The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s18: Chapter VIII. The Great Feudatory Families
The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s18
- Language
- English
Contents
- c8.s18.56 — 4 parts
Chapter VIII. The Great Feudatory Families
c8.s18.2
With the preceding chapter, the history of the supreme dynasties ends. But the account would not be complete without a detailed notice of some of the more important feudatory families, hitherto mentioned only incidentally, by the agency of which,—in addition to the *Mahâpradhânas*, *Daṇḍanâyakas*, and other officials,—the paramount sovereigns carried on the administration of their dominions. The members of these great feudatory families enjoyed a status very different from that of the ordinary officials; inasmuch as,—instead of being only individual officers, of haphazard origin, selected for their personal abilities and invested with special powers, and transmitting their authority perhaps for a couple of generations, but seldom, if ever, for more,—they were the hereditary governors of provinces: and, though unquestionably subordinate to whatever dynasty from time to time exercised the supreme sway, they evidently possessed certain powers, *e. g.* the right of waging war with each other, which fell but little short of actual sovereignty, and occasionally assumed an attitude which rendered it necessary for the paramount sovereigns to undertake operations against them and reduce them to obedience, as, for instance, when Vikramâditya VI. deputed the Sinda prince Âchugi II. to repulse the Hoysalas and to attack the Kâdambas of Goa.¹ Their half-independent position is indicated, sometimes by the absence of any reference in their records to the supreme sovereigns; sometimes by the use of a technical expression, to indicate the nature of their power, which is intermediate between the technical expressions of paramount sovereignty and of inferior governorship;² and sometimes by their records being dated in their own regnal years. On the other hand, that they were always feudatory in theory, is explicitly shewn, by the mention of the paramount sovereigns in the preambles of their records, followed by the use of the technical expression, of feudatory subordination in connection with their own names, and sometimes simply by the records being dated in the regnal years of the paramount kings.
c8.s18.3
¹ See page 453 above.
c8.s18.4
² See page 428 above, note 4.
c8.s18.5
The Silaharas of the Southern Konkan.
c8.s18.6
As far as actual historical facts and dates go, the oldest of these great feudatory families was that of the Silâhâras, of which there were three leading branches,—two in the Konkan, and one above the
c8.s18.7
ghauts.¹ The records do not state the genealogical connection between the three branches. But, as the descendants in each branch attributed themselves to the lineage of Jîmûtavâhana, one of the Vidyâdharas or genii that attend upon the gods, and as the members of two of the branches at least had a hereditary title connecting them with a town named Tagara and carried the banner of a golden Garuda, there can be no doubt that they looked upon themselves as having all one and the same origin. The legend about Jîmûtavâhana² is, that he saved the Nâga or serpent king Saṅkhachûḍa from Garuda, by offering his own body to be torn instead of Saṅkhachûḍa’s; and the attribution of descent from him was doubtless devised in connection with the adoption of the more pretentious form of the family name, Silâhâra,³ meaning literally “food upon a stone or rock.” The name appears also in the plainer forms of Sîlara,⁴ Sîlâra,⁵ Silâra,⁶ and Siyalâra,⁷ of all of which Silâhâra seems to be simply the Sanskritised form. And the true original form of it is perhaps presented in an inscription of about A.D. 950 on the Sâlôtgi pillar, which mentions a family called Seḷara.
c8.s18.8
¹ One of the inscriptions, referable to the eleventh or twelfth century A.D., on the Sâlôtgi pillar which contains the record of Kṛishṇa III. of A.D. 945, indicates clearly the existence of another branch, by mentioning a Silâhâra Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara named Govaṇarasa, who had the title of “supreme lord of Kopaṇapura, the best of towns,” and whose family-deity was apparently the goddess Kâtyâyanî.—Also, mention has been made above of some feudatories of the Western Châḷukya and other kings, who claimed to belong to the lineage of Jîmûtavâhana, and who, therefore, seem to be of the same stock with the Silâhâras (see, e.g., pages 439, 443, 450, 452, 476, above). And mention will be found further on of a Maṇḍalika named Goṅki or Goṅkadêva, who also belonged to the lineage of Jîmûtavâhana, but whose family-deity was the goddess Padmâvatî.
c8.s18.9
² Alluded to in lines 21, 22 of the Khârêpâṭaṇ grant of A.D. 1008, and line 3 ff. of the other Khârêpâṭaṇ grant of A.D. 1095.
c8.s18.10
³ As a variety of this form, Sailâhâra occurs, under metrical necessity, in the Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XIII. p. 2, text line 3.
c8.s18.11
⁴ e. g., Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 278, text line 15.
c8.s18.12
⁵ e. g., id. Vol. IX. p. 33, text line 7.
c8.s18.13
⁶ e. g., line 2 of the Khârêpâṭaṇ grant of A.D. 1008.
c8.s18.14
⁷ Cave-Temple Inscriptions (No. 10 of the brochures of the Archæological Survey of Western India), p. 102, text lines 2, 3.
c8.s18.15
The southern Koṅkaṇ branch of the family seems to have been, by date of origin, the oldest of the three. For what we know about it, we are dependent on a copper-plate grant from Khârêpâṭaṇ in the Ratnâgiri District,⁸ which furnishes the genealogical list shewn on the opposite page. This record describes the Silâhâra family, rather peculiarly, as “the best of the Siṃhala kings,” thus, apparently, connecting them with the rulers of Siṃhala or Ceylon,—perhaps, however, only because of some fancied resemblance between the names; and it says that the race took its origin from Jîmûtavâhana, the lord of the Vidyâdharas, son of Jîmûtakêtu, who gave his life to Garuṭmat (Garuḍa).
c8.s18.16
⁸ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 292.—The record is of some extraneous interest, in giving a list of the Râshṭrakûṭa kings from Daṇṭidurga to Kakkala or Kakka II., the last of the dynasty, and in mentioning the first two of the Western Châḷukya kings who succeeded them, viz. Taila II. and Irivabeḍaṅga-Satyâśraya.
c8.s18.17
In respect of the first member of the family, Saṇaphulla, it tells us that he possessed the favour of a king named Kṛishṇa, and acquired a
c8.s18.18
The Silaharas of the Southern Konkan.
c8.s18.19
Saṇaphulla.
c8.s18.20
Dhammiyara.
c8.s18.21
Aiyaparāja.
c8.s18.22
Avasara I.*
c8.s18.23
Âdityavarman.
c8.s18.24
Avasara II.
c8.s18.25
Indrarāja.
c8.s18.26
Bhīma.
c8.s18.27
Avasara III.
c8.s18.28
Rattarāja. (A.D. 1008).
