Showing posts with label orissa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label orissa. Show all posts

Who is Trivara deva? : Panduvamsis reign

In the Article on Vishnukundin we have seen Madhavavarman Janasraya gives in his inscription both in Ipur Plates and Polamuru Plates.
MeaningThe Delighter of the hearts of the young ladies in the palace(Palaces) of Trivaranagara

Who is this Trivara deva? Where is Trivaranagara? what is the date of this Trivara ? that has been the problem. We seeking answers to these questions in the article.

In these circumstances Mirashi and Sircar identified the Trivaranagara to be the capital of Mahasiva Trivaradeva, the panduvamsi ruler of Kosala. Who should have been powerful ruler of to be mentioned again and again. This grant was made in fortyeight year of his reign, shortly before the end of the regime.
The problem is due to identifying Suryavarman maternal grandfather of Sivagupta Balarjuna with son of Mukhari Isavarvarman mentioned in Haraha Inscription of 554AD and that of Taravaranagara mentioned in Ipur and Polamur Plates by Vishnukudin Madhavavarman with Mahasiva Tivara. Add this to Panduvamsis who is now accepted to be successors of sarabhapuriyas. So we have to identify the identity of suryavarman to identify Trivara.

Sircar is of the view, Trivara is contemproary of Visnukundin king Madhavavarman I, Maukhari Prince Suryavarman , son of Isanavarman and flourished in the later part of 6th century AD.

D.Chopdar has tried to assign Trivaradeva to later date of 7th century AD. This is on the basis that Queen Vasata , wife of Harsha gupta as daughter of Suryavarman, who very likely belong to family of Yashovaraman, who conquered Magadha in 725AD.

Chopdar further argues that Trivaradeva cannot be placed in 6th century AD because. In the charters of Sailodbhava king Dharmaraja Srimanabhita, there is a description of civil war between brothers Dhramaraja and Madhava after the deate of their father Madhyamarajal. In this war Madhava was defeated by Phasika and sought help from King Trivara. Joint forces of Trivara and Madhava were routed by Dhramaraja after which Madhava spent his last days in the territory of Trivaradeva, which is in south of Vindhya.

R.D Banerjee says that Trivaradeva who Sailodbhava king Dhramaraja claims to have defeated is undoubtedly Mahasivagupta Trivara, the brother of Chandaragupta and uncle of Harshagupta of Malwa Guptas. The Ganjam plates of Madhavaraja I is dated to 619AD, the cuttack museum gives the regnal date of 50 years. Hist ond Madhayamaraja ruled for atleast 26 years as konw from Parikud grants. His son might have ended in the last decade of 7th century AD.

From the above discussions, it is clear that Trivaradeva belongs to Panduvamsis dynasty.

There are two lines of Panduvamsis. One who ruled Mekala (Amarkantak in Shahdol dist of Madhya Pradesh) and another ruled Kosala region.

Panduvamsis of Mekala

From the Copper plate inscriptions of the reign of Udirnavaira found at Malhar and Bamhni we get some geneology and chronology of Panduvamsi dynasty, ruling around 5th century AD. Burhikhar and Malga have yeilded other inscriptions of this dynasty.
Jayabala (founder

Panduvamsis of South Kosala

The power of Panduvamsis were consolidated by Triavaradeva.
Indrabala (Sons Bhavadeva, Ishanadeva, Nanna I)
Nanna I(Sons Trivaradeva, Chandragupta)
Nanna II
Harshagupta (Sons Shivagupta, Ranakesarin)

Both Panduvamsis are related?

V V Mirashi suggested a link where Udyana the first known king of Panduvamsis of Kosala was shown as the son of Bharatabala, last known king of Panduvamshis of Mekala. The Bharatbala was also known as Indra. Now Udhayana has son name Indrabala. As per Indian Tradition grandson gets his grandfather name. However A M Shastri says last known Panduvamshis of Mekala was Surabala. We have no idea to know whether udayana and Surabala are brothers or not related at all.

Dating Panduvamsis of Kosala
D R Bhandarkar while editing sanjan plates(871AD) of Rastrakuta Amoghavarsha mentions that Chandragupta defeated Rastrakuta Govinda III. Bhandarkar equated Chandragupta to panduvamshis. S R Nema this identification is erroneous. So his hyposthesis does not hold water.

J F Fleet while editing Rajim grant of Tivaradeva mentions that Tivaradeva cannot be assigned earlier than roughly 800AD.

Kielhorn while editing Kudopali plates assign Rajim plates to middle of 8th century.

Hira Lal while editing Lakshmana temple Inscription assigns the inscription to eigth or ninth century AD.

Alphabets in the records of Panduvamshis are written in box headed alphabets. Which are the western type variant of alphabets used by Vakataka , Kadamba and Guptas. V V Mirashi and D.C Sircar pointed this and the Tivaradeva cannot be dated in 8th century AD but earlier than that. Mirashi, while editing Thakurdiya plates of Pravararaja assigns him to 530-550 AD, later he changed it to 520-540AD.

According to Alexander Cunningham Tivaradeva was assigned to 425-450AD.

Mirashi points out in the Vishnukundin inscription by Madhavarman III mentions him as the delighter of the hearts of ladies of Trivaranagara. We have already seen the description of this in the article Reign of Vishnukundin. So let us move on. So Trivaradeva date here is pushed before 520AD. The capital city of Panduvamshis is Sripura.

