The Colas c18.s2: Note B. Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-Cōḷa-Puram

The Cōḷas c18.s2

Language: English

Note B. Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-Cōḷa-Puram

c18.s2.2

The following interesting account of this place appeared in a local publication of 1855 which is not easily accessible now. It was reproduced once in the *IA.* iv p. 274, and may well find a place here.

c18.s2.3

‘It may also be mentioned that in the Uḍaiyārpāḷaiyam tālūkā there is an embankment 16 miles long, running north and south, provided with several substantial sluices and of great strength, which in former times must have formed one of the largest reservoirs in India. This large tank or lake was filled partly by a channel from the Kolerūn river, upwards of 60 miles in length, which enters it at its southern end, and partly by a smaller channel from the Veḷḷār, which entered it on the north. Traces of both these channels still remain. The tank has been ruined and useless for very many years, and its bed is now almost wholly overgrown with high and thick jungle. It is said traditionally that its ruin was wilful, and the act of an invading army. Near the southern extremity of the *band* there is a village, now surrounded by jungle, called Gaṅgākuṇḍapuram. Immediately in its vicinity is a pagoda of a very large size and costly workmanship; and close by, surrounded by jungle, are some remains of ancient buildings, now much resembling the mounds or heaps which indicate the site of ancient Babylon, but in which the village elders point out the various parts of an extensive and magnificent palace. When this palace was in existence, Gaṅgākuṇḍapuram was the wealthy and flourishing capital of a monarchy, and the great tank spread fertility over miles and miles of what is now trackless forest. It has often been projected to restore that magnificent work, but the scheme has remained in abeyance for want of engineer officers. At some future time it may be successfully prosecuted, but till then this most fertile tract must remain a jungle, and the few inhabitants will still point with pride to the ancient *band* as a monument of the grand and gigantic enterprise of their ancient sovereigns, and compare it contemptuously with the undertakings of their present rulers. Speaking of the noble temple of Gaṅgākuṇḍapuram, it must not be omitted that when the lower Kolerūn *anikat* was built, the structure was dismantled of a large part of the splendid granite sculptures which adorned it, and the enclosing wall was almost wholly destroyed in order to obtain materials for the work. The poor people did their utmost to prevent this destruction and spoliation of a venerated edifice by the servants of a government that could show no title to it; but of course without success; they were only punished for contempt. A promise was made indeed, that a wall of brick should be built in place of the stone wall that was pulled down; but unhappily it must be recorded that this promise has never been redeemed.' give imperial titles to Rājādhirāja e.g., Tribhuvanacakravartin (241 of 1927) and Cakravartigaḷ (124 of 1922), really belong to Rājādhirāja I. See also 244, 245 of 1929.

c18.s2.4

² See *ante* p. 183 and n. 76.
3. 196 of 1917.
4. 271 of 1927 (Yr. 7).
5. 363 of 1917.
6. 118 of 1888 (*SII.* iv No. 223).

c18.s2.5

⁷ See 117 of 1888, *SII.* iv. No. 222.

c18.s2.6

⁸ *ARE.* 1906 II 13. This is true also of the Sanskrit part of the Karandai (Tanjore) plates.

c18.s2.7

⁹ *EI.* ix p. 218.

c18.s2.8

¹⁰ Hultzsch observed: 'Rājādhirāja appears to have been co-regent of his predecessor (Rājēndra Cōḷa I) and cannot have exercised independent royal functions before the death of the other. It is in perfect accordance with this conclusion that his inscriptions which have been discovered so far are all dated in the later years of his reign viz., between the 26th and 32nd years.' *SII.* iii. p.

