-Studies in Tuḷuva history and culture, Author – Professor P. Gururaja Bhatt, M.A., B.T., Ph.D.
Our most prioritised work is identifying the Tuḷu country of the early. In attempting to locate the original Tuḷunādu based on epigraphical evidence, we may have reasons to differ from the hitherto accepted viewpoint. First, let us summarise the accounts given in the secondary sources for the sake of critical review.
The compiler of the South Kanara Manual makes us believe that ancient Tuḷuva was made up of the regions of the district, which had a language of its own – Tuḷu. Evidently, this would mean the territory to the south of the river Kalyānpura in the Udupi taluk up to the river Payaswini or Chandragiri in the Kasaragod taluk (now belonging to the Kerala State). “The northern portion including the taluk of Kundapura and part of Udupi belonged to Haive, were probably owing to a closer connection with the ruling Canarese speaking people above the Ghats, Canarese is spoken by all Hindu castes”. But this description of the frontiers of ancient Tuluva can hardly be accepted for reasons that are going to be discussed presently in this chapter.
The Manual of Madras Administration simply repeats what is given in Kēralōlpatti and states that Tuḷu-rājyam extended from Gōkarna in the north to Perumpoya or the Pashyanoor river in the south, which constituted the northernmost part of Kēraļa. The traditional history of Malabar as given by Logan, based on the two works the Kēraļa Mahātmya and the Kēralōlpatti contains the following information: Paraśurāma, after the reclamation of the land from the sea, fetched more Brahmins from the north and located them in 64 villages or grāmas amongst which the first 22, starting from Gōkarna up to Chengoṭu, may be stated to constitute northern Tulu-nādu and the next 12 grāmas from Kōtēśvaram up to Kannapuram formed southern Tuḷu-nāḍu It is further stated that in the four-fold division of Malrād (Tulu, Kūpa, Kērala and Mūshika), Tulu kingdom comprised the territory extending from Gōkarna to Perumpuḷa (the big river), i.e., the Canaras (north and south) very nearly as at present defined. Col Wills, a reputed historian, tells us that from the region of the southern promontory of Cape Comorin, on the Western Coast, Malayālam language extends over Travancore and Malabar and as far as Nilēśvaram ‘From thence to Sadashegur (Sadashivagad), south of Goa, we find Tooluva language and the country of Tooluva’. Epigraphical evidence will show how unhistorical it would be to identify the early Tulu-nādu with both North and South Kanara districts.
Amongst the foreign travellers, Duarte Barboza, the Portuguese traveller in his account of Canara refers to the frontiers of Tuḷu-nādu ranging between Honnāvara (North Kanara district) in the north to the Payaswini (Kasaragod taluk, Kērala) in the south. He further says that the people of Mirjan in his days used to identify Ankōla with Tuluva“. Prof. S.K. Aiyangar states that on the West Coast, the earliest available literature referred to Tuḷunādu as a distinct political and ethnic entity immediately to the north of Kerala or Chēra The Tuḷu country, he opinions, then tool in a part of what is now called North Malabar and probably extended northwards to Karwar points.
There is hardly any doubt that the Tulu country was known as far back as the period of the Sangam literature, for we have the mention of Tulunādu for the first time in this literature. It is not easy to locate Tuḷunādu of the Sangam literature as the boundaries are not mentioned anywhere The ruler of Tuḷunādu is stated to be Nannan and K G. Shesha Iyer writes in his Chēra Kingdom of the Sangam Period that the Nannans were the kings of the gold-producing country of Koṅkan, that they were Kadamba kings and their country lay near Banavāsi (North Kanara district) The assertion of K. S. Aiyangar that Nannan, who is mentioned in Aham 13 as having been attacked by the Kōsārs and as having lost his state elephant, ruled over South Kanara and North Kanara in the middle of the second century A.D. seems too sweeping and arbitrary. Anyway, facts are not adequate enough to determine finally which this country of Tuḷu was and where it should be located.
In Kannada literature, the name Tuḷunāḍu first occurs in the Dharmāmṛita of Nayasēna. This work, perhaps, belongs to A.D. 1115. Here also we do not get any clue which territory is referred to as Tuḷunādu by the author. The lamentation in a house, consequent on the death of a person, is compared to what is being done in Tuḷunādu (Tuḷunāḍa satta-manevante paḷayisuvar). None of the sources mentioned above helps us to solve the problem of locating the original Tuḷunāḍu. On an examination of the various epigraphs, we may be convinced of the fact that it is not possible to equate the early Tuḷuva or Tuḷu-nāḷu with the modern district of South Kanara. Let us turn to the various epigraphs that refer to Tuḷunādu.
