________________
No. 25.7
INSCRIPTIONS AT ABLUR.
215
the second occasion, grants were made by some of the villagers to provide for the angabhôga and the perpetual lamp of the same temple.
The record contains two dates. The details of the first date, when the grant was made by the Dandaniyaka Govindarasa,--are Sunday, the new-moon day, when there was an eclipse of the sun, of the month Vaisakhs of the Vishu (properly called Vrisha) samvatsara, which was the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Vikramaditya VL This date was not recorded correctly. The given samvatsara was Šaka-Samvat 1024 current. There was, indeed, an annular eclipse of the sun, which was probably visible in Southern India, on the specified new-moon day. But the tithi ended, by Sewell and Dikshit's Tables, at about 2 hrs. 12 min. after mean sunrise (for Ujjain) on Tuesday, 30th April, A.D. 1101; and it cannot be connected with the Sunday at all, as it began at about 30 min. after mean sunrise on the Monday. The details of the second date, when the grants were made by the villagers; shortly after which time, presumably, the whole record was put on the stone,-are, Sunday, coupled with the sixth tithi of the bright fortnight of the month Bhadrapada of the Târana samvatsara, which was the twenty-ninth year of the same reign. The given samvatsara was Saka-Samyat 1027 carrent. And the corresponding English date is Sunday, 28th August, A.D. 1104; on which day the given tithi ended at about 18 hrs. 42 min.
Lipes 8 to 17 of this record mention & Dandanayaka Gôvindaraja, who is described as " ruling," but without any hint as to the sphere or nature of his powers. Lines 59 to 62 mention a Mahasamantadhipati and Dandanayaka Govindarasa, who in A. D. 1101 was "ruling" the Hânurgal, Basavura, and Nagarakhanda districts. And a third passage, - A. lines 75, 76, B. line 80,- mentions a Dandanayaka Gôvindarasa, who in A. D. 1104 was administering the Banavasi province and the vaddarávula-duty at the command of Anantapala, a high minister of the Western Chalukya king Vikramaditya VI., who is mentioned in many of the records of this period.
The Govindaraja of the first passage was the son of a certain Krishnaraja, whose pedigree is not disclosed, and of Padmaladevi, an elder sister of Anantapâle. And he seems to be identical with the Govindarasa of the second passage. This is inferred, partly from the fact that it would have been unnecessary to mention him with such prominence in the first passage, and especially as "ruling," unless more details were to be given about him further on, and partly from the description of the Govindarasa of the second passage as m.ivanagandhavarana, which is taken to mean "the choice elephant of his maternal uncle," -- with reference to Anantapala, who stood in that relationship towards the Govindaraja of the first passage. It
1 See Von Oppolzar's Canon der Finsternisse, p. 220, No. 5484, and Plate 110.
· Maua means #mother's brother, and also & wife's father. This record does not mention anyone, with reference to wbom it could be taken in the latter senge in the case of the Govindaraja of the first passage. And on the other band, it does not nem at all probable that Ranarangabbairava-Govindarasa (regarding whom, see fur. ther on) was either a nephew or a son-in-law of Anantapkla ; no sach hint is given in any of the passages mentioning him, though they describe him very fully. Moreover, the full description of the Govindarass of the second passage in this record (line 59 f.) rung-Samadhigatapanchamadsabdamaldadmaniddhipati-maldprachandadamda. ndyakan dathana-tastu-ndyakan nija-kula-lucalaya-sudhdkaran guna-ratna karan sukara-sukari-pika-nikara. mdkandan kirtli-lald-kamdan samara-samaya-Shanmukhan chatura-Chaturmmukham dushta-darppishthOlhdha (ddha)e-ardti-mada-nindranaria mduana-gandhardra na ndm-ddi-sa masla-prasasti-sahitan srimad. dandandyaka-Govindarasaru. The biruda RaDarangabhairava does not occur bere. And I do not find any of these epitbeta applied to Ranar Ágabhairava-Govindarass, or anything bearing on thein in the various descriptions of bim, with the exception that in line 39 of the record of A.D. 1114 he is described as samara-mukha-Shanmukha. which may be compared with tho kamara-samaya-Shanmukha of the present passage ; but this is not conclusive. and be duladna-car-ndyaka of the present passage occurs elsewhere (see page 217 below, noto 8) in the case of Anantapkle, and not of Raparangabbairavu-Govindarass.
