Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Naga–Vakataka Imperial Period c17.s2: XVI. The Pallavas and their Origin

History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Nāga–Vākāṭaka Imperial Period c17.s2

Language
English

Contents

XVI. The Pallavas and their Origin

c17.s2.1

173. The P a l l a v a s who superseded the I k s h v ā k u s and the C h u ṭ u s, the last remnants of the Sātavāhanas, have a most important position in I n d i a n H i s t o r y. They are the Vākāṭakas and the Guptas of the South. They introduced Sanskrit in the South as the Vākāṭakas did it in the North. They established Śaivaism as the State religion in the South as the Vākāṭakas did the same in the North. Just as the Guptas gave a permanent stamp of Vaishṇavism on Northern India which has come down to our own time, so the Pallavas imprinted Śaivaism on Southern India which has come down to us. As the Vākāṭakas and the Guptas unified Northern India, so the Pallavas established the unity of the South which came down to the last days of Vijayanagara. The Pallavas beautified the South with sculpture and architecture, just as the Vākāṭakas and the Guptas did the North. The Pallavas introduced a system of Hinduism in the South which was common to the North and the South. That system became truly the imperial and universal social system for the whole of B h ā r a t a v a r s h a, i.e. I n d i a - with-Further India. A unity which Aśoka had failed to achieve was accomplished in the India of the Vākāṭakas and the Pallavas. And that unity of civilization is a legacy enjoyed to-day. They turned K ā ñ c h ī the old capital of the Cholas, which had been outside the limit of Aryan sanctity, into another sacred K ā ś ī, and under them the South became as sacred a Hindu-land as the North. ‘Bhāratavarsha,’ which in the time of Khāravela was probably confined to the North only,¹ was given a new definition to include the land up to Cape Comorin. ‘Āryāvarta’ and ‘Dakshiṇāpatha’ gave way to ‘Bhāratavarsha.’² And the Hindu historian in the Vishṇu Purāṇa composed a national anthem, saying,

c17.s2.2

¹ E.I., XX, p. 72, Line 10.

c17.s2.3

² Vishṇu Purāṇa, Bk. II, Ch. 3, 1-23.

c17.s2.4

Even the Gods congratulate and envy the born-Indian ; ‘the Indian, born in Bhāratavarsha, is blessed’, sing the Devas in heaven. ‘Let us be born in that land.’³

c17.s2.5

³ Ibid., 24-26; See above p. 160.

c17.s2.6

The point of view becomes Indian from that of Aryan, and the Indian [*Bhāratī santatiḥ*] includes all the children of the soil, Aryan and non-Aryan.¹

c17.s2.7

¹ *Ibid.*, verse 17.

c17.s2.8

174. The Pallavas who turned the South into a sacred Hindu-land were Brahmins, who, as they proudly say in their inscriptions, raised their position by their austere political deeds and became Kshatriyas.

c17.s2.9

The statement is strictly true. Virakūrcha, the founder of the Pallava Dynasty, was invested with the insignia of full sovereignty by his marriage with the Nāga Princess, daughter of the Nāga emperor.² The Nāga emperor at the time, in the latter half of the third century, was the Bhāraśiva Nāga whose dominions extended through Nagpur and Bastar up to the confines of the Andhra country. Virakūrcha [or, °-korcha], an inscription of whose grandson found in Andhradeśa mentioning him as beginning the line gives him the feudatory title of ‘Mahārāja’ and the description of one who though endowed with the highest Brāhmaṇa-hood (*parama-brahmaṇya*) attained the position of a Kshatriya³, was thus a member of the Bhāraśiva empire with the position of a sub-king. In the Andhra country itself there had been no Nāga dynasty before. There were the Ikshvākus⁴ and before the Ikshvākus there were the Sātavāhanas. The Nāgas who installed Virakūrcha Pallava must have enjoyed an imperial position and must have been on the borders of the Andhra kingdom. These conditions are fulfilled only by the imperial Bhārasiva Nāgas.

c17.s2.10

² यः फणीन्द्रसुतया सहाप्यौद्राजचिह्नम्खिलं यशोधनः । S.I.I., ii., 508.

c17.s2.11

³ परमब्रह्मण्यस्य स्वबाहुबलार्जितसत्त्रोपनिषेधिविधिविदित-सर्व्वमर्यादस्य, E.I., i., 398 [Darśi copperplates]. Here the Mahārāja is called Virakorcha-varman. This is the oldest record mentioning his name.

c17.s2.12

⁴ There was a family of the Bṛihat-phalāyanas (E.I., VI, 315) in the Kṛishṇā District who were probably feudatories to the Ikshvākus or to the early Pallavas. We do not find any trace of the family of Jayavarman Bṛihat-phalāyana before or after him. The letters of his copperplates agree with the letters on the plate of Śiva Skanda-varman, the Pallava Yuvarāja (E.I., VI, 84). Does Bṛihat-Phala stand for the Bṛihat-Bāṇa, the well-known Southern family, phala being the arrowhead (*bāṇa*)? The Bṛihat-Bāṇas were feudatories to the Pallavas in the time of Mayūraśarman (E.I., VIII, 32). Probably both *bāṇa* and *phala* were translations of some Tamil word.

