Myth of Kallanani by Karikalan
The Grand Anicut, also known as the Kallanai, is an ancient dam in Tamil Nadu state of south India. The Grand Anicut is the most ancient surviving irrigation work in Kaveri river delta. It is attributed to the Chola king Karikalan, and dates back to the 2nd century. It is considered the oldest water-diversion structure in the world still in use.
A poet sings
“Karikaalan kattivaithaan kallanai”
Let us analyze the facts
The sangam literature Pattinappaalai sung by uruthirang kannanar was solely sung in praise of Karikaal chola. It has no mention of Kallanai. We only understand that he strengthened the banks of cauvery.
Thiruttani and Velanjeri Copper Plates
Parantaka's plate is dated 932 A.D. It gives the names of the progenitors of the Chola line beginning with Vishnu, followed by Brahma, Marichi, Kasyapa, Surya and Usinara. Karikala, Sibi and Koccengannan.
Karikala
Three important events in the life of Karikala are mentioned.
(1) He caused the crest of the Cholas marked on the slopes of Himalayas.
(2) He raised embankments on either side of river Kaveri and controlled its flood
(3) He made Kanchi a city of palaces.
Udayendram plates
Parantaka Chola's Udayendram plates mention only the name of Karikala without referring to his exploits.
Hence Thiruttani and Velanjeri Copper Plates are perhaps the earliest Chola record to refer to the exploits of Karikala. Even though his conquests and building Kanchi palaces are as debatable let us see only Kallanai now.
The copper plates which mention Karikala as one of the ancestors of Cholas do not mention anything about Kallanai. Usually it is customary to record the grandest achievements of their ancestors (Sibi- sparrow, Manu needhi - chariot etc)
One more inscription throws a different light about uruthirang kannanar A mandapa was donated to kannanar by Karikala . Around 1200 AD Sundara pandiyan ransacked the whole of chola kingdom. He destroyed all forts, palaces etc. but left this one single mandapa untouched! There is a detailed inscription in thiruvellarai - in the form of a Tamil poem – which records this. Though it was a chola who donated the gift, it was a gift for a Tamil poet - uruthirang kannanar - that's all pandiyan considered!
Second if they measured the chola land to device an ulagalanthan KOL, then there must be some mention of water sources and dams. However there is no such evidence.
Karikalan never built Kallanai. Kaverikku iru puramum karai eduppiththaan.That's all. Kallanai was constructed during Nayak period. That was verysmall dam and today what we see is the expansion by British people. Astudent of Jawaharlal Nehru University did a PhD on Kallanai and provedbeyond any doubt that it was built by nayaks and subsequent expansions byBritish people.
If we analyze the date of Karikalan , we can come to a conclusion of around 9th century or later ,And the other Famous chola king Ko Chenkkannan praised in sangam literature built Jambukeshwarar Temple which still stands today is around 10th century AD, But the legend advances the date of sangam literatue to 2nd century AD without any basis.
Myth of Antiquity of Tholkappiam
Let us continue seeing how tamil languages date is taken to antiquity
Date of Tholkappiam
The dating of the earliest tamil grammatical work Tholkappiam has been debated much and it is still imprecise and uncertain and has seen wide disagreements amongst scholars in the field. It has been dated variously between 8000 BCE and 10th CE.
While most of the antediluvian datings which stem mostly from a descriptive commentary in an 12th century work called Iraiyanar AgapporuL, about the existence of three Tamil Academies, which have been rejected as being devoid of any evidence, the genuine disagreements now center around widely divergent dates lying between the 3rd BC and 10th AD. As the Tolkappiyam is often claimed as the earliest extant work of Tamil literature, the dating of Tolkappiyam is inherently tied to the dates ascribed to the birth and development of Tamil literature as a whole.
Viyapuri Pillai, the author of the Tamil lexicon and towering figure in the field dated Tolkappiyam to not earlier than the 5-6th CE.
Kamil V. Zvelebil, a Czech indologist specialised in the Dravidian languages, dates the core of Tolkappiyam to pre-Christian era.
Robert Cladwell, a 19th century linguist who, for the first time, categorised all Dravidian languages as one language family, maintains that all extant Tamil literature can only be dated to what he calls the Jaina cycle which he dates to the 8th-9th CE to 12-13th CE.
Dr.B.G.L Swamy, a renowned botanist by profession and an acknowledged historian in his own right, contends that the Tolkappiyam cannot to be dated to anything earlier than the 10th CE.
Takahashi Takanobu, a Japanese Indologist, argues that the Tolkappiyam has several layers with the oldest dating to 1st-2nd CE, and the newest and the final redaction dating to 5th-6th centuries CE.
T.R. Sesha Iyengar, an eminent scholar and expert on Dravidian literature and history, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to have been composed 'before the Christian era'.
Dr. Gift Siromoney, an expert on ancient languages and epigraphy, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to be around the period of Ashoka(c 300 BCE)
V. S. Rajam, a linguist specialised in Old Tamil, in her book A reference grammar of classical Tamil poetry: 150 B.C.-pre-fifth/sixth century A.D. dates it to "pre-fifth century AD".
Herman Tieken, a Dutch author, who endeavours to trace the influence of the Sanskrit Kavya tradition on the entire Sangam corpus, argues that the Tolkappiyam dates from the 9th century CE in his book, "Kāvya in South India : old Tamil Caṅkam poetry". He arrives at this result by reassigning new dates to the traditionally accepted dates for a vast section of divergent literature.
A C Burnell, a renowned indologist of the nineteenth century who has contributed seminally to the study of Dravidian languages dates the Tolk., to the 8th CE in his book.
Iravatham Mahadevan an Indian epigraphist, in his work on epigraphy published in 2003, advances a theory where he claims that Tolkappiyam could not have been written before 2nd CE.
Tholkoppiam quotes poruladhikaramsutra , a horary astrologer of 400AD.
You may say Holy God. Why such a variation. But this is the nature of dating tamil literature. People come with dates usually the oldest based on flimsy assumptions.
Pulli theory
One of the dating methods used is the use of alphabets to determine the date. As tholkappiam talks about alphabets. Pulli theory is one of the such. The pulli is being talked about in tholkappiam ,it is a point on top of the alphabet as against the brahmi pulli which is on side. Since there is no evidence of such pulli in any inscriptions before 7th century AD, The tholkappiam is said to belong to later than 7th century AD.
Influence of Sanskrit
Influence of Sanskrit grammarians See also: Aindra school of grammar Tolkāppiyam is claimed to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school. The preface of Ilampuranar's twelfth century commentary of the Tolkappiyam, describes it as aindiram nirainda ('comprising aindra'). This annotation was interpreted by Arthur Coke Burnell as alluding to the pre-Paninian Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar mentioned in the Ashtadhyayi. To investigate his hunch, Burnell compared the Tolkappiyam with the non Paninian Katyantra grammar and concluded that the Tolkappiyam indeed exhibited a strong influence of the non Paninian school of grammar. However, this claim has also been met with skepticism from recent researchers. The issue of the Aindra school notwithstanding, the grammar expounded by the Tolkappiyam owes a great deal to Sanskrit. The influence of various Sanskrit works like Manavadharmashastra, Arthashastra, Natyashastra and grammarians like Panini and Patanjali is evident in the Tolkappiyam. Parts of the Collathikaram are, for instance, almost a direct translation of the Sanskrit texts. The eight feelings mentioned in the Porulathikaram seem to be heavily inspired by the eight rasas or the rasa theory of the Natyashastra.
