________________
232
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[Vol. XXVIII
near Simhapura. Saktivarman and his grandson Anantaśaktivarman of the Māthara family were thus presumably paramount rulers of Kalinga during the 4th-5th century A.C.
We have now to determine the political status and the approximate period of some other kings of Kalinga who, as can be judged from the palaeography of their charters, flourished in the 5th century. These were Kalingādhipati Umavarman of the Bțihatproshthā grant, his namesake who issued the Dhavalapēta plates, and Kalingadhipati Chandavarman of the Bobbili and Kõmarti plates. It has been stated above that the characters of our grant resemble Umavarman's grants. If we accept this proposition, the exact priority or posteriority of our Anantaśaktivarman to Kalingādhipati Umavarman should be determined. In regard to Umavarman of the two charters cited above, what Mr. R. K. Ghoshal has said may be accepted, viz., that the kings of both the grants are identical, although the Dhavalapēta plates were not issued from Simbapura and the king therein is not called Kalingādhipati, both details being present in the Bșihatproshthā grant. And this Umavarman's proximity to Anantasaktivarman in point of date is further attested to, not only by the palaeographical resemblance, but also by another crucial evidence, viz., that the composer of the Andhavaram plates of Ananta aktivarman, Dandanayaka Mātrivara, was also the composer of the Brihatproshtha grant wherein he is dscribed as the son of Haridatta. Yet this does not solve the question as to whether Umavarman preceded or succeeded the other Kalinga ruler. However, the following considerations tend to show that Umavarman should have come only after Ananta aktivarman. While Anantasaktivarman calls himself a Kalingādhipati in both his grante, dated 14th and 28th regnal years, Umavarman was not a Kalingadhipati when he issued the Dhavalapēta plates from Sunagara but assumed that title and changed his capital to Simhapura, too, when he made the grant of Bțihatproshthā, in his 30th regnal year. Hence Umavarman was not a Kalingādhipati to start with, whereas Ananta aktivarman was the lord of Kalinga from the very beginning of his career, having inherited the kingdom from his father, a fact which is made clear by his epithet bappa-bhattāraka-pāda-prasād-āvāpta-farira-rājya-vibhava. This circumstance preoludes the possibility of Umavarman having become Kalingadhipati or of his having fixed his capital at Simhapura before Anantasaktivarman's accession and of having caused a sort of interregnum in the Māthara lordship over Kalinga.8 Until evidence is found to the contrary, it may, therefore, be assumed that Umavarman, who did not belong to the Māthara family, acquired the title Kalingadhipat and lordship over the Kalinga kingdom, as well as over the city of Simhapura by conquest, or otherwise, from Anantaśaktivarman after the latter had ruled it peacefully for at
1 Above, Vol. XXVI, p. 134. There was another Maharaja Umavarman who issued the Tekkali plates (C. P. No. 13 of 1934-5), who belonged to the same century and was ruling over a part of Kalinga. Since the seal of his
on the two charters cited above, and as he was not a Kalingadhipati like Umavarman of the Bșihatproshthā grant, he seems to be a different king.
The composer of the present Madras Museum plates of Anantasaktivarman was a different person, viz., Talavara Arjunadatta.
* There is some evidence which seems to show that Anantasaktivarman was engaged in some military ex. pedition in or about the 14th year of his reign as pointed out by Dr. R. Subrahmanyam (above, Vol. XXVIII p. 178). This ruler issued his Andhavaram plates in his 14th regnal year from a mi itary camp at Vijayapura (hastyaba-skandhavarid=Vijayapurdi). Andõreppa, the gift village mentioned in this record, is doubtless Andha. varam which lies within a distance of only 10 miles from Simhapura, modern Singupuram near Srikakulath, There is, therefore, some ground for the assumption that this military expedition might have resulted in the capture of Simhapura by Anantabaktiverman from some enemy. Or, in the alternative, Ananta aktivarman might have been proceeding from Simhapura, which was already his capital, against the same enemy. If this enemy Was Kalingadhipati Umavarman who issued his Brihatproshtha grant from Simhapura in his 30th regnal year, one may doubt if Anantasaktiverman's Andhavaram plates were issued subsequent to the Brihatproshthi grant of Umavarman's 30th regnal year. In such a case we have to postulate that an interregnum in the Mathars rule over Kalinga (from capital Simhapura) was caused by Kalingdhipati Umavarman.
Above, Vol. XXVI, p. 184. Mr. R. K. Ghoshal advances here the view that the Brihatproehth grant seems to have been issued by Umavarman on the occasion of some notable military success achieved by him at the expense of some local ruler.
