80

Chapter II

HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY

We have already detailed out the background of the regime of the Pallavas, In the light of that, let us get into the ’ historical geography’ introduced earlier and which, in a word, is an attempt at the historical survey of the delimitation and the units of the territorial administration of the Pallava dominion. In other words it is a study of the pre-Pallava and later Pallava history of the territorial administration of the Pallava empire. Thus, there are two aspects of the Pallava

Historical Geography. One is the history of the Pallava delimitation which results in the modern identification and which is also incorporated and the other that of the

Pallava units of territorial administration. Let us take up the aspect of delimitation first, that is, of the divisions as against the dividing units.

The beginning for the history of the Pallava delimita­ tion has to be made with its modern presence in the form of states, districts, taluks and villages against the background of the physical and ethnographic nature of its inhabitants and the part played by its geography.

The Nature of the Pallava dominions : Physical and Ethnographic

The area of the modern equivalent of the ancient PallaTa dominion falls more or 1«S8 within 10° to 17° of the latitude and 7B° to 81^ of the longitude but for the Bellary pocket which is at 76^ longitude. Thus» the region between the rivers God3varl and Vaigai along the

Coromandel coast and inclining towards the lower Deccan plateau near Bellary in the modern Mysore State formed the ancient Pallava territory. It may be pointed out that the territorial expansion beyond the Krishna and upto the

Godavari was, only once and it was during the time of

5ivaskandavarman of the Prakrit charters. But the expan-

-sion beyond the south of the Cauvery touching the river

Vaigai is doubtful though it might have probably happened during the reign of Nandivarman III the Pallavamalla of the Simhavisnu line. Doubtless, the area close to the southern banks of the Cauvery were included in the

Pallava dominion but whether it penetrated deep into the

South touching the Pandyan capital is not yat established.

Essentially, the frontiers of the Pallava dominion were the Cauvery in the South and the Godavari in the north.

The major rivers in between the frontiers are the KrsnS, the Tungabhadra, the Pilar, the PennSrs (Pennai) north and south and the Cauvery. But for the Bellary area of the Deccan plateau, the rest are the plains watered by the rivers other than the Tungabhadra. The group of the mountains situated in the old Pallava dominions, scat­ tered here and there with moderate height in the midst 8 "I

of the plains, form a major portion of the Eaetem

Ghats.

Ethnography - race, religion, caste and language

Hairing had a glance at the physical foz^ation of the area under discussion it is better to have an idea of the modern representation in the fields of race, religion, caste and language.

Race

”The-oldest existing race in the Indian peninsula is represented by the Uravidians v;ho make up the bulk of the population in India" says Thurston. It has to be noted that the Dravidians, referred to by Thurston, are the later and cultured race as distinguished from the pre-Dravidian aboriginals. Thus, historically though not living, the original inhabitants of the South are of a 2 non-Dravidian race. Here, it has also to be made clear that the ethnic aspects of the term '’Dravidian*' are such that they stand for a class of people whose languages are

Dravidian and not that there is a race by name ^Dravi- 3 dian” or "Aryan” .

1 Thurston, E ,, "The Maft’as Presidency with Mysore^ Coorg and the Associated Statas" . p. 124.

^Ibid., pp. 124-125.

^Venkataraman, T.K., Culture-contacts in South In d ia . J . I . H . , Vol. XXJCVIII, fart I , pp. 5-4. (The theories of Maxmuller, Haddon, Caldwell, Risley and Von Eickstedt are discussed). p, 0 ■

But, though there is no race called *Dravidian’ we can take the term ’Dravidian’ as standing for the ethnic and cultural aspects too as it stands for the linguistic traits of the people of the South, It may not be wrong to take it so as, whatever be the technical terms for the ethnical and cultural character of the South, cannot easily- be denied that there are disparities in the physical and cultural mould of the people between the South and the non-South Indian region and it is more in the North than in central India and the Deccan. Thus, in the pre­ sent work, the term ’ Dravidian* is taken to connote not only the linguistic character but also the ethnographic and cultural facets. In short, the South Indian way of life which comprehends the three fields of ethnography, culture and language can be equated with the ’Dravidian’ way of life and this Dravidian way of life holds the field till the advent of the Aryanisation in its overall influence of the South that asserted itself under the

Pallavas. Thus is developed the thesis on the two schools of the ancient Indian Thought - Dravidian and

Aryan.

Religion

The predominant people, of the modem inhabitants, are the followers of the Hindu faith as it was so under the Pallavas. How the ancient South Indian - Tamilian paganism was replaced by the Brahmanical religion is 84

discussed in the fourth chapter and also in the last.

Caste

There is a rigid caste system based on the Brahma- nical theory of *Varna* which is so multiplied and complex that it cannot be referred to here and the reader will do well in having an access to the monumental work on the la lb South Indian Caste by Thurston with his ’notes’

LansuaRe

The languages of the people of the area, a& it was

?iO under the Pallavas, are Tamil, Kannada and Telugu. It

is really surprising that there in no alteration in the number &nd character of the popular language despite the

passing away of a millennium. For instance, it is not

so with the other power of the South, though traditional, namely, the Cerae of the Tamil-Sangam age. The language of modern Kerala, i.e. more or less of the ancient terri­ tory of the Ceras, is Malaiyllaic whereas Tamil was the ancient language of the region.

Let us, then, pass on to the part played by geography, having considered the racial, religious, caste and lin­ guistic traits of the people.

la Thurston, E ., Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Vols. I-VII.

^^Ibid., Sthnographic Notes of oouthern India. The part plaved by Geography

The geographical features of the South are such that they have given the South the character of conservatism unlike the Non-South Indian area the role of which has always been one of synthesis. Its peninsular character has allowed the external influences to trickle through the

North only, whereas the Non-South Indian region is exposed to the foreign influences from the West, the north and the north-east, ^ven through the Non-South Indian region, what has infiltrated into the South is nothing extraneous

as it is Indianised already by the time it reaches the

Non-South Indian region, Iherefore, it may not be wrong to say that, at any time in the history of India, the

Indian Culture has, always, been more prevalent and better

preserved in the South than in the other parts of the country characterised by a synthesis of the foreign

elements flowing into India. Thus fieogr&phjr has given the South an unique place in such a way that vrhile the history of the non-South Indian region is , essentially, the political history of the ;jub-Contln0nt, the history of the South is , essen-cially, the cultui*al history of

India, The monuKiental testimony to aach a statement is that, to-day, the ancient Indian Culture in its classical

Brahmsmic form is better prot;9cted and practised in the

South, while the Non-South Indian region and particularly the North, having been dominated by Islam which has to come to stay, has yielded to the Islamic influences especially in the fields of art and culture, to wit, language, music and dress. But there is one distinc­ tion in the Southern character of the Indian culture. The

Dravidian element is the Neo-Aryan, that is , the Indian culture is more pronounced in the South,

Against this background let us now deal with the - divisions of the ancient Pallava dominion. It has to be emphasised that the present equivalents are only a rough estimate and not final and, in the estimate, we may have to confine ourselves to the Kij’snS and Cauvery region and the Bellary pocket and omit the Cauvery-Vaigai area and also the Krsna-Godlvarl area as there are no Pallava inscriptions in the South Cauvery or the North KrsnS region, so far traced.

In 1S05, the entire region came under the British as part of the ’Ceded distficts*, the Southern Circars and the Carnatic but for tiny French enclaves of Pondicherry and KlraikkSl and the independent princely states of

Sandur and Pudukkottai. What was under the British evolved as the following districts: Bellary, Chittoor, Guntur,

Nellore, North Arcot, Chingleput, South Arcot, Tanjore and Trichinopoly.

In the early part of the current century came into being the Chittoor (1911) and the Guntur (1904) districts.

This set up continued with minor amendments till the linguistic formation of States after independence and the R zonal Bystem following it. All come under the southern zone with the exception of the Bellary district which, mainly forming part of the Mysore State comes under the

Bangalore division of the western zone. Those that are under the Southern Zone are distributed among the two

States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras, The Guntur, Nellore and Chittoor districts are in Andhra Pradesh and the rest are in the Madras ;»tate called ^'iamilngdu* in Tamil. With the abolition of the princely states, the Pudukkottai state is merged in the Trichinopoly district of the

Madras State, Pondicherry and Karaikkal are centrally administered. The Sandur State is merged in the Bellary district of the Mysore State, It may be noted here that a part of the Bellary district has been merged with the

Kurnool district of the Andhra Pradesh, So also boundary adjustments are made between the Chingleput district of the Madras State' and the Chittoor district of the Andhra

Pradesh,

Thus, in a very flexible way the ancient Pallava empire can be equated with the Bellary district of the

Mysore State, the Chittoor, Guntur and Nellore districts of Andhra Pradesh and the Chingleput, North Arcot, South

Arcot, Tanjore and Trichinopoly districts of the Niadras

State, As already discussed in ’Introduction*, the Haldipur inscription of Gopaladeva is not considered as its asso­ ciation with the Pallava imperial line is not yet estab­ lished and hence the Karwar area of the Mysore State is not dealt with.

Going further and in detail, the Pallava dominion

can be identified with the subsequent summarisation.

Andhra Pradesh

The Guntur District

The Bapatla, Hepalle, Guntur, Palnad, Narasaraopet,

Ongcle, and Sattenapalle, Tenali and Vinukonda taluks.

The Nellore district

Atmakur, Uarsl, Gudur, Kandukur, Kanigiri, Kavali,

Kovur, Nellore, Podili, Rapur, iiulurpet, Udayagiri,

Venkatagiri taluks.

The Ghittoor district

Ghandragiri, Chittoor, KalahaBti, Madanapalle (Madan-

palli) , Pimganur, Put&ur, Vayalpad tialuks.

M t'^adras State

Ghingleput district

Ghingleput, Conjeevaram, Madurantakam, Ponneri, Said-

pet, Sriperumbudur and Trivellore taluks.

• North Arcot district

Arkonam, A m i , Ghengait, Qheyya.r, Gudiyattarn, Polur,

Tiruppattur, Tiruvannamalai, Vellore, ’^Jandiwash, Walaja|»-

pet taluks. South Arcct district

Chidambaram, Cuddalore, Gingee, Kallakurichi, Tlndl-

Yanam, Tlrukkollur, Vlllupuram, Vriddachalam taluks and the Pondicherry pocket.

