The empire was founded by Kallar in c. 843 CE after overthrowing Lagaturman, the last Turk Shahi king.
Sources
Literature
No literature survives from Hindu Shahi courts. Unlike the case of Turk Shahis, only fragmented information can be obtained from chronicles of neighboring powers — Kashmir and
A. R. Rahman of the Quaid-i-Azam University and Ahmad Hasan Dani did rudimentary field surveys in the late 1960s.[4] Afterwards, the Italian Archaeological Mission in Pakistan (IAMP) have extensively surveyed the regions in and around Swat.[4] In 1996, Khan and Meister obtained a license from Dept. of Archaeology for an "integrated study of Hindu-Śāhi sites"; excavation at Kafir-kot and field-surveys of the Salt Range were engaged in with aid from the University of Pennsylvania and the American Institute of Pakistan Studies.[13]
Inscriptions remain scarce.
Udabhanda, they either commemorate the commissioning of temples or are affixed at the base of idol-pedestals.[14] Of the former kind—Mir Ali Inscription, Dewal Inscription, Dewai Inscription, Ratnamanjari Inscription, Veka Inscription, Hund Stone Inscription, Kamesvaridevi Inscription, Barikot Inscription, and Isvara Inscription—most are disfigured to various extents due to their use as grinding stones in medieval times and are decipherable only in parts.[14][15] The latter kind is relatively abundant but only provides snippets of trivia.[14] The language is exclusively Sharda.[16][c] A samvat is mentioned in all of them whose zero year is understood to correspond to 822 C.E. based on the Zalamkot Bilingual Inscription; it has been assumed to be initiated by Kallar on his coronation, as was typically the case for most Hindu dynasties of medieval India.[17][18] Copper land grants etc. are yet to be documented.[14]
Origins
Horseman on a coin of Spalapati, i.e. the "War-lord". The headgear has been interpreted as a turban.[19]
The 10th century Arab historian
Khokhars, who formed a large part of the Hindu Shahi army according to the Persian historian Firishta.[20] It would seem therefore that the Hindu Shahis were mainly Gakhars from the region of Chhachh in Gandhara.[20]
In a 2002 publication, Rahman accepted folklore among current inhabitants of Hund about pre-Muslim kings of the region belonging to the Hodi tribe, and proposed an Odi origin for the Hindu Shahi, namely the people of
Oddiyana whose rulers were already known at the time of the Kushan Empire (3rd century CE) and are recorded as early as the 4th century BCE.[25] Of Indo-Aryan origins, people of Oddiyana spoke what are now described as Dardic languages.[26] Rahman pointed to the famous Senvarma inscription as an evidence in support.[25][d] Meister found Rahman's arguments to be convincing.[28] Rehman also suggested Odi Shahis or Uḍi Śāhis as accurate name for the dynasty.[29][30]
History
Kallar: The first Hindu Shahi
Establishment
The
Indus river and imposing a critical defeat.[34] A hefty annual tribute was to be paid in return for sovereignty rights to both territories.[34][e]
The Turk Shahis ended up in a precarious state and in c. 843 CE, the last ruler Lagaturman was deposed by one of his ministers, a
Sanskrit-speaking regions.[44] and it has been adduced that Kallar may have felt insecure about the legitimacy of his rule as long as the imprisoned Turk Shahi ruler Lagaturman was alive, and hence affirmed his claim to leadership by such indirect titles.[45]
The 'Spalapati' series may also have been minted by the last Turk Shahi rulers instead as 'Pati Dumi', who was defeated by the Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun, is described by Al-Azraqi and Al-Biruni as an 'Ispahbadh' ('Warlord'), equivalent to the title Spalapati.[46] Rahman therefore believes that Kallar did not initiate any changes in the currency system of the last Turk Shahis[47] and the Samanta series was minted by succeeding Hindu Shahi rulers.[48] Numismatist and historian Michael Alram's publications take note of this view;[49] however some scholars attribute the entirety of the bull/horserider coinage, including the Spalapati series, to the Hindu Shahis.[50]
Samanta
Al-Biruni notes that Samanta was the successor of Kallar and may have been his son, but their genealogical relationship is left undescribed.[51] Like in the case of Kallar, there is a total lack of information on his rule or even his actual name and he seems to have replicated the Turk Shahi system of producing no name on their coinage.[52] It has been argued that Al-Biruni telescoped him from the abundance of the Samanta series of coins, however Rahman notes that if such were indeed the case, Al-Biruni would have followed a similar course for the equally abundant Vekka series.[51][h] The Samanta series prototype was followed by all future Hindu Shahi rulers and even the Muslim Ghaznavids, who succeeded the Hindu Shahis.[53]
Loss of Kabul
In 870 CE,
Nagari to left, عدل (’adl, "Justice") in Arabic to right.[58]
Khudarayaka: Governor of the Kabul Valley
