|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
the same epithet, “come forth or emigrated from Latalaura,” to Dhâḍîbhaḍaka’s officer, the Daṇḍanâyaka Vâsudêva.[1]
The town Lattalûr or Lattanûr may, or may not, have been in the territory of the
Râshṭrakûṭas of Mâlkhêḍ. By a similar title, the Western Gaṅga princes of Taḷakâḍ were
styled Kovaḷâla-puravar-êśvara, “ lord of Kovaḷâla, the best of towns.”[2] Here, the allusion is
to the town now known as Kôlâr, the chief town of the Kôlâr district in the east of Mysore.
And that town certainly was in the Western Gaṅga territory. So, also the Kâdamba princes of
Hângal had the hereditary title of Banavâsî-puravar-âdhîśvara, “ supreme lord of Banavâsî, the
best of towns.”[3] And they sometimes had the administration of the Banavâsi province. But
their hereditary authority was confined to the Pânuṁgal five-hundred province : the Banavâsi
province proper was a crown property, administered from time to time by whomsoever the paramount
sovereign might appoint ; it was only by special appointment that it, with also some neighbouring
districts, was occasionally held by the Kâdambas of Hângal ; and they used the title simply
because they claimed descent from the early Kadamba kings, whose capital was Banawâsi. These
are the only two instances, that I can recall, in which a hereditary title of the kind that we are
considering was more or less connected with actual territorial authority. The same title,
“ supreme lord of Banavâsî, the best of towns,” was used by the Kâdamba princes of Goa,[4] who
had no authority whatever at Banawâsi, and simply derived the title in the same way as did the
Kâdambas of Hângal. The Kaḷachurya kings of Kalyâṇi in the Nizam’s Dominions had the
hereditary title of Kâlâñjara-(for Kâlañjara)-puravar-âdhîśvara, “ supreme lord of Kâlañjara,
the best of towns,”[5] simply in connection with the legend that referred the origin of their family
to Kâlañjar in Bundêlkhaṇḍ, Central India, a long way outside their own territory. The Gutta
princes of Guttal, whose power was usually limited to quite a small part of the Dhârwâr district,
used the title Ujjayanî-puravar-âdhîśvara, “ supreme lord of Ujjayanî, the best of towns,”─ for
which in one passage there a substituted “ supreme lord of Pâṭaḷî, the best of towards,”[6]─ simply
because their traditions or legends connected them with the Early Guptas and the mythical king
Vikramâditya, and consequently with the far distant Ujjain in Mâlwa and Pâṭaliputra-Pâṭṇa in
Behar. By similar titles, the Śilâhâra princes of the Northern Koṅkaṇ styled themselves
Tagara-pura-paramêśvara, “ supreme lord of the town of Tagara,”[7] and their relatives who ruled
at Karhâḍ styled themselves Tagara-puravar-âdhîśvara, “ supreme lord of Tagara, the best of
towns;”[8] though Tagara, which is the modern Têr in the Naldrug district of the Nizam’s
Dominions,[9] was at a very appreciable distance, a hundred miles at least, from any part of the
provinces to which their authority was confined. And the Yâdava princes of the Sêuṇa country,
which was the territory of which the chief town was Dêvagiri-Daulatâbâd, used the title
Dvârâvatî-pura-paramêśvara, “ supreme lord of the town of Dvâravatî,”[10] which, in the form
Dvârâvatî-puravar-âdhiśvara, “ supreme lord of Dvârâvatî, the best of towns,” was taken over
_______________________________
[1] Vol. III. above, p. 305, and text lines 4-5 and 7. It seems clear that, in line 5 of the text, mahâ was prefixed
to Râshṭrakûṭa-ânvaya-prasûta in order to indicate that Dhâḍîbhaḍaka claimed descend from the great Râshṭrakûṭa
kings of Mâlkhêḍ, and not from one of the minor branches of the Râshṭrakûṭa or Raṭta stock which existed in
other parts of India.
[2] See, for instance, Vol. VI. above, p. 44, and text line 2.
[3] See, for instance, Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 254 a, and text line 24-25.
[4] See, for instance, Jour, Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. IX. p. 300, and p. 296, text line 6.
[5] See Vol. V. above, p. 24, and text line 5, and p. 257, and text line 55.
[6] See Dyn. Kan. Distrs. p. 578 ff.
[7] See, for instance, Vol. III. above, p. 269, and p. 273, text line 43-44.
[8] See, for instance, Cave-Temple Inscriptions (No. 10 of the brochures of the Archæological Survey of
Western India), p. 103, text line 26-27
[9] See Jour, R. As. Soc., 1901, p. 537 ff., and 1902, p. 230 ff.
[10] It appears first in the case of Bhillama II., in the Saṅgamnêr plates of A.D. 1000 ; see Ep. Ind. Vol. II.
p. 215 and text line 48.
|
