Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Vakataka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c9: Chapter III

The Vākāṭaka–Gupta Age (circa 200–550 A.D.) c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter III

c9.1

THE ŚAKA RULERS OF WESTERN INDIA (c. 170 to c. 400 A. D.)

1. Dāmajada I, Jīva-dāman and Rudra-siṁha I

c9.s1.1

The Western Kshatrapas had reached the zenith of their power when their greatest ruler, Rudra-dāman I died about 170 A.D. His was a remarkable career; starting almost without any patrimony he had succeeded in extending his kingdom in less than 25 years over Malwa, Gujarat, Kathiawar, northern Konkan, western Rajputana and Sindh. His son and successor Damaghsada or Dāmajada I¹ continued to rule over the whole of this extensive territory. He was associated with his father in the administration as a Kshatrapa, and very probably took an active part in some of his campaigns. The coins of Dāmajada as a Mahākshatrapa are very rare, and the portrait on them shows that he was an old man at the time of his accession. His reign, therefore, probably did not extend beyond 175 A.D. During this short rule of about five years the peace of the kingdom was most probably undisturbed. The Sātavāhanas were still reeling under the blows that had been inflicted by Rudra-dāman in c. 150 A.D., and the Kushāṇa emperors were getting weaker and weaker. The Sassanian kingdom was yet to come into existence. There was, therefore, no power to challenge the supremacy of the Western Kshatrapas in their dominion.

c9.s1.2

¹ On his own coins this name appears in the Scythian form Damaghsada; later it was Indianised by his descendants as Dāmajada.

c9.s1.3

Dāmajada I had two sons Jīva-dāman and Satya-dāman. Of these the former was the elder and succeeded his father as a Mahākshatrapa in c. 175 A. D. Jīva-dāman had not much administrative experience before his accession² and he was relatively young when he ascended the throne. He had further the misfortune of having an ambitious and experienced uncle in Rudra-simha. For a few months after his accession Rudra-simha continued to profess loyalty to him and accepted the subordinate position of a Kshatrapa in his administration. He was, however, all along conspiring to make a bid for the throne. In his plans he received material assistance from the Ābhīras,¹ whose leaders were at this time serving as generals in the Kshatrapa armies. With their assistance he dethroned his nephew Jiva-dāman² and became Mahākshatrapa himself. The dethroned nephew was not allowed to function even as a Kshatrapa, and he and his younger brother Satya-dāman probably went into exile.

c9.s1.4

² Coins issued by him as Kshatrapa during his father's rule have not been found, hence this conjecture.

c9.s1.5

¹ In the Gunda inscription, dated 181 A. D. the Ābhīra general Rudra-bhūti is referring to Rudra-simha as a Kshatrapa, ignoring altogether the existence of Jiva-dāman, who was then still a Mahākshatrapa. See *EI.* XVI, 233.

c9.s1.6

² Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar's view that Jiva-dāman was not a Mahākshatrapa before 181 A. D. is untenable. See *JNSI.* I. 18-20.

c9.s1.7

Rudra-simha I, however, did not enjoy an undisputed possession of his ill-gotten throne for a long time. Iśvara-datta, another Ābhīra general who had carved a principality for himself in Nasik, deposed him and became Mahākshatrapa himself in 188 A.D. Rudra-simha I submitted to the inevitable and consented to rule as the feudatory of the conqueror in the capacity of a Kshatrapa. He utilised his position to undermine the power and the influence of Iśvara-datta and managed to oust him in about two years.³ The year 191 A.D. saw him ruling again as Mahākshatrapa, which he continued to do down to *c.* 197 A.D.

c9.s1.8

³ Rapson places the Ābhīra intervention under Iśvara-datta in 236-238 A. D., during which time no coins were issued by the Western Kshatrapas. Since the Ābhīras are known to be serving as generals under the Western Kshatrapas in *c.* 180, it is more probable that the degradation of Rudra-simha I during 178-180 A. D. was due to their coup under Iśvara-datta, as suggested by Dr. D. R, Bhandarkar (*ASI*, 1913-4, pp. 227-45). Rapson attributes this degradation of Rudra-simha to the reassertion of his power by his nephew Jiva-dāman. But in the absence of any coins issued by Jiva-dāman as Mahākshatrapa during the period 178-180 A. D. the theory seems quite unconvincing.

c9.s1.9

The struggle for the throne between the uncle and the nephew and the revolution at the capital which put the Ābhiras in power for a couple of years could not but affect the fortunes of the Western Kshatrapas. The contemporary Sātavāhana king Yajñaśrī Sātakarṇi was an able and ambitious ruler and managed to reconquer northern Konkan from the Kshatrapas.¹ The Mālavas also began to show signs of restiveness in the Udaipur-Ajmer tract.

c9.s1.10

¹ Coins and inscriptions of this ruler are found in this province. The former are in imitation of the Kshatrapa coinage and attest to the expansion of the Sātavāhana power at the cost of Western Kshatrapas.

c9.s1.11

Rudra-siṃha I was succeeded by his dethroned nephew Jiva-dāman as Mahākshatrapa in 197 A.D. (For his coins see Pl. II, Nos. 3-4). Whether a reconciliation was effected between the uncle and the nephew, or whether the nephew defeated the uncle and ascended the throne, is not definitely known. The former alternative seems more likely; for we find Rudra-siṃha's son Rudra-sena working under Jiva-dāman as a Kshatrapa towards the end of his reign.² Like Humayun in later days, Jiva-dāman did not have a long reign after his second accession, for we find his nephew Rudra-sena I ruling as Mahākshatrapa in 200 A.D.

c9.s1.12

² Jiva-dāman's younger brother Satya-dāman also ruled as a Kshatrapa under him just after his second accession. The features of Satya-dāman on his solitary coin show that he was a man of about 45 when he became a Kshatrapa and this could be only in c. 198 A.D. For the contrary view that Satya dāman may have been the elder brother, who ruled for a short time as a Kshatrapa under his father, see Rapson, *Catalogue* pp. cxxviii-cxxix

2. Rudra-sena

c9.s2.1

(200 A.D. to 222 A.D.)