Tan.iore district

Kumbakonam, Mannargudi, Mayavaram, Nagapattlnam, I Mannilam, Papanas£ua» Pattukkottait Sir kali» Tanjore

(Tanjavur) Tirutturalppundl taluks and the Karalkkal"

pocket.

Trichinopoly district

Alangudi, Karur, Kulattiir, Kulittalai, Lal^udl, Muslrl,

Perumbalur, Trichinopoly (Tiruchihirappalli), Tirumayam,

Udalyarpalaiyam taluks.

Here, it has to be made clear that the divisional

allocation of the Madras Presidency under the British was

carried out in such a way that the Chittoor district was

the later creation in the year 1911 out of the then

Cuddapah and North Arcot districts. Thus the Madanpalli A and Vayalpad taluks of the later Chittoor district were

in the Cuddapah district and the rest formed part of the

North Arcot district, and these two districts, Chittoor

and Cuddapah, were with the North Arcot district in the

composite state but, now, after the Andhra separation on

the theory of the linguistic formation of States in 1956, the North Arcot fell under the new friadras State, and «0

Chittoor and Guddapah under Andhra Pradesh. Recently, the Tlruttanl taluk of the Chittoor district has been handed over to Madras by the Pataskar award.

So also Is the Guntur district which came Into being

In 1904 out of the Ongole taluk of the then Nellore district and the Bapatla, Guntur, Narasaraopet, Ongole, i>attenapalle, Tenall and Vinukonda taluks of the then

Klstna district. The addition of Repalle is after the absorption of the princely States and the Re-organiaatlon.

Eellary will be discussed separately.

Having dealt with the nature of the P&llava dominion in its present form and ite people let us trace the history of its delimitation with a special reference to 1 the ’Tona&lmandalarri the heart of the Pallava empire'.

In oth»r words, t.he historical ^;eography of the Tondai- mandalaifi is, essentially ^ha historical geography of the

Pallavas, ’ thougii it is not completely so as Tondaimandalam is the major area of the dominion but not the dominion itself. Xhus, here, tne historical geography of the

Pallava dominion excludes tha No e -Tondaimandalam portions of the North-Nellore, Guntur and Krishna districts of

Andhra Pradesh, the Tanjore, Trichiiiopoly and South-South

Arcot districts of Madras and the Bellary pocket in the

1 Sathianathier, K ,, ’ Studies in the Ancient History of Toudamandalam*, p. 1.

{The entire work is useful for the History of Tondaimandalam). 91

Mysore State. The Tondalmandala area covers the South-

Nellore district and the old North Arcot portions of the

Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh, the whole of the

North Arcot and Chingleput districts and the South Arcot district north of the South Pennar river and the Madras district of the Madras State. i The historic fact on which is based the popular

\ identification of tha dominion itself with the Tondairaan- del?3 is that, excluding: the British, an alien power of the modem period, the only imperial power indigenous to the Irdien soil that rone cn the plains of the Tondai- inandJ'.lain are the Pallavas. One nay dispute the statement by stating that the Kalabhras v/ero there iidth their pro- bfible capital at Tlrupnti. But this can be answered by the obsei'vation thct the KalabhrSs ere known more for their Interregnum than for their rule in South India- 1 T£.nllnad.

Another factor in support of the special, treatment of the Tondairaandals £irea is that the Pallava capital

KSAchl was in the ToridalmsndalaK, there beirg a Telugu

Pallava dynasty with their capit?.l at Guntur not warranted by historical f.-icts. Hahabalipuram, the great Pallava port and the greatest Pallava Art centra v;ith its Pagodas/ rathSs, was also in the Tondaimani^slam. One more point

1 Aiyangar, S .K ., ^The Kalabhra Interregnum and what it means In South Indian History’ presented to the International Congress of Orientals held at Oxford, Auguet, lS)2(i. 9^:

in its favour is that both the Pallava records and the places referred to In the Pallava records are not only- found more in the Tondaiman^ala area than those in the non-Tondaimandala area but that they are more than the records and the place found in the records of the complet non-Ton^aimandala area put together and they are found so particularly in the Chingleput and North Arcot districts vide Map 5(b) of the thesis. Again, it is the Tondaiman^ area of the Pallava dominion that has greater political history than the residuary one as from the Mauryas to the Marathas, it has been the target of attack and settl9« ment including the non-Pallava powers of South India -

Tamilnad. Let us take a brief survey of the political facets of the Pallava Historical Geography, The begin­ ning has to be made vrLth the Tamil Sangam age.

Ton(jLaimandalam of the Tamil Sangam age

The earliest history of the Pallava dominion goes back to the traditional CSlas when a major portion of it might have been under the sway of one of the traditional and independent powers of South India - Tamilnad. The

Sangam literary reference, discussed in the theory of the origin of the Pallavas, that the area around Kanchi, the

Pallava capital, was once ruled by the CSla prince

TondaimSn-Ilam-Tiraiyan, is an additional factor of the

Pallava historical geography as decided by the Sangam and it is the most decisive as the following pages will reveal. 93

Ton(^aiman

The Tamil tradition calls the PallaYa rulers of

KSftchi Ton^aimSn, the locality Ton^aiman^alam, and the people Ton^aiyar. The tradition is confirmed in the

Sangam literature, Ton^aiyar occurs in the works of the la Sangam namely the Tolk&ppiyam and the AhanSnQru.

NacchinSrkkiniyar, the noted Tamil commentator, in his commentary on Sutra 54, Poruladhikfiram of the TolkSppiyam, established the equation that the Tamil *Tondaiyar* is equivalent to the Sanskrit »Pallava’ , Krishnaswamy Aiyan- gar has developed his theory of the origin of the Pallavas, already referred to, on the basis of this equation, supported in addition, by the reference to ’ Pallavan

To^^aiyar KCn (the Pallava, who is the ruler of the Ton^ai- yar) by the contemporary Vaishnavite saint Tirumangai AlvSr,

Literally, ’ Tondai’ refers to Caphallandra Indica the name of a creeper along with the coil of a twig of which was found washed ashore Tondai*MSn>Ilamtiraiyan, the hero of the Perumbfinarrupa^ai of the ’ Ten* of the Sangam classics - a work by Rudrankai^anSr end who is the tradi­ tional founder of the Pallavas of KSRchi. It is how

RSsanSyagam Mudaliar has expounded his theory of the

Pallava origin. Again, as pointed out earlier, Gopalan takes *Ton^aiyar' as a tribal name.

la b Aiyangar, S .K ., Introduction to Gopalan's, op.cit., pp. XI-XII. 9 4

Tondalman(jl«liaB - its traditional constitution

The traditional constitution of Ton^aiman^alam is dealt with in the Sangam literary composition AhanSnuzni.

It is the traditional Aruv5n5du lying within the frontiers of the two rivers the South PennSr running through the 4 South Arcot district of Madras and the north Pennar pass-

Ing through the Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh, the area along the north Pennar being the north-eastern frontiers of the traditional Tamilnad. For instance, the locality around KSlhasti in the KSlhhasti taluk of the Chlttoor district of Andhra Pradesh bordering the Nellore district of the same state through which runs the north Pennar is known in the old records and even now, as 'Tondaiman

Magani*, The major divisions of the traditional Ton^al- man^alam is reflected in the Sangam literature are AmQr,

ChembGr, ChefikSdu, Chenthirukal, Chirukarai ethoor, Eyil,

IkkB^u, IlaAkfidu, Kadlkai, KalattQr, Kaliytlr, Kuvra- pattinam, Manavur, Paduvur, Palkunram, PayyOr, Pulal, Puliyilr,

Thfimal QttukkSdu, VelOr, Vengadam, Venkunram the reflec­ tion of which 1b the Pallava records will be dealt with when the divisions and the sub-divisions of the Pallava dominion are discussed.

1 a Mackengie C. MSS, b Crole, Chlngleput District Manual App. H, p. 43S. c V. Kanakasabai Pillai^s The Tamilb* 1800 years ago, 8^

TorK^aiman^alam - its historical character

Tondaiman^alam is known as Tondai*n&du, Tondaiya-ngdu,

TondSka-rSshtra, Tondira-desa, Tondlra-man^ala, TundSka-rashtra and TundSka-visaya,

Of these tames, the most well known - ’ Tondaimandalam*

- does not seem to occur in any of the inscriptions of the imperial Pallavas. It is found in the Itttlr Mukteiivara 1 temple inscription of the KopperuAjingadeva I of the thirteenth century A .D ., the so-called later Pallava chief whose claim to the Pallava ancestry is disputed. In fact, other than Ton^Ska-rSshtra, the earliest reference to Tondainidu and Tundirade^a is to be found in the in­ scriptions of the post-Pallava period which does not fall within the orbit of the present study, namely the 2 3 Agastlsvara and the Tribhuvani VaradarSjaperumal temple inscriptions respectively. *TondSka-rSshtra^ for the 4 first time, is referred to in the Ka^Skkudi Plates.

Tun^Ska visaya is referred to in the non-Pallava records 5 6 viz. the Western Chalukyan Vakkaleri and Kendur Plates.

1 Venkatasubbier V., S.I.I., Vol. XII, p. 56.

2 Ibid., p. 62.

3 Ibid., p. 63.

4 Hultzsch, S ., Ibid., Vol. II, p. 346.

6 Rice, L . , I .A ., VIII, p. 23 and Kielhorn, F ,, E.I. V, p. 200.

6 Pathak K.B., S.I., IX, p. 200. 96

Tondal is the proper and original name and the other names TondSka, Tun^Ska, Ton^ira, Tun^ira are the altered and corrupt forms of *To]j^ai’ . Its suffices which happen to be the units of the ancient Indian territorial admi­ nistration point to the same delimitation.

