|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF SOUTH KONKAN
the King, cows and Brāhmaṇas. Then begins the genealogy of the Rāshṭrakūṭa kings, to whom the Śilāhāra rulers of South Koṅkaṇ owed allegiance. The following are mentioned in this connection—Śubhatuṅga (Kṛishṇa II) ; his son Jagattuṅga ; his son Nityavarsha (Indra III) ; his younger brother Amōghavarsha (III); his son Kṛishṇa (III), well-known by his biruda Vanagajamalla ; and his brother Khōṭṭiga. After the death of Khōṭṭiga, his successor Baddiga was overthrown by Tailapa. ..It is noteworthy that in this genealogy the name of Gōvinda IV, the son of Indra III, who was overthrown by Baddiga-Amōghavarsha III, is omitted. Again, Vanagajamalla is mentioned as a biruda of Kṛishṇa III, and, finally, the last Rāshṭrakūṭa ruler Karka II is mentioned by the name of Baddiga. This name of his is not mentioned elsewhere, but since he was a grandson of Baddiga alias Amōghavarsha III, this name is not unlikely as grandsons are often named after their grandfathers. .. In line 13 commences the genealogy of the reigning Śilāhāra king Avasara. It mentions first the mythical Vidyādhara Jīmūtavāhana, who sacrificed his life to Garuḍa for the protection of a Nāga. The family descended from him became known as Śilāra. The record then mentions the following—Dhammiyara, who founded Balipattana¬—his son Ammalla—his son Aiyapa—his son Ādityavarman—his son Avasara (I)—his son Indra—his son Bhīma, who annexed Chandramaṇḍala—his son Avasara (II), who was reigning when the present inscription was issued. It is noteworthy that the name of Saṇaphulla, the first member of the Śilāhāra family mentioned in the other two records [1] of the Śilāhāras of South Koṅkaṇ, is here omitted. Again, Ammalla, named here as the son of Dhammiyara, is omitted in the latter, while they mention Avasara as the son of Aiyapa, but his name does not occur in the present record. These discrepancies look strange as all the three are official records of the Śilāhāras belonging to the same period. We shall discuss elsewhere how they can be reconciled. From Ādityavarman onwards both the genealogies agree. ..The inscription is dated in the expired Saka year 910 (expressed in words), the cyclic year being Sarvadharin, on Monday, the fifth tithi of the bright fortnight of Karttika. The date is irregular. The cyclic year corresponding to the expired Saka year 910 was Sarvadharin according to the southern luni-solar system, but the stated tithi fell on Thursday, not on Monday as required. The equivalent date in the Christian era is the 18th October A.D. 988. .. The object of the inscription is to record that three merchants named Nāgai-śrēshṭhin, Lokkai-śrēshṭhin and Ādityavarman paid 40 dīnāras as pādapūjā (nazarāṇā) to the reigning king Avasara (II) for the confirmation of certain hereditary rights [2] in the villages Kiñjala and Pulīsa. They were to pay in addition two lakhs of betel-nuts by way of an annual cess [3]. It is, however, stated that the share of Nāgaī-śrēshṭhin was exempt from this cess. The reference to dīnāras occurring in such a late record of the tenth century A.D. is interesting. Other Śilāhāra records mention gadyāṇas and drammas.
..
The agreement is communicated for information to the following—Rēvaṇa Mantrin,
Ukkai-śrēshṭhin. Nāgapāla Amātya, Pulēna Haḍapa [4] and other principal royal officers,
together with all people, young as well as old, artisans (hañjamānas) and guilds (nagaras) as
[1] Nos. 41 and 42 below.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|