North Indian Inscriptions

SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.

after A.D. 1022.¹ The Chôḷa Purâṇic genealogy is, apparently, first met with in the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi, which was composed in the reign of the Eastern Chalukya king Kulôttuṅga-Chôḍadȇva I. (A.D. 1063 to 1112).² And the Purâṇic genealogy of the Eastern Gaṅgas of Kaliṅganagara is first made known by a grant of A.D. 1118-19.³ The Western Gaṅga prince Mârasiṁha, who has been already mentioned, and who was a feudatory,― probably half independent,― of the last three Râshṭrakûṭa kings, Kṛishṇa III., Khoṭṭiga, and Kakka II., was a person of no small rank and power. Nothing is more likely than that he should follow the general example that was then prevailing. And I think that the Lakshmȇshwar inscription, dated in A.D. 968-69,⁴ which actually represents him as the younger brother of a Harivarman who is plainly the person of that name who stands in tha third generation in the Table on page 161 above, indicates that he did so, so and fixes very closely the time when the Western Gaṅga genealogy, exhibited in the spurious records, was invented ; the inscription in question seems to me to represent, in a rudimentary form, the beginning of a longer genealogy which was elaborated subsequently.⁵

......I will, in conclusion, state the exact position which I take up in respect of these spurious Western Gaṅga records, and of Mr. Rice’s writings in connection with them. I believe that any critical mind will admit that my position is the only sound and logical one. And I lay stress on the matter, because, though Mr. Rice has an opportunity in Mysore, such as few people can enjoy, of turning out most valuable historical and antiquarian results, he is spoiling everything that he produces, bearing upon early times, by the manner in which he makes all his results conform to the statements of the spurious records and mistaken traditions that abound in that part of the country ; if his writings are to meet with the appreciation and carry the weight that they might easily deserve and bear, it is necessary for him to discard these spurious records and false traditions altogether, and strike out everything that is based on them, and to put forward as history nothing but what rest on authorities that cannot be questioned.⁶

>

__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ id. Vol. XIV. p. 48, and Vol. XX. p. 274.
......² Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 329, and Vol. XX. p. 278.
......³ id. Vol. XVIII. p. 165.
......⁴ Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 101.― Doubts have been suggested as to the authenticity of this record ; on the grounds (see Coorg Inscriptions, Introd. p. 9) that it is followed, on the same stone, by two others which refer themselves to earlier times. I am not prepared to discuss the matter fully ; now, at least. But the Gaṅga record of A.D. 968-69 is in genuine characters of the period ; and the only suspicious point about it, to my mind, is that, mentioning Koṅgaṇivarman, Mâdhava I., and Harivarman, it represents Mârasiṁha as the younger brother of the latter. It is to the following two records which stand after it, written in characters of the same period, that doubt attaches ; as to how far they may be true copies of early originals which were probably on copper-plates : Sir Water Elliot has suggested that they were put on this stone for “the unification of the title” (Coins of Southern India, p. 114).
......⁵ The other Lakshmêshwar inscription of Mârasiṁha, dated in the same year, the Vibhava saṁvatsara, Śaka- Saṁvat 890 expired (Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 112 ; the third part of the record), only mentions Koṅgaṇivarman, and says that in his lineage (tad-anvayê) there was Mârasiṁha.
......⁶ I am not writing in any unfriendly spirit ; and I hope not in an unfriendly style. Also, it does not affect my personal life and surroundings, whether the early Western Gaṅgas of the spurious grants existed or not. But, like others, I have been engaged for a long time in working at the ancient history of India. It seems to me that, if the subject is worth working at at all, it deserves to be treated critically and on sound bases. And what I say as to the effect of Mr. Rice’s writings on the period supposed to be covered by the spurious Western Gaṅga grants, is simply the plain and incontestable truth. The fact is, he did not commence work very auspiciously ; having had the misfortune to commence with these spurious records. I feel confident that if, like me, he had had the good luck to start with genuine records, he would not have failed to recognise, eventually if not at once, the worthlessness of the Western Gaṅga grants, and of some others in respect of which he has similarly gone astray. I readily admit that I myself did not at first detect the spurious nature of the Western Gaṅga grants. But, for very many years past, the difficulty to me, in connection with them, has been, not the recognition of their true nature, but to put myself in the frame of mind from which they can be imagined to be genuine and to require serious discussion to disprove that view.― Spurious copper-plate grants are not confined to Mysore and its neighbourhood ;