Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c14: Chapter IV. Dynastic History of Nepal

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c14

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV. Dynastic History of Nepal

v1.c14.2

The modern State of Nepal extends along the southern slopes of the Himalayas for a length of about 500 miles. “Its general direction is from north-west to east, between the 80th and 88th degrees of E. longitude, the most southern and eastern angle reaching as long as the 26th and its most northern and western corner as high as the 30th degree of N. latitude. In shape, therefore, the country is long and narrow, varying in breadth from 90 to 100 miles, while its area is estimated at 54,000 square miles. Along the northern boundary Nepal adjoins Tibet, on the east it is bounded by the State of Sikhim and the District of Darjeeling;” on the south by Behar and the United Provinces, and on the West by Kumaun and the river Kali. The territory of Nepal is divided into three main natural divisions by lofty ridges which take off from the high peaks of Nanda Devi (25,700 ft.), Dhaulagiri (26,826 ft.), Gosainthan (26,305 ft.), and Kinchinjunga (28,146 ft.). “These ridges stand out at right angles from the central axis of the Himalayas and run parallel to each other nearly due south towards the plains.” The western division is drained by the river Kauriala (Karnali or Gogra) and its tributaries the Kali, Babai and Rapti. The central division is watered by the seven streams which uniting form the river Gandak, and are known to the Nepalis by the name *Sapt-Gaṇḍakī*. The eastern division is similarly known as the *Sapt-Kosi*, the country of the Seven Kosis, of which the most important is the San Kosi. Compared with this large region ancient *Nepāla*¹ seems to have occupied a much smaller area. The application of this term appears to have been more or less restricted to the "undulating plain of nearly oval shape" which lies between the basins of the Gandak and the Kosi. It has an average length "from north to south of about 20 miles and an average width of 12 to 14 miles." It lies 4,700 ft. above the sea-level, and is surrounded on all sides by mountains, which rise to a height of 7,000 to 9,000 ft. It covers an area of 250 square miles, and is watered by the small stream Bagmati. This portion is still known as the 'Valley of Nepal.' It was only in comparatively recent times that the conquests of the Gurkhas extended the geographical and political application of the term to the whole tract between Almora and Darjeeling.¹

v1.c14.3

¹ For the mention of *Nepāla* in literature and its etymological explanation, see Sylvain Lévi, *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 62-68.

v1.c14.4

¹ For a more detailed account of the orographical and geographical features of the State, see *IGI*, Vol. XIX, 1908, pp. 25ff.

v1.c14.5.1

For the history of Nepal we have a number of local chronicles, which attempt to give a connected history of the Valley from the beginning of creation down to modern times. The early attempts of European scholars like Kirkpatrick and Wright² to write a history of Nepal were almost solely based on these Vaṁśāvalīs. It remained for an Indian scholar, Dr Bhagwanlal Indraji, to demonstrate the unhistorical character of these documents.³ His publication of the "Inscriptions from Nepal,"⁴ in 1880 revealed for the first time the necessity of building on the more solid foundation of archæological evidence. Since then his work had been ably taken up by Bendall, Fleet, Sylvain Lévi, and a number of European and Indian scholars, and it has now become possible, though much still remains doubtful, to give a fairly accurate idea of the political events in the Valley from about the 2nd century of the Christian era downwards. For the pre-Christian period we have no epigraphic evidence,⁵ and must still depend on the Vaṁśāvalīs. These chroniclers, in their attempts to give a complete picture of the history of their country, have connected their accounts with the legendary four ages of the world and the Bhārata war on the field of Kurukṣetra. From the time of the sage Nemi, dynasties of the Gopālas, Ābhīras, Kirātas, the Somavaṁśīs, and the Sūryavaṁśīs are said to have held the Valley in succession till we come to the time of Aṁśuvarman, the founder of the Ṭhākuris.

v1.c14.5.2

The mention of Aṁśuvarman, who is referred by the chroniclers to 101 B.C.,¹ brings to light the fictitious character of the chronology adopted in the local Vaṁśāvalīs. This prince has been rightly identified with Ang-shu-fa-ma of Ni-p'o-lo (*Nepāla*) mentioned by Yuan Chwang, who flourished in the first half of the 7th century A.D.² The Vaṁśāvalīs have thus antedated him by about 700 years. The anxiety to connect their heroes with the Kuru-Pāṇḍava war and the lack of any authentic list of kings led these chroniclers to introduce in their lists many mythical kings of the Purāṇas and to assign to most of the princes reigns of truly patriarchal length, besides lengthening the reigns of many historical kings. Even then they failed to bridge the enormously long period which in their chronology separated the mythical from the historical period.³ But though the Vaṁśāvalīs as a whole have thus little or no historical value, it is nevertheless possible that they may contain in their narration of the events of the pre-Christian period some elements of historical truth. The period assigned to the Gopālas and Ābhīras might have been dominated by nomadic tribes who were in their turn supplanted by the Kirātas, in all likelihood a Tibeto-Burman people who lived between the high Himalayan plateau, the mouth of the Ganges, and the neighbouring sea-coast. Prof.

v1.c14.5.3

Sylvain Lévi has pointed out that the Nepalese usage still gives the name Kirāta to the country between the Dudh-Kosi, and the Arun, and that there is evidence that the Kirātas once occupied a much more extensive area in Nepal.¹ The passing away of the Kirātas and the reign of the Somavaṁśīs probably marks the definite entry of Nepal into the domain of precise historical tradition. Paśuprekṣa of this dynasty is credited by all the Vaṁśāvalīs, with having introduced the Hindu social system into the Valley. According to Prof. Lévi, the Nepal era, which in his opinion starts from 110 A.D., probably marks the date of the expulsion of the Kirātas from Nepal.² With the rule of next dynasty, the Sūryavaṁśī, Licchavis, we are first introduced to dated epigraphic records. The inscriptions, from the Chāṅgu-Nārāyaṇa pillar inscription of Mānadeva to the Khopasi inscription of Śivadeva, are dated in the years 386 to 520 of an unknown era.³ There has been considerable difference of opinion amongst scholars about the epoch of this era. As early as 1884 Bhagwanlal Indraji suggested the reference of the dates used by the Licchavi Mānadeva to the *Vikrama* era (58 B.C.),⁴ while Fleet in the next year referred them to the *Gupta* era (319-20 A.D.).⁵ The latest theory is that of Prof. Sylvain Lévi, who finds the astronomical data contained in the Kisipiḍi inscription of *Saṁvat* 449 in perfect agreement only with 482 *Śaka* current. Thus according to him the era starts from 110 A.D.

v1.c14.5.4

(482—449 = 33 *Śaka*).⁶ Whatever may be the real epoch of the era there can probably be little doubt that the first quarter of the 6th century of the Licchavi era, when *Mahāsāmanta* Aṁśuvarman was gradually rising into power in Nepal, must fall in about the first half of the 7th century A.D. It was probably during the reign of one of the early Licchavis that the great Gupta emperor Samudra Gupta claimed respectful homage of the *pratyanta Nepāla-nṛpati*.¹

v1.c14.6

² *An Account of the Kingdom of Nepaul*, by Colonel Kirkpatrick, London, 1811. *History of Népal*, edited by D. Wright, Cambridge University, 1877.