It is unknown what precise arrangements Ya'qub made for the governance of Kabul after his victory and imprisonment of the then- ruler; we only have Tarikh-i Sistan noting that Kabul was under an unnamed Ya'qub governor as late as 878/879.[59] Rahman speculates that this governor was some blood-relation of Samanta who was favorably inclined to Islam and went on to take the title of Khudarayaka (Small King) as ascertainable from a bilingual series of coins.[60][i] As has been the case with previous rulers, there is a total lack of information including about his actual name or course of rule or eventual fate.[61] The unavailability of his coins in or around the Gandhara region probably points to his lack of control over those territories which did not bear the brunt of Ya'qub's expeditions — they were likely held by Samanta's relatives.[61]
Lalliya
Re-conquest of Kabul and invasion of Ghazna
Lalliya was the first Shahi noted by
Udabhanda, a change from the previous capital of Kabul.[62]Ya'qub is not known to have annexed or invaded the country of Gandhara and it is assumed by Rehman that it was under the kingship of Lalliya.[63]
Khudrayaka, the Saffarid governor of Kabul, is noted to have ended his reign in 880 CE, however it is unknown what brought about his downfall. It is assumed Lalliya was implicated as when Kabul is next mentioned in 900 CE, it is described as reverting back as Shahi territory.[64]Amr ibn al-Layth succeeded Yaqub as the Amr of the Saffarid dynasty in 879 CE. The Tarikh-i Sistan records 'two Indian kings', reconstructed as Toramana and Asata described as governors of Lalliya, stated to have taken advantage of Amr al-Layth's preoccupation with rebellions in Khorasan and to have succesfully invaded Ghazni in 900 CE, defeating the Saffarid governor named as Fardaghin, though the Tarikh does not make it clear whether it was the region of Zabulistan or of the city.[65]
Aggression with the Utpala dynasty
Kalhana notes that Lalliya was a significant ally of the Gujrati ruler Alakhana against the machinations of the Utpala dynasty, whose ruler Samkaravarman invaded the Hindu Shahis c. 902 CE, however Kalhana further states that Lalliya's 'mighty glory outshone the kings of the north'.[66] Samkaravarman was killed by a stray arrow in Hazara, with scholars stating Lalliya's role in his death.[67] A year later, his successor Gopalavarman re-invaded Shahi territory to depose a rebellious Shahi, and installed Lalliya's son Toramana with the new name of "Kamaluka". [68][j]
Rajat., v, 232-33: As superintendent of the treasury he (Prabhakaradeva, the prime minister of Gopalavarman - the successor of Samkaravarman ) plundered the riches of the amorous (queen) and vanquished the Sahi kingdom at Udabhanda. He bestowed the kingdom of the rebellious Sahi upon Toramana, Lilliya's son, and gave him the (new) name Kamaluka.
Nothing definite is known about the reign of the Hindu Shahi ruler Kamaluka, except that he was succeeded by his son, Bhimadeva. Concurrent to his reign, the Saffarids rapidly lost their power to the Samanids[69] and sometime after 913 CE, the power vacuum led to the rise of a friendly power in the Ghazna province, the Lawik dynasty, which flourished until 962 CE and engaged in marital ties with the Hindu Shahis.[70] There are various unsubstantiated speculations regarding the end date of Kamaluka's reign, ranging from 900 to 950.[71][k]
Bhimadeva
Strongly debased Bhimadeva series — found near-exclusively in Afghanistan and weighs between 3.1 and 3.2 g. Obverse: Recumbent bull with legend Śri Bhīmadeva. Reverse: Horseman holding banner; na in Nagari to left; trace of symbol to right.[7]
Mentioned as "Bhima" in Al-Biruni's list, and identified with the Śri Bhīmadeva coin series, Bhimadeva was perhaps the most accomplished ruler of the Hindu Shahis.[72] His rise to power was concurrent with the growth of neighboring Hindu powers and there might have been conflicts; Mahipala of the Pratihara Empire had mounted a brutal invasion to adjacent regions, though it remains unclear whether he entered into a faceoff with the Hindu Shahis.[73][l] This situation might have guided a marital alliance between Bhimadeva and the Utpalas of Kashmir, who would henceforth serve as an all-weather-friend of the Hindu Shahis.[74] Bhimadeva's granddaughter Didda was married off to Kshemagupta and a temple was commissioned in their honor.[75] They had a daughter who, according to Kalhana, was married to Simharaja, a Lohara chieftain.[74]
Victory over the Sammanid Empire
Circa 962 Alp-Tegin, a rebel Turkish chief of the Samanid Empire who had lost out in a succession dispute, chose to venture out of Khorasan into the south of the Hindu Kush and attack Kabul, allegedly vowing to wage a Holy War (Jihad) against the "infidels" of Hind.[76] The governor of Kabul — described in sources as "son of Kabul Shah"[m] — was defeated and the son of Abu Ali Lawik, who had led a unit to support the Shahis, was captured and sent back with a message of peace.[5][76] Lawik did not respond favorably and had to retreat to Ghazna proper, after being defeated by Tegin.[77] There, he was besieged and compelled to surrender unconditionally but managed to escape soon.[77]
Lawik made his way to Bhimadeva and having received additional troops, mounted a combined attack c. 963.[78] Tegin's successor Abu Ishaq Ibrahim was expelled from Ghazna[n] and Shahi-Lawik strongholds were restored in Kabul and adjacent areas.[79] This victory appears to have been commemorated in the Hund Slab Inscription (HSI):[79]
Udabhandra, which has been made their home by learned men forming communities, just as Meru
(was made their home) by the immortal (gods) and other (supernatural beings)...
