# Self-Representation and Presentation of Others in Indic Epigraphical Writing

Dániel Balogh, Annette Schmiedchen

► To cite this version:

Dániel Balogh, Annette Schmiedchen (Dir.). Self-Representation and Presentation of Others in Indic Epigraphical Writing. Harrassowitz Verlag, 63, 2024, Asien- und Afrikastudien der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 978-3-447-39546-5. 10.13173/9783447122306 hal-04712642

HAL Id: hal-04712642

https://hal.science/hal-04712642v1

Submitted on 27 Sep 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Self-Representation
and Presentation of Others
in Indic Epigraphical Writing

Edited by
Dániel Balogh and Annette Schmiedchen

Asien- und Afrika-Studien 63
der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Harrassowitz Verlag
DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
Asien- und Afrika-Studien
der Humboldt-Universität
zu Berlin

Band 63

2024

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
Self-Representation
and Presentation of Others
in Indic Epigraphical Writing

Edited by
Dániel Balogh and Annette Schmiedchen

2024

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
The present publication is a result of the project DHARMA ‘The Domestication of “Hindu” Asceticism and the Religious Making of South and Southeast Asia.’ This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no 809994). The papers in this book reflect only the respective authors’ view. The funding body is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (BY-SA) which means that the text may be used for commercial use, distribution and duplication in all media.

For details go to: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en.

Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from the rights holder. The obligation to research and clear permission lies solely with the party re-using the material.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet
at https://www.dnb.de/.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website
https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/

© by the contributors.

Published by Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2024

Printed on permanent/durable paper.

Printing and binding: docupoint GmbH

Printed in Germany

ISSN 0948-9789

eISSN 2750-1388

DOI: 10.13173/0948-9789

ISBN 978-3-447-12230-6

eISBN 978-3-447-39546-5

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.

© by contributor
# Table of Contents

## Introduction

Annette Schmiedchen and Dániel Balogh with Natasja Bosma

1. Preface................................................................................................................... ix

2. Editorial conventions .........................................................................................xvi

## Portrayal of the Forest People:
the “Other” in the Epigraphic Records of Early India

Suchandra Ghosh and Soumya Porel

1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 1

2. A few references in literary texts .................................................................... 2

3. Epigraphic mentions: changing positions of the forest people .................... 5

4. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 9

Primary sources........................................................................................................ 10

## The Position of Tīvaradeva in the Light of
Panegyric Passages in Inscriptions of Dakṣiṇa Kosala

Natasja Bosma

1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 13

2. Panegyric passages in the corpus of Dakṣiṇa Kosala .................................... 15

3. Statistical analysis.................................................................................................... 22

4. Discussion.................................................................................................................. 25

Primary sources........................................................................................................ 28

## Use and Functions of the Coronation Name
During the Somavaṁśin Dynasty

Amandine Wattelier-Bricout

1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 29

2. The corpus of the Somavaṁśin dynasty............................................................ 30

3. Reassessing the identities of issuers ................................................................. 35

4. Use of the coronation name in grants issued by the Somavaṁśin kings ........ 39

5. Use of the coronation names in non-royal grants ............................................ 48

6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 52

Primary sources........................................................................................................ 54
# Struggle Over Kannauj and Beyond:
the Pālas, the Gurjara-Pratihāras, and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas

Ryosuke Furui

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>2. Reconstruction of events</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>3. The Pālas: focus on one event</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>4. The Gurjara-Pratihāras: valour and achievement</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>5. The Rāṣṭrakūṭas: insignia and imperial vision</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>6. Concluding remarks</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Primary Sources</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

# Claiming Sovereignty on the Edge of the Imperial Kingdom:
the Pālas of Kāmarūpa and the Candras of Vaṅga

Jae-Eun Shin

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>2. Self-representation in the changing political contexts</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>3. Presentation of others in a changing religious landscape</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>4. Conclusion</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>91</td></tr></table>

# The Portrayal of Underlings
in Eastern Cālukya Copper Plates

Dániel Balogh

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>2. Method</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>3. Discussion of results</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>4. Concluding thoughts</td><td>152</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>162</td></tr></table>

# Juxtaposed Genealogies
of the Hoysaļas and their Subordinates

Samana Gururaja

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>165</td></tr><tr><td>2. Standard expressions of loyalty in Kannada epigraphy</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>3. The Hoysaļa genealogy</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>4. Subordinates with generational ties to the Hoysaļas</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><td>5. The Huliyar Family: Service to multiple royal families</td><td>180</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>6. Conclusion</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>185</td></tr></table>

## The Central Indian Yādava Dynasty: Epigraphic Self-Representation versus Hemādri's Account

Annette Schmiedchen

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>2. Epigraphic versus non-epigraphic praśastis</td><td>190</td></tr><tr><td>3. Eulogies of subordinate rulers under the late Yādavas</td><td>195</td></tr><tr><td>4. Post-Hemādri panegyrics</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>5. Conclusion</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>205</td></tr></table>

## On the Bilingual Inscriptions of the Fārūqī Sultans of Khandesh

Luther Obrock

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>2. The Fārūqī Sultanate</td><td>209</td></tr><tr><td>3. Contextualising the Fārūqī Sultan's bilingual inscriptions</td><td>212</td></tr><tr><td>4. The Arabic inscriptions</td><td>216</td></tr><tr><td>5. The Sanskrit inscriptions</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td>6. Conclusion</td><td>224</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>227</td></tr></table>

## A Tale of Two Courts: Records of Kachavāhā *mahārājas* in Digambara Jaina memorials

Tillo Detige

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>229</td></tr><tr><td>2. Bhaṭṭārakas: Digambara renouncers</td><td>229</td></tr><tr><td>3. Bhaṭṭārakas: Digambara lords</td><td>231</td></tr><tr><td>4. Digambara memorial inscriptions</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>5. Dhūṇḍhādaśākhā memorial inscriptions attesting Kachavāhā rulers</td><td>234</td></tr><tr><td>6. Other Digambara memorials attesting rulers</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><td>7. Conclusions</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>8. Inscriptions</td><td>257</td></tr></table>
# Jaina Ideologies of Kingship:
Perceptions from Early Medieval Švetāmbara Narratives

Christine Chojnacki

<table><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>261</td></tr><tr><td>2. The Jinasena model</td><td>263</td></tr><tr><td>3. Praising the path of royal renunciation</td><td>263</td></tr><tr><td>4. The conservatism of the Švetāmbara sources</td><td>273</td></tr><tr><td>5. Conclusion</td><td>280</td></tr><tr><td>Primary sources</td><td>281</td></tr></table>

## Bibliography

<table><tr><td>References</td><td>283</td></tr></table>
# Introduction

by Annette Schmiedchen and Dániel Balogh, with contributions by Natasja Bosma

## 1. Preface

This volume investigates the specific forms of “self-representation” of the issu-
ers of inscriptions in a range of epigraphic texts from South Asia, focussing on
political ideology as well as on patronage policy. In this connection, “self-rep-
resentation” is not to be understood as the way in which particular persons
(such as kings) represent themselves, but rather as the way in which the socio-
political institutions embodied in these persons (such as kingship) articulate
their own representation. The contributors have paid particular attention to the
description of intra-dynastic rivalries and rivalries between dynasties as well as
to comparing the self-representation of dynasties and rulers with the depiction
of the same kings in the records of their adversaries. They also examine the
presentation of religious figures and the relationship between overlords and
their subordinates. The eleven papers collected here are based on talks given at
the 34th Deutscher Orientalistentag held in Berlin on 12th to 17th September
2022. With one exception, these were presented during the panel entitled “Self-
Representation and Presentation of Others in Epigraphical Writing” organised
by the Berlin team of the European Research Council project “The Domestica-
tion of ‘Hindu’ Asceticism and the Religious Making of South and Southeast Asia
(DHARMA).” Six of the articles in this volume are authored by DHARMA mem-
bers, the remaining five by invited guests.

The panel addressed a range of questions related to epigraphic (re)presenta-
tion in South Asia. Inscriptions are far from neutral reflections of the periods in
which they were produced, for they transmit texts that were created to serve
particular legal, political, social, and religious purposes. The majority of pre-
modern epigraphs from the subcontinent are official (or semi-official) docu-
ments of specific kinds, namely public inscriptions on stone and donative char-
ters on copper plates. These inscriptions often contain panegyric passages
describing the kings and their dynasties, the donors, and their families, as well as religious figures and their lineages. Eulogies of the rulers and their ancestors are in most cases not factual “self-portrayals,” yet they project an image of authenticity and authority inasmuch as they are frequently said to be compositions of named court officials, and royal copperplate charters bear a seal and/or an imitated signature of the king. These panegyric descriptions contain not only “self-representation,” but also “presentation of others”: the records of sovereign rulers can include eulogies of their subordinates; and vice versa, the inscriptions of subordinates often comprise laudatory depictions of their overlords. Moreover, eulogies may contain descriptions of adversaries – intra-dynastic rivals and enemies from other dynasties –, and the presentation of opponents was used as a backdrop for self-representation.

As copperplate charters constitute the main sources of many of the papers, and as they are a specific category among the different types of epigraphic material from South Asia, their distinct features will be shortly discussed here. Such charters are official legal records, written on sheets of copper as if to emphasise their permanent character. The common purpose of these title-deeds was to report on financial support (mainly in the form of income from land) to Brahmins, temples or temple gods, monasteries, and other religious people or institutions. Their appearance became widespread after the fourth and fifth centuries CE, alongside the religious developments that took place at that time in the Indian subcontinent (Hawkes and Abbas 2016). Since most of these grants were made by a reigning king, by a member of the royal family, or by a subordinate ruler, the numerous corpora of copperplate charters preserved today are a testimony to this practice of royal endowments.

Despite the fact that the composition of these copperplate inscriptions can be diverse, they typically contain a certain set of components. The first lines often form a preamble to the official notification, usually with a religious invocation, a reference to the place of issue, an introduction to the grantor, and an address to all those involved in the grant (such as the officials concerned and the inhabitants of the granted village or land). Then follows the formal notification, in which the grant is specified, together with the name or names of the receiving party, possibly with a reference to the occasion and intention of the grant. In the last lines, the villagers are sometimes warned to pay the royal share of their crops at the proper time to the grantee, and a few relevant verses are often quoted to emphasise this exhortation. Names of functionaries or officials that were involved in the execution of the endowment may be mentioned (for example, the court poet who composed the inscription, the messenger who conveyed the order, or the goldsmith who engraved the characters on the sheets of
copper), and the grant is authenticated with a date and a final reference to the
ruler.

The main focus of this volume is on the descriptions of the protagonists men-
tioned in copperplate charters and other inscriptions, particularly on the por-
trayal of the donor, generally a reigning king (e.g. Chhabra 1962, 10; Gaur
1975, x; Salomon 1998, 116). Some accounts are plain and utilitarian catalogues
of the ruler's pedigree, but in a typical case they go far beyond simple lists of
names and relations: they feature a cavalcade of magniloquent epithets as well
as elaborations of present and past rulers' mental acuity, corporeal beauty, mar-
tial prowess, and beneficent generosity written out at length as a eulogy
(praśasti) in poetic prose or verse. Such panegyric passages cannot be read as
accurate reflections of historical events, because they combine legendary and
factual history to make an inspirational narrative. But impression management
requires a grain of truth to be effective. Hence, Daud Ali (2000, 184) refers to
these introductions as "living narratives." For some dynasties, a standard ver-
sion would be developed for all grants issued by a king during his reign, whereas
changes would be made and new feats would be added whenever the political
circumstances allowed or required it. The added value of the panegyrics lies not
only in the extensive "self-portrayal" of the donor, but also in the references to
"others" (such as overlords and subordinates) that occur along the way. The de-
piction of other players in the grant process, especially of the donees, is also not
infrequent, although less pervasive and less extensive.

Within such passages, references to dynastic links, political actions and his-
toric events have long been appreciated by scholars as valuable (if somewhat
distorted and unreliable) sources of knowledge. Claims to various virtues have
been accepted at face value by some historians (perhaps out of patriotic senti-
ment), but in general they received less attention from early scholars and were
indeed often ignored (presumably as blatant flattery of the "oriental despot"),
or perceived as an idle excrescence resulting from the dictates of fashion, wor-
thy of attention only as exemplars of poetic expression, but as irrelevant to the
historian as they are to the legal or documentary function of copperplate char-
ters (Chhabra 1962, 10). Yet, as Emmanuel Francis (2018, 413) has recently put
it, "why take so much effort in placing at the beginning of copperplate grants
lengthy eulogies of kings, if these documents were not meant in the first place
to be read?"

The answer begged by the question, namely that such charters were, after
all, meant to be read, has received ever more recognition in the last half century
or so, even though little is known about the particular circumstances in which
copperplate grants may have had a "public life." The royal order embodied in
them was in at least some cases proclaimed with much pomp already prior to
the issue of the copper plates (Ali 2000, 172–74), and it is plausible to assume
that they were displayed and read out when a grant was first made as well as
whenever a legal dispute occurred concerning the granted land (Kulke 1997,
239). Moreover, copperplate eulogies represent just one of the rather few sur-
viving segments of a larger, dialogical “scale of texts” (Inden 2000a, 12–13),
whose participants were not limited to other inscriptions in copper and stone
(both of which were certainly produced in much greater numbers than the spec-
imens now extant), but definitely included more ephemeral creations such as
bardic panegyrics, royal proclamations recited by itinerant agents, and missives
exchanged between rulers and other prominent personages, conveyed either
orally or written on a perishable substrate. Such texts carried a similar message
to varying audiences who engaged with them in different ways. The vast poten-
tial of these mass media of the time to shape (while being in turn shaped by)
public perception is easy to overlook while working with the relatively small
number and presumably limited reach of the lithic and copper inscriptions now
available for study.

Even if that wider ecosystem of texts is disregarded, inscriptions may be seen
as spreading “the standardized message of a great kingship” (Stein 1977, 17) in
order to maintain a link between centre and periphery. A fanciful royal geneal-
ogy may be perceived as “an assertion of the king’s status pride couched in the
idiom of kinship[, ...] an idealised view of the king as a larger-than-life figure,”
and moreover as “an ideological construct, a statement about the nature of the
world and the place of kingship in it” (Spencer 1984, 416). In addition to articu-
lating sovereignty, a copperplate endowment (in all its gleaming, langourous
materiality and with the ceremony accompanying its bestowal) also had great
impact on the status of the donee (Kulke 1997, 238).

Although the main focus is on epigraphy, several articles draw upon other
textual sources, too. The majority of the papers study regional inscriptional cor-
pora, often mainly consisting of copperplate charters and occasionally includ-
ing stone epigraphs (Bosma, Balogh, Furui, Gururaja, Schmiedchen, Shin, Wat-
telier-Bricout). The bulk of the records investigated here dates from the early
medieval period, namely from the sixth to thirteenth centuries, and is written
in Sanskrit. Some of the papers explore later inscriptions exclusively engraved
on stone (Detige, Obrock) and partly composed in other languages. The epi-
graphic sources originate from Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bengal, Bihar, Chhattis-
garh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tel-
angana, and Uttar Pradesh. Most of the articles are philological-historical ex-
plorations of inscriptional and literary sources. In addition, some of the
contributions also make use of statistical methods (Bosma) and content analysis (Balogh). Whereas most authors study material from the reigning periods of certain rulers or dynasties, one paper provides a longue-durée perspective (Ghosh and Porel). Moreover, while the majority of the contributions investigate the epigraphic records of temporal rulers, two presentations focus on Jaina sources (Detige, Chojnacki).

Suchandra Ghosh and Soumya Porel explore the representation of a particular group of “others,” namely forest people, in inscriptions of the third century BCE to the twelfth century CE and in contemporary literary texts. They point out indications of the transformation of forest spaces into kingdoms, as a consequence of which persons of tribal origin appeared in positions of power and status.

Natasja Bosma evaluates the copper plates of the Pāṇḍava dynasty of Dakṣiṇa Kosal a in the sixth and seventh centuries, pointing out radical differences in the lengths of passages dedicated to royal self-representation by various rulers. In particular, she asks why King Tīvaradeva, not mentioned by his successors, went to great lengths to establish his image.

Amandine Wattelier-Bricout studies the “coronation names” — normally alternating Mahābhavagupta and Mahāśivagupta — used by the Somavaṁśins of Orissa, with particular attention to cases where a ruler’s records do not employ a coronation name. Using the inscriptions of successors, she seeks to identify the circumstances explaining this absence.

Ryosuke Furui revisits the struggle over Kannauj at the end of the eighth century, contrasting the different accounts left by the dynasties involved. He shows that the Pālas, the Gurjara-Pratihāras, and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas highlighted respectively a single moment of triumph, the sentiment of victory through valour, and the establishment of superiority over other kings.

Jae-Eun Shin investigates the representation of self and others by sub-regional powers, namely by the Pālas of Kāmarūpa and the Candras of Vaṅga in the tenth and eleventh centuries. She points out how the imperial Pālas remained a benchmark in the self-representation of these lesser dynasties, but with a starkly differing perspective depending on current power relations.

Dániel Balogh analyses the descriptions of Eastern Cālukya kings and their underlings in copperplate grants. Deriving representational profiles from a content analysis of these descriptions, he demonstrates that subordinates as well as court officials tend to be depicted more in terms of individual qualities than the rather stereotypically characterised rulers.

Samana Gururaja juxtaposes the genealogies of the Hoysaļa kings in their own records with those presented in the inscriptions of their subordinates in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. She observes that while some subordinate
houses emphasised their loyalty to the Hoysaļas spanning generations of both
families, others recalled ancestors serving predecessors of the Hoysaļas.

Annette Schmiedchen scrutinises the epigraphic self-representation of the
Yādava dynasty and its presentation in the literary work of Hemādri, a minister
at the thirteenth-century Yādava court. She indicates that the latter provides a
fuller list of the male members of the dynasty, albeit cursory in detail, while the
epigraphs foreground only the key political figures, but record more about
them.

Luther Obrock explores the continuation of epigraphic Sanskrit into the sul-
tanate period. Using the late sixteenth-century Arabic and Sanskrit bilingual in-
scriptions of the mosques at Asirgarh and Burhanpur as illustrations, he points
out how Sanskritic *topoi* were adapted to an Islamic context and examines the
division of labour between the Sanskrit and the Arabic parts of the inscriptions.

Tillo Detige presents early modern Digambara Jaina memorial stone inscrip-
tions from Western and Central India, attesting to the status of *bhaṭṭārakas* in
the ascetic hierarchy of the Ḥpūṇḍhāḍaśākhā and to the relations of this Jaina
community to local and imperial rulers. He interprets the repeated shifts of the
seat of this religious group as a continued reaction to a changing political envi-
ronment.

Christine Chojnacki examines four major Śvetāmbara Jaina narrative works composed between the eighth and tenth centuries in Western India, selected by her for matters of content. She focusses on the key question whether these texts reveal an ideology of kingship distinct from the well-known and also better studied model(s) of the Digambara Jainas.

The papers in this book touch on many concepts that elude an accurate def-
inition. In particular, we emphasise that the word “Hindu” does not occur in any
of the primary sources in its present meaning, and is used here as an umbrella
term for the theistic religious world-views that characterise the Indian subcon-
tinent in the period under study. For the sake of facility, all authors have gen-
erally endeavoured to use plain English terms of their own choice in discussion
and especially in translations of source texts. This is not meant to imply that the
concepts denoted by these terms carried precisely the same meaning and con-
notations in their original context as they might in the mind of any particular
modern-day reader. Thus, technical terms associated with the European Middle
ages — such as “king,” “prince,” “vassal” or “feudatory,” and “baron” — and
with generic social and political roles — such as “priest,” “chaplain,” “minister,”
“general” — are used as convenient terms only loosely equivalent to the terms
used in the original, which are cited where necessary and discussed where
relevant. The editors have fostered consistency throughout the volume, but did
not see any advantage to enforcing a uniform translation of technical terms.

We would like to illustrate this on the basis of one example which is relevant for our topic. The presentation of the interaction between overlords and their subordinates is discussed in several articles of this volume. There can be no doubt that relationships of suzerainty and subordination played a significant role in early medieval Indian history and were also echoed in epigraphic sources of that period. The Sanskrit terminology to denote subordinates could differ from region to region and must have also changed in the course of time. Even if the same term was used, it may reflect different concepts, and it has been rendered in several ways. Most authors in this volume use the terms “subordinate” or “subordinate ruler,” either for general references or for the translation of specific Sanskrit terms. Samana Gururaja explains to have chosen “the words ‘overlord’ and ‘subordinate’ to highlight the relative status that individuals had to one another, rather than trying to locate them in absolute hierarchy, as suggested by terms like ‘feudatory’ or ‘vassal’.” Furthermore, she observes that “there were several terms that delineated the role of a subordinate in a complex political structure, and while it is difficult to map the exact structure of these hierarchies from epigraphical material, what we can often determine is their position in relation to one another.” Annette Schmiedchen states to have used the terms “subordinate” and “vassal” interchangeably, “due to a lack of better alternatives,” for all those who seem to have acknowledged the suzerainty/sovereignty of another ruler, although “the concept of vassalage has been borrowed from descriptions of medieval European history and might be almost equally problematic as the terms related to ‘feudal’ and ‘feudatory’.” One could perhaps add that the terms “vassal” and “sub-vassal” have at least the potential to reflect the rather great diversity in and the ramified system of medieval hierarchical relations.

