South Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MINISTERS AND FEUDATORIES OF THE
VATSAGULMA BRANCH

Malabar Brāhmaṇas. As shown below, the reading Malaya is extremely doubtful, and apart from this reading, there is no evidence to place the homeland of this family so far to the south. It appears more likely that the family originally belonged to the southern portion of the former Hyderabad State; for even now there is a village named Vēlūr in the (Yelgaṇḍal) Karīmnagar District of that State. It may be noted in this connection that the Vākāṭakas who patronised this family appear to have originally belonged to the same part of the country; for the earliest mention of the name Vākāṭaka occurs in a pilgrim record on a pillar at Amarāvatī¹, which lies only about 150 miles south by east of Vēlūr. It is not unlikely that both these families which rose to distinction in the same period and were connected intimately with each other for several generations hailed from the same part of the country which was apparently the Central Deccan. This gives a plausible explanation of how the Vākāṭakas rose to power in Vidarbha or Central Deccan immediately after the downfall of the Sātavāhanas.

...The present inscription has also a bearing on the age of the Ghaṭōtkacha cave which has been variously estimated. In a note added to Bhagvanlal’s transcript of this inscription, Burgess stated that Bhagvanlal’s view that the Ghaṭōtkacha cave is of a somewhat later date than the Ajaṇṭā caves XVI, XVII and XXVI was borne out also by its architecture. Subsequently, Burgess seems to have modified his view, evidently in view of Bühler’s interpretation of the present record; for he remarked in his report on the Buddhist Cave- Temples and their Inscriptions (A.S.W.I., Vol. IV) as follows:− “It seems probable that Hastibhōja was the excavator of this cave which would thus belong to a period somewhat anterior to the Ajaṇṭā vihāra excavated by his son”. As shown above, the Ghaṭōtkacha cave also was excavated during the reign of the Vākāṭaka king Harishēṇa by a son of the minister of Hastibhōja, who was probably Varāhadēva. It is therefore of the same age as the Vihāra Caves XVI and XVII and the Gandhakuṭī or Chaitya Cave XIX, all of which were excavated during the reign of the same Vākāṭaka king. Any differences that may be noticeable in the architectures of these caves must be attributed to individual workmanship and not to a difference in their age

_________________

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. XV, p. 267.
² From inked estampages supplied by the Archaeological Department, Hyderabad State.
³ Metre of vv.1 and 2. Upajāti.
⁴ The readings in the second half of this verse are not quite certain. Bhagvanlal read तनयाप्युदारा, and Bühler तनया प्युदारा: Bühler added in a note, “Either तनयाxप्युदारा: नया ह्मुदारा: to be read”. The akshara before ह्मु is certainly भयन्तिand the verbal form भवन्ति shows that the subject must be in the plural. So तनया ह्मुदारा:   must be the intended reading.
⁵ Bhagvanlal read -र्व्वशो, and Bühler -र्व्वशो, seems to have been repeated afterव्‌ Again र्‌ appears much below the line so that there is sufficient space for the superscript guttural nasal ङ् though it is not quite certain here. Ser वङ्शजासु in line 6 below. Read र्व्वेशो.
⁶ Metre : Indravajra.