Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c5.s2.t2: Eastern Cēra

Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c5.s2.t2

Language
English

Eastern Cēra

c5.s2.t2.1

What I have termed the Eastern Cera is of interest as being the source of the Coḷa Grantha, and hence of the modern S. Indian Sanskrit alphabet. I have used the term "Eastern Cera" rather to indicate the source from which it was derived, than with reference to the reign of the Ceras over the sea-coast of the North Tamiḷ country, a fact hardly doubtful, though, as yet, not fully supported by the evidence of inscriptions.

c5.s2.t2.2

This alphabet was confined to the old Tŏṇḍaināḍu or Pallava kingdom of Conjeveram¹, and is an offshoot of the early Cera before the full development of the horizontal line at the top of the letters of that alphabet; it is, therefore in origin, very near the Cave character; and the introduction of this alphabet into Tŏṇḍaināḍu is, probably, to be placed about the fourth century. In the second century A. D. (as we know from Ptolemy) this country was inhabited by nomads. In the seventh century Hiouen-Thsang found a small kingdom of which Kańśi (or Conjeveram) was the capital. He calls it Ta-lo-pi-tcha or Draviḍa[^1). The name of the family of kings of which inscriptions occur at Seven Pagodas (Māmalaippuram, the old port of Conjeveram) was Pallava, and they appear to have been formidable enough to have been attacked by the Western Cālukyas about the middle of the seventh century. Still later (about the eighth or ninth century) the country was conquered (according to Ellis) by the Cōḷas who had revived again after a long eclipse.

c5.s2.t2.3

¹ The account of the divisions of this kingdom by F. W. Ellis [in his Paper on Mirasi Right (pp. 51-9) edited by C. P. Brown, Madras, 1852] is still unquestionably the most valuable contribution to S. Indian Ancient Geography that has been written. It is much to be desired that Mr. Ellis's papers be collected and published in an accessible form, so as to be a lasting memorial of a truly great scholar. About the time that Bopp laid the foundations of the comparative philology of the Aryan languages, Ellis did the same for the Dravidian family [preface to Campbell's Telugu Grammar (1816) and "Dissertations"]; he was the first to decipher and explain the grants to the Israelites of Cochin, and he did this in a way that is still a model. (See *Madras Journal*, vol. xiii. part ii., pp. 1-11.) His labours to promote the study of Hindu Law and of Tamiḷ (annotated edition and translation of the Kuṟaḷ left unfinished, etc.) are still of the highest value. He was also the first to collect the S. Indian inscriptions. He died (accidentally poisoned through the carelessness of a native servant) while on an archæological tour in the Madura Province. His monument (at Ramnad) has an inscription in English and Tamiḷ, the former of which runs: "Sacred to the memory of Francis Whyte Ellis Esq. of the Madras Civil Service whose valuable life was suddenly terminated by a fatal accident at this place on the 9th March 1819 in the 41st year of his age. Uniting activity of mind with versatility of genius he displayed the same ardour and happy sufficiency on whatever his varied talents were employed. Conversant with the Hindoo Languages and Literature of the Peninsula, he was loved and esteemed by the Natives of India with whom he associated intimately[^1.1]), and his kind and playful disposition endeared