c8.s18.29
territory that was bounded by the shore of the ocean and the Sahya or Sahyâdri mountains, *i. e.* the Western Ghauts: counting back nine generations, at the rate of twenty-five years each, from the date of the record, we obtain A.D. 783 as the approximate date for Saṇaphulla; and, accordingly, the Krishna in question must be the Râshṭrakûṭa king Krishna I., in the period between A.D. 754 and 782. Regarding Dhammiyara, it says that he founded a great stronghold named Valipaṭṭana, which another record¹ locates on the sea-coast. Of Aiyaparāja, it says that he was endowed with the qualities of a conqueror, and was bathed with the water of cocoanuts near a town named Chandrapura,—meaning, perhaps, that he gained a victory at that place. Avasara II., it says, conquered his enemies, and aided the rulers born at Chêmûlya and Chandrapura; the former of these places is the modern Chaul or Chemwal in the Kolâba District, thirty miles south of Bombay. And, in respect of Bhīma, it tells us that he distinguished himself by seizing the Chandra *maṇḍala*.
c8.s18.30
¹ See *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. III, p. 294, note 6.
c8.s18.31
The last person mentioned in the record is Raṭṭarāja. It describes him as a *Maṇḍalika* or chieftain, feudatory to the Western Châlukya king Irivabeḍaṅga-Satyâśraya. And it furnishes for him a date in the month Jyeshṭha (May-June), falling in A. D. 1008,
c8.s18.32
of the Kīlaka saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 930 (expired), when he granted some villages and lands for the worship and maintenance of a temple of the god Śiva under the name of Avvēśvara. The place-names mentioned in connection with the grant, have not yet been identified; but it seems likely that the territory held by this branch of the family lay appreciably to the south of Bombay; and very probably it consisted of the Koṅkaṇa nine-hundred, i. e. the present territory of Goa, and the Iridige country, including the Sāwantwāḍi State and the Ratnāgiri District.¹ The power of this branch of the family doubtless died out with Raṭṭarāja; for, Arikēsarin, of the northern branch, is represented as governing the whole Koṅkaṇ only nine years later, in A. D. 1017.
c8.s18.33
¹ See page 282 above, note 1.
c8.s18.34
The Silaharas of the Northern Konkan.
c8.s18.35
Next in point of antiquity comes the northern Koṅkaṇ branch of the family. The full genealogical list of this branch is supplied by three copper-plate charters,—from probably Bhaḍāna in the Ṭhāṇa District, dated in A. D. 997;² from Bhaṇḍūp in the same district, dated in A. D. 1026;³ and from Khārēpāṭaṇ in the Ratnāgiri District, dated in A. D. 1095:⁴ and, with one or two additions from other sources, it stands as shewn in the table on the opposite page. The members of this branch of the family carried the suvarṇa-Garuḍa-dhvaja or banner of a golden Garuḍa,⁵ which device, instead of a separate crest, appears on the seals of their copper-plate charters.⁶ They had the hereditary title of Tagarapura-paramēśvara or “supreme lord of the town of Tagarapura,”⁷ commemorative of their original home, and probably referring to Kōlhāpur, the ancient Kollāpura, the chief town of the Kōlhāpur State in the Southern Marāṭhā Country.⁸
c8.s18.36
² Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 267.
c8.s18.37
³ Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 276; originally brought to notice in the Jour. R. As. Soc., F. S., Vol. II. p. 383, and Vol. IV. p. 109.
c8.s18.38
⁴ id. Vol. IX. p. 33.
c8.s18.39
⁵ e. g., Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 278, text line 18, and Vol. IX. p. 35, text line 59.
c8.s18.40
⁶ e. g., ibid. pp. 276, 33, respectively.
c8.s18.41
⁷ e. g., ibid, p. 278, text line 17, and p. 35, text line 58, respectively.
c8.s18.42
⁸ Lat. 16° 42', long. 73° 16'; Indian Atlas, sheet No. 40,—'Kolapoor.'—Tagara was a town of considerable antiquity, and of importance enough to be mentioned in the second century A.D. by Ptolemy, in whose map of India (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 329; see also p. 366) it is located in a part of the country he called Ariakē, and is placed in a north-easterly direction from Barygaza, i. e. Broach, the chief town of the Broach District in Gujarāt, Bombay Presidency (lat. 21° 43', long. 73° 2'), and in the third century by the author of the Periplus Maris Erythraei (Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII. p. 144; see also Vol. XIII. p. 366), who, describing it as an inland mart for articles of local production brought into it from the parts along the coast and then transported on waggons to Barygaza through difficult regions that had no roads worth calling such, says that it was a ten days journey to the east from Baithana or Paithana, i. e. Paithan, on the Gōdāvarī, in the Nizām's Dominions (lat. 19° 29'; long. 75° 28'), which place was, according to the same authority, a twenty days journey to the south of Barygaza, and is in reality about two hundred miles in as near as possible a south-westerly direction from Broach. And it is also mentioned, as the residence of the grantee, in the copper-plate charter issued by the Western Chalukya king Pulikē-in II. in A. D. 612 (Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 75; as regards a mistaken supposition that it is also mentioned, as 'Tagiri,' in records of A. D. 1077 at Balagānive in Mysore, see id. Vol. IX. p. 50).—The directions given by Ptolemy and the author of the Periplus seem, at
c8.s18.43
The Silaharas of the Northern Konkan.
c8.s18.44
Kapardin I.
c8.s18.45
Pullaśakti. (A.D. 843-44)
c8.s18.46
Kapardin II. (A.D. 851 and 877-78)
c8.s18.47
Vappuvanna.
c8.s18.48
Jhañjha. Goggi.
c8.s18.49
Vajjada I.
