Kingdoms of the Deccan (mentioned in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta)
By G. Ramadas
Summary
The article analyzes the Deccan kingdoms mentioned in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta, focusing on interpreting "Paisthapuraka-Mahendragiri-Kauttiraka Svamidatta." Previous scholars misread "Mahendragiri" as a ruler's name, but the author argues it refers to Mahendra Hill in Kalinga, a landmark consistently linked to the region in texts like the Mahabharata and Raghuvamsa. The expression denotes Kottira (near Mahendra Hill) as Svamidatta's capital, not a country name. The author identifies Pisthapura (Pithapur) and Kalinga as territories under Svamidatta, with Pithapur as the primary seat, corroborated by Suktivarma's Ragolu plates. Samudragupta's conquest of Kalinga ended Svamidatta's rule, aligning with chronological evidence from Ganga kings' era systems. The article refutes the existence of a separate Damana kingdom near Svamidatta's territories, dismissing Fleet's identification of Erandapalli with Khandesh. It concludes that Svamidatta's dominions spanned the east coast from Godavari to Mahendra Hill, with Erandapalli likely within his realm. The analysis emphasizes that the inscription lists capitals, not countries, resolving long-standing ambiguities in interpreting the prasasti.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This analysis of the Alahabad Pillar Inscription challenges prior scholarly interpretations by re-examining the territorial designations in the prasasti. The study argues that Mahendragiri refers not to a ruler but to a geographic landmark associated with Kalinga, while Kauttiraka denotes the capital Kottira near this hill. By distinguishing between territorial names and administrative centers, the research clarifies that Svamidatta ruled two territories: one centered at Pithapur (Pisthapura) and another at Kottira. The findings underscore the importance of contextual and linguistic precision in interpreting ancient inscriptions, offering a revised framework for understanding the political geography of the Deccan during the Gupta period. This contribution advances the scholarly discourse by reconciling textual ambiguity with historical evidence.