|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI figures only), on Sunday, the 11th tithi of the bright fortnight of Mārgaśīrsha. This date must of course be referred to the Kalachuri era. According to the epoch of 247-248 A.C., it would correspond, for the expired year 907, to Sunday, the 6th November 1155 A. C., when the aforementioned tithi commenced 2 h. 10 m. after mean sunrise. Though not current at sunrise, the tithi must have been joined with that week-day ‘on which it commenced and which was almost entirely filled by it.’1 As for the geographical names occurring in the present inscription Murala is generally identified with Kērala.2 It is, however, doubtful if Karṇa led any expedition so far to the south-west. In the Uttarāmacharita (Act III) the river Muralā figures as a tributary of the Godavari. The country of Murala is also mentioned in the Viddhaśālabhañjikā3 of Rājaśēkhara and seems to correspond to the northern part of the Hyderabad State. Dr. Kielhorn identified Kuṅga with the districts of Salem and Coimbatore,4 but it is more likely to be identical with Koṅgōda, (Kong-yu-to of Yuan Chwang), corresponding to the Rāmagiri Agency of the Godavari District. Kaliṅga comprised the modern districts of Ganjām and Vizagapatam and some portion of the Godavari District. Vaṅga is Eastern Bengal. Kīra has already been shown to be the name of the territory round Baijnāth in the Kāngrā District. The country under the Hūṇas was probably situated to the north of Malwa.5 Mālava-maṇḍala is, of course, the country of Malwa. Of the villages granted by Alhanadēvī, Nāmaüṇḍī is now untraceable, but the Jāulīpattalā in which it was situated and which is also mentioned in the Jabalpur plates of Yaśaḥkarna, must have comprised the country round Jabalpur. Makarapāṭaka may be Magarmuha, about 4 m. to the west of Bhērā-Ghāṭ. It is at the foot of a hill and almost near the right bank of the Narmadā. Its situation, therefore, answers to the description of it given in the present inscription.
1 A more satisfactory equivalent of the date would have been Sunday, the 25th November 1156 A.C.,
on which day the tithi ended 1 h. 46 m. after mean sunrise. But Kielhorn was not inclined to accept it
as it would have necessitated the shifting of the epoch of the era to 248-249 A.C. This would have made
most of the Kalachuri dates cite current, not expired, years, which was contrary to the usage observed in
the case of other eras. Kielhorn’s view has been supported by some dates discovered subsequently, to which
the epoch of 248-249 A.C. would be altogether unsuitable. See Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, PP. 123 ff. and the date
of No. 90, below.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
