Texts

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary:

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv01p0i0094.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The end of this inscription is lost. As, however, the preserved part is identical with the above-published inscriptions Nos. 40, 41 and 66, it may be safely concluded, that the inscription belongs to Ko-Rājarāja-Rājakesarivarman, alias Rājarāja-deva. The mention of Iraṭṭa-pāḍi shows, that the inscription dates after the twenty-first year of the king.¹

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv01p0i0095.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The inscription is not correctly engraved. It is also unfinished. It seems to record a purchase of some land from the sabhā of Śiṟupuliyūr by the ūrār of Karainalūr in Pērāvūr-nāḍu for gift to god Kavaiyāḷvār (?).

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv19p0i0068.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This records an allotment of 6 mā of land to the person singing the Tiruppadiyam (hymns), a quarter śey (i.e. 5 mā) to those supplying water for the sacred bath of the god, and another quarter to the uvachchar (of the temple) out of the land purchased at Śiṟṟānaichchūr by Kaṟṟaḷippichchaṉ of Tiruvāḍutuṟai. This donor figures in a few inscriptions of Parāntaka I, in one of which dated in his 25th year (M.E.R. No. 126 of 1925) he is stated to have built the temple. This may therefore be assigned to a successor of Parāntaka, probably Uttama-Chōḷa.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv19p0i0069.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the base of this temple, there are at least three obliterated inscriptions besides the preceding one. In the second line of the fourth inscription there occurs the following passage.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv01p0i0096.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the Durmati year (tuṉmativaruṣaM) and mentions the temple of Rājendra-Choḷeśvara at Śoṛapuram (coḻapuram Uṭaiyār Irācentiracoḷicuramuṭaiya nāyaṉār koyil).

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv01p0i0097.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the Raktākshi year, which was current after the expiration of the Śālivāhana-Śaka year 1546. It mentions Śoṛapuram and seems to record some meritorious gift in connection with the tank by Veṅkaṭappa-nāyaka.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv01p0i0098.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: A considerable-number of inscribed stones are built into the walls of this temple; but they are not in their original order, and it must be assumed, that either the temple had been destroyed and was rebuilt, or that it was constructed from stones which belonged to another old temple. The subjoined fragments contain the following dates and names:— No. 106 is dated in “the forty-first year of Tribhuvanachakravartin, the illustrious Rājarāja-deva,”¹ and No. 103 in the Dhālu year, which was current after the expiration of the Śaka year 1258. No. 100 begins with the name of “Sakalalokachakravartin Rājanārāyaṇa Śambova.”² Nos. 104 and 105 mention Gāṅgeya-nallūr, alias Śrī-Mallinātha-chaturvedi-maṅgalam, and according to No. 102, Gā[ṅgeya-nallūr] was a village in Karaivaṛi-Āndi-nāḍu,³ (a division) of [Pa]ḍuvūr-koṭṭam. Other localities mentioned in the subjoined fragments are: Paḍaivīḍu,⁴ Kāṭṭuppāḍi⁵ and Kaṟugeri in No. 103, and Aṇaippāḍi in No. 104. No. 99 mentions the Ammaiappeśvara Temple,⁶ and No. 101 the same and the Kailāsa Temple.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv01p0i0099.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary:

Language: Sanskrit.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv01p0i0009.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription consists of nine sections engraved on the north wall and four sections on the west wall of the central shrine. It opens with a Sanskrit ślōka, according to which it is an edict of Rājarāja, (alias) Rājakēsarivarman. The remainder of the inscription, like all the other Tañjāvūr inscriptions, is written in Tamil. After the list of conquests, which is found at the beginning of many inscriptions of the Chōḷa king Rājarāja, paragraph 2 contains the date, after which this and all the other Tañjāvūr inscriptions were incised. On the 20th day of the 26th year of his reign, Kō-Rājakēsarivarman, alias Rājarājadēva, issued orders, that the gifts made by himself, those made by his elder sister (viz., Kundavaiyār), those made by his wives, and those made by other donors should be engraved on the stone walls of the temple. A second important fact, which we learn from paragraph 2, is, that the Tañjāvūr temple had been built by Rājarājadēva himself, and that it was called after him Rājarājēśvara, i.e., the Īśvara (temple) of Rājarāja. Paragraphs 3 to 107 contain a list of gold images, vessels and ornaments, which the king himself presented to the temple of Rājarājēśvara (paragraphs 3 to 98) and to the image of Dakshiṇa-Mēru-Viṭaṅkar (paragraphs 99 to 107) on the following dates:—

• Paragraphs 3 and 4: 25th year, 312th day.
• Paragraphs 5 to 9: 26th year, 14th day.
• Paragraphs 10 to 16: 26th year, 27th day.
• Paragraphs 17: 26th year, 34th day.
• Paragraphs 18: 25th year, 275th day.
• Paragraphs 19 to 32: 26th year, 104th day.
• Paragraphs 33: 26th year, 318th day.
• Paragraphs 34 to 50: 26th year, 319th day.
• Paragraphs 51 to 107: 23rd to 29th year.

The last set of paragraphs (51 to 107) was incised at a later date than the preceding part of the inscription, to which it refers as previously engraved (paragraph 51). Part of the gifts, which the king made between his 23rd and 29th year, were taken from the treasures, which he seized after having defeated the Chēra king and the Pāṇḍyas in Malaināḍu¹ (paragraphs 34, 51, 52 and 107). A number of gold trumpets were presented to the temple, after he had assumed the titles of Śivapādaśēkhara, ‘the devotee of Śiva,’ and of Rājarāja, ‘the king of kings’ (paragraph 55), and a number of gold flowers, after he had returned from the conquest of Satyāśraya (paragraph 92). Each of the gifts is stated to have been weighed by ‘the stone called (after) Āḍa-vallāṉ.’ This was evidently a standard weight for gold, or a set of such weights, made of stone and preserved at the shrine of the god Āḍavallāṉ or Āḍavallār, who was also called Dakshiṇa-Mēru-Viṭaṅkar.²

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0001.

DHARMA team.

Summary: Vijayarāya-Mahārāya “who witnessed the elephant hunt” (Dēvarāya II ?) —Śaka 1368. The details of the date are given as Akshaya, Tulā, śu. 10, Friday, Aviṭṭam corresponding to A.D. 1446, September 30. This is a copy of No. 23 of 1905 from Kīḻūr. It states that as a result of (the forcible) collection of kāṇikkai (presents) from the ryots of the Valaṅgai and Iḍaṅgai classes by the officers of state on each change of regime or administra-tion (manvantara) the former became impoverished and ran away from their homes to other kingdoms consequently worship and festivals in temples ceased and the land became infested with disease causing intense mental anguish to the people. This reached the ears of the king who forthwith issued orders through Aṇṇappa-Uḍaiyar prohibiting such extortion of the iṉavari and iḍaṅgai-vari in future and to get his command recorded on stone (throughout the state). As it was left out in some places people petitioned to Nāgarasa-Uḍaiyar to rectify this omission. On receipt of his permission this is stated to have been engraved in this temple also in the presence of the members of the nāḍu (assembly) of Vaḻudilam-paṭṭu-chāvaḍi, the karaṇika, the parivāra and Toṇḍaimānār Kachchiyarāyar.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv22p0i0161.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary:

Language: Undetermined.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv22p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This records the gift of a gold fillet for ornament and three silver vessels for holding the offerings to god Mahādēva (in the temple) at Tiruviśalūr in Śōḻamārttāṇḍa-chaturvēdimaṅgalam a brahmadēya village to the east of Vēmbaṟṟūr in Maṇṇi-nāḍu a subdivision of Rājendraśiṅga-vaḷanāḍu on the north bank (of the Kāvēri). The donor was a sēnāpati (military officer) by name Śōlaimāṇikkam also called Śōlai Naralōkasundaraṉ alias Uttamaśōḻa-Mūvēndavēḷān. Rājēndra-siṁha and Śōḻamārttāṇḍa were surnames borne by the king’s father Rājarāja I and Uttama-Chōḷa was a title of Rājēndra himself. Two different weights are mentioned in the inscription, one called the kuḍiñaikkal and the other the baṇḍārakkal.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv23p0i0001.

Dorotea Operato.

Summary: This is built in at the end. It records the construction of the prākāra (tiruchchuṟṟālayam) and the gōpura (in front) by the members of the Valaṅgai-Vēḷaikkāṟa body-guard regiment of the king; and also the consecration of some deity in a shrine.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv23p0i0341.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Registers a gift of land by Uyyakkoṇḍāḷśāṉi, wife of Kunikkumpirāṉbhaṭṭaṉ of Rājakēsari-chaturvēdimaṅgalam, a brahmadēya in Nallūr-nāḍu, a subdivision of Nittavinōda-vaḷanāḍu, as tiruviḍaiyāṭṭam to god Aḻagiyamaṇavāḷa-Perumāḷ. The gift was made in the 37th regnal year of the king.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv24p0i0150.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Fragments. Seem to refer to a gift by purchase, of land by Mūtta Gōvindakramavittaṉ and his brothers to the god. One of the fragments refers to endowment to Purushōttamattu-Emberumāṉ by the Peruṅguṟisabhā of Uttamaśīli-chaturvēdimaṅgalam and another mentions Śrīkaṇṭha-chaturvēdimaṅgalam.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv24p0i0184.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Records a decision of the members of the Peruṅguṟisabhā of Śrīraṅgam disqualifying persons who were not residents of the village from holding the dēvadāna and other lands from the 5th year onwards of the king’s reign and stipulates a fine of 25 poṉ on the members of the paṇḍāravāriyam and the karaṇattār who violated this decision. The record is dated in the 4th year and 89th day of the reign of Rājakēsarivarman who may be identified with Āditya I (A.D. 871-907) on palaeographical consideration.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv24p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: West base of the verandah in the first prākāra in the Mantrapurīśvara temple. Tribhº Rājēndrachōḷa: year 12: 1257 A.D. This inscription may be assigned to the 13th century on palaeographical considerations. Except the solar month Āḍi of the above regnal year, other details of date are not furnished in the record. This is an order (ōlai) of Paiyyuḻān Pallavarāyan Vāṇarāyaṉ alias Śōḻiyavaraiyaṉ. It records the grant of oru-mā-mukkāṇi-araikkāṇi-kīḻaraiyēiraṇḍu-mā lands at Nambankuṟuchchi, a hamlet (piḍāgai) of Śākkāṉam alias Kēraḷakulāśaṉich-chaturvēdimaṅgalam as maḍappuṟa-iṟaiyili to a maṭha called Vāṇarāyaṉ-maṭha, located in the street to the north of the tirumaḍaiviḷḍgam of the temple of Tiruvuśāttāṉam-uḍaiya-nāyaṉār. It is stated that the above lands were to be enjoyed as iṟaiyili along with Makkuḻan-kāṇi and the income from taxes (kaḍamai) accrued out of the above. The document was attested by Ādikāram Vāṉavan Pallavaraiyan and by others called mudal-kaṇakku (names of four of these persons are furnished).

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv25p0i0211.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: North wall of the first prākāra of the Pālvaṇṇanāthasvāmi temple. Chaḍaiyavarmaṉ Tribhº Kōnērin-maikoṇḍāṉ Abhirāma Varatuṅga-rāma Vīrapāṇḍya Śaka 1511: 1588 A.D. This epigraph commences with a Sanskrit verse invoking Śiva. The details of date viz., Śaka 1511, regnal year 2, Sarvadhāri, dakshiṇāyana, Dhanu-Ravi 6 Wednesday, ēkādaśi, Svāti-nakshatra corresponding to 1588 A.D., December 4. It records the grant of Vaṅgaikuḷam in Mallayampaṭṭu in Āriya-nāḍu as kuḍinīṅg-dēvadāṉa to Śeṇbagavaṉap-perumāḷ Irāmīchchuraṉ, who has to expend annually 20 paṇam to meet the expenses of the birth-day celebration of the king on the star of Pūsa falling in the month of Puraṭṭāśi. An order (ōlai) was issued to this effect by the vāśalttāṉigar to the kaṇakkar (accountant) and drafted in the name of Ādichaṇḍēśvaran.

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv25p0i0272.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: North wall of the first prākāra of the Pālvaṇṇanāthasvāmi temple. Perumāḷ Parākrama-pāṇḍya Śaka 1469, year 5: This inscription furnishes the details of date viz., Śaka 1469, year 5, Plavaṅga, Kārttigai, . . . 3, Monday, Tiruvādirai-nakshatra. It seems to record the assignment of tiruvilāñchiṉai and karuvēlagam, obtained as kāṇiyāṭchai, to Āṇḍukoṇḍunayiṇāṉ Kaḍaiyōgakāttāṉ of Aḷḷikuṉṟa Mārttaṉūr-udaiyāṉ in Vaḍamuṭṭa-nāḍu. The details of the grant are lost as it is incomplete. The division Vaḍamuṭṭa-nāḍu figures in a record of Āttūr in Tiruchchendur taluk (Cf. S.I.I., Vol. XIV, No. 214). The king is stated to have been the son of Aḻagaṉ Perumāḷ Parākrama-pāṇḍyadēva, who bears a string of epithets in the present record and also mentioned to have been born on the day of Aśvati (Aśvini)-nakshatra.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv25p0i0277.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Slab kept in the Siddharmaḍam on the sea-shore. It is in Nāgarī characters and Marāṭhī language. It refers to Bābā-Gōsāvi, son of Sētu[bā]vā-svāmi, described as advē-(vait)-āgrēsara, and mentions rājādhirāja mahārājarāje Pratāpasiha, (and his son), mahārājādhirājīvarāje Tulajā-mahārāja, svāmibhakti-dhuraṁdhara-rājē Aṁṇājirāva and raiśa bhāgavata Dāvagōṭhagē, son of a certain sēṭha, probably named Gē[ga]. It ends with a benediction.

