This is an archive of past discussions about Chola dynasty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old, unsectioned comments

Can anyone help by writing just a few lines about each of the kings
- Kishore 06:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey kishore,

 Better read the "Ponien selvan" By kalki..It explains about each ruler superbly.

Yogananth

Thanks Yogananth. I was more concerned to improve the article. If you have read "ponien Selvan" and/or have a fair idea abour Cholas, you can help improving the article.

Kishore 15:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Etymology of kallaNai is so out of place here. I am going to move it a new article on kallaNai. --Sivaraj 03:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only three Dynasties?

I'm guessing that what people mean by the 'three dynasties' ruling over Tamilnadu are the Cholas, Pandyas, and Pallavas, i.e. not Cheras which were based in Kerala. But if people know that Cheras also ruled in Tamilnadu at some point, let's give them a mention in that connection. QuartierLatin1968 21:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kerala is a separate political entity only after Independence. Before that the whole region (Tamil Nadu + Kerala) was ruled by different monarchies at various points in time and no distinction was made with respect to [present day] Kerala. AFIK, Tamil tradition mentions Cheras as part of the "three dynasties". A more convincing fact is that Ilango who authored the Tamil epic Cilappatikaram was a prince from the Chera dynasty. -- Sundar 04:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right, of course. That does make sense. I put a link to the Pallavas at their first mention of the article instead. (PS: I've also been trying to sort out the Roman numerals in this article – "Rajaraja Chola-I"? "Henry-VIII"? It looks quite odd. So I'm afraid you inadvertently reverted my Roman numeral fixes as well! No worries though, I've set it back again.) QuartierLatin1968 18:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops! I'm sorry. It was unintentional. -- Sundar 04:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

expand on the empire building in southeast asia?

Can anyone expand on the campaigns and cultural fussion on that part -- Dangerous-Boy

Make a map

Someone should make a map like in the Chinese dynasties. --Dangerous-Boy 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a map, overview, images, plus references from my Chola Empire page

Hey guys, I added a IMPERIAL MAP and overview plus references from my Chola Empire wikipedia page which I created. Plus other images referenced with sources, did some minor reorganizing of content here too so that there's no repeating of info. Let me know what you guys think. I think it better reflects the glory of the Chola empire and their military and cultural exploits. Enjoy,

Chola 02:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. Make sure you tag your map or might get deleted. --Dangerous-Boy 08:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey DangerousBoy, How do I tag the map? I entered the following after adding it: This image was found at Encyclopedie Enligne: http://www.encyclopedie-enligne.com/Images/c/carte_chola.png The original page where this image was found is: http://www.encyclopedie-enligne.com/c/ch/chola.html Was this done correctly or is this not considered a tag, please check it out and give me feedback, i'd like to keep adding to this page :). Thanks!

Chola 19:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You can choose an image copyright tag from here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags --Dangerous-Boy 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I added the tags. Thanks. Chola 23:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Capitals

I added Poompuhar and Pazhaiarai as capitals. Sources being Tamil literature and general history... shash 06:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking interest Shash. I reverted the edit, however, because I want to maintain encyclopedic standards. I don't think all details and comments about the Cholas should be added, only the most important and relevant facts in an easy to read manner. Most of the Empire pages on Wikipedia are designed with an aesthetic sensibility to promote understanding of that particular empire and culture to the global internet community. Thus, it's important to keep the information fresh and easily readable with only the most important information. The problem with most of the articles on Tamil empires is that they focus far too much on the Early Dynasties, mention many small details from early history and thus make readers lose interest before reading the real contributions and accomplishments of those civilizations. We need to start promoting knowledge of the big achievements so those outside the Tamil community can better appreciate our civilization. A new effort should be made to promote understanding of Tamil Empires just as the Ottoman and other Empire pages have done Turkish Civilization. Thanks again.

-- Chola 18:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

rename to chola dynasty?

?--Dangerous-Boy 11:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-Kumar, no point renaming it "chola dynasty" since a dynasty is only a ruling family. This page seems to be more about the "chola empire", thus focusing more on its collective Imperial contributions as opposed to specific individuals who ruled the empire.

Merging Chola Empire with Cholas

Venu62 08:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the Cholas article changing the sectiosn on the Early Cholas and added a map of the Chola empire. I intend to expand this article ti add the social and political contributions of Cholas. I also intend to contribute articles on the various Chola kings. I would like to suggest that the article on Chola empire be merged into the Chola article in order to avoid duplication.

Hi there, my nickname on Wikipedia is Chola, I'm the one who created the "Chola_Empire" page. I'm fine with merging the two pages. I hope you add a nice image of the Thanjavur Big Temple to the Chola page though, I don't know why the other image was removed, as it's an important contribution of the Chola Empire. Perhaps more info on the Chola military exploits and less Dynastic information would make it qualitatively better, as the original purpose of the Chola Empire page and the various edits I made to the Chola page was so that people outside the Tamil cultural sphere can get better acquainted with the Chola Empires greatness. This, without giving them too many small details at the beginning which may distract from their main contributions (military conquest, architecture, arts, cultural fusion with South East Asia). Cheers. Chola

Hi Chola, Thank you for your note. The image of the Tanjore temple was removed for lack of space on the page. I do intend inserting it back when I add more text to this page. I am currently writing about the contributions of Cholas in the areas of government, art, literature, architecture etc to the lead article on Cholas. This will give a rounded picture to the non-Indian reader. Also I was consious of fact that Wikipedia is a reference document which will be a third level source. We need to be as complete as possible.

Venu62 19:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

early cholas lineage

some one changed the actual lineage from the Purananuru which clearly states who is who and who is the son of who, kindly revert back to he original order given by me.

dates of Sibi, sembiyan , kantaman and Musugunthan are related to the dating of Ramayana time , may be around 1500-1100 B.C.E.

Senthilkumaras 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Chola lineage. This is an article about the history of Cholas. If we want to maintain the information authentic, i.e. supported by the conventional dating evidence, then I don't think using Purananuru and Ramayana as authentic historical document is acceptable. You seem to consider Ramayana as a historical document. I don't. Can you please refer me to the evidence of the exact date of Ramayana? Venu62 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am telling that Purananuru gives the lineage not the exact dates. example too many blunders in your list like, Killivalavan , rasasuya narkilli , kochenkanaan all are misplaced

Purananuru clearly says with the help of the original porulurai if one reads it carefully, killivalavan is son of nalankilli, nalankilli is cousin of cenkuttuvan,

rasasuya narkilli is son of killivalavan,

kocenkaanaan is the last known bigtime chola king , as poet singing on him doesnot come to be in other poet's or king's time, he is later than 200 c.e.

also 250 c.e is the end of big kingdoms in Tamilnadu, after whihc Kalabras spread and dark age starts, extends till 500 c.e.

Senthilkumaras 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is if we want to keep Wikipedia an authentic source of information, we need to separate accepted fact from unconfirmed, undatable information. With all due respect to you I don't consider Purananuru and Ramayana as authentic historical sources. They are rather cultural icons preserving a collective memory of a people. They cannot taken as authentic historic source. See Kings of the Britons. This article clearly separates the legendary genealogy of the Kings of Briton from the historical ones. May be you would like to create an article like this detailing the Purananuru list.

Venu62 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou sir for differentiating later records of legends [like historia regum brittanica ], and other kingslist of ABriton, from the original datable authentic kinglists.

I also quote for others like me the salient features:

"Various lists of the kings survive, although none of the originals. The Welsh Chronicles supply another source for early British kings. Regardless of the source, no list of the kings has a high level of historic fact and, while they generally are similar to each other, no two lists are exactly the same. Modern historians consider these lists not as historically reliable sources but as comprehensive conglomerations of various Celtic rulers, Celtic warlords, mythical heroes, and, more obviously, Roman Emperors.The history of Geoffrey is rough and unreliable but forms the basis for much English lore and literature. Modern historians have regarded the Historia as a work of fiction with some truth mixed in. John Morris in The Age of Arthur calls it a deliberate spoof. .

But what I wanted to point is there are 20-25 kings names in each of Pandya , Chera and Chola in the later Cangam works. do yo say Cangam works on kings and incidents were all fiction, and those kings names were all cooked up in more later times? yes the exact period of kings are undatable, but neither are the Bible lineage of Noah, Abraham, Joshua upto Jesus[for sure 4 b.c.] datable, they are easily legends only, There were no archaeological stone tablets in Israel to date their genealogy for sure, they rely on the Bible only which was compiled like Purananuru only in 4th century c.e. by the Church.

Or for that matter the Sumerian kinglist [which it is posted in wikipedia also as example:"ruling for 180 years etc and so on"] [which gives kingslist from 3300 b.c.e. ? with each of the earliest kings ruling for 200-1600 years?] you and many provide was actually from stone tablets dated at 1000 b.c.e. only, clearly mentioning that those were only recollected kingslists of the past which were lost in the flood or copied from remaining records.

Afterall each Purananuru poets sang those poems on the donating kings just thanking them or praising their might in order to get money and prizes THE N AND THERE , not written 1000's of years later like other aboe mentioned works ,

so the names of these 60 odd kings are real, atleast,

the poets also many times mention who is the father and son of which king in most cases [except they d on't give you any dates as numbers.]

kindly consider each of these points and PLEASE answer each one of them.

Probably the only minus point was that those days Tamils didnotknow to record or boast on STONE TABLETS, only poor palm leaves script MUCH LIKE BIBLE, VEDAS, CHINESE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORDS,.. ETC - which are very much accepted for genealogy atleast for kingslist , leave alone the dates they generously provide!!!!

In any case how do one say a record is authentic - just archaeo /epigraphy, does palmleaves script has no value ,

and historians who declare one authentic are westerners only. how can they do when they not even know that Purananuru was a praising work for living money by poets on the kings Then and THERE. Will they accept if an Indian scholar date or declare whether the authencity of Bible or Greek/ Roman records are true or just cooked up?

Senthilkumaras 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume the above note was from Senthilkumar. My response is as follows:

When we write about our own culture we let feelings of Nationalism cloud our objectivity. I recommend that you read the article on Historical method.

No serious historian accepts as fact the dates and genealogy given in in the old and the new Testaments, etc. There is no independent proof that such a man as Jesus existed. He was not an accepted historical figure. The same goes for the Sumerian king list etc. Sumerian and Assyrian King Lists are listed under mythology rather than true history.

When you write an article under 'History', you must write authentic verifiable information, and should not insert legends and myths as historic fact. Otherwise you are indulging in Pseudohistory and Nationalistic propaganda.

Even true blue Indian historians do not take the early king list from the Purananuru as historically acceptable document, even for the reasons of there being not enough information other than a few names. It is not even certain in some cases whether they are kings themselves or those belonging to the ruling clan.

If one wants to push one's Nationalistic agenda, Wikipedia is not the place for it. You seem to have a problem with the so called 'Western Historians'. It is unfortunate but irrelevant. All the pioneering work done in documenting Indian History was done by the Westerners.

Venu62 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

thankyou Venu62 for clarifying, henceforth we shall call all kings of these scripts(Bible, sumerian kinglist, Chinese kinglists, Purananuru, Aryan Manu/ Bharata, Ikshwaku lists) without archaeological records as mythical legends only. but Jesus the latest of all these genealogies will be controversial atleast . Senthilkumaras 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramayana reference

http://www.sanmarga.org/resources/books/dws/dws_r6_timeline.html

Traditionally historians date Ramayana to 1000 -1050 b.c.e.

But much earlier date to 4039 b.c.e.-4019 b.c.e. given now by astronomic record evidence as shown in the site publication by renowned historians and scientists similar to the astronomical records and dating of the Rig Veda.

Senthilkumaras 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Historians don't give that date - pseudohistorians do. I can refer you to a hundred sites that argue that the world was created sometime during the evening of June 26th 4004 BC. Which one does one believe? That is why we have the science of archealogy and epigraphy.