...Therein dwelt the chief of kings, Bhīma, of terrible valour (or with valour like that of Bhīma, the legendary hero), by whom, having conquered his enemies' troops, the earth was protected...
...The king of that (country) is (now) Jayapaladeva, who, through his body, origin, and birth, has become the sole hero, whose very pure fame, having left heaven, has attained the eternal abode of Brahman....
— Excerpts of the Hund inscription of Jayapala (HSI), inscribed Year 146 (968 CE). Translation by Abdur Rehman.[80]
However, the celebrations were short-lived.[81] Ibrahim returned with Samanid aid in September 964 and forced Lawik to flee.[81] Bhimadeva probably perished in this conflict or soon after.[81] The cryptic comment in the Hund Slab Inscription about how he was burnt by Shiva's desire, rather than by the enemy, probably references some form of ritualistic suicide.[81][o]
In 969, Ibn Hawqal noted that new taxes were imposed on residents of Kabul in addition to a "tribute", after Alp-Tegin's invasion.[82]Bilgetegin succeeded Abu Ishaq Ibrahim on the occasion of his death in November 966, and ruled for about nine years, before being assassinated during his invasion of Gardiz, the last bastion of the Lawiks.[83] His successor Piri was a drunkard whose oppressive rule led the citizens of Ghazna to request the return of Lawik.[83]
Lawik mounted yet another expedition with help from the "son of Kabul Shah" and met Muslim forces of Ghazni, Gardez,
Ghaznavid Empire being cast, the stage was laid for a perpetual conflict with the Shahis till their disintegration.[86]
Bhimadeva's successors would all have the surname of "Pala", and Muslim sources give hazy indications of a successional dispute, leading many to suggest that the same family was not ruling anymore.[87] Rahman disagrees that there exist sufficient evidence in favor of such a hypothesis or conclusion.[87]
One Vijayapaladeva (r. 942 or 963) is obtained from the Ratnamanjari Inscription where he is held to be the "supreme sovereign" (
Maharajadhiraja).[15] Rahman proposed that Vijayapaladeva had to have either belonged to the Kabul branch or had been some local Shahi feudatory.[5] Khaw disagrees on the basis of his epithet and instead equates Vijayapaladeva with one Thakkana Sahi, mentioned by Kalhana as a contemporary rebel who had to be captured by Queen Didda of Kashmir.[15] For Khaw, this identification fits within the narrative of Muslim sources; Jayapala ascended only after this threat was neutralized.[15][p]
Resisting the Ghaznavids
In 986–987, Jayapala marched towards Ghazni and met with Sabuktigin's forces at Ghuzak.[88][q] The war remained largely inconclusive for days before the tide turned against the Shahis: Jayapala was forced to propose a peace treaty.[90][r]Mahmud, son of Sabuktigin and a battle commander, wished to inflict a decisive defeat, but had to concede when Jayapala threatened to incinerate all valuables.[94][s] A war indemnity of one million Shahi dirhams and fifty war elephants was agreed upon and some frontier forts were ceded to the Ghaznavids.[94] Accordingly, Jaypala made his way back with a few Ghaznavi commanders who were to take charge of the ceded forts, while some of his relatives and officials were left with Sabuktigin as hostages.[94] Once Jayapala reached his own territories, he called off the treaty and threw the commanders into prison, probably hoping to force Sabuktigin into exchanging hostages.[94]
Sabuktigin refused to believe that the treaty had been breached, but once it was established beyond doubt, he plundered the frontier town of
Lamghan: temples were demolished and houses burnt down.[95] In response, Jayapala secured troops from unidentified Rajahs,[t] and met with the Ghaznavids near Kindi (modern day Kandibagh?).[98] The Ghaznavids breached the enemy lines repeatedly using light attacks and followed them with an all-out assault, routing the Shahis who had to flee beyond the Indus despite their overwhelming numerical superiority.[99] The entire span of territory up to Peshawar was lost, and Sabuktigin installed his own tax-collectors; local tribes were ordained into Ghaznavid arms too.[100] A ribāṭ was commissioned at Kindi to commemorate the victory.[101] However, Peshawar and adjacent regions returned to the Shahis sometime soon, probably during what would be a long interlude in the Ghaznavid-Shahi conflict.[100][u]
Circa 990–991, Mahmud would be imprisoned by his father Sabuktigin on grounds of fomenting a rebellion.
