SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.
after the two persons mentioned above, of a king named Nîtimârga-Koṅguṇivarma-Permânaḍi,
with the title of Mahârâjâdhirâja, and his son Satyavâkya-Permânaḍi, who are undoubtedly
referable to the same lineage, and may perhaps be identified with the Eregaṅga-Nîtimârga-Koṅguṇivarman and his son Râjamalla-Satyavâkya-Koṅguṇivarman who are mentioned in the
continuation of the genealogy as given in the Sûḍi grant. So, also, the existence of a
person named Bûtuga, who is to be identified with the Jayaduttaraṅga-Bûtuga of the Sûḍi
grant, is a fact ; and we have for him an authentic date, A.D. 949-50, which approximates
closely to the date given for him by that grant. And very possibly some other authentic
names, with dates, may be identified with names mentioned in that grant. But further
inquiries in this direction would be beyond the scope of the present paper. We are dealing
now with the spurious charters which purport to belong to the earlier period. And the point
with which we are concerned here, is simply that the existence of one at least, and perhaps
two, of the persons named in those records, viz. Śrîpurusha-Muttarasa and Śivamâra, is now
established, and that to the first-mentioned of them there may quite possibly belong the actual
dates that are given for him by two of those records. But we have still to bear in mind
that even this does not suffice to establish the truth of anything else that is stated in the
records in question ; the records themselves are so clearly spurious, that nothing at all, put
forward in them, can be accepted without similar corroboration from extraneous sources. If
similar authentic evidence, establishing any other portions of the alleged earlier history, can be
produced, by all means let it be produced ; no one will welcome it more than I shall. But the
spurious records will remain spurious. And of one thing I am sure,— that, unless it upsets in
some way or other the genealogy that is asserted in those records, nothing will ever be obtained to
establish the dates of A.D. 248 and 466, which they give for Harivarman and Avinîta-Koṅgaṇi.
......It only remains to say a few final words about the contents and nature of the spurious
Sûḍi grant, which is now published.
......The genealogy given in it agrees with the Tanjore and other grants, up to the mention
of Bhûvikrama. The continuation of it, from him onwards, is shewn in the Table on page 177
below ; together with the historical items, real or fictitious, which it connects with some of
the names. It is to be noted that this record differs from the others, in making Śivamâra the
son, instead of the younger brother, of Bhûvikrama ; and in representing Śrîpurusha as the son,
instead of the grandson, of Śivamâra. As, however, the grants from which it differs are all
spurious, and it is also itself spurious, it would be superfluous to do more than simply draw
attention to the discrepancies. From Śrîpurusha onwards, the genealogy, with most of the
historical statements, remains to be verified or disproved. At present, I can only say that the
genealogy does not seem to agree with that furnished by some records for the same period, which
Mr. Rice has had under examination;1 that the Râshṭrakûṭa records give no indication of
an intermarriage with the Gaṅgas in the time of Amôghavarsha I, who is plainly the king
whose daughter Guṇaduttaraṅga-Bûtuga is said to have married ; and that it is curious that the
record makes no mention of Eṛeyappa and his son Râchamalla, though it was by killing the
last-mentioned that Jayaduttaraṅga-Bûtuga, otherwise called Permânaḍi-Bûtuga, secured the
Gaṅgavâḍi province.2
......The record does contain references to two real historical events : the marriage of
Jayaduttaraṅga-Bûtuga with a daughter of Baddega, i.e. the Râshṭrakûṭa king Amôghavarsha-Vaddiga (between A.D. 912 and 940) ; and the victory over the Chôḷa king Râjâditya. And
it gives a perfectly possible date for Jayaduttaraṅga-Bûtuga, in A.D. 938.3
__________________________________________________________________________________________
......1 See, e.g., Incriptions at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷa, Introd. pp. 68, 69, Nos. 14 to 19.
......2 Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II. p. 173.
......3 The date of A.D. 949-50 is established for him by the Âtakûr inscription (Epigraphia Indica, Vol II.
p. 169.)
|