________________
208 EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIII apparently represents Dasapura as the capital of Adityavardhana just as the earlier Aulikan. king Bandhuvarman is mentioned as the ruler of the same city in another Mandasör inscription.
Prof. Mirashi thinks that Mahārāja Gauri had his capital at Dasapura. But this view seems to. go clearly against the evidence of verse 2 of his Mandasor Insoription, unless of course Gauri is identified with Adityavardhana. As indicated above, we have only the following two inscriptions of Gauri: (1) the Chhoti Sādri epigraph, and (2) the Mandasõr inscription recording the excavation of a tank by him in the suburbs of Dasapura for the merit of his deceased mother. Of course Gauri's activities recorded in these inscriptions do not prove that he had his capital at either of the two places where his records have been found or at a third place, since a ruling chief could build a temple or excavate a tank at his capital or elsewhere in or outside his own territory. Thus according to an inscription of Saka 983 (1060 A.D.) from Barsur in the Bastar District of Madhya Pradesh, a Telugu-Choda Mahamandalesvara named Chandräditya-mahārāja, who had his headquarters at Ammagrāma, is known to have built a temple of Siva called Chandradityēsvara and excavated a tank called Candrādityasarovara at Bārasūru which was the capital of his Chhindaka overlord, Mahārāja Jagadēkabhushapa.
Another fact that cannot be ignored in this connection is that Dasapura was in early times one of the celebrated holy places in Western India and that death at a place of pilgrimage was considered by the people as highly meritorious. Gauri's mother may, therfore, have visited Dasspura on pilgrimage with a view to meet her end at the holy place. The excavation of wells at Dasapura by both Nirdosha and Gauri in the name of their dead relatives in such a case becomes clear..
Moreover, as already incidated above, verse 2 of the Mandasör fragmentary inscription of Gauri suggests that Dasapura was the capital of his overlord Adityavardhana probably of the Aulikara dynasty. It is, therefore, impossible to believe in the present state of our knowledge that Gauri of the Mänavāyani family, who was a feudatory chief and not a governor, had also his capital at the same city of Dasapura.
We also find it difficult to agree with Prof. Mirashi's view regarding the date of Dravyavardhana who is mentioned in the Brihatsamhitā and may be supposed to have belonged to the Aulikara family. The date of the composition of this work is uncertain, although it may have been written some time about the first quarter of the sixth century A.D." It is, therefore, impossible, without further evidence, to prove whether Dravyavardhana ruled in the fifth or sixth century A.D. or whether he was a predecessor or sucessor of Adityavardhana. Prof. Mirashi conjectures that Dravyavardhana was a successor of Adityavardhang and predecessor of Yasodharman Vishnuvardhana and says, "Mahārājādhiraja Dravyavardhana of Avanti mentioned by Varahamihira (c. first half of the sixth century A.D.) must, therefore, be placed in the period V. 552 to 589. He may have ruled from c. V. 552 to 572 (A.D. 495-515). He was thus & predecessor of Yabodharman and might have been his father." He lays special emphasis on the last sentence by putting it in italics. Unfortunately, however, all these statements appear to us to be nothing more than guesses unsupported by any evidence worth the name.
1 See Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphy, 1908-09, pp. 111 ff.; Hiralal's Inscriptions in the Central Provinces and Berar, pp. 158-59; The Classical Age, pp. 216, 220. For another similar inscription, seo Hiralal, op. cit., p. 159.
Cf. Select Inscriptions, p. 161, text line 2. See above, Vol. XXX, pp. 43 ff. Cf. JAHRS, Vol. XIX, p. 207.
· Varahamihira probably composed his Parichasiddhantika in Saka 427 (808 A.D ) sinoe in that work the said Baka year has been taken as the basis of osloulation. The Brihalaarhild appears to have been composed at a later date. The tradition that Varahamihira died in Saka 609 (587 A.D.) is now generally regarded as of dubiona value. Cf. The Classical Age, p. 323,
