________________
138
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1888.
the others became lords of mandalas. In the Sir A. Cunningham has placed the inscription line of one of these younger sons was born- before the Malhar inscription of Jâjalladôva,
(1.) Kalingaraja, who conquered DA- and has identified the three princes mentioned kshinakóbala, and made Tummana his in it with the princes (5), (6), and (7) of the capital. His son was
above list. But, in the first place, it is by no (2.) Kamalaraja, who begat
means certain that the figures on the stone (3.) Ratnaraja (Ratnēša), the founder of (scratched on it rather than properly engraved, Ratnapura. He married Nonalla, the daugh- and perhaps added some time after the inscripter of Vajjuka, chief of the Komo mandala, tion itself was engraved') are really 1207; on who bore to him
the contrary, on the rubbing before me the (4.) Prithvisa (Prithvidêva). This prince figures decidedly look more like 1247 than 1207. married Rajalla, from whom he had a son - And secondly, it is perfectly certain that the
(5.) JAjalla (Jâjalladêva). (Samvat 866 = inscription, which was written and engraved A.D. 1114).
by the very persons, Kumarapala and Sampula, 2.-The present Rajim insoription, dated who wrote and engraved the Malhar inscripKulachuri-samvatsarê 896 = A.D. 1145, men. tion, was composed by the son, Dêvagana, of tions in the order here shown:
the man Ratnasimha, who composed the (5.) JAjalladevs [Samvat 866 = A.D. Malhar inscription, and that this Dêvagana had 1114).
his father's composition before him, when he (8.) Ratnadeva.
composed his own inscription. Taking further (7.) Prithvideva (Kalachuri-samvat 896 = into consideration that the inscription eulogises A.D, 1145].
five of the grandchildren of Ratnasimha, the 3.-A Malhar inscription of Jajalledova, composer of the Malhar inscription, and that dated Samvat 919 = A.D. 1167-68, contains moreover we have for a prince Ratnadêva the the following genealogy: The Moon
date Chedi-samvat 933 = A.D. 1181-82, which (8.) Ratnadeva.
cannot possibly refer to the Ratnadeva (6) of (7.) Prithvideva [Kulachuri-samvat 896 the Rajim and Malhar inscriptions, but must = A.D. 1145; and (according to Archæol. refer to a prince of that name who came after Survey of India, Vol. XVII. Plate XX.) Jâjalladeva (8), I feel convinced that the inscripKalachuri-samvatsara 910 = A.D. 1158-59). tion has certainly been composed after Chêdi.
(8.) JAjalladeva, described as ruler of the samvat 933= A.D. 1181-82 = Vikrama-samvat country Tummana, (Samvat 919 A.D. 1167- 1238, and I think it probable that the figures 68].
at the end of it are really Vikrama-samvat 4.-A Ratnapur inscription of Prithvi- 1247 = A.D. 1190-91, and that these figures, deva, dated [Vikrama-] Samvat 1247 (P) = by whom and whensoever added, furnish a true A.D. 1190-91 (P), contains the following date for the last Prithvidêva in the above list. genealogy : The Moon
As regards the three rulers mentioned in (8.) Jajalladeva (Saṁvat 919= A.D. 1167- the inscription here published, Nos. (5), (6), 68].
and (7) of the above list, nothing of any his(9.) Ratnadeva [according to Archeol. torical importance is mentioned of Ratnadeva Survey of India, Vol. XVII. page 43, line 4 and Prithvîdêva, in other inscriptions known from the bottom, and plate XX., Chedi-samvat to me. Regarding Jajalladeva, we are told 933 = A.D. 1181-82).
in the Ratnapur inscription of Samvat 866, (10.) Prithvideva (Vikrama-] Samvat that he was allied (?) with the ruler of Chodi, 1247(*)= A.D. 1190-91 ).
and on friendly terms with the rulers of This last inscription is the one edited by Kanyakubja and of Jejabhuktika; that he Dr. Rajendralal Mitra, according to whose captured in battle (but subsequently released P] account it is dated in (Vikrama-]Samvat 1207= one somebvara; and that the chiefs of the A.D. 1150-51. Accepting that date as correct, mandalas... [Dakshi]pakbala, Andhra, Khi
Archæol. Survey of India, Vol. XVII. page 76, the word satrat, which precedes the figures 1247 (R), . A careful examination of the stone may possibly looks certainly as if it had been put in the place of the show that the inscription originally Was dated in a year figure 9, or as if the figure 9 had been altered so as to of the Chedi ern: for in the rubbing the first syllable of lassume the form of sans.
