1 The migration from Tuvarai is refeffed to in a twelfth-century inscription(pudukottai state inscriptions, no. 120) quoted by s.Turaicāmi Pi║ai, Avvai puřanāṉuŨāu ii (SISSW Publishing Society Madras 1951): Tuvarai mānakar niṉṟu ponta tôṉmai pā1rttu kkiḷḷiveṉ nikaril tĒn kavirnātu taṉṉil nikāḴvitta nitiyāḴarGoogle Scholar

2 Madura Tamil Sangam, second ed., 1916

3 Tiruppŭbvaṉam plates of Jatāvarman Kulaṥvekhara I(A.D.1214), 89–106Epigraphia indica xxv, 1939–40, New Delhi, Govt.of India, 1940–8Google Scholar

4 op.cit.

5 158 I.13.For ĀY, see ibid., 375, 1. 11, and Akam., 148 1.7.

6 This is the correct form; see p. 326,§ 7 below.

7 Maturai, , Maṉoṉaṅ Vilāsam Press, 1920, 180 pp.Google Scholar The work consists of 1,036 viruttam stanzas with copious footnotes by the author.A prose version by Pillai, S. N. Ataikkalam (239 pp.) was published by Konar, Ramaswamy at Śrī Rāmachandra Vilā sam Press, Madurai, in 1922. These works are referred to hereafter as NVV A and NVV B respectively. Naşkuti is synonymous with NaṅuṭiGoogle Scholar

8 Puṟanāṉūṟu, SISSW ed., II, 4.

9 Derrett, J. D. M. in his The Hoysalas, Madras, OUP, Indian Branch, 1957Google Scholar, dismisses the Hoysala story as a charming myth invented in Visnuvardhana's day (A.D. 1108–12) to account for the odd name. He adds: ‘In fact Hoysala from the old Kannada root hoys (originally poys) signifies the smiter and the terse cognomen indicates without ambiguity the type of role this family first played in Karnataka history. They started their career as successful brigand chiefs’. At pp. 219–20 of the same work he adds the following note: ‘For the ending –ala cf. “Bijjala”. And just as the latter is spelt alternatively Bijjana, so Hoysana is almost as common as Hoysala. Poysala was the original form, and in Tamil, Grantha, and Marathi sources we come across Hosala, Pocala, Bhocala, Bhojala, and Hoyisala. The forms used by some modern Indian scholars on occasions, Hoyasala, Hoysala, Hoysala, never occur in authentic records and are incorrect’. Moraes, G. M., The Kadamba Kula, Bombay, B. X. Furtado and Sons, 1931,10–11, says: ‘The pretension of northern descent (of Kadambas) was for the first time put forward in the 1 lth century of the Christian era…. It is evident from the records of the contemporary royal families of the Dekkan that they also claimed northern extraction at this period. Thus for instance it was for the first time in the 11th century that the Hoysalas, who were a purely Karnataka dynasty, traced their descent from the Yadavas, who were northerners. It is therefore clear that there was a craze among the rulers of the south at this time to connect their families with dynasties from the north. The Kadambas who had just then re-established their power, after an eclipse of over three hundred years, conformed themselves to the ideas then obtaining at the courts of contemporary rulers, and attributed a northern origin to their founder…….However, it may be objected that as the Kadambas were Brahmans, they were finally of northern origin. It is nevertheless beyond doubt that after the Brahmanic immigration, even Dravidian people were received into the Brahmanic fold, a ceremony repeated centuries later by Madhavacarya. The family of the Kadambas were undoubtedly among the Kanarese people admitted to such a high status in Hindu society’s.Google Scholar

10 Dorrett, op. cit., 34 and 221.

11 South Indian inscriptions, VIII, No. 416 (130 of 1903). On the north wall of the Maṇḍapa in front of the central shrine of the Agastyeṡvara temple at Tiruccunai in Melūr Taluk, Maturai Dt.: srasti ṡrī [tiripuvaṉaccakkaravarttikaḷ] ṡrī cuntarapātiya tevaṟku yāṇṭu nālāvatu…tuva–r–pati veḷāṉeṉ. No. 417 (131 of 1903), on the same wall: pāṇṭīmantalattu tuvarāpatināpatināttu êritai nallūrilirukkum.Google Scholar

