________________
No. 36.]
RANASTIPUNDI GRANT OF VIMALADITYA.
349
of the same kingl also agree with the Ranastipandi grant to a great extent, while the Pithapuram pillar inscription of Mallapadêvafurnishes substantially the same facts regarding the early Eastern Châlukyas and their ancestors. The historical portion commencing with the reign of KubjaVishộuvardhana is known from grants earlier than the time of Vimaladitya. But the Raņastipûpdi grant is the earliest inscription bitherto discovered, which contains the Pauranik and legendary portions (11. 1-25).
This is the first inscription which has been found of king Vimaladitya, the son of Ding or Dânârnava by his wife Âryamahadevis (v. 12) and younger brother of that king Saktivarman who ruled immediately after the interregnum in the Vêng country. An important item of information furnished by our grant is the date of Vimalâditya's accession, which until now had to be obtained by deducting the duration of his reign as given in the copper-plate grants from the date of the accession of his son and successor Rajaraja I. as found in the Korumelli plates and in the Nandamapūņdi grant. According to verse 13 of the subjoined inscription, Vimaladitya's corodation took place in the Simha lagna and the Pushya nakshatra, on Thursday, the sixth tithi of the bright fortnight of the month Vrishabha in Saka-Samvat 933. Professor Kielhorn kindly contributes the following remarks on this date :-"In line 43 read pañchamyam, on the fifth tithi, instead of yash=shashthyán. With this alteration the date corresponds, for Saka-Samvat 933 expired, to Thursday, the 10th May A.D. 1011. The fifth tithi of the bright half of the lunar month Jyaishtha) in the solar month Vpishabha ended at 20 h. 44 m. after mean gunrise, and the nakshatra was Pushya, by the equal space system and according to Garga, for 21 h. 40 m. after mean gunrise. For a place situated at 16° Northern Latitude, the Simha lagna on that day lasted from 5 h. 14 m. to 7 h. 24 m. after true sunrise."
The above date removes a discrepancy in the duration of the interregnum between Dånardava and Saktivarman. All the grants assign 27 years to this interregnum. The interval between the accession of Amma II. (Saka-Samvat 867) and that of Rajaraja I. (Saka-Samvat 944) is 77 years, while the total duration of the intervening reigns is only 25+3+12+7= 47 years. It had therefore to be inferred that the interregnum lasted 77-47=30 years. This discrepancy has already been pointed out by Dr. Hultzsch. As we know now that Vimalâditya's reign commenced in Saka-Samvat 933, the interregnum is reduced to roughly 27 years, the period actually mentioned in the copper-plate inscriptions.
If we subtract from A.D. 1011 the period of the reign of Vimaladitya's predecessor Saktivarman (12 years), we get the approximate date of the accession of Saktivarman himself, vis. A.D. 999. The interregnum which preceded Saktivarman's reign and which lasted 27 years has thus to be placed roughly between A.D. 972 and 999. Hitherto it has been supposed that the interregnum in the Vêng country was caused by a Chola invasion. The earliest Chola king who claims to have conquered Vêngi is Rajaraja I., who ascended the throne in A.D. 985. The conquest of Vengi is first mentioned in inscriptions dated in the 14th year of his reign=A.D. 998-99.8 Consequently, the interregnum could not have been caused by the invasion of the Cholas, but was probably put an end to by that event. If this conclusion is correct, the Chola king Rajaraja I. must have restored order in Vengî by placing Saktivarman on the throne, and the interregnum must have been due to causes other than the Chola invasion during the time of Rajaraja I. There is also reason to believe that no Chola invasion could have taken place before the time of Rajaraja I.
Above, Vol. V. No. 10.
* Above, Vol. IV. No. 33. This quoen is mentioned as A[r]yadevi in the Pithapuram inscription of Mallapadors ; above, Vol. IV. No. 38, verse 19.
• Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 50 and p. 53, text lines 65-67. Above, Vol. IV. p. 302.
6 South-Ind. Inscr. Vol. I. p. 32, note le See Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 372.
& South-Ind. Issor. Vol. III. p. 5.
