The commonly cited timeline of the Middle Cholas, including Rajaraja I and Rajendra I, needs to be revised. This has implications for accurately dating iconic monuments like the Brihadeeswara temple, built by Rajaraja I, and the Gangaikonda Cholapuram temple, built by Rajendra Chola I.
The prevailing timeline of the Middle Cholas is flawed due to a misunderstanding of their system of governance, which involves parallel rulership. As per this system, there was simultaneous rule of two kings: a senior king based in the capital (Thanjavur or Gangai Konda Cholapuram) and a junior king, often residing in secondary capitals like Uraiyur or Kanci. The junior king was not known as a prince but was addressed as king and had the authority to issue orders and inscriptions in his name, while the senior king also was issuing his orders in his name by referring to his year of rule (regnal year).
The junior king’s years of reign (regnal years) were counted from the day of his appointment. The two had their own prasasti highlighting their titles and achievements. Upon the senior king’s death, the junior king would move to the main capital and become the senior king, mentioned as ‘Mannar Mannan’ (King of Kings or emperor).
Overlapping rulership
This system facilitated a smooth transfer of power. Examples of parallel rulership include Rajaraja I and his son Rajendra I, whose third regnal year coincided with Rajaraja’s 29th year, indicating that Rajendra I’s regnal years started during his father’s 27th regnal year. Similarly, Para?taka I ruled alongside his father Aditya I and later with his sons, illustrating the practice of co-rule among the Chola kings.
A key aspect of this system was the overlap between the reigns of consecutive kings, where a king’s regnal years began not after the previous king’s death, but from the moment he was appointed junior king. This typically occurred after the death of the senior king’s predecessor. However, this crucial detail was overlooked by early historians like Kielhorn and later by scholars including Nilakanta Sastri.
Basis of the current chronology
Historians determined the reigns of kings like Rajaraja I and his son Rajendra I based on the well-documented date of Uttama Chola, also known as Madhurantaka, from an inscription at Tiruvidaimarudur. This inscription, dated to the 13th regnal year of Madhurantaka, mentions the Kali year as 4083, which corresponds to CE 982. Given that Madhurantaka’s reign lasted 816 years, his first and last years were deduced as CE 970 and CE 985, respectively.
The Thiruvalangadu copper plates of Rajendra I state that Rajaraja I ascended the throne after Madhurantaka. Consequently, CE 985 was assumed to be the first year of Rajaraja I’s reign, an assumption that has been followed to this day. However, this overlooks the fact that Rajaraja I was given rulership soon after Aditya II’s death, as mentioned in the same inscription. The counting of Rajaraja I’s reign began immediately after Aditya II’s death, when Madhurantaka became the senior king.
The parallel rulership of Madhurantaka and Rajaraja I was ignored, leading to an erroneous counting of Rajaraja I’s reign after Madhurantaka’s death. This resulted in incorrect positioning of the regnal years of Rajaraja I and subsequent kings, which can be verified through other inscriptions.
Calculation of time through inscriptions88
Most inscriptions often mention the regnal year of the king during whose period they were issued. Sometimes the Saka year number and the name of the year were also included. (The Chola period under discussion belonged to the Salivahana Saka). This Saka began in the year 78 of the Common Era (CE 78). Therefore, 78 must be added to the number of the Saka year given in the inscription to get the year number in the Common Era (CE) in the Gregorian calendar.
In some inscriptions, the Kali Yuga number was given. Kali Yuga began 3101 years before the onset of the Common Era (BCE 3101). Therefore, by subtracting 3101 from the given Kali Yuga number, the CE year shown by the inscription can be obtained. In many of the inscriptions discovered so far, the regnal years were given, but not always the Saka and Kali year.
For historical dating, it is alwa/ys advisable to search for those inscriptions having the year name and the Kali Yuga or Saka era number. If the year number matches with the year-name, it means that the year shown by the inscription is correct (because sometimes there may be errors in engraving). If date features (Pancanga features) such as the week-name, the name of the month, the tithi, the nakshatra, etc., are also found, they become the best sources for accurate dating. Any reference to eclipse also renders the engraved material a reliable source for knowing time. This is because an eclipse can take place only if the planets Rahu or Ketu are within a certain degree from the Sun or the Moon. They can be checked in the astrology software. One should be mindful of the settings while using the software. Gregorian date must be used, not Julian date.