Mirashi suggested Suryavarman father of Vasata, mother of Sivagupta, would have been Maukhari known from Haraha inscription. If this is accepted then Chandragupta of Panduvamshis would be contemproary of Suryavarman. S R Nema agrees with this identification. But this identification raises serious issues according to Shastri. As the panduvamsis came after Sarabhapuriyas. Who has been assigned to end of 6th century AD. This theory becomes untenable.

Chopdar argues that Trivaradeva cannot be placed in 6th century AD because. In the charters of Sailodbhava king Dharmaraja Srimanabhita, there is a description of civil war between brothers Dhramaraja and Madhava after the death of their father Madhyamarajal. In this war Madhava was defeated by Phasika and sought help from King Trivara. Joint forces of Trivara and Madhava were routed by Dhramaraja after which Madhava spent his last days in the territory of Trivaradeva, which is in south of Vindhya. R.D Banerjee says that Trivaradeva who Sailodbhava king Dhramaraja claims to have defeated is undoubtedly Mahasivagupta Trivara, the brother of Chandaragupta and uncle of Harshagupta of Malwa Guptas. The Ganjam plates of Madhavaraja I is dated to 619AD, the cuttack museum gives the regnal date of 50 years. He ond Madhayamaraja ruled for atleast 26 years as konw from Parikud grants. His son might have ended in the last decade of 7th century AD.
Rastrakuta Dantidurga in his Samangada plates mentions that he defeated Sri Harsha. J F Fleet identified Sri Harsha with Harshavardhana. This identification is false as Dantidurga is much later than Harshavardhana. So the Fleet identification is absolute blunder. So his hypotheisis does not hold ground.

Dhamatari and Kauvatal grants of Sarabhapuriya Sudevaraja(570-580AD) mentions certain Indrabala raja as occupying the office of Sarvadhikaradhikrata or Chief Minister. Can Indrabalaraja be the same as Indrabala of Panduvamsis. This is looks very tempting as the Panduvamsis succeeded Sarbhapuriyas and they could have been employed by them and later they could have succeeded. However this theory falls flat as the Kharod inscription mentions Indrabala as reigning monarch. He also founded a city of Indrapura. However we can say that he was subordinate and later ruled as independent ruler. However A M Shastri says we need to include few kings between Panduvamsis and Sarbhapuriyas of Amararya kula namely Jaya Bhattarka and Pravara bhattaraka from the malhar plates of Vyaghraraja and Arang Plate (601 Gupta Era). Giving 30 years for these Amararaya kula kings and giving 10 years for Pravararaja after Sudevaraja. We cannot keep Trivardeva in Kosala. So this identication, which is not not firm grounds falls flat.

Trivaradeva gave three copper grants located at Baloda, Bonda and Rajim indicating he extended his sway upto Kosala, Utkala and other Mandalas and assumed title Kosaladhipati. His Successor Nannaraja copper plate has been found at Adbhar. He was succeeded by Chandragupta and later by his son Harsagupta, who had married Vasata daughter of Suryavarman, ruler of Magadha.After the death of Harsa, his widow got constructed the famous Laksmana temple at Sirpur. The Successor of Harsagupta was his son mahasivagupta Balarjuna whose copper plated inscriptions have been found at Bardula, Bonda, Lodhia, Malhar, Sirpur, Burhikhar and Senkapat.

Eastern Chalukya Jayasimha (633-663 AD) Claimed to have occupied Trivaranagara. So the city name as Trivaranagara is well established by this time.

Madhavavarman II of Vishnukundin (518-554AD). Madhavavarman II claims he is delighter of ladies of places of Trivaranagara. Looking around there is only few places that can called Trivaranagara with royal palace. The one place on the radar is the Trivaradeva palce of Panduvamsis. Even though panduvamsis called their capital Sripura. For a outsider it is city of the king Trivaradeva. So Trivaradeva has to be during or before Madhavavarman II time. So the latest date for Trivaradeva is 554 AD. It is around this time he got defeated by Contemproary of Mukhari Isvaravarman. Now Andhra king was defeated by crown prince Isnvavarman during Isvaravarman reign. Isnavarman came to the throne in 550AD. So this has to be before 550 AD.
Sailodbhava dynasty started with Madhavaraja. Sasanka(601-625AD) of Gauda installed Madhavaraja I after he invaded orissa and occupied them. This we know from the Ganjam inscriptions(300GE) of Madhavaraja I , who is practically first king of Sailodbhava Dynasty. Later after the death of Sasanaga he declared independence and gave Stylish inscriptions from Kongoda with great Fanfare. The Dharmaraja and Madhava(Not Madhavaraja I) fight is before this period. In this fight that it is claimed in the Sumandala inscription (250GE) that Trivaradeva participated and got defeated. The dates of these inscriptions differ by fifty years. which means Trivaradeva was contemproary of these kings who were ruling before 570AD. If we can call them early Sailodbhava kings. They are three in number Dharmaraja, Sivaraja and Champa raja. Dharmaraja(Abhaya Family) is feudatories of Prithvivigraha. Shivaraja is feudatory of Sambhuyaysas. Champaraja is semi independent. All the the inscriptions are from the same place. So we can rule out simulataneous rule. All three does not claim to be Sailodbhavas. Both of them said have used Gupta Era. Since I have not found When Gupta Era starts, I will stick to the difference in their years. We know that Harsha Vardhana invaded Kongoda in 625 AD and Occupied them after death of Sasanaga. But Subsequent defeat of Harsha vadhana under the hand of Pulikesin liberated Kongoda again. But Pulikesin II overran Kosala as per Inscriptions. Subsequent inscriptions of Sailodbhava inscription resemble Chalukyan Charters. He also declared himself Kalingatipati. But Subsequently Ganga officers were brought in to adminster the territories. So we have Eastern Ganga Dynasty taking shape. So Trivara existed prior to 570 AD. The confusion is caused because Madhavaraja II had a grandson named Dharmaraja. Indologists by equating him to Dharmaraja who defeated Trivara have brought down Trivaradeva to later than 8th century AD.
In the Sirpur Inscription of Balarjuna, who was grandson (Brothers Grandson) of Trivara, refers to maternal grandfather Suryavarman belonging to dynasty of varmans over Magadha. This suryavarman is none other than Mukhari Suryavarman who is son of Isnavarman. So Trivaradeva is of the time of Isnavarman and Suryavarman that is prior to 570AD. In Haraha Inscription (554 AD) Isnavarman refers to Shivagupta Trivara. Balarjuna Sivagupta according to Sirpur inscription is son of Harsha gupta and Vasata (Daughter of Suryavarman) and grandson of Chandragupta (Brother of Trivara). So the dates have to earlier than 553AD.

