|
THE CHOLAS
(Ep. Rep. 1929-30, Part II, para. 24). Another such pact is registered in
No. 502, dated in the 13th year of Kulōttuṅga who is evidently Kulōttuṅga III.
A political of his time.
It is a counterpart of No. 440 of 1913 registering a political alliance entered
into between the chiefs Rājarājadēvan Ponparappinān alias Kulōtuṅga-ChōḷaVāṇakōvaraiyar and Sūryadēvar Nirērrār alias Rājarāja-Malaiyakularāyar of
Kiḷiyūr, same as Periya-uḍaiyān Nīrērrān of No. 364 mentioned above. This is
engraved on the walls of the temple at Elavānāśūr in the South Arcot district
which should have been an important stronghold of the Malayamān chiefs and
gives the terms of the pact as agreed to be fulfilled by Ponparappinān.
Similarly the other inscription is found at Āragaḷūr which should have been the
headquarters of this Ponparappinān, and the terms of the document are those as
given by the Malayamān chief on his part. The present inscription is a well
preserved and complete record while the Āragalūr version consists only of
disconnected piece of the document.
No. 374 from Neyvaṇai in the same district is dated in the 8th
year of Kulōttuṅga and records the grant of the village Edirmalaippāḍi
to the temple for offerings to the goddess and for a festival in the Puraṭṭāśi
month, made by Nandipanman alias Naralōkasūriyan who also figures in
No. 375, probably of the same king, as the servant of Araiśan Ālappirandān
alias Kāḍavarāyan with the permission of the latter after getting it
exemp ed from the sammādam-tax by Chēdiyarāyar. Edirmalaippāḍi is referred
to as the place where the god is said to have gone and received
Āḷuḍaiya-Piḷḷaiyār (Tirujñānasambanda), and the god of this temple is called
Porkuḍaṅkuḍuttaruḷina i.e., ‘who was pleased to give the golden pot.’ These
two names seem to contain in them references to the incidents connected with
the sojourn of saint Jñānasambanda at this place. No 489, dated in the king’s
30th year gives details of date which work out correctly for A. D. 1207, August
19th . This inscription records gift of a village to the dancing girls for the service
of dancing and singing in the temple at Iraiyānaraiyur.
His subordinates.
A few feudatory chief who are known to have been administering part of
the present North and South Arcot districts in the reigns of Kulōttuṅga III
and his successor figure in the present year’s collection also. One such chief
was Kūḍalūr Āḷappirandān Rājagambhīra-Kāḍavarāyan alias Alagiyapallavan
Śāḍumperumāḷ who is stated in No. 496, dated in the 30th year of the king to have
constructed the outer gōpura of the temple at Elavānāśūr. Another Pallava
chieftain named Kūḍal Aḷappirandān Kāḍavarāyan, who had also the title of
Śāḍumperumāḷ is mentioned in two inscriptions from Tiruvaṇṇāmalai (S. I. I., Vol. VIII,
Nos. 77 and 98) dated in the 31st year of Rājarāja III and the 15th year of
Kōpperuñjiṅgadēva. Another subordinate chief of Kulōttuṅga III was the
Kiḷiyūr Malaiyamān chief Periyuḍaiyān Rājarāja-Kōvalrāyan Palavāyuda-
[Pal]lava[raiyan], son of Iraiyūran Rājarāja-Chēdiyarāyan Vanniyarnāyan
(No. 381), who is stated to have dug a tank at Attippākkam in the South Arcot
district. This chief is also known to us from No. 389 of 1902. Still another
feudatory of the king was Magadēśan Rājarājadēvan Ponparappinān of
Āragaḷūr whose servant Māran Kulaindān Chēdirāyan is stated (in No. 407)
to have made a gift of lands to the Tiruppālaippandal temple in the 26th year
of Kulōttuṅga. We find two inscriptions of this same Ponparapina-
Magadaipperumāḷ without mention of any overlord but dated in the 6th and
15th year of his own rule in the same place (No. 402 and 408). The 11th
regnal year of this chief is quoted in No. 156 of 1904, also from the same place.
No. 397 is a record from Meyyūr in the Tirukkoyilur taluk (South Arcot
district) dated in the 9th year of a certain Vanneñjapperumāḷ. He appears
to be identical with the person of the same name figuring in an inscription
from Āttūr in the Salem district (No. 405 of 1913), as a subordinate issuing the
grant in the 32nd year of an unspecified king, who was probably kulōttuṅga
III. The chief should have asserted his independence towards the close of
Kulōttuṅga’s reign and issued grants independently, as testified to in the present
inscription.
|