Language: Marathi.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv26p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: In the same place as above. Kulōttuṅgachōḷadēva I: Year 49 = 1118-19 A.D. This inscription records the gift of tax and all other levies such as antarāya from the village Kīḻkkaṇṇamaṅgalam for food offerings to god Tirumalaiuḍaiyanāyanār of Tirukkuṉṟakkuḍi, at the time of the procession of the deity, by Vīraśēkharan alias Adalaiyūr-nāḍāḻvān, who is described as Nāṭṭāṉ.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv26p0i0032.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: In the introductory remarks to No. 58 (page 229 f.) I had occasion to refer to four inscriptions of Rājarājadēva, the lower portions of which are buried underground. Two of these (Nos. 65 and 66),—which, to judge from their beginnings, promised a rich harvest of proper names,—were since temporarily excavated, and impressions of them taken, by my assistants. This led to the discovery of two further inscriptions, which are engraved underneath No. 66, one of Rājēndradēva (No. 67), and one of Vikrama-Chōḷadēva (No. 68). I did not consider it worth while to excavate and copy the whole of Nos. 63 and 64, but shall now publish their first two lines as specimens. From the published portion of No. 63, we learn that this inscription consists of a list of shepherds who had to supply ghee for temple lamps from the milk of a number of cattle, which had been presented to the temple before the 29th year of the reign of Rājarājadēva by the king himself and by others, or bought from the funds of the temple. To each lamp were allotted 96 ewes,¹ or 48 cows, or 16 she-buffaloes. The daily supply for each lamp was one uṛakku of ghee.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0063.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: As appears from its 1st paragraph, this inscription is a continuation of No. 63. The published portion of the 2nd paragraph refers to a shepherd who had received 96 ewes,¹ viz., 69 ewes given by Rājarājadēva, and 27 ewes purchased for 9 kāśu, in order to supply ghee for a temple lamp.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0064.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The beginning of the first five lines of this inscription is hidden by a flight of steps, which has been constructed in front of the shrine after the time when the inscription was engraved. The record is dated in the cyclic year Kshaya which was current after the expiration of the Śaka year 1368 (A.D. 1446-47), and during the reign of Dēvar[āya II.] (of Vijayanagara). It describes a few gold and silver ornaments which were presented to the temple by a certain Vallabhadēva. This person was probably a military officer of Dēvarāya, as he professes to have made the gift with the object of effecting in return the conquest of the world. While, in the Chōḷa inscriptions of the Tanjore temple, the weight of ornaments is given in kaṛañju, mañjāḍi and kuṉṟi, the subjoined inscription employs for this purpose the tūkkam of ten paṇa-iḍai. From the table of weights, which is contained in Sir Walter Elliot’s Coins of Southern India, p. 47, and which is based on a Malayāḷam work entitled Kaṇakkusāram, it appears that the tūkkam and paṇa-iḍai of the subjoined inscription must be identical with the kaṛañju and paṇattūkkam (= 2 mañjāḍi) of the metrical system. Although the paṇa-iḍai or paṇattūkkam (=1/10 kaṛañju) is not mentioned in the Tanjore inscriptions of the Chōḷas, it is there presupposed by the fact that the Tamil term mā (1/20) is used to denote ‘one tenth whenever it follows the word mañjāḍi (= 1/2 paṇa-iḍai or paṇattūkkam).¹

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0071.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Hero-stone (No. 2) lying in a field about two furlongs to the east of Lōkanāthēśvara temple. Pallavarasa (?), circa 9th century. This record, in characters of about the 9th century A.D., states that while Pallō-arasa (Pallavarasa ?) was ruling the nāḍu and Śāte-arasa of the Vaidumba family was administering this ūr (i.e., Kāppalle ?) and Kōṇakkī attacked the village in a cattle-raid after collecting mārukoṭṭa, Pōrighaṭeśūṟe, son of Vaidumba Śūraparasa, the chief of Muttukūru, died after gaining victory for the king and for himself and saving the cattle. He was granted some land (maṇṇarasiṁgin-pāḍu ?) in memory.

Language: Kannada.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv27p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The rock-cut Śaiva shrine at Vallam near Chingleput¹ bears two Tamil inscriptions. One of them, which belongs to the 13th century A.D., is engraved on the lower portion of the right door-pillar.² It records the gift of a lamp in the 14th year of Sakalabhuvanachakravartin Kōpperuñjiṅgadēva³ (i.e., Kō-Perum-Siṁhadēva) to the temple of Vayandīśura (i.e., Vasantēśvara) at Vallam in Valla-nāḍu, (a subdivision) of Kaḷattūr-kōṭṭam.⁴ The second, very archaic inscription is engraved on the upper portions of both door-pillars and records that the temple was built by Skandasēna, the son of Vasantapriyarāja, who was a vassal of Mahēndrapōtarāja. From the later inscription of Kōpperuñjiṅgadēva, it follows further that Skandasēna called the temple Vasantēśvara after his father Vasanta. Mahēndrapōtarāja, whose vassal Vasanta professes to be, must have been a Pallava king. This is already suggested by the first part of his name, which occurs twice in the list of the Pallavas, as far as it is known (Vol. I, p. 11). The second part of the king’s name, Pōtarāja,⁵ forms part of Īśvarapōtarāja,⁶ as the Pallava king Paramēśvaravarman I. is called in a grant of Vikramāditya I. (Vol. I, p. 145), and of Nandipōtarāja,⁷ which is used as an equivalent of Nandivarman in the Kaśākūḍi plates (No. 73 below, line 90). Finally, the birudas which the king receives in the Vallam cave-inscription, have their parallels in other Pallava inscriptions. With Lalitāṅkura compare Lalita and Nayāṅkura in the Dharmarāja Ratha inscriptions (Vol. I, p. 3). Śatrumalla and Guṇabhara occur also in the two cave-inscriptions on the Trichinopoly rock (Vol. I, p. 29). Though birudas are a somewhat unsafe basis for identification, it may be provisionally assumed that both the Trichinopoly cave-inscriptions of Guṇabhara, alias Śatrumalla, and the Vallam cave-inscription of Mahēndrapōtarāja belong to one of the two Pallava kings called Mahēndravarman, i.e., to the first half of the seventh century of our era.⁸

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0072.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the 30th April 1891, Professor Julien Vinson, of Paris, was good enough to send me a reprint¹ of his paper Spécimen de Paléographie Tamoule, which contains an analysis of, and extracts from, the subjoined copper-plate inscription. The original plates had been discovered in 1879 at Kaśākūḍi, 4 kilometres from Kāraikkāl (Karikal),² by M. Jules de la Fon, of Pondicherry. Professor Vinson’s paper, which is based on a tracing prepared by M. de la Fon, convinced me of the importance of the inscription and induced me to apply through Government to His Excellency the Governor of the French Settlements in India for a loan of the original plates. This request was most graciously and promptly complied with. After I had transcribed the plates and prepared impressions of them, they were returned to their present owner. The Kaśākūḍi copper-plates, eleven in number, are strung on a ring. On this is soldered the royal seal, with the figure of a bull which faces the left and is surmounted by a liṅga. The bull was the crest of the Pallavas,³ while their banner bore the figure of Śiva’s club (khaṭvāṅga).⁴ The Grantha and Tamil characters of the inscription resemble those of the Kūram plates (Vol. I, No. 151). The major portion of the inscription is in the Sanskrit language (lines 1 to 104). The particulars of the grant are repeated, with considerable additions, in the Tamil language (ll. 104 to 133). The concluding portion of the inscription is again in Sanskrit (ll. 133 to 138), with a short parenthetical note in Tamil (l. 137). The immediate object of the inscription is to record the grant of a village, made in the 22nd year of the reign (ll. 80 and 105) of the Pallava king Nandivarman (verses 27 and 30, and l. 79). As in other Pallava copper-plate inscriptions, the grant proper is preceded by a panegyrical account of the king’s ancestors, which adds a large number of new details to our knowledge of the Pallava history. After nine benedictory verses, the author names the following mythical ancestors of the Pallava dynasty:— Brahmā (v. 10). Aṅgiras (11). Bṛihaspati (12). Śaṁyu (13). Bharadvāja (14). Drōṇa (15). Aśvatthāman (16). Pallava (17). Aśōkavarman (19). This last king can scarcely be considered a historical person, but appears to be a modification of the ancient Maurya king Aśōka. Then follows a passage in prose, which informs us that, after this Aśōkavarman, there ruled a number of other Pallava kings, viz., [S]kandavarman, Kal[i]ndavarman, Kāṇagōpa, Vishṇugōpa, Vīrakū[r]cha, Vīrasiṁha, Siṁhavarman, Vishṇusiṁha and others (l. 48 f.). Some of these names actually occur in the inscriptions of that ancient branch of the Pallavas, whose grants are dated from Palakkada, Daśanapura and Kāñchīpura, viz., Skandavarman, Siṁhavarman, Vishṇugōpavarman,⁵ and Vīrakōrchavarman.⁶ The Amarāvatī pillar-inscription (Vol. I, No. 32) mentions two kings named Siṁhavarman. But the order in which these names are enumerated, is completely different in each of the three available sources for the history of the early Pallavas, viz., the Amarāvatī pillar, the early copper-inscriptions, and the prose introduction of the Kaśākūḍi plates. For this reason, and on account of the summary manner in which the early kings are referred to by the author of the Kaśākūḍi inscription, it is a mistake to derive a regular pedigree from the latter, as was done by Professor Vinson (l.c., p. 453); and it must be rather concluded that, at the time of Nandivarman, nothing was known of the predecessors of Siṁhavishṇu, but the names of some of them, and that the order of their succession, and their relation to each other and to the subsequent line of Siṁhavishṇu, were then entirely forgotten. With verse 20 we enter on historical ground. The list of kings from Siṁhavishṇu to the immediate predecessor of Nandivarman agrees with the Udayēndiram plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla (No. 74). Siṁhavishṇu appears to have borne the surname Avanisiṁha, and is stated to have defeated the Malaya, Kaḷabhra, Mālava, Chōḷa, Pāṇḍya, Siṁhaḷa and Kēraḷa kings. His successor Mahēndravarman I. “annihilated his chief enemies at Puḷḷalūra” (v. 21). The ‘chief enemies’ were probably the Chalukyas, who, in their turn, considered the Pallavas their ‘natural enemies.’⁷ As Puḷḷalūr is the name of a village in the Conjeeveram tālluqa,⁸ it appears that the Chalukya army had made an inroad into the Pallava dominions, before it was repulsed by Mahēndravarman I. His son Narasiṁhavarman I. is reported to have conquered Laṅkā, i.e., Ceylon, and to have captured Vātāpi,⁹ the capital of the Western Chalukyas. The Kūram and Udayēndiram plates supply the name of the conquered Chalukya king, Pulakēśin or Vallabharāja, i.e., Pulikēśin II.¹⁰ The conquest of Ceylon to which the Kaśākūḍi plates refer, is confirmed from an unexpected source. From the 47th chapter of the Mahāvaṁsa¹¹ we learn that the Singhalese prince Māṇavamma lived at the court of king Narasīha of India and helped him to crush his enemy, king Vallabha. The grateful Narasīha supplied Māṇavamma twice with an army to invade Ceylon. The second attack was successful. Māṇavamma occupied Ceylon, over which he is supposed to have ruled from A.D. 691 to 726. As both the Pallava inscriptions and the Mahāvaṁsa mention the war with Vallabha and the conquest of Ceylon, the identity of Narasīha and Narasiṁhavarman I. can hardly be doubted. As, however, the latest date of Pulikēśin II. is A.D. 642,¹² the accession of Māṇavamma must have taken place about half a century before A.D. 691.¹³ No details are given about the reign of Narasiṁhavarman’s son Mahēndravarman II. The latter was succeeded by his son Paramēśvarapōtavarman I. who, as we know from the Kūram and Udayēndiram plates, defeated the Western Chalukya king Vikramāditya I. at Peruvaḷanallūr. The Kaśākūḍi plates do not contain any historical information about him, nor about his son Narasiṁhavarman II. and his grandson Paramēśvarapōtavarman II. According to the Udayēndiram plates, the next king, Nandivarman, was the son of Paramēśvaravarman II. The Kaśākūḍi plates contain an entirely different account of Nandivarman’s parentage. In line 72, he professes to be “engaged in ruling the kingdom of Paramēśvarapōtarāja;” and in verse 27, he is said to be ruling, at the time of the inscription, the kingdom of Paramēśvarapōtavarman II., i.e., to have succeeded or supplanted the latter on the throne, and to have been “chosen by the subjects.” This plebiscite may have taken place after the death of the legitimate king; or, more probably, Nandivarman may have been an usurper who ousted and destroyed him and his family. At any rate, he was a remote kinsman of his predecessor. For, he was the son of Hiraṇya (verses 9 and 30) by Rōhiṇī and belonged to the branch (varga) of Bhīma (verse 30). According to verse 28, this branch of Bhīma took its origin from Bhīmavarman, who was the younger brother of Siṁhavishṇu. The names of three princes who intervened between Bhīmavarman and Hiraṇya, are recorded in the same verse. The name Hiraṇyavarma-Mahārāja occurs several times in a much obliterated inscription of the Vaikuṇṭha-Perumāḷ temple at Kānchīpuram. At the beginning of this inscription, Paramēśvarappōttaraiyar of the Pallava-vaṁśa is mentioned as deceased (svargastha). It is therefore not improbable that the inscription recorded the accession of Hiraṇyavarman or of his son Nandivarman after the death of Paramēśvarapōtavarman II. The latter may have been the founder of the Vaikuṇṭha-Perumāḷ temple, which is called Paramēśvara-Vishṇugṛiha, i.e., ‘the Vishṇu temple of Paramēśvara,’ in another inscription of the Vaikuṇṭha-Perumāḷ temple.¹⁴ With the addition of the new branch, the list of the later Pallavas stands as follows:— Unnamed ancestor.[C1]1. Siṁhavishṇu. [C1]2. Mahēndravarman I. [C2]Bhīmavarman. [C1]3. Narasiṁhavarman I. [C2]Buddhavarman. [C1]4. Mahēndravarman II. [C2]Ādityavarman. [C1]5. Paramēśvarapōtavarman or Paramēśvaravarman I. [C2]Gōvindavarman. [C1]6. Narasiṁhavarman II. [C2]Hiraṇya. [C1]7. Paramēśvarapōtavarman or Paramēśvaravarman II. [C2]8. Nandivarman. Other forms of the name Nandivarman are Nandipōtarāja (l. 90) and simply Nandin (l. 88). The form Nandipōtavarman occurs in the Vakkalēri plates,¹⁵ which refer to the defeat of the Pallava king by the Western Chalukya king Vikramāditya II., and the form Nandippōttaraiyar in an inscription of his 18th year in the Ulagaḷanda-Perumāḷ temple at Kāñchīpuram.¹⁶ He bore the sovereign titles Mahārāja and Rājādhirāja-paramēśvara and the birudas Kshatriyamalla, Pallavamalla (l. 78), and Śrīdhara (verse 29). According to verse 30, he was a devotee of Vishṇu. At the request of his prime-minister (l. 89), Brahmaśrīrāja (l. 91) or Brahmayuvarāja (ll. 103 and 106), the king gave the village of Koḍukoḷḷi (ll. 99, 105 f.) to the Brāhmaṇa Jyēshṭhapāda-Sōmayājin (l. 93) or (in Tamil) Śēṭṭiṟeṅga-Sōmayājin (l. 108 f.), who belonged to the Bharadvāja (l. 94) or Bhāradvāja (l. 108) gōtra, followed the Chhandōgasūtra (ll. 94 and 108), and resided at Pūniya (l. 95) or Pūni (l. 108), a village in the Toṇḍāka-rāshṭra (l. 95). The village of Koḍukoḷḷi, on becoming a brahmadēya, received the new name Ēkadhīramaṅgalam (l. 100). It belonged to Ūṟṟukkāṭṭu-kōṭṭam (l. 105) or (in Sanskrit) Undivanakōshṭhaka (l. 98), a subdivision of Toṇḍāka-rāshṭra, and was bounded in the east and south by Pālaiyūr, in the west by Maṇaṟpākkam and Koḷḷipākkam, and in the north by Veḷimānallūr (ll. 98 f. and 111 ff.). Connected with the gift of the village was the right to dig channels from the Śēyāṟu or (in Sanskrit) Dūrasarit, the Veḥkā or Vēgavatī, and the tank of Tīraiyaṉ or Tīralaya (ll. 101 f. and 115 ff.). Of these geographical names, the following can be identified. Toṇḍāka-rāshṭra is,—like Toṇḍīra-maṇḍala, Tuṇḍīra-maṇḍala and Tuṇḍāka-vishaya,¹⁷—a Sanskritised form of the Tamil term Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam. One of the 24 ancient divisions (kōṭṭam) of the latter was Ūṟṟukkāṭṭu-kōṭṭam, which owed its name to Ūṟṟukkāḍu, a village in the present Conjeeveram tālluqa.¹⁸ This kōṭṭam was divided into four subdivisions (nāḍu), one of which was Pālaiyūr-nāḍu.¹⁹ The head-village of this subdivision, Pālaiyūr, appears to be identical with the village of Pālaiyūr, which formed the south-eastern boundary of the granted village, and perhaps with the modern Pālūr at the north-western extremity of the Chingleput tālluqa.²⁰ The western boundary of the granted village, Maṇaṟpākkam, would then be represented by the modern Mēlamaṇappākkam.²¹ For the granted village, Koḍukoḷḷi, itself and for the two remaining villages which formed its boundaries, no equivalents are found on the maps at my disposal. The village at which the donee resided, Pūni, may be the modern Pūṇḍi, which belongs to the Conjeeveram tālluqa,²² but is in close proximity of Pālūr and Mēlamaṇappākkam in the Chingleput tālluqa. The proposed identification of these three villages is made more probable by the reference, made in the Kaśākūḍi plates, to two rivers near which the granted village of Koḍukoḷḷi was situated. Of these, the Vēgavatī or Veḥkā passes Conjeeveram and falls into the Pālāṟu near Villivalam.²³ The Śēyāṟu forms the southern boundary of the modern Conjeeveram tālluqa and joins the Pālāṟu opposite Mēlamaṇappākkam, which I have identified with Maṇaṟpākkam, the western boundary of Koḍukoḷḷi. The executor (ājñapti) of the grant was Ghōraśarman (ll. 103 and 106), and the author of the Sanskrit portion, which, as in the Kūram plates (l. 89) and the Udayēndiram plates (ll. 101 and 105), is called a praśasti or eulogy, was a certain Trivikrama (verse 31). To the Sanskrit portion is affixed a Tamil endorsement (l. 104 f.), which directs the inhabitants of Ūṟṟukkāṭṭu-kōṭṭam to execute the order of the king. The subsequent Tamil passage (l. 105 ff.) records that, on receipt of the royal order, the representatives of Ūṟṟukkāṭṭu-kōṭṭam marked the boundaries of the granted village under the guidance of their headman, and formally assigned all rights to the donee. Another Tamil sentence (l. 132 f.) states that the grant was executed in the presence of the local authorities (?), the ministers and the secretaries. Then follow, in Sanskrit, three imprecatory verses (l. 133 ff.) and the statement that the document was written by His Majesty’s great treasurer (l. 136). The inscription ends with a docket in Tamil (l. 137) and a few auspicious Sanskrit words.

