In an inscription of ca. 1009, Brahmin villages, Vaikhānasa villages, and Savarṇa villages are mentioned separately. (E. Hultzsch, the editor of the inscription corrects the reading of 'Cavaṇṇar' as 'camaṇar' and interprets them as Jains. This correction was not necessary.) There are other inscriptions where individuals mentioned as Savarṇa are listed with their Brahminical gotras and at least in one inscription a Savarṇa is described as belonging to Bhāradvāja gotra and Bodhāyana sūtra. One inscription mentions 32 Savarṇas being given 32 house sites as an agrahara. These Savarṇas seemed to have functioned as physicians. It is clear that they were Brahmins but are classified as separate from 'Brāhmaṇa'. K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer mentions (without citing the specific reference) Yādavaprakāśa as explaining in his work Vaijayanti that Savarṇa was an offspring of a Brahmin father and a Kṣatriya mother. To me this explanation seems to be suspect. It looks like a section of Brahmins was willing to engage in professions such as being musicians, physicians, etc., notwithstanding any objections from the orthodox Vedic Brahmins who seemed to have reserved for themselves the designation 'Brāhmaṇa' (without any modifier), at least in the beginning. Inscriptions also differentiate Brāḥmaṇa from Śiva-Brāhṃaṇa. (The Tamil epic Cilappatikāram mentions the music-loving Brahmins as having their own quarters separate from Vedic Brahmins.) This is similar to the adoption of the Tamil classical dance form by the Brahmins in the 20th century. In spite of the earlier objections from orthodox Brahmins, that dance form has become very popular among all Tamil Brahmins nowadays. Tamil Brahmins serving as physicians also seem to have gained acceptance from the orthodox over time. I would like to know if 'Savarṇa' as a Brahmin was known to texts/inscriptions outside the Tamil region.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Palaniappan