Sources and Chronology

Introductory: Kongada same as Kung yu to of its extent etc.

• A survey of the political history of the Śailödbhava dynasty is not the main focus of the thesis, but it is important due to its connection to Andhra-desa and Kalinga.

• The Sailōdbhava kingdom of Kongoda was geographically distant from Andhra-desa, and Kongoda has been identified with Kung-ys (or gu)to by Kielhorn.

• According to the Chinese Pilgrim Yuan Chwang, he journeyed south-west from the Ota (Odra) country for over 1000 li and reached Kung-yu-t’o (Kongoda).

• Inscriptions referring to Kongoda-mandala have been found in the districts of Puri, Khurda, and Ganjam, indicating the kingdom of Kongoda extended from the southern bank of either the Mahanadi or Vaitarini rivers to the river Rşikulya in Ganjam.

• Kongoda’s boundaries included the sea to the east and the mountain ranges to the west.

• Yuan Chwang described Kung-yu-t’o as a hilly country, and its capital was probably situated on a hill by the bay of the sea.

• Ganjam plates from the reign of Sasanka-raja mention the city of Kongoda being located on the bank of the Salima river, although the river has not been identified.

• The ancient name of the river Salima might be preserved in the small Salin river that flows into Chilika Lake.

• The area described by Yuan Chwang between the Mahanadi and the Rşikulya rivers corresponds well to the geography of the region, confirming the historical description of Kongoda.

• Although no current locality matches the name Kongoda along the Sälia river, it is possible that the kingdom ceased to exist after the fall of the Śailödbhava dynasty around the mid-seventh century.

• To understand the history of the Early Dynasties of Andhradesa, it is essential to study the political history of the Śailödbhava dynasty, as their kingdom was closely connected to both Andhra and Kalinga.

Earlier Writers and Untenability of their Theories

• The chronology and political history of the Śailōdbhava dynasty presented by earlier writers is rejected by the author for three main reasons.

• First, there are no valid reasons to place the Sailodbhava dynasty between the 7th and 10th centuries or to divide them into two branches: the Earlier Sailodbhavas (from 550 to 700 A.D.) and the Later Sailodbhavas (from 825 to 1000 A.D.).

• The theory of an interruption in the Sailodbhava rule by a family known as the Earlier Karas (from 700 to 825 A.D.) is also disputed.

• Second, reliance on the doubtful testimony of palaeography alone is criticized, especially when other contemporary events do not align with it.

• Palaeography cannot be the only method for determining chronology or genealogy, particularly when it conflicts with other historical factors.

• Third, the earlier writers have neglected the chronology of contemporary dynasties such as those of Andhradesa, Kalinga, Kösala, Mekala, and other neighboring kingdoms.

• The author argues that the Śailōdbhava dynasty should be placed in the period from the mid-4th century to the first half of the 7th century.

• The Sailodbhavas appear to be contemporaries of the Matharas, Vasisthas, Vişnukundins, Nalas, and the Eastern Gangas, among other dynasties.

• The Śailōdbhava dynasty likely disappeared from the political scene in the Deccan around the middle of the 7th century due to the rise of the Eastern Gangas from the south and the Somavamsis from the west.