Talk:Chalukya dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Chalukya dynasty is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Peer review Chalukya dynasty has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.
Featured article FA Quality: FA-Class (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism.
Featured article FA  rating on the quality scale

Contents

[edit] Vikramaditya VI and chola wars

Let me start this discussion with a positive note that all empires, however great they are, have suffered reversals and finally vanish only to be repleaced by another. Please look at history from a positive non inflammatory way (Mr. Senthil Kumar). The Cholas were no doubt a great empire, but it takes a broadminded student of history to realise that all empires eventually meet their match somewhere. The Kalyani Chalukyas and Cholas were dreded enemies at times, made pacts and truce at other times and betrayed each other ever so often. This is a fact of life with ancient empires as they are in todays politics.

Regarding Vikramaditya marrying a Chola princess, please be aware that any kingdom that is at a disadvantage does not make demands/requests about marrying a princess of the competing kingdom. Any king who gives away his daughter would natually do so to the king whose kingdom is at an advantage, just as todays fathers would want to give away their daughters to a bridegroom whom he would consider worthy of his own status and worthy of his daugther.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Sorry sir, if I had inflammed your feelings ,but I wrote from thes sources Veerasozhiyam, and "Battles of South India" by K Appathurai -in which he gives the long lists of the stone inscriptions and tablets , both of Chalukyas and Cholas and their exact places, giving about 12 or more battles between them in 20 years. All these battles were within Chalukyan mainland and west Vengi. I donot know what sources you have given from, but I humbly wish to point out that all the years and battle results you have said were nowhere near truth, esp. that Rajendra, RajaRaja wre defeated, as they wage only 1 battles each which they won, in which Manyaket was fully destroyed when Sathyashereyaa lost ; in any case can you say why Manyaket ceased to exist even as a town after 1010 C.E.?

   Writing history should be free of nationalist and ethnic passions and in any case truth provided with literary and archaeological evidences  will be held good at all times.

thankyou. Senthilkumaras 16:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] historians from south?=

One does not expect a historian from Bihar to be able to deciper "old Kannada" epigraphs unless he is adept at that language. Please dont make accusations unless you can provide proof from a North Indian Historian who can prove these incriptions wrong. I have been doing some reading on this matter and I understand now that Kannada has amongst the highest number of inscriptions in India (mostly from Karnataka/Andhra). I will contiune to strive to prove my point in a mature and responsible way. good luck!! Dinesh

In the article on "Chalukya", their clan has been called a "Maratha" clan. I would like to point out that this is false. The concept of "Maratha" evolved only after the spread of Marathi language in northern deccan (after 1300AD) and became popular only during the years and the years preceeding the rule of Shivaji. During the time frame 500AD - 1200AD (ie., the period that includes rule of Badami Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Kalyani Chalukya), Kannada was the prevalent language of the deccan and hence its incorrect to call the Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas or Shathavahanas as "Maratha". Please correct this mistake. Most of the incriptions and literature from the above mentioned period prove that the Badami Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas and Kalyani Chalukyas were Kannada empires.

Please provide references to prove that the Chalukyas of Badami and Kalyana were indeed Marathas (Solankis). It seems to me that the Solankis were one among the many decendents of the Chalukyas. So its not correct to call the Chalukyas of Badami and Kalyana as Solanki Marathas.

Dinesh Kannambadi

I am responding to this statement "Huien-Tsang, a chinese traveller speaks of Pulkeshi as king of Maharashtra and not otherwise". Please dont try to obfuscate history. If Huien-Tsang speaks of Pulakeshi as king Of Maharashtra, it does not mean todays Maharashtra. He must have implied the whole area between Kaveri and Narmada because Pulakeshi had already established his empire this far north by now and obtained the title "Dakshinapatheswara" History needs to be handled with maturity. If you claim that the term "Kannada bala" implied the Eastern vengi chalukyas, provide proof from a historian of repute or rest in peace. The Rashtrakutas started out as subordinates of the Badami Chalukyas before gaining control over their whole teritory.


Dinesh Kannambadi.