c18.s2.9

⁵² When Hultzsch said this, 172 of 1894 (Tirukkalukkunṟam) of the 26th year was the earliest record available. Since then, the *tiṅgaḷēr* introduction has been reported as found in 484 of 1925 (Year 10) and 392 of 1921 (Year 18), but on examining the impressions of these records, I have found that they are both dated in the thirty-sixth year. It is possible, however, that some records (with earlier regnal years) which, though containing no *praśastis*,

c18.s2.10

11. 75 of 1895 ll. 2-4. (*SII.* v. 633). These lines seem to have been taken to mean no more than that Rājādhirāja inherited his kingdom from his father—*ARE.* 1913 II 26.

c18.s2.11

12. Fleet, *EI.* xii pp. 295-6.

c18.s2.12

13. *Journal of the Hyderabad Archaeological Society*, 1916, pp. 14 ff. See also *IA.* xliv pp. 213-5.

c18.s2.13

14. v. 70.

c18.s2.14

15. Fleet ascribes this to Sōmēśvara I, *Bom. Gaz.* I, ii pp. 427, 440; *EI.* xiii pp. 180-2. The transfer may have occurred earlier.

c18.s2.15

16. 515 of 1912.

c18.s2.16

17. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar apparently finds no difficulty here. He says: ‘Having mastered possession of this debatable frontier of all South Indian history (Raichūr doab), he proceeded *northwards* into the southernmost districts of the Rāshṭrakūṭa country,’ (italics mine-*Gaṅgaikoṇḍa Cōḷa* p. 544). It is possible that more than one army took the field at the same time.

c18.s2.17

18. 103 of 1912.

c18.s2.18

19. 50 of 1897; 439 of 1907.

c18.s2.19

20. 4 of 1890; 257 of 1903, 585 of 1906 from Embāḍi (also fifth year) carries the conquests further up to Śāndimattīvu. But as the inscription mentions the 25th year of the reign, it was engraved much later and is to be accepted with caution.

c18.s2.20

21. *CV.* ii p. xiii.

c18.s2.21

22. Hultzsch (*SII.* iii p. 28) translates: ‘the crown of the king of Īḻam (who was as tempestuous as) the sea in fighting.’ But in the phrase: ‘*poru-kaḍal-Īḻattaraśar-tamuḍiyum*,’ *porukaḍal* is an attribute, not of ‘*araśar*,’ but of ‘*Īḻam*’. See *EI.* ix p. 233. The plurals in ‘*araśar*’ and ‘*avar dēviyar*’ are meant to show that the hereditary crown is intended. See extract from the *CV.* which follows.

c18.s2.22

23. *CV.* Ch. 55 vv. 16 ff. The three preceeding verses talk of a horsedealer informing the Cōḷa king of the confusion in the island and bringing about the invasion: this part of the story perhaps applies to Rājarāja’s invasion which is not otherwise noticed by the *CV.*

c18.s2.23

24. *Chinnapaṭṭikādhātuka* which Geiger thinks might have been a Buddha relic, highly prized, among the regalia of the Sinhalese kings. Wijesimha translates: ‘and the Sacred foreheadband.’

c18.s2.24

²⁵ 642 of 1909 (yr. 7).

c18.s2.25

²⁶ 595, 618 of 1912 (*SII.* iv 1389; 1414).

c18.s2.26

²⁷ 22 of 1895; 211 of 1911.

c18.s2.27

²⁸ *Eṟipaḍai* means ‘victorious army’; *Śeṅgadir-mālai* may be taken more literally as above instead of being understood as meaning the sun. *Contra* Hultzsch- *EI.* ix p. 233.

c18.s2.28

²⁹ 29 of 1897 (*SII.* ii 82); 74 of 1907 (yr. 8).

c18.s2.29

31. vv. 89-97.
32. 46 of 1907.
33. 363 of 1917.
34. 112 of 1905.
35. 617 of 1916 .
36. *TAS.* iv pp. 134-5.
37. 44 of 1896.
38. Fleet DKD. 436.
39. Rangachari-Bellary 279, 471; *EC.* vii Sk. 220, 307. .