The first epigraph that mentions Tuḷu comes from Tamil-nadu. The paṭṭaṭṭaḷmangaḷam grant of Nandivaraman II (731-795 A.D.), the Pallava king, states that at the gate of the king, there awaited without (getting) opportunity (to enter), the Vallabhas, the Kaḷabhras, the Kēraḷas, the Panḍyas, the Chōḷas, the Tuḷus, the Konkaṇas and others desirous of obtaining admission to serve him. We do not know the exact frontiers of the Tuḷu country referred to in this grant. But the surmise that it may have been located in the Honnavar and Bhatakaḷa taluks of the district of North Canara, is possible. In substantiation, the following explanation may be given. Banavāsi and its surrounding regions were centres of vigorous Pallava activity from very early times. From the middle of the fourth century A.D. The Kadambas rose to power in this region as a result of the Pallavas’ weakened position. War with the Pallavas of Kanchi was the order of the day right up to the advent of the Chālukyas of Bādāmi. Even after the establishment of the Chalukya’s power in A.D. 545 this region continued to be the battle-ground for political supremacy between the Chālukyas and the Pallavas. That a minor branch of the Pallavas of Kānchi must have settled in the Honnāvara taluk, North Kanara, perhaps, after the decline of the Chālukyas of Bādāmi, is evidenced by an inscription, found at Kekkār in the same taluk, stated to belong to the 8th century A.D. It states that Anneyarasa was the lord of Paivagundapura, administering (?) Kadatōke as far as Sivaḷḷi Among the descriptive epithets of this ruler, Aṇṇeyarasa, the adjective Simhadhvaja-virājamāna, Siṁha-lānchchhana and Kaikeya-vamśōdbhava are noteworthy. They are indicative of the descent of the ruler from the Kaikeya family and that the crest and ensign of his family were a lion. We are tempted to connect this family with the Kadambas of Banavāsi, who, too, were known to have had a lion as their family crest; but they were not the natives of Paivegundapura. The Pallava chief, Gopāladēva, on the other hand, is described as Paivegundapurēsvara and Kaikeya-vamśodbhavadhāta-pradhāna-purusha and had a rampant lion as his family crest So, the chief Anneyarasa apparently belonged to the family of Gopāladēva and like the latter, had been connected with the Kaikeyas on his mother’s side. It may be possible that the Tuļu king, who sought for an interview with Nandivarma II, may have been one of these rulers, belonging to the Kaikeya family.
The Balmuri inscription of the Belgola Hōbaḷi, of the Kongāḷya king, Panchava Mahārāya, dated A.D. 1012, refers to the conquest of Tuḷuva. This happens to be the earliest Kannada inscription that mentions Tuluva. It says that he seized Tuḷuva and Konkaṇa, pursued after Maleya, pushed aside and passed over Chēra, Teluga and Raṭṭiga as if in sport and desired the small Beḷvala country (from his master Rāja-rāja). The Larger Leiden Plates of Rājarāja I (A.D.985-A.D.1016), the successor of Uttama-Choḷa, mention the conquests of this monarch which include Pāṇdya, Tulu, Kerala, Simhalēndra and Satyāśraya. Perhaps, the above-mentioned Balmuri inscription relates to the same military campaign. Lewis Rice has identified Tulava with the South Canara district, 10 and his conclusion has been accepted as final by all those who wrote after him. It is stimulating to reflect that there is nothing to prove in this epigraph that Tuluva is co-extensive with the territory of South Kanara. The difficulty of identifying Tuluva with any of the modern divisions becomes evident when we examine the epigraphs further.
The next stone epigraph mentioning Tuḷu belonged to the reign of Bankiyāḷupēndra-11 found in Bārakūru, South Kanara district. A correct reading of this epigraph will give us the following idea. It seems to record the military achievements of a commander or subordinate of Bankiyāḷupēndra. This chief is stated to have had his fame spread uniformly over all the universe and, feeling confident in the use of his sword, established his own command in Tuḷu-vishaya and brought all those who ruled over seven male and seven kombu to the feet of his master, Bankiyāḷupēndra. Pursuing the Chola army that had carried its arms, reducing the mandalikas and mahāmandalikas (stated to be 120 in number), he caused their surrender to his overlord. He overshadowed the fame of all rulers and ruled over Santalige-1,000, as a great renouncer and tlic terror of Konkaṇa. The name of this chief is not given; perhaps it is lost because of mutilation.
