South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

PHERAVA GRANT OF SAMANTAVARMAN, KING OF KALINGA, YEAR 185

of imperial titles by some of the rulers (Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11). It is significant that the grant of Rāṇaka Jayavarman was registered (lāñchhita) by the Trikaliṅga-Mahādēvī. This shows that Trikaliṅga was included in the kingdom, and may even be taken to indicate that the kingdom was also sometimes known by that name. As I have suggested elsewhere, Trikaliṅga probably designates the hilly tracts, lying to the west of Kaliṅga and separating it from the Central Provinces.^[1]

For reasons stated above, it may be assumed that Sāmantavarman, originally a petty local chief of Śvētaka, laid the foundations of the independent kingdom. This is also supported by paleographic considerations, as the alphabet of Sāmantavarman’s grants is the earliest in the series of Śvētaka records. The date of Sāmantavarman’s grants is the earliest in the of certainty. It contains a date in three figures which was read by Mr. Sarma as 185.^[2] The first figure is undoubtedly 100, and the last, 5. “The middle one, however,” as Dr. Chhabra has pointed out,^[3] “answers neither to 8 nor to 80, as a comparison of it with the known symbols of these numerals will prove.” On the other hand, it should be remembered that the symbol does not closely resemble any numerical symbol or figure used in the Kaliṅga records.

>

Dr. Chhabra proposes to read it as 6. But this figure, as used in the Kōmarti plates referred to by him, as well as in other records,^[4] has a long horizontal line at the top, resembling medial ā sign, which is altogether wanting in the present case. The only instance known to me of a numerical symbol, similar to that used in the present record, is the figure for 8 in Column VI of Bühler’s Chart. This, however, refers to the Kushāṇa period, and it would not be safe to accept it as of equal value five centuries later. But still, until more satisfactory identification is forthcoming, it would perhaps be better to interpret the symbol as 8, and read the date provisionally as 185. It may be noted that the two other symbols, viz. those for 100 and 5, may also be traced to very old times.

Whether the date be read as 185 or 165 (or any other figure between 115 and 195), it should be referred to the Gaṅga Era. For the alphabet of the present record closely resembles that of the Gaṅga records of Kaliṅga dated in the second century of that era. The epoch of the Gaṅga Era has not been finally determined yet, but there is a general consensus of opinion that it commenced towards the very end of the 5th or by the middle of the 6th century A.D.5 Sāmantavarman may thus be place towards the latter part of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th century A.D. The Gaṅgas of Kaliṅganagara were at this time busy defending their territory against the Eastern Chālukyas who had already conquered Madhyama-kaliṅga corresponding to the southern part of the Vizagapatam District. It is to be noted that almost all the records of the Gaṅgas of Kaliṅga-nagara refer to the region comprising the northern part of the Vizagapatam and the southern part of the Ganjam Districts. The territories immediately to the south were in possession of the Eastern Chālukyas during the latter part of the seventh and the first part of the eighth century A.D.6 It is probable, therefore, that Sāmantavarman, taking advantage of the troubles of the Gaṅgas of Kaliṅga-nagara, founded an independent principality in the northern part of the Ganjam District. This view is supported by the fact that almost all the records of the line of kings founded by him have been found in this region.

__________________________________

^[1]Dacca University Studies, Vol. II. No. II, p. 19.
^[2]J.O.R.,Vol. XI, p. 58. This is also the reading in the Ann. Rep. S. I. Epigraphy, 1937-38, p. 80.
^[3] Above, Vol. XXIV, p. 132. [Subsequently I had another occasion to study the formation of the symbols
for 6 and 8; see above, p. 30. I now accept the view that the disputed sing stands for 8. The reading of the
year as 185 may therefore be taken as final.─B. Ch. Chhabra.]
^[4] Cf. e.g. Pedavegi C.P. (J.A.H.R.S., Vol. I, p. 94).
^[5] For the different views on this subject, cf. above, Vol. XXIV, p. 181, f.n. 8. The latest view is that of
Prof. V. V. Mirashi, according to whom the Gaṅga era commenced in A. D. 498-99 ; see above, Vol. XXVI, p. 330.
^[6] This has been discussed by me with full reference to authorities in Dacca Univ. Studies, Vol. II, No. II. pp. 24 ff.