c18.s2.30

40. Hultzsch translates—‘*payaṅgoḍu paḻimiga*’ into ‘out of fear and full of vengeance.’ (*EI.* ix p. 233). *Paḻi* means ‘vengeance’ in some contexts; but here it has surely another meaning: ‘disrepute.’ The idea is that by his flight he lost his reputation as king or warrior. The phrase ‘*navanidikkulap-perumaligaḷum*’ is not clear. Hultzsch understands this independently of the Raṭṭapāḍi campaign, and translates: ‘the principal great mountains (which contained) the nine treasures (of Kubēra).’ This flawless literal rendering is not intelligible, and Hultzsch has not explained what he understands by it. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar is inclined, on the other hand, to see a place name of unknown identity in Navanidhi-kula, like Nāmaṇaikkōṇam, Pañcappaḷḷi and Māśuṇi-dēśa. (Sewell-*Historical Inscriptions* p. 65, n). But unlike *kōṇam*, *paḷḷi* and *dēśa*, an ending in *kula* seems most unlikely for a place name. I think the whole expression is a rhetorical way of stating that much treasure fell into the hands of Rājēndra. ‘*Kulap-peru-malaigaḷ*’ suggest, by recalling the ‘Kulaparvatas’ of legend, the vastness of the treasure; and ‘*navanidhi*,’ though usually employed of the insignia of Kubēra, is introduced here to suggest the variety of the treasures of the Cāḷukya monarch. *cf.* *kula-dhanam-akhilam yaśaśca muktvā bhayam avalambya palāyanam cakāra* (v. 105) of the same context in the Tiruvālangāḍu plates.

c18.s2.31

41. *SII* ii p. 94-5. n. 4. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar thinks Maski more likely and so does Hultzsch, *Aśoka Inscrr.* pp. xxvi.

c18.s2.32

43. v. 101, *SII.* iii p. 423. cf. Karandai v. 62.

c18.s2.33

44. *IA* viii 18; Fleet DKD. 436; *EI.* xii pp. 295-6. Krishna Sastri’s translation of verse 103 of the Tiruvālangāḍu plates is wrong in implying that the Raṭṭarāja lost his life in the war; *parikhaṇḍita* means ‘defeated,’ not ‘cut to pieces.’

c18.s2.34

45. 23 of 1917; the others are 24, 30 and 31 of the same collection.

c18.s2.35

46. 751 of 1917.

c18.s2.36

47. V. 71 *EI.* xxv p. 261. See *Eastern Cāḷukyas*, pp. 221-2 *n.* 2 for a clarification of the verse.

c18.s2.37

48. In the Tiruvālangāḍu plates Jayasimha is described as ‘the very abode of Kali’ (*svayam kalerāśrayam*, *SII.* iii p. 399 v. 100) and the king of Oḍḍa is distinctly described as carrying out the orders of Kali-rāja (ibid v. 120 p. 400); see also *Eastern Cāḷukyas*, pp. 223-4.

c18.s2.38

49. v. 109. Cf. Karandai v. 64 saying that the Ganges water, was brought upon the heads of kings residing on its banks. Also Chārāla pl. v. 71.

c18.s2.39

50. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar is fond of the notion that the scholarly Rājēndra, Paṇḍita-Cōḷa as he was, had his imagination fired by a study of the Cēra Śeṅguṭṭuvan's exploits as narrated in the *Śilappadikāram*. (*Gaṅgai-koṇḍa-Cōḷa* p. 548). We may wonder whether Rājēndra was such a Quixote! The poet Nārāyaṇa has made another guess (*utprēkṣā*), not less plausible, of Rājēndra's motive. And we have no record of the table-talk of Rājēndra or of his reminiscences. But is there anything calling for an explanation? The ideal of ancient Indian monarchy was *utthāna* and *vijigīṣā*; the power of a king was held to be in proportion to the extent of territory conquered and the number of victorious raids led by him into foreign territory.

