________________
24
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXVIII
is characteristically significant and not found in other records. It is revealed here for the first time in clear terms that the members of this house claimed their descent from the lunar race.1 The genealogy narrated in the epigraph is as follows:
Uchita F:
Asaga
Rāja II
Bijja I
D
Karna
Jogama
Permaḍi
Bijjana II
Sōmēśvara
Rāja I
But the evidence of other inscriptions of the family shows that this genealogy, though it ushers in a few new names, is not complete. To start with, another inscription from Harasür itself, found in the Bhōgeévara temple differs from the above in the following respects: Asaga had a son named Kannama. The record next mentions the latter's son whose name is irretrievably lost. This unknown son of Kannama had two sons, Raja II and Bijja I. Bijja I was followed by his son Karna. Thus it may be seen from this epigraph that between Asaga and Karna there intervened
1 Fleet's reference to the lunar descent of the family is based on an inscription in the Bhōgéévara temple at Harasür. The record is unpublished and I possess full copy of the text in my private collection. The passage in question from the epigraph runs thus:
Line 6 Neredu sur-asurar-kkadeyal-Imgadali md-ogedam nij-ambu-samstara-paripu
Line 7 rit-akhila-disavalayam Kamala-sahodarn Sura-gaja-sodaram Sabi tadiya-kulābharaṇarkka-apta• Samkara-varar-adar-and-uchi
Line 8 ta-cha ndra-kul-acharanar-mmahibhujar ||
This may be compared with verses 3 and 4 of the present epigraph. Also see Ep. Carn., Vol. VII, Sk. 236.
Most of the genealogical statements contained in the several genuine records of the family are scrappy and incomplete and one can also detect much divergency in these accounts. This shows that very little was known regarding the origin and the early history of the family which sprang to prominence in the time of Jogama and his s1ccessors. This, therefore, makes it necessary to collate the varying information from different epigraphs and reconstruct an authentic genealogical picture of the family.
Fleet's genealogical account at this stage is based on faulty understanding of the text and hence misleading 'Bom. Gaz., Vol. I, pt. II, p. 468). As the record is unpublished and it is necessary to know the original text properly to find out the errors in his interpretation, I reproduce the relevant portion below:
Line 8 Ant-avarol-akhila-vasudha-kämt-ochitan-Uchitan-aldan-akhil-avaniyam santam-ene tat-tani. Line 9 jan anantarav-Asagarsan-aldan akhil-örvvareyam | Tat-tanayam Kannama-nripan-ottambadin-aldan ileyan-atana tanayam matt-ek-i
Line 10...tang-utta narsene Raja-Bijjar-ogedar-ttanayar || Amt-avar=kkramadimdav-ald-ifeyam nimirchi. Line 11 d-aratiga-Amtak-opaman-agi Bijja-nripalaka ng-ogedan autam Kantu-vairi-vara-prasada-sulabdha. dor-vvala-dhairyya-vikräntan-aranava
Line 12 ghurana-kirttiyenippa-Karana-nripāļakam ||
From this it may be seen that there are no names like Santama or Santasama and Sagararasa as made out by
Fleet.
