Are Chulan Kings of Malaysia descendants of the Cholan Dynasty?

Dec 2009
578
In the past there were several members of Royal families in Malaysia who had the name Chulan which according to some scholars is a different form of Cholan of the Chola Dynasty.
The 15th century Malaysian text Sejarah Melayu mentions the Chola invasion of Malaysia and Indonesia in the 11th century and one version of the text claims that Rajendra Chola after his successful invasion married the sister of the defeated king of the kingdom of Ganga Nagara while another version of the text claims that Rajendra Chola married the daughter of the defeated king.
On the other hand Chola records do not mention any marriages between their royal members and the defeated kings of Southeast Asia.
Anyway is there a relation between some Royal families of Malaysia and the Chola Dynasty?
 
Nov 2014
490
India
In the past there were several members of Royal families in Malaysia who had the name Chulan which according to some scholars is a different form of Cholan of the Chola Dynasty.
The 15th century Malaysian text Sejarah Melayu mentions the Chola invasion of Malaysia and Indonesia in the 11th century and one version of the text claims that Rajendra Chola after his successful invasion married the sister of the defeated king of the kingdom of Ganga Nagara while another version of the text claims that Rajendra Chola married the daughter of the defeated king.
On the other hand Chola records do not mention any marriages between their royal members and the defeated kings of Southeast Asia.
Anyway is there a relation between some Royal families of Malaysia and the Chola Dynasty?
It is also possible that Chulan became generic noun for king, after Cholan invasion.
 
Dec 2009
578
It is also possible that Chulan became generic noun for king, after Cholan invasion.
No i dont really think so as only some of the Malaysian Kings had the name Chulan. If this was really the case then all the Malaysian Kings would bear the name Chulan
 
Dec 2009
578
If there was a marriage between Chola members and Southeast Asian royal members then it is probably not Rajendra Chola. After the Southeast Asian campaign Rajendra Chola had to return to India and left the conquered regions in the hands of the defeated kings, his generals and major south Indian trading communities who went on to influence the trade in Southeast Asia. But it is possible that his grandchild Kulothunga Chola had a relationship in Southeast Asia as he spent some time in Southeast Asia before he returned to India to succeed his uncle Virarajendra Chola as the next Emperor of the Chola Dynasty
 
Feb 2017
329
The Rainforests
I don't know if this info contributes to the discussion or not but there is a street named Chulan King Street in Malaysia.
 
Dec 2009
578
I don't know if this info contributes to the discussion or not but there is a street named Chulan King Street in Malaysia.
A very interesting information. It seems that this road is in Kuala Lumpur which was part of one of the kingdoms in the past which was invaded by Rajendra Chola. I wonder after whom exactly and when this road was named.
 
Dec 2017
28
US
Neither are the words "cholan" or "cholan king" Malay or even Indian.

It's English (eg "MorroccaN king", "ArabiaN king" "MalaysiaN king").

Just because it sounds the same (via intermediary ie this case English) it doesn't mean it's from same etymology.

Lots of place names in Malaysia and Singapore with Chinese names.

Cheese.
 
Dec 2017
28
US
"Chola" is Tamil. "CholaN" (ie "originating in Chola") is English. And "Cholan kings" is English. "Chu Lan King" could be Chinese (as there are many Chinese place names in Malaysia and Singapore). Chulan is a referred to here ('the road') could even be native Malay ("Rajah Chulan").

Native Austronesian doesn't equate suffixes to designate 'origin' like Indo-European languages. ie ItaliaN, NigeriaN. Most Austronesian language uses a prefix that is actually a separate word before the place name to designate "people originating from place name region". Ie in Behasa Malay, it's "orang" ("people") eg "orang Melayu" ("Malay people") while in Philippine languages, it's 'taga' ("from") eg "Taga(I)log" ('people from the river). Therefore to say that that "Chulan" is a derivation from "Chola" is ridiculous.

Jesus Christ. Just because there's a "Chola" and there's "Chulan" doesn't mean they're the same simply because they look or sound similar. That's called false etymology.

Cheese.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2009
578
"Chola" is Tamil. "CholaN" (ie "originating in Chola") is English. And "Cholan kings" is English. "Chu Lan King" could be Chinese (as there are many Chinese place names in Malaysia and Singapore). Chulan is a referred to here ('the road') could even be native Malay ("Rajah Chulan").

Native Austronesian doesn't equate suffixes to designate 'origin' like Indo-European languages. ie ItaliaN, NigeriaN. Most Austronesian language uses a prefix that is actually a separate word before the place name to designate "people originating from place name region". Ie in Behasa Malay, it's "orang" ("people") eg "orang Melayu" ("Malay people") while in Philippine languages, it's 'taga' ("from") eg "Taga(I)log" ('people from the river). Therefore to say that that "Chulan" is a derivation from "Chola" is ridiculous.

Jesus Christ. Just because there's a "Chola" and there's "Chulan" doesn't mean they're the same simply because they look or sound similar. That's called false etymology.

Cheese.
No you are actually wrong.
It is called Chola in Sanskrit but it is actually called Cholan in Tamil and in most other Dravidian languages.