Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s14: Chapter IV. The Western Chalukyas of Kalyani

The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s14

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV. The Western Chalukyas of Kalyani

c8.s14.2

Of the overthrow of the Râshtrakûtas by Taila II., we have a variety of records. The Nilgund inscription of his own time, dated in A.D. 982, claims that, by acquiring the royal fortunes of the Râshtrakûtas, he brought the whole earth under the single umbrella of sole sovereignty. The Bhadâna grant of the Silâhâra prince Aparâjita, of A. D. 997, also belonging to his own time, says that Kakkala was overthrown by him "as a light is extinguished by a fierce wind, and of the once flourishing Ratta rule there remained only the memory."¹ The Khârêpâtan grant of the Silâhâra prince Ratnarâja, of A.D. 1008, belonging to the time of his successor Irivabedanga-Satyâsraya, states that he conquered Kakkala in war, and so became king. The Kauthêm grant of Vikramâditya V., of A. D. 1009, tells us that he "easily cut asunder, "in the field of battle, the two pillars of victory in war of Karkara, con"nected with the sovereignty of the family of the Râshtrakûtas, which "verily resembled the two feet of the evil deity Kali stretched out with "vigour in the act of striding, and which were like shoots, formidable, "of compact substance, and having enmity against spiritual preceptors "for their young sprouts, of the creeper, now at length cut down after "the lapse of a long time, of the fortunes of the Râshtrakûta family."² And the time of the event is fixed by a verse in some somewhat later records, which informs us that he plucked up and destroyed the Rattas, killed the valiant Munja, took the head of Panchala in battle, and possessed himself of the regal dignity of the Châlukyas, and then reigned for twenty-four years, beginning with the year Srimukha.³ As we have already seen, the Srimukha samvatsara was Saka-Samvat 896 current, = A.D. 973-74. And the success of Taila II. is probably to be placed soon after the end of June, A. D. 973, which is the latest of the known dates for Kakka II. The way to success was doubtless paved for him by the victory of Siyaka-Harsha of Mâlwa over Khottiga, the predecessor of Kakka II., and by the plundering of Mâlkhêd itself which appears to have been effected either by the same king or by his successor Munja.⁴

c8.s14.3

¹ *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. III, p. 269.

c8.s14.4

² *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XVI. p. 18.— For a description of two actually existing colossal *ranastambhas* or pillars of victory in war, set up at Mandasôr in Mâlwa by king Yasôdharman early in the sixth century A.D., see *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XV. p. 253 ff., and *Gupta Inscriptions*, p. 142 ff. The condition of one of them shews that it was deliberately broken by the insertion of wedges.

c8.s14.5

³ *id.* Vol. XXI. p. 167. I take the verse from an inscription of the time of Vikramâditya VI., dated in A.D. 1098, at the temple of Vira-Nârâyana at Gadag in the Dhârwâr District (*Carn.-Désa Inscrs.* Vol. I. p. 370; I quote, however, from an ink-impression).

c8.s14.6

⁴ See page 422 above.

c8.s14.7

There was thus established a dynasty, the members of which are called, in their records, Châlukyas, or occasionally, in metrical passages, Chalukyas, and are represented as direct lineal descendants of the Western Chalukyas of Bâdâmi. The traditional connection is shewn in the table on page 379 above. But it gives only seven generations to fill the interval of two hundred and forty years, from Vijayâditya to Taila II. This yields an average perceptibly in excess of the twenty-five years which are usually accepted as a Hindû gèneration. And there can, thus, be but little doubt, either that some steps are wanting in the pedigree here, or that Taila II. belonged to some side-branch of the Chalukya stock, which could not in reality claim the direct lineal descent that is allotted to it: the difference of name already noted,—the invariable use, in the records of Taila II. and his successors, of the form "Châlukya," with the long vowel â in the first syllable, except under metrical necessity;¹ whereas this form does not once occur in the records of the Western Chalukyas of Bâdâmi,—is rather suggestive in favour of the latter view. Where the break in the genealogy comes in, on the assumption of direct descent,—or, on the other view, who is to be looked upon as the first historical personage in the branch of the family which Taila II. raised to power,—is not certain. Ayyaṇa I. was very possibly, as we have seen,² an authentic Chalukya prince, with a date that would well accord with the assertion that he was the grandfather of Taila II. But it may at least be taken as fairly certain that the records are correct in stating that Taila's father was Vikramâditya IV., whose wife was Bonthâdêvî, a daughter of Lakshmaṇa of the Kalachuri family of Central India. And this person is, therefore, placed at the head of the annexed table of those who may conveniently be called the Western Châlukyas of Kalyâṇi. Their capital, indeed, is not specified until the time of Sômêśvara I.; and very possibly it was at first Mâlk hêḍ. But Kalyâṇa or Kalyâṇapura, which is the modern Kalyâṇi in the Niẓâm's Dominions,³ was made the capital by Sômêśvara I., and is mentioned as such in one of his inscriptions, dated in A.D. 1053; and it continued to be the capital of all his successors, and of the Kalachuryas after them.

c8.s14.8

¹ Whether intentionally or accidentally, this distinction is rather curiously preserved in a record of A.D. 1184-85 at the temple of Virabhadra at Aṇṇigere in the Dhârwâr District (Carn.-Dêsa Inscr. Vol. II. p. 37, where it is said to be at the temple of Puradappa), which states (I quote from an ink-impression) that first the Chalukyas reigned over the land of Kuntala, then the Raṭṭas, then the Châlukyas, then the Kalachuris (sic), and then Vîra-Châlukya-Sôma, whose position was secured for him by (his general) Brahma.

c8.s14.9

² Page 379 above; but see also note 2.

c8.s14.10

³ Lat. 17° 51', long. 77°; Indian Atlas, sheet No. 57,—'Kulliannee.'—This is in accordance with the identification made by Sir Walter Elliot, which, though there may be no direct evidence in support of it, there are no grounds for questioning. For an account of the place, which shews that there are now no ancient remains at it, see Archaeol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. III. p. 23.—There has been an idea that Kalyâṇa was a place of importance in earlier times, and was in fact the capital of the Western Chalukyas of Bâdâmi: in accordance with which, Mr. Rice, in translating the Vakkalêri grant of Kirtivarman II. of A. D. 757, suggested (Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII. p. 27) that the epithet Kârttikêya-parirakshana-prâpta-kalyâṇa-paramparâ, which occurs in the formal preambles of other Chalukya records also, might be understood as applying to the succession to (the throne of the city of) Kalyâṇa; and Mr. Sh. P. Pandit, in translating the Sâlôṭgi inscription of Kṛishṇa III. of A.D. 945, rendered (Ind. Ant. Vol. I. p. 209) pravardhamâna-parama-kalyâṇa-vijay-ôdyama by "engaged in reducing the prosperous and great Kalyâṇa." But, as already remarked (page 335 above, note 1), Kalyâṇa is nowhere mentioned in the records of the earlier Chalukya

