HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY OF ...

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY OF

KAṈYĀKUMARI REGION

A Thesis submitted to the Pondicherry University in partial fulfilment

of the requirement for the award of the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

HISTORY

By

A. PERUMAL

Under the Guidance of

Dr. K. RAJAN

Professor

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

PUDUCHERRY - 605 014

INDIA

MARCH 2014

Dr. K. RAJAN, M.A., Ph.D., PGDA.

Professor

Department of History

Pondicherry University

Puducherry -605 014

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled, “Historical and Cultural Geography

of Kaṉyākumari Region” submitted to the Department of History, Pondicherry

University for the award of Doctor of Philosophy in History is a record of original work

done by A. PERUMAL during the period of his study (2008-2014) under my supervision

and guidance. It is further certified that the thesis has not formed the basis for the award

of any Degree, Diploma, Associateship, Fellowship or similar title.

This is also to certify that the thesis represents the independent work of the candidate.

Place: Puducherry

Date:

(K. RAJAN)

Research Supervisor

A. PERUMAL

Ph.D., Scholar

Department of History

Pondicherry University

Puducherry - 605 014

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Historical and Cultural Geography

of Kaṉyākumari Region” being submitted to the Pondicherry University, in partial

fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

History in the Department of History, Pondicherry University is a bonafide work done by

me under the guidance of Dr. K. RAJAN, Professor, Department of History, Pondicherry

University and that it has not previously formed the basis for the award of any Degree,

Diploma, Associateship, Fellowship or any other similar title of any candidate of any

University or Institution.

Place: Puducherry

Date:

(A.PERUMAL)

Research Scholar

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is with a profound sense of gratitude that I remember those people who

have been of great help to me in the completion of my thesis on the “Historical

and Cultural Geography of Kaṉyākumari Region”. I take this opportunity to

thank each and every one of them for having inspired and helped me throughout

my work. First and foremost, I express my sincere thanks and obligation to my

research guide Dr.K.Rajan, Professor, Department of History, Pondicherry

University, for giving me a chance to pursue research under his supervision and

guidance. Working under his supervision has always been inspiring and

insightful. I thank him for all his valuable suggestions and constructive criticisms.

I would like to place on record my indebtedness to Prof. G. Chandhrika, Head,

Department of History and to my teachers Prof. Venkata Raghotham, Dr. N.

Chandramouli, Dr. K. Venugopal Reddy, Dr. Muhamed Mustafa, Dr. Paokholal

Haokip and Dr.B.Krishnamurthy for their constant encouragement.

I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor. Y.

Subbarayalu, Head, Department of Indology, French Institute of Puducherry and

Prof. G.Vijayavenugobal for their constant support and encouragement. I also

wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr.K.Kaliyaperumal, Office Manager,

Department of History, Mr. E.Baskar, Office Assistant, Department of History,

Mr. R.Jegajevanram, Office Assistant, Department of Women Studies and other

staff members of the History Department. My grateful thanks are extended to Mr.

Cyril Antony, Editor, Gazetteer-Union Territory of Pondicherry, being a native of

Kaṉyākumari region for providing me valuable information and suggestions at the

various stages during the preparation of my thesis and also for making available

books from his personal library. I also express my heartfelt thanks to

Dr.S.Pathmanabhan, Dr.M.Immanuel, Prof.A.K.Perumal, Sri.Senthee Natarajan

and Mr.Sundaram for providing primary and secondary data related to my study

area and guiding me in the my field work in Kaṉyākumari District. My special

thanks are due to Dr.V.Vedhachalam and Dr.C.Santhalingam, Tamil Nadu State

Archaeology, Dr.N.Athiyaman, Dr.P.Jayakumar, Dr.S.Rajavelu and

Dr.V.Selvakumar, Tamil University of Thanjavur and Dr.L.Thyagarajan,

Principal, Govt. Arts College, Ariyalur for the support rendered during my

research in archaeology and epigraphical Studies. I also express my sincere

gratitude to Dr.A.Murugaiyan, Professor, Department of Linguistics, University

of Sorbonne, Paris for providing data related to my study area. I express my

heartfelt thanks to Dr.A.Purushothaman, Mr.A.Sudharsanan, Prof.M.Ramadass,

Head, Department of Economics and Prof.T.Subramanya Naidu, former Dean,

School of Social Science and International Studies.

I express my sincere gratitude to Dr.G.Muthushankar, GIS Engineer,

French Institute, Pondicherry and Dr.V.P.Yatheeskumar, Assistant Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India for providing the necessary inputs for the

preparation of maps. I feel honoured to remember my teachers in the field of

history, Dr.K.Balasundaram, Dr.K.Kannaiya, Dr.B.Rama Chandra Reddy,

Dr.S.Babu and Dr.Aruljothi who influenced me with their scholarly guidance. My

special thanks are due to Mr.Murugesan, Mr.M.S.Kaliyaperumal,

Smt.Hemabhujam, Mr.Giridhar, Smt.S.Harini, Mr.R.Ramaiya, Mr.S.Balaraman,

Mr.A.Rajendhiran, Mr.R.Jaganathan, Mr.Muthulingam, Mr.A.Sekar, Mr.S.K.

Ramalingam, Mr.Ramanujam, Mr.Durai, Mr.V.Bakthavachalam,

Mr.U.Pannirselvam, Mr.M.Verappan, Mr.R.Paramaguru, Mr.M.Munisamy,

Mr.E.Thanigavel, Mr.S.Arun, Mr.S.Namasthu, Mr.K.Danaselan, Mr.R.Tamizhan

for their help and moral support.

I extend my sincere thanks to the staff of Ananda Ranga Pillai Library,

Pondicherry University, the French Institute, Ecole Francais D Extreme- Orient,

Romain Rolland Public Library Pondicherry, Connemara Public Library Chennai,

Libraries of Madras University, Tamil University and Tamil Nadu Archives for

helping me in the process of data collection.

I also extend my sincere thanks to the Finance Department, Pondicherry

University for providing me regularly the UGC fellowship for three years from

the date of my joining. Further, I am also thankful to the ICHR, New Delhi which

provided me a Travel and Contingency grant.

I would also like to place on record my sincere thanks to my senior and

fellow mates Dr.Bithin Thakur, Mr.R.Ezhilraman, Mr.S.Manikandan,

Mr.S.Selvakumar, Mr.K.Rajinikanth, Mr.A.Shankar, Mr.R.Ramesh,

Mr.M.Prasanna, Smt.V.D.N.Sharmalee Gunawardana (Sri Lanka), Ms.Wiankun

Choun-u-Dom (Thailand), Mr.S.Santhanakumar, Mr.P.Jayapradaban,

Mr.P.T.Nagarajan, Mr.P.Balamurugan, Mr.Bilal Ahmad Parry and

Mr.G.Pauldurai for their warm support.

My profound thanks are due to my parents Sri. K.Arumugam (father),

Smt.A.Muruvayi (mother), Smt.M.Jayalakshmi (sister), Mr.A.Pathmanaban and

Mr.A.Sivakumar (brothers) who showered love and affection during the period of

my research work.

Place: Puducherry

Date:

A.Perumal

Note on Diacritical Marks

The scheme of transliteration used in this book is given below. All the vernacular

village/personal/place names are phonemically transcribed. While writing those names

the present familiar forms of pronunciation is generally adopted to overcome the regional

variations. The familiar terms like taluk and district names are used without any

diacritical marks. The following is the system of phonemic transcription.

ā ஆ

ī ஈ

ū ஊ

ē ஏ

ō ஓ

k/g க்

ṅ ங்

c/ch/s ச்

ñ ஞ்

ḍ/ṭ ட்

ṇ ண்

t/th/d த்

p/b ப்

i/y ய்

ḷ ள்

ḻ ழ்

ṟ ற்

ṉ ன்

Contents

Chapter page no.

I. Introduction 1

II. Historical Vestiges in Kaṉyākumari Region 30

III. Historical Background of Kaṉyākumari Region 56

IV. Historical Geography of Kaṉyākumari Region 98

V. Cultural Geography of Kaṉyākumari Region 112

VI. Conclusion 150

Appendix – I 156

Appendix- II 331

Appendix- III 335

Appendix- IV 340

Appendix- V 356

Bibliography 372

Abbreviations

ARE Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy

ARSI Annual Report of Archaeological Survey of India

EI Epigraphia Indica

GIS Geographical Information System

IAR Indian Archaeology - A Review

SII South Indian Inscriptions

SITI South Indian Temple Inscriptions

TALUK

AGS Agastīswaram

TOV Thōvāḷai

KLM Kalkuḷam

VLE Viḷavaṅkōḍu

KK.Ins Kaṉyākumari Inscriptions

Vol Volume

List of Maps

Map 1 Historical Sites in Kaṉyākumari Region

Map 2 Iron Age Sites in Kaṉyākumari Region

Map 3 Urn Burial Sites in Kaṉyākumari Region

Map 4 Early Historical Sites in Kaṉyākumari Region

Map 5 Territorial divisions in Kaṉyākumari Region

Map 6 Siva Temples in Kaṉyākumari Region

Map 7 Vishnu Temples in Kaṉyākumari Region

1

CHAPTER –I

INTRODUCTION

The present study ‘Historical and Cultural Geography of Kaṉyākumari

Region’, is an attempt to understand the various dimensions of the history of the

Kaṉyākumari region from end of the 8th century CE (792 CE) to the beginning of the

20th century CE (1906 CE) on the basis of historical, cultural and geographical

peculiarities. The Kaṉyākumari region located on the southern tip of the peninsular

India, otherwise known as Nāñchilnāḍu, was ruled over by the various dynasties and

clan groups like Āys, Pānḍyas, Chōḷas, Chēras and Vēnaḍu sovereigns and later by

the Vijayanagar generals and Nāyak chieftains of Madurai and Travancore

Samasthānam.1 This comparatively smaller geographical zone played a significant

role in shaping the cultural history of the region.

Geography has an important role in shaping the history of a region. Here an

attempt is made to unveil how human beings interacted with their ecosystem to

sustain their settlement pattern, modes of production and their distribution, their social

and cultural life and institutions of power and such other factors. The historical and

cultural significance of a region depends mostly on the nature of topography,

landscape, natural resources and productive patterns of the terrain.2 Historical

geography is the study of spatial variation encountered in these forces within the

stipulated period. The study period has a distinctive political and administrative unit

formed out of a certain cultural entity. Here the changes that happened in the

administrative and political units, viz., nāḍu / kūṟṟam and vaḷanāḍu form the main

theme. The political geography deals with the administrative set up as related to the

territorial divisions. The study of place names through the centuries with reference to

their historical significance in the ambit of cultural arena and cultural aspects forms

part of the cultural geography. Moreover the settlement patterns as influenced by

various historical, political, economic and demographic factors of the Kaṉyākumari

1 K.K.Pillay, Studies in Indian History (With special reference to Tamil Nadu), Madras,1979, p. 474.2 A.P. Greeshmalatha, Historical Geography of Vaḷḷuvanāḍ, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calicut,Calicut, 2008, p.1.

2

region have been analysed.3 There are several studies on the historical, political and

cultural geography relating to other areas.4

The work Political Geography of the Chōḻa Country (1973) by

Y.Subbarayalu is the first major attempt in this direction and he paid special attention

to the problem by studying the historical geography of the Kāvēri delta during the

time of the Chōḻa rule. He made an important contribution in understanding the

formation of various territorial divisions in Kāvēri delta. The origin, growth and

formation of territorial divisions like ūr, nāḍus / kūṟṟam, vaḷanāḍu and maṇḍalam

were well established through a series of maps which helped immensely in

understanding the Chōḻa administrative structure.5 His treatment of the epigraphical

sources is well received and it becomes a model for others to follow. The present

work attempts to understand the formation of such territorial divisions formed in the

Kaṉyākumari region i.e. Nāñchilnāḍu from 792 to 1906 CE based on the epigraphical

material. There are nearly 707 inscriptions available in the study area and summaries

of the content of those 707 lithic records and copper plates are analysed to understand

their historical significance. Each inscription provides information like village names

and its location, ruler's name, dynasty and the regnal year, territorial divisions like

vaḷanāḍu and nāḍu and additional noteworthy information with regard to political,

social and cultural activities (Appendix-I). The earliest Tamil grammatical work

Tolkāppiyam states that the boundaries of Tamil Nadu lie between vaḍaveṅkaḍam

3 S.Rajavelu, The Historical and Cultural Geography and Ethnography of Pudukkōṭṭai Region UptoA.D.1800, Ph.D. dissertation, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2003, p . 2.4 Y. Subbarayalu, Political Geography of Chōḻa Country, The State Department of Archaeology,Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras, 1973; S.Vaithyanathan, The Ancient Geography of the KoṅguCountry, Kalaimahal Kalvi Nilayam, Erode, 1983; V. Vedachalam, Tamil ilakkiyaṅgal kalveṭṭukaḷkāṭṭum pāṉḍya nātṭu samuthāyam paṇpāḍum (c.1000-1300CE ), Ph.D. dissertation, Madurai KamarajarUniversity, Madurai, 1993; M.Nalini, Historical and Cultural Geography of the Tiruchirapalli District,Tamil Nadu, from the 6th century to the 17th century with reference to Malanāḍu and VaḷḷuvapāḍiNadu, Ph.D. dissertation, Bharathidasan University, Trichirapalli, 1998; L.Thyagarajan, HistoricalArchaeology of the Ariyalur Region Upto A.D.1817, Ph.D. dissertation, Bharadhidasan University,Trichirapalli, 1999; S. Nilavathi, Tañjāvūr vaṭṭāra varalaṟṟu nilaviyalum samuthāyamum, Ph.D.dissertation, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2001; C. Santhalingam, Thoṇḍai maṇḍalam nāḍum ūrum,Ph.D. dissertation, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, 2003; S. Rajavelu, The Historical andCultural Geography and Ethnography of Pudukkottai Region Upto A.D.1800, Ph.D. dissertation(2003), Tamil University, Thanjavur; A.P. Greeshmalatha, Historical Geography of Vaḷḷuvanāḍ, Ph.D.dissertation (2008), University of Calicut, Calicut; K.P..Rajesh, Historical Geography of Kolathunāḍu-A Study of Regional Formation in Medieval North Kerala, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calicut,Calicut, 2011.5 Y.Subbarayalu, Political Geography of Chōḻa Country, The State Department of Archaeology,Government of Tamil Nadu, 1973, p.30.

3

and theṉkumari meaning Vēṅkaṭa hills on the north and Kaṉyākumari in the south.6

The area of Kaṉyākumari region once known as “the granary of Travancore” lies at

the southern tip of Indian Peninsula. It was in Travancore State for a long time and

then merged with Tamil Nadu in 1956 under the State Linguistic Reorganization Act.7

The predominantly Tamil speaking area of the Travancore State was transferred to the

Madras State to form into a new district called Kaṉyākumari.8 The district has been

named after the Goddess Kaṉyākumari amman who is the popular deity of the area.9

The Agasthīswaram, Thōvālai, Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks are the main

constituents of this district. Kaṉyākumari district is the smallest district of the state

having an area of 1684.00 sq.km. The district lies between 77o 05’ and 77 o 36’ of the

eastern longitude and 8o 03’ and 8o 35’ of the northern latitude.10 At present (2011)

this district holds the population of 1863174 and density of population is 1106 per sq.

km.11 The district is bounded by the Tirunelvēli district in the north and northeast; by

Kēraḷa state in the north-west and at the confluence of the Arabian sea, the Bay of

Bengal and the Indian Ocean in the west, east and south. The coastline of this district

extends over 68 kilometres. Headquarters of this district is Nāgarkōil.12 The following

map shows the boundaries of Kaṉyākumari district. The details regarding number of

taluks, towns, villages, population and their classification are best illustrated in this

map.

6 C. Balasubramanian, A Study of the Literature of the Chēra Country (Upto 11th century A.D.),University of Madras, Madras, 1980, p. 3.7 S.C.Bhatt (ed.), The Encyclopaedic District Gazetteers of India, southern zone, vol.2, GyanPublishing House, New Delhi, 1997, p.1079.8 P.K.Nambiar (ed.), Census of India-1961, vol-IX, (Madras), part, xi-D, The Manager of Publication,New Delhi, 1968, p.3.9 S.C.Bhatt (ed.), The Encyclopaedic District Gazetteers of India, southern zone, vol.2, 1997, GyanPublishing House, New Delhi, p.1079.10 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State –Kanyakumari District, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Chennai, 1995, pp. 1-2.11 S.Gopalakrishnan, Census of India, Provisional Population Totals (Tamil Nadu), Registrar Generaland Census Commissioner, India, 2011, p. 116.12 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.),Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State –Kanyakumari District, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Chennai, 1995 pp. 1-2.

4

Source: Census of India 2011

5

Historical importance of Nāñchilnāḍu

Nāñchilnāḍu was once the southernmost administrative unit of the State of

Travancore holding the present taluks of Agastīswaram and Thōvāḷai in

Kaṉyākumari district and has an area of about 2010 square miles. It was the granary

of south Travancore and held considerable areas of paddy fields.13 Nāñchilnāḍu is

demarcated with the tract bounded on the north by the Kaḍukarai hills, on the south

by the Maṉaṛkuḍi lake, on the east by the Āralvāimoḻi pass and on the west by the

Paṉṟivāykkāl. The records of Mudaliyār confirm the area of Kaṉyākumari region.14

The Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu took the

initiative in copying the inscriptions found in the district, particularly in

Agastīsvaram, Thōvālai, Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks. These were published

under the title Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukaḷ (Kaṉyākumari Inscriptions) in six volumes.

These inscriptions serve as primary sources to understand and reconstruct the

political, social, economic and cultural histories of this region.15 In total, 707

inscriptions were recorded (Appendix –I). The following table shows the taluk wise

distribution of inscriptions.

Table 1: 1

Sl. No. Taluk No. of Inscriptions %

1. Agastīswaram 382 54.03

2. Thōvāḷai 91 12.88

3. Kalkuḷam 181 25.60

4. Viḷavaṅkōḍu 53 7.49

Gross Value 707 100%

Sources : Kaṉyākumari District Inscriptions, vols.I to VI

13 T.Ponnambalam Pillai, “The Antiquity of Nāñjilnāḍ and Shenkōṭṭai, the two tamil districts ofTravancore”, in D. Sawariroyan (ed.), The Tamilan Antiquary, vol-2, Asian Educational Services,New Delhi, 1986, pp.17-18.14 A.K. Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai (History of Kaṉyākumari District), United Writers, Chennai,2003, p. 46.15 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-vi, Tamil Nadu StateDepartment of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.1.

6

Selection of the topic

An attempt to identify the historical and cultural geography of Tamil Nadu in

chronological order based on information encountered in the inscriptions made by

historians and epigraphists in the past has helped to delineate the political boundaries

of this region under various rulers. Recent studies made by scholars such as

V. Vedachalam, C. Santhalingam, S. Rajavelu, S. Pathmanathan and M.S.S. Pandian

are noteworthy. For instance, V. Vedachalam’s Kalveṭṭu Maṟṟum Ilakiyam Kāṭṭum

Pāṇḍiya Nāṭṭu Samuthāyam (Society of Pāṇḍiya-nāḍu as gleaned from literature and

inscriptions), C. Santhalingam’s Thoṇdai Maṇḍalam: Nāḍum Ūrum (Nāḍu and Ūrs of

Thoṇdai Maṇḍalam), S. Rajavelu’s Historical Geography of Pudukōṭṭai Region, S.

Pathmanathan’s The Contribution of Kaṉyākumari to the Tamil World (1981) and The

Forgotten History of the Land’s End (1971), M.S.S. Pandiyan’s Agrarian Change in

Nāñchilnāḍu 1830 – 1930 (1990), K.A. Nilakanta Sastri’s A History of South India:

From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar (1958), Burton Stein’s Peasant

State and Society in Medieval South India (1994) and Y. Subbarayalu’s monumental

work namely Political Geography of Chola Country (1973) provided an overview on

political geography of Tamil Nadu and also on Nāñchilnāḍu, the ancient name of

Kaṉyākumari region. In these works, they have analysed the major political divisions

of the country like maṇḍalam, nāḍu, kūṟṟam, vaḷanāḍu and ūr. Besides, other

components like the revenue system, trade and commerce and cultural life were also

studied. Noboru Karashima has provided a brief introduction to the historical

geography of the region in his work on South Indian History and Society: Studies

from Inscription, CE. 850–1800 (1984), A Concordance of Nayakas: The

Vijayanagara inscriptions in South India (2002) and Towards a New formation south

Indian Society under Vijayanagara rule (1992), Kesavan Veluthat’s The Political

Structure of Early Medieval South India (1993), M.G.S.Narayanan’s Perumal of

Kerala: Political and Social conditions of Kerala under the Chera Perumals of

Makotai, CE 800–1124 (1996), R.Champakalakshmi’s Trade, Ideology and

Urbanization – South India 300 BCE to CE 1300 (1996), James Heitzman’s Gifts of

Power: Lordship in an Early Indian State (1997), Kenneth R. Hall’s Structure and

Society in Early South India (2001), etc., are some of the important works could be

cited. Only selective works related to our topic are given. There are several such

7

articles dealing with specific areas. The works of these scholars provided a good

overview to understand various intricacies involved in studying the historical and

cultural geography of a region. The study area experienced continuous changes in a

socio – economic sphere. These changes could be seen in two phases, one before 14th

century CE and another afterwards.

After the 14th century CE, Tamil Nadu witnessed significant changes in the

political, social and cultural realms. For instance, the major geographical or territorial

divisions like kūṟṟam, nāḍu and vaḷanāḍu lost their relevance and the new

administrative divisions like paṟṟu, cīrmai, nāyakkatāṉam and chāvaḍi are emerging

during the Vijayanagara rule.16 An attempt is made to understand these changes at the

micro level for which Kaṉyākumari region selected for the present study. Thus, Tamil

Nadu witnessed significant socio- cultural changes due to various administrative

effects of various rulers. The society responded well to the changing needs of the

time. The impact of Pāṉḍya and local rulers evidenced while studying the inscriptions.

Through, several inscriptions pertaining to the study area are documented, but, there

is hardly any attempt to understand the social changes that undergone in this region.

The fertile and unexplored area induced to have a comprehensive study of

Kaṉyākumari region in line with the studies made by the scholars like K.A.Nilakanda

Sastri, Y.Subbarayalu, Noboru Karashima, Burton Stein, Kenneth R. Hall and others.

A preview of works

The present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala states formed an integral part of

ancient Tamiḻakam. The stretch of land lying between the Western Ghats and Arabian

Sea had natural cultural interactions with the Tamil Nadu upland region. The rulers of

Tamil Nadu and the rulers of Kerala made calculated attempts to control the rich

resources on either side of the Western Ghats. Thus, Kaṉyākumari was under the

control of the rulers of Kerala state for a major part of its history.

Historically, the present Kaṉyākumari district was part of a southern

Travancore. There was a close affinity between the land on this side of the Western

Ghats and on the other side of the Tamil Nadu in terms of language, customs and

16 Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1980, p.397.

8

religious observations. Nagam Aiya’s Travancore State Manual (1906) consisted of

four volumes, probably the first one that brought to light the political and social

history of Travancore kingdom. Subsequently, the Government of Travancore took

the initiative and published seven volumes of Travancore Archaeological Series

(1910-1938) containing texts of ancient inscriptions. T.A.Gopinatha Rao, the veteran

epigraphist and indologist who worked as the Superintendent of Archaeology in

Travancore, edited the first two volumes. K.V. Subramanya Aiyar (1924) is the editor

of the next two volumes and A.S. Ramanatha Aiyar edited the remaining three

volumes (1999 – 2004). These volumes of high standard form the primary source for

the study.

A large number of later Chēra inscriptions both in copper and stone from

different centres of Travancore were published in these volumes and the scholarly

editors made every effort to bring out their historical importance. However, no

chronological or geographical order was followed in these publications. Early and late

records of Chēra, Chōḻa, Pāṇḍya and Āyi kings and the kings of medieval Vēṇāḍu and

Travancore were collected and published.17 These pioneering works recorded temple

inscriptions of Southern Travancore especially in Kaṉyākumari region such as

Sucīndram, Kaṉyākumari, Thirunandhikarai, Chōḻapuram, Kēraḷapuram, Tirunaiṉār

Kuṟichi, Thōvālai, Pākōḍu, Krishṇaṉkōil, Tiruppadisāram, Agastīsvaram, Pudūr,

Kuḻithuṟai, Pārthivapuram, Ῑsāṉamaṅgaḷam and a few other temples. These are

important centres of Saivism and Vaishnavisham.

In continuation of Nagam Aiya’s works, T.K. Velu Pillay revised and

published four volumes of Travancore State Manual (1938-1940). The state manual

carries numerous ancient documents of great historical value. It deals with the History

of Travancore and Nāñchilnāḍu. Travancore Administrative Reports (1939-1940)

provide an outline on the history of Travancore Kingdoms. K.K. Pillay’s work on the

Sucīndram Temple (1953) is the remarkable one. He is one of the most important

native historians who had studied elaborately Kaṉyākumari region. A striking feature

of the early history of Nāñchilnāḍu, of which Sucīndram formed the spiritual capital,

is that it became the cockpit of South India. Exposed to frequent attacks from outside,

17 M.G.S.Narayanan, Perumals of Kerala:Political and Social Conditions Kerala under the ChēraPerumal of Makotai (800 A.D.-1124 A.D.), Xavier Press, Calicut, 1996, p. 4.

9

Nāñchilnāḍu fell successively under the sway of the Āyi, Pāṇḍya, Chōḻa, Vēnāḍu

rulers, Vijayanagar and Nāyak chieftains18.

K.M. Panikkar, a famous historian of Kerala in his work on the History of

Kerala (1960) dealt with the political history of the period between 1498 and 1801

CE. He vividly explains the social and political history of Travancore State with more

attention on Cochin, North Malabar, Goa, Kannanur and Calicut principalities. But, he

has not paid much attention to Southern Travancore or the present Kaṉyākumari

region. P.K. Nambiar editor of the Census of India-1961, vol. IX (Madras) Part, XI-

D, (1968), provides a broad view on histroy, administration and the functions of

temples located in Agasthīswaram, Thōvālai, Kalkuḷam and Vilavaṅcōḍe taluks. This

information helps to reconstruct the religious and cultural life of the people as the

temple played an important role in these segments of the society.

Two of the 108 Vaishnavite Divyasthalams (Tirupathy) in South India, viz.,

Tiruvaṭṭār and Thiruppathisāram are found in this district. The most famous temple

dedicated to the worship of the Lord at Nāgarkōil is also located in this region. It has

twelve Saivite shrines in each of which the presiding deity is a Swayambu liṅgam.

They are: 1) Thirumala, 2) Thirupparappu, 3) Thirunandhikarai, 4) Thiru Poṉmaṉa, 5)

Paṉṉipākkam, 6) Nīlakaṇtaswāmi Kōil, 7) Thikkursi, 8) Mēlaṅkōḍu, 9)

Thiruvithāmkōḍu 10) Thiruviḍarkkōḍu 11) Thiruppaṉiyōḍe and 12) Thrunaṭṭālam.

Nine of the twelve temples are in Kalkuḷam taluk and remaining three in Vilavaṅkōḍu

taluk. P.K.Nambiar has considered the Hindu temples and its functions for his

documentation and not other monuments having religious affinities like Christianity,

Islam and Jainism except Nāgarāja temple and Chitharāl Sri Bhagavathi Ammaṉ

temple19 .

Natana. Kasinathan, an eminent epigraphist, edited the first three volumes of

Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukaḷ (1972). He has listed the village name, dynasty, ruler, date

and text of the inscriptions. Natana. Kasinathan has also provided descriptive analysis

of the inscriptional data rather than making any analytical approach to the data.

However, inscriptions form the basis for the present study. The first volume contains

18 K.K.Pillay, The Sucīnḍram Temple, Kalakshetra publication, Madras, 1953, p. 94.19 P.K.Nambiar (ed.), Census of India-1961, vol-IX, (Madras), part, xi-D, The Manager of Publication,New Delhi, 1968, p.11.

10

132 inscriptions recorded from different places in Agastīswaram taluk. They are

Āchiramam, Iḍalāikuḍi, Eīthāmoḻi, Kariyamāṇikkapuram, Karuppukkōṭṭai,

Kaṉyākumari, Krishṇaṉ Kōil, Kochapidāram, Koṭṭāram, Kōṭṭāṟu and Sāmithōppu.20

The second volume contains 125 inscriptions collected at Thānumālaya Perumāḷ

temple at Sucīndram and Tuvārakai Krishṇaṉ temple in Agastīswaram taluk. The third

volume contains 80 inscriptions copied from Chōḻapuram, Dēvakuḷam, Thērūr,

Nallūr, Nāgarcōil, Paṟakkai, Pudukirāmam, Puravachērry, Vaḍachērry and

Vaḍivīswaram. R.Nagasamy, an expert in epigraphy, edited the fourth and fifth

volumes of Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukaḷ. In the fourth volume, more than 139

inscriptions of Kalkuḷam taluk have been traced out. The fifth volume recorded nearly

85 inscriptions from important villages viz., Aṉanthapuram, Arumanallūr,

Aḻakiyapāṅḍiyapuram, Ādhichaṉputhūr, Āralvāimoḻi, Iraichakuḷam, Iyaṉkuḷam,

Kaḍukkarai, Kāṭṭuputhūr, Kuṟathiyarai, Thāḻaikuḍi and Therisaṇaṅkōppu of Thōvālai

Taluk21.

More than 140 inscriptions from Agasthīswaram, Thōvālai, Kalkuḷam and

Vilavaṅcōḍe taluks find their place in the sixth volume. This volume provides

information on the territorial divisions like vaḷanāḍu and nāḍu, their boundaries and a

small outline on the history of Kaṉyākumari region.22

P. Shangoony Menon in his work on History of Travancore from the earliest

times (1978) criticized the legendary Purānic texts, but utilized the same source for

giving the story of the Travancore dynasty. The theories and concepts advanced in his

work have been criticized by many scholars but still continue to influence the

people.23

K.P. Padmanabha Menon (1958-1919), son of P. Shangoony Menon, has

written the History of Cochin (1912-1914) in two volumes. His magnum opus

History of Kerala (1924-1937) was published posthumously in four volumes by his

20 Natana. Kasinathan, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, vol-III, 1972, pp.1-2.21 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, (Vols. IV to V), Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, vol-III,1979, p.1.22 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ , vol.-vi, Tamil State Departmentof Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.1-2.23 M.G.S.Narayanan, Perumal of Kerala-Political and Social Conditions Kerala under the ChēraPerumal of Makotai (800 A.D.-1124 A.D.), Calicut, 1996, p.2.

11

literary executor T.K. Krishnan Menon. It provides complete history of Ancient

Kerala. It also contains much valuable information throwing light on many sides of

the polity, customs, life and material conditions of Kēraḷa. K.K. Pillay was another

brilliant scholar of South Indian History. He was born in Vilavaṅgkōḍu taluk of

Kaṉyākumari district. He is the author of Studies in Indian History with special

reference to Tamil Nadu (1979). In this monumental work, he clearly illustrates the

History of Nāñchilnāḍu and its boundaries. He also describes the socio, economic

and political conditions of Nāñchilnāḍu from the earliest period upto the modern

period. V. Sathiyanesan’s thesis Social Changes in Kanniyakumari district (1900-

1975 CE) – (1988) highlights the settlement pattern, land holding system, society,

economic activity and social changes in Kaṉyākumari region.

S. Padmanabhan’s work provides the basic information on Kaṉyākumari

region. His field-based study helped to identify several places of historical

significance. He is a well known scholar in Kaṉyākumari district. His works include

Nāgarājā Temple (Tamil & English - 1969), Temples of Kaṉyākumari (1970), The

Forgotten History of the Land’s End (1971), Untold Stories about Kaṉyākumari

(1974), In and around Kaṉyākumari (1976), Historic Churches in Kaṉyākumari

(1978), Kumari Māvaṭṭa Kōṭṭaikal (1978), The contribution of Kaṉyākumari to the

Tamil World (1981), Ancient Jain Centres in Kaṉyākumari (1998), Special features

of Art and Architecture in Kaṉyākumari (1998) and Buddhism in Kaṉyākumari

District (2003). T.V. Mahalingam’s fifth volume Topographical list of Inscriptions in

the Tamil Nadu and Kerala states upto CE. 1300 (1989), contains 999 inscriptions, of

which, nearly 282 inscriptions come from the district of Kaṉyākumari. He also wrote

an article on Kumari Kaṇḍam, In Origin of Humanity and Origin of Language (1997).

T.V. Mahalingam has also touched upon the Lemuriya continent. The Tectonic Plate

theory of the geologists interwoven with the submergence of Kumari Kaṇḍam found

mentioned in the later Tamil classical work of Silapathikāram.24

R. Vasudeva Poduval’s Travancore inscriptions - A Topographical list (1990)

provides information on the place of inscription, contents, date, dynasty, king,

24 N.Mahalingam, Kumari Kaṇḍam, In Origin of Humanity and Origin of Language, InternationalLinguistic Centre, Chennai, 1997, pp. 11-12.

12

language and remarks. It is like a registration of inscriptional record and there is

hardly any critical study on these inscriptions.

M. Gopalakrishnan has edited the Gazetteers of Kanniyakumari District

(1995). It gives general information on history, people, economic trends, revenue

administration, etc. M.G.S. Narayanan in his work on Perumal of Keralas – Political

and Social Condition of Kerala under the Chera Perumals of Makotai (800 CE. 1124

CE.), (1996) provided information on the nature of historiography of Kerala and its

significance but does not elaborate on Travancore region. D. Velappan wrote on

Nāñchilnāḍu (History, Economy, Tradition), (2000). According to him Nāñchilnāḍu

is a fertile region covering 403.9 sq.kms. in area25 with a high level of revenue

collections which constitutes the main source of income for the Travancore rulers.

Kodumudi Shanmugam is the author of Kumari Kaṇḍam Mūḻgavillai (2001) and he

has given more emphasis on the continental drift theory rather than history.

R.Mathivanan’s work Kaḍalkoṇḍa Theṉnādumuthal Sinthuveḷi

Nāgarigamvarai (2001) explains the continent Kumari and other features of it. It is

mostly based on secondary sources like literature. J.S.Murali is the author of

Tamiḻaka Sivathalaṅgaḷ (2001). In this important work he has highlighted the

importance of Siva and Vishnu temples. He has focused history on Saivism and

Vaishnavism centered in this district. Eleven inscriptions of Rāja Rāja –I (985-1014

CE) period were found at Nandhīsvarer temple of Tirunandhi Karai.26 He attempts to

draw religious history of this region. A.K.Perumal’s Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai –

(History of South Kaṉyākumari) (2003), traces the history from Āyi dynasty upto

Travancore kingdom.

Sumathi Ramasamy in her book Fabulous Geographics, Castarstrophic

Histories ‘The Lost land of Lemuriya’ (2005) analysed Lemuriya or Kumarikaṇḍam

with the help of map, geographical data, classical literature, etc.

K. Appadurai holds the view that the Lemuria continent is the birth place of all

civilizations. His book Kumarikaṇḍam Kaḍal Koṇḍa Theṉnāḍu (2005) explains the

nature of the land and life of its people. M. Gopalakrishnan, the editor of Tamil Nadu

25 D. Velappan, Nāñchilnāḍu (History, Economy And Tradition), Rohini Publications, Nagarcoil, 2000,p.2.26 J.S.Murali, Tamiḻaga Sivathalaṅgaḷ, Chadura Publications, Chennai, 2001, p.626.

13

māvaṭṭa vivarachuvaḍi – Kaṉyākumrai Māvaṭṭam (2006) provides a brief history of

the region. M. Immanuvel, a native scholar, in his work on Kaṉyākumari Aspects and

Architects, Historical Research (2007) describes stories and events from 9th century

BCE to the present day and reflects the character and culture of this region.

S.C. Jayakaran, a geologist and historian, has written Kumari Nila Nītchi

(2007). He emphasises that Lemuria continent is the birth place of ancient civilization.

It is based on geographical and ancient literary sources. He strongly believes that the

references found in the literature are true and reliable.27

M.C. Victor has said in his book Kumarikaṇḍam (2007) that this region is

situated in the equator area. Therefore, we assume that this is origin of living beings –

because of the meditation climatic. The foreign scholars like Hekee, Paul Masson

Oursel, Scalter, Graeme Williams, E. Thurston, H.G. Wells, Scot Elliot and Tamil

scholars like P.T. Srinivasa Iyangar K.N. Nilakanda Sastri, T.V. Mahalingam,

Devaneyapavanar, Raghava Iyangar and many others had also spoken about this

Lemuria or Kumarikaṇḍam elaborately in their dictions. 28

Seetharam Gurumurthi’s edited volume Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu

(2008) outlines the history of this district. Jainism played an important role in the

Kaṉyākumari region from the 7th century CE. 16th century CE.29 Siva Vivekananthan

tries to consolidate those data in his work on Kumari Nāṭṭil Samaṉam – Tholliyal

Pārvai (2009). Some of the important Jain centres of this district are Tiruchāranathu

Malai, Nāgarcōil, Tirukkurandi, Āḻvārkōil, Malaiyaḍi, Kuṟathiyarai, Kōṭṭaivilai,

Veḷḷimalai and Tirunanthi Karai. At present, a considerable number of Jain temples

were converted into Hindu temples. His work only considered raise and fall of

Jainism in Kaṉyākumari region.

Irrespective of the close attention received by geologists, historians,

epigraphists, folklorists and literary people, the comprehensive history of this region

still eludes the scholars. Most of the scholars relied on literary sources and

particularly to the study of lost of Lemuria. The focus on continental drift theory

27 S.C.Jayakaran, Kumari Nila Nītchi, Kālachuvaḍu Publications, Chennai, 2007, p.24.28 M.S.Victor, Kumari Kaṇḍam Nallor Publication, Chennai, 2007, p.251.29 Siva Vivekananthan, Kumari Nāṭṭil Samaṇam-Tholliyal Pārvai, Kavya Publications, Chennai, 2009,p.37.

14

pushed back the remaining studies in the dark. Irrespective of these studies, the

inscriptions copied by the Tamil Nadu State Archaeology Department remain as one

of the reliable sources for the study of political and cultural geographies of

Kaṉyākumari region.

TABLE 1: 2

The following data is taken from Inscriptions of Kaṉyākumari Districts vols. I – VI

Periodisation: Based on Earliest Inscriptions

Per

iod Dynasty Years

EarliestInscriptionRefernce

TaluksNo.

of

Ins.

%

AGS TOV KLM VLE

I EARLY PĀṆḌYĀ CE.792-976CE.792(K.K.vol. VI:p.543/2004)

3 1 - - 4 0.57

II ĀYI CE.869-913CE.869(K.K. vol. IV:p.1969/97)

- - 2 3 5 0.71

III CHŌḺA CE.941-1300CE.941(K.K. vol.II:p.1968/178)

48 1 6 1 56 7.92

IV CHĒRA CE.1000-1700CE.1000(K.K.vol.VI: p.512/2004

- - 2 - 2 0.28

V CHŌḺA-PĀṆḌYA CE.1100CE.1100(K.K.vol.III: p.1968/260)

4 - - 1 5 0.71

VI LATER PĀṆḌYĀ CE.1123-1450CE.1123(K.K. vol.I:p.1968/13)

42 - - - 42 5.94

VII VĒNĀḌU CE.1126-1810CE.1126(K.K.vol.III: p.1968/271)

29 5 16 3 52 7.36

VIII VIJAYANAGAR CE.1500-1600CE.1500(K.K. vol.I:p.1968/84)

2 - - - 2 0.28

IXNĀYAKS OFMADURAI

CE.1606-1800CE.1606(K.K.vol.VI:p.474 /2004)

3 - - - 3 0.42

X TIRUVIDAN CORE CE.1730-1906CE.1730(K.K.vol.VI:p.521 /2004)

1 - 3 - 4 0.57

Other Inscriptions Without Reference Of Ruler's Regnal Year 251 85 150 45 532 75.24

Gross Value707 100

Scope and Sources

The scope of the present work is entirely based on archaeological, epigraphical

and literary sources supported by the field studies. Nearly 707 inscriptions are

available in six volumes of Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ (Appendix- I), South

15

Indian Inscriptions, Annual Report on Epigraphy, Epigraphia Indica, Kalveṭṭiyal-

Journal of Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology, Ᾱvaṇam, Journal of Tamil

Nadu Archaeological Society and Varalāṟu, Journal of Raja Manickanar Historical

Research Centre. The inscriptions found in Kaṉyākumari region are significant in

revealing the political, economic, social and religious history of this southernmost tip

of the Indian peninsular. The study of these primary sources could provide a firm

basis for carrying out further research about the region. In addition, The Travancore

State Manual, The Travancore Archaeological Series and The Gazetteer of

Kaṉyākumari District provided the basic data for the present study.

This periodisation is based on some cumulative historical events as well as the

king’s accession date. Present study is divided into periods of Early Pāṇḍya, Āyi,

Chōḻa, Chēra, Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya, later Pāṇḍya, Vēnāḍu chiefs, Vijayanagar, Nāyaks and

Travancore Samasthāṉam based on information retrieved from 707 inscriptions. In

Kaṉyākumari district, the earliest inscription records a hero stone installed in memory

of Raṇakīrti, a lieutenant of the early Pāṇḍya ruler Māṟaṉ Chaḍayaṉ ( c.765 – 815 CE)

who fought with the Chēra forces and lost his life in CE. 792. It was found at

Āralvāimoḻi village in Thōvālai taluk.30 The latest lithic record is of the grant

extended by S. Muthaiyapillai of Mulaikārapaṭṭi village, A. Arunasalam Pillai and

Nagalingam in CE 1906 for the construction of a mandapa in a temple at Sivagiri

located in Kalkuḷam taluk.31

In Tamil Nadu, after Tamiḻ-Brāhmi script, three other kinds of scripts were

used by the people. They are Vaṭṭeḻuthu, Tamiḻ, and Grantha. Vaṭṭeḻuthu and Tamiḻ

scripts were used for Tamiḻ language whereas Grantha was used for Sanskrit

language. The Arachchalūr (3-4 CE.) and Pūlāṅguṟichi (500 CE.) inscriptions

demonstrated that Vaṭṭeḻuthu script must have developed from Tamiḻ-Brāhmi script.32

The following table suggests that a majority of inscriptions of this region carry Tamiḻ

and Vaṭṭeḻuthu scripts. Out of 707 epigraphical records, 591 are in Tamil, 74 in

30 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-vi, Tamil Nadu StateDepartment of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.184.31 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-iv, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 1979, 1969 / 30.32 R. Govindharaj, “Tamiḻ Nāṭṭu Eḻuthumuṟaikaḷiṉ Vaḷarchi”, in Y.Subbarayalu (ed.), TamilKalveṭṭiyalum Varalāṟum, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2001, pp.27-28.

16

Vaṭṭeḻuthu, 21 in Grantha, 10 in English, 5 in Latin, 3 in Danish, 2 in Sanskrit and 1 in

Malayalam script.

TABLE 1: 3

Script Wise Classification in Kaṉyākumari Region (From vols. I to VI)

The following table suggests that the Vaṭṭeḻuthu inscriptions are concentrated

in the period between 900 and 1100 CE. The Tamil script replaced the Vaṭṭeḻuthu

script around 12th century CE.

Table 1: 4

Talukwise Distribution of Scripts in Kaṉyākumari Region (From vol. I to VI)

Sl.

NoTime Range

Vaṭ

ṭeḻu

thu

Tam

iḻ

Gra

nth

am

San

skri

t

Mal

ayal

am

En

gli

sh

Lat

in

Dan

ish

1 701 – 800 CE 2 - - - - - - -

Sl.No Script Agastīswaram Thōvāḷai Kalkuḷam Viḷavaṅkōḍu Total

1 Tamiḻ 350 87 130 24 591

2 Vaṭṭeḻuthu 8 3 36 27 74

3 Grantham 8 - 10 3 21

4 Sanskrit - - 2 - 2

5 Malayalam - - 1 - 1

6 English 7 - 3 - 10

7 Latin 4 - 1 - 5

8 Danish 1 - 2 - 3

Total number of inscriptions 707

17

2 801 – 900 CE 6 1 - - - - - -

3 901 – 1000 CE 36 7 2 - - - - -

4 1001 – 1100 CE 20 51 2 - - - - -

5 1101 – 1200 CE 8 72 1 - - - - -

6 1201 – 1300 CE 9 46 1 - - - - -

7 1301 – 1400 CE 4 10 - - - - - -

8 1401 – 1500 CE 4 33 4 - - - - -

9 1501 – 1600 CE 2 81 4 - - - -

10 1601 – 1700 CE 1 103 4 1 1 - - 2

11 1701 – 1800 CE - 136 4 - - 6 5 1

12 1801 – 1906 CE - 49 - 1 - 4 - -

Gross Value 93 589 22 2 1 10 5 3

Aims and Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to understand the cultural transformation

process through the following sub-themes:

To document the archaeological and historical vestiges of Kaṉyākumari region

To understand the different phases of the historical development of

Kaṉyākumari region

To understand the different phases of the historical geography of Kaṉyākumari

region.

To draw a clear picture of the cultural geography of the Kaṉyākumari region.

18

Methodology

The main focus of the present study is to understand the socio-cultural changes

that had undergone in different historical phases through the inscriptional sources

supported by literary and field studies. The major territorial divisions and smaller

administrative units were initially ethnic units and were later integrated to form major

administrative units in the back drop of given geographical entity. The inscriptional

data are compiled, analysed and interpreted on a chronological scale. The basic

geographical points like villages, rivers and tanks and other geographical indicators

mentioned in the epigraphical sources are ground checked through intensive field

studies. The archaeological and historical vestiges of this region are documented

through field studies. The field study also helped to identify the exact location of the

villages and also eco-environment of the region in which specific ethnic group

emerged. The different eco-zones like dry, wet, fertile, non-fertile, wooded forest,

coastal, etc., played a significant role in the formation of society and its character. The

basic units that encountered in epigraphical and literary sources are documented to

understand their transformations at political, cultural and social sphere.

The major part of the history of Kaṉyākumari region comes under the Pāṇḍiya

rule. Pāṇḍiyanāḍu was divided into a number of territorial sub-divisions. Each

division has a nuclear village called ūr. It was believed that these divisions were made

specifically for administrative purposes by the ruling power. But, recent researches

suggest that these were initially ethnic units rather than administrative units as widely

believed. The territorial divisions of this region had suffixes such as kūṟṟam, muṭṭam,

kuḷakīḻ and nāḍu. For example, the territorial divisions like puṟathaya nāḍu, nāñchil

nāḍu, vaḷḷuva nāḍu, guru nāḍu, theṅgā nāḍu and cheṅgalunīr vaḷanāḍu could be

cited. The above nāḍus were under the major territorial divisions of Pāṇḍiyanāḍu

which is otherwise known as Pāṇḍiya maṇḍalam. During the reign of Rājarāja I (985-

1014 CE), Pāṇḍiyanāḍu was known as Rājarāja Pāṇḍiya Nāḍu. It was divided into

four major divisions namely Rājēndra chōḻa vaḷanāḍu, Madurāndaka vaḷanāḍu, Muḍi

koṇḍa chōḻa vaḷanāḍu and Uthama chōḻa vaḷanāḍu.

All the 707 inscriptions were analysed to extract the basic information like

village name, minor territorial division, major territorial division, date of issue,

king/ruler, purpose, administrative/revenue terms, ethnic data, etc.

19

The historical geography of the region is drawn by placing all the villages on

the map with proper geo-coordination collected in the field. In case of cultural

geography, the data related to cultural activities, like construction of temples, Jaina

paḷḷis and establishment of Saiva and Vaishnava centres, the ritual, festivals and other

related matters were collected and were placed in chronological order.

Geography and Physical Features

According to Tamil tradition, the habitable part of the earth's surface was

divisible into five natural eco-zones, popularly called as tinai.33 The five eco-zones

are kuṛiñci (mountainous tracts) muḷḷai (pastoral tracts), marutam (riverine tracts)

neytal (the coastal / litoral tracts) and pālai (arid waste tracts). Pālai was not treated

as a separate tinai as pālai is a seasonal ecological zone created at times on account of

scarcity of rains or hot summer conditions. There are examples in the texts which

show the transformation of muḷḷai and kuṛiñci in a particular part of the year

(seasonal) into a pālai lands. 34 The following map shows the climatic conditions of

Kaṉyākumari region with details of temperature and rainfall level.

Kaṉyākumari region, being a fertile zone, only four divisions of landscapes

and ecosystems are available. They are the kuṛiñci (hilly tracts), muḷḷai (pastoral

tracts), marutam (riverine or wet land) and neytal (the coastal/litoral tracts) except

pālai (arid/waste tracts). This district benefited with the rainfall from both the

southwest and the northeast monsoons. Both monsoons led to a better environment,

suitable climatic conditions and abundance of natural resources.

The geographical factors which influence natural vegetation include climate,

soil, and topography. This district consists of thick forests and mountains. The

Kāthāḍi mountain is high above 808 meters. The other mountains are Maruthuvaḻ

malai (370 meters), Kalmalai (990 meters), Thadāgai (960 meters) Mahendharagiri

33 P.T.Srinivas Iyenger, History of the Tamils-From the earliest times to 600A.D., Asian EducationalServices. New Delhi, 1982, p.3.34 Radhika Rajamani, Society in Early Historic Tamiḻagam, Ph.D. thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi, 1993, p.66.

20

(1654 meters ) and Veḷḷimalai35. The following map shows various kinds of rocks and

minerals embedded in this region.

35 A.K. Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai (History of Kaṉyākumari District), United Writers, Chennai,2003, p.26.

