Myths of Indus script

The world of scholars was totally ignorant about the culture known as Indus Valley Civilization or Harappa Culture till the early twenties of this century. The excavations at Mohenjodaro in Sind and at Harappa in Panjab (now in Pakistan) in 1922-23 and later and the discovery of numerous steatite seals in these excavations pushed back, at one stroke, the history of Indian Civilization including writing to the third millennium before Christ. After partition of India in 1947 when Mohenjodaro and Harappa went to Pakistan, similar sites in Eastern Panjab, Western Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat were discovered. Of these Ka#liban#gan in Rajasthan and Lothal in Gujarat are important ones which have also yielded seals (and sealings) and have contributed much in establishing the chronological sequence of early and late phases of Harappan Culture. During the last fifty years and more, different views have been expressed by scholars about the authors of this great and highly developed culture which is comparable to that of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt and Assyria. And the key to the understanding of it lies in the decipherment of the writing on the seals and sealings. But unfortunately, the decipherment of this writing has defied the attempts of several scholars during the past fifty years and more. While some scholars think that this writing is of indigenous origin, others feel that it is of foreign origin. Even amongst those who think of indigenous origin, one set of scholars propound the theory of Dravidian origin while the other set put forth the theory of Aryan origin. These different views may be briefly mentioned here.

As stated above, the Indus script appears on a large number of steatite seals which are beautifully prepared. From Lothal in Gujarat some sealings are also found. From these sealings, which are found in association with packing material:; such as cloth, matting and twisted cords, it has been suggested that the sealings were used as labels and affixed to the packages of goods were thus of commercial or merchandise value10.

Waddel was one of the earliest scholars to attempt the decipherment of the Indus script. He thought that the writing represents the Sumerian script and, based on the identity of Sumerians with Aryans, he read the names of Vedic and Epic persons11 . Pran Nath assigned alphabetic values to the script and suggested their connection with the later Bra#hmi# script12. Sankaranand and Barua also thought that the script was alphabetic. Sudhansu Kumar Ray also held a similar view. Hrozny tried to connect the script with the Hittite language. But Heras suggested that the script is picto-phonographic and connected it with Dravidian languages reading old Tamil on the seals. Hevesy sought to establish similarity between the Indus script and the script of the Eastern Islands in the Pacific ocean. Hunter felt that the Indus script is derived -partly from Egyptian script and partly from Mesopotamian script. Flinders Petrie also connected the Indus script with the Egyptian hieroglyphs and thought that the seals contained only the titles and not the names of the officials. He also assumed that the symbols were ideographs while Meriggi thought that while symbols were ideograms, others were phonemes so that the writing was of ideo-phonographic system. Amongst other early scholars who have attempted to read the Indus script may be mentioned Gadd, Sydney Smith and Langdon13 . David Diringer remarks "it seems obvious that the Indus Valley script which is rather schematic and linear on the extant inscriptions, was originally pictographic but it is impossible to decide whether it was truly indigenous or imported"14.

The above discussion would show how scholars are holding different views regarding the Indus script and how difficult the problem of decipherment of this script has been during the last several years. It is possible to decipher an unknown language in a known script or a known language in an unknown script. But in regard to Indus script, it is a case of deciphering an unknown language in an unknown script and hence it has baffled and defied the attempts of many a well-known scriptologist. For the success of such an attempt certain points of contact are necessary15. For example, the script of the Egyptian hieroglyphs remained undeciphered for a very long period until the discovery of the famous 'Rosetta Stone' inscription in 1799 by the French engineer Bouchard at the time of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt. This sensational discovery proved to be a turning point in understanding the nature of the hieroglyphic script, because the Rosetta Stone contained inscriptions in three different kinds of script, viz., hieroglyphic, demotic (or local script) and Greek. With the help of the Greek text attempts to decipher the other two scripts were made by pioneers like the French orientalist Silvestre de Sacy and the Swedish diplomat Akerblad. And it was left to the fortune and credit of Sacy's pupil and French scholar J. Fr. Champollion to finally and conclusively decipher the inscriptions of the Rosetta Stone in 1821-2216. Again, the decipherment of the Cretan Linear B inscription, whose language was unknown and for which no bilingual text was available, was made possible for Ventris and Chadwick by the existence of, similar scripts n Cypriot and in Greek mainland written in Greek language17. Similarly some points of contact are necessary to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of the decipherment of the Indus script like the biscriptal or bilingual inscriptions.We shall now review the recent attempts made by Indian and foreign scholars about the decipherment of the Indus or Harappan script. Amongst the foreign scholars, the Russian team consisting of Knorozov, Volcok and Gurov may be mentioned. They are credited to have taken the help of the computer machines. They assign word value to the signs and suggest that the script belonged to the Dravidian family of languages18. The Finnish team of scholars led by Asko Parpola also believed the language of the Indus script to be Dravidian. Amongst the Indian scholars I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao have made a detailed study of the problem19. While the former is inclined to attribute the script to be Dravidian, the latter thinks it to be pre-Vedic. Mahadevan has also made use of the computer facilities and has attempted to achieve 'word-division' in the script assuming the language to be Dravidian. S.R. Rao claims that his approach is without any presumption and has tried to show that there has been a change in the script from its earlier phase to the later phase in that the number of signs which were more in the earlier period were reduced considerably in the later phase. He compares the signs of this later phase with the symbols of the North Semetic script of a comparative date and by showing similarity between them gives the same phonetic value to the Harappan script that is found in the Semetic script, other words, S.R. Rao suggests that there was evolution of the Indus script from an earlier period or mature peri9d (2500 B.C. to 1500 B.C.) and that the early syllabic-cum-alphabetic writing was disciplined into an alphabetic system by 1500 B.C. He also suggests that the Indus people spoke an Indo-European language which shows close affinity to Indo-Aryan in vocabulary, semantics and phonology. The names of the rulers and chiefs and of countries, sacrifices and divinities, as read by him, would suggest that the Harappans were the progenitors of the Vedic Aryans.

B.B. Lal has pointed out the difficulties in accepting the views of both I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao20. Mahadevan himself has changed his views and methods of approach on more than one occasion and we have yet to wait and see what his final views in the matter of decipherment of the Harappan script are. In one of his latest papers entitled 'Study of the Indus Script : A Bilingual Approach'21 he has suggested that the problem should be studied from the point of view of interpreting the ideograms in the light of the Indian historical tradition which has come down to us in two main streams, viz., Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. This theory still remains to be tested by scholars before expressing any opinion.