c8.s14.11

Taila II., then, overthrew the Râshtrakûṭas,—established the Western Châlukya dynasty,—and reigned for twenty-four years, commencing with the *Śrīmukha saṁvatsara*, *Śaka-Saṁvat* 896 current = A. D. 973-74. His name appears also as Tailapa, Tailapayya, Tailappa, and Nûrmaḍi-Taila; and he had the *biruda* of Âhavamalla, "the wrestler in war." His regal titles were *Mahârâjâdhirâja*, *Paramêśvara*, and *Paramabhaṭṭâraka*; and he had the epithets of *samastabhuvanâśraya*, *śrīprithivīvallabha*, *Satyâśraya-kula-tilaka* or "forehead-ornament or glory of the family of Satyâśraya," and *Châluky-âbharaṇa* or "ornament of the Châlukyas:" and this string of epithets and titles was uniformly used, with occasional additions, by all his successors. The Sogal inscription also styles him *Bhujabala-Chakravartin*, "the powerful emperor," or "an universal emperor by the strength of his arm." His wife was Jâkavve or Jakkaladêvī, daughter of a Râshtrakûṭa named Bhammaha.¹ Only four records of his time, distinctly naming him as the reigning sovereign, are as yet known: they are,—an inscription at Sogal in the Belgaum District,² dated in the month Âshâḍha (June-July), falling in A. D. 980, of the Vikrama *saṁvatsara*, *Śaka-Saṁvat* 902 (expired), which mentions his feudatory Kârtavīrya I., of the family of the Raṭṭas of Saundatti, as the lord of the Kuṇḍi country; an inscription at Saundatti in the same district,³ dated six months later in the same year, which mentions another feudatory, the *Mahâsâmanta* Sântivarman; of the same family, who was ruling at Saundatti;⁴ an inscription

c8.s14.12

¹ Her parentage (as regards which, see page 425 above, and note 2) is stated in the Kauthêṁ grant, where her name is given as Jâkavva or Jâkavvâ, which stands for the Kanarese Jâkavve.—Her name occurs as Jakkalamadêvī (for °mahâdêvī) in an inscription at the temple of Malkana at Ruddawâḍi in the Nizâm's Dominions (*Carn.-Dêśa Inscrs.* Vol. I. p. 422).

c8.s14.13

² I quote from an ink-impression.

c8.s14.14

³ *Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc.* Vol. X. p. 204.

c8.s14.15

⁴ I use three terms,—'reign,' in the case of paramount sovereigns; 'rule,' in the case of some of the leading feudatory nobles; and 'govern,' in the case of ordinary officials and feudatory nobles of less prominence,—intentionally, with the object of representing, as closely as possible, certain gradations of rank and authority which are plainly indicated by the different expressions used in the records themselves.—The earliest technical expression for paramount sovereignty appears to have been *prithivī-râjyam-geyu*, "to reign over the (whole) earth," which occurs, for instance, in the Balagâmve inscription of the Western Chalukya king Vinayâditya (*Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIX. p. 144, text lines 1, 2). It was eventually superseded by *vijaya-râjyam uttar-ôttar-âbhivriddhi-pravardhamânam â-chand-ârka-târam baram sale*, or *saluttam-ire*, "the victorious reign, augmenting with perpetual increase, being current so as to endure as long as the moon and sun and stars may last," which (after some rudimentary attempts, illustrated in *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XII. p. 219, text lines 14, 15, p. 221, text line 1, and p. 256, text lines 6, 7) appears in the Hatti-Mattûr inscription of the Râshtrakûṭa king Indra III. (*ibid.* p. 224, text lines 2, 3).—The technical term for purely subordinate government was *âḷu*, "to govern," which sometimes appears alone (*e. g.*, in connection with the government of the Sêndraka *Mahârâja* Pogilli under Vinayâditya, in lines 4, 5 of the Balagâmve inscription mentioned above), but is often amplified into *duṣṭa-nigraha-viśiṣṭa-pratipâlanaṁ âḷu*, "to govern with punishment of the wicked and

c8.s14.16

period, nor even in those of the Râshtrakûṭa period. And the idea in question is nothing but a pure mistake.

c8.s14.18

married Bonthâdêvî.

c8.s14.19

(1) Âhavamalla- Nûrmaḍi-Taila II.; married Jakkaladêvî. (A.D. 973-74 to 996-97.)

c8.s14.20

(2) Akalaṅkacharita- Iriva-beḍaṅga-Satyâśraya. (A.D. 997 and 1008.)

c8.s14.21

Daśavarman, or Yaśôvarman; married Bhâgaladêvî.

c8.s14.22

A daughter; married to the Pallava Iriva-Noḷambâdhirâja.
(3) Tribhuvanamalla- Vikramâditya V. (A.D. 1009 and 1011.) Ayyaṇa II. Akkâdêvî; married to one of the Kâdambas of Hāngal. (A.D. 1021-22 and 1050.)
(4) Jagadêkamalla Jayasimha II.; married Suggaladêvî. (A.D. 1018 and 1042.)

c8.s14.23

(5) Trailôkyamalla-Âhavamalla- Sômêśvara I.; married Bâchaladêvî, Chandrikâdêvî, Maijaladêvî, and Kêtaladêvî. (A.D. 1044 and 1068.)

c8.s14.24

(6) Bhuvanaikamalla- Sômêśvara II. (A.D. 1053 and 1069 to 1076.)
(7) Tribhuvanamalla- Permâḍi-Vikramâditya VI.; married Sâvaḷadêvî, Lakshmâdêvî, Jakkaladêvî, Malleyamadêvî, Chandalaḍêvî, and Mâḷadêvî. (A.D. 1055-56, and 1076 to 1126.) Jayasimha III. (A.D. 1064 and 1081-82.) Vishṇuvardhana- Vijayâditya. (A.D. 1064 and 1074.)

c8.s14.25

Jayakarṇa. (A.D. 1102 and 1121.)
(8) Bhûlôkamalla- Sômêśvara III. (A.D. 1126 to 1138-39.) Maijaladêvî; married to the Kâḍamba Jayakêśin II. of Goa.

c8.s14.26

(9) Perma- Jagadêkamalla II. (A.D. 1138-39 to 1149.)
(10) Trailôkyamalla- Nûrmaḍi-Taila III. (A.D. 1150 to 1161-63.)

c8.s14.27

(11) Tribhuvanamalla- Vîra-Sômêśvara IV. (A.D. 1183 and 1189.)

c8.s14.28

the *Goths*, the *Vandals*, the *Suevi*, the *Burgundians*, the *Alani*, the *Huns*, the *Franks*, the *Saxons*, the *Thuringians*, the *Rugians*, and the *Heruli*. The names of these tribes are familiar to the reader, but their origin, their migrations, and their settlements are involved in the deepest obscurity. The most probable opinion is that they were all of German or Scythian extraction, and that they had been driven from their native seats by the pressure of the Huns, a formidable nation of Tartars, who had crossed the Volga and the Tanais, and were advancing with rapid strides towards the frontiers of the Roman empire.