For the solar eclipse, it is necessary to see if there is a New Moon. Rahu or Ketu must be within 19-degrees from the sun during the day. For the lunar eclipse. Rahu or Ketu should be within 13-degrees from the moon on a Full Moon night. All of these can be checked in the software.
Some inscriptions make a mention of the solar day of a month. This is the best hint to deduce the date with utmost accuracy because it refers to the degree in which the Sun was in a zodiac sign on the day indicated by the inscription. The sun moves one degree a day. Suppose an inscription refers to the third day in the month of Aippasi (Tula), it means that the sun had crossed 2 degrees in Libra (Tula) and was in the 3rd degree on that day. To determine the period of a king, inscriptions with information of this kind must be picked up.
Yet there may be doubts as to whether we will be able to locate the sun in the right Ayanamsa. Ayanamsa is the degree away from the beginning of sidereal Aries, where the Sun causes equal day and night on the earth. This degree which is constantly changing is the basis for calculating the planetary degrees. So, it is essential to know the ayanamsa of the date of the period under study.
Fo88r this study, Jhora software having simulations for two different streams, namely, Drik Siddhanta and Surya Siddhanta was used. Drik is applicable for the current times whereas Surya Siddhanta simulation is useful for olden time which was cross checked through many inscriptions.
Date features in the inscriptions of Rajaraja I
Rajaraja’s inscriptions do not have many details on date features. There are also incorrect references in some inscriptions. Though many inscriptions in the Thanjavur Big Temple mention the year of Rajaraja’s reign, the Saka year, the year name and the Pancanga features are not given. Perhaps realizing their importance, the inscriptions of his son Rajendra’s time contain Pancanga references. Similarly, the inscriptions of the period of his son Rajadhiraja also have the necessary day-month-year details, which are very helpful in zeroing in on the time. Kulottu?ga’s inscriptions also contain necessary details for dating.
Two inscriptions from Rajendra I’s reign are particularly significant, as they provide the Saka era number and detailed Pancanga information. By determining the starting year of Rajendra I’s reign, we can deduce the commencement year of his father Rajaraja’s reign. A crucial link between their reigns is established by an inscription at the Big Temple in Thanjavur, which indicates that Rajendra I’s 3rd regnal year coincided with Rajaraja’s 29th and final year.
The period of Rajendra-I
The following inscriptions are recorded in an article published by the German archaeologist F. Kielhorn in the 4th volume of the Epigraphia Indica, published in 1896-97.
The stone edict in front of the Malladeva temple at Nandikundam in Nanjangud taluk contains the prasasti of Parakesari Rajendra Chola Deva along with the Pancanga references in Kannada. The inscription reads as follows:
“In the Saka year 943, on a Wednesday in Shukla paksha in the month of Panguni in the year of Raudra, on the full moon day, in Uttara nakshatra, the lunar eclipse...”
Converting the Saka year 943 into Gregorian calendar year, it is 943 + 78 = 1021. The search for the date features in 1021 in JHora software shows that all the features were present.
It was Raudra in the year 1021 which occurs once in 60 years. There was full moon in the month of Panguni (Phalguna /Meena). It was a Wednesday and coincided with Uttara nakshatra. The simulation shows the moon within 8 degrees from Ketu at the time of rising which means there was lunar eclipse right from moonrise. Everything matches well but it does not mention the year of Rajendra’s reign. So, we look for another inscription with the year of rule, the year number, the year name and date features. The next epigraphic note from Kielhorn is accompanied by these details.
Found in the Someshwara temple at Sutturu in Nanjangud taluk, this inscription was carved in the 31st year of the reign of Rajendra-I. The details are Saka 954, Angira (Angirasa year), Kartika month, Shukla Dwitiya (2nd tithi after Full moon), Rohini nakshatra and Monday.
Converted into Common Era, the year was 954 + 78 = 1032 CE. Simulation shows that 1032 had Angirasa year running during the month of Kartika. Tithi, star and weekday also matched.
The month of Kartika was not in the month of Vrischika (Scorpio), which is followed in Tamil Nadu. It is the Kartika of the lunar month followed in Kannada regions. (The previous inscription also was from Kannada region, issued in Panguni which was Phalguna both in solar and lunar calendar). The important message of this inscription is that it was the 31st year of Rajendra’s reign. From this, Rajendra I’s first year can be deduced.