If you see the various arguments you will find that date cannot be before 8th century AD forget about before christian era.
Date of Tholkappiam
The dating of the earliest tamil grammatical work Tholkappiam has been debated much and it is still imprecise and uncertain and has seen wide disagreements amongst scholars in the field. It has been dated variously between 8000 BCE and 10th CE.
While most of the antediluvian datings which stem mostly from a descriptive commentary in an 12th century work called Iraiyanar AgapporuL, about the existence of three Tamil Academies, which have been rejected as being devoid of any evidence, the genuine disagreements now center around widely divergent dates lying between the 3rd BC and 10th AD. As the Tolkappiyam is often claimed as the earliest extant work of Tamil literature, the dating of Tolkappiyam is inherently tied to the dates ascribed to the birth and development of Tamil literature as a whole.
Viyapuri Pillai, the author of the Tamil lexicon and towering figure in the field dated Tolkappiyam to not earlier than the 5-6th CE.
Kamil V. Zvelebil, a Czech indologist specialised in the Dravidian languages, dates the core of Tolkappiyam to pre-Christian era.
Robert Cladwell, a 19th century linguist who, for the first time, categorised all Dravidian languages as one language family, maintains that all extant Tamil literature can only be dated to what he calls the Jaina cycle which he dates to the 8th-9th CE to 12-13th CE.
Dr.B.G.L Swamy, a renowned botanist by profession and an acknowledged historian in his own right, contends that the Tolkappiyam cannot to be dated to anything earlier than the 10th CE.
Takahashi Takanobu, a Japanese Indologist, argues that the Tolkappiyam has several layers with the oldest dating to 1st-2nd CE, and the newest and the final redaction dating to 5th-6th centuries CE.
T.R. Sesha Iyengar, an eminent scholar and expert on Dravidian literature and history, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to have been composed 'before the Christian era'.
Dr. Gift Siromoney, an expert on ancient languages and epigraphy, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to be around the period of Ashoka(c 300 BCE)
V. S. Rajam, a linguist specialised in Old Tamil, in her book A reference grammar of classical Tamil poetry: 150 B.C.-pre-fifth/sixth century A.D. dates it to "pre-fifth century AD".
Herman Tieken, a Dutch author, who endeavours to trace the influence of the Sanskrit Kavya tradition on the entire Sangam corpus, argues that the Tolkappiyam dates from the 9th century CE in his book, "Kāvya in South India : old Tamil Caṅkam poetry". He arrives at this result by reassigning new dates to the traditionally accepted dates for a vast section of divergent literature.
A C Burnell, a renowned indologist of the nineteenth century who has contributed seminally to the study of Dravidian languages dates the Tolk., to the 8th CE in his book.
Iravatham Mahadevan an Indian epigraphist, in his work on epigraphy published in 2003, advances a theory where he claims that Tolkappiyam could not have been written before 2nd CE.
Tholkoppiam quotes poruladhikaramsutra , a horary astrologer of 400AD.
You may say Holy God. Why such a variation. But this is the nature of dating tamil literature. People come with dates usually the oldest based on flimsy assumptions.
Pulli theory
One of the dating methods used is the use of alphabets to determine the date. As tholkappiam talks about alphabets. Pulli theory is one of the such. The pulli is being talked about in tholkappiam ,it is a point on top of the alphabet as against the brahmi pulli which is on side. Since there is no evidence of such pulli in any inscriptions before 7th century AD, The tholkappiam is said to belong to later than 7th century AD.
Influence of Sanskrit
Influence of Sanskrit grammarians See also: Aindra school of grammar Tolkāppiyam is claimed to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school. The preface of Ilampuranar's twelfth century commentary of the Tolkappiyam, describes it as aindiram nirainda ('comprising aindra'). This annotation was interpreted by Arthur Coke Burnell as alluding to the pre-Paninian Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar mentioned in the Ashtadhyayi. To investigate his hunch, Burnell compared the Tolkappiyam with the non Paninian Katyantra grammar and concluded that the Tolkappiyam indeed exhibited a strong influence of the non Paninian school of grammar. However, this claim has also been met with skepticism from recent researchers. The issue of the Aindra school notwithstanding, the grammar expounded by the Tolkappiyam owes a great deal to Sanskrit. The influence of various Sanskrit works like Manavadharmashastra, Arthashastra, Natyashastra and grammarians like Panini and Patanjali is evident in the Tolkappiyam. Parts of the Collathikaram are, for instance, almost a direct translation of the Sanskrit texts. The eight feelings mentioned in the Porulathikaram seem to be heavily inspired by the eight rasas or the rasa theory of the Natyashastra.
If you see the various arguments you will find that date cannot be before 8th century AD forget about before christian era.
Date of Silapathikaram
Let us see how the date of tamil language is advanced
Date of Silapathikaram
Gajabahu synchronism
Gajabahu synchronism is the chronological device used by historians to help date tamil literature. From a mention in the silapathikaram, the Lanka king Gajabahu is taken to be a contemporary of the cheran king senguttuvan
The passage
"The monarch of the world circumambulated the shrine thrice and stood there proferring his respects. In front of him the Arya kings released from prison, kings removed from central jail, the Kongu ruler of Kudagu, the king of Malva and Kayavaku, the king of sea-girt Ceylon, prayed reverently to the deity thus.."
Kayavaku here, despite disagreement has been taken to mean Gajabahu. According to the Mahavamsa , Gajabahu I reigned between 113 - 134 CE, while Gajabahu II reigned in the 12th century CE. This, in turn, has been used to imply that the Chera king, who according to the pathirupattu ruled for 55 years may be dated to c. 110 - 165 CE. This computation, which was first proposed by V Kanakasabhai Pillai in his book, The Tamils 1800 years ago (1904), has come to be known as the Gajabahu synchronism. Kanakasabhai also mentions another reference from Silappatikaram which has the Chera king meet the Magadha king Nurruvan Kannar who is interpretted to as satkarni, satvahana dynasties as an additional proof for the synchronism.
Kanakasabhai's reasoning for not considering Gajabahu I as the king mentioned is as follows:
“ In the long list of kings of Ceylon preserved in Singhalese chronicles, the name Gajabahu occurs only twice. Gajabahu I lived in the early part of the second century A.D. and Gajabahu II in the twelfth century. If the latter was king referred to in the Cilappathikaram, Karikala Chola, the grandfather of the Gajabahu contemporary, Imaya Varamban should have lived in the eleventh or twelfth century A.D. But in many Tamil poems and inscriptions on copper plates recording the grants of Chola kings who lived in the tenth and the eleventh centuries, Karikala Chola I is described as one of the earliest and most remote ancestors of the Chola kings then reigning. It is evident therefore that the Gajabahu referred to in the Cilappathikaram could not be Gajabahu II, but must have been Gajabahu I, who was king of Ceylon from about A.D. 113 to A.D. 125."
However Many contentious points remain
1. How come Kayavaku becomes GajaBahu
2. How come Nurruvan Kannar becomes Satkarni
3. Gajabahu is dated by Mahavamsa at 110 to 165AD , But satkarni is not the same period how come they have come and attended a ceremony.
