History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c15: Chapter X: The Pallavas of Kānchī

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c15

Language: English

v1.c15.s1 I—The Earlier Pallavas — 12 parts
v1.c15.s2 II—The Later Pallavas of Kānchī — 17 parts
v1.c15.s3 I—Kuram Pallava Grant — 16 parts

Chapter X: The Pallavas of Kānchī

v1.c15.2

( For the materials of this history we have mainly to rely on south Indian inscriptions and grants which are numerous enough and which have been interpreted by great scholars like Hultsch, Venkayya and others, and especially by the French antiquarian Dubreuil of Pondichery. We have hewever to put forward our own theory on one important point based on these very ancient records. )

v1.c15.3

Along with the Chālukyas, the Pallavas were the most powerful people in the south who contended with them for the overlordship of the southern empire during the seventh and the eighth centuries A. D. They were settled at Kānchī (modern Conjeverum) in the midst of the traditional Dravidian peoples, the Chola, Pāndya, Kerala and Kalabhra whom they had subdued. But they were evidently not one of them. They were outsiders in the Madras Presidency, so to speak, of those days. They did not even speak the language of the Dravidian people. Hiuen Tsang who visited Kānchī in 639 A. D. distinctly states that the people of Kānchī spoke a language similar to that of Mid-India. The same position is supported by the fact that the records of these Pallavas are all of them in Sanskrit and not in any Dravidian language as those of the Chola, Pāndya and Kerala kings are. In fact the records of the early Pallavas are even in the Prakrit as we shall presently show. The Pallavas, therefore, were evidently out-siders in the Madras Presidency from the north. Who were they ?

v1.c15.4

The theory first propounded, though now given up, was that they were the Palhavas of the Purānas, the Pehlavas of the Parsis, the Palhavas who came to India with the Śakas of Kathiawar and others. It was suggested that when Gautamīputra Pulumāyi in the second century A. D. drove away Śaka, Yavana and Pahlava peoples from Mahārāshtra as recorded in the Nasik caves, the last instead of being driven back to the north succeeded in getting further into the south and founded a kingdom at Kāñchī. This theory based upon the similarity of names has now been given up and the Pallavas are now supposed to be some people between the Krishna and the Godāvari, while Sir V. Smith in his Early History 3rd Edn. simply says that they were an indigenous tribe, clan or caste ( p. 469 ). Although it is not necessary, therefore, to state the reasons against the Pahlava theory, yet for the sake of completeness we may as well see what these reasons are. In the first place if Pulumāyi defeated the Pahlavas, he would not certainly allow them to push forward into his own dominions to the south, for we know that the Śātavāhana rule in those days extended far into the south even as far as Mysore. Secondly in Sanskrit orthography which is most perfect, Pahlava with an *h* cannot be confounded with Pallava. Even in Manu and the Purāṇas the name of these foreign mlechhas is given as Pahlava (with an *h*) and in Persian too it is clearly Pehlavi i. e. with *h* distinct. It may perhaps be supposed that in Prakrit the *h* may have been omitted. But it is not so. Even in the Prakrit inscription of Gautamīputra Pulumāyi the name given is spelt as Pahlava ( see Ep. Ind. Vol. III Nasik cave Ins. p. 60 ). Thirdly if the Pahlavas on coming to India had taken up a mid-Indian language it must have been so only recently and hence when they established themselves at Kāñchī, they could not have retained it. For even now the Dravidian languages round about Kāñchī are too strong for any new language to withstand them. For these reasons the Pallavas are not the Pahlavas. They cannot also be some people between the Krishna and the Godavari for their language could not have been mid-Indian in that case also. They must have been people from the Aryan population of the north of India.

v1.c15.5

It seems that they were a branch of the same Aryan people who had settled in Mahārāshtra. In fact Pallava dominion in Kāñchī in ancient times was just like Maratha dominion in Tanjore in modern history.* The Pallavas were Mahārāshtra Aryans who spoke Mahārāshtri Prakrit for centuries and hence retained it even in Kānchī in the midst of surrounding Dravidian languages. They may even be said to be Marathas for their name is still preserved in the Maratha family name of Pālave (which is just the Prakrit form of Pallava). And a further corroboration is that the gotra of the Pālave Maratha family, as we have shown before, is Bhāradvāja, the same as the one which the Pallavas take to themselves in their records. And Hiuen Tsang calls Narasinha Varman a Kshstriya. The Pallavas, therefore, were certainly mid-Indian Aryans gradually passing into the south through Mahārāshtra.

v1.c15.6

∗ Even Sir Vincent Smith is struck with this similarity and gives expression to it see p. 470 (S. E. H. 3rd Edn. )

v1.c15.7

We now go on to relate Pallava history as may be gathered from inscriptions and grants. Mr. Venkayya has rightly shown that this history must be divided into two parts the earlier and the later. In fact as this history extends from about 200 A. D. to 800 A. D. we cannot expect that the Pallava domination could have lasted so long. Like the Chālukyas the Pallavas may therefore be divided into two branches the earliar Pallavas and the later Pallavas. We are in our period concerned with the later Pallavas, the contemporaries of the earlier Chālukyas; but we will give here the history of the earlier Pallavas also (such as can be gathered,) for the sake of completeness especially as it has not yet been given any where and as in our opinion it connects the Pallavas with Mahārāshtra.

