Talk:Chola Empire

Requested move 5 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move and merge with Later Cholas. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Medieval Cholas → Chola Empire – This article talks about the CHolas at their imperial state SKAG123 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 21:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Pinging @Extorc, SilverStar54, Johnbod, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and Furius from the related June discussion at Talk:Chola dynasty#Requested move 12 June 2023 (which I closed as no consensus). SilverLocust 💬 21:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I support this, but would like to see some evidence that it is the usual term. If it is, some rejigging will be required to Later Cholas, which currently opens "The Later Chola dynasty ruled the Chola Empire from 1070 CE until the demise of the empire in 1279 CE". If WP's schema is Early Cholas (600 BCE–300 CE) - Chola Empire (848 CE–1070 CE) - Later Cholas (1070-1279 CE), then we should try not to refer to the realm as "Chola empire" in other periods... Furius (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also suggest renaming “Early Cholas” to “Chola Kingdom” but that’s a different discussion SKAG123 (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: A look through Google Scholar results seems to show that the term "Chola Empire" is mostly used to encompass the full period that Wikipedia splits into Medieval Cholas and Later Cholas:

  The present article seeks to examine some aspects of the crafts and craftsmen pertaining to the Chola Empire (ninth to thirteenth centuries A.D).([1])

  The history of South Indian States including Thamilnadu State voices about the Cola kings who built powerful empires in these areas since the 10th century (AD). ([2])

  Emerging [...] in the mid-9th century, [the Cholas] soon controlled the entire Tamil-speaking area. ([3])

  The goal of this research paper is to look at a few Chola Empire-related topics of crafts and craftspeople (ninth to thirteenth centuries A.D) and the urbanisation process in the Chola Empire (ninth to twelfth century A.D.). ([4])

  The Chola Empire ruled South India from approximately 850 to 1250 CE. ([5])

  the Cholas, a Tamil dynasty that controlled much of southern India between the 10th and the 13th centuries[...]. The Chola empire may be considered the pinnacle of south Indian history. ([6])

  The Cholas rose as a major power in South India in the ninth century. ([7] – explicitly contrasts "the Cholas" against "the early Cholas")

  ...inscriptions so far recorded from the Chola period (c. 950–1250 CE) in south India... ([8] – doesn't use the term "Chola Empire" in direct conjunction with the date, but the article's broader context indicates they're referring to the empire)

Taken together, I get the impression that there could be a meaningful article under the title "Chola Empire", but that it wouldn't line up neatly with any of the currently existing articles. For now, a good solution might be to retarget the Chola Empire redirect to point to Medieval Cholas instead? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@ModernDayTrilobite, Thanks for this detailed consideration. From your review of the sources, is WP correct to split Middle and Later Cholas into separate articles? Furius (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a subject matter expert by any means, but from what I've seen, my inclination would probably be to merge Later Cholas into the Medieval Cholas/Chola Empire article. Sources that use the term "later Chola" seem to be fairly (albeit not universally) consistent in using it to refer to the period beginning with Kulottunga I's reign; however, most sources don't appear to describe the Later Chola period as separate from the Chola Empire. Because of this, my current impression is that the best solution would be to have a single "Chola Empire" article, and to redirect Later Cholas to the relevant section therein. (As part of this process, I do also find myself in support of the move proposed here.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also support merging Medieval Cholas and Later Cholas into a master article called Chola Empire. This dynesty is continuous therefore it the same empire. Also Chola Empire is what is used in most of the sources therefore follows WP:COMMONNAME SKAG123 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me as a course of action. Furius (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Factual Inaccuracies in the Origins of the Imperial Cholas

The assertion made here, claiming that the Pottappi House of the Cholas played a role in establishing the Imperial Chola Empire, lacks scholarly support and is not substantiated by solid historical evidence.

This claim appears to be primarily founded on the mention of a certain Srikantha Chola in the extensive list of illustrious Chola emperors found in the Anbil plates of Parantaka Chola I, with Srikantha Chola listed above Vijayalaya Chola. However, it's important to note that the list explicitly mentions the father-son relationships of all the emperors starting from Vijayalaya Chola, which clearly suggests that Srikantha Chola was not the father of Vijayalaya Chola . There is literally no other information about either Srikantha Chola nor about his relationship with Vijayalaya Chola.

Furthermore, Vijayalaya Chola's father's name is explicitly documented as "Ottriyuran" in the Velanjeri plates. There is no historical or factual evidence to support the idea that Ottriyuran and Srikantha are one and the same individual.

In my edits, I have cited and provided references to support both of these claims. Additionally, I've taken steps to revise or remove sections of articles where unsubstantiated arguments were presented as facts, particularly when they were based on incorrect initial assertions.

It's worth mentioning that similar edits have been made across all articles related to the Imperial Cholas based on this same assertion. Karikaalan0207 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

pinging @Pikachu 9988 who originally added this. SKAG123 (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Karikaalan0207 I have looked over your sources.

1. Eigraphia Indica Vol.15" by Thomas, F.w. (1920) this was written during the British Raj, therefore violated WP:RAJ. We don't use British Raj era sources on Wikipedia.

