________________
No. 34-NOTE ON HILOL PLATES OF YEAR 470
D. C. SIROAR, OOTACAMUND
(Received on 28.11.1959) Dr. H. D. Sankalia has edited the Hilol plates above, pp. 213 ff. We do not agree with some of his readings as well as of his views expressed in connection not only with the interpretation of the language of the inscription but also with that of its evidence. There is nothing in the record to support Dr. Sankalia's doubt about the genuineness of the plates.
The record is very carelessly drafted and engraved. While many letters have been written in various forms, sometimes more than one letter have the same form or similar forms. The text is full of linguistic and orthographical errors. In many cases, a letter or word or a group of letters or words has been altogether omitted. It is therefore very difficult to read and interpret the inscription. .
As regards the date, what has been read as Bhauma-dinē (lines 15-16) is clearly Soma-dinë. Thus the date of the record is Monday the seventh tithi of the bright halt of the month of Mārgasira in the year 470 of apparently the Gupta-Valabhi era of 319-20 A.D. Taking the year to be current, the date regularly corresponds to Monday the 10th November 788 A. D.
The inscription records the grant of two pieces of land, each said to have been a chatur-bhāga, i.e. ' quarter', one of them situated in Pādātaka-grāma and the other in Hilohila-gráma. The gift land thus consisted of one-fourth share of each of the two villages. - The grant was issued by Chandraditya, & subordinate Vishayādhipati (governor of a district) of Harshapura-mahābhishthānal enjoying the feudatory titles Samadhigatapafchamahāśabda and Mahāsāmanta. The expression mahābhisthāna, as used in the inscription, is of lexical interest since abhisthāna in the sense of residence' i.e. headquarters or capital city) is & mistake for abhishthana or the more popular adhishthana. Dr. Sankalia regards Samadhigalapaschamahäsabda Mahāsāmantādhipati Paramarājādħirāja Paramēśvara Kakka or Nanna of Khőtaka-mahābhishthana, who was the overlord of the said Chandrāditya, as an emperor. The name of the overlord of Chandrāditya is, however, certainly Kakka, and not Nanna, while, among his titles, Mahasamantādhipati and Samadhigata pañchamahāśabda are feudatory and Paramēsvara and Paramarājādhirāja are imperial titles. The assumption of both feudatory and imperial titles at the same time shows clearly that Kakka of Khőtaka was & semi-independent subordinates of some imperial ruler who appears to have been none other than the contemporary Rashtrakūta emperor Dhruva Dhārāvarsha (780-94 A.D.).
As regards the identification of Kakka of the Hilol plates, Dr. Sankalia doubts whether he can be the same as Samadhigata pafchamahāśabda Paramabhattaraka Mahäräjädhiräja ParameIvara Kakka II of the Antroli-Charoli plates of 757 A.D., because he believes that this Kakka II may not have ruled so late as 788 A.D. when moreover the Imperial Rashtrakūtas were, in his opinion, in complete control over Central and Southern Gujarat. He therefore prefers to identify Kakka of the Hilol plates, whom he regards as an emperor, with Karka (Kakka) who was the
1 The Kapadwanaj (Kaira District) plates of Krisbps II mention Khetaks, Harghapur sod Käsahrads as the leading cities of Harahapura-750 (Bomb. Gaz., Vol. I, Part II, p. 413).
* Cf. above, Vol. XXXIII, p. 50, note 3. * JBBRA8, Vol. XVI, pp. 108 ft.
