The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s3: (3) Kalacuris of Tummāṇa (C. P.)

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s3

Language: English

(3) Kalacuris of Tummāṇa (C. P.)

v2.c29.s3.1

² Usually called *Kalacuris of Ratnapura*; but see *supra*, p. 742, fn. 2.

The Kalacuris of Tummāṇa claim to be descended from Kokkala I, the founder of the Tripurī branch of the family. They trace their pedigree to one Kaliṅgarāja, who claimed descent from one of the 17 younger sons of Kokkala I. We are told that 'in order not to impoverish the treasury of Tritaśauryya he abandoned the ancestral land and acquired by his two arms the country of *Dakṣiṇa-Kośala*. Since *Tummāṇa* had been made a royal residence by his ancestors, therefore residing there, he increased his fortune, causing the destruction of his enemies.'³ Though Tritaśauryya has not yet been identified, there is no doubt that it was the name of a portion of the original territories of the Kalacuris round about Tripurī.⁴ Dakṣiṇa-Kośala is generally taken to represent roughly the modern division of Chhattisgarlı of the C. P., while Tummāṇa has been identified with the modern village of Tumana in the Lapha Zamindari of Bilaspur District.¹ As the earliest certain date of Pṛthvīdeva I, the great-grandson of Kaliṅgarāja, is 1079 A. D., we may fix upon the first quarter of the 11th century as the approximate date of the latter. It is likely that he was a contemporary of Vikramāditya Gāṅgeyadeva, and may have acted as his viceroy in the Dakṣiṇa-Kośala. The Kalacuris of Tripurī had already crossed over the Maikal Range into Chhattisgarh before the time of Kaliṅgarāja, for 'a Ratnapura stone-inscription tells us that Tummāṇa 'had been made a royal residence by his ancestors' before he left Tritasaurya and came to reside there. It seems likely that the family of Kaliṅgarāja remained feudatories to the Ḍāhala branch till about the seventh decade of the 11th century, which probably saw the defeat and death of Karṇa.²

v2.c29.s3.3

³ *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 32 ff., Vs. 6-7. *Tummāṇa* is sometimes spelt Tummāṇa (*EI*, I, p. 41, V. 12.)

v2.c29.s3.4

⁴ Kielhorn took it to be the name of the 'residence or country' of Kokalla. See *EI*, Vol. I, p. 33. For a guess by Hiralal see *IA*, 1924, pp. 269-70. He tries to show that it was a tribal name and identical with the Vedic tribal name Tṛtsu (?).

v2.c29.s3.5

¹ Tumana is situated in 22° 35′ N., and 82° 45′ E. *Ibid*, XIX, p. 77. *IA*, 1921, pp. 267 ff. *Tummāṇa* is referred to as a *deśa* in a Muhammadpur epigraph; see *IA*, Vol. XX, p. 84 ff.; see also *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 39 ff., 45 ff. In another inscription Jājalladeva II is described as *Tummāṇādhipati*; see *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 39 ff. *S. Kosala* sometimes comprised portions of Sambalpur, Patna and Ganjam. See *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 393 ff.

v2.c29.s3.6

² See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 780 and 789.

v2.c29.s3.7

Kaliṅgarāja was succeeded by his son Kamalarāja. According to the Amoda plates of his grandson Pṛthvīdeva I, he is said to have defeated the *Utkala-nṛpa*, and endeavoured to equal Gāṅgeyadeva in prosperity.³ It is interesting to find that Gāṅgeya himself is also credited with victory over the ruler of Utkala,⁴ and it is not unlikely that his relatives in Tummāṇa may have substantially helped him in his South-Eastern campaign. Kamalarāja in that case must have been a younger contemporary of Gāṅgeya.

v2.c29.s3.8

³ *EI*, Vol. NIX, p. 79, Vs. 8-9.

v2.c29.s3.9

⁴ See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 771 and 774.

v2.c29.s3.10

Kamalarāja was succeeded by his son Ratnarāja, also called Ratneśvara.⁵ This prince is said to have 'ornamented Tummāṇa with the temples of the gods Vaṅkeśa, Ratneśvara and other gods and also with gardens of flowers, and fruits, palatial dwellings and a charming high mango grove.’¹ We are also told that he founded the ‘extensive’ city of Ratnapura, which became ‘like the city of (Kuvera) the lord of riches,’ and decorated it with many temples.² The only other interesting event of this reign appears to have been his marriage with Nonallā.³ She was the daughter of Vajuvarman or Vajjūka, the prince of *Kōmō-maṇḍala*, which has been identified with the Pendra Zamindari in Bilaspur district, where there is still a village named Komo.⁴ The existence of a separate principality so close to the capital of Ratnarāja shows that as yet his power was extremely limited. As this marriage alliance is mentioned with pride by almost all the records of his successors, we may conclude that it marked a definite stage in the evolution of the Tummāṇa Haihayas as an independent power.