2. The State Department of Archaeology, Govt. of Tamil Nadu. by Nagaswamy, R. (1979) This is a direct translation of the Velanjeri plates. (WP:PRIMARY). Also only mentions "Ottriyura is the Father of Vijayalaya" it does not mention the branch or dynasty they were a part of. SKAG123 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RAJ is an essay, not a policy, and comes nowhere near saying that there is a blanket ban on using Raj-era sources. But a more recent secondary source would be preferable. Furius (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We cannot ignore Anbil plates of Sundara Chola which mentions Srikantha before Vijayalaya. Even though it is not explaining the relation between Srikantha and Vijayalaya, Srikantha ruled during first half of 9th century CE as Madras Museum copper plates of Srikantha Chola is dated to that period.This means that Srikantha is predecessor to Vijayalaya but the relation between them is not yet known. Citation for Madras Museum plates of Srikantha - N.R.V., Prasad (1994). Epigraphia Andrica (4 ed.). pp. 15–16. Based on other inscriptions found across Tondaimandalam mentions,

"Tondai Nadu Pavina Ko Kanthan ayina Rajakesari Varman"

Based on the script used, these inscriptions as well dates to first half of ninth century CE. During his reign, Srikantha Chola was ruling Tondaimandalam, captured it from Pallavas as those inscriptions mention him as ruler of Tondai nadu. Citation for this - Gupta, S.p (1977). Readings in South Indian History. pp. 68–70. Dalavayapuram plates of Parantaka Viranarayana Pandya mentions Srikantha as ruler of Tondainadu and belongs to Pottapi Chola family explicitly,

"Pottappi kulacholan pugaltarusiri Kandarajan"

Also the plates further says that daughter of Srikantha Chola married Pandyan emperor Srimara Srivallabha who's reign period is also first half of 9th century CE. Citation for Dalavayapuram plates - Gupta, S.p (1977). Readings in South Indian History. pp. 62–63.

From these we can infer that there was a Srikantha Chola who belongs to Pottapi family and he was ruling Tondai Nadu during first half of ninth century. This Srikantha matches with the Srikantha mentioned in Anbil plates as Srikantha's rule ended just before the start of Vijayalaya's rule when Pallava Nandivarman III recaptured Tondaimandalam from . The Ottriyuran mentioned in Velanjeri may not be the actual name of the Vijayalaya's predecessor as Ottriyuran is a common alias name held by many chieftains. This Ottriuran could be the Srikantha mentioned in Anbil plates of Sundara Chola as there are many evidences for Srikantha's rule in Tondaimandalam and his rule period is first half of ninth century CE. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"We can infer" is WP:OR. For the information to be included in the article, it needs to be stated in a reliable secondary source. It sounds like Gupta 1977 pp. 62-63 is such a source, but it would be helpful if you could confirm that Gupta explicitly makes this claim in his/her own voice. Furius (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Gupta has explicitly claimed that Srikantha Chola is a Pottappi Chola and ruled Tondainadu captured from Pallavas in Pg 62, paragraph - 4. In pg 63, Gupta has given the lines taken from Anbil plates of Sundara Chola and says that Srikantha is mentioned as one of the ancestors of Vijayalaya. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

More sources about the origins of the Imperial Cholas and consensus is needed from other editors. SKAG123 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

How about editing out the incorrect informations added to the page by Pikachu 9988. Even the sources given by him says there's no direct link between Vijayalaya and Srikantha. But he has somehow managed to add false history on protected pages. Unbelievable! Roshan Dickwella (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have direct quotes that mention the Royal house of the Cholas being Pottappiz. We can’t assume as that would be original research. We also can’t use primary sources as per WP:PRIMARY SKAG123 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It also helps to have multiple sources rather than just one. SKAG123 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In more than 400 years of the Chola empire, only once, in the Anbil Plates of Sundara Chola is a Sri Kantha mentioned. However, it doesn't mention any Pottappi line, nor does it mention his relationship with Vijayalaya. It's important to note that Sundara Chola came 100 years after Vijayalaya. I didn't know one's own theories could be added to Wikipedia. @SKAG123 Roshan Dickwella (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@SKAG123 ? Roshan Dickwella (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References

I'd like to add my 2 cents that there's literally no evidence that suggest that the Medieval Cholas are of Telugu origin. Based on some plates we can't assume something. In my opinion, as long as there's no source that statement should be entirely removed for now.

I went through the provided source Gupta 1977 pp. 62-63. Actually, the source itself provides the fact that we can not establish a relationship between Sri Kantha Chola and Vijayalaya Chola. The source directly contradicts Pikachu 9988 assumption.

This is what the book [9] says:

It will be tempting from the wording of the record to treat Vijayalaya as the son and successor of Sri Kantha. But all the subsequent grants of the family and historical poems as well like the Kalingattupparani, Vikramacholan ula, Kulottunga Cholan ula and Rajarajacholan ula trace the genealogy only from Vijayalaya, and do not mention Sri Kantha; probably this was due to the fact Sri Kantha was not a direct ancestor of Vijayalaya, and the first ruler of the line of the Thanjavur Cholas was Vijayalaya. Also there was some interval between the periods of the two. However the fact that Sri Kantha is mentioned in the Anbil Plates referred to above would show that he was a great ruler.

