i.e. of the Gupta Empire. The Guptas merely took over the empire already established by Pravarasena I, both territorially and culturally. If there had been no Vākāṭaka Empire, there would have been no Gupta Empire.

c15.s1.11

54. Pravarasena I was the first king who superseded the old orthodox imperial title of Dviraśvamedha-Yājin, ‘Performer of Two Aśvamedhas,’ which had been revived some five centuries before, after a lapse of several centuries, by P u ṣ y a m i t r a Ś u ṅ g a, Emperor of Āryāvarta, and by Śrī Sātakarṇi I, Emperor of Dakṣiṇāpatha. The Emperor Pravarasena performed Four Aśvamedhas, and also Bṛihaspati-sava—a ritual open only to Brahmins. Along with them he performed Vājapeyas and several other Vedic sacrifices. Unlike the Bhāraśivas, he assumed the title of Samrāṭ, to which he was fully entitled as he seems to have brought the South also under his control (§§ 82, 176), and achieved a result which had been unachieved after the imperial Mauryas. A great portion of northern Dakṣiṇāpatha, we find, becoming integral part of his dominions.

c15.s1.12

55. It is possible, though strange, that the empire of the Vākāṭakas should not receive up to this time even a line in modern text-books on Indian history, but it is not possible for the Purāṇas not to include the dynasty of Vindhyaśakti and Pravarasena in their chronicles. It was not a small thing to perform Four Aśvamedhas, and assume the title of S a m r ā ṭ bringing oneself in line with Māndhātā and Vasu. The Purāṇas, which register even the foreign dynasties in India, could not have missed Pravarasena and his family. And, as a matter of fact, they have not missed them. After registering the fall of the Tukhāra, i.e. the Kushan dynasty they immediately give the dynasty of the V i n d h y a k a s, of which they give the founder's name as V i n d h y a ś a k t i, whose son is called P r a v i r a. That name is described as a ‘popular name’ and it literally means ‘the great hero’. His Vājapeya sacrifices are recorded by them and one edition of the Vāyu Purāṇa which is really the original Brahmāṇḍa,¹ instead of reading Vājapeya reads Vājimedha, i.e. ‘Horse-Sacrifice’, and the word is put in the plural [*Vājimedhaiś cha*]¹ which means, according to Sanskrit grammar, that he performed three or more Horse-Sacrifices. His reign is given as one of 60 years, which as being long, stands corroborated by the Vākāṭaka inscriptions and by the fact of his four aśvamedhas which must cover, on account of the protracted nature of the sacrifice and the intervals necessary, 40 to 50 years. Three facts completely establish the identity, viz. (1) the period of the rise of Vindhyaśakti and Pravīra which comes in the Purāṇas before the Guptas and after the Tukhāras, (2) the name of the founder of the dynasty being identical, (3) the vājimedhas (Horse-Sacrifices) and the long reign of Pravīra. Add to this, the inter-connection which the Purāṇas establish between the Nāga dynasty and Pravarasena through the grandson which I have already discussed above. In the light of this identification we gain the whole history of the Vākāṭakas from the Purāṇas which the inscriptions by themselves fail to impart.

c15.s1.13

¹ e Vāyu of Pargiter agrees fully with the Brahmāṇḍa of Dr. Hall. The present printed text of the Brahmāṇḍa is an amended edition. Brahmāṇḍa MSS. are so rare that neither Mr. Pargiter nor I could find any.

c15.s1.14

¹ Pargiter, P.T., p. 50, n. 35.

c15.s1.15

56. That the Vākāṭakas were Brahmins admits of no doubt. They did *Bṛihaspati-sava* sacrifices, which are intended for and open to Brahmins only. About the exclusive character of *Bṛihaspati-sava* the tradition never changed. Their gotra, *Viṣṇu Vṛiddha*, is a Brahmin gotra, still surviving in the Maratha country.² Then, Vindhyaśakti is expressly called *dvija* or Brahmin [*dvijaḥ prakāśo bhuvi Vindhyaśaktiḥ*].³ As to the place of their origin, the Purāṇic description—the ‘Vindhyaka’ or ‘the Vindhyan’ dynasty—limits the problem to the Vindhyan country, and their further localization fixes the exact spot. The Vindhyakas, i.e. the Vākāṭakas, arose on the river or in the country called Kilakilā (*Kilakilāyām*). One might have thought of identifying this river with the Kiyān, the Ken of the maps, but no room for speculation is left, as my friend Rai Bahadur Hiralal has himself seen the Kilakilā—a small river near Panna—having a bad reputation for its unhealthy water.⁴ We are thus brought to the very area, Ajaygarh-Pannā where the earliest Vākāṭaka inscriptions are found, that is the district of Ganj-Nachnā. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa, in describing the Vidiśā Nāgas and Praviraka, calls the whole group ‘the Kilakilā kings’—that is, it treats Eastern Malwā [Vidiśā] and Kilakilā as one tract, or Eastern Malwā as included in Kilakilā. The location of the dynasty in Bundelkhand is thus unanimous.

c15.s1.16

² I am thankful to Professor D. R. Bhandarkar for this information.

c15.s1.17

³ A.W.S.R., Vol. IV, pp. 125 and 128 fn.—Plate LVII.

c15.s1.18

⁴ A full description of the river is now supplied to me by Mr. Śaradā

c15.s1.19

57. Let us now take up the history of the word Vākāṭaka. The phrase ‘Vākāṭakānāṁ Mahārāja Śrī—so-and-so,’ does not mean that the king so-and-so is the king of a people called Vākāṭakas, but only means the Mahārāja so-and-so ‘of the Vākāṭaka Dynasty’. The plural form Vākāṭakānāṁ simply means ‘of the Vākāṭaka dynasty’,¹ as in the case of the Kadambas the expression Kadambānāṁ and in the case of the contemporary Pallavas, Pallavāṇa² (Pkt. ‘of the Pallavas’)—‘Bhāraddāyo Pallāvaṇa Sivakhaṁḍa-vamo’—where ‘of the Pallavas’ stands quite independently.³ This is, therefore, not a tribal but a personal dynastic name. The form Vākāṭaka means ‘of the place “Vākāṭa” or “Vakāṭa”’, as in Samudra Gupta’s inscription, Māhā-Kāntāraka, Kausalaka, Paiṣṭhāpuraka, etc. signify (‘of Mahakāntāra’, ‘of Kosala’, ‘of Piṣṭhapura’).⁴ The dynastic name Traikūṭaka is an exact parallel. I found an ancient village called Bāgāṭ, in the northernmost part of the Orchhā State, 6 miles E. of Chirgaon of the British district of Jhansi. Its neighbouring village—a village called Bijaur—is often mentioned with Bāgāṭ, as Bijaur-Bāgāṭ. It is situated in the Tahrauli tahsil of Orchhā. It is between two rivulets, Kaynā and Ḍugraī, which fall into the Betwā. It is a large and ancient Brahmin village, mainly peopled by Bhāgaur Brahmins. The village is believed to be of Droṇāchārya, the famous military Brahmin mentioned in the Mahā-Bhārata.