I—The Earlier Pallavas

v1.c15.s1.1

Speaking first of the earlier Pallavas then, the first thing to be noticed about them is that they used the Prakrit language for their inscriptional records which in the south is really strange. Only three inscriptions or grants have been found as yet and we give one of them is extenso below* for sample. This record and the other two show that these are a continuation so to speak of inscriptions in Prakrit of the Sātavāhanas of Paiṭhan. Firstly, the language of both is Prakrit and it is also akin. Secondly, the dates are in both recorded in the Buddhist Aśoka fashion viz the month is never given. The season out of the three seasons of India is given and the fortnight (not dark and half as when months are named) is given by number, the number of fortnights in a season being eight. This sort of giving the season is clearly the Aśoka Buddhist method. Aśoka’s empire had extended far down into the south and had undoubtedly included Mahārāṣṭra. The Āndhras succeeded to the Buddhist Aśoka rule and naturally followed the same system of mentioning the date.* Now the Pallava early Prakrit inscriptions contain this method of mentioning the date viz the season and the number of fortnight. It is thus clear that the early Pallavas are a continuation of the Āndhrabhritya rule at Paiṭhan.

v1.c15.s1.2

∗ The Mayida-volu, plates of Pallava Śiva Skandavarman, Ep. Ind, Vol. VI page 86. [ का ] चीपुरातो युवमहाराजो भारदायसगोत्तो पलवानं शिवस्कन्दवम्मो धनंकडे वापतं आनपयति अह्नोहि दानी अह्नेवेजयिके [ श्वं ] मात्यबलवधनिके य बह्मानं अगिवेससगोत्तस पुवकोटुजस अगिवेससगोत्तस गोनंदिजस अंथ पति (थी) यगामो विरिपरं अह्नोहि उदकादि संपदतो एतस गामस विरिपरस सव बह्मदेयपरिहारो वितराम अलोन [ खा ] दकं अभडपवेसं अकरचोलकनिवासिखतासंवासं एत्थी अनेहिच सव बह्मदेयमादाय सवपरिहारेहि परिहारितो परिहरथ परिहरापेथ च जो अह्मासासनं आतीछितून पीला बाधेकरेजा [वात] कारापेज्जा वा तस अह्नो सारीरशासनं करेजामो सवछरं दसमं १० गिम्हा पक्खो छठो ६ दिवसं पंचमी ५ आनति सयत्रि दत्ता पत्रिका.

v1.c15.s1.3

We surmise that when the Āndhrabhritya Satavahana rule came to end about 200 A. D. the early Pallavas were viceroys in the southern Deccan and as usual asserted themselves and became independent. The same surmise is given by Dubreuil in his valuable brochure “The Pallavas” He says “The Pallavas succeeded the Āndhras. Their plates mentioned the province of Sātāhani Raṭṭha a portion of the Bellary district. Thus the Pallava empire extended along the Coromandel coast upto the Krishna and westward in the Deccan upto the banks of the Tunga-bhadrā” (p. 13). It may be added that the mention of the Rāṣṭra or Raṭṭha and Ahāra as the name of a district is indeed the Mahārāṣṭra fashion. The Mahārāṣṭras usually adopted the name Rāṣṭra as a designation for a province or district. Even in Aśoka’s edicts they are called the Rāṣṭrikas, or the Raṭṭhas. Then again the name of Bappa is peculiarly Aryan and Mahārāṣṭriya. It is found in one of these Prakrit grants of the early Pallavas.

v1.c15.s1.4

∗ It may be pertinent to point out that there are two inscriptions of the Śaka Uṣavadāta, son-in-law of Nahapan among the inscriptions in Nasik caves. These alone are dated in Saka era and give the month and the dark or bright fortnight. They are clearly thus foreign i, e, foreign to the custom then paevalent in Mahārāṣṭra.

v1.c15.s1.5

Who was the first most important king of these early Pallavas? He appears to be Virakūrcha who in one inscription is stated to have "simultaneously with the hand of the daughter of the chief of serpents grasped the complete insignia of royalty and became famous" (Dubreuil p. 23). This Nāga princess Dubreuil surmises to be a daughter of the Sātavāhanas. Whoever she may be, we have here again the mixture of the Aryan Pallava with local Nāga families. Like the Chālukya history Pallava history also gives an ancient basis to the Maratha modern tradition that there are three Vamśas among the Marathas viz Surya, Chandra and Nāga.

