Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c32: Chapter XVI. The Cāhamānas (Cauhāns) of the Punjab, Rajputana and Gujarat

The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c32

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XVI. The Cāhamānas (Cauhāns) of the Punjab, Rajputana and Gujarat

v2.c32.2

The bardic tradition of the Rajputs regards the Cāhamānas¹ (*Cauhāns*) as one of the four fire-born races (*agni-kula*). With the founders of the Pratīhāras (*Parihārs*), Caulukyas (*Solaṅkīs*) and Paramāras (*Pāvars*), their founder is said to have sprung from the fire-altar of the sage Vasiṣṭha on Mount Abu.² He is stated to have been ‘quadriform (*Caturaṅga*), whence his name *Cauhan*.’³ The first seat of the government of ‘Anhal, the first created Cauhan’ was Māhiṣmatī on the Narbada, from which city the power of the twenty-four *Sākhās* of the tribe spread throughout the length and breadth of India. Unfortunately, authentic archaeological and literary records which bear upon the history of the tribe and its branches contain nothing to support the data derived from bardic songs. Unlike the Paramāras, the authors of the inscriptions and the *kāvyas* in the court of the Cāhamāna princes even as late as the 14th century A.D. seem to have been ignorant of the origin of their patrons from the fire-pit. It is unknown not only to Someśvara’s Bijolia stone-inscription, dated V.S. 1226 (*c.* 1169 A.D.) but also to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, which appears to have been composed in the life-time of Pṛthvīrāja III (*c.* 1179-92 A.D.)

v2.c32.3

¹ There are variants of this name: *Cāhuāṇa*, *EI*, Vol. XI, p. 70, fn. 4; *Cāhavāṇa*, *ZDMG*, Vol. XL, pp. 38 ff.; *Cāhuvāṇa*, *IA*, 1890, p 216, fn. 5; also *Sārṅgadhara-paddhati*, Ed. by Peterson, p. 1, *śloka* 2; Cāhumāna, *ASR*, Vol. XXI, pp. 173 ff., No. 9.

v2.c32.4

² *AR*, Vol. I, pp. 112 ff.; for variations of the story of fire-origin, see *ibid*, Vol. III, pp. 1441 ff. I reserve the discussion on the origin of the Rajputs for the 3rd volume of the present work.

v2.c32.5

³ *AR*, Vol. I, p. 113. In another place it is stated that like Viṣṇu, who created him, he was ‘four-armed’ like his creator, and ‘was thence styled Caturbhuja Cahuhan:’ *ibid*, Vol. III, p. 1448.

v2.c32.7

and even to the *Hammīra-Mahākāvya* of Nayacandra Sūri, the grandson of the spiritual adviser of Hammīra of Ranthambhor (*c.* 1283-1301 A.D.). Like Padmagupta-Parimala, the court-poet of the Paramāra Sindhurāja (*c.* 995-1010 A.D.), these authors would certainly have utilised the myth to glorify their patrons, if it was known in their time. The authors of both the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* and the *Hammīra-Mahākāvya* trace the origin of the tribe to an eponymous Cāhamāna who was born from the Sun (*Sūrya-maṇḍala*). According to the Bijolia inscription Sāmanta, the earliest representative of the family on its list, was born in the Vatsa gotra at Ahicchatrapura.¹ This Ahicchatrapura has been identified by some with Nāgapura (mod. Nagaur, Jodhpur State).² An inscription recently found in the possession of the descendants of Gyanji Jabi, Colonel Tod's *guru*, says that Ahicchatrapura was the capital of Jāṅgludeśa³ (*Jāṅgala-deśa*). Rai Bahadur Ojha would identify 'Jāṅgala country' with the region now known as Bikaner and Northern Marwar. Recent discussion⁴ however has shown that ‘Jāṅgala-deśa’ does not mean a particular tract of land. *Jāṅgala* literally means a forest or waste, and it has been shown that Jāṅgala settlements were attached to various ancient Indian States like Madra and Kuru. According to the *Mahābhārata* Ahicchatra was the capital of Uttara-Pañcāla, and this section of the state may possibly have abounded in forests and hence acquired the name of Pañcāla-jāṅgala.⁵ In that case we must suppose that the Cāhamānas, at least in the middle of the 12th century A.D., claimed to have migrated from the Upper Ganges-Jumna Valley. But it is significant that the authors of the two literary works referred to above do not mention Ahicchatra, and on the contrary seems specifically to associate the rise of the Cāhamānas with the lake Sākambharī (Sambhar), situated on the borders of the Jodhpur and Jaipur States. The provenance of the earliest inscriptions and the identification of some of the places mentioned therein suggest that the Sambhar region was possibly the cradle-land of the tribe. The well-known tradition, both literary and epigraphic, that the Cāhamānas took Delhi from the Tomaras, supported by references to conflicts between some of the earlier Cāhamānas and Tomara chiefs, seems to indicate that the movement of the tribe was from Sambhar towards the Ganges-Jumna Valley, and not *vice versa*.¹

v2.c32.8

¹ In the Sundha hill-inscription of Cāciga (V.S. 1319) the eponymous Cāhamāna is stated to have been a source of great pleasure to the sage Vatsa (*EI*, Vol. IX, p. 70 ff.). The Mt. Abu inscriptions of Luntiga (V.S. 1377) says that when the Solar and Lunar races came to an end, the holy Vacca (*i.e.*, Vatsa) brought about the creation of a new race of warriors, the Cāhamānas (*EI*, Vol. IX, pp. 79 ff.). In the recently published Sevadi grant of Ratnapāla (V.S. 1176), however, the *Cāhamāna-vaṁśa* is said to have sprung from a person who came out of the eye of Indra, lord of the East (*EI*, Vol. XI, pp. 304 ff.). These composers of Cāhamāna records were also ignorant of the fire-origin of their patrons as late as the 14th century A.D.

v2.c32.9

² Ojha, *Nāgarī-Prachāriṇī-Patrikā*, Vol. II, Part III; *JASB*, 1922, p. 289.

v2.c32.10

³ *JRAS*, 1913, p. 264, fn. 1.

v2.c32.11

⁴ Sinha, *JASB*, 1922, pp. 287 ff.

v2.c32.12

⁵ Like Kuru-jāṅgala, Mādreya-jāṅgala, etc.

v2.c32.13

¹ The theory that *Sapādalakṣa* is derived from the word 'Siwalik,' a range of hills running parallel to the Himalayas from Kangra to Nainital, is far from certain. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 937, fn. 3.

v2.c32.14

Epigraphic evidence supports the bardic tradition that the Cāhamānas were divided into many branches. Some of these were unquestionably feudatories of the Pratihāras of Avanti and Kanauj. Thus the Hansot plates of the Cāhamāna Bhartṛvaḍḍha (V.S. 813 = A.D. 756) show that he owed allegiance to Nāgāvaloka, rightly identified with Nāgabhaṭa I (*c.* 725 A.D.), while the Harṣa stone-inscription reveals the dependence of Gūvaka I on another Nāgāvaloka, *alias* Nāgabhaṭa II² (*c.* 815 A.D.). The Partabgarh inscription of the time of Mahendrapāla II (V.S. 1003 = A.D. 946) mentions his feudatory the Cāhamāna *Mahāsāmanta* Indrarāja.³ During the period *c.* 750 to 950 A.D. most of the regions over which the Cāhamānas ruled were certainly included in the Pratihāra dominions. It was probably Vigraharāja II (A.D. 973), of the Sākambharī branch, who first became free from the control of the house of Raghu' (Pratīhāras), to whom his father Siṁharāja had still paid homage.¹

v2.c32.15

² *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 199-200; *IA*, 1911, Vol. XL, pp. 239-40.

v2.c32.16

³ *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 180-81.

v2.c32.17

¹ *IA*, 1918, pp. 58 and 62, V. 19.

v2.c32.18

The history of the Cāhamānas may be conveniently grouped round the following heads: (1) *Cāhamānas of Lāṭa*, (2) *Cāhamānas of Dhavalapurī*, (3) *Cāhamānas of Partabgarh*, (4) *Cāhamānas of Sākambharī*, (5) *Cāhamānas of Raṇastambhapura*, (6) *Cāhamānas of Naḍḍūla*, (7) *Cāhamānas of Jāvālipura*, and (8) *Cāhamānas of Satyapura*. Of these the last three (Nos. 6, 7 and 8) were undoubtedly connected with No. 4; but the relationship of the first three with each other or with the rest is at present unknown.

