Dr.R.Nagaswamy
#CD853F
A New Pandya Record and the Dates of Nayanmars and Alvars
An important Pandya lithic record, perhaps the earliest to have been noticed so far in the city of Madurai, was brought to light from the bed of the Vaigai river in 1961. This is now preserved in the Madurai temple museum. It has been edited by K. G. Krishnan, Superintending Epigraphist-Government of India. In his article. 'Madurai Inscriptions of Pandyan Cendan, (Epigraphia Indica Vol. XXXVIII-pt. I, 1969, pp. 27-32) Sri Krishnan, draws our attention to many points of interest and assigns this epigraph to one of the early Pandya kings Cendan who ruled in the first half of the seventh century A.D.
I had occasion to examine this epigraph recently and prepare an estampage. Sri Krishnan's reading needs revision at some places which is attempted in this paper. The main amendment to Krishnan's reading relates to the name of the king in line eight of the epigraph. Krishnan reads "Koc Cendan marraimpadu". The word after Cendan has been read as "marrai" i.e. 'and' consequently it is taken that the record dated in the 30th regnal year of Koc Cendan. The ruler is identified by Krishnan with Cendan, the son and successor of Maravarman Avani sulamani.
The revised reading according to me would be "Koc Cendan Maran aimpadu" which means the 50th regnal year of Cendan Maran,i.e.Maran, son of Cendan and not of Cendan himself.
The Revised reading
I give the revised reading for the following reasons. The first letter is long "Ma" and not short "Ma". Krishnan himself has noticed the presence of a horizontal line added to Ma to denote the long a sign, but says in the foot note that this may be ignored (1. Ten Pandya Copper Plates. Madras.) The horizantal line must be retained as it is clearly consequently letter should be read as Long "Ma".
The second letter in the word is read as a pure consonant "r" by Krishnan, But as all pure consonants are marked with dots (pullis) in this epigraph and no dot is present in this letter, it is to be read as "ra" with the medial "a".
The third letter is read as "Rai" by Krishnan. The letter "Rai" has a different form as could be seen from other copper plate charters of the Pandyas. This represents without any doubt the letter "Nai" Thus the word will have to be read as "Ma Ra Nai m ba tu". The revised reading of this line according to me is "Koc Cendan Maran aimpatu".This would show that the charter was issued not by Cendan but his son Maran. Cendan Maran according to Tamil mode of expression stands for Maran son of Cendan.
The first part of the epigraph lists the exploits of the king in whose reign the record was issued. Of the exploits of the king, the following deserve special notice. The king is said to have established many agraharas (Brahmn settlements), and performed mahadanas(great gifts) like Hiranyagarbha (Emerging from a golden bowl symbolizing a golden womb from which the king is symbolically born and the gold gifted to donees)), Tulabhara (Weiging oneself in a scale against gold and distributing it to Brahmins)and Gosahasra(gifting one thousand cows). He is also said to have established Mangalapura as a commercial town (nagara). Sri Krishnan has taken these exploits as those performed by Cendan. But according to my revised reading the epithets are that of Maran, who is the author of these exploits.
The other Copper plates of the Pandyas, like the Velvikkudi and Smaller Sinnamanur plates (2. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Pandyan Kingdom, pp 49-51.) record that Cendan's son was a great ruler, who performed many Hiranyagarbha and Tulabhara ceremonies. The performances of Hiranyagarbha and Tulabhara gifts are invariably attributed to Maran in all the copper plates and not to Cendan. This revised reading confirms the information gleaned from other copper plates of the Pandyas.
Maran, the son of Cendan had many significant titles such as Arikesari. (1. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India 1966, pp 152.) The epigraph under discussion, refers to a madagu (sluice) constructed in the Vaigai river, which was named Arikesari, after one of his own titles. This is a further confirmation that the ruler was Maran.
From the above it is evident that the ruler is identical with Arikesari, Parankusa, Maravarman, the son of Cendan. The Vaigai bed epigraph makes it clear that Maravarman ruled for fifty years. His rule is to be placed between 650 to 700 CE. Three powerful predecessors, Kadungon, Maravarman Avanisulamani and Cendan, have occupied the Pandya throne before him. We may assign an average of 30 years to each and place the beginning of the first Pandya empire about 560 CE. Koccadaiyan Ranadhiran. Maravarman Rajasimhan and Parantaka Varaguna, were the successors of Maran ascending the throne in succession. With the help of Kali era mentioned in Varaguna's epigraph found in Anaimalai it has been established that he ascended the throne in 765CE (2. Periyapuranam by Sekkilar. Ninra Sir Nedumaran Puranam.) Koccadaiyan Ranadhira and Maravarman Rajasimha ruled for about 65 years after Arikesari. Thus Arikesari's rule is to be placed between 650-700CE.