Tondaimandalam - its frontiers

The exact frontiers of the Tondaimandala area cannot easily be demarcated. The correctness of the border lines of the region depends on the historicity of the following problems, namely, the visit of the Buddha to the region, the respective southern and northern boundaries of the

A^okan and the traditional C51a (351a) empires, its con­ quest by Bindus5ra, the identification of the Satyaputra

{Satlyaputta) country referred to in the A^okan records, and the DakshinSpatha expedition of Samudragupta. But still, a tentative modem equivalent can be given to its ancient form which, in detail, consists of the Chingleput,

Conjeevaram, Maduranthakam, Ponneri, Saidapet, Sriperum- budur, Trivellore and Tiruttani taluks of the Chingleput district; the Madras city area, the Arkonam, Arni, Chengam,

Cheyyar, Gudiyattam, Polur, Tiruppattur, Tiruvanamalai,

Vellore, Walajahpet, Wandiwash taluks of the North Arcot district; the Gingee; Tindivanem, Villuppuram, the portions north of the river South Pennar of the Cuddalore (includ­ ing the Pondicherry pocket) taluk and Tirukkoilur taluks of the South Arcot district of the Madras State, and the 87

Chandragiri, Chittoor, Kalahasti, Palmaner, Punganur and

Puttur taluks of the Chittoor district; the Gudur,

Nellore, the north eastern portion of the Rapur, Sulurpet,

eastern portion of the Venkatagiri taluks of the Nellore

district of Andhra Pradesh. It may also touch the

south eastern part of the Rajampet taluk of the Cuddapah

district of Andhra Pradesh.

Though there are Telegu speaking areas forming part

of the Tondaimandalam of to-day, still it is essentially,

a Tamil speaking area. That PudukkSttai maharajas -

Tamil kings - till their accession to the Indian Union

took place - called themselves TondaimSns - is a point

of support though their descent from the Pallavas is

controversial as discussed in the ’ Introduction*. Though

Tondaimandalam might not have been completely within the

Tamil country as the Cola and the Pandya territories

were, the major portions of the Tondaimandalam has always

been part and parcel of the Tamil country. The area

around Kanchi is the nucleus of the Tondaimandalam as

that around Tanjavur and Madurai formed the nucleus of

the C51a and Pandya regions respectively.

Against this background, let us now have a brief

survey of the historical geography of the Pallava Domi­

nion with special reference to Tondaimandalam as decided

by some of the powers ancient, mediaeval and modern and

start, again, with the Sangam. f)8 Historical geography of the Pallava Dominion with special reference to TondalmaiK^alam. Ihe Sangam or the Traditional C51as The earliest history of the Dominions, later connected with the Pallavas, goes back to the pre-Christian era when a major portion of it might have been under the sway of the traditional Tamil kingdom viz. the Colas. There is no evidence other than the bangam literary references, already discussed in the theory of the Pallava origin and the origin of Tondaimandalam, that the area around Kanchi, the Pallava capital, was once ruled by the C31a prince 1 Ton^aimSn - Ilam-Tlraiyan Nllakanta Sastri holds that even Karikala of the traditional CSlas had his sway over Tondaimandalam.

2 The Maurvas.

Under Asoka, the territory of the Telegu speaking people except the southernmost tip of the Nellore-Guntur region which formed the northern most portions of the

Pallava dominion had acknowledged his suzerainty while the CSlas and the Pandyas were Independent. A major portion of the Pallavas, thus, seems to have been independ­ ent of the Mauryan sway and the Tamil Pallava territory was possibly absolutely sovereign,

^Sastry K.A.N., ’ cilas’ , p. 44. 2 (a) Dikshitar V.R.R., The Mauryan Polity, pp. 57-58. (b) Basak R.G., Asokan Inscriptions. Introduction, pp. XI-XV. Qd

The SatavShanas.^

As the MySkadoni inscription of the SStSvahana king

PulumSvi stands, the SStavahana anpire crossed the limits of the Krishna and, from this, it can be stated that the Godavari-Krishna area of the later Pallava dominion with a little interior to the south of the Krishna was absorbed in the SStavShana kingdom, including the Bellary pocket in the Pallava inscription of which is referred >hat to SStShanirattha/can be identified with the Satahani/ satavshani 5hSra of the Andhras,

2 The Guptas

At the close of the fourth century A.D, the Pallava themselves pushed the boundaries of their dominion further up to the Godavari but the Cauvery area, that is, the non-Tondaimandala area of the Tamil territory was lost to the pre-Vijayalaya CSlas. The most controversial aspect is the Gupta subjucation of the Pallava dominion discussed earlier and which pertains to the conquest of the Pallava Vishnugopa of the Sanskrit charters by

Samudra Gupta.

1 (i) (a) Sukthankar V .S ., E .I ., Vol. XIV, p.163. (b) f/i.E.R. for 1915-16 Pt. I I , p. 112. (ii) (a) Buhler Gt. E .I ,, Vol. I, p. 5. (b) Hultzsch, S., Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 86. (iii) Gopalan R ., op.cit,, p. 34.

2 Fleet, J.F., CII, Vol. Ill, pp. 1-17. 100 1 The Kalabhras

In the fourth or the fifth century A.D., as a common enemy of the Pallavas, the CSlas and the Pandyas, the

Tondairaan^alam was over run by the Kalabhras,

2 The Badami ChSlukvas

The Aihole,^ the Gadhwal and the Vakkalerf plates,

In their final analysis, reveal that the Tondaimandalam was subdued twice - first under the greatest of the

Chalukyas, Pulakesin II (C. 609 A.D.) and, then, under his son Vikramaditya I (C. 655 A.D.)

3 The Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi

By about 640 A .D ,, the Hlastern Chalukyas conquered the area between the Godavari and the Krishna, which, according to Gopalan, happened to be under the Pallavas.

But, the region north of the river Cauvery, was taken by the Pallavas from the pre-Vijayalaya but post-tradi- tional CSlas.

1 Sathianathier R ., A College Text Book of Indian History now called a Political and Cultural History of India, Vol. I, pp. 224-226,

^(a) Kielhorn, F . , E.I., V I, p, 4. (b) Hultzsch, £., S.I., 1, p. 101. (c) Rice L., I.A., VIII, p. 23, Kielhorn, F,, E.I,, V, p, 200, 3 Venkataramanayya N , , The Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. p. 61, ^Gopalan, R ,, op.cit,, p. 37. in:.

The Pandyas^

The Pallava-Pandya clash began during the reign of

Arikesari Parafiku^a MSravarman (C, 670-1100 A .D .) and

Tondaiman^alam was threatened by MSravarman RSjasimha I

(C, 740-765) A.D. and Sundara Pandya I of 1216-1236 A.O.

2 The HSysalas

Bittideva ( \\M — A ' j) ) also called Vishnu Vardhana

of Hoysala power is said to have invaded Tondaimandalam.

3 The KSkatlvas

The most significant is the conquest of the Pallava

capital by the Kakatlya general Muppidi Nayaka during

the reign of PratSparudra II (C. 1291-1323 A.D.) and the

K&katlya inscriptions of Ganapati (1199-1262 A.D.) are

found at K3!ichi and KSlahasti located in Tondaimandalam.

4 The Rastraktltas

Tondaimandalam was invaded by the later RastrakHta

kings Dhruva (780-792 A .D .) and Govinda I I I (792-814 A .D .)

both the expeditions being against Dantivarman.

Sathianathier, K ., op.cit., Vol. I, p. 283 and Vol. II, p. 112. (Here it may be pointed out that, unfortu­ nately, the treatise on the Pandyas'i.e. the ’Pandyan kingdom’ by K.A.N. Sastri could not be referred to due to the non-availability of the book and hence, the exact nature of the threat is not detailed out). 2 (a) Sathianathier, R., op.cit., Vol. I, pp. 335-336. (b) Rao Hayavadana G,, xMysore Gazetteer, Vol. II, p. 1329. 3 Sathianathier R., op.cit., Vol. II, p. 114. ^ Altekar. A.S.. The RSshtrakQtas and their Times, ______...... 10':

The Historical or Later or the Vl.lavSlaYa C^las^

At the close of the ninth century A.D,, the Pallava

Empire had come to an end almost with the imperial line closing with AparSjita and the Pallava territory came under the CSlas but for the Telegu area about the rule of which nothing definite is known. In the early eleventh century, when the Pallava chiefs too disappeared, the northern boundaries were pushed further upto the North -

Pennar and, at the beginning of the twelfth century, the entire stretch from the Krishna to the Cauvery formed part of the CSla empire. In the early thirteenth century, only the territory between the North Pennar and the Cauvery could be under the Cola sovereignty.

2 The Travancoreans

The most triumphant is the march of Kulasekhara of

Travancore in 1313 A.D,

Having been under the Hindu Kingdom;^, the Pallava dominion had to bear the rule of the Muslim powers t ill again under the Vijayanagar and Mahratha dynasties it could be under the Hindu-rule, Before finally coming under the

British it was to be subaued by the kughals.

Nilakanta ^ifstri, K.A., GC15s, p. 132. 2 Sathianathier, R., op.cit., Vol. II, p. 114. . 103

The Delhi Sultanate^

The Pallava dominion formed the Telengana and Mabar

provinces of the empire of Mohammad Bin Tughluq of the

period of the first half of the fourteenth century A,U.

"The glory and greatness of the Kakatiyas ended and hence

forward they ceased to exist as a paramount power in 2 Southern India," says I. Prasad.

3 The Vi.l&yanaKar

From the fag end of the fourteenth century till the

end of the sixteenth century, the whole of the territory

formed part of the Vijayanagar empire.

4 The Ga.iapatis

The most important and noncontroversial Gajapati in ­

vasion of Tondaimandalam was between 1462-1466 under the

expedition of Kapilendra who was the king of the Gajapati

dynasty ruling in the vicinity of Utkal,

5 The Bahmanis

The Bahmanis invaded Tondaimandalam• • • • under Muhammad III (1463-82) who conducted the Kanchi expedition,

^Prasad, I ,, Hlw^storv of Mediaeval India, p. 256. 2 Prasad, I ., A Short History of Muslim Rule in India, p. 103.

^Krishnaswamy Ayyangar S ., Sources of Vi.iavanagar History, p. 170. 4 Sathianathier, R ., op.cit., Vol. II, p. 114. 6 Sherwani, H .K ., The Bahamani Kingdom, p . 43. 1 0 1

The Adllshahls^

One of the subjucations of Ton^alman^alam called

’ Carnatic’ might be under the Sultan Ibrahim Adil Shah of the year 1543.

2 The MahrSttas

In 16B0, the pockets of Vellore Arni, Gingi, and

Tanjore were under the Mahratta sway. Tanjore could, again after its absorption in the Mughal empire be independent during the period of Warren Hastings as a Mahratta power.

3 The Mup-.hals

fly the end of the seventeenth century, the whole of the territory of Tondaimandalam was absorbed in the Mughal empire. But, during the earlier period of Akbar, the portions south and a little north of the river North Pennar were under the Polygars and the rest under the Golconda sultans whose penetration into the Krishna-Godavari region started by about 1625 preceded by the Telengana kings.

