Texts

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, Source Language (other), 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.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0151A.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This and the next number together constitute one record of Parakēsarivarman who is identical with Madhurāntaka Uttama-Chōḷa. The object of the inscription is to register the grant of certain lands to the temple at Tirunallam in Veṇṇāḍu, which had been constructed of stone by queen Śembiyaṉ-Mādēviyār in the name of her husband Gaṇḍarāditya. Prior to the date of this record she is stated to have laid out a new flower-garden for the temple by purchasing lands from the assembly of Tirunallam and getting them exempted from payment of taxes and to have increased the original provision for feeding Brāhmaṇas in the temple. The king also granted in the 3rd year of his reign two vēli of land for the upkeep of the garden and in the sixth year a further 16 vēli for the expenses in connexion with the feeding of Brāhmaṇas (ll. 24 to 26).

In the 7th year and 240th day of his reign when the king was encamped at Pichchaṉkōyil, one of his executive officers named Parakēsari Mūvēndavēḷāṉ informed the former that the gift for feeding Brāhmaṇas was not sufficient and that a further gift of 12 vēli of land had to be made. This was done accordingly in the 7th year of reign (ll. 23 to 40). A detailed description of the boundary line of the two vēli and the 12 vēli of land respectively granted for the maintenance of the flower-garden and the feeding house is given in 47 lines (ll. 51 to 98). The privileges and exemptions granted in favour of these two lands occupy lines 99 to 115. With line 116 commences a new grant dated in the 8th year and 143rd day of the same king when he was encamped at Kāṟaikkāṭṭu Paṉaiyūr. The request now was for the regulation of the expenses for all the income derived from the dēvadāna lands of the Tirunallam temple. Accordingly, on the 151st day of the same year the king ordered that specified amounts of gold and paddy collected as tax on the dēvadāna lands of Tirunallam were to be deducted from the general revenue and that the number of Brāhmaṇas who were fed in the feeding house be raised from 25 to 40, the additional expense being met from the remaining balance under a certain item provided for in the old regulations.

This brings us to the end of No. 151 which is engraved on the last section of the south wall and the adjoining section on the east wall of the temple which itself faces west The two next sections on the east wall, two lines on the top of the north wall and a portion again of the east wall seem to contain the continuation. Consequently, on account of the irregular arrangement on the walls, this continuation is treated separately as No. 151A. It describes the regulated expenses referred to at the end of No. 151. As many as 4,151 kalam of paddy and lands, whose measurements are given in great detail, were provided for, in order to maintain the regular service in the temple, such as, the various dishes of oblations to the images, sandal paste, incense, lamps, the śrībali-ceremony held on the natal star Jyēshṭhā of queen Śembiyaṉ-Mādēviyār, feeding Brāhmaṇas, pay (with cost of clothing) of the worshipper, the festivals Mārgaḻi-Tiruvādirai and Vaigāśī-Viśāgam, the pay (with cost of clothing) of Brāhmaṇas who crushed sandal, the Brāhmaṇa servants who held the canopy (over the images) and rendered other necessary service, servants who picked up flowers and strung them, servants who swept the sacred temple and smeared it with cowdung, musicians, trumpeters, conch-blowers, watchmen of images, reciters of the Tiruppadiyam hymns, Brāhmaṇas who attended to the general management of the temple (kōvil-vāriyam), the temple accountant of the potter caste, the potter who supplied pots, the dyer (?) who dyed the sacred cloth (for the images), the Brāhmaṇa who carried the water from the Kāvērī for the sacred bath, the official auditor who checked the temple transactions under orders of the king, temple repairs, the monthly sacred baths and the ceremonies on eclipses, renewal of screens and canopies, the purificatory ceremony called Jalapavitra, annual renewal of sacred cloths, the astrologer who recited the astronomical changes every day and carried the calendar (nāḷōtai) with him, the pay (including cost of clothing) of the gardeners and of their assistants, the temple architect, the carpenter and the blacksmith, special worship for the images of Tripuravijaya, Vrishabhavāhana and Gaṇapati and the sacred bath with the five articles, viz., milk, curds, butter, sugar and honey. The extent of the houses occupied by the temple servants, hymners. priests, musicians, the temple manager and others, is also recorded.