PANDYAN EMPIRE
GENEALOGICAL SCHEME
Name of the Kings K.A. Nilanta Sastri in his S. Indian History Now being Revised
Kadungon 590-620 560-590
Maravarman Avanisulamani 620-645 590-620
Cendan 645-670 620-650
Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman 670-700 650-700
Koccadaiyan Ranadhiran 700-730 700-730
Maravarman Rajasimhan 730-768
Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan 730-765
Varagunan I 765-815 765-815
Srimara Srivallabha 815-862 815-862
Varaguna II 862 862
This brings us to an important factor. Siruttondar the saint whom Jnanasambandar met at Thirucchengattankudi, is identified with the commander of Pallava Mamalla Narasimha (630-668) in his Vatapi wars. Jnanasambandar should have lived between 640 and 655 CE. The Pandya ruler whom Sambandar converted from Jainism to Saiva faith was a certain Nedumaram also known as Kun Pandya. Traditional literature ascribe to him a great victory at Nelveli and this earned him the title "Nelveli venra Nedumaran" i. e. Nedumara the victor of Nelveli. It is evident that the monarch who was ruling at the time of Sambandar's visit to Madurai was Nedumaran who is none other than Maran, the son of Cendan, of the Vaigai bed epigraph.
I have pointed out elsewhere, that this Nedumaran is identical with the hero of the Tamil literary work Pandikkovai which also enumarates all these exploits. His titles as Arikesari Parankusa, and Nedumara, his conquest of Nelveli, and the performance of Hiranyagarbha and Tulabhara are listed in the Tamil work, Pandikkovai.(R. Nagaswamy: 'Pandya Arikesari and Pandikkovai', K. A. Nilakanta Sastri Felicitation Volume pp. 108-111.) Thus the author of the Vaigai-bed epigraph is identical with the hero of Pandikkovai.
This epigraph mentions that Cendan Maran established Mangalapura as a Nagara. On this Sri Krishnan had made two suggestions. (1) The Mangalapura established by this ruler should be in the Pandya territory and is likely to be Mangalam near Sattur. This suggeation, can be finally settled after the present village is examined for its antiquity and (2) Sri Krishnan identifies this Mangalapura with Mangalapura, which conquered by Koccadaiyan Ranadhira, the son and successor of Arikesari.
The Velvikkudi grant of the Pandya states that Koccadaiyan Ranadhira, the son of Arikesari Maravarman attacked the Maharathas at Mangalapura and won a decisive victory. This Mangalapura has been identified with Mangalore in the west coast by Professor K. A. Neelakanta Sastri (KAN The Pandyan Kingdom) Dr. K. V. Ramesh in his recent book on the History of South Kanara has pointed out that Alupas who where holding sway over Mangalore and who were aided by the Chalukyan forces faced this invasion at Mangalore.
On the other hand Krishnan is of the opinion that the Pandyas did not invade Mangalore in the west coast but were defending their own city of Mangalapura near Sattur against the invasion of the Chalukya forces in 674 A.D. The identity of Mangalapura, captured by Ranadhira with Mangalapura established by Cendan Maran as proposed by Krishnan is not acceptable for the following reasons. The Chalukyas never penetrated so far south as Sattur taluk of Ramnad District. The battle of Mangalapura in which Ranadhira distinguished himself, is identified with the invasion of Chalukya Vikramaditya in 674 A.D. by Krishnan. We have shown that the Vaigai bed inscription is a record of Cendan Maran, who ruled for 50 years. His rule, should have extended upto 700 CE. Even if we allow some period of joint rule, Ranadhira's Conquest of Mangalapura cannot be placed before 700 CE. Vikramaditya's expedition, being decidedly a quarter of a century earlier had nothing to do with Ranadhira's conquest.
In view of the fact that the Alupas of west coast ruling around Mangalore, claimed Pandya lineage, and used the fish as their emblem, it is evident that Ranadihira's conquest related to the capture of Mangalore, which left a permanent mark on the ruling dynasty there.
