________________
No. 22] UNCHAHRA FRAGMENTARY INSCRIPTION OF V. S. 1294 125 branches of the Rashtrakūta family. These Rashtrakūtas appear to have owed allegiance to the Gühadavāla emperors and, after the overthrow of the Gahadavülas, to the Muhammadans.
It is well known that in A.H. 590 (1193 A.D.), Mahammad Ghūri, while he was advancing against Kanoj and Banaras, encountered Jaichand, the Rai of Banāras' i.e. the Gühadavāla king Jayachchandra) in the vicinity of Chandwar or Chandrawar near the Jumna in the Etawah District of U.P. Jaichand was killed and his capital Banaras was occupied by the Muhammadans. That, however, the Gahadavāla suzerainty was not completely destroyed in 1193 A.D., is indicated by the Machhlishahr plate issued by king Harischandra, son of Jayachchandra, on Sunday, Paushasu. 15, V.S. 1253 (January 6, 1197 A.D.), and the Bēlkbära pillar inscription of Tuesday, Vaišākhasu. 11, V.S. 1253 (April 29, 1197 A.D.) when the feudatory chief Vijayakarņa ruling over a part of the Mirzapur District acknowledged the suzerainty of an unnamed imperial ruler of Kanyakubja. The Belkhärā inscription shows that Vijayakarna was not subdued by the Muhammadans before April 1197 A.D. although he was doubtful whether he could still refer to Gahadavāla Harischandra as his overlord. The present inscription referring to a Gahadavāla king named Aradakkamalla as the overlord of Samanta Mabamanda in V.S. 1294 (1238 A.D.) suggests that the rule of the Gahadavāla dynasty did not end with the death of Haritchandra. But it is difficult to determine whether Aradakkamalla was ruling as a subordinate of the Muhammadans or as an independent monarch in the regions still unsubdued by the Musalmans. The Tabagat--Nasiri,which attributes the conquest of Budāun, Banaras, Kinnauj-i-Shergarh (Kanoj) and Tirhut to Iltūtmish, also speaks of an independent Hindu king named Bartū, Britū or Prithu who is stated to have held sway in the territory of Awadh (Ayodhya)' and to have been killed by the Muhammadans soon after A.H. 623 (1226 A.D.). The continuity of Gahadavāla rule probably to a still later date, as suggeted by the inscription under study, may indicate that king Prithu was a scion of the Cahadavāla dynasty. His name, however, does not sound like the names of the later Cūbadavālas ending with the word chandra. Nor does the name of Aradakkamalla sound like that of a later Gahatlarūla. Whether this means that they belonged to a branch line of the family cannot be determined without further light on the subject. But, if Aradukkamalla ruled as an independent monarch, it has to be admitted that even as late as the second quarter of the thirteenth century the Muslims were in occupation only of the important cities and strongholds while the countryside of the Gahadavāla empire still continued to be under Hindu domination.
Only two geographical names are mentioned in the inscription. They are the well-known Kanyakubjadēša (i.e. the territory around the city of Kanoj) and the Vindhya mountain range.
TEXT
[Metres : verses 1, 3 Särdülavikriditu; verse 2 Vasantatilaka ; verses 4-5 Anushtubk.]
1. ... --UU-UUUUU U -- 2 [dīpt=ai]va surendra-mandala-mu ---U--u--(1-- 3 na guņēna bhänti bhuvanē sarvvē taya nyakkritā[s=ta]--UU- [bhava).
1 In that case, the Rashtrakūtas settled in the Unchahra area after their dislodgment from Budaun by the Muhammadans. According to a tradition current about the southern borders of the Allahabad District, the Gakadavalas settled in the northern region of Vaghelkhand after the Muslim conquest of Kanauj and Banaras.
* Ibid., No. 433. 3 Ibid., No. 434. • Ravorty's trans., Vol. I, pp. 627-29. . From impressions. • Probably the Siddham symbol followed by the word spasti stood at the beginning of the line.