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0073.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription has been already published by the Rev. T.Foulkes in the Indian Antiquary (Vol. VIII, p. 273 ff.) and in the Manual of the Salem District (Vol. II, p. 355 ff.). The original plates, together with the originals of four other copper-plate inscriptions¹ which were also edited by Mr. Foulkes, are preserved at Udayēndiram,² a village at the southwestern extremity of the Guḍiyātam tālluqa of the North Arcot district, and were kindly borrowed for me from their present owner by Mr. F.A.Nicholson, I.C.S., Acting Collector of North Arcot. The present whereabouts of two other copper-plate inscriptions from Udayēndiram,³ of which Mr. Foulkes obtained transcripts in the Telugu character, I was unable to ascertain. According to Mr. Foulkes, these two inscriptions formed part of a find of “five, or, by another account, seven sets of copper-plate inscriptions,” which was made in 1850 in a subterranean chamber in the Brāhmaṇa street at Udayēndiram. Mr. Foulkes then believed that the remaining three or five sets of the find were lost. As, however, Mr. Foulkes’ other grants (I, II, III, IV and V) are now preserved at Udayēndiram and are five in number, I think that they must be identical with the apparently missing five of the seven sets discovered at Udayēndiram in 1850. The copper-plates which bear the subjoined inscription, are five in number. When they reached my hands, they were strung on a ring, which is cut and bears a circular seal. This contains, in high relief, on a counter-sunk surface, a recumbent bull, which faces the proper right and is placed on a pedestal between two lamps. Over the bull is a seated figure on a pedestal, and between two symbols which I cannot make out. The diameter of the seal is 3(1/4) inches, and that of the ring 4(1/2) to 4(7/8) inches. The ring is about (3/8) inch thick. A comparison of this description of the ring and seal with that given by Mr. Foulkes in the first paragraph of his edition of the plates, suggests that, when he examined the plates, they were accompanied by a different ring and seal. Besides, the seal which is now attached to the plates, does not resemble the seals of other Pallava grants, but is closely allied to the seal of the Udayēndiram plates of the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya II. (Mr. Foulkes’ No. V) and of the Gaṅga-Bāṇa king Pṛithivīpati II. Hastimalla (No. 76 below).⁴ I therefore believe that it may have originally belonged to one of the two Udayēndiram grants of the Bāṇa dynasty, which are now missing (Mr. Foulkes’ grants B and C), and that the original seal-ring of the Pallava plates may have been attached by mistake to one of these two grants and lost along with the latter. The inscription consists of two distinct portions,—a grant of the Pallava king Nandivarman Pallavamalla in the Sanskrit language and the Grantha character (ll. 1 to 105), and a short inscription of the time of the Chōḷa king Madirai-koṇḍa Kō-Parakēsarivarman in the Tamil language and character (ll. 105 to 109), which, however, looks as if it had been written by the same hand as the first or Pallava part of the inscription. Further, the Grantha and Tamil alphabet of both portions of the inscription is considerably more modern than that of other Pallava grants, and even than that of two other copper-plate inscriptions of Madirai-koṇḍa Kō-Parakēsarivarman.⁵ Consequently, the plates are either a forgery, or they are a copy, made at a later date, of two inscriptions, one of Nandivarman Pallavamalla, and one Madirai-koṇḍa Kō-Parakēsarivarman, the originals of which are not within our reach. The Sanskrit portion of the inscription records that, in the twenty-first year of his reign (l. 38), the Pallava king Nandivarman (v. 4, ll. 36 f. and 37 f.), surnamed Pallavamalla (ll. 36, 46 and 47), granted a village to one hundred and eight Brāhmaṇas (l. 64 f.). This grant was made at the request of one of his military officers or vassals, named Udayachandra (v. 1 and l. 61), who belonged to the race of Pūchān (v. 2, l. 45 f. and v. 7), that had been in the hereditary service of the Pallava race, and who resided at the city of Vilvala (v. 2 and l. 44) on the river Vēgavatī (l. 41). This river passes Conjeeveram, and falls into the Pālāṟu near the village of Villivalam,⁶ which accordingly must be the Tamil original of Vilvala, the Sanskrit name of the capital of Udayachandra. The three opening verses refer to the god Sadāśiva, the chief Udayachandra, and the race of the Pallavas, respectively. Then follows, in prose, a genealogy of the reigning Pallava king, the mythical portion of which (l. 8 ff.) contains the following names:— Brahmā. Aṅgiras. Bṛihaspati. Śaṁyu. Bharadvāja. Drōṇa. Aśvatthāman. Pallava. The list of the historical descendants of Pallava from Siṁhavishṇu to Paramēśvaravarman II. (l. 11 ff.) need not be repeated here, because it agrees with the list in the Kaśākūḍi plates (p. 344), and because the battles which Narasiṁhavarman I. and Paramēśvaravarman I. are reported to have won,⁷ were noticed in the introduction to the Kūram plates (Vol. I, p. 145). A long prose passage (l. 19 ff.) opens with the words: “The son of this Paramēśvaravarman (II.) (was);” is interrupted by verses 4 to 6, which refer to the Pallava king Nandivarman; and appears to be taken up again by the words: “His son was Nandivarman Pallavamalla” (l. 36 f.). Mr. Foulkes concludes from this, that there were two successive Pallava kings of the name Nandivarman, the second of whom was the son of the first and bore the distinctive surname Pallavamalla.⁸ I do not think it probable that verses 4 to 6 are to be considered as forming one sentence with the first prose passage (l. 19 ff.), but would prefer to treat these verses as a parenthesis, and the second prose passage (l. 36 f.) as the end of the same sentence which begins with the first prose passage. In this way we obtain only one Pallava king named Nandivarman, who bore the surname Pallavamalla and was the son of Paramēśvaravarman II. This statement is at variance with the Kaśākūḍi plates, according to which Nandivarman Pallavamalla was not the son of his predecessor, but belonged to an entirely different branch of the Pallavas. Here is another point which might induce us to stamp the Udayēndiram plates as a forgery. For, it is difficult to understand how one and the same king could call himself the son of his predecessor in an inscription of his 21st year, and the son of somebody else in an inscription of his 22nd year. Two explanations might, however, be attempted. Nandivarman may have thought it political to give himself out for the adopted son of his predecessor; or it may be assumed that, through mere carelessness, the scribe who drafted the inscription, used the word putra, ‘son’ (ll. 19 and 37), while he wanted to represent Nandivarman only as a successor, and not as the son, of Paramēśvaravarman II. The most interesting portion of the inscription is the account of the services which Udayachandra rendered to his royal master. When Pallavamalla was besieged in Nandipura by the Dramiḷa princes, Udayachandra came to his rescue and killed with his own hand the Pallava king Chitramāya and others (l. 46 ff.). The name Chitramāya sounds more like a biruda than a real name. Thus the ancient Pallava king Narasiṁha had the biruda Amēyamāya,⁹ and Rājasiṁha that of Māyāchāra.¹⁰ It is not improbable that the Dramiḷa princes whose leader was Chitramāya, were the relations and followers of Nandivarman’s predecessor Paramēśvaravarman II. and that they had to be overcome by force, before Nandivarman could establish himself on the throne. Further, Udayachandra is said to have bestowed the kingdom many times on Nandivarman by his victories at Nimba[vana], Chūtavana, Śaṁkaragrāma, Nellūr, Nelvēli, Śūṟāvaṛundūr, etc. (l. 48 ff.). Of these localities, Nellūr is the head-quarter station of the present Nellore district. Another of them, Nelvēli, is mentioned a second time immediately after, as the place near which Udayachandra killed the Śabara king Udayana (l. 52). The Śabaras are generally identified with the modern Sauras, a hill-tribe in the Gañjām and Vizagapatam districts. As, however, the different names of savage tribes are often treated as synonyms by Sanskrit writers, and as the Tamil name Nelvēli cannot possibly be located in the Telugu districts, it may be that the author of the inscription is referring to one of the hill-tribes of the Tamil country, and that Nelvēli is meant for the modern Tinnevelly.¹¹ An additional argument in favour of this view is that, immediately after the description of the war with the Śabaras, the author refers to Udayachandra’s achievements “in the Northern region also.” He there pursued and defeated the Nishāda chief Pṛithivivyāghra, who was performing an Aśvamēdha, and drove him out of the district of Vishṇurāja, which he subjected to the Pallava king (l. 55 ff.). Nishāda is, like Śabara, one of the words by which Sanskrit writers designate savage tribes. The district of Vishṇurāja, which was situated to the north of the Pallava country, can be identified with certainty. As Nandivarman was a contemporary of the Western Chalukya king Vikramāditya II. who reigned from A.D. 733-34 to 746-47,¹² he was also a contemporary of the Eastern Chalukya king Vishṇuvardhana III. whose reign is placed by Dr. Fleet between A.D. 709 and 746.¹³ He is evidently the Vishṇurāja of the Udayēndiram plates,¹⁴ and his district (vishaya) is the country of Vēṅgī, over which the Eastern Chalukyas ruled. The last two items in the list of Udayachandra’s deeds are, that he destroyed the fort of Kāḷidurga,¹⁵ and that he defeated the Pāṇḍya army at the village of Maṇṇaikuḍi (l. 59 ff.). The grant which was made by Nandivarman Pallavamalla at the request of Udayachandra, consisted of the village of Kumāramaṅgala-Veḷḷaṭṭūr, which belonged to the district called Paśchimāśrayanadī-vishaya, and of two water-levers (jala-yantra) in the neighbouring village of Koṟṟagrāma, which appear to have been added in order to supply the former village with means of irrigation. As in the case of other grants, the original name of the village was changed into Udayachandramaṅgalam in commemoration of Udayachandra, at whose instance the donation was made (l. 62 ff.). The description of the boundaries of Udayachandramaṅgalam is given in great detail (l. 65 ff.). Among the boundaries we find, in the east, a small river; in the south, the temple of Koṟṟagrāma, the same village, a portion of which had been included in the granted village; in the north, the village of Kāñchidvāra, which, in its Tamil form Kāñchivāyil, is referred to in line 107 of the present inscription, and in another copper-plate grant from Udayēndiram;¹⁶ and in the north-east, the river Kshīranadī, the Tamil name of which is Pālāṟu. As the modern village of Udayēndiram is situated on the Pālāṟu river; as the original of the present inscription is preserved, and was most probably discovered, at Udayēndiram; and as the Tamil name Udayēndiram bears a close resemblance to the Sanskrit name Udayachandramaṅgalam, and still more so to the forms Udayēnduchaturvēdimaṅgalam and Udayēndumaṅgalam, which occur in two other Udayēndiram grants,¹⁷—there is no doubt that Mr. Le Fanu is correct in identifying the granted village of Udayachandramaṅgalam with the modern Udayēndiram.¹⁸ This village is now situated on the northern bank of the Pālāṟu, while Udayachandramaṅgalam is said to have been bounded by the Kshīranadī on the north-east, and by an unnamed small river on the east. It must be therefore assumed that either, as Mr. Le Fanu suggests, the Pālāṟu has changed its bed, or that the name Udayēndiram has travelled across the river in the course of the past eleven centuries. Paśchim-āśrayanadī-vishaya, the name of the district to which the granted village belonged, is a literal Sanskrit translation of the Tamil territorial term Mēl-Aḍaiyāṟu-nāḍu, which, according to another Udayēndiram grant (No. 76 below), was a subdivision of the district of Paḍuvūr-kōṭṭam. The remainder of the prose portion enumerates the Brāhmaṇa donees (l. 75 ff.), who, according to line 64, were one hundred and eight in number. The actual number of the donees is, however, sixty-three, and that of the shares one hundred and thirty-three. This discrepancy is a third point which suggests that the inscription may be a forgery. Of the two concluding verses, the first (v. 7) refers to the race of Pūchān, and the second (v. 8) informs us that the inscription,—which, like the Kūram and Kaśākūḍi inscriptions,¹⁹ is styled a eulogy (praśasti, ll. 101 and 105),—was composed by the poet Paramēśvara, who also received one of the shares of the granted village (l. 101 f.). The Tamil endorsement (l. 105 ff.) is dated in the 26th year of the reign of Madiraikoṇḍa Kō-Parakēsarivarman, i.e., of the Chōḷa king Parāntaka I.,²⁰ and records that the villagers of Udayachandramaṅgalam agreed with those of the neighbouring village of Kāñchivāyil,²¹ which was also called Igaṉmaṟaimaṅgalam, to form one village of the two. Another copy of the Tamil endorsement has been added on the first, originally blank side of the first plate of another Udayēndiram grant.²²

