The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c9: 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 c9
- Language
- English
Chapter VIII, The Great Feudatory Families.
c9.1
month Āshādha (June-July), falling in A. D. 1158, of the Bahudhānya samvatsara, Śaka-Samvat 1080 (expired); it mentions Vijayāditya II. as Yuvarāja, and states that, at a place named Sampagāḍi,¹ the two brothers were then ruling conjointly over the Palasige twelve-thousand and the Konkaṇa nine-hundred. Another record which mentions Vijayāditya II. is the second part of the Halsi inscription,² dated in the Khara samvatsara, Kaliyuga-Samvat 4272 expired, = A. D. 1171-72, cited as the twenty-fifth year. This is in accordance with the initial date given above. And so are the intermediate records, which mention Permāḍi only; for instance, the Golihalli inscription,³ which cites the Vikrama samvatsara (Śaka-Samvat 1083 current), = A. D. 1160-61, as his fourteenth year, and the Svabhānu samvatsara (Ś.-S. 1086 current), = A. D. 1163-64, as his seventeenth year, and mentions him as ruling, on the first occasion, at Gôve, i.e. Goa, over the Palasige twelve-thousand, the Konkaṇa nine-hundred, and the Vêlugrāme seventy; the first part of the Halsi inscription,⁴ which cites the Virōdhin samvatsara, Kaliyuga-Samvat 4270 expired, = A.D. 1169-70, as his twenty-third year; and the Dêgāmve inscription,⁵ which cites the same samvatsara, Kaliyuga-Samvat 4275 expired, = A. D. 1174-75, as his twenty-eighth year. The family records themselves do not furnish any further historical details about the two brothers. But some information is forthcoming from other sources. A Silāhāra record tells us that Vijayāditya of Karāḍ, about A. D. 1143 and 1153, re-instated the princes of the Sthānaka maṇḍala or Thāṇa province, i. e. his connections of the northern Konkaṇ branch, which must have been done by taking away some of the territory and power held by Jayakēśin II. or Permāḍi; and also, more obscurely, that he re-established the princes of Gôyā, referring perhaps to some assistance against his own connections, subsequently rendered to the two brothers. And, in a record of A. D. 1181,⁶ the Daṇḍanāyaka Chaṇḍugidēva, an officer of the Kalachurya king Āhavamalla, is mentioned as having burned some of the territory of a Vijayāditya, who can only be the Kādamba Vijayāditya II. A gold coin of Permāḍi has been obtained, dated in the Subhakrit samvatsara (Ś.-S. 1105 current), = A. D. 1182-83.⁷
c9.2
¹ Possibly the modern Sampgaon; but I do not put the identification forward with certainty.
c9.3
² Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. IX. p. 278. For an examination of the date, see Ind. Ant. Vol. XVII. p. 265.
c9.4
³ ibid. p. 296.
c9.5
⁴ ibid. p. 278. For an examination of the date, see Ind. Ant. Vol. XVII. p. 264.
c9.6
⁵ ibid. pp. 266, 287. For an examination of the date, see Ind. Ant. Vol. XVII. p. 266.
c9.7
⁶ See page 489 above.
c9.8
⁷ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. Appendix, p. xxiv.
c9.9
Jayakēśin III.
c9.10
Of the time of the Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara⁸ Jayakēśin III., who also was styled Malavaru-mārin, we have two records,—a copper-plate grant at Halsi in the Khānāpur tāluka,⁹ and a stone inscription at Kittûr in the Sampgaon tâluka; the former gives a date in the month Chaitra, falling in March, A. D. 1199, of the Siddhârthin samvatsara (Saka-Samvat 1122 current), cited as his thirteenth year; the latter gives three dates in the month Âshâdha, falling in June, A.D. 1201, of the Durmati samvatsara (Saka-Samvat 1124 current), cited as his fifteenth year; and the two records shew that his first year was the Plavanga samvatsara, Kaliyuga-Samvat 4288 expired or 4289 current, = S.-S. 1110 current, = A.D. 1187-88.² Neither do these records, nor any others, furnish any historical information about him. But the Kittûr inscription contains an interesting account of a trial by ordeal. There being a dispute between Sivaśakti, the Âchârya or priest of the god Kallêśvaradêva of Kittûr, and Kalyâṇaśakti, the Mûlasthânadêva or "original god of the locality," regarding the ownership of a field, the two contending parties met before the Mahâpradhâna and Dandandyaka Íśvara, and agreed to put the matter to the test of the phuladivya or "ordeal by holding a red-hot arrow-head or spear-head." Accordingly, on Sunday the seventh day of the dark fortnight of the month Âshâdha, corresponding to the 24th June, A. D. 1201, they met again in the presence of the principal villagers of Dêgâmve, assembled at the temple of the god Mallikârjuna of that village. And then Kalyâṇaśakti, taking the sacred symbols on his head, declared that the field belonged to the Mûlasthânadêva; while Sivaśakti, holding a red-hot arrow-head or spear-head in his hand, made oath that the field belonged to the god Kallêśvara. On the following day, the principal villagers examined the hand of Sivaśakti, and, presumably finding it uninjured, decided that he had won his cause, and that the field in dispute belonged to the god Kallêśvara.³ It was probably during the time of Jayakêśin III. that the Kâdambas of Goa lost the Vêṇugrâma seventy, the country round Belgaum, which, as we have already seen,⁴ was in the possession of Kârtavîrya IV. of the family of the Rattas of Saundatti, in A.D. 1199. It is to the time of Jayakêśin III. that we must refer the gold coin dated in the Pingala samvatsara, which is, then, Saka-Samvat 1120 current, = A. D. 1199-1200; and that one also which is dated in the Pramôda samvatsara, and which therefore furnishes for him the date of S.-S. 1133 current, = A. D. 1210-11.⁵
c9.11
⁸ In line 3 of the Kittūr inscription (see below); mahāmāhēśvara must be a mistake of the original for mahāmaṇḍalēśvara.