c8.s14.29

The first of these nations that crossed the Danube was the *Goths*. They were divided into two great branches, the *Visigoths* or Western Goths, and the *Ostrogoths* or Eastern Goths. The Visigoths, under the conduct of Fritigern, implored the protection of the emperor Valens, and were permitted to settle in the province of Thrace. But the perfidy of the Roman governors, and the insolence of the Roman soldiers, soon provoked them to rebellion. They defeated the imperial armies, and Valens himself perished in the battle of Hadrianople.

c8.s14.30

The death of Valens was followed by the accession of Theodosius, who, by his wisdom and valour, restored the discipline of the Roman legions, and compelled the Goths to accept a peace, which was rather a truce than a permanent settlement. The Goths, however, remained in the heart of the empire, and their presence was a constant source of danger and alarm. They were no longer the rude barbarians who had first crossed the Danube; they had learned the arts of war and the policy of the Romans, and they were ready to take advantage of any opportunity to assert their independence.

c8.s14.31

The reign of Theodosius was the last period of the glory of the Roman empire. After his death, the empire was divided between his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius. Arcadius reigned in the East, and Honorius in the West. The division was fatal to the interests of the state. The two brothers were weak and indolent, and they were governed by their ministers and favourites. The Goths, under the command of Alaric, took advantage of the weakness of the government, and invaded Italy. They besieged and took Rome, and the eternal city, which had for so many centuries been the mistress of the world, was plundered by the barbarians.

c8.s14.32

The fall of Rome was a shock to the whole civilized world. It was the end of an era, and the beginning of a new and darker age. The Goths, after the death of Alaric, retired from Italy, and settled in Gaul and Spain, where they founded kingdoms which were destined to last for several centuries. The Vandals, under the command of Genseric, crossed into Africa, and established a powerful kingdom, which for a time threatened the security of the Mediterranean. The Franks, under the command of Clovis, conquered Gaul, and laid the foundations of the French monarchy. The Saxons, under the command of Hengist and Horsa, invaded Britain, and established the kingdoms of the Heptarchy.

c8.s14.33

at Nilgund in the Dhârwâr District, dated in the month Bhâdrapada (Aug.-Sept.), falling in A. D. 982, of the Chitrabhânu saṃvat-

c8.s14.34.1

protection of the good,” which occurs, for instance, in connection with Gangapermaṇadi-Bhuvanaikavira-Udayâditya, a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Sômêśvara II. (Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 209, text lines 23, 24).—There was also an expression, sukha-saṃkathâ-vinôdadim râjyaṃ-gêyu, or, in Sanskrit, sukha-saṃkathâ-vinôdêna râjyaṃ kri, which was affected specially by the more powerful Mahâmaṇḍalêśvaras or feudatory nobles, who, while acknowledging the authority of paramount sovereigns, evidently enjoyed a certain amount of independence, and frequently omitted, in their records, to mention, or make any allusion to, their paramount masters. This expression was plainly of intermediate purport. Mr. Rice has rendered it by “ruling the kingdom in peace and wisdom” (e. g., Mysore Inscriptions, p. 2, and note). And I have rendered it by “governing with the recreation of pleasing conversations” (e. g., Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 18). Now, however, I should prefer to render it by “ruling with the pleasure of an agreeable or friendly interchange of communications (with the paramount sovereign);” this seems, not only to convey the idea that is intended, but also to be as close a literal translation as is possible.—Among the feudatory nobles or princes, this expression is found, in records of the Śilâhâras of Karâḍ (e. g., Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 210, text lines 15, 16), the Raṭṭas of Saundatti (e. g., Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 268, text line 64), the Kâdambas of Hângal (e.

c8.s14.34.2

g., Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 252, text lines 31, 32), of the Kâdambas of Goa (e. g., Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. IX. p. 297, text line 17), of the Sindas of Yelburga (e. g., id. Vol. XI. p. 228, text line 40), of the Guttas of Guttal (e. g., P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 109, line 69), of the Pâṇḍyas of Noḷambavâḍi (e. g., id. No. 172, lines 32, 33), and of the Hoysaḷas of Dôrasamudra, before the time when they attained paramount sovereignty (e. g., id. No. 18, seventh side, lines 8, 9.) It will not be found always where I have used the word “ruling” in connection with these princes in the pages of this account,—for the reason that in many of the records the construction renders unnecessary the use of any such expression at all; but it occurs with sufficient frequency to show that it was the expression that would be used on any occasion on which it might be sought to define exactly their position and authority.—I have fourteen verified instances in which the same expression occurs, very exceptionally, in connection with paramount sovereigns; in the cases of Jayasiṃha II., Vikramâditya VI., Bijjaḷa, Sôvidêva, Vira-Baḷḷâḷa II., Narasimha II., and Narasimha III. (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. Nos. 155, 163, 164, 168, 171, 175, 186, 185, 147, 200, 233, 123, and 148; Mysore Inscriptions, pp. 146, 150, 163, 81, 139, 176, 169; 110, 7, 106, 217, 33, and 11; and Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 234, text line 52).

c8.s14.34.3

The reason for the use of it in these cases is not apparent.—It occurs sometimes in connection with the wives of paramount sovereigns; for instance, in the case, of Lakshmâdêvî, one of the queens of Vikramâditya VI. (Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 186, text lines 9, 10).—And it also occurs in the case of Yuvarâjas (see, for instance, page 149 below, note 10, in the case of Jayasiṃha III.); and in the case of sons of paramount sovereigns, who without being formally appointed Yuvarâjas, were administering portions of the kingdom (for instance, in the case of Vishṇuvardhana-Vijayâditya, son of Sômêśvara I.; (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 136; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 19).—The only instances that I have been able to trace, of the use of the whole expression, including râjyaṃ-gêyu, in connection with any feudatory or official who was not a Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara, are in the cases of the Mahâpradhâna, Antaḥpura-vergade, and Daṇḍanyaka Kêśimayya, an officer of the Kaḷachurya king Âhavamalla, who was thus ruling the Banavâsi province in A.D. 1181 (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 191; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 138), and of the Daṇḍanyaka Armaṭivâḷa, a minister of Vira-Baḷḷâḷa II., who was thus ruling at Sâtarûr in A.D. 1195 (Inscriptions in the Mysore District, Part I., No. TN. 31); the record applies the same expression to also Vira-Baḷḷâḷa himself).

