inscriptions of “regional states” like the CΣhamΣnas of Rajasthan and the Caulukyas of Gujarat, presenting a case study for comparing them to the contemporary state integration in other areas of the Sanskrit ecumene like South India and Southeast Asia.Kingship, Gods, and TemplesThe legitimation of kingship in Sanskrit literature developed considerably in the post-Gupta and early medieval periods. From about the 8th century onwards, royal clans began to compose genealogies and claimed their descent from Sπrya-vam.s´a or Candra-vam.s´a, i.e., pure Ks.atriya origin, while some less powerful clans claimed the descent from Brahman.a or Brahma-Ks.atra, depending on their actual political status. From the 10th century onwards, when many regional powers sprang from the declining Prat∏hΣra empire, they assimilated their former tribal gods and goddesses to Vis.n.u and S´iva, and built gigantic royal temples of their own tutelary deities, as in the cases of the Khajuraho temple complexes of the Candellas, JagannΣtha temple of the Gan˙gas, RΣjarΣjes´vara temple of the CΩ, RudramΣlΣ temple of the Caulukyas, and Hars.anΣtha temple of the CΣhamΣnas. These pan-Indian temples and gods were the ideological devices of their rule, which was expanded beyond their own tribal areas through conquest.The relations between the transcendent gods and the newly emerging “regional” overlords are expressed by narratives depicted in the eulogy (pras´asti) of the epigraphical records of the Caulukyas and the CΣhamΣnas: their kingship (rΣjya) being granted through the grace (prasΣda) of S´iva. At the same time, the king was even considered as S´iva himself, a transcendental power encompassing the whole universe, as in the case of the CΩl.a dynasty. Thus, the overlords whose kingship was conferred by S´iva were regarded as exactly samrΣj or cakra-vartin as described in Sanskrit literature; in fact, some overlords are called cakravartin in the pras´asti portion of the copper-plate charters issued by the Caulukyas.Along with this ideology of paramount kingship, the construction of royal temples signified the “centralization” of emerging regional powers in peripheral areas. For instance, when the CΣhamΣnas of S´Σkambhar∏ in northern Rajasthan, gaining independence from the Prat∏hΣra empire, constructed the temple dedicated to their tutelary deity Hars.anΣtha on the top of the mountain Hars.a in the mid-10th century, they engraved a pras´asti inscription on the god Hars.anΣtha and the CΣhamΣna family, eulogizing the temple as follows: although the water of the mountain Hars.a is not that of the Ganges, the mountain Hars.a is equal to Mt. Meru and the temple Hars.a possesses supreme grandeur because Hars.anΣtha or S´iva dwells there. The CΣhamΣnas, as an emerging power in periphery, appeared to claim their land to be the same as the Ganges basin; ideologically, their land is the centre of the imperial power ruling over the whole world. That ideology must have supported their imperial proclamation declared by VigraharΣja IV in the latter half of the 12th century, as demonstrated in the Delhi-Topra inscription dated to VS 1220.SΣmanta and Cakravartin (SamrΣj)The early medieval state structure was the so-called sΣmanta system in which the state was composed of many subordinate rulers (sΣmantas), as overlords were called mahΣrΣjΣdhirΣja or “a great king of kings” in early medieval inscriptions, and as Dharmas´Σstra literature stipulates that dharma-vijaya or “righteous conquest” is to make defeated kings subordinate. The ideology and legitimation of kingship in early medieval India must, therefore, be analyzed in the context of the sΣmanta system. In one aspect, some copper-plate charters indicate the unity of the kingship in the sΣmanta system. SΣmantas, though subordinate, were still rulers, and 092MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5