12 Irukkuvel is a corruption of Irunkovel. To hold the opposite as Arokiaswamy does in The early history of the Vellar basin is to put the cart before the hourse. It was merely the desire for sanskritization sedulously fostered by the Aryan immigrants into Tamilnadu which would suggest the modification of Iruᭅkovel into Irukkuvel, with a view to derive the latter term from ‘Rig’ Veda. Iruᭅkovel is term of wide occurrence in time and space; vide reference in Puṟam, and Akam.; the ‘Irumgolas’ of Hěmjeru in Pavugada Taluk in Tumkīr Dt. in Mysore and ‘Iruṅkolappatinātu’ etc., and nowhere except in the inscriptions of the Kotumpālīr chiefs has the variant ‘Irukkuvel’ been given; nor has it been explained as connected with the Rg veda.

13 See § 15 below.

14 Pillai, K.N.Sivaraja, The chronology of the early Tamils, University of Madras, 1932, 140.Google Scholar

15 Thurston, Edgar, Castes and tribes of South India, v, 1909, 246–7. H.R.Pate, Gazetteer of the Tinnevelly District, I, Madras, 1917, 140–1.Google Scholar

16 The title of Pillai appears to have been adopted by Velālar and other at a comparatively early period, probably about three or four centuries ago. Before that time only Brahmans used the title: seeNelson, J.H., The Madura country manual, 1868, pt. II, ch. ii.Google Scholar

17 Turaicāmi Pillai (op. cit.) refers to the descendants of Iruṅkovel living in villages around Kǒrkai.

18 Allowing 1,000 years before Kapilar (A.D.100) for the 49 generations at 21 years each) Rākav’aiyaṅkār concludes that Velir should have entered Tamilnad about the tenth century B.C.

19 Merkanātu Irunkolappatinātu was a subdivision of Virutarācapayaṅkaravalanāṭu (so the present South Arcot and Tanjore Dts. It was known before the time of Kulottuṅka I as Rājarājavalanāṭu and Vaṭanāṭu (SII, XII (the Pallavas), Madras, 1943, 179). The Iruṅkovlakkoṉ in later days (ARE, 1915–16, § 79).

20 NVV A and B deny the story told in Thurston's article on this caste, viz. that te children were begotten by Agni–mahārṣi on the three celestial maidens who used to bathe in the Kaṉṉimār Cuṉai at Kŏṟkai.

21 The Kondaikalṭṭi Veḷāḷar also claim that they had the right of placing the crown on the head of the Pāṇṭiyan kings: Thurston, op. cit.

22 Ěǃittalettal veṭkaiyuraittal kŨṭutal ucātal etī'๭u…(Tŏl., Pŏrul., Pŏruliyal, cŨ. 13. II.1,2, TSS ed.,1950, p.293). The emendation does not, however, fit the vanicippā–metre of this line.

23 See§ 22 below.

24 Three inscriptions of the time of Māṟavarmaṉ Cuntara pāṇṭiya I (1215–35) and one of Māṟavarmaṉ Kulasekharadeva ‘who was pleased to take every country’ found in the Tiruppulīśvara temple at melaccěluvaṉŨr are included as inscriptions Nos. 317–20 in the Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphyfor 1927–8. In these inscriptions the placej is called CeluvaṉŨr otherwise CatturupayaṅkaranallŨr in Iṭaikkulanāṭu, a division of Maturotayavalanāṭu. The Report mentioned that the temple was even then in a neglected condition, situated on the bank of a big tank whose waters threatened before long to bring the whole edifice to the ground.

25 The story that the Nāgapadam, or gold plate with the representations of a fivei–-headed cobra worn by Ko Thurston in his entry on the Koṭṭ Veīāīar.