The B ritish-^

To start with, the area around Madras and the Krishna-

1 Scott, J ., Ferista*s History of the Deccan, trans­ lation, Vol. I, p. 272. “ 2 Patwardhan, R.P. and Rawlinson, H.G., Source Book of Maratha Hi story. I, p. 1^2. 3 Cambridge History of India, vol.lv, Chapter VI-JC. by Richard Bum.

\ - n (K)

Godavari region could come under the British. The rest were under the Carnatic Nawabs, It almost remained so till

1^01 when the entire territory formed part and parcel of the Madras Presidency of the still English East India

Compsmy and later of the Crown in lS5S.

1 The Bellarv Pocket

Since the Bellary region has exceptionally gone out of the coastal line its historical geography has to be dealt with independently. To Suart with, it was included 2 in the Asokan empire. Then, W3 are not in a position to know exactly who ruled it until C, 1100 A,D, when it might have been under the C31a feudatories the Banavlsis.

Prior to that, it was ruled by the Kadambas, ChSlukyas of Badarai and KalySni the Yadavas and the KSkatiyas. In the early thirteenth century, the HoysSlas had suzerainty over the region. In 1335, it was included in the empire of Muhammad Bin Tughluq. By the end of fourteenth century it came under the sway of Vijayanagar empire. It was absorbed in .the Bijapur iiultanate by the early seven­ teenth century. The Maratha empire had it in 1680 when

1 Kelsall, J ., Manual of the Bellary district, Part I, Chapter I, pp. 1-6. Part II, Chapter I, pp.101-138, 2 The Southernmost Asokan-edict is found at Erragudi iit the Gooty telwk once in the Bellary district of the Mysore State but now in the Kurnool district of the State of Andhra Pradesh - See Basak 1 (16

it vrae at the zenith. By the fatr. end of the same century it fell to the Mughals and, then, to the British as part of the ’ Ceded Districts*.

The Territorial division of the Bellary pocket under the British

At first, Bellary had the Adoni, Alur, Anantapur,

Bellary, Dharmavaram, Gooty, Hadagalli, Harpanahalli,

Hindupur, Hospet, Kudilight, Madaksira, Raydurg, Penukonda,

Tadpatri taluks. Later, in 18^1 it vras divided into two districts of Bellary and Anantapur and then, the Bellary district ceased to have Anantapur, Raydurg, Gooty, Tad­ patri, Dharmavaram, Penukonda, Madaksira, Hindupur taluks 1 which formed the Anantapur district. Later, on the re­ commendation of the S.R.C., Adoni, Alur were transferred to the Kumool district of Andhra Pradesh and the Siru- guppa, Nallapuram, SandCr have been added to the Bellary district and transferred to the Mysore State, It may be added that the earliest Pallava record is found at Hira- hadagalli in the Hadagalli taluk of the Bellary district of the Mysore State.

Historical Geography of the Pallava divisions; Its Sub-divisions and the villages

Having had an estimate of the Historical geography

1 Hunter, W.W., The Imperial Gazetteer of India. Vol. IX, p. 16. in?1

of the Pallava dominion, let us now deal with the histo­

rical geography of the Pallava divisions, sub-divisions

and the villages. It may be pointed out that, what is

dealt with here, are only those place names with his^rical

development and controversial identification and not such

places‘as are without the pre- or the later Pallava

history and the identification of which is non-controversial,

To deal with the identification and the other aspects of

simple places will mean repetition and that can be avoided

by referring to the appendix ’A* thereof. Even in the

case of special names, the number given to each name is

the index to the serial order of the appendix to which

a reference can be made for the chronology and the source

of edition of the inscription in which the name is found.

Thus the historical geography of the key place

names is discussed before we, at the end of the chapter,

deal with the historical and comparative survey of the

units of Pallava system of territorial administration.

There cannot be any rigid classification of the

Pallava division and sub-division as they overlap each

other their units being very flexible in their connotation which will be clear from the study of the column two of

the Appendix ’A*. Thus we can segregate the Pallava

divisions and sub-divisions on the basis not of the de­ limiting aspect of the units but of the history of the

Dravidian units indigenous to the South Tamilnad and Aryan.

Thus let us classify the divisions. 1 n R

(\ The Divisions and the sub-divisions formed on th» bagl» of the Indigenous Dravidian units - kSttam. kPrram and lu

Xmur (15), DSmal (40), Eyil/Eyir/Manavir/Manavir (51),

Tkkadu (58), KalattQr (77-79), KSliyCr (80), PaduvQr

(232-239), PaiyQr/PaiyanQr (2U ), Palkunram (246), Pulal

(2B8), Tiruvengadam (353), UrrkkSdu (375-378) are the kSttams.

TJie KUrrams are Kurukkai (158) and Tenkarai-Arvalam

(327).

Aruva (2 4 ), IdaiySru (5 4 ), IndalQr (6 1 ), KudavQr (74)

KalmSy (82), Kllvali (122), VSgUr (123), Ko (123), Konda

(131 ), Kurumpurai (162), MSngadu (175 ), MSl-Adaiyaru (189),

Merpalugdr (191), KIpulai (194), Miyaru (196), Narayfl (205),

NirvSinr, (218), 0ym5 (229), Palaiyantlr (242), Pangala (249),

PanmS (248), PoliyQr (275), Singapura (300), TekkOr (322),

Tenkarai-Naraiyur (329), TennarrG (330), Umbala (371),

Vadakarai-Innambar (386) are the nadus.

The divisions and sub-divisions formed on the basis

of the non-indigenous Indo-Aryan units Rastra, Visaya,

Bhoga and Koshthaka are Paschima^rayanadl, Tun^Ska, Adeyara,

Kamm^ka, Karma, Mangala, Munda, Patmlmanyavantara, Tondlka,

Vengo, KavachakSra and Undivana.

Of these, except Kavachaklra bhoga the rest are 1 divisions. The PaschimlsrayanadX and Tundaka are the

As already referred to, Tundaka-Vishaya ; not occur in the Pallava records £ut still inc! it stands for the heart of the Pallava Empire. 101

Vishayas, the Adeyara, Kammanka, Karma, Mangala, Munda

PatmamanyavSntara and TondSka are the rastras, Undivana

Is the Koshthaka.

Let us now deal with the Pallava divisions and sub­ divisions formed on the following order of u n its ^ K3ttam,

KQrram nSdu of the Dravidian origin and' Vishaya rashtra, bhoga and Koshthaka of the Indo-Aryan origin.

The KSttams

All the Pallava Kottams are referred to in the

Sangam literature and they are the twenty four Kottams 1 of the Tondaimandalam already cited in the section on the Tondaimandalam.

Though all the Pallava KSttams as referred to in the epigraphs are found among the Tondaimandala Kottams of the Sangam literature, there are some Tondaimandala

K5ttams referred to in the Sangam literature but not found in the Pallava records. They are Ambur, Ilanga^u, KadikQr,

Kunravattanam, SembQr, Sendirukkai, Sefigadu, Sengarai, Settur and V^lQr KSttams. In the case of the sub-division KQrram, there is no reference to any Pallava Kurram in the Sangam literature as there is no reference to Kurram itself in the Sangam division of Tondaimandalam. Regarding the N5du, there is mention of only KSkkalQr, Kurumpurai and NIyaru.

What remain^ after the elimination of Klkkalur, Kurumpurai and NSyaru and which can be traceable from the chart isr furnished in the Tondaimandala Paddayam^are the nadus

1 Ante p. 2 Pillai Kanaka Safai, V ., o p .c it ., pp. 2S-29. 110 which are the Sangam divisions of the Tondaiman^alam but

not found in the Pallava records.

The Pallava Kottams with their pre-Pallava i.e.

Sangam and epigraphical sub-divisions are given in the

following table : -

The Pallava The Pallava Sangam KQttam Spigraphieal

Amtlr - Kumuli and PaluvQr

Dlmal Poygainalltlr, Karuveedu, Vakarai- Palakalam vallai

IkkSdu KSkkalOr KSkkalClr, Kachi

KalattQr Kurumpurai Kurumbara, Valli- puram PattQr and NS^u

KSliyQr Ka^irampedu, KSliyur, Thirupuli- Kllppuddr'and vanara, Virpedu, Erikeel, UttaramerGr Pavoor

Syil Panma and Thandakam, Makaral, M^rpalugur Koneri

Palkunram TennSrrUr Pasur, Th&choor, Meyoor and Singamporuta- Valanldu

Pa^uvQr MaftgS^u and MiySru Perunthimiri, Arkkadu and Chenkunram

Paiylir - Virpathi, Chevoor, Venkal.

Pulal Pulal, N5raru NSyaru, Akudi, Athoor Elumblir

TiimveAgadam KudavQr Kudakarai, Pottapi, Thondaimln

UrrkkS^u Urrukk5t^u/k/ Palaiyur, ThSmalTir, KQrram and NIrvllur Kunnam and Neevaloor. nS^u Ill

It has to be noted that the epigraphical sub-divisions of the DSmal-KSttam and the KaiiyQr KSttam and the Puru- mulaiyur-nfidu of TkkSttukkSttam and the Urrukka^tukkQrram of the Urrukkl^-^uk kSttam are not found in the Sangam literature but can be had in the records of the KadavarSya chiefs whose link with the Pallava family is not yet estab­ lished. This is true of the PuliyQr and Venkunram kSttams too Bhich are the Sangam divisions of the Ton^aiman^alam,

The Pallava divisions and sub-divisions in the post Pallava records viz. the C-gla records 1

Among the Pallava divisions - the Kottams - we find that AmGr, DSmar, KalattQr, Byil, Palkunram, PadQvQr,

PaiyOr Pulal are the only kttams referred to in the Cola records but TkkSdu, Klliytlr, Tiruvengadam and UrrukkS^u are not found. Among the sub-divisions, we find both the

KOrrams namely, Kurukkai and Arvalam. The Aruva, Idaiyaru, kC, Merpalugtir MiySru, N5yaru, ^ymS PaAgala, Singapura

NaraiyQr and Umbala are the nadus. The rest of the nidus are not referred to.