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0074.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This short inscription is engraved on a pillar in the south-east corner of the veranda which surrounds the shrine of the Ujjīvanātha temple at Uyyakkoṇḍāṉ-Tirumalai, a village 3 miles west of Trichinopoly. It records the gift of a perpetual lamp in the 34th year of the reign of Madirai-koṇḍa Kō-Parakēsarivarman, i.e., of the Chōḷa king Parāntaka I.¹ The donor was Pirāntakaṉ-Mādēvaḍigaḷār, a queen of Pirāntakaṉ-Kaṇḍarādittadēvar. The only king with a similar name, of whom we know, is Gaṇḍarādityavarman, the second son of Parāntaka I.² As the inscription belongs to the time of Parāntaka I. himself, and as it prefixes the word Pirāntakaṉ to the name of Kaṇḍarādittadēvar,³ it is evident that Gaṇḍarādityavarman, the son of Parāntaka I., is actually meant here. The name Parāntaka also forms the first member of the name of the queen of Kaṇḍarādittadēvar; Pirāntakaṉ-Mādēv-aḍigaḷār probably means ‘the devotee (of the temple) of Mahādēva, (founded by) Parāntaka (I.).’ The hitberto published inscriptions of Parāntaka I. are dated in the 13th,⁴ 15th,⁵ 24th⁶ and 26th⁷ years of his reign. The latest sure date hitherto found is the 40th year in an inscription of the Pañchanadēśvara temple at Tiruvaiyāṟu. ⁸ The large Leyden grant (l. 48 ff.) states that Gaṇḍarādityavarman, the second son of Parāntaka I., “founded, for the sake (of bliss) in another (world), a large village, (called) by his own name, in the country on the northern bank of Kavēra’s daughter (i.e., the Kāvērī river).” This village appears to be identical with Gaṇḍarāditya-chaturvēdimaṅgalam, which is mentioned in several Tanjore inscriptions⁹ as belonging to a district on the northern bank (of the Kāvērī), and with the modern Kaṇḍarādityam in the Uḍaiyārpāḷaiyam tālluqa.¹⁰ The fifth of the nine Śaiva hymns known as Tiruviśaippā was composed by Kaṇḍarādittaṉ, who calls himself ‘king of the people of Tañjai,’ i.e., Tanjore, and must be accordingly identified with the Chōḷa king Gaṇḍarādityavarman. ¹¹ The carpenter Kaṇḍarāditta-Perundachchaṉ in No. 66, paragraph 505, is apparently named after Gaṇḍarādityavarman, the grand-uncle of the then reigning king Rājarājadēva. According to the subjoined inscription, the ancient name of Uyyakkoṇḍāṉ-Tirumalai was Nandipanmamaṅgalam, which suggests that the place may have been founded by one of the Pallava kings named Nandivarman. The temple was called Tirukkaṟkuḍi-Paramēśvara. This enables us to identify it with Kaṟkuḍi, a shrine which is referred to in the Periyapurāṇam as situated in the Chōḷa country to the south of the Kāvērī river.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0075.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The subjoined inscription was first made known by the Rev. T.Foulkes in the Manual of the Salem District, Vol. II, p. 369 ff. It is engraved on one of the five sets of copper-plates, which appear to have been discovered at Udayēndiram in A.D. 1850 and are now in the possession of the Dharmakartā of the Saundararāja-Perumāḷ temple at Udayēndiram.¹ I owe the opportunity of using the original plates to the courtesy of Mr. F.A.Nicholson, I.C.S. The copper-plates are seven in number. They measure about 8(3/4) to 8(7/8) by 3(1/4) inches. The edges of each plate are raised into rims for the protection of the writing, which is in very good preservation. The plates are strung on a copper ring, which had been already cut when Mr. Foulkes examined the plates. The ring is about (1/2) inch thick and measures about 5(1/4) inches in diameter. Its ends are soldered into the lower portion of a flower, which bears on its expanded petals a circular seal of about 2(1/8) inches in diameter. This seal, which I have figured in the Epigraphia Indica (Vol. III, p. 104, No. 4 of the Plate), bears, in relief, a bull couchant which faces the proper right and is flanked by two ornamented lampstands. Above the bull are an indistinct figure (perhaps a squatting male person) and a crescent, and above these a parasol between two chaurīs. Below the bull is the Grantha legend Prabhumēru. From the Udayēndiram plates of the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya II.² we learn that his great-grandfather had the name or surname Prabhumēru. The occurrence of this name on the seal of the subjoined grant suggests that the Gaṅga king Pṛithivīpati II. adopted a Bāṇa biruda and placed it on his seal when the Bāṇa kingdom was bestowed on him by the Chōḷa king Parāntaka I. As, however, the seal-ring had been already cut when Mr. Foulkes examined the plates, the possibility remains that, as in the case of the inscription No. 74,³ the present seal may have originally belonged to another set of plates, perhaps to those of Vikramāditya II.⁴ The first five plates bear 28 Sanskrit verses in the Grantha alphabet. The alphabet and language of the two last plates (and of a portion of the last line of plate Vb) is Tamil. A few Tamil letters are used in the middle of the Sanskrit portion, viz., ḻi of Vaimbalguṛi in line 42, ṟam of Śrīpuṟambiya in line 45, and ṟi of Paṟivi in line 62. A few words in Sanskrit prose and Grantha characters occur at the beginning of plate I and at the end of plate VII (svasti śri, l. 1, and ōn namō Nārāyaṇāya, l. 101). The Sanskrit portion opens with invocations of Vishṇu and Śiva (verses 1 and 2). The next few verses (3 to 11) contain a genealogy of the Chōḷa king Parāntaka I. Then follows a genealogy of the Gaṅga-Bāṇa king Pṛithivīpati II. surnamed Hastimalla (vv. 12 to 23), and the information that, with the permission of his sovereign Parakēsarin or Parāntaka I., he granted the village of Kaḍaikkōṭṭūr to the village of Udayēnduchaturvēdimaṅgalam (vv. 24 to 26). Excluded from the grant was certain land which belonged to the Digambara Jainas (v. 27 f. and l. 97 f.). The Tamil portion contains a minute description of the boundaries of Kaḍaikkōṭṭūr and adds that the grant was made by Śembiyaṉ-Māvalivāṇarāya (i.e., the Gaṅga-Bāṇa king Pṛithivīpati II.) in the 15th year of the reign of Madirai-koṇḍa Kō-Parakēsarivarman (i.e., the Chōḷa king Parāntaka I.), and that the granted village was clubbed together with Udyaśandiramaṅgalam into one village, called Vīranārāyaṇachchēri in commemoration of Parāntaka’s surname Vīranārāyaṇa. The Chōḷa genealogy (vv. 3 to 11) may be subdivided into three portions, viz., mythical ancestors, ancient Chōḷa kings, and direct predecessors of Parāntaka I. The mythical ancestors (v. 3) are Brahmā, Marīchi, Kāśyapa, the Sun, Rudrajit, Chandrajit and Śibi. The four first of these are named in the same order in the Udayēndiram plates of Vīra-Chōḷa⁵ and in the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi;⁶ in the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā,⁷ Marīchi is placed after Kāśyapa. Śibi is mentioned by name in the large Leyden grant (l. 13) and alluded to in the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi (viii. 13) and in the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā (ll. 20 to 22). The ancient Chōḷa kings to whom the subjoined inscription refers (v. 4), are Kōkkiḷḷi, Chōḷa, Karikāla and Kōchchaṅkaṇ.⁸ The Leyden grant mentions the same persons in different order, viz., Chōḷa (l. 17), Karikāla (l. 24), Kōchchaṅkaṇṇān⁹ (l. 25) and Kōkkiḷḷi (l. 26). The Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi alludes first to Kōkkiḷḷi as having wedded a Nāga princess (viii. 18), then to Kōchcheṅgaṇ as contemporary of the poet Poygai (ibid.), and last to Karikāla as having built embankments along the Kāvērī river (viii. 20), while the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā alludes first to Kōkkiḷḷi (l. 19 f.), then to Karikāla (l. 26), and last to Kōchcheṅgaṇ (l. 27 f.). It will be observed that each of the four documents which record the names and achievements of these ancient Chōḷa kings, enumerates them in different order. One of the four kings, Kōkkiḷḷi, can hardly be considered a historical person, as he is credited with having entered a subterraneous cave and there to have contracted marriage with a serpent princess,¹⁰ and as the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā places him before the two mythical kings Śibi and Kavēra; and the king Chōḷa of the Udayēndiram plates and of the Leyden grant is nothing more than a personification of the Chōḷa dynasty,—just as Pallava, the supposed son of the hero Aśvatthāman and founder of the Pallava race.¹¹ The two remaining kings, Kōchcheṅgaṇ and Karikāla, are the heroes of two Tamil poems, the Kaḷavaṛi by Poygaiyār and the Paṭṭinappālai by Rudraṅgaṇṇaṉār. These two poems must be considerably more ancient than the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi, which belongs to the time of Kulōttuṅga I. (A.D. 1063 to 1112), because the author of this poem (viii. 18 and 21) believed them to be actually composed before the time of Parāntaka I. and during the very reigns of Kōchcheṅgaṇ and Karikāla. While the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi places Kōchcheṅgaṇ before Karikāla, who is represented as having inscribed on Mount Mēru the history of his predecessors, and among them of Kōchcheṅgaṇ (viii. 19), the Leyden grant calls Kōchcheṅgaṇ a descendant of Karikāla, and the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā refers to the two kings in the same order. The Leyden grant even represents the mythical king Kōkkiḷḷi as a descendant of Kōchcheṅgaṇ. A comparison of these conflicting statements shows that, at the time of the composition of the three documents referred to, no tradition remained regarding the order in which Kōchcheṅgaṇ and Karikāla succeeded each other. Probably their names were only known from ancient Tamil panegyrics of the same type as the Kaḷavaṛi and the Paṭṭiṉappālai. It would be a mistake to treat them as actual ancestors of that Chōḷa dynasty whose epigraphical records have come down to us. They must rather be considered as two representatives of extinct dynasties of the Chōḷa country, whose names had survived in Tamil literature either by chance or on account of their specially marked achievements. To Karikāla the Leyden grant (l. 24 f.) attributes the building of embankments along the Kāvērī river. The same act is alluded to in the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi and the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā. The Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi (viii. 21) adds that he paid 1,600,000 gold pieces to the author of the Paṭṭiṉappālai. According to the Porunarāṟṟuppaḍai, a poem by Muḍattāmakkaṇṇiyār,¹² the name of the king’s father was Iḷañjēṭcheṉṉi. The king himself is there called Karigāl, i.e., ‘Black-leg’ or ‘Elephant-leg,’¹³ while the Sanskritised form of his name, Karikāla, would mean ‘the death to elephants.’ He is said to have defeated the Chēra and Pāṇḍya kings in a battle fought at Veṇṇil.¹⁴ According to the Śilappadigāram,¹⁵ his capital was Kāvirippūmbaṭṭiṉam.¹⁶ In one of his interesting contributions to the history of ancient Tamil literature,¹⁷ the Honourable P.Coomaraswamy allots Karikāla to the first century A.D. This opinion is based on the fact that the commentaries on the Śilappadigāram represent Karikāla as the maternal grandfather of the Chēra king Śeṅguṭṭuvaṉ, a contemporary of Gajabāhu of Ceylon. Mr. Coomaraswamy identifies the latter with Gajabāhu I., who, according to the Mahāvaṁsa, reigned from A.D. 113 to 135. With due respect to Mr. Coomaraswamy’s sagacity, I am not prepared to accept this view, unless the identity of the two Gajabāhus is not only supported by the mere identity of the name, but proved by internal reasons, and until the chronology of the earlier history of Ceylon has been subjected to a critical examination. The last of the four ancient Chōḷa kings to whom the subjoined inscription refers, is Kōchcheṅgaṇ, i.e., ‘king Red-eye.’ Poygaiyār’s poem Kaḷavaṛi, which has been translated into English by Mr. Kanakasabhai Pillai,¹⁸ describes the battle of Kaṛumalam, in which Śeṅgaṇ defeated and captured a Chēra king. The Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi and the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā state that the prisoner was set at liberty by the king, after the Kaḷavaṛi had been recited in the presence of the latter. The Leyden grant (l. 26) calls him “a bee at the lotus feet of Śaṁbhu (Śiva).”¹⁹ By this it alludes to the fact that Śeṅgaṇ was considered as one of the sixty-three devotees of Śiva.²⁰ The Periyapurāṇam calls him the son of the Chōḷa king Śubhadēva by Kamalavatī, and attributes to him the foundation of the Jambukēśvara temple.²¹ His name is mentioned by two of the authors of the Dēvāram: Sundaramūrti invokes him in the Tiruttoṇḍattogai,²² and refers to a temple which Kōchcheṅgaṇāṉ had built at Naṉṉilam;²³ and Tiruñāṉaśambandar mentions two other temples which the Chōḷa king Śeyyagaṇ²⁴ had built at Ambar²⁵ and at Vaigal.²⁶ The last two references prove that Śeṅgaṇ must have lived before the 7th century, to which, as shown by Mr. Venkayya,²⁷ Tiruñāṉaśambandar belongs. Finally, Mr. Venkayya²⁸ has found that the Nālāyiraprabandham speaks of a visit of the Chōḷa king Kōchcheṅgaṇāṉ to the Vishṇu temple at Tirunaṟaiyūr.²⁹ Verses 4 and 5 of the Udayēndiram plates and lines 28 to 31 of the large Leyden grant mention the names of the grandfather and father of Parāntaka I., Vijayālaya and Āditya I. Both kings are described in general terms, and no special deeds or events are noticed in connection with them. It may be concluded from this that they were insignificant princes, and that Parāntaka I. was the actual founder of the Chōḷa power. The king during whose reign the present grant was issued, bore various names. The Leyden grant (ll. 32 and 40) calls him Parāntaka. The same name occurs in verses 21 and 25 of the Udayēndiram plates. He was also called Vīranārāyaṇa, a name which occurs in verse 6, and which is presupposed by Vīranārāyaṇachchēri, as the granted village was termed after the name of “His Majesty” (l. 73 f.). Another name of his was Parakēsarin (v. 24), which forms part of his Tamil designation Madirai-koṇḍa Kō-Parakēsarivarman (l. 71), i.e., ‘king Parakēsarivarman who took Madirai (Madhurā).’ The conquest of Madhurā and the defeat of its ruler, the Pāṇḍya king Rājasiṁha, is referred to in verses 9 and 11. Parāntaka I. is also reported to have repulsed an army of the king of Laṅkā (Ceylon) and to have earned by this feat the surname Saṁgrāmarāghava (v. 10). Hence he calls himself ‘Kō-Parakēsarivarman who took Madirai (i.e., Madhurā) and Īṛam (i.e., Ceylon)’ in some of his inscriptions.³⁰ He defeated, among others, the Vaidumba king,³¹ “uprooted by force two lords of the Bāṇa kings” (v. 9), and conferred the dignity of “lord of the Bāṇas” on the Gaṅga king Pṛithivīpati II. (v. 21). His queen was the daughter of a king of Kēraḷa (v. 8). The Leyden grant (l. 35 f.) reports that “(this) banner of the race of the Sun covered the temple of Śiva at Vyāghrāgrahāra with pure gold, brought from all regions, subdued by the power of his own arm.” As stated before,³² this verse refers to the gilding of the Kanakasabhā or ‘Golden Hall’ at Chidambaram. Mr. P. Sundaram Pillai has pointed out that the expression ‘Golden Hall’ (Poṉṉambalam) occurs already in the Dēvāram of Appar (alias Tirunāvukkaraiyar), the elder contemporary of Tiruñāṉaśambandar.³³ Consequently, it seems that Parāntaka I. did not gild the Chidambaram temple for the first time, but that he only re-gilded it. Mr. Sundaram adds that “Umāpati Śivāchārya, to whose statements we are bound to accord some consideration, ascribes, in the 14th century, the building of the Golden Hall and the town (Chidambaram) itself to a certain Hiraṇyavarman of immemorial antiquity.” Though the name Hiraṇyavarman actually occurs among the Pallava kings of Kāñchī,³⁴ it looks as if his alleged connection with the Golden Hall were only due to the circumstance that the word hiraṇya, ‘gold,’ happens to be a portion of his name. The gilding, or rather re-gilding, of the Chidambaram temple by Parāntaka I. is alluded to in the Vikkirama-Śōṛaṉ-Ulā (ll. 30 to 32). The Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi (viii. 23) mentions his conquest of Ceylon and Madhurā. The same two conquests and the gilding of the Chidambaram temple are referred to in a hymn by Gaṇḍarāditya, the second son of Parāntaka I.³⁵ According to this hymn, the capital of Parāntaka I. was Kōṛi,³⁶ i.e., Uṟaiyūr, now a suburb of Trichinopoly.³⁷ The present inscription is dated in the 15th year of his reign (l. 71 f.). A list of other inscriptions of his was given on page 374 above. The genealogy of the Chōḷa king Parāntaka I. is followed by an account of the ancestors of his feudatory Pṛithivīpati II. surnamed Hastimalla (vv. 12 to 23). This passage opens with a verse (12) glorifying the Gaṅga family, which is said to have had for its ancestor the sage Kaṇva of the race of Kāśyapa³⁸ and to have “obtained increase through the might of Siṁhanandin.”³⁹ As in the copper-plate grants of the Western Gaṅgas, the first king of the Gaṅga dynasty is stated to have been Koṅkaṇi, who resided at Kuvaḷālapura, the modern Kōlār,⁴⁰ “who was anointed to the conquest of the Bāṇa country,”⁴¹ and who, in his youth, accomplished the feat of splitting in two a huge stone pillar with a single stroke of his sword.⁴² The device on his banner is said to have been a swan (sitapiñchha, v. 14). To the period between this mythical ancestor and the great-grandfather of Pṛithivīpati II. the inscription (v. 15) allots the reigns of Vishṇugōpa, Hari, Mādhava, Durvinīta, Bhūvikrama, and “other kings” of Koṅkaṇi’s lineage. The remainder of the genealogical portion of the inscription supplies the following pedigree of the Gaṅga kings: Śivamāra. Pṛithivīpati I. surnamed Aparājita. Mārasiṁha. Pṛithivīpati II. surnamed Hastimalla. Pṛithivīpati I. fought a battle at Vaimbalguṛi (v. 17) and lost his life in a battle with the Pāṇḍya king Varaguṇa at Śrīpuṟambiya (v. 18). Śrīpuṟambiya has to be identified with the village of Tiruppirambiyam near Kumbhakōṇam.⁴³ Mr. Venkayya has shown that this place is mentioned in the Dēvāram of Tiruñāṉaśambandar and Sundaramūrti, and that king Varaguṇa-Pāṇḍya is referred to in the Tiruviḷaiyāḍalpurāṇam.⁴⁴ Pṛithivīpati II. was a dependent of Parāntaka I. and received from him the dignity of ‘lord of the Bāṇas’ (v. 21), who had been conquered by the Chōḷa king (v. 9). He defeated the Hill-chiefs (Girīndra)⁴⁵ and the Pallavas (v. 23) and bore the titles ‘lord of Paṟivipurī’ and ‘lord of Nandi,’ i.e., of the Nandidurga hill near Bangalore. His banner bore the device of a black-buck, his crest was a bull, and his drum was called Paiśācha (v. 24). In the Tamil portion of the inscription, Pṛithivīpati II. is referred to under the title Śembiyaṉ-Māvalivāṇarāya (ll. 72 and 101). The second part of this name consists of Māvali, the Tamil form of Mahābali, i.e., ‘the great Bali,’ who is considered as the ancestor of the Bāṇa kings,⁴⁶ and Vāṇarāya, i.e., Bāṇarāja or ‘king of the Bāṇas.’ The first part of the name, Śembiyaṉ, is one of the titles of the Chōḷa kings. The whole surname appears to mean: ‘(he who was appointed) Mahābali-Bāṇarāja (by) the Chōḷa king.’ According to verse 16, the Gaṅga king Pṛithivīpati I. rendered assistance to two chiefs named Iriga and Nāgadanta, the sons of king Diṇḍi, and defended the former of these two against king Amōghavarsha. This king can be safely identified in the following manner. The Chōḷa king Rājarāja ascended the throne in A.D. 984-85;⁴⁷ Rājarāja’s granduncle Rājāditya was slain by the Gaṅga king Būtuga, who was a feudatory of the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Kṛishṇa III., before A.D. 949-50;⁴⁸ Rājāditya’s father Parāntaka I., who reigned at least 40 years,⁴⁹ may accordingly be placed about A.D. 900 to 940. As Parāntaka I. was a contemporary of the Gaṅga king Pṛithivīpati II.,—Amōghavarsha, the contemporary of Pṛithivīpati I., must be identical with the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Amōghavarsha I., who reigned from A.D. 814-15 to 876-78.⁵⁰ Accordingly Mārasiṁha, the son of Pṛithivīpati I., must have reigned about A.D. 878 to 900, and must be distinct from another Mārasiṁha, who reigned from A.D. 963-64 to 974-75.⁵¹ Of the localities mentioned in the grant proper, Udayēndu-chaturvēdimaṅgalam (v. 26) and Udayaśandiramaṅgalam (the Tamil spelling of Udayachandramaṅgalam, ll. 74 and 99 f.) are two different forms of the name of the modern village of Udayēndiram, where the plates were found.⁵² In mentioning the name Udayachandramaṅgalam, the subjoined inscription presupposes the existence of the lost original of the Udayēndiram plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla (No. 74), which record the foundation of that village in honour of the general Udayachandra.⁵³ The village granted, Kaḍaikkōṭṭūr, must have been situated close to Udayēndiram, because it was clubbed together with the latter into one village, called Vīranārāyaṇachchēri. Kaḍaikkōṭṭūr was bounded on the south-east and north by the Pālāṟu river (ll. 78 and 96), which passed through the village near the eastern boundary of the latter (l. 75). The village belonged to Mēl-Aḍaiyāṟu-nāḍu, a subdivision of the district of Paḍuvūr-kōṭṭam (l. 73 f.).⁵⁴ As I have already stated on page 365, Mēl-Aḍaiyāṟu-nāḍu⁵⁵ is the Tamil equivalent of Paśchimāśrayanadī-vishaya, the Sanskrit name of the district to which Udayēndiram belonged in the time of Nandivarman Pallavamalla.

