Texts

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription consists of a single Sanskrit verse in the Indravajrā metre and of a passage in Tamil prose. It is dated on a week-day (l. 3) which will probably admit of calculation, in the 18th year of the reign of Tribhuvanachakravartin Rājarājadēva, and records the gift of two lamps to the image of Vishṇu, and to an image of Narasiṁha which was set up in the same temple.

Languages: Sanskrit, Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0040.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Like No. 40, this inscription is dated on a week-day which will probably admit of calculation, in the 18th year of the reign of Tribhuvanachakravartin Rājarājadēva. It records that the same two brothers, who are mentioned in No. 39 above, paid to the authorities of the Dharmēśvara temple two kaḻañju of gold, from the interest of which the cost of feeding two lamps had to be defrayed.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0041.

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: Insert intro.

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 29th year of the reign of Rājakēsarivarman, alias Rājarājadēva, and records that Kaṇṇaṉ Ārūraṉ, a native of the Chōḷa country and a servant of the king, founded near Ukkal a well, which he named after the king, and assigned an allowance of paddy to the men who distributed water in a shed which was erected near the well.¹

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0004.

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.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 16th year of the reign of the Chōḷa king Rājarāja I. (l. 2) and records that the citizens of Vāṇapuram (ll. 2 and 6), i.e. Tiruvallam,¹ sold 700 kuḻi of land to Śaṁkaradēva, the son of Tiruvaiyaṉ (ll. 5 and 6), who granted it to the temple of Tiruvaiya-Īśvara (l. 6). This temple was situated on the south of the Bilvanāthēśvara temple and was evidently named after Tiruvaiyaṉ, the father of the donor. Tiruvaiyaṉ seems to have claimed descent from the Western Gaṅga kings. For, to his name are prefixed the name and the epithets of Śivamahārāja (l. 4 f.), as we have found them in Nos. 47 and 48. As these epithets are spelt with almost exactly the same mistakes as in No. 48,² I believe that the donor copied them from that very inscription, which he found engraved on the temple.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0051.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 20th year of the reign of the Chōḷa king Rājarāja I. and records the gift of a lamp by Naṉṉamaraiyar or Naṉṉamaṉ,¹ the son of Tukkarai. The donor belonged to the Vaidumba family and ruled over Iṅgallūr-nāḍu,² a district of Mahārājapāḍi.

The seven thousand (villages) of Mārājavāḍi, the chief town of which seems to have been Vallūru, are mentioned in an inscription of Rājādhirāja at Miṇḍigal in the Kōlār district (No. 279 of 1895); Mārāyapāḍi occurs in an inscription of Pārthivēndravarman at Takkōlam in the North Arcot district (No. 14 of 1897); and a copper-plate inscription of Kṛishṇarāya of Vijayanagara mentions some villages of the Mārjavāḍa-rājya, which are in the modern Cuddapah district.³ Consequently, Vallūru has to be identified with the present village of Vallūru in the same district.⁴ The Vaidumba king was defeated by the Chōḷa kings Parāntaka I.⁵ and Vīrarājēndra I.;⁶ and Vinayamahādēvī, the mother of the Eastern Gaṅga king Vajrahasta III., belonged to the Vaidumba family.⁷

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0052.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription consists of 21 lines and is dated in the 3rd year of the reign of Parakēsarivarman, alias Rājēndra-Chōḷadēva (I.). It records that the inhabitants of Vāṇapuram (ll. 9, 16 and 18), i.e. Tiruvallam,¹ sold 1,000 kuḻi of land to Sōmanātha (ll. 6, 16, 18 and 20), (the son of) Śaṁkaradēva (l. 5 f.), whose name has been already met with in an inscription of Rājarāja I. (No. 51). The same epithets, which precede the name of Śaṁkaradēva’s father Tiruvaiyaṉ in No. 51, are here prefixed to the name of Śaṁkaradēva (ll. 2 to 5), with nearly the same mistakes in spelling.² A further allusion to Sōmanātha’s descent from the Western Gaṅgas is contained in Gaṅgādēvimaṇali (l. 11), the name which he bestwed on the land purchased by him. Besides, Śaṁkaradēva and Sōmanātha claim to be connected with the Vaidumba family³ (l. 5).

I do not consider it worth while to publish the text of the second half of line 17 and of lines 18 to 21, which record that Sōmanātha assigned the land “to the Mahādēva temple of Tiru(vai)ya-Īśvara, which the members of our family have caused to be built on the southern side of the temple of Tiruvallam-uḍaiyār”⁴ (l. 18 f.), i.e. of the Bilvanāthēśvara temple, and that he granted 96 sheep for the maintenance of a lamp in the same temple (l. 20 f.). The temple of Tiruvaiya-Īśvara has been already mentioned in No. 51.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0053.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 4th year of the reign of Rājēndra-Chōḷa I. Īrāyiravaṉ Pallavayaṉ (l. 4 f.), an officer of his who is known from several other inscriptions,¹ had built a shrine which he called Rājarājēśvara² (l. 11 f. and l. 16 f.), and which is apparently identical with the shrine on which the inscription is engraved. For maintaining two lamps in this shrine, he purchased for 50 kāśu from the inhabitants of Tiruvallam a piece of land which measured 2,000 kuḻi, and which received the name Araiśūr-vāḍagai (l. 15 f.) with an allusion to his native village of Araiśūr (l. 3 f.).

