________________
112
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[Vol. XXVII
Simantavarman's task was also perhaps facilitated ly the aggressive policy of the Suilodbhuva king Sainyabbita II who ruled in the first half of the 7th century A.D. This ruler of Kõngoda claims to have exercised sovereignty over the whole of Kalinga, - a characteristic phrase also useid later by Samantavarman and his sucressors. It is highly probable that the Könyoda king defeated the Ganga ruler of Kalinga-nagara and conquered a portion of the Ganjam District in the north. But about the middle of the 7th century A.D., the Sailūdbhaves were defeated by Harshavardhana and they almost disappear from the political arena for nearly two centuries. This was the period during which we find Samantavarman and at least three ot!uer kings ruling in Svētaka as independent chiefs.
It may be presumed that the political events described above were not unconnected with each other. The Gangas of Kalinga-nagara were weakened by the aggressive policy of the Kailõd. bhayay in the north and the Eastern Chalukyas in the south. This yave an opportunity to the Cangas of Svētaka to establish an independent principality in the northern part of the Ganjam District on the collapse of the Sailodbhava power about the middle of the 7th century A.!)., or shortly after that.
This historical review has a bearing on the location of the capital city Svētaka about which different opinions have been expressed by scholars. The identification of Svötaka with Srir kūrmam, proposed by Mr. R. Subba Rao, must be definitely ruled out, as it is too far south. Mr. Sarina identifies it with Chikați in the Sompeta tālul of the Ganjarn District, but the philological ground, on which alone this is based, is not convincing. There is a village called Saduka, not far from Chikati (Lat. 810-6', Long. 19°-48', in Sheet Atlas No. 74 A). This name resembles Svētaka, but I am not aware if the place contains any antiquity. On the whole, the available evidence indicates that the site of Svētaka is to be looked for in the northern part of the Ganjam District, but its exact identification must be left an open question.
The actual name of this capital city is also a matter of dispute. Mr. Sarma has expressell the view that the real name of the city is Schêtaka and not Svētaka. Dr. B. Ch. Chhabra, after discussing the question at some length, las upheld the reading Svētaka. There is, however, no doubt that the present record, where the letters have been very carefully engraved, definitely gives the name as Schőtaka. This will be evident from a comparison of the first gyllable of the name with the conjunct scha in bhagavatas-charāchara- (l. 1), sarmmabhyas=cha (l. 11), r=ātmanas=ckn (1.13) paxchimena. (1.14), bhavishyatas-cha (1. 16), and gitās=chrāltra (1.18) on the one hand, and xin in Gökarnēšvara (1. 3), Mahēsvarā (1. 6) and grāmo=svattha (1.9) on the other. The grant No. V also gives the name in the form Schētaka. On the other hand, there is no doubt that at Jeast in some of the grants of the dynasty (Nos. I, VIII, III, IV) the name is definitely written as Svētaka. But the difficulty does not end here. For, of the twelve known grants of this dynasty, while two give definitely Schētaka and four others, Svētaka, no less than four (Nos. VII, IX. X. XI) write the name as Svētka, and in the two remaining cases we get Sēta (No. VI) and Svēta (No. XII). It appears that all these differences in the form of the name are caused by an attempt to Sanskritize a vernacular name, and it would not, therefore, perhaps he wise to Accept Svētaka as the only correct form and reject others as mistakes.
of the other localities mentioned, Lauhassingåra may be the origin of such village name as Loisinga in the feudatory state of Patna, but this identity cannot be regarded as certain or even
J.A.H.RS
The history of the Sailodbhavas has been discussed by me with full reference to authoritine in Vol. X, pp. 1 ff.
* J.A.H.R.S., Vol. III, p. 184. * J.O.R., Vol. XI, p. 58.
Ibid., p. 59, f.n.9. . Above, Vol. XXIV, p. 131
