The Origin of the Aulikaras

The Mālava People the yūpa is definitely a testimony of Mālava power and con- fidence. It is also noteworthy that the inscription speaks of The Aulikaras, as well as most or all of the associated lin- Nandisoma as belonging to a Mālava dynasty of royal sages eages, probably started out as hereditary leaders among (rājarṣi­vaṃśe mālava­vaṃśe prasūtasya), which may be in- the warrior communities (kṣatra­gaṇa) of the Mālava dicative of a major shift in at least some Mālava tribes from tribe. This nation originated far to the north, occupying an oligarchic (or “republican”) gaṇa system of society to a the territory around the river Ravi in the Punjab in Maurya kingdom. However, as already pointed out ( Venkataramayya times and migrating gradually to the south.2 In the late 1953, 82; Altekar 1948, 260), neither Nandisoma nor his an- centuries BCE and the early centuries CE their centre of cestors bear any royal, feudatory or military title,5 so rāja­ power was Mālavanagara, modern Nagar in the Bharat- may simply indicate a kṣatriya status rather than kingship in pur district of Rajasthan. Their presence here is attested the established sense. to by numerous coins, many of which bear legends such The names ending in soma are reminiscent of Gauri’s as mālavānāṃ jayaḥ or mālava­gaṇasya jayaḥ (Jain 1972b, ancestor Puṇyasoma6 and Kumāravarman’s ancestor Vīra- 6). They are also referred to, in the form mālaya, in the soma. The name of Bhṛguvardhana, in turn, evokes the Nasik Inscription of Uṣavadāta (early second century vardhana names of the Later Aulikaras, as well as that of CE), which mentions Śaka aid to the Uttamabhadra tribe Aparājitavardhana of the Mukhara gotra.7 Another very against the Mālavas.3 This inscription does not say what early pair of inscribed yūpa fragments, dated ca. 227 CE area the Mālavas and Uttamabhadras inhabited, but it (Kṛta 284), was found in Barnala (ब蔼नाला, 26°22’44”N does mention Uṣavadāta bathing at Pushkar afterwards, 76°28’19”E, Sawai Madhopur district, Rajasthan). The so their territory must have been near modern Ajmer. mutilated inscription of one of these mentions a king The end of the second century CE saw a protracted war whose name ends in vardhana,8 apparently of the Sohartṛ of succession in the Śaka kingdom between Jīvadāman and gotra. Yet another inscribed yūpa (ca. 238 CE, Kṛta 295), his uncle Rudrasiṃha I (Majumdar and Altekar 1954, 31–32). one of four recovered from Badwa (बडवा, 25°05’42”N This probably provided an opportunity for the Mālava tribes 76°20’26”E, Baran [formerly Kota] district, Rajasthan), to increase their territories and level of independence. From mentions a mahāsenāpati of the Mokhari family named the third century onward, inscribed sacrificial pillars (yūpa) Balavardhana. Finally, a later (ca. 371 CE, Kṛta 428) yūpa commemorate Mālava chieftains both in the south and from further northeast in Bijayagadh (around 26°53’32”N north of modern Rajasthan (to the southwest and northeast 77°16’20”E, close to Bayana, Bharatpur district, Rajast- of Nagar). The earliest of these are the yūpas of Nandsa han) commemorates a king called Viṣṇuvardhana, son of ( , 25°14’56”N 74°16’49”E, Bhilwara district, Rajasthan; Yaśovardhana, names that seem to be echoed in the name Figure 2), which preserve two copies of an inscription (one of of Yaśodharman Viṣṇuvardhana. Though this resonance of the copies being written lengthwise, the other crosswise on early Mālava names with those used later on by the Auli- the same pillar) commemorating a tremendous sixty-one day karas and their associates does not necessarily prove a sacrifice (°aikaṣaṣṭi­rātram atisatram) held by Nandisoma, familial connection, it does at least suggest a shared herit- son of Jayasoma, grandson of Bhṛguvardhana, great-grand- age of naming practice. Interestingly, no names in varman son of Jayatsena,4 who bore the clan name Sogi or Sogin. It are found on any of the known yūpa inscriptions, though has been suggested (Altekar 1948, 260) that this sacrifice, con- this was an ending much favoured by the Early Aulikara ducted in the Kṛta year 282 (ca. 225 CE), was in celebration of a victory against a Śaka ruler. Whether or not this is correct, 5 Although a fragmentary yūpa inscription (sans extant date) from 2 Sircar (1954a, 371–73) and Mirashi (1980, 417–20, 1982b, 110–12) the same site speaks of a mahāsenāpati named Bhaṭṭisoma, who was both provide good summaries of the early history of the Mālavas. also a Sogi like Nandisoma. 