South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

find, however, that he was a younger son of Bûtuga I. And, from the fact that none of the records, that have as yet come to light, speck of him as the Yuvarâja or chosen successor of Bûtuga I.,^[1] and from certain other indications, it seems likely that he took advantage of the executive authority entrusted to him by Bûtuga I., and diverted the succession from the direct and proper line. There are hints to this effect, in the description of his son Râchamalla I. as a poisonous tree which was uprooted, and of Bûtuga II. as a pure tree which was planted in its place, by Kṛishṇa III.,^[2] and in the fact that Kṛishṇa III. gave again to Bûtuga II. the Beḷvola, Purigere, Kisukâd, and Bâgenâḍ districts,^[3] which had previously been given to him, as the dowry of his wife Rêvakanimmaḍi, by Amôghavarsha-Vaddiga. And there is also the statement in the Bêgûr inscription, that Ereyappa governed the Gaṅgavâḍi province as an united whole, after depriving all his enemies of their power.^[4] The exact application of this latter statement, indeed, is not yet certain : on the one hand, taken in connection with the mention of hostilities with the Noḷambas in A.D. 891-92, in the time of Bûtuga I.,^[5] and with the existence of an intrusive Noḷamba record of A.D. 895-96 at Tâyalûr in the Maṇḍya tâluka,^[6] it may mean that Ereyappa was successful against some determined effort of the Noḷambas to overthrow the Gaṅga power altogether ; and on the other hand, as the Bêgûr inscription shews that he was, at that time, on very friendly terms with the Noḷamba Ayyapadêva, the fact may be that the enemies whom he overthrew were his own relations, and that he was assisted in doing that by the Noḷambas. Still, however this may be, we shall probably find hereafter that Bûtuga II. was the eldest son of the Râcheya-Gaṅga whose death in A.D. 891-92, in battle against the Nolamma or Noḷamba, is mentioned in the Iggali inscription, and that Râcheya-Gaṅga was the eldest son of Bûtuga I., and that it was death of Râcheya-Gaṅga in A.D. 891-92 that enabled Ereyappa to secure the succession,─ to the exclusion of Bûtuga II., who was eventually placed in possession of his rights by Kṛishṇa III.

>

To the period of the rule of Ereyappa himself belongs the Bêgûr inscription,^[7] which mentions him as Ereyappa, and describes him as lending a force to Ayyapadêva, for the purpose of fighting against a certain Vîramahêndra who seems to the Eastern Chalukya king Bhîma II. This record has to be placed near the end of his rule. To an earlier period in his time belongs an inscription at Gaṭṭavâḍi,^[8] which mentions him as the ruling prince under the appellation of Nîtimârga, and is dated, without any details of the Śaka year, month, etc., in his fifth year, corresponding probably to A.D. 912-13. There is, apparently, an inscription at Marûr in the Hassan district,^[9] dated in his nineteenth year, which would carry him on to about A.D. 926-27. As we shall see shortly, he must have ruled for not less than twenty-five years, up to some date after A.D. 933. And we may provisionally fix the end of his rule in A.D. 938.

Nîtimârga-Ereyappa left a son named Râchamalla I. And it was by killing Râchamalla that Bûtuga II. obtained the succession. We know this from the Âtakûr inscription.^[10] That the event occurred in or before A.D. 940, is shewn by the Râshṭrakûṭa grant from Dêôlî, dated in that year, which mentions the fact and implies that Bûtuga II. received material assistance from the Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa III., who was his brother-in-law ; for, it says, Kṛishṇa III. “ planted in Gaṅgapâṭî, as in a garden, the pure tree Bhûtârya, having uprooted the poisonous

___________________________________
^[1] Regarding an instance in which he has been supposed to be thus described, see page 68 above, note 6.
^[2] See below.
^[3] See page 57 above.
^[4] Page 49 above.
^[5] Page 68 above.
^[6] Ep. Carn. Vol. III., Md. 13 ; and see above, Vol. V. p. 165.
^[7] Page 49 above.
^[8] Ep. Carn. Vol. III., Nj. 98.─ This record mentions a certain Mâragâmuṇḍa, and a person whose name is given in the published texts as Taparekere-Basavayya. The other Gaṭṭavâḍi inscription (Nj. 97), of the fifth year of a Satyavâkya (proper name not disclosed), mentions evidently the same two persons, the first of them as Mâragavuṇḍa, and the second of them as Tâyûra-Parekere-Basavayya according to the published texts. This brings these two records into immediate sequence. And Nj. 97 is, therefore, to be referred either to Satyavâkya-Bûtuga I., or to Satyavâkya-Bûtuga II.
^[9] See Ep. Carn. Vol. IV. Introd. p. 12.
^[10] Page 57 above.