c15.s1.20

¹ I.A., Vol. VI, p. 26.

c15.s1.21

² E.I., Vol. I, p. 5.

c15.s1.22

³ In editing the Balaghat plates of Prithivishena II, Kielhorn emphasized this point. E.I., Vol. IX, p. 269.

c15.s1.23

⁴ G.I., p. 234.

c15.s1.24

Prasad of Satna, Rewah, from which I find that I crossed the river twice in its search without knowing its name. It runs through Pannā. One crosses it on the way from Nāgaudh to Pannā. It is a thin stream. [See p. 8, n.]

c15.s1.25

There are two large caves there which were described to me to be about 25 yds. × 30 yds., and I was told that there were also sculptures there, which from the description given to me would appear to belong to what we call the Gupta age. The place has never been visited by any archæologist. A thorough exploration may result in the find of inscriptions and other valuable relics.

c15.s1.26

57A. It seems that the Brahmin who according to the Purāṇas was the first anointed king and the founder of the dynasty and who assumed the appropriate appellation of V i n d h y a ś a k t i, adopted the name of his town as his dynastic title. That the town of Vākāṭa is of ancient origin is proved by a pilgrim’s inscription at Amarāvatī where a common citizen, about 150 B.C., describes himself as a Vākāṭaka, i.e. as an original inhabitant of Vākāṭa.¹ The town might have borne even in those days the proud military tradition claiming association with D r o ṇ ā c h ā r y a, who, like the V ā k ā ṭ a k a s, was a B h ā r a d v ā j a Brahmin.

c15.s1.27

¹ E.I., Vol. XV, p. 267 (Inscription No. 27).

c15.s1.28

58. The older Purāṇas do not mention the caste of the Vindhyakas, but the Viṣṇu Purāṇa has fallen into a confusion by a misreading of the Matsya text. The Matsya Purāṇa after closing the Āndhra list and giving the dynasties contemporary with the Āndhras, says in Chapter 272, verse 24,— teshūtsanneshu Kālena tataḥ Kilakilā nṛipāḥ. With this line the Matsya closes its chronicles and then enters from verse 25 onwards on a description of the ‘Yavana’ rule, which means here the Kushan rule (Yauna, Yauvan²). The Viṣṇu reads the first line of that description along with the Kilakilā kings, the next line of the Matsya being bhavishyantīha Yavanā dharmato kāmato’rthataḥ. The author of the Viṣṇu paraphrases these two lines in these words—‘teshūchhanneshu Kailakilā Yavanā bhūpatayo bhavishyanti mūrdhābhishiktas teshām Vindhyaśaktiḥ’. In this the Viṣṇu is not followed by the Bhāgavata, and the commentator of the Viṣṇu gives another reading and explains it correctly that Vindhyaśakti, according to that

c15.s1.29

² J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, 201.

c15.s1.30

‘Kilakilā Yavanaḥ’
a wrong reading.

c15.s1.31

reading, was a Kshatriya (i.e., Hindu) chief. The other reading is thus given by the commentator—‘Vindhyaśakti-mūrdhābhi-shikta iti pāṭhe Kshatriya-mukhya ityarthah’. This variant reading did not make Vindhyaśakti a member of ‘the Kailakilā Yava-nas’. The mistake is obvious, being caused by reading the word Yavanāḥ of the next line of the Matsya along with the Kailakilāḥ. It should be noted that it is not a consistent, but only an occasional, reading. The commentator did not find the statement that the Kailakilas were Yavanas in all the manuscripts of the Vishnu Purāṇa. He found it omitted in some, as Mr. Pargiter has found it omitted in his h. Vṣ.¹ It seems that making the Kailakilas into Yavanas was a later emendation by some reviser of the text of Vishnu who consulted the Matsya text. Evidently the original edition did not have Yavanas here, and it is a later addition.

c15.s1.32

¹ P.T., page 48, f.n. 82.

c15.s1.33

59. The Purāṇas in detailing the rise of Vindhyaśakti state that Vindhyaśakti arose from the Kilakilā kings. Here it is clear that the Purāṇas mean the Nāgas who at that time were prominently connected with Kilakilā, as their name changes from ‘Vidiśā Vṛishas’ to ‘Kilakilā Vṛishas’, e.g. Vāyu:

c15.s1.34

tach-chhanena cha Kālena tataḥ Kilakilā-Vṛishāḥ
tataḥ K(a)ilakilebhyaś cha Vindhyaśaktir bhavishyati
* * * * *
Vṛishān Vaideśakāṁś chāpi bhavishyāṁś cha nibodhata ²

c15.s1.35

² Vāyu, verses 358-360; cf. Brahmāṇḍa, verses 178-179.

c15.s1.36

The Bhāgavata similarly describes the later Nāgas, commencing with Bhūta Nandi, as the kings of Kilakilā:

c15.s1.37

Kilakilāyāṁ nṛipatayo Bhūta-Nando’tha Vaṅgiriḥ
Śiśunandiś cha tad-bhrātā Yaśo-Nandiḥ Pravīrakaḥ ³

c15.s1.38

³ Verses 32-33. The Bhāgavata omits the statement of there having been kings between Yaśaḥ Nandi and Pravīra.

c15.s1.39

The Purāṇas treat Pravīra as coming in the line of the Kilakilā Vṛishas, i.e. the Bhāraśivas of Eastern Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand.