c17.s2.13

175. We get help and corroboration here from the Buddhist history. In 310 A.D., according to Siamese Buddhist history, Andhradeśa was under Nāga kings, from whom permission was taken to transfer a portion of the tooth relic to Ceylon from Dantapura in Andhradeśa.¹ The place in Andhradeśa is called Majerika, which I think is the name of the branch of the Godavari now called Manjhira.² The ‘Nāga’ king described by the Buddhists must be the Pallava king who was under the Nāga empire and was at the time (c. 300 A.D.) a descendant of the Nāga Emperor, having sprung from the Nāga princess married by Virakūrcha (§ 182 ff.).

c17.s2.14

¹ Cunningham, Ancient Geography of India (ed. 1924), p. 612.

c17.s2.15

² Ibid., p. 605. Cunningham thinks that the stūpa from which the relic was removed was the same as the Amarāvatī one.

c17.s2.16.1

176. Who were these Pallavas? This question has been sought to be answered by various scholars since the discovery of this dynasty from their copperplates. ‘Pallava’ has remained a mystic, undeciphered figure. It was fashionable to regard every unexplained dynasty as being of foreign origin, and in that vogue the Pallavas became Parthians. But the conscience of the historians was not satisfied and almost instinctively they came to the conclusion that the Pallavas were natives of the country. But they regarded them as Dravidian or connected with the Dravidians of Ceylon. All these theories have ignored written records and materials which leave no room for any controversy. The Pallavas have suffered at the hands of historians a fate similar to that of the Śungas. They have been deprived of their true status which is one of good, pedigreed Brahmins. The Śungas had been declared to be foreigners, until the present writer was instrumental in showing that the Śungas were Vedic Brahmins and the founders of a Brahmin empire, a finding which has now been universally accepted. The key of their origin was found in the orthodox literature of the country. We should employ the same method again with regard to the Pallava ethnology. The code to decipher the Pallava mystery is locked in the Purāṇas, in their Vindhyaka history. The code is this: A branch of the Imperial Vindhyakas, i.e.

c17.s2.16.2

the Imperial Vākāṭakas, became kings of Andhradeśa which had become connected with the Vākāṭaka province of Mekalā. This Mekalā I have identified as a province of ‘Sapta-Kosalā,’ below the Maikal range of our maps, i.e. the British district of Raipur and the Indian State of Bastar. These Vākāṭaka sub-kings of Andhradeśa ruled in seven successions from the time of Vindhyaśakti the founder of the Vākāṭaka power, down to the time of Samudra Gupta’s conquest. We have thus one index here for identification. Another index is the caste and gotra of the Vākāṭakas. We know from their inscriptions that the Vākāṭakas were Brahmins and that they were Bhāradvājas. The third fact is that they belonged to Āryāvarta and their language was Northern, not Dravidian. The fourth fact that we have consists in the date of Vindhyaśakti and his dynasty. And the fifth fact that we have is that when Vindhyaśakti arose, the Nāga emperors were ruling over Āryāvarta and the Central Provinces, and that Vindhyaśakti himself came to the forefront on account of them and out of them, the Kilakilā Nāgas—tataḥ Kilakilebhyaś cha Vindhyaśaktir bhaviṣyati. The sovereigns and emperors of Vindhyaśakti were the Kilakilā Nāgas, i.e. the Bhāraśiva Nāgas (§ 11 ff.). Now let us see where we can find all these five marks of identification of these Andhra sub-kings of the Vindhyakas, in the Pallavas. The kings of the Andhra country up to c. 250 A.D.

c17.s2.16.3

were certainly the Ikṣvākus on the east-coast, contemporary with whom were the Chuṭu Sātavāhanas on the west-coast. The time of Vindhyaśakti is from 248 to 288 [or, 244] A.D. In this period, we find the Pallavas superseding the Ikṣvākus and the Chuṭus. The Pallavas according to their own deeds and documents, executed on copperplates about 300 A.D. or a little earlier,¹ describe themselves as Bhāradvājas, the identity of whose gotra is made further clear by the later documents of the dynasty. They were the Bhāradvājas of the family of Droṇāchārya and Aśvatthāman. They, therefore, belonged to the same Brahmin gotra to which Vindhyaśakti belonged. Their language in their copperplates is Prakrit or Sanskrit, not Dravidian. The variety of Prakrit they use in their earliest copperplates is northern. Very soon in the third generation, immediately on the close of the Nāga empire, they begin to employ Sanskrit, the style of which is Vākāṭaka. Like the imperial Vākāṭakas they are Śaiva by religion. As we have already seen, it is stated in the documents of the Pallava dynasty that the founder of the Pallava dynasty was made king by the Nāga emperor on the former's marriage with a Nāga princess. The Purāṇas give to these descendants of Vindhyaśakti, the kings of Andhradeśa up to the time of Samudra Gupta, seven successions, and the early Pallavas up to Samudra Gupta's time do number seven successions [§ 183]. Thus all the marks of identification respond to the Vākāṭaka indices.