c8.s18.50
Aparâjita. (A.D. 997)
c8.s18.51
Vajjada II. Arikêsarin, or Kêśidêva. (A.D. 1017)
c8.s18.52
Chhittarâja. (A.D. 1026) Nâgârjuna. Mummuni, or Mâmvâni. (A.D. 1059-60)
c8.s18.53
Anantadêva, or Anantapâla. (A.D. 1095)
c8.s18.54
Mallikârjuna. (A.D. 1156)
c8.s18.55
Aparâditya. (A.D. 1187)
c8.s18.56.1
And their capital was a town named Purî, which is doubtless identical first sight, rather conflicting, but may be fairly well reconciled by the fact that Ptolemy's map shews Paithan also in an easterly or north-easterly direction from Broach; the result being (taking Paithan as the nearest starting-point) that we should look for Tagara, according to both authorities, in approximately an easterly direction from Paithan, and, according to the *Periplus*, at a distance of about one hundred miles.—Still, no acceptable identification of Tagara, on any such bases, has been practicable. There seems to have grown up a general consensus of opinion that there is something radically wrong in the details, and that the latter may, accordingly, be neglected altogether. And proposals have been made, by other writers (see, generally, *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIII. p. 366), to identify the town (1) with Dêvagiri or Daulatâbâd in the Nizâm's Dominions, about thirty-four miles north of Paithan; (2) with a supposed ancient place, the ruins of which, it is said, may be traced over a wide area on the plateau south of Rôzah, about four miles from Daulatâbâd; (3) with a place near 'Bhîr' or 'Bhîr,' in the same territory, about forty-five miles to the south-east of Paithan; (4) with 'Dharûr' or 'Dhârûr,' in the same territory, about twenty-five miles to the south-east of Bir or Bhîr; (5) with Kulbarga, Kulburagi, or Gulbarga, in the same territory;
c8.s18.56.2
about a hundred and seventy-five miles to the south-east of Paithan; and (6) with Junnar in the Poona District, Bombay Presidency, about a hundred and five miles to the west by south of Paithan.—In my original account, I suggested that it may be Kôlhâpur, or, rather, Karavîra, which, now only a small village on the north side of Kôlhâpur, has furnished the foundation for both the customary vernacular name for the State, viz. the Karavîra-Ilâkhâ, and the title of the local Purâna, viz. the *Karavîra-Mâhâtmya*, and must, therefore, have been the original settlement.—To this opinion I still adhere. And my reasons are as follows. (1) The copper-plate charter of A.D. 612 distinctly mentions Tagara as the actual residence of the grantee, the expression being, not (like analagous expressions in various other records) *Tagara-vinirgata*, "emigrated from Tagara," but *Tagara-âdhivâsin*, "inhabiting, or settled in, Tagara." (2) The charter has come to light from the possession of Jains at Haidarâbâd in the Nizâm's Dominions: but it did not belong to them originally; for, it was granted to a Brâhman of the Vâsishtha gôtra and the Taittirîya sâkhâ: it has, therefore, changed hands: in doing so, it may have travelled to any distance from the residence of its original owner: and there is, therefore, nothing to connect it with the neighbourhood of Haidarâbâd.
c8.s18.56.3
(3) On the other hand, though the village which was granted, and the two villages which are named in defining its position, have not been identified, the charter records that it was issued by Pulikêśin II: when he was in residence at Vâtâpi, which is the modern Bâdâmi in the Bîjâpur District; and the places are, probably, to be located somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bâdâmi. (4) To make a grant in one locality of any practical use to a resident of another place, the two places must be sufficiently near each other for reasonable facilities of access; and, consequently, Tagara must be located within some measurable distance from Bâdâmi. (5) Karavîra, or Kôlhâpur, about one hundred and five miles to the north-west from Bâdâmi, is sufficiently near to answer this requirement. (6) The antiquity of Karavîra, or of Kôlhâpur, is undeniable; for, numerous Buddhist remains have been found in the immediate neighbourhood, including a large *stûpa*, at Kôlhâpur itself, containing a crystal relic casket the lid of which bears an inscription in pure Aśôka characters of the third century B. C. (see *Cave-Temple Inscriptions*, p. 39, No. 6). (7) In spite of this, no really ancient epigraphic mention of the place under either name has been obtained: of Karavîra, indeed, I can quote no such mention at all; and of Kôlhâpur, the earliest mention that has been obtained is of A.D. 1024 (in the Miraj grant of the Western Châlukya king Jayasimha II; *Ind. Ant.* Vol. VIII. p. 18).
c8.s18.56.4
(8) The next mention of Kôlhâpur, in an unpublished inscription of A.D. 1049 at Sirûr in the Bâgalkôt tâluka, Bîjâpur District, speaks of the place as the *Âdi-pîtha* or "original, i.e. primeval, throne" of the goddess Mahâlakshmi, of whom there is, in fact, a shrine of repute, and plainly a fairly ancient one, at Kôlhâpur; and the goddess Mahâlakshmi was the family-deity of the members of at any rate the Karâd branch of the Silâhâra family (see, *e.g.*, *Jour. Bo. Br. As. Soc.* Vol. XIII. p. 6). (9) There is a connection in meaning between the names of Tagara and Karavîra: the word *tagara* denotes the shrub *Tabernæmontana Coronaria*, which belongs to the same family with the oleander and grows freely in this part of the country, and the flowers of which are used in the worship of idols; and *karavîra* denotes the Nerium Odorum, the fragrant oleander, also growing freely in this part of the country, of which, similarly, the flowers are used in the worship of idols. (10) The legends about Karavîra and Kôlhâpur, embodied in the *Karavîra-Mâhâtmya* (see Graham's *Statistical Report on the Principality of Kolhapur*, p. 341) indicate more than one change of appellation. (11) There are local features (*id.*, p. 314 ff.) indicative of some convulsion of nature, which would explain why there are now no traces with the Purî of the Mauryas of the Koṅkaṇ that is mentioned in the Aihole inscription of A.D. 634-35.¹
c8.s18.57
¹ See page 283 above.
c8.s18.58
Out of the persons whose names appear in the table, we have historical details concerning the following:—
c8.s18.59
Of the time of the Mahâsâmanta Pullaśakti, we have a record in the Kaṇheri caves, in the island of Sâlsette, Ṭhâna District,² which styles him "lord of the Koṅkaṇ," and shews that in *Śaka-Saṃvat* 765, corresponding to A.D. 842-43 or 843-44 according as the *Śaka* year is taken as current or as expired, as a feudatory of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Amoghavarsha, he was ruling the whole of the Koṅkaṇ, headed by the city of Purî,— holding it through the favour of Amoghavarsha. He is described as a successor of Kapardin I.; which implies that it was the latter who actually acquired the feudatory government for his family. And the record states that his old minister Vishṇu . . . , having done obeisance to the Buddhist community at the mount of Krishṇagiri, *i.e.* Kaṇheri, gave certain grants for the purpose of making repairs and providing clothes and books.
c8.s18.60
² *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIII, p. 136, No. 43 B.; and see page 404 above.