v1.c15.s1.6

The Veḷurpalaiyam plate from which the above fact is taken is important in other respects also. On inspecting it carefully (Archealojical Survey Report part V) we find, besides the śloka about Virakūrcha (यः फणीन्द्रसुतया सहाग्रहीद्राजचिन्हमखिलं यशोधनः) the following about Kumāra-Vishṇu son of Skandaśishya, son of this Virakūrcha:—गृहीतकाञ्चीनगरस्ततोऽभूत् कुमारविष्णुः समरेषु जिष्णुः This shows that Virakūrcha's grandson Kumāra Vishṇu took the city of Kāñchī and founded the Kāñchī power. This statement tallies with probable dates also. In the long list of Pallava ancestors given in the Vāyalūr inscription described by Dubreuil (p. 20) we have 36 kings. Of these Vishṇugopa No. 19 appears to be the Vishṇugopa whom Samudragupta conquered and who is mentioned in his famous Allahabad stone inscription of 338 A. D. And we have Narasimhavarman No. 34 contemporary of Hiuen Tsang and Chālukya Pulakeśin II of 640 A. D. Now from no. 19 to 34 there count 15 generations or 300 years at an average of 20. And this distance in time between Vishṇugopa and Narasinhavarman, exactly tallies with their historical dates as given above viz. 338 A. D. and 640 A. D. Now let us go back from Vishṇugopa no. 19 of 338 A. D. to Virakūrcha no. 11 in the list of Vāyalūr plate. We have a difference of 8 generations or 160 years which gives for Virakūrcha a date about 178 A. D. and brings him within the Sātavāhana rule. His grandson Kumāra Vishṇu, also given in the Vāyalūr list, thus seems to have become the king of Kāñchī about 200 A.D. The Mayadavollu grant in Prakrit which we have quoted in a foot-note may be taken to have been made by the grandson (no. 15) of this Kumāra Vishnu (no. 13) about 240 A. D.

v1.c15.s1.7

The consistent history of the early Pallavas therefore may be put as follows from the available inscriptions and grants. A Pallava-surnamed chief (Maratha or from northern India) named Vīrakūrcha gained royal distinction about 178 A. D. by marrying a Nāga princess (presumably of Sātavāhana family), in the south of the Deccan. On the fall of the Sātavāhanas the family became powerful and independent and Kumāra Vishnu grandson of Vīrakūrcha conquered Kāñchī and founded the Kāñchī kingdom about 200 A. D. In 338 A. D. it was conquered by Samudragupta of Patna. This shock threw the Pallava power into shade for some time. But it rose again into splendour under the later Pallavas beginning with Sinhavishnu as we shall presently relate.

v1.c15.s1.8

We may add that this early Pallava family was undoubtedly Kshatriya. As we have said one great proof of it is that the records of both the early and late Pallavas always mention that they were of the Bhāradvāja gotra. The mention of gotra was always deemed particularly important by Kshatriya kings. We have already seen that the Chālukyas similarly insisted on being called Mānavya-sagotra. They also gave the gotra of the mother to show their descent from a Kshatriya mother also. We have already alluded to the meaning of the epithets Gautamīputra and Vasisthīputra recorded in the mention of Sātavāhana kings. They clearly show that the Kshatriyas took pride in mentioning their gotra. We may add one more instance of this from the same Nasik cave inscriptions. Bhavagopa Senāpati is in one mentioned as of the Kauśika gotra. It is here alone that we have the mention of the gotra and the name-ending "gopa" makes it similar to Vishnugopa and shows that the Senāpati was a Kshatriya. These name-endings (gopa = protector of the earth) usually taken for indicating caste are of great importance and the gotra mention is still more important. An inscription in Prakrit about this very time, king and place not yet recognised, mentions the gotra of the king as Brihatphalāyana (see inscription of Jayavarman for grant of a village in Kndurāhāra Ep. Ind. Vol. VI p. 316. In this grant also we have Āhāra, northern Sanskrit name for a Taluka and not "nādu" the Dravidian name). As the earliest grants of the Pallavas insist on mentioninig their gotra as Bhāradvāja we conclude that the Pallavas were really Kshatriyas as Hiuen Tsang describes them.

v1.c15.s1.9

We may further add that the legend about the origin of the Pallavas as given in the records of the later Pallavas is not reliable and as usual was concocted afterwards to connect them with a Mahābhārata hero. In fact it appears that in later centuries it was an ambition with all kingly families to connect themselves with some hero of the great national epic (just as in the west Greek and Roman families delighted to connect themselves with the heroes of Homer). The Chālukya later legend we have already discussed. We may note here the Pallava legend. It gives the genealogy as follows. १ ब्रह्मा २ अंगिरस् ३ बृहस्पति ४ शंयु ५ भरद्वाज ६ द्रोण ७ अश्वत्थामा and ८ पल्लव born of an Apsaras or heavenly nymph from Ashvatthāmā and placed on a bed made of soft leaves and hence called Pallava. Even Vedic poets loved to play with names, witness the fanciful derivations assigned to Agastya, Angiras, Atri etc. in the Brāhmaṇas and it is no wonder that later Sanskrit poets invented absurd legends to explain the meanings of names like Chālukya and Pallava. We may safely put these legends aside as imaginery, as also the legend that the first Pallava ruled the whole earth. We must take the names of Kshatriya families as we find them, whatever their real origin may have been and rely for facts on contemporary records.