(1) Cāhamānas of Lāṭa

v2.c32.s1.1

The earliest reference to the existence of Cāhamānas in Lāṭa was revealed by the discovery of the *Hansot grant of Bhartṛvaḍḍha*. It was found in the possession of a person in the town of Hansot, in the Anklesvar taluka of the Broach district, Bombay Presidency. It contains 36 lines, incised on two plates. It opens with *Oṁ Svasti*, after which comes the following: 'The Cāhamāna family, exalted with a large army, who have succeeded in adorning their territory, who are a receptacle of victory, like Meru (which is lofty with large ridges, adorned with the circle of *Siddhas*, the support of Jaya, or the sun.' Then comes the genealogy of the donor:

v2.c32.s1.3

In the Cāhamāna family

v2.c32.s1.4

Rājan Maheśvaradāma

v2.c32.s1.5

Bhīmadāma

v2.c32.s1.6

Bhartṛvaḍḍha (I)

v2.c32.s1.7

Parama-māheśvara Haradāma

v2.c32.s1.8

Dhrubhaṭadeva

v2.c32.s1.9

Parama-māheśvara-Samadhigata-pañca-mahāśabda-Mahāsāmantādhipati Bhartṛvaḍḍha (II).

v2.c32.s1.10

It is then announced that this last prince, while staying at Bhṛgukaccha (mod. Broach), granted the village of Arjunadevīgrāma in the Akrūreśvara¹ *viṣaya* to the Brāhman *Bhaṭṭa* Būṭa (?) and two others. The grant was written by the *Vālabhya*² *Bhaṭṭa* Kakka. It was issued from Bhṛgukaccha, with *Bhaṭṭa* Llalluva as its *Dūtaka*, in the *pravardhamāna-vijaya-rājya* of the illustrious Nāgāvaloka, in the (V.) year 813 (A.D. 756).³

v2.c32.s1.11

¹ Probably the present Anklesvar *taluka*; *EI*, Vol. XII, p. 201.

v2.c32.s1.12

² 'From Valabhī '?—*ibid*, p. 204.

v2.c32.s1.13

³ Edited by Sten Konow, *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 197-204.

v2.c32.s1.14

This inscription gives us six generations of Cāhamānas who appear to have resided in the region of Broach. By assigning a period of 30 years for each generation Konow arrived at *c.* 500 A.D. as the date of Maheśvaradāma.⁴ Noticing the occurrence of names which were common to the Maitrakas of Valabhī⁵ and the occurrence of the epithet *Vālabhya* (from Valabhī ?)` before the name of the writer of the grant, he also suspected intimate contact between the two families.⁶ But the most striking feature of these princes' names is certainly the ending *-dāma* in three of them, which is likewise found in the names of several descendants of the Western Kṣatrapa Caṣṭana. In the opinion of Rapson, it may well be a Sanskritised form of a Persian word.⁷

v2.c32.s1.15

⁴ I would rather assign 25 years, and propose *c.* 600 A.D. as the date of Maheśvaradāma.

v2.c32.s1.16

⁵ Cāhamāna Dhrubhaṭa (=Dhruvabhaṭa) = Maitraka Dhruvabhaṭa Śīlāditya VII (A.D. 766).

v2.c32.s1.17

⁶ 'It is possible that Bhartṛvaddha II's sister was married to Śīlāditya VI, so that Śīlāditya VII may have worn the name of his maternal grandfather': *EI*, Vol. XII, p. 199.

v2.c32.s1.18

⁷ 'Spalaga-dama': see Rapson, *Catalogue of Indian Coins (Andhras, Kṣatrapas, etc.)*, 1908, p. cv. For a Kacchapaghāta name ending in *dāman*, see my chapter on the Kacchapaghātas, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 822; also fn. 5 on the same page.

v2.c32.s1.19

The identification of Nāgāvaloka with Nāgabhaṭa I of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra family is now generally accepted. The existence of a Gurjara ruling family in the Broach region till *c.*

v2.c32.s1.20

706-36 A.D.¹ seems to indicate that Bhartṛvaḍḍha II may have succeeded Jayabhaṭa III, the last representative of that family, as the viceroy of Lāṭa. Bhartṛvaḍḍha's predecessors, however, may have been settled, as Konow suggests, in Broach for a long time previously.² But the fact that they are assigned only vague praise in the grant of their successor, combined with the absence of any titles of even feudatory rank, indicates that their position as rulers of Gujarat was not very conspicuous.

v2.c32.s1.21

¹ *BG*, Vol. I, Part I, p. 177:

v2.c32.s1.22

² *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 198 ff.

v2.c32.s1.23

For about five centuries nothing is heard of the Cāhamānas in Gujarat. The *Hammīra-mada-mardana* of Jayasiṁha³ reveals the presence of the *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* Saṁgrāmarāja, also known as Saṁgrāmasiṁha, who was a contemporary of the Vāghelā Vīradhavala (*c.* 1233-43 A.D.). He is said to have been the son of Sindhurāja and nephew of Siṁha, lord of Lāṭa-deśa. The drama represents him as in alliance with the Devagiri Yādava Siṁhaṇa (*c.* 1210-47 A.D.) and the Mālava Paramāra Devapāla (*c.* 1218-36 A.D.) against the Dholka chieftain. The allied invasion however, failed, largely owing to the activity of the spies of Vastupāla, the able minister of Vīradhavala. The alliance was dissolved and Saṁgrāmarāja was forced into an alliance with Vīradhavala. The *Vasanta-vilāsa* of Bālacandra also contains⁴ an account of the hostilities between Vīradhavala and the princes of Lāṭa. It relates that Stambhatīrtha (mod. Cambay) was conquered by the Dholka chiefs from the king of Lāṭa: The latter, according to this authority, was of Cāhamāna lineage, and named Saṅkhu. On one occasion he started from Bhṛgukaccha to attack Stambhatīrtha with a cavalry force. But in the battle which followed Saṅkhu was defeated and compelled to retire to Broach. As the father of Saṅkhu was named Sindhurāja, he is almost certainly identical with the Saṁgrāmarāja of the *Hammīra-mada-mardana*. Jayasiṁha says of Saṅkhu that his 'left foot was adorned with the figures of 12 *Maṇḍalādhipatis* on golden *dāmas*, '¹ and he defeated the Yādava king Siṁhaṇa on the Narbada.

v2.c32.s1.24

³ *GOS*, No. X, 1920.

v2.c32.s1.25

⁴ *GOS*, No. VII, 1917.

v2.c32.s1.26

¹ *GOS*, No. X, V. 28.

v2.c32.s1.27

From these statements it is clear that Broach was the centre of the Cāhamāna principality. Being situated on the frontiers of the Caulukyas, the Yādavas, and the Paramāras, it was in a difficult position. Though Bālacandra calls Saṅkhu a *bhūpati* or king, it is doubtful whether they at any time really enjoyed sovereign power. Jayasiṁha more appropriately calls him a *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara*. It is likely that, though possessing considerable power and prestige, these princes were always compelled to acknowledge, at least tacitly, the sovereignty of their stronger neighbours. The dominance of the great kingdoms of Gujarat, Malwa and the Deccan during the period *c.* 750-1175 must have kept them in insignificance. It was only after the decline or downfall of the states towards the end of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century that they were given opportunities to rise in importance.

v2.c32.s1.28

As to the relationship of the family of Bhartṛvaddha and Saṅkhu nothing is at present definitely known. But as Broach was the base of power of both the families, it may be conjectured that they were connected by blood.