Year 31 = Year of Angirasa (CE 1032 –1033)
Year 1 = Subhakrit Year (CE 1002-1003)
First year of Rajaraja
From Rajendra’s reign, the first and last year of Rajaraja I can be derived. Since Rajaraja’s 29th year (his last) overlapped with Rajendra’s 3rd year, Rajaraja’s last year can be calculated by determining the corresponding year for Rajendra’s 3rd year, based on his known accession year
1st year of Rajendra’s reign = Subhakrit (CE 1002-1003)
3rd year of Rajendra’s reign = Krodhi (CE 1004-1005)
That was the 29th year of Rajaraja’s reign. (CE 1004-1005). Rajaraja died in that year. By counting 28 years backwards from it, the first year of Rajaraja’s rule can be determined. That year was Dhatu! (CE 976-977). This is contrary to the current theory of 985 CE as the first year of Rajaraja I.
The Udayarkudi inscription provides further cross-checking for the first year of Rajaraja I derived as 976-977 CE. Dated to his 2nd regnal year, the inscription records the confiscation of the properties of the relatives of the killers of Aditya I (Rajaraja’s elder brother) and selling the properties to raise money. The inscription specifies that this was done on a Sunday in the month of Mesha (Chitthirai) under the Purattadhi nakshatra (Purva Bhadrapada).
According to the current theory, Rajaraja I’s second regnal year was 986 or 987 CE, given that Madhurantaka’s death is dated to 985 CE. However, the Pancanga details (Sunday, Mesha, and Purva Bhadrapada) do not match for these years, supporting our contention that Rajaraja I’s regnal years did not start in 985 CE. Instead, the Pancanga features match with Bahudhanya year (978 CE), that followed Dhatu (976-977 CE).
According to the rule of parallel rulership, upon Aditya II’s death, Madhurantaka, the junior king, was elevated to senior king. He immediately appointed Rajaraja (alias Arulmozhi) as his junior king. This implies that Rajaraja’s regnal years began in the same year as Aditya II’s death. Given that Rajaraja’s first year corresponds to Dhatu, his reign likely started in 976-977 CE, rather than 985 CE, when Madhurantaka died.
Cross-checking Rajaraja’s period
An inscription found at Tiruvallam mentions a Vishu on the Full Moon Day of Aippasi in Rajaraja’s 7th year. Counted from the first year Dhatu (CE 976), this year would be Chitrabhanu (CE 982). If the inscription’s date features concur with Chitrabhanu, it confirms the accuracy of Rajaraja’s first year. JHora calculations support this, showing that in 982 CE, the Sun was in Tula Rasi (Aippasi) and the Moon in Pournami in Revati nakshatra during Chitrabhanu. A lunar eclipse occurred due to Rahu at 8 degrees around midnight. To eliminate other possible dates, Rahu-Moon conjunctions in the previous and subsequent years were checked. Although Rahu spent one and a half years in the same sign, it did not cause a lunar eclipse in Aippasi in the adjacent years. The lunar eclipse at Revati occurred only in 982, validating the date.
This inscription of the 7th year of Rajaraja in Chitrabhanu establishes without doubt that his reign began in Dhatu year. Fortunately, another inscription of Rajaraja has mentioned the month in which his regnal year began. It is written in the inscription of Suchindram Sthanunathar temple that Rajaraja’s year began in Aadi, i.e., in the month of Cancer (Kataka).
Verification of different inscriptions
It was already noted that the inscriptions of Rajaraja’s time did not contain the necessary Pancanga features. There were errors in some which can be verified by the simulator. Among those found with date features, three had incorrect references. Of them one gives the Saka year number and year name which overshot his time. It is reproduced below since it is quoted by historians in support of 985 as his accession year. It states in Kannada, “Saka year 934, Paridhabi year, in the 28th regnal year of Rajaraja I...”
The Saka year of 934 corresponds to 1012 which was the year of Paridhabi – the name mentioned in the inscription. But this is identified as the 28th year which however is not clear. There are no date features for cross-reference. It is only mentioned that it was the day of Uttaraya?a Sa?kranti. For dating purposes this is not a valid record to examine because there is no way to cross check the Sa?kranti day either by the star of the day or weekday or tithi. But this is being used by historians to justify the year 985.
This record is rejected due to a lack of date features and because 985 does not align with the Kali Yuga date of Madhurantaka, as previously explained. Madhurantaka died in 987/88 (in Sarvajit). Positioning Rajaraja at 985 lacks rationale, particularly since it doesn’t match the 2nd year date in the Udayarkudi record or other cited records.