v1.c15.s1.10

True Kshatriyas, the Pallavas were orthodox and of the Vedic religion. The son of Kumāra Vishnu viz.

v1.c15.s1.11

Sivaskandavarman whose Prakrit grant has been found is said to have performed the Aśvamedha. Smith rightly states that this Aśvamedha was performed even before that of Chandragupta of the Gupta family in the north. The Pallavas were also devout worshippers of Siva like the general body of Marathas. They built great temples to Siva in Kāñchī. There may be some Viṣṇu temples also but Śiva was their family deity. Though one Pallava king is said to have made a grant to Buddhists at Amarāvatī, it does not necessarily show that he was a Buddhist. The toleration by early Aryan kings of Buddhism is well known. Buddhism and Jainism both found followers in the Kāñchī empire but the religion of the ruling family and the people generally was Śaivism. Kāñchī is still the greatest strong-hold of Śaivism in the south and the most devout Śaiva poets and saints belong to Kāñchī. It was probably on this account, that Kāñchī has risen to the proud position of a holy city in Hindu estimation. According to Hindu belief there are only seven cities which are holy in India viz. 1 Ayodhyā, 2 Mathurā 3 Māyā or Haradwar 4 Kāshī 5 Kāñchī 6 Avanti or Ujjain and 7 Dvārakā. It is strange that in the south the honour belongs only to one city and that is Kāñchī and does not belong even to Paithan or Pratishthana, the ancient Mahārāshtra seat of learning. It seems that this position was attained by Kāñchī under the orthodox rule of the early Pallavas and by the religion of Śaivism which they propagated and favoured together with the greatness of the Śaiva saints who flourished there.

v1.c15.s1.12

The Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudra-gupta records that he conquered three kings viz. Hastivarman of Vengi, Ugrasena of Palakka and Viṣṇugopa of Kāñchī. These two kingdoms Palakka on the Malabar (West) coast and Vengi on the east coast were undoubtedly under Pallava domination and Vengi is usually called Vengi-rāshtra and was thus under the Maratha rule of the Pallavas from the beginning. The king Attivarman is said to be a Pallava also. The Vengi Rāshtra after the Pallavas came under the Chālukyas of Bādāmi and an eastern Chālukya kingdom was founded there by Vishnuvardhana and may be said to be a continuation of the same rule.

II—The Later Pallavas of Kānchī

v1.c15.s2.1

The later Pallavas of Kānchī may be looked upon as contemporaneous with the early Chālukyas and comprised many able kings who were always at feud with their Chālukya contemporaries. These kings were (1) Sinha Vishnu who is placed by Dubreuil in about 590 A. D. ; his son was (2) Mahendravarman I, his son (3) Narsinhavarman I; his son (4) Mahendravarman II, his son (5) Parmeśvaravarman I, his son (6) Narsinhavarman II, and his son (7) Parmeśvaravarman II who is placed by Dubreuil in about 715 A. D. In the margin we give the contemporaneous Chālukya kings. The 7th and last was succeeded by Nandipotavarman of a collateral branch who was defeated by Vikramāditya Chālukya and with him we may suppose the later Pallavas to have gone out of importance.

v1.c15.s2.2

v1.c15.s2.3

Thus from about 550 to 750 A. D. these two Mahārāshtra Kshatriya families contended for the overlordship of the Indian Peninsula south of the Nerbudda and aimed at and prided upon being lords between three seas. The Pallavas had of course already subjugated the Chola, Pāndya, Kerala and Kalabhra kings and the latter often sided with their Pallava overlords as feudatories in their battles with the Chālukyas. If does not appear that the Pallavas were ever finally successful; in this hereditary conflict the victory lay usually with the Chālukyas. But the fortunes were often varying and we need not enter into the details of these reverses and successes. Grants and inscriptions of both the Chālukyas and the Pallavas have been found in great numbers and sometimes contain contradictory statements. But a consistent history has been evolved by scholars which may be related shortly as follows.