As regards S.R. Rao's approach, viz., assigning the phonetic values of the Semitic script to the late Harappan script and reading it as pre-Vedic Sanskrit is also not decisive and final. As pointed out by Lal, Rao compares the symbols of the late Harappan with those of the Semitic ones and this material is not enough to arrive at any conclusion. Regarding the vowel sign Rao compares it not with any Semitic sign, since Semitic has no vowel signs, but with Sumerian sign for a following Waddel. And for some signs, Rao suggests different sources, viz., Akkadian and Ugaritic. This will be a difficult proposition. Moreover, while the late Harappan script, as suggested by Rao, has many vowel marks, the- Semitic script is completely devoid of any vowel marks. In justification of his approach, Rao says that he is proceeding from the known script (Semitic) to the unknown script (Harappan). But he is silent about the known origins of both these scripts which are different. While the Harappan is descended from the early Indus script according to Rao himself, the origin of the Semitic script is suggested to be Egyptian. So Rao has to explain at what stage the Semitic script acquired the phonetic values of the Indus script if his theory is to be supported. He has not attempted to answer these questions but has only instituted some comparison between the two scripts and has tried to establish some kind of phonetic relationship. Another defect in Rao's findings is that while he has given his reading as pre-Vedic or Indo-European, he has quoted not a single authority of Indo-European Linguistics or even an authority of Vedic language that the readings given by him can be accepted. In view of what is said above, it is not possible to accept Rao's claim that he has deciphered the Indus script. Of course, every scholar who makes an attempt at decipherment of a new script does claim that he has deciphered, but a new script can be taken as deciphered only when the world of scholars accept his views without any doubt22. So we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the Indus script has defied the attempt of all scholars so far and has not yet been deciphered just as the Asokan Bra#hmhi# script has been deciphered. The discovery of longer record in the script or a bilingual or biscriptal writing or some definite contact point would help us in finding a satisfactory solution to this unknown script in an unknown language.
Rleated Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Tamil Brahmi
Pallava Granta Script

Antiquity of srisailam

It is a baffling question among the historians regarding Srisailam to which part of the Nallamalla hills the term actually applies. Thought the range extends pretty a long distance covering Tirumala and Ahobilam in the South and Nagarjunakonda and Srisailam in the north, the name Srisailam is popularly attributed to the last mentioned hill. It is variously called as Srisaila, Sriparvatha, Srigiri and Srinaga. One of the hills near Nagarjunakonda, according to some of inscriptions found there, is called Siri parvata. The Ikshvaku king Virapurshadatta of the third century A.D. is attributed as Siriparvatadhipati in one of his records; and this particular hill is said to be lying to the east of his capital Vijayapuri. The actual Srisaila the adobe of the God Mallikarjuna and Goddess Bhramaramba is located at a distance of about 60 km to the west of Sriparvata of the Ikshvaku records. So scholars are inclined to identify the whole range of hills extending over nearly 150 km as Sriparvata.

Some etymologists believe that the Prakrit or Sanskrit term Sriparvata has its origin in the desi word Nallamalai itself (Nalla =sacred or good = sri; malai = hill = parvata). Similarly, Tirumalai is also called Srisaila. They also contend that the name of the god Mallikarjuna is the Sanskrit form of the original name Mullaikkarasar (Mallikarjuna), like Mallaipperumal for god of Tirumala is also Venkateswara, which was in vogue in the medieval times. Even today, Mallayya or Chenchu Mallayya is an alternative in Telugu for Mallikarjuna. It seems that some time in early centuries of the Christian era, when Sanskritisation of several place names started, the names Srisaila and Mallikarjuna come into vogue, for the desi terms Nallamalai and Mallaikkararsar respectively.

Although the term Sriparvatha and Srisaila are synonymous, it is noticeable that the former term was in popular usage in the early inscriptions whereas in the later gained frequency from the medieval times. The villagers in the neighborhood of this place call it Parvatam and after which several personal names also generally noticed. While performing specify their existing location with reference to Srisaila, e.g., east, northeast, etc .the origin of this practice, thought quite ancient, cannot be ascribed to any precise date or event.

The legend of Chandragupta and his daughter Chandravati and the cow shedding milk in a particular place where a self emanated stone revealed Itself as God shiva and so on, indicate that the deity was originally a hill God obtaining nonritualistic worship by the cowherds and tribals. Its names at that time were perhaps Malaikkarasar as suggested by its present name Mallayya or Mallanna. This later form cannot be the Telugu rendering of the Sanskrit name Mallikarjuna, because there is no component like Malla in it, or even Malli cannot be detached from Mallika. The argument, however, need not go against the early origin of the deity, but it is to say that the originally tribal deity might have been admitted into brahmanical order of Shiva worship some time in early centuries of the Christian era with the Sanskrit name Mallikarjuna. This is also evident from the fact that the local Chenchus claiming Mallikarjuna as their God Mallayya worship this God and the Goddess Bhramaramba on a particular occasion.

The earliest epigraphical allusion to Srisailam according to some scholars is noticeable in Nasik inscription of Vasisthiputra Pulumavi, later Satavahana king, wherein Saritana and Seda (ta) giri are said to have been included in the kingdom of his father, Gautamiputra SriSatakarini. In this context Setagiri has been identified with a hillock of that name near Nagarjunakonda. The occurrence of that word in the Nagarjunakonda inscription of Abhira Vasusena3 representing a mountain in the Nagarjunakonda valley conforms the said identification. But the identification of Siritana with Srisaila proper, suggested by R.G.Bhandakar4 and Buhler5 cannot be accepted as it represents more reasonably modern. Thane in Western Maharastra, where Buddhist caves are located. Some epigraphs of the medieval period at Umamaheshvaram and other places mention the Amarabad range lying opposite to Srisailam also as Sriparvatha, thereby applying the term to the whole range of Nallmalai, skirting the river Krishna on both sides of Siddhesvaram-Somasila on the west of Nagarjunakonda Vijayapuri on east, extending for about 150 km. It was called Siriparveta or Sriparvata. During the time of the Satavahanas Setagiri near Vijayapuri in the east was prominent and that spot was specified in the said Nasik inscription although the entire range was intended as one of the great hill in their kingdom.

