30

£LBA£1IB II'

saffifii w& m a. ins smbi

C tolas 9f Renanffus

The members of the Renandu Ghola family describe them*

selves In their inscriptions as the rulers of the Renangu-7000

territory. Renap$u is roughly the country between the two tri­

butaries of the river Penpar viz., the Chitravati in the north­

west and Cheyyagu in the south-west occupying a major area of the

Cuddapah, parts of Solar and north-north-western parts of Chittoor

1 - 2
districts* In an inscription from Bagepalle, Kigudore is

mentioned as the limit of Renandu. This is identified with the

3
Kundegu river, a tributary of North Pepnar. This forms a na­

tural boundary of Renandu in the north bordering Cuddapah dis­

trict. Rising from Kurnool district, the river Kundegu flows

through the Janmalamadugu and Proddatur taluks and joins the

river Penpar near Sggagu$lpa£u in the Kamalapuram taluk of

Cuddapah district.

The earliest member of this Telugu-Chola family who is

.4
known to have ruled over Renapgu is Dhanamjaya. His records

are not found in the Chittoor district. The only king of this
family whose record is found in this district is Punyakumira.

His inscription found at Chippili, Madanapalle taluk is engraved

in Kannapa language and characters of the first half of 7th

century A.D. ^ It records the death of a hero called Parasuraman

in a fight against Indiran, while Punyakomara was ruling

Chippu|l. Fupyakumara is known to us from five other records,

 37

three of them being on stone. Of these the Tlppalnru inscription

states in clear terms that Pupyakumara was ruling Renapdu from
6
his capital Chirpali (Chlrpallva-Datukanu-Renanfle^uchu). Chlr-
pali of the record Is undoubtedly the same as Chippuli referred
to above.

The Tlppaluru Inscription Is interesting from the point

of its palaeography, it being the only record engraved in the
Srantha script while the other inscriptions of Phnyakumara are

- •“ --s~ —:' “■ - —1'—-

Nandyala plates of Pupyakumara, we learn that Mahendravarma
(Mahendravlkramavarmma) was the father of Pupyakumara, Dhanamjaya
i

(Dhananjaya) being his grandfather. Dhananjay&'s father was

Nandivarman and Simhavishnu and Sundarananda were his elders.

Chittoor has not yielded any record of Renappu Chola fami­

ly other than that of Pupyakumara, although it is possible that
his predecessors also might have had their sway over this region.
It may be noted that the two copper-plates of Punyakumara have
’ 10
been palaeographieally assigned to the 8th century A.D., while
his stone inscriptions have to be placed only in the 7th cen-
11
tury. The fact that these stone inscriptions belong to 7th
century have led the scholars to surmise that Punyakumara bad
12
connections with the Pallavas, This surmise appears to gain
support from the titles of Punyakumara viz.. g|nvamanunru.
saEiffigaPlftisii) msiismgliimss, j&mqfchaKiffla*
 30
14
Marriavachltta. Madanavllaga etc. These remind one of similar
titles tome by Mahendravarraan I of the Pallava family in his
15 16
Tirnchirapa^i and Mahabaliparam inscriptions. As seen
above the stone inscriptions of Punyakumara have to be as­
signed to the 7th century that too to its first half. This
would make his grandfather a contemporary of Pallava Mahendra-
varman I, while his father would be the latter’s junior con­
temporary. They appear to have had some political connections
with the Pailavas. Although we do not have Pallava records in
18
the Chittoor region right upto the 9th century, yet the facts
that Punyakumara took titles Identical with those of the
* 19
Pallavas, that his grandfather Dhananjaya named his son
Mahendra probably after the Pallava king Mahendravarraan I and
that the Grantha script is used in Punyakumara* s Tippaluru
20
inscription do indicate that these were feudatories of the
Pallavas.

In view of these facts, as also the definite paiaeogra-

phical evidence, we may reasonably assign the period of rule of
these Renandu Ctolas upto Punyakumara from c. 6th century to
21
the middle of the 7th century A.D., Pfcrayakuraara’s reign period
22
being c. 625 A.D. - c. 655 A.D. , This would go against the
date suggested by Sri 1. Krishna Sastri and Sri H.K. Harasimha-
swami, who have fixed the dates on the basis of the palaeogra-
23
phy of the two copper-plates. An examination of those two
plates would stow that they were engraved in a transitional
period for, we find both the early and later forms of letters
24
like £h, X., 1, a, & and £ and & respectively used therein.
Although we cannot brush aside these plates as spurious, in view
 39
of the clear early characters of the stone records, It nay he
suggested that those copper-plate records were later copies of
earlier, original documents*

As stated above, in the Chittoor district we have the

record only of Pttpyakumara among the Renapflu Cho^as. He was
ruling the region with Chippuli or Chlrpali as his capital.
From his copper-plate records we learn that he was ruling over
25
Hirapyajra sh$ra [lanyi&ssIzaCia) mm l&ia^ai£ah$^aahLPa£i[ £*]
sva-rashtra-na(ni)?vaslno -Inapavitval. This Hiranyarashtra is
identified with the region of the present Jammalamadugu and the
Pioddaturu taluks of Cuddapah district* But it cannot he said
that Punyakumara ruled from two capitals viz.. Chippuli or Chir-
pali in Madanapalle taluk and Blripaju or Malep|$u on the
southern hank of Suprayoga in Hirapya-rashjra. The copper­
plates do not in any way indicate that Biripajni or Biraparu was
27
a capital* It figures therein only as a village that was
\

granted. Further we do not have evidence to indicate that

Hiranya-rashtra continued to he under the control of the Renappu
Cbolag after Pupyakumara. It is quite likely that Punyakumara^
sway over Hirapya-rashtra was of a temporary nature. W© do not
have more detailed Information as to how this area came under
his control even for a short period or bow and why It was lost*

The earliest ruler of parts of the Chittoor region known

to us happens to he this Punyakumara, The Renangu territory
continued to he ruled by the successors of Punyakumara. But in
the north-western parts of Chittoor district which was in the
ancient division of Renap$u we do not have any record either
 t

40

of bis predecessors or of his successors. It may however be

noted that only a very small tract of Chittoor district (parts

of Madanapalle and Vayalpad taluks) formed part of the Benan^u

territory and this may as well explain the absence of records

of [Link] of Punyakumara.

umiffiBNCBS AND NOTES

1 Bp. Ind.. Vol. XXVII, p. 2250

2 2£* Gam,. Vol, X, Bg. 62,

3 . SR. Mm Vol. XI, p. 337; Ibid., Vol. XXIV, p. 185;

Ibid.. Vol. XXVII, pp. 225, 249; £.I.g., Vol. XV,

pp. 33-34.

4 SR. Xod.y Vol. XXVII, p. 225 - inscription £, Text.

5 S.I.I.1 Tbl. IX, part I, No. 400.

6 Bp. Ind.T Vol. XXVII, p. 233, inscription £, Text lines

5-6.

7 Ibid.. Text and plate facing p. 229.

8 Ibid.. Vol. XI, pp. 337-45 and plates.

9 Ibid., Vol. XXVII, pp. 268-76 and plates.

10 Ibid., Vol. XI, p. 344; Ibid.. Vol. XXVII, p. 270.

11 Ibid., pp. 230-31; &£. p. 251, foot note No. 4.

12 Ibid.. p. 233 and p. 251.

13 |bld., p, 233, Text lines 2-4 and p. 233, foot note No. 5.

14 Ibid.. Vol. XI, p. 345, Text lines 12-13; Ibid..

Vol. XXVII, p. 275, Text lines 10-11.
 41

15 vol. m, Nos. 8 and 9.

16 la- Ind.. Vol. X, pp. 10-11.
17 Ibid., Vol. XXVII, p. 231, inscription 2, Text and
p. 233, inscription F, Text.
18 S.L.I., Vol. XII, No. 43. '
19 l£. IM-» Vol. XXVII, p. 233.
20 Ibid.. inscription £, Text and plate £ facing
p. 229, lines 1-11.
21 XM&., p. 248, ££. the genealogical table.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.t pp. 270-71 and the genealogical table, p. 271.
H.K. Narasimhaswami has fixed the 10th regnal year of
Punyaknmara, the date of his Donanara Nandyala plates,
at e. 750 A.D., on the study of palaeography of this
plate in comparison with the Kendur (Ind. As£., Vol. X,
plate facing p. 58) and Vakkaleri plates (Ibid.. Vbl. 7,
p. 202 and plates facing p. 202) and the initial year
at c. 740 A.D. cf. l£. Vol. XXVII, P. 271 and foot
i

cote Nos. 1 and 2.

24 Ibid.. Vol. XI, p. 345, Text and plate facing P. 344
and Ibid.T Vol. XXVII, p. 270 and plate facing p. 274.
.fJ

25 Ibid., p. 235, pp. 272-73 and P. 275, Tjjxt lines 12-13 —

"He was the lord of Hiranya-rashtra. (He, Punyakumara)
orders the inhabitants of his territory" — Ibid.t
p. 276.
 I 42

26 Ibid.T p. 236, p. 249 and P. 273. Bi(Vi)ripa£D of

the Ramisvaram pillar inscription has been identified
with Malepadu, as both of them are sitnated on the
south of the river Pepnar. The river Suprayoga
identified by M.S. Sarma runs through the territories
of Hiranya-rash^ra and Mup$a-rash£ra. But their
boundaries are not still clear.
27 Ibid., 7ol. XI, p. 345; Ibid.T Vol. XXVII, p. 249.

/ /
 43

The Vaidumbas*

The Vaidumbas who succeeded the Telugu Cho^as in this

region are known to us from their inscriptions in the Dharma-

puri district of Tamilnadu and the Cuddapah and Cbittoor

districts of Andhra Pradesh* These records assigned on palaeo-

graphical grounds to the period between the 8th and 11th cen­

turies A.D., are mostly in Telugu-Kannaga script and languages

excepting one in Tamil language and script. Unfortunately

almost all these records are engraved on hero-stones set up in

memory of the warriors who died in cattle-raids or battles and

contain meagre information on the history of the Vaidumbas.

Their original habitat seems to have been Vaidumbaviolu

(prolu » the P§tt§na) in the Chittoor district. It Is known

2
to have been the capital of the Vaidumbas. Rice suggested that

Tumba in North Arcot district was their original habitat. But

this is not borne out by any evidence. In fact the Vaidumbas

did not have any sway over the region of North Arcot district.

. 4
The early Vaidumba kings are stated to be ruling over
Renandu (Renadu)-TOOO country, which was formerly under the
5
rule of the Renandu Cho^as who after a more or less subordinate

rule in Renandu for about two centuries lost their control over

this area.

A number of records of the early rulers of this family

- . 6
state clearly that these Vaidumbas were ruling over Renandu.
 44

The earliest of their records, found in the Dharraapuri and

Cuddapah districts respectively mention the rule of Ganga §iva-
mara II and refers to Rama-maharaja (Ramaraja-arasan), the
Vaidumba probably as his subordinate. We have independent
records <if this Vaidumba in the Cuddapah district.

Based on an inscription in Tamil and Grantha characters

- . - 7
of Xulottunga I found at Malluru which describes the Yaidumbas
as belonging to [Link] (literally, royal family). N.
8
Venkataramanayya opines that they were Kshatriyas. In this
connection, it may be pointed out that the other Vaidumba ins­
criptions are completely silent as to their vamsa or eotra. The
statement that they belonged to mabar!.1a-vamsa need not be con-
A

strued to mean that they were kshatriyas. There was no such

rigidity that the rulers were to be kshatriyas.
%
Instances of
persons,belonging to other varnas being rulers are not wanting.
The mere attribute of maharala. hence, need not lead to the
conclusion that they were kshatriyas.

It is possible however that these Vaidurabas belonged to

the lunar race. The Palsgiri (Cuddapah district) record of a
later date describes Kallgatrinetra Bhima-maharaja of a later
9
period as Somakula-tilaka. At Mudivegu in the Chlttoor dis­
trict, we have a record of Gan$atrinetra Vlramaharaju wherein
he is described' as belonging to Chandra The last two
missing letters may be kula or vamsa. If so, we can saycfefi-
nitely that these Vaidumbas belonged to the lunar race.
 45
The Vaidumbas were brave and warlike as can be gleaned
from their several inscriptions# They fought many a battle
against the Renangu Cbolas, No^ambas, Gangas etc. Most of their
records commence with the high flown eulogy -

# 11
3EllayaUkgteI-aaMllQglM-Y.3.a,ala-22]fea^aatbala
whereby they claim to have been embraced by the goddess of
victory obtained by the prowess of their arms!1

It is not possible, in the present state of our knowledge

i

to explain the dynastic name Vaidumba. There is no reference

i

to any epic or mythological tradition In the inscriptions of

this dynasty. N. Venkataramanayya believes that they were
!

earlier known as Andumbaras. His view is based on the supposed

identification of the Audumbara occurring in the inscription of
the Kalukagapura chiefs, dated §aka 1155 (= 1233 A.D.) with
the name Vaidumba. But the word Audumbara appears therein in
connection with the Kalukagapura chiefs and has nothing to do
' with the Yhidumbas with whom they had no connection of any
12
sort.
/ #

The earliest chief of the Vaidumba family whose records

are'found in Chittoor district is Kaligatrinetra Sri Sivamara.
However we have still earlier records of a predecessor of this
chief named Rama-maharaja. His record from Machiniyakana-
13
palli in the Hosur taluk of Dharmapuri district states that
 46

while Sivamara II of the Gangs family was ruling, Ramaraja-

arasan conducted a cattle-raid. This Ramaraja is described in
the record as belonging to Baidumba (Vaidumba) family. Prom this
it would appear that this RamarSja was^a subordinate of the
Ganga king. We know that §ivamira had arPunfortunate career
being in and out of prison since he refused ,to accept the over­
lordship of the Rash£raku$as. He was imprisoned by Rashjrakujpa
Dhruva and remained in confinement for a long time, whereafter
he was released by Govlnda III, a successor of Dhruva, Govinda
III had got himself involved in a civil war with his brother
Stambha, who with the help of a confederacy of kings opposed
Govinda. The purpose behind §ivamara,s release by Rish$rakuj?a
Govlnda was that he would thereby earn the good will of Sivamara
who would, out of gratitude, stand by him,, But it was not to
be so. Sivamara did not remain loyal and persisted in having an
independent attitude. There is a possibility that Sivamara stood
by Stambha on the other hand. It was natural on the part of
Govinda III, who after successfully putting down the revolt of
his brother pursued Sivamira, routed him and promptly put him
15
back into prison.

Prom the Machinayakanapalli record noticed above, we learn

that the Vaidumba Ramaraja-arasan was a subordinate of Sivamara.
The Dharmapuri district wherein the record is found then formed
a part of Gangavagi. It is possible that the Vaidumba chief
participated in the battles fought by his master. Prom the Indn-
16 17
kurupalle and Eguvaban^apalle records of this chief we learn
 47

that he was participating in battles. In the latter record we

18 " 19
find Rama-maharass bearing the title Gandatrinetra. Being
a loyal feudatory of the Ganga, in keeping with the practice
of the day, he named his son after his master as Kaligatrine[tra]
§ri Sivamara*

In Chittoor district, we have a solitary record of this

chief Kaligatriije[tra] |rl Sivamara. This inscription records
the death of S^upakalu, probably one of the sons of Vira mahl-
raju, who was the Senapatl of the Taidumba king and appears to
'have been administering Sogale-desa. In the published text of
this record from Pullagapjivaripalle, a hamlet of Peddatippa-
samudram in Madanapalle taluk, the second part of this ruler*s
*

name §ri Siva mara has been read as 1 fidffHmAula. SIbIpsM* in

21
line 3# However an examination of the estampage would indl-
22
cate that the reading ought to be Sri Chivamaru[le].an]. The
emended reading as suggested by us with regard to this inscrip­
tion finds confirmation in a record from Vandadi in Rayacboti
23
taltik which is, however, in Cuddapah district. Herein we
clearly have the name of Kaligatrinetra §ri Si(§i)va[ma]ra who
24
was evidently the son -of Rima-maharaja.

This Kaligatrinetra §ri Sivamira appears to have been

succeeded by Senapati Viramaharaju. The Vandadi record states
that Kaligatrinetra Si(§i)vamara died at Podan^uru in Renangu
in an encounter with Anivejti of Kannanur. The chief appears
to have killed his foe before he himself fell in the battle.
The memorial stone was set up by Senapati Viramaharalu in

\
 48
- - - 25
memory of the deceased king® This Senipatl Viramaharaju was
26
the successor of Sivamira. About a dozen records of this

chief are found in Chittoor district. The Vellgallu record of

this Viramaharaju says in clear terms that he was ruling over
27
Renangu-7000 l3lm) alSSksJ. Although the

other records of this chief do not refer to the Benandu region,

it mus,t be noted that they occur in Madanapalle taluk which

formed a part of the Renangu territory* Two records are situated

28
in the Punganur taluk, adjacent to th& Madanapalle taluk. In

most of these records the chief is said to have been ruling over
29 30
the earth ([Link]&sya..» Pfi&tei^jyaaa&gya.). since
s

these records are found in the Renandu territory and no records

of any other chief are found in the region we may surmise that
Vlramaharaju expanded his territory so as to comprise the whole

of Renan|.u. We can say that his kingdom extended as far as

Kumool in the north and Chittoor in the south. His records

.reveal the names of a number of his subordinates administering

different parts of his kingdom. The Tsadura record states that

. - 32
the, village Tsadumbu was under the rule of Lonkuladitya.
33
Gandara Mutraju and E^ula Kalavilmeje appear to have been
34
placed by the Vaidumbas as the chiefs of the Mudivegu region.

Mangala-12 division seems to have been administered by a

35
certain Pu^tyakumara. R.S. Panehamukhi identifies this Pu$ya-
kumara with his namesake of the Renindu Cbola family noticed
36 „ ...
above. But that Pu^yakumara flourished in the 7th century

A.D. while the Punyakumara of the Boglnayanipalle record wherein

he is stated to have been administering Mangala-12, has to be

37
assigned to the 9th century A.D. Further Mangala-12 is a
 49

division, far too small over which Punyakumara of the Renan$u

38
Cho].a might have ruled* We know that those Telugu-Cho].as

ruled over Renangu-7000 division* Again Mangala-12 was a part

of the Baga territory (Pulinagu region) over which the Baijas has
\ " 3S
sway and these Barias wefe on inimical terms with Renlnflu ChS].as.

Kapalle, a part of the Vaidumba kingdom, was ruled by

Sate-arasa who himself claims to have belonged to the Vaidumba

family while Rbrigha$esure, son of Suraparasa also said to have

belonged to the Vaidumba-kula, was governing Muttukuru, pro-

40
bably in Chittoor district* An inscription from Kapalle,

Punganur taluk states that a oertain Konakki mobilised three

divisions of army (is&Jtg,) and attacked and destroyed Kapalle.

Several cattle were lifted. The chief of Muttukuru, however,

's \

pursued the enemy, defeated him and rescued the cattle. POri-

ghajesure appears to have lost his life in this battle. The

identity of Konakki is not clear nor do we know the reason and

other details pertaining to the intrusion of this enemy into

41
the Vaidumba territory.
i

Pulina^u is said to have been governed by Palle-arasa,

whose identity also is not clear. He is not endowed with any

titles. Most likely that he was a local chieftain serving under

the Vaidumba. It may be noted in this connection that a record

from Kalakaga, Vayalpad talhk refers to a priv=anu.1a (dear

younger brother) of Viramahiraju named Palla[da]yya (Pailavayya)*

This Pailavayya participated in an encounter against Indireya,

 50

brother of Rameya of 5gu, Mageya Kont^eya and Do$e Ma[dh3]yya,

who had lifted buffaloes at Tumbeva^i. The prince is stated

to have entered into the fray after learning about the death
42
of Aja^a. It may be incidentally noted that there is some

difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of

this record®

H.K. Narasimhaswami suggests that Indireya, the younger

brother (tammu) of Rameya of 5gu and a servant Cl].u) of Palla-

dayya, the dear younger brother (prlv=anu.1a) of the king died

. - 43
on hearing the death of Ajapa In a cattle raid at Tumbeva#!

during the reign of Gan£atrinetra Vaidumba-maharaja. H.K, Nara

simhaswami has assigned this record to about the close of the

44
ninth century. "According to P.B. Desai the object of the

record is to commemorate the heroism of only one person vlz.t

Aja].a, a servant of Pallada(va)yya, who fought on the side of

the Vaidumba chief and died. He takes the expression to

qualify AjaJ.a (not Indireya), who is stated to have encountered

(Puwavarldu) the three agressors to wit, Indireya, younger

brother of Rameya of 5gu, Mageya-Korigeya and Do$e-Madhiyya,

Otherwise he says, it is difficult to explain why Indireya

45
should die on hearing the death of Aja|.an. Our reading of th

text in line 4 is Pallavayya-nolu and not Pallavayyan=alu as

46 * '
read by H.K. Narasimhaswami. The word nolu like tolan means

with. It is an earlier form of nogu like to$an or todu.47

 51

The identification of Pallavayya with the chief Pallava-

Dhavala, who figures as a subordinate of Ganga Prlthvipati II,
administering PulinagUi, which must have been wrested from the
48
Binas, is rattier highly doubtful.

A record from Peddapalem (a hamlet of Ramanayanikojia)

states that while Manujatripetra Palavamaharaju described as
t

the younger brother of Vlramaharaju was ruling, a certain

49
gemma fought with Vanaraju and died. This Manukatrinetra
Palavamahariju is identified by us with Pallavayya. His title
Hanoiatrinetra is interesting. It may be pointed out in this
50 _ 51
connection that two records from Eguva Abbavaram and Devapatla
in Cuddapah district refer to a certain Pallava-mahariqa. In
the former we find the queen named Kundawa making the grant.
These two inscriptions can palaeographlcally be assigned to the
9th century A.D. Hence it is tempting to identify Pallava-
mahiriia of these records with Manujatripetra. The Tsadumu
(Chennarayanipalle) record states that Manulatrinetra §rl Bai(Vhl)-
. - - . - 52
dumbamaharlju was ruling over Renan^u-7000, The record registers
the death of a warrior, who at the Instance of the king, engaged
the enemy, Vaiiiriju, in a fightj^drove him out, killed another
unknown person and himself died*
i

The Peddapalem record noticed above refers to a fight

with Vaparaju whose identity is not clear. The name Vanarlju
would tempt one to, Identify him as a Bina chief.
54
The statement that Manu j a trine tra was ruling over Renandu
 52

mm
leads to the question as to what happened to Ganijatrinetra
Tlramaharajui We have seen above that Pallavayya, the younger

brother ([Link]) of ViramaharSju died in an encounter with

✓ i

Indireya in the skirmish at Tumbevadi even during the rule of

55
Viramhariju. It is clear from this that the younger brother

predeceased the elder. Naturally Manujatrigetra could not have

been ruling over Renandu independently or as Vlramaharaja*s

successor. It Is most likely therefore that this Manujatrinetra

was associated with his brother in administration and therefore

*
at least for sometime he was a joint ruler. It may be noted

that it is only In the Tsadumu record that he is said to be

ruling over Renlngu.
g/>
mm 0^5
An inscription from Mudivejlu, Madanapalle taluk refers

to a battle at Kumu].u in which Ganjlara Mutraju, son of Sajala

and grandson of Kallvadejama lost his life. This Gan^ara

Mutraju appears to have been a local chief serving under Vlra-

maharaju, We have already noticed that the Vaidumba king

57 _ 58
Anointed* Gan$ara-Mutraju and also §].u],akalavilmere as

chiefs of the Mudiveflu region. It 2s not possible to locate the

place Kumu^u or to identify the enemy with whom Ga$<jlara Mutraju

fought. This officer himself may probably be identified with

99
Mutraju of the Rangasamudram inscription.

60
The Mallela inscription states that while Blra(Vlra)

maharaja, apparently Identical with Gan^atrlpetra was ruling

i Pulveri-naflu and To^arikan was governing Mallayal(Mallela), a

person from Kottanuru died in a cattle-raid after destroying

Nekkundi,
 There are two places named Nekkungi, one in the Pungarmr
taluk and the other Is In the Chlntamanl taluk of Kolar dis-
61
trict. It looks reasonable to assume, from the point of view
of proximity that Nekkupfli mentioned in the record is Identical
with the one in Punganur taluk. But in this period that place
y

was a part of Pulinaciu and was under the hegemony of the Banas.
It is known that the Banas and the Vaidumbas were politically
connected and opposed the Gangas and the Bb|.&mbas. Naturally
- the relationship between these two families was cordial. We
cannot therefore told that a person from the Vaidumba territory
could have destroyed Nekkundi in Punganur taluk, which belonged
to the Ba^tas, their political allies. Hence Nekkup£l has to be
identified with the village of that name in Chintamani taluk.
An inscription found in this place records the death of Maharaja
Savuga, son of No].amba Gavunda in a fight, while Mahavali Barja-
62
rasa was ruling and Bamaya-arasa was governing Nekkundi. At
the time of the Mallala record Nekkurujli was probably in Ganga
hands and hence the raid of the Vaidumbas over that place.
63
Another battle fought at Tiruva^a is referred to in an
inscription from Xletlpalle in Madanapalle taluk, which can be
64
palaeographically assigned to the 9th century A.D, This ins-
- cription records the death of Bapabbangi, son of Virasattl, des­
cribed as the servant of Vaidumba-maharaja as responsible for the
growth of the power of one •Egegag1. The identity of Egegan is,
obscure. Virasattl is also said to be the right hand of the
65
maharaja and a worshipper of one - [Kimudeva], Prom this it
V |

would appear that virasattl enjoyed an important position in t

 54
Vaidumba' court. His son Ranabbangi as his very name suggests*

appears to have been a renowned warrior* who had distinguished

himself in several battles fought on behalf of his overlord the

Yaidumba king. The record contains a glorious eulogy of this

warrior. The epithets describing the valour of this hero are -

"BagaslllSlflfaats]a> Banahhiian, Saiisastesinssm* EamMiaPzaiipan,

[Link]. Trailokaparbhatan. Yaraharupan and Kalivuga Kandar-
66 -

Pan. The 7aidumba-maha ra 3 a under whom Ragabhangl served was

most probably Vlramharaju, for we know that the reign of Vlra-
67
raaharaju was the most eventful when several battles were fought.

It is however* difficult to identify the place Tiruva^a where

the battle took place and in which Ranabbangi lost his life.
68
The Identification of ttE$egagw with Ereyanma figuring In the

inscriptions from Ramanayaniko$a in Madanapalle taluk is not

certain. Likewise, 'Brogan* of the present inscription appears

69
to be different from the ruler of Pu^uvolpul 'Ejeyarnma*.

These records of Viramaharaju discussed above refer to

a number of skirmishes and cattle-raids and an analysis of these

would reveal that the growth in power of this T&idumba king re­

sulted in greater inimical relationship between him and the

neighbouring powers. The policy pursued by Viramaharaju was one

of expansion and consolidation. This naturally resulted in his

antagonising his neighbours the NO^ambas, the Gangas, the Reningu

* - -
.
Cbolas etc. 70 The political situation in the Ganga country was
* 71
far from satisfactory, slvamara II was succeeded by Rachamalla I,

son of Yijayaditya. tow and under what circumstances this king

overraided the claims of the legitimate heir jyithvipati I, son
of Sivamara II are not known. However Pj*Ithvipati having lost
the throne was forced to forge alliance with friendly powers.
He contracted a matrimonial alliance with the Banas by giving
73
his daughter Kundawa to Sana Vidyadhara. This carved out a
new ground in the Ganga-Bana relationships which hitherto had
74 _

been inimical. Bachamalla I was shrewd enough to realise

the danger arising out of this fresh alliance of his cousin
with the Banas. To counteract this he befriended the Nolambas
' _ _ **75
by giving his daughter Jayabbe in marriage to Bo^alchora.
Although the details are not clear this marked the beginning
of a bitter struggle between the two warring groups, who fhugbb
many indecisive battles. V
Pyithvlpati I held sway over some
parts of Gangavagi which enabled him to be reckoned as a politi­
cal force. We find him upholding the cause of Aparajita for
76
whose sake he laid down his life in the battle of Sripurambiyam.
From an inscription in the Bowringpet region we come to know that
. _ - Tt
the Banas held that part of the Gangavagi known as Gangarusasira.
They however appear to have entrusted this territory which
they had obviously wrested from the Gangas to their ally Ppithvi-
pati i. We learn that subsequently, Gangs Rachamalla I launched
an attack to recover the territory lost to the Banas.

In this free play of external powers in Gangs politics,

the Vaidumbas under Viramaharaju also appear to have had a share.
This chief seems to have allied himself with Pyithvipati I.
Naturally, the Vaidumbas now had friendly relations with the
Blnas. It is of interest to note toat the Vaidumbas and the
 56

Banas wbo were on inimical terms in the past now came together
78
to form a consnon front to uphold the cause of Pjdthvipati I.

Thus we see a strange display of power combinations in

Gangavagi obviously to secure some sort of a balance among the

various political powers in the South, Naturally, powers tiiat

were hitherto enemies, now allied themselves as friends* the

Bana aggression in the Ganga country and their occupation of

Ganga-6000, probably provoked the Nolamba the ally of Ganga

!

Rachamalla I, who launched an attack on the Vaidumba country.

This Nolamba aggression on the Vaidumba country seems to have

been referred to in a bilingual inscription from Veligsllu,

79
Madanapalle taluk*
\

The exact import of this bilingual record in Kannada and

Telugu languages la difficult to make out. It refers to the

rule of the Vaidumba king Gan^atrinetra over the Renap#u-7000

country and then states that in the battle fought at Mudumajluvu

against the Nb^ambas, a certain Maharaja Chantamanadadl, sub­

ordinate of the Vaidumba was killed, in retaliation for which,

those that were responsible for the killing of Chantamanadadl

appear to^have been attacked and killed by the army of

Eojadesinga, some of whose men themselves lost their lives#

This Eojadesinga appears to have been either an ally or a sub­

ordinate of Gandatrinetra Vaidumba and we find him in the record

making gifts to the bereaved families, obviously, in recognition

t

of their meritorious service. The record is difficult of inter­

pretation, From what we could make out, it appears that this

 57

Kogadeslnga was fighting by the side of the Vaiduraba. Since we

find him as the donor, it is perhaps logical to assume that he

1 ^ •
was a chief of some importance owing allegiance to the VaIdumba.

