________________
No. 28.]
SOME RASHTRAKUTA RECORDS.
225
from them by their descendants, the Yadava kings of Devagiri-Daulatábad. But, whereas the allusion here is to Dvaravati, Dvârâvati, or Dvâraka, which is the modern Dwarka at the western extremity of Kațbiâwâr, the Yadava princes of the Sêuņa country certainly never ruled at Dwarka or over any part of Kåthiâwâr. The title was only set up by them in connection with their claim to belong to the Lunar Race, and to be descended from the god Vishnu, who, in his incarnation as Krishna, made Dwarka his capital. And, that they simply claimed Dwarka as their traditional place of origin, is explicitly shewn by a passage in the Bassein plates of A.D. 1069 which says in respect of Dşidhaprahara, whom it puts forward as the original founder of the family, that "he, in the beginning, came from the city (pattana) of Dvârâvati" to the territory, in the Nâsik district and the Nizam's Dominions, which his descendants were ruling at the time when the record was drawn up," and made famous in the world the town of Chandradityapura, which had already sprong into existence." From all these facts, we can see plainly that these hereditary titles, presenting the names of ancient towns, put forward only assertions as to places of origin, and not claims to actual local authority; and that, to take a specific instance, the title Lattalúra-pura-paramátvara, "supreme lord of the town of Lattalûra," which we have in the Sirûr and Nilgund records, is nothing but a more dignified and ostentatious method of conveying the exact idea which is expressed by the Latalaura-vinirgata, "come forth or emigrated from Latalaura," of the Sit&baldi inscription.'
An identification of the town Lattalûr, Lattanur, or Latalaura, has not yet been estab. lished. I have, indeed, suggested that it might not impossibly be found in the town known as Ratanpur, in the Bilaspur district, Central Provinces ;6 because the letters and r are often interchanged, and so it would not be difficult to derive the name Ratanpur from the full form Lattanúrpura. That suggestion, however, was based chiefly on the fact that we find traces of rulers calling themselves Rashtrakūtas in various parts of India far to the north of the territory of the Rashtrakūtas of Malkhed. And it is not, really, in any way sustainable ; because the name Ratanpar has been simply obtained by transposition from Ratnapura, as is shewn by a record of A.D. 1114 at Ratanpur itself. I cannot at present quote any epigraphic references to Lattalor, except from the records of the Rashtrakatas of Málkhêd and the Rattas of Saundatti, and from the Sitábaldi inscription. Nor can I find it mentioned by any ancient geographer or traveller, or in any Purana or other work. But we are certainly concerned with a southern locality. And, while not asserting a final identification of Lattalúr, I would indicate a place in respect of which it seems worth while that some precise inquiries should be made. That place is a town in the Bidar district of the Nizam's Dominions, which is shewn as 'Latur' in the Indian Atlas sheet No. 56 (1845), in lat. 18° 24', long. 76° 38', and in Thacker's Reduced Survey Map of India by Bartholomew (1891). In Philip's Gazetteer of India by Ravenstein (1900), it is treated as 'Lathur, or Latur,' and is credited with a population of 9,063. It seems to have been, not long ago, of more importance than at present; for, Murray's Encyclopædia of Geography (1844)
It is applied to the first king, Bhillama, in an inscription of his time, dated in A.D. 1189, at Muttagi in the Bijapur district. I quote from an ink-impression.
Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 121, and text lines 3 to 5. Regarding Chandradityapura, see id. Vol. XXX. p. 518. On the technical use of vinirgata in such expressions as this, see Ind. Ant. Vol. XXXI. p. 331 ff.
• Major Graham's suggestion, put forward in 1854 (Statistical Report on the Principality of Kolhapoor, p. 416), that it is Athņi, the head-quarters of the Athņi tAluka in the Belgaum district, was only based on the mistaken reading of Atunpoor,' and is, of course, altogether unsustainable. Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji seems to bove entertained the idea (see the Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidencu. Vol. I. Part I. p. 7) that the Låta country, in Gujarat, was derived from the name of some local tribe, "perhaps the Lattas" (read, obviously, Lattas), who might possibly, through the interchange of land, be identified with the Ratas or Rashtrakatas, and that Lattalurs (sic) may bave been in Lâțs and may have given its name to both the country and the dynasty. It is difficult, however, to look on this as anything except an early crude speculation, which the Pandit himself would not have incorporated in any final presentation of his more mature views.
Dyn. Kan. Distrs. p. 384. • Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 83, and text lines 12 (twice) and 17.
20