c9.12
⁹ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. IX. p. 241.
c9.13
² For an examination of these dates, shewing that the Kaliyuga year that is quoted, 4288 expired in one case, and 4289 current in the other, does not belong to the samvatsara mentioned along with it, but is his initial year, see *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XVII., pp. 297, 299.
c9.14
³ For another instance of trial by ordeal, see page 556 above, and note 5. In the article on trial by ordeal among the Hindûs, published in the *Asiatic Researches*, Vol. I., fifth edition, p. 389, the eighth method is described thus: "They make an iron ball, or the head of a lance, red-hot, and place it in the hands of the person accused; who, if it burn him not, is judged guiltless."
c9.15
⁴ See page 556 above.
c9.16
⁵ For these coins, see *Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Vol.* X. Appendix, p. xxiv.
c9.17
Of Tribhuvanamalla, whose proper name is not disclosed, we have no definite information, except that his wife was Mâṇikâdêvî.
c9.18
Of the time of the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Shashṭhadêva II., also called Śivachitta-Chaṭṭayadêva, we have two records.¹ One is a copper-plate
c9.19
¹ *Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc.*, Vol. IX. p. 304.
c9.20
charter from Goa,¹ which gives a date in the month Aśvina, falling in September, A.D. 1250, of the Sādhāraṇa saṃvatsara (Saka-Saṃvat 1173 current), cited as his fifth year; and fixes the Parābhava saṃvatsara, Kaliyuga-Saṃvat 4348 current, = S.-S. 1169 current, = A.D. 1246-47, as his first year.² The other is a stone inscription at Buradaśiṅgi in the Hubli tāluka, Dhārwār District;³ it styles him *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* and "lord of the western ocean;"⁴ it furnishes him a date in the month Vaiśākha (April-May), falling in A.D. 1257, of the Piṅgala saṃvatsara, S.-S. 1179 (expired); and it uses an expression which implies that, in spite of the feudatory title, he was then reigning as an independent king. The Goa charter records a grant, to the god Śiva under the name of Gōvēśvara, which was made by Shashṭhadēva II. in conjunction with a certain Kāmadēva or Kāvaṇa,—son of Lakshmidēva, and brother-in-law of Shashṭhadēva himself,—who, both in the body of the record and on the seal of the grant, is called "the establisher of Shashṭhadēva." It would seem, therefore, that it was only by some special effort that Shashṭhadēva II. succeeded at all to the authority held by his ancestors. And, as no later names have come to notice, the power of the Kādambas of Goa appears to have died out with him.
c9.21
¹ *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIV, p. 288.
c9.22
² For an examination of this date, shewing that the Kaliyuga year that is quoted, 4348 expired, by mistake for current, does not belong to the *saṃvatsara* mentioned with it, but is his initial year, see *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XVII, p. 300.
c9.23
³ I quote from an ink-impression.
c9.24
⁴ See, *q. g.*, page 441 above.
c9.25
The Sindas of Yelburga.
c9.26
The Sindas, who have been incidentally mentioned in connection with some of the Western Chālukya kings and the Hoysalas, were another family of feudatory nobles who played an important part in the history of the Kanarese districts.
c9.27
There appear to have been more branches than one of this family. And we have to deal first and chiefly with that branch, the members of which had the hereditary right of ruling certain districts which were known separately as the Kisukāḍ seventy, the Keḷavāḍi three-hundred, the Bāgadage or Bāgadige seventy, and the Nareyaṃgal twelve, and collectively as the Sindavāḍi nāḍ.⁵ Of these districts, the first was the country lying round Kisuvolal or Paṭṭada-Kisuvolal, which is the modern Paṭṭadakal in the Bādāmi tāluka, Bijāpur District.⁶ The second evidently took its appellation from the ancient name, differing but slightly from the modern name, of the present Keḷavāḍi, Keḷvaḍi, or Keḷōḍi, about ten miles to the north of Bādāmi. The third, which in other records is called the Bāge seventy and the Bāgeṇāḍ seventy, was the country lying round the modern Bāgalkōṭ, the chief town of the Bāgalkōṭ tāluka in the same district. And the fourth was a small group of villages,—included, the records
c9.28
⁵ The place ought to be shewn in the Indian Atlas, sheet No. 41 or 58, in lat. 15° 57', long. 75° 52' or thereabouts. The omission of it must be connected somehow or other with the fact that the name would lie on the extreme edge of either sheet.
c9.29
⁶ For this identification, see *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. II, p. 170.
c9.30
The Sindas of Yelburga.
c9.31
(Unnamed Ancestor.)
c9.32
Âchugi I. Nâka. Singa I. Dâsa. Dâma. Châvuṇḍa I. Châva.
c9.33
Bamma. Singa II. (A.D. 1076)
c9.34
Âchugi II.; married Mâdêvî. (A.D. 1122)
c9.35
Permâḍi I. (A.D. 1144) Châvuṇḍa II. (A.D. 1163)
c9.36
By Dêmaladêvî. By Siriyâdêvî.
c9.37
Âchugi III. Permâḍi II. (A.D. 1168) Bijjala. (A.D. 1169-70) Vikrama. (A.D. 1169-70 and 1179).
c9.38
say, in the Belvoḷa three-hundred,—of which the chief town was the modern Narêgal, in the Rôṇ tâluka, Dhârwâr District. The capital of the members of this branch of the family was Erambarage or Erambirage, which, as was suggested by Sir Walter Elliot,¹ is evidently the modern Yelburga in the Nizâm's Dominions, about twenty-five miles in a south-easterly direction from Paṭṭadakal.² And their records have been obtained at Aihoḷe and Paṭṭadakal in the Bijâpur District, and at Koḍikop, Narêgal, Rôṇ, and Sûḍi, in the Dhârwâr District.
