The Rashtrakutas and their Times c26: Addenda
The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c26
- Language
- English
Addenda
c26.1
Pp. 52-3. The conjecture hazarded here that Śrīvallabha mentioned by Hariṣeṇa in the colophon of the *Harivans'a* as ruling the Deccan in the year 783 A.D. would be Dhruva rather than Govinda II, is now confirmed by an unpublished grant of Dhruva lying in the treasury of the State of Bhor, which is dated in S'aka 702 *i. e.* 780 A.D., and is issued by Dhruva Dhārāvarṣa. The plates will be shortly published.
c26.2
P. 85. The statement in the book that Dantivarman had succeeded his elder brother Dhruva II was based on the fact that there was a long interval of 21 years between the last known date of Dhruva II and the first known date of his successor Kṛṣṇa. Recently, however, a new grant of Dhruva II has come to light, which I am editing for the *Epigraphia Indica*, and which reduces this interval to a period of less than four years. The passage giving the date is in words, but is defective; it reads शकनृपकालातीतसंवत्सरशतेषु षडुत्तरेषु. The word for the number of centuries is omitted by inadvertence, but there can be no doubt that the expression was intended to be संवत्सरशतत्रयेषु. This record thus supplies 884 A.D. as the latest date for Dhruva II. It, therefore, now looks extremely improbable that Dantivarman could have reigned between Dhruva II and Kṛṣṇa Akālavarṣa II. In my paper on this plate I have adduced reasons to show that Kṛṣṇa Akālavarṣa II was very probably a son of his predecessor Dhruva II and not of his brother Dantivarman.
c26.3
Pp. 124-5. The sack of Malkhed. In Śaradaśrama-Vārṣika, p. 6, Prof. Hiralal Jain has suggested that the sack of Malkhed by the Paramāra ruler Sīyaka may have taken place in 962 A.D. and not 972 A.D. He relies on the colophon of the Mahāpurāṇa of Puṣpadanta, which according to its colophon was completed on the 11th of June 965 A.D., and which refers to the sack of Malkhed in a verse of its 87th chapter. Until the Purāṇa is published, it will be difficult to assess the value of these passages. It, however, seems extremely improbable that the Rāṣṭrakūṭa capital could have been captured during the reign of the mighty emperor Kṛṣṇa III. He was holding even Tamil districts down to the last year of his reign; this would have been impossible if the Rāṣṭrakūṭa prestige had been shattered by the capture and plunder of the imperial capital in 962 A.D. We must further note that the Malva Praśasti distinctly states that the opponent of Sīyaka was Khoṭṭiga:— श्रीहर्षदेव इति खोट्टिराज्यलक्ष्मीं जग्राह यो युधि । This statement in the Paramāra official document would show that the sack of Malkhed took place during the reign of Khoṭṭiga, rather than that of Kṛṣṇa. We must, therefore, accept 972 A.D., as the date of the event as supplied by Dhanapāla in the colophon of his Pāiyalachchhī.
c26.4
P. 309. The identification of Kāmpilya suggested here is wrong. The new copper plate of Dhruva II, dated 884 A.D., makes it clear that this Kāmpilya is to be identified with the village Kāpliā in Bardoli Taluka, Surat district.