P.S: If origin is just based on the ancestry, why not even go back further and we land again to Karikala who is clearly a Tamil.

Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree here. There's user named "Pikachu 9988", who has been going around and adding Telugu origins to the medieval Cholas, for the past two years, with no reliable evidence. While it is true that Telugu branches of Cholas (who migrated to Andhra after the rise of the Kalabhras) did exist. There's no evidence that links them to the Imperial Cholas. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm baffled how the changes of "Pikachu 9988" are now accepted as the standard and any change is considered as wrong... Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Anbil plates of Sundara Chola mentions Srikantha as one of the ancestors of Vijayalaya. As Anbil plates mention Srikantha Chola as one of the ancestors and based on other sources Srikantha is from Pottapi Chola family, Vijayalaya should be from the same family being his descendant. But the relation between Srikantha and Vijayalaya is not yet known. I did not put this without going through sources. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The origin of Cholas is Tamil. No one denies that. The point is from which Chola family Vijayalaya came from? As there were different Chola families ruling Rayalaseema region since 5th century. Based on Gupta, Vijayalaya is from Pottapi family as one of his ancestors is Srikantha who is a Pottapi Chola. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"all the subsequent grants of the family and historical

poems as well like the Kalingattupparam, Vikramacholan ula, Kulottunga Cholan ula and

Rajarajacholan ula trace the genealogy only from Vijayalaya, and do not mention

Sri Kantha", According to Gupta.

"all the subsequent grants of the family and historical

Vijayalaya, and the first ruler of the line of the Thanjavur Cholas was Vijayalaya. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sri Kantha Chola of the Pottappi line who gave his daughter Akkalanimmiti in marriage to Sri Mfira Srivallabha was himself a nephew

(sister’s son) of the Pandya Manabharana. So are the medieval Cholas actually Pandyas now? You're literally using a source that puts a question mark on your claim? Roshan Dickwella (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that Srikantha is a Pandya is incorrect as Srikantha is not a Pandya by paternal lineage. He is a Chola king. Refer Madras Museum plates of Srikantha for Srikantha's ancestry. His ancestry traces to Renadu Cholas and then finally to Karikala Chola. By the way, from where did you get the information that Srikantha is a nephew of Pandya king? Pikachu 9988 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember as it has been a long time since the last time I read. Ok, come to the point, what is there in Srikantha being nephew of Pandya king and how this is relevant to Vijayalaya's ancestry discussion? Srikantha claimed himself as adhiraja of Cholas in Madras museum plates. So it is you who is bringing non sense arguments that Srikantha is a Pandya. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's in the page 62. How about you go and read the thing that you've been blindly referencing. I brought it up just to expose your illogical claims. Does having a Pandya ancestor make Sri Kantha a Pandya? Sri Kantha was not a direct ancestor of Vijayalaya, if only you bothered to read it... Roshan Dickwella (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have read it already. Did I say anywhere that Vijayalaya is a direct descendant of Srikantha? Srikantha and Vijayalaya both belong to same Pottappi family. By paternal lineage Srikantha is not Pandya man, Still you are not able to understand that simple thing. Ancestry in inscriptions are drawn out based on paternal lineage not maternal. Vijayalaya and Srikantha Chola are from same lineage as per Anbil plates of Sundara Chola, So he is from Pottapi clan. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not saying Sri Kantha was a Pandya. Read my reply again and try to understand it. Anyway here's what the Anbil Plates says : In his family was born the chief of kings called Sri Kantha on whose chest were impressed marks of saffron from Lakshmi (Sri)’s embracing his neck. Where does it mention anything about Pottappi line? Sri Kantha would have surely been a great Chola king, hence Sundara Chola mentioned him. It was the only single inscription of any Thanjavur Cholas, where a Sri Kantha was mentioned. It is enough to make such claims. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Read page 62 to 63. There is only one Srikantha Chola and he is a Pottapi Chola as per Dalavaypuram copper plate. As per Gupta, this Srikantha ruled during first half of ninth century and it ended just few years before Vijayalaya captured Tanjore. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Refer madras museum plates of Srikantha as well in epigraphica Andrica. It gives the list of ancestors of Srikantha. It traces to Renadu Cholas and finally to Karikala Chola. Pottapi Cholas are a branch of Renati Cholas. That madras museum plates is dated to first half of ninth century (Refer

Catalogue of Copper Plate Grants by Srinivas Ayyengar). For sure he is a great Chola king as he claimed himself as Adhiraja of Cholas in his plate. According to Gupta, he is also said to have holded the epithet Rajakesari Varman as some of the inscriptions found around Tondaimandalam which is having that epithet is dated to first half of ninth century (Refer Gupta pg 69-70) Pikachu 9988 (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Also there is no proof that Cholas were ruling Tanjore or surrounding area between fourth and ninth century. There are only proofs that Cholas were ruling the Rayalaseema and Tondai nadu regions as subordinates of Pallavas during that period. During that period it was Mutharayars who were ruling Tanjore. Pikachu 9988 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how you actually derive this fact that

Srikantha and Vijayalaya both belong to same Pottappi family.