v1.c14.7

³ *IA*, 1884, Vol. XIII, pp. 411-28.

v1.c14.8

⁴ *Ibid*, 1880, Vol. IX, pp. 163-94.

v1.c14.9

⁵ Excepting the Rummindei and Nigali Sagar epigraphs of Aśoka.

v1.c14.10

¹ *IA*, 1884, Vol. XIII, p. 413. Sylvain Lévi, *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 69.

v1.c14.11

² *IA*, 1884, Vol. XIII, p. 419; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 69, 144 ff.; *BR*, Vol. II, pp. 80-81; *YC*, Vol. II, pp. 83-85.

v1.c14.12

³ *IA*, 1884, Vol. XIII, pp. 412-17, 419.

v1.c14.13

¹ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 72-78; *IA*, Vol. XIII, p. 417; *HA*, 2nd Ed., 1926, p. 12.

v1.c14.14

² *JA*, 1907, tome IX, pp. 68-72; *Le Népal*, Vol. III, pp. 48 and 51.

v1.c14.15

³ *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 163-68; Vol. XIV, pp. 97-98; *JA*, 1907, tome IX, pp. 49-91; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 1-81; Bendall, *A Journey in Nepal and N. India*, pp. 72-74; The Lagantōl fragmentary insc. mentioning the *dūtaka Rājaputra Vikramasena* is dated in the year 535 of the same era; *see IA*, Vol. IX, p. 168.

v1.c14.16

⁴ *IA*, Vol. XIII, 425-26.

v1.c14.17

⁵ *Ibid*, pp. 342 ff.; *GI*, *Appendix IV*, pp. 171 ff.

v1.c14.18

⁶ *JA*, 1907, tome IX, pp. 68 ff.; and 78 ff.; *Le Népal*, Vol. III, pp. 48 ff. and 70 ff.

v1.c14.19

¹ *GI*, p. 8, line 22.

v1.c14.20.1

The rise of Aṁśuvarman is one of the most interesting incidents in the history of Nepal. It seems likely that the Ṭhākuris, to which tribal group Aṁśuvarman belonged, held ministerial offices before the reign of Śivadeva. In the reign of the latter we find the *Mahāsāmanta* Aṁśuvarman’s name associated with that of his sovereign in several charters, three of which are dated in the Licchavi era 518, 519, and 520.² All these inscriptions are issued from *Mānagṛha*, the royal residence of the Licchavi kings built by Mānadeva. During this period he must have gradually assumed the position of the ‘mayor of the palace,’ and according to the Vaṁśāvalīs, strengthened his position by marrying the daughter of his sovereign. By the time the Harigaon inscription was issued, the revolution that was slowly taking place was complete. Śivadeva has disappeared from the inscriptions, which are now dated in a fresh era, and are issued from *Kailāsakūṭabhavana*, no doubt a new palace constructed by the usurper. Like the Nizāms and Peshwas of Mughul history, he however still retained his humble title of *Mahāsāmanta*, and is sometimes even given the simple honorific of *Śrī*.

v1.c14.20.2

In an inscription of his successor, however, his sovereign power is recognised by the title of *Mahārājādhirāja*.³ The inscriptions of Aṁśuvarman are dated in years from 30 to 39 of the new era.⁴ Though there is unanimity amongst scholars about the age of Aṃśuvarman, the latter being identified with the Nepalese ruler who was dead shortly before the itinerary of Yuan Chwang in Northern India in about the middle of the 7th century A.D., yet there are considerable differences of opinion when it comes to determining the exact epoch of the era used in his inscriptions.¹ In his ‘Considerations on the History of Nepal,’ Bhagwanlal Indraji definitely rejected the possibility of Aṃśuvarman founding a new era, and offered plausible arguments for the belief that the era used was the Harṣa era. This view was accepted by Fleet in his critical examination of the ‘Chronology of the Early Rulers of Nepal.’ But the strength of their arguments were much weakened when Prof. Lévi showed that the passage of the *Harṣacarita* which had so long been accepted as an allusion to the conquest of Nepal by Harṣa is capable of another interpretation.² A more serious objection to the acceptance of the view of Bhagwanlal is probably the fact that it seems to involve a contradiction of the statement of Yuan Chwang that Aṃśuvarman was dead when he visited Northern India (606-07+45=651-52 A.D.).

v1.c14.20.3

Lévi has shown from Tibetan and Chinese sources that Nepal during Aṃśuvarman's reign was a vassal of the powerful Tibetan king Srong-btsan Sgam-po, to whom the Nepal king was compelled to give his daughter in marriage. In a note contributed to the *Journal Asiatique* the same scholar has tried to show that the year 34 of Aṃśuvarman corresponds to 629 of the Christian era. Thus, he came to the conclusion that the era used by the usurper started from 595 A.D., and as Aṁśuvarman was a vassal of the Tibetans, the era he uses is probably Tibetan in origin and possibly dates from the first king of Tibet, Lun-tsang so-lung-tsan. The fact that Aṁśuvarman celebrated his *Abhiṣeka* in the year 30 of the era seems to confirm the opinion that the era was a borrowed one.¹ Whatever might be the exact epoch of his era, there is no doubt that he was a successful king. The distribution of his inscriptions at Katmandu, Patan, Deo-Patan and Bagmati demonstrates that he exercised his sovereignty in the very centre of the valley of Népal. The fact that his name is registered by the Chinese annals and is joined with the Tibetan legends shows that he produced a profound impression on his contemporaries. But after his death, which must have happened some time before the year 48 (643 A.D. ?), the date of his successor Jiṣṇugupta,² Nepal enters upon a period of confusion. There is unquestionable evidence that the ancient dynasty of the Licchavis was again restored to power.

v1.c14.20.4

The Licchavi era and the names of Licchavi kings again appear on the charters of Jiṣṇugupta.³ It seems likely that, taking advantage of the confusion that followed the death of Aṁśuvarman, this adventurer, who was probably sprung from an indigenous family, seized the royal power and raised a scion of the Licchavis as his nominal sovereign. From the fact that he mentions his great-grandfather Mānagupta without any honorific, and that the ending of his name is *Gupta*, which is absent in the names of the Licchavi princes, and occurs only in the legendary lists of Gopāla kings, Lévi concluded that Jiṣṇugupta was an Āhīr (Ābhīra = Gopāla = Goāl) of plebeian rank.⁴ By the time his reign ended, the Licchavis, the legitimate sovereigns of Nepal, had fully recovered their power. From the time of Narendradeva, who succeeded Jiṣṇugupta sometime before the year 657 A. D., the date which marks, according to Lévi, the introduction of the cult of Matsyendranātha in Nepal, down to the time of Jayadeva *Paracakrakāma* whose Katmandu inscription is dated in 153 (=748 A.D. ?), the Valley appears to have remained under the control of the Licchavis.¹ Śivadeva, the father of Jayadeva, whose Lagantol inscription is dated in 119 (=714 A. D. ?), married Vatsadevī, the daughter of the Maukhari Bhogavarman and the granddaughter of the *Magadhādhipa*, Ādityasena. This last prince is certainly the later Gupta ruler of that name whose Shahpur image inscription is dated in the Harṣa year 66 (=672-73 A.