c5.s2.t2.4

1.1 S. Gordon, "Researches in South-India 1823-8" (London 1834), says (p. 54): "The natives are grateful for this favor (permission for a procession) to Mr. Ellis, then Collector of Madras, who was poisoned at Ramnad, on his way to Ramiseram; he assumed the native dress, and adopted their modes." (?!) him to his own countrymen among whom he was distinguished no less by his capacity as a public servant than by a mind fraught with intelligence and alive to every object of interest or utility. The College of Fort St. George which owes its existence to him is a lasting memorial of his reputation[^1] as an Oriental Scholar, and this stone has been erected as a tribute of the affectionate regard of his European and Native friends.” So little interest in science is there in S. India, that this eminent man is chiefly recollected among the Native Roman Catholics by some quasi-devotional poems in Tamiḷ which are attributed to him. [^1): 1) Al-Bīrūnī (11th century) mentions Draviḍa but as distinct from Kańśi, though a Cōḷa province (Reinaud, “Fragments”, p. 104). I see there is a paper by E. Burnouf on Draviḍa in the *J. As.* for Oct. 1828, pp. 241, ffg., but it is not accessible to me. [^2): 2) The genealogy of two inscriptions was first given by Profr. Eggeling (*I. A.* ii., p. 272; iii., p. 152) and has been finally extended and settled by Mr. Fleet (do: v., p. 154). The dates are not known, but it is safe to attribute these sovereigns to the 5th and 6th centuries.

c5.s2.t2.5

¹ It lasted but a short while; the Madras University is a different institution and does not even continue old traditions of scholarship.

c5.s2.t2.6

Of these Pallavas but little is known. The general use of the title ‘varman’ is common to them and the Veṅgi kings; and this and some other facts make it most probable that they belonged to one family. They had numerous contests and alliances by marriage with the Cera, Cōḷa and Cālukya families, but in the 11th century they were mere feudatories of the Cōḷas, and on this account were, apparently, repeatedly attacked by the Western Cālukyas. They disappear about the 14th century A. D.[^2)

c5.s2.t2.8

As regards the name ‘Pallava’, Mr. Kittel (“*Nāgavarma*”, p. xxi. *n.*) connects it with pŏllava and Tel. pallĕ=a rustic. The Paḷḷis (a cognate Tamiḷ caste) are now very degraded, but they may not have been so always. The Cōḷas and Pāṇḍiyas were merely Kaḷḷar or ‘Robbers’, a low caste at the present time.
The ‘Palakkaḍa’ of the first of these inscriptions must be the modern Pulicat. In the 11th century the Pallava

c5.s2.t2.9

² If this Skandavarmā or his grandson be the prince of that name who is mentioned in a Cera grant of 513 A. D. (?) as is likely, it may yet be possible to establish a synchronism. The references in the earlier Cālukya grants are all vague. capital was Conjeveram (Tamiḻ inscriptions and Bilhaṇa's Vikramān̄kadevacarita). The later Cālukyas never then attacked Tanjore, the real capital of the Coḷas, but only Conjeveram and (according to Bilhaṇa) Gān̄gakuṇḍa which is clearly Gañyaikkōṇḍānšōlapuram to the north of the Coleroon, and which was a great Coḷa town. 'Daçanapura' (=Tooth-town) as Mr. Fleet pointed out, must be a translated name, and it appears to me that the original must be Palakkaḍa. For pallu=tooth; kaḍa=place. Is this, then, one of the places where there was a tooth-relic of Buddha? There was such a place in Kaliṅga according to the Pali "*Dāṭhāvamso.*" [^1): Mr. Fergusson long ago stated this. ("*History of Indian and Eastern Architecture,*" pp. 175, 327 ffg.) [^2): Mr. Kittel has kindly informed me that according to the Č. Basava Purāṇa (ch. iv. 3-6) the first liṅga was found in Kerikāla Coḷa's time or c. 950 A. D. None of the great Çiva temples of S. India can be traced back beyond the 11th century A. D. (See Caldwell, "**Dravidian Grammar**", p. 86). This statement is fully supported by the inscriptions, and it is now certain that the liṅga worship is an importation from the North into S. India in, comparatively, recent times. See also Kittel's "**Liṅgakultus**", p. 16. ffg. [^3): An often engraved temple of this description is the one at Seven Pagodas on the sea-shore which is washed by the waves at high tide; another is on the northern bank of the Pālāṛu also near the sea and a few miles south of Seven Pagodas. These are the best examples that I know, but there are many others (often more or less altered) in the same neighbourhood. In the first, the Vishṇu cell is behind that in which the liṅga is found; in the others I know, the two cells are side by side. There is a correct plan of the first temple in No. 6 of the large map in Major Carr's book, and an incorrect one in pl. xxiii. [^4): Çan̄karācārya must be put at about 650-700 A. D. See my "**Sāmavidhānabrāhmaṇa**" vol. I. pref. p. ii. *n.* He preached at Conjeveram, it is said, but the tradition has little to recommend it.

