History of Chhattisgarh I: prehistory to the Kalachuris
2. Prehistory and the early historic record: rock art, megaliths, Mauryas to Guptas
The prehistoric record is mainly rock art and burial monuments. Singhanpur and Kabra Pahar in Raigarh district carry painted shelters: Singhanpur’s faint paintings show animals, hunting scenes and a ladder-like human figure, and C. W. Anderson and C. J. Balding reported two shelters there in 1910. Kabra Pahar, the “spotted mountain” near Raigarh town, shows hunting-gathering scenes, handprints and animals such as deer and bull. At Karkabhat in Balod district, a megalithic site with menhirs and burials, A. K. Sharma excavated for the Archaeological Survey of India in 1990–91. Its date is unsettled (estimates run from the second to the first millennium BCE), so an answer should say “megalithic” without a precise century.
The first datable human-made monuments are Mauryan in character: the Sitabenga and Jogimara caves on the Ramgarh hills in the Surguja region, assigned to about the 3rd century BCE, with a short Brahmi inscription at Jogimara dated by scholars between about 300 and 160 BCE. For the Gupta age the anchor is Samudragupta’s southern campaign, in which Mahendra of Dakshina Kosala is named among the rulers he defeated and restored, and the Vakataka king Harisena, commonly dated to the late 5th century, recorded a conquest of Dakshina Kosala.
3. Rajarshitulya Kula, Nalas and Sharabhapuriyas: three houses of the 5th to 7th centuries
The Rajarshitulya Kula (“family comparable to royal sages”) is known above all from the Arang copper plate of Bhimasena II, dated in the Gupta year 282. D. C. Sircar reads this as 601–02 CE and rejects a rival reading of 182. The plate records a grant of a village in the Donda district, issued from the Suvarnanadi, and gives a line of Sura, Dayita I, Vibhishana, Bhimasena I, Dayitavarman II and Bhimasena II. The house is described as centred at Arang and as former Gupta feudatories; the scholars who first edited the plate noted that it is not clear which dynasty the family belonged to.
The Nalas ruled the Bastar and Koraput country. Their capital Pushkari is probably Garhdhanora in Bastar district, though Podagarh in Koraput was once proposed. Known rulers are Varaharaja (gold coins), Arthapati (the Kesaribeda plate, from Pushkari, regnal year 7), Bhavadattavarman (the Rithapur plates from Nandivardhana, regnal year 11) and his son Skandavarman (the Podagarh inscription, regnal year 12, recording a Vishnu temple). Bhavadatta seems to have pushed into Vidarbha at the expense of the Vakatakas, and in his last years suffered reverses, so Skandavarman had to recover Pushkari. The succession order is inferred, not fixed.
The Sharabhapuriyas, probably Gupta vassals at first, held Dakshina Kosala from about the late 5th or the 6th century on the commonly cited dating. Their seat was Sharabhapura, and the later kings moved to Shripura, identified with Sirpur. About seventeen copper-plate grants of the house are known, most of them issued from Sharabhapura. In A. M. Shastri’s estimate the line runs Sharabha, Narendra, Prasanna, Jayaraja, Sudevaraja, Manamatra (Durgaraja) and Pravararaja, who moved the capital to Shripura; other scholars date the whole house earlier, and the list is uncertain around Sudevaraja. Narendra is known from the Kurud grant, and Prasanna also from gold coins.
| House | Seat | Key evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Rajarshitulya Kula | Arang | Arang plate of Bhimasena II, Gupta year 282 |
| Nalas | Pushkari (probably Garhdhanora, Bastar) | Kesaribeda, Rithapur, Podagarh records; gold coins |
| Sharabhapuriyas | Sharabhapura, then Shripura (Sirpur) | About seventeen copper plates; Kurud grant of Narendra |
4. Panduvamshis, Sirpur and the Somavamshis
Two lines of Panduvamshis appear, and the syllabus word “Pandu” covers both. The Panduvamshis of Mekala (Jayabala, Vatsaraja, Nagabala, Bharatabala, Shurabala alias Udirnavaira) are known from the Bamhani and Burhikhar (Malhar) plates, and their capital is uncertain. The Panduvamshis of Dakshina Kosala ruled from Shripura (Sirpur) on the Mahanadi in Mahasamund district. Both claim Pandava descent and lunar lineage, and they may be related, but nothing proves it.
