________________
No. 26.)
SANJAN PLATES OF AMOGHAVARSHA I; SAKA-SAMVAT 793.
237
of his paper that "the genealogy was concocted some time after the date which is recorded in this inscription, and has not been copied from a genuine copper-plate charter of Amõghavarsha I." The same view he sets forth more clearly at the end of that paper. "Stating distinctly what I have indicated above," says he, "I consider it possible that lines 1-59 of this inscription really were based on a copper-plate charter ; at the same time, I feel certain that, if such was the case, the transcribers have taken so great liberties with the original as to deprive this copy of the value of an authentic document." The present plates, however, enable us to decide how far Kielhorn's opinion is correct. A comparison of lines 1-14 of the Konnür Inscription with the genealogical portion of these plates leaves no doubt as to the lines 1-59 of the former being copied on stone from a genuine charter of Amõghavarsha I, as the concluding part of it informs us. But what about the glaring blunders in the genealogy which Kielhorn has detected in the Konnūr Inscription? How did they arise? In the first place, in our plates also the father of Govinda I is called Přichchha karāja, as the same verse occurs in both the records. Přichchhakarāja may be a new name not known from previous Rashtra kūţa grants, but that does not mean that it is a fabrication. And, as a matter of fact, it may be another name of Indrarāja who is mentioned as the father of Govinda I in the fragmentary Ellorā Daśāvatāra cave temple inscription. Again, Kielhorn says that the Konnür Inscription makes Prabhūta varsha (-Govinda II) a son of his younger brother Dhārāvarsha, and consequently Prabhūta varsha (Govinda III) not a nephew but a son of the former. This discrepancy, flagrant though it appears, can be easily explained away by the mention of the fact that Dhārāvarsha-sutas of the inscription is a misreading of the transcribers for the correct wording Dhārārarshasutatas, such as that supplied by our grant. Then, again, Kielhorn tells us that in the Konnur epigraph Karkarāja I is called Karkara, an apparently later form of the name. Here, also, the transcribers must have read Karkkara-prabhuḥ wrongly in place of Karkkarāt prabhuḥ as appears in our grant. And it can scarcely be disputed that Karkkarāt is precisely the same word as Karkkarāja. This name occurs in v. 4 of the Konnür record, which, however, begins with Indr-āvanipāla-sutēna dharini instead of dhanus-samutsāritabhubhritā mahi as in our plates. This discrepancy alone is of a serious character as it makes Indra not a son but father of Karkkarāja. It is, however, possible to get over this difficulty by taking Imdr-āvanipāla-sutēna as a bahuvrihi compound. In this connection we have to bear in mind the fact that of all the verses common to the Konnür Inscription and our charter, this is the only stanza where one whole line is entirely different. Was it deliberately composed and inserted or is it an example of sheer carelessness? If the introductory portion of the former is compared to that of the latter, it will be seen that the former, as it were of set purpose, wants to bring the genealogical account into the narrowest possible compass. This is quite clear from the fact that verses 12 and 27 of our charter, which are the same as verses 8 and 9 of the Konnur Inscription, are connected with each other in the latter record by the two words: tasya sutah. It is not impossible that the transcribers are responsible for this abridgement as their main object must be to give in full only those details that relate to the grant proper and curtail them rigorously in all other respects. And it is not inconceivable that in their zeal to epitomize the genealogy they may have coined the line Indr-āvanipālasutēna dhārini, which if we take it to be a bahuvrihi compound, can be made to yield the sense that Indra was the son of Karkkarāja, and can thus make one verse serve the purpose of two.
The charter is one of the Rashtrakuța prince Amoghavarsha described in 11. 57-58 as the Parama-bhaffäraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Paramësvara-Prithvivallabha the prosperous Vallabhana. rēndra dēva, who meditated on the feet of the Paramabhattāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Paramēšvara,
1 Arch. Sury. West. Ind., Vol. V, p. 87.