c5.s2.t2.10

The character used in the two inscriptions of this dynasty that are in existence is a slightly developed form of the Veṅgi character, in the direction of the florid form found in the Seven Pagodas inscription (Pl. xii.). The secondary form of **ī** is the same as in the Veṅgi, but is clearer in the Pallava inscriptions. The letters **m**, **l**, **v**, **ç** and **h** are nearer to the Grantha forms. **Ç** and the secondary form of **u** are identical in the Pallava and later character found in the Seven Pagodas inscription.

c5.s2.t2.11

There can be no question that the caves and monoliths at Seven Pagodas, and in the neighbourhood, are of Buddhist-Jain origin[^1); the sculptures on the so-called *rathas* (monoliths) show (if anything at all) a slight admixture of Çȧiva notions, such as appear in the later Buddhism. Over several of the figures are, however, Vaishṇava names (*e. g.* *çrīNarasimhaḥ*) which ill-agree with the representations. In some of the caves are pure Vaishṇava and Çaiva mythological scenes. Taking into consideration the fact that this place is not mentioned by Hiouen-Thsang together with the nature of the sculptures, the original work is to be attributed to Jains of about the fifth century, and the alphabet of the inscriptions corresponds with this date. But as the caves now exist, they have been subsequently extended and adapted to the worship of Çiva[^2), or to the combined worship of Vishṇu and Çiva in the same temple, which is so remarkable a feature in the older and unaltered temples in the neighbourhood of Madras[^3), and which can only be attributed to the influence of the Vedānta doctrine as preached by Çan̄karācārya[^4). It is to the period of the adaptation that the dedicatory inscription, from which the alphabet in Pl. xii. is taken, belongs. The king under whom it was done is termed 'lord of the Pallavas' (Pallaveçvara) with the epithets "victorious in battle"

c5.s2.t2.12

(raṇajayaḥ), or "very fierce in battle" (atiraṇacaṇḍaḥ), and had, therefore, come under the northern brahmanical influence¹).

c5.s2.t2.13

¹ The Çambhu of these inscriptions is shown by the sculptures to be Mahādeva-Çiva; one inscription mentions Pārvatī.

c5.s2.t2.14

The inscriptions in question are not dated; the earlier ones (which consist of merely a few words in explanation of the figures on the so-called *rathas*) are in a character very near to the Veṅgi and early Cera, but distinguished from them by a few important variations. The first of these is the use to a considerable extent of secondary forms of ā, e and o separated from the consonant to which they belong and follow in pronunciation²); thus **rā**, **vā**, **çā** and **hā** occur in these words with the ā separated only, and in **kā**, **bhā** and **rā** both united to the consonant and also separate. **To** and **no** occur with the **o** separate. Besides these variations some of the letters, and especially **ç**, show an approach to the Grantha form. These and the two Pallava inscriptions represent the earlier stage of development.

c5.s2.t2.15

² See plates 16, 17 and 18 in R. A. S. Transactions ii. and in Major Carr's Collection of Papers relating to the Seven Pagodas (Madras 1869, 8vo.). I put at the editor's disposal my copies of the inscriptions at Seven Pagodas and also at Šāluvaṅkuppam, as well as the results of excavations which I had made in 1867, and some of these are printed by Major Carr (pp. 221-225).

