________________
188
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[Vol. XI.
The Sirpur inscriptions show that Bålärjuna Mahasivagupta must have been in # fairly prosperous state and so it was probably his son, a possible Mahabhavagupta, who was ousted from his ancestral capital. If we do not find any of his records, there is nothing to wonder at. A person in calamity driven out of his home would hardly think of bestowing grants or revel in perpetuating his name when his own position was so shaky, and his descendants would hardly be inclined to mention one who was in such a plight, it being better to omit than to record his tale of defeats. For the matter of that, they might also have omitted his son Sivagupta's name as he also does not seem to have been in a much better position, but he was the direct ascendant of his renowned son, and it is possible that he might have prepared the way to the conquest of Trikalinga of which all his successors are called adhipati, though no such title attaches to his name in any of the inscriptions. It appears that it was Janamējaya Mahabha vagupta (I) who retrieved the good name of his dynasty by conquering the Trikalinga country. So far as is known, he was the first in his line to take the title of Trikalingādhipati, though it was disputed by the Haihaya kings of Chēdi, as we find the title used by the Kalachuri Karnadēva of Tripuri in his Benares plate of 1042 A.D. and by other members of the same family up to 1174 A.D. Bat they were apparently raiders with superior power, the real rulers of Trikalinga being the Somavamsis. There is little donbt that these two houses came in contact with each other as in one of the Patná plates (marked H) the donor claims a victory over Chödi.
With regard to geographical names, the country of Magadha whence the temple builder was brought in marriage is well known. The other places mentioned are 6 villages given to the temple and its accessories. Of these, I think Karapadra is the same as Kulapadar, 15 miles south-east of Sirpur, and Vargullaka is apparently Gullū, about 10 miles south-west of Sirpur and 5 from Arang. Todankaņa may be Turēngā near Kulapadar. About 4 miles from Turong, there is a village named Madhuban which may be identical with Madhuvēdha of the inscription. As regards the remaining two, Nalipadra and Vanapadra, I could not find any villages answering to their names. Våņapadra must have been quite close to Sirpur, as it is stated to be on the spot'.
An endeavour has been made in the appended statement to identify places mentioned in other records of these kings, and it may not be out of place here to discuss the unsettled question of the capital of these kings. In the records of the Somavamšīs the phrase Srimato vijaya-Kafakat' occurs which has been interpreted to mean from the victorious Kataka', the capital, in preference to its simple meaning from the victorious camp'. That the latter is the real meaning clearly appears from the copper plates of Mahabhavagupta Janamējays belonging to the Sird year of his reign (the oldest of all so far found). in which the word skandhāvarāt has been used instead of the usual katakat. It will be observed from other inscriptions that whenever kataka is used, the name of the camp (a separate place-name) is invariably given, but this is not the case when the charters purport to be issued from Yay tinagara or Vinitapura, which Dr. Fleet considers to be fanciful names of Kataka itself. It has been assumed that Kataka was the capital of these kings, but I am
1 Another reason why his name is omitted may be found in the fact that all the records of this dynasty give only the name of the donor and his father in the ordinary business-like way, and since his son Sivagupts for reasons stated further on in the text probably never made a grant, it seems very doubtful whether we would ever get a direct proof of bis existence.
Above, Vol. II. p. 298.
These plates were found some 13 years ago at Sonpur, the capital of the state of the same name. They were shown to me when I visited that place about 13 years ago (1.. 1896) and I took a copy of the inscription. [They have been published by Mr. Mazumdar (above, pp. 99 f.). -Ed.)
4. There is only one exception found in the Patna plates marked H in which Vinitapura and Kataks are both mentioned; but Mr. Laskar hoe noted that this record is full of mistakes and gross inaccuracies. See J. 4. 8. B. 1905, Vol. I. p. 6.
