The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Preface

Contents

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Corrigenda

Images

Introduction

The Discovery of the Vakatakas

Vakataka Chronology

The Home of The Vakatakas

Early Rulers

The Main Branch

The Vatsagulma Branch

Administration

Religion

Society

Literature

Architecture, Sculpture and Painting

Texts And Translations  

Inscriptions of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Feudatories of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Vatsagulma Branch

Inscriptions of The Ministers And Feudatories of The Vatsagulma Branch

Index

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

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE FEUDATORIES OF THE MAIN BRANCH

 

...The inscription is one of Mahārāja Bharata or Bharatabala of the Pāṇḍava lineage, who ruled over the country of Mēkalā. The object of it is to record the grant of the village Vardhamānaka situated in the Pañchagartā-vishaya in the Uttara-rāshṭra (Northern Division) of Mēkalā to the Brāhmaṇa Lōhitasarasāvmin of the Vatsa gōtra and the Mādh yandina śākhā. The charter was written by Śiva the son of the Rāhasika Īśāna, and was engraved by Mihiraka, the son of the goldsmith Īśvara. It is dated in the regnal year 2, on the thirteenth tithi of the dark fortnight of the month Bhādrapada, the nakshatra being Pushya.

... The plates give the following genealogy of the donor :-

.............................................................Jayabala
                                                                   |
                                    Vatsarāja  m.  Drōṇabhaṭṭārikā
                                                                   |
                                    Mahārāja  Nāgabala m.  Indrabhaṭṭārikā
                                                                   |
                        Mahārāja  Bharatabala alias Indra m. Lōkaprakāśā.

... This inscription does not mention any royal title in connection with the names of the first two kings, probably because their description is given in verse. The next two kings Nāgabala and Bharatabala are first described in a prose passage and later eulogised in one or more verses. They are both styled as Mahārāja and described as devout worshippers of Mahēśvara, great patrons of the Brāhmaṇas and as Paramagurudēvatādhidaivatavishēsha which has been taken to mean ‘distinguished as a highly venerable personage, a deity and a supreme divinity’. This last epithet which signifies the divine nature of the kings is not noticed in the inscriptions of even Gupta and Vēkāṭaka kings. A similar epithet, viz., Paramadēvatādhidaivata occurs, however, in the Soro and Patiākellā plates as shown by Dr. Chhabra.

... From verse 5 it appears that Bharata or Bharatabala was also known by the name of Indra. This is also confirmed by his comparison with Indra, the lord of gods, in verses 6 and 8. Bharatabala married Lōkaprakāśā who is described as born in a family descended from gods and as a princess of Kōsalā. Dr. Chhabra’s view that she might be a princess of the Pāṇḍava family of Kosalā cannot be accepted ; for, supposing that there was a Pāṇḍava family ruling over Southern Kōsala in this period it must have been regarded as sagōtra, if not samānōdaka, of the family ruling over the country of Mēkalā. Hindu Dharmaśāstra does not allow marriages between samānōdakas and sagōtras. Lōkaprakāśā probably belonged to the family descend from Śūra. From the Āraṅg plates1 dated in the Gupta year 182 (501-02 A.C.) we learn that this family was ruling in Kōsalā (Chhattisgadh) for at least five generations before Bhīmasēna I who was regning at the time. The five ancestors were Śūra, Dayita (or Dayitavarman I), Bibhīshaṇa, Bhīmasēna I and Dayitavarman II. Lōkaprakāśā, who married Bharatabala was probably a daughter of Bhīmasēna I of Dakshiṇa Kosala.

... As stated before, this dynasty of Mēkala traced its descent from the Pāṇdavas of epic fame. In verse 11 which seems to have a double meaning, the family is called saumya, i.e., descended from Sōma or the Moon. The Pāṇḍavas of the Mahābhārata are known to have belonged to the lunar race.

... As pointed out by Dr. Chhabra, Verse 11 seems to describe not only the king (narēndra) Bharatabala, but also his suzerain Narēndra i.e., the Vākāṭaka king Narēndrasēna.2From
______________________

1Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, pp. 342 f. The date of this plate is G. 182 not 282 as read by the editor. Ibid., Vol. XXVI, p. 228.
2 For a similar instance, see the Surat plates of Śryāśraya Śīlāditya, which describe the Chālukyā Emperor Vinayāditya, the Suzerain of Śryāśraya Śīlāditya.

<< - 1 Page