Topic started by Sudhaama on Tue Nov 6 12:59:31 2007.

[Full View]

| RSS Feed | Email me when a reply is posted

Responses:

• From: P_R on Wed May 28 11:23:34 2008.

  [Full View]

  Just started reading an introduction to Silappadhikaram.
  
  A question....not literary but rather historical:
  
  Which Tamil King was said to have reached the Himalayas ?
  
  The name இமையவரம்பன் நெடுஞ்சேரலாதன் comes to mind. So I made a fair assumption that it was Chera king. The historical details are not clear to me though.
  
  In the very first few stanzas of the புகார் காண்டம் we see
  
  இப்பால் இமையத்து இருத்திய வாள் வேங்கை
  உப்பாலை பொன்கோட்டு உழையாதா, எப்பாலும்
  செருமிகு சினவேல் செம்பியன்
  ஒருதனி ஆழி உருட்டுவோன் எனவே
  
  
  Sujatha's translation reads:
  இமையலைக்கு இந்தப்பக்கத்தில்
  பறக்கும் புலிக்கொடி
  அந்தப் பக்கத்திலும் பறக்க
  எப்போதும் சோழன்
  ஆட்சி செலுத்தட்டும்
  
  Hmm...now the flag on the 'imayam' is mentioned to be the Chola flag.
  
  Could they imagine of 'beyond' the Himalayas too then ? Are we referring to the same 'imayam' as Himalayas. Or is it some other peak generically referred to as imayam ?
  
  ThirumAvaLavan’s northern exploits and the gifts he received from the Northern kings are mentioned (Magadha and Avanti kings are mentioned). There again the conquest of the ‘Imayam’ is mentioned.
  
  There is one other place where Chola King. is credited with this conquering the Ganges. So we can reasonably conclude that imayam being referred to is indeed the Himalayas.
  
  But when மதுரைக்காண்டம் begins
  
  வடதிசை கங்கையும் இமயமும் கொண்டு
  தெந்திசை ஆண்ட தென்னவன் வாழி
  
  Which is a song sung in praise of the Pandyan King.
  So now the Pandya king also went up to the Imayam and Gangai :confused:
  
  In other place, which I am struggling to locate, there is a mention of all three flags : the fish, the bow and tiger - having been planted in the 'imayam'
  
  

• From: podalangai on Thu May 29 5:14:49 2008.

  [Full View]

  Prabhu Ram wrote:

  Hmm...now the flag on the 'imayam' is mentioned to be the Chola flag. Could they imagine of 'beyond' the Himalayas too then ? Are we referring to the same 'imayam' as Himalayas. Or is it some other peak generically referred to as imayam ? ThirumAvaLavan’s northern exploits and the gifts he received from the Northern kings are mentioned (Magadha and Avanti kings are mentioned). There again the conquest of the ‘Imayam’ is mentioned.

  
  
  Yes. It's a reference to the popular legend that Karikalan conquered the Himalayas and created a land route into China. The Tamil kings had trade with China over the sea, and presumably had a rough idea that that was the land that lay on the other side of the Himalayas.
  
  

  Prabhu Ram wrote:

  So now the Pandya king also went up to the Imayam and Gangai :confused:

  
  
  Read it with the immediately preceding lines:
  
  பஃறுளி யாற்றுடன் பன்மலை யடுக்கத்துக்
  குமரிக் கோடுங் கொடுங்கடல் கொள்ள
  வடதிசைக் கங்கையும் இமயமும் கொண்டு
  தென்றிசை யாண்ட தென்னவன் வாழி
  
  When the ancient lands of the Pandiyan king between PaHruLi and Kumari were taken by the sea, the Pandiyan king conquered the newly-risen Himalayas to compensate. This is what eventually gave rise to the legend of Kumarikkandam.
  
  

  Prabhu Ram wrote:

  In other place, which I am struggling to locate, there is a mention of all three flags : the fish, the bow and tiger - having been planted in the 'imayam'

  
  
  Well, Senguttuvan planted his bow emblem on the Himalayas too, so all three were there. Incidentally, it's worth noting that there is a strong spirit of pan-Tamil nationalism running through the Silappadhikaram, emphasising the unity of the three kingdoms (as there is in the ettuthokai as well) - and the leitmotif of the Tamil kings placing their emblem on the mountains is part of that.
  
  

• From: P_R on Thu May 29 8:00:32 2008.

  [Full View]

  As usual, thanks for the info podalangai.
  I have not finished reading yet. Still in Madurai Kandam. So even before a mention of Senguttuvan, there was a mention of all three flags.
  
