________________
114
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JULY, 1919
sovereign of the Dekkan as far as the Narmada, beyond which lay the dominions of Siladitya or Harshavardhana of Kánya-kubja (modern Kanauj), the lord-paramount of all Northern India. It was about this time that Yuân Chwâng, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, visited India and stayed long in Harsha's court. He too testifies to the valour of the Châlukyas and records that they alone did not submit to Siladitya but beat back his invasion and effectually prevented him from extending his dominions to the south. It was during the same reign that Kubja-Vishnuvardhana, a brother of Pulaki II, led an expedition to Vêigi between the Godavart and the Krishna and became the founder of another branch of the Châlukyas, now known as the Eastern. More than a century later, the fortunes of the family were impeded in the time of Kirtivarman II about A.D. 757, when Dantidurga of the Rashtrakata race vanquished him and wrested the sovereignty from him.
The Rashtrakatas. The Rashtrakůțas continued to be the sovereign rulers of the country for nearly two centuries and a quarter from A.D. 748 to A.D. 973. All this time the Châļukyas undoubtedly, held a subordinate position under them as their feudatories 30 and were divided into many branches.
The later Chalukyas. During the time of Khoţika, the thirteenth of the Rashtrakațas, Sri Harsha aliae Siyaka, the Paramâra king of Malava, invaded his dominions, looted his capital Manyakheta (Malkhôd in the Nizâm's dominions) in A.D. 972 41 and thus weakened the power of the Rashtrakūtas. Immediately after, Khôţika died and was suoceeded by his nephew Karkara or Kakkala. It was then that the feudatory Chalukyas, headed by Tailapa, whose father seems to have remained near Mysore, seized the opportunity and restored the glory of the house by overcoming "1 Kakkala and Ranastambha * in battle some time after 24th June, A.D. 973.
Relation between the early and later Chalukyas. Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar - is of opinion that the main branch of the early Châļukyas became extinot after Kirtivarman II, but that several minor offshoots continued as feudatories of the Rashtraktas and that one of these in the person of Tailapa restored the fortunes of the Châlukyas. He also asserts that the later Châlukyas were not a continuation of the earlier and that Tailapa belonged to quite & collateral and unimportant branch. His reasons are (1) "the princes of the earlier dynasty always traced their descent to Hâriti and spoke of themselves as belonging to the Manavya gotra, while theee later Châlukyas traced their pedigree to Satyasraya only and those two names do not oceur in their inscriptions except in the Miraj grant and its copies where an effort is made to begin at the beginning"; (2) "the titles Jagadôkamalla, Tribhuvanamalla, etc., which the later Châlukyas assumed mark them off distinctively from the princes of the earlier dynasty which had none like them."
20 Ind. Ant., XII, 11 ; XL, 41. Epi. Cam., XI, cl. 16. Epi. Rep., 1904.
Epi. Ind., I, 235. Udepur inscription.
Ind. Ant., XXI, 167-8. JRAS., IV, 12. Ind. Ant., XII, 270, 271. Gadag and Kajige inscriptions Inscription of Kakka at Gundur.
Ind. Ant., VIII, 18. Yövůr tablet. Here 'Ranastambha 'must be the name of a person, son or relative of Karkars and cannot be 'a pillar of war or the name of a place, as has been construed by Messrs. Fleet and Filliot respectively. Mr. Fleet's translation of the verse in the Kauthem grant needs modification. The correct rendering would be "Easily chopped off on the field of battle Karkars and Ranastambha, the two sprouts of tho oreoper of Rashtrakata Rajyalakshmi, who were as it were the
wo feet of Kali triumphantly roaming about in person-Wicked, strong of body and the sprouts of the tree of disroepootfulness to older. Vido Xpi. Ind. IV, add. p. v.
4 Early History of Dokkan, 44, 58.