c9.s2.2

Rudra-sena I enjoyed a fairly long reign of 22 years, which was not disturbed by any internecine wars. He had two brothers, Saṅgha-dāman and Dāma-sena, and two sons, Pṛthivi-sena and Dāmajada. Circumstances were thus quite favourable for a prolonged and bitter struggle for the throne. But growing wiser by the war of succession in the preceding generation, which had led to the diminution of the kingdom, it seems that the Western Kshatrapas decided that usually the crown should pass from the reigning sovereign to his younger brothers in succession and not to his eldest son. We thus find Rudra-sena being succeeded by his younger brothers Saṅgha-dāman and Dāma-sena in succession. In the next generation we find three sons of Dāma-sena ruling one after another. A generation later Viśva-sena was succeeded by his brother Bhartṛi-dāman. This arrangement seems to have been preferred, because it ensured the presence of experienced rulers on the throne and removed the temptation to rebel from the path of the brothers of the reigning sovereign. It, however, made it more or less impossible for the eldest son of the ruling king to succeed him as the supreme ruler of the state. He was, however, offered the position and status of a Kshatrapa under his ruling uncles. Thus we find both Pṛithivī-sena and Dāma-jada II ruling as Kshatrapas in succession under their uncles Saṅgha-dāman and Dāma-sena.

c9.s2.3

During the reign of Rudra-sena I, Malwa, Gujarat, Kathiawar¹ and Western Rajputana continued to be under the sway of the Western Kshatrapas. It is not known with certainty whether Sindh still continued to be under their rule. Northern Konkan had been lost in the previous decade to the Sātavāhanas. A little later the Ābhīras carved out a principality for themselves in that province. In the beginning they must have professed themselves to be the feudatories of the Sātavāhanas; later they became independent. They were ruling in northern Konkan and Mahārāṣṭra throughout the 3rd century A.D.² Very little, however, is known either of the names of the rulers of this dynasty or of their achievements.

c9.s2.4

¹ Several inscriptions of Rudra-sena I are found in Kathiawar.

c9.s2.5

² The Purāṇas state that 10 Ābhīra rulers will rule for 67 years after the fall of the Sātavāhanas. The information about the duration of their rule seems to be incorrect; for an Ābhīra ruler is known to have sent an embassy to congratulate the Sassanian emperor Narseh on his success in the war for the throne in 293 A. D.

c9.s2.6

Ujjayini, as before, was the capital of the Western Kshatrapas, and they continued to enjoy the prestige of a great power in spite of the turmoils of the preceding generation. They were by this time not only completely Hinduised but were also well known as patrons of Sanskrit learning and Hindu religion. It is, therefore, no wonder that rulers of far-off provinces should have sought the hands of their princesses. Virapurusha-datta, the Ikshvāku king of Andhra country (c. 240 to 265), had married a Śaka princess, Rudradharabhaṭārikā by name, who is described as the daughter of a king of Ujjayini.¹ She was perhaps a daughter of Rudra-sena I whose marriage took place after the death of her father or she may have been his grand-daughter. Śaka Moda, whose sister is recorded to have made a donation of a sculpture of the footprints of the Buddha at Amarāvati, was probably a member of the entourage that accompanied the princess to her new home. A sister of Rudra-sena named Prabhudāmā is known from a seal found at Vaiśāli.² The seal describes her as a Mahādevī, Chief Queen, but does not give her husband's name. It is not unlikely that he may have been either a hitherto unknown Hindu ruler of eastern India, who had married a Scythian princess, or a Hinduised Kushān chief, ruling over a small principality in Magadha, which had survived the collapse of the Kushān empire.³

c9.s2.7

¹ EI. XX, 19.

c9.s2.8

² ASI. 1913-14, p. 136.

c9.s2.9

³ EI. XX, 37. Sculptures of two warriors in Scythian dress may also be due to the same circumstance.

3. Saṅgha-dāman and Dāma-sena

c9.s3.1

(222 to 238 A.D.)

c9.s3.2

Rudra-sena I had two sons, Pṛthivī-sena and Dāmajada. The former was ruling as a Kshatrapa under him towards the end of his reign, but the crown passed to his younger brother Saṅgha-dāman according to the convention about succession referred to above. Though not more than 40 at his accession, Saṅgha-dāman ruled only for about a year and half; for we find his younger brother Dāma-sena ruling as Mahākshatrapa in 223 A.D.

c9.s3.3

It is not impossible that Saṅgha-dāman may have met with a natural premature death. It is, however, more likely that he may have died in battle, while fighting against the Mālavas of Ajmer-Udaipur tract, who made a successful bid for independence at about this time. A Mālava chief, (Sri?) Soma by name, is known to have performed an important sacrifice at Nāndsā in Udaipur State to celebrate the liberation of his country.¹ An inscription of this ruler, dated in 226 A.D., has been recently discovered, announcing how freedom and prosperity had returned to the country of the Mālavas by that time, and how the fame of his exploits had filled the wide space between the earth and the heaven. The enemies of the Mālavas are not mentioned in the record, but they must have been obviously none others than the Western Kshatrapas, as Western Rajputana is known to have been under their rule ever since the days of Rudra-dāman I. The war for freedom of the Mālavas, which was over before 226 A.D., may have lasted for three or four years and Saṅgha-dāman may have lost his life in it in 223 A.D.

c9.s3.4

¹ This information is supplied by the Nāndsā Yūpa inscriptions, which will be soon published by the writer in the *Epigraphia Indica*. The Mālava country, which was liberated, comprised portions of the states of Udaipur, Jaipur, Tonk and the British district of Ajmer.

c9.s3.5

Along with the Ajmer-Udaipur tract, Sindh also must have slipped away from the hands of the Western Kshatrapas soon after this time : they could not have effectively controlled it after the loss of the above territory. We, however, do not know who succeeded the Western Kshatrapas in Sindh and who was ruling there till 284 A.D. when the province passed under the sway of the Sassanians. Very probably some local Scythian chiefs were ruling there during this period.

c9.s3.6

During the reign of Dāma-sena, the kingdom of the Western Kshatrapas thus became confined to Malwa, Gujarat and Kathiawar. Ujjayinī still continued to be the capital.

c9.s3.7

During the first ten years of the reign of Dāma-sena, Prithi-vi-sena and Dāmajada II, sons of his deceased eldest brother Rudra-sena I, ruled under him as Kshatrapas. During the last four years of his reign, however, his own son Vīra-dāman was raised to that status. He seems to have pre-deceased his father, for his younger brother Yaśo-dāman succeeded his father, and ruled as Mahākshatrapa in 238 A. D.¹

c9.s3.8

¹ There is a gap of two years in the Mahākshatrapa coinage during 236-38 A. D. and Rapson places Īśvara-datta's usurpation during this interval; Rapson, Catalogue, pp. cxxiii-cxxvii.

