The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s16.136

c8.s16.136

secure over all the southern part, north of Mysore itself, of the dominions which had passed from the Kalachuryas to the last Western Châlukya king Sômêśvara IV., and from the latter to Bhillama of Dêvagiri. When the Gadag inscription of A. D. 1192 was written, Vîra-Ballâḷa’s *vijaya-skandhâvâra* or victorious camp was still at Lakkuṇḍi. And a Baḷagâmve inscription, dated slightly later in the same year,¹ speaks of that same town as the *nelevîḍu* or capital, at which, having accomplished his victories in the north, he was then reigning. It was probably early in A. D. 1193 that he started on the tour in the course of which the forts in question were reduced. A record of A. D. 1195² mentions him as then reigning at Erambarageyakuppa; evidently in the course of this campaign. And the campaign was doubtless brought to an end in the month Âśvina (Sept.-Oct.) falling in A. D. 1196, of the Anala *saṃvatsara*, (Śaka-Saṃvat 1119 current), when, encamped at the Ânekere tank at Hângal, he laid siege to the latter town.³ Another record, of his own time, states that he held the umbrella of southern sovereignty through the favour of the god Vijaya-Nârâyaṇa; that he took Uchchhaṅgi; and that, when the Pâṇḍya (of Noḷambavâḍi, where Uchchhaṅgi was situated) threw himself on his mercy, he restored him his kingdom:⁴ and, coupling this with a statement in one of the Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa records,⁵ it would seem that, during his absence on the campaign mentioned above, one of the Pâṇḍya chieftains of the Noḷambavâḍi province, named Kâmadêva, rebelled, and had to be forcibly reduced to submission. But, with this exception, his reign appears to have been free from internal troubles. Some of the recods, indeed, describe him as “the taker of Taḷakâḍ, Koṅgu, Naṅgali, Noḷambavâḍi, Banavâsi, and Hânumgal,” — to which list others add Gaṅgavâḍi, Lokkiguṇḍi, Kummaṭa, and Erambarage; but it is plain that, as in the case of Narasimha I., this is derived mostly from the achievements of Viṣṇuvardhana. The records mention, as his feudatories and officials,—the *Mahâpradhâna*, *Sarvâdhikârin*, and *Daṇḍanâyaka* Biṭṭimayya, with the date of A. D. 1175; the *Mahâpradhâna* and *Daṇḍanâyaka* Gaḍada-Siṅgayya, with the date of A. D. 1184; the *Mahâpradhâna*, *Sarvâdhikârin*, and *Daṇḍanâyaka* Ereyappa or Eraga, who in December, A. D. 1192, was in charge of the Banavâsi twelve-thousand and the Sântalige thousand; the *Mahâpradhâna*, *Sarvâdhikârin*, and Hiriya-Bhaṇḍâri Hullayya, who had also held office under Narasimha I.; the *Mahâpradhâna*, *Sarvâdhikârin*, and *Paramaviśvâsin*, or most confidential agent, the *Daṇḍanâyaka* Armatvaḷa, of Kûrûr, who is described as ruling⁶ over the Târuṇâḍ, Hadinâḍ, and Kunaḍ districts, at Sâtarûr, in A. D. 1195;