________________
56
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. VIII.
not mentioned in it, and is dated in A.D. 959, or possibly 958. Mr. Rice (ibid. Introd. p. 8 f.) has attributed this record either to the well known Ereyappa, or else to his immediate predecessor: which of the two he intends, is not clear; but the doubt is unimportant, because the record does not really belong to either of them. And, by the way, in connection with the mention of Ayyapadêva along with Ereyappa in the Bêgûr inscription (see Vol. VI. above, p. 47), Mr. Rice has in the same place referred to the same period, and has proposed to date in A.D. 929, an inscription at Kuppehâļu in the Kadûr district (Ep. Carn. Vol. VI., Kd. 6) which registers & grant made by the order of a certain Ayyaparasaya. But there is here a very peculiar confusion. The declensional and conjugational forms in the Kuppehâļu inscription mark that record, quite unmistakably, as at least several centuries later than A.D. 929. And Ereyappa, who was moreover a Nitimârga, not a Satyavâkya, died before at any rate A.D. 940 (see Vol. VI. above, p. 70); and so the Uppahalli inscription Cm. 42, dated in A.D. 959 (P 958), cannot be attributed to him, and much less to his predecessor. That record can be properly ascribed only to Rachcha-Ganga, who ruled between A.D. 953 and 963-64. And it marks him as a Satyavâkya, and shews that the Chikmagalûr record, of a Nitimârga, is not one of his records.
In the second place, the photograph of the Chikmagalur record, which reached me in January, 1900, shews that the record presents, and no less than four times, the later type, and that type only, of the initial short i. And this feature, in a Mysore record, is practically absolute proof that we must not place it before A.D. 982.3
On the other side, it must be placed before A.D. 1022 at the latest, if we put any reliance upon records published in Ep. Carn. Vol. V., Hassan district, which indicate that in A.D. 1022-23 (Mj. 43), A.D. 1026 (Ag. 76), and A.D. 1027 (Mj. 44), that part of Mysore, to which this record belongs, was in the hands either of Nripakâma-Poysala, or of a RâjêndraChôla who may be either the Chôla king or a Kongalva prince.
Further, an inscription at Elkûru in the Mysore district (Ep. Carn. Vol. IV., Ch. 10),— overlooked by me in 1899,- shews (see my Table in Vol. VI. above, p. 59, and remarks on p. 57), that Satyavâkya-Râchamalla II., with a final date in A.D. 984-85 (see Vol. V. above, p. 173, note 6), was not the last Western Ganga prince; after him there came at any rate a Nitimârga, proper name not disclosed, with apparently the birudas Jayadankakâra and Komaraveḍenga, for whom the Elkûru inscription gives the date A.D. 999-1000.
1 The actual details of the date given in this record are not satisfactory. Either the original presents an inaccurate date. Or there is some substantial mistake in the published reading.
Both the transliterated text, p. 104, and the Kanarese text, p. 172, give us Ashadha bahula panchami Brihaspativâra, and the Siddhartthin samvatsara. And in the 888 eradaneya of the Kanarese text we have, no doubt, a misprint for 882 as given in the trausliterated text.
According to the so-called southern luni-solar system, Siddharthin was Saka-Samvat 882 current,-A.D. 959-60. And in that year the given tithi ended at about 3 hrs. 3 min. after mean sunrise on Tuesday, 28th June, A.D. 959, and did not touch a Thursday at all.
According, however, to the so-called northern luni-solar system, Siddharthin was S.-S. 881 current, A.D. 958-59. And in this year the given tithi began at exactly 22 hrs. 28 min. after mean sunrise on Wednesday, 7th July, A.D. 958, and ended at exactly 20 minutes after mean sunrise on the Friday; and it was thus an adhikatithi covering the whole of the Thursday. This, therefore, may possibly be the real date of the record; namely, Thursday, 8th July, A.D. 958.
The times given above are, as usual, for Ujjain. But they are practically just the same for Chikmagalur. In view of the time of the year, July, when the sun was rising just about 5-30 A.M., a determination of the tithi according to actual sunrise would not make any difference in the week-days.
Even the other date suggested elsewhere, "? 1169 A.D.,"-see the translations, p. 2,- is far too early.
On this point, see my remarks on the initial short i attached to my paper on an inscription at Dêvagêri, in the Dharwar district, which will appear in a subsequent number of this Journal.
The Kanarese text (p. 4) of the Elkúru inscription presents jayadamkatára-kóviraveḍamgam. The transliterated text (p. 2) presents jayad-ankakdra komara-vedengam. Such discrepancies as these are not very assuring. And, if we take this record in connection with the Hirêmagalur inscription, mentioned as (3) on pages 53, 54 above, it remains quite possible that the first biruda here ought to be read jayaduttaranga.