c17.s2.16.4

Their gotra is identical, their language and religion, their age and date, their Nāga allegiance all agree entirely. And so does the number of successions of the Pallavas up to the time of Samudra Gupta with the number of successions given by the Purāṇas to the Andhra branch of the Vindhyaka dynasty. No room for doubt is thus left on the question of identification. The Pallavas were a branch of the Vākāṭakas. And when their inscriptions say that they were in the line of Droṇa and Aśvatthāman, they record a truthful tradition. The Vākāṭakas did belong to the line of Droṇa and Aśvatthāman, being Bhāradvājas. And I have personally found the tradition still alive at Bāgāt, the original home of the Vākāṭakas in Bundelkhand, that their home (Bāgāt) is still called the village of Droṇāchārya, the military professor of the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas [§§ 56-57]. The northern culture of the Pallavas in art

c17.s2.17

¹ Cf. Krishna Śāstri, ‘the Prākṛit charters of Siva-Skandavarman and Vijaya-Skandavarman do actually belong at least to the beginning of

c17.s2.18

the 4th century A.D., if not earlier' [E.I., XV, 248]—a view with which I fully agree. The writing which is of the Nāga type was introduced in the South for the first time by the Pallavas; the tops of letters are headed (lined), though not box-headed.

c17.s2.19

and religion, for which they stand out as the greatest dynasty of the South, thus stands explained. The Pallavas were neither foreigners nor Dravidians, but good Brahmin aristocrats from the North, military by profession.

c17.s2.20

177. We have in the example of the ‘G a ṅ g a D y n a s t y’ a purely assumed dynastic title, unconnected with the gotra or personal name of the founder. Similarly the word Pallava, which means a ‘branch,’ probably stands for the ‘J u n i o r D y n a s t y,’ like the ‘C h u t u s’ of the imperial Sātavāhanas, whom they superseded. As the C h u t u s were to the imperial family of the S ā t a v ā h a n a s, so the P a l l a v a s were to the I m p e r i a l B h ā r a d v ā j a V ā k ā ṭ a k a s:—‘branch’ i.e. the Lesser Dynasty. The first Pallava king bears the name Virakūrcha; kūrcha means a bundle of twigs—almost the same as Pallava. The real name seems to be Vīra which is repeated in the name of his grandson Viravarman (§ 181 ff.). The name of the other son of Vindhyaśakti was P r a v i r a, who was probably the younger, as he had a very long reign. As Pravira married his son to the daughter of the Nāga E m p e r o r and thereby succeeded to the Nāga empire, similarly Vīra had married a Nāga princess and was made king of Andhradeśa [which his father as a Nāga general had probably conquered]. The Pallava inscription correctly relates that the ancestors of Virakūrcha used to assist the Nāga emperors in their government, that is, they were Nāga officers; we have already seen that Vindhyaśakti was at first only an officer, probably the chief general of the Nāga emperors (§ 59). The use of the word Bhāra in the inscription in connection with the burden of government of the Nāga king may or may not have an echo of the Bhāra of the ‘Bhāra Śiva Nāga.’¹

c17.s2.21

¹ भू-भार-खेदालस-पन्नगेन्द्र-साम्राज्य-निख्यात-भुजार्गलानाम् ।—Velurpalaiyam Plates, verse 4, S.I.I., II, 507-508. [Cf. App. A, below on the place-name Bhū-bhāra.]

c17.s2.22

178. The Pallavas naturally adopted the imperial Vākāṭaka heraldic marks, which is evident from their seal [S.I.I., ii, 521] and the subsequent history of Imperial Insignia in Southern India (§§ 61 and ns.; § 86). The Pallavas have on their seal G a ṅ g ā and Y a m u n ā, which are known Vākāṭaka insignia. They have probably also Makara-Standard or ‘Makara-Toraṇa’ in common.¹ They have the Bull of Śiva in common, facing left (proper right).²

c17.s2.23

¹ See the open mouth of the animal in the Pallava seal in E.I., VII, 144 and on Rudrasena's coin (§§ 61, 86).

c17.s2.24

² See the seal in E.I., VIII, 144, and the bull on the Vākāṭaka coins reproduced in Part II of this book. The bull is made recumbent in the later Pallava documents.

c17.s2.25

179. The Pallavas and the Vākāṭakas never come in conflict. The Early Pallavas never strike their own coin. Śiva S k a n d a-v a r m a n, the second king, introduced a new regal title. He called himself ‘Dharma-Mahārājādhirāja,’ i.e. ‘the rightful overlord of Mahārājas [Emperor]’ or ‘the Emperor by virtue of Dharma’. This title had not been used by the Sātavāhanas. It was an importation from the North, it was a Hindu edition or rather a Hindu counter-title of the Kushan ‘Daivaputra Shāhānushāhi’. Instead of being a Daivaputra, the Pallava king places his claim on his adherence to the orthodox law and the orthodox civilization, which was quite in conformity with the law of Hindu constitution. He was substituting Dharma for the divine Daivaputra. It should be noted that the Ikṣvākus never used this title and they were simply Rājans or ‘kings’ like their late masters the Sātavāhanas, following the old Hindu style.³ Thus we have a full effect of the northern imperial idea in the Pallava beginnings. When the Āryāvarta B r a n c h of V i n d h y a ś a k t i attains the imperial position just after or in the life-time of Śiva Skandavarman (I), the same idea of D h a r m a S o v e r e i g n t y on a bigger scale is found. The All-India S A M R Ā Ṭ had a Dharma *raison d’être* as fully set out in the Mahā-Bhārata.

