Epigraphia Indica Vol 30

SR No.: 032584
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1953
Total Pages: 490
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 27 MB

Page 384

No. 46] THREE VAIDUMBA INSCRIPTIONS FROM KALAKADA
285 to which it belongs. In respect of orthography, the Sanskrit prasasti written in Grantha characters shows an overwhelming, influence of the Tamil language, which has resulted in such queer spelling of the Sangkrit words as samadikata for samadhigata, maka for mahā, anēha for aēka, etc. Further, the scribe has adopted the tannagaram (n) indiscriminately violating the rules of its correct usage.
The inscription records a gift of Murukkēttam, Kudiyēttam and Tirukkālattiēri as dēvadāna to the god Pallīśvara mudaiya Mādēva at Karkadai in Kilai-Mārāyapãdi in Irattapāļikondachölamandalam by Vaidumba-mārāyan Tidalīšan in the 49th year (i.e. 1119 A. D.) of the reign of Kulottungachõladēva (i.e. Kulottunga I). The dēvadāna so given was made over as kāņi to Chamunda-bhattan of the Gautama götra, stipulating payment of a seventh share [of the produce] thereof [to the government]
The record is the latest among the three and is later than B by nearly a century and a half. Tidalīšan calls himself a Vaidumba-mahārāja and adopts the characteristio prasasti (aneka-samara, etc.) of the Vaidumba family with some additional epithets such as Siddhavaţadeva-sripāda-padm-* ārādhaka and Kalukatāpura-paramēsvara, not found in the records of the early members of the family. Among the dated records of the chiefs of Kalukadapura, this is the earliest yet known. Tidaliban was perhaps a later contemporary of Attiraja of circa 1100 A. D., who figures as an ancestor four generations removed from Udayāditya of the same family in & record of 1199 A. D. from Tādipatri. There is, however, nothing to suggest any relationship between Tidalīsan and Attirāja except that both of them call themselves the lords of Kalukada pura and bear the usual prasasti of the family.
Kaçkadai is identical with modern Kalakada, the findspot of the records under review. It seems to have been referred to as Karkadai-mānagar in a fragmentary inscription at Tiruchchatturai in the Tanjore District, which speaks of the destruction of this place by a feudatory Chõla chief. It is said in the record under review that this village was included in Kilai-Mārāyapādi in Irattapadikondaçõlamandalam. An inscription from Rayachoti' in the Rayachoti Taluk of the Cuddapah District, which is abutting on the Vayalpad Taluk in the north, also mentions this division indicating its extent northwards in parts of this Taluk also. Kilai-Mārāyapādi represented East Mārāyapādi and Mēlai or West Mārāyapādi is mentioned in an inscription from Peddatippasa mudram in the Madanapal. Taluk, to the west of Vayalpäd. In a Kannada inscription from the same Taluk, this territorial division is referred to as Mahārājavādi-7000 and as being governed by Rājarāja Brahmadhirāja under the Chola king Räjādhirāja. The boundaries of this division seem to have extended far to the east as well as to the west at a later period as an inscription of Krishnarāya from Rāyachöțio mentions the two provinces, Udayagiri-Märjavāda and Penugonda-Mārjavāda.
Murukkettam. Kudiyēttam and Tirukkālattiēri, which appear to be villages, were given away as dēvadäna to the god Pallisvaramudaiya Mahādēva of Kafkadai and the god, i.e. the temple, was made over to Chamunda-bhattan of Gautams-gotra as kāni under certain stipulations."
1 For a similar instance of the influence of the local language on Sanskrit, compare above, Vol. XXVII, p. 146.
See below, p. 287. *811., Vol. IV, No. 798.
. A. R. Ep., 1930-31, part ii, para, 30; The Colas, Part I, pp. 529, 621. Prof. K. A. N. Sastri sasigns this record to the period of Rājarāja I.
A. R. Ep., No. 446 of 1911.
• Ibid., No. 637 of 1906. The division is spelt Malai-Märäpädi with the ya in Märäyapädi omitted, perhaps by mistake.
* Ibid., No. 295 of 1922. • Ibid., No. 444 of 1911.
The word dēvarai in line 2 of the text below, if understood literally, would mean that the god (i.u. the temple), to which the villages were granted, was made over to the priest. It is likely that some such term as pani deyyum or pajai Seyyum following this word was inadvertently omitted by the engraver. See translation below.