________________
No. 25.)
SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.
169
the overthrow of the Rashtrakûțas by the Western Chalukya Taila II. And I am certain that the origin of the statement is to be found in the facts that, almost at the end of the Rashtrakata period, there was a powerful Rashtrakūta king Krishna III., and that he left & grandson, Indra IV., by crowning whom the Western Ganga prince Mårasimha attempted to continue the Rashtrakata sovereignty after the overthrow of Kakka II. And in the second place, - even granting, for the sake of argument, that there was an early Rashtrakata king Krishna, belonging to the same period with the Western Chalukya Jayasimha I., and approximating to the date put forward in the Merkara grant; and also that the birudas of the Rashtrakûțas were as constant as Mr. Rice would have them to be, there must have been a time when each biruda was first devised; and the only sound course in respect of any particular biruda is to take the earliest instance that is actually proved for it. The biruda Akalavarsha appears first in connection with the Rashtrakūta king Kșishna I. It belonged subsequently to his descendants Krishna II. and Krishna III. And, intrinsically, any one of these three kings might be the person referred to in the Merkara grant. If that person, however, is Krishna I., who came shortly after A.D. 754, then at the best, the record was written close upon three centuries after the date to which it refers itself; but this identification is rendered impossible by the palæographic evidence, noted above, which fixes about half a century later, and the third generation after Krishna I., - as the earliest possible period for the concoction of the record. The date of Krishna II., just after A.D. 878, fits in sufficiently with the palæographic evidence, and, going slightly further, establishes the last quarter, instead of the beginning, of the ninth century A.D., as the earliest possible period to which the fabrication of the Merkara grant can be referred. I think, however, that the mention of a king Akalavarsha in this record is in reality to be atttributed to the fact that the biruda belonged also to Krishna III., whose period was about A.D. 940 to 956, and who had some very special relations with the Western Cangas: by his father Amoghavarsha-Vaddiga, & sister of his was given in marriage to Permånadi-Bütuga, with, as her dowry, the districts known as the Puligere Three-hundred, the Beļvola Threehundred, the Kisukad Seventy, and the Båge or Bâgenad Seventy ;' he himself confirmed Bâtuga, probably as governor, in the possession of the same districts, as a reward for killing the Chola king Rajaditys ;* # son of his own married a daughter of Ganga-Gang@ya, i.e. Batuga;5 and Indra IV., by crowning whom Mârasimha sought to continue the Rashtrakta sovereignty after the downfall of Kakka II., was the offspring of that marriage. And if this view is accepted, the earliest possible period for the fabrication of the Merkara grant is pushed still further on, to about the middle of the tenth century A.D.
There is also similar evidence in the British Museum grant. In line 56 it gives the name of Kalivallabha, which, there can be little doubt, either denotes the Rashtrakūta king Kalivallabha-Dhruva (just before A.D. 782-84), or else owes its origin to the fact of his having had that biruda
And finally we have to note that, in the four cases in which the dates include details that can be tested by calculation, in not one instance do thome details work out correctly. Thus:
The Tanjore grant purports to be dated in the Prabhava samvatsara, Saka-Sarvat 169 expired, on the new-moon tithi of the month Phålguna, on Friday, under the Rêvati nakshatra
1 This is evidently the real menning of passage near the beginning of Inoriptions at Śravana-Belgola, No. 38, which id. Introd. p. 19) is rendered differently by Mr. Rice.
? It is established for him by the Paithan grant of Govinda III. of A.D. 794 (page 10% above). In the cases of his descendants Krishna II. and Krishna III., the biruda is well known, from various records.
From an unpublished record. • Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II. p. 174. Inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola, Iotrod. p. 21.
ibid. 7 I place this point last, because there are undoubtedly some, if not many, genuine records, the date of which are not correct, but which are not, therefore, to be condemned. When, however, as in the present series, every date is wrong, the point becomes one of very considerable inportance.
