The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s12.198

c8.s12.198

¹ Without definitely stamping as unauthentic the names that are given in this record, I would draw attention to the following points, which render the record itself extremely suspicious. In the first place, it gives to Kirtivarman I. the biruda of Satyâśraya, which is not borne out by the undoubtedly authentic documents of the Bâdâmi line itself. In the second place, it styles Pulikêśin II. a paramamâhêśvara or most devout worshipper of the god Mahêśvara ('Śiva), and describes him as meditating on the feet of (a previous) Nâgavardhana: these points, again, are not supported by any of the unquestionable records; and the first unchallengeable occurrence of the name Nâgavardhana is in connection with Vikramâditya I. And in the third place, it speaks of him as acquiring the three hereditary kingdoms of the Chêras, the Chôlas, and the Pândyas, by means of a charger named Kanthachitra: but none of the indisputable records mention any charger of Pulikêśin II.; and the name seems to be taken, by a mistake, from the name of Chitrakautha, the charger of Vikramâditya I. This last point, in particular, suggests that the record is not a genuine one; and that it was fabricated after the restoration of the dynasty by Vikramâditya I.—In addition to possibly this Nirpan grant and the Pimpalnêr grant from Khândêsh (see page 344 above, note 6), there are two plainly spurious records which purport to belong to the time of Pulikêśin II. One is the copper-plate grant from Hosûr near Bangalore (Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII. pp. 89, 96, with a lithograph in Vol. IX. p. 304; for the translation, see also Mysore Inscriptions, p. 298), which purports to give the name of a supposed daughter, Ambêrâ (not of a son, Ambêra, as is indicated by Mr. Rice's rendering: the text being corrupt, a son may possibly have been intended; but it is a daughter who is actually mentioned and named by the text, as it stands), and to record that she granted to some Brâhmans a village named Periyâla in the Konikal vishaya. And the other is the copper-plate grant from Kândalgaon in the Ratnâgiri District (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 330), which purports to be dated in his fifth year, and to record the grant, to a Brâhman, of a village named Pirigipa, on the north bank of the river Mahânadî, in Rêvatidvîpa.—Also, a stone inscription which formerly existed at Amînbhâvi in the Dhârwâr District, of the time of Vikramâditya VI., and dated in A. D. 1113 (Carn.-Dêsa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 672; I had a search made for the original stone about ten years ago, but, like many of the inscriptions that were in existence in Sir Walter Elliot's time, it was not forthcoming), included a passage from some spurious record on stone or copper which purported to record that, while reigning at the capital of Kisuvolal, on the occasion of an eclipse of the sun on Thursday the new-moon day of the month Vaiśâkha of the Sarvajit samvatsara, 'Saka-Samvat 488 by mistake for 489 expired, = A.D. 567-68, Pulikêśin II. made certain grants to the god Kalidêva of Ammayyanabhâvi, which was an agrahâra in the Kundûr five-hundred of the Palasige vishaya.—An inscription at Lakshmêshwar (Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 110, the second part of the record, lines 51 to 61), which, even if a true copy of an original, is at the best only a copy and was only put on the stone after A. D. 967, mentions a Satyâśraya who is probably intended to be Pulikêśin II., and seems to give him also the name of Ereyya, and purports to record a grant of land to the Jain temple called 'Saṅkha-Jinêndra by his feudatory Durgaśakti of the Sêndraka family (see page 292 above).