4. How come there is no other citation of Satkarni attending the ceremony.
5. A king of malwa attending the ceremony should be great news , how come it goes with just reference.
6. There is no reference of of Gajabahu ever coming to Kerala both in Mahavamsa and others.
Not just this there is no evidence of author Ilanko adigal ever lived as witness, he does not have any evidence to show that he was a eyewitness. As he never goes into details. The king senguttuvan is said to have taken a great expedition and conquered himalayas , that also we dont have any proof.
Since karikalan cannot be dated to 12th century does not mean he has to be dated to 2nd century , he might well be 9th century or 10th century AD.
So the whole Gajabahu synchronization falls flat on the face.
That is used to justify the antiquity of tamil literature is a really not going with facts.
Date of Silapathikaram
Gajabahu synchronism
Gajabahu synchronism is the chronological device used by historians to help date tamil literature. From a mention in the silapathikaram, the Lanka king Gajabahu is taken to be a contemporary of the cheran king senguttuvan
The passage
"The monarch of the world circumambulated the shrine thrice and stood there proferring his respects. In front of him the Arya kings released from prison, kings removed from central jail, the Kongu ruler of Kudagu, the king of Malva and Kayavaku, the king of sea-girt Ceylon, prayed reverently to the deity thus.."
Kayavaku here, despite disagreement has been taken to mean Gajabahu. According to the Mahavamsa , Gajabahu I reigned between 113 - 134 CE, while Gajabahu II reigned in the 12th century CE. This, in turn, has been used to imply that the Chera king, who according to the pathirupattu ruled for 55 years may be dated to c. 110 - 165 CE. This computation, which was first proposed by V Kanakasabhai Pillai in his book, The Tamils 1800 years ago (1904), has come to be known as the Gajabahu synchronism. Kanakasabhai also mentions another reference from Silappatikaram which has the Chera king meet the Magadha king Nurruvan Kannar who is interpretted to as satkarni, satvahana dynasties as an additional proof for the synchronism.
Kanakasabhai's reasoning for not considering Gajabahu I as the king mentioned is as follows:
“ In the long list of kings of Ceylon preserved in Singhalese chronicles, the name Gajabahu occurs only twice. Gajabahu I lived in the early part of the second century A.D. and Gajabahu II in the twelfth century. If the latter was king referred to in the Cilappathikaram, Karikala Chola, the grandfather of the Gajabahu contemporary, Imaya Varamban should have lived in the eleventh or twelfth century A.D. But in many Tamil poems and inscriptions on copper plates recording the grants of Chola kings who lived in the tenth and the eleventh centuries, Karikala Chola I is described as one of the earliest and most remote ancestors of the Chola kings then reigning. It is evident therefore that the Gajabahu referred to in the Cilappathikaram could not be Gajabahu II, but must have been Gajabahu I, who was king of Ceylon from about A.D. 113 to A.D. 125."
However Many contentious points remain
1. How come Kayavaku becomes GajaBahu
2. How come Nurruvan Kannar becomes Satkarni
3. Gajabahu is dated by Mahavamsa at 110 to 165AD , But satkarni is not the same period how come they have come and attended a ceremony.
4. How come there is no other citation of Satkarni attending the ceremony.
5. A king of malwa attending the ceremony should be great news , how come it goes with just reference.
6. There is no reference of of Gajabahu ever coming to Kerala both in Mahavamsa and others.
Not just this there is no evidence of author Ilanko adigal ever lived as witness, he does not have any evidence to show that he was a eyewitness. As he never goes into details. The king senguttuvan is said to have taken a great expedition and conquered himalayas , that also we dont have any proof.
Since karikalan cannot be dated to 12th century does not mean he has to be dated to 2nd century , he might well be 9th century or 10th century AD.
So the whole Gajabahu synchronization falls flat on the face.
That is used to justify the antiquity of tamil literature is a really not going with facts.
Myth of Tamil Brahmi
Myth of Tamil Brahmi and script.
There is Ashokan Brahmi standardised by Ashoka found all over India. And there is tamil Brahmi. Let us see the genesis of Tamil Brahmi.
Tamil Brahmi Genesis
The early Brahmi inscriptions posed a greater challenge on account of their archaic characters and orthographic conventions, which were different from the original Brahmi used for Prakrit. The challenge seemed insuperable even to the most competent among the pioneering epigraphists. The major breakthrough in the decipherment of the cave inscriptions of Tamil Nadu came with K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer (1924). He was the first to recognise that these are inscribed in Brahmi, but with certain peculiarities and new forms of letters, due to its adaptation for the Tamil language which has sounds (phonetic values) not known to the Prakrit (Indo-Aryan) language and northern Brahmi script. Yet, this lead was not seriously followed and was soon forgotten. Even Subrahmanya Aiyer did not pursue his line of enquiry to its logical conclusion. Other scholars like V. Venkayya and H. Krishna Sastri were constrained by the assumption that all Brahmi inscriptions were invariably in Prakrit or Pali, as Brahmi was used predominantly for Prakrit in all other regions of India from the Mauryan (Asokan) period. Their readings failed to convey any meaning.
Irvatham Mahadevan
Now enter the picture Irvatham Mahadevan an administrator-turned scholar, we have tamil Brahmi. By reviving Subrahmanya Aiyer's early decipherment and reading and at the same time more systematically studying these inscriptions in all their aspects, including palaeography, orthography and grammar, and seeking corroboration from the Sangam Literature and Tolkappiyam, the basic work on Tamil grammar. Mahadevan has virtually re-deciphered these inscriptions and shown them to be inscribed in Tamil. Hence the name "Tamil-Brahmi," one variety of the Brahmi script.
Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
1.Brahmi script was adapted and modified to suit the Tamil phonetic system.
2.Palaeographic changes were made to suit the Tamil language, with the omission of letters for sounds not present in the Tamil language and by additions to represent sounds in Tamil that are not available in Brahmi.
3.All but four of the 26 letters are derived from Brahmi and have the same phonemic values.
4.Even these four - i.e., l,l, r, n - are adapted from the letters with the nearest phonetic values in (Asokan-) Brahmi, i.e., d, l, r, n.
5.Letters were also modified with a special diacritic mark, viz., the pulli (dot). These are reflected in the development of the Tamil-Brahmi in three stages (TB I, II and III):
Stage I
1. Inherent a (short-medial vowel) was absent in the consonants
2. strokes (vowel notations) were used for both the short and long medial a, and hence the need for the reading of consonants with reference to context and position;
Stage II
when the stroke for medial a marked only the long a;
Stage III
1. when the use of diacritics like the pulli was introduced for basic consonants and for avoiding ligatures for consonant clusters (as in Simhala-Brahmi).
2.The pulli was used also for distinguishing the short e and o from the long vowels, for the shortened - i and -u (kurriyalikaram and kurriyalukaram)
3.The pulli used for the unique sound in Tamil called aytam, all of which are unknown to the Indo-Aryan ( Prakrit and Sanskrit).
It is the recognition of the absence of the inherent vowel a (short) in the early phases, e.g. ma, ka, na with strokes or medial vowel notations, which are actually to be read as ma, ka, n (the inverted J symbol for the nominal suffix `an' characteristic of Tamil), and the addition of the pulli as a diacritic, that provided the key to the whole re-decipherment. Herein lies the basic contribution of Mahadevan to the study of the script and alphabet. That these findings are corroborated by the phonetic rules of the Tolkappiyam.
Above passages gives the Genesis and Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
Where are these Incriptions
1.Pottery inscription in Tamil-Brahmi giving the name Catan. 1st century A.D. Found at Quseir-al-Qadim on the Red Sea coast of Egypt.