Mudumafluvu, the place of battle is identical with Mudi-

ve$u in Madanapalle taluk. This battle appears to have been

of some importance since it is found mentioned in ,other ins­

criptions also. A record from Hadanapalle, for example, records

the death of the Lonkula chief Srlranga in a battle at Madu-
80
maduvu. Another record from the same place also registers the
■ 81
death of a hero in the same battle. From these it would appear

that the ^ohkulas were the loyal feudatories of the Vaidumbas,

who continued their allegiance even in times of crisis like the

82
fierce battle of Mudumaguvu.

^ i 83
Similarly in the Baslnikori$a record it is stated that a
* , \
certain Vikrama Baraanamaluvakkadurtan was crushed to death by
84
the elephants in the Mudumafluvu battle. The Vanda$l record

refers to a fight between Cbamadanfla, probably a chief and

Breyansna, lord of [Link]. It is not clear from the record

on which side respectively these two opponents fought. One of

them, however, should have been on the Valdumba side. Otherwise

there was no occasion -for them to participate in the Mudumaduvu

battle. Incidentally all these records discussed above belong to

the same period and they refer to the same battle fought at

Muduma^uvu. It is not possible to Identify [Link] of the

?andi$i record. An inscription from Bamanayanlkoja records the
’ 85
death or a certain B^eyamma. Although It is tempting to identify
 5fl

him with his namesake of the 'V'andag.l record, since he Is not

i*
referred to as a chief nor^Pulluvolpul associated with him,
' the identification cannot he easily established. This Ramana-
yanltoota record refers to a battle fought at Kojuru which may
be identified with modern Ko$$uru. It is quite probable that
the battle fought here was one in the sequence of battles lead­
ing to Mudumaduvu or that it was another battle fought simul­
taneously.

The Mudumaduvu battle was quite serious indeed, but

indecisive. It did not stabilize the turbulent political
conditions caused by the struggle for succession in the Ganga
country. We could here review briefly the political condition
in the region.

Rachamalla I does not appear to have succeeded in driving

out the Bapas who hand occupied a part of Gangavadi, core so
because he was himself fighting with Bankesa and his forces
sent by Rashjrakuja Amoghavarsha I. His ally, the No^amba
king Bo],alchora pursued the policy of the Ganga and attacked
Pulinad« with an intention to divert the attention of the Banas
from Gangavadi to their own region Pulinadu. A number of Bana
inscriptions found in Punganur taluk bear testimony to several
clashes that took place between the invading Rolamba forces and
the defending Bapa army. The Banas probably were not only able
to bold Pulinadu, but also able to launch a counter attack on
Mapne in order to ease the Nolamba pressure on Pulinadu and to
gain new territories for their Ganga ally Pyithvipati I.
Rachamalla I also appears to have launched an attack against

the Bapas. This might have taken place probably after the de­

parture of Bankesa and the Rashjrakufa army to the north. The

exact date of Bankesa*s recall to the north is not clearly

known. It may bevsometime between 845-50 A.D. Rachamalla I

ruled upto 853 A.D. From this it would appear that it was only

during the last years of his life that the Gangs Rachamalla I

was able to completely regain the territory* He was succeeded

by Nltimarga Breganga I, who now pursued the policy of enmity
86
with the Banas. In this connection the Kalaka£$ur inscription

becomes an Interesting document. This record states that No^am-

badiyarasa was ruling Ganga-6000 and attacked Tanaka£u at the

instance of Permanagi. Ka£uvet£i and Mpiguva belonging to the

army of Maharaja burnt the village Bermavi under orders from

Maharija who instructed them to attack Pulina^u. Having heard

this, BirachulamanI came and fought obviously with the axmy of

the two chiefs, when several Hayakas were killed. Tejamanl, the

anka (the servant) of Nayamalla fell in the battle and a kalnadu

(gift of land in honour of the heroio service rendered) was given

to the deceased hero. From this record certain things become

apparent. First, the Nolamba king was ruling over Ganga-6000.

It is difficult to explain this unless it is assumed that a part

of his territory had been made over to this Ito^amba by the Ganga

in recognition of the help received in successfully resisting the

. 87
enemy* s armies. We find from another record also that the

Ho^amba king PD].alchora was ruling over the Ganga-6000 territory.

\

It is the same Mo^amba that is obviously referred to in the

 88
Kalaka££ur record also. The fact that the Nolamba attacked

Ta],aka£u would suggest that ‘that capital was or had been occupied

by.a person other than the Ganga and he must have been a Bapa.

Maharaja who instructed his army to attack Pulinagu appears to

be the same Nolamba,who now planned a two-pronged attack

i

against the Bina. The main intention was to drive out the Bina

from Ta^akagu which he had occupied# The attack on Pulinapu

was a part of this campaign. The Nolamba probably hoped to

divert the attention of the Bana who would loosen his grip over

[Link] in an effort to preserve his own territory. The Nolamba

as has been stated above was fighting this battle on behalf of

\

his ally, the Ganga. The Ganga king was Nltimarga X while the

Nolamba was Xblalchoga. It may be noted incidentally that this

Nolamba had married Jayabbe, daughter of Ganga Rachamalla I and

sister of Nltimarga I. This matrimonial relationship strengthened
. ’ . . 89
the friendship leading to Nolamba*s rule over Gang-a^usasira.

The Bapas, as anticipated, withdrew from Ta^akadu and concentrated

w 1 9
their forces in Pulinadu, A Ganga record speaks of that king -
, - - „*>
Konguniarasa's attack on Pulinadu and the destruction of Koyarjur.

The Konguniarasa referred to in the inscription may be the same

as Nltimarga Breganga X.

Bor a short period thereafter there appears to have been

some sort of a misunderstanding between the Bipas and the ?aldumbas.

The rise of Nolamba Mahendra I to power once again brought

these two closer since Mahendra I now started attacking both the

Bapas and the Valdumbas. Mahendra I upheld the cause of his

 master Rachamalla I;son of Nltimarga Ereganga, while the Barias

and the Vaidumbas upheld the cause of Pyithvlpati I who was still
s '

persisting in his efforts to gain theGanga throne for which

he was the rightful claimant.

the series of battles fought between these two powers

reached a climax in the f amous battle of Soremaiji. Several

smaller skirmishes had taken place just prior to the final

i

battle. One such is the battle fought at Mandavuda. It is

only from the Bana sources, we come to know the details of

- this. .
The Bangavafli -91 speaks of the Baga assisted by
record
Perumana^iga], ([Link]) fighting with the Kolambas, Rachamalla,

Mayindagi and Dagiga. Mandavuda, the site of the battle has

not been Identified. Although this record does not refer to the

Vaidumba, since the other Valdumba record speaks of the same

parties participating in other skirmishes as also in the other

battle of Sorema$i, it is a fair surmise that the Vaidumba also

must have taken part in this Mandavuda battle. The Perumanajliga].

who assisted the Bana can be identified with Prithvipati I, while

Rachamalla is the second of that name.

This leads us to the great battle fought at Sorema$l which

proved to be one Of the decisive events in settling the political

feuds among the various powers in the south caused by the

rivalry between the claimants to the Ganga throne.

o t

We find that at the end of the fight the political powers

that participated in it were, considerably weakened and relegated

 62

to the background In the political chess-board of the south,

excepting for one power - the No].amba.

As already stated above, the feud between the Vaidumbas,

the Binas and Pjitbvipati I on one hand and the Nolambas and
Baehamalla on the other intensified gradually and ultimately paved
the way for the open confrontation between them at Sorema|;i.
The Banas with a view to check the growing power of the No^ambas,
attacked the Kolamba fort at Sorema$i, assisted by the Vaidumba
Gangatrinetra Vlramaharaju. The part played by Pyithvipati I
in this battle is however not known. ✓
According to R.S. Panchamu-
khl, the Ganga king on whose behlaf the Bicias and the Vaidumbas
fought was Nanniya-Ganga, the son of Prithvipati I. According to
him this is evidenced in an inscription from Goribidanur w here
one Nanniya-Ganga, the son of Pyithvipati is mentioned. But it
Is difficult to accept the identification of Ppithvipati of this
record' with Prithvipati I, since we know only of Marasimha as
Pyithvipati* s son. One Marasimha is referred to in an inscription
from TakkOlam of Cho|.a Rajakesarlvarman dated 895 A.D., who has
been identified with Marasimha, the son of Pyithvlpati I.
/

Only from the Vaidumba and the Bapa inscription we know

of the occurrence of the battle and its various details. An
inscription from Basinikonga records the death of a hero named
ka],epunna[ni]manl, in the battle at 9orema$l, when Gangatrigitra

and Banarasa attacked that fort therein. The record also states
that Hb^ambi, Baehamalla, Mayindagi and Gunglgeganle were
92
camping
1
at Soremati.
•
 Also an inscription from Peddatippasamudram speaks of

the fight between Vaidumba Gandatrigetra and the NoJ-amba king

at Soremati in which one Zemmakala and Prabhuchelvungu of the

Vaidumba army distinguished themselves by their valour and in

93
which the latter lost his life. Two inscriptions from Mudi-

vedu in Madanapalle taluk mention the death of some heroes be­

longing to the Vaidumba side in the Soremati battle. While one

records the death of a chief naned Srlmeddi, who was ruling over
94
Kurjumafluvu, the other records the death of another ohief
• 95
named [Link];j;e, who is stated to have been crowned by

the Vaidumba king himself in,the very same battle.

In the Soremafi battle Vaidumba Gangatripetra-maharaju

is stated to have lost his son named Dhanumetl who appears to

96
have been ruling over Chalakallu which however cannot be

identified*

The battle at Soremati does not appear to have brought

victory to any of the contenders immediately for, neither the

■i a
Bana nor the Vaidumba inscriptions which are the only sources'

from which we hear about this battle have anything to say about

the final outcome of this battle. The Nolamba and the Ganga

inscriptions are completely silent about this battle. Though

none of the particpants could claim victory in this battle, It

no doubt brought a detente between the warring factions, as we

do not get any other reference to any major encounter between

them after the one at Soremati.

 04

Soremati, where the battle took place can be identified

with Cho^amari which is situated in Penugonda taluk, Anantapur
- 97
district. Being located in the northern-roost part of th9
Holamba kingdom and adjacent to the Vaidumba country, this was
a place of strategic importance, FOr the Vaidumbas to gain
entry into the Eb],amba kingdom, they had to first pass through
Soremati. That was why the Banas and the Vaidumbas chose to
attack the Sorema|;i fort. Can the Soremati be identified with
Suramaflapalle, a hamlet of Gurigrajapalle in Punganur taluk?
Since it is mentioned in the Vaidumba records that the Banas
and Vaidumbas attacked the Soremati fort and the village Sura-
matlapalle in Punganur taluk forms a part of the Bana territory,
the place of battle i.e,, Soremati must be outside the Bina
territory and hence it cannot be identified with Surama£lapalle.
\

There have been differences of opinion about thejaxact

date of the Soremati battle. S26 A.D. is the earliest date given
98
by H, Venkataramayya. His view is based on the statement of
-Mapne plates of baehamalla I dated §aka 750 (= 828 A.D.) wherein
this king ruling over Ganga-96000 claims to have destroyed all
his enemies. But in the light of the evidence available from
the Bana and Vaidumba records, it is not possible to accept the
claim of baehamalla I which appears to be more a boast. N.L. Hao
99
on the other hand states that 853 A.D., would be the upper limit
for this battle. He too identifies^ baehamalla of the record
referring to Soremafi battle with Baehamalla I and since the
earliest known date of Nltimarga-Bjeganga is 853 A.D., he
concludes that the battle must have been fought in or before this
 year. These two arguments are based on the identification of
Bachamalla with Bachamalla I. Sri Panchamukhi however, fixe!
100
i
the battle around 885 A.D. identifying Bachamalla with
Bachamalla II. A.B. Baji places the date of the battle in about
101
937-38 A.D. This is of course too late a date. The No^amba
participant in the battle was Nojamba Mahendra. As will be
seen in the section on the No^ambas, Mahendra*s accession could
not have taken place before 870 A.D., while his earliest record
is dated 878 A.D. The Srlpurambiyam battle, wherein Ganga
Pyithvlpati I, a participant in the Soremafi battle was killed,
102
was fought in 879. Bence the Sorema$l battle Itself must
have been fought before this date and after 870 A.D., the date
of accession of Bachamalla II since we know that it was this
Bachamalla that participated in the Sorema£l battle.

No^amba Mahendra I accepts the overlordship of Nltlmarga

in one of his records while in none of his records does he refer
to Bachamalla II as his overlord. Nitimlrga Breganga was his
103
uncle. Bence it would appear natural that as long as Niti­
marga lived Mahendra remained a subordinate. The death of
Nltlmarga made Mahendra slowly assume Independent status after
870 A.D. That is why his records do not mention Bachamalla.
Bachamalla II must have acquiesced in the existing political
circumstances. Therefore Mahendra figures more as an ally than
as a subordinate In the Sorema$l battle. Taking into consi­
deration these arguments, we may say that the battle must have
been fought after 872-73 A.D., assuming that in these two years
 Rachamalla was mad# to realise that Mahendra 1 has to be
treated as an ally than as a subordinate*

One of the probable results of this hotly contested

battle was the breakdown of the Ganga-Hb],amba alliance. The
exact reason for the parting of ways of the Nopmbas and the
i

Gangas is not known. Some scholars have adduced Mahendra1 s

desire to expand his territories and to carve out a bigger
kingdom for himself a s one of the probable causes for the
rupture of friendship between the NoXambas and the Gangas. This
appears to be the only tangible outcome of the battle. Here­
after we witness a rise in the power of Mahendra. In a reoord
from Iggali (Nanjangud taluk) it is stated that Nolamba Mahendra
. . 104 " 106
was ruling over Gangava$i-96000, The Iggali record
registers the death of a hero - Racheya-Ganga - in a battle fought
against 1he Folamba (No|amma) in the [Link] fort, where
upon the king Satyavakya Permana$i - and Bgeyappa made a gift
, of villages. The record is dated the 22nd year (of the corona-
tion of Ganga king Permanafli) corresponding to 892-93 A,D.,
in the reign of Rachamalla II. Since we find the Gangs king
honouring a hero who fought against the Nolamba it would be
'
clear s
that .
the Ganga *
and the Nolamba were now in the opposite
camps., The lolamba of the period was Mahendra, Further we
find Butuga, the brother of Rachamalla II claiming to have scored
106
a victory over Mahendra in the battle at Samiya.

One other noticeable result of the Soremafci battle is the

decline in power of the' Taidumbas. Gap^atinetra Viramaharaju,
>
#

i-itq
 G7

thereafter, appears to have lost all prominence. Surprisingly

107 - .
although we know of four sdns - of this Vaidumba, none of them
* \ “

succeeded the father. Of these four sons, Dhanumeji predeceased

his father, having lost his life in the Soremati battle -itself
108
as can be inferred from the Eguva Bapflapalle inscription#
Three other sons of vlramaharaju are known to us from Pulla-
109
gagjlvlripalle record. This belongs to the reign period of
Kaligatrinetra §rl §ivamara, the predecessor of Gapdatri^etra
•s

Viramaharaju. It is possible to Interpret the record in such a

way that it would give a genealogy of Tlramahari^a, the Senapati,
by referring to his son, grandson and great grandson. But such
an interpretation is not feasible In view of the chronology.
Kaligatrinetra Sivamara*s reign period may be fixed in the first
quarter of the 9th century A.D. i.e. c. 810-35 A.D. As already
110
stated Kaligatrinetra Sivamara, son of Rama-mahara;)a was
named after Sivamlra, the overlord. Since this latter Ganga king
came to the throne in c. 788 A.D., Kaligatrinetra might have been
born around that year, if not much later. Assuming that he was
born in c. 790 A.D. Kaligatrinetra Sivamara would be 20 years old
when he came to throne in c. 810 A.D. If the Pullagantivaripalle
111
record under discussion should be understood to refer to the
son, grand-son and great grand-son of vlramaharaju, It would
result in some incongrous situation#

We have assigned the reign period of this Sivamara between

112
c. 810-36 A.D. We know that E^upakalu died during this period#
If It Is assumed that he died almost in the last year of rule
of king Sivamara in c. 835 A.D., when he might have been about
20 years, his great grand father, Vlramaharaju should have been,
born in c. 756-65 A.D. But Vlramahara^u passed away around
890 A.D,, after the Soremati battle, which would then mean
that he was more than 120 years old l On the other hand if it
is assumed that all the three persons mentioned In the record,
viz., ChandraCta (Chandraditya), Maladevu (Mallaflevu) and
EljUpakalu were sons of Vlramaharaju, and that l^upakalu was born
in c. 815 A.D., his father would be about 25 years old by then.
This would give Viramaharaju a life span of about 90 years, he
having born in c. 790 A.D. 7lramahara3ufs rule is to be fixed
between c. 835-80 A.D., a fairly long period of rule (vide

Mila ,fi£ Zalflaah&a) •

We have to remember that the relationship between Sivamara
i

and TTlramahariju Is not known. They cannot be father and son

since the suggested chronology would go very muc|pt against this
contention. That Vlramaharaju has been described as Senanati of
Kaligatripetra Sri Sivamara also has to be kept In view. It
would therefore appear that Vlramaharlju who was almost of the
same age as that of Sivamara was a close relative and hence
succeeded Kaligatricietra Sri Sivamira probably by right. However
we do not have more details regarding this. We cb not know who
succeeded Gangatrinetra.
 G')

In this period there seems to have flourished a Vaidumba

king bearing the title Blrudatrlnetra who is known from an
inscription at Vandadi. The inscription does not indicate his
relationship with Viramaharaju. Nor do we know his actual name.
On palaeographical grounds the inscription can be placed towards
the end of the 9th century A.D. The Inscription records the
113
death of a hero in a battle at Palayam. This Birudatrinetra1s
record refers to the ruler of Kaluma^a.
114
In the TJdayendiram plates of Prithvipati II dated
»
915 A.D., Cho'J.a » ' is stated to have defeated a Vaidumba
Parantaka-1 •

king. This Inscription however does not give the name of the
Vaidimba king who w,as defeated by t,he Cho].a. This period may
as well be considered as one of interregnum. It is only from
-115
the Madras Museum platep dated §aka 893, Asha$ha, su. 7,
Thursday^ Dakshinayana-sarikranti^ of Bhuvanatrinetra, we come to
know of a Vaidumba king called Bhuvanatrinetra who made a gift
of the village Kajicheruvu in Ka£apa-Twelve to the god
Lokesvara Bha$ara of jAjtirevula, for the merit of a certain
Bhlmarija and Bachawa. Some scholars have surmised that these
two were parents of Bhuvanatrinetra. i

The record as such does not say specifically any thing

about the relationship of Bhuvanatripetra and Bhlmarija, But in
this connection it may be noted that the Anbil plates of
. 116
Sundara Cho!J.a (956-73 A.D.) state that his father married a
princess belonging to the Vaidumba family. From other records
 of this king we know that his mother was TJ£aiyapira$£iyar-
- .117 ~
Vlman-Kundawaiyar. Prof. Sastri interpreted the relevant
passage in the Anbil plates to mean that Kalyanl was the name
of this Vaidumba princess; but it has been shown by S.K. Mara-
„ 118
simhaswami that Kalyard was only an epithet and not a proper
name. However, that Kundawal was the daughter of Vlma is clear
and accepted by all* i

This Bhlma (Vlma) is identified by some, with Bhlmaraja

. 119
figuring in the Madras Museum plate. It has been suggested
that this Bhlmaraja might have been a close relative of high
120
rank of Bhuvanatrlnetra, although it is difficult to accept
the other suggestion that this Bhlmaraja was the father of
121
Bhuvanatripetra. For one thing, we know from Animala record
i

that Bhuvanatripetra’s father was Be[JaSl*]ta (Vijayaditya) and

not Bhlma. Secondly, even the chronology goes against the
identification of Bhlmaraja with the father of [Link].
i y

We know that Sundara Cho^a started his rule in 956 A.D.

It may be that Sundara Chola was about 15 years old when he
commenced his rule. It would mean that he was bom around
c. 940-41 A.D. His mother Kundawal must have been 15 years
\

old. T^en her date of birth would be e. 926 A.D., in which

I

case her father might be 20 years old, taking his date of birth
c. 906 A.D. If Bhuvanatrlnetra were a son of Bhlmaraja, father
of Kundawaiyar, since we know that he started his rule around
c. 970 A.D., he must have been fairly old, unless it is farther
surmised that he was bora long after Kundawal. Secondly, as
 71
I

noted above, we have the clear statement of the Animala record

which gives the name of his father Be[ja][yi*]ta. Thirdly,
122
Cho].a Parantaka I is stated to have defeated a Vaidumba king,
as seen above, and this must be before 915 A.D. Since we have
placed the date of birth of Bhimaraja in 906 A.D., this might
not be the Vaidumba that was defeated by Parantaka, On the other
hand, it is quite likely that the Vaidumba defeated by Parantaka I
might be Birudatripetra, a pedecessor of Bhimaraja. These
hostilities appear to have been later on patched up by the
matrimonial relationship that they entered into. Bhimaraja may
be assigned a reign period between c. 925-50 A.D. From c. 950 A.D.
123
till c. 970-71 A.D., the next Vaidumba ruler- was one the
throne. To this we shall revert later.

From the above discussion, it becomes clear that Biru-

124
datrinetra was succeeded by Bhimarija. Their mutual relation-
125
ship is not known. Bhimarija was succeeded by Be[ja][yi*]ta,
the father of Bhuvanatripetra. We do not know the relationship
between Bhimarija and Be[ja][yi*]ta also.

One Vaidumba king seems to have ruled under the Rashtra-

kuta king Krishna III. This is known from an inscription at
_* 126
Palagiri in Cuddapah district. The inscription is dated §aka
978, Durmati, Ashajlha, sp. 15, Thursday (= 1056 A.D., June 20)
and records that one Kaligatripetra Bhimamaharaja, son of Maduka
maharaja, of the Vaidumba familv, renewed a grant, formerly made
by Akalavarsha Chalakenallata Kannaradeva i.e., Krishna III,
. _ 127
when the Vaidumba maharaja was ruling the country. The record
 72

further mentions that the renewal of the grant was made necessary
since the stone containing the original'grant was broken away.
/

\
Though the inscription »
does not disclose the name of the Vaidumba
t

king who ruled under Eyishna III, it indirectly furnishes some

valuable information on the relationship that existed between the
Vaidumbas and the Rashtrakutas. It is known from the Karhad
128
grant that Krishna III came on a aisvilava to Ton$alman$alam
and conquered all the kings in the south. The Vaidumbas, who
were earlier the feudatories of the Chops, were probably forced
to shift their allegiance to the Rashtrakutas due to the weakening
s

of the Chop power and the resultant rise of the Rashjrakup

power. Their feudatory status under Krishna III is attested
129 *

by three inscriptions from Kipr. These records give a

genealogy of the Vaidumba governors , Sandayyan, his son
130
Tiruvayyan and his son Srlkantha. Another inscription from
the same place, which is however not dated records that one
71kram5aitIa ""laT"8 °var 75?ag5pP^ ’ S”Ean5ju and
Venkun^akkotjam. It is apparent from these inscriptions that
these Vaidumba kings did not belong to the main line and were not
ruling the regular Vaidumba territory. Probably parts of Ton£ai-
mangalam were entrusted to some Vaidumba scions by Krishna III
after his southern expedition. One Vikramadltya is mentioned in
an inscription from Bowringpet wherein his son Tiruvayyan is
132
stated to have been ruling under Ijiva Nolamba.
» ■'*
Prlma facie
this Tiruvayyan cannot be identified with his namesake in the
Kipr inscription, since there isj'differente in the overlord, under
whom they were serving. Probably they were different chiefs*
 73

The next Vaidumba king we bearAis one Ijlgiya'. He is

133
known from his four inscriptions found at Upparapalle and
Animala respectively in Proddatur and Kamalapuram taluks of
134 135 -
Cuddapah district Ealakada- and Madanapalle respectively
136
in Vayalpad and Madanapalle
j
taluks of Chittoor district, as
well as from his only copper-plate charter. The Upparapalle
inscription records that Bhuvanatrinetra was coronated as king
in §aka 894 corresponding to 972 A.D. (Sakavarshammu 894-eu

oan^li PjliLfrlYliTlaJ§rP£t $^aflflfaagft=flygja). In the copper-plate

charter he is endowed with the title [Link] as early as §aka
893 (= 971 A.D.H?). Prof. P.B. Desai who edited the copper­
plate inscription has shown that the date of the charter §aka
893, Isbagha, su. 7, Thursday, Dakshinayanasatikranti is irregular
and that it may be a mistake for §aka 891 (expired),/ which taken
with other particulars of the date given in the plate would eor-
137
respond to 969 A.D., June 24, Thursday. If this correction is
accepted, then we have to suppose that Bhuvanatrinetra was on the
throne even in §aka 891. Since the Upparapalle record states that
Bhuvanatrinetra i.e. Ijugeyga was coronated in §aka 894, it is
likely that Irugeya was associated by his father to rule jointly.
Naturally Ijugaya issued a record independently in his own name.
It was only in §aka 894 (= 972 A.D.) that he could get himself
,crowned after his father abdicated the throne as shown in the
sequel.

In the Animala inscription dated §aka 898, Karttika,

su..................si, Friday (Snkrevarambu). (= 976 A.D.), Irigiya is
 74

stated to have performed the ekoddlshtabhukta ceremony of hi s

father named Be[ja][yi*]ta. This Be[ja][yi*]ta is not known
to us from any other inscription. If we have to suppose that
this Be[ja][jri*]ta-maharaja had reigned as king, then he can
be identified with the Valdumba maharaja mentioned in the re-
138
engraved record from Palagiri in Cuddapah district since he
cannot be distant in time from the latter. If the performance
of ekoddishtbhnkta ceremony of Ipigiya^ father was a contempo­
rary evept, then we have to suppose that Igugeya's (Irigiya’s)
father Be[ja][yi*]ta abdicated his throne in favour of his son
139
sometime in 972 A.D., the date of the Upparapalle record.

We have already considered some of the records of this

Ijugeya. Other records of his are available from Kalaka^a and
140
Madanapalle. In the Kalaka^a record we get his full name as
Bhuvanatrinetra Irugeya-maharaju (a variant of Ijigiya of the
Animals record and Ijigaya of the Madanapalle record). This ins­
cription is in the Telugu language and Telugu-Kannada script of
141
about the tenth century A.D. The record states that Bhuvanatripe-
tra Irugeya maharaja granted exemption of Chipu-depal and tlvil-
deaa to the farmers (kampus) of Venapu (whose names are mentioned)
and excepting BagaxisllHPSgPa.? [Link]-flnna, PagfiyilaPannu and
SandhivigrahiPannu on the happy occasion of his coronation.

Irugeya appears to have enjoyed an independent status

as none of his inscriptions noticed above mention him as ruling
under any imperial overlord. This may be due to the fact that
the Bashtrakuta power had waned after the disappearance of
Krishna HI from the political scene around c. 967 A.D.
 ■ 142 _ ... 143
In the Conjeevaram inscription of Chola Rajaraja I
dated Saka 9^ (expired) (or 934 current) (.......... °kanriPa-nava-
k-ta-Mikfryl-gl............... abH [Link] tr.1r.ht4E=adhi-XisbH fifaatBE-
thanvavat) corresponding to 1001-02 A.D., we hear of a Vaidumba,
who besides others is stated to have been one of the potentates
of probably Dana-purv-arnnava (Danarnnava) (°Dana-Purv-arnnava tat
bbpi ...................2[§l3dHffba.“PMbbritl~ELla“xilmya.--[Link],a~
Pit hast ham) the Eastern Cha].ukya ruler. But we know nothing about
this Vaidumba whose name also is not specified in the record.

Subsequently, the records of Rajaraja I and Rajendra I

from Tiruvallam in North Arcot district give us the names of
five other Vaidumba chiefs. The sixteenth year (1000-01 A.D.)
record of Rajaraja I from the above place, states that the in­
habitants of Vanapuram in Karaiva].i in Pa$uvur-kottam sold 700
^ 1
ku^.1 of land to Sivamaharaja Sankaradeva, son of Tiruvaiyap,
who made over the grant to the temple of Tiruvaiya-isvara.
Another inscription from the same place but dated in the 3rd
145
year (1014-15 A.D.) of the reign of Rajendrachola I records
a grant of 1000 kull of land, after purchasing it from the
villagers of Vapapuram in Karaivali in Perumbipappajli in Paguvurk-
kottam in Jayangondasolamanpalam to the deity Tiruvallam-Upaiyar
by Somanatha, son of Sankaradeva (Sankaraaevap Somanathan) of the
Vaidumba family.

From the above two records, we get the names of three

 76

chiefs, whose genealogy is given below.

i

Tiruvaiyag , ,
. . I
sarikaradevaij (c. 1000-01 A.D.)
I
Somanathan (c. 1014-15 A.D.)

Another inscription from this place mentions two other

chiefs belonging to the Vaidumba family. This record dated in the
146
20th year (1004-05 A.D.) of Rajaraja I, records the gift of a
lamp by Nanpamaraiyar, son of Tukkarai, the ruler of Ingallurnagu
in Maharajavagi, to the deity Tiruttikkali-Alvar at Tiruvallam.
Since the area of rule of these chiefs is different from the
regular Vaidumba territory and their relationship with the main
Vaidumba rulers is not known, it is not improbable that these
• ’

Vaidumba chiefs did not belong to the main line and were ruling
over the areas adjoining Renanjlu-7000 territory.
147 '
The Malluru inscription dated the 32nd year (1101-02
A.D.) of Kulottunga I registers a gift of Manalur in Maharaja-
pagi by Duraimahara-jan alias Adhirajendra Vaidumba maharajan
to Irechchaya setti. The record in Tamil and Grantha characters
contains a genealogy of the donor, according to which he was the
- son of Irugamaharaja, grandson of Vettamahara ja and great grand­
son of Irugamaharaja. The record actually refers to the reign
of Cbo^a Kulottunga I from which it becomes clear that this
Duraimaharajan was a subordinate of the Chola. It is interesting
to note that he is also known by the other name Adhirajendra
Vaidumba-maharajan. The lafcer part of this name clearly indicates
X
77

that he belonged to the Vaidumba family. The names of his pre­

decessors as given in the record also point to his being a
7aidumba. i
The first part, Adhirajendra, is obviously a title
that he bore and, as was the practice of the day, it must have
been the name or title of his master. The then ruler was Kulot-
tunga I, whose subordinate he was. But we know that Knlottunga I
succeeded Adhirajendra who ruled for a very short period between
1067-70 A.D. Hence Adhiralendra. the title that the Vaidumba took,
must have been in honour of that Cbola king Adhirajendra. Was
he then a subordinate of Adhirajendra between 1067-70 A.D.’ The
date of the record under review is 1101-02 A.D., which would mean
that Buraimaharajan continued to acknowledge the suzerainty of
the Chola from the reign period of Adhirajendra himself. If
Duraimaharajarj was in power till c. 1105 A.D., he would have
succeeded his father in c. 1070 A.D., if not earlier, when Adhi-
— ^ j

rajendra was still ruling.

