South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

Sāmantavarman’s task was also perhaps facilitated by the aggressive policy of the Śailōdbhava king Sainyabhīta II who ruled in the first half of the 7th century A.D. This ruler of Kōṅgōda claims to have exercised sovereignty over the whole of Kaliṅga,─ a characteristic phrase also used later by Sāmantavarman and his successors. It is highly probable that the Kōṅgōda king defeated the Gaṅga ruler of Kaliṅga-nagara and conquered a portion of the Ganiam District in the north. But about the middle of the 7th century A.D., the Śailōdbhavas were defeated by Harshavardhana and they almost disappear from the political arena for nearly two centuries.^[1] This was the period during which we find Sāmantavarman and at least three other kings ruling in Śvētaka as independent chiefs.

It may be presumed that the political events described above were not unconnected with each other. The Gaṅgas of Kaliṅga-nagara were weakened by the aggressive policy of the Śailodbhavas in the north and the Eastern Chālukyas in the south. This gave an opportunity to the Gaṅgas of Śvētaka to establish an independent principality in the northern part of the Ganjam District on the collapse of the Śailōdbhava power about the middle of the 7th century A. D., or shortly after that.

This historical review has a bearing on the location of the capital city Śvētaka about which different opinions have been expressed by scholars. The identification of Śvētaka with Śrīkūrmam, proposed by Mr. R. Subba Rao,^[2] must be definitely ruled out, as it is too far south. Mr. Sarma identifies it with Chīkaṭi in the Sompeta tāluk of the Ganjam District,^[3] but the philological ground, on which alone this is based, is not convincing. There is a village called Sadaka, not far from Chīkaṭi (Lat. 84º-6′, Lonng. 19º-48′, in Sheet Atlas No. 74 A). This name resembles Svētaka, but I am not aware if the place contains any antiquity. On the whole, the available evidence indicates that the site of Śvētaka is to be looked for in the northern part of the Ganjam District, but its exact identification must be left an open question.

The actual name of this capital city is also a matter of dispute. Mr. Sarma has expressed the view that the real name of the city is Śchētaka and not Śvētaka.^[4] Dr. B. Ch. Chhabra, after discussing the question at some length, has upheld the reading Śvētaka.5 There is, however, no doubt that the present record, where the letters have been very carefully engraved, definitely gives the name as Śchētaka. This will be evident from a comparison of the first syllable of the name with the conjunct ścha in bhagavataś=charāchara- (l. 1), śarmmabhyaś=cha (l. 11), r=ātmanaś=cha (l. 13); paśchimēna (l. 14), bhavishyataś=cha (l. 16), and gītāś=ch-āttra (l. 18) on the one hand, and śva in Gōkarṇṇēśvara (l. 3), Māhēśvarō (l. 6) and grāmō=śvattha (l. 9) on the other. The grant No. V. also gives the name in the form Śchētaka. On the other hand, there is no doubt that at least in some of the grants of the dynasty (Nos. I, VIII, III, IV) the name is definitely written as Śvētaka. But the difficulty does not end here. For, of the twelve known grants of this dynasty while two give definitely Śchētaka and four others, Śvētaka, no less than four (Nos. VII, IX, X, XI) write the name as Śvētka, and in the two remaining cases we get Śēta (No. VI) and Śvēta (No. XII). It appears that all these differences in the form of the name are caused by an attempt to Sanskritize a vernacular name, and it would not, therefore, perhaps be wise to accept Śvētaka as the only correct form and reject others as mistakes.

Of the other localities mentioned, Lauhaśṛiṅgāra may be the origin of such village name as Loisinga in the feudatory state of Patna, but this identity cannot be regarded as certain of even

__________________________________

^[1]The history of the Śailōdbhavas has been discussed by me with full reference to authorities in J.A.H.R Vol. X, pp. 1 ff.
^[2][J.A.H.R.S., Vol. III, p. 184.
^[3[[J.O.R., Vol. XI, p. 58.
^[4[[Ibid., p. 59, f.n.9.
^[5][ Above, Vol. XXIV, p. 131