2.Rock-cavern inscription in Jambai 2nd Century AD.
Let us see what spoils such a great discovery
Related Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Indus Script Myths
Pallava Granta Script
There is Ashokan Brahmi standardised by Ashoka found all over India. And there is tamil Brahmi. Let us see the genesis of Tamil Brahmi.
Tamil Brahmi Genesis
The early Brahmi inscriptions posed a greater challenge on account of their archaic characters and orthographic conventions, which were different from the original Brahmi used for Prakrit. The challenge seemed insuperable even to the most competent among the pioneering epigraphists. The major breakthrough in the decipherment of the cave inscriptions of Tamil Nadu came with K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer (1924). He was the first to recognise that these are inscribed in Brahmi, but with certain peculiarities and new forms of letters, due to its adaptation for the Tamil language which has sounds (phonetic values) not known to the Prakrit (Indo-Aryan) language and northern Brahmi script. Yet, this lead was not seriously followed and was soon forgotten. Even Subrahmanya Aiyer did not pursue his line of enquiry to its logical conclusion. Other scholars like V. Venkayya and H. Krishna Sastri were constrained by the assumption that all Brahmi inscriptions were invariably in Prakrit or Pali, as Brahmi was used predominantly for Prakrit in all other regions of India from the Mauryan (Asokan) period. Their readings failed to convey any meaning.
Irvatham Mahadevan
Now enter the picture Irvatham Mahadevan an administrator-turned scholar, we have tamil Brahmi. By reviving Subrahmanya Aiyer's early decipherment and reading and at the same time more systematically studying these inscriptions in all their aspects, including palaeography, orthography and grammar, and seeking corroboration from the Sangam Literature and Tolkappiyam, the basic work on Tamil grammar. Mahadevan has virtually re-deciphered these inscriptions and shown them to be inscribed in Tamil. Hence the name "Tamil-Brahmi," one variety of the Brahmi script.
Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
1.Brahmi script was adapted and modified to suit the Tamil phonetic system.
2.Palaeographic changes were made to suit the Tamil language, with the omission of letters for sounds not present in the Tamil language and by additions to represent sounds in Tamil that are not available in Brahmi.
3.All but four of the 26 letters are derived from Brahmi and have the same phonemic values.
4.Even these four - i.e., l,l, r, n - are adapted from the letters with the nearest phonetic values in (Asokan-) Brahmi, i.e., d, l, r, n.
5.Letters were also modified with a special diacritic mark, viz., the pulli (dot). These are reflected in the development of the Tamil-Brahmi in three stages (TB I, II and III):
Stage I
1. Inherent a (short-medial vowel) was absent in the consonants
2. strokes (vowel notations) were used for both the short and long medial a, and hence the need for the reading of consonants with reference to context and position;
Stage II
when the stroke for medial a marked only the long a;
Stage III
1. when the use of diacritics like the pulli was introduced for basic consonants and for avoiding ligatures for consonant clusters (as in Simhala-Brahmi).
2.The pulli was used also for distinguishing the short e and o from the long vowels, for the shortened - i and -u (kurriyalikaram and kurriyalukaram)
3.The pulli used for the unique sound in Tamil called aytam, all of which are unknown to the Indo-Aryan ( Prakrit and Sanskrit).
It is the recognition of the absence of the inherent vowel a (short) in the early phases, e.g. ma, ka, na with strokes or medial vowel notations, which are actually to be read as ma, ka, n (the inverted J symbol for the nominal suffix `an' characteristic of Tamil), and the addition of the pulli as a diacritic, that provided the key to the whole re-decipherment. Herein lies the basic contribution of Mahadevan to the study of the script and alphabet. That these findings are corroborated by the phonetic rules of the Tolkappiyam.
Above passages gives the Genesis and Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
Where are these Incriptions
1.Pottery inscription in Tamil-Brahmi giving the name Catan. 1st century A.D. Found at Quseir-al-Qadim on the Red Sea coast of Egypt.
2.Rock-cavern inscription in Jambai 2nd Century AD.
Let us see what spoils such a great discovery
- Pulli TheoryScholars have observed two notational systems of Brahmi for writing Tamil. The first system is older than the second and the latter is very close to the Asokan Brahmi system. In the first system the short medial, a, is marked by a short horizontal stroke. In the second system the same mark indicates a long medial a. For example, scholars once used to read a certain word as maakaana following the second system. It did not make much sense. When the first system was used to read the inscription, the meaning became clear. The same word was read as makan, a common Tamil word for son. These two systems of Brahmi are different from the Tamil Pulli system described in Tholkappiam. The earliest stone inscription in the Tamil script is found at Vallam near Chinglepet and it belongs to the early seventh century A.D.There the dot over the pure consonants can be clearly seen. In the numerous inscriptions found on rock-shelters on hillocks near Madurai, scholars have failed to observe the Pulli in any of the inscriptions. The occurrence of the Pulli is closely linked with the date of Tholkappiam believed to be the oldest Tamil work. The late occurrence of the Pulli in Tamil inscriptions will indicate either the late date for the tholkappiam or prove Tamil Brahmi theory as false.
- Lack InscriptionsFor all the theories about inscriptions , we find only two or three inscriptions in the period mentioned 300BC to 500AD. Almost all the inscriptions are some grafitti. If the sangam literature and Tholkappiam if assumed are from this period then there should be flurry of inscriptions the absence show that written culture was not widespread.
- Inconsistencies of two Tamil brahmi and Tamil Pulli systems.The second system is closer to Ashoka Brahmi then the first one. And pulli does not show up until 7th century AD. Some scholars have even argued that Ashoka brahmi came from Tamil Brahmi, but that is not a creditable argument. Only few inscription sometimes only one inscription have been cited to show they are different. Anyone can see there will be some changes even if same person writes and the script surviving great distances with only few variations is itself miracle. So these differences are just few errors crept into the writing not a seprate script.
- Citing evidences where tamil was not present
Mahadevan has been citing the southern Brahmi script found in Karnataka and Andhra to prove his theory especially Bottiporulu inscription. Which cannot be considered in the context of tamil. Many of the inscriptions dates not verified by competing authority. many references have been heresay and preliminary data on the first sighting. Many of the inscriptions are handcopied which again can introduce errors. - Regional variations not surprising
There are number of regional variations in Brahmi itself. Northern brahmi, southern brahmi , sinhala brahmi and others. In southern brahmi itself in bottiporulu inscription simultaneouly different variations have been found. - Sinhala Brahmi
Tamil brahmi is very similar to Sinhala brahmi. Here Mahadevan will claim sinhala brahni came from tamil brahmi, but evidence shows otherwise. Until 3nd century AD the tamil brahmi and srilankan brahmi are carbon copy of each other. only with advent of pallavas the script went in different ways. - Scientific evolution of Brahmi
Brahmi's limitation in phonetics in each region of India was overcome by adding megalithic symbols over the brahmi script that is why we have so many scripts in India. These are called vowel markers. This nothing new. - Literary works at later period
The written literture comes from later period of 8th century AD , it reaches a peak in 12-13th century AD. Writting seems to have started around 6th century AD during Pallava region.