First and foremost, mentioning a name in a plate doesn't give you any information than that it's mentioned. The Anbil plate in fact doesn't give any information regarding the relationship. Any other relationship is mentioned in the plate but this one not. Plus, there's a huge gap of 100 years between those individuals. Second, any conclusion derived from this information is just pure OR. Third, the pages that you refer actually contradict directly to what you mean. This unsourced fact made somehow in several articles of Cholas. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 09:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

In page 63 para 1, Gupta says that there is only one Srikantha Chola known to us and in para 2 he further says that this Srikantha is mentioned as one of the predecessors of Vijayalaya in anbil plates and this Srikantha is described as great great grandfather of the Sundara Chola. Ofcourse the plate is not explicitly giving the exact relation between Vijayalaya and Srikantha. But that does not mean Vijayalaya and Srikantha are from different families as the author says Srikantha is mentioned as great great grandfather of Sundara Chola.

"there's a huge gap of 100 years between those individuals." - So what? Pikachu 9988 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"Ofcourse the plate is not explicitly giving the exact relation between Vijayalaya and Srikantha. But that does not mean Vijayalaya and Srikantha are from different families".

What part of "no original research" do you not understand?.

Do you have any historical record that mentions Vijayalaya belonged to the Pottappi line? No

Does Gupta confirm anywhere that Vijayalaya belonged to the Pottappi line? No

No one is denying the existence of Sri Kantha but your own personal hypotheses or unpublished theories doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

But that does not mean Vijayalaya and Srikantha are from different families as the author says Srikantha is mentioned as great great grandfather of Sundara Chola

Neither does it say they are from the same family. Srikantha's name is just merely mentioned. That's it! First of all, Gupta doesn't mention anywhere that Srikantha is his great-grandfather.

Second of all, what you're right now doing is just interpreting a statement. That interpretation is not only outrageously impeding logical fallacy at its core but also very much begging for calling it out as a lie. Do you know first of all how research works? Finally, own research and interpretation don't belong here on Wikipedia. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 04:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Go and read page 63 para 2 Pikachu 9988 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let's break down the source that you are badly trying to refer to.

The only ruler of the Telugu Choda branch with the name of Sri Kantha known to us so far is the donor of the Madras Museum Plates. That grant, however, does not specifically mention "the achievements of the donor, particularly his conquest of or rule over Tondainadu. It is only helpful in tracing the genealogy of the donor to Simhavishnu, one of the three sons of Chola Nandivarman. It has to be noted also that the Madras Museum Plates describe the donor Sri Kantha as the Choladhiraja (the adhiraja of the Cholas), which position he is credited to have obtained with the strength of his arm.

Okay, from here we don't much.

The Anbil Plates of Sundara Chola, the earliest of the available copper plate grants of the Cholas of Thanjavur giving the genealogy of the family, mentions Sri Kantha among the predecessors of Vijayalaya, the founder of the line. In that record Sri Kantha is said to have been the great-great-grandfather of the donor. After mentioning Senkannan (Ko-chchengannan) and his son Nalladikkon the grant has the following verse :—

Srikantha-graha [na]rudha kumkumamka-bhujantarah [1]*

Srikantha iti-rajendras tat-kuli sam-ajayata[8]

In his family was born the chief of kings called Sri Kantha on whose chest were impressed marks of saffron from Lakshmi (Sri)’s embracing his neck.

It says, it says is said to have been this is just a claim without a direct evidence. Ko-chchengannan, Nalladikkon and Sri Kantha are the direct descendants of Karikala.

It will be evident from this that Sri Kantha was not the immediate successor of Nalladikkon, but was a descendant of his, born in the family long after. The next verse introduces Vijayalaya, the founder of the Thanjavur line. But the relationship he bore to Sri Kantha mentioned in the immediately preceding verse is not clearly stated. It will be tempting from the wording of the record to treat Vijayalaya as the son and successor of Sri Kantha. But all the subsequent grants of the family and historical poems as well like the Kalingattupparam, Vikramacholan ula, Kulottunga Cholan ula and Rajarajacholan ula trace the genealogy only from Vijayalaya, and do not mention Sri Kantha; probably this was due to the fact Sri Kantha was not a direct ancestor of Vijayalaya, and the first ruler of the line of the Thanjavur Cholas was Vijayalaya. Also there was some interval between the periods of the two. However the fact that Sri Kantha is mentioned in the Anbil Plates referred to above would show that he was a great ruler.[9]

This basically put into perspective that we can't derive anything from that. He could be an ancestor of Vijayalaya but nobody knows.

9. The possibility that Vijayalaya also belonged to the Pottappi line of Cholas may be surmised from another source. A fragmentary Tamil inscription from Kudalur in the Bangalore District (Karnataka State) consisting of a single line, without either the beginning or the end. mentions a Chola king Vijayalaya. It is learnt from the inscription that "he had long arms and sword worthy of (?) Pattinipparanadan and resided in the city of Kudal. Though it is more than half a century since this inscription was discovered neither its text nor its impression has been published so far. It has however, been ascribed by R. Narasimhachar to Vijayalaya of Thanjavur, (Mysore Archaeological Report, 1909, p. 17, para 6S; also T. N. Subrahmanyam, South Indian Temple Inscriptions Vol. Ill, pt. i, Historial Survey, P. LXIl).