4. Yaśo-dāman I, Vijaya-sena, Dāmajada III and Rudra-sena II (238 A.D. to 279 A.D.)

c9.s4.2

Yaśo-dāman was only about 40 at his accession, but he governed the kingdom only for two years. In 240 A. D. he was succeeded by his younger brother Vijaya-sena, who ruled as Mahākshatrapa from 240 to 250 A. D. He had ruled for a year as a Kshatrapa during the short reign of his elder brother.

c9.s4.3

The premature deaths of the two brothers, Vīra-dāman and Yaśo-dāman, in the short space of two years appear to indicate some trouble in the body politic, but its nature cannot at present be ascertained. The succession to the throne was according to the accepted convention and there was at this time no outside power, strong enough to create trouble in the Śaka kingdom. Vijaya-sena had, however, a peaceful and prosperous reign, for his coins are found in large numbers throughout Gujarat and Kathiawar.

c9.s4.4

Vijaya sena was succeeded by his youngest brother Dāmajada III in 250 A.D. Being the youngest of four brothers, he naturally had a short reign of five years, and was succeeded in 255 A.D. by Rudra-sena II, who was the son of his eldest brother Vīra-daman. Rudra-sena II had a long reign of 22 years, but very few of its political incidents are definitely known.

c9.s4.5

We have seen already how a junior prince of the royal family was usually associated with the reigning king with the status of the Kshatrapa since the beginning of this dynasty. During the period 239 to 275 A.D. no prince, however, is found to be associated in this capacity with the reigning Mahā- kshatrapa. A change, therefore, seems to have been effected in the system of administration and the office of the crown prince (Kshatrapa) seems to have been abolished for reasons which are not known at present. It was, however, revived by Rudra-sena II towards the end of his reign, for his son Viśva-siṁha is known to have functioned as a Kshatrapa for a short time before his father's death.

c9.s4.6

Our sources of information are silent about the history of the Western Kshatrapas during the period *c.* 230 to 275 A.D. But it seems fairly certain that their kingdom suffered further contraction during the latter part of this period. The copper coinage of the Western Kshatrapas, which was current only in Malwa up to *c.* 240 A.D., suddenly comes to an end after that year. This would, to some extent, support the theory that the Śakas lost Malwa soon after that date. Vindhyaśakti, the founder of the Vākāṭaka kingdom, ruled for about 20 years from *c.* 255 to 275 A.D. He was a contemporary of Rudra-sena II and seems to have annexed a part of eastern Malwa. An upstart Śaka chief named Śridhara-varman was ruling as an independent king at Sanchi (near Bhopal) probably from *c.* 266 A.D.¹ With the loss of Malwa the capital of the kingdom must have been shifted from Ujjayinī in Malwa to Girinagara (Junagadh) in Kathiawar.

c9.s4.7

¹ This is the date according to Mr. R. D. Banerji (*EI*, XVI, 232). Mr. N. G. Majumdar places him forty years later (*JASB*, NS. XIX, 343).

c9.s4.8

The view that the Kshatrapas had annexed Mahārāṣṭra during the latter half of the 3rd century, when the Sātavāhana power had collapsed,² is untenable. The epigraphical and Purāṇic evidence shows that the Ābhiras rose to power in Mahārāṣṭra during the 3rd century and there is no evidence to show that the Kshatrapas defeated them in *c.* 250 A.D. and annexed their kingdom. The discovery of the hoard of Kshatrapa coins near Karhad (in Satara district), in which the rulers in the latter half of the 3rd century are represented, can be easily explained otherwise. Karhad was a famous holy place.

c9.s4.9

² *JBBRAS*. VII, 16-17 ; *BG*. I, 48-49.

c9.s4.10

Its Brāhmaṇas were noted for learning and they were welcomed in distant royal courts. The Kshatrapa hoard found near that town may have been brought with him by a Brāhmaṇa emigrant of the town, returning to it in panic when a revolution broke out in the Kshatrapa kingdom in c. 304 A.D., which will be described in due course.

5. Viśva-siṁha and Bhartṛi-dāman

c9.s5.1

(c. 279 A.D. to c. 304 A.D.)

c9.s5.2

Rudra-sena II seems to have had no younger brothers; hence he was succeeded by his eldest son Viśva-simha in c. 279 A.D. He had, however, a short reign of about 3 years only, for we find his brother Bhartṛi-dāman ruling as Mahākshatrapa in 282 A.D. He had governed as a Kshatrapa for about four years before his accession.

c9.s5.3

The reign of Bhartṛi-dāman most probably extended up to 304 A.D. and his son Viśva-sena was functioning under him as Kshatrapa from 294 onwards. The coins of Bhartṛi-dāman as Mahākshatrapa and of Viśva-sena as Kshatrapa are found in large numbers; we may therefore assume that they succeeded in retrieving the fortunes of their family to a large extent.

c9.s5.4

In 284 A.D. the Sassanian emperor Varahran II conquered Seistan and Sindh and appointed his brother Varahran III as the governor of the new province with the title Sakān Shāh. This event did not directly affect the fortunes of the Western Kshatrapas, for most probably they had already lost control over Sindh and a few decades earlier. The local Śaka chiefs in Sindh and Seistan had to transfer their allegiance to the Sassanian emperor after this conquest.¹

c9.s5.5

¹ There is no sufficient evidence to show that the eastern conquests of any Sassanian emperor in the 3rd century A.D. had extended to the Punjab or Gujarat and Kathiawar. Only one solitary coin has been found in the Punjab showing some Sassanian influence, and it cannot support the theory of Sassanian conquest of that province. The rulers of Avanti and Kathiawar are no doubt mentioned as recognising the title of Narseh, but they are expressly described as independent princes in the Paikuli inscription.

c9.s5.6

The conquest of Sindh by Varahran II brought the Western Kshatrapas into closer contact with the Sassanians, and Bhartṛ-dāman naturally felt it desirable to cultivate friendly relations with the new neighbours. He did not take part¹ in the war of succession that ensued between Varahran III and Narseh, but when the latter came out successful, he sent ambassadors to congratulate him and to intimate his recognition of the new regime. The even tenor of the reign of Bhartṛ-dāman was not affected by any events in contemporary Sassanian history.

c9.s5.7

¹ The Paikuli inscription mentions the king of Avanti as siding with Varahran III in the war of succession; but at this time Avanti or Ujjayini did not form part of the dominions of the Western Kshatrapas. Some local ruler of Avanti, possibly a Śaka, may have joined the side of th Varahran III.

