________________
228
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XXV.
the figure of a lion embossed on the seals attached to the plates was presumably the emblem of the Harischandra family. Since nothing is specifically mentioned in the inscriptions to the credit of Svämichandra's two successors, Simhavarmaraja and Bhōgasakti, it may be concluded that they did little in raising the importance of the family.
There is nothing in the inscription to denote the era to which its date should be referred. The Chalukya emperors, to whom Bhōgasakti's family owed allegiance, used no doubt the Saka era in all their grants and ordinarily it might be expected that the same would be used by their feudatories of the Harischandra family as well. But that the date 461 of our record cannot be referred to the Saka era is obvious from the fact that Svämichandra, the grandfather of Bhōgasakti who is the donor of the present grant, was a contemporary of the Chalukya emperor Vikramaditya, who, we know, ruled from A.D. 655 to 680. This is possible only if the date is referred to the Kalachuri era which is found generally used in inscriptions of the period discovered in the Lața country and the Nasik District'. The inscription therefore belongs to the year 709-10 A.D. The Harischandra family, although it owed allegiance to the Chalukyas, seems to have adopted the Kalachuri era in their grants because it was current in the country.
The Aihole inscription of Pulakesin II, dated A.D. 634, tells us that this ruler had defeated the Mauryas of Konkana and had subdued the city called Puri2, which was the glory of the western sea. But we know that in the concluding years of Pulikesin's reign his hold over the northern territories had slackened. Svämichandra of the Harischandra family, who was probably ruling over a small territory round about Jayapura in the Nasik District, seems to have rendered such signal services to the Chalukya emperor Vikramaditya, son of Pulikesin, in consolidating his power over the western and northern parts of the empire that he was not only considered as his son by the emperor but, as may be inferred from our Anjaneri plates, also appears to have obtained from him as a reward the whole of the territory known as Puri-kōnkana.
The Phōndhaka grant of the Chalukya Jayasimhavarman, younger son of Pulikesin, shows that he was ruling over the Nasik territory in about Saka 580 (A.D. 658). Similarly, the Nirpan plates found in the Igatpuri Taluka of the Nasik District record a grant by TribhuvanäsrayaNagavardhana, son of Dharasraya-Jayasimhavarman, one of the younger brothers of the emperor Pulikesin himself, of a village named Balegrama in the Gōparashtra vishaya. Although there are strong reasons to suppose that the Nirpan plates are spurious, yet from both of these this much is clear that a portion of the Nasik District was for some time in the possession of a scion of the Imperial family. Now our Anjaneri plates show that the divisions of Gōparashtra and others were in the possession of Bhōgasakti and probably of his predecessors too. This was possible only if Vikramaditya had taken out the territory from the possession of a scion of his own family and granted it to Svamichandra for his valuable services.
It seems strange, however, that no successor of Vikramaditya has been mentioned in the record, not even the sovereign Vijayaditya (A.D. 697-733) who was reigning at the time of this inscription. It need not be supposed from this that the Chalukya emperors lost hold over the pro
1 Cf. (a) Abhōna (Nasik District) plates of Sankaragana dated in the year 347-A.D. 595. Above, Vol. IX. pp. 297 ff. (b) Vadnēra (Näsik District) plates of Buddharaja dated in the year 360A.D. 608. Above, Vol. XII, PP. 33 ff. (c) Sarsavņi (Baroda State) plates of Buddharaja dated in the year 361-A.D. 609. Above, Vol. VI, pp. 297 r.
Ahove, Vol. VI, pp. 1 ff., verses 20-21.
G. H. Khare, Sources of the Medieval History of the Dekkan (in Marathi), Vol. I, pp. 12 ff. Ind. Ant., Vol. IX, p. 124.
