________________
276
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XXV.
made to the temple of Bhimēsvara at Dräkshārāma, without mentioning the Kakatiya overlord who was reigning at the tim. The record is unfortunately not dated. But it must be assigned to a date subsequent to Saka 1184 in which year Köpperuñjingadēva figures apparently as a subordinate of a Kakatiya king. The defeat of Kópperuñjinga called here Kādavaraya must have been accomplished some time before Saka 1201 the last year of the chief and after Saka 1194 when Ambadeva succeeded to the chiefdom. Amabadēva's Tripurantakam inscription of Saka 1194 does not refer to any of his exploits mentioned above whereas his epigraphs dated Saka 1207, 1212, 1213, etc., narrate them in detail. Ambadēva appears to have been puffed up with the signal victory he had gained over his powerful rival Köpperuõjingadēva, proclaimed himself as a quasi-independent chief and to have held that position till the very last year of his rule. It is, however, certain that he did not turn a rebel against the Kākatiyas or attempt to subvert their sovereignty. For a record from Malyāla' in the Nandikotkur Taluk of the Kurnool District refers itself to the reign of the Kakatiya king Kumāra Rudra Maharaja in Saka 1212 and 1213, thus marking the extent of the Kakatiya rule in the territory of the Kayastha chiefs during the same period. Tripurāntakam (Kurnool District) and Nilagangavaram (Vinukonda Taluk, Guntur District) where Ambadeva's inscriptions are found, were situated within the Kakatiya dominions. It is therefore possible that though Ambadēva maintained a semi-independent status like the great Feudatory families of the Dekkan, i.e., the Western Gangas, Bāņas, etc., under the Rashtrakutas, etc., in the medieval period, the Kakatiya suzerainty was acknowledged in the territory of the Kayasthas as shown above. In course of time, however, Aubadēva's power suffered heavily in consequence of which he appears to have been deprived of his principality, since an Upparapalle inscription of Rudradēva dated Saka 1[2*]36, Pramadi, refers to the reduction of Ghandikota by a subordinate of the king. Another fragmentary inscription in the same place, without date, states that the king appointed Gonkaya-Reddi, a servant of Juttaya, to the governorship of Khandikota and Mulikinändu districts. This shows that Ambadēva had been subdued under the orders of the king and his territory annexed to the Kākatiya dominions some time before Saka 1236. In one of the inscriptions at Kanāla, Nandyal Taluk of the Kurnool District, a chief (name completely damaged) is stated to be ruling over Mulkināņdu, Penampadi, Pottapināņdu, Pedakallu and Näntavādi under Pratäparudradēva-Mabäräja in Saka 1230. We know that these nādus had been subject to the administration of Ambadēva, but it is not definite whether Ambadēva continued to rule till Saka 1230 or had been dispossessed of his territory by that year. But it can be affirmed that he had been either killed in the encounter or dislodged from Ghandi. kota before Saka 1236 as stated above.
TEXT.
First Fragment : First Face. 1 Väräha vapur=avyād=vā mahi-mu . . 2 harēḥ yasya darnshtr-ågra-viśramtă mahi .
No. 197 of 1906, see Madras Epigraphical Report for the year, part ii, p. 46. * 8. I. I., Vol. IV, No. 1341.
• The chief came to power in A.D. 1243 and ruled for 36 years (Historical Ins. of Southern India, pp. 162 and 3'76)
• No. 321 of 1937-38. An indirect mention of Kumāra-Kshitibhrit in the present record points to the overbearing attitude of Ambadēva towards the Kakatiya monarch. No. 328 of 1905.
• No. 329 of 1905. No. 260 of 1935-36. .No. 408 of 1911. . From ink-inpressiva.