c18.s2.40

51. 476 of 1911 (year 11) mentions it; records of the tenth year do not. The detailed account first appears in the twelfth year *SII.* i, 68; 467 of 1908.

c18.s2.41

52. vv. 110, 118.

c18.s2.42

53. Note this surname of Rājēndra.

c18.s2.43

54. The two Mahendragiri inscriptions of Rājēndra Cōḷa (Skt.) and Rājēndra-śōḷa-pallavaraiyan (Tamil)—nos. 396 and 397 of 1896—*SII.* v. nos. 1351 and 1352—are usually referred to this war of Rājēndra I against Kaliṅga and Oḍḍa. *ASI.* 1911-2, pp. 171-2; *TAS.* iii pp. 119-20. Dr. Venkataramanayya's objection to this (*Eastern Cāḷukyas*, p. 225 *n.* 1) does not seem to be well-founded.

c18.s2.44

55. See *EI.* ix p. 233. The notes below explain the variations in my rendering.

c18.s2.45

56. Hultzsch has: 'whose forts (bore) banners which (touched) the clouds,' which has no support from the text.

c18.s2.46

57. The translation here is based on the reading in 176 of 1923: '*Kāmiḍai vaḷanagar Nāmāṇaikkōṇamum.*'

c18.s2.47

58. Another form has '*veñjina vīrar*' for '*veñjilai-vīrar*.'

c18.s2.48

59. Read: '*pāśuḍaip-paḷana- māśuṇi-dēśam*' (*SII.* ii 20 l. 5 and p. 108) for '*pāśuḍaip-paḷa-nan-māśuṇi-dēśam*' (Hultzsch) of the Tirumalai rock; or translate 'Māśuṇi-dēśa celebrated for fruits (amidst) green foliage.'

c18.s2.49

60. Read: '*Ādi-nagar-vaiyin-candira*' etc., where *vaiyin* is the locative case ending, not to be read '*nagaravaiyil*' as has been done.

c18.s2.50

61. This seems better for '*ayarvil van-kīrtti Ādinagar*', than 'which was famous for unceasing abundance' (Hultzsch), perhaps reading *śīrtti* for *kīrtti*..

c18.s2.51

62. '*Miḷai*' is a synonym for *kāvarkāḍu*; *Maṇimēkalai*, xxviii, l. 25.

c18.s2.52

63. Read—'*toḍu-kaḻar-cangu-voḍaḍal Mayipālanai*' (Tanjore *SII* ii 20 plate). Hultzsch's talk of 'ear-rings, slippers and bracelets' of Mahīpāla is entirely out of place. Often also '*toḍu-kaḍar-cangoḍ-aḍal Mahipālan*' (478 of 1902), where 'śaṅgu' may mean conch (*śaṅkha*).

c18.s2.53

64. '*Verimalar*' for '*veri-maṇal*' in some copies.

c18.s2.54

⁶⁵ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar suggests that this campaign started from Kulpak, the northern limit of Rājēndra's earlier campaigns, or 'from somewhere not far off,' (*Gaṅgai-koṇḍa-Cōḷa* p. 549). There is no evi-

c18.s2.55

dence, however, to show that at any time Rājēndra became master of the W. Cāḷukya territory in the present Hyderabad state so as to organise and despatch a large army from there on a campaign of aggressive warfare into foreign territory. And the Tiruvālangāḍu plates are explicit, as Dr. Aiyangar has himself noticed (ibid. p. 547), that the expedition started from the Cōḷa capital.

c18.s2.56

67. *ibid.*, p. 163.

c18.s2.57

68. *ibid.*, p. 180, l. 29.

c18.s2.58

69. *EI.* vii, *List* p. 120 n. 3.