Related Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Indus Script Myths
Pallava Granta Script
Origin of Pallavas
Origin of Pallavas
Tamil Origin
Let us see the theory of Tamil origin. The word Pallava means branch or twig in Sanskrit. The word is rendered as Tondaiyar in Tamil language. The Pallava kings at several places are called Tondamans or Tondaiyarkon. The territory of the Pallavas was known as Tundaka Visaya or Tundaka Rashtra. The word Tondan in Tamil means slave, servant, follower or helper and can either be suggestive of the subordinate position the Pallavas bore to the Chutu Satakarnis. On collapse of the Satvahana power, the Pallavas asserted themselves and annexed a large part of South India but the epithet Tondon remained and their territory also came to be called Tondamandlam. The word Pallava (which in Sanskrit means twig or branch) is a translation of Tamil word Tondaiyar and Tondaman and this finds confirmation in some of the copper plate charters which do bring in 'tender twigs' (=pallavams) of some kind in connection with the eponymous name Pallava'.
But the scholars reject this view since this is a later usage of the term and therefore can not be stated to have given rise to the family name Pallava.
Srilankan origin
Tamil literature relates the story of Chola king Killivalavan who moved his capital to Uraiyar after the destruction of the Chola capital of Puhar. Mudaliyar C. Rasanayagam of Colombo claims that Killi Valavan had a liaison with the daughter of Naga king Valaivanam of Manipallavanam (in Jaffna peninsula) in Ceylon. From this union was born a child who was named Tondaiman Ilantirayan whom his father, Killi Valavan, made the ruler of a territory which was named Tondamandlam with capital at Kanchi. It is pointed out that name Pallava derives from the last syllable of Manipallavanam , the land of prince’s mother.
However this is only Fertile imagination , nothing can be verified as there is no evidence to prove cholas existed prior to Pallava rule.
Telugu Origin
Mahavamsa has a tradition that Buddhist monks from Pallava Bogga attended the consecration ceremony of Duttagamini of Sri Lanka. This Pallava Boga has been identified by some scholars with the dominion of Kala in Andhra Pradesh. It is pointed out that the Telugu country south of Krishna had formed the major part of Pallava kingdom till Fifth century(before Kadamba took over them), hence, it is argued that the Pallavas may have been from Andhra lineage. This region is called Palnadu (Pallava Nadu) even today, well-known for the great battle of Palnadu. Another name for this region since ancient times is Kammanadu / Kammarattam,
Brahmanical - Kshatriya Origin
According to Dr K. P. Jayswal, the Pallavas were a branch or twig (Sanskrit pallava) of the Brahmana royal dynasty of Vakatakas of the North. The branch was militaristic by profession and thus were able to carve out a kingdom in the South. But according to H. Krishna Sastri, the Pallavas were a mixture of Brahmana and Dravidian lineages. Rayakota copper plates of the Pallavas state that a Brahmin Ashvathama was the founder of the Pallava race. Ashvathama married a Naga girl and bore a son named Skandasisya. Other plates state Skandasisya to be the eponymous king Pallava after whom the family got its name. Earlier Pallava king Sivaskandavarman is probably identified with Skandasisya of the Rayakota copper plates. Some of their inscriptions state that Pallavas belonged to the Bharadvaja-gotra and had descended from Ashvathama of Bharadvaja Brahmana lineage. Ashvathama Bharadvaja was an epic hero and was son of Dronacharya, the Commander-in-chief of the Kuru army in the Mahabharata. In all probability, this appears to be a usual Brahmanical attempt at fabrication of genealogy to connect the illustrious Pallavas to the epic cycles. Or else, the Bharadavaja gotra of the Pallavas might have been due to the reason that the priests and Purohits of the Pallava rulers might have been Brahmins from Bharadavaja lineage. It is pointed out in the Aitareya Brahmana that the gotra of a Kshatriya would be the same as that of his Purohit or priest. Contrasted to the above stated Brahmanical origin of the Pallavas, the Talagunda inscription, on the other hand, clearly states that the Pallavas were of Kshatriya lineage.
Pahlva (persian origin)
The name Pallava resembles so much with the Pahlava that there is a school of scholars like Dr V. A. Smith, Dr Jouveau Dubreuil, Dr B. L. Rice, Dr V. Venkaya, G. Coedes, Dr. K. N. SITRA RAM, Dr H. H. Wilson, Dr P.P. Bulsara, Dr Dominique Boubouleix and numerous others who trace the origin of Pallavas in the Iranian Pahlavas.
Dr Cadambi Minakshi writes:
(i) The Pahladpur inscription (located in Pahladpur village in Uttar Pradesh State) which is datable to first few centuries of our era , is believed to be a record of the Pallavas in the north. This depends upon correct reading of the term “Parthivanikapalah” figuring in the said inscription. This expression has been translated as “the protector of the Parthavas army”. It has been pointed out that term Parthava here is equivalent to Sanskrit Pahlava. Though the term Pahlava indicates the name of a tribe and Pallava that of a ruling family, it has been pointed out that a tribal name Pahlava could easily turn itself into Dynasty name Pallava.
(ii) Yet another link between the Pahlavas of the North and the Pallava rulers of Kanchi may be found in a legend which, according to Victor Goloubew , takes its origin from the Scythians and plays a paramount part in the lands penetrated by the Pallavas and their culture. The Nagi legend of the Scythians which is connected with legends in Tamil literature and Pallava copper-plates as well as the annals of Cambodia carries a special significance here.
On similar reasoning, the same Scythian Nagi legend connects the Kambojas of the north-west. It is stated here that the close connections of the Sakas (Scythians), the Kambojas and the Pahlavas have been highlighted in numerous ancient Sanskrit texts like Mahabharata, Valmiki Ramayana, and the Puranas. In the Puranic literature, the Sakas, Kambojas Yavanas, Pahlavas and Paradas have been noted as allied tribes and have been referred to as pañca.gana (five hordes) . These tribes were all located in the Scythian belt in Central Asia and were therefore followers of common culture and social customs.
It appears that Pallava was a just local variant of Sanskrit Pahlava just as the Indo-Chinese Kambuja is a local variant of the standard Sanskrit Kamboja (or Persian Kambaujiya/Kambujiya).
The ancient inscriptions and coins make it clear that the Pahlavas were ruling in north-west in the beginning of Christian era. There is classical evidence that the Pahlavas were in occupation of Anarta, Soparka and Kalyana region of India in post-Christian times.
Other sources
Periplus (80 Century AD) attests a Parthian kingdom comprising south-western parts of Kathiawad and region from Narbada to as far as Kalyana (Thana in Bombay) including the Apranta was ruled by Pahlavas. Their capital has been mentioned as Minagara which city was different from the Minnagra of the Indo-Scythians located on the Indus.
"Arrian who resided in the second century at Barugaza (Bhroach) describes a Parthian sovereignty as extending from Indus to the Nerbuda. Their capital has been mentioned as Minagara.
Strabo also attests the Pahlava rule in south-west India around Narbada to as far as Thana District in Konkan (Bombay) in Maharashtra. The Pahlavas governors were in-charge of Anarta and Saurashtra which is mentioned in the Junagad rock inscriptions of Scythian ruler Rudradaman I.
According to Dr Jouveau Dubreuil, Savisakha, a Pahlava minister of Rudradaman-I, was the ancestor of the Pallavas of Kanchi. From Anarta and Konkan, the Pahlavas had penetrated southern India via Kuntala or Banvasi. It is probable that the Pahlavas had penetrated Deccan before the reign of Gautamiputra Satkarni. Gautamiputra Satkarni is stated to have put to sword the Sakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas and the Kshahratas. The defeat of Pahlavas, Kambojas etc by Gautamiputra Satakarani had probably forced them to move further into the Deccan. The Pahlavas and Kambojas appear to have made inroads into western and south-western India and the Pahlavas subsequently settled at North Tamil nadu and on east coast of India. When the Satavahana fortunes sagged, these Pahlavas seized the opportunity and established themselves as the lords of Kanchi.