Venu62 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Venu, I'd like to congratulate you and everyone else on providing a detailed and interesting factual record here. I wish some of the older details (of the Medieval Cholas) such as the Aquaduct, navy and military exploits were kept here, since to me they signify the true glory of the Chola empire. I originally wanted to keep the pages for promoting an understanding of Chola accomplishments to the mainstream community, but find your interesting factual information just as honourable. I was hoping we could keep a compromise, whereby the first 2 paragraphs of this site are kept as is (since they explain a general overview of the Medieval Chola accomplishments) and allow the rest of the page to be edited as new data arrives. We need a brief overview in the first 2 paragraphs to capture the imagination of readers not familiar with the Cholas who may otherwise think they were a minor local entity (and not an international imperial power, which they were). Thanks Chola 10 February.

Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps it's better to maintain the "Chola Empire" page seperately. This is because the "Cholas" page seems to be more about the Chola dynasty with an overemphasis on the Early history, while the "Chola Empire" page is more about the Medieval Cholas and their military and cultural exploits (during a specific time frame). Perhaps with better inter-linking of the 2 pages we can have a good synergy. Good luck. Chola 10 February

Vengi Cholas

The text under the Vengi Chola heading needs to be rewritten for style and formatting.

"Vengi kings were ancient Tamil line that existed since last Sangam period . Vengi always was the face of Tamil kingdoms on the southern banks of Lower Godavari river and bordered the Kalinga kingdom . "

- The above statement needs some supporting reference.

"The Satavahanas or the Andhra dynasty ruled for four hundred years since the post-Asoka period , during which they had marital relationship with Karikala Chola I ."

- The above statement needs some supporting reference.

"Rajaraja Chola's daughter fell in love with Vengi prince Vimaladitan and was married to him . Similarly Rajendra Chola's daughter was married to Rasanarendran, whose son Vengi Rajendra II Kulothungan had to take the Chola crown in 1070 C.E. as after VeeraRajendra's death there was no male scions left in the royal family( as a result of too many battles with Chalukyas )."

- The above statement needs some supporting reference.

Venu62 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

References from ;

VeeraSozhiyam ,

"Tennaattu Porkalangal"-Ka.Appatturaiyaar [1945] , Nandan publications, 2002, 1st edition ,

Satavahanas for their reign period .

203.101.36.213 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Senthil Kumar

I was after references supporting the statement :"Vengi kings were ancient Tamil line that existed since last Sangam period... " Where is the proof that they spoke Tamil? Are there any inscriptions left by them in Tamil? Where is the evidence that Vengi Chalukyas and their predecessors were of Tamil extraction?

Where is the evidence for marital relationships between Satavahanas and Karikala I? Any inscriptions to prove this?

Where is the evidence for the statement : ""Rajaraja Chola's daughter fell in love with Vengi prince Vimaladitan and was married to him ..." It may be true that Rajaraja's daughter married the Vengi prince. But where is the evidence that they 'fell in love'?

We should try and keep this an article about known history, not introduce fiction.

Venu62 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

same sources above and also from wiki:Rajaraja Chola page and its references.

I accept Satavahana marital was a llegend as it is said. Vengi(Velaavi,Velaata Cholas) and Vengadam are mentioned as northern countries of ancient TamilNadu in Purananuru; their ancient kings may be undated and legendary, but ancient vengi existed , Senthilkumaras 17:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I neverdisputed the existence of Vengi. If you agree with my argument of keeping the text to within the rules of documenting history, please copyedit the Vengi Chola section.

Venu62 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vengi Nadu was not Tamil but a Telugu country ruled by the Eastern Chalukyas. Thus after 1070 AD the when Vijayalaya dynasty of Later Cholas ended the Vengi Chalukyas who were descendents of Kundavai Nachiar inherited the Throne. The Eastern Chalukyas were Telugu only. Some historians regarded Chalukyas as the original descendants of Seleucus Nicator the Greek General of Alexander the great who in the later days adopted Hinduism and formed various Chalukya (Chalukya,Solanki and Chaluki) dynasties at North India, Western Chalukya (Badami)(famous king Pulikesin the second) and Eastern Chalukyas(Vengi).They were considered Rajputs in the North India. Thus the Cholas after 1070 starting from Kulothunga Chola Devar 1 are not Cholas but Telugu Chalukyas with some Chola blood.

Nadarhistory

Changing Chola to Cholan?

To ManimaranSyndey

When you make a change to Cholan from Chola, please make sure you don't break any existing link. By the way what is the point in your change anyway? All you have done is make a number of links point to nothing. Please read the help articles about article writing in Wiki before changing any text.

Venu62 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Chola name is a mispronunciation. It should have been Chozha Dynasty. Nadarhistory

Vandalism?

To the person (212.64.52.209)who removed chunks of information from the article. I am putting the information back into the article as I can't understand why this was removed. Please identify yourself and offer reasons for removal.

Venu62 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake

In the section "The Name Chola", Sembiyan in tamil was written as செம்பியன். I have changed it to ெசம்பியன். When I made the change, I did not realise there was an option called minor edit, does it really matter?

Update: Sorry, I was viewing the page on Mozilla, the text looks fine as it is on IE, so I've changed it back. Apologies to everyone.

128.6.236.246 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made a couple minor edits. I changed the "gopura" to "vimanam" under the temple image. That is an image of the temple tower (vimanam), and not the temple gopuram (ornate gateway). Excellent image by the way! Whoever has been busy adding info, keep up the good work!! Chola 05:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Velnati or Telugu Cholas

There is an important brnach of the Cholas known as Telugu cholas who were instrumental in the development of the Telugu language. We need to add information on them and their connmection to imperial Cholas 216.95.23.142 03:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have created an article on the Telugu Cholas. I'm not an expert on this. I got most of the material from the reference cited. Please feel free to edit and correct any mistakes.

Parthi (Venu62) 06:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Great article, keep it up. Now we need a similar project on Tulu Pandyas :)))RaveenS 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation?

The article currently says that Cholas is read "[ʧudʒe]". That would be something like, in American English, "Choodjeh". That seems like an unlikely way to pronounce Chola. What's the source on this? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The source was IPA. I am not an expert with the notations IPA uses. If you can correct is please fix it.

Parthi (Venu62) 08:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't know how the word is actually pronounced, so I can't correct the IPA. Can you tell me how it is read, for instance, "Cho-luh", 'ch' as in "chain", 'o' as in ... Then I'll fix the IPA. Thanks. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The name is sometimes rendered 'Chozha' - the first syllable as in 'choice' and the last is pronunced somewhat like the French 'Jaque'. It the letter ழ which is unique to Tamil.

Parthi (Venu62) 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So, something like "Choy-ja", with the "j" as in French? Do you know if it's ever pronounced like that it English, or is some other pronunciation used? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In English the typical pronunciation is the literal "Chola". Hence the spelling. The true pronunciation in Tamil however is more "Cho-ja". Even the true pronunciation of "Tamil" is "Tha-me-j", the last syllable being close to the French 'J'. The Tamil language page has the IPA notation /t̪ɐmɨɻ/ for Tamil.

Parthi (Venu62) 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Extent of chola government

Dear Venu, please refer to my chalukya talk page on vikramaditya-chola wars. Even in my latest edit where i claim the chola empire may have extended to Tungabhdra may also be over doing it. During the time from 1000-1118AD, The hoysalas ruled as subordinates of Kalyani chalukyas. My take is that the Cholas ruled mostly the bordering districts between Andhra and Karnataka like Tumkur, Kolar, Bellary. This is evidenced by the Kolaramma temple in Kolar, Nanjungudu temple near Mysore etc. The only temple north of here is the "choleshwara" temple in Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada district. I feel the cholas may have controlled coastal Karnataka for a few decades at most. The Cholas suffered two great losses at Talakad arounf 1120 to Hoysala Vishnuvardhana and 1118AD at Vengi to Vikramaditya VI. I hope you can see reason in this. dinesh

Dinesh, I did not make up any othe information in the Chola page. All informaiton came from the references cited here. I did not use my own theories or assumptions in the information. Wikipedia is not the place for it. You cannot write something based on what you think is right. You must have cited evidence from reputed publication. I will be introducing detailed citation and notes to the chola page during this weekend.

Parthi (Venu62) 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit and restructuring

I have done a major restructuring and layout changes to the article in line with suggestion from the peer review currently in progress.

I have also rewritten portions of and reduced the size of the lead paragraph. I have also

removed the wikilinks from the years
categorised the references into online and publications
standardised the reference notation in the footnotes
used consistent cases in the headings

There may be further changes to this page based on suggestions from the peer review

Parthi (Venu62) 03:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, Excellent Job! Keep it up!! - Chola, April 30,2006.

Good work. Once content-related issues are resolved, I'll copyedit the article. (It's usually a good idea to get it copyedited by a person other than the main author.) Aside: Chronology of Tamil history needs a cleanup. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the other famous south Indian kingdoms viz. The Cheras, Pandiyas, and Pallavas be menioned in the introductory paragraph? Cribananda 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pandyas are mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead section in context. Can you suggest a context in which to mention the Cheras? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant more like, "Along with Cheras, Pandyas, and Pallavas, they form the major dynasties of south India" or something like that. - Cribananda 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary parallel?

On the history of Cholas, as in many other subjects of Indian history, there is very little authentic written evidence available. Why the parallel? There are many subjects in any country's history that have very little written evidence available. Cribananda 05:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but does it make the sentence wrong though? All I was trying to make the reader aware that lack of sources is not unique to the Cholas, but rather is the characteristic of the region where documentation akin to the the ancient Roman/Greek history is sparce.

cheers Parthi (Venu62) 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one may ask a reference for that little unneeded comment. It sounds like a casual observation that could very well be wrong and has no place in an ecyclopedia. --Blacksun 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make the sentence wrong. It just gives a mild derogatory connotation, as if to say subjects of Indian history always have very little evidence (when compared to other history). But this might only be my POV. You can leave it there if you are convinced. Cribananda 06:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the sentense fragment. I agree it doesn't add value to the sentence and is not necessary. - cheers Parthi (Venu62) 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Cribananda 00:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Question on Southeast Asian holdings

Did the Cholas conquered part of the Malay Archipelago? I thought the Cholas only conducted raids against Srivijaya, Gangga Negara, Old Kedah and a few other old kingdoms instead of conquering it? __earth ^(Talk) 10:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Chola naval campaigns to Srivijaya may be described as 'raids' as they did not result in any territorial gains. However they did have political influences in those kingdoms. - Parthi (Venu62) 10:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If it didn't result in territorial gain, why does the map include areas that belonged to Srivijaya at that time too? I know that borders during those times weren't as fixed as they today today but shouldn't the map be redrawn to reflect that it didn't hold any territory in Southeast Asia and show Chola proper instead? __earth ^(Talk) 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Eventhough it is true that the naval conquests did not give the Chola permanent territories. They controlled the areas shown in the map for a period of time. The map simply shows the spread of Chola power rather than their direct administrative areas. They did not administrer more than the South India and part of Sri Lanka directly. I feel the map should stand as it is as it does show the extent of Chola power. -Parthi (Venu62) 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also ample evidence in the references cited that the kingoms of Srivijaya, Kedah, Pegu and even Khmer were subordinates to the Cholas and were paying annual tributes albeit for a short duration. If a kingdom is subordinate and a tributary, then it is correct to include such a kingdom as part of the empire. - Parthi (Venu62) 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Several large kingdoms in SEA paid tribute to China but that doesn't make them part of the Chinese empire. They were not subordinate because they were eliminated after the raids. Gangga Negara and Old Kedah for instance ceased to exist because of Cholas' campaign. And the Cholas didn't occupy the land. They instead moved on to other kd for another raid. __earth ^(Talk) 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The SriVijaya Kingdom and Kadaram were not directly administered but they were militarily occupied and forced to send a large part of their economic resources to the Chola treasury. This lasted for 75 years (the cholas did this by selecting the king, and keeping a military presence, there were Chola military contingents as far North as modern day Myanmar), and there were numerous naval raids during a ~150 year period to maintain suzerainty, ending just before the decline of the empire. 32.97.110.142Chola

Srivijayan territories should be removed from the map. The article specifically refers to the Chola dynasty, and the map says 1050. By 900 AD Srivijaya the ruling elite of Srivijaya were nobles from Java. They were not paying tribute to Chola by 1025.