The record reveals the names of three of his predeces­

sors. His great grandfather is called Irugaraaharija. We have
seen above that Irugeva, the Vaidumba commenced his independent
rule in 972 A.D. Irugamaharaja of the present record is in all
probability this Irugeya (Bhuvanatrinetra Irigiya maharaja) who
must have ruled upto c. 1000 A.D. Thereafter he was succeeded by
his son Vettamaharaja. Between the last date of *rugeya i.e.,
c. 1000 A.D. and the earliest of Duraimaharajan i.e. c. 1070 A.D.,
we have to fit in the rule of two of the latter*s predecessors.
It may therefore be reasonably surmised in the absence of other
t ,
evidences, that Vettamaharaja and his son Irugamaharajan (Iruga II)
 78

ruled from c. 1000 A.D. - c.'1035 A.D. and c. 1035 A.D. -

c. 1070 A.D. respectively.
i

The last member of the family who is known to us from a

148
record in Kalakaga, Vayalpad taluk of Chittoor district is
Tlgalisas, who calls himself a Valdumbamarasan and bears the
i

epithet generally associated with the Vaidumbas. He also des­

cribes himself the lord of Kalukatapura (Kalukatapura-Paramesvara)
and a devotee of Siddhavatadeva (Siddhavatadeva-sriPada-Padraa-
radhaka). The record is dated In the 49th year of Kulottungasola
(Kulottunga X) (1118-19 A.D.). It records the gift of Mujukkettam,
Kuglyettam and Tirukkalattiiri as devadana to the god Paltisvara-
s o
raugaiya-Madeva at Kagka^ai in Kltai-Marayapagi in Irattapadi-
kopgaSola-mangalam by Valdumbamarasan Tidalisan. This Is about
_ 149 _
17 years later than the Malluru Inscription wherein Duraimaha-
M r

rajan figures. Although there is nothing to substantiate, it has

been surmised that this Tigallsarj might be a successor of Durai-
mahara^an and that he continued to hold a subordinate position
under Cho^a Kulottunga I. We do not know the relationship between
these two.

We do not hear of any other member of the Vaidumba family

in Chittoor district after Tigallsag. The Vaidumbas appear to
have lost control in the regions of Chittoor district, even as
subordinates of the Cbolas, who now seem to have taken direct
control over this region.
 79

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1 £.£.£.Ja»lE« * 1965, part II, P. 87-92,

2 fig. IM., Vol. XXIV, p. 187.
3 Ibid., foot note No. 6.
4 1.S.1E., 1922, No. 314? Vol. X, No. 639.
5 Be. ioa., Vol. XI, pp. 343-45; £.1.1., Vol. XVII, No.423.
6 Be. Isa., Vol. XXIV, p. 184, [Link], 1922, No. 314.

7 l£. Andh.. Vol. I, p. 157.

8 £.£.[Link]-* 1965, Part II, p. 87.
9 £.£.££•* 1935-36, No. 323. The record is dated §aka

978 (- 1056 A.D.).

10 £.1.1., Vol. X, No. 628. The last two letters in the
first line of this record may be read as °kulaT follow-
t "

ing Chandra0 and thus restored as Chandrakula. This

portion of the record is a little damaged.

11
v
Ibid., lo. 642, lines 1-2.
12 BE. IM.» Vol. XXVIII, p. 115; [Link]., 1911, No. 446?
Ibid.T 1915, No. 563? £.£.£.£. BE*, 1965, No. 18.
13 [Link].* 1970-71, No. B. 509. This inscription is palaeo-
graphically assigned to the 8th-9th centuries A.D.
14 Bfi- Cara., Vol. X, Kl. 90? IBifl., Vol. IV, Yd. 60?
Ifcia., XII, Nj. 269? Ibid., Vol. Ill, NJ. 402 (1974)?

G. Yazdani* XM lazLY [Link] g£ 2&£2§n, parts I-IV,

p. 265; K.V. Ramesh 1 £ Mai£IY Ql Kanara. p. 70.

15 The earliest reference to the encounter of Govinda III

with the confideracy of 12 kings is to be found in the
Manne plates of Stambha dated in §aka 724, Vijaya Samvat-
sara, Somagrahana, Pushya-nakshatra (= 802 A.D.) (Ep.
Cam.. Vol. IX, Nl. 61). P.L. Gupta says that Govinda III
 8 i)

subdued 12 rulers tAlo had eombined against him imme­

diately after the death of his father. He considers
that Stambha, who led the rebellions according to the
Kavi plates, is different from the brother of Govinda
III (lE. Vol. mi?, p. 123). According to D.C.
Sircar, the subordinate ruler Stambha applied for the
issue of the grant (Marine grants) to his overlord
Govinda III and it was issued by the imperial record
office, so that he had himself little more to do with
its issue (Ibid.). 7.V. Mirashi, while editing the
Dharur plates of Govinda III, pointed out that all the
important victories of Govinda III were attained before
the date of the Manne plates. He added, further that *
Govinda released the Ganga prince to create a rival to
his brother Stambha, but as he joined the latter and his
allies, Govinda defeated them all and put the Ganga king
Sivamara II into fetters again. And all these events,
he places before §aka 716-17 (= 794-96 A.D.) (Ibid. <»
Vol. JIXXVI, p. 286).
16 [Link].? 1969-70, No. B. 3.
17 Ibid.T 1962-63, No. B. 138.
18 This has been read as '’Kama ¥aidumba mahara[jadhi3raja.
19 Both these inscriptions can be palaeographically
assigned to the 9th century A.D.
20 The word Blupakalu may only refer to a person. But, the
nominative case ending denotes the name of a place.
i

A similar word like Yemmakaln in an inscription from

the same place gives a clue that it can be taken as
 81

the name of % person only. (gf>. Infl.* Vol. XXIV, p. 194,

line 6).
21 SUX*I.*> Vol. X, No. 637. Thi3 inscription can be palaeo-
^raphically assigned to the 9th century A.D.
22 The letters °rul-elan are found engraved below line 3.

23 1.1.1E., 1967-68, No. B. 16.

24 Ibid.. 1969-70, No. B. 3; Ibid., 1962-63, No. B. 138.
25 Ibid.. 1967-68, No. B. 16; N. Venkataramanayya points
out that “Viramaharaju, the commaner-ln-chief of
Kaligatrinetra SIngadhara and Maharaja Pbdanyu of
lenagu died In a battle and that certain persons entered
klleunte and that Ganpatrinetra set up the Inscriptions
to commemorate them. Kaligatrinetra Bhlmamaharaju of
the Palagiri epigraph (Ibid.t 1935-36, No. 323) could
not have been the same person as Kaligatrinetra Slnga-
i

dhara of the present record, for In the first place

their names are different, though they bear the same
title, and secondly, the latter must have preceded the
former at least by two centuries. He was the predeces­
sor, if not actually a contemporary of Ganpatripetra,
for, the latter is said to have set up this inscription
to commemorate the death in battle of Kaligatrinetra
SIngadhara’s Senapati Viramahiraju and refers to the
war between Ganpatrinetra Vaidumba mahariju and Nolambi
and records the death of a hero in a battle at Mudi-
mapuvu.*1 - A.P.S.S.H., 1965, part II, pp. 87-92;
contras [Link]., 1967-68, Introduction.
 62

26 Ibid.. 1937, Nos. 366-67; Vol. X, No. 628;

[Link]., 1968-69, No. B. 16.
27 Bp. Ind.. Vol. X3CCV, pp. 192-93*
28 [Link]., 1936-37, Nos. 366-67.
29 3.I.I., Vol. IX, part I, No. 14; l£. Iasi., Vol. XXIV,
p. 191 and plate facing p. 190*
30 [Link]., 1922, No. 341.
31 Gangatrinetra Vaidumba maharaja was ruling over the
kingdom of the earth extending as far as Kirudore in
the north (l£. Cam.. Vol. IX, Bg. 62). This might be
the Kundegu river, a tributary of the north Pennar.
(EH. Is£., Vol. XXIV, p. 185; Ibid., Vol. XI, p. 337).
32 4.S.1E., 1936-37, No. 366.
33 Vol. X, No. 629.
34 Ibid.. Vol. X, No. 640 and 629.
35 1931-32, No. 183.
36 BP. Ind., Vol. XXIV, p. 186, foot note No. 5; eontrat
[Link]., 1931-32, part II, para 45, pp. 67-68.
37 In the Annual Report it has been assigned to the 8th
century. Ibid., p. 67.
38 Ibid.. In the first line of the record the letter 4a
in between Bai and mbha is omitted by the engraver, the
correct form being Baifdu*1mbha [Link]. That
Punyakumara=arasa was a scion of the Rehangu Chola family
who lived and ruled as a feudatoiy under Baidumbha or
Vaidumba cannot be said with certainty. The region
Mangala-12 can be identified with the area around
Mangalam in Punganur taluk.
39 SB. Ipd.« Vol. XHT, p. 186.

40 [Link]., 1933-34, part II, para 6, p. 30* flSBiXa*

During the,declining days of the Pallava power, a

branch of the family might have migrated northwards

, totthese parts and there carved out a principality

for itself. The Pall e-a rasa of this record has been

taken to be a Pallava ruler under whom the Vaidumba

king was administering the village. The Palle-arasa

cannot be identified with the Pallava-Dhava].a mentioned

in an inscription, Ibid.. 1931-32, No. 173. (See Ibid..

p. 47).

41 Ibia.. 1933-34, part II, paras 5 and 6, pp. 30-31.

42 i£. Ind.* Vol. XXX, pp. 279-80 and plate A facing p.279.

43 contra> Ibid.« Vol. 71, p. 485 Ibid., Vol. XXX, p. 279,

foot note 7.

44 P« 279.

46 Ibid.T p. 280, foot note 2.

46 SfiBiia* [Link].t 1940-41, NO. 445; gfi. XM-i 761. XXX,

p. 279 ff.
47 cf. sajailfei £2]4 Isaiyyaitoa meaning »in the fight with

No^ambi*. See fold.. Vol. XXIV, p. 192, line 3 of the

text of inscription £; Ibid.. Vol. XXVII, p. 246,

line 4 of the text of inscription &; Ibid., p. 246,

lines 2 and 4 of the text of inscription &.

48 [Link] A«S*EB.» 1931-32, p. 47; Vol. IX, part I,

\

No. 299;' 1940-41, paras 24 and 25.

49 a.I«Im Vol. X, No. 642.

i
 o
ud
s

50 [Link].,' 1968-69, No. B. 9.

i

51 , No. B. 3.
52 Vol. X, Ho. 639.
53 [Link].9 1922, Nb. 342. It is stated
that a certain Kamidt Bojanga Marttapfla fought with

the king's forces and died.

54 JS.I.L** Tfol. X, No. 639.
55 is; M>I Vox. XXX, p. 279.
v
56 2.I.L., 7ol. X, No. 640.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.f No. 629.
59 Ibid-1 538. i
60 [Link].* 1914-15, No. 437.
61 gfi. Carn.. Vol. XVII, Cm. 169; Ibid.. Vol. X, Kl. 200.
62 Ibid.. tol. XVII, Cm. 169; Arch. Rep.. 1917, p. 40.

63 The battle of Tlruvu].a is also referred to in an ins­

cription from Yatavakili. This Kannada record assign­
able to 9th century A.D., has been noticed by the
author for the first time.
64 £*X>*2L*9 Vol. IX, part I, No. 16.
65 Ibid., A.£.Sfi., 1914, NO. 439.

66 The scribe introduced pun on tbB word Ranabhangi. which

occurs twice in the Inscription in lines 2 and 5. The
expression [Link] is a corruption of Sanskrit
term Zlflylahasan- Cef. SipaxUjiiihaia, lad- vol.
X, p. 39). This record has been greatly Influenced bft
 Telugu, Tamil and Prakjlt words. The hero Rapabangi
received the titles of which a.£., "the mother* s bns-
hand of those who steal their way into the palace of
the king, (the hero) who thrusts a dagger into the
mouths of good and bad men, who without admiring him
try to excel him; and (the warrior) who splits the
backs of those that rebel against his master*1, are
some^what queer.
67 Ibid.. Vol. X, No. 628; gB. IM1, Vol. XXIV, p. 192;
0.1.1., Vol. IX, part I, No. 16; Ibid., Nos. 13 and
14; Ibid. T Vol. X, No. 623; [Link]., 1905, Nos. 292-93;
Ibid.. 1962-63, No. B. 137; Ibid.. 1968-69, No. B. 28.
68 contra* The chief Byegan of this record has been
. identified with the hero gyqyq who died in the battle
at Ko$um. See 0*1.1., Vol. X, No. 634; [Link]*»
1922, part II, para 16, p. 160.
69 Ibid.T 1968-69, No. B. 28.
i

70 g£. Ind.t Vol. XXIV, p. 185 and 188; R.S. Panchamukhi

suggests that the Valdnmbas must have wrested Madana-
palle and extended their territory on all sides so as
to include in it tte whole of the Renanpn-7000 not
earlier than the 9th century A.D.
71 gfi. Sam., Vol. IV, Yd. 60; Ibid.. Vol. XII, NJ. 269;
U^LO* * Vol. x, k. 90, gy&« -Artia. Ben.. 1919, p. 27 ff.
72 gfi. In4«* Vol. VI, p. 61; [Link]., 1913, part II, para
15, p. 92.
 86

73 S.I.L., Vol. Ill, part I, NOs. 47-48, PP. 99-100.

74 M71- A-roh. gs&*, 1926, pi 87; g£. Cam.. Vol. X, p, 13.
75 lila., Vol. XII, Si. 24 and 38; gB. IMm Vol. X,
p. 65.
76 3.1*1., vol. II, P. 384.
77 g£. Cam.. Vol. X, Bp. 86; Ibid., Bp. 48; Ibid.. Kl. 235.
78 A*[Link]*» 1931-32, Ho. 19,7; gB* IM*, Vol. XXIV, p. 188.
i

79 Ibid. , p. 185; 4JUIE*, 1922, No. 314.

80 Ibid.. 1905, No. 293.
81 Ibid.,-No.. 292.
82 contra? g£. Ind.. Vol. XXIV, p. 185.
83 3*1*1*, Vol. X, No. 623; [Link]., 1905, Mo. 694.
84 Ibid., 1968-69, No. B. 28.
85 3..X*I., Vol. X, No. 634.
86 Ibid., Vbl. IX, part I, No. 20.
87 Bp. Cam.. Vol. X, El. 79.
88 3.1*1., Vol. IX, part I, No. 20.
89 g£. Cam., Vol. X, El. 79.
90 &.[Link]., 1912, No. 318.
91 BP. Ind.. Vol. VII, p. 22; §£. Cam.. 701. X, Mb. 228.
92 1R. Ind.. Vol. XXIV, p. 190.
93 4.B.1R., 1906,'No. 533; gp. lag., Vol. XXIV, p. 192
!
and plate facing p. 190.
94 3*1*1., Vol. X, No. 628.
95 Ibid., No. 629.
96 3*a*3R., 1962-63, No. B. 137.
97 g£. |M*, Vol. XXVII, p. 250.

\
 87
98 / » Vol. m, pi 993*
99 %1» XLVIII, p. 33*
100 Be. Ind.. Vol. XXIV, p. 189*
101 it# Oau.-H. * Tlbl» 11^ P* 95*
102 Eor detailed discussion on the date of this battle, see
Shaky* a Paper 2Sl& Sculptures#. in j&faagj-lSBiasi .gaMJLaa
Volume. (1972), p. 267, foot note No. 14i "According to
one reckoning, the Tirupurarabiyam battle would have
taken place in or around 885; (See Srinivasan, Cave
TemplesT pp. 15-16); Nilakanta Shastri also accepts that
date. (See hiss 4 MsSasy fiX
t
In&U* Third Edition,
' Madras, 1966, p. 175). Mahalingam prefers a third date -
895 - for the battle (See his Kanchlpuram# p, 217). If
the date 885 is valid, then it upsets the Co].a chrono­
logy which has to be reworked, which seems a difficult
task in face of several other synchronisms now firmly
established. Irishman favours 879, first because one
cannot explain the sadden disappearance in Gol,ana$u of
Papaya inscriptions-after 878, and second beoause of
the appearance, instead, of the inscriptions quoting
the regnal years of Bajakesarivarman (Co^a Iditya I);
for example at Tilaisthanani (8th year/879), Tiruc-
catturai (10th and 13th year/881 and 884), KiJ,alyur
(13th year/884) and a few others, by which to infer the
emergence of Iditya *s power in the Kaveri valley soon
after 878*.
103 fig. Cam.. Vol. XU, Si. 38.
 S'*

104 3*X*X*9 %1» IX, psft I) Ho# 38*

105 Ifi. Caro.. Vol. II, S3. 204 (1974).

106 SB* XM*9 Vol. XXXVI, p. 1C3*

107 3*X.I*9 Vol. X, No. 637*
1p8 1962-63, No. B. 137. This record Is assigned
to c. 9th century A.d.
109 a*X*I*, Vol. x, No. 637.
110 [Link].9 1970-71, B. 509$ Ibid.. 1969-70, No. B. 3;
Ibid.. 1962-63, B. 138.
111 3*1.1. j Vol. X, Ho. 637.

112 Ibid.
113 A*B*SB*9 1967-68, No. B. 17$ [Link]., 1965, No. 14.
114 3.1*1., vol. II, PP. 379, 383-84; Ibid.. Vol. Ill, p. 106.
116 SB* Xn&*9 Vol. XXVIII, pp. 68-70 and plate facing p. 70.
116 Ibid. f Vol. XV, p. 68.
117 A*3*£B* 9 1920, Nos. €72, 587 and 589.
118 Bp. Ind.. Vol. XXX, p. 282, foot note No. 4*
119 Ibid., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 67-70 and plate facing p. 70.
120 Ibid., Vol. XXX, p. 282.
121 A*B*lB*9 1938, No. 196.
122 3.I.I., Vol. II, p. 379.
123 [Link]., 1938, No. 196. This record mentions Be[3a][yi*]ta
as the father (ayya) of Bhnvanatrigetra Iyigiya.
124 Ibid.T 1967-68, No. 17*
125 Ibid.T 1938, Nb. 196. '
126 Ibid.. 1935-36, No. 323*
127 Ibid.. part II, pp. 65-67, Text lines 1-52.
 8J

128 IE* XM. * Vol. IV, P* 285 and Plate facing p. 285*
129 Ibid.. Vol. VII, pp, 142 ff.
130 1906, SO. 743.
131 Ibid.. So. 16.
132 i£>. Cam.. Vol. X, Kl. 198.
133 3.I.I., Vox. X, So*.636; [Link].j 1905, So. 325.
134 Ibid.T 1938, SO. 196.
135 l£« IM.» Vol. XXX, Text of inscription 1, pp. 283-84
and plates facing pp. 284-85, Sections I-III,
136 J&*E*SS*, 1905, So. 290.
137 ifi. Ind.. Vol. XXVTII, pp. 68-70 and plate.
138 A.&.gfi., 1935-36, SO. 323.
139 II. IM.» VO1. XXX, p. 282.
140 Ibid., pp. 282-84.
141 Ibid.f pp. 280-81. The characters of this record are
later than those of Inscription A from Kalakafla.
The letters 1 and it are later forms cfx Ibid.. Text of
Inscription 1 and plate A, facing p. 279 and Bezawada
pillar inscription of Yuddhamalla in Ibid.T Vol. XV and
i

plate facing p. 158.

142 Ibid.T Vol. XXI, pp. 32-33 and plates facing pp. 48-49.
143 It is interesting to note that the record is engraved
in two sections. The first section in which the
Valdumbas are mentioned as potentates, probably also
credits him with an epithet choj.a-trlnetra- The second
section describes in glowing terms of a number of titles
borne by a chief called Jatacho^la-Bhlma-Kpipati and his
achievements. Only at the end of this section, we hear
 9?)

of this chief being defeated at the tends of Cho|a

Rajaraja (I). Some scholars think that this is a
a 1
record of Ja$a-Cho$a-BhIma and not of Rajaraja on account

%
of the fact that the major portion on the record relates
to the former chief*
,144 a*I.I*, Vol. Ill, part I, pp. 104-05.'
145 Ibid.. pi 108.
146 , Ibid., pp. 106-07#
147 [Link].J 1968-60, Ho. B. 10; Be. Andh. Vbl. I, pp.150-57.

148 Be. XM.» Vol. Inscription £, pp. 886-87.

149 A.&.SE.9 1968-69, Ho. B^10; Be. Andh. T Vol. I, pp.
150-57 and plate facing p. 156. ,
 G eneal ogy i
o f th e Valdumbas

G a n d a trin e tra Ram Crnaharaia (o r) R am araja-arasan (b efo re c . 810 A.D.)

, K a lig a trin e bra sri.S iv a m a ra (c . 810 - c . 835 A.D.)

1 -
S e n a p a ti G a n d a trin e tra piram ahara ju M a n u ja trin e tra Ralava-m ahara ju (o r)
* (c . 335 - c. 880 A.D.) P allav ay y a (m iddle of 9 th cen tu ry )
md

Kundawa

Blroa ^ i^ a m Chandra p ita ;j Maladevu E lupakalu Dhanumeti

(c . 880 - c 925 A .D .) (C handraditya) J s (M alladevn)

—
rj , » ,i
^ d au gh ter * Kundavvai md Bhlmaraja (c . 925 - c 95p A.D.)
Sandayyan

T iruvayyan (c . 960 - c. 963 A.D.) B e [ja ]y i* ]ta (c . 950 - c, 972 A.D.)

md" Iiruvaiyan
*
S u ttira d e v i V ira tta n -
• • *,
B h u v an atrln etra Iru g ey a (Irig iy a ; or Iriigaya) Ttikka ra i Sanka radevan
v lra N aran iy ar ••
• I
' * (1000-01 a .d .)
/ (c . 969 - 972 A.D. ri jo in t jrule)
w ith h is fa th e r B eO aJC yi+tlta) Nannamaraiyar
S rik a n th a (c . 964 A .D .)'
(c . 972 - c . 100) a .D .) :
! (1004-05 A.D.) Somanathan
(1014-15 A.D.)
Vet ta m aharaja (c . 1000 - 1035 j A.D.)
•
• ’ :
i
Iru g am ah araja (Iru g a XI) (c . L035 - p . 1070 A.D.)
# !

D uraim aharajan a lia s A dhirajendri (c . Iip70 - c. 1105 A.D.)

' ~ j
j

Vaidumbamarasan T idalisan ■(;. 11Q5![ - c. 1118-19 A.D.*)

 92

The Banas claim to have descended from the demon king

* •
.Bali, son of Viroehana, who is stated to have granted the earth
to a sacrifice to Kyishna , Vishnu. According to mytholo­
gical legends, Mahabali, the progenitor of the Binas, is said
to «have ]seen made a door-keeper by the lord of the gods and
demons, Paramesvara, worshipped in all the three wo fids.
I
The
' Purinie connection of Mahabali with Vishnu is narrated in the
- - . * 2
Udayendiram grant of Bana Vikramaditya III. The Bapas claim to
be the lords of Mandagiri (i.e., Nandidrug in the Chikkaballapur
3
taluk of Kolar district and Pajivipura i.&.» Pariel, Hindupur
i

taluk, Anantapur district.

» * * t

, The TamiJ. classic Manimekalai states that §Irtti, the

M
queenof thp Cboya king NegumugikkiJ-li belonged to a family whose
*

progenitor was Ma'vali. It is tempting to identify this Mavall

1 «
with a member of the Biria family. On th6 basis of the Sinhalese
>

chronicles, a Cbo,J.a ruler by name Kiyyiva^avaj) is assigned to

4
the 2nd century A.D. This Kiyyivayavag is identified with
Neflumuflikkiyyi. If so, Negumugikki^li has to be placed around
t* * 1

2nd century A.D. and herein we get the earliest reference to the
existence of the Bi^a family.
* •
The earliest unambiguous inscrip-
t

tlonal reference to the Banas is to be found in the Ta^agunda

' '5 ^
record of Kadamba Kakusthavarman (c. 422-47 A.D,), wherein the
Kadamba ruler Mayurasarman (c. 332-57 A.D.) ig stated to have
levied "tribute from the Byihat-Banas, who were at the head of
i

93

a feudal confederacy (Mail fcaEin BrlkM-I&nfl-PI§SS&iai-

6
[Link]-inapflalat). Kiel horn opines that the Byihat-Bana of the
7
Kadamba record corresponds to Peruibana of Tamil inscriptions.

Another reference to the Banas occurs in the Halmlgi

inscription of Kadamba king Kakusthavarman assigned to the middle
8
of 5th century A.D. It records a grant of Balma$i and
Mu].ivaJ.J.i to Vija-arasa, son of Ellabha$ari as a reward for his
victory over the Kekayas and the Pallavas. It refers to the
heroes (llr&PMaahS.) of Banadesa (Sendraka-Banobhava-desada-
gSisaya-PftIJLaYaraffl Merida) . in the
TJdayendiram plates it is stated that the early members of the
Bana family ruled over a tract of land called Anrihrat- pat hah-
9
Paschl-matafr kshltlh the country to the west of the road
leading to Andhra. This has been expressed differently in
I ^

various Tamil and Kannada records as Vaflugava:},l-me:rku? Vaduea-

zaUyis-siito? vasnsaiali- Paanl-Eiyii&s» lafliiaasali- PMnlsfik;
Miaira and iMiaaamiJyiap&gam.
t

The early rulers of this family served as subordinates

of the Pallavas of Kanchi in the area to the west of the road
leading to Andhra until the region was conquered and annexed
11
to the Chalukya kingdom by Pulakesin II (610-42 A.D.). While
the Brihad-Banas served the Chalukyas from their territory in the
12
ceded districts, a branch of the Bana family flourished in the
southern parts of Chittoor district and the norther parts of the
North Arcot district and served the Pallavas.
 94

Some scholars seek to Identify the twelve■thousand villages

in the Indhra-man$alam referred to in the Mufliyanur plates with

the divison Va$ugava]>i-12000. This territory ruled by the

Ba^as seems to have extended originally into the ceded districts,

from Chlttoor in the south to the Siddhout (Siddhava$am) taluk
in the north, including the Anantapur region and this area lay
14
to the west of the road leading to Sndhra country* Perum-

banappadi included the region from Punganur in the west to

Kl^ahasti in the east in Chlttoor district*

15
The Vanakovaralyar chiefs who figure in the inscriptions

of the Pallava kings like Mahendravarman I, Naraslmhavarman,

Nandivarman II Pallavamalla and Kampavarman are found in the

region of Chengam in the North Arcot district of Tamllnagu whiek

is definitely to the south of Pilar indicating that even the

regions below Filar were a part of the Bana territory*

According to Hultzsch, Tiruvallam called Tikkali-vallam

in the inscriptions was the capital of the Banas, as it belonged

...
to the Perumbapappafll region. 16 The place Vanapuram near Tiru­

vallam seem to have been the residence of the Bana chiefs. It

17
is not unlikely that this town is the same as modern Vapasamudram.

The genealogy of the early rulers is narrated in the

13 19
Udayendiram and Gudimallam plates of Vikramaditya as also
20
the Mugiyanur plates of Malladeva. All the three refer to the
first two kings of the family as Jaya Nandivarman (Nandivarman)

and Vijayaditya. The Mugtyanur plates purport to belong to

 95

the reign of Malladeva, eon of Vijayaditya. However in this

grant the king is referred to a s Vadhuvallabha Malladeva Nandi-
21
varman. Vadbuvallabha may be construed as an epithet while
Nandivarman would be the proper name. In that case the full name
of the Bana king would be Malladeva-Nandivarman. We have evi-
22
dences to indicate that Malladeva bore the title Jagadekamalla.
I

The authenticity of MujLiyanur plates is to be doubted on aeoount

of the date cited in the record viz.. Saka 261. Rice does not
suspect its authenticity and seems to hold that the rulers
mentioned herein may be the predecessors of Jayanandivarman,
23
the first ruler mentioned in the other two records. Malladeva-
Nandivarman of this record is said to have been ruling over the
Seven-and a half lakh country containing twelve thousand villages
in the Indhra-mangala. We do not have such an early reference
• 24
to the SaPtarddha-laksha country in any other record. This
25
would be the earliest record to refer to that division. The
two other plates referred to above also do not mention any such
territory. Palaeographically the plates will have to be assigned
, . 26
to a quite later period i.&., c. 9th century A.D. Hence it
may be said that this record no doubt belongs to Malladeva, the
third ruler in the genealogy. That he bears the epithet Vadhu-
vallabha and calls himself Malladeva Nandlvarma are points not
found in other records. The §aka year mentioned in the record is
\
certainly wrong. In the 9th century, the other details of date
s

excepting the constellation Isvini Vi^ambi, Karttika, su 13, Monday

AsvinI regularly correspond to 878 A.D., October 13, Monday. The
 98

constellation was Revati, Asvini occurring on the next day. The

%

§aka year then would be 800. But as will be seen later in

the sequel, by this date-Malladeva was no more living. Hence

this cannot be the Intended date of the record. Although,

from the point of the contents of the record the Mufliyanur

plates need not be brushed aside as spurious, Its date Is cer­

tainly wrong and misleading. Jayanandivarman of this record

' ' — r

who ruled the land west of the road to Andhra country Is

. Identified with Nandivarman of the ^udimallam charter. The

donor of the Gugimallam plates named Nandi, who granted to

brabmanas the village called Viprapltha (Sanskrit Tiruvippiram-
27
begu or Tiruvlgperumbe£u of the Gudimallam stone Inscriptions)

is the same as Nandivarman mentioned in another verse of the

same grant* 1
■ 28 29
Prom the Kuligikki and Tiruvallam records of Pallava

Nandlvarman II, we come to know more about the early Banas.