3 Line 3, bhaṭārakā­aṃñātiyā ca gato smiṃ varṣā­ratuṃ mālaye­ 6 In addition, the commissioner of the Chhoti Sadri inscription hi rudham utamabhādraṃ mocayituṃ. Senart (1906, 79) translates, (A7, also composed under Gauri) was named Bhramarasoma, and his “[a]nd by the order of the lord I went to release the chief of the Uttama- father was Mitrasoma. bhadras, who had been besieged for the rainy season by the Mālayas.” 7 See page 241 about Aparājitavardhana. 4 Readings corrected by Venkataramayya (1953); Altekar’s (1948) 8 The first member of the name is illegible but probably consisted original versions of the names (Śrīsoma instead of Nandisoma and of two akṣaras. The title “king” (rājño), also applied to this person’s Jayanartana instead of Bhṛguvardhana) are occasionally used in his- father, is read only from faint traces in both instances (Altekar 1942, torical literature, but these readings can now be rejected. 120 n. 9).

Open Access. © 2019 Dániel Balogh, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110649789-005 20 The Origin of the Aulikaras

Figure 2: The Nandsa yūpa of Nandisoma. Photo by the author, 2018. rulers. There is, however, a reference in the Mahābhārata Aulikaras, beginning with the Mandsaur inscription of to a presumably early Mālava chief with a varman name.9 the time of Naravarman (A1), dated in the year 461 of the Mālava Era (ca. 404 CE). The name Aulikara (or Olikara, see page 24) is first attested in the Bihar Kotra stone and Mālavas in Malwa – Aulikaras in Daśapura cave inscriptions of the same ruler (A2 and A3), both dated ME 474 (ca. 417 CE). Bihar Kotra lies directly to the north In the early fifth century CE, the Mālavas make their appear- of Bhopal and is also the location of some graffiti (B1) that ance in the region that today bears their name (see the map may – just possibly – indicate the presence of some of Nar- in Figure 3). A yūpa fragment found in Nagari near Chittor- avarman’s ancestors in the area. The Gangdhar inscription garh10 may indicate their presence close to Daśapura at an (A4) of the time of Naravarman’s son Viśvavarman was early time, but the fragmentary state of this yūpa inscrip- also found east of Mandsaur, about a third of the way from tion does not allow the drawing of any concrete conclu- there to Bihar Kotra. These provenience data suggest that sions.11 Their earliest datable records are those of the early the initial heartland of the Early Aulikara family may have been within or adjacent to the region of Daśārṇa or Ākara. Another inscription possibly relevant to the earliest 9 MBh 7.165.115, mālavasyendravarmaṇaḥ. history of the Aulikaras is the Narsinghgarh rock inscrip- 10 Nagari is the site of the ancient town of Madhyamikā, which was tion of Aparājitavardhana (C1).12 Narsinghgarh is a town evidently under Aulikara and/or Naigama control in the early sixth century. It is the findspot of the Nagari Inscription of Kṛta 481 (C2) on the northern side of the same rock massif as Bihar and the presumed place of origin of the Chittorgarh inscriptions of Kotra, and the inscription concerns a donation to the the Naigamas (A13, A14). 11 The fragment was found and reported by D. R. Bhandarkar (1920, 120). All he could decipher from the text is the term yūpa and the 12 This inscription has not been published before, and only a pre- mention of a vājapeya yajña performed by somebody’s sons (putrair). liminary partial edition is included in this book. Mālavas in Malwa – Aulikaras in Daśapura 21