Congrats

Congrats! Its an FA now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Chola and Maldives

Did not find any reference to Chola Kings on Maldive's History page.. Not sure if someone has some historical document to backup the statement? Chirag 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is epigraphic evidence for Rajaraja Chola's naval conquest of Maldives - Parthi 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels

Can we rename the section titled ==Novels based on Cholas history== to ==In literature==, ==In popular culture==, ==Cultural legacy== or something appropriate. I think that there was a teleserial written by M Karunanidhi and played by actor Nasser. There would have been movies (Manohara?) based on Chola history. That section could include these as well. What do you think? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer 'In popular culture'. - Parthi 19:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section. Please see and add more if you want. - Parthi 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice rewrite. I'll add more info as I get them. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thailand

Did Cholas have any contacts with Thailand region ? I'm asking this in the context of this news item. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the nature of the inscription which is in Tamil Brahmi must be prior to the later Cholas. As the article says it should belong to the second century CE, roughly corresponding to the period of Sangam literature. We have no definite knowledge of the Cholas during this period. However the later Cholas had extensive contact with the countries of southeast Asia. In fact apparently there is a stone installedin the Chidambaram temple given to Kulothunga Chola by a king from Cambodia. - Parthi 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AD vs CE

The term common era (CE) is preferred by some as a religiously-neutral alternative to AD and BC. Please read Common Era. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"AD" is the conventional abbreviation in most common use and it has no significant religious connotations, any more than calling the planet Venus by that name has any religious connotations. "CE" is an idiosyncratic neologism that does have religious connotations since it is a known code word for "Christian Era". Also, it forces one to use BCE for BC, which is even less convenient as it wastes an extra byte. AD and BC are the standard usages. Elektra Eloi 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a neologism. I will quote the Manual of Style for you, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article". CE is consisently used in this article. And it is per MOS which is a widely accepted guideline on Wikipedia. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking WP talk, I'm talking real world talk, and WP idiosyncracies are not widely accepted in the real world. Aside from this, it is not necessary or standard (again in the real world) to mention either AD (or CE) for every date in the book, only for ones that might be confused with BC dates. Elektra Eloi 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To avoid disagreements like this, everyone here in Wikipedia world follows the MOS. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article used AD notation from its inception right up to this edit [1]. From here on, User:Dangerous-Boy sneaked in the change to CE. The MOS states that either AD or CE is OK, and that the preference of the first major editor should be adhered to - if all else fails. All else has failed here, so I'm reverting the instances of CE to AD - well actually I'm not! Generally years after AD 1 can stand on their own account, and references to AD in connection with a century are incorect anyway. So I'm removing CE references. They simply aren't needed. Remember this is not an article about religion. If you don't like this, then feel free to use the Hindu calendar, but if you use the Christian Gregorian calendar then please be respectful enough to acknowledge that it is just that -a calendar based on a christian event. Arcturus 18:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this unncessary change. It is not civil to call any constructive change to the article as 'sneaking'. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favour! It is sneaking because the editor who made what was a controversial change did not document it in the edit summary. The change was not constructive, it went against the MOS. In any case, my change does away with both AD and CE, and that should be OK with most people. On that basis I'm reverting the revert (my first revert). Arcturus 20:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, seems like we've got a compromise - no usage of CE, and christian era --> common era when written in full? Arcturus 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article as it is linked from the front page. I wonder whether I could offer some comments on this point?

Style is an important issue of any writing, and date notation style is important to this article because of its many references to many dates (often employing capital letters that stand out clearly). Style should reflect what the target audience of any writing expect/prefer. Otherwise you end up alienating your target audience. Quickly.

Now, I don't presume to know who this article is written for. It is easy to state that if the article is intended to appeal to as wide an audience as possible (namely casual readers of history), then AD/BC notation really ought to be used. You'll lose your audience if you don't adopt that style.

On the other hand, the target audience may not be as generalised at that, in which case we'd need to consider what is suitable for that audience - which may well be CE/BCE notation.

In short, I don't presume to come up with an answer as to what style the writers of this article should use. But I do stress the importance of deciding that style based on what best suits the people you are writing for. Indeed, it would be useful for the main authors of the article to say exactly who they are writing for - other style issues in the article could then also be addressed in the best way, SCCC 12:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats and making this a featured article. :) Elalan 05:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...this is cool...I like historyCameron Nedland 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Exaggeration

The Cholas declined after their defeat in the Battle of Talakad (1114 C.E.) against the Hoysalas and the battle for Vengi against the Kalyani Chalukyas (1121 C.E.). They lost control of Gangavadi, Vengi and the Kalinga areas forever after these defeats. It is exaggeration to claim "The power of the Cholas declined around the 14th century with the rise of the Pandyas and the Hoysala". Please correct this untrue info.

Dineshkannambadi

Congrats!!

I would like to congratulate everyone invloved in this page for their effort. Good Job!!

Dineshkannambadi

Preceeding state??

Why is this section "Unknown". The Rashtrakuta under Krishna III and their feudatory Western Gangastook control of Tondaimandalam (northern Tamil Nadu) around 950 C.E. They should be the preceeding state. In fact when the Cholas were at their peak, their kings took titles to show they were superior to the Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas (Romila Thapar, Penguin History of Early India). I have made this correction to the template. Please discuss if you feel otherwise. Also, Vijayanagar empire is not exactly a succeeding state. The Chola rule ended around 1275 C.E. when the Hoysalas were at their peak. The Vijayanagar empire rose around 1343 C.E. after the death of Hoysala Veera Ballala III

Dineshkannambadi

Vandalism

Please stop this. This is ridiculous. It prevents serious history buffs from contributing.

Dineshkannambadi

er...? what now?

Map

Can someone please fix the map, I'm new to Wikipedia so I dont know how , but its inaccurate! 222.155.21.111 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I just remove the material until its fixed? .. or what.. please advice asap 222.155.21.111 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you at least explain what is wrong with the map? Gdo01 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The map shows Sri Lanka as entirely belonging to the Chola empire, as well as Indonesia. This never happened. Only the nothern part of Sri Lanka was ever annexed. And only Indonesia up to modern day Jakarta was annexed (the main island the other islands are accurate. )222.155.21.111 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this claim and please stop adding the accuracy tag? Joelito (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Mahawansa, although I do not no where to find it online 222.155.21.111 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See my response here - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Transcluded response The extent of Chola occupation of Sri Lanka is fully cited from the book The Colas by Prof KAN Sastri. The Cholas occupied the entire island for a period of a couple of decades during the reign of Rajendra Chola I. The Lankans eventually were able to overthrow the occupation and restore their sovereignity over the southern parts of the island. The map shows the exten at the height of the Chola power as is accurate. -Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That is wholly inaccurate, during this time Kashyapa had control southern Sri Lanka, south of modern day mahiyangana to hikkaduwa in the east to Hambanthota in the southwest. And simlarly as I described in indonesia 222.155.21.111 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I googled "chola dynasty indonesia" and got this:

Chola (chō'lə) , S Indian dynasty, whose kingdom was in what is now Tamil Nadu. Its chief capitals were at Kanchi (Kanchipuram) and Thanjavur (Tanjore). The Chola kingdom was one of the three of ancient Tamil tradition, but the dynasty had been virtually submerged for centuries when at the end of the 9th cent. A.D. it rose again. Under the famous rulers Rajaraja I (reigned 985–1014) and Rajendra I (reigned 1014–42) Chola power reached its zenith. The former conquered Kerala and occupied N Sri Lanka; the latter completed the conquest of Sri Lanka, invaded Bengal, and sent out a great naval expedition that occupied parts of Myanmar, Malaya, and Sumatra. For 300 years the Chola kingdom supported a flourishing social and economic life, marked by a flowering of Hindu culture. Its greatest architectural monument is an 11th-century temple at Tanjore, which was dedicated to Shiva in celebration of a military victory. By the 13th cent. the kingdom was in decline, and the dynasty ended in 1279.

--Mycroft.Holmes 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mahavansa is used by historians often, if this is POV isn't most historical texts we use POV? As for Mycroft, where is the source and how do we know its accuracy?222.155.21.111 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your POV arguement is valid. But wouldn't you agree that there is blatant POV that the Mahavansa is central to Theravada Buddhism(the majority religion of Sri Lanka). And that it is likely that the Buddhist monks downplayed the hegemony of a Hindu Tamil Empire in Sri Lanka? You should read the external links, because merely citing the Mahavansa to discredit the Chola conquest of Sri Lanka is insufficient in my opinion.

See Short History of Lanka by Humphry William Codrington. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

How did an article with disputed accuracy make peer review and make it to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk • contribs)

Because the dispute tags were just added today by an ip user. Gdo01 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits putting the word "river" after the name of the corresponding river

Hi, recently Mattisse has moved all occurences of the word "river" to after the corresponding name. I think, it's Indian English practice to put them before the name. Since, Indian English or Commonwealth English is recommended for India-related articles, we need to change it back, IMO. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As in the above instance, I suggest adopting the style appropriate to the target audience. I don't know what that is, but venturing a guess, I'd suggest that would be to use the common names. I also note that the main articles covering those rivers are all styled X River rather than River X (compare River Thames), which may be suggestive of what is considered to be the common name elsewhere in Wikipedia. However, I am surprised that the article is at Ganges River rather than at the River Ganges, but I suppose that would be a point for that article's talk page, SCCC 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek sources

The article currently reads:

There are also brief notices on the Chola country and its towns, ports and commerce furnished by the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Periplus Maris Erythraei). Periplus is a work by an anonymous Alexandrian merchant, written in the time of Domitian (81 – 96) and contains very little information of the Chola country. Writing half a century later, the geographer Ptolemy gives more detail about the Chola country, its port and its inland cities.

Is there any chance we could get a little more detail here? Specifically, where in the Periplus and Ptolemy are the Cholas mentioned? Are they mentioned by name? If so, what is the Greek form used? The footnote only links to an online translation of the Periplus, which is probably not enough information even if the link workd (the site seems to be down). Please help me get more information. Thanks, Iustinus 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have give appropriate citations now. The broken link has been fixed . - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! It is a shame that neither source (apparently--I will have to double-check this when I have more time) mentions the Cholas by name. --Iustinus 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting: it sure LOOKS like the Σῶραι/Suræ mentioned by Classical sources are the Cholas, but I can't find any reference to this equation is secondary sources. That in and of itself is surprising. --Iustinus 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

An editor has suggested that this article be merged with Chola Military. As this article is a Featured article, this is in summary format. Any detailed information regarding Military or art belong in the sub articles. See WP:MOS. I am deleting the merger suggesion based on this. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Rename this Chola Empire !

Sir, Why call the Cholas a kingdom with the (wrong) justification that the size of the empire was not much till thde 11th century... this is false, under the definition of a kingdom extending its dominions to areas and people different from it culturally and ethnically, the Cholas do satisfy that criterion. Consider this. Vijayalaya founded the dynasty around 845-848 AD and his son Aditya I had a military alliance along with both the Pallavas and the Ganga kings of Mysore/Chamarajnagar belt. Later Aditya I defeated the Pallavas and ended their existence. He later had the daughter of both the Chera king and indeed the Ganga king Prithvipati-II as his wife. Even if the Chera areas are considered contiguous to Tamil country surely the Ganga territories are not... and right from the common era, the Telugu speaking areas of Cuddapah/Rayalaseema/Tirupati, Nellore up to Guntur at least immediately became part of the areas of the Cholas. In fact, Aditya I has built many monuments (Siva temples and Vishnu temples) in the border towns of Andhra. So at least these Telugu speaking areas should be considered part of Chola territory justifying change of name from Chola Dynasty to Chola empire.

In contrast the Western Chalukyas though ruled over territory (Karnataka) which is bigger than T.N. mainly ruled within Kannada speaking areas... they occupied Vengi only during the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century and went outside of Karnataka, also their 'conquests' of non-Kannada areas were mostly shortlived yet their page is christened as Western Chalukya Empire but not Western Chalukya Dynasty... it can be argued that even for the period of last 50 years the Western Chalukyas after Vikramaditya VI in 1126 remained mostly confined to Karnataka..... even after regaining of Chalukya areas by Tailapa-II their empire was always in conflict with the territories outside of Karnataka they occupied.... yet they have been classified as an Empire while Cholas are a dynasty? why this partiality Sir?

