________________
MAHAKUTA INSCRIPTION OF MANGALESA.
JANUARY, 1890.]
much less than three years old at the time of his father's death. If that event took place in Saka-Samvat 489 or 490, according to my original opinion, then Palikêsin II. must have been about forty-six years old at the time of his accession, in Saka-Samvat 533; seventy years old at the time of the Aihole inscription, in Saka-Samvat 557; and seventy-four years old when Hinen Tsiang wrote his contemporaneous account of him, in or about A.D. 639 (Saka-Samvat 561 or 562). If, however, the death of Kirtivarman I. took place in 'Saka-Samvat 514, according to Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar's theory, then the age of Pulikesin, at each of the above points, would be reduced to the reasonable figures of twentytwo, forty-six, and fifty years, respectively. The result for the present Mahakûța inscription would still further reduce his age at each point, and, if we keep to the same assumption that his age was about three years at the time of his father's death, would in fact carry the matter rather too far in the other direction; for, he would then be only about fifteen years old at the time of his accession; and this seems to be too young to be ordinary admissible for a reigning king, even in India. Now the Miraj grant (ante, Vol. VIII. p. 13 f.) tells us that, on the death of Kirtivarman I., Mangalêsa assumed the sovereignty because Pulikêśin II. was unable to bear the burden of it on account of his childhood, and restored it to him when he became a young man, i.e. when he attained a suitable age. This, however, is a tradition of later times. And a plainly more reliable version of the facts is given in the contemporaneous Aihole inscription, from which we learn that towards the end of Mangalêsa's reign there were differences between him and Pulikesin II.; that Mangalêsa attempted to secure the succession for his own son; and that this attempt was defeated in a struggle, in which Mangalêsa lost his life, brought on by the faculties of counsel and energy that had been accumulated by Pulikêśin II. From this we can only assume that, at the time of his accession, Pulikêśin II. had attained a fairly ripe age, say about twenty-three years, sufficient at any rate for him to secure a powerful and influential following. And this would place his birth in or about Saka-Samvat 510; and would make him about ten years of age at the time of his father's death in Saka-Samvat 520 or 521.
13
This inscription contains a good deal of historical information. In the first place, we may note that, like many of the other records of this dynasty, it mentions the members of it as belonging to the Manavya gotra, and as being Haritiputras or descendants of an original ancestress of the Hârita gôtra. In the second place, that it speaks of Pulikêéin I. as descended from the god Hiranyagarbha or Brahman; just as we find that the Puranic genealogy given in some of the later grants of the eastern branch of the family (e. g., ante, Vol. XIV. p. 50) takes the descent through the Moon up to Brahman, and through him to Vishnu, as he was born from the water-lily that grew from Vishnu's navel. And in the third place, that in lines 2 and 8 it gives the dynastic name as Chalikya. This form of the name occurs in a few. other records; except that in them it is mostly written with the Sanskrit l, instead of with the Dravidian. Another form is Chalkya, which occurs in the Bâdâmi cave inscription referred to in a preceding paragraph. But the most usual form is Chalukya. I have elsewhere (Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, p. 41) pointed out the obvious difference in meaning between this form and that of Chalukya, with the long vowel á in the first syllable; this last form belongs only to the restored dynasty, commencing with Taila II.; and, though it has been used throughout by Prof. R. G. Bhandarkar in his Early History of the Dekkan, it does not occur in any of the genuine early inscriptions.
The record then takes up the genealogy, commencing with Jayasimha I., "the lion of victory," who is here called Jayasinghs, and to whose name there is attached the epithet of "lord of favourites (vailabh-endra)." The only other early inscription that takes the genealogy back so far, is the Aihole inscription of Pulikesin II, dated Saka-Samvat 556 expired. The Miraj grant of Jayasimha III., and a few other precisely similar records, do the same; but they belong to much later times, and are confessedly only based on earlier documents. And the same starting-point was selected in the British Museum grant of Pulikêsin I., purporting to be dated Saka-Samvat 411 expired (ante, Vol. VII. p. 211 ff.); but this is a spurious grant, not