The Alphabets of Trivaradeva resembles Kadamba and Vakataka inscriptions. So he is defintely during that time, Before 550 AD. Earlier the Box headed characters of Vakataka were assigned to 8th century AD bringing Vakatakas to 8th century AD. But now it has been corrected to 4th century AD or earlier. So the Trivara inscription dates have to revised to this.

Trivara or Trivaradeva belongs to Panduvamsis dynasty and ruled during Mukhari Isnavarman time around 550 AD. The Family of Mekala Pandvamsis preceded probably before Kosala Panduvamsis. Mekala panduvamsis ruled in 5th century AD and Kosala Panduvamsis ruled in 6th century AD. Now where does Sarabhapura dynasty(Original Rulers of Sripura) can be dated. That we will see in another article.

Cultural Profile of South Kōśala: From Early Period Till the Rise of the  By Jitāmitra Prasāda Sim̄hadeba
Inscriptions of Orissa: Circa 5th-8th centuries A.D, Volume 1 By Snigdha Tripathy
Vakataka - Gupta Age Circa 200-550 A.D. By R. C. Majumdar, A. S. Altekar
Dynastic History of Magadha Cir 450-1200 ADBy Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha.
Indian History and Architecture

Raipur Live 

Related Posts
Origin of Eastern Gangas 
Are Maukharis and Malwa Guptas Feudatories of Imperial Guptas
Reign of Vishnukundin
Reign of Salankayana
Date of Kalidasa
Where is Kalinganagara

Are Maukharis and Malwa Guptas Feudatories of Imperial Guptas?

We are looking at the question "Are Mukharis , Malwa Gupta's, Gaudas and Maitrakas" feudatories of Imperial Gupta's? All these dynasties ruled between 500 and 700 AD. This we can date from Harsha Vardhana, who is historically datable. We are looking at the inscription and other references to see whether any Imperial Gupta presence is there.

Mukharis (Maukhari)
Maukhari has been found in Ashoka inscriptions as Mukhalinam. But First official inscription is of Anantavarman in Barabar Nagarjuni hill cave inscription. We learn a line of Mukhari chiefs starting from Yajnavarman , his son king samanta cudamani sri Sardula and his son king Anantavarman. These Inscriptions are undated. There is not much we can prove here as evidence, except these early Mukharis ruled Northern Magadha and were earlier than the mainline mukharis,whom we are going to talk now.

Maukhari and Malwa Guptas
Let us start the Mukharis with Yajnavarman. His Son Sardula was most ferocious and was death to many rulers. At the same time another Dynasty of Malwa Guptas were rising in West with Krishna gupta. Jivitagupta I clipped the wings of Anantavarman. This Mukhari line went into decline. But at the same time another Mukhari line Harivarman was rising around 500AD. Harivarman was contemproary of Krishnagupta. Adityavarman son of Harivarman married Harshagupta daughter of Krishnagupta. Adityavarman was followed by his son Isvaravarman who has married another Gupta Princess UpaGupta. Third member of the lines both Isvarvarman of Mukhari and Jivitagupta I of Guptas made conquests and brought fame to the dyansties. JivitaGupta I defeated Mukhari Anantavarman and conquered Magadha. Isvaravarman son Isnavarman assumed title Maharajas. Haraha inscription refers to his victories over Andhra (Vishnukundin), Sulki(Chalukya) and Gaudas. The Campaign against Gaudas must be placed in 550AD. After this that Isnavarman takes Imperial Titles, who is styled as Maharaja in the Asirgarh inscription, as Rsitipati in the Haraha inscription, and as Nrpati in the Jaunpur inscription. This conquests alarms his Malwa Gupta Contemporary KumaraGupta and Clash follows between allies. According to Apahad inscription the first round goes to Kumaragupta. Next Attack came from Survavarman son of Isnavarman. Damodaragupta eventhough repulsed the attack succumbed to his injuries (562AD). Sarvavarman declares himself emperor of Magadha. Damodara Gupta was succeeded by Mahasenagupta. Mahasengupta goes for a alliance with AdityaVardhan of Pushyabhutis. But his challanges were huge. Chalukya Kirtivarman (567-597AD) declares that he won victories over Anga, Vanga and Magadha. His Adversary is Mahasenagupta. Guada King occupied South Magadha and Tibetan king Sron Btson gambo (581-600AD), Mana Dynasty has established independent kingdom between Midnapur and Orissa. With so many troubles Mahasenagupta retired to Malwa(582AD). But Peace was not there Kalachuris took over Malwa. Soon Chalukyas dislodged Kalachuris and Mahasenagupta rival DevaGupta unsurped throne and Prabhakaravardhana has to resuce Kumaragupta and Madhavagupta sons of Mahasenagupta (602-603AD). Harsha Vardhan appoints MadhavGupta as the ruler of Magadha. Adityasena(Apshad Inscription) son of Madhavagupta became king of Magadha can be said as the first Independent Malwa Gupta to rule Magadha and rise of Later Guptas.