Prom the high regnal year quoted therein A. a., the 52nd year,

the king mentioned in the Kuli$lkkl inscription has been identi­

fied with the Pallava king-'Nandi varman Pallavamalla. The record

states that in that year i.e., the 52nd year (782-83 A.D.) of
the king Nandiehchuraparumar, on the day when the army of

.Vallavaraiyag marched against PerumanagigaJ. and besieged (the

fortress of) 7egku^lkko$tai, Gangadiyaralyar, the chief of

Kagka$£ur at the instance of Vaparaiyar (his) uncle (or father-

\

in-law) directing him to proceed (fought) and died. The bero-

30
stone kannaffu was set up by Perumgangar.

/
 97
I

V. Verikatasubba Ayyar read the word as Pallavaraiyar and

identified him with the Pallava king and said that the chief
Gangadiyaraiyar who died in the battle fought on behalf of
- .31
Perumanagliga}. who is sought to be identified with a Ganga king,
Vanarayar is identified with Bana, who allied himself with the
Ganga when the Pallava attacked. The Bana of the Va^ugava],!
region, thus, is supposed to have ordered his man - the chief
Gangadiyaraiyar - to resist the Pallava attack.

v But in view of the provenance of the record in the Gugi-

yattam region which then was a part of the Pallava territory and
in view of its being dated in the reign period of the Pallava,
it is difficult to accept the identification of Perumanafllga].
with a Western Ganga king. On the other hand, Vallavaraiyar of
the record is to be identified with the Vallabha [Link]., the Rash$ra-
kuta king Dhruva. It is known that this king*s brother Govinda
revolted and sought the help of a number of southern powers to
32
establish his claim, Dhruva who got into the saddle of power
(c. 780 A.D.) put down the rebellion and appears to have attacked
the south in retaliation. Nandivarman II Pailavamalla*s reign
is considered to have commenced in 730-31 A.D., fixed on the
33
basis of TJlchala record and hence his 52nd year would correspond
* 34
to 782-83 A.D. This was the period of Dhruva*s southern invasion.

It may be further stated that the contemporary Ganga king

§riPurusha did not acknowledge the overlordship of Pallava Nandi-
%

varman who is known to have fought a series of battles against

35
him. This Ganga did not accept the suzerainty of the Rasb$ra-
 93

kutas either, although once in §aka 690 (- 768 A.D.) he had

36
suffered defeat at the hands of Krishna I. Dhruva on his
part was incessantly attacking the Ganga and the Pallava
territories. The Kuligikki inscription seems to refer to
one such attack by the Vallabha against the Pallava, soon
after his assuming the power*

From the above discussion on the Kulidikki inscription,

it may be Inferred that the Banas while backing up the Pallavas
rose against the Vallabha forces. Vanaraiyar of this record
may be identified with Jayanandivarman of the Udayendiram plates.
The Bana king who directed the Ganga chief from Kajkaftur was
perhaps one [Link] Pullnagu Banas ruling over Perumbanappafli
region which included Kalakajtur.

The Tiruvallam record of the 62nd year (792-93 A.D.) of

Vijaya Nandlvlkramavarman states that a certain Mavali-Vinarayar,
37
was ruling over Va^ugava^i-12000. The personal name of this
Mahavali Banara^a is not known. Venkayya has identified the
ruler of the Tiruvallam record with the successor of Pallava
38
Dantivarman viz.. Nandivarman III. The Bina chief mentioned
in the record is associated with the Prasastl Sakala-.1 agattrav-
Ibhivandlta-aur-asur-adhlsa-pratlharlkrlta etc. These are not
found ascribed to Bana Jayanandivarman (or) Nandivarman of the
Udayendiram and Gugimallam plates respectively. It may not be
farfetched if we identify the Bapa chief of the Tiruvallam
record with Vijayaditya I, the successor of Jayanandivarman,
although there are not secure grounds for such an identification.
 99

Bana Vijayaditya mentioned in the record of forty-ninth year

(845 A.D.) of Dantivarman, son of landivarman II, is identical

m 39
with Vljayaditya, son of Jayanandivarman. Hence we may fix

the reign period of Bana Vijayaditya I between c. 793 A.D. -

845 A.D.

This was a period of political confusion in the Ganga

country. As long as Sivamara II, son of Srlpurusha lived, he

did not accept the suzerainty of the Rlshjrakuja. But his own

house had not been set in order. §ivamara who spent most of
4°
his time in the prison made over his kingdom to Vijayaditya
in preference to his own son Prithvlpati I. This resulted in

the division of the Ganga kingdom, Ppithvipati I ruling the

southern portions with Ta^aka^n as the capital. In this family

dispute the Banas sided Prithvlpati I. In the northern portion

Rachamalla I ruled as an heir-apparent with his father, in the

beginning and later independently from c. 816 A.D.

The Bapas appear to have taken advantage of the decline

t

in the power of the Gangas and occupied the Ganga-6000 territory

even prior to the accession of Rachamalla II. Ihe Bowringpet

inscription of this period attests to Bana rule over this region.

42
One of the two records of Mahaball Vanaraiyar from

Karshanapalle, Punganur taluk refers to his rule over Ganga-6000

(Gangarusasira). when the Ballaha attacked Ka£uve$$i in order to

exact tribute from the latter. It further records that at that

time when the servant (name not given) of Bana-Tat£aran, who was
 1 f'O

himself a servant of Vijayitta (Baria Vijayaditya) was on his

way back to his village, a certain Ganamutti attacked him and
Bana-Taffaran was killed in the fray. This record may be
assigned to the first quarter of the 9th century A.D. on
grounds of palaeography.

The Ballaha that figures in this record can be identified

with Rashtrakuja Govinda III. But who is the KiguveJ;$i mentioned1*
•Kaguvetfi* is an appellation borne by both the Nolambas and the
Pallavas. But in the present context the Ki£uvettl has to be
identified with the Pallavas, for, the name Ka£uvettl occurs in
an inscription of the Banas who are known to be the feudatories
of the Pallavas. Further, it may be noted that the Nolambas were
on inimical terms with the Banas. It is clear that the Rashtra-
kuta met the Kaduvet'Jji in the Bana territory. The Pallava with
whom Govinda III fought was probably Dantivarman. We know from
the British Museum plates that Govinda III vanquished the
+3
Pallavas who had Joined a confederacy of kings against him. Pro­
bably the Pallavas did not remain submissive to the Rashtraku^as
too long after their debacle in the hands of Govinda III. Govinda
probably undertook another expedition to-Overcome the Pallavas
and collect tribute from them.

1 Kannada record in characters of the 9th century from

Vanamaladlnne states that, during the reign of Mahabali Vanarasa
over Va(jlugavali-12000 and Ganga-6000, a certain hero named Ama'[Link]
Kittanpajj, son of Tarara-Dharmmada-menti, fought with the Vaidumba
44
chief who attempted to lift the cattle and died. This Mahabali
45
Vaparasa is identified with Vijayaditya I. It is probable that
 101

in the coarse of carving out territories for themsevles the

Vaidumbas and the Banas entered into hostilities against each

other.

, At this juncture we may review the record from Rayakoja

in Dharmapuri district. This Kannada record, in characters of

early 9th century, refers to the rule of Mahabali Banarasa and

mentions his 4th year. The record states that this Banarasa
proceeded against Manne on behalf of Ganga (Gangegael) when a

Yaidumba attacked. Vaparaju defeated him. The inscription

records the death of a hero Klrttilamma-ra^farasa, the ruler of

Tekalnapu-20 in the battle. This Inscription confirms the

inimical relations that the Bapas had with the Vaidumbas. The

fact that the Bapa proceeded against Mappe shows that Manne

was then under the control of either Raohamalia I or Bankesa and

that the Bana proceeded against it on behalf of Prithivipati I0

Vijayaditya I, *the best of the just rulers', is described

in the Udayendiram plates as one who scattered a host of oppo­

nents and before whom the enemy, sdiied with great fear, did not

stand on the field of battle.

Vijayaditya appears to have ruled over the western and

eastern regions of Chittoor district as indicated by the pro­

venance of his inscriptions. Vijayaditya appears to have ruled

till c. 845 A.D. He was succeeded by Malladeva of whom there is

a record at Chippili which records a grant of land to an indivi-

48
dual named Bjeyan. A record from Proddatur refers to a
49
Vikramadittan as the son of Kulantanelva Peruminir. This
 in 2
VIkramadittan may probably be identified with Vikramaditya I
60
Bana-Kandarppan, son and snccessor of Malladeva to whom the
61
epithet Kulantangiya Pernmanar will apply. An explanation of
52
this epithet may be given in the light of the Dharmapuri record.

This reeord furnishes an Interesting information about the

treachery played by the No^ambas against the Banas in a bid to

overcome the latter. The No^ambas had allied themselves with

• . A.
the Gangas of the collateral line upholding the cause of Racham|la

and naturally they had antagonised the Banas, who at this Period

were superior in strength to that of the Molambas and their

allies. The UoXambas in order to overcome the numerically

superior Banas chose to befriend them first and then attaek them
i

in an unguarded moment. This stratagem devised by the Nolambas

appear to have been successful. The Nolambas came as far as

Dharmapuri and in the fight that ensued the Bana king lost his

life. It is apparent that the No].ambas scored a victory over

the Banas in this battle. They captured the Ganga territory

occupied by the Banas.

The Molamba occupation appears to have continued for

sometime since the Bana country was in a state of utter confusion

after the death of the Biria king. The Bana queen who was enceinte

at the time of her husband*s death was rescued and she gave birth

to a child. The infant was proclaimed as king and the Bana army

thereupon fought with the aggressor and drove the Kolambas from

out of their territory. The name of the Bana king who lost his

life in the battle with the Molambas is not easy to determine,

since the inscription itself is silent on this point. We know

 103
from an inscription at Nitlmarga Bjeganga dated §aka 775 (= 853
A.D.) that NbXamba ib]. ale bora I ruled as far as Kanchi. Since
Dharmapurl lay on the way 1>0 Kanchi, it is quite probable that
it was the same No&amba ib^alchora I who attacked the Banas. If
so, this event should have taken place between 845 and 853 A.D.
The Bipa king who lost his life was probably Malladeva. Thus
the epithet Kulantlngiva-p&rumanar may be applied to Malladeva,
as he had helped the continuance of the Bicua family by producing
a worthy son and successor and by sacrificing his life in the
defence of his territory*

Malladeva succeeded Vijayaditya in c. 845 A.D. The ear­

liest reference to Vikramaditya I who succeeded Malladeva is
found in a record of Pailava Bandlvarman III dated in the latter* s
54
17th regnal year corresponding to 863 A.D* Hence we may
surmise that the NoXamba attacked the Batia soon after the death
of Vijayaditya and that Malladeva lost his life very soon after
his accession. Although the Banas recovered soon and overthrew
the BoXambas, they had to wait for sometime till 863 A.D., to
have a ruler on the throne who could independently manage the
affairs of the state. Vikramaditya I was born in c. 846 A.D.,
soon after the death of his father. Vikramaditya Is known from
another inscription from Avilala in Chandragiri taluk dated in
the 21st (twentyfirst) year (867 A.D.) of Kovisaya Nandivik-
55C
kiramaparmar, identified with Nandivarman III.

In the Gu^imallam inscription of Pallava Npipatunga, dated

in the 24th year (= 883 A.D.) of his reign, Vikramaditya is
56
called Vanavidvadhara. The Gulganpojle Inscription of Vlkra-
 104

57
maditya Jayameru also mentions him with a similar title.
Evidently the VanaYidyadharaCO figuring in the inscription of
uo
Nyipatunga and Vikramaditya is Identical with Vikramaditya I
Jayameru. N.L. Rao has assigned the period from 828 A.D. to
59
870 A.D, to Vikramaditya I,

Banavidyadbara married Kundawai alias Vanamahadevi,

* 60
daughter of Prithivlpati I. We know that Prithivlpati I
61
(c. 853 A.D.) was a contemporary of Amoghavarsha I and
.
Nripatungavarman. 62
Therefore this Bipa king was a junior
contemporary of Ganga king Pyithivlpati I,

Vikramaditya Jayameru witnessed several battles which

ultimately led to Prithivlpati I being over-thrown by Raehamalla I
and his successor Nltimarga Ejeganga. All through this war
Pulinijta was the target of attack by the Gangas and the Noiambas.
During the period of Vikramaditya I No^ambas claim to have
63
occupied it* The Banas, on the other hand, held the Ganga-6000
territory, on behalf of Prithivlpati, who wps staying in Puli-
na$u. The NO^amba Po]l4cb°ra> as is seen in the chapter on the
64
Ifolambas, also claims to be ruling over Ganga-6000 region.
This was because he wanted to repulse the Bapas from the region.
Wj^th that Intention the No^ambas also attacked Pullnariu to
divert the attention of the Banas. The Kapalle inscription in
Kannada characters of the 9th century refers to an attack by a
Maharaja on Chemma[m]guru, during the reign of Mahibali Vapavidbya-

.
dhara over Va$ugava],i-12000 and Ganga-6000.
named Ponnapudali Manikka-menti fought against
65
A Bana hero
the Maharlja and
died. It is not clear who the Maharaja was. Chemma[m]guru
’ . - . - 66
may be identified with Chembakuru, north west of Punganur.

This Maharaja seems to be a local chief for the fight between

him and Mlsarasa (Masarayya) from the same place is mentioned

67
in the records of Rashtrakuja Kannaradeva.

When the enemies laid siege to the village Vanamaladinne

and lifted the cattle, Naglla Mulagundura, son of Mulagundura,

by not allowing them to take away his cattle fought in the

68
battle that ensued and lost [Link] life# It may be pointed out

that probably the Ho^ambas might have besieged the Bapa

village Vanamaladinne. Therefore Mahabali Biparasar of this

inscription is probably to be identified with Vikramlditya I

v

of the Kapalle inscription. This identification does not

V

militate against the palaeography of the Vanamaladinne record,

69
One of the inscriptions in Kannada characters of 9th century

A.D. from BudiAapalle from Punganur taluk records that a certain

Mudhudaragona-mept,i of Minikki destroyed Kujunjea'J.e and taken tbe

cows from that village. During this fight one Periyavan fell

and another hero named KaJ-Smuddan, (both from the Bipa camp) was

pierced and put to death. Another inscription almost of the

same characters^which records the death of one llamaran alias

Kelemu^dan in tbe course of the attack on the same place

(KujujjiyaJ.a or Kujunjeale) by a certain Mudunda of Minki belongs

70
to the reign of a Mahavali-Vanarasa. The Bana king of this

inscription is identical with Mahavali Vaparajan Vikramaditya

Banakandarppan of the Btiflidapalle record, for, we find the same

 * P6

bv&nt is recorded in both the inscriptions. The chiefs of

Miniki probably rushed to Ku^unjeale to oppose the No^ambas
who invaded Pulinapu. It is not clear whether Kujunjeale was
attacked before they proceeded against Miniki or while return­
ing from Miniki. KujunjJeale or Kujujjiya^a can be identified
with Kirujala situated west of Punganur, not far away from
Miniki. As the village Miniki has been given as bilaalchu to
the deceased Bapa hero hy one and the same king, it is diffi­
cult to say that the chiefs from Miniki are the defectors of
the Binas. It is however obvious that Miniki in Pulinapu was
in the hands of the Bapas.
i

Another fight between the Banas and the Kb^ambas occurred

at Miniki in the reign of Vanavidbyadhara i.e., Vikramaditya I
in the course of the ![Link] attack on Pulinapu. In the course
of this attack a Bina chief Deveya, son of Kanda^iga Pemgamga,
who' was sent to repel the No^amba 71
attack, fought with the
invading forces and lost his life. As Vikramaditya I Jayaraeru
reigned for a period of about twenty-five years from 863 A.D.
his Mojamba contemporary could be none other than Mahendra (I),
even though the latter's earliest record is dated ajdeeade later,
for we know that his father Po^achora (I) probably ceased to rule
after his Bapa contemporary Malladeva. The fight between the
Banas and the No^amba Mahendra continued. During the r eign
of Vikramaditya I, some of the forces of Kaduvet£i attacked
Mavindiur, the identity of which is not known. The chief
Dogaraja, under the orders of prince Prabhumeru proceeded against
 107
A

the enemy and killed them. When the Bana army could not drive

away the Kaduvetji forces the Bapa king himself proceeded and
7§
attacked them. As mentioned earlier the No],amba contemporary

of Vikramaditya Jayameru was Mahendra. Therefore Kaduvetti

who invaded against the Blna may he identified with No].amba

Mahendra.

An inscription from Kurapalle records the death of Mudugan

after killing the enemies and capturing the cows of Pudali-ogeya

in a battle fought at Palpaduvu between Vikramiditya Tanarasa

73
and Kannakuriya. The hostile chief Kapnakuri has been identi-
- 74
fied with a member of tjhe Ganga family Jayateja. If this

Identification is accepted, one has to suppose that there was

Ganga intrusion into the Bana territory. Evidences are however

lacking to admit this hypothesis. When the Bapa hero took away

the cows from Pudali, the same as Budili, in Hindupur taluk, it

might have resulted in conflict between the No^ambas and the

Banas at Palpaduvu in the Kb^amba territory itself near Budili.

Then the chief Kannakuri might have been from the Hbiamba camp.

The above epigraph in Kannaga language and script may palaeo-

graphically be assigned to late 9th century.

The Banas seem to have attacked the Sbl,amba country a s a

countermeasure of the latter* s invasion made on Pulinajlu. In

fact, the NoT,ambas were successful in their attempt to capture

the enemy garrisons before the Banas could attack the fort of

Sorema$i. Besides this, the enemies were able to launch upon

other Sbrategic places. The Banas in turn made attempts to

 lf)8

capture the No^amba force. A 'soldier serving under prince

Vijayaditya named Nilaganflan, the son of Munjlan, belonging to
_ -r 75
Majjili-tafctajar, died after capturing the fort of Ariyapa].].!.
-The prince
v
Vijayaditya who despatched the Bina
•
forces and who
is referred -to as the son of Mahavali Baparasa is identified
with Vijayaditya II Prabhumerft, for, we know from the Gulganpod
record that the prince Prabhuraeru a ssisted his father Vikrama-
ditya against Kaguve£$i, i.e., the HO^ambas. Again, we hear
i

of an attack of the Banas joined by Perumanagiga]. on the BO].amba,

Bichamalla and their allies which resulted in a battle at
Mandavuda, the identity of which however is not known.

Ha havalibanara sa, I.&., Banavidbyadhara, was ruling over

Vallam, which lies to the west of VagugavaJ-i (Va^ugava^ivin
paduva) and to the east of Manpe (Mannevln tQ^df.). His rule
. * 76
over Gangarusasira is not disclosed by the Chagalla record.
The Banas might have partly lost this province as a result of
/

the No],amba invasion led by Mahendra piobably at the end of

his reign. An inscription of this Bapa king from Balia In
Mulbagal taluk quotes this regnal year. It is apparent from this
77
record that he had control over the region around Mulbagal.
It may however be pointed out tliat he was the most powerful
among the Bartas, for we know that in his reign, the Bana power
reached its zenith. He quotes his own regnal year 2. This
shows that the Pallavas, at least temporarily lost bold over
the Banas. But it is difficult to fix this period of inde­
pendent rule of the Binas.
 109

The protracted struggle between tbe Banas and the Nolambas

“ _ " 78
finally resulted in the Soremati event. The records of No^amba
Bo^alehora* s son Mahendra do not mention Raehamalla II as his
overlord. It has been suggested, that Mahendra began to govern
the Gangarusasira region, as a feudatory of Fltimarga, probably
towards the end of latter's reign. Mahendra*s earliest known
date Is §aka 800 (= 878 A.D.), In an Inscription from Dharma-
79
purl dated in the same year we get a reference to a No^amba.
He is probably identical with Mahendra. Mahendra seems to have
extended his territories far and wide subjugating all his
80
enemies. From this record at Dharmapuri it may be suggested
that he extended his kingdom far into the south-east by 878 A.D.
(Vilambi year). It is not known how far his claim over Ganga-
81
vagi-96000 in his inscription at Dharmapuri is reasonable.
In the absence of dated records earlier than §aka 800 (= 878
82
A.D.) the date of the Baragur record, it is difficult to
determine the exact date when he ceased to recognise the Gangas
as overlords. The suggestion of Krishna Sastri that on a date
before 878 A.D., Mahendra had become Independent, on the basis
of the title borne by him seems to be little doubtful. An
34
Inscription In the Bowringpet taluk of Kolar district, states
that Mahendradhiraja was ruling the Gangarusasira province.
Unfortunately this record is not dated. Also out of the two
records from Dharmapuri, the one dated does not mention the name
of the king, while the other Is not dated. All these Inscriptions
do not give us any clue to know when exactly he assumed

/
sovereign or independent status*
85
IT.L. Rao*s assessment that during the time of Rachamalla
II, Mahendra was not on friendly terms with the Gangas, based
on the Hb^amba-Racheya Ganga fight in 892 A.D. referred to in
Iggali record is not correct* It has already been said that
before the crowning,of Butuga I around 886 A.D. by his elder
brother Rachamalla II, we have no records either of the Gangas
or of the No^ambas to indicate their inimical relationship.
Therefore it is more probable that Rlchamalla who took part in
the Soremati battle was Bachamana who took part in tho Soromafefc
battle was Richamalia II, instead of Rachamalla I as suggested
by N.L, Rao and correspondingly his No],amba contemporary was
Mahendra and not his father. So the No],ambas appear to have
owed their allegiance to the Gangas upto the time of the Sore-
ma£i battle. This would lead us to infer that Mahendra not only
acknowledged the suzerainty of the Gangas in the earlier part of
his reign but also joined them to drive out the Bana and his
allies. By virtue of this act he had an opportunity to meet
i

the aggressors when they made an attack on his territory with

the whole hearted support of the Gangas*

The Permlnagi on whose behalf the Banas met the enemy

forces on several occasions and finally at Soremati can be
identified with Ppithivipati I. According to R.s. Panchamukhi
as Prithivlpati I, who supported the cause of Pallava Aparajita
lost his life in the fight against Pandya Varaguna at §rl-
puramblyam, the struggle was continued in the period of his son
 <11
. 87 . .
Nanniya Gangs wbo net the Gangs king Rachamalla II
88
and his
_A 89
allies. In the Gorbifg05r inscription, one Nanniya Ganga
described as son (maga) of Prithvlpati, is found fighting on
. _ 90
behalf of Anniga Blra Nol,amba against the Santara chiefs.
R.S. Panehamukhi accepts the statement in the aforesaid inscrip­
tion ad-verbatim and believes that Pyithvlpatl I had a son named
Nanniya Gangs. This view, it may be noted, is based on the
identification ofTrithvlpati which requires some reconsidera­
tion. Only one son of Prithvlpati I is well known from ins­
criptions! sources. In the absence of other corroborative
evidences, it is difficult to accept the statement that Ppith-
vlpati I had a son named Nanniya Ganga. Further, Ppithylpati I
died by 880 A.D. in the Sripurambiyam battle and we do not know
who succeeded him. In the absence of any direct evidence to
the continuance of the ,struggle to the Ganga throne continued by
the successor of Pj*ithvipati I, we are tempted to believe that
the struggle initiated byTtithvipati I came to an abrupt,end
after his death and that he was followed by a weak successor
about 880 A.D. who was probably Marasimha, figuring in an ins­
cription from Takkolam dated 894-95 A.D. of the reign of Cbola
91
Rajakesarivarman (identified with Adltya I) and in the
TJdayendiram charter of Pplthvipati II. In the Takkolam ins­
cription of the aforesaid Rajakesarivarman, the donor Ppithvlpati-
ajaiyar is mentioned as a son of Manamajaiyanar. It is possible
to identify this Maramajaiyan with Marasimha, son of Prithvl­
pati I, mentioned in the TJdayendiram plates. In which case,
Pfithvlpati I had a son Marasimha and not Nanniya Ganga.
 If we accept the statement that Nanniya Ganga fought for
Nolamba and the identification of Prithivipati with Prithivipati
I, then it would be difficult to explain the cause for the
friendship between the Nolamba and Nanniya Ganga, whose father
was on inimical terms with the former. Therefore it is diffi­
cult to accept R.S. P&nchmukhi*s view. According to Pancha-
mukhi Nanniya Ganga fought with the Nolamba, who is to be
identified with Vlra Nolamba. They would thus be contemporaries.
But. it is not correct, for, we know that Vlra Nolamba came to
92 "
the throne as late as 925 A.D. By this time Prithivipati II
had come to the Ganga throne. Prithivipati (II), it may be
noted, was a vassal of Parantaka I. Farther It is not known
whether Pyithivlpati II had a son named Nanniya Ganga, who fought
93
either against or on behalf of the Nolambag.
a
The conclusion
of Panchamukhi that Nanniya Ganga took part in the Soremati
battle against the Nolamba-Bachamalia group is not acceptable.
Nbr is it possible to accept the date of the battle as 885 A.D.

It is well known from the TJdayendirara plates that Vikra-

maditya had a son Prabhumeru. The Gu^imallam plates reveal the
fact that Vikrama'ditya had a son Vijayaditya by name. In the
inscriptions of Vikramaditya I, Prabhumeru is found associated
with him in the wars against the Kaguve$ti forces. The identity
of Vijayaditya with the crown prince Prabhumeru is also confirmed
94
by an inscription from Punganur which gives his full name as
Vijayaditya-Prabhumeru. In the light of this inscription Vira-
chulamani who is referred to in the Nolamba inscription will have
 113

also to be identified with Vijayaditya II-Prabhumeru.

i

He succeeded his father Viferamaditya-Jayameru and ruled

95
over Vadugava],!-12000 and the east of Manpe. During the reign
of this king KapuveJifji-Muttaxasar raided Koyattur. Since we
know that Pullnapu (in which Koyattur was included) was earlier
attacked by the Nolambadiyarasa who sent Ka^uvetti and Mripuva
**96
to burn the city of Bermavi it is not impossible to identify
this Kaguvetti-Muttarasa with the No^amba king. As has been
already stated, the fto^amba king who undertook this raidljwas
Polalebora, subordinate of the Ganga king Rachamalla I and
Nltlmarga. That Eoya^jur is same as Lagfligam is already stated.
✓

It is apparent that Mahendra who attacked Pull-nadu in the

97
reign of Bana-Vidyadhara attacked again in the reign of his
successor Vijayaditya-Prabhumeru. Thus the fight between the
two powers went on during rthe period of Virachulamani. But the
Bapas seem to have survived the onslaughts of NOlamba Mahendra.
We hear of Vijayiditya-Prabhumeru ruling as late as 909 A.D.
from a number of his inscriptions. Mahendra* s claim in his
Dharamapuri inscription dated §afia 815 (= 893 A.D.) as the
destroyer of MaJalkaliMLa (^faibaU^VlU-sAdfagaPLaaQa) seem to be
an exaggerated'account, in the light of Vijayaditya*s latest
date §aka 831 (= 909 A.D.) known from inscriptions. N.L. Rao
has opined that Mahendra should have destroyed either Malladeva
or Vljayaditya I before the beginning of Bapa-Vidyadhara*s reign.
But both these Bapa kings ruled in a period earlier to Mahendra*s
accession. Hence it is doubtful whether the Nolambas had grown
i

yet powerful enough to rout the Binas once for all during this
period*

After the Soremati battle Vijayaditya II was able to rule

with less pressure on his kingdom either from the Nolamba or
Ganga. We know that Vikramaditya I ruled upto 883 A.D. as a
subordinate of the Pailava king* Subsequently, Vijayaditya II
i

seems to have declared his independence as his records are dated

in §aka years without mentioning any overlord. It is interesting
to note that an inscription from Tiruvallam, of a Mahabalivana-
rSja gives the §aka date 810. This Bina king is probably
identical with Vijayaditya Prabhumeru for his inscriptions cite
98
dates from §aka 820 onwards* It may be surmised therefore,
that Vi jayaditya-Prabhumeru was the first Bana king known to have
ruled independently* His father is mainly kfaown from the inscrip­
tion of his Pailava overlord whose regnal years he quotes. There­
fore, it may be suggested that the earliest date of Vijayaditya II
99
is probably Saka 810 (= 888 A.D.)

The invasion of Vlrachu^amani1s territory and the burning

t

of Bermavi by Nolambadiarasa and his chiefs has been fixed in a

period earlier to the reign of Mahendra. Again this poses a
question as to who was the ruling Bipa king during this period*
In the light of Gulglnpode inscription recording that Prabhumeru
associated himself with his father Vikramaditya I, probably as
the crown prince, it may be explained that Vlrachulamani in a
100
similar capacity fought back against the Nolamba army. Accord­
ing to N.L. Rao, the Nolamba attack on Pulinaflu is a sequel to
the annexation of the Bina territory. He argues that Pulinapu
 115

was at this time In the possession of the Kolambas on the basis

of the existence of the Ifolantba record at Kalakatbur which was

In Pulinagu. The attack was made rather to ease the Bina pressure
i

on Ta|akka$u than to divert the attention to the Banas. If this

was an attempt by the Hblambas to retain the status of Inde­

pendence after the death of, Mahendra, then it must have been

made by his brother No^amba No|ipayya. The aforesaid view sug­

gested by N.L. Bao is out of question as the HbT,ambas during this

period had straiqed relationships with the Gangas.

The raid on Koyirrnr by Kafluvetti-Muttarasa should have

taken place before 895 A.D., the last known date of Mahendra
(NblambSdhirija) from Tiyalur record, for he was powerful till
101
about this date* When he tried to assert his independence,

during the end of his reign, Gangas could rot tolerate it and

consequently constant struggle between Mahendra and the Ganga

102
prince Butuga took place. In the Kudalur plates and Kadalur
103
plates of Marasimha II, Butuga claims to have defeated Mahendra,
V

as Vishnu did Mura, in the battles of Hiriyur, Surur and Samlya.

