Wars frequently took place between the Râshṭrakûṭas and the Eastern Chalukyas who were
the kings of Vêṅgi. The Râdhanpur plates of Gôvinda III. inform us that, in obedience to his
message, the lord of Vêṅgi attended upon him as a servant. The Śirûr inscription states that
worship was done to Amôghavarsha I. by the ruler of Vêṅgi. Again, Kṛishṇa II. is represented
to have overrun the territory of the king of Vêṅgi. One record also mentions that Gôvinda
IV. waged war with the lord of Vêṅgi. But from these plates it appears that hostilities had
sprung up between the two rival dynasties long before the time of Gôvinda III. For, Gôvindarâja, son of Kṛishṇa I., is herein represented, while he was prince royal, to have reduced the
king of Vêṅgi, and this event came off as early as the Śaka year 692 which is the date of our grant.
The verses descriptive of the genealogy teach us nothing new. It, however, deserves to
be noticed that our grant mentions Dantivarman as the name of the predecessor or Kṛishṇa I.,
instead of Dantidurga as we find in all the Râshṭrakûṭa records except the Sâmângaḍ plates
of this king, where both the names occur. Again, the early date of our grant settles a point
regarding which there is a little divergence of opinion. A copper-plate charter from Kardâ
dated A.D. 972 states that Dantidurga, having left no issue, was succeeded by his paternal
uncle Kṛishṇa I. The Bagumrâ grant of A.D. 867 simply says that, after the death of Dantidurga, Kṛishṇa I. came to the throne. But the Baroda charter of A.D. 812 omits the name of
Dantidurga and asserts that Kṛishṇa I. ascended the throne by ousting a relative of his who had
taken to vicious courses.
Since this last charter is a much earlier record and passes over Dantidurga, it has led some to suppose that Dantidurga was the relative whom Kṛishṇa I. ousted,
and that the statements of the remaining two grants mentioned above must be discredited on
the ground that they bear a later date. But against this it may be urged that the verse in the
Bagumrâ plates which says that, after Dantidurga had gone to heaven, Kṛishṇa I. became king,
is also found in the Paiṭhaṇ grant of Gôvinda III. dated in A.D. 794. This surely is an
earlier record than the Baroda charter of A.D. 812 just referred to . Nay further, the same
verse also occurs in our grant, which was issued in the reign of Kṛishṇa I. himself. The
assertion, therefore, that Dantidurga was the relative whose throne Kṛishṇa I. usurped, has
no grounds to stand upon, and the omission of the name of Dantidurga in the Baroda charter
may be explained away on the ground that the object of the writer was only to trace the
genealogy of the reigning prince, with reference to whom Dantidurga was but a collateral.
As regards the rivers mentioned in the inscription, the Kṛishṇaverṇâ, it need scarcely be
said, is the river Kṛishṇâ. The Musî has preserved its name unaltered to the present day ; it is
the last important feeder of the Kṛishṇâ and joins it on the confines of the modern Kistna
district of the Madras Presidency. Alaktakâ, the name of the province (vishaya, l. 32), a
village of which was granted, corresponds to the present Âḷatâ, the name of a division in the
Kôlhâpur State. Arasiyavâḍa (l. 34), the first part of which can be recognised in Alâs, the
place where the plates were found, is perhaps now represented by that village.
 Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 71.
 Ibid. Vol. XII. p. 219.
 Ibid. Vol. XX. p. 103.
 Ibid. p. 270.
 Ibid. Vol. XII. p. 267.
 Ibid. p. 187.
 Ibid. p. 162.
 See Dr. Fleet’s Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, p. 391.
 Above, Vol. III. p. 106.
 From the original plates.
 Read ºº.
 Read º.
 In other Râshṭrakûṭa grants the reading is