Nandana, Jailam and Takeshar.[103] Anandapala, then Governor of Punjab, was ordered to intercept Bharat's forces and in the ensuing battle, Bharat was imprisoned and Lahore annexed; however the nobility of Lahore pleaded on behalf of their old King, who was reinstated as a feudatory after payment of tributes.[104] About a year hence, Bharat's son Chandrak deposed him on the grounds of waging an ill-thought-out campaign against the Shahis, and became the new feudatory.[105] For reasons which are not clear, c. 998-999 (eight years after the usurpation), Jayapala declared war against Lahore on the pretext of protecting his suzerain Bharat and dispatched Anandapala.[105] Chandrak was ambushed and kidnapped around the battleground of Samutla, and Lahore was annexed by the Shahis.[106] Rahman speculates that the Shahis were trying to balance their losses to the Ghaznavids using any pretext.[105]
In 998, Mahmud ascended the Ghaznavid throne at Ghazni, and went on an annexation spree.
Hund, as his forces chased fleeing troops and decimated pockets of resistance.[110] Within a few months, the entire Shahi territory to the west of the Indus had submitted to Mahmud.[110][v] By April 1002, Mahmud was on his way back to Ghazni.[110]
Jayapala was eventually released but Muslim chroniclers differ about the specifics.[110]Unsuri, a court-poet of Mahmud notes that he was sold in the slave market; Minhaj ad-din and al-Malik Isami adds a price of 80 dirhams/dinars.[113] Others like al-Ansab note that Mahmud had rejected his request for pardon but allowed him to be free in lieu of a payment of 2.5 million dirhams and 50 war-elephants around March 1002, which Rahman finds more likely.[114] Jayapala returned to Hund and immolated himself in a pyre after abdicating the throne in favor of Anandapala.[115]
Anandapala
Ghaznavid invasions of the subcontinent.[116][117]
Anandapala ascended to the throne around April 1002.[118] His capital city remains unknown but was likely Nandan.[119][w] Anandapala had entered into marital relations with Tunga, the prime-minister of Didda, then-ruler of Kashmir and had at least two sons.[120] He commanded significant fame as a patron of scholars though texts from his court are not extant.[120]
Circa April 1006, Mahmud requested Anandapala to consent to the passage of his trrops via his territories to reach Daud, the ruler of Multan.[121] He declined the request and even went to the extent of stationing troops on the banks of Indus to prevent Mahmud's crossing — an enraged Mahmud waged a cataclysmic war upon the Shahis and compelled Anandapala to escape to Kashmir (via Sodhra) before eventually finishing his original objective of conquering Multan.[122] All these territories of "Hind" were left under the governorship of a certain Sukhapala, a neo-convert.[123]
However, a couple of years hence, Sukhapala renounced Islam (c. late 1006) and declared rebellion.[123] At this juncture, Anandapala tried to make space for himself by promising to aid Mahmud in containing Turk rebellions at the other side of his empire; apparently, he did not want a ruler who had defeated him, to be defeated by another.[124][x] It is unknown whether Anandapala's offer was accepted but Mahmud stalled his chase of Ilaq Khan and turned his attention to the Shahis; Sukhapala offered negligible resistance before fleeing into Kashmur from where he was captured, fined, and imprisoned to death.[124] It is likely that Anandapala was installed as the next Ghaznavid vassal.[5]
Circa December 1008, Mahmud mounted an invasion of Hindu Shahis for reasons which are not clear.[125] Anandapala sent a large army—probably, supplanted with neighboring troops—under the commandership of his son (Trilochanapala), who arrived in the plains of Chach but failed to prevent Mahmud's troops from crossing across the Indus.[125] The Battle of Chach ended with the defeat of the Hindu Shahi troops.[126] Mahmud chased the fugitive troops for months—seizing Nagarkot to collect his war-spoils, in the process—and even took a son of Anandapala as hostage.[127] Governors were installed across the conquered provinces and Mahmud would return to Ghazni, only by June of the next year.[5]
This would be the last military conflict of Anandapala; the next year, Anandapala sent an embassy to Mahmud.[128] The proposal of peace was accepted and in return, Hindu Shahis were to accept tributary status, provide (limited) military support, guarantee passage of troops, and remit an annual tribute.[128] Mahmud sent his own agents to oversee the enforcement of the peace treaty and within a year, normal trade relations had resumed.[128] The death of Anandapala is not recorded in any chronicle; however, it can be ascertained to be c. late 1010 - early 1011.[129] The fate of the son taken back to Ghazni remains unknown.