c17.s2.26

³ In one of the Ikṣvāku inscriptions (E.I., XX, 23) all the three kings are called ‘mahārāja’. This is one of the last records. Probably at that time the independent position had been lost. They had been originally mahārājas. The first Ikṣvāku to adopt the title of king (rājan) was Vira Purushadatta. His son was only Mahārāja.

c17.s2.27

When the main Vākāṭaka branch acquired the title of the S a m r ā ṭ, the title of Mahārājādhirāja was naturally dropped by the Pallava family. Śiva-Skandavarman was the first and the last man in our period to have assumed the imperial style in the South.¹ That Śiva-Skandavarman was already gone before Samudra Gupta's time is evident from Samudra Gupta's inscription where the ruler of Kāñchī is Viṣṇugopa. The time of Śiva-Skandavarman thus necessarily falls in the reign of the Samrāṭ Pravarasena I. From the time of Pravarasena I the Pallava king remains Dharma-Mahārāja, and the title allowed to the first G a ṅ g a king who was installed in the time of Pravarasena, was Dharma-Adhirāja (§ 190). The style of Dharma-Mahārāja becomes fixed with the Pallavas and the Kadambas in the South, and it travelled from the South before 400 A.D. to Champā (Cambodia)².

c17.s2.28

¹ See Southern List of Kielhorn (E.I., Vol. VII, p. 105).

c17.s2.29

² There we find Bhadravarman using it. Dr. R. C. Mazumdar's 'Champā,' Bk. III, 3.

c17.s2.30

180. Ś i v a - S k a n d a v a r m a n, as the Crown Prince, rather as 'the junior governor' (Yuvamahārāja Bhāradāyasagotto Pallavānam Śiva-Skamda-vammo—E.I., VI., 86) issued a charter of land-grant in the A n d h r ā-p a t h a from his seat at Kāñchīpura addressed to the officer at Dhānyakaṭaka, in the 10th year (of his father's reign). It shows that the Pallava dominion in the second generation had grown, at the cost of the Tamil states, to a magnitude justifying the ambition of Śiva-Skandavarman. The Dharma-mahārājādhirāj Śiva-Skandavarman describes his father³ as Mahārāja Bappa-svāmin (sāmi), which shows that his father started life as a feudatory and that Śiva-Skandavarman was the first dynast to adopt the full royal title. His father had reigned for 10 years or more, the grant of the Yuvamahārāja Śiva-Skandavarman being dated in the 10th year. It seems that his father was a feudatory of the Nāgas, and succeeded to the settled and well-organized government of the Ikshvākus which is evident from these two Prakrit copperplates of his son and the Ikshvāku records.

c17.s2.31

³ E.I., I, 6. 'Bappa' distributed krores of gold which should really refer to an aśvamedha. [Cf. here the description of Chātamūla I (E.I., XX, 16)]. E.I., I, 8. His son describes himself as 'of the dynasty of the Pallavas'. E.I., VI, 82.

c17.s2.32

181. Viravarman and his son Skandavarman II were also contemporaries of Pravarasena I. In Skandavarman II's time the official language of the Pallava Court changes from Prākrit to Sanskrit. His daughter-in-law who dates her gift in his reign (E.I., VII, 143) uses Prākrit, but Skandavarman himself (E.I., XV) and his son Vishṇugopa employ Sanskrit. And the Sanskrit style is continued by the successive generations. If the Yuvamahārāja Vishṇugopa of Kāñchi (I.A., V, 50, 154) be the Vishṇugopa of Samudra Gupta, which seems to be certain, we have another proof of the Vākāṭaka affinity in this change of the official language of the charters. Vishṇugopa imitates the Bhārāśiva description of the Vākāṭaka documents :

c17.s2.33

Yathāvadāhṛita-aneka-
Aśvamedhānām Pallavānām.¹

c17.s2.34

¹ The Vākāṭaka historiographical style found in the inscriptions of Prithivīsheṇa and his successors is a stereotyped style and as such evidently goes back to the time of the Imperial Vākāṭakas.

c17.s2.35

‘The Pallavas who had completed with full ceremonies several aśvamedhas.’

c17.s2.36

This employment of Sanskrit dates from before Samudra Gupta's conquest.

c17.s2.37

§ 182. The genealogy of the Early Pallavas can be reconstructed from their own documents on copperplates which are copious.² For almost every second generation we have a copperplate. They have the system of reciting pedigree up to the fourth generation in each case. The only exception to this rule are the charters of Śiva-Skandavarman, as he had not completed four generations of kings. I note below the grants and the authorities issuing them in their chronological order.

c17.s2.38

² It is curious that not a single inscription on stone has been found of the Early Pallavas.

