North Indian Inscriptions

TIRUKKALUKKUNRAM INSCRIPTIONS.

C. AND D.— INSCRIPTIONS OF KANNARADEVA.

......These two inscriptions are written in bold archaic characters which resemble very closely those of another inscription of Kannaradêva near Vêlûr (Vellore),¹ but are more rounded than those of other ancient Tamil inscriptions. Both inscriptions are dated during the reign of Kannaradêva,─ the first in the 17th and the second in the 19th year. To the name of the king is prefixed in both of them the epithet Kachchiyun=Tañjaiyuṅ=koṇḍa, ‘who took Kachchi and Tañjai.’ Kachchi is the ancient Tamil name of Kañchîpura (Conjeeeveram), the capital of the Pallavas, and Tañjai is a shorter form of Tañjâvûr (Tanjore), the Chôḷa capital. The actual meaning of the attribute appears to be that the king conquered the Pallava and the Chôḷa countries.

......The inscription near Vêlûr is dated during the 26th year, but here there is no reference to the conquest of Kachchi and Tañjai. The Aruṇâchalêśvara temple at Tiruvaṇṇâmalai in the South Arcot district contains two fragmentary inscriptions of Kannaradêvan.² As the distinguishing epithet is missing, it is not absolutely certain if the Vêlûr and Tiruvaṇṇâmalai records belong to the same reign as the two Tirukkalukkunram ones. Even if this should not be the case, the fact that the two subjoined inscriptions are found at Tirukkalikkunram, which is within the Pallava dominions, testifies to the correctness of the statement that the king conquered the Pallava country. The name Kannara, which is a vulgar form of the Sanskṛit Kṛishṇa, does not occur among the members of any of the dynasties of the South. Nor is it found among those northern dynasties which are known to have invaded the South, except among the Râshṭrakûṭas. That this dynasty exercised a considerable influence over the history of Southern India, is etsblished by the following fact.

......1. In an inscription of Gôvinda III.,³ this Râshṭrakûṭa king claims to have conquered, and levied tribute from, Dantiga, the Pallava ruler of Kâñchi.

......2. The Udayêndiram plates of the Gaṅga king Pṛithivîpati II., who was a tributary of the Chôḷa king Parântaka I., appear to refer to an invasion of Amôghavarsha (I.) and its repulsion by the Gaṅga king’s grandfather, Pṛithivîpati I.⁴

......3. The Âtakûr inscription of Śaka-Saṁvat 872 reports that Bûtuga, a Gaṅga feudatory of the Râshṭrakuṭa king Kṛishṇa (III.) alias Kannaradêva, treacherously killed the Chôḷa king Râjâditya in a battle at Takkôla.⁵ The Dêôlî plates of Kṛishṇa III., dated Śaka-Saṁvat 862, report that the king killed Dantiga and Bappuka, and that he transferred the Gaṅga territory from Ranchhyâmalla— the Râchamalla of the Âtakûr inscription— to Bhûtârya.⁶ This is evidently the Bûtuga of the Âtakûr inscription. In his rewmarks on the Dêôlî plates, Dr. Bhandarkar suggests that Bappuka might be identical with the Chôḷa king Râjâditya,⁷ who is mentioned in the Âtakûr inscription. But no connection can be established between the two names Bappuka and Râjâditya, and the war with the latter need not yet have taken place in the Śaka year 862, the date of the Dêôlî plates.

......4. The statement of the Âtakûr inscription that Kṛishṇa III. fought against Râjâditya, is confirmed by the large Leyden grant, which reports that the Chôḷa king Râjâditya, the son of Parântaka I., died in battle with Kṛishṇarâja.⁸

......The characters in which the two subjoined inscriptions are engraved, look more ancient than those employed in the inscriptions of the Chôḷa king Râjarâjadêva, and less archaio than those
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ South-Indian Inscriptions, Vol. I. p. 76.
......² Madras Christian College Magazine, Vol. IX. p. 665.
......³ Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 127.
......⁴ Salem Manual, Vol. II. p. 373, verse 16.
......⁵ Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 168.
......⁶ Journ. Bo. As. Soc. Vol, XVIII. p. 13 of the Reprint.
......⁷ ibid. p. 4.
......⁸ Archæological Survey of Southern India, Vol. IV. p. 206 f., ll. 42 to 45.