c8.s18.61
of any ancient large and flourishing town. And thus (12) everything seems to point to there having been, first, a change of name, such as from Tagara to Karavīra, made to suit some mediæval legend (for instance, that which Graham gives, p. 1, that the locality was called Karavīra because the goddess Mahâlakshmî used her "mace,"— the original doubtless has *karavīra*, 'sword, or scimitar,'— to raise it, her favoured retreat, from the waters of the great deluge), and made in such a way as still to preserve some memory of the original appellation, and, subsequently, a change of settlement, from Karavīra to Kôlhâpur.— The fact remains, of course, that the position of Karavīra or Kôlhâpur does not answer at all to the details given by Ptolemy and the author of the *Periplus*. But, as already remarked, there seems to have grown up a general consensus of opinion that those details are to be disregarded; and the mention of Tagara in the Bâdâmi charter of A.D. 612 necessitates our locating it far more to the south than might otherwise be thought proper. Further, if, as seems probable, it was the parts along the western coast, *i.e.* the Koṅkaṇ (not the eastern coast as has been thought; see *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIII. p. 366), that supplied the local products which were taken to Tagara, and thence to Broach, Karavīra or Kôlhâpur would be a most well-adapted depôt for collecting the trade from that part of the country. And, though it may seem rather a long and roundabout process for the goods to be then taken by cart to Broach, distant about three hundred and fifty miles as the crow flies, reasons for this seem to be forthcoming in the facts that, whereas articles might easily be brought up over the ghauts in small quantities in head-loads or on pack-cattle, the larger export in bulk by carts would, in such early times, before many practicable roads through the ghauts can have been constructed, naturally seek the open country lying well to the east of the inland spurs of the ghauts, and thus might really pass even through Paiṭhaṇ itself; and (see *Ind. Ant.* Vol. VIII. p. 144) that, so far at least as the Greeks were concerned, some embargo was laid on the use of the seaport of Kalliena, *i.e.* Kalyâṇ in the Ṭhâna District, for, we are told, if any Greek vessel happened to enter that port, even by accident, a guard was put on board, and it was taken to Broach.— On the same occasion, I pointed out that there is also a connection in meaning between the names of Tagara and Karahâṭa, which was the capital of the up-country branch of the 'Silâhâra family, and is the modern Karâḍ, in the Sâtâra District, about forty miles north of Kôlhâpur; for, the word *tagara* denotes also the thorny shrub Vangueria Spinosa, and *karahâṭa* is another name for the same. But I reject Karâḍ, as the representative of Tagara, because its own name, in the forms of Karahâṭa and Karahâṭa (apparently by metathesis for Karahâṭaka, which occurs in the Sâmangaḍ grant of A.D. 754; *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XI. p. 112, text line 33), is carried back, by early Pâli inscriptions at Bharaut in Central India (*Ind. Ant.* Vol. XXI, p. 228) and Kuḍâ in the Ratnâgiri District (*Cave-Temple Inscriptions*, p. 16, No. 20), to at least as early a period as the times of Ptolemy and the author of the *Periplus*, and there is, therefore, no reason why they should mention it under any other appellation.
c8.s18.62
The Great Fendatory Families.
c8.s18.63
Kapardin II.
c8.s18.64
Of the time of the *Mahāsāmanta* Kapardin II., we have two inscriptions in the Kaṇheri caves,¹ which style him "lord of the whole Koṅkaṇ," and shew that in the month Āśvina (Sept.-Oct.), falling in A. D. 851, of the Prajāpati *saṃvatsara*, coupled with *Śaka-Saṃvat* 775 by mistake for 773 (expired), and again in Ś.-S. 799 (A. D. 876-77 or 877-78), he was ruling the same territory as a feudatory, and by the favour, of the same king Amōghavarsha I. These, again, are Buddhist records.²
c8.s18.65
¹ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XII, p. 134, No. 15, and p. 135, No. 43 A.; and see page 404 above.
c8.s18.66
² See pages 406, 452, above, for other remarks about Buddhism.
c8.s18.67
Aparājita.
c8.s18.68
Of the time of Aparājita,³ we have a copper-plate charter which appears to have been obtained at Bhaḍāna in the Bhiwṇḍi tāluka of the Thāṇa District.⁴ It gives him the titles of *Mahāsāmantādhipati* and *Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara*. And it furnishes for him a date in the month Āshāḍha (June-July), falling in A.D. 997, of the Hēmalamba *saṃvatsara*, *Śaka-Saṃvat* 939 (expired). It does not indicate the extent of the territory that he held. But, by recording that, when staying at Sthānaka, *i.e.* Thāṇa, he granted the village of Bhaḍāna itself to a Brāhman, it shews that at any rate the country in the neighbourhood of Thāṇa was in his possession.
c8.s18.69
³ As regards two intermediate names, extraneous information has been supposed to be forthcoming in respect of Jhañjha and Goggi; but this is a mistake (see page 513, above, note 4, and page 514, note 2).
c8.s18.70
⁴ *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. III. p. 267.—This record, again, is of extraneous interest, in giving a list of the Rāshṭrakūṭas from Gōvinda I. to the end of the dynasty, and in mentioning the overthrow of Kakkala by Taila II.
c8.s18.71
Arikēsarin, or Kēsidēva.
c8.s18.72
Of the *Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara* Arikēsarin or Kēsidēva, we have a copper-plate charter from Thāṇa,⁵ which evidently describes him, as some of the later records describe his descendants, as ruling the whole Koṅkaṇ, embracing various districts, and including a fourteen-hundred province of which Purī was the capital, and furnishes for him a date in the month Kārttika (Oct.-Nov.), falling in A.D. 1017, of the Piṅgala *saṃvatsara*, *Śaka-Saṃvat* 939 (expired). The expression used in describing the extent of his rule, seems to mark the fourteen-hundred province as the head-quarters division, and Purī as the principal capital, of this branch of the Śilāhāra family. The command conveyed in the charter is addressed to, among others, all the inhabitants of Sthānaka, *i.e.* Thāṇa, and also of a town named Hamyamana or Hañjamana, which is mentioned in the same way in the Bhaṇḍūp grant of A. D. 1026. The Khārēpāṭaṇ grant of A. D. 1095 agrees with this record in giving his name as Arikēsarin; but the Bhaṇḍūp grant names him Kēsidēva.⁶
c8.s18.73
⁵ *Asiatic Researches*, Vol. I., fifth edition, p. 357; the text is not given.
c8.s18.74
⁶ This latter record seems also to make him the elder son of Aparājita. But the verse is imperfect. And, as both the other records mention Vajjadadēva II. before him, it appears more likely that he was the younger of the two brothers.
c8.s18.75
Chhittarāja.
c8.s18.76
Of the *Mahāsāmantādhipati* and *Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara* Chhittarāja, we have a copper-plate charter from Bhaṇḍūp in the Thāṇa District,⁷ which describes his sphere of rule in the same words as those, evidently used in the case of Arikêsarin in the Thâna grant, and furnishes for him a date in the month Kârttika (Oct.-Nov.), falling in A.D. 1026, of the Kshaya saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 948 (expired), when he granted some land at a village named Nôura,—the modern ‘Nowohar’ of the map,—in the Shatshashṭi district which was included in (the province of) Sthânaka, *i.e.* Thâna. The command conveyed in this charter is addressed to, amongst others, all the inhabitants of the town named Hamyamana.
