The original of the subjoined grant was bought for Government from the Dharmakartā of Kūram, a village near Kāñchīpuram.Sewell's Lists of Antiquities, Vol. I, p. 187. It is engraved on seven thin copper-plates, each of which measures 10(1/8) by 3(1/4) inches. As the plates are in very bad preservation, the work of deciphering them was somewhat difficult. Of the seventh plate about one half is completely lost. Next to it, the first, fifth and sixth plates have suffered most. An elliptic ring, which is about (3/8) inch thick and measures 4 by 4(3/4) inches in diameter, is passed through a hole on the left side of each plate. The seal is about 2(1/2) inches in diameter and bears a bull, which is seated on a pedestal, faces the left and is surmounted by the moon and a liṅga. Farther up, there are a few much obliterated syllables. A legend of many letters passes round the whole seal. Unfortunately it is so much worn, that I have failed to decipher it.

The language of the first 4(1/2) plates of the inscription is Sanskrit,—verse and prose; the remainder is written in Tamil. The Sanskrit portion opens with three benedictory verses, of which the two first are addressed to Śiva and the third mentions the race of the Pallavas. Then follows, as usual,Compare the pedigrees on pages 9 and 25, above, and Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII, p. 277. a mythical genealogy of Pallava, the supposed founder of the Pallava race:—

[[genealogical table:]] Brahman. Aṅgiras. Bṛihaspati. Bharadvāja. Droṇa. Aśvatthāman. Pallava.

The historical part of the inscription describes three kings, viz., Parameśvaravarman, his father Mahendravarman and his grandfather Narasiṁhavarman. Of Narasiṁhavarman it says, that he “repeatedly defeated the Choḷas, Keraḷas, Kaḷabhras and Pāṇḍyas,” that he “wrote the (three) syllables of (the word) vijaya (i.e., victory), as on a plate, on Pulakeśin's back, which was caused to be visible (i.e., whom he caused to turn his back) in the battles of Pariyaḷa, Maṇimaṅgala, Śūramāra, etc.,” and that he “destroyed (the city of) Vātāpi.” No historical information is given about Mahendravarman, who, accordingly, seems to have been an insignificant ruler. A laudatory description of the virtues and deeds of his son Parameśvaravarman fills two plates of the inscription. The only historical fact contained in this long and difficult passage is that, in a terrible battle, he “made Vikramāditya,—whose army consisted of several lakshas,—take to flight, covered only by a rag.”

The three kings who are mentioned in the Kūram grant, viz., Narasiṁhavarman, Mahendravarman and Parameśvaravarman, are identical with three Pallava kings described in Mr. Foulkes' grant of Nandivarman Pallavamalla,Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII, p. 275; Salem Manual, Vol. II, p. 356. The following corrections have to be made in the transcript:—Line 13, read Siṁhavishṇor api; line 14, Pariyaḷa-Maṇiº; line 16, Peruvaḷanallū[r]yyuddhe. viz., Narasiṁhavarman I., Mahendravarman II. and Parameśvaravarman I. Of Narasiṁhavarman I. the lastmentioned grant likewise states, that he “destroyed Vātāpi” and that he “frequently defeated Vallabharāja at Pariyaḷa, Maṇimaṅgala, Śūramāra, and other (places).” Here Vallabharāja corresponds to the Pulakeśin of the Kūram grant. If Mr. Foulkes' grant further reports, that Parameśvaravarman I. “defeated the army of Vallabha in the battle of Peruvaḷanallūr,” it is evident that it alludes to the same fight as is described in the Kūram grant.