21

The Āralvāimoḻi pass serves as the gateway between Thirunelvēli and

Kaṉyākumari districts. It is an important pass in the Western Ghats through which

passes the trunk road from Tirunelveli to Trivandram. Through this gap, the political

and cultural interactions are being activated continuously till date. The Āralvāimoḻi

pass, though now situated outside Kerala, has thus played a crucial role in the history

of south Travancore.36

Based on the physiographic nature, the district can be divided into three

natural divisions, namely mountainous terrain, low lands and undulating valley. The

north-eastern portion of the district comprising the eastern parts of the Viḷavaṅcōḍe

36 A.Sreedharamenon, Social and Cultural History of Kerala, Sterling Publication, New Delhi, 1979,p.9.

22

and Kalkuḷam taluks and the north-eastern portion of Thōvālai taluk constitutes a

mountainous terrain. The sea coast on the west and south-west of the district is flat

and fairly fertile (Agastīswaram).

Soils of the district is mostly of the red loam variety. In the sea coasts,

however, the sandy type of soils prevails and near the mountain ranges gravelly soil is

generally seen. In the lowlands, there is neither white sand nor sandy loam, while in

the midlands and highlands there prevails fairly fertile soil of fine type, particularly in

the valley. In the midlands, in general, the soil is clay loam of laterite origin with an

admixture of gravel and sand. In parts of Vilavaṅcōḍe and Kalkuḷam taluks the gravel

content is low.37 The map shows various kinds of soil formed in this region.

37 S.C.Bhatt (ed.), The Encyclopaedic District Gazetteers of India, southern zone, vol.2, 1997, GyanPublishing House, New Delhi, pp.1080-81.

23

Geological formation

The rock formation of Archaean Age fall under two groups viz., the

khondalites represented by garnetiferous sillimanite–graphite gneisses and garnet

biotite gneisses which occupy a major part of the district, and the charnockites which

are exposed in the areas around Rādhāpuram, Āralvāimoḻi, Kulasēkaram, Thuckalai

and Rājākkamaṅgalam. Robert Bruce Foote noted that the shelly line stones found at

Kaṉyākumari strengthen the theory of uplift of land mass in this area.38 Ilmenite,

rutile, zircon, garnet, monazite, sillimanite, leucoxene and magnetite are the important

minerals found at Vaḷḷiyāru, Kuḷachal and Maṇavālakuṟichi in this district.39 The sand

on the sea coast is rich in mineral wealth, while the coast as such provides an

enchanting natural environment. The sea shore sands found at Kaṉyākumari is

different coloured like bright scarlet, black, purple, yellow, red and white sands. It is

glittering on the sea shore like gold. The sea sands are also full of titaniferous iron

grains. The finer sort of sand is used by goldsmiths in polishing gold and there is an

ever increasing demand for it. 40

Flora

The cycle of variations in the climate and seasons around the year have had

their impact on vegetation and the development of agriculture. Kaṉyākumari region is

also rich in a variety of animals and birds. Kaṉyākumari region has been considered

through the ages as a storehouse of valuable medicinal plants, timber trees and spices.

It is endowed with an exceptionally rich variety of natural habitats which are nurtured

by climatic and topographical features.

The flora of Kaṉyākumari district can still fit in this description well. There

are valuable timber trees, trees yielding gums, palms, bamboos and reeds, fibrous

plants, medicinal plants and flowering and ornamental plants in the district making it

the botanical garden of Tamil Nadu. In the lowlands, in the valleys sheltered by the

hill ridges, paddy, the main food-crop is grown extensively. Topioca is the second

38 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State – Kanyakumari District, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1995, p.11.39 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.2.40 K.P.Padmanabha Menon, “A History of Kerala written in the form of notes on Visscher’s lettersfrom Malabar”, vol-I; T.K.Krishnan Menon,(ed.), Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1982, p.117.

24

important food crop and is cultivated mostly in Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks.

Beautiful coconut gardens are found in the narrow stretches of the sandy seaboard and

along the banks of rivers, tanks, the Maṇakuḍi lake and along the estuary at

Thēṅgāpaṭṭinam in the Vilavaṅcōḍe taluk.41 The following map describes the general

land use and cropping pattern of this region. Settlement pattern and water bodies are

shown in this map.

Kaṉyākumari district is noted for its medicinal plants and herbs. Maruthuvāḻ

Malai (hill where medicinal plants grows) is located near Koṭṭāram about 7 km from

Kaṉyākumari. The hill is still reputed to produce herbs of untold efficacy.42 The

Pioneer plantation in Travancore king was opened in the year 1899 under the

41M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State – Kanyakumari District, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1995, p.15 .42 K.P.Padmanabha Menon, “A History of Kerala written in the form of notes on Visscher’s lettersfrom Malabar”, in T.K.Krishnan Menon, (ed.), History of Kerala: A History of Kerala written in theform of notes on Visscher’s letters from Malabar, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1982, p.13.

25

Command of His Highness Shri Mūlam Thirunāḷ. A very large quantity of rubber, tea,

pepper, ginger, turmeric and cardamom are cultivated.43

Fauna

Ten orders of mammals are found in this district. They are: i) Order primates

(Old world monkey) ii) Order Lemuroidea (monkeys having fox – like faces) like the

slander lories, iii) Order carmvore (cats & dogs) iv) Order insectivore (hedgehog) v)

Order chiroptera, (bats) vi) Order Rodentia (Smirrels – rates, mice hares, etc., vii)

Order Proboscidea (elephants) viii) Order ungulate (the mammals such as Cissus

quadrangularies) ix) Cartacea (Whales, Porpoises, Dolphins) and x) Edantata Indian

(Indian Pangolioan).44 About 250 species of birds have been recorded in the district

around at Sucinḍram, Thērūr and Vēmbānūr wetlands.45

Rivers

Kaṉyākumari district is predominantly an agricultural area depending mainly

on both the north-east and south-west monsoons. It receives a fairly good amount of

rainfall in both the seasons. The major river in the district is Tāmbaraparani river

locally known as Kuḻithurai. This river has got two major tributaries, namely Kōdayār

and Paraliyār with the Pēchipārai Dam and Perunchāṇi Dam respectively built across

them. There are many tributaries of the Kodayar river of which Chiṭṭār–I and Chiṭṭār-

II and their dams are major ones. The origin of Tāmbaraparani river originates in the

Western Ghats and confluences with the Arabian sea near Thēṅgāpaṭṭiaṇam, about 56

km west of Kaṉyākumari.46 Even during the times of the Pāṇḍyas, the Paraliyār has

been used for irrigation in Nāñchilnāḍu. The Pāṇḍyaṉ dam is built across the

Paraliyar in Kalkuḷam taluk. About a km lower down the Pāṇḍyaṉ dam, the Puthaṉ

dam, the Padmanābhapuram and Puthaṉ channels were built in 1750 CE by

Mārthāṇḍa Varma. The Vaḍasēri river is also called as Paḻayār or Kōṭṭār (Old river).

This is the southern most river in the Indian Peninsula. Many small streams combine

43 T.K.Velu Pillai, Travancore State Manual, vol-I, Government of Travancore, Travandrum, 1938,p.6.44 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State – Kanyakumari District, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1995, pp.27-28 .45 A.R.Rahmani, Important bird area in India-priority sites for Conservation, Bombay Nature HistorySociety, 2004, Mumbai, p.985.46 T.K.Velu Pillai, Travancore State Manual, vol-I, Government of Travancore, Travandrum, 1938,p.63.

26

and form this river. One of these rivers south of the Mahēndragiri Peak and passing

down a steep gorge reaches the low country a little to the west of Aṉandapuram. The

Paḻayār flows through the taluks of Thōvālai and Agastīswaram in a southeasterly

direction and fills into the Maṇakkuḍi lake after a course of twenty three miles,

passing the town of Būdhapāṇḍi, Kōṭṭār, Nāgarcōil, Thāḻakuḍi and Sucīndram. 47

The Muḷḷaiyār in Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk is a stream flowing for about 11 km,

through Kaliel, Eḍaikōḍu and Pākkōḍu. It joins the western Tāmbraparaṇi near

Thikkuṟichi. The Vaḷḷiyār is a small river, 16 km long. It rises in the Veḷḷimalai hills,

passes through Kōthanallūr, Kalkuḷam, Eraṇiel, Thalakuḷam, Maṇavālakuṟichi and

Kaḍiyapaṭṭiaṇam and falls into the Arabian sea. There are in all as many as 2593

tanks in the district, both rain fed and channel fed.48 The map bellow illustrates to

position regarding irrigation, hydrology and ground water potentials of this region.

47A.K. Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai (History of Kanyakumari District), United Writers, Chennai2003, p.27.48 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State – Kanyakumari District, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1995, p.7 .

27

The history of natural tanks is age old, but it is known that kings contributed a

great deal to the irrigation facilities. The copper plate inscriptions from 9th century CE

mention several tanks like Pasuṅkuḷam, Veñchikuḷam, Neḍumaruthukuḷam,

Perumkuḷam, Elemchikuḷam and Koṇaduṅkuḷam. The Pāṇḍya king Vīranārayaṇaṉ

was known to have constructed some of the tanks. Vīranārayaṇa Maṅgaḷam is named

after king Vīranārāyaṇa who built the Thēṟakāl canal to take water from river Paḻayār

to the tanks Thāthiarkuḷam, Puthukirāmamkuḷam and Thērūr kuḷam.49

The landscape of the Kaṉyākumari regions studded with forests, natural tanks,

perennial ponds, rich soil content, mineral wealth and variety of flora and fauna

facilitated the growth of population, creation of new settlements, irrigation pattern and

finally distinct historical and cultural geography.

Chapterization

The thesis entitled Historical and Cultural Geography of Kaṉyākumari

Region is dealt with in six chapters based on available data.

I. Introduction

II. Historical vestiges in Kaṉyākumari Region

III Historical Background of Kaṉyākumari Region

IV. Historical Geography of Kaṉyākumari Region

V. Cultural Geography of Kaṉyākumari Region

VI. Conclusion

The first chapter by way of introduction, provides glimpses of the

geographical features of Kaṉyākumari region and general introduction on the

historical significance of Nāñchilnāḍu. Besides, this chapter provides scope of the

work, nature of source material, previous work, periodization and structure of the

thesis.

49 A.R.Rahmani, Important bird area in India-priority sites for Conservation, Bombay Nature HistorySociety, 2004, Mumbai, p.985 .

28

The second chapter deals with historical vestiges of Kaṉyākumari region. The

field studies carried out in several villages of Kaṉyākumari region throw much light

on the history of this region. An intensive field study, both archaeological and

ethnographical, was undertaken to understand the area and to collect and document

archaeological, historical and epigraphical data. These ground surveys helped to trace

the pre-historic and historic remains such as Iron Age monuments, temple

inscriptions, antiquities, location of the ancient villages and the chief villages of nāḍu

units. The preliminary ethnographic survey helped to understand the present social

structure of each eco-zones. This information indirectly helped to understand the

epigraphical data that get reflected in this chapter (Map 1).

The third chapter deals with the historical backround of Kaṉyākumari region.

The rulers like Āyi (Sangam period), Early Pānḍiyas, Later Chōḻas, Later Pāṇḍiyas,

Vēynāḍu chieftains, Nāyakas of Madurai and Thiruvithancore samasthāṉam, held

sway over their region. The different dynasties, both major and minor, ruled in this

region introduced different administrative units and modified some of the existing

ones. The significant features of these geographies are dealt in this chapter.

The fourth chapter deals on the historical geography of Kaṉyākumari region.

In this chapter an attempt is made to study the territorial and administrative units viz.,

Maṇḍalam, Vaḷanāḍu, Nāḍu/Kūṟṟam, Ūr, Brahmadēyam, Maṅgaḷam, Nagaram and

other small units. The division of the country into Maṇḍalam, Vaḷanāḍu, Nāḍu, Ūr

and other administrative units formed the backbone of the imperial Chōḻas

administration and which mainly contributed to the economic, social and cultural

dominance of the Chōḻas over other dynasties. This region also encountered formation

of such units during Chōḻa rule. These territorial divisions undergone minor changes

in the following years, particularly during later Pāṇḍyas, Vijayanagar and Vēṇḍu

rulers. Some fine aspects of these administrative units are discussed in detail with the

help of epigraphs and maps.

The fifth chapter deals on the cultural geography of the region. The cultural

peculiarities and similarities of the region is highlighted in the backdrop of the

geographical factors, settlement pattern and place name studies. The continuity of the

cultural ethos is also highlighted.

29

The final chapter sums up the findings. A resume of the early chapters and the

findings that emerged from the study as a whole are given in the concluding chapter.

It also explains the advantages and limitation of the study. Appendix, charts, tables,

maps, glossary and bibliography are provided at the end of the thesis.

30

CHAPTER – II

HISTORICAL VESTIGES IN KAṈYĀKUMARI REGION

Kaṉyākumari is one of the richest districts in Tamil Nadu having historical

vestiges ranging from prehistoric times to the recent centuries. Among the prehistoric

sites, the Iron Age sites dominate the scene. The cultural vestiges prior to Iron Age

are very scanty and only a negligible amount of microlithic tools was recovered. The

identification of palaeolithic tools still eludes the scholars. The non-occurrence of

certain cultural traits is probably due to its geological settings. The geological and

environmental factors played a greater role in the formation of archaeological sites.

Based on the available sources, encountered in the northern part of Tamil Nadu, it

becomes evident that the cultural sequences in this district occur in the order of

Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Iron Age (megalithic), Early Historic and Historic

periods.1 Such cultural order is not witnessed homogeneously though out Tamil Nadu

and probably future discoveries may alter the present scenario.

Archaeological exploration

The present intensive field survey conducted in the entire Kaṉyākumari region

provided a good scope to understand the settlement pattern that existed during the

Iron Age and Early Historic times and its cultural transformation. It also helped to test

the existing hypothesis and provided better information to understand the nature of the

settlement. The present exploration yielded Mesolithic, Neolithic, Iron Age and Early

Historic sites besides several medieval temples, sites and inscriptions.

Previous Explorations and Excavations

The integration of archaeological, epigraphical and numismatic data

compounded with intensive micro regional study helped to enrich our understanding

on the cultural pattern that emerged in the region during the Iron Age and Early

1 K.Rajan, “Situating the beginning of early historic times in Tamil Nadu: Some issues andreflections”, Social Scientist, vol.36, New Delhi, 2008, p.60.

31

Historic times. Understanding the cultural wealth is a prerequisite to write the history

of any region as it provides first hand information on the nature of the data. The

observations of tangible evidence in its micro system help to widen our perspectives.

Therefore, field survey was given much importance and the entire region was

surveyed. The previous explorations and excavations form the basis for the present

field survey. The region failed to receive adequate attention of archaeologists and

hardly any excavations worthy of mention have been undertaken in this region. This

deficiency was tackled by undertaking an intensive village to village survey. This

region was explored to the maximum extent possible and as many as 59

archaeological sites have been newly brought to light (Appendix –II).

In this chapter an attempt is made to study the material culture of Iron Age

and Early Historic period with the following objectives:

1. To identify the Iron Age, Early Historic and Medieval sites on the

ground.

2. To study the settlement pattern and their distribution.

3. To estimate the cultural transformation process that had taken place

from the Iron Age to Early Historic period.

4. To locate trade centres and trade routes.

This study area serves as a connecting link between Tamil Nadu and Kēraḷa

regions as the Kaṉyākumari region is ideally located on the southern tip of peninsular

India. This is one of the regions where one could observe a continuous history from

the Prehistoric to the Historical period. Irrespective of the hiatus, the systematic

explorations and excavation carried out in the pre and post Independent era provided a

good basis to reconstruct the cultural process that had undergone in this region. As

many as 59 sites were discovered during the present exploration alone. Potential

resource zones, religious centres, trade centres, industrial production centres and trade

routes have been identified. However, the observations made on these surface

indicators had their own limitations. The hidden nature of the archaeological material

prevents us getting a complete picture of the society.

32

The archaeological fieldwork done so far in Kaṉyākumari region is mostly

sporadic in nature and most of them were accidental findings. The evidence of the

earliest human occupation in this region is encountered with microlithic tools.

Microlithic tools (BCE.4000) are found in and around the region of Muṭṭam,

Sukkupāṟai Thēriviḷai and Marunthuvāḻ malai.2 These microlithic tools were collected

in the coastal areas like Muṭṭam (Fig. 2. 01) and also in the interior region in the sites

like at Sukkupāṟai Thēriviḷai (Fig. 2. 02). Fixing the date to these tools is a problem

but still one could conceive that these tools would have been produced prior to

Neolithic times. In Tamil Nadu context, the microlithic tools were encountered in two

cultural contexts. In the excavations conducted at Mayilāḍumpāṟai near Krishṇagiri,

these tools were noticed below the Neolithic phase. At Māṇguḍi, these tools were

encountered below the Iron Age cultural deposit.3 Therefore, fixing the cultural

context of these tools is still a complex one. A proper excavation and indisputable

stratigraphical context can alone solve this problem. The occurrence of microlithic

tools in Kaṉyākumari region is needed to be recognised under this background.

The cultural transformation from food gathering to food production is

considered as a revolution in human history that happened during the Neolithic times.

Neolithic tools represent the beginning of agricultural production that took place

about 5,000 years ago in South India. However, it is very difficult to discern the

existence of Neolithic phase based on Neolithic tools alone. The associated cultural

material like handmade pottery, rock art, settlements, domestication of animal and

others are prerequisites to confirm its existence. According to H.D. Sankalia, the

earliest cultural phase of Southern Tamil Nadu was represented by Microliths and was

followed by Megaliths were mostly of semiprecious stone like chert and jasper.4 In

Kaṉyākumari region, Neolithic settlements were hardly identified on the ground. The

occurrence of Neolithic tools only suggests the possibilities of its existence. Such

Neolithic tools were reported at Mayilāḍi in Agastīswaram taluk, Thūthūr and

2 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.4.3 K.Rajan, Excavations at Mayilāḍumpāṟai – A Preliminary Report, Manoo Pathippakam, Thanjavur,2004, p.8.4 K. Ashok Vardhan Shetty (ed.), Excavations at Māṅguḍi, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2003, p.17.

33

Poromkōḍu near Kaliyakkāviḷai in Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk.5 Besides, a solitary example on

the river bank of Kuḻithuṟai is collected by the researcher during the exploration (Fig.

2. 03). These tools only reflect the existence of agricultural production but it is very

difficult to discern any concrete evidence on the pattern of Neolithic survival.

Iron Age

Unlike Mesolithic and Neolithic vestiges, Iron Age provided considerable

evidences to understand the basic nature of the settlement. Like any other region, this

region also witnessed a limited number of habitation mounds. The vast and intensive

agricultural and industrial activities supplemented by urbanization might have played

a major causative role in its destruction. The available Iron Age finds are mostly urn

burials. Placing these urn burials in a definite chronological frame is also a difficult

task. The lack of systematic excavation has further aggravated the problem. A

comparative study with the neighbouring region of Tirunelvēli helped to some extent

to understand the nature of urn burial sites. Urn burials are found at Veḷḷimalai,

Nēsarpuram, Kōṇam, Chiṉnaviḷai, Poromkōḍu and Karuppukkōṭṭai.6

In 1945, the Travancore State Department of Archaeology had conducted an

excavation at Veḷḷimalai in Kalkuḷam taluk, during which they came up with ancient

urns used for burying the dead. Similar urns were also unearthed at Ādhichanallūr of

Tirunelvēli district, containing broken pieces of pottery and rusty iron pieces.

According to the local tradition, these skeletal remains are called as “kūṉ” which

means “bent – backs”. It is believed that people lived up to a ripe age and as a result

their backs became bent and after death their mortal remains were placed in the urns

along with some of their personal belongings such as pots, grains and iron weapons.

The available evidence suggests that these were post cremation burial. In Saṅgam

works like Puranānūṟu mention has also been made about muthu makkaḷ thāḻi which

means the urns of elderly people.7

5 M.Gopalakrishnan, (ed.), Gazetteer of India, Tamil Nadu State-Kanyakumari District, Government ofTamil Nadu, Archives and Historical Research, Chennai,1995, p.51.6 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.4.7 M.Gopalakrishnan, (ed.), Gazetteer of India, Tamil Nadu State-Kanyakumari District, Government ofTamil Nadu, Archives and Historical Research, Chennai,1995, p.51.

34

Observations made in different parts of the area revealed the existence of huge

megalithic monuments of different categories. This largely throws light on the early

inhabitants and the nature of their settlements. It also sheds light on the different types

of occupations followed by the contemporary people. The megalithic monuments and

tangible evidences like beads of semi-precious stones, objects, weapons and

ornaments made of iron, copper and gold, ceramics of different varieties suggest their

craftsmanship, internal and external trade contacts, social hierarchy, social values, the

significance of rituals and many other such social values. However, the lack of

controlled excavations and well determined radio carbon dates place us in a very

uncomfortable situation. Based on circumstantial evidences, it is quite probable and

acceptable to fix the date of Iron Age culture of Kaṉyākumari region around first

millennium BCE. The large scale discovery of megalithic remains from this region

helps us to trace back the evidences of human occupation.8 A handmade coarse

earthen jar and other relics were found near Thūthūr village in this district. The shape,

fabric and the decorations indicate that they are probably of the megalithic or early

historic period.9 The excavation at Karuppukkōṭṭai near Nāgarkōil brought to light

burial urns containing iron objects, pottery, shell bangles and bones. Diggings at

Veḷḷimalai in Kalpaṭṭidēsam, Kaḍiyapaṭṭiaṇam and Pākuḍi in Kalkuḷam taluk in South

Travancore, southwest of Iraṇiel Muṭṭam road, revealed altogether 23 burial urns,

however, most of them are damaged. One of them yielded rusted iron pieces.10 The

early literary evidences provide a clue on the existence of some settlements. For

instance, one of the celebrated poets of Sangam Age is Āthaṅkōṭṭu Āsāṉ. He is

considered as the author of the famous grammar work Tolkāppiyam. The preliminary

survey conducted at Āthaṅkōḍu (77˚ 10’ 45.3”E; 8˚ 18’09.5”N) yielded a rouletted

ware and a conical jar. These two pieces of evidences suggest that the site has

survived with external contacts since Early Historic times.11 The habitation mound

called Sūryamēḍu yielded such evidences but unfortunately this mound is being

destroyed due to the establishment of large scale brick industries (Fig. 2. 04).

8 A.P. Greeshmalatha, Historical Geography of Vaḷḷuvanāḍ, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calicut,Calicut, 2008, pp.168-9.9 M.Gopalakrishnan, (ed.), Gazetteer of India, Tamil Nadu State-Kanyakumari District, Government ofTamil Nadu, Archives and Historical Research, Chennai,1995, p.51.10 B.K.Gururaja Rao, Megalithic Culture in South India, Prasaranga University of Mysore, Mysore,1972, pp.47-48.11 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.38.

35

Present Explorations

Keeping in view the meagre data available from previous explorations, an

attempt is made to document the archaeological wealth of this region. Extensive

archaeological explorations were conducted in all the four taluks of Kaṉyākumari

region, namely Agastīswaram, Thōvāḷai, Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu (Appendix- II).

As many as 59 archaeological sites were identified on the ground in different states of

preservation (Map 2). The following table would provide the nature of vestiges with

Viḷavaṅkōḍu standing first in the nature of preservation. The other taluks might have

also existed with such evidences but intensive cultivation taken the toll of the

archaeological sites.

Table 2.1

Sl.No. Name of TalukMesolithic(BCE 4000 –1500 BCE)

Neolithic(BCE 1500 –1000 BCE)

Iron Age(BCE 1000– 500 BCE)

Early HistoricPeriod(500 BCE – 400CE)

1. Agastīswaram 1 - 5 1

2. Thōvālai - - 7 8

3. Kalkuḷam 1 - 7 3

4. Viḷavaṅkōḍu - 1 23 2

Total 2 1 42 14

36

Agastīswaram Taluk

Sukkuppāṟai Thēriviḷai (77˚ 31’ 56”E; 8˚ 05’ 56”N)

This village is located about 2 km northwest of Kaṉyākumari town. The site

was reported with microlithic tools by the State Archaeology Department.12 Though

the find spot is not reported in the report, the survey undertaken close to the village

revealed the existence of the tools. A huge laterite block, locally known as Sukku-p-

pāṟai, is exposed on the northern side of the village. Mesolithic chert measuring 6 cm

in length (Fig. 2. 02) and red ware was collected from the surface (Fig. 2. 05). The

occurrence of mircolithic tools akin to the one found in tēri sites suggest that these

laterite blocks were occupied by the microlithic man during Holocene period. It

clearly shows that this is one of the important archaeological sites of this district. The

village name Sukkuppāṟai Thēriviḷai is derived after the name of soil.

Vaḍakku-kaṇṇaṅkuḷam (77˚ 27’ 04”E; 8˚09’ 09”N)

Vaḍakku-kaṇṇaṅkuḷam is situated on the northern bank of a small rivulet

Parakkai, a tributary of Paḻaiyāru in Agastīswaram talk about 6 km south of

Nāgarkōil. At the time of field survey, a broken red ware pot was found exposed on

the northern bank of Parakkai (Fig. 2. 06). The red ware pot had a bulbous body,

narrow neck and rolled rim. Several fragmentary portions of the urn were recovered

from the site. These urns were locally called as kūṉi pāṉai and kūnam paḍāvu.13

Nāḍārs, Hindu and Christian Sāmbavar (Scheduled caste) are the inhabitants of this

village.

Vaḍugaṉpaṟṟu (77˚ 31’ 30”E; 8˚ 06’ 35”N)

The village Vaḍugaṉpaṟṟu lies 18 km south of Nāgarkōil and 3 km west of

Kaṉyākumari. The famous Siva temple Agastīswarar is found on the way to Koṭṭāram

(Fig. 2. 07). The present taluk is named after the god Agastīswarar. According to the

tradition, the Saint Agastiyar worshipped at this temple and practiced yoga under a

12 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.4.13 S.Vellappan (80 years old), Direct interview on 24.06.2013.

37

vilvam tree. There are about 24 inscriptions engraved on the walls, pillars and on the

rocky surface of the temple. Of the 24 inscriptions, 17 inscriptions were issued by the

Pāṇḍya king Saḍaiyavarmaṉ Vallaba Dēvar. The earliest inscription datable to 1123

CE refers to grant of gold coin (māḍai) made to the temple. Some of the orders were

issued by the king while he was in the palace (paḷḷikaṭṭil).14 This village is part of the

territorial division known as puṟaththāya nāḍu. This temple is further bifurcated into

two portions. One is Agasthīswarar temple and another one is Sri Bhūdēvi Sri Aḻakiya

maṇavāla Perumāḷ temple (Fig. 2. 08). This is one of the earliest temples in this

region. Inscriptions of Late Pāṇḍiya and Vēnāḍu rulers were also found in this temple.

During the reign of Vēṇaḍu king Chēraṉ Udayamārthāṇḍa-varmaṉ, a Brahmin

settlement (akaram) was created in this village. The term calli-viruththi and kulāla-

viruththi found in the inscriptions suggest that the existence of a hospital and pot-

makers in this village.15

The explorations conducted in the paddy field on the eastern and southern side

of the temple revealed the existence of urn burial. These urns were found in

association with black-and-red ware and red ware assignable to Iron Age culture

(Fig.2. 09). River Paḻaiyāru serves as an important water source of this region and it

makes the region very fertile. Paddy, tapioca, coconut and banana plantation are the

main cultivation. People are mostly dependents on the agricultural economy.

Brahmins, Veḷḷāla, Hindu Nāḍār, Christian Sāmbavar (Scheduled caste) and Mukko

or Kaḍappuram (Fisher man) are the inhabitants of this region.

Theṟkku-kaṇṇaṅkuḷam (77˚ 26’ 58”E; 8˚ 08’ 40”N)

Theṟkku-kaṇṇaṅkuḷam is situated on the southern bank of a small rivulet

Parakkai, a tributary of Paḻaiyāru in Agastīswaram taluk about 6 km south of

Nāgarkōil. At the time of field survey, a broken black-and-red ware pot was found at

the entrance of the village (Fig. 2. 10). A mutt installed with a popular folk deity of

the region isakki, mother goddess, is also found near the entrance of this village.

14 Natana. Kasinathan, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-I, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/ 13.15 Seetharam Gurumurthi(ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.37.

38

Oḻukiṉachērry (77˚ 26’ 15”E; 8˚ 11’ 21”N)

Oḻukiṉachērry lies on the northern bank of the river Paḻaiyāṟu river on the

outskirt of Nāgarkōil town about a km. north of the town. The existence of the early

settlement is discerned with the collection of black-and-red ware and a few pieces of

urn.

Kariyamāṇikkapuram (77˚ 27’ 04”E; 8˚ 09’ 48”N)

This village lies on the eastern bank of the river Paḻaiyāṟu at about 2 km

before Sucīndram on the Nāgarkōil-Kaṉyākumari road. A highly disturbed habitation

with material like red ware is noticed close to the Vishnu temple. There are four

temples namely Āḻvār temple, Kailāsanāthar temple, Muthārammaṉ temple and

Bhagavathiammaṉ temple. There are about six inscriptions on the walls of the temple.

The earliest inscription datable to 1163 CE is found engraved on the walls of Siva

temple. This inscription referred to the existence of a Brahmin settlement

rājanārāyaṇa-caturvēdi-maṅgalam.16

Kuṟaṇḍi (77˚ 28’ 24”E; 8˚ 10’ 50”N)

The village Kuṟaṇḍi lies on the left bank of river Paḻaiyāru close to a

large village called Thāḻakuḍi, which lies about 7 kms north of Nāgarkōil.

Kōrakthanāthar temple lies on the southern side of the village probably the earliest

temple noticed in this village. The temple is devoid of any inscription, but, on stylistic

grounds one may assign it to 11-12th century CE. (Fig. 2. 11). An inscription found

engraved on a loose slab noticed in front of the Piḷḷaiyār temple referred to the

erection of a piḷḷaiyār (Ganesha) and digging a well by Udhaya Mārthāṇḍaṉ, a

Vēṇāḍu king, in the year 538 of Kollam era (1363 CE). This village is considered as a

subdivision of Aḻakiya-chōḻa-nallūr, a temple village of Nāñchil nāḍu. The village

also named after the king as Udhaya-Mārthāṇḍam.17 Besides, black-and-red ware and

16 Naṭaṉa. Kasinathan, Kaṉākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-I, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1972, No;1968/ 32.17 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.47.

39

a few pieces of historical potteries were collected from the habitation covering area 5

acres of land (Fig. 2. 12).

Thōvālai Taluk

Arumanallūr (77˚ 24’ 20”E; 8˚ 19’ 16”N)

The village Arumanallūr lies 18 km north of Nāgarkōil. An inscription

datable to 11-12th century CE is found engraved on the rocky surface in front of the

Sāstha temple. It refers to the village as part of a territorial division namely

aṟumalaikūṟṟam18. The Sāstha temple is located on the western side of the village.

According to the villagers, this temple was worshipped by the royal family of

Travancore kingdom (Fig. 2. 13). There are several L-shaped roof tiles strewn all

around the village, particularly on its western side. According to the tradition, there

was a dispute between the veḷḷāḷar (also called piḷḷaimār) and Brahmin communities

in which the Brahmin community was forced to migrate from the village. The said

roof tiles are part of the abandoned settlement (Fig. 2. 13). Aṉaṉthaṉār canal from

Pēchipāṟai dam flows close to this site and this canal serves as one of the important

water sources to Agasthīswaram and Thōvālai taluks (Fig. 2. 14). In addition to this, a

few black-and-red ware and red ware were also collected at this site (Fig. 2. 15).

Aṉumakēthaṉanallūr (77˚ 24’ 35”E; 8˚ 19’ 23”N)

Aṉumakēthaṉanallūr is situated on the southern bank of river Pālār about 18

km. north of Nāgarkōil. Iron Age material such as black-and-red ware is found in the

habitation mound on the eastern side of the Muthārammaṉ temple (Fig. 2. 16). The

important social groups that live today are Veḷḷāḷa, Piḷḷaimār, Kavuṇḍar, Āsāri

(carpenter) and Sāmbavar (scheduled caste).

Thāḻakuḍi (West) (77˚ 26’ 48”E; 8˚ 14’ 18”N)

This village lies on the right bank of Paḻaiyāru river about 7 km. north of

Nāgarkōil. An Iron Age habitation mound yielding black-and-red ware noticed on the

western side of the village (Fig. 2. 17). At present there are two temples dedicated to

Siva and Vishnu (Fig. 2. 18). There are 12 inscriptions at this village, of which, 11

18 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-V, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/ 4.

40

inscriptions are found on the walls of the Siva temple. The earliest inscription issued

during the year 708 of the Kollam era (1532 CE) by Udhaya Mārthāṇḍaṉ, a Vēṇāḍu

king, refers to the appointment of one Āryaṉ-Cokkaṉ-Periya-Perumāḷ alias

Mārthāṇḍa-Brahmāthirāyaṉ of Sucīndram as an accountant (sri paṇḍāram) to the Siva

temple. This order was issued when he was at Kaḷakkāḍu alias Chōḻavallikulapuram.19

Presently, Brahmin, Piḷḷaimār, Āsāri (Carpenter), Nāḍār, Sāmbavar (Scheduled caste)

and Parathavās are the major inhabitants of this village.

Chīdappāl (77˚ 27’15”E; 8˚15’21”N)

Chīdappāl is located at the foothill of a Chidappal mountain about 11 km.

north of Nāgarkōil on the road connecting Bhūthapāṇḍi-Āralvāimoḻi. Near this foot

hill a Siva temple viz., Kōthīswara-muḍaiya Nayiṉār and a Vaishnava temple viz.,

Aḻakiya maṉṉār are located (Fig. 2. 19). Iron Age and early historical material were

identified near this foothill (Fig. 2. 20).

Pūlāṅkuḻi (77˚27’02”E; 8˚14’50”N)

This site is located 10 km. north of Nāgarkōil close to the Āralvāimoḻi hill

ranges. During the field work, black-and-red ware and black ware were collected (Fig.

2. 21). At present, Sāmbavar and Christian Sāmbavar are the main inhabitants.

Vīravanallūr (77˚24’56”E; 8˚18’29”N)

This site is located 18 km. north of Nāgarkōil and 3 km. west of Pūdapāṇḍi.

During the field work, black-and-red ware and black ware were collected. There are

several L-shaped roof tiles strewn all around the village, particularly on its southern

side. The said roof tiles are part of the abandoned settlement. There are five

inscriptions datable between 811 and 858 of the Kollam era (1635 and 1682 CE)

found engraved on the premises of the Karpakaviṉāyakar temple. These inscriptions

refer to the land grant made to both the Ganesha and Siva temples.20 The Siva temple

could not be identified on the ground. However, a temple built of granite is found in a

19 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-V, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1979, No.1969/ 51.20 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-V, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1979, No.1969/ 87.

41

dilapidated condition (Fig. 2. 22). The paddy, banana, tapioca, co-conut and rubber

plantation are the main cultivation.

Ādhichaṉpudūr (77˚ 28’ 25”E; 8˚ 14’ 51”N)

Ādhichaṉpudūr lies at the foot hills of Āralvāimoḻi mountain about 2 km. east

of Pūdapāṇḍi which lies about 15 km north of Nāgarkōil at the foothills of

Āralvāimoḻi mountain near Avvaiyār Ammaṉ kōil. There were remains of Iron Age

and historical periods. At the foothill, a temple in ruin condition is found. On the

eastern side of this temple, three mutts are located and nearby there is one

sumaithāṅkikkaḷ (load bearing stone) erected on the highway connecting between

Āralvāimoḻi and Pūdapāṇḍi (Fig. 2. 23). Four inscriptions datable between 798 and

1074 of the Kollam era (1622 CE and 1898 CE) were copied on this site. Two

inscriptions came from Piḷḷaiyār temple and remaining two from Avvaiyār

maṇḍapam. The earliest inscription datable to 1622 CE engraved on the mandapa of

Piḷḷaiyār temple refers to this village as part of Nāñchil nāḍu.21

Jaḍayapuram (77˚ 26’ 34”E; 8˚12’38”N)

This village is located about 4 km. north-west of Nāgarkōil. It is surrounded

by Thērēkāl river in the west, Paḻaiyāru in the east and the Thāḍagai mountain in the

west. There exists a Siva temple and the chief deity is called as Jaḍayappar and

Goddess as Pārvathi (Fig. 2. 24). Besides, the Thadagai mountain is also associated

with the epic Rāmāyana and Thādagai is said to be the sister of king Rāvana.

Paṟaḷiyār (77˚24’ 20”E; 8˚ .23’ 05.6”N)

This site is located on the southern bank of the river Paṟaḷiyāṟu about 20

km. north of Nāgarkōil (Fig. 2. 25). The historical red ware is collected on the bank

of the river Paṟaḷiyāṟu which flows from the Kālīswaraṉ mountain. This site is

surrounded by Paḷḷakuḷa mountain in the east, Peruñchāṉi dam in the west and the

Kīrippāṟai mountain in the north (Fig. 2. 26).

21 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-V, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1979, No;1969/ 24.

42

Pāṟaiyaḍi (77˚ 25’41” E; 8˚13’08”N)

This site lies 4 km. north of Nāgarkōil near Āṉaipothai on the way to

Pūthapāṇḍi. A mutt (Fig. 2. 27) is located on the northern side of this village. Early

historical remains are found close to this mutt. This mutt is locally called, Pāṇḍiyar

maḍam (traveller shelters). A fish symbol found on the ceiling of this mutt. Another

mutt is found at Erachakuḷam 2 km. east of this site. It was one of the ancient trade

routes in Nañchilnāḍu. They were put up to provide refreshment and respite to

travelers more than a century ago, but they have been ravaged by time and neglected

by the local people. According to A.K. Perumal , who has penned a detailed history of

the district, the maṇḍapam could have been constructed during the period of Dharma

Rāja, the ruler of Travancore. Once he under took a pilgrimage to Rameshwaram and

was impressed by the travellers maṇḍabam on either side of the road heading towards

the holy town. According to one inscription engraved on a stone pillar found in front

of the maṇḍabam, the family of one Mādhavaṉ from Puthēri village near Nāgarkōil,

had taken the responsibility of providing buttermilk, pickle, fire wood and blankets to

the travellers during festival days. The pillar was erected in 1867 CE. Another

inscription belonging to 1878 CE speaks of similar contribution made by Saṅgu Piḷḷai

and Rāmalakshmi family of Erachakuḷam.22 Veḷḷālas, Nāḍārs, Hindu Sāmbavar and

Christian Sāmbavar are the inhabitants of this village.

Kēsavaṉēri (77˚ 27’ 09”E; 8˚17’28”N)

The village Kēsavaṉēri lies 9 km. north of Nāgarkōil. Its old name is

Kaḍukkarai. The present village name of Kēsavanēri is derived from a name of

Kēsavaṉ. Lake irrigation is the most important water source to this taluk.

Kuṟathiyarai (77˚ 26’ 55”E; 8˚ 17’ 53”N)

Kuṟathiyarai lies near Aḻakiya Pāṇḍiyapuram about 19 km. north of

Nāgarkōil on the road connecting Āralvaimoḻi and Pūthapāṇḍi. Kuṟathiyarai is

situated on the southern fringes of the foothills. The cave temple known as

Kuṟathiyarai Avvaiyārammaṉ is located on the northern side of the mountain locally

22 The Hindu, October 17, 2013.

43

called Kuṟavaṉthaṭṭupāṟai (Fig. 2. 28). It is located on the top of the hill. An image of

Piḷḷaiyār is found in front of the cave temple. Here found heaps of red ware, which

belong to the Early Historic period. This place is now known as Munūṟṟu Ravi

Niyamam. But the Mudaliyār palm leaf record of 18th century CE refers this place as

Kusathiarai. Besides, a standing statute of Perumāḷ is noticed near the cave which

serves as proofs for the ancient nature of this place. Like the Chithrāl and

Tirunandikarai cave temples, this cave might have also been dedicated to Jains during

8th century CE. This must have later converted into a Vaishnava temple during the

early Pāṇḍya times. There are two inscriptions in Vaṭṭeḻuthu script found engraved on

a rock about 600 feet away from the temple. The inscription of the 10th century CE

issued during the reign of Chōḻa king Parāntaka I refers to a donation of gold given by

one Kavisiyaṉ Sāttaṉ Sirāvaṇaṉ of Kuṉḍra-paḷḷi to Lord Perumāḷ of Muṇūṟiravi

Niyamam. This also refers to the additional tax of 7 gold paid to Sri Vaishravaṇaṉ.

Perumāḷ sculpture is found inside of Cave temple. This cave temple is founded in 8th

century C.E i.e. period of Early Pāṇḍiyas.23

Āralvāimoḻi (77˚ 31’ 32” E; 8˚ 15’ 03”N)

Āralvāimoḻi is located about 25 km. north-east of Nāgarkōil on the way to

Tirunelveli. It lies between the ancient Nāñchilnāḍu and Pāṇḍiya nāḍu. The earliest

hero stone datable to 792 CE raised for the hero Raṇakīrthi, an army general of

Pāṇḍiya king Māṟaṉcaḍaiyaṉ, who fought against the Chēra force. This hero stone

erected during the 27th regnal year of the king is presently housed in the

Padmaṉābapuram Palace Museum.24 There we found a mountain range popularly

known as ‘Podigai’ hills. The southern side of Āralvāimoḻi is Kāṭṭrāḍimalai (Fig. 2.

29) and on its west is Thāḍagaimalai. During the field study, traces of a fortification

wall is observed that runs between the foot hills of Āralvāimoḻi to Kaṉyākumari (Fig.

2. 30). This boundary wall was built by one Vēṇāḍu king Mārthāṇḍavarmaṉ and it

served as a boundary between the Pāṇḍiya and Chēra territories.25 A mutt is also

observed near the ruined great boundary wall (Fig. 2. 31). The mutt suggests that this

23 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.49-50.24 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-VI, Tamil Nadu StateDepartment of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, No;543/ 2004.25 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.41.

44

road served as trade/pilgrimage route in ancient times. There were about ten

inscriptions found at this site covering the period between 8th century CE down to the

19th century CE.

Mūvāṭṭrumukku near Paṟaḷiyāṟ (77˚ 23’ 46”E; 8˚ 23 09” N)

Mūvaṭṭrumukku is located around 20 km. north of Nāgarkōil near Paṟaḷiyār.

To the west of this village is Kāḷikēsaṉ mountain and on its south-west is Peruñchāṇi

dam and its north is Kīrippāṟai mountain and to its east is Paḷḷakuḷam. On the northern

bank of this river one can frequently find the red ware.

Kalkuḷam Taluk

Muṭṭam (77˚ 99’.2”E; 8˚07’28”N)

Muṭṭam lies at a distance of 17 km. away from Nāgarkōil on the Nāgarkōil–

Rājākkamaṅgaḷam road. This place could also be approached from Coḷachel or

Maṇḍaikāḍu. Several microlithic tools made of chert and quartz were collected

previously from this site and are presently housed in the Kaṉyākumari museum (Fig.

2. 01). Another site that yielded such microlithic tools is Sukkuppāṟai Thēriviḷai of

Agastīswaram taluk.26

Puliyūrkuṟichi (west) (77˚ 19’ 52”E; 8˚ 14’ 45”N)

Puliyūrkuṟichi is located at a distance of 3 km. from Thuckkalai on the

eastern side of the Tiruvaṇanthapuram-Nāgarkōil highway. Black-and-red ware

sherds have been found in the plantain farms, a little way to the north of this village.

This could have been placed of habitation, however the mound was totally levelled

down for the purpose of cultivation. At the time of field survey, Iron Age material

was found on the eastern side of Pathmaṉābapuram which was a capital of Travancore

kingdom. The Pathmaṉābapuram and Udhayagiri forts are strategically located

about 2 km. southwest of Puliyūrkuṟichi (Fig. 2. 32). Sri Vīra Ravivaṟma (c.1595-

1607CE), a ruler of Vēnāḍu kingdom, had built a mud fort of Udhayagiri in 1600 CE.

In 1741, Mārthāṇḍa Varmā (c.1729-1758 CE), a ruler of Travancore kingdom,

26 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.4.

45

defeated Dutch forces in Kuḷachal war. Delonoy, a lieutenant of Dutch army and the

prisoners of war, were unconditionally surrendered to Travancore kingdom. Delonoy

served in the Travancore army until his death (Fig. 2. 33). During this period,

Delonoy modernized Udhayagiri fort between c.1741 and 1744 CE.27

Udhayagiri fort near Puliyūrkuṟichi (77˚ 20’ 05”E; 8˚10’12”N)

Uthayagiri kōṭṭai (the fort of Uthayagiri) is located at the height of 250 feet

above the ground close to the village of Puliyūrkuṟichi in Kalkuḷam taluk. It is located

on the left side of Nāgarkōil – Tiruvaṇanthapuram highway at a distance of 15 km

northwest of Nāgarkōil and at a distance of 2.5 km southwest of the

Pathmaṉābapuram palace. This fort covering an area of 85 acres of land served as

one of the important strategically located forts of Kaṉyākumari region. It lies between

Nañcilnāḍu and Pāṇḍya Nāḍu. Iron Age remains were found inside of the fort.

Mūṅgilviḷai (77˚ 19’ 17”E; 8˚10’12”N

Mūṅgilviḷai is located at a distance of 13 km. south of Nāgarkōil. The

Iron Age site Veḷḷimalai is located about a km southwest of the village. The river

Vaḷḷiyār flows on its western side (Fig. 2. 34) of the village. Here, black-and-red ware

and red ware were found at the southern side of a tank. Veḷḷimalai is one of the

important urn burial sites of this region. The material remains like black-and-red ware

unearthed at Mūṅgilviḷai suggest that, this site might have been the habitation site of

Veḷḷimalai. Red and lateritic type of soil formed in this village. Coconut, banana

plantation and tapioca are important cultivation of this region.

Akkarai Thalakuḷam (77˚ 19’ 07”E; 8˚10’23”N)

Akkarai Thalakuḷam is located a little south of Thalakuḷam on the right bank

of Vaḷḷiyār at a distance of 18 km. southwest of Nāgarkōil. Vēlu Thambi, a Diwān of

Travancore kingdom, is a native of Thalakuḷam. Palace of Vēlu Thambi is one of the

historical monuments of this district (Fig. 2. 35). Recent archaeological explorations

have identified Iron Age remains near Kaḍuṅgōpathu Mahādēvar temple in Akkarai

Thalakuḷam (Fig. 2. 36). The site also yielded historical period material remains like

27 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.79.

46

red ware and roof tiles near this temple. The site lies in a very fertile zone and

cultivated to paddy, banana plantation and coconut grooves.

Veḷḷimalai (77˚ 19’ 18”E; 8˚ 10’ 23”N)

Veḷḷimalai is located at a distance of 14 km southwest of Nāgarkōil . This pre-

historic site is located on the north – western side of Veḷḷimalai. The river Vaḷḷiyār

(Fig. 2. 37) flows on the western side of Veḷḷimalai. The major villages Iraṇiyal and

Tirunayiṉārkuṟichi are located towards the north. It is one of the important Iron Age

sites of this district. It was excavated by the Travancore State Department of

Archaeology in the year 1945. The excavation yielded urn, black-and-red ware, red

ware and iron tools (Fig. 2. 38).28

Chemmaṇtēri (77˚ 18’56”E; 8˚ 08’ 09”N)

Chemmaṇtēri is located at a distance of 18 km southwest of Nāgarkōil. The

entire area is made up of ferruginous soil. The Muṭṭam port is located about 3 km

southeast of the village. Ammaṇḍiviḷai is located on the north and Veḷḷamaḍai is

located on the east while Maṇavāḷakuṟichi is located on the west. The site yielded red

ware.

Tirunayiṉārkuṟichi (77˚ 18’ 51”E; 8˚ 09’ 38”N)

Tirunayiṉārkuṟichi is located at a distance of 12 km. west of Nāgarkōil. A

little north of this black-and-red ware shreds were collected (Fig. 2. 39) close to the

temple called Karaikaṇḍīswara Mahādēvar kōil (Fig. 2. 40). This Siva temple may be

built in the 12th century CE. Inscriptions reveal the name as ‘Rāja Rāja Theṉṇāṭṭu

Kuṟunāṭṭu Kaḍigai Paṭṭiṇam”. The God is referred to as “Karaikaṇḍīswara

Mahādēvar”. Inscription of 12-13th century CE refers to a grant made by one Ādichaṉ

Kōthai for gardening, lightening the perpetual lamp and for daily worships.29 The

inscription issued during 1163 CE refers to a grant of paddy given by Sivaṉukiṉiyāṉ

of Perumpaṟṟa Puliyūr for holy bathing, holy procession and also enacting dramas

28 A.K. Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai (History of Kanyakumari District), United Writers, Chennai,2003, p. 22.29 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1979, No;1969/ 38.

47

during the Chithirai festival. The Perumpaṟṟa Puliyūr is the famous holy town

Chiḍambaram, which suggests that the donor extended this grant from Chidambaram.

In 1500 CE, Kēralaṉ Kuṉḍraṉ constructed the altar and has donated two nāḻi

of paddy to the God Kūttāḍun-tēvar. In 1432, Vetai-aṟaicaṭaiyāṉ-tivākaraṉ alias

Chōla–Kērala Paḷḷavarāiyaṉ renovated this temple and performed kumbābishēgam. In

1706, Sivanukiṉiyar of Perumpaṭṭra Puliyūr mentioned above built a sōbāṉa-

maṇḍapam in this temple and purified the kalasa by holy water and donated land at

Sāthuviḷai and Malayām-viḷai for daily worship. Another inscription of 1755 CE

refers to the land donation given by Perumāḷ of Paḷḷichal for Tirunayinār-kuṟichi

Arasaraḍi Piḷḷaiyār temple. Another inscription issued during 986 of Kollam era (1811

CE) refers to a land grant given to one Pirāṭṭi-Muttukaruppaṉ by Aṇañcaperumāḷ-

Nilamappiḷḷai to carry out the dharma of providing fire, lime (cuṇṇāmpu) and hot

water.30

Puliyūrkuṟichi (North) (77˚ 19’ 51”E; 8˚ 14’ 35”N)

Puliyūrkuṟichi (north) is located at a distance of 14 km away from Nāgarkōil

and about 2 km southeast of Pathmaṉābapuram on the Nāgarkōil -

Tiruvaṉanthapuram high way. A cattiram lies on the main road close to Aḻagar

ammaṉ temple which is in a dilapidated condition.