The several officers of the king who legalised the grant by affixing their signatures, the immunities granted to and the privileges enjoyed by the donee, viz., the present Umāmahēśvara temple at Tirunallam, are of very great interest. The officers mentioned are the councillors (Karumam-ārāyum), revenue officers (Puṟavuvaṟi), officers (in charge) of revenue registers (Vaṟippottagam), revenue accountants (Vaṟippottaga-kaṇakku), revenue clerks (Variyiliḍu), Mugaveṭṭi¹, Paṭṭōlai and the Chief Secretary (Ōlaināyagam). The privileges and immunities granted are almost the same as those mentioned in Vol. II, pp. 512 and 530 f. The scheme of the document was apparently a model on which the later grants recorded on the large Leyden copper-plates² and other similar ones were drawn up.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0151.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 29th year of the reign of the Chōḷa king Rājarāja I. and opens with the usual historical introduction, where, however, this inscription and No. 16 read Taḍīga-pāḍi instead of Taḍigai-pāḍi or Taḍiya-vaḻi.¹

The inscription records that the citizens of Mēṟpāḍi granted to the Aṟiñjigai-Īśvara temple 5, 136(1/2) kuḻi of land, which was bounded in the east by the river Nugā, and in the north by the Chōḷēndrasiṁhēśvara temple. Nugā is evidently the original name of the river Nīvā (or Poṉṉai), on the western bank of which Mēlpāḍi is situated, and Chōḷēndrasiṁhēśvara is the ancient designation of the Sōmanāthēśvara temple.².

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0015.

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, Kailāśanātha temple.

Year 12: 983 A.D.

Built in. Seems to be a directive issued to the chaturvēdibhaṭṭa-ttāṉapperumakkaḷ (of Sembiyanmahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam) a brahmadēyam in Aḷa-nāḍu on the southern bank (of the river Kāvēri), to feed themselves (probably in the temple of Śrī-Kailāśam-uḍaiya Mahādēvar) on the day of the asterism of kēṭṭai in the month of Chittirai, the birthday of the queen Sembiyan mahādēvi, (the mother of Uttamachōḷa), with the endowments of gold donated by the queens of Uttamachōḷa, Baṭṭaṉ Dāṉatoṅgiyār, Maḻapāḍi Tennavan-Mahādēviyār, Vāṉavaṉ mahādēviyār, the daughter of Iruṅgōḷar and also another queen, (name damaged and she is described as the) daughter of Viḻupparaiyar and also another queen (name lost) the daughter of Paḻuvēṭṭaraiyar, to the above mentioned chaturvēdibhaṭṭa-ttāṉapperumakkaḷ for the above purpose. (cf. S.I.I. Vol. XIX. No. 383)

Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX, No. 311.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0100.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the east wall, central shrine, Avanisundarēśvara temple.

Year 12: 983 A.D.

Incomplete records the gift of 5 lamp-stands by Sembiyaṉ-mahādēviyār, the queen of Gaṇḍarāditta-perumāṉ, to Mahādēva of Tiru-Avanīśvaram at Pāchchil in Maḻa-nāḍu.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0101.

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.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the north wall, central shrine, Gaṅgājaṭādhara temple.

Year 12: 983 A.D.

Incomplete. Records that Śekkiḻān Araiyaṉ Saṅkaranārāyaṇaṉ alias Śōḻa Muttaraiyaṉ, a native of Kāvaṉṉūr in Paḷuvūr-kūṟṟam in Toṇḍai-nāḍu endowed two vēli, thirteen mā and 1 kāṇi of land under the irrigation of lake Vaḍakuḍi, purchased from the sabhaiyār of Chandaśēri and got the same made tax-free (iṟaiyili). He entrusted the same to the sabhā of Chōḷasūḍāmaṇi-chēri, who were the members of the peruṅguṟiāḷuṅgaṇattār of Periyavāṉavaṉmādēvi for the sake of various services to god Paramasvāmigaḷ of Śrī-Kayilāyam in Periyavāṉavaṉmādēvich-chaturvēdimaṅgalam and also determined the extent of the endowed land that would be required to provide the paddy necessary to conduct each of the various rituals and services.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0104.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south wall of the maṇḍapa infront of the central shrine, Vṛiddhagirīśvara temple.

Year 12: 983 A.D.

