The Indian Analyst

South Indian Inscriptions







List of Plates





The Discovery of the Vakatakas

Vakataka Chronology

The Home of The Vakatakas

Early Rulers

The Main Branch

The Vatsagulma Branch





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


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





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

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





...GAUTAMĪPUTRA, the eldest son1 of Pravarasēna I, predeceased his father. The latter was therefore succeeded by his grandson Rudrasēna I in circa 330 A.C. In later Vākāṭaka records Rudrasēna I is invariably described as the daughter’s son of Bhavanāga, the Mahārāja of the Bhāraśivas, which indicates that the young prince had the powerful support of the Nāgas of Padmāvatī. Only one inscription of his reign has been discovered, viz., that at Dēoṭēk in the Chāndā District of Vidarbha.2 It is incised on large slab of stone after chiselling off an earlier record, issued probably by a Mahāmātra of Aśōka the Great, prohibiting the capture and slaughter of animals. The Vākāṭaka inscription on the slab records that the shrine where the slab was put up was the dharma-sthāna (place of religious worship) of the Rājan Rudrasēna. Rudrasēna I was a fervent devotee of Mahābhairava, the terrific god created by Śiva for the destruction of Daksha’s sacrifice. He had no regard for the doctrine of ahiṁsā preached by Aśōka. He therefore apparently had no scruples in getting his own inscription incised on the same slab which contained an old proclamation of the great Buddhist Emperor prohibiting the capture and slaughter of animals.

...Rudrasēna I was a contemporary of the mighty Gupta king Samudragupta. His age was therefore a period of great convulsion in the country to the north of the Narmadā. Samudragupta, with the powerful support of the Lichchhavis of Vaiśālī, embarked upon a career of conquest and annexation in North India. His Allāhābād pillar inscription mentions a large number of princes of Āryāvarta or the country to the north of the Narmadā whom he forcibly dethroned and whose kingdoms he annexed.3 Among these rulers were the Nāga princes Nāgadatta, Gaṇapati Nāga and Nāgasēna. Of these, Gaṇapati Nāga. was probably the contemporary ruler of Padmāvatī; for, his coins have been found there. He was evidently the successor of Bhavanāga. The other Nāga princes were probably ruling over smaller states in Central India. We do not know what measures Rudrasēna I took to help his relatives in North India, but there is no doubt that their final defeat and overthrow deprived him of the support of a powerful confederacy of the Nāga States.

...After subduing the princes of North India, Samudragupta led his expedition to the south. The first king who felt the weight of his arms was Mahēndra, the lord of Kōsala, i.e. Chhattisgaḍh. This king may previously have been a feudatory of the Vākāṭakas, his

1 Dr.D.R.Bhandarkar, drawing attention to the faulty construction in the stereotyped form of the Vākāṭaka genealogy, suggested that Gautamīputra was the grandson, not the son, of Pravarsēna I. If this view is accepted, the successor of Pravarasēna I would be his great-grandson as Gautamīputra did not evidently come to the throne, the expression Vākāṭakānāṁ Mahārāja, which occurs invariably in the description of every Vākāṭaka king, being absent in his case. Again, if Gautamīputra was the grandson, not the son of Pravarasēna I, who was the son of the latter ? Why is his name omitted ? These questions cannot be satisfactorily answered. For further discussion of this question, see my article in Ind. Cult., Vol. XI, pp. 232-33.
2 No. 1
3 Some scholars identify Rudradēva mentioned in the Allāhābād pillar inscription as uprooted by Samudragupta with the Vākāṭaka Rudrasēna I, but the former was a ruler of Āryāvarta or North India, While the Vākāṭakas had, in this early period, no foot-hold north of the Narmadā as shown above. Again, as Dr. Altekar has shown, if Rudrasēna I had been killed by Samudragupta, his son Pṛithivīshēṇa I would not have accepted Prabhāvatīguptā, the grand-daughter of Samudragupta, as a bride for his son Rudrasēna II. Ind., Cult., Vol IX, pp. 103 f.

Page 2 - >>