c8.s14.34.4

The term sukha-saṃkathâ-vinôda occurs, however,—though not with râjyaṃ-gêyu, but with âḷu, ‘to govern,’ and pratipâḷisu, ‘to protect,’—in the cases of an exceptionally high official of Vikramâditya VI., the Mahâpradhâna, Bâṇasa-veggaḍe, and Daṇḍanyaka Anantapâḷayya, who was thus ruling the Banavâsi province and the Beḷvoḷa and Puḷigere districts, and managing the paṇḍya-tax of the seven-and-a-half-lâkh country, in A.D. 1102-1103, and of a subordinate of his, the Daṇḍanyaka Gôvindarasa, who, at the same time, was thus managing the mêḷvatteya-vaḍḍarvula, eraḍu-biḷkoḍe, and perjunka taxes (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. Nos. 168, 171; Mysore Inscriptions, pp. 79, 80, 139); in the case of Anantapâḷayya, the use of the term is in accordance with the fact that he was also styled Mahâsâmantâdhipati, which was of much the same purport with Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara; in the case of Gôvindarasa, the justification for its use is not so apparent. And it occasionally occurs in connection with simply sara, S.-S. 904 expired,¹ and an inscription at Tâlgund in Mysore,² dated either in Vaiśâkha (April-May) or Âśvayuja (Sept.-Oct.), falling in A. D. 997, of the Hêmalambi samvatsara, S.-S. 919 (expired), which records that his feudatory Bhîmarasa, also called Tailapana-aṅkakâra or "the warrior or champion of Tailapa,"³ was governing the Banavâsi twelve-thousand, the Sântalige thousand, in Mysore, and the Kisukâḍ seventy or the country round Pattadakal in the Bijâpur District.

c8.s14.34.5

Where his capital was, is not certain; though, as suggested above, it may very possibly have been Mâlkheḍ. But the localities named in the records mentioned above, shew that he established his sway over the whole of the southern part of the territories that had been held by the Râshṭrakûṭas. The pointed and regretful way in which the Bhadâna grant of the feudatory Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Aparâjita, of the Silâhâra family, issued in June, A. D. 997, and evidently within the period of his reign, speaks of his having overthrown Kakka II., indicates plainly that his supremacy was admitted in the territory of the northern branch of the Silâhâra family in the Koṅkaṇ. And the statement in the Saṅgamnêr grant of A. D. 1000, that it was the Mahâsâmanta Bhillama II., of the Yâdava family of Sêuṇadêśa, who actually defeated Muñja,⁴ shews that this feudatory prince also, whose province lay in the direction of Auraṅgâbâd, Nâsik, and Khândêsh, recognised his suzerainty in the more northern parts of the Râshṭrakûṭa dominions to the east of the Western Ghauts. On the other hand, he cannot have acquired any of the Gujarât provinces: for, not only have we dates ranging from A. D. 941-42 to 996-97 for the Chaulukya king Mûlarâja of Aṇhilwâḍ,⁵ whose successors, moreover, maintained the sovereignty for the next four centuries, but, also, somewhere about A. D.

c8.s14.34.6

975, amidst the events which attended the downfall of the Râshṭrakûṭas, a Chaulukya prince named Bârappa,—evidently some connection of Mûlarâja,—seized the Lâṭa country, which remained in the possession of his family until at

c8.s14.35

¹ Carn.-Désa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 85; where, however, as I find from an ink-impression, the Saka year is not given completely, — the samvatsara is wrongly given as Târaṇa,—and, through gratuitously reading Trailôkyamalla instead of Âhavamalla, in line 5, the record is mistakenly referred to Sômêśvara I.

c8.s14.36

² P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs. No. 214; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 186.

c8.s14.37

³ As used in this and similar birudas, aṅka seems,—as the Kanarese affix kâra is used,—to be intended to be applied in its meaning of 'a military show, or sham-fight; war, battle.' But aṅkakâra may also represent the Sanskrit aṅkakâra, 'an arithmetician'; and there may be some such implication as that by which the prefix of the name of the Eastern Chalukya king Guṇaka-Vijayâditya III. is explained by the statement (see Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 102) that he was "a thorough arithmetician (aṅkakâraḥ)."

c8.s14.38

⁴ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II. p. 214,15.

c8.s14.39

⁵ Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 213.

c8.s14.40

iru, 'to be'; e. g., in the case of Gaṅgapermanaḍi-Bhuvanaikavîra-Udayâditya, mentioned above, who is described as governing the Banavâsi twelve-thousand, the Sântalige thousand, and the Mandali thousand, and the eighteen agrahâras, with punishment of the wicked and protection of the good, and being at the capital of Balligâve with the pleasure of an agreeable or friendly interchange of communications (with his paramount sovereign).—The expression, in any of its forms, does not necessarily occur in connection with all Mahâmaṇḍalêśvaras; e. g., the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Châvuṇḍarâya is described as simply governing the Banavâsi province (Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 179, text line 11).

c8.s14.41

any rate the time of Trilôchanapâla in A.D. 1051.¹ Some of the later records assert that, in addition to subverting the power of the Râshtrakûṭas, he overcame the king of Chêdi, the Utkalas or people of Orissa, and the kings of Chôḷa and Nêpâla, and subjugated the whole of the Kuntala country. The alleged conquest of Nêpâla is, of course, an invention of the poets; and probably the statements about Chêdi, the Chôḷas, and Orissa, are no more substantial, except in being perhaps based, in the first two cases, on some successful resistance of attempts at invasion. The subjugation of the whole of the Kuntala country, however, is a fact, which is amply borne out by the localities mentioned above, and by all the subsequent records, in some of which the Western Châlukyas are emphatically described as "the lords of Kuntala." The specific limits of this country are not yet known. But the statements in epigraphic records shew that it covered at least the whole of the Kanarese districts. On the south, it included Banawâsi in North Kanara, Baḷagâmve and Harihar in Mysore, and Hampe or Vijayanagara in the Beḷḷâry District; to the north of these places, Hângal, Lakshmêshwar, Lakkuṇḍi, and Gadag; in the Dhârwâr District; further to the north, Beḷgaum, Saundatti, Maṇôli, and Koṇṇûr, in the Beḷgaum District; and Paṭṭadakal and Aihoḷe in the Bijâpur District; and still more to the north, Têrḍâḷ in the Sânglî State; Bijâpur itself, and doubtless Kalyâṇi. And some of the principal and best-known divisions of the country were the Banavâsi twelve-thousand, the Pânumgal or Hângal five-hundred, the Puḷigere or Lakshmêshwar three-hundred, the Beḷvola three-hundred, the Kuṇḍi three-thousand, the Vêṇugrâma or Beḷgaum seventy, the Toragale or Torgal six-thousand, the Keḷavâḍi three-hundred near Bâdâmi, the Kisukâḍ seventy, of which Paṭṭadakal was the chief town, the Bâgaḍage or Bâgalkôṭ seventy, and the Tardavâḍi thousand, which was the country in the neighbourhood of Bijâpur.² It is to be understood, in fact, that Tâila II. acquired the whole of the Râshtrakûṭa kingdom, with the exception of the Gujarât provinces: and in the Khârêpâṭaṇ grant of A. D. 1008, the territory that was held by his immediate successor Irivabeḍaṅga-Satyâśraya, is specifically called Raṭṭapâṭi or "the country of the Raṭṭas or Râshtrakûṭas;" while in some of the Chôḷa records it is called the Raṭṭapâḍi seven-and-a-half-lâkh country.³ The Muñja whom he slew, as stated in the verse that is referred to

c8.s14.42

¹ See Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 196 ff.—The Rasmâlâ asserts that Bârappa was a general of Tâila II., and attacked Mûlarâja; and perhaps some other works imply the same; but no epigraphic evidence has been obtained, supporting this statement; and it is intrinsically improbable, because Bârappa was a Chaulukya, like Mûlarâja of Aṇhilwâḍ and his descendants,—not a Châlukya, like Tâila II. On the other hand, the Sukṛita-saṃkîrtana represents Bârappa as the general of a king of Kanauj.