(2) Cāhamānas of Dhavalapurī

v2.c32.s2.1

The existence of this branch was made known by the discovery of a *Stone-inscription at Dholpur*: It contains 26 lines, incised on a black stone in the Residency of the Dholpur State, Rajputana. It opens with a eulogy of the Sun-god (*Bhāsvat*, *Bhāskara*). Then follows the genealogy of a king named Caṇḍamahāsena:

v2.c32.s2.3

``` In the Cāhavāṇa-vaṁśa

v2.c32.s2.4

Isuka

v2.c32.s2.5

Mahiṣarāma = Kaṇhullā...performed satī when her

v2.c32.s2.6

| husband died.

v2.c32.s2.7

Caṇḍamahāsena or Caṇḍa. ```

v2.c32.s2.8

This last prince lived in Dhavalapurī.¹ The proper object of the inscription is to record the building of a temple of Caṇḍasvāmin, together with a pond and a well. The date of the consecration of the temple is V. S. 898 (A.D. 842).²

v2.c32.s2.9

¹ Identified with mod. Dholpur, *ZDMG*, Vol. XL, p. 38.

v2.c32.s2.10

² Edited by Hultzsch, *ZDMG*, Vol. XL, pp. 38-42.

v2.c32.s2.11

Caṇḍamahāsena's family appear to have been feudatory princes. Possibly he acknowledged the sovereignty of the Pratīhāra emperor Bhoja, who had captured Kanauj sometimes before 836 A.D. The only thing known about him is that the *Mleccha* lords who were established on the banks of the Carmaṇvatī (Chambal) paid him homage ;³ I am unable to suggest the identification of these *Mlecchas*.⁴

v2.c32.s2.12

³ *Carmaṇvatī-taṭa-dvaya-saṁsthita-Mlechādhipa-pravarāḥ*, *īpsitaṇā praṇatā sevāṁ kurvanti yosyānu.*

v2.c32.s2.13

⁴ Is it possible that there were during that period some Arab settlements in the Chambal valley as a result of a long series of Arab raids from the lower Indus valley? See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, Chapter I.

(3) Cāhamānas of Partabgarh

v2.c32.s3.1

This branch is known from the *Partabgarh stone-inscription* of the Pratīhāra emperor Mahendrapāla II,⁵ whose gift of a village for the cult of the goddess Vaṭa-Yakṣiṇī-devī in V. S. 1003 (A.D. 946) is recorded in it. But it also contains references to earlier grants to various shrines attacked to the monastery of Hari-Ṛṣīśvara. We are told that the provincial governor of Mahendrapāla resident at Ujain, at the request of the Cāhamāna *Mahāsāmanta* Indrarāja, granted a village for the cult of Indrādityadeva. The inscription gives the following genealogy of the Cāhamāna chief :

v2.c32.s3.2

⁵ Edited by G. S. Ojha, *EI*, Vol. XIV, pp. 160-61. See also *DHNI*, Vol. I, pp. 585 ff.

v2.c32.s3.3

``` Princes of the Cāhamān-ānvaya...who were a source of great : pleasure to king Bhojadeva. : Govindarāja

v2.c32.s3.4

Durlabharāja

v2.c32.s3.5

Indrarāja ```

v2.c32.s3.6

This last prince built the great temple of the Sun-god, named after him (*Indr-āditya*), at the village of Ghōṇṭā-Varṣika.¹ As grants are recorded to this temple in V. S. 999 (A.D. 942) it is certain that Indrarāja, built the temple on or before that date.

v2.c32.s3.7

¹ Said to be situated in Daśapura (mod. Mandasor). The village has been identified with mod. Ghotarsi, 7 miles east of Partabgarh.

v2.c32.s3.8

It appears from the eulogy of Indrarāja's predecessors that his family first rose into importance in the service of Bhoja and his successors. Indrarāja was a vassal of Mahendrapāla II, and was immediately subordinate to the governor of Ujjain. This is apparent from the fact that he had to apply to the latter in order to secure a grant of land for his temple.

v2.c32.s3.9

Nothing is known about any possible successors of Indrarāja.

(4) Cāhamānas of Śākambharī

v2.c32.s4.1

The earliest inscription of this branch is still the Harṣa stone inscription² of the time of Vigraharāja II dated in V. S. 1030 (A.D. 973). It carries back the genealogy of the Cāhamānas for six generations up to Gūvaka I, who, as we shall presently see, was a contemporary and feudatory of the Pratīhāra emperor Nāgabhaṭa II (*c.* 815 A.D.). The much later Bijolia rock-inscription, dated in V. S. 1226 (*c.* 1169 A. D.), in the reign of Someśvara, however, gives the names of 27 predecessors of Someśvara. Morison in 1893, first published a list of Cāhamāna princes from a Sanskrit work named *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*,³ which on comparison was found to agree closely with the list supplied by the two inscriptions mentioned above. To these lists and that given in *Hammīra-mahākāvya* of Nayacandra¹ H. B. Sarda² has added two more pedigrees contained in the *Prabandhakośa*³ and the *Surjan-carita*.⁴ The last scholar has contributed a critical and comparative chart of all these genealogies, and drawn the reasonable conclusion that, in the present state of our knowledge, the lists supplied by the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* and tested by the evidence of the Bijholi inscription may be accepted as reliable.

v2.c32.s4.2

² Sometimes called *Haras Inscription*, see *EI*, Vol. XIX, *Appendix*, p. 14, No. 82.

v2.c32.s4.3

³ *WZKM*, Vol. VII, pp. 187-92. *PV*, now edited with Jonarāja's commentary, by S. K. Belvelkar, *Bibliotheca Indica*, New Series, No. 1400, Calcutta. The author of the work is unknown. Sarda has suggested that it may be Jayanāka, the Kashmirian poet, whose entry in Pṛthvīrāja's court is recorded in Sarga XII. As it mentions the defeat of Muḥammad Ghūrī by Bhīma I, which took place in 1178 A.D., it is suggested that the work was composed between that date and about 1200 A.D. The work is incomplete.

v2.c32.s4.4

¹ *IA*, Vol. VIII, pp. 55-73.

v2.c32.s4.5

² *JRAS*, 1913, pp. 259-81.

v2.c32.s4.6

³ Of Rājaśekhara. See *Gaüḍavaho*, Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. XXXIV, Introduction, p. cxxxv, Note 11, footnote. Stated to be 4 or 5 centuries old, *JRAS*, 1913, p. 265.

