Dear Scholars,

I had earlier written about the chieftain mentioned in Classical Tamil poems as Pāṇaṉ who ruled in a northern border area of Tamiḻakam. (See http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1009&L=INDOLOGY&P=R912&D=0&I=-3 ) Although the poem seemed to refer to a single individual, I had suggested that it referred to the dynasty of the ‘Bana’ kings whose names had originally been Pāṇaṉ (in singular) before the variation p->b- in the name took place.

Now I have found one more Classical Tamil poem that confirms my thesis.

………………………………………………………………………alarē

vil keḻu tāṉai vicciyar perumakaṉ

vēntaroṭu poruta ñāṉṟaip pāṇar

puli nōkku uṟaḻ nilai kaṇṭa

kali keḻu kuṟumpūr ārppiṉum peritē (Kuṟuntokai 328.5-8)

This can be translated as given below:

“The gossip was louder than the roar of the noisy village in the arid tract, that saw the stance of the Pāṇar that resembled the look of the tiger, when the chief of Vicciyar of army abounding in archers fought against the kings.”

In the past, commentators like U. V. Caminathaiyar had interpreted the word “Pāṇar” here as the homophon, ‘pāṇar’, meaning ‘bards’. They interpreted the bards as standing between the two armies and looking at both armies as a ‘lion’ does!. The real meaning of ‘look of a tiger’ can be seen in the following Kalittokai poem

vali muṉpiṉ valleṉṟa yākkai puli nōkkiṉ

cuṟṟu amai villar curi vaḷar pittaiyar

aṟṟam pārttu alkum kaṭuṅkaṇ maṟavar …(Kalittokai 4.1-3)

This can be translated as “the warriors of the arid tract with hard bodies of extraordinary strength, looks of tiger, bows with string/leather(?) coiled around, locks of hair with curls, and fierce eyes, who are on the watch intent on killing…”

So the ‘look of tiger’ in Kuṟuntokai 328.7 should refer to the fierce look of ‘Pānar’ warriors who were engaged in fighting. It cannot refer to ‘pānar’ bards, if they are supposed to be bystanders. The context of the poem indicates that the Pāṇar had fought on one side. Since the Vicciyar were only minor chieftains engaged in a battle against major kings, we can guess that the Pāṇar fought fiercely on the side of the underdogs, the Vicciyar. This was probably why their bravery was appreciated by the villagers.

Interestingly, Akam.226.13 describes the Pāṇan as “vali mikum muṉpiṉ pāṇaṉ” reminding us of Kalittokai 4.1.

This identification of Pāṇar with the Bāṇa kings mentioned in later inscriptions and the epic Maṇimēkalai is very important for the dating of Classical Tamil texts.

It should be noted that the 5th century Tāḷaguṇḍa inscription refers to the dynasty under consideration as Bṛhad-Bāṇa. Later non-Tamil inscriptions continue to refer to them as Bāṇas while Tamil inscriptions refer to them as Vāṇa- where b- > v-. The name Vāṇaṉ occurs as the lord of Ciṛukuṭi, probably a coastal village on the east coast of the Pāṇṭiyan kingdom. There is an instance in the Maturaikkāñci 203 where the name Vāṇaṉ seems to refer to Bāṇāsura in the context of referring to his fabulous wealth. We should note that the Cilappatikāram refers more explicitly to Bāṇāsura, son of Mahābali, as Vāṇaṉ and not as Pāṇaṉ. The same is true of the Maṇimēkalai also. Clearly if the Classical Tamil texts had been composed in the 5th century CE or later, they would be referring to the Pāṇar chieftain as Vāṅaṉ and not Pāṇaṉ. So the Classical Tamil texts would have been composed earlier than the time when Pāṇa- has changed to Bāṇa. Interestingly, Māmūlaṉār, the author of Akam 31, has also authored Akam 325, which mentions Paṇaṉ, the chieftain. As I had discussed earlier, Akam 31 was composed earlier than the Kalabhra rule in Tamiḻakam.

(http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0908&L=INDOLOGY&P=R4899&I=-3, http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0908&L=INDOLOGY&P=R6548&I=-3 )

From a historian’s viewpoint, Akam 325 is probably the earliest mention of the Bānas.

Thanks in advance for your comments

Regards,

Palaniappan