c9.39
¹ Madras Jour. of Lit. and Science, Vol. VII. p. 207; and Jour. R. As. Soc., F. S., Vol. IV. p. 15.—The name was read, as ‘Yerabaragi,’ more correctly by Sir Walter Elliot than by myself. I read it as ‘Rambarage’ and ‘Rambirage’ (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XI. pp. 236, 245), under circumstances which would justify that reading. The real form, Erambarage,—or, as actually written in the particular record, Yerambarage,—is disclosed by an inscription at Aihoḷe (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 99).
c9.40
² Lat. 15° 36′, long. 76° 4′; Indian Atlas, sheet No. 58,—‘Yelboorga.’
c9.41
The genealogical list of this branch of the family is shewn in the table above. It commences very abruptly with seven brothers, the name of whose father is not stated. And the records give
c9.42
no hint of the mythological origin, or of the hereditary title and insignia, that are claimed elsewhere. It seems very likely, however, that these princes were closely connected,—possibly descended in the same line,—with the Pulikâla and Nâgâditya of an inscription at Bhairanmaṭṭi,—noticed on page 576 below,—which, like some other records, allots all the Sindas to the Nâgavamśa or race of the hooded serpents.
c9.43
Âchugi I., &c.
c9.44
Of Âchugi I., otherwise called Âcha,—of Nâka,—of Singa I., or Simha,—of Dâsa,—of Dâma, or Dâva,—of Châvuṇḍa I., whose name appears also in the forms of Chavuṇḍa and Chauṇḍa,—of Châva,—and of Bamma,—we have no information beyond the bare mention of their names.
c9.45
Singa II.
c9.46
At Niḍagundi in the Roṇ tâluka, Dhârwâr District, there is an inscription¹ which mentions a Mahâmaṇḍalésvara Singaṇa, who, in the month Bhâdrapada (Aug.-Sept.), falling in A.D. 1076, of the Anala or Nala saṃvatsara, Saka-Saṃvat 998 (expired), was ruling the Kisukâḍ seventy as a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Sômésvara II. This person must be Singa II. of the Sinda family.
c9.47
¹ I quote from an ink-impression.
c9.48
Âchugi II.
c9.49
The Mahâmaṇḍalésvara Âchugi II., whose name appears also in the forms of Âcha, Âchi, and Âchama, was a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Vikramâditya VI.; in consequence of which he was styled Tribhuvanamalladéva-késarin, or "the lion of Tribhuvanamalladéva." His wife was Mâdévî or Mahâdévî. Of his time we have one record,—at Koḍikop:² it speaks of him as ruling the Kisukâḍ seventy, and "several other towns" headed by Nareyaṃgal-Abbegere, the chief town of the Nareyaṃgal twelve which was included in the Belvola three-hundred; and it furnishes for him a date in the month Chaitra (March-April), falling in A.D. 1122, of the Subhakrit saṃvatsara (Saka-Saṃvat 1045 current), cited as the forty-fifth year of Vikramâditya VI. This record does not give any further information about him. But subsequent ones claim that he was a very hand-mill, for grinding the wheat which was an enemy named Jaggu, and that he plundered the country of a person named Hallakavadikeya-singa,³ that, at the command of the emperor Vikramâditya VI., he pursued and prevailed against the Hoysalas, took Gôve, *i.e.* Goa, put Lakṣhma to flight in war, caused the Pâṇḍyas to retreat, dispersed the Malapas or people of the Western Ghauts, and seized upon the Koṅkaṇ;⁴ and that he gave Gôve and Uppinakaṭṭe to the flames, and repulsed a certain Bhôja who invaded his territory.⁵ Some of the names thus mentioned have not yet been identified. But Bhôja must be Bhôja I., of the family of the Silâhâras of Karâḍ, whose date was shortly before A.D. 1110.⁶
c9.50
² *Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc.* Vol. XI. p. 247.
c9.51
³ *ibid.* p. 243.
c9.52
⁴ *ibid.* p. 244.
c9.53
⁵ *ibid.* p. 269.
c9.54
⁶ See page 547 above.
c9.55
We have four records belonging, or purporting to belong, to the time of Âchugi's eldest son, the *Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara* Permâḍi I., whose name appears also as Perma, Pemma, Paramardi, and Hemmaḍi,—three at Narêgal,¹ and one at Koḍikop;² but only the last furnishes a genuine and admissible date,—at the time of the winter solstice, in December, A. D. 1144, of the Raktâkshin *saṁvatsara* (Śaka-Saṁvat 1067 current); cited as the seventh year of the Western Châlukya king Perma-Jagadêkamalla II.³ This record expressly describes him as a feudatory of Jagadêkamalla II., and shews that he was consequently called Jagadêkamalla-Permâḍi; and it states that he was ruling the Kisukâḍ seventy, the Bâgaḍage seventy; the Keḷavâḍi three-hundred, and the Nareyaṁgal twelve. The records claim that he vanquished Kuḷaśêkharâṅka, besieged and decapitated Chaṭṭa, pursued a certain Jayakêśin, who must be the second of that name in the family of the Kâḍambas of Goa, and seized the royal power of the Hoysalas; and that he penetrated to the mountain passes of "the marauder Biṭṭiga," *i.e.* the Hoysala prince Vishṇuvardhana, besieged his city of Dôrasamudra, pursued him as far as the town of Bêḷâpura, which he took, and followed him, beyond that place, as far as the mountain pass of Vâhaḍi.⁴ His capital, Erambarage, is mentioned in the two records which include the impossible dates of A. D. 949-50 and 950-51.
