Indian Antiquary Vol 46

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 167

JULY, 1917)
THE KADAMBA PRAKRIT INSCRIPTION OF MALAVALLI
155
the donor of the former grant' (puvva-dalti) referred to therein. Now, the inscription No. 269 of Shikarpur Taluq (No. 1195 of Lüders' List) which is engraved on the same pillar as, and immediately precedes, this inscription, records the grant of the village Sahalâtavi to Kondamana of the Kaundinya-gitra, the anneator of the donee in No. 264. The village Sahalâ avi too is no doubt the same as the village Sa halâ which was one of the thirteen villages granted by No. 264. Nevertheless, the former grant' of No. 264 oan not refer to the grant recorded in No. 263; for, No. 263 states that the grant is made by Viņhukadda-chutukulananda Satakanni, of the Manavya-gatra, a son of Hariti and lord (rajan) of Vaijayanti-pura, and that the subject of the grant is but one village Sahalațavi; while No. 264 numes the donor of the former grant' referred to therein as Sivakhada vamman and by employing the words biliyam dattam... puvvochita ggama says that the subjeot of that grant were the thirteon villages-Sahalâ, Sômapatti, Konginagaram, etc., named therein. We must therefore 2 assume that at some time between the making of the grants recorded in Nos. 263 and 264, Sivakhadavamman made a grant to Kongamana himself or to his descendant of the twelve villages Somapatti, Konginagaram, eto, in addition to the village of Sahala which having been already granted to Kondamana by Vinhukadda-chutukulananda Satakannt was in the donee's possession and enjoyment. These villages in course of time must have passed out of the possession of the descendants of Kondama pa and the king of the Kadambas, hearing of this, granted the same again to them,
This Sivakhada vamma must have been a Satakaroi; for not only did he supplement the grant made by Viņhukadda-chutukulananda Satakanni, as we saw above; but he is also styled like the latter, a Manavya-sagôtra, Haritaputra and lord of Vaijayanti. In all probability, he is the same as the prince Sivakhada-Naga-siri whose name occurs in conjunction with that of Viņhukadda-ehutukulananda sa takanni, in & Banavdse inscription, No. 1186 of Lüders' List. (See also the index of personal names attached to that List.)
It is thus clear that Sivakhadavamman was not a king of the Kadambas ; this name therefore must be deleted from the list of Kadamba kings.
A point worthy of note is that the unnamed king of the Kadambas already appears here with their characteristic biruda-*pratikrita-svadhydya-charcha-pâra (in its Prakrit form); he is not however styled a Manavya-sağôtra and Hâritiputra as the later Kadamba kings are.
It is also interesting to find that this inscription (i.e. Sk. 264) quotes the following Prakrit stanza, which has not so far been recognised as such
Uktam khand ho
Visvakammd Bahmam dejjam (read Bahma-dejjam) sê Kadambêsu ridhamate Visasattu châtu-vejjam siddhitam nigama-viditam cha. Il
This stanza being a quotation must have been composed before the time of the inscription (C. A. D. 250). It is therefore not unlikely that the Kadam bas had acquired a renown for giving brahma-deydni long before the time of the inscription. The verse is also interesting as furnishing a specimen of the inscriptional Prakrit which was employed for verse about 230 A. D. • 2 Otherwise, if one wants to maintain, as Mr. Rice seems to do (p. 6. of Introduction to Vol. VII, Epigraphia Carnatica) that the former grant' referred to in No. 264 is that recorded in No. 263, one will have to assert that the composer or engraver of the formor ingeription has made a mistake a regards the name of the donor and as regards the number of villages granted. In view of the fact that No. 263 was there before the eyes of the composer and engraver, it seems most unlikely that such a mistake could be made. Mr. Rice's view seems to me therefore to be mogu improbablo.
3 Kondamina and his descendants seem to have been prieste officiating at the temple at Mattaparti; and the villages granted seem to have been intended mainly for the maintenance of the temple.
4 The occurrence of this biruda which is characteristio of the Kadambas only, 48 well as the ex mention by the inscription of Kadambdņam rdjá prove conclusively-il proof were needed that this is a Kadamba ingcription. Dr. Fleet's doubts on this point (loc. cit., p. 304 footnote) should therefore bo considered to be baselees.
5 See for example Epigraphia Carnatica, Vol. V, BI. 248: Vol. VII. Bk. 29: Vol. IV, No. 18, etc.