Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c22: Chapter XIV. The Successors of Kulōttunga I A.D. 1120-63

The Cōḷas c22

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIV. The Successors of Kulōttunga I A.D. 1120-63

c22.2

Vikramacōḷa's accession to the Cōḷa throne took place on or about 29 June A.D. 1118.¹ He must have ruled for some time jointly with his father, Kulōttunga, whose latest inscriptions are dated in the fiftieth year, A.D. 1120, or even the fifty-second.² The asterism of Vikramacōḷa's birth was Uttiraṭṭādi in the month of Āni.³ He inherited an attenuated empire confined to the Tamil country proper, and the seventeen years of his rule appear to have been on the whole a period of peace. A few inscriptions in the Gaṅga country, and a somewhat larger number from the Telugu area constitute the only proofs of the efforts made during the reign to recover lost ground—efforts crowned with better success in the north than in the western country.

c22.3

The *praśastis* in Vikramacōḷa's inscriptions take two forms,⁴ both dating from his second year and employed throughout the reign. The shorter form commences *pū mādu* (*magaḷ* in some versions) *puṇara*, and the longer one *pū mālai miḍaindu*. Neither of these *praśastis* records any specific political event other than the war against Kaliṅgam and Teliṅga Bhīman waged by Vikramacōḷa in the early years of his Viceroyalty in Vēṅgī.⁵ The longer *praśasti* undergoes, in the later years of the reign,⁶ an important modification by the insertion in its middle of a passage recording the constructions and endowments made by the king in the temple of Naṭarāja at Cidambaram; this passage contains a definite date in the tenth regnal year, 15 April A.D. 1128.⁷ The inscriptions of Vikramacōḷa sometimes repeat passages and titles from those of Kulōttunga.⁸

c22.4

Besides the extant *Vikramaśōlan-ulā*, the poet laureate Oṭṭakkūttan composed a *paraṇi* on the Kaliṅga war of Vikramacōḷa. We learn the name of the work from the two other *ulās* of the same poet, and its authorship from a gloss on his *Takkayāgapparaṇi*.⁹ This work is not now available; if it is ever recovered, it may add considerably to our knowledge of this period so rich in quasi-historical works of literature.

c22.5

With the recall of Vikramacōḷa to the south in A.D. 1118, the administration of Vēṅgī passed into the hands of the Velanāṇḍu prince Cōḍa, the son of Goṅka I.¹⁰ Very soon, however, the Western Cāḷukya king, Vikramāditya VI, took advantage of Vikramacōḷa's absence from Vēṅgī to extend his sway into that kingdom and reduce the Velanāṇḍu chief to subjection. Soon after the death of Vikramāditya in A.D. 1126, Vikramacōḷa's supremacy was re-established in the southern half, if not the whole, of the Vēṅgī country. At Cebrōlu in the Guntur district, in the heart of the region ruled over by Daṇḍanāyaka Anantapāla some years before, the Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Nambaya, Lord of the city of Koḷḷipāka (Kulpak) and the Ṣaṭsahasra country, acknowledged the overlordship of Vikramacōḷa in A.D. 1127.¹¹ From the same area, we have another inscription from Niḍubrōlu dated Ś. 1054, the seventeenth regnal year of Vikramacōḷa, in which the Velanāṇḍu chiefs and their dependents continue to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Cōḷa emperor of the South.¹² The steps by which this restoration of Cōḷa supremacy in the north was effected are obscure, but the death of Vikramāditya VI, the effort put forth by Vikramacōḷa and the readiness of the Telugu chieftains to prefer the overlordship of the Cōḷas to that of the Western Cāḷukyas must all have contributed in varying degrees to the restoration.

c22.6

In another direction also, Vikramacōḷa seems to have made an effort, not so successful, to recover territory lost at the close of his father's reign. An inscription from Sugaṭūr, dated in the second year of the reign, records the construction of a temple by an official of Vikramacōḷa's army.¹³ Another inscription of the tenth year from the same region in the Kōlār district records the construction of a *vimāna* in Maddivāḷa-bēcirāk.¹⁴ It is a natural inference that Vikramacōḷa re-established the Cōḷa power in the eastern part of Mysore.

c22.7

In the sixth year of the reign there was scarcity and distress consequent on a big flood which brought destruction to the villages and their crops. A fairly extensive tract of land in the North and South Arcot districts seems to have felt the effects of the visitation. An inscription¹⁵ of A.D. 1125 from Tiruvōttūr (North Arcot) records a flood and the consequent destruction of crops leading to the sale of some land by the *ūr* for raising money to pay the taxes of the year. In the same year, at Tiruvadi (South Arcot), the Mahāsabhā had to sell some of the common land for the same purpose on account of difficulty experienced in the payment of the land tax (*kaḍamaittaṭṭu*) for the sixth regnal year.¹⁶ In a somewhat later record of the eleventh year from Kōvilaḍi (Tanjore district), the fact is mentioned that the village of Tiruppēr became deserted owing to the advent of bad times;¹⁷ it is not certain, however, that this vague statement has reference to the same conditions as those noted in the two inscriptions cited above; if that be so, the area affected by the distress must have extended into the Tanjore district also.

c22.8

In A.D. 1128, Vikramaśōḷa signalised his devotion to his family deity, Naṭarāja of Cidambaram, by devoting the bulk of the revenue derived in the year to meet the cost of extensive additions to the structure of the Cidambaram temple and of sumptuous gifts to the shrine. The event is recorded in his inscriptions dating from the eleventh year in the following terms:

c22.9

'Out of the heap of pure gold which had been brought and poured out before him by kings as tribute due for the tenth year (after the time) when a gold leaf (set with) royal gems was engraved (with the words): 'May (the King) live long (and) protect this great earth',¹⁸ (he) covered (with) fine gold the enclosure, the gate towers, halls and buildings surrounding the shrine of pure gold where his family-God (viz. Naṭēśa) practises the *tāṇḍava* (dance), as if the splendid circular mountain surrounding the earth were combined with the Eastern mountain; covered (with) splendid gold the altar on which offerings abound, so that the light of heaven was reflected (by it); covered (with) pure gold and adorned with numerous

c22.10

<!-- Page ends mid-sentence in the blockquote --> strings of large round pearls the sacred car-temple, in order that, conferring long life on the delighted people, the miraculous dancer (viz. Naṭēśa) who occupies the (golden) hall might be drawn in procession (at) the great festival called 'the festival of the great name' (*Perum-peyar-viḻā*) of the great (days of) Pūṟaṭṭādi and Uttiraṭṭādi, so as to cause prosperity (on) the great earth (and) joy to the Gods; was pleased to build a long temple street of mansions covered with jewels (!) and called (it) after his royal prosperous name; and made numberless splendid insignia, beginning with dishes cut of fine gold, together with a Kalpaka (tree) of pure gold. Having been pleased to make gladly many such (gifts) in the tenth year of his reign, (in) the month of Sittirai, on a Sunday which corresponded to Hasta, (on) the thirteenth *tithi* of the fortnight of the auspicious waxing moon,¹⁹ (he) covered the whole earth under the shade of a single parasol.'

