________________
No. 14] SANGALOODA PLATES OF RASHTRAKUTA NANNARAJA ; SAKA 615
113
that Anivārita was a surname of Chalukya Vikramāditya I who ruled from 655 to 680 A.C. It is, therefore, not unlikely that the sattra was named after his surname either in commemoration of his having founded it himself or was named after him by some other founder in token of his respect to him as his suzerain. That Vikramaditya I was a great conqueror is attested by his records in which he claims victory in country after country and in all directions'. That in the south he went as far as the Kävēri region is proved by bis Gadval Plates. As for the extent of his possessions in the north, we have as yet no direct evidence. Nevertheless, it can be supposed that in these northern regions he inherited the Three Maharashtrakas first acquired by his father, Pulakēsin II, since we have it stated in Vikramaditya's inscriptions that he not only regained possession of his father's kingdom which had been lost to enemies but also acquired the fortune and sovereignty of his ancestors. Further it is well known that the Western Chālukyas were recognised as overlords by the kings of the Harischandra family ruling in the Nasik District. One Svāmichandra of this family is explicitly stated as the feudatory (pāda-prasād-opajivi) of Chālukya Vikramāditya I. Rāshțrakūta Nannarāja of our grant, though not actually a contemporary of Vikramaditya I, evidently came under Chalukya hegemony at the time of recording the grant under study, i.e., in Saka 615(-693 A.C.), when his suzerain must have been Vinayāditya, son of Vikramaditya I. It is also interesting to note that it was this Vinayaditya who conducted a successful expedition in the north in which he was ably assisted by his son, prince Vijayāditya.?
None of the kings mentioned in our record barring Govindarāja is known to us from any other source except the two other grants of Nannarāja referred to above. However, in respect of Svāmikarāja, attention may be drawn to another person of the same name who figures as vijñapti in a 7th century record of Kāpālivarman of the Bhöja family who ruled the area around Goa in the west coast. Except the similarity of name and the proximity in point of date between the two persons there is nothing else to connect the two, much less to treat them as identical.
The area of rule of the family of Nannarāja lay as determined by the provenance of their records and the places mentioned in them roughly in the districts of Akola, Amraoti, Betul and Nagpur of Madhya Pradesh, which all lay adjacent to one another. Ancient Vidarbha roughly corresponds to this area. The earliest record of the family, viz., the Nāgardhan Plates of Svāmirāja, was issued from Nändivardhana, the same as Nāgardhan which lies three miles south of Ramtek in the Nagpur District. The family seems to have moved south-west to the region of Amraoti and Akola where they fixed a new capital at Padmanagara from which our inscription is issued. This place may be identified with modern Padmin lying within the postal jurisdiction of Akola.
1 Above, VOL X, p. 101 and n. 4.
? [The word anivärita here is to be taken in its literal sense of unhindered'; it is not proper to connect it with the name or title of any person. -Ed.]
3 Ibid., p. 103, text lines 13 ff. • Ibid., p. 101.
Ibid., p. 103, text lines 13 ff. . Ibid., Vol. XXV, pp. 226, 227, 228. 7 Bom. Gaz., Vol. I, pt. ii, pp. 368, 371. . . Above, Vol. XXVI, p. 339.
I was at first inclined to identify Padmanagara with Pauni in the Bhandara District, a place which is also known as Padmapura, and where an early inscription of Bnara Bhagadatta was discovered (above, Vol. XXIV, p. 11). In that case Umbarikā, the gift village, might be Umrer lying about 15 miles WNW of Paunl. But since 1 here are two other villages of the name of Paunl, one in the Betul District and the other in the Nagpur Distriot gear Ramtek, one cannot be sure as to which of these three could be Padmanagara. Seo Mirashi, above, Vol. XXVIII, p. 7, n. 2.
3 DGA/53