In Shastri’s chronology the Dakshina Kosala line runs Udayana, Indrabala, Nannaraja I, Tivaradeva, Nannaraja II, Chandragupta, Harshagupta and Mahashivagupta Balarjuna. Udayana probably did not rule Dakshina Kosala himself, and Indrabala is the earliest ruler certainly known to hold part of it; the Kharod Lakshmaneshvara inscription mentions Indrapura, a name that suggests he founded it. Nannaraja I is known from the undated Arang stone inscription. Tivaradeva issued the Bonda (regnal year 5), Rajim (year 7) and Baloda (year 9) plates from Shripura, and Nannaraja II the Adbhar plates. Balarjuna, the best-attested king and a Shaiva, has the Lodhiya plates of his 57th year. Absolute dates vary: Shastri puts Tivaradeva at about 660–680 CE, while other scholars place the line earlier, in the 6th century.
Sirpur is the great site of this age. Its brick Lakshmana temple was commissioned by Vasata, the mother of Balarjuna, and the town is also known for Buddhist viharas, the Gandheshwar temple on the Mahanadi bank and the Surang Tila complex. The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang passed through South Kosala in the 7th century and described its king as a Buddhist Kshatriya; scholars cannot confidently say which ruler he meant, and some link the description to the Shaiva Balarjuna by reading it as tolerance. The Somavamshis, a house of Soma (lunar) lineage, are placed after the Panduvamshis in the region, but their origin and exact relation to them are debated, so treat any firm date for them with suspicion.
5. The Kalachuris of Ratnapura: rulers and capitals
According to the family’s own records, a vassal branch of the Kalachuris of Tripuri, descended from a son of the Tripuri king Kokalla I, was ruling Kosala by about 1000 CE and became independent in the early 11th century; the exact genealogical link is debated. That is the Kalachuri house of Ratnapura, a Haihaya house. Kalingaraja founded its first capital at Tummana (near Bilaspur), his grandson Ratnadeva I (Ratnaraja) established Ratnapura, modern Ratanpur, and the Mahamaya temple there is said to have been built by a Kalachuri king named Ratnadeva. The house fought the Eastern Gangas.
| Ruler | Approximate reign (CE) | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Kalingaraja | 1000–1020 | Founded Tummana |
| Kamalaraja | 1020–1045 | Son of Kalingaraja |
| Ratnadeva I | 1045–1065 | Founded Ratnapura |
| Prithvideva I | 1065–1090 | Records at Amoda, Lapha, Raipur |
| Jajalladeva I | 1090–1120 | Records at Pali, Ratanpur |
| Ratnadeva II | 1120–1135 | Records at Akaltara, Shivrinarayan |
| Prithvideva II | 1135–1165 | Records at Rajim, Bilaigarh, Amoda |
| Jajalladeva II, Jagaddeva, Ratnadeva III | 1165–1200 | Short reigns; records at Malhar, Kharod, Pasid |
| Pratapamalla | 1200–1225 | Records at Pendrawan, Bilaigarh |
6. Kalachuri administration, the two branches and the end
The administrative picture is built from inscriptions, so it is outline rather than detail. The kingdom was divided into mandalas, and in the Kalachuri house younger princes were commonly made mandala governors, feudatories bound to the king. Land was granted to Brahmins and temples by copper plate or stone inscription, and the record usually names the donor, the village and the officers who witnessed it. Above the mandalas stood the king at Ratnapura, with a court of ministers, and the later tradition of garhs, forts or feudal territories, is the source of the “thirty-six garhs” account of the name.
Around the late 14th century the family split into two lines, with capitals at Ratanpur and Raipur; the Raipur line is traced through Ramachandra and Brahmadeva. After Pratapamalla the lists are unreliable. Vahara, known from inscriptions of 1494 and 1513 CE, reportedly moved the capital to Kosgain (Kosanga). The Haihaya kingdom as a whole is said to have lasted about seven centuries, and ended when the Bhonsles of Nagpur overran it in the 1740s, which is where the next chapter begins.
Key takeaways
- Dakshina Kosala is the Chhattisgarh basin; Mekala (Amarkantak) and Dahala (Chedi, Tripuri) are neighbours with their own dynasties. The name Chhattisgarh is explained traditionally by thirty-six garhs, a view historians dispute, and alternatively from Chedisgarh.
- The prehistoric record is rock art (Singhanpur, Kabra Pahar in Raigarh) and megaliths (Karkabhat, Balod); the Sitabenga and Jogimara caves on the Ramgarh hills are the first datable monuments, Mauryan in period.