Probably he based his conclusion on the support of palaeography of the record. The epithet Pattinappara-nadan ascribed to Vijayalaya in the record has been given with a question mark. Probably the reading was doubtful. Very likely, it may be Pattinappara-nadan. In that case Vijayalaya also must belong to the Pottappi line. Then the mention of Sri Kantha in the Anbil Plates as a predecessor of his is significant and it can refer only to Sri Kantha, the maternal grand-father of the Pandya Parantaka Vira Narayana of the Dalavaypuram Plates and also the same as the donor of the Madras Museum Plates.

This again gives you that there's no evidence. It's just pure assumption. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 15:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with you Pikachu 9988 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Chola empire at no point conquered all of sri lanka

The Chola empire never had full control of the island at any point in history, and this is already discussed in a large amount of literature published on the matter, including primary literature cited on the page. Spencer, G. W. The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon. The Journal of Asian Studies 1976, 35 (3), 405-419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2053272.

According to George W Spencer; [3] available here as a free online paper. This paper was written by George W Spencer, then associate professor of south Asian history at northern llinois University. It's a rare case study where the author analyzes both Indian and Sri Lankan sources.

" Under Rajendra Chola I, perhaps the most aggressive king of his line, Chola raids were launched southward from Rajartha, into Rohana.

By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra completed the conquest that Rajaraja has begun.

But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon, which any case lacked large and prosperous settlements to tempt long term Chola occupation.

According to Indrapala

" The final stage of the conquest came in 1017.

In that year Rajendra I (1012 - 1444) the son and sucessor of Rajaraja I, send an expedition to the island. It was led by Muventa Velar, who had the very impressive and high sounding titles of

"Adhkara Dandanayaka Jayakonda Cola". Judjing from his title "Jayakonda Cola", he seems to have been a member of the the Cola imperial family.

Even in this final stage, the Colas failed to bring the whole island under their control, although both Rajendra and Muventa Velar claim to have conquered the "whole of ilam" (Sri Lanka).

" —

Indrapala K. The evolution of an ethnic identity - The Tamils in Sri Lanka c. 300 BCE to c. 1200 CE.

Going by the evidence of the Tamil Inscriptions in Sri Lanka, the territories under the direct rule of the Colas were confined to the northwestern, northern and eastern regions of the island. The central highland and the southern part did not come under the administration of the Cola viceroy and played a significant role not only in the campaigns to oust the Colas but also in the survival of Buddhism and the Sinhalese language in the island. From the time of the first Cola invasion in the tenth century, this region of Sri Lanka provided a safe haven for the disinherited rulers of the Anuradhapaura as well as for the other opponents of the Colas. Even the mightiest of the Cola emperors could not subjugate this region. Consequently, it was from here that the Sinhalese leader, vijayabahu, was able to organize his campaign against the Colas and capture power at Polonnaruwa. "—K. Indrapala, p 235 -236.

So with all these evidences I'm gonna change the chola empire map back

9lives2.0 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to read the again what spencer has told. He clearly said Cholas never consolidated(Strengthen) their control over southern Sri lanka which means they had control over the southern sri lanka but they never strengthen their control over the southern sri lanka. After Raja Raja Cola conquered Anuradhapura, Mahinda V ruled the Rohana. Spencer clearly mentions in his book that "in 1017 Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarattha into Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon", as we know Mahinda V was taken into India in 1017. His son Kassapa VI became the king of Rohana in 1029 . During these 12 years chola ruled the Rohana. Hope it shows Chola completely ruled lanka. 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to understand that Cholas were only able to capture the king and his jewels and his queen, The ministers of the kingdom ruled until the prince is old enough to become the king his son became the ruler of the kingdom after his fathers death and there were multiple princes including prince kitti and several others and you seem to say during after the capture of the king and before kassapaVI, the cholas captured rohana for the time being I don't buy that because if cholas had conqured south then they would have easily captured Kassapa IV, It seems like the cholas had retreated after capturing the king cause when they tried to invade the second time Kassapa VI generals attacked the incoming chola force and it shows that there were no cholas in south and the kingdom was indepedent and if we go with evidence if cholas had control over south theres absolute nothing to prove that the cholas had occupied the south and please dont make unnecessary edits without any further notices. 9lives2.0 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to read clearly and understand what spencer has said. You said " if cholas had conqured south then they would have easily captured Kassapa IV, It seems like the cholas had retreated after capturing the king ". It is false. Because spencer clearly said kassapa IV hid in rohana where chola forces searched for him. Which shows Cholas not retreated and their presence in south. And your argument" if we go with evidence if cholas had control over south theres absolute nothing to prove that the cholas had occupied". Spencer also said cholas lacked long term occupation in South. Which shows they have short term occupation of South from 1017 to 1029. There is no proof for the ministers to rule the South until prince is old. So you better don't make any edits. It is clear Chola ruled entire lanka for the period of 12 years. 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

when they captured the king they tried to capture the son also but they couldnt that means they couldn't go deep into the south and if they had control of south for even a short period they could have easily captured the son but they couldnt and the cholas came back to south to try capturing the son after they found out that he coronated himself as the king and the cholas were pushed back. 9lives2.0 (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I literally showed that spencer said chola had control over southern Lanka. You can also read History of Sri Lanka by K. M De Silva. He said "He was captured by the Invading Cholas in 1017

and died in captivity in South India, The conquest of the island was

completed under Rajaraja's son Rajendra. The southern parts of the

island slipped out of cholas control within a short time. ".

