South Indian Inscriptions

INTRODUCTION

       This volume containing 465 inscriptions in all, noticed in the Annual Reports on Indian Epigraphy between 1928-29 and 1944-45, were copied from the villages i the districts of old Madars presidency Of these, except a few records, most of the records are in Kannaḍa language and script. They are of interest from the point of view of political, socio-economic and religious aspects. The discussion on the importance of records is confined to area-wise and chronological framework within that region. The early ruling dynasties like the Noḷaṁbas and the Rāshṭrakūṭas are represented here. One of the early ruling families of Karṇāṭaka that figure in this volume is that of the Noḷaṁbas An inscription from Kaṅnelūru in Jammalamadugu Taluk, Cuddapah District (No. 7) belonging to this family, can be assigned to c, 8th century. In this record the name of the king is missing. Only the expression °varsha, a part of the title of one of the kings, is mentioned in the extant portion. It refers to Durggamāra-Ereyappa, as the governor of the territory extending from Nariyanūr to Kirudore. He is identical with Duggamāra Ereyappa, son of Śrīpurusha, of the Gaṅga family whose Rāshṭrakūṭa contemporary was Dhruva. Therefore, the present record may be assigned to the reign of Rāshṭrakūṭa Dhruva whose title was Dhārāvarsha.

       Among the Noḷaṁba records, the record from Māgaṇḍlapalle (No. 6) in Punganur Taluk, Chittoor District belonging to the period of lriva Noḷaṁba is of some interest. It is an undated record in characters of about the 10th century A.D. It mentions that the king, while camping at Kinduraponne in Paruvi-nāḍu, conferred the title of Pallavāditya-Nolaṁba- gāvuṇḍa on one Basavayya, son of Māgara Bīrāna-gāvuṇḍa of Puli-nāḍu, besides the village Nāgekuṇṭe being granted as a koḍaṅge to him. The king held the titles Ghaṭeyaṅkakāra and Pallavāditya. He is referred to as a younger brother of Ēkavākyadēva or Vākyadēva. It is probable that Vīra- Mahēndra II of the Karshanapalle record (S.I.I., Vol. IX, pt. I, No. 39) had two sons, Ēkavākyadēva and lriva-Nolaṁba Ghaṭeyaṅkakāra. It has been held by various scholars that Vākyadēva and lriva-Noḷaṁba Ghaṭeyaṅkakāra are identical (Indian Culture, Vol. VI, pp. 429 ff.). This is due to a wrong reading of Nelapalle record, where ātana magma was read as Amōgha and Vākyadēva who was thus considered as Amōghadēva. Shri N. L. Rao (Indian Culture. Vol. VII, pp. 366 ff.). had, on the other hand taken Vākyadēva as the son of Mahēndra II, while lriva-Nolaṁba Ghaṭēayaṅkakāra figures in