- The 5th to 7th century houses are known only from plates: Rajarshitulya Kula (Arang plate, Gupta year 282), Nalas (Pushkari), Sharabhapuriyas (Sharabhapura then Shripura). Always attach a plate, place and regnal year.
- Panduvamshis had a Mekala line and a Dakshina Kosala line; the latter ruled from Shripura (Sirpur) and its best-attested king is Mahashivagupta Balarjuna. The Lakshmana temple at Sirpur was commissioned by his mother Vasata.
- The Kalachuris of Ratnapura, a branch of the Tripuri house, were founded in the early 11th century: Kalingaraja (Tummana), Ratnadeva I (Ratnapura); later split into Ratanpur and Raipur lines and, under Vahara, moved to Kosgain.
- Kalachuri administration was mandala-based, with younger princes as feudatory governors and land grants recorded by inscription; avoid claiming that all thirty-six garhs are identified.
Practice questions (17)
Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.
In early inscriptions and tradition, by what name was the upper Mahanadi basin, the core of present Chhattisgarh, known?
Show answer
Answer: D — Dakshina Kosala, the South Kosala
The Chhattisgarh basin was Dakshina Kosala, the name the early dynasties’ records use. Dahala was the Tripuri Kalachuris’ core country near Jabalpur and is the tempting answer because the Ratnapura house descended from them; Mekala was the Amarkantak region of a different line of Panduvamshis.The painted rock shelters of Singhanpur and Kabra Pahar lie in which district of Chhattisgarh?
Show answer
Answer: B — Raigarh
Both sites are in Raigarh district. Balod is the tempting alternative because it holds Karkabhat, another prehistoric site, but that is a megalithic burial site, not a painted-shelter site. Surguja’s Ramgarh hills have the Sitabenga and Jogimara caves, which are of Mauryan period.The Arang copper plate of Bhimasena II is dated in the Gupta year 282. On D. C. Sircar’s reading, which Common Era year does this correspond to?
Show answer
Answer: A — About 601–02 CE
Adding the Gupta era’s starting point (319–20 CE) to 282 gives 601–02 CE, the reading Sircar upholds. The 501–02 CE figure would follow from the rival reading of 182, which Sircar rejects; the Gupta year is not a Christian-era number, so 282 CE is wrong.Consider the Nalas of Bastar and Koraput. P: Varaharaja is known only from gold coins. Q: Skandavarman’s Podagarh inscription records the building of a Vishnu temple. R: The Nalas were a branch of the Kalachuris of Ratnapura. S: Bhavadattavarman’s Rithapur plates were issued from Nandivardhana. Which are correct?
Show answer
Answer: D — P, Q and S only
P, Q and S are the recorded facts. R is false: the Nalas were a house of Bastar and Koraput, commonly placed in the 5th to 7th centuries, centuries before the Ratnapura Kalachuris of the 11th century. R is the tempting statement because both houses are listed in the syllabus’s dynasty line.Shripura, the later capital of the Sharabhapuriyas and the capital of the Panduvamshis of Dakshina Kosala, is identified with which present-day site on the Mahanadi?
Show answer
Answer: C — Sirpur
Shripura is Sirpur in Mahasamund district. Arang is the tempting alternative because it was the seat of the Rajarshitulya Kula, an earlier house; Ratanpur was the Kalachuri capital centuries later.Arrange these in chronological order on the commonly cited dating, earliest first:
P. Ratnadeva I founds Ratnapura.
Q. The Sitabenga and Jogimara caves, assigned to the Mauryan period.
R. The Vakataka king Harisena records a conquest of Dakshina Kosala.
S. Tivaradeva issues the Rajim plates.Show answer
Answer: B — Q, R, S, P
The Mauryan-period caves (3rd century BCE) come first, then Harisena’s conquest in the late 5th century CE, then Tivaradeva’s plates (6th or 7th century on the commonly cited datings), then Ratnapura’s foundation in the mid-11th century. Putting Tivaradeva after Ratnadeva I is the tempting error of those who recall Rajim only as a Kalachuri site.Which of the following pairings of ruler and seat is NOT correct?
Show answer
Answer: D — Narendra Sharabhapuriya and Ratnapura
Narendra belonged to the Sharabhapuriyas, whose seat was Sharabhapura; Ratnapura was founded centuries later by the Kalachuris. The other three pairings are recorded: Tummana under Kalingaraja, Ratnapura under Ratnadeva I, and Tivaradeva’s plates issued from Shripura.Which Kalachuri ruler of Ratnapura established Ratnapura, modern Ratanpur, as the capital after the first capital at Tummana?