A central Sanskrit designation for a subordinate is *sāmanta*, or derivations from this basic term, for instance, *mahāsāmanta* or *mahāsāmantādhipati*. Natasja Bosma translates *sāmanta* as “feudatory” or “feudatory chief.” Ryosuke Furui and Jae-Eun Shin refer to subordinate rulers in general. Dániel Balogh uses the renderings “subordinate” and “underling” in a broader sense, and translates the term *mahāsāmanta* in a more specific way as “baron.” In the corpus studied by Amandine Wattelier-Bricout, the designation *rāṇaka* is more common, which she also renders as “subordinate.” Samana Gururaja distinguishes for her corpus between the rank of a *mahāsāmanta* or “ruler of a peripheral region,” and the higher rank of a *mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* or “lord of a circumscribed domain.”
Although the term *sāmanta* (or *mahāsāmanta*) was not the only designation for a subordinate rank, it was the most commonly used in epigraphical sources from many parts of early medieval India. Moreover, this expression has also become the key term in historiographical discussions on the structure of medieval Indian polities since the 1960s (e.g. L. Gopal 1963; K. K. Gopal 1964), namely in the debate on a so-called “Indian feudalism” (e.g. R. S. Sharma 1961; Yadava 1966). Hermann Kulke (1996, 31) coined the expression “sāmantization” to describe the increasing influence which *sāmantas* exerted on the royal administration. Such subordinates probably had to pay tributes and deliver troops to their suzerains. Reciprocally, *sāmantas* received privileges and elevated positions at the court. It can be assumed that they were also repaid for their services through the allocation of tax income from villages and landed property (R. S. Sharma 2001, 24). In pre-tenth-century land-grant charters engraved on copper plates, *sāmantas* appear as donors or as petitioners requesting the ruler to bestow an endowment on a religious person or institution. But these records rarely mention secular fiefs. Thus, the emergence of the *sāmanta* network remarkably pre-dates any attestation for service assignments to “feudatories” (Chattopadhyaya 1994, 194). With regard to subordinates, this volume does not focus on their potential economic role, but on their presentation vis-à-vis that of their overlords, either in their own epigraphic records or in inscriptions commissioned by their suzerains.

## 2. Editorial conventions

All of our papers make extensive use of primary sources of the manuscript and epigraphic traditions. Texts of both kinds are referred to with titles (and, where known, the name of their authors), which are always italicised (e.g. the *Moharājaparājaya* of Yaśaḥpāla; the *Kharod stone inscription of Iśānadeva*), and may be abbreviated after the first occurrence (e.g. the *Moharājaparājaya*; the *Kharod inscription*). In discussions involving many inscriptions, the DHARMA identifiers introduced below may be used instead of titles. The texts referred to within each chapter are listed at the end of the chapter under the heading “Primary sources,”<fnref n="1" /> where each list item gives the reference to the preferred edition (and/or translation) of the source concerned, which may be either a print publication or a DHARMA digital edition. Print publications are shown in this list as a standard author-date reference (with publication details in the bibliography at the end of the book). Specific parts of epigraphic sources are referred to with

<footnote n="1">1 Except in Tillo Detige's chapter, where the editions of the texts are appended.</footnote>
line numbers (l., ll.) or, when applicable, verse numbers (v., vv.) as found in the preferred edition. In referring to primary sources of the manuscript tradition, the indices applicable to the work in question (e.g. chapter, section, verse) have been used or, where none are relevant, page numbers (p., pp.) of the preferred edition have been specified.

DHARMA editions are preferentially cited whenever they are available, as not only do they represent the latest scholarly position on the respective texts, but they also include references to earlier printed editions, a “critical” apparatus showing deviations from such editions, and usually an English translation and some commentary. Digital editions may continue to evolve dynamically; citations in this book reflect the state of the editions at the time when the respective articles were written. The DHARMA editions are classified into named corpora, and have a five-digit number within each corpus. Accordingly, DHARMA editions are referred to in this book with an abbreviated identifier composed of a label for the corpus and the number of the text, such as *BengalCharters00091*. In the future, DHARMA editions will be accessible through a searchable database and displayable in various renditions. As of 2024, they may be viewed via a provisional front end by simply opening https://dharmalekha.info/texts in a web browser and entering the edition’s identifier in the search box. To access a digital edition directly, open the URL https://dharmalekha.info/texts/ID, where ID stands for the full identifier of the edition, consisting of the prefix DHARMA_INS followed by the above abbreviated identifier, e.g. DHARMA_INSBengalCharacters00091. This provisional website shows several alternative renditions of each digital edition, as well as the machine-readable (XML) file. The full XML files may also be retrieved from GitHub at https://github.com/erc-dharma. Once the completed database and web interface become available, it will be likewise easy to retrieve individual inscriptions on the basis of their identifiers.

Dates throughout this book are to be understood in the Common Era unless otherwise indicated (e.g. VS for Vikrama *saṁvat* and ŚS for Śaka *saṁvat*). The abbreviation CE (or BCE) only appears when a date in the Common Era is juxtaposed to a date in a different reckoning.

Words and names in non-European languages are generally presented throughout this book in accurate transliteration reflecting their original orthography. The exceptions to this primarily consist of contemporary proper names, in particular the names of published authors and internationally well-known geographic names (e.g. Deccan, Maharashtra, Jaipur). Less prominent geographic names are transliterated or Anglicised on a case by case basis. A few words that have gained enough currency in (technical) English to qualify as loanwords rather than as foreign words have also been used in an Anglicised
form and without italics (e.g. sandhi). To reduce confusion and ambiguity, transliteration in citations from other publications has in most cases been silently normalised to the standards followed here.

Words of languages normally written in a form of Arabic script are transliterated according to the IJMES standard, except when such items are cited verbatim from a source in an Indic script, in which case the transliteration reflects the orthography of the latter.

Languages written in an Indic script are Romanised according to the ISO 15919 standard (ISO 2001).<fnref n="2" /> Thus, *anusvāra* is transliterated *ṁ*, and syllabic liquids are represented by ṛ and ḿ, while ṛ and ḹ are dedicated to the retroflex flap consonant of New Indo-Aryan languages and the retroflex lateral approximant respectively. The retroflex central approximant of Dravidian languages is represented as ḿ, and the alveolar trill as ṛ. The *upadhmānīya* is transliterated with ḫ where distinguished from a *visarga* in a primary source.

For Sanskrit and other languages where the phonemes /e/ and /o/ are always long, these Latin vowels are used without a macron. In Dravidian languages such as Kannada, where short and long forms of these vowels are distinguished, the transliteration without a diacritical mark (*e*, *o*) means the short form, while that with a macron (ē, δ) means the long form. When pertaining to the context of such a language, loanwords and names consisting partly or wholly of Sanskrit components also employ the macron (e.g. Sōmēśvara, *sēnādhipar* as opposed to Someśvara, *senādhipa* in a Sanskrit context). However, Sanskrit technical terms appearing in English discussion are transliterated according to the Sanskrit standard even when pertaining to a Dravidian context (e.g. *maṇḍaleśvara*, as opposed to *maṇḍalēśvara* in citing the text of a primary source). In the transliteration of Middle Indo-Aryan languages, the diaeresis ("`) has been added to *i* and *u* when occurring adjacent to *a*, in order to distinguish the vowel clusters *aï* and *aü* in hiatus from the Sanskrit diphthongs *ai* and *au*. In New Indo-Aryan languages, the silent final *a* inherent in the orthography has been generally preserved in transliteration.

Words, phrases, and longer citations from texts in Indic languages have been segmented with spaces (for separate words) and hyphens (for words in compound) to facilitate parsing. Taking advantage of Romanised transliteration, such separators have also been inserted at points where it would not be possible to do so in an Indic script (e.g. *tad api, tat-putra*) but vowels fused in sandhi have

<footnote n="2">2 The full editions appended to Detige's article follow the DHARMA transliteration scheme (Balogh and Griffiths 2020), which is an extension of ISO-15919. The relevant details are introduced next to the editorial notation on page 257.</footnote>
not been broken up to allow segmentation (e.g. *tathāpi, rājendra*). Hyphens for
compound segmentation are not ubiquitous: they are generally avoided in short
compounds established in a particular sense (e.g. *dinakara* 'sun') as well as in
close-knit units within a longer compound, and never used within proper
names.

Excerpts of primary sources in general preserve the orthography of the original, except that *avagrahas* (apostrophes) have been silently supplied where initial *a* is elided in Sanskrit sandhi, and elision in Kannada sandhi is likewise indicated with apostrophes. The readings of the preferred edition have been adopted even when they are marked by the editor as uncertain, or when they are editorial emendations or restorations. To verify such philological details, please consult the editions of these texts. Editorial punctuation has been silently supplied in longer excerpts, consisting primarily of *daṇḍas* (vertical bars) at the ends of hemistichs and double *daṇḍas* at the ends of stanzas. When isolated words of a primary source appear in English discussion, peculiarities of the original orthography are also silently normalised (thus, e.g. *dharma* even if the original spelling is *dharmma*).

In translations of primary sources, square brackets indicate words added or
repeated by the translator for the sake of clarity and syntax, e.g. “bowing [to
him] by bending [their] shaking crowns.” Parentheses mark explanatory addi-
tions by the translator, e.g. “an abode of (the goddess of) Fortune” as well as
words of the original inserted for explanation or clarification, e.g. “qualities
(guṇa).” In the translation of bitextuality (*śleṣa*), curly braces have been added
around alternative translations of text already translated in a primary sense,
e.g. “his famous lineage {bamboo cane}.”
# Portrayal of the Forest People:
the “Other” in the Epigraphic Records of Early India

Suchandra Ghosh

University of Hyderabad,
Department of History

and

Soumya Porel

Sovarani Memorial College, Howrah

## 1. Introduction

The forest and its people have been portrayed in many ways in early Indian written sources. This portrayal at times showed — but often lacked — awareness of this space and its inhabitants. In spite of a great deal of ambivalence in their representations among the various categories of sources, there is a common agreement that both the space and its occupants were regarded as the “other.” In the 1990’s, three influential works shaped our understanding of the dichotomy and the complementarity between the forest space and the settlement (Sontheimer 1994; Malamoud 1998, 75–88; Thapar 2001).<fnref n="1" /> Textual and epigraphic sources offer an array of terminologies to denote a forest, considering that the forest as a space was diverse. In the texts as well as inscriptions forests were known as *vana, jāṅgala, aṭavī, aranya, etc.*<fnref n="2" /> Significantly, terms meaning ‘forest’ were sometimes used in inscriptions as components in the names of kings, subordinate rulers, and officials of the state. Thus, one can see names like

<footnote n="1">1 Romila Thapar delivered the first Sontheimer Memorial Lecture in Pune in December 1998 on this theme, an expanded version of which was published in 2001.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 This nomenclature has been further discussed by Chattopadhyaya (2017) and Aloka Parasher-Sen (2019).</footnote>
Aṭavidurjaya (Cīpurupalle plates of Viṣṇuvardhana 1), Vanasiṁha (Pandiapathar plates of Bhīmasena, Year 89), and others.

When we turn our gaze from forests to forest people, we find that they were generally referred to as āṭavika in our sources. But singularly, they had different nomenclature and often defined territories. Śabara, Pulinda, Niṣāda, and Kirāta are largely the forest people who are alluded to in the textual and epigraphic sources. It appears that aṭavī was used together with mleccha in the Arthaśāstra (7.10.16) in the context of acquiring a land with permanent enemies (Olivelle 2013, 666).

These forest groups were equipped with extraordinary skills which ranged from physical prowess to medicinal knowledge. In the present essay, we wish to study the epigraphic portrayal of the Śabaras and the Pulindas, who were by and large the “other” of the Brahmanical society. The rationale behind the choice of these two groups lies in the fact that in the textual sources Śabaras and Pulindas are often mentioned in the same context, and their names became generic appellations for “barbarous” tribes and forest groups. Aloka Parasher-Sen (1991, 93–101) includes them within the category of mleccha. The marginality of the forest people remained an almost perennial theme in the long-term history of the subcontinent. However, there were occasions, particularly from the fourth century, when these forest people were represented as being in positions of power or status in a range of epigraphic records.

## 2. A few references in literary texts

The first Brahmanical text to mention the habitat of the Śabaras and Pulindas was the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (7.3.18), where it is said that these two groups along with a few others lived beyond the borders. They were regarded as the cursed sons of Viśvāmitra, as they had disobeyed their father and thus were banned to live beyond the borders. The Arthaśāstra (2.1.6) also mentions the Śabaras and Pulindas together as peoples who guard the regions between the frontiers and the interior of the kingdom. Thus, Brahmanical textual sources confirm that the location of these forest people is at or near the frontier. They lived at the edge of settled areas, which indirectly implied that there should ideally be a forest at the border of such areas (Chakravarti 2014, 181). The Arthaśāstra (8.4.42) paints a negative picture of the forest people, comparing them to robbers: “Highwaymen rob those who are heedless, are few in number and sluggish (pratirodhakāḥ pramattasyāpaharanti, alpāḥ kunṭḥāḥ), and are easy to recognise and apprehend, whereas, living in their own region (svadeśa-sthāḥ) and being
numerous and brave, forest tribes fight in the open, plunder and destroy regions, and behave like kings (deśānāṁ rājasadharmāņa iti)." In other words, they were more dangerous than robbers as they were in control of their own territory. In the Amarakośa (2.10.21), the Pulindas along with the Kirātas and the Śabaras are mentioned as outcastes (kirāta-śabara-pulindā mleccha-jātayaḥ) (Parasher-Sen 2019, 140). They were regarded as the "other" in contrast to the "civilised," even though they were often used for the benefit of the state. The aṭavī-bala (army composed of forest people) formed one of the six kinds of armies of the king.

With regard to the area of habitation of these forest groups, most of the textual sources prefer to place them around the Vindhyan region or parts of Odisha, but they are also spoken of as dwelling in the Dakṣiṇāpatha. In this context I would privilege Bāṇabhaṭṭa as an author for his graphic description of the Vindhyan forests and the intense portrayal of Śabara men both in the Kādambarī and the Harṣacarita. In addition to these two works, another text of about the tenth century demands our attention, the Kathāsaritsāgara of Somadeva.

In the Kādambarī we get a vivid description of the Śabara army. A sense of horror prevails in that description as it is portrayed as "all the nights of the dark fortnight rolled into one... like a crowd of evil deeds come together; like a caravan of curses of the many hermits dwelling in the Daṇḍaka forest..." (Ridding 1896, 27). Following the description of the army is a lengthy depiction of the young Śabara leader whose name was Mātaṅga (ibid., 28–33). He is compared to Ekalavya,<fnref n="3" /> and Bāṇa describes him as a handsome strong youth who was capable of conquering the Vindhya Mountain. While Mātaṅga’s physical beauty is underscored with analogies from the forest and its inhabitants, Bāṇa does not hesitate to highlight his cruel nature by stating that he was “partial avatar of death.” Another description demonstrates the brutality of a hungry old Śabara man who mercilessly killed tiny parrots (ibid., 33) to satisfy his hunger. The Śabara man, the cruel “other,” is contrasted with Hārita, a youthful hermit, whose mind was purified with all knowledge and who is the son of the great ascetic Jābāli (ibid., 35).

Bāṇa’s other creation, the Harṣacarita, portrays the Śabaras as living in a settled society within the forest. The Śabaras lived both by hunting and by farming. The context of Bāṇa’s description of the Śabaras was the time when Harṣa entered the Vindhya forest in search of his sister Rājyaśrī (Cowell and Thomas

<footnote n="3">3 The story of Ekalavya is narrated in the *Mahābhārata*. He was a Niṣāda (another forest group), who was an excellent archer. He wanted to be the disciple of Droṇa, the teacher of the Pāṇḍavas and Kauravas. However, Droṇa refused to take him as a student as he was lowly born.</footnote>
1897, 232). In the last chapter of the *Harṣacarita*, Bāṇabhaṭṭa gives a heroic description of a Śabara boy, named Nirghāta, who was the nephew of the Śabara chief:

the young mountaineer had his hair tied into a crest above his forehead with a band of the *śyāmalatā* creeper dark like lampblack, and his dark forehead was like a night that always accompanied him in his wild exploits, with an involuntary frown which branched in three lines. His ear had an ear-ring of glass-like crystal fastened in it, and it assumed a green hue from a parrot's wing which ornamented it, while his somewhat bleared eye, with its scanty lashes, seemed to distil hyena's blood which had been applied as a medicine. His nose was flat, his lower lip thick, his chin low, his jaws full, his forehead and cheek-bones projecting, his neck a little bent down while one half of his shoulders stood up, he seemed to mock the broad rocks of the Vindhya's side with his brawny chest, which was broadened by exercise and hardened by incessantly bending his bow, while his arms, which were more solid than a boa-constrictor, made light of the tallest *śāla*-trees of the Himalaya. [...]

His right hand seemed busily engaged with a[n] [...] arrow, having its point dipped in a potent poison, and looking like a black snake which had been stupefied by certain roots. He was like a moving dark *tamāla* tree on the side of a mountain or a pillar of solid stone artificially wrought, or a moving mass of black collyrium or a melting block of iron from the Vindhya, a very fever to the elephants, the noose of death to the deer, a comet of ill omen to the lions, the last day of the *Durgā-pūjā* to the buffaloes, the personified essence of destruction, the embodied fruit of sin, the cause of the *Kali* age, the lover of doom's-night.<fnref n="4" />

If we analyse the vibrant portrayals of the Śabara men in both the texts, a common pattern can be located. The bodily strength and the muscle power of the Śabaras were highlighted in both the cases. This may be a stereotypical description of forest people. Their body language, ritual, lifestyle — everything — was different from “civilised” society. The forest people were feared, but their help was also taken when required.

Within various contexts, the Śabaras figure as a powerful presence in the *Kathāsaritsāgara*. In one story, the hero Śrīdatta is looking for his beloved Mṛgāṅkavatī in the Vindhyas and meets a Śabara chief called Śrīcaṇḍa. The chief dupes him and brings him to the hamlet (*pallī*) of the Śabaras, where he is planning to offer Śrīdatta as a sacrifice to the goddess Caṇḍikā. In the meantime, Sundarī, the daughter of the Śabara chief, falls in love with Śrīdatta, who agrees

<footnote n="4">4 Cowell and Thomas (1897, 230–32).</footnote>
to marry her in the gāndharva form of marriage, as this would free him from his fetters. While the chief is away, they meet regularly, but Śrīdatta can eventually return to his home at the behest of the wife of the Śabara chief. The Śabara chief is portrayed as a cruel man (Tawney 1880, 64).

On another occasion, we find that Śrīdatta was confronted by a group of robbers who were Śabaras. He was ultimately able to save himself by the grace of his Śabara wife Sundarī. Thus, Śrīdatta, though not a Śabara himself, took over the Śabara village from his wife and became its chief (Tawney 1880, 65).

These glimpses of textual references of various genres are clear indicators that these forest people were the “other” of the society, the robber, the destroyer of peace. In the description of the Śabara men, their muscle power is clearly underscored.

### 3. Epigraphic mentions: changing positions of the forest people

Epigraphy offers a slightly different picture, which is much more complex. The references to forest people in epigraphic records were apparently guided by a multiplicity of contexts relating to the politics and historical traditions of the respective regions. This should be kept in mind while studying the allusions to Śabaras and Pulindas in epigraphy.

It is commonly known that the first epigraphic reference to the forest dwellers (*aṭavi*) comes from the *Major rock edict XIII of Aśoka*, where it is quite evident that the emperor is not pleased with them and thus goes to the extent of stating that he could be compelled to take stern measure against them. *Āṭavikas* were actually told that the emperor would pardon only up to the limit that was pardonable; he would regret (*anutāpe*) having to hurt them, which is nothing more than an assertion of his power (*pabhābe*) (Tieken 2023, 96). The practices of the forest dwellers were obviously not in congruence to what Aśoka envisioned for his Dhamma. The forest people must have continued to be an irritant to the state in the post-Mauryan period as well, as their perception is much sterner in Book 8 of the *Arthaśāstra*. It is widely accepted that the *Arthaśāstra* consists of different layers, and Books 8 and 9 may have been composed by the end of the first or the beginning of the second century (Olivelle 2013, 25–30).

The *Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta* carefully details the differences between frontier kingdoms, forest kingdoms, non-monarchical powers, etc. The record states that Samudragupta reduced all the *āṭavika-rājas* to the status of servants (*paricārakī-kṛta*). What is significant to note is that Aśoka referred only to the *aṭavi*, meaning the forest people, whereas the *Allahabad inscription*
mentions forest kings/chiefs (āṭavika-rāja). These āṭavika-rājas occupied forest territories between the Āryāvarta and Dakṣiṇāpatha. By the time the Guptas came to power, the forest people had become organised and transformed the forest space into chiefdoms of the people living there.

