indology@list.indology.info

INDOLOGY forum for Classical South Asian studies

View all threads

Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

SP
Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
Sun, Jan 24, 2021 1:00 AM

I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.

With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)

In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’.

One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily the fact that the ruler was of bardic origin.  But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.

As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).

The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman.

In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūti’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation.

George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.

Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.

Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.

Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.

Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.

Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.

Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.

Regards,

Palaniappan

On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote:

Dear George,

I appreciate your comments.

As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used.

Thanks

Regards,

Palaniappan

-----Original Message-----
From: George Hart glhart@BERKELEY.EDU
To: INDOLOGY INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

Dear Palaniappan,

I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.

One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.

George

On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan Palaniappa@AOL.COM wrote:

Dear George,

Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?

First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.

This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-.

In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.

The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-.

As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,  were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries.

In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas.

kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.

tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)

pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar

mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8)

We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.
The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below.
mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar
vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai
Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2
nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23)
Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.
Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters

koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar

veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2

pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8)

So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them.
As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards.
Regards,
Palaniappan

<Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’. One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily the fact that the ruler was of bardic origin. But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman. In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūti’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation. George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Regards, Palaniappan On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote: Dear George, I appreciate your comments. As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used. Thanks Regards, Palaniappan -----Original Message----- From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems Dear Palaniappan, I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. George On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COM> wrote: Dear George, Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-. In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-. As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries. In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas. kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8) pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8) We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below. mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2 nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23) Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2 pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8) So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them. As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards. Regards, Palaniappan <Perumpanan_0004.jpg>
SP
Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
Sun, Jan 24, 2021 1:08 AM

I am reposting after correcting some typos.

I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.

With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)

In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’.

One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin.  But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.

As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).

The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman.

In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation.

George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.

Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.

Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.

Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.

Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.

Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.

Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.

Regards,

Palaniappan

On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote:

Dear George,

I appreciate your comments.

As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used.

Thanks

Regards,

Palaniappan

-----Original Message-----
From: George Hart glhart@BERKELEY.EDU
To: INDOLOGY INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

Dear Palaniappan,

I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.

One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.

George

On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan Palaniappa@AOL.COM wrote:

Dear George,

Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?

First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.

This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-.

In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.

The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-.

As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,  were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries.

In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas.

kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.

tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)

pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar

mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8)

We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.
The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below.
mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar
vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai
Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2
nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23)
Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.
Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters

koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar

veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2

pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8)

So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them.
As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards.
Regards,
Palaniappan

<Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

I am reposting after correcting some typos. I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’. One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin. But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman. In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation. George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Regards, Palaniappan On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote: Dear George, I appreciate your comments. As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used. Thanks Regards, Palaniappan -----Original Message----- From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems Dear Palaniappan, I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. George On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COM> wrote: Dear George, Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-. In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-. As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries. In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas. kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8) pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8) We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below. mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2 nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23) Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2 pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8) So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them. As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards. Regards, Palaniappan <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
TH
Tieken, H.J.H.
Sun, Jan 24, 2021 8:34 AM

Dear Palaniappan,

I think your interpretation of eḻā pāṇaṉ is correct, as is that of porāa porunar. I like to add another instance of this type of compound (about this, more below), from AN 24: vēl̥āp pārppaṉ Wilden's (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (pārppaṉ) making a living by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by vēl̥ā.

I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A Note on vidhūma or sadhūma iva pāvaka at Rāmāyaṇa ...." in IT 7 (1979), 171-189.

With kind regards

Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.comhttp://hermantieken.com/


Van: INDOLOGY indology-bounces@list.indology.info namens Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY indology@list.indology.info
Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
Aan: Indology List
Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

I am reposting after correcting some typos.

I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.

With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)

In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’.

One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin.  But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.

As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).

The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman.

In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation.

George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.

Regards,
Palaniappan
On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote:

Dear George,

I appreciate your comments.

As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used.

Thanks

Regards,
Palaniappan

-----Original Message-----
From: George Hart glhart@BERKELEY.EDU
To: INDOLOGY INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
Dear Palaniappan,

I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.

One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.

George

On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COMmailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM> wrote:

Dear George,

Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?

First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.

This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-.

In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.

The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-.

As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,  were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries.

In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas.

kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)
pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar
mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8)

We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.

The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below.

mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar

vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai

Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2

nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23)
Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.

Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters

koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar

veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2

pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8)

So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them.

As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards.

Regards,

Palaniappan

<Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Dear Palaniappan, I think your interpretation of eḻā pāṇaṉ is correct, as is that of porāa porunar. I like to add another instance of this type of compound (about this, more below), from AN 24: vēl̥āp pārppaṉ Wilden's (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (pārppaṉ) making a living by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by vēl̥ā. I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A Note on vidhūma or sadhūma iva pāvaka at Rāmāyaṇa ...." in IT 7 (1979), 171-189. With kind regards Herman Herman Tieken Stationsweg 58 2515 BP Den Haag The Netherlands 00 31 (0)70 2208127 website: hermantieken.com<http://hermantieken.com/> ________________________________ Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 Aan: Indology List Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems I am reposting after correcting some typos. I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’. One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin. But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman. In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation. George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Regards, Palaniappan On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote: Dear George, I appreciate your comments. As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used. Thanks Regards, Palaniappan -----Original Message----- From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems Dear Palaniappan, I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. George On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COM<mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote: Dear George, Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-. In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-. As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries. In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas. kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8) pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8) We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below. mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2 nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23) Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2 pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8) So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them. As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards. Regards, Palaniappan <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
TH
Tieken, H.J.H.
Sun, Jan 24, 2021 11:32 AM

Dear Palaniappan,

One more remark on the vēl̥āp pārppaṉ and the other examples given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that the terms pārppaṉ, porunar and pāṇaṉ refer to something like a (sub)caste called pār̥ppaṉ etc, whose members are not restricted to brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this type of compound.

Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.comhttp://hermantieken.com/


Van: INDOLOGY indology-bounces@list.indology.info namens Tieken, H.J.H. via INDOLOGY indology@list.indology.info
Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
Aan: Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

Dear Palaniappan,

I think your interpretation of eḻā pāṇaṉ is correct, as is that of porāa porunar. I like to add another instance of this type of compound (about this, more below), from AN 24: vēl̥āp pārppaṉ Wilden's (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (pārppaṉ) making a living by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by vēl̥ā.

I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A Note on vidhūma or sadhūma iva pāvaka at Rāmāyaṇa ...." in IT 7 (1979), 171-189.

With kind regards

Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.comhttp://hermantieken.com/


Van: INDOLOGY indology-bounces@list.indology.info namens Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY indology@list.indology.info
Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
Aan: Indology List
Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

I am reposting after correcting some typos.

I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.

With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)

In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’.

One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin.  But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.

As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).

The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman.

In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation.

George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.

Regards,
Palaniappan
On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote:

Dear George,

I appreciate your comments.

As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used.

Thanks

Regards,
Palaniappan

-----Original Message-----
From: George Hart glhart@BERKELEY.EDU
To: INDOLOGY INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
Dear Palaniappan,

I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.

One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.

George

On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COMmailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM> wrote:

Dear George,

Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?

First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.

This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-.

In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.

The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-.

As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,  were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries.

In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas.

kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)
pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar
mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8)

We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.

The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below.

mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar

vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai

Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2

nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23)
Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.

Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters

koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar

veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2

pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8)

So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them.

As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards.

Regards,

Palaniappan

<Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Dear Palaniappan, One more remark on the vēl̥āp pārppaṉ and the other examples given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that the terms pārppaṉ, porunar and pāṇaṉ refer to something like a (sub)caste called pār̥ppaṉ etc, whose members are not restricted to brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this type of compound. Herman Herman Tieken Stationsweg 58 2515 BP Den Haag The Netherlands 00 31 (0)70 2208127 website: hermantieken.com<http://hermantieken.com/> ________________________________ Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Tieken, H.J.H. via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26 Aan: Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems Dear Palaniappan, I think your interpretation of eḻā pāṇaṉ is correct, as is that of porāa porunar. I like to add another instance of this type of compound (about this, more below), from AN 24: vēl̥āp pārppaṉ Wilden's (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (pārppaṉ) making a living by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by vēl̥ā. I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A Note on vidhūma or sadhūma iva pāvaka at Rāmāyaṇa ...." in IT 7 (1979), 171-189. With kind regards Herman Herman Tieken Stationsweg 58 2515 BP Den Haag The Netherlands 00 31 (0)70 2208127 website: hermantieken.com<http://hermantieken.com/> ________________________________ Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 Aan: Indology List Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems I am reposting after correcting some typos. I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’. One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin. But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7th century can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman. In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation. George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. Regards, Palaniappan On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com wrote: Dear George, I appreciate your comments. As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used. Thanks Regards, Palaniappan -----Original Message----- From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems Dear Palaniappan, I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. George On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COM<mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote: Dear George, Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-. In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-. As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries. In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas. kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8) pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8) We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below. mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2 nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23) Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2 pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8) So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them. As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards. Regards, Palaniappan <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
SP
SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN
Mon, Feb 22, 2021 8:31 AM

Dear Herman,

Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.)

Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. Here are some examples.

tuvvā naṟavu - (Pati. 60.12)
Here naṟavu  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city.

vāṭā vaḷḷi - (Peru. 370)
Here vaḷḷi can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance.

vāṭā mālai  (Puṟ. 364.1)
Here mālai can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace.

eyyā varivil  (Aka. 192.4)
Here varivil can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘ey’ means ’to discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate the rainbow.

The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information provided.

Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (nūṟpās 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms.

In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA), the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single community that perform different functions and the poets use the same general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl wrote:

Dear Palaniappan,
One more remark on the vēl̥āp pārppaṉ and the other examples given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that the terms pārppaṉ, porunar and pāṇaṉ refer to something like a (sub)caste called pār̥ppaṉ etc, whose members are not restricted to brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this type of compound.
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/
Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Tieken, H.J.H. via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
Aan: Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

Dear Palaniappan,
I think your interpretation of eḻā pāṇaṉ is correct, as is that of porāa porunar. I like to add another instance of this type of compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:vēl̥āp pārppaṉ Wilden's (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (pārppaṉ) making a living by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter byvēl̥ā.
I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A Note on vidhūma or sadhūma iva pāvaka at Rāmāyaṇa ...." in IT 7 (1979), 171-189.
With kind regards
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/
Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
Aan: Indology List
Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

I am reposting after correcting some typos.

I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.

With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)

In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’.

One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin.  But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.

As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).

The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7thcentury can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman.

In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation.

George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.

Regards,
Palaniappan
On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com mailto:palaniappa@aol.com wrote:

Dear George,

I appreciate your comments.

As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used.

Thanks

Regards,
Palaniappan

-----Original Message-----
From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

Dear Palaniappan,

I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.

One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.

George

On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COM mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM> wrote:

Dear George,

Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?

First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.

This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-.

In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.

The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-.

As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,  were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries.

In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas.

kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)
pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar
mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8)

We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.
The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below.
mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar
vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai
Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2
nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23)
Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.
Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters

koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar

veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2

pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8)

So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them.
As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards.
Regards,
Palaniappan

<Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info http://listinfo.indology.info/ (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Dear Herman, Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.) Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. Here are some examples. tuvvā naṟavu - (Pati. 60.12) Here naṟavu can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city. vāṭā vaḷḷi - (Peru. 370) Here vaḷḷi can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance. vāṭā mālai (Puṟ. 364.1) Here mālai can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace. eyyā varivil (Aka. 192.4) Here varivil can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘ey’ means ’to discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate the rainbow. The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information provided. Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (nūṟpās 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms. In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA>), the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single community that perform different functions and the poets use the same general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset. Regards, Palaniappan > On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. <H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl> wrote: > > Dear Palaniappan, > One more remark on the vēl̥āp pārppaṉ and the other examples given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that the terms pārppaṉ, porunar and pāṇaṉ refer to something like a (sub)caste called pār̥ppaṉ etc, whose members are not restricted to brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this type of compound. > Herman > > Herman Tieken > Stationsweg 58 > 2515 BP Den Haag > The Netherlands > 00 31 (0)70 2208127 > website: hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> > Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Tieken, H.J.H. via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> > Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26 > Aan: Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology > Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems > > Dear Palaniappan, > I think your interpretation of eḻā pāṇaṉ is correct, as is that of porāa porunar. I like to add another instance of this type of compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:vēl̥āp pārppaṉ Wilden's (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (pārppaṉ) making a living by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter byvēl̥ā. > I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) > > As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A Note on vidhūma or sadhūma iva pāvaka at Rāmāyaṇa ...." in IT 7 (1979), 171-189. > With kind regards > Herman > > Herman Tieken > Stationsweg 58 > 2515 BP Den Haag > The Netherlands > 00 31 (0)70 2208127 > website: hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> > Van: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> > Verzonden: zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 > Aan: Indology List > Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems > > I am reposting after correcting some typos. > > I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. > > With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms my interpretation of eḻāa in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of music making, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) > > In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ’ as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of it right. She is right to translate pāṇaṉ as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden has interpreted eḻā as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu- 'to rise'. It should be related to DEDR 5156 yāḻ, ñāḻ, stringed musical instrument; eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of 'porāap porunar' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by the word ‘porunar’. > > One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘eḻā[a]’ to describe ‘Pāṇaṉ’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the ruler ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and the word for the bard, ‘pāṇaṉ,’ and not necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin. But, we know that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. > > As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). > > The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district of the Telugu region in the 7thcentury can be seen to drift all the way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12th century Mahadā plates of Somesvaradevavarman. > > In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word ‘kūṭi’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “Pāṇaṉoṭu’ to come up with the misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘poru’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the verb with the case marker ‘oṭu'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s interpretation. > > George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love. Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. > Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. > Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. > Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. > Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. > Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. > Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes. École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. > > Regards, > Palaniappan > On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM, palaniappa@aol.com <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com> wrote: > > Dear George, > > I appreciate your comments. > > As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I resorted to the transliteration I used. > > Thanks > > Regards, > Palaniappan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>> > To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>> > Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm > Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems > > Dear Palaniappan, > > I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. > > One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. > > George > > On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote: > > > > > Dear George, > > Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? > > First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. > > This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. bANa > Ta. vANa-. > > In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. > > The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with word-initial p-. > > As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil country over several centuries. > > In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 referred to one or more members of the same lineage later called the bANas. > > kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. > tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8) > pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar > mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um (kuRu. 11.7-8) > > We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. > The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same nature as in akam. 336 below. > mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar > vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai > Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2 > nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiyE (akam. 336.20-23) > Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. > Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the cOza fighters > > > koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar > > > > > veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2 > > > > > pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2 (naR. 10.6-8) > > > > So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might have sent his forces without joining them. > As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side while the battle is raging and in that case they will only move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should be fighters and not bards. > Regards, > Palaniappan > > > <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> > > > _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list INDOLOGY@list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info> indology-owner@list.indology.info <mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info/> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
JC
Jean-Luc Chevillard
Mon, Feb 22, 2021 8:53 AM

For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list,
see:

https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ

  1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு)
  2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு)
  3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு)
  4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை)
  5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்)
  6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்)
  7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்)
  8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல)

-- Jean-Luc Chevvillard

https://twitter.com/JLC1956

On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote:

Dear Herman,

Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why
the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences
should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in
general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed
the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.)

Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is
used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival
participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with
the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning.
Here are some examples.

/tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12)
Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The
NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city.

/vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370)
Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP
'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance.

/vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1)
Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā
’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace.

/eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4)
Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around
the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to
discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate
the rainbow.

The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by
an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be
connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym
can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information
provided.

Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56
according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms.

In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with
disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance.
Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology
(https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA
https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA),
the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors.
So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single
community that perform different functions and the poets use the same
general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H.
<H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl
mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:

Dear Palaniappan,
One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples
given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that
the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a
(sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to
brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to
say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this
type of compound.
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Tieken, H.J.H.
via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
*Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
Dear Palaniappan,
I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that
of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of
compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's
(ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would
have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living
by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by
officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we
have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin
priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/.
I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry:
Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and
ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I
think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A
Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7
(1979), 171-189.
With kind regards
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Sudalaimuthu
Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
*Aan:*Indology List
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
I am reposting after correcting some typos.
I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of
some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in
his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on
Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has
provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.
With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to
a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in
music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He
refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the
thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later
called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s
interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve.
Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms
my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For
the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see
Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)
In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of
Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’
as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of
it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden
has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It
should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument;
eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does
not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap
porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to
refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by
the word ‘porunar’.
One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe
‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the
ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not
necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know
that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But,
with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that
possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the
chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai
(1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known
by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and
Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some
territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could
have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.
As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to
have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South
Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the
crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta
Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).
The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area
into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted
in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district
of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the
way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā
plates of Somesvaradevavarman.
In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who
fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ.
Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the
intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār
and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word
‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the
misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by
the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the
verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of
Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s
interpretation.
George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français
De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu
Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946.
Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli,
Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu
Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik
kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ
Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of
the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut
Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Regards,
Palaniappan

 On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com
 <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote:
 Dear George,
 I appreciate your comments.
 As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever
 possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But,
 when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my
 earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there
 were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I
 resorted to the transliteration I used.
 Thanks
 Regards,
 Palaniappan

 -----Original Message-----
 From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>>
 To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
 <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>>
 Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

 Dear Palaniappan,
 I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and
 especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the
 alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is
 significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say
 about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam
 poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your
 interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that
 doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to
 tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in
 the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started,
 they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being
 killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.
 One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read
 the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every
 OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.
 George
 On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
 <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote:




     Dear George,
     Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about
     the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes
     first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is
     found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in
     nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title
     peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection
     with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2.
     Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?
     First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very
     unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of,
     bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in
     the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K.
     A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra
     names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the
     Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the
     tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'.
     Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the
     dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we
     only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many
     instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.
     This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda
     inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into
     Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced
     as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first
     component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This
     suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should
     have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada
     and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either
     independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2'
     in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form
     'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit
     mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father
     of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'.
     Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt.
     bANa > Ta. vANa-.
     In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the
     2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In
     the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same
     king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.
     The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon
     indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this
     case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with
     word-initial p-.
     As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa
     chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started
     near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found
     mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155
     mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a
     discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that
     by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After
     serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the
     13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as
     mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts
     of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case,
     it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,
      were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th
     century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent
     to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively
     moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil
     country over several centuries.
     In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226
     referred to one or more members of the same lineage later
     called the bANas.
     kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as
     well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
     /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/
     /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/
     /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8)
     We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals
     belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these
     dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil
     country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty.
     Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not
     surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.