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0054.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 3rd year of the reign of the Chōḷa king Rājēndra (l. 4) and refers to the conquest of Raṭṭa-pāḍi (l. 1), the setting-up of a pillar of victory at Kollāpuram (l. 2), and the defeat of Āhavamalla at Koppam (l. 3).¹ It records that the temple authorities received 25 kaḻañju of gold from an inhabitant of Aimbūṇi,² under the condition that the interest should be applied for the feeding of a learned Brāhmaṇa and other purposes. The end of the inscription is lost.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0055.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is incomplete. Of the five lines which are preserved I am publishing only the two first ones. It is dated in the 2nd year of the reign of Rājakēsarivarman, alias Rājamahēndradēva, and records that a military officer purchased 800 kuḻi (l. 4) of land from the inhabitants of Tiruvallam and granted them to the temple.

On page 32 above it has been stated that the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi and Vikkirama-Śōḻaṉ-Ulā mention two Chōḷa kings who have not yet been identified. The first of them reigned between Rājēndra and Vīrarājēndra I., and the second between Vīrarājēndra I. and Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa I. In the introductory remarks to No. 57 it will be shown that the second king is identical with Parakēsarivarman, alias Adhirājēndradēva. Hence the only king who remains to be identified is the successor of Rājēndra and predecessor of Vīrarājēndra I. He may be identified provisionally with Rājakēsarivarman, alias Rājamahēndradēva, to whose 2nd year the subjoined inscription belongs. In favour of this identification it may be mentioned that the subjoined inscription praises him for guiding the goddess of the earth on the path of Manu, while the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi (viii. 28) speaks of “the Chōḷa who dispensed justice three or four times better than the ancient Manu,”¹ and that an inscription of the 9th year of Rājēndra mentions among the boundaries of a village “the road of Rājamahēndra.”² Perhaps Rājamahēndra was the co-regent of Rājēndra.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0056.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated on the 200th day of the 3rd year of the reign of Parakēsarivarman, alias A(dhi)rājēndradēva (l. 4 f.). Two royal officers met at Kāñchipuram (l. 7) and called for the accounts of the villages which belonged to the Tiruvallam temple. One of the two decided that the revenue from the villages of Kukkaṉūr¹ in Tūy-nāḍu² (l. 12) and Mandiram³ in the same nāḍu (l. 13) should be assigned to the temple for expenses not previously provided for. A larger committee then assembled and made allotments from this revenue for various heads of the temple expenditure.

In line 11 it is stated that, before the time of this inscription, the income of the temple had been regulated in the 8th year of the reign of “the emperor Vīrarājēndradēva.” Consequently Adhirājēndra must have reigned later than Vīrarājēndra I. Among the kings who are mentioned in the Vikkirama-Śōḻaṉ-Ulā after Vīrarājēndra I., the only one who has not yet been traced in inscriptions is the immediate successor of Vīrarājēndra I. and predecessor of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa I.⁴ This king may be identified provisionally with Parakēsarivarman, alias Adhirājēndradēva. If the account in the Vikramāṅkadēvacharita can be trusted, he would have been the son of Vīrarājēndra I. and the brother-in-law of Vikramāditya VI.⁵

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0057.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 26th year of the reign of Rājakēsarivarman, alias Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva (I.), and mentions, in addition to the conquests recorded in Nos. 77 and 78 of Vol. II., the defeat of Vikkalaṉ and Śiṅgaṇaṉ, i.e. the two Western Chālukya kings Vikramāditya VI. and Jayasiṁha III.¹ It states that a lamp was granted to the temple by a native of Kalavai in Śeṅguṉṟa-nāḍu, a subdivision of Palakuṉṟa-kōṭṭam. Kalavai is a village in the Arcot tāluka,² and Śeṅguṉṟa-nāḍu seems to be named after Śeṅguṇam in the Pōlūr tāluka of the North Arcot district.³

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0058.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 23rd year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva and records the gift of a lamp by a Gaṅga chief whose name is not quite distinct, for the benefit of his daughter who was the consort of prince Vīra-Chōḷadēva. The sheep, which were, as usual, given along with the lamp, were made over to two persons (l. 7) whose names occur also in the preceding inscription of Kulōttuṅga I. (No. 58, l. 4). This circumstance enables us to identify Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva (l. 1) with Kulōttuṅga I. and prince Vīra-Chōḷadēva (l. 4) with Vīra-Chōḍa, the son of Kulōttuṅga I. and viceroy of Vēṅgī.¹

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0059.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 15th year of the reign of Kampavarman. The archaic alphabet employed in this record and in No. 8 below, which is dated in the 10th year of the same king, proves that Kampavarman must be anterior to the Chōḷa occupation of Toṇḍai-maṇḍalam. A stone inscription of the 9th year of the same king is quoted in the unpublished Madras Museum plates of Parakēsarivarman, alias Uttama-Chōḷadēva.¹ The temple of Vīṟṟirunda-Perumāḷ at Dūśi near Māmaṇḍūr in the Arcot tāluka contains a fragmentary inscription of a king named kō vijaya-Kampa-Vikramavarman.² The fact that the two words kō vijaya are prefixed to the name of this king, suggests that he belonged to the same family as kō vijaya-Narasiṁhavarman, Nṛipatuṅga-Vikramavarman and Nandi-Vikramavarman.³ A later Kampa was the second of the five sons of Saṁgama I., the founder of the first Vijayanagara dynasty.⁴

The inscription records that a certain Śaḍaiyaṉ made over 1,000 kāḍi⁵ of paddy to the villagers of Uṭkar, who pledged themselves to supply in return 500 kāḍi of paddy per year for some unspecified purpose.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0005.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription records that certain income was assigned to the temple by Śeṅgēṇi Miṇḍaṉ Attimallaṉ Śambuvarāyaṉ in the 8th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga- Chōḷadēva. As another member of the Śeṅgēṇi family is mentioned in inscriptions of Rājarāja III.,¹ it may be assumed that the king referred to in Vol. I. No. 132, and Vol. III. Nos. 60 and 61, is Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa III., the predecessor of Rājarāja III.²

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0060.

Dorotea Operato.

Summary: Vikramachōḻa II. Year 17+1: A.D. 1291.