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0076.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: In the first volume I published an inscription of Kambaṇa-Uḍaiyar, which records that, in the time of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva, the Rājasiṁhavarmēśvara temple at Kāñchipuram had been closed, its landed property sold, and its compound and environs transferred to the temple of Aṉaiyapataṅgā.¹ This temple is situated close to the Rājasiṁhavarmēśvara (now Kailāsanātha) temple. In its inscriptions and in the Dēvāram,² it bears the slightly different name Aṉēkataṅgāpadam. It contains three inscriptions, one of which records a private grant,³ while the two others (Nos. 77 and 78) are dated during the reign of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva. The king to whose reign the inscriptions Nos. 77 and 78 belong, is identical with Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva I. This follows from the fact that, in other inscriptions which open with the same introduction,⁴ he receives the surname Kō-Rājakēsarivarman, which was borne by Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa I.,⁵ and that, in a few inscriptions with the same introduction,⁶ he is said to have put to flight Vikkala and Śiṅgaṇa, who must be identified with Vikramāditya VI. and Jayasiṁha IV. of the Western Chālukya dynasty.⁷ The subjoined inscription records that, in the 20th year of his reign, Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva granted to the Śiva temple of Aṉēkataṅgāpadam in Kāñchipuram three vēlis of land in the village of Tāmar, alias Nittaviṉōdanallūr, in Tāmar-nāḍu, a subdivision of Tāmar-kōṭṭam. According to Mr. Crole’s Chingleput Manual (p. 439), the district of “Tamāl-kottam” was situated in the west of the Conjeeveram tālluqa. The village of Tāmar must be accordingly identified with the modern Dāmal.⁸ As in an inscription of Kambaṇṇa-Uḍaiyar (Vol. I, No. 88), Kāñchipuram is here said to have belonged to Eyiṟ-kōṭṭam, a district of Jayaṅkoṇḍa-Śōṛa-maṇḍalam. Eyil, after which the district of Eyiṟ-kōṭṭam was called, must be distinct from the distant village of Eyil in the South Arcot district, with which I proposed to identify it on a former occasion.⁹ Perhaps the term Eyil, i.e., ‘the Fort,’ refers to Kāñchipuram itself. Jayaṅkoṇḍa-Śōṛamaṇḍalam is another name of Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam.¹⁰