Two other inscriptions of Rajaraja, initially attributed to his 15th regnal year, are found to correspond to his 17th year upon verification using the simulator. One inscription, from the Suchindram temple and documented in the 4th volume of Epigraphia Indica, incorrectly refers to the nakshatra Pooram (Purva Phalguni) as Purattadhi (Purva Bhadrapada). The simulator is used to verify whether these inscriptions align with the 15th and 17th years, counted from the proposed year 985/86.
The word ‘fifteen’ for the year of rule is not clear and appears broken. The inscription makes a crucial record that three evenings had expired and the sun was in the 4th day in Virgo. It was Tuesday and Kielhorn deciphers the star “(Pu)rayirattadi naal” as Purattadhi /Purva Bhadrapada. These facts match well for the 17th year after Dhatu and not the 15th year.
The sun at 4th degree in Virgo matched with the moon in Pooram (Purva Phalguni). When checked for the location of moon in Purva Bhadrapada with the Sun in the 4th degree of Virgo for the years before and after this date, it was found that such combination did not exist in the period under scrutiny. Therefore, it is understood that the moon was in Purva Phalguni only. The Phalguni stars are treated as twins – Pooram and Uttaram which was written as ‘irattai’ (twin) in the inscription. Of the irattai (twin), it was the day of pooram. This was written as “(Pu)rayirattadi naal” which can be understood from its application in Tamil. Unfortunately, Kielhorn interpreted it as Purattadhi. The speciality of this date is such that it was Mahalaya Amavasya. The simulator shows that a solar eclipse occurred on that day. Such days were never missed in ancient times for conducting austerities and giving donations.
From Rahu’s position, the Sun was within 4 degrees. The solar eclipse began at sunrise, but the details might have been recorded in the first five lines, which appear to be lost. The portion referring to the regnal year is also unclear. It likely corresponds to the Nandana year, marking Rajaraja’s 17th year, counted from Dhatu. By Aadi in that year, Rajaraja’s 16th year would have ended, and by Purattasi (Kanya/Virgo), his 17th year would have begun.
For verification, the 15th year from the currently accepted first year of Rajaraja I (985-986 CE) was examined, corresponding to 1000-1001 CE. The adjacent years were also checked, but neither the weekday nor the nakshatra matched. This confirms that 985-986 CE cannot be Rajaraja’s first year. To further rule out errors, the 17th year (1002 CE) was also verified, but it did not match the inscription’s Pancanga details.
There is another inscription issued in the 15th year of Rajaraja found in a Vishnu temple at Manima?galam. This is recorded in the 5th volume of Epigraphia Indica. It was a Thursday in the month of Vaikashi when the Sun was in Taurus and the moon in Hasta nakshatra in Shukla Dashami. This combination is found only in the 17th year from Dhatu, not in the 15th year. It appears that the number written in Tamil numeral was misread.
The same tithi, nakshatra and weekday do not come together often. A combination of three of these will take 1890 years to repeat (LCM of 30 tithi, 27 nakshatras and 7 weeks is 1890). This specific combination occurred in the year 993 during the reign of Rajaraja. That year was Vijaya, running from Mesha that year.
These Pancanga features did not match the 15th year calculated from the currently accepted base year of 985 CE. None of the adjacent years had this combination, nor did the 17th year. Kielhorn, who documented these inscriptions, assumed 985 CE as Rajaraja’s base year, and later historians followed suit. The calculation was based on the Tiruvidaimarudur inscription of Madhurantaka without thorough verification. Colonial scholars like Hultzsch and Kielhorn, writing in the 1890s, presumed Rajaraja’s accession followed 16 years of Madhurantaka’s rule without cross-checking the exact year or year name. Moreover, they were uncertain whether the Saka year referred to the running or completed year, a discrepancy that could have been resolved with a simple verification.
The revised and verified dates are as follows:
1st year of Rajaraja’s reign - Dhatu year, Aadi month (CE 976, July)
Last Year of Rajaraja (29th) - Krodhi (CE 1004-1005)
The last year of Rajendra (33rd) = Bhava / Yuva (CE 1034 –1035)
Year of inauguration of the Big Temple at Thanjavur by Rajaraja I
An inscription at the Brihadeeswara temple in Thanjavur indicates that Rajaraja I handed over the Kalasam (pot) for consecration atop the temple tower during his 25th regnal year, marking the temple’s formal opening for worship. Based on the currently accepted starting year of 985 CE, this event would correspond to 1010 CE. However, if Rajaraja’s reign began in 976 CE (Dhatu year), the 25th year would align with 1001 CE, making it the likely year of the temple’s inauguration.
