Indian Antiquary Vol 09

Author(s): Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 52

42
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[FEBRUARY, 1880.
say-as both the Parel Inscription and the stone reign of one of these Silaras themselves. There slab inscription already mentioned as being in the are then, it seems to me, three alternative possession of the Bombay Branch of the Royal explanations of these facts :-either there was a Asiatic Society are dated in the same year. Dr. revolution in the kingdom of Sri Sth a na ka Bühler's Account of his Tour in Kasmir affords between the Saka years 1058 and 1066; or the us, however, some further information on this statement in Bhoja d ê va's plate is a mere point. For it appears that a work composed in rhetorical flourish having little or no historical Kasmir between 1135 and 1145 A.D. makes basis; or Aparaditya does not belong to reference to an "ambassador of A paraditya, this branch of the Silara dynasty. The king of the Konkaņa, "*" named Teja kantha, third alternative may, I think, be summarily being then in Kasmir. If so, I think, we may rejected, both on the grounds adduced by safely assume that Aparaditya cannot have con- Pandit Bhagvânlal," and on the grounds of the menced to reign much later than 1135 A.D. or connexion of this Aparaditya with the town of 1057 of the Saka era." And then the hiatus in Thân," and the coincidence of sundry exour Silkra lists appears to be reduced to pressions in Dr. Bübler's plate with expresvery modest dimensions, indeed, viz, scarcely sions in the Parel Inscription and the stone forty years.
slab inscription obtained at Thàn A, now in If these arguments and conclusions are correct, the possession of the Bombay Branch of the it is difficult to treat the boast of Vijayarka Royal Asiatic Society. The facts stated by in Dr. Taylor's Inscription as of any greater value Dr. Bühlerts in his account of his Kasmir than a rhetorical flourish. At the best, it can be tour also corroborate that conclusion. The first only a very great exaggeration of a very small alternative also appears to me, I own, upon historical fact. For see how the case stands :--| the facts set forth above, an extremely doubtful According to Dr. Bühler's account, which ap- one. The second alternative appears to be the pears from our present materials to be perfectly feast improbable of the three. It is not necessary correct, A pa råditya must have succeeded to reject the statement in Bhojadeva's grant as to the throne in any case before the Saka year altogether a myth and unhistorical. It is, 1066,** and he appears to have still been on perhaps, only an exaggerated statement out of the throne in the Saka year 1109. Now Gan.
compliment to the grantor's line of the succour dar aditya, the immediate predecessor of the afforded by Vijayarka to his brethren at Thâņa Vijayarka who claims to have re-established in some local, possibly dynastic, disturbance, the Than A Silê ras on their throne, cer- such as is referred to in our plate in the verses tainly reigned till the Saka year 1058. The first devoted to Anantapkla. I must add that there document of Vijayarka's reign that is accessi- are two other possibilities not covered by the ble to us is dated in the Saka year 1065." Vijaya alternatives mentioned, viz., that A paraditya therefore cannot have begun to reign much if at all himself may not have had an uninterrupted before Aparaditya. The last date in his reign reign, or that Dr. Bühler's date for the Kasmir that we know of is the Saka year 1073, and the work to which he refers may be erroneous. first in that of his successor Bhojadeva II. is No evidence is available on either point, and we 1101, so that his reign must have closed at must leave both here without further discussion. least eight years prior to that of A parâ ditya. We have now gone through the whole series We have, therefore, this result:--The whole of princes of the Silara dynasty at present period of the reign of this Vijay arka, who known to us. The series appears to be complete claims to have re-established the Thảņa Sila. save for the period intervening between the reign ras, is itself covered, or nearly covered, by the of Ananta pala and A paraditya." If
" See J. B. B. R. A. 8. vol. XII. (extra No.) p. 51, 52. " Which is expressly mentioned in the stone slab in.
1 This doubtless makes AparAditya's reign a very long scription referred to. . one-being upwards of 52 years. But there is nothing un- *J. B. B. R. A. S. (Extra No.) vol. XII. pp. 51, 62. likely in one individual prince in a long line reigning more 19 Pandit BhagyAnlal has already adduced reasons for even than 52 years, like George III. of England or Louis supposing this Aparaditya or Apararks to be the same who XIV. of France.
has given his name to the well-known commentary on The latest date to which Dr. Bühler attributes the Y&navalkya (J. B. B.RA. 8. vol. XII. p. 835; see, too, KAsmir work alluded to above.
Extra No. p. 52). Dr. Bhau hay pointed out that "! See J. B. B. R. A. 8. vol. XIII., p. 16.
Aparårka is cited by an author of the beginning of the 10 J. B. B. R. 4. S. vol. XII. p. 335.
18th century (J. B. B. R. 4. 8. vol. IX. p. 161).