Contents |
Index
|
Introduction
|
Contents
|
List of Plates
|
Additions and Corrections
|
Images
|
Contents |
Altekar, A. S
|
Bhattasali, N. K
|
Barua, B. M And Chakravarti, Pulin Behari
|
Chakravarti, S. N
|
Chhabra, B. CH
|
Das Gupta
|
Desai, P. B
|
Gai, G. S
|
Garde, M. B
|
Ghoshal, R. K
|
Gupte, Y. R
|
Kedar Nath Sastri
|
Khare, G. H
|
Krishnamacharlu, C. R
|
Konow, Sten
|
Lakshminarayan Rao, N
|
Majumdar, R. C
|
Master, Alfred
|
Mirashi, V. V
|
Mirashi, V. V., And Gupte, Y. R
|
Narasimhaswami, H. K
|
Nilakanta Sastri And Venkataramayya, M
|
Panchamukhi, R. S
|
Pandeya, L. P
|
Raghavan, V
|
Ramadas, G
|
Sircar, Dines Chandra
|
Somasekhara Sarma
|
Subrahmanya Aiyar
|
Vats, Madho Sarup
|
Venkataramayya, M
|
Venkatasubba Ayyar
|
Vaidyanathan, K. S
|
Vogel, J. Ph
|
Index.- By M. Venkataramayya
|
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
|
|
|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
not specified in the present grant, were in all probability Aśvamēdhas.[1] The conclusion is therefore
irresistible that these two Mādhavavarmans were identical. The present grant was thus made by
the Vishṇukuṇḍin Emperor Mādhavavarman I.
This Mādhavavarman was a very powerful king. He married a Vākāṭaka princess[2] who
was probably a daughter or some near relative of the last known Vākāṭaka Emperor Harishēṇa
(circa A.D. 475-500).[3] The eighth chapter of the Daśakumāracharita, which probably contains
a reflex of the events in the last period of the Vākāṭaka rule shows that the Vākāṭaka Empire
crumbled soon after the death of Harishēṇa owing to the imbecility of his successor and the treacherous defection of his feudatories.[4] Mādhavavarman I who rose to power about this time took
advantage of the opportunity that had thus presented itself and extended his dominion far and wide.
He performed no less than eleven Aśvamēdhas and thus attained a position of unquestioned supremacy in the Deccan. He is known to have overrun Dakshiṇa Kōsala or Chhattisgarh and occupied
for a time the capital (Śrīpura) of Trivara or Tīvaradēva of the Sōmavaṁśī dynasty.[5] That he
had annexed Mahārāshṭra also can be conjectured from the description in the Īpūr plates of his
grandson Mādhavavarman II as the lord of Trikūṭa and Malaya.[6] Trikūṭa is the well known
name of the hill which borders the Nasik District on the west.[7] Malaya is the equally well known
name of the southern portion of the Western Ghats.[8] In the absence of corroborative evidence
this description of Mādhavavarman II was believed to be an empty boast. Prof Hultzsch, for
instance, remarked while editing the Īpūr plates that both Trikūṭa and Malaya were at a safe
distance from the dominions of Mādhavavarman II although he claims to have ruled over them.[9]
The discovery of the present plates which, as shown below, record the grant of a village in the
Sātārā District, proves that Mahārāshṭra was included in the empire of Mādhavavarman I.[10] It
[1] The number ēkādaśa (eleven) in line 3 of the present plates can not be connected with Bahusuvarṇa, for,
firstly, ēkādaśa is an adjective, not a noun like sahasra, and must therefore precede, not follow, Bahusuvarṇa ;
secondly, Bahusuvarṇa which is identical with Bahuhiraṇya (also called Dūnāśa) is a minor ēkāha (one-day) sacrifice.
See Āśvalāyana-śranta-sūtra, XXII, 8, 26. There is no special point in mentioning that Mādhavavarman I
performed eleven Bahusuvarṇas. On the other hand, we get several references to the performance of eleven
Āśvamēdha : by the Vishṇukuṇḍin king Mādhavavarman I as shown above. [See below p. 316, n8─Ed.]
[2] See the expression Vishṇukuṇḍi-Vākāṭa-vaṁśa-dvay-ālaṁkṛita-janmanaḥ in the description of Mādhavavarman I’s son Vikramēndravarman in the Chikkulla plates, above, Vol. IV, p. 196, text line 10.
[3] Mirashi : Vākāṭaka Inscription in Cave XVI at Ajaṇṭa (Hyderabad Archaeological Series : No. 14), p. 9.
[4] Mirashi : Historical Data in Daṇḍin’s Daśakumāracharita, ABORI, Vol. XXVI, pp. 20 f.
[5] Both his Īpūr and Pulōmbūru plates refer to his dalliance with young ladies in the city of Trivara. For
the identification of Trivara, see Mirashi’s article on the Thakurdiyā plates of Mahā-Pravararāja, above,
Vol. XXII, p. 19. For the location of the capital of Trivara or Tīvaradēva, see Mirashi’s article on the three
ancient dynasties of Mahākōsala in the Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Vol. VIII, pp. 47 f.
[6] Cf. Trikāṭa-Malay-ādhipatir in the description of Mādhavavarman II.
[7] The recently discovered plates of Bhōgaśakti found at Anjanēri near Nasik mention Pūrva-Trikūṭa-vishaya (Eastern Trikūṭa District) in connection with certain taxes levied in favour of a temple situated in the
Nasik District. This shows that Trikūṭa was the name of hill which bordered the Nasik District on the west.
See above, Vol. XXV, p. 232.
[8] Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. XXII, p. 315.
[9] Above. Vol. XVII, p. 338.
_______________________________________________
[10] One of the reasons for Madhavavarman’s conquest of Kuntala or Southern Mahārāshṭra may have been
the treacherous defection of the Kuntalapati when his liege-lord, the Vākāṭaka Emperor who was probably a brother-in-law of Mādhavavarman I was attacked by the king of Vanavāsī. See ABORI, Vol. XXVI, pp. 21 f. Again, the
Vākāṭakas were probably allied matrimonially with the king of Dakshiṇa Kōsala or Chattisgarh, if the description
in the Daśakumāracharita is historically true. Cf. Kōsal-ēndrāt Kusumadhanvanō=sya mātā jātā, said with reference
to the boy prince of Vidarbha. (Daśakumāracharita, B. S. Series, p. 139). The ruling dynasty of Dakshiṇa
Kōsala was about this time overthrown by an ancestor of Tīvaradēva. See Bulletin of the Deccan College Research
Institute, Vol. VIII, pp. 47 f. [The authors of this article, after having identified the Mādhavavarman of the present
charter with the Vishṇukuṇḍin Mādhavavarman I, have obviously been driven to the necessity of assigning such
a vast empire to the otherwise little known dynasty of the Vishṇukuṇḍins. The identification, to say the least is
not very convincing.─Ed.] Mādhavavarman I performed eleven Aśvamēdhas, which shows that he had a large
kingdom. Even if the reading Shōḍaśi is accepted. The identification of this Mādhavavarman with the Vishṇukuṇḍin Mādhavavarman I does not fall to the ground. (Y. R. G.).
|