________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
84
[VOL. XXVIII as a feudatory of the Gauda king Sasanka. As we have seen, king Sambhuyasas was ruling over Uttara- and Dakshina-Tōsalt, i.e., the country extending at least from the borders of the Midnapur District up to those of the Ganjam District, in the period A.D. 579-602. It thus seems that, about A.D. 569, Prithivivigraha was ruling over that part of Kalinga which lay to the northeast of the Eastern Ganga kingdom. The Sailōdbhavas appear to have originally owed allegiance to him and, through him, to the Guptas. The dynasty represented by Sambhuyasas probably overthrew the family to which Prithivtvigraha belonged. One of the records of Sambhuyasas speaks of the suzerainty of the Manas. It appears that Gupta rule in Orissa was substituted by that of the Manas shortly after Prithivtvigraha. The Manas in their turn were probably ousted by the Gauḍas. Thus the Sailōdbhavas appear to have acknowledged the suzerainty at first of the viceroys of the Guptas, then of the Mana family to which Sambhuyasas belonged or owed allegiance, and ultimately of the Gaudas. An as-yet-unpublished copper-plate inscription dis covered from a locality called Kanas in Orissa is said to speak of a king named Lõkavigraha.' It is possible to suggest that Prithivivigraha and Lōkavigraha belonged to the same family.
Little is known about the kings Ubhaya and Dharmaraja from other sources. It seems that Padmakhōlt was not only the name of the capital of Mahārāja Dharmarāja but also that of his kingdom which lay around the present Khallikōt in the Ganjam District.
Of geographical names mentioned in the Sumandala inscription, we have already discussed the location of Kalinga-rashtra. The city of Padmakhōli has been suggested to be no other than modern Padmakhol near Narayankhol in the now defunct Khallikōt State. The vishaya or district called Parakkhalamarga must also have been situated in the Khalliköt region. The localities Ardhakamaṇḍuka, Chandanavaṭaka and Homvak-agrahara cannot be satisfactorily identified.
TEXT3 First Plate
1 [Siddham | Svalsti | chatur-udadhi-mukhaliyah sapta-dvipa-pa[r]vvata-aar[i] t-patta[na]
2 bhushaṇāyām-va(yām va)sundharāyām-va(yām va)rttamana-Gupta-rajyō varshasata-dvaye
3 pañchāśad-uttare Kalinga-rashṭram-anusāsati śrī-Prithivivigraha
4 bhaṭṭārakē tat-pad-änudhyātaḥ Padmakhölyäṁ maharaj-Obhay-anvayō
5 Va(Ba)ppadēvyām -utpanna-tanuḥ Sahasraraśmi-pada-bhaktō mahārāja-Dharm
marä
6 jaḥ kuśall Para[kkha]lamārgga-vishayē varttamāna-bhavish[y]at-sama[nta]
Second Plate; First Side
mahārāja-rajaputera-kumarimätty-aparika-tadayuktaka-dandavisika
7
sthän[6]
1 See Manorama, loc. cit. After this paper had been sent to the press, I received the Kanäs plate of Lokavigraha for examination. That inscription will also be published in this journal. A faulty transcript of the Kanās plate has since been published in J. K. H. R. 8., Vol. II-III, pp. 262-3.
[See below, note 5-Ed.]
From the original plates and their impressions.
Expressed by a symbol.
This may be the êka-desa of names like Ubhayajata (Matsya Purana, 195, 31) and Ubhayachara (cf. Uparichara) or epithets or titles like Ubhayadalapitämaha (above, Vol. XII, p. 252). [Ubhaya as proper name of a person sounds rather queer. Mr. Rajaguru takes it to be Abhaya. More probably this is what is meant. The reading in that case may be given as maharajo-[*]bhay-anvayo. Or, better still, it may be corrected into maharaj-Abhay-anvayo, otherwise Abhaya will go without the title Maharaja, whereas Dharmaraja will have it mentioned twice.-Ed.]
• Dadapasika is no doubt intended. [See above, p 80 note 3-Ed.]
