09 - 38
the inscriptions of this dynasty, No. 10, which refers itself to the
reign of Jagattunga, mentions a feudatory named Dantiga, who
was ruling the nadu. In the Deoli plates of Krishna III one Dantiga is stated
to have been killed along with the Vappuka by Krishna III.
But the present inscription is not dated and has to be placed on
grounds of palaeography in the 9th century A.D.
So it is not likely that he was a contemporary of Krishna III. As
the record is of the 9th century A.D., the Jagattunga to
whose reign it belongs may be Govinda
inscription (No. 14) from Devageri, which belongs to the reign of Amoghavarsha
but which is not dated is assignable, on palaeographic grounds, to
the 9th century A.D. The
only Amoghavarsha who ruled in this century is Amoghavarsha I.
In this record, India, i.e., Indra, who is
described as the priya-tanay-atmaja of the king, is stated to be
governing Banavasi Twelve-thousand.
If the expression priya-tanay-atmaja is taken in its
ordinary sense of ‘sib’s son’, Indra would be the grandson of
Amoghavarsha. But from no
other source do we know of any Indra who was the grandson of
Amoghavarsha. We know however
that Krishna II had a grandson called Indra (Indra III).
But Krishna II is usually given in his inscriptions, the
distinguishing epithet of Akalvarsha and not Amoghavarsha.
The only exception however is theVenkatapur inscription which
applies to him the epithet of Amoghavarsha.
As has been suggested by the editor of the Venkatapur
inscription, the epithet amghavarsha used in it – if it is not a
scribal error – should be taken to have been borne by Krishna II as
well as by his father. If
that be so, and if we consider that the tile Amoghavarsha applied to the
ruling king in the record under review to be a title of Krishna II then
the Indra mentioned here as the governor of Banavasi Twelve-thousand
would be the grandson of Krishna II and the therefore Indra III. Otherwise the epithet Amoghavarsha will have to be taken as a
mistake for Aklavarsha. Another
interesting fact disclosed by this inscription is that this Indra had a
wife named Govindabbe who was administering the village (i.e.,
Devageri). If, as surmised
above, Indra of the record is identical with Indra III Govindabbe would
be a hitherto unknown wife of his.
It may be noted however that Jagattunga III, the grandson of
Amoghavarsha I, had a queen called Govindamba of the Kalachuri
two records of Krishna II, Lokate is mentioned as the governor of
Banavasi. One of them (No.
17) bearing no date, states that Kalivitta was the son of Lokate
and was administering the group of villages called Punnavanti Twelve.
These person are apparently identical with homonymous chiefs
of the Chellaketana family.
This relationship between Lokate and Kalivitta is disclosed for
the first time by the record under review.
governor of Banavasi, named Rajati (Rajaditya) figures also in a
record (No. 16) of Krishna II and it is dated Saka 829 (A.D. 907-08).
Lokate or Lokaditya of the Chellaketana family is known to have
been governing Banavasi under Krishna II until at least A.D. 904-05.
The only date known hitherto for Rajaditya is A.D. 907-08.
In A.D. 913-14 Kalivitta was the governor of this province and in
A.D. 915, we find a certain Dhora governing he same region.
So Rajaditya must have been placed in charge of this region
sometime after A.D. 904-05 and continued to hold it till some date
before A.D. 913, probably even after the reign of Krishna II.
Now the question is whether this Rajaditya was also a
Chellaketana. In his
account of the Chellaketana family Dr. Fleet expressed a doubt whether
he (Rajaditya) belonged to this family. But Rajaditya of a collaterl line of the Chalukyas who
might be placed in this period has been brought to light be a
copper-plate grant published in the Mysore Archaeological Report, 1935,
No. 40. This Rajaditya is,
according to that record, the great grandfather of the donor of the
grant, who was also called Rajaditya and for whom the record furnishes
the date A.D. 951. In other words, two generations intervened between this
Rajaditya (Rajaditya II) and his great grandfather of the same name (Rajaditya
I). Allowing an average of twenty-five years to each generation, the period of Rajdtiya I would be
approximately between A.D. 875 and 900.
He would then he a contemporary of Krishna II.
