________________
A SILARA COPPER PLATE GRANT.
FEBRUARY, 1880.]
one may judge from the evidence now available, it is probable that there were two kings between those two. But upon this point, and on the point relating to the revolution above referred to, further materials must be awaited.
There is one question of considerable interest which is now satisfactorily settled by the plate before us. In 1869, the late learned Dr. Bhâu Dâji, having read before the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society a paper regarding the inscription at Ambarnath, a short discussion took place concerning the date of that inscription and of the Ambarnath Temple. Mr. Burgess pointed out the architectural difficulty in accepting the date of the inscription, as read by Dr. Bhâu, as giving the correct date of the Temple, and he referred also to Mr. Fergusson's opinion on the point. Dr. Bhâu dissented from these opinions, and expressed himself to the effect, that from the character of the letters, he would assign the Inscription-and consequently the Temple also-to the ninth century A. D. In 1876 Pandit Bhagvânlâl gave us a revised transcript of the Inscription, and made out the date to be 982 instead of 782 as Dr. Bhâu Dâjî had read it. And in the discussion upon the Pandit's paper, I am reported as having observed "that there was no doubt about the numerals in the first (viz., the Ambarnath) inscription"the date arrived at being confirmed by an unpublished plate in my possession. That plate is the one which forms the subject of these remarks. It is now quite plain that since Anantapála flourished in the Saka year 1016, his predecessor and uncle could not have reigned as early as Saka 782, but must have reigned somewhere about Saka 982. Accepting that latter reading of the date, Mr. Fergusson's and Mr. Burgess's views about the date of the Temple receive most remarkable confirmation. Mr. Burgess, on the occasion in question, also pointed out that the style of architecture of the Ambarnath Temple as sociated it with the Temple of Somanâth.
Bo J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. IX. p. cxxxviii. et seq. Mr. Fergusson's and Mr. Burgess's estimate of the age both of the characters of the inscription and of the Temple appears, from the facts we now know, to have been much more correct. See also J. R. A. S. (N. S.) IV. p. 137 note.
1 J. B. B. R. A. S. vol. XI. p. 831.
ss Ibid., p. xxiv.
83 See Cunningham's Bhilsa Topes p. 266; Transactions of the Intern. Congr. of Orientalists pp. 302-808; Ind. Ant. vol. p. III. p. 267.
43
That, too, appears to me to be an important circumstance, having regard to the reference to Somanâth in the plate before us, and in the Thânâ inscription of Aparâditya. We shall have to say a word on this subject in the sequel.
Two lessons of general application for the future may, I think, be derived from these facts. The first is, that chronological inferences based merely on the character of the writing in old documents must be accepted with very considerable caution. The tendency towards regarding that as the all-important element-instead of as one only of the important elements-in such investigations, is to be ob served in sundry quarters. The second lesson is, that inferences derivable from the style of architecture of any building are entitled to considerable weight in chronological inquiries-as much weight, I should say, as inferences from the style of writing in copperplates and inscriptions.
A point of considerable interest connected with this dynasty is raised by the title which all branches of it seem to have retained-viz., Tagarapuravarddhisvara. That title finds a parallel, among others, in the title of the Kadambas. -Banavásipurádhisvara." Probably the ori ginal stock from which the three branches of the Sila ras afterwards branched out belonged to the city of Tagara. What is that city? Pandit Bhagvânlâl, after an elaborate examination of Colonel Wilford's suggestion on this point, dissents from it, and identifies Ta gara with the modern. J un nar.se I do not find much difficulty in agreeing with the negative side of Pandit Bhagvanlal's reasoning; but as respects the positive portion of it, I own that though there is a good deal in the arguments he adduces, I can-not persuade myself that he has satisfactorily surmounted the initial difficulty in his theory, viz., that whereas Junnar is to the west of Paithana, Tagara is stated by Arrian (as quoted by Col. Wilford) to be towards the east.
As to this see Cunningham's Arch. Surv. Reports, vol. VII. p. 87-88.
85 See on this Journ. B. B. R. A. S. vol. XII. p. 305. 6 J. B. B. R. A. 8. vol. XIII. p. 8. It is interesting to note in connexion with this proposed identification, that in the early days of Muhammadan rule in this part of the country Junnar was the capital of a district which included some part of the Konkan (see Nairne, p. 27). The head quarters of the army which conquered the district had also been at Junnar (Nairne, p. 25); Ind. Ant. vol. II., p. 48 ff.; and conf. Arch. Sur. W. Ind. vol. III. pp. 54, 55.