v1.c14.20.5

D.).² I-tsing, who visited India during 673-85 A. D., mentions a pious foundation of this Gupta prince.³ Jayadeva himself married Rājyamatī, daughter of Harṣadeva, who is described as belonging to the *Bhagadatta-rāja-kula* and king of Gauḍa, Oḍra, Kaliṅga, Kośala and other lands. Kielhorn has identified this prince with Śrī-Hariṣa (Harṣa) of a Tejpur epigraph in Assam.⁴

v1.c14.21

² *IA*, Vol. XIV, pp. 97-98; Bendall, *A Journey in Nepal and N. India*, pp. 72-74. The date of this inscription read by Bendall and Kielhorn as 318 has been corrected by Lévi as 518. See his *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 126; Vol. III, pp. 61-64, 70-81; *JA*, tome IX, pp. 78-91; *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 168-69.

v1.c14.22

³ *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 171-74; *cf.* the present position of the *Mahārājās* of Nepal.

v1.c14.23

⁴ *Le Népal*, Vol. III, pp. 82-101; *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 169-71; Bendall, *Journey*, pp. 74-76. According to Fleet the Satdhara inscription of this king was dated in 44 or 45; see his *GI*, p. 180. Bhagwanlal dated it in 45 (?); see *IA*, Vol. IX, p. 171; also *Le Népal*, Vol. III, p. 142.

v1.c14.24

¹ *IA*, Vol. XIII, pp. 419-22; Vol. IX, pp. 342-51; *GI*, pp. 177-91; see also Kielhorn's note in *EI*, Vol. V, *Appendix*, p. 73, note 3.

v1.c14.25

² . . . . . *atra parameśvareṇa tuṣāra-śailodbhuvo durgāyā gṛhītaḥkaraḥ*, p. 101 of the Nirṇayasāgara Ed., translated by Bühler as ‘Here the supreme lord (Harṣa) took tribute from the land in the snowy mouatains, that is difficult of access’ (i.e., Nepal); see *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 40-41. But see *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 143-44; Lévi takes the terms *tuṣāra* to be identical with *Tukhāra*, and translates it as : ‘(Harṣa) received taxes from the mountains and inaccessible land where lived the Tukhāras (=Turks in the N. W. of India).’

v1.c14.26

¹ *Note sur la chronologie du Népal*, in *JA*, 1894, II, pp. 55ff. *Le Népal*, Vol. III, pp. 70-81, 89-90 ; Vol. II, pp. 144-55.

v1.c14.27

² *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 171-72; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 155ff.

v1.c14.28

³ *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 171-74; *Le Népal*, Vol. III, pp. 102-09.

v1.c14.29

⁴ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, 156-59.

v1.c14.30

¹ For their inscription see *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 174-83; *Le Népal*, Vol. III, pp. 113-57; Bendall's *Journey*, p. 79; *Le Népal*, Vol. II. pp. 161-70.

v1.c14.31

² *GI*, pp. 208-10; *IA*, Vol. IX. pp. 178-83.

v1.c14.32

³ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 167-68.

v1.c14.33

⁴ *IA*, Vol. IX, p. 179, verses 14-15; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 171; *JRAS*, 1898, pp. 384-45; *JASB*, 1810, Vol. IX, p. 767 ff. For the coins of the Licchavi Aṁśuvarman and Jiṣṇugupta, see V. Smith, *CCIM*, 1906, pp. 281-83, and Plate XXVIII; *JRAS*, 1908, pp. 669-83 and plate I; *Coins of Ancient India*, pp. 112-118 and Plate XIII; *ZDMG*, 1882, Band XXXVI, pp. 651-52.

v1.c14.34

The period that followed the death of Jayadeva is extremely obscure in the history of Nepal. It has been shown by Sylvain Lévi that the Tibetans exercised hegemony over Nepal for about two centuries, from the beginning of the 7th century to practically the end of the 8th century. The dominions of K'i-li-pa-pu (*c.* 650-79), the grandson of Sroṅ-btsan-sgam-po, who died in *c.* 650 A. D., extended in the south to Central India (Po-lo-men). That the Tibetans held sovereignty in Nepal is proved by the Lagantol inscription of Śivadeva (119=714 A. D. ?), which refers to the obligation of furnishing 5 labourers for *Bhoṭṭa-viṣṭi*.¹ Another evidence of the Tibetan suzerainty seems to be supplied by the name of the Nepal king Aramuḍi who according to Kalhaṇa opposed the Kashmirian king Jayāpīḍa in the second half of the 8th century A. D. Stein rejected the episode as mythical, but Lévi has shown that the name of the king is Tibetan.² In the years 816-38 the dominions of the Tibetan king Khri lde srong btsan, called also Ral-pa-ćan, extended over a vast tract from Mongolia in the north to the Ganges, including Nepal in the south. But the anti-Buddhistic policy of Glang-Darma (Chinese Ta-mo), who succeeded Itai in 838, produced a formidable religious revolution and shattered the empire of the Tibetans.³ Taking advantage of the civil war in Tibet, Nepal appears to have gained its freedom; and it is not unlikely that the Nepal era, which starts in 879 A. D., marks the date of its emancipation from the Tibetan yoke.⁴ Cunningham in his *Book on Indian Eras*, mentions Rāghavadeva as the founder of this era. Curiously enough no Vaṁśāvalī expressly says that this prince founded the Nepal era. Most of the Vaṁśāvalīs ignore him altogether. Lévi has therefore objected to the acceptance of Cunningham’s view. According to him ‘the pale figure of Rāghavadeva does not harmonise with the idea of the founder of an era.’ He has therefore suggested a rather plausible theory to explain the institution of this new era. According to him, the superstitious dread of the Nepalese for the figure “8” was responsible for the foundation of it. The year in which “8” occurs according to him has ever been a year of misfortune for Nepal. It was in the year 888 (A. D. 1768) that the Gurkhas conquered Nepal. The fear of living for 100 years under the menace of a formidable misfortune had thus perhaps sufficed to cause a revolution in the calendar of the superstitious Nepalese. Referring to the Baijnath *praśastis*,¹ which are dated in *Śaka* 7(26) and *Lokakāla* 80 (which starts from 3075 B. C., but in use allows the hundreds and thousands to be omitted), he says that the Nepalese applied the principle of the *Lokakāla* to the *Śaka* era. The Baijnath *praśastis* show that both the eras were current in the heights of Kangra, Kashmir, and Nepal, and the originality of this new era lay simply in counting 1, 2, etc., in the place of (Śaka) 801, 802, etc.² But Bendall has shown that the name of Rāghavadeva is duly recorded in a new chronicle discovered by him. “Not only so, but the years of reign assigned to him and his immediate successors quite accord with the tradition of his having founded the era. Thus if we add together the duration of his reign and that of his five successors down to Lakṣmīkāmadeva we get about 135 years. This, again, added to 879-80 brings us to the second decade of the eleventh century, when we know from a colophon that Lakṣmīkāma had commenced to rule at all events as joint sovereign, becoming sole king later on”³ It is therefore perhaps not unreasonable to reject the theory of the French *savant* and to regard Rāghavadeva as the king whose reign ushered in a new era in Nepal.