Mukhari Line is as follows.
Magadha line
king samanta cudamani sri Sardula

Kannauj Line
Isanavarman (530-554 A.D.)
Sarvavarman (560-5 to 585.)
Anantivarman (A.D. 585-600)
Grahavarman (600-605 A.D.),

Malwa Guptas
Jivitagupta I
Kumaragupta III
Deva Gupta
Visnu Gupta
Jivita Gupta II

Rise of Harshavardhana
According to Harsha-Charita, a royal line was founded by one pushyabhuti, a devout Saivite, some where near Thaneswar in the Ambala district of Harayana. Nothing much is known about this ruler. It was only the fourth ruler prabhakaravardhana that the title Maharajadhiraja was assumed. A few details of Prabhkarvardhana are to be found in Harshacharita. He was the great General, who possibly defeated the Hunas also. Bana also mentions that he was the devotee of the sun. Prabhakaravardhana had two sons, Rajhavardhan and Harshavardhana and one daughter Rajyasri. Grahavarman of the Maukhari dynasty was married to Rajyasri. After the death of Prabhakaravardhan in 605AD, Rajyavardhan ascended the throne. Soon bad news came, Mukhari Grahavarman was killed by the Malwa Gupta ruler Deva Gupta. Rajyavardhan went after the Malwa ruler. The Malwa king Deva Gupta was defeated and possibly killed. On his return Rajyavardhana was confronted by Sasanka(Sasanaga), Guada king of Bengal. All the available authorities declare that Rajyavardhana was killed by Sasanka(Shashanika) throught they differ in details. After his death, Harsha succeeded to the throne of Thaneswar and Kanauj with the title of Rajputra and style of Siladitya in 606AD. This is how Harsha Vardhan came to the throne. With Malwa under his arm as his mother was Malwa Princess and Magadha was occupied by Sasanka. Until Sasanka died Harsha could not do anything there. Once Sasanka died, Harsha vardhan got Magadha and Orissa and his ally Baskaravarman of Kamarupa got Guada. As brother in law of Grahavarman he also got the Magadha kingdom.

Guada Kings
Rise of Sasanka
Guada kings were confined to Guada by Later Guptas until the time of MahaSenaGupta. Increasingly the Mahasenagupta faced difficulties from Mukharis, Gaudas, Chalukyas and Tibetans. Gaudas under invaded western and Central Bengal including Karnasuvarna and occupied them. The Mukhari rulling at that time was Avantivarman, son of Sarvavarman. After death of Avantivarman, the Mukharis split into Two amd Jayanaga predecessor to Sasanaga invaded and occupied the southern part of Magadha under Sarva Varman. After the death of Jayanaga, sasanaga came to the Gauda throne. In 601AD Sasanka(Soma) became king of Gauda and he invaded Kamarupa under Baskarvarman and made it subordinate. He also invaded Orissa, defeated Mana king and annexed it. Thus he became the most powerful ruler in the region. Grahavarman seeing the rise of Gauda king should have been alarmed and offered marital relations with Prabhakaravardhana of Pushayabutis and married his daughter Rajyashri. Prabhakaravardhana should have been under threat from Deva Gupta coming on the Malwa throne. With Defeat of Kalachuris by Chalukyas, there was no contest from that space. It is in this scenario that marriage was concluded and their concerns were proved right after the death of Prabhakaravardhan. From 601-625AD, nobody could do anything to Sasanka. Guada Kings eventhough call themselves Mahasamantas do not mention any overlords, neither do Mana rulers.

Break up of Mukharis
Sarvavarman conquered Magadha around 575AD. Sarvavarman is first Mukhari ruler to be recognized as the soverign of Magadha. The Malwa Guptas were feudatories of Mukharis. He was master of Uttarpradesh. Marriage of his granddaughter Vasata(Suryavarman's Daughter) to prince of Mahakosala Harshagupta brought him closer to deccan. Mahakosala ruler Chandragupta has just inherited the throne from his father Trivaradeva who was defeated by Vishnukundin ruler Madhavavarman I around 570AD. Sivagupta son of Harshagupta came to throne after death of Chandragupta in 596AD. Sarvavarman's Mukhari Empire extended from Punjab to Narmada in South.We have seen that breakup of Mukharis into two resulted in weakening of the empire and resulted in disappearance. Let us reconstruct this scenario. Sarvavarman has approinted his brother suryavarman as the incharge of Magadha. Suryavarman strengthened his position by marrying his daughter to Harshagupta of Mahakosala. Suryavarman son was Bhaskaravarman. Normally Baskaravarman would have succeeded Suryavarman. But instead Avantivarman appointed his younger son Suca(Sucandravarman or Suvartavarman) as the governor of Magadha. After the death of Avantivarman Grahavarman succeeded in Kannauj. Suca declared himself ruler of Magadha. This was not liked by Bhaskaravarman son of Suryavarman. With taking over of the throne by Suca the Magadha and Kannuaj became independent of each other and thus lead to invasion and occupation of Magadha by Guadua king soon after.

