Indian Antiquary Vol 59

SR No.: 032551
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 380
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 16 MB

Page 172

158
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ August, 1930
was the actual name of the first of the line, he could have been nothing more than an obscure chieftain; and his son would not have dared, during the lifetime of his father, to manufacture a name and a gotra for the family and to have it published in the very neighbourhood in which the father had risen to his petty eminence. Some generations, at least, must have expired before the family thought of propping up their newly acquired kingship with an imaginary pedigree. It is, however, rather curious that the pedigree was not traced to the Sun or the Moon, or even to Ikşváku, the common ancestor of all kings of the Solar dynasty. The earlier records and inscriptions merely stated that the Pallavas belonged to the Bharadvaja gotra; it was the later Sanskrit records that developed the theme and improved the pedigree by tracing it back to Aśvatthaman and Droņa, who, according to the Mahabharata, belonged to the Bhåradvaja gotra. It is quite probable that the words 'Palvêr Tirayan' (
ucapkarwer) appearing in the Tamil work Perumpaņārrupadai (line 37) was a misreading for 'Pallavat Tirayan' (பல்ல வத் திரையன்). The early manuscript of the work which NachcinArkiniyar used in writing his commentary would have been written in Vatteluttu and the word 'Pallavat' (vars) could have been easily mistaken for 'Palvêr' (
u ap). From the context it can be surmised that Pallava was the original word, as the words Annirtirai [gorethe waves of that country)] appear in a previous line (1. 30) and the name of the country alluded to is omitted. It is wrong to think, as the commentator has done, that the words Annir ( 16) allude only to Munnir (coor of i-sea), in the beginning of the line (1. 30). If this reading of mine is accepted by Tamil pandits, then the argument can be clinched, and Tondaimán I!am Tirayan can be safely admitted as the first Pallava Tirayan. The derivation of the term 'Tirayan,' as given by the commentator, may be fanciful, but it does not oertainly take away from it the actual meaning that Ilam Tirayan came from beyond the seas, and that the waves which brought him were those of the Pallava seas. If he was the earliest of the Pallava Tirayan, would not his descendants be called Pallavas. If he, who was admittedly a Tirayan, was not a Pallava Tirayan, is there any proof or even a suspicion that he was a Tiravan from any other country? That there were different tribes of Tirayar living in Tondaimandalam about the tenth century, A.D. can be seen from the T'ondaimandalappattai. yam referred to by A. Kanagasabaipillai in his Tamils 1800 Years Ago. They were :
(1) Pangala Tirayar-Tirayar from Bengal ; (2) China Tirayar-Tirayar from China ; (3) Kadara Tirayar-Tirayar from Kadáram, or Burma; (4) Simhala Tirayar-Tirayar from Simhalam, or Ceylon; and
(5) Pallava Tirayar-Tiravar from Pallavam. What was this Pallavam, and where was it? The only possible answer is that it was the ancient Manipallavam of the Manimêkhalali and the Mani Nagadvipa of the Mahavamsa.
Whether the child born of a liaison between a Chola king and a Någa princess of Maņipallavam was shipwrecked as an infant and was wafted ashore by the waves, or whether as a young man he sought out his father and claimed a kingdom from him, makes no difference to my proposition. It is clear that the earliest Tondaiman was a Pallava Tirayan. He reigned at KAñoipuram, just as the later Pallavas did. To assert that there was an interregnum between the Tirayar and the Pallavas and to attempt to locate it at a time after the reign of Vignugopa is ridiculous, as the genealogy given in the charters will not admit of such a conclusion; for, if Visnugopa is not to be regarded as a Pallava because he was not described in the Allahabad Pillar inscription, neither is he described as a Tirayan there, and according to the game reasoning he must not be regarded as a Tirayan either. Nor, with this data at our disposal is it, as my critios seem to think, sufficient to say that the Pallavas were the feudatories of the Andhra-Satavahanas somewhere in the northern districts, without attempting to trace the origin of the term 'Pallava,' now that the theory of the foreign Pahlava connection has been dropped.