The Genealogy of the Early Yadavas of Devagiri – A Study

Summary

S. Sankaranarayana reassesses the genealogy of the Yādava (Seuna) dynasty of Devagiri by critically comparing literary accounts with epigraphical evidence. Early historians such as Bhandarkar and Fleet relied chiefly on Hēmādri’s historical introduction to the Vratakhaṇḍa and on a handful of copper‑plate charters, leading to contradictions between the literary and epigraphic lists of kingsfile:///home/oai/share/Genealogy_of_the_Early_Yadavas_of_Devagiri.pdf#:~:text=The%20Genealogy%20%E0%AA%AC%E0%AB%80%20the%20Early,%E0%AB%AC%E0%AB%A6%20the%20Vratakbandz%2C%20by%20Hewadri. The article divides the genealogy into two phases. The first spans from Dr̥ḍhaprahāra to Seuna II. Epigraphs list Dr̥ḍhaprahāra, Seuna I, Bhillama I, Śrīrāja, Vidūgā (?), and othersfile:///home/oai/share/Genealogy_of_the_Early_Yadavas_of_Devagiri.pdf#:~:text=268%20Geneology%20of%208%E0%AB%AE7,cases%E2%80%94excepting%20in%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%9F%20%E0%A5%AE55%20of. Hēmādri adds names like Dhīdiyāsa (Jyappa), Arjuna and Rāja which do not appear in the charters. Sankaranarayana suggests that some omissions result from collateral branches; he reconciles the sources by positing that Hēmādri sometimes inserted legendary or collateral figures. The second phase, from Mallugi II to Bhillama IV, is even more confused because charters often omit relationships. By cross‑checking inscriptions, the author reconstructs a line through Seuna II, Airammadēva, Simharāja, Rāja II (Seuna), Mallugi I, Amaragaṅgēya and Bhillama IVfile:///home/oai/share/Genealogy_of_the_Early_Yadavas_of_Devagiri.pdf#:~:text=,Ballala. External scholarship confirms that the early Yādavas began as feudatories of the Western Chalukyas and that the earliest historical ruler, Dr̥ḍhaprahāra, reigned around 860–880 AD; the dynasty remained subordinate until Bhillama V established independence around 1187https://lotusarise.com/yadava-dynasty-upsc/#:~:text=,declared%20himself%20a%20sovereign%20ruler. The article stresses that genealogical confusion has obscured the Yādavas’ early history; for instance, epigraphs omit Dadhiyasa and Arjuna but Hēmādri includes them, perhaps because they were collateral or legendary. Sankaranarayana’s reconstructed genealogy resolves these discrepancies and provides a more coherent timeline. He argues that recognising the Yādavas’ status as feudatories explains why early records are sparse and why some kings are mentioned only in literature. The study demonstrates how combining literary criticism with epigraphy can yield a plausible genealogy for a dynasty whose early history is fragmentary.