v2.c32.s4.7

⁴ Composed at Benares by Candraśekhara, a Bengali Vaidya (Gauḍa Ambaṣṭha) poet in the court of Surjan Siṁha of Bundi, Akbar's Cāhamāna general. I am at present engaged in editing this *Mahākāvya* (No. 1135 of the Govt. Collection of MSS. in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.)

v2.c32.s4.8

According to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* and all the other literary traditions noticed above, the first historical person on the Cāhamāna genealogy is Vāsudeva. The 3rd and 4th Sargas of the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* describe the mythical origin of the lake Śākambharī, which through the favour of the two goddesses Śākambharī and Āśāpuri was ever after to remain in the possession of Vāsudeva and his descendants, who thus became known as *Śākambharīśvara*.⁵ In his lineage was born Sāmantarāja, the first name on the Bijolia list. He was a feudatory prince (*Sāmanta*) and was possibly also known as Ananta. As I have already noticed, this inscription records that he was a *vipra* and born in the Vatsa-*gotra* at Ahicchatrapura. If there is any historical basis for the statement of the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* that Vāsudeva was already connected with the Sambhar region, then Ahicchatra must be located near the borders of the Jaipur and Jodhpur States. As Sāmanta is the 12th king, counting backwards from Vigraharāja II (A. D. 973), we may perhaps assign him roughly to about the middle of the 7th century A. D.¹ Since the succession between Sāmanta and Vāsudeva does not appear to have been immediate, it is difficult to decide the exact time when Vāsudeva carved out his principality round Sambhar. The succession from Sāmanta to Durlabharāja I is given as follows :

v2.c32.s4.9

⁵ Vs. 1-5. The country round the lake was known as *Śākambharī-pradeśa*; *ibid*, V. 3. Also *infra*, p. 1099, fn. 3.

v2.c32.s4.10

¹ *Prabandha-kośa* however gives V. S. 608 (A.D. 551) as the date of Vāsudeva, see *Reports on Sanskrit MSS. in Southern India*, by Hultzsch, Vol. III, Madras, 1905, No. 1966, p. 112. The MS. was found in the private library of a Maratha Brāhman of Tarjore; also *JRAS*, 1913, p. 266, fn. 1.

v2.c32.s4.11

1. Sāmantarāja (also known as Ananta?) : after him,

v2.c32.s4.12

2. Pūrṇatalla ²

v2.c32.s4.13

² Sarda omits this name from his list of names given from Bijolia inscription, see *JRAS*, 1913, p. 270. The fact that *PB* (Vs. 7-8) seems to omit this name makes me a little doubtful about the reading of the transcript in *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 51, No. 344.

v2.c32.s4.14

3. Jayarāja ³

v2.c32.s4.15

³ Sometimes Jayantarāja, or Ajayapāla.

v2.c32.s4.16

4. Vigraharāja I _____|_____

v2.c32.s4.17

5. Candrarāja 6. Gopendrarāja

v2.c32.s4.18

7. Durlabharāja (I)

v2.c32.s4.19

Practically nothing but vague praise is assigned to these princes, and they were apparently insignificant. According to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* Durlabharāja I was succeeded by his son Govindarāja. But the Bijolia inscription places Gūvaka after Durlabha. Sarda has accepted Gūvaka as an *alias* of Govindarāja. The Harṣa stone inscription of Vigraharāja traces his descent to prince Gūvaka. Scholars agree in identifying the Gūvaka of the Bijolia inscription with the Gūvaka of the Harṣa record.⁴ They also agree that 'Nāgāvaloka the foremost of kings,' in whose court Gūvaka is stated to have 'attained pre-eminence,' is the Pratīhāra Nāgabhaṭa II (*c.* 815 A. D.).⁵

v2.c32.s4.20

⁴ D. R. Bhandarkar is of opinion that the Saive temple referred to in the Harṣa inscription of Vigraharāja (V. S. 1030) was originally constructed by Gūvaka I, *IA*, 1913, p. 58.

v2.c32.s4.21

⁵ *IA*, 1911, pp. 239-40; *ibid*, 1913, p. 58.

v2.c32.s4.22

The implication of this statement of the Harṣa stone inscription is no doubt that Gūvaka I was a feudatory of the powerful Pratīhāra monarch.

v2.c32.s4.23

According to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, the next prince was Govindarāja's son Candrarāja II. This agrees with the Harṣa inscription; but the Bijolia epigraph gives the variant Śaśinṛpa.¹ His son was Gūvaka II.² According to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, his sister Kalāvatī chose for her husband the king of Kanauj.³ Gūvaka's son was Candanarāja. According to the Harṣa inscription, he defeated and slew in battle a Tomara prince (*Tomareśa*) named Rudrena,⁴ who has not yet been identified. There is reason to believe that the Tomaras were settled in the region round modern Delhi in the 9th century A. D.⁵ The north of the present Jaipur State is reported to be divided into two divisions viz., Taṁvrāvāṭī and Sekhāvāṭī. The former name is said to be derived from the Rajput tribe Taṁvar, who are the same as the Tomaras of the inscriptions. As Taṁvrāvāṭī is not very far from the Sambhar region, Rudrena may have been a prince of this locality.⁶ This conflict and the death of Rudrena may then be regarded as the opening act of that grim struggle which in the middle of the 12th century was to extend the arms of the Cāhamānas to the foot-hills of the Himalayas. According to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, Candana's queen Rudrāṇī, also called Ātmaprabhā, set up 1,000 *liṅgas* on the banks of Puṣkara, 'which shone like lights in darkness.'⁷ Candana's son by this queen was Vākpatirāja, called Vappayarāja and Vindhyanṛpati (?) in the Bijolia inscription. The Harṣa inscription gives him the epithet *Mahārāja*, and states that he put to flight one Tantrapāla, who was ‘coming haughtily towards the Ananta country’ to deliver a message of his overlord.¹ The identity of the defeated prince is unknown; but it may be assumed that the kingdom of the Cāhamānas was called *Ananta-gocara*, after the name of its second prince. According to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, Vākpati I was a great warrior and won 188 victories. He was also a devotee of Śiva, and built at Puṣkar a temple (*prāsāda*) for Vyomakeśa (Śiva), ‘which looked like Kailāsa.’² He was succeeded by his son Siṁharāja. The Harṣa inscription gives him the epithet *Mahārājādhirāja*, and states that he subdued the Tomara chief (*nāyaka*) Salavaṇa³ and put to flight and captured the hosts that had gathered under his command. The princes who were captured in this struggle were kept in prison till his overlord, who belonged to the ‘family of Raghu,’ came in person to his house to liberate them.⁴ The *Raghu-kula-cakravartin*⁵ referred to in this passage is most probably one of the successors of the Pratīhāra monarch Nāgabhaṭa II, to whom, as we have seen, Gūvaka I owed allegiance. It is difficult to identify the Pratīhāra prince; but as we have the date 973 A.D. for the successor of Siṁharāja, he must be either Mahendrapāla II (A.D. 946) or one of his weak successors. The fact that the overlord had to come personally to the house of his feudatory to effect the release of prisoners is sufficient evidence of the increasing importance of the Cāhamānas of Śākambharī and of the decline of the imperial power of Kanauj.

v2.c32.s4.24

¹ The meaning of both the names is the same, 'moon-king.'

v2.c32.s4.25

² The Bijolia inscription seems to spell the name ‘Gūvāka.’ See *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 51, No. 344. *JASB*, LV, I, 41 has ‘Gavāka.’ *JRAS*, 1913, table on p. 270.