v2.c29.s3.11

⁵ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 35, Vs. 10-11.

v2.c29.s3.12

¹ *Ibid.* The god *Vaṅkeśa* 'the lord of vagabonds' is taken by some to be an aboriginal local deity; but it was probably a name of Śiva who was always accompanied by an army of vagabonds; see *ibid*, Vol. XIX, p. 77.

v2.c29.s3.13

² *Ibid*, Vs. 11-12.

v2.c29.s3.14

³ *Ibid*, V. 13. In Vol. XIX, p. 79, V. 12, the name is spelt *Nonnalā*. But the former name is given in *IHQ*, September, 1925, p. 410, V. 8; p. 413, V. 8. Also in *IA*, 1925, p. 44. The name of the queen may be an inflation of *Nōni*, which in the Chhattisgarh dialect of Hindi means a maiden. Hiralal suggests that the termination *allā* was added to the names of ladies of rank; *cf.* Āvallā, Lāchallā, Rājallā, Rambhallā, etc See *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 77-78.

v2.c29.s3.15

⁴ *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 77. Note the name Vaju. As the Tummāṇa region of Bilaspur is still largely inhabited by aboriginal tribes, it is not unlikely that Vaju was a powerful non-Aryan chief.

v2.c29.s3.16

Ratnarāja was succeeded by his son Pṛthvīdeva, also called Pṛthvīśa.⁵ Recently a land-grant of this king was discovered in the Bilaspur district of the C. P. This was the *Amoda grant*. It was dug out of a field in the village of Amoda, which is ‘about 10 miles from Jānjgir, the headquarters of a *tahsil* of the same name in Bilaspur.’ The inscription contains 41 lines and is incised on two plates. Each of the plates has a hole, ' the first at the bottom and the second at the top,' but the ring and the seal are lost. The grant opens with *Oṁ namo Brahmaṇe*. In the introductory portion the genealogy is traced from Kārtavīrya, Kokkala, and Kaliṅgarāja to Pṛthvīdeva. The prose part of the inscription records the grant of the village of Vasahā (mod. place of the same name in Bilaspur *tahsīl*), in the Yayapara-*maṇḍala* (the region round mod. village of Jaijaipur, 10 miles from Amoda) to a Brāhman named Keśava, son of Cāṭṭa and grandson of Thīrāica, on the occasion of the dedication of a four-pillared hall (*Catuṣkikā*) to the god Vaṅkeśvara at Tumāṇaka. The donor was *Samadhigata-pañca-mahāśabda-Vaṅkeśvara-vara-labdha-prasāda Eka-viṁśati-sahasraikanātha-Mahā-pracaṇḍa-Sakala-Kosalādhipati-Parama-māheśvara-Kalacurivaṁśodbhava-Samasta-rājāvalivirājamāna-Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Pṛthvīdeva*. The grant is dated *Cedīśasya Saṁ.* 831 (A. D. 1079).¹

v2.c29.s3.17

⁵ *Ibid*, Vol. I, p. 35, Vs. 14-16.

v2.c29.s3.18

¹ Edited by Hiralal, *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 75-81. The editor has argued from the word *Cedīśasya* that the name 'Chhattisgarh' was derived from *Cedīśa-gaḍha*, meaning 'forts of the lord of Cedi,' and not from *Chhattīsa-gaḍha* (36 forts), which on philological grounds is unacceptable.

v2.c29.s3.19

(2) *Lāphā (spurious) grant.*—This grant is in possession of a Zamindar at Lapha in Bilaspur district. It consists of 9 lines, incised on a single rectangular plate. The style of writing is Oriya. The language is Sanskrit with spelling mistakes. The grant opens with '*Śrī-Kṛṣṇacandra*.' In the first verse it mentions *Mahārājādhirāja* Pṛthvīdeva. In verses 3-4 it records a gift of 120 villages with the Lamphā-durga to a person named Luṅgā, who had come from Delhi. The grant ends with the date *Saṁvatsare* 806 (which if referred to the Kalacuri era would approximately correspond to 1054 A. D).²

v2.c29.s3.20

² Edited by Hiralal, *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 293-95. Hiralal shows good reasons to prove that this grant is a forgery. But there is no difficulty about the date which is only removed by a period of 25 years from the Amodā grant. It is not impossible that Pṛthvīdeva may have ruled for about that period.

v2.c29.s3.21

The titles of Pṛthvīdeva shows that he was still a feudatory of their relatives of Ḍāhala. But it is significant that the issue of this grant synchronises with the period of confusion which followed the death of Karṇa. It is not impossible that he may have co-operated with Yaśaḥ-Karṇa when the latter invaded the banks of the Godavari. But the serious reverses which Yaśaḥ-Karṇa suffered during his reign from his western and northern neighbours probably made his hold on Kosala precarious, and allowed the Tummāṇa branch to become virtually independent.¹

v2.c29.s3.22

¹ See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 788-89.