The specific location of such forest kingdoms was revealed for the first time — with reference to eighteen āṭavika-rājyas in the *Betul plates* (c. 519) and the *Khoh plate* (c. 529) of Saṁkṣobha of the Parivrājaka family — as the region of Bundelkhand and the adjoining areas (presently around Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh). The ruler was governing the core area of Ḍabhālā/Ṭahālā rājya, which included the peripheral areas of eighteen forest kingdoms (sāṣṭādaśāṭavi-rājyābhyantara), and which he had received through inheritance (*anvayāgata*). The use of the term ‘inheritance’ here indicates that prior to him this forest space was already a kingdom. It is clear from the two inscriptions that his father Hastin was the ruler of this kingdom. Romila Thapar (2001, 13) points out that “this was part of the conversion of the Vindhyan region from forest to kingdom, from *vana* to *kṣetra*.” Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (2017, 66) observes that none of the elements of forest life can be seen in the record, except for the goddess Piṣṭapurī, who was of *aṭavī* origin, but was transformed into a Brahmanical deity housed in a temple (*devakula*). Prior to this inscription, the *Navagrāma* grant of Saṁkṣobha’s father Hastin (c. 517) records the grant of the village Navagrāma, which was located in the *pulinda-rāja-rāṣṭra* (the territory of the Pulinda king) within his kingdom. This not only implies the presence of a locality under control of the Pulinda chief within the kingdom of Hastin, but also the transformation of a forest space inhabited by the Pulindas to a more settled locality.

The Pulindas experienced internal change over a period of time, and gradually came to have a chief and chiefdom for themselves. From Khoh itself we come across the mention of a person called Pulindabhaṭa in the *Khoh copper plate of Śarvanātha* from Uccakalpa, issued in the year 214 of the Gupta era, c. 533. The king had earlier granted two villages, Kācarapallika and Vyāghrapallika, as a mark of favour (*prasādī-kṛta*) to Pulindabhaṭa in perpetuity (*ācandrārkasamakālikau*). He in turn (*tenāpi*) presented (*pratipāditau*) them to Kumārasvāmin as [property] to be enjoyed by the lineage of [Kumārasvāmin’s] sons and grandsons, for the sake of the worship (*pūjā*) of the goddess Piṣṭapurī and for the restoration of ruined [structures] and damaged [movables] at the temple (*devakula*) commissioned [by Pulindabhaṭa] in Mānapura.<fnref n="5" /> The name ending *bhaṭa* added to Pulinda is noteworthy. We have the expression *cāṭa* and *bhaṭa* in inscriptions. These were lower-level employees of the kingdom who acted as a kind of

<footnote n="5">5 We are grateful to Dániel Balogh for discussions on the purport of the inscription.</footnote>
constable. It may so happen that some of the Pulindas, who were local inhabitants, were employed in this position for their martial character and gradually became important. We can imagine that the appointment of a few of the local people into a position in the king's service could have created a kind of social hierarchy among the indigenous population. It appears from the inscription that Pulindabhaṭa dispossessed himself of the two villages given to him by the king, passing them on to the Brāhmaṇa Kumārasvāmin for the worship at and upkeep of the temple. For the transfer of rights, he perhaps sought the permission of the ruler, as King Śarvanātha claims in the inscription to have endorsed the grant of the two villages (tāmra-śāsanenānumoditau). Pulindabhaṭa himself had commissioned the construction of the temple and installed the goddess Piṣṭapurikā, who was an autochthonous deity. Once Piṣṭapurikā was installed as a Brahmanical deity, Pulindabhaṭa lost all rights to be directly associated with the temple due to his autochthonous origin. By giving the two villages he made arrangements for the upkeep of the temple. This act perhaps gave him the satisfaction of indirectly being associated with the goddess. Significantly, the inscriptions from Khoh speak only of the Pulindas as a forest group, while the Śabaras are not mentioned. Perhaps this area around Bundelkhand was largely the habitat of the Pulindas.

As we move eastward from central India to Odisha, we find that the *Parikud plates of Madhyamarājadeva* of the Śailodbhava dynasty (694) mention one Pulindasena, a reputed person from Kaliṅga (*khyātaḥ kaliṅga-janatāsu*). It is said that he prayed to Svayambhū to create a capable ruler who could take care of the region, and thus the dynasty's founder emerged from a rock (*śilā-śakalodbhedī*). This Pulindasena is associated with the forest tribe Pulinda, and the territory of the Śailodbhavas was the area known as Koṅgadamanḍala around present-day Ganjam, Khurda, and Puri of Odisha. What is evident from this inscription is the position of respect that Pulindasena was accorded for being associated in the founding of the dynasty. After the Śailodbhavas, these areas were under the control of the Bhauma-Kara dynasty, which ruled from the eighth century to the tenth.

That the Pulindas continued to be present here can be foregrounded with the help of the *Hindol plate of Śubhākaradeva* belonging to the Bhauma-Kara dynasty, datable to the mid-ninth century.<fnref n="6" /> Śubhākaradeva granted a village at the request of Pulindarāja (*pulindarāja-vijñaptyā*), half of the village being meant, *inter alia*, for the worship of the god Vaidyanātha-bhaṭṭāraka installed in the Pulindeśvara temple founded by him (i.e. Pulindarāja).

<footnote n="6">⁶ We are thankful to Debankita Das for drawing our attention to this inscription.</footnote>
Like the Pulindas, the Śabaras too found a place in the epigraphic records of the period from the sixth to the tenth century. Here we do not intend to provide an inventory of all the mentions of Śabaras, but shall draw attention to those records where the Śabara presence is seen. The *Chicacole plates of Devendra-varman*, an Eastern Gaṅga ruler, are significant because here a Śabara held the position of a *mahattara*. It is said that the epigraph was written in the presence of this *mahattara*, the Śabara Nandiśarman. The position of a *mahattara* is important in the village administration and is much above an ordinary *kuṭumbin*. The name Nandiśarman is also indicative of Sanskritisation and Brahmanisation, but the addition of Śabara before his name suggests that the ethnic identity of this *mahattara* was not to be forgotten. One cannot miss the fact that he was present when a charter was written which records a royal grant in favour of six Brāhmaṇas, whose names also all end in -śarman. The village donated was called Poppaṅgika, located in Saraümaṭamba of Kroṣṭukavartani. The names may indicate that it was a locality largely inhabited by non-Sanskritic population.

Another inscription of significant importance is the *Mallar plates of Jayarāja, year 9*, which can be dated to the middle of the sixth century. The plates were issued from Śarabhapura near Sirpur, in the present-day Chhattisgarh area. They are about the donation of a village to two Brāhmaṇas, Maheśvarasvāmin and Rudrasvāmin. Rudrasvāmin is further identified as *śabara-bhogika*. Gouriswar Bhattacharya and M. Sivayya (1961–62, 29) opined that the term *śabara-bhogika* may mean either that he hailed from an administrative division (*bhoga*) called Śabara, or that he was in charge of a locality called Śabara. On the other hand, Ajay Mitra Shastri (1995a, 26 n. 33) opines that the expression should be taken to mean that Rudrasvāmin acted as a priest of the Śabaras. Whatever may be the case, the inscription at least indicates the presence of the Śabaras in the area. The area around present Chhattisgarh was known for its forests, and it was the natural habitat of the forest people.

The *Udayendiram plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla* (ninth century) are an example of the Śabaras attaining a position of power and then being defeated by a ruler, in this case Nandivarman. The grant proudly affirms that Nandivarman's general defeated Udayana, king of the Śabaras, and captured his mirrored banner made of peacock feathers (*mayūra-kalāpa-viracitaṁ darppaṇa-dhvajaṁ grhītavān*). The Śabara king must have been growing in power and this position of power of the Śabaras, the “other,” caused much anxiety to the settled kingdoms.

In contrast, the *Khajuraho stone inscription of Dhaṅga* of the year 1059 has an interesting portrayal of a Śabara. The inscription was composed by the poet Rāma, son of Balabhadra and grandson of the poet Nandana, who is said to have
been born of Śabara extraction (sāvara-vamsa-janmā śrī-naṁdanah). The implica-
tion of this statement is that the composer of this inscription hailed from a fam-
ily of poets belonging to the Śabara lineage. In spite of the Śabara background,
members of the family learnt Sanskrit and became famous as poets. There was
no attempt to iron out his lineage, rather it was recorded. This inscription is a
eulogy which states that the fame of Dhaṅga spread far and wide.

That the Śabaras continued to be in positions of power in eastern Odisha is
clear from the *Korni second copperplate grant of Anantavarman Coḍagaṅga* (c. 1113).
This inscription clearly states that Kāmārṇava I, the originator of the Eastern
Gaṅgas, took charge of the Mahendra mountains and killed the local tribal chief
Śabarāditya. The Gaṅga charters claim that the god Gokarṇeśvara bestowed on
them the right to rule Kaliṅga. According to B. P. Sahu (1985, 155), Gokarṇeśvara
was the patron deity of the Śabara tribe in the Mahendra mountains, and this
deity was given the name Śiva Gokarṇeśvara and made the patron deity of the
Eastern Gaṅga family. Here is another case of appropriation of the deity of the
forest people, the Śabaras. This was a convenient way of eliciting support from
the common people.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, it may be said that there is not an iota of doubt about the multiple
perceptions of the forest people. Notions and contexts alter over time. Forests
could have been a liminal space, located often between two villages or a city and
the village. Land grants to Brāhmaṇas, bordering forests, led to encroachment
on forest lands and thereby on the lives of the forest people. This opened up
spaces for re-grouping and consolidating. It appears that while in the literary
texts the forest people are clearly the “other,” in the epigraphic context they
are represented in multiple ways, beyond the binary distinction between
“civilised” and “uncivilised.” A few cases discussed from the epigraphic records
reveal that there were various ways of seeing and recognising the forest people.
The notions differed according to the specific circumstances. Expressions like
śabara-mahattara, śabara-bhogika, pulinda-rāja-rāṣṭra, or names like Pulindabhaṭa
in the epigraphs undoubtedly indicate enhanced social status along with partic-
ipation in the affairs of the state. In this context, along with the other examples
cited above, one can also add a story narrated in the *Kuvalayamālā* of Uddyotana
(779).<fnref n="7" /> The story (Kumar 2015, 183) is about the kingdom of Vinītā (in Madhya-

<footnote n="7">7 About the *Kuvalayamālā*, see also Chojnacki's paper (pp. 261ff.) in this volume (eds).</footnote>
deśa), which was ruled by King Dṛdhavarman, whose queen was called Priyaṅgu-
śyāmā. The story records that Suṣeṇa, a Śabara prince (sabara-seṇāvaī-putto) was
sent to war against the Mālava king. He returned victorious and visited King
Dṛdhavarman, who was seated in the inner assembly along with the queen and
a few selected ministers. Suṣeṇa narrated to the king in an exuberant manner
how the army of the enemy was routed along with capture of the child prince
and the war-spoils. Here the Śabara prince, being a valiant warrior, was used by
the monarch.<fnref n="8" />

The forest chiefs were closely working within the ambit of a monarchical
system. The forest deities were appropriated, and the monarchs were engaging
with the forest dwellers in a bid to effectively control the forest space, which
was a veritable source of economic resources. Ranabir Chakravarti (2022, 129)
has recently suggested that “appropriation of the autochthonous cults into the
Brahmanical pantheon was neither a peaceful, nor an innocuous nor an inno-
cent process” and, in this case, it was the forest people who, living in a liminal
space, were subject to an ambivalent situation. Most inscriptions are from the
forest tracts of Central India, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha. The myth of the Śailod-
bhavas arising from a splinter of rock with divine blessings in answer to the
prayers of a Pulinda speaks of the tribal origin of the dynasty on the one hand,
and of a step towards the Brahmanisation of the dynasty on the other. One can
notice that the Śabaras continued to be present in the epigraphic records for a
longer time than the Pulindas.

Primary sources

See page xvi about references to primary sources in general, and page xvii about DHARMA digital editions with a corpus ID and a number.

Aitareya Brāhmaṇa: translation, Haug (1863).

Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta: Fleet (1888, № 1).

Amarakośa of Amarasiṁha: Colebrooke (1891).

Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya: edition, Kangle (1960); translation, Olivelle (2013).

Betul plates of Saṁkṣobha: Hira Lal (1905-06).

Chicacole plates of Devendravarman: Hultzsch (1894-95).

Cīpurupalle plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I: VengiCalukya00002; Fleet (1891a).

Harṣacarita of Bāṇabhaṭṭa: translation, Cowell and Thomas (1897).

<footnote n="8">8 For a detailed discussion of the Kuvalayamālā of Uddyotana in this context, see Ashish Kumar's unpublished thesis (2015).</footnote>
*Hindol plate of Śubhākaradeva, year 103*: Tripathy (2000, № 8).

*Kādambarī of Bāṇabhaṭṭa*: translation, Ridding (1896).

*Kathāsaritsāgara of Somadeva*: translation, Tawney (1880; 1884).

*Khajuraho stone inscription of Dhaṅga*: Kielhorn (1892a, № 4).

*Khoh copper plate of Śarvanātha, year 214*: Fleet (1888, № 31).

*Khoh copper plate of Saṅkṣobha, year 209*: Fleet (1888, № 25).

*Korni second copperplate grant of Anantavarman Coḍagaṅga*: Sitapati (1926).

*Kuvalayamālā of Uddyotana*: Upadhye (1959).

*Mallar plates of Jayarāja, year 9*: DaksinaKosala00007; Bhattacharya and Sivayya (1961–62).

*Major rock edict XIII of Aśoka*: Basak (1959, 63–76).

*Navagrāma grant of Hastin*: Dikshit (1931–32).

*Pandiapathar plates of Bhīmasena, Year 89*: Sircar (1961–62b).

*Parikud plates of Madhyamarājadeva*: Banerji (1911–12).

*Udayendiram plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla*: Hultzsch (1895, № 74).
DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.001

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
# The Position of Tīvaradeva in the Light of Panegyric Passages in Inscriptions of Dakṣiṇa Kosala

*Natasja Bosma*

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin,
Institut für Asien- und Afrikawissenschaften

## 1. Introduction

One of the regions where the royal sponsoring of religion became increasingly widespread during the sixth and seventh centuries was Dakṣiṇa Kosala. In the aftermath of the Gupta-Vākāṭaka hegemony, a period of political reorganisation and shifting boundaries, the Dakṣiṇa Kosala region developed into a stable and flourishing kingdom under the rule of two successive royal houses, namely, the kings of Śarabhapura and the Pāṇḍava kings of Śrīpura (modern Sirpur). The distribution of archaeological sites and the provenances of inscriptions indicate that the core of the kingdom consisted of the areas north and south of the Seonath river (see Figure 1), which corresponds to the heart of modern Chhattisgarh. In an earlier publication (Bosma 2018, 7–49), I suggested that the Kosala kingdom may originally have been confined to the area south of the Seonath river, whereas the area north of the river corresponded to the kingdom of Mekalā, running up to the Maikal range of hills along the northwestern border of Chhattisgarh. The kings of Śarabhapura likely hailed from the southern part of this Mekalā, but they extended their influence across river to Kosala during the reign of Sudevarāja, as was emphasised by the shift of their royal headquarters to Sirpur (the extended kingdom being “Dakṣiṇa Kosala”). The Pāṇḍava kings likely hailed from the northern part of Mekalā, where they may have been feudatories of the kings of Śarabhapura. They gained a foothold in Dakṣiṇa Kosala when sāmanta Indrabala was stationed as Sudevarāja’s chief minister (sarvādhikārādhikṛta) in Sirpur. Soon after, the Pāṇḍavas took over the region and established their dominion.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. The kingdom of Daksina Kosala</figcaption></figure>

DOI: 10.13173/9783447122306.013

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The terms of the CC licence apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources such as charts, illustrations, photographs and text extracts may require further permission for use from the respective rights holder.
Most of what is known about the Pāṇḍava kings comes from the inscriptions of the last known king of the dynasty: Śivagupta Bālārjuna (r. c. 590–650). The length and prosperity of this king’s reign likely facilitated developments in the religious history, art, and architecture of the region, which makes him an important historical figure. From the inscriptions of Śivagupta we know that the Pāṇḍava kings traced their pedigree back to the legendary progenitor Udayana, king of Vatsa. He also commemorates Indrabala, the Pāṇḍava king who first took control over the region by means of a coup d’état and was, therefore, an important historical predecessor. Another Pāṇḍava king who appears to have been important for the prestige and strength of the kingdom, was Tīvaradeva. He is not mentioned by Śivagupta and he issued only four known charters himself, but the panegyric passages in these inscriptions are very extensive compared to those of the other kings from Dakṣiṇa Kosala. He is portrayed with long strings of epithets, composed by the court poets, and this raises the question as to whether he was indeed an important figure in the dynasty’s history, or whether he needed to propagate himself in this way to strengthen his position. The present article examines this question by analysing the panegyric passages in the copperplate charters of the kings of Śarabhapura and the Pāṇḍava kings, against the background of their political history.

## 2. Panegyric passages in the corpus of Dakṣiṇa Kosala

The extant corpus of copperplate charters that were issued by the kings of Śarabhapura and the Pāṇḍava kings of Mekalā and Sirpur comprises a total of 47 inscriptions: 42 complete charters and 5 stray plates. The text of a complete charter is written on three sheets of copper, of which the middle sheet is inscribed on both sides. The two outer sheets are often used on the inside only (with the exception of some longer inscriptions, for practical reasons), in order to protect the engraved characters from wear. For the same reason, the outer edges of the sheets of copper are usually thickened, so that the surfaces of the plates do not rub together. The ends of the ring that joins the plates together are soldered on a seal of the ruling king, to give the grant authority and to prevent the removing or adding of plates (see Figure 2).

The inscriptions in this corpus can be ascribed to ten different kings, who are represented in lavender in the genealogies of the two royal houses that are depicted in Figure 3. Their (presumed) succession is indicated by the numbers before their names. No extant copperplate charters were preserved from the kings represented in green, but their names are either known from the
occasional stone inscription or mentioned as a predecessor in the introductions of the issuing kings. The dashed borders of some of the green boxes in Figure 3 indicate that there is uncertainty about the precise relationship of the king in question with his predecessors or successors. For example, in the case of Prasannamātra of Śarabhapura we know that he was the father of Jayarāja and Durgarāja, but the relationship between him and Narendra remains unclear because the latter two kings do not refer to Narendra as their grandfather and there are no known inscriptions of Prasannamātra himself.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. The Kurud plates of Narendra. Photograph by the author, 2009. Courtesy of the Mahant Ghasidas Memorial Museum, Raipur.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. The kings of Dakṣiṇa Kosala (6th to 7th centuries)</figcaption></figure>

Panegyric passages in the preambles of copperplate charters introduce and portray the issuing king, but they may also refer to relevant “others” along the way (such as references to overlords and subordinates, or descriptions of adversaries or intra-dynastic rivals). They cannot be considered as actual reflections of historical events because legendary and factual history were combined to make an inspirational narrative, in which court poets used their talents to extol the virtues and military achievements of the sponsoring kings. Nevertheless, impression management requires a grain of truth to be effective. Hence, Daud Ali (2000, 184) refers to these introductions as “living narratives” and they can be valuable in our knowledge of local history and the political profile of a region. In the introductions of the copperplate charters that were issued by the kings of Śarabhapura and the Pāṇḍava kings, the portrayal of “others” is largely limited to incidental references to the father and predecessor of the issuing king, whereas the portrayal of the kings themselves varies from short and simple to rather extensive.

The kings of Śarabhapura are known from 17 inscriptions, one of which is a stray plate that cannot be linked to any of the issuing kings because it is the middle plate of a set. The pedigree of these kings can only be established from
the short metrical verses on the seals that authorise the grants, because there
are no references to predecessors in the overall template used across kings —
the exception being the two charters issued by Sudevarāja from his new capital
of Sirpur, in which he is introduced as “the son of the illustrious great Durga-
rāja.”<fnref n="1" /> The seals are helpful because several of the legends contain a phrase that
identifies the issuing king as a son of his father, thus disclosing the family rela-
tions.<fnref n="2" /> In terms of panegyric, Narendra is portrayed in very basic terms, just
stating his great devotion to Viṣṇu (parama-bhāgavata) and his parents’ favour
to him (mātā-pitṛ-pādānudhyāta). The same unpretentious wording is used in
Jayarāja’s *Amgura plates*, but starting with the charters from his fifth regnal year,
his generosity and qualities as a conqueror were added to the formulaic stan-
dard in eloquent words: “His feet are washed by the sprinkling water that is the
brilliance of the crest-jewels of his feudatories who have been brought into sub-
mission by his prowess. He made the women of his enemies tear out their parted
hair, and he was a giver of riches, land, and cattle.”<fnref n="3" /> The kings of Śarabhapura
who followed Jayarāja on the throne all seem to have used this same formula to
introduce themselves.