Pāṟaikkāviḷai (77˚ 19’20” E; 8˚ 11’35”N)

Pāṟaikkāviḷai near Paḷḷampālam is located at a distance of 13 km west of

Nāgarkōil. Veḷḷimalai lies about 7 km. on its north. During the field work carried out

in this village red ware sherds were collected a little east of Paḷḷampālam.

Kēraḷapuram (77˚ 18’ 32”E; 8˚ 14’ 43”N)

Kēraḷapuram is situated in Kalkuḷam taluk 2 km. west of Padmaṉābhapuram.

Red ware is collected on the eastern side of Siva temple in a cultivated land. An

inscription issued in 1192 CE refers to the establishment of this village and also

construction of a Siva temple by one Vīrakēraḷa Varmaṉ of Vēṇāḍu chieftain. Another

inscription of 1315 CE issued during the reign of Sri-Vīra-Uthayamārthaṇḍaṉ of

30 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.62-63.

48

Vēṇaḍu chieftain referred to this village as “Pālakkōḍu-tēsam-muttalai-k-kuṟichi-Sri-

Vīra-Kēraḷachuram”. But the inscription of 1607 CE issued during the region of

Vēṇādu king Sri-Kulasēkara-perumāḷ referred to this village as “Ceṅkaḻunīr-

vaḷanāṭṭu-muttaḷa-k-kuṟichi-Sri-Vīrakēraḷa-īswaram.31 The present name Kēraḷapuram

is being used since 17th century.

The main deity of the Siva temple is known as Sri-Vīrakēraḷacchurattu-

mādēvar (Fig. 2. 41). Sri Vīra-Ravi-Varmaṉ alias Kulasēkarapperumāḷ renovated the

temple in 1607 CE and also built nālampalam, maṭappaḷḷi, rishapa-maṇḍapam.

Further, he constructed the vimāṉam with bricks. The portrait sculpture of this king is

in the southwest corner of Rishaba-Maṇḍapam. This statue was made by Nīlammai-

kuṭṭi and Māthammai, a daughter of Īchchammai-kuṭti. The portrait sculpture of

Vēṇāḍu king Vīrakēraḷa-varmaṉ-III is also noticed in the northwest corner of the

mandapa. This sculpture was established by the accountant of this temple Aiyaṉ of

Pārakōṭṭu dēsam. Sculpture of Rāmā and Lakshmaṇa are carved in two pillars. The

village name Vīrakēraḷapuram is derived from name of Vēnāḍu king Vērakēraḷaṉ.

This village is the birth place of Ravi-kuṭṭi-piḷḷai, a lieutenant of Vēnāḍu chieftain,

who lost his life in the war fought against Tirumalai Nāyakar at Kaṇiyākuḷam. There

is a ballot after his name known as “Ravi-kuṭṭi-piḷḷai-pōr”32.

Viḷavaṅkōḍu Taluk

Chitharāl near (77˚ 14’ 19”E; 8˚ 19’ 55”N)

Chitharāl is a village situated at the foot hill of Tiruchāraṇathu malai near

Arumaṉai about 6.5 km. to northeast of Kuḻithuṟai. A Neolithic Celt measuring 10 cm

in length and 5 cm in breadth was discovered on the western bank of Kuḻithuṟai river

(Fig. 2. 03).

On the top of Tiruchāraṇathumalai, there is a natural cave formed by an

overhanging rock resting one upon another. It was a Jain temple with three garbha

griha adorned with three principle Jain deities namely Padmāvathi, Mahavir and

Pārsuvanāthar. The centre cell had a superstructure built of brick and mortar. Mahavir

31 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/ 21-22.32Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.50-51.

49

seated in a padmāsaṉa posture with diyāṉamudra under a mukuḍai on a Simha-piḍa.

The chauri bearers were shown on either side. The Pārsvanāthar is shown under

snake-hood. The cave has a 16 pillared-maṇḍapa, a mukha-maṇḍapa, an altar and a

kitchen (Fig. 2. 42). The dvārapālakas were shown at the entrance. There are several

sculptures adorned the pillars. Six pillars hold the mukha-maṇḍapa. Tiruchchāraṇaṭṭu-

malai is the hill sacred to the Jaina ascetics or these people were lived in large

numbers and was an important Jaina settlement in the ancient times. The place seems

to have been famous in earlier times so as to attract Jainas from such distant places

like Tirunaruṅkoṇḍai in the Tirukkōyilūr taluk of the South Arcot district, Kudavāsal

in the Tañjavūr district and Kaḻugumalai in the Thūthukuḍi district. An inscription

written in vaṭṭeḻuṭṭu characters and in the Tamil language issued during the 28th year

of the Āyi king Vikramāditya Varaguṇa of Vēṇāḍu records that Gunandāṅgi –

Kuraṭṭigal, the disciple of Ariṭṭanēmi bhaṭṭara of Pērāyakuḍi gave some gold

ornaments to the Bhatāriyar of the Tiruchchāraṇaṭṭu–malai.33

This cave temple was converted into a Bagavathi Amman temple during 14th

century CE (Fig. 2. 43). At present, the temple is worshipped by the Hindus which

they believe it as the temple of Bhagavathi and a Tamil-brahmana is doing the daily

rituals. An inscription engraved during 420 of Kollam era (1245 CE) on the rock

located on the southern side of the temple states that one Nārāyaṇaṉ-Tamil-

Paḷḷavarāiyaṉ of Rājavaḷḷapuram in the Kīḻ–ēmbānāḍu gave some money for expenses

of the temple of the Bhagavati at Tiruchchaṉam.34

Maṅkāḍu (77˚ 10’ 05”E; 8˚ 17’ 35”N)

Maṅkāḍu is situated at a distance of about 9 km. south of Mārthāṇḍam

on the right bank of river Kōthaiyār (another name of the river is Tāmiraparaṇi) and

the village Muñchiṟai lies on the opposite bank. Vāvarai village lies on the west and

both Kaḷiyakkā-viḷai and Nithirai-viḷai lies on the north of Maṅkāḍu. Urns, black-and-

red ware and red ware were collected within the present settlement which belongs to

the Iron Age period (Fig. 2. 44).

33 T.A. Gopinatha Rao, Travancore Archaeological Series, vol.I, No. XII, Department of CulturalPublication, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, 1988, pp..283-84.34Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.56.

50

Rāviḷai (77˚ 11’ 52”E; 8˚ 19’ 48.8”N)

Rāviḷai is located at a distance of 5 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam. While Kaippiri

is on the west, Kōkkuḍi is on the east, Theṅguviḷai on the north and Kakkōṭṭu-viḷai on

the south of this village. Black-and-red ware were collected at this village.

Kōkkuḍi (77˚ 11’ 95”E; 8˚ 19’ 53”N)

Kōkkuḍi near Rāviḷai is located at a distance of 5 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam.

Nestled between the boundaries of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The village of Rāviḷai,

Maḍathu-viḷai, Kakkōṭṭu-viḷai and Tiruthuvapuram are located respectively on the

east, west, north and south of this village. Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk is mostly formed with

red and literate type of soil. Black-and-red ware (Fig. 2. 45) were collected at this

village.

Theṅgu-viḷai (77˚ 11’ 57”E; 8˚ 19’ 56”N)

Theṅgu-viḷai is located at a distance of 7 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam. The village

is surrounded by the villages Kaippiri on the east, Maruthaṅkōḍu is on the west,

Kōṇam in the north and Puḷḷuviḷai on the south. During the field work, black-and-red

ware were collected at this site (Fig. 2. 46). Interestingly, the villages having a prefix

Maruthaṅ-kōḍu are mostly belongs to Iron Age site. For instance, the villages such as

Maruthaṅkōḍu Maḍathu-viḷai, Maruthaṅkōḍu Koṭṭrachi-viḷai, and Maruthaṅkōḍu

Paḷḷichal viḷai could be cited. Of the 59 archaeological sites discovered in this district,

nearly 26 sites come from the taluk of Viḷavaṅkōḍu.

Kōṇam (77˚ 12’ 00”E; 8˚19’ 59”N)

Kōṇam is located at a distance of 7 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam. The villages

Kaippiri, Kōkkuḍi, Theṅguviḷai and Kakkōṭṭu-viḷai are situated on the west, east,

north and south of this village respectively. During the field work, broken urns and

black-and-red ware were identified on the surface of land (Fig. 2. 47).

Maruthaṅkōḍu Koṭṭrachi-viḷai (77˚ 12’ 14”E; 8˚ 20’ 02”N)

Maruthaṅkōḍu Koṭṭrachiviḷai is located at a distance of 7 km west of

Mārthāṇḍam. This area is mostly covered with forest and formation of red and

literate type of soils. At present major areas are cultivated with teak and rubber

51

plantation. Here broken urn pots, black-and-red ware and red ware were collected

(Fig. 2. 48).

Maruthaṅkōḍu Paḷḷichalviḷai (77˚ 11’ 41”E; 8˚ 20’ 02”N)

The Maruthaṅkōḍu Paḷḷichalviḷai is situated at a distance of 8 km west of

Mārthāṇḍam. The Kuḻithuṟai river (Fig. 2.49) flows on the east. The villages

Miḍaisalviḷai lies on the west, Maruthaṅkōḍu on the north and Thiruthuvapuram on

the south. At the time of field work, Iron Age materials like black-and-red ware were

found in this village (Fig. 2. 50). Nāḍār and Christian Sāmbavar (Scheduled Caste)

communities are the present inhabitants of the village.

Karachiviḷai (77˚ 11’ 02”E; 8˚ 18’ 18”N)

Karachiviḷai is located at a distance of 8 km west of Mārthāṇḍam. Present

archaeological exploration has yielded many broken black-and-red ware and red ware

pottery. Several miniature pots were also collected at this site. These were collected

from the ancient habitation mound which is being converted into a present day brick-

chambers (Fig. 2. 51). The river Kuḻithuṟai flows close to this site (Fig. 2. 52).

Kaṉiyaṉviḷai (77˚ 10’ 32”E; 8˚ 19’ 11”N)

Kaṉiyaṉviḷai is located at a distance of 3 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam at the

boundaries of Kēraḷa and Tamil Nadu. This village is surrounded by Ātheṅkōḍu in the

east, Muṉivaṟthōṭṭam (Kēraḷa region) in the west, Mañjaṅkuḻi in the north and

Kaḷiyakkāviḷai in the south. At the time of field work, urns were identified in a

disturbed condition in this village (Fig. 2. 53). The graveyard covers an area of one

km radius engulfing all the above said villages.

Kuraṇḍiviḷai (77˚ 10’ 41”E; 8˚ 18’ 34”N)

Kuraṇḍiviḷai is located at a distance of 5 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam.

While Kōkkuḍi lies on the east, Kaṉiyaṉviḷai lies on the west, Pāñjiviḷai on the north

and Muñchiṟai on the south. At the time of field work, urns were identified in a

disturbed condition in this village. The graveyard covers an area of one km radius

engulfing all the above said villages.

52

Viṇṉūr Paḻañji (77˚ 10’41”E; 8˚19’11”N)

Viṇṉūr Paḻañji is situated at a distance of 5 km. north-west of Mārthāṇḍam. It

is one of the Iron Age sites of this taluk yielding broken urns, black-and-red ware and

red ware.

Maruthaṅkōḍu Maḍathuviḷai (77˚12’07”E; 8˚20’08”N)

Maruthaṅkōḍu Maḍathuviḷai is located at a distance of 6 km. west of

Mārthāṇḍam. The villages of Ālam-pāṟai, Illuppaviḷai, Paṉaiviḷai and Kaḻuvaṉthiṭṭu

lies on the east, west, north and south of this village respectively. It is one of the Iron

Age sites of this region and several broken pieces of urns were collected during the

survey (Fig. 2. 54).

Kaḻuvaṉthiṭṭu (77˚12’22”E; 8˚19’31”N)

Kaḻuvaṉthiṭṭu is situated at a distance of 6 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam.

Kaḻuvaṉthiṭṭu is located on the eastern river bank of Kuḻithuṟai. During the field work,

broken urns and red ware were found (Fig. 2. 55). Christian Sāmbavar are the main

inhabitants of this village.

Kaipiri (77˚19’ 49”E; 8˚ 19’ 49”N)

Kipper is situated at a distance of 6 km. west of Mārthāṇḍam. It is one of the

Iron Age sites of this region and several broken pieces of urns were collected during

the survey. This area is mostly formed with red and laterite soil.

Thūthūr (77˚08’30”E; 8˚15’43”N)

Thūthūr is located near the sea coast at a distance of 20 km. west of

Mārthāṇḍam. While the villages of Puthaṉthuṟai and Chiṉṉathuṟai are located towards

the south of Thūthūr whereas the Nithiraviḷai is located on the north. A handmade

coarse earthen jar and other relics were found near Thūthūr village in the district. The

shape, fabric and the decoration indicate that they are probably of the megalithic or

53

early historic period.35 It is one of the Iron Age sites of this region and several broken

pieces of urns were collected during the survey.

Paḍanthālumōḍu (77˚10’43”E; 8˚19’15”N)

Paḍanthālumōḍu is located at a distance of 8 km northwest of Mārthāṇḍam. It

is one of the Iron Age sites of this region and several broken pieces of urns were

collected during the survey.

Theṅgam Vilañji (77˚ 10’ 41”E; 8˚18’50”N)

Theṅgam Vilañji is situated at a distance of 7 km. north of Mārthāṇḍam. The

village of Pāñjiviḷai, Āthuviḷai, Mañjaṅkuḻi and Paḻañjiviḷai are located on the east,

west, north and south of this village respectively. It is one of the Iron Age sites of this

region and several broken pieces of urns were collected during the survey.

Kōkkuḍiviḷai (77”11’05”E; 8˚18’34.5”N)

Kōkkuḍiviḷai near Ātheṅkōḍu is located at a distance of 5 km. north-west of

Mārthāṇḍam. The Kuḻithuṟai river otherwise known as Thāmirabaraṉi flows on the

east, Viḷavaṅkōḍu (the taluk head quarter) lies on the west, Paḍanthālumōḍu on the

north and Ātheṅkōḍu on the south. It is one of the urn burial sites of this region.

Presently, the site is used as a burial ground of this village. Black-and-red ware,

broken urns and red ware were identified (Fig. 2. 56).

Sūḻāl (77˚07’44”E; 8˚18’56”N)

Sūḻāl is located at a distance of 15 km. south-west of Mārthāṇḍam.

Kuḻithuṟai, Saṅguriṭṭi, Kollaṅkōḍu and Viriyakuḷam are located on the east, west,

south and north of this village respectively. Here, broken pieces of urns and red ware

were identified (Fig. 2. 57).

Vāvarai (77˚09’44”E; 8˚17’31”N)

Vāvarai is situated at a distance of 12 km west of Mārthāṇḍam. Maṅkāḍu lies

on its south and Kaḷiyakkāviḷai on its north. It is one of the Iron Age sites of this

region and several broken pieces of urns were collected during the survey.

35 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.),Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State –Kanyakumari District, Governmentof Tamil Nadu, Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Chennai, 1995, p.50.

54

Muñchiṟai (77˚10’15”E; 8˚17’16”N)

Muñchiṟai is located at a distance of 7 km south of Mārthāṇḍam. Kuḻithuṟai

river flows on its east. It is an Iron Age site where broken pieces of urn and red ware

were found (Fig. 2. 58). The copper plates issued by the Āyi king

Kōkkarunandhaḍakkaṉ (864-865 CE) refers to construction of Perumāḷ temple after

the creation of Pārtivakēsavapuram close to Muñciṟai. The Siva temple located on the

top of the hill probably is built in 11th century CE during the reign of Chōḻas. An

inscription of 11th century CE refers this village as Muñciṟai and the God as

Tirumāmalai Mēlpaṭṭārar. Another inscription engraved in the inner prakāra wall

refers to the grant made by one Vīrakēraḷa-Marthāṇḍavarmaṉ of Kīḻa-p-pērūr in the

year 610 of Kollam era (1434 CE).36

Kāppukkāḍu (77˚12’ 03”E; 8˚17’44”N)

Kāppukkāḍu is located at a distance of 4 km. south of Mārthāṇḍam. While

Piṉpāthiri viḷai lies on the east and Veṭṭumaṇi is on the west. It is one of the Iron Age

sites of this region and several broken pieces of the urns were collected on southern

side of the village during the survey.

Maruthaṅkōḍu Illuppaviḷai (77˚12’2”E; 8˚20’08”N)

Maruthaṅkōḍu Illuppaviḷai is located at a distance of 6 km. west of

Mārthāṇḍam. The village of Kōkkuḍi lies on its east, Viḷavaṅkōḍu on its west,

Chemmaṇkalai on the south and Arumaṉai on its north. Red ware belongs to early

historical period were collected at this village.

Summary

As a result of field study carried out in the past and during my own field work,

the material remains of Microlithic, Neolithic and Iron Age have been found in all the

four taluks of Kaṉyākumari district (Map 3). The geo-coordinates of each site are

marked using Global Positioning System. The remnants of the historical vestiges have

been located at 59 sites in all the four taluks such as Viḷavaṅkōḍu (26), Thōvālai (16),

Kalkuḷam (11) and Agastīswaram (6). These Iron Age sites are being occupied by the

36Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.83.

55

subsequent periods till date. Several inscriptions were copied from the temple walls,

rock surfaces and on loose slabs. The following are the list of villages where the

inscriptions are being copied and identified:

Agastīswaram Taluks

1. Vaḍugaṉpaṟṟu

2. Kariyamāṇikkapuram

Thōvālai Taluk

1. Arumanallūr

2. Aṉumakēthaṉanallūr

3. Kuṟaṇḍi

4. Thāḻakuḍi (West)

5. Vīravanallūr

6. Ādhichaṉpudūr (Near Avvaiyār Ammaṉ Kōiḷ )

7. Kuṟathiyarai

8. Āralvāimoḻi

Kalkuḷam Taluk

1. Akkarai Thalakuḷam

2. Tirunayiṉārkuṟichi

3. Kēraḷapuram

ViḷavaṅkōḍuTaluk

1. Chitharāl near Tiruchāranathu Malai

2. Muñchiṟai

Fig. 2.01 Muṭṭam: Microlithic tools Fig. 2. 02 Sukkuppāṟai-thēri-viḷai

Fig.2. 03 Chitharāl : Neolithic Celt Fig. 2. 04 Sūryamēḍu : Habitation site

Fig. 2. 05 Sukkup-pāṟai- thēri-viḷai : Potsherds Fig. 2. 06 Vaḍakku-kaṇṇaṅ kuḷam : Urn

Fig. 2. 06 Vaḍakku-kaṇṇaṅ-kuḷam : Rim of Urn Fig. 2. 07 Vaḍugaṉ-paṟṟu :Agastīswarar temple

Fig. 2. 08 Vaḍugaṉ-paṟṟu : Fig.2. 09 Vaḍugaṉ-paṟṟu : Urn remains

Sri Aḻakiyamaṇavāḷa-perumāḷ temple

Fig.2. 09 Vaḍugaṉ-paṟṟu : Urn remains Fig. 2. 10 Theṟkku-kaṇṇaṅ-kuḷam : Potsherds

Fig. 2. 11 Kuraṇḍi: Kōraktha-nāther Temple Fig. 2. 12 Kuraṇḍi : Habitation site

Fig. 2. 12 Kuraṇḍi : Habitation site Fig. 2. 13 Aruma-nallūr-sāsthā Temple

Fig. 2. 13 Aruma-nallūr : Brahmin settlement Fig. 2. 14 Aruma-nallūr : Ananthanār canal

Fig. 2. 15 Aruma-nallūr : Habitation Site Fig. 2. 16 Aṉumakēthaṉa-nallūr- Habitation Site

Fig. 2. 17 Thāḻakuḍi (West) : Habitation site Fig. 2. 17a Thaḻakuḍi (West) : Habitation site

Fig.2.18 Thāḻakuḍi: Siva and Vishnu Temple Fig. 2.19 Chīdappāl :Kōthīswara-muḍayanayiṉār Temple

Fig. 2. 20 Chīdappāl : Habitation mound Fig. 2. 21 Pūlāṅkuḻi : Broken Urn pottery

Fig. 2. 23 River of Pālāru Fig. 2. 22 Vērava-nallūr Ruin Temple

Fig. 2. 23 Ādhichaṉ-pudūr Temple Fig. 2. 24.Jaḍaya-puram : Jaḍayappar temple

Fig. 2. 25 River Paṟaḻiyāru Fig. 2.26 Kīrippārai Mountain

Fig. 2. 27 Pāṟaiyaḍi : Pāṇḍyarmaḍam Fig. 2.28 Kurathiyarai : Auvaiyār-ammaṉ cave

Fig. 2. 29 Āralvāimoḻi : Kāṭṟāḍi-malai mountain Fig. 2. 30 Āralvāimoḻi - Ancient compound wall

Fig. 2. 31 A mutt located between Sucīndram to Fig. 2. 32 Pathmaṇābapuram PalaceKaṉyākumari

Fig. 2. 33 Lt. Delonoy and his family burials Fig. 2. 34 Mūṅgilviḷaiat Uthayagiri fort

Fig. 2. 35 Diwan Velu Thambi Palace Fig. 2. 35 Diwan VeluThambi: Statue

Fig. 2. 36 Akkarai-thalakuḷam : Kaḍuṅgōpathu Fig. 2. 37 River VaḷḷiyāruMahādēvar Temple

Fig. 2. 38 Veḷḷimalai : Black and Red ware Fig. 2. 38 Veḷḷimalai : Broken urn

Fig. 2. 38 Veḷḷimalai : Black ware Fig. 2. 38 Veḷḷimalai : Iron age site

Fig. 2. 39 Tirunayiṉār-kuṟichi : Habitation Fig. 2. 39 Tirunayiṉār-kuṟichi : Habitation

Fig. 2. 40 Tirunayiṉār-kuṟichi: Karaikaṇḍīswarar Fig. 2. 41 Kēraḷa-puram Sri Vīrakēraḷa-MādēvarTemple

Fig. 2. 41 Kēraḷa-puram : God Vishnu paints Fig. 2. 42 Chitharāl : Jain Temple

Fig. 2. 43 Chitharāl : Jain Tirthaṅkarās and Fig. 2. 44 Maṅkāḍu : Iron Age SiteGoddess Padmāvadi

Fig. 2. 45 Kōkkuḍi (Near Rāviḷai) : Urn burial site Fig. 2. 46 Theṅguviḷai : Broken Urn

Fig. 2. 47 Kōṇam : Broken Urn Fig. 2. 48 Maruthaṅkōḍu: Koṭṭrachiviḷai

Fig. 2. 49 River Kuḻithuṟai Fig. 2.50 Maruthaṅkōḍu-Paḷḷichalviḷai: Broken Urn

Fig. 2. 51 Karachiviḷai - Habitation Fig. 2. 52 Karachiviḷai : Habitation

Fig. 2. 53 Kaṉiyaṉ-viḷai - Broken Urn Fig.2.54 Maruthaṅkōḍu-Maḍathu-viḷai : Broken Urn

Fig. 2. 55 Kaḻuvaṉ-thiṭṭu: Broken Urn Fig. 2.56 Kōkkuḍi-viḷai (Near Ātheṅkōḍu) :Broken Urn

Fig. 2. 57 Sūḻāl: Broken Urn Fig. 2. 58 Muñchiṟai : Black and Red ware

56

CHAPTER – III

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF KAṈYĀKUMARI REGION

Understanding the historical background of a region is important as it provides

several clues to understand the transformation that had taken place in different social

and economic spheres. The efforts of individual rulers and collective initiation of

different social groups or communities played a crucial role in this process. The ruler

or a state took various welfare measures like digging canals and tanks and

administrative reforms like the reorganization of territorial divisions, tax reforms, etc.,

to meet the demand of the people or to meet the requirement of the state. One has to

study these initiations in a chronological order by taking the experience of the past.

Therefore, it is imperative to understand the basic political structure of the region.

Unlike other regions, this region did not provide any inscription of Early Historic

times. Most of the inscriptions belong to the medieval period. However, the available

literary source, particularly the Saṅgam literature, helps some extent to reconstruct the

political line of the Early Historic times (Map 4).

Historically, this region has constituted as a distinctly separate unit and it is

socially and culturally different from the rest of Travancore, though in major part of

history, it was under the control of the rulers of Travancore. The region with greater

amount of agricultural production is popularly known as Nāñchilnāḍu and it played an

important role in the history of south India, for almost all the leading dynasties of

South India have been associated with Nāñcilnāḍu.

As early as the period of the Saṅgam Age and for several centuries succeeding

it, Nāñcilnāḍu formed the cockpit of South India. Historically, this region was ruled

by powerful kingdoms and chieftains of Āyi, Pāṇḍya, Chōḻas, Chēras and Vēṇāḍu

dynasties, later under the Vijayanagar generals, Nāyak chieftains of Madurai and

Travancore samasthāṉam. All the rulers paid a greater attention to this region due its

fertility. Thus, Nāñcilnāḍu can be rightly described as the „cockpit of the South‟.1

1 K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference to Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, p.474.

57

Travancore rulers continued as a Princely state even during the British period and the

ancient customs and manners, social and cultural practices, the agrarian economy and

land holding pattern have survived distinctly in the Travancore samasthāṇam till

recently.

Āyi Chieftains

The earliest known rulers of this region belonged to the Āyi dynasty. They

were considered as one of the vēḷir clans. There are claims that the term „Hida Raja‟

mentioned in the Asokan rock edicts II and XIV refers to these clan groups. They

consider that the term „Hida‟ is the variation of „iḍa‟ or „iḍaia‟ a synonym of

„āyar‟which takes its singular form as „Āyi‟. Thus, this interpretation takes the

antiquity of the „Āyi‟ back to 250 BCE and possibly still earlier.2 However, this

identification is yet to be confirmed with material evidences. The rulers of Āyi

dynasty are generally associated with a region in and around Pothiyil. The early

historians and Greek geographers make reference to this region particularly the Cape

Comari (Kaṉyākumari). The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea refers to the region

extending from Nelcynda to Kaṉyākumari being ruled by the Pāṇḍyas. The Greek

geographer Ptolemy (140 CE) says that one „Aioi‟ was ruling in the country which

included Cape Comorin and mount Bettigo. Āyi seems to have been a dynastic name

borne by all the kings of the line as a prefix to their personal names.3 Āyis were the

vassals to the Pāṇḍyas during the period of Periplus and only later, they would have

asserted their independence. During the period of Ptolemy Nāñcilnāḍu as was seen

remained as a buffer state between the Chēras and the Pāṇḍyas.4 The Āyi rulers had

come into prominence even before the Chēras established themselves as the dominant

political power in Kēraḷa. The Saṅgam works refer to three important Āyi rulers, viz.,

Āyi Aṇṭiraṉ, Tiṭiyaṉ, and Atiyaṉ. They had their capital at Āyikuḍi in the Podiyil

mountain.5 Āyi rulers were agrarian based chieftains and considered as the chief of

2 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.54. 3 K.A.Nilakanda Sastri, A History of South India – From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar,

Oxford University press, New Delhi,1975, pp.109-10. 4 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.54. 5 A.Sreedharan Menon, A Survey of Kēraḷa History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, pp.70-

71.

58

the Podiyil hills. Āyi was also one of the seven philanthropists of Sangam Age like

Pāri, Añji, Kāri, Ōri, Nalli and Pēkaṉ6 and there were celebrated for their generosity.

I. Āyi Aṇḍiraṉ

The Saṅgam Age poets like Muḍamōsiyar of Enessēri, Uṟiayūr (Puṟanāṉūṟu

374), Kuṭṭuvaṉ Kīraṉār (Puṟanāṉūṟu 240), Oḍaikiḻar of Tuṟaiyūr (Puṟanāṉūṟu 136)

and Karikaṇṇar (Naṟṟiṇai 237) refer this ruler.7 The discovery of the Huzur office

Plates and the stone inscription at Kaḻugumalai issued during the reign of

Mārañjaḍaiyaṉ (765-815 CE) mentions a king of this dynasty, and the Pāliyam plates

yield some names of the kings of the Āyi–Kula. Probably, the earliest known Āyi

ruler was the one Āyi–Aṇḍiraṉ. He was a subordinate chieftain ruling over the

mountain tracts of Southern Travancore with Āyikuḍi as his capital. He was also

considered as the lord of the Podiyil mountain. The Āyis were basically an agrarian

community (veḷḷāḷas) occupying the higher social order, that of the over lords of the

farmers of the soil. Aṇḍiraṉ was one of the seven great philanthropists praised in the

later Tamil literature. He is said to enrich poets and other learned men with money

and other valuables and elephants. He is also described as having won a victory over

the king of the Koṅgu country.8

According to Puranāṉūṟu, Aṇṭiraṉ was a Saivite by faith and he worshipped

Siva “seated underneath the banyan tree” (Dakshiṇāmūrthi). He practiced polygamy

and all his wives committed sati (Puṟanāṉūṟu 240). The influx of greater tradition or

brahminical rituals suggests that he might have ruled this in the later part of the Early

Historic period. The Chēras became a prominent power in Kēraḷa only after the period

of Aṇḍiraṉ and hence the latter was probably even more powerful than the Chēras.9

Irrespective of the identification, there is a another Āyi dynasty ruled close to

Paḻaṉi hills, in the southeastern part of Koṅgu country. Some of the descriptions

found in Saṅgam literature allude to the ruler of Paḻaṉi hills.

6 K.S.Ramasamy Sastri, The Tamils, The People, Their History and Culture, vol-I, (An Introduction to

Tamil History and Society), Cosmo publication, New Delhi, 2002, p.48. 7 K.N.Sivaraja Pillai, the Chronology of the Early Tamils, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi,

1984, see Synchronistic table. 8 T.A.Gopinatha Rao (ed.), Travancore Archaeological Series, vol-I, Department of Cultural

Publications Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, 1988, p.17. 9 A.Sreedharan Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.114.

59

Titiyaṉ – I

Titiyaṉ – I described in the Akanāṉūru as „Podiyil selvaṉ” was the next

important Āyi king. K.N. Sivaraja Pillai considers Titiyaṉ-I as the successor to Āyi

Aṇḍiraṉ.10

The great poets Kapiḷar and Paraṇar and the poet king Bhūtapāṇḍyaṉ of the

Pāṇḍya kingdom were his contemporaries. We have no reliable evidence of any

conflict between the Pāṇḍyas and the Āyi rulers during this period, but an

understanding seems to have been reached between the two kings, fixing Bhūtapāṇḍi

as the southern limit of the Pāṇḍyaṉ kingdom.11

Bhūtapāṇḍi is located in Thōvāḷai

taluk and it lies 12 km west of Nāgarkōil. According to the tradition, this village was

founded by Ollaiyūrthantha Bhūtapāṇḍyaṉ. An inscription datable to 16-17th

century

found on the walls of the Bhūtaliṅga Swāmy temple refers this village as Nāñchil-

nāṭṭu Bhūtapāṇḍi. The sanctum sanctorum of a Bhūḍaliṅga Swāmy temple dedicated

to Shiva looks like a cave temple, probably constructed by the early Pāṇḍya king in 8-

9th

century CE.12

Āyi Atiyaṉ

Atiyaṉ is the next important Āyi ruler and successor of Titiyaṉ-I. Under him

the Āyi kingdom began to disintegrate. The Pāṇḍiyaṉ warrior-king Pasumpuṉ

Pāṇḍyaṉ (Aḻakiya Pāṇḍyaṉ) is said to have invaded the Āyi kingdom and subjugated

Atiyaṉ. Paraṇar has described this fight in the Akanāṉūṟu.13

An epigraphical record

of Veṅgaṭachalapathi temple in Aḻakiya Pāṇḍyapuram mentions this village was once

called as Nāñchil-nāṭṭu Atiyaṉūr otherwise known as Aḻakiya Pāṇḍiyapuram in CE.

1076. It seems the older name Atiyaṉūr was transformed later into Aḻakiya

Pāṇḍiyapuram,14

a flourishing village in Thōvāḷai taluk.

10

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.55. 11

V.Gurunathan, Saṅgakāla Arasa Varalāṟu, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2001, p.269. 12

Seetharam Gurumurthi, Kaṉyākumari Mavatta Kaiyedu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.80. 13

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Tamiḻ Nāḍu Māvaṭṭa Vivara Chuvaḍgaḷ- Kaṉyākumari Mavattam, Tamil

Nadu Archives, Chennai, 2006, p.66. 14

R, Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-V, Department of Archaeology, Chennai, 1979,

serial no;1969/12.

60

Āyi Titiyaṉ-II

Titiyaṉ-II, the successors of Atiyaṉ, fought heroically against the Pāṇḍyas to

regain their lost territory and supremacy. During this period, the Āyi king took part in

the battle of Talaiyālaṅkāṉam, in which the Pāṇḍya king Neḍuñcheḻiyaṉ-III defeated

seven contemporary south Indian rulers. Nakkīrar has described this fight in the

Akanānūṟu . It seems, the Āyi kings were able to recover their lost territory of central

and southern Travancore from the Pāṇḍyas but they never regained their old position

of prominence.15

As a result of this battle, the fertile zone of Pothiyil was fragmented

into petty chieftaincies. Eḻiṉi Ātaṉ of Vaṭṭāṟu and Vaḷḷuvaṉ Kandaṉ of Nāñchilnāḍu

emerged in this scenario.

K.K. Piḷḷai is of the view that there is a gap in the history of Āyis after Titiyaṉ-

I (Pothyil Selvaṉ). After they were subjugated by the Pāṉḍiyas, the Āyi dynasty was

reemerged only in the 8th century CE. It is likely that during the intervening period,

the Āyis had been reduced to the position of local chieftains by the Chēras in the

north. The fact, that the Āyis of the 8th

century CE were referred as the rulers of the

Kuṟu Nāḍu (the area surrounding Tiruviḍaikkōḍu), indicating that they had no place

in the Pothiyil hills.16

Nāñchil Porunaṉ (150- 175 CE)

Nāñchil Porunaṉ, also called as Nāñchil Vaḷḷuvaṉ-kandaṉ, ruled over the

Nāñchil hills and the adjoining region. He was a chieftain in the Pāṇḍiya army. The

Saṅgam Age poets like Ciraipperiyaṉār (Puranāṉūṟu 137), Marutaṉ Iḷanākaṉār

(Puranāṉūṟu 138, 139), Avvaiyār (Puranāṉūṟu 140) and Karuvūr-k-katappiḷḷai

(Puranāṉūṟu 380)17

composed poems in honour of this ruler.

The date of Nāñchil Porunaṉ is fixed as the 3rd

century CE and more

particularly the later half. But, according to the synchronistic tables of K.N. Sivaraja

Piḷḷai, the period of Nāñchil Porunaṉ is dated between 150 and 175 CE. He belonged

to the Vaḷḷuva caste, generally identified with the priestly class of the Paṟaiāh

15

A.Sreedharan Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.115. 16

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.57. 17

C. Balasubramanian, A Study of the Literature of the Chera country (Upto 11th

century CE),

University of Madras, Madras, 1980, p.287.

61

community and that the designation „Maṟava‟ signified only a military distinction.18

The name of Nāñchilnāḍu derived from Nāñchil hill where the chief of the area had

his headquarters. The chief was known as Nāñchil Vaḷḷuvaṉ (Puranāṉūṟu 137, 139,

140; 380).19

Nāñchilnāḍu is in Thōvāḷai and Agasthīswaram taluks of present

Kaṉyākumari district and it had never been a part of Malaināḍu. It was part of

Pāṇḍiyaṉ kingdom till its annexation to Vēṇāḍu in CE. 1120.20

This region has an area

of about 210 square miles. It is the granary of south Travancore and the leading ryots

south of the capital own considerable areas of paddy lands.21

Apparently irrigation

facilities were provided by Pāṇḍyaṉ rulers like Aḻakiya Pāṇḍyaṉ and Bhūthapāṇḍyaṉ.

A dam was built across the Paṟaḷiār, a branch of Kuḻithuṟa river. Water was diverted

from the dam through a canal which was known as Pāṇḍyaṉ-kāl till recently.

Nāñchil Vaḷḷuvaṉ who formerly a vassal of the Chēra prince of Thiruvaṭṭār,

later became a vassal of Pāṇḍyas who converted Nāñchilnāḍu into the prosperous

agricultural country. However, Nāñchil Vaḷḷuvaṉ continued to pay tribute to the Chēra

ruler because Paṟaḷiār from which water was supplied to irrigate Nāñchilnāḍu

belonged to them. As Nāñchilnāḍu was part of Pāṇḍya country it was never

considered part of Malaināḍu. The principal commercial centre was Kōṭṭār which

Ptolemy mentions in his geography.22

Thus, the available literary evidences are very scanty to reconstruct the

complete history of early Āyi rulers. The available data suggest that they were the

rulers of Pothiyil hills and were subjugated by the Chēras and later by Pāṇḍyas and

remain as the vassals of Pāṇḍyas for a longer part of their history. The availability of

early historic habitation mounds and associated urn burials suggest the existence of

considerable number of settlements.

18

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, p.483. 19

V.Gurunathan, Saṅgakāla Arasa Varalāṟu, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2001, p.333. 20

K.Sivasankaran Nair, Early History of Kerala Upto CE. 1500, International Centre for Kerala

Studies, University of Kerala, Kariyavattam, 2010, pp.3-4. 21

T.Ponnambalam Pillai, “The Antiquity of Nanji Nadu and Shenkottah”, In D.SavarirAyan (ed.),The

Tamilian Antiquity, vol-II, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1986, pp.17-18. 22

K.Sivasankaran Nair, Early History of Kerala Upto CE. 1500, International Centre for Kerala

Studies, University of Kerala, Kariyavattam, 2010, p.90.

62

Āyi Dynasty in Medieval Times

In the post-Saṅgam, there is hardly any lithic evidence in support of their

existence. However, the availability of five inscriptions belongs to the Āyi dynasty

inscriptions suggest their survival during the hiatus too. The immediate post–Saṅgam

Age is a dark period in the history of the Āyis as well, but from the 7th

century

onwards we get information about the Āyis from the Pāṇḍyaṉ inscriptions. The

Pāṇḍyas had by this time developed themselves into a great power on the eastern

borders of the Āyi kingdom. The Chēra Empire lay on its northern boundary, but

Viḻiñjam, Trivandrum and several other places in the south formed part of the Āyi

kingdom. The Āyi kingdom functioned for long as an effective buffer state between

the Pāṇḍya and Chēra dominions, but with its decline the Chēra Empire was exposed

to the direct attack of the Pāṇḍyas and later of the Chōḻas from across the erstwhile

Āyi territories.23

During this period, Pāṇḍyaṉ kings annex the Āyi territories to their kingdom

and they carried on successive raids in the Nāñchilnāḍu region. The Pāṇḍyaṉ king

Jayantavarmaṉ (645-670 CE) is credited with some success over his contemporary

king in Kēraḷa. His successor Arikēsari Māṟavaramaṉ (670-700 CE) is also said to

have won a great battle at Seṉṉilam and defeated the Chēra king. These Pāṇḍiya

victories might have been won over the Āyi kings because the Chēra power had not

extended to south Tranvancore during this period. Nakkīrar, the commentator of the

Iṟainār Akaporuḷ, also mentions the attack on Kōṭṭār by Arikēsari Māravarmaṉ.

Kōchaḍiaṉ Raṇadhīraṉ (700-730 CE), the son of Arikēsari Māṟavarmaṉ, also inflicted

a severe defeat on the Āyi king in the battle of Maruthūr and forced him to

acknowledge Pāṇḍya supremacy. The Āyi rulers became subordinates of Pāṇḍya king.

Saḍayaṉ, Karunanḍaṉ, Karunandaḍakkaṉ and Vikramāḍitya Varaguṇaṉ were some of

the important rulers of Āyi kingdom in the 8th century CE.24

The present study is

based on 707 inscriptions found at different places in Kaṉyākumari district.

23

A.Sreedharan Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.115. 24

A.K.Perumal, Theṉ Kumariyiṉ Kathai (History of Kanyakumari District), United Writers, Chennai,

2003, p.37.

63

Saḍayaṉ and Karunandaṉ

In the latter half of the 8th

century CE, the Āyi kingdom was ruled by Saḍayaṉ

and his son Karunandaṉ. During this period the Pāṇḍyaṉ ruler Mārañjadayaṉ or

Jaṭilavarmaṉ Parānṭakaṉ (765-815) invaded Āyi Kingdom (south Kēraḷa) and won

victories. The Kaḻugumalai inscription records that Mārañjaḍayaṉ led a successful

expedition in the 23rd

year of his reign against the king of Malaināḍu and destroyed

Ariviyūr (present Aruvikkarai kōṭṭai).25

The Madras Museum copper plates also show that Mārañjaḍayaṉ expedition

over Āyi capital of Viḻiñjam. This copper plate mentions that horse, elephants and

other wealth of Āyi were looted by Pāṇḍya army and Saḍayaṉ ruler of Āyi kingdom

died in this war. In Kaṉyākumari district, the earliest inscription records to a hero

stone installed in memory of Raṇakīrti, a lieutenant of the early Pāṇḍya ruler

Mārañchaḍayaṉ (765-815 CE) who fought with the Chēra forces and lost his life in

CE. 792. It was found in Āralvāimoḻi village in Thōvāḷai taluk.26

From 8th

century to 10th

century, Kaṉyākumari region was ruled by early

Pāṇḍya rulers. However, the available inscriptions and copper plates suggest that

there were two Āyi kings namely Kokarunandhadakkaṉ (857-885 CE) and

Vikramāditya Varaguṇaṉ (855-925 CE) seems to have established an independent rule

for a short period of time.27

The earliest inscription of Āyi dynasty assigned to 869 CE

found at Saḍayappa Mahādēvar temple at Tiruviḍaikōḍu (Kalkuḷam taluk) refers to

the gift of twenty five cows donated by a merchant called Murugaṉ of Mudukuḷathūr

for lighting a perpetual lamp in Sadayappa Mahādēvar temple during the reign of

Kokarunandhadakkaṉ alias Sri Vallabaṉ (857-885 CE), a ruler of Āyi.28

However, the

title suggests that he was a subordinate ruler of contemporary Pāṇḍya king Varaguṇa

Pāṇḍyaṉ (862 CE).29

According to P.N. Kunjaṉ Pillai, Kokkarunandakkaṉ ascended

the Āyi throne in 857 CE and his kingdom extending from Tiruppāpūr in the north up

25

A.Sreedharan Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.116. 26

Seetharam Gurumurthi, Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭa Kalvettukkal, Vol. – VI, Tamil Nadu State Department

of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, No. 543/2004. 27

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kanyakumari Mavaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.8. 28

R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, Vol.– IV, Tamilnadu State Department of Archaeology,

Chennai, 1979, No.1969/97. 29

Pāṇḍyar Chepēḍugaḷ patthu (Pāṇḍya copper plates ten), International Tamil Research Centre,

Chennai, 1999, p.8.

64

to Nāgarkōil in the south. While Kaṉyākumari, Sucīndram, Kōṭṭāṟu and Nāgarkōil

were under the Pāṇḍyas, Colachel, Muñchiṟai and Tiruvaṭṭar, formed the Āyi

kingdom. Viḻiñjam served as the capital of the Āyi kingdom. Some of the inscriptions

of this ruler datable to 877 CE have been unearthed in the Mahādēvar temple at

Thiruvidaikkōḍu, a village located in Kalkuḷam taluk. K.K. Pillai says that

Thiruvidaikkōḍu was once the seat of the Āyis who were considered to have built the

Vishṇu temple at Pārthivapuram in Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk.30

The copper plates of

Pārthivasēkarapuram were issued by Kokkarunanthadakkaṉ, a ruler of Āyi Kingdom

in Vēṇāḍu. It recorded that a Vishnu temple Pārthivasēkarapuram and

Pārthivasēkarapuram sālai (Education Centre) was promoted by Kokkarunandakkaṉ

in 864 CE. In Kaṉyākumari region, the suffix sālai generally means education centre.

The meikīrthi of Rājarāja-I, (985-1014 CE) recorded in Brahadīswara temple

inscription of Tañjāvūr refers to Kāndaḷūr sālai (989 CE). The Kāndaḷūr sālai is also

mentioned in the Pārthivasēkarapuram copper plates of 864 CE31

The Pārthivasēkarapuram was established in a model of Kāndaḷūr Sālai. Here,

they taught Vedic recitation and ceremony of temples. In this education centre, nearly

95 Brahmin students were studied.32

Pārthivasēkarapuram sālai was formed for

landless students of Brahmin community for their study of Vedas. Students, who

studied here, also participated in Ūr sabhai (village assembly) and rendered their

service to the society. Though there are different views on the nature of sālai, but the

nearest meaning seems to be the educational centre. Therefore, it comes under the

educational institution. The Pārthivasēkarapuram copper plates also support this

view.33

Vikramāditya Varaguṇa (885-925 CE)

He was a successor of Kokkarunandadakkaṉ. His region marked a critical

phase of the struggle for political supremacy between the Pāṇḍyas and the Chōḻas in

south India. Parāntaka Chōḻa-I (907-955 CE) defeated the Pāṇḍyaṉ king Māṟavarmaṉ

30

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.62. 31

C.Govindarajan, Kalveṭṭu Kalaichol Agarāthi (From CE. 7th

century to 12th

Century), Madurai

Kamaraj University, Madurai, 1987, pp.120-22. 32

Pāṇḍyar Chepēḍugaḷ patthu (Pāṇḍya copper plates ten), International Tamil Research Centre,

Chennai, 1999, pp.6-7. 33

T.S.Srithar, Kalveṭṭu, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology, Chennai, pp.32-34.

65

Rājasimha-II (905 – 920 CE) and annexed the Pāṇḍyaṉ kingdom to the Chōḻa empire.

Nāñchilnāḍu also came under the Chōḻa rule. Vikramāditya Varaguṇa seems to have

helped the Pāṇḍyas in their fight against the Chōḻas.34

The Tirunandhikarai copper

plates of Vikramāditya Varaguṇa issued during the eighth regnal year and dated in

the month of Paṅguṉi when the king visited Tirunandikarai. It mentions the name of

the Murugaṉseṇḍi, the daughter of the Teṅga Nāḍu Kiḻavaṉ. She was given in

marriage to the king and she seems to have gone by the name Āyikula-mahādēvi. The

inscription records that the king granted some lands for the enjoyment. Saṭṭaṉ

Murugaṉ alias Teṅganāḍu – Kiḻvaṉ seems to be an officer who controls Teṅga Nāḍu

under the Āyi ruler of Vikramāditya Varaguṇa.35

Pārthivasēkarapuram copper plates

mention the village Muñchiṟai and the territorial divisions like Vaḷḷuva Nāḍu and

Teṅga Nāḍu. The surrounding areas of Theṅgapaṭṭaṇam in Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk is

considered as Teṅga Nāḍu and the present name of Theṅgapaṭṭaṇam derived from

Teṅga Nāḍu.36

The inscription found at Chitral (Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk) records the gifts to a Jain

temple at Thiruchāraṇathumalai in Kaṉyākumari district. A record of the 28th

regnal

year of the Āyi king Vikramāditya Varaguṇa says that Kuṇantāṅgi Kuṟathikaḷ, the

disciple of Araṭṭanēmi bhaṭāra of Pērāyakuḍi, Uṭṭanandi Aṭikaḷ of Kāṭṭāmpaḷḷi,

Varaguṇa the disciple of Tiruchāraṇathu Paṭṭini Bhaṭārar and Vīranandi Aṭikaḷ of

Mēlaipaḷḷi are among the other donors of the temple.37

Chitarāl is one of the principal Jain settlements of southern India. It evidenced

by a large number of early epigraphs engraved on the pedestals of images found on

the Kaḻugumalai hill of Koilpaṭṭi taluk, Tuticorin district. From these names, we learn

the names of many Jain teachers and disciples who caused the images to be made.

They were mostly natives of Tiruchāraṇam and Kuṟaṇḍi both of which are villages in

South Travancore.38

34

A.Sreedharan Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.117. 35

T.A.Gopinatha Rao (ed.), Travancore Archaeological Series, vol-I, Department of Cultural

Publications, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, 1988, p.41. 36

Pāṇḍyar Chepēḍukaḷ Pathu (Pāṇḍyar copper plates ten), International Tamil Research Centre,

Chennai, 1999, pp.9-10. 37

M.G.S.Narayanan, Perumals of Kerala – Political and Social Condition of Kerala under the Chera

Perumals of Makotai, Xavier Press, Calicut, 1996, p.185. 38

K.V.Subramanya Aiyar, Travancore Archaeological Series, vol-IV; part.II; Cultural Publication

Department, Thiruvananthapuram, 1999, p.146.

66

Vikramāditya Varaguṇa also made extensive land grants granted to the

celebrated Buddhist temple of Tirumūlapādam (Sri Mūlavāsam) which was situated in

the Chēra empire. During this period, Kōdai Ravi Varma (917 – 944 CE) was a ruler

of Chēra empire. Varaguṇa‟s gift to the Buddhist temple at Thirumūlapādam might

not have been an isolated act of charity, but part of a general policy of giving

donations of land to the worshiping places of other religions too.39

Early Pāṇḍyas in Kaṉyākumari Region

The Pāṇḍyas were always tried to control the region up to Kaṉyākumari and

remain part of Pāṇḍyaṉ Empire for a longer period of time. There are several

instances to show that the whole of Nāñchilnāḍu at times, and certain regions of it

during other periods, remained under Pāṇḍyaṉ rule. The literary and epigraphical

evidences support the traditional association of the Pāṇḍyas with this region.