Damaged and incomplete. Seems to record a grant for worship and repairs in the temple of Aviṉāsi Āḷuḍaiyār at Tiruppukkoḷiyūr by the three classes of people residing in Aṉṉadāṉasivapuri alias Veḷḷalūr in Pērūr-nāḍu.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv36p0i0142.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 11th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva (III.)¹ and records that certain income was assigned to the temple by the same Śeṅgēṇi chief who is mentioned in No. 132 of Vol. I.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0061.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: No king or date. (9th cent. A.D.)

Language: Undetermined.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv36p0i0001.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the (3)4th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva and records the gift of two lamps by Ariyapiḷḷai,¹ the queen of Amarābharaṇa-Śīyagaṅga. An inscription in the Ēkāmranātha temple at Kāñchipuram (No. 10 of 1893) mentions the same chief as “the supreme lord of Kuvaḷālapura (i.e. Kōlār), he who was born from the Gaṅga family, Śīyagaṅgaṉ Amarābharaṇaṉ, alias Tiruvēgambamuḍaiyāṉ,”² and is dated in the 27th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa III.³

According to its preface, the famous Tamil Grammar Naṉṉūl was composed by Pavaṇandi (i.e. Bhavanandin) at the order of Śīyagaṅgaṉ Amarābharaṇaṉ. The Ēkāmranātha inscription proves that Bhavanandin’s patron was a vassal of Kulōttuṅga III.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0062.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: Ballāḷa III. Undated. (A.D. 1291-1342.)

Unfinished and mentions a long list of titles of the king. Lord of Tuvarāpati, the hero of mountain fort, the destroyer of the Makara kingdom, the restorer of the Chōḻa kingdom, the peace maker of the Pāṇḍyas and the destroyer of Kāḍavakula are some of the titles listed.

Published in E.C. (n), Vol. IV, No. Kol. 96.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv36p0i0002.

Dorotea Operato.

Summary: Rājarāja III. Year 16+1: A.D. 1233.

Registers the resolution of the assembly of Nālūr alias Vānavaṇmādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam not to engage certain persons for doing the temple services. It further declared that those persons who act against the resolution are enemies of the village (grāmadrōhin).

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv36p0i0332.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The subjoined inscription records a remission of taxes by Aḻagiya-Pallavaṉ. This chief bore the same surname as Aḻagiya-Śōḻaṉ, a feudatory of Rājarāja III.,¹ and accordingly seems to have been a member of the Śeṅgēṇi family.² The inscription refers to the 3rd year of the reign of Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāladēva. Three inscriptions at Kāñchipuram are dated in the Śaka year 1187 and in the 15th and 16th years of Tribhuvanachakravartin Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāladēva,³ who is perhaps identical with the former king.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0063.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 106 of 1892) is engraved on the west and south walls of the first prākāra of the Ādhipurīśvara temple at Tiruvoṟṟiyūr in the Saidāpēṭ tāluka of the Chingleput district.¹ The name of the temple is derived from Ādhipura,² i.e. ‘the mortgagevillage,’ which is the Sanskrit equivalent of Oṟṟiy-ūr. That this Śiva temple is a very ancient one, follows from the fact that Oṟṟiyūr is mentioned by each of the three authors of the Dēvāram.³

Like the two next following inscriptions (Nos. 65 and 66), this one is dated in the 2nd year of the reign of Rājakēsarivarman, alias Rājēndra-Chōḷadēva (II.). From the Chellūr plates of Vīra-Chōḍa⁴ we know that Rājēndra-Chōḍa was the original name of Kulōttuṅga I., who is distinguished from his maternal grandfather Parakēsarivarman, alias Rājēndra-Chōḷa I., by the surname Rājakēsarivarman. That the Rājēndra-Chōḷa of this inscription is identical with Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa I. follows from its historical introduction, which mentions the capture of elephants at Vayirāgaram and the conquest of the king of Dhārā at Śakkarakōṭṭam. The first of these two deeds is also referred to in the later inscriptions of Kulōttuṅga I.⁵ And both these and the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi report that he conquered Śakkarakōṭṭam when still a Yuvarāja.⁶ Further the subjoined inscription says that he took possession of the eastern country, by which his original dominion, the country of Vēṅgī,⁷ may be meant. Perhaps he took Vēṅgī from his uncle Vijayāditya VII., who appears to have received it from the Chōḷa king Vīrarājēndra I.⁸ The southern limit of the dominions of Rājēndra-Chōḷa II. in the second year of his reign is perhaps roughly indicated by a line connecting Tiruvoṟṟiyūr, Tiruvālaṅgāḍu and Kōlār, the localities of the inscriptions Nos. 64 to 66. The subjoined inscription implies that he felt himself already at that time as a member of the Chōḷa family to which his mother and grandmother belonged,⁹ and not as an Eastern Chālukya, because it mentions as his crest the tiger, and not the boar. But he cannot yet have taken possession of the Chōḷa country on the banks of the Kāvērī. For, his victory over the Kuntala king (Vikramāditya VI.) and his accession to the Chōḷa throne are referred to only in later inscriptions of his, and in these he bears the new name Kulōttuṅga, which, to judge from verse 11 of the Chellūr plates,¹⁰ he assumed on the very occasion of his coronation as Chōḷa king and after his victory over Vikramāditya VI.¹¹

