112 
Notes on Chutia Nagpur, Packet, and Palamau. [No. 2, 
About the same time Ratanpur also submitted to ’Abdullah Khan, 
the conqueror of Bhojpur. Gldhor and Chutia Nagpur succumbed 
to the first invader, and Puran Mall and Madhu, the rajahs of the 
two principalities, were ordered to assist Akbar’s armies in the 
conquest of Bengal and Orisa. Durjun Sal, Madhu’s successor was 
defeated and sent to Gwaliar. The Chero family of Palamau sub¬ 
mitted on payment of a heavy peshkash, and nearly lost the raj 
after the sack of Palamau in the beginning of Aurangzib’s reign.* 
It is curious that Palamau and Ramgarh, though so near 
Rohtas, are not mentioned in Muhammadan Histories prior to the 
reign of Shahjahan, whilst Chutia Nagpur which lies further to the 
south, much earlier attracted the notice of the Mughuls. The 
name ‘ Chota Nagpore’ is known to be an English corruption of 
Chutia Nagpur. The fifth Report on Bengal Finances under the 
E. I. Company by Grant, or as he liked to style himself, Sarish- 
tahdar Grant, has still Chutea Nagpur; on Rennel’s maps we find 
Chuta Nagpour , and only in modern times, do we find ‘ Chota Nag¬ 
pur,’ as if it was the ‘Lesser Nagpur,’ in contradistinction to the 
Nagpur of the Central Provinces. But Chutia (near the modern 
Ranchi) was the residence of the old Rajahs, and was selected as 
capital by the fourth in descent from Phani Mukuta,f ‘ the serpent 
crowned,’ the legendary ancestor of the Chutia Nagvansi R&jahs. 
Abulfazl calls Chutia Nagpur by its old name, Kokrah, which 
* As several of the above facts have not found their way into our histories, 
it may be as well to indicate the sources. A perusal of the original passages is 
recommended to such as take an interest in Bihar History. 
Regarding the Rajahs of Jagdespur (S. W. of A'rah), vide the Akbarnamah, 
Lucknow Edition, III., pp. 140, 162, and my Ain translation, pp. 399, 400, 
498. 
For the Rajahs of K’harakpur, vide Proceedings, Asiatic Society, Bengal, for 
1870, pp. 305 to 307 ; Ditto, for 1871, p. 98, and Journal, for 1871, pp. 22 
to 27. 
For the Rajahs of Bhojpur, vide Akbarnamah, III, 804, 813, and Ain transla¬ 
tion, p. 513 ; Tuzuk i Jahangiri (Sayyid Ahmad’s Edition), pp. 83, 385 j Padi- 
shahnamah, I., 221; I., b., 271 to 275. 305. 
For the Rajahs of Ratanpur, vide Padishahnamah, I., b., p. 74. 
For Gidhor, vide Akbarnamah III, 84, 292. 
The court of Dihli did not recognize the titles of Rajahs that had not made 
their submission. Hence historians generally call them Zaminddrs. On sub¬ 
mission, the title of Rajah was conferred. Similarly, the sovereign right of 
the kings of the Dak’hin was never acknowledged by the Mughuls; they 
were merely styled dunyadar, hakim , &c. 
t ‘Ethnology of India,’ Supplementary Number, Journal A. S. Ben°-al, 
1866, p. 162. 