6. The Rise of a New Śaka House. Rudra-siṁha II and Yaśo-dāman II (c. 304 to c. 345 A.D.)

c9.s6.2

Some events, however, occurred towards the end of the reign of Bhartṛ-dāman, which put an end to the house of Chashṭana, ruling over Gujarat and Kathiawar for more than 175 years. We find that the successor of Bhartṛ-dāman was not his son Viśva-sena, who had functioned as Kshatrapa under him for about ten years, but one Rudra-simha II, who is described as the son of Svāmi Jiva-dāman, a person mentioned without any royal titles like rājan or Kshatrapa. The relationship of Rudra-simha II with Bhartṛ-dāman is unknown; he seems to have been an upstart or at most a member of a collateral Śaka branch. His accession in 304 A.D. was not a peaceful one. It was attended by a severe struggle, which rendered life and property unsafe at the capital, inducing people to bury their valuables and flee away for safety.² Rudra-simha II, however, succeeded in getting an effective control over the kingdom in less than a year and ruled over it down to 316 A.D., when he was succeeded by his son Yaśo-dāman II, who ruled certainly down to 332 A.D. and perhaps for a few years more.

c9.s6.3

² A hoard of 520 coins buried towards the end of the reign of the Bhartṛdāman was found at Junagadh. Num. Supp. XLVII, 97.

c9.s6.4

Both Rudra-siṃha II and Yaśo-dāman II, however, did never assume the higher title of the Mahākshatrapa and after 332 A.D., there is a break in the Kshatrapa coinage for 16 years, during which period no ruler is known to have issued coins either as a Kshatrapa or as a Mahākshatrapa. When the curtain rises in 348 A.D. we find a new chief, Rudra-sena III, on the throne ruling as Mahākshatrapa. It is, however, certain that his father Rudra-dāman II had also ruled as Mahākshatrapa for a few months or years before that date, though no coins of his have been so far discovered.

c9.s6.5

The circumstances which compelled Rudra-siṃha II and Yaśo-dāman II to be content with the lower title of the Kshatrapa and caused the total cessation of the Kshatrapa coinage during 332 to 348 A.D. are not yet sufficiently known. One view is that the Sassanian intervention was responsible for this gradual decline and total eclipse of the power of the Western Kshatrapas.¹ This view does not seem to be correct. The Sassanian emperor Narseh, who was ruling from 293 to 303 A.D., was signally defeated by the Roman emperor Galerius. Narseh had to cede extensive provinces to the conqueror in order to recover his family, which had fallen into the hands of the enemy. Narseh therefore was not in a position to bring about the downfall of Bhartṛi-dāman. His successor, Hormuzd II, had a short reign of seven years (303 to 310 A.D.) and is not known to have undertaken any expeditions to the east. The next ruler, Shapur II, was a baby of less than one year at the time of his accession in 310 A.D. When he grew into manhood, he was involved in Roman wars during 337-8 A.D. Sassanian intervention therefore does not seem to have been responsible for the decline and eclipse of the power of the Western Kshatrapas during 304 to 348 A.D. It may be pointed out that no Sassanian coins of this period are found in Gujarat and Kathiawar; nor does the coinage of Rudra-siṃha II and Yaśo-dāman II show any Sassanian influence.

c9.s6.6

¹ PHAI⁴. p. 428.

c9.s6.7

It seems more probable that the conquests of the Vākāṭaka emperor Pravara-sena I were responsible for the decline of the Kshatrapa power during the early decades of the 4th century A.D. There is, however, no direct evidence to show that Pravara-sena I had reduced the Western Kshatrapas to his vassalage. He, however, is the only Vākāṭaka ruler to assume the title of *Samrāṭ*, emperor, and is known to have performed as many as four horse-sacrifices (*aśvamedhas*) to celebrate his different conquests. His father Vindhyaśakti had ousted the Kshatrapas from a part of Malwa; he may therefore well have tried to extend his sphere of influence in the west by supporting the claims of the upstart Rudra-siṁha II and by giving him help to oust Bhartṛ-dāman or his son Viśva-siṁha or both, who were the legitimate claimants to the throne. Imperialism generally tries to extend its sphere of influence in this manner. One can hardly believe that Rudra-siṁha II and Yaśo-dāman II had voluntarily remained content with the lower title of Kshatrapa, which at this time denoted a feudatory status. No other neighbouring power was in a position to impose its sovereignty upon the Kshatrapa rulers. The theory that Rudra-siṁha II and Yaśo-dāman II had become Vākāṭaka feudatories for some time gets some further support from the discovery of the hoard of Kshatrapa coins at Chhindwara in C.P., in which Rudra-siṁha II and Yaśo-dāman II happen to be the latest kings to be represented.¹ It is not unlikely that both these rulers were sending occasional tributes to Pravara-sena I which was responsible for the entry of the Kshatrapa coins in the Vākāṭaka dominions. The tribute ceased to come with the deaths of Pravara-sena I and Yaśo-dāman II, when the Vākāṭakas lost their overlordship; and so later Kshatrapa coins are not to be seen in the hoard. It must, however, be clearly understood that Pravara-sena's overlordship over the Kshatrapas is only a theory, no doubt more probable than any other, but still lacking conclusive proof.

c9.s6.8

¹ *Num. Supp.* XLVII, 97.

c9.s6.9

What was the cause of the total stoppage of the Kshatrapa coinage during 332 to 348 A.D. ? When we note how there are hardly any gaps of more than two or three years in the dates of the Kshatrapa coinage from 178 to 332 A.D., we cannot but suspect some serious political disturbance during this period. The usual view that the Kshatrapa power was in complete abeyance during this period does not seem to be correct. Neither the Vākāṭakas nor the Sassanians were at this time in a position to effect a total eclipse of the Kshatrapa power. The Vākāṭaka king Rudra-sena I, who succeeded the emperor Pravara-sena in c. 335, was relatively a weak ruler and could not have undertaken any expedition against the Kshatrapas. The Sassanian emperor Shapur II was engaged in Roman wars during 337-8 A.D. It seems that there was a struggle for the Kshatrapa throne which was responsible for part of this gap. It is not unlikely that future discoveries will narrow it down, showing that Yaśo-dāman II ruled for a few years after 332 and Rudra-dāman II for a few years before 348 A.D. The intervening period may have been spent in a bitter struggle for the throne during which neither claimant found it possible to issue any coinage. We must remember in this connection that Mahākshatrapa Rudra-dāman II, whose son Rudra-sena III was ruling as Mahākshatrapa in 348 A.D., is not known to be related to Yaśo-dāman II, who was ruling as a Kshatrapa down to 332 A.D. Possibly he was a rival claimant from a collateral branch and could substantiate his claim only by a successful appeal to arms. A bitter struggle for the throne was therefore inevitable. It is this internecine struggle rather than a foreign conquest which seems to be responsible for part of the gap of 16 years. Future discoveries alone can, however, finally solve the riddle.