c22.11

We may not accept this high-flown account as literally true; but Cidambaram, the most celebrated of South Indian Śaiva shrines, had attracted the devotion of Cōḷa kings as early as the reign of Parāntaka I, if not earlier; and after the foundation of Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḻapuram and the transference of the capital of the kingdom from Tanjore to that place, Cidambaram rose in importance on account of its proximity to the new capital and the possibility of frequent royal visits to it. Tanjore and Tiruvārūr, which held the chief position in the days of Rājarāja I, now took a somewhat secondary place. It seems probable that Vikramacōḷa's buildings and gifts in Cidambaram were meant to complete an extensive remodelling of the temple, a remodelling begun by Naralōkavīra in the closing years of Kulōttunga's reign, and that this chieftain had much to do with the planning and execution of Vikramacōḷa's projects in the holy city.²⁰ Later inscriptions call the first *prākāra* wall of the temple by the name Vikramaśōḻan-tiru-māḷigai;²¹ and one of the main streets round the temple bears the name Vikramaśōḻan-tengu-tiruvīdi.²² Though there is no epigraphical confirmation of the fact, the *Śrīraṅgam Kōyilolugu* states that Vikramacōḷa built the fifth wall surrounding the temple of Raṅganātha at Śrīraṅgam, besides some other structures including a temple of Rāma.

c22.12

Some idea of the king’s share in the control of the administration is gained from a study of his personal movements incidentally recorded in the inscriptions of the reign. That Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḻapuram was the capital and therefore the normal place of royal residence is seen from an inscription which mentions a sēnāpati commanding at the outer gate (*puṟavāyil*) of the palace at Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḻapuram.²³ In A.D. 1122 the king issues an order from Muḍikoṇḍa-cōḻapuram,²⁴ another name for Paḻaiyāṟu near Kumbakōṇam.²⁵ The year after, he spent some time in a maṇḍapa near a tank on the southern side of Vaṣāṟu alias Kunivalanallūr in the Kāliyūr Kōṭṭam, (Chingleput district).²⁶ In 1124 again, he was in the South Arcot district living in a palace at Vīranārāyaṇa-caturvēdimangalam, i.e., Kāṭṭumannārkōyil.²⁷ Lastly, in the twelfth year, A.D. 1130, Vikramacōḻa is found living in a palace in Cidambaram.²⁸ It is thus clear that the king was constantly touring his territories and that there were palaces in the more important cities. besides maṇḍapas and other structures all over the country, ready to be used as camping places by the sovereign in his tours. The importance of such royal progresses for ensuring efficient administration in an autocratic mediaeval state can hardly be overrated and in undertaking them, Vikramācōḻa was no doubt following the regular practice of the Cōḻa rulers of this period.

c22.13

The most characteristic title of Vikramacōḻa is Tyāgasamudra, ‘the ocean of liberality’ which occurs in the inscriptions and in the *Vikramasōḻan ulā*.²⁹ The Sevvelimēḍu Sanskrit inscription of the sixteenth year gives him the titles Tyāgavārākara, only a variant of the above-mentioned title, and Akaḷanka, ‘the spotless one,’³⁰ applied in the *Kalingattapparaṇi* to Kulōttunga I.³¹ For the rest, we have seen, that some of his inscriptions exactly reproduce the titles of his father including even the Rājakēsari title, though in reality Vikrama was a Parakēsari. Two of his queens are mentioned prominently in the inscriptions, Mukkōkkiḻān and Tyāgapatākā, of whom the former was the chief till about A.D. 1126-27. After her death, Tyāgapatākā became chief queen.³² Possibly Nambirāṭṭiyār Nēriyan-Mādēviyār who is mentioned together with her *agapparivāram* (personal retinue) in an inscription of the sixth year³³ from Tiruvidaimarudūr was a third queen, of whom we do not hear elsewhere.

c22.14

A large number of feudatory chieftains and officers are mentioned in the *Vikramaśōlan-ulā* and in the inscriptions. The list of maṇḍalikas given in the *ulā* begins with the celebrated conqueror of Kalingam, Karuṇākara Toṇḍaimān.³⁴ Then there are mentioned in order: the chief of the Munaiyar, minister and warrior of Abhaya; Śōḻakōn who distinguished himself in campaigns in the west against the Kongas, Gangas and Mahrathas;³⁵ the Brahmin Kaṇṇan of the great fortress; Vāṇan, dexterous in the use of his beautiful bow in battle, possibly the same as Śuttamallan Muḍikoṇḍān *alias* Vāṇakōvaraiyar whose *dēvi* Elvār-kuḻali endowed a lamp a Tiruvaḍatturai in A.D. 1120;³⁶ Kālingar-kōn *alias* Naralōkavīra who fought with distinction, as already noted, in the southern wars of Kulōttunga's reign and was afterwards a great builder; the Kāḍava who rode a rutting elephant and was Lord of the Śeñjiyar of the strong embattled fortress;³⁷ the king of Vēṇāḍ (South Travancore) who banished Kali from the earth (by good rule); Anantapāla whose charities were well-known from the Kumari to the Ganges, perhaps the same as the Sēnāpati Śankaran Ambalam-kōyil Koṇḍān *alias* Anantapālar who made a large endowment at Tiruvāḍuturai in A.D. 1121;³⁸ the Vattava whose fierce elephant battered down the three ramparts of Northern Maṇṇai which belonged to hostile kings;³⁹ the lord of the sacred Cēdi country who destroyed the fortifications of the Karṇāṭas in a fierce fight;⁴⁰ the chief of Kārānai (?) ever victorious in war; Adigan who cut to pieces the army of North Kalinga and compelled the proud kings who had vowed war to seek refuge in flight;⁴¹ a Nuḷamba-Pallava who had earned distinction in fights at Kōṭṭār and Kollam belonging to the Pāṇḍyas; the Trigarta who subdued Kongu and Coorg, and others including the Pāṇḍya and Kēraḷa of whom no details are given and some of whom like the Māgadha and Māḷava are introduced with no apparent historical justification. From the inscriptions we can gather the names of the following feudatory chieftains and families of the Tamil country: Śūrai Nāyakan *alias* Mādhavarāyan, son of Arumbākkilān Ponnambalakkūttan *alias* Naralōkavīra;⁴² the Śāmbuvarāyas of the Śengēṇi line, afterwards an important dynasty of quasi-independent rulers in the region of North Arcot, the ancestors of the future Yādavarāyas in the neighbourhood of Kālahasti, and several others.