c17.s2.39

| Mayidavōlu, issued from Kāñchipura by Yuvamahārāja (Śiva) | | |
| E.I., Vol. VI, | | Skandavarman (I) |
| 84, in Prākṛita. | | in the 10th year |
| | | (of his father). |

c17.s2.40

| Hirahadagalli, issued from Kāñchīpura by | Dharma-mahārājādhirāja (Śiva) Skandavarman (I), in his 8th year. | E.I., I, 2, in Prākṛita. | |
| Darśi, E.I., I, 307, in Sanskrit. | ,, ,, ‘Dasanapura, the capital’ (adhishṭhāna) by the great-grandson of Mahārāja Vīrakorchavarman. | | |
| Ōmgōḍu, E.I., XV, 251, in Sanskrit. | ,, Tāmbrāpa ,, Mahārāja (Vijaya) Skandavarman (II) in his 33rd year. | | |

c17.s2.41

On the basis of the genealogies given in the above title-deeds executed by these kings, the ancestry and the order of succession of the early Pallavas can be ascertained easily. We are absolutely certain that the great-grandfather of Skandavarman II and the father of Skandavarman I or Śiva Skandavarman was Kumāra Vishṇu the aśvamedhayājin, and that Skandavarman I's son and successor was Vīravarman whose son and successor was Skandavarman II. The only question left for speculation is the position of Vīrakorcha who must come above Skandavarman I, being the founder of the dynasty. The Rāyakōṭa (E.I., V, 49) and the Velurpalaiyam (S.I.I., II, 507) plates here become helpful. Vīrakorcha or Vīrakurcha, who according to the unanimous testimony was the first Pallava king, was married to the Nāga princess according to the inscriptions, and Skanda-śishya, i.e. Skandavarman was the son of the Nāga lady according to the Rāyakōṭa plates.¹ We have

c17.s2.42

¹ In some text-books it is wrongly assumed that Skanda-śishya in the Rāyakōṭa plates is stated to be the son of Aśvatthāman from a Nāga lady. The text does not allege it. It only mentions that Skanda-śishya who was an adhirāja was the son of a Nāga lady. Aśvatthāman is only mentioned as one of the ancestors.

c17.s2.43

In the Velurpalaiyam plates the Skanda-śishya who is the father of Kumāra Vishṇu and the grandfather of Buddhavarman is clearly Skandavarman II, whose son, as we know from the inscription of Kumāra Vishṇu III [E.I., VIII, 233], was Kumāra Vishṇu II. In the Velurpalaiyam plates it is not stated, as has been wrongly assumed by the editor of the plates and writers of some text-books, that he (Skandaśishya) was us to identify Kumāra Viṣṇu with Virakorcha-varman of the Darśi plate, who would thus be the great-grandfather of Skandavarman II. Sanskrit is found for the first time employed by the latter in the grants; the Darśi plate which is in Sanskrit seems to have been issued by him. Use of two alternative names in documents we know of from the later Vākāṭaka plates of Prabhāvatī Guptā and Pravarasena II, and earlier from the inscriptions of Aśoka. The repetition of the name Vīra as the name of the son of Skanda-varman I also proves the identity of Virakurcha with Kumāra-Viṣṇu I, father of Skanda-varman I., grandfather's name being repeated in grandson's. The early genealogy thus will stand as follows:—

c17.s2.44

1. [Virakorcha-varman] Kumāra Viṣṇu (ruled 10 years or more).

c17.s2.45

2. Skandavarman I, called Śiva (ruled for 8 years or more).

c17.s2.46

3. Viravarman--(no record of his).

c17.s2.47

4. Skandavarman II, Vijaya (ruled for 33 years or more).

c17.s2.48

Skandavarman I does not give the name of his father, but refers to him only as *bappa* which stands for 'father,' as later kings refer to theirs by the same term *bappa-bhaṭṭāraka-pāda-bhaktaḥ* (E.I., XV, 254; I.A., V, 51, 155). The name is supplied by Skandavarman II's grant (E.I., XV, 251). *Vīrakūrcha*, in numerous later documents of the family, is mentioned as the real founder of the dynasty (occasionally coming after two ancestors *Kāla-bhartṛi* and *Chūta-pallava*¹, who are the son of Virakorcha. In verse 7 Skanda-śishya is clearly stated to have flourished 'after' [tataḥ] Virakorcha and in his line. The statement implies a break between the two [cf. tataḥ in I.A., XIX, 24(10), and Kielhorn's opinion thereon in E.I., V, App. No. 195, n.; E.I., III, 48]. These mistakes, and especially the latter, have led to a great confusion in fixing the identity of the Pallava kings and in re-constructing their history.

c17.s2.49

¹ Is this *Kāla-bhartṛi* the *Kāla* of the Purāṇa text *teśhūtsanneshu Kālena* ['when (the Muruṇḍas etc.) were overthrown by *Kāla*']? If so, then the true name of Vindhyaśakti who rises after *Kāla*, according to the Purāṇas, was *Chūta-pallava*; and *Kāla* would have been a Nāga general, and an ancestor of Vindhyaśakti.

