South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

tree Rachhyâmalla.”^[1] And the event must also be placed some few years after A.D. 933, because we have a date in that year for Gôvinda IV., and the reign of Amôghavarsha-Vaddiga intervened after that and before the reign of Kṛishṇa III. That Râchamalla did actually succeed his father, is distinctly implied by the Dêôlî grant. And we have now a record which is to be referred to the period of his rule, and which probably discloses the actual outbreak of hostilities between him and Bûtuga I. It is the Hiranandi inscription,^[2] which tells us hat─ “ When Ereyappa ascended to heaven, Bhuvanâditya came and said that Kiriya-Râchamalla had given, at Mannebeṭṭa or Mannibîḍu (?), half the country and the treasury ; whereupon, the five Sâmantas^[3] and the Pergaḍes and the governor (?) of the Bayalnâḍ country said─ We will not allow any other than Râchamalla to rule ; then they fought at Mâguṇḍi (or perhaps at Bhuvanâytana-Mâguṇḍi) and the four sons of Nindiya-Korantiyarasa fought and died,” etc., It is, thus, plain that Râchamalla I. did actually succeed to the leadership of the Gaṅgas. And it seems that he deliberately gave half the principality to Bûtuga II., and thus paved the way to his own overthrow. At the same time, it appears tolerably certain that he ruled for only a short time. And we may probably place the death of Ereyappa, the accession of Râchamalla I., and the killing of the latter by Bûtuga II., all in A.D. 938.

In this way, Râchamalla I. was succeeded by Satyavâkya-Bûtuga II., at some time between A.D. 933 and 940, and probably in A.D. 938, or very closely thereabouts. As has been intimated above, we shall probably find hereafter that Bûtuga II. was a grandson of Bûtuga I., and a son of the Râcheya-Gaṅga who died in A.D. 891-92. And we have, at present, nothing else to add to the account of him given on the previous occasion, except that certain inscriptions at Aṇṇigere and Gâwarawâḍ in the Dhârwâr district, and at Hûli in Beḷgaum, shew that the exact name of the elder sister of Kṛishṇa III., who was one of his wives, was Rêvakanimmaḍi,^[4] and that we have now a later date for him in A.D. 953.^[5]

On the present occasion, we are not concerned with the general history of the Gaṅgas after A.D. 940. But it may be conveniently noted here, in connection with Pañchaladêva, that the war between him and the Western Châlukya Âhavamalla-Taila II., in the course of which Pañchaladêva was overthrown and killed, is referred to by the Kanarese poet Ranna,^[6]

______________________________________________________________
^[1] Above, Vol. IV. p. 289, and Vol. V. p. 191.
^[2] Ep. Carn. Vol. IV., Hg. 116 ; and see page 62 above.─ I take the text, of course, as given by Mr. Rice. But there are points in it that call for comment. The text in Roman characters speaks of “ Koṅgaṇi-Kiriya-Râchamalla ;” but the text in Kanarese characters omits the Koṅgaṇi, and suggests, instead, some illegible biruda of the usual kind ending in vêḍeṅga. For the Manne-beṭṭadoḷ of the Roman text, the Kanarese text has Manni-bêḍidoḷ,─ presumably for Manni-bîdinoḷ. There is nothing in either text, implying an invitation to go to Mannebeṭṭa or Mannibîḍu. Koṭṭân means “ he gave, he has (already) given,” not “ he will give or would give.” Bayal-nâḍanu is certainly not the accusative singular of Bayal-nâḍ, governed by râjyamaṁ geyal ; if it is the real reading at all, it is the nominative singular masculine of a base Bayal-nâḍa, with the copulative ending uṁ, and it must denote some leading official, probably the Nâlgâmuṇḍa of the Bayalnâd country ; we have the same word in the locative, and in the ordinary nominative without the copulative ending, in the Kaṭṭemanuganahaḷḷi inscription (Hg. 103), which tells us, not that on the day that “ there was a fight in Bayal-nâḍ, when Bayal-nâḍ coming, attacked Koṭṭamaṅgala,” but that “ on the day, or at the time, when there was a quarrel with or war against the Bayalnâḍa the Bayalnâḍa came,” etc. The îyâm of the Roman text and iyâm of the Kanarese text must be a mistake for îyem ; and îyem means, not “ we do not wish,” but “ we will not gives, we will not allow.”
^[3] The five Sâmantas were probably the subordinate commanders of five bodies of local troops ; compare the reference to the Sâmantas of the Nâgattara in the Bêgûr inscription (page 49 above). The same expression, ay-sâmantarum. “ and the five Sâmantas.”─ occurs in an inscription at Mûḍahaḷḷi, Ep. Carn. Vol. III., Nj. 130
^[4] According, a certain correction proposed for line 5 of the Hebbâḷ inscription (see above, Vol. IV. p. 352, note 3) is not necessary.─ The name Rêvakanimmadi is, I suppose, practically another form of Immaḍi-Rêvaka ; and, if so, it probably means “ a Rêvaka who was twice as beautiful or accomplished as any preceding Rêvaka ” (see page 51 above, note 4).
^[5] See the Postscript, page 83 below.
^[6] See Mr. Rice’s Karṇâṭakaśabdânuśâsanam. Introd. p. 28 ff , where Âhavamall is wrongly identified with Irivabeḍaṅga-Satyâśraya, and Pañchâla is evidently a mistake for Pañchala.