Figure 3: The territory of the Aulikaras. Findspots of Aulikara and associated inscriptions shown with green labels; other sites relevant to the Aulikaras or helpful for orientation shown in red. Topographic base map from maps-for-free.com; river courses overlaid from india-wris. nrsc.gov.in. local Buddhist monastery by a chieftain (without a royal Whether the earlier Aulikara homeland was further to title) who calls himself Aparājitavardhana of the Mukhara the east or not, Naravarman’s domain evidently included gotra. As noted above, third-century Mālava yūpa inscrip- Mandsaur, his son Bandhuvarman probably had his seat tions include a record of a leader with a vardhana name there, and all other Aulikara-related epigraphs hail from belonging to the Mokhari family. The Narsinghgarh Mandsaur or nearby. The country of the Aulikaras was thus, inscription has no date but was most likely engraved in at least from the time of Naravarman onward, located in the the late fourth or the early fifth century. If this is so, then land known as Western Malwa in modern terms and Avanti Aparājitavardhana flourished in the same geographical by its ancient name. In the days of the Later Aulikaras and area and roughly the same time period as Siṃhavarman the Naigamas, they also controlled lands in the south- and Naravarman. He may have controlled the Narsingh- eastern stretches of modern Rajasthan, which were proba- garh region as a vassal of the early Aulikaras (he acknowl- bly not included in the traditional definition of Avanti and edges a parama­bhaṭṭāraka in his inscription) or he may may have been referred to historically as Pāriyātra (see page have been kin to them,13 in which case the Aulikaras and 162) or perhaps as Uparamāla (Cecil 2016, 110). the Maukharis share common origins. Finally, it is possi- Within Avanti proper, the most prominent city was ble that Aparājitavardhana is considerably earlier or later Ujjayinī, while Daśapura – modern Mandsaur – was than my above estimate of his date, in which case he may a prominent town on the northward trade route from have been a Gupta or Vākāṭaka feudatory at a time when Ujjayinī (and before that, from the port of Bhṛgukaccha) the Aulikaras did not exercise power over this region. to Mathurā (and onward to the valley of the Ganges). Daśapura certainly predates the Aulikaras by a long stretch. 13 The name Aparājitavardhana closely resembles Ajitavardhana, a Legends about it in Jaina canonical literature (K. K. Shah member of the Later Aulikara family whose projected date is the mid- and Pandey 1989, 473) suggest a very early habitation, dle of the fifth century. But the assumption that the two were brothers though the first solid witnesses of its existence are Śaka or other close kin would require stronger evidence. 22 The Origin of the Aulikaras inscriptions from the early centuries CE.14 The Nasik Daśapura in the late fifth century, therefore his overlord inscription cited above for its reference to the Mālavas Ādityavardhana, who was an Aulikara, must have reigned lists Daśapura as one of the places where Uṣavadāta con- someplace else. He also saw Nirdoṣa’s gubernatorial structed facilities, while Nasik inscription 26 (Senart 1906, status in Daśapura (inferred from Nirdoṣa’s inscription, 95) mentions this town as the residence of the scribe. A10) as further proof that his overlord Yaśodharman must Daśapura clearly continued to flourish under Aulikara have had his seat in another place in the second quarter of rule. The Meghadūta of Kālidāsa, presumably roughly the sixth century. This place, then, must have been Ujjay- contemporaneous with Naravarman’s reign, mentions its inī, because the Bṛhatsaṃhitā of Varāhamihira mentions women (1.50, daśapura­vadhū) but reveals no other infor- a King Dravyavardhana of Avanti, “evidently” an Aulikara mation about the city. The inscription of the silk weavers ruler reigning in Ujjayinī. Soon afterward, Sircar (1959, (A6, verses 7 to 14) speaks in glowing – if stereotypical – 1960b) belligerently but soundly refuted all of Mirashi’s terms about its lakes and parks, its beautiful ladies and alleged evidence. In quick succession, Mirashi (1959, also its luxurious mansions. From the time of the Later Auli- published as 1961, 180–84) countered this with increas- karas, the Risthal inscription lists several buildings in the ingly weak and irrelevant