v2.c32.s4.26

³ Vs. 30-31. She had 12 other suitors, but they were all defeated by her brother.

v2.c32.s4.27

⁴ Kielhorn read the name as ‘Rudrena.’ *EI*, Vol. II, p. 121, V. 14. But D. R. Bhandarkar proposes to read it as ‘Rudra,’ *IA*, 1913, p. 58, and fn. 2.

v2.c32.s4.28

⁵ See *infra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Tomaras*.

v2.c32.s4.29

⁶ *IA*, 1913, p. 59.

v2.c32.s4.30

⁷ Vs. 37-38. She was also probably known a Yoginī; see *JRAS*, 1913, p. 268.

v2.c32.s4.31

¹ *IA*, 1913, pp. 58 and 62, V. 16. The overlord may have been either the Pratīhāra emperor Mahīpāla I (*c.* 914-31 A.D.) or one of his immediate successors. According to some ‘Tantrapāla’ may denote the designation of an individual; see *EI*, XIX, *Appendix*, p 14, fn. 4. For ‘Ananta,’ see also V. 28.

v2.c32.s4.32

² Vs. 41-43. It was probably from Vākpati's son Lakṣmaṇa that the Cāhamānas of Naḍḍūla took their rise, see *infra*, pp. 1104 ff. Vākpati had another son, named Vatsarāja see *EI*, Vol. II, p. 129.

v2.c32.s4.33

³ The passage may also mean ‘subdued the *Tomara nāyaka*…together with Lavaṇa’ see Bhandarkar, *IA*, 1912, pp. 57 ff., and Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 116 ff.

v2.c32.s4.34

⁴ *IA*, 1913, pp. 58 and 62, V. 19.

v2.c32.s4.35

⁵ Rājaśekhara tells us that the Pratīhāra princes of Kanauj claimed descent from the *Raghu-kula*: see *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. I, p. 576.

v2.c32.s4.36

Siṁharāja was succeeded by his son Vigraharāja II, for whose reign we have the *Harṣa stone-inscription*: This was found 'engraved on a large slab of black stone which lies in the porch of the temple of what is known as *Purāṇa* Mahādeva on a hill near the village Haras, situated in the Sikar principality of the Shekhawati province, Jaipur State,' Rajputana. It contains 40 lines of writing, and is somewhat damaged. It seems to open with *Oṁ oṁ namaḥ Śivāya*. The first verse pays obeisance to Gajānana; the next 10 verses eulogise Śiva, who appears to have been given the name Harṣa. Verse 12 praises the 'mansion of the divine Harṣadeva.'¹ Verses 13-27 trace the genealogy of the Cāhamānas from Gūvaka I to Vigraharāja II. The inscription then gives an account of 'a line of ascetics who were in charge of the temple of Harṣanātha,' relating that in the country of Ananta (*Ananta-gocara*) there lived Viśvarūpa, 'who was a teacher of the Lākula doctrine² expounding *pañcārtha*.' His disciple was the Brāhman Bhāvirakta, *alias* Allaṭa, of Rāṇapallikā.³ Allaṭa, who was like Nandin, began the building⁴ of the temple of Harṣanātha with the wealth received from pious people. The temple was completed in (V.) S. 1013 (c. 956 A.D.); but Allaṭa died in (V.) S. 1027 (A.D. 970), before he could accomplish all his designs. The works were completed by Allaṭa's disciple Bhāvadyota⁵ at the request of his preceptor. The architect of the temple was Caṇḍaśiva, 'omniscient like Viśakarman in the art of building houses.' The record was composed by Dhīranāga, the pious son of the *Karanika* Thīruka. Then is given a list of endowments received by the temple up to (V.) S. 1030 (*c.* 973 A.D.) The *M-Siṁharāja*, after having bathed at Puṣkara-tīrtha¹ had given the villages Siṁhagoṣṭha² in the Tūnakūpaka³-*dvādaśaka* in the Paṭṭabaddhaka⁴-*Viṣaya*, and Kaṇhapallikā in the Sarahkoṭṭa⁵-*Viṣaya*; his brother Vatsarāja, the village of Kardamakhāta in the Jayapura-*Viṣaya*; king Vigraharāja, the villages of Chatradhārā and Saṅkarāṇaka; Siṁharāja's other sons, Candrarāja and Govindarāja, two hamlets in the Paṭṭabaddhaka and Darbhakakṣa⁶-*Viṣayas*; Dandhuka, an official (*Duḥsādhya*) of Siṁharāja, the village Mayurapadra in the Khaṭṭakūpa⁷-*Viṣaya*; and a certain Jayanarāja, the village Kolikūpaka. Besides these fields had been given by various pious people at Madrāpurikā, Nimbadikā,⁸ Marupallikā, Harṣa and . . . . . (Ka)lāvanapadra; and taxes on salt and horses had been assigned for the benefit of the temple by traders (?) at Sākambharī and horsedealers of Uttarāpatha.⁹

v2.c32.s4.37

¹ D. R. Bhandarkar has tried to show that the description fits in well with the ruined temple where the inscription was found: *IA*, 1913, pp. 57-58.

v2.c32.s4.38

² '*Lākulāmnāya*, a term technical to the philosophy (*darśana*) of the *Lākulīśa-Pāśupata* sect: *ibid*, p. 59.

v2.c32.s4.39

³ Identified by Kielhorn with Ranoli, 7 miles east of Harasnath, and one mile west of Shishu: *EI*, Vol. II, p. 119.

v2.c32.s4.40

⁴ D. R. Bhandarkar thinks that he simply repaired the temple, which was built long ago by Gūvāka I; *IA*, 1913, p. 58.

v2.c32.s4.41

⁵ D. R. Bhandarkar points out that Allaṭa and Bhāvadyota are given the epithets *digamala-vasana* and *digambara* respectively. This may indicate that the sect, like their deity Lakulīśa, who is represented as *Urdha-medhra*, was naked. *IA*, 1913, p. 39.

v2.c32.s4.42

¹ Mod. Puskar near Ajmer.

v2.c32.s4.43

² Modern Simhot, *ibid.*

v2.c32.s4.44

³ Mod. Tunu in the Sikar principality, *IA*, 1913, p. 60.

v2.c32.s4.45

⁴ Mod. Patoda in the Sikar principality, *ibid.*

v2.c32.s4.46

⁵ Mod. Sargot in Marot, Jodhpur, *ibid.*

v2.c32.s4.47

⁶ Mod. Dhakas in the Sikar principality, *ibid.*

v2.c32.s4.48

⁷ Mod. Khatu in Sambhar Nizamat, Jaipur State, *ibid.*

v2.c32.s4.49

⁸ Mod. Nimra, 4½ miles south of Harasnath, near a salt lake, *EI*, Vol. II, p. 119. D. R. Bhandarkar locates most of the villages mentioned in the Sikar chiefship of Jaipur State: see *IA*, 1913, p. 60.

v2.c32.s4.50

⁹ Edited by Kielhorn, *EI*, Vol. II, pp. 116-30. Re-edited by D. R. Bhandarkar, *IA* 1913, pp. 57-64. The record is sometimes called *Haras Inscription*, see *EI*, Vol. XIX, *Appendix*, p. 14, No. 82. The *Sakrai stone-inscription* is referred by some to the reign of Vigraharāja. It is engraved on a slab 'in the principal niche of the exterior of the shrine' of Sākambharī at Sakrai, some 20 miles distant from Raghunathgarh, Jaipur State, Rajputana. The record has not been properly read but it seems to refer itself to the reign of the Cāhavāna prince Vigraharāja. It records that Dayikā, wife of Vatsarāja (no doubt, the paternal uncle of Vigraharāja referred to in the Harṣa inscription) repaired the temple of Saṅkarādevī. It is dated in *Saṁvatsara* 55 *Māgha Sudi* 5. The date is taken to be a case of omitted hundreds and equivalent to V. S. 1055. *ASI, WC*, 1909-10, p. 57; in *EI*, Vol XIX, *Appendix*, p. 17, No. 97 the inscription is referred 'apparently' to the time of king Vatsarāja, successor (?) of Vigraharāja.