  

  podalangai wrote:

  Read it with the immediately preceding lines: பஃறுளி யாற்றுடன் பன்மலை யடுக்கத்துக் குமரிக் கோடுங் கொடுங்கடல் கொள்ள வடதிசைக் கங்கையும் இமயமும் கொண்டு தென்றிசை யாண்ட தென்னவன் வாழி When the ancient lands of the Pandiyan king between PaHruLi and Kumari were taken by the sea, the Pandiyan king conquered the newly-risen Himalayas to compensate.

  
  
  I assumed a KadarkOL slightly bigger than the sort that gobbled DhanushkOdi. Though we don't know how big the stretch between PahruLi and KumarikkOdu was, my uneducated guess it must be smaller in size than present day TN. So the compensatory jump right up to Ganges and Himalayas seem out of proportion to me.
  
  After this I looked up a acclaimed map of Lemuria (Kumarikkandam) that stretches all the way - as south as a map permits !!! The dates associated with the theory seem too too incredible.
  
  And I am intrigued by the term "newly-risen" Himalayas in your explanation. Which words in the text point to that ? Was there really a time when the Himalayas were not considered as old as the hills (heh heh couldn't resist that one )
  
  Even wikipedia seems to quote these very lines as evidence of Karikalan's Northern expedition. Are there any archeological (say numismatic) evidence of the expedition ? Is there any mention (as part of lore if not preserved literature) from the Magadha, Avanti kings' side of Karikalan's exploits ?
  And the Magadha empire (which pertains to the Mauryan kings) were all in BC isn't it ? Don't they predate Karikalan ?
  
  
  
  

• From: podalangai on Thu May 29 9:51:56 2008.

  [Full View]

  Prabhu Ram wrote:

  I assumed a KadarkOL slightly bigger than the sort that gobbled DhanushkOdi. Though we don't know how big the stretch between PahruLi and KumarikkOdu was, my uneducated guess it must be smaller in size than present day TN. So the compensatory jump right up to Ganges and Himalayas seem out of proportion to me.

  
  
  Adiyarkkunallar says that distance was 700 kavatams. According to the Madras Tamil Lexicon, a kavatam is 10 miles. If that is right, then we're talking of a distance of 11,000 kilometres. In which case, he was settling for a severely reduced territory by contenting himself with only the land upto the Himalayas.
  
  

  Prabhu Ram wrote:

  And I am intrigued by the term "newly-risen" Himalayas in your explanation. Which words in the text point to that ? Was there really a time when the Himalayas were not considered as old as the hills (heh heh couldn't resist that one )

  
  
  Ah... nothing. "Newly-risen" was a hangover from a totally different sentence which I cut out of my post. Let that teach me to read after I've finished cutting-and-pasting.
  
  

  Prabhu Ram wrote:

  Even wikipedia seems to quote these very lines as evidence of Karikalan's Northern expedition. Are there any archeological (say numismatic) evidence of the expedition ? Is there any mention (as part of lore if not preserved literature) from the Magadha, Avanti kings' side of Karikalan's exploits ? And the Magadha empire (which pertains to the Mauryan kings) were all in BC isn't it ? Don't they predate Karikalan ?

  
  
  No archaelogical evidence, no - for that matter, there's no archaelogocial evidence that he even existed. And as far Magadha predating Karikalan goes, we find that sort of thing not infrequently in Indian literature. And it pales in comparison with the legends around Udhiyan Cheraladhan, who is said to have fed the armies of the Pandavas and the Kauravas.
  
  

• From: P_R on Fri May 30 14:11:06 2008.

  [Full View]

  podalangai wrote:

  Adiyarkkunallar says that distance was 700 kavatams. According to the Madras Tamil Lexicon, a kavatam is 10 miles. If that is right, then we're talking of a distance of 11,000 kilometres. In which case, he was settling for a severely reduced territory by contenting himself with only the land upto the Himalayas.

  
  btw Thanks for the lexicon.
  
  

  podalangai wrote:

  No archaelogical evidence, no - for that matter, there's no archaelogocial evidence that he even existed.

  Whoa !
  
  

• From: podalangai on Wed Jun 4 5:35:46 2008.

  [Full View]

  Prabhu Ram wrote:

  podalangai wrote: No archaelogical evidence, no - for that matter, there's no archaelogocial evidence that he even existed. Whoa !

  
  From memory, the only Sangam-era king for whose existence we have contemporaneous epigraphical evidence is Neduman Anji, who is mentioned in one Brahmi inscription - but there are some scholars who dispute the authenticity of that inscription too. We do know the dynasties existed, from a Northern inscription (of Asoka) which confirms that the South was ruled by four dynasties - Choda (Chola), Pandya (Pandiya), Keralaputra (Cheraman) and Satiyaputra (Athiyaman) - and from a later Greek travelogue. There is also a tantalising reference to a confederacy of "Tamila" kings in the Pali-language Hathigumpha inscription. But no kings are named in these records.
  
