________________
292
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XVIII
Mr. R. D. Banerji, reviewing Mr. Mazumdar's discussion, declared the date assigned to Kanakabhañja as absolutely impossible on palæographical grounds. We cannot,' he said,
admit the existence of a Raụnbhañja in 1200 A.D., because the Rapabhañja of the Bamar. ghati gront was living in the third quarter of the 11th century, according to Mr. Mazumdar, and palæography shows that Ranabhañja (II), son of Satrabhañja (II), is earlier than Ranabhanja (I), son of Digbhañja (I). Mr. Banerji would place Kanakabhañja in the beginning of the 12th century A.D.'
It would thus appear that the Bhanja chronology still remains a subject of great controversy, but, although I do not find sufficient reasons in support of Mr. Mazumdar's theory dissociating the present families of Mayārabhañja and Keonjhar States from the inscriptional Bhañjas by relegating their origin to an adventurer of Rajputana, I agree with him as regards the date of Ranabhañja II, about the end of the 12th century A.D., until Mr. R. D. Banerji establishes his contention, for which he says he is ready. Kanakabhañja may or may not have been very far removed from Ranabhañja II ; but the mere fact that Kanakabhañja's two ancestors only are mentioned in Plate M. does not warrant the conclusion that his grandfather was not connected with the Bhañjas known to have been previously ruling at Baudh. It is true that the Bhanja family sent out several offshoots and they became rulers of different tracts, but at present there is nothing to show that Kanakabbañja's line was a distinct one and supplanted Ranabhañja II's. Again, the adoption of the Kāśyapa-gotra in place of the old * Andaja' or egg-born is no proof of disparity in view of the accepted rule that he who has no gõtra belongs to the Kāśyapa-gotra.' Kanakabhanja belonged to a much later date than his original ancestor. He must have noticed the contempt with which the origin from an egg must have been looked upon in his time. The easiest thing for him or his immediate predecessors was, therefore, to relegate themselves to the sage Kasyapa, to which nobody could raise an objection.
By a misreading of the word Khimjali as Khiņdini or Khiñijini Mr. Mazumlar was led to identify it with Khimidi and consequently to the conclusion that a branch of the Bhanja family held sway there. In essence he is not very far from the truth, in that a branch belonging to the line of Nētribhañja did rule in the Ganjam District, the eastern portion of which was certainly under the Bhanja sway, as a number of villages granted were situated in the Gumsår, Aska and Chatrapur taluks to which Kimiţi in the same district adjoins towards the west. Kimidi may or may not have been included in the Bhañja dominions, but it was certainly not of such an importance as to have induced the kings to adopt the title of Lords of Kimiời. The title Lords of both the Khiñjalis (Keonjhar)' was an ancient one, and all the branches of the Bhanja family appear to have taken pride in calling themselves as such, irrespective of whether they continued to be rulers of that tract or not.
With due deference to the learned Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasad Sastri, M.A., C.I.E., who has edited the charter O., which he calls Khandadeali inscription of Ranabhañjadova,' I may perhaps be permitted to state that his descriptive title is inaccurate. The grant should have been described as one of Narēndrabh añjadēva, who was the real grantor and not his grandfather Ranabhañjadeva. The latter comes in merely as one of the several ancestors of the donor. The text reads:
Hie: Jef()fa(at) (5:) OUTH 89191 Heat va: 1
# Atarfaitai geothar **** TUTATA[:] **** रान्छो प्राभिधानाय प्रतिपादिती अस्माभिः
The only dated Bhañja cbarter yet found (D) bears the date 288 which Mr. Mazurudar assigns to the Choļa. Ganga era It is thus equivalent to 1060 A.D.
J. B.O.R.S., Vol. IV, p. 176.
