1 ■ Article ■ Clan System or Samanta System?: The Polity of the a.kambhari Cdhamanas in Early Medieval Rajasthan ● Masahiko Mita 1. Introduction Land assignment to clan members of the royal families depicted in the records of early medieval Rajasthan has usually been considered by many historians as a sign of the "clan-monarchies", which were so widely prevalent in later medieval Rajasthan [Ghoshal 1929: 236; Banerjee 1962: 48; K. K. Gopal 1964: 86-103; Yadav 1973: 144; etc.]. This "clan-monarchy" or so-called "clan system", often representing a model of "traditional Rajput polity" is said to be a clan-based state system where land is assigned to the ruling clan members as their own hereditary possession with the political structure and state-locality re- lations being consequently based on clanship [Tod 1990, vol. 1: 153- 245; Baden-Powel 1972: 196-202; Thorner 1965: 133-43; Banerjee 1962: 127-28; Fox 19711); etc.]. A concrete instance of this in the history of Rajasthan was presented by G. D. Sharma, who analysed a sixteenth- century territorial system of the Marwar kingdom of the Rathors called bhizi-bandh ("bond of brothers") and bhäF-beint (land distribution among 三田昌彦 Masahiko Mita, Nagoya University, Medieval Indian History. Articles: "Land Distribution and Kinship of the Nadol Cahamanas: Structure of Rajput Polity in 12th-century Rajasthan", Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 8 (1996), pp. 27-57. "An Aspect of the Forms of Copper -plate Charters in Early Medieval India" (in Japanese), Rekishigaku Kenkyu (Journal of Historical Studies), 737 (2000), pp. 34-44. 2 Journalof the JapaneseAssociation for SouthAsian Studies, 15, 2003 "brothers") .2) Therefore, the above historians researching on early me- dieval Rajasthan understand the Rajput polity of the period in the same context as that of the later medieval Rajput states. This clan- based land distribution is often considered to have developed espe- cially under the Cahamana (Cauhan) domination in the early medieval period [Ghoshal 1929: 236; Banerjee 1962: 48; K. K. Gopal 1964: 86- 103; Yadava 1973: 144; Chattopadhyaya 1976: 71-72; R. S. Sharma 1980: 143-45; 1990: 88-90]. However, as I discussed in detail elsewhere, the Cahamanas of Naddala (Nadol), a little kingdom subordinate to the Caulukya suzer- ain of Gujarat in the twelfth century, had a unique system, where lands were assigned to royal kinsmen to control the provinces and the frontiers of the kingdom but were not inheritable estates of their own and usually transferred to others on occasions of royal succession, un- like the land distribution of the later medieval "clan system" [Mita 1996; 1999]. It is, therefore, difficult to regard as a clan-monarchy even the kingdom of the Cahamanas which has been taken by many historians as one of the most developed clan-monarchies among the kingdoms of the early medieval Rajput clans. On the other hand, on the level of suzerain kingdoms, the lord- feudatory relations called the samanta system have so far been consid- ered as one of the most important aspects of the state system of early medieval India. This system was a mechanism of state integration where many major and minor local rulers were linked to a sovereign king through master-servant relations and more egalitarian alliances, and incorporated into a hierarchy of rulers with various titles like mandalesvara, samanta, ranaka, thakkura, etc. [Mazumdar 1960: 1-76; Yadava 1973; Inden 1981; Sircar 1982: 5-44; Chattopadhyaya 1983; 1994; L. Gopal 1989; Kulke 1995]. However, this system does not seem to match the "clan system" mentioned above. For, in the samanta system, a king usually allowed conquered rulers to continue their rule over their former territory; while in the clan system, conquered land was expected to be distributed among the royal clan members because they regarded any conquest as the result of their collaboration. What kind of political system then did sovereign kings adopt in early medie- val Rajasthan? Can we really grasp the early medieval Rajput state system in the context of the clan system as the above historians do? Clan System or Samanta System? 