________________
16
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XIX
brothers was born Kalingarāja, whose son was Kamalarāja. The latter defeated an Utkala king and endeavoured to equal Gängeyadēva in prosperity. To him was born Ratnarāja or Ratnadēva, the father of the donor of this gift.
Prithvidēva is described as the master of twenty thousand, the lord of the whole of Kosala, a mahāmandalēsvara, and sprung from the Kalachuri family. These facts are important as showing that in spite of being a lord of a very big country like Kosala extending west to east from Berir to Orissa and north to south from the Amarkantaka to the Godavari, he continued to owe allegiance to the parental house at Tripuri near Jubbulpore. It is somewhat difficult to say what the master of 20-thousand ' means, but it appears to be a measure of importance belonging to the class in which the Southern kings usually indulged. Some writers construed the figures against place-names referring to their revenue capacity, the value of the produce or the quantity of seed required for the cultivation of the tract, but Dr. Fleet in his note on Ancient territorial divisions of India contributed to the Royal Asiatic Society's Journal of 1912 has clearly shown that the numerical figures refer to the number of cities, towns and villages assigned to each territorial division. In certain cases like Rattapādi 7,50,000, Kavadidvips 1.25.000. Gangavādi 96,000, Nolambavādi 32,000, the figures look enormous, but these he ex. plains as conventional or traditional or at any rate greatly exaggerated. In the light of these, our figure of 20,000 for the lord of the whole of Kõsala country is apparently very modest. In & record found in the Madras Presidency, referring to a gift made by the Kalachuri king of Tripuri, to Sadbhāva-Sambhu, the head of Golakimatha, the following occurs :- freone megfratreneraf: 1 yarat yurizeazafa: fiat faceret i.e., to him the Kalachuri king Yuvarājadēva gifted 3 lakhs of villages. The same record assigns 9 lakhs of villages to the Dāhala country, lying between the Jumna and the Narmadā, which Yuvarājadēva held. For our donor, therefore, to hold 20 thousand villages as a Mahamandalesvara of Tripuri, looks to be a normal affair. In those days the units must have been very small, as they are still found in backward places like the Bastar State.
The importance of our charter lies in the fact that it is the oldest dated record of the Hai hayas of Mahäkosala. Up till now Prithvidēva's son's record of the year 1114 was the oldest. Of all the dated records of the Kalachuri kings, the one under notice stands second, the first being that of Karnadēva of the year 1042 A.D.2. Karna was the son of Gangeyadēva,' who finds & mention in our record as a king to be imitated for augmenting one's prosperity. He had died in 1041 A.D., or 38 years before the charter under notice was issued. The date of our record regularly corresponds to Sunday, the 27th January 1079 A.D. In this charter the Sativat is given as Chëdisasya (of the lord of Chēdi), and not as Chedi or Kalachuri Sarvat, as found in other records. This seems to support the hypothesis formulated by me about 15 years ago that Chhattisgarh owed its origin to Chēdisagadha, meaning the forts or districts of the lord of Chedi, and not to the numerical word chhattis meaning 36. There is no proof of the gachas or forts having been limited to 36. On the other hand the account books of the kings of Ratanpur which were seen by the Settlement Officer of the Bilaspur District about 60 yeurs ago showed the names of 48 gadhas instead of 36. In no inscription has the name Chhattisgarh Leon used for Kösala or Mahākõsala. The Bilaspur District or at any rate a portion of it formed part of the Chēdi country under the sway of the Tripuri kings and the rulers of Mahākörala were the sions of the same family and remained subordinate to that paramount power. It was, therefore, natural to call all the new forts which formed units of power as belonging to the Chēdīša or Lord of Chedi.
1 Seo Jijalladēva's Ratnapur inscription in Ep. Ind., Vol. 1, pp. 32 ff. Ep. Inl., Vol. VI, n. 297 ff. One roourd of this king is also found with a doubtful date corresponding to 10:38 A.D.