c9.56
¹ *Jour. Bo. Br. As. Soc.* Vol. XI. pp. 224, 239; and *Carn.-Désa Inscr.* Vol. I. p. 440.
c9.57
² *ibid* p. 253.
c9.58
³ Of the two published Narêgal inscriptions, one purports to be dated, quite impossibly, in the Saumya *saṁvatsara*, *Śaka-Saṁvat* 872 (current), = A.D. 949-50, and the other, equally so, in the Sâdhâraṇa *saṁvatsara*, *Ś.-S.* 872 (expired), = A.D. 950-51. According to the transcription in the *Carn.-Désa Inscr.*, the third purports, more reasonably, to be dated in the Târaṇa *saṁvatsara*, *Ś.-S.* 1026 (expired), = A. D. 1104-1105: but this date is also inadmissible, because of the latter date for the father, Âchugi II.; and, that it is not the date really given in the original, is rendered probable by the fact that, in its representation of another of his records, the *Carn.-Désa Inscr.* (Vol. I, p. 633) connects the Saumya *saṁvatsara* with *Ś.-S.* 1052 (expired), instead of 872 (current).
c9.59
⁴ *Jour. Bo. Br. As. Soc.* Vol. XI, p. 244.
c9.60
Of the time of the *Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara* Châvuṇḍa or Châvuṇḍa II., we have one record,—a stone inscription at Paṭṭadakal,⁵ dated in the month Jyêshṭha (May-June), falling in A.D. 1163, of the Subhânu *saṁvatsara*, coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 1084 by mistake for 1085 (expired): it speaks of him as being, or rather as having been, a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Taila III.; and it says that he was then ruling the Kisukâḍ seventy, the Bâgaḍage seventy, the Keḷavâḍi three-hundred, and "several other districts," and that his senior wife, or chief queen Dêmaladêvî and his son Âchidêva,—entered in the table on page 573 above as Âchugi III.,—were governing, as regents, at Kisuvoḷal, or Pâṭṭada-Kisuvoḷal, *i.e.* Paṭṭadakal, which was the chief town of the Kisukâḍ district. The record mentions also another son by Dêmaladêvî, named Pemmâḍi,—entered in the table on page 573 above as Permâḍi II.
c9.61
⁵ *ibid.* p. 259.
c9.62
Bijjaḷa, and Vikrama.
c9.63
Other rècords, at Aihoḷe,¹ Rôṇ, ² and Sûḍi, ³ shew that, by another wife named Siriyâdêvî, daughter of the Kalachurya king Bijjaḷa, Châvuṇḍa II. had two other sons named Bijjaḷa and Vikrama or Vikkayya. The Aihoḷe inscription mentions the two brothers, without any title, as ruling the Kisukâḍ seventy, the Bâgaḍage seventy, and the Kelavâḍi three-hundred, in the Virôdhin saṁvatsara (Saka-Saṁvat 1092 current), = A.D. 1169-70, cited as the ninety-fourth year of the era of the Western Châlukya king Vikramâditya VI. And the Rôṇ inscription gives for the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Vikrama a later date in the month Âśvina (Sept.-Oct.), falling in A. D. 1179, of the Vikârin saṁvatsara, S.-S. 1102 (current), when, it says, at his capital of Erambarage, he was ruling the Kisukâḍ seventy, as a feudatory of the Kalachurya king Saṅkama.
c9.64
¹ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XI. p. 274; re-edited, more correctly, in the Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 96.
c9.65
² and ³ See page 477 above, notes 2, 3.
c9.66
Other names.
c9.67
Pulikâḷa, and Nâgâditya.
c9.68
The above is the last notice of the family whose genealogical list is shewn on page 573 above. But other names, not shewn in that list, are forthcoming.
c9.69
Some of them are disclosed by an interesting stone inscription at Bhairanmaṭṭi in the Bâgaḷkôt tâluka, Bijâpur District,⁴ which professes to give the origin of the Sinda family. The record refers first to the reign of the Western Châlukya king Taila II., and to the Vikṛita saṁvatsara, coupled with Saka-Saṁvat 911 by mistake for 912 (expired), = A.D. 990-91, when it says, there was a Sinda prince named Pulikâḷa, belonging to the family of the serpents, and born in the race of the Nâgas, who had the nâga-dhvaja or hooded-serpent banner, the vyâghra-lâñchhana or tiger crest, and the hereditary title of Bhôgâvatîpura-paramêśvara or “supreme lord of the town Bhôgâvatî,” which place, in Hindû mythology, was the capital of the Nâga king Vâsuki in Rasâtala, one of the seven divisions of Pâtâla or the subterranean regions. It then proceeds to give Pulikâḷa’s genealogy. It states that, from a desire to behold the earth, so belauded by the sons of men, there came from the lower regions the serpent king Dharaṇêndra; and to him there was born, at Ahichchhatra in the region of the river Sindhu (the Indus),⁵ a son, “the long-armed Sinda.” Being much perplexed at the birth of a son in human shape, Dharaṇêndra bade a tiger nourish the boy. The child was transferred by the tiger to the care of the lord of snakes. And so he was brought up, and eventually became king of the Sinda country, and married the daughter of a lord of the Kadambas, by whom he had three sons, from whom there sprang the Sindavaṁśa or race of the Sindas. The record then seems to state that thirty-one princes in succession ruled the Bâgaḍage district, and that then there was born another prince named Sinda. Then, it says, in this lineage of the Sindas of Bâgaḍage, which came without a break from “the long-armed Sinda,” there was a certain Kammara or Kammayyarasa. His wife was Sagarabbarasi. And to them was born the Pulikâḷa mentioned above. Carrying the genealogy a little further, it then tells us that to Pulikâla and Rêvakabbe there was born the *Mahâsâmanta* Nâgâditya,—an ornament of the family of the serpents, “lord of Bhôgâvatî, the best of towns,” lord of the banner of the hooded serpents Ananta and Vâsuki and Takshaka, a very Kâmadêva with his tiger-crest, an ornament of the Sinda family. Further, to this Nâgâditya and to his wife Polevabbarasi, there was born Polasinda. And the son of the last-mentioned was the *Mahâmandalêśvara* Sêvya or Sêvyarasa, a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Sômêśvara II.,—the supreme lord of Bhôgâvatî, the best of towns, the lord of the banner of the hooded serpents, an ornament of the Sinda race. And finally, reverting to Nâgâditya, whom it indicates as a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Jayasimha II., it furnishes for him the date of the *Śrimukha samvatsara*, *Śaka-Samvat* 955 (expired), = A.D. 1033-34. As already stated, Pulikâla and Nâgâditya, who are distinctly described as belonging to the family of the Sindas of Bâgadage, may very possibly have been ancestors of the Yelburga branch of the family.