7. Rudra-dāman II and His Successors

c9.s7.1

(c. 345 A.D. to c. 395 A.D.)

c9.s7.2

Rudra-dāman II, who supplanted Yaśo-dāman II, was very probably a scion of the house of Chashtana, which had been ousted by Rudra-simha II in 304 A.D. probably with the assistance of the Vākāṭaka emperor Pravara-sena I. The weakening of the Vākāṭaka power at the end of the reign of that emperor in *c.* 335 A.D. enabled Rudra-dāman II to oust the son of his nominee and become Mahākshatrapa himself. How long Rudra-dāman II ruled we do not know, for no coins of his have been found so far. We may assume that he may have ruled at least for two or three years before 348 A.D., when his son Rudra-sena III was ruling as Mahākshatrapa. The sway of Rudra-dāman II extended over Kathiawar and northern Gujarat.

c9.s7.3

Rudra-sena III had a long reign of more than 30 years (*c.* 348 to *c.* 380 A.D.). It was, however, not a peaceful one. A great political upheaval once more occurred soon after 351 A.D., which rendered life and property unsafe throughout his kingdom. We find people burying hoards for safety both in the heart of the kingdom as well as in its outlying cities.¹ The disturbance lasted for 13 years, from *c.* 351 to *c.* 364 A.D., during which Rudra-sena III could issue no coins whatsoever. He, however, regained his position in 364 A.D. and we find him issuing coins regularly down to 378 A.D.

c9.s7.4

¹ *JBBRAS* 1899, pp. 203-09 for the Uparkot hoard and *ASI.* 1913-14, pp. 227-75 for the Sarvania hoard.

c9.s7.5

The cause of this sudden eclipse of the power of Rudra-sena III is not definitely known at present. It could not have been an invasion by the Vākāṭakas; for they were too weak to think of any such venture at this time. Dr. K. P. Jayaswal has suggested that it may have been an attack on the Kshatrapa power by Samudra-gupta. This view also does not seem to be convincing. The Kākas and Sanakānikas of eastern Mālava are known to have been the western neighbours of Samudra-gupta. It is not likely that he had invaded the Kshatrapa dominion which lay further to the west in Gujarat and Kathiawar. It is important to note that the Allahabad eulogy of Samudra-gupta, which gives an exhaustive account of his conquests, does not mention any smashing defeat inflicted on the Śakas of Western India. Shapur II, the contemporary Sassanian emperor, is known to have led an expedition to the east in 356-7 A.D. Can it be that after conquering the Kidāra king of the Punjab in 357 A.D. he turned to Kathiawar from his base in Sindh and totally eclipsed the power of Rudra-sena III for some time? Had Sassanian coins been found in Kathiawar, this conjecture might have appeared probable; as it is, there is nothing to support it. The view that Sarva Bhaṭṭāraka, who started the so-called Valabhi coinage, may have temporarily overpowered Rudra-sena III is also not free from difficulties.¹ It must, therefore, be admitted that the cause of the eclipse of the power of Rudra-sena during 351 to 364 is still unknown. Nor do we know how he re-established it in c. 365 A.D.

c9.s7.6

¹ JNSI. VI, 19-23.

c9.s7.7

378 A.D. is the last known date of Rudra-sena III. He may have ruled for a year or two more and we may place his death in c. 380.

c9.s7.8

The history of the Western Kshatrapas subsequent to the death of Rudra-sena III is again shrouded in mystery. He was succeeded by Simha-sena, who was his sister's son, and not his own. The succession therefore may not have been a peaceful one. We find Simha-sena ruling as Mahākshatrapa in 382 A.D., but within the next six years or so not only his own reign but that of his son Rudra-sena IV came to an end, for in 388 A.D. or soon after we find Rudra-simha III on the throne ruling as Mahākshatrapa. The relationship of this ruler to his predecessor Rudra-sena IV is not known. It is not unlikely that his father Satya-simha may have been a brother of Rudra-sena III; he may, therefore, have felt that he was a better claimant to the throne than Rudra sena IV, who derived his title from a sister of Rudra-sena III.

c9.s7.9

Rudra-simha III, however, could not rule the kingdom for a long time. In less than 10 years from 388 A.D. he was completely defeated by Chandra-gupta II, who annexed Gujarat and Kathiawar to the Gupta empire and put an end to the Śaka rule. An account of this conquest will be given in Chapter VIII.

c9.s7.10

CHAPTER IV

c9.s7.11

EASTERN DECCAN.

1. Andhra

c9.s8.1

During the age of the Later Śātavāhanas, the heart of the Andhra country, corresponding to the districts round the mouths of the Kistna and the Godāvari appears to have had its headquarters at Dhānyakaṭaka. The city has been identified by some scholars with Bezwada, while others, with greater plausibility, have suggested its location in the present Amaravati-Dharanikota area of the Kistna District.¹ The extinction of Śātavāhana rule in the above region is usually placed towards the end of the first quarter of the third century A.D. Local feudatory families had no doubt been gaining strength as a result of the weakness of their Later Śātavāhana overlords and must have contributed largely to the latter's downfall. But the Ikshvākus of the Kistna-Guntur region possibly struck the strongest blow to the suzerain power.

c9.s8.2

¹ The Amaravati inscription of Ikshvāku Virapurusha-datta (SIE., 1937-38, No. 529) refers to the installation of two *Dharmachakras* at the eastern entrance of the *Mahāvihāra* at Dhaṃñakaḍa (Dhānyakaṭa). An Amarāvati pillar inscription of Keta II, dated A. D. 1182, mentions Śri-Dhānyakaṭaka with its temple of Śiva Amareśvara and the lofty *Chaitya* of Lord Buddha (EI., VI, 146).

The Ikshvākus

c9.s8.t1.1

The earliest known Ikshvāku king Vāsisṭhiputra Śāntamūla (Chāntamūla) I flourished about the second quarter of the third century, that is to say, immediately after the fall of the Śātavāhanas in the country round Dhānyakaṭaka. The assumption of independence by a Muslim ruler of medieval India was characterised by the issue of his own coins and by an order to insert in the *Khuṭbah* (sermon delivered after divine service on Friday) his own name instead of his overlord's. The independent status newly acquired by Indian ruling families of the early centuries of the Christian era was likewise signalised usually by the celebration of the Aśvamedha. It is, therefore, interesting to note that Śāntamūla I was the performer of a horse-sacrifice.