"bordering Maharashtra"?? There seems to be an attempt to emphasise on Maharashtra here, more then anything else. This is purely speculative and reconfirms our petty sub-regionalism. It should be known, without intending to puncture "Marathi pride" that Shivaji the great himself was supposed to have been a descendent from the Hoysal Marathe clan (not sure how true this is!!). The Hoysalas are a great kingdom the ruled Karnataka (1000-1330AD) from Belur/Halebidu in south Karnataka. The people of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra share a glorious history together. Purandara Dasa (15th century AD), father of carnatic music (who wrote more then 450,000 carnatic songs in Kannada) hailed from Pandarapura in current day Maharashtra!! though he practiced carnatic music and lived in Hampi, Karnataka during the time vijayanagar Empire. Yet we people of the south consider him one of our own. It just so happens that Kannada being the 3rd oldest language of India (after sanskrit and tamil) has played a immense role in shaping Indian history. Much of Maharashtra's history from ~600AD-1200AD is written in Kannada. Even the Yadava's of Devgiri (now called Daulathabad) adopted a version of Marathi which is essentailly a mixture of Aphabhramasa and Kannada loan words. Current day history buffs tend to look at history from a purely subjective point of view and hence get a narrow view of history. It may be difficult for people of Maharashtra to accept that Kannada once extended way north of todays boundaries which implies that anscestors of current day Marathi's spoke Kannada at some point in their history. This ofcourse plays against sub regional politics and false egos.

Please keep an open mind when you study history.

Dinesh Kannambadi

"lord of path leading to south"?

If uttarapatheshwara means lord of the north, why does dakshinapatheshwara mean "lord of the path leading to south". Makes no sense. Once again, who ever made this edit is looking at 7th century India from todays geographic perspective. Let me explain. "lord of the south' probably only meant "south of Harshvardhanas Kannouj empire that extended to Narmada". Please provide historical evidense to prove your point. Dinesh Kannambadi

[edit] Vikramaditya and Chola wars

Hello Mr. Senthil Kumar. Please refer to "History of Karnataka" by Mr. Arthikaje (especially the chapters on Kalyani Chalukyas and Hoysalas)(http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm) for more details about this issue. I wouldn not be surprised that all the info you got pertains to efforts made by Tamil historians. Historians are human too and are prone to biases. Its important to compare facts from various sources though. All said and done, at the end of the day, neither can the Chalukyas take away the Chola glory or the other way around. Each kingdom has had its time. I have tried to enumerate my thoughts after prolonged reading.

1. One most important thing I have learnt about history is that While Inscriptions can mislead or can be misinterprited, temples dont mislead. Temples are an enduring example of a reign of a kingdom in a certian region over reasonable period of time, considering it takes decades to built ornate Hindu temples like those built by the Cholas or the Chalukyas or the Hoysalas. you will understand what i mean in the following lines.

2. If you notice the chronology of two greatest Chola rulers, Raja Raja Chola I and Rajendra Chola I (medeval Cholas), you will see that both were no longer alive when Vikramaditya VI was at his peak (1075-1120AD) approx. None of the later Cholas left a mark on world history. To claim that the Cholas controlled the vast empire shown on the map on wiki page "Chola" wouldbe highly inaccurate.

3.Both Cholas and Kalyani Chalukyas fell to the prowess of the Hoysalas of Belur/Halebidu and Kakatiyas of Andhra arounf 1200AD. The Cholas may have remined in power over a very geographically reduced kingdom in the Tamil hinterland. The Kalyani chalukya empire got distributed (around 1195AD) amogst the Hoysalas, Suenas, Kakatiyas and the Kalachuris. Clearly, The Cholas did not get any share of this piece. If they were such a great force till the end (1275AD) as claimed by the wiki page on Cholas, they should have got something out of a fallen empire. This is clear indicaton that the Cholas themselves were a spent force well before the fall of the Kalyani Chalukyas.

