The Colas c16: Chapter VIII. From the Death of Parāntaka I (A.D. 955) to the Accession of Rājarāja I (A.D. 985)
The Cōḷas c16
- Language
- English
Contents
- c16.s1 I.—Chronology and Order of Succession — 21 parts
- c16.s2 II. History — 105 parts
Chapter VIII. From the Death of Parāntaka I (A.D. 955) to the Accession of Rājarāja I (A.D. 985)
I.—Chronology and Order of Succession
c16.s1.1
The relatively short interval of about thirty years from the death of Parāntaka to the accession of Rājarāja I is one of the most difficult passages of Cōḷa history. The evidence is confusing, and no two scholars are agreed in its proper interpretation. It is hardly possible to put forward a scheme of succession without a more or less full discussion of possible alternatives.
c16.s1.2
We may begin by setting forth in some detail the nature of the evidence at hand. Stone inscriptions constitute the chief source of our knowledge, and there are several among these that unmistakably belong to this period.¹ The inscriptions of Kannaradēva (Kṛṣṇa III) bearing regnal years higher than twenty-three, and found in the districts of North Arcot and Chingleput constitute the first group of these records; the latest year in them is twenty-eight, and this would take us to A.D. 965.² Of the remaining stone inscriptions of the period, several belong to Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari and bear dates in regnal
c16.s1.3
years ranging from five to seventeen. Four inscriptions belong to Sundara Cōḷa with titles Madhurāntaka and Pāṇḍiyanaic-curam-iṟakkina; two of
c16.s1.4
these are dated in years five and seven, while the dates in the other two are lost. A considerable number with years ranging from two to five are those of Parakēsari who had the title (Vīra)
c16.s1.5
Pāṇḍiyan-talai-koṇḍa; and a still larger number belong to a Pārthivēndra-varman with the same title and with other variants to his name like Vēndrādivarman, Pārthivēndrādhipativarman and so on; these records give dates up to the thirteenth regnal year.³ Lastly, we have a number of Parakēsari Uttama Cōḷa's inscriptions with regnal years from two to sixteen; two of them are precisely dated and fix the limits of his reign.
c16.s1.6
The title Parakēsari, and the dates in his inscriptions⁴ which couple Kali year 4083 (A.D. 981-2) with his regnal year thirteen, fix Uttama Cōḷa's place as the immediate predecessor of Rājakēsari Rājarāja I. It should also be observed that some of the numerous records
c16.s1.7
which give no more detailed specification of the ruling sovereign than to call him Rājakēsari or Parakēsari will, no doubt, on any scheme of chronology, be found to fall in this period; but these may, for the most part be left on one side in the present discussion.
c16.s1.8
Besides the stone inscriptions, we have the evidence of copper-plate grants. The only grant that falls in this period is that in the Anbil plates of the fourth year of Sundara Cōḷa. Unfortunately for us, Mādhava Bhaṭṭa, the composer of the Sanskrit *praśasti* in these plates, was less anxious to record facts which must have been very well known to him than to display his capacity for *alaṅkāras* in his verse. As it is, even for the fact that Sundara Cōḷa was a Rājakēsari we have to depend on the opening of the Tamil part of the record. The Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates imply, and the Leyden grant expressly affirms, that after the death of Rājāditya the succession took place in the following order: Gaṇḍarāditya, Arindama, Parāntaka, Āditya and Madhurāntaka. The Karandai plates of Rajendra I as also the Kanyākumārī inscription and the Chārāla plates of Vīrarājēndra give only the names of Arindama and Parāntaka II between Parāntaka I and Rājarāja, apparently because the authors of the *Praśastis* had no other object in view than to trace the descent of the reigning king in the direct line from Vijayālaya. The genealogy of the Cōḷas from Parāntaka I to Rājarāja as it is given in these records may be set down before proceed-ing further:
c16.s1.10
One thing is clear and it is necessary to grasp this firmly; that we cannot treat the regnal years gathered from the stone records as those of kings whose reigns succeeded one another in regular order in the manner implied by the copper-plate grants. For in that case the period would, if we omit Pārthivēndra-varman from the reckoning and add the highest regnal years known of Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari, Sundara, Āditya and Uttama, extend to 45 years, a period much too long for the interval between Parāntaka I and Rājarāja.
c16.s1.11
Then there is the possibility that Gaṇḍarāditya and Ariñjaya also ruled as kings. A Rājakēsari inscription possibly of Rājaraja I's reign⁵ mentions the second year of Gaṇḍarādityadēva *alias* Mummuḍi-cōḷa-dēva, while taking stock of the gifts made by his queen Sembiyan Mahādēvi at various times to the temple of Tiru-veṇkāḍu. Records of the eighth year of Rājakēsari⁶ show that Arikuḷakēsari, the son of Parāntaka, stood in the relation of Piḷḷaiyār or Āḻvār⁷ (terms often applied to junior members of the royal family) to the ruling king who, being a Rājakēsari, could only have been Gaṇḍarāditya.
c16.s1.12
As for Ariñjaya, besides the statements in the copperplates regarding his rule, there is a Rājakēsari record dated in the twelfth year⁸ which mentions two queens of ‘Ariñjigaivarman who died at Āṟṟūr’; and inscriptions from Mēlpāḍi dated late in the reign of Rājarāja I⁹ mention the construction by him of the Cōḷēśvara temple as a memorial shrine (*paḷḷipaḍai*) to Āṟṟūrttuñjina-dēva. These references render it probable that Ariñjaya lived long enough to rule in his own right, though, perhaps, only for a short time. Taking all these facts into consideration, we see clearly that there must have been a great deal of overlapping of the regnal years of the different kings quoted in the lithic records.
