The Indian Analyst

South Indian Inscriptions







List of Plates

Additions and Corrections



P. Acharya

A. M. Annigeri

P. Banerjee

Dr. N. P. Chakravarti

P. D. Chaudhury

M. G. Dikshit

M. G. Dikshit & D. C. Sircar

A. S. Gadre

B. C. Jain

S. L. Katare

B. V. Krishna Rao

A. N. Lahiri

T. V. Mahalingam

R. C. Majumdar

H. K. Narasimhaswami

K. A. Nilakanta Sastri & T. N. Subramaniam

K. A. Nilakanta Sastri

V. Rangacharya

Sadasiva Ratha Sarma

Nirad Bandhu Sanyal

M. Somasekhara Sarma

K. N. Sastri

D. C. Sircar

D. C. Sircar & P. Acharya

D. C. Sircar & P. D. Chaudhury

D. C. Sircar & Sadasiva Ratha Sarma

R. Subrahmanyam

T. N.Subramaniam

Akshaya Keerty Vyas


Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27





Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India



13  nru tiru-ā(a)bhishēgam paṇṇuvittu uḍan-kūṭṭamum nāḍu[m]-       onrupaṭṭu=chchellumpaḍi paṇṇi[vitt-aruḷi]- nār [|*]

The passage maṇḍai kavippittu-[ppōn]dār-ānavārē ivarai=ttiru-abhishēgam paṇṇuvikkak=kaḍa-varāga [nichchayit]tu in line 12 has been translated as ‘ who has already been invested with a crown and was, therefore, bound to be installed on the throne’, taking the word ānavārē to mean ‘ having already been ’. But the word ānavārē also gives the meaning ‘ in the same way as ’ and a reference to the context would show that it is in this sense that the expression has been used in the inscription. Adopting this meaning, the translation of the whole passage would be as follows :

“ Even in earlier years, when (the senior king) Periyadēvar was alive, it having been seen that there were no sons fit for anointment, the (exact) state of affairs, as it was obtaining in the previous days, was intimated to the king …. and (having brought) the princes residing at Gaṅgaikoṇḍaśōlapuram, and deciding that this (prince) should be crowned in the same way as Edirilipperumāḷ, the son of Neriyuḍaipperumāḷ and grandson of Uḍaiyār Vikramaśōladēvar, was invested with the crown at the time of Periyadēvar’s (demise), he (Pallavarāyar) anointed the prince under the title Rājādhirājadēva on the fourth (annual) asterism (of his installation).”[1]

Accordingly, the prince crowned under the title Rājādhirāja becomes different from Edirilipperumāḷ whose name is mentioned in the inscription only by way of citing a precedent, of which we have no knowledge.

So far as we know there was no apparent occasion in the history of the Imperial Chōḷas of Tañjāvūr, from the time of Vijayālaya to that of Rājarāja II, when there was a failure in the regular succession to the Chōḷa throne for want of a direct heir in the male line.[2] But the mention of the precedent in the inscription, preceded by the words munnāḷilē kāriyam irundapaḍi vi . . . śeydu clearly points out that there had arisen such an occasion previously. Since the person then chosen to succeed on the Chōḷa throne was the grandson of Vikramachōḷa,[3] it should have occurred after the time of that ruler. Between Vikramachōḷa and Rājarāja II who was confronted with the problem of selecting an heir to the throne, there was only the reign of Kulōttuṅga II intervening. Edirilipperumāḷ could therefore be none other than Kulōttuṅga II who succeeded Vikramachōḷa on


[1] [The authors have taken both the passages [mu]nnāḷilē kāriyam irundapaḍi vi . . . . śeydu in line 11 (translated as ‘as it was obtaining in the previous days, was intimated to the king’) and Uḍaiyār Vikramaśōladēvar . . . maṇḍai kavippittu-[ppōn]dār ānavāre in lines 11-12 (translated as ‘in the same way as Ediriliperumāḷ …… Periyadēvar’s (demise)’), as referring to the same precedent. The construction of the sentence does not permit this interpretation. This will make the passage between these two sections a parenthetical one thereby making the interpretation of the whole section further complicated. Moreover, in line 12, after the expression kavippittu-[ppōn]dār-ānavāre occurs the word ivarai. The authors have not made clear as to whom this word refers. There is no other word to which it can be referred except Edirilipperumāḷ, the name occurring immediately before it.─ Ed.]
The accession of Kulōttuṅga I, born of the Eastern Chāḷukya line, to the Chōḷa throne has sometimes been taken as such an occasion before the time of Rājarāja II. It was not so. Kulōttuṅga was clearly a usurper to the Chōḷa throne.
A recent writer has taken this Edirilipperumāḷ as the great-grandson of Vikramachōḷa, i.e. as the son of Neriyuḍaipperumāḷ who was the grandson of Vikramachōḷa. See V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Mūnrām Kulōttuṅgan (Tamil), 1st ed., 1941, p. 21. It is true that such a construction can be put on the passage Vikkiramaśōladēvar pēranār Neriyuḍaipperumāḷ tirumaganār Edirilipperumāḷ of the inscription, taking the word pēranār as pēranārāna and as the adjective of Neriyuḍaipperumāḷ instead of taking it as qualifying Edirilipperumāḷ. But this construction is somewhat strained as the author himself admits (op. cit., p159), although he considers such a construction necessary on the presumption that Edirilipperumāḷ was Rājādhirāja, since Rājarāja II who was in search of an heir to succeed him on the throne was himself taken to be a grandson of Vikramachōḷa and any heir selected by him should be at least one generation further removed.

Home Page