26 Rākav'aiyaᭅkaār concluded that Cālukyas were also Veīir. Perhaps it was this as well as the similarity in the names Cěīukiyar which prompted Ārumukanayiṉār Piīīai to improve upon the simple statement in the Cěīukaiyammāṉai that those who went north and settled near the Godāvari become great rules and to claim that they were the Cāīukyas. Cěīukaiyammāṉai that those who went north and settled near the Godāvari become great rulers and to claim that they Cāīukyas. Cĕḻukaaiyammāṉai purports to be by one Irāmacāmi Piḷḷai who lived, it is claimed in A.D. 1020 in Vākai kulam, near Cêḷuvai. It was published by S. N. Ataikkalampillai (along with Arunācalam Irunko piṅṅaittamil by Cerntaiyā Pulavar andViṇṇappamālai on Pukaḷumpêrumaāḷ Irunko, of 1795–1805 by Maturākavi) in 1920 at ṣrī Rāmacandra Vilāsam Press, Maturai. The real date of Cêḻukaiyammāṉ should, however, be much later if its style is considered. Cêḻukaiyammāṉ contains substantially the same account of the fortunes of the Narkutiyār from their migration from Kŏrkai to Cêḷuvai to their settlement at Attalanallūr (see below). It says nothing about the pre–Kŏṟkai history of the community which has been worked out in such great detail by Ārumukanayiṉār Piḷai.

27 What is the place of the Irukkuvelir of Kŏṭumpāḷūr? Both the date of migration of the Narkutiyār to Cêḷuvai—if they ever did migrate to that place from any other habitat—and that of leaving Cêḷuvai have been antedated by many centuries in NVV. The period of rule of the Irukkuvel mentioned in the Mūvarkoyil inscription at Kŏṭumpāḷūr was from A.D. 435 to 765 according to Arokiaswamy. The date of arrival of the Naṟkuṭiyār at Cêḷkutiyār and the date of their leaving it being in suspense, it is not possible to say which of the two, Naṟkuṭiyār or Irukkuvejir represent the main stock of the descendants of the Irunkovel of the Sangam age. If the Naṟkuṭiyā did leave Cêḷkutiyā in A.D. 298, it can be said that Irukkuvel were the branch of the Naṟkuṭiyā who went northwards. If on the other hand the Naṟkuṭiyā migrated northwards only during the general displacement of the Veḷālar of the Rāmanātapuram area by Kaḷḷar and Vallampar in the unsettled times of the later Pāṇṭiya rulers (the tradition in which regard has been recorded by Nelson in his Madura country manual), there is a possibility that the Naṟkuṭiyā were the descendants or remnants of the Irukkuvel of Kŏṭumpālūr. However, the peculiar institution of crowning successive Irunkoveḷίr which the Naṟkuṭiyā have supported even into the twentieth century—even through the dark ages of calculated Aryanization in Tamilnad, when it would have been easier and more honourable to claim descent from fire, moon, or sun or from some offspring, often illegitimate or miraculous, of some northern rsi or hero of the Rāmāyana or Mahābhārata or some pur—na—would justify the hazarding of a guess that they represent the main stock of the descendants of Iruṅkoveḷ or at least of the residents of the country over which he ruled. In the later Coḷa days one comes across in inscriptions numerous Ilankoveḷ and Mūventaveḷaṉ and it would seem that in those days these terms were used more or less as official designations, whatever might be the community to which the incumbents of the posts belonged—just as to–day ‘Kaṅakkupiḷḷai’ is used in villages to designate an accountant or account–keeper even though he may not belong to any of the numerous communities using the caste suffix of Piḷḷai. It is unsafe to hold that all the office–holders with such titles to be found in the Coḷa inscriptions belonged to Iruṉkovel or even to Velir or Veḷāḷar in general. Hence the conclusion of Arokiaswamy that all officers with such titles were related to Irukkuvel of Kŏtumpāḷūr seems to require revision. One Irumgola whose capital was at Hêmjeru (or Pêinjeru, called in Tamil Pêruiiceṟu), identified by Rice with Hemāvati, situated on the northern border of Sira Taluk in Tumkūr Dt. in Mysore, whose stronghold was at Nīdugal in Pavugada Taluk in the same Dt., who claimed to be descended from Kārikala Coḷa and who was a subordinate of the Western Cālukya king Jagadekamalla II, was conquered by Hŏysala Visnṇvārdhana in the twelfth century (C. Hayavadana Rao. Mysore gazetteer, v (gazetteer), new ed., Bangalore, 1930, 403-4; see also ARE for 1911-12, § 63, and ARE for 1912-13, 49). Whether he had any connexion with Iruṇkovel proper or whether his name is simply to be traced to the titles Iruṇkovel, Irukkuvel, Ilankovel, Mūventavejaṉ, etc., which were commonly borne by the later Coḷa officials has to be investigated.