The purpose of this inscription is to record that a general, whose name we know already from an inscription of Adhirājēndra,¹² granted 240 kāśu, which the temple authorities employed for purchasing certain land from five villages. Three of these belonged, like Tiruvoṟṟiyūr itself, to Puḻal-nāḍu, a subdivision of Puḻaṟkōṭṭam; one to a sub- division of Puliyūr-kōṭṭam; and the last to Eḻumūr-nāḍu. Both Puḻal¹³ and Puliyūr¹⁴ now belong to the Saidāpēṭ tāluka. Puḻal-nāḍu must have comprised the north-eastern portion of that tāluka, where we find Tiruvoṟṟiyūr and two of the three other villages which the inscription locates in Puḻal-nāḍu, viz. Maṇali¹⁵ and Āmbilavāyil.¹⁶ Eḻumūr-nāḍu owes its name to Eḻumbūr (Egmore), now a portion of the city of Madras.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0064.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 14 of 1896) is engraved on the east wall of the second prākāra of the Vaṭāraṇyēśvara temple at Tiruvālaṅgāḍu, a village in the Kārvēṭnagar Zamīndārī, 3 miles north-north-east of the Chinnamapēṭ Railway Station. The present name of the temple is derived from Vaṭ-āraṇya, ‘the banyan forest,’ which is the Sanskrit equivalent of Ālaṅ-gāḍu. In Tiruñāṉasambandar’s Dēvāram the place is mentioned by the name Paḻaiyaṉūr-Ālaṅgāḍu, i.e. ‘Ālaṅgāḍu (near) Paḻaiyaṉūr.’ And the subjoined inscription speaks of it as “Tiruvālaṅgāḍu (near) Paḻaiyaṉūr in Paḻaiyaṉūr-nāḍu, (a subdivision) of Mēṉmalai.”¹ Paḻaiyaṉūr is found on the Madras Survey Map of the Kārvēṭnagar Zamīndārī; it is close to Tiruvālaṅgāḍu and 3 miles north-east of the Chinnamapēṭ Railway Station. According to another inscription at Tiruvālaṅgāḍu (No. 16 of 1896), Mēlmalai, the district to which Paḻaiyaṉūr-nāḍu belonged, was included in Jayaṅgoṇda Śōlamaṇḍalam.

The historical introduction and the date of this inscription are identical with those of No. 64. The inscription records that Rājēndra-Chōḷa II. issued an order to the effect that twenty-five families of Śaṅkarappāḍi should be settled on the land of Tiruvālaṅgāḍu, that the new settlement should be called Rājēndra-Śōḻappāḍi (after the name of the king), and that the settlers should have the duty of looking after fifteen lamps of the temple.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0065.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 131 of 1892) is engraved on the east wall of the Kōlāramma temple at Kōlār in the Mysore State. In the Chōḷa inscriptions of the temple the goddess is called Piḍāri,¹ and Kōlār itself Kuvaḷālam. As the traditional capital of the Gaṅga family it is mentioned under the names of Kuvaḷālapura,² Kōḷāḷapura and Kōlāhalapura.³ According to the subjoined inscription (l. 5) it belonged to Kuvaḷāla-nāḍu, a district of Vijayarājēndra-maṇḍalam.

The historical introduction and the date of this inscription are identical with those of Nos. 64 and 65. The inscription records that an officer named Vīraśikhāmaṇi-Mūvēndavēḷār inspected the temple and appointed a committee,⁴ which seems to have made allotments to various shrines included in the temple. The temple revenue had been originally paid by the temple villages in gold coins (māḍai), but was subsequently converted into supplies of paddy. We learn that one māḍai corresponded to two kāśu (l. 11) and that one kāśu purchased about 2 3/4 kalam of paddy (l. 11 f.). In the Tiruvallam inscription of Adhirājēndra one kāśu corresponds to four kalam of paddy.⁵ The Tanjore inscriptions of Rājarāja I. and Rājēndra-Chōḷa I.⁶ fix the interest per kāśu at 3 kuṟuṇi of paddy or one eighth kāśu, from which it follows that one kāśu corresponded to 24 kuṟuṇi, i.e. 2 kalam. This shows that the prices of grain must have varied considerably either according to the locality or at different times.

The preserved portion of the inscription consists of 28 lines. At the end of each of the lines 1 to 7 a few syllables are lost; at the end of line 8 much more is lost; and from line 9 it is impossible to supply the missing portions of each line. To give a general idea of the contents of the inscription, I am publishing the text as far as line 13, but am quoting also from the unpublished portion in the following list of shrines to which allotments were made:—Vīrabhadradēva (l. 12), Brahmāṇī, Īśvarī (l. 13), Vaishṇavī (l. 14), Indrāṇī (l. 15), Gaṇapati (l. 16), Chāmuṇḍēśvarī of the chief shrine (mūlasthāna) (l. 17), Kshētrapāladēva, Mahāśāstā⁷ (l. 18), Sūryadēva (l. 19), Yōginī and Yōgēśvara (ll. 24 and 27). At the worship of the two last deities intoxicating drinks (madya-pāna) were consumed.⁸

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0066.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 182 of 1901) is engraved on three walls of the Saundararāja-Perumāḷ temple at Sōmaṅgalam,¹ a village north of Maṇimaṅgalam in the Chingleput district. The ancient name of the temple was Chitrakūṭa (l. 3). Like Maṇimaṅgalam,² Sōmaṅgalam belonged to Māgaṇūr-nāḍu, a subdivision of the district of Śēṅgāṭṭukōṭṭam (l. 2 f.).

The inscription is dated in the 3rd year of Rājēndra-Chōḷa II. The introduction agrees with that of the inscriptions of his 2nd year (Nos. 64 to 69 above), but adds a reference to his queen, without mentioning her name.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0067.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 17 of 1893) is engraved on the north wall of the Pāṇḍava-Perumāḷ temple at Conjeeveram. The ancient name of the temple was Tiruppāḍagam (l. 3), and it is mentioned under the name of Pāḍagam in the Nālāyiraprabandham.

The date is the 5th year of the king, who is now styled Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷadēva (I.), while in the inscriptions of his 2nd, 3rd and 4th years (Nos. 64 to 67 and 77) he still bears the name Rājēndra-Chōḷadēva (II.).