c17.s2.50

not mentioned as kings), and as already pointed out, in one of those later copperplates it is expressly stated that he was given the status of king on account of his marriage with a princess of the Nāga emperor. The name Virakūrcha does not recur, except once, in the whole series of the Pallava plates. The character and style of the copperplate mentioning the name of Virakorcha is very early. As we know all the names up to the father of Skandavarman I from the record of the grandson of Skandavarman II, it is evident that Virakorcha is to be placed at the top, as already discussed. About Virakorcha being the first king there cannot be any doubt; the rest of the tradition about the still earlier names is yet unconfirmed, except the fact that the ancestors of Virakorcha were generals of the Nāga emperors. The latter fact is true, as they do rise in the Nāga period. They owed allegiance to no Southern king and there was no Southern Nāga king near about Andhradeśa where they first come into political existence, while the Nāga empire was next-door to Andhra, in the Central Provinces.

c17.s2.51

§ 183. The lines after Skandavarman II is similarly well-attested. Viṣṇugopa, one of the sons of Vijaya Skandavarman II, has left one copperplate dated in the reign of Simhavarman I. Simhavarman I would have been proved conclusively to have been the elder brother of Viṣṇugopa by the Udayendiram plates (E.I., III, 142), but unfortunately they, in my opinion, are clearly a spurious document, being written in a script of several centuries later. However, we get the same result, viz. that this Simhavarman was not the son of Viṣṇugopa but his elder brother, from Yuvarāja Viṣṇugopa’s document, and the Gaṅga copperplate (E.I., XIV, 331) where Simhavarman (I) and his son Skandavarman (III) are stated to have installed respectively two successive Gaṅga kings [§ 190]. There are also two grants by Simhavarman II, son of Viṣṇugopa, which recite the genealogy (E.I., VIII 159; E.I., XV, 254). Thus the later genealogy on the statements of Viṣṇugopa and his son and the Gaṅga plates stands thus:

c17.s2.52

[Figure: Skandavarman II.

c17.s2.53

Simhavarman I Vishnu Gopa (Yuvarāja)

c17.s2.54

| issues grant, I.A., V, 154.

c17.s2.55

Skandavarman III. | Simhavarman II (E.I., XV, 254; E.I., VIII, 159).]

c17.s2.56

Vishnu Gopa gives the genealogy up to Skandavarman I who is described here without ‘Siva’, as also by Skandavarman II, his father.¹ Simhavarman II gives the genealogy up to Vīravarman, a name which is not repeated again in the family line. These two branches really constituted one continuous line reigning one after the other; Vishnu Gopa’s plate (I.A., V, 154) is dated under the reign of his elder brother, on the extinction of whose line Vishnu Gopa’s son evidently succeeded. But there was still another junior branch from Skandavarman II. This branch is established by two copperplates (E.I., VIII, 143; E.I., VIII, 233). The first is the British Museum plate by Chārudevī, wife of Yuvamahārāja Buddhavarman, issued in the reign of Vijaya Skandavarman (II), and the second is by Buddhavarman’s son Kumāra Vishnu (III) whose grandfather’s name was Kumāra Vishnu (II) and whose great-grandfather was Vijaya Skandavarman. It is thus clear that Buddhavarman who is described as Yuvamahārāja by his wife in the reign of Skandavarman II was the son of Kumāra Vishnu II, and not of Skandavarman II as generally supposed. He was Yuvamahārāja to his grandfather, and his father had evidently predeceased him. His relationship with Skandavarman (II) is not given in the British Museum plate. We know that Yuvarāja’s office was a ministerial post open to grandsons even in the life-time of their fathers.² Thus, the complete Pallava genealogy for our period will be as follows (those who reigned are numbered; nos. 1 to 7a complete our period):

c17.s2.57

¹ As we have already seen in our section on the Chuṭus (§ 161), Śiva was merely honorific. The repetition of the word Vishnu in the family is probably connected with the name of Vishnu Vriddha, one of the early ancestors [Bhāradvājas] whom the Vākāṭakas specifically mention. Otherwise it would be unexplained, the family being pronouncedly Śaiva.

c17.s2.58

² Jayaswal: Hindu Polity, II, 125.

c17.s2.59

1. Kumāra Viṣṇu Virakorchavarman (E.I., XV, 251; E.I., I, 397) (aśvamedhin)=Nāga princess (S.I.I., II, 508; E.I., VI, 84); 10 years or more.

c17.s2.60

2. (Śiva) Skandavarman I (E.I., VI, 84; E.I., I, 2; I.A., V, 50.); (aśvamedhin) 8 years or more.

c17.s2.61

3. Viravarman (I.A., V, 50, 154).

c17.s2.62

4. Skandavarman II (E.I., XV, 251; I.A., V, 50, 154); 33 years or more.

c17.s2.63

5. Simhavarman I [I.A., V, 50], reigned 11 years or more.

c17.s2.64

(7) Viṣṇu Gopa I (I.A., V, 50, 154); [ruled but not reigned.]

c17.s2.65

Kumāra Viṣṇu II [E.I., VIII, 233].

c17.s2.66

6. Skandavarman III (E.I., XIV, 331.)

c17.s2.67

(7a) Simhavarman II (E.I., XV, 254; VIII, 159; I.A., V, 154), reigned 8 years or more.

