Bhima IV (Kota)
Bhima IV was one of the last Kota chiefs of Amaravati–Dharanikota, known from a few records of the 1260s. The Government Epigraphist took him to be probably a son of Manma-Keta, and named his queen Somamba. V. Yashoda Devi made him the brother and successor of the Kota chief Ganapati, and noted a record of 1264 in which the Kotas name the Kakatiya ruler Rudradeva, that is Rudramadevi, as overlord.
Download
Bhima IV was one of the last chiefs of the Kotas, the family that ruled Amaravati–Dharanikota and the “Six-thousand” country south of the Krishna.1 He is known only from a few records of the 1260s.12 By then the Kakatiya queen Rudramadevi ruled the coast, and the Kotas served under her.3
Family
The Annual Report on Epigraphy for 1916 noted a record of Saka 1187, about 1265, of a Kota chief named Bhima (Saka is an Indian way of counting years).1 The Government Epigraphist suggested that he was Bhima IV, “a son (?)” of Manma-Keta.1 In the report’s family table his queen is Somamba or Somaladevi.4 Robert Sewell’s table (1932) also gives him a record of 1265 and the queen Somaladevi.5
V. Yashoda Devi, in a thesis printed in 1993, called him a son of Keta III, that is Manma-Keta, and a brother of the chief Ganapati.2 In her account he followed his brother and ruled for about six years.2
His records
Yashoda Devi found two records of his time.2 One at Velpuru, dated 1264, names a mahamandalesvara (great provincial lord) of the Kota family.2 Part of the name is lost, and she took it to be Bhima.2 The other, at Rompicherla in 1265, names Bhima, with a local chief Mallapanayaka.23
The Velpuru record of 1264 mentions the Kakatiya Rudradeva maharaja.3 Rudramadevi ruled under that male title.6 So Yashoda Devi concluded that Bhima, like his brother before him, accepted Kakatiya rule.3 See the Kakatiyas.
After him
Yashoda Devi placed the end of his rule about 1268.3 In that year Devaraja and Mummadiraja, sons of Ganapati, made gifts at Kollur for the merit of their father.3 She thought they were the last rulers of the main line, and that the Kota lands then came under the Kakatiyas.3
Where the sources disagree
- Whose son was he? The report of 1916 called him only “a son (?)” of Manma-Keta.1 Yashoda Devi treated him as Manma-Keta’s son and as Ganapati’s brother without doubt.2
- Did he rule with his queen? Yashoda Devi rejected an earlier suggestion that Bhima and his queen ruled jointly.3 The report of 1916 names the queen only in its family table.4
Footnotes
-
Annual Report on Epigraphy, Madras, for 1915–16 (G.O. No. 99, Home (Miscellaneous), 29 August 1916), Part II, para. 55, p. 137 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5
-
Yashoda Devi, History of Andhra Country (1993), p. 167 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). Cite-only; paraphrased. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8
-
Yashoda Devi, History of Andhra Country (1993), p. 168 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). Cite-only; paraphrased. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8
-
Annual Report on Epigraphy, Madras, for 1915–16 (1916), Part II, para. 55, p. 138, genealogy of the Kotas (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2
-
Robert Sewell, The Historical Inscriptions of Southern India (1932), p. 363, “Kota Chiefs of Amaravati” (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). Paraphrased. ↩
-
V. Yashoda Devi, The History of Andhra Country, 1000 A.D.–1500 A.D. (1993), p. 166 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). Cite-only; paraphrased. ↩
References
Notes (0)
Sources (3)
Spotted an error on this page? Tell us
Last updated: