________________
332
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[Vol. XXIV.
Bhojadāva to Pramāparābi, which the latter gave to Chamundāka. After his (i.e., Pramäņarāśi's) death the acharya (i.e., Chamundāka or Chamundākarābi) seems to have paid the amount to the Goshthikas. The latter purchased two āvārikās with those drammas. The vithis or shops in the āvātikās were situated facing the south in the Kambali-hatta, which seems to mean a part of the town where a cattle-market was held. The rent of these eithis was to be utilised by the Goshthikas in meeting the expenses of white-wasbing, vermilion and lights for the temples as long as the sun and the moon would endure.
The preserved portion of the inscription does not state the name of the ruling king. If any was mentioned in the introductory part of the record, it bas been lost. But Bhojadēva named towards the close of the record is plainly identical with the well-known Emperor Bhöja I of the Pratihara dynasty. In the year 299 of the Harsha era (i.e., in A.D. 905-06) Bhoja was dead; for the Uni plates give Valabhi Samvat 574 (i.e., about A.D. 193-94) for his son and successor Mabēndrapāla. Bhöja I was bimself a devotee of Bhagavati and Vishnu as ie evidenced by his Barah plate and the Adivarāha drammas. It is therefore interesting to note that he made over a sum of money to a Saiva acharya for the maintenance of a Saiva temple.
In view of the foregoing identification of Bhõjadēva, it may be asked if Kakkuka deseribed ip line 14 is identical with his namesake who is mentioned in the Gwalior prasasti of Bhoja as the grand-uncle of Bhöja's grandfather Nägabhata II. He is no doubt called here Bhatta, but that does not per se preclude the identification; for according to the Jodhpur and Ghativālāinscriptions the Pratihāras were descended from the Brāhmaṇa Harichandra and an expression in the former record has been taken to refer to the Brāhmaṇa caste of the Pratihāra rulers of Kanauj. The description in 1. 4 that Kakkuka was a destroyer of his foes shows that he was a man of warlike spirit and lends colour to his identification with the aforementioned Pratibāra prince. The damaged condition of the present record, however, makes its evidence doubtful. Besides, the subsequent portion, judging from the few aksharas that are still legible, does not appear to have contained the description of a royal family. I am therefore inclined to think that this Kakkuka did not belong to a royal family. As for the description that he destroyed his foes, it may have been by policy, if not by personal bravery. It is, of course, not unlikely that in that age some members of the priestly caste distinguished themselves on the battlefield, as others preferred the peaceful occupation of a farmer. s i
There is only one legible place-name, viz., Kämyaka, in the lower portion of the record, which is evidently identical with Kāman where the inscribed stone was found. It is now clear that its modern name is not derived from Kadaníbavana, Kāmasena or Kāmavana, but from Kāmvakavana?. As stated above, Käman ha's still an old fort, which is clearly referred to as kotta
1 Kambali means one having a dewlap, a bull. * Abore, Vol. XIX, pp. 17 f. ** Ibid., Vol. XVIII, p. 95.
Ibid., Vol. IX, p. 279.
See Dr. D. C. Ganguli's article entitled 'Origin of the Pratihära Dynasty'in Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. x, p. 343.
Line 4 of the present inscription mentions a place named Rohitaks. According to the Mahabharata (Sabhäparvan, 33, 4-5), Rohitaka, which lay to the west of Delhi, was inhabited by the Mattamayūras. [Rõhitaka, evidently same as Rauhitaks of the Rajatarangini (1v, 11) and the Lakha Mandal prabanti (above, Vol. I, p. 14), is to be identified with modern Rohtak, 43 miles N. W of Delhi,-Ed.]
*** This Kimyakavana is evidently different from the Kimyakavana of the Mahabharata, where the Pandavas sojourned for a short time during their exile ; for, the latter was situated on the bank of the Sarasvati. See the Mahabharata, Vanaparvan (Bombay recension), adhyaya 6, w. 1-3. Cunningham has identified it with Kämoda near Kurukshetra. See his % 8. R., Vol. XIV, p. 100.
