North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF RATANPUR

RATANPUR STONE INSCRIPTION PRITHVIDEVA II: YEAR 1207

Dēvagaṇa is, however, not clear. The temple of Śiva under the name of Bilvapāṇi, which Dēvagaṇa erected at Sāmbā, is described in verses 23-24. As stated before, it was Dēvagaṇa himself who composed this praśasti.

The date of the inscription, which is expressed in decimal figures only, was read as Saṁvat 1207 by Mr. Beglar^¹ and Dr. Rajendralal Mitra ² and as Saṁvat 1247 by Dr. Kielhorn. As remarked by Dr. Kielhorn, the figures are scratched on the stone, rather than properly engraved. The date must, of course, be referred to the Vikrama Saṁvat. As this is the only Kalachuri inscription of the time from Chhattisgarh which is dated in this era, it seems probable that the figures were substituted in later times in the place of the original date in the Kalachuri era.^³ Reading the present date as 1247, Kielhorn at first referred the inscription to the reign of Pṛithvīdēva III whom he supposed to be the successors of Ratnadēva III, but later on he corrected himself.^⁴ As we have seen, Pṛithvīdēva of the present inscription was the son of Ratnadēva II who won a victory over Anantavarman- Chōḍagaṅga. This Ratnadēva is, therefore, identical with the homonymous prince men- tioned in the Mallār inscription,^⁵ who also is credited with the same achievement. The Mallār inscriptions gives the (Kalachuri) year 919 (1167-68 A.C.) as a date for Ratnadēva II's grandson and Prithvīdēva II's son and successor, Jājalladēva II. The date of the present inscription, which was put up in the previous reign, cannot, therefore, in any case be carried beyond 1167-68 A.C. Consequently, Kielhorn's reading of the date, viz., (Vikrama) Saṁvat 1247 (1189-90 A.C.) is impossible. The first, second and fourth figures of the date are clearly 1,2 and 7 respectively. As Pṛithvidēva II's date and cannot be carried beyond K.919 or V. 1225, it is clear that the third figure of the date which is indistinct must be either 0 or 1. It is certainly not the latter. We have, therefore, to take the date to be 1207 (1149-50 A.C.) as read by Beglar and Rajendralal. It remains to add that the Pēṇḍrābandh plates,^⁶ dated K. 965, show that Ratnadēva III was followed not by Pṛithvīdēva III, but by Pratāpamalla.
Sāmbā, where the temple of Śiva was erected, still remains unidentified.

TEXT⁷

¹ See C. A. S. I. R., Vol. VII, p. 215.
² J .A. S. B., Vol. XXXII, pp. 277 ff.
³ As Kielhorn has observed, the first akshara of the saṁvat which precedes the figures of the . date appears to have been put in the place of the figure 9. The next two aksharas also seem to be scratched in the place of two ciphers. If the original date was K: 900 it would correspond to V. 1207. The latter seems to have been substituted for it when the Kalachuri era ceased to be current in Chhattisgarh.
⁴ Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, Appendix I, p. 17, n. 1.
⁵ No. 97, below.
⁶ No. 101, below.
⁷ from the original stone.
⁸ Expressed by a symbol.
⁹ The letters in this bracket are partially damaged, their lower portions only being still extant.
¹⁰ The missing aksharas may be conjecturally restored as ज्ञास्यति.
¹¹ Metre of this and the next verse: Śārdūlavikrīḍita.
¹² The last akshara of this line was probably भू.