Among the Pāṇḍava kings there is much more variation in the way they are
introduced in the preambles of their charters. Their family history can be par-
tially drawn from 30 copperplate inscriptions in the corpus of Dakṣiṇa Kosala,
and several stone inscriptions have also been important for establishing their
pedigree.<fnref n="4" /> It is fitting that the earliest Pāṇḍava record should be the one of
Indrabala, the king who likely gained the throne by means of a coup d'état and,

<footnote n="1">1 These charters are the *Dhamatari plates* and the *Kauvatal plates* of Sudevarāja, both using the phrase *śrī-mahā-durgarāja-putra-śrī-mahā-sudevarājaḥ*.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Narendra is referred to as the son of Śarabha (*śarabhāt prāpta-janmanaḥ*) in the legend on the seals of his *Pīparḍūlā plates* and *Kurud plates*. Jayarāja is described as the ‘heart’ of Prasanna (*prasanna-hṛdayasya*) in his *Amgura plates* and *Āraṅg plates*, and as the son of Prasanna (*prasanna-tanaya*) in his *Malhār plates*. The seals of Sudevarāja’s *Nahna plates* and *Āraṅg plates* identify Sudevarāja as the son of Mānamātra, and the latter as the son of Prasanna (*prasannārṇava-sambhūta-mānamātrendu-janmanaḥ*). This implies that Mānamātra was an alias of Durgarāja. Pravararāja is also described as a son of Mānamātra on his seals (*mānamātra-sutasya*).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 vikramopanata-sāmanta-makuṭa-cūḍāmaṇi-prabhā-prasekāmbubhir dhauta-pāda-yugalo, ripu-vilāsinī-sīmantoddharaṇa-hetur ... vasu-vasudhā-go-pradaḥ.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 In particular, the *Kharod stone inscription of Iśānadeva*, the *Āraṅg stone inscription of Bhava-deva*, and the *Sirpur (Lakṣmaṇa temple)* stone inscription of *Vāsaṭā*, wife of *Harṣagupta* and mother of king *Śivagupta*. For a more detailed account on the history of the Pāṇḍava kings with references to these stone inscriptions, see Bosma (2018).</footnote>
therefore, perhaps the most important figure in the dynasty's history. He was
still acting as the chief minister of Sudevarāja when he issued his charter from
Maṇḍaka, which may be the reason why he does not refer to his Pāṇḍava back-
ground. In the introduction of his charter, he is characterised with the same
formulaic phrases as Narendra, but these are accompanied by two metrical
verses. The first one alludes to a father who was powerful like Indra, splendid
like the moon, and solid like a mountain, whereas the second verse celebrates
Indrabala:

To him was born a son, whose impact is as clear as that of a troop of ele-
phants; who has a handsome appearance; who always bestows gifts duly; who
is strong and unpredictable in battle; whose fame has extended in all direc-
tions; and by whom the illustrious Lakṣmī (i.e. prosperity) is carried away
after forcibly conquering the enemy troops. That illustrious king, an abode
of (the goddess of) Fortune, who takes pleasure in worship, was Indrarāja!<fnref n="5" />

All that is known about the early generations of Pāṇḍava kings (up to Indrabala) comes from the charters of Śūrabala. Alternating passages of verse and prose not only eulogise this king's parents (both father and mother), but also the three generations before them. His own introduction is limited to a single verse, praising him under the alias of Udīrṇavaira:

He who overcame {stepped on} all regions with his pair of feet having the
splendour of a full-blown lotus flower and touched by the heads of many feu-
datory chiefs laid low because of the threefold powers with which he was
endowed: that illustrious king Udīrṇavaira was born, whose numerous good
qualities are unparalleled and whose birth is celebrated by people highly
[with the words]: "Famous is the auspicious Lunar Lineage!"<fnref n="6" />

Both Indrabala and Śūrabala issued their grants in the Pāṇḍava homeland of Mekalā, whereas Nannarāja I and his successors issued theirs from Sirpur, the former headquarters of the kings of Śarabhapura. This different setting is reflected in the style and script of their records, as the copperplate charters of these later Pāṇḍava kings were engraved by the same scribal community that

<footnote n="5">5 Malga plates, v. 2: jātas tasyātmajo 'pi prakaṭa-gaja-ghaṭā-ghaṭṭanaś cāru-mūrttir nityaṁ dātābhimānī raṇa-capala-paṭur bhrānta-paryanta-kīrtiḥ| nirjityārāti-pakṣaṁ prasabham apa-hṛtā yena lakṣmī viśālā sa śrīmān śrī-niketaḥ prati-mati-ruciraḥ indrarājo narendraḥ||</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Malhār plates, v. 7: yo 'sau saṁpūrṇa-śakti-traya-vinipatitāneka-sāmanta-mūrdha-prodghṛṣṭot-
phulla-padma-dyuti-calana-yugākrānta-dik-cakravālah| saumyaḥ somasya vaṁśaḥ prabhava iti
janaiḥ kīrtyate yasya coccaih sa śrīmān saṁbabhūvāpratima-guṇa-gaṇodīrṇavairo narendraḥ||</footnote>
had served both Sudevarāja and Pravararāja and, therefore, followed the same template as the kings of Śarabhapura.<fnref n="7" /> One big difference, however, is the variation in how they are portrayed themselves: Nannarāja I is the first Pāṇḍava king who is characterised with a rather extensive string of epithets (15 in total) that praise his power and fame, great skills and knowledge, as well as his kindness and purity.<fnref n="8" /> Even more impressive and suggestive of “historical importance” is the introduction of his son Tīvaradeva, with a total of 25 epithets as well as a preceding verse:

> Victorious is the illustrious Tīvaradeva, who is the ornament of the three worlds (heaven, earth, lower world); an auspicious buttress for the palace of the (Pāṇḍava) kings; and foremost of those who perform meritorious deeds! [Tīvaradeva] who illuminates the neighbouring regions with his mirror-like toenails, which are polished by the tips of the diadems of the many feudatory kings who salute him, being permitted the (privilege of the) five great titles; whose fingers bluntly seize the good Fortune of adversary kings by the locks of her hair in public; by whom the battlefields are adorned with heaps of pearls, thoroughly smeared with thick blood oozing from the domed foreheads of the elephants of his enemies, struck down by the hard strokes of his sharp sword; who is a submarine fire to the salt water of his enemies swelling with the desire of acquiring a multitude of various gems; who does not cause distress by (levying heavy) taxes, just like the rising moon {does not cause distress by its rays}; who demonstrates a wealth of many most excellent treasures, just like the ocean of milk {demonstrates a wealth of many most excellent jewels}; who is competent in uprooting evil, just like Garutmat {is competent in destroying serpents}; who ruins the black collyrium [applied to] the eyes and the floral saffron designs on the tender cheeks of the [widowed] wives of his defeated enemies; whose mind is focused solely on the protection and establishment of virtuous behaviour; moreover, who is worshipped by people on account of his tirelessness in [performing] religious austerities in previous [births]; who is not easily satisfied in [acquiring] fame; who is trustworthy in keeping secrets; whose mind is very pure; whose eyes are bright; and whose body is adorned with youth; who, though being a commander {a Swami}, does not (indulge in) excessive talking; who, though desirous of conquering land {being an unreformed addict}, is excessively liberal (in the granting of land); who, though fierce to the family of his adversaries

<footnote n="7">7 The charters of Indrabala and Śūrabala were engraved in nail-headed characters, whereas box-headed characters were used for the charters issued by the kings of Śarabhapura and the later Pāṇḍava kings. For an analysis of the lineage of goldsmiths responsible for engraving the charters issued from Sirpur, see Ali and Zhang (2022).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 *Philadelphia Museum of Art plates of Nannarāja I, ll. 1–13.*</footnote>
(i.e. like the sun), is gentle in appearance (i.e. like the moon); who, though
adorned with majesty {ashes}, is not harsh in disposition; furthermore, who
is insatiable in generating religious merit, [but] not in accumulating wealth;
who is devoid of anger, [but] not of power; who is longing for fame, [but] not
for appropriating the fame of others; who is skilful in eloquent speech, [but]
not in consorting with promiscuous women; who has consumed the lineage
of his adversaries completely, as a heap of cotton, with the fire of his splen-
dour; who illuminates the horizons with his massive fame as bright white as
the rocky mountain of snow (i.e. Himālaya); who is loved by his subjects; [...]
who has obtained sovereignty over the whole of Kosala; who reduced all mis-
fortune in the world with his meritorious acts; who has removed all thorns
(i.e. annoying enemies) with the needle of his wisdom; who is entirely de-
voted to Viṣṇu; and who is favoured by his father and mother [...]<fnref n="9" />

This is clearly a genuine panegyric, the most extensive one in the corpus. The
idea that Tīvaradeva may have lived up to these claims is suggested in the
*Aḍbhār plates* issued by his son and successor Nannarāja II. The introduction of
this charter is all about the greatness of Tīvara, who is said to have expanded
the kingdom beyond the boundaries of Kosala, whereas Nannarāja II himself is
characterised only as “wholly intent on following the example of [his father’s]
deeds” (*caritānukaraṇa-parāyaṇaḥ*).

Perhaps most noticeable is the contrast between Tīvaradeva’s extensive pan-
egyric and the self-portrayal of Śivagupta Bālārjuna (r. c. 590–650), who was the
last-known king of the Pāṇḍava dynasty and whose reign lasted for almost sixty
years. Two thirds of all extant Pāṇḍava charters were issued by him and, judging
from the contents of his inscriptions, he was a great patron of religion. Also,
given the length of his reign, he must have been successful, powerful, prosper-
ous, and the like. Thus, there certainly appears to have been enough reason to
praise and eulogise him, but compared to Tīvaradeva, he is portrayed in modest
terms, with only a few epithets stressing his discipline, virtue, valour, intelli-
gence, and strength. The contrast between the introductions of both kings has
raised the question as to what made the poets in Tīvaradeva’s court compose
such an elaborate panegyric: was he indeed an important figure in the dynasty’s
history, or did he need to propagate himself in this way to strengthen his posi-
tion and establish himself as a king?

<footnote n="9">⁹ This introduction is found in all four of Tīvaradeva’s copperplate inscriptions (the *Bōṇḍā plates*, the *Rājim plates*, the *Sirpur plates*, and the *Baloda plates*); see the electronic editions for the Sanskrit text.</footnote>
### 3. Statistical analysis

To examine the varying lengths of the panegyric passages in the copperplate charters of the kings of Śarabhapura and the Pāṇḍava kings more closely and to analyse whether they may follow a pattern, a visual representation was made to display their flow (Figure 4). For this purpose, the relevant portions of text were converted to numerical values. For each record, both the number of lines dedicated to the self-portrayal of the issuing king and the total number of lines of the inscription were determined. Then, the number of lines dedicated to self-portrayal relative to the total number of lines (hereafter: L) was calculated, to account for the possibility that a more elaborate inscription may also have a longer panegyric passage.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Visual representation of the lengths of panegyric passages in the Dakṣiṇa Kosala corpus</figcaption></figure>

To give an example, the *Kurud plates of Narendra* depicted in Figure 2 above consist of 21 lines of text: five lines engraved on the verso side of the first plate, five on either side of the second plate, and six on the recto side of the third plate. The introduction of the king — *parama-bhāgavato mātā-pitṛ-pādānuddhyātaḥ śrī-mahārāja-narendraḥ*, “the illustrious Mahārāja Narendra, who is supremely devoted to Viṣṇu and is favoured by his father and mother” — takes up slightly more than one line on the first plate, marked with a blue outline in Figure 5. A value of 1.1 lines has been assigned to this self-portrayal, so the calculated value
of L was 0.05. Out of the corpus of 47 records, two were left out because they are stray plates that do not contain an introduction to an issuing king or other gran- tor. Most of these were complete charters, but in the case of a missing plate, an informed guess was made about the total number of lines of the inscription based on comparison with other records of the same king.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Example of collected data. Photograph by the author, 2009. Courtesy of the Mahant Ghasidas Memorial Museum, Raipur.</figcaption></figure>

The visual representation in Figure 4 contains a marker for the average length of the panegyric passages of each issuing king (yellow for the kings of Śarabha-pura and aqua for the Pāṇḍava kings). The line that runs through these markers confirms and displays the unique length of Tīvaradeva's self-portrayal among this group of kings and the great contrast between Tīvaradeva and Śivagupta regarding the length of their panegyric passage. However, it also shows that Tīvaradeva's extensive eulogy does not appear out of the blue. If we follow the line, it makes a first jump upwards from Narendra to Jayarāja. Then, after a rel- atively stable trend and a minor drop from Indrabala to Śūrabala, the line makes a big jump from the latter to Nannarāja I, after which it reaches a peak at Tīvara- deva's marker. The timing of these three increases in the length of the self POR- TRAYAL relative to the preceding king(s) will now be given a closer look.

Aiming to experiment with statistical methods from the social sciences, the collected data were further analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics software (Version 25). It is common in statistical studies to formulate two complemen-
tary hypotheses: the null hypothesis, which is the statement that one attempts to disprove, and the alternative hypothesis, which is an opposing statement that can be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis (Moore, McCabe, and Craig 2021, 350–51). In the current experiment, the guiding hypotheses are that the panegyric passages in the inscriptions of the ten issuing kings are all equal in length (null hypothesis), or that at least one king stands out (alternative hypothesis). To test the null hypothesis, the One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the Kruskal-Wallis test were considered. These are both statistical tests that can be used to compare three or more “groups” and to discover whether any of these groups are different from each other to a statistically significant degree. The difference between them is that the first one is a so-called parametric test, whereas the second one is nonparametric. The main advantage of parametric tests over nonparametric tests is that they are more powerful and precise, which means that they have a higher chance of finding a true difference (or effect) if it exists. However, parametric tests are also restricted by a number of assumptions about the pool from which the data is gathered and the conditions under which that happened. Most of these assumptions cannot possibly apply to the data of the present article. Hence, performing an ANOVA would be pointless because the results would be invalid. As a nonparametric and more flexible alternative, the Kruskal-Wallis test fits the data better (Kraska-Miller 2014, 33–39, 123–28).

In the present context, the ten issuing kings constitute the “groups” that are compared, and the focus of their comparison is the length of the panegyric passage within each group (i.e. in the inscriptions that are available for each king). If we could assume that the variability in this length follows a similar distribution curve for each king, the Kruskal-Wallis test could have been used to compare the median values (midpoints). This is not the case, however, which means that we can only approach a precise comparison by ranking the data. The Kruskal-Wallis test is also called the “H-test” because its test statistic is a variable denoted by *H*. However, since this is a rather complicated statistic, the results of the test are usually simplified into a value of chi-square (specified by the degrees of freedom and the significance of the test). In the current experiment, the result was $\chi^2(9) = 39.825, p < 0.001$. This basically indicates that the probability of finding the observed data (i.e. the described differences in panegyric passages between the kings) is less than one in a thousand under the null hypothesis. Typically, a significance level of 0.05 is chosen as a threshold to determine statistical significance (Agresti 2018, 162), which means that the evidence of the result is strong enough to reject the null hypothesis: we can accept that at least one king stands out.
The Kruskal-Wallis *H* test is an omnibus test, which means that it can be used to determine if there are statistical differences between the groups within the comparison, but it cannot point out where that significant difference lies. To narrow this down, post-hoc testing is needed to identify exactly which groups differ from each other (i.e. which king stands out). Pairwise comparisons can be made with the nonparametric Mann-Whitney *U* test (Agresti 2018, 213–16). It is beyond the scope of the experiment to present the details of forty-five pairwise comparisons here, but to name a few: the self-portrayal of Jayarāja is significantly longer than that of Narendra (*U* = 0, *p* = 0.03), but there is no significant difference in the length of panegyric passages between Jayarāja and Sudevarāja (*U* = 9, *p* = 0.35). Also, Tīvaradeva’s self-portrayal does not differ significantly from that of Nannarāja I (*U* = 0, *p* = 0.16), but it certainly is significantly longer than that of Śivagupta (*U* = 0, *p* = 0.002).

Obviously, all of these results should be interpreted with caution. For one thing, the methods are used outside their ordinary context and some of the issuing kings have less than five inscriptions, which makes the approximation of *H* with chi-square less accurate. The case could also be made that a repeated measures analysis (the Friedman test) should have been used because the panegyric passages in the inscriptions of the ten kings cannot be considered as “independent observations.” After all, the design of a king’s inscription builds on that of his predecessors. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the inscriptions of the kings are no sample of collected data that is used to draw conclusions about a broader population. Notwithstanding the limitations, the main point of this experiment was to try out something new and to promote the idea that borrowing analytical methods from other fields may bring new insights.

## 4. Discussion

The visual representation in Figure 4 and the analysis of the copperplate characters lead back to the question at the heart of this study, namely: what may have brought about the elaborate introduction of Tīvaradeva? Along the same line, similar questions may be asked about the increase in length of the introductions of Jayarāja and Nannarāja I compared to those of their predecessors. Why are the qualities of these three kings highlighted and not those of, say, Śivagupta? An answer may be found in the political history of the region and the contemporary arrangements of power; when collated together, the reigns of Jayarāja,
Nannarāja I, and Tīvaradeva seem to have coincided with some major shifts in
the political landscape of Dakṣiṇa Kosala.

In the case of Jayarāja, he may very well have been the first king of Śarabha-
pura who issued copperplate charters as a fully independent ruler. In any case,
there are good reasons to suppose that Narendra was not ruling independently
yet. The aforementioned Kurud plates report on Narendra’s grant of the village
of Keśavaka to a Brāhmaṇa named Śaṅkhasvāmin. The full religious merit of this
donation is to be conveyed to someone referred to as ‘the paramount sovereign’
(parama-bhaṭṭāraka-pāda). The grant was actually a reconfirmation of the latter’s
original grant of the village to Śaṅkhasvāmin’s father Bhāśrutasvāmin, which
had been written on palm leaves and was destroyed by a fire in the house of the
donee. In the inscription it is also told that the paramount sovereign made his
original grant when he was taking a bath in the river Gaṅgā.<fnref n="10" /> Since the Guptas
used and popularised the term parama-bhaṭṭāraka as an imperial title, and one
of their headquarters was Pāṭaliputra on the river Gaṅgā, it is likely that the
paramount sovereign of Narendra’s Kurud plates was a Gupta king. Also, the re-
spectful way in which the parama-bhaṭṭāraka is referred to in the charter sug-
gests that Narendra may have been loyal to him (Sircar 1955–56). The exact re-
lationship between Narendra and Prasanna cannot be determined with cer-
tainty because there are no inscriptions of the latter, but he did issue some re-
poussé coins that were minted in imitation of coins that can arguably be as-
cribed to the Gupta emperors Kumāragupta I and Skandagupta (Bosma 2018, 15–
19). Jayarāja was the first king of Śarabhapura with the word mahā- prefixed to
his name, ‘the Great Jayarāja,’ suggesting an increase of royal authority and po-
litical prestige. This, together with the first use of some eulogising epithets in
his introduction, can be interpreted as an indication of independent sovereignty
and his consolidation of the kingdom.

The situation of Nannarāja I bears a clear similarity to that of Jayarāja in the
sense that he was also the first person in his family who established indepen-
dent control over the Dakṣiṇa Kosala region. As mentioned above, Indrabala was
acting as Sudevarāja’s chief minister in Sirpur after the kings of Śarabhapura
expanded their kingdom towards the south and founded their second capital.
His own Malga plates were issued while he was still holding this office. It is clear
that he was in an ideal position to bring about the coup d’état of the Pāṇḍavas,
and given the reign of his progeny, he succeeded. There is, however, no evi-
dence that he ever ascended the conquered throne himself to rule from Sirpur.
The same goes for Śūrabala, who is only known from the charters he issued in

<footnote n="10">10 Kurud plates of Narendra, ll. 4–11.</footnote>
Mekalā. Nannarāja I issued his charter from Śrīpṛthivīpura, which is likely to be an unattested variant of Śrīpura (i.e. modern Sirpur). This makes him the first Pāṇḍava ruler who can be attested to have ruled from Sirpur and, thus, to have settled in the capital of the former overlords. The comparatively long string of epithets that make up his introduction may be seen as a reflection of his rising success and the establishment of Pāṇḍava hegemony.

Tīvaradeva appears to have been a venturous king, someone who moved beyond local boundaries. In his own copperplate charters, he is praised for having obtained sovereignty over the whole of Kosala, but in the inscription of his son and successor Nannarāja II he is lauded for having ruled in Utkala (i.e. the coastal districts of Odisha) and other surrounding countries as well.<fnref n="11" /> Any claim on Utkala would have been contested by the Gauḍas ruling north of that region, but Tīvaradeva may have received help from the Maukhari emperor Iśānavarman. The latter controlled Magadha in the second quarter of the sixth century and was in an excellent position to facilitate Tīvara's march into Utkala by putting pressure on the Gauḍas from the west. In return, Tīvaradeva may have supported Iśānavarman in his campaign against the king of Andhra (Bosma 2018, 33–34; Bakker 2014, 53–62). The likelihood of an alliance between both kings can only be deduced from the geographical and political circumstances at the time, but finds support in the later marriage of Tīvaradeva’s nephew Harṣagupta with Iśānavarman’s granddaughter Vāsaṭā. The implication that can be drawn here is that Tīvaradeva expanded the Pāṇḍava kingdom beyond Dakṣiṇa Kosala alone, which would make him the victorious king that he is portrayed to be in his charters.

