________________
BEGUR INSCRIPTION OF EREYAPPARASA.
349
reference to Ayyapadeva's daughter in the Gôribidnur inscription, we require the full text of that record. And the sculptures on the Begar stone do not bear out Mr. Rice's assumptions. He suggested that the woman standing under the flag-staff is Ayyapadéva's daughter, bound to it as a captive; and that, being taken prisoner in the fight in which Ayyapadeva was killed, she became the prize of the victorious Pallava. But, as I have already said (see note 1, above), the stone is distinctly a charter, not a monumental slab; so that the sculptures in the upper row do not refer to Ayyapadeva at all. And there are no indications of a rope on the staff of the standard ; while, that which is on the woman's right wrist appears distinctly to be a set of bangles, as on both wrists of the other women, and not the coils of a rope. The mention of the Någattara and his army, suggests the idea of a reference to some Någa tribe. I do not find, however, any indications of Nâgas among the figures represented in the sculptures.
In consequence of Mr. Rice's rendering of this inscription, it appeared to contain some other historical details, which are now found to be quite illusory. Thus, his translation speaks of "the illustrious Ereyapparasa, brilliant as lightning, descending among the stars in the clear firmament of the world-renowned Ganga race, protector of the mighty kings of Vaļala and Mêkhala, the chosen lord and possessor of the fortune of the auspicious Taila's dominion." From this, Mr. Rice (Mysore Inscriptions, pp. xliv., xlv.) inferred that Ereyapparasa was an usurper of the Ganga sovereignty; and he placed him in the period A.D. 777 to 857, between Raja-Malladeva and Gaņdadêva. But, on the contrary, Ereyapparasa is most distinctly described as belonging himself to the Ganga family. The "mighty kings of Valala and Mêkhala" owe their existence to nothing but a pure mistake, and need no further comment. The supposed Taila, however, is a matter of more importance, especially in connection with the name of Ayyapadêva, which really does occur in this record. During the period to which this inscription belongs, there was a long break in the supremacy of the Western Chalukya kings. Their records, however, pretending to give an uninterrupted succession, mention a certain Taila I., and his great-grandson Ayyaņa I., who have to be placed in this period. And, on seemingly good grounds, Mr. Rice found a reference to both of these persons in the present record; and an apparent corroboration of his general results, in the supposed fact that Prðliraja, the father of the Kakatya king Rudradêva, took away a kingdom from a certain Tailapa, - assumed to be Taila I., - and gave it to a "king Erha," whom Mr. Rice took to be the present king Ereyapparasa. Proliraja, however, belongs to a much later time, viz. to the period just before A.D. 1163; and the Tailapa who is mentioned in connection with him, is the Western Chalukya king Taila or Tailapa III. (A.D. 1150 to about 1162). Moreover, the kingdom that was disposed of by him was taken from a certain Govindaraja, and was given to a king whose name was in reality Udaya, not "Erha" (see Ind. Ant. vol. XI, p. 17). These items of contemporaneous history thus disappear altogether. And, as a matter of fact, the name of Taila does not occur in the present record at all. It was deduced from words which really are
Alarkrity-ailadhipatya. In the photograph, the reading tail-adhipalya might be justi. fied, as the words preceding it are there not at all clear; and especially because there really is a mention of an Ayyapadêvs further on. But the estampage has placed the true reading of the passage beyond any possibility of doubt. That the Ayyapadêva
