History of GujarAt / Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Volume I, Part I. :: ( a.d. 250

( a.d. 250 - 450.)

Chapter VI.
The TraikÚ?akas, a.d.250–450. Two Plates.The materials regarding the TraikÚ?akas, though meagre, serve to show that they were a powerful dynasty who rose to consequence about the time of the middle Kshatrapas (a.d.250). All the recorded information is in two copperplates, one the Kanheri copperplate found by Dr. Bird in 1839,1 the other a copperplate found at PÁrdi near BalsÁr in 1885.2 Both plates are dated, the Kanheri plate ‘in the year two hundred and forty-five of the increasing rule of the TraikÚ?akas’; the PÁrdi plate in Sam?vat 207 clearly figured. The Kanheri plate contains nothing of historical importance; the PÁrdi plate gives the name of the donor as Dahrasena or Dharasena ‘the illustrious great king of the TraikÚ?akas.’ Though it does not give any royal name the Kanheri plate expressly mentions the date as the year 245 of the increasing rule of the TraikÚ?akas. The PÁrdi plate gives the name of the king as ‘of the TraikÚ?akas’ but merely mentions the date as Sam?. 207. This date though not stated to be in the era of the TraikÚ?akas must be taken to be dated in the same era as the Kanheri plate seeing that the style of the letters of both plates is very similar.

The initial date must therefore have been started by the founder of the dynasty and the Kanheri plate proves the dynasty must have lasted at least 245 years. The PÁrdi plate is one of the earliest copper-plate grants in India. Neither the genealogy nor even the usual three generations including the father and grandfather are given, nor like later plates does it contain a wealth of attributes. The king is called ‘the great king of the TraikÚ?akas,’ the performer of the asvamedha or horse-sacrifice, a distinction bespeaking a powerful sovereign. It may therefore be supposed that Dahrasena held South GujarÁt to the NarbadÁ together with part of the North Konkan and of the GhÁt and Dakhan plateau.

Initial Date.What then was the initial date of the TraikÚ?akas? Ten GujarÁt copper-plates of the Gurjjaras and Chalukyas are dated in an unknown era with Sam?. followed by the date figures as in the PÁrdi plate and as in Gupta inscriptions. The earliest is the fragment from San?khe?Á in the Baroda State dated Sam?. 346, which would fall in the reign of Dadda I. of Broach.3 Next come the two Kaira grants of the Gurjjara king Dadda PrasÁntarÁga dated Sam?. 380 and Sam?. 3854; and the San?khe?Á grant of Ra?agraha dated Sam?. 3915; then the Kaira grant of the Chalukya king VijayarÁja or Vijayavarman dated Sam?vatsara 3946; then the BagumrÁ grant of the Sendraka chief Nikumbhallasakti7;
Chapter VI.
The TraikÚ?akas, a.d.250–450.
Initial Date. two grants from NavsÁri and Surat of the Chalukya king SÍlÁditya SryÁsraya dated 421 and 4438; two the NavsÁri and KÁvi grants of the Gurjjara king Jayabha?a dated respectively Sam?. 456 and Sam?. 4869; and a grant of Pulakesi dated Sam?vat 490.10

Of these the grant dated 421 speaks of SÍlÁditya SryÁsraya as YuvarÁja or heir-apparent and as the son of Jayasim?havarmman. The plate further shows that Jayasim?havarmman was brother of VikramÁditya and son of Pulakesi Vallabha ‘the conqueror of the northern king Harshavardhana.’ The name Jayasim?havarmman does not occur in any copperplate of the main line of the Western Chalukyas of the Dakhan. That he is called MahÁrÁja or great king and that his son SÍlÁditya is called YuvarÁja or heir-apparent suggest that Jayasim?havarmman was the founder of the GujarÁt branch of the Western Chalukyas and that his great Dakhan brother VikramÁditya was his overlord, a relation which would explain the mention of VikramÁditya in the genealogy of the copper-plate. VikramÁditya’s reign ended in a.d.680 (Saka 602).11 Supposing our grant to be dated in this last year of VikramÁditya, Sam?vat 421 should correspond to Saka 602, which gives Saka 181 or a.d.259 as the initial date of the era in which the plate is dated. Probably the plate was dated earlier in the reign of VikramÁditya giving a.d.250. In any case the era used cannot be the Gupta era whose initial year is now finally settled to be a.d.319.