3. The Gadag style of architecture that is present in Central Karnataka (Gadag/Dharwad/Haveri/Koppal disricts) were built from the time of Someshwara I from around 1050AD -1200AD). They built some 50 marvellous temples in these districts.I have visited a couple in Gadag and Hubli If the Cholas truly had control over entire Karnataka, how could the Chalukyas have managed to build these temples. (http://www.templenet.com/Karnataka/kalyani_chalukya.html) Discussions are underway now in the Karnataka Govt. to propose these temples (especially at Kuruvatti, Lakkundi and Itagi) as "WORLD HERITAGE SITES"

4.As Historian Dr. S.K. Iyengar said "Vishnuvardhana is hailed by scholars as one of the great rulers of the family, "The real maker of Hoysala Kingdom"". (1108-1152AD). He had titles like Nolambavadigonda ( I think you know what that means).I have presonnaly visited the now already proposed "WORLD HERITAGE SITE" temples at Belur and Halebidu. Both these temples were built by Vishnuvardhana. The Chennakeshava temple was built to comommrate his victroy against the Cholas at Talkad. An inscription remains in the temple premises to prove this. His commander Katamalla built the one at Halebidu. These temples were supposed to have taken 40+ years to complete. So its clear the Cholas could not have been in control of Hassan district at this time. In fact the incredible effort it took to build these temples gives clear indication that the Hoysala country must have enjoyed stability for sustained period of time to build such great temples, just as the Tamil country must have been in tranquility and stability for the Cholas the build the great temples of Tanjore and GangaiKondaCholapuram. All the 150 odd temples built by the Hoysalas are built with a stone called chloritic schist (also called green soap stone)This material is found only in the Mysore Plateau and no where else. It seems obvious to me that to build all these temples stretched across Hassan, Mandya, Chikamagalur, Shimoga districts etc, the Hoysala country must have been firmly in control of the Hoysalas. I have visited ove a dozen of these beautiful temples. In fact you will find Hoysala temples even in Tiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu, which was under Hoysala rule for some time. Similarly the Vijayanagar kings of Kannada Country built several temples in Tamil Nadu and added Mantapas to already existing Chola and Pallava temples in Madhuri, Tirutanni and Tanjore. This was made possible due to the fact that there must have been a long term stability and peace in that province of the kingdom.

5. Around 1200AD, Ballala II assumed titles such as Cholarajyapratishtacharya for helping the Cholas from the wrath of the Pandyas. This is what i meant earlier when I said even enemies make friends at times. clearly, the Cholas were all but gone by now.

6. Sri Ramanujam, the great Tamil saint took refuge under the Hoysalas (in Melkote in Mandya district)to escape the Cholas. Here is where Vishnuvardhana converted to Hinduism from Jainism (he was originally called Bitti deva). Clearly, Mandya district which borders Tamil Country itself was not under the Cholas at this time.

7. when one reads history written like this , under the page for Kulothunga Chola I "Kulothunga I who was directly responsible for the reduction in size of the Chola Empire in his later years( by 1116 B.C.E. he had peacefully let off SriLanka, Ganga, Southern Chalukya, Chera, the Kalinga and Vengi to their native kings without any war ), was succeeded by VikramaChola who was able to govern a large and unwieldy Empire." one knows that the matter is highly invalid. No king lets go of lands without a fight. At the same time very few kings were foolish enough to fight if the odds were too much against them, when they normally made a truce.

8.When you read the chapters for Kalyani Chalukyas in you will see that the then tiny kingdoms of Kadambas, Hoysalas were constantly lending support to Kalyani Chalukyas in their either effort to fight the Cholas. The more I read the more I am convinced that While the Cholas may have taken control of Vengi and the Andhra reagion from time to time, they also lost control of it soon enough. This has been the story since the time of Pallava-Badami Chalukya conflict. I dont believe either Kannada empires or Tamil empires have had monopoly over Vengi for ever. The very fact that The Telugu writing system developed from Old Kannada script shows that the Kannada empires (Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas) enjoyed considerable control over this region for sustained periods of time. Almost all Telugu inscriptions from AndhraPradesh between 633AD and 1500AD are in Old Kannada script. Infact Old Kannada is often called Kannada-Telugu script.

6. Manyakheta was not their regal capital. Kalyani was. In addition, they had other regional capitals also like Etagiri, Vijayapura, Manneyakere and Vikramapura. I cant prove or disprove whether Manyakheta was truly distroyed by the Cholas or not, but to me its seems failry clear that the battles between the Kalyani Chalukyas and Cholas never go into the Kannada Heartland. Even today, Pallava and Chola temples exist in only Tumkur, Kolar and Chamrajnagar districts, built by these kingdoms during their respective reign.

