|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY no reason why Mahēndragiri should not similarly be taken to be so. Unfortunately, however, this Mahēndragiri of Pishṭapura has not been identified. After Mahēndragiri of Pishṭapura comes Svāmidatta of Kōṭṭūra. Fleet rightly says that Kōṭṭūra is a very common Dravidian place name. He, however, identifies Kōṭṭūra of the inscription with Kōṭṭūr in the Pollachi subdivision of the Coimbatore District, at the foot of one of the passes in the Ānaimalai Hills.1 Smith agrees with him and gives us further information that “the beryl mines of Padiyūr, which were famous in the Roman world at the beginning of the Christian era, were probably included within the limits of this kingdom.”2 This Kōṭṭūr, however, is too far south to be a likely identification. Dubreuil’s suggestion is more probable. He identifies it with Kothoor in the Ganjam District.3 We do not, however, know who its ruler, Svāmidatta, was. Then comes Damana of Ēraṇḍapalla. Fleet identifies Ēraṇḍapalla with Ēraṇḍōl, the chief town of a subdivision of the same name in the Khandesh District, Maharashtra.4 According to Dubreuil,5 it is the same as Ēraṇḍapali mentioned in the Siddhāntam plates of the Gaṅga king Dēvēndravarman. Both the grantee and the writer of this charter, we are told, hailed from this town which therefore seems to be of some importance.6 Ēraṇḍapali was thus not far from Chicacole (Śrīkākulam) in the former Ganjam District, but now in Andhra Pradesh.
After subjugating the Kōsala kingdom which most probably included the Kaliṅga and
the Telugu territory, Samudragupta proceeded very much down to the south and defeated
Vishṇugōpa of Kāñchī. Kāñchī is undoubtedly the modern Conjeeveram (Kāñchīpuram)
in the Chingleput District, Tamil Nadu. And Vishṇugōpa seems to be identical with the
earliest Pallava king of that name, for whom Dubreuil has assigned the period 325-350 A.D.7
The next ruler of Dakshiṇāpatha mentioned is Nīlarāja of Avamukta. Nothing is known about
him and his territory. Thereafter has been mentioned Hastivarman of Vēṅgī. “Vēṅgī
was a country on the east coast, of which the original boundaries appear to have been,
towards the west, the Eastern Ghauts, and, on the north and south, the rivers Gōdāvarī
and Kṛishṇā; an indication of the position of its original capital is probably
preserved in the name of Vēgi or Pedda-Vēgi, a village in the Ellore tāluka of
the Gōdāvarī District.”8 As regards Hastivarman, he seems to be the same as Hastivarman
of the Sālaṅkāyana family, as has been pointed out by Aiyangar.9 The next king
attacked was Ugrasēna of Pālakka. The kingdom of Pālakka has been identified by
Smith10 with the division of Palghat or Pālakkāḍu in the south of the Malabar District.
Dubreuil,11 with greater probability, identifies Pālakka with a capital of the same name which
was situated to the south of the Krishna river and which is mentioned in many Pallava copper-
plates. Nothing, however, is known about Ugrasēna. The next ruler mentioned is Kubēra of
Dēvarāshṭra. Smith12 takes Dēvarāshṭra to be identical with Mahārāshṭra. But there is no
authority for it. It had better be identified with the province of Dēvarāshṭra mentioned in
one of the eight copper-plate grants found in the District of Visakhapatnam and examined 1 CII., Vol. III, 1888, p. 7, note 2.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|