c16.s1.13
Another preliminary question that must be considered is the exact significance of the phrase '*talai-koṇḍa*' which is of some importance to the history of this period; because Vīra Pāṇḍya claims to have done this to a Cōḷa king and others claim to have done the same thing to Vīra Pāṇḍya himself. The phrase has been generally understood to mean 'having cut off the head,' and the identity of the Cōḷa king who died at the hands of the Pāṇḍya has been much discussed.¹⁰ It appears, however, that the true meaning of the phrase is that the vanquished king had to acknowledge his defeat by humbling himself before the conqueror in a particular manner, as it were placing his head at the disposal of the conqueror. Hultzsch has pointed out¹¹ that in the inscriptions of Kulōttunga III, the phrase '*Pāṇḍiyanai muḍittalai koṇḍaruḷiya*' employed in some records is explained by another phrase: '*avan muḍi mēl aḍi vaittu*' of other inscriptions of the same reign; so that the process of 'taking the head' consisted in the vanquished king bowing and touching with his head the feet of the conqueror seated in open darbar. The celebrated Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya of Vijayanagar only varied this traditional procedure slightly when he demanded that, as the price of peace, Adil Shah of Bijapur should visit him and kiss his foot.¹² The *Guruparamparai*, a work which often gives a true account of the practices of Cōḷa times, mentioned that the king from Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-śōḻapuram mounted his state elephant by placing his foot on the head of his *sāmanta*, or feudatory.¹³ The above interpretation of *talai-koṇḍa* has a bearing on the discussion of this period, because it follows that a king whose 'head was taken' by another need not be assumed to have died at the time this happened to him. It is, of course, another matter where we have clear statements of a person being killed. Applying this to the cases arising in this period, we see that the Tiruvālangāḍu plates make an express declaration that Āditya II killed Vīra Pāṇḍya in battle and brought his severed head to the Cōḷa capital.¹⁴ Even here the lateness of the testimony throws suspicion on the event. There is no clear evidence, however, that a Cōḷa sovereign lost his life at the hands of Vīra Pāṇḍya, and apparently Vīra Pāṇḍya's boastful title meant no more than that he inflicted a tempo- rary humiliation on a Cōḷa king or prince.
c16.s1.14
Evidence has been cited above showing that Gaṇḍarāditya was a Rājakēsari and that he ruled for at least eight years. His rule might have com- menced from the death of Rājāditya, whose place he must have taken as heir apparent in Parāntaka's lifetime. A suggestion has sometimes been made that Gaṇḍarāditya was a Parakēsari and that Arindama, placed immediately after him by the Tiruvālangāḍu plates, was identical with Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari.¹⁵ This seems to rest really on two assumptions; that Rājāditya ruled after Parāntaka's death, and that as he was a Rāja- kēsari, Gaṇḍarāditya who succeeded him must have been a Parakēsari. But it has been shown that the first of these assumptions is not true. It is likely enough that Rājāditya assumed the title Rājakēsari when he was made heir apparent; but considering that he predeceased his father, Gaṇḍarāditya who took his place must have assum- ed the same title so that the sovereign ruler next after Parān- taka Parakēsari might be a Rājakēsari. In fact the general opinion now prevailing is that Gaṇḍarāditya was a Rājakē- sari,¹⁶ though the implication that Rājāditya predeceased his father does not seem to have been so clearly grasped. For we shall see at a later stage of this discussion that an appli- cation of the rule that every heir apparent, whether one or more, adopted the title Rājakēsari or Parakēsari, according as the ruling sovereign was Parakēsari or Rājakēsari, furnishes a neat solution of the difficulties that could not otherwise be adequately met.
c16.s1.15
The Rājakēsari title may, therefore, be admitted for Gaṇ- ḍarāditya. But the suggestion, first made by Venkayya,¹⁷ that Gaṇḍarāditya was no other than Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari, appears to have been accepted without sufficient examination of the evidence.¹⁸ The title Maduraikoṇḍa was taken to imply that the king was the son of Maduraikoṇḍa Parakēsari, Parāntaka I. Hence when Gaṇḍarāditya was believed to be a Parakēsari, Maduraikoṇḍa was identified with Ariñjaya Rājakēsari.¹⁹ Later when Gaṇḍarāditya became a Rājakēsari himself, he was said to be also Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari. But this asumption is by no means an argument, and one must be prepared to relinquish it if reason is shown for doing so. Now, let us turn to the provenance of the records of Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari. All of them, except three records of the fourteenth and seventeenth years, come from the North Arcot and Chingleput districts. Three of these are dated in his fifth year, and a fourth in the seventh. One of the records of the fifth year belongs to a place called Karikkal, near Shōlingur, in the Walajapet taluq of North Arcot. Its date falls about A.D. 954. At the latest, that is, assuming that Parāntaka I died in 955 and that Gaṇḍarāditya did not begin his rule till after that event, it might be A.D. 960. It is difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the fact that Kṛṣṇa III was still at Mēlpaḍi in A.D. 959 distributing conquered territory among his followers, and that his inscriptions are found in Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam up to about A.D. 965. These objections to identifying Gaṇḍarāditya with Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari are weighty, and should prevail even if no other identification were possible from the later inscriptions of the time. But fortunately there is open to us an easy, and doubtless the correct, solution of the question which would be readily accepted, once the idea is given up that Maduraikoṇḍa must have been a son of another Maduraikoṇḍa, that is, Parāntaka I. A single record from Koḍumbāḷūr,²⁰ from which the date has been lost, opens by mentioning ‘*uḍaiyār madurāntakan Sundara-śōḻan.*’ This unique record disposes of the notion that the title Madurāntaka (Madiraikoṇḍa) in the records of this period must have been borne only by a son of Parāntaka I, for we know of no Sundara-śōḻan who was his son. This inscription offers the clue to the correct identity of Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari. Sundara Cōḷa, the son of Ariñjaya, was a Rājakēsari, as the Anbil plates tell us, and he had also the title ‘*Madurāntakan.*’ He has yet another title which gives evidence of his Pāṇḍyan war, namely, *Pāṇḍiyanaic-curam-irakkina.*²¹ These facts seem to point definitely to the conclusion that Sundara Cōḷa Parāntaka II was the king who, in some of his records, is called Madi(u)raikoṇḍa Rājakēsari.