Some scholars identify the Sriparvatiyas of the Puranas with the Chutus who were ruling at the foot of Srisaila, but not the Ikshvakus.” Ikshvaku Virapurushadatta is described as Siriparvatadhipathi in one of his records, Siriparvata in its yaugika sence being the sacred hill near Vijayapuri(Banswasi). They also contend that the Ikshvakus cannot be called the Sriparvatiyas as that appellation more appropriately applies to the Chutus alone ruling at the foot of the Srisaila or on the other side of the river Krishna at Chandragupta nagara as subordinates under the later Satavahanas. Several coins of these rulers are found in the Kurnool and Mahaboobnagar districts. Instead of admitting two different views for the same word it is more reasonable to assume that Sriparvata like Nallmalai represents the whole range of nearly 150 km length along the river Krishna valley.

Mayurasarman, the founder of the kadamba dynasty according to the Talagunda inscription of the fifth century A.D. claims to have extended his independent principality up to the gates of Sriparvata, defeating the border rulers of the Pallava territory. As the Ikshvaku records refer to the eastern part of Sriparvata, defeating the border rulers of the Pallava terriotory. As the Ikshvaku records refer to the eastern part of Sriparvatha, this Kadamba record refers likely to its western part in the present Nandikotkur taluk of the Kurnool district.

Allusions to Srisailam in the Puranas and other literary works of the early period can be brought together as follows:

• Sriparvatiya are mentioned in more than one Puranas as semi-independent rulers during the later Satavahana rule. They are identifiable with the Chutus.
  

• The Goddess Bhramaramba is stated to be one of the 18 Saktis

• The Matsya – Puranas described it as a seat of the mother Goddess Madhavi.
• The Agni-puruna states that Srisaila is Siddhakshetra where the god Shiva and Parvathi always reside.
• Sankara, the Advaita philosopher who is believed to have lived in the fifth-sixth century A.D. includes Srisaila among the 12 jyotirilinga places in his jyotirilinga – stotra. Two verses in his Sivanandalahari praise the Mahalinga of Mallikarjuna of Srigiri. The goddess of eight verses on the Goddess Bhramaramba is also attributed to him. Above all, Sankara is stated to have resided at Srisaila for some time, when his disciple Padmapadacharya had an encounter with the Kapalikas.
• The Kathasaritsagara narrates a story about a Kasmirian performing penance at Srisaila, seeking boons from the God Siva.
• Vasubandhu in his Vasavadatta described Sriparvata as the abode of Mallikarjuna.
• Srisaila is stated in the Mahabharata as one of the holy places.
• The Skanda-Purana contains a separate section called Srisaila Khanda.
• The Vayu – purana prescribes the performance of Sraddha ceremony to the manes at Srisaila.
• Bhavabhuti in his Malatimadhva alludesto a Siddha of Srisaila named Aghoraghanta, obviously a Kapalika Saiva, who is stated to have captured the heroine Malati.
• Harshavardhana of Kanouj (A.D. 604-640) alludes in his Ratnavali to a Siddha named Srikanthadasa of Sriparvata who is said to have taught udayana, the hero of the play, the art of jalandharavidya.

Most of the above literary works had their origin in the fifth-sixth centuries A.D. though not earlier. Now theories are coming forward to date Sankaracharya in the fifth-sixth century A.D. Similarly, the Puranas such as Vayu, Agni, and Matsya are generally believed to have been compiled during the Gupta period, i.e., before the middle of he fifth century A.D. So is the case with Vasubandhu the author of Svapna Vasavadtta. Therefore it is quite reasonable to belive that this Saiva centre, Srisaila took at least three centuries duration to gain such popularity before finding place in then said literary works and to attract great ascetics, like the Siddhas. The name Mallikarjuna of the God is also probably an innovation made by the Siddhas, imitating the name of Siddha Nagarjuna;

So, on any reasonable account the antiquity of this Shaiva centre Srisailam as the abode of a hill God, Mallikarjuna cannot be earlier than the second century.A.D. And as the abode of hill god, worshipped by the tribals, the reminiscence of which still remains, its antiquity can be pushed back by some more centuries. Beyond this we lack proper historical evidence regarding its antiquity.

Myth of Divine Tamil

Article from Passions of the Tongue by Sumathi Ramaswamy

The Polarization of Tamil and Sanskrit

From the turn of this century, neo-Shaivism engaged in a complex set of maneuvers. On the one hand, it had to counter the damaging caricatures of Dravidian religion in colonial narratives. On the other, these very texts also contained much ammunition that could be deployed for its battle against neo-Hinduism and its surrogate, Indian nationalism: the declaration that Dravidian religion far preceded Aryan arrival, not just in the Tamil-speaking country but all over India; the suggestion that Tamil-speaking Brahmans had never participated in this religion; the pronouncement of ancient Tamilian society as egalitarian, untainted by the hierarchical and oppressive caste system of the Aryans; and above all, the possibility that that most important Hindu deity, Shiva, might be Dravidian in origin (Elmore 1915: 13-14; Gover 1871: 1-15). Neo-Shaivism appropriated such colonial propositions, fused them with statements drawn from pre-colonial Shaiva narratives, and proposed the following tenets of the emergent “Tamilian religion,” tamiḻar matam (also called by some, “Dravidian religion,” tirāviṭa matam): Shaivism is the true and original religion of all Tamilians who are not Brahman. It is also the most ancient religion of India, predating Sanskritic Hinduism by many centuries. Its principles are enshrined in the devotional and philosophical texts of divine Tamil, and it would be in vain, therefore, to seek it in the demonistic rituals of the populace (as the colonials were wont to). Further, it was not the Dravidians who corrupted a pristine Hinduism (as neo-Hindus were inclined to suggest); on the contrary, it was Brahmanism and Aryanism that had debased the original Tamilian religion and diverted it from its hallowed path of monotheism, rationalism, and egalitarianism into the “gutters” of polytheism, irrational rituals, and unjust social hierarchies (Maraimalai Adigal 1930a: vii-viii; Savariroyan 1900-1901: 269). The removal of such impurities brought in by Sanskritic Brahmanism would lead to the retrieval of pristine Shaivism, the restoration of a pure Tamilian subjectivity, and the growth of self-respect and pride among speakers of Tamil. And it is for this project that Tamil was enlisted by neo-Shaivism, its divinity reemphasized and popularized in the process. Cleansed of its Sanskritic impurities, the divine language would be the beacon that would throw light on all that was originally Tamil/Dravidian. It would sift and separate the pure Tamil Shaiva texts from all those masquerading as such.