It states that this temple with the snapana-maṇḍapa (bathing hall), gōpura, the suṟṟālai (enclosed verandah) and the shrines for the parivāra-dēvatas was constructed by queen Sembiyaṉ-Mahādēviyār, mother of Uttama-chōḷa, the daughter of the chief Maḻaperumānaḍigaḷ and queen of Gaṇḍarāditya, who was the son of Periya-Śōḻaṉār, the great Chōḷa king, Śrī-Parāntakadēvar. It also gives a list of the several gold and silver ornaments and utensils and other articles of worship presented by her to the temple. These comprised five copper lamps, one gold diadem five kaḻañju in weight less a mañjāḍi, a silver plate weighing 389 kaḻañju, a silver jar (keṇḍi) of 199 3/4 kaḻañju 2 gold flowers weighing a kaḻañju and half a gold fore-head band (paṭṭam) weighing one kaḻañju for god Naṭarāja (Kūttapperumāḷ), a five stringed chain with a tāli etc., for Umābhaṭṭāraki and such other ornaments of the said deities.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX. No. 302.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0114.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the west wall, central shrine, Gaṅgājaṭādhara temple.

Year 13: 984 A.D.

Incomplete. This states that Ambalavaṉ Paḻuvūr-Nakkaṉ alias Vikramaśōḻa-Mārāyaṉ of Kuvāḷālam, the perundaram of Uttama-chōḷadēva built of stone the śrīvimāna of the temple of Vijayamaṅgalattu Dēva at Periya Śrī-Vāṉavaṉmādēvichaturvēdimaṅgalam, a brahmadēyam on the northern bank.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0122.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the west wall, central shrine, Gaṅgājaṭādhara temple.

Year 13: 984 A.D.

Records a gift of 96 sheep for burning a perpetual lamp with an uḻakku of ghee everyday in the temple by Aparājitaṉ Seyyavāymaṇi, the wife of Paḻuvūr Nakkaṉ alias Vikramaśōḻa Mārāyar who built this temple in stone.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0123.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the west wall, central shrine, Gaṅgājaṭādhara temple.

Year 13: 984 A.D.

Records a gift of ninety six sheep for burning a perpetual lamp by Siṅgapanmaṉ Kañchi Akkan, the wife of Ambalavaṉ Paḻuvūr Nakkaṉ alias Vikramachōḻamārāyar, a native of Kuvaḷālam, who had got the stone temple constructed. The perpetual lamp was apparently meant to be burnt in the main shrine of the temple (built by the donor’s husband Ambalavaṉ Paḻuvūr Nakkaṉ).

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0124.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the north and west walls, central shrine, Gaṅgājaṭādhara temple.

Year 14: 985 A.D.

This inscription has two sections. The first one is in Sanskrit and the second portion in Tamil.

The first portion eulogises that Ambalavan Paḻuvūr-Nakkaṉ of Kuvuḷālapuram was born in a good caste and that he founded one dynasty. He was an embodiment of munificience and his foes knew him as a personification of bravery. The damsels knew him as an incarnation of cupid and scholars knew him as dharma incarnate. He had gained the appreciation of Vikramachōḻa by the show of his valour. In the 14th regnal year of the King he converted the temple of Sambhu at Vijayamaṅgalam in the agrahāra of Śrī Vānavanmahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam into stone and gifted the village Neḍuvāyil, attached to the same greater Vānavaṉmahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam, after purchasing it and getting it made tax-free from the Mahāparishad of the same agrahāra for the worship of the god and celebration of festivals in the said temple.

The Tamil version of the record states that Ambalavaṉ Paḻuvūr Nakkaṉ alias Vikrama chōḷa mahārājan of Kuvaḷālapuram, the perundaram official of the king had constructed the temple of Vijayamaṅgalattu-Mahādēvar at Śrī Vāṉavanmahādēvichaturvēdimaṅgalam, a brahmadēyam on the northern bank (of the river) in stone. He also gifted Neḍuvāyil, a northern hamlet of the village of Vānavaṉmahādēvichaturvēdimaṅgalam with all its appurtenances, after purchase from the peruṅkuṟipperumakkaḷ of the above village and donated it as a bhōgam to the god of Vijayamaṅgalam for providing food offerings and also for conducting various services, worship and festivals to the deity. He also gave seven hundred kāśu and got the donated village freed from taxes by the same sabhā. The madhyastha of the village Niṉṟāṉ Āra Amudan Vānavamādēvipperuṅgāvidi wrote this charter.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX No. 357.

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0138.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south wall, Chidambarēśvara shrine, Vēdapurīśvara temple.

Year 14: 985 A.D.

