The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Additions and Corrections

Images

Introduction

Epigraphia Indica

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.


fifteen cantos, or on the fifteenth canto, of the Kirâtârjunîya (of Bhâravi). An author named Nṛipatuṅga, whom Mr. Rice identifies with the Râshṭrakûṭa king Amôghavarsha I. (A.D. 814-15 to 876-78) says that among previous writers there were Vimala, Udata, Nâgârjuna, Jayabandhu, and Durvinîta ; from which Mr. Rice derives corroborative evidence of the existence of the Western Gaṅga king Durvinîta.1 But, granting that the Nṛipatuṅga in question is Amôghavarsha I., the statement only proves that was an author named Durvinîta at some time before about A. D. 850 ; and there is nothing in it, either to establish any particular date for him, or even to shew that he was a Gaṅga. An unpublished grant from Hebbûr states that Durvinîta was taught by the author of the Śabdâvatâra ; i.e., Mr. Rice says, by Pûjyapâda,— whose date, he holds, is thus established.2 Whether this author was the celebrated Pûjyapâda,— what the date of that Pûjyapâda was,— and what, if anything, it may prove in connection with Durvinîta,— I am not at present prepared to consider. But, at any rate, the date which is to deduced for Durvinîta from these spurious records, has no weight of any kind in determining the date of Pûjyapâda.

......His son was Mushkara, whose name appears in the British Museum grant in the form of Mokkara. The same record styles him either Râja or Vṛiddharâja ; but the Hosûr and Nâgamaṅgala grants do not give him any title. The British Museum grant says that he married a daughter of Sindhurâja, or of the king of Sindhu. The Lakshmêshwar inscription mentions a Jain temple called Mukkaravasati :3 this may possibly be taken as shewing that, at some time before A.D. 978, there really was a Gaṅga king or prince named Mushkara, Mukkara, or Mokkara : but it fixes no specific date for him ; and it can hardly be said to suffice to prove the genealogy given in the spurious records.

>

......His son was Vikrama or Śrîvikrama,4 with whose name, again, the British Museum grant connects the title of Râja or Vṛiddharâja ; the Hosûr and Nâgamaṅgala grants do not give him any title. No historical facts are stated in connection with him.

......His son was Bhûvikrama, with whose name the British Museum grant connects the title of Mahâdhirâja ; the Hosûr and Nâgamaṅgala grants do not give him any title. He seems to have had the biruda of Śrîvallabha. And he is said to have defeated an unnamed Pallava king, in battle at a place named Viḷanda or Viḷandha. The British Museum grant says also that he subjugated the whole of the Pallava dominions.

......His younger brother was Śivamâra, to whose name the Hosûr and Nâgamaṅgala grants attach the genuine title of Mahârâja. He had the biruda of Nava-Kâma. Also, from a copper-plate grant from Suradhênupura, Mr. Rice gives him the biruda of Nava-Chôka.5 And he further suggests that he may be the Kambayya, supposed to be also called Nava-Lôka, who is mentioned in one of the Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa inscriptions as the son of a king named Śrîvallabha :6 but, from ink-impressions received from Dr. Hultzsch, I am able to say that the true biruda in the inscription in question is Raṇâvalôka ; and this, compared with Khaḍgâvalôka in the case of Dantidurga, is suggestive of a Râshṭrakûṭa king or prince.

......The name of Śivamâra’s son is not given in the Hosûr, Nâgamaṅagala, and British Museum grants. And they also state no history in connection with him. But the Udayêndiram grant,— which, as regards the interval, simply tells us that, in the line of Koṅgaṇivarman, there were Vishṇugôpa, Hari, Mâdhava, Durvinîta, Bhûvikrama, and “other kings,”— seems to name him either as Pṛithuyaśas or as Pṛithivîpati ; and it mentions, in connection with him, a
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......1 Karṇâṭaka-Śabdhânuśâanam, Introd. pp. 7, 19, 23.
......2 Coorg Inscriptions, Introd. p. 3, and Inscriptions at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, Introd. pp. 53 and note, 69 ; see also Karṇâṭaka-Śabdhânuśâanam, Introd. pp. 18, 19.
......3 Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 109.
......4 The following name, ‘Bhûvikrama,’ suggests that śrî may here be intended to be part of the name. But otherwise it would not be admissible (see Gupta Inscriptions, p. 9, note).
......5 Inscriptions at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, Introd. 14, 68.
......6 ibid.

 

>
>