v1.c14.35

¹ *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 174-76; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 171-77.

v1.c14.36

² *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, IV, 531-81; Trans. by Stein, Vol. I, p. 95; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 176.

v1.c14.37

³ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 177-79.

v1.c14.38

⁴ Mr. Parker points out from the T'ang Annals (618-907) that in 703 A. D. Nepal and India threw off Tibetan suzerainty and that “the then king of Tibet perished during his personal conduct of the punitive expedition that he had organised against them.” But as Prof. Sylvain Lévi has shown, Nepal was subsequently reconquered by the Tibetans. See *Journal of Manchester Oriental Society*, 1911, p. 133. For a further account of the war in 708 A. D., see the *Missionary Journal*, *China*, 1901, and *Asiatic Quarterly Review*, 1910.

v1.c14.39

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 107 and 115.

v1.c14.40

² *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 179-84.

v1.c14.41

³ *CPMDN*, pp. 5-6.

v1.c14.42.1

For the next 200 years after the foundation of the era, however, we have no epigraphic records of the kings who ruled in the Valley.¹ But, fortunately for us, from the beginning of the 11th century almost a regular series of dates and names of Nepalese kings are found in the colophons of the numerous manuscripts preserved in Nepal and elsewhere. These colophons materially help us in checking the vagaries of the local chroniclers whose accounts also gradually assume a less legendary character as we advance beyond 1000 A.D. According to the "newly discovered" Vaṁśāvalī of Bendall, Rāghavadeva ruled for 46 years and 6 months, and was followed in regular succession by Jayadeva, Vikramadeva, Narendradeva, Guṇakāmadeva I, and Udayadeva. Their reign periods are given as 10 years, 8 years, 9 months, 1 year 6 months, 65 years 5 months, and 5 years 5 months respectively.² Amongst these successors of Rāghavadeva Guṇakāmadeva I appears to have been a vigorous ruler. In Nepalese tradition he passes as the founder of the city of Katmandu. According to Prof. Lévi, Kāntipura, the ancient name of the city, is related to the name Guṇakāma, *kāma* and *kānti* belonging to the root *kam*, *i. e.*, to love.³ About this period the chronicles place the foundation of the cities of Patan and Sanku. The foundation of these cities appears to have marked an epoch in the economic transformation of Nepal.

v1.c14.42.2

A critical study of the inscriptions of the period anterior to this shows that they refer only to *grāmas* and to a rural community which lived mainly by agriculture. Deva-Pattana, standing near the temple of Paśupati, was the only city in the Valley. The king lived near the temple, and the court and pilgrims assured to the *pattana* a sufficient number of customers for the merchandise of the small bazar. But gradually with regular intercourse with the Indian plains commerce developed with a mutual exchange of goods. The formation of the Tibetan kingdom opened up a new direction. As Nepal guarded the important routes which led from the Indian plains to Tibet and China its people soon came into contact with a wider world and left the comparatively less un-remunerative fields for trade and commerce. Lévi has pointed out that at the time when the History of the T'ang (618-905 A.D.) was compiled, merchants were numerous and cultivators rare in Nepal. The growth of commerce and city life also synchronised with the development of manual arts and industries. Goldsmiths, metal founders, painters, illuminators, found a ready market for their handicrafts in the neighbouring countries.¹ Guṇakāmadeva is said to have instituted at Katmandu a *Yātrā* in honour of Lokeśvara Khasarpaṇa, probably in imitation of the *Yātrā* of Matsyendranātha at Patan.² He made large benefactions to the god Paśupati, and appears to have extended his power outside the Valley towards the east.

v1.c14.42.3

In spite of his expenditure on pious donations and military enterprises, he is credited with having left the fabulous sum of 500 millions in charge of the Nāga Vāsuki in the pit of mount Indraśāla.³ It is a pity that we have as yet no authentic dated records either literary or epigraphic for his long and interesting reign. The next king, Udayadeva, was succeeded by Nirbhayadeva, who appears to have ruled jointly at least for some time with Rudradeva, who is placed next in the Vaṁśāvalīs. This is proved by a palm-leaf MS. of the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* in the Cambridge University Library which is dated *Saṁvat* 128 (A.D. 1008) under the *dvirājya* of Nirbhaya and Rudradeva. The term *dvirājya* should be taken in the sense of 'joint regency,' and it refers to a well-known practice in Hindu polity, where two princes either divide a kingdom into two halves, like Yajñasena and Mādhavasena in *Mālavikāgnimitram*, or otherwise hold joint authority without destroying the organic unity of the State.¹ Prof. Lévi seems to have gone too far when he assumes that this form of government must necessarily indicate the dominance of a foreign power. Though this is so in the *Mālavikāgnimitram*, it is an accident and not a corollary of a *dvirājya* form of government.

v1.c14.42.4

It is however not impossible that the Pālas, who dominated the lower Ganges valley, extended their hegemony over Nepal under Mahīpāla and Nayapāla.² This, in the opinion of Lévi, would offer an explanation, for the presence in Nepal of MSS. copied under the Pāla kings, specially under the two abovementioned princes. But this contention of Lévi, though possible, is far from conclusive. As he has himself shown, Buddhism had, at this time and even earlier, united the Nepal valley and the dominions of the Pālas in a closer bond. The Pālas possessed Bodh-Gaya and Sarnath, two of the most sacred sites of Buddhism, while the *vihāra* of Vikramaśilā was a great centre of knowledge and Buddhist piety. Under the circumstances, communication was frequent between the mountain-kingdom and the empire of the Pālas. Amongst the doctors at Vikramaśilā in the 11th century Tāranātha mentions Vairocana Paṇḍita, Ratnakīrti and Kanakaśrī who all came from Nepal. Lévi refers to a notice of a Chinese mission, according to which 300 *Śramaṇas*, after visiting Magadha under the Pālas, returned by way of Nepal. The Tibetan mission sent to Vikramaśilā in about 1040 A.D. to bring back Atīśa met a Nepalese prince on the Indian frontier who went to the same monastery. In the reign of Devapāla, the Indian savant Vajradeva is reported to have gone to Nepal.

