The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c28.21

v2.c28.21

It should however be observed that both tradition and inscriptions agree in tracing the descent of the family to the Moon. The fact that the traditional founder of the dynasty is first taken to Khajraho¹ is also consistent with epigraphic and foreign evidence. For the earliest inscriptions of the Candellas come from that place, and the *Kāmil*, one of the oldest compilations of Arab history, connects the dynasty with Kajurāhah (كجوراهه).² Cunningham discovered another agreement between tradition and epigraphic evidence. By counting backwards from 954 A.D., the earliest known date of Dhaṅga, the 6th lineal descendant of Nannuka, and assigning a period of 20 to 25 years for each generation, he fixed upon the first quarter of the 9th century A.D., as the approximate date of Nannuka.³ Then by referring *Saṁvat* 225, one of the traditional dates for the foundation of the Candella dynasty, to the Harṣa era, he found it in perfect agreement with the above date (225+606=831 A.D.).⁴ There is yet another agreement between tradition and epigraphy if we accept the name Candra-varmā as a mere *biruda* of Nannuka. But the statement that the founder of the dynasty supplanted the Parihārs cannot be accepted. From about the time of Nannuka down to the beginning of the 10th century the Gurjara-Pratīhāras were at the height of their power, and it is unlikely that, during this period, the Candellas would succeed in driving them out of the land lying to the south of the Jumna. It is more likely that the Candella Nannuka was at first a feudatory of Nāgabhaṭa II (*c.* 815-33 A.D.) and ruled over a small principality round about Khajraho, the Kharjjuravāhaka of the inscriptions. This agrees with the tradition which places the original home of the Candellas at Maniyagarh in the Chhatarpur State (C. I.). In the Khajraho inscription of Dhaṅga, Nannuka is called *nṛpa* and is described as ' a touchstone to test the worth of the gold of the regal order, who playfully decorated the faces of the women of the quarters with the sandal of his fame,' and whose enemies carried ' his commands on their heads, like a garland.'¹ In another Khajraho inscription of the same king Nannuka is called a *mahīpati* 'whose prowess reminded the gods of Arjuna.'² This is the only information available about the first historical personage in the genealogy of the Candellas. The Indian *praśastikāras* at any rate do not err on the side of moderation and it is extremely impossible that they would have omitted such a tangible historical fact as the defeat of the Parihāras, if that incident really happened in the career of the founder of the dynasty, and attached to his memory such vague generalities which in Indian records mean practically nothing. It is also significant that Nannuka's name is omitted from all the other Candella inscriptions, which are not few. He would have certainly loomed as a more substantial figure in the family tradition if he had really laid the foundation of the sovereignty of the family by violently uprooting another dynasty. The evidence available therefore suggests that his position was that of a petty feudatory ruler. It would even be risky to assume that he 'enjoyed some share of sovereign power' from the mere fact that in the inscriptions of his distant descendants he is designated a *mahīpati* or a *nṛpa*. There is also no evidence to prove the alleged connection of the founder of the dynasty and the *purohita* of the Gāhaḍavālas. In fact epigraphic evidence is against the supposition that Nannuka could even be a contemporary of the early Gāhaḍavālas of Benares (11th century A. D.).¹