________________
Väkātaka Historiography as seen in the Beginning of the Twenty-first Century
/ 129
changes which have taken place in our knowledge of the history of the Vākāțakas and bring us up-todate in this matter. What is interesting to note is the fact that all these scholars have not only worked on those areas of Vākāțaka history which had been overlooked by their predecessors but have also extended researches distinctively different from each other: Shrimāli discusses the economy of the Vākātakas for the first time and focuses on its agrarian structure on the basis of epigraphic evidence. Shastri makes the best use of all the source- material to prepare the stage for a more balanced historical outline. Bakker uses all the evidence and earlier works at his disposal to study art, religion and culture during Vākāțaka times. Goyal's approach is not "what happend ?" but "why did it happen?" not found in other works on the Vākāțakas; and he boldly enters every scholarly controversy on the period, sorting out evidence and opinions lively and judiciously giving original interpretations and a novel direction to the subject. As a result, the current historiography of the Vākātakas has now advanced from the stage of a chronological, dynastic study to an integral analysis of events during c. 250-500 A.D. and to a detailed study of religion and art to an extensive study of agrarian expansion in Central India and northern Deccan and to state formation under the main branch.
Appendix 1
A Comment on Hans Bakker's Suggestion Here, it is worthwhile to discuss Hans Bakker at some length, for the importance of the Vākāțakas of the classical period of Indian history is a highly controversial issue. His two works, one, The Vākāțakas: An Essay in Hindu Iconology (1997), and the other, The Väkäțaka Heritage : Indian Culture at the Crossroads (2004) may in a way be regarded as the culmination of the Vākätaka studies at the beginning of the twenty-first century. From these monographs it is obvious that in recent years the development of the Vākāțaka historiography has in a sense once again taken the direction, though not quite, which was given to it by K.P. Jayaswäl. Firstly, as Hans Bakker has stated in the *Introduction of The Väkätakas : "One may say that from the middle of the sixties the kingdom of the Vākātakas has come to be seen as pivotal in the history of India, being essential for our understanding of the development of its art, religion and culture; as such it is on a par with the Gupta world, of which it can no longer be considered to be merely a province."65 In a way this conclusion is quite near to the belief of Jayaswal in whose perception in the age of Pravarasena I, who assumed the title of Samrāt, the Vākāțakas were the paramount rulers of almost whole of India. It is, of course, true that Jayaswāl's thesis regarding the imperial status of Pravarasena I and Hans Bakker's theory of Vākāțaka's `pivotal role in the history of India and his emphasis on the Vākātaka's being on a par with the Gupta world are not exactly the same prepositions but it can hardly be denied that both these theories emphasize the status of the Väkätakas and their parity with the Guptas which many a historian do not believe. Hans Bakker's belief that the kings of the eastern and western Vākātaka kingdoms-of the Nandivardhana and Vatsagulma-made up one family and their history is that of one family for all it is worth bestows on them some extra political hallow. It is, of course, true and obvious that looking at the Vākāțakas as one unit does not make them a great imperial power, but it does compel us to keep a wider area in mind while studying their political and cultural history.
Secondly, Jayaswāl had laid great emphasis on the revival of art and sculpture under the Vākāțakas. The Vākāțaka empire, the second one according to the reconstruction of their political history by Jayaswäl, was so rich that even a minister of Harişeņa could excavate and decorate with paintings a beautiful chaitya-building at Ajanțā, Cave No. XVI, adorned, as the donor himself with a rightful