v2.c32.s4.51

This inscription gives the date (V.) S. 1030 (*c.* 973 A.D.) for Vigraharāja. The donatory position of the record also shows that he had two brothers Candrarāja and Govindarāja, and an uncle, named Vatsarāja, brother of Siṁharāja. It appears certain that sometime before this date the Cāhamānas had completely freed themselves from the control of the princes of ‘*Raghu-kula*’ (Gurjara-Pratīhāras). The *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* tells us that Vigraharāja extended his conquests as far south as the Narmadā and defeated the Gurjara king Mūlarāja, who fled to Kaṇṭhādurga.¹ He is also reported to have built a temple (*dhāma*) for the goddess Āśāpurī on the banks of the Revā at Bhṛgukaccha.² The statement of the conflict between Mūlarāja and the king of Śākambharī is remarkably borne out by Merutuṅga's *Prabandha-cintāmaṇi* according to which the ‘king of Sapādalakṣa,’ who ruled from his capital at Śākambharī, invaded Gujarat, and the distressed Caulukya was forced to take shelter in the fort of Kaṇṭhā.³ The identification of this invader with Vigraharāja is generally accepted. According to the *Hammīra-mahākāvya*, the struggle ended with fatal results for Mūlarāja.⁴ I have shown elsewhere⁵ that, though it may well be doubted whether Nayacandra is correct in his statement that Mūlarāja was killed by Vigraharāja, there is sufficient reason to believe that he was really defeated by him.

v2.c32.s4.52

¹ V8. 50-51.

v2.c32.s4.53

² V. 53.

v2.c32.s4.54

³ *PC*, pp. 23 ff. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Caulukyas, pp. 937 ff.

v2.c32.s4.55

⁴ *IA*, Vol. VII, p. 7. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 939.

v2.c32.s4.56

⁵ *Ibid.*

v2.c32.s4.57

Vigraharāja was succeeded by his younger brother Durlabharāja of whom nothing more was known than the name of his minister, Mādhava, which is supplied by the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, until the discovery of the *Kinsariya stone-inscription of Cacca* threw some welcome light on his reign. This was found ‘in a temple dedicated to the goddess Kevāy mātā and situated on the summit of a hill in the vicinity of a village named Kinsariyā, 4 miles north of Parbatsar, the principal town of the district of the same name in the Jodhpur State. It is incised on a stone fixed in the wall of the *Sabhāmaṇḍapa.*' It contains 23 lines of somewhat damaged writing. The first verse has peeled off. In the next four verses it invokes Kātyāyaṇī, Kālī, and another deity (name lost). Verse 6 praises the Cāhamāna race. Then it gives the names of Vākpātirāja, Siṁharāja, and Durlabharāja. The latter, we are told, earned the epithet *Durlanghya-meru*, as none could transgress his orders. Verse 12 'represents him as having conquered the country called Āsośittana.'¹ Next is given the following genealogy of a line of feudatory princes who traced their descent to the sage Dadhīci and were hence known as Dadhīcika (also Dahiyaka).²

v2.c32.s4.58

¹ Perhaps 'Rāsośittana,' *EI*, Vol. XII, p. 56.

v2.c32.s4.59

² The editor identifies them with the Dahiya Rajputs: See *ibid*, pp. 57 ff. According to *Muhanota Naiṇsī*, they originally migrated from Thalner, on the Godavari, near Nasik, into Marwar.

v2.c32.s4.60

[Figure: In this race: Meghanāda [=Māsaṭā Vairisiṁha

v2.c32.s4.61

|=Dundā

v2.c32.s4.62

Cacca

v2.c32.s4.63

┌──────────────┴──────────────┐ Yaśaḥpuṣṭa Uddharaṇa]

v2.c32.s4.64

Cacca built 'this' temple of Bhavānī, no doubt the temple where this inscription was found. The *praśasti* was composed by the *Gauḍa-Kāyastha* Mahādeva, son of Kalya, a poet. The date (V.) *Saṁvat* 1056 (*c.* 999) is given in line 22.³

v2.c32.s4.65

³ Edited by Ramakarna, *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 56-61.

v2.c32.s4.66

Durlabharāja was succeeded by his son Govindarāja, whom the *Prabandha-kośa* credits with a victory over Sulṭān Maḥmūd.⁴ If the latter is the prince of Ghazni of that name, we must suppose that the Cāhamāna king won some minor success when Maḥmūd was on his way to Somnath through Jaisalmer and Mallani. But I am disposed to doubt the reliability of this statement, as it is omitted in the much more reliable *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*.

v2.c32.s4.67

⁴ *JRAS*, 1913, p. 269, fn. 2. See also *Bombay Sanskrit Series*, No. XXXIV, Introduction, p. cxxxvi.

v2.c32.s4.68

Govindarāja was succeeded by his son Vākpatirāja who according to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* sent Ambāprasāda the lord (*pati*) of Āghāṭa, with his army to the abode of Yama and rent his mouth with a dagger (*churikā*).¹ Āghāṭa is modern Ahar, near Udaipur station, and was the ancient capital of the Guhilas. It is therefore certain that this Ambāprasāda is to be identified with Ambāprasād or Āmraprasād who is placed in the Guhila list of princes after Śaktikumāra (V.S. 1034 = A.D. 977).²

v2.c32.s4.69

¹ V, Vs. 59-60.

v2.c32.s4.70

² *JRAS*, 1913, p. 268 and fn. 3; also *HR*, I, pp. 438-39; *ibid*, II, p. 438. See also *infra*, DHNI, Vol. II, chapter on the *Guhila-putras*.

v2.c32.s4.71

Vākpati II was succeeded by his son Vīryārāma who is stated by the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* to have been killed by the (Paramāra) Bhoja lord of Avanti (c. 1010-1055 A.D.).³ He was succeeded by his younger brother Cāmuṇḍarāja, who built at Narapura⁴ a temple of Viṣṇu.⁵ The next king, according to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, was Vīryārāma's son Durlabharāja III, also called Vīrasiṁha, who is said to have been killed in battle by the *Mātaṅgas*. The commentator Jonarāja explains *Mātaṅga* by the word *Mleccha*.⁶ If this interpretation is correct, he may have lost his life in a struggle against an unrecorded invasion of the Yamīnīs from the Lahore region. Durlabha is probably the same as Dūsala of the Bijolia rock inscription; but the latter's father's name is given in the inscription as Siṁhaṭa. Durlabha III was succeeded by his brother Vigraharāja III, who is probably identical with Vīsala of the Bijolia inscription and Viśvala of the *Hammīra-mahākāvya*. According to the Bijolia inscription Vīsala's queen was named Rājadevī. The *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* states that Vigraharāja gave to Udayāditya of Mālava (*c.* 1059-87 A.D.) a horse named Sāraṅga, with which Udayāditya vanquished the Gurjara Karṇa¹ (*c.* 1064-94 A.D.). If this statement is based on fact, we must reject the statement of Nayacandra, that Karṇa was killed by Viśvala's predecessor Duśala.²

v2.c32.s4.72

³ V. 67.

