South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

to be placed towards the end the rule of Ereyappa, between about A.D. 934 and 938. Against this, it might be urged, in the first place, that the statement in this record, that Ereyappa, was governing the Gaṅgavâḍi province as an united whole after having deprived all his enemies of their power, is suggestive of an early period in his rule, and in the second place, that an early period is suggested by also the fact that the record includes an ṅ and a j of the old type, which seems to have entirely disappeared in the Râshṭrakȗṭa territory by about A.D.900. But the Âtakûr inscription, C. below, of A.D. 949-50, similarly describes Bûtuga II. as then governing the province after having fought and killed Râchamalla I.,─ regardless of the fact that that event occurred about ten years before that date. While, as regards the palæographic point, the record can at any rate not be placed before A.D. 906-907, which date we have for Ereyappa’s predecessor Bûtuga I. There seems, therefore, no objection, from this point of view, to placing it even some thirty years later. And we thus gather from this record, in respect of palæography, that the development of the alphabet in Mysore was perceptibly slower than in the Râshṭrakȗṭa territory more to the north

Of the places mentioned in the record in addition to Bempûr-Bêgûr, we may doubtless safely identify Tumbepâḍi, where the battle was fought, with modern ‘ Tumbadi ’ of the Madras Postal Directory and of the Indian Atlas sheet No. 60, N.E. (1895), in the Maddagiri tâluka of the Tumkûr district : the place is in lat. 13º 34ʹ, long. 77º 17ʹ, about fifty-four miles N.N.W.½ W. from Bêgûr ; and this identification locates the scene of the battle near enough to the Noḷambavâḍi province─ (if not actually in it)─ to account for Ayyapadêva being concerned in the matter. Iggalûr still exists under the same name, eight miles to the south-east from Bêgûr. Tovagûru is probably the ‘ D. Togur ’ of the map, two-and-a half miles on the south-east of Bêgûr. Pûvina-Pullimaṅgala is doubtless the modern ‘ Hulimangala,’ three-and-a-half miles on the south of Bêgûr.^[1] And Kûḍal may be ‘ Kudlu,’ three miles N.E. by E. from Bêgûr.

TEXT.^[2]

1 Ôm^[3] Svasti Samasta-bhuvana-vinûta-Gaṅga-kuḷa-gagana-ni[r*]mmaḷa-târâpati- jaḷadhi-jaḷa-vipuḷa-vaḷaya-mêkhaḷ[â]-kaḷ[â]p-âḷaṁ-
2 kri(kṛi)ty-aiḷâdhipatya-lakshmi-śvayaṁvṛita-patîtâdvâdy^[4]-agaṇita-guṇa-gaṇa-vibhȗ s h a ṇ a- vibhûshita-vibhûti śrîmad- Ereyappa-arasar
3 pagevar=ellaman=ni[ḥ*]kshatram-mâḍi Gaṅgavâḍi-tombhattaru-sâsiramuman^[5]=êka- Chhatra^[6]-chchhâyeyoḷ=âḷuttam-ildu Bi(Vî)rama-
4 hêndranoḷ=kâdal=endu Ayyapadêvaṅge sâmanta-sahitaṁ Nâgattaranaṁ daṇḍu vêldoḍe Tumbepâḍiyoḷ=kâdi kâḷegam=imb=a-
5 lidoḍe âneyoḷ=ânt=iridu sattoḍ=adaṁ kêḷd= Ereyapaṁ^[7] mechchi Irugaṅge Nâgat- tara-vaṭṭaṁ-gaṭṭi Beṁpû-ppanniraḍu-

_______________________________________________
^[1] The old map, sheet 60, of 1828, which I was using in 1892, does not shew ‘ Hulimangala.’ The new map, sheet No. 60 N.E., of 1895, does not shew the ‘ Woolmungle,’ about twenty miles towards the E.N.E. from Bêgûr, which I selected in 1892 from the old map ; nor can I find in it the ‘ Nelloorpatnam ’ and ‘ Chicka-Nalloor ’ which, on the authority of the old map, I then put forward as possible representatives of Kûtanidu-Nallûru and Nallûru-Komaraṅgundu, but which now seem, under any circumstances, too distant to belong to the Bempûr twelve.
^[2] From the ink-impression.
^[3] Represented by a plain symbol.
^[4] Read lakshmî-svayaṁvṛita-patitv-âdy. The tva of patitva is also understood after târâpati in line 1.
^[5] Read sâsiraman. The copulativeending is not wanted, as only one province is mentioned.
^[6] Read chchhattra.
^[7]This name would have been written more correctly with the double pp in the fourth syllable, as in line 2. It occurs again with the single p in line 17 below, and in line 20 of C., the Âtakûr inscription.