North Indian Inscriptions

TIRUKKALUKKUNRAM INSCRIPTIONS.

alias Kannaradêva actually killed the reigning Chôḷa king ; and that the name Kannara does not occur either among the southern dynasties, or among the occasional conquerors of the South, except among the Râshṭrakûṭas. From these facts the conclusion seems to be irresistible that the Kannaradêva of the subjoined inscriptions, who took Kâñchî and Tañjâvûr, was no other than the Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa III. who was also called Kannaradêva.

......The donor in the inscription B. was Neḍumâl Śâttan Śennippêrayan of Karaikkâṭṭûr, and in the inscription D. Śâttan Śennippêraiyan of Kaṛai. As pointed out to me by the Editor, the names of these two donors are very similar, and the name Karai, which occurs in D., may only be a shorter form of Karaikkâṭṭûr in B. It is, therefore, not improbable that the donors in B. and D., which belong to the reigns of Parântaka I. and of Kannaradêva, respectively, were identical. If they were the same, the identity of the Kannaradêva of the two subjoined inscriptions with the Râshṭrakûṭa king Kṛishṇa III. would receive some support ; for, we would then have direct evidence to show that B. and D. were engraved within the life-time of the same man.

......Of the two subjoined inscriptions, C. records the grant of a perpetual lamp to the Tirukkalikkunram temple, and D. the building of a hall (ambalam) at Tirukkalikkunram and a grant of some land to this hall.

TEXT OF C.

1 Svasti śrî [||*] Kachchiyu=Tañjaiyuṅ=koṇḍa śrî-Kannara-¹
2 dêvarkku yâṇḍu padin-êlâvadu Kaḷattûr-kkôṭṭa-
3 ttu tan kûrru Tirukkalukkunrattu śrî-Mûlastânat-
4 tu² perumân=aḍigaḷu[k*]ku Karai[y-u]ḍaiya Baladêvan=âgiya Parân-
5 takappêrarayan vaiytta nundâ-[vi]ḷakk=onru [|*] idu śa-
6 ntr-âdityavar=pan-Mâhêśvarar rakshai [|*] ³Parântakappêraraya-
7 n vaiytta viḷakku muṭ[ṭi]1 Geṅgaiy-iḍai-Kkumariy-i-⁴
8 ḍaiy=elu-nûrru=kkâdanuñ=j[e]ydâr śeyda pâvattir=paḍuvô-
9 m=ânôn=Tirukkalikkunrat[tu] sabhaiyôm [||*]

.TRANSLATION.

......(Line 1.) Hail ! Prosperity ! In the seventeenth year (of the reign) of the glorious Kannaradêva, the conqueror of Kachchi and Tañjai,─ Baladêvan alias Parântakappêrarayan of Karai gave one perpetual lamp to the feet of the god of the holy Mûlasthâna (temple) at Tirukkalukkunram in Kaḷattûr-kôṭṭam (and) in the subdivision called after itself. This (grant shall be under) the protection of all Mâhêśvaras as long as the moon and the son (endure).

......(L. 6.) “If (we), the members of the assemkbly (sabhâ) of Tirukkalukkunram, obstruct (the burning of) the lamp given by Parântakappêrarayan, we shall incur the sin committed by those who commit seven hundred murders⁵ near the Gaṅgâ and near Kumari.”⁶
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ Above the first line, beginning from n of Kachchiyun and extending to the end, is an incomplete inscription which runs as follows :— Svasti śrî [||*] Kô=Pparakêśariva[r]mma[r]kku yâṇḍu iraṇ[ḍâvadu*].
......² Read Mûlasthânattu.
......³ The sign of length of râ in Parântaka is joined to the r, so that râ looks as if it were na.
......⁴ Between the 6th and 7th lines, from the second g of Geṅgai to ri of Kumari in line 7, some symbols are engraved, of which the first looks like the modern Tamil letter nâ and the rest seem to stand for the numeral ‘twenty-three.’
......⁵ In the Madras Christian College Magazine, Vol. IX. p. 750, I had taken kâdam to mean ‘a measure of distance equal to 10 miles,’ The Editor pointed out to me that kâdam is derived from the Sanskṛit ghâta, ‘a murder.’
......⁶ Kumari is a name which occurs very often in the imprecatory portion of Tamil inscriptions. Local tradition asserts the existence of a river of that name, which people frequented for bathing, and after which the southern portion of the peninsula was called. The absence at the present time of a river answering to Kumari in the