South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

REYURU GRANT OF PALLAVA NARASIMHAVARMAN ;
YEAR 12

and adjacent to Muṇḍarāshṭra.^[1] Muṇḍarāshṭra roughly comprised the major part of Kōvūru taluk and the adjoining area to the north and south in the Nellore District, Madras State.^[2] It would, therefore, be reasonable to surmise that Mēl-Muṇḍarāshṭra might have comprised mainly the area of the Ātmakūr taluk of the district, since this taluk is situated to the west of the Kōvūru taluk. This surmise is justified by the existence, in the Ātmakūr taluk, of a village named Rēvūru which may aptly be identified with the Rēyūru or the inscription.^[3] I am unable to identify the locality called Asidhārapura which was to the south of Rēyūru and presumably in its vicinity. Apparently the name has been Sanskritised and there are no means at our disposal to find out its indigenous appellation.

It is interesting to recall in this context that a village bearing the identical name Rēyūru is mentioned as the object of gift in a copper-plate record^[4] of the Eastern Chālukya king Vishṇuvardhana II, dated 664 A.C. This Rēyūru was situated in the area of Karmarāshṭra which comprised the northern portion of the Nellore District and the southern parts of the Guntur District, extending roughly over the Ongole and Bapatla taluks.^[5] Two alternative views are possible under the circumstances. Firstly, Rēyūru of the Eastern Chālukya record might be different from its namesake of the present charter. Secondly, they might be identical. Since scarcely any village answering the name is traceable in the northern taluks of the Nellore District and the southern taluks of the Guntur District, I am inclined to prefer the second alternative. But in this case we shall have to explain the discrepancy in the geographical position of the same village in the two records which are removed by a period of about fifty years only. Here we might note it primarily that Karmarāshṭra formed part of the Pallava dominion and that it figures often in the records of the rulers of the line.^[6] Subsequently, this tract, as indicated by the Kopparam plates,^[7] appears to have been subjugated by Puladēśin II and passed on to the sway of the Eastern Chālukyas,^[8] come time before 630 A.C . We are, therefore, not facing an anomaly if we surmise that a part of this Karmarāshṭra, particularly the southern or the south-western part, was reconquered either by Narasiṁhavarman II or his father Paramēśvaravarman I, particularly taking into consideration the ineffective regime of Vishṇuvardhana II’s successor, Maṅgiyuvarāja.^[9] This newly conquered tract might have been constituted into a separate territorial unit and named Mēl-Muṇḍarāshṭra.

Nandakurra wherefrom the ājñāpti Īśvara hailed may be Nandavaram in the Udayagiri taluk of the Nellore District, which has yielded some inscriptions.^[10] Kuravaśrī where the donee resided must be the same as Kuravaśiri occurring in the Taṇḍantōṭṭam plate of the Pallava king

_________________________________________________

^[1] S. I. I., Vol. II, pp. 532-34.
^[2] Journ. Andhra Hist. Res. Soc., Vol. V, p. 115, lines 60-61.
^[3] There are other possibilities also, e.g., Kōvūru in the Kōvūru and Kandukur taluks of the Nellore District.
^[4] From the original plates and impressions.
^[5] the consonant t may be read as rta also. This word should be read either as śrīmatā or śrīmatāṁ, preferably the former. In the former case it qualifies Bhagavatā and in the latter Pallavānāṁ.
^[6] Read Bhagavatā. The abbreviated invocation jitaṁ Bhagavatā is met with in the Uruvupalli and other records.
^[7] Sandhi is not observed here.
^[8] This letter is peculiar and looks like li. The engraver seems to have incised the wrong form of the intended akshara ñcha.
^[9] In the Uruvupalli and Pīkira grants the expression reads Lōkapālānāṁ pañchamasya Lōkapālasya, whereas it is Lōkapālānāṁ pañchamasya only in the Vilavaṭṭi grant. The expressions Madhyamalōkapāla and Lōkapālānāṁ pañchama obviously refer to god Varuṇa.
^[10] The reading intended is perhaps mahim-ōpama-.
^[11] For clarity of sense it is better to separate this compound expression.
^[12] This anusvāra is placed wrongly on the akshara ja.
^[13] The word is satra in the Uruvupalli grant.
^[14] Sandhi is not properly observed here.
^[15] This and the following two expressions may also be taken as qualifying Bappa-bhaṭṭāraka, in which case we need not separate them.