The new inscription refers to his early victories at Śakkarakōṭṭam and Vayirāgaram.¹ It then states that he vanquished the king of Kuntala, i.e. the Western Chālukya king Vikramāditya VI., that he crowned himself as king of the country on the banks of the Kāvērī, i.e. of the Chōḷa country, and that he decapitated an unnamed Pāṇḍya king. An inscription of the 6th year of his reign² adds nothing new to these

The subjoined inscription records that a merchant of Kāñchipuram provided the temple with a flower-garden and purchased from the villagers of Ōrirukkai some land for the benefit of the gardeners. I cannot find Ōrirukkai on the map; but it must be looked for near Uttiramēlūr³ (l. 4) in the Madurāntakam tāluka of the Chingleput district. As boundaries of the land granted, the inscription mentions also the river Aḻichchiyāṟu and apparently the village of Śāttamaṅgalam. A village of this name⁴ I find 8 miles east of Madurāntakam.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0068.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 174 of 1894) is engraved on the wall of the strong-room of the Vēdagirīśvara temple at Tirukkaḻukkuṉṟam, a large village in the Chingleput district on the road from Chingleput to the port of Sadras.¹ This village is mentioned in Sundaramūrti’s Dēvāram as Kaḻukkuṉṟam, ‘the hill of the kites.’ The ancient name of the temple was Mūlasthāna.² Tirukkaḻukkuṉṟam itself bore the surname Ulagaḷanda-Śōḻapuram and belonged to Kaḷattūr-nāḍu, a subdivision of the district of Kaḷattūr-kōṭṭam. The names of this district and of its subdivision are derived from Kalattūr, a village on the south of Chingleput.³

The inscription records the grant of two lamps, made in the 14th and 15th years of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. (ll. 32 and 38). The historical introduction agrees on the whole with that of No. 68 as far as line 11. It then relates that Kulōttuṅga I. drove Vikkalan (i.e. Vikramāditya VI.) from Naṅgili (in the Kōlār district)⁴ by way of Maṇalūr⁵ to the Tuṅgabhadrā river, and that he conquered the Gaṅga-maṇḍalam and Śiṅgaṇam, by which the dominions of Jayasiṁha III. seem to be meant.⁶ Having secured his frontiers in the north, he turned against the Pāṇḍyas⁷ and subdued the south-western portion of the peninsula as far as the Gulf of Maṉṉār, the Podiyil mountain (in the Tinnevelly district), Cape Comorin, Kōṭṭāṟu, the Sahya (i.e. the Western Ghāṭs) and Kuḍamalai-nāḍu (i.e. Malabar). From the statement that he “fixed the boundary of the Southern country” (l. 27), it may be concluded that he limited the territories of the Pāṇḍya king to the Madura district. In order to pacify the newly acquired country, he settled some of his officers on the roads passing through Kōṭṭāṟu, etc. An inscription of the 39th year of his reign at Chōḷapuram, a portion of Kōttāṟu (No. 46 of 1896), actually mentions one of those military settlers.⁸

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0069.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 1[7]th year of the reign of Rājarāja, (alias) Rājakēsarivarman, and carries the list of his conquests as far as Kaliṅgam. It appears to record that the village assembly assigned a daily supply of rice and oil to the temple of Mahāśāstā.¹ Some words in lines 7, 9 and 10 cannot be read and explained satisfactorily. A clause near the end of the inscription imposes a fine on those who would sell betel elsewhere but at the temple of Piḍāri.²

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0006.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 62 of 1892) is engraved on the east wall of the third prākāra of the Raṅganātha temple¹ on the island of Śrīraṅgam near Trichinopoly. It mentions Śrīraṅgam as Tiruvaraṅgam (l. 16) and the temple as Tiruvaraṅgadēvar (l. 10).

The date is the 18th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. The historical introduction does not add any fresh details to those narrated at the beginning of the inscriptions of the 14th and 15th years². The inscription records that a certain Kāliṅgarāyar granted to the temple 6 1/4 kāśu with the condition that the interest should be applied to defraying the cost of offerings on two festival days.

As discovered by Mr. Venkayya,³ the subjoined inscription fixes the time before which two of the twelve Vaishṇava Āḻvārs, who were the authors of the Nālāyiraprabandham, must have lived. For, (1) it refers to the recital of the text beginning with Tēṭṭarundiṟal (l. 13), which is the 2nd chapter of the sacred hymns of Kulaśēkhara; and (2) the names of three of the temple officials who are mentioned in the inscription prove that the Vaishṇava saint Śaṭhagōpa or Nammāḻvār was already at that time well known and highly venerated.⁴ As noticed before, his work, the Tiruvāymoḻi, is presupposed already in an inscription of Rājarāja I.⁵ These epigraphical evidences are fatal to the theory of Dr. Caldwell, who placed the Āḻvārs in the 12th or 13th century.⁶

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0070.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 105 of 1895) is engraved on the west wall of the second prākāra of the Vaṭamūlēśvara temple at Kīḻappaḻuvūr in the Uḍaiyārpāḷaiyam tāluka of the Trichinopoly district.¹ This village is mentioned under the name of Paḻuvūr in Tiruñāṉasambandar’s Dēvāram. The subjoined inscription calls it both Śiṟupaḻuvūr (ll. 18, 23, 25) and simply Paḻuvūr (ll. 26, 27). It belonged to Kuṉṟa-kūṟṟam, a subdivision of the district of Uttoṅgatoṅga-vaḷanāḍu (l. 18). According to other inscriptions at Kīḻappaḻuvūr, the name of the Śiva temple was Tiruvālanduṟai-Mahādēva, in which āl, ‘the banyan,’ is the Tamil equivalent of vaṭa, the first member of Vaṭamūlēśvara, the Sanskrit designation of the temple. A Vishṇu temple at the same village, which was named Vīra-Śōḻa-Viṇṇagar, is mentioned in line 28 of the subjoined inscription.