Dates of Saiva Saints
This brings us to an important field of enquiry, namely the date of some of the Alvars and Nayanmars. Before proceeding to examine this question in the light of new findings, it is necessary to notice a recent work on this subject. Sri K. R. Srinivasan and following him K. R. Venkatrama Iyer in their latest publication, 'Devi Kamakshi in Kanchi,' have discussed the dates of Saints Appar and Sambandar in detail. In this work Appar's date of birth is taken as 665 A.D. and he is not considered a contemporary of Mahendravarman. Sambandar's date of birth is assigned to the close of 7th century, that is about 700 A.D.
A careful study of the above work shows that the views of the above authors are untenable. The following are the few.
1) No mention is made of Thiruchirappalli inscription of Mahendravarman,by KRV, which is an important source for dating the Saivite saint Appar.
2) It is stated that Tilakavatiyar, the sister of Appar was betrothed to Kaliyanar (p. 65). This is wrong. Kaliyanar was a different saint who lived in Thiruvorriyur and was an oil merchant. Tilakavatiyar was betrothed to Kalippagaiyar a soldier.
3) It is stated that Kaliyanar was ordered to the front to fight against the invading northerners, the Chalukyas. There is no evidence to show that the northerners mentioned in Periyapuranam, were Chalukyas. They could be anybody. The dates assigned to the Nayanars are solely based on this assumption.
4) Three different dates are given to Appar in the same book. In page 66, his date of birth is given as 665 CE.; in page 70, the beginning of Appar's period is given as 660 CE. and again in page 74, it is given as 650 CE.
5) Regarding the age of Sambandar it has been said that he was born at the close of 7th Century , about the time when Narasimha II, ascended the Pallava throne (700-728) and lived upto the middle of Nandivarman Pallavamalla's reign. If Sambandar was born in C. 700 CE, he would have died in 716 A.D. in the reign of Rajasimha himself. The middle of Nandi's reign would be 765 A.D., which would mean Sambandar lived for more than 65 years. Unless such a long life is given to Sambandar, for which there is no evidence, it is difficult to sustain this date.
6) It has been stated that when Appar met Sambandar at Sirkali, soon after later's upanayana, he was sufficiently advanced in age. According to the same book, Appar's date of birth is 665 and that of Sambandar in C. 700 CE. Sambandar's upanayanam was then performed in his 8th year, in 708 CE. In that year Appar would be about 43 years of age which is certainly not an old age.
7) It has been stated that Sambandar converted the Pandya ruler Nedumaran to Saivism, and he is identified with Maravarman Rajasimha, the father of Nedunjadaiyan. This synchronism is also not possible according to the author's own stand, for he assigns Rajasimha to C. 730-768 CE. According to him, Sambandar was born in 700 CE. If Sambandar lived for only 16 years, he could not have converted the ruler who came to the throne in 730CE.
The inconsistencies have cropped up because the contemporary of Sambandar is taken to be Maravarman Rajasimha. In the light of this new inscription of Cendan Maran, the views expressed by K. R. Srinivasan needs revision.
The Periyapurana of Sekkilar and the Guruparampara are all Puranas, which take one or two episodes from the life of the saints and weave beautiful myths around them. We must therefore be careful in utilising them for reconsstructing history. Episodes corroborated by epigraphical or archaeological source alone should be taken into account and the rest left out to the realm of religious faith.
Date of Appar
One episode that needs examination is the conversion of the Pallava contemporary of Appar, from Jainism to Saivism. It must be seen whether there is any evidence to support this. All scholars assign Appar to the 7th century, though some would assign him to the first half of 7th century, and others to the second half. Mahendra I, Narasimha I, Mahendra II, Paramesvara I, and probably Rajasimha were the Pallava rulers of the 7th century A.D. We do have an epigraphical reference to conversion of a Pallava in 7th century A.D., and this occurs in the Mahendra's inscription at Tiruchirappalli in which Mahendra states that he changed to the Saiva faith from some other faith. No other Pallava of 7th century was a convert. Thus the tradition is corroborated by epigraphical evidence and should thus be considered an indisputable evidence testifying to the contemporaneity of Appar with Mahendra I. Recent discoveries have shown, that Mahendra ruled for 40 years (590-630). So Appar may be assigned to Circa 580-660 CE.
Date of Sambandar
Appar and Jnanasambandar were contemporaries according to all accounts. Jnanasambandar is said to have converted the Pandya ruler Ninrasir Nedumaran to Saivism from Jaina faith. Literature refers to Nedumaran as the victor of Nelveli. From the Velvikkudi and Sinnamanur copper plates we do get a Pandya Maran in 7th century who is praised for his victory at Nelveli.
