South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

the present plates but the Drākshārāma inscription gives her name as Koṭyapāṁbā. The reading of her name as Kollapāṁbā (line 77) in the present charter seems to be rather doubtful, for the second letter in the name is indistinct on the plate. It is probable, therefore, that her name as written there is Kō[ṭya]pāṁbā. There is a marked divergence in the genealogical portion between the account of the Piṭhāpuram inscription and the information given in the present plates. According to the Piṭhāpuram inscription,^[1] the founder of the family was No. (1) Malla I, his son was No. (2) Eriyavarman and his son was No. (3) Kuḍiyavarman. The son of No. (3) was No. (4) Malla II surnamed Piḍuvarāditya and the latter’s son was No. (5) Kuḍyavarman or Kuḍiyavarman II, who was a vassal of the emperor, Vimalāditya (1011-1019 A.C.).^[2] The Piṭhāpuram inscription thus omits three or four generations, and mentions all the princes from No. 1 to No. 7 Nannirāja in the relationship of father to son. Its information is thus rendered comparatively less probable and not so trustworthy. Its evidence may, therefore, be rejected in preference to the information furnished by the present inscription which agrees in full with the accounts given in the Drākshārāma record that belongs to a period much earlier than the Piṭhāpuram inscription. Malla III, who was foremost among the followers of Chālukya-Bhīma II is altogether omitted in the Piṭhāpuram inscription. The Drākshārāma inscription is contemporaneous with the present record.

To return to Malla III of the present record. He married Koṭyamāṁbā (Koṭyapāṁbā) and had two sons by her, Erriya II who is described as jyēshṭha ‘ the elder ’ and vaṁśakartā, ‘ the progenitor of the family ’, and Kōrapa. Erriya II married Kaṭṭāṁbā and had six sons by her, Malla IV, Kuḍiya, Gaṇḍa, Paṇḍa I, Nanna and Kāpana, every one of whom resembled Shaṇmukha, the six-faced war-god. Kuḍiya, it is said, was a vassal of the emperor Vimalāditya, and received from him the rulership of the province, Gudravāra-vishaya. This prince is evidently the same as No. 5 Kuḍyavarman II or Kuḍiyavarman, of the Piṭhāpuram inscription in which he is stated to have rendered assistance for a long time on battlefields to Vimalāditya who then having been pleased bestowed on him the territory, Gudravāra-dvaya, “ the two provinces of Gudravāra ” (vv. 16-18). The two Gudravāras may be identified with the Gudravāra^[3] corresponding to the Gudivada taluk and with the Pallapu-Gudravāra^[4], ‘ low lying Gudravāra ’, corresponding to the Kaikalūru taluk, of the Krishna District. Nanna, the younger brother of Kuḍyavarman, is described as a great hero and as a prince of praiseworthy character. It is said that he was the commander-in-chief of all the forces of Vishṇuvardhana, i.e., Rājarāja-Narēndra or Rājarāja I (1022-1061 A.C.). Nanna’s son was Paṇḍa I, whose wife Guṇḍāṁbikā resembled Kuntī of epic fame. Whale in the present record Paṇḍa I and Guṇḍāṁbikā are stated to have had five sons, Vedura, Gaṇḍa II, Goṅka I, Malla V and Paṇḍa II who were like the five Pāṇḍavas, the Piṭhāpuram inscription, on the other hand, makes these five princes the children of Nanna. There is another discrepancy between the Piṭhāpuram inscription and the present record. Kuḍyavarman II, it is stated in the former (v. 25), had a son named Erraya to whom he transferred his kingdom after having ruled the earth for a long time ; and the latter, however, however, does not mention any son of Kuḍiya, vassal of Vimalāditya. It is, therefore, probable, probable that Kuḍyavarman II or Kuḍiya was succeeded by his younger brother Nannarāja in the rulership of his vassal kingdom. The Drākshārāma record, too, does not mention that Kuḍyavarman II transferred his kingdom to his son Erraya, a fact mentioned only in the Piṭhāpuram inscription. Nanna, the Piṭhāpuram inscription states, had destroyed a crowd of

_________________________________________________

^[1] Above, Vol. IV, p. 35.
^[2] All the records of the family beginning with the reign of Rājarāja I (1022-1061 A.C.) state that Vimalāditya
reigned for only seven years. The date of his coronation is known to us from his Raṇastipūṇḍi grant (Above, Vol.
VI, pp. 341-361). Hence it is assumed that his seven year’s rule came to an end in 1019 A.C.
^[3] Above, Vol. V, pp. 135-39, SII, Vol. V, No. 211.
^[4] C.P. No. 5 of 1937-38 : Kalidiṇḍi grant of Rājarāja-Narēndra. See above, p. 69 text-line 75.