v1.c15.s2.4

Sinhavishṇu was the first great sovereign among the later Pallavas. He conquered, besides the Cholas etc, even Ceylon. His son was Mahendravarman I who was defeated by Pulakeśin II the great rival of Harsha. When Hiuen Tsang visited Kāñchī, his son Narasinhavarman was on the throne; he was apparently subject to Pulakeśin II. But this Narasinhavarman I eventually defeated Pulakeśin II in 642 and his capital Vātāpi was taken and plundered by him. The latter's son Vikramāditya I thereafter revived the glory of the Chālukyas and took revenge by seizing Kāñchī in return. The date of this conquest of Parmeśvaravarman I by Vikramāditya I is fixed by a grant of the latter (Gadval plates, Ep. Ind. X p. 101) in 674 A. D. (Dubreuil p. 42). A grant of Vikramāditya's son Vinayāditya dated 613 Śaka or 691 A. D. (Ind. Ant. Vol. VI p. 89) contains some interesting information. The epithet हिमकरकरविमल कुलपरिभविलयहेतुपल्लवपतिपराजयानन्तरगृहीतकाञ्चिपुरस्य (विक्रमादित्यस्य) is somewhat obscure. This has been translated by Dr. Fleet as follows "who seized the city of Kāñchī after the defeat of the leader of Pallavas, who had been the cause of the humiliation of the family as pure as the rays of the moon." Now the real difficulty is in the word विलय; the पल्लवपति is described not as परिभवहेतु but परिभविलयहेतु, विलय being omitted or left unnoticed by Fleet. But the expression is indeed obscure. The Chālukya family is here supposed to be of the lunar race as later records represent it, but this point is also doubtful. However the main fact is apparent viz. that the Pallavas being defeated their city was entered. Another important epithet applied to Vikramāditya in this grant is त्रिसमुद्रमध्यवर्तिमण्डलाधीश्वरस्य which shows that he was the overlord of all the chiefs who ruled within three oceans. And thirdly the word त्रैराज्यपल्लवबलमवष्टभ्य shows the Pallavas had three kingdoms much in the same way as the Chālukyas had three Mahārāshtas (viz. Vidarbha, Mahārāshtra proper and Kuntala or southern Maratha country). And the three kingdoms of the Pallavas were probably Vengi, Kānchī and Palakkada; but Vengi had already been lost and taken by the Eastern Chālukyas. Perhaps the traditional epithet Trairājya Pallava still remained.

v1.c15.s2.5

The Pallavas though often defeated retained, however, their kingdom as usual in ancient times and were powerful for a long time. The last defeat inflicted on them (under Nandipotavarman) by the Chālukyas, was under Vikramāditya II in about 740 A. D. Kānchī was again seized and entered. But being considered a sacred city as already mentioned, it was never plundered by the orthodox Chālukyas. On the contrary any plunder taken from temples by unscrupulous hands was restored and many rich presents were made by the Chālukya king and queen to its famous gods. Nandipotavarman’s power may be said to have declined from this time. He had a long reign however of about 51 years.

v1.c15.s2.6

The later Pallavas were like the earlier ones great Śaivas and they have left behind them temples and caves and rock-cut rathas which are yet the admiration of the world. They surpassed the Chālukyas in this respect. The Rājasinheśvara or Kailāsanātha temple in Kānchī is famous. Who this Rājasinha was is not quite clear, but he seems to have been Narasinhavarman II (some scholars take him to be Narasinhavarman I). The birudas or titles of these kings are so numerous that it is really difficult to identify them. These birudas are the fancies of poet-flatterers. The Rājasinheśvara temple contains many such e. g. Atyantakānta, Ranachanda and so on, but as plainly showing that these Pallavas were Kshatriyas as Hiuen Tsang states, we may quote one viz: Śrikshatra-chūdamani. The Māmallapura temple of Śiva contains a short inscription in it viz. अतिरणचण्डपल्लवेश्वरगृह. In the Kailāsanātha temple in an inscription the pedigree of the Pallavas is given as (1) Brahmā (2) Angiras (3) Brihaspati (4) Śamyu (5) Bharadvāja (6) Droṇa (7) Aśvatthāmā (1) Pallava. In his line was born Ugradanda who defeated Ranarasika probably a Chālukya king. His son was Rājasinha. Dubreuil opines that Ugradanda and Lokāditya mentioned in the inscriptions of the Kailāsanātha temple at Kānchī mean Parameśvara I and Ranarasika is Vikramāditya I. Thus this Chālukya after defeating the Pallavas was in turn defeated on the banks of the Kāveri by three kings united viz. Kānchī Sinhala and Pāndya kings. The date of this defeat is 674 A. D. (see Dubreuil p. 42 noted before). The builder of the Rājasinheśvara temple would then be Narasinhavarman II of about 700 A. D. The rock-cut temples at Māmallapura near Madras called the "Seven Pagodas" and the cave temples at Mahendravādi and Māmandūr were excavated by order of these Pallava kings from Mahendravarman I (Smith). There are at Māmallapura (the name Mamalla is derived from Mahāmalla a title of Narasinhavarman I) three Śaiva temples and one Vaishnava. Dubreuil thinks that Mahendravarman and his father originally ruled in the Telagu country to the north of the Krishna and the cave works and rock-cut temples he execdted during his reign at Kānchī were copied from similar buildings and excavations at Amarāvati. The art thus in his opinion goes back to the Buddhistic period and is Greek in origin,

v1.c15.s2.7

The later Pallavas were thus great builders of temples. Dubreuil thinks that Narasinhavarman II surnamed Rājasinha had a long, and peaceful reign, and did nothing else "except loading Saivite priests with favours and building temples to Śiva. Besides the famous Kailāsanātha or Rājasinheśvara temple he built the Shore Temples at Mahābalipura and the Panamalai temple. The Airāvateśvara temple at Kānchī may also be added to this list." (p. 45). These kings also appear to be patrons of letters.

