North Indian Inscriptions

SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.

nature of the record, and a late origin for it. It is not possible that this record can have been framed at any earlier period than which is established for all the others.

......We may turn to some details which present serious chronological difficulties. The Nâgamaṅgala grant, purporting to have been issued in A.D. 776-77, belongs to the twelfth generation, inclusive of the supposed founder of the family. Whereas the Merkara grant, purporting to have been issued in a year the equivalent of which is supposed to be,— and in fact must be,— A.D. 466, belongs to the sixth generation. Thus we have three hundred and ten years occupied by only six generations ; with the excessive average of more than fifty years apiece,— just double what is usually accepted as the average for purposes of Hindu chronology. And a still more unreasonable average is deduced from the Tanjore grant ; for, purporting to belong to the third generation and to be dated in A.D. 248, it gives, up to the Merkara grant, an interval of two hundred and eighteen years, filled by only three generations, with an average of more than seventy years each. Further, the Tanjore, Merkara, Hosûr, and Nâgamaṅgala grants represent themselves as having been written, at intervals of two hundred and eighteen and two hundred and ninety-six to three hundred and ten years, by one and the same person, Viśvakarman,— a name suspicious enough in itself.¹ And, in some respects at least, the witnesses to both the Tanjore and the Merkara grants, at an interval of two hundred and eighteen years, were absolutely identical.²

......As the most convenient way of dealing with certain miscellaneous mistakes, I will now give the historical details that are asserted in these spurious records ; noticing, at the same time, as far as I can check them, other items taken by Mr. Rice from extraneous sources.

......The founder of the family was Koṅgaṇivarman.³ In an inscription of A.D. 968-69 at Lakshmêshwar, he is said to have had the proper name of Mâdhava ;⁴ and Mr. Rice has obtained an inscription at Humcha, dated A.D. 1077-78,⁵ which, I think, calls him Daḍiga-Mâdhava, i.e., apparently. “the portly Mâdhava,” his son Kiriya-Mâdhava, and the latter’s great-grandson Aṅgâla-Mâdhava. His title appears as Mahârâjâdhirâja in the Tanjore and Harihar grants, but as Mahâdhirâja in all the others : and, in connection with this point, it is to be noted that, whereas the first is a perfectly genuine title, it did not penetrate into Western India until after time of Pulikêśin II. (A.D. 609-10 to 642),⁶ and that the second is a nondescript title which elsewhere occurs only once, in connection with Dharasêna II. of Valabhî, and is, in itself a most suspicious item. He is described as “a sun of the Jâhnavîya family,” i.e., of the family belonging or relating to the river Gaṅgâ ;⁷ as being of the Kâṇvâyana gôtra ; and as having acquire (or exhibited) strength and puissance by severing a large pillar of stone with a single stroke of his sword : and the Mallohaḷḷi grant, No. 3, seems to speak of him as “a forest-fire burning the thicket of the Bâṇa kings.” The Udayêndiram grant of a Gaṅga prince named
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ Mr. Rice says (Coorg Inscriptions p. 10) that “persons with Indian experience will recognise the fact “that such a name may well be used, as a sort of clan name, by the Pañchâla artificers, who invariably claim “affinity with Viśvakarman, the artificer of the gods, and are addressed in ceremonious correspondence as of the “Viśvakarma-vaṁśa.” To this I need only say that, in spite of the very large mass of materials that are now available, no other such instance can be adduced from any epigraphic records : and that Sir Walter Elliot, whom Mr. Rice has referred to as holding similar views himself on this point, said that it would be “a very forced “solution of the difficultly” (Coins of Southern India, p 113).— Sir Walter Elliot’s general conclusion was that “neither of them” (neither the grants nor the chronicle) “afford reliable chronological data to determine either “the beginning or the end of the dynasty” (loc. cit. p. 115).
......² Compare Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII. p. 214, text, lines 41-43, and Vol. I. p. 364, lines 7-9 from the end of the text.
......³ This name is also written Koṅguṇivarman Koṅgiṇivarman Koṅguḷivarman. It seems to have been a generic name, belonging to every member of the family, rather than a proper name.
......⁴ Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 107.
......⁵ See his Annual Report for 1891 ; in which he quotes the record as giving the names of two brothers, Daḍiga and Mâdhava, standing at te head of the genealogy.
......⁶ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX p. 306.
......⁷ Jâhnavî is a name of the Ganges, as the daughter of the sage Jahnu.— For the Eastern Gaṅga version of the circumstances under which the family name was acquired, see Ind. Ant. Vol. XVIII. p. 170.