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth happened to the former title: Chola Empire?? I remember creating that page 1 year ago, it seems to have merged with the main "Chola" page and now it's referred to as a "dynasty"?! Talk about mediocrity...you don't have pages for the Ottoman Dynasty, they have the self-respect to call themselves an empire, but we have to have the title of the Early Cholas trump the glory of the later Cholas, it's disgraceful. Why are minor Indian kingdoms (in the indian empires pages) referred to as Empires, and Cholas are just a Dynasty. Could someone please correct this and maintain that change! I don't have the heart to make the change since after the last time I did that they keep editing it and changing it to Dynasty with too much information about the Early Cholas, no non-Tamil would even want to read on further to find out about the Medieval Cholas if they see all that information overload about the rather minor early Cholas. Please correct this, thanks! ~ Chola, January 17, 2007.

This article, which is a Featured Article, one of the best articles in the encyclopedia, has gone through numerous reviews by peers. The article is about the Chola dynasty, from their early beginnings, through to their height of power to their end. The empire was not bigger than a cheiftaincy for a long period of time. As this is a FA, please discuss your changes before editing the article. The old Chola Empire article had information that were clearly misleading and incorrect. It even claimed that Rajendra Chola defeated Mohummad of Gazni!!. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why has this been changed to Chola dynasty? Wasn't it an empire stretching from Southern India to the Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia? Wiki Raja 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See my answer above your question. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On the page of Empire, it states that and empire is, "a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power." Chola Empire is also listed as one of the empires on that page. It is pointless to change it to Cholas Dynasty. Let me ask you this, how come the Maryans are considered an empire. Why is it no one has changed it to Mauryan dynasty? Wiki Raja 09:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no Chola empire until the eleventh century CE although there were dynasties calling themselves Cholas from the earliest periods in Tamil history. This article, which is a Featured Article is about the dynasty and not the empire. Read the article. I don't care about the other articles. This article has been through numerous reviews and edits and the agreed title has been Chola Dynasty. Don't change it again. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said about the Mauryas. They were a dynasty and were only an empire during 250 B.C.E. Why not change that name of Maurya Empire to Maurya dynasty? Since we are having a dispute whether to call this article Chola Empire and Chola Dynasty, let me suggest to call it Cholas then to stand on neutral ground. Do you agree? Wiki Raja 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Chola Dynasty - Chola Empire

“

Therefore it is an empire.

What is it here? Chola Empire is certainly an empire. I am not denying that. At the same time, Chola Dynasty is a dynasty. Both are not the same.
Chola Empire is Chola Empire.
Chola Dynasty is Chola Dynasty.
Chola Empire is not equal to Chola Dynasty.
Chola Dynasty is not equal to Chola Empire.

Bottom line: The article Chola Dynasty is about Chola Dynasty and not about Chola Empire.

I hope this clarifies. If further discussion is required, please continue in the article discussion page, where more people can participate, instead of our user talk pages. Thank you! - KNM ^Talk 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

”

Your explanation is not making sense. Can you provide me more expanation to this instead of making rash statements? Reading your exclamatory message makes it sound like it is the end of the world. Calm down. It is not like the whole of India is crumbling down, like the london bridge. Wiki Raja 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not made any rash statements. I never claimed anything as end of the world. Please comment on the content and not on contributor.

Coming back to the question above, all I want to say is, this article is about Chola Dynasty and not about Chola Empire. Please do not redirect it to anywhere else. Also, please be noted that the article had gone through reviews by several editors including the formal peer review followed by the WP:FAC. It is now a featured article. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja, donot make unilatral redirects to the Chola Empire article. Please undo your changes to the Chola Empire article. As KNM and I mentioned a number of times above, this article is an FA, which means this article has been through numerous edits and reviews and there are valid reasons for the title. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

KNM, I do not know what type of English is spoken on the other side of the world, but on the Western Hemisphere, a statement like your exclamatory message makes it sound like it is the end of the world is considered a figure of speech. That type of talk is used occasionally when two people are engaged in dialogue. Next, I was commenting on content and not on you. I feel that there is some kind of language barrier going on here. I hope I am not confusing you. Wiki Raja 06:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have several questions regarding this discussion. Firstly, I understand this went through extensive review as part of the process to become a FA, but could those in-the-know comment on what was said in that review regarding the title [sorry, but simply stating over and over that an article has 'gone through extensive review' as an argument that it is inviolate is not valid: errors still occur on the cover of the New York Times, does that mean it wasn't reviewed?]. Second, what it basically boils down to is the definition of an empire vs a dynasty. Wiktionary.org defines a dynasty as, "A series of rulers or dynasts from one family." This article contains information about the Early Cholas. Is the argument being made that they and the Medieval Cholas are from one ruling family? If not, this is clearly not an article about a dynasty. Aonyx 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense to make a clearer reference within the article to the Chola Empire, such as renaming the subtitle "Medieval Cholas" as "Medieval Cholas and the Chola Empire". That would allow the reader (like myself) who does not necessarily have a detailed knowledge of Indian history to find the relevant time period quickly and then link to the article that deals with the time of the expansion of Chola power across eastern Indian and into Southeast Asia.Corlyon 18:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is no article on the Chola Empire itself, only a redirect to the dynasty. 121.222.8.201 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NZ Bell

The so-called NZ bell is a hoax. please see here. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 09:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Map of "Chola Empire" (in infobox)

This map should be edited to reflect the factual truth. Chola's direct rule only extended to Southern India and not all the way to Malaysia, or Sumatera (Indonesia). Chola did conduct raids on Srivijaya, thereby severely weakening the latter. Although Chola did manage to gain a temporary foothold in Kedah (northwest part of modern Malaysia), the Cholas never managed to conquer Srivijaya completely. This means the current map showing all Srivijayan territory as being part of the Chola Empire is completely false. Srivijaya only finally fell due to the expansion of another Indonesian-based kingdoms of Singhasari and Majapahit. Srivijaya did pay a tribute to Chola but it also did too with China, thus tributary payment should not be mistaken as being part of the "empire". The way this map is shown and labelled is clearly misleading tending towards the exaggerating the actual power of the Cholas. It must also be noted that the current map is not based on any reputable educational source and thus should be labelled as original research. 128.122.141.190 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Descendants of Chola

Was Iskandar Shah a descendant of the Chola dynasty? He certainly spoke Tamil. Anwar 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chola Empire vs. Chola Dynasty

There seems to be a tendency to label the Dravidian or "South Indian" kingdoms as dynasties, while labeling the Indo-Aryan (North Indian) kingdoms as Empires. Is there a reason for this? The Chola kingdom was an Empire whose navies have spread to as far as Malaysia, Sumatra, and Java. The only reason which is obvious is a false nationalist revisionistic pride by making the Tamil kingdoms look like subjects of the Northern part of the Indian sub-continent. We have already seen similar nonsense with the revising of India's history in California school books. PATHETIC!!! Wiki Raja (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Refs incomplete

some of the refs like 1, 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 31, 47 and possibly few more are missing information about the source (title, isbn, url, page numbers etc). Can somebody please address this? Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello!! anybody here? A FA cannot remain with dead refs like this. Can somebody please shed light on this thing please. Sarvagnya 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say they're dead refs? Just because cites are in footers doesn't mean all footers are cites! They appear to be simple footnotes to me. Do read WP:FOOT. The first couple of lines will do. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a response or a defense? If they're not cites, then its even worse than I thought. We dont need the author's reflections, we need the scholars'. Cite and be done. Sarvagnya 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was neither, it was amusement that you appeared to be ignorant of how footnotes work. If you feel some of the points are contentious or need further citation, perhaps you should specify which. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV Template

Removed POV template showing the kingdoms of Northern India as Empires, and kingdoms of Southern India as dynasties. No evidence as to whether all Northern kingdoms were Empires, while all Southern kingdoms were dynasties. Ashoka kingdom of Northern India is an Empire since it has controlled everything in South Asia outside its boundaries accept for Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka. While the Cholas of Southern India is also an Empire stretching from South India to Sri Lanka, Maldives, Malaysia, Sumatra, and Java with its Navies. "Middle Kingdoms of India" template shows only bias towards Indo-Aryan kingdoms, and also making it seem that the Indian Union existed for thousands of years. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are number of South Indian empires such as Hoysala and Vijayanagara, it is simply Chola article has been written or organized wrong by confusing the empire with the dynasty. The empire had number of dynasties including thye Chola dyanasty. See below Taprobanus (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Chola Dynasty versus Chola empire

This article confuses the Empire with the information about the dynasty. We should write seperate article on each. For exampl e see Jaffna kingdom versus Aryacakravarti dynasty. Also Vijayanagara empire versus Saluva Dynasty and Sangama Dynasty. Some one should seperate the Empire out of the Dynasty and write 2 articles. Taprobanus (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A google book search alone results in over 400 books mentioning Chola empire Taprobanus (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Major revert

I've reverted the article to a older stable version. Please note that the article is being discussed at the FAR. I do favour the title Chola empire, but let's do that after a discussion. Let's not get distracted by this at the moment. Srirangam, I know your edits are good-intentioned ones, but such substantial changes shall be made after a discussion only. Please note that the article could lose its featured article status otherwise. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please work it out somehow. Article was separated from the talk page which linked to the FAR. Move-protected 1 week. Gimmetrow 06:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TELUGU CHOLAS WERE PRESENT DAY KAPUS(TELAGAS/BALIJAS)

Telugu Cholas claimed that they were the descendents of Karikala Chola.According to some sources Telugu Cholas gradually came to be known as Kapus(Telagas/Balijas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.52.9 (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Early Cholas - Kantaman

Can anybody throw some light on the etymology of the word "Kantaman"? The article claims that Kantaman as one of the forebears of the Early Cholas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Cholas

I am unable to find an independent reference or source in tamil to the said word. From what I can dig up, "kantaman" is mostly a finnish word. Kannan. M (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Made slight correction

I have deleted the word Hoysala in the section where it is mentioned about the demise of the Cholas due to the rising power of the Pandiyans. Hoysalas did not cause the demise of the Chola kingdom for at least from the times of Kulothunga III they were aligned with the Cholas and had fought together against the Pandiyas under Maravarman Sundara Pandiyan around 1208/10 AD. In fact the Pandiyans under the growing power of Maravarman, later consolidated fully under Jatavarman had routed first the Hoysalas under Someshvara, father of Ramanatha who both ruled jointly from Kannanur Kuppam and had controlled Tiruchy and Srirangam. Jatavarman Sundara Pandiyan had defeated and killed Someshvara in the battlefield near Kannanur Kuppam and his son Ramanatha was forced to flee to Hoysala country. The Pandiyans subsequently occupied Konkana Rajya i.e. West coast of Karnataka with Sundara Pandiyan anointing his son Jatavarman Veera Pandiyan as ruler of those areas, this is verified by Nilakanta Sastri, Roychowdhury in their books titled Ancient India.The source of this information is the inscription at the Ranganathar Temple in Srirangam and the text is also available at inscriptions.whatsindia.com/.