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0077.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Like No. 77, this inscription belongs to the time of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva I. It is dated in the 34th year of his reign, and records that the king granted 2 vēlis of land to the Aṉēkataṅgāpadam temple at Kāñchipuram. The land granted was situated in the southern portion of Kāñchipuram, to the north of the temple of Tirukkaṟṟaḷi-Mahādēva, i.e., of the Rājasiṁhavarmēśvara (now Kailāsanātha) temple,¹ to the east of the hamlet of Puttēri,² to the west of ‘the royal wall of Rājēndra-Chōḷa,’³ and to the south of the hamlet of Kīṛ-Puttēri, i.e., ‘Eastern Puttēri.’ As the land granted bordered on the Kailāsanātha temple, it is not impossible that it formed part of those gifts of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva, which were declared to be unlawful and were restored to the Kailāsanātha temple in the time of Kambaṇa-Uḍaiyar.⁴

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0078.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Vṛiddhāchalēśvara temple, gōpuram, right of entrance. Vēṅkaṭapatidēva-māhāraya (II) Śaka 1545, Rudhirōdgāri, Vaiyāśi 3, Ṛishabha śu. 12, Attam,-1623 A.D. May 1, Thursday. Records that for the merit of (dhanmamāga) Veṅgappa-nāyakkarayyaṉ of Śeñji in Aṉṉāḍu alias Veṇbār-nāḍu in Karikālavaḷanāḍu in Magadha-maṇḍalam and the nāṭṭavar of that nāḍu, Lingā-raḍḍiyār son of Vallakōḷ Eṟamu-raḍḍiyār, born of Dhanañjēya-Paṇḍakulam had the images of Paḻamalai-nātha-svāmiyār and Periyammai-nāchchiyār and the images for festivals (of deities from Vighnēśvara to Chaṇḍēśvaran) consecreted through the agengy of Piḻai-poṟutta-gurukkaḷ. He further constructed (renovated ?) the various structures like (garbha-griham) aṟddha-maṇḍapam etc. in Vridāchalam alias Veṇgaṉūr, made over the right for the worship as apportioned in a thirty-day cycle and management of the same (śīvattu viśa-kkottu) to (the same ?) Piḻai-poṟutta-gurukkaḷ described (in this context) as the son of Āpatt-uttāruṇa-pperumāḷ of Arāśare-gōtram, Bōdhāyana-sūtram. (His father was probably the paṇḍitar of Ñāna-sikhāmaṇi-Tiru-Anantīśvarar of Tiruttōṉipuram) and the authority of (?) of Veḷḷaṅ-gottu (?) to (his own son ?) Aṇṇāmalai-raḍḍiyār stated to have been the (son of Vallakōl Lingā-raḍḍiyār of Paṇḍa-kulam and (kshiti-pāla-gōttiram). Probably the last mentioned (i.e.) Aṇṇāmalai-reḍḍiyār was also given the authority of supervision over the work of Piḻaipoṟuta-gurukkaḷ as also control over the poṟ-bhaṇḍāram (gold store house)

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv28p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: These plates were discovered in 1911 by the late Rai Bahadur V.Venkayya, M.A., in the village Vēlūrpāḷaiyam, about 7 miles north-west of Arkonam in the North Arcot district. They have since been purchased by the Government for deposit in the Madras Museum. A detailed description of the plates and their contents has appeared in the Epigraphical Report for 1911, Part II, paragraphs 5 to 12. Mr. Venkayya also, has published a valuable note on them in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1911, pp. 521 ff. The plates are five in number and consist of eight written sides, the outer faces of the first and last being completely blank. They vary in length from 9(5/8)" to 9(3/4)", and are slightly convex on their right and left sides. The breadth of each plate is about 3(1/2)". The ring which holds the plates together is oval-shaped, and measures 7" x 6(1/4)", while the circular seal in whose massive bottom the edges of the ring are firmly fixed, is 3(1/4)" in diameter. The seal bears on a depressed surface an elongated figure of a Pallava bull in a recumbent posture facing the proper right with an ornamental lamp-stand on either side of it. The bull and the lamp-stands are placed on a straight line which is perhaps to be taken for the surface of a pedestal. Below this latter, there appear the faint traces of an expanded lotus flower. Above the bull are engraved in one row, eight symbols of which a goddess (perhaps Lakshmī), flanked by two lamp-stands occupies the centre. Another symbol which is recognisable is the svastika. The remaining four are indistinct. Above these again are the insignia of royalty, viz., two chauris mounted on handles and a parasol between them. Right round the margin of the seal is a defaced legend in Pallava-Grantha characters of which the syllables . . . . . . va-nāthasya Nan[tipa]ṉmas[ya] bhū[pa*]tēḥ [|] viśva-[vi]śva[ṁ]bharāpāla śrīḥ, are visible. The plates including ring and seal weigh 394 tolas. The inscription on the plates is engraved partly in Grantha and partly in Tamil characters. The writing discloses two different scripts, the first of which (ll. 1 to 28) is somewhat less deeply cut and slanting. The virāma or the puḷḷi in the Tamil portion of the inscription is marked almost regularly throughout, by a zigzag line resembling the final m of Grantha or by the usual dot. The grant consists of 31 Sanskṛit verses intercepted in the middle by a prose passage in Tamil from lines 47 to 63, and including at the end a short Tamil sentence in lines 68 and 69. Verses 1 and 2 are invocations addressed to the Supreme Being and to Śrīkaṇṭha (Śiva). The two next supply the legendary origin of the Pallavas from Vishṇu, down to the eponymous king Pallava, through Brahmā, Aṅgiras, Bṛihaspati, Śaṁyu, Bharadvāja, Drōṇa, and Aśvatthāman, and eulogise the family as being very powerful. From verses 5 to 8, we learn the names of some probably historical kings. One of them was Aśōkavarman in whose family was born Kāḷabhartṛi. His son was Chūtapallava; his son, Vīrakūrcha; from him came Skandaśishya; from him, Kumāravishṇu and after him, Buddhavarman. It is evident, as Professor Hultzsch has remarked, (above, p. 342), that Aśōkavarman “can scarcely be considered a historical person, but appears to be a modification of the ancient Maurya king Aśōka.” Kāḷabhartṛi is a possible synonym of Kāṇagōpa, who is mentioned in the Kāśākuḍi plates, in the group of kings that ruled after Aśōkavarman. Vīrakūrcha, the grandson of Kāḷabhartṛi (Kāṇagōpa), must be the Vīrakōrchavarman whose name occurs as that of the great grandfather (of the donor) in an odd Pallava plate published by Professor Hultzsch in the Epigraphia Indica (Vol. I, p. 397 f.) and the same as Vīravarman of the Pīkira, Māṅgaḷūr, Uruvupalli and the Chendalūr grants, all of which belong practically to the same period. Vīrakūrcha is stated to have married the daughter of a Nāga chief¹ and through her, to have acquired the insignia of royalty. Their son Skandaśishya seized from king Satyasēna the ghaṭikā of the Brāhmaṇas. The reference to a ghaṭikā at this early period is very interesting. It occurs also in the Tālagunda inscription of Kakusthavarman which is ascribed by Professor Kielhorn to about the first half of the 6th century A.D.² Skandaśishya is perhaps identical with the Pallava king of the same name, who is referred to in one of the Tirukkaṛukkuṉṟam inscriptions³, as having made a gift to the holy temple of Mūlasthāna at that village. If Skandaśishya is synonymous with Skandavarman as suggested by Mr. Venkayya in his article on the Tirukkaṛukkuṉṟam inscription, we shall have to identify him with Skandavarman II, particularly because the two generations after him supplied by the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates would, in this case, be the same as those found in the Chendalūr plates of Kumāravishṇu II.⁴ Satyasēna, the king from whom Skandaśishya seized the ghaṭikā, remains unidentified. Kumāravishṇu, the son of Skandaśishya, is next stated to have captured Kāñchī, and his son Buddhavarman to have been the conqueror of the Chōḷas. Mr. Venkayya mentions two distinct periods in early Pallava history, viz. (1) the period in which their grants are recorded in the Prākṛit language and (2) that in which the grants are in Sanskṛit.⁵ The first has been tentatively assigned to the beginning of the 4th century A.D. Evidently, the break suggested at the beginning of verse 5 in the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates with the words “Aśōkavarman and others,” included this earlier period of the Prākṛit charters, and counted within it such names as Śivaskandavarman, Vijayaskandavarman, Vijayabuddhavarman, Buddhyaṅkura and Vishṇugōpa. The Sanskṛit charters, which are to be referred probably to the 5th and the 6th centuries of the Christian era, supply the names of a number of Pallava kings who may now be arranged in order of succession, with the help of the information given in the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates. The capture, or rather the re-capture of Kāñchī attributed to Kumāravishṇu in these plates confirms Mr. Venkayya’s suggestion that that town was not the Pallava capital for some time during the interval between the Prākṛit period and the later Sanskṛit period. Kāḷabhartṛi (Kāṇagōpa) may have been the first of the kings of the second period which lasted down to (Kāṇagōpa) may have been the first of the kings of the second period which lasted down to Buddhavarman according to our plates, or down to his son Kumāravishṇu II according to the Chendalūr plates. The question however arises whether Kumāravishṇu (I) of the Chendalūr and the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates has to be identified with Yuvamahārāja Vishṇugōpavarman or to be treated as still another son of Skandaśishya (Skandavarman II). The former alternative was suggested by Mr. Venkayya together with the further supposition that Buddhavarman and Siṁhavarman II may have been brothers.⁶ But as the names Vishṇugōpa and Kumāravishṇu are mentioned simultaneously together among Pallava ancestors, as for instance, in the Vāyalūr pillar inscription of the time of Rājasiṁha,⁷ we may presume, perhaps tentatively, Kumāravishṇu I to be a third son of Skandavarman II. The following revised pedigree of the Pallava kings based on the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates and the Sanskṛit charters of Pīkira, Māṅgaḷūr, Uruvupalli and Chendalūr, is given provisionally, subject to the identifications and suggestions made above:— [C1]Kāḷabhartṛi (Kāṇagōpa) [C1]Chūtapallava (perhaps, a surname of Skandavarman I mentioned in the Uruvupalli grant) [C1]Vīrakūrcha (Vīrakōrchavarman or Vīravarman) [C1]Skandaśishya (Skandavarman II) [C1]Siṁhavarman I [C2]Yuvamahārāja- Vishṇugōpa or Vishṇugōpavarman [C3]Kumāravishṇu I [C1]Skandavarman III [C2]Siṁhavarman II [C3]Buddhavarman [C1]Nanḍivarman⁸ [C2]Kumāravishṇu II After v. 8 we are again introduced to another gap in the succession in which were included a host of kings such as Vishṇugōpa⁹ and others. Then appeared a king named Nandivarman I who brought under his control a powerful snake apparently called Dṛishṭivisha.¹⁰ In verse 10, Siṁhavarman, the father of Siṁhavishṇu, is introduced,—no connection being specified between himself and the Nandivarman just mentioned. Siṁhavishṇu was the conqueror of the Chōḷa country which was fertilized by the river Cauvery. What follows of the Pallava genealogy is not new. It is a repetition of the account already supplied by the Kāśākuḍi, Kūram and the Udayēndiram plates. Stone inscriptions written in the Pallava-Grantha characters commence from this period,—a fact which suggests that, with the conquest of Siṁhavishṇu, the Pallavas must have extended their dominion further south of Kāñchī into the Chōḷa country and adopted the Dravidian language generally found mixed up with Sanskṛit in the later stone inscriptions. From Siṁhavishṇu’s son Mahēndravarman I was born Narasiṁhavarman I. This King whose conquest of Vātāpi (Bādāmi) and the Western Chalukya Pulakēśin II has frequently been described, is stated in verse 11 to have defeated his enemies and to have taken from them the pillar of victory standing at Vātāpi.¹¹ Then came Paramēśvaravarman I, an enemy of the Western Chalukya king Vikramāditya I, whom, according to the Kūram and the Udayēndiram plates, he defeated at Peruvaḷanallūr. Paramēśvara’s “son’s son” was Narasiṁhavarman II, who re-organised the ghaṭikā of the Brāhmaṇas, and built a temple for Śiva “comparable with the mountain Kailāsa”. This is a clear reference to the building of the Kailāsanātha temple at Conjeeveram by Narasiṁhavarman II.¹² The latter’s son was Paramēśvara II. The usurpation of the Pallava throne by Nandivarman II, subsequent to the death of Paramēśvara II, is clearly stated in verse 15. The distant relation that existed between the usurper Nandivarman II and Paramēśvara II is described in the Kāśākuḍi plates. Two points in the account given above are worthy of note: (1) the omission of the name Mahēndravarman II after Narasiṁhavarman I and (2) the statement that Narasiṁhavarman II was the “son’s son”¹³ of Paramēśvara I. The latter is probably an error, since all the three published Pallava accounts agree in saying that Narasiṁhavarman II was the son, not the grandson, of Paramēśvara I. The former, however, may be different. For although the Kūram plates call Paramēśvaravarman I, the grandson of Narasiṁhavarman I, still the doubtful way in which this relationship is expressed in the Kāśākuḍi and the Udayēndiram plates, taken together with the statement of the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates, makes it appear as if Mahēndravarman II and Paramēśvaravarman I were both sons of Narasiṁhavarman I, thus reducing the seven generations between Siṁhavishṇu and Paramēśvaravarman II, to six. The usurper Nandivarman II who, according to the Kāśākuḍi plates, was sixth in descent from a brother of Siṁhavishṇu could not at the time of his usurpation be a generation older than Paramēśvaravarman II whose kingdom he usurped. Indeed, as hinted in the Udayēndiram plates, he must have been much younger to justify his being called there the son of Paramēśvaravarman. Consequently it appears probable that Mahēndravarman II and Paramēśvaravarman I were actually brothers and that the succession after Narasiṁhavarman I passed on directly to the latter, the former having, perhaps, died before him. Two successions after the usurper Nandivarman (Pallavamalla) are further supplied for the first time by the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates. Nandivarman II’s son by Rēvā was the Pallava-Mahārāja Dantivarman (verse 18). His queen was the Kadamba princess Aggaḷanimmaṭī; from these, was born king Nandivarman III, or according to the Tamil portion of the inscription, Vijaya-Nandivarman, in the sixth year of whose reign the subjoined grant was made. No specific historical facts are mentioned in connection with these kings. Nandivarman III is stated to have “acquired the prosperity of the Pallava kingdom by the prowess of his (own) arms” (verse 20). From this we may infer that the sovereignty over the Pallava kingdom had now been keenly contested either by outsiders or by some direct descendents of the Siṁhavishṇu line. In the Chingleput, North Arcot, South Arcot and Trichinopoly districts, there have been discovered a number of stone records (more or less of the same age as the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates) which refer themselves to the reigns of Dantivarman, Dantivarma-Mahārāja, Dantippōttaraśar or Vijaya-Dantivikramavarman, and also of Nandivarman with similar variations in the name. Again, the Bāhūr plates¹⁴ supply the names Dantivarman, (his son) Nandivarman and (his son) Nṛipatuṅgadēva or Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅgavarman, as members of the Pallava family, among whose ancestors were Vimala, Koṅkaṇika and others. From this latter statement Professor Hultzsch concluded that the kings mentioned in the Bāhūr plates were different from the Pallavas of Kāñchī and were only “Pallava by name but Western Gaṅga by descent.” It is now, therefore, diffcult to say if the Dantivarmans and the Nandivarmans of the stone records mentioned above, are to be identified with those mentioned in the Bāhūr plates, or with those of the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates or with both. Mr. Venkayya is inclined to connect the names in the Bāhūr plates with those of the Vēlūrpaḷaiyam plates, and suggests that Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅgavarman of the former was apparently the son of Nandivarman III of the latter. Against this the only objection is the ancestry which, in the one case includes the clear Western Gaṅga name (or surname) Koṅkaṇika, while in the other it does not. If, however, Mr. Venkayya’s suggestion is accepted, we must presume two facts to arrive at a concurrent genealogy, and to connect the kings of stone records with those mentioned in the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam and the Bāhūr plates. The prefix kō-vijaya and the suffix vikramavarman which are invariably found appended to the names of the kings in this series must have been introduced for the first time by the usurper Nandivarman Pallavamalla, who, we know, literally won the kingdom by victory (vijaya) and by prowess (vikrama)¹⁵, and that Nṛipatuṅgavarman who was decidedly the most powerful¹⁶ of this last branch of the Pallavas, and a son of the Rāshṭrakūṭa princess Śaṅkhā, must have contracted new relations with the Western Gaṅgas to justify the insertion of one or more of the names of that dynasty among his Pallava ancestors. Even with these suppositions granted, the identification of kings mentioned in stone records with the Nandivarmans and Dantivarmans of the copper-plate grants presents peculiar difficulties. The script of the copper-plates, though of the same age with that of the stone inscriptions often differs from it,¹⁷ and the information supplied by the latter is so meagre that hardly any points of contemporaneous nature that could help us in such identification, are forthcoming. In the present state of our knowledge therefore, it may be hypothetically presumed that kings of names Nandivarman and Dantivarman with or without the prefix kō-vijaya and the suffix vikramavarman, may be taken to be one or the other of the immediate ancestors of Nṛipatuṅga-Vikramavarman; while kings described as Dantivarma-Mahārāja of the Bhāradvāja-gōtra,¹⁸ Dantivarman and Nandivarman of the Pallava-tilaka-kula,¹⁹ and Nandivarman “who conquered [his enemies] at Teḷḷāṟu,”²⁰ have to be kept distinct. In conclusion it may be stated, by way of a resumé, that the Pallava history covers four separate periods extending from about the 4th to the 9th century A.D. with three gaps which remain yet to be filled up satisfactorily by later researches. These are (1) the period of the Prākṛit charters; (2) after a gap of a little more than a century, the period of the Sanskṛit charters; (3) after another gap (or rather two gaps) of about the same length the period of stone inscriptions when, the Siṁhavishṇu line was predominant; and (4) the last period when the Nandivarman line (developing later, into what has been called the Gaṅga-Pallava line) was powerful until it was completely crushed by the Chōḷas. A table of the kings of the Siṁhavishṇu line and of the collateral branch of Nandivarman Pallavamalla down to Nṛipatuṅgavarman of the Bāhūr plates is appended below:— [C1]Nandivarman I [C1]Siṁhavarman [C1]Siṁhavishṇu [C2]Bhīmavarman [C1]Mahēndravarman I [C2]Buddhavarman [C1]Narasiṁhavarman I [C2]Ādityavarman [C1]Mahēndravarman II [C2]Paramēśvaravarman I [C3]Gōvindavarman [C1]Narasiṁhavarman II [C2]Hiraṇya (I) [C1]Paramēśvaravarman II [C2]Mahēndravarman III [C3]Nandivarman II Pallavamalla [C1]Dantivarman or Vijaya-Dantivikramavarman (Hiraṇyavarman II)²¹ [C1]Nandivarman III, Vijaya-Nandivarman or Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman [C1]Nṛipatuṅgavarman or Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅgavarman The object of the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam grant was the gift of the village Śrīkaṭṭuppaḷḷi or Tirukkāṭṭuppaḷḷi to a temple of Śiva built at that village by a certain Yajñabhaṭṭa or Śaṉṉakkuṟi Yajñabhaṭṭa, surnamed Bappa-Bhaṭṭāraka,²² in the sixth year of the reign of king Nandivarman III. The request (vijñapti) was made by the Chōḷa-Mahārāja²³ Kumārāṅkuśa, while the executor (ājñapti or āṇatti) was the minister Namba (in Tamil, Iraiyūr-uḍaiyāṉ-Nambaṉ) of the Agradatta family. The donee was the Mahādēva (Śiva) temple of Yajñēśvara at Tirukkāṭṭuppaḷḷi. Verse 28 informs us that the composer of the praśasti²⁴ was the Māhēśvara Manōdhīra. Verse 31 and the Tamil sentence following it, supply the name of Pēraya, a clever carpenter of Maṉaichchēri in Kachchippēḍu (Conjeeveram), who engraved the writing on these plates. One point of great interest in the Tamil portion of the grant is the long list of exemptions (parihāra) and the written declaration (vyavasthā) with which Tirukkāṭṭuppaḷḷi was made over to the temple assembly (paraḍai, Skt. parishad). The former included items of collection whose significance is not quite clear, but which, as the inscription says, the king “could receive and enjoy.” It appears as though most of the items here mentioned were not necessarily sources of revenue to the State, as now understood, but only obligatory services which the king could enforce on the people for the benefit of the community. By the written declaration the donee was permitted to build (without any special license) mansions of burnt brick; to grow Artimissia, Andropogan Muricatum, red lilies and uḷḷi in gardens; to plant cocoanut trees in groves; to sink reservoirs and wells; to use large oil-presses; and to prohibit toddy-drawers from tapping for toddy, the cocoanut and the palmyra trees planted within the four boundaries of the village. The village Tirukkāṭṭuppaḷḷi is identical with Kāṭṭuppaḷḷi in the Poṉṉēri tāluk of the Chingleput district; Nāyaṟu-nāḍu of Puṛaṟ-kōṭṭam, in which the village is stated to have been situated, takes its name from the village Nāyar of the same tāluk, about 8(1/2) miles south-west of Kāṭṭuppaḷḷi. In the British Museum plates of the Vijayanagara king Sadāśivarāya of the 16th century A.D., Nāyattu-nāḍu (i.e., Nāyaṟu-nāḍu) is described as being a sub-division of Puḷali-kōṭaka (i.e., Puṛaṟ-kōṭṭam).²⁵

