________________
No. 28.)
SOME RASHTRAKUTA RECORDS.
231
then at the confluence of the rivers Krishnaverņå and Musi after his victorious camp had invaded the province of Vengi and the lord of Vengi had humbly ceded his treasures, his forces, and his country, granted to a Brahman a certain village in the Alaktaka vishaya, which was a teritory close on the east of Kolhapur, between the rivers Vårnå, Křishņa, and Dadhgangå.
Now, the bad formation of the characters, and the occasional very marked irregularity of the lines of the writing, suffice to shew that these Alås plates do not contain the original and synchronous official record of the matters recited in them. And they are, therefore, & spurious record. Whether, however, the matter set forth in the record is unauthentio, is another question. But it seems hardly likely that the composer of it could havo invented the birudas ending in avalóka. There is nothing discordant in the date, A D. 770, which applies, of course, to Krishna I. as well as to Govinda II., and fits in perfectly well between the dates of A.D. 754, which we have for Dantidurga-Dantivarman II., and A.D. 783-84, which we have for Dhruva. And I think that, pending the production of any distinct evidence to the contrary, we may look upon this record as based upon something genuine, and as being & more or less accurate reproduction, from probably a manuscript copy, of an original record which had been lost, and may accept it as establishing, provisionally, that Govinda II. was actually installed as
Yuvarija, and was holding office as such, under his father Krishna I., in A.D. 770. While, however, it may be provisionally accepted to that extent, this Alås record does not prove that Govinda II. succeeded to the throne and reigned as king.
1 See Ind. Ant. Vol. XXIX. p. 277 f. ? On the subject of the aralóka-appellations of the Rashtrakatas of Malkbed, see Vol. VI. above, p. 188 f.
See Vol. VI. above, pp. 167, 197.
* There is nothing more that can be said about that question, to any practical purpose, until we obtain further definite facts to go upon. But I am compelled to notice some remarks made by Mr. D. B. Bhandarkar, on page 28 above, in connection with the Sanglt record of A.D. 983 and an alleged utilisation of it by me, in respect of the point in question, on the occasion indicated above, namely, in Vol. VI. above, p. 170 ff., when, he has said, I was meeting objections brought by him against the views previously expressed by me. So far from basing any argument on the Sanglt record, so completely did I set it aside as being late record of no authority on the point in question, that it was only after twice reading through my remarks that I discovered that Mr. Bhandarkar's allusion is to my inclueion of it in a foot-note in which I merely put together all the cases in which Govinda II. is, or is not, mentioned in the Rashtrakata records. And, so far from rightly understanding and applying the meaning of what I wrote, Mr. Bhandarkar has simply himself made from the Stogli record an objectless deduction, about JagattungaGovinda III. and Amoghavarsh I., which could not serve any practical purpose, and in respect of which there is not any basis for his suggestion that it follows from anything said by me. - To the cases, put together by me in Vol. VI. above, p. 172, note 2, in which Gôvinda II. is, or is not, mentioned in the Rashtrskata records, we have now to add two more. The Chokkhakuți grant of A.D. 867 (Vol. VI. above, p. 299, verses 16, 16, text lines 17 to 20) repeats the two verses about Govinda II. and Dhruvs which are presented in the Paithan record of A.D. 794. And the Cambay plates of A.D. 930 (page 87 sbove, verses 8, 9, 10, text lines 10 to 14) present the threa verses about Krishna I., Govinda II., and Nirupama-(Dhruva) which we have in the Bangll plates of A.D. 938.
