________________
150 EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXVIII Haihayas. Evidently he must be identical with Kõkkala I, who according to the chronology of the Haihaya kings of the main Tripuri line lived about 850-885 A. C.
Since Kõkkala, the predecessor of Kalingarāja of the Ratanpur line, is described in the Amoda plates of Prithvidēva I as having taken the treasures of those born of the Turushka families, it has been held that the reference may not be to Kõkkala I of the Tripuri family who belonged to a period anterior to any Muhammadan invasion of North India.2 Granting that the exploit is true to facts, there is nothing improbable or anachronistic in assuming that it was Kõkkala I of the 9th century A. C. that should be credited with it. For, although the regular Muhammadan invasions came much later, yet even in the period of the Bädāmi Chālukyas there have been invasions of Gujarat by the Muslims procceding from the direction of Sind. It is known that Pulakēsi-Avanijanāśraya of Gujarat encountered an invasion of the Tajikas whom he repulsed sometime about 735 A. C. during the reign of Vikramaditya II.' The Tājikas were none other than the Arab Muhammadans of Sind, and Muhammadan historians like Al Biladuri refer to the expeditions which the Arabs of Sind directed against the kingdoms of Barus (Broach), Uzain (Ujjain), Maliba (Malwa) and Jurz (Gujarāt). It is well known that the Rashtrakūta empire was referred to by the Muslim chroniclers as the 'kingdom of the Balhara' and that it included among its subjects a fair number of Muslims. Hence it is not unlikely, as shown above, that Kõkkala, the father of the prince called lord of Tripuri, of the Ratanpur line, was Kõkkala I who lived about 850-885 A. C. We can now have an idea of the interval between the lord of Tripuri and Kalingarāja. It appears that it is covered by three generations of kings and hence of a total duration of about 75 years. This gap in the genealogy is not entirely un-accountable; it was precisely during this interval (c. 910-990 A. C.) that the ancestors of Kalingarāja lost the country of Tummāņa. It was Kalingarāja who seems to have re-established his sway over it. The statement in the Ratanpur inscription of Jājalladēva I (1114 A. C.) that Kalingarāja selected Tummāna as his capital, since the place had previously been selected for the purpose by his ancestors supports this surmise.
Prithvidēva II is not described in the present charter with any high sounding titles or achievements to his credit. The record dated, as it is, in K. 890 which is the earliest date known for him so far, seems to have been issued early in his reign before he had made any conquests of his own. That he was a powerful king and that in his reign some conquests were made is learnt from the Räjim stone inscription of Jagapāla of K. 896' in which Jaga pala is stated to have conquered the forts of Saraparàgadha (Särangarh) and Mavākāsihava and the country of Bhramaravadra during the reign of Prithvidēva II. Again the Ratanpur stone inscription dated K. 915, the latest inscription of his reign, describes him as the lord of Kõsala and states that his feudatory, Brahmadēva of the Talahāri mandalu, obtained a victory over Jațēsvara, who is evidently identical with the homonymous son of Anantavarman-Chōdaganga. The same victory over Jaţēśvara is attributed to Prithvidēva himself in the Kharod inscription of Ratnadēva III of Chodi year 933. Another subordinate of his, Vallabharāja, overran Ladāha and reduced the Gauda king as stated in a stone inscription from Akaltārā 10 not far from Daikoni, the findspot of the present charter. Yet
1 Above, Vol. XXIII, p. 258 and n. 6. H. C. Ray (Dynastic History of North India, Vol. II, p. 754) adduces reasons for giving Kõkkala I the dates 875-925 A.C.
Above, Vol. XXI, p. 161. • Above, Vol. XXV, p. 27. • Elliot, History of India, Vol. I, pp. 125-6. • Ibid, p. 27. . Above, Vol. I, p. 34, text I. 7: Vol. XXII, p. 160, n. 2. 1 Ind. Ant., Vol. XVII, p. 140, Loxt 1). 10-11. • Above, Vol. XXVI, p. 261, text I. 20.
Above, Vol. XXI, p. 163, text I. 8. 10 Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 84: Inscriptions in C. P. and Berar (1931) p. 121, Ing. No. 202.