3 Map 0. Major Powers in 12th Gentury India How should we place the royal clan members of the suzerain Rajput kingdoms in the samanta system? This paper attempts to answer these questions by enquiring into the political structure and its development of the suzerain power of the Cahamanas who have often been viewed as a clan developing typical clan-monarchies in the early medieval period. The paper will focus especially on the political relations among kings, royal clan members, matrimonial relatives and samantas.3) The Cahamanas formed several kingdoms in the early medieval pe- riod: the kingdom of Sakambhari (Sambhar), that of Naddilla branched off from the Sakambhari line, that of Javalipura (Jalor) branched off from the Naddula line, etc., among which the object of study here is 4 Journalof the JapaneseAssociation for SouthAsian Studies, 15, 2003 the Sakambhari line. From the middle of the tenth century onwards, as the Pratihdras of Kanauj, the supreme power of north India, gradu- ally declined, the kingdoms of various Rajput clans like Candellas, Cahamanas, Caulukyas, Paramdras, Gahadavalas, Tomaras and Guhilas sprang out from the Pratihdra suzerain. While forming regional states, they struggled amongst each other for supremacy in north and western parts of India until the Turkish Gharids conquered north India in the end of the twelfth century. One of them was the Cahamanas of Sakambhari, which, later shifting their capital to Ajayameru (Ajmer), grew into the greatest power in north India by the middle of the twelfth century and continued to hold power until they were con- quered by Muhammad Ghari in the late twelfth century. The sources mainly used here are all contemporary records: i.e., the epigraphical records concerned with the Sakambhari Cahamanas and the Prthviraja-vzja3,,a-mahakavya composed by Jayanaka, a court poet of Prthviraja III, in the end of the twelfth century. The inscriptions checked by epigraphists so far are concentrated on the following two periods: i) the latter half of the tenth century (from VS 1013, the date of Thanwala inscription in the reign of Simhardja, up to VS 1056, the date of Sakrai and Kinsariya inscriptions of Durlabharaja II) when the kingdom just became independent from the Pratihara empire, and ii) the twelfth century (from VS 1161, the date of Revasa inscription of Prthviraja I, to VS 1245, the date of Anvalda inscription of Prthviraja III) when it expanded its territory up to Delhi and beyond and reached its political peak as one of the greatest kingdoms in north India. The Prthviraja-vijaya-mahakavya will mainly be used in the second period because of the date of the work (the end of the twelfth century). This kavya literature praising Prthviraja III and his Sakambhari royal lin- eage gives us a comparatively detailed information about their royal succession and marriage as well as their military achievements in the second period. According to the dates of those available sources, in the following chapters I will discuss the structure of the Sakambhari king- dom in the two tentative stages given above, i.e., the early stage and the suzerain stage. Clan System or Samanta System? 5 2. The Sakambhari Cahamnas under the Pratihara Rule: Before the Early Stage Before discussing the early stage of the Sakambhari kingdom, we need to enquire into the situation of the Cahamanas as feudatories of the Pratihara empire, because the image of the kingdom in the early stage depends on how their situation was before independence. The Sakambhari Cahamanas are generally believed to have formed a powerful principality under the Pratihara rule of Kanauj. The Harsa inscription dated VS 1030 states that Gavaka I was honoured in the assembly of kings at the court of Nagavaloka,4) who is identified as Nagabhata II (794?-833) of the Pratiharas [Puri 1986: 56]. Prthviraja- vijaya-mandkavya, though a work of the end of the twelfth century, also says that Kalavati, the sister of Gavaka II Cahamana, chose the king of Kanyakubja (Kanauj) for her husband among twelve kings and Gavaka II defeated the remaining kings and gave their wealth to her.5) However, none of them are scontemporary sources, and besides, they are sources from the Cahamana side. It is doubtful from the records of the Pratihara side how stable and powerful their principality was under the Pratihara rule. Two copper-plate inscriptions dated VS 8826) and 8987) from Badhal, only about 40 km north-east from the capital Sakambhari, record that the charters of village grant were is- sued by the Pratihara kings, Nagabhata II and Bhoja I respectively. And Daulatpur copper-plate inscription dated VS 900 records that Bhoja I issued a charter of the sanction to restore the lost grant of the village of Siva, modern Sewa, about 70 km north-west from Sakambhari.8 In those copper-plates there is no mention of the names of the Cahamana chiefs. Therefore, even if they formed their own principality, their domain was limited only to Sakambhari and its out- skirts, and their political influence did not extend to even 40 km from their capital, which would be much smaller than what is generally inferred. Their independent activity from the Pratihara rule started under the reign of Vakpatiraja I in the first half of the tenth century, just when the Pratihdras needed to marshal all their forces against the Rastrakutas of Deccan [D. Sharma 1975: 31]. The Harsa inscription states that Vakpatiraja I of the Cahamnas defeated the army of tantrapala (fron- 6 Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 15, 2003 Map 1.