v2.c32.s4.73

⁴ Narwar, 'situated' in Kishengarh territory at a distance of about 15 miles from Ajmer, *JRAS*, 1913, p. 272.

v2.c32.s4.74

⁵ V. 68.

v2.c32.s4.75

⁶ *Mātaṅga-saṁgare = Mleccha saṁgrāme*. The commentator also adds that it may mean *hasti-samare*, which seems to be more probable.

v2.c32.s4.76

¹ V5. 76-78.

v2.c32.s4.77

² *IA*, Vol. VIII, p. 59. Though the author does not actually state the dynasty to which Karṇa belonged, the inference is obvious that the Caulakya prince is meant. See *supra*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, pp. 872, fn. 2, and 964.

v2.c32.s4.78

Vigraharāja was succeeded by his son Pṛthvīrāja I. The *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* states that this prince defeated and killed a body of 700 'Caulukyas' who had come to Puṣkara to rob the Brāhmans. He is also reported to have built an *anna-satra* on the road to Somanātha. The Bijolia inscription gives Rasalladevī as the name of his queen. Only one inscription has so far been noticed for the reign of Pṛthvīrāja I. This is his *Revasa stone-inscription* found in the temple of Jīṇ-mātā (*Jayantī-mātā*) situated about six miles to the south of Revasa. The latter place is nearly 16 miles NW of Khatu, in the Sambhar Nizamat in Shekhawati, Jaipur State. The goddess inside the temple is 'an eight-handed Mahiṣamardinī'; the *Sabhāmaṇḍapa* of the temple is 'doubtless old,' and is stated to be not later than the 10th century A. D. The present inscription is incised on the lower part of a pillar of this *Sabhāmaṇḍapa*. It is dated in V.S. 1162 (*c.* 1105 A D.) in the reign of Pṛthvīdeva³ and records the building of the temple by one Haṭhada, son of Mohila.⁴

v2.c32.s4.79

³ 'Pṛthvīdeva' is the same as 'Pṛthvīrāja.' Another variant of the name is 'Pṛthvībhaṭa,' which we find in the case of the second prince of that name. See *infra*.

v2.c32.s4.80

⁴ Noticed in *ASI, WC*, 1909-10, p. 52.

v2.c32.s4.81

Pṛthvīrāja I was succeeded by his son Ajayarāja⁵ *alias* Salhaṇa. According to the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*, he defeated the *Mātaṅgas* (*mlecchas*?) and also Sulhaṇa the king of Mālava. The last statement is confirmed by the Bijolia inscription, which states that Ajayadeva captured in battle Sulhaṇa, the commander-in-chief of the army, tied him to the back of his camel, and brought him to Ajmer.¹ As there was no prince ruling in Mālava during this period who bore the name Sulhaṇa, he must be a general of one of the Paramāra kings, possibly Yaśovarman (*c.* 1134-42 A.D.) These were not the only victories of Ajayadeva. The Bijolia inscription states that he killed three kings, *viz.*, Cāciga, Sindhula, and Yaśorāja, while another stone inscription found in the *Adhai dinkā Jhonprā*, Ajmer,² says that he conquered the country up to Ujjain.³ Besides these conquests, the most important achievement of his reign was the foundation of the city of Ajaya-meru, now known as Ajmer.⁴ The author of the *Pṛthvī-rāja-vijaya* eloquently describes the many temples and palaces with which the king beautified this city. No inscription of Ajayapāla has yet been published, but certain silver and copper coins of a prince of the same name bearing the figure of a ‘seated goddess on the obverse’ which are frequently met with in Rajputana and Mathura, have been referred to him.⁵ It is interesting in this connection to note that the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* actually states that he filled this world with his *rūpakas*, made of *Durvarṇa* (silver).⁶ It also states that the king’s wife (*priyā*) Somalekhā used to coin fresh (*nava*) *rūpakas* every day.⁷ In corroboration of this last statement certain silver and copper coins bearing on the obverse⁸ the legend *Śrī-Somaladevī* have been referred to this queen. The silver coins bear on the reverse¹ ‘a degraded representation’ of a king’s head, while the copper coins bear the effigy of a horseman. As the Bijolia inscription actually gives Somalladevī as a variant of the name of Ajayapāla’s queen, it seems probable that the coins in question belonged to her.

v2.c32.s4.82

⁵ Also known as Ajayadeva.

v2.c32.s4.83

¹ *JRAS*, 1913, p. 272, fn. 5.

v2.c32.s4.84

² Now in the Rajputana Museum.

v2.c32.s4.85

³ *JRAS*, 1913, p. 272, fn. 5. Ajayadeva was also sometimes called Jayadeva (*JASB*, Vol. LV, Part I, p. 41, V. 14) or Jayarāja (PB, V, V. 83).

v2.c32.s4.86

⁴ PB, p. 164; *JRAS*, 1913, pp. 272-73; *IA*, 1897, pp. 162-64.

v2.c32.s4.87

⁵ Ojha, *IA*, 1912, pp. 209-11.

v2.c32.s4.88

⁶ V. 88. See *infra*, inscription No. 2 of Someśvara which refers to the *Drammas* of Ajayapāla.

v2.c32.s4.89

⁷ V, vs. 90.

v2.c32.s4.90

⁸ Ojha calls this side of the coin ‘reverse’ but Mr. Allan, Keeper of Coins in the British Museum, told me that it is better to accept Cunningham’s practice of calling that side of the coin ‘obverse’ which bears the royal legend.

v2.c32.s4.91

¹ Ojha calls this side ‘obverse’ but see above.

v2.c32.s4.92

Ajayarāja was succeeded by his son Arṇorāja. Of his reign only two inscriptions have so far been noticed, *viz.*, his *Revasa* (Jaipur State, Rajputana) *stone-inscriptions*. These are incised on the lower part of a pillar of the *Sabhā-maṇḍapa* of the same temple which bears the inscription of his grand-father Pṛthvīrāja I.² They are dated in (V.)S. 1196 (*c.* 1139 A.D.) in the reign of Arṇṇarāja (Arṇorāja).³ The *Dvyāśraya* of Hemacandra states that Āna of Sapādalakṣa bent his head before the Caulukya Jayasiṁha (*c.* 1094-1144 A.D.).⁴ Someśvara’s *Kīrti-kaumudī* confirms this statement, and adds that, though Jayasiṁha defeated the Śākambharī prince, he gave his daughter as a bride to him.⁵ The marriage was no doubt intended to end an era of hostility between the two neighbouring dynasties. The *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* mentions two queens of Arṇorāja, of whom one came from Gurjara, and the other named Sudhavā from the desert country named *Avīci*.⁶ The commentator Jonarāja tells us that the Gurjara queen was named Kāñcanadevī and that she was given away by Jayasiṁha.⁷ Hostilities with the Caulukyas seems to have broken out afresh with the accession of Kumārapāla (*c.* 1144-73 A.D.) to the throne of Anhilvada. The Jain chronicles record many incidents in connection with this new war. I have, elsewhere,⁸ discussed in detail the facts mentioned by them. We shall here mention only two incidents. The first is Arṇorāja's invasion of Kumārapāla's territory, before the latter had consolidated his position on the throne, in support of the cause of Bāhaḍa, the adopted son of Jayasiṁha ; and the second is Arṇorāja's ill-treatment of his wife Devalladevī, who, we are told, was a sister of Kumārapāla. Both these incidents are given by different authorities as causes of war between Arṇorāja and Kumārapāla. Recently Rai Bahadur H. B. Sarda has offered the plausible conjecture that the Jain chroniclers mention only one war while the facts suggest two distinct struggles. He supposes that the first war ended with a marriage-alliance at the beginning of Kumārapāla's career. The *Dvyāśraya* mentions that Arṇorāja brought peace by giving his daughter Jalhaṇā to Kumārapāla. The next war may have been occasioned by the treatment of Devalladevī some time before V.S. 1207 (*c.* 1150 A.D.), the date of Kumārapāla's Chitorgadh stone-inscription.¹

v2.c32.s4.93

² See *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 1070.