This epigraph is significant from three standpoints. First, Bańkiyāḷupēndra was the overlord and he was probably ruling from Bārakūru. Secondly, it was the chief, to whom the various epithets, mentioned in the epigraph, belonged, who undertook the conquests on behalf of his master and who established his authority over Tuḷu-vishaya and not Bankiyāḷupēndra. Thirdly, Tuḷu-vishaya must have been conquered for the first time and where it is to be located is most intriguing. Since Bankiyāḷupēndra was ruling over Bārakūru and other territories, it would hardly be justifiable to say that Tuḷu-vishaya, where the chief established his command, was to be identified with his master’s territory. It may be suggested that it could be the area surrounding Gērusoppe and Bhaṭṭa-kaḷa in the North Kanara district, as this surmise will gain support from later epigraphs. An inscription of the time of Tribhuvanamalla-deva, the Western Chālukyas ruler, dated A.D. 1099 records a gift of land for the salvation of Warasing who attained heaven by entering the sacrificial fire-pit, amidst the admiration of the people at the demise along with the consort of his liege-lord, Dēvaki, the son of Mahāsāmanta Chikkarasa and the commander of the Tuḷu guards, who were the body-guards of the king. In the light of a later inscription, dated A.D. 1398, found at Kaikani, Honnāvara taluk, North Kanara, we can venture to identify the Tuluva-tantra (Tuḷu guards), mentioned in the above inscription with the Tulu-Raṭaha (Tulu army) of Gērusoppe rulers, who, as will be proved presently, styled themselves as the Tuḷu kings.
An epigraph of Kadabal, Sirsi taluk, North Kanara, mentions Lāliyadēvi as ruling, Mahāmandalēśvara Tailamadēva and Tuluva (country). This epigraph is said to belong to the 12th century A.D. on palaeographical grounds. Evidently, Tuḷuva in this context could be the region near Gērusoppe and not the district of South Kanara which was by this time known universally as Āḷvakhēda.
The Hoysaḷa inscriptions make profuse references to Tulunādu, Tuḷu-dēśa, Tuḷuva-bala and Tuḷu king. It is here the problem of identification becomes acute and uncertain. This is because, simultaneously, frequent references are also made to Āḷvakhēda (and it was always a 6000 country) which may be taken into account with good reasons as coextensive with the modern district of South Kanara. The lords of Aḷvakhēda were the Ālupa kings. Dr B. A. Saletore does not distinguish between the Āḷupas and the Tuluvas and also between Alyakhēda and Tuḷunāḍu. He identifies one with the other completely. And there seems to be a great deal of confusion. No doubt, Tuḷunāḍu was subjected almost completely by the Hoysala king, Vishnuvardhana, and this subversion was so complete that for over three generations very few accounts of the military prowess of Vishnuvardhana were embodied in epigraphs without mention being made of the conquest of Tuḷuva. But the most vexing problem is whether the conquest of Tuluva or Tuḷu-dēśa meant the conquest of Āḷvakhēda. The Hoysala epigraphs separately and particularly mention Āḷvakhēda or Aḷvarakhēḍa as the western boundary of the Hoysala dominions and the facts to prove that this country of Aḷvakhēda was reduced to unquestioned subjection by them are not adequate enough, until the advent of Vira Ballāla III. Therefore, Aḷvakhēda cannot be confused with Tuḷunāḍu and likewise the Alupa kings with the Tuḷu kings. The epigraph of the time of Hoysala Ballāḷa II, dated A.D. 1101, describes the boundaries of his kingdom as bounded by Konkaṇa, Nādāḷvakhēḍa, Bayalnādu, Taḷakādu and Sāvimale. The Chikkamagaḷūr inscription of Tribhuvana Malla Vinayāditya Hoysala, dated A.D. 1103, mentions his kingdom as bounded by Konkaṇa, Āḷvakhēda, Bayalnāḍu, Taḷekāḍu and Sāvimale. Aḷvakhēda