The writings and speeches generated by neo-Shaivism show that this was not an easy or consistent project, not least because there was little agreement over what constituted the original Shaivism, and because it was difficult—in certain cases impossible—to dismantle the complex linkages that had developed between Tamil and Sanskrit over the centuries of their coexistence from the early first millennium C.E. In the early decades of neo-Shaiva activity, from around the 1880s to around 1905, there were few explicit statements against Sanskritic Hinduism per se. The focus instead was on countering the negative characterizations of Dravidian religion by asserting its distinctiveness, its uniqueness, its rootedness in high philosophy, and its parity with the Sanskritic tradition. “Moderate” neo-Shaivism, therefore—as exemplified by the writings of J. Nallaswami Pillai, for instance— visioned Tamilian religion as part of a larger Hindu complex, but oriented around divine Tamil and its scriptures rather than around Sanskrit.

Gradually, however, such assertions gave way to overt antagonism towards Sanskritic-Brahmanical-Aryan-Hinduism, and even to calls for a complete break from the latter by the 1920s. This transformation took place in the context of changes in the curriculum of Madras University, which, starting in 1906, became the site of an acrimonious debate over the compulsory study of Sanskrit and the elimination of the “vernaculars” the growing demand for “Home Rule” by the Besant led factions of the Congress, beginning in 1915; the British promise of “self-government” by stages in 1917; the many attempts after that by the colonial state to play off the “non-Brahman” against the Brahman in electoral politics; and finally, the iconoclastic atheism of E. V. Ramasami (1879-1973) and his followers (Irschick 1969; Nambi Arooran 1980: 35-139; Washbrook 1976: 274-87). In the “radical” neo-Shaivism that crystallized in response to these events, and is perhaps best exemplified by the later religious writings of Maraimalai Adigal, a Tamil-speaking Dravidian “non-Brahman” Shaiva community was clearly posited against Sanskritic, Brahmanical, Aryan Hinduism (Maraimalai Adigal 1930b, 1974b; K. Subramania Pillai, 1940: 45-47). Talk of parity between Tamil and Sanskrit gave way to assertions of the superiority of the former. Legends and stories that had accumulated over the centuries about Tamil’s divine powers were recycled and embellished, and the very legitimacy of Sanskrit was questioned in this process.

One such story, based on an incident in the life of the nineteenth-century mystic Dandapanisami, is especially popular in neo-Shaiva tellings. When challenged by a Brahman who invoked the superiority of Sanskrit because the Vedas were in that language, Dandapanisami declared that unlike them, the Tamil scriptures did not advocate the sacrifice of goats and the consumption of meat. The argument between the two notables continued for a while, and it was finally decided to settle the matter by calling upon the deities. They placed in front of the spear of Lord Murugan three chits with the following messages: “Tamil alone is eminent,” “Sanskrit alone is eminent,” and “Both are eminent.” A virgin maiden was asked to choose among the chits and she picked out the one that declared, unambiguously, “Tamil alone is eminent.” Dandapanisami rejoiced, brushed his eyes reverentially with the chit, and then placed it in his mouth. Subsequently, he composed his famous verse on Murugan which praised him as the lord who himself had declared Tamil’s superiority over Sanskrit. He then went on to write the Tamiḻalanḳāram, a hundred-verse eulogy of Tamil recounting its various miraculous abilities and supernatural powers (Velayutam Pillai 1971: 124-61). In the same vein, another of Tamil’s admirers, years later, narrated a story his mother had told him about one of his ancestors who had had the power to cure the sick and the dying with the help of Tamil hymns. One day, a cobra, with its hood raised, wandered into the room where he sat, offering his prayers in Tamil. It drank some milk and slithered away, leaving him unharmed. “Is it not clear from this that Tamil has supernatural powers!” he asked rhetorically of his readers. Such stories, of which there are many, reminded Tamil speakers that the Tamil scriptures were infinitely superior in their moral and ethical content, and in their salvific potential, to the Sanskrit Vedas. It was a Brahmanical conspiracy that denied the divinity and ritual efficacy of Tamil, designated it as a “Shudra” language, and appropriated all its treasures, including the mighty Shiva himself, for Sanskrit (Maraimalai Adigal 1936a: 105-6; K. Subramania Pillai n.d.: 15-17).

By the time radical neo-Shaivism was under full steam in the 1920s, it was declared unequivocally that Tamil, and not Sanskrit, was the only appropriate ritual language for all pious Tamilians. Indeed, Tamil is the world’s first divine language, and the religion it expounds the most eminent: “In the whole wide world, there is no greater god than Paramashivam [Shiva]; no religion loftier than Shaivism; no land more superior to the Tamil land; no language more divine than Tamil…and no people more auspiciously pure than Tamilians” (Swaminatha Upatiyayan 1921: 20). Taking advantage of the technologies and communication possibilities generated in the colonial milieu, neo-Shaiva associations and publications took this message of Tamil’s divinity to the public. They urged Tamil speakers to make divine Tamil the center of their renewed religious lives, the core of their (recast) beings. Prior to the neo-Shaiva revival, the cause of divine Tamil and of Shaivism had largely been the purview of religious specialists, temples, and monasteries. Now, lay intellectuals and activists—who were career bureaucrats, lawyers, academics, and even civil engineers—established societies for propagating the message of neo-Shaivism in various cities and towns across the Tamil-speaking parts of the Presidency. They published books and journals, conducted religious and Tamil classes, arranged conferences, and ran local libraries (Nambi Arooran 1980: 20-21; Ramaswamy 1992b: 84-89). Many of these societies as well as their journals were short lived, and suffered throughout their careers for want of support and subscription. Yet there are success stories as well, such as the Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caivacittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, founded in 1920. Both this organization and its journal Centamiḻc Celvi (founded in 1923) continue to exist today, albeit not without their share of problems. Although neo-Shaiva organizations eschewed direct participation in associational politics, they threw their influence behind many causes dear to tamiḻppaṟṟu such as the demand for education in Tamil, the numerous protests against Hindi, and the movement for renaming Madras state as Tamilnadu, the land of Tamil.

Being Religious, The Tamil Way
Movements for religious reform in colonial India have been extensively studied, and a recent volume clearly shows that spoken, rather than scriptural, languages were the sites of some of the most intense debates and discussion in this regard (K. Jones 1992). Yet, while we have a growing understanding of the recastings of religious doctrines, practices, and conceptions of community, the changes undergone by the languages through which such reconfigurations were attempted have been left largely unexamined. Tamiḻppaṟṟu’s divinization of Tamil to authenticate its project(s) reminds us that the medium itself has to be empowered in order to empower the message, to invoke an overused but nevertheless appropriate cliché. Neo-Shaivism declared that Shaivism and divine Tamil are the two “eyes” with which modern Tamil speakers would regain their lost vision and be redeemed. Divine Shiva and his divine Tamil go together, hand in hand, and cannot be separated: each lends power and authority to the other.