     The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same
     nature as in akam. 336 below.

     /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/

     /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/

     /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/

     /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23)

     Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.

     Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the
     cOza fighters

     /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/

     /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/

     /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8)

     So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the
     battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their
     chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might
     have sent his forces without joining them.

     As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I
     consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the
     fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side
     while the battle is raging and in that case they will only
     move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I
     do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if
     the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior
     will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or
     looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should
     be fighters and not bards.

     Regards,

     Palaniappan



     <Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing
listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info
mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.infoindology-owner@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info(messages to the list's
managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info/(where you can change your list
options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list, see: https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ 1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு) 2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு) 3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு) 4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை) 5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்) 6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்) 7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்) 8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல) -- Jean-Luc Chevvillard https://twitter.com/JLC1956 On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why > the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences > should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in > general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed > the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.) > > Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is > used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival > participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with > the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. > Here are some examples. > > /tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12) > Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The > NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city. > > /vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370) > Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP > 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance. > > /vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1) > Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā > ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace. > > /eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4) > Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around > the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to > discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate > the rainbow. > > The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by > an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be > connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym > can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information > provided. > > Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 > according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms. > > In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with > disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. > Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology > (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA > <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA>), > the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. > So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single > community that perform different functions and the poets use the same > general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset. > > Regards, > Palaniappan > > >> On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. >> <H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl >> <mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl>> wrote: >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples >> given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that >> the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a >> (sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to >> brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to >> say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this >> type of compound. >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Tieken, H.J.H. >> via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26 >> *Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that >> of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of >> compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's >> (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would >> have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living >> by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by >> officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we >> have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin >> priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/. >> I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: >> Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and >> ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) >> >> As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I >> think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A >> Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7 >> (1979), 171-189. >> With kind regards >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Sudalaimuthu >> Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 >> *Aan:*Indology List >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> I am reposting after correcting some typos. >> I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of >> some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in >> his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on >> Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has >> provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. >> With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to >> a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in >> music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He >> refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the >> thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later >> called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s >> interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. >> Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms >> my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For >> the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see >> Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) >> In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of >> Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’ >> as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of >> it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden >> has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It >> should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument; >> eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does >> not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap >> porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to >> refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by >> the word ‘porunar’. >> One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe >> ‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the >> ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not >> necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know >> that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, >> with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that >> possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the >> chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai >> (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known >> by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and >> Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some >> territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could >> have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. >> As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to >> have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South >> Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the >> crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta >> Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). >> The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area >> into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted >> in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district >> of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the >> way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā >> plates of Somesvaradevavarman. >> In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who >> fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. >> Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the >> intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār >> and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word >> ‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the >> misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by >> the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the >> verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of >> Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s >> interpretation. >> George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français >> De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu >> Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. >> Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. >> Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, >> Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu >> Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik >> kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. >> Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ >> Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of >> the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut >> Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com >> <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote: >> Dear George, >> I appreciate your comments. >> As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever >> possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, >> when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my >> earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there >> were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I >> resorted to the transliteration I used. >> Thanks >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>> >> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>> >> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm >> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and >> especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the >> alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is >> significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say >> about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam >> poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your >> interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that >> doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to >> tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in >> the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, >> they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being >> killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. >> One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read >> the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every >> OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. >> George >> On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan >> <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about >> the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes >> first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is >> found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in >> nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title >> peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection >> with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. >> Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? >> First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very >> unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, >> bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in >> the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. >> A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra >> names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the >> Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the >> tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. >> Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the >> dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we >> only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many >> instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. >> This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda >> inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into >> Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced >> as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first >> component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This >> suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should >> have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada >> and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either >> independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' >> in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form >> 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit >> mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father >> of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. >> Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. >> bANa > Ta. vANa-. >> In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the >> 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In >> the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same >> king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. >> The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon >> indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this >> case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with >> word-initial p-. >> As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa >> chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started >> near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found >> mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 >> mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a >> discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that >> by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After >> serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the >> 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as >> mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts >> of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, >> it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, >>  were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th >> century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent >> to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively >> moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil >> country over several centuries. >> In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 >> referred to one or more members of the same lineage later >> called the bANas. >> kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as >> well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. >> /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/ >> /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/ >> /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8) >> We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals >> belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these >> dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil >> country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. >> Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not >> surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. >> >> The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same >> nature as in akam. 336 below. >> >> /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/ >> >> /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/ >> >> /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/ >> >> /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23) >> >> Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. >> >> Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the >> cOza fighters >> >> /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/ >> >> /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/ >> >> /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8) >> >> So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the >> battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their >> chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might >> have sent his forces without joining them. >> >> As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I >> consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the >> fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side >> while the battle is raging and in that case they will only >> move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I >> do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if >> the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior >> will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or >> looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should >> be fighters and not bards. >> >> Regards, >> >> Palaniappan >> >> >> >> <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> >> >> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing >> listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>indology-owner@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info>(messages to the list's >> managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info >> <http://listinfo.indology.info/>(where you can change your list >> options or unsubscribe) > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info > To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info > indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe) >
TH
Tieken, H.J.H.
Mon, Feb 22, 2021 10:36 AM

Dear list members, or those interested in the details of poetic Caṅkam vocabulary,

Given the fact that the vēl̥āp pār̥ppāṉ, "a pārppāṉ who does not sacrifice". in the Akanāṉūṟu is an artisan cutting bangles from conchshell, it may be asked if pārppāṉ, "seer, brahmin" might not be used for ācārya here, which beside "spiritual teacher, priest" is also used to refer to a master (stonemason, goldsmith).

Mind you, it is just a question.

Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.comhttp://hermantieken.com/


Van: Jean-Luc Chevillard jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr
Verzonden: maandag 22 februari 2021 09:53:04
Aan: indology@list.indology.info
Onderwerp: [Spam:******] [INDOLOGY] Re: On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list,
see:

https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ

  1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு)
  2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு)
  3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு)
  4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை)
  5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்)
  6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்)
  7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்)
  8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல)

-- Jean-Luc Chevvillard

https://twitter.com/JLC1956

On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote:

Dear Herman,

Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why
the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences
should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in
general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed
the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.)

Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is
used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival
participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with
the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning.
Here are some examples.

/tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12)
Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The
NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city.

/vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370)
Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP
'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance.

/vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1)
Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā
’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace.

/eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4)
Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around
the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to
discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate
the rainbow.

The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by
an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be
connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym
can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information
provided.

Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56
according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms.

In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with
disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance.
Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology
(https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA
https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA),
the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors.
So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single
community that perform different functions and the poets use the same
general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H.
<H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl
mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:

Dear Palaniappan,
One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples
given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that
the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a
(sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to
brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to
say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this
type of compound.
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Tieken, H.J.H.
via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
*Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
Dear Palaniappan,
I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that
of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of
compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's
(ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would
have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living
by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by
officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we
have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin
priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/.
I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry:
Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and
ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I
think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A
Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7
(1979), 171-189.
With kind regards
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Sudalaimuthu
Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
*Aan:*Indology List
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
I am reposting after correcting some typos.
I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of
some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in
his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on
Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has
provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.
With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to
a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in
music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He
refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the
thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later
called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s
interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve.
Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms
my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For
the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see
Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)
In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of
Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’
as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of
it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden
has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It
should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument;
eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does
not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap
porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to
refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by
the word ‘porunar’.
One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe
‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the
ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not
necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know
that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But,
with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that
possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the
chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai
(1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known
by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and
Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some
territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could
have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.
As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to
have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South
Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the
crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta
Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).
The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area
into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted
in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district
of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the
way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā
plates of Somesvaradevavarman.
In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who
fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ.
Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the
intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār
and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word
‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the
misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by
the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the
verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of
Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s
interpretation.
George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français
De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu
Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946.
Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli,
Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu
Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik
kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ
Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of
the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut
Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Regards,
Palaniappan

 On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com
 <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote:
 Dear George,
 I appreciate your comments.
 As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever
 possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But,
 when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my
 earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there
 were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I
 resorted to the transliteration I used.
 Thanks
 Regards,
 Palaniappan

 -----Original Message-----
 From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>>
 To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
 <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>>
 Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

 Dear Palaniappan,
 I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and
 especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the
 alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is
 significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say
 about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam
 poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your
 interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that
 doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to
 tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in
 the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started,
 they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being
 killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.
 One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read
 the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every
 OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.
 George
 On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
 <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote:




     Dear George,
     Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about
     the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes
     first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is
     found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in
     nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title
     peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection
     with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2.
     Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?
     First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very
     unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of,
     bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in
     the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K.
     A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra
     names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the
     Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the
     tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'.
     Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the
     dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we
     only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many
     instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.
     This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda
     inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into
     Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced
     as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first
     component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This
     suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should
     have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada
     and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either
     independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2'
     in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form
     'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit
     mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father
     of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'.
     Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt.
     bANa > Ta. vANa-.
     In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the
     2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In
     the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same
     king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.
     The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon
     indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this
     case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with
     word-initial p-.
     As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa
     chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started
     near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found
     mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155
     mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a
     discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that
     by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After
     serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the
     13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as
     mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts
     of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case,
     it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,
      were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th
     century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent
     to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively
     moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil
     country over several centuries.
     In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226
     referred to one or more members of the same lineage later
     called the bANas.
     kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as
     well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
     /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/
     /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/
     /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8)
     We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals
     belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these
     dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil
     country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty.
     Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not
     surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.