v1.c14.42.5

Vāgīśvara Kīrti, a contemporary of Atīśa, went to the same country in the 2nd half of his life, while under the immediate successors of Nayapāla, Pham-mthiṅ with his brother Jñānavajra visited the valley to work for the salvation of its people. When Muḥammad-i-Bakhtyār captured Bihar in about 1193 A.D. Buddhaśrī, the *Sthavira* of the Mahāsaṁghikas at Vikramaśīlā, and many other scholars sought shelter in the hills of Nepal, no doubt taking large numbers of MSS. with them. Under the circumstances it would be perhaps going too far to infer from the find of MSS. copied under the Pālas a hegemony of the latter over Nepal. MSS. may have passed from one country to the another in the ordinary course of communication between the two neighbouring kingdoms, united closely by so many bonds of culture, religion and commerce.¹

v1.c14.43

¹ The first inscription dated in the Nepal era appears to be the Lalita-pattana image inscription of Vāṇadeva dated in the year (203 = A.D. 1083). Bendall's *Journey*, pp. 80-81.

v1.c14.44

² *CPMDN*, table facing p. 20.

v1.c14.45

³ The present name is said to have been derived from the big *Kāṣṭhamaṇḍapa*, which was built in Kāntipura by king Hariharasiṁha Malla in 715 (1595 A.D.); *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 185 and 249.

v1.c14.46

¹ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 185.

v1.c14.47

² *Ibid*, p. 186; also Vol. I, p. 354.

v1.c14.48

³ *Ibid*, Vol. I, p. 186

v1.c14.49

¹ *CBMC*, pp. 1-4, MS. No. 866; *IA*, 1923, pp. 278-79; *Arthaśāstra*, Mysore Ed., 1919, p. 325; *Mālavikāgnimitram*, V, 13-14.

v1.c14.50

² *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 188-90.

v1.c14.51

¹ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 188-89, Tāranātha's *Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien*, von A Schiefner, p. 257.

v1.c14.52

The Vaṁśāvalī of Bendall unfortunately does not assign any reign-period to either Nirbhaya or Bhoja. But in the colophon of another palm-leaf MS. of the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā*, noticed in Bendall's Catalogue,² 7 years later than the abovementioned record of the double reign of Nirbhaya and Rudradeva, probably the same Rudradeva appears as holding power conjointly with two other princes named Bhojadeva and Lakṣmīkāmadeva. The MS. is dated in the year 135 (A.D. 1015), and was copied in the Hlam-vihāra in the *Nepāla-maṇḍala*.³ The reference to the three princes is to be found in the following verse:

v1.c14.53

² Cambridge, 1883, pp. 151-52. MS. No. 1643.

v1.c14.54

³ Notice the peculiar name of the *Vihāra*, which appears to be certainly non-Sanskritic. The MS. No. 843 was also copied in this monastery.

v1.c14.55

*Rājñi śrī-Bhojadeve’py-amitaguṇagaṇāla(bhda)-śrī-Rudradeve*
*Śrī-Lakṣmīkāmadevair-arijaga(t)kuliśair-ardharājye’ pabhukte.*

v1.c14.56

According to Bendall, the verse means that, while Bhojadeva apparently governed one half of the kingdom, the other two princes ruled simultaneously as co-regents of the remaining half.¹ He finds a parallel in a non-Buddhistic MS. dated A.D. 1400, the metrical colophon of which describes 'a triple sovereignty' of Jyotir-malla and his elder and younger brothers.² But Lévi has, following the interpretation of the word *ālabdha* by Śrīdharasvāmin in his commentary on the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*, offered another explanation of the verse. The word *ālabdha*, which characterises the connection of Bhojadeva with Rudradeva, indicates in his opinion that the former succeeded the latter 'not as a natural heir but in virtue of a meritorious choice.' The word *ardharājya* used in connection with Lakṣmīkāma, in his opinion, 'finds its exact parallel in the *Mālavikāgnimitram*, where a prince is being installed in *addharajje*. The term, therefore, applies exactly to the two members of the *dvirājyaka* or *dvairājya*.'³ Bhojadeva, who occupied the throne in about 1015 A.D., appears to have been a contemporary of the Paramāra ruler of Mālava of the same name (*c.* 1010-55 A.D.). An undated Cambridge MS. (Add. 2191) was copied when Bhoja was ruling alone. It is not unlikely that Bhoja had for some time at least ruled alone before he became associated with Lakṣmīkāma. The latter in his turn appears as sole king in a palm-leaf MS. of the *Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka*, which is dated in the year 159 (= A.D. 1039).⁴ From the similarity of names Lévi is disposed to agree with the tradition which mentions Lakṣmīkāma as a grandson of Guṇakāma. This prince is credited with the construction of the monastery known as Lakṣmī-varma-vihāra.⁵

v1.c14.57

¹ *CBMC*, pp. v-vi. Dr. Barnett understands the verse thus: "When Bhoja was reigning, who succeeded......Rudra, when half the kingdom had been enjoyed by.....Lakṣmīkāma."

v1.c14.58

² *Ibid*, pp. vi and ix.

v1.c14.59

³ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 191-92; Foucher also holds the same opinion. See his *Etudes d'iconographie Bouddhique*, p. 17.

v1.c14.60

⁴ *CBMC*, p. 172.

v1.c14.61

⁵ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 192.