c17.s2.68

8. (Vijaya) Viṣṇu Gopa II [M.E.R., 1914, p. 82].¹

c17.s2.69

¹ This plate is called the Narasaraopet plate. I have ascertained by correspondence with the Government of India Epigraphist that it is the same plate which is called the Guntur plate or the Churā plate. The owner did not allow a facsimile to be taken. It is not dated. It was issued by ‘King Vijaya Viṣṇu Gopavarman, son of Simhavarman, grandson of Mahārāja Viṣṇu Gopavarman and great-grandson of Kandavarman (i.e. Skandavarman)’, from Vijaya Palotkaṭa, in favour of a Brahmin of Kunḍūr. It is in Sanskrit.

c17.s2.70

9. Buddhavarman² [E.I., VIII, 50, 143].

c17.s2.71

² It seems that Buddhavarman reigned after No. 8, which is suggested by his description: भर्त्ता भुयो भूदय बुद्धवर्मा in S.I.I., II, 508.

c17.s2.72

10. Kumāra Viṣṇu III (E.I., VIII, 50; E.I., VIII, 143).

c17.s2.73

11. Nandivarman [S.I.I., II, 501; 508].

c17.s2.74

12. Simhavarman [S.I.I., II, 508].

c17.s2.75

I have extended the genealogy beyond our period to bring out the utility of the Velurpalaiyam plates [S.I.I., II, 501]. These plates furnish the early history of the dynasty with which we are dealing, and are important otherwise. They give the rise of the family with Virakūrcha and then give the genealogy from Skandavarman II. On the succession of Nandivarman I, it gives the important information that when Vishnu Gopa (II) was dead and the other kings were all gone, Nandivarman succeeded. It means that after the extinction of the line of Vishnu Gopa and the line of Kumāra Vishnu III the succession opened to him. One Nandivarman, is mentioned in the Udayendiram plates [E.I., III, 142] as coming after Skandavarman III, son of Simhavarman I, but this plate is spurious, being in characters, as already pointed out, several centuries later; no reliance can be placed on it. Nandivarman I flourished in the line of Kumāra Vishnu II according to the Velurpalaiyam document. On the death of Simhavarman I his son Skandavarman III succeeded, and on the failure of his line, Yuvarāja Vishnu Gopa's son Simhavarman II succeeded. Vishnu Gopa evidently did not accept the throne. He ruled but did not reign (§ 187). According to the Narasaraopet plates [M.E.R., 1914, p. 82] Simhavarman II's son Vishnu Gopa II succeeded his father. This is confirmed by the list given in Vayalur pillar inscription.¹ After Vishnu Gopa II the members of the third line from Skandavarman II came in—first, Buddhavarman and his son Kumāra Vishnu III, and then his cousin Nandivarman. This is the meaning of ‘sa-Vishnugope cha Narendrabrinde² gate tato ’jāyata Nandivarmā’.

c17.s2.76

¹ E.I., XVIII, 145. This, as an original material, is useless, being an amalgam of several lists put together.

c17.s2.77

² Read ° vride.

c17.s2.78

It became customary after Vishnu Gopa I to call every ancestor ‘Mahārāja,’ whether he had succeeded to the Pallava throne or not, as in the case of Vishnu Gopa I himself, whom his son calls only Yuvamahārāja but his grandson gives the title of Mahārāja. So the plates of Kumāra Vishnu III call his each ancestor ‘Mahārāja’. Unless we get actual grants from them we cannot be certain of their succession even in a secondary line of rulers. On the evidence of the plates only one line seems to have ruled, and till now we have no evidence of the existence of more than one ruling line of the dynasty. Vishnu Gopa I, who alone could have been the contemporary of Samudra Gupta, was regent in Simhavarman II's time and was in charge of the government at Kāñchī; hence he would be called Kāñcheyaka. Members of the family might have been temporary local governors with titles of ‘Mahārāja,’ i.e. ‘Governor’ or ‘Yuvamahārāja,’ i.e. ‘Lieutenant Governor’.

c17.s2.79

§ 184. Vīrakūrcha Kumāra Viṣṇu performed an aśvamedha, that is, he declared himself to be the successor of the Ikṣvākus. It was repeated by Śiva Skandavarman. Evidently Viravarman lost Kāñchī¹ which had to be conquered back by Kumāra Viṣṇu II.² The Velurpalaiyam plates do not call the latter a king. He, as a prince, seems to have conquered Kāñchī for his father. Both father and son had to fight the Cholas and probably also some other Tamil kings.³ Skandavarman II re-established himself at Kāñchī. In his time, the Gaṅgas and also the Kadambas were set up as feudatories on the Tamil frontiers (§ 188 ff.). Their similar titles indicate that they were all Mahārājas to the Vākāṭaka Emperor. Their being Dharma-mahārājas seems to imply that they all were appointed by the Samrāṭ, that they belonged to a Dharma Empire established by the Vākāṭakas. There was practically a continuous fight with the Cholas until Buddhavarman broke them.⁴

c17.s2.80

¹ This name is never repeated in the line; it seems to have been inauspicious and unsuccessful. His bravery, however, is noted in the inscriptions (वसुधातलेकवीरस्य).

c17.s2.81

² गृहीत-काञ्चीनगरस्ततोभूत् कुमारविष्णुस्तमरेषु जित्वः (verse 8).—E.I.I., II, 508.