Śivagupta Bālārjuna was by far the longest-reigning king in the history of Dakṣiṇa Kosala. During the nearly sixty years of his reign, the country seems to have been devoid of any political instability. Time and money could be invested in religious and cultural activities, such as large-scale temple construction and the provision of charity. The archaeological remains that date back to his time and the many inscriptions that record his donations are a clear indication of this (Bosma 2013). The length and impact of his reign do not, however, correspond to the length of his self-portrayal in the preamble of his charters. Apparently, peace and prosperity are no breeding ground for legends, whereas war and strife are. The pattern of the means plot made three kings stand out in terms of the length of their introduction, and a closer examination of the political history

<footnote n="11">11 The phrase *prāpta-sakala-kosalādhipatyaḥ* is used in Tīvaradeva’s own charters, while the text *sva-bhuja-parākramopārjita-sakala-kosalotkalādi-maṇḍalādhipatya-māhātmyasya śrī-mahāśiva-tīvararājasya* appears in the Aḍbhār plates of Nannarāja II, ll. 5–7.</footnote>
of Dakṣiṇa Kosala has revealed that each of their reigns can typically be associ-
ated with the act of either establishing or extending control. Hence, each of
them acted in a conflictual context that was characterised by victory and defeat,
the very elements that feature prominently in panegyrics. Thus, the analysis of
panegyric passages in the copperplate charters of the kings of Śarabhapura and
the Pāṇḍava kings of Dakṣiṇa Kosala has offered some insight into what may
have inspired their composition.

Primary sources

See page xvi about references to primary sources in general, and page xvii about DHARMA digital editions with a corpus ID and a number.

Aḍbhār plates of Nannarāja II: DaksinaKosala00029.

Amgura plates of Jayarāja: DaksinaKosala00004.

Āraṅg plates of Jayarāja: DaksinaKosala00006.

Āraṅg plates of Sudevarāja: DaksinaKosala00011.

Baloda plates of Tīvaradeva: DaksinaKosala00028.

Boṇḍā plates of Tīvaradeva: DaksinaKosala00025.

Dhamatari plates of Sudevarāja: DaksinaKosala00009.

Kauvatal plates of Sudevarāja: DaksinaKosala00012.

Kurud plates of Narendra: DaksinaKosala00002.

Malga plates of Indrabala: DaksinaKosala00018.

Malhār plates of Jayarāja: DaksinaKosala00007.

Malhār plates of Śūrabala: DaksinaKosala00020.

Nahna plates of Sudevarāja: DaksinaKosala00008.

Philadelphia Museum of Art plates of Nannarāja I: DaksinaKosala00024.

Pīparḍūlā plates of Narendra: DaksinaKosala00001.

Rājim plates of Tīvaradeva: DaksinaKosala00026.

Sirpur plates of Tīvaradeva: DaksinaKosala00027.
# Use and Functions of the Coronation Name
## During the Somavaṁśin Dynasty

Amandine Wattelier-Bricout

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Paris,
Centre d'Études Sud-Asiatiques et Himalayennes (CESAH)

## 1. Introduction

Within the corpus of the Somavaṁśin dynasty from Odisha, consisting of forty-eight records, the ruling king is very often referred to by two distinct names to which honorific and sectarian titles are affixed. Indeed, he is generally called in the date section by his personal name and in the notification part by his coronation name,<fnref n="1" /> the latter generally alternating between Mahābhavagupta and Mahāśivagupta. These coronation names ending in -gupta are almost never used alone, but are often found together in a long compound and are linked by the expression pādānudhyāta, whose meaning has been discussed by Ferrier and Törzsök (2008). From this meaning, one can argue that the issuer king uses the whole compound in order to legitimate his position by a direct succession from father to son. Although this practice seems to be attested in all the land donations made by the kings of this dynasty, the coronation name does not always appear in donations made by third parties, and seems to be absent from stone inscriptions. Also noteworthy is the fact that the coronation names are totally absent from Indraratha's record, even though a detailed genealogy has confirmed his legitimacy. Surprisingly, the same Indraratha is omitted in the genealogies of his successors. Is the coronation name only the result of a religious consecration ceremony? Does it contribute to a claim of legitimacy? Or is it simply reserved for direct succession from father to son? If this coronation name confers legitimacy, why is it not mentioned systematically? Does its presence indicate a political stability and its absence the opposite? This paper will

<footnote n="1">1 The term ‘coronation name’ will be used in this paper for the designations Mahābhavagupta and Mahāśivagupta because several scholars (J. K. Sahu 1979; Shastri 1995a) referred to them by a similar term.</footnote>
seek to track the use and to determine the functions and the scope of the coronation name within the Somavaṁśin dynasty. It will be based on a diachronic and synchronic study of the different names used by the Somavaṁśin kings to designate themselves and of those used by their contemporaries, whether relatives or subordinates. For this survey, all the published sources available today have been consulted.<fnref n="2" />

## 2. The corpus of the Somavaṁśin dynasty

First, it is necessary to define exactly what is meant here by the Somavaṁśin dynasty. Indeed, more than one king claims to belong to the lunar lineage (*soma-vaṁśa*) and yet not all the kings from the Soma lineage are representatives of the Somavaṁśin dynasty. The origins of the latter are still a subject of discussion among historians today,<fnref n="3" /> since the last known king of the Pāṇḍuvaṁśin dynasty — Śivagupta Bālārjuna — describes himself as belonging to the Soma lineage in several of his grants.<fnref n="4" /> However, while the Pāṇḍuvaṁśin and Somavaṁśin dynasties share some common features, and while it is still possible that the latter is descended from the former,<fnref n="5" /> they differ radically in certain respects that

<footnote n="2">2 In the framework of the ERC-DHARMA project, I have carried out a survey of all the inscriptions identified as belonging to the Somavaṁśin dynasty. These have been gathered from all the volumes of the *Annual Report of Indian Epigraphy*, as well as the works of Shastri (1995a; 1995b), of Tripathy (2010), and of Acharya (2014). Inscriptions previously published in the journal *Epigraphia Indica* or in the volume dedicated to this period by Raja-guru (1966) have also been consulted. Of course, it is always possible that an inscription has escaped my vigilance. In addition, the as yet unpublished records unfortunately could not be taken into account in my survey. For the sake of brevity and ease of reference, I refer to each record by its DHARMA identifier rather than its title. A full list of all the inscriptions consulted, complete with titles and, where necessary, bibliographical references, can be found at the end of this paper.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 On this topic, see Panigrahi (1981, 104-9) or the discussion in Shastri (1995b, 172-76).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Bārdūlā plates of Śivagupta, year 9, l. 4, Boṇḍā plates of Śivagupta, year 22, ll. 4-5, Lodhiā plates of Śivagupta, year 57, l. 4, Malhār plates of Śivagupta, undated (presumably year 6), l. 4, Malhār plates of Śivagupta, undated, ll. 4-5: soma-vaṁśa-sambhavaḥ.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 The hypothesis of an affiliation comes from the strong similarities between the records coming from the last two representatives of the Pāṇḍuvaṁśin dynasty (Tīvaradeva and Bālārjuna) and the first ones of the Somavaṁśin dynasty. Both claim to belong to the lunar lineage, and jointly use the prefix *mahā-* and the suffix *-gupta* in their (probably) coronation names, which they attach to their birth names. Some scholars, such as Hunter and Sahu (1956), have proposed to see a father-son relationship between Śivagupta Bālārjuna</footnote>
make us distinguish between the two.⁶ Thus the records of the Somavaṁśin dynasty discussed in this paper are those published, for the most part, by Raja-guru (1966) and by Shastri (1995a, 167–367). For a general idea of this dynasty and an overview of its members, the lineage tree of succession proposed by Shastri (1995a, 199), shown in Figure 1, is very useful, but it can only serve as a starting point, as it contains information on dates, succession order or familial relationships that still remains based on hypothesis.⁷ As regards the dynastic period, the only chronological clue available can be deduced from two dona-tions issued by a member of another dynasty, the Bhauma-Kara: the *Baud plates* (A and B) of *Tribhuvanamahādevī, year 158*. Lines 17–22 (plate A) and lines 16–22 (plate B) of these two grants mention Svabhāvatuṅga, who is certainly the same Svabhāvatuṅga mentioned in Somavamsin00002 as the father of Mahābhava-gupta Janamejaya.⁸ Panigrahi (1981, 110) and Tripathy (2000, 53) date this plate to 894.

and Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya. This hypothesis is nowadays inadmissible since the records never mention Bālārjuna as the birth name of Janamejaya’s father, whom they call Svabhāvatuṅga.

6 There is a real split between the records from the last representative of the Pāṇḍuvaṁśin dynasty and the first ones from the Somavaṁśin dynasty. This split seems to be temporal, palaeographic, and geographical: the scripts differ but are said to be from one century (Shastri 1995b, 175); their areas of influence would not be the same; and lastly, the kings of these two dynasties did not decorate their seals in the same way.

7 For instance, in this lineage tree, the filial relationship between Śivagupta and Mahā-bhavagupta Janamejaya was just a hypothesis in 1995, which has now been confirmed thanks to the discovery of a set of copper plates from Gopalpur issued by Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya in his first regnal year (see Shastri and Tripathy 2011-12). On the other hand, the dates given by Shastri (1995b, 199), those proposed by Panigrahi (1981, 106) or even those suggested by Shastri and Tripathy (2011-12) all differ and remain approximate and hypothetical. Indeed, the inscriptions of the Somavaṁśin dynasty are all dated in regnal years and do not refer to any particular era. I am currently working on a dynastic tree that better reflects the grey areas and doubts raised by the epigraphic evidence.

8 Since the discovery of Somavamsin00002, it is known that Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya was born from Svabhāvatuṅga (see Somavamsin00002, vv. 5–6). For further details, see Shastri and Tripathy (2011-12, 104–6).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. *The Somavaṁśin dynasty according to Shastri (1995a, 199)*</figcaption></figure>

The lineage tree based on Shastri's hypothesis (1995a, 167-367) highlights two interesting features of the dynasty. First, it seems to be essential to designate the Somavaṁśin kings by two different names to dispel ambiguities, and even this double designation remains equivocal in one case, because there are two Mahāśivagupta Yayātis. The regular alternation of the coronation names between Mahābhavagupta and Mahāśivagupta and the redundancy of the birth names lead to several problems of correct identification when only one name is mentioned. I shall address this issue in section 3. Secondly, this lineage tree brings to light that some of the members of the Somavaṁśin royal house were ruling kings, while others were not. What is particularly striking is that Indraratha appears in this lineage tree as a king who did reign but did not have the typical name in Mahā...gupta, even though he seems to be the last direct and legitimate heir before the rise to power of a Somavaṁśin king born in a collateral line. The latter, Yayāti Cāndīhara, bears the coronation name Mahāśivagupta, which alternates with the presumed predecessor of Indraratha, viz.,
Mahābhavagupta Naghuṣa. The Mahā...gupta names are understood by scholars to imply a coronation ceremony. For instance, Sahu (1979) speaks of “coronation sobriquets” which he defines as abhiṣekanāman, suggesting a name acquired during and used after a coronation ceremony. When he compares and lists the common features between the Pāṇḍuvaṁśin and Somavaṁśin dynasties, Shastri (1995a, 172) first shows that both dynasties use names beginning with mahā- and ending in -gupta, and then adds, “these names, which were perhaps assumed at the time of coronation and are thus indicative of regnal power, were different from the personal names, which are often met with in the praśasti portion or in connection with the specification of date (sic) in many inscriptions.” Thus, the absence of a coronation name for Indraratha may indicate that his coronation ceremony did not take place. But on the specific question of Indraratha’s non-use of this name, Shastri (1995a, 213) remains rather vague:

> Indraratha assumed all the sectarian and regnal titles found employed for other Somakula monarchs but did not adopt the gupta-ending coronation name for reasons that cannot be ascertained at present.

Then, considering the meaning of the compound linking the two alternative coronation names by the word pādānudhyāta, one might believe that Indraratha’s rise to power was illegitimate, unlike that of his successor, Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Caṇḍihara. However, Indraratha’s grant issued in his fourth regnal year suggests the opposite: Indraratha appears here as the legitimate heir who saved the kingdom from Abhimanyu’s illegal seizure of power.<fnref n="9" /> From these observations, it appears that resorting to the coronation name in a royal charter is the most common legitimation strategy, but not the only one. This leads to several questions about the particular use of the names in Mahā...gupta. What is their function? Why do they appear on copper plates and not on stone inscriptions? When, why, and by whom were they used? A brief look at the records reveals that some of the coronation names shown by Shastri are not attested. Thus, it is also necessary to check if the alternation of Mahāśivagupta and Mahābhavagupta really occurred (and if so, in which contexts), or if the alternation is rather a pure supposition. By doing so, it may be possible to find out the reason why Indraratha did not use it, whereas his successor did.

<footnote n="9">9 From the information contained in the grant issued by Kolāvatī (Somavamsin00030), it is known that Abhimanyu was the father of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Caṇḍihara.</footnote>
Like many other epigraphical corpora, the corpus attributed to the Somavamśin dynasty is sparse and incomplete;<fnref n="10" /> its distribution among issuer kings and media is disproportionate, and many records are uncertainly attributed (see section 3 below). For instance, as Figure 2 shows,<fnref n="11" /> almost half of the copper plates available today are dated to the reign of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, and nearly a fifth of them were issued by his successor Mahāśivagupta Yayāti. In the case of some kings, such as Indraratha and Dharmaratha, only one record is available. Hence, the analysis of the designations based on the records issued by Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya may result in the identification of some usage trends, but this will not be the case when there is only a single inscription extant. Within the whole corpus, there are forty-three copperplate records and only five stone inscriptions.<fnref n="12" /> Within the copperplate charters, thirty-one were issued by Somavamśin kings, while eight sets were commissioned by third parties (feudatories of the Somavamśin kings or members of the royal family). None of the five stone inscriptions were issued by a Somavamśin king. Consequently, the data coming from the third-party records will be more difficult to interpret. Thus, even though this survey takes all the available data into account, the features of the Somavamśin corpus limit the results, and one must always consider them with great caution, keeping in mind that what is not observable may nonetheless have existed or that a seemingly unique use could be a regular one.

<footnote n="10">10 The copperplate records are mostly sets of three plates recording land grants. Four of them are isolated or incomplete plates and could not be used in this study (Somavamsin00045, 00035), or could only be used in part (Somavamsin00044, 00033).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 The figure also indicates the remaining doubts in identifying the issuers (see section 3 below).</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Somavamsin00027, 00029, 00030, 00034, and 00048.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Distribution of copperplate and stone inscriptions. MB stands for Mahābhavagupta and MŚ for Mahāśivagupta.</figcaption></figure>

### 3. Reassessing the identities of issuers

The systematic survey of coronation and birth names throughout the corpus has resulted in a reassessment of the attribution of some sets, and in new designations for some others, to reflect only what is found in the engraved text. Indeed, in order to offer the most reliable and accurate study of the use of the coronation name by one Somavaṁśin king or another, it was necessary first to ascertain the correct attribution of each set. Nonetheless, the identity of the king mentioned in a few of the copperplate sets (Somavamsin00021, 00026,
00028, 00039, 00040, and 00046) remains subject to doubt and debate, as I shall
discuss below.

**3.1. Scenario 1: Only a coronation name is mentioned**

As explained above, when the birth and coronation names are not mentioned
together, it is sometimes difficult to identify the king to whom the text refers.
So, when only the coronation name is used, there are many possibilities, as in
the case of three copperplate sets in which a king is referred to only by his cor-
onation name Mahābhavagupta (Somavamsin00028, 00039, 00026). The striking
similarity of the first two of these sets indicates that they were issued by the
same king, whose identification, however, remains a matter of debate.<fnref n="13" /> At the
current state of my research, I cannot confirm any of the suggested attributions,
so these two cases will be considered independently in the results presented
below.<fnref n="14" />

Unlike these two sets issued by an unidentified Somavaṁśin king, the third
one, Somavamsin00026, was issued by a third party. Kielhorn (1896-97b) sug-
gested on the basis of palaeographical criteria that this set had been composed
at the time of Mahābhavagupta Bhīmaratha, which should be reassessed since
we now have access to more charters from the Somavaṁśin dynasty than when
this set was first published. Shastri (1995b, 263) and Tripathy (2010, 88) agree
with Kielhorn without noting the disagreement of Rajaguru (1966, 241), who as-
serts that this set was composed at the time of Mahābhavagupta Uddyota-
keśarin. Consequently, we should remain cautious and think that the identifica-
tion of this set remains to be confirmed by various clues.

**3.2. Scenario 2: Only a birth name is mentioned**

The identification of three other sets raises questions because they mention
only the birth name of the ruling king, Janamejaya (Somavamsin00021, 00037,
00040). These sets may have been issued in time of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya
or of Mahāśivagupta Janamejaya. Shastri (1995b, 358) dates Somavamsin00021
to the time of the latter, but he justifies this dating neither in his edition (Shastri
1995b, 358-61, esp. 360 n. 25), nor in his introductory volume (Shastri 1995a,
218-19). The issuer of this set is named Dharmaratha and designated as a

<footnote n="13">13 The following identifications have been proposed: Naghuṣa (Tripathy 2010, 88), Uddyota-
keśarin (Panigrahi 1981, 37; Shastri 1995a, 186), the immediate predecessor of Janamejaya
(Panda, Chopdar, and Nayak 2002, 77; Acharya 2013), the grandfather of Janamejaya (J. K.
Sahu 1979, 1120).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 The problem of identification arising from these inscriptions was the subject of a paper
presented in January 2023 in Pondicherry (Wattelier-Bricout 2023).</footnote>
yuvarāja (heir-apparent). We know from several Somavaṁśin records that the Somavaṁśin king Mahāśivagupta Dharmaratha was the great-grandson of the first Janamejaya. Shastri argues that since Somavamsin00021 is dated in the fifth regnal year of Janamejaya, this Dharmaratha is not Mahāśivagupta Dharmaratha, and this Janamejaya is the second one. But once the former is accepted, then this Janamejaya could very well be the first one, or even a third Janamejaya otherwise unknown and belonging to a collateral line of the Somavaṁśin dynasty. A further clue in Somavamsin00021 is the name of the *mahāsandhivigrahin* Malladatta and his title *rāṇaka*. A *mahāsandhivigrahin* of the same name is mentioned in eight grants issued by Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, without a title in the earlier ones, and with the title *rāṇaka* from the seventeenth year onward.<fnref n="15" /> In several of these royal charters, Malladatta is described as the son of Dhāradatta, but given that his lineage is not recorded in Somavamsin00021 and that the repetition of names in a lineage is a common practice, the identification cannot be asserted. Other clues (such as the scribe's name, the wording, the script, the format of the set, etc.) deserve to be studied in greater depth, but this cannot be undertaken here. That said, even though the attribution of this set remains uncertain, the data collected in this set will be included in my study.

The set Somavamsin00037, although it was issued by a third party, can be probably attributed to the time of the first Janamejaya. Among the clues noted by Shastri (1995b, 348 n. 4, 353 n. 67), the most noteworthy is the name of its engraver, Saṅgrāma, and his lineage (son of Rāyaṇa Ojhā), which totally match with the name and the engraver's lineage indicated in four grants issued by Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya.<fnref n="16" />

As for the set Somavamsin00040, its first editor Nayak (2012) attributes it to Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya. Since then, to my knowledge, no study has addressed the question of whether it can be ascribed to the first or the second Janamejaya. However, the evidence for this attribution is pretty thin. Nayak (2012, 72) dates the script and language to the ninth century, but without further argument. Although he advances the dating of this set with caution, he attributes it to the first Janamejaya without even considering another possibility or arguing this claim. A more detailed study of the script and language, for example, could possibly help to date the set, but for now, it would be more prudent

<footnote n="15">15 Malladatta is mentioned without a title in Somavamsin00004, 00006, 00007, 00008 (of the years 12, 6, 6, and 8 respectively), and with the title *rāṇaka* in 00009 and 00010 (year 17); and in 00011, 00042, 00043 (year 31).</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Somavamsin00001, 00002, 00003, 00008. Of these, 00002 and 00003 had not yet been discovered when Shastri (1995b, 348 n. 4, 353 n. 67) noticed that the engraver of 00037 also worked on 00001 and 00008.</footnote>
to hold that the attribution to the first or the second Janamejaya has not yet
been established.

### 3.3. Scenario 3: Doubt despite the presence of both names

Finally, in some cases doubt may remain despite the joint mention of the coronation and birth names, because there are two homonymous kings Mahāśivagupta Yayāti.<fnref n="17" /> Of the eight sets presenting this scenario, six mention the immediate predecessor of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti by his birth name (Janamejaya), allowing for firm identifications. Therefore, only two sets remain problematic. One of these (Somavamsin00024) is a grant issued by the king himself in his fifteenth regnal year, which, while it does not mention the immediate predecessor, shares features with another record linked to the first Mahāśivagupta Yayāti dated in his eighth regnal year (Somavamsin00022), namely that these two sets come from the same place; they were written by the same person Utsavanāga or Ucchavanāga, son of Āllava or Āllavanāga;<fnref n="18" /> they were approved by the same *mahāsandhivigrahin rāṇaka* Dhāradatta;<fnref n="19" /> and finally, they share a concluding verse specific to these two donations alone. All together, these elements establish that this set (Somavamsin00024) was certainly issued by the same person, namely the first Mahāśivagupta Yayāti.

