A Rastrakuta King in the Kathmandu Valley: Reassessing Late Licchavi History in the Light of a Newly Deciphered Eighth-Century Inscription.

• Author: Acharya, Diwakar

INTRODUCTION

Substantial numbers of epigraphical records document the cultural and economic prosperity of some three hundred and fifty years (1) of the Licchavi dynasty. While these records date well into the eighth century, by the middle of that century it seems that the production of such records had ceased. The reasons for this are still a mystery. As Petech (1984: 21-22) remarks in his Medieval History of Nepal, "the second half of the eighth and the first half of the ninth century of our era remain an almost complete blank, as far as the epigraphical evidence is concerned." According to the current status of historical research, Jayadeva (2) was the final Licchavi king known to have issued royal edicts. The last of these with a date is a donative inscription (LA 148) at the Pashupati temple prepared in Licchavi Samvat (LS) 157 Karttika (October/November 732 CE). In the comprehensive collection of Licchavi-period inscriptions of the Kathmandu Valley compiled by Dhanavajra Vajracharya (1973), all inscriptions dated later than the Jayadeva records are private, non-royal dedicatory inscriptions and do not refer to royal politics or administrative matters.

The discovery at Pashupati of a royal inscription from the reign of King Sankaradeva (3) dated to LS 173 (748 CE), the subject of this paper, therefore gives us a rare glimpse of Nepalese political history that is otherwise undocumented, namely, the period immediately following Jayadeva's reign. There is only one other record that refers to King Sankaradeva's reign, namely, an inscription issued in the same year. That inscription is located on an image pedestal, now serving as a platform for three sculptures from a later period that are worshiped in the courtyard of the Changu Narayan temple. Almost all of the inscribed portion of the pedestal is damaged due to weathering and worshiping practices. From a reading of this inscription published in 1983 (Khanal 1983), we can only gather that its text refers to some administrative act, possibly linked to a private donation, but due to the lacunose text it is not possible to determine the donor or the exact circumstances. Thus, the newly edited inscription presented in this article occasions a reassessment of this enigmatic period after Jayadeva's demise and suggests additional aspects that must be considered in its historical reconstruction. The find is exceptional since it records the presence of a Rastrakuta king in the Nepalese kingdom, providing details about his participation in local military activities, and moreover citing the city of Sri Kalyana (4) as his soldiers' place of origin.

The inscription was first brought to our attention in 2014 by the Pashupati Area Development Trust while we were undertaking research activities related to archaeological excavations and the documentation of Licchavi inscriptions in the Pashupati area. At the time, it was kept in the courtyard of the Trust. However, Rajvamshi (2020) details that local people reported its recovery from the site of Pacho Ganesh in 2009/10 [VS 2066]. While the discovery of this inscription was apparently reported in a Nepalese newspaper, and Shyam Sundar Rajvamshi, Chief Epigraphist at the Department of Archaeology (Government of Nepal), published a short article about it in a Nepali magazine, (5) until now the historical significance of this discovery has not been noted. In part, this may be due to the fact that large sections of the inscription are completely lost or badly damaged, making it extremely difficult to decipher and interpret its text. Despite repeatedly returning over the last years to the inscription in the hope of recovering more aksaras and refining our interpretations, the reading and translation of the inscription still remain fragmented and tentative. Nonetheless, we feel it is time to share our findings as we have developed them so far, since the few portions we have indeed been able to decipher and interpret contain important historical and cultural information that may cast some light on the historical darkness engulfing this period of Nepalese history.

SCARCITY OF HISTORICAL DATA PERTAINING TO THE POST-JAYADEVA PERIOD

Petech (1984: 21, 29) identifies only three other donative inscriptions dating to later than Jayadeva and mentioning royal names ending in -deva. (6) Two refer to the reign of a King Manadeva II, namely, an inscription in Patan dated to LS 180 (755/756 CE) and an undated fragmentary inscription in Kathmandu (LA 172). The third is a fragmentary inscription at Changu Narayan dating to LS 271 (846/847 CE) that refers to the reign of a Baladeva (LA 180). (7)