lay to the south of Konkaṇa and to the north of Bayalnādu (the present Waināḍu of Malabar). In the Mysore Inscriptions, Rice states that Vishṇuvardhana subdued the Kadamba king, Jayakēsin, and then Jagadēva, who was ruling over Tuḷuva. But the text does not corroborate this statement. Tuḷu king and Jagadēva mentioned in this epigraph seemed to be distinct one from the other. Dr Saletore’s view that the Tuḷu king in this connection was the Aḷupa ruler, Bhujabala Kavi-Aḷupēndra-dēva, does not represent the historical truth. The boundaries of Vishṇuvardhana’s kingdom in A.D. 1117 are stated to be as follows. The lower Ghat of Nangali in the east: Kongu, Chēram and Anamale in the south; the Bārakanūra Ghat road of Konkana in the west and Sāvimale in the north. In A.D. 1136, when he was at the zenith of his power, his kingdom included the following provinces: Taḷakādu, Kongu, Nangali, Gangavādi, Noḷambavādi, Maravādi, Huligere Halasige, Banavase, Hānungalu and Nadugonda, and definitely Alvakheda was not included. An epigraph, dated A.D. 1114, informs us that when Vishnuvardhana was ruling Gangavādi-96,000, the Alvakhēda, people took prisoners in thousands in the cattle raid. It is stimulating to note that the foes are referred to as the people of Aḷvakhēda and not as Tuḷuvas. Had Tuḷunāḍu been identical with Alvakhēḍa, these raiders would have been called Tuḷuvas instead of the people of Alvakhēda. Two other inscriptions of the Hoysaḷa period are of special importance for our critical review. An epigraph of Hoysala Narasimha, dated A.D. 1162, found at Huṇsūr, Mysore district, dwells upon the exploits of the suzerain and records that the Pāndya, the Chāḷa, the Chēra and the Āḷvara sank due to the military campaigns of Narasinga. Afterwards, there is a separate mention of Tuḷu-deśa, Chakragoṭṭa and other countries. The inscription of Vinayāditya Hoysaḷa24 sets the limits of his dominion as bounded by Konkaṇa, Āḷvakhēḍa, Bayalnāḍu, Taḷekādu and Sāvimale, and Tuḷu-dēśa is mentioned separately in the same epigraph. The non-mention of Tuḷu-dēśa as the western boundary of the Hoysaḷa kingdom and instead Barakanūra Ghaṭṭa or Āḷvakhēda gives us the clue to infer with good reasons that Tuḷuva was not the same as Āḷvakhēda, although it became a part of Āḷvakhēda, perhaps, after the 12th century A.D.
Let us further proceed in chronological sequence to identify Tuḷunāḍu. The Hosagunda rulers, who ruled over Sāntalige – 1000 in the district of Shimoga in the 13th century A.D. assumed the titles as follows:
- Kumāra Birarasa A.D. 1221 – Tuḷu-rāya-sthāpanāchārya
- The same king in A.D. 1255 is referred to as assuming Tuḷu-rāja-samuddharaṇam
- Bammarasa A.D. 1275 – Tuḷu-rāya-sthāpanāchārya
- Biradēvarasa A.D. 1281 – Tuḷu-rāya-sthāpanācharya
- Tammarasa A.D. 1287 – same.
- Birarasa Bommarasa A.D. 1294 – Tuḷu-rāya-pratishthāpanāchārya
- Kōteya-nāyaka A.D. 1296 – Tuḷuva-rāya-sthāpanāchārya
It becomes evident from the above epigraphs that Tuḷu-rāya or Tuḷuva-rāya could not be the Āḷupa ruler, as no Āḷupa king had ever been referred to as Tuḷu-rāya. The Tuḷu-rājya mentioned here may be identified with the Gērusoppe region, which during this period witnessed the rise of a ruling family known as the Nagire rulers, as may be proved by the inscriptions of the 14th century A.D. An inscription of Hoysaḷa Vira Ballaḷa III, dated A.D. 1318 – 1319, records the details of a fight against Basavadēva of Chandāvara below the Ghats and the destruction of Tuḷuvas in the battle of the Ghats. The scene of the battle was in the Honnāvara taluk of North Canara and not in the district of South Canara. The Tuḷuvas mentioned here must have been the rulers or the inhabitants of Tuḷu-dēśa whose centre was Nagire or Gērusoppe in the Honnāvara taluk, North Canara.
