Indian Antiquary Vol 61

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 267

DECEMBER, 1932 ]
BOOK-NOTICES
241
the Bhinnagarigadh Plato of Tribhuvana-mala. dovi, editod by this last scholar, has the following in lines 17-18: devi-Purdyi-devya Sri Gosvdminya,
(who was entreated) by Gosvamini Purayi Devi, end ndthave suchirari dhdrayaindi 'like a lord, rule the kingdom' (JRORS., vol. II, pp. 422-3, and 426). A reference to the facsimilo would have convinced Banerji that Haraprasad Sastri's reading and tranglation were both wrong. In the first place, devi-Purdyi-devyd is wrongly read for devi pursdpi deuyd. It will thus be seen that there was no such person as Purayi-devi as assumed Ly Sastri and Banerji. Secondly, ndithava is an obvious misreading for tath=aiva, and it is not quite clear how such a Sanskritist as Sastri tran. slated náthava by like a lord ' as if it was ndiksiva.
latter titles again altornate regularly in the case of the kings of Trikaliūga, but Mahasiva and Bhavadeva occur each only once in the case of the other rulers. These last again, as is quite clear from their inscrip. tions, bolongod to tho Pandava family, and it is not quito clear why the kings of Trikalinga make no mention of this family name even once in their records, if they were really descended from the former. There is, in fact, nothing to show that both those sots of rulers pertained to one family or clan, as suggested by Rai Bahadur Hiralal, or, long before him, by Cunningham (ASIR., vol. XVII, pp. 17, 85 and 87). Dr. Hemchandra Ray has thus dono well by not blindly following in the foot. steps of his predocessors. But Banerji holds that tho first king of this dynasty is Mahâbhava. gupta-Janamojaya, and not his father Sivagupta. He, however, ignores in this connection an attribu. tivo occurring in the Jatesinga-Dungri (Sonpur Stato) Plates published by Mr. B. C. Mazumdar in JBORS., vol. II, p. 52 ff., which were issued by Mahasivagupta-Yayâtideva, Bucconsor of Maha bhavaguptadova. The former speaks of himself here as avabhujopdrjita-Trikaling-ddhi pati, Lord of the Trikalinga (country) acquirod through his own arms. Evidently he was the first king of the dynasty of Trikalinga, and must be taken as the father, not the son of the Mahabhavagupta wrongly takon as the first king by Banorji. It is true that the Ja tosiaga Dungri Plates couple the titles of the supreme ruler not only with the son of Mahasiva. gupta but also with the fathor, Mahâbhavagupta. The first, howover, made himself the founder of tho Trikalinga family. The father no doubt was an overlord, but must have ruled elsewhere. There is a nominative termination after svabhujopdrjitaTrikaling-ddhipali which has been ignored, but which shows that it is an epithet of Mahasivagupta. The transcript of MF, Mazumdar iq quite clear on this point, and is in entire agreement with the facsimile which accompanied his article. As regards what Banerji has said about Yayâtikesari, we havo now to correct and supplement it in the light of the Ratnagiri and Balijhari Plates printed in J BORS., vol. XVI, R. 209 ft., and vol. XVII, p. 15 ff. But it is no fault of these scholars if their books do not contain the information sup: plied by those inscriptions, because these were published after their books were printed,
There are different scholars who have specialised in the difforent perio's of Indian History. Thus there are some who are experts in the Hindu, some in the Muhammadan, and some in the British, period of India. But there is hardly any scholar who has handled the three periods of Indian His. tory. Tho only exception perhaps was R. D. Banerji. This will be sented to by any student who pores over his History of Rengal, and particu. larly his History of Orissa which is the subject of this review. Similarly he was an all-round archæolo. gist. That he was an expert epigraphist and numismatist was known to every student of archæo. logy. But that he was also some authority on Art and Architecture will now bo conceded by every body who reads chapters XXIX and XXX of his book. Both of them, especially the latter, are profusely illustrated. The reproductions are the best that can be made in India. In any case they are superior even to those of the present publica. tions of the Archæological Survey of India. Now, even in these chapters there is amplo scope for honeat differences of opinion, some of which only we will point out here though very briefly. The first of them deals with Mediæval Architecture. He refers us to a Holal inscription which speaks of four types of architecture, namely, Nêgara, KAlinga, Dravida and Vefara. Hitherto the temples of Orissa had been assigned to the Någara type, but he now dubs them as Kalinga, and bases the distinction merely on the difference of the spire, even when the fikhang of the Orissa temples is not materially different from that of the Nagara style. Both have the curvilinear fikhara which indicatos one type of spire. The Orissa spiros are thus variations of one theme. No caso has therefore been made out in favour of the Orissa temples being of the Kalinga, as distinct from the Någara, type of archị. toctyre. Again, Banerji attempte not only a novel denomination, as we have just seen, but also a novel chronology as we shall show. The earliest and the latest temples are recognised by him in conformity with the established opinion. But betwoon these two he introduces a Jocond' group wimply on the
Similar differences of opinion are possiblo also in regard to the accounts given by Banerji of the other dynastics of the modiroval period, such, e.g., as the Karas. My viows about them all will be found in the Genealogical Lists that will follow my List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, which is being published in the Epigraphia Indica. Suffice it to say here, that Banerji has allowed himself to be obsessed with the transcripts and interpretations of his predecessors, notably the late MM. Haraprasad Sastri, Toinention on instance,