Epigraphia Indica Vol 30

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 35

14
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXX
The object of the record is to register a gift of (land as) pannasa at Marralūru by Annaräpuli-Vāmbuļu to Isvara, a Rrahmana (pāra) of Vērgi (and a resident) of Tārainunri, during the first regnal year of Vikramaditya-Satyā raya-Prithivivallabha when Pormukbarāma was governing the territory as far as the limits of the Penna on behalf of the Bana king.
The record is important on several counts. It is the earliest known among the lithic records of Vikramaditya II and perhaps the only one so far knowu of this king in the Telugu country.1 The fact that it gives the regnal year of the king marks it out from his other lithic records which omit this detail. These apart, the mention of Tõrmukbarama raises some interesting issues. Who could this Põrmukharama be? The Rämēgvaram pillar inscription and the copper-plate grants' (the Mālēpādu plates and the Dom nara-Nandyala plates) of the TeluguChõļa chief Punyakumara attribute this epithet to him. The latter, viz., the copper-plate grants, in delineating the genealogy of this chief, mention his father Mahendra varman as the one who acquired the title Chõla-Mahārāja and describe him as the lord of the Pandya, Chõļa and Kēraļa (countries). Besides, he bore the epitbets Muditasilākshara and Navarāma, the first in imitation of the Pallava birudas and the other similar to Pormukharama which was one of the epithets borne by his son Punyakumāra. From the account given of them in the copperplate grants and stone inscriptions, Punyakumara's predecessors appear to have been powerful chiefs who wielded great authority. Perhaps as vassals of the Pallavas, they adopted nanies and epithets such as Sirhavishņu, Mahendravarman, Gunamudita, Madamudita, etc., similar to those of their overlords. Among them Erikal-Mutarāju Punyakamāra, an early meraber of this family who was ruling over Rēnādu and who appears to have been a contemporary of Chāļukya Vikramaditya I, in addition to adopting certain epithets in imitation of the Pallava titles, took fancy also to have his inscription engraved in the style of those of the Pallav: sovereigns. His later namesake Põrmukharāma Punyakumara bore the epithets Märdavachitta and Madanaviläsa, again in imitation of the Pallava titles. Thus from the time of
1 The Annavaram-Agraharam inscription in the Darsi Division of the Nellore District may also be ascribed to this king out account of its more developed script, but the inscription is not dated; nee An. Rep. on South Indian Epigraphy, 1933-34, part II, plate opp. page 29.
* Above, Vol. XXVII, p. 234. • Ibid., Vol. XI, p. 342; Vol. XXVII, p. 267.
Above, Vol. XXVII, p. 233, Inscription Fin plate opp. p. 229. According to Mr. M. Venkataramayya, how. ever, this Punyakumara and his namesake of the copper-plate charaters and lithic records are one and the same (ibid. pp. 220 f.). If palaeography permits the dating of a record to a period fairly within narrow limits of say, a quarter of a century, and historical considerations do not militate against such a dating, then it is difficult to assign to the Rámēsvaram pillar inscription and the allied records (the copper-plate charbors) the same date as that assigned to the Tippalūru pillar inscription. The palaeography of the latter is certainly far more archaic than that of the other records. Among the records of these chiefs published in this journal, the Kalamalls, Erragudipadu, Veldurti and the Tippalūru epigraphs (op. cit., Inscriptions A, B, E and F) have been assigned to different periods ranging from the last quarter of the 6th century to the first half of the 7th century A. C. mainly on palaeographical considerations. Allowing a fair margin for the slight variations in the style of the script due to the various factors involved in the process of engraving on stone, it may be observed by a careful compraison of their palaeography, especially of the test letters j, , ) and r that all these records may be assigned more or less to the same period within a range of about 25 years, the difference in palaeography between the earliest and the latest of them being just as much as that between the Turimella and the Dimmagudi inscriptions of Vikramaditya I (soe, above, Vol. XXIX, p. 163, plate). It appears to me that the Kalamalla inscription of Erikal-Muturāju Dhananjaya may not be far removed in point of time from that of the Tippalöru pillar inscription of Erikal-Muturkju Punyakumars. The provenance, the period and the title Erikal-Muturāju assumed by Dhanañjaya and Punyakumara in these two records being identical, can it be that the two chiefs too were one and the same? Dhanajaya was, according to the copperplate grants, succeeded by his son Mahendravarman who acquired the title of Choa-Mnbárája. The Urušaru and the Indukuru records (op. cit., pp. 228 ff., inscriptions C and D) may well have belonged to this chief. That neither the copper-plate charters nor any of the lithic records of this family attribute the surname Punyakumara to Dhananjaya is indeed inexplicable.