v2.c29.s3.23

Pṛthvīdeva built temples for the god Pṛthvīdeveśvara and others at Tummāṇa and a ‘tank like the sea,’ at Ratnapura.² He married Rājalladevī³ and had by her a son named Jājalladeva, who succeeded him. So far only one record has been discovered for the reign of this prince. This is his *Ratnapur stone-inscription*. The reddish brown stone which bears this inscription was found at Ratnapur in the C. P. It consists of 31 lines and opens with a verse in praise of Śiva. Then follows the usual genealogy (as in No. 1 above). Pṛthvīdeva’s son was Jājalla. The proper object of the inscription appears to be to record the establishment of a monastery for ascetics (*tāpasa-maṭha*), the making of a garden and a lake and probably also the foundation of a temple at Jājallapura and the grant of the villages of Sirulī and Arjunkoṇasaraṇa (?) etc., by king Jājalladeva. The inscription ends with the date (K.) *Saṁvat* 866 (1114 A. D.).⁴

v2.c29.s3.24

² *EI*, Vol. I, p. 35, V. 17. Ratnapura was probably at times used as a second capital.

v2.c29.s3.25

³ *IHQ*, September, 1925, p. 413, line 13, and p. 410, line 14. She is sometimes simply called Rājalla, see *EI*, Vol. I, p. 35.

v2.c29.s3.26

⁴ Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 32-39. It is now in the Nagpur Museum.

v2.c29.s3.27

There is reason to believe that this Kalacuri branch became completely independent during the reign of this king. We are told in the inscription mentioned above that he was ‘allied with the ruler of Cedi (*Cedīśa*) and honoured by the princes of Kanyakubja and Jejā-bhuktika.⁵ He defeated and captured in battle one Someśvara and he had either annual tribute paid or presents given to him by the chiefs of the *maṇḍalas* of (Dakṣi)ṇa-Kośala, Andhra Khimḍī, Vairāgara, Lañjikā, Bhāṇāra, Talahāri, Daṇḍakapura, Nandāvalī and Kukkuṭa.¹ A Kharod stone-inscription further tells us that Jājalladeva defeated the lord of Suvarṇapura.² Kielhorn appears to have been right in suggesting the identification of the rulers of Kanyakubja, Jejā-bhuktika, and Cedi with the Gāhaḍavāla Govindacandra (*c.* 1114-1154 A. D.), the Candella Kīrtivarman (*c.* A. D. 1098) and the Kalacuri Yaśaḥ-Karṇa (*c.* A. D. 1073-1125), respectively. But he could not identify Someśvara. This prince, however, seems to me to be the same as the Nāgavaṁśī (Sinda) prince Someśvara, the father of Kanharadeva (Śaka 1033 = A. D. 1111).³ I have elsewhere⁴ suggested how these Nāgavaṁśī rulers came to hold that portion of the C. P. which is now occupied by the state of Bastar. It appears that the Tummāṇa and the Bastar kings carried on that policy of hostility which they inherited from their former masters, *viz.*, the Haihayas of Ḍāhala and the Cāḷukyas of Kalyani. The identification suggested above seems to be confirmed by the Kuruspal stone-inscription of the Nāgavaṁśī king Someśvara which refers to the chiefs of Lañji and Ratnapura as his rivals or contemporaries.⁵ It is certain that this Lañji, which has been identified with a well-known tract of that name in the district of Balaghat (C. P.) is the same as the Lañjika-*maṇḍala* of the Ratanpur inscription of Jājalladeva. Vairāgara was identified by Kielhorn with Wairagarh in the Chanda district. The same scholar also suggested that 'we may possibly have to read Andra-khimiḍī in the Ratanpur inscription and Jājalladeva and not Andra and Khimiḍi. If this is accepted then this place may possibly be the same as Kimedi, or Khimiḍe situated in the Ganjam district (Madras).⁶ Talahāri is probably the same as the *Talahāri-bhumi* which was acquired by a minister of Ratnadeva II, the son of Jājalladeva.¹ Suvarṇapura appears to be the same place from which the Orissa Somavaṁśīs issued some of their grants and which has been identified with Sonpur, the capital of the Sonpur State.² The other places whose chiefs Jājalladeva claims to have defeated cannot at present be identified. But it looks certain that the power of the Kalacuris of Tumimāṇa, which was gradually increasing since the days of Ratnarāja, had at last reached its acme in the reign of his grandson. Jājalla was no longer a feudatory of Tripurī, but an ally of the lord of Cedi.