c16.s1.16
There is one record of Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari which, at first sight, seems to render it more likely that Gaṇḍarāditiya rather than Sundara Cōḷa was the king of that record. This inscription²² from Tiruvorṟiyūr is dated in the fifth year and registers the endowment of a lamp by one of the nobles of Uḍaiyār Śrī Uttama Cōḷa-dēva who accompanied him to the temple. Krishna Sastri, in editing this record, says: 'A reasonable doubt may arise why Uttama Cōḷa is given here the title of a ruling king and not that of a prince. It was perhaps because he was the chosen successor of Gaṇḍarāditya at the time. We know, however, that he actually came to the Cōḷa throne only after one or two other kings had reigned subsequent to his father's death.' But if this was so, if Uttama Cōḷa was in the fifth year of his father's reign old enough to be chosen heir apparent, to adopt regal style and to visit temples with his (*perundaram*) nobles, and if his father continued to rule for twelve years thereafter, it is hard to see why he did not succeed his father immediately on his death and had to wait until most probably Ariñjaya and Sundara, possibly also Āditya II, had finished their rule. Not only does Krishna Sastri not explain this, but he says elsewhere:²³ 'At the time of Gaṇḍarāditya's death, Uttama Cōḷa must have been a young boy, as he was set aside in the order of succession till three kings after Gaṇḍarāditya had ruled and died.' Surely it is not easy to reconcile the two positions that the king of the Tiruvorṟiyūr record was Gaṇḍarāditya, and that at his death, his son was a young boy, so young that he had to wait through the reigns of three successors of Gaṇḍarādityā before he could himself rule. There is a more serious discrepancy. Even assuming that Gaṇḍarāditya counted his regnal years from the death of Rājāditya (a.d. 949), if we identify him with Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari, who ruled for at least seventeen years, his reign would extend up to 966. And Madhurāntaka Uttama Cōḷa began to rule in 969-70. The interval of three years is too short to take in the reign of even Sundara Cōḷa whose records unmistakably give him a rule of not less than seven years,²⁴ much less those of three kings. The Tiruvorṟiyūr record cited at the beginning of this paragraph cannot, therefore, be assigned to Gaṇḍarāditya. It must be admitted, however, that even if we take it to be a record of Sundara Cōḷa, the difficulty still remains of explaining the regal title of Uttama Cōḷa in it. Seeing that Sundara had a son Āditya who was ably assisting him in his warlike enterprises, it seems unlikely that he recognised, and that so early in his reign, a prince from a collateral, although senior, branch of his family as heir apparent. The only suggestion that offers itself, and for which support may be found in analogous cases from Cōḷa records, is that though the gift recorded in the inscription was made in the fifth year of Sundara Cōḷa when Uttama might have been old enough to have a retinue of his own with which he went about touring the country, it was not actually engraved on stone until Uttama Cōḷa had begun to reign in his own right, which he did, as we shall see, immediately after Sundara Cōḷa.²⁵
c16.s1.17
There remain two further questions to be discussed—the position of Vīra-Pāṇḍiyan-talai-koṇḍa Parakēsari and the identity of Pārthivēndravarman who bears the same title. The former may certainly be identified with Āditya, the son of Sundara Cōḷa, who according to the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates and the Leyden grant fought against Vīra Pāṇḍya.²⁶ But Āditya II was followed by another Parakēsari, viz., Madhurāntaka Uttama Cōḷa. This appears, at first sight, to violate the normal rule of the Rājakēsari alternating with the Parakēsari title among the ruling sovereigns of the Cōḷa dynasty. Krishna Sastri says of Uttama Cōḷa:²⁷ 'Contrary to the usual order, according to which he ought to have been a Rājakēsarivarman, his predecessor Āditya II being Parakēsarivarman, he too was called a Parakēsarivarman, evidently because he was the son of a Rājakēsarivarman and succeeded to the throne not by the right he possessed, but at the request of his cousin's son Rājarāja I who was the chosen successor.' Two remarks may be made on this explanation: first, it seems hardly consistent with the position held by Krishna Sastri, not by us, that Uttama Cōḷa was chosen successor in Gaṇḍarāditya's reign, and that on account of his tender age, 'the claims of Gaṇḍarāditya's chosen successor were temporarily set aside and postponed.'²⁸ For, if this was so, how can it be said that he succeeded to the throne not in his own right, but at the request of Rājarāja? Then again the implication that the son of a Rājakēsari must be a Parakēsari is contradicted by the example of Rājarāja I, who was a Rājakēsari himself and the son of a Rājakēsari. It may also be stated here that Ariñjaya, who must have ruled a short while as Parakēsari, was also the son of a Parakēsari. The true explanation of two Parakēsaris coming one after another seems to be that the earlier Parakēsari, the chosen heir apparent, Āditya II, died in the lifetime of his father Sundara Cōḷa, and the prince chosen next for the throne also took the title of Parakēsari in order that Rājakēsari Sundara might be followed on the throne by a Parakēsari after his death. At the death of Āditya II,²⁹ Sundara Cōḷa had to choose Uttama Cōḷa and not his younger son Rājarāja, either because Uttama Cōḷa forced the choice by threatening civil war, or because Rājarāja of his own will preferred to wait. The verses in the Tiruvālangāḍu plates, which are the only direct source of our information, can support either interpretation. They declare on the one hand that Uttama Cōḷa was eager to rule and on the other that Rājarāja was too good a kṣatriya to dream of the throne for himself while his father's cousin wanted it. And we shall see that Uttama Cōḷa made clear his eagerness to rule by, possibly, instigating a political murder.
c16.s1.18
The identity of Pārthivēndravarman, whose records, are found in the districts of North and South Arcot, and Chingleput, is involved in much obscurity. The suggestion³⁰ that he was the same as Pṛthivīpati II, the Gaṅga feudatory of Parāntaka, is the result of a very dubious inference from the resemblance in meaning between the names Pṛthivīpati and Pārthivēndra. It is also partly the result of a confusion between the Gaṅga king and a feudatory of Kṛṣṇa III who, though he had the name Kannaradēva-Pṛthivigaṅgariyar, was quite different from the Gaṅga.³¹ After examining the records of Āditya II and Pārthivēndravarman, Krishna Sastri has reached the following conclusions:³² 'Both these kings claim the epithet, "who took the head of Pāṇḍya or Vīra-Pāṇḍya"—evidently the same Pāṇḍya king who was at war with Sundara Cōḷa Parāntaka II—and the title Parakēsarivarman. Inscriptions of the former are very few and found only in the south, the latest regnal year being the 5th. Of the latter, there are many in Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam and the latest regnal year is the 13th. Pārthivēndra Ādityavarman may have been a prince of the royal family and viceroy of Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam. Āditya Karikāla appears to have been the actual successor.' The inscriptions of Pāṇḍiyan-talai-koṇḍa Parakēsari are not so very few after all; and what is more important, they are not confined to 'the south,’ if by that is meant the country to the south of and outside Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam. There are at least five inscriptions of his in North Arcot and more in South Arcot. On examination we find that the Pārthivēndravarman records differ from those of Āditya Parakēsari in their provenance only in so far as the former are found in Chingleput district also, and are not found south of Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam. We also find the following features which have a cumulative significance in the consideration of his identity. He is a Parakēsari;³³ he has the regal title and calls himself ‘Kōvirājamārāyar’;³⁴ in an early record of the third year he is even called Pārthivēndra Ādittaparumar;³⁵ his queens have also the full regal style—*uḍaiyār dēviyār Villavan mahādēviyār*,³⁶ *Perumā-naḍigaḷ dēviyārt-tanmapponnār-āgiya Trailōkya mahādēviyār*.³⁷ It seems clear that, far from being a feudatory of the Cōḷa kings, the ruler who can lay claim to so much distinction must himself be a Cōḷa monarch, and the name Āditya and the title Parakēsari clearly suggest his identity with Āditya Karikāla Parakēsari. ‘Pārthivēndra Ādityavarman’ and its variant forms occurring in his records show that he took the title ‘Pārthivēndra.’ The Cōḷa kings were very fond of high-sounding *birudas*, and almost every one of them had many such titles. As the latest recorded regnal year in his inscriptions seems to be the thirteenth year,³⁸ it follows that he must have been chosen co-regent very soon after his father Sundara Cōḷa’s accession. This looks very probable considering that the Leyden grant gives him credit for having successfully attacked Vīra Pāṇḍya as a young boy. Afterwards he must have been deputed to rule the northern part of the Cōḷa dominion. Apparently he died in the life-time of his father and was succeeded in the place of heir apparent by Parakēsari Uttama Cōḷa.
