Book Title: Epigraphia Indica Vol 23
Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 90
________________ No. 10 .] NARASINGAPALLI PLATES OF HASTIVARMAN; THE YEAR 79. 63 the Jirjingi grant of Indravarman I, dated in the year 39, this is the earliest copper-plate grant of the Ganga family so far discovered.1 The introductory portion of this grant agrees word for word with that of the Urlām plates, save that in the latter the word sukha is added after the word sarvvarttu in line i. As is well known, this long phraseology became stereotyped in the grants of the family, and, with some additions and alterations, continued for nearly five hundred years. The corresponding phraseology of the Jirjingi grant is, however, quite different. The present grant is, therefore, the earliest document where we can trace the stereotyped phraseology of the Ganga records. The five verses of the Urlām plates also occur in this grant. The inscription is dated in the year 79. The exact equivalence of this date depends upon the determination of the epoch of the Ganga era to which it is presumably to be referred. As is well known, scholars differ widely on this point. This subject is too vast and complicated to be dealt with here. I may note, however, that whereas some earlier writers like Sewell and R. D. Banerjis placed the initial date of the era, respectively in the ninth and eighth century A.D., Mr. G. Ramdas pushes it back to the fourth century A.D. Dr. Fleet, who first dealt with the subject, was of opinion that the two extreme dates for the epoch of the Ganga era were A.D. 481 and 634. He based his views partly on palæographic and partly on historical grounds. The latter have now lost much of their force, but I believe his view still holds good on paleographic grounds. The present grant may be regarded on palaeographic grounds as somewhat later than that of Anantavarman which I have edited above. I have there shown my grounds for referring the latter to the century 450-550 A.D. The present grant may, therefore, be referred to the period 550-650 A.D. The epoch of the Gänga era would accordingly fall between 470570 A.D. This is in accord with the latest theory on the subject, viz., that of Prof. R. Subba Rao, who is the first to work on the subject with the help of some positive data. He fixes the epoch of the era at A.D. 494. Although one may differ from him in some of his arguments and conclusions, and may not be inclined to be dogmatic about the particular year A.D. 494, I think, the data presented by him would reasonably lead to the hypothesis that the epoch of the Ganga era lies between 494 and 560 A.D., i.e., roughly speaking, about the first half of the sixth century A.D. Hastivarman may thus be regarded as flourishing towards the end of the sixth or the first half of the seventh century A.D. No new information of Hastivarman's reign is furnished by this recorti. As in the Urlām plates, two of his birudas or epithets, viz., Rajasirhha and Rapabhita are mentioned in the present grant. As regards the last, Dr. Hultzsch has already drawn attention to its peculiar 1I leave out of account the Tirlingi grant, dated 28 (J. A. H. R. S., Vol. III, p. 54), for the reading of the date appears to me to be very doubtful. The writer of this grant is also Vinayachandra, son of Bhanuchandra. So if the year of the Tirlingi plate belongs to the same era to which those of Hastivarman and Indravarman II are to be referred, we have to presume that Vinayachandra was in active service from the year 28, or some time previous to it, to the year 91 (date of Parla-kimedi plates of Indravarman II), or some time posterior to it. In other words, he held the office for nearly sixty-five to seventy years. This appears to be highly improbable. The Historical Inscriptions of Southern India, edited by Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, p. 357. History of Orissa, Vol. I, p. 239. J. B. O. R. S., Vol. IX, pp. 398 ff. Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, p. 133. J. A. H. R. S., Vol. V, pp. 272-4. "Mr. J. C. Ghosh suggested that it should more properly be A.D. 496; Ind. Ant, 1932, p. 237. See also Bhandarkar's List, p. 201, note 1. I shall discuss the question more fully in a separate article.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436