________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
(VOL. XXIX
named Lõnabhāra and Gayāda II, may have been adopted as the son of Subhākara III by the latter's chief queen sometime after his death and his mother's accession to the throne. Mr. De's speculation in regard to the relation between Tribhuvanamahādēvi I and her successor does not appeal to me.
In our opinion therefore the known inscriptions of the Bhauma-Kara family reveal the existence of two and not three ruling queens named Tribhuvanamahädēvi. Queen Tribhuvanamahädēvi I was the mother of Subhakara III and ruled for some years after her son's death when her Dhenkanal plate was issued in the year 120. She was the daughter of a Sinda king enjoying the name or biruda Rajamalla. Queen Tribhuvanamahādēvi II was the daughter of the Sõmavamsi king Svabhāvatunga of Kosala (South Kosala) who, as we have seen elsewhere seems to be no other than Mahāśivagupta I Yayāti (circa 970-1000 A.C.). It has also been noticed how Prithvimahadēvi secured the Bhauma-Kara throne in a temporarily successful contest against the lawful claims of the sons of her husband's younger brother with the active help of her father sometime before the year 158 of the Bhauma-Kara era and how this fact helps us in locating the commencement of the said era about the middle of the first half of the ninth century. We have also shown how the Daspalla plates of Satrubbañja of Vañjulvaka, who was a descendant of Ranabhañja of Dhfitipura (about the third quarter of the tenth century) and probably flourished about the second quarter of the eleventh century, bear the date : year 198 (apparently of the Bhauma-Kara era), Vishuva-sankranti, Panchami, Sunday and Mrigasiro-nakshatra, suggesting March 23, 1029 A.C., and how this fact helps us in tracing the initial year of the era in 831 A.C. The date of the Baud plates of the year 158 thug appears to be 988 A.C.
The epithet Virāļavam odbhava-Vrāgadikulakumuda satilēkhā, applied to the lady Sasilēkha at whose request the grants recorded in the Baud plates were made, seems to suggest that she was born in the Virāta dynasty but was married into the Vrågadi family. Her husband Mangalakalasa therefore does not appear to have been a Bhañja prince of the Mayurbhanj region as suggested by Mr. De. The identification of Mangalakalasa, taken to be a Bhažja prince of Mayurbhanj, with Satrubhañja Mangalarāja of the Jangalpādu plates is unlikely as the findspot and style of this record show that the chief ruled in the Ganjam region and belonged to the house of the Bhañjas of Vañjulvaka. In the present state of our knowledge, it is difficult to connect him with the Bhaõjas of Mayurbhanj. The facts that the temple built by Sasilēkhā was called Nannēsvarāyatana after her deceased father Nänna and that a village granted in its favour included a locality called Nännisvaratalapätaka appear to suggest that both the temple and the gift village were situated in the same area of the Dandabhukti mandala (modern Danton region of the Midnapur District, West Bengal). As Sabilēkhă may have built the temple and arranged for the gift of land in its favour in the area under the jurisdiction of her husband who enjoyed the gubernatorial status of Mahāmandalādhipati under the Bhau ma-Karas, it is not improbable to think that Mangalakalasa was the ruler of the Dandabhukti mandala.
* JASL, Vol. XIX, No. 2, 1963, pp. 119 ff. * Cf. IHQ, Vol. XXII, p. 307. • See above, ..; JASL, loc. cit. Above, Vol. XXVIII, p. 46; 1HQ, Vol. XXVII), pp. 225 ff. Abovo, Vol. 1HQ, Vol. XXIX, pp. 148 f, THQ, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 229-30.
