The preserved part of this inscription specifies the revenue in paddy and the revenue in gold and in money (kāśu), which a number of villages had to pay to the stone-temple, called Rājarājēśvara, which Rājarājadēva had caused to be built at Tanjavur. The villages were situated both in the Cōḷa country and in other countries and had been assigned to the temple by Rājarājadēva until the 29th year of his reign. The extent of the land, which the King had given to the temple in each of the villages, is recorded in great detail by a land measure, the name of which is not stated, and by fractions of it. The paddy due to the temple had to be measured by 'the marakkāl called (after) Āḍavallāṇ,' i.e., by a corn measure which was preserved at the shrine of the God Āḍavallāṇ; and this marakkāl was 'equal to a measure called rājakēsari’. This term was evidently derived from Rājakēsarin, the surname of the reigning King Rājarāja and must be taken as the real name of the royal standard measure, a copy of which was preserved at the temple. It mentions a case, in which the revenue had to be paid in gold.
This and the next inscription, though of a different date are engraved continuously in two sections. No. 6 fills the whole of the first section and part of the first line of the second section.
The inscription describes a number of gifts, which were made until the 29th year of the reign of Rājarājadēva, by Ālvār Parāntakaṇ Kundavaiyār, who was the elder sister of Rājarājadēva and the Queen of Vallavaraiyar Vandyadēvar. As, according to the large Leyden grant, Rājarāja was the son of Parāntaka II., it is evident that the name of his sister, Parāntakaṇ Kundavaiyār, is an abbreviation for Parāntakaṇ magaḷ Kundavaiyār, i.e., Kundavaiyār, the daughter of Parāntaka (II.).
It records a gift of gold to the same two Goddesses, who are mentioned in the inscription No. 2. These two images had been set up in the temple of Rājarājēśvara by Kundavaiyār herself. The same princess had set up an image of her mother, to which she presented certain ornaments. Other ornaments were given to the image of the God Dakṣiṇa-Mērū-Viṭaṅkar, which had been set up by King Rājarājadēva and his consort. The remainder of the inscription treats of endowments to these two Goddesses, to the image of Poṇmāḷgaittuñjiṇa-dēvar and to the image of the mother of Kundavaiyār. These endowments were made in the following manner. Kundavaiyār deposited certain sums of money (kāśu), which were subsequently borrowed on interest by the inhabitants of certain villages from the shrine of Caṇḍēśvara, the saint in whose name the money affairs of temples are generally transacted. The interest had to be paid yearly into the treasury of the Rājarājēśvara temple at Tanjavur either in paddy or in money. In the former case, the interest was three kuṛuṇi of paddy for each kāśu, and in the latter of 12 ½ per cent. If it is assumed that the rate of interest was the same in both cases, one kāśu would correspond to the value of 24 kuṛuṇi or 2 kalam of paddy. In two instances, money was deposited for purchasing a number of sheep, from the milk of which two private individuals had to supply, on a daily basis, a certain amount of ghee for lamps. The value of one sheep was reckoned as 1/3 kāśu. The value of various daily requirements is given in measures of paddy.
This inscription describes thirteen ornaments of gold and jewels which Āṛvār Parātakaṇ Kundavaiyār gave 'to (the Goddess) Umāparamēśvari, who is the consort of Lord Dakṣiṇā-Mērū-Viṭaṅkar,' until the 3rd year of the reign of Rājēndra-Cōḷadēva.
This inscription engraved on the south, east and north walls of a portico, describes a number of ornaments of gold and jewels, which were presented by Ālvār Parāntakaṇ Kundavaiyār until the 3rd year of the reign of Rājēndra-Cōḷadēva. The donees were the images which she had set up herself. Among these, the published part of the inscription mentions the consort of Dakṣiṇa-Mērū-Viṭaṅkar and the consort of Tanjai-Viṭaṅkar (paragraphs 8 and 24).
These eleven inscriptions (Nos. 9 to 19) are engraved continuously. No. 9 is dated in the 6th year of the reign of Rājēndra-Cōḷadēva, and fixes the interest to be paid to the temple by certain villagers for a sum of money, which had been contributed by several donors and by the temple treasury. The interest was to be used for the chief idol of the temple and for the images of Kirātārjunadēvar and of Piccadēvar (paragraphs 3 and 4). The first of the two latter had been set up by a minister, who is also mentioned in the large Leyden grant, and the second by Lōkamahādēvī, a Queen of Rājarāja.
This inscription is dated in the 10th year of the reign of Rājēndra-Cōḷa and fixes the interest, which the inhabitants of a certain village had to pay for the benefit of the image of Kirātārjunadēvar and of the images of Mahā-Mērū- Viṭaṅkar and his consort. The first of these three images had been set up by the minister, who is mentioned in the preceding inscription, and the second by King Rājarāja.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year and records endowments to the two images, which were mentioned in No. 10, and to the images of Kalyāṇasundarar and his consort, the first of which had been set up by TraiIōkyamahādēvī, a Queen of Rājarāja.
This inscription in the same 10th year, records endowments to an image, the name of which is lost, and to the image of Caṇḍēśvaradēva, which had been set up by a person.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year, records endowments to the chief idol of the temple of Rājarājēśvara.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year and records an endowment to the image of Dakṣiṇa-Mērū-Viṭaṅkar, which had been set up by King Rājarāja.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year and records an endowment to the image of Dakṣiṇa-Mērū-Viṭaṅkar.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year and records an endowment in favour of an image, the name of which is lost, but can be supplied as Dakṣiṇa-Mērū-Viṭaṅkar.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year and records an endowment to the same image.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year and records an endowment to the same image.
This inscription is dated in the same 10th year and records an endowment to the same image.