It seems to me that the Chola Empire started a decline after Rajendra Chola I (1044AD). the map shown in the page for "Chola" is the one at its peak. A war consists of several battles. Inscriptions could have been made after every battle and can be easily misinterpritted as the final outcome of a war. so one has to take this with a pinch of salt and be more deliberate.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Can someone explain, why Belur and Halebedu temples are in ruins? Were these temples completed? Were these destroyed by Muslim invaders or due to other causes? Thanks--Aadal 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulakesi II ....

Dear Llyrwch can you elaborate on Pulakesi's conquest on Pandya and Cheras . He is said to have defeated Mahendravarma Pallava once around Kanchi for suree but never really annexed it, it was only a raid-like and Even after the battle Pallavas by their stone inscriptions and sculpture works, seems to have continued to rule their land. The victory over Pallavas is clearly aided by division and reduction of of Pallava army into 2 , one to fight Pulakesi in the north and the other to fight Cheras and Pandyas in the southern border . Where in the history did Pulakesi II conquered Pandyas and Cheras , kindly give evidences .This sure is intriguing and nobody has ever heard it . Kindly explain the battles, kings, stone inscriptions or grants in temples which says it . Kindly write history based on accepted and true and verifiable history and not on nationalist and ethnic inclinations . Senthilkumaras 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extent of Chalukya empire- map

Let me congratulate whoever made these latest edits. please go ahead and make one more for the Kalyani Chalukya peak time frame of Vikramaditya VI. I would love to see a map like this for the Rashtrakuta empire (which is considered even bigger then Chalukya empire), Vijayanagar empire, Hoysala empire and even smaller kingdoms like Kadambas and Gangas.

Dinesh Kannambadi

I've added a map showing the Chalukya territory during Pulakesin II. I will be creating the bio pages for the various kings of the dynasty. Please review and help if you can. I am not an expert in Chalukya history. My aim is to collect and copyedit what is already available in the pulic domain. I find most of the existing pages on Chalukyas are of poor quality language-wise.
Parthi (Venu62) 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chalukya territories

The map does not accurately depict Chalukya territories as they had conquered lands upto the Narmada which is way up in MadhyaPradesh. The current map only shows Northern Karnataka, Andhra, and Maharashtra in tha map. The Badami Chalukyas also controlled Gujarat. Dinesh Kannambadi

[edit] Kilashnath temple at Ellora

Can someone remove this picture. The Chalukyas did not build this temple. It was built by the Rashtrakutas. It should not be too difficult to put a picture from Pattadakal (badami chalukyas) or Lakkundi (Kalyani chalukyas) in its place.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Why don't you do it?
Parthi (Venu62) 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalyani Chalukya Art

Finally, Kalyani chalukya art gets some exposure. During my recent visit to Shimoga district, I had the opportunity to visit this Kalyani Chalukya temple and take pictures. Its a pity that the ornate temples built by these great kings some how gets lost between the Badami Chalukya art of Pattadakal/Badami/Aihole, temples at Hampi built by the Vijayanagar empire and the splended sculptures of the Hoysalas in southern Karnataka. I intend to visit the four fabeled temples of the Kalyani Chalukyas (Mahadeva in Koppal, Mallikarjuna in Davangere, Kasi Vishveshwara at Lakkundi and Kalleshwara in Bellary) and get some great images sometime in the future. I intend to create a seperate page called "Karnataka architecture" eventually. Happy viewing!!!

Dinesh Kannambadi

Congratulations Dinesh. The pictures are amazing. Good luck with your articles. Also, you can automatically insert your name and date stamp your comments (valuable to determine the chronolgoy of the discussions) by simply inserting four tildes (~~~~). - Parthi 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Chalukya kings

Do we need a detailed info on lineage and dates of Kings here in the "Chalukya" page?. The entire info seems repeated in the main page for "Eastern Chalukya" anyway. Maybe just a few short sentences to indicate their origin as it exists may be ok here in the Chalukya page. Also, some of the names of Eastern Chalukya kings clash with those of Badami and Western Chalukya names causing confusion. Maybe for the eastern chalukya names that match other names, we could use a slightly different designation to indicate Eastern Chalukya lineage. Just a thought Dinesh Kannambadi

I agree. We could just leave the summary paragraph on the Eastern Chalukyas and leave out the king list. - Parthi 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More info on ChalukyasDineshkannambadi 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be making inputs to the Chalukya page based on one of my more elaborate sources (Dr. Suryanath Kamath, Concise History Of Karnataka, 2001). Whereever such edits conflicts with inputs made from research work by Prof. K.A.N. Sastri, the difference in opinion will be accodingly noted, without changing any info sourced from Prof. Sastri itself. This will probabaly give a wider perspective. However, I suspect there should not be very many differences. I shall be touching upon each king, general administration etc. Other topics in this page are generally up-to-date w.r.t both scholars.