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0098.

DHARMA team.

Summary: Taṇḍantōṭṭam (i.e. Tandantōttam, No. 134 of the Madras Survey map of the Kumbakonam taluk) is a village 6 miles east of Kumbakōṇam in the Tanjore district of the Madras Presidency. The existence of the plates was brought to the notice of the late Rai Bahadur V.Venkayya, M.A., by Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Madras City. It is stated that they “were found with many other idols, while digging a foundation in the premises of a Śiva temple in the village of Thandanthottam, Kumbakonam taluk of Tanjore district, about 100 years ago. No one knew what it is and how they happened to be there.” The plates are 14 in number, each measuring about 11(1/4)" by 3(3/4)". When they were produced before Mr. Venkayya the plates were strung on a ring which did not appear to have been previously cut.¹ The ring is somewhat oval with diameters measuring 6(1/2)" and 7(3/4)". Its ends are secured at the bottom of a circular seal 3" in diameter. The seal bears in relief a couchant Pallava bull facing the proper right. Along the margin of the seal is a Grantha legend which is illegible. The ring on which the plates are strung was cut by me with the permission of Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar in order to change out the plates and prepare ink-impressions. The two sides of the first plate, the first side of the second plate and the first five lines of its second side are in Sanskṛit verse, engraved in the Grantha alphabet and the rest, in the Tamil language and characters. The inscription must originally have consisted of many more plates, two or three of which at least are missing at the beginning. These would have supplied a genealogy of the Pallava kings similar to that of the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates of Vijaya-Nandivarman published above. The concluding words of some of the plates in the middle do not fit in with the opening words of the succeeding plates. Consequently, it is presumed that a few plates² of the grant portion are also lost. This presumption is confirmed by the fact that while the number of the donees according to the Sanskṛit portion has to be 308, the number actually registered is only 244, even including those whose names seem to have been added subsequently in comparatively later characters, or at least in a different hand. The first plate of the preserved portion begins by referring to a king who conquered the South and stating that a certain Hiraṇyavarman was born “again” for the “welfare of the worlds” (jagatām hitāya V. 1). His son was Nandivarman who perhaps held the biruda Ēkadhīra³. The next six verses are taken up with the praise of Nandivarman. Two historical facts referred to in this part of the inscription are interesting. One of them is that Nandivarman took away from the Gaṅga king a neck-ornament which contained in it the gem called Ugrōdaya (V. 6). The name of this Gaṅga king, however, is not furnished. The other is that Nandivarman was the owner of an elephant named Paṭṭavardhana (V. 7). With the permission of the king, a certain Dayāmukha caused a village to be granted to 308 Brāhmaṇas and called it Dayāmukhamaṅgala after his own name (V. 9). The executor (ājñapti) of the grant was evidently the very same person Dayāmukha entitled Kumāra, who is stated to have been the king’s treasurer (V. 10). The composer of the eulogy (praśasti) was Paramēśvara Uttarakāraṇika son of Param-Ōttarakāraṇika (V. 14). The Tamil portion is dated in the 58th year of Kōvijaya-Nandivikramavarman and registers a gift of land (converted into a village⁴) lying to the west of Taṇḍattōṭṭam (i.e. Taṇḍantōṭṭam) in Teṉkarai-Naṟaiyūr-nāḍu, a district of the Chōḷa country, to a number of Brāhmaṇas of Nalgūr⁵. To judge from the high regnal year, the Taṇḍattōṭṭam plates must belong to the reign of that Pallava king Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman whose Tiruvallam rock inscription is dated in his 62nd year i.e. 4 years later than our plates⁶. At the same time the alphabet of the plates and the name of the king lead us to infer that the Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman who issued these plates may be identical with Vijaya-Nandivarman III, the donor of the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates. If the inscription were preserved in full, this question would not have been left to surmise and conjecture. The father of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman is here stated to have been Hiraṇyavarman; while, the father of Vijaya-Nandivarman, according to the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates, was Dantivarman. If the proposed identity of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman with Vijaya-Nandivarman is accepted, the apparent discrepancy in the name of the father could be explained. The statement that Hiraṇyavarman “was born again,” evidently indicates a second king of that name and we may suppose that Dantivarman, the father of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman, was also called Hiraṇyavarman like his grandfather Hiraṇyavarman I the father of Nandivarman Pallavamalla. If the foregoing surmises are confirmed by future researches, the Taṇḍantōṭṭam grant would be 52 years later than the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates of the same king. The donees whose enumeration occupies more than eleven plates of the inscription number 244. They belong to various gōtras and sūtras. To judge from their titles (such as Chaturvēdin, Trivēdin, Sōmayājin, Vasantayājin, Shaḍaṅgavid, Bhaṭṭa, Kramavid, Sarvakratuyājin, Daśapurīya⁷, Agnichit, and Vājapēyin) most of them must have been learned men as stated in verse 9. The largest number of shares assigned to a single individual is 12 and such a recipient was Attōṇa-Shaḍaṅgavi-Sōmayājin (No. 109) whose gōtra and sūtra are lost on one of the missing plates. The composer of the inscription, viz., Uttarakāraṇika alias Ayyaṉ Paramēśvara of the Rathītara-gōtra and Paviṛiya-sūtra (No. 128) received two shares. Among the other donees, Tiruvaḍigaḷ (evidently the name of the local Vishṇu temple or of the Śaiva devotees, as stated on page (41) of the introduction) got 5 shares while Mahādēva (the Śiva temple) was assigned 2 shares. One share was allotted to the reciter of the Bhārata; and the three arbitrators (madhyastha) got one share each. A share was assigned for “pouring water” and for “lighting fire” in the hall (ambalam). Perhaps this was the hall where the village assembly used to meet. Apparently the Bhārata was also recited in this same hall. The donees seem to have belonged to different parts of the country. The names of their native villages indicate that a pretty large number of them must have been originally residents of the Telugu country. Taṇukkil, Kārambichchēḍu, Iṛakkandoṟu, Iruṅgaṇḍi, Nambūr, Karañjai⁸, Piṇukkippaṟu⁹, Vēlpaṟu, Poppaṟu, Vaṅgippaṟu, Aṭṭambaṟu, Muḍipaṟu (or Muḍapaṟu), Virippaṟu, Arasappaṟu, Karippaṟu, Nūttilāppaṟu and Ponnambaṟu are apparently names of villages which were probably situated in the Telugu country. Kumiṛūr, Kāṭṭukkuṟi, Maṇaṟkāl, Mandiram, Paṟiyalūr, Pāḍagam, Pāṟkuḷam, Aṅgārai, Kaḷattūr, Veṇṇainallūr, Perumbūdūr, Kāynīrkuḷam, Īykkāṭṭukkōyil, Śiṟupaṛuvūr, Puliyūr (in Miṛalai-nāḍu), Aruvāgūr and Taramanallūr (in Aruvā-nāḍu)¹⁰ are distinctly Tamil names. The donees whose native villages may be presumed to have been situated in the Telugu country need not necessarily have immigrated into the Chōḷa country at the time of the grant. They might have been settled there sometime before. In any case it is clear that there was a large colony of Telugu Brāhmaṇas in the heart of the Chōḷa country during the first half of the 9th century A.D. The Telugu birudas of the Pallava king Mahēndravarman found in the Trichinopoly cave inscription,¹¹ testify to the influence of the Telugu people in the Chōḷa country already in the 7th century A.D. It is worthy of note that a large number of the village names are now held as titles by some well-known Śrī-Vaishṇava families—Dvēdaikōmapuram (Vēdagōmapura), Vaṅgippaṟu (Vaṅgippura), Uruppiṭṭūr (Uruppuṭṭūr), Kārambichchēḍu (Kārambichchēṭṭu), Śrīmalai (Tirumalai), Pattaṅgi, Vīravaḷḷi (Vīravalli), Muḍumbe, Taṇukkil, Kumāṇḍūr, Puttūr, Śēṭṭalūr and Kuṇḍūr being some. Maṇaṟkāl has evidently lent its name to one of the later Vaishṇava āchāryas of the 12th century, named Maṇakkāl-Nambi.