Th» Specialities of some of the Divisions and sub- ,divisions of the Pallavas - Identification and Chronology

The K5ttams ^

KalattQr Kottam:- It is referred to in the Tirukkal

^Rao Srinivasa G .V ., S . I . I . . Vol. X II I , ’ The Cholas’ X The No. is the index to the Appendix *A’ wherein can be found the modern equivalent, the inscriptional reference, the Edition and the Chronology of the division and the sub-division. 112

Ukkunram Vidagirisara temple inscription of Rajakesarivarman of the CSlas wherein is stated that the original grantors of the recorded grant were the Pallava kings Skandasishya and Narasimhavarman I (630-63 A .D .) , The name of the Rail­ way Station next to and south of the Chingleput station on 1 S .I .E . (now S. Rly.) is not KalattQr as takon by Hultzsch but OttivSkkam, fiyil Kottam (51)

It is also called Eyir and Manayir KSttani. In accord­ ance with the exposition of Hultzsch, it was a portion of the south Arcot district around Eyil in the Gingee taluk of the same district of the Madras State. Though Hultzsch locates it in the South Arcot district, Krishna Sastry brings it in touch with the North Arcot district, since some of the villages in PenmS-nadu its sub-division are to be traced to some of the taluks of the North Arcot district. The location of Mr, Sastry seems more probable as some portions of the KSttam are in the Conjeeveram taluk of the Chingleput district nearer to the taluks of the North Arcot district than to the Gingee taluk. To think of a KSt^am going through three districts is not possible. Thus the four taluks affecting the two districts of the North Arcot and

Chingleput might have formed the Eyil KSttam. 113

PacjLuvar KSttam (232-239)

The Chronology of its reference in the Pallava records ranges between the middles of the fourth and the sixth cen­ turies on one hand and, on the other hand, between the ninth and the tenth centuries. It is the most dominant of the Pallava kSttams as it occurs often.

¥ir, Venkatsubbier equates the area of Paduvur-KSttam with what is given in column four of the Appendix ’ A’

(232-239). Though it is the general equation, there is one point of dispute. The controversy arises when the modern equivalent of Mangadu nadu an ancient sub-division of PaduvQr-kSttam is an area falling not witnin the modern equivalent of the Paduv5r-k5ttam. Perhaps the PaduvQr kSttam has to be taken still larger.

The RQrrams

It is a paradox that, while Kurram was an unit of territorial administration of the Sangam age, there is no sub-division of the Tondaiman^alam of the Sangam age after

Kurram. But we find, in the Pallava times, sub-divisions after Kurram such as Kurrukkai and Tenkarai-Arvalam.

Kurukkai (158)

It was one of the two sub-divisions of Kiladu a crea­ tion of the early Colas the other being ParanQr-KSrram. 114

The Nadus

AruvSna^u (124)

Here, it perhaps, speaks of a division and not of a sub-division to which, normally the term »nadu* refers in the records. It has, in it two more nSdus in the sense of a sub-division which are Vigdr nidu and VSvalQr n5du which is not referred to in the Pallava records. It was a part of Mavilankai, the other part being North AruvS. Its capital was Kaiichi, I f it has to be taken as a sub-division which is also possible then it is (South) AruvS-nSdu.

I daiYSrru-nadu (54)

It was included in TirumunaippSdi also called Rajendra-

^?la ValanSdu and Rajendrasinha Valanadu under the G51as.

KudavHr-nSdu (74)

Perhaps it was called Kud&kar&i in the Sangam age which happened to be a sub-division of the TiruvengadakkSttam of which Kudavur-nSdu is a sub-division (K llvali).

Vagtir na^u (122)

One of the sub-divisior^ of AruvS-nS^u and also called

Vagtir-na^u.

Kg (123) and Konijia na^us (131)

Here, like the nSdu of the AruvS nSdu, both are divi­ sions. Kon^a nSdu was a division with Idaiyarru nSdu as its sub-division. 1T)

Kurumpurai-n5du (162)

Though there is reference to Kurumpural-nSdu in the

Sangam literature its context is that of the region in the

Kanniya Kumari district in the extreme south of the Madras

State and it does not seem to have any bearing on what is found in the Pallava records as Kurumpurai na^u.

Miy5ru~nS<^u (196)

Though Venkatasubbier states that Miylru-nSdu can be identified with Tiruvallani and the surrounding region in the GudiySttam taluk of the north Arcot district of Madras, it may be a portion of the same taluk around the village

Kavanur (called Kavannur in the record.) It is supposed that it may not refer to that portion around another village called KSvanCr in the Arkonam taluk of the same district that also comes under the PaduvCr-kSttaia. That the place where the record is to be found, is located in the Gudi- yattam t&luk and not Arkonam taluk, may perhaps, be a factor in support though it is not always true as in the case of the TaridantCttam redords referring to places located hundrediof miles away crossing the State even,

Ovma-na(jlu (229)

It was also called Vijayarajendra vala-nSdu after the surname * ViJayarajendra’ of RajadhirSJa I of the C31a times. It was a sub-division of Jayankonda Colamandalam,

Though it is referred to in the Taimil literature as an ancient territorial division, it does not seem to have flourished 16 during the period of the Sangam literature,

PalaiyanCr nSdu (242)

The village after whom it is named is near to the village Tiruvfilangfidu the place where the inscription is found. The nearness of the two places PalaiyannQr and

TiruvSlang^du is significant in that, in the Tevaram hymns, the latter is called Palaiyanflr-AlangS^u (i.e. Alanga^u near PalaiyanQr) and which can be equated with TiruvalangSdu,

Panfcala~n5du (247)

apart from being a sub-division of Paduvur-kSttam, it is a division too having as its sub-division ixiugai-nadu of the pre-Pallava times.

PoIiytir-n5du (275)

It, perhaps, came under the Chenthirukai kSttam flourishing even during the period of the Sangam literature,

TekkSr-nadu (322)

The village, after which it is named, ie not to be found in any of the taluks of the Chingleput district, though it is a sub-division of the PaiyQr Ilan k5ttam and, hence, more or less of a major portion of the Ponneri taluk of the Chingleput district. There is much of difficulty in

1 Rangacharya V ., A Topographical List of the Inscrip­ tions of the Madras Presidency (with notes and References) Vol. I, p. 512. 1 7

identifying the village TekkQr which naturally should be found in the Ponneri taluk of the Chingleput district. What is found in the taluk at issue is TachchOr which may be a corrupt form of TekkTXr. But the identification by Venkata- 1 subba Aiyar of the village Turaiytir of TekkQr-nSdu with the village of the same name in the Madurantakam taluk of the Chingleput district - a taluk which is not one of the two that go to make up the PaiyOr IlankSttam, those two being the Ponneri taluk of the Chingleput district of the

Madras state and the Gudur taluk of the Nellore district of the Andhra State, is contradictory.

Yadakkrai-Innambar na(^u (366)

It was a sub-division of Rajendra Simha Valanadu under the C51as.

The Pallava Divisions and aub-divisions based on the Indo-Aryan units

Having dealt with the Pallava divisions and sub-divisions formed on the indigenous Dravidian units of the territorial administration, let us now take up, the divisions and sub­ divisions of the Pallavas demarcated after the non-indigenous units like Rashtra Vishaya, Bhoga and KoBhthaka on the same lines as has been done earlier. Here, again, we do not deal with the units but the divisions and the sub-divisions

1 Venkatasubbier V., S . I .I . . Vol. XI, p. 37 and p.176. IIB of the units which will be taken up when the Pallava units both indigenous and Indo Aryan are discussed in the later part of the Chapter,

The Vishavas

PaschimSi^ravanadl Vishava (257)

It is the Sanskrit translation of the Tamil Mel-

AdaiySru-nSdu,

Tun^5ka Vishaya

This is already discussed in the section on *Tondai-> mandalam’ in the present Chapter (ante p, "j"? )

The Rashtraa

Kammafika-rashtra (83)

It seemed to have had two sub-divisions, one on the east called Munda rSshtra and the other on the west, called

Mel-munda rashtra, KammSfika rashtra also known as KarmaAka rashtra is the same Karma rashtra of the Eastern Chalukyan grants and which, before coming under the Eastern Chalukyans, was subject to the conquest of the westeni Chalukyan under 1 Pulakelin II. But Karma irashtrat of the Pallava times is different from the Karma rashtra of the Eastern Chalukyan times. 110

Mangala rSshtra (177)

Also called Mangala nSdu in Tamil^ ^ was a sub­

division of Arulmolideva ValanSdu of the C51a times which

is otherwise called ’Tenkaduvay’ ,

Munda (199-201) and Mel-Mun<^a (189) rashtras

Munda rashtra, also called Munda/Mun^ai n&du is more

ancient as it was earlier by two to four centuries.

PatmSmanyavSntara rashtra (268)

It was called in Tamil as Panma-n3du.

Ton(^aka-rashtra (362)

In Tamil, it is called *Vengai nS^u*.

From the preceding classification of ’rashtra’ it is

clear that it had, from the point of the Pallava records,

no fixed connotation and that it is flexible since it refers

to not only an unit of administration as in the case of the

divisions like Munda• e and Mel-Munda • • rashtras but it has a general reference to a ’region’ in Tondaka rlshtra and to a

country in ’Vengo’ rashtra. It also acts as the Sanskrit

equivalent of the Tamil ’nSdu’ which is clear in ’Mangala’

rashtra and PanmlmanyavSntara rashtra. This aspect will be

dealt with in detail later.

Undivana Koshthaka

It is the Sanskrit equivalent to the Tamil UrrukkSt^uk

KOttam, 1?0

The Pallava (dividing) Units of Territorial Admlnietratlon - an Historical Survey

Before we go into the details of the Pallava tinits of territorial administration both Dravldian and Indo-Aryan it is better to have an historical survey of the units of the territorial administration of the Pallava dominion under the powers that preceded and succeeded the Pallavas and also those of the powers of the non-south Indian region which

Influenced the Pallava system. In addition, let us also, discuss the comparison of the Pallava units with the units of the powers of the Deccan, central India and western

India as the materials for such comparison are available.

We can also note, to what extent, the Pallavas have influenced the later powers and, if so, which are those powers. Here, it has to be noted that it is not that eill the powers that

Invaded the heart of the Pallava empire tteet have influenced the system of the Invaded country. Wherever there was consolidation and settlement and reconstruction, the invading forces could influence the settlement but, in the case of such powers that merely invaded, there was no Influence and hence they can be ignored. Thus the powers that are to be considered are, going backwards, the British, the Mughals, the Marathas, the Vijayanagar Emperors, the Delhi sultanate, the CSlas, the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi, the SHtavahanas, the Mauryas and the Sangam CSlas.