The date is the 20th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I., when the assembly of Śiṟupaḻuvūr sold one twentieth vēli of land for one kāśu to the mother of a certain Virudarājabhayaṁkara-Vāṇakōvaraiyar. This may have been the chief of Vāṇakōppāḍi, a district which is mentioned in an inscription at Tirukkōvalūr (No. 126 of 1900). That he received his title from Kulōttuṅga I., follows from the first portion of his name, Virudarājabhayaṁkara, which, according to the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi (x. verse 25), was a surname of Kulōttuṅga I. Another derivative of the same surname is the district of Virudarājabhayaṁkara-vaḷanāḍu; Gaṅgaikoṇḍachōḷapuram and Tirumudukuṉṟam (i.e. Vṛiddhāchalam in the South Arcot district) belonged to Mēṟkā-nāḍu, a subdivision of this district.² A Telugu inscription of Kulōttuṅga I. mentions Manni-nāṇḍu as another subdivision of the same district.³

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0071.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 132 of 1895) is engraved on the east wall of the second prākāra of the Mahāliṅgasvāmin temple at Tiruviḍaimarudūr¹ in the Kumbhakōṇam tāluka of the Tanjore district. This village is mentioned in Tiruñāṉasambandar’s Dēvāram as Iḍaimarudu. The Sanskrit equivalent of this name is Madhyārjuna,² in which madhya corresponds to iḍai, ‘the middle,’ and arjuna to marudu, ‘Terminalia alata.’ In the subjoined inscription the village is called Tiruviḍaimarudil³ and its temple Tiruviḍaimarud-Uḍaiyār (i.e). the lord of Tiruviḍaimarudu). It belonged to Tiraimūr-nāḍu, a subdivision of Ulaguyyakkoṇḍa-Śōḻa-vaḷanāḍu.⁴ The inscription records a grant of 120 sheep for two lamps. The Pūjāris of the temple and the inhabitants of Tiruviḍaimarudil and Tiraimūr were appointed trustees of the grant. Tiraimūr I do not find on the map; but, as its inhabitants seem to have had a share in the management of the temple at Tiruviḍaimarudūr, it was probably not far distant from the latter.

The date is the 172nd day of the 26th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. The historical introduction agrees with that of the 20th year (No. 71 above), but adds that the king conquered the Kaliṅga-maṇḍalam (l. 4). Other inscriptions refer to a single queen, who is styled ‘the mistress of the whole world,’⁵ ‘the mistress of the whole earth,’⁶ or ‘the mistress of the world,’⁷ and who is perhaps identical with Madhurāntakī, the daughter of Rājēndradēva.⁸ In addition to this queen,⁹ the subjoined inscription mentions three other queens, viz. Dīnachintāmaṇi, Ēḻiśai-Vallabhī,¹⁰ and Tyāgavallī. Of the last of these the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi (x. verse 55) states that “she had the right to issue orders together with the orders of the Śeṉṉi (i.e. the Chōḷa king).”

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0072.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: The inscriptions of Kulōttuṅga I. inform us that he conquered and colonized Kōṭṭāṟu.¹ This ancient town now belongs to the Travancore State and is situated about 10 miles north of Cape Comorin and near the British Post Office. “Nagercoil.” A temple named Chōḷēśvara is now included in a quarter of Nagercoil which bears the name Chōḷapuram, while according to the subjoined inscription it belonged to Kōṭṭāṟu itself. The inscription (No. 31 of 1896) is engraved on the north, west and south walls of the first prākāra of this temple.

The date is the 180th day of the [30]th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. The historical introduction agrees on the whole with that of No. 72. But, among the queens, Dīnachintāmaṇi is omitted and Tyāgavallī mentioned in the first place. Hence it may be concluded that Dīnachintāmaṇi died between the 26th and 30th years of the king’s reign.²

The inscription records that Kulōttuṅga I. himself, while staying in his palace at Kāñchipuram, granted to the temple the village of Āndāyakkuḍi, which received the new name Rājēndra-Śōḻa-nallūr. The temple itself, we are told, was built by one of the king’s officers and named Rājēndra-Śōḻa-Īśvara. Both this name and the new name of the village granted must have been chosen with reference either to Rājēndra-Chōḷa II.,³ the name which Kulōttuṅga I. bore during the first few years of his reign, or to Rājēndra-Chōḷa I., the name of his maternal grandfather. Kōṭṭāṟu had the surname Mummuḍi-Śōḻa-nallūr⁴ and belonged to Nāñji-nāḍu,⁵ a subdivision of Uttama-Śōḻa-vaḷanāḍu, a district of Rājarāja-Pāṇḍi-nāḍu.⁶

The inscription is incomplete at the end, and lines 5 and 6 are so much damaged that they cannot be published. They contain a detailed description of the boundaries of the village granted and mention the villages of Aḻagiya-Pāṇḍiyapuram (ll. 4 and 6), Śivīndiram,⁷ Tarumapuram, Irāśak[ka]maṅgalam (l. 5), Śillūr, and the temple of Maṇivaṇṇīśvara (l. 6).

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0073.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 18 of 1893) is engraved on the south wall of the Pāṇḍava-Perumāḷ temple at Conjeeveram. As in No. 68 above, the name of the temple is given as Tiruppāḍagam (l. 3).

The date is the 39th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. But the historical introduction agrees almost literally with an inscription of the 5th year in the same temple (No. 68 above), while the intervening inscriptions (Nos. 69 to 73, 78, and Vol. II. No. 58) contain much additional matter.