Divākaram, a nikaṇḍu, describes the Pāṇḍya sovereign as lord of Kumari.

Puṟanāṉūṟu speaks of the Pāṇḍyas as the lord of the Pahruḷi river which emptied itself

into the ocean at the Cape. Indeed, it states that the course of the river Pahruḷi it was

directed by the engineering skill of the Pāṇḍyaṉ king Vaḍivambalam Niṉṟa Nediyōṉ

Pāṇḍyaṉ. Maduraikkāñchi (190-205) referred to the Kumari as their family deity

(Theṉṉavartham kuladeivam Theṉkumari) and also supports the fact that the land near

Kumari was under the proud possession of the Pāṇḍyas.

The early inscriptions again, refer to the place as included in Puṟathāya Nāḍu,

which, undoubtedly formed a part of Pāṇḍya Empire. The Goddess Kumari was, in

fact, revered as the family deity of the Pāṇḍya kings.40

Nāñchilnāḍu was practically

divided into halves of which the southern portion was known as Puṟanthāya Nāḍu.

However, the political boundaries were shifted from time to time. The tract was in the

possession of the Pāṇḍyas until the 10th

century CE when it was seized by Chōḻas.

Pāṇḍya inscriptions are found in large numbers in Kaṉyākumari region and the

adjoining tract.41

39

A.Sreedharan Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, pp.117-

18. 40

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra Publication, Madras, 1953, p.19. 41

T.K.Velu Pillai, Travancore State Manual, vol-II, Government of Travancore, Travandrum, 1938,

pp.60-61.

67

The early Pāṇḍya inscriptions datable between 792 CE and 976 CE are found

at Agastīswaram and a solitary example also noted in Thōvāḷai taluk. Such early

inscriptions are absent in Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks. The occurrence of

inscriptions of Āyi rulers from 869 to 913 CE found at Kalkuḷam (2) and Viḷavaṅkōḍu

(3) taluks suggests that these regions were under the control of Āyi rulers, probably as

subordinates of Pāṇḍya empire. Therefore, early period Pāṇḍyamandalam annexed

up to the southern portion of Kaṉyākumari region otherwise called Nāñchilnāḍu. The

Āralvāymoḻi hero stone inscription written in vaṭṭeluthu characters (792 CE) found in

Thōvāḷai taluk is the oldest one so far found in this region. It records the death of

Raṇakīrti, a lieutenant of early Pāṇḍya ruler Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ (765–815 CE), fought

bravely with the Chēra forces and lost his life. Now, this hero stone inscription is

being exhibited in the palace museum of Padmanābhapuram.42

Early Pāṇḍyas

The Vēlvikkuḍi copper plates refers to the military expedition of Pāṇḍya king

Cheḻiyaṉ Sēṉdaṉ or Jayantavarmaṉ (625–650 CE) against the Chēra ruler of Kēraḷa

during which he passed through the Nāñchilnāḍu. The Shiva temple dedicated to

Sēnda-īswara-muḍaiyār at Talakuḍi near Sucīndram and another temple known as

Jayandaṉār near Aḻakiyapāṇḍiyapuram and a village called Sēndaṉpudūr near

Sucīndram indicate the historical connection with the name of the Pāṇḍya rulers.43

Arikēsari Māṟavarmaṉ (650- 700 CE)

Arikēsari Māṟavarmaṉ was identified with Kūṉpāṇḍiyaṉ or Sundarapāṇḍyaṉ

who was otherwise as per Tamil literature known as Niṉṟasir Neḍumāraṉ. He was said

to have been converted by saint Sambandar from a Jainisim to Saivisim. The

Vēḷvikkuḍi and Siṉṉamaṉūr copper plates have credited him with victories at Pāḻi,

Nelvēli (Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk), Seṉṉilam and Puliyūr (Kalkuḷam taluk) and also with

triumphs over the Paravās and Kurunāḍu (Kalkuḷam taluk). The commentary on

Iṟaiyaṉār Akapporuḷ adds that Viḻiñjam and Kōṭṭāṟu (Agastīswaram taluk) besides

42

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol- VI, Tamil Nadu State

Department of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008,p.184. 43

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.59.

68

several other places were also captured by him.44

Thus, every Pāṇḍya ruler attempts to

extend their sway over the region under study.

Kōchaḍayaṉ Raṇathīraṉ (700 – 730 CE)

The son and successor of Arikēsarimāravarmaṉ was the famous warrior

known as Raṇadhīra. Among his exploits, a victory against an Āyi-Vēḷ at Marudūr is

mentioned in the Vēḷvikkuḍi grant. The vanquished king must have been the

contemporary Āyi ruler, ancestor of Kokkarunandadakkaṉ.45

The reference to the

aggressions against the southern part of the Pāṇḍya country by the successive Pāṇḍya

rulers suggest that after every calculated expedition, the local rulers attempted to

regain the lost territories.

Rājasimha (730 – 765 CE)

The son and successor of Kōchchaḍaiyaṉ on the Pāṇḍya throne was Arikēsari

Parāṅkusa and also known as Māṟavarmaṉ Rājasimha who ruled about the middle of

the 8th

century CE. Information about his exploits is almost exclusively derived from

the Vēḷvikkuḍi grant and Siṉṉamaṉūr plates which mention the Nāñchilnāḍu as the

part of Rājasimha regime.46

Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ or Jaṭila Parāntaka (765 – 815 CE)

He was Rājasimha‟s son, the famous Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ. For the first time we

come across a lithic record of Pāṇḍya dynasty in Kaṉyākumari region. Till the reign

of Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ, all the information about their control over Kaṉiyākumari region

comes from their copper plate grants like Vēḷvikuḍi and Siṉṉamaṉūr copper plates. A

hero stone inscription erected in memory of Raṇakīrti, a lieutenant of Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ

who fought with the Chēra forces and lost his life. This inscription engraved in the

27th

regnal year of Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ (792 CE). This hero stone inscription is found in

Āralvāimōḻi village in Thōvāḷai taluk.47

To get the ancient port Viḻiñjam, the Pāṇḍyaṉ

44

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra publication, Madras, 1953, p.21. 45

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, p.491. 46

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.11. 47

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. VI, Tamil Nadu State

Department of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008,p.184.

69

rulers must have preceded through Nāñchilnāḍu, because Viḻiñjam was located to the

north of Nāñchilnāḍu.

Sri Māṟa Sri Vallabha (815 – 862 CE)

Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ‟s successor, Sri Māṟa Sri Vallabha entered on an aggressive

warfare against the Chēra ruler. The gloving account of his conquest recorded in the

Siṉṉamaṉūr plates.48

The accounts of Vēḷvikuḍi and Siṉṉamaṉūr copper plates and

the hero stone inscription of Āralvāimōḻi indirectly suggest that Nāñchilnāḍu was

under the control of Pāṇḍyas at the time of Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ and Sri Māṟa Sri

Vallabha.

Decline of the Pāṇḍya power in Kaṉyākumari region

Varakuṇaṉ –II (862 – 880 CE) @ Vīranārayaṇachaḍaiyaṉ

Some of the very early inscriptions of Sucīndram temple belong to the ruler

Varakuṇaṉ–II, the successor Sri Māra Srivallabha. The Siṉṉamaṉūr plates state that

this monarch endowed many agrahāras and numberless dēvasthānam. It is likely that

Sucīndram was one of the sacred places patronized by him. The two villages

Vīranārayaṇasēri and Vīranārayaṇa maṅgalam (Thōvāḷai taluk) not far away from

Sucīndram, perhaps owe their names to this Pāṇḍya sovereign.49

The reference to Sri

Vāṉavaṉ Mahādēvi, evidently a Chēra princess as his queen, suggests his close

contact with Kēraḷa.50

Vaṭṭakōṭṭai, a granite fort six kilometers northeast of

Kaṉyākumari forms the terminal of a line of ramparts known as the south Travancore

line built by Mārthāṇḍavarma to serve as defense for Nāñchilnāḍu. Around 12th

and

13th

century CE., it was under the Pāṇḍya rule. In order to safeguard the sea trade, the

Pāṇḍya rulers constructed this fort, a fact confirmed by the fish emblem found in the

fort.51

48

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra, Madras, 1953, p.23. 49

A.K.Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai, United Writers, Chennai, 2003, p.44. 50

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra, Madras, 1953, p.24. 51

G.Sethuraman (ed.), South Indian History Congress, XXXII, Session proceedings, Chennai, 2012,

p.602.

70

Vīrapāṇdyaṉ (946 – 966 CE)

He was succeeded Rājasimha otherwise called Mārañchaḍaiyaṉ. There are 6

lithic records found at Sucīndram temple and 1 inscription found in Parakkai

Madusūdaṉapērumāḷ temple (Appendix–III) are assigned to him. The early inscription

of Vīrapāṇdya found at Sthānumālaya pērumāḷ temple of Sucīndram. It dated in 956

CE. This inscription records a fifty goats to Sucīndram temple to burn a perpetual

lamp by one Sāthansiṅgaṉ, a resident of Thirukōlūr.52

Vīrapāṇdya defeated and killed

a Chōḻa ruler Uṭṭamachili, son of Parāntaka-I and acclaim himself as Chōḻaṉ

thalaikoṇḍa Vīrapāṇdya meaning one who had taken the head of the Chōḻa.53

. After

that, he re-established the Pāṇḍya supremacy in the south. However, the Chōḻa king

Parāntaka–I (907-953 CE), the son of Āditya-I (871-907 CE), captured Vīrapāṇdya

and executed him.54

This act crushed the supremacy of the early Pāṇḍyas over

Nāñchilnāḍu and it remains under the control of the Chōḻas for a longer period of

time.

The later Chōḻas and Nāñchilnāḍu

Parāntaka Chōḻa (907 – 953 CE)

The Imperial Chōḻas rose to prominence under Vijayālaya, under whom the

Chōḻa power extended further south. The first foundation stone for the Chōḻa empire

was laid during the reign of Parāntaka-I (907 955 CE). The Chōḻa army went up to

Nellore in the north and the Kaṉyākumari in the south, and much territory was added

to the Chōḻa kingdom.55

From the time of Parāntaka Chōḻa, the major part of Tamil

Nāḍu came under the control of Chōḻas. The inscriptions of Parāntaka Chōḻa at

Sucīndram temple mentions about the gift of goats to the temple for lighting a

perpetual lamp and daily rituals (Appendix – III). Kaṉyākumari region was ruled by

the Chōḻa empire from 10th

century to the 13th century.

52

Natana Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No;1968/210. 53

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.12. 54

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.64. 55

Y.Subbarayalu, Political Geography of the Chola Country, The State Department of Archaeology,

Government of Tamilnadu, 1973, pp.11-12.

71

Rājarāja – I (985–1014 CE).

There are hardly any inscription between the times of Parāntaka I and Rājarāja

I. It seems, the Chōḻas concentrated much on consolidating their territory in the north

and in Pāṇḍya maṇḍalam. Rājarāja-I had asserted his supremacy over Nāñchilnāḍu.56

Chōḻa Empire reached its largest extent under Rājarāja-I from the Veṅgi country in

the north to Kaṉyākumari in the south, including south Mysore and a good part of

Kēraḷa.57

The Darasanamkoppe inscription recorded in Kaṉyākumari issued during

the eighth regnal of the Rājarāja I suggest that he overcome Nāñchilnāḍu before he

destroyed the famous Kāndaḷūr sālai in the Chēra Country.58

The inscription issued

10th

regnal year found on the walls of Sucīndram temple also suggests that occupation

of the Pāṇḍya country seemed to have been completed by this time. His inscriptions

issued during the eleventh year of his rule are found at Ambāsamudram and

Sucīndram. Another inscription at Sucīndram shows that Rājarāja I was camping at

this place with his army in 999 CE. Hence it may be inferred from these inscriptions

that the Chōḻas made frequent visits to this place during their expeditions to Kēraḷa as

this land provided resting place for the Chōḻa army. By passage of time, this tract,

particularly the eastern part of the Kaṉyākumari region, was annexed by the Chōḻas.

The Pillar inscription (1003 CE) found in Kōmmāṇḍi Ammaṉ temple at Vaḍassērry

refers about Kōṭṭāṟu. The Chōḻa rulers Parāntaka-I and Rājarāja-I carried out

invasions into the southern extremity of the Indian peninsula is testified by records

which had been discovered in Kaṉyākumari region in the places like at

Darasanankoppe, Sucīndram and Pudugrāmam alias Rāja Nārayaṇa

Chaturvēdimaṅgalam. All these again clearly indicate that the eastern part of this

region was effectively under the grip of the Chōḻa rule since the tenth century CE.59

However, the re-organization of Nāñchilnāḍu as part of the Chōḻa Empire

took place only by the 14th

regnal year of Rājarāja‟s rule. During his period

Kaṉyākumari region was divided into many administrative units like, Puṟathāyanāḍu

56

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, p.519. 57

Y.Subbarayalu, Political Geography of the Chola Country, The State Department of Archaeology,

Government of Tamilnadu, 1973, p. 12. 58

N.Gunabalan, Studies in the History of the Kanyakumari Region, Unpublished Ph.D., Thesis,

University of Madras, Madras, 1989, p.23. 59

N.Gunabalan, Studies in the History of the Kanyakumari Region, Unpublished Ph.D., Thesis,

University of Madras, Madras, 1989, pp. 23 – 24.

72

(Agastīswaram taluk), Kurunāḍu (Thōvāḷai and Agatīswaram taluk), Vaḷḷuvanāḍu

(Kalkuḷam taluk) and Nāñchilnāḍu (Agastīswaram and Thōvāḷai taluks). This is

inferred from the fact that his inscription of the 14th

regional year speaks of

Sucīndram as Rājarāja-Valanāṭṭu-Tiruchchivindram. Kaṉyākumari was renamed as

Rājarāja cholisvaram and Kōṭṭār as Mummuḍi-Chōḻanallur. Moreover, Rājarāja I, the

great lover of temples, added embellishments to the temple at Sucīndram. Perhaps the

introduction of the dēvadāsi system, of the practice of singing the Tiruppadigam

devotional hymns and the regularization of religious ceremonies and festivals in the

temple was undertaken by him.60

His epigraphical record refers to Kaṉyākumari, as Rājarāja-valanāṭṭu-

puṟathāya-nāṭṭu-kumari-maṅgalam.61

The area in between Tāmiraparaṇi and Cape

Comorin was known as Uṭṭama-cholavalaNāḍu. The Chōḻa inscriptions impart that all

the Nāḍus to the east of Kaṉyākumari brought under Uttama-Chōḻa-vaḷa Nāḍu.62

After Rājarāja-I, the Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya viceroys had been looking after the tract for a

period of sixty five years until the practice was discontinued by Kulōthuṅga-I.63

Rājēnḍra–I (1012-1044 CE)

Rājēnḍra-I, the son and successor of Rājarāja-I, strengthened the Chōḻa hold

over Nāñchilnāḍu. Some of his inscriptions are found in Sucīndram, Tērūr and

Kaṉyākumari temples. A Siva temple was constructed during his time at Chōḻapuram

about 4 km northeast of Sucīndram and it was named as Rājēndirachōḻisvaram. The

control of vast territory necessitated Rājēnḍra–I to introduce an innovative

administrative system called Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya viceroyalty system for the effective

control of Pāṇdināḍu and Nāñchilnāḍu.64

For nearly half a century, the southern part

of the old Pāṇḍya kingdom including Nāñchilnāḍu, was governed by the Chōḻa-

Pāṇḍya viceroys, concerning four of whom, epigraphic records are available.

60

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History:With special reference Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1979, pp. 519- 20. 61

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.13. 62

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol- VI, Tamil Nadu State

Department of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.2. 63

T.K.Velu Pillai, Travancore State Manual, vol.II, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, 1940, p.59. 64

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History:With special reference Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1979, p.520.

73

Jaṭāvarmaṉ Sundara Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya

The earliest of these viceroys was Rājēnḍra‟s son Jaṭāvarmaṉ Sundara Chōḻa-

Pāṇḍya. He was appointed as viceroy of the extreme south in 1019 CE. Epigraphs

bearing his name are found at Tiruvitāṅkōḍu Chōḻapuram and Sucīndram, besides a

considerable number of them in the Tirunelvēli district. The Tiruvitāṅkōḍu inscription

shows that his authority extended up to Kurunāḍu. The Sucīndram record is

particularly interesting since the village also described as Sundara Chōḻa–

Caturvēdimaṅgalam, obviously after the viceroy himself.65

Jatāvarmaṉ Uḍaiyār Sri Chōḻa Pāṇḍya

Jaṭāvarmaṉ Uḍaiyar Sri Chōḻa Pāṇḍya was another viceroy in the south

representing the Chōḻa empire. He is probably identical with the prince Gaṅgaikoṇḍa

Chōḻa appointed as viceroy by Vīrarājēndira. There are two stone inscriptions of this

ruler in Sucīndram temple, of which the latest relates to his 25th

regional year which is

ultimate evidence for his long period of viceroyalty.

Māṟavarmaṉ Uḍaiyār Sri Vikrama

Māṟavarmaṉ Uḍaiyār Sri Vikrama was a later Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya viceroy in the

south. Two of his inscriptions are found in Kaṉyākumari region. It is most likely the

village Āḷūr located 11 km northwest of Sucīndram took its name as Vikrama Chōḻa

Pāṇḍyapuram after this viceroy. However, Nāñchilnāḍu was under the Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya

viceroys between 1019 and 1070 CE. The system of appointing the Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya

viceroy in the south came to an end, with the ascent of Kulōthuṅga–I to the throne.66

Rājathirāja – I (1018 – 1054 CE)

The Kaṉyākumari inscription of Vīrarājēndra states expressly that Rājadhirāja

was the eldest of the three sons of Rājēndra.67

His two epigraphical records found at

65

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra, Madras, 1953, p.27. 66

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, pp. 67 – 68. 67

K.A.Nilakanda Sastri, The Cōḻas, University of Madras, Chennai, 2000, p.245.

74

Kōnērīswarar temple near Kaṉyākumari registers the gift made to Rājarāja sālai

(Education centre).68

Rājēndira – II (1051 – 1063 CE)

Rājēndhra–II was a son of Rājathirāja–I. His early period inscription found in

Kaṉyābhagavathi temple dated 1055 CE. It refers to Kaṉyākumrai as Gaṅgaikōṇda

Chōḻapuram. It further refers to the collection of land tax collected from dēvadāṉam

village for the maintenance of Rājarājaṉ sālai, Kaṉyā Bhagavathi and

Kuganāthīswarar temples in Kaṉyākumari .69

Vīrarājēndhira (1063 – 1070 CE)

A lithic record of Bhagavathiammaṉ temple issued during the reign of

Vīrarājēndhira refers to the grant of land in Naṭriakuḍi and Peruṅkuḍi Kiḻkompu

villages around Kaṉyākumari region to Bhagavathiammaṉ temple for its daily rituals

in 1070 CE.70

Kulōṭṭuṅga– I (1070 – 1120 CE)

Vīrarājēndra died early in 1070 CE. He was succeeded on the throne by

Parakēsari Adhirājēndra who had a very short region of some weeks‟ duration and

was followed Rājakēsari Kulōṭṭuṅga Chōḻa-I in 1070.71

He was the next Chōḻa ruler to

figure prominently in the history of Kaṉyākumari district after Rājēnḍra-I. There are

sources, both epigraphic and literary, which furnish details about his campaign in the

south. For example, the inscriptions at Tirukkaḻukkuṉḍram describes how he defeated

the „five Pāṇḍyas‟ seized the „pearl fisheries‟ and the Pothyil regions and reduced

Kōṭṭāṟu to ashes. The “Vikrama Chōḻakula” corroborates the events. The

Kaliṅgathuparaṇi elaborates on the destruction of the port Viḻiñjam and Kāndaḷūr

sālai. He garrisoned the strategic points of his domain of which Kōṭṭāṟu was one,

which he himself burnt down, during the conquest. But, the garrisons functioned with

a difference (i.e) it was set up for the collection of the tribute due to him, but not to

68

Natana Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. I, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No; 1968/114-15. 69

Natana Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. I, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No; 1968/56. 70

Natana Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. I, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No; 1968/79. 71

K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, The Cōḻas, University of Madras, Chennai, 2000, p.285.

75

interfere in the affairs of the local administration. Inscription belonging to his period

are found at Chōḻapuram, Agastīswaram, Vāriyūr, Kaṉyākumari and Kōṭṭāṟu. The

end of Kulōthuṅga reign witnessed the beginning of the disintegration of the mighty

Chōḻa Empire, due to the infringement of the Western Chaḷukyas and the Hoysalas.72

Vikrama Chōḻa (1118 – 1136 CE)

He was a son of Kulōthuṅga Chōḻa–I. His epigraphical records were found at

Sucīndram and Kaṉyā Bhagavathiammaṉ temples. These lithic records refer to the

donation of a perpetual lamp and goats to the deity Kumari Kaṉyāpidāri located in

Rājarāja Pāṇḍyanāṭṭu Uthama Chōḻa Vaḷanāṭṭu Puṟathāya Nāḍu.73

Kulōthuṅgaṉ – III (1178 – 1216 CE)

The reign of Kulōthuṅgaṉ–III, also called Vīrarājēnḍradēva is a remarkable

example of the triumph of the personal ability of the monarch against the forces of

disruption that were steadily increasing in their number.74

During this period, the

Pāṇḍya kingdom with the support of Vēṇāḍu chieftain of Tiruvidancore made an

attempt to regain the past glory. Finally, Chōḻa suzerainty over the Pāṇḍyaṉ and

Vēṇāḍu kingdom came to an end. The end of Kulōthuṅgaṉ III‟s (1178-1216 CE) reign

witnessed the disintegration of the mighty Chōḻa empire. After Kulōthuṅgaṉ III

(1178-1216 CE) period, the Vēṇāḍu emerged as an important power centre in

Kaṉyākumari region.75

Vēṇāḍu Chieftains

Rāmavarma Kulasēkara (1090 – 1102 CE)

He was a founder of Vēṇāḍu chieftain. The oldest male member, the king of

Vēṇāḍu had his headquarters at Kollam. After annexation of Nāñchilnāḍu to Vēṇāḍu,

the problem of administration becomes more acute. In order to afford protection to the

farmers of Nāñchilnāḍu the headquarters of the junior Prince of Vēṇāḍu was shifted

72

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, pp. 68 – 69. 73

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.15. 74

K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, The Cōḻas, University of Madras, Chennai, 2000, p.377. 75

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.15.

76

from Viḻiñjam to Tiruvaṭṭar (Kalkuḷam taluk) which was nearer to Nāñchilnāḍu.

Kōtakēraḷan (1125- 1155 CE), son of Kōtavarmaṉ (1102 – 1125 CE) renovated Sri

Padmanābhaswāmi temple and made Sri Padmanābha as the family deity of Vēṇāḍu.

Paddy growing fertile lands in Nāñchilnāḍu were donated to the Sri Padmanābha

temple and which made the temple very rich. This relation between Nāñchilnāḍu and

Vēṇāḍu chieftains were maintained from 12th

century to 18th

century in Kaṉyākumari

region.76

The kingdom of Travancore is the lineal descendant of the great Chēra kings

of antiquity who shared the sovereignty of South India with the Chōḻas and the

Pāṇḍyas. The claim is not only warranted by traditions and beliefs, but is also

supported by the indisputable evidence of inscriptions, chronicles and literary

monuments.

Ravivarma Kulasēkara (1299-1313 CE)

He is one of the early kings of Travancore. Ravivarma Kulasēkara, the

Travancore king, is described in several lithic records and other documents as the lord

of Kupaka and Quilon, the suzerain of Kēraḷa, the shining light of the lunar dynasty

and above all, the devotee of Sri Padmanābha. Tiruvati is admittedly a title used by

the rulers of Travancore through many centuries. Thiruvati Dēsam, Travancore and

Vēṇāḍu denote the same country.77

While the eastern part of the Kaṉyākumari region

was frequently subjected to Chōḻa and Pāṇḍya hegemony, the western parts of the

region were governed by the Chieftains of Vēṇāḍu. In the beginning, Vēṇāḍu included

Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks of the Kaṉyākumari region. These taluks were the

nucleus of the Vēṇāḍu territory. Vēṇāḍu later came to know as Travancore, anglicized

form of Tiruvidankōḍu or Srivaḻumkōḍu. After the decline of the Chōḻa power a fresh

spirit was infused in the Vēṇāḍu chieftains who gradually established areas in

Nāñchilnāḍu. Twenty three years after the Rājarāja I, Vēṇāḍu slowly began to grow in

power. According to the traditions, after the decline of the ancient Chēra family, one

serving branch migrated to the south settled in Padmanābhapuram and established

Vēṇāḍu. This branch ruled Vēṇāḍu as independent chieftains.78

Around 52

76

K.Sivasankaran Nair, Early History of Kerala Upto AD 1500, International Centre for Kerala State,

University of Kerala, Kariyavattom, 2010, pp.173 – 74. 77

T.K.Velu Pillai, Travancore State Manual, vol.II, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, 1940, p.41 –

42. 78

N.Gunabalan, Studies in the History of the Kanyakumari Region, Unpublished Ph.D., Thesis,

University of Madras, Madras, 1989, pp. 26 – 27.

77

inscriptions of Vēṇāḍu chieftains are found in the district. Out of 52 epigraphical

records, 29 in Agastīswaram taluk, 5 in Thōvāḷai, 16 in Kalkuḷam and 3 in

Viḷavaṅkōḍu are noticed. These evidences show influence of Vēṇāḍu chieftain in

Kaṉyākumari region. An early inscription of Vēṇāḍu datable to 1116 CE refers that a

Kupaka king conquered Kōṭṭāṟu and the whole of Nāñchilnāḍu was regained from the

Pāṇḍya king Rājasimha. From about this time, Nāñchilnāḍu comprised mainly of

Agastīswaram and Thōvāḷai taluks in the west up to Tiruvitāṅkōḍu.79

Another

epigraphical record of Kōthaivarma, a ruler of Vēṇāḍu, found at Chōḻapuram in

Agastīswaram taluk refers to a grant of land to Rājēnḍra Chōḻīswarar temple of

Chōḻapuram in 1126 CE by Danañchēyakaṇḍaṉ, Sri Thoṅgapallavarāyaṉ and

Kaṇṇan.80

Kōthaivarma (1102 – 1125 CE)

The immediate successor of Rāmavarma Kulasēkara on the throne of Vēṇāḍu

was Kothaivarma (1102 – 1125 CE) most probably his son. Kōthaivarma was perhaps

the Vēṇāḍu ruler who conquered Kōṭṭāṟu and the neighboring portion of Nāñchilnāḍu

from Pāṇḍyas and incorporated them into Vēṇāḍu. He had four sons, viz.,

Kothakēraḷavarma, Vīraravivarma, Ādityavarma and Udhaya Mārthānḍavarma. All

these sons ascended the throne of Vēṇāḍu one after the other.81

Kothakēraḷavarma

also called Vīrakēraḷavarma annexed Cape Comorin, Sucīndram and adjoining areas

from a local chieftain who stayed himself as Nāñchilkuṟavan. During the thirteenth

and fourteenth centuries Vēṇāḍu was ruled by powerful rulers.82

During this period,

Periyavīṭṭu Mudaliyār of Aḻakiyapāṇdyapuram had become the powerful leaders in

Nāñchilnāḍu. It is likely that his power was curbed by the Vēṇāḍu ruler Vīrakēraḷa

who conquered Nāñchilnāḍu. We find from an inscription in Sucīndram that the place

was called Vīrakēraḷa chaturvēdimaṅgalam.83

There are records to prove that the

Vaṇigarmaṉ Mudaliyār as representing the people of Nāñchilnāḍu was consulted by

the Vēṇāḍu king on many important state affairs. It was this Mudaliyār assisted by a

79

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, p.524. 80

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. III, Tamilnadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/271. 81

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, pp. 170

– 71. 82

N.Gunabalan, Studies in the History of the Kanyakumari Region, Unpublished Ph.D., Thesis,

University of Madras, Madras, 1989, p.27. 83

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, p.526.

78

number of Ambalakkārars (officials) who collected the revenue from the peasant of

Nāñchilnāḍu and paid the same into the royal treasury for a long time.84

Periyavīṭṭu

Mudaliyār of Aḻakiyapāṇdyapuram migrated from Chōḻa kingdom and established his

influence in certain villages of Nāñchilnāḍu.85

Vīraravivarma (1150-1161CE)

His inscription issued in 1161 CE found at Pērumāl temple in Puravachērry

mentions a donation of land to Perumāḷ temple for its rituals and lighting a perpetual

lamp.86

Vīrakēraḷavarma II (1160– 170 CE) was a successor of Vīraravivarma. His

minister Siṅgaṉ Araṅgaṉ made donation to Perumāḷ temple in Puravachērry.

Kaliṅguṉdrapolaṉ and Nayṉaṉkuṉdrapolaṉ were the local administrators of

Nāñchilnāḍu.87

Sri Vīraudhaya Mārthānḍavarma (1171 – 1191CE)

Sri Vīraudhaya Mārthānḍavarma donated land to Ādhikēsava Perumāḷ temple

of Tiruvaṭṭāṟu for its daily worship in 1172 CE.88

Another inscription records a gift of

land to Pratīswaramuḍaiya Mahādēvar for conducting daily pūjas when the Vēṇāḍu

king Sri Vīra Udaya Mārtāṇḍa Tiruvadi was residing in the palace in the garden to the

east of Tiruvaṭṭar. It was entrusted with Sēkaraṉ Kumaraṉ of Vayakkālūr. It is dated

to Kollam 354 corresponding to 1178 CE.89

Kēraḷavarma- III (1192 – 1195 CE)

Kēraḷavarma-III, a contemporary ruler of Jatāvarmaṉ Kulasēkara Pāṇḍya,

created a new village called Vīrakēraḷapuram and constructed a new temple called

84

P.Pushparaj,‟ Periyavīṭṭu Muḍaliār Aḻakiapāṇḍipuram‟, In G.Sethuraman (ed.), South Indian History

Congress, XXXII, Annual Session, Chennai, 2012, p.327. 85

Personal interview with Periyavīṭṭu Kowsikaṉ son of Chidambara Dhāṇu Muḍaliyār, aged 60,

residing at Aḻagiyapāṇḍyapuram, dated on 18.05.2013. 86

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. III, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/306. 87

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.18. 88

R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, v – IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/49. 89

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol- VI, Tamil Nadu State

Department of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.185.

79

Vīrakēraḷachuram. This lithic record called this village as cheṅgaḷunīr vaḷanāṭṭu

Palakkoṭṭu dēsathu muthalakuṟichi.90

Sri Vīrarama Kēraḷavarma (1195 – 1205 CE)

The successor of Udaya Mārthāṇḍa was Vīrarama varmar. He donated land to

teachers for teaching Rig and Yajūr Veda in Perumāḷ temple of Puravachērry in

Agasthīswaram taluk. It was dated in 1196 CE.91

The Vellayani inscription of Vēṇāḍu

refers to the working of the Aṟūnuṭṭṟuvar (six hundred) of Vēṇāḍu.92

Vīraravi Kēraḷavarma (1215 – 1240 CE)

Vīrarama Kēraḷavarma was succeeded by Ravikēraḷavarma (1215-1240 CE).

The Maṇalikara (Kalkuḷam taluk) inscription records the great interest evinced by the

ruler in the welfare of the common people. The purport of the record is to fix the rates

of taxes in case of failure of crops by village assembly. Vīraravikēraḷa Varma

bestowed special attention on the Sucīndram and Padmanābha swāmi temples. Since

the days of Vīraravikēraḷa Varma the Nambūthiris were appointed to perform pūjas in

the temple of Nāñchilnāḍu.93

Padmanābha Mārthāṇḍa (1240 – 1253 CE)

The next Vēṇāḍu ruler was Padmanābha Mārthāṇḍa varma. He was

contemporary of Jaṭāvaramaṉ Sundara Pāṇḍya (1251 – 1268 CE). However, we

hardly get record of his time.

Vīrakēraḷavarma Tiruvadi (1254 – 1256 CE)

A few records of Vīrakēraḷavarma Tiruvadi, the successor of Padmanābha

Mārthāṇḍa are found in Kaṉyākumari region. During this period later, Pāṇḍya

Empire was established at Madurai.94

It seems the Pāṇḍya rulers invaded

Kaṉyākumari region. We have come across Māṟavarmaṉ Sundara Pāṇḍya (1216 -

90

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.18. 91

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkḷ, vol. III, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/321. 92

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.172. 93

R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, v – IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/123. 94

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.19.

80

1244 CE) inscription at Sucīndram temple. Ulagamuḻuthudaiyāḷ Chokathāṇḍāḷ, wife

of Vīrapandiya, presented money to Sucīndram temple and food is offered to

Brahmins. It was registered by village assembly and executives of Sucīndram temple

in 1256 CE.95

Sri Vīrauthaya Mārthānḍavarma (1314 – 1344 CE)

The successor of Ravivarma Kulasēkara was the first Vēṇāḍu king to ascent

the throne according to the matrilineal system of succession.96

An inscription of Sri

Vīrauthaya Mārthāṇḍa Varma issued in 1315 CE found at Mahādēvar temple in

Kēraḷapura records the grant for performing certain rituals at Muthalakuṟichi Sri

Vīrakēraḷīswarar Mahādēvar temple.97

During this period, Sūryabaṭṭan also built a

Piḷḷayār temple and dug a well in Kuṟaṇḍi. Srivīrakēraḷavarma Tiruvadi (1344-

1361CE) also donated land to Sri Padmanābha temple and it was recorded in Archives

of Sri Padmanābha temple.98

Parākrama Pāṇḍyaṉ (1357 -1363 CE)

His reign commenced about in 1357 CE and he had secured possession of

Nāñchilnāḍu and ruled over it. The Chōḻapuram inscription records that the temple of

Rājēnḍra Choḻēswaram was reconstructed by Parākrama in the 15th

regnal year of his

reign. In the latter half of the 14th

century, the Pāṇḍya lost their hold on the Madurai

country and found their authority restricted to the extreme south.99

Sri Vīra Mārthānḍavarma III (1364 – 1372 CE)

His epigraphical record found at Uthayamārthāṇḍa-viṇṇava-empērumāl temple

in Pudugrāmam of Rājarāja-nārayan-cadurvēdimaṅgalam. During his period, many

neighbouring states made expatiation to Kaṉyākumari region.100

95

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/194. 96

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.243. 97

R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭugaḷ, v – IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,

Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/22. 98

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.19 – 20. 99

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra, Madras, 1953, pp.36 – 37. 100

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.20.

81

Sarvaṅganātha Āditya Varma (1376- 1383 CE)

Sarvaṅganātha Āditya Varma, who succeeded Ravi Ravivarmaṉ was a highly

accomplished ruler. He was a poet, scholar and musician of considerable merit. He

was equally famous as a fighter. An inscription in the Krishṇaṉkoil temple at Vaḍasēri

furnishes an impressive catalogue of Sarvaṅganātha‟s intellectual attainments such as

his proficiently in grammar, music, smrithis, arthasāstra, purānas, ātmasāstra and

tarka. Ādityavarma was a staunch Vaishṇavite and he composed devotional hymns in

praise of the deities of Trivandram and Tiruvaṭṭar. His reign was on the whole a

significant landmark in the history of Vēṇāḍu.101

Chēra Udaya Mārthāṇḍavarmar (1383 – 1444 CE)

Sarvaṅganātha Āditya varma was succeeded by Chēra Udaya

Mārthāṇḍavarma. He had the longest region in Travancore history. He ruled over

territories on either side of the Western Ghats – Chēramāṉdēvi was the favourite

residence of this ruler. From the time of Chēra Mārthāṇḍa, Vēṇāḍu gradually

extended its sway into the interior of the Tirunelvēli region.102

Chēra Udhaya

Mārthāṇḍa was the patron of the Sucīndram temple and he built its sabhā maṇdapa in

1440 CE.103

Ādityavarma (1444–1448CE)

Chēraudaya Mārthānḍavarma was succeeded by Ādityavarma. Cheṇbaga

Ādhithavarmarana-chiraivai-muthavar (1460 – 1469 CE) was dug a well at Krishṇaṉ

temple in Agasthīiswaram taluk. It was dated in 1460 CE.104

He composed devotional

hymns in praise of the deities of Tiruvaṭṭar.

Sri Vīra Rāmavarmarāna Tirupapūr Muṭṭatiruvadi (1470-1478 CE)

His epighraphical records were found at Sucīndram temple. He donated land

and money to Kēsavan for conducting daily rituals, food offer to Brahmin and lighting

101

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.244. 102

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra, Madras, 1953, p.37. 103

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/223. 104

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. I, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/125.

82

the perpetual lamp in Sucīndram temple.105

In 1478 CE, he also built

Chembagarāmaṉ maṇdapam in Sucīndram temple.106

Vīramārthāṇḍa Kulasēkara

Perumāḷ a contemporary Vēṇāḍu ruler of Sri Vīra Rāmavarmarāṉ Tirupapūr

mūthatiruvadi constructed a tank and dug a well at Sucīndram temple in 1471 CE.107

Kōthai Ādithavarma (1479-1483 CE) ā

His epighraphical record found at Sucīndram temple describes the abolition of

taxes during his ruling over of eighteen Nāḍu.108

Bhūtala Vīra Sri Ravivarma (1484 –

1512 CE), the next Vēṇāḍu ruler, established a sound system of administration.

During his reign the empire of Vijayanagar had risen to power in South India and it

embarked on its aggressive activities on the borders of the Vēṇāḍu kingdom. In 1498

CE, Vascoda Gama a Portuguese sailor arrived in Vēṇāḍu. Finally, the Portuguese has

given facilities for trade in pepper at the port of Quilon.109

His lithic record mentioned

the gift of land and paṇam (money) to an Islamic Paḷḷi in Chiṉṉa Muṭṭam near

Kaṉyākumari. It also mentions various taxes collected from fisherman. It is dated to

Kollam 669 corresponding to 1494 CE.110

Bhūtala Vīra Sri Udaya Mārthāṇḍavarma (1516 – 1535 CE)

He was the next Vēṇāḍu ruler. A brilliant warrior and extended his conquest

further into Tirunelvēli and conquered the major port of that district from Pāṇḍyas. A

new palace was built by him at Vīramārthāṇḍa Chaturvēdimaṅgalam in Kalakkāḍu

and it became the headquarter of Bhūtala Vīra Sri Udayamārthāṇḍa varma. This

Vēṇāḍu ruler probably married to Chōḻa princes and called himself Pulimārthāṇḍa

after the family emblem of his wife. He also built a dam named Vīrappuli dam.

Bhūtala Vīra Sri Udaya Mārthāṇḍavarma made handsome donations to temples in the

Nāñchilnāḍu and in Tirunelvēli region, e.g. the temples at Ambāsamudram,

105

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ , vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/153. 106

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/198. 107

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/153. 108

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/162. 109

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.245. 110

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol- VI, Tamil Nadu State

Department of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, No; 487/2004.

83

Maṉṉarkōvil, Kalakkāḍu and Sucīndram. A highly tolerant monarch, he also gifted

land called Paḷḷichantam to the Jain temple at Nāgarkōil in 1520 CE and exempted

the harassed Christian paravas of Kaṉyākumari from the payment of certain taxes

which were being extracted from them by the local village community.111

He

appointed a temple accountant in Thōvālai Krishṇa temple and fixed his payment.112

In 1534 CE, he gifted land of Thaḻakuḍi to Sucīndram temple.113

During the reign

Udaya Mārthāṇḍavarma, the Vēṇāḍu kingdom extended territory up to southern

portion of the Pāṇḍyaṉ kingdom.114

Bhūtala Vīra Udhaya Mārthāṇḍavarmar

constructed Chōḻaṉthiṭṭu Dam, Vīrappuli dam and Maṇakkuḍi dam which accelerated

the agricultural development in Nāñchilnāḍu.115

Ravivarma (1536 – 1539 CE)

Ravivarma also called Cheyaṭṭuṅganāṭṭu Saṅgkaranārayaṇa Veṉṟumaṉkōṇḍa

Bhūtala Vīra Sri Ravivarma. His epigraphical records found at Vaḍivīswaram temple

in Agasthīswaram taluk registered donation of land to Vaḍivanāthaṉ temple in 1536

CE.116

The inscription issued in 1540 CE found on the walls of Sucīndram temple

records the provision of irrigation facilities in the land of dēvadāṉa village by his

successor Sakalakalai Mārthānḍavarma (1540-1544 CE).117

His successor

BhūtalaVīra Sri Vīrakerlavarma‟s (1544-1545 CE) period is known for the famous

Jesuit missionary. St. Francis Xavier carried out the missionary activities in

Nāñchilnāḍu. The Vēṇāḍu king is said to have given him all facilities to carry out his

evangelizing mission activities in Nāñchilnāḍu. During his rule, a notable clash of

arms took place between Vēṇāḍu and Vijayanagar. The Vijayanagar army under

Rāmarāyavithala won a victory. St. Francis Xavier is believed to have played an

important role in arranging the settlement of the conflict between Vijayanagar and

111

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.246. 112

R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, Vol.– V, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/64. 113

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/228. 114

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.246. 115

D.Velappan, Nāñchilnāḍu (History, Economy, Tradition), Roghini Publication, Nagarkoil, 2000,

p.8. 116

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. III, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/325. 117

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/164.

84

Vēṇāḍu.118

In 1544 CE, Vijayanagar ruler Rāmarāyaviṭṭalēsar and his younger brother

Chiṉṉathambithimmaṉaṉ built a Gopuram (Tower) in Sucīndram temple.119

During

this period, Telugu Brahmins, Deccan Idaiyars, Kambaḷathu nāyakars and Tulu

Cheṭṭiars were settled in Kaṉyākumari region.120

Bhūtala Vīra Rāmavarma (1546 – 1558 CE)

The immediate successor of BhūtalaVīra Sri Vīrakēraḷavarma is Bhūtala Vīra

Rāmavarma. He concluded the peace with Viṭṭaladēva Mahārāyar and also made gifts

to Sucīndram temple for daily worship in 1546 CE.121

His successor Sri Vīra

Ādityavarma (1559-1564 CE) donated land to Rāgavēswara swāmy temple of

Therisanankoppu in 1558 CE.122

He also made donation to Kariyamāṇikkapuram

viṇṇāḻvār temple near Sucīndram.123

Sri Vīra Udhaya Mārthānḍavarma (CE 1564 – 1587)

Bhūtala Vīra Rāmavarmarchiravai Mūthatiruvadi, a representative Vēṇāḍu

chieftain, was donated land to Mathusūthaṉa pērumāḷ temple in 1586 CE.124

During

this period, Kariyamāṇika Āḻvār temple of Kariyamāṇikkapuram was renovated by

Vēṇāḍu Queen. Sri Vīra Ravivarma (1595- 1607 CE) was mainly concerned with the

renovation of temples and performance of religious ceremonies. His inscriptions are

found at Tiruvaṭṭāṟu and Kēraḷapuram temples. In 1600 CE, a document of Sri

Ravivarma mentioned that people of Nāñchilnāḍu made donation to

Pathmanābapuram and also extended their help to build a mud fort at Uthayagiri.

Palm leaf record of Periyavīṭṭu mudaliyār also mentions the rule of Sri

Vīraravivarma.125

In 1604 CE, he renovated and built a prakāra, madappaḷḷi and

118

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.247. 119

Nadana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/240. 120

A.K.Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai, United Writers, Chennai, 2003, p.77. 121

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/241. 122

R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ , v – V, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1979, No; 1969/60. 123

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.23. 124

Nadana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. III, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/298. 125

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.23.

85

maṇdapam in Ādhikēsavapērumāl temple of Tiruvaṭṭāṟu.126

Sri Vīraravivarma also

constructed gopuram, maḍappaḷḷi, rishabha maṇdapam in Mahādēvar temple of

Kēraḷapuram in 1607 CE.127

Ramavarma Kulasēkara Perumāḷ (1607 – 1609 CE)

His epigraphical record found at Sucīndram temple records the construction of

a Kulasēkara Viṉāyaka temple at Sucīndram. Ravivarma–I (1610 – 1619 CE) was a

next Vēṇāḍu chieftain but his lithic records were not encountered in this district.

Sri Vīraravivarma – II (1620 – 1659 CE)

The Nāñchilnāḍu came under the control of Nāyakas of Madurai. Tirumalai

Nāyaka forces entered Vēṇāḍu in 1634 CE during rule and made the Vēṇāḍu rulers

pay the tribute to them. After Nāyaka invasion, Vēṇāḍu rulers gradually lost the

power.128

In 1622 CE, Tiruvikkiramaṉ of Mūlamaṅgalam constructed the

mukamaṇdapa of the Bhagavati Temple at Valvaiṭṭakoṭṭam.129

Sri Vīraravivarma–II

was succeeded by Ādithavarma (1660 – 1678 CE). During this period, Yogakkar, the

temple trustees, were appointed in Sri Padmanābha swamy temple. In those days,

Yogakkar and Eṭṭuvīṭṭil Piḷḷamār‟s were influenced in administration. Eṭṭuviṭṭil

Piḷḷamār got the right to collect land revenue of temple in Vēṇāḍu. This provision

make each member of the Yogakkar and Eṭṭuvīṭṭu Piḷḷaimār to become practically an

independent landlord, with an establishment of clerks, tenants and servants all

working under him. Ādithavarma was assassinated in 1678 CE.130

The power struggle

that erupted within Eṭṭuvīṭṭil Piḷḷamārs and Madepimar led to the murder of

Ādithavarma.131

126

R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, v – IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/39. 127

R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, v – IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1979, No. 1969/21. 128

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.24. 129

R.Vasudeva Poduval, Travancore Inscriptions – A Topographical List, Asian Educational Services,

New Delhi, 1990, p.290. 130

K.K.Pillai, The Sucindram Temple, Kalakshetra, Madras, 1953, p.156. 131

P.Shungoony Menon, History of Travancore from the Earliest Times, Asian Educational Services,

New Delhi, 1985, p.101.

86

Umayamma Rāṇi (1679 – 1684 CE)

Umayamma Rāṇi became Queen Regent in 1679 CE. During this period,

Mughal invaded the southern part of Travancore. Her highness Umayammai Rāṇi,

finding it difficult to recover her kingdom from the hands of the Mughal. So, she

invited one Kēraḷavarma, a member of the northern Koṭṭayam king, a branch of the

sovereign of Kolathunāḍu and related to the Travancore royal house. Finally,

Kēraḷavarma, a brave warrior, controlled the aggression of Mughal forces in Vēṇāḍu.

This act made the Yōkakkar and the Eṭṭuvīṭil-piḷḷamār to become obedient to her

highness, the Umayamma Rāṇi. Kēraḷavarma was assassinated in 1697 CE.

Ravivarma (1684 -1718 CE)

In 1684 CE, Umayamma Rāṇi installed her son Ravivarma on attaining the

age of sixteen on the throne and in accordance with the custom of the country.

Ravivarma was died in CE. 1718.132

Umayamma Rāṇi‟s adopted son

Unnykēraḷavarma and his brother Rāmavarma took the control of the Kulathu Nāḍu.

Unnykēraḷavarma was formally adopted into the Vēṇāḍu royal family and conferred

with the title of Prince of Hiranyasimhanallūr (Eranial).133

In 1689 CE, Sucīndram

was otherwise called as Vīrakēraḷa-cadūrvedi-maṅgalam.134

Vīrakēraḷaṉ (1689 – 1697 CE)

He issued an inscription in 1696 CE abolishing the custom of pulappeti and

mannappeti while he was camping at Thividakōḍu in Kalkuḷam taluk.135

In 1697 CE,

the Nāyak army under Daḷavāi Narasappayya won a decisive victory over the Vēṇāḍu

forces and compelled the Vēṇāḍu ruler to accept the terms dictated by him. A

significant development of this period was the revolt of the people of Nāñchilnāḍu

against the tyranny of the tax – collecting officials and the oppression of the Piḷḷamār.

In 1702 CE, they held a series of meeting at different places and passed resolution

132

P.Shungoony Menon, History of Travancore From the Earliest Times, Asian Educational Services,

New Delhi, 1985, pp.104 – 6. 133

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.252. 134

Nadana. Kasinathan (ed.), , Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No; 1968/242. 135

R.Vasudeva Poduval, Travancore Inscriptions – A Topographical List, Asian Educational Services,

New Delhi, 1990, p.269.

87

protesting against the indifference of the Government and proclaiming their

determination to migrate to a place on the borders of Travancore.

Rāmavarma (1696 – 1697 CE)

During this period the Yogakkar divided the temple lands into eight districts

and placed each under the charge of Nair noblemen who was to collect and administer

the revenues. These noblemen came to be known as the Eṭṭuvīṭṭil Piḷḷamār (Lords of

eight houses). While all religions authority continued to be exercised by the Yogakkar,

political power was concentrated in the hands of the Piḷḷamār. The combination of the

Yogakkar and Piḷḷamār posed a serious menace to the authority of the king. There

were frequent clashes between the royal forces on the one side and the temple

servants and the tenants of Dēvaswam lands on the other.136

Rāmavarma (1724 – 1728 CE)

After Unnikēraḷavarmaṉ‟s death, Nāñchilnāḍu divided into three

administrative units as Pūdappāṇḍi, Chōḻapuram and Chēramaṅgalam. During this

period, Kunda Piḷḷai, a resident of Tirunelveli was appointed as a revenue collector of

Nāñchilnāḍu. But, Yogagkkar and Piḷḷamār resisted the rule of Vēṇāḍu chieftain.137

His reign saw the breakdown of royal authority and the outbreak of several skirmishes

between the royal officers and the tenants of temple lands in Nāñchilnāḍu. It was

under him that his first formal treaty between the English East India Company and the

Vēṇāḍu ruler was signed in 1723 CE. According to the terms of the treaty, the Vēṇāḍu

chieftain built a fort at Colachal for the British. After securing the help of the British,

the Vēṇāḍu ruler was motivated by the desire to strengthen his position in his fight

against the yogakkar, Piḷḷamār and other hostile elements in the kingdom.

