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

THE HOME OF THE VAKATAKAS

 

Harivaṁśa1, was situated at the foot of the Ṛikshavat mountain, which is usually identified with the Sātpudā range. The town was therefore situated south of the Vindhyas. Pravīra (or Pravarasēna I), the son of Vindhyaśakti, is mentioned in this passage immediately after Śīśuka, probably because that Vākāṭaka prince succeeded the latter in that territory. It may be noted in this connection that Purikā appears to be mentioned as a capital of Pravīra in the next verse. Pargiter gives the following reading of it :–

images/xii

...If this reading is adopted, the name of the Vākāṭaka capital would be Kāñchanakā, but this reading would make the particle cha meaningless and inserted in the line merely for pādapūraṇa. I, therefore, adopt Jayaswal’s ingenious emendation images/xii1 meaning that Pravarasēna ruled from two capitals Purikā and Chanakā. The verse, if thus read, would satisfactorily explain why the Vākāṭaka king is mentioned immediately after Śiśuka. He evidently annexed the latter’s kingdom and made Purikā a second capital of his empire, which thus extended to the Vindhyas in the north. This passage in the Purāṇas does not, therefore, give any indication that the Vākāṭakas originally belonged to Central India.

........(2)Another argument which is sometimes advanced to prove the northern origin of the Vākāṭakas is the identification of Rudradēva mentioned in the Allāhābād pillar inscription of Samudragupta with Rudrasēna I of the Vākāṭaka dynasty. This implies the existence of the Vākāṭaka empire in North India during the reigns of the early kings, Rudrasēna I and his grandfather Pravarasēna I. The identification is, however, extremely unlikely. Rudradēva, who is mentioned in that inscription as a king of Āryāvarta exterminateed by Samudragupta, must have been previously ruling north of the Vindhyas. We have, however, no inscription of the reigon of the Vākāṭaka Rudrasēna I or of any earlier king of the dynasty from North India. The only record of Rudrasēna I discovered so far is the stone inscription found at Dēoṭēk in the Chāndā District of Vidarbha2. Rudrasēna I was, therefore, ruling in Vidarbha, not in Central India. Besides, as Dr. Altekar has already observed,3 if Rudrasēna I had been exterminated by Samudragputa, it is extremely unlikely that his son Pṛithivishēṇa I would ever have selected a Gupta princess (viz. Prabhāvatīguptā) to be his daughter-in-law. For all these reasons, the identification of Rudradēva of the Allāhābād pillar inscription with the Vākāṭaka Rudrasēna I is extremely unlikely and it cannot substantiate the northern origin of the Vākāṭakas.

........ (3)The surest indication of the rule of any king in a particular territory is the original findspot of his stone inscriptions. Copper-plates and coins are easily carried from place to place and are sometimes found hundreds of miles away from their original places. Stone inscriptions are generally not transported in this manner. Now, there is not a single inscription of any Vākāṭaka king found north of the Vindhyas. Two stone inscriptions4 of a prince named Vyāghradēva, who describes himself as ‘meditating on the feet of the Vākāṭaka Pṛithivīshēṇa’ have, however, been discovered in Central India – one at Nachnē-ki-talāi in the former Jasō State, and the other at Ganj in the former
____________________

1 Cf. Harivaṁśa, Vishṇuparvan, 38, 22, ऋक्षवन्तं समभितस्तीरे तत्र निरामये। निर्मिता सा पुरी राज्ञा पुरिका नाम नामतः॥ Ṛikshavat is mentioned in the Vishṇupurāṇa as the source of the Tāpī, Payōshṇī and Nirvindhyā and therefore corresponds to the Sātpuḍā mountain. Cf तापीपयोष्णीनिर्विन्ध्याप्रमुखा ऋक्षसम्भवाः ॥
2 No. 1.
3 N.H.I.P., Vol. VI, p. 105.
4 Nos. 20-21 and 22.

<< - 1 Page