c22.15

Kulōttunga II must have been chosen as heir-apparent by his father Vikramacōḷa some time in May-July A.D. 1133 as his regnal years are counted in his inscriptions from this date as the starting point;⁴³ Vikramacōḷa's rule continued for a period of about two years thereafter. The *praśastis* in his inscriptions take many forms, all of them purely rhetorical and in hyperbolical praise of the excellence of his rule, but not vouchsafing a single fact of the history of the reign.⁴⁴ In one inscription he is described as 'the king who wore the crown in such wise as to add lustre to Tillainagar.'⁴⁵ This may mean that Kulōttunga II celebrated a coronation in the city of Cidambaram⁴⁶ or that in the reign of Kulōttunga II the city of Cidambaram was vastly improved and beautified. The renovation of the temple and city of Cidambaram is, in fact, the best known event of the reign and is explicitly mentioned for the first time in an inscription of the seventh year from Tiruppuṟambiyam,⁴⁷ though a title based on this act occurs as early as the third year. The *Kulōttunga-śōḻan-ulā* gives an elaborate account of the remodelling of the Cidambaram temple carried out by Kulōttunga.⁴⁸

c22.16

It starts by saying that with his peerless queen who had the right to share the honours of the throne with him, Kulōttunga went and worshipped the Dancing Śiva of Cidambaram, and that he removed the little God (Viṣṇu) from the courtyard of the Sacred Hall of Tillai.⁴⁹ The new constructions undertaken and carried out by the king are then detailed. These include *gōpurams* with seven tiers and the shrine of the goddess which delighted her heart so much by its size and its splendour that she did not think any more of the sacred mountain (Himalaya) that gave birth to her. Various parts of the temple and the city are also said to have been 'covered with gold.' The same facts are recorded more briefly in the *Rājarāja-śōḻan-ulā*⁵⁰ and the *Takkayāgapparaṇi*,⁵¹ by the same poet. It is not clear in what relation these works attributed to Kulōttunga II stand to those attributed to Vikramacōḷa in his inscriptions dating, as noticed above, from his eleventh year. We have perhaps to assume that the work started in Vikramacōḷa’s reign, if not earlier, was not completed till some years after the accession of Kulōttunga II.⁵²

c22.17

The reign of Kulōttunga appears to have been a period of peace, good government and prosperity. There is no record of any warfare, and in fact, with the exception of the removal of the shrine of Gōvindarāja from its place in Cidambaram indicating the growth of sectarian intolerance, we hear of nothing calculated to disturb the tranquillity of life in the Cōḷa dominions. The extent of the empire was maintained as it was at the close of Vikramacōḷa's reign, and the Cellūr plates show, if anything, that the restoration of Cōḷa suzerainty in the north after its temporary eclipse by the spread of Western Cāḷukya rule was complete and stable. The inscriptions of this reign from the Telugu country are more numerous than those of the preceding one. Some of the best work in Tamil literature was produced in this period, and Oṭṭakkūttan, Śēkkiḻār and others were all patronised by Kulōttunga II and his vassals.

c22.18

Gangaikoṇḍa-cōḷapuram continued to be the capital of the kingdom⁵³ though Kulōttunga, as we have seen, had a partiality for Cidambaram. The king is stated to have been residing in his palace at Vikramaśōḷa-puram in the third year of his reign.⁵⁴ Two queens of Kulōttunga are mentioned in an inscription of his second year from Tirumalavāḍi: the chief queen being Tyāgavalli also called Bhuvanamuḻuduḍaiyāḷ, and the other Mukkōkkiḻān, a princess of the family of Malāḍas (Malaiyamāns).⁵⁵ Of the titles borne by the king, Anapāya is the most characteristic and occurs not only in the inscriptions and in the *ulā* on him, but is also borne by his secretary Anapāyamūvēndavēḷān who attests the king’s orders. In several places lands granted by the king were designated Anapāya-nallūr.⁵⁶ He is also called: ‘the Perumāḷ who covered the Sacred Pērambalam with gold’,⁵⁷ ‘Tirunīṟṟuccōḷa’, a title also borne by Kulōttunga I and hence the cause of some confusion in regard to the date of Śēkkiḻār,⁵⁸ Edirili-śōḷa and Kalikaḍinda-śōḷa.⁵⁹ The inscriptions of the reign of Kulōttunga, like those of Vikramacōḷa, record several gifts by his subordinates and feudatories among whom only the Kāḍavas need be noticed here. Mōhan Āḷkkolli *alias* Kulōttunga-śōḷak-kāḍavarāyan was a chieftain of Pallava extraction who had charge of the policing of a small area near Tirumāṇikuḻi in the South Arcot district about A.D. 1136.⁶⁰ In the course of the next few years this Kāḍava chieftain attained a more important position and his inscriptions appear in different places like Tirunāmanallūr, Tiruvadi and Vṛddhācalam, and in them he is given many names and titles expressive of his growing importance; and his gifts and charitable works also become more ostentatious. In 1140, he presents gold ornaments and silver vessels to Tiruttoṇḍīśvara at Tirunāmanallūr and he bears the names Kūḍalūr Paḷḷi-Āḷappirandān Mōhan and Kulōttunga-śōḻak-kacciya-rāyan.⁶¹ About the same time he presented a jewelled necklace to the deity of Tiruvadi.⁶² Five years later, he made over to the temple at Tiruvadi the *perumbāḍikāval* on some lands and properties, and he bears now the additional titles Paññāka Muttaraiyan Āḷappirandān Araśanārāyaṇaṇ,⁶³ and Kūḍalūr is stated to be situated in Perugaḷūr-nāḍu of Tirumunaippāḍi. In 1146, he made over to the Tiruvadi temple some further taxes and dues from three *dēvadāna* villages located in his beat, and on this occasion he styled himself Kuḍalūr Paññāka Muttaraiyan Āḷappirandān Ēḷiśaimōhanāna Kulōttunga-śōḻa Kāḍavarāyan.⁶⁴ Lastly in A.D. 1148, he built a maṇḍapa called Ēḷiśai-mōhan for the *mahāsnapana* of the deity at Vṛddhācalam, and in recording this act he called himself Āḷappirandān Ēḷiśaimōhan alias Kulōttunga-śōḻa Kāḍavar-Ādittan.⁶⁵ These records reveal to us the beginnings of the feudatory family from which sprang the celebrated Kōpperuñjinga whose boisterous career shook the Cōḷa empire to its foundations and hastened its downfall.