c8.s18.77
⁷ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. V, p. 276.
c8.s18.78
Of the time of the *Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara* Mummuni or Mâmvâui, we have a record at the temple of Ambarnâth near Kalyâṇ, in the Thâna District,¹ which furnishes for him a date in the month Jyêshṭha (May-June) or Śrâvaṇa (July-Aug.), Śaka-Saṁvat 982, falling in A.D. 1059 or 1060 according as the Śaka year is taken as current or as expired. The purport of the record seems to be that a palace of Chhittarâja was restored for Mâmvâui’s use.
c8.s18.79
¹ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. IX. p. 219, and Vol. XII. p. 329.—As regards the Śaka year,—for some remarks on which, written at a time when it was not known how many dates in genuine records fail to work out correctly, see Ind. Ant. Vol. XVIII. p. 94,—we must probably take it that Dr. Bhau Daji’s reading, 782, was wrong, and that Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji correctly read 982.
c8.s18.80
Of the *Mahâsâmantâdhipati* and *Mahâmaṇḍalêśvarddhipati*² Anantadêva, also called Anantapâla, we have a copper-plate charter from Khârêpâṭaṇ in the Ratnâgiri District,³ which furnishes for him a date in the month Mâgha (Jan.-Feb.), falling in A.D. 1095, of the Bhâva saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 1016 (expired). The record describes his territory in the same terms as those which are used in the case of Arikêsarin and Chhittarâja; and it further styles him *paśchima-samudr-âdhipati* or “supreme lord of the western ocean.” The command contained in it is addressed to, amongst others, the people of the town of Hañjamana. And the object of it was to release certain tolls on carts coming into Sthânaka, Nâgapura (very possibly the modern Nâgaon, about six miles south-east of Alîbâg),⁴ Surpâraka (Sôpârâ near Bassein), Chhêmûli (Chaul in the Kolâba District), and other sea-ports in the Koṅkaṇ fourteen-hundred. The record describes Anantadêva as “casting into the ocean of the edge of his sword those fierce heaps of sin who, at a time of misfortune due to the hostility of relatives, obtained power and devastated the land of the Koṅkaṇ, harassing gods and Brâhmans.” The meaning seems to be, that some differences arose between the members of this branch of the family and their relations of the Karâḍ branch, whereby the power of the former was weakened,—that the Kâḍambas of Goa took advantage of this, and seized part of the Koṅkaṇ, under the leadership of Jayakêśin I., who, according to the records of his own family, slew a king, probably Mâmvâui, of Kâpardikadvîpa, which is evidently the northern division of the Koṅkaṇ so called after Kapardin I. or II., and made Gôpakapaṭṭana, *i.e.* Goa, his capital,—
c8.s18.81
² This rather exceptional title occurs in line 63 of the text.
c8.s18.82
³ Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 33.
c8.s18.83
⁴ See *id.* Vol. XXIV. p. 83.
c8.s18.84
Mallikârjuna.
c8.s18.85
and that Anantadêva succeeded in driving back the Kâdambas and recovering some of the territory on which they had encroached; but he plainly did not recover the southern portion of the Koṅkaṇ, called in the Kâdamba records the Koṅkaṇ nine-hundred, which was the territory in the vicinity of Goa.
c8.s18.86
The unbroken genealogy ends, for the present, with Anantadêva. And, as the Kâdamba prince Jayakêśin II. of Goa was holding the whole Koṅkaṇ, including the Kavadidvîpa lâkh-and-a-quarter, which is evidently the Kâpardikadvîpa mentioned above, in A. D. 1125, it is plain that during some considerable period after the time of Anantadêva, the power of this branch of the family was largely, if not entirely, in abeyance. But a stone inscription in the collection of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society¹ gives us the name of a Śilâhâra Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Mallikârjuna, with a date in the month Vaiśâkha (April-May), falling in A.D. 1156; of the Dhâtu saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 1078 (expired). There can be little doubt that he was descended in the same branch of the family. And he seems to have owed his position to Vijayâditya of the Karâḍ branch, which is said to have re-instated in their territory the fallen lords of the province of Sthânaka.²
c8.s18.87
¹ I quote from an ink-impression.
c8.s18.88
² See, more fully, page 548 below.
c8.s18.89
Aparâditya.
c8.s18.90
And finally, a stone inscription found near Government House, Parel, and now in the collection of the same Society,³ gives us the name of a certain Aparâditya, with the paramount title of Mahârâjâdhirâja and the style of Koṅkaṇa-Chakravartin or "emperor of the Koṅkaṇ," for whom it furnishes a date in the month Mâgha (Jan.-Feb.), falling in A. D. 1187, of the Parâbhava saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 1109 (current). The record refers to the Shaṭhashaṭi or Sâlsette district. And there can be little doubt that Aparâditya also was a descendant in the same branch of the Śilâhâra family. Like other feudatories, he seems to have taken advantage, to declare himself independent, of the general confusion that attended the downfall of the Western Châlukya sovereignty.⁴
c8.s18.91
³ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XII. p. 332; originally brought to notice in Jour. R. As. Soc., F. S., Vol. II. p. 386, and Vol. V. p. 176.
c8.s18.92
⁴ A table published in the Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. XIII., Thâṇa, Part II. p. 422, gives two later names,—Kêśidêva, with dates in A.D. 1203-1204 and 1238-39, and Sômêśvara, with dates in A.D. 1249-50 and 1260-61; and also inserts, between Anantadêva and Mallikârjuna, another Aparâditya, with the date of A.D. 1138-39, and a Haripâladêva, with dates ranging from A.D. 1149-50 to 1153-54 : and it further gives for Mallikârjuna another date, in A.D. 1160-61. But I have not been able to verify the authorities for these entries; except that Maṅkha's Śrikanthacharita mentions the fact that an Aparâditya, "lord of the Koṅkaṇ," sent an ambassador to the court of Jayasiṁha of Kashmir, whose period appears to be A.D. 1129 to 1150 (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc., extra number, 1877, pp. 50, 51).
c8.s18.93
The Silaharas of Karad.