Earlier in the Keregoda-Rangapura plates of Rachamalla II,

Buuuga is described in glorious terms as "paritaPita-Pan ava-aatr

104
kulotkara^1*. This Pallava king who was chastised by Butuga I

in the battle of Saniya may probably be identified with the

/

Nolamba Pallava Mahendra. Ultimately the valour of Mahendra

appears to have been curbed by Butuga's son Breganga II who

105
killed him in a battle.

x
 f 16

Vijayaditya-Prabhumeru, son of Mahadevi-Migal, alias

106
Maraka[ni]mmadigal has been assigned the §aka dates viz,,
107
820 (= 898 A.D.) and 827 (= 906 A.D.) on the basis Of the
Gugimallam inscription. Further an inscription from Bima-
krlsbnarajupeta in Tiruttani taluk refers to one Vijayiditya-
1 108 *
Yanaraya. This king may be identified with Vijayaditya II
on account of the similarity of characters with the Gudimallam
inscriptions dated 898 and 905 A.D. Evidently Bana Vidhya-
dhara, his father, had two queens viz.. Eundawai alias Bana-
H0 _ _ 1^1
mahidevi and Mahadevi Adigal alias Maraka[ni]mmarliga^.
The Manigat$u Gollaha].}.! inscription from Mulbagal taluk
furnishes the last known date for Vijayaditya II yia., §aka 831
(= 909 A.D.).

From the provenence of these records it may be inferred

that during the period of Vijayaditya II, Banas were ruling
simultaneously over the Pulinaflu and the eastern portions of
Chittoor district. Yenkayya while editing the inscriptions from
Gudimallam had suggested that the Bana king Yikramlditya II who
succeeded Yijaylditya-Prabhumeru must have assumed the leadership
of the Banas towards the close of the reign of the Bashtrakuta
112
King Kyishna II. According to the TJdayendiram plates one
Vikramaditya is stated to have been ruling over the Biga terri­
tory. Kielborn identified him with Yikramlditya II, whose rule
113
might have commenced from, c. 900 A.D. Hultzsch while editing
the Gudimallam plates correctly identified him with Yikramlditya
III Vijayabahu, who courted the friendship with the Bishtrakuja
(Krishna). An examination of the Udayendiram plates of Prith­
vipati II reveals that Parantaka'I uprooted by force two Bana
kings, besides defeating a Vaiduraba ruler and thereupon con­
ferred the dignity of *the lord of Binas* on the Ganga king,
114
Hastimalla. It may not be wrong in identifying these two
Bana rulers with ?ijayaditya II-Prabhumeru and his son Vikra-
maditya II. 5tor, we know that during this period Prithvipati II
is already referred to under the title f§embivan Mahavall-
. 115
vanarava* in an inscription from Pu].|amangai dated 913 A.D.
i.e. the sixth year of Parantaka I, This implies that Parantaka I
by defeating the aforesaid Bana kings before 912 A.D., probably
conferred the title on the Ganga who might have helped him in
his conflict against the Banas.

It would be significant to examine the rule of Sembiyag

Mahabalivanarayar who figures as a vassal of Parantaka I in his
sixth year. The Tamil portion of the Udayendiram plates
116
of
Maduraikonfla-Parakesari dated in his fifteenth year establishes
the identity of Sembiyan Mahabalivanarayar-and the Ganga
chieftain Prithvipati who assumed the title [Link] by stating
that Ganga Pfithvipati earned the title together with t he Bina
territory for his services. Prithvipati has been Identified
with Prithvipati II, for we know that he was an ally of the
117 -
Cho].a king and a Junior contemporary of Xdltya I, as the
Sbolingur record mentions that this Hastimalla won in a battle
at Vallala identified with Vallam [Link].,
i.j Tiruvallam and assumed
118
the title of his overlord Virachola. It is not impossible that
he assisted his suzerain In the latter*s campaigns in the north.

The claim made In the Udayendirara charters indicate that by

912 A.D. Itself Parfintaka I wrested the Bana territory and

handed It over to Pylthjylpati II.

It Is Interesting to note that the Bapa Inscriptions found

in t he Punganur taluk do not furnish any specific reference to

the names of the Bana rulers. Therefore the Identification of

, * ,

Mahavalibanarasa of some of the records found at Peddavala-

119 120 . 121 122
ga$nru, Karshanapalle, Chalamangala, Bmbadi and
123
Pudupa$la lg not* easy. But these Inscriptions can be fixed

in the reign of Yikramaditya in

as has already been stated.
The Binas seem to have disappeared from the political scene

[temporarily] after 912 A.D. Prom the Inscriptions of Peddavala-

;

gafuru from Punganur taluk^ we hear of one Bala soma Bhatara

administering t he area during ihe reign of Mahavali Banarasa. It

is not known whether Balasomabha$ara of the Inscription under

review can be identified with a donee of the same name mentioned

In the Nolamba inscription of Hoiambadhiraja probably identical

# 124
with Iriva Nolamba fe].ipayya (c. 898 and 918), Apart from

the palaeography and the similarity of the names we have no

other evidences for the above identification. Unfortunately the

details viz., month Pushya, Jupiter in Makara are not sufficient

to calculate the date of the record. These details are not un­

likely to correspond to dates in the reign of both No].amba No].ipayya

brother of Mahendra and Iriva No^amba Dillpa (c. 940-67 A.D.).

However, it is not impossible to identify the Bana king of the

Peddavalagaturu record with Vikramaditya IT if the Bala soma-
bha$5ra of the Bana inscription is the same as the one figuring
in the No^amba record.

The next Bana king known from the Udayendiram plates is

* 125
Vijayaditya-Puga^vlpparagagga. Since the Banas were over­
thrown by the Cbo|a king Parantaka, who entrusted the Bana
territory to his subordinate Ppithvipati II, It is difficult
to postulate the reign of Vijayaditya III. This can be
attested by the absence of his inscriptions In the Pulinagu
\ ^
region. The Bana interregnum as stated above seem to have
continued till about 940 A.D. when Kpishna III entered Tonga-
ma^alam with his powerful forces. An Inscription from Tiruch-
chinur mentions Vijayaditta whose identity is not clear. If he
can be identified with his namesake among the Binias, it is
probable that he may be Either Vijayadttya II Prabhumeru or
Vijayaditya III PugaJ,vippraganda. The identification of Vijaya-
dltta presumably as a Bana king with VIjayaditya Prabhumeru is
possible in preference to Vljayaditya III in view of the fact that
the Banas were, relegated to the background and lost their terri­
tory to the Ganga king by 912 A.D. It is already known that
VIjayiditya II*s last date was 909 A.D. and so he cannot be
Vijayaditya II. In the ease of identification with Vijayaditya
III, it may be suggested that the Bapas seem to have availed the
opportunity of Parantaka's absence in this region In the second
quarter of the 10th century A.D. This Is testified by the absence
of his inscriptions from the fifteenth to the twentyfourth pegnal
 \

120

years of his Cbola king, particularly in the northern parts of

the Chittoor district,

Vijayaditya III was succeeded by Vikramaditya III, A

Bana record found at Peruraa].nallur in Tiruttani taluk dated in
§aka 8[6]2 (la words) (= 940 A.D.) refers to a Bana king Vikra-
126
maditya. He is probably identified with Vikramaditya III
who by 940 A.D. might have retained the ancestral dominion lost
to the Cbolas early in the reign of his grandfather, possibly
with the support of Kpishn® III. This Vikramaditya III is
referred to in the Udayendiram plates of Bana Vikramiditya,
as *a fltPJ of Bashtrakuta Krishna ([Link]-
127
PXiy&fcO* The queen of Vikramaditya Ma[habali]vanaraya is
described as the niece (marumagalarrP of a certain TImmadarayar,
whose identity is not known. It is significant to note that
a Bana king is referred to as SL EBlfiK ft£ [Link] in a
128
hero-stone from Sennivaykkal. Venkatasubba Ayyar has identi­
fied the ruler of this [Link] Nandivarman III and
further suggested that it is-a re-engraved record. The Pallava
king Nandippottaralyar mentioned as the Bapa suzerain has been
identified with Te^agreginda Nandivarman III. In fact the
title Te^apreyinda was not assumed by Nandivarman III as there
was no occasion for him to take part in the battle at Tellaj#,
As the Nandivarman of this inscription was a junior contemporary
of Parantaka I and a contemporary of Ariftjaya, he cannot be
Identified with Nandivarman III. Therefore it may be suggested
that Nandivarman IV who assumed the title Te^ayyeyinda seems to
* have been the overlord of this Bana king. The Bana king of
this record in turn may be identified with Vikramaditya III
Vijayabahu.

By Anlvaathanam it is meant that Bana Vikramaditya III

was in control of the regular Bana territory for the inscrip­
tion under the review is found outside the Bana country and
[Link] away from it in the south. It is not impossible
to state that in the course of Kyishpa Ill's southern expedi­
tion, the Bana king Vikramaditya, as a vanguard of his army
might have undertaken a raid on this place*

imsis mmm.
1 EE. Xq&.t Vol. XVII, p. 2, verse 9*
2 Ind. Ant.. Vol. XIII, p. 7,'verse 3; gp. Ind.. Vol. Ill,
ft
pp. 74-76, verse 31.
3 1399, No. 194; Ibid.. 1900, para 85, p. 31;
Ifcifl..* 1906-07, part II, para 46, p. 79; g.I.I., Vol. II
p. 388; H.H.l., part III, p. 1201.
4 l£. Ind.« Vol. XI, p. 233, foot note No. 3.
5 Ibid.« Vol. VIII, p. 32, verse 15.
6 Ibid.. Vol. XI, p. 230, foot note No. 5*
7 IM4.» Vol. VIII, p. 28, foot note No. 5.
8 Mya« Arch. ReP., 1936, p. 72.
9 fi£. Mm Vol. Ill, p. 76, line 21.
10 Ibid.. Vol. XC, p. ,224; Ibid., p. 226; S.I.I., Vol. Ill,
part I, p. 91; IM£., Vol. IX, part I, No. 5; Ibid., No.
11, respectively.
 ■* 22

1(1 For further details see, EE* Ind.T Vol. XI, pp. 230-34
and Ibid. T Vol. XXX, p. 70.
12 IM£., Vol. XXXVII, pp.
13 Ia£. 4ai., Vol. XV, p. 272; Bp. earn., Vol. X, Mb. 157.
14 l£. Ind.. Vol. XI, p. 231.
15 H. Nagaswamys Chengam Nadukayka^.. p. 115 Ho. 1971/63|
1971/685 1971/54.
16 S.i.L.» Vol. Ill, part I, p. 89.
17 Ibid., p. 29.
18 IM. vol. XIII, p. 7; EE. IM** Vol. Ill, pp. 75-76*
19 Ibid.. Vol. XVII, pp. 2-4.
20 Ind. Ant.. Vol. XV, pp. 172-77 and Text pp. 174-76|
Bp. Garn.. Vbl. X, Mb. Iff?*
21 Ibid.. Text pp. 133-34 and plates facing p. 112*
22 Sfi. Ind.T Vol. Ill, Text p. 76, line 28 and plate facing
p.-76; IM* Ant.. Vol. XV, p. 173.
23 EE* Cam.. Hbl. X, Introduction, pp. iv-v.
24 Ibid.T pp. 133-34 and plates facing p. 112.
25 Etndias Is Indian Sis$sm and Snlinm* £m£. £.1* Basal
Felicitation Volume. K.G. Krishnan*s article on Bat$aP&$i-

' Sflxanm A Efll£ lafcSa, PP* 270-71, (Dharwar, 1971).

26 The Mu^iyanur plates can palaeographically be assigned
to 9th century A.D. The characters in this grant on
an examination with the characters of Vokkaleri plates
of Chalukya king Kirtivarman II dated §aka 679 (= 757 A.D.)
reveal clearly the 9th century features in general, and
therefore, later than Vokkaleri grant. Particular attention
 ^ 2 OQ

may be drawn to the fonnation of the letters y, with

a prominent loop at the left and £ and &, which display
a stunted rectangular shape and £ which has the bottom
loop completed, typical of 9th century writing. (See
lE» Qam.f Vol. X, EL. 63 and plate facing translation
p. 14$ Ibid.. Mb. 157 and plates facing translation
p. 112).
27 S£. XM.» Vol. XI, p. 222 and pp. 224-25$ £.1.1.* Vol.
Till, Nos. 524 and 526.

28 g£>. ia&., voi. mi, p. 110.

29 S.L.L., Vol. III, part I, p. 91 and plate facing p. 91.

30 liana. AlSfc. Sfi£. ft£ &.L., 1958-59, pp. 21-22.

31 E£. ind.. Vol. mi, p. 110.

32 Ibid. T Vol. Ill, p. 107, lines 29-34.
33 Proc. a£ I.I.C. (1950), p. 97, foot note No. 9;
Vol. XXX, pp. 289-90o
34 Bfi. lafl., Vol. XXXVI, p. 59.
35 Vol. II, p. 517.

36 SB. Ind.j Vol. xm, p. 278 and p.,280 and plate facing
p. 281.
37 S.I.L., Vol. Ill, part 1, p. 91.
38 SE. IM.* Voi. XI, p. 234.

39 Ibid., p. 225; Ibid.. Vol. XXVII, p. 2; Vol. XI, p. 2 34.

40 S£. Cam., Vol. Ill, No. 402, (1974).
41 Ibid.. Vol. X, Bp. 86.
42 S.L.I., Vol. IX, part I, Nos. 6 and 8.
 124

43 Sfi. Ind., vol. xxxiv, p.

44 [Link]. , 1931-32, No. 197 and plate facing p. 46,
45 i Vol« IX, part I, No. 6.
46 Ibid.. Vol.' VII, NO. 2.

47 ffR. Ind. T Vol. .Ill, p. 78,

48 S'X'X't Vol. IX, part I, No. 1.
49 [Link]., 1944, No. 145.
50 £•!•!•» Vol. IX, part I, No. 2.
51 [Link]., 1944, part II, para 7, p. 57,
52 Vol. VII, No. 581.
53 [Link]., 1912, No. 588.
54 S.I.I., Vol. Ill,, part I, pp. 93-94.
55 [Link].* 1938, No. 188; SSIX&Z& I£MPart IT, para
P.
56 l£. Ind.., Vol. XI, p. 226.
57 Ind. Ant.. Vol. X, p. 39; Sir. Cam.. Vol. X, Sp. 6,
58 Sfi. Ind., Vol. Ill, p. 76.
59 N.L. Rao and R.S. Pancbamukhi: Karnatakada arasu

fflaR^j^auagalfl, p. 226; SSLX&X&I [Link].', 1936, part II,

para , p. 65,
60 Vol. Ill, Part I, Nos. 47 and 48, pp. 99-100.
61 Ibid.t Vol. II, p. 380,
62 IR. Ind., Vol. IV, p. 181.
63 A.E-12., 1912, No. 318.
64 , Vol. IX, part I, No. 20.
65 A.R.1R., 1933-34, NO. 164.
 125
l

66 contrat Ibid., part II, para 7, p. 31. Maharaja is

stated therein to have hailed from Chennnangnru.
67 Ibid.. Nos. 168 and 170.
68 [Link]., 1931-32, No. 196 and plate facing p. 46.
69 (£.X..L.» Vol. IX, part I, No. 2.
'70 Ibid.. No. 3.
71 Ibid.. No. 4.
72 Cam.. Vol. X, Sp. 6.
73 1931-32, No. 187 and plate facing p. 49. This
record has been assigned to the middle of 9th century
in the report.
74 Ibid., part II, para 4, p. 46.
75 Ibid.. No. 195.
76 Vol. IX, part I, No. 11.
77 S£. Cam.. Vol. X, Mb. 92.
78" Vol. IX, part 1, No. 11.
79 Ibid.. Vol. VII, No. 580.
80' l£. Cam.. Vol. XII, Si. 38.

81 » Vol. IX, part I, No. 38.

82 Cam. T Vol. XII, SI. 38.
83 EEL. Vol. X, p. 60, foot note No. 1.
84 EE« Cam., Vol. X, Bp. 64.
85 t Vol. -XLVIII, p.
86 1£. Cam.T Vol. Ill, No. 204 (1974).

87 Ibid.T Vol. X, Gb. 4.

88 EE. Ind.f Vol. XXIV, p. 188.
89' EE. Cam.. Vol. X, Gb. 4.
 120

90 contra* axaaa isss£asass.]-ji* pp* 136-76.

91 $£• Ind-« Vol. XIX, pp. 81-88.
92 A*B*§S*, 1969, Introduction.
93 IS* Cam*, Vol. X, Ob. 4.
94 S*L*i., Vol. IX, part I, HO. 5.
95 Ibid.. Hbs. 5 and 11*
96 X&M,., Ho. 20.
97 Ibid., Ho. 4.
98 IS* IM*, Vol. XI, p. 227.
99 3.I.I., Vol. Ill, part I, Ho. 44.
100 IMA*, Vol, IX, part I, Ho. 14;
101 IE* Cam.. Vol. Ill, Md. 13.
102 My.8* Arch. Rep.. 1921, p. , lines 55-56,
103 ES« iM*, Vol. XXXVI, p. 103, lines 67-68.
104 Ilya* Arch. RaP.. 1932, p. , lines 59-64.
105 Bp. Ind.T Vol, XXXVI, pp. 103-04, verses 14-15.
™" j

106 Ibid., Vol. XI, p. 227, see also note 99 above.

107 Ibid., p. 228.
108 A.S*lS*, 1971, Ho. 458.
109 IS* Ind*. Vol. XI, pp. 227-28.
110 S*I*I*, Vol. Ill, part I, Ho. 48.
111 IS* IM*, Vol. XI, p. 227.
112 Ibid., p.
113 Ibid., Vol. XVII, p. 3. ’
114
/
S.L.L., Vol. II, PP. 383-84. I

115 IS* IM*, Vbl* XXVI, P* 112? [Link]., 1921, Ho. 559.
 '27

116 a.L.I., Vol. II, No. 76, p. 375.

117 ER. XM*, Vol. XIX, pp. 86-88.
118 Ibid.. Vol. IV, p. 224, verses 9 and 20$ Trav. Arch.
3fiEifiS> Vol. Ill, p. 143, verse 58.
119 A*B*lR*» 1931-32, Nos. 229 and 230.
120 ' 3.1*1., Vbl. IX, part I, No. 12.
121 Ibia.f No. 7.
122 Ibid.T No. 10.
123 Ibid. f No. 9.
124 eontra* Ibid.. No. 32. )
126 SR* Ind.. Vol. Ill, p. 76.
126 A*E*SR.* 1943-44, NO. 160.
127 Ep* XM*, Vol. Ill, p. 76.
128 S*X.X*» Vol. XII, No. 56$ [Link].,, 1929, No. 144$ 3.I.X.I.,
Vol. Ill, part II, p.

\
i
/
$
 128

Ssmalosj a£ iba llpaa -

Bali

Nandlvarman, Jaya nandlvarman

f (e. 788-83 - 792 A.D.)
. I
Vljayaditya (I) (c. 793 - 845 A.D.)
1
. »
Malladeva, Vadhuvallabha Malladiva-Nandivarman
1 (c. 845-46 A.D.)
I
Vlkramaditya I Jayameru, Vlkramaditya
I
- I .
Vanavidyadhara, Vlkramaditya
d Bapakandarppan
(c. 846 - 883 A.D.)
1. Kundawai_flliM
Banamahadevi
2. Mahadevi-
Afligal flljaa
Marekanlnsn-
apigaj.
Vi^ayadltya II frabhumern
I (888 A.D. - 909 A.D.)
Vlkramaditya II ( e. 909-912 A.D.)
I
!
Vij ayadltya-Pugallvipparagappa
(second quarterof the 10th century A.D.)
I
- I
Vlkramaditya III Vijayabahu
(c. 940 A.d.)
 12B
!

I&a. Balaam
The Nolambas descended from the family of Trinayana-
Pallava of Hsvara-vamsa. They are described as No^amba-
Pallavas in their records. That the Nolambas were connected
with the Paliava family is evident from their names like
Singapota (Simhapota) and Mahendra which were borne by the Pailavas.

In the course of several conflicts between the ma^or

powers for supremacy in South India, the Nolambas played a
cominant part by supporting the different sides and changing
\ their allegiance too. We hear of the Nolambas for the first
2
time in the 8th century A.]), probably when the Paliava power
in the north was waning as a result of the constant struggle
with the Chilukyas of Badaml. They seem to have carved out a
small principality for themselves around Henjeru i.g.., modern
Hemavati.

The original habitat of the Nolambas was Nolambalige-

3
1000 which comprised portions of the Anantapur, Chitaldroog
, and Tumkur districts with Henjeru on the bank of the river
, . ^ - -
north Penpar as their capital. The rivers Pennar and Hagari,
which flowed respectively on the east and western sides, formed
the natural boundaries of their land. By their frequent con­
quests and annexations of the neighbouring countries they were
able to' gradually expand their Nolambalige-1000 into a bigger
tract described in the records as Nblarobalige-32000. This

(
 130

might have taken place around the 9th century A.D. in which

period the Ro^amba power was at its zenith. It is also known

from the records of the adjoining territories that in addition

to No^ambavagi, often times other divisions like Kadambalige-

1000$! Eogali-500, Ballakunjle-300, Kaniyakallu-300, Kudiharavi-

70, KareyIdi-30 and Maseyavadi-140 and Sindavidi-1000 came

5 *

under their sway.

An inscription on a pillar at Dharmapuri in Dharmapuri

district, gives the names of 3 generations of No^amba kings

namely Pallavadhiraja, bom of the Pallavas, his son [No ] [lam*]-

# 6
[bjadhiraja and his son Mahendradhiraja No^amba. This record

belongs to the reign of the last mentioned king and is dated

7
§aka 815 (= 892 A.D.). The tiemavati record gives a genealo­

gical account of the family besides the kings mentioned above

commencing from Trinayana Pallava to Dillpa. -This record dated

§aka 864 (= 943 A.D.) refers to the reign of Diliparasa. It

also gives the names of 3 more kings of this family after

Mahendra I, viz.. Nanniga Ayyapa, Anniga and Diliparasa.

\ -

The, earliest inscription of the No^ambas so far known

from Chittoor district is of a Nolambadiyarasa. This is the

8
undated record from Kalaka£tur in Punganur taluk* The

No].ambadiyarasa of this Inscription has been identified by,

R. Shama Sastri and N.L. Bao with. Mahendra I on grounds of

palaeography. It records that this Nolamba chief ruling

I ■f 31

Gangarusasira, marched against Ta^akadu. Kaduvefti and

Mjlfluva of the army of Mahendra invaded Pulinaflu, captured and

burnt the city of Bermavi. On hearing this, Birachulamani

started with his army and successfully encountered their forces*

i

In the serious confusion created at that time by a number of

chiefs (navakas). Tejamani, the servant of Nayamalla fought

heroically and lost his life. In appreciation of his valour,

the Nolamba ruler (arasar) gave as kalnadu the village Kalaele-

mangala, situated in his own territory.

This record has been examined above, in detail while

dealing with the Vaidumbas. It has been shown therein that the

No],amba figuring there was Po],acbora, husband of Jayabbe, the

9
daughter of Ganga Rachamalia I and sister of Ultimarga Ereganga.

The No],ambas, it may be noted, were at first the feuda­

tories of the Rashtrakutas. Their feudatory status under the

10
Rashtrakufas is attested by two inscriptions from Challakere

wherein Charupoimera also called Pallavadhiraja, is stated to

be a subordinate under one Jagattunga Prabhutavarsha Akala-

varsha. This latter is identical with Govinda II. There is

not sufficient evidence to know how long they continued under

the tutelage of the Rashjrakufas. Probably they might have

functioned as feudatories till the advent of Amoghavarsha I.

The end of Govinda 111*3 reign witnessed a change in the power

politics among the southern ruling families®

In the Gangavigi, there had been a conflict between the

 132

members of the main as well as the collateral branch for

power. Sivamlra H had made over his territories to his
younger brother Vi^ayaditya who, however, passed it on to his
son Bachamalla I. Ppithvlpati I, son of Sivamara II, whose
rightful claims had been ignored, naturally sought the
assistance of other neighbouring powers, to get his dominions.
We have seen that several ruling families, big and small, took
part and formed themselves into groups. The Banas upheld
the cause of Prithvlpatl I who was supported also by the
12 *
Pallavas. The Molambas, on the other hand, stood beside
Bachamalla I. Ib^alchora Kolamba, son of Charuponnera
married Jayabbe, the daughter of Bachamalla. The Ganga king,
like his senior uncles, also desired to be Independent of the
tm | •
Bashipraku$;a control. The feudatory status of the Nolambas
under Bachamalla is known from an Inscription at iilbur which
may be assigned to the .period of Bachamalla I, since BoTjalebora
figuring in the inscription was his contemporary#
14
In an Inscription at Ivani in Solar district Divabbarasl
(Divalabbarasi) is stated to have beSn Polalchora's agramahishi
1.1., the senior queen. But as seen above Jlyabbe, the Ganga
a, 1® r

princess had married Polalcbora. It Is therefore clear that

Divalabbarasi Of the Kadamba family was another queen. It Is
16
well known from the Inscriptions at Dharmapuri and Hemavati
that Mahendra was the son of Polalchora I by his queen Jlyabbe.
He had another son, Iyiva-Nolamba by the Kadamba princess
 133

(puttida magam) Divalabbarasl. She was looking forward to

o '
/ her son coming to the throne. It appears that Divalabbarasl
1

acted as a regent of Igiva Hblamba (her kanlva-nandana). when

he was a boy and when Mahendra ascended the throne. Though
Mahendra was the son of Jayabbe, Divabbarasi calls herself the
.lananl of this king. As she was not the uterine mother of
Mahendra, the term .lananl used with reference to Mahendra seems
to have been employed as a conventional term to denote the
17
relationship between the step-mother and step-son. In this
18
connection the identification made by G.N. Saletore regarding
this Divalabbarasl has to be noted. On the basis of Kambaduru
19 20
record of Iblalchora, Karshanapalle inscription of Mahendra
• » 1

and Nelapalle epigraph of Ijiva Noiamba, this scholar states

that Divalabbarasl was the queen of Iblalchora and mother of
Mahendra II. But N.L. Rao and H. Krishna Sastri have shown that
Divalabbarasl of the Evani record is the wife of Iblalchora I
* 21
and mother of Ijiva Nolamba I.
- N 22
The Magivala record states that on the orders of Nolamba-
dhirija who was ruling over Ganga-6000, -Ibmpalla Madeya described
/ as Benga^anatha, engaged the forces of Banarasa in a battle and
died after a heroic fight. It states that In appreciation of
his valour, Perramana$I and Nbiambidhlrala are stated to have
granted Sujuru as baT-galchchn. The HolambadhirSja of this
> Ganga record has to be identified with floralchora I.

That Iblalchora had thus gained in strength becomes all

23
the more clear from the Dharmapurl record which has been discussed
 134

in connection with the account of the Banas. This record refers

to the treacherous way in which the Nolambas befriended the
Bapa, annexed the Ganga territory which was in the hands of the
Bipa and killed, him. The, Nolamba of the Dharmapuri record has
been identified by us with Bolalchora*

All these activities of the Nolamba were in support of

the Ganga cause. The Bapas who had aligned themselves with
the Gangas under Prithvipati had annexed the Ganga territory
on his behalf. The Nolamba on his part assisted the Ganga in
repulsing the Bapa attack and reconquering the territories lost
i
by the Gangas.

Jb^alchora continued to aqeept the suzerainty of the

. _ . 24 *
next Ganga ruler'Nltimlrga Breganga. , Bo^alchora* s sway ex­
tended as far as Kanchi during the reign of his overlord Breganga
t
i % •*

i.e.T Nltimarga Bjeganga (c. 853 - c. 870 A.D.).

i

, Mahendra, the son and successor of Ifelalebora is the

most powerful king of the Nolamba family. He is described
as Trlbhuvana-dhlrah, LokafruIndrS Mahendraht Vlt-bhuPala-maull-
25
pj&paiarPaM-mmfo Slsad&isrib§iiaa£ etc.
%

He inherited that part of Gangavafli which was being ruled

by his father. But after sometime, he embarked on a policy
of expansion of his dominions. Naturally he frequently came
into conflict with the Banas whose territory lay adjacent to
his own. Prom the Bupidepalle record we come to know of the
Nolamba aggression into the Bana territory. A battle took place
 i 35

between the two froees at Miniki. It is quite possible that

Mahendra I might have attacked the Bana territory in the course
i

of such expansionist activities. But the record clearly indi­

cates that Mahendra did not succeed in his effort against the
Batias.

In his Dharmapuri inscription dated §aka 815 (= 892 A.D.)

- I

Mahendra I claims to have destroyed the Bana race (Mahaball

kulavidbvamsana). This statement cannot be accepted in all
its entirety. We know that the contemporary Bina kings of
Mahendra I were Vikramaditya I and Vljayaditya II, who were
very powerful and who appear to have ruled uninterruptedly.
So Mahendra’s claim of destroying the Bana race has to be under­
stood in a relative sense. Ibsslbly, Mahendra I might have
27
scored victory over his Bana adversary in some battle. For,
we know that the Banas and the No].ambas under Mahendra I fought
many a battle before they firmly faced each other in the
famous battle field of SoremaJji.
i / /

The Sorematii battle was fought between the Bina and the
No].amba who had upheld the cause of Prithvlpati I and Rachamalla
- 28
II respectively. The Bana, as already seen above, was sup­
ported by the Vaidumba. So far as the battle itself is con­
cerned, it proved' to be of no use to the Noiamba. We have already
seen that the Soremati battle has not been referred to in t he
Noiamba or the Ganga records. We have also shown that the
battle must have been fought sometime after 872 A.d.
 36
I _ _

One Important outcome of the hattle is the estrangement

or relationship between the Gangas of the collateral line and
the Mo^ambas. Bichamalla II had by then commenced to rule*
The Kujlalur, Kadalur grants of Marasimha II and Kajegojlu-
Rangapura plates of Rachamalla II indicate this strained
relationship. The fact that the record refers to the kings of
Kalinga, Andhra, Dramila among others as having been defeated
in the Samiya battle-field where one of the Ganga opponents was
No^amba Mahendra himself clearly indicates that by then
j

Mahendra had come to be recognised as a foe rather than a friend.

This is more due to the ambition of Mahendra himself who
having realised that the Gangas leaned upon him heavily, slowly
Ignored them and attempted to declare bis independence and
30
expand his dominions.
i
Rachamalla was ably assisted by his
younger brother Butuga whose victories over Mahendra I In
the battles at Hiriyur, Surur and Samiya are described in
3-1 32
the Kujlalur plates and Kadalur plates. Although the
, battles between the Gangas and the Nblambas were long drawn
out and spread over years, the final victory was that of the
Ganga. Nltimarga Bjeganga is described as Mahendrantaka (’).
Mahendra had to ultimately lose his ground,and it is likely
that he died fighting. Ayyapa succeeded Mahendra. A record
of Ijiva Nol,amba Dillparasa from Hemavati dated §aka 864
(= 942 A.D.)-states that he bore the, title Nannie!srava and
33
was an ’adept in diplomacy' (vidita-nava). In the Chittoor
r

district we do not have any of his records. It is not possible

to say whether any part of this area was under his effective
 <37

control. Ayyapa seams to have contracted matrimonial alliance

34
with the Gangas by marrying the Ganga princess Bsllabbarasi
and the Ganga-Nolamba friendship was restored.