c15.s1.40

The meaning of the statement that Vindhyaśakti arose from the Kilakilā kings is that he arose first as their recognized feudatory or a full-fledged member of their confederacy. That he was constitutionally in a subordinate position is proved by the fact that the official deeds of the Vākāṭakas omit him and begin the line of their independent kings with Pravarasena. It is only in the family history [kshitipānupūrvi] given in the Ajanṭā cave inscription [Cave no. XVI], that Vindhyaśakti is described as the founder of the Vākāṭaka vaṃśa (Vākāṭaka-vaṃśa-ketuḥ). From the description it appears that Vindhyaśakti, whose strength grew in great battles and who by the valour of his arms gained (a kingdom) and became the banner of the Vākāṭaka dynasty and who remained a strict Brahmin throughout his career (chakāra puṇyeshu paraṃ prayatnam), was primarily a general of the Kilakilā Vrishas. His adoption of the name of his native town as his dynastic title shows that he had been an ordinary citizen and had no royal pedigree behind him. He takes patriotic pleasure in connecting himself with the Vindhyas and with Vākāṭa, his home. ‘Vindhyaśakti’ itself is obviously an assumed regnal name. He seems to have made large conquests in Andhra and Naishadha-Vidūra countries (§§75, 76A).

c15.s1.41

60. The capital from which Pravarasena I ruled was Chanakā (§24), and the Purāṇas imply that it had been in existence already; he is not called its founder. It seems that it was founded by Vindhyaśakti, if not by the Nāgas [§ 24, n.]. I am inclined to identify the connected site of the ancient fortified town now known as Ganj-Nachnā with the Chanakā or Kāñchanakā of the Vākāṭakas. Its strategic position implies that it was built by a newly-founded power, and may justify the assertion conveyed by the name Vindhyaśakti that the Vindhya was really his strength. The position of Ganj-Nachnā as described by General Cunningham is as follows:

c15.s1.42

The small village of Nāchna is situated 2 miles to the west of the town of Ganj, which is 25 miles to the S.-E. of Panna, and 15 miles to the S.-W. of Nāgodh ......... The spot [Nachnā] is covered with bricks, and there are

c15.s1.43

many remains of brick buildings on the road from Ganj to Nāchna. The people say that Kūthara [the name of the fort at Nāchnā] was a great city in former times, and that it was the capital of the king of the country. The site of Nāchna is still called Khās Kūthara . . . . . There is said to be a tunnel from the fort of Kūthara to the Satna or Gorena-nala which flows past Nāchna, and joins the Kiyān or Ken river, 11 miles to the S.-W. of Ganj . . . . . The position in the entrance of a valley had the great advantage of offering a safe retreat into the recesses of the Vindhya Hills on the east, west, and south, in case of attack.'¹

c15.s1.44

¹ Cunningham, A.S.R., vol. XXI, p. 95. The correct spelling is Nāchanā, not Nāchnā.

c15.s1.45

The site is distinguished by the two temples, described already, of Pārvatī and Chaturmukha, which have the figures of Gaṅgā and Yamunā on their doorways. Gaṅgā and Yamunā come to be peculiarly Vākāṭaka motifs inherited from the Bhāraśivas. The site is also known for three inscriptions of the reign of Pṛithivīsheṇa I. The temples are unique in the history of Indian architecture and sculpture, marking the beginning of what we call the Gupta Art. All these inscriptions are in Sanskrit.

VIII. Vākāṭaka Records and Chronology

c15.s2.1

61. From coins we get the names of the two Vākāṭaka emperors—Pravarasena I and Rudrasena I, grandson and successor of Pravarasena I (§§ 52 ff.). We do not find any coin of Vindhyaśakti, father of Pravarasena I. Vindhyaśakti was a subordinate king under the Bhāraśiva Nāga emperors, and probably no coins were struck by him. The coins of the two imperial Vākāṭakas, which have been identified here, had been missed before owing to their not having been read properly or not read at all. I have already discussed the coin of Pravarasena I (§ 30) which probably belongs to the Ahichhatrā mint. The successors of Rudrasena I came under the suzerainty of the Guptas, who, as a rule, did not allow any subordinate coinage.

c15.s2.2

But evidently there was an exception made in the case of Prithivī-shena I, the son and successor of Rudrasena I, who got his son Rudrasena II married to the daughter of Chandra Gupta II. It seems that we have his coin—in the small, neat coin with a well-executed bull figure on the reverse, reproduced by Dr. V. Smith on plate No. XX, as fig. no. 4, in *his Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum*¹. The obverse which bears the well-known tree of the Bhāraśiva coins (Kosam mint) and the representation of a mountain, has a Brāhmī legend. It was read by Dr. Smith (p. 155) as *Pavatasa*, ‘of Pavata’. The first letter, however, is *Pri*, not *Pa*; the *ri* is at the bottom of the letter. The second letter is a conjunct with a [*v*] below a Guptan *th* (which has a clear dot in the middle); there are traces of *i*-mark on the top; it is to be read as *th* [*v*] *i*. The letter read by Dr. Smith as *ta* is *ś* with an *e*-mātrā on the top The next letter is *na*. The whole name seems to be:

c15.s2.3

¹ See also Plate III herein.

c15.s2.4

*Prith[v]iśena* = *Prithvīshena*.

c15.s2.5

There is a figure at the right-hand bottom corner of the railing which reads as the figure 9, i.e. the coin is dated in the 9th regnal year. The *n* is the hooked, i.e. the Gupta variety, which as well as the other letters all agree with the early Gupta forms.

c15.s2.6

In the same classification (‘Coins of Kosam’) Dr. Smith has illustrated another coin on the same plate (XX) as fig. no. 5. This has not been read by him.² It has the same five-branched tree but in an idealized and conventionalized form, and has the same mountain representation as on the coin of Prithivīshena I (fig. no. 4).² The mountain is evidently the Vindhya Hill. It has the same Vākāṭaka wheel which is inscribed on the Durehā pillar and on the Vākāṭaka inscriptions at Ganj and Nachnā and also on the coin of Pravarasena I of the year 76 (§ 30). The reverse has a lean bull facing a *dhvaja* or standard as on the Pallava seals (S.I.I., II, p. 521).³

c15.s2.7

² This coin being larger, the mountain is larger but the shape is exactly the same as on fig. no. 4. [My reproductions of these coins are smaller than their original size.] I have used casts in reading them.

c15.s2.8

³ The bull is walking to the standard, while the bull on the Pallava seal is recumbent; on the earlier Pallava seal in E.I. VIII, 144, the bull is standing and there is the *makara*-head standard.