c16.s1.19
The results of the foregoing discussion may thus be summarised before the history of the period is taken up:
c16.s1.20
| Rājakēsari Gaṇḍarāditya | A.D. 949/50³⁹–957 |
| Parakēsari Ariñjaya | c. A.D. 956–957 |
| Rājakēsari Sundara Cōḷa (Madurai-koṇḍa) | c. A.D. 956–973 |
| [Parakēsari Āditya II Pārthivēndra Karikāla | c. A.D. 956–969] |
c16.s1.21
There is just one record⁴⁰ of Pārthivēndravarman from the Chingleput district which is dated in the fifteenth year. Though the inscription is damaged, a careful examination of the impression of the record establishes two things: the date of the record is clearly 15; and though the chiselling of the letters is by no means good, and the stone is apparently much decayed, there is no reason to question the genuineness of the record which exhibits most of the characteristic palaeographic features of the period. This date must, if accepted, upset the scheme of chronology given above which is based on the identification of Āditya II with Pārthivēndra, for we cannot possibly find room for the fifteen years before the accession of Uttama Cōḷa and within the reign of Sundara. The period of thirteen years takes us almost to the limit and involves the assumption, in itself by no means unlikely, that Sundara associated his son Āditya in his administration very soon after his accession to the throne. On the other hand, this inscription of the fifteenth year from Parandūr is the only record so far known of Pārthivēndravarman with a regnal year higher than thirteen. We have several records of the thirteenth year, none whatever of the fourteenth, and only this one of the fifteenth. And it is extremely difficult to see any other solution to the riddle presented by his records than the one offered above; for if Pārthivēndra was not Āditya himself, how are we to explain the numerous coincidences to which attention has been drawn above, and which cannot all of them be accidental? The suggestion may therefore be made that in the regnal year in the Parandūr record, the second figure which looks like the ordinary *i* (இ) contains some mistake on the part of the engraver. This record need not be taken into account, therefore, unless other records with higher regnal years than 13 are discovered in future years.
c16.s1.22
One final consideration remains to be urged in addition to those so far dealt with. If Āditya and Pārthivēndravarman were not identical, the highest regnal year for Āditya would be that found in the records of Parakēsari who took the head of Vīra Pāṇḍya, namely five. We must naturally assume these five years to have been those immediately preceding Uttama Cōḷa’s accession in a.d. 969-70; this would lead to Āditya’s initial year falling somewhere about a.d. 964/5, which would be in the 8th or 9th year of Sundara Cōḷa according to the chronology suggested above. The fact that Sundara Cōḷa is clearly described as having come out successful in the Pāṇḍyan war before his seventh year (a.d. 963), together with the statement of the Leyden grant that Āditya took part in the fight at Śēvūr when still young, may lend some support to the view that Āditya had become sub-king earlier in Sundara’s reign. This argument cannot be pressed far, as it is possible that Āditya fought without being formally associated in the government; or a second fight with the Pāṇḍyas might have come about later, about the year a.d. 964/5
II. History
c16.s2.1
The rule of Rājakēsari Gaṇḍarāditya is attested not only by the statements of the Tiruvalāṅgāḍu and Leyden grants which, though vague, doubtless imply that he ruled in his own right as king, but by several Rājakēsari inscriptions⁴¹ from the Trichinopoly district, all dated in the eighth year and mentioning Piḷḷaiyār or Āḻvār Arikulakēsaridēva, and one from S. Arcot of year 2 of Mummuḍi Cōḷa Gaṇḍarāditya. The sphere of Cōḷa rule in his day must have been very limited and at the time of his death, about a.d. 957,⁴² Kṛṣṇa III was still perhaps in Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam consolidating his position and distributing the conquered country among his allies and servants. One of Gaṇḍarāditya’s feudatories in the mountainous country of South Arcot, Siddhavaḍavan of the lineage of Ōri of the Śaṅgam age who married Pāri’s daughters, claims victory over unnamed enemies at Viracōḷapuram in a record of the second year (a.d. 951) of Gaṇḍarāditya; he must be the same as the Milāḍa chief Narasimhavarman who owed allegiance to Kṛṣṇa III in his seventeenth year (a.d. 955). This shows that Gaṇḍarāditya could not make much progress in recovering territory lost to Kṛṣṇa III who was still aggrandising his position and power in the Cōḷa country.
c16.s2.2
Gaṇḍrāditya left behind an infant son, Uttama Cōḷa, by his queen Śembiyan Mahādēvi. This lady who survived her husband and even her son for many years, and lived on till A.D. 1001,⁴³ must have been widowed in early youth. After the death of her husband, hers was a life devoted to religion and charity. The number of stone temples to Śiva built by her, and of substantial endowments for their up-keep after the commencement of her son's rule will be noticed later.
