________________
70
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XXII.
was sent to the engraver for engraving, and no one subsequently cared to correct the mistake. This would become clear from the last line of verse 19 of that record which, after making the necessary corrections, runs as follows [Babhu]va sūnuḥ śrī-Dantivarmanaḥ prabala-pratāpaḥ. It is obvious that there is a lacuna in this verse after the word sūnu in its 4th line. Other records of the Gujarat branch show that this verse ends as: Babhūva sūnur-Dhruvarāja-nāmā, and describes the birth of Dhruva I, the son and successor of Karkka. It would appear, as suggested above, that one of the taḍapatras, which commenced with the word Dhruva-rāja-nāmā, and contained an account of the next three rulers, was lost when the document was despatched by the secretariate to the mason. The extremely corrupt text of the plates convincingly proves that no responsible officer cared to revise the document, as engraved by the mason, and so the omission of the three rulers remained unattended. These plates therefore do not show that Krishna Akalavarsha, who succeeded Dhruva, was a son of Dantivarman, who acted as dutaka in 812 A.D.1
Was he then the son of Dantivarman, a younger brother of Dhruva II, who was ruling under him in 867 A.D. as conjectured by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, and had this Dantivarman's reign intervened between the reigns of Dhruva II and Krishna II, as postulated by Dr. Hultzsch ?* The present record makes both these views very improbable. It shows that Dhruva II was ruling down to Saka 806, and so the interval between the last known year of Dhruva and the first known year of his successor Krishna II, viz., Saka 810, is now no longer of 21 years but is reduced to the short period of less than four years. It is therefore very improbable that Dentivarman could have ruled during this interval. It may be further pointed out that the Bagumra plates of Krishna Akalavarsha II simply mention the name of Dantivarman, without stating that he had ascended the throne.
The verse 19 of the grant quoted above is followed after one fragmentary and two complete verses, by the name of Krishna Akala varsha, who had issued the grant. This undoubtedly lends support to the view that Dantivarman was Krishna's father as suggested by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar. But we must note that there is a clear lacuna after the words babhuva sūnuḥ and that they were really followed by Dhruvaraja-nāmā as shown above, It is therefore difficult to maintain that the Bagumra plates show that Krishna Akalavarsha was a son of Dantivarman. As a matter of fact the name of Dantivarman remains as an isolated and disconnected name in that very corrupt document, and its existence cannot be satisfactorily explained. The present record mentions a hither-to-unknown son of Dhruva II, Karkkarāja by name, who was the dutaka of the grant. He must have been a grown-up prince in Šaka 806, and since he is not designated as a yuvaraja, it is clear that he had another elder brother living at this time. It is difficult to believe that a son of Dantivarman, who was loyal to Dhruva II, could have succeeded to the throne after ousting these two sons of the latter within less than four years after the issue of this grant. The names of the son and grandson of Dhruva I were Krishna Akalavarsha and Dhruva II respectively. It is therefore not improbable that according to the family tradition the eldest son of Dhruva II may have been named after his grandfather Krishna Akalavarsha and may have heen none other than Krishna Akalavarsha of the Bagumra plates." This view cannot be yet regarded as proved, but it may be found to represent real history when
1 [That Bhagvanlal's view was untenable was proved by D. R. Bhandarkar long ago (above, Vol. VI, p. 287). Kielhorn also does not appear to have accepted this view (see above, Vol. VIII, Appendix II, p. 9).-Ed.] Ind. Ant., Vol. XIII, p. 66. being known to be ruling in Saka 810, it
Ante, Vol. VI, p. 287.
Since Saka 806 was the fag-end of Dhruva's reign, his successor
is not very probable that Karkka, though the eldest son, may not have been designated here as Yuvaraja because his yauvarajyabhisheka had not yet taken place.
[The point that Dhruva II had two sons is not at all proved. It is not impossible that Karka was not appointed Yuvaraja by this time.-Ed.]