The Maitrakas ruled over Saurashtra from their capital of Valabhi from about 500to 700AD. The founder of the dynasty was Senapati Bhattarka. They have made grants in which they call themselves Mahasamanta. The Mahasamanta is said by Indology scholars as feudatory position. According to the scholars they must be feudatory to none else but Imperial Gupta. We have to see here that Maitrakas do not mention Guptas.,The phrase Parama Bhattaraka Pandanudhyata(dated 183) occurs in the reoords of the Valabhi ruler Dhruva sena I, who ruled till 545AD. Valabhi Kingdom was visited by Hiuen Tsang in 640 A. D. . He states the that the king was a Kshatriya his name being Dhruvasena, and that he was son-in-law to Harsha the Emperor of India and king of Kannauj. The Gurjaras of Broach use in their grants the Traikutaka otherwise called the Kalachuri era ( starting point 249 A. D. ) Their grants are also written in the Gujarati version of the southern Brahmi character(Satavahana-Kadamba style) while the royal signature at the end is Norther Brahmi. Here again Indologists equate Parama Bhattaraka as Imperial Gupta Monarch. In all these places Era's mentioned by the kings are equated with Gupta era, even though there is no evidence.

In Jaunpur Inscription Isvaravarman describes himself who estinguished the spark of fire coming from dhara. Yasodharman is also of same period. Yasodharman Mandasur inscription is 532AD(589 Vikrama samvat). Yasodharman defeated Huna Mihirkula around 515AD(Mihirkula came to Malwa throne in 510AD). Now here Dhara is equated with Yashodharman. Here we have to know that Dhara is a city (Modern Dhar), while Yashodharman is a person.

We have established the scenario, Now let us come to our Questions
Are Maukharis and Malwa Guptas feudatories of Imperial Guptas?
Nowhere we see in any inscriptions, Imperial Guptas being mentioned. Neither does Imperial Guptas mention Mukharis. So we have to say Imperial Guptas and Mukharis did not know each other. Same goes for Malwa Guptas, they don't mention any Imperial Guptas, neither does Imperial Guptas mention them. Neither of them use Gupta Era. The main claim by indologist is they use the term Mahasamanta in their inscription, which will mean a feudatories.
AsirGarh Copper Plates does not give any Overlord
Haraha Inscription - Does not give any Overlord
Juanpur Inscription - Does not give any overloads
All use Malwa Samvat - Even though there is Gupta Overlords?

Question of Samanta
We may note that even in the Arthasastra, the word samanta has often the meaning “neighbour”, without alternative — as for example in Arth. 3.9 when transfer of title to houses and plots of land is in question. However, in every single case, Samanta can consistently be translated as neighbour, whether royal or commoner, without incompatibility. There is no samanta baron in the Manusmrti. The earlier Guptas rule over no samantas in their inscriptions; the posthumous Harisena inscription of Samudragupta on the Allahabad pillar mentions no Samantas. Dharasena of Valabhi who appears as the first mahasamanta is an independent king friendly to the Guptas (from the tone of his inscriptions), not a peer of the realm. The Mandasor pillar inscriptions of Yasodharman, who drove Mihirakula and the Huns out of Malwa, say that the king defeated and humbled all the samantas, which can only mean neighbour kings. But the Visnusena charter, takes samanta only in the sense of petty feudal viscounts who might press labour for corvee, or infringe upon the rights and immunities of merchants to whom the charter was granted. Thus, the change in meaning falls within a period around 600AD. It is confirmed by the Ten Princes of Dandin,where samanta can only mean feudal baron, though the author shows remarkably close reading of the ArthaSastra as of many other works. The copper plates of Harsa, supported by Chinese travellers Hieun Tsang accounts prove that feudal relationships and samanta “ baron” had come to stay in the seventh Century AD.

Kuvalayamala(700Saka- 778AD), the Jain Account of Toramana tells, He is Soverign of Uttarapatha and his guru was Hari Gupta. The most extensive account is by Hiuen Tsang. Huns led by Mihirkula as per Hiuen Tsang are dated some centuries before 633AD, when he visited Sakala. Watters points out Chinese agree with this view. Both Toramana and Mihirkuala are Staunch saivites. The end of Gupta empire is predicted on Huns, we don't know whether these two are Huns or Kushana chiefs. The territories identified by Huns and the two kings also differs. Beal Identifies areas Tokharistan, Kabulistan and Zabulistna and Chavannes adds according to chinese history (by Sung-Yun), the only Indian Countries under Huns are Gandhara and Chitral. But Toramana and Mihirkula are in a entirely different plane. I dont consider Toramana , Mihirkula and Yashodharman relevant here as Mukharis , Yashodharman, Malwa Guptas and Imperial Guptas ruling whole of North India invisible to one another.

The other place Scholars mention about Imperial Guptas is when Hieun Tsang mentions Baladitya as the one who defeated and eliminated Huns. Baladitya has been identified with the conqueror of Mihiragula. Baladitya captured Mihirakula but later released him on his mother’s request. Paramartha also mentions that Baladitya was sent to Vasubandu to study Buddhism by his father. Hence it is possible that Mihirakula’s move against Buddhism would provoke Baladitya to take strict steps. Mihirakula’s reign is assigned to about 520 CE. Could the Baladitya of Hiuen Tsang same as Narasimhagupta Baladitya of the Gupta dynasty? As per Indology dating there is a gap of fifty years in the current proposed date of Narasimhagupta and the date of Mihirakula which is very hard to justify. Even if we assume that Narasimhagupta was ruling in 520 CE, would it be possible for him to wage war against Mihirakula at that very old age? A N Dandekar mentions that Baladitya of Hiuen Tsang is not Narasimhagupta but someone else. But the existence of several Baladityas renders this identification doubtful.