c22.19

We may also note Madhurāntaka Pottappiccōḷa Siddharasa, one of whose inscriptions⁶⁶ found at Nandalūr clearly attests the extent of the Cōḷa empire in that direction. A curious inscription from Tirugōkarṇam in the Pudukkōttah state mentions a clan of Brahmins who exercised the right of crowning kings and who had been settled in the Ten-kavira-nāḍu by the king Kiḷḷi who had a regard for their ancient connection with the great city of Tuvarai (Dvārakā).⁶⁷ The presence in the Pāṇḍya country of Lambakarṇas with special duties at the coronation of a king is noticed in the *Mahāvaṃsa*.⁶⁸

c22.20

The latest regnal year found in the inscriptions of Kulōttunga II is the sixteenth or the seventeenth; this means his reign came to a close about A.D. 1150. Some four years before this date, he associated his son⁶⁹ Rājarāja II in the actual conduct of the administration, and in the inscriptions of Parakēsari Rājarāja his regnal years are counted from some date after 6 April in A.D. 1146.⁷⁰ Of the reign of Rājarāja II many inscriptions have been preserved which contain a number of *praśastis* attesting the extent of his kingdom and disclosing the names and positions of a number of feudatories. Judging from the silence of these inscriptions on the military transactions of the reign, one may infer that, like the reign of Kulōttunga II, that of Rājarāja II was generally peaceful. The most common *praśasti* of the reign is that commencing *pū maruviya tirumādum* which gives a high-flown account of the benefits of Rājarāja's rule and appears for the first time in inscriptions of the third year.⁷¹ This mentions one queen who is called Avanimuḻuduḍaiyāḷ and is said to have sat on the throne along with the king. Much longer, but equally unhistorical, is another *praśasti*, also dating from the third year;⁷² this commences *pū maruviya poḻil ēḻum* and, among other things, emphasises the flourishing condition of Tamil literature in the reign by calling the king *muttamiḻkkut-talaivan*, the patron of the three-fold Tamil;⁷³ three queens are mentioned at the end of this *praśasti* besides Avanimuḻuduḍaiyāḷ mentioned above, two of these being called by the almost identical titles Bhuvana-muḻuduḍaiyāḷ and Dharaṇi-muḻuduḍaiyāḷ, and the third Ulaguḍai Mukkōkkiḻān, doubtless the same as the queen mentioned in two other inscriptions of the fourteenth and seventeenth years of the reign.⁷⁴ Two other *praśastis* also occur in the inscriptions of the reign, and they begin *puyal vāyttu vaḷam peruga*⁷⁵ and *kaḍalśūḻnda pār mādar*.⁷⁶ The former occurring in a record of the fifth year of Rājarāja II was subsequently adopted by Kulōttunga III in whose inscriptions an account of his Pāṇḍyan invasion is inserted in the body of this rather short introduction. Likewise the latter, occurring in a record of Rājarāja's tenth year, becomes the chief *praśasti* of the reign of Rājādhirāja II, and it is noteworthy that the queen mentioned at the end of this *praśasti* is called Ulaguḍai Mukkōkkiḻān-aḍigaḷ in the inscriptions both of Rājarāja and Rājādhirāja,⁷⁷ a clear proof that this is a title, not the personal name, of the chief queen.

c22.21

The extent of the empire under Rājarāja's rule is borne out by the provenance of his inscriptions. An inscription⁷⁸ of the seventh year from Kendaṭṭi recording the construction of a temple by a Kāḍuveṭṭi chieftain on a hill at Śūṟūr in Kuvaḷāla-nāḍu, the mention in a fragmentary record⁷⁹ from the Salem district of Tagaḍūr-nāḍu in Gaṅga-nāḍu, a sub-division of Nigarili-śōḻamaṇḍalam, and a gift recorded at Perumbēr⁸⁰ in a.d. 1164 by a person who calls himself Tagaḍūr Kiḻavan, show that in Koṅgu and the eastern part of the Gaṅga country, the Cōḷa hegemony still continued to be recognised in some manner. In the Telugu country, Rājarāja's suzerainty is clearly attested by a fair number of stone inscriptions found throughout the Vēṅgī country up to Drākṣārāma,⁸¹ though it is clear that the feudatory chiefs of Velanāṇḍu were becoming more and more independent and overbearing. As a matter of fact, from the close of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I when, as we have seen, great disasters befell the Cōḷa empire, and its extent became greatly circumscribed by the successes of the Hoysaḷas and the Western Cāḷukyas, the most remarkable phenomenon within the empire was the steady growth in the power and influence of local dynasties. The hold of the central administration over the outlying parts of the empire had always been less firm than in the districts nearer the capital; but by the end of Rājarāja II's rule, the administrative system was betraying signs of weakening even at its centre. The monarchy is no longer the vigorous autocracy that it was, ever active in the pursuit of war and glory, in the maintenance of order and the promotion of costly and essential enterprises of public utility. The inscriptions give clear indications of the increasing helplessness of the king in the face of the growing turbulence of his vassals, who, while acknowledging the nominal suzerainty of their overlord, play a more prominent part than the suzerain or his government in the conduct of the affairs of the area under their control. The system of village administration with its autonomous local assemblies seems to have been generally unaffected by the changed situation; but the strength of the centralised bureaucratic administration so laboriously planned and built up by Rājarāja I and his successors was gone.

c22.22

Gangāpuri no doubt continued to be the capital of the kingdom. The inscriptions of the reign say little of the king's movements or of his part in the administration. One record of the thirteenth year⁸² shows him residing at Āyirattaḷi. Of the titles of Rājarāja, the most noteworthy as it occurs both in the inscriptions and in the *Rājarājan-ulā* is Cōḷēndrasimha.⁸³ Another title commonly applied to him in literature, but not traceable in epigraphy, is Kaṇḍan.⁸⁴ The concluding veṇbā in the *ulā* also calls him Vīradhara and Vīrōdaya. From the inscriptions, it is clear that Rājarāja also took to himself the titles Rājagambhīra and Ediriliśōḷa,⁸⁵ and possibly also Neṟiyuḍaiccōḷa.

c22.23

The Kāḍavas are represented in this reign by Kūḍalūr Āḷappirandān Mōhan alias Rājarājak-kāḍavarāyan⁸⁶ who is probably identical with Kulōttungaśōḷak-kāḍavarāyan of the previous reign, and by Rājēndraśōḷa Pallavar-ādittan,⁸⁷ who is called also the lord of Kāñcīpura. The former assigned to a temple at Elvānāśūr a considerable number of taxes and and dues for its expenses, while the latter built a stone temple on a hill in the Kōlār district. There was also Pallavarāyar of Kārigai Kuḷattūr who built the stone temple of Rājarājēśvaram Uḍaiyār in Pallavarāyanpēṭṭai and, as we shall see, played a leading⁸⁸ part after the death of Rājarāja II. Two Śengēṇi chieftains are mentioned: a certain Nittavinōda Śāmbuvarāyan,⁸⁹ whose wife, Śōṟuḍaiyāḷ, endowed a lamp at Brahmadēśam in South Arcot, and Rājanārāyaṇa Śāmbuvarāyan, also called Ammaiyappan Śīyan Pallavāṇḍān whose gifts are recorded at Munnūr and Accarapākkam.⁹⁰ The alias of Rājanārāyaṇa, it may be noted in passing, seems to imply a dynastic connection between the Śengēṇis and the Kāḍavas.

