|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
from them by their descendants, the Yâdava kings of Dêvagiri-Daulatâbâd.[1] But, whereas the
allusion here is to Dvâravatî, Dvârâvatî, or Dvârakâ, which is the modern Dwârkâ at the
western extremity of Kâṭhiâwâr, the Yâdava princes of the Sêuṇa country certainly never ruled
at Dwârkâ or over any part of Kâṭhiâwâr. The title was only set up by them in connection with
their claim to belong to the Lunar Race, and to be descended from the god Vishṇu, who, in
his incarnation as Kṛishṇa, made Dwârkâ his capital. And, that they simply claimed Dwârkâ
as their traditional place of origin, is explicitly shewn by a passage in the Bassein plates of A.D.
1069 which says in respect of Dṛiḍhaprahâra, whom it puts forward as the original founder of
the family, that “ he, in the beginning, came from the city (pattana) of Dvârâvatî ” to the
territory, in the Nâsik district and the Nizam’s Dominions, which his descendants were ruling at
the time when the record was drawn up, “ and made famous in the world the town of
Chandrâdityapura, which had already sprung into existence.”[2] From all these facts, we can see
plainly that these hereditary titles, presenting the names of ancient towns, put forward only
assertions as to places of origin, and not claims to actual local authority ; and that, to take a
specific instance, the title Lattalûra-pura-paramêśvara, “ supreme lord of the town of Lattalûra,”
which we have in the Sirûr and Nîlgund records, is nothing but a more dignified and ostentatious
method of conveying the exact idea which is expressed by the Latalaura-vinirgata, “ come forth
or emigrated from Latalaura,” of the Sîtâbaldî inscription.,[3]
An identification of the town Lattalûr, Lattanûr, or Latalaura, has not yet been established.[4] I have, indeed, suggested that it might not impossibly be found in the town known as
Ratanpur, in the Bilâspur district, Central Provinces ;[5] because the letters and r are often
interchanged, and so it would not be difficult to derive the name Ratanpur from the full form
Lattanûrpura. That suggestion, however, was based chiefly on the fact that we find traces of
rulers calling themselves Râshṭrakûṭas in various parts of India far to the north of the territory
of the Râshṭrakûṭas of Mâlkhêḍ. And it is not, really, in any way sustainable ; because the name
Ratanpur has been simply obtained by transposition from Ratnapura, as is shewn by a record of
A.D. 1114 at Ratanpur itself.[6] I cannot at present quote any epigraphic references to Lattalûr,
except from the records of the Râshṭrakûṭas of Mâlkhêḍ and the Raṭṭas of Saundatti, and from
the Sîtâbaldî inscription. Nor can I find it mentioned by any ancient geographer or traveller, or
in any Purâṇa or other work. But we are certainly concerned with a southern locality. And,
while not asserting a final identification of Lattalûr, I would indicate a place in respect
of which it seems worth while that some precise inquiries should be made. That place is
a town in the Bidar district of the Nizam’s Dominions, which is shewn as ‘ Latur ’ in the Indian
Atlas sheet No. 56 (1845), in lat. 18º 24’, long. 76º 38’, and in Thacker’s Reduceḍ Survey Map
of India by Bartholomew (1891). In Philip’s Gazetteer of India by Ravenstein (1900), it is
treated as ‘ Lathur, or Latur,’ and is credited with a population of 9,063. It seems to have been,
not long ago, of more importance than at present ; for, Murray’s Encyclopædia of Geography (1844)
______________________________
[1] It is applied to the first king, Bhillama, in an inscription of his time, dated in A.D. 1189, at Muttagi in the
Bijâpur district. I quote from an ink-impression.
[2] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 121, and text lines 3 to 5. Regarding Chandrâdityapura, see id. Vol. XXX. p. 518.
[3] On the technical use of vinirgata in such expressions as this, see Ind. Ant. Vol. XXXI. p. 331 ff.
[4] Major Graham’s suggestion, put forward in 1854 (Statistical Report on the Principality of Kolhapoor,
p. 416), that it is Athṇî, the head-quarters of the Athṇî tâluka in the Beḷgaum district, was only based on the
mistaken reading of ‘Atunpoor,’ and is, of course, altogether unsustainable.─ Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji seems to
have entertained the idea (see the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. I. Part I. p. 7) that the name of the
Lâṭa country, in Gujarât, was derived from the name of some local tribe, “ perhaps the Lattas ” (read, obviously,
Laṭṭas), who might possibly, through the interchange of l and r, be identified with the Raṭṭas or Râshṭrakûṭas, and
that Laṭṭalura (sic) may have been in Lâṭa and may have given its name to both the country and the dynasty.
It is difficult, however, to look on this as anything except an early crude speculation, which the Paṇḍit himself
would not have incorporated in any final presentation of his more mature views.
[5] Dyn. Kan. Distrs. p. 384.
[6]Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 33, and text lines 12 (twice) and 17.
|
