Indian Antiquary Vol 51

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

Page 221

NOVEMBER, 1922)
THE VELVI-KUDI PLATES AND THE SAXGHAM AGE
213
If the kingdom was recovered by an ancestor of Kadunkon, be must have been the next one, as nothing indicates other kings in the interval. But then we have no subject for irrakiya and nothing hints at an implied one. The context also indicates that Kadunkon himself recovered the kingdom, as, before his accession, he appeared like tho sun springing from the ocean. The Påndyas seem to have been submerged by a disaster, from which Kadunkon was the first to spring up. The phrase 'appearing like the sun is used later on (1. 52) in prefacing Mârra varman's exploits. The analogy shows that Kaçlunkon also became prominent by recovering the kingdom. Vēļirrpallu is used in the same sense later on (11.49, 52, 88-9). So Kadunkon himself recovered the kingdom; and the Kalabhra occupation was the act only of a single Kalabhra, himself expelled by Kadunkon (11. 40, 111-2).
Then ohalijattai, literally, means 'wide space'. The Kalabhra first annexed it; then it was recovered by Kaclunkon. Only after accession, the latter bubdued other kings and chiefs. So the ahalidam, that he recovered before accession, can only be the Pandya country.
Adhirajarai can mean that the Kaļabhra deprived others, besides the Pândya, of their lands. But ahalidam means only the Pandya kingdom. So, why should the victories of an alien over other aliens be mentioned in a Pandya grant ? Adhirajarai cannot hence include other kings. Neither can we construe both nikki and irrakkiyapin with Kadunkon, as he defeated other kings only after accession. Also, such conquest must come after the recovery of his own kingdom. Adhirajarai thus applies only to Pandyas. Elsewhere also (1. 32, 41, 47), it applies only to Pandyas.
But, in the latter lines, it is in the singular, here in the plural. So the plural means at least 2 Påndyas. But, since there was only one Kalabhra, they must all be referred to his time, if they were all displaced. But there was no need to displace them all, unless the kingdom had been recovered by a succeeding king, of which there is no indication. So only the last of them was displaced; but, as ho came of a long line of adhirdjas, they may all be said to have been displaced through him.
Lastly, alavariya means 'countless', not incomparable', as nothing in it expresses comparison, or greatness. Alavariya adhirajarai, hence, means 'countless Pândyas through their last representative. But there may have been many adhirajas both before and after Kudumi. These plates thus fix the close of the Sangbam age as not later than c. 600 A.C.
Mr. Venkayya equates the Kalabhra with the Karnata of the Martindya nûr-puranam, who occupied Madura. But tho Kalabhra was himself expelled, whilo the Karnata died in possession and issueless. The Kalabhra was succeeded by the Pandya, but the Karnata by Mürti for want of a Påndya, and the Kalabhras and Karnațas were distinct tribes. Mr. Venkayya says Nêdun-cêzhiyan expelled the Kalabhras; but the platos ascribe the feat to Kadunkon.
His son was the earth's crest-gem (avani-cúla-manl) Marravarman (II. 46-48). His son was the Cera (perhaps through his mother) Sendan (Ul. 48–51). Mr. Venkayya, not seeing tbat Sendan is partêd from Śèzhiyan by Vânavan and bênkol, takes Sézhiyan Sendan as the king's name.
Then comes a king, whom Mr. Venkayya calls Sendan's son. But the plates, which always state the relationships, have here only avarrku pazhipp-Inrri, vazhit tonrri (l. 51). So ho was only a descendant of Sendan. As other kings are not indicated between them, he directly followed Sendan. He was not Sendan's son's son, as it is nowhere so stated, the Volarpalaiyam plates saying that Narasimha II was the putra-sûnu of Parameśvara I (JRAS., 1911; p. 522), and the larger Cinnamandr plates saying that Râjasimha I was the pautra of Paränkusa (l. 107). So Sendun's successor was his daughter's son, as the terms without