c18.s2.59

70. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar says that ‘Śādinagar of Tamil, hitherto read Ādinagar, Jājnagar of the Muhammadan historians,’ is no other than Yayātinagar, identified with Binka by Hiralal and said to have been founded by one of the early Kēsari kings of Orissa. (*Gangai-koṇḍa-Cōḷa* p. 550). But he does not say how he gets his new reading Śādinagar. The Tirumalai rock inscription clearly has ‘*vaṇkīrtti-yādinagar*’ (*EI.* ix p. 232, plate l. 8) and the Tanjore record equally clearly ‘*vaṇkīrtti Ādinagar*’ (*SII.* ii plate 3, l. 5, end); ‘*vaṇkīrttiy-yādinagar*’ is often found (77, 78, 78 A of 1895) and ‘*vaṇkīrtti-Ayāḍingar*’ in 171 of 1894—all of years 16 and 17. One may doubt also whether the rather colourless ‘*pūśurar śēr*’ applied to Kōśalai-nāḍu is susceptible of bearing the interpretation put on it by Dr. Aiyangar who sees in it some of the consequences of the invasions of Mahmūd of Ghazni (*ibid*).

c18.s2.60

71. R. D. Banerji- *Pālas of Bengal* p. 71.

c18.s2.61

72. *Contra* R. D. Banerji: ‘The Tirumalai inscription of Rājēndra Cōḷa I shows that the ancient Gauḍa and Vanga had become divided into a large number of small kingdoms’ (*ibid.* p. 69).

c18.s2.62

73. A Lakṣmīśūra was *samast-āṭavika-sāmanta-cakra-cūḍāmaṇi* in the reign of Rāmapāla, (*ibid.* p. 72).

c18.s2.63

74. *ibid.* pp. 72-73; cf *Prabodha-candrodaya*, Act ii, where we have: *nūnamayam dakṣiṇarāḍha-pradēśā-dāgato-bhaviṣyati;* and *Gauḍam rāṣṭram-anuttamam nirupamā tatrāpi Rāḍhāpuri.*

c18.s2.64

75. See note A at the end of the chapter.

c18.s2.65

76. vv. 117, 119.

c18.s2.66

77. *ASI.* 1911-12 pp. 173-4. Venkayya makes a gratuitous assumption that the water of the Ganges was taken at Allahabad, and identifies Lāḍa with Berar. He says: ‘As we cannot imagine that all Northern India was conquered by Rājēndra Cōḷa’s general in about a year, the only reasonable alternative seems to be that a few previously chosen tracts of country were actually invaded and if the inhabitants offered any resistance, a regular war was gone through. The names of the remaining territorial divisions with their rulers were ascertained and included in the list of kings overcome. . . . The exact course which these roving pilgrims followed in Northern India cannot be easily traced at present’ (p. 174).

c18.s2.67

78. v. 109 of the Tiruvālangāḍu plates.

c18.s2.68

79. *ibid* v. 124.