c16.s2.3
Very probably Gaṇḍarāditya was the author of the single hymn on the temple of Cidambaram. In this hymn there is a distinct statement that Parāntaka I conquered Pāṇḍya country and Īḷam, and covered the temple of Naṭarāja with gold; and the author calls himself, like Parāntaka, the king of Kōḷi (Uṟaiyūr) and the lord of the Tañjaiyar (people of Tanjore).⁴⁴ Gaṇḍarāditya seems to have been known also as *Mēṟkeluṇḍaruḷina-dēvar*, the king who went to the west.⁴⁵
c16.s2.4
The identity in meaning of the titles Arikulakēsari and Ariñjaya or Arindama has often led to the supposition that they refer to one and the same person, a younger son of Parāntaka I. This may be so. In any event, Ariñjaya Parakēsari succeeded his brother Gaṇḍarāditya and had a short reign. As yet we have no direct evidence of the transactions of his reign. Two of his queens Vīman Kundavaiyār and Kōdai-pirāṭṭiyār survived him and made gifts in his son's reign. Though it has been thought that Vīman Kundavai was a daughter of the Cāḷukya Bhīma II of Vēṅgī,⁴⁶ such an alliance between the Cōḷas and the Cāḷukyas in this period when the Cōḷas were reduced to virtual subordination to the Rāṣṭrakūṭas seems hardly likely. If, however, Kundavai was an Eastern Cāḷukya princess, her marriage with Ariñjaya must have taken place before the invasion of the Cōḷa country by Kṛṣṇa and sometime after the raid on Nellore by Māṟan Paramēśvaran, in the reign of Parāntaka I. But two inscriptions⁴⁷ from Tiruppālaṉam dated in the second year of Parakēsari, mention an Araiyan Ādittan Vīman making some gifts to the local temple, and there is nothing to preclude this noble (Araiyan) from being the father of Ariñjaya's queen.⁴⁸ If this view is correct, these Parakēsari records must be assigned to Ariñjaya, and in view of the strict limits placed on the duration of Ariñjaya's rule by the general chronology of the period we must assume, what is not unlikely, that Ariñjaya was chosen heir apparent to Gaṇḍarāditya⁴⁹ sometime soon after the death of Parāntaka I. Ariñjaya is said to have died at Āṟṟūr;⁵⁰ a place that cannot be definitely identified. An inscription of Rājarāja I states that he built at Mēlpāḍi a memorial shrine (*paḷḷipadai*)⁵¹ to the king who died at Āṟṟūr and this implies that Āṟṟūr was somewhere in that neighbourhood. Probably, Ariñjaya had entered upon the task of regaining the Cōḷa possessions in the north lost to Kṛṣṇa III. This suggestion gains force from an inscription⁵² from Tirunāgēśvaram which mentions Ariñjigap-pirāṭṭiyār, daughter of prince Arikulakēsari and his wife of a Bāṇa king.
c16.s2.5
This is a record of the second or third year of a Rājakēsarivarman who may be identified with Gaṇḍarāditya. It suggests that even under Gaṇḍarāditya attempts were made to retrieve the losses sustained in the closing years of his father’s rule, and that, possibly, the Bāṇas, or some among them, were successfully seduced from their allegiance to Kṛṣṇa III. This Bāṇa alliance may thus be counted among the earliest indications of the emergence of Cōḷa power from the eclipse it suffered for a time. After the death of Gaṇḍarāditya, his efforts were continued by Ariñjaya who fell fighting at Āṟṟūr. If this view of Gaṇḍarāditya’s reign is correct, it is possible that he also sought, at first with little success, to recover lost ground in the south, and that Vīra Pāṇḍya’s boast of ‘taking the head’ of a Cōḷa may be referred to the same reign.
c16.s2.6
Ariñjaya was succeeded by his son by the Vaidumba princess Kalyāṇi, the only queen of Ariñjaya mentioned by the Anbil plates. This son was Sundara Cōḷa Parāntaka II who, as we have seen, was also known as Maduraikoṇḍa-Rājakēsari. The attention of Sundara Cōḷa was first directed to the south. Vīra Pāṇḍya, having repulsed Gaṇḍarāditya’s attempt to restore Cōḷa supremacy in the Pāṇḍya country, was ruling as an independent potentate. The Leyden grant⁵³ tells us that in a great battle at Cēvūr, Parāntaka caused rivers of blood to flow from the deep cuts inflicted by him on the elephants of the enemy and that his son Āditya, while yet a boy, played with Vīra Pāṇḍya in the battle, like a lion's whelp sporting with a tusker. The Karandai plates (vv. 24-5) mention the battle of Cēvūr adding that Vīra Pāṇḍya was defeated and forced to climb the peaks of the Sahyādri for refuge. Āditya's heroism was probably exhibited in the field of Cēvūr to the south of the Sevali hills, the southern boundary of Pudukkottah, and that battle must have furnished the occasion for his claim that he 'took the head of Vīra Pāṇḍya.' The Leyden grant does not, like the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates, state that Vīra Pāṇḍya was killed by Āditya, and it is possible that the composer of the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates, struck by the forcible simile in the Leyden grant, embellished the account of Āditya's contest with Vīra Pāṇḍya; and his account of Āditya's rule adds nothing else to what we learn from the earlier grant. The chances are that, after the battle of Cēvūr in which Vīra Pāṇḍya sustained a bad defeat, the Cōḷa forces led, among others, by Parāntakan Śiriyavēḷār of Koḍumbāḷūr, continued the campaign into the Pāṇḍya country, and forced Vīra Pāṇḍya to seek refuge in the forests.⁵⁴ The Pāṇḍya sovereign was on this occasion also supported by Ceylonese troops in his endeavour to resist the Cōḷa aggression; for Śiriyavēḷār led an expedition to Ceylon, and there he fell fighting before the ninth year of Sundara Cōḷa, A.D. 965.⁵⁵ The *Mahāvaṃsa*, corroborating this account, records the following in the reign of Mahinda IV A.D. 956-72:⁵⁶
c16.s2.7
'The Vallabha king sent a force to Nāgadīpa⁵⁷ to subdue this our country. The Ruler hearing this, the king sent thither the senāpati Sena by name, to whom he had made over an army, to fight with the troops of the Vallabha king. The senāpati betook himself thither, fought with the troops of this (Vallabha) king, defeated them and remained master of the battle-field. As the kings with the Vallabha (king) at their head, were unable to vanquish our king, they made a friendly treaty with the ruler of Laṅkā. In this way the fame of the king penetrated to Jambudīpa, spreading over Laṅkā and crossing the ocean.'