v2.c29.s3.28

⁵ *Ibid*, pp. 33 and 35, V. 21.

v2.c29.s3.29

¹ *Ibid*, pp. 33 and 35-36, Vs 21-23.

v2.c29.s3.30

² *IA*, Vol XXII, pp. 82-83.

v2.c29.s3.31

³ Nārāyaṇpal stone-inscription, *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 160-61; *ibid*, Vol. X, p. 26. Others identify this Someśvara with Kumāra Someśvara of Sonpur grant; see *ibid*, Vol. XII, p. 239.

v2.c29.s3.32

⁴ See *supra*, DHNI, Vol. II, p. 781 and fn. 2 on the same page.

v2.c29.s3.33

⁵ *Ibid*, Vol. X, pp. 25-31. *Vajra* mentioned in this inscription is identified by Hiralal with Vairagara of the Ratanpur inscription.

v2.c29.s3.34

⁶ *IA*, Vol. XVI, p. 131.

v2.c29.s3.35

¹ *Ibid*, Vol. XVII, p. 135 ff. This minister was Jagapalla who also served under Jājalla. *Talahāri-maṇḍala* is also mentioned in a Ratanpur inscription of the (K.) *S.* 915. See *EI*, Vol. I, p. 33.

v2.c29.s3.36

² See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 396, 401, 402, 408 and 413.

v2.c29.s3.37

According to a Rajim stone-inscription, Jājalla was materially assisted in his victories by his minister Jagapāla *alias* Jagasiṁha. We are told that he helped Jājalladeva in conquering a country (?) and ‘afraid of him the *Maṇḍaleśvaras* of Māyurika and the Sāvantas betook themselves to the mountains.’³ The same inscription gives us the name of Devarāja who appears to have served Jājalla as his chief minister (*pradhāna*).⁴

v2.c29.s3.38

³ *IA*, Vol. XVII, pp. 135 ff.

v2.c29.s3.39

⁴ *Ibid*, p. 137, lines 15-16.

v2.c29.s3.40

Jājalla was succeeded by his son Ratnadeva II. In the grants of his son he is called the lord of the whole Kosala country (*Sakala-Kosala-maṇḍanaśrī*). In the Malhar stone-inscription of Jājalladeva II he is described as ‘a fierce cloud to extinguish the continuously raging flames of the spreading mighty fire of the prowess of prince Coḍagaṅga’ (*c.* A.D. 1078-1135).⁵ This fact is also mentioned by a Kharod inscription of the time of Ratnadeva III.⁶ The Rajim inscription of the time of Pṛthvīdeva II tells us that Jagapāla and Devarāja, the ministers of Jājalladeva, continued to serve under his son. The former of these two claims to have acquired the Talahāri-bhumi and another district for his second master. No grant of this king has so far been discovered but the Malhar inscription referred to above records grant of the village of Kosāmbī to a Brāhman named Gaṅgādhara.¹ The context of the passage wherein this grant is mentioned seems to indicate that the village was situated in the *Tumṁāṇa-deśa*.

v2.c29.s3.41

⁵ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 40, V. 4; see also *Errata and Corrigenda* under p. 40 at the end of the volume. For Coḍagaṅga, see *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 461 ff.

v2.c29.s3.42

⁶ *IA*, Vol. XXII, pp. 82-83.

v2.c29.s3.43

¹ *EI*, Vol. I, p. 41, V. 13.

v2.c29.s3.44

Ratnadeva II was succeeded by his son Pṛthvīdeva II. The following inscriptions are known for his reign :

v2.c29.s3.45

(1) *Kugda stone-inscription.*—It is said to have been found at Kugda near Bachhaudgaḍh, 5 miles to the west of Baloda in the district of Bilaspur. The inscription is much damaged and fragmentary and seems to have contained 25 lines. In line 2 it mentions *Mahiṣī Lācalladevī*, in line 3 we can read the name *Śrī-Ra(tnadevaḥ?)*; and in line 7 the name Vallabharāja. It is dated in Kalacuri-*Saṁvatsare* 893 (A.D. 1141-42) in the reign of Pṛthvīdeva.²

v2.c29.s3.46

² Noticed by Kielhorn, *IA*, Vol. XX, p. 84.

