________________
No. 42.] PULIBUMRA PLATES OF EASTERN CHALUKYA KING JAYASIMHA I. 255
as well as of his son Pulakēsin II, the paternal grandfather and the uncle respectively of the Eastern Chalukyan king Jayasimha I. We have, therefore, to infer that the title was inherited by the Eastern Chalukyas from their ancestors of the West-Deccan. The record describes Jayasimha as a conqueror of the world of chiefs by his ever-growing puissance, as & Valiant soldier whose fame shed lustre in all directions, as a man whose trident-like triplemight pierced through the stout hearts of all the forces of hostile kings ; as a Brihaspati in diplomacy, a Manu in modesty, a Yudhishthira in the love of dharma, an Arjuna in invincibility and a scholar versed in the truths of the teachings of the fästras. It further tells us that he gave the village of Pulibūmrs (Pulibūru) in the Guddavādi-vishaya, to Rudraśarman, a Brahman of Asanapura, who was of the Gautams-gotra, was learned in two Vēdas, belonged to the Taittirikal school and was the son of Sivaśarman and grandson of Dāma arman. The endowed village was, we are told, made into a tax-free agrahāra called sarvasiddhi-datti. The executors of the grant were Hastikośa and Virakosa
Guddavādi has been identified by Dr. Hultzsch' with Gudivada, the headquarters of the taluk of the same name in the Kistna District. The late Mr. Sewell has described the Jain and Buddhist antiquities of this place, besides the large numismatic finds of the Andhra period un-earthed here. They would indicate that the place must have been very prominent before the Chalukyan advent in the time of Kubja-Vishņuvardhana. Pulibumra (Puliburu) may be idertified with Polamūru in the Bhimavaram taluk. Asanapura which seems to have played an important part in the cultural history of this period, I am unable to identity. Might it be Annavaram of the same taluk ?
So far as the reign of Jayasimha is concerned, we are enlightened by a few other records. The Bezwada plates of Chalukya-Bhima I tell us that Kubja-Vishnuvardhana, the father of Jayasirha I and the founder of the dynasty, ruled for 18 years. The Chipurupalli plates of Vishnuvardhana I, dated in the 18th year of his reign, give a date which was equated by Fleet and Kielhorn with 7th July A.D. 632. It is clear from this that Vishnuvardhana I (who came to the Eastern Chalukyan throne, as proved by Fleet between 21st March and 19th April 615) ruled till at least July 632. We do not know when exactly Jayasimha was anointed king. It might have been any month after July 632. Nor are we aware of the length of his rule for the records do not agree in this point. The Bezwada plates of Chalukya-Bhima I and almost all other plates' give him a reign of 33 years. But the British Museum plates of Amma II (Vijayāditya VI) give him only 30 years. As this record stands alone in its statement, Kielhorn preferred to accept the version of the other records and decided that Jayasimha ruled for 33 years. According to Fleet, "the statement of the minority is certainly the correct one" and " from no point of view can & reign of 33 years be allowed to him." It seems to me, however, that both versions are inaccurate and must be considered to
[Read Taittiriya. Taittirika would mean one who catches partridges.'-Ed.).
(For the names and for the dato se Annual Report on Epigraphy, Southern Circle, 1913-14, p. 88, para 7 and No. 5 of Appendix A.-Ed.).
Boo Ep. Ind., VOL IV, p. 34. The place had various names, e.g. Gadravåra (Ep. Ind., Vol. V, 123); Gudrs. bara (Ind. Ant., Vol. VIII, p. 76); Gudrira (Ep. Ind., Vol. IV, P 34). This Gudivada bught not to be con. Lounded with Guddavadi in Ramachandrapur taluk referred to in the Pithapuram inscription of Manmasatys II (Ep. Ind. Vol. IV, 83 A.)
• Lions of Antiquities, p. 52. . This is Kt. 91 in my Topo. List and No. 657 in Kielhorn's Southern List. Soo Ep. Ind., V, pp. 127-31. • Soo Vg. 16 in my Topo. List, Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI (1891), p. 16 , besides 8. Ind. Palmography, Plato 37, * E.g. Kt. 4, Kt. 320, B.M. 6, Kt. 8, etc., in my Topo. List. .B.M. 7 Ibid, p. 1722 (Vol. III).
Ind, Ant., Vol. XX, p. 11, footnote 16.
