The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s14.313

c8.s14.313

ṭaka, i. e. Terwaṇ itself; this record shews that Kâmvadêvarâya had the government of that part of the Koṅkaṇ,—undoubtedly as a feudatory of Kṛishṇa (or of Râmachandra) of the Dêvagiri-Yâdava dynasty. An undated inscription at the temple of Mahâlakshmî at Kôlhâpur,¹ probably of about the same period, gives the names of Karṇa,—his son Vêtugidêva,—and the latter’s son Sômadêva, whose wife was Mâṇikyadêvî, and who governed at Saṁgamêśvara in the Koṅkaṇ, i. e. probably at Saṁgamêśwar, the chief town of the tâluka of the same name, about twenty miles to the north-east of Ratnâgiri. An undated grant, referable to perhaps the thirteenth or fourteenth century A.D., apparently from somewhere near Miraj in the Southern Marâṭhâ Country,² gives, if it is genuine, the name of Vîra-Satyâśrayadêva, son of Gôvindarâya, who not only is called, in the same way, “lord of Kalyâṇa, the best of towns,” but also is represented as actually reigning, as paramount sovereign, at that city. And a very similar grant from Bangalore,³ really belonging to the same period with the preceding, but preposterously dated in the Târaṇa saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 366 (expired), = A. D. 444-45, and therefore still more open to question, gives the name of Vîra-Noṇamba, who, in the same way, is styled “lord of Kalyâṇa, the best of towns,” and is represented as reigning there as paramount sovereign. These records, however, though allotting the persons named in them to the Châlukya family, give no hint of a claim to descent from Sômêśvara IV. or any of his ancestors.