Ayyapa was succeeded by his son Anniga who bore the

35
title Tlra Nolamba. During the period of Anniga there was
^ _ 36
rivalry for the throne between Rachamalla III and Butuga II,
sons of Bjeganga II. This provided an ideal opportunity for
Anniga to establish his independence. A hero-stone inscrip-
tion from Hiranandi in Heggadadevanakote taluk assigned to
10th century records the death of four heroes, sons of
Korantiyarasa of Hindi, in a battle fought at Magupdi by the
five aims&ta (avslmanta) and Paiggadas against Bhuvanaditya,
who is stated to have come to Bayal-nad, after the death of
Bjeyappa (Nltimarga Bjjeganga) hoping that the junior (klylva)
Rachamalla would give him half the territory and treasury over
i

which he was ruling. We know that his younger brother Butuga

II overthrew this Rachamalla III-and killed the latter with
37
the help of Rash|;rakn£a Krishna III. It has been surmised
that Bhuvanaditya approached Rachamalla on behalf of Butuga II
pleading for partition of the kingdom.

Anniga (c. 925 A.D.) was very powerful and his inscrip­
tions are found in Chlttoor district of Andhra Pradesh and
38
in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.

An inscription from Vanamaladinne in Punganur taluk

39
assignable to 10th century A.D. onpalaeographical grounds
records that when IToT,ambadi-arasa was ruling ghe country and

Ppithvlpati-arasa governing the territory (ni$l), a hero named

Kapaku$ti, the son of Mulagundurar died during an attack on

l$eyuru. The identification of Molambadi-arasa and Pritbvlpati-

arasa mentioned in the aforesaid inscription poses some in­

teresting problems* N.L. Rao and H. Krishna Sastri have

identified Ho^ambadi-arasa and Prithvipati-arasa respectively

-with Po^alchora or his successor Mahendra I and Prithvipati I,

" 40
This identification is prima-facie out of question. We

know that Prithvipati I and the Banas were on friendly rela­

tionship, while the Holambas being the allies of the main Ganga

line of kings were inimical' to him. Hence it is difficult to

postulate that Prithvipati I ever ruled under the Ifolamba

tutelage. Secondly, the inscription in question is found in

the heart of the Bapa territory [Link]., Pulinaflu. At the time

of ibl,alchora or Mahendra I, >the Binas were powerful and Puli-

nadu never came under the sway of the No^ambas.

Since Prithvipati-arasa referred to in the Vbnamala-

dinne record cannot be identified with Pjdthvlpati I, we have

necessarily to identify him with Prithvipati II. It is known

from the inscriptions of Pu^lamangai and Sbolingur that

Parantaka I conferred on Prithvipati II the title of Semblvan

Mahavali Banarasa and the rulership over the Bana territory [Link].,
- 41
Banavapi. The Nolambadiyarasa under whom Prithvipati II was

ruling Pulinacta can be identified with Anpiga Blra [Link] whom

we know, was a powerful king that tried to assert his independence*

 42
Another inscription from Desido$l$Li assignable to the
10th century mentions a No|amba‘ and records the death of Doramma
and Pulliyamma, brother of Prithvlrama-setti, sons of Bali-
murkha-gavunda while defending Bdeyuru and the grant made in
t

memory'of the deceased, JEt is interesting to note that this

i

and the Vanamaladinne records Bgeyuru figures as the target of

attack. The Nolamba of the Desidoflgi record may conveniently
be identified with No].ambadlyarasa of Vanamaladinne record [Link],,
Anniga Vlra Bo],amba. It is quite likely that both the records
refer to the same event, ■

The stnuggle for succession in the Ganga country soon

came to an end, xThe Ganga throne was occupied by Butuga II.
In getting the Ganga throne Butuga II was very much helped by
the Sashtrakuta king Krishna III, who defeated Anniga, The
Deoil copperplate inscription of Hishfrakujia Kyishna III, dated
43 t
§aka 862 (= 940 A.D.) mentioning the lest date of Anniga
v

states that Anpiga was reduced to a miserable plight. It is

quite possible to 'infer that Anniga lost his kingdom as well.
i

1 J

Anniga was succeeded by his brother Iriva Tfo^amba Dlll-

paxasa around 940 A,D. We have no inscriptions of this king
in Chittoor district. It Is quite possible that this region
was not under his control. Instead we find a number of ins-
44
criptions of the Cbo^a king Parantaka I, ranging from his 31st
year (037-38 A.D.) to 48th year (= 964-56 A.D.) which testifies
the fact that Chittoor region was at that time under the
j

occupation of the Cbo^as. The Cho|.as lost bold over this region
 J40
\

~ _ 45
soon after the Takkolam battle when Rish$raku$a kings Krishna
V

III distributed his newly conquered southern territories to his

i

various feudatories. As already seen above parts of Chittoor

region were entrusted to the care of the Vaidumbas, who acted
as the feudatories of the Rashtraku$as and that may account for
i

the absence of the NbXamba records in the area during short

periods, till the advent of Mahendra II.
* i

It is not known under whose control Chittoor area was

after Krishna III. It may be noted, however, that at Karshana-
palie we have a record of Mahendra II. It gives the genealogy
of Mahendra from iEiva-Ublamba (Dillparasa) and records that
the king went to Nol,ambavagl from Cbo].ana$u and while camping
at Eolala (Kolar), he bestowed on Wolamba-gavunga, son of
** 46
Klrtigamunga, the village Belaga$uru of Pulina^akere. The
record is undated, but is in characters of the last quarter of
10th century A.D. falling in the reign period of Mahendra II.

Vira Mahendra*s military expedition to Cholanadu referred

to in the aforesaid inscription has not been highlighted so
far. With the exist of Kpishpa III from the political scene,
by c. 967 A.D., the Rash$raku|;a power in the south declined
considerably. Khottiga, who succeeded Kpishria III was not a
strong ruler like his father.
i
The erstwhile feudatories began
to assert their independence. The Nol,ambas also appear to
have thrown off the Rlshjrakufa hegemony and this is supported
by the absence of any reference to the imperial overlord in the
inscriptions of Nanni Nolamba (chaladankakara). Do^alchora II-
 Ml

and Vlra Mahendra II. They continued to remain Independent

till 981 A.D.

The Eastern Chalukya kingdom witnessed the attack by the

47
Eastern Ganga king Kamarnava, who deposed Banarnava. This
was followed by struggle for succession between Banarnava and
48
Amma II, son of Bhlma II. In this period of turmoil the
Telugu Cbo].a king Jata Cbojla Bhlma, son of JaJ;S Choda led an
attack against Vengi possibly to support Amma II, whose sister
he had married. It may be noted that the Vaidumbas, the
inveterate enemies of the Nolambas were the feudatories of
Banarnava as evident from an inscription at Kinchlpuram.
Since the powers in the south were interested in the Vengl
region, It Is possible to infer that the Nolamba s might have
joined in It and supported the cause of Amma II. Therefore the
Nolamba king Vira Mahendra II1s march to Cholanaflu as referred
to in the inscription under review has to be viewed In the
light of his participation in the Vengl succession dispute.
The Cbolanajlu may be Identified with Renangu Chola territory
which was at that time under the effective control of Ja$S
Cboda Bblma the most powerful king of that period whose terri­
tory extended as far as Kan chi inthe south.

The next Nolamba king after Vlra-Mahendra II is referred

49 50
to in the inscriptions from Nelapalle and Maganjlapalle
in Punganur taluk.' These records in Kannada characters of late
10th century A.B. belong to Igiva-Nolamba Ghateyankkara, who
is referred to in the record as a younger brother (tamma) of

l
tfcavakyadeva or Vakyadeva.
•»
Obviously Vira-Mahendra II, had

two sons E&avakyadeva and Iciva-No],amba Ghafeyankakara.

These two records refer to Ijiva NoXamba*s encampment

at Vendu^-fbnne in Pajuvi-nagu (probably the area round
Parigi in Anantapur district). The Nelapalle inscription
refers to the title Mummafllgavare Pallavadltva No^amba setti
and the royal insignia (ra.1a-chinna) like horse (kudure).

umbrella
\
Ossda), ii§pajai?szs]£fi> wftisks (tekte) > iali£a» l&X-
shield (actflaulsfl) and lands (ga&digfl) conferred on a
merchant (Baligara) Karavayya, son of Gavarasetti of Eoyaturu
(same as La££igam). The town EpX®tura, also called Pallavaditya-
puram in Pulinidu was granted to him as a Vaisradatti in recognl-
51
tion of his services. The other inscription ftom Maganflla-
i

palle mentions a similar royal honour and the title Pallavaditya

Hb^amba conferred on one Besavayya, son Magara Bijane-givunda
52
besides the village Nagekunte being granted as a kodange to him.

It has been held by some scholars that Vakayadeva and

53
Ij*iva-Nolamba Ghafieyankakara are identical. This is due
to a faulty reading of Nelapalle record when atana maeam was
read as Amo g ha and Vakyadeva was hence considered as Amoghadeva.
54 _
Shri N.L, Rao had, on the other hand taken Vakyadeva as the
son of Mahendra. II while Iriva-Nolamba Ghaljeyarikakara figures,
in his genealogy as Vakyadeva* s younger brother. This is as
it should be, based upon the reading in the Nelapalle record
i

and clearly shows that Mahendra II had a son Vakyadeva (who

/

is called Bkavakyadeva in the Magapflapalle record) whose tamma.

 -143

i.Q., younger brother was Ijtva-No^amba Ghateyankakara.

’ - 55
An inscription from Kanchagara Be}, aguild belonging to
reign of Cha}.ukya Ahavamalla Taila II dated §aka 903 (= 981 A.9.)
refers to Revaladevi, as the queen of tkavakya Vlra-No^amba.
This person is, obviously identical with Ekavakyadeva or
Vakyadeva, the son of Vira-Mahendra II, who figures in the records
discussed above. This identification is supported by palaeography.
>
By the last quarter of the 10th century great changes
had taken place in South Indian political arena, the later
Chalukyas and the Cho|as emerging as the most powerful rulers.
The No].ambas under Mahendra II were independent; but they could
not retain that position. Taila II had now subdued most of the
chiefs including the Nolambas also followed suit.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1 a.I.I.,'V0l. VI, No. 661; S£. Lnd., Vol. X, p. 54 ff.

2 Jft. Cara., Vol. XI, Cl. 8; Ibid.. Cl. 33 and 34.
3 Ibid.
4 !!• Ind.T Vol. X, p, 57, foot note No. 3.
5 Ind. Ant., Vol, XXX, p. 108 and p. 264 ff; Bp. Ind.,
Vbl. XIV, p. 267; Sail, fim, p. 465.
6 §aka, 815,Paridhavi, Ashagha, su. 5, Byihaspativara,
F&rva-Phalguni (Jupiter in Dhanus) = 892 A.D., June 3
(But the week-day was Saturday and the nakshatra Masha):
Bp. XA£L*, Vol. X, p. 65.
 *44

7 Vol. 71, No. 561.

8 Ibid.T Vol. IX, part I, No. 20.
9 Ibid.. Vol. VI, No. 560.
10 Bp» Carn., Vol. XI, Cl. 33 and 34.
11 Ibid.T Vol. Ill, NJ. 402 (1974).
i

12 Vol. II, p. 384, vers© 18.

13 SB. Cam.. Vol. XII, Tp. 47.
14 Ibid.t Vol. X, Mb. 38.
15 Ibid.T Mb. 50.
16 s.1.1., Vbl. IX, part I, No. 23; g£. Cam.. Vol. XII,
Si. 24 and 38.
17 contra; Bice assigns the ^o undated records from Avani
to c. 890 A.D. He suggests that Mvalabbarasi, was
the queen of N6],amba Mabendra, a Kadamba prince (See
Ibid.. Vol. X, Introduction, pp. 19 and 21.).

18 contras Indian Culture, Vol. VI, pp. 432-35.

19 a.I.X., Vol. IX, part I, No’. 30.

20 Ibid.-. N&. 39.

21
Indian ffialiiiis, vol. vii, No. 3, p. 367 (1941), m. IM-,
Vol. X, pp. 61 and 62.
22 !£• Cam. T Vbl. X, Kl. 79.
23 3.I.L., Vol. VII, No. 581.
24 [Link].J 1912, No. 588.
25 S.I.I., Vol. VI, No. #61.
26 Ibid., Vol. IX, part I, Nb. 4.
27 N.L. Rao thinks that the Bana adversary, whom Mahendra I
killed should have been either, Malladeva or his father
 ? 45

Vijayaditya I. His argument is based on two reasons

viz. * that Bapavidyadhra was'a contemporary of Mahendra I
and the achievements of Malladeva are not mentioned
in the Gupimallam plates (See, £.£.M.S., Vol. XLVIII,
28 ff). This view cannot be accepted as Malladeva
and Vijayaditya I were not the contemporary Bana kings
of Mahendra I.
28 Ttol. IX, part I, 136. 11.
i

29 Kings of Vamga, Paundra, Magadha, KSsala, Kalinga,

Indhra and Bramila are describedas his enemies
(asuhrldap). The term Bramila may possibly refer to
the No].ambas. (See Mv-s. Arch. Ren.. 1919, lines 56-58;
Bp. Ind.. Vol. XXXVI, p. 103, line 63 and plate facing
p. 101; Uya. Arch. Rep.T 1921, p. 10, lines 53-54).
30 gp. Carp., 'Vbl. XII, Si. 38.
31 Myfi* Arch. BaE., 1921, p. 10, lines 54-56.
32 gp. Ind.T [Link], p. 103, lines 64-66.
33 Vol. VI, No. 561.
34 IBM., Vol. IX, part I, No. 18.
35 Ibid.. Vol. VI, No., 561; Ibid., Vol. IX, part I, Nos.
57 and 58; gp. Cam.t Vol. X, Kl. 57; Ibid.. Vol. XI,
Jl. 29.
36 gp. Ind. t Vol. XXXVI, pp. 104-05, verse 23; gp. Cara..
Vol. Ill, Hg. 23 (1974).
37 Ibid.. Vol. Ill, Introduction , p. 104, (1974).
 *46

38 [Link]., 1967-68, No. B 242; Ibid., 1968-69, No. B 175.

39 Ibid.t 1931-32, No. 198.
40 contrai Ibid.. part II, para 7, p. 48; Ibid.f 1913, part
II, para 13, p. 90.
41 1e. Ind.» voi. xxvi, pp. 112-13*'
42 [Link]*» 1931-32, No. 193.
43 EE. Ind.. Vol. V, p. 193, verse 24; Ibid. T Vol. XXXIII,
p. 77. i

44 A-S.1E-* 1907, No. 61; Ibid., T931-32, No. 200.

45 IE. Ini.* Vol. IV, p. 331.
*

46 a.L.L*., Vol. IX, part I, No. 39.

47 EE. Ind.. Vol. XtV, p. 56 ff.
48 Vol. 49 (Mi^uturu record of JadacbaEi-maharaju),

pp. i-vli and plate.

49 S.I.L., Vol. IX, part I', No. 41.
50 [Link]., 1931-32, No. 208.
51 Sl>L«L*9 Vol. IX, part I, No. 41.
52 [Link].j 1931-32, No. 208.
53 san&ia* Indian Sultnxa* voi. vi, pp. 429 ff.
54 X3&fi., Vol. VII, p. 366 ff.
55 S.I.I., Vol. IX, part I, No. 74.

V
IM SaaMm fiaasss*
r

Of the inscriptions of the Western Gangss in the Chittoor

district, the earliest is from Karsbanapalle in Punganur taluk.
1
It refers to Prithvipati as the younger brother of Durvinita
(Durvinitana tamma Pilfluvipatl) and retards the making of the
images of the parlvaradevatas by Sivarasi-bhatira during the
t

former* s reign. It is also stated that Sivarasi-bhatSrar ran

three oil-mills for (the benefit of) the temple (probably of the
parivara-devatas). We know that Durvinita, son of Avinlta, who
ruled in the 6th century had a younger brother whose name, however
is not known. But the characters of the present record are much
later than those of Durvinita.
\
The record may be assigned to the
8th century when Prithvipati, son of §ivamara II was ruling parts
i

of Gangavagl. Hence we will have to surmise that Prithvipati

had an elder brother named Durvinita. We know that Marasimha was
an elder brother of Ppithvlpati I. We cannot say whether this
Durvinita was elder to Marasimha. Since Durvinita is otherwise
unknown and is not associated with the governance of any region,
it is likely that he was younger to Marasimha and died a premature
death. It may be noted that this Durvinita has been identified
. 2
with Marasimha. This is however not supported by any evidence.

Another inscription from the same place belonging to

Pyiduvayya identified with Prithvipati records the death of a
hero. The record refers to a battle involving the Pandya and
3
the Chora (Cho^a). Prithvipati I is well-known to have been an
 148

ally of Pallava Aparljita, the adversary of Pandya Yaraguna II,

\

the Pandya. Hence Pj*iduvayya of tie record may he identified with

Pyithvlpati I. ' In that case, this record will have to he placed
4
sometime later than 862 A.D. the date of Yaraguna*s accession.
Varaguna*s inroad into the north as far as Araisur on the hanks
of the Pennai in South Arcot district is attested to hy the
’ _ 5
epigraphs from Tiruvadi and Ambasamudram. It is possible that
Yaraguna II marched further north in this campaign, which he
would have undertaken on behalf of his ally Pallava Nripatunga
against Aparajita.

Yet another inscription from Karshanapalle refers to

6
Avabbe, the queen of Prithuvayya, who is none else than PrSthvi-
pati I. This king is known to have had a queen Kundawai, the
7
daughter of Baga Vikramaditya Jayameru. Avabbe is yet another
queen of Pyithvlpati I.

Prithvipati I had an encounter with the Pandya around

this region' in the wake of which he advanced deep into the south
8
as far as TiruppuEambiyam (§rlpu£ambiyam), where he lost his
life in the course of defending Aparajita against Varaguna II.
/

The mention of Cbola in the, Kars hana pa lie record noted above
seems to confirm the alliances among the Chola, the Pallava and
the Ganga. The record, however, does not mention the Pallava,
the third ally.

An inscription from Modugalapalle in Punganur taluk

/
 M9

records the death of Baman-Arameru, the brother of Dosiarasa

after undauntedly fighting against the enemy* s flank in a battle
that,ensued, when Konguniarasa lead an expedition against Puli-
9
na$u. It is in Kannada language .and characters of the third
i
quarter of 9th century A.D. The Ganga king, who undertook this
~

raid may be identified with Nltimarga Bjeganga (c. 853-70 A.D.)

(zldas aacUff.q aa [Link])* x

It is not improbable that Marasimha, the son of Pyithvl-
patl I continued to rule over his father1 s dominions though we
do not have any inscription in support of this.

Pulinagu comprising Punganur and parts of Madanapalle

* taluk is known to have been ruled by P^ithvlpatl II, the son of
Marasimha. The Boginayanipalle record refers to the rule of
a Perma£i, obviously a Ganga^ This record is in characters of

early 10th century and Permagi mentioned herein may be identified

with Pyithvipati II, whose earlier known date viz., 894-95 A.D.
is available from Takkolam. This inscription mentions
12
Mayimana Pallavareyar (Pallavaralyar) who figures therein
as the governor of Pulinagu. It registers the death of Baoha,
a soldier of Belaturu in a cattle-raid at Hangala, same as
Mangalam in Punganur taluk. Another governor of Pyithvipati
13
who probably succeeded Pallavaralyar, was Pallava Dhava^a.
In his period a cattle-raid led by a person called Sangila
occurred at Mangala, in the course of which TJdayasuje lost his
life# Yet aribther inscription assignable to the 10th century
also refers to this governor Pallava-Dhava].a. It records the
death of Kumbura Mtujflaya at Manandimangala in the course of
rescuing cattle captured by Damarasa at Igeyuru. It is apparent
that the hero had to follow the enemy from Ideyuru to Manandi-
. 14
mangala in order to rescue the same.

’ It Is known that Chola Parantaka I after having destroyed

15
the two Bana kings conferred the title §e mb Ivan Mahabali Banarasa

and the Bina territory on Prithvipati II, who was his staunch
16
ally in recognition of his services. A record from Vanamaladinne
refers to the rule of this. Sembiyan Mahabali Bania rasa (Prithvi­

pati II) over Banavadi-12000. Another inscription from Karshana-

17
palle belonging to the reign of Sembiyan Mahabali Banarasa i.a.,

Prithvipati II refers to his son Vikkiyanna*s (i.e., Vikramaditya*s)

governorship of Pulina$u-sixty. It records the dath of VIkki,

who Is obviously different from Vikklyanna. The opponent that

figures In this record is Pallava-Dhavala. We have seen above

that a Pallava-Dhavala figures as a governor of Pulinadu under

Pyithvlpati II. The two persons are probably identical. We

know that at this period, the Nolambas were on inimical terms

/

with the Gangas. It Is possible that for some unknown reasons

Pallava-Dhavala, the Ganga feudatory was dislodged from the

office. Consequently he might have joined the Nolamba and raided

Pulinadu with which area he was quite familiar. All these

events will have to’ be placed in a period before 931-32 A.D.

which is the 24th year of Chola Parantaka I. Later, however,

we find Prithvipati himself extending hands of friendship to

Anniga Blra Nolamba. The statement made in another Vanamaladinne

record that while No^amba'diarasa was ruling the earth, Pfithvi-

patlarasa was ruling the na$u supports this. The Nolambadiarasa

of this record has been Identified with ftnplga Blra Nolamba.

(Side* CfrQBteE SB NftUataa).

 151

We do not hear of any other Ganga king of this line

after Prithvlpati II. A Ganga king of a different line is
« - 19
referred to in an Inscription from SivajLL in Pangannr taluk.
This record in Kannada characters of late 10th century A.D.
mentions a Bakkasa Ganga as the ruling king. During this period
the area contiguous to Slvafll (§Iyava$i) in Srinivaspur taluk

wag being ruled over by Bakkasa Ganga-Bachamalla, who has been

.
identified with Bachamalla 17 e. 983 (« 1034 A.D.).20 This was

the period when Cbo^a Baja raja I was yet to expand his control
over this, area and when the Cba^ukya Taila II was also active
on this front. Bakkasa Ganga .Bachamalla 17 may, therefore,
be considered to have been ruling Independently on the date of
this record.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1 [Link]., 1912, No. 326.

2 contra $ g£. Ind.. 7ol. XXI7, P.
3 [Link].* 1912, No. 337.
4 l£. Ind., 7ol. XXXII, p. 338 and plate facing p. 338
and 3.X..L., 7ol. XI7, Introduction, p. i.
5 Efi. InsL., Vbl. XX7III, p. 41.
3 i.a.5£., 1912, No. 333.
7 Nbl. Ill, part I, Nos. 47-48, pp. 99-100.
8 SB. Ind. T Ubl. IX, p. 87.
9 A.S.S£.» 1912, No. 318.
10 Ibid.r 1931-32, No. 177.
 152

11 BE* IMm Vol. XIX, pp. 137-88.

12 [Link] 1931-32,H&. 177.
13 Ibid.. Ho. 172.
14 Ibid.. Ho. 201.
«

16 BE. Ind-t Tbl. XXVI, p. 112-13; BE. IMm Tbl. IX, p.

IUBEm 1931-32, part II, para 6, p. 47.
16 Ibid. T Ho. 201.
17 3.1.1m *>1. TX, part I, Ho. 299.
13 A.&.SEm 1931-32, Ho. 198.
13 Ibid.. 1931-32, Ho. 235.

30 BE* CfiLBl-» Tbl. X,Sp. 89.

Was Sisijtxakitast
Two inscriptions from Kapalle in Kannada characters of

about the 9th century A.D. belong to Kanparadeva. The first

records the death of Tigafi Muttarasa, the servant of Masarasa

son of Lokarasa of Semmaguru, when a Maharija attacked him and

land was granted at Budali as a koflange to his memory to Mada

Muttarasa, son of Keta Muttarasa and grandson of the deceased

hero. The other inscription mentions that on the occasion of

an attack on the village (!.£., Kapalle) by one Maharaja,

Masara[yya], son of Lokeya[rasa] of [Cha]mmaguru fought in the

company of twenty men (companions) and died in the fight. The

sculpture on the hero-stone is said to have been the work of

2
VIkramaditya Bahugunateja of Kbyatur. It is obvious xthat the

parties mentioned in the two records as fighting each other are

identical.

Maharaja, who is said to have attacked Masarasa in both

the inscriptions is apparently the same as Maharaja of Chemma-

3
guru referred to in an inscription from Kapalle belonging to
Mahavali Binavidbyadhara who is no doubt Identical with Vikra-

maditya I. It is stated in the latter inscription that this

4
Maharaja of Chemmaguru attacked Ponnapudali Ma[ni]kkamenti, wbo

lost his life in fighting against him in the course of rescuing

his cattle.

It is therefore clear that all these three Inscriptions

from Kapalle will have to be placed in the same period. From

the known period of Banavidyidhara, i.e., the last quarter of
 154

9tb century, Kannaradeva of the other two records from Kapalle

should be identified only with Krishna II. As for Krishna II*s
presence in this area it is well known that, as a result of the
matrimonial alliance between Krishna II and Iditya I "the former
Intervened on behalf of Adityag Kannaradevan during/the reign of
Parantaka I and got defeated in the battle of V&llala In the
5
first quarter of the tenth century A.D. Hence these two ins-
*

criptions may be considered to be a direct evidence of the exten­

sion of Krishna*s hegemony in the Chittoor district.

Parts of Chittoor district came under the sway of Cbola

Iditya I and Parantaka I, when the Rash^rakufas were yet to turn
their attention to the south. It was only in 949 A.D. during tbs
i

reign of Parantaka I that we hear of the entry of the Rashtraku$as

into Tongaimapflalam under Krishna III. Krishna's occupation of
Chittoor is directly attested to only from his 22nd year i.e.,
7
960-61 A.D. We know from the Karhajl plates of Krishna III, dated
§aka 880 (= 957-58 A.D.) that soon after the battle of Takkolam
in 949 A.D. which spelt disaster to the Cbola power, he claims
to have restored the ancestral dominions to the various subordinates
such as the JBanas, the Valdumbas >etc., who were reeling under the
weight of the immense power of the Cbo].as. It is possible there­
fore that Krishna III was virtually in control of these parts
even far earlier than the date referred to above 960-61 A.D*).

One of the two inscriptions mentioned above refers to

. - 8
Vajradeva as the governor of Siyapajli in Pulmagu. It is ob­
vious that Vajradeva also called Vajjaladeva was virtually ruling
 "55

over Pulinadu in the same capacity according to an inscription

from Bo$inayanipalle dated in §aka 88[6] (- 963-64 A.D.).
During his governorship, Mangala which is the same as Mangalam
to the nortbrwest of Punganur was the target of attack in the
course of cattle-raids conducted mostly by unspecified enemies.
However one inscription from Bo$inayanipalle in Punganur taluk
refers to Gan^arolganga Pallavaraiyar as capturing the cows
• 10
of Mangala. Ganflaro^ganfla was possibly an epithet of a Cbola
king who could be the only enemy of the RlshtrakuJje regime in
the Chittoor district. ^Gan^aro|.gan^avadi, a road referred to
in a Cbo].a inscription, is considered to have been so named
after Sundara Cbola. It is evident therefore that the series
12
of events recorded to have happened during the governorship
of Yajradeva under Rlsbtrakuta Krishna III were the result of
the attempts on the part of the Cbolas to regain their influence
t

in the north. These events will have to be placed sometime

before and after §aka 88[6] (= 963-64 A.D.). The earliest date
of Yajradeva will be the 22nd year (960-61 A.B.) of Krishna III
. * ‘13
available in the inscription from §Iva$i in 'Punganur taluk.

The series of events referred to above centred around

Mangala. Another place called Uppanelli identified with a place
of the same name in PunganSr taluk was also the scene of conflict
14 _ _
between the same parties i.a»* between Cholas and Rishtrakutas.
The epigraphs at this place record the deaths of gavunffas. mer­
chants and heroes etc., in the course of the battle.

One of the inscriptions bearing on this battle speaks of

the death of a native of Tondainidu, thus confirming the identity
_ _ 15
of the enemy with the Chola. §ri-Ballaha[de*]va mentioned as

the overlord of Vaj'radeva in one of these inscriptions dated in

§aka 887 (= 964-65 A.D.) may be identified with Eishtrakuja

Krishna III..

REFIRBNCES AND NOTES

1 [Link]., 1933-34, No. 170.

2 Ibid.. No. 168. One of these inscriptions referring

to Mangala from E$uru in Punganur taluk (Ibid.. 1931-32,

No. 219) mentions the engraver Yikramaditya Bahugunateja,

son of Bejayitachari of Koyatur. This engraver is dif­

ferent, from his name-sake of the Klpalle inscription

assigned to Krishna II (Ibid.T 1933-34, No. 168). The

two inscriptions put together will yield three generations

of the family of engravers viz., Vikramaditya Babugunateja

his son Bejayitaehari and the latter*s son Vikramaditya

Babhugunateja. It is apparent that these three engravers

t served the kings of the Sana dynasty.

3 3M1., No. 164.

4 The identification of this Maharaja with a Vaidumba king

on the basis of this family name (See M. Venkataramayya*s
unpublished Thesis on Telugu Cholas) is precluded since
Maharija, which may be after all a personal name, is

stated to have hailed from Chemmaguru. Further there is

no evidence to say that the Vaidumba might have attacked

» either the Bana or Hashtrakuta since he is known to be an

ally of both.
 157

5 IE. In&., Vol. XXVI, p. 112 ff.

6 [Link].j 1931-32, Nos. 236 and 237. ✓

7 IE. Vol. 17, pp. 278-90.

8 [Link]., 1931-32, No. 236.

9 Ibid.. No. 180.

10

11
m&., No. 181.
a.1.1., Vol. XIII, No. 249.
12 A.S.M., 1931-32, Nos. 236, 237, 180, 219, 182, 178

and 176.