From these sources, however, we cannot determine whether either of these kings was related to the Licchavis or a subbranch thereof. Among Nepalese medieval donative records it is uncommon for royal names to be accompanied by further text detailing lineage. (8) Even among the royal edicts of the Licchavi kings, the dynastic line is rarely made explicit. Only for Sivadeva I, Bhimarjunadeva, Dhruvadeva, and Narendradeva is their affiliation described as licchavikulaketu- "the banner of the Licchavi family," and in these cases most likely for legitimization during critical periods. In the case of Sivadeva 1, Bhimarjunadeva, and Dhruvadeva, the actual power at the time lay with de facto rulers. Apparently this created a need to highlight the dynastic identity of the de jure kings. Further, in the case of Narendradeva, the claim of the Licchavi title was important, since he ascended the throne after his father had been usurped and replaced by other Licchavi members. (9) Names ending in -deva, furthermore, are extremely common--particularly among members of the ruling and warrior class (ksatriya). In case of royalty, -deva can also simply function as a synonym for -raja 'king', and has an honorific function when added to a name. (10) Thus, a clear dynastic classification is difficult to reconstruct without additional characteristic elements in the name, an identifying title, or other relevant data.

Additional clarity about the status of the Licchavis after Jayadeva is also not provided by the earliest extant Nepalese chronicle, the fourteenth-century Gopalarajavamsavali. (11) It simply lists "Deva" kings following Jayadeva up to the rise of Arimalla in Nepal Samvat 321(1200/1201 CE), without any indication of whether these "Deva" kings were descendants from our Licchavi dynasty, or whether they even belonged to a single family. Even following Arimalla, the list continues with royal names ending in -malla in alternation with -deva kings until the rise of Sthitimalla (also commonly referred to as Jayasthiti or Jayasthitimalla) in 1382 CE. (12)

The general uncertainty about dynastic history during this period has also led to some confusion among scholars on how to define the end date of the Licchavi period. In many scholarly periodizations, a King Manadeva III (13) named in the colophon of a palm-leaf manuscript of the Susrutasamhita dated to NS 301 (876/877 CE) (Kesar Library Kathmandu, accession no. 699) is listed as the "last" Licchavi king. (14) However, the only reason Manadeva III is considered the last Licchavi king is that the year 879/880 CE is treated as the beginning of a new regnal cycle. This was the year that the next king listed in the chronicles. King Raghavadeva, is said to have initiated the era now referred to as Nepal Samvat. The terminus date of 879/880 CE for the Licchavi period is therefore arbitrary. (15)

To sum up, after Jayadeva we are left with a few royal names recorded in a handful of inscriptions and manuscript colophons. These individuals may or may not be related to our Licchavi dynasty. We know virtually nothing about their reigns or the extent of their influence. Without further evidence we can only speculate about the reasons behind the sudden absence of stone edicts issued by Licchavi kings following the reign of Jayadeva. Was it occasioned by the weakening of Licchavi sovereignty? If so, was this due to the pressure of increasingly powerful local chieftains and ruling families who tried to diminish the reach of the Licchavi central administration? Or were internal struggles within the Licchavi family responsible for a weakening of their rule, causing a power vacuum or leading to political fragmentation?

We must note, however, that this lack of data for Licchavi royal administration cannot be correlated to a cultural decline in the area. Quite the contrary--there are many testimonies to Kathmandu Valley as the site of flourishing cultural developments during this period. The increasing numbers of manuscripts brought to or copied in the Valley at that time attest to learning and cultural growth. (16) Also the development of many religious sites and institutions belonging to both Brahmanical and Buddhist groups and the popularization of emerging Tantric traditions and Goddess cults are signs of a dynamic local religious scene. (17) Further, the rich evidence of skillfully prepared stone and bronze sculptures and wooden carvings suggests a thriving artistic environment. (18) The prestige of Kathmandu Valley as a cultural and religious hub can also be inferred from the fact that religious figures and scholars from the subcontinent and the empires of China and Tibet passed through the Valley, and that Nepalese artisans were highly sought after by the rulers of those lands. (19) Economically, too, the area must have enjoyed growth due to its position along one of the important trade routes directly linking the subcontinent and inner Asia. (20) Economic growth is also suggested by archaeological indicators of urban expansion in the eighth and ninth centuries. (21) It is probably due to this rich collection of signs that the area experienced dynamic religious and cultural development that Slusser (1982: 23) does not envisage a decline of Licchavi governance, but rather speculates that "all the evidence at our command...