c8.s14.43

² It is rather surprising that the name of Kuntala does not occur in the records of the Western Chalukyas of Bâdâmi; for, it is carried back to the sixth century A. D. by the Brihat-Saṃhitâ of Varâhamihira (see Ind. Ant. Vol. XXII. p. 182), and it is also mentioned, as a principal territorial division, in an inscription at Ajaṇṭâ, of not much later date, which, in fact, seems to indicate that Ajaṇṭâ itself was in Kuntala (Archaeol. Surv. West. Ind. Vo'. IV. pp. 126, 127); and further, it is, in my opinion, the real country, in Mahârâshṭra, which Hiuen Tsiang, representing Nâsik as its capital, described under the name of Mahârâshṭra, the kingdom of Puḷikêśin II. (see page 355 above, note 3; and Ind. Ant. Vol. XXII. p. 115).

c8.s14.44

³ e. g., South-Ind. Insers. Vol. 1. pp. 63, 65.

c8.s14.46

on page 426 above, is the Paramâra king Vâkpati-Muñja of Mâlwa, the successor of Sîyaka-Harsha who has been mentioned in connection with the Râshtrakûṭa king Khottiga. This event, however, is not to be made synchronous, — even if the verse in question intends it, — with the overthrow of the Râshtrakûṭas; for we have, for Muñja, as late a date as A. D. 979.¹ It is claimed for Muñja that he conquered Taila II. no less than sixteen times,² before he met his fate at Taila's hands. And he eventually lost his life under the following circumstances. He made his final expedition into Taila's country, against the advice of his minister Rudrâditya. Crossing the Gôdâvarî, which is said to have formed the northern boundary of Taila's kingdom, he was defeated and taken captive. After a protracted imprisonment, he made a futile attempt to escape. And then, being imprisoned again, he was at first treated with great indignity, and finally was executed.³ The killing of Pañchala, also, was not really synchronous with the commencement of Taila's reign; for that person, a Western Gaṅga prince, is described, in a fragmentary record at Mulgund in the Dhârwâr District, as reigning in A. D. 974 or 975 over the whole country bounded by the eastern, the western, and the southern oceans.⁴

c8.s14.47

¹ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. I. p. 223.

c8.s14.48

² ibid. p. 227.

c8.s14.49

³ ibid. p. 228; see also Early History of the Dekkan (1884), p. 59.

c8.s14.50

⁴ See page 307 above.

c8.s14.51

Irivabedanga Satyâśraya.

c8.s14.52

Taila II. was succeeded, probably towards the end of A. D. 997, by his eldest son Satyâśraya, whose name appears also as Sattiga and Sattima,⁶ and who had the birudas of Akalaṅkacharita, "of spotless behaviour," and Irivabedanga or Irivabedenga, "a wonder among those who pierce (their foes)." Of his time, we have nine records. Eight of them expressly mention him as the reigning king; and these are, — an inscription at Gadag in the Dhârwâr District,⁷ dated in the month Chaitra (March-April), falling in A. D. 1002, of the Subhakrit saṁvatsara, coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 924 (expired);⁸ while his feudatory, the Mahâsâmanta Sôbhanarasa, was governing the Belvola three-hundred, — which was the country round Gadag, Aṇṇigere, Kurtakôṭi, and Nargund in Dhârwâr, Hûli in Belgaum, and Kukkanûr in the Nizâm's Dominions, — together with the Puligere or Lakshmêshwar three-hundred, the Kundûr five-hundred, and the Kukkanûr thirty; an inscription at Tumbige in the Bijâpur District,⁹ dated in the Krôdhin saṁvatsara, Ś.-S. 926 (expired), = A. D. 1004.

c8.s14.53

⁶ e. g., P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs. No. 178, line 6, and No. 219, line 14 (Mysore Inscriptions, pp. 87, 189). — In connection with this Prâkṛit form of the name, see page 410 above, note 1.

c8.s14.54

⁶ See id. No. 116, line 17 (in Mysore Inscriptions, p. 68, 'Sattimanta' is wrongly given).

c8.s14.55

⁷ At the temple of Trikûṭêśvara (Carn.-Désa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 39; and see Ind. Ant. Vol. II. p. 297, No. 3: I quote now, however, from an ink-impression which makes the year clear).

c8.s14.56

⁸ According to General Sir Alexander Cunningham's list of the saṁvatsaras (Indian Eras, p. 25), Subhakrit should be coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 925 expired, and Ś.-S. 924 expired should be coupled with Sôbhakrit. But the table in Mr. C. P. Brown's Carnatic Chronology, pp. 11-19, places Subhakrit before Sôbhakrit, and is in accordance with this record and others also.

c8.s14.57

⁹ Carn.-Désa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 32. I quote, however, from an ink-impression