This totally contrasts with the absolutely false and malicious posting about Hoysalas being somehow responsible for the demise of the Cholas. It is subsequent to routing of the Hoysalas from Tamizhagam that the Pandiya empire fully stretched up to Kanchi and betyond for the last king of the Cholas i.e. Rajendra IV was routed by the successor of Sundara Pandiyan i.e. Kulasekhara Pandiyan who ruled close to 60 years. The Pandiyan army first sacked both Tiruchy and Tanjore with the Cholas being forced to confine in and around only Gangaikonda Cholapuram for around 2-5 years with ultimately the Pandiyans also sacking Gangaikonda Cholapuram, destroying the Chola palaces and building and finally even damaging one outerwall of the Gangaikonda Cholapuram temple itself (with one more wall being demolished later by the Britishers - probably along with one outerwall of the Darasuram Airavateswarar temple - for building the Grand Anaicut banks. Even the last Hoysala Kings Veera Ballala III was not by any stretch of imagination "holding territories or controlling" any part of Tamizhagam, rather he was a refugee the early part of the 14th century in and around Tiruvannamalai and Gingee where he had taken shelter after being routed by the invading Muslim armies (probably under Malik Kafur, the trusted lieutenant of Allauddin Khilji), who had prior to invading Hoysala country, routed the Kakatiyas and the Seunas (Kakatiya Pratap Rudra-II whose illustrious predecessor Pratap Rudra-I had fought Jatavarman Sundara Pandiyan and was his contemporary - and who also gave grants to the Srirangam Ranganathar temple - had died while being taken to Delhi, after being defeated and being imprisoned). Veera Ballala III was routed and had to surrender his son Veera Virupaksha and send him to the court of (probably Allauddin Khilji) in Delhi. He tried to mount a resistance to fight the Muslims, who had by then consumed the Pandiyan Kingdom by around 1330-35, but was killed in battle (probably by Harihar and Bukka - who were both Muslims under different names and were fighting for the Muslims - and later reconverted to Hinduism under the tutelage of Vidyaranyar at Bhagamandala near Sringeri and founded the Vijayanagara empire. All this information is available in Ancient India by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri and also in the book of the same name, i.e. Ancient India by Roychowdhury (who in turn has extensively borrowed w.r.t. South Indian history from K.A.N.Sastri).

A further reason is about the powerful king Veera Ballala I himself. While he emerged as a powerful king indeed, and also won a victory along with Kulothunga III over the Pandiyans under Maravarman Sundara Pandiyan (after he had routed Kulothunga III, who was related by marriage to Veera Ballala II), even during his time, the rising power of the Kalachuris could not be controlled by the rising Hoysalas in Kannada Country. When the Hoysalas sought to increase the frontiers of their kingdom by moving northwards within Kannada country, they were routed by the Kalachuris under Bijjala. This means that for many years (in fact the period of Veera Ballala II's rule, 1175-1220, was a time when the last great king of the Cholas, related by marriage to the Hoysalas, was to be followed by very weak successors leading to the demise of the Cholas at the hands of the Pandiyans within the next 50 years or so). So even during the time of that powerful Hoysala ruler, it should not be presumed even by mistake that he was in anyway holding or controlling territories in Tamizhagam. This was because he himself had to contend with powerful enemies like the Kalachuris, Seunas (whom he did defeat but did not subjugate fully - for the Seunas dynasty came to a close after being defeated by the Muslims during the time of Veera Ballala III around 1300 AD) within the Kannada country itself. It is to strengthen his own position within Kannada country that he entered into a marital alliance with the Cholas. More so, at this very time, the Chalukyas had revived under Someshwara IV briefly around 1185-90, but they flattered to deceive for they went into oblivion within 5-8 years. In fact, under the kings Bijjana or Bijjala I and Bijjala II who had actually caused the demise of the Chalukyas (Roychowdhury writes that one of the last kings of the Western Chalukyas Karka (II or III) was so frightened of Bijjala I that he died of dysentry (though this statement makes one wonder as to where from these historians get medical details of ancient kings and queens, including identification of the exact disease (dysentry) and not just that, but also the reason (fear of Bijjala I) that is supposed to have caused the Chalukya King's dysentry and ultimately his death!!!! Surely no fossils of the Chalukyas or the Cholas were ever found by historians (like the remains of the Egyptian kings, queens and nobles found by historians and scientists, with their remains being climincally examined so as to enable scientists and historians to arrive at the (possible) causes of their death or otherwise!!!

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Request - let no one make changes without discussion - let there be practice before preaching

I was given the same advice while making contributions to the Chola and other pages and quoting from inscriptions.whatsindia.com/- (a website which contains the thorough and almost complete findings of epigraphists and historians officially appointed by the Archaeological Survey of India to reconstruct Ancient Indian History)and even the website of Chitradurga (visitchitradurga.com/) in support of historical incidents.... yet changes are sought to be made without discussing on this page first.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Later Cholas and "threat" of the Hoysalas

I have changed the term Chalukya Cholas to Later Cholas because there is no historic proof that any Chola king ever used the name Chalukya Chola for himself. Granted that Kulothunga I was born a Eastern Chalukya prince but he and all his successors up to the last ruler Rajendra IV never used the name or title Chalukya in their names anywhere including inscriptions, grants etc. The opinion of individual historians that such and such kings were Chalukya Cholas and blind acceptance of their opinion would amount to questionable construction of history pages. Also when it is spoken about the demise of the Cholas due to growing power of other empires, the most major threat to the Cholas and the ultimate demise of the Cholas was caused by the Pandiyans. In any case, if somehow Hoysalas cannot be forgotten, it must be recognized that the major direct war between Cholas and the Hoysalas was over Gangavadi during Kulothunga I's rule around 1110 AD or so. From the times of the Hoysala Veera Ballala II there was marital relationship with both the Cholas and Hoysalas forming an alliance (not any imaginary 'overlordship' of one another) and fighting joint wars in Madurai, Magadai and even Kanchi against the later Pallavas under Kopperinchunga. So at least in this sense Hoysalas were no threat to the Cholas and certainly did not cause their demise. In any case the Hoysalas were facing great opposition from the Seunas and the Kalachuris in Kannada country and they too needed Chola alliance in order to consolidate their strengths for the last thing they would have needed was another enemy from the east in addition to their enemies in the North and west namely Kadambas, Kakatiyas, Kalachuris and the Seunas. Therefore, the name of Hoysalas has been deleted by me (for the above valid reasons), from the list of "threats" to the Cholas during their last years.

In case this is sought to be countered... other contributors can certainly discuss on this page.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Kannambadi, pls. do not resort to threats, first discuss here

First the likes of Kannambadi and others enamoured of his ways advice that we should first discuss the article on the talk page before making changes, but they themselves resort to scuttling and removing others' contribution and threatening other contributors and try to bully them. Why not practice what they preach? Is he and his friends the only ones with brains in their head and knowledge of history. I am only contributing what I have read and what I have been taught in school and college.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr Srirangam, my message to you was not a treath. it was a warning. You are a repeat abuser of FA's. it is best you stop your reverts right now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is surely vandalism of the worst kind. No problems about protecting the page and retaining information preferred by interested quarters... What about discussion on the points I want to make.... why is there no arbitration this time around?? Different rules for different blokes is it?????

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Intention to Change the Title of this Article from Chola Dynasty to 'Chola Empire':

To come straight to the point.. I have this book by Prof. K.A.Nilakanta Sastri which is called 'A History of South India : from Pre-historic Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar', it is printed by the Oxford University Press and its ISBN No. 'seems to be' 019 560686-8 (followed by another number below the ISBN lines which is 9 780195606867. The book is in paper back. and the original print is probably 1875 with the current edition being the Twenty first (with Introduction) 2003.

In this book on page on page xxiii - the following text appears which I am repeating to you verbatim:

"""To a large extent, however, the Chola state far more out weighted all other South Indian kingdoms both in territorial and maritime control and stable political structures, and lasted much longer as a regional power (four hundred years) than any of them, except that of Vijayanagar and its description as an empire is more justifiable and valid from several points of view."""

On the basis of the above text, I want to request concerned Administrators that they may like to change the title of this article from CHOLA DYNASTY to "CHOLA EMPIRE". Let me know your response.

Srirangam99 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree! (Dewan 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

I agree with your idea.But isn't the Pandiyan empire that survived for a long time.I thing that Pandiyas were the last Tamil monarch to perish (Arun1paladin (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin)

I also agree with changing Chola Dynasty to Chola Empire. There is also a spelling of Chozha to Chola (Sunilxavier (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC))

I think we should retain the current title. The article covers the period 300s BCE–1279 CE, which includes the Early Cholas, before the dynasty controlled an empire. An article on the Chola Empire should only cover the imperial period (from the ninth century onwards). DrKay (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DrKay (talk). This article covers more than the Chola Empire and the period spanning 300s BCE–1279 CE. Only a fraction of this timeline would be relevant to Chola Empire. Also, this title would be more in synchrony with titles used in articles relating to the other two Dynasties. Lipwe (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Article issues

I disagree with the move to 'Chola Empire', and support the title 'Chola dynasty'. This isn't to say that the Cholas never had an empire - they definitely. However, this article covers the entire dynasty from the Early Cholas onwards, and they were clearly not an empire at that time. If you want an article on the Chola Empire, it'd have to be about the Imperial Cholas alone. Such an article would be worth writing, but it would have to be a separate article, which could well be a sub-article of this one.

This article also has a number of issues - as it currently stands, it is unlikely to survive Featured Article Review. There are issues with sourcing - for example, a number of recent edits have added claims to sourced sentences, with the result that the footnotes no longer support the claims. It's only a matter of time before this article is nominated for a review, and I propose to work on it to make sure it continues to meet Featured Article standards. -- Arvind (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not revert it back to where it was ? Taprobanus (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I've removed the list of names from the introduction. I'd urge editors to read WP:LEAD before reinstating it. Information in the lead must be accessible, as WP:LEAD repeatedly emphasises, and it should not be over-specific. A long list of names, giving no context as to why those rulers are important, does not meet these requirements. It is not accessible or intelligible to a non-specialist who has no idea who all these people were, and it is over-specific - we need to be giving general information about the dynasty, not listing its rulers. Second, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. No source I am acquainted with treats the names of the rulers as being of such high significance. Their accomplishments are important, and those are covered in some detail in the second paragraph of the lead, but dumping an ever-increasing list of names in there clearly conflicts with this guideline. -- Arvind (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some notes:
- I agree in part with Taprobanus' suggestion. A comparison of the current version with this to remove "text inserts" before references might be a good idea.
- The Etymology of Chola section needs to go. It's minimally sourced and out of place. The two lines that are sourced should be added to the origins context after rewriting to provide context (and also checking the refs).
- In popular culture section needs to go.
- Religion section needs to be trimmed and edited. I'd suggest reverting back to the May 17, 2006 version for this section and then expanding if needed.
- Notes and references need to be linked, but this should probably wait until some of the excess adds have been trimmed
- Some POV also seems to have crept into the article. Mentions of Sanskrit and Brahmins have been removed
- Reference padding to the extreme. I don't understand this, but there are too many sentences with more than two notes attached.
These are some issues I've noticed so far. In addition, there's also a feeling of disjointedness in some areas. Other opinions? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think going back to that version, and then reviewing all changes made since then and re-introducing those which make sense would be a good way forward. I'm not sure it'll be uncontroversial, though, so we should probably wait for more comments. -- Arvind (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree Taprobanus (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I would request that those changes made after mediation by Sebastian, which was accepted by both me and another user Dinesh Kannambadi be retained which I am certain only according to accepted rules and practices in Wikipedia. While recommending changes to the articles, it may kindly be kept in mind that edits or contributes if any, by users including me HAVE INDEED BEEN MADE using ONLY reliable sources such as books by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, the noted historian who has been quoted widely in almost all history pages pertaining to South India and its rulers. The changes proposed, if any may kindly be discussed thoroughly because limited discussion and making changes wholesale without prior discussion would not amount to insulting and bullying new users which was a practice by some established users with regard to my contributions, but this time it would indeed be dishonouring and disrespecting the noble act of neutral arbitration done by user Sebastian. If need be Mr. Sebastian also will need to be involved. (I do not deny that at times my formatting or manner of contributing is not perfect, all I would say regarding this is that guidance from seniors at any point of time is always welcome from my point of view).

For starters, I very much object to the removal of notable kings of the Cholas, which was a list duly approved by user, Arbitrator Sebastian. For reference the archives of the goings on on this talk page may kindly be referred to. With permission, I would like to restore that particular section.

Thanks. In the meanwhile please see this as the justification.

Issue list from Srirangam99

Should Aditya I, Parantaka I, Rajaraja Chola I, Rajendra Chola I, Rajadhiraja Chola, Virarajendra Chola be listed?

