Epigraphia Indica Vol 29

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 45

26 EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXIX A.C.). Verse 29 of this muscription tells us that a ruler of the same family, whose name is lost, gave battle to Khottigadēva at Khalighatta on the bank of the Rēvă in the cause of Siyaka and went to heaven. Evidently, the same exploit is attributed to the Paramāra prince Kankadēva of the same Naddūla family in the Arthūņā inscription of Chamundarāja, verse 19 of which relates that Kankadēva overthrew the army of the king of Karnata in battle on the bank of the Narmada and in fighting on the side of Sri-Harsha of Mālava died a hero's death. It has been assumed by some writers that Kankadēva is identical with Chachcha and that it was this prince who fought against Rashtrakūta Khottiga on behalf of Paramära Siyaka II. It would seem that the facts narrated above with reference to several contemporary princes, including the fight at Khalighatta, were incidents of one and the same campaign, viz., the one undertaken by Khottiga against the Pratīhāra and other princes of the north, viz., the Chēdi, the Chandēlla and lastly the Paramāra who was his erstwhile feudatory. Kēsarin too may be supposed to have taken part in the expedition as can be deduced from the present Mäser inscription. These events pertain to the reign of Khottiga and must have taken place before 972-3. A.C. As Māser where the present eulogistic inscription is found lies north-east of Khalighatta (modern Khalghat) on the Narmada, it may be supposed that Khottiga was not halted at the Narmadā as a result of this battle but was able to proceed further north victoriously.
Now, the Mäser inscription, recounting as it does the exploits of a Räshţrakūta subordinate, must have been set up before Khottiga's reign came to an end, i.e., before 972-3 A.C., as after this date the chances of a Räshţrakūta subordinate setting up an inscription so far north would be very remote, the area having come under the rule of the Paramāras by this date.
The mention of Muñja (Munjörvvipa) in this record, assigned as it has been done to a date before 972-3 A.C., would lead to the conclusion that he had already become king in succession to Siyaka II hy that date. Since, neither the latest date of Siyaka II nor the date of accession of Muñja is definitely known yet, it is not unlikely that Muñja ascended the Paramāra throne before 972 A.C., though the earliest date known of his is 974 A.C. It is usually believed that the Mālava king who plundered Mänyakhēta in 972 A.C. was Siyaka II Harsha on the evidence of a reference found in the Päiyalachchhi. But as surmised by Fleet the Mälava king might have been Väkpati Muñja himself."
Another incident of this campaign mentioned in the present inscription is the fight against the Hūnas sent by Lolikya which took place at Pattanaka. If Pattanaka is identical with Anabilaväda-Patan which at this date was ruled by Chalukya Mülaraja, it may be supposed that the armies (of Kēsarin ?) marched against this Chalukya chief and his Hūņa vassals. I am unable to identify Lõlikya who despatched the Hūņas.
Of the places mentioned in the record, Gölahatti-Chanaki near Elāpura may be identified with Gola and Chånēgaon near Ellorā, i.e., Eläpura, in the Aurangabad District, Hyderabad State. Vida, as stated already, may be identified with Vidă near Bilbāri. Or, both Vida and Vidā may stand for Bilhari itself. I am unable to locate Pattanaka where the Hūņas were encountered. Whether it stands for Anahilvāda-Pāțan or Sömanātha-Pāțan cannot be determined until more definite data are available. I am also unable to locate Arkavana.
.. 1 Abovo, Vol. XIV, pp. 296 ff. · History of the Paramara Dynasty, p. 338.
Bom. Gaz., Vol. I, pt. ii, PP. 422-3. Above, VOL. XIII, p. 180, See above, P. 22, a. 4.