The inscription records that a merchant of Kāñchipuram paid two kaḻañju and two mañjāḍi of gold to the Pūjāris of the temple, who pledged themselves to have the god supplied daily with two nāḻi of curds.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0074.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 179 of 1894) is engraved on the south wall of the second prākāra of the Vēdagirīśvara temple at Tirukkaḻukkuṉṟam.¹ It has been published before in a tentative manner by Mr. V. Kanakasabhai Pillai in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXI. p. 281 ff.² The date is the 42nd year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. (l. 11).

The inscription records that an inhabitant of Rājarājapuram (l. 17) made over 10 kāśu (l. 14) to the temple authorities, who purchased for this sum from the villagers of Vāṉavaṉmahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam (l. 11) some land for maintaining the Maṭha of Naminandi-Aḍigaḷ at Tirukkaḻukkuṉṟam (l. 14). As stated by Mr. Kanakasabhai,³ the person after whom this Maṭha was named is one of the sixty-three devotees of Śiva, whose lives are described in the Periyapurāṇam.

Vāṉavaṉmahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam belonged to Kumiḻi-nāḍu, a subdivision of the district of Āmūr-kōṭṭam (l. 11). The land purchased was situated in Kīraippākkam, a hamlet in the west of that village (l. 12), and was bounded in the east by Uroḍagam, in the south by Tāḻaivēḍu, in the west by Uragambākkam, and in the north by Taṇḍuṟai (l. 13). Kiraippākkam is the modern Kīrappākkam⁴ in the Chingleput tāluka. East of it the map shows Oragaḍam (No. 228), south of it Tāḻambēḍu (No. 266), and north of it Taṇḍaṟai (No. 233). The nāḍu to which these villages belonged is named after Kumiḻi⁵ in the same tāluka. The district of Āmūr-kōṭṭam owes its name to the village of Āmūr⁶ near Māmallapuram,⁷ which belonged to the subdivision Āmūrnāḍu.⁸ From the Koṇḍyāta grant of Veṅkaṭa II.⁹ it appears that there was another district which also bore the name of Āmūr-kōṭṭam, but which was named after the town of Āmūr or Āmbūr in the Vēlūr tāluka of the North Arcot district.¹⁰

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0075.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 31 of 1891) is engraved on the east wall of the second prākāra of the Jambukēśvara temple¹ on the island of Śrīraṅgam near Trichinopoly. As stated in Vol. II. p. 253, the ancient name of the locality is Tiruvāṉaikkā, i.e. ‘the sacred elephant-grove,’ and the name of the temple is derived from ‘the sacred white jambū tree’ (tiru-veṇ-ṇāval in Tamil). At the time of the inscription, Tiruvāṉaikkā belonged to Mīgōḻai, a subdivision of the district of Pāṇḍikulāśani-vaḷanāḍu.²

The date is the 47th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. A certain Villavarāyaṉ had set up in the temple images of Ṛishabhavāhana, i.e. Śiva riding on the bull, and of Pārvatī. To provide for the requirements of these two images, he purchased from the temple authorities some land, whose crop of paddy had to be made over to the temple.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0076.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: In chronological order this inscription follows immediately after No. 67 above, and No. 78 after No. 68 above. It was found impossible to insert them in their proper places, because Nos. 64 to 76 had been already set up in pages when Nos. 77 and 78 were copied. Besides these two records, the following inscriptions commencing with pukaḻmātu viḷaṅka were copied in 1901, in addition to those noted under clause VIII. on page 126 above:—

• 30. 36th year: Teṉṉēri, No. 195 of 1901.

• 31. 41st year: do. No. 197 of 1901.

• 32. 42nd year: Achcharapākkam, No. 254 of 1901.

• 33. 43rd year: do. No. 259 of 1901.

• 34. 49th year: do. No. 256 of 1901.

The subjoined inscription (No. 206 of 1901) is engraved on the south wall of the Lakshmīnārāyaṇa temple at Kāvāntaṇḍalam. The same temple contains three earlier inscriptions (Nos. 207 to 209 of 1901), according to which it was built in the time of the Gaṅga-Pallava king Kampavarman¹ by a certain Mānasarpa from Kuḷaṉūr² in Vēṅgai-nāḍu.

The inscription, which is incomplete, is dated in the 4th year of the reign of Rājēndra-Chōḷa II., but omits the reference to his queen which occurs in the Sōmaṅgalam inscription of the 3rd year (No. 67 above). It records the proceedings of a meeting of the assembly of Kāyvāṉtaṇḍalam (l. 3) in Tamaṉūr-nāḍu, a subdivision of the district of Ūṟṟukkāṭṭu-kōṭṭam Kāvāntaṇḍalam, Tamaṉūr³ and Ūṟṟukkāḍu⁴ are all included in the modern Conjeeveram tāluka.⁵

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0077.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 264 of 1901) is engraved on the west wall of a maṇḍapa in front of the Tāndōṉṟīśvara temple at Perumbēr in the Madurāntakam tāluka of the Chingleput district. The ancient name of the temple was Śrīkaraṇīśvara (l. 22), and that of the village was Perumbēṟūr (ll. 22 and 23). From this and other inscriptions we learn that Śrī-Madurāntaka-chaturvēdimaṅgalam, which is the modern Madurāntakam, formed a separate division of the district of Kaḷattūr-kōṭṭam¹ (l. 21); that Achcharapākkam (9 miles south-south-west of Madurāntakam) was a quarter of it; and that Perumbēṟūr (3 miles south-west of Achcharapākkam) was a hamlet on the south of it (l. 22).

The date is the 11th year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga I. (l. 20 f.). As stated in the introductory remarks to this chapter (p. 129 f.), the inscription carries the account of the king’s achievements as far as the defeat of Vikkalaṉ and the conquest of Gaṅgamaṇḍalam and Śiṅgaṇam. It records that the assembly of Madurāntakam remitted the taxes on certain land at Perumbēṟūr in favour of the temple, and breaks off with the signatures of a number of citizens in charge of different portions (śēri) of the city, which were named after Chōḷa kings.