c9.s8.t1.2

We know little about the predecessors of Śāntamūla I. It is not impossible that the Ikṣvākus of the Andhra-deśa actually represented a branch of the celebrated Ikṣvāku dynasty of Ayodhyā which migrated to the Deccan and settled there. The Ikṣvākus of the Far South appear to have had their capital at Vijayapurī situated in the valley of the Nagarjunikonda hills.¹ No record of Śāntamūla's time has so far been discovered. Details of the political career of this king as well as the extent of his kingdom are, therefore, unknown. Śāntamūla I was a staunch Brahmanist and performed not only the Aśvamedha but also the Vājapeya and other Vedic sacrifices.² Like the Kadambas and the Cālukyas of later times, he is described as "favoured by Mahāsena (Skanda-Kārttikeya)". Śāntamūla I had at least two sisters, the first of whom was married to a feudatory chief who had the style Mahāsenāpati Mahātalavara and belonged to the Pukiya family. The king's daughter Aṭavi-Śāntiśrī was married to an official styled Mahāsenāpati Mahādaṇḍanāyaka and reported to have belonged to the noble family of the Dhanakas. The word Pukiya has been connected by some scholars with the Pungi district covering parts of southern Guntur and the adjoining region. The Hiraṇyaka family, related to the Ikṣvākus, has been similarly connected with the Hiraṇyarāṣṭra which must have included the northern and western parts of the Nellore District and the adjacent area.

c9.s8.t1.3

¹ The Ikṣvākus were probably the Śrīparvatīya Andhras of the Purāṇas. Śrīparvata was the ancient name of the Nallamalur Range.

c9.s8.t1.4

Śāntamūla I was succeeded by his son Māṭharīputra Vīrapuruṣa-datta (third quarter of the third century) who ruled at least to his twentieth regnal year. One of his queens was Rudradharabhaṭṭārikā who is described as the daughter of the Mahārāja of Ujjain.² It is not impossible that Rudradharabhaṭṭārikā was related to Rudra-sena II (c. 254-74 A.D.) or Rudra-sena I (c. 199-220 A.D.) the Śaka rulers of Western India. Virapurusha-datta gave his daughter in marriage to the Mahārāja of Vanavāsa which has been identified with modern Banavāsi in the North Kanara District of the Bombay Presidency. The son-in-law of the Ikshvāku king seems to have been no other than a ruler of the Chuṭu family supposed to have been a branch of the Sātavāhana dynasty settled in the ancient Kuntala country. Matrimonial alliances with the royal houses of Ujjain and Banavāsi no doubt strengthened the position of the Ikshvākus during the reign of Virapurusha-datta, although the credit for contracting these relations might belong actually to the king's father Mahārāja Śāntamūla I.

c9.s8.t1.5

² It is interesting to note that three of Vīrapuruṣa-datta's queens were daughters of his paternal aunts. Such alliances were evidently familiar in this region even in the early period. Cf. Baudhāyana Dharma-sūtra, I. II. 1-4.

c9.s8.t1.6

Records belonging to the reign of Virapurusha-datta have been discovered at the Buddhist sites of Amaravati, Jaggayapeta and Nagarjunikonda.¹ The latest date supplied by the epigraphs is the king's twentieth regnal year. The inscriptions are, however, not official documents, but records of private donations in favour of several Buddhist establishments. Most of the Nagarjunikonda epigraphs record the benefactions of some female members of the Ikshvāku family to the Great Monastery lying near the capital city of Vijayapurī. These ladies were apparently Buddhists in faith. It is, however, unknown whether king Virapurusha-datta himself and his son were actually Buddhists. But attention in this connection may be drawn to the fact that, unlike Śāntamūla I, neither of these rulers has been described as the performer of any Brahmanical sacrifices or as favoured by the god Mahāsena. It is, therefore, not improbable that the immediate successors of Śāntamūla I were Buddhists and not staunch Brahmanists like their ancestor.

c9.s8.t1.7

¹ EI XX. 1 ff ; XXI, 60 ff.

c9.s8.t1.8

Māṭharīputra Virapurusha-datta was succeeded by his son Vāsiṣṭhiputra Ehuvula² Śāntamūla II who ruled at least up to his eleventh regnal year. The independent rule of the Ikshvākus in the heart of the Andhra country appears to have ended about the close of the third century A.D. This is suggested by the Mayidavolu charter recording an order of the Pallava crown-prince Śivaskanda-varman of Kāñchī to the provincial governor of the Andhrāpatha residing at Dhānyakaṭaka. Though there is difference of opinion amongst scholars as regards the date of Śivaskanda-varman¹ and his father during whose reign the grant was issued, it seems quite reasonable to ascribe the overthrow of the Ikshvākus and the Pallava occupation of the Kistna-Guntur region to about the end of the third century A.D. It is, however, uncertain whether Ehuvula Śāntamūla was himself ousted by the Pallavas.²

c9.s8.t1.9

² Of the two forms, Ehuvula, and Ehuvala, the former is to be preferred. Cf. the name Hamguṇavula-Devana, Suc. Sāt. p. 391.

c9.s8.t1.10

¹ Some scholars would like to assign him to the middle of the third century A. D For an examination of the question and for reasons why he should be ascribed to the first half of the fourth century, see *Suc. Sā.*, pp. 161-68.

c9.s8.t1.11

² Mahārāja Ruḷupuruṣa-datta, mentioned in an inscription at Gurzala in the Guntur District (*EI*. XXVI, 123 ff), may have been the successor of Ehuvula Śāntamūla II. The palaeography of the record as well as the name-ending *datta* seems to connect him with the royal family of the Ikshvākus, specially with Vīrapuruṣa-datta.

c9.s8.t1.12

There is evidence to show that the Ikshvāku dynasty lingered long as a local power. A record of the Kekaya family of northern Mysore belonging to the fifth century A.D. refers to matrimonial relations between the Kekaya kings and the royal sages of the Ikshvāku dynasty. These Ikshvākus are almost certainly to be identified with the descendants of Śāntamūla I. In this connection it is interesting to recall the epic instance of a matrimonial alliance between the Ikshvākus of Ayodhyā and the Kekayas of Girivraja and Nandigrāma in the Punjab. Vague reminiscences of the southern Ikshvākus may probably be traced in the late Kannada poem entitled *Dharmāmṛita* by Nayasena.

c9.s8.t1.13

*The Bṛihatphalāyanas.*

c9.s8.t1.14

There was an old kingdom covering the present Bandar (Masulipatam) tāluk of the Kistna District and the adjoining region with its capital at a city called Pithuṇḍa (=Pṛithūda ?) lying not very far from Masulipatam.³ According to the Hathigumpha inscription, king Khāravela of Kaliṅga, who may be assigned to the second half of the first century B.C., devastated the royal city of Pithuṇḍa. About the middle of the second century A.D. the Greek geographer Ptolemy mentions "the metropolis of Pitundra" which is located in the Masulipatam area. There is hardly any doubt that the inscription of Khāravela and the Geography of Ptolemy refer to the same royal city. Towards the end of the third century A.D., a king named Jaya-varman is known to have been ruling over the above region very probably with his capital at the city of Pithuṇḍa.¹ King Jaya-varman belonged to the Bṛihatphalāyana *gotra*; but no other king of his line is as yet known.