c8.s18.94
The third branch of the Śilâhâra family was settled above the ghauts, and held a stretch of country that included the southern parts of the Sâtârâ District, the extreme north of the Belgaum District, and most, if not all, of the Kôlhâpur State. Like their connections of the northern Koṅkaṇ, they carried the suvarṇa-Garuḍa-dhvaja or
c8.s18.95
banner of a golden Garuda,¹ and had, with a slight verbal difference, the hereditary title of *Tagara-puravar-adhishvara* or "supreme lord of Tagara, the best of towns."² Their family-deity was the goddess Mahalakshmi,³—evidently of the well-known temple at Kolhapur. And, from the way in which Bilhana, in his account of the marriage of the Western Chalukya king Vikramaditya VI. with Chandralekha or Chandaladevi, speaks of her as the daughter of the Vidyadhara prince who ruled over Karahata, and sends Vikramaditya to Karahata to attend her *svayamvara* or selection of a husband,⁴ it is plain that the Karahata province, consisting, as we learn elsewhere, of four-thousand cities, towns and villages,⁵ was the head-quarters division of their territory, and that their real capital was Karahata itself, which is the modern Karad, the chief town of the Karad taluka in the Satara District, at the junction of the Krishna and the Koyna.⁶ Their genealogical list is shewn in the table on page 545 above.
c8.s18.96
¹ *e. g.*, *Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc.* Vol. XIII. p. 3, line 13.
c8.s18.97
² *e. g.*, *ibid.* line 12.
c8.s18.98
³ *e. g.*, *ibid.* lines 15, 16.
c8.s18.99
⁴ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. V. pp. 321, 322, and note † on p. 322.
c8.s18.100
⁵ An inscription at Harihar (*P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs.* No. 119; *Mysore Inscriptions*, p. 60).
c8.s18.101
⁶ Lat. 17° 17', long. 74° 13'; *Indian Atlas*, sheet No. 40,—'Kurrar.'
c8.s18.102
Jatiga I., and others, as far as Chandraditya.
c8.s18.103
Regarding the earlier members of the family, nothing seems to be known beyond certain statements that are made in a copper-plate charter of A.D. 1058, which will be noticed more fully in connection with the prince, Marasimha, in whose time it was issued. This record styles Jatiga II. *Tagaranagara-bhupalaka* or "king of the city of Tagara," and *Pannala-durg-adri-simha* or "lion of the mountain of the hill-fort of Pannala." The latter epithet doubtless refers to the well-known Panhala, about twelve miles to the north-west of Kolhapur, which has always been a stronghold of repute and the scene of many sieges.⁷ The former expression is rather a peculiar one; for, it occurs in a metrical passage, in which the usual title *Tagara-puravar-adhishvara* would have suited the metre equally well, and it therefore presents the appearance of having been used with the object of indicating that Jatiga II. actually ruled at Tagara, which place must then, of necessity, have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of Kolhapur: the expression, however, is an isolated one; and, though it does seem far more emphatic and specific than the usual family title, it would be hardly safe to assume that it was intentionally used in the meaning suggested above. The same record describes Gonka as possessing the territories of Karahata, Kundi, and Mirinja, and the Konkan. The Kundi territory was a three-thousand province which constituted the hereditary domains of the Ratta chieftains of Saundatti:⁸ and Gonka can only have held it temporarily, somewhere about A.D. 1040 to 1050. Mirinja, which is also mentioned in the same record as Mirinja and Mirinja, is the modern Miraj, the chief town of the Native State of the same name, about twenty-eight miles to the east by north from Kôlhâpur;¹ and the territory belonging to it, described in the same record as a three-thousand province, must have been always a natural part of the possessions of this branch of the Śilâhâra family. The reference to the Koṅkaṇ must mean that Goṅka held for a while some portions of the territory belonging properly to its relations of the northern Koṅkaṇ branch. The record further describes Guhala or Guvala I. as a king of the hill-fort of Kiḷigala or Khiḷigila; this place, however, has not been identified.
c8.s18.104
⁷ Lat. 16° 48', long. 74° 9'; *Indian Atlas*, sheet No. 40,—'Punalla.' For an account of the place by Captain C. W. West, see *Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc.* Vol. IX. p. 201.—There is another hill-fort of the same name, about forty-three miles in a north-easterly direction; but it does not seem to be of any particular importance.
c8.s18.105
⁸ See further on in this chapter.
c8.s18.106
¹ Lat. 16° 49', long. 74° 41'; Indian Atlas, sheet No. 40,—'Meeruj.'
c8.s18.107
The above details are taken from a copper-plate charter² which was issued by Mârasimha at the time of the winter solstice in December, A.D. 1058, of the Vilambin saṁvatsara, *Śaka-Saṁvat* 980 (expired). It styles Mârasimha *Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara*, and gives him the secondary names of Goṅkana-aṅkakâra, "the warrior or champion of Goṅka," and Guhêyana-siṁha, "the lion of Guhêya." It speaks of him as ruling at his capital of the hill-fort of Khiḷigila. And it records that he granted to a Brâhmaṇ a village named Kuṇṭavâḍa, on the south bank of the Kṛishṇaverṇâ, which is evidently the ‘Kootwar’ of the map, on the south bank of the Kṛishṇa, five miles south of Miraj. The Śilâhâra princess Chaṇḍaladêvî or Chandralêkhâ, daughter of "the Vidyâdhara prince who ruled over Karahâṭa," and one of the wives of the Western-Châlukya king Vikramâditya VI., was very probably a daughter of Mârasimha.
c8.s18.108
² Cave-Temple Inscriptions, p. 101.
c8.s18.109
The next name in respect of which we have any historical information, is that of Bhôja I. He must be the Bhôja who invaded the territory of Âchugi II., of the family of the Sindas of Yelburga, and was repulsed by Âchugi.³
c8.s18.110
³ See page 574 below.
c8.s18.111
At Honnûr near Kâgal, eight miles south of Kôlhâpur, there is an inscription which gives Ballâḷa the title of *Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara*, and implies that he ruled in conjunction with his younger brother Gaṇḍarâditya:⁴ but it is not dated; and it gives no further historical information.
c8.s18.112
⁴ Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 102, No. 6.
c8.s18.113
Of the *Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara* Gaṇḍarâditya himself, who was also called Ayyaṇa-siṅga or "the lion of his father," there are several records, which give dates for him ranging from the month Mâgha (Jan.-Feb.), falling in A.D. 1110, of the Virôdhin saṁvatsara, *Śaka-Saṁvat* 1032 (current),⁵ to the month Kârttika (Oct.-Nov.), falling in A.D. 1135, of the Râkshasa saṁvatsara, *Śaka-Saṁvat* 1058 (current).⁶ The record of A.D. 1110 describes him as ruling, at the village of Tîravâḍa in the Eḍenâḍ district, over the Miriñja country, together with Saptakholla and the Koṅkaṇ; and Tîravâḍa,—which was probably only a temporary camp,—appears to be the modern
c8.s18.114
⁵ Jour. Bo. Br. As. Soc. Vol. XIII. p. 6.