Rāmavarma also sought the help of the Nāyaks of Madurai in his efforts to crush the

power of the local nobles. The king entered into a treaty with Nāyaks in 1726 CE.

According to the provisions of the treaty, Rāmavarma acknowledged the suzerainty of

the Nāyaks and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000 annually as tributes. The Nāyaks in

their turn offered to supply a contingent of troops to help the Vēṇāḍu king in his fight

against the Piḷḷamār and other nobles. Rāmavarma was died in 1728 CE and

136

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, p.249. 137

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.26.

88

Mārthānḍavarma (1729 – 1758 CE) became a ruler and founder of Travancore

samasthāṉam in 1729 CE.138

Vijayanagar and Nāyaka supremacy in Kaṉyākumari region

The direct or indirect political influence of Vijayanagar empire and Nāyaka

rulers in Kaṉyākumari region could be observed from 16th

century to 17th

century CE.

Tamil Nāḍu came under the sovereignty of Vijayanagar emperors ruling from Hampi

in lower Deccan. After the battle of Talikoṭṭa war, the Nāyakas or provincial

governors of the Vijayanagar empire were liberated from the central authority and

founded their Nāyakdom.139

According to some historians, Vijayanagar is the last

glorious chapter in the history of independent Hindu state of south India.140

Visvanatha Nāyakas, son of Nāgama Nāyaka, is regarded by his descendants in later

times as the founder of the celebrated Nāyaka dynasty of Madurai.141

Struggle between Vijayanagar Emperor and Travancore Kingdom

The Karnaṭaka Rājakkal Savisthara Charitham states that the Pāṇḍyas,

Chōḻas and Chēras received the Vijayanagar generals sent by Krishṇa Dēva Rāya

respectfully and paid tribute. In 1520 CE, Krishṇa Dēva Rāya had sent Nāgama

Nāyak to help Pāṇḍya against Chōḻa who appears to have seized the Pāṇḍyaṉ

territories. But Nāgama, once the trusted general, was suspected of his loyalty

towards his sovereign, and had to be called to order, by sending his own son

Visvanātha against him. Visvanātha was subsequently appointed as viceroy of the

South with the title, „chief of the Pāṇḍya Country and Lord of the southern throne‟.

During this period Travancore was ruled by Ravikēraḷavarma (1512 – 1514

CE.). Vijayanagar emperor made grants to Sucīndram temple for its daily rituals.142

Pēriya Rāmappa Nāyakar made donations to Dānumālya Pērumāl temple in

138

A.Sreedhara Menon, A Survey of Kerala History, S.Viswanathan Publishers, Chennai, 2006, pp.

253-4. 139

Ramanarayanan, „Popular Gods as seen from sculpture in the Temple of Tamil Nadu’, In

S.V.Subramanian, Heritage of the Tamils-Temple Arts, International Institute of Tamil Studies,

Chennai, 1985, pp.351-352. 140

K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India from Pre Historic Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar,

New Delhi, 2009, p.239. 141

K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India from Pre Historic Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar,

New Delhi, 2009, p.261. 142

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.90-91.

89

Sucīndram for his Kothiram (clan) prosperity.143

In 1544, Viṭṭalasar and his younger

brother build a new gopuram (tower) at Sucīndram Temple.144

The names of

Vijayanagar kings such as Vīra Narashimha, Achutarāya, Rengarāya and Rāmarāya

are mentioned in the inscription of the flag mast of the Kaṉyākumari temple. The

inscription of Muthu Vīrappa Nāyaka describes his endowment of land to the

temple towards the expenditure of the kāla santi pūja. From this inscription, it is

inferred that Kaṉyākumari and its nearby areas were under the control of Nāyaka

kings during 1607 CE.145

During this period, Telugu Brahmins, Deccan Idaiyars,

Kambaḷathu Nāyakas and Cheṭṭiyars were settled in Kaṉyākumari region.146

The Battle of Tāmiraparaṇi - 1532 CE.

The next important development that took place in the region was the

Travancore army advancing to the bank of the Tāmiraparaṇi to meet the forces of

Vijayanagar. This was in the year 1532 CE. A great battle was fought, on one side

were ranged the resources of the Empire (Vijayanagar) and of its Pāṇḍyaṉ vassal,

and on the other gallants of Travancore. The Nāyars in those days were a celebrated

military race, trained in the exercise of war from their earliest youth and taking

continued delight in their weapons, persuading themselves that no nation youth

beyond them in skill and dexterity. Vijayanagar was not able to gain any victory.

Soon after the battle of the Tāmiraparaṇi, Achyutha Rāya married the daughter of

the Pāṇḍya king.147

The Kōṭṭāṟu Struggle - 1544 CE.

In 1544 CE, there was another collision between Travancore and

Vijayanagar. The reasons were two fold. The Paravās inhabiting the tracts of the

fishery coast were being converted to Christianity by the Portuguese. This

proselytism involved a change of allegiance from the king of Vijayanagar to the

king of Portugal. Rāma Rāya, Thimma Rāya, Vithala Dēva, brother-in-law and

143

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/236. 144

Natana. Kasinathan (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. II, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/240. 145

S.Prathap Singh, „Kanyākumari Temple‟ , In S.V.Subramanian, Heritage of the Tamils-Temple Arts,

International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai, 1985, pp.105-6. 146

A.K.Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai, United Writers, Chennai, 2003, p.77. 147

V.Nagam Aiya, The Travancore State Manual, vol.II, pp.162-65.

90

Chief Minister of Achyutha, was deputed to the south in 1543 CE. The resources of

Vijayanagar were availed of to their maximum capacity. Vithala as viceroy and

general of the army led to the hosts himself. Under his command were the Chiṉṉa

Thimma, the Mahāmaṇdalēswarā, Krishṇappa, the gallant son of Viswanātha

Nāyak of Madurai, and Sadāsiva, the chief of Kēladi. The Vijayanagar army entered

Travancore through the Āralvāimoḻi pass and began to advance towards the capital.

But, the Vijayanagar forces were defeated at Kōṭṭāṟu in 1544 CE. Portuguese

supported the Travancore kingdom and fought against the invasion of Vijayanagar

in Travancore.148

The Last Vijayanagar Expedition - 1558 CE.

The Vijayanagar army under Vithala attacked Travancore again in 1558 CE

for the third time probably for the remission in the payment of tribute by the

Thiruvaḍi. This battle, it needless to say, was brought to an end.149

Travancore

became a feudatory of Vijayanagar and that the suzerainty passed to Madurai when

the Nāyaka become independent of their former master.150

Nāñchilnāḍu and Nāyakas of Madurai

The 17th

century witnessed a period of trial and tribulation to the people of

Nāñchilnāḍu. Viswanatha Nāyaka, the founder of the Madurai Nāyakdom,

subjected the Pāṇḍyas in 1553 CE. His contemporary in Vēṇāḍu was Ravivarma

(1611-63) during whose period Pathmanābhapuram became the capital of the

Vēṇāḍu rulers. Kaṉyākumari was captured by the Nāyaks in 1609 CE, as evidenced

from the letter of Fr.A.Laerzier dated 20th

November 1609, which describes the

Paravās of Kumari as tributaries of Madurai Nāyak. Thirumalai Nāyak organised

an invasion against Nāñchilnāḍu in 1634 CE. The pretext of the invasion was said

to be the refusal of the Vēṇāḍu ruler to pay tributes to the Nāyaks, the heirs of

Vijayanagar empire, who were authorized to collect tributes from Travancore.

148

V.Nagam Aiya, The Travancore State Manual, vol.II, pp.175-76. 149

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, p.81. 150

V.Nagam Aiya, The Travancore State Manual, vol.II, p.190.

91

Invasion of Rāṇi Maṅgammāḷ – 1697 CE.

In the year 1697 CE, Maṅgammāḷ, the queen regent at Madurai, invaded

Nāñchilnāḍu. The cause and course of the invasion are referred to in Nelson‟s

„Madurai Manual‟ and in Taylor‟s manuscript collections. K.K. Piḷḷai points out the

inscription engraved on a stone near a well in Vaḍasēry (Nāgarkōil), which bears

the name of Maṅgammāḷ.151

The well is locally called as “Maṅgammāl Dharma

kiṇaṟu”. Rāṇi Maṅgammāl was a popular administrator, and is widely known as a

maker of roads and avenues, and as a builder of choultries.152

Vijayanagar period

inscription mostly mention donation of land and gift of perpetual lamp to temple by

king and villagers.

Mārthāṇḍavarma (1729-1758 CE)

The modern history of the Kaṉyākumari region begins with the rule of Bala

Mārthānḍavarma who ascended the throne in the year 1729 CE. During the time of his

accession, the political conditions were instable due to rebellions and the incessant

inroads made by the Nāyak forces. This instability of the Government gave free hand

to the feudal barons such as „Yokakkars and Eṭṭuvīṭṭu Piḷḷamārs‟ to take advantage

and assert their independence. Mārthāṇḍavarma put a check by his determined action

to subdue the rebels, by seeking the assistance of the English East India Company and

Nāyak of Madurai. Finally, Yokakkars and Eṭṭuvīṭṭu Piḷḷamār‟s were captured at

Nāgarkōil and were executed by Mārthānḍavarma.153

In 1748 CE, Mārthānḍavarma

constructed Puthaṉ dam near old Pāṇḍiyaṉ dam and many irrigation canals and tanks

were dug for agricultural development in Nāñchilnāḍu.

Thus, Thōvālai and

Agastīswaram region of Nāñchilnāḍu became “Granary of Travancore region”.154

Mārthāṇḍavarma was a great ruler and founder of Travancore Samasthāṉam in

1729 CE.155

As an able administrator, he prepared to ignore traditional methods of

151

M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India, Tamil Nadu State, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu

Archives, Chennai, 1995, pp.82-83. 152

R.Vasudeva Poduval, Travancore Inscriptions – A Topographical List, Asian Educational Services,

New Delhi, 1990, p.109. 153

M. Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India – Kanniyakumari District, Commissioner of Archives

& Historical Research, Madras, 1995, p.84. 154

D. Velappan, Nāñchilnāḍu, (History, Economy, Tradition), Roghini Publication, Nagarkoil, 2000,

pp.43-44. 155

A.K. Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai, United Writers, Chennai, 2003, p.84.

92

warfare and governance, he sought to create a new type of centralized state. He

employed a Belgian soldier, Eustace de lanoy, to recognize his military into a salaried,

drilled and dependent army composed of diverse groups including Deccani and

Pathan Muslims, Tamil Hindu warriors and local Syrian Christians.156

He also

brought Maratta Brahmans to administer these newly conquered territories and

displaced the local chiefs. He tried to create a centralized administration.

Colachel war between Travancore and Dutch forces on August 10th

1741 CE

The Dutch being irked by the aggressions of Mārthānḍavarma, deputed its

Governor at Sri Lanka, Van Imhoof, to emulate against Mārthānḍavarma. As a result,

a battle ensued in which the Dutch met with defeat. However, the Dutch were

relentless in the pursuit and attacked Travancore from the south and captured the

region extending from Colachel to Kōṭṭāṟu. This conquest posed a threat to Kalkuḷam,

the southern head quarters of Mārthāṇḍavarma. But Mārthānḍavarma once again

proved his ability by meeting the Dutch on the battlefield at Colochel on August 10th

,

1741 CE., which proved to be a death knell to the Dutch and also made them revert to

their original position as traders, and allowed them to retain the territory. During this

period, Mārthānḍavarma conquered up to Kayankuḷam and States of Malabar. After

Colachel war, Dutch captain, Delanoy served in Travancore army and he

reconstructed and modernised administrative machinery, military forces and forts in

Travancore kingdom.157

Chandasāhib‟s Invasion of Travancore in CE.1740

Meanwhile, in 1740 CE, there occurred an invasion of Nāñchilnāḍu by

Chandasāhib. Nelson, the author of the Madura Manual states that in 1740 CE, the

Nawāb of Ārcot placed Safdar Ali Khān and Chandasāhib both relatives of the Nawāb

of Ārcot, at the head of a large army and entrusted them with the invasion of

Travancore. The invasion of Travancore was part of a general scheme of plunder.

However, Mārthānḍavarma was managed to settle the issue with Chandasāhib by

paying him a large sum of money. Mārthāṇḍavarma was assisted in this delicate

156

Barbara N. Ramusack, The New Cambridge History of India, (III.6), The Indian Princes and their

States, Cambridge University, New York, 2004, p.33. 157

M. Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India – Kanniyakumari District, Commissioner of Archieves

& Historical Research, Madras, 1995, p.85.

93

matter by his astute minister Rāmayaṉ Daḷavāi. But before the settlement was

effected, Chandasāhib had done much harm to Nāñcilnāḍu. Soon after passing

through the Āralvāimōḻi pass the rapacious host rushed in and attacked Kōṭṭāṟam,

revenging the places on the way. The invaders reached Sucīndram. During this period,

Chandasāhib‟s forces damaged many sculptures and looted temple treasures in

Sucīndram, Kōṭṭāṟu, Vaḍasēri, Tiruppathisāram, etc. By this time the negotiation

between Mārthāṇḍavarma and Chandasāhib were completed and thereafter the party

withdrew.158

The French Intervention of Travancore in CE.1750

In 1750 CE, the French attempted to form a settlement at Colachel. It does not

appear that they were successful. In the next year Mārthāṇḍavarma wrote to the king

of Colastria “advising him not to put any confidence in the French, but to assist the

English as much as he could”.159

Mārthāṇḍavarma was followed by many rulers like Dharma Rāja (1758-1798

CE), Balarāma Varma (1798-1810), Gauri Parvathibāi (1815-1829 CE), Swāthi

Tirunāḷ (1829-1847 CE), Uṭṭiram Tirunāḷ (1847-1860 CE ), Āyilyam Tirunāḷ (1860-

1880 CE), Visāgam Tirunāḷ (1880-1885 CE ), Sri Mūlam Tirunāḷ (1885-1924 CE)

Sēthu Lakshmi Bāi (1924-1931 CE ) and Chithirai Tirunāḷ (1931-1949 CE ).

Tipu Sultan Invasion of Travancore in CE.1789

During this period Kārthigai Tirunāl Rāmavarma (1758-1798 CE) was a ruler

of Travancore kingdom and Kēsavadoss alias Rājakēsavadoss was a Diwān of

Travancore. During his time, Tiruvaṇthapuram became a capital of Travancore in

1790 CE.160

In 1789 CE, Tipu Sultan provoked the king of Travancore to a war. To

effect this, the Sultan suggested to his Vassal that he should claim the districts of

Paravūr and Alangād, and that a refusal, he should commence hostilities in which he

would be strongly assisted by the Mysore army. This proposal embarrassed the

Cochin chief, who said that those districts were ceded to Travancore for important

158

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, pp.550-

52. 159

V.Nagam Aiya, The Travancore State Manual, vol.I (In three volumes), Asian Educational

Services, Madras, 1989, p.350. 160

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.29.

94

assistance given in the defense of his country and that they were ever since in the

possession of Travancore. Kārthigai Tirunāḷ Rāmavarma forwarded a polite answer to

Tipu Sultan, conveying his Highness‟ thanks for the Sultan‟s consideration and his

proposal for an alliance but intimating at the same time, his total inability to form an

alliance, without the knowledge and consent of his Highness‟s ally, The East India

company under whose support and protection the Mahārāja had placed himself for

several years past.161

In 1795 CE, the Travancore ruler expediently concluded as

Treaty of Subsidiary Alliance with the company to secure additional protection from

Tipu Sultan‟s aggression. In 1800 CE, Travancore had to accept its first British

resident and reconfirmed its commitment to the British with another treaty in 1805

CE.162

Diwāṉ Vēlu Thampi‟s Revolt of 1809 CE

Half a century before the First War of Indian Independence (1857 CE),

Kēraḷa Varma Pazhassi Rāja of Koṭṭayam in North Malabar and Vēlāyuthaṉ

Chēmpakarāmaṉ Thambi, popularly known as Vēlu Thambi, Diwāṉ of the Princely

State of Travancore rose in revolt against the British. Diwāṉ Vēlu Thambi was a

fearless fighter and was a patriot first and foremost. He was born as a nature of

Nāgarkōil in Kaṉyākumari region on the 6th

of May 1765 CE. The military training in

the Kalari made him a striking personality, physically hardly and well built. He also

studied logic, āyurveda, astrology, mathematics, etc. Thampi‟s uncommon intellect

and inquisitiveness enabled him to be appointed as a Kariakar in a taluk of South

Travancore (1798 CE). He became the Diwāṉ of Travancore in 1801.163

During this

period, Balarāmavarma (1798-1810 CE) was a ruler of Travancore. At this period,

Diwān Vēlu Thambi, and Twelve Pitāgai members of Nāñchilnāḍu revolted against

corrupt ministers of Travancore kingdom.164

The treaty signed at Anjengo on the 17th

November 1795 CE, did not contain any clause enabling the company to interfere in

the internal affairs of Travancore. Governor General Wellesly believed that the

161

P.Shungoonny Menon, History of Travancore from the Earliest Times, Asian Educational Services,

New Delhi, 1985, pp.213-15. 162

Barbara N. Ramusack, The New Cambridge History of India, (III.6), The Indian Princes and their

States, Cambridge University, New York, 2004, p.34. 163

T.P. Sankaran Kutty Nair, „Pre-1857 Upheavals in Travancore‟, In, S.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), The

South Indian Rebellions, (Before and after 1800), Palaniyappa brothers, Chennai, 2008, pp.72-73. 164

A.K. Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai, United Writers, Chennai, 2003, p.99.

95

avowed object of the rising of 1804 was the supervision of British influence in the

Council‟s of the king. The revised treaty settled on 12th

January, 1805 CE, between

the Mahārāja of Travancore and the Marquess of Wellesly, clearly laid down as its

objects the inclusion of additional provisions for the purpose of supplying the defects

in the treaty of 1795 CE. The company undertook to defend and protect the territories

of the Rāja against all enemies whatsoever, thereby assuring protection of Travancore

against internal as well as external enemies. In return, the Rāja paid tribute worth Rs.

8 lakhs annually in six equal installments.

The treaty of 1805 was the outcome of the imperial policy of Lord Wellesly. It

made Travancore completely subservient to the company in foreign affairs and

crippled her freedom even in internal affairs. It reduced Travancore, hitherto an equal

ally to the position of a subordinate power. The state became a completely dependent

on the British.165

During this period, Diwāṉ Vēluthambi not paid tribute of Rs. 8

lakhs to British East Indian Company. The reorganization of the administrative

structure on a sound footing proved his mettle as an administrator of conspicuous

ability.166

On 15

th January, Thambi with a huge host ranging from twenty to thirty

thousand men and with eighteen guns advanced to Quilon. The British forces at

Quilon was commanded by Cal. Chalmers and assisted by Col. Picton. The British

forces occupied the fort of Udayagiri and Pathmanābhapuram on 19th

February, 1809.

The army under their commander–in-chief, Col. Calmers fought several battles and

advanced to the capital.167

Col. Macaulay ordered for a statewide search for Vēlu Thampi who was found

missing. A reward of Rs. 50,000 was offered for his apprehension. After his visit to

the Rāja, Vēlu Thampi preceded further north with his brother Pathmanābaṉ Thambi

later they went to the palace at Kilimāṉūr and kept his gold covered sword there and

left for Kuṉṉathūr. By that time the army party of British and nature troops sent in

pursuit of Vēlu Thambi arrived. Vēlu Thampi had only three options to take (a)

surrender to the British forces (b) to take asylum in any of the alien shackles (c) to

leave this world forever. He preferred the third course and took asylum in the

165

M. Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India – Kanniyakumari District, Commissioner of Archieves

& Historical Research, Madras, 1995, pp.74-75. 166

A.K. Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai, United Writers, Chennai, 2003, p.99. 167

M. Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India – Kanniyakumari District, Commissioner of Archieves

& Historical Research, Madras, 1995, p.80.

96

Bhagavathi temple at Maṉṉaḍi on 28th

March 1809 CE, he committed suicide. He

plunged his dagger into his bosom to prevent his capture by the British. The deceased

Daḷavāi‟s brother Pathamanābhaṉ Thampi was also hanged on the 10th

April, 1809.

Several of the promoters of the insurrection like Vaikam Pathmanābha Piḷḷai were

punished by being publicly hanged at Quilon, Poracaud, and Paḷḷathuruthi, the spots

where the Europeans were massacred. All these inhuman acts were done under the

orders of Resident Col.Macaulay and Travancore Diwāṉ Ummini Thampi. Vēlu

Thampi died as a Matyr on the altar of Travancore Independence, although his target

was never fulfilled. His indomitable courage, fierce independence and patriotism

continued to inspire generations.168

Travancore kingdom and important Social Reformations

In 1812 CE, Gowry Lakshmibāi (1811-1815 CE) abolished

“Slavery system” in Travancore Kingdom. Reddy Rao, a Diwān of Parvathibāi

(1815-1829 CE), implemented many social reforms. In 1817, Reddy Rao issued an

order allowing the depressive class people to wear all precious jewels like, gold, silver

etc. Uṭṭiram Tirunāḷ Mārtāṇḍavarma (1847-1860 CE) passed a royal order in 1845 in

prohibiting the women of outcaste people wearing upper garments. During this

period, all depressive class people protested against the Travancore rulers. Finally, the

depressive class was allowed to wear upper garments by Uṭṭiram Tirunāḷ

Mārthānḍavarma in 1859 CE. In 1861, postal system was introduced by Āyilya

Tirunāḷ Rāmavarma (1860-1880 CE) in Kaṉyākumari region. In 1875 CE, population

census was conducted. In 1883, Sri Visākam Tirunāḷ Rāmavarma (1880-1885 CE)

enacted Land Revenue Reforms Act and introduced plantation cultivation in

Kaṉyākumari region.169

Sri Mūlam Tirunāḷ Rāmavarma (1885-1924 CE) was one of the prominent

rulers of recent times. Several administrative reforms were introduced. The various

departments of the state like those of Finance, Land Revenue, Judiciary, Education,

Irrigation, and Public were all reorganized and placed on a stable footing. In respect

of Nāñchilnāḍu, the greatest piece of service was the construction of the Kōḍayār dam

168

M. Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India – Kanniyakumari District, Commissioner of Archieves

& Historical Research, Madras, 1995, pp.82-83. 169

Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu State Department of

Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.30-31.

97

and a network of irrigation channels. In 1900 CE, Tiruvaṭṭāṟu bridge was constructed.

It was during his rule, a separate department of Dēvasvams (Temples) was established

in 1922 CE. He was a popular monarch among the people of Nāñchilnāḍu in

particular and frequently he paid royal visits to the famous temples of Kaṉyākumari ,

Sucīndram, Krishṇaṉkōil and Tiruppatisāram. In 1930 CE, „Dēvadāsi‟ system and

animal sacrifices abolished by Sethu Lakshmibāi (1925-1931) in Kaṉyākumari

region. Sri Chitra Tirunāḷ Balarāmavarma (1931-1949 CE) was abolished capital

punishment, established the Travancore University and opened several new industries.

The construction of a concrete main grand trunk road running from Trivandram to

Kaṉyākumari was completed by 1938 and it was facilitated rapid communication

between the royal capital and Nāñchilnāḍu.170

The temple entry proclamation of 1936

CE was a real land mark in the religions history of Travancore as it threw open the

gates of temples to all Hindus including untouchables.171

In 1947, India became

independent, and following that a Reorganisation of States appeared in 1956. During

this period, Thōvāḷai, Agastīswaram and some places in the north like Viḷavaṅgkōḍu

and Kalkuḷam were included in the state of Tamil Nāḍu.172

Thus, the Kaṉyākumari region, irrespective of its political discourses

maintained its identity. All the leading dynasties of South India like Āyi, Pāṇḍyas,

Chōḻas, Chēras, Vēṇāḍu, Vijayanagar, Nāyak chieftains and Travancore kingdom

were directly or indirectly associated with this region. The literary and epigraphical

sources shed a considerable light on the social, economic and political conditions of

Kaṉyākumari region.

170

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, pp.552-

53. 171

Gopal Bhargava (ed.), Encyclopedia of Art and Culture in India, (Kerala – In 27 Volumes) Vol-3,

ISHA books, Delhi, 2008. p.24. 172

K.K.Pillai, Studies in Indian History (With special reference Tamil Nadu), Chennai, 1979, pp.553-

54.

98

CHAPTER – IV

HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF KAṈYĀKUMARI REGION

Historical Geography is a part of human geography concerned with the study

of man’s interaction with his environment; in other words, it is the relation between

habit (or culture) and habitat, according to a senior geographer Sauer (1941). The

same scholar emphasizes the historical nature of the study: ‘If the object is to define

and understand human association as a real growth, we must find out how they and

their distributions (settlements) and their activities (land use) came to be what they

are. Modes of living and winning a livelihood from their land involves knowing both

the ways (culture traits) they discovered for themselves, and those they acquired from

other groups. Such study of culture areas is historical geography’.1 Historical

Geography is the study of spatial variation within the period. Here the changes that

happened in the administrative and political units, viz, nāḍu, kūṟṟam and vaḷanāḍu

formed the main theme.

The first foundation stone for the Chōḻa Empire was laid during the reign of

Parāntaka-I (907-955 CE). The Chōḻa army went up to Nellūr in the north and to

Kaṉyākumari in the south and much territory was added to the Chōḻa kingdom. The

Chōḻa power, crippled for some years, gained new vigour under Sunḍara Chōḻa (956 -

69 CE) and Uthama Chōḻa (970-85 CE). The Chōḻa Empire reached its largest extent

under Rājarāja, the Great (985-1014 CE) from the Vēṅgi country in the north to

Kaṉyākumari in the south, including south Mysore and a good part of Kēraḷa. The

administrative organization of the country was perfected by the creation of a well-

equipped central staff. The whole country was surveyed and settled. The reign of

1 Y.Subbarayalu, Historical Geography of South India, Indian History Congress 73rd Session, Mumbai,2012, p.1.

99

Rājēnḍra I (1012 – 44 CE) is remarkable for the establishment of the Chōḻa–Pāṇḍya

viceroyalty in the Pāṇḍya country.2

The aim of the present work is to study the territorial and administrative units

viz., Maṇḍalam, Vaḷanāḍu, Nāḍu / Kūṟṟam, Brahmadēyam, Maṅgaḷam, function of

Nagaram and local government that existed in Kaṉyākumari region during the Chōḻa

rule from c.800 to 1300 CE. The division of the country into Maṇḍalam, Vaḷanāḍu,

Nāḍu, village and other administrative units formed the backbone of imperial Chōḻa

administration and which mainly contributed to the economic, social and cultural

dominance of the Chōḻas over other dynasties. Some fine aspects of these

administrative units are discussed in detail with the help of epigraphs and maps.

Vaḷanāḍu

Territorial division of Pāṇḍyanāḍu was divided into a number of territorial sub

divisions. Each division was created having an ūr at its centre. It was believed that

these divisions were made for administrative purpose by the ruling Government. But,

the recent discoveries in the field of research prove that these were basically ethnic

units. The territorial divisions had the suffix such as Kūṟṟam, Muṭṭam, Kuḷakīḻ and

Nāḍu. In Kaṉyākumari region, all the territorial divisions had the major suffix Nāḍu.

As gleaned from the inscriptions, the following territorial divisions existed at different

period right from the 8th century to 18th century CE.3 Nearly seven major Vaḷanāḍu

and Nāḍu divisions were identified. The following table shows territorial divisions

such as Vaḷanāḍu and Nāḍu identified in Kaṉyākumari region.

Table 4: 1 Vaḷanāḍu and Nāḍu in Kaṉyākumari region

Sl.No.Name of the Vaḷanāḍuand Nāḍu

Taluk

Date(inCE)

Reference

1. Uthama Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu AGS 1038 K.K. vol. I : 1968/107

2. Nāñchilnāḍu TOV 860 K.K.vol. V: 1969/33

3. Puṟathāyanāḍu AGS 1000 K.K.vol. I : 1968/47

2 Y. Subbarayalu, Political Geography of Chola Country, The State Department of Archaeology,Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1973, pp.11-12.

3 Seetharam Gurumurthi, Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. VI, State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p. 1.

100

4. Vaḷḷuvanāḍu KLM 1003 K.K. vol. IV : 1969/38-I

5. Kurunāḍu KLM 1139 K.K. vol.IV : 1969/38

6 Muthalanāḍu(Theṅganāḍu)

VLA Historical Atlas of South India –2008

7 Cheṅgaḻunīrnāḍu KLM 1607 K.K. vol. IV; 1969/21: HistoricalAtlas of South India – 2008

Sl.No. Name of Nāḍus Present name of the Unit

1. Puṟathāyanāḍu Agasthīswaram taluk

2. Nāñchilnāḍu Thōvāḷai and Agastīswaram taluks

3. Vaḷḷuvanāḍu Kalkuḷam taluk

4. Kuṟunāḍu Kalkuḷam taluk

5. Theṅganāḍu(Muthalanāḍu) Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk

6. Cheṅgaḻunīr Vaḷanāḍu In and around Thuckalay ( Kalkuḷam taluk )

The above Nāḍu were under the major territorial division of Pāṇḍināḍu which

is otherwise known as Pāṇḍi Maṇḍalam. During the region of Rājarāja –I (985 -1014

CE) the Pāṇḍināḍu was known as ‘Rājarāja Pāṇḍināḍu’. It was divided into four major

divisions and all other smaller units were brought under this. They were as follows.

1. Rājēnḍra Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu

2. Maḍurānṭaka Vaḷanāḍu

3. Muḍi Koṇḍa Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu

4. Uthama Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu

The area in between Veḷḷār and Vaigai river was called Rājēnḍra Chōḻa

Vaḷanāḍu. The region in between Vaigai and Vaippār was called as Maḍurānṭaka

Vaḷanāḍu. Muḍi koṇḍa Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu comprised of the area in between Vaippār

101

and Tāmaraparaṇi. And lastly, the area in between Tāmaraparaṇi and Cape Comorin

was known as Uthama Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu. The Chōḻa inscriptions suggest that all the

Nāḍus to the east of Kaṉyākumari were brought under Uthama Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu. The

area to the east of Nāgarkōil including South Kēraḷa and up to the Arabian Sea was

called as Theṉṉāḍu. The inscriptions also reveal that all other smaller units otherwise

known as nāḍus brought under this major division of Theṉṉāḍu.4

Maṇḍalam

In ancient period, Kaṉyākumari region was parts of major administrative

division namely Pāṇḍiya Maṇḍalam. Names of some of the administrative divisions

were changed to meet the aspiration of the ruler. In majority of the cases, only the

name of the existing administrative units was changed, but hardly change in the

demarcation of the territorial units. The following table would show the various

administrative divisions from the Chōḻa period to the present day.

Chōḻas Pāṇḍyas Vijayanagar

Maṇḍalam Maṇḍalam Uchāvaḍi

Vaḷanāḍu Vaḷanāḍu Sīrmai

Nāḍu / Paṟṟu Nāḍu / Paṟṟu Nāḍu / Paṟṟu

Ūr Ūr Ūr5

During the reign of Rājarāja–I (985-1014 CE), the territorial units underwent

major changes. He introduced a new administrative unit called Vaḷanāḍu when he

reorganized the entire administrative setup of nāḍus after conducting a revenue survey

of his empire in 1001 CE. He divided his empire into five major divisions called

Maṇḍalams and put his name or surname to each Maṇḍalam. Thus the ancient

Chōḻanāḍu was given a new label called Chōḻa Maṇḍalam. The Chōḻanāḍu was

divided into Vaḷanāḍus each one being named after the king’s name or surname.6

4 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. VI, State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p. 2.5 L. Thiyagarajan, Historical Archaeology of the Ariyalur Region upto CE. 1817 : A Study,Ph.D.,Thesis, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, 1999, p.79.6 L. Thiyagarajan, Historical Archaeology of the Ariyalur Region up to CE. 1817 : A Study,Ph.D.,Thesis, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, 1999, p. 84.

102

Vaḷanāḍu means literally a fertile country. The Vaḷanāḍu, as a territorial element, was

peculiar and confined to Chōḻa times and Chōḻa territory.7

The area in between Tāmaraparaṇi and Cape Comorin was known as Uthama

Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu. The Chōḻa inscriptions impart that all the nāḍus to the east of

Kaṉyākumari brought under this Uthama Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu. The area to the east of

Nāgarkōil including south Kēraḷa and up to the Arabian Sea was called as Teṇṉāḍu.8

Kaṉyākumari region is naturally very fertile land. Place names prefixing and suffixing

the Tiṇai-s are also seen in the area under study (Appendix-IV). The early Tamils

classified their land into five ecological zones or tiṇais, popularly called as aintiṇai as

a whole (Tolkāppiyam-Porulatikāram-Akattiṇai Iyal 2:5). The five tiṇais mentioned

in early Tamil literature are the kuṟiñchi (mountain tracts), mullai (pastures),

marutham (riverine tracts), neytal (the coastal/littoral tracts) and pālai (arid waste

tracts). Pālai was not treated as a separated tiṇai, as pālai was a seasonal ecological

zone created at a time on account of scarcity of rains or hot summer conditions. Such

pālai eco-zones could not be witnessed much in the study area as the Kaṉyākumari

region as it received a three-fourth of its annual rainfall during the southwest and

northeast monsoons. While the period of southwest monsoon was from June to

September, the northeast monsoon covered the period from the beginning of October

to December.9 These two mansoons bring bounty to the region and makes the region

one of the nuclear zones of the state.

In Kaṉyākumari region, two Vaḷanāḍus were identified. They were Uthama

Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu and Cheṅgaḻunīr Vaḷanāḍu. The recent monumental work of

Historical Atlas of South India only refers to Uthama Chōḻa Vaḷanāḍu. The earliest

occurrence of this Vaḷanāḍu found in an inscription of Rājēnḍira-I (1012-1044 CE)

dated in 1038 CE found in Koneriswarar temples at Kaṉyākumari.10

7 Y. Subbarayalu, Political Geography of Chola Country, The State Department of Archaeology,Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1973, p.56.8 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.,), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. VI, Tamil Nadu StateDepartment of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.2.9 MSS. Pandian, The Political Economy of Agrarian Change Nāñchilnāḍu 1880-1939, SAGEPublications, New Delhi, 1990, p.22.10 Natana Kasinathan ( ed., ) Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. I, Tamil Nadu State Departmentof Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No. 1968/107.

103

Another inscription of Kēraḷapuram dated 1607 CE issued during the reign of

Vēnāḍu in the context of one chieftain Vīraravivarmaṉ Sri Kulasēkara Perumaḷ built

four ambalam of Thirumaḍapaḷḷi, Rishabha Maṇḍapam and Gōpuram to Mahādēvar

Temple refers to Cheṅgalunīr vaḷanāḍu.11

The following map shows various territorial Nāḍu divisions in Kaṉyākumari

region pertaining to the period between c 800 to 1300 CE (Map 5).

Nāḍu

The ‘Nāḍu’ is the very key to the political geography of the Chōḻa country. It

was very important limb of the administrative system of the period under study and it

was the basic unit of the agrarian society. The kūṟṟam is another name of nāḍu.

Y.Subarayalu and S.Rajavelu felt that kuṟṟam probably an earlier subdivion to nāḍu

formation. The area of the nāḍus ranged from about 10 square miles to about 300

square miles.12 A number of villages included in each nāḍu were mainly based on the

physical feature of that area; land fertility, irrigation facility, etc. The growth of new

urban centres, trade centres and marketing places accelerated the formation of new

villages. The creation of new irrgational facilities like construction dams, creation of

irrigation canals and digging irrigation tanks brought the baron land into a fertile land.

This also necessitated the creation of new settlements. Kaṉyākumari region had

several religions centers and many temples. The trade activities in this region also

influence the growth of settlement and consequently the increase in the number of

villages in Nāḍu.13 For instance, the creation of Pārthivasēkharapuram could be cited.

Pārthivasēkharapuram copper plates issued on 8th July, 866 CE by

Kōkarunandaḍakkaṇ (857-885 CE), a ruler of Ᾱyi dynasty refers to the creation of

temple town. The king created a temple city by purchasing the land from the Sabhā of

Muñchiṟai through payment known as Uḻukkuḍiviḷai. After purchase, he fixed its

boundaries and erected a temple on it; set up the image of Vishṇu in the temple and

named the village and associated land as Pārthivasēkharapuram. He also established a

Pārthivasēkharapuram Sālai (a boarding school) in which arrangements were made to

11 R.Nagasamy ( ed. ) Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. IV, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 1979, No;1969/21.12 Y. Subbarayalu, Political Geography of Chola Country, The State Department of Archaeology,Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 1973. p.21.13 S.Rajavelu, The Historical and Cultural Geography and Ethnography of Pudukkōṭṭai region up to A.D.1800, Ph.D., Thesis, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2003, p.26.

104

feed ninty-five Saṭṭars (Brahmins). This copper plate also further mentions that

Pārthivasēkharapuram Sālai is established in the model of Kānḍaḷūr Sālai. Then, the

record describes the type of land grant made to the temple services and mention

important places and nāḍus in Kayakumari region. The second plate prescribes the

duties of the temple servants and of the person employed to supply flowers to the

temple. Then comes an enumeration of the land grant for maintaining the perpetual

lamb in the temple. The third plate contains the list of lands granted to meet the salary

of the temple servants. The fourth plate explains on the people of the various nāḍus

and the duty of protecting the charitable institutions.14 The following are the names of

places that occur in the copper plates. Muḍāla-nāḍu, Pasuṅguḷam, Minchirai, Poḻisūḻ-

nāḍu, Kurāthūr, Sengaḻunāḍu, Kuṇrathūr, Vaḷḷuvanāḍu, Teṅganāḍu,Viḷappil,

Iḷavēṇāṭṭunallūr, Paṉaiyūr, ōmāyanāḍu, Sirumaṇṇūr, Miṉachchi, Siruguṇdūr,

Arumunaiāṇūr, Mathūr, Paḍaippanāḍu, Pākkōḍu, and Yāppigaikōḍu. Of these

Muḍālanāḍu takes its name from Miḍālam; Pasuṅguḷam is the modern Paiṅguḷam, a

mile south of Pārthivapuram. Poḻisūḻ-nāḍu seems to derive its name from the ancient

form of the modern Poḻiyūr. One of the inscriptions at Tirunanḍikkarai mentions the

territorial unit Rājarāja-teṉ-Vaḷḷuvanāḍu; this is perhaps the Vaḷḷuvanāḍu that is

mentioned in the inscription. The inscription referred to above states that Muṭṭam, a

coastal village (modern Eraṇiyal), which is not far from Pārthivapuram was in the

Vaḷḷuvanāḍu. A village named Teṅgāpaṭṭaṇam is identified close to Pārthivapuram

and the administrative unit Teṅganāḍu probably emerged out of this nucleus village.

Miṉachchi is perhaps the modern Minachchi. An inscription in the Vishṇu temple at

Talaikuḷam mentions Paḍaippanāḍu, which seems to be somewhere near Eraṇiyal.

Viḷappil seems to be, like all the places, identified with a village in South

Travancore.15 A monumental work of Historical Atlas of South India identified six

Nāḍu territorial divistions in Kaṉyākumari region for the period between c.900 to

1300 CE. They are Nāñchilnāḍu, Puṟathāyanāḍu, Vaḷḷuvanāḍu, Muthalanāḍu,

Cheṅgalunīrnāḍu and Kurunāḍu. Among the major six nāḍu divisions, Nāñchilnāḍu

is the major territorial division of this region. The major river Tāmbaraparaṇi flowing

north to south in a fertile zone fashioned between two major hillocks form the basis

for the formation of this nāḍu. More than 50 historical sites were identified on either

14 T.A.Gopinatha Rao (ed.), Travancore Archaeological Series, Department of Cultural Publications,Government of Kerala, vol.-I, Trivandrum, 1988, p.16.15 Pāṇḍiar Cheppēḍugaḷ Paththu, International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai, 1999, pp.A. 9-10.

105

side of the river. The nadu is extended north to south covering major part of the

Kalkuḷam, Thōvālai and Agatīswaram taluks. The Vaḷḷuvanāḍu lies on the northern

part of the region and located on an elevated area. The remaning four nāḍu divisions

namely Muthalanāḍu (also called Theṅganāḍu), Cheṅgaḻunīr nāḍu, Kurunāḍu and

Puṟathāyanāḍu occupies the deltaic zones along the coast from west to east. Thus, all

the five nāḍus except Vaḷḷuvanāḍu occupies a fertile zone major rivers.

The extensive study made by the scholars like Burton Stein, Noburu

Karashima, Y.Subbarayalu, James Heitzman and Kenneth R. Hall helped to

understand the formation of nāḍu units in Chōḻa country. Keeping in view of their

illustrious work an attempt is made to understand the nāḍu formation in Kaṉyākumari

region.

Nāñchilnāḍu

Nāñchilnāḍu was one of the biggest nāḍu divisons of this region. It is one of

the best eco-zones of Kaṉyākumari region covering the present two taluks of

Agastīswaram and Thōvāḷai. This region has a rich tradition of irrigated paddy

cultivation. The etymology of the word Nāñchilnāḍu itself bears evidence to the long

history of paddy cultivation.16 In the Chōḻa inscriptions, the Nāñchilnāḍu was

described as a subdivision of Uthama-Chōḻa-Vaḷanāḍu, a major division created by

the Chōḻa king Rājarāja–I. Rājēnḍra Chōḻa, the illustrious son of Rājarāja Chōḻa–I

continued his father’s efficient rule in this region. He collected taxes from Dēvaḍāṉa

villages (villages gifted to temples) of the Goddess Kaṉyākumari and utilized them

for the celebration of festivals and performing religious rituals in the temples. During

the period of Rājēnḍra Chōḻa, Kaṉyākumari town (Cape Comorin) was also called as

Gangaikoṇḍa-Chōḻapuram. The town Kōṭṭār was renamed into Mummuḍi Chōḻanallūr

and all towns were well administrated by the later Chōḻa rulers. The Chōḻa Empire

began to disintegrate in the 12th century CE.17 Of the Nāḍus of Kaṉyākumari region,

Nāñchilnāḍu is the earliest one mention in Ᾱralvāimoḻi inscription found at

Mīṉāchiammaṉ temple and dated to 860 CE. This inscription refers to the

construction of a Mahāmaṇḍapum in Mīnāchi temple by one Subramaṇiyaṉ Piḷḷai, son

16 MSS.Pandian, The Political Economy of Agrarian Change Nāñchilnāḍu 1880-1939, SAGE-Publications, New Delhi, 1990, p.16.17 N.Gunabalan, Studies in the History of the Kaṉyākumari Region, Ph.D., Thesis, University ofMadras, Madras, 1989, p.25

106

of Sāthāṅkuṭṭi Piḷḷai. It also records various communities and artisans like āchāri,

thachar, cheṭṭiyār, kaikōḷar, īḻavā, cāṇār, vāṇiyar, sāliyar and muḍaliyār.18

Puṟathāyanāḍu

The bigger administrative unit Nāñchilnāḍu was divided into two halves of

which the southern portion was known as Puṟathāyanāḍu. The available evidence

suggest that political boundary between the Nāñchilnāḍu and Puṟathāyanāḍu was

shifted from time to time. This fertile tract was in the possession of Pāṇḍyas until the

10th century CE, when it was seized by the Chōḻas.19 Presently, Puṟathāyanāḍu is

located in Agastīswaram Taluk. Bhagavathiammaṉ temple is one of the famous

temples in Kaṉyākumari. The temple stands near where three oceans meet viz., the

Indian Ocean, the Bay of Bengal, and the Arabian Sea. According to the inscription

dated to 1000 CE found on the walls of the temple, this temple was located in

Rājarāja-vaḷanāṭṭu-Puṟathāyanāḍu, thereby indicating that Puṟathāyanāḍu was part a

Rājarāja-vaḷanāḍu. It registers a gift of goat made to the temple for lighting a

perpetual lamp by one Rājamārthāṇḍapēraiyaṉāyiṉ chūraisāthaṉ. During this period,

Kaṉyākumari also called Kumarimaṅgaḷam.20 It is a very fertile zone and river

Paḻayāru formed an important water source of this region. Agriculture is the main

occupation and important products are paddy, banana plantation, coconut grooves etc.

Other Nāḍus viz., Vaḷḷuvanāḍu, Cheṅgaḻunīrnāḍu, Kurunāḍu and Muthalanāḍu alias

Theṅganāḍu are located in Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks.

Vaḷḷuvanāḍu

The present Kalkuḷam taluk could be considered as the ancient Vaḷḷuvanāḍu.

The Chōḻa inscription of Tirunanḍhikarai cave temple dated to 1003 CE refers the

villages of this unit as Rājarājanāṭṭu-Vaḷḷuvanāḍu in the context of the donation made

to Tirunanḍhikarai Mahādēvar temple for lighting a perpetual camp. It seems during

Chōḻa times, this unit is also known as Rājaranāḍu, a name assigned after a great

18 R.Nagasamy ( ed.) Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. V, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 1979, No;1969/3319 T.K.Velu Pillai, Travancore State Manual, vol-II, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum, 1940, p.p.60-61.20 Natana Kasinathan ( ed., ) Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. I, Tamil Nadu State Departmentof Archaeology, Chennai, 1972, No.1968/48.

107

Chōḻa emperor Rājarāja-I (985 to 1014 CE).21 Vaḷḷuvanāḍu and Muthalanāḍu served

as the western boundary of Ᾱynāḍu.

Muthalanāḍu alias Theṅganāḍu

Presently, Muthalanāḍu is lying in Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk. The ancient

Muthalanāḍu was fed by the river Kuḻithuṟai and this geographical zone is mainly

formed by mountain and hills region. Several Iron Age and historical sites brought to

light in Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk and is one of the richest archaeological zones of

Kaṉyākumari region.

Cheṅgaḻunīrnāḍu

Mahādēvar temple inscription of Kēraḷapuram (1607 CE) refers to

Cheṅgalunīrnāḍu. It also records the construction of ambalam, maḍappaḷḷi,

rishabamaṇḍabam at Maghādēvar temple in Kēraḷapuram by a Vēṇāḍu ruler

Vīraravivaṉmarāṉ Sri Kulasēkaraperumaḷ.22 Pathmaṇābapuram is one of the

important places falls in this region. It was once the capital of Travancore kingdom.

Pathmaṇābapuram fort was strategically located and was reconstructed by

Mārthāṇḍavarma (1729 – 1758 CE), a great ruler of Travancore kingdom. Kalkuḷam

was an old name of Pathmaṇābapuram.23

Kurunāḍu

Kurunāḍu was a smallest nāḍu unit in Kaṉyākumari region. This nāḍu firstly

refered to in Karaikaṇḍīswarar temple of Thirunayinārkuṟichi in 1139 CE.

Kaḍiyapaṭṭiṇam is one of the important ports located in Kurunāḍu near Muṭṭam port.

This epigraphical record refers to the donation of temple garden and a perpetual lamp

to Karaikaṇdīswarer mahādēvar temple by Ᾱdhichaṉkōthai.24

21 R.Nagasamy ( ed. ) Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. IV, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 1979, No.1969/30 – I.22 R.Nagasamy ( ed. ) Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. IV, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 1979, No.1969/21.23 A.K.Perumal, Theṉkumariyiṉ Kathai, United Writers, Chennai, 2003, p.92.24 R.Nagasamy ( ed. ) Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol. IV, Tamil Nadu State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 1979, No;1969/38.

108

Administration and local self – government

From the eigth and ninth centuries CE, three types of village assemblies are

traceable in the inscriptions, namely ūr, the sabhā and the nagaram. The ūr was the

common type which included all classes of people who held the land in the village.

Y.Subbarayalu, who worked on Political Geography of Chōḻa Country, calculated

that, a village (ūr) was located within distance of every 2 miles. It is obvious that, the

people were densely populated where resources are found abundantly and they are not

lived largely in the places where the water resources were not available sufficiently. A

village is consists of habitation of people, along with temples, drinking water,

irrigation facilities and graveyards. The settlement where, the land lords,

agriculturalists and tillers were lived are commonly known as ūr, irrukkai, natham

and so on.25 The sabhā was an exclusive Brahmin assembly of villages given as gift to

Brahmin where all the land belonged to them. The nagaram was quite another type

pertaining to localities where traders and merchants occupy a dominant position.26

Function of Nāḍus

Nāḍus were made up of hamlets, villages, cities, towns etc. that came under

any class or type called brahmadēyas, dēvadāṉas, nagara, paṭṭiṇam, ūr, irukkai, etc.

These were subject to the respective jurisdictions of the administrative assemblies

(nāṭṭār) called by the territorial names of the nāḍu in which they were.27 The

members of the assemblies were known as the ūrār, nāṭṭār, sabhaiyār and nagaraṭṭār,

the people of the ūr, nāḍu, sabhā and Nagaram. The fourth administrative unit was

the urban marketing centre or nagaram, which also had its own assembly. Though the

nagarams were essentially concerned with managing local trade and merchants, they

also had jurisdiction over agricultural lands in the neighborhood of towns, indicating

that the distinction between urban and rural was quite unclear during the medieval

period.28

25C.Nilavathi, Tañjāvūr Vaṭṭāra Niḷaviyalum Samudhāyamum (c.900 - -1400), Tamil University,Thanjavur, 2001, pp.97 - 98.26 K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India – From Pre historic times to the fall of Vijayanagar,Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1975, p.149.27 K.S.Vaithyanathan, The Ancient Geography of the Kongu Country, Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam,Erode, 1983, p.4.28 Gurcharan Das, The study of Indian Business, Merchants of Tamilagam, Penguin books, New Delhi,2012, pp. 73 – 74

109

The nagaram is a much more specific organization of merchants found in

every market centres, collection centres and distribution centres where local and

itinerant traders met and exchanged items of trade. Nagaram is being a mercantile

organization involving local groups in organizing and controlling local trade.

