It is known from the Tirumalavadi inscriptions (S. I. I., Vol. V, No. 659) that Ballaya-dandanayakkan’s father was Dutappillai-dandanayakkan. So the name Adappillai is to be read as Dutappillai and his son Ballaya-danadanayakkan was known as Valiya-dandanayakkan in the present record.

The only dated reference to the general Vallaya-dandanayaka is found in the inscription (A. R. Ep., 1920, No. 39) from Tirumalavadi belonging to Rajaraja III dated in his 20^th year, Karkataka, ba. Panchadasi, Monday, Pushya corresponding to 1235 A. D., July 16, who was a contemporary of Hoysala Narasimha II (1220-38 A. D.).

Further, this inscription reveals that the generals of the Hoysalas are known to have made munificent gifts during the reign period of the Cholas.  

Reddis---The Motupalli pillar inscription (No. 635) is an edict of the Reddi king Annapottu-reddi issued to the merchants in the islands and those residing in the seashore towns, whose interests were looked after. We have a similar instance of an edict (assuring) safety that has been granted to traders by sea in the regin period of Kakatiya Ganapatideva dated Saka 1166 (1244-45A. D.) (Ep. Ind., Vol. XII, pp. 188 ff.). In the latter record, the customs duties were levied on cargo carried by ships from one place to another. But in the reign period of Annapottu-reddi, certain concessions were shown to the foreign traders for the purchase and sale of merchandise. The levy known as aputrika-dandam (levy on those who have no issues or children) was not be imposed on foreigners. Except on articles like gold, silver, the cloth for women, for other items of merchandise the duty was levied as before. In a regulation instituted by the above merchants, it specifies the procedure that was to be followed in the anjinanpugalidam  and states that for every 100 articles imported from the south, three articles should be given and for every 100 clothes of export, 2 clothes should be given, while for every 100 articles imported from the north, 5 articles should be given and for export of 3 clothes, same number of clothes should be given, and in the islands for every 100 clothes imported, on lease and export, only 3 clothes should be given, etc. It may be inferred from this that the rate of customs was not levied uniformly in South, North and in the islands. The South was placed at an advantageous position as the duty levied on them was very much lesser in ratio. The reason for this, perhaps, is not known. 

Kakatiya Chief.---No. 579 from Karempudi, palnad Taluk, Guntur District bearing the date Saka 1186, Raktakshi, introduces the chief Gandapendara Jannigadeva with the titles Rakkasa-Gamgabemkomdu-ganmba Ganpatideva-dakshana-bhuja-damda, oddaraya-abhimanga-churukara mavanamkakara, brahmarakshasa, etc.  It is known that the Kayastas started their career as cavaliers under Kakatiya Ganapati and styled themselves as maha-mankalesvara and Gandpendara (Ep.Ind., Vol. XXV, pp. 272 ff.).  He came to be called ‘the right hand of king Ganapati’ (Ganapatideva-dakshana-bhuja-damda) as he appears to have played an important part in his kingdom.  The title Oddaraya-abhimana-churukara indicates that he acquired the same after defeating the oddaraya who may be identified with Narasimha I, the Eastern Ganga king of Kalinga.  (See N. Venkataramaniah: Cuddapah Inscriptions, Introduction. pp. 109-10).  The fourth epithet mavanamkakara has been taken to mean that Jannigadeva was associated with his uncle in his early years.  The Tripuranthakam (S.I.I., Vol X, No. 565) and Nilagangavaram inscriptions (Ep. Ind., Vol. XXV pp. 270 ff.) state that Jannigadeva was the son of Chandalamba or Chandaladevi, the sister of Gangeya Sahini.  The lady Cendubavi-Ammangaru mentioned in the Macherla record (A. R. Ep., 1941-42, No. 50) as the younger sister of Gangeya Sahini has been identified with Chandaladevi (A. R.Ep., 1939-40 to 42-43, part II, para 76; Ep.Ind., Vol XXV, pp. 271-72).  Thus these records disclose the relationship of Jannigadeva and Gangeya Sahini namely sister’s son (svasur-apatyam) or the latter as the uncle (mava) of the former.  Since the Anantaram record (A.R.Ep., 1973-74, No. B 3) dated in Saka 1181 (1259 A.D.) states that Jannigadeva was the son-in-law (jamata) of Sri Ganga-Senapati, son of Dasavanta-pandita and the grandson of of Danupandita, it may surmised that Jannigadeva must have married his own uncle’s daughter i.e., the daughter of Ganga-Senapati.  The term mava, may therefore be taken to mean both uncle and father-in-law.  It is because that after Gangeya Sahini came his sister’s son (udabhavat=tad-anu dvibhujo nripa[h*] svasur=apatyam=amushya Janardanah (S.I.I., Vol. X, No. 465, text 11. 8-9) or after his father-in-law(mava) the latter assumed the epithet mavanamkakara. 