c18.s2.69

⁸⁰ *Pālas of Bengal* pp. 73, 99.
81. Verse 111, end of Anantaśambhu's gloss (Madras Mss. Library). In two verses introduced by the glossator with the words '*atra pūrva-kathā-prasaṅgaḥ*,' Rājēndra is said to have himself gone to bathe in the Ganges. Krishna Sastri wrongly ascribes these statements to the *Siddhāntasārāvaḷi* itself and suggests that the work was composed in Rājēndra's time and under his patronage. *SII*. iii introduction p. 22.
82. Pāmulavāka plates—*JAHRS*, ii, p. 287 l. 63.
83. *EI*. xvi, p. 77.
84. *Bharati*, xx, p. 439; *Eastern Cāḷukyas*, pp. 241-4.
85. 482-K of 1893 (*SII*. v. no. 82), and *Eastern Cāḷukyas*, p. 229, *n.* 1.
86. 213 of 1911. I am not sure of the correctness of the date in a record from Maḷūr of the 13th year (*EC*. ix cp. 84) which also gives the full introduction. There is a fragment dated in the 11th year from Kurubūru (Mysore) mentioning the conquest of Kaḍāram (*EC*. x ct. 47). But the date is obviously too early; perhaps an instance of a gift of the 11th year recorded some years later.
87. v. 123, Cf. Karandai v. 62.
88. *SII*. ii p. 109. The notes that follow explain my differences with Hultzsch.
89. The conjecture '*vākiyam*' (p. 107 n. 5) does not help. The reading in other records '*vāgaiyam*' is quite good, '*vāgai*' victory, '*am*' is expletive. Porukaḍal, 'fighting ocean' is a common expression for 'army'. '*Kumbakkari*' means 'elephant with the *kumba*, the globular front.'
90. Hultzsch has: 'extensive city of the enemy.' The Tanjore text '*ārttavanahanagar*' can hardly give his meaning. I take it to be 'ārttu + avan + ahanagar'. The tempting suggestion of Coedès that this and the following phrases may be attributes of Śrīviṣaya (*BEFEO*, xviii No. 6 p. 5 n. 1) has been partly accepted by me.
91. See *EI*. ix p. 231.
92. '*Pudavam*' is a 'small gate-way' in a larger door, a wicket.
93. This translation seems more literal than '(with) a fort situated on a high hill' for '*van-malai-ūreyil*.'
94. 'Possessing (both), cultivated land (?) and jungle' Hultzsch. Though '*tūṟu*' means 'low jungle,' the meaning of the whole phrase is by no means clear.
95. 'Was subdued by a vehement (attack)', Hultzsch. The text is '*kalāmudir- kaḍundiral*' which means that the fierce strength (*kaḍundiral*) increased (*mudir*) in fighting or war (*kalām*).
96. 'Whose flower gardens (resembled) the girdle (of the nymph) of the southern region,' Hultzsch. Though I am not sure how this curious translation was reached by Hultzsch, I suspect that he took the phrase '*tēnakkavārpoḻil*' to be composed of 'ten + nakkan + vār + poḻil', and even so the translation is forced. In truth it is tēn + nakka + vār +poḻil, the terms meaning respectively 'honey', 'laughing' 'long' and 'flower-garden.'
97. '*Toḍu-kaḍal*' is rendered by Hultzsch into 'the neighbouring sea.' But '*toḍu*' in the sense of 'touch' is a late form; and '*toḍu-kaḍal*'

c18.s2.70

is a classic phrase containing an allusion to the story of the sea being dug out by the sons of Sagara; '*toḍu*' means 'to dig.'

c18.s2.71

99. *ibid.*, p. 106.
100. *SII.*, ii, p. 195.

c18.s2.72

101. This had been noted in *Hobson-Jobson*, *BEFEO*, xviii, 6, p. 6, n. 5.

c18.s2.73

102. *ARB.* 1908, paragraph 25.

c18.s2.74

103. *BEFEO*, xviii No. 6. The extensive *Researches* (1999) of Gerini (Asiatic Society Monographs vol. 1), also deserves grateful acknowledgement from all students of the historical geography of Eastern Asia.

c18.s2.75

104. *ARB.* 1919, paragraphs, 46-47.
105. *ibid.*, 1922, paragraph, 14.
106. op. cit. p. 5.

c18.s2.76

107. The Chinese habit of abridging foreign names, especially when they are long, is well-known.

c18.s2.77

¹⁰⁸ Op. cit. pp. 23-4. See also Ferrand, *L'Empire Sumatranais de Śrī Vijaya* *JA.* 1922, pp. 163 ff.

c18.s2.78

¹⁰⁹ Hirth and Rockhill, *Chau Ju-kua* p. 35; Coedès, op. cit. p. 13.
110. pp. 60-2.

c18.s2.79

¹¹¹ Op. cit. p. 25.

c18.s2.80

¹¹² Gerini, *Researches* p. 513.

c18.s2.81

¹¹³ *Ibid.*, pp. 533-4. Coedès (p. 9) leaves the question undecided whether Malaiyūr was on the Eastern or Western Coast of Sumatra or in the South of the Malay peninsula, and observes that, in any case, it must have been a state near Palembang which, according to I-tsing, annexed Malāyu between A.D. 672 and 705, (also Gerini pp. 530-1).