The second set (Somavamsin00046) is more problematic as it is a grant issued by a third party. Rajaguru (2011, 101–2) suggests dating this charter to the time of the second Mahāśivagupta Yayāti. His argument is based on the following common features between this set and another one found in the same place

<footnote n="17">17 Somavamsin00016, 00017, 00018, 00022, 00023, 00024, 00025, 00046.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Pointed out by Shastri (1995b, 244 n. 61). Āllava being the *kāyastha* in a set issued by Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya (Somavamsin00008, ll. 43–44), it is possible to imagine that his son Utsavanāga / Ucchavanāga continues the profession of his father under the reign of the immediate successor of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, i.e. the first Yayāti.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 This *mahāsandhivigrahin rāṇaka* Dhāradatta is also mentioned in two other grants. In Somavamsin00012, issued by Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya in his thirty-fourth regnal year, the charter is said to be written at the permission of *mahāsandhivigrahin rāṇaka* Dhāradatta (ll. 51–52: likhitam *idaṁ tāmra-śāsanaṁ mahāsāndhivigrahika-rāṇaka-śrī-dhāradattasyābhimatena*). In Somavamsin00025, issued by Mahāśivagupta Yayāti during his twenty-fourth year, it is said that the text was written with the knowledge of *mahāsandhivigrahin rāṇaka* Dhāradatta (ll. 63–64: likhitam *idaṁ śāsanaṁ mahāsāndhivigrahiraṇaka-dhāradattāvagatena* *mahāsandhivigraha-kāyastha-tathāgateneti*). So, it seems that *mahāsandhivigrahin rāṇaka* Dhāradatta was a person of influence from the end of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya’s reign to the twenty-fourth year of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti’s reign.</footnote>
(Somavamsin00026):<fnref n="20" /> both issuers come from the Māṭhara lineage; they received the grace of the goddess Kāleśvarī; they both bear the title māṇḍalikarāṇaka. While these are rightly pointed out and are rather useful for an attempt at dating, when Rajaguru (2011, 241) does so, he bases his argument on the palaeographical dating proposed by Kielhorn (1896-97b) — namely that the script would date from the twelfth century — but he omits the fact that Kielhorn himself considers Somavamsin00026 to have been composed at the time of Mahābhavagupta Bhīmaratha, who reigned from 955 to 975 according to Shastri (1995a, 208). Thus, Rajaguru retains Kielhorn's dating but not his attribution, and conjectures that Somavamsin00026 dates from the time of Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin. Considering the script of Somavamsin00046 to be older, Rajaguru proposes dating it to the time of Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin's predecessor, i.e. the second Yayāti, Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Caṇḍīhara. Without an in-depth palaeographic study of Somavamsin00046,<fnref n="21" /> but assuming that its script is indeed older than Somavamsin00026 — given that Tripathy (2010, 86) and Shastri (1995a, 209; 1995b, 263) both suggest dating the script to the tenth century and both attribute Somavamsin00026 to the time of Mahābhavagupta Bhīmaratha — it would also be possible to infer that Somavamsin00046 was issued during the reign of the first Mahāśivagupta Yayāti. Therefore, the attribution of the set Somavamsin00046 remains doubtful.

### 4. Use of the coronation name in grants issued by the Somavaṁśin kings

Now that the grant attributions have been ascertained as precisely as possible, it is possible to analyse the use and the functions of the coronation name within the royal grants. Indeed, while the dynastic tree proposed by Shastri gives the impression that the use of the coronation names, the alternation of Mahāśivagupta and Mahābhavagupta, and a double designation of kings (with birth and coronation names) are the specific features of the Somavaṁśin dynasty, the absence of a coronation name in the royal grant issued by Indraratha calls these statements into question and calls for a reassessment of the role that the coronation name can play in the royal grants. In order to observe the legitimating

<footnote n="20">20 As seen above (section 3.1), Somavamsin00026 presents only a duo of coronation names of the ruling king (Mahābhavagupta) and his predecessor (Mahāśivagupta), opening up numerous attribution possibilities.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 For the time being, such a study is not possible, as Rajaguru (2011) gives no information on the current place of preservation of the set. As for the photos of the set, they are of very poor quality.</footnote>
strategies deployed by the Somavaṁśin chancellery in the royal grants, I have carried out a precise survey of the kings' designations, keeping track of the person to whom they refer (the king, his immediate predecessor, his ancestors), the honorific titles by which they are accompanied, and the part of the text in which they appear. As each part of a royal grant bears a specific function, the presence of the coronation name in one particular part may contribute to its function, while its co-occurrence with titles or the immediate predecessor could shed light on the relationship of the ruling king with his predecessor and reveal how his position is legitimated by this relationship.

## 4.1. Praśasti part

The grants issued by the Somavaṁśin kings do not systematically include a long sequence of glorifying or genealogical verses<fnref n="22" /> and the *praśasti* part in the Somavaṁśin corpus does not have a fixed form: it sometimes includes a long genealogy, sometimes only a few lines of glorification, and sometimes these references are found at the end of the copper plates rather than at the beginning.<fnref n="23" /> What distinguishes this “*praśasti* part” from the “notification part” is first that the former is in verse, whereas the notification part is in prose, and second, that the content of these two parts differs. The purpose of the eulogistic part is to emphasise the valour of the ruling king and his lineage by telling their heroic deeds, and to sanction the rise to power of the ruling king through his genealogical account. Consequently, the presence of the alternation of Mahāśivagupta and Mahābhavagupta in this part may reinforce the legitimation strategy deployed by indicating a continuous transmission of the coronation names.

The results of the survey show that eulogies, where present, typically use the birth name of the reigning king as well as his predecessors, and never mention any coronation name.<fnref n="24" /> The records of the first four kings generally contain

<footnote n="22">22 For instance, there are no verses of glorification in the three grants commissioned by the first Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya (Somavamsin00001, 00003, 00006), in one amongst those issued by the first Mahāśivagupta Yayāti (Somavamsin00024), and in the unique record of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Cāṇḍihara (Somavamsin00016). Similarly, the two sets whose attribution is problematic (Somavamsin00028 and 00039) contain no genealogical details.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">23 The various practices of the royal eulogy within the corpus deserve to be studied in greater detail, but this cannot be done here.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 All the following sets contain a eulogistic section: Somavamsin00002, 00004, 00005, 00007, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00013, 00015, 00017, 00018, 00019, 00020, 00022, 00023, 00025, 00031, 00037, 00038, 00041, 00042, 00043, 00047. The birth names are found in all</footnote>
just a few verses: they refer to the ruling king, his immediate predecessor and sometimes to his grandfather only by their birth names. One can observe a turn in the practice with Indraratha's grant (Somavamsin00013), in which fourteen verses are devoted to his genealogy and deeds. Next, there is no eulogistic part in the unique grant of Indraratha's successor, Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Caṇḍīhara (Somavamsin00016). His rise to power is not explained by any genealogical details. From the time of his son and successor Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin, a kind of standard genealogical account seems to be created and reused.<fnref n="25" /> This time, the eulogistic part retraces the history of the Somavaṁśin dynasty up to the first Janamejaya, but without ever mentioning the coronation names, which could have given cohesion to the whole.

## 4.2. Notification part

The notification part of the royal grants consists of the administrative details of a donation (the place, the identities of the donor and of the recipient(s), the description of the gift, its purpose, the witnesses, etc.). The description of the king as the donor is the most relevant information for the present study. The data collection points out two major facts: first, all the royal grants introduce the king by using a specific compound linking the ruling king to his immediate predecessor or his parents by the word pādānudhyāta; second, as mentioned in the introduction, all the royal grants use the coronation name to designate the donor, except the one issued by Indraratha.

Of the thirty-one sets for which data can be studied,<fnref n="26" /> twenty-seven use the following expression: *parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-śrī-mahā-[X]-gupta-deva-pādānudhyāta-parama-māheśvara-parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-soma-kula-tilaka-trikalingādhipati-śrī-mahā-[Y]-gupta-rāja-devaḥ*.<fnref n="27" /> The formula is only absent in four sets. Of these, Somavamsin00028 and 00039 were certainly issued by the same person, but, as noted above (section 3.1), the identity of that king is still a subject under discussion. The formula is replaced

these records, except for 00011, 00012, 00042, and 00043, in which the reigning king is named Dharmakandarpa.

<footnote n="25">25 The three grants issued by Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin (Somavamsin00015, 00038, and 00047) contain the same eleven verses. The unique record of Mahāśivagupta Karna (Somavamsin00031) has the same eleven verses, adding eight more to complete the genealogic account up to Karna's rise to power.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 Somavamsin00001, 00002, 00003, 00004, 00005, 00006, 00007, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00013, 00015, 00016, 00017, 00018, 00019, 00020, 00022, 00023, 00024, 00025, 00028, 00031, 00038, 00039, 00041, 00042, 00043, 00047.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 I quote here one instance of the expression. The order of the titles is almost the same, but the number of the immediate predecessor's titles can be less than that of the ruling king.</footnote>
by mātā-pitṛ-pādānudhyāta in these. The latter formula also appears in Somavamsin00013, issued by Indraratha, Mahāśivagupta Dharmaratha’s brother or half-brother. Finally, the formula is altogether absent in Somavamsin00031, issued by Purañjaya’s brother Mahāśivagupta Karṇa, who is referred to only with his coronation name and the usual honorific titles. From these observations, it can be deduced that the full-length pādānudhyāta compound is a kind of official formula that certifies the authority transmitted by a direct succession line, since it is always used in a father-son relationship. When the pādānudhyāta compound mentions only the two parents or is not present, this may indicate the accession to power of a new royal authority, either through the foundation of a new dynasty or following a discontinuity in the succession line.

It is remarkable that only two sets use birth names in the notification section of the text. One of these is Somavamsin00013, which, as discussed above, uses a compound linking Indraratha to his parents by the formula pādānudhyāta. The other is Somavamsin00016, which uses the coronation names of the donor king and his predecessor, but also mentions the birth name of the donor king in the following way: śrī-mahābhavagupta-pādānudhyāta-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-praṇamita-rājanyopasevita-pādāravinda-yugalaḥ śrī-mahāśivagupta-śrī-yayāti-devaḥ.<fnref n="28" /> The way in which this king is presented in his own record differs from the other royal epigraphs in two particular respects in addition to the combined use of coronation and birth names: each name is preceded by śrī in a kind of emphasis, and the coronation name of the predecessor is not preceded by the usual honorific titles. These two sets are particularly noteworthy since Somavamsin00013 was issued by Indraratha who, according to the same set, came to power with the approbation of the best dvijas after killing Abhimanyu, who had acquired power without the authorisation of his predecessor,<fnref n="29" /> while Somavamsin00016 was issued by Abhimanyu’s son, who is said to have acquired the title trikaliṅgādhipati by his own arm and to have been chosen by the countries as in a svayaṁvara.<fnref n="30" /> The version of the event told by his wife Kolāvatī is slightly different, as in her stone inscription he is said to have been brought to power by the unanimous agreement of the ministers.<fnref n="31" /> These two sets originate from

<footnote n="28">28 Somavamsin00016, ll. 17–18.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 Somavamsin00013, v. 14: yo vidvān abhimanyum apy anucitaṁ prāptādhipatyam bhuvo vaṁśasyānadhikāriṇaṁ raṇa-bhuvi vyāpādayad dveṣiṇaṁ| tal-lakṣmīn dvija-sattamair anuma-tām āsādya senādhipaṁh trairājyañ ca turaṅgakena jagṛhe yenātha rājyāntaraṁ||.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">30 Somavamsin00016, l. 14: kaliṅga-koṅgodotkala-kośala-svayamvara-prasiddhaḥ and l. 15: sva-bhujopārjita-trikaliṅgādhipatiḥ.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 Somavamsin00030, v. 7.</footnote>
a period in Somavaṁśin history that was characterised by internecine struggles
for power.

To explore the formula further, it is necessary to look in more detail at the
context in which the coronation names Mahāśivagupta and Mahābhavagupta
are used. It should be recalled that these names are never used alone but almost
always in combination with various honorific titles. The titles usually used in
compounds are as follows: *parama-māheśvara, parama-bhaṭṭāraka, mahārājā-
dhirāja, parameśvara, soma-kula-tilaka, trikaliṅgādhipati, rāja-deva or deva.* Consid-
ering the restricted and occasional use of the coronation name and its conjunc-
tion with honorific titles, it may be necessary to question that the epithets
Mahābhavagupta and Mahāśivagupta are “coronation names” in the customary
sense, implying that the person thus named has been consecrated as king by a
ceremony. Given that this *pādānudhyāta* formula was used in its fixed form in
case of a succession of power from father to son, and that some titles may have
a religious connotation, we could see in them the affirmation of a divine trans-
mission of power: the son presenting himself as authorised by his father, both
being the *protégés* of Śiva and enthroned by him.<fnref n="32" /> The fixed form and repetitive
structure of the *pādānudhyāta* formula set a kind of solemn and official tone to
the royal grants. Its function may be political by establishing legitimacy through
filial transmission, and may be religious by asserting the divine protection of
Śiva. That said, a more in-depth study of the exact composition of the honorific
titles used for the ruling king and his immediate predecessor should be under-
taken, as the initial survey shows that there are some divergences in practice:
sometimes the honorific titles are exactly the same on either side of the term
*pādānudhyāta*; sometimes the predecessor’s title is omitted, while in one case
there is a striking imbalance (Somavamsin00016).

### 4.3. Date

Since dates in the Somavaṁśin corpus always refer to the regnal year of a par-
ticular king, a coronation name on its own would be impracticable due to the
confusion caused by the alternation of these names, while birth names could
identify kings more unequivocally. Indeed, of the thirty-four copperplate sets
issued by the Somavaṁśin kings, the overwhelming majority mention the birth
name alone without associating it with the coronation name, as Figure 3 clearly
shows.<fnref n="33" /> This means that the use of a coronation name in the date could be seen
as a deviation from the regular pattern. For this reason, I analyse the cases of

<footnote n="32">32 On the possible divinisation of the Somavaṃśin kings, see Smith (1991, 92–94, 105).</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 There is no information available for Somavamsin00033, 00041, 00044, and 00045.</footnote>
deviation hoping to gain a better understanding of the function of the coronation name. There are three scenarios of deviation: the date may be recorded without name; with the coronation name alone; or with both the coronation and birth names.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Use of coronation and birth names in the date section of Somavaṁśin copperplate sets</figcaption></figure>

The three sets without a name in the date (Somavamsin00020, 00028, 00039) give no clue to the use of coronation or birth names in date. But it is noticeable that in the whole text of two of them, the king is only designated by his coronation name (see section 3.1 above).

The three sets which use only the coronation name (Somavamsin00011, 00042, and 00043) can be considered as a single case since they were issued by the same king, on the same day of the same year, to the same recipient, and contain almost the same text (except for the details of the villages granted). This triple grant to a single person, Sādhāraṇa, son of Śobhana, who is none other than the minister of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya and who was already the minister and the recipient of the king's grant issued in the first year of his reign (Somavamsin0002), confers an exceptional nature upon these three sets. They also have one feature in common: their text designates Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya with the sobriquet Dharmakandarpa, which is found only in one other
grant.<fnref n="34" /> As the seal of one of these three sets attests to the mention of a coronation name (see 4.4), it should be noted that these three sets are atypical within the corpus in their use of the coronation name.

The single set that uses both coronation and birth names in the date (Somavamsin00016) is particularly interesting because it is the only one that can be attributed with certainty to Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Caṇḍihara. The text of this donation mentions that Yayāti won his glory by his own arms and that he was appointed by the ministers. Given that there seems to have been some confusion in the succession when Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Caṇḍihara ascended the throne, the joint use of the birth and coronation names in the date could be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the royal authority or legitimacy of the ruling king.

The birth name is generally accompanied in the date by honorific titles much the same as those in the notification part, although in half of all cases, the three titles indicating religious affiliation (parama-māheśvara), the lineage (soma-kula-tilaka) and geographical dominion (trikalingādhipati) are omitted from the date. There are also some exceptions, but their analysis does not lead to any straightforward explanation.

### 4.4. Seals

As the seal is used in particular to authenticate a donation, the presence of a coronation name on it might have a stronger authentication value than the birth name. The authenticity of the seal is essentially based on the emblem of the dynasty emblazoned on the seal, but the accompanying legend also contributes to it. If the coronation name is used on these seals, we can deduce that this designation also plays a part in the seals' function as certificates of authenticity.

Although twenty-six royal seals have come down to us,<fnref n="35" /> there are only two seals for which the editors explicitly mention that they do not bear a legend (Somavamsin00012, 00015), and only four that bear a known and legible legend (Somavamsin00001, 00028, 00039, and 00043), plus two that are illegible but

<footnote n="34">34 This is Somavamsin00012, which is dated in the thirty-fourth regnal year. The sobriquet is used in two verses glorifying the king and his minister Sādhārana. These two eulogistic verses can also be found in Somavamsin00009 and 00010 (both dated to the seventeenth regnal year), but without the sobriquet (see Shastri 1995b, 216 n. 35).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">35 Somavamsin00001, 00002, 00003, 00004, 00006, 00007, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00013, 00015, 00016, 00017, 00018, 00019, 00020, 00022, 00023, 00024, 00025, 00028, 00031, 00033, 00038, 00039, 00041, 00042, 00043, 00047.</footnote>
conjecturally restorable (Somavamsin00011 and 00042).<fnref n="36" /> Seven seals cannot be involved in the study because their legends have not been reported accurately,<fnref n="37" /> while eleven are illegible due to corrosion.<fnref n="38" /> Of the four seals with a known legend, only one mentions a Somavaṁśin king by his birth name (Somavamsin00001), while three use the coronation name (Somavamsin00028, 00039, and 00043), to which we could very hypothetically add Somavamsin00011 and 00042.

All the occurrences of the coronation name on a seal are attached to sets exhibiting some special features. The three similar sets Somavamsin00011, 00042, and 00043 issued by Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya in his thirsty-first regnal year name the king with his coronation name in the notification part, but in the eulogy part use a sobriquet (Dharmakandarpa) not found in any other of his grants issued before this date, and employ only the coronation name in the date (see 4.3 above). The other two seals bearing a coronation name (Somavamsin00028 and 00039) are attached to sets whose identification remains particularly problematic, especially as the royal symbol represented on these seals, a bull, diverges from all the other dynastic symbols on the Somavaṁśin seals, which represent a Gajalakṣmī. These grants are dated in a regnal year but without mentioning any names. The results of this survey are obviously difficult to interpret, but they seem to indicate that a coronation name on a seal is used in specific cases.

### 4.5. Summary

From the whole systematic survey of the coronation name within the grants issued by the Somavaṁśin kings, several trends can be identified. First, the coronation name is never found in the eulogy part (where only birth names are used). Its absence and the preference for birth names could certainly be explained in various ways, but the most likely reason might be that birth names, often drawn from the epics, favour the elaboration of praise, making it easier to draw laudatory comparisons with mythological characters. Another reason

<footnote n="36">36 Except only the details of the villages granted, the text inscribed on these two sets is similar to Somavamsin00043, for which Fleet (1894-95) reads the coronation name of the king in the seal legend. Obviously, it cannot be taken for granted that this applies likewise to Somavamsin00011 and 00042, but it is highly likely. The presence of an illegible legend is only mentioned for the seal attached to 00011, while the seal of 00042 is completely corroded.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">37 Somavamsin00005, 00013, 00016, 00022, 00025, 00038, 00041.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38 Somavamsin00002, 00003, 00004, 00006, 00008, 00009, 00018, 00019, 00020, 00024, and 00047.</footnote>
could be specific to the Somavaṁśin dynasty: a genealogical account requires a clear identification of the kings, which the alternation of Mahāśivagupta and Mahābhavagupta does not guarantee.

The notification part typically employs the *pādānudhyāta* formula linking the coronation name of the ruling king to that of his immediate predecessor. Thus, the use of the coronation names is rather confined to the administrative part of the grants and belongs to a formal protocol composed by the chancellery. The alternation of Mahāśivagupta and Mahābhavagupta along with a list of honorific titles certainly serves to establish the king's authority and legitimacy (as shown by the adaptations of the formula in case of contentious succession). All the deviations observed from this formula are from problematic cases of succession: Indraratha (Somavamsin00013); his successor Mahāśivagupta Yayāti Caṇḍīhara (Somavamsin00016); Mahāśivagupta Karṇa, brother of Purañjaya (Somavamsin00031); and probably the issuer of Somavamsin00028 and 00039. Consequently, the functions of the coronation name are both political and juridical.

Coronation names are occasionally found in the date, but the custom seems rather to be the use of the birth name there. Given that coronation and birth names also occur in seal legends, either of these two designations seems to be suitable for authentication, although a pattern cannot be established due to the scarcity of preserved seal legends.

