The Panduvamshis (IAST: Pāṇḍuvaṁśī) or Pandavas (IAST: Pāṇḍava) were an Indian dynasty that ruled the historical Dakshina Kosala region in present-day Chhattisgarh state of India, during the 7th and the 8th centuries. They may have been related to the earlier Panduvamshis of Mekala: both dynasties claimed lunar lineage and descent from the legendary Pandavas.
After the fall of the Sharabhapuriyas in the late 6th century, Dakshina Kosala appears to have been controlled by petty chiefs until the Panduvamshis gained control of the region. The Panduvamshis may have captured a part of the neighbouring Utkala and Vidarbha regions at different times, but their control of these regions did not last long.
Their capital was probably located at Shripura (modern Sirpur). The later Somavamshi dynasty, which claimed lunar lineage, appears to have been related to them, but this cannot be said with certainty.
Origin
Legendary descent claims
Several records of the family claim a lunar lineage for it:
An inscription of the second Panduvamshi king Indrabala, discovered at the Lakshmaneshvara Temple at Kharod, describes him as "the very full moon in the sky that is the shashi-kula (lunar family)" The Adbhar (Adhabhara) inscription of Nannaraja II states that his ancestor Tivaradeva was born in the shashi-vamsha ("moon lineage") The inscriptions of Balarjuna state that he was born in the soma-vamsha or shitamshu-vamsha (both meaning "moon lineage") The Sirpur Lakshmana temple inscription of Balarjuna states that his grandfather Chandragupta was born in the chandranvaya ("family of the moon") Another inscription of Balarjuna states that the dynasty's founder Udayana belonged to the shashadharaanvaya ("family of the moon")
Within the lunar lineage, the dynasty traced its descent to the legendary Pandavas. For example:
The Arang stone inscription from the reign of Nannaraja I states that his ancestor Udayana was born in the Pandava-vamsha ("Pandava lineage") Three copper-plate inscriptions of Tivaradeva state that his father Nannaraja I adorned the Pandu-vamsha ("Lineage of Pandu")
The claim of belonging to the lunar lineage ("Somavamshi") occurs in this dynasty's inscriptions throughout its lifetime. However, the claim of belonging to the Pandava lineage ("Panduvamshi") does not occur in the inscriptions issued after the reign of Tivaradeva. Despite this, modern scholars describe the dynasty as "Panduvamshi" so as to distinguish them from the later Somavamshi dynasty.
Relationship to the Panduvamshis of Mekala
Th Panduvamshis of Dakshina Kosala may have been related to the Panduvamshis of Mekala, an earlier dynasty that ruled an adjacent area. Both dynasties claimed descent from the legendary Pandavas, and also claimed the lunar lineage. However, based on the available evidence, the relationship between the two dynasties, if any, cannot be determined with certainty.
Several arguments can be made in favour of the theory that the Panduvamshis of Dakshina Kosala were not descendants of the Panduvamshis of Mekala. For example:
The inscriptions of the Dakshina Kosala kings do not mention the Mekala rulers, although they contain a detailed description of their dynasty. Only one king of the Dakshina Kosala dynasty is known to have a name ending in "-bala", while all but one kings of the Mekala dynasty had names ending in -"bala". The copper-plate inscriptions of the Dakshina Kosala dynasty are composed in prose, and are inscribed in "box-headed" characters (although some private stone inscriptions from their reign are inscribed in "nail-headed" characters). On the other hand, the inscriptions of the Mekala dynasty are composed in a mixture of prose and verse, and are inscribed in "nail-headed" characters. The Dakshina Kosala rulers were Vaishnavites, unlike the Mekala rulers, who were Shaivites.
Some of these differences are explainable. For example, the Panduvamshis' use of the "box-headed" characters can be attributed to the influence of the Sharabhapuriyas, who preceded them in the Dakshina Kosala region. It can be argued that the later Panduvamshis adopted Vaishnavism. The Dakshina Kosala family may have been a collateral branch of the Mekala family, but this cannot be said with certainty in absence of concrete historical evidence.
Period
The inscriptions of the Panduvamshi kings are dated in their regnal years instead of a calendar era. Therefore, historians have tried to determine the period of their rule using various other methods. V. V. Mirashi and D. C. Sircar dated the Panduvamshi ruler Tivaradeva to the 6th century, but A. M. Shastri later disputed their methodology, and theorized that Tivaradeva ascended the throne around 660 CE. According to Shastri's theory, the Panduvamshi rule in Dakshina Kosala started in the early 7th century, and ended in the 8th century.
Methodology
Identification of the Shailodbhava rival Trivara Shastri identifies Tivaradeva with the king Trivara mentioned in the inscriptions of the Shailodbhava chief Dharmaraja II alias Manabhita, who ruled in present-day Odisha. According to these inscriptions, Dharmaraja's younger brother Madhava allied with king Trivara in an attempt to dethrone him, but he defeated them at the foot of the Vindhyas. Shastri notes that the Adbhar inscription of Tivaradeva's son Nannaraja II mentions Tivaradeva as the lord of Utkala region in present-day Odisha. This corroborates the theory that Tivaradeva is same as Trivara, who must have invaded the Shailodbhava territory. Dharmaraja's grandfather Madhavaraja II alias Sainyabhita is attested by an inscription dated to 620-621 CE (Gupta era 300). This suggests that Dharmaraja and his contemporary Tivaradeva must have ruled around the mid-7th century.
