South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

KOLHAPUR PLATES OF SILAHARA GANDARADITYA ; SAKA 1037

Kīrttirāja and Chandrāditya who are mentioned in other records of the dynasty^[1] as the younger brothers of Gōṅkala (I) and Gūvala II are omitted here. Further, Gaṅgadēva who is stated to be a younger brother of Gūvala II in the Kolhapur inscription of Vijayāditya does not find a place in the present grant. This grant is not also of much help to decide the priority of Gōṅkala (I) to Gūvala I, thought it seems to imply that the former was the elder of the two.^[2] It was not certain so far whether Bhōja (I) or Ballāḷa was the elder brother. This record clearly states that Ballāḷa was younger.^[3]

Let us now turn to the historical information contained in this grant. About Jatiga I. the earliest member of the family, two facts have been noted : (1) he was the commander of the fort Gōmantha and (2) he was the maternal uncle of Permānaḍi Gaṅga. (1) It is very difficult to identify Gōmantha. The word might possibly have some connection with Gōmantaka ; but it must be remembered that the former is the name of a fort and the latter signifies a small tract of country. Moreover in a copper-plate grant from Kotavaḷḷi dated Śaka 1268 (A.D. 1347) Chandragupti or modern Chandragutti (Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District, Mysore) is stated to be situated on the Gōmanta mountain and that its other name was Gōmanta mountain itself.^[4] Its antiquity can be traced back to at least the 3rd quarter of the 12th century A. D.^[5] It is, therefore, probable that Chandragutti might have been meant by the Gōmantha fort of ourrecord. There are remains of an old fort there in addition to a new fort.^[6] The Permānaḍi Gaṅga referred to here should be identified with the second son of Gaṅga Būtuga, whose period of governorship extended at least from Śaka 885 (A.D. 963-4) to Śaka 895 (A.D. 973-74).^[7] Nothing particular has been said about Nāyima or his successors down to Bhōja.

>

The following events about Bhōja are described : (1) he worshipped the feet of the emperor Vikramāditya (probably the sixth prince of that name of the Chālukya family) with the lotus, viz., the head of Kadamba Śāntara ; (2) the Kōṅgaja king fell a victim to his wrath ; (3) Bijjaṇa, of the solar race, went to the abode of the gods, through his rage ; (4) Kōkkala became a moth to the lamp, his anger ; (5) he was a wild fire to Vēṇugrāma (Belgaum) ; (6) he was a very deluge to Gōvinda ; (7) he was a thunderbolt to the mountain Kurañja ; (8) he conquered Koṅkaṇa ; and (9) he liberated Bhillama. The Śāntara Kadamba mentioned herein seems to be the same as Kadamba Śāntivarman (II), called also Śānta or Śāntayya whose latest known date recorded by Fleet appears to be A.D. 1089.8 If the verse implies that Bhōja killed Śāntara and took his head to Vikramāditya, then the event could not have happened before A.D. 1089. But if it simply means that Bhōja overpowered him and took him to Vikramāditya, them the incident might have taken place at any time between 1076 A.D. when Vikramāditya ascended the throne and A.D. 1089.9 I am able

________________________________________

^[1] See J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. XIII, p. 2 ; above, Vol. XXIII, p. 30 ; Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay Vol. III, p. 393. The Kaśeḷī plates published in the Annual Report of the B. I. S. Maṇḍala for Śaka 1835, pp. 222 ff., seem to be identical with the Satara plates ; above, Vol. III, pp. 209 ff.
^[2] The third line of verse 6, wherein occur the names of the two brothers, runs thus : Tasy=ātmajau Gōṅkala-Gūval-ākhyau. Here the metre would not have stood in the way of the composer had he wished to place the name of Gūvala first. Hence he seems to have held that Gōṅkala was older than Gūvala.
^[3] It may, however, be noted that if the reference in the Kolhapur inscription to the five sons of Mārasiṁha is consideredto be in a chronological order, then it contradicts the statement in the present plates. But it is not necessary to suppose that way.
^[4] Ep. Carn., Vol. VIII, Sorab 375.
^[5] An. Rep. of the Mysore Archaeological Department for 1923, p. 121.
^[6] Ibid. for 1931, p. 55.
^[7] Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. I, part ii, p. 305 et. seq.
^[8] Ibid., p. 561. Prof. Moraes in his Kadambakula has shifted this date to Śaka 1016 (genealogical tree facing p. 93). But I could not trace any evidence in support of this statement.
^[9] Ibid.