Your argument"when they captured the king they tried to capture the son also but they couldnt that means they couldn't go deep into the south and if they had control of south for even a short period they could have easily captured the son but they couldnt ". South contains dense forest and mountains and it is impossible to find a person who is in forest and hiding. Spencer also said he hides in South. 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

At no point spencer has said that cholas conquered south and can you tell me the page which spencer says this and i read this as a pdf while back and i do not remember that spencer said anything what you claimed 9lives2.0 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Page 416 "But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon" Through this we can find that, cholas never strengthen their control which implies they had control and not strengthen it. I have also mentioned what KM de Silva has said about it. He also accepted that cholas controlled southern lanka. 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

consolidated has multiple meanings which also means they havent united the south under the chola banner which means they never conquered the south and according to indrapala the whole island was never conquered and with evidence we can come to a decision that they never conquered the south and spencer itself doubts that if cholas actually conquered the south and spencer does not agree with historians which claimed that the whole island was conquered. 9lives2.0 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

To consolidate is to make stronger by some action or event:

Example:The governor consolidated his power, getting his allies into key state jobs. 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell me where spencer doubts that whole island was conquered . Can you give me page no? 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

page : 416

Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra "completed" the conquest Rajaraja had begun. Its said in a rhetorical way and spencer dosent agree with the "SOME HISTORIANS" which claims that the conquest has been completed. Even spencer says that to claim that the conquest has completed there should be evidence for such claim like conquering south.

What I believe is that until new evidence comes up that the south being conquered the map shouldnt include the south as conquered territory.

I hope that you understand and we can end this conversation but if you disagree we can continue the debate. 9lives2.0 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No It is not said in a rhetorical way. He just said what is said by some historians. He never disagree with any of them. Your argument " Even spencer says that to claim that the conquest has completed there should be evidence for such claim like conquering south", it is not said by spencer, please don't add your own interpretation here. 2409:40F4:1027:D78F:FCC7:E7FF:FEDF:314B (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

to join together into one whole

example: consolidate several small school districts

The cholas never conquered south as you see by evidence 9lives2.0 (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi 9lives2.0, dude have someone who is good in English.

To consolidate is to make stronger by some action or event:

Example:The governor consolidated his power, getting his allies into key state jobs.

I gave this example and thought you would understand. Let me teach you it is simple. Whenever the words like "power, control " Occurs after the word consolidate. It implies Strengthen not join together. I hope you get it now or atleast have someone who is good in English. So it's end of the debate . Don't make any edit. 2409:40F4:1027:D78F:FCC7:E7FF:FEDF:314B (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the king was captured and died in chola captivity 9lives2.0 (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Some historians believe the conquest ended because the cholas claimed they conquered sri lanka but we have seen cholas claiming that they conquered sri lanka when they haven't launched a single attack for example parantaka and there isnt any evidence also and wiki is a place where articles are written in neutral point not written according to a singe historian 9lives2.0 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your Argument "we have seen cholas claiming that they conquered sri lanka when they haven't launched a single attack for example parantaka and there isnt any evidence ". Before say anything have some knowledge.Don't bring your own interpretation here. We have evidence for chola invasion of Sri Lanka by parantaka. Source name : THE RISE And Decline of Chola power in Ceylon by Wijetunga Mudalige Karunaratna WIJETUHGA. Page no :93 "The date of this invasion can be fixed on the basis of

the information-in the Culavamsa, and the indirect information

in the Cola and Sinhalese inscriptions. The background of

contemporary South Indian history is another useful guide

for the dating of these events. The Culavamsa places the

invasion in the reign, of Udaya IV. He is reckoned to

have ascended the throne in 946 A.C. One of his inscriptions,

dated two years later, is found at Mahiyangapa, between

Rohana and Rajarattha. It is assumed that this was recorded

probably while he was returning to his capital from Rohana,

after the Colas had departed. The sudden withdrawal of the

Colas was probably due to the invasion of the Cola empire by

Krsna about 948-9 A.C. We can therefore assign this Cola

invasion of Ceylon to a date between 947 and 949 A.C. This

conclusion finds support in the inscription belonging to the

40th year of Parantaka (c.947-8) which positively refers to

a Cola invasion of Ceylon". This invasion is also mentioned in Culavamsa chapter 53. 2409:40F4:1022:BC9E:9893:46FF:FE26:5CEB (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

