The Indian Analyst
 

Annual Reports

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

PART I.

Tours of the Superintendent

Collection

Publication

List of villages where inscriptions were copied during the year

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

PART II.

General

Ikhaku kings

Velanandu Chiefs

Kakatiyas

Cholas

Later Pallavas

Pandyas

Hoysalas

Vijayanagara kings

Madura Nayakas

Miscellaneous

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

THE VIJAYANAGARA KINGS

  51. The Vijayanagara records come mainly from the Trichinopoly and South Arcot districts, while three Telugu records form the Cuddapah district were also copied during the year.

Kampaṇa II.
   The earliest member represented is Kampaṇa, whose record (No. 162) dated in Parīdhāvi corresponding to Śaka 1294 (=A.D. 1372-73) comes from Kaṇṇanūr, the quondam capital of the Hoysaḷas in the Trichinopoly distrcit. It states that the temple of Pōsalīśvaram-Uḍaiyār which, we know, had been constructed by Vīra-Sōmēśvara in the middle of the 13th century A.D., was demolished up to the ādhāraśilai and converted into a mosque by the Muhammadans during their occuption of this region, and that after Kampana’s conquest of the Muhammadans, the temple was again opened for worship. The Kōyilolugu (p. 104) also refers to the fact that the stones of the prākāra walls of the Kaṇṇanūr temple had been used by the Muhammadans for constructing fortifications for their garrison.

Śāḷuva-Maṅgu.
   52. Of Sāḷuva Maṅgu, the general of Kampaṇa II, there is a record from Villiyanūr dated in the cyclic year Sādhāraṇa, which corresponded to Śaka 1292 (No. 191). He is called Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Sāḷuva Maṅgudēva-Mahārāja, Tribhu- vanarāya-Gaṇḍaragūḷi, Dakshiṇa-suratrāṇa, Tribhuvanarāya-sthāpanāchārya and Śambhuvarāya-sthāpanāchārya. In the record Sāḷuva Maṅgu, makes a grant of 12 of land to be enjoyed as tirunāmattukkāṇi by the temple of Tirukkāmīśva-ramuḍaiya-Nāyanār at Villiyanallūr in Olugaraiparru. How far Sāḷuva-Maṅgu was directly responsible for the establishment of Śambuvarāya is not clear, but we know that Gaṇḍaragūḷi Māraya-Nāyaka, son of Sōmaya-Daṇṇāyaka, captured Venrumaṇkoṇḍa-Śambuvarāya and took Rājagambīranmalai. It is evident that Sāḷuva Maṅgu must have taken part in this campaign, so as to merit the title. The title appears, however, to have been assumed by later members of the Sāḷuva family, namely, Sāḷuva Tirumalaidēva-Mahārāja in Śaka 1370, Prajāpati (wrong) (No. 448 of 1922), and Sāḷuva Saṅgamadēva-Mahārāja in Śaka 1403 (Nos. 593 and 594 of 1902), by virtue of family pride, for the Śambuvarāyas had ceased to exist as a ruling power by this period.

 

Home Page

>
>