Incomplete. It seems to state that the sheep which had been earmarked earlier for burning a perpetual lamp to the god Tiruvottūr Mahādēva had been misappropriated by Uttamachōḻa-mārāyaṉ. Subsequently on supplication to Sembiyan Mādēvi the 200 sheep were recovered and endowed for burning two perpetual lamps. It was stipulated that sixteen nāḻi, one uri and one uḻakku of ghee as measured by the pañchavārakkal would be contributed every month for these two lamps. The tiruvuṇṇāḻigaiuḍaiyārgaḷ (priests serving in the sanctum sanctorum) are mentioned.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. VII. No. 114.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0140.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south wall, central shrine, Umāmahēśvara temple.

Year: lost.

This inscription was engraved below a group sculptures. Records that Mādēvaḍigaḷ alias Sembiyaṉ Mādēviyār constructed the temple of Tirunallam-uḍaiyār in stone in the name of her husband Gaṇḍarādittadēvar and setup the image of Śrī-Gaṇḍarādittadēvar in the posture of worshipping, when her son Madhurāntakadēvar alias Uttamachōḷa was ruling.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. III No. 146.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0218.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south wall, central shrine, Anantēśvarasvāmi temple.

King: Parakēsarivarman Year 2: 973 A.D.

This might be assigned to Uttama chōḷa¹. This records a gift of ninety-six sheep and a ram for a perpetual lamp in the temple of Tiruvanantēśvarattāḻvār at Vīranārāyaṇa-chaturvēdimaṅgalam by Parāntakan Mādēvaḍigaḷ alias Sembiyan Mādēviyār, the daughter of Maḻavaraiyar, and queen of Gaṇḍarādityadēvar, who was pleased to go west ie deceased.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX. No. 11.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0002.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the west wall, Bhikshāṇḍār shrine, Śivayōganāthasvāmin temple.

Year 6: 977 A.D.

Incomplete. Contains a royal order issued to the sabhaiyār of Vembaṟṟūr, a brahmadēyam-taniyūr in Maṇṇi-nāḍu, on the supplication made by his official who managed the king’s affairs, Parittikkuḍaiyāṉ Kodukulavaṉ Sāttan alias Parakēsari Mūvēndavēḷāṉ, when the king was at the hall of the palace at Paḻaiyāṟu, to deduct from his sixth regnal year onwards, 47 1/2 kaḻañju of gold, being the tax on 4 3/4 vēli of land purchased and endowed by the queen-mother of the king at Vembaṟṟūr, out of the total amount of tax 3917 kaḻañju and 3 mañjāḍi of gold due from the village to the sabhā. The land had been purchased and endowed by the queen even in the king’s third regnal year for providing 108 pots of water for conducting the sacred bath on every saṅkrānthi day and also for providing mid-night food offerings daily to the god of Tiruviśalūr, a hamlet of Vembaṟṟūr, for the merit of the king. Several officials figure as signatories for this transaction.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0032.

Emmanuel Francis.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0052A.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south and east walls, central shrine, Umāmahēśvarasvāmin temple.

Year 8, 143 day: 979 A.D.

This inscription begins with a statement that Sembiyan Mahādēvi, the dowager queen had converted the temple of God Mahādēva at Tirunallam in Veṇṇāḍu into a stone temple in the name of (her husband) Gaṇḍarādittan and had arranged for the raising of a flower garden (tirunandavanam) also in the name of Gaṇḍarādittan. To meet the expenditure on the maintenance (for koṟṟu and puḍavai) of the four persons who were appointed to tend that garden she set apart the yield of 224 kalam from 2 vēli of land at Kīḻaḍuguvilai in Veṇṇāḍu which she had purchased from the sabhā of Tirunallam. This land of two vēli was made iṟaiyili with the status of nandavānappuṟam and dēvadāna-iṟaiyili in favour of God Mahādēva of Tirunallam by the king, Parakēsarivarman, on the representation made to him. Those who were already in the occupation of this land, were removed (to enable the grantee, temple, to make its own arrangement for the cultivation of the said land). It is also stated that the donee ie the temple was entitled to the rights of kārāṇmai and miyāṭchi. The grant was made effective from the third regnal year of the king. Several officials figure as those involved in this process.

Then again when the king Parakēsarivarman was staying in the courtyard in the Viṭṭavīḍu of Vaḍakku Pichchankōyil in Kaḍambūr on the 240th day of his 7th year (978 A.D.) it was represented to him that on or after constructing the temple she Sembiyaṉ Mahādēvi had reviewed the arrangements that had been made for carrying out the various services to God Mahādēva and also for feeding 25 brāhmaṇas daily for the merit of Uḍaiyār (king ?) for which she had established a śālai, the expenses on which were designed to be met by the apportionment of the pañchavāra income of 600 kalam from 12 vēli of land in Pūṅguḍi, the old dēvadāna of the god and another 200 kalam remittable as pañchavāram from 4 vēli of land in Musiṭṭaikkuḍi which lands had been made dēvadāna-iṟaiyili after removing the old occupants with effect from the regnal year six (977 A.D.). However, the above said eight hundred kalam had been found insufficient for carrying out the expenses on the said services on the apportionment (nibandam). For the carrying out of the nibandam as stated above a further 652 kalam, tūṇi and padakku was found as essential. Further the feeding of the 25 brāhmaṇas for one year a total of 937 kalam, tūṇi and padakku of paddy was separately required. Thus a new arrangement for securing the total 1590 kalam of paddy had to be made for this purpose. For this, twelve vēli of Iḷanilaṁ land in Veṇṇāḍu was required to be granted as dēvadānam and sālābhōgam free of taxes (iṟaiyili). On being so represented the king granted the required land as dēvadānam and sālābhōgam after removing the old occupants and entitling the land to kārāṇmai and miyāṭchi with effect from the paśāṉam of the seventh regnal year (978 A.D.) after observing all the official formalities. The boundaries of the land-village granted were mentioned in great detail and the irrigation rights to which the said village land was entitled was also specified in detail. In this context while detailing the boundaries, a garden called Sembiyanmahādēvi-tirunandavānam is also mentioned.

Again on the 143rd day in his eighth regnal year (979 A.D.) the king Parakēsarivarman when he was present at the palace Ādibhūmi in Viṭṭavēḍu of Karaikāṭṭu-Paṉaiyūr it was represented to him the apportionment (nibandam) for the above income of the temple may be made and he arranged for the same to be done. On making the nibandam it was realized that from the income fifteen more brāhmaṇas could also be fed in addition to the twenty-five already stipulated for. The apportionment made is recorded in great detail.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. III. Nos. 151 and 151A.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0052.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the west wall, central shrine, Matsyapurīśvara temple.

Year 9 = 980 A.D.

This inscription is incomplete. It records an endowment of several plots of land after purchase from various persons, made by the queen-mother of Gaṇḍarādittaṉ Madhurāntaka Uttamachōḷa for the merit of her son, to the temple of Tiruchchēlūr Āḻvār at Rājakēsari-chaturvēdimaṅgalam to provide for the sacred bath to god with 108 pots of water on all the days of Saṅkrānti, for providing sumptuous food offerings (for general feeding) and (parivaṭṭam) to the god and also for the remuneration of the nambi (priest) who performed the abhishēkam and for the worship of the deity in the temple. The names of the villages and channels occurring in the record such as Naratoṅgavadi, Śrīkaṇṭa-vāykkāl, Sōḻachūḷamaṇivāykkāl etc, are suggestive of the surnames of the king’s predecessors.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX No. 235.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0064.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south wall, central shrine, Gaṅgā-Jaṭādhara temple.

Year 10: 981 A.D.

This records a gift of 96 sheep for a perpetual lamp in the temple of Śrī-Vijayamaṅgalattu-Mahādēva at Periya-Śrī Vānavaṉmahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam, a brahmadēyam on the northern bank of the river, by Ambalavaṉ Paḻuvūraṉ alias Śrī-Vikramaśōḻa-Mārāyar, who is stated to have also constructed this stone temple for the god. Another gift of two shares for two perpetual lamps for the same God made by one Maḻavar of Aṇḍāḍu, evidently a close relation of the donor is also recorded at the end. It is not clear as to what was meant by two shares.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX No. 272.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0084.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: On the south wall, central shrine, Tirukkōṭīśvara temple.

Year 11: 982 A.D.

Records that while Parāntakaṉ Mādēvaḍigaḷār alias Sembiyan Mahādēviyār, the mother of Uttamachōḷa and the daughter of Maḻavaraiyar caused to be rebuilt of stone, the original brick-structure of the central shrine of the temple of Mahādēva at Tirukkōḍikāval in Nalāṟṟūr-nāḍu, and ordered the re-engravement on its walls, of the several records of endowment originally incised on loose slabs, and which were strewn in many places and that this is one such document. It is dated in the 9th opposite the 4th regnal year of the Pāṇḍya king Māṟaṉ Śaḍaiyaṉ and records the gift of 120 kaḻañju of gold which was entrusted to the sabhā of Mahēndra-Koṭṭūr by Varaguṇa-Mahārāja to the god of Tirukkōḍikkāval for burning perpetual lamps with the daily supply of a nāḻi of ghee.