v1.c14.62

The successor of Lakṣmīkāma is variously known in the different Vaṁśāvalīs as Vijaya, Jaya, Jayadeva, and Jayakāmadeva. Excepting the chronicle consulted by Bendall, which gives him 31 years, all other Vaṁśāvalīs assign to him a reign of 21 years. He is said to have restored the cult of the Nāga Vāsuki. But his reign appears to have been disturbed by the rising of the feudal nobles. Lévi has pointed out from the *Mañjuśrī-mūla-tantra* that during this period they turned Nepal into a veritable *mātsyanyāya* by their turbulence and plundering expeditions. Atīśa, while traversing Nepal in about 1040 A.D. was received into the palace of a local *rājā* when he went to pay his respects to the *caitya* of Svayambhū, and then journeying westwards towards Palpa met the sovereign king of Nepal Grags-pa-mtha-yas (Tibetan = Anantakīrti?).¹ When Jayakāmadeva died childless, the royal authority was reduced almost to a shadow, and perhaps did not extend beyond the city of Patan. He was next succeeded by Bhāskaradeva, who is regarded by all the chronicles, except that of Bendall, as the founder of a new dynasty, the Ṭhākuris of Nayakot. It is probable that Bhāskaradeva belonged to one of the tribal groups who held feudal power in the valley and, taking advantage of the confusion, usurped the sovereign power. According to Kirkpatrick, Bhāskara was 'a refractory tributary of Patn' (Patan).² But it is to be noted that the chronicle of Bendall contains a rather obscure note as to his ‘repairing his paternal crown.’ If he belonged to a new dynasty, it seems likely that his father had already assumed an independent position. A MS. of the *Viṣṇudharma* written in Newari character and dated in his reign in *Saṁvat* 167 (= A.D. 1046) gives him the imperial titles *Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara.*¹ This prince is said to have founded the *Hiraṇya-varṇa-mahā-vihāra* at Patan. According to the chronicle of Kirkpatrick the next ruler was Udayadeva; but all other Vaṁśāvalīs place Baladeva or Balabantadeva, after Bhāskaradeva.² As Bhāskaradeva is said by some to have ruled only for 3 years (c. 167+3=170 N.E.=A.D. 1049), and as the first known date of Baladeva's successor is 185 N.E. (1064-65 A.D.), Baladeva being assigned a reign of 12 years (185-12=173 N.E.), there is no inherent impossibility in a short reign intervening (170-173 N.E.) between Bhāskaradeva and Baladeva.³ A MS. of the *Niśvāsākhya mahā-tantra* found in Nepal Durbar Library is dated in 180 *Saṁvatsare* (A.D. 1059-60) in the reign of Baladeva.⁴ The next king was Pradyumna-kāmadeva, sometimes known also as Padmadeva.⁵ A MS. of the *Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka*, Camb. Add. 1684, is dated in *Saṁvat* 185 (1064-65 A.D.) in this king's reign. Bendall refers to another MS., Camb. Add. 2197, dated in the year 186 (A.D. 1065-66), belonging to the reign of the same prince.⁶ In the first of these MSS. P(r)adyumna-kāmadeva is given the sovereign title of *Paramabhaṭṭāraka*.⁷ He is assigned by different authorities a reign of 11 or 7 years.⁸ The next ruler, Nāgārjunadeva, is said to have reigned for a short period of 2 or 3 years.⁹ For the next ruler, Śaṅkaradeva, who is variously assigned a reign of 11, 15 or 17 years, we have three dated MSS. The dates are 189, 191 and 198 (A.D. 1068-69, 1070-71, and 1077) found on three MSS. of *Dharma-putrikā*, *Aṣṭasāhas-* *rikā*, and Prajñākara's commentary, on *Bodhicaryāvatāra*, respectively.¹ Śaṅkara is credited with having established an annual *Yātrā* in honour of *Nava-sāgara Bhagavatī*.²

v1.c14.63

¹ *Ibid*, pp. 193-94; Bendall thought that the Tibetan name 'may be a form of Yaśodeva.' See fn. 3 on p. 6 of *CPMDN*. Dr. Barnett, however, suggests: "It is hardly possible to equate *Grags-pa-mtha-yas* with Yaśodeva. *Grags* = *yaśas* or *kīrti* and *mtha-yas* = *ananta* or *amita* or the like."

v1.c14.64

² *CPMDN*, Introduction, p. 6; Kirkpatrick, *An Account of the Kingdom of Nepaul*, London, 1811, p. 263; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, 193-94; *CBMC*, table on p. xii.

v1.c14.65

¹ *CPMDN*, Introduction, pp. 29-30.

v1.c14.66

² Kirkpatrick, *An Account of the Kingdom of Nepaul*, London, 1811, p. 263; *CPMDN*, Introduction, p. 6; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 194. In *CBMC*, table on p. xii, published before 1905, Baladeva is wrongly called Bāladeva.

v1.c14.67

³ This is according to the chronicle of Bendall; others assign to Bhāskara 13 or 7 years. (See table on p. xii in *CBMC*.)

v1.c14.68

⁴ *CPMDN*, Introduction, p. 11.

v1.c14.69

⁵ *CBMC*, Introduction, p. vi; *Le Népal*, p. 194.

v1.c14.70

⁶ *CBMC*, p. 173.

v1.c14.71

⁷ *CPMDN*, Introduction, p. 22.

v1.c14.72

⁸ *CBMC*, table on p. xii.

v1.c14.73

⁹ *Ibid*, *CPMDN*, Introduction, table on p. 22.

v1.c14.74

¹ *CPMDN*, p. 92; *ibid*, Introduction, table on p. 22; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 195.

v1.c14.75

² *Ibid*, p. 196.

v1.c14.76

After this reign the Vaṁśāvalīs indicate a change of dynasty. Vāmadeva, said to have been a collateral descendant of Aṁśuvarman and belonging to the Ṭhākuris of Patan, drove away the Ṭhākuris of Nayakot and captured the sovereign power. A MS. of *Seka-nirdeśa-pañjikā* in the Minaev-collection of St. Petersburg is dated in the, year 200 (A.D. 1080-81) in the reign of *Rājā Vāmadeva*.³ An inscription of 5 lines incised on the pedestal of a figure of the Sun-god (*divākara*), discovered by Bendall at Lalitapattana, which is dated in N.E. 203 (A.D. 1083) mentions one Śrī-Vāṇadeva, son of *bhūnātha* Śrī-Yaśodeva, who was identified by Bendall with this prince. Though the date and the similarity of the name would tend to favour such an identification, Lévi has rejected it. To him *bhūnātha* means no more than a prince, or even only a Kṣatriya, while the title *Śrī*, the 'most banal of all titles' clearly brands Vāṇadeva as only a local chief.⁴ Vāmadeva is assigned a reign of 2 or 3 years only.⁵ He was succeeded by Harṣadeva, who is given a reign of 14, 15 or 16 years. Bendall supplies three dates for this reign, *viz*., 210 (A.D. 1090), 213 (A.D. 1093), and 219 (A.D. 1098). Two of these are found on MSS. copied during the king's reign. The last date is given by the Vaṁśāvalī of Bendall in the following passage: *Rājā Śrī-Harṣadeva varṣa 14 ūnaviṁśati sambacchara satadvaya parivartamānaṁ*. Commenting on this passage, Bendall says: "Interpreted in the light of the two other dates (given in the MSS.), this rather crudely expressed notice gives good sense if we take it to mean that Harṣa died in N. S. 219 current. Lévi agrees with this conclusion.¹

v1.c14.77

³ *JRAS*, 1891, p. 687.

v1.c14.78

⁴ Bendall, *Journey*, pp. 80-81; *EI*, Vol. V, Appendix, p. 76; No. 559; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 196-97.

v1.c14.79

⁵ *CPMDN*, Introduction, table on page 22; *CBMC*, table on p. xii.

v1.c14.80

¹ *CPMDN*, Introduction, table on p. 22; *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 197.

v1.c14.81

Between this last known date of Harṣa and the first of his successor Śivadeva or Sadāśivadeva (219-239) there is an interval of 20 years.² The Vaṁśāvalī of Bendall describes Śivadeva as the son of Śaṅkaradeva (189-98 N.E.) and gives his date of birth as Āsāḍha 177 (A.D. 1056-57).³ It thus appears that with this king the power of the old dynasty, the Ṭhākuris of Nayakot, revived again. The disturbances that led to this restoration of the old dynasty appear to have originated in Tirhut, outside the hills of Nepal.