In the case of the Bellary pocket, though the BBnavasis, the HSysSlas and the Sdilshahl’ s might have influenced the 9 •

administrative set up of the Bellary region, since it was a tiny pocket in the Pallava empire, the general system of the administration of the larger area in question does not seem to have been influenced by these powers. In fact, even among the powers that have subdued major portions of the

Coastal Vaigai-Godavari territory, all have not influenced the territorial administration of the area as indicated in the preceding observations regarding the Tondaimandalam.

Thus, wherever there is influence on the territorial admini­ stration of South India of the Pallavas by powers big or small, pre-Pallava or post-Pallava short lived or long lived they are discussed. Let us start with the British system, of territorial administration of south India, once, under the Pallavas.

Modern or British Units of territorial administration 1

The district is the biggest unit in the State. In some states, a few districts form a division. For instance in Bombay, this system was prevalent t ill 1850, when it was abolished. It continues in Mysore and perhaps in some other

States too. The area of a district varies from two to ten thousands. The district is sub-divided into ’taluk’ , whatever be the name by which its head is called. The village is the lowest unit and it is luique that the village has greater, antiquity than any other unit. The Mughal8

Under the Mughal adminiatration, the three divisions of the provincial administration, administered by the subahdSr, foujdar and the ’ KotwSl* were not geographical in character except the subah. Though the administration of of the provincial bakshis finally tantamounted to a sort of the territorial administration, they were really officers attached to the contingents that accompanied the different subShdSrs rather than officers of the sublhs as geographical 1 units. Under Aurangazeb, during whose reign the Mughal empire was at its zenith and who brought the extreme south also under his sway, the Pallava region came under the Bija- 2 pur and Hyderabad Subahs.

The Marathas

Of all the places in the south and under the Marathas falling within the region under survey, Tanjore is the most important and it was perhaps the only place of the Maratha administration. The other places Gingi, Arni, Vellore and

Sandur are more of a feudal nature than of direct suzerainty.

At Tanjore we do not find the territorial administration on the basis of Mauja, Tarf and Subha the three administrative 3 units adopted by Shivaji but on the revenue systems of ______y______

^Sarkar J ,, Mughal Administration, p. 47. 2 Sarkar J., India of Aurangzeb (Topography, pp.IXIXVIII and XCIII ).

^Sen S., ’The Administrative System of the Marathas, P. 219. 133

Dabir, Mari and Pathak.^

The Vi.lavanagar

Under the Vljayanagar rulers, there were many divi­ sions on the basis of the units like ValanSdu KSttam, Pattaka,

Vifj^ya Nirvrtti, venthe nS^u, dime kharvatam, sthalam, parru, aimTadininelagaram, Cavadi but not in a systematic way. What exactly they could convey from the point of the normal equivalents of the district, taluk and village cannot, easily be understood. They are referred to.. . .without any order or 2 sequence."

The bigger administrative units under the Vijayanagar rulers were ’Mandalam' and ^Rajya’ the Mandala being the largest. It is a point of interest that there is no refer­ ence to ’ Mandala* in the Vijayanagar epigraphs. The ancient

Pallava empire was represented more or less by Vijayanagar divisions of Tondaimandalam, JayafikondasSlamandalam, Magadai- mandalam and CT^la Mandalam.

The Delhi Sultanate

Under the Tughluqs and Khaljis, the empire of the Delhi

Sultanate was divided by the administrative unit of a subah,

Hemingway, F.R., The Tanjore district Gazetteer, Vol. I, pp. 169-171.

^Mahalingam T.V,, 'Administration and Social life under Vijayanagar’, p. 17^.

^Ibid., p. 179. 9 '1

sub-divided into ’ Shiqq* and a ’ parganah*! The dominion under study came under the sway of the Delhi sultanate during the reign of Muhammad Bin Tughluq, The Telengana,

Mabar and Ov&rasamudra provinces constituted vrhat was once the Pallava empire.

The Vi.iavalava or the Historical CSlas

Man^alam, ValanS^u, KUrram/n5du/kSt^am, and Ur are the administrative units of the CSlas and these may be equated with the Province, district, taluk and village. The area under study formed a major part of the C51a empire consisting of the modern states of Madras and Andhra, The heart of the Pallava empire i ,e , TondainSdu was called *Jaya- ftkon^a ^51aman^alam and what was the equivalent to the rest of the territory under purview and under the CSlas was perhaps what was l«ter maintained by the Vijayanagar rulers,

"The subordinate divisions evidently underwent numerous reshufflings and their names were changed so often as to justify the complaint that the CCla Geography came to suffer as much from the plague of homonyms as the kings themselves," says Nilakanta Sastri,?-./

The Eaatern Chalukvas of Vengi

Under the territorial administration of the Eastern

1 Qureshi, I.H ., The Administration of theSultanate of Delhi, pp, 194-216.

2 Sastri K.A.N., CSlas, p. 465. 1

Chalukyas one comes across the units raehtra, visaya, kSttam

and GrSma. The Pallavas have influenced the Eastern Chalukyas

in the field of the territorial administration. As Venkata-

ramanayya points out "i n the extreme south, however, vestiges 1 of the Earlier Pallava system seem to have persisted,”

The entire Eastern Chalukyan territory formed part of the

Pallava empire under ^ivaskandavarman of the Prakrit dynasty,

2 The Guptas

The Guptas had ’ dela’ , ’ Man^ala’ , *Vifaya* and

’Bhukti’ as their units, While ’ De^a’ may, perhaps, stand

for a province, *Man^ala^ is the most dominant and the

largest of the regional units. Though the relation between

^Man^ala* and ^rlshtra* is not definite, it can be equated

more or less with ’rfishtra*. Then comes Visaya, the most

popular and stable unit the exact s iz ^ of which is not

clearly known. ’ Visaya’ is at times called as ’ bhukti' too.

There is one more unit indicative of a group of villages by

name ’ bhumi’ equivalent more or less perhaps to the Dravidian

’ nadu*. A- The Satavahanas

The Satavahanas had such a system of units that

1 Venkataramanayya, N ., The Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi, pp. 279-280. 2 Dikshitkar V.R.R. {Gupta Polity), pp. 230,221-232, 235-236 and 237, 3 Fleet J.F., Gupta Inscriptions, p. 50. 4 Gopalachari K ., Early History of the Andhra country, p. 86. 126

their ’ ahSra’ may be compared with the Pallava ’rSshtra*.

We do not find any other comparable data. It is a paradox

that the influence of the SStavahanas, whose ancestry the Pallavas can legitimately claim is discussed in the first

chapter, over the Pallava administration is not dominant.

The Maurvas

It is probable that the Pallava kings continued the

administrative system of A^oka on the lines of the Dharma-

^Sstras and Artha^astras.^ A brief survey of the I^auryan

system of administration may be made with special reference

to the influences of Kautilya. From the modern angle, the

empire was divided into Provinces, districts and villages.

As Dikshitar points out, the village was called ^ahala'

(Sanskrit Ahlra; as later adopted by the 3atavahans) and

the Province was called ’ rSstra*. To hold that the Mauryan

system of Provincial administration ’’began with the 5aisu- 2 nagas and the Nandas" is quite reasonable. Of the-local

administration on the lines of Kautilya, the Janapada was

divided into ’ sthSnlya’ , *dro^amukha', ’ kharvatika’ and

Sangrahana sthSnlya being the largest. Except ’rSstra’ we

do not find any unit common to the Pallavas. Apart from

these, there is not much in common between the Mauryan and

1 Gopalan, R ., op.cit., p, 36.

^Dikshitar V.R.R., The Mauryan Polity, p, 199. n

the Pallava a»d-tire"“Paiiava systems and in the light of that, it is difficult to agree with the statement of

Gopalan completely.

The Sangam CSlas

The indigenous Dravidian units of the territorial

administration of Tamilnad were Ur (village), nSdu,

KQrram, kSttam and mandilam. Of the four units, the

^mandilam* connoted the geographical limits covered by the 1 ^ Central administration. 'Mandilam* is perhaps 'Mandilam'.

It can be taken as the suffix of the word denoting the heart of the Pallava empire. The other units are found in

the Pallava system.

Having dealt with the history of the units of the

territorial administration with which the area which

comprised the Pallava dominions was administered by the

Pre-Pallava and later Pallava powers, let us consider the

administrative units of the Pallavas themselves in com­

parison with the units of the pre-Pallava and later Pallava

powers which ruled over the area under study and with the

powers who were pre-Pallava, contemporaneous and post

Pallava but who ruled over the non-south Indian region.

1 Dikshitar, V.R.R., Studies in Tamil Literature and History, p. 222. 128

The Pallava Units 1 2 In the Pallava records, we find Visaya, rSstra,

(Rattha) , bhoga and Koshthaka, kSt^aia, kGrram nSdu and

Ur. Of these, the first three are the Indo Aryan in­ fluences from the North, while the rest are the Tamil/

Dravidian/ indigenous elements of the South. Let us

first consider the Indo-Aryan units.

The Pallava Indo-Arvan Units

3 RSstra (Rattha)

In the edicts of Asoka, we find the terms”’rashtrika^ 4 and *rathika* i .e . officers governing a rashtra." The use of rashtra as an unit may be a direct influence of the Mauryas on the Pallava administration. The possi­

bility that it came through the SStvShanas as one of ) whose disintegrated members^ possibly, the Pallavas rose to power, is now ruled out vide Ante pp. 125-126. ^

The rSshtra-its reflection in the records of South Tndia. Deccan. Central India and Western India (4th - 13th centuries A.dTI

There does not seeru to be any reference to ’ rSshtra*

in the pre-Mauryan literary sources. Of the powers of

^Vishaya and Rashtra are discussed in the AshtSdhySyi, of PSnini. Please see Agrawala V.S., ’India*as known*to Panini, Appendix 2, pp. 495-49^"^ 2 ft ” * ” a 3 Rattha by itself is found in ’ SStlhani-rattha’ in the*Hirahadahalli record. See Buhler E.l!, Vol.5, p. 5. 4 Sankalia, H.D., Studies in the Historical and Cultural geography and Ethnography of Gujarat, p.21. the South, we find it only in the Eastern ChSlukyan system. In western India-Gujarat, we do not find it in any of the records of the Gurjjaras, RSstrakytas, Para- mars, Maitrakas and the Ghalukyas. In central India, we notice it among the V5kStakas, Sarabhapuriyas and the

NSgavamlis of Chakrakotya. In the Deccan the powers in the administrative set up of which we find rSstra are the BSdSmi Ghalukyas, RSstrakutas of Malkhed the KalySni

GhSlukyas, the Yldavas and the Silaharas.

