Indian Antiquary Vol 51

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 220

212
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ NOVEMBER, 1922
Then comes the Tamil passage. The Pandya adhiraja pal-ydga (of many sacrifices)mudu (old)-Kudumi-peru-vazhudi (the great king) granted Velvikuļi (sacrificial village) in Påhanûr-kútram to Narr-kôtran of Korrkai to completo his sacrifice (II. 32–38). This king is mentioned in the Sangham works. The Maduraik-landt (1. 759—760) refers to his many sacrifices, makes him an ancestor of its hero Talai-Alankanam Nôdun-cêzhiyan, and calls him pal-salal (sacrificial halls)-mudu-Kudumi. Purra-nánørru dedicates to him 5 lyrics. Kåri-kizhâr mentions him as a Saiva (P.N., 6). Nêttimaiyâr refers to his many halls (ib. 9, 12 and 15), and to the Pahrruļi river (Parrali in Nânjinad) dug by his ancestor Nêçiyon, i.e., vadimb-alambre ninrra (of feet washed by the sea)-Pandya (ib., and comm.). Nê. dum-palliyatta når mentions him as king Kudumi (ib., 64). The foot-notes to these lyrics. by their original cditor, call him pal-yaga-salai-mudu-Kudumi-peru-vazhudi.
Then the village was in long (nidu) enjoyment. Since a gift is completed by handing over the dead, length of possession is not needed, only acceptance. So th9 mention of long enjoyment is a statement of fact, not a proof of possession. Then the Pandyas were displaced by the Kalabhra, who was later expelled by adhiraja Kadunkon (U. 39–41, 45). The Kalabhra occupation was thus only short-lived.
The Kalabhras were so prominent from c. 600 to c. 750 A.D., that Simhavishnu (8.1.1.. II, 356), Narasimha I (ib. I, 152), Vikramadityas I and II (I.A. IX, 129; E.I., V, 204). and Vinayâditya (I.A., VII, 303) claim victories over them. But Varâ ha-mihira (c. 500 A.D.) omits them among South Indian tribes. So they were prominent only after c. 500 A.D.
The Sangham works nowhere refer to the Kalabhras or their Påndya occupation. So they date before c. 600 or after 750 A.D. But the larger Cinnamanwr plates make the hero of Talai-alan-kånam, (a later Påndy of the Sangham age), and the founder of the Madura Sangham, ancestors of the hero of Nêlveli (u. 101-106). The present plates make the latter the 3rd ancestor of its donor (acc. 707 A.D.); and none of his 3 ancestors, the earliest of whom was Kadunkon, is called the hero of Talai-alankânam, though their exploits are related in detail. Neither was the battle petty, as it is proudly mentioned in Sangham works and the Cinnamanûr plates. The Sangham age must hence date not after 750, but before 767-27 x (3+3)=C. 600 A.D.
The average for a generation is here assumed to be 27 years, as it is the interval between successive generations of fathers and sons, i.e., the age when the eldest son is born to an Indian king; unless the known dates indicate a different average for any group of kings.
The passuge relating to the Kalabhra occupation runs thus :-nidu bhukti tu(x)tta pin. alav-ariya adhi-rajarai ahala nikki ahal-idattai Kalabhran ennum kali araiban kaikkóniadanai irrakkiya pin, padu-kadan=mulaitta (parudi pol Pandyadhi-rajan vélirrpattu,.... vitri-rundu...... kovum kurrumbum påv-udan murukki.... | Kalunkon (3945).
We can split up kaikkôndadanai into kaikkôn lu referring to the Kalabhra's act, and adanai referring to the grant. But a relative pronoun must be construed with the next previous noun, here ahalidattai. Thus construed, the passage becomes meaningless. If adanai irrakkiyapin means ' after the grant was resumed ', we have no word to express the recovery of the kingdom, before Kadunkon can rule. So irrakkiya must mean such recovery.
Thus, if we split up kaikkóndadanai, we must construe kaikkónu with Kalabhran, and adanai irrakkiyapin with Kadunkon, when both should, by grammar, have a common subject. So kaikkón:ladanai must be one word. It then refers to the Kalabhra occupation and Kadunkon's recovery, as irrakkiya means 'to lower,' i.e., undo another's act,