South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

and further seems to speak of him as Vallabharâja.^[1] The Hebbâḷ inscription of A.D. 975, which is a Western Gaṅga record, would set up for him the biruda of Chalakenallâta ;^[2] but it seems likely that it only carries it back to him, mistakenly, from his great-grandson Kṛishṇa III.

Kṛishṇa II. had a son. through whom the succession was transmitted, but who did not himself reign : his proper name has not yet come to light ; and he is only known, by a biruda, as Jagattuṅga II. That he did not reign, and that the succession passed direct from Kṛishṇa II. to Indra III., is shewn by the formal preambles of the prose passages of the Nausârî grants of A.D. 915, which describe Nityavarshanarêndradêva-(Indra III.) as meditating on the feet of Akâlavarshadêva-(Kṛishṇa II.).^[3]

Kṛishṇa II., then, was succeeded by his grandson Indra III., son of Jagattuṅga II. His Nausârî grants of A.D. 915 mention him, in the verses, first by the birudas of Raṭṭakandarpadêva and Kîrtinârâyaṇa, and then by the proper name of Indrarâja ;^[4] and, in the formal preambles of the prose passages, one of them mentions him by the birudas of Śrîvallabha and Nityavarsha, the latter with the ending narêndradêva,^[5] ─ Nityavarshanarêndradêva, “ his majesty the king Nityavarsha,” while the other omits the Śrîvallabha and mentions him as only Nityavarsha, again with the same honorific ending.^[6] The Hattî-Mattûr inscription of his time, dated in A.D. 916-17, mentions him by only the biruda of Nityavarsha ;^[7] and so also does an inscription at Lakshmêshwar, dated in the same year.^[8] To the preceding birudas, established by the records of his own time, as verse in the Sâṅglî grant of A.D. 933, issued after his time, adds that of Râjamârtaṇḍa,^[9] which seems probable and admissible.

Indra III. had two sons. The proper name of the elder one has not yet come to light ; and he only known as Amôghavarsha II., by the biruda by which he is mentioned in the Dêôlî grant of A.D. 940 and the Karhâḍ grant of A.D. 959 :^[10] the Sâṅglî grant of A.D. 933 merely refers to him as the elder brother of Gôvinda IV., without mentioning him by any appellation at all.^[11] A later and extraneous record, the Śilâhâra Bhâdâna grant of A.D. 997, asserts that he reigned for one year.^[12] But no such statement is made in the Dêôlî and Karhâḍ records. And, that there was no basis of truth for the assertion, is distinctly proved by

__________________________________
^[1] Loc. cit. (see note 13 on page 175 above), verse 20. If so, the verse seems to refer to seven hundred and fifty villages, which constituted his private personal estate. But it is possible that the reference here is to the feudatory prince Akâlavarsha-Kṛishṇarâja, whose existence is set up by the Bagumrâ grant purporting to have been issued in A.D. 888 (see note 12 on page 175 above).
^[2] Above, Vol. IV. p. 352, text line 2.
^[3] See notes 5, 6, below.
^[4] Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XVIII. p. 259, B., plate ii. b, text lines 5, 7, 9, and 263, A., plate ii. b, text lines 2, 5-6, 8. The translation gives Vîranârâyaṇa, by mistake for Kîrtinârâyaṇa.
^[5] Loc. cit. p. 264, A., plate ii. b, text line 12 ; and see page 168 above, note 6.
^[6] Loc. cit. p. 259, B., plate ii. b, text line 13.
^[7] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 224, text line 1.
^[8] Not yet published : I quote from an ink-impression. The details of the date include Âdityavâra, the tenth tithi of the bright fortnight of, perhaps, [Bhâdra]pada ; but only the last two syllables of the name of the month, remain, and they are very doubtful. In this record, the saṁvatsara, Dhâta (for Dhâtu, or Dhâtṛi), is coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 839 (current, by the southern luni-solar system), = A.D. 916-17, the year being expressed plainly in words. In the Hattî-Mattûr record, it is coupled with Ś.-S. 838, which we must apparently take as expired, by the same system, again = A.D. 916-17.
^[9] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 250, text line 19 ; the word was then translated, by “ a very sun of a king.”
^[10] Above, Vol. V. p. 193-94, verse 16 ; and Vol. IV. p. 288, verse 18.
^[11] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 250, text lines 23 to 25.
^[12] Above, Vol. III. p. 271, verse 6. The assertion is possibly based on some such authority as the spurious Waḍgaon grant (noticed, Dyn. Kan. Distrs. p. 416, note 6 ; to be explained more fully in an article on Spurious Indian Records in the Indian Antiquary), which puts forward as the reigning king, and as the alleged giver of the donation claimed by it, an Amôghavarsha by whom it really means Indra III. Or, perhaps, the Bhâdâna grant has mistakenly applied to him an assertion which might be correct in respect of his uncle Amôghavarsha-Vaddiga, whose reign was certainly not a long one.