c18.s2.82

¹¹⁴ *Chau Ju-kua* p. 67.

c18.s2.83

¹¹⁵ Coedès op. cit. pp. 10-11; 33-6. Dr. S. K. Aiyangar says: 'Māyiruḍingam may be Besinga (Ṛṣi Śṛṅga), the modern Rangoon' (op. *cit.* p. 576). *Contra.* Gerini—pp. 76-7. We cannot, of course, go so far afield for finding Māyiruḍingam.

c18.s2.84

¹¹⁶ Coedès, *op. cit.* pp. 11-13.

c18.s2.85

¹¹⁷ Geiger, *CV.* ch. 76, v. 63.

c18.s2.86

¹¹⁸ *ARE.* 1898-9 paragraph 47; *ARB.* 1909-10, p. 14, paragraph 40.

c18.s2.87

¹¹⁹ Eg. Kaḍāram with (Śrī)-khettara, ancient Prome (Kanakasabhai); Mādamālingam with Martaban (Smith); cf. Coedès *op. cit.* p. 6.

c18.s2.88

¹²⁰ Geiger, *CV* (ii p. 67) ch. 76 v. 35.

c18.s2.89

¹²¹ Coedès, pp. 14-5. The argument has been advanced (*ARB.* 1919 paragraph 47) that Pappāḷam and Kusumi, the two ports mentioned in the *Mahāvaṁsa* account of the Ceylonese expedition against Ramaññadēśa must both be identified together; and that as Kusumi is clearly Bassien, the former must be either Dagan or Rangoon, the neighbouring port. This argument clearly underrates the express statement in the *Mahāvaṁsa* that the fleet was scattered by a storm and that different

c18.s2.90

parts of it drifted to different ports (Ch. 76 vv. 56, 59, 63), which need not have been adjacent.

c18.s2.91

¹²² Mēviḷimbangam is sought in Perak by Rouffaer, and in Karmaranga (Kalaśapura) by Lévi pre-Aryan and pre-Dravidian (Bagchi) pp. 110-2. The former also identifies Vaḷaippandūru with Pāṇḍuranga in Campā. Krom observes: 'All these conjectures depend on our opinions, not on sufficient grounds.' See Krom *Hindoe-Javansche-Geschiedenis* pp. 251-2.

c18.s2.92

¹²³ Coedès, p. 15; *Researches* p. 93, Sylvain Lévi *Ptolemi, le Niddēsa et la Bṛhatkathā*, *Etudes Asiatiques* ii.

c18.s2.93

¹²⁴ *Chau Ju-kua* p. 68.

c18.s2.94

¹²⁵ *Ibid.*, pp. 67-8 n.

c18.s2.95

¹ *JRAS.* 1905 p. 498.

c18.s2.96

¹²⁶ *Op. cit.* pp. 16-18. The name Tāmralinga which Coedès obtains from a Sanskrit inscription from Jaiya (*ibid.*, p. 32) is near enough to Tan-ma-ling and Tamālingam, or Tamalingam, and there should be no difficulty in accepting the view that all the three forms are variants of the same name. Coedès' suggestion that the Tamil name might be read 'Tamaralingam' (p. 17) is therefore unnecessary; it is inadmissible as 'Mādamālingam' (or Mādamalingam) alliterates with the first half of the line '*titamāvalvinai*' in the Tamil inscriptions, and the sound '*ra*' is, by the rules of Tamil prosody, quite impossible in the second half of the line; but *tīdamar val-vinai mā Damarlingam* is a possible reading of the Tamil line, according to Desikavināyakam Pillai.

c18.s2.97

¹²⁷ Tawney's *Kathāsaritsāgara*, i 87, 92, 552; ii 44, 598 where Kaṭāha is called an island; and the Leyden grant. Also Karandai v. 62.

