Early Development
The term 'Samanta' originally meant a 'neighbour' and in the Mauryan period, the term referred to the independent ruler of an adjoining territory as is evident from its use in the Arthashastra and Ashokan edicts. The 'border-kings' (pratyan-tanripati) mentioned by Samudragupta in his Allahabad prashasti were such Samantas in the original use of the term.
However, the term underwent a change, and came to mean a 'vassal' by the end of the Gupta period and in the post-Gupta period. In fact the institution of the Samanta was the main innovation that distinguished the post-Gupta period from the periods of ancient India. By the end of the Gupta period and by the 6th century the term Samanta came to be universally accepted as the Prince of a subjugated but reinstated tributary region.
Early kingdoms of Medieval India would surround themselves with a "Samanta-Chakra", that is, a 'circle of tributary chiefs'. By the time of King Harshavardhana, the institution of the Samanta had become well-developed and the Samantas came to be considered powerful figures. In order to integrate them into the hierarchy of the realm they were often given high positions in the court. One such example is the king of Vallabhi who was defeated by King Harsha and became a Maha-Samanta. This Vallabhi King then rose under Emperor Harsha to the position of a Maha-Pratihara (guardian of the royal gateway or the royal door-keeper) and went on to become a Maha-Danda-Nayaka (Royal Field Marshal). In effect, the institution of the Samanta brought rulers of fragmented or tribalistic, small independent regions under subjugation to serve the king or emperor as vassals.
The office of the Samanta represented a semantic change in state formation from an independent neighbour to a tributary chief and finally to a high ranking court official.
Read more about this topic: Samanta
Famous quotes containing the words early and/or development:
“Three early risings make an extra day.”
—Chinese proverb.
“For decades child development experts have erroneously directed parents to sing with one voice, a unison chorus of values, politics, disciplinary and loving styles. But duets have greater harmonic possibilities and are more interesting to listen to, so long as cacophony or dissonance remains at acceptable levels.”
—Kyle D. Pruett (20th century)