Nagaraṭṭār became a generic term for all the traders and the trading community,

particularly in Tamil Nadu and hence the term is still being used even today by the

Nāṭṭukkōṭṭai Cheṭṭiārs.29 The merchant community gradually acquired a position of

great social and economic importance. This is attested by the reference to Kaikkōḷās

and Sāliya Nagaraṭṭār, who not only controlled production and marketing of cloth but

also participated in temple services, e.g., donations, conduct of festivals,

administration and management. There is also a noticeable change in the pattern of

land ownership both weavers and merchants becoming land owning communities and

wielding considerable influence in their localities.30 In most settlements of that time,

peasants, merchants and artisans along with others lived in close association, sharing

not only inter-dependent economic relationships, but also a common involvement in

the cultural life of the locality.31 For instance, Nagaraṭṭār donated three mā of land to

a priest of Veṅkaḍāchalapathi temple at Aḻagiyapāṇḍiyapuram in Thōvāḷaii taluk for

conducting daily worship.32

Administration of Vēnāḍu

During the 12th and 13th centuries and still later, in Nāñchilnāḍu as well as in

the rest of Vēṇāḍu, the local assemblies and temple sabhās were served as imporatant

institutions. They managed the day-to-day affairs of the area. Several inscriptions of

Vēnāḍu, beyond the limits of Nāñchilnāḍu, indicate that the local affairs were under

the control of the assemblies.33 During this period, Nāñchilnāḍu is made up of two

sectors, known as, vaḍamīthi, (i.e. northern sector) and theṉmīthi (southern sector).

The Paḻayāṟu river flows through the river bed area forms the region of Theṉmīthi.

29 R.Champakalakshmi, ‘The Medieval South Indian Guilds: Their Role in Trade and Urbanization’, InRanabir Chakravarti, Trade in Early India, Oxford University press, New Delhi, 2001, p.329.30 R.Champakalakshmi, ‘The Medieval South Indian Guilds: Their Role in Trade and Urbanization’, InRanabir Chakravarti, Trade in Early India, Oxford University press, New Delhi, 2001, p.340.31 Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, p.242.32 R.Nagasamy (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol-V, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai, 1979, No.1969/14.33K.K.Pillay, Studies in Indian History (With special reference to Tamil Nadu), Madras, 1979, p.529.

110

Prior to the 13th century, the Nāñchilnāḍu was divided into 12 piḍāgais. They were

known as 1) Mēle-piḍāgai 2) Nāḍuvu-piḍāgai 3) Kīḻ-piḍāgai 4)

Aḻagiyapāṇḍiyapuram-piḍāgai 5) Thāḻaikuḍi-piḍāgai 6) Thōvāḷaii-piḍāgai 7)

Paḍappāṭṭru-piḍāgai 8) Koṭṭraṟṟu-piḍāgai 9) Paṟakkai-piḍāgai 10) Thērūr-piḍāgai

11) Sucīndram-piḍāgai and 12) Agastīswaram-piḍāgai. Each of these piḍāgai were

under the leadership of a head of the nāḍu.

After 13th century CE, this situation seems to have changed. Muḍaliyār palm

leaves records the Maṅgaḷam to Maṇakkuḍi as the north-south boundary of

Nāñchilnāḍu. In the 18th century, its boundary extended from Kaḍukkarai mountain in

the north up to Maṇakuḍi in the south and Ᾱralvāimoḻi mountain in the east to

Paṉḍrivāikāl in the west. Between the 12th century and 18th century CE, there was a

close contact between the rulers of Vēṇāḍu and Nāñchilnāḍu. The Periyavīṭṭu

muḍaliyār served as the tax collecting agents of Vēṇāḍu rulers. Aḻagiyapāṇḍiyapuram

served as their headquarters. A group of persons who broke away from this traditional

body held Ᾱḷūr as their headquarters.34

During the reign of Dharmarājā alias Rāmavarmā (1758-1798 CE), there were

three revenue divisions in Travancore State, viz., Veḍakkēmukkom, Patinjaremukkom

and Tekkēmukkom and the present Kaṉyākumari district area formed part of

Tekkēmukkom.35 In the 18th century, Travancore region divided into many dēsams

(a settlement unit) for the purpose of administration. They are Vaṉṉiyūr dēsam,

Parakkōṭṭu dēsam, Viḷavūr dēsam, Naṭṭālam dēsam, Kuḻithuṟai dēsam and Pālakkōṭṭu

dēsam.36 The village was taken as a unit and put under the charge of an officer called

Pārvathiyakkārar. His primary duties were a collection of revenues and management

of the village irrigation system. He also acted as a Magistrate with jurisdiction to try

petty cases in the village. A group of villages constituted an administrative division

called ‘Maṇḍapathunvathukkal’. It was headed by ‘kāriyakkār’ whose functions were

more or less identified that of the present day Tashildar (revenue collector). In the

field of financial administration, a system of preparing budgets, ‘Pathivukaṇakku’ was

34 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Tholliyal Kaiyēḍu, State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.16.35 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India Tamil Nadu State Kaṉyākumari District, Government ofTamil Nadu, Commissioner of Archives & Historical Research, Chennai, 1995, p.8.36 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Tholliyal Kaiyēḍu, State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.35.

111

prevailed. The allocation of funds for different departments was formulated. Survey

and settlement of land were introduced and reorganization of the army on the model

of the British army was taken up.37

Thus, the Kaṉyākumari region has undergone a several changes in the terms of

their units due to the occupation of various dynasties. Each dynasty attempted to

implement in the line of their administrative procedures. Irrespective of these

inadequacies, the inscriptions dated between 8th century and 18th century CE suggest

that all the territorial divisions had the suffix Nāḍu. During the reign of Rājarāja–I

(985-1014 CE), the Pāṇḍināḍu was known as Rājarāja Pāṇḍināḍu. It was divided into

four major divisions and all the smaller units were brought under these four divisions.

The area between Tāmaraparaṉi and Cape Comorin was known as Uthama-Chōḻa-

Vaḷanāḍu and major part of the Kaṉyākumari virtually falls in this territorial division.

The area to the east of Nāgarkōil including South Kēraḷa and up to the Arabian Sea

was called as Teṉṉāḍu. During the Chōḻa period, the Vaḷanāḍu had some

administrative significance. It helped the integration of society beyond nāḍus.

According to Subbarayalu, basically the nāḍu was not an administrative division as it

is usually conceived; rather it should have originated as a cluster or grouping of

peasant or agricultural settlements formed about the nucleus of a common irrigation

source like a channel or tank and bound together by kinship ties between the people of

an individual nāḍu. The administrative aspect is only a secondary one. The number of

villages that were included in the nāḍus shows much variation, according to the

locality. Obviously they were themselves not of any uniform size and the size must

have been decided by the local topographical and ecological factors added to the

human factors.38 Thus, understanding the formation of certain geographical units and

their continued existence or change requires deep knowledge on its historical

development.

37 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India Tamil Nadu State Kaṉyākumari District, Commissionerof Archives and Historical Research, Madras, p.86.38 Y.Subbarayalu, Historical Geography of South India, Indian History Congress 73rd Session,Mumbai, 2012, pp.7-8.

112

CHAPTER- V

CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY OF KAṈYĀKUMARI REGION

Geography is conventionally divided into physical and human. The former

relates to the physical configuration of the earth’s surface, its climatic conditions, and

the way it is occupied by water, land, vegetation and animal life. The latter relates to

the demographic distribution of natural resources, land utilization, production centres,

trade and transportation. Thus, almost every aspect of human existence and their

endeavours come under the umbrella of human geography, also called cultural

geography.1

The formation of a region depends on the nature of topography, distribution of

commercially exploitable natural resources, availability of water, fertility of the soil,

suitable environmental condition and other productive patterns. As a regional entity,2

Kaṉyākumari region emerged largely due to the growth of agrarian economy and the

development of coastal exchange centres. Both these created more surplus to support

human existence in the region and that resulted in the formation of region as a

separate entity. Nāñchilnāḍu has all the time constituted a distinctly separate unit,

socially and culturally different from the rest of Travancore.

Assigning a name to a particular settlement/place had social, cultural, political,

religious, economic and ethnic significance. The transformation of a place name or

reassigning a new name had its own ramification. The cultural attachment to a

particular place still holds well, irrespective of its chronological frame. Therefore,

naming a place marks an important turning point in the history of human civilization.

As is well known, in the remote past, man was nomadic and had no permanent

dwelling places as such. It is only with the appearance of settled life supported with a

rudimentary form of agriculture as the economic basis of subsistence; one can really

start to think of settlement. The transition from hunting to domestication of animals

1 G.S.Grewal, Historical Geography of the Punjab, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 1974, p.1.2 K.P.Rajesh, Historical Geography of Koḷathunāḍu- A Study of the Regional Formation in MedievalNorth Kerala, Ph.D.Thesis, University of Calicut, Calicut, 2011, p.6.

113

and from food gathering to food production was indeed a remarkable change in the

process of civilization.

Pre-historic Culture

Detailed explorations and excavations are yet to be commissioned in

Kaṉyākumari region to shed light on the pre-historic culture. In 1945, the State

Department of Archaeology, Travancore State, experimented an excavation at

Veḷḷimalai in Kalkuḷam taluk during which they came up with ancient urns used for

burying the dead. Similar urns were also unearthed at Ādhichchanallūr of Tirunelvēli

district, containing several black-and-red ware pots and rusty iron pieces. Both

primary and secondary burials were exposed at Ādichanallūr and all datable to

millennium BCE or still earlier. In Saṅgam works like Puṟanāṉūru, mention has also

been made about muthu makkaḷ thāḻi which means the urns of the forefather. A hand

made coarse earthen jar and other relics were found near the Thuthūr village in this

district. The shape, fabric and the decorations indicate that they are probably of the

megalithic or the early historic period.3

A close study of the place names of any given country helps us in tracing out

the cultural, commercial, social, political, religious and economic history, and

otherwise unknown linguistic features of the language of that country. It also guides

us in tracing the migration of the people and the topographical features of the

country.4 The continuation of secondary life, or pastoral life combined with

agricultural expansion, probably due to demographic pressure stemmed out of surplus

production necessitated the society to have a demarcated territorial hold to sustain

their life.

In this process, the land holding pattern started emerging with varied degrees

of power. The terms like kuḍi, ūr, nāḍu, vaḷanāḍu and maṇḍalam are the reflection of

land holding pattern. Each of this territorial demarcation generally met with a new

name. Land was classified into two different methods. One division is named as

kōṭṭam, nāḍu/kūṛṛam, vaḷanāḍu and maṇḍalam created by the state for revenue

3 M.Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Gazetteers of India: Tamil Nadu State-Kanyakumari, Govt of Tamil Nadu,Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Madras, 1995, p.51.4 S.S.Ramachandra Murthi, A Study of Telugu Place Names, [Based on Inscriptions from the Earliestto the 13thcentury], Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 1985, pp.1-2.

114

purpose. The other type of divisions like paḷḷi, brahmadēyam, nallūr, dēvadāṉam,

etc., expresses other social aspects too.

The meaning of place names would be useful for understanding the cultural

characters. Due to the cultural and linguistic changes, the identification of ancient

place names with modern ones becomes somewhat difficult. In this connection, the

lexicons may help us to understand the meaning of a particular usage through

etymological analysis. However, these lexicographic studies are sometimes not as

reliable as they repeat some stereotyped information without proper contextual

evidence. So, the interpretation of the old names of the places remains provisional in

several cases and they need further corroboration from a first hand knowledge of the

place itself.5

The earliest literary source available to trace back the possible origin of a

particular name is the ancient Tamiḻ anthologies popularly called Saṅgam literature

that constitutes the central category of our source material. It provides plenty of

knowledge about the landscapes and ecosystems of ancient Tamiḻakam. The phrase

Vaṭavēṅkaṭam teṉ kumari āyiḍait tamiḻ kūṟum nalulakam expounded in Tolkāppiyam

and in Saṅgam literature demarcated the ancient Tamiḻagam as the land between the

Vēṅkaṭa hills on the north and Kumari (Kaṉyākumari) in the south which comprises

the present Kēraḷa and Tamiḻ Nāḍu states. The region beyond Vēṅkaṭa hills (Tirupati

hills) are considered as moḻipeyar tēyam meaning other language speaking area. In

accordance with this statement, the inscriptional records found within the Tamiḻ akam

carry Tamiḻ language whereas the region north of Vēṅkaṭam hills carries the language

of Prakrit during Early Historic times. The region under study is divided into five

ecosystems namely tiṉai. The tiṉai concept is peculiar to Tamiḻ Nāḍu and it is rarely

found in any Sanskrit /Prakrit tradition.

The tiṉai (land) concept and its constituent elements are described in the form

of rules in Tolkāppiyam, the earliest of extent Tamiḻ grammatical treatise.6

5 S.Rajavelu, The Historical and Cultural Geography and Ethnography of Pudukkōṭṭai Region Upto 1800 A.D., Ph.D.Thesis, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2003, p.48.6 Rajan Gurukkal and M.R.Raghava Varier (ed.), Cultural History of Kerala, (From the earliest to thespread of Wet rice), vol-I, Department of Cultural Publication, Government of Kerala, 1999, pp. 161-162.

115

They are referred to following geographical features of Tamiḻ land and its

main deity,

“Māyōṉ mēya kāḍu uṟai ulakamum

Chēyōṉ mēya maivarai ulakamum

Vēnḍaṉ mēya thīmbuṉal ulakamum

Mullai, kuṟiñji, marutham neithal eṉach

Cholliya muraiyāṉ sollavum paḍumēy”

(Tholkāppiyam 1 Agaṭṭiṇai 5)

The earliest Tamiḻ grammar of Tolkāppiyam only referred to four divisions of

landscapes and ecosystems of Tamiḻ akam.7 The tiṉai mentioned in early Tamiḻ

literature are the kuṟiñci (mountainous tracts), Malawi (pastoral tracts), maruṭam

(riverine or wetland tracts), neytal (coastal/ littoral tracts) and pālai (arid waste

tracts). Pālai land not recorded in earliest Tamiḻ grammatical of Tolkāppiyam.8 It was

referred to in post classical period epic Cilappatikāram. Ilaṅkō Aṯigal, the author of

Cilappatikāram, referred to pālai tiṉai in the following ways,

“Mullai kuṟiñjiyum muṟaimayil thirindu

Nalliyal piḻanthu naḍuṅg thuyaṟuthup pālai

Eṉpathōr paḍivam koḷḷum”

(Cilappatikāram -11 Kāḍukāṇkāthai-64-66)

Here, pālai (arid waste tracts) was not treated as a separate tiṉai. It considered

pālai as a seasonal ecological zone created at times on account of scarcity of rains or

hot summer conditions. There are examples in the text which show the transformation

of mullai and kuṟiñchi in a particular part of the year (seasonal) into a pālai lands.9

According to Rajan Gurukkal, each ecological zone developed particular professional

groups due to nature of subsistence pattern. For instance, the tiller / uḻavar are

specifically goes to wet land.

7 K.Chitha Kesavan, Kēraḷam- Ūrum Pērum, Pālakkād District, Tirukkural Publication, Chennai,2009, p.88 Radhika Rajamani, Society in Early Historic Tamilagam, Ph.d.Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi, 1993, p.66.9K.Chitha Kesavan, Kēraḷam-Ūrum Pērum, Pālakkād District, Tirukkural Publication, Chennai, 2009,p.13.

116

In Kaṉyākumari region, only four divisions of landscapes and ecosystems are

formed. They are the kuriñci, mullai, marutam and neytal except pālai.

Kaṉyākumari region receives rainfall from both the southwest and the northest

monsoons. The southwest starts from June and ends in September, while the northeast

monsoon extends from October to the middle of December. Both monsoons let to the

creation of a better environment, suitable climatic conditions, the formation of many

rivers, tanks, irrigation facilities and an abundance of natural resources. The

favourable environment did not allow pālai (arid waste tracts) to take place in

Kaṉyākumari region.10

(Source: Rajan Gurukkal, 1999)

The subsistence pattern of each zone is conditioned by its ecosystem and

each ecosystem has a particular type of settlement pattern. These settlements are

getting reflected in the literary and epigraphical records. The analysis of inscriptional

data helps to understand the human geography to some extent.

In this chapter, an attempt is made to classify the inscriptional place names of

Kaṉyākumari region and to understand their significance in social and cultural

contexts. In all, seven hundred and seven inscriptions have been identified in as many

10 Asad R.Rahmani, Important Birds Areas in India- Priority Sites for Conservation, IBCN, BombayNatural History Society, Bombay, 2004, p.985.

117

as three hundred and twenty locations in all the four taluks of Kaṉyākumari district

(Appendix-I). Thus, a total of 320 place names are available for study (Appendix -

IV). Besides, the seven hundred and seven inscriptions also carry several place names.

The above mentioned data are collected from six volumes of the Kaṉyākumari

district inscriptions. These inscriptional sources are collected and tabulated according

to village names, their provenance, territorial division, tenure, chronological position,

dynastic affinity, kings’ name and his regnal year, present revenue details like taluk,

district, etc. It also recorded dynasties, king, period, script, language, place of the

inscriptions, geographical division like, vaḷanāḍu, nāḍu, tenure, commerce,

society. The abstract of inscriptions are also given (Appendix-I). Name of the each

village is also segmented as stem, prefix and suffix depend upon the nature of the

data. The majority of the data was collected from the six volumes of the epigraphical

records published by the Tamiḻ Nāḍu State Archaeology Department. However, there

are other sources, mostly published in pre-Independence era.

At present, the inscriptions found in Kaṉyākumari district belong to different

periods of different dynasties. The southern Tranvancore government was the pioneer

in publishing the inscriptions of this region through Travancore Archaeological

Series. Afterwards, the State Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamiḻ

Nāḍu took initiative of copying the inscriptions in the district particularly in

Agastīswaram, Thōvāḷai, Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks and published the same

as Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Kalveṭṭukaḷ (Kaṉyākumari District Inscriptions) in six

volumes. These inscriptions form a valuable primary source to understand the

political, social, economical and cultural history of Kaṉyākumari region.11

All these inscriptions have been found in the four taluks of which nearly 382

inscriptions are found in Agastīswaram, 181 inscriptions in Kalkuḷam, 91 inscriptions

in Thōvāḷai and remaining 53 inscriptions in Viḷavaṅkōḍu.

11 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭta Kalveṭṭukkaḷ, vol.VI; Tamil Nadu StateDepartment of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.1.

118

Classification of Place Names

Regarding the classification of place names, different scholars have adopted

different criteria. For example H.D. Sankalia classifies the place names in the

following groups:

1. Place-names after a person (hero, saint, tribal leader, etc).

2. Place-names after an event (auspicious occasion / inauspicious occasion).

3. Place-names after customs and superstitions.

4. Place-names after geographical and physical features with following subclasses.

(i) Place-names after hills, mountains, mounds or any elevated place.

(ii) Place-names after rivers, streams, lakes and ponds.

(iii) Place-names after forest, deserts, steppes etc.

5. Place-names after flowers, fruits, trees and crops.

6. Place-names after animals, birds and reptiles.

7. Place-names after names of existing places.

(i) Place-names from tribes or castes living there originally.

(ii) Place-names from names of natural features.

(iii) Place-names of a religions character.

(iv) Place - names after names of persons or events.

(v) Place-names copied from other place-names.

However, keeping in view of the vastness of the data available for the present work

and also based on the nature of the data, the following patterns of classification are

adopted:

1. Place-names pertaining to geographical and physical features

(i) Places named after mountains, hills, mounds, rocky sorrounding, etc.

119

(ii) Places named after all types of water bodies like, river, lake, pond and canal.

(iii) Different types of lands.

(iv) Location of the places.

2. Places denoting flora

(i) Trees and plants

3. Places denoting fauna.

(i) Wild and domestic animals

4. Religious place-names

(i) Names of Vedic gods.

(ii) Goddesses, both Saivite and Vaishnavite

(iii) Jain

(iv) Epic heroes.

5. Ethnographical names

(i) Castes and service groups.

6. Place-names of historical significance

(i) Royal dynasty (ii) Kings (iii) Subordinate chiefs and royal officials etc.

7. Place-names of commercial character

i) Trade centres ii) Industrial centres.

8. Place-names after famous cities.12

Segmentation of place names

A place-name normally consists of three units namely prefix, stem and suffix.

The prefix stands for the proper name of the place while the suffix may be taken, in a

12 S.S.Ramachandra Murthi, A Study of Telugu Place Names, (Based on Inscriptions from the Earliestto the 13thcentury), Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 1985, pp. 162-63

120

very loose way, to suggest the type of settlement which the place referred to happens

to be.13 The stem portion in the place name seems to denote the origin of the place as

well as the physical or human features of the particular region. Fauna and flora,

topographical features, persons and titles, legendary and puranic names are found as

the basis of the stem portions and are rich in variety.14

Salient features of suffix portion

The suffix portion is generally based on the following features, (i) city, or

town, or village, (ii) some kind of rudimentary settlement, (iii) fields, plains and type

of soil, (iv) water resources and (v) physical features such as hills and mountains,

forts, rock or stone.15

Place names denoting flora and fauna:

Flora names are very common. The following place names contain the names

of trees and plants as stems.

Table 5: 1 Village Named After Flora

Name of the VillagesNamed After(Flora Names)

Reference

Mullai (maṅgaḷam) Jasminum Auriculatum K.K.vol. II : 151

Thāmarai ( kuḷam) Lotus K.K.vol. II:155

Kēraḷa Chērry Coconut K.K.vol. II:163

Marudath(ūr)Queen's-terminaliaFlower Tree Arjuna

Chōḻa-PāṇḍiyarK.K.vol.II:166

Thāḻai ( kuḍi) Screw Pine Tree K.K.vol. II:176

Maruthanāṭṭu Paṉakuḍi Palmyra-PalmTiruvitāṅcoreK.K.vol.II :189

Perumaruth (ūr)Queen's-TerminaliaFlower Tree Arjuna

Pāṇḍiyar K.K.vol.II:211

13 S.S.Ramachandra Murthi, A Study of Telugu Place Names, [Based on Inscriptions from the Earliestto the 13thcentury], Agam Kala Prakashan, Delhi, 1985, p.37114 S.Rajavelu, “Place Names of Pudukkōṭṭai Region in Tamil Nāḍu”, In Studies in Indian PlaceNames, Vol.xxix, The Place Names Society of India, Mysore, 2010,p.7215S.Rajavelu, “Place Names of Pudukkōṭṭai Region in Tamil Nāḍu”, In Studies in Indian Place Names,Vol.xxix, The Place Names Society of India, Mysore, 2010, p.81.

121

Paṉaiy (arai) Palmyra-Palm K.K. vol. III:327

MaruthakachērryQueen's-TerminaliaFlower Tree Arjuna

K.K.vol. IV:123

Tirupaṉai (kuḷam) Palmyra-Palm K.K. vol. IV:128

Pāla(kōḍu)Tree [MimnsopsHexandra]

TiruvitāṅcoreK.K.vol.IV:21

Kēraḷa –pūram Coconut K.K. vol. IV:25

Maruthath(ūr)Queen's-TerminaliaFlower Tree Arjuna

K.K. vol. IV:82

Vēm (pāḍi) Margosa, Neem K.K. vol. IV:9

Puliyaṉ (Viḷai ) Tamarind K.K. vol. V:32

Maruthaṅ (kōḍu)Queen's-TerminaliaFlower Tree Arjuna

K.K. vol. VI:546

Paṇaṅ (kuḷam) Palmyra-Palm K.K. vol. VI:585

The following place names have animal names:

Table 5: 2 Villages Named After Fauna

Name of the villages Named after Reference

Puli-ūr Tiger K.K. vol. I:107

Āṉai (Kuḷam) Elephant K.K.vol.III:270

Perumpaṭṭra puliy(ūr) Tiger K.K. vol. IV:38-E

Tirupā-puliy(ūr) Tiger K.K.vol.IV :39

Pulithalai (mēḍu) Tiger K.K. vol. V:50

Siṅganall(ūr) Lion K.K. vol. VI:576

Tirunandhi (karai)Nandhi (sacred

bull)K.K. vol. VI:588

122

Place names after persons and royal title:

As the inscription is issused by the important people of the society, we get

many place names after persons and royal titles: A few samples are listed here.

Table 5: 3

Villages Named After Persons or Royal Title

Sl.No. Villages Names Named after Reference

1Jaya-koṇḍa- Chōḻa-

NallūrJaya-koṇḍa Chōḻa K.K.vol. I:116

2 Karikāla Chōḻa Nallūr Karikāla Chōḻa K.K.vol. I:120

3Uthaya Mārthāṇḍa

Catūrvēdi MaṅgaḷamUdhaya Mārthāṇḍa K.K.vol. I:23

4 Mummuḍi Chōḻa Puram Rāja Rāja – I K.K.vol. I:29-A

5Rājanārāyana-

Catūrvēdi- maṅgaḷamRāja Nārāyana K.K.vol. I: 32

6 Aḻakiya Chōḻa Nallūr Aḻakiya Chōḻa K.K.vol. I:32

7Rāja Rāja Theṉṉāṭṭu

VēmbāṇūrRajā Rajā-I K.K.vol. IV:105

8 Nirubasēkara Nallūr Nirubasēkaran K.K.vol. II : 146

9 Iraṇa-siṅga-Nallūr Iraṇasiṅgan K.K.vol. II : 150

10

Sunḍara Chōḻa Sadūr

Vēda Maṅgaḷam

(Sucīndram)

Sunḍara Chōḻa K.K.vol. II : 150

11 Sunḍara Pāṇḍya Nallūr Sunḍara PānḍyāPāṇḍya

K.K.vol.II:165

12

Rāja Rāja Pāṇḍyaṉ

Nāṭṭu Sunḍara Chōḻa

Catūrvēdi Maṅgaḷam

Sunḍara Chōḻa K.K.vol. II:174

13 Vīrakēraḷa Nallūr Vēṇāḍu king Vīrakēraḷa K.K.vol. II:187

14 Saṅkaraṉēri SaṅkaraṉTiruvidāncore

K.K.vol.II :189

15Rāja Rāja Catūrvēdi

MaṅgaḷamRāja Rajā-I

Pāṇḍya

K.K.vol.II:193

16

Sunḍara Pāṇḍya

Catūrvēdi

Maṅgaḷam

Sunḍara PāndyaPāṇḍya

K.K.vol.II:193

123

17Chōḻānthaka Maṅgaḷam Chōḻānthakā

Pāṇḍya

K.K.vol.II:211

18Nirubasēkara Vaḷa

NallūrNirubasēkara

Pāṇḍya

K.K.vol.II:212

19 Chōḻa Grāmam Chōḻa K.K.vol. II:212

20Vikrama Pāṇḍya Chōḻa

PuramVikrama Pāṇḍya K.K. vol. II: 235

21

Vīra Kēraḷa Catūrvēdi

Maṅgaḷam

(Nāñchil Nāḍu)

Vēṇāḍ king Vīra Kēraḷa K.K. vol. II:242

22 Raṇasiṅga Naramilūr Pāṇḍyaṇ Iraṇasiṅgaṉ K.K. vol. II:250

23 Tiruvikrama Puram Tiruvikrama K.K. vol.. II:250

24 Mummuḍi Chōḻa Nallūr Rāja Rāja – I K..K. vol. II:259

25 Chōḻa Kēraḷa Puram Chōḻa Kēraḷa K.K.vol. III:264

26Āṇḍaikuḍi Āṇḍai

Chōḻa

K.K.vol.III:270

27 Kaṇṇaṉ Chērry Kaṇṇaṉ K.K.vol. III:273

28 Chēraṉmā Dēvi-ūr Queen Chēraṉmā Dēvi K.K. vol. III:276

29Chēnthaṉchērry

AgaramChenthaṉ K.K. vol. III:277

30 Vikramachērry Vikrama K.K. vol. III:322

31 Kōthachapiḷḷai Agaram Kōthacha Piḷḷai K.K. vol. III:326

32 Raṇasiṅga NallūrPāṇḍyaṉ Chief

IraṇasiṅgaṉK.K. vol. IV:10

33 Maṇavāḷakuṟichi Maṇavāḷa K.K. vol. IV:102

34 Ravivaṉmapūram Ravivaṉma K.K. vol. IV:11

35 Kōthai Nallūr Kōthai varmaVēṇāḍu:

K.K.vol.IV:123

36 Ariyaṉchērry Ariyaṉ K.K.vol. IV:2

37 Vīra Kēraḷa Puram Vīra-kēraḷa Tiruvidān Core

K.K.vol.IV :21

38Parākirama

MaṅgaḷadēsamParākirama K.K. vol. IV:27

39 RaṇasiṅgapāḍiPāṇḍyan Chief

IraṇasiṅgaṉK.K. vol. IV:36

40 Vikrama-Chōḻa Pāṉḍya Vikrama-Chōḻa K.K. vol. IV:8

124

Pūram

41 Uthaya Maṅgaḷam Vēṇāḍ king Udayaṉ K.K. vol. IV:82

42 Adhiyaṉūr Adhiyaṉ K.K. vol. V:12

43 Ravi Puduvūr Ravi KK.vol. V:21

44 Pūdapāṇḍīswaram PūḍapāṇḍiVēṇāḍ K.K.vol.V

:34

45Cheṇpakarāmaṉ

PuḍuvūrCheṇpakarāmaṉ K.K. vol. V:42

46 Pūḍapāṇḍi Pūḍapāṇḍi K.K. vol. V:42

47 Vīra-kēraḷaēri Vīra-kēraḷa K.K. vol. V:49

48

Vaṇṇār kuḍi

(Washerman

Settlement Region)

Washer man K.K. vol. V:52

49Sri Ravi Ravivarma

Tirupāpūr

Sri Ravi Ravivarma

TirupāpūrK.K. vol. VI:462

50 Kēsavaṉ Puthaṉ Thuṟai Kēsavaṉ K.K. vol. VI:470

51 Iraṇiyal Iraiṇyaṇ K.K. vol. VI:471

52

UthamaChōḻa

Vaḷanāṭṭu

Amarāvathi Maṅgaḷam

Uthama ChōḻaChōḻa

K.K.vol.VI:485

53Vīra mārthāṇḍa

Kulasēkara-PūramVīra mārthāṇḍa K.K. vol. VI:489

54 Vibala Kēsavaṉ Pudūr Vibala Kēsavaṉ K.K. vol. VI:535

55 Pārthivasēkara Puram PārthivasēkaraChōḻaPāṇḍya

K.K.vol.VI:570

Table 5: 4

Place Names after Geographical Factors

SI.No Village Name Named after Reference1 Pūlānthuṟai Water source KK.vol. I:103

2 Maṇalūr Sandy area K.K.vol. I :119

3 Maṇarkuḍi Sandy area K.K.vol. I:121

4 Kalkuḷam Tank K.K.vol. I:127

5 Vēḷvimalai Mountain K.K.vol. I:38

6 Peruṅgkuḍimalai Mountain K.K.vol. I:57

7 Thiruvaṭṭārudēsam River K.K.vol. II:131

8 Muḷḷamaṅgaḷam Forest region K.K.vol. II : 151

125

9 Thāmaraikuḷam Lotus tank K.K.vol. II:155

10Marudathūr

Rice growing villageChōḻa Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:166

11 Kōṭṭāṟu River ChōḻaK.K.vol.II:182

12Kīḻkarai Puthaṉēri

LakeChōḻa K.K.vol.II:183

13Paṇakuḍi

Village of palm groovesTiruvidāncoreK.K.vol.II :189

14Saṅkaraṉēri

LakeTiruvidāncoreK.K.vol.II :189

15Ēḷakaṉthuṟai

Water sourcePāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:205

16Kīḻ KuṇtraṭṭuVellyaṭrūr

RiverPāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:224

17Kōḍuṅgkuḷam

TankChōḻa Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:260

18Āṉṇaikuḷam

TankChōḻa K.K.vol.III:270

19 Dēvakuḷam Divine Tank K.K. vol. III:273

20 Thāthaiyarkuḷam Tank K.K. vol. III:286

21 Periyakuḷam Big Tank K.K. vol. III:315

22 Paṇakuḍi Village of Palm GroovesVēṇāḍu:K.K.vol.III:325

23 Kaniñjakōḍu Mountain K.K.vol. IV:102

24 Tiru Kaṇṇaṉkōḍu Mountain K.K.vol.IV:105-

25 Kuḻikōḍu Mountain K.K. vol. IV: 11

26 Karkuḷam Tank K.K. vol. IV:114

27 Maruthakachērry Marudam Land Division K.K.vol. IV:123

28 Tiru Paṇaikuḷam Tank K.K. vol. IV:128

29 Puḍkuḷam Tank K.K. vol. IV:19

30 Kariñaṅgkōḍu Mountain K.K. vol. IV:19

31Pālakōḍu Mountain Tiruvidān core

K.K.vol.IV:2232 Malaikōḍudēsam Mountain K.K.vol. IV:26

33 Sivagiri Mountain K.K. vol. IV:29

34 Gūrunāṭṭu Maruthathūr Rice Growing Village K.K. vol. IV:82

35 Kaikuḷam Tank K.K. vol. IV:98

36 Kōḍunthuṟai Water Source K.K. vol. V:11

37 Tiruvidāṅ kōḍu Mountain K.K.vol. V:2

38 Ālathūrai Water Source K.K.vol. V:21

39 Vaḍavathu Kāṭṭūr Jungle K.K. vol. V:32

40 Vakkaṇaviḷai Forest Region KK.vol. V:32

41 Puḷiyaṉ Viḷai Tamarind Cultivation K.K.vol. V:32

126

42 Kaṉiyaṉ Viḷai Forest Region K.K.vol. V:32

43Nārāyaṇaṇ Pudukuḷam

TankVēṇāḍu: K.K.vol.V:34

44 Eiraichakuḷam Tank K.K. vol. V:35

45 Kuṟichipārai Aṇai Dam K.K. vol. V:37

46 Vīra-kēraḷaēri Lake K.K. vol. V:49

47Pulithalai Mēḍu

Mound K.K. vol. V:50

48 Naṅgaikuḷam Tank K.K.vol. V:62

49 Kuṭṭa Maṅgaḷam Tank K.K. vol. V:68

50 Kēsavaṉ Puthaṉthuṟai Water Source K.K. vol. VI:470

51Muṭṭamthuṟai

Water SourceVēṇāḍu:K.K.vol.VI:491

52 Kīḻmaruthūr Rice growing village K.K. vol. VI:498

53 Mēla Parakōḍu Mountain K.K. vol. VI:509

54Nāñchināṭṭu ErichiKuḷam

Tank K.K. vol. VI:529

55 Puthēri Lake K.K. vol. VI:537

56 Prapam kōḍu Kōṇam Mountain K.K. vol. VI:511

57 Kuṇḍūr Hill K.K. vol. VI:546

58 Maruthaṉ kōdu Mountain K.K. vol. VI:546

Place names after religion, god and goddess.

Some place names were named after the gods and goddesses of that place and

some place names denote a particular sect.

Table 5: 5

Place Names after Religion and Deities

SI.NoVillage Name Named after Reference

1 Brahmmadēya MuṇṇūṭṭruMaṅgaḷam

The God Brahma K.K.vol. I:5

2 Kumari KaḻikuḍiThe Goddess

K.K.vol. I:111

3 KumariThe Goddess

K.K.vol. I:119

4 Kumari MaṅgaḷamThe Goddess

K.K.vol. I:48

5 Murathanāṭṭu KumariThe Goddess

K.K.vol. II:155

6 Maḷayanāṭṭu Kāṉaiyarpaḷḷi

The Hill -Abode of Jain K.K.vol.II :180

127

7 KīḻkūṭṭrathuBrahmadēyam

The God of Brahma K.K.vol.II:190

8 Dēvakuḷam Divine K.K. vol. III:273

9 Vaḍivīswaram The deity of Īswara KK. vol. III:332

10 Brammapuram The God Brahma K.K. vol. IV:19

11 Sivagiri The deity of Īswara K.K. vol. IV:29

12 Dēvaṉ Chērry Divine K.K. vol. IV:29

13 Pūḍapāṇḍīswaram Īswara K.K.vol.V:34

14 Sri Pathmanābanallūr The God Pathmanaba K.K. vol. v:67

15 Kumarimuṭṭam The Goddess TiruvidāncoreK.K.vol.VI :487

16 Kuṇḍra paḷḷi The Hill -Abode of Jain K.K. vol. VI:539

17 Tiru Chāraṇam Poem of Jain K.K. vol. VI:551

18 Tiruneḍum Pārai Kāṭṭampaḷḷi

The Hill -Abode of Jain K.K. vol. VI:551

19 Tiru-NaruṅgkoṇḍaiMēlai paḷḷi

The Hill -Abode of Jain K.K. vol. VI:557

20 Tiru Nandhi Karai Tiru Nandhi-Vehicle ofGod

K.K. vol. VI:588

Place names after merchant guilds, profession and castes:

A few villages have certain guilds, castes, tribes and profession as their names.

The following are few place names influenced by the above.

Table 5: 6

Place Names After Merchant Guilds, Profession and Castes

Si.NoVillage Name Named After Reference

1Brahmadēya MuṇṇūṭṭruMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. I:5

2Uthaya Mārthāṇḍa Catūrvēdi Maṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. I:23

3Khiḻār MaṅgaḷathūrMaṅgaḷa Chērry

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. I:28

4RājaṇārāyaṇaSadūrvēdic Maṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. I: 32

5 Karuppukōṭṭai AgaramThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. I:35

128

6 Kumari MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. I:48

7 Rāyarkuḍi Merchant K.K.vol. I:87

8 Chērntha MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. I:93

9Sunḍara Chōḻa Sadūr VēdaMaṅgaḷam (Sucīndram)

The area inhabited byBrahmins K.K.vol. II : 150

10 Sōmachi MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. II : 155

11 Cīvaḷa MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins K.K.vol. II : 151

12 Muḷḷa MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. II : 151

13Chōḻa Sharupēḍi

MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. II:170-A

14Sunḍara ChōḻaCatūrvēdi Maṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. II:174

15 Maḷayanāṭṭu Kāṉaiyar paḷḷi Jain CentrePāṇḍya K.K.vol.II :180

16Madūrānthaka CharupēthiMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

Chōlā:K.K.vol.II:183

17KīḻkūṭṭrathuBrahmadēyam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:190

18Rāja Rāja CatūrvēdiMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:193

19Sunḍarapāṇḍya CatūrvēdiMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:193

20Puṟanthayā-nāṭṭuMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:193

21 Puḷḷa MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:193

22 Chōlānthaka MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.II:211

23 Sarupēthi MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. II:214

24Vīra mārthāṇḍa CatūrvēdiMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

TiruvidāncoreK.K.vol.II :218

25Vīra Kēraḷa CatūrvēdiMaṅgaḷam(Nāñchil Nāḍu)

The area inhabited byBrahmins K.K. vol. II:242

26 Sivaḷḷu MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

Chōḻa Pāṇḍya K.K.vol.III:267

27 Gaṅgai MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. III:272

28 Chēnthaṉchērry AgaramThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. III:277

129

29Chōḻa Kuḷathu VaḷḷipuramCatūrvēdi Maṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. III:284

30 Kiḻār MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K. K. vol.III:292

31 Sānthi MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

TIruvidancoreK.K.vol.III:298

32Pūravari CatūrvēdiMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

Vēṇāḍu: K.K.vol. III:306

33 Kōthacha Piḷḷai AgaramThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. III:326

34 MaruthakachērryThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. IV:123

35 BrammapuramThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. IV:19

36 AriyaṉchērryThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. IV:2

37 Parākirama MaṅgaḷadēsamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. IV:27

38 Chēra MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. IV:33

39 Kaḍiya PaṭṭaṇamCommercial and portcenter

K.K. vol. IV:37

40 Kaḍigai PaṭṭaṇamCommercials andPort Center

K.K. vol. IV:38

41 Pākka MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. IV:38-F

42 Sri Nagaram Divine town K.K. vol. IV:8

43 Uthaya MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. IV:82

44 Kuṭṭa Maṅgaḷam DēsamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K .vol. IV:88

45 Kuṟichipārai Aṇai (Dam) Dam K.K. vol. V:37

46 Vīra-kēraḷaēri Lake K.K. vol. V:49

47Vaṇṇārkuḍi (WashermanSettlement Region)

Washer mancommunity

K.K. vol. V:52

48Gūrunāṭṭu KaikaṭṭiyaPaṭṭaṇam

Commercials andport center

K.K. vol. V:59

49 KuṭṭamaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. V:68

50 MaṅgaḷachērryThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. VI:465

51Tiruṇārāyaṇa CatūrvēdiMaṅgaḷam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. VI:465

52Uthama Chōḻa VaḷanāṭṭuAmarāvathi Maṅgalam

The area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol.VI:485

53 Sri Kalāchēya PaṭṭaṇamCommercials andport centre

K.K.vol. VI:501

130

54 Sātha MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol.VI :526

55 Puthēri Lake irrigation K.K.vol. VI:537

56 Chivaḷavaṇ MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K.vol. VI:538

57 Kuṇḍra paḷḷi Jain Centre K.K.vol. VI:539

58 Tiru Chāraṇam Jain Centre K.K. vol. VI:551

59Tiruneḍum Pārai Kāṭṭampaḷḷi

Jain Centre K.K. vol. VI:551

60Tirunaruṅg koṇḍai mēlaipaḷḷi

Jain Centre K.K. vol. VI:557

61 Chithakūru MaṅgaḷamThe area inhabited byBrahmins

K.K. vol. VI:582

Suffix:

The suffixes of the place names usually refer to the type of settlements. Three

elements like ecological diversity, cultural perceptions, and dialectical wealth

interacting together produced a variety of place names. Obviously, the place names

reflect all the five components of the cultural geography, i.e., culture, cultural area,

cultural landscape, cultural history and cultural ecology.16 According to one of the

Saṅgam Classical works, social groups were divided into five situational types on the

basis of natural sub-region and related occupational patterns.

The Pattupāṭṭu enumerates these territorial segments (or tiṉai) as follows:

i) Maruṭa-makkaḷ or ploughmen (uḷavar) are the people inhabiting fertile zones.

ii) Kuṛavar-makkaḷ or hill people are foresters.

iii) Mullai-makkaḷ or pastoralists, also called āyar (cowman), kōvaḷar (sheperds),

and iḍaiyar (cowherd or shepherd).

iv) Neyta- makkaḷ or fishing community is the people living in large coastal villages

called paṭṭiṇam or small ones called pākkam.

16 R.Y.Singh, Geography of Settlements, Rawat publications, New Delhi, 1994, p.73.

131

v) Pālai makkaḷ or people of the dry plains called eyinar, maṟavar and vēḍar who

are hunters living in both the dry plains and the forest.17

Thus, the place names of a particular area provided a clue to understand the

emergence of various communities and their roles in the given society. All the

suffixes noticed in the place names of Kaṉyākumari region are given in the following

table. The suffixes of the place names are more useful for the classification of

settlement pattern of villages. There are fifty varieties of suffixes found in this region.

Some of the villages in the Kaṉyākumari region do not have any suffixes or attribute

segments except the stem portion. The above data are taken from Kaṉyākumari

inscriptions from vols. I to VI (Appendix-IV) and it recorded 320 village names

belonging to the period from 792 to 1906 C.E.

17 Burton Stein, Peasant State And Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1985, pp.55-56.

132

.

Table 5: 7

Percentage of Suffixes in Inscriptions of Kaṉyākumari Region

Sl.No. Suffix No. of Suffixes %

1 Ūr 47 14.68

2 Maṅgaḷam 35 10.93

3 Nallūr 24 7.50

4 Puram 20 6.25

5 Kuḷam 19 5.93

6 Kuḍi 17 5.31

7 Cēri 15 4.69

8 Dēsam 13 4.06

9 Kōḍu 12 3.75

10 Karai 11 3.44

11 Thuṟai 8 2.50

12 Kuṟichi 6 1.88

13 Viḷai 6 1.88

14 Ēri 4 1.25

15 Paḷḷi 4 1.25

16 Paṭṭaṇam 4 1.25

17 Pudu ūr 4 1.25

18 Kōṇam 4 1.25

19 Āru 3 0.94

20 Pērūr 3 0.94

21 Pāḍi 3 0.94

22 Agaram 3 0.94

23 Kumari 3 0.94

24 Puliyūr 3 0.94

133

25 Kāḍu 2 0.63

26 Vilāgam 2 0.63

27 Grāmam 2 0.63

28 Kuḻi 2 0.63

29 Īswaram 2 0.63

30 Kachērry 2 0.63

31 Malai 2 0.63

32 Maḍam 2 0.63

33 Vēli (Fence) 1 0.31

34 Thiṭṭai 1 0.31

35 Aṇai (Dam) 1 0.31

36 Kōvil 1 0.31

37 Mēḍu 1 0.31

38 Giri 1 0.31

39 Paṭṭi 1 0.31

40 Chṟai 1 0.31

41 Kuṇḍrathūr 1 0.31

42 Nagar 1 0.31

43 Nagaram 1 0.31

44 Muṭṭam 1 0.31

45 Kombu 1 0.31

46 Pulam 1 0.31

47 Pugaliḍam 1 0.31

48 Kaḍai 1 0.31

49 Without suffixes 17 5.31

Gross Value 320 100%

134

Settlement (Geographical significance of the Suffix)

a) Ūr

The suffix ūr is the common suffix (for all types of settlements). Mostly these

are found to be very old agricultural settlements. As stated above the ūr generally

referred to settlement of marutham land.18 The marutam land is known for extensive

agricultural activities. It is generally believed that surplus production paved a way for

the creation of settlements, finally leading to an urban growth. The distinctive cultural

pattern is emerged well before the other ecosystems. Due to revenue; the rulers paid

greater attention to enhance the production and also they try to keep their tracts under

their control through various government machineries. The available inscriptions also

support that all types of religious and cultural activities are centred on these fertile

tracts.

Y.Subbarayalu demonstrated in his pioneering work on Political Geography of

the Chōḻa Country, that a village was located at a distance of every 2 miles in Kāvēri

delta.19 The Kāvēri delta is considered as a rice bowl of Tamiḻ Nāḍu and having a

village at a radius of two miles is not a surprise one. The density of the settlements

indirectly suggests that the village is supported the larger communities through its

resources mainly the water resources.

The village (ūr) generally represents a spatial distribution of the habitation and

the adjoining exploitable resources pertaining to the particular inhabitants. All the

human activities related to their political, administrative, social, cultural, economic,

and religious and many other such activities are interacted with this landscape. One

should not see the cultural items of a settlement as physical properties, but it is a

mental representation of the inhabitants. Thus, ūr is the basic unit of the human

geography and analysis of ūr could provide many dimensions of the society.

The suffix ūr finds in two contexts. In the first context, the ūr merely

represents a settlement. In the second context, it is a village assembly, an

administrative unit of the village.

18 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḷagam Ūrum Pērum, Pazhaniyappa Brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.29.19 C.Nilavathi, Tañjāvūr Vaṭṭāra Varalāṟṟu Nilaviyalum Samudāyamum (c.900-1400 CE), Ph.D.Thesis, Tamil University, Thanjavur, 2001, p.97.

135

From the eight and ninth centuries CE onwards, three types of village

assemblies are traceable in the inscriptions, namely the ūr, the sabhā, and the

nagaram. The ūr was the common assembly which included all classes of people who

held the land in the village. The sabhā was an exclusively Brahmin assembly of

villages given as gift to Brahmins where all the land belonged to them. The nagaram

was quite another type pertaining to localities where traders and merchants had a

dominant position.20

Place names ending with Ūr

Out of 320 villages, ūr suffix represents 14.68%, the highest percentage in

Kaṉyākumari region.

In Tamiḻ Nāḍu, and in major part of South India too, generally villages were

known by the term ūr. The ūr was enjoying just customary rights and privileges and

these villages were subject to normal governmental revenue assessment and were

known by the designation vēḷḷāṇvagai (literally the agricultural kind). A general

village, in the Chōḻa area, normally consists of habitation quarters, cremation grounds,

drinking water ponds, irrigation channels and cultivation lands, besides the pastures

and forest cover. The habitation quarters of the landholders /cultivators of the ūr

were sometimes denoted with the term ūr-irukkai.21

Pudūr (new habitation)

Pudūr was mostly referred to a new settlement and this term pudūr generally

appears in the inscriptions in the later part of the history. Therefore, this may be a new

settlement in which people of this place started to inhabit here.

Puliyūr

Villages having the attribute puli are found in Agastīswaram taluk and other

villages like Tirupāpuliyūr and Perumpaṭṭrapuliyūr in Kalkuḷam taluk of this district.

20 K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History Of South India – From Pre historic Times to the Fall ofVijayanagar, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1975, p. 149.21 Y.Subbarayalu, South India Under the Cholas, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2012, pp.124-25.

136

The literal meaning of the puliyūr is a tiger village (puli > tiger). Whether it indicates

the ancient eco-system or something else yet to be assessed.22

Kuṇḍrathūr

Kuṇḍru refers to the hills. Villages situated adjacent to the hills or at the

foothills are referred to as Kuṇḍrathūr.23

Pērūr

The attribute pēr is found in association with the place name suffix ūr. Pērūr

stands for a big village (per>big; ūr>village). Such big settlements are noticed in the

study areas. The two adjoining villages or part of the settlement are represented with

additional attribute like kīḻ/kīḻam meaning east/down. For example, Pērūr and

Kiḻampērūr in Kalkuḷam taluk and Kiḻpērūr in Agastīswaram talk could be cited.

