Why are there two Rashtrakuta dynasties?

[Noxatrox]

In the 769 and 867 start dates, the kingdom of Maharastra in South India is ruled by the Rashtrakuta dynasty. This was a pretty powerful and famous Kannada dynasty that even has its own Wikipedia page. In 1066 however, the Rashtrakuta dynasty had been displaced by the Kalyani Chalukya and has no more living members.

There does, however, exist a dynasty named Rashtakuta that rules the duchy of Kanyakubja in North India. At first, I thought that this was just a coincidence that they shared the same name, but they also have the same coat of arms! Then I thought that somehow, the displaced Rashtrakuta dynasty must have migrated to North India and taken power. Yet when I checked the 1066 dynasty's history, it only began to exist from a count born in 980. And when checking the history of the kingdom of Maharastra to find the 769/867 dynasty, it says that it had no living members left.

So what gives? I couldn't even find a Wikipedia entry about the 1066 dynasty as all the results were about the 769/867 one. Also, the 769/867 dynasty was also Kannada and Dravidian while the 1066 dynasty is Hindustani and Indo-Aryan so they aren't even racially (probably the wrong terminology) related. I could understand if two dynasties share the same name, but then why do they have identical coat of arm? Is it a bug?

 

[StarSword]

In the 769 and 867 start dates, the kingdom of Maharastra in South India is ruled by the Rashtrakuta dynasty. This was a pretty powerful and famous Kannada dynasty that even has its own Wikipedia page. In 1066 however, the Rashtrakuta dynasty had been displaced by the Kalyani Chalukya and has no more living members.

There does, however, exist a dynasty named Rashtakuta that rules the duchy of Kanyakubja in North India. At first, I thought that this was just a coincidence that they shared the same name, but they also have the same coat of arms! Then I thought that somehow, the displaced Rashtrakuta dynasty must have migrated to North India and taken power. Yet when I checked the 1066 dynasty's history, it only began to exist from a count born in 980. And when checking the history of the kingdom of Maharastra to find the 769/867 dynasty, it says that it had no living members left.

So what gives? I couldn't even find a Wikipedia entry about the 1066 dynasty as all the results were about the 769/867 one. Also, the 769/867 dynasty was also Kannada and Dravidian while the 1066 dynasty is Hindustani and Indo-Aryan so they aren't even racially (probably the wrong terminology) related. I could understand if two dynasties share the same name, but then why do they have identical coat of arm? Is it a bug?

Probably the same dynasty after falling from power and having some ethnic drift.

 

[iron0037]

They're the Rashtrakutas of Kannauj: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_Rashtrakuta_dynasty. The devs probably don't have them connected to the other branch because the relationship between them isn't known. There were lots of Rashtrakutas...