v2.c29.s3.47

(2) *Rajim stone-inscription.*—The stone which bears this inscription is built into a wall of the temple of Rāmacandra at Rājim, in the Raipur district, near the junction of the Mahanadi and the Pairi. The inscription contains 19 lines and opens with *Oṁ namo Nārāyaṇāya*. It then gives the genealogy of Jagapāla who served as an officer under Pṛthvīdeva II, and his two immediate predecessors. His ancestor ‘*Ṭhakkura* Śrī-Sāhilla, the spotless ornament of the Rājamāla race, which gave delight to the Pañca(ha)ṁsa race,’ is stated to have come from the Vaḍahara-*deśa* and as gladdened by the attainment of the *Pañca-mahāśabda*. One of his sons named Svāmin is said to have conquered the Bhaṭṭavila and Vihāra countries. Svāmin had two sons named Jayadeva and Devasimha. The former is said to have acquired the district of Dāṇḍora while the latter took the Komo-*maṇḍala*.³ A wife of one of the latter was probably the *Ṭhakkurājñī* Udayā. The son appears to have been Jagapāla also called Jagasiṁha. The eulogy was composed by *Ṭhakkura* Jasānanda, son of *Ṭhakkura* Jasodhara of the Ayodhyāpurīya family and written and engraved by the *rūpakāra* Śrī-Ratnapāla. The inscription is dated in lines 18-19 in K(u)lacuri *Saṁvatsare* 896 (A.D. 1145).¹

v2.c29.s3.48

³ See *supra DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 804

v2.c29.s3.49

¹ A transcript and a kind of translation of the inscription was published by Prof. H. H. Wilson in the *Asiatic Researches*, Vol. XV, pp. xv ff. It was then noticed by Cunningham in his *ASR*, Vol. XVII, p. 18. Finally edited by Kielhorn in the *IA*, Vol. XVII, pp. 135-40. Cunningham traced the name of the town of Rajim to the tribal name Rājāmāla.

v2.c29.s3.50

(3) *Amoda grant (i).*—It was discovered in the village of Amoda, 40 miles S.E. of Bilaspur (C.P.). The inscription contains 32 lines and is engraved on two plates. The seal attached to the ring contains the figure of the goddess *Gaja-Lakṣmī* and the legend *Rājā-Śrīmat-Pṛthvīdevaḥ*. The grant opens with *Oṁ oṁ namo Brahmaṇe*. The introductory portion then gives the usual genealogy of the dynasty from Kārtavīrya, Kokkala and Kaliṅgarāja down to Pṛthvīdeva. “In the formal part of the inscription we are told that this last king granted to the Brāhman Sīlaṇa, who had emigrated from Takārī, the village of Āvalā in the *Madhya-maṇḍala*, on the occasion of a lunar eclipse. The inscription was written by Śrī-Vatsarāja of the Vāstavya family and engraved by Lakṣmīdhara. It ends with the date (K.) *Saṁvat* 900 (A.D. 1149).²

v2.c29.s3.51

² Edited by Hiralal, *IHQ*, September, 1925, pp. 409-11. The Editor identifies *Madhya-maṇḍala* or the ‘Central circle’ with the division which contained the capital of the kingdom. Āvalā according to him is Aurābhāṭā in the Lapha Zemindari in which “Tummāna” the old capital of the Haihayas is situated.

v2.c29.s3.52

*Amoda grant (ii).*—Found with No. 3. Contains 35 lines engraved on two plates. Same seal. In this grant Pṛthvīdeva grants the village of Buḍubuḍū in the *Madhya-maṇḍala* to the donee of No. 3 and his two brothers Pīthana and Lakhnū. It was written by the same as in (No. 3) and engraved by one Cādārka. The date (K.) *Saṁvat* 905 (A.D. 1154) completes the grant.³ (5) *Ratanpur inscription.*—The inscription is dated in Kalacuri Saṁvatsare 910 (*c.* A.D. 1158) in the victorious reign of King *Śrīmat-Pṛthvīdeva*.¹

v2.c29.s3.53

³ Edited by the same, *ibid*, pp. 412-14. The village granted is identified by the editor with Burbur in the Lāphā Zamindari.

v2.c29.s3.54

¹ Noticed by Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. XVII, plate X; No. 417 in Kielhorn's *List of Northern Inscriptions* (*EI*, Vol. V, *Appendix*). The Ratanpur inscription dated in (K.) *S.* 915 which mentions Talahāri-*maṇḍala* may also belong to this reign. This inscription was first noticed by Sir R. Jenkins in the *Asiatic Researches*, Vol. XV, p. 504, and then by Kielhorn in *EI*, Vol. I, p. 33. Hiralal notices in the *IA* (1925, pp. 44-45), a grant of Pṛthvīdeva (II) dated in *Saṁ.* 1000, which he believes to be spurious.

