________________
No. 40] NAGARI PLATES OF ANANGABHIMA III ; SAKA 1151 AND 1152
243
and Väghalladēvi. Versos 65-70 describe the glory of king Rājarāja III who is said to have ruled for seventeen years apparently of the Tikre reckoning, corresponding to fourteen actual years. Thus the king ruled in Saka 1120-33 (1198-1211 A.C.).
Verse 71 speaks of Malhanadēvi who was descended from the Chalukya dynasty and was the queen of Rājarīja III. The name of this queen is found as Sadguṇadovi in the grant (B) of Narasimha IV no doubt due to an error of one of the copyists. The reading Mankunadēvi in the record of Narasimha II preferred by N. N. Vaxu, however, is quite clearly Mahlanadivi as in our epigraph. It is only natural to expect that the queen's name has been correctly spelt in the present charter issued by her son. Verses 72-80 describe king Anangabhima III, who issued the charter under discussion, as the son of Rājarāja III from Malhanadēvi. Verge 77 of our record, which seems to have been dropped from later copies, seems to refor to the ceremony of the Hiranya
garbha mahädrina performed by the king. Verse 79 refers to his celebration of the Tulāpurusha mahīdina. This verse also refers to the numerous gifts of land male by the king in favour of the Brāhmaṇas. The claim is supported not only by the present churter, but also by the description of the king as found in the Oriya chronicle called Madali Paniji. Later copper-plate records of the family add one verso to this description of Anangabhimu III, saying that he ruled for thirty-four years, which regarded as Anka years would be equal to 28 uctual vears. He thus ruled in Saka 1133-60 (1211-38 A.C.)."
The above introductory section of the inscription in verse is followed by a prose portion giving details of the several grants of land made by the illustrious Anankabhima-rāutta dēva, i.e., king Anangabhima III, in favour of a number of Brāhmaṇas. The king is called Rūutta (from Sanskrit Räja putra in the sense of a prince, nobleman or horseman) also in some other records and the title is also known to have been used by some, if not all, of his successors.
We have elsewhere shown that the title indicated a subordinato ruler and that Ganga Anangabhima III and some or more probably all of his successors adopted it because, as rulers of the Ganga empire, they considered themselves mere deputies of the god Purushottama-Jagannatha of Puri, whom they regarded as the real lord of the dominions. It has been shown definitely that, like the present Mahārājas of Puri, at least Anangabhima III and his great-great-grandson Bhānu II (circa 1305-1327 A.C.) considered themselves servants of the god, but that, as the title Rāutta or Rāuta is known to have been assumed by some other later rulers of the imperial Ganga family, it is very probable that all the later imperial Ganga monarchs claimed the same relation with the god Purushottama-Jagannatha of Puri to whom the empire must have been formally dedicated. Whether the ruler responsible for such dedication was Anangabhima III himself cannot be definitely determined until further evidence is forthcoming. It should, however, be noticed that he is the earliest imperial Ganga monarch who is so far known to have assumed the subordinate title Rāutta and claimed theoretically at least to have been a feudatory of the god Purushottama-Jagannātha.
1 Cf. Ray, op. cit., p. 478.
* M. Chakravarti believed (op. cit., p. 117) that the doath of Anangabhima III and the accession of his son Narasimha I took place in Saka 1160. But that the events may have occurred some time lator is suggested by the Lingaraj temple inscription of Narasimha I dated in Saka 1165 and in his fifth Anka (or fourth actual regnal) year. Soe Ind. Cull., Vol. III, pp. 121-23. The point, however, cannot bo settled finully unless further evidence is forthcoming. It is possible that in some inscriptions the Anka years of a roign woro confused with the actual regnal years of the ruler in question.
*J. K. H. R. 8., Vol. I, pp. 251-53.
In inscriptions, the empiro of Anangabhima nI is mentioned as Purushottama-samrajya (the dominions of Purushottama) while Bhinu II is represented as a feudatory of Purushottama or Jaganatha (called dev-adidēva in one case). See J. R. A. 8. B., L., Vol. XVII, p. 21.
A2