This surmise is strengthened by the fact that Rajaditya I had
married a daughter of Akalavarsha, who in all probability is Krishna II. Consequently it is not improbable that he is identical with
Rajati of the record under review (i.e., No. 16)
leads us to the problem whether Rajaditya mentioned as the
governor of Banavasi in another Rashtrakuta inscription (No 36) is
identical with Rajati (Rajaditya), the subordinate of Krishna II
(mentioned in the previous paragraph).
This inscription refers itself to the reign of a king, of whose
name only the first letter Ja is preserved.
The characters of this record are assignable to the 9th
century A.D. The only name
or title beginning with Ja among the rulers of this region in
this period (the Rashtrakutas) is Jagattunga.
Hence the full name of this king is in all likelihood Jagattunga.
This conclusion is borne out by another inscription of the
same period, which clearly refers itself to the reign of Jagattunga,
under whom Banavasi province was being governed by a chief whose name is
partially preserved as ditya which may most probably stand for
Rajaditya (No. 34). Now in
the Rashtrakuta family there were four Jagattungas, viz., Govinda
II, Govinda III, Jagattunga, the son of Krishna II, who may be called
Jagattunga III, and Jagattunga (IV), the younger brother of Krishna III.
Since we do not know of any Rajaditya as being the governor of
Banavasi under Govinda II, this record may have to be referred to the
time of either Govinda II or Jagattunga, the son of Krishna II (i.e.,
Jagattunga III). Jagattunga is stated in both the records noticed above, in
unequivocal terms to be ‘ruling’ (rajyam-geyye).
If we consider the Jagattunga of these inscriptions to be
Jagattunga III the statement that he was reigning comes into conflict
with the accounts of the reigning kings found in records of this dynasty
which say that he did not rule at all.
Therefore there are two possible ways of explaining this
discrepancy. One is that
Jagattunga, son of Krishna II, is to be taken as having reigned, though
for a short period. The
last date known for Krishna II is A.D. 912 and the earliest date known
for Indra II is A.D. 915. In
this short interval between A.D. 912 and 915, Jagattunga might have
ruled. The other
explanation would be that Rajaditya of these records is different from
his name sake who was the subordinate of Krishna II and that he was a
subordinate of either Govinda II or Govinda III. But Palaeographically these inscriptions are too late for
the period of Govinda III, the last year of whose reign is A.D. 813,
though we known of Rajaditya who was also his subordinate.
of the inscriptions (No. 19) of Indra III, dated Saka 837, Yuva
(A.D. 915-16) tells us that a certain Dhora was governing Banvasi-nadu
though it does not say to which family he belonged.
The governorship of this province seems to have passed soon after
this date into the hands of bankeya; for in No. 20, dated Saka 837 (A.D.
916), he is stated to be governing Banavasinadu.
Another inscription of A.D. 928 (No. 23) of this sovereign states
that Bankeya of the Chellaketana family was the governor
of the sme province, This
would show that Bankeya who was governing this very province in A.D. 916
(No. 20) is not different from the Chellaketana Bankeya (No. 23).
The date of this record (A.D. 928, December 24)
is the latest datefound hitherto for Indra III, thus reducing the
duration of the reign of his successor.
Amoghavarsha II to barely seventeen months, i.e., from
December 928, to May 930. when Govinda IV came to the throne. Another subordinate of Indra (III) figuring in this
collection is Mahasrimanta who was administering Belvola Three Hundred
(No. 22). We know that he
was administering this division in A.D. 901 and 907 also under Krishna
II. In this connection it may be pointed out that this officer is
also mentioned in the Mulgund inscription of Krishna II of A.D. 902-03
from which it would appear that his proper name was Vinayambudhi and
Mahasrimanta was only his title.
inscription (No. 27) of Krishna III dated Saka 879 (A.D. 957)
gives the important information that while Krishnaraja was reigning from
his camp at Melpati his subordinate Tailapayya was carrying on
the administration of the country (nadu).
This Tailapayya is evidently the Chalukya chief who later
snatched his ancestral dominions from the Rashtrakutas and restored the
Chalukya sovereignty in a.D. 973. We
know from other sources also that Krishna was camping at Melpati for a
considerable time in connection with his southern campaign.
Evidently Taila took advantage of this absence of his mater to
strengthen his own position. In fact, we find him some years later (i.e, in A.D.