c22.24

The latest certain regnal year cited in Rājarāja's inscriptions is 26.⁹¹ One record from Tiruvoṟṟiyūr seems to give the twenty-seventh year, though the first figure in this date is not free from doubt.

c22.25

Another inscription from Konidena gives 28, but the Śaka date is missing.⁹² The end of Rājarāja's reign would therefore fall about A.D. 1173. The inscriptions of his successor Rājādhirāja II date the commencement of his reign from some day in the month of March A.D. 1163;⁹³ it is clear from one of these⁹⁴ that Rājādhirāja was not the son of Rājarāja, but like Rājarāja himself, a grandson of Vikramacōḷa, and that he was chosen by Rājarāja to succeed him on the Cōḷa throne as there was no one in the direct line suitable for the purpose.⁹⁵ Within a few years of the choice of Rājādhirāja for the succession, a great civil war convulsed the Pāṇḍya country in the south and the Cōḷas were compelled to take sides in the war to check the growth of Ceylonese influence on the mainland. The war had practically closed by the time of Rājarāja's death, but as its details are narrated in the records of Rājādhirāja II and Kulōttunga III, they will be considered in the next chapter.

c22.26

⁹² 20 of 1899.

c22.27

⁹³ *EI.* ix, p. 219 and x, p. 126.

c22.28

⁹⁴ 433 of 1924.

c22.29

⁹⁵ 433 of 1924, 11. 2-3. See note C below.

Note C. On the Pallavarāyanpēṭṭai Inscription (433 of 1924)

c22.s1.1

ON THE PALLAVARĀYANPĒṬṬAI INSCRIPTION

c22.s1.2

(433 of 1924).

c22.s1.3

This inscription of the 8th year of Rājādhirāja II is noticed at some length in *ARE.* 1924, Part II, paragraphs 19-21. It has been edited by Somasundara Desikar (*QJMS.* Vol. xix, pp. 57 ff.), who differs from the official epigraphist (Venkoba Rao) and holds that the inscription does not support the view that Kulōttunga III was a son of Rājarāja II and a baby at the time of his father's death. I think that Desikar is right on this point. But a careful consideration of this difficult record in the light of the data to be gathered from other contemporary inscriptions has led me to conclusions different from those of the two writers cited above, and considering the importance of the inscription for the history of this period, I proceed to examine it in detail. V. Venkatasubba Aiyar has also edited this inscription in *EI.* xxi, pp. 184-93.

c22.s1.4

The text given by Desikar in *QJMS.* is inaccurate in many ways, particularly because he has introduced emendations not all of which have been explained in his notes. The text published in the *EI.* is much more dependable, and agrees closely with the transcript sent me by S. K. Govindaswami who studied the inscription *in situ*.

c22.s1.5

Lines 1—4 contain the usual *paraśasti* of Rājādhirāja and the regnal year in words and call for no remarks. Lines 5—14 deal with the official position held by Pallavarāyar and the part he played in the choice and coronation of Rājādhirāja, first as heir-apparent to Rājarāja and then as his successor after his death, and this section, which is unique in its account of the circumstances of Rājādhirāja's accession, is also the most difficult to interpret on account of the gaps in the record. Lines 14—21 describe the part of Pallavarāyar in the Pāṇḍya Civil War and the expulsion of the Ceylonese forces from the Pāṇḍya country. Then follows the statement (l. 21) that he died of some disease, and the rest of the inscription records the gift of forty *vēlis* of *iraiyili* land to his relations and dependents by king Rājādhirāja in his eighth regnal year (ll. 21—28), the gift being attested by several officers of government (ll. 28—30). If this analysis of the record is correct, it follows that this record is dated after the death of Pallavarāyar which took place after that of Rājarāja II.

c22.s1.6

The general construction of ll. 5—14 may now be indicated; Pallavarāyar (5—6), peṟṟu niṉṟu (7), parigarittu (10), tiru abhiṣēkam paṇṇuvittu (13)⁹⁶ orupaḍiyum paṇṇi (14). All the actions indicated by the participles quoted were thus the acts of Pallavarāyar, and this fact must be firmly grasped. Line 5 is simple and gives details of the name and title of Pallavarāyar and the location of his fief. The words that follow and end with *peṟṟu niṉṟu* explain the status of Pallavarāyar. Though this general sense is clear, the exact import of the phrases employed is somewhat obscure. The whole passage may be rendered thus: ‘having become the Captain (*mudaligaḷ*) of the ten *kōyil-kottus*⁹⁷ of Periyadēvar Rājarājadēvar and of the departments (*tuṟaigaḷ*) including the elephant (corps), cavalry and *agambaḍi-niyāyam*, having duties similar to those of all mudalis, and being in receipt of all honours including *mun ēval* due to *mudalis*.’ The ten *kōyil-kottus* remind one of the passage in the *Kōyil-oḷugu* describing how Rāmānuja amplified the temple-organisation at Śrī- raṅgam by dividing the attendants of the deity (*parijanangaḷ*) into ten groups (*koṭṭu*), which took the place of the earlier and more restricted establishment of five *koṭṭus*. The idea seems to be that Pallavarāyar had the control of the entire palace (*kōyil*) establishment. The term *agambaḍiniyāyam* (*nikāyam*) means the body of servants in immediate attendance on the king.⁹⁸ The meaning of *mun-ēval* is more difficult; literally it means 'first command.'⁹⁹

c22.s1.7

The next part of the inscription ending with *parigarittu* (l. 10) begins with the mention of Rājarāja's death, and narrates the action taken by Pallavarāyar for the protection of the king's children who were aged one and two years and of his harem and treasures. On account of the tender age of the children, Pallavarāyar had to remove them from the cantonment (*paḍai-vīḍu*) at Āyirattaḷi to another place, evidently to insure their safety; the gaps in l. 9 render the drift of the passage extremely uncertain, but we may be sure that Pallavarāyar succeeded in his main object (*ellā aḍaivu kēḍugaḷam vārāda iḍattu* l. 10). What the particular danger was to which the children and harem of the late king would have been exposed had they remained at Āyirattaḷi is by no means clear.

c22.s1.8

We now come to the part of the inscription directly bearing on Rājādhirāja's accession (ll. 10—14). This part begins with the phrase *iva......periyadēvar eḻundaruḷi......nāḷilē*, and in spite of the gaps, the phrase is a clear warning that, having so far dealt with what happened on the death of Rājarājadēva, the inscription now proceeds to narrate something which took place in his life-time. There were no sons fit for succession—*tiru abhiṣēkattukku uriya piḷḷaigaḷ inriyē i(ruk)kiṟapaḍiyai pārttu*—and something had to be done: enquiries were made into the rights of possible claimants—*(a)nnāḷilē kāriyam irundapaḍi vi(cāraṇai)*¹⁰⁰ *śeydu*, and in the end, there was chosen for the succession a grandson of Vikramacōḷa, Ediriliperumāl, the son of Neṟi-uḍai-perumāl, of Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḻapuram. Apparently Pallavarāyar was commissioned to fetch the heir-apparent so chosen to Rājarāja's presence and to install him in his new place; four years later, he was anointed under the name Rājādhirājadēva with the consent of the council of officers (*uḍan kūṭṭam*) and the *nāḍu*. A distinction is made between *maṇḍai kavippittu* (l. 12) and *tiru abhiṣēkam paṇṇuvittu* (l. 13), two ceremonies in which Pallavarāyar played a part. Edirilipperumāl was a grandson of Vikramacōḻa perhaps by a daughter, otherwise unknown.

