Epigraphia Indica Vol 05

SR No.: 032559
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1998
Total Pages: 458
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 22 MB

Page 198

No. 18.)
SRAVANA-BELGOLA EPITAPH OF MARASIMHA II.
135
rase the same technical exprossion of high position. These three records are not dated in any ers. And there is nothing in the contents of them to enable us to establish any synchronisms, and so to assign an exact date to ther. But the characters of the Dabur inscription are attri. butable to any time withiu about fifty years on either side of A.D. 800.1 The period of the record will be determined more closely further on.
The authentic existence of the second of the four persons mentioned in the Vallimalai inscription, vis. Sripurusha, bad already been established by some undeniably genuine stone records at Talakad. Sivara, and Sivarpatņa, in Mysore. The Talakad insoription, which is dated in his first year, and the inscription at Sivåra, give him the full style of "the Mahárája Prithuvi-Konguņi-Muttarase-Gripurusha;" while, of the Sivarpatņa inscriptions, one styles him "the Maharaja Sriparusha," and the other, which is dated in his twentiethodd year,- perhaps the twenty-ninth, 7-calls him the Kongupi Maharaja Sripurusha :" evidently, Muttarasa was his name, and Sripurusha," husband of Fortune," was a biruda. Like the records of Sivamára I., these records of Mattarasa, - and also those which will be mentioned further on, are not dated in any era; and they do not contain anything by means of which synchronisms can at present be established. But they are, similarly, to be referred, on paleographic grounds, to the period A.D. 750 to 850, or thereabouts. And one particularly instruotivo character, the old square form of the letter 6,8
Mahardjddhirdja (regardiag whicb, soe page 168 helow, note 2), the use of the first of these two titles was con. tinded by all bis descendants from Ranavikrams onwards; and it does not seem likely that his son Sivamara II. would revert to the simple designation arasa. - Another inscription at Müdahalli (Nj. 126) is probably also of the time of Sivamera I.; but the name of the prince is illegible.
"I write on the authority of ao ink-impression, which Mr. Rice kindly sent for my inspection. I have not had the means of examining the R&rpura and Mudaballi records in the same way.
The spurious Halegere grant (Ep. Cart. Vol. III., Md. 113, with a lithograph) cites a date in the month Jyështha (May-Juna), Saka-Samvat 685 expired, falling in A.D. 713, as being in the thirty-fourth year of sivemara I., and so would place the commencement of his rule in A.D. 679-80. This latter date is altogether too early. And it is not likely that the record has even hit off a true date for him in A.D. 713.- The Nagamangala grant would place the commencement of the rule of his successor Sriparusba-(Muttarasa) in A.D. 727-28 (see page 166 below, note 2); and this, with the Hallegere grant, would give Sivandra I. A rule of forty-eight year, immedintely before & rule of seventy-eight years by his son ! • See above, Vol. III. p. 173 f.
Ep Cars. Vol. III., TN. 1; with a lithograph. • Here I write on the authority of photographs which Mr. Rice kiudly sent me, one from Sivara, and two from Sivarpatpa.
• Prathama-vijaya-tambataran Karttige panname-andu; lines 8, 4.
7 The words "oijaya-sacoatiara( - ), followed by the aksharas irpps, are quite clear, in line 2. I coniecture that what follows them stands for tlombattaneyolu. Bat the passage (and, in fact, the whole of the remainder of this record) has been so spoilt in painting the stone for photography, that it is a matter of conjecture only. Since writing this note, I bave found an indication that Mr. Rice would take the record to be dated in the twenty-eighth year (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 188 ). The akaharas ttentaneyolu, however, seem insufficient for the space and for the marks shewn in the photograph.-This practice of painting inscriptions by hand for photograpby cannot be too strongly condemned: it presents the records as they appear to the eye of the person who paints them, and not as they really are; it introduces mistakes, or at least doubt, in even the clearest passages,- for instance, tbalitbograph of the Talakad inscription of Muttar se shews in the word tombanttars, line 9, an anus dra in the Becond syllable which one cannot believe to be in the original, and the word Kadabur or Kadabúr in one of the Sivarpatos inscriptions, contrasted with what reads at first sight w Kadambur or Kadambúr in the other record at the same place (see page 161 below, note 1), is another case in point; it often results, as in the date of thia Sivarpatna inscription, and in fact throughout the record, in the ortation of arbitrary and fantastio sigos which render whole passages quite unintelligible; and, in short, it preventa altogether the purely mechanical reproduction which is absolutely necessary for the satisfactory and critical study of the records.
• It cours in the Talakad inscription (see the lithograph) in the words sambataaran (line 4) and tombattaru dine 9). For the importance of the old or square and later or cursive forms of kh and 6, as a belp in fixing the dates of records of the period with which we are dealing, see above, Vol. III. pp. 162, 163. Records containing the cursive forms of these two lettem, cannot be placed before A.D. 804. The square forma continued in se op to A.D. 866. Bat the cursive forms, - the introduction of which, into epigraphic records, seems to be connected with the encouragement that we given to the Jains aud their literature in the time of the Rashtrakata king
X2