c9.70
⁴ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. III. p. 230.
c9.71
⁵ See page 560 above, note 11.
c9.72
Again, the Tidgundi copper-plate charter¹ mentions, as a feudatory of the Western Châlukya king Vikramâditya VI., with a date in the month Kârttika (Oct.-Nov.), falling in A.D. 1082, of the Dundubhi *samvatsara* (*Śaka-Samvat* 1005 current), a *Mahâmandalêśvara* Muñja,—son of Sindarâja, son of Bhîma, of the Sinda race,—with the title of “supreme lord of the town Bhôgâvatî,” and described as born in the race of the king of hooded serpents and belonging to the Sinda family. Coupled with the date, the pedigree of Muñja, as far as it is given, seems to negative the possibility of any connection with the Yelburga branch of the family.
c9.73
¹ *Epigraphia Indica*, Vol. III, p. 306.
c9.74
And finally, an inscription at Harihar² mentions, as an official of the Pândya *Mahâmandalêśvara* Vijaya-Pândya of the Nolambavâdi province, a person of Sinda descent named Íśvara, for whom other records,³ describing him as a *Mahâmandalêśvara* ruling, at Halavûr or Hallavûr, over several small districts in the Banavâsi and Sântalige provinces, as a feudatory of the Kalachurya kings Bijjala and Sôvidêva, give dates in December, A. D. 1165, and May-June, A.D. 1172. This person had the hereditary title of *Karahâta-puravar-Adhîśvara* or “supreme lord of Karahâta, the best of towns,”—carried the *nîladhvaja* or blue-banner,—used the *vyâghra-mriga-lânchhana* or crest of a tiger and a deer,—and was heralded in public by the sounds of the musical instrument called *mallali*. And he derived his origin from a certain “long-armed Sinda,”—born from the union of *Śiva* with the river Sindhu, and brought up by the king of serpents on tiger’s milk,—who, being told that Karahâta, *i.e.* Karâd in the Sâtârâ District, was to be his residence, went there, drove out the king, acquired the earth for himself by the strength of his own arm, and so came to rule
c9.75
² P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs. No. 119; *Mysore Inscriptions*, p. 60.
c9.76
³ At the temple of Kallêśvara at Nidanêgili in the Hangal tâluka, Dharwâr District (*Carn.-Désa Inscrs.* Vol. II, p. 97); and in the field of Bâdagauda at Hirê-Kabbâr in the Rânebennûr tâluka of the same district (*ibid.* p. 159).
c9.77
over many districts in the Karahâṭa four-thousand. His historical genealogy goes back, by some five or six generations, to a person named Piriya-Chaṭṭarasa, whose period would fall about A.D. 1000-1025. Here, the dates, the connection with Karâḍ, and other details, indicate a distinctly different branch of the family from that of the Yelburga branch.
c9.78
The Guttas of Guttal.
c9.79
The Guttas of Guttal first come to notice historically in the twelfth century A. D. But their traditions would give them a very much greater antiquity. Their records, obtained at Haraḷahaḷḷi and Guttal in the Karajgi tâluka, and Chauḍadâmpur or Chawaḍânpur and Hûḷihaḷḷi in the Râṇebennûr tâluka, of the Dhârwâr District, have not yet been fully explored. As far, however, as they have been examined, they furnish the following details.
c9.80
The family is usually called the Gutta anvaya, kula, or vamśa. The members of it are described as "full-moons of the ocean of nectar which is the lineage of Chandragupta, the great supreme king of kings."¹ Their descent is deduced through a Vikramâditya, who is specified as king of Ujjayanî, i. e. Ujjain, in Mâlwa, and whom one record appears to represent plainly as himself a descendant of Chandragupta.² And the family is also stated to be a branch of the Sômavamśa or Lunar Race.³ The members of the family had the hereditary title, intended to commemorate their place of origin, of Ujjêni- or Ujjayanî-puravar-âdhîśvara, or "supreme lord of Ujjayanî, the best of towns;"⁴ for which, however, in one passage there is substituted Pâṭalî-puravar-âdhîśvara, or "supreme lord of Pâṭalîpura, the best of towns."⁵ They had the mṛigardju-lâñchhana or crest of a lion,⁶ and the vaṭavṛiksha-dhvaja or Garuḍa-dhvaja or banners of a sacred fig-tree and of Garuḍa.⁷ Their family-god was Śiva, under the name of Mahâkâla of Ujjayanî.⁸ Their chief town was a place named Guttavoḷal, meaning "the town of Gutta or of the Guttas," which may be safely identified with the modern Guttal in the Karajgi tâlukâ.⁹ And probably they ruled by hereditary right over only the immediately surrounding territory, which was known as the Guttolal, i.e. Guttavoḷal, naḍ or district.¹⁰ In A. D. 1188, 1191, and 1213, indeed, Vîra-Vikramâditya II. was ruling the Banavâsi twelve-thousand province, which, in one of the records, is called his nij-aiśvarya or "own proper lordship:" but he alone appears to have held this more extensive authority; and it seems unlikely that the family
c9.81
¹ e. g., P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 108, line 14, combined with No. 109, line 48.
