________________
106
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
.
[APRIL, 1911.
From this genealogy we learn that Vikramāditya II, alias Vijayabāha, who was a friend of the Rashtrakūta king Kţishņa II, who reigned A.D. 888-911, must have role in the last decades of the ninth century A.D. Therefore the Vijayaditya mentioned in our inscriptions A. and O., whose datos are given as S 820 and 827 (A.D. 898 and 905), must necessarily be later thau Vikramaditya II; and, since he comes immediately after Vikramaditya in point of time, he should be the successor of Vikramaditya II. From A. we learn that the father of this Vijayaditya was Bānavidyadhara. Hence the latter, preceding Vijayāditya, as he must have done, may be identical with Vikramaditya II. If this identification is correct, we have to infer that Vikramiditys II mast have borne the surname Bāņavidyadhara.
From an inscription at Manigatta Gollaha!li in the Kolār District, Mysore, we learn that a Bejeyitta-Banarasa was reigning in Saka 831-A.D. 909-10. And from the fact that the period in which that ruler lived agrees with that of the Vijayādity of our inscriptions A. and B., there is no difficulty in taking the three records as referring to one and the same individual. The Bāņa king bearing the name, Bäņavidyadhara mentioned in O., who is described as a contemporary of Nripatunga, must also be the same as the one referred to in A. But A. states that this Bäņavidyadhara's wife was named Marakanimmadigal : hence he must be different from the Bāns king of the same name, mentioned in the Tiruvallam inscriptions, whose wife was Kundavrai, a daughter of the Ganga king Prithvipati 1.7 The inference that the king mentioned in the Tiruvallam inscription mast be different from him who figures in our A. and B., is borne out by the fact that the former lived about A.D. 814-77, the period assigned to Prithvipati I, whereas, the inscriptions edited below show that the latter flourished about A.D. 898-905, that is, a generation or two after the latter.
In my paper on "Six Pallava Inscriptions," I have shown (1) that the so-called GangaPallaras are identical with the regular Pallavas; (2) that the names Dantivarman, Dantivarmamaharaja, Dantippottarasar and Vijaya-Dantivikramavarman refer to a single individual; similarly, the names Nandi varman, Nandippü tarasar, Vijaya Nandivikramavarman indicate one and the same person ; (3) that the kings Dantirarman, Nandirarman and Nřipatungavarman were grandfather, father and son, respectively; and (4) that their reigas must have extendeed approximately as follollows :Dantivarman
*** ". .. .. ... A.D. 760 to 811. Nandivarman
... ... ... ... . 811 to 873. Nrijatangavarman ... ... ... ... ... . 873 to 899. Then the 49th year of the reign of Dantivarman, given in E., must approximately be A. D. 809, a date which fits in very well for Vijvăditya, son-in-law of the Ganga Prithvīpati I, who ruled, as We have stated already, from A, D. 814 to 877. The contemporary of Nandivarman about the 28rd vear of his reign, that is, A.D. about 824, according to D., was Vikramiditya. Since Vijayāditya, the contemporary of Dantivarman, the father lived so near in point of time to Vikramaditya, the contemporay of Nandippottaraśar, the son. I feel inclined to take Vijayaditya as the father of Vikramiditya. But the U.layondiran plates joform us that Prabhamuru was the name of the father of Vikramaditya ; when it woull follow that Prabhumora was a biruda of Vijayaditya, the contemporary of Dantivarman. If all the identifications ventured above are correct, the genealogy of the Biņas and synchronisms of this with the other dynasties will be as follows:
• No. 99 of the Government Epigraphat's Collection for 1899: And Ep. Cam., Vol. I, Mb. 8:29. * 8. I.I., Vol. II, Nos. 247 and 248. . To be published shortly.
No. 512 of the Government Epigraphist's Collection for 1903 bears out this conclusion. Therein the king is called Mabávali Vāņarasar Vijayadityan Viruchila napi Prabhumēru.