Srirangam99 (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Srirangam99, as Arvind already explained to you adding every king's name in the lead is not acceptable. This is a Featured Article and needs to meet the respective criteria. Having a laundry list or a sea of blue in the lead is plain distracting, impractical and of no value to the reader of the article. The choice of which of the kings to include can be discussed, but having more than three to four is incorrect. In addition, the article no longer meets some of the Featured Article criteria and if an editor were to nominate it in its current form, it is a prime candidate for delisting. Please do not take this personally, no one is "dishonouring" your contributions, but there are many valid requirements for articles, and they have to be adhered to. -SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Spaceman Sir, thank you for being so prompt in replying. My main doubt was that when I tried to contribute, I was always told and instructed to quote from reliable sources. I was also challenged to quote the book name, its writer, publisher, ISBN no. etc. which is what I have done with most of my contributions, at least the last 50-odd contributions of mine have been from books written by Mr. K.A.Nilakanta Sastri. There was also discouraging attitude towards my quoting from the website: www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions but I showed to other users and indeed the neutral arbitrator Sebastian Helm that this website contains findings of eminent archaeologists who have worked for the Archaeological Survey of India for deciphering contents of inscriptions left by ancient South Indian kings, among others, and whose findings have been archived in books, but for purposes of easy access, many of those findings (if not all) have been copied on to that website and hence the material available therein HAS TO BE TREATED as that of the ASI, Govt. of India and not something independent or own view or original research by people associated or affiliated with a website.

Can I have your views as to whether the data or material quoted from history books by K.A.N.Sastri or material accessed from ASI archives quoted in www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions, also comes under the category of "material no longer meeting some of the FA criteria"?

Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WhatisIndia.com is in my opinion not a reliable source. They may do what you say they do, but there is no independent verification of that they are reliable. There are no cites on gscholar, nothing on gnews, two book cites on gbooks. The site itself doesn't shed much light except for their claims (which could very well be true). However, Wikipedia articles need verifiability and this site fails that. As for the Sastri books, given that he's a notable historian, references from them will be acceptable as long as the necessary details - Title, ISBN, publisher, page no etc are provided and the text is suitably paraphrased and not copied from the books. However, note that not all content from the book is suitable for the article. Content additions have to be germane to the topic of the Chola dynasty and summary style, not going into excess detail. -SpacemanSpiff 07:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Spaceman Sir, pls. see this... in fact it is extract of the first 4 paras of the introductory page of http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions.html

Indian Inscriptions

Professor Hultzsch from the latter part of 1886 when he was appointed Epigraphist to the Government of Madras started a systematic collection of Inscriptions of Southern India. The Publication of these documents with texts and translations was taken up simultaneously and the following fascicule of South Indian Inscriptions were issued between the years 1886 and 1903. They included 321 records edited critically and supplied all the material that may be practically necessary for constructing the rough outlines of Chola and Pallava history.

In the year 1909, the later Mr. V. Venkayya, M.A., Rai Bahadur, Epigraphist to the Government of India, volunteered his services to continue the work of Professor Hultzsch.

In these pages, we present these publications as printed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This work has taken an enormous amount of energy, time, and money to digitize. Most importantly, these volumes were made possible by the dedication of our staff Mr. Ganesh Kumar and later by Messers Prabhu and Selvam.

We hope that the availability of these inscriptions will spur research into South Indian history.

Sir, you can judge for yourself.

Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Srirangam, there are two different issues which you shouldn't conflate:

First, all additions must come from reliable sources, as Sebastian Helm told you. That is perfectly correct, and Nilakanta Sastri's books are definitely reliable sources. His books are old, however, and we need to read them in the light of more recent scholarly research - a very good example is Burton Stein's work on state formation in South India. So yes, we can and should refer to Nilakanta Sastri, but his views aren't the be-all and end-all.

Second, and as important, not everything that is in a reliable source is worth adding. Nilakantha Sastri wrote a book that was several hundred pages long - we don't have space in this article to include everything he says. As a result, this article has to be written in summary style. The problem with the list of kings in the lead isn't that it's not reliably sourced - it's that it doesn't fit with this article being in a summary style, and that it ends up inserting a long list into the introduction a list, which doesn't help people who know nothing about the Cholas (and remember that the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia would not even have heard of the Cholas before they read this article).

On the ASI publications, the original text of inscriptions are primary sources. Primary sources are fine for experts writing academic articles, but on Wikipedia, the rules discourage us from using primary sources. We are, instead, supposed to write our articles with reference to the views of scholars who've read and interpreted the primary sources - such as Nilakanta Sastri, Burton Stein and the others quoted in this article -- Arvind (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Arvind, what you say is perfectly correct and understandable. But what I would like to say is that while www.whatsindia.com does contain the literal translations of the original sources, they also have with every volume of the inscriptions (I think they have around 26 to 30 volumes of inscriptions) the introductory portion which contains the summary which has been suitably paraphrased and not blindly copied by me while contributing to those articles.

If you have a good look at the inscription volumes many of them, on the one hand, do contain, apart from the exact reading of what a particular inscription, the broader insight into the actions, attitude and administration of that regime or king.

For example an important inscription of Kulottunga III in Vol. 24 has reading of the slab inscription from Srirangam Temple, that the king considers the Lord of that Temple along with the Chidambaram Natarajar (Siva) as the "Tutelary Deity" of the Cholas. That is entirely in keeping with the Velachery copper plate issued by the third Chola King Parantaka I, who repeated his father Aditya I's order that the Chidambaram Nataraja and and Rangaathaswami Temple of Srirangam are considered as the Kuladhanams of the Chola kings. The scholars working for the ASI have done both the literal translation of the specific inscription (No. 133) and also given their summary as to what it broadly means about the Cholas (I may tell you Arvind, is that what the two records (ordainment by Aditya I faithfully carried out in the Velachery copper edict of his son Parantaka I (902-956 AD) and one by a much later Chola king ruling 200 years after Parantaka I, i.e. Kulottunga III (1175-1218 AD) basically proclaim the same thing: that the Chidambaram Natarajar Temple (Periya Koil or Big Temple in Shaiva parlance) and the Sri Ranganathaswami Temple, Srirangam (the Periya Koil in Vaishnava parlance) were considered by the Chola kings to be their Kuladhanams (that of course has a broader meaning, Tutelary deity is of course one belonging to the family, but they called it Tutelary property, meaning the upkeep of which will be passed on from generation to generation, meaning from one king to his successor) is that Arvind, it belies completely the claim (made in the book by Suryanath Kamath about the Cholas being (only) devout Saivites and (hence) persecutor of Vaishnavites (particularly Saint Ramanuja - I will go on to say that Suryanath Kamath's book is the only book sticking to this contrary version - his book is also the only one that also claims that Chalukya King Satyashraya defeated in war and chased Rajendra Chola I into the Chola country, I have read scores of books on history, but none back this "version" or interpretation of history - but that is another point).... What I mean to convey Arvind is that I have made these kind of contributions which of course do not stick to the stereo-type, like you say Nilakanta Sastri is not the be all or end all, I too think the same and hence, also sourced and used material from other reliable and scholarly sources only. To establish my point, I hereby carry out the extract (not of the inscription but of the accompanying summary made by ASI scholars) of Inscription No. 133 at the Srirangam Temple, issued by King Kulottunga III, that gives an entirely new dimension to the Chola saga:

"There are nineteen inscriptions (Nos. 132-150) assignable to the reign of Kulottunga III. No. 133 among them, though not dated in his reign records that the various works of construction including Magadesam alias Adaiyavalaindan-tirumaligai and the worship in the temple described as the tutelary property (kuladhanam) of the king were under the protection of Tayilum Nallan alias Kulottungasola-Vanakovaraiyar. Though the deity of the temple is not referred to there is nothing to prevent us from identifying the temple with that of Ranganathasvami temple. On the basis of the negative evidences that both the king and the officer had a learning towards Saivism and that they are not known to have been such ardent Vaishnava devotees as to call the Srirangam temple as their kuladhanam it has been surmised that the slabs bearing this inscription probably belonged to some portion of the prakara wall of the neighboring Jambukesavara temple and that they were inscribed later their present position[10].

Now that we know that the temple enjoyed the patronage of Chola Parantaka I who is stated to have gilded the vimana of the Ranganathaswami temple[11] as stated in his Velacheri copper plate record, it is quite proper to state that both the Saivite Periyakoyil at Chidambaram and the Vaishnavite periyakoyil at Srirangam were considered by the Cholas as a whole as their kuladhanam. As for Adaiyavalaindan Tiirumaligai (ch-churru) it is quite a well-known name of a prakara in the temple.[12]

Here the scholars have used expressions like "us" or "Now that we know" or "it is quite proper to state that", meaning that they being scholars have made deeper studies and deduced the correct meaning and have consequently given the summary (and interpretation - which satisfy Wiki criteria) of such records. I am sure material by scholars of the ASI which are indeed available as published records (you can go to the ASI office in Delhi or Mysore, the HQ for the inscriptions in South - and these records are all available in the same number of volumes as have been enumerated in the www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions.

I will wait for you reply (sorry for the long post in response to my justification but I am used to generally making deeper readings and discussing equally deeply with people).

Srirangam99 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Srirangam, I was inactive when you had your disagreement with Dinesh, but I agree with a number of the points you made. The persecution of Vaishnavites by the Cholas has been overblown, and most modern scholars recognise that the Chola dynasty built a number of Vishnu temples. I think the introductions to the ASI volumes can usually be cited - keeping in mind, of course, that some of them are old and will need to be read in the light of more recent scholarship. My concerns about the article's current state stem from the fact that edits (not necessarily yours, I don't know whose edits they are) have added material into cited sentences which the sources don't support, and have gone into a level of detail on some points which doesn't fit with this article. We need to sort those issues out. -- Arvind (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair Arvind, I am not too keen on raising the issue of Vaishnavite persecution. It is of course a fact that the Cholas built their largest temples for Siva. It is only in one book by Suryanath Kamat (in the context of the deemed visit of Ramanuja to Hoysala country) where he has written that he was driven out by Cholas who were devout Saivites. Secondly, K.A.Nilakanta Sastri has indeed written in "History of South India" about Kulottunga II (not Kulo I or III) as having removed the idol of Vishnu from the Chidambaram temple which was later restored during the time of Devaraya I or II of Vijayanagara. Other than this there is a lot of confusion about the identity of the particular Kulottunga (Ramanuja lived between 1017 to 1137) and Kulo I ruled between 1076 to 1124 or so.. So Kulo I is widely remarked to be the persecutor.. but it is no one but Kulo I who has the largest number of inscriptions in the Sri Ranganatha Temple. I thought I may point this out.

In any case, pls. tell me if there is anyway I can cooperate and contribute to the betterment of the article. Also (this I say because it will help me learn as a new user), in case you involve me in prior discussion about passages to be removed or included for bettering the article, I will be grateful. I repeat, this will be an invaluable learning process for me in both contributing and properly formulating or formatting our contributions to Wiki articles/pages. Thats all.

Srirangam99 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes to all your questions, Srirangam. A number of your additions are very good, and we can hopefully make this article even better by working together. -- Arvind (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some points for the topic 'Religion' in this article:

1. As some have mentioned earlier, the issue of Cholas persecuting Vaishnavites is blown out of proportions and many statements without any conclusion is present in the article.

2. The picture of 'Parambanan temple Complex', here is irrelevant and misleading. The Khemar temples of Indonesia have different origins, Cholas have no direct part in it. This has to be immediately rectified. guru (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Content Chola Dynasty

Difficulties faced by Hoysala Veera Ballala II against Kalachuris and the Yadavas (Seunas):

K.A.N.Sastri 'Advanced History of India' Chapter 'The Kingdoms of the Peninsular India',page 297: Last para :"Bijjala Kalachuri"

I Text: (last seven lines) ".................Thereafter all his sons ruled in quick succession till A.D. 1183. But none of them had the ability to take full advantage of their father's usurpation. However, they succeeded in keeping up the hostilities against Hoysala Ballala II (A.D. 1173-1220).

Same book, page 298 same chapter viz. The Kingdoms of the Peninsular India: Para: Hoysalas:

II Text:"............Vira Ballala, grandson of Vishnuvardhana, further extended the dominions of his house, especially in the northerly direction. He had to encounter the Yadavas (A.D. 1191-92).