Ūr is also called as grāmam, a Sanskrit version, basically representing a small

settlement and its associated agricultural field containg paddy cultivation.24

Maṅgaḷam

Brahmin villages of this period were referred to by a variety of terms like

brahmadēyam, catūrvēdimaṅgaḷam, maṅgaḷam, agaram, agrahāram, agra-

brahmadēya, agra-brahmadēsa, brahmadēsam, brahmapuri and brahma-

maṅgaḷam.25

Suffixes like maṅgaḷam and nallūr denote the settlements of Brahmins and the

villages connected with the temples respectively. There are several such instances like

Brahmadēya Muṇṇūṭru maṅgaḷam, Uthayamārthāṇḍa cadurvēdimaṅgaḷam,

Rājaṇārāyaṇa maṅgaḷam, Kumari maṅgaḷam, etc., referred to in the medieval

inscriptions.26

22 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum, Pazhaniyappa Brothers, Chennai,1968, p.29.23 Karu.Nagarajan, Cheṅgai Māvaṭṭa Ūrpeyargaḷ, International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras,1985, p.144.24 C. Govindarajan, Kalveṭṭu Kalaichol Agaramudali , (From A.D. 7th century to 12th century), MaduraiKamaraj University, Madurai, 1987, p.135.25 Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1985, p.145.26 Burton Stein, Peasant State And Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1985,, p.153.

137

Nallūr

The village having suffix called Nallūr were gifted to the temple and in the

case of Kaṉyākumari region, mostly these lands were gifted to the Siva temple. These

villages were also known as dēvadāṉa villages. The village names like Jayakoṇḍa

Chōḻa Nallūr, Nirubasēkara Nallūr, Iraṇasiṅganallūr and so on could be cited as an

example.27 The brahmin settlement brahmadēya and temple village nallūr generally

found in a fertile zone.

Cēri or Chērry

The suffix cēri represents of 4.69 percentages in Kaṉyākumari inscriptions.

Generally cēri means the suburb of a town or a village.28 In other words, a group of

working class/service class/ professional class living together in a particular area is

also known as cēri. The settlement where paḷḷars lived together was called as paḷḷa-

cēri, the settlement where paṟaiyar lived together was called as paṟai-cēri, the

settlement where āyar lived together was called as āyar-cēri, the settlement where

the brahmin lived was called as pārppaṉ-cēri. Inscriptions noticed with the suffix cēri

are Kīḻār Maṅgaḷathu Maṅgaḷacēri, Kīḻceri, Kēraḷacēri, Kaṇṇaṇcēri, etc.29

Dēsam

The villages ending with the suffix dēsam represent 4.06 percentages in

Kaṉyākumari inscription. It is noted that dēsam is a settlement unit or a territory

comprissing of different clans.30 The places ending with dēsam in Kaṉyākumari

region are Tiruvaṭṭāru dēsam, Nayinār dēsam, Akkarai dēsam, etc. In general, the

dēya is the corrupt form of dēsam denoting an area and in some occasions it denotes

Brahmin settlement.

27 Y. Subbarayalu, Political Geography of the Chola Country, The State Department of Archaeology,Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai, 1973, p.90.28 N. Subramaniyan, Sangam Polity-Administration and Social Life of the Tamils, Ennes Publication,Madurai, 1980, p.121.29 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum , Pazhaniyappa Brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.61.30A.P. Greeshmalatha, Historical Geography of Valluvanād, Ph.D. Thesis, Calicut University, Calicut,2008, p.62.

138

Agaram (Brahmin village)

The suffix Agaram stands for the tax free land/settlements allotted to

brahmins.31 In general, the Vedic brahmins were the residents of such villages.

Therefore, agaram is otherwise called as pārpaṉachērry (settlement of brahmins).

The following villages are found with the suffix agaram. They are Karuppukōṭṭai

agaram, Chēnthaṉchērry agaram and Kōthachapiḷḷai agaram. It is found in

Agastīswaram taluk of Kaṉyākumari district.32

Puram

The commercial centres were called by different names which had the suffix

of puram, pēṭṭai, paṭṭaṇam, kaḍai and pāḷayam. Puram ending villages represents

nearly 6.25 percentages. Mummuḍi Chōḻapuram, Karavanthapuram,

Chōḻakulavaḷḷipuram, etc. could be cited as an example.

Kachērry

The word kachērry is found in association with place names in town or uban

centres. Inscription mentions Arippukkilai kachērry and Marutha kachērry.33

Kachērry probably means a court or administrative office.

Nagar/Nagaram

Nagar probably refers to an urbanized area. Poḻigainagar is one which is found

in Agastīswaram taluk. The suffix nagaram generally stands for a city and the

administration was generally controlled by an assembly of mercantile community.

Initially, these nagarams were confined to the management of merchants, trade and

trade related works and their jurisdiction was extended to the associated agricultural

lands too indicating that the distinction between urban and rural was quite nebulous

during the medieval period. For examble, Sri Nagaram at Kalkuḷam taluk could be

31 Tamil Lexicon, University of Madras, vol.I, Madras, 1982, p.4.32 C. Govindarajan, Kalveṭṭu Kalaichol Agaramudali (From A.D. 7TH century to 12th century), MaduraiKamaraj University, Madurai, 1987, p.385.33 R.Nagasamy, Kaṉyākumari Kalvṭṭukkal, vol.IV, Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology,Chennai,1979, No; 1969/123.

139

cited.34 Likewise, the suffix kaḍai means shop/trading area. For example Pudukaḍai

could be cited.

Kuḷam

The major irrigation work in this area is the Kōthayār irrigation project under

which the waters of Kōthayār and the Paṟaḷayār (which combined to form

Kuḻithuṟaiyār) and the Paḻayār are harnessed and used for irrigation purposes. Though

there are many kinds of irrigation systems prevailing in this district, tank irrigation is

the principal source of irrigation. The percentage of net area irrigated from tanks was

5.46 percent. Lake and tank irrigation played a vital role in agricultural

development.35 Naturally, there are several village names ending with the suffix kuḷam

denoting a tank or water reservoir. There are nineteen villages ended with the suffix

kuḷam in this region. For example, Kalkuḷam, Thāmaraikuḷam, Thalaikuḷam, etc.,

could be cited.

Karai

The suffix Karai referred 3.44 percentages of villages in Kaṉyākumari district

inscriptions. The villages ending with the suffix karai mostly located on the river

banks or coastal regions. The villages Vaikaikarai, Vaḍakarai, Paravaikarai,

Aruvikarai, etc., could be cited as an example.

Thuṟai

Thuṟai means seaport, harbour and bathing ghat.36 Nearly 2.50 percentages of

villages with the suffix thuṟai is found in Kaṉyākumari region. In Tamiḻ Nāḍu, the

ancient ports are generally located at the mouth of the major rivers or estuaries.37

There are two terms, namely muṉthuṟai and perunthuṟai. The major ancient port

towns like Koṟkai and Kāvēripaṭṭiṉam are represented with these terms as koṟkai-

muṉthuṟai, koṟkai-perunthuṟai, puhār-muṉthuṟai and puhār-perunthuṟai. The ancient

name of the famous ancient port Arikamēḍu is Vīrai-muṉthuṟai. Besides, the interior

34 Gurcharan Das, The Story of Indian Business, Merchants of Tamilakam, Penguin books, New Delhi,2012, p.7335 M. Gobalakrishnan(Ed), Gazetteers of Kanyakumari District, Government of Tamilnadu,Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Chennai, 1995, p.292.36Tamil Lexicon, vol.IV; Part.I; University of Madras, Madras, 1982, p.2005.37 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamilagam ūrum pērum , Pazhaniyappa Brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.32

140

towns located on the banks of major rivers also had the term thuṟai, probably

indicating the bathing ghat. In Kaṉyākumari region, there are several villages like

Pulāṉthuṟai, Alathuṟai, Muṭṭamthuṟai, etc., ending with this term representing both

fishing harbour and bathing ghat.

Paṭṭaṇam

Neytal makkaḷ (littoral people) or fishing community living in large coastal

villages generally called paṭṭaṇam/paṭṭiṇam. It also stands for port. The small fishing

villages are called as pākkam.38 The village/towns with suffixes such as nagaram,

puram, paṭṭaṇam or paṭṭiṇam were attained in recognition of their commercial

activities where one could see the multiethnic groups with more diverse population.

The growth of such commercial towns is generally witnessed in the 12th century CE.

In most settlements of that time, peasants, merchants and artisans along with others

lived in close association, sharing not only interdependent economic relationship, but

also a common involvement in the cultural life of the locality.39 The Kaṉyākumari

inscriptions expressed such settlements like Kaḍiyapaṭṭaṇam, Kaḍigaipaṭṭaṇam and

Srikalacheya paṭṭaṇam in Kalkuḷam taluk and Kaikaṭṭiyapaṭṭaṇam in Thōvāḷai taluk.

Ēri

The village names like Kīḻkaraiputhaṉēri, Saṅkaraēri, Vīra kēralaēri and

Puthēri mentioned in the inscriptions have the suffix ēri and it represents nearly 1.44

percentages. The term ēri stands for lake.

Āru

During the ancient period, many best village settlements, urban centres, ports

and commercial centres are located mostly on the river banks. A proverb said, ‘Not a

beauty without river in a village’.40 Kaṉyākumari district is predominantly an

agricultural area depending mainly on both the northeast and southwest monsoon. It

receives a fairly good rainfall in both the seasons. The major river Tāmbaraparaṇi

38 Burton Stein, Peasant State And Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1985,, p.56.39Burton Stein, Peasant State And Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1985, p.242.40 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum , Pazhaniyappa brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.14.

141

otherwise known as Kuḻithuṟai has got two major tributaries namely Kōḍayār river

and Paṟaḷayār river. There are many tributaries to Kōdayār of which Chittār-I and

Chittār-II are the major tributaries. The origin of the main river Tāmbaraparaṇi is

Western Ghats and the river flows within Kaṉyākumari district for a length of 59.2

km and confluences with the Arabian Sea near Thēṅgāpaṭṭaṇam which leis at a

distance of 56 km west of Cape Comorin, the southern most tip of India.41 The

commercial towns like puram, tenure settlements like brahmadēyam, temple towns

like nallūr and port towns like paṭṭaṇam were generally located on the banks of major

rivers or at the mouth of the rivers.

Aṇai

The term aṇai found their place in late medieval inscriptions. Aṇai (dam) is a

structure raised across the river to store the water for agricultural activities. Instead of

blocking the river flow, the ancient people attempted to regulate the water. The total

water flow of a particular river is not stored, rather they controlled a limited quantity

of water, thereby the excess water drained out through weirs. Thus, the occurrence of

the term aṇai in association with a particular place must be understood in this

background. These dams were built at higher points of the river so that the stored

water could be fully utilized through gravitational flow. In inscriptions, one could get

the place names like Kuṟichipārai-aṇai (dam). At present, there are six dams

constructed in the district. The Pāṇḍiaṇ-dam and Puthaṉ-dam were seen built across

Paṟaḷayār. Pēchippārai dam was constructed across Kōḍayār river in 1906 by then

king of Travancore State. Peruñchāṇi dam was constructed in the upstream of in

Paṟaḷayār river in 1953 to store flood water.

Chittār dam-1 has its source in Iḷamala reserve forest near Eṭṭukāṇi and

Vaṇḍipulavukāṇi at an elevation of 2000 ft above mean sea level and is at about 1.61

km in length.42

41M. Gobalakrishnan(Ed), Gazetteers of Kanyakumari District, Government of Tamilnadu,Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Chennai, 1995, p.294.42 M. Gobalakrishnan(Ed), Gazetteers of Kanyakumari District, Government of Tamilnadu,Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Chennai, 1995, pp.296-300.

142

Kuḍi

The term kuḍi is considered as one of the earliest settlements of a region.

However, this term also denotes the family, clan, lineage, etc. Therefore, the

settlements having the suffix kuḍi could be considered as a settlement of people

consist of blood related kin groups.43

Interestingly, it is noted that there are nearly 17 inscriptions mentioning the

village with the term kuḍi as a suffix. During Sangam Age, the four kinds of land and

four types of settlement pattern were identified. Of them, the term nāḍu is generally

associated with the settlements of Mullai (pastoral tract) and Kuṛiñji (hilly tract), Ūr

referred to Marutham, Chērppu indicates habitations in Neythal land. It is suggested

that kuḍi is the basic unit for all these settlements and these kuḍi(s) later gradually

developed as Ūr, Nāḍu and Chērppu.44 The village names like Kumari Kaḻikuḍi,

Maṇakuḍi, Thāḻaikuḍi, etc. found in the inscription probably refers to the old

settlements. The occurrence of Iron Age urn burials also indicates its antiquity.

Kōḍu

According to Tamiḻ lexicon, the term kōḍu refers to the peak/ mountain, high

ground or an elevated region.45 In Kaṉyākumari region, the suffix kōḍu ending place

names are located near hillocks and mountains of Kalkuḷam and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk.

The place names like Tirukaṇṇaṉ kōḍu, Kañjaṅkōḍu, Kuḻikōḍu, Karinaṅkōḍu, etc.,

could be cited as fine examples. Likewise, the term kōṇam found in association with

village names like Charaikōṇam, Alivankōḍu koṇam, Kōṇam and

Parapamkōḍukōṇam also stands for peak/elevated region.

Kuṟichi

The suffix kuṟichi and viḷai in village names represent 1.72 percentages in this

district. According to early Tamiḻ tradition kuṟichi is a settlement in the mountain

region. This term represents the hilly tracts.46 Sethupillai considers, kuṟichi is the

43 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum , Pazhaniyappa Brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.60.44 Direct interview from R.Pungundran, Date 24.7.2011.45 Tamil Lexicon, vol.II; Part.I; University of Madras, Madras, 1982, p.1180.46 K.P.Rajesh, Historical Geography of Kolathunāḍu-A Study of Regional Formation in MedievalNorth Kerala, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calicut, Calicut, 2011, p.337.

143

earliest settlement of the kuṟavar community. Kuṟichi is a hamlet consist of a

homogenous community located on the elevated area.47 But in later period, different

communities also intruded in these settlements.48 The places like Madilkuṟichi and

Pūlāṅkuṟichi in Agastīswaram taluk and Maṇavālakuṟichi, Maṇṇaikuṟichi and

Muthalakuṟichi in Kalkuḷam taluk of Kaṉyākumari district are noted in the

inscriptions. Malai also denotes hillock/mountain. The place names like Vēḷvimalai

and Peruṅkuḍimalai are referred in this district. Like kuṟichi, mēḍu als stands for a

elevated area. Inscription records place like Pulithalaimēḍu.49 Another Sanskrit giri

denotes a hill or mountain. It also refers to Vaishnavite temple.50

Kāḍu

This term stands for wilderness/ jungle /forest land/pastoral tract.

Kumaranallūr māṅkāḍu and Vaḍvathu kāṭṭūr are some of the settlements found in the

inscriptions.

Pāḍi

The suffix pāḍi ending place names stands for the settlement of pastoral

communities like āyar (cowmen), kōvaḷar (shepherds) and iḍaiyar (cowherd or

shepherd)51 living in a mullai tracts.52 The place names like Raṇasiṅgapāḍi, Vēmpāḍi

and Thiruvaipāḍi located in Kalkuḷam taluk of Kaṉyākumari region are referred to in

the medieval inscriptions.

Paṭṭi

The suffix paṭṭi ending place name refers to small villages. The term paṭṭi

stands for cattle pen. It seems the people in the pastoral track created cattle pens. The

Neolithic ash mounds could be cited as the finest examples of this type of settlements.

47 C.D. Maclean (ed.), Maclean’s Manual of the administration of the Madras Presidency, Vol.II;Asian Education Service, New Delhi, 1989, p.218.48R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum , Pazhaniyappa brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.6.49Karu.Nagarajan, Cheṅgai Māvaṭṭa Ūrpeyarkaḷ, International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras,1985, p. 131.50 Karu.Nagarajan, Cheṅgai Māvaṭṭa Ūrpeyaragaḷ, International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras,1985, p. 138.51 Burton Stein, Peasant State And Society in Medieval South India, Oxford University Press, NewDelhi, 1985, p.56.52 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum , Pazhaniyappa brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.12.

144

These cattle pens were gradually developed as major villages. Mulakārapaṭṭi in

Kalkuḷam taluk is one such place name found in the inscription.53

Viḷai

It means dry land or high ground situated well above the sea level. The

settlement surrounded by forest is also known as viḷai.54 Inscription records the place

names ending with viḷai. They are Vakkaṉaviḷai and Puliyaṉviḷai in Thōvāḷai taluk,

Theṅkompukōvilviḷai in Agastīswaram taluk and Kalluviḷai and Pēyaḍiviḷai at

Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk.

Paḷḷi

The term paḷḷi had two meanings. Initially this term stands for a place where

the cattle took a rest during night time (āṉilaipaḷḻi). The phrase kāvum-paḷḷiyum

stands for cattle pen/resting place and its associated pastoral tract (kā). There are

several place names ending with paḷḷi noticed in Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri regions

of Tamil Nadu. Later on this term paḷḷi is found in association with Jain/Buddhist

settlements. The occurrence of Jain vestiges in this district, perhaps indicates a

connection with Jainism.55 The village names like Maḷayanāṭṭu-Kāṉaiyar-paḷḷi and

Tirunedumpārai-Kāṭṭam-paḷḷi could be cited.

Kumari

The term Kumari stands for a virgin girl and later on to the Goddess installed

at Kaṉyākumari.56 This is the southern extremity of India. The township has been

named after the Goddess Kaṉyākumari to whom the temple is dedicated.57 However,

there are references that denoting its antiquity. The phrase vaḍa vēṅkaḍam theṉkumari

āyiḍait tamiḻ kūṟu nallulagam referred to in Tolkāppiyam, the ancient grammatical

treatise, clearly points the Kumari as the southernmost point of Tamiḻ Nāḍu like

53J.P.Rottler, A Dictionary Tamil and English (Part.III), International Institute Tamil Studies, Chennai,2000, p.278.54 Tamil Lexicon,vol.VI; University of Madras, Madras, 1982, p.3730.55 M.G.S.Narayanan, Perumals of Kerala-Political and Social Conditions of Kerala Under the CheraPerumals of Makotai (800A.D.-1124A.D.), Xavier Press, Calicut, 1996, p.186.56 A. Nakkiran, Panḍaith Tamiḻaga Nāgarigamum Paṇpāḍum, Tamilman Publication, Chennai, 2000,p.13.57M. Gobalakrishnan(ed.,), Gazetteers of Kanyakumari District, Government of Tamilnadu,Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, Chennai, 1995, p.1.

145

Himalayas are referred to as the northern limit.58 It belonged to the Pāṇḍyaṉ kingdom,

and as such it is noticed by the Greek Geographers. It is called as Kumaria Akron and

Cape Kumaria by Ptolemy.59 The Periplus of the Erythraean sea noticed it as

Comari.60 The post-Sangam epic Cilapatikāram also refers this place as “May the

Southerner (i.e. Pāṇḍiya) prosper, who ruled over the South, after conquering the

Gaṅgai and the Himālayam in the North, because the cruel sea swallowed the

Comorin hill to which is attached many ranges of hills, along with the river Pahruḷi

in revenge for an old fend, (that caused) by his throwing the sharp spear at the ocean,

(at the same time) indicating to kings the extent of his domain with his feet”.

“Aḍiyiṟṟaṉṉai varasark kuṇarthi

Vaḍivē lerintha vaṉpagai poṟāthu

Paṟṟuḷi yaṟṟudan panmalai yadukkathuk

Kumari kōḍuṅ koḍuṅkaḍal koḷḷa

Vaḍathisai gaṅkaiyum imayamun koṇḍu

Theṉṟisai yāṇḍa theṉṉavaṉ vāḻi”

(Cilappatikāram XI.II.17-22) 61

The latter day Morcopolo also referred to this place as Comari. Further, he

states that this is a very wild country and there are beasts of all kinds, especially

monkeys of such peculiar fashion that you would take them for men. There are also

gatpauls in wonderful diversity, with bears, lions, and leopards in abundance.62

Īswaram

The temple cities dedicated to Siva are referred to as īswaram.

Agastīswaram,63 Vaḍivīswaram and Pūdapāṇḍīswaram are some of the villages

associated with temple (Map 6). The village Pūḍapāṇḍi is probably an ancient village

58 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.,), Kaṉyākumari Māvaṭṭa Tholliyal Kaiyēḍu, State Department ofArchaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.44.59K.P.Pathmanaban Menon, History of Kerala, in T.K.Krishnan Menon ( ed.,),Vol.I, Asian EducationService, New Delhi,1982, p.7.60K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, Foreign Notices of South India From Megasthenes to Mahuan, University ofMadras, Madras, 2001, p59.61 P.T.Srinivas Iyengar, History of the Tamils: From the earliest times to 600A.D., Asian EducationServices New Delhi, 1982, p.240.62 K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, Foreign Notices of South India: From Megasthenes to Mahuan (2001),University of Madras, p.182.63 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum , Paḷaniyappa Brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.246.

146

as one of the Pāṇḍya kings is known as Ollaiyūr-tanta-Pūḍapāṇḍyaṉ or the village

might have named after the king by the later Pāṇḍya rulers.64

Maḍam

Maḍam is a charity centre associate with religious propaganda. It is mostly

benefited to religious devotees for spiritual studies. Its main source of income is from

royal families or high officials who granted land in favour of these centres.

Māḷigaimaḍam and Sucīndrathu pudumaḍam are some of the centres noted in the

medieval inscriptions.65

Kōvil

The suffix kōvil ending place name refers to the temple (example Nāgarkōil).

Nāgarājā temple is a Jain temple existed from the 8th century CE to 1587 CE. Images

of Mahāvirar, Pārsavanāthar and Pathmāvathi sculptures are found engraved on the

pillars of Arthamanḍapam of Nāgarājā temple. This temple inscription refers to the

donation made by Kamalavāgaṉa paṇḍithan and Nārāyaṇaṇ Nayinaṉ Kuṇavīra

paṇḍithaṉ as paḷḷichantham, the land grant made to the Nagaraja temple in the 16th

century CE. The term paḷḷichantham denotes a Jain contribution as per the inscription.

In 1588 CE, this Nāgarājā temple is converted into a Vaishnava temple. During this

period, the temple inscription mention the deity as Nāgar Tiruvanaṇthāḷvār.66 The

main deity is later known as Mūlavar suyambu Nāgarājar and goddess as Ammaṉ

Nāgāmbāl. Nāgarājā temple has three prakārās. Thalavirutcham is a Nāgaliṅgam tree.

It is believed that this temple is being by nāgās (serpants). People come here for

getting cure of Nāga dōshas and skin diseases.67 Therefore, serpants have not troubled

the people living around this place. Soil taken from Mūlavar saṉṉathi is considered as

the prasādam. Puṭṛu soil is given as prasādam for devotees (Map 7).

64 R.P.Sethupillai, Tamiḻagam Ūrum Pērum , Palaniyappa Brothers, Chennai, 1968, p.95.65C. Govindarajan, Kalveṭṭu Kalaichol Agaramudali,(From A.D. 7TH century to 12th century), MaduraiKamaraj University, Madurai, 1987, p.309.66 Seetharam Gurumurthi (ed.,), Kanyākumari Māvaṭṭa Tholliyal Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu StateDepartment of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, pp.71-72.67J.C.Murali, Tamiḻaga Sivathalangaḷ, Chadura Publication, Chennai, 2000, p.632

147

Viḷāgam

Viḷāgam means the surrounding place of a temple or mutt. Paninḍarviḷāgam

and Mañchaviḷāgam are some of the places noted in this district. The suffixes like

viḷāgam, grāmam, kuḻi, īswaram, kachērry, malai and maḍam are equally represented

with 0.63 percentages.

Kuḻi

The suffix kuḻi referred to a pit in generic terms but generally it refers to a

place located in low lying areas (example: Iḍaraikuḻi and Kuṇḍakkaṇ kuḻi). It also

refers to a measurement of particular extent of land. Likewise the term vēli also refers

to both cultivation field and measurement. The word thiṭṭai refers to a elevated area

located close to the settlement (Paḻaiyūrthiṭṭai).

Chiṟai

According to Tamiḻ lexicon, the suffix chiṟai means a place of confinement.

For example, Muñchiṟai is a village name located in Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk.

Kōkkarunanthaḍakkan, a ruler of Āyi issued copper plate (864-65 A.D.) known as

Muñchiṟai copper plate. He established Pārthivasēkarapuram sālai (Education Centre)

in the new village Pārthivasēkarapuram and constructed a Perumāḷ temple near

Muñchirai.68

Sālai means a public institution of a charitable nature e.g., aṟachālai and

ātular sālai.69 But, in Kaṉyākumari region the suffix sālai mentions education

centre. For instance, at Pārthivasēkarapuram sālai 95 chattars (Brahmin students)

were studied. Pārthivasēkarapuram sālai was formed for landless students for the

study of vēdas. Students, who studied here, also participated in the assembly of ūr

and sabai and rendered their services to the society.70 A Chōḻa inscription has

recorded one such sālai at Kāndalūr known as Sri Kāndalūr sālai. Rājarājaṇ-I (c.985-

1014CE.) was a great ruler of Chōḻa kingdom. The eulogy of Rājarāja-I recorded in

68 Chitharam Gurumurthi (ed.), Kanyākumari Māvaṭṭa Tholliyal Kaiyēḍu, Tamil Nadu StateDepartment of Archaeology, Chennai, 2008, p.83.69 T.A.Gobinatha Rao, Travancore Archaeological series, vol.I; (No.I: Three inscriptios ofKokkarunandthadakkan ), Department of Cultural Publications, government of Kerala, Tiruvandrum,1908, p.3070 D.S.Srithar, Kalveṭṭu , Tamil Nāḍu State Department of Archaeology, Chennai, pp.32-34

148

the Brahadiswara temple inscription of Tañjāvūr refers to Kāndalūr sālai (989 CE.).

Rājarāja-I also offered donations to the Sanskrit college of Kāndalūr.71

Some of the villages in the Kaṉyākumari region do not have any suffix or

attribute segments except the stem portion. They are Sucīndram, Thāyaṭṭrai,

Chēlurmaṇ, Paṟakai, Paṉaiyarai, Pūṅgāthuḍai, Thoṭṭarai, Valiyakuṇḍarai, Āralvāimoḻi,

Thōvāḷai, Pūḍupāṇḍi, Iraṇial, Arumṉai, Thakkalai and Anchaṉpāḍu.

From the above analysis of the place names, it can be inferred that the suffix

part of many of the modern place names can be traced back to a very early period.

The maximum number of ūr, maṅgaḷam, nallūr, puram, kuḷa, kuḍi, chērry,

dēsam and kōḍu suffixes are occurring during the Chōḻa, Chēra and Pāṇḍya periods.

This trend shows that the agrarian form of settlement got expanded at that time.

Besides, the suffix puram was found most prominently in the said period. It shows

that the commercial villages were also coming into existence in the period of 10th

century itself. Further, several place names are associated with the name of the rulers

of Chōḻa and Pāṇḍya dynasty. This indirectly indicates the establishments of several

villages during their regime. These new settlements are established through the

creation irrigation facilities. The early pastoral tracts were converted into new fertile

agricultural zones. The surplus productions made in these agricultural zones

attracted the commercial centres like puram/paṭṭinam. Similarly, the suffixes like

puram, grāmam, kōḍu, thuṟai, paṭṭaṇam, chiṟai, etc., are all found in the inscriptions

between the period 947 CE and 1000 CE. During these periods, the Kaṉyākumari

region had flourished under the rulers like Chōḻas, Pāṇḍyās and Chērās. Further, the

suffix like puliyūr, thiṭṭai, kuṟichi, kari, ēri, puduvūr, āru, kuḻi, chērry, pāḍi, malai,

maḍam, kachērry, vēli, dēsam, agaram, muṭṭam and nagaram are all found in the

Kaṉyākumari inscriptions in the period between 1038 CE and 1494 CE. The suffixes

like kōvil, mēḍu, pērūr, viḷai, kāḍu, īswaram, viḷāgam, aṇai, kōṇam, nagar,

kuṇḍrathūr and giri are started appearing in the inscriptions of later period, mostly

assignable to later Pāṇḍyas, Vēṇāḍu, Nāyaka, Vijayanagar and Tiruvidancore times;

which belongs to the period between 1500 CE and 1906 CE.

71 C. Govindarajan, Kalveṭṭu Kalaichol Agaramuḍali,(From A.D. 7TH century to 12th century), MaduraiKamaraj University, Madurai, 1987, pp.120-22.

149

Thus, the study of place names helps immensely to understand the existence of

several settlements from the time immemorial, the emergence of new agricultural

based settlements, conversion of pastoral tracts, creation of mercantile centres,

construction of dams and tanks, formation of temple cities and making of new

community based settlements. The study also helps to realize the dynastic imprints

and their socio-economic welfare measures.

150

CHAPTER - VI

CONCLUSION

The study of micro region provides sufficient scope to understand various

intricacies involved in the formation of the region through the centuries. The

Kaṉyakumari region that evolved with all its manifestation in the field of social,

economic, political and cultural life of its people is, in fact, conditioned by its

ecosystem. Understandably studies centred on certain specified areas or regions must

adopt a holistic approach covering all of these different aspects, so as to have a

wholesome understanding of the said region and its history and culture.

The Kanyakumari region located in the southern most part of the Indian

Peninsula now forms part of Tamil Nadu. The region may be considered as one of the

most ancient and cultural zones of Tamil Nadu. It is endowed with considerable

natural resources and also flourished as a meeting place for different religious,

language and cultural groups. The formation of this region is very much in consonant

with the division of land as expounded in the early Sangam literature. The region is

geographically very small but the presence of mountains, rivers and fertile soil make

this region unique. This small area comprises all the four ecosystems namely kuṟuñji,

mullai, marutam and neital. The western and northern part of the region falls under

the mountainous zone, popularly called kuṟiñji tract. The northern part of Kalkuḷam

and Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluks falls under the category of pastoral tract namely mullai tract.

The third category, the fertile tract called marutam predominantly covers the whole of

Agastīswaram and the southern part of Thōvāḷai taluk. Finally, neithal tiṉai referring

to littoral zone is located on the western fringes of Viḷavaṅkōḍu, Kalkuḷam and

Agastīswaram taluks. As the entire regions is endowed with copious rainfall both

during the southwest and northeast monsoon. The region is bereft of arid land which

is referred to as pālai tiṉai. The scholars who have concentrated on dynastic imprints

fail to provide any detailed description on the nature of this zone. Unlike the great

dynasties like Pāṇḍyas, Chōḻas and Chēras, this region was controlled by the small

kingdoms like Āy and Vēṇāḍu kingdoms and in major part of their history they

151

served as subordinates. Therefore, the region did not receive the attention of either the

scholars of Kerala or the scholars from Tamil Nadu. The native scholar K.K. Pillay,

who hails from Viḷavaṅkōḍu taluk has pointed out this situation in his studies.

However, the native scholars like K.K. Pillay, S. Pathmanabhan and A.K. Perumal of

Nāgarkōil contributed much to this region. Their studies helped effectively to

understand the basic structure of this region. However, it must be pointed out that they

have not made adequate use of the available archaeological as well as epigraphical

evidences to the full extent. These scholars relied upon Saṅgam literary works and

foreigner accounts. Much of their energy is concentrated on submerged Lemūriā

continent as well as the continental drift theory. In order to prove its antiquity, the

history of the Ᾱy chieftains predominant in their discussion. The copying and

subsequent publication of inscriptions of Kaṉyākumari district by the Tamil Nadu

State Archaeology Department and by the individual scholars in the journal Āvanam

of Tamil Nadu Archaeological Society helped in many ways to reconstruct the history

of this region.

Making use of the limited epigraphical evidences they have written about the

later Pāṇḍyas, Chōḻās, Chōḻa-Pāṇḍyas as well as the accounts of rulers of Vēṇāḍu,

Vijayanagar, the Nāyakās of Madurai and Travancore kingdom as well as the social,

economic and political developments. However, in the present study an attempt is

made to identify political, socio-economic and cultural significance of this region

entirely based on epigraphical evidences.

In the introduction chapter, general introduction on the nature of previous

work, the nature of availability of primary sources both epigraphical and

archaeological is dealt. The major part of the primary source comes from 707

inscription documented in this region. The inferences are mainly derived from these

inscriptions and closely supported by the field data. In addition, the landscape of the

region and its signification is given.

The second chapter provides on the information on the intensive exploration carried

out in Kaṉyākumari region. This knowledge helps to reconstruct the historical and

cultural geography of the region in the given landscape. As a result of field study

carried out in the past and during my own fieldwork, the material remains of Iron Age

have been found in all the four taluks of Kaṉyākumari district and the remains of

152

Microlithic and Neolithic at a limited level. The remnants of the historical vestiges

have been located at 59 sites in all the four taluks such as Vilavaṅcōḍe (26), Thōvālai

(16), Kalkuḷam (11) and Agastīswaram (6). Among the prehistoric sites, the Iron Age

sites dominate the scene. The cultural vestiges prior to Iron Age are very scanty and

only a negligible amount of microlithic tools was recovered. The identification of

palaeolithic tools still eludes the scholars. The non-occurrence of certain cultural traits

is probably due to its geological settings. The geological and environmental factors

played a greater role in the formation of archaeological sites. Based on the available

sources, that encountered in the northern part of Tamil Nadu, it is assumed that the

cultural sequences occur in the order of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Iron Age

(megalithic), Early Historic and historic.1 Such cultural order is not witnessed

homogeneously though out Tamil Nadu and probably future discoveries may alter the

present scenario. Thus, the second chapter provides a complete picture on the

historical vestiges that were identified on the ground. Nearly 59 archaeological sites

were identified and were documented with GPS points. All these sites have been

placed on the map.

The third chapter provides on the general picture of various dynasties that

involved in the geopolitical formation of this region. Kaṉyākumari region,

irrespective of its political discourse maintained its identity. All the leading dynasties

of South India like Āy, Pāṇḍyas, Chōḻas, Chēras, Vēṇād, Vijayanagar, Nāyak

chieftains and Travāṉcōre kingdom were directly or indirectly associated with this

region. The literary and epigraphical sources shed a considerable light on the social,

economic and political conditions of Kaṉyākumari region. Understanding the

historical background of a region is important as it provides clue to understand the

transformation that had taken place in different social and economic spheres. The

efforts of individual rulers and collective initiation of different social groups or

communities played a crucial role in this process. The ruler or a state took various

welfare measures and administrative reforms to meet the aspiration of the people or to

meet the requirement of the state. This aspect has been studied to highlight the basic

political structure of the region. Unlike other regions, this region did not provide any

inscription of Early Historic times. Most of the inscriptions belong to the medieval

1 K.Rajan, “Situating the beginning of early historic times in Tamil Nadu: Some issues andreflections”, Social Scientist, vol.36, New Delhi, 2008, p.60.

153

period. However, the available literary source, particularly the Sangam literature,

helps some extent to reconstruct the political line of the Early Historic times.

Historically, this region has constituted as a distinctly separate unit and it is socially

and culturally different from the rest of Travancore, though in major part of history, it

was under the control of the rulers of Travancore. The region with greater amount of

agricultural production is popularly known as Nāñchilnāḍu and it played an important

role in the history of south India, for almost all the leading dynasties of South India

have been associated with Nāñcilnāḍu.

The historical geography of the region has been dealt in the chapter four. The

aim of the study is to understand the creation of territorial and administrative units

viz., Maṇḍalam, Vaḷanāḍu, Nāḍu / Kūṟṟam, Brahmadēyam, Maṅgaḷam, function of

Nagaram and local government that existed in this region from c.800 to 1300 CE. The

division of the country into Maṇḍalam, Vaḷanāḍu, Nāḍu, Ūr and other administrative

units formed the backbone of imperial Chōḻa administration and which mainly

contributed to the economic, social and cultural dominance of the Chōḻas over other

dynasties. Some fine aspects of these administrative units are discussed in detail with

the help of epigraphs and maps. Thus, the Kaṉyākumari region has undergone a

several changes in terms of their units due to the occupation of various dynasties.

Each dynasty attempted to implement administrative reforms in the line of their

administrative procedures. Irrespective of these inadequacies, the inscriptions dated

between 8th century and 18th century CE suggest that all the territorial divisions had

the suffix Nāḍu. During the reign of Rājarāja–I (985-1014 CE), the Pāṇḍināḍu was

known as Rājarāja Pāṇḍināḍu. It was divided into four major divisions and all the

smaller units were brought under these four divisions. The area between

Tāmaraparaṉi and Cape Comorin was known as Uthama-Chōḻa-Vaḷanāḍu and major

part of the Kaṉyākumari virtually falls in this territorial division. During the Chōḻa

period, the Vaḷanāḍu had some administrative significance. It helped the integration

of society beyond nāḍus. According to Subbarayalu, basically the nāḍu was not an

administrative division as it is usually conceived; rather it should have originated as a

cluster or grouping of peasant or agricultural settlements formed about the nucleus of

a common irrigation source like a channel or tank and bound together by kinship ties

between the people of an individual nāḍu. At the initial stage, the administrative

154

aspect is only a secondary one. The number of villages that were included in the

nāḍus shows much variation, according to the locality. Obviously they were

themselves not of any uniform size and the size must have been decided by the local

topographical and ecological factors added to the human factors.2 Thus, understanding

the formation of certain geographical units and their continued existence or change

requires deep knowledge on its historical development.

In the following chapter, an attempt is made to understand the cultural

landscape of the region based on place names. From the analysis of the place names,

it can be inferred that the suffix part of many of the modern place names can be traced

back to a very early period. The maximum number of ūr, maṅgaḷam, nallūr, puram,

kuḷa, kuḍi, chērry, dēsam and kōḍu suffixes are occurring during the Chōḻa, Chēra

and Pāṇḍya periods. This trend shows that the agrarian form of settlement got

expanded at that time. Besides, the suffix puram was found most prominently in the

said period. It shows that the commercial villages were also coming into existence in

between the period of 10th century itself. Further, several place names are associated

with the name of the rulers of Chōḻa and Pāṇḍya dynasty. This indirectly indicates the

establishments of several villages during their regime. These new settlements are

established through the creation irrigation facilities. The early pastoral tracts were

converted into new fertile agricultural zones. The surplus productions made in these

agricultural zones attracted the commercial centres like puram/paṭṭinam. Similarly,

the suffixes like puram, grāmam, kōḍu, thuṟai, paṭṭaṇam, chiṟai, etc., are all found

in the inscriptions between the period 947 CE and 1000 CE. During these periods, the

Kaṉyākumari region had flourished under the rulers like Chōḻas, Pāṇḍyās and Chēras.

Further, the suffix like puliyūr, thiṭṭai, kuṟichi, kari, ēri, puduvūr, āru, kuḻi, chērry,

pāḍi, malai, maḍam, kachērry, vēli, dēsam, agaram, muṭṭam and nagaram are all

found in the Kaṉyākumari inscriptions in between the period 1038 CE and 1494 CE.

The suffixes like kōvil, mēḍu, pērūr, viḷai, kāḍu, īswaram, viḷāgam, aṇai, kōṇam,

nagar, kuṇḍrathūr and giri are started appearing in the inscriptions of later period,

mostly assignable to later Pāṇḍyas, Vēṇāḍu, Nāyaka, Vijayanagar and Tiruvidancore

times; which belongs to the period between 1500 CE and 1906 CE. Thus, the above

2 Y.Subbarayalu, Historical Geography of South India, Indian History Congress 73rd Session, Mumbai,2012, pp.7-8.

155

study reveals that the appearance of certain place names in a particular period is due

to the historical process that had taken place during that period.

Thus, the study of Kaṉyākumari region helps immensely to understand the

existence of several settlements from the time immemorial, the emergence of new

agricultural based settlements, conversion of pastoral tracts, creation of mercantile

centres, construction of dams and tanks, formation of temple cities and making of new

community based settlements. The study also helps to realize the dynastic imprints

and their socio-economic welfare measures.

156

APPENDIX – I

List of Inscriptions in Kaṉyākumari Region

S.N

O

Villa

ge

Tk

Dy

na

sty

KIN

G

Da

te(in

CE

)

Scrip

ta

nd

La

ng

uag

e

Pla

ceof

the

inscrip

tion

Nā

ḍu

Ten

ure

Inscrip

tion

men

tion

edo

ther

villa

ges

Inscrip

tion

Men

tion

toS

ociety

Gist

TA

S/A

RE

/T

AA

R/S

TA

,N

O;

K.K

.In

scriptio

nV

ol:

I-VI

1 Āralvāimoḻi TOV

Early

Pāṇḍya

Māraṉ chaḍaiyaṉ

792

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Pathmaṉābapurampalace

Koḻuvūr kūṭṭram Perumūr

Koḻuvūr kūṭṭram andViḻiñjam

It is a herostoneinscriptionmemory ofRaṇakīrti lieutenant ofthe earlyPāṇḍya rular whofought withthe Chēra forces andlost his life.

TAS,VOL-I,P-232

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO; 543/2004

2 Thirunandhikarai

KLM

800

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside pillarof entrancegate in cavetemple

Sri Nanḍhi maṅgalam, Pākka maṅgalam

Mudukōṉūr, Pākka maṅgalam

Nambiyār

Thirunanḍhikaraipeople andtempleofficersdonatedland toThirunanḍhikaraiMahādēvar temple

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-II,P-202

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969 /38-F

157

3 Āralvāimoḻi TOV

860

Tamiḻ A Separate stone ofNorth - eastCorner infirstpirahāra of Mīṉāchi ammaṉ temple.

Nāñchilnāḍu

Āralvāimoḻi, Paṇakuḍi

Piḷḷai, Carpenter,cheṭṭiyār, chāliyar, kaikōlar, Eīḻavā, chānār,vāṇiyar (trader)Thōliyar, Muḍaliyār

Subramaṇiyaṉ Piḷḷai Son ofSāthaṉkuṭṭi Piḷḷai build to Mahā maṇḍapam Kuraṭṭai.

KK.Ins,VOL-V1979,NO;1969 /33

4 Thiruviḍai kōḍu KLM

Āyi

Kōkkaru-nanthaḍa-kar

869

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Out sidepirahāra rock inSaḍayapa Mahādēvar temple

Mukuḷam MukkuḷathuVāṇiyaṇ

Twenty fivecow'sdonated byMudukuḷathumerchantpuḷḷa murugaṉ for light toperpetuallamp in theSa?aiyapadevartemple

TAS,VOL-I,P-14

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969 /97

5 Thiruviḍaṅkōḍu KLM

869-870

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

South sidewall ofuṇṇāḻi out side inNēlakaṇḍa swāmy temple

Omāya-nāḍu

Six kalam(weightmeasurement) paddyand itsInterestdonation byOmāya-nāṭṭu Siṅgaṉ kuṇḍrapēḻaṉ to Nīlakaṇḍa-swāmy temple forits two timerituals indailyworship.

TAS,VOL-IV,P-142

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/105-B

158

6 Thiruviḍai kōḍu

KLM

Āyi

Kōkkaru-nanthaḍa-kaṉ

877

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Out sidepirahāra rock inSaḍayapa Mahādēvar temple

Spoon sizegheearranged toGod ofThiruviḍi-kōḍu-Mahādēvar for light toperpetuallamp

TAS,VOL-I,P-15

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/93

7 Thirunandhikarai

KLM

900

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Westernside pillarof entrancegate in cavetemple

Maṅgala chērry

Maṅgala chērry

Nārāyaṇaṇ Sivakaraṉ gift Land toThiru-vallavāḻ paṭṭārar andperpectuallamp toThirunanthikarai-Thiru-vallavāḻ paṭṭārar for rituals

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-II,P-204

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969 /38

8 Pārthiva puram VLE

Āyi

900

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

pirahāra maṇḍapam ofaḍhiṭṭāṉam

Kuṇḍrathūr It records a gift of landsto the GodofPārthivasēkara-puramby Kāmaṉ-thaḍakkaṉ ofKuṉṟathūr. ThisVaṭṭeḻuthu inscripitionis datable to9th centuryCE.

TAS,VOL-VDIVISION-II,NO:54,P-171

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;574/2004

159

9 Muñchiṟai VLE

900

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

The rock atthe top ofthepirahāra of Thirumalaimaghādēvar temple

Singanallūr, Paḻaiyūr, Pirayūr and Ālaipuḻai

It registers agift of landforMuñchiṟai Mutt bySiṅghanallūr Sāthaṉ, Paḻaiyūr Kēsavaṉ KarnanPrayūr Sēkaraṉ Gōvindaṉ and others

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,NO:12,

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;576/2004

10 Chitharāl VLE

Āyi

Vikramāthithavarakuṇaṉ

906

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

A rock nearspring

Carver(Jain-devotee)

This refersto donationfor burningpermanentlamp inThirucharaṇa Temple by Nāraṇa-Kuṭṭy

TAS,VOL-IV,DIVISION-II,NO:PP.147-148

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;549/2004

11 Chitharāl VLE

Āyi

Vikra-māthitha-varakuṇaṉ

913

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Ainscriptionon southernsideChitharāl hill temple

Pērāyakuḍi andTirucharaṇam

Kurathikaḷ (Jains saints)andrefers todonationofkaḻañchu andinterest

It recordsgift of Poṉ and goldenflowerTiruchāraṇathuBhaḍāriyār by thestudents ofAraṭṭanēmi Bhaḍārar of Pērāya-kuḍi.

TAS,VOL-I,PP.284-287:TAS, VOL-II,P-125

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;562/2004

160

12 Pārthivapuram VLE

923

Grantha&Tamiḻ

Perumāḷ temple

Thumā nāṭṭu Iḍaikulathūr

Maḍaipaḷḷi Iḍaikulath-ūr

Sāthaṉ It is revealedfrom thisinscriptionthatPañchavaṉ Brahmādi-rājaṉ Kumaraṉ Nārāyaṇaṇ ofEḍaikuḻathūr in Thūmā-nāḍu donated twoperpetuallamps toPerumāḷ temple. It isdated toKollam 99corrsponding to 923A.D.

TAS,VOL-I ,NO:XVI, P-403

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;572/2004

13 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Parānḍakaṉ - I

941

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside rock ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi (Temple) inDānumālya Perumāḷ Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu

Thalaikuḷam

Araiyaṉa Ravindaṉ inhabitantof Thalia-kuḷam donatedfifty goats toSucīnḍram temple forlighting aperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-I,p.237 :ARE,VOL-VP.42

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/178

14 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Parānḍakaṉ - I

947

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside rock ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi (Temple) inDānumālya Perumāḷ Temple

Kaḷakuḍi nāḍu

Karavanthapuram,

Araṅgaṉ wasinhabitantofKaravantha-puramMerchantdonatedgoats toSucīnḍram temple forghee

ARE,VOL-VP.43

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/179

161

15 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Vīra Pāṇḍyaṇ

956

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Secondpragāra of EasternsideĀṉaipārai inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Thirukōlūr Sāthaṉ-siṅgam dweller ofThiru-kōlūr donatedfifty goats toSucīnḍram temple forlight tobūrn a perpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-III,division-i,p.74

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/210

16 Sucīnḍram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Vīra Pāṇḍyaṇ

976

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Secondpragāra Āṉaipārai inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Mahimagaravaḷanāṭṭu dēvadāṉa brahmadēyam andNāñchilnāḍu

Mahimakara vaḷanāṭṭu dēvadāṉa brahmadēyam, Nāñci nāṭṭu Brahmadēyam

Chāla-grāmam and Nirubasēkara vaḷa nallūr

Choḻāndaka BrahmārāyaNārāyaṇam SriMādavaṉ donatedland for ricefood to godofSucīnḍram-paramaswāmy.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/212

17 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Vīra Pāṇḍyaṇ

976

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Secondpragāra of Easternside Āṉai pārai in Dāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Mahimagaravaḷanāṭṭu dēvadāṉa brahmadēyam andNāñchilnāḍu

Mahimakara vaḷanāṭṭu dēvadāṉa brahmadēyam andChōḻanthaga maṅgalam

Chōḻanthakamaṅgalam, Perumaruthūr

Perumaruthūr Kāppiyaṉ ChoḻānthakaBrhmarāyaṉ donated twoperpetuallamp toSucīnḍram temple.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/211

18 Pākōḍu VLE

977

BalipīḍaKal (altar) inSiva temple

Iḻiyal kōḍu The script is GranthaCharactersrecords giftof a bali-pīḍa by Kuṇḍrakōbaṉ of Eḻial-kōṭṭai.

TAS,VOL-IV,NO:37

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;566/2004

162

19 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍiraṉ.I

995

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside rock inKailāsanāther Temple(outside)

Ehīḻanāḍu (Sri Lanka),Nāñchilnāḍu

Nāñci nāṭṭu Brahmadēyam

Eīḻathu (Sri Lanka)Māḻavarāyaṉ Cheṉṉikaṇḍaṇ donated fifty goats toSucīnḍram temple forlighting aperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-I,p.238 :ARE,VOL-VP.43

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/204

20 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Māraṉ saḍaiyaṉ

900-1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside rock ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi (Temple) inDānumālya Perumāḷ Temple

Malaināṭṭu Kāṉaiyar paḷḷi,

Malaiyar-nāṭṭu kāṇiyar paḷḷi

Eiyakkaṉ Sellaṉ inhabitantof Malai-nāṭṭu Kaṇaiyar paḷḷi donated aperpetuallamp andhundredgoats toSucīnḍram temple forlighting alamp.

TAS,VOL-IV,P.117

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/180

21 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Māraṉ saḍaiyaṉ

900-1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Southernside rock(outside) ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi inDānumālya Perumāḷ Temple

Damaged Inseriptionmention aname of SriKōmārañ-chaḍaiyar.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/172

22 Paṟakai AGS

EarlyPāṇḍya

900-1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Top portionstone ofarthamaṇḍapamentrance inAkkaraimahādēvar temple

Full text isnotavailable.Fragmentary one.

TAS,VOL-VI,DIVISION-II,NO :79 ,P-108

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;468/2004

163

23 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍiraṉ-I

999

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Āṉaipārai (outside ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi) inDāṇumālayaPerumāḷ Temple

Rāja Rāja vaḷanāṭṭ brahmadēyam andNāñchilnāḍu

Rāja Rāja vaḷanāṭṭu Brahmadēyam and Nirubasēkara vaḷa nallūr dēvaḍāṉam

SriKāndalūr-sālai, Nirubasēkara-vaḷa-nallūr

Mūvēntha vēḷāṉ issue increaseland tax ofSucīnḍram dēvaḍāṉam land andpaid totemple.