The second grant of the same SÍlÁditya is dated Sam?vat 443. In it, both in an eulogistic verse at the beginning and in the text of the genealogy, VinayÁditya SatyÁsraya Vallabha is mentioned as the paramount sovereign which proves that by Sam?vat 443 VikramÁditya had been succeeded by VinayÁditya. The reign of VinayÁditya has been fixed as lasting from Saka 602 to Saka 618 that is from a.d.680 to a.d.696–97.12 Taking Saka 615 or a.d.693 to correspond with Sam?vat 443, the initial year of the era is a.d.250.

The grant of Pulakesivallabha JanÁsraya dated Sam?vat 490, mentions MangalarasarÁya as the donor’s elder brother and as the son of Jayasim?havarmman. And a BalsÁr grant whose donor is mentioned as MangalarÁja son of Jayasim?havarmman, apparently the same as the MangalarasarÁya of the plate just mentioned, is dated Saka 653.13 Placing the elder brother about ten years before the younger we get Sam?vat 480 as the date of MangalarÁja, which, corresponding with Saka 653 or a.d.730–31, gives a.d.730 minus 480 that is a.d.250–51 as the initial year of the era in which Pulakesi’s grant is dated. In the NavsÁri plates, which record a gift by the Gurjjara king Jayabha?a in Sam?vat 456, Dadda II. the donor of the Kaira grants which bear date 380 and 385, is mentioned in the genealogical part at the beginning as ‘protecting the lord of Valabhi who had been defeated by the great lord the illustrious Harshadeva.’ Now the great Harshadeva or Harsha Vardhana of Kanauj whose court was visited by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen
Chapter VI.
The TraikÚ?akas, a.d.250–450.
Initial Date. Tsiang between a.d.629 and 645, reigned according to Reinaud from a.d.607 to about a.d.648. Taking a.d.250 as the initial year of the era of the Kaira plates, Dadda II.’s dates 380 and 385, corresponding to a.d.630 and 635, fall in the reign of Harshavardhana.

These considerations seem to show that the initial date of the TraikÚ?aka era was at or about a.d.250 which at once suggests its identity with the Chedi or Kalachuri era.14 The next question is, Who were these TraikÚ?akas. The meaning of the title seems to be kings of TrikÚ?a. Several references seem to point to the existence of a city named TrikÚ?a on the western seaboard. In describing Raghu’s triumphant progress the RÁmÁya?a and the Raghuvam?sa mention him as having established the city of TrikÚ?a in AparÁnta on the western seaboard.15 TrikÚ?akam or TrikÚ?am, a Sanskrit name for sea salt seems a reminiscence of the time when TrikÚ?a was the emporium from which Konkan salt was distributed over the Dakhan. The scanty information regarding the territory ruled by the TraikÚ?akas is in agreement with the suggestion that Junnar in North Poona was the probable site of their capital and that in the three ranges that encircle Junnar we have the origin of the term TrikÚ?a or Three-Peaked.