Some early sculptures in the temple of Kanchi and Mahabalipuram depict a crown shaped like an elephant’s scalp which the Pallava kings wore on their heads. This head-dress was definitely foreign in origin and was used by the Greek kings of north-west with whom the Pahlavas (as well as Kambojas) were in close cultural, linguistic and political intercourse. It is pointed out that the Pallavas had copied this head-dress from the Greeks.
Fifth century Brahmanical text Markendeya Purana attests that the Pahlavas and Kambojas had their settlements not only in Udichya (north-west) but also in south-west India(Karnataka). The sixth century Brhatsamhita of Varahamihira also attests that the Pahlavas and Kambojas were in occupation of south-west (=nairRtyAM dizi) India. The Kambojas as close allies of the Pahlavas are also abundantly attested to have been in south-western as well as southern India by several ancient texts. And very interestingly, Agni Purana locates two Kamboja settlements within India itself, the Kambhoja in south-west India and the Kamboja in southern parts of India.The Garuda Purana also collocates a Kamboj settlement in the neighborhood of Ashmaka, Pulinda, Jimuta, Narashtra, Lata and Karnata countries and specifically informs us that this section of Kambojas were living in southern division of India (dakshina.path.vasinah).Udyogaparava of Mahabharata collates the Shakas, Pahlavas, Paradas and Kamboja-Rishikas apparently situated in/around the Anupa region i.e Anupa-Desa (Narbuda/Tapti region) in south-western India. King Yasovarman, the eighth century king of Kanauj is stated to have fought with the king of Magadha, killed the king of Vanga, reached the eastern shore, defeated the kings of Deccan, crossed the Malaya mountains (east coast of Malabar, southern Mysore), reached the southern sea and fought with the Parasika. He then received tribute from Western Ghats and turned to the north, reaching the banks of Narbada. This eighth century evidence again proves that the Parasikas (Pahlavas here) had indeed penetrated deep into the southern India.
writers criticize the foreign origin of the Pallavas. They say that the kingdom of Pallavas in southern India was located thousands of miles away from the northwestern Pahlavas and there was also a time-frame discrepancy between the ancient Pahlavas and the early Mediaeval era Pallavas of Kanchi. Therefore, it is not appropriate to connect the Pallavas with the Iranian Pahlavas. Furthermore, the Pallavas of Kanchi are known to have been Brahmanical followers, the devotees of Hindu religion & culture and patrons of the Sanskrit learning. They are also known to have performed Asvamedha sacrifices which exclusively belong to Hindu culture. It is further pointed out that the earliest inscriptions of the Pallavas are similar to Nasik inscriptions of Gautamiputra Satkarni. Their accounts are also said to be similar to those of the Satavahanas. All this evidence, according the critics, point out to the indigenous origin of the Pallavas.
Pallavas as Kuruba (kannada)
Dr Rawilinson writes that the Pallavas had collected round themselves the Kurumbas, Marayas, Kallars and other predatory tribes and formed them into a strong and aggressive power which rose into prominence in about 325 CE on the east coast of India, between the mouths of Krishna river and Godavari. The word Pallava is synonymous with rascal, robber or predator in Tamil language, says Dr Rawilinson. About 350 CE, the Pallavas established themselves on the east coast and occupied famous city Kanchi or Conjeeavram
R Sthainathaier seems to connect the Pallavas with ancient Pulindas, who according him, were identical to the Kurumbas.
Also the some of the temple structures are similar to Chalukyas architecture. The cave temples seem to the continuos legacy of satvahanas and chalukyas.
Paintings of Mahisasura mandini in Mahabalipuram suggest kuruba of kannada origin.
Main rivalry between chalukya and pallava dynasties suggest link between the two.
Main Evidence is Inscriptions that show that pallavas origin with Chutu satakarni (kannada dynasty)
Coins containing the image of a "Ship with two masts" are found almost exclusively on the coast between Madras and Cuddalore in of Tondai Mandalam of which Kanchi is the capital. According to Prof. Rapson, these coins bear the legend "Siri pulamavi". 'the Ujjain symbol indicates Satakarnis. So this dynasty reigned over the territory of Kânchîpuram. Further, an inscription of Pulumâvi, the last king of that dynasty, prince Skandanaga was his great general. Chutus emblem is Cobra hood (naga). Banavasi was once called NagaKhanda.
In VelurPalaiyam Inscription, the Pallva dynasty founder sivaskandanaga did not get to rule Kanchi by conquest. He got it by marriage to Chutu satakarni princess Nagasri. The Kanheri inscription mentions her as NagaMulanika. The pallava ruler should have been a general under Chutus before he inherited southern portion of the Empire.
The inscription Banvasi says that king satakarni had a daughter who joined her son in making gift of a naga. The son was called Sata Sivaskanda. Rapson writing on this subject says there can be no doubt that Kanheri Nagamulanika is to be identified with the donor mentioned in the following inscription from Banavasi and that she was, therefore, the daughter of king Haritiputra Vishnukada Chutu Satakarni whose name must have stood original Inscription , Kanheri being situated in Aparanta, there can be no doubt that the Chutu succeeded the satavahanas not only inherited south India but also Aparanta,(konkan).
The prince Sivaskanda naga was not a Chutu because he has married a Chutu princess. To which dvnasty did he belong? He was descendant of the kings that reigned over the territory of Chitradurg, about fifty miles east of Banavasi, where we find the inscription of Sivaskanda Nàga Sada, and to the west of Chitaldurg, on the site of an ancient city whose name is said to have been Chandravali where found in some leaden coins which bear the name of Sadakana Kalalaya Maharathi The emblems are, on the obverse, a humped bull standing, and on the reverse, tree and chaitya. This Sadakai (Satakarni) who bears the title of Maharathi is probably an ancestor of Maharathi Satakana or Sata who made the grant of a naga at Banavasi. In fact, both of them are Maharathis; they have the same title of Sata, and they have both reigned in the same country, in the vicinity of Malavalli and Chitaldurg. The kings of this country were Nagas; Mr. Rice says The early inhabitants of the country were probably to a great extent, Nagas, or serpent worshipper, that is, of the cobra, which is the emblem of Chutus.
Ptolemy Map(140AD) shows SoraNagas and BasaroNagas in Kanchi and southern tamil nadu. So effectively Chutus are ruling Tamil Nadu and Pallavas inherited the land.
Bana refers to satakarni as Tri-samudra-toya-pita-vahana meant 'the ruler whose subjects drank the water of the three seas of the east,west and south'. The Bay of Bengal,The Arabian Sea and The Indian Ocean.
Curiously pallavas also claim their origin to Trilochana same as Kadambas. Pallavas had marital relationships with Gangas.
The pallavas ruled the region for about 2nd century to almost 8th century , a tribe which is foreign cannot rule the land for so long. so it points to kuruba origin and the way Gangas ruled in the area and Ganga-pallava legend show they are very similar and of kuruba or kannada origin.
