North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF SOUTH KONKAN

..It will be seen that the names in the two genealogies do not agree, though the number of the rulers between Dhammiyara and Ādityavarman is the same in both the cases. It will also be noticed that the Paṭṭaṇakuḍi plates state the exact relationship of the rulers in all cases, while the Khārepāṭaṇ plates state it only in the cases of Dhammiyara and Ādityavarman. Dhammiyara’s father Saṇaphulla in not mentioned at all in the Paṭṭaṇakuḍi plates; so the only case of discrepancy of parentage is that of Ādityavarman. His father is named Aiyapa in the Paṭṭaṇakuḍi plates and Avasara in the Khārepāṭaṇ plates.

..These discrepancies look strange as both the records are official, and were incised within a period of twenty years. An attempt has, therefore, to be made to explain them. It seems that Dhammiyara was succeeded by his grandson Aiyapa, his son Amalla having predecessed him. Hence the name of the latter seems to have been omitted in the Khārepāṭaṇ plates. Again, it seems that a verse describing Avasara has been omitted inadvertently in the Paṭṭaṇakuḍi plates, and so Ādityavarman seems mentioned therein as the son of Aiyapa, not of Avasara as he should have been. Hence the correct early genealogy of these Śilāhāras of South Kōṇkaṇ would be as follows :-

Saṇaphulla
|
(son)
Dhammiyara
|
(grandson)
Aiyapa
|
(son)
Avasara (I)
|
(son)
Ādityavarman

.. From Ādityavarman onwards the succession of rulers is identical in both the records.

..As Kielhorn has shown[1], Saṇaphulla, the founder of this family who first took possession of the country between the sea and the Sahyādri range, was the tenth ancestor of Raṭtarāja, whose present plates are dated in Śaka 930 or A.D. 1008. Saṇaphulla may, therefore, have lived in the second half of the eighth century. Kṛishṇarāja, by whose favour he obtained his kingdom in South Kōṅkaṇ, must, therefore, be identified with the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Kṛishṇa I (circa A.D. 758-773).

.. In line 22 the present record describes this Śilāra family as the foremost royal family of Siṁhala. Kielhorn identified Siṁhala with Ceylon, and, therefore, thought that the statement was doubtful and meant only to convey that the family came from the south.[1] It is noteworthy that the expression Tagara-puravar-ādhīśvara, which occurs in the description of the kings of the other two branches and which signifies that the family originally hailed from Tagara (modern Tēr in the Osmānābad District) is not noticed in the records of this family, and so Tagara was not its home.. But we need not identify Siṁhala mentioned in the present plates with Ceylon. The Dagāṁve inscription[2] describes the conquest of Goā by the Kadamba king Jayakeśin as having occurred after the defeat of the king of Laṅkā. This shows that the Goā island was
_____________________

[1]Ep. Ind., Vol. III, p. 295.
[2] J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. IX, p. 266.