tell me now why would the cholas bring a force out of south if they had control over south and why wouldnt the cholas know about the kassapa VI until he coronated himself and they tried to put multiple chola controlled princes to become the king in the kingdom which also failed again and it shows that cholas never had any control over the south 9lives2.0 (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument "tell me now why would the cholas bring a force out of south if they had control over south". Cholas never bring a force out of the South. As per Spencer, they were in South and search for a kassapa VI. Your argument"why wouldnt the cholas know about the kassapa VI until he coronated himself " Because he hide in the South, as the South contains mountains and dense forest. He was hiding in the South and Cholas were searching for him in the South which shows chola presence and control over South. Your argument"they tried to put multiple chola controlled princes to become the king in the kingdom which also failed again ". They never did this none of the source mentioned it. I think it is your own interpretation. 2409:40F4:101E:3485:44BD:79FF:FEF1:BABA (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You cant simply say that they lacked long term occupation as a excuse thats why there isnt any evidence simply 12 years is long time and they could have put multiple inscriptions in the south but still there isnt any and there isnt any native sources telling that cholas controlled south and only claims they captured ONLY the anuradhapura kingdom and south have been independent 9lives2.0 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument " You cant simply say that they lacked long term occupation as a excuse thats why there isnt any evidence simply 12 years is long time and they could have put multiple inscriptions in the south". 12 years is not a long time. Cholas are surrounded by their enemies. It is cholas wish whether to put inscription in South or not. According to information we have by historians we can find they controlled South for 12 years. I already said that cholas captured the king mahinda in rohanna and they were there for 12 years controlling the South. 2409:40F4:101E:3485:44BD:79FF:FEF1:BABA (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument"there isnt any and there isnt any native sources telling that cholas controlled south and only claims they captured ONLY the anuradhapura kingdom and south have been independent ". The native sources are written in 12th century and the war happened in 11th century. They may missed this or skipped this. But the contemporary native source like " History of Sri Lanka" Written by KM De silva says the cholas controlled entered lanka. So it is not a valid point to deny the control that was not mentioned in one native source. 2409:40F4:1022:BC9E:9893:46FF:FE26:5CEB (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked you not to do any unnecessary changes without notifying me and you changed it before I could say anything first end this debate and then do the necessary changes or else dont try changing anything and you showed no evidence and only source you got is spencer claiming there wasn't any long term info.

I hope you give a good reason in 24 hors or else I will revert your edit 9lives2.0 (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You can also read History of Sri Lanka by K. M De Silva. He said "He was captured by the Invading Cholas in 1017

and died in captivity in South India, The conquest of the island was

completed under Rajaraja's son Rajendra. The southern parts of the

island slipped out of cholas control within a short time. ".page no: 26.

You can also read KA Nilakanta sastry book on cholas on page 200,he says"Rajendra’s success was complete, and the whole of the island became a Cola province". I hope this is enough to claim the chola rule in South lanka.

Don't revert my edit before reaching consensus. 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

These historians assert the claim that the cholas conquered the island because the cholas did a such claim in there inscriptions and not all of the historians agree with them including spencer and indrapala and again such claim lacks evidence so these one sided views cannot be added in wiki and wiki is about having a neutral point

There were instances which the cholas claimed that they conquered the island when they havent launched a single invasion for example parantaka 9lives2.0 (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You are biased to say desilva and sastry as one sided view. More over can you tell me where spencer said he did not disagree that cholas conquered entire lanka. He is the one who support the claim that cholas ruled entire lanka. 2409:40F4:103D:E881:A89D:CFF:FE2B:F54 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is very weak. You label the person who says chola conquered entire lanka as one sided. Even spencer and Indrapala never said they didn't conquer the entire Sri lanka in the source you mentioned. Don't make any edit. I think we need External Confirmed Users who determine which is true because you never agree what I say. Even you won't agree the meaning of the word 'Consolidate'. Let's wait till extended confirmed users in Wikipedia agrees who is correct and they determine whether the chola ruled South lanka or not. So don't make any change till they confirm. I hope you atleast do this. 2409:40F4:1027:D78F:FCC7:E7FF:FEDF:314B (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I read The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity: The Tamils in Sri Lanka C. 300 BCE to C. 1200 CE. But I couldn't find what you said. He didn't say anything like "Even the mightiest of the Cola emperors could not subjugate this region. Consequently, it was from here that the Sinhalese leader, vijayabahu, was able to organize his campaign against the Colas and capture power at Polonnaruwa". And " Even in this final stage, the Colas failed to bring the whole island under their control, although both Rajendra and Muventa Velar claim to have conquered the "whole of ilam" (Sri Lanka)."Can you provide these images in his book for this?. I think this might be your own interpretation or some other book. It is definitely not this book "The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity: The Tamils in Sri Lanka C. 300 BCE to C. 1200 CE.". I have read Tamil version of it too could not find the sentence. 2409:40F4:1027:D78F:FCC7:E7FF:FEDF:314B (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The map claims to depict the empire in 1030 (admittedly, it says "circa"). All discussants seem to agree that the Chola had lost control of the south by 1029.

In general, it doesn't seem brilliant for the infobox map to include a tenuous conquest that was held for only 12 years at most. That doesn't seem to give the reader an accurate understanding of what the empire was normally like. Furius (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The Real Map of Chola Empire according to the Sources

Hi All, Chola Empire during the reign of Rajendra Chola completely conquered the entire Sri Lanka. For this, I will provide the sources below.

1)Source: Spencer, G. W. The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon. The Journal of Asian Studies 1976, 35 (3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2053272 According to Spencer, “Under Rajendra Chola I, perhaps the most aggressive king of his line, Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarattha into Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra "completed" the conquest Rajaraja had begun. But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon, which in any case lacked large and prosperous settlements to tempt long-term Chola occupation". If you read that you can understand that Cholas never Consolidated(Strengthen) their control over South Ceylon which means they had control but they didn't Strengthen their control. By this we can find Entire Sri Lanka is part of Chola Empire.