K.A.N.Sastri, 'A History of South India' Chapter: 'The age of the Four Kingdoms' page 198: last para: (pls. note that Yadavas are also known as the Seunas)

"To turn now to the northern states, the Yadava Jaitugi was succeeded by his son Singhana (1200-1247) under whom the Yadava empire attained its greatest extent. He invaded Gujarat twice in 1231-2 and 1237-8, while in the south he waged war first against Hoysala Ballala II and deprived him of considerable territory to the south of the Krishna and Malaprabha. He still kept up the pressure against the Hoysalas in the reign of Narasimha II, who had to abandon the Sagar taluq and the Bellary district......"

Till I or anyone else comes up with RS regarding help to Hoysalas by Kulo III you may kindly either delete that portion of text, in case any quality issues crop up in the article.

This is good. I will remove only the "Kulo III's help to VB II with Seunas" and leave the "VB II married Chola princess and became friendly with Kulo III part" --Sodabottle (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Srirangam99 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to tell you that according to "Satish Chandra's Medieval India", In Chola Dynasty there were Rajaraja(985-1014) ---> Rajendra I (1014 -1044) and then may be Rajendra (there is no mention about him in book.) Prashantdaphal9 (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Chola and Srivijaya

The article mentions that Chola invaded and conquered Srivijaya. As a source is among others work of Nilakanta Sastri from 1935. 5 years later he wrote in his study of Srivijaya (page 286) that there is no evidence of permanent occupation of Srivijava by Chola. Is the information presented correctly? I've been writing about the Indianized kingdoms (for fi.wiki) and haven't so far come across aby indication of Chola occupation of the Indonesian islands.--Nedergard (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

the article doesn't say anything about occupation. it just mentions the conquest. In the 1955 edition of Sastri's book (reprinted in 2005 p. 167) he says "..the expedition was a complete success. Kadaram (Kataha) and the capital of Sri Vijaya itself was sacked and king sangrama vijayottungavarman, mara vijayottungavarman's successor was taken captive. the campaign apparently ended with the restoration of the kingdom to its ruler subject to his acknowledging Chola suzerainty." I believe we can safely say "invaded and conquered" from this. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes we can. Although they left right after that with "a vague acknowledemnt of Chola supremacy ... but of a permanent and continous subordination ... there is no trace whatever" (page 287). In this sense the map showing whole of Srivijaya under Chola subordination is to my knowledge a bit inaccurate - see for example how this subject is treated in article Srivijaya. It all depends on how literally suzerainity was taken back then and as far as I have understood it didn't mean much even though they might from time to time pay tribute. My personal opinion is that "sphere of influence" would be more accurate. But anyway, I was not going to get into Cholas but since it seems to have a major role in SEA history (and the fi-wiki arcticle is a stub) I'll have to get into this also. I suppose the Sastri book is not available online?--Nedergard (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

nope. the book is not available online. I agree with you on the map. It has to be modified to make it clear sri vijaya was not a territorial position and was a "sphere of influence". will try to to that.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nedergard, I strongly object the theory that the kingdom of Srivjaya was merely a sphere of influence. The kingdom of Srivijaya was raided on multiple occasions by the Cholas in order to establish supremacy over the trade route to China. It suffered the most devastating attack during the period of Rajendra Chola (the son of Rajaraja Chola) around 1025 AD. The king of Srivijaya was captured during this attack and subsequently, it became a Chola subordinate, if not a territory and was ruled over by a puppet regime from then till atleast the mid-12th century. Historian Nilakanta Sastri has only given a big picture but has not provided the complete details. There are multiple third party references including notable historians from China attesting to this effect. Also, I can provide multiple references to show the regular payment of tribute by Srivijaya to the Chola empire. One more point to note is that before the invasion, Srivijaya purely embraced Buddhism whereas subsequent to the attack numerous sculptures and statues of Hindu gods have been found. Historians date these in the early to mid 11th century and credit these to the Chola empire and propose that the Cholas exercised control over Srivijaya for sometime during the period from Rajendra Chola to Kulothunga Chola (about 60 to 70 years) at the very least. As such, it was not just a one-off attack. I will add these references in time. Feel free to tag the article and contest the neutrality in the meantime. Sembiyan (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There were multiple raids? I have read off only one. Can you provide the sources. I am curious now--Sodabottle (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I will bring the references in a bit. The Cholas hit them once for booty (before Rajendra Chola). Then Rajendra Chola invaded them decisively. Then they were hit once after just for the sake of showing the Cholas were in control of Srivijaya as the latter had masked the hit by Rajendra when they went as Chola vassals to the Chinese. Srivijaya had a long standing relationship with the Chinese even before the Tamil contact (w/ Chinese) and there were language issues. So they had better diplomatic maneuvarability and it took a while for the Chinese to understand that the Cholas were in control. This was the reason for the third attack. But actually I see some territories missing for eg. Khamboja(not Cambodia), I believe one of their sacred stone idols is here somewhere. Then maybe people will believe Satyasraya about the 900,000 number. Sembiyan (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the point here is: what is actually the meaning of "paying tribute" and what does it imply? I must admit I was (and still am) a little bit at odds with these claims of tribute or suzerainity. Most of the scholars treat Srivijaya as an independent polity throughout its history, but then casually mention it paid tribute to China, Chola etc. etc. The logic - or rather the lack of it - of all of this is what buffles me. It only makes sense to me if they were tributaries in name only (this is my theory, and I don't have any sources to back it up). However, it seems to me that the interpretation (of the scholars, that is) differs a lot wether you are looking at things from SEA perspective or from India.

A second point in the map: according to this they also ruled large parts of the Khmer empire which were in 1030 supposed to be parts of the Khmer empire. Something just does not add up here.

I'm not - per se - contesting the neutrality of the article, just questioning some aspects as the sources give contradictory views of events.--Nedergard (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Map

The map contradict with other articles. According to Burmese history, Thaton Kingdom was never under the control of Chola and never a subordinate of Chola. (See citations at the article) Moreover, the map is in 1050s. The Burmese King Anawratha invaded and control lower Burma during that era. Please update the map and exclude control over Thaton. Soewinhan (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Same thing thing with the whole of South-East Asia. It was never under Chola rule as indicated in the map.--Nedergard (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The map claims that SEA was Chola's subordinates. I think no SEA king had ever submitted to Chola. I guess the map should be removed unless someone fixes the issue. SWH^talk 09:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The map is clearly wrong on many accounts. It is an attempt to (1) attribute Indian cultural contributions to Southeast Asia, which were substantial, to the Cholas alone, and (2) conflate that cultural influence with political control. First, many Indian regions, not just southeastern India, contributed to the culture of SEA. Secondly, no history books on Burma has ever mentioned any political domination or control of any kind by an Indian polity. (I suspect that it too was the case elsewhere in SEA.) The map's date (circa 1050) is even more problematic because then the Pagan Empire was already ascendant, and its conquest of Lower Burma in 1057 did not report any Chola vassalage, or saw any reprisals from the supposed Chola overlords. Sri Vijaya is another problem. The best reconstruction of Sri Vijaya empire included the coastline of Sumatra, not the entire island. Sending merchant ships doesn't mean political control. Hybernator (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Other problems

Land area claims (3,600,000 km² which is even larger than nowadays India)
"Today part of" section inside the infobox.
Claims like In addition Rajendra's territories included the area falling on the Ganges-Hooghly-Damodar basin, large parts of Burma, Thailand, Indo-China Laos, Kambodia, the Malay peninsula and Indonesia. are most likely wrong and need to be counterchecked with contemporary Southeast Asian history sources. I have never heard of any Chola invasion (or raid) to the Khmer Empire (Kambodia) or the Kingdom of Pagan (Burma). These kingdoms were far more powerful than Sri Lanka. Control over Laos is more problematic because it is a land lock country. Chola needs to pass through Khmer Empire to conquer Laos (then part of Khmer Empire).

SWH ^talk 05:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found any SE Asian history book for the claim: In addition Rajendra's territories included the area falling on the Ganges-Hooghly-Damodar basin, large parts of Burma, Thailand, Indo-China Laos, Kambodia, the Malay peninsula and Indonesia. Even Coedes, the main proponent of "Indianization" of Southeast Asia, didn't mention anything about Cholas conquering anything: [2]. It's utterly misleading to (1) attribute Indianization with political control, and (2) claim credit for Indianization for the Chola Empire alone when other parts of India actively contributed to the process. Hybernator (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Chola raids or conquests in Cambodia or Laos, but as far as Burma is concerned there are sources saying that Pegu was raided, or annexed, e.g. Cultural and religious heritage of India: Christianity By Suresh K. Sharma. Part of the source used in the article is available online at [3]. I judge from this that the places named in the Chola inscriptions (apart from Srivijaya and Pala) are not certainly identified. DrKay (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any Burmese historical text to confirm this. The Burmese history books or the chronicles do not mention anything about Chola conquest of Pegu. But G.E Harvey countered Chola territorial claims in his book History of Burma pp.322. You can read it here.He stated, There is nothing to show that Cholas ever contemplated invading Lower Burma, let alone the interior. The theory rests on obsolete surmise that Kidaram, one of the Chola conquests, is identical with Pegu. Had there been a Chola ruler in Delta, the Burmese chronicles would surely mention him as vanquished in Anawrahta's 1057 campaign or Kyanzittha's expedition. But there is none. He further argued There remains the undoubted presence of a Chola "prince" in Burma. But he may not have been a prince. There is nothing to show that he was ruling anywhere in Burma; he may have been passing through on some mission further west. SWH ^talk 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The book you've provided was published in 1925. Harvey was not contradicting Chola territorial claims over Pegu but only E. Hultzsch's identification of Kadaram, one of Rajendra Chola's conquests, with Pegu. Hultzsch's theory had been disproved since. "Kadaram" is now identified with the Kedah state of Malaysia.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 07:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Published in 1925? So what about K.A. Nilakanta Sastri's The CōĻas. Madras: University of Madras 1935 to which much of this article content is cited. If you don't like old books, you can consult detailed books about Burmese history by Thant Myint-U, Victor Lieberman, Than Tun, Michael Aung-Thwin as well. I am sure you won't find anything about Chola conquests.

Had there been a Chola ruler in Delta, the Burmese chronicles would surely mention him as vanquished in Anawrahta's 1057 campaign or Kyanzittha's expedition. But there is none. He further argued There remains the undoubted presence of a Chola "prince" in Burma. But he may not have been a prince. There is nothing to show that he was ruling anywhere in Burma; he may have been passing through on some mission further west. If he is not contradicting the Chola territorial claims, what is he contradicting then? SWH^talk 09:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DrKay, I'm sure you'll agree that the claims in the article should be cross-checked with the histories of the SE Asian countries. Don't you think the article/map should also cite a reputable book on SE Asian history that shows Cholas had any political/military control over the lands? I personally haven't found one that supports the claims.

Secondly, the liberal coloring of the lands under control needs to be supported by evidence. For much of history, even indigenous kingdoms didn't have any real control over the interior of the Malay peninsula and Sumatra. Sri Vijaya at its height mainly controlled the coastal regions. Even later Portuguese and Dutch much later with better weaponry had little control over the interior. It took the Dutch centuries to control all of Indonesia as did the British with India. The map as it stands apparently followed the Sri Vijaya empire as shown in this Wikipedia map [4] but its tagline says 8th century. Even if these boundaries are correct, surely, we can't attribute 8th century boundaries of Sri Vijaya to 11th century boundaries of Sri Vijaya (assuming Cholas had any control Sri Vijaya, which needs to be cross-checked.) Now, Cholas couldn't even rule all of Ceylon, and were driven out by 1070. That they controlled all of Sumatra and southern Malay peninsula seems wishful thinking.

