The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s9.2

v1.c8.s9.2

Till recently there was considerable confusion and uncertainty about Vākāṭaka history and genealogy subsequent to the death of Pravarasena II. The Bālāghāṭ plates of his grandson showed that he was succeeded by his son Narendrasena and the latter by *his* son Pṛthivīsheṇa II. Narendrasena had to re-establish the sovereignty of his family and Pṛthivīsheṇa II had twice to make a determined effort for the same purpose. It was once held that the misfortunes of this line were due to disputed successions, and the fragmentary inscription in cave XVI at Ajaṇṭā was believed to be evidence in support of this theory. Bhagwānlāl and Bühler, who edited this record in the nineteenth century, thought that it contained the genealogy of the main line and showed that Pravarasena II was succeeded not by Narendrasena and Pṛthviśeṣa II, as stated by the Bālāghāṭ plates, but first by a prince only eight years old, and then by his son and grandson, Devasena and Hariṣeṇa respectively. It was therefore naturally held by all scholars that after the death of Pravarasena II there was a long feud between his sons, and the catastrophes which befell the family, referred to in the Bālāghāṭ plates, were usually attributed to the disputes between the sons of Pravarasena II and their descendants. There were different theories in the field about the identity of the young prince of eight years, whose name has not been preserved in the Ajanta record, and of the relative seniority as between him and Narendrasena.