c8.s14.58

1005; two inscriptions at Kukkanûr in the Nizâm's Dominions and Yalawâl in Mysore,¹ the dates of which, partially illegible, may be anything from S.-S. 920 to 929; an inscription at Kannêshwar in the Dhârwâr District,² dated in the Viśvâvasu saṁvatsara, S.-S. 927 (expired), = A. D. 1005-1006, while his feudatory, the Mahâsâmanta Bhîmarâja, also called Tailapana-ankakâra, was still governing, as under Taila II., the Banavâsi, Sântalige, and Kisukâḷ districts; an inscription at Hoṭṭûr in the Dhârwâr District, dated in the Plavaṅga saṁvatsara, S.-S. 929 (expired), = A. D. 1007-1008;³ a copper-plate grant from Khârêpâṭan in the Ratnâgiri District,⁴ dated in Jyêshṭha (May-June), falling in A. D. 1008, of the Kilaka saṁvatsara, S.-S. 930 (expired), which describes Satyâśraya himself as reigning over Raṭṭapâṭi or the country of the Raṭṭas, i.e. the Râshṭrakûṭas,⁵ and records a grant that was made by his feudatory, the Maṇḍalika Raṭṭarâja, of the southern branch of the Silâhâras of the Koṅkaṇ; and an inscription at Munawalli in the Dhârwâr District,⁶ dated in Srâvaṇa (July-Aug.) of the same saṁvatsara, falling also in A. D. 1008. The ninth is a copper-plate grant from Saṅgamnêr in the Ahmednagar District,⁷ dated in the month Bhâdrapada (Aug.-Sept.), falling in A. D. 1000, of the Sârvarin saṁvatsara, S.-S. 922 (expired): this record, containing a charter issued by the Yâdava prince Bhillama II., who was then ruling the Sêuṇa country, does not mention Satyâśraya, or, indeed, any paramount sovereign at all; but the connection between the Yâdavas of Sêuṇadêśa and the Western Châlukyas is shewn by the statement that it was Bhillama who killed Muñja, the enemy of Taila II.; and Bhillama can only have been ruling as a feudatory of the Western Châlukya kings with whom he was synchronous. From the Chôḷa records, we learn that Satyâśraya fought with the Chôḷa king Kê-Râjarâja-Râjakêsarivarman, who claims to have defeated him.⁸ On the other hand, the Hoṭṭûr inscription, while admitting that the Chôḷa king, — here called Nûrmaḍi-Chôḷa, and apparently named as Râjêndra,⁹ — having collected a force numbering nine hundred thousand, had pillaged the whole country, had slaughtered the women, the children, and the Brâhmaṇs, and, taking the girls to wife, had destroyed their caste, says that Satyâśraya put the Chôḷa to flight, and so acquired great stores of wealth and vehicles; and that, having thus conquered the southern country, he was, then, in A. D. 1007-1008, reigning over the whole earth at Tâvareyaghaṭṭa or Tovareyaghaṭṭa, i.e. at the mountain-pass of Tâvare or Tovare, — which seems to be the place where the decisive battle was fought.

c8.s14.59

¹ Carn.-Dêsa Inscrs. Vol. I. pp. 30, 33.

c8.s14.60

² Ibid. p. 34.

c8.s14.61

³ On a monumental slab in a field, Survey No. 47. I quote from an ink-impression.

c8.s14.62

⁴ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 292.

c8.s14.63

⁵ See page 341 above, note 2.

c8.s14.64

⁶ From an ink-impression.

c8.s14.65

⁷ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II. p. 212.

c8.s14.66

⁸ South-Ind. Inscrs. Vol. I. pp. 51, 52, 63, 112; Vol. II. p. 16.

c8.s14.67

⁹ i. e., Râjêndra-Chôḷadêva, the successor of Râjakêsarivarman.

c8.s14.68

The next name in the table is that of Daśavarman or Yasôvarman, the younger brother of Irivabeḍaṅga-Satyâśraya. His name is almost invariably given as Daśavarman; in fact, there is as yet only one instance

c8.s14.69

to the contrary,—a passage in the Kauthêm grant of A. D. 1009,¹ in which it appears as Yasôvarman; and the reason for the variation there is not apparent. His wife was Bhâgyavatî or Bhâgaladevî.² There are no records of his time.. And his name is omitted in some of the subsequent records, which take the regal succession direct from Irivabedaṅga-Satyâśraya to Vikramâditya V.³ It seems plain, therefore, that he did not reign. And none of the records state any history in connection with him.

c8.s14.70

¹ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XVI. p. 15.

c8.s14.71

² Her name appears as Bhâgyavatî in the Kauthêm grant.

c8.s14.72

³ I said (*Ind. Ant.* Vol. XVI. p. 19) that there is an inscription at Âlûr in the Gadag tâluka, which, if the copy (*Carn.-Désa Inscrs.* Vol. I. p. 38) is correct, speaks of Vikramâditya V. as the son of Satyâśraya. The record is that of A.D. 1010-11, of the reign of Vikramâditya V. And I find, from an ink-impression, that the copy is not correct. The word used is *magaḷ*, 'daughter,' applying to the wife of Iriva-Noḷambâdhirâja; not *magam*, 'son,' as given in the copy, applying to Vikramâditya V. But I find that the statement is certainly made in an inscription at Harihar (*P. S. and O.-C. Insérs.* No. 116; *Mysore Inscriptions*, p. 68), where the text (line 17) runs *eṇe-śaurj-ônnatan-âda Tailapan=apatyam Sattimam tam-nṛipâḷana putram vibhu-Vikramam tad-anujam samd=Ayyanam, &c.* And there is also an inscription at the temple of Śambhu-Mahâdêva at Diggâvi in the Nizâm's Dominions (*Carn.-Désa Inscrs.* Vol. I. p. 169), which seems to repeat the statement; the words, according to the transcript, are *ghana-śaurj-âgraṇi-Tûla-bhûbhuja-sutam Satyâśrayam tan-nṛipâḷana putram vibhu-Vikramam tad-anujam sand=Ayyaṇam, &c.*

c8.s14.73

Vikramâditya V.

c8.s14.74

The successor of Irivabedaṅga-Satyâśraya, then, was Daśavarman's eldest son Vikramâditya V., whose name appears sometimes as Vikramâditya and sometimes as simply Vikrama, and who had the biruda of Tribhuvanamalla, "the wrestler of the three worlds:" he probably succeeded to the throne in A. D. 1009. Of his reign we have four records,—a copper-plate grant from Kauthêm in the Miraj State,⁴ dated in the Saumya saṁvatsara, coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 930 expired, by mistake for 931 expired or 932 current, with the mention of a lunar eclipse which falls in A.D. 1009;⁵ an inscription at Sûḍi in the Dhârwâr District,⁶ dated in the Sâdhâraṇa saṁvatsara, Ś.-S. 932 (expired),= A.D. 1010-11; another at Âlûr in the Gadag tâluka of the same district,⁷ dated in the same year, while his feudatory, Iriva-Noḷambâdhirâja, also called Ghaṭeya-aṅkakâra, of the Pallava family, whose wife was a daughter of Irivabedaṅga-Satyâśraya, was governing the Noḷambavâḍi thirty-two-thousand, the Keṅgaḷi five-hundred, the Ballakunde threehundred, the Kukkanûr thirty, and five towns in the Mâsiyavâḍi country; and another at Galagnâth in the same district,¹ which gives a date in Bhâdrapada (Aug.-Sept.), falling in A. D. 1011, of the Virôdhikrit saṁvatsara, S.-S. 933 (expired). The records do not appear to state any history in connection with him.

c8.s14.75

⁴ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XVI. p. 15.

c8.s14.76

⁵ The grant was made on the occasion of an eclipse of the moon. But the month is not stated; so the precise date cannot be determined, as, in the Saumya saṁvatsara, there were two lunar eclipses, on the 12th April, A.D. 1009, and on the 6th October following (see Von Oppolzer's *Canon der Finsternisse*, p. 359).—The Saumya saṁvatsara might, indeed, be coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 930 expired,—in which case there would be no mistake in the record,—by the southern Vikrama luni-solar system, if that system existed (see *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XVIII. p. 222). And then, bearing in mind that the date must be later than that of the Muṇavaḷḷi inscription, which, coupling Kilaka with Ś.-S. 930 expired according to the usual southern luni-solar system, gives a date in July-August, A.D. 1008, for Irivabedaṅga-Satyâśraya,—the eclipse might be identified with that of the 17th October, A.D. 1008. But the existence of the southern Vikrama variety of the cycle remains to be proved. And it seems, on the whole, probable that there really is a mistake in respect of the Śaka year that is given in the record.