     The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same
     nature as in akam. 336 below.

     /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/

     /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/

     /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/

     /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23)

     Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.

     Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the
     cOza fighters

     /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/

     /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/

     /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8)

     So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the
     battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their
     chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might
     have sent his forces without joining them.

     As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I
     consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the
     fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side
     while the battle is raging and in that case they will only
     move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I
     do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if
     the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior
     will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or
     looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should
     be fighters and not bards.

     Regards,

     Palaniappan



     <Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing
listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info
mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.infoindology-owner@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info(messages to the list's
managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info/(where you can change your list
options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Dear list members, or those interested in the details of poetic Caṅkam vocabulary, Given the fact that the vēl̥āp pār̥ppāṉ, "a pārppāṉ who does not sacrifice". in the Akanāṉūṟu is an artisan cutting bangles from conchshell, it may be asked if pārppāṉ, "seer, brahmin" might not be used for ācārya here, which beside "spiritual teacher, priest" is also used to refer to a master (stonemason, goldsmith). Mind you, it is just a question. Herman Herman Tieken Stationsweg 58 2515 BP Den Haag The Netherlands 00 31 (0)70 2208127 website: hermantieken.com<http://hermantieken.com/> ________________________________ Van: Jean-Luc Chevillard <jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr> Verzonden: maandag 22 februari 2021 09:53:04 Aan: indology@list.indology.info Onderwerp: [Spam:******] [INDOLOGY] Re: On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list, see: https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ 1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு) 2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு) 3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு) 4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை) 5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்) 6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்) 7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்) 8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல) -- Jean-Luc Chevvillard https://twitter.com/JLC1956 On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why > the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences > should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in > general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed > the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.) > > Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is > used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival > participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with > the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. > Here are some examples. > > /tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12) > Here /naṟavu/ can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The > NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city. > > /vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370) > Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP > 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance. > > /vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1) > Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā > ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace. > > /eyyā varivil/ (Aka. 192.4) > Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around > the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to > discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate > the rainbow. > > The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by > an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be > connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym > can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information > provided. > > Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 > according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms. > > In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with > disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. > Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology > (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA > <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA>), > the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. > So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single > community that perform different functions and the poets use the same > general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset. > > Regards, > Palaniappan > > >> On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. >> <H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl >> <mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl>> wrote: >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples >> given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that >> the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a >> (sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to >> brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to >> say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this >> type of compound. >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Tieken, H.J.H. >> via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26 >> *Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that >> of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of >> compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's >> (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would >> have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living >> by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by >> officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we >> have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin >> priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/. >> I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: >> Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and >> ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) >> >> As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I >> think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A >> Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7 >> (1979), 171-189. >> With kind regards >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Sudalaimuthu >> Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 >> *Aan:*Indology List >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> I am reposting after correcting some typos. >> I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of >> some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in >> his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on >> Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has >> provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. >> With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to >> a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in >> music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He >> refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the >> thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later >> called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s >> interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. >> Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms >> my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For >> the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see >> Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) >> In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of >> Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’ >> as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of >> it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden >> has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It >> should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument; >> eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does >> not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap >> porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to >> refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by >> the word ‘porunar’. >> One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe >> ‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the >> ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not >> necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know >> that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, >> with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that >> possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the >> chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai >> (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known >> by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and >> Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some >> territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could >> have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. >> As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to >> have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South >> Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the >> crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta >> Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). >> The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area >> into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted >> in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district >> of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the >> way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā >> plates of Somesvaradevavarman. >> In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who >> fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. >> Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the >> intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār >> and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word >> ‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the >> misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by >> the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the >> verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of >> Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s >> interpretation. >> George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français >> De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu >> Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. >> Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. >> Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, >> Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu >> Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik >> kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. >> Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ >> Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of >> the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut >> Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com >> <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote: >> Dear George, >> I appreciate your comments. >> As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever >> possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, >> when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my >> earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there >> were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I >> resorted to the transliteration I used. >> Thanks >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>> >> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>> >> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm >> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and >> especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the >> alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is >> significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say >> about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam >> poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your >> interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that >> doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to >> tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in >> the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, >> they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being >> killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. >> One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read >> the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every >> OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. >> George >> On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan >> <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about >> the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes >> first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is >> found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in >> nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title >> peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection >> with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. >> Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? >> First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very >> unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, >> bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in >> the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. >> A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra >> names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the >> Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the >> tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. >> Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the >> dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we >> only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many >> instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. >> This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda >> inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into >> Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced >> as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first >> component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This >> suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should >> have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada >> and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either >> independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' >> in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form >> 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit >> mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father >> of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. >> Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. >> bANa > Ta. vANa-. >> In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the >> 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In >> the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same >> king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. >> The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon >> indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this >> case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with >> word-initial p-. >> As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa >> chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started >> near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found >> mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 >> mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a >> discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that >> by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After >> serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the >> 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as >> mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts >> of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, >> it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, >> were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th >> century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent >> to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively >> moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil >> country over several centuries. >> In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 >> referred to one or more members of the same lineage later >> called the bANas. >> kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as >> well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. >> /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/ >> /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/ >> /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8) >> We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals >> belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these >> dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil >> country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. >> Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not >> surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. >> >> The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same >> nature as in akam. 336 below. >> >> /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/ >> >> /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/ >> >> /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/ >> >> /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23) >> >> Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. >> >> Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the >> cOza fighters >> >> /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/ >> >> /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/ >> >> /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8) >> >> So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the >> battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their >> chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might >> have sent his forces without joining them. >> >> As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I >> consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the >> fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side >> while the battle is raging and in that case they will only >> move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I >> do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if >> the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior >> will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or >> looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should >> be fighters and not bards. >> >> Regards, >> >> Palaniappan >> >> >> >> <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> >> >> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing >> listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>indology-owner@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info>(messages to the list's >> managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info >> <http://listinfo.indology.info/>(where you can change your list >> options or unsubscribe) > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info > To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info > indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe) > _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
TH
Tieken, H.J.H.
Mon, Feb 22, 2021 3:05 PM

Dear Jean-Luc, thank you very much for the information.

24-1-2011 (January) I replied to a message of Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan, who replied to today. From your message I have learned that the discussion has gone on on other lists in Tamil, initiated by Rajam on 16-2-2021 (February), referring to me as "some foreign Tamil researcher" (ōr ayalakattamiḻāyvāl̥ar). Too often in Tamil publications I am referred to in this way, as a foreigner, who, by implication, has no right to say anything about Tamil.

Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.comhttp://hermantieken.com/


Van: Jean-Luc Chevillard jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr
Verzonden: maandag 22 februari 2021 09:53:04
Aan: indology@list.indology.info
Onderwerp: [Spam:******] [INDOLOGY] Re: On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list,
see:

https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ

  1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு)
  2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு)
  3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு)
  4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை)
  5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்)
  6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்)
  7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்)
  8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல)

-- Jean-Luc Chevvillard

https://twitter.com/JLC1956

On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote:

Dear Herman,

Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why
the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences
should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in
general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed
the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.)

Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is
used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival
participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with
the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning.
Here are some examples.

/tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12)
Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The
NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city.

/vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370)
Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP
'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance.

/vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1)
Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā
’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace.

/eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4)
Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around
the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to
discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate
the rainbow.

The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by
an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be
connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym
can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information
provided.

Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56
according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms.