c9.82
² id. No. 109, lines 24, 25.
c9.83
³ id. No. 108, lines 11, 12.
c9.84
⁴ e.g., id. No. 109, line 47; No. 234, line 13.
c9.85
⁵ id. No. 108, line 11.
c9.86
⁶ id. No. 108, line 12.
c9.87
⁷ ibid, line 11.
c9.88
⁸ ibid, line 10; No. 230, line 24.
c9.89
⁹ Lat. 14° 50', long. 75° 41'; Indian Atlas, sheet No. 42,—' Gootul.'
c9.90
¹⁰ P. S. and O.-C. Incrs. No. 111, line 74.
c9.91
The Guttas of Guttal.
c9.92
Mâgutta, or Mahâgutta. | Gutta I. | Malla, or Mallidêva. (About A.D. 1115) | Vîra-Vikramâditya I. | Jôma, Jomma, or Jôyidêva I. (A.D. 1181) | Gutta II.; married Padmaladêvî. | Âhavâditya-Vîra-Vikramâditya II.; married Paṭṭamâdêvî. (A.D. 1182 and 1213) | Ṭuḷuvaladêvî; married to Ballâḷa, son of Simha of the Sântaḷi maṇḍala. | Jôvidêva, or Jôyidêva II. (A.D. 1238) | Vikramâditya III.; married Maiḷaladêvî. | Gutta III. (A.D. 1262 and 1265) | Hiriyadêva. | Jôyidêva III.
c9.93
had any real hereditary right to that territory. The pedigree of the family stands as shewn in the table above.
c9.94
The traditions embodied in the Gutta records involve some confusion. The mention of Pâṭalîputra shews distinctly that the Guttas supposed themselves to be descended ultimately from the great Maurya king Chandragupta of Pâṭaliputra, the grandfather of Aśôka. And the king Vikramâditya of Ujjayanî in Mâlwa, from whom also they claimed descent, is plainly the mythical king who is supposed to have established the Vikrama era, commencing B. C. 58 :¹ one passage says that at Ujjain he mastered the aṣṭa-mahâ-siddhi or eight great supernatural faculties ;² another, that he ruled over the Bêtâlas or
c9.95
¹ For the explosion of this belief, and for the probably true origin of the name of the era, see Prof. Kielhorn in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. p. 404 ff.
c9.96
² P. S. and O.-C. Insrs. No. 109, line 21.
c9.97
demons;¹ and a third, that he was the *yuga-purusha* or representative man of the present age.² But no mention is made anywhere of the Maurya lineage. On the other hand, the word Gutta is a well-established corruption of Gupta. One of the records places "ten Guptas," after other kings who are not particularised, in the lineage of Vikramâditya of Ujjayanî.³ And, not only are the members of the family described as *Vikramâditya-vamś-ôdbhava*, "born in the race of Vikramâditya,"⁴ and *Chandragupta-vamś-ôdbhava*, "born in the race of Chandragupta,"⁵ but also Mallidêva is styled *Gupta-vamśa-Triṇêtra*, "a very Triṇêtra (Śiva) in the Gupta race," and *Gupta-vamśa-vârdhi-vardhana*, "increasing (like the moon) the ocean of the Gupta race."⁷ It is plain, in fact, that the Gutta princes of Guttal claimed descent in reality from the Early Gupta kings, of whose dominions, at any rate from the time of Kumâragupta I. onwards, Mâlwa did form a part, and not from the Mauryas. From their use of the names Chandragupta and Vikramâditya, they seem to have really had some definite knowledge of the Early Guptas.⁸ But they mixed it up with matters which were probably more familiar to them. They evidently identified the Early Gupta king Chandragupta I., or his grandson of the same name, with the far more well known Maurya king Chandragupta. And the introduction of Vikramâditya of Ujjain into their traditions is to be explained by the fact that "Vikramâditya" was a secondary name both of Chandragupta I. and of his grandson.
c9.98
¹ *P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs.* No. 230, lines 27, 28.
c9.99
² *ibid.* line 28.
c9.100
³ *ibid.* line 28.—Extending the table given in my *Gupta Inscriptions*, Introd. p. 17, by the information given in the Bhitarî seal (*Jour. Beng. As. Soc.* Vol. LVIII. Part I. p. 84, and *Ind. Ant.* Vol. XIX. p. 224), we have the names of ten Early Guptas in unbroken lineal succession. Eight of them were reigning kings. And, if we include also the detached names of Budhagupta and Bhânugupta, we have ten reigning kings of the Early Gupta stock.
c9.101
⁴ *id.* No. 108, line 15.
c9.102
⁵ *id.* No. 230, line 24.
c9.103
⁷ *id.* No. 183, line 87.
c9.104
⁸ For another reminiscence of the Early Guptas in the Kanarese country, see page 284 above, note 2.
c9.105
Malla or Mallidêva.
c9.106
The first of their records is an inscription at Chauḍadâmpur.⁹ It opens by referring itself to the reign of the Western Châlukya, king Vikramâditya VI. It then mentions his feudatory, the *Mahâsamantâdhipati*, *Mahâdaṇḍanâyaka*, and *Mahâpradhâna* Gôvindarasa, who was governing the Banavâsi twelve-thousand. Then, introducing the Guttas, it tells us that, in the lineage of the Gutta kings or of king Gutta, there became famous a certain Mâgutta,—which name probably stands by metrical necessity for Mahâgutta. His son was Gutta I. And Gutta's son was Malla or Mallidêva. Then follows a description of a sacred Śaiva site called Muktitîrtha, on the Tuṅgabhadrâ, and an account of some princes of the Jaṭâ-Chôḷa lineage.