v1.c14.82

² *Ibid.*

v1.c14.83

³ *Ibid.*

v1.c14.84

During the reign of the Cāḷukya emperor Someśvara I (A.D. 1040-69), his son Vikramāditya seems to have led successful expeditions into North-eastern India.⁴ Accompanying his victorious arms a number of military adventurers came from the south, especially from Karṇāṭa and carved out small principalities. The Sena dynasty in Bengal appears to have been founded in this manner. Its founders claim to be the defenders of the *Karṇāṭa-kula-lakṣmī*, and declare themselves to be southerners.⁵ It has been suggested that they were first established on the borders of Bengal by an invasion of the *Cāḷukya emperor Vikramāditya VI*.⁶ Another of these adventurers from Karṇāṭa was probably one of the forefathers of Nānyadeva, whose name being apparently a transcription of the Canarese word *nanniya* (affectionate) reveals his southern origin. He established his authority in Tirhut, and from his capital at Simraon launched on a series of campaigns for the conquest of the neighbouring countries. It is not unlikely, as Lévi has suggested, that before he established his sovereign power, he served some local king as a candottieré, and then overthrew his master. But it is significant that from the time that followed the reign of Vikramāditya VI, Nepal suddenly enters into the composition of the *praśastikāras* of the kings of Deccan. Thus the Pattadakal stone inscriptions dated in 1162 A.D. enumerates Nepal amongst the vassals of the Cālukya emperor Someśvara III Bhūlokamalla, the son of Vikramāditya VI.¹ The Kalacuri Bijjala, who overthrew Tailapa III, the son of Someśvara III, is praised in an epigraph dated in *c.* 1200 A.D. for having destroyed the stability of *Nepāla*.² In another inscription of about the same time discovered at Managoli, the Yādava Jaitugi (*c.* 1191-1210 A.D.) claims to have defeated the leaders of the armies of *Nepāla*.³ Under the circumstances it is not unlikely, as I have suggested, that the establishment of the forefathers of Nānyadeva in Tirhut, on the borders of Nepal may have been due to a successful raid of the great Cālukya prince to the foot-hills of the Himalayan range.

v1.c14.85

⁴ *Vikramāṅkadevacarita*, Bombay, 1875, III, 67-74.

v1.c14.86

⁵ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 305, v. 4; *JASB*, Vol. V, 1909, p. 467 ff.

v1.c14.87

⁶ *Gauḍarājamālā*, p. 47; *PTOC*, Calcutta, 1922, p. 347; *JL*, Vol. XVI, 1927, p. 7. But I think that these northern expeditions were undertaken as Bilhaṇa clearly indicates in his father Someśvara's reign (c. 1040-69 A.D.).

v1.c14.88

¹ *JBRAS*, Vol. XI, p. 268.

v1.c14.89

² Inscriptions at Ablur, *EI*, Vol. V, p. 149.

v1.c14.90

³ *Ibid*, p. 29. Note also the name of the Nepal prince Someśvara (*c.* 1184-86 A.D.) which is unique amongst the royal names of that country, and which curiously reminds us of the Cāḷukya emperor Someśvara III (*c.* 1125-30 A.D.) who claimed suzerainty over the Valley. See *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 209, 213-14.

v1.c14.91

According to Nepalese tradition, Nānyadeva from his capital at Simraon⁴ captured the whole of Nepal and after dethroning two local Nepalese princes, Jayadevamalla of Patan and Katmandu and Ānandamalla of Bhatgaon, established his court at the latter city. The chroniclers have clearly fallen into a blunder by introducing Malla kings into Nepal at this period.⁵ It will be seen further on from the dates in the colophon of MSS. that Nānyadeva did not destroy the local princes in the Nepal valley, who continued to rule probably under the hegemony of the Karṇāṭakas of Tirhut. Mr. M.

v1.c14.92

⁴ Simraon is the same as Simaramapura, mentioned in the introductory verses of the *Kṛtyaratnākara*.

v1.c14.93

⁵ *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 199 ff.

v1.c14.94

Chakravarti has pointed out that the date of Nānyadeva must be placed in about the middle of the 12th century A. D.¹ The successful career of Nānya appears to have ended in disaster, when he came into conflict with the Senas of Bengal. In the Deopara inscription, Vijayasena claims to have defeated and imprisoned Nānya, with several other princes.² The epigraphic and literary traditions of Nepal contain lists of the names of his successors. Thus the Katmandu inscription of Pratāpa (Malladeva) dated in (N.) *Saṁvat* 769 (A. D. 1649) gives the following list :³

v1.c14.95

¹ *JASB*, 1915, pp. 408-09. This date of Nānyadeva is based on the synchronism of Malladeva, his son, and the Gāhaḍavāla king Jayacandra (Jayaccandra). In the *Yuddhavīra*, one of the tales of the *Puruṣaparīkṣā* of Vidyāpati, Malladeva is said to have served Jayacandra (*c.* 1170-93 A. D.), king of Kānyakubja and Kāśi, and died at the age of 16. Prof. Kielhorn while editing the Deopara Inscription of the Sena king, Vijayasena, placed Nānyadeva in Śaka 1019 (A. D. 1097). The date is found on a MS. noticed in the *Katalog der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft*, Leipzig, 1881, Vol. II, p. 8. See *EI*, Vol. I, p. 313, fn. 57. The discovery in 1923 of a stone inscription of Nānyadeva in Bihar is reported by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal. See *Bāṅgālār Itihās*, by R. D. Banerji, 2nd Ed., Calcutta, p. 318, fn. 34.

v1.c14.96

² *EI*, Vol. I, p. 309, verses 20-21 and footnote of Kielhorn, No. 57, on p. 313. Kielhorn accepted 1097 A. D. as the date of Nānyadeva. According to some, the assumption of imperial titles by Śivadeva in 1120 A. D. shows that Nānyadeva was killed before that date. See *JASB*, 1921, p. 4.

v1.c14.97

³ *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 187-89.

v1.c14.98

Nānyadeva
Gaṅgadeva
Nṛsiṁha.
Rāmasiṁha
Śaktisiṁha
Bhūpālasiṁha
Harisiṁha.⁴

v1.c14.99

⁴ In this inscription the name is given incorrectly as Harayutsiṁha (Harasiṁha); the correct form Harisiṁha is given in other inscriptions. See *IA*, Vol. IX, pp. 184-87 and 189-91.