c16.s2.8
The Vessagiri slab inscription⁵⁸ of Mihindu which mentions the successful campaign of senāpati Sena against the Damiḷas furnishes epigraphical confirmation of the statements in the chronicle and the Cōḷa inscriptions.⁵⁹
c16.s2.9
Besides Āditya II, two other persons claim success against Vīra Pāṇḍya. One of these is Pārthiyēndravarman of whom something has been said already. The other is Bhūti-vikramakēsari of Koḍumbāḷūr, who claims to have conquered Vīra Pāṇḍya in battle. The inscription⁶⁰ which gives this information, also states that Vikramakēsari turned the waters of the Kāvēri
c16.s2.10
red with the blood shed by the army of the Pallava, put an end to Vañcivēḷ and ruled from Koḍumbāḷūr. He had two queens Karṟaḷi and Varaguṇā. A Rājakēsari inscription, from which the date has been lost,⁶¹ mentions that Karṟalip-pirāṭṭi was the wife of Tennavan Iḷangōvēḷār *alias* Maravan Pūdiyar, which may be other names of Vikramakēsari. Two others dated in the thirteenth year of Rājakēsari mention Varaguṇa-perumānār, apparently the other queen of Vikramakēsari. One of these from Tillaisthānam,⁶² says that she was the queen of Parāntaka Iḷangōvēḷār, a title showing doubtless the subordinate relation in which Vikramakēsari stood to Parāntaka Sundara Cōḷa; the other, from Lālgudi,⁶³ states that Nangai Varaguṇa Perumānār was the sister of the Cōḷa king. Again, Vikramakēsari called his two sons by Karṟali by the names of Parāntaka and Āditya-varmā, apparently after the Cōḷa sovereign and his son. Lastly, as has been mentioned before, Parāntakan Śiṟiyavēḷār of Koḍumbāḷūr was one of the leaders of the Cōḷa army in its southern expedition. When taken together, these facts suggest that the close terms of friendship and loyalty that subsisted between the chieftains of Koḍumbāḷūr and the Cōḷas under Parāntaka I continued under his successors also, and that Vikramakēsari⁶⁴ assisted Sundara Cōḷa and his son in subduing the rebellious Vīra Pāṇḍya.
c16.s2.11
The other achievements of Vikramakēsari are not so easily explained as his war with Vīra Pāṇḍya. Even if we ignore the minor success against Vañcivēḷ, it is not easy to see how Vikramakēsari could have fought with the Pallavas on the banks of the Kāvēri. This by itself might justify a much earlier age for the Koḍumbālūr inscription of Vikramakēsari; but as on palaeographical considerations no earlier date than that of Gaṇḍarāditya can be assigned for this record,⁶⁵ the suggestion may be made that by the Pallava in this context we must understand Vallabha, and explain the fight in which Vikramakēsari took part with such distinction as having occurred on the occasion of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa's raid into the Cōḷa country which is said to have taken him as far as Rāmēśvaram.
c16.s2.12
The reign of Sundara Cōḷa then marked the recovery of the Cōḷas from the disasters of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa invasion. For all the fighting in the south, however, the Pāṇḍyas and their allies of Ceylon held their own, and it is not till the reign of Rājarāja I that Cōḷa inscriptions begin again to appear in the Pāṇḍya country. In fact Rājarāja claims to have subdued the Pāṇḍyas when they were still powerful and illustrious, implying thereby that in spite of their exertions his father and his elder brother Āditya had not made much headway against them.
c16.s2.13
The inscriptions of Āditya, Pārthivēndra, and of Sundara himself show on the other hand that remarkable success attended the Cōḷa efforts in the north. As Kṛṣṇa's inscriptions get fewer in the districts of South Arcot, North Arcot and Chingleput, records of these others become more numerous; but we have no knowledge of the stages by which this change came about. That Sundara Cōḷa took an active share in directing affairs in the north may be inferred from the fact that he died in his golden palace at Kāñcīpuram and was thereafter known as Pon-māḷigaittuñjina dēva.⁶⁶ One of his queens, Vānavanmahādēvi, a princess of the line of Malaiyamāns, performed *satī* at the king's death,⁶⁷ and her image was perhaps installed in the Tanjore temple by Kundavai, her daughter.⁶⁸ Sundara left behind him the reputation of a second Manu born to wean the world from ways of evil⁶⁹ (Kali). Another queen of Sundara Cōḷa, a Cēra princess, survived him till the sixteenth year of his son Rājarāja's reign, A.D. 1001.⁷⁰
c16.s2.14
In Sundara Cōḷa's reign literature, both Sanskrit and Tamil received encouragement; not only does the earliest Cōḷa copper-plate grant known so far date from his time, but a highly poetic eulogium of his reign, in the commentary of the *Vīraśōḻiyam*, bears witness to his patronage of letters.⁷¹ This eulogy, which calls Sundara Cōḷa the king of Nandipura, is addressed to the Buddha to secure the strength and prosperity of the king, and furnishes evidence of the prevalence of friendly relations between the Cōḷa monarchs and the southern Buddhist Sangha several years before the date of the larger Leyden grant which records the gift of a village to a foreign Buddhist monastery at Negapatam.
c16.s2.15
Sundara Cōḷa's last days appear to have been clouded by a domestic tragedy. An inscription from Uḍaiyārguḍi dated in the second year of Rājakēsari⁷² records the measures taken by the Sabhā of Śrī Vīranārāyaṇa caturvēdimangalam under orders from the king for the confiscation and sale of the properties of some persons who were liable for treason as they had murdered 'Karikāla Cōḷa who took the head of the Pāṇḍya.' This record clearly shows that Āditya II fell a victim to assassination. The only possible kings to whom this Rājakēsari record can be assigned are Sundara Cōḷa himself, and Āditya's younger brother, Rājarāja, who succeeded Uttama Cōḷa, a Parakēsari. But the early regnal year rules out Sundara Cōḷa, as we cannot suppose that Āditya, whose inscriptions range at least up to the fifth year, began to reign before his father. Therefore the inscription is doubtless a record of Rājarāja's reign. If this inference is accepted—the palaeography and the astronomical data of the record support this view—then it follows that the murder of Āditya II remained unavenged throughout the sixteen years in which Uttama Cōḷa ruled, Sundara Cōḷa himself having either died of a broken heart soon after the murder or after having found the natural course of justice obstructed by a powerful conspiracy. It seems impossible under the circumstances to acquit Uttama Cōḷa of a part in the conspiracy that resulted in the foul murder of the heir apparent. Uttama coveted the throne and 60 grains, and this conforms to the standard in the Deccan and Southern India before the time of Rājarāja.⁷⁶
c16.s2.16
The Madras Museum plates of Uttama Cōḷa, though they add little to our knowledge of political history, are of very great interest to the study of the social life and the administrative methods of the kingdom in Uttama Cōḷa's time; they form moreover beautiful specimens of the palaeography of the period.⁷⁷ Even the stone inscriptions of the reign contain little information on political transactions. Some inscriptions recently discovered in the Trichinopoly district,⁷⁸ dated in the twelfth year of Parakēsari, introduce to us a high official of Uttama Cōḷa's government by name Ambalavan Paḷuvūrnakkan of Kuvaḷālam (Kōlār). He was an officer of *perundaram* rank who built of stone the old shrine of Vijayamaṅgalam celebrated by Tirunāvukkaraśu as a temple in Gōvandaputtūr on the bank of the Coleroon,⁷⁹ commemorating Arjuna's (Vijaya's) penance for obtaining the favour of Śiva;⁸⁰ and on this officer, Uttama Cōḷa conferred the title Vikramaśōlamārāyar,⁸¹ from which we may conclude that Uttama had also the title Vikrama. The same officer continued in Rājarāja's service later; in the records of Rājarāja's reign he has the title Mummudiśōḷa prefixed to his personal name, and also bears the alternative title Rājarāja Pallavaraiyan.⁸² No other evidence exists to show that Uttama Cōḷa's suzerainty extended as far as Kōlār in Mysore, and all the inscriptions mentioning this official come from one place, and that in the Trichinopoly district. It must be assumed, therefore, that for some reasons unknown to us, this person migrated from Kōlār into the Cōḷa dominions and rose to a high position in the royal service.