v2.c29.s3.55

The only record of the incidents of this king's reign is contained in the Rajim inscription of his officer Jagapāla. Lines 15-16 of this inscription seem to indicate that 'this chief and his two brothers Gājala and Jayatasiṁha together with the prime-minister Devarāja, subdued the earth.' In lines 10-11 we are told that Jagapāla 'not only took the forts of Saraharāgaḍh and Mavakāsiha(vā), and conquered the Bhramaravadra country, but also took Kāntāra, Kusumabhoga, Kandāse(hva)ra and the district of Kākayara.'² Most of these places have not yet been properly identified. But Kielhorn accepted Cunningham's identification of Kākayara-*deśa* with modern state of Kanker in the C.P. The same scholar was also disposed to regard Kāndāse(hva)ra 'with Sehāwā or Sihoa situated to the east of Kanker, Brahmaravadra with Bamra and Saraharāgaḍh with Sarangarh to the east of Raipur.³ The identification of Kākayara with Kanker makes it possible that the Somavaṁśī princes of Kanker, for whom we have inscriptions dated from 1191 to 1320 A.D., may have been originally feudatories, of the Kalacuris of Tumṁāṇa. Rai Bahadur Hiralal has approximately fixed 'the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th' as the date of Siṁharāja the founder of the Somavaṁśīs of Kanker.⁴

v2.c29.s3.56

² *IA*, Vol. XVII, pp. 137 and 140.

v2.c29.s3.57

³ *Ibid*, p. 137.

v2.c29.s3.58

⁴ For the inscriptions of the Somavaṁśīs of Kanker, see (*a*) *Sihawa stone inscription of Karṇarāja*, Śaka year 1114, *EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 182-87. (*b*) *Kanker plates of Pamparāja*, (K.) years 965 and 966. *Ibid*, pp. 166-70. (*c*) *Kanker inscription of the time of Bhānudeva*, Śaka (?) year 1242. *Ibid*, pp. 123-30. (*d*) *Gurur stone-pillar-inscription of Vāgharāja*, *IA*, 1926, p. 44.

v2.c29.s3.59

Pṛthvīdeva II was succeeded by his son Jājalladeva II. The following two records are known for his reign :

v2.c29.s3.60

(1) *Amoda grant.*—It was found in the village of Amoda, in the district of Bilaspur (C.P.). The inscription contains 37 lines incised on two massive plates. The ring and the seal are lost. The inscription opens with *Oṁ oṁ namo Brahmaṇe*. In the introductory portion the donor's genealogy is traced from Kārtavīrya, Kokalla, and Kaliṅgarāja. In the formal part it records the grant of a village named Bunderā to the astrologer Rāghava and the royal priest Nāmadeva. It was written by the Vāstavya Kāyastha Citrabhānu in (K.) *Saṁvat* 91(2) which is equivalent to A.D. 1161.¹

v2.c29.s3.61

¹ Edited by Hiralal, *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 209-14.

v2.c29.s3.62

(2) *Malhar stone-inscription.*—It is reported to have been brought from Malhār in the C.P. It consists of 28 lines and is incised on a piece of black stone. It opens with *Oṁ oṁ namaḥ Śivāya* and two verses invoking the god Śambhu and Gaṇapati. Then comes the genealogy of Jājalladeva (II), ‘the ruler of Tummāṇa,’ traced from Ratnadeva (II) of the lunar race. The proper object of the inscription is to record the erection, at the town of Mallāla (probably mod. Malhar or Malar), of a temple of the god Kedāra (Śiva) by the Brāhman Somarāja, the son of Gaṅgādhara who settled in Tummāṇadeśa from the village of Kumbhaṭī in Madhyadeśa. The inscription was composed by Ratnasiṁha, son of Māme of the Vāstavya race. The date (K.) *Saṁvat* 919 (A.D. 1167-68) comes at the end.²

v2.c29.s3.63

² Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 39-45. The inscription is now in the Nagpur Museum. The donee of the inscription is described as ‘the eye of the teaching of Akṣapād and the *Cārvāka-viśāla·mālana*.’ He is also reported to have delighted the pitcher-born (Agastya) by drinking the difficult to be restrained Bauddha Ocean and appeared as the god of death to the Digambaras. Note the spelling *Tummāṇa* a variant of *Tumāṇa* (l. 14).

v2.c29.s3.64

Nothing definite was so long known of the reign of this prince. But his recently discovered Amoda grant supplies us with a piece of important information for his reign. This grant we are told ‘was made by way of thanksgiving on an escape from a great calamity, when the donor had almost lost his kingdom in a battle with one Dhīrū who is described as a huge alligator clutching his victim.’¹ According to Hiralal Dhīrū is a non-Aryan name. If this is accepted then it appears that there was a serious rebellion of the aboriginal tribes under the leadership of Dhīrū which was only suppressed with difficulty by Jājalladeva II.

v2.c29.s3.65

¹ *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 21. Can Dhirū be an apabhraṁśa of a Sanskritic name like Dhirendra? We still use such abbreviations in modern Bengal.