c9.107
⁶ *ibid.* line 29.
c9.108
⁹ At the temple of Muktêśvara (*Carn.-Dêśa Inscrs.* Vol. I. p. 649; *P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs.* No. 108).
c9.109
And, after this, the available part of the record comes abruptly to an end, in the middle of a sentence, in line 63.¹ The portion that is extant does not specify the locality of Mallidêva’s government: but it seems to imply that he was subordinate to Gôvindarasa, and consequently that he was administering only the Guttavolal district; and the imperfect sentence at the end perhaps gives him the title of Mahâsâmanta. It does not contain the date; but the dates that we have for Gôvindarasa from other sources,² fix it about A.D. 1115.
c9.110
¹ It is not clear whether the rest of the stone is broken away and lost, or whether it is inaccessible through being covered up by masonry. The transcription in the Carn.-Désa Inscr. ends with line 46, and says, wrongly, that the remainder is broken away from there.
c9.111
² See page 451 above.
c9.112
The next name that we meet with, is that of the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Sampakarasa. It occurs in an inscription at Balagâṃve in Mysore,³ and in that part of it which refers itself to the reign of the Kalachurya king Saṅkama, and gives a date in the month Chaitra (March-April), falling in A. D. 1179, of the Vikârin saṃvatsara (Saka-Saṃvat 1102 current), cited as his third year. The record mentions Sampakarasa as one of the witnesses in whose presence a grant was made to the gods Kêśava (Vishṇu) and Sômanâtha (Śiva). It does not state his pedigree. But it describes him as Gupta-vaṃśa-vardhi-vardhana, or “increasing the ocean of the Gupta race.” And there can be little doubt, if any, that he was one of the Guttas of Guttal, though he cannot at present be referred to his place in the genealogy.
c9.113
³ P. S. and O.-C. Inscr. No. 183; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 152.—The actual name, in line 87, is Sampakara, —not Sampakarasa, as given by Mr. Rice (loc. cit. p. 161).; but it is doubtless a mistake for Sampakarasa.
c9.114
An inscription at Haralahalli⁴ carries us a few steps further. It refers itself to the reign of the Kalachurya king Âhavamalla. And it then mentions his feudatory, the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Jôyidêva I. In introducing the pedigree of this person, it says that, in the famous lineage of king Vikramâditya of Ujjayanî, there were “many kings,” and, after them, “ten Guptas.”⁵ At some undefined point after them, it places a certain Mallidêva, who is styled Gupta-vaṃśa-Triṇêtra, “a very Triṇêtra (Śiva) in the Gupta race,” and Gupt-anvaya-bhûkânta, “a king belonging to the Gupta lineage,” and is evidently to be identified with the person of that name mentioned in the Chauda-dâmpur inscription of about A. D. 1115. Mallidêva’s son was Vîra-Vikramâditya I. The sons of the latter were Jôma or Jôyidêva I. and Gutta II.⁶ And Gutta’s son was Vikrama, who, further on in the same record, is mentioned again as the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Vîra-Vi-kramâditya II. With Jôyidêva I., there is connected the date of the winter solstice in December, A. D. 1181, of the Plava saṃvatsara,
c9.115
⁴ id. No. 230, where it is wrongly described as being at Halêbîd in Mysore. From ink-impressions brought to me, I find that, with Nos. 231 and 234, it is really at Haralahalli.
c9.116
⁵ See page 580 above, note 3.
c9.117
⁶ In this record, Gutta II. is distinctly called the younger brother of Jôyidêva I.; so also in P. S. and O.-C. Inscr. Nos. 231 and 109. No. 234 mentions Gutta II. before Jôyidêva I.,—as if he were the elder brother; but probably only to suit the construction of the verse.
c9.118
Saka-Saṁvat 1103 (expired). With Vîra-Vikramâditya II., there is connected a date in the month Phâlguna (Feb.-March), falling in A. D. 1188, of the Plavaṅga saṁvatsara, S.-S. 1110 (current); and the whole record was probably drawn up on this latter occasion. No information seems to be given in this record, as to the extent of the authority of either of the two Mahâmaṇḍaleśvaras.
c9.119
Vîra-Vikramâditya II.
c9.120
Of Vîra-Vikramâditya II., we have also four other records. One is an inscription at Hûlihalli.¹ It refers itself to the reign of the Kalachurya king Âhavamalla. His feudatory, it says, was the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Vikramâditya II. In respect of his descent, it only tells us that he was the son of Jôyidêva I., who was the son of Vikramâṅka, i. e. Vîra-Vikramâditya I. It speaks of the Banavâsi twelve-thousand province as his nij-aiśvarya or "own proper lordship"; but it does not say specifically that he was ruling it. And it is dated in the month Mârgaśira (Nov.-Dec.) falling in A. D. 1182, of the Subhakrit saṁvatsara, Saka-Saṁvat 1104 (expired). Another is an inscription at Haralahalli.³ This record says that, in the Mâlava country, there was king Vikramâditya. It then mentions Vîra-Vikramâditya I. His sons, it says, were Jôma and Gutta II. And to Gutta and Padmaladêvî there was born the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Vîra-Vikramâditya II., who was ruling the Banavâsi province at his capital of Guttavolal, with a certain Bâsirâja as his Mahâpradhâna. This record, again, is dated in the month Phâlguna (Feb.-March), falling in A. D. 1188, of the Plavaṅga saṁvatsara, S.-S. 1110 (current). It does not mention any paramount sovereign. But it has to be referred to the time of the Western Châlukya king Sômêśvara IV. Another is an inscription at Chauḍadâmpur.⁴ This record mentions first king Vikramâditya, who reigned at Ujjayanî in the Mâlava country. "After him," it says, "others were born in the race of Chandragupta;" and, eventually, Vîra-Vikramâditya I. His sons were Jomma, or Jôyidêva I., and Gutta II. Gutta's wife was Padmaladêvî. And to them was born the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Vîra-Vikrama, otherwise called Âhavâditya-Vîra-Vikramâditya II., who was ruling the Banavâsi province at his capital of Guttavolal. This record is dated in the month Mârgaśira (Nov.-Dec.), falling in A. D. 1191, of the Virôdhikrit saṁvatsara, S.-S. 1113 (expired). An addition to it, dated at the winter solstice in the same year, seems also to mention Vîra-Vikramâditya II.⁵ This record, again, does not mention any paramount sovereign. At this time, the Gutta prince may have acknowledged either the Dêvagiri-Yâdava king Bhillama or his son Jaitugi I., or the Hoyśala king Vîra-Ballâla II., as his master; or he may have been practically independent, pending.