In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with
disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance.
Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology
(https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA
https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA),
the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors.
So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single
community that perform different functions and the poets use the same
general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H.
<H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl
mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:

Dear Palaniappan,
One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples
given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that
the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a
(sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to
brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to
say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this
type of compound.
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Tieken, H.J.H.
via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
*Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
Dear Palaniappan,
I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that
of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of
compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's
(ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would
have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living
by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by
officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we
have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin
priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/.
I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry:
Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and
ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I
think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A
Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7
(1979), 171-189.
With kind regards
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Sudalaimuthu
Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
*Aan:*Indology List
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
I am reposting after correcting some typos.
I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of
some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in
his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on
Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has
provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.
With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to
a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in
music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He
refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the
thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later
called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s
interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve.
Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms
my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For
the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see
Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)
In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of
Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’
as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of
it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden
has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It
should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument;
eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does
not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap
porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to
refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by
the word ‘porunar’.
One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe
‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the
ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not
necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know
that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But,
with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that
possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the
chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai
(1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known
by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and
Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some
territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could
have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.
As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to
have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South
Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the
crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta
Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).
The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area
into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted
in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district
of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the
way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā
plates of Somesvaradevavarman.
In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who
fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ.
Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the
intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār
and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word
‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the
misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by
the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the
verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of
Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s
interpretation.
George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français
De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu
Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946.
Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli,
Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu
Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik
kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ
Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of
the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut
Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Regards,
Palaniappan

 On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com
 <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote:
 Dear George,
 I appreciate your comments.
 As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever
 possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But,
 when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my
 earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there
 were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I
 resorted to the transliteration I used.
 Thanks
 Regards,
 Palaniappan

 -----Original Message-----
 From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>>
 To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
 <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>>
 Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

 Dear Palaniappan,
 I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and
 especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the
 alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is
 significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say
 about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam
 poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your
 interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that
 doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to
 tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in
 the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started,
 they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being
 killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.
 One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read
 the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every
 OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.
 George
 On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
 <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote:




     Dear George,
     Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about
     the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes
     first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is
     found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in
     nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title
     peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection
     with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2.
     Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?
     First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very
     unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of,
     bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in
     the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K.
     A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra
     names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the
     Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the
     tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'.
     Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the
     dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we
     only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many
     instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.
     This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda
     inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into
     Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced
     as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first
     component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This
     suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should
     have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada
     and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either
     independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2'
     in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form
     'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit
     mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father
     of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'.
     Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt.
     bANa > Ta. vANa-.
     In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the
     2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In
     the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same
     king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.
     The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon
     indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this
     case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with
     word-initial p-.
     As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa
     chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started
     near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found
     mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155
     mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a
     discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that
     by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After
     serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the
     13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as
     mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts
     of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case,
     it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,
      were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th
     century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent
     to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively
     moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil
     country over several centuries.
     In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226
     referred to one or more members of the same lineage later
     called the bANas.
     kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as
     well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
     /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/
     /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/
     /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8)
     We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals
     belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these
     dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil
     country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty.
     Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not
     surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.

     The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same
     nature as in akam. 336 below.

     /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/

     /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/

     /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/

     /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23)

     Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.

     Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the
     cOza fighters

     /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/

     /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/

     /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8)

     So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the
     battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their
     chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might
     have sent his forces without joining them.

     As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I
     consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the
     fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side
     while the battle is raging and in that case they will only
     move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I
     do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if
     the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior
     will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or
     looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should
     be fighters and not bards.

     Regards,

     Palaniappan



     <Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing
listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info
mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.infoindology-owner@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info(messages to the list's
managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info/(where you can change your list
options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Dear Jean-Luc, thank you very much for the information. 24-1-2011 (January) I replied to a message of Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan, who replied to today. From your message I have learned that the discussion has gone on on other lists in Tamil, initiated by Rajam on 16-2-2021 (February), referring to me as "some foreign Tamil researcher" (ōr ayalakattamiḻāyvāl̥ar). Too often in Tamil publications I am referred to in this way, as a foreigner, who, by implication, has no right to say anything about Tamil. Herman Herman Tieken Stationsweg 58 2515 BP Den Haag The Netherlands 00 31 (0)70 2208127 website: hermantieken.com<http://hermantieken.com/> ________________________________ Van: Jean-Luc Chevillard <jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr> Verzonden: maandag 22 februari 2021 09:53:04 Aan: indology@list.indology.info Onderwerp: [Spam:******] [INDOLOGY] Re: On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list, see: https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ 1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு) 2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு) 3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு) 4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை) 5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்) 6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்) 7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்) 8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல) -- Jean-Luc Chevvillard https://twitter.com/JLC1956 On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why > the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences > should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in > general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed > the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.) > > Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is > used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival > participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with > the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. > Here are some examples. > > /tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12) > Here /naṟavu/ can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The > NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city. > > /vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370) > Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP > 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance. > > /vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1) > Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā > ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace. > > /eyyā varivil/ (Aka. 192.4) > Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around > the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to > discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate > the rainbow. > > The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by > an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be > connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym > can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information > provided. > > Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 > according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms. > > In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with > disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. > Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology > (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA > <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA>), > the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. > So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single > community that perform different functions and the poets use the same > general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset. > > Regards, > Palaniappan > > >> On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. >> <H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl >> <mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl>> wrote: >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples >> given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that >> the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a >> (sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to >> brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to >> say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this >> type of compound. >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Tieken, H.J.H. >> via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26 >> *Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that >> of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of >> compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's >> (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would >> have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living >> by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by >> officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we >> have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin >> priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/. >> I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: >> Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and >> ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) >> >> As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I >> think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A >> Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7 >> (1979), 171-189. >> With kind regards >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Sudalaimuthu >> Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 >> *Aan:*Indology List >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> I am reposting after correcting some typos. >> I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of >> some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in >> his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on >> Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has >> provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. >> With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to >> a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in >> music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He >> refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the >> thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later >> called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s >> interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. >> Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms >> my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For >> the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see >> Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) >> In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of >> Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’ >> as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of >> it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden >> has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It >> should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument; >> eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does >> not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap >> porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to >> refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by >> the word ‘porunar’. >> One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe >> ‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the >> ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not >> necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know >> that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, >> with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that >> possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the >> chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai >> (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known >> by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and >> Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some >> territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could >> have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. >> As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to >> have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South >> Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the >> crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta >> Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). >> The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area >> into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted >> in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district >> of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the >> way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā >> plates of Somesvaradevavarman. >> In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who >> fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. >> Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the >> intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār >> and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word >> ‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the >> misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by >> the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the >> verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of >> Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s >> interpretation. >> George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français >> De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu >> Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. >> Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. >> Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, >> Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu >> Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik >> kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. >> Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ >> Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of >> the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut >> Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com >> <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote: >> Dear George, >> I appreciate your comments. >> As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever >> possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, >> when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my >> earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there >> were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I >> resorted to the transliteration I used. >> Thanks >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>> >> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>> >> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm >> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and >> especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the >> alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is >> significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say >> about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam >> poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your >> interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that >> doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to >> tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in >> the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, >> they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being >> killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. >> One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read >> the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every >> OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. >> George >> On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan >> <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about >> the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes >> first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is >> found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in >> nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title >> peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection >> with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. >> Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? >> First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very >> unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, >> bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in >> the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. >> A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra >> names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the >> Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the >> tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. >> Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the >> dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we >> only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many >> instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. >> This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda >> inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into >> Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced >> as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first >> component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This >> suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should >> have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada >> and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either >> independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' >> in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form >> 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit >> mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father >> of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. >> Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. >> bANa > Ta. vANa-. >> In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the >> 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In >> the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same >> king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. >> The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon >> indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this >> case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with >> word-initial p-. >> As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa >> chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started >> near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found >> mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 >> mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a >> discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that >> by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After >> serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the >> 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as >> mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts >> of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, >> it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, >> were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th >> century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent >> to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively >> moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil >> country over several centuries. >> In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 >> referred to one or more members of the same lineage later >> called the bANas. >> kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as >> well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. >> /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/ >> /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/ >> /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8) >> We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals >> belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these >> dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil >> country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. >> Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not >> surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. >> >> The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same >> nature as in akam. 336 below. >> >> /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/ >> >> /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/ >> >> /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/ >> >> /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23) >> >> Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. >> >> Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the >> cOza fighters >> >> /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/ >> >> /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/ >> >> /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8) >> >> So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the >> battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their >> chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might >> have sent his forces without joining them. >> >> As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I >> consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the >> fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side >> while the battle is raging and in that case they will only >> move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I >> do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if >> the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior >> will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or >> looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should >> be fighters and not bards. >> >> Regards, >> >> Palaniappan >> >> >> >> <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> >> >> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing >> listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>indology-owner@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info>(messages to the list's >> managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info >> <http://listinfo.indology.info/>(where you can change your list >> options or unsubscribe) > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info > To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info > indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe) > _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
JC
Jean-Luc Chevillard
Mon, Feb 22, 2021 5:35 PM

Dear Herman,

as is clear, every ONE has a specific relationship with ONE's mother
tongue and ONE's culture.

As you could see last week, with the debate about the linguistic
requirements for the EPHE post in France,
there are different reactions depending on the country.

If somebody whose mother tongue is XXX wants to apply for an Indology
post in a country CCCC where the "indigenous language" is ZZZ,
and says "Give me the post and I promise to be fluent in the «indigenous
language» within two years, the reaction will probably be different if

CCC = France
CCC = Multilingual Canada
CCC = UK
CCC = USA
CCC = Germany
CCC = your country
CCC = ....

As someone who has tried to learn TRIGLOSSIC Tamil for thirty-nine and a
half years, and who still feels very far from that beautifully elusive
goal, I am reconciled with the idea that I shall always be
-- "A STUDENT OF TAMIL" :-)
-- a French mother tongue speaker :-)
-- someone who has to spend the greater part of his life struggling with
a Lingua Franca (namely English) in which I can never say: "This is how
I speak" :-)
-- someone interested in many other languages :-)

Language and cultures are fascinating but each one is singular.