2)Source: History of Sri Lanka by K. M De Silva. He said "He was captured by the Invading Cholas in 1017 and died in captivity in South India, The conquest of the island was completed under Rajaraja's son Rajendra. The southern parts of the island slipped out of cholas control within a short time. ".page no: 26.

3) Source: Author: KA Nilakanta sastry book named 'The Colas' on page 200,he says"Rajendra’s success was complete, and the whole of the island became a Cola province".

Based on these sources we can conclude that Cholas rule entire Sri Lanka for a short period of time. Ranithraj (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

waiting for consensus form other editors. SKAG123 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Greeting (WP:FRS): Let me see if I understand this. There seems to be a lot of contention revolving around if the "Chola completely conquered the entire Sri Lanka", or not. If the History of Sri Lanka by K. M De Silva (#2 above) is considered a reliable source, as well as The Colas (#3 above), and I assume they are, and lacking proof otherwise, the question has been answered. An editor that argues against this would need sourcing so that both sides could be presented according to such sources. If an editor "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources" or edits contrary to content backed by "reliable sources", they could be subjected to sanctions. I imagine this would be more closely monitored on articles subjected to arbitration.

In the extensive discussion above, no such consensus emerged. Furius (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Furius, sources mentioned above doesn't lack proof. An editor who doesn't believe Chola conquered entire lanka believes those sources are biased and wrong. He didn't mention any sources in his argument. Please read his conversation above he doesn't know the meaning of the word consolidation. He speaks like nationalist. Yeah no consensus emerged because he is not ready to accept the truth. 2409:40F4:1009:435A:DC0D:CCFF:FE45:2F8C (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The editor cited Spencer and Indrapala. The editor's understanding of the Spencer passage is the natural one: "By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra completed the conquest that Rajaraja has begun. But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon..." The whole point of Spencer's argument here is that Rajensdra' claim false and that "some historians" are wrong. The counterargument about the precise meaning of "consolidate" is forced and utterly ignores the broader context of the passage in which the word is used. When you accuse the other editor of being a nationalist, you are not assuming good faith. One might suggest that the accusation reveals the biases of the accuser... wasn... Furius (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

yeah The editor cited Indrapala, I have read that book nowhere the statement mentioned by him is in the book. He just made up those statement. And coming to this "By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra completed the conquest that Rajaraja has begun. But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon..." In the above statement by spencer I don't think spencer believe Rajendra claim is false and other historians are wrong. Spencer just said what is claimed by Rajendra and some historians. Spencer does not say they are wrong. And about the meaning of the word Consolidate, the editor believes meaning is combine and I said it's not combine it's strengthen and he never accepted. What do you think the meaning of the word consolidate in the above passage combine or strengthen?. I accused him as Nationalist because look at his account it was blocked. He always make wrong edits which is favoured by Nationalist that's why I said. 2409:40F4:1009:435A:DC0D:CCFF:FE45:2F8C (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole argument of Spencer's article is that Chola campaigns into southern Ceylon and Malacca were plundering raids, not campaigns of conquest. He says that these plundering expeditions slowly evolved into permanent occupation of the north of Ceylon, but not the south. Furius (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, Spencer argument in that article is Cholas controlled South ceylon for some period of time and they could not strengthen their control over South ceylon for longer period of time. He then explains how cholas lost control in ceylon and cholas withdrawal from ceylon. Read this passage "By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra completed the conquest that Rajaraja has begun. But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon which in case lacked large and prosperous settlements to tempt long term chola occupation". In the passage he clearly mentioned cholas did not strengthen their control over South ceylon which means they had control and not strengthen it. He then said they lacked large settlements which means they had small settlements. He then adds they didn't have long-term occupation which means they had small term occupation. That's it. Cholas at some point in their history they controlled South ceylon. 2409:40F4:1009:435A:DC0D:CCFF:FE45:2F8C (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have read the entire article. Your reading of this passage in isolation is forced and you are misrepresenting the argument of the article as a whole entirely. Furius (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. Spencer in that article mentioned that Chola campaigns into Ceylon and Malacca were plundering raids. He mentioned ceylon only not South ceylon. Yeah he mentioned that as plundering raid but that doesn't mean Cholas didn't control ceylon they just plundered only. My reading of that passage is not forced. According to spencer at some point entire ceylon was controlled by Cholas. 2409:40F4:101A:BC04:4C59:FFFF:FE8C:C498 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Royal House of the Medieval Cholas

The Royal House of the Medieval Cholas has been disputed in This discussion. @Pikachu 9988 has suggested that the imperial Cholas originate from the Pottappi branch. This has been challenged by other users. This has been a subject of various edit wars on related articles. Reviving this discussion for consensus. SKAG123 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Came from WP:FRS
  • I find this question framing inadequate and not clear enough for uninitiated uninvolved users to take specific position. Usually WP:DRN before Rfc benefits in writing effective and clear synopsis. It's always better even to discuss RfC question before launching of RfC.
  • Anyways I suggest a proper synopsis @ this discussion section. And clearer options in framing this question.
• Bookku (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)