965) assuming such birudas as Chalukyarama and Ahavamalla
which were usually borne by the paramount sovereigns of his family.
Another inscription (No. 29) of this king (Krishna III) is worth
noticing here. From the
context it would appear that he had the tile Vikramaditya This
either however is not found applied to him in any other record.
of the subordinates of Krishna who was known only from two records so
far, figures in a third one (No. 32). He is Garvindara who in
this record, as in the other two, is spoken of as governing
inscription is not dated but the other two are of A.D. 961 and A.D. 968.
we may try to trace the genealogy and the order of succession of the
chiefs of Chellaketana family, who were the governors of the
province of Banavasi for about two centuries.
Erakori the first known member of this family is mentioned
in the Konnur inscription of Amoghavarsha I.
His son was Dhora,
‘lord of Kolanura. To
him was born (from Vijayanka) Bankeya (also called Bankesa or
Bankeyarasa) who was the governor of the province of Banavasi under
Amoghavarsha I, in A.D. 860, which is the date of the Konnur
inscription. He had two
sons, Kundattle and Lokaditya (also known as Lokate and
Lokade). The former is
known from a single undated record, as administering Nidugundage Twelve.
For the latter we have dates ranging from A.D. 896 to A.D. 904-05
(No. 15 of S.I.I., vol. XX)
of Lokaditya’s sons, named Kalivitta is known to have been (NO.
17) administering Punnavanti Twelve under his father.
A second Bankeya is known to be the governor of Banavasi
from inscriptions of A.D. 916 (No. 20), 919 and 928 (No. 23). In the
lastmentioned record, he is stated to belong to the Chellaketana family.
As his date is later by about eleven years than that of Lokaditya
he must have lived later than Lokaditya. Since Lokaditya’s father was
also called Bankeya it is likely that this Bankeya (bankeya II) is the
son of Lokaditya, and was named after is grandfather according to the
Hindu custom. We have
already seen that Kalivitta, the son of Lokaditya was governing the
division of Punnavanti Twelve under his father. A Kalivitta of the Chellaketana family was governing the
province of banavasi in A.D, 913-14.
It is not at all improbable that Kalivitta who was administering
the smaller unit of Punnavanti Twelve earlier is the same as Kalivitta
who was governing Banavasi in A.D. 913-14.
as observed before, was in charge of Banavasi 9n A./d. 904-05 and his
son Kalivitta (I) was governing the same province in A.D. 913-14.
Between these two dates we find a person named Raaditya as the
governor of the same province in A.D. 907-08 which is the only date so
far known for him. As we
have taken this Rajaditya to be a scion of the Chalukya family (p. iii
above) he need to be included among the Chellaketanas, though we cannot
say as to why he was appointed governor of this province after Lokaditya
to the exclusion of the members of the latter’s family who, except for
a short=break after A.D. 904-05, held the governorship of this region
for successive generations.
A.D. 915-16, i.e., immediately
after Kalivitta (I) this province was under the administrative control
of a certain Dhora (No. 19).
We may not be wrong if we suppose that he was also a Chellaketana
for the following reasons. In the first place the name Dhora was, as we have already
seen, borne by an earlier member of the family i.e., the grandfather
of Lokaditya. So
it is quite likely that he was named after his ancestor.
Secondly this Dhora comes immediately after Kalivitta(I) and just
before Bankeya (II), who was governing the Banavasi province in A.D.
915. He may therefore be
considered to be younger brother of Kalivitta(I) and the elder brother
of Bankeya (II) or in other words, one of the sons of Lokaditya.
The last date we have for Bankeya (II) as the governor of
Banavasi is A.D. 928.
Kalivitta of this vry family figures as the governor of th same province
in A.D. 945-46, under Krishna III.
But we find a Kalivitta (whose family is not specified)
administering the division of Belvola Three-hundred in A.D. 928-29 (No.
24). The point of interest
here is that Kalivitta happens to come immediately after Bankeya II
whose last known date is A.D. 928.
Further this Kalivitta is found to be administering the division
of Belvola before the other Kalivitta who was Kalivittas were identical.
It would therefore follow that Kalivitta was in charge of
Banavasi. As he comes after
Bankeya (II) he may be tentatively taken to be his son and called kalivitta
here to Genealogy...