Dinesh Kannambadi

[edit] Minor copyedit and TOC reorg

I have made some minor copyedit for language and readability plus some changes to the TOC structure in the later half of the article. I think we can write detailed sub articles on the Chalukya art and administration in a similar vain to Chola Art and Chola Government - Parthi 05:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chalukya AdministrationDineshkannambadi 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Would these be seperate articles? Reply to my own question: I have taken a look at the Chola pages and it looks good. I will create something similar. Feel free to contribute any way you feel fit. Dinesh

[edit] Detailed edits to Government of Chalukyas

Hi. My current sources provide good info on this matter, but in order to create seperate "main pages" for each category of governance, society, religion etc its better to obtain books specific to the Kingdom itself (books that I have identified and intend to purchase) where the quantum of info would justify the creation of seperate pages. Untill then its probably better to go with the current basic information I have provided. The same goes for other kingdoms i have worked on. I will try to look around for more info in the mean time.

Dinesh Kannambadi

[edit] Peer Review

I think it is time now to start working towards making this article a FAC. Towards this end we must go through this article and do a good copyedit and nominate it for a peer review. - Parthi talk/contribs 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Going by my experience with Chola dynasty, some reviewers may want to change the article title to Chalukya dynasty. We should give it some thought. - Parthi talk/contribs 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree and support this. Shall we transfer the contents to Chalukya dynasty and provide the redirect from Chalukya, Chalukyas to Chalukya dynasty ?
Please let us know if there is any opposition for this approach. - KNM Talk - Contribs 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Article title is now Chalukya dynasty. - KNM Talk 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Chalukya Empire" / "Chalukya Dynasty"

Can anyone please throw light on how is it referred(Empire or Dynasty?) in History books and in all the references provided? - KNM Talk - Contribs 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] provided page numbers from reference books for citations

Parthi/KNM, I have made page numbers for citations available in case its asked for. Some citations are from respectable web pages that have copyrights. So either I can add the link to the citation or leave the link where it is right now at the bottom of the Chalukya page. Changing Chalukya to Chalukya Empire/Dynasty is fine with me. Also, there are some users who have shown a history of animosity towards my edits, calling my sources "fanatic", "unreliable", "biased" etc. we need to deal with such people sternly considering we share some sources (Prof. Sastri), unless they can come up with English language citations to provide additional verifyable contrary info. Dineshkannambadi 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Dinesh. That will help. - KNM Talk - Contribs 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Etymology

There seems to be a conflict on the origin of the name "Chalukya". While one paragraph says,

"Scholars have proposed that the word Chalukya originated from Salki or Chalki which is a Kannada word for an agricultural implement"

the other paragraph says,

"The name Chalukya seems to have been derived from the word 'Chalkya' which was the original form of the dynastic name".

Does that combinedly mean, the word "Chalkya" (which was the original form of "Chalukya") was originated from Salki or Chalki? Either way, we will need to try removing the inconsistency. - KNM Talk - Contribs 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> You are right. I posed this enquiry last night to Parthi (Venu) as to where this info in this section came from. He said it came from ourKarnataka.com link at botom of main page.(History of Karnataka). I shall look into this one. Either way it is clear that the two similar sounding names point towards an agricultural background. Chalki--> Agri instrument, Chalkya-->land division. My source (Dr. Kamath quotes a scholar Dr. N.L. Rao having derived the word Chalki from salki.) We shall rectify this minor issue today.Dineshkannambadi 12:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese traveller

My source spells him as Hiuen-Tsiang. But the hyperlink KNM has pointed to says Huen Tsang. I looked at the contents of the link page for the Chinese traveller and looks like the dates of his encounter with King Harsha also matches, though there is no mention of his visit to Badami in that page. We need to make sure we are pointing to the same Chinaman's page. Dineshkannambadi