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv02p0i0099.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Madhyasthanātha temple - on the north and west walls of the central shrine and the west wall of the mukhamaṇḍapa. Iṟandakālameḍutta perumāḷ Śrīvallabhadēva: year 7, Śaka 1463, piḷava, Āvaṇi, 22, su. di. 7, Tuesday, Anusha: 1541 A.D. This inscription records a gift of one kuḻi and eight mā of land freed from taxes at Paṭṭakuṟichchi in Āri-nāḍu, to Kaṇdēru Sōmanātha Bhaṭṭa for compiling pañchāṅga (calendar).

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv30p0i0216.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription records the gift of land (10 mā) to 11 brāhmaṇa, by forming a chaturvēdimaṅgalam called Abirāmaparākramapāṇdiya-chaturvēdimaṅgalam as a part in Sāṉṟāṉkuḷa Sīrmai by adding a tank called Mānābharaṇap-pērēri in Āri-nāḍu. One more gift made by Āhavarāman Srivaladēva who was the father of the King to Vaintēya Bhaṭṭa is also mentioned. The gotras and sutras of the brahmana donees are given.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv30p0i0232.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The inscription is dated in the 14th year of Parakēsarivarman. It registers the gift of the produce of a certain field in Kaḷarikuṟichchi, for expenses in connexion with the fire oblations (agnikārya) in the temple at Tiruneḍuṅgaḷam in Kavira-nāḍu. The king is probably identical with Uttama-Chōḷa after whom Uttamaśōḻa-Brahmādhirāja mentioned in the inscription, was so called.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0140.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is engraved below a group of sculptures reproduced on the accompanying plate. It states that, during the reign of Madhurāntaka dēva alias Uttama-Chōḷa, his mother Mādēvaḍigaḷār alias Śembiyaṉ-Mādēviyār caused to be built in the name of her husband Gaṇḍarādityadēva, a stone temple at Tirunallam, i.e., the modern Kōnērirājapuram, which is one of the ancient Śaivite places of worship mentioned in the Dēvāram. The inscription serves as a key to understand the sculptures below which it is engraved. The female figure kneeling down in a worshipping posture is queen Śembiyaṉ-Mādēviyār and the one close to the liṅga is Gaṇḍarāḍityadēva. The two figures behind the queen are her attendants. The name Ādityēśvara-Mahādēva which occurs in other inscriptions of Kōnērirājapuram indicates that it was derived from Gaṇḍarāditya.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0146.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 23rd year of the reign of the ancient Chōḷa king Rāja-kēsarivarman.¹ It records that a certain Brahmādhirāja (ll. 4 and 11) deposited 200 kaḻañju of gold with the villagers, and that the latter pledged themselves to apply the interest of this sum to the feeding of twelve learned Brāhmaṇas.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: These are five copper-plates belonging to the Pārijātavanēśvara temple at Tirukkaḷar, a village ten miles south-east of Mannārguḍi in the Tanjore district¹. A short notice of these appeared in Dr. Hultzsch’s Annual Report on Epigraphy for 1902—03, paragraph 17. The report also contains a list of 23 stone inscriptions which were copied from the same temple.² These five copper-plates, strung on a copper-ring of 5" diameter, have flat rims, measure 1’(7/8)" x 5(1/2)" each, weigh together 566 tolas and have ring-holes bored in the middle of the left margin about an inch from the edge. They contain in them five complete inscriptions of different Chōḷa kings. The first of them, which is also the earliest, is a record of Parakēsarivarman Rājēndra-Chōḷa I who ascended the Chōḷa throne in A.D. 1012. It begins with the king’s usual historical introduction commencing with the words tiru maṉṉi vaḷara, enumerates his conquests up to the capture of Kaḍāram, is dated in the 18th year of his reign and registers the extent of the dēvadāna lands belong-ing to the temple of Mahādēva at Tirukkaḷar which is said to be a village in Puṟaṅgarambai-nāḍu, a subdivision of Arumoḻidēva-vaḷanāḍu. Compared with the inscription of this king found at Tirumalai³, dated in the 13th year of reign and his Tanjore epigraph⁴, dated in the 19th year of reign, the present inscription furnishes a few differences in reading which are noticed in foot-notes. The identification of all the place names occurring in the historical introduction has been made by Professor Hultzsch⁵, and it remains to note here only a few facts in this connection. Iḍaituṟai-nāḍu which has been taken to be Yeḍatore, a small village in the Mysore district by Mr. Rice, has since been shown by Dr. Fleet to be identical with the territorial division Eḍedoṟe, two thousand, a tract of country lying between the rivers Kṛishṇā on the north and Tuṅgabhadrā on the south, comprising a large part of the present Raichur district⁶. The Kanyākumāri inscription of Vīrarājēndra shows that Maṇṇaikaḍakkam is not to be identified with Maṇṇe in the Nelamaṅgala taluk of the Bangalore district but is the same as Mānyakhēṭa, which Rājēndra-Chōḷa is said to have made a playground for his armies⁷. Chakkara-kōṭṭam has been satisfactorily identified by Rai Bahadur Hira Lal with Chitrakūṭa or ºkōṭa, eight miles from Rājapura in the Bastar State: he has also adduced epigraphical evidence to show that its king was really Dhārāvarsha in A.D. 1111⁸, as stated in the epigraphs of Kulōttuṅga I. Dakshiṇa-Lāḍam has been taken to be Dakashiṇa-Virāṭa or Southern Berars; but it looks likely that it is identical with Dakshiṇa-Rāḍha in Bengal⁹. Śrī-Vijaya appears under the form Śrī-Vishaya in a Kaṇḍiyūr inscription¹⁰ of the same king; and the large Leyden grant states that Māravijayōt-tuṅgavarman was the overlord of this territory¹¹. This has been taken to be the same as San-fotsai of the Chinese annals and has been identified with Palembang, a residency of Sumatra¹².

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0207.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription in six lines is engraved on the second plate of the Tirukkaḷar set. It is dated in the 31st year of the reign of the Chōḷa king Rājakēsarivarman Rājādhirāja I and registers an arrangement made, by a certain Tirumaṇappichchaṉ, who bore the double surname Araiyaṉ Nāgaraiyaṉ and Mahīpālakulakālappēraraiyaṉ, whereby one brahmin had to perform worship in the temple at Tirukkaḷar in addition to another who was doing that service till then. From the short historical introduction which states that the king with the help of his army took the head of Vīra-Pāṇḍya, Śālai of the Chēra king and Ilaṅgai, it is clear that “Śālai is an important place in the Chēra dominions and not a feeding house” as the late Mr. T.A.Gopinatha Rao had taken to be.¹

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0208.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription in 19 lines is engraved on the third plate of the Tirukkaḷar set. It is dated in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of Tribhuvanachakravartin Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva without any distinguishing epithet or historical introduc-tion. In the absence of these, though it is not generally possible to say to which of the three kings who bore that name this record must be attributed, yet it appears to be a record of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa I, since it is stated in the fourth inscription in this set in referring to this record that the king abolished tolls—which is generally a feat attributed to Kulōttuṅga I. It registers a gift of paddy made by a certain Śivaṉ Tillaināyakaṉ alias Śiṟuttoṇḍanambi of Taṇṇīrkuṉṟam in Neṉmali-nāḍu to the temple of Mahādēva at Tirukkaḷar in Puṟaṅgarambai-nāḍu which was a sub-division of Rājēndraśōḻa-vaḷanāḍu for the purpose of taking in proces-sion Aravābharaṇadēva, for offerings to Piḷḷaiyār and the god in the Mūlaṭṭānam and for feeding devotees on the days of the new-moon. Taṇṇīrkuṉṟam, to which the donor belonged, is a village 7 miles to the east of Maṉṉārguḍi in the Tanjore District. The modern village of Nemmeli in the same Taluk, must have been the principal place in the division Neṉmali-nāḍu in which Taṇṇīrkuṉṟam is said to have been situated.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0209.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This is the fourth inscription in the Tirukkaḷar set. It is engraved on the second side of the third plate and belongs to the 18th year of the reign of Tribhuvanachakravartin Rājarājadēva. It records that some of the families of the donees, who received the gift made by Śivaṉ Tillaināyagaṉ of Taṇṇīrkuṉṟam in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa; the abolisher of tolls, ceased to have male members and that in consequence a question arising as to how the feeding pertaining to these families should be conducted in future, the Māhēśvaras settled that the feeding stipulated in the grant to be done by the donees devolved on the female descendants as well and that arrangements were made in accordance with that order. The inscription may probably belong to the reign of Rājarāja II, though the distinguishing epithet of the king is missing and the characters appear to belong to a later period.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0210.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This is the fifth inscription in the Tirukkaḷar set. It is engraved on both sides of the fourth plate and the inner side of the fifth. It is dated in the 29th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva (i.e., Kulōttuṅga III) who took Madura, Ceylon, Karuvūr and the crowned head of the Pāṇḍya king and furnishes a list of gold and silver ornaments belonging to the temple at Tirukkaḷar with their weights as measured by the standard weight called the kuḍiñai-kal and the fineness in each case.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0211.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This short inscription in seven lines is engraved on the first side of the first plate of the set of copper-plates obtained from M.R.Ry. Muthuswamy Konar of Tiruchcheṅgōḍu. It is dated in the 10th year of the reign of king Rājakēsarivarman and registers evidently an order of one of the feudatory chiefs of the sovereign named Maḻavaraiyaṉ Sundaraśōḻaṉ, stating that the taxes on full house-sites and half house-sites shall be recovered at 1/4th and 1/8th (kāśu ?) respectively from the citizens of Tūśiyūr and that fines and faults, if any, shall be realised at the rate prevailing in Nandipuram. The chief Maḻavaraiyaṉ Sundaraśōḻaṉ gets the surnames Piradigaṇḍaṉ and Kolli-Maḻavaṉ in B and Oṟṟiyūraṉ Piradigaṇḍavarman in No. 213. Rao Bahadur H. Krishna Sastri has identified the king Rājakēsarivarman of this and the following record with Rājarāja I and notes as follows regarding the donor’s father who, in B is stated to have died at Īḻam (i.e., Ceylon):—“He was evidently a military officer of Rājarāja I or of one of his predecessors. An inscription from Tiruveṇkāḍu of the time of Rājarāja I refers to the general Śiṟiyavēḷāṉ of Koḍumbāḷūr who fell in a battle-field in Īḻam in the ninth year of Poṉmāḷigai-tuñjiṉa-dēva (i.e., Sundara-Chōḷa Parāntaka II). It is not impossible that the father of Maḻavaraiyaṉ was also connected with the battle in which Śiṟiyavēḷār fell”¹. It is not possible to identify Tūśiyūr mentioned in this inscription.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0212.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription, engraved on three plates—the last bearing writing only on the inner side—is dated in the 5th year of the reign of the Chōḷa king Rājakēsarivarman (identified with Rājarāja I) and registers gifts of lands made by the chief Kollimaḻavaṉ Oṟṟiyūraṉ Piradigaṇḍavarman, to the temple of Paramēśvara of the sacred Mūlasthāna at Tūśiyūr. Boundaries of the lands granted are furnished in detail and therein figure Kaṉṉāḍu, the dams called Pūnāṟṟu-aṇai and Kallōḍu-aṇai, the tanks Śūḷai-kuḷam also known as Kāndaḷēri, Tāmaraikkuḷam and Kaṟṟaḷi-ēri also named Pudukkuḷam, the temple of Tāṉtōṉṟipirāṉ, Mūkkuṟukkā, Kaṭṭināgaṉkūval-iṭṭēr and Kaṇavadinallūr, otherwise called Amaṇkuḍi. Kaṉṉāḍu (kal-nāḍu) which occurs more than once in this inscription refers evidently to hero-stones which are stated in ancient Tamiḻ literature, as having been put up with great ceremony in honour of persons who had done valorous deeds in guarding their country and given up their lives in that cause. Being associated with the word peruvarampu it may even be an engraver’s mistake for kaṇṇāṟṟu. Traces of writing found in lines 13, 28, 29, 30 and 33 indicate that the present inscription is a palimpsest. It is not possible to identify the places mentioned in this inscription.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0213.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On a hero-stone now preserved in Madras Museum. Parakēsarivarmaṉ, who took Tañjai (Vijayālaya). Year 3: C. 853 A.D. Records that a certain Karambai Kalituḍaṉ Mukkaṉ of Attiyūr in Kaṟpūṇḍi-nāḍu died while rescuing cattle from a raid launched by Aṇiyaṉ. The figure of a warrior aiming an arrow from a bow is carved in relief on the slab. Published in A.R.Ep., 1935-36. Part II, Page 72. para 34.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p1i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south wall, central shrine, Gaṅgājaṭādhara temple. Year 12: 983 A.D. This records a gift of 384 sheep for burning 4 perpetual lamps in the temple of Śrī-Vijayamaṅgalattu-Mahādēva at Periya Śrīvānavaṉ-Mahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam at the rate of ninety-six sheep per lamp by Ambalavaṉ-Paḻuvūr-Nakkaṉ alias Vikramaśōḻa-Mārāyaṉ, who had built this temple in stone. Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX No. 314.

Language: Tamil.

Repository: South Indian Inscriptions (Original Edition) (south-indian-inscriptions).

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0103.