The Colas c19.136

c19.136

117. i.e. the van-guard (of the Cōḷa king) -Hultzsch.
118. *Mēgha-ḍambar*.
119. The text is *Puṣpakap-piḍiyum*.
120. 266 of 1901 (*SII*. iii no. 84)— ll. 8-9.
121. Another engagement fixed at this same place for a later day did not come off. See *post*. pp. 268 ff.
122. Contra S. K. Aiyangar-*Ancient India* p. 121.
123. Another view of these events is possible. Muḍakkāṟu may not be Kūḍal-Saṅgamam; Irugaiyan may have fought at Muḍakkāṟu, and this need have no connection with the mutilation of his wife in the Vēṅgī campaign of Vīrarājēndra, which preceded the first battle of Kūḍal-Saṅgamam. As Vīrarājēndra's record is dated in his second year (c. A.D. 1064) and E. Cāḷukya Rājarāja-narēndra died in 1063, it is just possible that Vikramāditya's entry into Vēṅgī (Cāmuṇḍarāya's expedition) was connected with some succession dispute after Rājarāja's death. On this scheme, we have to assume that the battle of Muḍakkāṟu—whatever river may be meant—took place c. A.D. 1060; and three years or so later came the first battle of Kūḍal-Saṅgamam recorded in the inscriptions of A.D. 1064. On the whole the view adopted in the text, based on the identification of Muḍakkāṟu with Kūdal-Saṅgamam, seems simpler, and there appears to be nothing that can be urged against such a position. It should also be observed, in this connection, that Vīrarājēndra's inscriptions of the second year say nothing about his helping Vijayāditya to gain or regain the Vēṅgī throne,—an event which is not mentioned as having taken place till after the second battle of Kūḍal-Saṅgamam and about the fifth year of Vīrarājēndra (c. A.D. 1067). So that if we drop the somewhat uncritical assumption that Vikramāditya and Vīrarājēndra concerned themselves about Vēṅgī only after Rājarāja-narēndra's death, the course of events becomes clear and perhaps more easy to follow.
124. *SII*. iii. p. 32.
125. *SII*. iii. no. 30, l. 26.
126. If Kāndai is Kurnool (*Eastern Cāḷukyas*, p. 260), it would point to the confluence of the Tungabhadrā with the Kṛṣṇā. Fleet suggested the confluence of the Pañca-gaṅgā and the Kṛṣṇā in the neighbourhood of Khidrāpūr (Koppam) as the Kūḍal-Saṅgamam of the Cōḷa inscriptions; and identified Karandai with Iñcal Karañji in the same place (*EI*. xii p. 298). But as he does not seem to have written the more detailed note promised by him on the subject, it is impossible to see how he would have met the objections to these identifications that arise from the narrative of the campaign as given in the Cōḷa records which do not once mention Raṭṭapāḍi as having been entered by the Cōḷa forces on this occasion. On the later occasion Raṭṭapāḍi is said to have been devastated; but the pillar is erected on the banks of the Tungabhadrā.
127. 144 of 1898.
128. *TAS*. i 164-8.
129. 102 of 1926 (Yr. 9).
130. *EI*. v. p. 77 v. 11; Cellūr v. 12.
131. 123 of 1900, *EI*. vii. pp. 145-6.