Trilochanapala and Bhimapala: overwhelming losses to Mahmud and disintegration
Al-Biruni held that Trilochanapala had a favorable attitude towards Muslim subjects, unlike his father.[120] Trilochanapala did not dishonor Anandapala's treaty, but when Mahmud wished to march towards Thanesar via Hindu Shahi territories, he proposed that the city be spared in lieu of a negotiated peace treaty.[130] Mahmud rejected the request and sacked Thanesar with an uneventful passage via Shahi territories.[131] However, as a consequence or otherwise, Trilochanapala soon stopped paying the annual tributes to Mahmud and declared war.[131]
Mahmud of Ghazni riding an elephant following his conquest in India.
In November 1013, Mahmud progressed towards Hind to contain Trilochanapala but failed to make it across the snow-laden passes.[132] Taking advantage of this delay, Trilochanapala tasked his son Bhimapala with arranging Shahi troops and went to Kashmir, where he received a battalion from king Sangramaraja of the Lohara dynasty, commanded by Tunga.[132] The face-off happened in the middle of the following year.[5] Bhimapala initially went about exploiting the local topography of a narrow mountain-pass in his favor, and launched stinging guerilla attacks on Mahmud's troops—to the extent of being referred to by Uth'bi as "Bhima, the Fearless", until he got confident of his numerical superiority and switched to open-warfare; in the mayhem that followed this tactical blunder, the Shahis were routed and Bhima had to flee.[133]
The fortress at
Nandana was sacked for war-spoils and a Ghaznavid governor was installed, while Mahmud went searching for Trilochanapala.[134] Trilochanpala, in the meantime, had set up his base with Kashmiri forces on the banks of the Poonch River.[135] An initial round of success against a Ghaznavid reconnaissance party contributed to Tunga's pride and he then mounted a disastrous maneuver without consulting experienced Shahi generals, ensuring another crippling defeat coupled with a total loss of territory, west of Tausi.[135] Rahman noted this campaign to be the death-blow for the Hindu Shahis — "it was no longer a question of whether but a question of when" the Shahis would perish.[135]
From the outset of his rule, Trilochanapala had chosen to expand into the
Sharwa.[135] But the fatal encounter with Mahmud ensured that Trilochanapala had nowhere but the Siwaliks to retreat into and compelled him to enter into a peace treaty, even offering his son to be married to the daughter of Chandar.[136] The offer was accepted but Bhima was imprisoned when he went to bring the bride home and Chandar asked for reparations.[137] This brought an end to Trilochanapala's imperial ambitions in the Lower Himalayas for the time being though stray conflicts continued.[137]
When Mahmud sacked Sharwa while returning from his
Kanauj campaign (c. 1017), Trilochanapala is noted to have taken refuge with Paramara Bhoja.[138] Sometime soon, significant polities in the Doab entered into treaties with one another and with the Hindu Shahis to ward off future invasions of a similar scale.[139] Mahmud did not take kindly to these alliances and returned in October 1019.[139] Trilochanapala's men were tasked by Vidyadhara of Chandela to prevent Mahmud's troops from crossing across the Ramganga (somewhere around Bulandshahr) and they took positions at the eastern bank but failed to execute the task.[139] Subsequently, Trilochanapala planned to move away, probably to join Vidyadhara's forces for the main faceoff, but a swift charge by Mahmud's troops inflicted yet another resounding defeat.[140] Bulandshahr was sacked and two of his wives and daughters imprisoned.[140] He tried to enter into a peace-treaty but in vain, causing him to flee to Vidyadhara.[140] It is not known whether he made it to the camp but Vidyadhara is noted to have deserted his posts by then.[141]
In 1021,[y] Trilochanapala, by then a ruler of little significance in all probabilities, was assassinated by his mutinous Hindu troops for reasons unknown.[141] Bhimapala, who must have escaped the Rais sometime in between, succeeded him and continued to rule until 1026; nothing is known about his rule or territories.[142]
Aftermath
Mas'ud I of Ghazni (r. 1030-1040 CE), derived from Hindu Shahi designs, with the name of Mas'ud (Persian
: مسعود) around the head of the horserider.
