Page images

what we may reasonably infer from paleographic evidence does not militate against the date 1066, I am inclined to assign this date to the Bamanghāti plate of Ranabhañja I. The readers may be disposed to reject this date on the ground of its being based on a supposition, but they will see that the upper.nost limit of the time of Ranabhañja I. cannot be much removed from this date.

5. It will also be found in my paper, just referred to, that the descendants of the first son of Ranabhañja I. ruled in the Maurbhanja tract while his third son, Netribhañja, became the progenitor of a new line of Bhañja rulers at Ghumsur in Gañjām. We are not in possession of any epigraphic record which may inform us as to how the descendants of Netribhañja extended their influence at Ghumsur or in the neighbouring tracts. The copper-plates of Satrubhañja (E. I., XI p. 98) and of Ranaka Ranabhañja above (June 1916) disclose the rule of the Bhanjas at Kimidi and Baud. Kimidi being quite in the neighbourhood of Ghumsur, it is highly probable that some lineal descendant of Netribhañja established another new line of rulers at Kimidi. Satrubhañja was the ruler of two Kimidis as well as of Baud, while Ranaka Ranabhañja became the local Chief of Baud, losing all touch with the Kimidi country. There is no evidence that the Somavamsi Kings who became lords of Kośala in the Sambalpur tract and whose governors governed the Sambalpur tract in the twelfth century (E. I., XII., p. 237) could extend their influence over Baud, Daspalla and Kimidi. On the other hand, one historical event suggests that Baud was not brought under the rule of the Guptas. The Ratnapur stone inscription of Jajalla Deva mentions the fact that this Raja of the Bilaspur-Raypur tract humbled the power of the Raja of Kimidi in the Andhra country in the twelfth century A.D. He also claims to have defeated Somesvara in the neighbourhood, whom I identify with Somesvara of Sonpur, the governor of the Guptas in the twelfth century (E. I., XII.,. p. 237). Since we get Netribhañja at Ghumsur in the latter half of the eleventh century, the Kimidi Chief who met with

reverses must not be far removed from Netribhañja. I think that after the conquest of Jajalla Deva, Kimidi power was weakened, and so it was that the outlying tracts of Daspallā and Baud were severed from the parent trunk and one independent Chief of the very Bhañja family commenced to rule the tract now covered by Baud and Daspalla. The manner in which Rānaka Ranabhañja is found to have disowned the overlordship of Kimidi (though admitting fully his connection with the Kimidi Bhañjas) leads us to suppose that during his time Baud became an independent state. Looking to the dates of Jajalla Deva and Someśvara I am inclined to fix the date of Rānaka Ranabhañja towards the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century. I shall show presently that some other facts tend to support this supposition. Let me here put tentatively the date 1180-1200 as the time when Ranaka Ranabhanja assumed the rule of the Baudadeśa.

6. We must not lose sight of this important fact that from Rājā Ranabhañja I. of Maurbhañja to Rānaka Ranabhāñja of Baud, all the early Bhañjas connect themselves with the family which is said to have started by Virabhadra in the forest of Kota called Koṭṭāsrama. That Vírabhadra came into existence by breaking open the egg of a peahen is narrated by the Kimidi Bhanjas in their plates when they say that they come of the Andaja-Vamsa. It will, however, be observed that Kanakabhanja, son of Durjjayabhañja and grandson of Solanabhañja, does not trace the origin of his family to the egg of a peahen, but states it in a vague and general way on the basis of the gotra name of the family, that the Bhañjas in olden days descended from Kasyapa muni. Not only does he not connect himself with the Bhañjas of Kimidi, but states that of the numerous families of the Bhañjas his family at Baud is one, and it starts in the capacity of a ruling family with his grandfather Solanabhanja. That this Solanabhañja is much removed in time from Rānaka Ranabhañja is fairly clear. I have noted in the general remarks that the seal of the early Bhañjas is wanting in this charter, and in the place of the old family

emblem a new emblem of a lotus is met with. Not only the form of the lease is altered but the verses which the Kimidi Bhañjas used in their charter are altogether wanting in this record. Those who are familiar with the epigraphic records of different families will appreciate the force of my last argument. Kanakabhañja with his father and grandfather belong no doubt to a family which cannot be directly connected with that of Raja Satrubhañja and Rānaka Ranabhañja. He flourished long after the time of Rānaka Ranabhañja; but how long after, is the question before us.