13 Ibid.t No. 236.

14 Ibid.. 1906, Nos. 580, 579, 583, 582, 578 and 581.
»

15 Ibid.. No. 580.

i

/
£&la£ Ql [Link] i

Ifiiiya I his tilSS

i

The earliest reference to the Cholas In Chlttoor occurs

in an inscription of Dantivarman dated in the 51st year (846-
1
47 A.D.) of his reign* It records a grant made by §olanar
Ulsgapperumanar of §olana£u. This So^anar, as the very name
indicate^ seems to have belonged to the CboJ.a family. But he
does not appear to be connected in any way with the imperial
Cho].as. The fact that he figures in a record of Pallava Danti­
varman suggests that he was a subordinate of the Pallava. These
Pallavas had tbelr bold over this region till the accession of
2
Vijayalaya to the Cbola throne in c. 850 A.D., when the JPallava
power slowly waned, making way for the Cbolas. His presence at
Tiruchchanur as a donor does not however help us to decide
•• **

whether he had any status locally in this area.

The next CboJ.a record in the region is from Tonga imanajjj^ir.

This record belongs to the reign of Parantaka I (Maduraikonga
koparakesari) and is dated in his 34th regnal year corresponding
3
to 940-41 A.D. It registers a gift of gold for feeding thousand
devotees by Vagisvara-parjgitabba^ara to the god Kodengaramesvara
made over to the sabha and nagarattar of the pal^ipagai 1-2.,
the sepulchral shrine of Eodaggaramesvara alias Sdityesvara.
It would therefore appear that he (the donor) was probably a
temple priest or religious head. From the name Adityesvara given
to the deity, it has been surmised that it is in honour of the
Cbola king Aditya I, father of Parantaka I that this temple was
i

so named. Since it is referred to as a palllpagal, it has also

4
been thought that Aditya, who also bore the title Kodandarama.
5
died in this place. However, we do not have any other evidence
to point to Aditya*s activities'in this region, although at
least during his last few years of rule after killing Pallava
6 , 7
Aparajita, he seems to have been tarrying in this area.
The circumstances that led to his death in this place, far away
from his capital in the Cbola country are not clearly known.
It is not improbable that he had to face some enemy probably
the Rish$rakutas, who was just t,hen moving towards the south.
This Tondamandalam region had just then been seized by Raja-
^ 8
kesari Aditya from the Pallavas.

I ills 111338

During the reign period of Parantaka I (907-55 A.D.)

the successor of Aditya I, we find greater parts of the Chittoor
region brought under Cbola hegemony. This indicates that
Parantaka I pursued successfully his father's policy of expan-
i
j

ston by occupying the whole of Ton^aimac^alam. Till his 31st

9
regnal year (937-38 A.D.)', Parantaka held an indomitable
position. However, we find that thereafter there was a set back.

The table below indicates the distribution of his

records in the district
 1
Regnal year of
Area of distribution Findspot and Taluk Parantaka I Reference to
(Madura ikon^a Publication
ko-parakesarl)

, '
1. Western parts of Mahadevamangalam, 24 930-31 A.D. A.B.I2., 1931,
Chittoor district Chittoor taluk Ho. 170

Ka^amanchi, 31 1937-38 A.D. Ilrifl.-, 1907,

Chittoor taluk No. 61

i
Vanamaladinne,
Punganur taluk
48 954-55 A.D. 1931-
32, No. 200.
/

2. Central parts of Tiruchchanur, 2 908-09 A.D. &.I.T., Vol.

' Chittoor district Chandragiri taluk (note* It is doubt- XVII. Fo.
ful whether the 287; T.T.£.I,
regnal year given Vol. I,
in the record Is No. 13/234
2 or 20) G.T.

Tiruchcharrar, 29 935-36 A.D. S.I.I., Vol.

Chandragiri taluk XVIT, No.286.

Tiruchchanur, 32 938-39 A.D. Ibid.. No.290.

Chandragiri taluk
i

3, Eastern parts of Gugimallam, 32 938-39 A.D. Ibid., Vol.

Chittoor district Kalahasti taluk VIII, NO.524.

Tongamanag, 34 940-41 A.D. Ibid.. No.

Kalahasti taluk 529

As stated above the Ctaola influence appears to have

slowly diminished in this area after Parantaka Ifs 31st yegnal

year (937-38 A.D.) and it was progressively diminishing from

the west towards the east. It is possible that Rashtrakuja

Krishna III*s entry into Tongaimact$alam In 949 A.D. 10 was

heralded by the extension of the Influence of the minor dynas­

ties such as the Banas, the Vaidumbas etc. It is well-known

 m
that Chola Parantaka I antagonised these feudatories in such
a way that they might have attached themselves to the band-
i

wagon of the Rashfrakutas* Though the inscriptions of the

Vaidumbas and the Rashtrakutas began to occur only later on,
-- « ■“!?
940 A.D. in the reign of Vi^ayaditya Pugalvippavargandan
points to the future trend of the alignment of political forces
against the background of Rashtrakuta instrusion. This explains
the absence of Parantaka*s records after his 32nd year (938-39
A.D.) in the central and western parts of Chittoor district. In
i ^

this'context, we have to consider the existence of Parantaka’s

record of his 48th regnal year (954-55 A.D.) at Tanamaladlnne,
12

in the western part of Chittoor district. This inscription

records the gift of land by Sivarayya while he was ruling over
Pulinaclu in memory of a certain Pollayya who died during the
destruction of the village Bgleyuru. Though the enemy is not
mentioned in this record, it is obvious that peaceful conditions
did not prevail in this area. It cannot be explained in any
other better way than by surmising that it was only a feeble
attempt on the part of the Cho].as to regain the western parts
of Chittoor district and that they stationed Sivarayya, a local
nominee of the Cho^as as the governor of Pulinaclu in 954-55 A.D.
It could have been only a fleeting raid with no lasting effects.
Fbr, very soon after this we find Krishna's records commencing
13
to appear in this region.

The Chola could not have had any permanent bold over this
 ^ 02

area till Rljaraja I (985-1014 A.D.) came on the scene. The

reason for the loss of Cho].a Influence during this period was
obviously the defection of Gangs Pyithvipati II alias Sembiyan
MahaballvSnariya to the side of the Nolambas, the allies of
the Rashtrakutas.

It may be incidentally noted here that an undated

_ 14
Kannada record from Boginayanlpalle, Punganur taluk, assigned
t» c. 9thr10th centuries A.D., refers to a certain Chola-
ma ha raj a ruling over Pulinijlu- sixty, ( Pullnafl-aruvattuman-ale)
when a cattle raid took place. This inscription records the
great victory of Kalijranna, the son of Palleyagimunjla, the headman
of Me^ikuruvi and son-in-law (aliyS.) of Budali Bonnayya of Mangala
i

In a cattle raid. The place Mangala mentioned in the record

may be identified with Mangalam, north-west of Punganur in Punga­
nur taluk. It Is not possible to identify the Choi a maharaja,
In the absence of any other distinguishable epithet or such other
details. R.S. Panchamukhi has opined that he was a Telugu-Chola
Since Pullnadu is said to be under him now. But this Chola-
maharaja may as well be Par^antaka although it is difficult to
explain, in that case, why only Pulinajlu-sixty is referred to.
Under the circumstances the record has to remain unexplained
until further evidence Is forthcoming.

A solitary record from Pudupet, a hamlet of Nagari,

Puttur taluk records a gift of sheep for burning a perpetual
lamp daily In the temple of Karaikkan^ar at Kurlehchanur. The
deity referred to in the record as Kasaikkangadevar is now called
 f 63

Karakan$esvara in whose temple the inscription is engraved. It

is possible, therefore that Kurichohanur is the same as modem
- 15
Pudupet, the findspot of the inscription.

It is interesting to note that the donor describes himself

as A^niU
magan Dantivan. He is named Dantiyarj and was the son of
Adiyaraiyar Aranili, the chief of Pangayanigu. The record is
dated §aka 876 (= 954-66 A.B.). The chief does not refer to any
overlord. The date falls in the last years of the rule of
17
Parantaka I, whose Vanamaladinne record of the 48th regnal
year (954-65 A.D.) has been referred to above. The question
that arises is why this chief does not refer to any overlord
although the date falls in a period when Parantaka*s record itself,
of the same date is found, 954-56 A.D., is incidentally the last
year of Parantaka I, although even about this there are differences
18
of opinion. It would therefore, appear that the donor of the
present record issued the same independently taking advantage of
the set back of the Cbo].a power. This record is found in the
south-eastern region of the Chittoor district, while Parlntaka I*s
record of the 48th year is found in the western region.

During this period, the Banas under Vijayaditya PugaT,vip-

paragan$a and Vikramaditya Vijayabahu, the friend of Kpishna III
had extended their sway as far upto Tiruchchanur, about 20 miles
west of the findspot of the inscription.

This area (the soutfa?-eastern region) appears to have been

 f 64

a no-man*s land, at least on the date of the record, when the

Cholas had withdrawn and the other powers had not yet established
their sway in this region. Not much, however, can be made out
19
of this record*

The Rashtrakuta invasion of the Tamil country under

Krishna III had rudely shaken the Cholas hegemony. Though we do
not find Rashtrakuta records in the eastern parts of Chittoor ,
district we do not also find Cbo|a records anywhere in the area.
It may be incidentally noted that we have records of Rashtra­
kuta Kannaradeva i.e., Krishna
* 20
*
III dated in his 28th regnal year
*

(966-67 A.D.) at Tiruttani in Chingleput district, the border

area outside the present Chittoor district. But we do not have
any of his records to the north or west of Tiruttani. It may
therefore be surmised that Krishna III was concentrating his
attention on the regions south of Melpadi in North Arcot district
and not on the regions north of Melpidi, or even Tiruttani for
that matter* Hence it is difficult to say under whose influence
this region could have been before Rajaraja I. His records
(986-87 A.D.) begin to appear in this region from his 2nd year
onwards. The western parts of the Chittoor district were under
the influence of the Taidumbas. (vide; Chanter on Vaidumbas). It
is not improbable that the Vaidumbas had extended their influence
towards the east also to be only pushed back to the west firstly
by Jajja-Cboda and then by Rajaraja I. There is however no direct
evidence bearing on this. It is possible that Rajaraja was active
in the northern parts to turn the course of events in favour of
Saktivarman of the Eastern Chalukya dynasty. His encounter with
Jatacho^a Bhlma was perhaps followed by his expansion in the
north represented by these records.

Ra.1ara.1a X and his successors^

The occurrence of records belonging to Rajaraja I so

far copied from Chittoor district appears to indicate the west­
ward expansion of Rajara^s influence. The earliest record of
his, dated in the 2nd year, is found at Gugimallam, Kalahasti
taluk. The earlte st in the western part, copied from Mogili,
22
Chittoor taluk, is dated in the 6th year.

Ever since Rljara^s conquest, this region had been

/

mostly under the continuous occupation of the Ch5|as. Only the

records of Rajamahendra, (c. 1060-63 A.D.) and Rajendra III
(1246-79 A.D.) have not been traced so far. This does not mean
that the Cholas lost control of this region entirely during the
reign periods of these kings. The Cholas had controlled this
region through generals and officers deputed by them upto the
period of Vikramacbola and through the feudatories like the
Yadavariyas, Telugu-Cbolas, Pallavas, §ola-Gangas, Sambuvarayas

and Adigaimans.

Besides the two records of the reign of Rajaraja I from

23 24
the eastern and western parts of Chittoor district noted
above fifteen more inscriptions directly refer themselves to
his reign. Most of these records register gifts of land, gold,
cows and sheep to different deities, conferment of rights,
remission of taxes in kind etc., by his officers or chiefs or
private individuals.

An inscription from Gugimallam, dated in the 4th year

(988-89 A.D.) of Bajakesari Bajaraja I, records that Madurantaka
25
Garigaradittar set up the image of Kuttapperumal, , Nataraja
and made a grant of land for the festivals, food offerings etc.
to the same god. This officer is stated to have conducted some
26
enquiries about the affairs of the temple at Tirumalpperu.

An inscription from K3].ahasti, Kalahasti taluk dated in

his 6th year (1000-01 A.D.) states that Solavelar was a general
• v 27
(danflanavakar) obviously, under Bajaraja I.

Another Chela general Naraban Kutta$i alias Jayangondasola

• 28
Brahmamarayan is fbund mentioned in a record from Yogimallavaram,
Puttur talrik [dated in the 23rd year (1007-08 A.D.) of Bajara^a I
as a donor of gold weighed by Danroaka-frfralalkkal on the 80th day
of the 23rd year of the king. The record refers to a dispute
between the sab hi of Tiruchchukanur and the tanattar of the temple
i

which was arbitrated by this general. From Kalahastl comes the

latest inscription of this ruler dated in his 27th year (1011-12
A.D.). It refers to Agigal Nakkan, a senior officer (pernndanam)
of the king and also to Murkkan TSndi, a sipudanam officer of the
king. The same record informs that the latter was also a
30
srikarvam officer of the temple of Kalahastisvara. It records
the gift %y the king of a gold plate (’), which is stated to have
been brought by his senior officer (perundanam) under the orders
of the king.
 The Kalahasti inscription dated in the 27th year (1011-
12 A.D.) of this Chola king is of special interest as it records
an enquiry conducted hy his officer. The inscription recording
this states that Vaippur Ugaiyan A£iySn Puyangan, the kankani
officer (kanganinavagam) of ji^ur-Na^u and other divisions included
in it, conducting an enquiry, arranged for compensations to be
paid by the uUpasakas, for the total default against the stipulated
quantity of supply and for their irregular remittance of the same.
It further records that on the orders of the kankani officer, the
unasakas agreed to pay a cash compensation of 24 kalanlu and 2
mi towards the unremitted quantities of 15 kalam of ghee and 44
kalam and 2 tuni of curd, computed from the date of the endow­
ments, [Link].,*from 16th (1000-01 A.D.) and 23rd (1007-08 A.D.)
regnal years of the king respectively made by §5lav5lan, and
Kajupparuflaiyan etc., Topglaimanar alias KaviraPlflaran and
Vaiyirameghag Vipipparaiyaij, a merchant of Mummudisolapuram,
upto the 161st day of the 27th year of the king* s reign. Rising
to the occasion, the kankani officer of the king took stern
measures against the subjects of I^rur-na^u for their failure to
carry out the endowments as per the agreement. It may be con­
cluded from this that Vaippur Ugaiyin A$iyan Puyangan, the
kankani officer, was apparently an official of high rank, examin­
ing the acts of other officials or individuals as an agent; of the
31
king.

An undated record from Narayanavanam, Puttur taluk, be­

longing to Rajakesarivarman, who is no doubt identical with
Raj a raj a X, refers to Vikkiyannag Puga],vippavargag£sn, of the
Chajukki family as the chief of Vajtiyanaflu in [Konga]vattana«*
kojjam and records the privileges conferred hy him on the
VeJJaJas of the same na$u. The fact that Vikkiyagpag was
administering the Vatjiyana$u region, suggests that he was a
member of the ruling family of the area. It is known from
an inscription of the 8th year (998-93 A.D.) of this king, of
a similar title assumed, by one of his chiefs who ruled over
the area called Panga|ana$u, [parts of present North Arcot
district] and thereby it may be suggested that more than one
feudatory family of local chiefs were exercising control in
different parts of his empire. An undated inscription (in two
pieces) from Tlruchchagur, Chandragirl taluk, belonging to the
reign of the same king, mentions Igarnlkki Arujakki aligg
Rajaraja Muvendavelajj and records a gift of 40 fca^atLlu.

The earliest inscription of Bijendra I, son and succes­

sor of Rajaraja I in Chittoor district Is from Eajahastl and
is dated in his 3rd regnal year [1014-15 A.D.]. His latest
inscription found in the same region is also from the same
place and It is dated in his 34th year (1035-36 A.D.). The names
of various officers who served in this region during this
period are available.

We may here refer to an inscription from £a].ahastl which

is dated in the 328th day of his 4th year (1016 A.D.) which
mentions a feud between Slngag Kulamapikkag, a soldier belonging
to the Bdirillcho^a-terinda valangal ve^aikkarar (the division
of the army) of sipudanam and, I|alyaraja TJttama-terinda valangai
ve^aikkajar (the right-hand division in~the service of the
id
prince), for the merit of the deceased* It Is obviously a
personal quarrel between these too soldiers*

The next record of this king is from the Tirumalai

temple which was one of the inscriptions re-engraved during the
reign of Vira Narasifflha ladavaraya. It is dated in the 7th
regnal year (1018-19 A.D.) and states that a devadana grant made
for burning lamps to the god Tiruvengafladevar at Tlrumala,
having fallen into disuse due to non-avaliability of tenants
(Imd-PSEjiaalyil) > the administrator (aflM&lcl,) (name not
given) who is stated to be a native of Kojpamangalaffl in Ku$avur-
na$u, summoned the srlkirvam officer described as a servant of
ktoflanaa (aigBdanat&ttP-papiaasaB) in Kh$aviirna$u and the
m 37
devakagmlga}. and after the enquiry, restored the grant.

Subsequently, three Inscriptions belonging to his 12th

regnal year (1023-24 A.D.) and referring themselves to the three
different officers under Rajendra I have been found in the temple
of [Link], Ka].ahastl. One of the inscriptions records a
gift of 90 sheep for a perpetual lamp by Pirantakag ... var
Vlmag alias Gangalkoggasola Milaflugaiyag (the ruler of Mllaflu)
entrusting the sheep to the care of Danti Samuttag for the dally
supply of one nlakku of ghee to the temple (of Ka].ahastlsvara) for
the uninterrupted supply for which So$$alpirSn alias Ainnuppuva-
 170

38
aaggagi of Alagiyaso^apuram stood guarantee, This chief is

mentioned In our Inscription only as making a gift to the temple

at Xa^ahastl but not as. ruling over this area. He was probably

a pilgrim. The second inscription records an endowment of 76

kiln for burning a lamp in the dioaetambha on every Karttigal

day and for other offerings to the god Tirukka|attl-u^aiyar out

of the Interest of 2 kaau accruing from the capital amount, by

§a|ukklkalakalag Ka].appirlyag of a na£u whose name is not clear

but which was in Pallyur~ko$$am in Jayang6g£asoXa-®aP$alaffl*

Sapakklkalakalag Ktfyapplrlvan appears to be a title borne by this

chief who participated in one of the several encounters between

the Cho|a and the [Link]. It may be noted that in yet another

record of the same reign period, there is the mention of a person

bearing the title galafeSlftg J&l&PPiCLras as the

Kankaninavakan of Xgjur-nadu. This person appears to be identi-

99
cal with the one noted Above.

Another inscription from Ka].ahastl records a gift of

land for a garden by Dagganayag Somag Kama ran alias Madhu-

rantakamaraysg and further states that the garden (tirunandavanam)

provided by him and the big mangapa (kovllll munbll periva tiro-
40
flLSJpflaPam) built by him received the name

The imperial officer (danflanavakag) Somag Kamaran had come to

receive the official title Madhurantaka-maravag (maravan=

maharaya) in view of his services rendered to Cho].a Rajendra,

who had the title Ma&toia&ftt*

 171

An undated inscription from Kapilatlrtham, at the foot

of the Tlrumalai hills* Chandragiri taluk, palaeographically
assignable to the second quarter of the 11th century A.D, records
the construction of the closed circumambulator? passage ftir^t-
41
ma].lgal1 probably in the temple of Kapilesvara, by Rayas Rajendra-
42 _ '(B
so^aQ alias Brahmamarayas-Munaiyadarayag of Eo£J;ur.
- - /

Another inscription from Kl].ahastl, of which the date is

lost, Informs us that Mummu$loho}.ag alias Mlnavag Pallavaralyag
served under him as an officer of Perundanam and further records
a gift of cows and sheep for a perpetual lamp'in the temple of
Tirukka^Latti-ma hadeva.

Bight inscriptions of Rajadhlraja I have been noticed so

far from the eastern'and western parts of Cbittoor district. Two
Inscriptions from the eastern part are from KaXahasti, both of
which are dated in the 5th regnal year of this king (1022-23 A.D.).
One of the inscriptions, recording an order (ulvari). Issued on
1

the 87th day, registers a gift of land, AAfree of taxes in Psiaiyaru

JL JU

in Ambar-nagu, in TJyyakkondar-vaXanagu. Another record mentions

a sale of land for the provision of an arecanut garden called
Tirukannappadevar. named after one of the Nayanmars Kagnappa
Nayagar.

An inscription from Punganur, Punganur taluk, dated in

his 12th year (1029-30 A.D.) records the right of maintaining the
accounts of the village (ur-kagakkakkapl) conferred on Ijlavallag,
.son of Gangaikopflan of Kane hi in Byi£kot$am, in Jayangon^a-soXa-
 172

mandalam by the assembly of Punganur alias Valavanarayana-

chaturvedimangalam in Pulina$u in Perumbanappafli in Jayangog$a-
sola-mapflalam.

The next record from Ka].ahasti dated in his 26th regnal

year (1044-45 A.D.) refers to the gift of 192 sheep for two
perpetual lamps made by Teggl Mafcalan Irungolag Kula...yag
m • • m. 46-

Madurantakag alias Jayangdp$aso].a-Irungoiag of Trungolappall.

This seems to be the earliest reference to the family of
Irungo].as from among the inscriptions known from Chlttoor
district. The Irung$].a who is referred to as a donor in our
record paid a visit to the temple at Ka].ahasti probably as a
pilgrim. The region [Link]$i, to which he belonged comprised
the area around the presea t Vpiddhachalam, in the taluk of the
satge name.

The record from Munaganakulapalle in Madanapalle taluk

\

dated in the 31st year (1048-49 A.D.) of Bajadhiraja I mentions

a Rajaraja-Brahmadhiraja as ruling over Maharajavadi-7000
47 „ _
country. We know from a record of Rajaraja I (Ba.1akesarl) dated
in his 8th regnal year (998-93 A.D.) from Tirune$ungulam In
Tiruchirapalll taluk, of an officer under this king called Raja-
raj a-Brabmamaraya. This tempts one to identify the ruler of
t

Maharajava$1-7000 I.&., Rajaraja Brabmadhlraja with the officer

who served under Rl jaraja I. The Munaganakulapalle record leads
us to surmise that obviously, this chief continued to serve under
Bajadhirlja I also*

The above Inscription further refers to the death of

Ma[].a]bbe, wife of [Sojvayyum (for Sovayyan) alias RaJendra-cho].a-
Desa-Ra$$agu$i, son of KBraayyu (for Eomayya)-Raj;];agugi. The
suffix Ra$$agu$i assumed by Sovayyan and Kotnmayya indicates the
offices held by them,

A Tamil record from Baslnikonga, Madanapalle taluk belong­

ing to the reign of Rajalesari Rajadhiraja I, dated in his 32nd
year (1049-50 A.D.) records that the merchant conmunity of si$a
(a district), nagaraT (a centre of merchant-guild) and the 1500
of the directions from the various countries nanadeal (tlsalv-
48
jylmtlai-aimmxWlzaK) Of all samayas (conventloned), convened
a meeting at Slriva^i in Mugal-nagu, a sub-division of Ifcragi
(for Purva ) -Ma raya pa$i ( K±3.a i-Ma raya pa dl of the latter records
« • 49 # ^_
&•&., Mallur inscription of Kulottunga I) in Jayangonga sola-
manflalam and passed a resolution declaring Slrlva^i as Nanade-
\

Hya-SaaaMC^I] Ejidj&Pa$$&n& and conferred certain rights and

50
privileges on the residents of that town. This assembly that
met at Slrava^i decided to convert it into Ejivlrapa^apa in
order to fecilitate the movement of traders. The caravans were
probably always accompanied by a military wing consisting of
bodies called Sri-slias? Msaai-sikaa* Ilsnilika-zlxas, Saasa-
xalaa? a host of other sects, the valangal weavers etc.

Yet another reference to Egt-virapa^tana is found in an

inscription engraved on the east and north bases of the manftapa
in the Axkesvara temple at Karshaniapalle, Punganur taluk. This
record, dated in the 36th regnal year (1053-54 A.D.) of the same
king, refers to the grant of excise (sungam) on oil-mills to
provide a lamp in the temple of Angakkara-Usvaram-TJgaiyar at
 / / ^ 74
Muttukur alias l£i-vlrapaj;$apam in Pulinadu, in Tyagavana-
vaj-anapu in Jayangonpasolamanpalam, by Solakulakarapa-Muvenda-
ve].ap, the officer-in-charge of excise (sungam) for victory
o£ that ana ol ilia samaras (gbaHjiiaYar^iii-kl-BbaiakCal ] vardhik-
&S.). The place Muttukur which has been declared as E£ivira-
pajjana can be identified with the village of the same name,
. situated about 2 miles east of the findspot of our record and
nearly 8 miles south-west of Punganur.

There is only one record of Rajendra II available in the

Chittoor district. This record from Peddatippasamudram is in ^
|Kannada and is dated in the reign of Parakesarl Vijayarajendra-
cbo“[Link] the §aka 981, Hemalambi. The cyclic year, Hemalambi
however will correspond to §aka 980 I.&., 1057-58 A.D. There­
fore the §aka year quoted was current. It records the death of
Bomnarasa, son of Kovarmarasa of Champura in Mapambur-12, while
fighting against a big army (mibalavam). This mahalavam is
apparently a reference to an army of considerable strength des­
patched by the Cha].ukyas which managed to intrude thus far into
Cbola territory. This intrusion is perhaps, connected with the
*dakshina dig-vi.1avaf of Somesvara I in or before §aka 981,
Vikari, Magha, Punpame, Monday*mentioned in the Sudi inscription.
If the week-day Is taken to be Thursday for the given tithl.
.the details may correspond to 1060 A.D., January 20. The ex­
pression used In the record is dakshina dtoLljyaa gS72H <[Link]
l

.1 avamgevdu aagi&S gSTYlMm meaning * having made a

successful expedition through the southern region and conquered
the Cho].a, was holding a triumphal progress1.
t

175
t

Els successor Rajatesari Tlrarajendra1s stone Inscriptions

52
occnr at KSlahasti 3rd regnal year (= 1066-67 A.D.), at Punga-
* 53 . 54
nor 4th regnal year (= 1067-68 A.D.), at Togimallavaram (?th
regnal year; §afca 991, Saumya), while we have also his Charala
(7th regnal year; §aka 991, Saumya) copper-plates.

The Kajahasti inscription records the gift of 96 sheep

by Narayagag allqs Siyagur [Link] of fhjkalak-
kugi in Marukal-na$u In the KshattiriyasikhaT8ani-va].anadu of
§oJ,amaggalam for burning a perpetual lamp to the deity Tiruk-
ki].atti-ugsiyar, in Xjjur-na£u, a division of Adhirajendra-
maggalam. This inscription contains a prasastl of Vlrarajendra
which refers to his campaign against ihavamalla led by the
latter* s generals Slnganag and Vikkalag.

The record from Punganur refers to TirtikkoJ^Isvaramugaiya

mahadevar at Kunganur (the same as modern Punganur) alias Tala-
vanarayana-etiatorvadimangalaia In inftmabinapp-ajl in
Pa£uvur-ko$tam in Jayangon$acho].a-map$alam.

/The Charala plates record the grant by the king, on the

day of Uttariyaga-sahkranti, of the village Chejam alias Madhuran-
taka-chaturvedimangalam in Pulinagu, a sub-division of Ra$$apa$l-
kog$aso1la-mag$alam to the Brahmanas So(§ro)triyakramavittan,
Mundaya-kramavittag, Pallaya-kramavittag and others and their
descendants of the varca (lineage) of Rishikesva (Hyishlkisa)-
Bha$$a-Somayajiyar of the Xtreya-gotra and Bahudhanya (Baudhayana)-
stitra, a brahmana of Chegam alias Madhurantaka-ehaturvedimangalam.
The king while seated In the canopy (tlrukkavanam) of the audience-
ball CtimalaS^a-iap^aPa) called SalajalSB* In the southern
t

portion of the temple of the god Tiruvekambam-uflaiyar at Kanchi-

PUffl) a aagaiSl in Byij-kot$a® in Jayangog$as01a-man£alam,

issued this order (tlruvavmollnd=aru].9) to the officer (adhl-
klrlgap Qupanldl(nldhi)-Aru|mollyar alias Mlnavag-Muvendave].ar,

the kllavan* of Parakesarinallur in Tlrunagaiyur-nadu of Kshatriya-

„ ' m m 58
sikhamani-va^anagu [Link].
t

JThe Yogimallavaram inscription describes the king with

Chalky a titles like aqKatabhqmiaKayfl. and MifllnfaaUaftba besides
the ChSia titles like BfLYta&Utilateu m
jSggytfKBliqtafrq, S&I&axaya., gilasjiiflto? gLca-ghala and Sai&Iis-
Apparently he assumed some of these titles on account
of the success claimed by him over his Cha].ukyan opponents
l^havamalla and Somesvara I. This inscription seems to record

some grant by the king, when he was seated in his palace on the
banks of the river Paga].ai in Nugungl in Vallakunda-nagu in
Vljayarajendra-magflalam to god Pippaladlsvaratnudalya-mahadeva.

Probably this ITujiingl may be located in the area adjacent to

IxSlar, as KOlar is said to be situated in Kuvalala-na£u, a sub-
60 ^
division of Vijayarajendra-magflalam.

/ Ylrarajendrasola-Brahmamarayar, at whose instance the

order was issued by the king, Vtrarajendra-malaiyappleheho|ari,
the jAgflliygfePlSjjofficer of the king BSjarajag alias Panflya-
rajag, the executor of the royal orders, Tlrarajendra-pallavara
• . • the kggkigl, figure as officers In the record* It also
refers to Nirupasikhamani-muvendave].an, §alukklkulakala-muvenda-
 s

ill

ve].an, Vi^upparaiyar of Damanur-nagu ( ^

gga), Rajarajendra-muvedave].an and VirarajendrasoT,a-viXuppa-
raiyan, as signatories of the grant.

Ihe prefix [Link] and other titles indicate that

they were apparently officers appointed daring this period
and were honoured with these titles.