It is not possible, due to lack of such studies, to have a comparison with the powers of the rest of India viz. North-Western, North-East and Eastern and also of such powers of the Deccan as the Gangas, the Hoysalas, the KSkathlyas and the Nolambas.

The most salient feature is that it is not followed in the administrative set up of the G51as who were the

Imperial successors of the Pallavas in the South.

Visaya

lAie do not find it in the administrative set up of

^Sankalia H.D., op.cit.. Appendix, pp. 185-204. 2 Gokhale S., Studies in the Historical and Cultural Geography and Ethnography of Madhya Pradesh (A thesis approved for Ph.D. in Archaeology of the Poona University Appendix - Plate Names, pp. 408-474 (4th to the 13th Centuries A.D.) 3 Mulay, S., Studies in the Historical and Cultural Geography and ethnography of the Deccan {k thesis approved for Ph.D. in Archaeology of the Poona University - appendix I,pp. 1-72 (between the middles of the 6th and 13th Cen­ turies, A.D.). 13 0

the powers of South India - Tamilnad, as it is true of rSstra.• • We find it in the Non-Tamil area under the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi and the Vijayanagara emperors ’ visaya’ also seems to have been a Mauryan influence on the Pallava 1 system of administration.

A comparative study of this unit may be made on the basis of its usage by most of the powers of the Deccan, of central India and ifl/estern India - Gujarat,

2 The Deccan (between the middles of the 6th and 13th centuries A ,D .)

Among the powers of the Deccan, the administrative

set up of which is known to us, ’visaya’ was a unit under the Badami Chalukyas, the RSstrakCtas of Malkhed, the

Kalyani GhSlukyas, the YSdavas and the SilShSras.

3 Madhya Pradesh / central India (4th-13th centuries A,D.)

The ParivrSjakas, the Panduvamsis, the Panduvamsis of Mekala, Sailavamdis, RSstrakatas, the KalachQris of

1 Though Ramachandra Dikshitar does not deal with it in his work on Mauryan polity, since there is a reference to it in the Alokan edicts, it can be safely said, as Sankalia has indicated, that it was a territorial unit of the Mauryan administration,

2 Mulay, loc. cit, 3 Gokhale, loc. cit. 13:

Tripuri, KSlachQris of RatnSpur had this unit of admini­

stration,

1 Vjestern India - Gu.larat (6th - 10th centuries A .D .)

Under the administrative set up of the TraiktStakas

the Kataccuris the Gurjjaras, RlstrakQtas, Paramaras,

Maitrakas and the Chalukyas that ruled over Gujarat is

found Visaya.

It may be noted that, in addition to rSstra and

visaya, we find bhoga and kosthaka too. Let us discuss

the additional Indo-Aryan units before we finally go to

the Dravidian units.

Bhoga and Koshthaka

The greatest feature of bhoga is that its use in

the Pallava system of Administration is , possibly, an

outcome of the Gupta influence. It might have been due

to the subjugation of the Pallava king Vishnugopa by

Samudragupta,

2 2a 3 The Deccan - central India and Western India (4th - 13th Centuries A.D.)

The Badami ChSlukyas was the only power of the Deccan

1 Sankalia, op.cit., pp. 24-29.

2 Mulay, loc. cit.

2a Gokhale, loc.cit.

3 Sankalia, loc. cit. 135 in the administrative set up of which is found ’ bhoga’ .

In central India we find it in the administration of such powers the VSkStakas, the Sarabhapuriyas and the Pandu- vamjSis. The administrative set up of the powers of Guja­ rat does not have ’bhoga’ . It is also true that we do not find it in the administrative machinery of the Sangawi,

C51as, the Kadambas, the Pandyas, the Bastern Chalukyas, the later CSlas and the Vijayanagara Emperors.

Koshthaka

Koshthaka might have originated from ’ koshthagaradhya- 1 ksha’ of Kautllya and hence, it might be, again, a case of Mauryan influence. It is not to be found in any of the records of the powers of the Deccan, central India and Western India, In South India too, we do not find it in the system of the CSlas traditional and historical, the Kadambas, the Pandyas, the Eastern ChSlukyas of

Vengi and the Vijayanagar rulers.

A SugY#y of the Delimiting Character of the ^ Pallava Indo-Aryan units of Administration rSstra. Visaya. bhoga and koshthaka

It is impossible to fix the delimiting character

Artha^Sstra, p. 93 (Tr, Bk. I I , Ch. 16) and quoted by Gupta K.M, in his ’ The Land-System in South In d ia *, pp. 267-26i5 and the pp. 271-278 can also be referred to for a brief survey of the delimiting aspects of the territorial/land units of the ancient Indian administra­ tion both South and other regions. of the units rSstrai vlsaya, bhoga and koshthaka. It is so because, at times, they act as only Indo-Aryan i.e. Sanskrit equivalents to the indigenous units as in the case of Mangala-rastra « Mangalanadu, PatamSmanya

VSntara r5s^ra » PanmSnSdu, Tundakavisaya » Tondai_nadu,

Pa^chimarayanadi visaya « M^ladaiyarunl^u, Undivana

koshthaka ■ UrrukkSttuk kSttam, Thus ’ visaya’ and ’ kosh­ thaka’ appear as equivalents only without any inherent

indication of their nature. The instance where ’rashtra’

and ’ bhoga’ are found on independent footing are Karma,

Kammaftka, Mun^a and Mel-Munda rSstras and the KavachakSra

bhoga. The contradiction is clear when ’ rashtra’ in

addition to being an equivalent to ’nadu’ , a sub-division

as in Mangala-nadu and PanmS-nadu referred to earlier,

is equated with n5du a region/country as in TondSka rastra » Tondai-na^u and Vengo rastra = VengainSdu respectively. The contradiction is more when it is equated with what is less than a sub-division as Adeyara-»5stra within PaschimS^rayanadivisaya-Mel-AdaiySru N5du, a sub

division. In the case of Visaya too, when in Tundaka­

visaya, it has the sense,of a country, in Pa^chimalraya- nadi visaya, it stands for a sub-division. There is

only one reference to ’ koshthaka’ equated with ’ kSt-Jam’ .

In the case of ’bhoga’ again, though it is not equated with any indigenous unit, it may, perhaps, convey no

territorial sense and what is possible is that it connotes •) a land under the ’ Bhogika'.

The Pallava Indigenous - Dravldlan-Tamll ttalta

” The village which is known by different names such as TJr, PerQr, MQdQr, ^irlir is the unit of administration in the Tamil polity..,, a number of such villages or a group of villages constituted a nSdu, Between the ’ Nadu* and the Mandilam there was another political division of

\ the territory KQrram or KSttam (district). The ’Mandilam’ connoted the geographical limits covered by the Central administration,"1

Of the indigenous units the references are to kSttam, nS^u and Ur and only a few refer to KUrram,

2 KSttam

The word KSttam in spirit, means a Jain temple as 3a defined by the commentator AdiylrkkunallSr, How it assumed the trait of an unit is not clear though it may not be out of the way to presume that it might have meant a division where there might have been a temple. It might 3b mean a tanple - ’ any temple not necessarily a Jain temple’ .

1 Dikshitar, V,R,R,, loc.cit, ^ •'^"7

• 2 The Tamil lexicon Vol.2, pp, 1173-1174.

3a Ibid. b or a country, or an agricultural village.^ The connec­

tion of ’ k3t-fam’ with an ’ agricultural village* is more

probable as the way of the life of the village, the key­

stone of the complete Administrative structure of ancient

South India was, basically, agricultural. Its link with

’ Kostaka’ an Indo-Aryan unit is not beyond dispute. There

is one more possibility of the association of ’ kl5ttam’ 2 with kSttai » a rampart as it has to be established that

’k3ttam’ is not of Dravidian origin. It is the largest

indigenous unit of the Pallava administration and how

it is so will be clear subsequently. Its equivalent (not

but in the order) in the administration of

the other South Indian Tamilian powers viz, the CSlas

and the Pandyas is ’Mandalam*.

The reflection of KSf^am in the non-Pallava records

Of the dynasties of South India-Tamilnad we find

’ kSttam’ in the administrative set up of the Sangam

CSlas, The CSlas and the Pandyas. The Telegu dynasty

of the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi has it too. But it is

not found in the Vijayanagar administration. Among the

1 The connotation of an ’ agricultural village’ is not given in the Lexicon.

\o make the town a fortified centre’ , S.K.Aiyangar’ s Hindu Administrative Institutions, p, 147. 1 (\ I > 3 o

dynasties of the Deccan, we find it in the administration of the RSstrakUtas of Malkhed. There is no reference to

’ KSttam' in the central Indian and Westexm Indian records,

3 Na^u

Country, district, province are the etymologies of n5du. Again, like KSttam, it cannot, definitely, be taken to stand for a fixed delimitation. ’Nadu^ of the

Sangam age referred not only to the unit of the major divisions of Tamilakam but to the * country’ too. Further it signified an administrative unit next to K3ttam in the descending order.

Reflection of *N5^u* in the Non-Pallava records

\^hile the ^outh Indian powers the Sangatn CSlas, the I Pandyas, the Sastern Chalukyas of Vengi and the CSlas have it, the Vijayanagar administration does not. In addition to the RastrakQtas of Malkhed, the Kalyani

ChSlukyas and the YldavSs too had it in their administra­ tion of the Deccan. It is not found in the administrative machinery of any of the powers of central and Western India.

1 Mulay, loc.cit, 2 Gokhale, loc.cit. 3 Sankalia, loc.cit, 4 PeriyalvSr-NalSyira Prabandham.

S .1 .1 ., Vol. I I , p. 46. Kdrram

As already stated earlier it is not a common unit in the Pallava administration unlike the other indigenous units are that are referred to frequently. Literally la also it means a ’division*. The antiquity of its refer- Ib ence perhaps, goes back to the Sangam age. Krishnaswaray

Aiyangar says that "these administrative village units which are called KQrrams constitute a certain number of villages thrown together and forming something like a 2 union in modem terms". The Pallava epigraphical evidence supports his view.

