________________
No. 25.]
SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.
175
after the two persons mentioned above, of a king named Nitimârga-Konguņivarma-Permånadi, with the title of Maharajadhiraja, and his son Satyavákya-Permånadi, who are undoubtedly referable to the same lineage, and may perhaps be identified with the Ereganga-NitimârgaKonguņivarman and his son Râjamalla-Satyavákya-Konguņivarman who are mentioned in the continuation of the genealogy as given in the Súại grant. So, also, the existence of a person named Batuga, who is to be identified with the Jayaduttaranga Batuga of the Sadi grant, is a fact; and we have for him an authentic date, A.D. 949-50, which approximates closely to the date given for him by that grant. And very possibly some other anthentic names, with dates, may be identified with names mentioned in that grant. But further inquiries in this direction would be beyond the scope of the present paper. We are dealing now with the spurious charters which purport to belong to the earlier period. And the point with which we are concerned here, is simply that the existence of one at least, and perhape two, of the persons named in those records, vis. Sripurusha-Muttarasa and Sivamára, is now established, and that to the first mentioned of them there may quite possibly belong the actual dates that are given for him by two of those records. But we have still to bear in mind that even this does not suffice to establish the truth of anything else that is stated in the records in question; the records themselves are so clearly spurious, that nothing at all, put forward in them, can be accepted without similar corroboration from extraneous sources. If similar authentic evidence, establishing any other portions of the alleged earlier history, can be produced, by all means let it be produced; no one will welcome it more than I shall. But the spurious records will remain sparious. And of one thing I am sure, - that, unless it upsets in some way or other the genealogy that is asserted in those records, nothing will ever be obtained to establish the dates of A.D. 248 and 466, which they give for Harivartan and Avinîta-Kongani.
It only remains to say a few final words about the contents and nature of the spurious Sudi grant, which is now published.
The genealogy given in it agrees with the Tanjore and other grants, up to the mention of Bhûvikrama. The continuation of it, from him onwards, is shewn in the Table on page 177 below; together with the historical items, real or fictitious, which it connects with some of the names. It is to be noted that this record differs from the others, in making Sivamira the Bon, instead of the younger brother, of Bhûvikrama; and in representing Sripurusha as the son, instead of the grandson, of Sivamâra. Ag, however, the grants from which it differs are all spurious, and it is also itself spurious, it would be superfluous to do more than simply draw attention to the discrepancies. From Sripurusha onwards, the genealogy, with most of the historical statements, remains to be verified or disproved. At present, I can only say that the genealogy does not seem to agree with that furnished by some records for the same period, which Mr. Rice has had under examination ;' that the Rashtrakata records give no indication of an intermarriage with the Gangas in the time of Amoghavarsha I., who is plainly the king whose daughter Gunaduttaranga-Butaga is said to have married; and that it is curious that the record makes no mention of Ereyappa and his son Rachamalla, though it was by killing the last-mentioned that Jayaduttaranga-Butuga, otherwise called Permånadi-Butuga, secured the Gangavådi province.
The record does contain references to two real historical events: the marriage of Jayaduttaranga-Batuga with a daughter of Baddega, i.e. the Rashtrakūta king AmoghavarshaVaddiga (between A.D. 912 and 940); and the victory over the Chola king Râjâditya. And it gives a perfectly possible date for Jayaduttaranga-Butuga, in A.D. 938.5
See, eg., Inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola, Introd. pp. 68, 69, Nos. 14 to 19. * Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II. p. 173.
• The date of A.D. 949-50 is established for him by the Atakar inscription (Epigraphia Indice, Vol II. p. 160.)