Neo-Shaivism emerged to counter what was perceived as the recasting of India as predominantly Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical, and Hindu by both colonialism and neo-Hinduism. Such a countering was necessary because of the fear that “non-Brahman” Tamil speakers would inhabit such an India only in the fissures: ritually denigrated, socially demoted, and symbolically cast out, as “Dravidians” and “Shudras.” Yet speakers of Tamil had once been the dominant people of the subcontinent, a preeminence they had lost with the arrival of Sanskritic Aryan Brahmanism. In Maraimalai Adigal’s version of this imagined history, “the religion of the land, that is Shaivism, underwent a marked change.” Yet, he wrote, this was a change that was limited to the “outer rim,” for “in its center, it remained as pure as crystal and as impenetrable as a hard diamond. What is bound and true to its core, what is perfect and complete in itself, requires no change, requires no improvement” (Maraimalai Adigal 1930c: iii). Neo-Shaivism attempted to recover this imagined pure center and use it as the foundation on which to (re)constitute a true Tamilian religious subjectivity untouched by Brahmanism, Aryanism, Sanskrit, and Hinduism. Cleansed of its Sanskritic impurities, Tamil, the language in which its pure and original scriptures were deemed written, was the means through which this center could be reached. The language had perforce to be (re)divinized for this project, for it had to take on and counter the power of divine Sanskrit. Other religious groups in earlier times had advocated the divinity of Tamil, but not always at the expense of Sanskrit, and not in such a sustained and prolific manner using the modern technologies of print and communication (Ramaswamy 1996). In the changed circumstances of the late colonial period, when a devolving state rewarded communities that could establish their timeless distinctiveness and religious autonomy, there was much to be gained by claiming the existence of a unique Tamilian/Dravidian community, bonded together from time immemorial by its own distinctive religious traditions that were embodied in its own sacred language. Such a claim necessarily called for a delegitimization of Sanskrit and a radical distancing from its scriptures and tradition. Such a project also perforce needed the projection of Tamil as divinity, the ranking favorite of the gods themselves

Where did Prince Vijaya land?

Vijaya is the central legendary figure in the Mahavamsa. He was the grandson of an Indian princess from Vanga in India who had been abducted by an amorous lion, Simha, and son of their incestuous and half-leonine offspring. Along with 700 of his followers, Vijaya arrived in Lanka and established himself as ruler with the help of Kuveni, a local princess. Even though there is several legends surrounding Sri Vijaya , the main legend is where did he land in lanka. let us see a article discussing the possible locations

1. The reference quoted from 'Deepavamsa' that the Prince Vijaya built the city of Thambapani 'in the South, on the bank of a river' does not indicate that the location of 'Thambapanni' was on the bank of a river in the present southern province.

Undoubtedly 'Deepavamsa' would have been compilated in the capital city of Anuradhapura and during the period the area to the south of Anuradhapura including the present north western province had been considered as south. The area of Tissamaharama was included within the country known as 'Rohana'.

2. There is no reliable historical evidence to establish that Vijaya came to Lanka during the north east monsoon. If this idea has been conceived merely on the historical record that 'the ship was driven by the violence of the wind', it could be applicable to the north west monsoon too.

3. As the exact landing place of vijaya was not known to the authors of Deepavampsa and Mahavamsa in a period as early as 4th and 5th century. A.D. the question arises as to what source of information helped the author of 'Rajawaliya' who lived in the 17th century A.D. to learn that the prince Vijaya and his followers decided to land from the coast of Rohana having seen a large rock, the 'Adam's Peak' as a land mark.

4. Mahavamsa does not mention that the king Vijaya's successor 'Panduvasudeva' landed at the port of 'Gonagama'. It was Bhaddakachchana, the Sakkaya princess who departed from 'Ganges Valley' and arrived at the port of 'Gonagamaka' with her brothers and found settlements in the eastern Lanka. The 'Gonagamaka' has identified as the present Trincomalee harbour. Therefore the understanding of Parker that the 'Gonagamaka' is the mouth of Mahakandara river is incorrect.

Moreover the Pali word 'Mahakandara Nadi' cannot be the Pali translation of 'Kirindioya.' The following information would be helpful in finding the probable area of Landing of Vijaya.

(i) The Vijaya legend symbolically represents the story of migration of the original Sinhalese, from 'Sinhapura' of the western region of 'Aryavartha' passing 'Bharukachcha' and 'Supparaka' on the western sea board of India.
(ii) As they have sailed southward alone the western sea board of India they should have arrived at a harbour in north-western sea coast of Lanka.

(iii) Their original settlements would have been established along the coastal belt from Negombo to Mannar where the pearl fishery was the main attraction and their generations would have gradually advanced towards Anuradhapura along Kalaoya and Malwatuoya.

(iv) The author of 'Mahavamsa' has mentioned the location of certain villages founded by the Ministers of Vijaya eg: Anuradhagama was built by a man of that name near the 'Kadamba river' the Chaplain Upatissa built 'Upatissagama' on the bank of the Gambhira river, to the north of Anuradhapura, three other Ministers built each for himself, Ujjeni, Uruvela and the city of Vijitha. 'Kadamba' river is the ancient name for present Malwatuoya, which flows by the ruins of Anuradhapura.

According to the Mahavamsa the 'Gambhiranadi' flows '1 Yojana (i.e. 7-8 miles) north of Anuradhapura. Sir Emerson Tennant refers to a traditional belief that the ruins which lie not far from Kalaveva about 24 miles from Anuradhapura is those of ancient 'Vijithagama'. Geiger believes that the tradition is right. A site near the mouth of Kala Oya in the north western coast has been identified by Geiger as the location of Uruvela. All these colonies had been situated within the triangle of Mannar,
Negombo and Anuradhapura.

(v) These settlements would have been founded encircling the town of their leader 'Vijaya'.

from W. P. W. WEERAWARDENA in Daily News

Who are Aryans

Let us see from different contexts.

A paper presented by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
1. Introduction: Ever since the advent of "Ariyar" in Indian history, the word "Aryan" has assumed significance and far-fetching linguistic and racial connotations. Then came the advent of "Dravidians". Caldwell's linguistic invention was given a racial twist by the westerners and Indian scholars, though the concept of race and language are two separate entities. Leaving these hypotheses and theories aside, an attempt is made in this paper to study the word "Ariyar" fund in the ancient Tamil literature. In the process of understanding the past, there have been persistent and insistent attempts in historiography to import later day ideas, concepts and theories to reflect back on the past events leading to diversified and contradicting situation. But, here the approach has been restricted to get the meaning of the word "Ariyar" as found in the ancient Tamil literature.

