New Light on the Chronology of the Iksvakus and the Pallavas

D. C. Sircar re‑examines the chronology of two important early South Indian dynasties, the Ikṣvākus of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa and the Pallavas of Kāñcī, using recently unearthed inscriptions. Previous reconstructions relied heavily on J. Ph. Vogel’s publication of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa inscriptions in Epigraphia Indica, but since 1954 excavations and finds have yielded additional epigraphs. Sircar discusses three inscriptions that bear dates, two of which were dug up recently. The first is a Nāgārjunakoṇḍa record dated in the reign of the Ābhīra king Vasusena and quoted as year 30. Scholars usually interpret this as the 30th year of the Ābhīra era beginning 248 CE, placing the inscription in 278–79, but Sircar argues that if the number records Vasusena’s regnal year the era need not apply. The second inscription, dated in year 30 of the Viṣṇukuḷa king Ābhīra Rudraśiradatta, raises similar questions. The third, previously known, also mentions year 30 of Vasusena. Comparing these dates with the Traikūṭaka and Kalacuri eras, Sircar proposes a revised chronology. For the early Pallavas he suggests Siṃhavarman (c. 315–45), Śivaskandavarman (c. 345–55), Viṣṇugopa (c. 355–75) and Skandavarman (c. 375–85). For the Ikṣvākus he proposes Caṇtamūla (c. 225–50), Virapuruṣadatta (c. 250–75), an Ābhīra interregnum (c. 275–85), Ehuvula Caṇtamūla (c. 285–334) and Rudrapuruṣadatta (c. 334–45). He emphasises that these dates are tentative but better accommodate the new epigraphic evidence. Sircar notes that his suggested chronology aligns the disappearance of the Ikṣvākus with the rise of the Pallavas and the Ābhīras. He concludes that more inscriptions need to be edited and that scholars should consider alternative eras when interpreting regnal years.

AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.