KQrram » Its reflection In the Non-Pallava records

While it is adopted in the administrative set up only of the Sangam CSlas, the Later CClas and the Pandyas of South India without being associated with the Sastern

Ghalukyas and the Vijayanagar empire, it is not to be traced in the administration of any of the powers even of the Deccan and Qentral and Modem India. Thus it is not only typically South Indian unit of the Ancient Indian territorial administration but a purely Tamilian unit as it is not found in any of the records of any of the non-Tamil Powers.

la Division of a Country in ancient times b PuranSnO^ - The Commentary-24. The Tamil Lexicon, Vol. II, p, lOSO. 2 Aiyangar S.K., op.cit., p. 135.

It may also be pointed out that both Gopala N. and Minakshi in their respective authoritative works on the Pallavas have omitted KQrram among the administrative units dealt with by them. But Aiyangar does deal. See op.cit. (H.A.I.), pp. 60-129. ______38

Dela and Mandala

De^a and Mandala, in the view of Gopalan, are re­ ferred to in the epigraphical evidence. However, 2 Minakshi, in her dealing with the Pallava administrative units, does not refer to these two units.

Mandala

The reference to *Mandilam in the Sangara literature might mean ^Mandalam*. It is an Indo Aryan element abserved in the Sangam literature or possibly a Mauryan influence as it is found associated with their administra­ tion. But it has to be remembered that it was a unit not of Provincial but of Central administration, and it is in this sense, perhaps, that we find the name 'Tondai- man^alam* which, being called as Jayankonda 351aman^alam was one of the provinces of the caias Empire.

Mandala in the Non-Pallavas records of South India

The C51a and the Vijayanagar administration refer to

Man^alam and Mandala respectively.

3 The Deccan (Between the middles of the 6th and 13th centuries A.D,)

It is referred to in the records of the Yadavas and

1 Gopalan R ., History of the Pallavas of Kanchi, p.153.

2 Minakshi, C,, op.cit,, p. 37.

■ 1 ' K' ' r ^ 130

1 and the SilSharas.

Central India (4th-13th Centuries A,D.)

It Is found In the epigraphs of the K&lachQris of

Ratnapur, the ParamSras of Malwa and the Somavarasls,

Western India (5th-10th Centuries A.D.)

The RSstrakGtaSjMaltrakas, the Paramaras and the

Chalukyas mention Mandjf^ala as an unit of their admini­ strative set up. In the Maltraka records It Is traceable as Mandall.

Dela

It is not found in the Sangam literature but referred 2 ^ V/' to in the Vishnu Samhita. Mhlle we do not find it in the adrainistratlon of any of the Non-Pallava powers of the South and also of central India, it is there in the set up of the RgstrakQtas, Kalyani Chalukyas, the Yadavas, the SilSharas and the RSstraklitas of Western India.

The delimiting character of the lndip~enous units of the Pallava territorial administration. KSttam KGryam. Nadu and Ur

When these units convey a certain delimiting nature

, Uv . 1. ^

V\’ P ^ \ i ' T)\ V [-t 1/

^ -V U- tov • ■ i-v u U ct. • ^ ■

^A^1ca)\'a u o V ■ ■ .1

common to the administration of the traditional powers

of Tamilnad, in a way, they have different connotations

in the heart of the Pallava empire. For instance, KCttam

as a larger unit, remained the peculiar feature of the

Tondaimandalam. It is the largest unit followed by small units nadu and kSrram at times and last by Tlr. what

follows will clearly reveal the flexibility of the conno­

tation of the units. In the Cola administration, the

equivalent to KSttam is ’ Nadu*. The sub-division of the nadu into KGrram and Ur is the same in both the Pallava

and CSla systems. But Ramchandra Dikshitar seems to

generalise the dividing units especially of the ancient

Tamil kingdoms as Man^ilam (Province), K5ttam/Vala nadu

(district) Na^u (taluk) and Ur (village or township). 2 He differs from Krishnaswamy Aiyangar in that he makes a distinction between Vala-nSdu and nadu. Aiyangar does not take Vala-nSdu as an unit by itself and independent

of nadu. The distinction between kSttam and ’Kan^alam* being the largest units of the Pallavas and the Colas respectively, but which are not of the same delimiting cozmotation, must also be noted. Hence the equivalent to the Pallava KS^tam is not CSla Man^alam but NS^u which.

I J I 4 :

while second in Pallava descending order of units, is the third in the CCla order the second being Vala NS^u,

At times ’ na^u' becomes equivalent to KSttam or

Ktlrfam. How, at times, the equivalence comes up is

confirmed by the statement of Nllakanta Sastri when he

says: ”A number of them constitute a ’ kurram’ or ’nS^u’

or ’ kSttam’ as it was called in different parts of the

country,” ^ To support the above statement he gives an

example as follows:- "A number of Kurrams made up a Vala- n5du; often, also called, 'nadu’ in the region where the smaller division was called ’ kottam’ viz. Tondai-

nS^u alias Jayankon^a ^olamandalam. How NI^u could refer

to ’ province’ too i .e . as the biggest unit is clear when

Kanakasabai points out ’ Tamilakam was divided into 3 thirteen nS^as or provinces,”

Before we finally deal with the outcome of the units

both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan of the Pallava territorial

administration comparatively and historically studied,

it may not be deviating from the main trend to refer to

the absence of most of the units used in the administra­ tive machinery of most of the powers of the Deccan,

central India, Western India and even of South India.

\s-

A V-A- - I P' 1 4T

Taking South India into consideration ’Mandilam’

of the Sangam powers *man^alam’ and ’ valanSdu* of the

later’CSlas’, ’Pattaka’ , ’Nirv^thi’ , *Venthe’ , ’ lime’ ,

’ kharvatam’ , ’ sthalam parru, ’ aimbadinmelagaram’ , ’ cavadi’

of the Vijayanagar administration are not to be found in

the Pallava records. I ^ Dealing with the Deccan the units XhSra, betta

bhukti, Janapada, Kampana, pallika, Pathaka, pura,

puradavari (si) are not the Pallava units of Administra­

tion. ■i- The central Indian units ’rSjya’ , ’marga’ , ’kata-

sangafaika’ , ’ agrahSra’ , ’ uddisa' and ’ Pattala* and which

we do not find either in the Deccan or in iJouth India <- except ’ Agrahara’ which occurs in the South India records

late in the thirteenth century as ’ Agaram’ , are also not

reflected in the Pallava records.

The Western Indiar/ Units under the Maitrakas,

’bheda’ , ’bhOmi’ , ’dranga’ , ’man^ali’ , ’ patha’ , ’prSna’

’ pravesya’ , and sthali which we do not find in central

India and the Deccan are also not reflected in the South

Indian records including those of the Pallavas.

It may also be noted that the units with numerical

associations viz, 70, 1000, 12, 40, 300, 12000, 84, 500,

89, 30, 360, 64, 20, 4000, 2000, 3000, 50, 3200, 84, 60, 000

and 1400 are peculiar to the Deccan only as they are not

found in the records not only of central and western c-*

, Lov-/->

^ ______14 "i

India but also of the Pallavas too as they are later than the Pallava times.

Conclusion

Having studied the Pallava units in their variety,

reflection in the Non-pallava records, changing order,

antiquity, lack of unanimity in designation, flexible

formation, influences at their basis compared with the

Non-Pallava units, let us make out some salient features.

The greatest feature is that it is possibly due to the Pallava influence upon the RSstrakdtas of Malkhed the

Kalyani Chalukyas and the Yadavas that these powers, in their administrative set up might have adopted the Pallava

indigenous i.e. Dravidian Tamil units.

Whether the indigenous units are purely of terri­ torial character i.e. of the delimiting nature in that no other factors like populatiori'^evenue than the extent factor have decided the character of the unit are not

evident. The most significant of all the units is *nadu* which, though it refers to a sub-division in general,

indicates a division, a regional division and a country too,

By * country* wh«|t is meant is that territory with its own

sovereignty, and by a regional division what is taken is that it refers to a province. The division, sub-division and the least unit village come under the provincial

administration. Since the Pallava empire, from the point ] 4 4 of an established system of administration, was not so unwieldy as compared, for instance with the C51a onpire there was no regional division in the Pallava system i.e. division into Provinces. The biggest unit of division was that of kSttam which may technically be called, in the modern sense, as equivalent to a district but which, in fact, and in area, is far less than a district.

It may be noted here that the very Pallava dominion, the major portion of viiich was Tondai-nldu the heart of the Pallava empire which had become a province of the

C51a Bmpire as Jayankon^a ^Claman^alam could be covered under the ’unit’ ’Nadu’• Here the ’Nadu’ • stands for an altogether different connotation. Thus the ’NSdu’ , of the Tondai-n5du is an unit of regional or provincial divi­ sion. The nadu• of ’ ^eranadu’ and C51a-nadu • is indicative • • of a country itself as the nS^u of ’ Tamil-nadu’ itse lf.

The ’nSdu’ which is of general application in the preced­ ing content is the unit of a sub-division under the provincial administration of the Pallavas and which follows

Kfittam.

The peculiarity of ’ Kurram’ is such that it seems to be between the ’ KSttam’ and the ’ Nadu’ i .e . of a sub­ division in its extent though at times, it is found on a par with ’kSttam’ , thereby upgrading itself and degrading

’ kSttam’ and with ’na^u’ degrading itself and upgrading ’nSdu’ . 0 For example, it occurs in the place of kOttam in the Tirukkjt# 14'^^ valGr VlrattSne^vara Temple^^,^inscription. Under the Later

Pallavas (so-called) of the KSpperinjingadevas, Kdrram is referred to as a sub-division (on a par with nS^u) of

Rajendra COla valanS^u of the period of the Imperial

CSlas,

The greatest outcome of the Historical geography the Pallava place names is that the Oravidian elements

dominate the scene as the names of the most of the places and their units are Dravidian, Even in the case of the units, though there are Indo-Aryan elements, their references

are so rare that they, in all, among the tens of records

occur not even one tenth and even what are referred to were of a scattered period and not over continuous stretch of

period.

la E.G. 277/1902.

b Venkayya, V. E.I., VII, p. 139.

2 E.G. 372/l90a.