Their Race or Tribe.Of the race or tribe of the TraikÚ?akas nothing is known. The conjecture may be offered that they are a branch of the ÁbhÍra kings of the PurÁ?as, one of whom is mentioned in Inscription XV. of NÁsik Cave X. which from the style of the letters belongs to about a.d.150 to 200. The easy connection between NÁsik and BalsÁr by way of Peth (Peint) and the nearness in time between the NÁsik inscription and the initial date of the TraikÚ?akas support this conjecture. The further suggestion may be offered that the founder of the line of TraikÚ?akas was the Ísvaradatta, who, as noted in the Kshatrapa chapter, held the overlordship of KÁthiÁvÁ?a as MahÁkshatrapa, perhaps during the two years a.d.248 and 249, a result in close agreement with the conclusions drawn from the examination of the above quoted TraikÚ?aka and Chalukya copperplates. As noted in the Kshatrapa chapter after two years’ supremacy Ísvaradatta seems to have been defeated and regular Kshatrapa rule restored about a.d.252 (K. 174) by DÁmÁja?asrÍ son of Vijayasena. The unbroken use of the title MahÁkshatrapa, the moderate and uniform lengths of the reigns, and the apparently unquestioned successions suggest, what the discovery of Kshatrapa coins at KarÁd near SÁtÁra in the Dakhan and at AmrÁvati in the BerÁrs seems to imply, that during the second half of the third century Kshatrapa rule was widespread and firmly established.16 The conjecture may be offered that Rudrasena (a.d.256–272) whose coins have been found in AmrÁvati in the BerÁrs spread his power at the expense of the TraikÚ?akas driving them towards the Central Provinces where they established themselves at Tripura and KÁlanjara.17 Further that under BrÁhman
Chapter VI.
The TraikÚ?akas, a.d.250–450.
Their Race or Tribe. influence, just as the Gurjjaras called themselves descendants of Kar?a the hero of the MahÁbhÁrata, and the Pallavas claimed to be of the BhÁradvÁja stock, the TraikÚ?akas forgot their ÁbhÍra origin and claimed descent from the Haihayas. Again as the Valabhis (a.d.480–767) adopted the Gupta era but gave it their own name so the rulers of Tripura seem to have continued the original TraikÚ?aka era of a.d.248–9 under the name of the Chedi era. The decline of the Kshatrapas dates from about a.d.300 the rule of Visvasena the twentieth Kshatrapa son of Bhartt?idÁman. The subsequent disruption of the Kshatrapa empire was probably the work of their old neighbours and foes the TraikÚ?akas, who, under the name of Haihayas, about the middle of the fifth century (a.d.455–6) rose to supremacy and established a branch at their old city of TrikÚ?a ruling the greater part of the Bombay Dakhan and South GujarÁt and probably filling the blank between a.d.410 the fall of the Kshatrapas and a.d.500 the rise of the ChÁlukyas.

About 1887 Pandit BhagvÁnlÁl secured nine of a hoard of 500 silver coins found at Daman in South GujarÁt. All are of one king a close imitation of the coins of the latest Kshatrapas. On the obverse is a bust of bad workmanship and on the reverse are the usual Kshatrapa symbols encircled with the legend:

????????????????????????????????????????????????

MahÁrÁjendravarmaputra Parama Vaishnava SrÍ MahÁrÁja Rudraga?a.

The devoted Vaishnava the illustrious king Rudraga?a son of the great king Indravarma.

At KarÁd, thirty-one miles south of SÁtÁra, Mr. Justice Newton obtained a coin of this Rudraga?a, with the coins of many Kshatrapas including Visvasim?ha son of Bhartt?idÁman who ruled up to a.d.300. This would favour the view that Rudraga?a was the successful rival who wrested the Dakhan and North Konkan from Visvasim?ha. The fact that during the twenty years after Visvasim?ha (a.d.300–320) none of the Kshatrapas has the title MahÁkshatrapa seems to show they ruled in KÁthiÁvÁ?a as tributaries of this Rudraga?a and his descendants of the TraikÚ?aka family. The Dahrasena of the PÁrdi plate whose inscription date is 207, that is a.d.457, may be a descendant of Rudraga?a. The TraikÚ?aka kingdom would thus seem to have flourished at least till the middle of the fifth century. Somewhat later, or at any rate after the date of the Kanheri plate (245 = a.d.495), it was overthrown by either the Mauryas or the Guptas.18

1 Cave Temple Inscriptions, Bom. Arch. Sur. Sep. Number XI. page 57ff.?

2 J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 346.?

3 Epigraphia Indica, II. 19.?

4 Ind. Ant. XIII. 81ff.?

5 Ep. Ind. II. 20.?

6 Ind. Ant. VII. 248ff. Dr. BhandÁrkar (Early Hist. of the Deccan, 42 note 7) has given reasons for believing this grant to be a forgery.?

7 Ind. Ant. XVIII. 265ff.?

8 J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff.; Trans. Vienna Or. Congress, 210ff.?

9 Ind. Ant. XIII. 70ff. and V. 109ff.?

10 Trans. Vienna Or. Congress, 210ff.?

11 Fleet’s KÁnarese Dynasties, 27.?

12 Fleet’s KÁnarese Dynasties, 27.?

13 Ind. Ant. XIV. 75 and Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff.?

14 Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 9) and Sir A. Cunningham (Arch. Sur. IX. 77) agree in fixing a.d.250 as the initial date of the Chedi era. Prof. Kielhorn has worked out the available dates and finds that the first year of the era corresponds to a.d.249–50. Ind. Ant. XVII. 215.?