Published in S.I.I., Vol. XIX No. 292.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv32p2i0093.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Chōḻa, Kulōttuṅga II, 2nd year = A.D. 1135.

Gift of an amount of 90 kāsu, deposited with some Śivabrāhmaṇas, for a lamp to the temple of Tirumaṇañjēri-uḍaiyār, by a native of Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-chōḻapuram.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv34p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is engraved on the slightly sloping surface of a large boulder in the bed of the Nīvā river, one mile north-east of Tiruvallam. The alphabet is Tamil and Grantha of an archaic type. It resembles the alphabet of the inscriptions of the Western Gaṅga king Kampavarman (Nos. 5 and 8 above) and lies between the two Kīḻ-Muṭṭugūr inscriptions of Vijaya-Narasiṁhavarman¹ as the upper limit and the two Āmbūr inscriptions of Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅga-Vikramavarman² as the lower one. As in other archaic Tamil inscriptions,³ the virāma is expressed by a vertical dash over the letter in a number of cases, though not throughout. In the word Maṉṟāḍi (l. 8) the syllable ṟā is expressed by two separate symbols.⁴ The letter ṉ has generally its archaic form, but in two cases⁵ its central loop is fully developed. The language of the inscription is Tamil; but line 1 contains some invocations in Sanskrit prose, and line 15 f. a Sanskrit verse.

The record is dated in the 62nd year of the reign of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman (l. 2 f.). Three other inscriptions of the same king are noticed in Vol. I. (Nos. 108, 124 and 125). As I have shown before,⁶ he is probably identical with Nandivarman, the father of Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅgavarman and the son-in-law of the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Amōghavarsha I. If this identification is correct, the inscription would have to be placed before the end of the 9th century A.D.

Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman appears to have been the sovereign of Mahāvalivāṇarāya (l. 11) or Māvalivāṇarāya (l. 5), who was a descendant of the family of Mahābali (l. 5) and ruled the twelve thousand (villages) of Vaḍugavaḻi (l. 6), i.e. ‘the Telugu road.’ This province is mentioned in the Muḍyanūr plates of the Bāṇa king Malladēva as ‘the twelve thousand villages in Āndhra-maṇḍala,’⁷ and in the Udayēndiram plates of the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya II. as ‘the land to the west of the Āndhra road.’⁸ The attributes which are prefixed to the name of Mahāvalivāṇarāya in the subjoined inscription (l. 3 ff.) are also found in an undated inscription of Mahāvalibāṇarasa at Gūlgānpode.⁹ As I have stated before,¹⁰ Mahābalibāṇarāja seems to have been the hereditary designation of the Bāṇa chiefs. Hence it is impossible to say which individual chief is meant in the present inscription.

The inscription records that a goldsmith granted some land to a temple at Vāṇapuram (ll. 6 and 14), and that Mahāvalivāṇarāya confirmed this grant (l. 10 f.). Vāṇapuram, ‘the town of the Bāṇas,’ seems to have been the residence of the Bāṇa chief and to have been situated close to Tiruvallam.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0042.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription and No. 44 are written continuously, the first two words of No. 44 occupying the end of line 46 of No. 43. The two first lines of No. 43 state that both inscriptions are copies of earlier stone inscriptions, and that these copies were made when the maṇḍapa of the temple was pulled down and rebuilt. Consequently the alphabet of Nos. 43 and 44 exhibits more recent forms than No. 42, though the date of No. 43 is anterior to No. 42.

No. 43 belongs to the 17th year of the reign of the same king as No. 42,—Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman (l. 3 f.). It records that three villages were granted to the temple at the request of the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya (l. 12 ff.). Two chiefs of this name are mentioned in the Udayēndiram plates of Vikramāditya II.¹ The grant recorded in these plates must be prior to the time of Pṛithivīpati II., because the Chōḷa king Parāntaka I. transferred to the latter the Bāṇa kingdom, which he had wrested from two Bāṇa chiefs.² The accession of Pṛithivīpati II. has to be placed before the 9th year of Parāntaka I., i.e. before about A.D. 909.³ Consequently, as pointed out by Dr. Fleet,⁴ Kṛishṇarāja, the friend of the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya II.,⁵ seems to have been the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Kṛishṇa II. (A.D. 888 and 911-12); and the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya, who is mentioned in the subjoined inscription as a contemporary of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman in the 17th year of this king, may be identified with Vikramāditya I., the grandfather of that Vikramāditya II. who issued the Udayēndiram grant.