The oversight in deriving the actual year led to the 1000-year completion celebration in 2010 CE, rather than the correct year (2001 CE). It’s essential to rectify this discrepancy and acknowledge the accurate timeline.
Year of inauguration of Gangai Konda Choleeswara temple by Rajendra I
Despite the fact that Rajendra I’s 3rd year coincided with Rajaraja I’s 29th year, indicating that Rajendra’s regnal years started during Rajaraja’s 27th year, historians have counted Rajendra’s reign from the deduced year of Rajaraja’s death (1014 CE, based on the incorrect starting year of 985 CE).
Rajendra built the Gangaikonda Cholapuram temple in his 11th regnal year. Based on the correct starting year of 1002-1003 CE, the temple’s construction date would be 1013-1014 CE, rather than 1025 CE. Consequently, the 1000-year celebration should have been held in 2013 or 2014 CE, rather than 2025 CE.
Rajadhiraja period
Rajendra I was succeeded by his son Rajadhiraja I, who reigned for 36 years. Several inscriptions from his reign contain Pancanga references, including one that mentions the Saka year number and corresponding year name, allowing us to determine his first and last year.
The Saka year 970 and the year name Sarvajit in Rajadhiraja’s 30th regnal year correspond to 1048 CE (970 + 78), with Sarvajit spanning 1048-1049. This alignment confirms the accuracy of the dating. Counting backward from the 30th year, Rajadhiraja’s first year can be deduced as Kalayukti (1018-1019), which aligns with Rajendra’s 16th regnal year. This suggests that Rajendra appointed Rajadhiraja as his heir in his 16th year. Inscriptions of Rajadhiraja are available up to his 36th year, indicating that his last year was 1053-1054, marked by the year Vijaya.
Period of Rajendra-II
Rajadhiraja was succeeded by his younger brother Rajendra-II. His reign lasted for 12 years. One of his inscriptions with the year number and the year name mentions that the Saka year 979, corresponding to Hemalambi, fell within the king’s 6th regnal year. This Saka year translates to 1057 CE (979 + 78), with Hemalambi spanning 1057-1058. Based on this, the king’s first year can be deduced as Kara/Nandana (1051-1052), and his last year (12th year) would be Subhakrit/Sobhakrit (1062-1063).
Virarajendra period
Rajendra-II was succeeded by his younger brother Virarajendra, who ruled for eight years. His inscriptions show that he came to power only after the death of Rajendra II, by virtue of valour demonstrated on the battlefield. This was written so by him in Manima?galam records. His reign began in C.E.1062, at Subhakrit, and ended in C.E. 1070, in the year known as Sadhara?a.
Virarajendra was succeeded by his son Adhirajendra who ruled for 43 years from the year of Kilaka in CE 1068 CE to Kara year in CE 1111.
He appointed his uncle, Viramahendra, as co-ruler, as soon as he took over in the year CE 1068, but Viramahendra died in the 3rd year of his reign in Sadhara?a year (CE 1070) in a riot at Kanci. As a result, Kulottu?ga-I became the junior-king in CE 1070 (Sadhara?a year) and he ruled for 50 years till CE 1120 in the year, Sarvari.
Chronology from Rajaraja-I to Kulottu?ga-I
Rajaraja-I: From 976 to 1004/05 (Dhatu - Krodhi)
Rajendra-I: 1002/03 to 1034/35
Rajadhiraja-I: 1018/19 to 1053/54
Rajendra-II: 1051/52 to 1062/63
Virarajendra: 1062 to 1070
Adhirajendra: 1068 to 1111
Rajamahendra: 1068 to 1070
Kulottu?ga-I: 1070 to 1120
The list reveals that there was co-rule during the period of every king. So, the idea that the heir came to power only after the death of a king is wrong as far as this period of the Chola-s is concerned.
