________________
80 . EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXX The inscription begins with the usual symbol for Siddham which is followed by the passage recording the date discussed above. Next come three short passages separated from one another by double dandas. The first of these passages reads tāmvara-khóli data and may be rendered into Sanskrit as tāmra-kholi (or 'kholikā) dattā. This speaks of the gift of a kholi or kholikā made of copper undoubtedly referring to the cover bearing the inscription under notice. In Sanskrit the word khola or khólaka (of which kholi and kholika would be feminine forms) means 'a helmet (i.e., & cover for the head) 'but not actually & 'a cover (in general) although khol is used in the sense of a case or cover' in both Bengali and Hindi. The second and third passages together read bhaffäraka-fri-Damachäditadëva-padana || matha-pati-Sri-Chihökasya. In this padānā is no doubt a mistake for pädānāṁ. It seems therefore that the copper cover mentioned in the first passage belonged to (i.e., was caused to be made by) the matha-pati named Chihöka and was granted in favour of the illustrious lord Damachädita. The expression matha-pati means the superintendent of a monastery or the head-priest of a temple. Damachādita seems to be a mistake for Damach-āditya, although we are not sure whether even Daimachaditya, as a name, is free from errors. There is, however, little doubt that the name refers to the image of the Sun-god of Sanokhār of which the object granted, viz., the tāmvara-kholi, was meant to be a cover. The image, together with its cover, seems to have been thrown into the waters of the old tank at Sanokhār with a view to saving it from desecration at the hands of the Turkish Musalmans wbo conquered the Bhagalpur region of Bihar about the close of the twelfth century not very long after the dedication of the cover about 1166 A.D.
The importance of the inscription lies in the fact that it offers, for the first time, definite evidence in favour of Ballālasēna's rule over East Bihār.
Vijayasēna (circa 1095-1158 A.D.), the extirpator of Pála suzerainty from Western and Northern Bengal and of Varman rule from East Bengal and the first imperial ruler of the Sēna dynasty hailing from Karnāta, is stated to have come into conflict with Nânyadēva (1097-1147 A.D.), founder of the Karnāta dynasty of Mithila (North Bihar), and with certain powers of the west, against whom he led a naval expedition. It is, however, difficult to determine the amount of success he might have achieved against Nänyadēva whose successors ruled over Mithila for a long time to come. His grandson Lakshmaņasēna (circa 1179-1206 A.D.) claims success
In the History of Bengal, Dacca University, Vol. I, p. 231, circa 1125 A.D. has been quoted as an alternative date of Vijayasēna's accession on the supposition that the date of his Barrackpur plate (above, Vol. XV, pp. 282 ff. ; N. G. Majumdar, op. cit., pp. 61 ff.) may be the year 32 of his reign. But the correct reading of the date is oertainly 62. Bhandarkar (List, No. 1882, note) was inclined to refer the date of the record to the Chalukya-Vikrama era, in which case the year 62 would correspond to 1137-38 A.D. But this is improbablo in view of the fact that tho inscription applies imperial titles to Vijayasēna who is not expected at that stage to acknowledge his subservienoo to the Chalukyaa by dating his record in their era even if it is supposed that he acknowledged Chalukya suzerainty in the earlier part of his life. The name of Ballklasēns seems to suggest that the Sinas were related to the Hoysal dynasty in which there were so many Ballalas.
*Cf. verses 20-22 of the Deopārā inscription (N. G. Majumdar, op. cit., p. 48). The annexation of North Bengal by Vijayasēns could not have been completed before the eighth regnal year of Madanapala falling in Saka 1073 (circa 1151 A.D.). Cf. IHQ, Vol. XXX, p. 207.
In the History of Bengal, op. cit., pp. 210 ff., Dr. R. C. Majumdar suggests that the comparative obsourity of Nanyadēva's successors and the popularity of the Lakshmanaséna-Sathvat in Mithila may point to the genuineness of Vijayasēna's claim of success in North Bihår. These arguments are not conculsive. The epoch of the La-Samh falls in the period 1107-19 A.D. long before Lakshmanasēna's accession. The era could therefore have been associated with the Sēns king only as the result of popular confusion. It has to be admitted that Lakshmanasina, with whom the La-Sam is associated, was believed to have been an imperial ruler who is sometimes described as the lord of Gauda (of, JASB, N. S., Vol. XX, pp. 372-73). These facts no doubt go in favour of such soonfusion which. however, does not prove that Lakshmanasõna, not to speak of his grandfather Vijayadna, actually ruled over Mithils.