Yashodharman, Toramana, Mihirkula, Aulikharas and Huns, we will see in different Article.

Mukharis, Malwa Guptas, Gaudas, Maitrakas all had their origin in early part of 6th century AD. According to Indologists Imperial Guptas were still ruling North India and specifically Malwa, Magadha. But we don't find any evidence to the same. So our conclusion is Imperial Guptas are not overlords or Contemproaries of Mukhari, Malwa Gupta, Gaudas and Maitrakas.

Dynastic History Of Magadha By George E. Somers
Rise and fall of the imperial Guptas By Ashvini Agrawal
History of Kanauj: To the Moslem Conquest By Rama Shankar Tripathi
Vakataka - Gupta Age Circa 200-550 A.D. By Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Anant Sadashiv Altekar
The imperial Guptas and their times By Dilip Kumar Ganguly
Ancient India: History and Culture By Balkrishna Govind Gokhale
Rise and fall of the imperial Guptas By Ashvini Agrawal
Indian History and Architecture

Related Posts
Reign of Vishnukundins
Reign of Salankayana
Who are White Huns 
Dating Indian History
Did Megasthanes Meet ChandraGupta Maurya
Date of Kalidasa - Gupta Myth

Where is KalingaNagara

There is a considerable difference of opinion today among the scholars over the identification of Kalinganagara, the reputed capital of Kalingadesa. Almost all the copper-plate grants of the Ganga kings of Kalinga were issued from their capital, Kalinganagara. There is two sites Mukhalingam and Kalingapatna, let us see the arguments

Kalinganagara is to be identified with the present site of Mukhalingam or the joint site of Mukhalingam and Nagarakatakam, situated on the bank of the Vamsadhara and at a distance of about 30 miles from the sea. This identification has been arrived from the evidence of some dedicatory inscriptions found in the temple of God Madhukesvara. The inscriptions differently refer to a 'Nagara' of Kalinga, not Kalinganagara. The passages occurring in the inscriptions are: Kalingavani Nagare, Kalinga-Desa- Nagare, Nagare Madhukesvarayam (the word 'Kalinga' omitted).

The copper-plate inscription of Anantavarman,dated 1040 of an unspecified era, edited by Fleet records the fact that Kamanava II, the nephew of Kamarnava I, had a town named "Nagara," in which he built a lofty temple for an emblem of God Isa in the linga form to which he had given the name of "Madhukesa" because it was produced by a Madhuka tree. The temple still exists at Mukhalingam. The inscription further informs us that Kamarnava I, the alleged founder of the Ganga dynasty, had for his capital the town named Jantavuram. Jantavuram = Jayantapuram = Madhukesvaram = Mukhalingam.
However this is a far fetched theory.

An inscription found in the temple of Mukhalingesvara, which records a grant to the dancers and musicians of the God Madhukesvara issued from Kalinganagara itself by Anantavarman "From Kalinganagara" is to be interpreted as "in Kalinganagara." , "Svasti! Srimat Kalinganagarat! etc." meaning "Hail! From the Victorious Kalinganagara." Thus, when there is a record concerning the dancers and musicians of the temple of Madhukesvara in Kalinganagara, issued from and inscribed in a prominent place in the temple itself, in Kalinganagara, what stronger proof is required to identify Mukhalingam and Nagarakatakam with the ancient Kalinganagara?"
But this is just a guess work.

The famous Hathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela. King Kharavela clearly mentions in his inscription that just afterhis coronation, in the first year of his reign, he repaired his capital Kalinganagara, of which the gates, city-walls and buildings had been destroyed by storm (Vata-vihata- Gopura-pakara-nivesanampati-Samkharayati Kalinga-Nagaram). The storm which felled down the strong royal gate, city-walls (i.e., fort-walls) and buildings, must have been a violent one. This undoubtedly proves the metropolitan city being situated on the sea-side as such furious hurricanes are only commonly experienced in seaporttowns on the east-coast.

Kalidasa in Raghu Vamsa says, Indumati's Svayamvara, Sunanda, her companion, took the royal princes to the king of Kalinga, named Hemangada and described him as the ruler of a kingdom of which the Mahendra Hill and the sea were the two natural boundaries. The place is described as being just on the sea-beach. "......The sea itself, the waves of which are seen from the windows of his palace, and the deep resounding roars of which surpass the sound of the watch-drum being close at hand, awakes him as it were, when slept in his palace-room. Sport, O Princess, with this king on the sea-shore, where the palm-trees grove make a rustling noise. This is a clear proof of the sea- side capital of the king kalinga as kalidasa knew it.

The Dasakumara-Carita, (the Kalinga capital has been mentioned as Kalinganagara. Mention is made of the Kalinga-Raja named Karddana, as amusing himself with his friends and family in a sportive party on the sea-beach.

The reference to Kalinga in the Mahabharata is equally illuminating. Arjuna entering the Kalinga-gate (Kalinga- Rastra-Dvara) came to the sea-side. Thence, returning, he went to the Mahendra Hill.

Pliny Wrote "To the south, the territory of the Calinga extended as far as the promontory of Calingon and the town Dandagula which is said to be 625 Roman miles (or 524 British miles) from the mouth of the Ganges." This is exactly where kalinga nagara is.

