________________
No. 18.]
SRAVANA-BELGOLA EPITAPH OF MARASIMHA II.
157
that the Western Gangas were a people of importance and power at least a couple of centaries before the time of Sivamira I., is shewn by the fact that the Kadamba king Mpigêsa varman claims to have defeated them. But it is not at all probable that they will give a connected genealogy : the plainly imaginary nature of some of the names which the spurious grants placo before that of Sivamára I., is a strong indication that materials for compiling a genuite earlier pedigree were not available even then; and the most that we may expect, is, a few detached notices. All that we know as yet about the Gangas during the centuries immediately following the time when Mrigêśavarman was in conflict with them, is, that thoy were conquered by the Western Chalukya king Kirtivarman I. in the period A.D.567-68 to 597-98, and again by his son Pulikesin II. about A.D. 608,4 and that the Harihar grant of Pulikdsin's grandson Vinayaditya. dated in A.D. 694, speaks of them is hereditary servants of the Western Chalukya kings. And it is plain that they first came prominently to the front on the downfall of the Western Chalukya dynasty. Even then, they did not immediately assert the independence which, undoubtedly, they subsequently enjoyed for a wbile. That they felt their way gradually to the latter step, is shewn by the facts that sivamara I., while adopting a technical expression indi. cative of considerable power, used simply the title of arasa, " king," and that Mattarasa, though making an advance on this, did not at first assume any higher designation than that of Maharaja, and developed into a Maharajadhiraja and Paramétvara, as which he figurer in the Holalavadi record, only at somo later time. Now, the last Western Chalukya king, Kirtivarman II., lost the northern and central portions of his dominions to the Rashtrakatas, under Dantidurga, before A.I). 754. He was still in possession of the southern territory up to A.D. 757. But shortly after that time he was completely overthrown by Dantidurga's successor, Krishna I., - say, about A.D. 780. And the same period saw the extinction of another great dynasty of Southern India,- that of the original Pallavas of Conjeeveram, who also, through the possessions that they held in the Nolam barádi province, must have had much to do, though not so directly as the Western Chalukyas, with the Gangas of Talakaļ. The last great Pallava king known to us, and, unquestionably, the last representative of his line,- was Pallavamalla-Nandivarman, Nandipôtavarman, or Nandipòtarájn, son of Hiraṇyavarman. He was a contemporary of the Western Chalukya king Vikramaditya II., at some time in the period A.D. 733-34 to 746-47. And we have records dated in his twenty-first, twenty-second, and fiftieth years.7 Now, he encceeded to the Pallava throne aft: r a distant kingman, Paramêsvaravarman II.; the latter was preceded by his father, Narasimhavarman II.; and Narasimhavarman was preceded by his father, Paramośvara varmnc. I., who was contemporaneous at some time in the period A.D. 655 to 680 with Vikramaditya I.,
And the person whom Mr. Rice thus misplaces, through a mistake which is to be attributed to the imperfect original rendering of the Udayêndiram grant of Hastimalla-Prithivipati 11. in Mr. Foulkes' Mannal of the Salem District, Vol. II. p. 369 ff.,- is Márainha I., grandson of the second sivamara (nee page 162 below).
1 Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 25; for "the family of Tungeganga," read the lofty family of the Ganga."
This much, at any rate, is certain, I have already snid (above, Vol. III. p. 178), - that nothing will over be obtained to authenticato such dates as those of A.D. 248 and 466 which two of the spurious granta parrort to give for Harivarman and Avintta Kongoni, unless it apueta in some way or other the gonealogy that is assorted by the granta, and, on the other hand, if the genealogy Assorted by the grants (or anything like a real basis froza
bioh it can have been concocted) is over authenticated, then the dates will be upset, in favour of much later onot. The genealogy and the dates cannot possibly stand together. It is not likely, however, that there is any real basis of ancient fact for either the asserted genealogy or these two dates ; see the Postscript, page 174 below. • Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 19.
Id. Vol. VIII. p. 244.
Id. Vol. VII. p. 303. • Bee Dr. Haltsach's South-Ind. Insors. Vol. II. p. 342 ff.
* They are, respectively, the Udayêndiram grant (South-Ind. Incore. Vol. II. p. 861), the Kakkudi grant (ibid. p. 342); and an inscription at the Pañcospodavamalai bill (above, Vol. IV. p. 186, A). In respect of the last of them, we must understand that it is dated in the fiftieth year in which he was still reigning: not in simply the fiftieth year from the commencement of his reign, cited at a time when he himself was dond, -A wondering, soggested us posible by the editor of the record, for which there is no substantial authority.
And there was, perhaps, also a short intermediate reign, of Mahendravario III.