To the list of inscriptions opening with pukaḻ cūḻnta puṇari on p. 125 f. the following one, which I had overlooked, must be added:—

16. 15th year: Kaḍappēri near Madurāntakam, No. 138 of 1896.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0078.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 82 of 1895) is engraved on the south wall of the second prākāra of the Vaidyanātha temple at Tirumalavāḍi in the Uḍaiyārpāḷaiyam tāluka of the Trichinopoly district.¹ The village is mentioned as Maḻapāḍi in Tiruñāṉasambandar’s Dēvāram and as Tirumaḻuvāḍi in the subjoined inscription (l. 38 f.).

The inscription is dated in the 15th year of the reign of Parakēsarivarman, alias Vikrama-Chōḷadēva (l. 36 f.). The introduction, like that of the Tanjore inscription,² records that the king defeated the Teluṅga Bhīma at Kuḷam and burnt the country of Kaliṅga (l. 8), stayed in Vēṅgai-maṇḍalam (l. 9), conquered the North, and then proceeded to the South, where he crowned himself (as Chōḷa king).³

In the tenth year of his reign (l. 15) he made valuable gifts to the temple of his family god at Chidambaram. At the end of the passage describing these gifts mention is made of the very day of these donations:—Sunday, the day of Hasta and the thirteenth tithi of the bright fortnight of Śittirai in the tenth year of his reign (l. 24 f.). According to Professor Kielhorn’s calculation this date corresponds to Sunday, the 15th April A.D. 1128, on which day, however, the nakshatra was Chitrā, not Hasta.⁴

The end of the historical introduction gives the names of two queens, viz. Tyāgapatākā (l. 31), surnamed Tribhuvanamuḻuduḍaiyāḷ (ll. 32 and 36), and Dharaṇimuḻuduḍaiyāḷ (l. 35).

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0079.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription is dated in the 16th year of the reign of “Kaṇṇaradēva, the conqueror of Kachchi (i.e. Kāñchīpura) and Tañjai (i.e. Tañjāvūr).” Mr. Venkayya has identified this king with Kṛishṇa III. of the Rāshṭrakūṭa dynasty (A.D. 940 and 956).¹

At the end of each line, about fifteen syllables are built in. Hence the translation remains fragmentary. As far as it can be made out, the inscription appears to record that the village assembly ordered the land which had lapsed to it, to be sold, and imposed certain conditions and fines in connection with this arrangement.

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0007.

Emmanuel Francis.

Summary: This inscription (No. 33 of 1893) is engraved on the west wall of the stone platform called ‘the mountain’ (malai) in the Aruḷāḷa-Perumāḷ temple at Little Conjeeveram.¹ As in the inscription of Ravivarman,² the temple is here stated to be situated in Tiruvattiyūr, which belonged to Eyil-nāḍu, a subdivision of Eyiṟkōṭṭam³ (l. 2).

The inscription is dated in the 9th year of the reign of Parakēsarivarman, alias Vikrama-Chōḷadēva. The short poetical introduction mentions nothing of historical importance besides the conquest of Kaliṅga and the name of Vikrama-Chōḷa’s queen, Mukkōkkiḻānaḍigaḷ. These two points are, however, sufficient to enable us to identify the king with the Vikrama-Chōḷa of the inscriptions opening with the words pūmālai miṭaintu, who claims to have burnt the country of Kaliṅga,⁴ and one of whose queens was named Mukkōkkiḻānaḍi.⁵

The inscription records that a private person made over to the temple 780 kalam of paddy, with the stipulation that the interest, which amounts here to 50 per cent., should be applied for the requirements of the worship on 13 days of every year, viz. on the days of the nakshatra Jyēshṭhā. In this nakshatra, we are told, were born the two Vaishṇava saints Pūdattāḻvār and Poygaiyāḻvār,⁶ “who were pleased to compose hymns in praise of the god (Āḻvār) of Tiruvattiyūr” (l. 2). That portion of the Nālāyiraprabandham, which is entitled Iyaṟpā, opens with two hymns of 100 stanzas each, the first of which is ascribed to Poygaiyāḻvār and the second to Pūdattāḻvār. In the first (verse 77) reference is made to Veḥkā, and in the second (verse 95 f.) to Attiyūr. The second name has to be referred to the temple at Tiruvattiyūr, i.e. the Aruḷāḷa-Perumāḷ temple, and the first may be connected with the same temple, because Veḥkā is the Tamil name of the river Vēgavatī,⁷ which flows past the temple of Aruḷāḷa-Perumāḷ. At any rate the mention of the two Āḻvārs as recognized saints in the subjoined inscription proves that they must have lived a long time before the 12th century of the Christian era. As stated before (p. 148), two other Āḻvārs, Kulaśēkhara and Śaṭhagōpa, are presupposed by an inscription of Kulōttuṅga I. at Śrīraṅgam. In the Annual Report for 1899-1900 (p. 10) Mr. Venkayya states that an inscription of Śōḻa-Kēraḷadēva, whom he places in the 11th century of the Christian era, quotes the hymn Tiruneḍundāṇḍagam. This is the name of the last hymn of the Periyatirumoḻi, that portion of the Nālāyiraprabandham which was composed by Tirumaṅgaiyāḻvār. The upper limit of this Āḻvār is the beginning of the 8th century A.D.; for he celebrates in one of his hymns the temple of Paramēśvara-Viṇṇagaram at Kachchi, i.e. the Vaikuṇṭha-Perumāḷ temple at Conjeeveram, which seems to have been founded by the Pallava king Paramēśvaravarman II.⁸

Language: Tamil.

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

DHARMA_INSSIIv03p0i0080.