Vākāṭaka Coins

c15.s2.t1.1

Coin of Pravarasena.

c15.s2.t1.2

15

c15.s2.t1.3

[ C. I. M., Pl. XXII. ]

c15.s2.t1.4

Coin of Rudra [ Sena I. ]

c15.s2.t1.6

[ C. I. M. XX. 5 ]

c15.s2.t1.7

Coin of ‘Prithv[i]shena’

c15.s2.t1.9

[ C. I. M., Pl. XX. 4 ]

c15.s2.t1.10

On the top of it, there is probably the bracket of a makara-head—the standard of the Ganges.¹ Above the bull, there is a figure with a halo on a pedestal, probably a representation of Śiva as in the Pallava seal. The obverse has a legend on the margin above the wheel It reads Rudra; the top of the r has a box-head and the head of d is thickened. To the right of the mountain there is the figure of 100. I take it to be the coin of Rudrasena dated in the year 100. It is allied to the coins of Pravarasena I and Pṛithivīsheṇa I by its dare, the Gangetic symbols, the mountain, the tree, the bull, and the wheel (§ 30).

c15.s2.t1.11

¹ I think, the bracket-shaped makara standard acquired the name makara-toraṇa. The 'bracket' is still called toḍī or toṛī (तोड़ी) in the United Provinces. The Patna Museum possesses an ancient miniature standard of makara-toraṇa in bronze, upholding a chakra. It was found near Buxar.

c15.s2.t1.12

The other Vākāṭakas have no coins.

c15.s2.t1.13

§ 61A. For convenience of reference I note below all the Vākāṭaka inscriptions published up to this time, arranging them in their chronological order:—

c15.s2.t1.14

Vākāṭaka Inscriptions.

c15.s2.t1.15

Pṛithivīsheṇa I.—(a, b, c) Three short dedicatory inscriptions [same text] on stone pieces, to mark the erection of pious buildings at NACHNĀ and GANJ, by the donor Vyāghra-deva, under the reign of Pṛithivīsheṇa I. The donor was either a member of the family of Pṛithivīsheṇa or an officer or a feudatory of Pṛithivīsheṇa. The inscriptions bear the royal wheel-mark.—G.I., p. 233, nos. 53 and 54 at Nachnā, E.I., XVII, 12 (Ganj).

c15.s2.t1.16

Regent Prabhāvatī Guptā.—(d) POONA Plates of the Regent Queen Prabhāvatī Guptā [daughter of Chandra Guptā II and of the Mahādevī Kubera-Nāgā], mother of Yuvarāja Divākara-sena, dated in the year 13th. The gift was made from Nandi-Vardhana, in the Nagpur District, C.P.—E.I., XV, 39.

c15.s2.t1.17

Pravarasena II.—(e) CHAMAK Plates of Pravarasena II, son of Rudrasena II and Prabhāvatī Guptā, daughter of Deva Gupta, dated in the 18th year, issued from Pravarapura. The plates were found at Chamak, in the district of Illichpur, Berar, and relate to Chamak (Charmāṅka) in the Bhojakaṭa kingdom.—G.I., p. 235.

c15.s2.t1.18

(f) SEONI Plates, found at Seoni, C.P., of Pravarasena II, dated in the 18th year of his reign. It relates to a property in the Illichpur District—G.I., p. 243.

c15.s2.t1.19

(g) (Second) POONA¹ Plates of the reign of Dāmodarasena Pravarasena (=Pravarasena II) of the year 19th, by Queen-Mother Prabhāvatī Guptā, Mahādevī, wife of Rudrasena II, mother of Mahārāja Śrī Damodarasena-Pravarasena. The gift was made at Rāmagiri (Rāmṭek, near Nagpur, C.P.)—I.A., vol. 53, 48.

c15.s2.t1.20

¹ It should be called Riddhapur plates—see Hira Lal, Inscriptions in C.P. and Berar, 1932, p. 139. Riddhapur is 26 miles from Amaraoti.

c15.s2.t1.21

(h) DUDIA Plates of Pravarasena II, dated in the 23rd year, issued from Pravarapura, found in the Chhindwara District, C.P.—E.I., vol. III, 258.

c15.s2.t1.22

(i) PATNA MUSEUM Plates of Pravarasena II; fragmentary; no date; the plates came from Jabalpur, C.P., to Patna.—J.B.O.R.S., XIV, 465.

c15.s2.t1.23

Prithivisheṇa II.—(j) BĀLĀGHĀṬ Plates of Pṛithivīsheṇa II, son of Mahārāja Śrī Narendrasena, who was the son of Pravarasena II. Pṛithivīsheṇa II's mother was the Mahādevī Ajjhitā Bhaṭṭārikā, daughter of the King of Kuntala (Kuntalādhipati). The plates are a draft ready for engraving a gift on the blank portion; no gift is recorded. They were found in the District of Bālāghāṭ, C.P.—E.I., IX, 269.

c15.s2.t1.24

Devasena.—(k) Inscription in AJANTA CAVE TEMPLE, No. XIII (Ghaṭotkacha Cave) by HASTIBHOJA, minister of King Devasena, [inscribed] in the reign of Devasena Vākāṭaka² (Vākāṭake rājati Devasene). The minister was a southern Brahmin whose genealogy is given; he dedicated the cave-temple to Buddhist faith.—A.S.W.I., IV, 138.

c15.s2.t1.25

² Bühler has wrongly ascribed a later date to this.

c15.s2.t1.26

Harisheṇa.—(l) AJANTA inscription (No. 3 of Bühler) in CAVE TEMPLE no. XVI, of the reign of King Hari-sheṇa, son of Devasena who abdicated in favour of his son Harisheṇa. Devasena was the son of the son (name lost) of Pravarasena II. The first part of the inscription (verses 1 to 18) is the family history (*kshitipānupūrvī*), the *ānupūrvī* (order of succession) of the Kings of the Vākāṭaka dynasty, beginning with Vindhya-śakti. The second part (verses 19 to 32) is devoted to the pious foundation itself, the construction and gift of the Cave-Temple, a Chaitya, to Buddhist worship, by the minister (Varāhadeva), son of Hastibhoja who had been the minister of Devasena.—A.S.W.I., IV, 124.