c22.s1.9

Another view of this succession, first suggested by T. N. Subrahmanyan, is quite probable. On this view the grandson of Vikramacōḻa, named Edirilipperumāl, was not Rājādhirāja II, but Kulōttunga II who was crowned at the death of *peri(ya dēvar)*, i.e. Vikramacōḻa himself, and this furnished a precedent for the coronation of Rājādhirāja II, ascertained by enquiry—*munnāḷilē kāriyam irundapaḍi vi(cāraṇai) śēydu* of l. 11. So that *maṇḍai kavippittu* (l. 12) and *tirū-abhiṣēkam paṇṇuvittu* (l. 13) apply respectively to Kulōttunga II and Rājādhirāja. That Kulōttunga II was well known as Edirilā (i) pperumāl is clear from the *Piḷḷaittamiḻ* and from the inscriptions of his reign. An objection to this view arises, however, from chronology. Kulōttunga counts his reign from May-June a.d. 1133, and Vikramacōḻa continued to rule till two years later. But for Kulōttunga's case to be an exact precedent, we may have to assume that, like Rājarāja II, Vikramacōḻa saw that he had no heir in his direct line, and chose his grandson perhaps by a daughter as his successor, made him *yuvarāja* in 1133 and that the *yuvarāja* was duly crowned king at the proper time. This may well have been so. But the contemporary poet Oṭṭakkūttan calls Kulōttunga the son of Vikramacōḻa, and this T.N.S. explains away by assuming that the king adopted his daughter's son.

c22.s1.10

We may note further, that a Tamil inscription from Hemāvati (Anantapur district)—117 of 1899, *SII.* vi. No. 553—dated in Vijaya, Yr. 2 of Tribhuvanacakravartin Kulōttunga—yields 1166-7 as the date of Kulōttunga III's accession. One wonders if he too was brought from Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḻapuram along with Rājādhirāja, and had to bide his time in exile, supported by feudatories like Mallideva Cōḍa Mahārāja till his position improved more than a decade later. The phrase: *Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-śōḻapura(ttil eḻun)daruḷi irukkira piḷḷaigaḷai (pira)yāṇam paṇṇu(vittu)* (l. 11) shows that two princes may have been involved. And ll. 13-14 show that Rājādhirāja's accession was not smooth. But the matter is obscure and calls for more study in the light of many inscriptions of Rājādhirāja from Drākṣārāma, *SII*. iv. Nos. 1074—(where regnal year 61 is a mistake for 16), 1100, 1223, 1279, 1118 and 1330—which carry his reign up to the 49th year i.e. A.D. 1212 or 1215.

c22.s1.11

The rest of the inscription may be briefly dealt with before taking up the chronology of the events of Rājarāja's reign as suggested by it. After Rājādhirāja's anointment at the end of his four years' probation, there followed the Pāṇḍyan Civil War, and Pallavarāyar led the Cōḷa forces to victory, and at the end of the campaign, he kept himself ready to carry out the further behests of his sovereign, (ll. 14—21). Then he took ill and died, evidently some time after Rājarāja's death already mentioned in the record, and Rājādhirāja gave 40 *vēlis* of land, which had been the *kāṇi* of Pallavarāyar and was now made tax-free for the benefit of his wives and relations. This was in the 8th year of Rājādhirājadēva's reign. Among the beneficiaries of this grant figures a Rājarājadēvan (read as Rājādhirājadēva by Somasundara Desikar) whose relations and children get some land for themselves; I doubt if this Rājarājadēvan can be identified with Rājarāja II as has been done (*ARE.* 1924, II, 21, *EI.* xxi, p. 185 *n.* 2). I am inclined to treat him as a son, otherwise unknown, of Pallavarāyar. But the fact that the largest share (eight *vēlis*) goes to his wife (*virundangaḷ*) and her children, and the leading part of Pallavarāyar in the removal of Rājarāja's harem and children to a safe place support the other view, and it is possible that Rājarāja's children were by the daughter of Pallavarāyar.

c22.s1.12

Venkoba Rao says: "There seems to have been great opposition, both open and secret, to the coronation of Rājādhirāja from many quarters, against which the minister carefully guarded the prince and firmly established him on the throne after imprisoning all the suspected enemies.' (*ARE.* 1924 II 20). All this seems to be reading rather too much into the obscure and fragmentary thirteenth line in the record. I agree with Venkoba Rao when he says: 'unfortunately, the inscription is much damaged in certain important portions and leaves much for surmise' (*ibid*).

c22.s1.13

To turn to chronology: Rājarāja's reign began between 6 April and 11 July a.d. 1146. The latest regnal year clearly cited in his inscriptions is 26, and the 26th year must have begun after 6 April a.d. 1171. Rājādhirāja's accession was between 28 February and 30 March a.d. 1163, so that his eighth regnal year covers the period March 1170 to March 1171. The twenty-sixth year of Rājarāja did not begin, according to this calculation, until the eighth year of Rājādhirāja had closed, and it is difficult to see how to reconcile this with the present inscription which states that Rājarāja had died before Pallavarāyar whose death occurred some time in the 8th year of Rājādhirāja.¹⁰¹ We shall see that the chronology of the Pāṇḍyan Civil War also requires that the reign of Rājādhirāja should be taken to commence somewhat later than was determined by Kielhorn.

c22.s1.14

Some inscriptions of Rājādhirāja II are known which do not work out correctly for the accession date fixed by Kielhorn and seem to indicate a later date for the commencement of his reign—19 of 1913, 571 of 1907, 428 of 1912; see *Ind. Eph.* I ii. p. 70 and *EI.* x. pp. 126-7. It should be noted with regard to these inscriptions that Sewell's suggestion that the regnal year in 571 of 1907 may be '15' is held to be impossible by Venkayya, and that 428 of 1912 contains the *kaḍal śūḻnda* introduction. These records point to a date somewhere in 1166 a.d. for Rājādhirāja's accession, a date which will fit in with the facts to which attention has been drawn above. On the other hand, 337 of 1914 (Pd. 138) clearly seems to imply an earlier date than Kielhorn's. And there is a record¹⁰² at Punganūr which implies that one and the same regnal year of this king was described as either the twelfth or the fourteenth.

