________________
No. 49.)
KADABA PLATES OF PRABHUTAVARSHA.
337
represent the Sanskrit Karpa. We have to assume, therefore, either that the real names of the king and of the temple were anknown to the author, and that the name he gives is a product of his own imagination, or that Kanndsvara is a misspelling or a clerical error for Kanhêsvara or Kannarsvara. Bat even if the latter opinion should be the correct one, it would be still questionable whether the temple really had that name. In 11. 29-30 it is said that the sun, reflected in its jewel-paved floor, seemed to have descended from heaven to show reverence to Paramêsvara. This and the form of the namel indicate that the temple was dedicated to Siva. And it must have been an uncommonly magnificent building; for nearly the sixth part of the whole inscription is devoted to its description, and its erection is the only deed of the king which the author has thought worth mentioning. The temple spoken of here must therefore necessarily be that splendid Siva temple which, according to the Baroda grant, was built by Krishna on the hill of El&pura, the modern Elûra. None of the temples at Elära, however, bears, as far as I can ascertain, the name of Krishņēsvara or a similar name, and, to reconcile the statement of the inscription with the facts, we have to assume again that either that temple itself has entirely disappeared, or, at least, that its original name was in course of time forgotten, and exchanged for another. But all these suppositions are very vague, and as long as the reality of that name is not established by other facts, it would be hardly advisable to rely on it.
The building of that temple is almost the only historical event related in this portion of the inscription. As was pointed out already by Mr. Rice, king Dhruva Dharavarsha is mentioned in verse 7 as having fought some battle on the banks of some river; bat no particulars are given, and the text, moreover, seems to be corrupt. I will add here, as it is a matter of some interest in connection with the Rashtrakūtas, that afterwards, in l. 81, Govinda III. is stated to have resided at the time of the grant in his victorious camp at Mayûrakhandi.. This is the same place from which the Vaņi-Dindori and Rådhanpar grants of Govinda III. are dated, and it has long ago been identified by Professor Bühler with the modern Môrkhand, a hill-fort in the Nasik territory. But those two grants leave it doubtful whether Mayarakhandi was the capital of the dynasty. Professor Bühler thought it not likely, because "Indian princes do not usually govern their dominions from lonely forts; "6 and as the statement of the present inscription that it was only & place of encampment coincides with his opinion, they may be considered as mutually supporting each other.
In 11. 65-75 the inscription gives the genealogy of Vimaladitya. His father was the rájan Yasovarman, and his grandfather the prince (na ranura) Dalavarman. The family claimed to belong to the Chålukyas; but to the present time we are unable to connect them in any way either with the earlier or the later dynasty of this name, and Professor Bhandarkar therefore considers them an independent branch.7 Vimaladitya apparently was & petty chief under the Rashtrakatas; he governed, as mentioned above, the district (dela) called Kunungil. Mr. Rice has suggested that this might be the modern Kunigal, but he has added himself that this is only & conjecture, and that he has taken the game Kupigal to be the Koņikal-vishaya of the Hosûr grant of Ambêra, whioh, though a palpable forgery, cannot on palæographical grounds be placed later than the present inscription. Taking for granted that the second identification is
1 Namer ending in Isvara always refer to buildings conseorated to siva. In the present case, it may be noted that Siva is actually mentioned, under the namo Bhava, in v. 4.
Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 159 and p. 328 ff. Professor Bhandarkne supposed the temple to be the famona Kailgs.
+ That really a battle near some river is spoken of in that verse, is proved by the mentioning of elephants and boate, which is in accordance with Mang, vii. 192.
. In the present inscription the name is written with a abort i. But as i and are often confounded, this may be only a clerical error. Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 169; Vol. VI. p. 67.
Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 61. 7 History of the Dekkan, 2nd ed., p. 79. • In line 98 the name is spelled with a lingual.