It should be noticed that the coronation name is hardly ever used alone and that, although the alternation of Mahāśivagupta and Mahābhavagupta is a well-attested practice among the Somavaṁśin kings in the royal grants, this alternation is not attested for all the kings of the dynasty. In fact, Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya always refers to his predecessor as Śivagupta, without the initial *mahā*. In addition, there is no evidence of coronation names for four subsequent kings: Naghuṣa, Indraratha, the second Janamejaya, and Purañjaya. Considering that there is only one case where a Somavaṁśin king is designated by both his coronation and birth name (Somavamsin00016), one may wonder whether it is correct to speak of Mahābhavagupta III Naghuṣa, Mahāśivagupta IV Janamejaya and Mahābhavagupta V Purañjaya as Shastri (1995b) and Acharya (2014) do in all the titles they give to the records.<fnref n="39" />

<footnote n="39">39 Rajaguru (1966) and Tripathy (2010) are much more cautious in naming the grants and only use the names attested in them.</footnote>
## 5. Use of the coronation names in non-royal grants

Among the forty-eight records available, nine copperplate grants<fnref n="40" /> and five stone inscriptions<fnref n="41" /> were issued by a royal relative or a third party. My objective is to observe how such grants adapt the *pādānudhyāta* formula and the patterns and trends detected within the royal grants, and whether they refer to the ruling king by his coronation name as well as by his birth name.

### 5.1. Issued by a family member

Three records were issued by a royal relative. Two of them are copperplate grants (Somavamsin00021 and 00032), both problematic. The first, issued by Dharmaratha born in the Soma family and designated as *yuvarāja* and *kumārādhirāja* (both meaning an heir-apparent or crown-prince), only mentions the birth name of the ruling king, leaving open two options for attribution.<fnref n="42" /> The second was commissioned by Someśvaradeva, a member of the Somavaṁśin family styled *kumārādhirāja*, and is dated to the first year without specifying a king as point of reference. The third record is a stone inscription (Somavamsin00030) engraved on the wall of a temple recording its construction, issued by the queen Kolāvatī during the reign of her son Uddyotakeśarin. Its content differs from the structure of the copperplate grants as it does not have a notification part and, consequently, does not include the *pādānudhyāta* formula. Nevertheless, this record can speak to how the Somavaṁśin kings are designated in the *praśasti* part and how the date is given.

Concerning the *praśasti* part, Somavamsin00030 is the only record to include a genealogical account. Its details are extremely valuable since the troubled period after Dharmaratha's death is explicitly mentioned, stating that the grandfather and father of Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin were named Abhimanyu and Caṇḍihara. Here, as in the royal copperplate grants, the Somavaṁśin kings are all designated by their birth names. The coronation name is thus absent here, just as in the *praśasti* of royal inscriptions.

<footnote n="40">40 Somavamsin00014 (time of Karṇa), 00021 (uncertain dating), 00026 (uncertain date), 00032 (time of Uddyotakeśarin), 00035 (incomplete plate not used in my study but probably contemporary of 00032), 00036 (time of Janamejaya), 00037 (time of Janamejaya), 00040 (uncertain dating), 00046 (uncertain dating).</footnote>

<footnote n="41">41 Somavamsin00027, 00029, 00030 (time of Uddyotakeśarin); 00048 (certainly from the time of Uddyotakeśarin) and 00034 (time of Karṇa).</footnote>

<footnote n="42">42 See section 3.2 above.</footnote>
The notification part can be observed only in the two copperplate sets issued by men designated kumārādhirāja.<fnref n="43" /> As one can infer a filial relationship to the reigning king from this title, the presence of the pādānudhyāta formula could be expected within the notification part. In Somavamsin00021, Dharmaratha, the issuer, is described with several titles used by ruling kings as well as by a regional title (paścima-kaliṅgādhipati), but without the pādānudhyāta formula. Despite its absence, the honorific titles seem to give a royal touch to his grant. In Somavamsin00032, Someśvaradeva is designated with five honorific titles very close to those used by the Somavaṁśin ruling kings: parama-māheśvara, parama-mahā-bhaṭṭāraka, kumārādhirāja, parameśvara, and paścima-laṅkādhipati. The exact identity of Someśvaradeva and his familial relationship to Uddyotakeśarin are not yet clarified (Sircar 1949–50, 324) and the text of this set is rather corrupted. It employs the pādānudhyāta formula and refers to Uddyotakeśarin by both his birth name and a coronation name, in addition to styling him parama-māheśvara, parama-mahā-bhaṭṭāraka, mahārājādhirāja, parameśvara, and trikaliṅgādhipati. The coronation name is, however, anomalously Mahāśivagupta instead of Uddyotakeśarin’s regular Mahābhavagupta. This anomaly is imputed to the scribe by both Shastri (1995b, 319 n. 8, 322 n. 56) and Tripathy (2010, 468 n. 1723). Given the corruption of the text, it is difficult to conclude whether the pādānudhyāta formula is used here to confer legitimacy to Someśvaradeva, but it seems that the text reflects more or less the chancellery’s discourse found in the notification parts of the Somavaṁśin ruling kings.

Concerning the date part, the stone inscription (Somavamsin00030) includes it at the end and mentions the birth name of the ruling king as seems usual in the royal copperplate grants issued by the ruling kings. It is noticeable that the honorific titles associated with the birth name are those which are generally omitted in the date section of the royal grants (parama-māheśvara, soma-kula-tilaka and trikaliṅgādhipati) but usually quoted in the pādānudhyāta formula. Hence, here the date is given with a kind of royal touch through the choice of specific honorific titles. In Somavamsin00021, the date is recorded at the beginning of the grant and the same use of the king’s birth name accompanied by honorific titles is observed: here one can read all the honorific titles found in the pādānudhyāta formula, except parameśvara. The date of the third record (Somavamsin00032), as explained above, is quite problematic and does not feature any name or honorific title.

<footnote n="43">43 As Shastri (1995b, 322 n. 53, 361 n. 28) points out, these are the only occurrences of this title in the Somavaṁśin corpus.</footnote>
## 5.2. Issued by a subordinate rāṇaka

Among the records available, there are four stone inscriptions and seven copperplate grants issued by subordinates during the time of a Somavamśin king, one of which has been excluded from the study.<fnref n="44" /> The stone inscriptions, like that of Kolāvatī in 5.1 above, do not include a notification part. As their content is very short, they also do not contain a *praśasti* part. Two of the three texts engraved on cave walls at Khaṇḍagiri (Somavamsin00027, 00029) use the king's birth name in order to indicate the date of the recorded pious acts.<fnref n="45" /> Contrary to what was observed in the temple inscription issued by the queen mother, no honorific title accompanies the king's birth name here. Somavamsin00034 is a label incised on an image of Sūrya, and the surviving text consists only of two damaged lines referring to the reign of Karṇa, probably to date the installation of the image. Three honorific titles are wholly or partly preserved, but Shastri (1995b, 335) goes further and reconstructs the text by adding all the honorific titles found in the *pādānudhyāta* formula. This reconstruction, although possible, remains questionable, since my previous observations point out that the convention of giving a date fluctuates within the Somavamśin corpus. It thus appears that honorific titles are used only sporadically in stone inscriptions by third parties, while a preference for the birth name of the ruling king is universal.

Among the six copperplate grants issued by the third parties, there is only one record containing a *praśasti* part (Somavamsin00037). This eulogy is devoted to the donor and not to the ruling king, but it is interesting to notice that the relationship between the donor and the ruling king is mentioned in line 14 of this *praśasti* part by quoting the latter's birth name, Janamejaya. This grant is also quite exceptional because its notification part contains the expression *mātā-pitṛ-pādānudhyāta* applied to the issuing subordinate. Yet there is no instance of the *pādānudhyāta* formula in the notification parts of the five other sets, which consist only in a presentation of the donor with his own honorific titles. Consequently, no third-party grant alludes to the ruling king in its notification part, while the *pādānudhyāta* formula is present in one of them to refer to the donor.

Conversely, all grants except Somavamsin00037 refer to the ruling king in the date section. In Somavamsin00037, the date consists only of the day and the month, and is hence given without mentioning the name of the king. In Soma-

<footnote n="44">44 Somavamsin00035 seems to be issued by a third party but as its text is incomplete, this single plate is excluded from the study.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 Somavamsin00048 is undated.</footnote>
vamsin00040, the year is linked to the king's birth name, Janamejaya. The absence of honorific titles in the date has been interpreted by the first editor of this set as a clue to a distant relationship between the issuer and the ruling king. But by taking into account that there are two other examples of a date without titles among the third-party records, it is difficult to ascertain that the issuer of this grant "enjoyed greater liberty than other chiefs and that his subordination to Janamejaya was nominal" (Nayak 2012, 73). The sets Somavamsin00014 and Somavamsin00046 start with the date, which is a little more elaborate, since it includes some honorific titles linked to the ruling king. In the royal grants, it has been observed that in half of all cases, the honorific titles *parama-māheśvara, soma-kula-tilaka, and trikaliṅgādhipati* are omitted in the date. Here, this is not the case. Somavamsin00046 mentions all the honorific titles usually found in the notification part of a royal grant. It also designates the king by both his coronation and birth names. All of this gives the grant a kind of royal touch and a somewhat pompous tone. The date in Somavamsin00014 also displays an accumulation of honorific titles slightly different from the usual titles: *parama-māheśvaramahābhaṭṭāraka-somavaṁśa-kula-kamala-tilaka-bhāskara-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-śrī-karṇa-deva* (ll. 1-4). Here again, the whole seems to give to the grant an official tone.

The two remaining sets are particularly striking because both of them include the *pādānudhyāta* formula in the date. In Somavamsin00026, the ruling king and his predecessor are both designated by their coronation names and qualified by the same honorific titles on both sides of the word *pādānudhyāta*. In Somavamsin00036, the scenario is somewhat different: the date is given twice, at the beginning and at the end of the record. The first instance includes an unbalanced *pādānudhyāta* formula where the ruling king, the first Janamejaya, is qualified by more honorific titles than his predecessor. Thus, this instance reproduces the *pādānudhyāta* formula found in all the royal grants of this king. The second mention of the date is given with the birth name of the king accompanied by the two honorific titles usually observed in the date section of royal grants (*parama-bhaṭṭāraka* and *mahārājādhirāja*). Hence, in these two sets, the *pādānudhyāta* formula used at the beginning of the grant seems to reflect some knowledge of the chancellery's discourse used in the royal grants.

### 5.3. Summary

From the survey of the coronation name within the records issued by the royal relatives, the trend to designate the kings with their birth names within the eulogy part is confirmed by the unique record available. In contrast, two different trends are noticeable: first, the *pādānudhyāta* formula is not used in the case of
an heir-apparent without royal investiture,<fnref n="46" /> but a royal touch is given to his grant by the accumulation and the similarity of his honorific titles to the ones of the ruling king; second, the honorific titles usually attached to the ruling king in the *pādānudhyāta* formula seem to be transferred to the date. Hence, the deference of the royal relatives to the ruling king is expressed by means of the honorific titles. None of these records use the birth and coronation names of the ruling king together.

Even if it is not possible to identify a regular manner of naming the ruling king in the third-party grants, it is noticeable that the joint use of the coronation and birth names is exceptional, and that the ruling king is generally designated by his birth name. Nevertheless, it is also observed that the honorific titles and the *pādānudhyāta* formula are sometimes used, conferring to the subordinates' grants an official tone.

## 6. Conclusion

Through the mapping of the coronation names in the different textual parts of the available records, it appears that the mention of the coronation name belongs to the chancellery's discourse and is almost always a part of an official formula, viz., the *pādānudhyāta* compound, which is found in the notification part of the royal grants. This formula seems to reflect a claim of legitimacy: in a case of regular power transmission from father to son, the compound contains the coronation names of the ruling king and his immediate predecessor, both qualified by more or less the same honorific titles; in a case of irregular transmission from an elder brother to a younger (Indraratha and Karṇa), the *pādānudhyāta* formula is slightly modified; while it is strongly altered when there is a break in the line of transmission (Somavamsin00016). Thus, the *pādānudhyāta* formula may also have a political function. When it is quoted in full with alternating coronation names and similar honorific titles associated with both names, it seems to indicate a political stability. On the other hand, when the formula is shorter or unbalanced, it conveys some prevailing instability.

The presence of a religious title within the *pādānudhyāta* formula and the meaning of the coronation names (*protégé* of Śiva and *protégé* of Bhava) seems to indicate a religious value of the whole compound, raising the question of the

<footnote n="46">46 Although the content of Somavamsin00032 is very corrupted, lines 4–5 seem to indicate that Someśvara has been appointed at the head of a territory and invested to a kingly role.</footnote>
involvement of Śaiva gurus within the political sphere. Indeed, two sets issued by two Somavaṁśin kings (Somavamsin00004, 00020) indicate that the grant was made at the request of the king's preceptor (rājaguru). To go further, it will be necessary to carry out an in-depth comparison of the honorific titles mentioned to better understand their political, religious, and administrative implications.

The distinct study of the third-party grants points out that members of the royal family or subordinates could designate Somavaṁśin kings by their coronation name in their donations to give them a kind of royal and official touch. Finally, the whole survey points out that the association of both the birth and coronation names to designate the Somavaṁśin kings does not reflect the convention used by the chancellery or the third party: there is only one instance of a compound joining the birth and coronation names (Somavamsin00016) among the royal grants, and another one among the third-party grants (Somavamsin00046). Both refer to Mahāśivagupta Yayāti. Hence, except for this king, it would be more appropriate to designate the Somavaṁśin kings by their birth names. Table 1<sup>47</sup> gives an updated account of the Somavaṁśin kings as they are named in the royal grants as well as in the third-party grants.

<table><caption>Table 1. List of Somavaṁśin kings as named in inscriptions</caption><thead><tr><td>ruler</td><td>associated inscriptions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Svabhāvatuṅga Śivagupta</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Janamejaya (Mahābhavagupta)</td><td>Somavamsin00001, 00002, 00003, 00004, 00005, 00006, 00007, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00041, 00042, 00043, 00044, 00045</td></tr><tr><td>Yayāti (Mahāśivagupta)</td><td>Somavamsin00017, 00018, 00022, 00023, 00024, 00025</td></tr><tr><td>Bhīmaratha (Mahābhavagupta)</td><td>Somavamsin00019</td></tr><tr><td>Dharmaratha (Mahāśivagupta)</td><td>Somavamsin00020</td></tr><tr><td>Naghuṣa and/or Abhimanyu</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Indraratha</td><td>Somavamsin00013</td></tr><tr><td>Mahāśivagupta Yayāti (Caṇḍihara)</td><td>Somavamsin00016</td></tr><tr><td>Uddyotakeśarin (Mahābhavagupta)</td><td>Somavamsin00015, 00033, 00038, 00047</td></tr><tr><td>Janamejaya</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Purañjaya</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Karṇa (Mahāśivagupta)</td><td>Somavamsin00031</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="47"><sup>47</sup> The table follows a chronological order. The designations in brackets are alternative designations which are not usual in the whole corpus. In the current state of knowledge, it is impossible to assert whether Naghuṣa and Abhimanyu both reigned, and in what order if both did. The genealogical accounts found in Somavamsin00013, 00030, 00015, 00037 and 00047 tell different versions of events.</footnote>
The absence of a coronation name in the case of Indraratha is unsurprising and could be explained in several ways: if the coronation name is really an abhiṣekanāman, its absence may simply mean that Indraratha was not yet consecrated even if he received the permission of the best dvijas (Somavamsin00013, v. 14); while if not, it could also be the result of a radical change of the chancelery members or an intent to present the ruling king in a new way. Indeed, the genealogical account found in Indraratha's grant asserts his Śaiva faith and his belonging to the lunar lineage, but also states that Indraratha's father, Bhīma, is an avatāra of Vivasvat (the Sun) on the earth. To go further, a better understanding of the history of the succession is required through an analysis and a comparison of the different genealogical accounts given by the different members of the Somavaṁśin family.

## Primary sources

See page xvi about references to primary sources in general, and page xvii about DHARMA digital editions with a corpus ID and a number.

### *List of Somavaṁśin inscriptions*

Somavaṁśin inscriptions are listed here by their DHARMA identifiers matched to titles. For items in parentheses, a digital edition is not yet available, so bibliographic references follow the title. Primary sources other than Somavaṁśin inscriptions are listed below.

* Somavamsin00001: Vakratentali grant of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 3.

* Somavamsin00002: Gopalpur plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 1.

* Somavamsin00003: Gopalpur plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 10.

* Somavamsin00004: Gopalpur plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 12.

* Somavamsin00005: Patna plates of Mahābhavagupta I Janamejaya, Āṣāḍha month, year 6.

* Somavamsin00006: Patna plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, Kārttika month, year 6.

* (Somavamsin00007): Kālibhanā plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 6. Shastri (1995b, 184–88).

* (Somavamsin00008): Satalma plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 8. Hultzsch (1905–06).

* (Somavamsin00009): Sonpur plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 17. Chhabra (1935–36).

* (Somavamsin00010): Gaintala plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 17. Rajaguru (1966, № 21).

* (Somavamsin00011): Chaudwār plates #1 of Mahābhavagupta Dharmakandarpa, year 31. Fleet (1894–95, № B).
(Somavamsin00012): Kālibhanā plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 34. Rajaguru (1966, № 25).

Somavamsin00013: Banpur plates of Indraratha, year 6.

Somavamsin00014: Kamalpur plates of the time of Karṇa, year 4.

Somavamsin00015: Bālijhari plates of Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin, year 4.

Somavamsin00016: Jatesinga-Dungri plates of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 3.

(Somavamsin00017): Orissa State Museum plates of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 4. Srinivasan (1969–70).

(Somavamsin00018): Pāṭnā plates of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 28. Laskar (1905, № J).

Somavamsin00019: Cuttack plates of Mahābhavagupta Bhīmaratha, year 3.

(Somavamsin00020): Mahulpara plates of Mahāśivagupta Dharmaratha, year 11. Srinivasan (1967–68).

Somavamsin00021: Nuapatna plates of the time of Janamejaya, year 5.

Somavamsin00022: Pāṭnā plates of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 8.

(Somavamsin00023): Cuttack plates of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 9. Fleet (1894–95, № E).

(Somavamsin00024): Nibinna plates of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 15. Mazumdar (1911–12, № B).

(Somavamsin00025): Pāṭnā plates of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 24. Laskar (1905, № I).

(Somavamsin00026): Kudopali plates of the time of Mahābhavagupta, year 13. Kielhorn (1896–97b).

Somavamsin00027: Lalāṭendukesari cave inscription of the time of Uddyotakeśarin, year 5.

Somavamsin00028: Pātiliṇjira grant of Mahābhavagupta, year 11.

Somavamsin00029: Navamuni cave inscription of the time of Uddyotakeśarin, year 18.

Somavamsin00030: Brahmeśvara temple inscription of the time of Uddyotakeśarin, year 18.

Somavamsin00031: Ratnagiri plates of Mahāśivagupta Karṇa, year 6.

Somavamsin00032: Kelga plates of Someśvaradeva, year 1.

Somavamsin00033: Stray plate of Uddyotakeśarin from Mahābhavagupta, year 8.

Somavamsin00034: Gandhibedha Sūrya image inscription of the time of Karṇa.

Somavamsin00035: Stray plate of a Somavaṁśin or Telugu-Coḍa grant from Kelga.

(Somavamsin00036): Sambalpur University Museum plates of the time of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 23. Shastri (1995b, Supplement I, 343–47).

(Somavamsin00037): Degaon plates of the time of Janamejaya. Shastri (1995b, Supplement II).

Somavamsin00038: Sankhameri plates of Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin, year 4.

Somavamsin00039: Ruchida plates of Mahābhavagupta, year 8.

Somavamsin00040: Baragaon plates of the time of Janamejaya, year 13.

(Somavamsin00041): Ranipur-Jharial plates of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya, year 16. Unpublished, mentioned by Acharya (2014, № 12).

(Somavamsin00042): Chaudwār plates #2 of Mahābhavagupta Dharmakandarpa, year 31. Fleet (1894–95, № D).

(Somavamsin00043): Chaudwār plates #3 of Mahābhavagupta Dharmakandarpa, year 31. Fleet (1894–95, № C).
(Somavamsin00044): Stray plate of Janamejaya, year 3. Unpublished, 48 mentioned by Acharya (2014, № 21) and Tripathy (2010, № 6).

(Somavamsin00045): Stray plate of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya. Unpublished, mentioned by Acharya (2014, № 22) and Tripathy (2010, № 7).

Somavamsin00046: Khandahata plates of the time of Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, year 3.

Somavamsin00047: Kāṇḍavindhā plates of Mahābhavagupta Uddyotakeśarin, year 3.

Somavamsin00048: Navamuni cave inscription, undated, maybe of the time of Uddyotakeśarin.

## Other primary sources

Bārdūlā plates of Śivagupta, year 9: DaksinaKosala00033.

Baud plates A and B of Tribhuvanamahādevī, year 158: Tripathy (2000, № 13, 14).

Boṇḍā plates of Śivagupta, year 22: DaksinaKosala00036.

Lodhiā plates of Śivagupta, year 57: DaksinaKosala00046.

Malhār plates of Śivagupta, undated: DaksinaKosala00050.

Malhār plates of Śivagupta, undated (presumably year 6): DaksinaKosala00032.