c22.s1.15

In regard to copper-plate 23 of 1916-7 which couples Ś. 1091 with the 23rd regnal year of Rājarāja II, Venkatasubba Aiyar makes the, following observations. 'We know that Rājarāja II was not alive in a.d. 1169 and that the Cōḷa country was then ruled by Rājādhirāja II. The period of regency was probably denoted here (Vēṅgī) as a continuation of Rājarāja's reign.' These remarks seem to assume that no records of Rājarāja from the Tamil country are known to be dated after the accession of Rājādhirāja (1163); if this is so, attention may be invited to 267 of 1901, 411 of 1909, and 96 of 1920, though it is a fact that records of Rājarāja dated after the 19th year have not been traced in the Tamil districts. Moreover no other example of the practice postulated by Venkatasubba Aiyar of a regent or his vassals continuing to issue records in the name of a deceased king is known in the whole of Cōḷa history. There is no evidence for the view that Rājādhirāja II ruled as regent for Kulōttunga III during his minority.

c22.s1.16

The exact date when Rājādhirāja was chosen for the succession must depend on whether the regnal years of this king as counted in his inscriptions included the initial period of four years when he was on trial; seeing that the title Rājādhirāja is said to have been conferred on him only at the time of his anointment at the end of four years and that inscriptions dated in the second year bear this title, the conclusion may be drawn that the period of probation preceded the date of anointment and that the tale of Rājādhirāja's regnal years did not include this period.¹⁰³ If this is correct, the first choice must have been made sometime in A.D. 1159 or 1162 according as we adopt 1163 or 1166 as the initial year of Rājādhirāja's reign. We have seen that the latter is the more likely. Rājarāja himself lived on some years after this date.

c22.s1.17

It seems quite impossible that Kulōttunga III was one of the children of Rājarāja said to have been one and two years old at the time of his death; for he came to the throne in 1178, within six years after Rājarāja's death, and took an active part in the War of Pāṇḍyan Succession which had begun while Rājarāja was still living. The evidence of the *Kulōttungan-kōvai* and *Śaṅkaraśōḷan ulā* also points to the same conclusion. *Sen Tamil* iii., pp. 164 ff., *contra ARE.* 1909 II, 48; 1924 II, 21.; *EI.* xxi. p. 186.

c22.s1.18

¹ *EI.* vii, pp. 4-5.

c22.s1.19

² 284 of 1923; 520 of 1920; 139 of 1902. Ante, p. 330.

c22.s1.20

³ 285 of 1912.

c22.s1.21

⁴ 408 of 1909 and 175 of 1911; 157 of 1925.

c22.s1.22

⁵ Hultzsch (*SII.* iii, pp. 179-81) is inclined to distinguish three periods in the career of Vikramacōḷa. I think, that a careful study of

c22.s1.23

the syntax of the *pū mālai miḍaindu* introduction warrants the view that the Kalinga war was waged in the period of the Viceroyalty of Vēṅgī.

c22.s1.24

7. *EI.* vii, p. 5.

c22.s1.25

8. *SII.* ii, p. 308, n. 4; *EI.* vi, p. 224.

c22.s1.26

9. V. 776. It must be noted that Oṭṭakkūttan who mentions this *paraṇi* thrice in his works does not state that he wrote it. Hultzsch considers this a reference to the *Kalingattupparaṇi* of Jayangoṇḍār, which, he says, describes the Kalinga war waged by Kulōttunga before a.d. 1095-6, (*SII.* iii, p. 180). In fact, Jayangoṇḍār's work had reference to the second Kalinga war of Kulōttunga's reign in which Vikramaśōḷa seems to have had no part. The *Paraṇi* on Vikrama's war must have referred to the earlier occasion, (we have no evidence of any other war against Kalingam), and might have been composed by Kūttan some time in the reign of Vikramacōḷa.

c22.s1.27

10. *EI.* iv, p. 42, vv. 34-5.

c22.s1.28

11. 153 of 1897. See p. 330 *ante.*

c22.s1.29

12. 163 of 1897. Śaka 1054 is a mistake for 1057, *EI.* vii, p. 5.

c22.s1.30

13. 175 of 1911—*EC.* x. Sd. 9.

c22.s1.31

14. 467 of 1911—*EC.* x. Sp. 61.

c22.s1.32

15. 87 of 1900.

c22.s1.33

16. 30 of 1903.

c22.s1.34

17. 276 of 1901—*SII.* vii. 496. *Kālam pollādāy nammūr aḻindu kuḍi ōḍip-pōyk-kiḍandamaiyil.*

c22.s1.35

18. See *SII.* iii. p. 185, n. 2. It is possible that the benediction engraved on a gold leaf or plate was repeated at the end of each regnal year as it was completed and a new year began.

c22.s1.36

19. The date is: 15 April, a.d. 1128, Kielhorn, *EI.* vii, p. 3.

c22.s1.37

20. *Studies,* pp. 176 ff.

c22.s1.38

21. 282, 284, 287 of 1913.

c22.s1.39

22. 312 of 1913.

c22.s1.40

23. 71 of 1926; *ARE.* 1926, II, 27.

c22.s1.41

24. 168 of 1906.

c22.s1.42

25. 271 of 1927.

c22.s1.43

26. 299 of 1910; *ARE.* 1911, II, 27.

c22.s1.44

27. 63 of 1918.

c22.s1.45

28. 163 of 1902.

c22.s1.46

29. 272-3 of 1907; 49 of 1931. *Ulā* ll. 431, 662, etc.

c22.s1.47

30. *EI.* vi. pp. 227-30.

c22.s1.48

31. ix. vv. 7, 16; xiii, v. 89.

c22.s1.49

32. *SII.* iii, pp. 181-2.

c22.s1.50

33. 136 of 1895.

c22.s1.51

34. ll. 119 ff.

c22.s1.52

35. Curiously enough the Kalingar are also included in the list.

c22.s1.53

³⁶ 229 of 1929. A certain Kulōttunga-cōḷa-Mahābali Bāṇarāja of Tiruvārūr claimed descent from the minister of the legendary Cōḷa king Manu, (164 of 1894).

c22.s1.54

37. This is perhaps the earliest mention of the fortress of 'Gingee'. Śeñji is called a dēvadāna of Tiruvēkambam Uḍaiyār in 159 of 1930.

c22.s1.55

39. Maṇṇai is perhaps Mālkhed. But we cannot say when this event took place. 416 of 1893 calls Muḍikoṇḍān, whose elephant is specially mentioned, the king of the Vattar.

c22.s1.56

40. By the Cēdi country the poet means the land of the Cēdirāyas, the hilly area round about Tirukkōyilūr, Kiḷiyūr, etc. In the inscriptions there are three Malaiyamān chieftains mentioned: (1) Malaiyamān Tirukkala Marundan Āḷvangakāra Malaiyamān, (408 of 1909); (2) Ubaiyan alias Vikramacōḷa-cēdiyarāyan (286 of 1902: 371 of 1908); and (3) Śūrriyan Rāman alias Rājēndraśōḷa Malaiyakularājan (177 of 1906; called Malaiyan Mallan in 373 of 1908).