c15.s2.t1.27

(m) AJANTA CAVE TEMPLE inscription, no. 4 of Bühler, by a family of feudatory kings subordinate to King Harisheṇa. It gives their genealogy for 10 generations and records the construction of the Cave Temple (no. XVII) and its dedication to Lord Buddha. It is dated in the reign of Harisheṇa ‘who did what was good for his subjects’ [‘paripālayati kshitīndra-chandre Harisheṇe hitakāriṇi prajānām’].—A.S.W.I., IV, 130, l. 21.—A.S.W.I., IV, 128.

c15.s2.t1.28

There are two more records—stone inscriptions—which I regard to be Vākāṭakan and which I shall discuss here later¹.

c15.s2.t1.29

¹ One of them is the Durehā (Jāso) pillar; see the App. A (end). This expressly mentions the dynastic name, and is the earliest in script.

c15.s2.t1.30

62. The Vākāṭaka genealogy, as constructed from inscriptions and the Purāṇas, stands thus [the members enclosed (in round brackets) did not succeed as Vākāṭaka kings]:—

c15.s2.t1.31

poets and composers. The handsome king, ‘who was accessible to all his subjects like a good friend’ was given to a life of ease and pleasure, he resigned kingship in favour of his son Harisheṇa, saw him anointed king, and dedicated his life completely to pleasure.

c15.s2.t1.32

64. In the Vākāṭaka chronology the one fixed point according to the inscriptions is the contemporaneity of Chandra Gupta II with Prithivisheṇa I and Rudrasena II. Another point, which we infer from the Allahabad inscription of Samudra Gupta, is that Pravarasena, the Emperor, had been dead and gone before Samudra Gupta launched on his imperial career, as we do not find his name there. Samudra Gupta made the kings of ‘the Forest Country’ adjoining the Gaṅgā-Yamunā Doāb, his own governors and servants,¹ which undoubtedly means that Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand passed under him. Who was, then, the Vākāṭaka king at the time whose feudatories in the Vindhya country were snatched away by Samudra Gupta? As his conquests are to be taken to have come after Pravarasena, and as the fourth Vākāṭaka king (Prithivisheṇa I) ruled over the whole of the Vākāṭaka territory and his son was married to Chandra Gupta Vikramāditya’s daughter, the Vākāṭaka contemporary of Samudra Gupta must have been the king succeeding Pravarasena and preceding Prithivisheṇa, i.e., Rudrasena I, whom we may identify confidently with Rudradeva, the leading king of Āryāvarta in the list of Samudra Gupta (§ 139).

c15.s2.t1.33

¹ G.I., p. 13.

c15.s2.t1.34

65. But, we get more data and more help from the Purāṇas in the matter of the Vākāṭaka chronology. The Purāṇas give only 96 years to the dynasty of Vindhyaśakti, out of which they assign 60 years to the Infant and Pravarasena [Pravīra] together, and consequently 36 years would belong to Vindhyaśakti. In other words, with Rudrasena I they close the dynasty. We can, therefore, say with confidence, that Rudrasena came in conflict with Samudra Gupta and disappeared from the scene. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa give 96 years for the passing away of the empire (bhūmi).¹ The Vāyu uses the verb in the plural when it mentions the 60 years and thereby seems to refer the 60 years to both; its verb ['bhokṣyanti'] instead of being the dual, is in the plural, which is a Prakritism, as pointed out by Mr. Pargiter (P.T., p. 50, n. 31). The Bhāgavata does not mention and count the Infant at all. Samudra Gupta seems to have immediately on the death of Pravarasena started this campaign, and the imperial power of Rudrasena I was broken on the battlefield of Allahabad or Kauśāmbī which resulted in the death of the important members of his confederacy, viz. Acyuta, Nāgasena and also probably Gaṇapati Nāga.²

c15.s2.t1.35

¹ Cf Allahabad inscription where pṛthivī (l. 24) and dharaṇī mean 'India' and 'Empire'.

c15.s2.t1.36

² See part III below (§ 132 ff.).

c15.s2.t1.37

66. The Purāṇas thus close the Vindhyaka dynasty, while they regard the Guptas as still running by leaving them unnumbered and by not giving the total of their reign-period. Thus, by summing up the imperial Vākāṭaka rule, they place it before the rise of the Gupta Empire. The 96 years of the Purāṇas as the total of the Vindhyaka (Vākāṭaka) imperial period is confirmed by the Vākāṭaka inscriptions which mark off the reign of Pṛthivīṣeṇa I by the statement 'who belonged to an uninterrupted succession of sons and sons' son, and whose treasure and means of government had been accumulating for one hundred years' (Fleet, G.I., p. 24). The coin of 'Rudra' of the Kosam series, with the characteristic Vākāṭaka wheel, bears the year 100 [§ 61]. Rudrasena thus completed the 100th year of his dynasty, and had a reign of 4 years.

c15.s2.t1.38

67. The Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata give two totals, one of 100 years and another of an uncertain figure : 56, 6 or 60 (?), the reading being corrupt. The manuscripts of the Viṣṇu read 'varṣa-śataṁ ṣaṭ varṣāṇi' and 'varṣa-śataṁ ṣaś pañca varṣāṇi', and the Bhāgavata reads 'varṣa-śataṁ bhaviṣyanti adhikāni ṣaṭ'.³ It seems that after writing varṣa-śataṁ something else was written which has become unintelligible. There was no reason to repeat the word varṣāṇi in the Viṣṇu after varṣa-śatam. The editors or copyists of the Viṣṇu had two figures before them, one of sixty for Śiśuka-and-Pravīra, and another for the family of Vindhyaśakti, 100 years or 96 years. Ninety-six plus sixty, they made into ‘varṣa-śatāni śaś pañcha’ or ‘ṣaṭ’, evidently, 100 and 56 or 100 and 60 were contracted into 106. It should be noted that they neither give the 60 of the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa, nor the 96 of the Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa, and in place of these two they read 106 or 156. We, therefore, take 100 or 96 as the figure for the duration of the independent Vākāṭaka rule and 60 years for Pravarasena and Rudrasena. Rudrasena I by himself, as a king and not an emperor, seems to have had a reign of 4 years (100, ‘varṣa-śataṁ’, against the 96 years, i.e. the difference between the different data of the two sets of the Purāṇas).¹

c15.s2.t1.39

³ P.T. 50, n. 30.