Show answer
Answer: C — Ratnadeva I
Ratnadeva I (Ratnaraja) established Ratnapura. Kalingaraja is the tempting answer because he founded the dynasty’s first capital, Tummana, but the later capital is credited to his grandson.Which of the following statements about the name Chhattisgarh is correct? P: The thirty-six-garh explanation is the traditional one. Q: Many historians reject it as a literal count because thirty-six forts have not been identified. R: Some scholars derive the name from Chedisgarh. S: Inscriptions list all thirty-six garhs by name.
Show answer
Answer: A — P, Q and R only
P, Q and R state the tradition, the objection and the alternative derivation. S is false: it is precisely because the thirty-six forts are not listed or identified that the literal explanation is doubted.Which Chinese pilgrim passed through South Kosala in the 7th century and described its king as a Buddhist Kshatriya?
Show answer
Answer: B — Xuanzang
Xuanzang’s account of the king of Kosala is the one used. Faxian is the tempting alternative but he travelled in the early 5th century in Gupta times, earlier than the Sirpur-era kings; Marco Polo was a European of the 13th century.Match the ruler with the record. Rulers: P Tivaradeva; Q Nannaraja II; R Mahashivagupta Balarjuna; S Bhimasena II. Records:
(i) Arang plate of Gupta year 282;
(ii) Adbhar plates;
(iii) Lodhiya plates of regnal year 57;
(iv) Rajim plates of regnal year 7.Show answer
Answer: C — P-iv, Q-ii, R-iii, S-i
Tivaradeva issued the Rajim plates (year 7), Nannaraja II the Adbhar plates, Balarjuna the Lodhiya plates (year 57) and Bhimasena II the Arang plate. The swaps in the other pairings put the 57-year record on the wrong king or the Rajim plates on Nannaraja II.The brick Lakshmana temple at Sirpur is associated with the patronage of which person?
Show answer
Answer: A — Vasata, mother of Mahashivagupta Balarjuna
The temple was commissioned by Vasata, Balarjuna’s mother, whose commemorative inscription was found there. The Kalachuri and Nala kings are the tempting wrong answers since both are in the same syllabus line, but neither ruled from Sirpur.According to the regnal years given in Tivaradeva’s copper plates, in what order were they issued, earliest first?
Show answer
Answer: D — Bonda, Rajim, Baloda
Bonda is of regnal year 5, Rajim of year 7 and Baloda of year 9, so the order is Bonda, Rajim, Baloda. Listing Rajim first is the common slip, because it is the best-known of the three plates.Arrange these Kalachuri rulers of Ratnapura in order of reign on the commonly cited estimates, earliest first: P Jajalladeva I; Q Prithvideva II; R Prithvideva I; S Ratnadeva II.
Show answer
Answer: B — R, P, S, Q
Prithvideva I (c. 1065–90) precedes Jajalladeva I (1090–1120), then Ratnadeva II (1120–35) and Prithvideva II (1135–65). Names repeat in the house, so each ruler must be tied to his predecessor; starting with Jajalladeva I forgets the earlier Prithvideva I.Vahara, known from inscriptions of 1494 and 1513 CE, is reported to have moved the capital of the later Kalachuri line from Ratnapura to which place?
Show answer
Answer: A — Kosgain (Kosanga)
Vahara is reported to have shifted the capital to Kosgain. Tummana is the tempting answer but it was the dynasty’s first capital; Raipur was the seat of the separate Raipur line.Consider the Kalachuri house of Ratnapura. P: Younger princes of the Kalachuri house were commonly made governors of mandalas as feudatories. Q: The thirty-six garhs have been fully identified from inscriptions. R: The Ratnapura line was a branch of the Tripuri Kalachuris. S: Ratnapura itself was the first capital, founded by Kalingaraja. Which are correct?
Show answer
Answer: C — P and R only
P and R are correct. Q is false because the thirty-six forts remain unidentified, and S is false because Kalingaraja founded Tummana; Ratnapura was founded by his grandson Ratnadeva I.The Panduvamshis of Mekala are known from copper plates such as the Bamhani and Burhikhar (Malhar) grants. Which statement about them is correct?
Show answer
Answer: B — Their capital’s location is uncertain
The capital of the Mekala line is not certain; Some scholars have proposed Malhar, without conclusive evidence. Sirpur was the seat of the other, Dakshina Kosala, branch, which is why that option is the tempting trap.