North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

DHURĒTĪ COPPER-PLATE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF TRAILŌKYAMALLA

date of which is not clear but is calculated to range between 1208-09 and 1210-11 A.C., mentions the same Malayasiṁha as a Mahāmāṇḍalika of the Kalachuri ruler.¹ And his mention in the present inscription as a Mahāmahattaka, Mantrin and Māṇḍalika of the Chandēlla prince makes it almost certain that within two or three years thereof, this erstwhile zealous feudatory of the Kalachuri king had to transfer his own allegiance to Trailōkyavarman who had by that time annexed the region around Rēwā from the Kalachuris, in whose dominions it had been so far included.²

Of the geographical names mentioned in the present inscription, Dhōvahaṭṭa (l. 10) has been identified by Chakravarti with Dhurētī, whereas Mirashi thinks it more likely to be identical with Dhōbhaṭ near Makundapur, about 16 kms. south by west of Rēwā. The former view is supported by the fact that the places were actually found at the place, and the latter by a closer similarity in the names of the places, which as far as I think, can hardly be regarded as a decisive argument. In favour of Chakravarti’s identification of the place, it may also be pointed out that the village that was mortgaged, as to be seen below, is situated not only nearer to Dhurētī but also in the same direction. Dhānavāhi, the headquarters of a pattalā in which the village was then included (l. 10), may be identical with the village of the same name lying about 35 kms. to the south-west of Dhōbaṭ, as already suggested by Mirashi. And I propose to identify the mortgaged village Alaurā (l. 14) with Laur³ included in the present Mauganj tehsīl of the Rēwā District and lying about 48 kms. north by east of this city itself, on metalled road to Mirzapur. The geographical consideration thus suggests that the Chandēlla territory then extended in the east as far as the region of the present Rēwā District, including its north-eastern portion beyond the Kaimur range, in the early years of the thirteenth century A.C. That the northern portion of the district may have been under the Chandellās still earlier in Madanvarman’s time is suggested from the find of a hoard of coins at Panvār which is in its northern part in the modern Tyōṅthar tehsīl of it.⁴

TEXT⁵

[Metres : Verses 1-2 Mālinī ; v. 3 Anushṭubh].

First Plate

___________________________
¹ Ibid., p. 366, text, ll. 9-10.
² N. P. Chakravarti attempts to make this date more precise. Drawing attention to an inscription of Vijayasiṁha of (Chēdi year) 982 (A.R., A. S. I., 1935-36, pp. 89 f.) and pointing out that the record under consideration is later than it by one year, only, he suggests that the territory contiguous to the Rēwā town passed from the Kalachuris to the Chandēllas between the dates of these two records. But this view is not certain in consideration of the fact that the reading of the date in Vijayasiṁha’s record is only tentative, as he himself stated, and its provenance too is unknown. The document is still unedited.
³ For the disappearance of the first vowel of the name, we have a number of examples to cite, e. g. the name Araṇipadra later on changed to Raṇipadra and gradually to Rānōd (Shivpurī District. M.P.), for which see J. M. P. I. P., No. IV, p. 12. Another parallel case where not only the initial vowel but also the consonant of the name has disappeared is that of Pāshāṇihrada changed to Saṇīdarī. See C. I. I., Vol. IV, p, 45.
⁴J. A. S. B. (N. S.), Vol. X (1914), pp. 199 f.
⁵ From facsimile facing p. 372 in C. I. I., Vol. IV.
⁶ This daṇḍa, as also some others below, is redundant.
⁷ This is how the two aksharas were read by Mirashi. The first, however, appears as sra and the second as tr with a trace below, as of the sign for medial short u. Can it be sa.(śa)tru ?