v1.c15.s2.8

A burlesque ( प्रहसन ) has been found at Travancore of which Mahendravarman I is the writer. (It would be interesting to read this drama or rather Prahasana). And Dubreuil has found confirmation of this fact from an inscription on a cave at Māmandūr and which he reads as मत्तविलासादिपदं प्रहसनं, Mattavilāsa being a title of Mahendravarman I. The greatness of this king is described by Dubreuil as follows, "(1) he checked the Chālukya invasion at Pallalur, (2) he gave a new impulse to Śaivism, (3) he glorified poetry and music (it appears he was himself the composer of some svaras), (4) he transferred the taste for rock-cut temples from the banks of the Krishna to those of the Pālār and Kāveri and (5) for administrative purposes he built tanks at Mahendravādi, Māmandūr and probably at Dalavamir. "Thus Mahendravarman I opened a new era whose apotheosis we shall see in the reign of his son Narasinhavarman I" (p. 40). This praise is well merited. The successors of Narasinha too were great builders e. g. Rājasinha alias Narasinhavarman II. They were also great patrons of learning, the son of this Narasinhavarman viz. Parameśvravarman being a great patron of letters. We give in the appendix a grant of this Parmeśvaravarman as much as a sample of the good poetry of the Pallava school as proof of this fact. We shall find also mention of many historical facts in connection with the Pallavas and the Chālukyas, (the French and the English of India) in this inscription. The Pallavas were great patrons of Sanskrit literature and not Dravidian literature which latter it must be stated flourished at the court of the earlier Pāndya kings at Madura. In fact as we have already stated the Pallavas spoke a mid-Indian language.

v1.c15.s2.9

The social relations of these Pallavas also appear to be with the northerners. For instance the Chālukya first king is said to have married a Pallava princess. Then again (Archealogical S. R. Part V) the Vellur plate already quoted states that the wife of Dantivarman was a Kadamba princess* And similarly in a grant at p. 555 it is stated that Nandivarman had married a Rāṣṭrakūṭa lady.† The name of this lady was Revā and her son was properly called Dantivarman from his Rāṣṭrakūṭa grandfather (Dubreuil p. 75). Whether the Pallavas married Dravidian Chola, Pāṇḍya, Kerala princesses we do not know. But it is not strange if they did, for the Mahārāṣṭra Aryan Kshatriyas also married Nāgavaṃśa princesses. The theory then was that a Kshatriya could take a wife from any caste down to Śūdras and the progeny still remained Kshatriya. The southern Aryans of the lunar race like the northern ones appear to have mixed themselves with Nāga families freely.

v1.c15.s2.10

∗ मख्यातस्य कदम्बवंशतिलकस्योर्वीपतेरात्मजा.

v1.c15.s2.11

† आसीत्‌इक्ष्वाकुदेवी तन्वङ्गीनन्दिवर्मणः । राष्ट्रकूटकुले जाता लक्ष्मीरिव सुराद्विषः ॥

v1.c15.s2.12

The Pallavas in all their grants never use the Śaka era, in fact they mention no other years but their own regnal years and hence their dates are open to doubt. This absence of the Śaka era in due to their old pedigree which goes back beyond 400 A. D. when the Śaka era, as we have said before, was popularised by new astronomical Siddhāntas. In fact the Pallavas go back to the period of the Sātavāhanas who never used the Śaka era. The Pallavas are thus plainly an older people than the Chālukyas, that is to say they were settled in the Deccan much earlier than the latter.

v1.c15.s2.13

We may in conclusion give in brief a short history of what we may call the last or third Pallava line. It was composed of four kings whose dates are ascertained by Dubreuil as in the margin. Of these we have already seen that Nandivarman was defeated by Chālukya Vikramāditya II in 745 A. D. The Chālukyas themselves fell before the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Malkhed and it appears that these last Pallavas recognised thereafter the supremacy of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas.

