The Colas c16.s2: II. History

The Cōḷas c16.s2

Language: English

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

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.

c16.s2.66

47. 162, 172 of 1928.

c16.s2.67

48. See *ARE*. 1928 II 3.

c16.s2.68

49. This, if correct, would be an additional objection to Krishna Sastri's reconstruction of the order of succession.

c16.s2.69

50. 587 of 1920.

c16.s2.70

51. *SII*. iii 17.

c16.s2.71

52. 215 of 1911; the date given as [9] is not clear in the original, but it cannot be 9. *ARE*. 1912 II 16.

c16.s2.72

53. *EI*. xxii vv. 25, 28.

c16.s2.73

54. 302 of 1908. Kanyākumārī inscription v. 63. Contra N. L. Rao in *JOR*. xix p. 150.

c16.s2.74

55. 116 of 1896, *SII*. v. 980 (Yr. 27 of Rājarāja I). Text of record in *SII*. v. gives dates (3)-wrong; *ARE*. 1914 II 15 gives it correctly as Yr. 9 of Sundara Cōḷa; see also *EI*. xii pp. 124 ff.

c16.s2.75

56. Ch. 54 vv 12-16.

c16.s2.76

57. The N.W. part of Ceylon (Geiger). The Vallabha has sometimes been identified with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa III (Codrington *Ceylon Coins* p. 50). But the Cōḷas were called 'Vaḷava' and the Vessagiri inscription implies that the invaders were Tamils. See Codrington's *Short History of Ceylon* pp. 39 and 53.

c16.s2.77

58. *EZ*. i. pp. 29 ff.

c16.s2.78

59. Some statements in Chapter VIII of *PK*, on the chronology and the course of the Cōḷa conquest, are seen to need considerable modification. To one point; in particular attention may be drawn here. Vīra Pāṇḍya 'who took the head of the Cōḷa' bore that title for thirteen years. (*PK*. p. 102). This clearly means that Vīra Pāṇḍya did not lose his life at the hands of Āditya and his confederates. For if we accept, for the sake of argument, the latest date suggested for the accession of Āditya II, A.D. 965, Vīra Pāṇḍya must have lost his life in A.D. 966, because Āditya's records of the second year mention the event. Thirteen years earlier than this date takes us to A.D. 953 or 954, a date which seems to be too soon after the Rāṣṭrakūta invasion for a contest between the Cōḻas and the Pāṇḍyas in the South—a contest which gave Vīra Pāṇḍya the occasion to ‘take the head of the Cōḻa.’ If Pārthivēndravarman and Āditya were identical, then this contest would be pushed back to 944-5, an impossible date.

c16.s2.79

60. 129 of 1907, Pd. 14 (Text).

c16.s2.80

61. 273 of 1903, *ARE.* 1908 II, 90.

c16.s2.81

62. *SII.* iii 113; Krishna Sastri ascribes this record to Gaṇḍarāditya on the ground that Vikramakēsari is palaeographically earlier than the time of Āditya II to which Venkayya ascribed him. I think Venkayya was right. Arguments from palaeography can be hardly conclusive when the difference in time is so little as that between Gaṇḍarāditya and Āditya II. See *JOR.* vii pp. 1 ff.

c16.s2.82

63. K. V. Subramania Aiyar who edits this record (*EI.* xx p. 53) assigns it to Āditya I (*ibid* pp. 47-8) and says that its date corresponds to A.D. 883-4. He grants the identity of Varaguṇā with the queen of Parāntaka Iḷangōvēḷār, whom he also identifies with Vikramakēsari; but does not deal with the problems raised by the Vikramakēsari record from Koḍumbāḷūr.

c16.s2.83

64. A record of the sixth year of Parakēsari (337 of 1904) from Kuḍumiyāmalai mentions a Varaguṇa-nāṭṭi-pērumānār, queen of Śembiyan Irukkuvēḷār; from this, the conclusion has been drawn that this was another name of Vikramakēsari (*ARE.* 1908 II, 90). But the Varaguṇanāṭṭi mentioned in this record was the daughter of a Muttaraiyar chief (Pd. 45 Text) and different from the Cōḷa princess mentioned above. Hence Śembiyan Irukkuvēḷ cannot be the same as Parāntaka Iḷangōvēḷar, if our view that the latter married the Cōḷa princess is correct.

c16.s2.84

The suggestion may be made that the Muttaraiya lady was the queen of Vikramakēsari and that Parāntaka Iḷangōvēḷār, the husband of the Cōḷa princess, was the elder son of Vikramakēsari. In this case, the 6th year of Parakēsari (337 of 1904) must be the 6th year of Parāntaka I, which would fall nearly 52 years before the wars with Vīra Pāṇḍya in which Vikramakēsari took part. It seems better to treat Śembiyan Irukkuvēḷ and his Muttaraiya wife Varaguṇā as persons not represented in the genealogy of the Koḍumbāḷūr record. There are other names of Irukkuvēḷs, like Madhurāntaka Irukkuvēḷ and Mahimālaya Irukkuvēḷ in the Pudukōṭṭah inscriptions for which there is no room in the Koḍumbāḷūr genealogy. Possibly Madhurāntaka, Irukkuvēḷ of Nos. 335 and 336 of 1904 (Pd. 63 and 65), also called Ādittan (Āccan) Vikramakēsari, was a contemporary of Āditya I and his son Parāntaka I.

