________________
224
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XII.
mention the name of Chahadadēva among the chiefs of Ranatbambhor. This, however, is not a serious objection. For we learn from a Muhammadan historian, named Maulana Minhāja-ddin, that in A.H. 632 (A.D. 1234) Shamsa-d-din Altam sh defeated at Rapathambhor a powerful ruler of the name of Chabadadova who sustained another defeat in A. H. 649 (A.D. 1251) Dear Narwar at the hands of Ulagh Kbán, the Commander of the forces of Balban. This account must be correct, for Minhāju-d-din informs us that he heard of Chahadadēva's bravery at the battle of Ranathambhor from the month of Nugratu-d-din Tâ-yas'ai himself who led Altamsh's forces on this occasion. We may, therefore, conclude that Chahadadēva held sway over both Ranathambhor and Narwar where, indeed, he is said to have been born. This need not surprise us for we learn from the Delhi-Siwalik pillar inscription that at one time the Chabamānas ruled over the entire territory between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas. It also follows from what has been said above that Chabadadēva must have flourished just mid-way between the fall of Prithviraja and that of Hammira.
Another argument in favour of the identification of the Chahamana Chahadadê va of our inscription and the Chahadadēva of Narwar is afforded by numismatic records. The coins of Chāhadadēva discovered at Narwar, etc. are of two kinds, namely those issued by him as an independent ruler and secondly those strack by him as a tributary to Altamsh. The coins of both these kinds are of the bull and horseman type like those of the Chahamina rulers and, what is more, those of the first kind also bear on the reverse the legend of Asävarifri-Sämantadēvat which only oocurs on the coins of the Chahamāna Somośvara and his son Prithviraja.
It will be observed that in the inscription, Chabadadēva is called a Mahākumāra or chief heir-apparent. The grant must consequently have been issued by him before his enthrone. ment.
TEXT. 1. 1. "Ma]hākumāra sri-Chāhadadēvah | 1. 2. . . . kirttir-anotti dyanḥ paratra datuh pratigrahitusacha 1
achchbëttur-viparita bhar=yrā(brā)hmanaśāt(süt)-kriti . . 1. 3. .
..vikramah | Chāhamana-kulaikėdur-vibhuh Sākambhari-bhuva) ||2 Va(Ba)bhava bhuvanābhoga..... 1. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . dhipaḥ 113 Tato-rnnorāja-nfipatir=va(ba)
bhāra jagatibbaram 1 svasmion=ālānito yê[na"] . . . . . 1. 5. - - -u v - u -v u - - - tanäjo-sya cha Avāvāsaika
nivāsiniḥ samakaroj-jitvā digamtasriyah [1*] - - - U 1. 6.--vuu --- -- ----uv-sya dāsavad-ami cherus-ohiram nirmada) ||5 Přithvirajas(ya"] .
.
1 Cunningham (Coiry of Medioral India, pp. 90-91) and Thomas (Pathans of Delhi, p. 67) maintained that one and the same Hindu chief was defeated at Ranathambhor and Narwar. According to Cunningham, Major Raverty beld that two different rulers were intended. This view is refuted by Major Raverty's own translation of the Tabakat-1- Napiri (p. 824) where both the defeats are clearly attributed to the same person.
• Tabaķāt-i-Napiri translated by Raverty, p. 825. . Ind. Ant., Vol. XXII, p. 81.
* This legend is evidently developed from that of Sri-Samantadēra on the Tomara coins, which is perfectly patural, for the Chahamans were the immediate successors of the Tomaras At Delhi. (See Pålam Baoli inscription in Journal Beng. As. Soc., Vol. XLIII, Part I, Pl. X.) A part of the top stroke of ma is extant.
• Read - kënders,