If we combine the historical information contained in both grants, it appears—1. that the Pallava king Narasiṁhavarman I. defeated Pulakeśin, alias Vallabharāja, at Pariyaḷa, Maṇimaṅgala, Śūramāra, and other places, and destroyed Vātāpi, the capital of the Western Chalukyas, and—2. that his grandson Parameśvaravarman I. defeated Vikramāditya, alias Vallabha, at Peruvaḷanallūr. As stated above (p. 11), Pulakeśin and Vikramāditya, the opponents of the two Pallava kings, must have been the Western Chalukya kings Pulikeśin II. (Śaka 532 and 556) and his son Vikramāditya I. (Śaka 592 (?) to 602 (?)), who, more indico, likewise boast of having conquered their antagonists.Similarly, Rājendra-Choḷa and Jayasiṁha III. claim to have conquered each other (see page 96, above). And, in a Mahobā inscription (Journal of the German Oriental Society, Vol. XL, p. 50) and in the prologue of the drama Prabodhachandrodaya the Chandella king Kīrtivarman and his general Gopāla are said to have completely defeated Karṇa of Chedi or Ḍāhāla, who, in the Vikramāṅkacharita (sarga xviii, verse 93), is called “the death to the lord of the Kālañjara mountain” (i.e., to the Chandella king). Thus, a grant of Pulikeśin II. says, that “he caused the leader of the Pallavas to hide his prowess behind the ramparts of Kāñchīpura;”Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII, p. 245. and, in a grant of Vikramāditya I., it is said that “this lord of the earth, conquering Īśvarapotarāja (i.e., Parameśvaravarman I.), took Kāñchī, whose huge walls were insurmountable and hard to be broken, which was surrounded by a large moat that was unfathomable and hard to be crossed, and which resembled the girdle (kāñchī) of the southern region (read dakshiṇadiśaḥ).”Ind. Ant. Vol. VI, p. 77. The corrupt passage, which precedes the sentence quoted in the text, mentions a “Śrīvallabha, who had crushed the fame of Narasiṁha, destroyed the power of Mahendra and surpassed Īśvara by his polity.” In whatever way the next following lines have to emended, there is, I think, little doubt, that Śrīvallabha must refer to either Pulikeśin II. or Vikramāditya I., and Narasiṁha, Mahendra and Īśvara to the three consecutive Pallava kings Narasiṁhavarman I., Mahendravarman II. and Parameśvaravarman I.

Another Pallava king, viz., Nandipotavarman, is mentioned as the opponent of the Western Chalukya king Vikramāditya II. (Śaka 655 to 669) in the Vakkaleri grant, which was published by Mr. Rice.Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII, pp. 23 ff. The table inserted on p. 11, above, shows that this Nandipotavarman must be identical with the Pallava king Nandivarman Pallavamalla, who is mentioned in Mr. Foulkes' grant. Though digressing from my subject, I now sub- join a transcript from the facsimile and a translation of that part of the Vakkaleri grant, which describes the reign of Vikramāditya II.

sakalabhuvanasāmrājyalakṣmīsvayaṁvarābhiṣekasamayānanta rasamupajātamahotsāhaḥ Ātmavaṁśajapūrvvanṛpaticchāyā pahāriṇaḥ prakṛtyamitrasya pallavasya samūlonmūla nāya kṛtamatiratitvarayā tuṁḍākaviṣayaṁ prāpyābhimuskhāgatannandipotava rmmābhidhānampallavaṁ raṇamukhe saṁprahṛtya prapalāsyya kaṭumukhavādi trasamudraghoṣābhidhānavādyaviśeṣānau khaṭvāṁṅgadhvajaṁ prabhūtaprakhyāta hastivarānsvakiraṇanikaravikāsanirākṛtatimirammāṇikyarāśi ñca hastekṛtya kalaśabhavanilayaharidaṁganāṁcitakāṁcīya mānāṁ kāṁcīmavināśya praviśya satatapravṛttadānānāanditadvijja dīnānāthajano narasiṁhapotavarmmanirmmāpitaśilāmayarāja siṁheśvarādidevakulasuvarṇarāśipratyarppaṇopārjitorjitapuṇyaḥ A nivāritapratāpaprasarapratāpitapāṇḍyacoḷakeraḷakaḷabhrapra bhṛtirājanyakaḥ kṣubhitakarimakarakarahatadalitaśuktimuktamuktāphala prakaramarīcijālavilasitavelākuūle ghūrṇamānārṇobhidhāne dakṣiṇā rṇave śaradamalaśaśadharaviśadayaśorāśimayaṁ jayastambha matiṣṭhipadvikramādityasatyāśrayaśrīpṛthivīvallabhamahārājādhirā japarameśvarabhaṭṭārakaḥ