c9.s8.t1.15

³ According to Ptolemy's *Geography* (VII. i, § 79, 93), Pitundra=Pithuṇḍa was in the land of the people called Maisōloi. The name of

c9.s8.t1.16

¹ Some scholars believe that Kadūra, the place whence the Kondamudi grant was issued, was the capital of the Bṛihatphalāyana kings. See Dubreuil, *AHD.*, pp. 84-85. For a criticism of this view, cf. *Suc. Sāt.* pp. 41-49.

c9.s8.t1.17

A copperplate charter dated in the tenth regnal year of Jaya-varman who is described as a devotee of Maheśvara (Śiva) was discovered at Kondamudi in the Tenali taluk of the Kistna district.² It was issued from the victorious camp of Kudūra to the governor of the Kudūra *āhāra* (district) in regard to a grant of land in favour of a number of Brāhmaṇas. Kudūra, which appears to have been the headquarters of the district of that name, has been identified with modern Guduru near Masulipatam. Some scholars locate it at Koduru on the sea not far from Ghantasala which is the same as Kaṇṭakaśaila or Kaṇṭakaśaula of old records and as Kantakassulos of the Greeks.

c9.s8.t1.18

² *El.* VI, 315.

c9.s8.t1.19

Unfortunately the relations of the Bṛihatphalāyanas of Pithuṇḍa with the neighbouring kingdom of the Ikshvākus and with the Pallavas of Kāñchi cannot be determined in the present state of our knowledge. It appears that the earlier kings of Pithuṇḍa accepted the suzerainty of the Later Sātavāhanas and, later, possibly also of the Ikshvākus. On the eve of the Pallava occupation of the Andhrāpatha, Jaya-varman Bṛihatphalāyana seems to have ruled for some time as an inde-

c9.s8.t1.20

this country is given as Maisōlia which is apparently identical with the first part of the name of Masulipatam. See *infra*.

c9.s8.t1.21

pendent king. The sudden rise of the Bṛhatphalāyanas may have been at the expense of the Ikṣvākus. But very soon both the dynasties appear to have been subdued by the Pallavas of Kāñchī. It is, however, impossible to be definite on this point as materials for the history of the Masulipatam region during the early centuries of the Christian era are scanty. With the rise of the Sālaṅkāyanas of Veṅgī, some of the territories originally enjoyed by the Bṛhatphalāyanas seem to have passed to them.

The Anandas

c9.s8.t2.1

Epigraphic evidence points to the existence of a royal family ruling in the Guntur district about the second half of the fourth century A.D. and parts of the fifth.¹ Only three kings of this dynasty are known from inscriptions. An epigraph in the Kapoteśvara temple at Chezarla to the west of Guntur speaks of Satsabhāmalla who was the daughter's son of king Kandara belonging to the *gotra* (lineage) of a great sage named Ānanda. In the Gorantla copperplate grant of Attivarman, the king is described as "sprung from the family of king Kandara", while the family itself is said to have "arisen from the lineage of the great sage Ānanda". The Mattepad grant of Dāmodara-varman was issued from Kandarapura (a city very probably founded by Kandara) and the king is represented as having belonged to the Ānanda *gotra*. The three kings, Kandara, Atti-varman and Dāmodara-varman should therefore be assigned to the same family which may be called the Ānanda dynasty of the Guntur region.² It should, however, be noticed that the name of Ānanda is not found in the list of *gotrarshis* in the Purāṇas and other early works. Apparently the dynasty could not boast of its relations with any acknowledged *gotrarshi* of old.

c9.s8.t2.2

¹ There is difference of opinion amongst scholars as regards the chronology of the Ānanda kings. Gopalachari assigns them to the sixth and seventh centuries A. D. He believes that the Chezarla inscription palaeographically resembles the records of the Pallava king Mahendra-varman I (c. 600-30 A. D.). See *EHAC*, p. 185. Rama Rao (*JAHC*, I, 11) places the Ānandas in the period 375-500 A. D.

c9.s8.t2.3

² Some recent writers prefer the dynastic name Ānandagotra to Ānanda, but apparently they forget the fact that the word *gotra* means family and that kings of the Sālaṅkāyana *gotra* represent themselves in their official records simply as Sālaṅkāyana. Attention in this connection may also be drawn to such dynastic names as Ikṣvāku which is after an illustrious early member

c9.s8.t2.4

Of the three kings of the Ānanda family, Kandara who seems to have founded the city of Kandarapura is evidently the earliest. There is, however, difference of opinion amongst scholars as regards the relative chronological position between Atti-varman and Dāmodara-varman. It is interesting to note that Dāmodara-varman is described in his own record as *hiranyagarbha-odbhava-odbhava*, i.e., one whose father was a performer of the *mahādāna* (great gift) ceremony known as the Hiranyagarbha. Atti-varman's record, on the other hand, represents him as a *hiranyagarbha-prasava*, i.e., performer of the Hiranyagarbha. Dāmodara-varman may have, therefore, been actually a son of Atti-varman. According to some scholars, however, the former was not a successor but a predecessor of the latter.¹

c9.s8.t2.5

¹ Gopalachari believes that Dāmodara-varman flourished about a century before Atti-varman (*op. cit.* p. 194). Rama kao places Kandara and his grandson in 375-400 A. D., Dāmodara-varman in 435-460 A. D and Atti-varman in 480-500 A. D.

c9.s8.t2.6

*Kandara*, like *Kanthara*, *Kandhāra*, *Kanhara*, *Kanhāra* and *Kannara*, is a Prākṛitic corruption of the Sanskrit name *Kṛiṣhṇa* influenced by words like *Skandha* (Prākṛit *Kandhara*). The Prākṛitic names of Kandara and Atti-varman and especially the fact that the names of a large number of Brāhmaṇa donees of the Mattepad grant of Dāmodara-varman are given in their Prākṛit forms would suggest the ascription of these kings to a period not much later than the middle of the fourth century A.D. when Prākṛit was ousted by Sanskrit from the field of South Indian epigraphy.

c9.s8.t2.7

of the family. Expressions like "the Bṛihatphalāyana *gotra* kings", "the Ānanda *gotra* kings", etc., can therefore hardly be entertained. *Cf.* V. S. Ramachandramurty, *JAHRS* XI, 43 ff; Rama Rao, *op. cit.* Gopalachari is inclined to style the family as "Kandara" (*op. cit.* p. 185). Apparently however king Kandara himself cannot be described as belonging to "the Kandara family". Of course Kandara's descendants may be designated by that style.

