________________
No. 24.]
That Yasaḥkarnadeva was wont to make gifts on Samkranti days would appear from his Jabalpur plate record, in which it is stated that the grant was made on the occasion of the Makara Sankranti. Here the date according to the Nagpur Museum transcript of the lost plate is "Monday, the 10th of the dark fortnight of Magha 829 at the time of the Uttarayana Samkranti." In this case too the details work out for Monday, the 31st December A.D. 1078 for the expired Kalachuri year 829, but the Makara Sankranti had taken place a week earlier, viz. on Monday, December 24th. As will be shown further on, this appears to be a more probable date for the Jabalpur plate than the one worked out by Dr. Kielhorn, who was unaware of the date contained in the transcript, and who only tried to make the week day fit in with the day of the Lunar month and the Samkränti.
KHAIRHA PLATES OF YASAHKARNADEVA.
But whatever the differences between the day and the date, I think there is no mistake in the year of the Khairha inscription, and the new information that we gather from this record is accordingly that in 1073 A.D. king Karpa had ceased to reign and that his son Yasahkarpa had come to the throne. If we were to assume the date of the Jabalpur plate to be 1122 A.D. as calculated by Dr. Kielhorn, this would give an unusually long reign to Yaśaḥkarna, even if we consider the fact that Karna had abdicated the throne in favour of Yasaḥkarna and that thus the latter may be expected to have had a longer reign than others. Our record shows that Yasahkarna had defeated the king of Andhra and crushed the power of several of his enemies before it was written. It is therefore very likely that he had been in occupation of the throne for at least 4 or 5 years prior to this, and if we suppose that he lived for about the same period after he made the Jabalpur grant, his reign would extend to about 60 years and his age to about 80 years, supposing his installation to have taken place at the age of 20. To a boy of lesser age a great king like Karna would not have entrusted the government of his kingdom, however law-abiding son he may have been.
207
The new dating of the Jabalpur plate seems to contradict the theorys that during Yaśaḥkarpa's reign part of the Chedi dominion had passed into the possession of the Kanauj kings. That theory is based on an inscription of Govindachandradeva, who in the Vikrama year 1177 (A.D. 1120) sanctioned the transfer of some land which had originally been granted by Yaśaḥkarpadeva. There is nothing in the inscription to show that the transfer was made in the same year in which the district wherein the transferred land was situated passed into the hands of Govindachandra. In fact the context appears to show that it was otherwise. The district may well have been taken by the Kanauj king in the reign of Yaśaḥkarna's successor, who would certainly have refrained from confiscating his father's gift, and to the original donee it must have remained a gift of Yasahkarna for all times.
There is a somewhat vague reference to two important historical events in verses 11 and 23. If I have correctly interpreted verse 11, there is an allusion to the conquest and restoration of the Kuntala country to its king by Gangeyadeva. This kingdom included the Banavasi, Hangal, Puligere, Belvola, Kündi, Belgaum, Kisukad districts, etc., in the Hyderabad State and the Bombay Presidency and seems to have been the raiding ground of the neighbouring kings in the same way as the old Chakrakötya in Bastar. The Chalukya king Tailapa claims to have subjugated it about 973 A.D., Kulottunga-Choladova I. is recorded to have defeated the Kuntala king about 1070 A.D., and a century later Ballala II.8 of the Hoysala dynasty established his supremacy over that country.
1 Ep. Ind., Vol. II, p. 2.
2 Ep. Ind., Vol. II, p. 303. Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 179. Ibidem, p. 128,
* Verse 16.
Journal Beng. A. Soc., Vol. XXXI, p. 124. Duff's Chronology, p. 9.
Ibidem, p. 160.