The copperplate inscriptions of the Gangeya Kings. We read in the Achyutapuram grant of Indravarman (Raja-Simha,) the Chicacole plates of Devendravarman, the Parlakemdi grant of Indravarman, the Parlakemidi plates of the time of Vajrahasta , the Alamanda plates of Ananta-arman, the Vizagapatam copper-plate grant of Devendra arman, the victorious Kalinga-nagara (the issuing place of the charter) is regularly described as Sarvartu-ramaniya or Sarvarthu-Sukha-ramaniya, i.e., pleasant in all seasons. This passage is of importance as emphatically calling our attention to the pleasant and temperate climate of the capital as held by the Gangeya Kings. What other place except Kalingapatam, by its name and moderate climate can satisfy this condition?

In Sanskrit the words Nagara, Pattana, and Pura are synonymous. No Sanskrit dictionary nor a book of literature can say anything on this point to the contrary. According to some authorities, however, a nagara means a large town in the midst of 800 villages and a pattana is a place, where a king with his retinue resides.

Further lot of artifact have been found at kalingapatana to prove that it has ancient history.


Origin of Gangas

First King of Ganga Dynasty started in Karnataka when Jain Acharya Simhanandi inspired his two disciples Daddigh and Madhav to establish their rule, which they did by constituting the territory of Gangawadi with Kolar as their capital. Madhav Kongunivarma I was the first crowned king of this dynasty, who ruled for a long period during 189-250 AD. So the question of Gangas originating in north and coming to south is irrelavant. They actually moved south(3rd to 10th century ) to North(11th to 15th century) to establish Eastern Ganga Dynasty. The Eastern Ganga dynasty established with decline of western ganga dynasty. They built temples in orissa on similar lines as in Karnataka. In the opinion of Dr. N. K. Sahu, both the western and eastern Ganga dynasty belong to one and the same dynasty.

Mahisa(kannada) Race
Mr. Dubey has identified the Tumbura-race with Mahisa, Thumbra being mentioned in Puranas as Ganga. Mahisa race as we know is from only one place , that is mysore from ashokan times . The first king of this Ganga dynasty Anantavarma belonged to the Mahisa race as per Puranas. Kudlur grant of Marasimha and the Santara inscription on the Huncha stone says Simhanandi gave them kingdom. The last mentioned record indeed refers to him as "the archariya who made the Ganga kingdom." :"Ganga-rajyaman madida Simhanandy acharyya." which shows they are of kannada decent or Mahisa race. The Western Ganga rule was a period of brisk literary activity in Kannada, which shows that they are kannada origin.

Eastern Ganga
Eastern Ganga capital is kalinganagara, which is often leading to misunderstanding it is in kalinga(orissa), but it is actually in Andhra pradesh. The Eastern Ganga dynasty came to prominence after 10th century. They maintained relations with cholas( part of chalukyas) shows that they are of same as western Gangas. The Karnata race having independent rulers in various places of India in the previous thousand years has established a kingdom in orissa and Andhra. With Chalukya's in West and South, senas in Bengal , srilanka, Nepal. The karnatas ruled whole of India. Showing eastern Gangas belong to fisherman decent of orissa is not correct. Gangas continued the tradition of building temples in orissa also with Sun temple of Konark , Lord Jagannath temple and various other temples. Many of the common Orissan surnames, such as ‘Dalai’ and ‘Senapati’, originated in Ganga times. Gangas also took the mahisasura mardini or Durga worship to orissa from karnataka.

Origin of Gangas is mainly due to confusion from Puranas. Whose dating has always been in question. Puranas show 80kings ruling 1600years. Also the opposition of puranas to Jain territories mainly in karnataka means , karnataka decent does not get due respect. There is also mention of Ganga Vamsa apart from Ganga dynasty and also Mahisa race.

Historical sources
Historical sources are not very clear from sanskrit inscriptions and plates give no continous evidence of any known decent except they are Ganga rulers. Historical records are in sanskrit with mix of southern and northern script , which shows that the western and eastern ganga's are same.

External sources
External sources like arab show that the eastern ganga land was essentially agararian and army infantry. So the question of gangas moving from karnataka to orissa is not a issue. Also the southeast asian sources like indonesia tell about karnataka traders operating from eastern shores.

So the eastern and western Ganga are all same. Ganga origin is in Mysore( Karnataka). when the primacy of Ganga rule came to end in karnataka came to end around 10th century, they moved north to andhra and Orissa to establish rule. They constructed many famous temples and also increased trade there.

Related Posts

Myth of Tamil Antiquity Hathigumpha Inscription

Kharavela of Kalinga records his conquest of a federation of Tamil kings in his Hathigumpha inscription, so the the antiquity of Tamil rulers is established.
You might see this statement everywhere in the net. The only other inscription apart from Ashoka edicts to date that mentions rulers south of Kaveri or Tamil Nadu. However the truth is far from this. Let us see first what is Hathigumpha inscription?

The Hathigumpha inscription("Elephant Cave" inscription), from Udayagiri, near Bhubaneshwar in Orissa, was written by Kharavela, the king of Kalinga in India, during the 2nd century BCE. Hathigumpha inscription consists of seventeen lines incised in deep cut Brahmi letters on the overhanging brow of a natural cavern called Hathigumpha in the southern side of the Udayagiri hill near Bhubaneswar in Orissa. It faces straight towards the rock Edicts of Asoka at Dhauli situated at a distance of about six miles.

The inscription is written in a type which is considered as one of the most archaic forms of the Kalinga brahmi alphabet, also suggesting a date around 150 BCE.
The inscription is dated to 165th year of the era of the Maurya kings, and the 13th year of Kharavela's reign, which, considering the coronation of Chandragupta in 321 BCE as the probable start of the era, makes a date of 157 BCE for the inscription, a date of 170 BCE for Kharavela's accession, and a date of 162 BCE for the conflict against the Yavana king Demetrius.