As for Pegu, it's not even clear that Pegu as an entity existed in the 11th century. (Pegu did not appear as a place name until 1266 in an Old Burmese inscription. see page 29 of this book.) Again, it only emphasizes the point that the claims needs to be cross-checked with the histories of those so claimed. It's only fair, and right. Hybernator (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cholas, by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, clearly states that Rajendra Chola I sent a military expedition which invaded South-East Asia and that the invasion was successful. Please see South-East Asia campaign of Rajendra Chola I. At the same time, Sastri also claims that the Cholas never ruled over these countries though they did manage to exercise a certain degree of control over them. I agree that the Chola Empire did not include South-East Asia but those areas definitely came under the Chola sphere of influence during the 11th century. The annals of the Song Dynasty, too, agree with it. I'd rather stand by the author who is considered to be "one of the greatest historians of South India" and whose book stands good to this day than some stray works picked up from Google Books. Statements such as "Even the Portugese and the Dutch were not able to conquer these territories how could the Cholas possibly have" or "The Cholas could not even rule Ceylon" borders on original research.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 07:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Which part of the SEA you are referring to? We are talking about Burma and some parts of the mainland SEA. I am not disputing the fact that Chola sent several expeditions to Srivijaya. And you should not criticize our cited books as "some stray works picked up from Google Books" without having any prior knowledge on them. G.E. Harvey is an authoritative Burmese historian. As far as Burma is concerned, his works are much more reliable than works of any Indian historian. And Michael Aung-Thwin is Professor of Asian Studies at Hawaii University; his books are definitely not "some stray works". If you need more books, you can consult works of Thant Myint-U or Victor Lieberman. For Burmese history, of course, Burmese historians are much more reliable than Indian historians.

I checked out South-East Asia campaign of Rajendra Chola I. The cited book is again that of Nilakanta Sastri. His claim of Chola conquest of Pegu is based on the studies of Chola inscriptions. Even Indian historians do not certainly say Mapappalam, mentioned in the inscriptions is Pegu. For example, an equally important historian, Ramesh Chandra Majumdar said that the current view that Rajendra Chola conquered Pegu is wrong. (Ancient India 1971, p. 407)

And original research? See the discussion above and Srivijaya article. These two articles are apparently contradicting. Chola definitely did not conquer entire Srivijaya. But the map shows the whole Srivijaya under Chola's control. SWH^talk 09:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not going to respond to the personal attacks made here. Secondly, I only made a general statement supporting K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and not questioning the veracity of any Burmese historian. As for G. E. Harvey, his 1925 book only debunks the theory of Chola conquest of Pegu suggested by E. Hultzsch. I had mistakenly mentioned Papphala as "a part of the Talaing country", which it is not; in fact, what I intended to say is that Papphala could have been a part of Lower Burma. That's all! I, now, reproduce Sastri's claims from his book

Even as late as 1903, though a great deal of advance had been made by him from his original position, Hultzsch was stil far from the mark when he said: 'Of the numerous places which are mentioned in connection with this expedition, Mr. Venkayya has identified two, viz. Nakkavaram and Pappalam. The former is the Tamil name of the Nicobar islands, and according to the Mahavamsa, Papphala was a port in Ramanna, i.e., the Talaing country of Burma. Hence Kadaram had to be looked for in Farther India'. For some years thereafter, Rajendra's expedition was held to have been directed against the kingdom of Pegu, and the archaeologists of Burma even announced the discovery of two octagonal granite pillars near Pegu, which were identified by them 'with the Jayasthambha or pillars of victory set up by Rajendra Chola who overran Pegu in AD 1025-27.' It was only in 1918 that Coedes brought together in his cogent and lucid paper Le Royaume de Sri Vijaya evidence accumulated along various lines by several years of study on the part of many scholars, discussed fully the identification of the places mentioned in connection with Rajendra's campaign, and laid the basis of an intelligible account for it. The Archaeological Department of Burma, though at first inclinde to be critical of Coedes' scheme, later acknowledged its substantial accuracy by removing the celebrated granite pillars from the list of the protected monuments of Burma
— The Cholas, pp 213-214

So, this is the theory which Harvey countered in 1925 and not Sastri's claims about Papphala which were made in 1935. This is what Sastri has got to say about Mappapalam

Mapappalam, as shown by Venkayya, is mentioned in the Mahavamsa under the name Papphalama, as the place where the Tamil general Adicca landed when he was sent on an expedition against Ramannadesa by Parakramabahu of Ceylon about AD 1165. From this Venkayya concluded that Mappapalam must be a place in the Talaing country of Lower Burma, and he has been followed by other writers who have proceeded to make other identifications on this basis. In fact it seems at first sight that this mention of Pappalam in an expedition against Ramannadesa violently contradicts the assumption that all the places captured by Rajendra were dependant on Palembang and within easy reach of it. Coedes, however, draws attention to the fact that the long list of grievances which Parakramabahu had against the ruler of Ramanna ends with his capture by force of a Sinhalese princess nwhom the ruler of Lanka had sent to the Kambhoja country, and suggests that 'as it is infinitely probable that the messenges of Ceylon to Kambhoja pass by the isthumus of Kra, it is in this region that the abduction (of the princess) must have been committed, and consequently, the authority of the king of Pagan might have extended so far'. In the beginning of the eleventh century, however, the suzerainty of Palembang extended upto the Bay of Bandon, and there is no difficulty therefore in assuming that Mapappalam was a locality in the region of the isthumus of Kra, though its exact identity cannot now be made out.
— The Cholas, p 216

So, evidently, Sastri is claiming that the Papphalama could have been a part of the Tenasserim region. The same is attested by the map given in the book which locates Papphala in the Tenasserim region on the Burma-Thailand border at the head of Malay peninsular. And that, all that I am saying is that statements such as "Even the Portugese and the Dutch were not able to conquer these territories how could the Cholas possibly have" or "The Cholas could not even rule Ceylon", etc., aren't the right sort of arguments to be made here. Japan is a very small country and very few expected such a small country and that too, an Asiatic nation to beat the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and yet, it did. It is natural for every one of us to have our individual opinions but it is imperative that in Wikipedia we assume a neutral point of view and desist from coming to premature conclusions.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 10:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? The first, and the only time I use "you" is in this sentence. And you should not criticize our cited books as "some stray works picked up from Google Books" without having any prior knowledge on them. This is just a suggestion. And I had to respond because you probably meant to characterize our cited books (which are from authoritative Burmese historians) as "some stray works picked up from Google Books". (All the books we have cited are linked to Google Books) I did not intend to attack you. SWH^talk 12:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The influence of cholas

I completely disagree with the opinion of soe winhan claiming lesser chola influence in southeast asia.Disagreement also occur when indian historians were degraded and compared with burmese historians.I also want to hear from SWH which other parts of india is active in cultural indianisation of south east other than ancient tamil country.Sure no SEA history books will admit their ancestors(SouthEastAsian) were under the control of other civilisation such as india because it is contraindicating to current culture of the SEA People who embraces Buddhism and Islam while the Cholas were Hindus.(The discriminations of Burmese People towards Indian community in Burma during post independent periods are prove why indians influence were denied by Burmese Historians,The Burmese want to get rid of indian culture and languages which rules their place compared to indigenous culture thus denying their influence in ancient burma.I also want hear from SWH why is the connection between the land area of modern india and the land area which were ruled by the cholas.As said by SWH,sending merchants ship does not mean political control,sending merchants ship along would also not bring indian civilisation,tamil martial arts,tamil architechture and tamil and indian religion,but what is the condition of SEA people in ancient time,They patronized Hinduism,alot of massive temple such as Angkor wat,Prambanan are built in Dravidian Style,they practises martial arts similar to south indians and even today pali language are being used in buddhism in Burma and Thailand.So in conclusion not only merchant ships were involved and Indian Historians are not stupid to assume warships as merchant ships.SWH ,I also wanted to hear from you what is the name of kings of SEA of ancient and medieval time ,Why their name were in Tamil and Sanskrit other than any any names belonging to any SEA languages.Are you trying to say merchant ships can also change your kings name.SWH said he/she coulnt find books linking cholas to SEA,But in popular tamil culture various parts of SEA is mentioned.Othet than that what is the connection between the strength of Lanka Kingdom And Khmer Kingdom and Chola KIngdom and how SWH conclude that SEA Kingdoms are stronger than lanka or indian Kingdoms,Eventhough in 1070 cholas defeated in Lanka But only in several years Lanka Were again recaptured by Pandyans.This clearly shows how Tamil Hardpower works in ancient time.SWH could not find books regardingm Cholas and their influence in SEA,but I can find Lembah Bujang in Kedah which clearly states who are Cholas and what their power in SEA during that time.I also have a question for SWH,Why the most of the oldest inscription found in SEA are in Indian language rather than SEA languages and so called strong Khmer empire patronised indian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs) 12:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about political control. Not about cultural influence. What I mean by "Burmese historian" is a historian specializing in Burmese history. Not a historian with Burmese citizenship. For Chola territorial claims inside Burma, they are more reliable because they cross-check Chola territorial claims with local chronicles and physical evidences. The same goes for other SEA countries. SWH^talk 12:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer to Tan Meifan. You can't conflate the India's contributions to SE Asia with Chola's political control over it. First, many other parts of India contributed to SE Asia's Indianized culture, not just the Cholas. (The Pyu script for example came from western India.) Secondly, SE India's contributions by themselves don't mean Cholas' political control. Satri's outlandish claims aside, I'm not aware of any Mainland SE Asia historian claiming that Cholas (or any Indian state) had any political control over Burma, Thailand or Cambodia. This is not to deny the many contributions made by Mother India. But you can't attribute all those contributions to the Cholas alone, and make the leap that they controlled these areas. There's no evidence of political control, according to mainstream SE Asia scholarship.Hybernator (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A small note: Mother India did not exist until British force-created it; I think it is better to refer to the present-day India with the kingdoms' names. And, Sri Lanka is not a part of India, while it was still an important part of Chola dynasty.175.157.210.65 (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Territorial claims

The article needs attention of an objective expert, at least on the Medieval Cholas section. I've removed most of the mainland SEA countries (Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam) from the territories list in the info box.

I've checked the following books, and they provide no mention of Cholas or Colas whatsoever in Southeast Asia.

The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (1999) [5]
In Search of Southeast Asia (1987) [6]
Strange Parallels Vol. 1: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800-1830 (2003) [7]

I've found so far two books that mention Chola raids in modern Indonesia and Malaysia

Strange Parallels: Volume 2, Mainland Mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, South Asia, and the Islands (2009) [8] -- Cholas sacked Srivijaya (Indonesia) in 1025 and took the ruler away. But that's it.
The Territories and States of India, p. 229 [9] -- Cholas raided the Malay peninsula, securing trade routes to modern Indonesia and China

Hybernator (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Era style

Per WP:ERA, the era style of a page should be consistent throughout, whichever style is used. Why would this page use BC/AD when Christianity isn't even mentioned? The page should use BCE/CE throughout, and the era should be dropped completely once there would be no confusion that the dates refer to CE ("Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it"). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How is Sanskrit Language of Chola empire. Just because certain sections of copper plates had Sanskrit does it mean it was the state language? This copper plates which speak of purana are forged. Arunsevu (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Idk Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Cholas mainly used Sanskrit for religious purposes. The cholas being Hindus used recited prayers in Sanskrit. Many inscriptions and coins also contain Sanskrit scripts. Shark2433086 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

This edit request to Chola dynasty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sanskrit was not an official language in Choala dynasty. Tamil, Telgu & Malayalam was the official language in Chera, Chola, Pandya dynasties. Jeshra.k (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --MrClog (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please replace 'Chola' as 'Chozha'

Replace Chola (சோல, சோள) with Chozha (சோழ), which is the correct word in Tamil pronunciation. Helppublic (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about the Tamil, but "Chola" remains standard in English, and we shall continue to use it. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

'Chozha' means 'சோழ' which indicates the name of a king and his dynasty whereas 'Chola' means 'சோள' that indicates the name of an eatable grain.Helppublic (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So? Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So, please move the title to 'Chozha' (instead of Chola) dynasty.

It represents the exact title name.

Afterwards, with reference to the title, other 'chola' names wherever appear on articles may be edited by authors or readers without any restrictions.

As we now the differences between words such as :

but put bet pet cat cut

to mention a very few, which have different meanings, such is the case with 'Chola' and 'Chozha' of significant importance, a historical word 'Chozha', which is misspelt. Hope you understand and correct and help the community. Thank you. Helppublic (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2020

This edit request to Chola dynasty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chola dynasty should be changed to Chola Empire as this Chola rule lasted for more years than any in the Indian history. Debtprograms (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussed a bit above. The current intro states: Despite these ancient origins, the period when it is appropriate to speak of a "Chola Empire" only begins with the medieval Cholas in the mid-9th century CE. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)