arguments, which Sircar demol- town, constructed by Chancellor Doṣa15 acting on orders ished in due turn (1960a). Mirashi offered no further from Prakāśadharman. On a darker note, the silk weaver dispute, but he did reiterate his claim (without reasoning) inscription also describes an interregnum (see page 95) a long while later (1980, 410, also published in 1982a, 103). early in the second half of the fifth century CE, implying However, after the discovery of the Risthal inscription he that this was the cause of damage (wilful or arising from suddenly changed his mind, announcing that “there is no neglect) to the temple whose restoration is the topic of doubt that Daśapura or Mandasor was the capital of the that inscription. And the last epigraphic document treated vardhana branch” [i.e. of the Later Aulikaras].16 herein, the inscription of Kumāravarman (A15), even in its Rather than recount every slash and parry of this fragmentary state clearly bespeaks of a twilight of the city, exchange here, I only present a quick overview of the showing glimpses of a king captured by an enemy (but most important points against Mirashi’s hypothesis, all then heroically escaping), of a reconquest of Daśapura of which and more were also made by Sircar during the from ferocious enemies referred to as dasyus, and of an debate. Whether or not Ādityavardhana was an Aulikara official charged with curbing bandits and rogues, possibly (see page 128), the Mandsaur inscription of Gauri (A8) in the city itself. proves beyond reasonable doubt that he, and not Gauri, In spite of the prominence of Daśapura in Aulikara ruled over Daśapura (see page 126 and note 199 there). Yet inscriptions, the location of the Aulikara capital was the Gauri could very well have commissioned the construction subject of a heated debate between V. V. Mirashi and of a well in his liege lord Ādityavardhana’s capital,17 and D. C. Sircar. After Sircar (1954b) published the inscriptions the same applies to Nirdoṣa’s well in his king Yaśodhar- of Gauri (A7, A8), Mirashi (1957, also published as 1960, man’s capital. There is thus no explicit indication whatso- 206–12) put forth the hypothesis that the later Aulikara ever that any Aulikara king reigned from a place other than kings ruled from Ujjayinī. According to his reasoning Daśapura. As for Dravyavardhana of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā, these inscriptions showed that Gauri was in control of Mirashi offers no proof that he was an Aulikara. I person- ally believe that he was (see page 140 for my reasoning),

14 According to C. B. Trivedi (C. B. Trivedi 1979, 2), an inscription in but the fact that Varāhamihira calls him an Āvantika need Anvaleshwar ( , 24°02’32”N 74°53’10”E, about 20 kilometres not imply that he ruled in Ujjayinī, merely that he ruled in west of Mandsaur) mentions Daśapura by name and may date around the land of Avanti, i.e. western Malwa. In this connection the first century CE. I am not aware of an edition of this inscription, Sircar (1960b, 206) makes the highly relevant point that but R. V. Somani (1976, 21 n. 19) says one was published in the Rajast- Paramāra kings such as Bhoja were called kings of Avanti, hani journal Varadā, first in volume 13 by J. C. Joshi and then with but their capital was at Dhārā. Finally, most of the known corrections by Somani in volume 14. Transcripts of two inscriptions from this site are also included in Wakankar’s posthumous (and in- eptly curated) collection of inscriptions (2002, 20–21), one of which 16 In the same paper he also contends that the seat of the rulers of indeed mentions Daśapura as a person’s birthplace. The date and the this branch before Prakāśadharman had been Risthal. This unlikely details of the text await verification through further research. I have hypothesis is probably based largely on the mistaken notion (see not visited the site personally, but was informed in both Ujjain and page 143) that several of the grand facilities whose construction is Mandsaur that the inscription is not accessible without lengthy preli- mentioned in the inscription were constructed in Risthal. minary arrangements through the ASI. 17 In the less likely case that Gauri and Ādityavardhana were the 15 See page 8 about my translation of rājasthānīya as chancellor, and same person (see page 128), Mirashi’s objection would be void to page 165 about my preference for Doṣa rather than Bhagavaddoṣa. begin with. Mālavas in Malwa – Aulikaras in Daśapura 23