c15.s2.t1.40

¹ Legally from one point of view the Vākāṭaka dynasty ended with Pravarasena I [§ 28, n.⁵].

c15.s2.t1.41

68. The Purāṇas give another important chronological datum. They, after closing the rule of the Sātavāhanas about 238 or 243 A.D.² and their contemporaries the Muruṇḍa-Tukhāras (closing about 243 or 247 A.D.³) mention the rise of Vindhyaśakti. Taking, therefore, the start of Vindhyaśakti at 248 A.D., we get the following results from our combined data of the Purāṇas and the inscriptions:

c15.s2.t1.42

² J.B.O.R.S., Vol. XVI, p. 280.

c15.s2.t1.43

³ Ibid., p. 289.

c15.s2.t1.44

| 1. | Vindhyaśakti | .. | 248-284 A.D |
| 2. | Pravarasena I | .. | 284-344 A.D. |
| 3. | Rudrasena I | .. | 344-348 A.D. |
| 4. | Pṛithivīṣeṇa I | .. | 348-375 A.D. |
| 5. | Rudrasena II | .. | 375-395 A.D. |
| 6. | Prabhāvatī Guptā as regent for— | | |
| | (a) Divākarasena | .. | 395-405 A.D. |
| | and (b) Dāmodarasena-Pravarasena II | 405-415 A.D. |
| 7. | Pravarasena II (on majority) | .. | 415-435 A.D. |
| 8. | Narendrasena (succeeded at the age | | |
| | of 8) | .. | 435-470 A.D. |
| 9. | Pṛithivīṣeṇa II | .. | 470-485 A.D. |
| 10. | Devasena (abdicated) | .. | 485-490 A.D. |
| 11. | Hariṣeṇa | .. | 490-520 A.D. |

c15.s2.t1.45.1

69. The above chronology which is primarily based upon the Purāṇas, verifies itself with the known historical data we possess, namely, the reign of Chandra Gupta I and the reign of Samudra Gupta. Chandra Gupta captures Pāṭaliputra with the help of the Lichchhavis, both according to his coins and the *Kaumudī-mahotsava*. The reigning dynasty of Magadha which must have been a member of the empire of the Bhāraśivas, coming into existence about 250 A.D., is dispossessed by Chandra Gupta I. Chandra Gupta I strikes his coins in the name of the Lichchhavis from 320 A.D.,¹ that is, he defies the overlordship of the Bhāraśivas and their successor Pravarasena I. His coins have about 9 issues [in his two provinces—Kosala and Magadha] which will cover a rule of about 20 years. This again supports the statement of the *Kaumudī-mahotsava* that the child of Sundaravarman had escaped with his nurse to the Vindhyas and was recalled to Pāṭaliputra by the City Council of that Capital and was crowned king, which according to Hindu constitutional law, would take place after completing the twenty-fourth year. The *Kaumudī-mahotsava* and Samudra Gupta's inscription both prove that before the time of Samudra Gupta, the Gupta dynasty had been dispossessed of Pāṭaliputra. That there was a breach between the imperial coinage of Samudra Gupta and that of Chandra Gupta I is indicated by the fact that Chandra Gupta I's coins have never been found in association with the imperial Gupta coins.

c15.s2.t1.45.2

The period which Samudra Gupta occupied as a small rājā, living in Sāketa or between Benares and Sāketa, is determined by his coins of the Tiger type. On these coins he is described merely as ‘Rājā Samudra Gupta’. He had not yet adopted the Garuḍa standard or any of the figures which appear on his imperial coins. The reverse bears the figure of Gaṅgā standing on a Gangetic dolphin (śiśumāra). Gaṅgā and Yamunā were the imperial marks under the Vākāṭakas. Gaṅgā is found on the Bhāraśiva coins and also on the coin of Pravarasena. It seems to have been adopted by Samudra Gupta in his feudatory capacity as an imperial Vākāṭaka mark, which is not repeated in his own imperial coinage. There are very few coins of the Tiger type, yet from the examples found, we are sure that there were at least two issues of this coin. In the Tiger type coins, Samudra Gupta has not assumed the imperial armour-robes like his father, which also shows that Samudra Gupta assumed the humbler rôle of an orthodox Hindu rājā of the United Provinces, quite in line with the other feudatories of the Vākāṭakas. Dating Chandra Gupta I cir. 320 to 340 A.D. and assigning 4 years to the two issues of the Tiger type coinage of Rājā Samudra Gupta, we arrive at 344 A.D., which was a critical date for Samudra Gupta.

c15.s2.t1.45.3

The death of the great Vākāṭaka Emperor, Pravarasena, who had evidently had a hand in curbing the ambition of Chandra Gupta I and in reinstating the Kota family whose prince had taken refuge at Pampā in the Vākāṭaka dominions, was the most appropriate opportunity in Samudra Gupta's calculation to make a bid for the recovery of Magadha and for an independent position, which had been the unrealized dream of the so-called Mahārājādhirāja Chandra Gupta I. We should recall here that the Tiger coins of Samudra Gupta are not struck with any affinity claimed with the Lichchhavis. The coins do not bear the Lichchhavi symbol of the goddess on the lion, nor the name of the Lichchhavis. At the same time, Samudra Gupta repeats in his inscriptions the fact of his being a Lichchhavi grandson. The constitutional significance of this is that Samudra Gupta lays claim to the independent position once established by the Lichchhavis and to the Lichchhavi dominions. Under his son Chandra Gupta II, the Lichchhavi capital became a provincial seat of a Gupta governor with the title of Mahārāja. The Lichchhavi Republic, therefore, had been suppressed and had gone before the grandson of the Lichchhavi became Emperor of India. And we do find that the Lichchhavi rulers migrated to Nepal where they founded a

c15.s2.t1.46

¹ His previous coins, it seems to me, are found amongst the so-called Pañchāla coins illustrated by Cunningham in his CAI., Pl. VII, figures 1 and 2. These coins really belong to the Kosala series, as Dhanadeva, one of the kings of the series I have proved from the Ayodhyā inscription (J.B.O.R.S., X, p. 202 [204]) to be a Kosala king. The legend on the above coins [no. 1] reads *Chandra-guptasya*, and not *Rudraguptasa* as Cunningham read it. The style is purely Hindu, unlike his Lichchhavi coins.

c15.s2.t1.47

Date of the dispersion of the Lichchhavis.

c15.s2.t1.48

monarchy about 330-350 A.D.¹ The inference is irresistible that the Lichchhavis under whose protection the coins of Chandra Gupta I were struck, were defeated and dispersed by the Vākāṭaka emperor about 340 A.D. Samudra Gupta thus had a big legacy of political vendetta against the Vākāṭaka House and he missed no chance. The date 344 A.D. or thereabouts for the death of Pravarasena and the rise of Samudra Gupta thus fully agrees with the known facts.

c15.s2.t1.49

¹ Fleet, G.I., Introduction, p. 135.