c9.s8.t2.8

The Chezarla inscription¹ represents king Kandara as lord of the Kṛṣṇaveṇṇā (i.e., Kistna), of the hill called Trikūṭa and the city called Kandarapura and of two *janapadas* or provinces. It has been suggested that the Trikūṭaparvata of the Chezarla record is the same as the Trikūṭamalaya mentioned in a Viṣṇukuṇḍin inscription and is no other than present Kotappakonda near Kāvūr.² Of the two provinces under Kandara's rule one seems to have been the district round Kandarapura which has not been satisfactorily identified.³ The banner of king Kandara is said to have borne the representation of a *golāṅgula* (a species of monkey). As the banner and crest of a royal family are sometimes found to be the same, it is not impossible that the defaced seals of the Gorantla and Mattepad grants actually bear the figure of a *golāṅgula*. Prince Satsabhāmalla was the daughter's son of Kandara and probably belonged to a viceregal line. Kandara appears to have been called Pṛthivīyuvarāṭ and is possibly also credited with victory in some battles at Dhānyakaṭaka. This seems to suggest that about the middle of the 4th century Kandara and his feudatories drove out the Pallavas from Dhānyakaṭaka which is known to have been the early Pallava headquarters in the Andhrāpatha.

c9.s8.t2.9

¹ *SII.* VI, No. 594. For a different interpretation of this record, see Rama Rao, *op. cit.* p. 5, cf. *Sur. Sār.* p. 396 ff.

c9.s8.t2.10

² Krishna Rao, *EDA.* p. 430.

c9.s8.t2.11

³ Rama Rao identifies Kandarapura with Kanteru in the Guntur *tāluk* (*op. cit.* p. 12). Somasekhara Sarma believes that the village of Chebrōlu in the Bapatla taluk of the Guntur Dist., which is famous for the temple of Skanda, might have been known after that god as Skandapura, Kandapura and Kandarapura. He further identifies Chebrōlu, called Chembrōlu or Tāmbra-pura in local inscriptions, with Tāmbrāpa of the Early Pallava charters. See *J. Mad. Un. XII*, 154.

c9.s8.t2.12

It appears from the Gorantla Inscription⁴ that Atti-varman and possibly also his predecessors were devotees of Śiva. The locality called Vakeśvara where the temple of the family deity once stood has, however, not been identified. We have possibly to look to Chezarla which is famous for the temple of Kapoteśvara. In that case, Kandarapura, capital of the Ananda kings, was probably not very far from Chezarla.

c9.s8.t2.13

⁴ *IA.* IX, 102 ff.

c9.s8.t2.14

Dāmodara-varman was certainly a Buddhist.¹ The Kapoteśvara temple at Chezarla has been supposed by scholars to have been a structural *Chaitya* Hall, originally Buddhist, but later converted to Hindu usage.² It is usually ascribed to the fourth century A.D. which date probably connects it with the kings of the Ananda dynasty.

c9.s8.t2.15

¹ Cf. Mattepad Grant, *EI.* XVIII, 327 ff.

c9.s8.t2.16

² Cf. Coomaraswamy, *HIIA.* p. 77.

c9.s8.t2.17

The end of the Ānandas is wrapped in obscurity. They were possibly subdued by the Śālaṅkāyanas, though both the dynasties appear to have been originally responsible for overpowering the Pallavas in the heart of the Andhra country. It is also possible to suggest that the decline of the Ānandas was brought about by their constant struggle with the Pallavas.³

c9.s8.t2.18

³ Cf. Ramachandramurty, *JAHRS.* XI, 43-50 ; cf. also Sircar, *Ibid.* pp. 129-30.

The Śālaṅkāyanas

c9.s8.t3.1

According to Ptolemy's *Geography*,⁴ assigned by scholars to the middle of the second century A. D., a people called the Salakenoi lived to the north of the Maisōloi who apparently belonged to the Masulipatam region. The word Salakenoi appears to be a Greek corruption of the Indian name Śālaṅkāyana.⁵ It is again not improbable that Benagouron, the premier city of the Salakenoi according to Ptolemy, is a copyist's mistake for Bengauron, i.e., Veṅgapura = Veṅgipura which is known to have been the capital of the Śālaṅkāyana Mahārājas. All the Śālaṅkāyana charters, so far discovered, were issued from Veṅgi or Veṅgipura and a Śālaṅkāyana king is actually mentioned in the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudra-gupta as *Vaingyaka*, indicating no doubt "the lord of Veṅgi." The city of Veṅgi has been located at the site of the modern village of Peddavegi near Ellore in the Godāvarī district.

c9.s8.t3.2

⁴ VII, i, 79.

c9.s8.t3.3

⁵ *PHAI.* p. 419 n

c9.s8.t3.4

Some of the Śālaṅkāyana charters mention the names of the reigning monarchs without any reference to their predecessors. The position of these rulers in the genealogy is therefore difficult to determine. They are Deva-varman of the Ellore grant,¹ Nandi-varman of the Kanteru grant (No. 1)² and Skanda-varman of the Kanteru grant (No. 2).³ The Kollair grant⁴ is, however, issued by a king named Nandi-varman who is called the eldest son of king Chaṇḍa-varman, while, in the Peddavegi grant,⁵ apparently the same ruler is represented as Nandi-varman II who is not only called the eldest son of Chaṇḍa-varman but also the grandson of Nandi-varman I and the great-grandson of Hasti-varman. We do not know if Nandi-varman of the Kanteru grant (No. 1) has to be identified with Nandi-varman II of the Kollair and Peddavegi grants. But the identification is not improbable in view of the facts that all the three epigraphs belong to the same epoch according to the evidence of palaeography and that unlike the other members of the family the reigning monarch is described as a *parama-bhāgavata*, i.e., devotee of Lord Viṣṇu, in all the grants. The exact relation of Deva-varman of the Ellore grant and Skanda-varman of the Kanteru grant (No. 2) with any of the other four kings cannot be determined in the present state of our knowledge. The Ellore grant is, however, written in Prākṛit, while all other records of the family are couched in Sanskrit. It is therefore evident that Deva-varman ruled earlier than both Nandi-varman II and Skanda-varman, as Prākṛit was ousted by Sanskrit from the epigraphy of the Lower Deccan about the middle of the fourth century A.D. In case it is conjectured that there was no break in the succession from Hasti-varman to Nandi-varman II it has to be assumed that Deva-varman ruled earlier than Hasti-varman⁶ and Skanda-varman after Nandivarman II. It must, however, be admitted that palaeography does not suggest a long interval of time between the rule of Deva-varman and that of Nandi-varman II and Skanda-varman.¹

First 110 of 365 passages. Read on

Cites (36)