One of the three villages granted was Aimbūṇi (l. 6), apparently the modern Ammuṇḍi⁶ near Tiruvallam. The three villages were clubbed together into one village, which received the new name Viḍēlviḍugu-Vikkiramāditta-chaturvēdimaṅgalam (l. 9 ff. and 1. 20 ff.). The executor of the grant was Kāḍupaṭṭi-Tamiḻa-Pērarayaṉ (l. 15). The same title was borne by the executor of the Bāhūr plates of Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅgavarman. In the transcript of these plates, which is in my hands,⁷ he is called vīṭōlaiviṭukkakāṭupaṭṭittamiḻappērarayaṉ, which is evidently a mistake of the copyist for Viḍēlviḍugu- Kāḍupaṭṭi-Tamiḻa-Pērarayaṉ. This title and the surname of the village granted by the present inscription⁸ suggest that Viḍēlviḍugu, i.e. ‘the crashing thunderbolt,’ may have been a surname of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman and of his son Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅgavarman.

Of great interest is the mention of persons who had to sing the Tiruppadiyam, i.e. the Dēvāram, in the temple (l. 32 f.). Hitherto the earliest known mention of the Dēvāram was in an inscription of Rājarāja I.⁹ The subjoined inscription proves that it was considered a holy book already in the 9th century A.D.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0043.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: As stated in the introductory remarks to No. 43, the subjoined inscription was copied from an earlier stone inscription when the maṇḍapa of the temple was pulled down and re-erected. It is dated in the Śaka year 810 (in words, l. 4 f.) and in the time of a Bāṇa chief who is not mentioned by name, but only by his title Mahāvalivāṇarāja (l. 3 f.).

The inscription records that a Brāhmaṇa of Eṭṭukkūr near Kāvirippākkam (ll. 10 to 12) paid 25 kaḻañju of gold to the villagers of Vaṉṉipēḍu (ll. 5 and 19), who, in return, pledged themselves to supply oil to a lamp in the temple. Kāvirippākkam is the modern Kāvēripākkam,¹ and Vaṉṉipēḍu is the modern Vaṉṉivēḍu,² about a mile south of Wālājāpēṭ. At the time of the inscription Vaṉṉipēḍu belonged to Kārai-nāḍu, a subdivision of the district of Paḍuvūr-kōṭṭam (l. 5). Kārai-nāḍu owes its name to Kārai,³ a village on the north of Rāṇipēṭ.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0044.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Like the preceding inscription, this one is dated in the time of some Mahāvalivāṇarāya. As the alphabet looks decidedly more modern than that of Nos. 42 and 46 and resembles that of Nos. 47 and 48, it must be assumed that, like the two last-mentioned inscriptions, this one is a copy, which was prepared when the central shrine was pulled down and rebuilt.

The inscription records that an inhabitant of Poṉpaḍukuṭṭam near Kachchippēḍu, i.e. Kāñchīpuram,¹ purchased some land from the inhabitants of Tiruvallam. The produce of the land had to be used for providing offerings and for feeding a lamp in the temple.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0045.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The alphabet of this inscription is Tamil and Grantha of an archaic type and resembles that of the rock inscription No. 42. It records a gift of gold for maintaining a lamp by the queen of Vāṇavidyādhara-Vāṇarāya. As will be shown below (p. 99), this king may be identified with Vikramāditya I., the sixth of the Bāṇa chiefs whose names are given in the Udayēndiram plates.¹ Nos. 47 and 48, which record grants by a queen of the same king, as well as Nos. 43 and 44, are copies of lost originals² and hence exhibit comparatively modern characters. The archaic alphabet of the subjoined inscription and the fact that it is engraved on a single stone, which does not form part of the temple itself, prove that it is an original record of the time of Vāṇavidyādhara. Evidently it owes its preservation to the accident that, when the central shrine and the maṇḍapa were rebuilt, the stone which bears it was utilised for the new pavement of the temple.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0046.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription and No. 48 are written continuously, the first few words of No. 48 occupying the end of line 4 of No. 47. At the beginning of No. 47 it is stated that both inscriptions are copies of earlier stone inscriptions, and that these copies were made when the central shrine of the temple was pulled down. This is the reason why the alphabets of Nos. 47 and 48 are more developed than that of No. 46, though No. 46 records a grant by a queen of the same king as Nos. 47 and 48. In No. 47 she bears the title Vāṇamahādēvī, i.e. ‘the great queen of the Bāṇa (king).’ As the queen mentioned in No. 46, she is stated to have been the consort of the Bāṇa king Vāṇavidyādhara. She was the daughter of Pratipati-Araiyar, the son of Śivamahārāja-Perumāṉaḍigaḷ, who had the surnames Śrīnātha and Kokuṉi.¹ This word is a variant or a corruption of Koṅguṇi, the title of the Western Gaṅga kings,² and the name Pratipati is a corruption or, more probably, a misreading of the copyist for Pṛithvīpati. Hence I would identify Pratipati, the son of Śivamahārāja, with the Western Gaṅga king Pṛithivīpati I., who was the son of Śivamāra³ and the contemporary of the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Amōghavarsha I.⁴ and of the Gaṅga-Pallava king Vijaya-Nṛipatuṅgavikramavarman.⁵ The name of the residence of Śivamahārāja was Kuṇilapura according to No. 47, and Nipuṇilapura according to No. 48. Both forms of the word are clearly misreadings of the engraver for Kuvaḷālapura, the modern Kōlār, which was the traditional capital of the Gaṅga family.⁶