  For the kings, the only evidence we have are the Sangam poems themselves and references to them in much later inscriptions by their descendants (Karikalan is, for example, mentioned very frequently by the Imperial Cholas as a great ancestor). There are also folk legends and customs which offer some supporting evidence - as late as the mid-20th century, for example, a certain sub-caste of Vellalar in the Madurai area gave their hereditary headmen the title "Irungovel" - which was the title borne by a particular clan of Velir chieftains referred to in Sangam poetry. But if it weren't for the Sangam poems, we wouldn't even have had a clue that there was such a strong Tamil identity in the Sangam period. In material terms, there is very little difference between archaeological sites in Tamilakam and the Deccan. It's only the poems that tell us that there was a very strong Tamil cultural identity - and, as a result, the small differences that do exist in the archaeological record - for example, in the style of the Brahmi script used, or the differences in coin hoards - suddenly start to make more sense.
  
  But this isn't at all unusual in ancient history. There is also zero archaeological evidence that King David or King Solomon existed, for example - for Solomon, there is absolutely nothing at all, and for David, all there exists is a word in an Aramean Stele several centuries after his time that could mean "the House of David" (i.e., the dynasty founded by David) - or could simply be a reference to a place called Bethdod. And, unlike Tamil sites from the Sangam period, which show signs of a material culture consistent with the Sangam poems, there isn't even much archaeological evidence for the sort of settlements legend associates with these two figures. Yet it's pretty clear that they actually existed, lack of archaeological evidence notwithstanding. So the absence of contemporaneous epigraphical evidence about Mavalavan or Senguttavan and their exploits isn't necessarily as significant as it may seem.
  
  

• From: P_R on Wed Jun 4 9:00:03 2008.

  [Full View]

  As always, thanks for the info podalangai.
  
  You rocked my chair !
  
  

  podalangai wrote:

  So the absence of contemporaneous epigraphical evidence about Mavalavan or Senguttavan and their exploits isn't necessarily as significant as it may seem.

  Yeah. But I has kind of assumed karikAlan was as solid as the kallaNai, which he is credited with. That he was inferred from (no doubt scholastic analysis of) literature is something I find simultaneously thrilling and uneasy
  

  podalangai wrote:

  But if it weren't for the Sangam poems, we wouldn't even have had a clue that there was such a strong Tamil identity in the Sangam period.

  The history of the texts, how they were preserved, rediscovered would be pretty interesting too. Were they constantly in circulation.
  
  We see AvvaiyAr and NammAzhwAr using lines/expressions found in the ThirukkuraL. An example I hit upon in a discussion with hubber app_engine a few weeks back
  
  உழுதுண்டு வாழ்வாரே வாழ்வார்மற் றெல்லாம்
  தொழுதுண்டு பின்செல் பவர்
  ---
  உழுதுண்டு வாழ்வாரே வாழ்வார்
  பழுதுண்டு வேறோர் பணிக்கு (Avvai)
  
  AvvaiyAr of course referring to and even prescribing kuRaL (அணுவைத் துளைத்து ஏழ்கடலைப் புகட்டிக்
  குறுகத் தரித்த குறள்) Dating avvaiyAr - no pun intended - is itself quite daunting. There are supposedly three of them in history(right ?).
  
  Ok let me quit digressing. What I am trying to ask is, were the Sangam works similarly hailed throughout the time ? Were they digested , if not celebrated, from their creation. Was the historical/literary awareness always there. No major loss-in-transit etc. (would we be able to tell that standing today ? )
  
  I ask because the time distance between, say Rajaraja and Karikalan is so much that the latter could have been raised to a mythological superhuman status. (Only) with literature contemporaneous to Karikalan would they have managed to retain him as human - a great ancenstor nevertheless
  
  
  For the folks interested, here is a link to text of the Hathigumpha insciption mentioned by podalangai.
  
  

• From: P_R on Mon Jun 9 3:00:44 2008.

  [Full View]

  Correction in my last post.
  AvvaiyAr's lines are actually
  உழுதுண்டு வாழ்வதற்கு ஒப்பில்லை கண்டீர்
  பழுதுண்டு வேறோர் பணிக்கு
  
  As 'உழுதுண்டு வாழ்வது' is quite a general expression this need not necessarily be tied to the kuRaL. However, it is only my example that was incorrect but intertextuality - if that's the correct word - does exist.
  
  

| RSS Feed | Email me when a reply is posted

Want to post a response?