|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
line 18-19, and maṅgaḷa, line 19, it is the later cursive ṅ, differing from the corresponding j in
only the absence of the right-hand stroke which, in the j, starts and turns up from the centre
of the letter ; on the other hand, in Gaṅga, line1, Gaṅgavâḍi, line 3, and dêvaṅge, line 4, we have
an ṅ of the old square type, answering to the back-to-back j, from which it differs, as may be seen
best in line 3, essentially in the absence of the centre stroke to the right, and, as found in this
particular record, by the projections to the left being turned in to meet the central upright stroke.
─The language is Kanarese, of the archaic type, in prose. In line 18, we have a curious word,
śavuchara, which seems to stand for sahachara, ‘ a companion, a follower.’— In respect of
orthography we may notice (1) the use of ri for ṛi in âḷaṁkrity, line 1-2, though the ṛi is given
correctly in śvayaṁvṛita, line 2 ; (2) the use of dhdh for ddh in badhdhaṁ, line 6 ; (3) the use
of b for v in Bîra, line 3 ; (4) the use of ś for s in śvayaṁvṛita, line 2 ; and (5) the use of the
Drâviḍian ḷ in all the Sanskṛit words, except, of course, as an initial in lakshmi, line 2, and
except in maṅgala, line 6. The last-mentioned word occurs spelt both ways. In line 19, where
it is the ordinary Sanskṛit word, used in its customary sense, it is written with the Drâviḍian ḷ.
Iu line 6, it is part of a village-name ;[1] and there it is written with the ordinary l, as seems to
be always the case, even in Tamil records, when it is used in that way.
The inscription, which is partly a vîrgal or monumental record of a hero who was killed
in battle and partly an ordinary śâsana or charter, refers itself to the period of the rule of the
Western Gaṅga prince Ereyappa, i.e, to between about A.D. 908 and 938. It tells us that
Ereyappa lent to Ayyapadêva, for the purpose of fighting against Vîramahêndra, a force
which was collected and commanded by the leader of the Nâgattaras. The commander of the
force was killed in a battle that was fought at Tumbepâḍi. And Ereyappa appointed Iruga to
succeed to the leadership of the Nâgattaras, and also, in recognition of the bravery that had been
displayed by his predecessor, granted to Iruga the circle of villages that was known as
the Bempûr twelve.
As has been pointed out by Mr. Rice[2] since the time when the contents of this record were
first discussed, Ayyapadêva was doubtless a Noḷamba, and is to be identified with the
Noḷambâdhirâja-Ayyapadêva, “ of the Pallava lineage,” one of the Noḷambas of the
Noḷambavâḍi province on the north of the Gaṅgavâḍi province, who is mentioned in an
inscription at Hirî-Bidanûr.[3] The identity of Vîramahêndra is not so certain. But there is, at
any rate, no good reason now for proposing to identify him with the Noḷamba Mahêndrâdhirâja
who is mentioned, in inscriptions at Baragûr and Hêmâvati,[4] as a son of a Noḷambâdhirâja who
was a brother-in-law of Nîtimârga son of the Gaṅga prince Râjamalla. And it seems probable
that he was an Eastern Chalukya king. In that dynasty, we meet, not only with Râjamahêndra
as a biruda both of Amma I. (A.D. 918 to 925) and of Amma II. (A. D. 945 to 970),[5] but also
with Gaṇḍamahêndra as a biruda of Châlukya-Bhîma II. (A.D. 934 to 945).[6] The name
Vîramahêndra, “ a very Mahêndra (India) among brave men,” is exactly synonymous with
Gaṇḍamahêndra, “ a very Mahêndra among heroes.” The Eastern Chalukyas were constantly at
war with the Râshṭrakûṭa kings and the Western Gaṅga princes. The name of “ the very terrible
Ayyapa ” is actually mentioned among the names of certain enemies of Châlukya-Bhîma II.,[7]
whom he is said to have slain. The dates fit in satisfactorily. Thus, in all probability the
Vîramahêndra of this record is Châlukya-Bhîma II., who, we must then understand, had
invaded Mysore and was met by a combined force of Gaṅgas and Noḷambas. And the event has
__________________________________
[1] [At the end of village names, maṅgala seems to be an abbreviation of the frequent, but inconveniently long
term chaturvêdi-maṅgala, ‘ a Brâhmaṇ settlement.’─E.H.]
[2] Ep, Carn. Vol. III. Introd. p. 4, note 3.
[3] For this record, see provisionally, Ep. Carn. Vol. IV. Introd. p. 10, note 2.
[4] See Ep. Carn. Vol. III. Introd. p. 4, and Vol. IV. Introd. p. 11.
[5] Ind. Ant. Vol. XX. pp. 266, 270.
[6] Ibid. p. 269.
[7] Ibid. p. 270.
|