South Indian Inscriptions

EASTERN GANGAS

  The donee Ulagiyagoṇḍa-Perumāḷ, a close relation of the king.
15. The object of the inscription is to record the grant, made by the king, of the village Palaṁgara situated in the Samba-vishaya to Ulagiyagoṇḍa-Perumāḷ, son of Vajjidēva and his wife Āḷapirandār and the grandson of Chōliyar and Śriyādēvī. Chōliyar (or Śōliyar in Tamil) is stated to have been a resident of the village Urattūru in Raṭṭa-maṇḍala. Ulagiyagoṇḍa-Perumāḷ (Ulaguyyakkoṇḍa-Perumāḷ in Tamil) was a close and dear relation of the king and had won his love and appreciation by his success in several battles and was a scion of a noble family and possessed a reputation for righteous conduct. To such a man was given the village Palaṁgara freed from all encumbrances (sarva pīdā-vivarjita) and comprising its entire land and water (sa-jala-sthala) to last as a free-hold as long as the Śun and the Moon lasted, for the increase of the spiritual merit and fame of the king and his parents. It is interesting to note that though this gift was not in the nature of an agrahāra to a Brahman learned in the Vēdas, etc., still it was placed on a par with such a gift although made to a relation of the royal household and to a Kshatriya hero who had won laurels in the field of battle. Evidently this was in the nature of a vīrāgrahāra or śūrāgrahāra or what we may term a vīrabhukti.

  The date of the inscription is Śaka 1040 expressed by the chronogram (viyad-udadhi-khēndu) and the occasion of the gift was Dakshināyana. Though the date is not verifiable for want of details we may roughly equate it with Wednesday, June 26, A.D. 1118, on which day occurred the (Karkāṭaka) Dakshiṇāyana-śaṅkrānti of the year.

Samva-vishaya
   The gift village Palaṁgara is evidently identical with the modern village Palagara of the Bobbili taluk. The territorial division Samba-vishaya is not difinitely represented by any known local tract. It is given in the form Samvā-vishaya in the Vizagapatam plates of the king. It appears almost certain that the name is preserved in the name of the village Rāmachandrapuram Agrahāram of Saṁbhām-paragaṇa, found in the Chipurupalle taluk of the same district. Śaṁbhāṁ-paragaṇa is clearly a reminiscence of the ancient Samba-vishaya or Śamvā-vishaya. The vishaya must have included within its limits parts of the modern Bobbili and Chipurupalle taluks which are contiguous to each other.

Urattūr in Raṭṭa-maṇḍalam.
  The inscription is engraved, like the Vizagapatam plates and the Korni plats of the king, in the Telugu script of the period and the language in Sanskrit. It is a long record of 121 lines, and like the said two grants gives the genealogy of the king’s family right down from god Ananta. The descriptive and narrative portions are almost exact to those of the Korni plates. No fresh historical facts either with reference to the earlier members of the family or with reference to the king come to light in this record. It however confirms the fact that the name of the king, whom Kāmārṇava, ‘the conqueror of the Kaliṅga country’, defeated was Śabarāditya as given in the Vizagapatam and the Korni plates and not Balāditya as read by Dr. Fleet (Ind. Ant., Vol. XVIII, p. 167 ; see also Ep. Rep. for 1924-25, p. 79, paragraph 8). On an examination of the original plate I find that the actual reading of the Vizagapatam plates is samara-śirasi Śabalāditya and not samara-śirasika-Balāditya as adopted by Fleet. Incidentally we may also note that an examination of the original furnishes the correct name of Guṇārṇava II’s son as Pōtāṅkuśa which is given in the Vizagapatam and Korni plates and also in the present record. Dr. Fleet had unfortunately misread the name as Jitāṅkuśa which must now be definitely given up. It must also be noted that it is incorrect to say that the Korni plates omit the name of the son of Kāmārṇava (Ep. Rep. for 1924-25, p. 79, paragraph 8) since, like the allied grants, they give his name Raṇārṇava. As in the connected records king Chōḍagaṅga’s coronation is stated herein also to have taken place in Śaka 999.

  The donee Ulugiyagoṇḍa-Perumāḷ was evidently a Tamilian as can be seen from his name. Urattūr, the native place of his grandfather Chōliyaru, and the territorial division Raṭṭa-maṇḍalam in which it was situated must be looked for in the Tamil country. But there is no village named Urattūru in close proximity to Koḍumbālūr or Pudukkotah. From Nārtāmalai, about 10 miles from Puddukkotah, comes an inscription of the 3rd year of the Chōḷa king Parakēsarivarman Rajēndradēva mentioning Iraṭṭapāḍikoṇḍa-śhōla-vaḷanāḍu (Pudukkottah No. 110). Raṭṭa-maṇḍalam of our inscription might refer to this tract which is supposed to have included a major portion of the modern Pudukkottah State (Ep. Rep. for 1905, p. 44, para. 17). Urattūrkūrram was the name of the division to which Koḍumbāḷūr belonged in the time of Parāntaka I, (S. I. I., Vol. III, p. 231), and Koḍumbāḷūr is within 25 miles from Pudukkotah. The territorial division Raṭṭa-maṇḍalam might also alternatively represent the tract known as Raṭṭapādikoṇḍa Chōḷamaṇḍalam covering the modern Puṅganūr and adjacent country (Nos. 537 and 538 of 1906). Urattūr mentioned in this grant may be identical with the village of that name which was one of the boundaries of the village Tirukkāṭṭuppaḷḷi, the gift of which is recorded in the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates of Pallava Nandivarman III (Vide S.I.I. Vol. II, p. 514), There is no village of that name at present. modern Ponneri taluk of the Chingleput district. This tract might have formed part of Raṭṭapāḍikoṇḍa-Chōḷa-maṇḍalam.