7. We meet with this important passage on the inner side of the first plate of this charter, that the Bhañja Rājās of old times who favoured the lords of Baud and others (Baudesvarādayah lines 4, 5) made a grant of historical importance evidently in favour of some Bhañjas (for otherwise a prominent mention of it in the charter cannot be accounted for), consisting of ten villages (1, 6). It is a fact that the feudatory state of Daspalla originated with a grant of ten villages. These ten villages constituted the old or Purana Daspalla just on the border of Nayagarh, not far away from Kimidi (R.G., p. 159). That the ancestors of the present ruling family of Baud had nothing to do with the creation of Daspalla will be shown presently. The traditional account of the origin of Daśpalla, as recorded in the Feudatory States Gazetteer, is to the effect that one Salabhañja, a brother of the then ruler of Baud, made a humble beginning towards the establishment of the state with an area of ten koses of land 516 (now 522) years ago. This takes us back to 1394 A.D., when very likely the states of Nayagarh and Khandapādā were not in existence. I shall refer to this date, 1394, after critically considering other materials.

8. What has been recorded in the Feudatory States Gazetteer regarding the origin of the ruling families of Maurbhañja and Keonjhar, on the basis of family tradition and the state papers, prove clearly that the present Bhañja families of Maurbhanja and Keonjhar are in no way connected with the early Bhañjas whose epigraphic records we have referred to above. The annals

of Maurbhanja and Keonjhar as well as their tradition agree equally in the account of the origin of the modern Bhañjas (R.G., p. 213 and p. 239). It is narrated that a son of the celebrated Mänsing of Jaypur in Rajputānā came to Puri and got the Zamindari of Hariharapur on marrying a daughter of the then Gajapati Rājā of Puri, and that subsequently the eldest son of this adventurer became the ruler of the northern half of the state and the second son became the proprietor of the southern half which developed into the state of Keonjhar. It is also stated that Jaysing after the acquisition of Hariharapur conquered Mauradhvaja then holding the gadi of Bamanghați, and thus effected a territorial extension. The absurd dates recorded in the family annals may be wholly disregarded, as the temple of Jagannath and the progenitors of the Gajapati Rājās were not in existence earlier than the middle of the twelfth century A.D. Moreover, the date of Månsing and that of the expedition of his son Jagat Sing in Orissa are too well established to allow any confusion to arise. We all know that this event took place in 1589. The traditional account that the upper part of Keonjhar and the open eastern tract of Maurbhañja constituted a zamindāri entitled Hariharapur has now been proved to be true from the records of the Moghul times by my learned friend Professor Jadunath Sarkar. According to family tradition and the state papers, the present ruling family of Baud originated from Anangabhañja, a nephew of Biśvambarbhañja who was a Raja of Keonjhar. Without even examining this claim critically, we can assert with certainty that the progenitor of the present Baud Raja who comes of the Bhañja family of Keonjhar must be placed at least three decades after 1589 at the earliest. I shall not be profitably engaged if I show here that the Baud genealogical table is a thoroughly unreliable document.

9. It is quite a fortunate thing for our history that no name appearing on the G.T. is found by chance to be identical with any name of the Bhañjas of our epigraphic records, though the G.T. has been swelled with numerous fanciful names. The fact that Anangabhañja of Keonjhar origin gave

up the title Bhañja and assumed the title Deva at his acces sion to the Baud gadi (R.G., p. 136) shows that he accepted according to the rules of adoption the title of the adoptive family. It may be reasonably presumed from the gotra name of the Baud Rājās that the heirless family in which Ananga was adopted belonged to the Kasyapa gotra of the solar race and the Rajas of that extinct family bore the title Devavarman as the present Rajās of Baud do. We learn from the copperplate grant of Yogeśvara Devavarman, grandson of Someśvara Devavarman, that he held both Baud and Sonpur as a feudatory of some other Rājā not explicitly mentioned in the grant (E. I., XII., 218). When I edited this record Mr. Sewell very kindly worked out the date from the materials I supplied him from the record itself, and this date is 11th January, 1562. I may mention also that the earliest possible date, according to Mr. Sewell's astronomical calculation is Sunday, 9th January, 1508. Irrespective of what has been stated about the Baud Rājās on the ground of their Keonjhar origin it may be asserted that the present line of rulers must have come into power after the Devavarmans of our epigraphie record ceased to rule in Baud, since the present Rājās have a continued rule from the beginning up to now. Referring to the fact of the existence of the Devavarmans in the sixteenth century in Baud, I am strongly inclined to suppose that the remote forebear of the present Rājās of Baud was taken in adoption in the family of Yogesvara Devavarman who claimed to be of the solar race and of the Kasyapa gotra.

10. In the seventh line of the text on the first plate of the Mahada plates (E. I., XII., 220) it has been mentioned that Someśvara Devavarman, the grandfather of Yogeśvara Devavarman, became the lord of Baud after extirpating enemies, and that he snatched away the banner of the enemy which bore the emblem of Pundarika or lotus (Satru-dhvaja-punḍarikākarsaka). That the lotus was the emblem of Kanakabhañja of our present record is what we all now find. There is no doubt of the fact that Kanakabhañja with his grandfather Solanabhañja must be placed some time later than 1200 A.D. (which is the date of

« PreviousContinue »