Some scholars identify him with Maran, the son of Cendan while others identify him with Maravarman Rajasimha I, the son of Ranadhira.
It is therefore necessary to discuss this problem in detail. Scholars like K. V. S. Ayyar, T. V. Sadasiva pandarattar and M. Raghava Iyengar have given the titles Arikesari and Parankusa to Rajasimha I, without any evidence as a result of which some scholars like K. R. Venkatrama Iyer and K. R. Srinivasan try to hold that Jnanasambandar was a contemporary of Pandya Rajasimha I. None of the copper plates of the Pandyas give the title Arikesari or Parankusa to Rajasimha. On the contrary only one ruler Maran, son of Cendan is given these titles. Some scholars assign even the conquest of Nelveli to Rajasimha I, but there is absolutely no evidence for this. As far as copper plates and literature are concerned the conquest of Nelveli is ascribed only to Maravarman, son of Cendan.
The Vaigai bed inscription proves that Cendan Maran ruled for 50 years and is to be assigned to circa 650-700 CE. He was the only Nadumaran, the victor of Nelveli, who was a contemporary of Sambandar. Sambandar's date then would be circa, 640-656. This also shows that Siruttondar was a commandar under Pallava Narasimha I and participated in his Vatapi conquest.
Date of Periyalvar
Among the Vaishnavite Alvars, Periyalvar refers in his verse to Pandyan Ko-Nedumaran.
That Periyalvar was a contemporary of Nedumaran is thus established. Prof. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri says that "all that we can infer is that if this Nedumaran is the same as the contemporary of Jnanasambandar, this Alvar may also be assigned to their age and likewise his daughter Andal. It seems more likely that the reference is to Srimara Srivallabha". Srimara Srivallabha is assigned to Circa 815-862. This probably influenced the learned Professor to prefer the later date.
T. A. Gopinatha Rao in his 'History of the Sri Vaishnavas,' has suggested that Periyalvar was a contemporary of Srimara Srivallalbha, identical with Srivallabha Avanipasekhara of Sittannavasal inscription. Mr. Rao's conclusion is based on the identity of the name Srivallabha, said to be a contemporary of Periyalvar according to Guruparampara.
M. Raghava Iyengar in his 'Age of the Alvars' differed from Gopinatha Rao and held that the contemporary of Periyalvar was Maravarman Rajasimha father of Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan. Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan was a Parama Vaishnava, who erected a Vishnu temple at Kanchivay Perur. Raghava Iyengar held that Parantaka derived his Vishnu-bhakti from his father Maravarman Rajasimha and that Rajasimha should have been converted to Vaishnavism by Periyalvar.
While discussing the date of Periyalvar two points deserve to be carefully noted. (1) The saint himself refers to a Pandya Ko-Nedumaran as his contemporary. (2) The Guruparampara refers to a Pandya Sri vallabha as his contemporary. We must look for a Pandya who had both these titles. Sri Mara, the son of Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan is called in the larger Sinnamanur and Dalavaypuram copper plates as Srivallabha. Srivallabha seems to have been his abishekanama, but whether he had the title Ko-Nedumara was not proved so far by any epigraph.
An epigraph coming from Erukkangudi, Sattur taluk. Ramnad District, published recently throws valuable light on the problem. It refers to Pandya Srivallabha, who conquered the places from Kunnur to Ceylon. The point of interest in this epigraph is that this Srivallabha is also called Ko-Nedumaran.
According to Sinnamanur and Dalavaypuram plates, Srimara Srivallabha, the son of Parantaka Varaguna I, won significant victories at Kunnur, Vilinjam, Kumbakonam and Ceylon. The Erukkangudi, inscription is evidently that of Srimara Srivallabha the son of Parantaka Varaguna, and that he had also the title Ko-Nedumaran.
There can hardly be any doubt that Periyalvar was a contemporary of this Ko-Nedumaran Srivallabha and should have flourished in the 9th century CE. On the other hand no epigraph has so far been found which gives either the title Srivallabha or Ko-Nedumaran to Rajasimha, whom Raghava Iyengar holds as the contemporary of Periyalvar. We therefore agree with T. A. Gopinatha Rao and K. A. N. Sastri, that the contemporary of Periyalvar was Srimara Srivallabha and that the Vaishnavite Saint flourished in the 9th century CE. Andal, the daughter of Periyalvar should also be assigned to the same period.