c8.s14.77

⁶ *Carn.-Désa Inscrs.* Vol. I. p. 37; verified from an ink-impression.

c8.s14.78

⁷ *ibid*, p. 38; verified from an ink-impression.

c8.s14.79

¹ Carn.-Désa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 40; verified from an ink-impression; the characters, however, seem of rather later date. ² Ind. Ant. Vol. XVIII. p. 275. ³ An inscription at Arasîbîḍi in the Bijâpur District. ⁴ An inscription at Sûḍi in the Dhârwâr District. ⁵ Another inscription at Arasîbîḍi itself. ⁶ An inscription at Hoṭṭûr in the Dhârwâr District. ⁷ See page 437 below, note 5. Her name occurs in an inscription at Hippargi in the Sindagi tâluka, Bijâpur District (Carn.-Désa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 53). ⁸ Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 122. ⁹ id. Vol. VIII. p. 10. ¹⁰ For some which have been edited with the texts, see Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 15 (at Baḷagâṁve; A. D. 1019), Vol. XVIII. p. 270 (at Bêlûr; A. D. 1021, probably), Vol. IV. p. 278 (at Tâlgund; A. D. 1028), and Vol. XIX. p. 161 (at Manṭûr; A. D. 1040, probably).—From this time, the records become too numerous to be noticed in detail.

c8.s14.80

The next name in the table is that of Ayyaṇa II., a younger brother of Vikramâditya V. We have, however, no records that are referable to him; and he does not appear to have reigned.

c8.s14.81

The next name is that of Akkadêvî, an elder sister of Jayasiṁha II., who is mentioned in several of the records, and appears to have been a personage of considerable reputation and importance. She was styled guṇada-beḍaṅgi, "a marvel of virtuous qualities," and êkavâkye, "she whose speech is single and uniform;" and she is described as "a very Bhairavî in battle and in destroying hostile kings." In A. D. 1021 or 1022, she was governing the Kisukâḍ seventy, under Jayasiṁha II.² And she continued in authority under Sômêśvara I.; for we find her described in a record of A. D. 1047 as having laid siege to the fort of Gôkâge, i. e. Gôkâk in the Belgaum District,—probably to quell some local insurrection;³ in A. D. 1050 she was governing the Kisukâḍ seventy, the Toṛagare six, and the Mâsiyavâḍi hundred-and-forty;⁴ and in A.D. 1053 she is mentioned again as governing the Kisukâḍ seventy, in a record which implies that the seat of her government was Vikramapura, which is the modern Arasîbîḍi in the Hungund tâluka, Bijâpur District.⁵ A record of A.D. 1066 mentions her as the mother of the Kâḍamba Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Tôyimadêva, who was then ruling the Banavâsi twelve-thousand and the Pânuṁgal five-hundred.⁶ Her husband, therefore, was one of the Kâḍambas of Hâṅgal; but his name has not yet been traced.

c8.s14.82

The successor of Vikramâditya V. was his youngest brother Jayasiṁha II., who had the biruda of Jagadêkamalla, "the sole wrestler in the world."⁷ His wife was Suggaladêvî, who, in the Channabasava-Purâṇa, where his name appears in the form of Dêsiṅga, is called Suggaḷe and is described as converting him from Jainism to the Śaiva faith.⁷ And he had a daughter, named Hâmmâ or Avvalladêvî, who was married to the Yâdava prince Bhillama III. of Sêuṇadêśa.⁸ Of his reign, we have the Miraj copper-plate grant,⁹ and some two dozen inscriptions on stone,¹⁰ which give dates ranging from the month

c8.s14.83

Vaiśākha (April-May), falling in A. D. 1018, of the Kālayukti saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 940 (expired),¹ to the month Kārttika (Oct.-Nov.), falling in A. D. 1042, of the Chitrabhānu saṁvatsara, Ś.-S. 964 (expired).² And among the records of this period we have also to count, though they do not expressly mention any paramount sovereign, the Kalas-Budrūkh grant of the Mahāsāmanta Bhillama III., of the Yādava family of Seuṇadeśa,³ who was ruling his hereditary province in A. D. 1025, and the Bhāṇḍūp grant of the Śilāhāra Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Chhittarāja,⁴ who in A. D. 1026 was ruling the whole of the Koṅkaṇ; both these persons were, without doubt, vassals of Jayasiṁha II. The Balagāmve inscription of A. D. 1019 describes him as a moon to the water-lily that was king Bhoja, i.e. as taking away the glory of Bhoja, just as the moon causes the water-lilies that bloom in the daytime to close their flowers at night,—and as defeating the Cholas and Chēras, and putting to flight the confederacy of Mālva:⁵ the Bhoja who is spoken of here, is the Paramāra king of Mālwa,—the brother's son of Vākpati-Muñja,—for whom we have the date of A. D. 1021-22, and who is said to have vanquished, among others, the Karṇāṭas, i.e. the Western Chalukyas.⁶ Several of the other records mention Jayasiṁha II. as defeating the Chola king.⁷ But none of them give details, except the Miraj charter, which records the grant of a village, in the Ededore two-thousand, that was made by him in A. D. 1024, on the full-moon day of the month Vaiśākha of the Raktākshin saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 946 (expired), when, having fought and subdued the mighty Chola, the lord of the five Dramilas, and having appropriated all the possessions of the lords of the seven Koṅkaṇs, his victorious camp was pitched near Kolhāpur in the course of a campaign for conquering the northern countries.⁷ The Chola king with whom he fought, was Rājēndra-Choladēva, otherwise called Madhurāntaka II. and Parakēsarivarman, who, in the usual manner, transfers all the successes to himself, and claims to have conquered the Iḍaiturai nāḍ, i.e. the Ededore district mentioned just above, which is to be identified with the country lying round Eḍatore, the head-quarters of a tāluka in Mysore,—to have penetrated as far as Banawāsi,—and even to have taken the whole of the Raṭṭapāḍi country from Jayasiṁha.⁸ The principal feudatories and officials of Jayasiṁha II. were,—a certain Chatta, Chaṭṭayya, or Chaṭṭaladēva, who seems to be Shashṭhadēva I., of the

c8.s14.84

¹ An inscription at the temple of Saṅgana-Basavēśvara at Hirūr in the Hāngal tāluka, Dhārwār District (Carn.-Dēsa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 44).—At Guḍikaṭṭi in the Sampgaon tāluka, Belgaum District, there is an inscription of the Kādambas of Goa, which purports to give for Jayasiṁha II. the date of the Plavaṅga saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 928, by mistake for 929 (expired), = A. D. 1007-1008. He may have been Yuvarāja then. But the record was put on the stone in A. D. 1052-53; it does not describe him as Yuvarāja; and I am not satisfied that it gives an authentic date for him.

