Origins of Chalukyas

While opinions vary regarding the early origins of the Chalukyas, the consensus is that the founders of the empire at Badami were native to the modernKarnataka region According to one theory, the Chalukya were descendants of the "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq and that their conflict with the Pallava of Kanchi was, but a continuation of the conflict between ancient Seleukia and "Parthians", the proposed ancestors of Pallavas. However, this theory has been rejected as it seeks to build lineages based simply on similar sounding clan names.

Another theory, that they were descendants of a 2nd-century chieftain called Kandachaliki Remmanaka, a feudatory of the Andhra Ikshvaku (from an Ikshvaku inscription of 2nd century) was put forward. But this has failed to explain the difference in lineage. The Kandachaliki feudatory call themselves Vashisthiputras of the Hiranyakagotra. The Chalukyas, however, address themselves as Harithiputras of Manavyasagotra in their inscriptions, which is the same lineage as their early overlords, the Kadambas of Banavasi. This makes them descendants of the Kadambas. The Chalukyas took control of the territory formerly ruled by the Kadambas.

A later record of Eastern Chalukyas mentions the northern origin theory and claims one ruler of Ayodhya came south, defeated the Pallavas and married a Pallava princess. She had a child called Vijayaditya who is claimed to be the Pulakesi I's father. However, there are Badami Chalukya inscriptions that confirm Jayasimha was Pulakesi I's grandfather and Ranaranga, his father. It was a popular practice in the 11th century to link South Indian royal family lineage to a Northern kingdom. The Badami Chalukya records themselves are silent with regards to the Ayodhya origin.

While the northern origin theory has been dismissed by many historians, the epigraphist K V Ramesh has suggested that an earlier southern migration is a distinct possibility which needs examination. According to him, the complete absence of any inscriptional reference of their family connections to Ayodhya, and their subsequent Kannadiga identity may have been due to their earlier migration into present day Karnataka region where they achieved success as chieftains and kings. Hence, the place of origin of their ancestors may have been of no significance to the kings of the empire who may have considered themselves natives of the Kannada speaking region.The writing of 12th century Kashmiri poet Bilhana suggests the Chalukya family belonged to the Shudra caste while other sources claim they were Kshatriyas.

The Badami Chalukya inscriptions are in Kannada and Sanskrit. Their inscriptions call them Karnatas and their names use indigenous Kannada titles such as Priyagallam and Noduttagelvom. The names of some Chalukya princes end with the pure Kannada term arasa (meaning "king" or "chief"). The Rashtrakuta inscriptions call the Chalukyas of Badami Karnatabala ("Power of Karnata"). It has been proposed that the word "Chalukya" originated from Salki or Chalki which is a Kannada word for an agricultural implement.

Historians such as D R Bhandarkar and Hoernle hold the view that Chalukyas were one of the ruling clans of Gurjaras (or Gujjars), citing the name change of Lata province to Gurjaratra during the reign.Bhandarkar explains that If the chalukyas had not been Gurjars, it is inconceivable how that province could have named Gurjaratra (country ruled or protected by Gurjars) when it was up-till their advent known as Lata.However scholars such as D. P. Dikshit argues that Chalukyas ruled over that part of country formerly known as Lata and taken as Gurjaratra or Gujarat didn't imply the Chalukyas didn't make any change in the nomenclature because of their close association with the region. Dr.V. A. Smith and A. M. T. Jackson also endorsed the view that Chalukyas were branch of famous Gurjars(or Gujjars