|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA named Lōṇabhāra and Gayāḍa II, may have been adopted as the son of Śubhākara III by the latter’s chief queen sometimes after his death and his mother’s accession to the throne. Mr. De’s speculation in regard to the relation between Tribhuvanamahādēvī 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 Tribhuvanamahādēvī. Queen Tribhuvanamahādēvī I was the mother of Śubhākara 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 Rājamalla. Queen Tribhuvanamahādēvī II was the daughter of the Sōmavaṁśī king Svabhāvatuṅga of Kosala (South Kosala) who, as we have seen elsewhere,[1] seems to be no other than Mahāśivagupta I Yayāti (circa 970-1000 A.C.[2]). It has also been noticed how Pṛithvīmahādēvī 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.[3] We have also shown how the Daspalla plates of Śatrubhañja of Vañjulvaka, who was a descendant of Raṇabhañja of Dhṛitipura (about the third quarter of the tenth century[4]) and probably flourished about the second quarter of the eleventh century, bear the date : year 198 (apparently of the Bhauma-Kara era), Vishuva-saṅkrānti, Pañchamī, Sunday and Mṛigaśirō-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.[5] The date of the Baud plates of the year 158 thus appears to be 988 A.C.
The epithet Virāṭavaṁśōdbhava-Vrāgaḍikulakumudaśaśilēkhā, applied to the lady Śaśilēkhā at whose request the grants recorded in the Baud plate were made, seems to suggest that she was born in the Virāṭa dynasty but was married into the Vrāgaḍi family. Her husband Maṅgalakalasa therefore does not appear to have been a Bhañja prince of the Mayurbhanj region as suggested by Mr. De. The identification of Maṅgalakalasa, taken to be a Bhañja prince of Mayurbhanj, with Śatrubhañja Maṅgalarāja of the Jangalpāḍu 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.[6] In the present state of our knowledge, it is difficult to connect him with the Bhañjas of Mayurbhanj. The facts that the temple built by Śaśilēkhā was called Nānnēśvarāyatana after her deceased father Nānna and that a village granted in its favour included a locality called Nānnēśvaratalapāṭaka appear to suggest that both the temple and the gift village were situated in the same area of the Daṇḍabhukti maṇḍala (modern Danton region of the Midnapur District, West Bengal). As Śaśilēkhā 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 Mahāmaṇḍalādhipati under the Bhauma-Karas, it is not improbable to think that Maṅgalakalasa was the ruler of the Daṇḍabhukti maṇḍala. _________________________________________________
[1] JASL, Vol. XIX, No. 2, 1953, pp. 119 ff. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|