c8.s14.85

² An inscription at the temple of Tōraṇagal-Brahmadēva at Sirūr in the Gadag tāluka, Dhārwār District (Carn.-Dēsa Inscrs. Vol. I. p. 70); but I did not find this record among the ink-impressions brought to me from Sirūr.

c8.s14.86

³ Ind. Ant. Vol. XVII. p. 117.

c8.s14.87

⁴ id. Vol. V. p. 276.

c8.s14.88

⁵ ibid. p. 17.

c8.s14.89

⁶ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. I. pp. 223, 230.

c8.s14.90

⁷ Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII. p. 18; and see South-Ind. Insers. Vol. I. p. 113.

c8.s14.91

⁸ South-Ind. Insers. Vol. I. pp. 51, 52, 95, 96, 113.

c8.s14.93

family of the Kâdambas of Goa;¹ the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Kundamarasa, also called Sattigaṇa-Chaṭṭa, son of Iriva-beḍaṅgadēva,² with the title of "supreme lord of Baṇavāsi, the best of towns," who, in A.D. 1019, at Baḷagāṃve, was ruling the Baṇavāsi twelve-thousand, the Sāntalige thousand, and the Hayve five-hundred, up to the shore of the western ocean;³ the Mahâsāmanta Bhillama III., of the Yādava family of Sēuṇadēśa, who in A.D. 1025 was ruling his hereditary province at Sindinagara, i.e. Sinnar in the Nāsik District; the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Sēvya and Nāgāditya, of the Sinda family, who in A.D. 1033-34 were ruling the Bāgadage country; the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Mayūravarmman II., of the family of the Kâdambas of Haṅgal, who in A.D. 1034-35 and 1038-39 was ruling the Pānuṃgal five-hundred; the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Tōyimadēva, of the same family, a son of Akkādēvi, who was ruling the Baṇavāsi twelve-thousand and the Pānuṃgal five-hundred in A.D. 1037; the Mahâsāmanta Irivabeḍaṅga-Mārasimha, apparently of the Mauḷūr family,⁴ and the Mahâsāmanta Jayakēśin of that family,—each of them with the title of "lord of Purigere, the best of towns,"—who in A.D. 1038-39 were holding the office of Naḍgāmuṇḍu of the Purigere three-hundred; the Mahâsāmanta Ereyamma or Erega, of the Raṭṭa family of Saundatti, who was ruling in A.D. 1040; and Noḷamba-Pallava-Bommaṇayya, of the Pallava lineage, who in A.D. 1040-41 and 1042-43 was governing five towns in the Māsavāḍi country. Also, as already noted, in A.D. 1021 or 1022 his elder sister Akkādēvi was governing the Kisu-kāḍ seventy. The records do not name the capital proper of Jayasiṃha II. himself. But they mention, as minor capitals, Baḷagāṃve and Poṭṭalakere, which latter place is now represented by Daṇṇāyakana-kere in the Bellāry District,⁵ and another place, named Koḷḷipāke, which has not yet been identified.⁶

c8.s14.94

¹ But with a dubious date in A.D. 1007-1008 (see page 436 above, note 1).

c8.s14.95

² i.e., quite possibly, of Irivabeḍaṅga-Satyāśraya.

c8.s14.96

³ Ind. Ant. Vol. V. pp. 17, 18.

c8.s14.97

⁴ Mauḷūr was a village on the Tuṅgabhadrā (Ind. Ant. Vol. XXI. p. 282).

c8.s14.98

⁵ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 162. This place is mentioned as Hotalakere in the Basava-Purāṇa, chap. ii, where we are told that it contained seven hundred basadis or Jain temples, and twenty thousand Jain saints; and a narration is given of how Dēvara-Dāsimayya, the Guru of Suggaḷadēvi the wife of king Dēsiṅga, despoiled the Śrāvakas or Jains, and induced Dēsiṅga to adopt the Śaiva or Liṅgāyat religion. The same story is epitomised in the Channabasava-Purāṇa, chap. lyii., 10, which says that Suggaḷe, the wife of the Jinabhakta Dēsiṅga-Baḷḷāḷa, caused her Guru Dēvara-Dāsā to dispute with the Jains, and then, transforming a serpent in a box into a liṅga made of the chandrakānta or moon-stone, she caused him to conquer, and induced her husband to become a Śivabhakta.—In calling Dēsiṅga a Baḷḷāḷa, i.e. a Hoysaḷa, the Channabasava-Purāṇa makes an evident mistake. Dēsiṅga is a conception of Jayasiṃha, which name does not appear among the Hoysaḷas at all. And the coincident mention of Suggaḷe or Suggaḷadēvi and Hotalakere, shews conclusively that the story really refers to the Western Châlukya king Jayasiṃha II.

c8.s14.99

⁶ See the Bhairanmaṭṭi inscription (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 231).—No one has ever been able to tell me where the place is. But it should be a very well known, as it is the slightly differently spelt Koḷḷipāki which is mentioned in the Rājaśekharavilāsa, I., 53-56, as the birthplace of Rēṇukēśa, Rēṇukāchārya, or Rēvaṇaprabhu. According to the poem, Rēṇukēśa was born from the īśa or liṅga at Koḷḷipāki, into which he was absorbed again, when he had begotten a son named Rudramuniśvara, and had initiated him and given him the office of Guru. In his introduction to his edition of the Rājaśekharavilāsa, Gaṅgadhar Madiwaleshwar Turmari stated that Rēṇukēśa was one of the Pañchāchāryas or five preceptors who established the Liṅgāyat religion, and that he founded a maṭha or religious college at Koḷḷipāki, and gave the paṭṭādhikāra or

c8.s14.100

Jayasimha II. was succeeded by his son, Sômêśvara I., who had the double *biruda* of Trailôkyamalla-Âhavamalla. His wives were, Bâchaladêvî, who was the mother of Sômêśvara II., Vikramâditya VI., and Jayasimha III., and was probably his first wife;¹ Chandalakabbe or Chandrikâdêvî, who had the title of *piriyarasi* or chief queen in A. D. 1047-48;² Mailaladêvî, who had the same title in A. D. 1053-54;³ and Kêtaladêvî.⁴ Of his reign, we have some forty records,⁵ which give dates ranging from the month Kârttika (Oct.-Nov.), falling in A.D. 1044, of the Târaṇa *samvatsara*, Śaka-Samvat 966 (expired),⁶ to the month Chaitra (March-April), falling in A. D. 1068, of the Kilaka *samvatsara*, S.-S. 990 (expired).⁷ And they shew that his principal feudatories

First 101 of 316 passages. Read on

Linked texts (46)