The person is same. If the sources in this article has referred as "Hiuen-Tsiang" then let us use the same name to be consistent.
As mentioned in that article itself, the name was written and used in several different spellings like below:
Hhuen Kwan, Hiouen Thsang, Hiuen Tsiang, Hsien-tsang, Hsuan Chwang, Hsuan Tsiang, Hwen Thsang, Xuan Cang, Xuan Zang, Shuen Shang, Yuan Chang, Yuan Chwang, and Yuen Chwang. In Japanese, he is known as Genjō or Sanzō.
I am providing redirect from Hiuen-Tsiang to Huen Tsang. This should resolve the hyperlink issue. - KNM Talk - Contribs 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chalukyas or Chalukya Dynasty

I dont see any set name for them. Depending on the context, they are either called Chalukyas, Chalukya Dynasty, Chalukya Empire, Chalukyas of Badami and Chalukyas of Kalyani.

I think Chalukya Dynasty may be a general way of covering all three dynasties. When one says Chalukya Empire, it normally means Chalukyas of Badami and Chalukyas of Kalyani, for their size and achievements.

Then there are the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. It was never clear if they were independent, allies, feudatories. They seem to be all of it over the 500 years they ruled, merging with the rulers of Western Deccan and deep South based on political developments. Should they be a seperate topic? Probably not. Which is the reason we have provided a main article for them.

The page currently highlights the Chalukyas of Badami and Kalyani, the two main empires with a link for Eastern Chalukyas who were partially covered in the Chola page also (with good reason).

We make it Chalukya Empire if we focus on Badami and Kalyani We make it Chalukya Dynasty if we want to discuss a bit about Eastern Chalukyas as well(which we have). We dont want questions raised about absence of Eastern Chalukyas on FAC day. So Chalukya Dynasty seems apt.Dineshkannambadi 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I guess, Parthi too has suggested the same above, and I supported it and requested other editors, if they have any opposition for having this article under the name "Chalukya Dynasty". There is no opposition so far, and we should be moving the contents now to Chalukya dynasty (page already exists) and provide redirect from Chalukya and Chalukyas to Chalukya dynasty. Okay with everyone? - KNM Talk 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Article title is now Chalukya dynasty. Have provided redirect from earlier title, Chalukya. Thanks. - KNM Talk 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks KNM. I think we are now ready to go into peer review. Would you like to do the nomination? I think as Dinesh has worked on the article most, it is appropriate for him to nominate.
Happy Diwali BTW:) - Parthi talk/contribs 00:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Parthi.
I agree too! It would be lot more meaningful, if Dinesh nominates this article. Dinesh, please go ahead. Good luck. - KNM Talk 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I am unable to verify this info for most part. I have put in italics what I CAN verify and in BOLD what I CANT.

Etymology: The name Chalukya seems to have been derived from the word 'Chalkya' which was the original form of the dynastic name. Like the Chutus and Kadambas, the Chalukyas were an indigenous tribe. They rose to importance in the later Satavahana period and asserted their independence after the downfall of the central empire. The Hyderabad plates of Pulakesi II calls them Harithiputhras of Manavysya gotra hence directly connecting them to Kadambas and Satavahana. (this is already stated elsewhere with a citation)

In the Maruturu inscription of Pulakesi II, a village that was granted by him is presumed to be situated in the Chalukya Vishaya. It is therefore clear that the original word of Chalukya was applied to a territorial division or a Vishaya of a kingdom. The territorial division came to be known as Chalukya after the Chalukyan clan.

The provenance of the Maruturu grant and also the other factors mentioned in it clearly prove that this Chalukya Vishaya must have comprised portions of the ceded districts of Andhra Pradesh including perhaps parts of the Mahboobnagar district of Telangana, proving that the Chalukyas were the original residents of this area.

According to the earliest Chalukyan legend preserved in a Kannada inscription dated 578 C.E. at Badami, the Chalukyas were worshippers of the feet of the god Kartikeya and belonged to Manavyasa Gotra and had themselves purified by the performance of several vedic rites. They were Kshatriyas. They were nourished by the Sapta matrikas (the seven divine mothers), acquired great merit and prosperity and obtained the Varaha Lanchana (the emblem of the boar) from Vishnu. (the italics here info appears in Dr. Kamath book)Dineshkannambadi 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who uses this reference book?

