|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Plates so far published 1 Lakshmīkara 2 Kshēmaṅkara 3 Śivakara (I) alias Unmaṭṭasiṁha, m. Jayāvalīdēvī 4 Śubhākara (I), m. Mādhavadēvī 
A study of the above two genealogies would show that there are certain po ints of wide and uncompromising difference between them. Firstly, it is stated in the present plates that Kusumahāra(I) died childless and Gōsvāminī took upon her the burden of the realm until she made it over to her grandson Lōṇabhāra. In the Talcher plates of Śubhākara (IV) and Śivakara (III) there is no mention of Śubhākara (III) alias Kusumahāra (I) as having died childless. They simply state that after the death of Śubhākara (III) his mother took up the charge of the kingdom. In the Talcher plate of Śubhākara (IV) it is definitely stated, in the same way as in the present plates, that Tribhuvanamahādēvī made over the charge of the realm to her own grandson Lōṇabhāra on his attaining majority. But in the Talcher plate of Śivakara (III) Lōṇabhāra is not mentioned and so the relationship between Tribhuvanamahādēvī and Lōṇabhāra is not ascertainable. It is simply stated that Gayāḍa became king after her (tasyā babhūva……nṛipatir=Gayāḍaḥ lines 12-13). It would appear to mean that Gayāḍa was born to her ; but it was probably meant to convey the sense that Lōṇabhāra-Gayāḍa succeeded Tribhuvanamahādēvī. In the two Talcher plates of Śubhākara (IV) and Śivakara (III) there are no details explaining the reasons for Tribhuvanamahādēvī assumption of the government after her son ; in the present plates it is definitely stated that Gōsvāminī succeeded Kusumahāra (I) as he had died without leaving any issue (lines 8-9). So far it was believed that Tribhuvanamahādēvī assumed the reins of the government during the minority of her grandson Lōṇabhāra. But that assumption is no longer tenable in view of the clear mention of the fact in the present plates that Kusumahāra (I) died childless. This fact conflicts with the relationship between Gōsvāminī and Lōṇabhāra since the latter is described in the present plates as the grandson of the former. Since Śubhākara (III), identical with Kusumahāra (I) of our plates, was childless, Lōṇabhāra was either the son of a brother or sister of the former ; otherwise he could not have been called the grandson of his predecessor. It, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|