Let us see the Lines of the inscription where the said to be quoted.

(Line No. 4) done at (the cost of) thirty-five-hundred-thousands, and (he) gratifies the People. And in the second year (he), disregarding Satakamini, dispatches to the western regions an army strong in cavalry, elephants, infantry (nara) and chariots (ratha) and by that army having reached the Kanha-bemna, he throws the city of the Musikas into consternation. Again in the third year,

(Line No.11) .................. And the market-town (?) Pithumda founded by the Ava King he ploughs down with a plough of asses; and (he) thoroughly breaks up the confederacy of the T[r]amira (Dramira) countries of one hundred and thirteen years, which has been a source of danger to (his) Country (Janapada). And in the twelfth year he terrifies the kings of the Utarapatha with .................. thousands of

Line Four
Many argue that line number four mentioning Musiks as mushikas of North Kerala. However that has been well established that they are the tribal people in North West India.

Line seventeen
Scholar such as K A Neelakanta shastri argue the following ,Line number 17 show that there was a confederacy of Tamil kings and that was defeated by Kharavela. Let us see if it is possible.

1. Kharvela if he has to come south has to cross Satvahana country. I don’t feel Satakanni would have allowed that.
2. Kharvela not mentioning the crossing of Satvahana country is impossible.
3. No Tamil literature work, even if we accept that sangam work is of that period has shown any such event.
4. Tamira is copper, that is the only reason sirlanka is called Tampa panni, and there is no confusion over that. Even Mahabharata mentions only Dravida, not Tamira.

So the Tamira mentioned is not Tamila as said by Neelakanta Sastri. Tamira is somewhere else.

Where is the Tamira present?
You don’t have to look further than Bengal. This Tamira fits the bill, and there could be a confederacy of Copper traders here.
Tamralipta is the name of an ancient city on the Bay of Bengal corresponding with Tamluk in modern-day India. Tamralipti may have been one of the most important urban centres of trade and commerce of early historic India, trading along the Silk Road with China, by Uttarapatha, the northern high road, the main trade route into the Middle East and Europe; and by seafaring routes to Bali, Java and other areas of the Far East. [edit] Origin of the Name Tamluk

According to some scholers Tamluk derives its name from the Sanskrit word Tamra Lipta meaning "Full of Copper".

Tamralipta (Tamluk), lower down the river Hooghly and sea port, had been an important waterway for more than 3000 years. It gets its name from the copper which was mined, as it is even now, at Ghatsila, Jharkhand, Orissa areas which are not far from the city. Copper had been eclipsed by iron around 100 B.C., so the name must have originated during the Copper Age, when Tamralipti exported the ore and metal to peninsular India; the alternative was the less accessible Rajasthan area. The longer, original name of the port was in use till the third century B.C., when Ashoka's daughter and son sailed from it for Sri Lanka.

According to local folklore the name Tamralipta came from the King Tamradhwaja (which means The King with Copper Flag/symbol) of the Mayura-Dhwaja (Peacock) dynasty. If you go according to Mahabharat's description the ruling period of the King Tamradhwaja is nearer to the end of the Copper Age. Probably this ancient king had a huge base of copper, and the metal brought prosperity to the region at his time. Thus both of the names -- Tamralipta and Raja Tamradhawja -- might have been originated from it.

Some early Vaisnav religious texts tell a facinating story about the origin of the name of Tamralipta. Once, when Lord Krishna was playing Maharaas in Vraj at Vrindavan Surya (Sun God) Dev rose from the east and accidentally saw Lord Krishna in intimate situation with his Gopis and Sri Radhika. Immediately Surya Dev had felt ashamed, became embarrassed and blushed a reddish copper colour like Tamra. And then Surya Dev again returned to the same corner of the east coast of Bharata and did hide (Lipta) himself in the Bay of Bengal. Where Surya Dev went back and hid himself is the place called Tamralipti.

History of Tamluk
This ancient port city and kingdom was bounded by the Bay of Bengal in the south, river Rupnarayana in the east and Subarnarekha in the west. The Rupnarayana is the joint flow of the river Dwarkeshwar and the river Shilai. The Bay of Bengal and these great rivers and their numerous branches created a prosperous and easy water navigational system fostering commerce, culture and early contacts with the people outside the region. At the same time, these rivers helped to develop the agriculture in this region.

Archaeological remains show continuous settlement from about 3rd century BC. It was known as Tramralipti (in the Purans and the Mahabharata) or Tamralipta (in Mahabharata) or Tamalika (in historical documents) or Tamalitti (in foreigners' descriptions) or Tamoluk (in the British Raj). It was a seaport, now buried under river silt. For this reason, Tamluk has many ponds and lakes remaining today.
In the Mahabharata (Bhishma Parba/Nabam Adhyay) while describing the names of the holiest rivers and kingdoms of India, Sanjay took the name of "Tramralipta" to Dhritarastra.
Tamluk was also known as Bhivas (in religious texts) and Madhya Desh (as the Middle State of Utkal/Kalinga and Banga).

According to Jain sources, Tamralipti was the capital of the kingdom of Venga and was long known as a port.

So the clever KA Neelakanta sastri has taken this reference to mean that it represents tamil. Even though being a distinguished Historian he should have known there is other Tamira nearby. No body including Bengalis have missed point. Kalingas are happy that their empire stretches to south India. Yet another attempt to stretch the antquity of tamil.