-->Durga Prasad, History of the Andhras upto 1565 A. D., P. G. Publishers, Guntur (1988) Parthi, did you reference this book? I dont see any citations form this book. Maybe it should only be in the page for "Eastern Chalukyas".

Dineshkannambadi

You are correct. It was mainly for Eastern Chalukyas - Parthi talk/contribs 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I suggest that any material that cannot be cited be removed. Opinions?Dineshkannambadi 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not a general practice. Atleast, not until an editor contests/questions the material either here in the talk page or by using {{fact}} tag in the article. - KNM Talk 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The article looks really good. I will go through it is more detail over the weekend. You can however start the peer review process. We can do the copyedit parallally. I would also recommend the following to guide us in the copyedit process:

Good luck! Parthi talk/contribs 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] uncited material

KNM, I had removed it before you told me not to. Its one thing if the stuff were put in by one of us, without citation. Its different when we dont even know who put it there. What if it came through in peer review and got cought in controversy on the day of FAC?Dineshkannambadi 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I have completed the process for requestDineshkannambadi 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left a relevant comment about this article in the featured article review of Indian Standard Time at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Standard Time. Please take a look. Dekimasu 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

As we saw several improvements/modifications/changes over the infobox area, I felt its time to create a template for its own so that all the future changes/updates go there instead of modifying the main article all the time. I have just created the infobox template, {{Chalukya infobox}}. This is inline with Chola dynasty featured-article which had used an infobox template ({{Chola infobox}} specific to Chola dynasty. Please take a look at the new infobox template here, and discuss the changes / further improvements in that talk page. Thank you! - KNM Talk 05:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment KNM, The new template above mentions Vengi and Basavakalyan as other capitals. But this is not accurate. Vengi may have been a provincial capital upto Pulakeshi II (called Vengi Mandala by Dr. Kamath), but then there were many such provincial capitals. After his death it became regal capital of Eastern Chalukya kingdom and later moved to Rajamundry I believe. Even the becoming of independent kingdom was not abrupt as Vikramaditya II had the area under his control. Its was gradual. One sees the Eastern Chalukyas really asserting themselves during the rule of Rashtrakutas and Amoghavarsha I had to make him an allie. Basavakalyan came into picture only during time of Somesvara I around 1050 CE during Wastern Chalukya rule while Manyakheta was their original capital (after take over from Rashtrakutas in ~973CE). There is a seperate template for those kingdoms in their respective pages. However, we can change the existing info box Header and call it "Chalukya empire" instead of Badami Chalukya empire, mention all three kingdoms, their capitals and official languages which would probably make it too verbose. This is why I created a seperate box for each sibling dynasty in their respective page. The map that Parti drew up showing extent of Badami Chalukya rule is a clubbed version of all of these above events and as such mentions the extent around 640.Dineshkannambadi

Hi Dinesh, the infobox template has been modified now. The "Other Capitals" information has been removed. Thanks. - KNM Talk 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there will be confusion with the FAC review if the title of the article and the info box differ too much. The infobox title should be 'Chalukya dynasty'. The fact that there are sibling articles on the Western Chalukyas and the Eastern Chalukyas shouldn't really matter. This is after all a summary article on the entire Chalukya history. - Parthi talk/contribs 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. - KNM Talk 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahakuta Pillar

I have created a page for Mahakuta Pillar with what inforamtion I could muster.Dineshkannambadi 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To link, or not to link? (years)

Regarding this message that Dineshkannambadi left on my talk page:

Sir, I see you have been making lots of edits regarding "dates". Just a week back another user removed all the wikilinks I had for dates like 543 CE. He insisted that unless dates have significant meaning it should not be linked. You have put them back. I am not sure where this is headed and I certianly dont want this to become an edit war on "dates" as the article has just come through successfully on FAC review. Please see the WP rules for dates and make sure this matter is put to rest. I like the 9th century kind of links though.Dineshkannambadi 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't go deeply into the tedious background of the matter, but the upshot is this:

  • It is okay to have years wiki-linked.
  • It is also okay not to have them wiki-linked

But it was not okay for the fellow who "insisted" (or for anyone) to take an article he had not otherwise been editing and strip it of all the wiki-links to years. He's been warned against doing so many times, and gotten in a certain amount of trouble about it. He also was mis-informing you when he "...insisted that ... [these] dates ...should not be linked." That is just his personal opinion. It does not represent a consensus among Wikipedia editors, much less a Wikipedia guideline.

