North Indian Inscriptions

SOCIAL HISTORY

yatē. This shows that the Kshatriya borrowed from his Purōhita, not his gōtra, but his pravara. Those who are conversant with this subject know full well that the Śrautasūtras always make a distinction between gōtra and pravara. Thus the Māṭhara gōtra from which the metronymic Māṭharīputra is derived has the three pravaras: Kāśyapa, Āvatsāra and Naidhruva. But these pravaras are not the monopoly of Māṭhara only but are possessed in common by no less than eighty others gōtras, such as Kāśyapa, Chhāgari, Aitiśāyaṇa and so forth.¹ There is no such things as one set of pravaras for one gōtra. Even supposing that a Kshatriya affiliates himself to the gōtra of his Purōhita for religious purposes as Bühler says, why should that gōtra be binding upon the Kshatriya for secular purposes, why, in other words, should the Kshatriya avoid marrying a girl, not of his own Kshatriya clan, but of the Purōhita’s gōtra which cannot but be an extraneous something foisted upon his family? This point is quite clear to whosoever studies the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscriptions. The kings mentioned in these records are Chāṁtamūla, his son Vīrapurushadatta and the latter’s son Ehuvala-Chāṁtamūla. The first and the third of these princes are Vāsishṭhīputra and the second Māṭharīputra, but they are all known by the Kshatriya clan name, Ikshvāku. Again, these Ikshvākus enter into matrimonial alliances with the Pūgīyas (Pūkīyas), Kuluhakas, Hiraṇyakas and Dhanikas. These are not found as the names of Brāhmaṇa gōtras in any one of the Śrautasūtras and must therefore be presumed to be Kshatriya clans. Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that one Pūgīya, Skandaśrī, who had married a sister of Chāṁtamūla, styles himself Vāsishṭhīputra. What could be the meaning of this ? What could be the meaning of these Kshatriya rulers and noblemen having mothers who belonged to Brāhmaṇa gōtras and were thus Vāsishṭhī and Māṭharī. The only conclusion possible in these circumstances is that in the ancient period ranging from circa 150 B.C. to circa 350 A.D. there were intercaste marriages, even of the pratilōma type. The history of these Ikshvākus clearly shows that the Brāhmaṇas were ready to give their daughters in marriage to Kshatriyas if they but belonged to the ruling family.

>

If any futher proof is required, it is furnished by the Nasik cave inscription referred to above. It records the gift of the cave by the mother of the Śātavāhana overlord, Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi. Therein, be it noted, she calls herself Gōtamī Balasiri (=Gautamī Balaśrī).² It is quite evident from this that the mother of Gautamīputra retains her gōtra name, namely, Gautamī, though this Śātavāhana king is nowhere mentioned by any Brāhmaṇa gōtra appellation. Such is exactly the case with the rulers and noblemen adverted to in the Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscriptions. They are all mentioned by their Kshatriya clan names, such as Ikshvāku, Pūgīya and so forth but never by any Brāhmaṇa gōtra. Such was not, however, the case with the Brāhmaṇas of this period. Thus the Silaharā cave inscriptions speak of their being excavated by an amātya of king Svāmidatta who is called Mūladēva and styled Vātsa and Maudgalīputra.³ The first is a patronymic and shows that his father was a Brāhmaṇa of the Vātsa gōtra. The second is a metronymic and shows that his mother’s father was a Brāhmaṇa of the Mudgala gōtra. Another instance, if it is at all necessary, is that furnished by a Maḷavaḷḷi pillar record⁴ which speaks of the grantee Nāgadatta as not only of the Kauṇḍinya gōtra but also as Kauśikīputra. This clearly shows that Nāgadatta was born not only of a Brāhmaṇa mother but also of a Brāhmaṇa father.

       The second question that now arises is: what the use of these metronymics at all? There can be but one reply. When and where polygamy is in existence, it becomes necessary to distinguish the sons of one wife from those of another. The custom is still in vogue in Rājputānā. If a Rājpūt marries more than one princess, they are distinguished one from the other,
_____________________

¹ Baudh. Śr. Sūt. (Bibli. Ind.), Vol. III, pp. 448-49.
² Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 60, line 9.
³ Ibid., Vol. XXII, pp. 30 and ff.
⁴ Lüders’ List, No. 1196.