The Colas c22.s1: Note C. On the Pallavarāyanpēṭṭai Inscription (433 of 1924)

The Cōḷas c22.s1

Language: English

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

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

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).

c22.s1.97

102. 209 of 1932.

c22.s1.98

103. V. V. points out that 337 of 1914 (Pd. 138) giving date A.D. 1162, Dec. 3, Monday, may be a record of the probationary period.

Cites (7)

பெரிய புராணம் — Cēkkiḻār, Tamil
திருக்கோவையார் — Māṇikkavācakar, Tamil
Epigraphia Indica
Epigraphia Carnatica
Piḷḷaittamiḻ — Tamil
South Indian Inscriptions
Bhavnagar plates of Dharasena III—[Valabhi-] Samvat 304 — Sanskrit