Inter-Asia Research Networksissued land-grant charters within their own domains. In these charters, they asserted their rulership of the land to have been given through the grace (prasΣda) of their overlords, in order to claim the land to be their own legitimate territories, even in the case of powerful sΣmantas who were formerly independent kings like the Nadol CΣhamΣnas, sΣmanta of the Caulukyas. Considering the ideology of kingship given by gods mentioned above, kingship in the sΣmanta system was, thus, composed of a chain of prasΣdas from the overlord’s tutelary deity, by way of overlord, to sΣmantas (even to sΣmantas subjugated to powerful sΣmantas), which ideologically emphasized the unity of the overlord’s state. The overlords, cakravartins or samrΣjs were the pivotal points of kingship of the states in the sense that they were the resource of kingship which was directly granted to them by the gods.But in another aspect, and in actuality, sΣmantas, particularly powerful ones, were strongly independent. They were, in a real sense, former independent kings who had their own domains; in fact they necessarily had their own tutelary deities who appeared to have granted kingship to them. Therefore, they did not need the ideological support of kingship by their overlords, as mentioned above as a chain of prasΣdas. On the contrary, the status of overlords was fragile and unstable, and was not guaranteed by any legal institutions. According to N∏tisΣra (XI, 28–32), the literature on politics dating to the early medieval period, subordinate kings’ seeking independence was a righteous deed. The same text also says that the overlords who come from a noble family and are truthful, generous and highly powerful, deserve begging protection for sΣmantas; nobility and power were prerequisites for the stability of the status of the overlords. While nobility came from the divine royal genealogy as mentioned elsewhere, power appears to have been associated with the capability of the conquest of the whole world or of being cakravartin or samrΣj, as is apparent from ideal kings depicted in Sanskrit literature and inscriptions. Thus, kings emerging at the periphery, though, in fact, merely regional powers, declared themselves to be Sanskritized imperial lords in order to integrate independent sΣmanta powers within their domain, and actually exerted themselves ceaselessly to expand their power outwards as a cakravartin by making defeated rulers their sΣmantas. And what was indispensable to demonstrate their status of cakravartin or samrΣj was to construct the temples of their tutelary deities with a view to centralizing their homeland ideologically. The above legitimation of kingship, which can be called Sanskritized imperialism of regional (or peripheral) powers, therefore, totally functioned in the time of the post-Prat∏hΣra period from the 10th century onwards, when the peripheral imperial powers sprang, up till the 14th century when the Sanskrit culture lost their absolute status as court culture among the South Asian dynasties, probably because the Muslim states, adopting Persian language as their court language, expanded their domains in South Asia around this time, and at the same time, the vernaculars (des´∏) started to be adopted by the regional Hindu powers in northern India as their official languages used for royal charters, royal chronicles, and other court literature. BibliographyAli, Daud, 2011, “The Early Inscriptions of Indonesia and the Problem of the Sanskrit Cosmopolis”, Pierre Yves Manguin et al., eds., Early Interactions between South and Southeast Asia: Reflections on Cross-Cultural Exchange, New Delhi: Manohar.Chattopadhyaya, B. D., 1990, Aspects of Rural Settlements and Rural Society in Early Medieval India, Calcutta: K P Bagchi & Company.̶, 2012, The Making of Early Medieval India, 2nd Ed., New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Davis, Richard H., 1997, Lives of Indian Images, Princeton: Princeton University Press.093