v1.c15.s2.14

v1.c15.s2.15

Dantivarman is said to have been defeated by the Rāshṭrakūṭas about 803 A. D. After Nṛipatunga the Pallavas under Aparājita* were extinguished by the Cholas in about 900 A. D. under Āditya I. Thereafter we do not hear of any Pallava kings These last Pallavas apparently ruled in Kāñchī. They all have left many grants. They cannot be called Ganga Pallavas according to Dubreuil and Gopinathrao. The Gangas were a distinct line in Kanara and Mysore and should not be confounded with the Pallavas. Nandivarman II is said to have defeated the Pāndya kings at Tellaru when they invaded his territories on the Kaveri and hence Dubreuil calls him Nandi of Tellaru. Nṛipatunga had undoubtedly Tanjore and Trichonopally under him as his grants show and it is there that the Cholas subsequently rose to power. These Cholas we shall have to refer to in the third epoch of our history.

v1.c15.s2.16

The present chiefs of Pundukotta represent themselves to be descendants of the Pallavas and their claim may be well founded. But it may be noted that since the Chola supremacy the Pallavas ceased to have any connection with the north and the Pallavas must have been confined to marriages with Dravidian chiefs. They belong to the latter period of Indian history when as we shall further on relate marriage relations became strict all over India.

v1.c15.s2.17

∗ Some scholars say that Aparājita is but another name of Nṛipatunga who took it after defeating the Pāndyas. In any case the name Aparājita proved untrue for the king was finally defeated and the line extinguished by Āditya I.

I—Kuram Pallava Grant

v1.c15.s3.1

South Indian Inscriptions (Hultzsch) Vol. I p. 148-50.

v1.c15.s3.2

स्वाति । पञ्चास्यविंशदद्वैः प्रतिभयनयनश्चन्द्रमौलिस्त्रिशूली । भीमाव्याकोपराती- दशभुजपरिग्रस्त्वमात्रात्ममूर्तिः ॥ दिव्यावेक्ष्यो मुकुन्दप्रभृतिभिरमरैःसृष्टिरुन्मन्त्रसिद्धः । कर्ती नो मूर्तविद्याविहितपरयमक्षायतां विश्वमूर्तिः ॥ कार्यव्यूहकलाक्रमस्य परमव्योमा- मृतज्योतिषो । विद्वन्मानसचन्द्रकान्तपतिता मूर्च्छन्ति यस्यांशवः । भूतानां हृदयेषु चानयति यः शर्क्तिं क्रियासाधनीं त्रैय्यात्मा परमेश्वरः स जयति त्रैलोक्यचूडामणिः ॥ अब्रह्मण्यमसोमयागमयथाप्रस्थानदण्डोयमम् । मिथ्यादान्तमदानशूरमनृतव्याहारजि- ह्माननम् । जातं यत्र नरेश्वरं न शृणुमो युद्धेषु वा विह्लवं निर्विघ्नः पृथिवीन्निरितभवतन्त- पल्लवानां कुलम् ॥ ब्रह्मणोङ्गिरस्ततो बृहस्पतिस्तस्माद्भरद्वाजस्ततो द्रोणः । द्रोणादपरिमित- तेजोधामाश्वत्थामा । ततो निराकृतापल्लवः पल्लवः यतः सकलभुवनवल्लभपल्लवकुलम् । स्थेयात्तत्पल्लवकुलं यत्र जातं नरेश्वरम् । अब्रह्मण्यमदातारमशूरं नानुश्रुम । तदु- दयधरणिधरसोमादित्यध्याविनतमुखनृपातिमुर्तिः । चजोशने प्रतियन्ति राजगजयूथ- सिंहस्य नृसिंहवर्मणः ....... मुहरवाजितचोळकेरळकळभ्रपाण्ड्यस्य सहस्रबाहोरिव समरशतनिर्विष्टसहस्रबाहुकर्मणः परिमळमणिमंगलशूरमारप्रभृति रणविदर्शितपुलकेशि पृष्ठपल्लिखितविजयाक्षरस्य कलशयोनेरिव विमथितवातापेः पौत्रो महेन्द्रस्येव सुरचित- सम्पदो महेश्वरवर्मणः सुप्रणीतवर्णाश्रमधर्मस्य पुत्रः परमेश्वर इव सर्वाधिकदर्शनः परमेश्वरवर्मा भरत इव सर्वदमनः सगर इव कृतासमंजस्त्यागः कर्ण इव पुष्कलाङ्गियः प्रियकाव्यो ययातिरिब अनुपन्तानां राज्ञां यस्याज्ञौ भरति सर्वदा पीठा । ...... here follows a description of a hard fought battle which is both very real and poetical; विक्रमादित्यं कप्पटमात्रपरिच्छदं एकाकिपलायितं ..तेन परमेश्वरेण नाम मन्त्यवान्तरराष्ट्रे अष्टशतचतुर्वेदकुलसमृद्धकुरग्रामनाममद्रये विद्याविनीतपल्लवपरमेश्वर- गृहे प्रतिष्ठापितस्य भगवतः पिनाकपाणेः पूज्यास्तवनकुसुमगन्धधूपदीपहविरुपहार- बलिश्खपटहादिप्रवर्तनार्थं अत्रैव उदकमभिभारतमारुयानमणिकोटमध्ये पत्यानामय- न्यवान्तरराष्ट्रे ......