28 In an inscription (Ar No. 172 of 1895:736 of SII, 314 15) on the north wall of th central shrine in the Kailāsapati temple at Ṡrivaikuṇṭam, dated Ṡaka 1363 (A.D. 1441) Of the time of Vira pāṇṭiya (co-regent with ArikeṠsari Parākrama Pāṇṭiya, 1422-62), the builder of the Těṉkāci temple cěḷuvaṉūr ppiṟavikku nallāṉ pôṉṉappiḷḷai is mentione as one of the parties to a gift to the temple.Another inscription on the north wall of the maṇṭtapam in fron of the said central shrine records the gift of 8 mā of lands to th temple by one Cěḷuvattţruṭaiyāṉ in the fifteenth year of the said Vira Pāṇṭiya (AR No. 173 of 1895: 737 of SII, V). These individuals were probably those belonging to either NaṟkuṠi or KoṠṠai Veḷāar, who had migrated from Cêḻuvaṉūr recently.Google Scholar

29 Thurston, op cit., iv: ‘The Kottaipattu Agamudaiyans believe that they are the same as Kottai Vellalas’.Google Scholar

30 The inscriptions copied here find a place as inscriptions Nos. 423-44 in he Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphy for 1916.Google Scholar

31 Copper plate No. 57 in the ‘List of copper plates’ inSewell, Robert list of inscriptions, Madras, 1884, pt. I. The relevent entry of Sewell reads: 57 (In the Collector's Office, Tinnevelly)Grant by Vijaya Ranga chokkalinga Nayakka in the year Salivahana Ṡaka 1549 (A.D.1627)kollam Andu 803 of some lands in the kaittar province of the Tinnevelly Dt. to Irunkol Pillai,the chief of Korkai on account of his having settled a boundary dispute. The donor is not credited with royal titles,nor is his genealogy given.It must therefpr be terrotory in the south of the peninsula.He must not be cpmfounded with the Madura Nayakka, Vjaya Ranga Chokkanatha, Who regined from A.D.1704 to 1731Google Scholar

32 This copper plate would probably be with the desendants of Irunkovelir.According to NVV A, it reads as follows: Cālivākaṉa cakāptam 563–m varuṣam cěllāṉṉṟa kŏllam 817– varusam aṟpaci mātam 11–m (teti) ṡrivaikuntam cuvāmi kaḷḷappirāṉkoyil cīpantāra kāriyaṅ cěyvāril cīvalanā习Ṡil vīra vinota nallūril kôŏṟkai kkāṇiyāḷaril tampirāṉkuṠṠiyāpiḷḷai irunkopiḷḷai mutaliyārukku kkutanāttiṉ věḷḷa kkovilil irukkum valaṅkai uyyakŏṇṠārāl…40 pŏṉṉukku kutivilaimuṟi.

33 This copper plate would also probably be with the descendants of Irunkovelir. Accoring to NVV A, it reads as follows: 959–m varuṣam pankuṉimātam23–m (teti) mutivaittāṉentalilirukkum irunkoveḷ iruṅkoveḷ piḷḷaiyavarkaḷukku perţruṇiyilirukkum koṠṠai kk011B;mmakkavaṇṭaṉeṉ mŏṗlimāṟā ccīṭṭu ŏḻutikkoṠuttapati.Mŏḻimāṟā ccīṠṠāvatu, tamakkum ěṉakkum elkai icukkāy nālu varutamāyiruntatil tānkaḷum nāṇum těyva cammatipaṠiku vīrappěěrumāl ayyaṉkoyilukku ttěṟku nāṉ nāṉ cŏṉṉa iṠattil tāṅkaḷlum cammatittu kkalluḷkattāḷaiyum poṠṠu nālukirāmattu ppěriyavarkeḷ muṉpukku icukku ttirrittukkŏṇatāl nāṉ cammatittu taṅkaḷukku… mŏḷimāṟcciṠṠu ěḻutikkŏṠutteṉ…mela ělkai cěḷḷi mallaṉpaṭṭi mukkŭṠalkal varaikkum icukku ttīrantatu.

34 original suit No. 1 of 1861 in the principal Sadr Amin court at Tirunělveli.