c5.s2.t2.16

A still further development in the direction of the Grantha forms is to be found in the inscription on a monolith at Seven Pagodas, now used as a Gaṇeça temple; and also again in a still more developed form at Šāluvaṅkuppam. There can be no doubt that these inscriptions must be put at about 700 A. D. The first four lines of the Gaṇeça temple inscription describe Çiva in a way that was only possible after Çaṅkara's development of the Vedānta; and as the rest states that a Pallava king built "this abode of Çambhu", the inscription cannot be later than the eighth century; for the Coḷas about then conquered Tŏṇḍaināḍu³), and rendered such an inscription in praise of a king of the old dynasty, impossible⁴). Again, decidedly archaic forms of letters occur; *e. g.* the secondary form of ā which is occasionally turned up instead of down, and which early disappeared in the Cālukya and Cera characters. That again this inscription is later than those on the so-called *rathas*, follows from the words “atyantakāmapallaveçvara çrīhā (!?) raṇajayaḥ” being written in this character over a nondescript figure on one of them. Were all these explanatory labels over the figures of one date or of about the same date, such a difference in the writing would not have occurred. There is another circumstance which corroborates the date I have assigned to this inscription—the existence of a Nāgarī transcript of some verses selected from it with additions at Šāluvaṅkuppam. The Nāgarī is precisely that of the eighth or ninth century, and it is accompanied by a transcript in old Grantha very near to that of the eleventh century as given in Pl. xiii.

c5.s2.t2.17

³ According to Ellis. (Madras Lit. Trans. I.) I cannot find the authority.

c5.s2.t2.18

⁴ Major Carr has given my transliteration of this inscription (in Nāgarī) on pp. 221-2; as, however, it is not quite correct, I give it again here. (I mark the half-çloka by ;, ).
1. Sambhavasthitisamhārakāraṇaṁ vītakāraṇaḥ; bhūyād atyantakāmāya jagatā(m) kāmamardanah |||
2. Amāyaç citramāyo 'sāv aguṇo guṇabhājanaḥ; save (?) nirantare jiyād ********
3. Yasyā 'ngushṭhabharākrāntaḥ kailāsaḥ sadaçānanaḥ; pātālam agaman ma * çrīnidhis ta * * * * * |||
4. Bhaktiprahveṇa manasā bhavam bhūshaṇalīlayā; doshṇā ča yo bhūm(au) * * jiyāt sa çrībharaç čiram |||
5. Atyantakāmo nṛipatir nirjitārātimanḍalaḥ; khyāto raṇajayaḥ çambhos tene 'dam veçma kāritam |||
6. * * * prāṇanishkaḷaḥ . . . . . vijayatā çaṅkarakāma (rda) naḥ |||
7. Rājarājo navaraçmaç čakravarttijanārddanaḥ; tārakādhipatiḥ svastho jayatāt taraṇāṅkuraḥ |||
8. Çrīmato 'tyantakāmasya dvishaddarpāpahāriṇaḥ; çrīnidheḥ kāmarājasya harārādhanasaṅginaḥ |||
9. Abhishekaǰalāpūrṇe čitraraktāmbujākare; āste viçāle sumukhaḥ çirassarasi çaṅkaraḥ |||
10. Tene 'dam kāritam çambho-(r bhavanaṁ bhūtaye bhuvaḥ kailāsa-)mandiračubham prajānām ishṭasiddhyartham 11 . . . . . shashṭi . . . . . çivam . . . . . yeshā(m) na vasati hṛidaye kupathagativimo—
12. xako rudraḥ ||| atyantakāmapallaveçvara çrī— See pl. 14 in Major Carr's Collection of Papers, and in Dr. Babington's article (Trans. R. A. S. ii.). The translation given by the last (pp. 266-7) and reprinted by Major Carr, is not satisfactory. For Major Carr's "known as Raṇajaya" (p. 224), "famed, victorious in battle" should be substituted. Line 10 is completed from the Šāluvaṅkuppam inscription. In Dr. Babington's transcript the last lines are mixed up.

c5.s2.t2.19

It will be seen that I have put together the Cera and Pallava characters on the ground of their original similarity, and after-development in the same way.

Linked texts (3)