The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Preface

Contents

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Additions And Corrections

Images

Miscellaneous

Inscriptions And Translations

Kalachuri Chedi Era

Abhiras

Traikutakas

Early Kalachuris of Mahishmati

Early Gurjaras

Kalachuri of Tripuri

Kalachuri of Sarayupara

Kalachuri of South Kosala

Sendrakas of Gujarat

Early Chalukyas of Gujarat

Dynasty of Harischandra

Administration

Religion

Society

Economic Condition

Literature

Coins

Genealogical Tables

Texts And Translations

Incriptions of The Abhiras

Inscriptions of The Maharajas of Valkha

Incriptions of The Mahishmati

Inscriptions of The Traikutakas

Incriptions of The Sangamasimha

Incriptions of The Early Kalcahuris

Incriptions of The Early Gurjaras

Incriptions of The Sendrakas

Incriptions of The Early Chalukyas of Gujarat

Incriptions of The Dynasty of The Harischandra

Incriptions of The Kalachuris of Tripuri

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

ABHIRAS

images/xxxvi
The elder son of Krishnadāsa, whose name is now illegible, was overwhelmed with sorrow at the premature death of his younger brother Ravisāmba. He began to lead a pious life and caused several stūpas and vihāras to be constructed. He also got the Vihāra Cave XVII and the Chaitya Cave XIX at Ajantā excavated, while Harishēna, ‘the moon among princes’(kshitindra-chandra), was protecting the earth.

The foregoing account of the inscription in Ajantā cave XVII shows that the last of these princes was a contemporary and probably a feudatory of the Vākātaka Emperor Harishēna, who flourished from circa 475 A. C. to 500 A. C.1 He was preceded by ten other princes. The first of these may, therefore, be placed in circa 272-300A. C. He seems to have been placed in charge of a part of Khandesh by the contemporary Ābhīra Emperor

t>

Some of these princes mentioned in this Ajantā inscription were evidently contemporaries of Svāmidāsa, Bhulunda and Rudradāsa, whose dates range from 316 A.C. to 366 A.C., but the latter names do not occur anywhere, in the genealogy of the Ajantā inscription. There were, therefore, two separate branches of the same family ruling in different Parts of Khandesh. One of them was ruling at Valkha as shown above.2 The capital of the other is not known.

After the fall of the Ābhiras, these princes of Khandesh seem to have transferred their allegiance to the Vākātakas. A fragmentary verse in the inscription in Cave XVI at Ajantā states that the Vākātakas Emperor Harishēna raided or exacted tribute from Trikuta3 which comprised the territory round Nasik. Khandesh, which lay between Vidarbha and Trikūta, must have likewise submitted to the Vākātakas. This is also indicated by the manner in which the Vākātaka Emperor Harishēna is mentioned in the inscription in Ajantā Cave XVII. Further, the Daśakumāracharita which, in its last uchchhvāsa, gives a narrative reflecting the last period of Vākātaka rule,4 viz., the reign of Harishēna’s son, mentions the ruler of Rishīka (i. e., modern Khandesh)5 as a feudatory of the king of
_________

1 H. A. S., No.14, p. 9.
2 D. C. Sircar has recently objected to the view mentioned above on the ground that the Paramabhattāraka overlords of feudatory Mahārājas are unknown before the age of the Imperial Guptas. He would place these Mahārājas of Valkha in the Anūpa country and refer the dates of their grants, viz., the years 67, 107 and 117 to the Gupta era. H.C.I.P., Vol. II, p. 222, n.3. It is difficult to accept this view. We have no other grants, made by feudatory princes of the Deccan in the pre-Gupta age, from which we could have drawn any conclusion about their titles and the manner in which they described their own feudatory status. The suggestion that these dates refer to the Gupta era is also not free from difficulties. The Guptas do not seem to have penetrated to the Anūpa country as early as G. 67 (386-87 A. C.). The earliest Gupta record found even in Eastern Malwa is dated G. 82. Anūpa, which lay farther west, could not have been included in the Gupta Empire fifteen years before. That these Mahārājas belonged to khandesh is clearly indicated by the similarity of the names of two of them to those of some rulers of Khandesh, mentioned in the inscription in Ajantā cave XVII which belongs to the Vākātaka age.
3 H. A. S., No. 14 p. II.
4 A. B. O. R. I., Vol. XXVI, pp. 20 ff. .
5 For this identification, see ibid. Vol. XXV, pp. 167 ff. .

 

  Home Page