Parakesari and Rajakesari titles fix the missing kings
According to the Tiruvalangadu copper plates and the Laden plates, the Chola kings alternately called themselves Parakesarivarman and Rajakesarivarman. This helps in verifying the chronological order of the Chola kings. However, there are instances where the same king appears with both titles in different years, and sometimes two successive kings have the same title. This discrepancy suggests that there might be missing kings or co-rulers in the Chola dynasty.
One such instance is the succession of Adhirajendra, who was a Parakesari, followed by Kulottu?ga-I, also a Parakesari. This anomaly can be explained by the presence of a Rajakesari king named Rajamahendra, who was a co-ruler (junior king) of Adhirajendra. Rajamahendra’s inscription in his 3rd regnal year testifies to his existence, but his early death led to Kulottu?ga-I succeeding Adhirajendra.
Similarly, the succession of Aditya II, a Parakesari, followed by Madhurantaka, also a Parakesari, raises questions. The absence of a Rajakesari between them suggests that there might be an unknown king missing from the records. This unknown king would have been appointed by Aditya II as his successor before Madhurantaka took over.
From Vijayalaya to Kulottu?ga I
The Chola dynasty’s early history is marked by Vijayalaya Chola, who revived the Chola dynasty and called himself Parakesari. His son Aditya-I was Rajakesari, and his successor Para?taka-I was known as Parakesari. However, the sequence of kings after Para?taka-I is disputed, with some kings missing from the records.
The sequence of the kings as available now is given here:
Vijayalaya - Parakesari
Aditya-I - Rajakesari
Para?taka-I - Parakesari
Rajaditya - Rajakesari (no records)
Gandaraditya -Parakesari (no records)
Ari?jaya -Rajakesari (no records)
Sundara Chola- Rajakesari (records available)
(Sundara Chola must have been Parakesari, according to the sequence of kings who ruled before him, but his name is recorded as Rajakesari, which proves the presence of an unknown king between him and Para?taka-I)
After Sundara Chola
Aditya-II-Parakesari
Uttama Chola (Madhurantaka)-Parakesari
(Without a Rajakesari in their midst, it is not possible for these two to be one after the other with the title of Parakesari).
Rajaraja-I- Rajakesari
Rajendra-I- Parakesari
Rajadhiraja -Rajakesari
Rajendra II-Parakesari
Virarajendra -Rajakesari
Adhirajendra -Parakesari
Rajamahendra - Rajakesari (died while he was the co-ruler)
Kulottu?ga-I -Parakesari
Missing king between Aditya II and Madhurantaka
The list reveals two missing kings, whose presence can be inferred from the disrupted sequence of Kesari titles. A king likely existed between Aditya II and Madhurantaka, as both were Parakesari rulers. However, the Tiruvalangadu records indicate that Madhurantaka, who ascended to the throne in 971-972 CE before Aditya’s death in 976 CE, succeeded Aditya II directly. The titles suggest that Aditya II may have chosen a junior king as his successor, and given Rajakesari title. He must have died in a short while, leading to the choice of Madhurantaka as the next co-ruler with the Parakesari title.
Missing king between Para?taka I and Sundara Chola
So far, six sons of Para?taka-I were identified in the inscriptions. The eldest was known as Kodandaraman. Apart from him, the names, Uttamasili, Rajaditya, Arikulakesari, Gandaraditya and Ari?jaya have been found. Of these, Rajaditya, Gandaraditya and Ari?jaya became kings one after the other, according to Laden plates. An unrecognised Rajakesari or a Parakesari must have existed somewhere in the line-up among these three.
Although Kodandaraman, the eldest son of Para?taka I, is mentioned in a few inscriptions, his name is not accompanied by a Kesari title. It’s likely that another son, Uttamasili, was given co-rulership during Para?taka I’s reign, as evidenced by the existence of a Chaturvedi Mangalam and a water canal in his name. As the immediate successor to Para?taka I, a Parakesari, Uttamasili would have held the title Rajakesari. His probable death during Para?taka I’s reign paved the way for Rajaditya’s succession.
This sequence would make Rajaditya a Parakesari, followed by Gandaraditya as Rajakesari, and then Ari?jaya as Parakesari. Consequently, Ari?jaya’s son Sundara Chola would have become Rajakesari, maintaining the alternating title pattern.
Dr Jayasree Saranathan in an Indic scholar who has investigated some of the challenging riddles in Indian chronology. The article is excerpted from her book, “Who Killed Aditya Karikala?”, which explores the discrepancies in the timelines.
Back to Top