Date of Thirumangai
Scholars have discussed the problem of the date of Thirumangai Alvar in detail and have arrived at a satisfactory date. The date of this Alvar can be fixed with certain amount of accuracy as he refers to his contemporary Pallava ruler Nandi. Thirumangai lists his conquests which are corroborated by copper plates.
Thirumangai sings the battle of "Mannai" where Pallavamalla is said to have defeated the Pandya. This is also corroborated by another copper plate. In the Udayendram plates, Nandivarman's general, Udaya Chandra is praised for his victory over the Pandyasena at Mannaikkudigramma. (Mannaik-kudi grame Pandya-senam jitavan.) Udayendram plate was issued in the 21st regnal year of Nandivarman (752). The Pandya ruler who opposed Nandi was Maravarman Rajasimha.
Thirumangai also refers to the battle of Karuvur in which the Pallava is said to have won.
A new evidence has come to light regarding the battle of Karuvur which has not yet received due attention. The Dalavaypuram plates mention that Parantaka Varaguna, defeated the Pallava at Karuvur. This gets indirect confirmation from another source. Sivaramangalam plates refers to Parantaka's fight with Atiya, at Pugaliyur and Ayirur on the northern bank of the river Kaveri. These places are situated near Karur. The same charter also states, that Varaguna defeated the Pallava and Keralan, who came to help the Atiya. Evidently the battle of Pugaliyur was followed upto Karuvur where an indescive battle was fought. Both the Pallava and the Pandya claim victory at Karuvur. Whatever the result of the war may be, one thing is certain, that Thirumangai who sings this battle, was a contemporary of Nandivarman Pallavamalla and Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan.
Thus Thirumangai was a contemporary of two Pandya rulers Rajasimha I and Nedunjadaiyan. On the Pallava side, he was a contemporary of Nandivarman Pallavamalla.(731-796)
It must be mentioned that this Vaishnava Alvar, sings in one of his verse, Vairamegha who is generally identified with Dantivarma Pallava, who ruled in the first half of 9th century A.D. Thirumangai is therefore taken to be a contemporary of Dantis as well. But we have shown elsewhere that the title Vairamegha was a title of Nandivarman himself. As such we may assign Thirumangai to the reign of Nandivarman. Thus Thirumangai's date may be taken as 730-800CE.
Date of Nammalvar
Almost, the same period must be assigned to Nammalvar. Nammalvar sings Varagunamangai, and Srivaramangalam, both places established by Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan. Madhurakavi is said to be a desciple of Nammalvar. A Madhurakavi occurs as a minister of Pandya Parantaka I during the early years of his reign, as seen from the Anamalai epigraph. Madhura Kavi was dead at the time of Anamalai inscription. As such Nammalvar's end could be placed about 780 A.D. His date of birth would be circa 745 CE. Nammalvar had two other names which are significant. He was called Parankusa and Maran. In all probability the names Parankusa and Maran were derived after Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman of the Vaigai bed-epigraph. Vaishnavite tradition makes Thirumangai and Nammalvar contemporaries. Our studies also seem to point to the same direction. While the Guruparampara, makes Periyalvar, also a contemporary of Thirumangai and Nammalvar, our studies show that Periyalvar lived in the 9th century CE.
The Vaigai bed inscription of Cendan Maran has opened up new avenues of enquiry relating to the chronology of the early Pandyas and the history of Saivism and Vaishnavism in South India.
As a result of the above study the following are our conclusions:-
1) The Vaigai bed inscription is that of Cendan Maran who ruled atleast for 50 years (650-700 A.D.)
2) He was the hero of the Tamil work Pandikkovai.
3) The chronology of the early Pandyas could be placed at the beginning of about 560 A.D.
4) The city of Mangalapura established by Arikesari was located in the Pandya country.
5) But the Mangalapura where his son defeated the Maharatas is identical with Mangalore.
6) Appar was a contemporary of Mahendra, Mamalla and the Pandya Arikesari.
7) Appar's date would be circa 580-660 A.D.
8) Jnanasambandar was a contemporary of Mamalla I, and Pandya Arikesari Nedumaran.
9) Sambandar's date would be circa 640-656 A.D.
10) Thirumangai was a contemporary of Rajasimha and Nedunjadaiyan of the Pandyas and Nandivarman Pallavamalla and may be assigned between 700 and 800.
11) Nammalvar's date would be about 745 to 780 A.D.
12) Periyalvar was a contemporary of Sri Mara Srivallabha and his date would be Circa 800-885.
13) Andal is to be assigned to the second half of 9th century.
14) The Vaigai bed inscription is an important landmark in the history of Tamilnadu.