As you seemingly have guessed, there has been some controversy on this point, within Wikipedia: In short, some editors think that years should not be linked, and some think that they should. So far, no consensus has been reached about it. So the situation is alike to that of a number of other stylistic points, such as BC/AD versus BCE/CE, or British spelling versus American spelling. As with these other cases, folk are not supposed to go around changing articles from one way to the other.

So I basically undid the illicit link-stripping of that other guy.

It is really up to you and the other editors who have been working on this article to decide whether to have these links or not. Don't feel obliged, one way or the other, and don't let anyone tell you how it must be. Don't feel obliged to fuss over it, either, as the article is just fine as it is now, with regard to date-linking. -- Lonewolf BC 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Post-script: I guess I should have mentioned that where the same date appears more than once, close together, it is not considered necessary or desireable to wiki-link it more than once. This is the same as for wiki-links in general: Link a given item on its first occurrence within an article, and perhaps link it again lower down, if the article is on the long side, but do not link the same thing repeatedly within the same paragraph. No more than one copy of the same link should be in the reader's view at a time (at least in the main text of an article; myself, I make an exception for dates in the captions of images, etc.).

Anyhow, I reverted the wiki-linking of three dates you did just a short while ago, because they were repeat-links of the same year in the same paragraph. I hope you don't mind. If you really want to have them linked, for some reason, then it's no big deal if you change them back. I really recommend that you leave them not linked, though.

Best regards, Lonewolf BC 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Seleukia"

This is with regard to the following passage in the article,

"An alternate argument is that the Chalukya were descendants of the "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq and that their conflict with the Pallava of Kanchi was, but a continuation of the conflict between ancient Seleukia and "Parthians", the proposed ancestors of Pallavas. However, this theory has been rejected as it seeks build lineages based simply on similar sounding clan names."

This seems a little unclear. Plainly, "Seleukia" refers in some way to the Hellenistic Seleucid Dynasty, or to the empire they ruled (consisting, at first, of most of the Asian provinces conquered by Alexander), or perhaps more specifically to the city of Seleucia, in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). It is not clear, though, exactly what connection the hypothesis would make. Does it suggest that the Chalukya were actual Seleucids (descendants of Seleucus)? Does it suggest that they were merely from the Seleucid Empire, perhaps some other noble Macedonian family, but not actual Seleucids? Does it suggest that they were from the city of Seleucia, in particular? What, exactly?

There are also some other problems with the passage, which contribute to its lack of clarity: "Seleukia" was not a tribe, but a city. The Seleucids were a dynasty -- a ruling family -- but I have never seen them called a "tribe", either, and it seems unfitting to do so, whereas a tribe is generally a greater social unit than an extended family, albeit that both are based on descent (whether real or supposed) from a common ancestor. I suppose that "Seleukia" could serve as a name for the Seleucid Empire, but I have never before seen it used in that sense. Although the city of Seleucia was in what is now Iraq, the Seleucid Empire covered much more territory than that, and "Iraq" is an anachronism, the area being "Mesopotamia" at the time.

So I think that passage needs re-writing. I hesistate to edit the article itself, because I do not know this material on Indian history, but here is a try, for the consideration of other editors:

"An alternate hypothesis is that the Chalukya were descendants of the Hellenistic Seleucids, with "Chalukya" deriving from "Seleukia". This idea further proposes that the Pallava of Kanchi descended from the Parthians, and that the conflict between the Chalukya and the Pallava was a continuation of that between the Seleucids and the Parthians. However, all of this has been rejected by historians, as it is based nothing more than similar sounding names."

Actually, this whole hypothesis seems fairly cranky to me, and I accordingly suggest that it be relegated to a footnote.

Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply The source I have says nothing more about the topic. If "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq seems vague, it probably means descendents of the people of the city called Seleukia. I hate to extrapolate.Dineshkannambadi 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvements

Please have a look at this. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> I have played down the adjectives in the lines under question.Dineshkannambadi 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7EChalukya_dynasty_fef1.html"