The Colas c11.142

c11.142

twin Epics of the Anklet and the Jewel-belt relate to the same period of time as the poems of the *Puranānūṟu* and the other anthologies, and it is not clear how far the incidents mentioned in the epics may be treated as historical, and not simply meant to furnish a familiar background to a romantic story; there is, above all, a total lack of correspondence in the facts relating to the different kings whom Kanakasabhai proposes to identify. The phrase '*maittuna-vaḷavankiḷḷi*' of the *Śilappadikāram* (xxvii-l. 118) is not the same as 'Kiḷḷivaḷavan,' and as there is nothing in the numerous poems of the *Puṟam* to suggest that the latter's succession to the throne was disputed, we must be slow to accept the identification in this case. It must also be observed that, as Pandit M. Raghava Aiyangar, (*op. cit.* p. 33) points out, the Cōḷa contemporary of Śeṅguṭṭuvan was according to the *Śilappadikāram*, Peruṅgiḷḷi, whom Aḍiyārkkunallār calls Perunaṟkiḷḷi; and the Pandit himself identifies him with Rājāsūyam-vēṭṭa Perunaṟkiḷḷi and this, in itself, is really more plausible than the suggestion of Kanakasabhai. The absence of all mention of a fight at the Kāriyāṟu or a combination of the Pāṇḍya and the Cēra against Kuḷamuṟṟattu-tuñjiya Kiḷḷivaḷavan taken along with the positive references to his siege and capture of Vañji and his defeat at Madura, all of which are admitted by Kanakasabhai, is fatal to his other proposition. See also P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar *History of the Tamils* pp. 430-31.