<footnote n="48">48 The field trip carried out in January 2023 enabled me to photograph and read the five legible lines. This plate, cut in half, is the third one of a set and the five legible lines include the quotation of a usual benedictive and imprecatory stanza and the mention of the date.</footnote>
Struggle Over Kannauj and Beyond:
the Pālas, the Gurjara-Pratihāras, and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas

Ryosuke Furui

The University of Tokyo,
Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia<fnref n="1" />

# 1. Introduction

The political arena of North India between the late eighth and early ninth cen-
turies was dominated by the confrontations of the Pālas, the Gurjara-Pratihāras,
and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas in connection with the succession war over the throne of
Kannauj. The kings of these dynasties fought each other, supporting either of
the two contenders, and their deeds are depicted in the eulogies (praśasti) in the
inscriptions of themselves, their descendants, and subordinates. As representa-
tions of the same events from different perspectives, these eulogies provide not
only building blocks for the reconstruction of political history, but also clues to
their perceptions of self and other, which would reveal their views on power
relations involving all the parties. In the present article, I will compare the mu-
tual representations of those three dynasties — especially what and how the eu-
logies tell, or not tell, about the kings and their opponents — and discuss the
conceptualisations of kingship and political order shared or not shared by them.

Before the main discussion, I would like to present a flow of events recon-
structed on the basis of fragmentary information from the inscriptions, with
some uncertainty in chronology and timeline, as a background of my discussion.

<footnote n="1">1 I sincerely thank Annette Schmiedchen and Dániel Balogh, our editors, for their valuable suggestions for the reading, translation, and interpretation of some inscriptions. The research culminating in the present article has been supported by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (19K01014), in addition to the ERC DHARMA Project (ERC N° 809994).</footnote>
## 2. Reconstruction of events

The kingdom of Kannauj or Kānyakubja, the centre stage of events, was ruled by the Āyudhas in the eighth century. Indrāyudha and Cakrāyudha were the contenders for the throne. As Cakrāyudha is called a grandson (naptṛ) of Yaśo-varman in the *Mohipur plate of Gopāla II* (v. 5), the Āyudha kings seem to have ruled Kannauj as his descendants.

Indrāyudha first ascended to the throne, whereupon Cakrāyudha sought the help of Dharmapāla (r. c. 780–812),<fnref n="2" /> the Pāla king of Bengal. Dharmapāla defeated Indrāyudha and installed Cakrāyudha as the king of Kannauj. Indrāyudha in his turn obtained the aid of Vatsarāja (r. c. 780–800), the Gurjara-Pratihāra king ruling western India, who defeated Dharmapāla and reinstalled Indrāyudha. Then Dhruva (r. c. 780–93), the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king ruling the Deccan and Gujarat, in conflict with the Gurjara-Pratihāras, attacked and defeated Vatsarāja. In the area between the Ganga and Yamuna, he also defeated Dharmapāla, who seems to have renewed his attempt to install Cakrāyudha on seeing the weakness of Vatsarāja.

The return of Dhruva to the Deccan, his own territory, provoked another action of Dharmapāla, who again defeated Indrāyudha and his allies and re-installed Cakrāyudha. Then Govinda III (r. c. 793–814), Dhruva’s son, who had defeated Nāgabhaṭa II (r. c. 800–833), the son of Vatsarāja, interfered and defeated Dharmapāla. Dharmapāla and Cakrāyudha submitted to Govinda III, whose return to the Deccan incited Nāgabhaṭa II to attack Kannauj. Nāgabhaṭa II defeated Cakrāyudha, occupied Kannauj and invaded the Pāla territory as far as Munger. He shifted his capital to Kannauj, which would remain with the Gurjara-Pratihāras until their decline in the early eleventh century. The Gurjara-Pratihāra occupation of Kannauj concluded the struggle over the city, though the confrontations of the three powers continued for some more while.<fnref n="3" />

With this reconstruction of the flow of events, I will proceed to the analysis of eulogies in the inscriptions of each dynasty, which represent the same events in different ways.

<footnote n="2">2 The reigning periods and dates related to the Pāla kings given in this article are provisional ones based on my own calculation.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 For an outline of the events, which needs some updates, see Sircar (1985, 11–16). For an updated description with input of new data, see Chowdhury (2018, 706–15).</footnote>
### 3. The Pālas: focus on one event

The earliest presentation of the struggle over Kannauj in the Pāla inscriptions appears in the copperplate charters of Dharmapāla himself. His *Indian Museum plate* dated year 26 of his reign (c. 806) depicts an event in the struggle as follows:

> The one who was duly praised by the kings of Bhojas, Matsyas with Madras, Kurus, Yadus, Yavanas, Avantis, Gandhāras and Kīras, bowing [to him] by bending [their] shaking crowns, and whose golden water pot of his own abhiṣeka was raised by the thrilled elders of Pañcāla, the illustrious Kānyakubja king (Cakrāyudha) was installed by him (Dharmapāla), with a mark [put] on [his] charmingly moving eyebrow.<fnref n="4" />

The verse is repeated as stanza 12 of the *Khalimpur plate of Dharmapāla, year 32* (c. 812). Focus on the one event, the coronation of Cakrāyudha as the king of Kānyakubja, is clear in this description. The exalted position of Cakrāyudha is emphasised by the admission of him as a ruler by the elders of Pañcāla (the area around Kānyakubja), who participated in his coronation, and by the submission of the kings of the diverse regions of North India. The presence of Dharmapāla is kept rather low-key, but his superior position is suggested by the simple fact that he installed Cakrāyudha as a king. The exaltation of the latter indirectly expresses the supremacy of the former.

Focus on this particular event continues in the inscriptions of the descendants of Dharmapāla. The *Jagajjibanpur plate of Mahendrapāla*, his grandson, dated year 7 (c. 854), describes the same event in the following manner:

> After defeating these irrepressible enemies beginning with Indrarāja in battle, after destroying the lord of Sindhu country, by this king who appeared rapidly, by him, his own earth with Mahodaya (Kānyakubja) was given to Cakrāyudha, the petitioner possessing valour, as if [the three worlds were given] by Bali to the Vāmana stooping without duplicity, who was entitled to [three] steps.<fnref n="5" />

<footnote n="4">4 Indian Museum plate of Dharmapāla, year 26, v. 12: bhojair matsyaiḥ sa-madraiḥ kuru-yadu-yavanāvanti-gandhāra-kīrair bhūpair vyālola-mauli-praṇati-pariṇataiḥ sādhu saṅgīryamāṇah| hṛṣyat-pañcāla-vṛddhoddhṛta-kanakamaya-svābhiṣekoda-kumbho dattah śrī-kanyakuvjas sa-lalita-calita-bhrū-latā-lakṣma yena||. The translations of all the verses cited in this article are my own, improved through valuable comments by Dániel Balogh and Annette Schmiedchen.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 *Jagajjibanpur plate of Mahendrapāla, year 7, v. 4:* durvvārāṁ dviṣato vijitya samare tān indra-rājādikān sindhūnām adhipam pramathya rabhasād unmīlita-kṣmābḥṛtā| dattā yena mahī mahodayavatī vikrānti-bhāje nijā nirvyājānati-vāmanāya valinā cakrāyudhāyārthine||.</footnote>
The event in focus is the same, though the expression was changed to the bestowal of the earth with Kānyakubja. One motif added in this verse is the defeat of enemy kings, of whom Indrarāja or Indrāyudha, the contender for the throne of Kannauj, is clearly mentioned. In contrast, the presence of the Gurjara-Pratihāras, the main enemy of the Pālas, is obscured. The lord of Sindhu country could denote a Gurjara-Pratihāra king, but the indication of his territory as Sindhu, which was then controlled by the Arabs, makes this identification invalid. Another addition is the Trivikrama motif, in which Dharmapāla and Cakrāyudha are respectively compared to Bali and Vāmana. While it presents their mutual relation as a donor and a supplicant, the conclusion of the myth, namely that Viṣṇu as Vāmana stepped on Bali and banished him to the nether world, makes their power relation ambiguous.

The same event is represented in the *Mohipur plate of Gopāla II*, the nephew of Mahendrapāla, dated year 3 (c. 877):

> By these villages beginning with Kuśasthala (Kānyakubja), Hari sought peace, and [because of these villages] the son of Gāndhārī (Duryodhana) abandoned his son, life, bowing brothers and names.<fnref n="6" /> After conquering [them], these villages were bestowed with a smile on the friend, the grandson of Yaśovarman (Cakrāyudha), by him (Dharmapāla), praiseworthy in war and voracious for enemies.<fnref n="7" />

This verse is also found in two other plates of the same king — the *Suvarnakarikadanda plate of Gopāla II, year 4 (no. 1)*, and the *Suvarnakarikadanda plate of Gopāla II, year 4 (no. 2)* — with a slight difference.<fnref n="8" /> The object of bestowal is changed to the villages including Kuśasthala, another name for Kānyakubja, for which a semi-historical episode from the *Mahābhārata*, the negotiation between Kṛṣṇa and Duryodhana, is provided. The appellation “the grandson of Yaśovarman” gives a clear identity to Cakrāyudha and his lineage.

<footnote n="6">6 Kuśasthala was one of the five villages (the others are Vṛkasthala, Māsandī, Vāraṇāvata and any village to be chosen by Duryodhana), of which the bestowal was stated by Yudhiṣṭhira as a condition for peace with the Kauravas in his message to be conveyed by Kṛṣṇa, who was despatched as envoy (*Mahābhārata* 5. 70. 15–16). As a result of the war which he could have avoided by conceding these villages to the Pāṇḍavas, Duryodhana lost his son Lakṣmaṇa Kumāra, his Kaurava brothers, and his reputation.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 Mohipur plate of Gopāla II, year 3, v. 5: yair grāmaiḥ sa-kuśasthala-prabhṛtibhiḥ sandhiṁ yayāce harir gāndhāryās tanayo jahau sutam asūn bhrātṛn natān nāmakān| nirjityāhava-śālinā praṇayino naptur yaśovarmaṇas te grāmā ripu-ghasmareṇa hasatā yena prasādī-krṭāh||.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 In these plates, *sutam* in the second *pāda* is presented as *sukham*, which functions as an adverb, ‘comfortably,’ for the verb ‘to abandon.’</footnote>
After Gopāla II, the Pāla kingship shifted to the collateral line of Vākpāla, the younger brother of Dharmapāla. Dharmapāla continues to figure in the later Pāla grants, due to the importance of his relationship with his brother Vākpāla, who had served him as a military commander. The event related to Kannauj is also described in the *Bhagalpur plate of Nārāyaṇapāla, year 17* (c. 895):

> After defeating the enemies beginning with Indrarāja, the acquired Goddess Fortune of Mahodaya (Kānyakubja) was given again by him, the strong one {Bali}, to the petitioner Cakrāyudha {the one holding a discus as his weapon (Viṣṇu)}, bent {becoming Vāmana} by bowing.<fnref n="9" />

The focus continues to be on the installation of Cakrāyudha by Dharmapāla. In this verse, the object of bestowal is abstracted to the personified royal fortune or kingship of Kānyakubja. The defeat of enemy kings beginning with Indrarāja and the comparison of Dharmapāla and Cakrāyudha to Bali and Vāmana — motifs added in the *Jagajjibanpur plate of Mahendrapāla* — are repeated. Together with the choice of Mahodaya as a name denoting Kānyakubja, they suggest that the eulogy used in the latter plate was consulted in drafting the present one.<fnref n="10" /> This verse also appears in the *Bharat Kala Bhavan plate of Rājyapāla, Nārāyaṇapāla's* son, dated year 2 (c 934), but it is not reproduced in the grants of the kings following him, though they continue to mention Dharmapāla.

The representation of the struggle over Kannauj in the Pāla grants is characterised by a single focus on one event, the installation of Cakrāyudha by Dharmapāla. While the event is embellished by associating it with mythical and epic motifs, the conflicts surrounding the event are barely depicted, except the defeat of Indrāyudha. The Pālas seem to have chosen their single moment of success as the theme, keeping their adversaries, and also their crushing defeats at the hands of the latter, out of sight.

<footnote n="9">⁹ *Bhagalpur plate of Nārāyaṇapāla, year 17, v. 3:* jitvendra-rāja-prabhṛtīn arātīn upārjjitā yena mahodaya-śrīh| dattā punaḥ sā valinārthayitre cakrāyudhāyānati-vāmanāya||.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The consultation of eulogies used in the earlier charters is presumable from the adoption of the first two stanzas of the *Mohipur plate of Gopāla II, year 3*, to the first two stanzas of the *Bhagalpur plate of Nārāyaṇapāla, year 17*, with a slight modification. The Pāla chancellery seems to have kept drafts of eulogies used in the earlier royal charters. They were reproduced in the later grants and gave some consistency to the eulogies of the Pāla charters, especially the later ones.</footnote>
### 4. The Gurjara-Pratihāras: valour and achievement

On the side of the Gurjara-Pratihāras, the earliest inscription mentioning the struggle over Kannauj is the *Stone inscription of Gallaka*, a subordinate ruler of Vatsarāja, dated ŚS 717 (795 CE). It contains the eulogy of the Gurjara-Pratihāra overlords, and one of the verses dedicated to Vatsarāja describes his victory over Dharmapāla in the following manner:

> The royal fortune of the lord of Gauḍa, the master of the four oceans, which was like a village belle in battles and staying within a narrow space among an assembly of huge elephants, was obtained by him (Vatsarāja) who had unlimited forces, after killing a multitude of warriors in a combat, in his two arms hardened by blows of the string [attached to] the limbs of the bow whose tips made a sound destroying the pride of irresistible enemies.<fnref n="11" />

The exaltation of the lord of Gauḍa, Dharmapāla, as the master of the four oceans heightens the status of Vatsarāja, the winner. On the other hand, an overtone of the military achievement and personal valour of Vatsarāja is recognisable in the expression.

A victory over Dharmapāla, along with the earlier victory over the Rāṣṭrikūṭa king depicted in the previous verse (5), is incorporated in the motif of the conquest of quarters (*digvijaya*), claiming universal lordship for Vatsarāja, in the next verse:

> He (Vatsarāja) gained the kingship of the entire earth, after violently conquering the lord of Gauḍa, the king of kings who was the master of the southern region, and the Mlecchas and Kīras of the western and northern country.<fnref n="12" />

The eulogy of Vatsarāja is followed by that of Śrīvarmaka, a subordinate ruler, and his son Gallaka. Verses 17 to 19 depict Gallaka's contribution to the victory over the Pālas and the Rāṣṭrakūṭas:

<footnote n="11">11 Stone inscription of Gallaka, ŚS 717, v. 6: durvvārārāti-garvvoddharaṇa-raṇa-raṇat-koṭi-kodanḍa-daṇḍa-jyā-ghāta-krūra-doṣṇor vikaṭa-kari-ghaṭā-saṅkaṭāntar-niviṣṭā| hatvājau yodha-vṛndān aparimita-balenārjjitā rāja-lakṣmīḥ saṅgrāma-grāma-rāmā catur-udadhi-pater yena gauḍādhi-pasya||.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Stone inscription of Gallaka, ŚS 717, v. 7: gauḍa-nātham avajitya balād yo dakṣiṇāpatha-patīn ca nṛpeśaṁ| mleccha-kīram aparottara-deśam sārvvabhauma-nṛpatitvam avāpa||. In the third pāda, the original reading aparottarandiśam has been emended on the suggestion of Dániel Balogh, which makes the metre of this verse svāgatā, not an unidentified mātrāsamaka as proposed by Ramesh and Tewari (1975–76, 55).</footnote>
In the war, there was the hero of Gauḍa, who had a sharp blade causing deadly wounds to enemies and burning splendour of the rays of the sun. After seeing the unharnessed elephants [of the Gauḍa hero] running away, the blade of his (Gallaka's) sword was like a laughter let loose [the unsheathed [sword] Aṭṭahāsa].

He, a lion in the real sense, destroyed his enemies as if they were elephants, who had the wealth of haughtiness due to their beauty and the stream of tears of Vallabha broad and white at the front of the battle.

Out of regard, he (Gallaka) made illustrious Indrabhaṭa (Indrāyudha), the warrior, virtuous and knowing the truth of what should be done, all-pervasive in his own kingdom.<fnref n="13" />

Verses 17 and 18 claim his contribution to the victory over the strong Gauḍa hero Dharmapāla, and over Vallabha, a Rāṣṭrakūṭa king, with emphasis on his personal valour. Verse 19, in contrast, extends his contribution to the political domain, namely the re-installation of Indrāyudha, which could have been credited to Vatsarāja, his overlord.

A contribution to the victory over Dharmapāla is also claimed for Kakka II, a subordinate ruler of Nāgabhaṭa II, belonging to another Gurjara clan, in the *Jodhpur stone inscription of Bāuka*, his son, dated VS 894 (837 CE):

> From him in turn was born the son Kakka (II) with great mind, united with fortune. By him was obtained fame in the battle with the Gauḍas at Mudgagiri.<fnref n="14" />

A concrete reference to Mudgagiri — present Munger — as the place of battle makes the claim credible, as his son and the composer of the eulogy intended.

One inscription of the Gurjara-Pratihāras themselves, the *Gwalior stone inscription of Bhoja I* (r. c. 836–885), describes the struggle over Kannauj in verses 9 and 10 eulogising Bhoja I's father Nāgabhaṭa II, while not mentioning any

<footnote n="13">13 Stone inscription of Gallaka, ŚS 717, vv. 17–19: āsīd dviṣad-viśasana-kṣata-tīkṣṇa-dhāro bhāsvat-karojvala-rucir yudhi gauḍa-vīraḥ| dṛṣṭvā vimukta-kariṇaḥ prapalāyamānān muktāṭṭahāsa Iva yasya kṛpāna-paṭṭah|| mūrttyātimāna-dhanāḥ samara-mukhoru-sita-vallabhāśru-dhārāḥ| yasya ripavo gajā iva naṣṭāḥ paramārtha-kesariṇaḥ|| yaś cakāra nije rājye sarvva-vyāpinam ādarāt| guṇinaṁ kārya-tattva-jñaṁ śrīmad-indrabhaṭaṁ bhaṭaṁ||. The reading of verse 18 is uncertain and its metre, supposedly āryā, is broken. The estampage attached to the volume of *Epigraphia Indica* is not good enough to allow any improvement on the transcription by Ramesh and Tewari except correcting their reading of -dhanāḥ to -dhanāḥ. Accordingly, the translation presented here is provisional.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 *Jodhpur stone inscription of Bāuka*, year 894 Vikrama Era, v. 24: tato 'pi śrī-yutaḥ kakkaḥ puttro jāto mahā-matiḥ| yaśo mudgagirau lavdhaṁ yena gauḍai samaṁ raṇe||.</footnote>
achievement of Vatsarāja related to this struggle in the verses 6 and 7 dedicated to the latter:

After defeating Cakrāyudha {gaining the upper hand over Viṣṇu}, whose inferior character {dwarfish appearance} was made evident by his dependence on another {in taking refuge with an enemy}, he (Nāgabhaṭa II {Bali}) — the one wishing for the success of meritorious deeds founded on the three Vedas {craving the increase of benefits in the business of the three worlds}, who had a succession of taxes imposed (in a manner) fixed by the (proper) conduct of Kṣatriya estate {a collection of stories of Bali narrated (in a manner) connected with the rules of the condition of his power} — reigned with an attitude reverential to discipline {shone with a form humble because of modesty}.

Having subdued the master of Vaṅga, who was a terrible thick darkness consisting of the best elephants, a multitude of horses and a flock of vehicles of the irresistible enemy, he (Nāgabhaṭa II), came forth illuminating the three worlds on his own like the rising sun.<fnref n="15" />

Verse 9 emphasises his victory over Cakrāyudha, while referring to Dharmapāla indirectly as “another” on whom the former was dependent. Calling Dharmapāla the master of Vaṅga in verse 10 is rather a misnomer in view of the subregions under his control,<fnref n="16" /> but understandable as the cognition of outsiders. The emphasis on the greatness of Dharmapāla and his army in this verse accentuates the power of Nāgabhaṭa II who defeated him, while verse 9 extols his virtues by contrasting them with the lowly nature of Cakrāyudha.

The contribution to the victory over the Pālas is still mentioned in the later inscription of a subordinate ruler of the Gurjara-Pratihāras. In the *Chatsu stone inscription of Bālāditya* (r. c. 900–920), the Guhila king of Chatsu, Kṛṣṇarāja, Bālāditya’s great-great-grandfather, is credited with the victory over a Gauḍa king, presumably Dharmapāla.

Having previously made an oath, on the battlefield filled with a troop of excellent elephants, after defeating the warrior (bhaṭa), the king of Gauḍa, he

<footnote n="15">15 Gwalior inscription of Bhoja I, vv. 9–10: *ttrayy-āspadasya sukṛtasya samṛddhim icchur yaḥ kṣattra-dhāma-vidhi-vaddha-vali-pravandhaḥ| jitvā parāśraya-kṛta-sphuṭa-nīca-bhāvaṁ cakrāyudhaṁ vinaya-namra-vapur vvyarājat|| durvvāra-vairi-vara-vāraṇa-vāji-vāra-yānaugha-saṁghaṭana-ghora-ghanāndhakāraṁ nirjjitya vaṅga-patim āvirabhūd vivasvān udyann iva ttrijagad-eka-vikāsako yaḥ||*</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 For the location and character of Vaṅga, the southern sub-region of Bengal, see Furui (2020, 28–29).</footnote>