________________
274
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XVI.
Northern India, ends in 1203 A.D., and that Trailokyavarman succeeded his father as a mere local chieftain, holding the eastern part of the ancestral kingdom of Jējäka-bhukti. As we gather from the present inscription, however, Trailokyavarman must shortly after the catastrophe at Kalanjur have mustered his forces, followed the Muhammadans into the western part of Bundelkhand, fought with and possibly defeated them there, re-established his power in at least the western and central parts of his dominions, and probably recovered his ancestral stronghold of Kalanjara (as appears from his assumption of the epithet Kālañjar-ūdhi pati, 1. 5). It is possible that the latter epithet is merely an empty claim to the lost fortress, similar in nature to the same title as held by Vijjala, Kalachuri king of Kalyāņi, or to the title Drārārati-pura-raradhifvura, as assumed by the Yådavas of Deragiri. But in the present case it is rather significant that a claim should be asserted over the place within two years of its loss. Besides, as General Cunningham remarks, we know for certain that Trailok yavarman recovered Kälanjara some time before 1233 A.D. Nothing prevents us, therefore, from assuming that he did go just at the outset of his career. Other inscriptions tell us that be was in possession of Ajaygarh Fort in 1212 A.D., that he was the paramount ruler in Baghelkhand in 1240-41 A.D., and that he was eulogized in his successor's time as a very creator in providing strong places and as 'a veritable Vishnu in lifting up the earth, immersed in the ocean formed by the stream of Turushkas. All this evidence warrants us in assuming that Trailokyavarman was not a mere local chief, that he retrieved the waning fortunes of his dynasty to a considerable extent by stemming the tide of the Moslem invasion, and that during his pretty long reign of hetely forty years he succeeded in establishing his sovereigaty over most-if not all--of his paternal domain.
Of the localities mentioned in the records the following can be identified. Vadavada, the place of encampment, is most probably the same as Vadavári of another Chandella inscription. to be identified with Bodwads in the Lalitpur subdivision of the Jhansi district, the Berwara' of the maps in N. L. 24° 30' and E. L. 78° 41'. Kakadādaha, the scene of the battle with the Turk, must in all probability be the Kakaradaha mentioned elsewheres as situated in the Vadaväri region, and as such I propose to identify it with Kakadwå, a little to the south-east of Bedvida, the Kukurooa' of the maps in N. L. 24° 28' and E. L. 78° 42'. The Vikrauni territory of these plates is probably the same as the Vikaura territory of the Semra plates which was identified by Dr. Cartellieri with Bikaur in Saugor district, the Beekore of our maps, in N. L. 24° 13' and E. L. 78° 41'. Lohasihāni in the Vikrauņi territory may be the same as Lohani in the Bijäwar State, situated in N. L. 24° 23's and E. L. 79° 12'. Kādāhā. one of the villages granted, must be identical with Kādoa in the Chhatarpur State, situated in N. L. 24° 48' and E. L. 79° 52', just south of Garra, the place where the plates were discovered. Pāņiüli might possibly be identified with Panna, capital of the Indian state of the same name, in N. L. 24° 43' and E. L. 80° 16'.
TEXT,
1 [Om] Svasti[lo] Jayaty-ahládayan=vigvam višv-ēśvara-sivo-dhritaḥ i Chandråtrēja-nar
erdråņām varsas-chandra iv=02 jjvalaḥ || Tatra pravarddhamana-virodhi-vijaya-bhrajishņu-Jayasakti-Vijayasakts-adi
vir-åvirbhāva-bha
1A. 6. Reports, Vol. XXI, p. 87..
? Vide Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 329. • Semra platos of Paramardi-dova (Ep. Ind., Vol. IV, p. 157, text I. 8). • Ibid., p. 156 and p. 157, text 1.7.
Indian Atlas sheet No. 70 W.E. • From the original plales.