The records of Gangeya Sahini are available as late as Saka 1179(A.R.Ep., 1937-38, No. 233 and A.R.p., 1905, Nos. 231 and 176).  Jannigadeva appears to have succeeded Gangeya Sahini sometime after Saka 1179 as the latter’s latest inscription is dated in that year.  He held the governorship first under Ganapati till the 63^rd year (1261-62 A.D.) of his reign, which date would correspond to Saka 1184 (A. R. Ep., 1930-31, No. 289).  Though Jannigadeva is known to have issued a record independently without referring to his over-lord in Saka [11]82 (A.R. Ep., 1941-42, No. 50), it cannot be said that he did not acknowledge the over lordship of the then ruling king i.e. Ganapati, for he expressed his loyalty to the reigning king in his inscription of Ska 1180-82 from Pondallur (Ep. Ind., Vol. XXXV, p.273, n.1), of Saka 1181 from Anantaram in Nalagonda District (A. R. Ep., 1973-74, No. B 3) and of a Saka 1184 equated with his 63^rd regnal year from Alugurajupalle in Guntur District.  (A. R. Ep., 1930-31, No. 289).  It is, therefore significant that the record under review and Nandalur inscription (A. R. Ep., 1907, No. 610) of Jannigadeva bearing the Saka date 1186 do not refer to the overlord whereas his earlier inscriptions ranging from Saka 1180-84 refer to him as feudatory of Ganapati.  The date given in the record would fall in the reign period of Ganapati’s daughter and successor Rudrabma (accn. 1260 A.D.)[1].  But the record between Saka 1189 and 1191 (A. R. Ep., 1930-31, No. 324; 1939-40, No. 1 and 1909, No. 573) mention Rudradeva as the ruling king and his subordinate Jannigadeva.  It is only in the records after Saka 1184 and before Saka 1189, that due to the attempts of consolidation made by the queen Rudramba, Janni-gadeva tried to assert his independence.  Thereafter, he realised the feudatory status (contra : A. R. Ep., 1910, part II, para 46). 

Vijayanagara Rulers.- King Harihararaya-udaiyar is credited with a titile Karnnataraja in a record at Komaralingam, Udumalaipet Taluk, Coimbatore District (No. 140).  This records a royal grant of 20 ma of land on the borders of Tiruvalanadurai along with gold and paddy towards the payment of its tax as tiruvidaiyattam to god Kariyapiran at Agara Kumarankabhima alias Paridara-sahodarach-chaturvedimangalam.  The first name Komarankabhima was evidently the name of a chief whose identity is not clear.  The Hoysala records of this region containing reference to the chiefs of Danayakan-kottai who claimed to have belonged to the Matigolayakula and who were the feudatories of Vira Ballala III had the characteristics title Paradarisahodara (No. 201).  Hence the name of village after the above mentioned chief vedimangalam indicates that it was so named after the above mentioned chief who had such a title (A.R. Ep., 1906 No. 444). 