“Vikramāditya Satyāśraya Śrī-Pṛithivī-vallabha, the king of great kings, the supreme ruler, the lord,—to whom arose great energy immediately after the time of his anointment at the self-choice of the goddess of the sovereignty of the whole world, and who resolved to uproot completely his natural enemy, the Pallava, who had robbed of their splendour the previous kings born from his race,—reached with great speed the Tuṇḍākavishaya (i.e., the Toṇḍai-maṇḍalamSee page 106, note 3.), attacked at the head of a battle and put to flight the Pallava, called Nandipotavarman, who had come to meet him, took possession of the musical instrument (called) “harsh-sounding” and of the excellent musical instrument called “roar of the sea,” of the banner (marked with Śiva's) club, of many renowned and excellent elephants, and of a heap of rubies, which drove away darkness by the light of the multitude of their rays, and entered (the city of) Kāñchī,—which seemed to be the handsome girdle (kāñchī) of the nymph of the southern region,—without destroying it. Having made the twice-born, the distressed and the helpless rejoice by continual gifts, having acquired great merit by granting heaps of gold to (the temple) of stone (called) Rājasiṁheśvara, which Narasiṁhapotavarman had caused to be built,See page 11, above. and to other temples, and having burnt by the unimpeded progress of his power the Pāṇḍya, Choḷa, Keraḷa, Kaḷabhra and other princes, he placed a pillar of victory (jayastambha), which consisted (as it were) of the mass of his fame that was as pure as the bright moon in autumn, on the Southern Ocean, which was called Ghūrṇamānārṇas (i.e., that whose waves are rolling) and whose shore glittered with the rays of the pearls, which had dropped from the shells, that were beaten and split by the trunks of the frightened elephants (of his enemies), which resembled sea-monsters.”

That Vikramāditya II. really entered Kāñchī and visited the Rājasiṁheśvara Temple, is proved by a much obliterated Kanarese inscription in the Kailāsanātha Temple at Kāñchīpuram. This inscription is engraved on the back of a pillar in the maṇḍapa in front of the Rājasiṁheśvara Shrine, close to the east wall of that maṇḍapa, which at a later time was erected between the front maṇḍapa and Rājasiṁheśvara. It begins with the name of “Vikramāditya Satyāśraya Śrī-Pṛithivī-vallabha, the king of great kings, the supreme ruler, the lord” and mentions the temple of Rājasiṁheśvara (rājasiṁgheśvara, line 4).

I now return to the Kūram plates. The three last of them contain the grant proper, and record in Sanskrit and Tamil, that Parameśvara (i.e., Parameśvaravarman I.) gave away the village of Parameśvara-maṅgalam,—which was evidently named after the king himself,—in twenty-five parts. Of these, three were enjoyed by two Brāhmaṇas, Anantaśivāchārya and Phullaśarman, who performed the divine rites and looked after the repairs of the Śiva temple at Kūram, which was called Vidyāvinīta-Pallava-Parameśvara, and which had been built by Vidyāvinīta-Pallava, probably a relative of the king. The fourth part was set aside for the cost of providing water and fire for the maṇḍapa at Kūram, and the fifth for reciting the Bhārata in this maṇḍapa. The remaining twenty parts were given to twenty Chaturvedins.

At the time of the grant, the village of Kūram belonged to the nāḍu (country) or, in Sanskrit, manyavāntara-rāshṭra of Nīrveḷūr, a division of Ūṟṟukkāṭṭukkoṭṭam (lines 49 and 57 f.), and the village of Parameśvaramaṅgalam belonged to the Paṉmā-nāḍu or Patmā-manyavāntara-rāshṭra, a division of Maṇayiṟkoṭṭam (lines 53 and 71). As, in numerous Tamil inscriptions, paṉma corresponds to the Sanskrit varman,—the form Paṉmānāḍu, which occurs also in No. 86, might mean the country of the Varmās, i.e., of the Pallavas, whose names end in varman, the nominative case of which is varmā. There is, however, a possibility of patmā being a mistake for, and paṉmā a Tamil form of, Padmā,The usual Tamil form of padmā is patumai. But compare āttumā and āṉmā, both of which correspond to the Sanskrit ātmā. one of the names of the goddess Lakshmī. With Maṇayiṟkoṭṭam compare Maṇaviṟkoṭṭam in No. 86 and Eyiṟkoṭṭam in No. 88. Possibly Maṇaviṟkoṭṭam is a mere corruption of Maṇayiṟkoṭṭam, and Maṇayil stands for Maṇ-eyil, “mud-fort,” which might be a fuller form of Eyil, a village in the South Arcot District, which seems to have given its name to Eyiṟkoṭṭam.See page 123, note 5.

In conclusion, an important palaeographical peculiarity of the Tamil portion of the Kūram plates has to be noted. The puḷḷi, which corresponds to the Nāgarī virāma, occurs frequently, though not regularly, in combination with seven letters of the Tamil alphabet. In the case of five of these (ṅ, m, l, ḷ, ṉ) it is represented by a short vertical stroke over the letter, as in the inscription No. 82, above.See page 113, note 6. In the case of the two others (n and r) it has a similar shape, but is placed behind the letter and at an angle with it, in such a way that the lower part is nearer to the letter than the upper one.