v2.c29.s3.66

Jājalla II was succeeded by Ratnadeva III, his son by his queen Somalladevī.² Only one record has so far been discovered for his reign. This is his *Kharod stone-inscription*. This inscription is inside a Śaiva temple at the small village of Kharod, 3 miles north of Seori Narayan (on the northern bank of the Mahanadi in the Bilaspur district, C.P.). The inscription contains 28 lines and gives a complete list of the Tumṃāṇa princes down to Ratnadeva III. It is dated in line 28 in *Cedi-Saṁvat* 933 (A.D. 1181-82).³

v2.c29.s3.67

² *AI*, Vol. XXII, p. 83. A mutilated Amarkantak inscription also mentions the name of Somalladevī, see *ibid*, p. 83. fn. 14.

v2.c29.s3.68

³ First noticed ay Cunningham, *ASR*, Vol. VII, p. 201, and Vol. XVII, p. 43; then by Kielhorn in *IA*, Vol. XXII, pp. 82-83.

v2.c29.s3.69

It is difficult to say definitely who succeeded Ratnadeva III. From a *Ratanpur stone-inscription* dated in (V.) *Saṁ*. 1247 (?) which refers itself to the reign of king Pṛthvīdeva, it is generally assumed that this prince was the successor of Ratnadeva III. This inscription was discovered within the fort of Ratanpur in the C.P. It consists of 24 lines and is incised on a black stone. The record opens with *Oṁ namaḥ Śivāya* and two verses invoking the gods Rudra and Gaṇapati. Then follows the usual genealogy. In the lunar race Jājalladeva: His son Ratnadeva who was ‘a submarine fire of the unique ocean of the array of the difficult to be subdued armies of the Cedi princes,’ and who defeated the champions of Coḍagaṅga (V. 5). His son Pṛthvīdeva. The rest of the inscription gives the genealogy of the Vāstavya Devagaṇa who originally came into the Tumṃāṇa country from Cedi-*maṇḍala*. This person erected a Śaiva temple at the village of Sāmbā. The inscription which was composed by Devagaṇa himself is dated at the end in (*V.*) *Saṁvat* 1247 (?) (A.D. 1189-90).¹ The date agrees with the ascription of the inscription to Pṛthvīdeva III. Another fact also supports this conclusion. The father of the Vāstavya Devagaṇa of this inscription is named Ratnasiṁha, son of Māme. This Ratnasiṁha seems to be identical with the person of the same name who composed the Malhar stone-inscription of Jājalladeva II (1167-68 A.D.). But there are unfortunately also some difficulties in accepting this conclusion. The ascription of victory over Coḍagaṅga to Ratnadeva of this inscription reminds us of a similar victory credited to Ratnadeva II by the Malhar inscription of Jājalladeva II. Coḍagaṅga must be taken to be the same as the great Orissa king Anantavarma Coḍagaṅga (*c.* 1078-1135 A.D.), who must have been dead long before the accession of Ratnadeva III (A.D. 1181-82) but was certainly a contemporary of Ratnadeva II (*c.* 1120-35). Thus if Ratnadeva of this inscription really fought with Coḍagaṅga then he must be Ratnadeva II. This inscription in that case has to be referred to the reign of Pṛthvīdeva II. Kielhorn noticed that the date of the inscription ‘has not been written by the writer of the inscription who forms his numeral figures differently. He suspected that the inscription was originally ‘dated in a year of the Cedi year.’² But the following table inclines me to think that the inscription really belongs to Pṛthvīdeva III:

v2.c29.s3.70

¹ Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. I, pp. 45-52. See also *Errata and Corrigenda* at the end of the volume under page 47.

v2.c29.s3.71

² *Ibid*, p. 49, fn. 41.

v2.c29.s3.72

v2.c29.s3.73

Thus it is possible that Devagaṇa was wrong in making Ratnadeva III the father of his patron Pṛthvīdeva III a contemporary of the Orissa king Coḍagaṅga.

v2.c29.s3.74

It is difficult to trace the genealogy of the Tummāṇa Kalacuris after Pṛthvīdeva III. A Bhuvaneswar inscription ¹ gives us the name of king Paramardī or Paramāḍi of the Haihaya-vaṁśa who married Candrikā, the daughter of the Eastern Gaṅga king Anaṅga Bhīma II (*c.* 1211-38 A.D.). The Cāṭeśvar stone inscription of this Gaṅga prince tells us that his Brāhman minister fought with the lord of Tummāṇa.² It is not unlikely that the Haihaya king Paramardī was the ruler of Tummāṇa who was at first the enemy and then the son-in law of Anaṅga Bhīma. In the present state of our knowledge however it is impossible to connect him with the main line of the Kalacuris at Tummāṇa.

v2.c29.s3.75

¹ *EI*, Vol. XIII, pp. 150 ff.; *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 478 and 483-84.

v2.c29.s3.76

² *JASB*, 1898, pp. 317 ff.; *ibid*, 1903, p. 119; also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 477-78.