v2.c32.s4.94

³ Noticed in *ASI, WC*, 1909-10, p. 52.

v2.c32.s4.95

⁴ *IA*, Vol. IV, p. 268.

v2.c32.s4.96

⁵ *JRAS*, 1913, p. 274.

v2.c32.s4.97

⁶ *Avīcibhāgo marubhūmi-nāma*, *PB*, p. 197. According to Sarda it means Marwar, see *JRAS*, 1913 p. 274.

v2.c32.s4.98

⁷ *PB*, p. 198.

v2.c32.s4.99

⁸ See *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Caulukyas, pp. 986 ff.

v2.c32.s4.100

¹ *IA*, 1912, pp. 195-96.

v2.c32.s4.101

Besides these struggles, Arṇorāja is reported to have engaged in other conflicts. The *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya*² states that he defeated the *Mātaṅgas* and once made a great massacre of the Turuṣkas. The latter, we are told, came across the desert (*Marusthalī*). By the time they reached the Cāhamāna dominions, they were so thirsty that according to Jonarāja they had to drink the blood of their horses by striking their shoulders with their weapons. Arṇorāja, it is said, made a great slaughter of them, and afterwards purified the place, by constructing a lake on the battle-field by diverting the waters of the river Candra,³ which rises in *Puṣkarāraṇya*. It is evident from these statements that these Muslims must have raided the temples of the sacred Puṣkara-tīrtha. This appears to be another unrecorded instance of Muslim invasion of India. Possibly the Turuṣkas were troops of the Yamīnīs of Lahore.

v2.c32.s4.102

² *Sarga* VI.

v2.c32.s4.103

³ Acc. to Sarda mod. Bandi river, which is in its lower course known as Luni, *JRAS*, 1913, p. 274, fn. 2. In the *IGI*, Vol. XXVI (Atlas), 1931, two rivers are shown with the name Bandi, one is a tributary of the Luni, the other of the river Banas. None of these rises from near Pushkar or flows by the *tīrtha*; the Luni, however takes its rise in the Sambhar lake and flows by Pushkar. Under the circumstances I prefer to identify Candra with the Luni.

v2.c32.s4.104

It appears from the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* that the reign of Arṇorāja had a violent ending. We read that queen Sudhavā had three sons, who differed from each other as the three *guṇas* (*sattva*, *rajas* and *tamas*). Of these Vigraharāja was like the *sattva-guṇa*, while the eldest son is reported to have ‘rendered the same services to his father as Bhṛgu’s son Paraśu Rāma had rendered to his mother.’¹ This certainly indicated that this eldest son murdered his father. But unfortunately neither the *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* nor the Bijolia inscription mention his name. The *Hammīra-mahākāvya*, the *Prabandhakośa* and the *Surjan-carita* however give the name of the successor of Aṇāladeva² (Arṇorāja?), and the predecessor of Visaladeva (Vigraharāja IV) as Jugadeva. It is therefore likely that the eldest prince was named Jugadeva, and that he succeeded in occupying the throne for at least some time. The *Pṛthvīrāja-vijaya* however seems to indicate Vigraharāja IV, one of the sons of Sudhavā, as his father’s immediate successor. It is not improbable that before Jugadeva had time to consolidate his position on the throne, he was ousted by his younger brother, Vigraharāja. The following records are known for the latter’s reign.

v2.c32.s4.105

¹ *PB*, VI, pp. 197 ff. *JRAS*, 1913, p. 274.

v2.c32.s4.106

² In the *Surjan-carita* Analadeva.

v2.c32.s4.107

(1) *Ajmer stone-inscription* (i).—Found in the mosque known as *Aḍhai dinkā Jhonpṝā*, on the lower slope of the Taragadh hill at Ajmer, Rajputana. It consists of 75 lines of writing. It contains a large portion of the 1st act, the beginning of the 2nd act, the end of the 3rd act and a large portion of the 4th act of *Lalita-Vigraharāja*, a drama (*nāṭaka*) composed by the *Mahākavi* Somadeva in honour of king Vigraharāja of Sākambharī. The preserved portion of the drama deals with the king's love for Desaladevi, the daughter of prince Vasantapāla,¹ who appears to have lived near or at the town of Indrapura (?). The end of the 3rd act contains a conversation between the king and Śaśiprabhā, a confidante of Desaladevī. Reference is then made to the king's impending 'march against the king of the Turuṣkas.' Two Turuṣka prisoners appear in the 4th act, and spies of the two hostile kings enter their enemies' camps to ascertain their strength and position. The Turuṣka spy announces that the Cāhamāna army 'consists of a thousand elephants, a hundred thousand horses, and a million men,' while the Cāhamāna spy states that 'the Hammīra's army consists of countless elephants, chariots, horses and men.' We are also told that the camp of the Hammīra, which was a Yojana distant from 'Vavveraa,'² the place where Vigraharāja was then encamped, was 'well guarded.' The Cāhamāna king consults Rāja Siṁhabala, his maternal uncle, and the *Mantri* Śrīdhara as to the course of conduct on the impending struggle. The preserved portion ends with the arrival of a *dūta* from the Hammīra. The record was written and engraved by the learned Bhāskara.³

v2.c32.s4.108

¹ Kielhorn suggests that he may be a Tomara chief, *IA*, Vol. XX, p. 202, fn. 1.

v2.c32.s4.109

² Kielhorn was not sure about the Sanskrit equivalent of this Prakrit form. He however suggested that this may possibly be Vyāghreraka which is mod. Bāghera about 47 miles S. E. of Ajmer: *ibid*, fn. 3. To Barnett Vavveraa looks like Varvaraka (> Vavveraa).

v2.c32.s4.110

³ Partially edited by Kielhorn in *IA*, Vol. XX, pp. 201 ff. Edited by the same in *Göttinger Festschrift*, 1901, pp. 1-15.

v2.c32.s4.111

(2) *Ajmer stone-inscription (ii).*—Found as No. 1 above. It consists of 81 lines of writing, containing portions of the 2nd and 3rd acts and the concluding portions of the 5th act of the *Harakeli-nāṭaka*, a drama composed by the *M.-P.* Vigraharājadeva of Śākambharī. The drama in certain portions seems to have been imitated from the *Kirātārjunīya* of Bhāravi. It seems to be intended as a *praśasti* to the god Śiva and his consort Gaurī. In the end the god expresses great pleasure with the composition of the drama, and tells the author that ‘his fame as a poet is to last for ever.’ The inscription was written by the same as No. 1. He is described here as the grandson of the learned Govinda, ‘who was born in the family of Hūṇa princes and was, on account of his manifold excellences, a favourite of king Bhoja.’ It is dated in (V.) *Saṁvat* 1210 (A.D. 1153).¹

First 175 of 687 passages. Read on

Linked texts (24)