Adab al-harb—a manual of state-craft produced during the times of Iltutmish, which contains a host of unique information about the Ghaznavids—note that in 1040, one Sandbal, a grandson of the Kabul Shah, marched towards Lahore seeking to utilize the imprisonment of Masʽud I and resulting political instability to his favor.[143] The armies met at Qadar Jur (var. Qalachur) and despite the Shahis having numerical superiority, they were defeated as their troops left the battle in a state of panic once Sandbal was assassinated by a Turk archer.[143][144] He seemed to have been based around the Siwaliks and might have been a Shahi heir — many contemporary Muslim chronicles do mention a Hindu triumvirate to have unsuccessfully attacked the Ghaznavids around the same time but mention only two of the names, both petty Siwalik chieftains and not Sandbal.[143]
Some Shahis migrated into Kashmir and gained prominent positions in their court.[145]
Art and Architecture
New temples were built inside fortresses while existing ones were extensively refurbished or repurposed.
Nandana (early 11th c.; reuse of a sacred [Buddhist - ?] site).[150][aa]
Besides, there were two sandstone temples at Malot and Shiv-Gangā (10th c.) which exhibited a blend of Shahi and Kashmiri architecture, bearing testimony to the cultural flows between the two polities.[152] All of these structures are in a state of ruin and have fallen into disuse since time immemorial; except for Kafir Kot, excavations need to be carried out to understand the architectural grammar of the Hindu Shahis in more detail.[146]
Ekhamukhaling: linga with face of Shiva. 9th century Afghanistan. Art of the Hindu Shahi kingdom.[153]
The archaeology of the Hindu Shahis remains unrecognized and poorly understood.
Pehur, Kamala, and Bata, but without detailed reasoning.[155] Hund remains the main archaeological site.[156] Fragmentary evidence is located across the Peshawar valley.[157] Excavations by Rahman (and others) documented a Buddhist monastery at Barikot
, which was repurposed to a Hindu Shahi fort.
Society and Economy
Shaivism was practised by the Hindu Shahis and likely was also the predominant religion; Saura was practised by some subjects, as were Buddhism and Islam.[158][159][15] Kabul exported cotton clothing and indigo.[160] Silver was mined at Panjshir and smelted at Andarab.[160]
Colonial scholars—James Prinsep, Alexander Cunningham, Henry Miers Elliot, Edward Thomas et al.—had published on the Hindu Shahis, primarily from a numismatic perspective.[162] The first comprehensive volume on the subject appeared in 1972 by Yogendra Mishra, a professor in the Department of History of Patna University; he explored the Rajatarangini meticulously but lacked in numismatics and paleography.[163] The next year, Deena Bandhu Pandey—Professor of Art History at Banaras Hindu University—published his doctoral dissertation but his handling of Muslim sources, coins etc. were laden with errors, primarily stemming from an exclusive dependence upon English translations of Arabic/Persian chronicles.[164] Both of these works are considered outdated and inaccurate, at large.[4]
In 1979, Abdur Rehman received his
PhD from the School of Ancient History and Archaeology of the University of Leicester on "Settlement Archaeology of the Hindu Shahi[s] in North-Western Pakistan."[4]
^Rehman hypothesizes that the frontier states were splintering from the Caliphate during the rise of Hindu Shahis and had better things to worry about.
^He had another work Tarikh-i-Yamini dealing with the subject; it is lost.[5]
^Bactrian Cursive seem to have fallen out of favor with the Hindu Shahis.[16]
^For more details on the inscription (and Odi Kings), consult [27]
^The tribute amounted to 1,500,000 Dirhams and 2,000 slaves per year.[35]
Trilochanapala). The latter was killed A.H. 412 (A.D. 1021), and his son Bhimapala five years later (A.D. 1026). This Hindu Shahiya dynasty is now extinct, and of the whole house there is no longer the slightest remnant in existence.
— Al-Biruni, Tārīkh al-Hind ("History of India").[38]
^Rahman cautions against a general tendency in Punjab to associate any place having an etymological similarity with Kallar to being established by the ruler; in local dialects, the word also refers to "saline soil".[43]
^Interestingly, there was one Vekkadeva indeed. See note (l).
^Otherwise, Ya'qub himself would have never proclaimed himself with such lowly titles while later Hindu Shahis, who regained sovereignty, won't mint in Arabic at all.[61] Further, the series matched with the distinctly lower weight standard of the Arabic dirhem as introduced after ‘Abd al- Malik's currency reforms.[61]
^From Kalhana's description, Gopalavarman appears to have effected a regime-change to install a more docile ruler.