c16.s2.17
The inscriptions give the names of several queens of Uttama Cōḷa, of whom five are mentioned together in one inscription.⁸³ The chief place was held throughout the reign by Oraṭṭaṇan (Urattāyan) Sorabbaiyār, a Kannaḍa name (?), who is called *agramahādēviyār* and *mūttanambirāṭṭiyār*, in the fifth and the fifteenth years of the reign;⁸⁴ she had also the title of Tribhuvanamahādēviyār, significant of her rank as chief queen. The queens of Uttama Cōḷa are almost all of them found making endowments in a village in the Tanjore district which bore the name of their mother-in-law, Śembiyan-mahādēvi—proof of
c16.s2.18
<!-- Footnotes continue on subsequent pages if any, but none are printed here at the foot of page 160. --> the high regard in which the pious widow of Gaṇḍarāditya was held by the members of her family. One son of Uttama Cōḷa is known,⁸⁵ Madhurāntakan Gaṇḍarāditya, who held high office under Rājarāja, as has been mentioned already.
c16.s2.19
A record of the fifth year of Rājakēsari⁸⁶ mentions a Pāṇḍya princess⁸⁷ with the name Puḷiccayan Śāmi Abbai, as the spouse of Vikramaśōḷa Malāḍuḍaiyār. This Malāḍa chieftain, a feudatory of the Cōḷas, in the hilly tracts of South Arcot, might have got the title from Uttama Cōḷa, who was also known as Vikrama; if this view is correct, the inscription is certainly one of Rājarāja I.
c16.s2.20
¹ Three inscriptions, all of the ninth year of a Parāntakadēva, pose one of the minor problems in Cōḷa epigraphy. No. 16 of 1896 from Tiruvālaṅgāḍu, North Arcot, calls the king Parakēsari and Tribhuvana-Cakravartin. No. 261 of 1923 from Kōyil-Tēvarāyanpēṭṭai, Tanjore Dt., does the same, and in addition gives a historical introduction beginning *pū-maṅgai-vaḷara*. No. 225 of 1929 from Tiruvaḍatturai, S. Arcot, gives the same introduction, but calls the king Rājakēsari and Cakravartin. If the records are genuine, they must be of the reign of either Parāntaka I Parakēsari, or Parāntaka II Rājakēsari. But the absence of other Cōḷa *praśastis* before Rājarāja I, the title Tribhuvana-cakravartin applied to the king in two of these records, and the fact that the third is found in a temple which has no other inscription of a period earlier than that of Vīrarājēndra, render these records suspicious. They furnish no information of historical importance, and may belong to some obscure late Cōḷa prince. See *ARE.* 1924, II 9; 1929, II 26.
c16.s2.21
² Krishna Sastri (*SII.* ii Introd. 12) says: 'Perhaps the years quoted in Kannara-Kṛṣṇa's Tamil inscriptions must be taken to count from A.D. 949.' On the same page he admits that Kṛṣṇa died in Śaka 889 or A.D. 967. He does not explain why, after this date records should bear his name and his regnal years till about 977. Again, he admits that 949 was not the year of Kṛṣṇa's entry into Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam but the following year; why, then, should this year have been the starting point for the dates in his Tamil records. The highest regnal year in the Tamil inscriptions is not 30 as was believed till recently but only 28 (364 of 1902, 159 of 1921); the date in No. 232 of 1902 (Kilūr) is now read as 20, not (3)0 which was given in *ARE.* 1903. See *SII.* vii 859.
c16.s2.22
³ See, however p. 150 *post* on a record of year 15 from Parandur.
c16.s2.23
⁴ See *SII.* iii, 135, 138.
c16.s2.24
⁵ 444 of 1918 under year 6 of Rājarāja I. 252 of 1936-7 is a direct record of Yr. 2 of Mummuḍi-Cōḷa Gaṇḍarāditya.
c16.s2.25
⁶ *SII.* iii, 111 and 112.
c16.s2.26
7. Krishna Sastri remarks: 'The epithet Āḻvār is taken to be one of respect. It may also indicate that he was dead at the time,' and then proceeds, 'If Arikulakēsari, Arikēsari, Ariñjaya or Arindama died before the 8th year of Gaṇḍarāditya as inferred already, the next king must have been a son of Arikulakēsari who, as the Anbil plates say, was Prince Sundara Cōḷa born of a Vaidumba princess.' (*SII.* iii, Introd. p. 14). But though Arikulakēsari may be identified with Ariñjaya, there is nothing to show that he predeceased Gaṇḍarāditya. We know that, in many records of Rājarāja I, his elder sister Kundavai is called Āḻvār 'during her life-time. Further, seeing that Gaṇḍarāditya and Sundara Cōḷa who succeeded him were both Rājakēsarīs, Krishna Sastri suggests (ibid. n. 2) that the intervening Parakēsari must be identified with the infant son of Gaṇḍarāditya who, though chosen for succession, 'may have been too young at the time to succeed his father.' Ingenious, but not likely. See also *EI.* xv, p. 53 where Gopinatha Rao adopts the same arrangement, cutting out Ariñjaya and making Gaṇḍarāditya a Parakēsari who followed his elder brother Rājāditya Rājakēsari.
c16.s2.27
9. 83, 84, 86 of 1889 (*SII.* iii 15-17).