Aulikara inscriptions hail from Mandsaur or its close vicin- town of Madhyamikā, some of which must have belonged ity, and none of those that originate further away were to Aulikara monuments (Cecil 2016, 116–17; Bakker and found in Ujjain, nor even on the way there from Mandsaur. Bisschop 2016, 222). The temple of Mukundara (see also Since the close of the Ujjayinī debate, Wakankar’s page 235), about 120 kilometres northeast of Mandsaur, exploratory excavation in Mandsaur fort has uncov- may also have a connection to the Aulikaras (Mankodi ered remains of what he considered to be a royal palace 2015, 311), and the recently discovered brick temple of (Wakankar 1981, 278; Wakankar and Rajpurohit 1984, Khanderia (Greaves 2017) also seems to be a potential 11, 14), and while this identification is contestable and Aulikara product. Villages outside the modern town and requires further excavations to confirm, the recovery of located across the river Shivna on its south bank – in par- Prakāśadharman’s glass sealings (B8) from this place ticular, Afzalpur, Khilchipura and Sondhni – have yielded provides fair corroboration. It can thus be taken as estab- several impressive pieces of sculpture that are certainly lished that Daśapura was the primary seat of the Aulikara Aulikara products (Williams 1972, 2004; K. K. Shah and kings at least from Naravarman onward. Some members Pandey 1989); see Figure 4 for a glimpse. The location of of one line or the other may, at some point, have reigned from another town, but we have no explicit knowledge of any such details. The modern name Mandsaur ( , usually Angli- cised as Mandasor in earlier scholarly literature) clearly preserves the name Daśapura in the vernacular form dasaur (via an intermediate *dasa­ura). The origin of man in the name is uncertain. Fleet (1886a, 195) seems to conditionally accept an explanation suggested to him by Bhagwanlal Indraji, according to which the name is a con- traction of manda­daśapura, interpreted as “distressed Daśapura” and thought to preserve a memory of the havoc the Muslims had wrought there. D. R. Bhandarkar (1981, 262) suggests a more likely origin of the name: a local Brahmin told him in 1897 that there used to be a village called Man nearby, and the two names may have com- bined into Mandsaur.18 This village Man may be identical to Maḍ, which according to Fleet (1886a, 195) was an alter- native name of the present-day settlement of Afzalpur, 20 kilometres to the southeast of Mandsaur. Fleet, however, does not connect this Maḍ to the name of Mandsaur. Little in the present day remains in Mandsaur of the works of the Aulikaras.19 The fort in the town is said to have been founded by ʿAlāʾ ud-Dīn Khiljī (r. 1293–1316) and considerably extended by Hośaṅg Śāh of Malwa (r. 1405–1434), and incorporates many old carved stones (Luard and Sheopuri 1908, 266; Garde 1948, 12 n. 5), some of which evidently originated in buildings of the Aulikara period. The fort of Chittorgarh, about 100 kilometres to the north-northwest, possibly founded in the 8th century, also incorporates many older stones that come from the

18 There is also a popular “folk” etymology found in the present day on several websites and in local publications of Mandsaur. This derives Mandsaur from manda saura, understood to mean “faltering sun” and to be connected to the location of the town close to the Trop- ic of Cancer. 19 See N. K. Ojha (2001, 99–104) for an overview of architectural and Figure 4: The sculpture of Yamunā on her turtle from the Khilchipura sculptural monuments. toraṇa (now displayed in Mandsaur fort). Photo by the author, 2017. 