2. In Tamil literature, the word "Ariyar", "Ariyan", "Ariya" etc., found in various places withy their other forms and have been used both as nouns and adjectives. As in recent times, diametrically opposite views have been expressed1 about the inclusion of the Tamil epics Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai within the ambit of Sangam literature, the discussion is restricted to Ettutogai (the eight anthologies), Pattupattu (the Ten poems) and Padinen Kizh Kanakku (the Eighteen Minor works). Now, let us see, what these poems say about "Ariyar".

3. Natrinai: It is the heading the list of Ettuttogai and its general theme is love. The word "Ariyar" appears in the 170th poem, sung by an unknown poet. The companion of the heroin of the poem warts that the hero might be seduced by the beautiful lonely dancing girl. She compares the victory of the Virali (the dancer), who came to a festival clad in a leaf-garment, over her group to the fact that the famous town of Mullur, the "Ariya" soldiers swarmed, but ran away before the lance-battalion of Malayan (a Cheran), who unsheathed a shining sword and attacked with his large army. From this, we can see that the people who came from the north to attack Cheras were known as "Ariyar".

4. Kuruntogai: Literally meaning `a collection of short poems', it comes next and its theme is also love. The word "Ariyar" appears in the verse 7, line 3. Here, it is described how "Ariyars" dance on a tied rope according to the beatings of a drum. "The forest full of bamboos were rattled the white ripe seeds of shivering vakai tree (Sirisa tree) tossed by the wind like the drumming of the "Ariyar" dancing on the rope". Therefore, here it is evident that "Ariyar" refers to a group of jugglers or tumblers, who performed acrobatics.

5. Paditruppattu (the Ten tens): It gives more information about `Ariyar' in historical setting. The entire extant collection of poems with the deeds and exploits of the Chera Kings. The first and tenth Tens are not available. In the Second Ten, the Patigam (Preface) describes how Imayavaramban Nedunjeraladhan engraved his royal sign `bow', which figures on his flag, on the top of the Himalayas (lines 4-7). Having roaring oceans has his boundaries (imizh kadal velittamizhagam), he ruled Tamizhagam (the Tamil country) in such a way o excel the other nadus (countries). He made `Ariyar' bow before him, who were having very great name (fame and heritage).

5.1. In the Second Ten, the 11th verse details as how the very famous Himalayas abound with "Ariyas". Hence, scholars give two different meanings for the `Ariyar':
`Ariyar" = Munivar (rishis) and
"Ariyar' = `Ariya mannar' ( Aryan kings) .
The hillside was resplendent with densely and well grown trees of erthrina indica (mullu murukka), a kind of citrus and the yak sleeping there would dream of waterfalls and sweet smelling grass. The Himalayas with such fertility was filled with many rishis. In between the Himalayas (in the north) and Kumari in the South, there wee Kings who boasted their valour but they were conquered by Nedunjeraladhan. The meaning is thus rendered, "You quelled the valour of those who called themselves monarchs of the land between Camorin in the South and the famous Himalayas, where the Ariyas2 abound and yak sleeps on the hills covered thick with the Oleander and dreams of the broad mountain stream and the narandam (lemon-grass)"

5.2. In fifth Ten, the patigam mentions `vadavar' or vadukar, i,e, the people of north and `Ariya Annal' i.e, head of Ariya Kings. It describes how the kings of the north were afraid of Kadal Prakkottiya Senguttuvan. He marched with his army to bring a good stone for chiseling an image of the goddess of chastity. He came across a head or chief of Ariya Kings, while passing through forests, and defeated him. Then, he brought a stone and washed it in waters of the Ganges. While coming back, he stayed at Irumbil, destroyed Viyaur and Kodungur. He also killed a king named Pazhaiyon.

5.3. In the same fifth Ten, the 43rd verse mentions the defeat of kings who were ruling between the Himalayas in the north and Kumari in the south as boundaries. However, the names of the kings or the countries thus defeated are not given in the poem. In the padigam, the kings are mentioned as the `vadavar' (the Kings of north), the Chiefs of `Ariyar' are called `Ariya Annal', but here they are generally mentioned as `Ariya arasar', i.e, the Kings between the Himalayas and Kumari.

5.4. In Seventh Ten, the 68th poem narrates how the people who were living in the north or northern direction, were leading a fearless and happy life. The expression used to denote them is `vadapula vazhnar'.

5.5. So from the description of Paditruppattu, we can see that `Ariyar' are ?
? `the Kings of the north',
? `Rishis of the Himalayas',
? `the Kings between the boundaries of Himalayas and Kumari' and
? `the people of the north or northern direction of Tamilagam'.

6. Agananuru (or Neduntogai): It also gives more details about `Ariyar'. `Ariyars' capture elephants by the use of trained female elephants. A public woman takes a vow that she would chain her hero with her hair just as the `Ariyar' make the wild elephant domesticated with the she-elephant. Mullaippattu throws light on their employment by the kings of Tamilagam to train elephants.

6.1. In another poem, a harlot wishes her bangles may be broken just like the army of `Ariyars', which was defeated by the Kurumba bowmen who fought under the Cholas, with their shower of arrows, victorious spears and the black buckler. Here, also the names of the defeated `Ariyars' are not given, but it is mentioned that they were defeated at Vallam (Tanjore).

6.2. Paranar3 in his poem eulogises Senguttuvan that he attacked the Aryar so as to make them scream, carved his emblem bow on the very famous mountain and chained the ferocious Kings. Here one can notice that the name of the mountain is not specified and it is mentioned in singular. As Himalayas are always mentioned in plural to denote a chain of mountains, a doubt arises as to whether the poet actually alludes to the Himalayas or to a certain `very famous, ancient and well grown' mountain situated north of Tamizhagam in those days.

6.3. Agam.386 narrates how an Ariya wrestler was defeated by one Panan. The Ariya wrestler was known as `Ariya Porunan' and Panan was another wrestler, whose state was in the north of Tamizgagam (Agam.325). Panan wrestled with Ariya Porunan and crushed his shoulders and arms, the sight of which made Kanaiyan, the commander of Chera army, feel ashamed.

6.5. So, according to Agananuru, `Ariyar' were ?
? the people who captured and trained elephants,
? who got defeated by the Cholas at Vallam,
? who were the Kings of the north, conquered and chained by Senguttuvan and
? who were in possession of a mountain where gold was available.

