|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA established for the next in succession by the spurious Suradhênupura document. And it must be taken to be now cut down to A.D. 797, or earlier, by the subsequent assignment of this date to the next in succession. Next after Srîpurusha-Muttarasa, Mr. Rice has placed his son, or alleged son, Śivamâra II. He originally put him at some indefinite time between A.D. 813 and 869,[1] placing him after the Châkirâja for whom the Kaḍaba grant[2] purports to put forward a date in A.D. 813. He then allotted to him the date of “ A.D. 804,” as his initial date,─ leaving the final date uncertain,─ from the spurious Suradhênupura documents.[3] And he has now apparently carried him back to A.D. 797, if not earlier,[4] from the spurious Maṇṇe grant, which mentions Lôkatriṇêtra-Mârasiṁha as s son of Śivamâra II., describes him as administering the whole of the Gaṅga province as Yuvarâja, and gives a date in the month Âshâḍha, Śaka-Saṁvat 719 (expired), falling in A.D. 797. Mr. Rice’s suggestion[5] is that Śivamâra II. was perhaps then a prisoner in the hands of the Râshṭrakûṭas, and that that is why this Mârasiṁha is described as Yuvarâja in command of the whole Gaṅga country. With the additional name of Ereyappa,─ Lôkatriṇêtra-Mârasiṅga-Ereyappa,─ this person is mentioned, again as Yuvarâja, in also another spurious grant, from Gañjâm in the Seringapatam tâluka ;[6] this record does not put forward any date. Next after Sivamâra II., Mr. Rice has placed his alleged younger brother Vijayâditya, with any date up “ to A.D. 869,”[7]─ this final date being necessitated by the initial date which he has proposed for the next ruler. Next after Vijayâditya, he has placed Vijayâditya’s alleged son Satyavâkya-Râjamalla, with the proposed period “ A.D. 869 to ? 893.”[8] Here, the initial date is based[9] on the Biḷiûr inscription,[10] which specifies the month Phâlguna, Śaka-Saṁvat 809 (expired), falling in A.D. 888, as being in the eighteenth year of a Satyavâkya, whose proper name, however, it does not disclose ; and the final date is the initial date proposed for the next in succession. And to this Satyavâkya-Râjamalla he has referred, in addition to the Biḷiûr record of A.D. 888, the inscription at Husukûru,[11] which mentions the ruling prince both as Satyavâkya and as Râjamalla, and gives for him the date of Śaka-Saṁvat 792 (expired),= A.D. 870-71, without any details of the month, etc. This Husukûru inscription mentions also Bûtarasa-(Bûtuga I.), who, it tells us, was then governing the Koṅgaḷnâḍ and Pûnâḍ provinces as Yuvarâja. And Bûtarasa is mentioned again in a fragmentary inscription at Chik-Kâṭi,[12] which also refers itself to the rule of a Satyavâkya, naturally identified by Mr. Rice with Râjamalla.
Next after Satyavâkya-Râjamalla, Mr. Rice in 1894 placed a Nîtimârga, whose proper name he did not then indicate, with the proposed period “ A.D. ? 893 to ? 915,”[13] to whom we shall revert directly. Since then, however, he has introduced the name of Raṇavikramayya,─ an alleged son of Râjamalla the alleged son of Vijayâditya,─ with the proposed date of “ about A.D. 890,” and with the suggestion that this Raṇavikramayya may be the Bûtarasa-(Bûtuga I.) of the Husukûru and Chik-Kâṭi inscriptions, or may be someone else.[14] The name of this ____________________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|