|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Raṇavikramayya is taken from the Gaḷigêkere grant.[1] This is another obviously spurious record. It does not include any date, Śaka or regnal ; and, so, the proposed date of “ about A.D. 890 ” is purely conjectural. We revert to Mr. Rice’s Nîtimârga, with the proposed period “ A.D. ? 893 to ? 915.” Here, the initial date is based on an inscription at Honnâyakanhaḷḷi, which was understood to give “ reason to suppose his reign began in Śaka 815 (A.D. 893) ;”[2] and the final date is based on an inscription at Iggali,[3] which, however, is dated in the twenty-second year, not of a Nîtimârga, but of a Satyavâkya, and therefore does not apply to the case at all. The suggestion has been thrown out, that this Nîtimârga may be either Raṇavikramayya or Bûtarasa-(Bûtuga I.), or both of them.[4] And to this Nîtimârga Mr. Rice has referred, in addition to the Iggali inscription (in reality, a record of a Satyavâkya), an inscription at Gaṭṭavâḍi[5] (again, in reality, a record of a Satyavâkya, and not of a Nîtimârga), dated in the fifth regnal year, erroneously supposed, in consequence of confusing the appellations, to be A.D. 898,─ another inscription at the same place,[6] a record of really a Nîtimârga, and dated in his fifth year, and therefore referred to A.D. 898,─ and an inscription at Kûlagere,[7] also a record of really a Nîtimârga, dated Śaka-Saṁvat 831 (expired), = A.D. 909-910, without any details of the month, etc., and without any mention of the regnal year. Next after this Nîtimârga Mr. Rice has placed a Satyavâkya, whom he has identified with Ereyappa ;[8] and to him he has assigned an inscription at Malligere,[9] which refers itself to the rule of a Satyavâkya, without disclosing his proper name, and gives for him the date of Śaka-Saṁvat 828 (expired),= A.D. 906-907, without any details of the month, etc., or of the regnal year. For this Satyavâkya-Ereyappa, he has proposed various other dates ranging from “ about A.D. 900 ” to “ about A.D. 925.”[10] These are based on records which do not include any Śaka dates, and, mostly, not even regnal dates ; so that the proposed dates A.D. are purely conjectural. And we need notice only one of those records here. It is an inscription at Jinnahaḷḷi,[11] which refers itself to the seventh year of a Satyavâkya, whose proper name it does not disclose : Mr. Rice has identified this Satyavâkya with Ereyappa, and has consequently placed this record “ A.D. ? 900 :” but the record mentions this Satyavâkya by also the biruda of Guttiyagaṅga ; Guttiyagaṅga was Satyavâkya-Noḷambântaka-Mârasiṁha II. ;[12] and the true date of this record is, therefore, A.D. 969-70.
Next after Ereyappa, we have the name of his son Râchamalla I., who was killed by Bûtuga II. in or before A.D. 940. In respect of Râchamalla, Mr. Rice has said[13] that “ we “ must apparently understand that on the death of Ereyappa, Râchamalla and Bûtuga were “ rival claimants to the throne, and that the former did not actually reign, or if he did, only for “ a short time.” The only record, as yet brought to notice, referable actually to the life-time of this Râchamalla, is an inscription at Hiranandi.[14] It does not contain any date, Śaka or regnal. But Mr. Rice has proposed to place it “ about A.D. 930.” And he has suggested[15] that, by this record, “ we seem to be let into the plot by which Bûtuga endeavoured to get Râchamalla “ into his power. He sent an officer to invite him to come to Maṇṇe, the royal residence, that “ they might make a division of the country and the treasury. But Bûtuga, as we know, was “ not to be trusted. His envoy was therefore met by five feudal chiefs and the headmen with the ____________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|