As there was a wrestler known as `Ariya Porunan', the name should imply either that he was an Ariya or he came from the north. But, it should be noted that Panan, who defeated Ariya Porunan and came from a state situated north of Tamizhagam, was not given the prefix of `Ariya'. Therefore, it is evident that there were Ariya wrestlers, just like Ariya jugglers, tumblers or rope dancers, elephant trainers and trainers in Tamizhagam.

7. Purananuru: In one poem4, Kovur Kizhar, a Tamil poet, describes how the kings of north were afraid of Cholan Naklankilli that they were spending their nights without sleep. Marudanila Naganar, another poet5 describes how Pandiyan Kudakartattutunjiya Maran Vazhudi was having a chariot to wage a fierce war to kill the kings of north (vadapula mannar). Actually, the poet eulogises Maran Vazhudi who is said to have caused `northern kings to fade'. But, particular given about the names of such northern kings or countries and the place or places where he defeated them in the battles are not at all given. There is a mention6 of a type of a sandal paste of `northern mountain' (vadakundrattuchandanam), Agananuru also refers to this
But here also, the name of the northern mountain is not mentioned. Thre important point to be noted is, though the expressions `vadapulattarasar', `vadapulamannar' and `vadakundram' are used to denote the kings of the north and northern mountain, the prefix `Ariyar' is conspicuously missing. Therefore, it is very evident that there were northern kings and northern mountains other than Ariya kings of north and northern mountain of `Ariyar'.

8. Non-Tamilian people of North: In the case of non-Tamilian people, specific names have been mentioned like Kosar8, Moriyar9, Nandar10, Tondaiyar11, and Vadugar12. Kosars belonged to Tulu country and they were living south of the Vindhya and near the shores of western ocean. Nandar and Moriyar are no others but the Nandas and Mauryas of north India. Tondaiyars were found in the forests of Vengadam hills where elephants were abundant. So they went on expeditions, captured, trained and formed them into a brigade. The trained elephants brought firewood to the Rishis and they ate the food of their country only. From this, we can infer that Tondaiyars were having similar vocation like Ariyars, as far as elephants are concerned. Vadugar were having their lands beyond Vengadam and they spoke a different language. Another point to be noted is that at one place (Puram. 378), the Vadugars are denoted as `vada vadugar'. The term `vadugar' connotes that they were from the north and hence the expression `vada vadugar' is very significant, as it actually denotes `northern group of northerners'. This can be compared with the expression `vada Ariyar' and vadavariyar" denoting `northern Ariyar', but such expressions are found in Silappathikaram and not in the Sangam literature taken for discussion. But the important point to be noted is the usage of `Ariyar', while the word `Ariyar' is generally used to denote the people of north or the kings of north, the above mentioned words Kosar, Nandar, Moriyar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar are used to denote only particular groups of people who lived in the north of Tamizhagam.

9. Arya and Ariya suffixes and prefixs: Epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidences are abundant to show that the Sathavahanas were ruling in the north of Tamizhagam with their intruding territories extended up to Caddalore. The important point which should be mentioned here is that the `Arya' endings in the names of the donees are found only in the grants coming from the territory immediately south of river Krishna (The Kondamudi, the Mayadavolu, the Hira Hadagalli, the Kanteru Nandivarman I and the Mattapad grants). `Arya' (venerable) as honorific prefix to the names of Buddhist and Jain teachers and saints occurs in inscriptions all over India. Indeed the Tamil epic Manumekhalai mentions Buddha as `Ariyan' (25-6). `Arya' as an honorific title is found in the Hathigumpa inscription of Kharavela13. `Arya' as initial part of personal names occur in Junnar inscription inscription14 (Ayama), and in the Nagarjunakonda inscription15 (Ayakotosiri) and Ayasiri, names of royal ladies. `Aryadeva' is the name of the celebrated disciple16 of Nagarjuna ,who spent a greater part of his life in Andhradesha. But the earliest inscription to exhibit names with Arya-ending is the Kondamudi grant of Jayavarman where all doinees have names ending with `aja', as also found in the same manner in the Mayadavola and Mattapad grants.

9.1. `Aja' is another form of Prakrit `Arya', Sanskrit `Arya' and Tamil `Ayya', `Iyya', `Iyer' and `Ariyar'. `Ariyar' or `Ariya' started as an honorific prefix anmd become a name-ending much the same way as `sri' found in many inscriptions. And we can find the same trend in Tamil literature, as in `Ariya Annal' (Head or chiuef of Ariya Kings), `Ariya Porunan' (Arya wrestler), `Ariya Arasan Bragadattan'17 (Ariya king named Bragadattan) and `Ariya Arasan Yazh Brahmadattan'18 (Ariya king poet Brahmadattan). The word `Ayyar' or `Iyer' is found in many places in ancient Tamil literature including Tolkappiyam19, which is considered as the oldest extant Tamil work. It is used to represent a teacher, brother, priest, saint, andanan (Brahmana), superior, master or king, with veneration.

10. `Ariake': A reference to Periplus' `Ariaca' and Ptolemy's `Ariake' has to be made, as it has direct bearing on the discussion of `Ariyar' of the ancient Tamil literature. About the name `Ariaca' of the Periplus, W. H. Scoff opines: "the word in the text is very uncertain". Lassen thinks that the name Sanskrit `Latica' (pronounced Larica) and included the land on both sides of the gulf of Cambay20. Ptolemy (c.140 CE) calls the first province of Tamil country going down from the north as `Lymyrice or Dymirike'. He and the author of Periplus use it only as the name of the Chera territory. The country north of it was to them `Ariake', belongoing to the Aryas, Taking the other forms `Ariake Sadinon' and `Ariake of the Pirates', they could easily have made out that `Ariake' referred to the country later known as the Maharastra, then ruled over by the Satavahana kings of the Andhra dynasty21. Therefore, it is evident that Ariake or Aricca denotes `Akam' or the country of Ariyar who were ruling or living immediately north of Dymirike or Tamizagam.