c16.s2.85

65. See *ante* n. 62.

c16.s2.86

66. See *SII.* iii p. 288 and n. 5. No. 18 of 1933-4 (Yr. 17) comes from Cintamaṇi (Chingleput Dt.); also perhaps 21 of 1934-5 (Rājak. 17) from Kīrappākkam, (same Dt.)

c16.s2.87

67. Tiruvalangāḍu plates vv. 65-66; also 236 of 1902 (Rājarāja I 27).

c16.s2.88

69. Tiruvālaṅgāḍu v. 57.

c16.s2.89

71. pp. 102-3, *Yāppu* v. 11.

c16.s2.90

72. 577 of 1920 *EI*. xxi p. 165.

c16.s2.91

73. vv. 68-9. The expression employed literally means 'set' (*astam gatavān*)—a play on his name Āditya; a hint of his premature death may be seen in 'his desire to see heaven.'

c16.s2.92

74. Contra K. V. S. Aiyar—*Ancient Dekhan* p. 243. The difficulties regarding the ages of Uttama Cōḷa and his son pointed out by Aiyar are not so serious as he makes them out. We may suppose that Gaṇḍarāditya died *A.D.* 957 and that then Uttama was 12; he came to the throne when he was, say, 24 in 969, and then had a son aged three; this son would be about 23 in 989 when he is first mentioned in the inscriptions of Rājarāja's reign. The omission of his name from the Leyden and Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates is only to be expected in the conditions of the case.

c16.s2.93

75. Elliot CSI. p. 132, No. 151 p. 152 G. *ARE.* 1904, I 20, Nos. 152-4 are, no doubt, coins of Rājēndra I.

c16.s2.94

76. Codrington—*Ceylon Coins* p. 74.

c16.s2.95

77. See *SII.* iii No. 128. After this fine edition of the plates by Krishna Sastri, we might well have been spared the belated publication with negative plates in 1925 (*IA.* Vol. 54 pp. 61 ff) of a paper contributed by T. A. Gopinatha Rao and another in 1911. This paper begins with the wild statement that the seal of these plates 'belongs to the Pāṇḍya king Jaṭilavarman, one of whose documents is also found in the Museum.' I examined the seal and found it true to the fac-simile in *EI.* iii. plate p. 104, No. 3, which again very closely resembles the seal of the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates of Rājēndra (plate opp. p. 413 in *SII.* iii).

c16.s2.96

Krishna Sastri holds that the Parakēsarivarman, a record (*śilālēkhai*) of whose 22nd year is quoted in ll. 28-29, was Vijayālaya (*SII.* iii p. 267 and n. 2), and that 'the statement in our grant that a stone inscription of his 22nd year did provide for permanent income to a temple at Kaccippēḍu is proof enough to show that though he was the first of the new line, Vijayālaya had a peaceful, long and prosperous rule like any of his powerful successors.' This view derives support from the express mention of 'Maduraiyum Īḻamum Koṇḍa Parakēsari' in l. 96, which might naturally lead to the supposition that the Parakēsari of ll. 28-29 must be a different king. There is, however, another mention of Parakēsari (year 16) in ll. 72-3, which Krishna Sastri takes to be a reference to Uttama Cōḷa himself; but it is possible to hold that ll. 72-98 record one continuous transaction by which, in the 18th year of Parāntaka I, the Nagarattār of Kaccippēḍu regulated the expenditure to be met from endowments made in the sixteenth year of Parakēsari (note in particular *enru ippariśu* in l. 96). If this view is accepted, the Parakēsari of l. 72 would be not Uttamma, but Parāntaka I, and the same may be true of ll. 28-9. Again, Uttama Cōḷa is mentioned by name with the Parakēsari title in l. 12; we have only the Parakēsari title in l. 72. By assigning the latter to Uttama Cōḷa, K. Sastri grants that the same king may be mentioned in two different ways in the same record. If that is so, it is easier to assume that Parakēsari of ll. 28-9 and 72 is the same as Maduraiyum Īḻamum Koṇḍa Parakēsari of l. 96, than to equate one of them with Vijayālaya and the other with Uttama. I wish also to add that Karikāla-teṟṟi might have got its name as much by association with Āditya II Karikāla as after 'the ancient Cōḷa king Karikāla.' (Krishna Sastri *ibid*, p. 268).

Linked texts (2)

Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
South Indian Inscriptions