c8.s18.115
⁶ An inscription at Kôlhâpur (Carn.-Dêsa Insers. Vol. II, p. 541, and Graham's Kolhapoor, p. 357; verified from an ink-impression.)
c8.s18.116
Tîrawade,¹ eight miles south-west of Gârgôti, the chief town of the Bhûdhargad subdivision of the Kôlhâpur territory, which is itself about thirty miles south of Kôlhâpur. The record of A. D. 1135 mentions him as ruling at Valavâda, which may be either the modern Wâlwa in the Bhûdhargad subdivision, sixteen miles in a south-westerly direction from Kôlhâpur, as was suggested by Sir Walter Elliot,² or another place of the same name in the Wâlwa tâluka of the Sâtârâ District, twenty-five miles to the north-east of Kôlhâpur. The same record mentions also a subordinate of Gandarâditya, the Mahâsâmanta Nimbadêvarasa, who is described as the staff of his right arm. An inscription at Têrdâl, belonging to this period, mentions a Mandalika named Gońki or Gońkadêva, with a date in A.D. 1122,³ who, as the record describes him as sprung from the lineage of Jîmûtavâhana, seems to have been connected in some way with the Silâhâra family; but, as his family-deity was the goddess Padmâvatî, he must have belonged to a different branch of it from any of the well-known three branches.⁴
c8.s18.117
¹ The 'Teerowra' of the Indian Atlas, sheet No. 41.
c8.s18.118
² Jour. R. As. Soc., F. S., Vol. IV. p. 34.
c8.s18.119
³ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. pp. 22, 23, 24.
c8.s18.120
⁴ The name Gońka seems to have been rather a favourite one during this period. Inscriptions at Teńgali and Kâligi in the Nizâm's Dominious (Carn.-Désa Inscr. Vol. II. pp. 552, 556) mention a Mahâmandalêśvara Vira-Gońkarasa or Vira-Gońkadêvarasa, of the Bâna race, with dates in A.D. 1162 and 1163, who was ruling at Kâligi.
c8.s18.121
Vijayâditya.
c8.s18.122
Of the time of the Mahâmandalêśvara Vijayâditya, whose name appears also as Vijayârka, and who, like Gandarâditya, was styled Ayyana-siṅga or "the lion of his father," there are various records which give dates for him ranging from the month Mâgha, with a date falling in February, A.D. 1143, of the Dundubhi samvatsara Saka-Samvat 1065 (current),⁵ to the month Chaitra (March-April), falling in A.D. 1153, of the Śrimukha samvatsara, coupled with S.-S. 1078 by mistake for 1075 expired or 1076 current.⁶ These two records mention him as ruling at Valavâda; and so do others of intermediate dates. The copper-plate charter of his son Bhôja II. tells us that it was through the friendship and assistance of Vijayâditya that the Kalachurya king Bijjala attained the sovereignty.⁷ And it also says that he re-instated in their territory the fallen lords of the province of Sthânaka, i.e., Thâna, and firmly established at Gôvâ, i.e. Goa, some kings whose power had been destroyed. The full bearing of this statement is not clear; but it probably means that the Kâdambas of Goa, under Jayakêśin II. or Permâdi, had encroached on the territory of the Silâhâras of the northern Konkan branch,—that Vijayâditya, compelled the Kâdambas to withdraw to their own proper limits, and revived the power of his relatives, in the person of Mallikârjuna,—and that he effected arrangements which resulted in the two powers in the Konkan living thereafter in peace and amity.
c8.s18.123
⁵ An inscription at Kôlhâpur; Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 207. Another of his records is edited ibid. p. 211.
c8.s18.124
⁶ An inscription at Shêdbâl in the Athni tâluka, Belgaum District (from an ink impression).
c8.s18.125
⁷ Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay, reprint of 1877, Vol. III. p. 415 and see page 475 above, note 6.
c8.s18.126
For the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Bhôja II., also called Vîra-Bhôja and Vijayâdityadêvana-siṅga or "the lion of Vijayâditya," the earliest reliable date seems to be the winter solstice, in December, A.D. 1190, of the Sâdhâraṇa saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 1112 (expired), which is furnished by an inscription at Kôlhâpur;¹ and the latest, A.D. 1205-1206, which is furnished by a note at the end of the Śabdârṇavachandrikâ of Sômadêva, according to which the work was composed in the Krôdhana saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 1127 (expired), during the time of Bhôja II., at a Jain temple which had been founded by Gaṇḍarâditya at Ajurikâ in the Kôlhâpur country, i.e., evidently, Ajra, forty miles south of Kôlhâpur.² Valavâḍa, Kollâpura, and Paḍmanâladurga, Pranâlakadurga, or Paṇṇâledurga, are mentioned as places at which he ruled,—the latter being the well-known Panhâḷâ, about twelve miles to the north-west of Kôlhâpur.³ In his earlier years, he, like his ancestors, used simply the feudatory title of Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara. But the note at the end of the Śabdârṇavachandrikâ gives him the paramount titles of Râjâdhirâja, Paramêśvara, and Paramabhaṭṭâraka, and also styles him Paśchima-Chakravartin or "the western emperor." He must, therefore, have set himself up as an independent king during the period when Bhillama and Jaitugi I. were establishing the sovereignty of the Yâdavas of the Dêvagiri. But he was soon reduced by Jaitugi's successor, Siṅghâṇa, who held the territory in the neighbourhood of Kôlhâpur by at any rate A.D. 1218-19, and whose conquest of Bhôja II., mentioned in various records, seems to have been regarded as an achievement of rather special importance.⁴ Bhôja II. is the last member of this branch of the family, of whom we have any mention. Probably, the power of his family died out with him, and his territory was handed over to the charge of some ordinary official of the Dêvagiri-Yâdava dynasty.
c8.s18.127
¹ *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. III. p. 213.—His published copper-plate grant (*Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay*, reprint of 1877, Vol. III. p. 411) is dated in the month Âshâḍha (June-July), falling in A.D. 1191, of the Virôdhikṛit *saṁvatsara*, Śaka-Saṁvat 1113 (expired).
c8.s18.128
² *Ind. Ant.* Vol. X. p. 75, and p. 76, note 2.
c8.s18.129
³ See page 546 above, and note 7.
c8.s18.130
⁴ See, page 524 above, and note 1.
c8.s18.131
The Rattas of Saundatti.