The cyclic year Khara in which the record is dated, along with other details i.e., Adi 12 may perhaps correspond to 1411 A.D., July 10, the Saka year being 1333.  The king Harihararaya may be identified with prince Harihara III, son of Devaraya I and the present record later by two years may be second in date to his Madavilagam record, dated in the year Sarvadhari, Tai i.e., Saka 1331, January. (A.R.Ep., 1920, Nos. 225 and 227) 

No. 62 from Tirukkalukkunram which belongs to Devaraya dated in the year Paridhavi records a land transaction made by the Sri-Rudra-Mahesvaras of the temple of Tirukkalukkunram-udaiya-nayanar at Tirukkalukkunram, a taniyur in Kalattur-kottam in Jayangonasola-mandalm.  It is interesting to note that in the transaction undertaken by Sri-Rudra-Mahesvaras, the Srimahesvaras are stated to have attested the document.  The cyclic year Paridhavi along with other details viz., Singha su. 7, Visakha, Sunday correspond to 1432 A.D., August 3.  The Saka year was 1354 falling in the reign period of Devaraya II.  

The Ummattur Chiefs.—The chief Nanjaraya or Nanjanna-udaiya figures in four records (Nos. 210, 212, 220, and 222) and the dates ranging from 1497-1517 A.D.  The record (No. 220) which furnishes the latest date does not give other details.  No. 222 from Pattanam, Palladam Taluk is a record f Vira Nanjana-udaiyar.  This is dated in the year Piravava i.e., Prabhava, Chittirai I corresponding to 1507 A.D., March 28 (Sunday).  The Saka year would be 1429.  In the Avanasi record (No. 211) dated one-and-half years later (1508 A.D., November 13) it is stated that a merchant of Emmarakal in Tinaikkanambi-nadu (Terkanambi-nadu) made a gift of 20 pon to the deity Avinasi-lingam in Dakshina-Varanasi, during the rule of Vira Chikkaraya-udaiyar, son of Vira Najaraya-udaiyar.  We may infer that the latter was administering Terkanambi-nadu.  This record and two others of Nanjaraya dated respectively Saka 1419 and 1421 (=1497 and 1499 A.D.) give us specific titles like jagadadhipatiyappa, srikailasanivasa, parvatiprananatha, elladevara-vallabhan which are associates with the chiefs of Ummattur named Vira Nanjaraya and Vira Chikkaraya-udaiyar.  We know that a Ummattur chief was defeated by Vijayanagara king Krishnadevaraya sometime between 1509-29.  If on the date of the record No. 220 Vira Nanjanna-udaiyar was administering Terakanambi-nadu, followed by his son Chikkaraya in 1508 A.D., we may infer that by the date of the former record, Ummattur had not been conquered by Krishnadevaraya.  But it has been argued on the basis of a grap occurred between 1504 and 1530 A.D. and from the availability of  record of 1513 A.D., October 4, that the Ummattur chief had been defeated before this date by Krishnadevarya, who had bestowed the mayakatana of Terkanambe-sime upon Saluva Govindaraja, son of Rachiraja.  (E.C., Vol. III (Revised), 1974, Intro. P. 117). 

In the light of the Nambiyur record of 1517 A.D. (No. 220) could it be said that Vira Nanjunna-udaiyar was holding control over the areas around Terkanambi-nadu?  Also from the absence of records of this chief or from the reference to his administration over Terkanambi region beyond 1508 AD., we may infer that by that date, the region was lost to the Vijayanagara king Krishnadevaraya by the Ummattur chiefs. 

No. 222 is an interesting record which refers to the conversion of a village Mudukkadu in Viyiraikka-nadu into a Nanadesippattanam as well as an Anjinanpugal-idam by the merchants of Adichetti group of Srinathapattianam after the recolonisation of the same, which had been in ruins for sometimes.  We have instances in the Chola records of such conversion of villages into mercantile towns by the merchant group. 

Miscellaneous—No. 319 from Tirukkachchur, Chingleput Taluk and District describes a certain Perunambigal, a member of the Gadikai (Skt. Ghatika) (i.e., a centre of learning ) of Kavanur alias Poyyamolimangalam in Konasura-nadu in Sengattuk-kottam, as Muttamil Acharyar and Tamil karaikanda.  He has assemed the title Muttamil Acharyar, for he must have been proficient and or an exponent in the three kinds of Tamil literature which are yal (literature), Isai (Music) and Natagam (drama).

Home Page