^Some have argued for the early 900s, in an attempt to squeeze Bhimadeva closer to the establishment of the dynasty, since he had minted coins of the Samanta series; Raman found the argument to lack basis, since the coins of the Samanta series would be minted by Mahmud of Ghazni as late as the early 11th century.[71]
^At the time, the Arabic frontiers were in a temporary state of disarray due to internal warfare.[74]
^Refers to the Kabul branch, in all probabilities. It remains unclear why Bhimadeva did not choose to support them at this very juncture.
^Rahman points to Puranic worldview, where Kings who lost battles had lost . A few decades hence, Jayapala would immolate himself to death after being defeated by Mahmud.
^Rehman claimed scholars deeming Thakkana as the successor of Bhimadeva to be in the wrong.
^The name of the place is also spelt as Baghurak and Ghurak in some Muslim histories.[89]
Fraxkard from the Greater Bundahishn — and notes that Utbi's description of the eastern frontiers was based on letters received by the Court, so he proposes that the Zoroastrian myth was still believed by the locals during the conflict and Sabuktegin had it leveraged to increase his stature before his subjects.[93]
^Al-Utbi notes Sabuktigin to have consented to the proposal "on account of the mercy he felt towards those who were his allied lords". The precise meaning is unclear.
^Contemporaneous Muslim sources take note of Jayapala having received aid from neighboring Indian polities; Firishta, writing over 600 years hence, would be the first chronicler to note their names: Delhi, Ajmir, Kalunjur, and Kanauj.[96] Rahman doubts Firishta's accuracy since neither extant literature nor extant inscriptions from these polities speak of such a grand political maneuver.[97]
^Ferishta mentions that Mahmud had stationed a garrison at Peshawar; this must have been either withdrawn or expelled by Jayapala.[100]
^It was probably around this time, that some mausoleum (or tomb) was commissioned at Zalamkot by Mahmud's commander Arslan Jadhib for the fallen, which would be eventually completed in 1011. See [112] on the Zalamkot Bilingual Inscription.
^This information comes from Al-biruni, someone who had described Anandapala to have the greatest hatred for Islam.[124]
^This date is from Al-biruni. Ibn AL-athir says that Trilochanapala perished soon after his defeat at the hands of Mahmud.
^Excavations at the foundations of the Brick Temple of Kalar (1902) had located a single coin of Vekkadeva leading some to suggest a Shahi-era construction; Meiser finds the temple to be more archaic and proposes a date of c. 8th century.[148] Dhaky is of the same opinion.[149]
^For detailed description of each of these temples, consult [151]
^Temple D—per Meiser's designations—near the main gateway to the north. The complex has four temples.
^Temple B, per Meiser's designations. The complex has eight temples.
^The name is derived from Al-Biruni. Etymological origin of "Shahi" remains poorly understood; it derived either from Greek or Persian. A royal epithet, it was first used by Kushana rulers. The actual name of the dynasty—that is, how they referred to themselves or their polity—remains unknown. In general, the characteristic of Kingdoms in far-northwestern India was to designate themselves with respect to their geographic identities than familial or religious affiliations.[161]
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 47. The date of the end of the Kabul branch of this dynasty, about A.D. 843, can be inferred from inscriptional records of the period of the Hindu Sahis
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 1. In 998-99 the Sahis made up some territorial losses and extended their kingdom to Lahore in the Panjab. Towards the end of Jayapala's reign the Sahi kingdom extended from Lamghan in the north-west to the borders of Kashmir and Multan.
^Rahman, Abdul (2002). "New Light on the Khingal, Turk and the Hindu Sahis"(PDF). Ancient Pakistan. XV: 37–42. The Hindu Śāhis were therefore neither Bhattis, or Janjuas, nor Brahmans. They were simply Uḍis/Oḍis. It can now be seen that the term Hindu Śāhi is a misnomer and, based as it is merely upon religious discrimination, should be discarded and forgotten. The correct name is Uḍi or Oḍi Śāhi dynasty.
^Meister, Michael W. (2005). "The Problem of Platform Extensions at Kafirkot North"(PDF). Ancient Pakistan. XVI: 41–48. Rehman (2002: 41) makes a good case for calling the Hindu Śāhis by a more accurate name, "Uḍi Śāhis".
