|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
found in kha and tha. As first letter of a group, r is represented by the full sign in ryô in l. 15
and rvâ in l. 46. In all other cases the secondary sign has used. The language is
Sanskṛit, and, with the exception of the introductory phrase śubham=astu in l. 1 and the
concluding words śrî śrî śrî in l. 53, the whole text is in verse. As regards orthography, it
may be noticed that a consonant is doubled after r in dêvair=mmathyamânân (l. 7), kurvvan (l. 22), sârththâ (l. 24),-audâryyas (l. 43), arththi-sârththa (l. 48), kîrtti-dharmmau (l. 50),
after anusvâra in tuṁgga (l. 1), Vinikoṁḍḍaṁ (l. 32), Bellakoṁḍḍaṁ (l. 32), -âṁttâd (l. 48),
and as first letter of a group in jâta-ppratishṭhân (l. 28) and Amarêśa-pprasâdataḥ (l. 52).
The groups tth and ddh are written thth and dhdh ; compare, in addition to the cases cited above, tadh-dhâma (l. 4) and samiṁdhdhê (l. 49).
The inscription is one of king Kṛishṇarâya of Vijayanagara. The greater portion of it
consists of verses already known to us from other records.[1] New are only the verses 7, 9, 10 and
12. Verse 7 states that “from him (i.e. king Narasa) was born by Nâgamâmbâ king Kṛishṇarâya, who causes pleasure to the worlds, as the moon, who causes the fragrancy of the
water-lilies, was born from the milk-ocean.” Kṛishṇarâya’s mother is generally called Nâgalâ.
However, the variant Nâgâmbikâ is found also in the prose portion of the Hampe and Saṅkalâpura
inscriptions.[2]
Of greater interest is verse 9, which praises Kṛishṇarâya as him “who, having taken by a
forcible attack Śivanasamudra, Udayâdri, Vinikoṇḍa and Bellakoṇḍa, and having captured
alive on the battle-field Vîrabhadra, the son of the Gajapati king, took Koṇḍavîḍu.” This
account, although rather meagre, is of considerable importance as being the first epigraphical
record of Kṛishṇarâya’s warlike exploits up to the conquest of Koṇḍavîḍu. The enumeration
of the events seems to follows the chronological order. The taking of Śivanasamudra, at any rate,
appears to have been the first military success in Kṛishṇarâya’s career. The ancient city of
Śivanasamudra is situated on an island between the two great falls of the Kâvêrî, 9 miles
north-east of the modern Koḷḷêgâl in the Coimbatore district. It belonged at that time to the
Ummatûr chiefs, who regarded Somêśvarasvâmin, whose magnificent temple may still be seen at
Śivanasamudra, as their family god.[3] The Ummatûr chiefs were subject to the kings of
Vijayanagara. The them lord of Ummatûr must have revolted against his sovereign ; for, quite
in accordance with the inscription, a native chronicle relates that, after having first settled the
Drâviḍa country about Conjeeveram, Kṛishṇarâya crushed a refractory Râja in the Maisûr country,
the Gaṅga Râja of Ummatûr. In the war against the latter Kṛishṇarâya captured the strong
fort of Śivanasamudra and the city of Śrîraṅgapaṭṭaṇa, after which all Maisûr submitted to
him.[4] We can even determine, with great probability, the cause which led to this war, by
combining the facts ascertained hitherto with the statements of a Portuguese author. In this Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque[5] the son of the great conqueror gives us an
abstract of a letter written by a certain Luiz, a Franciscan friar, who, after the disaster at
Calicut in January 1510, was sent by Albuquerque to the court of Vijayanagara with the view
of securing Kṛishṇarâya’s assistance against the Zamorin. The letter was delivered by the
______________________
1 See e.g. Kuppêlûr plates of Kṛishṇarâya, J. Bo. Br. R.A.S. Vol. XII. p. 381 ff. ; Hampe inscription of the
same, Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 361 ff. ; Ûnamâñjêri plates of Achyutarâya, ibid. Vol. III. p. 147 ff., etc. Verse 5 of the
present inscription is formed by combining the first halves of two ślôkas of those inscriptions (vv. 6 and 9 of the
Hampe inscription, vv. 7 and 8 of the Ûnamâñjêri plates).
[2] Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 365, and Vol. IV. p. 267.
[3] Ep. Carn. Vol. IV. p. 60 of the text ; compare for the Ummatûr chiefs Mr. Rice’s account, ibid. Introduction, p. 27.
[4] R. Sewell, Sketch of the Dynasties of Southern India, p. 109. Mr. Sewell quotes as his authorities
Mr. Foulkes in the Salem District Manual, p. 45, and the summary of a manuscript in the Madras Journal, Vol. XIV. (I.), p. 39. I regret that these two books are not accessible to me at present.
[5] Translated by Walter de Gray Birch (Hakluyt edit.), Vol. III. p. 35.
|