Related Posts:
Origin of Satavahans
Origin of Cholas
Origin of Kamboja
Topics
Tamil Origin
Let us see the theory of Tamil origin. The word Pallava means branch or twig in Sanskrit. The word is rendered as Tondaiyar in Tamil language. The Pallava kings at several places are called Tondamans or Tondaiyarkon. The territory of the Pallavas was known as Tundaka Visaya or Tundaka Rashtra. The word Tondan in Tamil means slave, servant, follower or helper and can either be suggestive of the subordinate position the Pallavas bore to the Chutu Satakarnis. On collapse of the Satvahana power, the Pallavas asserted themselves and annexed a large part of South India but the epithet Tondon remained and their territory also came to be called Tondamandlam. The word Pallava (which in Sanskrit means twig or branch) is a translation of Tamil word Tondaiyar and Tondaman and this finds confirmation in some of the copper plate charters which do bring in 'tender twigs' (=pallavams) of some kind in connection with the eponymous name Pallava'.
But the scholars reject this view since this is a later usage of the term and therefore can not be stated to have given rise to the family name Pallava.
Srilankan origin
Tamil literature relates the story of Chola king Killivalavan who moved his capital to Uraiyar after the destruction of the Chola capital of Puhar. Mudaliyar C. Rasanayagam of Colombo claims that Killi Valavan had a liaison with the daughter of Naga king Valaivanam of Manipallavanam (in Jaffna peninsula) in Ceylon. From this union was born a child who was named Tondaiman Ilantirayan whom his father, Killi Valavan, made the ruler of a territory which was named Tondamandlam with capital at Kanchi. It is pointed out that name Pallava derives from the last syllable of Manipallavanam , the land of prince’s mother.
However this is only Fertile imagination , nothing can be verified as there is no evidence to prove cholas existed prior to Pallava rule.
Telugu Origin
Mahavamsa has a tradition that Buddhist monks from Pallava Bogga attended the consecration ceremony of Duttagamini of Sri Lanka. This Pallava Boga has been identified by some scholars with the dominion of Kala in Andhra Pradesh. It is pointed out that the Telugu country south of Krishna had formed the major part of Pallava kingdom till Fifth century(before Kadamba took over them), hence, it is argued that the Pallavas may have been from Andhra lineage. This region is called Palnadu (Pallava Nadu) even today, well-known for the great battle of Palnadu. Another name for this region since ancient times is Kammanadu / Kammarattam,
Brahmanical - Kshatriya Origin
According to Dr K. P. Jayswal, the Pallavas were a branch or twig (Sanskrit pallava) of the Brahmana royal dynasty of Vakatakas of the North. The branch was militaristic by profession and thus were able to carve out a kingdom in the South. But according to H. Krishna Sastri, the Pallavas were a mixture of Brahmana and Dravidian lineages. Rayakota copper plates of the Pallavas state that a Brahmin Ashvathama was the founder of the Pallava race. Ashvathama married a Naga girl and bore a son named Skandasisya. Other plates state Skandasisya to be the eponymous king Pallava after whom the family got its name. Earlier Pallava king Sivaskandavarman is probably identified with Skandasisya of the Rayakota copper plates. Some of their inscriptions state that Pallavas belonged to the Bharadvaja-gotra and had descended from Ashvathama of Bharadvaja Brahmana lineage. Ashvathama Bharadvaja was an epic hero and was son of Dronacharya, the Commander-in-chief of the Kuru army in the Mahabharata. In all probability, this appears to be a usual Brahmanical attempt at fabrication of genealogy to connect the illustrious Pallavas to the epic cycles. Or else, the Bharadavaja gotra of the Pallavas might have been due to the reason that the priests and Purohits of the Pallava rulers might have been Brahmins from Bharadavaja lineage. It is pointed out in the Aitareya Brahmana that the gotra of a Kshatriya would be the same as that of his Purohit or priest. Contrasted to the above stated Brahmanical origin of the Pallavas, the Talagunda inscription, on the other hand, clearly states that the Pallavas were of Kshatriya lineage.
Pahlva (persian origin)
The name Pallava resembles so much with the Pahlava that there is a school of scholars like Dr V. A. Smith, Dr Jouveau Dubreuil, Dr B. L. Rice, Dr V. Venkaya, G. Coedes, Dr. K. N. SITRA RAM, Dr H. H. Wilson, Dr P.P. Bulsara, Dr Dominique Boubouleix and numerous others who trace the origin of Pallavas in the Iranian Pahlavas.
Dr Cadambi Minakshi writes:
(i) The Pahladpur inscription (located in Pahladpur village in Uttar Pradesh State) which is datable to first few centuries of our era , is believed to be a record of the Pallavas in the north. This depends upon correct reading of the term “Parthivanikapalah” figuring in the said inscription. This expression has been translated as “the protector of the Parthavas army”. It has been pointed out that term Parthava here is equivalent to Sanskrit Pahlava. Though the term Pahlava indicates the name of a tribe and Pallava that of a ruling family, it has been pointed out that a tribal name Pahlava could easily turn itself into Dynasty name Pallava.
(ii) Yet another link between the Pahlavas of the North and the Pallava rulers of Kanchi may be found in a legend which, according to Victor Goloubew , takes its origin from the Scythians and plays a paramount part in the lands penetrated by the Pallavas and their culture. The Nagi legend of the Scythians which is connected with legends in Tamil literature and Pallava copper-plates as well as the annals of Cambodia carries a special significance here.
On similar reasoning, the same Scythian Nagi legend connects the Kambojas of the north-west. It is stated here that the close connections of the Sakas (Scythians), the Kambojas and the Pahlavas have been highlighted in numerous ancient Sanskrit texts like Mahabharata, Valmiki Ramayana, and the Puranas. In the Puranic literature, the Sakas, Kambojas Yavanas, Pahlavas and Paradas have been noted as allied tribes and have been referred to as pañca.gana (five hordes) . These tribes were all located in the Scythian belt in Central Asia and were therefore followers of common culture and social customs.
It appears that Pallava was a just local variant of Sanskrit Pahlava just as the Indo-Chinese Kambuja is a local variant of the standard Sanskrit Kamboja (or Persian Kambaujiya/Kambujiya).
The ancient inscriptions and coins make it clear that the Pahlavas were ruling in north-west in the beginning of Christian era. There is classical evidence that the Pahlavas were in occupation of Anarta, Soparka and Kalyana region of India in post-Christian times.
Other sources
Periplus (80 Century AD) attests a Parthian kingdom comprising south-western parts of Kathiawad and region from Narbada to as far as Kalyana (Thana in Bombay) including the Apranta was ruled by Pahlavas. Their capital has been mentioned as Minagara which city was different from the Minnagra of the Indo-Scythians located on the Indus.
"Arrian who resided in the second century at Barugaza (Bhroach) describes a Parthian sovereignty as extending from Indus to the Nerbuda. Their capital has been mentioned as Minagara.
Strabo also attests the Pahlava rule in south-west India around Narbada to as far as Thana District in Konkan (Bombay) in Maharashtra. The Pahlavas governors were in-charge of Anarta and Saurashtra which is mentioned in the Junagad rock inscriptions of Scythian ruler Rudradaman I.
According to Dr Jouveau Dubreuil, Savisakha, a Pahlava minister of Rudradaman-I, was the ancestor of the Pallavas of Kanchi. From Anarta and Konkan, the Pahlavas had penetrated southern India via Kuntala or Banvasi. It is probable that the Pahlavas had penetrated Deccan before the reign of Gautamiputra Satkarni. Gautamiputra Satkarni is stated to have put to sword the Sakas, Yavanas, Pahlavas and the Kshahratas. The defeat of Pahlavas, Kambojas etc by Gautamiputra Satakarani had probably forced them to move further into the Deccan. The Pahlavas and Kambojas appear to have made inroads into western and south-western India and the Pahlavas subsequently settled at North Tamil nadu and on east coast of India. When the Satavahana fortunes sagged, these Pahlavas seized the opportunity and established themselves as the lords of Kanchi.