24 The Origin of the Aulikaras these finds, coupled with the silk weaver inscription’s (A6, The meaning of aulikara/olikara, however, remains verse 13) description of Daśapura as located between two unexplained, and it is also not clear whether these are two rivers, may indicate that the ancient settlement was on the related yet separate words, or whether one is an alternative south bank of the Shivna, with only the royal palace and/ (or erroneous) spelling of the other. Today, we have three or fort at the site of the modern town. additional epigraphic attestations of varying form. Dis- covered in 1978, the Mandsaur inscription of Kumāravar- man (A15) uses the form aulikari in the compound aulika­ The Name “Aulikara” ri­pradhāna (l10). The wider context is lost, so we do not know whom this compound describes, but it is definitely a Modern scholarship first encountered the term aulikara person (a king or other leader, and in my view most likely after Fleet read it in the Mandsaur inscription of Nirdoṣa a member of Kumāravarman’s dynasty; see page 207 for (A10), where it is featured in a description of Yaśodhar- my reasoning). In the immediate context, aulikari clearly man’s dynasty in the phrase prakhyāta aulikara­lāñchana signifies a group among whom that person is foremost. ātma­vaṅśo (l5–6). Since the word was impossible to inter- Morphologically, the word is a valid derivation meaning pret on its own, Fleet had to rely on the context. Given “descendant of Olikara/Aulikara.”21 Next came the Risthal that the primary meaning of lāñchana is a mark or sign, inscription of Prakāśadharman (A9), discovered in 1983. and that this word is also used in a more specific techni- This describes the Later Aulikara family’s progenitor cal sense of a royal sigil, he (1886b, 223, 1886b, 226 n. 1, Drapavardhana as the ornament of the entire Aulikara reprinted in CII3, 151, 151–52 n. 4) came naturally to the dynasty (sakalasyaulikarānvayasya lakṣma, l2). This use conclusion that an aulikara was a thing featured in the of the term clears any remaining doubt about Aulikara emblem of Yaśodharman’s family. Now kara, meaning being a dynastic name. The spelling, however, remains a “ray” among other things, is frequently used in com- moot point: since it is in saṃdhi with a preceding word pounds with words meaning “hot” to produce kennings ending in a, the isolated form could be olikara as well as for the sun, and with words meaning “cold” in kennings aulikara. Finally, the Bihar Kotra cave inscription of the for the moon. Fleet therefore went further out on a limb time of Naravarman (A3), not edited before now in any and surmised that auli might be an unusual word signify- internationally accessible publication, also uses the form ing either “hot” or “cold,” and that the sigil of this royal olikara to describe Naravarman. The entire text of this family would have been the sun or the moon. epigraph is very similar to that of the stone inscription, The second occurrence of this word to become known but the declension and saṃdhi of this particular phrase was in the Bihar Kotra stone inscription of the time of Nar- are non-standard here: the text is naravarmmasyolikara­ avarman (A2). First published in 1942, this epigraph uses sya (l2). It is as if the scribe of the inscription had taken the form olikara, which stands simply in apposition to the particular care to show that the name was Olikara even king’s name (naravarmmaṇaḥ olikarasya, l1). With this though the form used in saṃdhi after the preceding final a additional piece of evidence, the interpretation “sun” or should have been aulikara. “moon” must be discarded, along with any other interpre- Tallying the known attestations of the name, we thus tation as a physical object that may be represented in an have olikara twice, and an unequivocal aulikara only emblem. It is beyond question that Olikara is a name asso- once, in Nirdoṣa’s inscription. The variant in Kumāravar- ciated with Naravarman, and thus in Nirdoṣa’s inscription man’s inscription is clearly a vṛddhi derivative that may lāñchana must mean “name,” which is an acceptable con- go back to either form, and the instance in Prakāśadhar- notation for the word.20 Nonetheless, the now baseless man’s inscription is ambiguous because of