c22.s1.57

41. Adigan's part in the Kalinga war is not mentioned in the *Kalingattupparaṇi* or the inscriptions. It should be remembered, however, that another *Kalingapparaṇi* by Oṭṭakkūttan is no longer accessible.

c22.s1.58

42. 128 of 1930.

c22.s1.59

43. *EI.* x, p. 138; xi, p. 287. No 135 of 1934-5 of Yr. 9 works out correctly for March 24 A.D. 1142, *ARE.* II, 15.

c22.s1.60

44. The beginnings of the chief forms of the *praśastis* with the time of their earliest occurrence may be noted:

c22.s1.61

*Pū mannu pāvai*—56 of 1893 of the 2nd year;
*Pū maruviya puvi ēḻum*—85 of 1895 of the same year.
*Pū mēya (mēvi) vaḷar*—422 of 1904 of the same year;
*Pū mannu padumam*—255 of 1929 of the 3rd year;
*Pū mēvu tirumagaḷ*—572 of 1907 of the 8th year; and
*Pū mannu yāṇar*—83 of 1895 of the 15th year.

c22.s1.62

See also *ARE* 1913, II, 35.

c22.s1.63

45. 155 of 1902.

c22.s1.64

46. The *Periyapurāṇam* (Caṇḍēśura v. 8)—mentions that five cities shared the honour of witnessing the coronations of Cōḷa kings.

c22.s1.65

47. 350 of 1927. *ARE.* 1927, II, 24.

c22.s1.66

48. ll. 69–116.

c22.s1.67

49. 363 of 1907 seems to open with a reference to this fact and this part of the inscription appears to have been wantonly damaged as the rest of it is in excellent preservation. Perhaps the earliest reference to the relative positions of the shrines of Gōvindarāja and Naṭarāja in Cidambaram is that of Māṇikkavāśagar in his *Tirukkōvaiyār* v. 86. Several ancient temples appear to have had shrines both of Śiva and Viṣṇu, and there seems to have been at one period a deliberate attempt to harmonise the relations between the followers of the two deities, an attempt giving rise to the cult of Śankaranārāyaṇa. The sectarianism of a later age proved itself intolerant of the eclectic arrangements of an earlier time.

c22.s1.68

50. ll. 58-66.

c22.s1.69

⁵¹ vv. 777, 808-10.

c22.s1.70

53. *Kulōttungaśōḻan ulā*, l. 118.
54. 271 of 1915; 533 of 1921.
55. 85 of 1895.

c22.s1.71

56. 271 of 1915; 533 of 1921; 346 of 1911 and 531 of 1912 mention an officer Anapāya Mūvēnda Vēḷān.

c22.s1.72

57. 157 of 1902.

c22.s1.73

58. 363 of 1911; 312 of 1901, and *Śen Tamil* xxv. pp. 271-5, *ARE.* 1912, II. 27.

c22.s1.74

59. 255 of 1929; 380 of 1908.
60. 157 of 1902.
61. 374 of 1902.

c22.s1.75

62. 391 of 1921; see also 467 of 1921 (Tiruveṇṇainallūr). At *ARE.* 1922, II, 39 the former record is assigned to the reign of Kulōttunga III with confusing results.

c22.s1.76

63. 45. of 1903.
64. 43 of 1903.
65. 137 of 1900..
66. 572 of 1907.
67. 411 of 1902; Pd. 120.
68. *CV.* ch. 77. v. 28 and n. 1.
69. *Rājarāja-śōḻan-ulā*, ll. 66-7.
70. *EI.* ix, p. 210.
71. 465 of 1919.
72. 243 of 1930.

c22.s1.77

73. Iyal, Iśai, and Nāḍagam—roughly prose and poetry, song and drama.

c22.s1.78

⁷⁴ 16 of 1903; 369 of 1911. Bhuvanamuḻuduḍaiyāḷ is also mentioned in *Rājarājan ulā*, l. 78.
75. 165 of 1908.

c22.s1.79

⁷⁶ 219 of 1901. *ARE* 1909, II, 48-50 discusses the relations between Rājarāja II, Rājādhirāja II and Kulōttunga III as seen from these *praśastis*. It is said there: ‘It must be noted that the titles Rājakēsari and Parakēsari are applied to these kings indiscriminately.’ I do not think this is correct; there are, of course, a few mistakes in some records where one title appears for another; but their number is not enough to warrant the general observation cited above. See also *ARE.* 1904 para, 21.

c22.s1.80

⁷⁷ Cf. 219 of 1901 and 538 of 1904.
78. 486 of 1911.
79. 18 of 1900.
80. 267 of 1901.
81. 216 of 1893.
82. 163 of 1906.

c22.s1.81

⁸³ 336 of 1917; *ulā* ll. 252; 685.

c22.s1.82

⁸⁴ *Takkayāgapparaṇi*, v. 549 and n.

c22.s1.83

88. 434, 435 of 1924.

c22.s1.84

89. 168 of 1918.

c22.s1.85

90. 52 of 1919; 244 of 1901.

c22.s1.86

91. 703, 704 of 1920.

c22.s1.87

92. 181 of 1899.

c22.s1.88

93. *EI.* ix. p. 211. But see p. 359 below.

c22.s1.89

94. 433 of 1924, contra *ARE.* 1909, II, 48.

c22.s1.90

95. 433 of 1924 is a difficult inscription and raises some problems in the chronology of the period. From Note C. that follows it will be seen that the gaps in the record greatly obscure its meaning.

c22.s1.91

96. In l. 13 V. V. reads *śellumbaḍi paṇṇi* [*vittaruḷi*] *nār*; my text has *paṇṇi u........nār*. I think the word is not a finite verb, but a participle and a noun which should form the subject of the following verb *migai śeyyāda paḍi*.

c22.s1.92

97. V.V. reads *pērttu kōyir-kottum*, and translates 'big household.' Also *āvark-kudirai* 'body of armed cavalry', for my *ānai* (k) *-kudirai*.

c22.s1.93

98. 'The body of armed men and women employed in the inner apartments of the palace.' V.V.

c22.s1.94

99. 'Class of officers who first receive the royal commands and communicate them to others for execution.' V.V.

c22.s1.95

100. V. V. suggests *vi* (*ṇṇappañ*) *jeydu*.

c22.s1.96

101. The position is made worse by 7 of 1893 which implies an interval of 15 years between the 1(9)th year of Rājarāja II and the 8th year of Rājādhirāja. *SII.* iii, p. 207. Perhaps the regnal year of Rājarāja mentioned in this record is 1(1) and not 1(9).

First 124 of 128 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)