________________
No. 12.) TAKKOLAM INSCRIPTION OF RAJAKESARIVARMAN (ADITYA I).
88
inscription. From Mr. L. D. Swamikkannu Pillai's Indian Ephemeris, it is seen that before A.D. 907 the following are the dates when solar eclipses occurred in the month of Api :
1. Saturday, 5th June 829 A.D. 2. Thursday, 5th June 848 A.D. 3. Saturday, 16th June 866 A.D. 4. Friday, 6th June 867 A.D. 5. Saturday, 27th May 876 A.D. 6. Wednesday, 16th June 885 A.D. 7. Friday, 7th June 894 A.D.
8. Wednesday, 28th May 895 A.D.
It may be noted at the start that as Parāntaka I had had a long reign extending to 46 years Aditya I, his father, could not have reigned as long. And if the fact that the Pallava king Aparajita and his Ganga ally Prithvipati I fought at Sripurambiyam in the Tanjore district not far from the new capital of the Cholas, without the Cholas taking any part in it, against the Pandya king Varaguna, which event must have taken place after A.D. 862, the year of accession of Varaguņa and somewhere about 870,--could suggest anything, it is that the Cholas had not formed themselves into a power to count for much. For these reasons, we cannot place the date of accession of Aditya I, prior to A.D. 862. As such, we can safely leave out of consideration the first six probable dateequivalents of the details given in our record, since they give an accession date earlier than A.D. 862. Thus, the only two probable equivalents of the day of the solar eclipse in Api given in this inscription are 7th June 894 A.D. and 28th May 895 A.D. which would place the accession of Aditya I in A.D. 870 or 871 and give him a rule of 36 or 37 years. The only other equivalent that is worthy of consideration is 16th June A.D. 885. This would place Aditya's accession in A.D. 861 and give him a long reign of 46 years. In the absence of any evidence to show that Aditya I was a mere boy at the time of his coronation, one would rather hesitate to adopt this 88 & probable date for the reason that the reigns of Aditya and his son Parāntaka I would cover & period of 92 years. Sometime after his accession to the throne Aditya I should have thought it opportune to try issues with the Pallava victor of Sripurambiyam, i.e., Aparajita. While the Tiruvälangalu plates state that Aditya fought with the Pallava Aparājita and defeated him, the Kanyākumāri inscription goes further and explicitly declares that he killed him and got possession of the territory. It is very likely that Aparajita, after having reigned for 18 years, lost his life and his kingdom in the encounter with the Chõļa Aditya I.
Here it becomes necessary to consider certain inscriptions of Rājakesarivarman which have been thought, perhaps on palmographical grounds, to be of an earlier date than A.D. 907 and consequently as belonging to Aditya I, noticed on page 96, para. 20 of Part II of the Annual Report on Epigraphy for 1915 and for which 5 possible equivalents are noted on page 72 of the same report. Of these equivalents, the only one that agrees with one of the equivalents of the present record is the first which places the accession in A.D. 861 and which also we consider as highly improbable. I think these inscriptions of Rājakesarivarman should belong to some sovereign in the Chola line who came after Parāntaka I and not to one that preceded him. My reasons for thinking
- 1 South Indian history affords an odd example where the reigns of two consecutive sovereigns together lasted for more than a century. This is the case of Nandivarman Pallavamalla and his son Dantivarman; but in this case we are assured that Nandivarman Pallavamalla was crowned king while he had not reached the teens.
18.1. I., Vol. II, p. 419, v. 49.
* Trav. Arch. Series, Vol. III, p. 155, v. 55, where it is stated that Aditya, called also Ködandarama, pounced upon and killed in battle the Pallava king who was seated on a rutting elephant.