v1.c15.s3.3

While Chālukya records represent Pallavas as defeated by Vikramāditya this grant represents him as flying from the field covered with a rag or rather a “langoti.” to use in Marathi. However both accounts may be true; as there are usually successes and reverses between equally matched opponents. The further interest of this record is that it presents Parameśvaravarman as fond of poetry. And the occurrence of the word Rāṣtra as the name of a division or district shows that the Pallavas originally came from the Mahārāṣṭras. We will refer to this again later on.

v1.c15.s3.4

II—Some Nasik cave Inscriptions in Prakrit as read by Senart (latest version) Ep. In. Vol. VIII.

v1.c15.s3.5

(1) No. 22 page 93.

v1.c15.s3.6

सादवाहनकुले कन्हे राजिनि नासिककेन समणेन महामातेण लेण कारित.

v1.c15.s3.7

(Under king Krishna of the Sātavāhana family this cave has been caused to be made by the officer in charge of the Śramaṇas at Nasik)

v1.c15.s3.8

(2) No. 24 page 94.

v1.c15.s3.9

सिधं गणो गोतमीपुतस सामिसिरीयण सातकणिस संवछरे सातमे हेमताण पखे ततीये ३ दिवसे पथमे कोसिकस महासेणापतिस भवगोपस भरिजाय महासेना-पतिणीय वामुय लेण बोपकियतिसुजमान अपयवसितसाने बहुकाणि वरिसानि उकुटे पयवसान नितो चातुदिसस च भिसुसंघस आवासो दतो ति ।

v1.c15.s3.10

(Tran.:--Success. On the first day of the 3rd fortnight of winter in the seventh year of the king the lord Siriya Sātakani son of Gotami, the Mahāsenāpatini Vasu wife of the Mahāsenāpati Bhavagopa of the Kauśika family has completed and given as an abode to the Universal Sangha of monks this cave which has been excavated for many years but after having been created by the ascetic Bopaki had remained uncompleted).

v1.c15.s3.11

III—No. 5 page 73.

v1.c15.s3.12

सिध गोवधने आमचस सामकस देयो राजानितो रत्रो गोतमीपुतस सातक-णिस महादेवाय च जीवसुताय राजमांतय वचनेन गोवधने चोसामको अरोगवतवो ततो एव च वतवो एथ आम्हेहि पवते तिरणहुम्हि अम्हधमदाने लेणे पतिवसतां पवजि-तान भिसून गामे कखडिसु पुव खेतं दत तच खेत..कसते सोच गामो न वसति एवं तति य दानि एथ नगरसीमे राजकं खेत अम्हसतकं ततो एतेस पवजितान भि-सूनं तेरन्हुकानं दद्म खेतस निवतणस तं तस च खेतस परिहार वितराम अपावेस अनोमस अलोणखादच अरठसविनायिक सवजातपारिहारिक च एते हि न परिहारेहि परिहारेठ एत च स खेतपरिहारे च एथ निबधंपेथ अवियेन आणत पटिहारखिय लोटाय छटो लेखो संवछरे २४ वासान पखे ४ दिवसे पचमे ५ सुजिविना कटानिवधो निवधो संवछरे २४ गिम्हाण पखे २ दिवसे १०.

v1.c15.s3.13

(Tran.:--Success. Order of the king to be made over to Sāmaka the officer at Govadhana in the name of the king Sātakani Gotamiputa and of the king's queen-mother whose son is living. Sāmaka the officer at Govadhana shall be addressed with the usual civility and then shall be told thus: "We have here on mount Tirahnu formerly given to the mendicant ascetics dwelling in the cave which is a pious gift of ours a field in the village of Kakhadi. But this field is not tilled nor is the village inhabited. Matters being so that royal village of ours which is now here on the limit of the town, from that field we give to the mendicant ascetics of Tirahnu one hundred Nivartanas of land and to that field we grant immunity not to be entered (by royal officers) not to be touched (by any of them) not to be dug for salt, not to be interfered with by the district police and in short to enjoy all kinds of immunities; invest it with these immunities and take care that the donation of the field and the immunities are duly registered." Verbally ordered. The deed written down by Lota the doorkeeper. The charter executed by Sujivin in the year 24 in the 4th fortnight of the rainy season on the 5th day. The donation had been made in the year 24 in the second fortnight of summer on the 10th day.

Linked texts (10)

Mattavilāsaprahasana — Mahendravarman I, Sanskrit
Epigraphia Indica
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Indian Antiquary
South Indian Inscriptions
Shore Temple
Mamallapuram
Mahendravadi
Kailasanatha Temple
Nāsik cave inscription No. 12 (Ksh. 9) (ed. Senart 1906) — Prakrit