Epigraphia Indica Vol 08

SR No.: 032562
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1905
Total Pages: 398
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 18 MB

Page 64

CHIKMAGALUR INSCRIPTION OF RACHAMALLA III.
No. 7.]
eradaneya varisuda Chaitra-masa.., "[of] the month Chaitra of the year hundred and twenty-two," and there is nothing whatever to fix us to the year 822.
53
(3) An inscription at Hirêmagalûr in the Kaḍûr district, Ep. Carn. Vol. VI., Cm. 8. This is a record of a Niti[mårga], whose personal name is not mentioned in it, but who, we are supposed to learn from it (see the translation, p. 36), had the biruda Jayadutta [ramga]. It does not present any date at all.
(4) An inscription at Añchavâḍi in the Mysore district, Ep. Carn. Vol. IV., Ch. 134. This record is dated, without any mention of the Saka year, in the first year of the crowning of a Nitimarga whose personal name is not mentioned in it.
(5) An inscription at Gaṭṭavâḍi in the Mysore district, Ep. Carn. Vol. III., Nj. 97. This record, however, is dated in the fifth year of the crowning, not of a Nitimârga, bat of a Satyavakya. And it does not include any mention either of a Nitimârga, or of a Râchamalla, or of the Saka year.
(6) Another insoription at Gaṭṭavâḍi, on the back of the same stone, Ep. Carn. Vol. III., Nj. 98, which is dated, without any mention of the Saka year, in the fifth year of the crowning of a Nitimârga whose personal name is not mentioned in it.
(7) An inscription at Kûligere in the Mysore district, Ep. Carn. Vol. III., MI. 30. This record refers itself to the time of a Nitimârga whose personal name is not mentioned in it. And it is dated in the Saka year 831 (expired), A.D. 909-910.
(8) The inscription at Dodḍahundi in the Mysore district, Ep. Carn. Vol. III., TN. 91; edited by me in Vol. VI. above, p. 43. This record commemorates the death of a Nitimârga whose personal name is not mentioned in it, and speaks of his eldest son Satyavâkya, whose personal name, also, is not mentioned. It does not present any date at all.
And Mr. Rice has thus arrived at "P 899 A.D." as the date of this Chikmagalur record; Bee Ep. Carn. Vol. VI. Classified List, p. 1, and translations, p. 35.
Mr. Rice's arrangement, however, will not stand the test of examination. In the first place, from his incongruous grouping we have to dismiss the first Gaṭṭavâdi inscription (5). As remarked above, it is a record, not of a Nitimârga at all, but of a Satyavâkys. And it does not help in any way in connection with the Chikmagalûr inscription.
In the second place, we must dismiss the Dodḍahundi inscription (8). This record is shewn by a paleographic detail to be appreciably earlier than A.D. 899. And, as has been explained by me in Vol. VI. above, p. 43, it is to be placed roughly about A.D. 840, and the Nitimârga of it is Ranavikrama, son of Sripurusha-Muttarasa.
And we must further dismiss the other inscription at Gaṭṭavâḍi (6). This can only be a record of Nitimârga-Ereyappa, to whom I have already referred it (Vol. VI. above, p. 70), falling probably in A.D. 912-13.
We need not give any attention to the Gañjigere inscription (1) and the Añchavâḍi inscription (4). These records do not throw any light on the date of the Chikmagalûr record. And there is nothing at present to identify the prince or princes mentioned as Nîtimârga in them, or to enable us to refer them to any particular period; as in the case of many other records, nothing can be done with them until we have facsimiles or ink-impressions of them, unless perhaps an index, when we have one, of all the miscellaneous proper names mentioned in the records of the Western Ganga series, may furnish any clues.
The Kûligere inscription (7) does certainly give a date for a Nitimârga in A.D. 909-910. But it does not contain anything tending to identify that Nitimârga with the Nitimârga