c16.s2.28
10. Gopinatha Rao thinks it was Sundra Cōḷa *EI.* xv p. 54; others say Gaṇḍarāditya, *QJMS.* xvii p. 195. See also *ARE.* 1921, II 61.
c16.s2.29
11. *SII.* iii p. 215 n. 4.
c16.s2.30
12. Sewell: *Forgotten Empire* p. 145.
c16.s2.31
13. *Guruparamparai* pp. 105-6, (ed. S. Krishnamachari, 1927).
c16.s2.32
14. vv. 67 and 68. *Contra* Kielhorn, *List* p. 115 n. 2 written before the Tiruvalangāḍu plates were discovered.
c16.s2.33
15. *ARE.* 1904 II, 20; 1909 II, 39.
c16.s2.34
16. *SII.* iii Introd. p. 14; and *ASI.* 1908-9 p. 122; also *ARE.* 1912 II 17, more halting in its tone.
c16.s2.35
17. *ASI.* 1908-9 p. 122.
c16.s2.36
18. As a matter of fact, the discussion of the subject in *ARE.* 1912, II 17 with reference to No. 306 of 1911 (year 7) is very cautious. It is said that the title Maduraikoṇḍa implies that the king was a son of Parāntaka. On the other hand it is admitted that G. is nowhere 'clearly stated' to have been a Rājakēsari, and that it is difficult to see how the seventeen years of this king can be treated as the period of the rule of Gaṇḍarāditya when there are only twenty years for three reigns—Gaṇḍarāditya, Sundara Cōḷa Parāntaka II and Āditya II Karikāla. The conclusion is: 'In any case we may for the present provisionally presume that Maduraikoṇḍa Rājakēsari is identical with Gaṇḍarāditya.' It is on the basis of this provisional conclusion that Krishna Sastri arranges the inscriptions in *SII.* iii, part 3. See p. 250 No. 114, introduction and note 4.
c16.s2.37
19. *ARE.* 1909 II 39.
c16.s2.38
20. 139 of 1907; *Pd.* 82.
c16.s2.39
21. 291 of 1908. *EI.* xii pp. 121-6.
c16.s2.40
22. *SII.* iii 115 (246 of 1912).
c16.s2.41
²³ *SII.* iii, Introd. p. 14.
c16.s2.42
25. One writer (*QJMS*. xvii, p. 197) claims that 'after a close and patient study of many inscriptions published, unpublished and not yet copied by the Epigraphical department,' he has come to the conclusion that all Rāja Rājakēsari records (with one Rāja) must be assigned to Gaṇḍarāditya, as Rājarāja to whom such inscriptions are assigned really called himself Kō Rājarāja Rājakēsari, (with two Raja-s). No. 176 of 1906 is a record in the seventh year of Rāja Rājakēsari and mentions the fifteenth year of Uttama Cōḷa; see also 298 of 1908.
c16.s2.43
26. vv. 67-8 and 28 respectively.
c16.s2.44
27. *SII*. iii. Introd. p. 16.
c16.s2.45
28. See *ibid*. pp. 14 n. 2; 16, n. 1.
c16.s2.46
29. For a possible son of Āditya, Karikāla-kaṇṇan by name, whose existence may be inferred from the inscriptions of Rājarāja, see *SII*. ii, p. 460 and n. 2.
c16.s2.47
30. *ARE*. 1921 II 61.
c16.s2.48
31. *EI*. vii p. 195. *Con*. *EI*. iv p. 223 followed by Rangachari in N.A. 586.
c16.s2.49
32. *SII*. iii (Intr.) p. 15.
c16.s2.50
33. *SII*. iii 180.
c16.s2.51
34. *SII*. ii 186.
c16.s2.52
35. *SII*. iii, 158.
c16.s2.53
36. *SII*. iii 193.
c16.s2.54
37. 17 of 1921.
c16.s2.55
38. See, however, *post* for the Parandur record.
c16.s2.56
³⁹ *EI*. xxvi pp. 82-4. By his recent researches, late A. S. Ramanatha Aiyar has generally confirmed the chronological scheme put forward here for the first time. But still there is some loose thinking afoot. Ramanatha Aiyar himself says that because Sundara Cōḷa gets the title *Pāṇḍiyanaic-curam-iṟakkina* in a record of his seventh year, the conflict with Vīra Pāṇḍya must have taken place only about A.D. 946; and then makes this the basis for rejecting 956 for Āditya II's accession and 937 for Vīra Pāṇḍya's on the ground: 'This would yield the inconsistent results that Āditya killed him (Vīra Pāṇḍya) in A.D. 957, and that his predecessor Sundara Cōḷa defeated him in A.D. 963'! And he is quoted with approval by M. Venkataramayya (*EI*. xxv pp. 36-7; xxviii pp. 89-90), who, however, has a glimpse of the greater historical probability of the rejected date. Again, V. Venkatasubba Aiyar has argued that because one chieftain mentions no overlord in a record of 959 and acknowledges Āditya II in another record dated in his second year, therefore Āditya's second year must be later than 959, his accession date cannot be 956, and he cannot be identical with Pārthivendravarman (*EI*. xxviii p. 269). How easy for men to become the slaves of their own *abhiniveśas*!
c16.s2.57
⁴⁰ 75 of 1923. Nos. 62, 63 of 1889 (*SII*. iv, 291-2) are late copies and they are most probably Parakēsari records.
c16.s2.58
⁴¹ 176 of 1907; 570, 574 of 1908, (*SII*. iii 111, 112); 444 of 1918 (Rājarāja I, yr. 6).
c16.s2.59
41a. 252 of 1936-7.
c16.s2.60
42. Krishna Sastri assigns 287 of 1911 (*SII*. iii 113) to G. I rather think it is a record of Sundara Cōḷa. See *post n*. 62.
c16.s2.61
42a. *ARE*. 1936-7, II 22. 362 of 1902.
c16.s2.62
43. 200 of 1904. Another queen Vīranāraṇiyār is mentioned in 220 of 1935-6 of Yr. 40 of Parāntaka I, *ARE*. 1936-7 II 21.
c16.s2.63
44. These features of the hymn render it more likely that its author was this king rather than the official of Rājarāja, Madhurāntakan Gaṇḍarādittar, who is found employed in enquiring into the affairs of temples and whose name seems to imply that he was the son of Madhurāntaka Uttama Cōḷa. Contra Venkayya *ASI*. 1905-6 p. 173, n. 5.
c16.s2.64
45. 540 of 1920.
c16.s2.65
46. 587 of 1920. *ARE*. 1921, II 26.
First 86 of 129 passages. Read on