There is NO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ;-)

And you frequently need a visa on your passport :-)

C'est la vie :-)

அன்புடன்

-- Jean-Luc (in Müssen, Germany, European Union, Planet Earth, Milky
Way, ...)

https://twitter.com/JLC1956

On 22/02/2021 16:05, Tieken, H.J.H. wrote:

Dear Jean-Luc, thank you very much for the information.

24-1-2011 (January) I replied to a message of Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan,
who replied to today. From your message I have learned that the
discussion has gone on on other lists in Tamil, initiated by Rajam on
16-2-2021 (February), referring to me as "some foreign Tamil researcher"
(ōr ayalakattamiḻāyvāl̥ar). Too often in Tamil publications I am referred
to in this way, as a foreigner, who, by implication, has no right to say
anything about Tamil.

Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website: hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

Van: Jean-Luc Chevillard jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr
Verzonden: maandag 22 februari 2021 09:53:04
Aan: indology@list.indology.info
Onderwerp: [Spam:******] [INDOLOGY] Re: On the Date of Classical Tamil
Poems
For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list,
see:

https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ

  1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு)
  2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு)
  3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு)
  4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை)
  5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்)
  6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்)
  7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்)
  8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல)

-- Jean-Luc Chevvillard

https://twitter.com/JLC1956 https://twitter.com/JLC1956

On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote:

Dear Herman,

Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why
the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences
should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in
general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed
the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.)

Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is
used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival
participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with
the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning.
Here are some examples.

/tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12)
Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The
NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city.

/vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370)
Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP
'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance.

/vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1)
Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā
’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace.

/eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4)
Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around
the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to
discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate
the rainbow.

The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by
an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be
connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym
can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information
provided.

Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56
according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms.

In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with
disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance.
Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology
(https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA

<https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA

the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors.
So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single
community that perform different functions and the poets use the same
general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H.
<H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl
<mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl

Dear Palaniappan,
One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples
given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that
the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a
(sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to
brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to
say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this
type of compound.
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/ http://hermantieken.com/>

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
<mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info

via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
<mailto:indology@list.indology.info mailto:indology@list.indology.info>>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
*Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
Dear Palaniappan,
I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that
of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of
compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's
(ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would
have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living
by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by
officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we
have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin
priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/.
I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry:
Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and
ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I
think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A
Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7
(1979), 171-189.
With kind regards
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/ http://hermantieken.com/>

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
<mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info

Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
<mailto:indology@list.indology.info mailto:indology@list.indology.info>>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
*Aan:*Indology List
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
I am reposting after correcting some typos.
I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of
some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in
his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on
Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has
provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.
With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to
a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in
music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He
refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the
thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later
called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s
interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve.
Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms
my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For
the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see
Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)
In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of
Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’
as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of
it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden
has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It
should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument;
eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does
not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap
porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to
refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by
the word ‘porunar’.
One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe
‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the
ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not
necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know
that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But,
with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that
possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the
chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai
(1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known
by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and
Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some
territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could
have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.
As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to
have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South
Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the
crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta
Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).
The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area
into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted
in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district
of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the
way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā
plates of Somesvaradevavarman.
In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who
fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ.
Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the
intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār
and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word
‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the
misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by
the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the
verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of
Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s
interpretation.
George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français
De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu
Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946.
Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli,
Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu
Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik
kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ
Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of
the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut
Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Regards,
Palaniappan

     On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com
     <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote:
     Dear George,
     I appreciate your comments.
     As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever
     possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But,
     when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my
     earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there
     were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I
     resorted to the transliteration I used.
     Thanks
     Regards,
     Palaniappan

     -----Original Message-----
     From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>>
     To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
     <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>>
     Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
     Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

     Dear Palaniappan,
     I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and
     especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the
     alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is
     significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say
     about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam
     poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your
     interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that
     doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to
     tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in
     the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started,
     they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being
     killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.
     One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read
     the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every
     OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.
     George
     On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
     <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote:

         Dear George,
         Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about
         the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes
         first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is
         found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in
         nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title
         peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection
         with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2.
         Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?
         First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very
         unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of,
         bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in
         the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K.
         A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra
         names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the
         Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the
         tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'.
         Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the
         dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we
         only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many
         instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.
         This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda
         inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into
         Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced
         as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first
         component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This
         suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should
         have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada
         and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either
         independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2'
         in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form
         'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit
         mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father
         of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'.
         Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt.
         bANa > Ta. vANa-.
         In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the
         2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In
         the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same
         king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.
         The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon
         indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this
         case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with
         word-initial p-.
         As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa
         chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started
         near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found
         mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155
         mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a
         discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that
         by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After
         serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the
         13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as
         mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts
         of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case,
         it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,
          were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th
         century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent
         to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively
         moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil
         country over several centuries.
         In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226
         referred to one or more members of the same lineage later
         called the bANas.
         kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as
         well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
         /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/
         /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/
         /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8)
         We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals
         belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these
         dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil
         country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty.
         Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not
         surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.

         The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same
         nature as in akam. 336 below.

         /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/

         /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/

         /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/

         /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23)

         Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.

         Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the
         cOza fighters

         /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/

         /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/

         /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8)

         So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the
         battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their
         chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might
         have sent his forces without joining them.

         As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I
         consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the
         fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side
         while the battle is raging and in that case they will only
         move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I
         do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if
         the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior
         will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or
         looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should
         be fighters and not bards.

         Regards,

         Palaniappan

         <Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing
listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info
<mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info

managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info
<http://listinfo.indology.info/ http://listinfo.indology.info/>(where

you can change your list

options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info http://listinfo.indology.info (where you