This inscription records that, on the 242nd day of the 19th year of his reign, Rājēndra Cōḷadēva granted a yearly allowance of paddy to a Śaiva priest of the Rājarājēśvara temple. He issued this order from his palace at Gaṅgaikoṇḍa Cōḷapuram.
This inscription is dated 'on the seventh day of the year which was opposite to the fifth year' of Tribhuvanachakravartin Kōṇēriṇmai-koṇḍāṇ.
It records an order of the King, by which certain lands that had been wrongfully sold during the third and fourth years of his reign, were restored to the temple of Rājarāja-Īśvara at Tanjavur.
This inscription is dated on the 64th day of the 35th year of the reign of Tribhuvanachakravartin Kōnēriṇmai-koṇḍāṇ and records the grant of the village of Suṇgandavirtta-Śōṛaṇallūr, which formed part of the town of Karundiṭṭaikuḍi, and which was situated on the banks of the Vīra-Śōṛa- Vaḍavāṛu and on the north-western extremity of the city of Tanjavur. The village was divided into 108 shares, of which 106 were to be enjoyed by the Brāhmaṇas of the village of Sāmantanārāyaṇa-caturvēdimaṅgalam near Tanjavur, and 2 by the temple of Sāmantanārāyaṇa-Viṇṇagar-Emberumāṇ in this village. Both this village and this temple had been called after his own name, and the granted village had been purchased from its former owners, by a person, who is designated in the text as the Toṇḍaimāṇār, but whose proper name must accordingly have been Sāmantanārāyaṇra. He was apparently a feudatory or high officer of the King, who made the grant at his instance and on his behalf.
This inscription contains an order of King Tirumalaidēva, by which a number of villages were exempted from taxes. This was probably done, because they had been granted to the Tanjavur temple. The date of the inscription is Śaka 1377 (expired), the cyclic year Yuvan, i.e., A.D. 1455. fiscal terms, which occur in the text of the royal order, are of Kanarese extraction.
Both the spelling and the execution of this inscription are not very careful. Lines 2 to 6 are damaged by a crack, which has caused the loss of a few letters. The language is Tamil, with the exception of line 1, which consists of a Sanskrit Ślōka.
This inscription records the assignment to the Tanjavur temple of certain villages in Toṇḍai-nāḍu or Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Cōḷa-maṇḍalam, Pāṇḍi-nāḍu or Rājarāja-maṇḍalam, Gaṅga-pāḍī, Nuḷamba-pāḍi also called Nigarili-Śōṛa-pāḍi, Malaināḍu and Īṛam (Ceylon) or Mummaḍi-Cōḷa-maṇḍdalam. This is a continuation of No. 4, which registers the gift by Rājarājadēva of villages in the Cōḷa country (Cōḷa-maṇḍalam) and in other countries (puṛamaṇḍalaṅgaḷ). The villages of the former are enumerated in No. 4 and 5, and those of the other provinces in the present inscription. The latter is considerably damaged. The number of villages outside the Cōḷa conntry whose revenues were assigned to the temple is, however, comparatively small. None-the- less, they show that the conquest of those provinces claimed for Rājarājadēva in his numerous Tamil inscriptions was not a mere victorious inroad but a more or less permanent occupation of them. The omission of minute details of measurement which are mentioned in connection with the villages of the Cōḷa country is a point worthy of note. The previous owners and riots are declared, in several cases, to have been replaced. Evidently, the original holdings were altered and those holders who were prepared to accept the conqueror's proposals were put in. Outside the Cōḷa country, the revenue payable to the King was partly in kind and partly in gold or money, while the villages paying revenue in money was comparatively rare in the Cōḷa country. In Ceylon, where the conditions were apparently different, the villages were required to remit the revenue in paddy, money and iluppai-pāl, which was evidently required for the lamps to be burnt in the temple. This again shows the King's solicitude to provide for the requirements of the temple.
Among the villages and subdivisions of provinces mentioned in the inscription, Ōymā-nāḍu is an ancient territorial designation known to early Tamil literature. It is the tract of country in which the modern town of Tiṇḍivaṇam in the South Arcot District is situated. Consequently, the village of Pērāyur in Ōymā-nāḍu has to be looked for in the neighbourhood of Tiṇḍivaṇam. Pāndi-nāḍu in Gaṅga-pāḍi bas been located by Mr. Rice in the Mysore District of the Mysore State. The village of Ālūr in Padināḍu may be identical with Ālūr in the Chāmarājnagar tāluka of the Mysore District. The villages of Kuśavūr and Kūḍalūr belonged to Parivai-nāḍu in Nuḷamba-pāḍi alias Nigarili-Śōṛa-pāḍi. Paṛivai-nāḍu probably owes its name to the Bāṇa capital Paṛivai or Paṛivipurī, which may be identified with Parigi in the Anantapur District. Nuḷamba-pāḍi also called Nigarili-Śora-pāḍi appears to have extended into the Anantapur District, as Hēmāvati (called Peñjeṛu in inscriptions) was its ancient capital. It has not been possible to identify Pudukkōḍu in Veḷḷappa-nāḍu, a district of Malai-nāḍu. Four villages of Malai-nāḍu seem to have been assigned (paragraphs 8 to 11). But their assessment is not specified.
Two territorial divisions of Ceylon are mentioned, viz., Māppiśumbu-kōṭṭiyāram and Kaṇakkaṇ-kōṭṭiyāram. The former was called Rājarāja-vaḷanāḍu and the latter Vikrama-Cōḷa-vaḷanāḍu, while Ceylon itself was known as Mummaḍi-Cōḷa-maṇḍalam. But the fact that five villages in Ceylon were required to contribute to the expenses of the Tanjavur temple shows that the island was a province of the Cōḷa empire during the reign of Rājarāja I.