North Indian Inscriptions

TIRUKKALUKKUNRAM INSCRIPTIONS.

the subdivision called after itself, (and) as, accordingly, Naraśiṅgappôttaraiyar, the conqueror of Vâtâpi, had confirmed (the grant) in the same manner,─ I, Râjakêsarivarman, at the request of Puttan, the son of Guṇavan of Aṇḍurai, have maintained (the grant) as former kings had maintained it.

......(L. 9.) “The feet of one who protects this charity, shall be on my head !”¹

B.— INSCRIPTION OF PARANTAKA I.

......This inscription is now published for the first time. It is dated during the 13th year of the reign of Madirai koṇḍa Parakêsarivarman, and records the gift of a perpetual lamp to the Tirukkalukkunram temple. Madirai koṇḍa means ‘who took Madirai (i.e. Madhurâ),’ and is sysnonymous with the Sanskṛit Madhurântaka, a name which is applied in the large Leyden grant to two of the successors of Parântaka I.² Several inscriptions of Madirai koṇḍa Parakêsarivarman have already been published,─ three from the Kailâsanâtha temple at Conjeeveram³ and one from Tiruppûnduritti near Tanjore.⁴ The endorsement on the Udayêndiram plates of Nandivarman⁵ and on those of Nandivarman Pallavamalla⁶ are dated during the reign of the same king. The Tamil portion of the Udayêndiram plates of the Gaṅga-Bâṇa king Pṛithivîpati II. alias Hastimalla belongs to the reign of the same Madirai koṇḍa Parakêsarivarman⁷ and implies that he bore the surname Viranârâyaṇa.⁸ In the Sanskṛit portion of the same grant, the two names Vîranârâyaṇa⁹ and Parântaka¹⁰ are used for the Chôḷa king. In the large Leyden grant the name Parântaka alone appears.¹¹ In both of these copper-plate grants, he is said to have been the son of the Chôḷa king Âditya (I.) and the grandson of Vijayâlaya. From the Udayêndiram plates we learn that he uprooted the Bâṇa king¹² and gave the Bâṇa territory to his Gaṅga feudatory Pṛithivîpati II.¹³ He conquered the Pâṇḍya king|Râjasiṁha¹⁴ and defeated the army of the king of Ceylon.¹⁵ This event appears to be referred to in the Mahâvaṁsa¹⁶ when it says that the Singhalese king Kassapa V. sent an army to aid the Pâṇḍya king against the Chôḷa, but that the expedition was not successful. Kassapa V. is supposed to have reigned from A.D. 929 to 939.¹⁷ If the chronology of this portion of the Mahâvaṁsa can be relied upon,¹⁸ we can get to a nearer approximation with regard to the date of Parântaka I. than what is furnished by the Âtakûr inscription, from which it appears that this king’s eldest son Râjâditya had been killed before A.D. 950. In the verse which refers to Parântaka I. the Kaliṅgattu-Paraṇi mentions the conquest of Ceylon and Madhurâ.¹⁹ The large Leyden grant says that Parântaka I. covered with gold the Śiva temple at Vyâghrâgrahâra,²⁰ which is a Sanskṛit rendering of Puliyûr, one of the Tamil names of Chidambaram. This evidently means that he built the so-called Kanakasabhâ or Golden Hall at Chidambaram. In the collection of Śaiva hymns known as Tiruviśaippâ, there is a poem composed by Kaṇḍarâdittar,

>

__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ i.e. “I worship their feet.”— [A similar captatio benevolentiæ, the transcription and translation of which must be changed in accordance with the one given here, occurs in line 9 of the Vêlûr inscription of Kannaradêva ; South-Indian Inscriptions, Vol. I. pp. 77.— E. H.]
......² South-Indian Inscriptions, Vol. I. p. 111.
......³ ibid. Nos. 82, 83 and 145.
......⁴ Madras Christian College Magazine, Vol. VIII. p. 104 ff.
......⁵ See p. 147 above.
......⁶ Salem Manual, Vol. II. p. 359.
......⁷ ibid. p. 371.
......⁸ The village granted by the inscription was called Vîranârâyaṇachchêri after the reigning king.
......⁹ Salem Manual, Vol. II. p. 372, verse 6.
......¹⁰ ibid. p. 373, verse 25.
......¹¹ Archæological Survey of Southern India, Vol. IV. p. 206, l. 32.
......¹² Salem Manual, Vol. II. p. 372, verse 9.
......¹³ Ind. Ant. Vol. XXIII. p. 296, note 2.
......¹⁴ Salem Manual, Vol. II. p. 372, verse 11.
......¹⁵ ibid. verse 10.
......¹⁶ L. C. Wijesinha’s Translation, p. 80.
......¹⁷ ibid. p. xxii.
......¹⁸ That the chronology of the Mahâvaṁsa is not bryond suspicion, has been pointed out by Dr. Hultzsch to his Annual Report for 1891-92, p. 5, note *.
......¹⁹ Canto viii. verse 23.
......²⁰ Archæological Survey of Southern India, Vol. IV. p. 206, l. 35 f.