15 VÁlmÍki’s RÁmÁya?a, Ganpat Krishnaji’s Edition: Raghuvam?sa, IV. 59.?

16 For details see above page 48.?

17 Tripura four miles west of Jabalpur; KÁlanjara 140 miles north of Jabalpur.?

18 That the era used by the Gurjjaras and Chalukyas of GujarÁt was the Chedi era may be regarded as certain since the discovery of the San?khe?Á grant of Nirihullaka (Ep. Ind. II. 21), who speaks of a certain San?kara?a as his overlord. PalÆographically this grant belongs to the sixth century, and Dr. BÜhler has suggested that San?kara?a is the Chedi San?karaga?a whose son BuddharÁja was defeated by MangalÍsa some time before a.d.602 (Ind. Ant. XIX. 16). If this is accepted, the grant shows that the Chedis or Kalachuris were in power in the NarbadÁ valley during the sixth century, which explains the prevalence of their era in South GujarÁt. Chedi rule in the NarbadÁ valley must have come to an end about a.d.580 when Dadda I. established himself at Broach. It being established that the Kalachuris once ruled in South GujarÁt, there is no great difficulty in the way of identifying the TraikÚ?akas with them. The two known TraikÚ?aka grants are dated in the third century of their era, and belong palÆographically to the fifth century a.d. Their era, therefore, like that of the Kalachuris, begins in the third century a.d.: and it is simpler to suppose that the two eras were the same than
Chapter VI.
The TraikÚ?akas, a.d.250–450. that two different eras, whose initial points were only a few years apart, were in use in the same district. Now that the Saka and the Vikrama eras are known to have had different names at different times, the change in the name of the era offers no special difficulty. This identification would carry back Kalachuri rule in South GujarÁt to at least a.d.456–6, the date of the PÁrdi grant: and it is worth noting that VarÁhamihira (B?. Sam?h. XIV. 20) places the Haihayas or Kalachuris in the west along with the AparÁntakas or Konkanis.

Though the name TraikÚ?aka means of TrikÚ?a, the authorities quoted by Dr. BhagvÁnlÁl do not establish the existence of a city called TrikÚ?a. They only vouch for a mountain of that name somewhere in the Western GhÁts, and there is no evidence of any special connection with Junnar. Further, the word TrikÚ?akam seems to mean rock-salt, not sea-salt, so that there is here no special connection with the Western coast. Wherever TrikÚ?a may have been, there seems no need to reject the tradition that connects the rise of the Kalachuris with their capture of KÁlanjara (Cunningham’s Arch. Surv. IX. 77ff), as it is more likely that they advanced from the East down the NarbadÁ than that their original seats were on the West Coast, as the Western Indian inscriptions of the third and fourth centuries contain no reference either to TraikÚ?akas or to Junnar or other western city as TrikÚ?a.

With reference to the third suggestion that the TraikÚ?akas twice overthrew the Kshatrapas, under Ísvaradatta in a.d.248 and under Rudraga?a in a.d.310–320, it is to be noted that there is no evidence to show that Ísvaradatta was either an ÁbhÍra or a TraikÚ?aka and that the identification of his date with a.d.248–250 seems less probable than with either a.d.244 or a.d.236. (Compare above Footnote page 53). Even if Ísvaradatta’s supremacy coincided with a.d.250 the initial date of the TraikÚ?aka era, it seems improbable that a king who reigned only two years and left no successor should have had any connection with the establishment of an era which is not found in use till two centuries later. As regards Rudraga?a it may be admitted that he belonged to the race or family who weakened Kshatrapa power early in the fourth century a.d. At the same time there seems no reason to suppose that Rudraga?a was a TraikÚ?aka or a Kalachuri except the fact that his name, like that of San?karaga?a, is a compound of the word ga?a and a name of Siva; while the irregular posthumous use of the title MahÁkshatrapa among the latest (23rd to 26th) Kshatrapas favours the view that they remained independent till their overthrow by the Guptas about a.d.410. The conclusion seems to be that the TraikÚ?aka and the Kalachuri eras are the same namely a.d.248–9: that this era was introduced into GujarÁt by the TraikÚ?akas who were connected with the Haihayas; and that the introduction of the era into GujarÁt did not take place before the middle of the fifth century a.d.—(A. M. T. J.)?

Clyx.com