|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA The epigraph belongs to the Goa branch of the later Kadamba family and is the first copper-plate record so far known, issued by king Tribhuvanamalla whose identity we shall consider presently. Before doing this it would be useful to take into account some new facts brought to light by recent epigraphical discoveries concerning some of the early members of this family. The “ tiger-slayer ” Gūhalla, Gūhala or Gūvala I appears to be the real founder of the Goa branch of the Kadambas, though the Marcella plates seem to furnish the names of a few more ancestors of the family.[1] For Gūhala I and his son and successor Shashṭha I we have no reliable contemporary record.[2] In the Annual Reports on South Indian Epigraphy for the years 1939-40 to 1942-43 a number of inscriptions from Sōmanaḷḷi and Yasaḷe in the Sirsi taluk, North Kanara District, have been listed.[3] These range in date from Śaka 891 to 915 (i.e., 969 to 992 A.C.) and refer to the rule of Chaṭṭayadēva over Banavāse Twelve-thousand and Sāntaḷige Thousand. As the sway of Shashṭha I of the Goa family never extended over the above territory, we have to identify Chaṭṭaya of these epigraphs with his namesake of the Hāngal branch of the Kadambas.[4] Jayakēśin I and his elder son Gūhala II are represented by a good number of inscriptions.[5] Gūvala of the Kādarōḷi inscription of 1098 A.C., noticed by Fleet, has to be identified with Gūhala II. Jayakēśin I had a younger son named Vijayāditya,[6] no records of whose reign have been discovered so far. In spite of the fact that we are in possession of not less than half a dozen records testifying to the rule of Gūhala II at least from 1079 to 1125 A. C., it is rather strange to note that he is not generally mentioned in the inscriptions of Vijayāditya’s son, Jayakēśin II and his successors. These might make us think that Jayakēśin I was succeeded to the kingdom by Vijayāditya who in turn by Jayakēśin II.[7] But the facts as revealed by contemporary records seem to be otherwise. The absence of Vijayāditya’s records can be explained on the assumption that he did not rule for any considerable length of time probably on account of his premature death. On the contrary the existence of the records of his son Jayakēśin II from 1104 A. C. onwards right within the reign of Gūhala II, would indicate that the latter had no issue and that the former was associated earlier with the latter’s rule.[8] Reverting to our record we not that it mentions the king merely as Tribhuvanamalla which is obviously a title. That this title was borne by Gūhala II is made clear by two inscriptions
___________________________________________________
[1] The Panjim plates of Jayakēśin I, examined in 1951-52 by the Office of the Govt. Epigraphist for India, Murgōḍ
plates of Permāḍidēva (An. Reps. on S. I. Epigraphy, 1939-40 to 1942-43, p. 282) and Goa plates of Shashṭhadēva
II (Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 289), besides others (e.g., JBBRAS, Vol. IX, p. 266), commence the genealogy from
Gūhala only. Basing his interpretation on the faulty reading of the Marcella plates which require to be edited more
scientifically, Prof. G. M. Moraes thinks that this Gūhala was preceded by Kaṇṭakāchārya, Nāgavarmā, Gūhala I
and Shashṭha I. A careful examination of the published text and translation of this record (Kadamba Kula,
App. III, No. 1) will make one entertain genuine doubts regarding his deductions. Consequently his genealogy
(op. cit., facing p. 167) seems to represent one Gūhala and one Shashṭha in excess.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