11. Himalayas of Ariyar: We have seen how some Tamil kings marched towards the Himalayas to bring stones or to defeat the kings in between the `Himalayas' and `Kumari', and inscribed their royal emblems on it. Already it has been pointed out that the poets considered `Himalayas' as single Tall Mountain. From various expressions like `very famous, ancient and well grown' mountain (Agam.396), `tall mountain with gold' (Agam.398), `a big stone' (Puram.171) and a `tall mountain' (Puram.61), even without naming the mountain, it is evident that the poets coisidered `Imaiyam' or `Imayam' was a single mountain situated north of Tamizhagam. `Imam' means snow, that is why, the Himalayas are called so. But, in the Tamil literature, wherever the name `Imayam' is not mentioned, it is also not mentioned that the `tall, ancient, very famous and stony' mountain with gold is covered with snow. Everybody knows that Himalayas are indeed very famous, ancient and `several series of more or less parallel or converging ranges'. Also the poets have not given the details how the kings climbed up the `Himalayas', cut the required stone, brought it down, etc., except that `he washed it in the waters of Ganges'. Therefore, it is evident that whenever the name `Imayam' is not mentioned, we have to take it as a mountain that was situated in the north of Tamizhagam.

12. Non-Tamil kings of north: The Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela, a king of Kalinga and a contemporary of the third or fifth king of the Satavahana line, is the only epigraphic reference to the kingdoms of the Tamil country after the Asoka inscription. Kharavela ruled Kalinga in the first half of the second century BCE and in the eleventh year of hid reign (c.155 BCE), he is said to have destroyed a confederacy of Tamil states ? Tramiradesa sanghatanam [(T(r)mira, Damira or Tamila] ? which was 113 years old (113+17) at the time and had been a source of danger22. The Satavahanas were ruling, starting with the first king Simukha around 230 BCE, in the north of Tamizhagam with the lineage of Kanha (.207-189 BCE), Sri Satakarni I, Satakarni II (c.166), Hala (c. 20-24 CE), Sri Yajna Satakarni (c.170-199) and others. Before that, the Asokan empire was extending up to Sravanabelagola covering the areas of the Cholas. He died in 232 BCE and his successor Brihadratha was killed by Pushyamitra Sunga in 185 BCE. The Sunga dynasty continued up to 73 BCE. Therefore, during the reign of these kings of north, no Tamil king could have crossed over to Ganges or Himalayas without encountering them. If the Tamil kings would have actually defeated or conquered the kings of north, as mentioned in the Tamil literature, definitely, there would be some cross reference in their description. But, unfortunately no such reference has been pointed out so far. Moreover, a careful study of ancient Tamil literature clearly shows that the geography of Tamizhagam is restricted between Vengadam in the north and Kumari in the south. This has been repeatedly mentioned by the poets and the later commentators. Therefore, if any Tamil king had conquered or defeated any Aryan king or king or north, he might have defeated an Andhra king of his time.

13. `Ariyar' denotes what? From the foregoing discussion about the word `Ariyar' and its forms mentioned in the ancient Tamil literature, it is evident that they would come under the following categories:
`Ariyar' are ?
1. the people who were living immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
2. the kings who were ruling immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
3. the jugglers, tumblers, rope-dancers or acrobats of Tamizhagam.
4. the Rishis or saints of northern mountain of Tamizhagam or Himalayas.
5. the elephant captors and / or trainers.
6. the groups or kings who waged wars against Tamil kings or chiefs coming from north.
7. ]the honorific title `Ariya' was used to respect certain professionals like wresrtlers, poets or king-cum-poets of Tamizhagam.

14. Were the `Ariyar' foreigners? A reference has already been made about non-Tamil people coming from the north of Tamizhagam, who were specifically mentioned as Kosar, Moriyar, Nandar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar. There have been many specific references to Romans and Greeks collectively called as `yavanar' by the Tamilians. Their habits, dress, behaviour etc., are clearly described and explained to show that they were foreigners. The word `milechar' is specifically found in Mullaippattu; "Within the elegant well-lit inner apartment, adorned with tiger-chains of skilled workmanship, well clad dumb milechas (who make themselves understood by signs) attend the king, who spends night absorbed in thought of (coming) battle23. The mention about the employment of milechas as bodyguards is very significant, because unless the king had so much of confidence about his safety, he would not have appointed the foreigners as his bodyguards. And if the `Ariyar' mentioned were actually milechas or foreigners, they would have been described and treated differently by the Tamil poets. Though the poets repeatedly mention that the boundaries of this land were Himalayas in the north, Kumari in the south, Kuna kadal (eastern ocean), in the east and Kuda kadal (western ocean) in the west and that `Ariyar' were the people or kings of the north of Tamizhagam, nowhere they have been mentioned that they were foreigners and that they came from outside the boundaries enumerated by them. Except in the references about the encounters between them and Tamilian Kings or chiefs, in all other places, they were treated as the people of Tamizhagam. Even in the case of battles among the Tamil kings, chieftains and particularly, Chera, Chola and Pandyas, elaborate details have been given as to how they fought with each other, killed others, destroyed the lands and towns, captured cattle, men and women, collected their booty, seized the crowns and gold (which in turn to be given to the pots) etc. But, surprisingly such details of after-battle exploits and booties are not given in the case of defeat of `Ariyar'. So it is not known why and how they were spared even after their defeat. Many cases of Sati committed by the wives of killed Tamililan kings and chieftains have been specifically mentioned. Even Imayavaramban Nedunjeraladhan fought a war with the contemporary Chola king, in which both the monarchs lost their lives and their queens performed sati. But, surprisingly, there are no mentions of killing of `Ariyar' kings and of performing of sati by their queens. Therefore, really, it is very intriguing as to why and how such benevolent and lenient treatment was given to the defeated, conquered and captured `Ariyan' kings by the Tamil poets and kings. In any case, it is evident that the `Ariyar' were not foreigners.

15. Conclusion: In the study of ancient Tamil literature, with a view to find out the meaning and position of `Ariyar' as mentioned in their context, it has been pointed out that `Ariyar' were the people or kings of north of Tamizhagam and also of Tamizghagam considering the various descriptions of them. Literary evidences of ancient Tamizhagam with other epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidences of contemporary kings of Maurya, Kalinga and Satavahana show that the exploits of Tamil kings were perhaps restricted to the boundaries of the ancient Tamizhagam and the defeat of `Ariya' or northern king or kings refers to the defeat of Andhra king or kings. The word `Ariya' was also used as an honorific title to certain professionals, besides the generic usage to denote the people of the land with the boundaries of Himalayas. As the names Kosar, Nandar, Moriar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar have been used to indicate individual groups of north, and the name `Ariya' is used to denote the people or kings who were living or ruling immediately in the north of Tamizhagam, it is very evident that no racial connotation was given to `ariyar' by the ancient Tamils.

My Views
Seeing the location according to ptolemy and other tamil sources , we can come to the conclusion Ariya is nothing but ancient kannada land that is today karnataka and Maharastra