can change your list options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info http://listinfo.indology.info (where you
can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Dear Herman, as is clear, every ONE has a specific relationship with ONE's mother tongue and ONE's culture. As you could see last week, with the debate about the linguistic requirements for the EPHE post in France, there are different reactions depending on the country. If somebody whose mother tongue is XXX wants to apply for an Indology post in a country CCCC where the "indigenous language" is ZZZ, and says "Give me the post and I promise to be fluent in the «indigenous language» within two years, the reaction will probably be different if CCC = France CCC = Multilingual Canada CCC = UK CCC = USA CCC = Germany CCC = your country CCC = .... As someone who has tried to learn TRIGLOSSIC Tamil for thirty-nine and a half years, and who still feels very far from that beautifully elusive goal, I am reconciled with the idea that I shall always be -- "A STUDENT OF TAMIL" :-) -- a French mother tongue speaker :-) -- someone who has to spend the greater part of his life struggling with a Lingua Franca (namely English) in which I can never say: "This is how I speak" :-) -- someone interested in many other languages :-) Language and cultures are fascinating but each one is singular. There is NO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ;-) And you frequently need a visa on your passport :-) C'est la vie :-) அன்புடன் -- Jean-Luc (in Müssen, Germany, European Union, Planet Earth, Milky Way, ...) https://twitter.com/JLC1956 On 22/02/2021 16:05, Tieken, H.J.H. wrote: > > Dear Jean-Luc, thank you very much for the information. > > 24-1-2011 (January) I replied to a message of Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan, > who replied to today. From your message I have learned that the > discussion has gone on on other lists in Tamil, initiated by Rajam on > 16-2-2021 (February), referring to me as "some foreign Tamil researcher" > (ōr ayalakattamiḻāyvāl̥ar). Too often in Tamil publications I am referred > to in this way, as a foreigner, who, by implication, has no right to say > anything about Tamil. > > Herman > > > Herman Tieken > Stationsweg 58 > 2515 BP Den Haag > The Netherlands > 00 31 (0)70 2208127 > website: hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Van:* Jean-Luc Chevillard <jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr> > *Verzonden:* maandag 22 februari 2021 09:53:04 > *Aan:* indology@list.indology.info > *Onderwerp:* [Spam:******] [INDOLOGY] Re: On the Date of Classical Tamil > Poems > For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list, > see: > > https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ > <https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ> > > > 1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு) > 2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு) > 3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு) > 4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை) > 5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்) > 6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்) > 7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்) > 8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல) > > > -- Jean-Luc Chevvillard > > > https://twitter.com/JLC1956 <https://twitter.com/JLC1956> > > > On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote: >> Dear Herman, >> >> Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why >> the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences >> should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in >> general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed >> the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.) >> >> Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is >> used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival >> participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with >> the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. >> Here are some examples. >> >> /tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12) >> Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The >> NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city. >> >> /vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370) >> Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP >> 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance. >> >> /vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1) >> Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā >> ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace. >> >> /eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4) >> Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around >> the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to >> discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate >> the rainbow. >> >> The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by >> an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be >> connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym >> can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information >> provided. >> >> Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 >> according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms. >> >> In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with >> disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. >> Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology >> (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA > >> <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA > <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA>>), > >> the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. >> So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single >> community that perform different functions and the poets use the same >> general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset. >> >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> >>> On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. >>> <H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl >>> <mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl > <mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl>>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Palaniappan, >>> One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples >>> given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that >>> the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a >>> (sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to >>> brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to >>> say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this >>> type of compound. >>> Herman >>> >>> Herman Tieken >>> Stationsweg 58 >>> 2515 BP Den Haag >>> The Netherlands >>> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >>> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/ <http://hermantieken.com/>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >>> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info > <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>>> namens Tieken, H.J.H. >>> via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >>> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>>> >>> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26 >>> *Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology >>> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >>> Dear Palaniappan, >>> I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that >>> of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of >>> compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's >>> (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would >>> have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living >>> by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by >>> officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we >>> have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin >>> priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/. >>> I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: >>> Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and >>> ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) >>> >>> As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I >>> think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A >>> Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7 >>> (1979), 171-189. >>> With kind regards >>> Herman >>> >>> Herman Tieken >>> Stationsweg 58 >>> 2515 BP Den Haag >>> The Netherlands >>> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >>> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/ <http://hermantieken.com/>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >>> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info > <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>>> namens Sudalaimuthu >>> Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >>> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>>> >>> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 >>> *Aan:*Indology List >>> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >>> I am reposting after correcting some typos. >>> I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of >>> some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in >>> his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on >>> Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has >>> provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. >>> With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to >>> a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in >>> music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He >>> refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the >>> thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later >>> called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s >>> interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. >>> Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms >>> my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For >>> the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see >>> Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) >>> In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of >>> Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’ >>> as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of >>> it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden >>> has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It >>> should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument; >>> eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does >>> not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap >>> porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to >>> refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by >>> the word ‘porunar’. >>> One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe >>> ‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the >>> ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not >>> necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know >>> that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, >>> with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that >>> possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the >>> chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai >>> (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known >>> by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and >>> Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some >>> territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could >>> have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. >>> As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to >>> have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South >>> Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the >>> crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta >>> Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). >>> The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area >>> into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted >>> in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district >>> of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the >>> way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā >>> plates of Somesvaradevavarman. >>> In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who >>> fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. >>> Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the >>> intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār >>> and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word >>> ‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the >>> misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by >>> the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the >>> verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by >>> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of >>> Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s >>> interpretation. >>> George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français >>> De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >>> Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. >>> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu >>> Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. >>> Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. >>> Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, >>> Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. >>> Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu >>> Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik >>> kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. >>> Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ >>> Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. >>> Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of >>> the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut >>> Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >>> Regards, >>> Palaniappan >>> >>>     On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com >>>     <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>>wrote: >>>     Dear George, >>>     I appreciate your comments. >>>     As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever >>>     possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, >>>     when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my >>>     earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there >>>     were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I >>>     resorted to the transliteration I used. >>>     Thanks >>>     Regards, >>>     Palaniappan >>> >>>     -----Original Message----- >>>     From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>>> >>>     To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk >>>     <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>>> >>>     Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm >>>     Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >>> >>>     Dear Palaniappan, >>>     I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and >>>     especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the >>>     alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is >>>     significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say >>>     about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam >>>     poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your >>>     interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that >>>     doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to >>>     tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in >>>     the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, >>>     they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being >>>     killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. >>>     One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read >>>     the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every >>>     OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. >>>     George >>>     On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan >>>     <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>         Dear George, >>>         Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about >>>         the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes >>>         first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is >>>         found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in >>>         nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title >>>         peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection >>>         with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. >>>         Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? >>>         First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very >>>         unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, >>>         bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in >>>         the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. >>>         A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra >>>         names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the >>>         Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the >>>         tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. >>>         Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the >>>         dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we >>>         only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many >>>         instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. >>>         This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda >>>         inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into >>>         Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced >>>         as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first >>>         component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This >>>         suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should >>>         have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada >>>         and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either >>>         independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' >>>         in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form >>>         'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit >>>         mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father >>>         of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. >>>         Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. >>>         bANa > Ta. vANa-. >>>         In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the >>>         2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In >>>         the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same >>>         king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. >>>         The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon >>>         indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this >>>         case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with >>>         word-initial p-. >>>         As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa >>>         chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started >>>         near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found >>>         mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 >>>         mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a >>>         discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that >>>         by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After >>>         serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the >>>         13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as >>>         mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts >>>         of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, >>>         it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, >>>          were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th >>>         century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent >>>         to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively >>>         moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil >>>         country over several centuries. >>>         In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 >>>         referred to one or more members of the same lineage later >>>         called the bANas. >>>         kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as >>>         well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. >>>         /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/ >>>         /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/ >>>         /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8) >>>         We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals >>>         belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these >>>         dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil >>>         country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. >>>         Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not >>>         surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. >>> >>>         The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same >>>         nature as in akam. 336 below. >>> >>>         /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/ >>> >>>         /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/ >>> >>>         /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/ >>> >>>         /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23) >>> >>>         Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. >>> >>>         Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the >>>         cOza fighters >>> >>>         /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/ >>> >>>         /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/ >>> >>>         /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8) >>> >>>         So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the >>>         battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their >>>         chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might >>>         have sent his forces without joining them. >>> >>>         As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I >>>         consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the >>>         fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side >>>         while the battle is raging and in that case they will only >>>         move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I >>>         do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if >>>         the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior >>>         will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or >>>         looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should >>>         be fighters and not bards. >>> >>>         Regards, >>> >>>         Palaniappan >>> >>> >>> >>>         <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing >>> listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info >>> <mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info > <mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>>indology-owner@list.indology.info >>> <mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info > <mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info>>(messages to the list's >>> managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info >>> <http://listinfo.indology.info/ <http://listinfo.indology.info/>>(where > you can change your list >>> options or unsubscribe) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info >> To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info >> indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) >> http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info> (where you > can change your list options or unsubscribe) >> > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info > To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info > indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing > committee) > http://listinfo.indology.info <http://listinfo.indology.info> (where you > can change your list options or unsubscribe)
SP
Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
Wed, Feb 24, 2021 7:54 PM

Dear JLC,

Thank you for this link. I should acknowledge that long time ago, it was Rajam who pointed out this type of usage in Classical Tamil to me. It should also be noted that some commentators call this technique by the term 'veḷippaṭai'. This is how Tamil Lexicon explains the term, "(Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the meaning of an ambiguous word is made clear by the use of a qualifying word, as pāyā- vēṅkai; பல்பொருள் குறிக்குஞ் சொல்லை ஒரு பொருட்கு நியமிக்கும்பொருட்டு ஏற்றதோர் அடை கொடுத்துக் கூறும் அணிவகை. (புறநா. 17, உரை.)" It should be noted that by this definition, even affirmatively explaining a homonym is called 'veḷippaṭai'.  Indeed, the example cited by the Tamil Lexicon is one such usage in Puṟam 17.13, i.e., 'aṭu poruna' making clear that by 'poruna' the warrior-king is indicated and not a bard. The commentators also use this term in regards to 'pūvā vañci (Puṟam 32.2), uḻāa nāñcil (Puṟam 139.8), and urāak kutirai (Puṟam 168.14). However, one can see that most of the examples use NAP in these usages.

That is why I was surprised that commentators like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār missed the significance of the expression 'eḻāap pāṇaṉ'.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On 2/22/21, 2:53 AM, "Jean-Luc Chevillard" jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:

For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list,
see:

https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ


1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு)
2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு)
3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு)
4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை)
5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்)
6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்)
7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்)
8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல)


-- Jean-Luc Chevvillard


https://twitter.com/JLC1956


On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote:

Dear Herman,

Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why
the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences
should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in
general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed
the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.)

Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is
used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival
participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with
the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning.
Here are some examples.

/tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12)
Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The
NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city.

/vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370)
Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP
'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance.

/vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1)
Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā
’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace.

/eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4)
Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around
the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to
discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate
the rainbow.

The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by
an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be
connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym
can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information
provided.

Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56
according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms.

In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with
disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance.
Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology
(https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA
https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA),
the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors.
So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single
community that perform different functions and the poets use the same
general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H.
<H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl
mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:

Dear Palaniappan,
One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples
given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that
the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a
(sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to
brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to
say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this
type of compound.
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Tieken, H.J.H.
via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
*Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
Dear Palaniappan,
I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that
of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of
compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's
(ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would
have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living
by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by
officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we
have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin
priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/.
I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry:
Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and
ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)

As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I
think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A
Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7
(1979), 171-189.
With kind regards
Herman

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
website:hermantieken.com http://hermantieken.com/

*Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info> namens Sudalaimuthu
Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info
mailto:indology@list.indology.info>
*Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
*Aan:*Indology List
*Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
I am reposting after correcting some typos.
I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of
some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in
his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on
Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has
provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.
With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to
a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in
music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He
refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the
thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later
called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s
interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve.
Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms
my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For
the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see
Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)
In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of
Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’
as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of
it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden
has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It
should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument;
eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does
not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap
porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to
refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by
the word ‘porunar’.
One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe
‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the
ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not
necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know
that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But,
with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that
possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the
chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai
(1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known
by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and
Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some
territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could
have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.
As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to
have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South
Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the
crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta
Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).
The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area
into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted
in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district
of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the
way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā
plates of Somesvaradevavarman.
In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who
fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ.
Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the
intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār
and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word
‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the
misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by
the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the
verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of
Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s
interpretation.
George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français
De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu
Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946.
Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli,
Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu
Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik
kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ
Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of
the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut
Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
Regards,
Palaniappan

 On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com
 <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote:
 Dear George,
 I appreciate your comments.
 As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever
 possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But,
 when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my
 earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there
 were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I
 resorted to the transliteration I used.
 Thanks
 Regards,
 Palaniappan

