________________
338
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(Vol. IV.
correct,--and it seems to me much more probable, it is hardly possible to connect Kaņigal at the same time with Kunungil.
Vimaladitya is stated to have been the sister's son of Chakiraja who is called the ruler of the entire province of the Gangas (atésha-Gangamandal-Adhiraja), and on whose application the grant was made. As for this prince, our knowledge is confined to what we learn of him from the present inscription. From his title and the fact that he applied to Govinda, we must infer that he was a vassal of the Rashtrakata king, and governed the Western Ganga kingdom in his name. And this is indeed the state of things that we should expect for the time of our grant. All that can be ascertained with respect to the relations between the Rashtraka tas and the Gangas in the second half of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century A.D. is this. In the Paithan plates the Ganga is mentioned among the princes who were called to assistance by Govinda II. against his brother Dhruva. The Vani-Dindori and Rådhanpar plates relate that Ganga-- who is described as a powerful monarch was imprisoned by Dhrava. He must therefore have been conquered and taken prisoner between A.D. 783, when Gôvinda II. was still on the throne, and A.D. 794, when Dhrava's son, Govinda III., was already reigning. We are further told, in the same plates, that Govinda III. released him from his long captivity; but as soon as Ganga had returned to his country, he revolted against his benefactor. Govinda then defeated and imprisoned him again. This must have taken place before A.D. 807, the two plates being dated in this year. It would therefore be quite natural to find a viceroy appointed by the Rashtrakata king in A.D. 812.
Here the historical portion of the inscription ends. As far as I see, it does not contain anything that would decide the question of the genuineness of the record; for the incorrectness of the name of the temple--the only thing that can be proved to be actually wrong-may after all be accounted for as I have tried to show above. I can therefore only repeat here what I have said before, that this inscription, though there is not sufficient evidence to establish its spuriousness beyond all doubt, is subject to a slight suspicion of being a forgery. Such being the case, those statements which are not supported by other records must, of course, be taken for what they are worth.
In II. 75-80 the inscription gives a detailed account of the grantee. He was called Arkakirti, and was the disciple of Vijayakirti, who again was the disciple of Kuli-Acharya. This person is said to have belonged to the family (andaya) of Srikirti-Acharya in the Punnagavriksham ulagana of the Nandisamgha of the venerable Y&paniyas, and in l. 77 he is given the epithet vrata-namiti-gupti-gupta-muni-vrinda-vandila-charanah. Comparatively little is known hitherto about the Yapaniyas. In the Bhadrabdhucharitas we are told that king Bhupala of Karahata, at the request of his wife Nrikuladova, invited the Svêtâmbara monks of Valabhi to come to his city. Bat beholding them dressed in white garments, he
1 Mr. Rice thinks it possible that Chikirsja was & supreme king. Bat neither is adhirdja ever applied to an independent sovereiga, nor mandala to an independent state. I would remark that the term &anga-mandala is quite analogous to the term Ledoara-mandala, occurring in the Baroda, Torkbode and Kavt plates as the name of the province of Gujarat. . Above, Vol. III. p. 107.
Bhandartar, History of the Dekkan, 2nd ed., p. 65. • The Paithay grant of Govinda III. was issued in this year.
• The account of these facts given by Mr. Rice in his Epigraphia Carnataoa, p. 3, is very inaccurate, Besides, be says that it must have been during the reign of Sivamers that the Rashtrakta king Dharavarsh or Nirupama is said to have defeated and imprisoned Gangs. For this Bivamera be fixes (ibid.) A.D. 804 as the year of his accension to the throne. The dates given above show that these statements are incompatible.
* See above, p. 332, note 6.
7 I coosider irl here to be a constituent of the name, partly on account of the analogy to Arkskirti and Vijayakirti, and partly because the person who inserted these name has not added a honorific prefix in any other chee.
8 Chapter iv. verse 188 ff.; Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morg. Ges. Vol. XXXVIII. p. 39 ff.