The earliest epigraph that specially mentioned Gērusoppe in the Honnavara taluk, North Kanara, as belonging to Tuḷu-dēśa is dated A.D. 1378. And we have the regular genealogy of the rulers of Gērusoppe (Nagire) from at least the beginning of the 14th century, A.D. until the close of the 16th century AD. It states that to the south of Mēru lay Tuḷu and Kongu and Haiva-bhūpāla was the ruler of the Tuḷu kingdom in which shines the city of Gērusoppe. It is appropriate here to mention two other epigraphs found on hero stones, dated A.D. 1398, which give us unmistakable proof of the Gērusoppe and Bhattakaļa region being called Tuḷu-rājya in the 14th century A.D. These epigraphs state that Mahāpradhāna Mangappa-daṇṇāyaka took an offensive on the Tuḷu country, camped at Bidire and having overpowered the Chavaṭas, issued an order to the men of Mahāmandalēśvara Haivarasa to vanquish the foes and proceeded, perhaps, to Kaikaṇi. In these epigraphs, Bidire could hardly be identified with Mūḍabidure of the South Kanara district; nor Tuḷu-rājya with either the Bārakūru-rājya or the Mangaluru-rājya. It could very certainly be the region of Bhattakaḷa and Gērusoppe (Nagire), And Bidire referred to in these epigraphs may be identified with Bidanūru of Sagar taluk from where, perhaps, it was convenient to launch the campaigns against the Tuḷu kingdom. This Bidire-nāḍu, also called Vēṇupura, was referred to in one of the epigraphs as a part of the Hāduvalli kingdom (in Tuḷu-dēśa) ruled over by Indagarasa or Sālvēndra II. It is not possible to identify the Chavaṭas mentioned here with inflexible resolve. The Bārakūru inscription of the same year (A.D. 1398) states that Sankaradēva-Odeya was the governor of Bārakūru-rājya and there does not appear to be any such political commotion and violence during his reign.
During the Vijayanagara times, the district of South Kanara seemed to have been permanently associated with the name Tuḷunāḍu or Tuḷu-rājya. There were two provinces, namely, the Bārakūru and Mangaluru-rājyas. And it is very significant to note that the Bārakūru-rājya was also known as Tuḷu-rājya and Bārakūru-Tuḷu-rājya. In this altered political situation, it was the northern portion of the South Kanara district with its capital at Bārakūru, that was called Tuḷu-nādu, although Tulu was rot spoken there. Very often the Bārakūru-Tuḷu-rājya included in its Bhatakaḷa regions also.
It deserves to be noted that the name Tuḷu-dēśa came to represent unmistakably the various kingdoms such as Hāḷuvalli (Sangītapura) and Nagire from the 14th century A.D. As already pointed out, bārakūru-rājya was also called Tulu-rājya. Sometimes, both Mangalūru and Bārakūru-rājyas were referred to as Tuḷu-rājya, as evidenced during the governorship of Ratnappa-Odeya, dated A.D. 1515.
The Karnāṭak Inscriptions pointedly refer to the Tuḷu, Haive and Nagire-rājyas. It is very difficult to demarcate the boundaries of these countries in precision. It may be inferred that the rulers of Nagire and Haḷuvaḷḷi called themselves Tuḷu kings and their territories bore, in general, the name Tulu-dēśa, although in particular each was known as Hāḷuvalli or Nagire-rāja. The point becomes clearer with further evidence. The Kaikaṇi epigraph, dated A.D. 1415, states that the Kaikaṇi-vishaya was a sacred place in Tuḷu-dēśa. Another inscription of the Hāḷuvalli, Bhatakaḷa, dated A.D. 1423, particularly mentioned Hāḷuvalli as being the centre of Tuḷu-dēśa. An inscription of Hosa-basti” in Mūdabidure, South Kanara district, dated A.D. 1451, states that Jinadāsa Sālva Malla was ruling from Suvarnapuri (Honnāvara in North Kanara) over Nagire, Haive and Konkaṇa, Nagire being the vermilion of the lady of Taulas a-dēśa. The same inscription refers to Gērusoppe as the capital of Nagire-rājya, part and parcel of the Tuḷu country. The Māvali epigraph of A.D. 1547 of the North Kanara district points to Gērusoppe as the capital of Tulu-dēśa. It states that Sāḷuva Krishna-rāja-Odeya of the lunar race was ruling over Nagire-rājya, Haive, Tuḷu and Konkana-rājyas from his capital at Gerusoppe in the Tuḷu country. The Sāgar inscription dated A.D. 1560 locates Taulava-dēśa as lying to the east of the western ocean (the Arabian Sea) and proceeds to describe Gērusoppe and its sovereign as follows: “In it on the south bank of the Ambu river shining like the Srīpundra is Kshēmapura like Purandara (Indra’s city of glittering gōpuras etc.) The lord of Kshēmapura was “Dēva-mahīpati (Deva-rāya of the Sāḷuva dynasty of Nagire).