The Udayēndiram plates of Vikramāditya II. mention a Bāṇa chief named Bāṇavidyādhara. This person must be distinct from the Vāṇavidyādhara of the subjoined inscription, because he stood two generations before Vikramāditya I., the contemporary of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman⁷ and consequently of Amōghavarsha I.,⁸ while Vāṇavidyādhara was the son-in-law of Pṛithivīpati I., another contemporary of Amōghavarsha I. An inscription at Gūlgānpode opens with a Sanskrit verse which attributes to the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya-Jayamēru the surname of Bāṇavidyādhara.⁹ Dr. Fleet¹⁰ proposes to identify this Vikramāditya with the Vikramāditya I. of the Udayēndiram plates and with the Vāṇavidyādhara of the subjoined inscription. This identification would suit the fact that Vāṇavidyādhara’s queen was the daughter of Pṛithivīpati I.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0047.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: As stated in the introductory remarks to No. 47, the subjoined inscription was copied from an earlier stone inscription when the central shrine of the temple was pulled down. It records the gift of a lamp by the same queen as No. 47, who was the consort of the Bāṇa king Vāṇavidyādhara and the daughter of Pratipati-Araiyar (i.e. the Western Gaṅga king Pṛithivīpati I.), the son of Śivamahārāja. From the subjoined inscription we learn that her actual name was Kundavvai.¹

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0048.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription belongs to the 7th year of the reign of Rājarāja-Kēsarivarman, i.e. of the Chōḷa king Rājarāja I. It contains a date which admits of astronomical calculation, and which has been repeatedly discussed since its discovery in 1890.¹ Professor Kielhorn has shown that it corresponds to the 26th September A.D. 991.²

The inscription records a visit to the temple by a certain Madurāntakaṉ-Kaṇḍarādittaṉār, who caused one thousand jars of water to be poured over the god. When he had finished his worship, he observed that the offerings in the temple had been reduced to a minimum and that the temple lamps were only feebly burning. He called for the authorities of the temple and of the village and asked them for a detailed statement of the temple revenue and expenditure.

Here unfortunately the inscription is built in. But from the preserved portion it is evident that Madurāntakaṉ-Kaṇḍarādittaṉār, i.e. Gaṇḍarāditya, the son of Madhurāntaka, must have been a person of high standing and influence. He cannot be identical with the Chōḷa king Gaṇḍarādityavarman, because the latter had died before the reign of Ariṁjaya, the grandfather of Rājarāja I.³ Perhaps he was an (otherwise unknown) son of Madhurāntaka, the son of Gaṇḍarādityavarman and immediate predecessor of Rājarāja I.⁴

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0049.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the same year of the reign of Rājarāja I. as No. 49. It records that a Brāhmaṇa set up an image of the goddess and granted a lamp to the temple. He also purchased 1,700 kuḻi of land from the inhabitants of the village of Mandiram in Tūñāḍu and made it over to the temple authorities, who had to feed the lamp and to supply offerings from the produce of the land.

Tūñāḍu, to which Mandiram belonged, was the name of the country round Mēlpāḍi.¹ Mandiram had the surname Jayamēru-Śrīkaraṇamaṅgalam (ll. 2 and 15 f.), which seems to be derived from Jayamēru, one of the surnames of the Bāṇa king Vikramāditya I.²

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0050.