गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

have been in the immediate vicinity of each other, in different divisions of one and the
same ancient capital. And, though the inscriptions give no specific information on this
point, from the fact that the order of Aṁśuvarman, recorded in inscription E., is issued to
the officials of the western province, and from the way in which, in inscription K., Mâna-
dêva is described as marching to the east and reducing to obedience the rebellious Sâman-
tas there, and then returning to the west, it seems pretty clear that the Lichchhavikula or
Sûryavaṁśi family had the government of the territory to the east of the capital; and the
Ṭhâkurî family, of the territory to the west of it.
Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji treated Aṁśuvarman as if he was at first the feudatory
of Śivadêva I. There is, however, nothing in the inscriptions to support this. The in-
scriptions of Śivadêva I., it is true, record acts that were done by him "on the advice," or
"at the request," of Aṁśuvarman; but this expression, though often used in respect of
feudatories and officials, does not of necessity imply any state of subordination. And,
whereas Śivadêva I. uses in respect of himself only the feudatory title of Mahârâja, in his
own inscriptions he allots to Aṁśuvarman the equal title of Mahâsâmanta; not simply
Sâmanta, as represented almost throughout by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji. Śivadêva I. and
Aṁśuvarman were only co-ordinate feudatories of a paramount sovereign, viz. Harshavar-
dhana of Kanauj. During the time when Aṁśuvarman was a Mahârâjâdhirâja
or paramount sovereign, as recorded in inscription G., the Lichchhavis must have been
feudatory to him. This was after his inscription C. of A.D. 639. His other two inscrip-
tions E. and F., which give him no titles except that of śrî, "the illustrious, or the
glorious," perhaps belong to a transitional period, when he hesitated about adopting the
paramount title, and yet was unwilling to use a feudatory title any longer. He probably
assumed the paramount rank and title, on the death of Harshavardhana; when, as Ma-
twan-lin tells us,¹ the kingdom of Kanauj fell into a state of anarchy, and the minister Na-
fo-ti-a-la-na-shun usurped the supreme power. And Aṁśuvarman is probably the king of
Nêpâl, who came with seven thousand horsemen to help the Chinese general Wang-hiwen-
tse who defeated the usurper. In the time of Dhruvadêva and Jishṇugupta, it is
possible that the Ṭhâkurî family may to a certain excent have acknowledged the Lich-
chhavis as superior to them. But Śivadêva II. again had the paramount title and rank;
and the Lichchhavis were then, of course, again the feudatories of the Ṭhâkurî family.
Finally, the fact that the Lichchhavi genealogy is given in the Ṭhâkurî inscription R.,
coupled with the use by Jayadêva II. in this inscription of no title but that of Râja (line
14), with the epithet śrî, 'the illustrious,' may perhaps indicate that at this latter time the
Ṭhâkurîs again acknowledged a certain amount of superiority on the part of the Lich-
chhavis. Or it may be nothing more than another expression of the mutual courtesy of
the two families, already exhibited in the inscriptions of Śivadêva I. and Jishṇugupta.

---

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 20.