The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c29.s3.69

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: