________________
122
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIII
difficult to explain unless it is supposed that he was a ruler of the Unchahra area where the temple was built by her. The following two stanzas (verses 3-4) state how the lady caused a temple of the god Sūlin or Dhurjati (i.e. Siva) styled Vindhyēśvara to be built apparently on the Vindhyas. The purpose behind the construction of the temple is stated to have been the lady's desire to obtain wealth including sons and grandsons as well as the salvation of her dead ancestors. The last stanza (verse 5) states that the eulogy was composed by Pandita Sukhākara.
The second half of the inscription in prose repeats parts of what is already stated in the versified section discussed above. But, although it does not mention Ränakachakravartin Lakstmaņa alias Dharmadēva, it gives some interesting details not found in the verses. Here the lady Uddalladēvi is stated to have caused the temple of Vindhyēśvara to be built and consecrated it on the Damanaka-chaturdasi in V.S. 1294 for obtaining wealth including children and grand children as well as for her own beatitude and the salvation of the twentyone past generations of her family. It is possible to think that reference is here to seven generations of each one of the three families to which she was related, viz. the families to which her father, mother and husband belonged. A damaged passage in line 20 seems to suggest that she performed the pious deed as a result of the god Vindhyēsvaradēva having ordered her to do so in a dream. The lady is further described as born in the Kanyakubja country and to have been the daughter of Mahasāmantarāja Bharabadöva of the Rashtra family. Răshtra here is apparently a mistake for Rashtrakūta. This shows that the lady was a scion of the Rashtrakūta ruling family of Kanyakubja, i.e. Kanoj. She is stated to have been the patta-rajñi or chief queen of a chief named Mahamandadēva who is described as a sāmanta or feudatory of a ruler of the Gahadavāla dynasty, whose name appears to be Aradakkamalla. A person named Pandita Sasyakara is mentioned at the end of the inscription in line 22 apparently as the writer indicating that he wrote the document on the stone for facilitating the work of engraving.
The importance of the inscription lies in the fact that it mentions no less than four rulers who flourished in the early decades of the thirteenth century in different parts of U. P. when that region is generally believed to have formed an integral part of the dominions of the Muhammadans. These four rulers, who are not known from any other source, are: (1) Ränakachakravartin Lakshmaņa-Dharmadēva of the Unchahra region ; (2) Mahāsāmantarāja Bharahadēva of the Rashtrakūta dynasty of Kanoj : (3) Samanta Mahamandadēva, a feudatory of the Gahadavāla king : and (4) king Aradakkamalla of the Gahadavāla family. Of these, the first three were feudatories. But, while Mahamandadēva, whose name seems to exhibit an influence of the Arabic name Muhammad, was a subordinate of the Gāhadavāla king, the overlords of Lakshmana-Dharmadēva and Bharahadēva are not known. Whether they acknowledged the supremacy of the Muhammadans is not clear, although that is not improbable even if the fact has not been indicated in the inscription.
The real status of Gābadavāla Aradakkamalla is also difficult to determine. He had no doubt some feudatories under him ; but neither subordinative nor imperial epithets have been used with his name.
The Set-Mahet inscription of 1119-20 A.D. speaks of Rashtrakūta Gõpāla, king of Gadhipura (i... Kanoj), and king Madana. This Madana has been identified with Madanapala mentioned as the son of Gopāla in the Budaun stone inscription of the time of Lakhanapala who represented the fourth generation after Madanapala and may have flourished about a century later in the beginning of the thirteenth century. Bharahadeva of our inscription may have belonged to a branch of the same house. Lakhanapäls of the Budaun inscription may be identified with Lakshmana-Dharmadēva of our record if it is believed that marriage was allowed between different
1 Bhandarkar's List, No. 204 3 Ibid., No. 1670.
