South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURIS OF SOUTH KOSALA

chhattisgargh. His descendants seem to have held the country down to the time of Vikramā- ditya I, who built the aformentoined temple of Śiva at Pāli in the Bilaspur District.

In many records¹ of the Ratanpur branch of the Kalachuri dynasty, it is stated that Kōkalla had eighteen sons, of whom the eldest became the lord of Tripurĩ and made his brothers the lord of mandalas in the neighbourhood. In the family of one of these younger brothers was born Kalingarāja, the first known king of the Ratanpur branch. Kalinga- rāja’s son was Kamalarāja, who was a contemporary of Gāngēyadēva, whom he helped in his campaign against the king of Utkala. The wording² of the passage describing the realationship of Kalingaraja to Kōkalla shows that the former was separted from the latter by some generations. This Kōkalla, therefore, is the first king of that name who ruled from circa 850 A.C. to 890 A.C. This conclusion receives confirmation from a statement in some inscriptions of the Tripurī branch. As we have already seen, the Bilhāri stone inscription states that Mugdhatunga, the son and successor of Kōkalla I, conquered the lines of countries along the eastern sea-shore and took (the country of) Pāli from the lord of Kōsala.³ The Banaras plates of Karna say that Prasiddhadhavala (who is none other than Mugdhatunga) took possession of Pāli, thinking that in his family there would be born men, eminent on account of greatness in this world.⁴ This plainly means that the Kala- churi king conquered Pāli to provide an adequate field for the activities of the illustrious princes who would be born in his family. The country of Pāli which was conquered from the king of Kōsala was probably the territory round Ratanpur; for, the village of Pāli which contains the aforementioned exquisitely carved temple of Śiva wih an inscrip- tion of the Bāna king Vikramāditya I lies only 12 miles to the north of Ratanpur.⁵ The king of Kōsala from whom the country of Pāli was wrested is not named in the afore- mentioned Kalachuri inscription, but the foregoing discussion must have made it plain that he was probably a Bāna king. As Mugdhatunga-Prasiddhadhavala flourished from circa 890 A.C. to 910 A.C., his Bāna adversary may have been Vikramāditya I (circa 870- 895 A.C.).

After conquering the country round Ratanpur, Mugdhatunga placed it in charge of one of his younger brothers. There is a gap of nearly a century in the history of this Kalachuri branch, for which no records have come to light. we do not, therefore, know even the name of this founder of the Kalachuri branch of Dakshina Kōsala. But from a statement in the Ratanpur stone inscription⁶ it seems that the Kalachuri capital in that age was Tummāna, which has been identified with Tumān, a small village in the former
____________________

¹No. 76, 1. 10; No.77, 1.6; No. 83, 1.8, etc.
²Almost all the early inscriptions say that Kalingarāja was born in the family of a younger son of Kōkalla, thus indicating that a long period of time separated him from Kōkalla (See, e.g., No. 76, 1.10; No. 77, 1.6; No. 83, 1.8 etc.) Only two records, the Shēorinārāyan plates of Ratnadēva II (No.82), and Kharōd stone inscription of Ratnadēva III (NO.100), make kalingarāja a son of Kōkalla himself. Mr. A. Ghosh ingeniously suggests that Vankō-Tummāna-bhūbhujah in 1.9 of No. 82 is a mistake for Vamśē Tummāna-
bhūbhujah. D.R. Bhandarkar Volume, p. 261, n.2.
³ No. 45, 1.10.
⁴ No. 48, 1. 13.
⁵It is supposed by some that this temple was erected by Jājalladēva I; for, there are five inscriptions of the king in the Mandapa of the temple. Two of these inscriptions are incised on the walls of the Mandapa, one on a stone built into the rebuilt doorway of the temple and another on a pilaster to support a broken beam. The inscriptions are identical in wording and purport to register some kirti (meritorious work) of Jājlla- dēva. Their positions clearly indicate that they were meant to record the repairs, not the construction, of the temple by Jājalldēva I. As a period of more than two centuries had passed since the time of the Bāna king Vikramāditya I, it is not surprising that the temple had fallen into disrepair in the time of Jājalladēva I.
⁶Verse 7 of No. 77 says that Kalingarāja chose Tummāna as his capital because it had been made the seat of their government by his forefathers.