c17.s2.82

³ अन्ववाय-नभश्चन्द्रः स्कन्दशिष्यस्ततोभवत्, विजित्वां वटिकां राज्ञस्तथ्येनात् जहार यः (verse 7), Ibid. Satyasena was probably a Chola or some other neighbouring Tamil king.

c17.s2.83

⁴ भर्त्ता भुवो भूदय बुद्धवर्मा यथोल्ल-सैन्यार्णव-वाडवाग्निः (verse 8)—S.I.I., II, 508.

c17.s2.84

185. The ancestral state of the Pallavas is called Navakhaṇḍa.⁵ We have a Navarāṣṭra in the Mahā-Bhārata,⁶ but it was in Western India. This Navakhaṇḍa should be near-about Andhra. We have Nawāgaṛh as one of the traditional ‘18 Forest Kingdoms’ of Kosala.⁷ Its situation is near Bastar, by the Nagpur division of the Bhāraśiva kingdom, from where an attack on Andhra was easy. Very likely, the father of Virakorchavarman was the governor or sub-king in Kosalā, and from there Andhra was acquired.

c17.s2.85

⁵ S.I.I., II, 515 (verse 6).

c17.s2.86

⁶ Sabhā, 31, 6.

c17.s2.87

⁷ Hira Lal, E.I., VIII, 286.

c17.s2.88

§ 186. Virakorcha Kumāra Viṣṇu I must have had a fairly long career. He was an aśvamedhin and the conqueror of Kāñchī. Probably it was his suzerain or his father who conquered the Ikṣvākus and Andhra, and he conquered the Cholas and occupied Kāñchī. His son Śiva Skanda, to be the yuvarāja and the sub-governor of Kāñchī, must have been at least 18 or 20 in the 10th year of Virakorcha. The capture of Kāñchī was accomplished from the Andhra throne. Virakorcha's marriage and his recognition as a sub-king could not be simultaneous, for in his tenth year Śiva Skanda was old enough to be the governor of Kāñchī. At his marriage, Virakorcha was probably only an adhirāja and not a Mahārāja, and would have got the higher title on the conquest of Kāñchī. Placing the conquest of Andhra about 250-260 A.D., we may date the conquest of Kāñchī at 265 A.D., and the tenth year of Virakorcha as Mahārāja would be about 275 A.D. when Śiva Skanda would be about 20. To verify this initial date we have a guide in the date of Viṣṇu Gopa I; let us see if our proposed date stands verified by his date.

c17.s2.89

187. If Śiva Skandavarman came to the throne, say, five years later than the grant by him as Yuvamahārāja, i.e. in 280 A.D., and ruled for 15 years, his period [280-295 A.D.] would agree with the time assigned to him on the basis of the script of his charters as discussed above. Viravarman, in whose time Kāñchī is lost and to whom no conquest is attributed, but who is noted for his bravery and whose name is never borne again by his descendants, seems to have died on the battlefield at the hands of his Chola enemy. The death of Śiva Skandavarman would have given a signal for an attack by the Cholas. Viravarman could not have remained king for longer than a year or two. Viravarman following the ancient orthodox custom had taken the name of his grandfather Vira [Korcha]. But his name was, as already observed, never Repeated. It seems that the name Vira which came to be associated with a political misfortune—the loss of Kāñchi and a defeat at the hands of the Cholas, was given up by the family. Skandavarman II became, for the second time, the founder of the Pallava power, and this time it became seated permanently at Kāñchi. We should remember that in his time the Vākāṭaka family was led by Pravarasena I under whom it reached its zenith, which was a point more elevated than that attained by any previous imperial dynasty. Presumably Skandavarman II received support from the Vākāṭaka emperor. He assumed the title of 'Vijaya' deservedly. In his long reign he had sufficient time to consolidate his, and the Vākāṭaka imperial, position in the South. For over half the period of the reign of Pravarasena I he was his contemporary. We should assign him a reign of about 35 years, 33rd year being his recorded date. After him we have one record of the reign of his son Simhavarman I and of the governorship of his another son Viṣṇu Gopa. But of his grandson Skandavarman III we have no record, and as the latter was succeeded by the son of Viṣṇu Gopa I, his reign must have been a short one. Evidently, Viṣṇu Gopa was defeated by Samudra Gupta before his coronation and according to the well-known custom he abdicated in favour of his son and never became legally Mahārāja, i.e. though he ruled, he did not reign. The dated chronology would stand thus:

c17.s2.90

| 1. | Virakūrcha Kumāra Viṣṇu (at Kāñchi). | | *c.* 265-280 A.D. |
| 2. | [Śiva] Skandavarman I | .. | *c.* 280-295 A.D. |
| 3. | Viravarman | .. | *c.* 295-297 A.D. |
| 4. | [Vijaya] Skandavarman II | .. | *c.* 297-332 A.D. |
| 5. | Simhavarman I | .. | *c.* 332-344 A.D. |
| 6. | Skandavarman III | .. | *c.* 344-346 A.D. |
| 7. | Viṣṇu Gopa I | .. | *c.* 346 |
| 7A. | Simhavarman II | .. | *c.* 346-360 A.D. |

c17.s2.91

This is fully confirmed by the date of Viṣṇu Gopa which we gather from the history of Samudra Gupta.

Linked texts (27)