c9.121
¹ At the temple of Râmêśvara (Carn.-Dêsa Insers. Vol. II. p. 252).
c9.122
³ There seems nothing primâ-facie suspicious about the transcription. But there must be a mistake somewhere.
c9.123
⁴ P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 231; where it is wrongly described as being at Halêbîḍ. At the temple of Îśvara on the bank of the Tuṅgabhadrâ (Carn.-Dêsa Insers. Vol. II. p. 697; P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 109).
c9.124
⁵ The transcription in the Carn.-Dêsa Insers. however, gives here the name of the Mahâmaṇḍaleśvara Vîra-Permâḍidêvarasa.
c9.125
the issue of the contest between the Yâdavas of Dêvagiri and the Hoysalas for the southern provinces. And the last is another inscription at Haralahalli.¹ This record mentions king Vikramâditya of Ujjênîpura, i. e. Ujjain. In his lineage, it says, after "several kings" whom it does not particularise, there was Vîra-Vikramâditya I., also called Vikrama and Vikramânka, "who became illustrious in being called the lord of the Banavâsi province." To him were born Gutta II. and Jôyidêva I.² Gutta's wife was Padmaladêvî. To them was born the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Âhavâditya-Vîra-Vikramâditya II., who was ruling the Banavâsi twelve-thousand at his capital of Guttavolal. And to him and to Pâttamâdêyî there were born a daughter Tuluvaladêvî or Tulvaladêvî, who was married to Ballâla, son of a prince named Simha, Singa, or Singidêva, of the Sûryavaṁśa or Solar Race, lord of the Sântali maṇḍala,³ and two sons, Jôyidêva (Jôyidêva II.) and Vikrama (Vikramâditya III.). The record is dated in the month Chaitra (March-April), falling in A. D. 1213, of the Śrîmukha saṁvatsara, S.-S. 1136 (current). And it registers the building of a temple of Śiva, and the making of grants to it, by Vîra-Vikramâditya II. This record, again, does not mention any paramount sovereign; and, as before, the Gutta prince may have been practically independent, pending the issue of the contest between the Dêvagiri-Yâdava king Singhana and the Hoysalas.
c9.126
¹ P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs. No. 234; where it is wrongly described as being at Halebid.
c9.127
² See page 581 above, note 6.
c9.128
³ See page 506 above, note 2.
c9.129
The Haralahalli copper-plate grant of the Dêvagiri-Yâdava king Singhana,⁴ mentions, evidently as a feudatory of his, a Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Jôyidêva,— described as "supreme lord of Ujjayanî, the best of towns, born in the lineage of Chandragupta, and a forehead-ornament of the Gutta family,"— who is plainly to be identified with Jôyidêva II., son of Vîra-Vikramâditya II.; and it furnishes for him a date in the month Phâlguna (Feb.-March), falling in A. D. 1238, of the Hêmalambin saṁvatsara, Śaka-Saṁvat 1160 (current), when, with his permission, a grant was made by the Daṇḍanâyaka Chikkadêva.
c9.130
⁴ Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XV. p. 383.
c9.131
And finally, three other inscriptions at Chauḍadâmpur carry the pedigree a generation further. Two of them⁵ mention first the Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara Âhavâditya-Vîra-Vikramâditya II., or, as one of them calls him, Vîra-Vikrama. His son was Vikrama or Vikramânka. This person married Mailaladêvî. And their son was Gutta III.,⁶ who was ruling at his capital of Guttavolal. These two records connect with Gutta III. a date in the month Vaiśâkha (April-May), falling in A. D. 1262, of the Dundubhi saṁvatsara, which in one of them is coupled with Śaka-Saṁvat 1185 (current) and in the other is cited as the third year of the reign of the Dêvagiri-Yâdava king Mahâdêva.
c9.132
⁵ At the temple of Muktêśvara (Carn.-Dêśa Inscrs. Vol. II. pp. 480, 485; P. S. and O.-C. Inscrs. Nos. 110, 111).
c9.133
⁶ No title is here connected with his name.
c9.134
The third of them,¹ without any introductory pedigree, mentions three brothers, sons of Mailaladêvî,—viz., the *Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara* Gutta III., "lord of Ujjayanî, the best of towns, and born in the lineage of Chandragupta," and Hiriyadêva, and Jôyidêya III. And it furnishes for them a date in the month Pausha, falling probably in January, A. D. 1265, of the Raktâkshin *saṃvatsara*, Ś.-S. 1186 (expired). The three records all refer themselves to the reign of the Yâdava king Mahâdêva of Dêvagiri, thus indicating that the *Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara* Gutta III. was feudatory to him. But they do not define the extent of the rule of the Gutta prince.
c9.135
¹ Also at the temple of Muktêśvara (*Carn.-Désa Inscrs.* Vol. II. p. 494; and an ink-impression).