The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s13.29

c8.s13.29

² Dr. Bhandarkar's views (*Early History of the Dekkan*, 1884, p. 10, and note 4, and p. 36) appear to be that the Râshṭrakûṭas were an ancient Kshatriya tribe; that they are the Riṣṭikas or Râṣṭikas (= Râshṭrakas) of the Aśôka inscriptions (see, *e.g., Ind. Ant.* Vol. XX. p. 248); that they are also mentioned in inscriptions as Mahârathis, or, as he writes it, Mahâraṭṭhis; that they are the ancient Marâṭhâs; and that the name Râshṭrakûṭa originated from some of the Raṭṭhi or Raṭṭha tribes forming themselves into a family or group (*kûṭa*). I am not prepared at present to discuss all these points. But there is certainly one detail in which he is wrong. He objects to Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji translating *Mahâraṭhi* by 'great warrior' (*e.g., Cave-Temple Inscriptions*, pp. 24, 29, 34; Dr. Bühler has rendered it by 'feudal baron,' *Archaeol. Surv. West. Ind.* Vol. V. p. 64), because the feminine form *Mahârathini* also occurs (*Cave-Temple Inscriptions*, p. 27), and, he says, to translate this by 'wife, or daughter, of a great warrior' is "simply begging the question;" his opinion is that "Mahârathi appears clearly to be the name of a tribe, and is the same as our modern Marâṭhâ." But, both in former times there was, and in the present day there still is, the practice of mentioning wives of officials by feminine forms of the titles of their husbands; note, for instance, *Daṇḍanâyakiti* as a feminine form of *Daṇḍanâyaka*, in a inscription of A.D. 1108-1109 (*Ind. Ant.* Vol. X. p. 254), and the Kanarese *Gauḍasâni*, and the Marâṭhî *Pâṭlin* and *Dêsâin*, as the designations of the wives of a *Gauḍa*, *Pâṭil*, or village-headman, and of a *Dêsâi* or hereditary head official of a *pargana*: so also, among religious titles, we have *Vihârasvâmin*, and the feminine form *Vihârasvâmini* (*Gupta Inscriptions*, pp. 263, 280).