c18.s2.98

¹²⁸ vv. 138, 189.

c18.s2.99

¹²⁹ *Pattuppāṭṭu* p. 550 (3rd Edn.). Skt. Kaṭāha and Tamil Kaḍāram are, as pointed out by Coedès (*op. cit.* p. 20; also Ferrand, *JA.* 1922 pp. 5-1), semantically related, and mean 'a copper cauldron'; Tam. Kaḍāram has also the sense of 'brown colour bordering on the black', and Kāḷagam the sense of 'blackness.' Apparently this synonymity has induced Naccinārkkiniyar and the lexicographers to gloss Kāḷagam by Kaḍāram. Kaḍāram and Kiḍāram are evidently different readings of the same toponym; they have, however, no phonetic connection with Kaṭāha or with Kāḷagam.

c18.s2.100

¹³⁰ *op. cit.* pp. 20-2.

c18.s2.101

¹³¹ .Ferrand says that Kaḍāram, Kaṭāha and Kāḷagam cannot represent Kedah on the W. coast of the Malay peninsula (*JA.* 1922 p. 51). 'Geographically,' he says, 'Kaḍāram and Kiḍāram are situated in Sumatra according to Tamil texts,' and he cites the authority of the Pāṇḍya inscriptions 588 of 1916 and 356 of 1906 as summed up in the epigraphical reports. These texts by no means imply anything more than that the king of Śāvakam was also the king of Kaḍāram in the thirteenth as in the eleventh century. The political position of Śrī Vijaya and Kaḍāram in relation to Jaiya in the thirteenth century has been dealt with by Coedès in *Bijdragen Tot de Taal Land etc.* Deel 83 (1927) pp. 459 ff. in the paper '*A propos de la chute Du Royaume de Śrī Vijaya*,' where he reiterates his view that Kaḍāram is Kedah. named Kēvudan; this is due to his failure to split correctly the words *añjaṟku*, *ēvu*, *tan*. See e.g. 54 of 1893 and 6 of 1890.

c18.s2.102

Though Ferrand was inclined in 1922 (*JA.* p. 51) to locate Kaḍāram in the south of Sumatra or on its east coast, it must be mentioned that he left the question open as he himself felt the weakness of the texts he relied on. Gerini’s brief discussion (at p. 833 of his *Researches*) on which Dr. S. K. Aiyangar bases his identification of Kaḍāram with Kerti on the N. E. coast of Sumatra (*Gañgaikoṇḍa Cōḷa* pp. 568 ff.) has now been superseded.

c18.s2.103

132. S. K. Aiyangar, *op. cit.* pp. 566; 571.

c18.s2.104

133. Hirth and Rockhill-*Chau Ju-kua* pp. 18-9.

c18.s2.105

134. Gerini-*Researches* p. 609 n. 2 unduly abridges the length of Rājarāja’s reign to 985-1002 and imagines difficulties which do not exist. Even if Rājarāja’s reign did not extend beyond the 29th year (1014), the embassy to China may have left in his life-time and reached China in the succeeding year after some delay *en route* in the Malay region. See also *Chau Ju-kua* p. 100.

Linked texts (13)

Maṇimēkalai — Cīttalaic Cāttaṉār, Tamil
Cilappatikāram — Iḷaṅkō Aṭikaḷ, Tamil
Aṉpil plates, time of Sundara Cōḻa, year 4 — Tamil
Epigraphia Indica
Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum
Pattuppāṭṭu — Tamil
Epigraphia Carnatica
Travancore Archaeological Series
South Indian Inscriptions
Prabodhacandrodaya — Kṛṣṇamiśra, Sanskrit
Tirupparuttikkuṉṟu inscription of Irugappa, dated in the Prabhava year — Sanskrit
Kariyamāṇikka-Perumāḷ temple at Vijayamaṅgalam inscription of Rājakēsarivarman Vīra-Pāṇḍya — Tamil