South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

is itself the official title, or that, like the official title, it means ‘ a headman of a râshṭra.’^[1] It was plainly intended to mean ‘ highest, most excellent, chiefs, or leaders, of the Raṭṭas.’

It may be added that both original family-name Raṭṭa, and its ornate form Râshṭrakûṭa, came to be afterwards used as personal names. Thus, the Khârêpâṭaṇ plates of A.D. 1008 mention a Śilâhâra prince named Raṭṭa and Raṭṭarâja ;^[2] and Hêmachandra mentions in his Pariśishṭaparvan a man named Râshṭrakûṭa.^[3] It may also be remarked that Kalhaṇa has asserted the existence of a queen of the Dekkan, of Karṇâṭa extraction, named Raṭṭâ, alleged to have been a contemporary of Lalitâditya of the Kârkôṭa dynasty of Kashmîr ; but there can be no doubt that Dr. Stein has rightly explained the passage, not as establishing the real existence of any such queen, but as presenting a personification of the dynasty of the Râshṭrakûṭas of Mâlkhêḍ.^[4]

* * * * * *

The original home of the Râshṭrakûṭas of Mâlkhêḍ.

In line 13 of the Sirûr inscription of A.D. 866, and in line 16 of the Nîlgund inscription of the same date, Amôghavarsha I. is described as Lattalûra-pura-paramêśvara, “ supreme lord of the town of Lattalûra.” The same town is mentioned, sometimes as Lattalûr and sometimes as Lattanûr, in also the records of the Raṭṭa princes of Saundatti ; for instance, the Maṇṭûr inscription of A.D. 1040 describes Eraga-Ereyammarasa as Lattalûr-puravar-êśvara, “ lord of Lattalûr, a best of towns, an excellent town, a chief town,” and the Bhôj plates of A.D. 1208 describe Kârtavîrya IV., and the Saundatti inscription of A.D. 1228 describes Lakshmidêva II., as Lattanûr-puravar-âdhîśvara, “ supreme lord of Lattanûr, a best of towns.”^[5] And in these epithets we have, in various forms, a hereditary title commemorative of the place which the Râshṭrakûṭa kings of Mâlkhêḍ,─ and, after them, the Raṭṭa princes of Saundatti, who, according to some of their later records, belonged to the same lineage with those kings,─ claimed as their original home. The name of the town is further presented to us in a transitional form in the Sîtâbaldî inscription of A.D. 1087, which applies the epithet Latalaura-vinirgata, “ come forth or emigrated from Latalaura,” to a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Vikramâditya VI., named to the Mahâsâmanta Dhâḍîbhaḍaka or Dhâḍîbhaṇḍaka, also called the Râṇaka Dhâḍiadêva, whom it further describes as mahâ-Râshṭrakûṭ-ânvaya-prasûta, “ born in the great lineage of the Râshṭrakûṭas, or in the lineage of the great Râshṭrakûṭas ;” and the record applies

___________________________
^[1] There would, however, not have been anything derogatory even in that derivation of the name. The name of the well known Andhrabhṛitya kings is explained as having taken its origin from the fact that the first of them had been a servant (bhṛitya) of the Andhras. And there was a family of kings who referred themselves to a lineage known as the Gurjaraprathîhâra lineage (see Vol. III. above, p. 263), evidently because their ancestors had been doorkeepers of the Gurjaras.
^[2] Vol. III. above, p. 300, text lines 32, 34.
^[3] See Monier-Williams’ Sanskṛit Dictionary, under râshṭra.
^[4] See his translation of the Râjataraṁgiṇî, Vol. I. p. 135, note on verse 152 of the fourth book.
^[5] See, respectively, Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 165, and p. 248, and Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. III. p. 113, text line 62, and Plate 73 in Vol. II. p. 224.­─ By a printer’s mistake, not noticed at the time, the published text of the Bhôj record gives the name of the town, in the line 86-87, as Lâttanûr, with the long â, instead of the short a, in the first syllable, The necessary correction should be made.─ At present, I cannot trace back the use of this title to any date before A.D. 1040 in records which belong unquestionably to the Raṭṭas of Saundatti. The Kalasâpur inscription of A.D. 933, of the time of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Gôvinda IV., does, indeed, mention a Mahâsâmanta whom it describes as Lattalûr-pura-paramêśvara and as trivaḷi-pareghôshaṇa ; and it is practically certain that he was a Raṭṭa : but the original record is greatly damaged, and I cannot recognise, in the ink-impression, either his name, or any epithet which specifically refers him to the lineage of the Raṭṭas. The Sogal inscription of the Raṭṭa prince Kârtavîrya I., of July, A.D. 980, does not seem to make any mention of Lattalûr. And it may be added that the town is certainly not mentioned in the Saundatti inscription, of December of that same year, of the Mahâsâmanta Śântivarman (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 204) ; but, for various reasons, it is very questionable whether that is really a Raṭṭa record at all.