The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

Preface

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Political History

Administration

Social History

Religious History

Literary History

Gupta Era

Krita Era

Texts and Translations

The Gupta Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

POLITICAL HISTORY

Baijanath or Kārtikēyapura as the capital of the Katyūri Rājās in the Almora District, as we shall see later on.

       It will thus be seen that the pratyanta kingdoms bordered the Gupta dominions on the east and the north and that they were called pratyanta because they were on the frontiers of Āryāvarta. But on the west and north-west of these dominions were many tiny states which in this period seem to have been governed by various tribes of whom as many as nine have been named. The list is headed by the Mālavas, who were originally the same as the Malloi of the Greek writers and were living in the time of Alexander near the confluence of the Akesinos (Chenab) and the Hydraotis (Ravi) in the erstwhile Panjab. They appear afterwards to have migrated southwards and were in occupation of a province called Nāgarchāl in the south-eastern portion of the Jaipur State, where their coins are found in numbers. As these range approximately from B.C. 150 to 250 A.D., they seem to have been settled in that province during that period.1 In the Gupta epoch, however, they appear to have migrated still further southward. This is indicated by the findspots of the inscriptions of this period which are dated according to Mālava-kāla. At this time they seem to have occupied Mewar and Kotah in Rajasthan and parts of Madhya Pradesh adjoining them, in fact, the whole of the region indicated by long. 75-76° and lat. 24-25°.2 Originally they no doubt were a gaṇa or tribal oligarchy, as is clearly indicated by their coins, but in the later period they seem to have assumed a monarchical constitution, because there are some inscriptions where their Mālava-kāla is spoken of as being the era Mālavēśānām ‘of the Mālava lords’.3 The Ārjunāyanas are known from Varāhamihira’s Bṛihatsaṁhitā4 and also from their coins, of which, however,only a few specimens have been found. The joint cabinets of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Indian Museum contain only two which may be assigned to circa 100 B.C.5 They are closely related, in one way or another, to the money of the Northern Kshatrapas, Yaudhēyas and other ancient powers. “And the Ārjunāyana country,” says Smith, “may reasonably be regarded as corresponding to the region, . . . roughly speaking, the Bharatpur and Alwar States, west of Agra and Mathura, the principal seat of the Northern Satraps.”6 “Cunningham classed the Ārjunāyana coins with those of Mathurā, because they are procurable in that city.”7 But the exact provenance of their coins has not been recorded. In these circumstances, as they have been placed by our inscription between the Mālavas and the Yaudhēyas, they may be taken as occupying the region consisting of the erstwhile Bundi and Karauli States and the eastern half of Jaipur.8

       The Yaudhēyas seem to have been in existence from the time of Pāṇini, who speaks of them as an āyudha-jīvin Saṁgha.9 This expression is the same as śastr-ōpajīvin used by Kauṭalya. And both denote a tribal corporation “subsisting on arms”. Originally they seem to have been a tribal band of mercenaries and constituted one kind of a king’s army. In the time of Pāṇini they were an ēka-rāja Kshatriya tribe which means that so far as their tribal constitution was concerned they were governed by one ruler, but exercised no political
____________________ ______________

1 Car. Lec., 1921, pp. 12-13. Read, in this connection, an excellent article by A. C. Banerji on The Mālavas in ABORI., Vol. XIII, pp. 218-19.
2 Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 404; D. R. Bhandarkar’s A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, Nos. 3, 5-7 and 9.
3 D. R. Bhandarkar, A List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, Nos. 18 and 346.
4 Ind. Ant., Vol. XXII, pp. 172-73.
5 V. A. Smith, Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Vol. I, pp. 160 and 166.
6 JRAS., 1897, p. 886.
7 Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Vol. I, p. 160.
8 B. C. Law suggests that as Yaudhēya is given as one of the sons of Yudhishṭhira in Ādi-P., ch. 95, v. 76, Ārjunāyana may be taken as a descendant of Arjuna (NIA, Vol. I, p. 460). Prārjuna may similarly be connected with Arjuna. The same thing happened in the case of the Ikshvākus.
9 Car. Lec., 1918, pp. 165-67.