IX. Vākāṭaka Empire

c15.s3.1

70. The Vākāṭaka chronology as proposed above, answers to the known dates of Chandra Gupta II. Chandra Gupta II initiated a policy of political marriages with the once enemy states, as a result of which he married his daughters to the Vākāṭaka ruler Rudrasena II and took a daughter of the Kadamba monarch to his own family.² He himself married a Nāga princess Kubera-Nāgā who was the mother of Prabhāvatiguptā. Both Dhruva-Devī and Kubera-Nāgā are described as *Mahādevī* respectively in Gupta and Vākāṭaka documents; if Dhruvā Devī whose ancestry is not known, is not identical with Kubera Nāgā, he must have married her soon after coming to the throne, and she on the death of Dhruvā Devī would have succeeded to the position of the *Mahādevī*. An offspring of the Nāga princess going to the Vākāṭaka House, the successors of the Nāgas, put an end to the old Gupta-Vākāṭaka hostility. The Vākāṭakas again begin to rise and are given a measure of independence which no other state enjoyed under the Guptas. Soon after Prabhāvati and on the fall of the Gupta Empire, under Narendrasena, they once more become a sovereign power in the Berar-Maratha country including Koṅkaṇa and up to Kuntala, in Western Mālwā and Gujarat, and in Kosalā and Mekalā including Andhra. And under Harisheṇa the same limits are maintained. Narendrasena and Harisheṇa virtually succeed to the Gupta Overlordship in the West and in the South up to the Kuntala country of the Kadamba kingdom. The significance of this large overlordship will become clear when we deal in detail with the Vākāṭaka government, fully described in the Purāṇas, and the Gupta conquest of the South and the reorganization thereof under Samudra Gupta which is also fully treated in the Purāṇas.

c15.s3.2

² The Kadamba Kula, pp. 21-22.

c15.s3.3

71. There are three main divisions of the Vākāṭaka Period: (i) the Imperial, (ii) the Guptan, and (iii) post-Guptan (from Narendrasena to Hariṣeṇa and probably later).

c15.s3.4

Vākāṭaka Imperial Period.

c15.s3.5

72. The Vākāṭaka Empire begins from the reign of Pravarasena I and ends with the reign of Rudrasena I who had no time, on account of Samudra Gupta's first war (§ 132), to assume the imperial position of his Vākāṭaka grandfather. Emperor Pravarasena, whose coin bears the date 76, evidently counted the foundation of his state from the time of his father as he himself ruled for only 60 years. Samudra Gupta similarly in reckoning the ‘Gupta-rājya’ years¹ counted from the coronation of his father, and followed the example of Pravarasena I.

c15.s3.6

¹ Cf. G.I., p. 95, ....abda-śate Gupta-nṛipa-rājya-bhuktau.

c15.s3.7

73. The system of the Vākāṭaka imperial organization was to have sons and other relations as rulers over different provinces, a system borrowed from the Nāga Empire. The Purāṇas here are specially full. They say that four sons of Pravarasena became rulers and that there were three dynasties of relations by marriages and one dynasty of their descendants, over four centres—Māhiṣī, Mekalā, Kosalā and Vidūra.² Māhiṣī here is the Māhishmatī on the Narbada between the British district of Nimar and the Nimar zilla of the Indore State.³ It was the capital of the province of Western

c15.s3.8

² Vindhyakānāṁ kulānāṁ te nṛipā vaivāhikās trayaḥ (Br.). Vaivāhikāḥ here has been misread in the text of the other Purāṇas as vaivālhikāḥ and vai vāhikāḥ. The mistake is curious, but easily understandable. Vaivāhikāḥ was read as two words, vai and vāhikā, and vāhikāḥ was sanskritized into Vālhikāḥ and Bālhikāḥ!

c15.s3.9

³ See J.R.A.S., 1910, p. 444 for its location.

c15.s3.10

Vākāṭaka Imperial Organization.

c15.s3.11

Malwā. This division of the territories adjoining Berar is found to reappear in the Third Vākāṭaka Period as Kosalā, Mekalā, and Mālava.¹ For all these provinces the Purāṇas give the rulers and their totals, implying their end with the end of the Imperial Vākāṭaka period, i.e., by the conquest of Samudra Gupta.

c15.s3.12

¹ Bālāghāṭ plates, E.I., Vol. IX, p. 271. Prof. Kielhorn who thought that the spellings ‘Kosalā’, and ‘Mekalā’ were wrong, substituted ‘Kosala’, ‘Mekala’. But the Purāṇa text shows that the inscriptional forms are correct and represent the Vākāṭaka nomenclature.

c15.s3.13

73 A. Out of the four provincial dynasties, the dynasty of Mekalā is expressly called in the Vāyu ‘a dynasty of the descendants’ of the Vindhyakas:

c15.s3.14

Vākāṭaka Provinces: Mekalā, etc.

c15.s3.15

Mekalāyāṁ nṛipāḥ sapta bhavishyantīha santatiḥ.²

c15.s3.16

² P.T., p.5 l, n. 17. This is the reading in the majority of the MSS. [ibid.], and in all the copies consulted by Wilson and Hall [V.P., 4, pp. 214-215]. The variant sattamāḥ is a corruption and is meaningless.