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 50. He seems to have adhered to the old practice of the Kabul Shahis of not using their names on the coins
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. pp. 96–101. In the year 255 (868-69) 'Kbr' (or Kir), the son of the late Rutbil, escaped from Bust and, after collecting a large body of troops, captured Rukhkhaj. Towards the end of the same year, Ya'qub marched to Rukhkhaj, but he could not catch the son of the Rutbil who made his way to Kabul. He chased the fugitive (Turk) Sahi to a place called Hasab, but a heavy snowfall blocked his way and he was forced to relinquish the pursuit.
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. pp. 102–102. it mentions Ya'qub's presents for the Caliph al-Mu'tamid (A.D. 870-92), which, apart from other highly valuable objects, also included idols said to have been brought by the former from Kabul... According to the former, Ya'qub marched into the Kabul valley from Balkh (According to Gardizi)... Whether the word Kabul here stands for the city in particular or for the Kabul valley in general, is not clearly stated. The sequence of events, however, suggests that the latter was probably the case. In any case it is well known that Ya'qub reached as far into the Kabul valley as Panjhir and struck coins at that place.
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. he Kabul Shah, whose name is not mentioned, but who could have been scarcely anyone other than Samanta, was subjugated...The ruler of Kabul (Samanta), according to the Raudat as-Safa, was made prisoner. What happened to Samanta after this is difficult to say. He was probably deposed and kept in imprisonment.
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 107. Lalliya is the first Sahi king referred to by Kalhana, who depicts him as a great ruler in whose enormous strength and power the kings of other regions took shelter...Another point of difference between Kallar and Lalliya is that they are referred to as ruling from different capitals, the former from Kabul and the latter from Udabhanda.
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 110. As Ya'qub is not know to have invaded Gandhara, it may be safely presumed that the rule of this region continued to be in the hands of a scion of the family of Samanta. This would suggest, though there is nothing to prove it for certain, that Lalliya was a descendant or possibly a son of Samanta. If this is true Lalliya may have established his rule in Gandhara about A.D. 870. It would seem therefore that Lalliya continued to rule Gandhara
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 110. For the decade beginning A.D. 880 the history of Kabul is very obscure. The end of Khudarayakas rule about this time has already been commented upon, but it is not known for certain who actually brought about his downfall. The establishment of Lalliya's power in Gandhara, however, and the possibility of his being a descendant of Samanta, the former legitimate ruler of Kabul, would implicate him in this event, for obvious reasons. In any case, when Kabul once again emerges into the light of history, about A.D. 900, it is mentioned as part of the Sahi dominions.
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 110-111. Judged by the information recorded in this source it seems that 'Amr's preoccupation in the affairs of Khurasan and the replacement of Muhammad b. Hamad b. Abd Allah, with another officer named Fardaghan, prompted certain Indian kings whose names, reported in a very corrupt form, can be restored as Asata and Toramana, to combine their forces and launch a united invasion of Ghazna about A.D. 900. Fardaghan is said to have opposed the Hindu army, but he suffered defeat.
^MISHRA, YOGENDRA (1972). THE HINDU SAHIS OF AFGHANISTAN AND THE PUNJAB. S. M. SUSHILA DEVI. p. 34. Kalhana makes it quite clear that Sankaravarman could not make much headway against the Sahis. His statement that the illustrious Lalliya Sahi, "whose mighty glory outshone the kings of the north,"
^The Last Two Dynasties of The Shāhis. 1976. p. 113. He reached so close to the Sahi capital that this time the main purpose of his military operations, it seems, was to clear the way for a bigger thrust against Lalliya. But he did not live long enough to accomplish his plan and was killed in Urasa (Hazara) by the arrow of a Svapaka. The hidden hand of Lalliya in manipulating the death of his mighty foe has been rightly suspected by some scholars.
Khaw, Nasha Bin Rodziadi (2016). Study and Analysis of Brāhmī and Śᾱradᾱ Inscriptions from Gandhᾱra: its Impact on Religious, Cultural and Historical Landscape of the Region (Thesis). University of Peshawar.
Hinüber, Oskar (2003). Beiträge zur Erklärung der Senavarma-Inschrift. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur (in German). Franz Steiner Verlag.
Inaba, Minoru (2015). "A Venture on the Frontier: Alptegin's Conquest of Ghazna and its Sequel". Medieval Central Asia and the Persianate World. pp. 108–128.
Ball, Warwick; Bordeaux, Olivier; Dowall, David W. Mac; Sims-Williams, Nicholas; Taddei, Maurizio (May 2019). "From the Kushans to the Shahis". In Allchin, Raymond; Ball, Warwick; Hammond, Norman (eds.). The Archaeology of Afghanistan: From Earliest Times to the Timurid Period (2 ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
![Kafir Kot[ab]](/File:KafirKot_Temple_(D)_Ruins.jpg)
![Bilot Fort Temple[ac]](/File:Bilot_Temple_B.jpg)
