The Colas c23.159

c23.159

hand, if we identify Manmasiddha with Nallasiddha, the other statement in the Tammusiddhi records, that Manma was dead in a.d. 1205 must be declared to be wrong. And it must be acknowledged that the Kāvali inscription (KV. 39) mentions only Nallasiddha (Veṅkayya would read Manmasiddha here, and if this is correct, it directly contradicts the Tammusiddhi records) and Tammusiddha, and states that though the former was the anointed sovereign, still Tammusiddhi carried on the affairs of state by his grace, and thus supports Sewell's suggestion. But if Bēta was Nallasiddha, and was anointed after Manma's demise, who was the author of the Nallasiddha inscriptions, of which there are several, dating from a.d. 1192, if not earlier, some of which doubtless precede the death of Manma, c. a.d. 1205? There seems to be no means of reconciling all the statements in the Tammusiddhi records with the data furnished by the Nallasiddha records. It must be noted also that *NI.* G. 86, dated a.d. 1214, mentions Bācaladēvi, the queen of Manmasiddha, in a manner that implies that Manma was still alive.