Date of the preceding rulers The Panduvamshis ruled Dakshina Kosala after the Sharabhapuriya dynasty, but they did not immediately succeed the Sharabhapuriyas. The Sharabhapuriya rule ended sometime around 590 CE. The Malhar inscription of Vyaghraraja suggests that his dynasty, known as the Amaraya-kula, ruled Dakshina Kosala after the Sharabhapuriyas. Similarly, the Arang inscription of Bhimasena II suggests that his dynasty, known as the Rajarshi-tulya-kula, ruled the region for sometime. In addition, Shastri theorizes that the last of the Mekala Panduvamshis also ruled Dakshina Kosala for a brief time. Shastri dates the Arang inscription of Bhimasena II to 601 CE (Gupta era 282). Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi read the inscription's date as Gupta era 182, but Shastri dismisses this reading as inaccurate, pointing out that the earlier scholars such as Hira Lal also deciphered the first figure of the date as "2", not "1". Based on paleographic evidence, the Arang stone inscription from the reign of the Panduvamshi king Nannaraja I can be dated to half-a-century later than Bhimasena's inscription. This further corroborates the theory that Nannaraja I and his son Tivaradeva ruled around the mid-7th century. Shastri dates the beginning of the Panduvamshi rule in Dakshina Kosala to c. 620 CE, allowing three decades for the rule of the Amaraya-kula chiefs, the Rajarshi-tulya-kula chiefs, and the Mekala Panduvamshi king Udirnavaira. According to him, the first Panduvamshi king Udayana probably did not rule Dakshina Kosala, and his son Indrabala ruled during c. 620-640, which fits well with the theory dating Tivaradeva's ascension to the mid-7th century.
Date of the Somavamshis Alexander Cunningham dated Tivaradeva's reign to 425-450 CE, based on the Madala Panji palm-leaf manuscripts, which provide dates for the Somavamshi rulers, whom Cunningham theorized to be the descendants of the Panduvamshis. However, Madala Panji is no longer considered reliable by modern historians for determining the dates of the early Somavamshi rulers. John Faithfull Fleet dated Tivaradeva's reign to post-800 CE, but the later epigraphic discoveries proved his theory wrong.
Identification of Suryavarman According to the Sirpur Lakshmana temple inscription of the Panduvamshi king Shivagupta Balarjuna, his mother Vasata was the daughter of king Suryavarman. Mirashi identified Suryavarman with the Maukhari prince Suryavarman, who is mentioned in the 554 CE Haraha inscription issued during the reign of the Maukhari king Ishanavarman. Based on this identification, Mirashi dated the beginning of the Panduvamshi rule to the 6th century. Shastri disagrees with this identification, pointing out that according to the Sirpur Lakshmana Temple inscription, Suryavarman was a king (nṛpa) born in the family of Varmans, who were considered great for being the overlords of Magadha. However, there is no evidence that the Maukhari prince Suryavarman ever became a king: his Haraha inscription does not describe him as a crown prince, and the dynasty's records and other literary sources do not mention him in the genealogy of the Maukhari kings. Moreover, Ishanavarman's family mainly ruled parts of the present-day Uttar Pradesh. He did not rule the Magadha region, although he may have passed through Magadha to fight battles in the Gauda and Odisha regions, as claimed in his inscriptions. A feudatory Maukhari family is known to have ruled a small principality in the present-day Gaya district of the historical Magadha region, but it was distinct from Ishanavarman's family. Lastly, although the names of the Maukhari kings ended in "-varman", the family itself was not known by that suffix. Shastri argues that if Suryavarman actually belonged to the Maukhari dynasty, the author of the inscription would not have failed to glorify his patron by explicitly mentioning Vasata's Maukhari lineage.
Identification of Tivaranagara The Ipur inscription of the Vishnukundin ruler Madhavavarman II Janashraya describes him as "the delighter of the hearts of the young ladies in the palace(s) of Trivara-nagara". His Polamuru inscription similarly states that he was "fond of sporting with the excellent young women in the palaces of Trivara-nagara". According to historians V. V. Mirashi and D. C. Sircar, the term "Trivara-nagara" can be interpreted as "the city of Trivara", and these expressions suggest that Madhavavarman defeated Trivara. Both scholars dated Madhavavarman to the 6th century, and identified his rival Trivara with Tivaradeva. Shastri disagrees with this identification, pointing out that no records of the Panduvamshi dynasty refer to its capital Shripura as "Trivara-nagara", and there are no known instances of any capital town being referred to by its king's name in the regional records. Moreover, other scholars have interpreted the term "Trivara-nagara" differently, theorizing that it was the name of the city where Madhavavarman resided (possibly modern Tiruvuru), or that it refers to his conquest of "three excellent cities" (tri-vara-nagara).
Xuanzang's description The 7th century Chinese Buddhist traveler Xuanzang describes the contemporary king of Kosala as a Kshatriya Buddhist, and states that the kingdom had over 100 Buddhist monasteries with 10,000 Mahayanists. One theory identifies this king with Shivagupta Balarjuna, as some inscriptions from his reign (including one of his own inscriptions) record grants made to Buddhists. However, Shivagupta Balarjuna was a Shaivite, as attested by his own inscriptions. Historian A. M. Shastri theorizes that Xuanzang mistook a tolerant attitude towards Buddhism as formal affiliation to Buddhism, and his generic description cannot be used to precisely identify and date the contemporary ruler of Kosala.
Chronology of rulers
The following is a chronology of the dynasty's rulers, according to A. M. Shastri's methodology (the rulers are sons of their predecessors, unless specified otherwise):
Udayana, r. c. 600-620 CE, probably did not rule Dakshina Kosala Indrabala, r. c. 620-640 CE Indrabala's brother, whose name is lost in the damaged part of the Arang stone inscription, probably ruled simultaneously