Some early sculptures in the temple of Kanchi and Mahabalipuram depict a crown shaped like an elephant’s scalp which the Pallava kings wore on their heads. This head-dress was definitely foreign in origin and was used by the Greek kings of north-west with whom the Pahlavas (as well as Kambojas) were in close cultural, linguistic and political intercourse. It is pointed out that the Pallavas had copied this head-dress from the Greeks.
Fifth century Brahmanical text Markendeya Purana attests that the Pahlavas and Kambojas had their settlements not only in Udichya (north-west) but also in south-west India(Karnataka). The sixth century Brhatsamhita of Varahamihira also attests that the Pahlavas and Kambojas were in occupation of south-west (=nairRtyAM dizi) India. The Kambojas as close allies of the Pahlavas are also abundantly attested to have been in south-western as well as southern India by several ancient texts. And very interestingly, Agni Purana locates two Kamboja settlements within India itself, the Kambhoja in south-west India and the Kamboja in southern parts of India.The Garuda Purana also collocates a Kamboj settlement in the neighborhood of Ashmaka, Pulinda, Jimuta, Narashtra, Lata and Karnata countries and specifically informs us that this section of Kambojas were living in southern division of India (dakshina.path.vasinah).Udyogaparava of Mahabharata collates the Shakas, Pahlavas, Paradas and Kamboja-Rishikas apparently situated in/around the Anupa region i.e Anupa-Desa (Narbuda/Tapti region) in south-western India. King Yasovarman, the eighth century king of Kanauj is stated to have fought with the king of Magadha, killed the king of Vanga, reached the eastern shore, defeated the kings of Deccan, crossed the Malaya mountains (east coast of Malabar, southern Mysore), reached the southern sea and fought with the Parasika. He then received tribute from Western Ghats and turned to the north, reaching the banks of Narbada. This eighth century evidence again proves that the Parasikas (Pahlavas here) had indeed penetrated deep into the southern India.
writers criticize the foreign origin of the Pallavas. They say that the kingdom of Pallavas in southern India was located thousands of miles away from the northwestern Pahlavas and there was also a time-frame discrepancy between the ancient Pahlavas and the early Mediaeval era Pallavas of Kanchi. Therefore, it is not appropriate to connect the Pallavas with the Iranian Pahlavas. Furthermore, the Pallavas of Kanchi are known to have been Brahmanical followers, the devotees of Hindu religion & culture and patrons of the Sanskrit learning. They are also known to have performed Asvamedha sacrifices which exclusively belong to Hindu culture. It is further pointed out that the earliest inscriptions of the Pallavas are similar to Nasik inscriptions of Gautamiputra Satkarni. Their accounts are also said to be similar to those of the Satavahanas. All this evidence, according the critics, point out to the indigenous origin of the Pallavas.
Pallavas as Kuruba (kannada)
Dr Rawilinson writes that the Pallavas had collected round themselves the Kurumbas, Marayas, Kallars and other predatory tribes and formed them into a strong and aggressive power which rose into prominence in about 325 CE on the east coast of India, between the mouths of Krishna river and Godavari. The word Pallava is synonymous with rascal, robber or predator in Tamil language, says Dr Rawilinson. About 350 CE, the Pallavas established themselves on the east coast and occupied famous city Kanchi or Conjeeavram
R Sthainathaier seems to connect the Pallavas with ancient Pulindas, who according him, were identical to the Kurumbas.
Also the some of the temple structures are similar to Chalukyas architecture. The cave temples seem to the continuos legacy of satvahanas and chalukyas.
Paintings of Mahisasura mandini in Mahabalipuram suggest kuruba of kannada origin.
Main rivalry between chalukya and pallava dynasties suggest link between the two.
Main Evidence is Inscriptions that show that pallavas origin with Chutu satakarni (kannada dynasty)
Coins containing the image of a "Ship with two masts" are found almost exclusively on the coast between Madras and Cuddalore in of Tondai Mandalam of which Kanchi is the capital. According to Prof. Rapson, these coins bear the legend "Siri pulamavi". 'the Ujjain symbol indicates Satakarnis. So this dynasty reigned over the territory of Kânchîpuram. Further, an inscription of Pulumâvi, the last king of that dynasty, prince Skandanaga was his great general. Chutus emblem is Cobra hood (naga). Banavasi was once called NagaKhanda.
In VelurPalaiyam Inscription, the Pallva dynasty founder sivaskandanaga did not get to rule Kanchi by conquest. He got it by marriage to Chutu satakarni princess Nagasri. The Kanheri inscription mentions her as NagaMulanika. The pallava ruler should have been a general under Chutus before he inherited southern portion of the Empire.
The inscription Banvasi says that king satakarni had a daughter who joined her son in making gift of a naga. The son was called Sata Sivaskanda. Rapson writing on this subject says there can be no doubt that Kanheri Nagamulanika is to be identified with the donor mentioned in the following inscription from Banavasi and that she was, therefore, the daughter of king Haritiputra Vishnukada Chutu Satakarni whose name must have stood original Inscription , Kanheri being situated in Aparanta, there can be no doubt that the Chutu succeeded the satavahanas not only inherited south India but also Aparanta,(konkan).
The prince Sivaskanda naga was not a Chutu because he has married a Chutu princess. To which dvnasty did he belong? He was descendant of the kings that reigned over the territory of Chitradurg, about fifty miles east of Banavasi, where we find the inscription of Sivaskanda Nàga Sada, and to the west of Chitaldurg, on the site of an ancient city whose name is said to have been Chandravali where found in some leaden coins which bear the name of Sadakana Kalalaya Maharathi The emblems are, on the obverse, a humped bull standing, and on the reverse, tree and chaitya. This Sadakai (Satakarni) who bears the title of Maharathi is probably an ancestor of Maharathi Satakana or Sata who made the grant of a naga at Banavasi. In fact, both of them are Maharathis; they have the same title of Sata, and they have both reigned in the same country, in the vicinity of Malavalli and Chitaldurg. The kings of this country were Nagas; Mr. Rice says The early inhabitants of the country were probably to a great extent, Nagas, or serpent worshipper, that is, of the cobra, which is the emblem of Chutus.
Ptolemy Map(140AD) shows SoraNagas and BasaroNagas in Kanchi and southern tamil nadu. So effectively Chutus are ruling Tamil Nadu and Pallavas inherited the land.
Bana refers to satakarni as Tri-samudra-toya-pita-vahana meant 'the ruler whose subjects drank the water of the three seas of the east,west and south'. The Bay of Bengal,The Arabian Sea and The Indian Ocean.
Curiously pallavas also claim their origin to Trilochana same as Kadambas. Pallavas had marital relationships with Gangas.
The pallavas ruled the region for about 2nd century to almost 8th century , a tribe which is foreign cannot rule the land for so long. so it points to kuruba origin and the way Gangas ruled in the area and Ganga-pallava legend show they are very similar and of kuruba or kannada origin.
Related Posts:
Origin of Satavahans
Origin of Cholas
Origin of Kamboja
Topics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)