|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Râshṭrakûṭa princes the name of Dantivarman, who, as stated above, is styled a mahâsâmantâdhipati who had obtained the pañcha-mahâśabda. This indicates that he was ruling over some province as a minor chief. Further, as we have seen, the sign-manual of Dantivarman is followed by that of his elder brother Dhruvarâja II. From this it is plain that both Dhruvarâja II. and Dantivarman were alive when the charter was issued, and that Dantivarman was wielding power under Dhruvarâja II. This enables us to settle another point of importance, connected with the history of the Gujarât branch of the Râshṭrakûṭas. The Bagumrâ plates of Śaka-Saṁvat 810[1] mention Kṛishṇarâja-Akâlavarsha (II.) as their donor. And to judge from their contents, which are full of misspellings and omissions, he appears to be the son of Dantivarman. Dr. Hultzsch, who edited the grant, held that this Dantivarman must be placed between Dhruvarâja II. and Kṛishṇarâja II. Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, however, was of opinion that this Dantivarman, the father of Kṛishṇarâja II., was identical with Dantivarman, the dûtaka of the Baroda plates of Karka.[2] Now, the date of the Baroda plates is Śaka-Saṁvat 734, and that of the plates of Kṛishṇarâja II. is Śaka-Saṁvat 810, so that if, according to Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s supposition, we hold that Dantivarman, the dûtaka of the Baroda charter dated Śaka-Saṁvat 734, was the father of Kṛishṇarâja II. whose grant bears the date Śaka-Saṁvat 810, the son is separated from the father by no less than seventy-six years. This is highly improbable, though not altogether impossible. But our grant mentions another Dantivarman as brother of Dhruvarâja II., and its date is Śaka-Saṁvat 789, whereas that of Kṛishṇarâja II., as has been just stated, is Śaka-Saṁvat 810. Thus the Dantivarman of our grant is brought close to Kṛishṇarâja II., and there can be little doubt that Dantivarman, the father of Kṛishṇarâja II., is no other than Dantivarman, the younger brother of Dhruvarâja II., the donor of our grant. The new plates therefore show that the view of Dr. Hultzsch is correct.
As regards the places mentioned in the inscription, the Kâmpilya tîrtha is, in my opinion, to be identified with Kampil in the Kaimganj tahsîl of the Farukhâbâd district in the North-West Provinces. This Kampil, whose ancient name was Kâmpilya, was for long the capital of Southern Pañchâla and was once a sacred place of the Jainas. The river Pûrâvî is perhaps identical with the modern Pûrṇâ, in the Surat collectorate. For, in an unpublished grant belonging to the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the Pûrâvî is spoken of as being in the vicinity of Nâgasârikâ, which is evidently the modern Nausârî, and the river which is close by Nausârî is the Pûrṇâ. The river Mandâkinî, which is mentioned in defining the boundaries of the village granted, cannot be identified with the Ganges, as we have no grounds whatever to suppose that the Gujarât Râshṭrakûṭas extended their dominions as far as the Ganges. And since the name Mandâkinî is used also to designate other rivers than the Ganges, the river Mandâkinî mentioned in these plates may have been some river in Gujarât, and the village granted was probably situated in that province. Instances of grants made to religious establishments remote from the village granted are not wanting in modern times, and there can therefore be nothing improbable in the supposition that the Buddhist vihâra at Kampil in the North-West Provinces enjoyed the income accruing from a village in Gujarât. TEXT.[3]
First Plate _______________________________________________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.
.
º.
| > |
|
>
|