________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIII the reign of Parakësarivarman. One Kāmadigal, son of Mädēvar of Pangala-nadu, is mentioned in an inscription of this king's 8th year. Another of the same person's sons named Prithivigangaraiyar, figures in an inscription dated in the [11]th regnal year of that king. Probably he is identical with Alivin Kallarasi alias Sembiyan Bhuvanigangaraiyar figuring in another inscription of Parakësarivarman. If it can be assumed that Mahādēva, son of Rājāditya of the Solavaram record, whom we have identified with the Prithiyangaraiyar of the present inscription, and Mahadēva, mentioned as the father of the Pangala-nādu chiefs in the inscriptions of Aditya I and Parakēsarivarman, are identical, it will follow that Mahādēva was at least a senior contemporary of Aditya I. The acceptance of the suzerainty of Aditya I by these chiefs goes to show that the Choļa king succeeded in consolidating his position in this part of the former Pallava dominion.
The channel which was dug for the merit of Ayyakkutti-adiga! was named Vilupperaraiyan. This leads us to suppose that the title Vilupperaraiyan was connected with the name of Ayyakkutti-adiga!. Two inscriptions dated in the 19th and 26th regnal years of Rājakësarivarman (Aditya I) mention one Viluppēraraiyar Ayyakkutti-adiga! and her mother Pugalttunai-adiyār. The former may be identified with the person of that name mentioned in our record. It is likely that Pugaltturai-adiyar (or adiga!) was the real name of Ilūdapperundēvi.
The above discussion would suggest that Kampavarman, who was the overlord of Mahādēva, was a predecessor of Aditya I in this territory or at least their reigns were not far removed from each other in point of time."
llādapperundēvi, the title of the wifo of Prithiyangaraiyar, could have been only a surname indicating that she was the daughter of a Lāța chief. These chiefs, who called themselves variously as Lädarāyar or Lädapperaraiyar, and sometimes also as Virāțarāja, find mention in a number of inscriptions of the time of the early Chöļas. Many inscriptions refer to their matrimonial connections with the families of local chieftains and, in one instance, Chöļa Räjāditya, son of Parāntaka I, is said to have had a wife who was the daughter of Ilādarāyar. They seem to have held sway over some parts of the Chittoor District and portions of the North and South Arcot Districts.
Two inscriptionglo of the reign of Parthivēndradhipativarman mention & member of this family named Ayaiyamman alias Paramandaladittan. They state that tho family of the Lāta chiefs belonged
1 This king may be identified with Parantaka I owing to the proximity of his reign with that of Rajakesari varman (Aditya I) mentioned above. The palaeography of the record seems to support this.
*4.R. Bp., 1939-40, No. 283. • Ibid., 1928, No. 139. Parakesarivarman of both the records must be identical.
. Ibid., 1930-31, No. 177. The date portion of the inscription is damaged. Only the figure 1 as the second digit is discernible.
. The chiefs of Pangala-nadu were used to the transference of their allegiance to new masters. They submitted to the Rashtrakūtas during the occupation of this part of the Chola territory by Kannaradeva (abovo, Vol. VII, pp. 195-96).
• 811, Vol. XIII, Nos. 285 and 317.
Cf. South Indian Temple Inscriptions, Vol. III, Part I, lxxxvi-lxxxix. The arguments for Assigning Kampavarman's rule to about the middle of the 10th century are not convincing. In the Madras Museum plates of Uttama-chola (SI1, Vol. III, No. 128), the record of the previous transactions is confusing and it is difficult to take them in chronological order and deduce that Kampavarman flourished later than Parantaka I. It is also not safe to identify Atvisvarmma) of the Solapuram record, who is merely mentioned as born in the line of Madhava (above, Vol. VII, p. 193), with Hastimalla, the son of Vayiri-Adiyan and feudatory of Kannaradeva (ibid., 195-96). As regards Niranjanaguru mentioned in an inscription of the 19th year of Kampavarman (811, Vol. XII, No. 105), Venkatasubba Aiyar's views appear to be reasonable (above, Vol. XXIII, p. 145, note).
3 Above, Vol. VII, p. 141; A. R. Ep., 1935-36, No. 63 ; ibid., 1912, No. 168, etc.
Above, Vol. VII, p. 134. 10 4. R. Bp., 1906, Nos. 267 and 324. While in the former the chief is called Viratarāja in the Sanskrit portion and la dariyar in the Tamil portion, in the latter he is simply called Virataraja. Their identity is discussed in A. R. Bp., 1907, para, 65 ; see also Proc, IHC, 7th session, Madras, Pp. 203 ff. ; above, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 267 ff.
