________________
SEPTEMBER, 1911.]
EPIGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUESTIONS
239
I, therefore, began to find out whether the name of Dharanivaráha could be traced in any of the Rajputâ na inscriptions so far discovered. This name was met with by me in the Bijapur inscription of Dhavala, the Rashtrakūta prince of Hastikundi. Verse 12 represents Dhavala to have given support to Dharanivaráha, who had been completely ousted by the Solaiki king Mularâja. Though no surname was here attached to his name, it was surmised that Dharanivaraha here referred to was the celebrated Paramâra king of that name. But it was, after all, & sur mise, especially so long as his name was not found in the Paramâra records. Accordingly last year I began to hunt after the name in the inscriptions of the Paramâra kings of western Rajputana. While going over the Vasantgadh inscription of Purņapála edited by the late Prof. Kielhora I came to the mutilated verse No. 5. It is as follows :-- - - - -- ifratura
: 11 पुत्रोपि तस्मान्महिपालनामा तस्मादभूद्धंधुक एव भूपः ॥ [५] In the first half of this verse the name of a king is mentioned whose name is lost but who is likened to the Boar. As Varáha is the upamina here, what could be the upameya, I thought ? It suddenly flashed on me that it must be Dharanivaráha, and my mind also at once restored the lost line to TTT TEATTRACTE:. I have, therefore, no doubt that this verse contained the name of the celebrated Dharanivarába, though it was not recognised by Professor Kjelhorn owing to the first line being completely destroyed.
Mûtå Nensi speaks of Dharanivarâha as reigning at Kirådù, the ancient Kirâtakupa. So I asked mysel' whether this statement of the Mârwar chronicle could be verified by any inscription from Kirâdû. Kiradu is now desolate, and its ruins are spread near the modern village of Hatma, 16 miles NNW. of Badmer, the principal town of the Mallâại district, Jodhpur State. Here in a temple of Siva there are three inscriptions, one of which is a Paramâra record'. So I commenced reading it carefully. This record, too, contains several lines highly mutilated. While going over it, I came to verse 8, the first line of which is gone but the second is :
सिन्धुराजधराधारधरणीधरधामवान् । Here also a king is mentioned and compared to Dharanidhara, i. e., Varaha, and just as the latter supported the dhurá (earth) immersed in Sindhurdja ( the ocean), so the king also supported the dhard (kingdom) of Sindhurâja, 1. e., of his forefather of that name. There can hardly be a doubt that the first half of this verse, too, contained the name of Dharanivaráha, which by a strange fate las disappeared with the lost portion in this inscription also. There can be no question that the Dharanivaraha of the Kirâda is identical with the Dharanivaráha of the Vasantgadh inscription, because the names of the predecessors and successors of both agroe.
X.-The Pathari Pillar Inscription of Parabala. This inscription has been edited by Professor Kielhorn in Ep. Ind., Vol. IX., p. 248 ff. It is of the time of the Rashtrakůta king Parabala, and is dated V. E. 917=A. D. 861. The name of his grandfather was Jejja, whose unnamed elder brother is spoken of as having obtained the kingdom of Lita after defeating the Karpita soldiers. Jejja's son and Parabala's father was Karkaraja. who put to flight the king Nâgâvaloka and invaded his home. Now who was this Nagávaloka? He was undoubtedly raler of some importance', as Professor Kielhorn says. He is also quite correct in saying that this king is identical with that Nagávaloka who is mentioned in verse 18 of the Harsha inscription of Vigraharaja, in terms which woald imply that he was the overlord, and who certainly was a contemporary of the Châhamâna Gavaka I. Vigraharaja was six generations removed from Güvaka I, and for the former we have the date 970 A.D. We bave thus to assign the period A. D. 816-838 to Gůvaka I, whose contemporary Nagávaloka was. This brings Nagavaloka so close to Nagabhata II. (circa 800-25 A.D.) of the imperial Pratihara dynasty that there can hardly be a doubt as to the latter being referred to by the former name in the Pathari inscription. It is this Nágávaloka, therefore, whom Parabala's father, Karkaraja, is represented to have
Ep. Ind., Vol. X., p. 21. v. 12. Ibid., Vol. IX., p. 18. This inseription has not yet been pubHehed. * Ep. Ind., Vol. II., p. 121; but the translation given is wrong.