v2.c29.s3.77

The details of the history of this portion of the C. P. during this period is unknown. It is certain that the Muslims never succeeded in establishing their power in the Chhattisgarh division and there is evidence to show that the Kalacuris continued to figure as chiefs of Chhattisgarh right up to the 18th century. The Khalari stone-inscription of the Kalacuri king Haribrahmadeva is dated in 1415 A.D.³ while the Arang plate of the Haihaya king Amarasiṁhadeva is dated as late as 1735 A.D.⁴ The latter appears to have been ousted by the Bhonslas of Nagpur in *c.* 1750 A.D.

v2.c29.s3.78

³ *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 228-31. Haribrahma traces his descent to the Kalacuri prince (1) Siṁhaṇa of the *Ahihaya-vaṁśa*. Then came his son king (2) Rāmadeva. His son was Haribrahmadeva, a devotee of Candracūḍa (*Śiva*). The village of Khalari is 45 miles east of Raipur.

v2.c29.s3.79

⁴ *DLI*, p. 100; *Raipur District Gazetteer*, p. 56.

v2.c29.s3.80

I. *Kalacuris of Gorakhpur* :

v2.c29.s3.81

(a) *Kahla branch.*

v2.c29.s3.83

``` Lakṣmaṇarāja : Rājaputra

v2.c29.s3.84

Sivarāja

v2.c29.s3.85

Śaṅkaragaṇa

v2.c29.s3.86

Guṇāmbhodhideva (c. 850 A.D.) Kāñcanadevī = | *alias* Guṇasāgara

v2.c29.s3.87

| = Madanadevī

v2.c29.s3.88

Ullabha. |

v2.c29.s3.89

Bhāmānadeva = Dehaṭṭadevī

v2.c29.s3.90

Śaṅkaragaṇa II Mugdhatuṅga

v2.c29.s3.91

| = Vidyā

v2.c29.s3.92

Guṇasāgara II . . . . . = Lāvaṇyavatī Rājavā = | | Sivarāja II Bhāmāna |

v2.c29.s3.93

| = Sugalladevī |
| |

v2.c29.s3.94

Śaṅkaragaṇa III |

v2.c29.s3.95

| = Yaśolekhyadevī Vyāsa (A.D. 1081)
| |

v2.c29.s3.96

Bhīma Soḍhadeva. ``` (*b*) *Kasia branch* (c. 1025-1225 A.D.):

v2.c29.s3.97

v2.c29.s3.98

II. *Kalacurīs of Ḍāhala* :¹

v2.c29.s3.99

¹ Usually known as *Kalacurīs of Tripurī*.

v2.c29.s3.101

III. *Kalacuris of Tummāṇa* :¹

v2.c29.s3.102

¹ Popularly known as *Kalacuris of Ratnapura*.

v2.c29.s3.103

v2.c29.s3.104

IV. *Kalacuris of Raipur* :

v2.c29.s3.105

(*a*) Siṁhaṇa
|
Rāmadeva
|
Haribrahmadeva (1415 A.D.)

(*b*) Amarasiṁhadeva (*c.* 1735-50 A.D.)

v2.c29.s3.106

1. *The Kalacuris of Tripurī* by Rai Bahadur Hiralal. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1927-28, pp. 280-95.
2. *On the same.* Kielhorn in the *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. II, pp. 300-05.
3. *Descriptive Lists of Inscriptions in the C.P. and Berar* by Rai Bahadur Hiralal, Nagpur, 1916.
4. *Bombay Gazetteer*, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 225-29, 293-96, and 468-89.
5. *Downfall of Hindu India*, 1926, by C. V. Vaidya, pp. 187-92.
6. *Bāṅgālār Itihas* by R. D. Banerji (2nd Ed.), Vol. I, 1330 B.S.
7. *Archaeological Survey Reports* by Cunningham, Vols. IX and XVII.
8. *Forbe's Rās Mala*, Ed. by Rawlinson, Oxford, 1921, Vol. I.
9. *Bombay Gazetteer*, Vol. I, Parts I and II.
10. *Imperial Gazetteer of India*, Vol. X, pp. 11 ff.
11. *The Story of Gondwana* by Bishop Chatterton, Pitman, 1916, London.
12. *Prabandhacintāmaṇi* of *Merutuṅga*, Trans. by Tawney, Calcutta, 1901.
13. *History of the Gurha Mundala Rājas* by Captain W. H. Sleeman, *JASB*, 1837, Vol. VI, pp. 621 ff.
14. *The Haihayas of Tripuri and their Monuments* by R. D. Banerji, *MASI*, No. 23, 1931.

Linked texts (1)

Gurur stone pillar inscription of Vagharaja — Sanskrit