«
Only tuo records are available fbr Parakesari Adhirajenra
*

from the western parts of Chittoor district. They are dated in

the 3rd year (WO A.D.) of his reign. One of them from Mugavagi,
Punganur taluk, mentions the village Mukkaivafli in Pulinadu in
Perumbapappa$i in Pa$uvuiko$$am in Jayfingongasola-marigalam and
v 61 ” * 1
further records a gift of land, while the other inscription
from Pullagan$ivaripalle, Madanapalle taluk, refers to Koyakurai-
nagu alias Melai-Maravanafli ([Link]., Maharajava^i-west) in Irajfjfa-
— 62
pagikongacho^a-manflalam.
63
We have seen above that Purva-marayapa$i is stated to
be situated in Jayangopgachoia-man^alam in the Inscription from
Basinikonga, Madanapalle taluk, dated in the 32nd year (1049-50
A.D.) in the reign of Rajadhiraja I. r
Likewise it is not impossible
that the territorial division Melai-Marayapa$i (&.§,., Marija­
va $i-east) like Purva-Marayapa£i was situated in the above
manjalam and that this area was included in the newly formed
Ra$£apa$ikongasoTta-mari£alam. In a record of Kulottunga I dated
in his 49th regnal year (1118-19 A.B.), the division Kll,ai-
64
Marayapagl also, is said to be in Ira^apagikorigaso^a-mangalam*
65
The TamJ.1 passage introducing Virarajendra in his
 — 66
Cbarala plates contains three sections. The first sctlon Is
the standard prasasti commencing with the expressions Vlramev
tupaiyagavuro and ending with his name Hrarajendradevar (lines
160-68). The second section purporting to introduce the place
of his camp contains the verse referring to the battle of Mudak-
- - 6? .
kaju In his campaign against the Chalukya already referred to
In the first section. The king Is stated in this passage to
have been ruling exclusively over JayangonflasoTjanjanflalam (podu-
nlkkiv=a|klpya JnvangSnftagola-manffalamS (lines 169-70). It Is
v

apparent that the passage is not happily worded. The same is

the case with regard to the third section where the king is stated
to have seen the back of lhavamalla and his sons at Kugal-sangamam
fought Immediately after his own coronation and to have taken
v

Ira$$apa$ik09$asola-ma|$alam (lines 178-74). This Is also a

reference to a battle connected with a campaign against Somesvara I

Ve may at this juncture pause to consider the conflicting

. - 68
statements made in tile records of Vtrarajendra and Adhirajendra
with regard to the territorial division in which Puli-nagu was
situated. According to Charila plates, Pulinagu was situated in
69
Ratfapa^ikonflasolaroanjlalain while in the record of Adhirajendra
dated a few months later In 1070 A.D.^ Pulinagu is said to be in
Jayangon$aso3>amap$alam. Likewise we find that in the records
70 71
dated 1072-73 and in 1106-07 A.D. of Kulottunga I, Pulinaflu
is stated to be in Rattapa^ikonflasola-manflalam, while in another
72
record of 1098 A.D* it is stated to be in Jayangop^aso^a-map^alam

Thus we find that Pulinagu which appears to have been

under the continuous control of the Cho].as is stated to be once
initially in Jayangorigaso],a-mapgalam and then in Ira$tapa$i-
konflasola-manflalam. These frequent changes in the name of the
bigger division of manualam remain to be explained. Jayangopga-
sola-mangalam is the name given to Tori$aiman$alam by Rajaraja I.
Similarly the name RaJJapagikonflaso^a-manjlalam evidently owes
its origin to a king who has the title Ra$$apagikon$achola. All
the CboJ.a kings right from the time of Rajaraja I to the times
of Virarajendra claim to have captured Ra£$apa£i-seven and a half
lakhs. Apart from the validity of this claim one of them would
have adopted the title Ratfrapaflikonflacbo^a. after which this
mangalam would have been named. The standard Prasasti of Rajendra
II (acc. 1052 A.D.) 1Tlrumadu-Puvlennum* etc. refer to one of his
73
sons (kadalar) as RatfraPafllkonflacfa5].ap. Beyond this it is diffi­
cult to identify the king or prince after whom this manflalam could
have been named. Rat£apa£lk&n£aso3,a-man£alam was evidently situated
to the north and north-west of Jayangonjlaso^a-map^alam. This seems
to indicate that Puli-naflu had often to be clubbed with Jayangonga-
so^a-manjlalam. This is probably due to the possibility of the
Cha].ukya intrusion into the Ra$tapa$ikongaso],a-mapgalam resulting
in the loss of some area which must have led to the necessity of
transferring Puli-na£u back to Jayangongaso],a-maiigalam in the
south. This intrusion is indicated by a reference to the mibalavam
74
in one of the inscriptions of Rajendra II, discussed above.

Nearly fifty three inscriptions of Kulottunga I are found,

most of them in the eastern parts 6f Chittoor district. In the
west only eight records are available.
 180

The earliest inscription of this king dated in the

- “ # . ,75
3rd year (1072-73 A.D.) is from Pnngannr proper while his

latest record, copied from Ka^ahastl, Kalahasti taluk, in the

eastern part, is dated in the 49th year (1118-19 A.D,) of his

76 ~ #
reign. The Punganur inscription mentions the tank Ba^endra-

solap-pereri at Kunganur alias Valavanarayana-ohaturvedimangalam

in Polina^iu in Ra^tapa^iko^acbo^a-man^alatn.

The next record of Kulottunga I from Kalahasti is dated

in the 14th year (1083-84 A.D.) and records a gift of 1786 kull
i

of lend as ma$aivi].agam for the residence of the mahesvaras by

the residents of Tlrukka].attl alias Mnmmnjiso^apuram in ftjjjnr-

» . 77
najlu in Tiruvenga$ako$£am, a district of Rajendrasolamapgalam.

An Incomplete inscription from La^gigam dated in the

16th year of this king, records the gift of the village Madamanga-

lam (also called Saag^anjasiialflnallil) in PnlinajJta in Ra££a-

pS$ikop$acho3.a-map$alam, to the temple of Irungollsvaramugaiya

mahadeva built at Koyarrur alias TTttamasolapnram in the same
* " . „ 78
na$u, by a chief Ugavalag 6angalkop^acho].aQ alias Irungo].ag.

This record though Incomplete, is of special interest as

it refers to the construction of this temple by the chief, and

to the various officers. The portion containing the names of

signatories is not available. The record is in the form of

another communicating the royal-consent to the naming of the

village, tfadamangalam as GangaikopgacboJ-anallur, after the donor

Agavalag Oangaikop^aso^an alias Irungo].an. The temple of

Irungo].lsvaram must therefore be deemed to have been constructed

in or slightly before the 16th year (1086-86 A.D.) of the reign

 ■f 81
\ 1

of Kulottunga I. It is evident that the village was endowed by

' the chief and the king granted exemption from taxes on this
village which amounted to 82 3/8-VanaPallavanmaflal. It Is stated
that this order was entered Into the register on the 453rd day
in the 16th year. The sum of 82 3/8 ma<jtal Is stated to have^,
comprised the collection made under the heads of taxes like
iujjttlazUa* fcniargfe3Cfrfi,tliqai Qtc. This exemption was granted by
the king while he was camping at his palace in Pudu-lyirattaJI
alias Ihavamallakulakalapuram. He is stated to have been seated
on a platform (l&Eagji) in the hall of paintings (gfeAfcUsa-iaggaPaffl)*
In the present state of our knowledge Pudu-lyirattaJ.1 alias
lhavamallakulakalapuram could not be identified. The place was
apparently named after the tittle either of Bajendra II of
Vlrarajendra. Since it Is called Pudu-iyiratta^i, it is different
from the old Ayirattali, which is identical with Hiyamam, In
Tanjavur district. Madamangalam, the donated village also cannot
be identified, though Pulinagu in which the village was Included
Indicates its location either in Punganur taluk or in the border-
i

lng areas of the Madanapalle and Palamner taluks in Chittoor

district.

The chief Xgavalan Gangaikopgasolan ?lias Irungo].ag, the

founder of this temple Is known to us also from a later Inscrip-
79
tlon of this king Kulottunga I,/
dated in his 27th year (1096-
97 A.D.) from Brahmadesam, Worth Arcot district. The inscription
records the gift of the village Irungo^avilagam for gSpura (pro-
i

bably construction of gopura) offerings and lamp by A$avallan

Gangaikon^an alias Irongo^an. It Is possible that the chief
who built the temple at La$$igam was associated with the
construction of the go Para at Brahmadesam also. Both Lagfligam
and Brahmadesam apparently fell within the area of his influence.

An Inscription from Kalabasti dated In the 18tb year

(1087-88 A.D.) of his reign records an order of the king trans­
ferring a dancing girl and her descendants from the royal
. 80
service to the temple at [Link].

Another inscription from Kalabasti, dated In his 20th

year (1089-90 A.D.) records a gift of 128 cows and 384 sheep
by Idavailag Gangaikonflag alias Irungolan for burning 20 lamps
in 20 lamp-stands, from evening till the close of the mld-nlght
service, in the mapflapa and In the veranda^ all round the temple
of K&lahastlsvara, raised in stone by his mother Puttangaiyar.
In considering the building activities of the lady, we may also
note similar activities on the part of her son as detailed above
(xid&* ShflBfcsi on Ari ami Archltuctora* p. )•
11 s record of the 26th regnal year (1095-96 A.D.) from
the same place mentions the assignment of 25 pg||l of land, which
were lying uncultivated ('fallow) to be brought under cultivation
and further records that this was made for the provision of
extra offerings to the god on Sundays, new-moon days and on the
days of the tlrunuleyrupaffl festivals, by the residents of
Kappanallurj a devadana village of Tlrukka].atti-u£alyar In
Boygainagu.
 83
Another record from the same place in continuation of
the Inscription stalled above records the gift of land made by
Arayag Rajendrasolag alias SenaPatl Rajanarayana Munaiyadaralyar,
of Eo$$ur in Malainagu, for the festivals tirapaleyrnoafllT refer-
84
red to in the counter agreement made by the residents of
Kapnanalluri who figure in the former record. This general is
known to us also from a record (date lost) of this king from
85
Srlrangam, Tlruchlrapalli district,

A long inscription from Agastyakogga, Funganur taluk,

datedjin his 29th year (1098-99 A.D.), records the grant of
exemption from taxes on the village Kavariku£tai already endowed
as devadana to provide for various items Of expenditure including
V

procession to the deity Tlruvagattlsvaramugaiya mahadeva at

Koyajjur alias TJttamasolapuran in Pulinagu, in Perumbanappagi in
Jayangonjaso],a-manualam by the nafrtar including Brahmanas and
Vellalas of the same nagu. The amount of tax collected under
the heads magai-magu, tayl«lrai; ta-^a-rapafrfram etc., is stated
to have been paid from the 25th to 28th year in the reign of
this king. The undertook to pay this amount themsdves
permanently, even if the nidu is transferred as fief to anybody
• . 86 It is, therefore, clear that this nagu
other than Irungo].ar. .
was under the control of Irungo^ar in this period and It explains
very well the building activities of this chief and his mother,
- ~~ \

It records also an additional grant of current good kasu (agsigtt-

naykasu) by the natfrar, the interest on which was required to
be spent on this temple. The names of various officers who served
during the king’s reign figure as signatories in this record.
An inscription from Vavilitoja, Chittoor taluk, dated in his 31st
year (1100-01 A.D.) registers a grant of land made to the temple
of Tiruvagattlsvaramugalya mahadeva at Ta^aiKka^u in Tuynaflu, in
Perumbanappagi, a district of Jayangonfla sojj,a-man$alam by Kuvalala-
paramesvaran Gangakulojbhavan Slyagangarj.

The next record from Ka].ahasti dated in his 33rd year

(1102-03 A.D,) refers to the gift of 96 sheep and a lamp stand
by Ganparidiffia ....... wife of Angaraja for burning a
r

perpetual lamp in the temple of [Link]-u£aiyar for the

83
merit of her mother Iravikulasundari.

The Yogimallavarara record dated in the [35]th year

(1104-05 A.D.) of Chakravartin Kulottunga-chola, who may be
89
identified with Kulottunga' I records the remittance of the
tax amount of 5 lajlal from the devadana village Munnaippunfli alias
Sivapadasekharanallur paid to Valikop£aso]>a-Brahmamarayan on
behalf of the god Tippaladlsvaramugaiya mahadeva of Tlruchchukagur
in Tirugengaganapu in Tiruvengagako^tam in [Rajendra]soXa“
mapjlalam by Kapnan Vasudevan a member of the g&pfl of Kugavur-
na$u. The latter made representation of Magaptkkangafti to
convert the village into a aagaWlY§L .[Link] from the 35th
year of the king. Valikoppaso],a-Brabmamarayan was perhaps the
}

officer in charge of the revenues. Another inscription of his

36th year (1105-06 A.D.) from the same place records the royal
grant of exemption of taxes on the village at the request of
Kannan Vasudevan alias Irunlkki TJlaganpaioXa-Brahmamarayan Of
_ ^ 90 _ m
Ku£avurnapu. Kannan Vasudevan adopted the title Irunl^kl
 5 85

TXlagangaso^a apparently after that title borne by the reigning

king to mark his success in removing the irul (darkness) [Link].»
91
the confusion which preceded his accession.

An inscription from Eguru, Punganur taluk, dated in his

37th year (1106-07 A.D.) records the construction of a tank
called Madurantakap-Pereri in the forest land to the east of

A^injaneri in 1he village I^aiyur alias §rlkarananallur in

Pulinaclu in Perumbanappa£i in ^rattapa^ikongasoTsa-manjialam by
Tirumal Madurantakan alias Narasingavarman and further states
that a divadana grant of land irrigated by this tank to god
§rlkaranlsvaramudaiya mahadeva of the village by assigning the
92
land which had to be deforested and brought under cultivation.
93
The next record of this king is from Vavilitojia, Chlt-
toor taluk, and is dated in his 40th year (1109-10 A.D.). it
v

records the grant of money made to the temple of Tiruvagattis-

varamugalya mahadeva at Va^aikkagu by Gangaikongan Araisanga-
malla Vi^upparaiyan, the tantramudall (commander) of Gangakulor-
bhavaQ Siyagangan. This inscription, when considered slong with
another in which Slyaganga himself figures as a donor indicate .
the influence of the §Ivaganga family in this area, though it is
difficult to say whether the Slyagangas had replaced Irungo].as
as the local feudatories,

A record of the 42nd year (1101-02 A.D.) of this Cboia

king from Kalahasti registers a gift of 96 cows for half a lamp
to the god Tirukka].atti-udaiyar by Cengangu$aiySn Kuntan Vadugan,
a [Link] officer of the king in the Malaiyarag Padalvlgu in
Gangaikonflasolapuram. The donor is obviously, an officer
considerable status employed in the military establishment
called nialaiyaran-paffaivlflu stationed in the great capital city
of Gangaikongas&^apuram.

We may here refer to another inscription from Kalahasti,

which is dated in his 43rd year (1102-03 A.D.) and which refers
' » „
to a gift of lamp made by Ph^i Anga$i Ayyarsii, one of the
. . « solatterinda vllllgal (bow-men) for the merit of his
95
brother §0£u$aiySij. The reference to a regiment of bowmen
is noteworthy.
)

Two inscriptions of his 49th year (1118-19 A.B.) referring

to Kulottungasola-karuppa£u£aiyar, a general (senaPatlgal) of this
Ghola king have been found in the temple of Ka|ahastisvara at

Kalahasti. One of the inscriptions records a gift of 96 sheep

for burning perpetual lamp to the god Tirukka|.atti-u$aiySr by

Kaliya[v]vai, who got a lamp cast in metal (tari) in the form

of her deceased brother [Ketta]n Udittan alias Mangalur-nada^var,
. 96
described as an agent of this general.

The second inscription records a grant of 1100 kull of

land by one of the agents (kanml) of-this general,Kettan Kattan
alias Mangalur-nadalvar and other members of his family for
burning 25 lamps from sunset till the close of the srlbali
ceremony at the entrance of the prakara outside the central
97
shrine in the temple of Tirukka].attiu£aiyar.
 "87
«\

Another inscription from Ka].ahasti belonging to the 47th

year (1116-17 A.D.) of his reign records a gift of 96 sheep for
a perpetual lamp by Araiyan Ugaiyan alias Vada-Ganflagopala
98
Pallavaraiyaji, a weaver (fcai}&£L].an) of Tanjivur.

Araiyan TJgaiyan, the donor had obviously assumed the title

lada-Gan^agopala-Pallavaraivap on account of his services under
this king. We do not know of any Gandagopala during this period;
9

nor do we know whether Kulottunga I himself had that title.

The word Pallavaraivan signifies the status of an office that he
held under him.

The inscription from Kalakaga, Vayalpad taluk, dated in

the 49th year of his reign records the gift of villages Mujnk-
kettam, Kufliyettam and Tirukka].atti-eri as devadana to the god
Palllsvaramutlaiyamadeva at Karka^ai in Ki],ai-Mariyapadi in
• /— • - - 99
Ira$tapI(ttkongaso|.a-map$alam by Vaidumba marayan Tigallsan.
He is also known to us from an inscription from Tiranasamudram, in
the adjoining Bajracboti taluk, Cuddapah district, in characters
100
of about the 12th century.

Chola hegemony in Chittoor district continued under Vikra-

I

macbo].a also. The earliest inscription of this king is from

Mun$lapu$i, Chandragiri talpk. It is dated in the 3rd year
(1120-21 A.D.) of his reign. This inscription records a grant
of revenue income (mannivanO from Mangalam', a devadana village in
§ilai-na$u for burning four lamps in the temple of Gopilisvara-
mudaiya-mahadeva of Tiruchchuganur in Kudavur-nadu in Tiruvengadak-
 i 08

kolpjam in Jayangondaso^a-mandalam, by Naranadevag Pudoli-arasan

• ,1 \ - ,101
alias KulottungasoT,ak-karuppa£Udaiyaij.1 This chief may pro­
bably be identical with Kulottungaso^akaruppajudaiyan figuring
as Senapatigal in a record of Kulottunga I dated in the 49th
year noticed above. The Guflimallam record of the same king dated
in the 9th regnal year (1126-27 A.D.) refers to the provision of
income (manplvam) due from Silaiyur and some land in Silaiyur-
nagu made for the celebration of festivals in the temple of
Parasuramesvaram-udaiyar by Narapadevan-Pudolaraisarj bearing
_ _ 163
the title Vikkiramasolak-karuPPa yuflalvjn, The record states
that he got the temple of Parasurimesvaram-udaiyar at Tiru-
vi^perumbejlu constructed in stone (tirukkarrall). for the merit of
his father Naranadevar alias Kulottungasolak-karuppayudaiyan.
From this it becomes clear that both Naranadevap and his son
Pudoli-arasan served Kulottunga I and that the latter continued
to serve Vikramachola also when he changed his title as Ylkrama_-
solak-karuppayudaivap in accordance with the prevailing practice,

A record from Ka].ahasti, dated in the 11th year (1128-29

A.D.) of Vikramachola, records a gift of 96 sheep for a perpetual
lamp made by Vimaladittan alias Madhnrantakap-pottappichcholan,
V

son of Siddhiyarasan belonging to the Telugu-Choda family of

JEbttappi, the members of which were ruling over the regions
104
around Pottappi adjoining Chittoor district. We know that the
Chittoor region was during this peripd under the sway of
Pudoliarasan of the Yadavariya family. Two records from Yogimal-
* 105 _ 106
lavaram and Ki].ahasti refer to another member of the
I
 )

Yadavaraya' family, Ghatjideva, who figures as a subordinate of

i

Vikramachol.a.
*

Kalahasti was a renowned pilgrim centre.

✓ ' *
Hence the avails-
bility o'f the Telugu-cbola record in this place on the date noted
above can‘only be explained as due to the visit of that chief to
Kalahasti on pilgrimage. Incidentally, this record provides the
earliest reference to the chief of the Ibttappi family.
i
Siddhiya-
rasarj (or Siddharasa), the father of Yimaladittan mentioned above
is \Obviously identical with his namesake, who was one of the sons
of Dayabhlma I and a ruler of JPottappi.

In Kalahasti we have also four records belonging to the

12th year (1129-30 A.D.) of the reign of Vikramaeho^a. In one
of the records is mentioned danffanavaka Gonkayan, brother-in-law
i

(machchunan) of Rajendraso].a Gangairijan, son [Na]ndi-marayan^

as,a donor of 100 chinnam (gold coins) for a perpetual lamp.
In the second record Sofiyas alias Rajendraso^a Gangayarajan of
Velinadu is stated to have made a gift of 100 chlnpam for burning
^ _ 103
a perpetual lamp in the temple of Tirukka].atti Uffaiyar. The
third inscription records a similar gift by Kongayan (Oonkaiyan),
M M ^ 09
son of Rajendrasola Gangayarajag of Ve]Anaffu. Yet another
record of this period records a similar gift by Vi[sa]nan, son of
liravachchiyan, an officer (pergaffe) of Rajendrasola Gangeyarljan
1?0 ’ ’

of Velina$u.
M i
l
i

The donors mentioned in !these Inscriptions belonged to the

Gonka family and were ruling over Ve].i-naffu as chiefs under

I

VIkramachola. Ve^i-nagu is also outside Chittoor district but

the existence of their records in Ki^ahasti has therefore to be
explained as resulting from their visits to the place as pilgrims.
The son of Nandi-mirl^an (Nandimariyan) described as [Link]­
sp la- [Link] is, obviously identical with Gonka I (which name
however is not given in our record), who is described as the
111
son of Nannirija, in the Pifhapuram inscription. Consequently
toga and Gonka II, respectively the son and grandson of Gonka I,
\

are identical with Soliyan (Cboga) and Kongalyan (Gonka). Thus

it is clear that danganavaka Kongaiyan the brother of the wife
of Gonka I, Choga and Goflka II visited Kilahasti together In
the 12th year and made the grant of 100 Chinnam each. We have
another record of Vikramaehola, dated in his 12th year, from
Ka].ahasti which refers to a grant for a perpetual lamp in the
Kalahastlsvara temple by Madevi, daughter of Kannaradeva alias
_ Y12 v
RajendrasoJ-a Bottappichcbo^aji, son of Kamarasar. This chief
may be identified with his namesake figuring in the record at
113
Tangegumalla, Narasaraopet taluk, Guntur district, dated
<

§aka 1037 corresponding to 1115-16 A.D.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1 Vol. XII, No. 43.

2 g.hha3Ll - Salflsa Jnhllia. SaLom* Oo^a Sculptures, p. 265
foot-note No. 5, (1972) - ’Shri Krishnan, who checked
this point for me, is in favour of 850 as a mean date
of the event on the basis of certain synchronisms
 191

indirectly inferred, as he tells me, between Pailava

Nrpatunga and Vijayalaya Qo^a". "Vijaya-

laya Cbla may, as Krlshnan has other evidence, have come

to the throne at least about a decade before 866".

3 Vol. VIII, No. 529.

'•

4' K.A. Nilakanta Sastrij The Oo^as. p. 113, (Second edition,

r *
1955).

S' a.I.L., vol. VIII, No. 529? The Co^as, p. 115.

6 This is attested to by the Tiruvalangagu plates

(&•!•!• 9 Vol. Ill, No. 205, verse 49) and Kanyakumari

inscription (Trav. Arch. Series. Vol. Ill, p. 142,

verse 55). >

7 1991, 286? K.A. Nilakanta Sastris The CO].asT

(Second edition, 1955), p. 113.

8 [Link].j, 1911, NO. 286.

9 Ibid.. 1907, No. 61.

10 E£. In&.» Vol. VI, p. 50; Ibid.. Vol. VII, p. 195.

11 A.S.S&.* 1970-71, No. B. 11.

12 Ibid.f 1931-32, No. 200.

\

13 Ibid.T Nb. 236.

i

s '14 Ibid. .No. 174.

15 Uaii.i 1946-47,H[0. 26.

16 Ibid.. No. 26, Text, lines 2-4.

17 ^ Ibid.T 1931-32, No. 200.

 •f tJ v

18 * 1913, part II, para 11; K.A. Nilakanta Sastrii

*

XhS. &lSLa» (Second edition, 1955), p. 139, foot note

No. 60 (a); IE. Infl., Vol. XXV, pp. 35-38.

19 [Link]., 1946-47, No. 26.

20 Ibid.. 1942-43, No. B 150.
21 SUI.L., Vol. VIII, No. 526.
22 A.S.1E.* 1906, No. 587.
23 Vol. VIII, No. 526.
24 [Link]., 1906, No. 587.
\

26’
26
a.I.L., vol, VIII, No. 521.
K.A. Nilakanta Sastri: The Qo^as. (Second edition, 1955),
p. 188; [Link]., 1906, No. 253.
27 S.I.I., Vol. XVII, No. 323.
28 Ibid.. No..300, [Link].X., Vol. I, No. 18/384 G.T.
29 S.I.I., Vol. XVII, No. 297.
30 Ibid.T No. 313.
i *

31 Xte s&p. 470.

32 [Link]., 1911, No. 375.

33 Ibid.T 1911-12, part II, para. 21, p. 59.
34 p« 188*

35 [Link].* 1970-71, No. B. 10; X.£.EUX., Vol. I, Nos. 15/

214-15 G.T. and 17/212 G.T.
36n a.I.I., Vol. XVII, NoJ 315.

37 £.t.n.L., Vol. I, NO. 19/20 T.T.

38 S.X.I., Vol. XVII, No. 320.

39 Ibid.y No. 319.
40 Ibid.. No. 326.
 193

41 This is obviously derived from the Sanskrit word maliklT

an architectural term.
'42 This patronymic prefix assumed by the chief Rajendraso^an ■
indicates that his father might have served Rajendra I.
43 Vol. I, No. 20/210 G.T.f contras This record has
been fixed palaeographieally in t he third quarter of the
11th century. Ibid.. p. 29.
44 A.&.gR,., 1922, No. 124.
45 Ibid.f No. 125.
46 Vol. XVII, NO. 312.
47 Ibid.. No. 182.
48 The Annual Report on Epigraphy e xplains the term samavas
as religious denominations ([Link].» 1913, part IT, para.
25, p. 100) which is not correct. Samava as applied to
mercantile organization would only mean a * convention1
for, these organizations consisted of members, professing
various religions.
49 Sfi. Andh.. Vol. I, pp. 150-57.
50 Another instance where a similar convention of the
merchants met to declare a town as Byiviranattana is
recorded in the Kijj;ur inscription. l.£.SEL»» 1912, No.
256. This record is in characters of 11th century A.D.
Yet another instance is known from an inscription from
jjruguppe, near Kempanapura, T. Narasipur taluk In Mysore
district. It records the conversion cf a brahmadiva village
called Velur alias Rajadhlraja-chaturvedimangalam in
Padinijlu In Gangaikonglaso).a-val.ana5lu in Mugigonflasola-
marigalam into an Ejivlrapat^anam. Also the provision
 <94

made fbr the merchant caravans etc., is referred to in

' this record (l£. Cam.. Vol.1 Ill, Tn. 138).
51 £.1.1., Vol. IX, part I, No. 302.
'52 Ibid.. Vol. XVII, No. 311.
53 [Link].» 1906, No. 541.
54 I.X.L., Vol. XVII, NO. 301/
$ i

55 Bp. Ind.. Vol. XXV, pp. 241-65.

i 4
56 £.X.I., Vol. XVII, No. 331.
57 -[Link]., 1906, No. 541.
58 S£. Xafl,., Vol. XXV, p. 263, lines 169-79.
59 S.I.i., Vol. Ill, pp. 197-98; Ibid., Vol. XVII, No. 301.

60 ip. Cam.. Vol. X, Kl. 108. ^

61 &.£.!£., 1906, NO. 573.

62 Ibid.. No. 537.
63 Ibid.T 1913, part IT, para. 25, p. 100; Ibid.. 1912, No.342.
64 i£. In£.» Vol. XXX, pp. 284-85.
65 They are in Grantha and Tamil characters of 11th century
A.D. i

66 ip. Ind.. Vol. XXV, pp. 241-66; Ala) see, lines 160-68,
169-70 and 173-74 of the Tami], passage of the grant.
67 See the article on Mudakkaru by Dr. B.R. Gopal in Prof.

£.4. gilakaB&a Sasixi gaUaUakfea lolms., pp. 62-64,

(1971).
68 4.£.£fi., 1906, No. 573.
69 Ibid. ’
70 Ibid., No. 540.
71 Ibid.. 1931-32,No. 202.

/
 195
-72 !]&&., 190§, No. 656.
73 &.L.L., Vol, III, part I, No. 29, pp. 60 and 62.
74 Ibid.f Vol.’IX, part I, No, 302.
76 . [Link].g£., 1906, No. 540.
\

76 Ibid.. 1922, Nos. 90 and 95.

77 Ibid.t No. 86.
78 Ibid.. 1906, No. 553. /

79 The king has been identified with Kulottunga III (Ibid..

* 1915, No* 266). In’the absence of information regard­

ing the grandson of this chief, who might have borne the
same name, we do not see any* reason why the chief of
the later Inscription should not be identified with the
founder of this temple. If so, the king of the Brahma- 1
I " m. •
desam record will have to be identified with Kulottunga I
1 and not with Kulo,ttunga III.
80 Ibid.. 1922, No. 141.
81 Ifcia., No. 151. '
82 - Ibid.■ No. 167.
83 Ibid.. No. 158.
84 , Ibid.. No. 157.
85, Ibid,. 1951-52, No. 169.
86 Ibid., 1906, No. 556.
t

87 Ibid.. 1928-29, No. 432.

88 Ibid.. 1922,vNo. 131.
I
89 I.I.E.I., ¥01. I, No. 24/382 G.T.
90 5.L.L., vol. X7II, No. 298.
91 K.A. Nilakanta Sastris Ihfl Oolas, p. 331, (Second edition,
1955).
 196
i *■

92 [Link]., 1931-32, No. 202.

93 Ibid., 1928-29, No. 433.
94 Ibid.. 1922, No. 130.
95 Ibid.. No. 160.
96 Ibid.. No. 95.
97 Ibid.T No. 90.
98 Ibid.T No. 91.
99 ll. IM.* '7ol. XXX, pp. 284-85 ff.
100 1968-69, Introduction on Cbo].as.
101 Ibid.T 1958-59, No. 64.
102
*
Ibid. T 1922, No. 95.
103 Vol. VIII, No. 511.
104 v 4.1.S£., 1922, No. 100.
105 S.L.L., Vol. XVII, No. 295.
106 [Link]&., 1922, No. 155.
107 Ibid.. No. 111.
108 Ibid.T No. 112.
109 [Link]. 103.
110 Ibid.T No. 108.
111 ££. IM., Vol. IV, pp.
112 1922, No. 102.
113 Ibld.T 1915, No. 316.