________________
No. 42]
TELUGU CHOLA RECORDS FROM ANANTAPUR AND CUDDAPAH
251
and his son Simhavishnu, the earliest known members of the Chola family, bore the names of their Pallava contemporaries, Nandivarman and Simhavishnu who were ruling in the 6th century A.D. and of whom they were evidently feudatories. Accordingly, Nandivarman-Chõla must be taken to have been ruling in c. 550 A.D. and this date affords a workable basis for the calculation of the dates of his successors and it is found that the results so obtained accord well with the facts of contemporary history. Thus we find the Telugu Chola Mahendravikrama I Cholamahārāja, the grandson of Nandivarman, adopting the name of the Pallava Mahendra I of whom he was evidently a contemporary. The available records of Chõla Mahendravikrama I, bearing evidence of his activities, enable us to state that he was in close connection with both the Pallava monarchs, Sim havishnu and Mahendra I. That he was also associated with Simhavishnu may be accepted for a fact for, as recorded in the Mālēpådu plates of his son Punyakumāra, he gets the title 'Lord of Chēra, Chola and Pandya countries' which Siris havishy of the Pallavas is said to have conquered'. It is probable that the Chöja took part in the campaigns of the Pallava in the southern regions.
Similarly, Guņamudita and Punyakumara bear some of the surnames of Pallava Mahendra I indicating that they were all contemporaries. The name Guņamudita is, doubtless, modelled on that of Guņabhara, a surname of the Pallava king. Again, the epithets Marunțapidugu (or Märpidugu), Madanavilāsa and Madamuditundu of Punyakumāra can be traced to similar titles, Pagāppidugu and Mattavilāsa of the Pallava king. If he is treated as a contemporary of Mahendra I, Pallava, whose latest date has been placed at A.D. 630, the year in which his son Narasimhavarman I is known to have come to the throne, his date would fall about A.D. 6258 and this date is also arrived at by calculating the generations from Nandivarman-Chola (c. 550 A.D.). Confirmation of the above dating is afforded by the inscriptions of Punyakumāra. Of this king three inscriptions have been edited above (viz., inss. E, F and G) of which the second (ins. F) viz., the Tippalūr inscription, bears a striking palaeographical resemblance to the Vallam rock inscription of Mahendra I, Pallava, on the basis of which it might be stated that Punyakumāra and Mahēn. dra' could not have been removed from each other in date by more than a generation.
Another factor supporting the above scheme of chronology is that these dates can also be obtained by working independently from other starting points, of which, the Madras Museum plates of Srikantha is one. Professor Kielhorn who compared the palaeography of these plates with those of the Masulipatam plates of Vijayāditya III (A.D. 854-897) was of the opinion that they may be assigned to the same period.
It is found that nearly the same date for Srikantha is arrived at by counting the generations from the time of Punyakumara.
1 Kasakudi plates : SII, II, p. 342.
This date is obtained for him by calculating from the Bädämiins of the 13th year which is supposed to coincide with the last year of Pulakēsin's rule, in A. D. 642 (Bom. Gaz. Vol. I, pt. II, p. 359.)
.M.C.C. Mag. IX, p. 17.
If, as stated by the late Rao Bahadur H. Krishna Sastri, the Punyakumara of the Mālēpădu plates has to be assigned to the end of the Sth cent. A. D. (above, Vol. XI, p. 344), the Punyakumara of the above stone records which are of the 7th century A. D. is to be considered as a different and earlier member of the family. But for reasons stated above we have not accepted Krishna Sastri's dating of the Maiepādu plates and are inclined to treat the Punyakumara of the stone records as identical with his namesake of the copper-plates. Atten. tion may, however, be drawn here to two other chiefs of the same name figuring in stone records from Bodináyanipalle (A. R. No. 183 of 1931-32) and Chippili (A.R. No. 299 of 1905) in the Chittoor District. The script of both of them is referable to the 8th or 9th cent. A. D., but it is not clear if they were of Chõla extraction.
Above, Vol. V, p. 123 and n.