saṃdhi. Going concept “Aulikara crest” is still met with occasionally in by weight alone, this should tip the balance in favour of more recent scholarly literature (e.g. Goyal 1967, 360), but the form olikara, and if further evidence should surface, if such a thing existed, we have no epigraphic evidence the common usage of this dynastic name may need to for it. be revised. My intuition, however, is that both forms are correct and mean different things. It seems likely that 20 A very probable epigraphic parallel occurs on a satī stone found in Sangsi (Maharashtra, Kolhapur district) and probably en- graved in the sixth century. The fragmentary text records that the 21 As the word is in compound, the stem might also be aulikarin, stone is a memorial to the wife of a king described as śrī (?p)u[?ṣ] which would mean someone who possesses, or is characterised by, p –⏑⏑lāñchanasya nṛpater. The editors of the inscription (Sankalia aulikara. Since we know aulikara/olikara to be a name, this deriva- and Dikshit 1948, 162) translate lāñchana as “crest,” but the lacuna tion is unlikely. Moreover, the same inscription probably also uses between śrī and lāñchana must have contained the king’s name. the analogously derived word kārṣṇi (l8) signifying “son of Kṛṣṇa.” The Name “Aulikara” 25

Olikara was a personal epithet of Naravarman; all the later progenitor of a dynasty. This possibility ties in attrac- occurrences, including the ambiguous one in the Risthal tively with several other points, though none of these are inscription, are then indeed of the form Aulikara, used as strong enough to serve as evidence for the hypothesis. a dynastic name and formed as a vṛddhi derivative of the First, it may not be a mere turn of speech that both of biruda of their claimed ancestor. In other words, Aulikara Naravarman’s Bihar Kotra inscriptions give the date in means “descendant of Olikara.” a year of his “own reign” (sva­rājya)23: mayhap this is a The vexing question still remains: what might proud assertion that Naravarman is an independent king. olikara mean? We may never learn the truth, but I would Second, if Aparājitavardhana (see pages 20–21) was a like to put forth a new hypothesis. It seems to me that oli relative of the Early Aulikaras, then Naravarman himself could be a vernacular form cognate to Sanskrit āvali, a would have belonged to the Mukhara gotra. It is possible word frequently used in the sense of “dynasty.”22 Thus, that his descendants started referring to themselves as olikara could be synonymous to vaṃśakara, “founder of Aulikaras (and stopped mentioning their gotra in their a dynasty.” Although Naravarman mentions two genera- inscriptions) in order to distinguish themselves from tions of his ancestry, we have no inscriptions issued by other chieftains of that gotra including the Maukhari either of these rulers and no record of their deeds in their rulers. And third, the projected date of Drapavardhana descendants’ inscriptions. It is perfectly conceivable that (the progenitor of the Later Aulikara line) is very close to they were local chieftains of little consequence (perhaps that of Naravarman (see Figure 5 on page 28 ). If Naravar- in the lands around Bihar Kotra, see page 20 above), and mann was indeed the original Olikara, it may be that the that Naravarman was the first of the line to attain a posi- two Aulikara bloodlines split immediately after him, i.e. tion of substantial power (possibly by taking control of that Drapavardhana and Viśvavarman were both Nara- Daśapura), and to optimistically proclaim himself the varman’s sons.

22 In fact, Śaiva Tantric texts of the eighth century and later, such as the Vāmakeśvarīmatatantra 1.10 (ed. Kaul Shastri 1945) and the Nityāhnikatilaka (NGMPP manuscript Access 3/384, Reel A 41/11; fol. 16r, 17r, 29r, 90r) sometimes use the words oli and auli (and, more 23 Naravarman’s Mandsaur inscription does not employ this phrase, commonly, ovalli) for an initiatory lineage. I am indebted to Csaba but it does say Naravarman rules the earth, praśāsati vasundharām Kiss (personal communication, October 2018) for this information. (l4).