c15.s3.17

These subordinate kings of Mekalā, who were seven in number, are described by the Bhāgavata and several copies of the Vishnu as the Seven Āndhras, i.e., the seven kings of the Andhra Country.³ The Province of Mekalā evidently extended from the south of the present Maikal Range,⁴ in a straight line, covering the modern State of Bastar wherein begins the Andhra country. To the east of it lay the Province of Kosalā, i.e., the area of the feudatory states of Orissa, and Kalinga. It should be noted here that the region from Raipur to Bastar is marked with the remains of Nāga settlements where inscriptions of later Nāga families from the tenth century onwards have been found in abundance. The tract formed a part of the Nāga Empire with the rest of the Central Provinces. The dynastic identity of this branch of the Vindhyakas or of Vindhyaśakti, I shall discuss under the Southern History when I deal with the Pallavas (§ 173 ff.). It is sufficient to notice here that the Vindhyakas were rulers of Andhra-deśa, that their province of Mekalā included Andhra, and that a branch line of the family was established there as a feudatory family who ruled for seven successions. The ruling families of the other three dynasties came under the description ‘the dynasties of relations by marriage (vaivāhikāḥ)’¹. The Naishadha province was under a dynasty who claimed to have descended from Nala. Their capital was at Vidūra, which seems to be represented by Bidar, an ancient capital in the Nizam's Dominions; Vaidūrya is the Satpura. The Mahishin rulers consisted of two sets, one of Rājās as the lord of the Mahishins, and the Pushyamitras with two more communities who are not called kings. These are included amongst the Mahishins, that is, the people of Western Malwā which is called Mālava in the later Vākāṭaka inscriptions. These republican Mahishīs were evidently under this rājā, feudatory of the Vākāṭakas.

c15.s3.18

³ P.T., p. 51, n. 16.

c15.s3.19

⁴ J.B.O.R.S., XVIII, 98.

c15.s3.20

¹ The Vishṇu misread the text of the Vāyu and made the groups from the Mahishī rulers to the Mekalā kings, including the ‘Vaivāhikāḥ’ (misreading it as ‘Vālhikāḥ’) sons of Vindhyaśakti [cf. the commentator, ‘tat-putrāḥ, Vindhyaśaktyādīnām putrāḥ’]. The text of the Vishṇu is tat-putrāḥ trayodaśaiva Vālhikāḥ trayaḥ tataḥ Pushyamitra-Padhumitra-Padmamitrās trayo daśa | Mekalāś cha | (Wilson, V.P., 4, 213). It applied the santati originally referring to the Mekalas and the figure daśa of the Traya-Pushyamitra group [§ 74] to the kings following Vindhyaśakti and coming before the Mekalās in the text of the Vāyu, i.e., the ‘three’ Vālhikas (i.e., the Vaivāhikas) and the ten Pushyamitras-Padhumitras-Padmamitras. As the number 13 was thus completed, about the Mekalas [the real descendants] it said ‘and also the Mekalas’. The Bhāgavata following the Vishṇu was content with 13 sons. It is evident that the Vishṇu found santati after and with the Mekalas.

c15.s3.21

74. To take up the centres separately. One ruler of Mahishī is named, ‘Supratīka-nabhāra’ son of Śakyamāna.² He was king of the Mahishins and lord of the land.³ We have

c15.s3.22

² 3 Supratīko nabhāras tu samā bhokshyati triṁśatim | Śakya-māna-bhavo rājā Mahīshīnāṁ mahīpatiḥ|| [PT., 50-51 ns. 6-10].

c15.s3.23

The number sapta, seven, the Vishṇu reads with Kosalā—‘sapta, Kosalāyām’ (a reading attested by the commentator and supported by Wilson's MSS. See J. Vidyasagara's ed., p. 584; Wilson, IV, 213, 214). In the preface the [e] Vāyu Purāṇa designates it ‘pañcha-Kosalāḥ’-‘the Five-Kosalas’ [Vaidīśāḥ pañcha-Kosalāḥ, while it mentions ‘Mekalāḥ Kosalāḥ’ separately [Pargiter, PT., p. 3]. With these two the seven provinces of the ‘Sapta-Kosalā’ would be complete. In the M.-Bh. also, there are two units in this region with the name Kosala; Sabhā, XXXI, 13 [‘the King of Kosala, the King of Veṇa-taṭa, the Kāntārakas, the King of the Eastern Kosalas’].

c15.s3.24

coins of this ruler. The coins read:—Mahārāja Śrī Prat (i) kara. Prof. Rapson who published his coins¹ pointed out that they belong to the series of the Nāga coinage.² The Purāṇic name seems to be Su-Pratīkana Bhāra (= Bhāraśiva), as spelt in the present manuscripts. The letter na here is a misreading for ra, like the misreading of paurā for maunā which is pointed out by the commentator of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.³ The correct reading was Su-Pratīkara-bhāra. To him 30 years are given. In the same area, i.e. under the centre Mahishī, there were three communities whose names ended in Mitra. The Viṣṇu gives them as Pushpa-mitra-Padhumitra-Padmamitrās trayaḥ. The Vāyu and the Brahmāṇḍa name only two, Pushpamitrāḥ and Paṭumitrāḥ. But the Brahmāṇḍa adds trimitrāḥ. The Bhāgavata calls ‘Pushyamitra’ [i.e., the President] a ‘rājanya’, which is the technical term for a type of republican president.⁴ In view of the datum of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, naming the three communities and that of the Brahmāṇḍa mentioning tri-mitras,⁵ we have to take that their state was divided into three sections, and that they had ten successions, and the expression trayo daśa of the Vāyu is to be taken as meaning that the three states had ten rulers or ten successions of presidents. The other reading in the manuscripts [in place of trayo daśa] tathaiva cha⁶ would indicate that they were also given 30 years as given to the main rulers of Mahishī. They are assigned no separate location, and consequently I take that they were in Western Malwā. They, in the next period, i.e., the Guptan, are described as ‘Āvantyas’ who were under or in the confederacy of the Ābhīras (§§ 145 ff.). It is well-known that the Pushyamitras rose to such a height of power in the reign of Kumāra Gupta that they attacked the Emperor with great severity. As the successions here are of republican presidents, their number ten means that each president's office lasted for three years. This province of Malwā seems to have been an acquisition of the Vākāṭakas about 300-310 A.D.

c15.s3.25

¹ J.R.A.S., 1900, p. 116, Pl. figs. XVI and XVII.

c15.s3.26

² He read it as Mahārāja Śrī Prabhākara. I read as ‘t’ the letter which he read as ‘bh’. In coin legends ‘i’-strokes are generally omitted. The difference between ‘bh’ and ‘t’ of that period is slight and confusing.

First 133 of 241 passages. Read on

Linked texts (23)