|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Elasewhere[1] it was suggested that Śivakara I-Unmaṭṭasiṁha-Bharasaha, the second ruler of the family, was probably installed by Harsha during his Kōṅgōda expedition about 643 A. C. as his feudatory in Orissa. This date for Śivakara I Unmaṭṭasiṁha was taken to be supported by the Gañjām inscription[2] which may suggest that Unmaṭṭakēsarin (ºsiṁha), stationed at Virajas, conquered parts of Kōṅgōdamaṇḍala from Gaṅga Jayavarman of Śvētaka with the help of his feudatory Rāṇaka Vishavārṇava sometimes after the Gaṅga year which may possibly be read as 120 falling in 616-18 A. C.[3] Virajas is no doubt the same as Viraja or Virajā, identified with modern Jājpur in the Cuttack District. One of the Parlakimedi plates[4] of Ga6ṅga Jayavarman was taken to be a copy of a genuine record of the sixth or seventh century, to which period the original records of the Gaṅga king are palaeographically assigned.[5] Now the Parlakimedi record referred to above is dated in the year 100 of the Gaṅga era, which falls in 596-98 A.C. Thus the reign of Śivakara I Unmaṭṭasiṁha was assigned to a date about the second quarter of the seventh century, the end of the dynasty to the early years of the ninth century and the rule off queen Daṇḍimahādēvī to the close of the eighth century. There is, however, some difficulty in accepting this chronology of the Bhauma-Karas of Orissa especially in view of the late date suggested by the palaeography of their records.
In 795 A.C. the Chinese emperor Te-tsong received, as a token of homage, an autographed manuscript addressed to him by the king of Wu-cha (i.e., Ōḍra, Orissa) in Southern India, who was a follower of Mahāyāna Buddhism and whose name, translated into Chinese, was “ the fortunate monarch who does what is pure, the lion.”[6] This piece of evidence cannot be easily reconciled with the chronology of the Bhauma-Karas indicated above. The original of the name is supposed to be śrī-Śubhakaradēva Kēsarī (Siṁha) who is often identified with king Śubhākara I of the Bhauma-Kara dynasty. If this identification is to be accepted, we have to assign Daṇḍimahādēvī’s reign to the middle of the tenth century and to suggest that the era used by the Bhauma-Karas started form the regnal reckoning of the founder of the dynasty. As however the names Śubhākara and Śubhakara are quite different in meaning, it is difficult to be definite on this point. Dr. R. C. Majumdar suggested to me that the king of Orissa mentioned in the Chinese record should be identified with Śivakara I Unmaṭṭasiṁha (or ºkēsarī), father of Śubhākara I. It has to be admitted that this is the only known king of early-medieval Orissa who was a Buddhist and at the same time had a name with the word “ lion ” as one of its component parts. But the word śiva does not mean “ pure ” and unmaṭṭa-siṁha means a “ furious lion,” unmaṭṭa being a Prakrit corruption of Sanskrit unmatta, and none of these words can be traced in the Chinese translation of the Indian name. The chronology of the Bhauma-Karas based on the above identification therefore cannot be regarded as absolutely certain. It may not be impossible that the Orissan king mentioned in the Chinese records belonged to a different dynasty of rulers, who flourished in the last decade of the eighth century but had nothing to do with the Bhauma-Karas. It must be admitted that the identification is a mere conjecture and we shall have to wait for further evidence to be definite in regard to the chronology of the Bhauma-Kara dynasty and the identity of the Orissan king mentioned in the Chinese records.[7] _________________________________________________
[1] Cf. Journ. Kal. Hist. Res. Soc., Vol. II, pp. 103-05. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|