35 From the occurrence of the name ‘ṉviyār’ among the NarkuṠi Veḷāḷar Turaicāmi pillai concludes in his puṟanāṉṟu, ii, 195, that the Narkuti Veḷāḷar are the descendants of the Veḷāir chieftain Āvi, who ruled p00F4;tini (which later became Āviṉaṅkuti and still later paḻani) and who is referred to in Akanāṉţṟu, 1,3 and 61, 15. This view derives support from the consideration of the community with Āviṉaṅkuti. Irunkovel himself is not said to belong to th family of Āvi. However, all the veḷir families. Hence the connexion of Irunkoveḷ with ĀviṉaṅkuṠi cannot be ruled out; but there is no overhelming evidence to consider them as descendants of Āvi.

36 The account of the Koţţai Veḷāḷar is taken generally from Thurston, op. cit., and Pate, op. cit.

37 K. N. Krishnaswami Ayyar, Statistical appendix, together with a supplement to the District gazetteer (1917) for Tinnevelly Dt., Madras, Govt. Press, 1934, 303.

38 Molony, J. C., census of India, 1911, XII, Madras, Govt. Press, 1912, Pt. I, P. 163.Google Scholar

39 Molony, J. C., A book of South India, London, Methuen, 1926, 252.Google Scholar

40 Since the habit of secluding women could scarcely have been formed until the Muslims arrived in South India to suggest and set the Pattern of this Practice, Boyle (Indian Antiquary, III, 1874) opined that the colony could bardly have been settled in its new home for more than half the time that is claimed for it—--i.e. for more than 475 years. However, it is also possible that the KoṠṠai Veḷāḷar were probably the descendats of some old Poligar and his retainers, who, having rendered themselves locally unpopular, built a fort and held on to their lives inside it. This is, of course, a guess.

41 The happy result of their peculiarities can be seen by a consideration of a few detailed figures. The community numbers 52 males and 42 women. Of these 42 women, 17 are widows and not being allowed to remarry, are useless for the purposes of increase. Of 18 married women at least 6 are past child–bearing age; 7 unmarried women are aged 15 years and under. Of 52 men, 18 are married, and 20 unmarried or widowed between the ages of 20 and 50 obviously cannot find brides within the community. The hopes of the continued existence of this people rest then on 12 women and 7 unmarried girls; but considering the fact that 16 married women had between them only 8 children in the last decade, these hopes cannot be considered particularly bright.’

42 Yeatts, M. W. M., Census of india, 1931, XIV, Madras, Govt. Press, 1932, pt. I, pp. 338–9.Google Scholar

43 K.N. Krishnaswami Ayyar, op. cit., 303: ‘In 1932 the Kottai Pillaimars numbered only 60, males 40 and females 20. Of the females 5 were widows, their caste custom prohibits from re–marrying. 12 were married women of whom at least 3 were past child–bearing age; and 3 were unmarried girls, 2 under 2 years and 1 about 12 years old. Of the 40 men, 17 were married, 5 had married but lost their wives and being between the ages of 50 and 70 cannot hope to marry again in the community, and 18 were unmarried. Of the unmarried men 6 were over 30, and could not hope to marry in the community itself, 10 were boys under 15, and 2 boys between 15 and 20 of whom one appears to be the brother of the spinster of 12; and if, as the writer is assured, marriages could be arranged only if horoscopes agreed and if the other boy's horoscope disagreed, this girl should either remain unmarried or become the wife of one of the unmarried men, the youngest of whom would be at least 20 years older than herself. If the two little girle just a year old lived up to 15, their bridegrooms must come from the 10 boys between 15 and 12 living in 1932. There are 25 houses inside the fort of which 11 must become extinct sooner or later as their inmates are either old childless widows or widowers or unmarried men, unless any of them had recourse to adopting boys from houses which have more than one boy to perpetuate the line. There are only six children under ten in the community, among the families in which there are married women and the hopes of the continued existence of this curious people are not, as MR. Molony predicted in 1911, bright at all…. As a result of the consolidation of the estates for want of heirs the wealth of the community concentrates ina few hands, and owing to careful management bordering on niggardliness, has greatly increased in value’.