The earliest epigraph discovered in the Mangalūru-rājya mentioning Tuḷu-mandala and stating that Subrahmanya of the Puttur taluk of South Canara belonged to it and is dated A.D. 1387. It states that Madhavarāya, governor of Goa, made certain grants, after purchase of land, to the temple of Subrahmanya at Kukke, a part of Kadaba in Tuḷu-mandala. The next epigraph also mentions some grant made to the same divinity and is dated A.D. 1388. Among the 37 countries mentioned as conquered during the reign of Harihara II, Tuḷuva was one and it seemed to comprise the territory ranging between Konkaṇa and Chēra and Kerala. Then come the Mūḍabidure epigraphs of Hosa-basti which mention that among the several countries of Arya Khanda, Tuḷu-dēśa was one to which belonged Mangaluru-sthaḷa, and Vēṇupura (mūḍabidure) is stated to be the unique town of Tuḷu-dēśa.
Certain observations
The foregoing discussion will enable us to arrive at the following inferences, which, at any rate, are not final but hypothetical.
- It is not historically correct to identify ancient Tuḷuva with any of the present political divisions either the district of South Canara or of North Canara.
- Future research alone could throw light on the question of what exactly the extent of Tuḷunādu was during the Sangam period.
- Historical records show that Tuḷu-nāḍu up to the advent of the Vijayanagara period lay in the region of the present taluks of Honnāvara and Bhatkaḷa rather than in the district of South Canara proper. Some portions of the northern part of South Canara may also have been included in it. Chiefly, the Nagire region might be the original Tuḷuva.
- We have not been able to secure strong grounds to determine that the Tuḷu speaking area was the heart of Tuḷunādu. Not a single epigraph dating before the 14th century A.D. is available to establish the hypothesis that the region between the river Kalyānapura in the Udupi Taluk and the river Chandragiri (Peruṁpuḷa in the Kasaragod taluk) could definitely be called Tuḷunādu.
- The name Tuḷu-dēśa or Tuḷunādu came to be used to denote various territories such as the Nagire, Hāduvalli, Bārakūru and sometimes Bārakūru and Mangalūru provinces after the advent of the Vijayanagara rule.
- The Pattattāḷmangalam grant of Nandivarman II assignable to the third quarter of the 8th century A.D. states that the Tuḷu king was one of those, waiting for an opportunity to seek an interview with the overlord. This is, perhaps, the first mention of Tuḷu in inscriptions. We cannot make out who the Tuḷu king was, nor do we know to which territory he belonged. The Larger Leiden Plates of Rājarāja (A.D.985-A.D.1016), speak of the conquests of the countries-Pāndya, Tuḷu, Kēraḷa and also Simbalēndra and Satyāśraya. This epigraph is of the 11th century A.D. and here also we have the same difficulty of locating the area. We do not have strong grounds to argue that the Tuḷu country was identical to the present South Canara district.
- A copper-plate inscription from Honnāvara, North Canara district, (paleographically assigned to the 6th century A.D.) records the grant of a village, Nāpitapalli, together with a grove (arama) and certain varieties of land (called kaṇasa and pukkoli) to the Ārya Saṅgha by the ruler during the reign of Ravi-mahārāja. This Ravi-mahārāja may be identified with Ravivarma of the Kadamba dynasty of Banavāsi. The reference to Chitrasēna as – Kella and Mahā-Kella in this record is interesting. The mention of Ara-Kella and Sēvya-Gella as local chieftains in the epigraphs of the 9th and 12th centuries A.D. respectively from the South Canara district suggests the possibility of Kella having been the family name of minor ruling houses in the coastal Canara territory. This record is said to have been issued from Vijayāṁbu-dvīpa. An interesting point is that this Aṁbu-dvīpa could fairly rightly be identified with the territory comprising Gērusoppe, Honnāvara etc. For, an epigraph from Sāgar in the 15th centuryA.D. describes the celebrated city of Gērusoppe, situated on the worship in the region. He also observes that the people of Canara had good laws and obeyed them well and that they travelled without guides along broad roads, not along bye-paths as in Malabar. In connection with the roads in Tuļuva, the words of Della Valle may also be remembered here; he says that after reaching the town of Basarūru, he found a fair, long, broad and straight street. Captain Hamilton, who visited Kanarà in A.D. 1718, mentions that the Dutch had by that time established a factory at Barcelore (Basarūru) and that the Portuguese used to send rice from that place to Muscat and bring back horses, dates and pearls.