v1.c14.100

There is a substantial agreement amongst all the other authorities about these names. Among the minor variations may be mentioned the omission of Śaktikumāra and the addition of Karmasiṁhadeva in the prologue of the drama *Mudita-Kuvalayāśva* and the addition of Harideva by the chronicles of Wright and Bhagwanlal. Attention may be drawn to the forms of names *Bhāvasiṁhadeva* and *Narasiṁhadeva* given in the drama, which appear to stand for Bhūpālasiṁha and Nṛsiṁha of the inscription.¹ There is however considerable variation in the order of succession and the years of reign assigned to these princes in the different authorities, though there is again a surprising agreement in the total number of years assigned by them to the princes who ruled before Harisiṁha. The total reign-period given is either 219 or 226 years, which, as we shall see later on, is nearly the exact period that intervened between Nānyadeva (*c.* 1097 A. D.) and Harisiṁhadeva (*c.* 1324 A.D).² But all these successors of Nānyadeva who ruled before 1324 appear to us as mere names. Tradition has failed to record any notable achievements in their favour. It is however not improbable that from their capital at Simraon they may have claimed a sort of loose hegemony over the local princes of the Nepal valley.

v1.c14.101

¹ For a complete list from all the sources see *Le Népal*, Vol. II, p. 220. Kirkpatrick's Bhadsing Deo and Kurmsing Deo and Sakrasing Deo of Hamilton probably stand for Bhūpālasiṁhadeva, Karmasiṁhadeva and Śaktisiṁhadeva of the other sources.

v1.c14.102

² *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 220-21.

v1.c14.103

I have already referred to the overthrow of the Ṭhākuris of Patan, which was most probably caused by the invasion of Nānyadeva. It is not impossible that the Karṇāṭa chief extended his power in the Valley by espousing the cause of Śivadeva, a successful pretender of the Nayakot branch of the Ṭhākuris who were ousted by the Patan branch sometime before 1080-8 A. D. At any rate we find from the colophons of MSS. and some inscriptions an unbroken series of princes, from Śivadeva to about 1200 A. D. We have 3 dates for Śivadeva. An India Office MS. of *Sphoṭikāvaidya* gives him the imperial titles *Rājādhirāja Parameśvara*, and contains the date 240 (A. D. 1120) in his reign. A Cambridge MS. noticed by Bendall supplies the date 243 (A. D. 1123) in his reign, while the Vaṁśāvalī of the same scholar tells us that he constructed a tank named *Mahendrasaras* or *Madanasaras*, after the name of the *Yuvarāja* Mahā-Indra-deva, in 239 (1118 A. D.). According to the modern chronicles, Śivadeva was a great warrior, who conquered the whole of Nepal and carried his arms to the four corners of the horizon. With the rich booty thus acquired he is said te have built a new roof to the temple of Paśupati. He is also credited with the foundation of Kīrtipura and the issuing of the *Suki* coins, made of an alloy of copper and iron and marked with the image of a lion, which continued to be struck till the beginning of the 16th century. He is assigned a reign of 27 years and 5 months. Śivadeva was succeeded by Indradeva, probably his son and no doubt identical with the *Yuvarāja* Mahā-Indradeva. An India Office MS. on astrology (*Jātaka*, No. 2928) which was copied in 249 (1128-29 A. D.) in his reign, gives him the exalted title of *Rājādhirāja-Parameśvara*. He is said to have reigned for 12 years. The next ruler appears to have been Mānadeva. A Cambridge MS. of *Aṣṭasāhasrikā* gives the date 259 (A. D. 1139) in his reign.¹ The inscription of Varamtol (near Katmandu), dated in the same year, records the gift of a water-channel (*pannālī*) and a *droṇa* in the victorious reign of *Rājādhirāja-Parameśvara Paramabhaṭṭāraka Śrī-Mānadeva*.² He is variously assigned a reign of 10 years or 4 years 7 months, and is said to have retired into the monastery of Cakra-vihāra, built by the ancient king Mānadeva, after abdicating in favour of his eldest son.³

v1.c14.104

¹ *CBMC*, p. 152.

v1.c14.105

² Bendall's *Journey*, pp. 10 and 81.

v1.c14.106

³ This Mānadeva was the Sūryavaṁśī Licchavi king of that name; see *Le Népal*, Vol. II, pp. 98 and 208.

v1.c14.107

This son is probably to be identified with Narendradeva, who under the titles of *Rājādhirāja-Parameśvara* appears as king in a MS. of the *Pañcarakṣā* dated in the year 261 (1141 A. D.)¹ of the same king, which thus appears to be anterior by five years to the last known date of Mānadeva. If the relationship between the two were that of a father and son, it is not impossible that, like the Kashmirian king Ananta, Mānadeva may have resumed the royal power for some time after his abdication.² According to the chroniclers, the next king, Ānandadeva, was a son of Sīhadeva. Wright’s chronicle gives the name of Narendradeva as Narasiṁha and it is not impossible that Sīhadeva may be the same as Narasiṁha.³ For Ānandadeva’s reign Bendall has given us 6 dates from MSS. which range from 275 to 286 (A. D. 1154-5 to 1166).⁴ Tradition assigns to this prince a reign of 20 years. He was succeeded by Rudradeva, to whom is assigned a reign of 8 years and 1 month. This prince is said to have passed his life in pious practices and philosophic studies after confiding the government to the care of his son. It is not surprising therefore that his reign has not left for us any dated literary or epigraphic evidence.⁵ The next ruler appears to have been Amṛtadeva (or Mitradeva), who, according to the chronicle of Bendall, was another son of Sīhadeva (Narendrasiṁha = Narendradeva ?). A MS. of the *Daśakarmapaddhati*, copied in his reign, bears the date 296 (A. D. 1176).⁶ He is said to have reigned for 3 years 11 months. Next follows the reign of a king named Ratnadeva, who is not mentioned in any of the Vaṁśāvalīs of Nepal. Bendall recovered his name from the tracings of a MS. in the Katmandu library which bears the date 303 (A. D. 1183) in his reign.¹ Next follows the shadowy figure of Someśvaradeva, who is said to have been a son of Mahendra (Indradeva ?). Tradition assigns him a reign of 4 years 3 months, but it has not handed down to us any dated records of his time. Lévi has already drawn attention to the abnormal character of the name of this prince, which is unique in Nepalese history, and appears in the Valley at a time when a prince of the Cālukya dynasty of Kalyāṇī bearing the same name was claiming suzerainty over the Valley.² After Someśvara follow the names of three princes named Guṇakāmadeva (II), Lakṣmīkāmadeva (II), and Vijayakāmadeva, whose reigns have fortunately left for us some dated records. A MS. of *Jayākhyasaṁhitā* (also called *Jñānalakṣmī*) preserved in the Durbar Library of Nepal is dated in 307 (1187 A. D.) in the reign of Guṇakāma.³ Bendall's chronicle assigns him a reign of only 3 months. His successor Lakṣmīkāma, who is entirely omitted in the traditional lists, is attested by a MS. of his reign dated in 313 (A. D. 1193).⁴ The reign of the next ruler, Vijayakāma, to whom is assigned by the Vaṁśāvalīs a reign of 17 years, is recorded by two MSS. dated in 316 (A. D. 1196) and 317 (A. D. 1197).⁵

First 117 of 262 passages. Read on

Linked texts (17)