44 Uma Guha (Anthropological Survey of India), ‘The fort dwellers’, Man in India, XLV, 3, 1965, 228–32. The 64 Koṭṭai Veḷāḷar formed 15 families (6 joint and 9 single including 2 widowers). The classification of the 64 according to matrimonial condition was as follows:

The average ages of women at menarche, etc., given by Guha are as follows :

45 Hutton, J.H., Caste in india, fourthBombay, oup, Indian branch 1963 131:‘Google Scholar Now a good deal of fairly recent work on sex ratios has pointed to the conclusion that an excess ofa good deal of fairly recent work on sex ratios has pointe to the conclusion tha an excess of males in indicative of a declining population…. Pitt-River, George(in the clash of cultue, p.iii, referring to proc. Camb. phil. soc., xiv, pp.21Google Scholar et seq.)quotes Hape to the effect that experiments upon dogs indicate that inbreeding produces a high percentage of males'.

46 when Molony explained to them as best he could,the modern view of race-suicide, they were perfectly content with the results of their customs.In support they adduce the oddest argument he had ever heard: ‘the fewer there are to divide the possessions of a community the richer and happier will each member of that community be’(A book of South India 252)

47 The circumstances that led to the evacuation of the fort by the Kottaimārare describe asfollows by pate in Gazetteer of the Tinnevelly District, 438-9:’Contraryto custom (as their masters alleged) these dependants began to build stone houses and to kile them. The Pillaimars went to law and obtained in 1839 an order restraining the Kottaimars from building any more such houses.The Pillaimars next lodged a suit for damages and for an order that the four houses, which the Kottaimars had already buil, should be broken down. The Kottaimars replied with the plea that their own ancestors had built the fort and that they were as good as, if not better than,the plaintifs. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring in no uncertain terms the Kottaimars to be their slaves: ‘that there should be some distinction between masters and salves is just and lawful and absolutely necessary and moreover it is usual in this country’. At the same time the Kottaimars were ordered either to remainn in the fort as subservient slaves or to break and tako out of the fort the roofs and other materials of their houses.It appears thay they preferred the latter course; for no Kottaimar has within living memory resided within the enclosure.There are still(in 1916)more than fify families of these Kottaimars living in the town, buy only a few, who live quite near the western gate, continue to serve its residents as menial servants. The Kottaimars are Vellalans:they eat meat and by other members of this comprehensive caste are considered to rank comparatively low'.

48 From this, Boyle, J.A. of the Madras Civil Service concluded in his ‘Notes on caste in Southern India’. Indian Antiquary iii 1874 287–9Google Scholar, that the seclusion of the Koḷḷai Veḷāḷar women was a personaland family instituton and not one of the hereditary caste usages.

49 Boyle, art, cit.:‘They(the kOttai Velālar) bear and excellent local reputation for peaceable and inoffensive ways, industry and simplicity, which from a pleasant contrast to the restless intriguing spirt of the common vellalar’.Google Scholar

50 The kondayamkottai Maravars Journal of the Anthropological Institute, xxxiii. 1903 57–65Google Scholar

51 The Akamutaiyar numerous in Taṅcāvḷr Dt. and found in Maturai and tirunělveli Dts. are more Brahmanized than the Maravar and Kaḷḷar and have no kiḷais(Thurston,op,cit).Google Scholar

52 The Arunāḷu Veḷāḷar in Tiruccirāppaḷḷi also never marry their sister's daughter; vide Hemingway, F.R.Trichinopoly District gazetteer.Google Scholar

53 Uxorilocal marriage is very rare in Tamilnad.Among Valacu and Pěṇṭukkumecci Iḷaiyar living on the borders of the former Ramnad Zāmīndarī also, property descends to sons-in-low live with their father–in–low and not to the sons who merely get maintenance until they marry Francis, w.Madura District gazetteer 1906–96)Google Scholar. The matrilocal marriage of Binna prevaile once in the kandyan Dts.of Ceylon but is very rare at the present day Ragjaven, M.D.India in Ceylon history, society and culture New DelhiIndian Council for Cultural Relations 1964 143,n.)Google Scholar

54 Reported to have had dealings with Nākama Nāyakkar.Google Scholar

55 Reputed to have provided lights on the temple tower at Srivaikuṇṭtam.Google Scholar

56 ‘Irunkol Pillai’ referred to in copper plate NO.57 IN Sewell's list of inscriptions, 1884Google Scholar

57 Married AḴaṅcipiḷḷai and adopted her sister's son Aruṇācalam.

58 Alias Ciṉṉa Iruṅko.

59 Both died in battle.

60 Shifted residence to MuṠittāṉental.

61 Died before 1920.yy