c8.s18.132
Of the great feudatory families, next in point of antiquity comes that of the Raṭṭas, who, for about three centuries,—first as vassals of the Râshṭrakûṭas, then under the Western Châlukyas, and then apparently, as independent princes until they were subdued by the Yâdavas of Dêvagiri,—had the government of the Kuṇḍi or Kuhuṇḍi three-thousand province, which was a division of the Kuntala country and included the greater part of the Belgaum District and some of the neighbouring terrritory: the boundaries of this province are said to have been fixed by the chieftain Kârtavîrya I.,⁵ for whom we have the date of A. D. 980; and a reminiscence of it seems to have been preserved in the term mûru-sâvirad-ayya, "the Ayya of the three-thousand," which is still the title of an Ayya or Liṅgâyat priest at Hubḷi in the Dhârwâr District. Their capital was evidently
c8.s18.133
⁵ *Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc.* Vol. X. p. 201.
c8.s18.134
Saundatti, in the Belgaum District,¹ which is mentioned in the records by the ordinary name of Savadhavatti or Sayandhavatti and the Sanskritised appellation of Sugandhavartin; but, towards the end of their career they had also a seat of government at Belgaum, which is mentioned as Velugrama, Venugrama, and Venupura. Their genealogy is shewn in the table on the opposite page.
c8.s18.135
¹ The chief town of the Parasgad taluka; Indian Atlas, sheet No. 41; lat. 15° 47', long. 75° 12', — 'Sumoduttee.'
c8.s18.136
A record put together at any time during the period A. D. 1050 to 1096 shews² that the Rattas came to the front through a person named Prithvirama, — a disciple in the Kareya sect of the Jains, founded by a teacher named Mailapatirtha,³ — being patronised and raised to the position of a feudatory chieftain by a king Krishnaraja-deva, who can only be the Rashtrakuta king Krishna III.⁴ A record of A.D. 1218 allots them to the actual lineage of a king Krishna-Kandhara,⁵ who is evidently the same person; and so also does another record, purporting, but rather doubtfully, to be dated in A. D. 1209, which mentions the king as Krishna-Kandhara, and further gives him the title of Kandhara-puravar-adhisvara or "supreme lord of Kandharapura, the best of towns."⁶ And a few passages speak of them as Rashtrakutas.⁷ But the records almost always give the family name as Ratta.⁸ And the probability is that these chieftains only belonged to some local division of the Reddi tribe or caste, and that the attribution of them to the lineage of the Rashtrakuta kings themselves is based on nothing but the circumstance, mentioned above, through which they rose to power.⁹ The records of the second branch
c8.s18.137
² Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. pp. 199, 200.
c8.s18.138
³ An inscription at Kalbhavi also makes mention of the Kareya gana or sect, which it says, was also known as the lineage of Mailapa (Ind. Ant. Vol. XVIII. p. 313).
c8.s18.139
⁴ See page 411 above, note 1. — For a precise statement, in one of their records, that the Rattas owed their position and authority to Krishna III., see Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX p. 248.
c8.s18.140
⁵ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 251.
c8.s18.141
⁶ See below, under Lakshmideva I. — I do not know of any other mention of such a town in genuine documents. But, at Hire-Kummi and Sattigeri in the Parasgad taluka, Belgaum District, and at Surkod or Surkor in the Ramdurg State, there are spurious copper-plate charters, without dates, which purport to have been issued by this same king, who is called in them the Chakravartin Kanhara and Krishna-Kanhara, and is styled Kandharapura-adhisvara: the Surkod or Surkor record also says that he was reigning at Kanharapura.
c8.s18.142
⁷ e.g., ibid. p. 273; and Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 24.
c8.s18.143
⁸ Occasionally using the Kanarese letter which is transliterated by an r with two dots below it, — ṛ.
c8.s18.144
⁹ It has been suggested by Mr. K. B. Pathak (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 14) that these chieftains assumed the name of Ratta, simply because they professed to be descendants of Krishna III. And in support of this it might be urged that a record of A.D. 980 speaks of Prithvirama's grandson Santivarman as "a sun to the water-lily that was the Baisa (or Chaisa) lineage" (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 208), if we assume the reference to be to the water-lily that flowers by day, the meaning would be that Santivarman belonged to that lineage. But the claim to be actually descended from Krishna III. has not been traced back to an earlier date than A.D. 1218. The opening passage of the record of A.D. 980 distinctly describes Santivarman and his ancestors as Rattas. The reference to the Baisa or Chaisa lineage may be equally well understood as denoting the water-lily that flowers by night; the meaning then being that Santivarman overthrew some member of that family. And I can really see no objection to believing that these chieftains did belong to the Reddi tribe or caste. In fact, this assumption furnishes the most obvious reason for Krishna III. bringing them to the front.
c8.s18.145
The Rattas of Saundatti.
c8.s18.146
First Branch: Merada. Prithvîrâma. Pittuga. Sântivarman. (A.D. 980)
c8.s18.147
Second Branch: Nanna. Kârtavîrya I. (A.D. 980)
c8.s18.148
Dâvari, or Dâyima. Eraga. (A.D. 1040) Sêna I.; married Maiḷaladêvi. Kannakaîra II. About A.D. 1069 to 1076, and A. D. 1082 and 1087
c8.s18.149
Kannakaira I. Anka. (A.D. 1048)
c8.s18.150
Kârtavîrya II.; married Bhâgaladêvi. (About A.D. 1069 to 1076, and A.D. 1087) Sêna II.; married Lakshmîdêvî. (A.D. 1096 (?) and about A.D. 1102 to 1121) Kârtavîrya III.; married Padmaladêvi. (A.D. 1143 and 1165) Lakshmîdêva I.; married Chandaladêvi. (A.D. 1209?) Kârtavîrya IV.; married Êchaladêvi and Mâdêvi. (A.D. 1199 and 1218) Lakshmîdêva II. (A.D. 1228) Mallikârjuna. (A.D. 1204 and 1208)
c8.s18.151
of this family, commencing with the name of Nanna, shew that the Raṭṭa chieftains had the hereditary title of *Lattalūr*- or *Lattanūr-puravar-adhīśvara*, "supreme lord of Lattalūr or Lattanūr, the best of towns," intended to commemorate their original home;¹ that they were heralded in public by the sounds of the musical instrument called *trivali*;² that they had the *sindūra-lāñchhana*, or elephant-crest;³ and that they carried the *suvarṇa-Garuda-dhvaja*, or banner of a golden Garuḍa, which device, instead of the crest according to the more usual custom, appears on the seal of the only Raṭṭa copper-plate charter that has as yet come to light.⁴
First 153 of 366 passages. Read on