The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s2.124

v2.c29.s2.124

The success of Gāṅgeya as a ruler is probably better illustrated by the evidence of his coins. He was the first, and, so far as our present knowledge goes, also the last, in his dynasty to strike his own coins. Their design is very simple. The obverse is occupied by the legend containing the king's name, while the reverse shows the limbate figure of *Lakṣmī* seated cross-legged. His coins in gold, silver, and copper form, in the opinion of Cunningham, 'a perfect monetary system,' which 'must have been very useful and convenient.'¹ The only record of the building activity of Gāṅgeya is probably contained in the Bheraghat inscription of Alhaṇadevī, which tells us that he 'made the earth, though resting below, rise beyond the heavens up to the abode of the gods by raising (on it) a *Meru* without equal.'² According to the *Bṛhat-Saṁhitā* Meru denotes a particular kind of temple (hexagonal, with twelve stories, variegated windows, and four entrances).³ It is difficult to determine whether this was dedicated to a Śaiva or a Vaiṣṇava deity. It was probably a Śaiva temple, for there is some evidence to show that Gāṅgeya was a devotee of Śiva. His only inscription, that of Piawan which mentions the name of *Maheśvara* seems to have been a Śaiva record. But what appears to be conclusive evidence on the point is the statement of his son's Benares grant, that the latter meditated on the feet of *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Śrī-Vāmadeva*.⁴ From A.D. 1042, the date of this record, onwards several successors of Lakṣmī Karṇa also refer to themselves in their records as meditating on the feet of Vāmadeva.⁵ The custom was later on adopted from the Kalacuris by some of the later Candellas of Jejāka-bhukti.⁶ As the name of Vāmadeva does not occur in the genealogical lists of either the Kalacuris or the Candellas, the question of the identification of Vāmadeva appeared to present an insoluble problem.¹ Vāmadeva is of course a well-known name of Śiva; but as he is given the epithets *Pb.-M.-P.* and in some even designated *Parama māheśvara* it is unlikely that Śiva was meant by this name. From the epithets used, there is no doubt that in every case the predecessor of the reigning prince is meant by the name of Vāmadeva. The solution of the difficulty may perhaps be found in the suggestion of Dr. Barnett that these princes who are called Vāmadeva, were perhaps so noted for their devotion to that god that in the reign of their successors they were considered to have become a part of that god himself. The only instance of such deification of kings hitherto recorded in Indian history is provided by an inscription from Kurgod, a village in the Bellary district of the Madras Presidency. In this record the Sinda *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* Rācamalla I, the grandfather of Rācamalla II, a feudatory of the Cālukya Someśvara IV of Kalyani (*c.* 1183-89 A.D) is said to have reappeared after his death in the form of a *liṅga*. The inscription states that