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.


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.)

 

>
>