________________
No. 8.]
THREE COPPER-PLATE RECORDS OF SONPUR.
103
convenience due to their geographical situation. It is perfectly clear that this tract of country was also once included within Kosala-dësa or Dakshiņa Kösala of which Ratanpur (in the district of Bilaspur) was the capital, but did not form any part of Odra or Orissa. For, in the first place, Nibinna in Sonpur (B, lines 4, 5, 15 and 16) and Satallamá (modern Satalma) in Sambalpur (S, line 9) are described as villages in Kosala-dēša. Secondly, the Brāhmaṇa who came from Orissa to be settled in the district of Sambalpur, could not have been called a man of Odra-dēša (S, lines 16 and 17) if the district were part of Orissa. It is worthy of note that even now, when anybody goes to Pori on pilgrimage, either from Sambalpor or from the feudatory states, he says he is going to Orissa. In popular language, Orissa does not include Sambalpur and its feudatory states.
The grantors of the charters F 1 to F 6, A, B, and S, called themselves lords of Kösaladēša? as well as of Trikalinga. It is worthy of note that the Kēsari kings are counted in Orissa from Yayāti and not from his father Janamējaya. There is another Janamējaya in the list of kings, but he was a remote successor of Yayati..Merely because no epigraphic record of Janamējaya has been obtained, it cannot be argued that it is Janamējaya Mahabhavagupta I., who has been wrongly shown on the list. This is at least certain that the Orissa record does not know anything of Sivagupta who is the first king of this line.
. Since all the copper-plate grants of Mahābhavagupta I. relate to villages in Kósala-deśas (including Sambalpur of course) it must be presumed that, to begin with, the Somavamsi kings became powerful in Kobala-dēša only; and that it was only subsequently that they extended their influence into Orissa. Sādhāraṇa, who was the chief minister of Mahābhavagupta I., was granted villages for his enjoyment in Kosala-dēśá (F 2 to F 4). He could not have managed them if he had been living far away from those villages; nor would the king select such distant villages for bis minister who was his favourite.
Whether the Guptas who were lords of Kõsala and Orissa were connected with the family of Sivagupta, son of Harshagupta of the Rūjim, Sirpur and Ratanpur records is a question which awaits solution. That the Hinduised Sabara king Udayana belonged to, or rather claimed descent from, the lunar race, like the Somavamsi kings, and that the successors of Udayana from Tivara downwards assumed the title Gupta, and were all Saivas, have been fully established. From the inscription of Bhavadēva published by Professor Kielhorn (J.R. A. S. 1905, pp. 617-629) it may be inferred that different branches of the same family reigned simultaneously at different places. The assumption by Bhavadeva of the title Kēsarin has also to be noted. Dr. Fleet did not accept the suggestion of Sir Alexander Cunningbam, not because there was any chronological difficulty in identifying the father of Janamējaya with Sivagapta of the Räjim plates, but because he considered it not possible on paleographic grounds.
The characters of the Sambalpur and Oriss& plates differ very much from those of the Rajim and Ratanpar records ; but the cause of this difference may be the following. King Janamējaya and his successors had many Bengali Kayasthas for their court officers. We get the names Kailasa Ghosba, father of Vallabha Ghosha (S), Koi Ghosha,6 son of Vallabha
1 [Satallama was in Kasalodā.vishayapot in Kösala-doss -Ed.]
In F 1, A and S, there is nothing to connect the donors with Kösala; but in F 2 to F 6 and B the donative villages are said to be in the Kösala country.--Ed.]
(See the preceding note.--Ed.] • Above, Vol. III, p. 338. •[The text of this inseription has कायस्थ पासवेन के (वि)लासमतेन.-Ed.] • Kõi Ghosha seems to be a contraction of Kailass Ghosha.
