king Atiyaman - Tamil Myth

As far as today there is no inscriptions by Sangam kings in Tamil Nadu. Which is a really surprising considering the inclination of sangam kings towards learning. However some would beg to differ. Let us see, how good is this theory.

The inscription is found on a rock inside a cavern, on the hillock of Jambai, a village in South Arcot district, Tamil Nadu. The village is 15 k.m. away from Thirukkoilur town. The epigraph is in Tamil-Brahmi (except for the title in Prakrit) and rads:

Satiyaputo Atiyan Natuman Anci itta Pali

The meaning of the epigraph may be rendered as 'The abode (pali) given by (itta) Atiyan Neduman Anci (name), the Satyaputra (title)'. In this inscription both the northern Brahmi letter sa and the Tamil-Brahmi letter Li have been used.

In his Girnar rock edict II, Ashoka details the arrangements made by him within his empire and also beyond its borders:

Ye Ca anta ata Coda, Pada, Satiyaputo, ceraputo, Tambapanni, Antiyogo nama Yonalaja

'Everywhere in the conquered dominions of king Priyadarsin, the beloved of the gods, and the dominions on the borders as those of the Chola, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputo, the Keralaputra, Tamraparni, the Yavana King named Antiyoka and the other neighboring kings of this Antiyoka, two kinds of medical treatment were established by king Priyadarsin, the beloved of the gods viz. Medical treatment for human beings and medical treatment for cattle'. This is said by experts taking Coda as chola , Pada as pandya, ceraputa as cheras , Tambapanni is srilanka(which is well known as the place of Copper or Tamira).

The Satiyaputras are placed, it may be seen, among the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Keralaputras. While the countries of the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Keralaputras are well known, the identity of the Satyaputra was the subject of controversy among scholars.
Some identified the Satyaputra with the Satavahanas, while others identified them with the Satputas of Maharashtra. Still other scholars located their country in northern Kerala, some also refer to a community mentioned in Tamil literature as Vaimozhi kosar in western seaboard of Karnataka. According to K.G. Sesha Aiyer and K.A. Nilakanta Sastri:- Judging from the way Ashoka mentions them the Cholas, the Pandyas and also the Keralaputras, and the fact that they were outside the domain of Ashoka’s rule, so they should be identified with one or other of the known rulers of the Tamil land.
So satyaputo in Girinar Edict has been equated with Satyaputo in Jambai edicts. And we have atiyaman who is supposed to have existed around 2nd century AD according to Tamil literary sources is linked to Ashoka edicts. How come he can live for 500years, He belongs to a dynasty of Satyaputas. Really!

Let us see the Tamil literature for facts
The last dynasty mentioned is supposed to be the 'Atiyar' mentioned in Tamil literature. But they were considered as chieftains and not as kings. No Atiyar chief is known by the name prior to Atiyaman mentioned in the Classical literature. The only mention of an ancestor of him is that he introduce sugarcane cultivation. On the other hand Atiyaman is very well known to Tamil poets. If indeed there were Atiyar in Ashoka's time, and the lineage continued for another 400-500 years (if we accept the dating of Atiyaman as belonging to 2nd or 3rd century C.E, the Tamil poets would have talked about the Tamil land as being shared by the four dynasties instead of three. So the King mentioned in the Jambai edicts is not Atiyaman and there is no dynasty before him.

This is again the classic case of advancing Tamil Kings antiquity. Just similar sounding names are used to advance the age. A totally new theory has been put to establish Antiquity.


  1. ,similar to the fact that even ashoka period is not precisely established i cannot see how two inconclusive evidences can be used to defend against a credible ancient scripture.If you can call these a myth then perhaps the best myth is that of adisankaracharya who is said to have died at 32 after finishing his job but there is a supposedly credible alternate version which believes he immolated himself after he was defeated in debate with a buddhist vasubandhu.

  2. So you accept that the inscription is fake, if you have any credible evidence as you describe to support the inscription as genuine then you would have posted it. Is it not?

    The inscription uses scripts from two different era and there is no credible evidence in literature to support such a large dynasty existed. If you want to discuss other things there are other topics, post in the relevant topic. Two wrongs does not not make it right.

    The inscription is fake and that is not the only fake in Tamil Nadu, there are many watch out for the blog on the other fakes

  3. Interesting, Atleast Id expect the edict to Tamilify Satyaputo - to like Sathtiyaputhiran. I am doubtful if Prakrit/Sanskrit had influence down south that time for the Kings to recognize and use it as language for the titles of Kings because we don't find the use of Sankrit even for names in the Sangam works.
    How about the possibility that the Tamils hadn't figure out how to Tamilify Sanskrit/Prakrit at that time ( ~3rd BC ) and most of the Sangam works are circa 1-2 AD or so. May be the Velirs/Satyaputo was a dominant separate kingdom at the time of the edicts of Ashoka and later became minor kings during the Time of the Sangam literatures. ?


All comments to this blog are subject to moderation, and may appear at sole discretion of blog editor, if found to add relevance to the Posts