 -----Original Message-----
 From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>>
 To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
 <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>>
 Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
 Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

 Dear Palaniappan,
 I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and
 especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the
 alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is
 significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say
 about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam
 poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your
 interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that
 doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to
 tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in
 the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started,
 they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being
 killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.
 One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read
 the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every
 OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.
 George
 On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
 <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote:




     Dear George,
     Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about
     the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes
     first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is
     found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in
     nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title
     peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection
     with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2.
     Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?
     First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very
     unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of,
     bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in
     the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K.
     A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra
     names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the
     Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the
     tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'.
     Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the
     dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we
     only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many
     instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.
     This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda
     inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into
     Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced
     as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first
     component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This
     suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should
     have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada
     and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either
     independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2'
     in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form
     'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit
     mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father
     of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'.
     Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt.
     bANa > Ta. vANa-.
     In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the
     2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In
     the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same
     king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.
     The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon
     indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this
     case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with
     word-initial p-.
     As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa
     chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started
     near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found
     mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155
     mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a
     discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that
     by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After
     serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the
     13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as
     mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts
     of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case,
     it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,
      were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th
     century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent
     to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively
     moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil
     country over several centuries.
     In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226
     referred to one or more members of the same lineage later
     called the bANas.
     kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as
     well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
     /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/
     /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/
     /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8)
     We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals
     belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these
     dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil
     country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty.
     Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not
     surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.

     The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same
     nature as in akam. 336 below.

     /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/

     /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/

     /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/

     /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23)

     Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.

     Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the
     cOza fighters

     /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/

     /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/

     /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8)

     So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the
     battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their
     chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might
     have sent his forces without joining them.

     As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I
     consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the
     fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side
     while the battle is raging and in that case they will only
     move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I
     do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if
     the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior
     will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or
     looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should
     be fighters and not bards.

     Regards,

     Palaniappan



     <Perumpanan_0004.jpg>

_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing
listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info
mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.infoindology-owner@list.indology.info
mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info(messages to the list's
managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info/(where you can change your list
options or unsubscribe)


INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info
To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
Dear JLC, Thank you for this link. I should acknowledge that long time ago, it was Rajam who pointed out this type of usage in Classical Tamil to me. It should also be noted that some commentators call this technique by the term 'veḷippaṭai'. This is how Tamil Lexicon explains the term, "(Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the meaning of an ambiguous word is made clear by the use of a qualifying word, as pāyā- vēṅkai; பல்பொருள் குறிக்குஞ் சொல்லை ஒரு பொருட்கு நியமிக்கும்பொருட்டு ஏற்றதோர் அடை கொடுத்துக் கூறும் அணிவகை. (புறநா. 17, உரை.)" It should be noted that by this definition, even affirmatively explaining a homonym is called 'veḷippaṭai'. Indeed, the example cited by the Tamil Lexicon is one such usage in Puṟam 17.13, i.e., 'aṭu poruna' making clear that by 'poruna' the warrior-king is indicated and not a bard. The commentators also use this term in regards to 'pūvā vañci (Puṟam 32.2), uḻāa nāñcil (Puṟam 139.8), and urāak kutirai (Puṟam 168.14). However, one can see that most of the examples use NAP in these usages. That is why I was surprised that commentators like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār missed the significance of the expression 'eḻāap pāṇaṉ'. Regards, Palaniappan On 2/22/21, 2:53 AM, "Jean-Luc Chevillard" <jean-luc.chevillard@univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote: For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list, see: https://groups.google.com/g/tamilmanram/c/4HshwozaY-E/m/5KqqmnRNAgAJ 1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு) 2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு) 3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு) 4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை) 5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்) 6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்) 7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்) 8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல) -- Jean-Luc Chevvillard https://twitter.com/JLC1956 On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why > the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences > should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in > general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed > the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.) > > Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is > used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival > participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with > the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. > Here are some examples. > > /tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12) > Here /naṟavu/ can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The > NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city. > > /vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370) > Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP > 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance. > > /vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1) > Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā > ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace. > > /eyyā varivil/ (Aka. 192.4) > Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around > the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to > discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate > the rainbow. > > The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by > an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be > connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym > can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information > provided. > > Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 > according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms. > > In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with > disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. > Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology > (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA > <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA>), > the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. > So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single > community that perform different functions and the poets use the same > general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset. > > Regards, > Palaniappan > > >> On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. >> <H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl >> <mailto:H.J.H.Tieken@hum.leidenuniv.nl>> wrote: >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples >> given mentione by you. From these constructions it would appear that >> the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a >> (sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to >> brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to >> say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this >> type of compound. >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Tieken, H.J.H. >> via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26 >> *Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that >> of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of >> compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's >> (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would >> have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living >> by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by >> officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we >> have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin >> priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/. >> I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: >> Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and >> ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website) >> >> As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I >> think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A >> Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7 >> (1979), 171-189. >> With kind regards >> Herman >> >> Herman Tieken >> Stationsweg 58 >> 2515 BP Den Haag >> The Netherlands >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127 >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> namens Sudalaimuthu >> Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14 >> *Aan:*Indology List >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> I am reposting after correcting some typos. >> I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of >> some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in >> his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on >> Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has >> provided detailed commentaries for the two poems. >> With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to >> a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in >> music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He >> refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the >> thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later >> called Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s >> interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. >> Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms >> my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For >> the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see >> Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.) >> In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of >> Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’ >> as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of >> it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden >> has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It >> should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument; >> eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does >> not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap >> porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to >> refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by >> the word ‘porunar’. >> One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe >> ‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the >> ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not >> necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know >> that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, >> with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that >> possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the >> chief Ōri gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai >> (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known >> by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and >> Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some >> territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could >> have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas. >> As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to >> have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South >> Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the >> crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta >> Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300). >> The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area >> into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted >> in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district >> of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the >> way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā >> plates of Somesvaradevavarman. >> In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who >> fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. >> Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the >> intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār >> and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word >> ‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the >> misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by >> the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the >> verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of >> Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s >> interpretation. >> George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français >> De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam. >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu >> Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr. >> Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. >> Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, >> Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu >> Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik >> kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu. >> Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ >> Patippakam, Ceṉṉai. >> Eva Wilden, 2018. A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of >> the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut >> Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry. >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa@aol.com >> <mailto:palaniappa@aol.com>wrote: >> Dear George, >> I appreciate your comments. >> As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever >> possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But, >> when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my >> earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there >> were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I >> resorted to the transliteration I used. >> Thanks >> Regards, >> Palaniappan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: George Hart <glhart@BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart@BERKELEY.EDU>> >> To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk>> >> Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm >> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems >> >> Dear Palaniappan, >> I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and >> especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the >> alliteration works. I hope you publish this, as it is >> significant, I think. I am still not convinced by what you say >> about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam >> poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your >> interpretation just doesn't sound right to me. Of course, that >> doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to >> tell. If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in >> the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started, >> they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being >> killed. Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis. >> One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read >> the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks. I believe every >> OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode. >> George >> On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan >> <Palaniappa@AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa@AOL.COM>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about >> the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes >> first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is >> found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in >> nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title >> peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection >> with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2. >> Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa? >> First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very >> unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of, >> bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in >> the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K. >> A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra >> names in the absence of dynastic names. (Early History of the >> Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the >> tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'. >> Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the >> dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we >> only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many >> instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc. >> This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda >> inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into >> Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced >> as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first >> component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This >> suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should >> have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada >> and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either >> independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2' >> in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' . Once the stand-alone form >> 'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit >> mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father >> of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'. >> Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt. >> bANa > Ta. vANa-. >> In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the >> 2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In >> the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same >> king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar. >> The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon >> indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this >> case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with >> word-initial p-. >> As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa >> chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started >> near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found >> mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155 >> mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a >> discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that >> by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After >> serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the >> 13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as >> mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts >> of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case, >> it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas, >> were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th >> century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent >> to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively >> moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil >> country over several centuries. >> In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226 >> referred to one or more members of the same lineage later >> called the bANas. >> kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as >> well as kuRuntokai 11. See below. >> /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/ >> /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/ >> /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8) >> We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals >> belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these >> dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil >> country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty. >> Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not >> surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi. >> >> The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same >> nature as in akam. 336 below. >> >> /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/ >> >> /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/ >> >> /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/ >> >> /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23) >> >> Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters. >> >> Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the >> cOza fighters >> >> /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/ >> >> /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/ >> >> /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8) >> >> So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the >> battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their >> chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might >> have sent his forces without joining them. >> >> As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I >> consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the >> fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side >> while the battle is raging and in that case they will only >> move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I >> do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if >> the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior >> will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or >> looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should >> be fighters and not bards. >> >> Regards, >> >> Palaniappan >> >> >> >> <Perumpanan_0004.jpg> >> >> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing >> listINDOLOGY@list.indology.info >> <mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>indology-owner@list.indology.info >> <mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info>(messages to the list's >> managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info >> <http://listinfo.indology.info/>(where you can change your list >> options or unsubscribe) > > > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info > To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info > indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe) > _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology@list.indology.info To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave@list.indology.info indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee) http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)