TAS,VOL-IV,division-ii,p.129

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/226

24 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Bhagavathiammaṉ templeuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall

Kumarimaṅgalam

Kumarimaṅgalam

Twenty fivegoats weregift toBhagavathiTemple forlight toperpetuallamp.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/48

25 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1000

Bhagavathiammaṉ templeuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall(northwestcorner)

Puṟathaya-nāḍu

Fragmented KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/47

26 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Bhagavayhiammaṉ templeuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall

Damagescript's

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/49

27 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Pāṇḍya

1000

Tamiḻ Kanya Bhagavathitemple,Arthamaṇḍapamentrancewall of leftside

Udaiyar Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/85

164

28 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Māraṉ saḍaiyaṉ

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Ānaipārai inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Nirubasēkara vaḷa nallūr dēvaḍāṉam

Koḻuvūr kūṭṭram, KhīḻkuṇtrathuVeliyātrūr andNirubasēkara-vaḷa-nallūr

This refersto thedonation ofland andgold to GodSucīnḍram Perumāḷ by Sri Thoṅgap Pallavaraiyaṉ.

TAS,VOL-IV,division-ii,p.118

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/224

29 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaiyaṉ māraṉ

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside rock ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi (Temple) inDānumālya Perumāḷ Temple

Kuṉdṟaṉ Sūlabāṇi donatedfifty goats toūr Sabhāi for lightinga perpetuallamb inSucīnḍram Mahādēvar temple.

TAS,VOL-IV,p.121

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/181

30 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Kōchaḍayamāraṉ

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Secondpragāra Ānaipārai ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi (Temple) inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Puṟanthayanāṭṭu Ehiḻakaṉ thuṟai, Nāñchilnāḍu

Puṟanthaya-nāḍu-Ehīḻakaṉ-thuṟai

Aṟugaivaṇigaṉ Kaṇṇipaḻañchi ( atrader)inhabitantofPuṟanthaya nāṭṭu Eiḻakanthuṟai donatedfifty goats toSucīnḍram temple forlightingperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-IV,division-ii,p.123

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/205

31 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaiyaṉ māraṉ

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

West side ofĀnaipārai inDānumālya Perumāḷ temple

This refersto thedonation ofSāvāmūvā pērāḍu to Sucīnḍram temple tolight adivine lamp.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/222

165

32 Paṟakai AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaiyaṉ māraṉ

1000

Tamiḻ Northern side Altarof firstpragāra wall inMadusūdaṉa Perumāḷ Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu

Iaḍapaṭṭi-vakkaṉi-nallūr, Khiḻār-maṅgalam

Gōvindaṉ donatedland to godofMathusūthaṉa Perumāḷ for itsrituals.

TAS,VOL-VI,DIVISION-II,P-108

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/289

33 Thiruviḍāṅkōḍu KLM

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Westernside paṭṭi of uṇṇāḻi in Nēlakaṇḍa swāmy temple

Landdonation toNēlakaṇḍa swāmy temple forits ritualsand light toa lamp inKārthigai month lightfestival days

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-I,P.79

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/104

34 Muṭṭak kāḍu KLM

1000

Tamiḻ A stand stone onpirahāra in Paṉṉipāgam temple

Thiru-paṉaikuḷam

Cheṭṭy Vikaḷaṅgaṉ Cheṭṭy donated 20coins toūrar for light aperpetuallamp in godof ThirupaṉaikuḷathuMahādēvar.

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/128

35 Thiruviḍai kōḍu

KLM

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Southernside rock ofsecondpirahāra in Saḍayapa Mahādēvar temple

ōmaya nāḍu

Maruḍathūr-thāmarai-kuḷam

Landdonation byOmāya-nāḍu-ūrvēḷāṉ to god ofThiruviḍaikōḍu Mahādēvar for light to aperpetuallamp and itsrituals.

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-II,PP.198-199

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/79

166

36 Paṟakai AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaiyaṉ māraṉ

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

ASabthamāthikka ininnerpirahāra

Nāñchilnāḍu

Khīḻār maṅgalam

Vakkaṉi-nallūr,

Chaṭṭar (Brahminstudent)

Kārāmbi Saṭṭar kumaraṉ Gōvindaṉ of Vakkaṇi-nallūr gifted some landsfor offeringtoMadhusūdhaṉa Viṇṇavar Emberumāṉ

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;464/2004

37 Kuṟathiyaṟai TOV

Chōḻa

Kōpparakēsari Parānḍakaṉ - I

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Kuravaṉ thaṭṭupārai

Nāñchilnāḍu

Kuṇḍrapaḷḷi Kuṇḍrapaḷḷi Refers to Soverigndonationand taxesgiven toKōla-Perumāḷ by Kuṉḍṟapaḷḷi Eippikaavisiyaṉ Sāthaṉ Sirāvanaṉ Muṉṉūri-ravi-niyamam

TAS,VOL-VIII,P-25:ARE,7/1929

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;539/2004

38 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

Tirunaruṅg koṇḍai Maylai paḷḷi

Tirunaruṅg koṇḍai-Mēylai-paḷḷi

It is gleanedfrom thisinscriptionthat animage ofTīrtaṅkara was donatedbyVīranandhi Aḍigaḷ of Mēlaippaḷḷi fromTirunaruṅgoṇḍai.

TAS,VOL-II,DIVISION-II,P-126

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;557/2004

167

39 Thirunandhikarai

KLM

Chērar

Vijaya-rāgha dēvar

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Thirunandhikarai Sivatemple

Maṅgalathu-nallūr

Maṅgalathu-nallūr

Thedaughter ofKulasēkaradēvar and Kiḻāṉḍikaḷ, the queen ofVijayaRāghadēvar donated 30kaḻañju Poṉ for burningperpetuallamp toTirunandhikaraiPaṭṭārar.

TAS,VOL-IV,NO;38

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;512/2004

40 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

Tiruṉeḍum pārai kāṭṭāmpaḷḷi

Tiruṉeḍumpārai-kāṭṭāmpaḷḷi

It revealsthe gift ofan image ofTīrtaṅkara byUthanandhiAḍigaḷ of Tiruneḍumbārai Kāṭṭammpaḷḷi. It is datble to10th C.A.D.

TAS,VOL-II,DIVISION-II,P-126

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;556/2004

41 Thikaṇaṅ kōḍu

KLM

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Suthernsideadhiṭṭāṉam (incompleteinscription) of maghā-maṇḍapam in Perumāḷ temple

Khīḻ-maruthūr

Dēva kaṉmigaḷ (Brahminservantsfor God)

Sōmāṉi Nārāyaṇaṉ of Kiḻ Marudūr donatedlands to thetempleauthoritiesof the lordofTirukkaṇṇaṅ-kōḍu for conductingpūjās.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;498/2004

168

42 Thikaṇaṅ kōḍu

KLM

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternsideadhiṭṭāṉam of mughamaṇḍapam in Perumāḷ temple

This refersto a lampand 5buffaloesdonated totemplebyNārāyaṇaṉ ofTirukkaṇṇaṅ-kōḍu .

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-I,P-78

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;499/2004

43 Thikaṇaṅ kōḍu

KLM

1000

Tamiḻ Bali bīḍam (altar)

SriKalacheyapaṭṭiṇam

This refers"palikal"(Altar)givean byKumaranāraṇaṉ of Sri Kalāsaya paṭṭiṇam.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;501/2004

44 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Maṇḍapam pillar

Kuḍanāḍu nallūr

Tirucharaṇam andKuḍanāṭṭu-nallūr

It refers totheinstallationof five stonepillars inthe frontmaṇḍapam of thetemple ofTirucharaṇam byAruḷāki of Nallore inKuḍanāḍu. It is dated to10th C.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;551/2004

45 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

Sri Vēmpūr It records the donationof an imageofTīrtaṅkara bySāthaṅkuvaiVāthulavaṉ of SriVēmpūr. It is datable of10th C.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;552/2004

169

46 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

Jainasdonated theimages ofTīrtaṅkara wererevealed bythisinscriiptionwhich isdatable to10th C.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;553/2004

47 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

It recordsthe gift ofan image ofTīrtaṅkara by oneChandranandhiVairiyār, a student ofDiwākar. It is datable to10th C.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;554/2004

48 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

Tirucharaṇam

It recordsthe gift ofan image ofTīrtaṅkara by Saṭṭan Varaguṇaṉ. It is datablethe 10thC.A.D.

TAS,VOL-II,DIVISION-II,P-126

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;555/2004

49 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

It refers tothe donationof an imageofTīrtaṅkara by SriAchcha-nandhi. Itis datable to10th C.A.D.

TAS,VOL-II,DIVISION-II,P-126

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;558/2004

170

50 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Hangingrock

Refers tothe imagemade anddonated bychandira-nandhi

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;559/2004

51 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Below theDuvāra bālakar sculpture

Thirubuvaṉam

This refersto the imageofDwārapālakar donatedbyThirubuvaṉa Sunḍaraṉ.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;560/2004

52 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Northportion ofDuvāra bālakar sculpture

Muñchiṟai This refers toDwārapālakar imagegiven ondonation.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;561/2004

53 Chitharāl VLE

1000

Grantha Inscriptionfoundinfront oftank stepsinChitharāl-Bhagavathi-ammaṉ temple

It refers tothe donationof stone forthe entranceof the temle,byVijayabhadra-Vibhajit.

TAS,VOL-VI,DIVISION-II,NO:41,P-148

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;563/2004

54 Vaḍachērry AGS

Chōḻa

Rājarājaṉ -I

1001

Tamiḻ Pathmanāba purampalace

Nāñchilnāḍu TiruKōṭṭāṟu andTheṉkaraiArcotkūṭṭram

TiruKōṭṭāṟu,Theṉkarai Arcāḍu kuṭṭram and Kēraḷa

Muvēntha vēḷārs (Agri-culturalcultivaters)

It registers agift of landentrustedwith NeriyaMuvēntha vēḷārs for providingTiruAmuthu toPiḍāriyar Kommaṇḍai Naṅgai of Vaḍachērry. It is dated to1001 A.D.

TAS,VOL-VI,DIVISION-II,NO :103

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;484/2004

171

55 Thirunandhikarai

KLM

Chōḻa

Rājarājaṉ -I

1003

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside wall incave temple

Rāja Rāja-theṉ-ṉāḍu,Vaḷḷuva-nāḍu, Vēṅgai-nāḍu,Kuḍamalai nāḍu

Kāndalūr-sālai,Mummuḍi-Chōḻa-nallūr

A villager ofRāja-Rāja-nāṭṭu vaḷḷuva nāḍu donated toThirunandhikarai-Mahādēvar temple forlight tosanthi lamp.

TAS,VOL-I,P-292

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/38-I

56 Maṇavāḷa kuṟichi

KLM

Chōḻa

Rājarājaṉ-I

1012

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Ainscriptionlaid on rockinPeriyakuḷakarai

Vēṅgaināḍu Kaṅgaipāḍi, Kuḍamalaināḍu

Chēra maṅgalam Dēvaḍāṉa paḷḷichantham

Kāndalūr, Kaḍiya-paṭṭiṇam and Chēra-maṅgalam

This refersto landdonatedgiven byRāja-Rāja-Chōḻa. I to construct toanAnaicut(dam) toprevent abig tankdamages.

TAS,VOL-VI,DIVISION-II,NO:105:P-145

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;505/2004

57 Thpirahārarūr AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ-I

1015

Tamiḻ Suthern sideadhiṭṭāṇam inEiḷayanayiṉār temple

Nāñchilnāḍu

It records agift of landas kāraṇmai to Appi-Vēlaṉ by Rājēndra Chōḻa Tamiḻa-pēraiyan and alsogetting ashare of 60Kalam ofPaddy fromAppi-Vēlaṉ.

TAS,VOL-VI,DIVISION-II,NO :106,P-146

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;459/2004

172

58 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ-I

1019

Tamiḻ Kanyakumarytemple,entrance(leftside) ofArthamaṇḍapam northside

Sunḍaraṉ NagaripPerumāḷ gifted alamp tolight forKaṉyākumari temple.

STANO:VOL-VI,P.147

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/81

59 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ .II

1038

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templesouth sidewall inkumutham

Puṟathayanāḍu

Paḻaiyūrthiṭṭai / Puliyūr

Paḻaiyūr-thiṭṭai Chōḻakulavalli giftedfifty goat'sfor aperpetuallamp lighttoKōnērīswarar temple.

STANO:VOL-I , Dviii,p.161

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/107

60 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ-I

1042

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templewest side &north sidewall ofpaṭṭai

Nāñchilnāḍu

Dēvaraḍiyaḷ Kaṇḍaṉ Sōlai twenty five goat'sgifted toPudaṉ Gaṇapathi for aperpetuallamp lighttoKōnērīswarar temple

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv,p.240

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/115

61 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ- I

1042

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templesouth sidewall inkumutham

Puṟathayanāḍu /Nāñchilnāḍu

Maḍil kuṟuchi

Vēḷāḷar Vēḷḷāḷaṉ-Appi-Poṉṉaṇḍi giftedtwenty fivegoat's toKōnērīswarar templefor light to aperpetuallamp.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv,pp.239-240

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/117

173

62 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ-I

1043

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templenort &west sidewall ofkumuthamin uṇṇāḻi

Kalikāla-Chōḻa-nallūr

Veḷḷāḷar / Iḍaiyaṉ

Sivañaṉa-paṭṭāraṉ-kumarigiftedtwenty fivegoat's toKōnērīswarar templefor to light aperpetuallamp.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv ,p240

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/120

63 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhiraṉ-I

1044

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templesouth sidewall inuṇṇāḻi

Veḷḷaṭṭi Aḍigaḷ Appi a villager ofThirukuruṅ-kuḍi gifted a perpetuallamp tolight toKōnērīswarar temple.

STANO:VOL-I Dxiv,p.241

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/108

64 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ- I

1045

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templenorth sidewall(pottomside) inArthamaṇḍapam

Puṟathayanāḍu / Nāñchilnāḍu

Kumari /Vaigaikarai/ Maṇalūr

Cheṭṭiyār (merchant)

Daṉma-Cheṭṭy Maṇarkāḍaṉ a Villager ofVaigaikaraidonatedfifty goat'stoKōnērīswarar templefor to lightto aperpetuallamp.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv,p241

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/119

65 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājāthi Rājāṉ. I

1048

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templenorth sidewall inkumutham

Maṇarkuḍi Kōṉār Rājāthi-Rājāṉ. I rayol orderissued saltbag's toRājā-Rājā-peruñ-sālai (Rājā-Rājā High way).

STANO:Dviii,p

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/121

174

66 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ-II

1055

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of west&north sidewalls

Puṟathayanāḍu / Nāñchilnāḍu

Dēvaḍāṉam Kaṉyākumari was calledGaṅgaikoṇḍa-Chōḻapuram

Kaṉyākumari wascalled,Gaṅgai-koṇḍa-Chōḻapuram. Land taxcollectedfromDēvaḍāṉam villageexpense toRājā-Rājā sālai.

STANO:VOL-I,PP.164-167

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/56

67 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ- II

1057

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templesouth sidewall inkumutham

Puṟathayanāḍu

Dēvaḍāṉam Veṭṭisenthil giftedtwenty fivegoat's for aperpetuallamp tolight to godofkhaḻikuḍi Rājārājāeiswara-muḍaiyar.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv,p243

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/106

68 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

VeraRājēnḍhira-ṉ-I

1070

Grantha&Tamiḻ

Bhagavathiammaṉ temple sixpillars inmaṇḍapam

Naṭṭṟiṟā-kuḍi / Peruṅkuḍi Khīḻkompu /Thiruvidancore

King giftedland fromNatṟiṟā-kuḍi & Peruṅkuḍi- Khīḻkompu village toBhagavathitemple forritual's.

STANO:VOL-I,PP.87-158

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/79

69 Aḻakiya Pāṇḍya puram

TOV

1076

Tamiḻ First Paṭṭi of Northernside walluṇṇāḻi in SriVeṅgaḍā chalapathytemple

Nāñchilnāḍu

Adhiyanūr, Aḻagiya Pāṇḍya puram,

Cheṭṭy (trader)

Nagarathār donated fivemaa ofLand to SriVeṅgaḍa chalapathiTemple itsdailyrituals.

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-I,P-57

KK.Ins,VOL-V1979,NO;1969/12

175

70 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājarājaṉ. II

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarartemple,westsidewall(bottomside) inuṇṇāḻi

Kumarikaḻikuḍi

Demarcation of giftedland inKōnērīswarar temple.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dviii,pp.168-169

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/111

71 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templesouth sidewall uṇṇāḻi (bottomside)

Paṭṭaṉ-kuṇavaṉ giftedtwenty fivegoat's toKōnērīswarar temple.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/109

72 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarartemple,westside wall(bottomside) inuṇṇāḻi

Puṟathayanāḍu

Aiyaṉambi a ministerof Chōḻa gifted waterfacility topeople.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dviii,p169

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/110

73 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarartemple,westside wall ofkumuthamin uṇṇāḻi

Vēl-AiIyaṉ gifted paddyformaindancefree food toKumaripeople.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dviii ,p170

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/112

74 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājāthi Rājāṉ. I

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templewest sidekumuthaminuṇṇāḻi

Nāñchilnāḍu

Only, FirstsideMeikīrthi (Eulogy) areavailable.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv,p.242

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/113

75 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājāthi Rājāṉ. I

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templenorth sidewall(kumutham) inArthamaṇḍapam

Puṟathayanāḍu

A gift toRājā-Rājā-sālai.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv,p.242

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/114

176

76 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templenorth sidewall ofpottom inuṇṇāḻi

Puṟathayanāḍu /Mullināḍu

Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōḻanallūr

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/116

77 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Vikrama Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Tamiḻ Kōnērīswarar templesouth sidewall ofbottom inArthamaṇḍapam

Puṟathayanāḍu

Dēvaḍāṉam Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-Chōḻapuram

Āchaṉmātṟṟili amerchandofGaṅgaikoṇḍa-Chōḻapuram giftedtwentycoin's toThirupēnthichvaram-udaiyār for cermony.

STANO:VOL-I ,Dxiv,p249

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/118

78 Kōṭṭāṟu AGS

Chōḻa

Rājāthi Rājāṉ. I

1100

Tamiḻ Separate stone inDhāsa-nādār-thōppu

Kāndalūr sālai

Salt giftedto Sālai (EducationalInstitution).

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/130

79 Karuppu kōṭṭai AGS

Chōḻa

Rājāthi Rājāṉ. I

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall(outside)

Twenty fivegoats wasgift toKaṉya Bhagavathitemple forlight toperpetuallamp.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/39

80 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall(outside)

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/41

177

81 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall(outside)

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/42

82 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall(outside)

Paṇḍāram

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/43

83 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ-I

1100

Bhagavathiammaṉ templeuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall

Puṟathayanāḍu

Araiyaṉ was gift toBhagavathi-ammaṉ Temple . Hebelong fromChōḻa maṇḍaḷam.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/50

84 Kaṉyakumari AGS

Pāṇḍya

SriSunḍaraPāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall

Paḻuvūr Peṇdāṭṭi-periyāṉ-siṅgam was gift fiftygoatstoKaṉya BhagavathiTemple forlight to aperpetuallamp.

STANO:VOL-VI,PP.150-151,(6/1095)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/51

85 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of north sidewall (northwestcorner)

Damagescript's

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/52

178

86 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitemple leftside (south)wall inArthamaṇḍapamentrance

Puṟathayanāḍu

A lampgifted tolightKaṉyapagavathitemple.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/59

87 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhira-ṉ-I

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitemplesouth side(left side)wall inArthamaṇḍapamentrance

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/62

88 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Kaṉya Bhagavathitemplesouth side(left side)wall inArthamaṇḍapamentrance

SriRājēndira Chōḻa dēvar Perundaram Sōmāchi Amōgavaru gifted gheeto Kaṉya Bhagavathitemple forlight toperpetuallamp.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/64

89 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Tamiḻ Kaṉya Bhagavathitemplebottom sideof north inArthamaṇḍapam

Puṟathayanāḍu

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/66

90 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

SriSunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Kaṉya Bagavathitemple outside ofnorth inArthamaṇḍapam

Damaged STANO:VOL-VI,P.151,(3/1095)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/69

179

91 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1100

Tamiḻ Kaṉya Bhagavathitemplenorth sideofArthamaṇḍapamentrance(left side)

Puṟathayanāḍu

Sāvā-mūvā-perāḍu (goats)twenty fivegifted toKaṉya Bagavathitemple forto lightperpetuallamp.

STANO:VOL-VI,P.152,(25/1087)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/70

92 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

SunḍaraChōḻa Pāṇḍyar

1100

Tamiḻ Eastern side rock ofKailāsanāther saṉṉathi (Temple) inDānumālya Perumāḷ Temple

Rāja Rāja Pāṇḍya nāḍu, Uthama-Chōḻa-vaḷanāḍu and,Nāñchilnāḍu

Sunḍara Chōḻa Charupethimaṅgalam

Kōṭṭāṟu,Mummuḍi Chōḻanallūr, Kāvaṇṇa karuvūraṉ

Madurānthaka pērayaṉ inhabitantof Kōṭṭāṟ Mummuḍi-Chōḻa-nallūr donatedthirty cow'stoSucīnḍram temple forlighting aperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-IV,pp,134-135

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/182

93 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya

1100

Tamiḻ Kailāsanāther saṉṉathi infront ofānaiparai west side inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Rāja Rāja Pāṇḍya nāḍu, Nāñchilnāḍu andThiruvalināḍu

Nāñcināṭṭu Sunḍara Chōḻa charupethimaṅgalam

Marudathūr

Fifty goatswere giftedby Vēlaṉ-Chōḻa Kēraḷaṉ-karikāla-Chōḻa-Dumbarāyaṉ to god of Sucīnḍram Mahādēvar for light toPerpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-IV,p.137

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/166

180

94 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Rājēnḍhiraṉ.I

1100

Tamiḻ West side uṇṇāḻi of Vishnusaṉṉathi(Temple) inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu

Sunḍara Chōḻa Charupethimaṅgalam

Theṉthiruvēṅgaḍam, Ehīḻamaṇḍaḷam, Kēraḷa andSunḍara-Chōḻa-sarupethi-maṅgalam

Sāvā-mūvā-perāḍu (deadles offifty goats)donated toSucīnḍram temple forlightingperpetuallamp.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/170

95 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Tamiḻ Aanai parai (noticeboard) ofoutsideKailāsa nāther saṉṉathi (Temple) inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Rāja Rāja Pāṇḍya nāṭṭu UthamaChōḻa vaḷanāṭṭu Nāñcināṭṭu Sarupedimaṅgalam

Sunḍara-Chōḻa-Charupethi-maṅgalam, Khīḻkarai-puthaṉ-ēri, Chōḻa-maṇḍaḷathu-vaḍakarai andMadurānthakaCharupethimaṅgalam

A land soldby Sunḍara-Chōḻa-Charupēthi-maṅgalam-Sabhāi for lighting aperpetuallamp inSucīnḍram temple.

TAS,VOL-IV,pp.138-139

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/183

96 Sucīndram AGS

1100

Tamiḻ South side separetestone ofKailāsanāthersaṉṉathi(Temple) inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Thāḻaikuḍi Refers to a portion onlyand villagename ofThāḻaikuḍi.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/176

97 Sucīndram AGS

1100

Tamiḻ East side separetestone ofKailāsanāthersaṉṉathi(Temple) inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Damaged Inscriptionmention toSāvā-mūvā-perāḍu (deadles offifty goats).

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/177

181

98 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmar

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

EasternsideĀṉaipārai inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Rāja Rāja vaḷa nāṭṭu Brahmadēyamsarupedimaṅgalam

Inscriptionspeak aboutname ofSucīndram-Dāṇumālaya-Perumāḷ .

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/213

99 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa-Pāṇḍyar

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Tamiḻ Mugamaṇḍapam ofSōlīswarar Temple ineastern wall(left sideentrancegate)

Nāñchilnāḍu,

Nāṭrāṭṭu pōkku brahmadēsam,Sarupethimaṅgalam, Sēvalluva maṅgalam

Sivallu-maṅgalam, Charuppethi-maṅgalam ,Mummuḍi-Chōḻa-nallūr

Dēvar-kaṉmigaḷ (Brahminwomen)

Public landdonated todēvarkaṉmigaḷ (Brhaminwomenserved totemple) ofRājēndira Eīswara muḍayār temple.

ARE,1896:TAS,VOL-VI,PP.11-12

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/267

100 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa

Kulōthuṅ-gaṉ -I

1100

Tamiḻ Western side wall ofSōlīswarar Templeuṇṇāḻi[out side]

Maṇṇināḍu, Ambarnāḍu,Rāja Rāja Pāṇḍya nāḍu

Dēvaḍāṉam, Rāsākka maṅgalam

Āṇḍaikuḍi,Mummuḍi-Chōḻa nallūr,Muḻiyūr, Kāñchi-pūram, Sucīnḍram-peru-vaḻi, Iḍaraikuḻi, Āaṉṉai kuḷam

Anthaikuḍi landrevenue taxdonated toRājēndira Sōlīswarar temple. Itwas issuedby SriKulōthuṅga Chōḻa dēvar.

ARE,31/1896:TAS,VOL-VI,PP.14-17

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/270

101 Chōḻapuram AGS

1100

Tamiḻ Soḻiswaram temple ofArthamaṇḍapam inNorthernside wall

Nāñchilnāḍu,

Mummuḍi-Chōḻanallūr

Villegers ofMummuḍi Chōḻa nallūr sold a land giftedtoMummuḍi Chōḻa nallūr Eīswara muḍayār temple.

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/259

182

102 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Tamiḻ Mugamaṇḍapam ofSōlīswarar Temple insouthernwall bottom

Nāñchilnāḍu

Kōḍungkuḷam, Thiru-Kōṭṭāṟu

Āthithaṉ Raṇasiṅgaṉ vīra Pāṇḍya pallavarayan donatedfifty goats toRājēndira Sōlīswarar Mahādēvar for light toperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-VI,P-10

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/260

103 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍyar

1100

Tamiḻ Southern sidemugamaṇḍapam ofSōlīswarar Temple inbottomdivsion

Nāñchilnāḍu,Sīvalanāḍu,Khīḻ sempināḍu

Maruthūr Chandra-sēkara-paṭṭaṉ (Brahamin)donatedfifty goats toRājēndira Sōlīswarar Mahādēvar temple forlight toperpetuallamp.

ARE,1896 :TAS,VOL-VI,P.11

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/263

104 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Tamiḻ Southern sidemugamaṇḍapam wallofSōlīswarar Temple inbottomdivsion

Nāñchilnāḍu,

Avūr, Mummuḍi-Chōḻanallūr

Vijayāthithaṉ vikiyaṇṇaṉ a king ofchalukyaruler giftedfifty cow toRājēndira Sōlīswarar Mahādēvar for ghee todailyworship.

ARE,44/1896:TAS,VOL-VI,P.8

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/265

183

105 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Tamiḻ Southern sidemugamaṇḍapam wallofSōlīswarar Temple inbottomdivsion

Nāñchilnāḍu,

Mummuḍi-Chōḻanallūr

Dēvaṉ vichāthiranaṉa Chōḻamārāyaṉ donated hundredgoats toRājēndira Sōlīswarar Mahādēvar temple forlight to twoperpetuallamp.

ARE,1896 :TAS,VOL-VI,P.9

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/266

106 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Tamiḻ Mugamaṇḍapam ofSōlīswarar Temple ineastern sidewall

Nāñchilnāḍu

Panchayatof Aḻagiya Chōḻa nallūr

Dēvar-kaṉmigaḷ (Brahminwomen)

Land ofAḻagiya-Chōḻa-nallūr villagepanchayatdonated toRājēndira Sōlīswarar Mahādēvar templekaṉmigaḷ.

ARE,1896 :TAS,VOL-VI,P.13

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/268

107 Chēra maṅgalam

KLM

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

First paṭṭi of southernside uṇṇāḻi in Āḻvār

Chēra nāḍu

Chēra maṅgalam

Chēra maṅgalam

A pactbetween amaṇḍrāḍi and villagepeople'swith Chēra-maṅgalathu-Sabhāi (BrahminCouncils).

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/33

184

108 Thiruviḍāṅ kōḍu

KLM

Chōḻa

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍyar

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Māthēr kalpārai[rock] inNēlakaṇḍa swāmy temple

Thirukaṇaṉ kōḍu,Puduvūr

Veḷḷāḷaṇ (Agriculturalcommunity)

Twentykaḻañji gold (20 mañjāḍi or 40kuṇdrumaṇi ( a seed) =1 ) gifted byVeḷḷāḷaṇ sarunaṭṭavi toNēlakaṇḍa swāmy temple forlight to aperpectallamp.

TAS,VOL-IV,P-140

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/105-A

109 Chēra maṅgalam

KLM

Chōḻa

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍya dēvar

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Southernside wall inArthamaṇḍapam ofĀḻvār Temple

Theṉ Thiruvaraṅgam

Inscriptionmention toThiruvaraṅgammuḍaiyār temple.

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/32

110 Chēra maṅgalam

KLM

Chōḻa

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍyar

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Secondpaṭṭi of southernside walluṇṇāḻi in Āḻvār temple

Karaimaḍai nāḍu

Muḍichōḻapuram

Inscriptionmention toChōḻa-maṇḍaḷathu-Arumoḻi-valanāṭṭu-SriSunḍara-Chōḻa-Pāṇḍya-dēvar.

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/34

111 Thiruvaṭṭāṟu KLM

Chōḻa

Kulōthuṅga. I

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Westernside paṭṭi of firstpirahāra in Ādhikēsava Perumāḷ temple

Vēṇāḍu Chōḻakula vaḷḷipuram

Inscriptionmention toChōḻakula-valli-puramandThiruaṭṭāṟu paḷḷi.

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/54

185

112 Dipiramalai VLE

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternsideadhiṭṭāṇam in Krishṇaṉ temple

Tirumaḍai paḷḷi

Thisvaṭṭeḻuṭhu inscriptionreveals thedonation oftwoperpetuallamps andland,Buffallowsfor burningthe same tothe Perumāḷ Karumāṇicka Āḻvār of the Tippira-malaitemple. Itdated to 11-12th C.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;567/2004

113 Pārthiva puram

VLE

Chōḻa

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

A separatestone on thenorthernside of firstpirahāra in Pārthasārathi temple

maṅgalam Raṇasiṅgaṉ lake

It records agift of animage andlamp insilver toTirumalaiMahādēvar ofMuñchiṟai. It alsorecords thedigging outof Vīra-Chōḻa pilāṟu and Raṇasiṅgaṉ lake. ItsdatedA.D.11thcentury.

TAS,VOL-I

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;571/2004

114 Thērūr AGS

1100

Tamiḻ Muppaṭṭai kumudamof north-westadhiṭṭāṇam

Ārcāḍu kūṭṭram

Thisinscriptionis afragmentaryone. Itbelongto11th A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;460/2004

186

115 Thiruvaṭṭāṟu KLM

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Belowportion ofAḻikadavu step stoneinĀdhikēsava Perumāḷ temple

This refersto "Steps"ConstructedbyVaradha-paṭṭar.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;502/2004

116 Dipiramalai VLE

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Balipēdakal (altar) inPerumāḷ temple

It records agift ofpalikai toThippira-malai byDēva Nārāyaṇaṉ. It is datableto 11-12thC.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;568/2004

117 Dipiramalai VLE

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternsideadhiṭṭāṇam in Sivatemple

It is gleanedfrom thisinscriptionthatVikiramaṉukkaṉ should protect this.It is datableto 11-12thC.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;569/2004

118 Pārthivapuram VLE

Chōḻa-

Pāṇḍyar

Sunḍara Chōḻa Pāṇḍyar

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Norternsidekumuthamof artha-maṇḍapam inPārthasārathi temple

Pārthivasēkara-puram

Āḻvār (Vaishnavi-smsaints)

It records agift of aperpetuallamp to theAlvar ofPārthivasēkara-puramSrikōil by Vikrama-Chōḻa Viḻuppādaraiyaṉ, the Kāriakkār. It is datableto 11thC.A.D.

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;570/2004

187

119 Muñchiṟai VLE

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Ainscriptionlaid onback siderock inThirumalaimaghādēvar temple

It reveals agift of 6Kāsu (coin) for buringlamp to theSabhā of Muñchiṟai.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,NO:12,

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;577/2004

120 Muñchiṟai VLE

1100

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Ainscriptionlaid onback sideportionrock inThirumalaimaghādēvar temple

The Sabhā ofMuñchiṟai madedonationsfor burningperpetuallamp inTirumalaiMahādēvar temple asrevealed bythisinscription.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,NO:12,

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;578/2004

121 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Kulōthuṅ-gaṉ -I

1102

Tamiḻ Second pragāra of westernsideĀnaipārai inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Chelurmaṇ Pūvaṇavaṉ dweller ofChēilūrmaṇ installed afemale deityof Dēvi in Sucīndram temple.

TAS,VOL-IV,division-ii,p.130

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/209

122 Chōḻapuram AGS

Chōḻa

Kulōthuṅ-gaṉ -I

1109

Tamiḻ Sōlīswarar Templeuṇṇāḻi of southernside wall inbottomdivision

Nāñchilnāḍu,

Kōṭṭāṟu,Iraiyūr

Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-Chōḻa vichādara Pallavaraiyar donatedfifty goats toSōlīswarar Mahādēvar temple forlight toperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-I,PP.246-247

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/254

188

123 Vāriyūr AGS

Chōḻa

Kulōthuṅ-gaṉ -I

1111

Tamiḻ Pathmanāba purampalace

Rāja Rāja-Pāṇḍya-nāḍu,puṟathaya-nāḍu Vāriyūr

Amarāvathi maṅgalam

UthamaChōḻa vaḷa nāḍu Amarāvathi maṅgalam

It revealstheinstallationof aperpetuallamp in thename ofKulōthuṅgaṉ-Chōḻa in the templeofSucīnḍram byGurukularāyaṉ of Amarāvathi maṅgalam.

TAS,VOL-VII, NOQP:355

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,NO;485/2004

124 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1123

Agastīswarar templewest wall ofuṇṇāḻi in firstpaṭṭigai

Gift ofmāḍaigaḷ (gold coin)to Thiru-Agastīsvarar -muḍaiyār Temple

STANO:9(1/1112)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/13

125 Aḻakiya Pāṇḍya puram

TOV

1123

Tamiḻ First paṭṭi of West sidewall uṇṇāḻi in SriVēṅgaḍa chalapathytemple

Nagarathār donatedthree maa ofLand totemplePriest of SriVeṅgaḍa-chalapathitemple forits dailyrituals.

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-I,P-58

KK.Ins,VOL-V1979,NO;1969/16

126 Maṇalthiṭṭai TOV

1123

Tamiḻ A separate stone nearC.R. Takis.

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-V1979,NO;1969/83

127 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1124

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof unnaaḻi

Puṟathayanāḍu

Gift ofmāḍaigaḷ (gold coins)

STANO:46/1086

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/4

189

128 Sucīndram AGS

1125

Tamiḻ Northern outside wallof firstpragāra in Dāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu,

Nāñcilnāṭṭu Sucīnḍram Sivallamaṅgalam

This refersto thedonation ofland toMaghādēvar temple forinstallingimageSōmaskantha byThiruvikramaṉ.

VOL -VIII,p.32

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/149

129 Chōḻapuram AGS

Tiruviḍāṅ

core

Vīrakēraḷa panmar

1126

Tamiḻ Southern side wall ofartha-maṇḍapam inSōlīswarar Temple

Vēṇāḍu Dēvaḍāṉam Mummuḍi-Chōḻa-nallūr, Vaḍachērry, Maṇṉūr

Daṉañcheyaṅ-kaṇḍaṉ, Kēraḷa-siṅga-pallavaraiyaṉ and Kaṇṇaṉ-govinthaṉ donated toRājēndra Sōlīswarar-mahā-dēvar temple.

ARE,33/1896:TAS,VOL-IV,P.17

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/271

130 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍayavar-man srivallabadēvar

1127

Akastisvarair templewest wall ofuṇṇāḻi in thirdpaṭṭigai

Muṇṇutru maṅgalam

Muṇṉūtru maṅgalam

Gift of Landfor FreeFood toFifty Sivadevoties.

STANO:10(2/1112)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/14

131 Sucīndram AGS

Chōḻa

Kēraḷaṉ vikramaChōḻa dēvar

1134

Tamiḻ Western side wall(out side) ofCheṇpagarāmaṇ maṇḍapam inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu

SucindraChōḻasadurvēdic maṅgalam andDēvaḍāṉa Theṉparakk-ai

Kēraḷa Kēraḷaṉ Vikrama-Chōḻa dēvar donatedseventyseven achu(coin) to godofSucīnḍram Nāyaṉār.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/161

190

132 Thirunayiṉār kuṟichi

KLM

1139

Tamiḻ Southern side paṭṭi of uṇṇāḻi in Karaikaṇḍīswarartemple

Theṉṉāṭṭu Kuṟunāḍu

Kaḍigai paṭṭiṇam

Cheṭṭiyār Ādhichaṉ-kōthai donatedThirunandhavaṉam (templegardan) andperpetualLamp tokaḍigai pathirthuKaraikaṇḍīswararMahādēvar temple.

TAS,VOL-IV-,P-82

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/38

133 Sucīndram AGS

Pāṇḍya

SriVallabadēvar

1140

Tamiḻ Northern side wall offirstpragāra in Dāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Mullināṭṭu Rāja Rāja sadurvēdicmaṅgalam,Nāñchilnāḍu andPuṟanthayanāḍu

Mulli nāṭṭu Rāja Rāja Sadurvēdic maṅgalam, Sucīndra sadur vēdic maṅgalam andPuṟanthaya nāṭṭu Pulla maṅgalam

Mullināṭṭu Rāja Rāja Chadurvedimaṅgalam ,Sunḍara Pāṇḍya Chadurvēdic maṅgalam Puṟanthaya-nāṭṭu-maṅgalam and Pulla-maṅgalam

Maṟavarmaṉ Sri Vallabaṉ (a king ofPāṇḍya) donated fewland ofPullamaṅgalam toSucīnḍram temple.

TAS,VOL-IV,pp.125-126

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/193

134 Chōḻapuram AGS

1140

Tamiḻ Southern sidemugamaṇḍapam wallofSōlīswarar Temple inbottomdivsion

Nāñchilnāḍu,

VikkiramaPāṇḍya puram

Mālātha-parathaṉ donatedgold tokuṉdra-merinthaPiḷḷaiyār temple fordailyrituals.

TAAR,VOL-VI,74/1084

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/262

191

135 Sucīndram AGS

Vēṇāḍu

SriKōthai Kēraḷa vanmar

1144

Tamiḻ First pragāra wall ofnorthernside inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Vēṇāḍu,Nāñchilnāḍu

Dēvaḍāṉam of Theṉvaḷa nallūr

Theṉ-vaḷa nallūr

This refersto thedonation ofSri Kōthai Kēraḷavarmaṉ to Sucīnḍram Maghādēvar forPerformingdaily Pūjās.

TAS,VOL-IV,p.20

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/148

136 Sucīndram AGS

1144

Tamiḻ First pragāra wall ofnorthernside inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Vēṇāḍu,Nāñchilnāḍu

Dēvaḍāṉam ofNirubhasekara nallūr

Nirubasekara-nallūr, Vaḷanallūr

Paṇḍāram,Thachaṉ (carpender)

This refersto theoffering tothiru-amudhu(foodoffered tothe divine)toMaghādēvar ofSucīnḍram.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/146

137 Sucīndram AGS

1149

Tamiḻ First pragāra wall ofnorthernside inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu, Vēṇāḍu

Nirubasekara-nallūr, Vaḍanallūr

This refersto thedonation ofthis land toSucīndram Maghādēvar forperformingdailyrituals.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/147

138 Puravachērry AGS

Pāṇḍya

SriVallabadēvar

1149

Tamiḻ Kumudam of westernside uṇṇāḻi in Perumāḷ Temple

Vaigunthavaḷanāḍu,Nāñchilnāḍu

Nāñci nāṭṭu brahmadeyam,Puṟavari sathurvethimaṅgalam, Dēvaḍāṉam and Vīra-Kēraḷa maṅgalam

Verakēraḷa-maṅgalam, Puṟavari-sadurvēdic-maṅgalam,

Kaṉmigaḷ (brahminwomenserved totemple)

Panchayatof Vīra-Kēraḷa maṅgalam donatedland toPerumāḷ temple forits dailyrituals.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-1,P-5

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/312

192

139 Puravachērry AGS

Pāṇḍya

Māra varmaṉ SriVallabadēvar

1149

Tamiḻ Kumudam of northernside walluṇṇāḻi in Perumāḷ Temple

Khīḻvembanāḍu, Nāñchilnāḍu,Veṇpagai nāḍu

Puṟavari sathurvethimaṅgalam

Puṟavari-sadurvēdic-maṅgalam,Thirunelveli,Venpaikuḍi,VeraKēraḷa-maṅgalam

Landdonation toPerumāḷ temple fordailyworship.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,PP.3-4

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/308

140 Sucīndram AGS

1154

Tamiḻ Damaged Inscription refers tokollam year330(A.D.1154).

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/135

141 Puravachērry AGS

1159

Tamiḻ Kumutham of southernsidearthamaṇḍapam wallin Perumāḷ Temple

Vikramachērry,

Kaṉmigaḷ Āṇ-kuḍi vēḷaṉ donated ofland toPerumāḷ temple forits dailyrituals.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-1,P-11

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/322

142 Puravachērry AGS

1160

Tamiḻ Kumudam of northernsidemugamaṇḍapam wallin Perumāḷ Temple

Dēvaḍāṉam, maṅgala chērry

Mummuḍi-Chōḻa-nallūr, mangala-chērry

Kaṉmigaḷ (brahminwomenserved totemple)

Landdonation toPerumāḷ temple forits dailyPūjās.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,PP.6-7

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/310

143 Puravachērry AGS

Vēṇāḍu

Vīraravivarmar

1161

Tamiḻ kumudam of southernside uṇṇāḻi in Perumāḷ Temple

Vēṇāḍu Puṟavari sathurvethimaṅgalam

Puṟavari sadurvēdic maṅgalam,

Paṇḍāram

Landdonated toPerumāḷ temple forits ritualsand light toperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,P-8

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/306

144 Puravachērry AGS

1161

Tamiḻ uṇṇāḻi wall in Perumāḷ Temple

Theṉ-ṉāḍu

Puṟavari sathur-vethi-maṅgalam

Puṟavari sadurvēdic maṅgalam,Thiruveṇkāḍu

Ins. mentionsettlementpatten ofSathur-vēdic maṅgalam bysingaṉaraṅgaṉ a villagers oftheṉṉāṭṭu pasuṅkuḷam

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,P-2

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/307

193

145 Kariyamāṇika puram

AGS

1163

Kailāsanāthar templeuṇṇāḻi of south sidefirst&secondpaṭṭigai

Rājaṇārāyaṇa sadurvēdic maṅgalam

Rājanārāyaṇa sadur-vēdic-maṅgalam /Aḻagiya-Chōḻa-nallūr

Aḻagiya-Chōḻa-nallūr / Rāja-ṇārāyaṇa sadurvēdic maṅgalam /VIlaūr

Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-Chōḻa-Vaḷḷuva Nādāḻvāṉ was giftland toKarumpaḻa sri kailāser Temple forritual's.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/32

146 Thirunayiṉār kuṟichi

KLM

1163

Tamiḻ Southern side paṭṭi (outside)ofRishabhamaṇḍapam inKaraikaṇḍīswarartemple

Rāja Rāja Theṉṉāḍu, Kuṟunāḍu

Sivaṉukiṉiyār donated paddy togod ofKaraikaṇḍīswarara-mudaiyaNāyaṉār for festival dayrituals andThiru-nadakam(Religionsdrama).

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,P-30

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/38-B

147 Puravachērry AGS

1164

Tamiḻ Southern side uṇṇāḻi wall inPerumāḷ Temple

Puṟavari-sathur-vēdi-maṅgalam

Puṟavari-sadurvēdic-maṅgalam,

landdonation toPerumāḷ temple forfood offer tobrahmins.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-1,P-13

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/317

148 Thiruvaṭṭāṟu KLM

Vēṇāḍu

Vīraudhayamārthāṇḍa varmar

1172

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Southernside paṭṭi of firstpirahāra in Ādhikēsava Perumāḷ temple

KōthainallūrKhīḻchērry

Donation ofThiruvaṭṭāṟuĀdhikēsava Perumāḷ temple forits dailyworships.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-II,P-117

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/49

149 Kiḷḷiyūr VLE

Vēṇāḍu

Vīra mārthāṇḍa varmarThiruvaḍi

1178

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

A separatestone inPirāṭṭīswarer temple

Kiḷḷiyūr and Vayakkalūr

This refersto donationfor dailyPūjās for Mahādēvar ofPirāṭṭīswarer.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-II,NO:14,P-25

KK.Ins,VOL-VI,2008,TARD,NO;544/2004

194

150 Puravachērry AGS

Vēṇāḍu

SriRāma varmar

1196

Tamiḻ Kumutham of southernsidearthamaṇḍapam wallin Perumāḷ Temple

paḷḷichanḍam (Landdonation toSaiva orBuddhamaḍam)

Puṟavari sadurvēdic maṅgalam,

Pāppaṉ (brahmin)

Landdonation totwo teachersfor tachingRig andYajur vēda in Perumāḷ temple.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-1,P-14

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/321

151 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof uṇṇāḻi in thirdpaṭṭigai

Puṟathayanāḍu (KanyakumariRegion)

Thirubuvaṉa māḷigai

Gift of 7½gold coins (māḍai)to puṟathaya nāṭṭu-Tiru-Agastīswara-muḍaiyār.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/11

152 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof uṇṇāḻi in secondpaṭṭigai

Dēvaḍāṉam Dēvaḍāṉam STA NO:44/1086

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/10

153 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍayavar-man srivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīsvarar templeSouth wallof uṇṇāḻi in secondpaṭṭigai

Dēvaḍāṉam Dēvaḍāṉam KK.Ins, VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/9

154 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Pāṇḍya

Parānṭakadēvar

1200

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of east wall

Puṟathayanāḍu

Dēvaḍāṉam Kāndalūr-sālai / Vathiyaṉūr /peruṅguḍi-malai

Fourdirectionsdemarcatedtopuṟathaya-nāṭṭu-Kumari-Kaṉya-Bhagavathitemple.

STANO:VOL-I,PP.19-25

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/57

155 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmasrivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templesouth wallof uṇṇāḻi

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/12

195

156 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof uṇṇāḻi in secondpaṭṭigai

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/7

157 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallaban

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof unnaaḻi

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/2

158 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof unnaaḻi

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/3

159 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof uṇṇāḻi in secondpaṭṭigai

Gift of Landfor Foodoffered toSivadevoteies.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/8

160 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templenorth wallof uṇṇāḻi in firstpaṭṭigai

Maikīrthi (Eulogy)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/15

161 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templenorth wallof uṇṇāḻi in firstpaṭṭigai

Inscriptionmention toSāthaṉ Nārāyaṇaṉ.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/16

162 Agastīswaram AGS

1200

Agastīswarar templenorth wallof uṇṇāḻi in thirdpaṭṭigai

Inscriptionmention toSendāmarai Kaṇṇaṉ.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/19

196

163 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍaya varmaṉ srivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templeinside wallof south insecondpaṭṭai

Maikīrthi (Eulogy)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/20

164 Karuppu kōṭṭai AGS

1200

Kailāsanāthar templeuṇṇāḻi of south sidesecondpaṭṭigai

Nāñchilnāḍu (Kaṉyā kumariRegion)

Gift of landto SriKailāsanāthamagadēvar.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/33

165 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1200

Kaṉya Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of west sidewall

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/44

166 Agastīswaram AGS

Pāṇḍya

Saḍayavar-mansrivallabadēvar

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof unnaaḻi in secondpaṭṭigai

BrammadēyamMuṇṇūṭru maṅgalam

BrammadēyamMuṇṇūṭru maṅgalam

Gift of Landfor templeAdministration.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/5

167 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Pāṇḍya

Kōchaḍayamarar

1200

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Kaṉya-Bhagavathitempleuṇṇāḻi of north sidewall

Puṟathayanāḍu

Kaḷakkāṭṭu Puḷḷa-nārāyaṇaṉ gifted aperpetuallamp tolightKaṉya-BhagavathiTemple.

STANO:VOL-VI,P.141,(29/1085)

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/55

168 Agastīswaram AGS

1200

Agastīswarar templeSouth wallof uṇṇāḻi in secondpaṭṭigai

Nambipraṭṭaiyar wife ofPāṇḍyan sri vallabaṉ.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/6

197

169 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Chōḻa

Vikrama Chōḻa dēvar

1200

Kaṉya Bhagavathitemplebottom sideof north inArthamaṇḍapam

Puṟathayanāḍu (Kaṉyā kumariRegion)

Sāvā-mūvā-perāḍu (deadles offifty goatsgifted toKaṉya Bhagavathitemple forlight toperpetuallamp.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/68

170 Kaṉyākumari AGS

Pāṇḍya

ParānṭakaPāṇḍyan

1200

Kaṉya Bhagavathitemplesouth sidewall

Only,Maikīrthi (Eulogy)areavailable.

KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/75

171 Kaṉyākumari AGS

1200

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Kaṉya Bhagavathitemple,entrance(left side) ofArthamaṇḍapam northside

Puṟathayanāḍu

Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-I,1972,NO;1968/80

172 Sucīndram AGS

1200

Tamiḻ North side wall ofvāgaṉa maṇḍapam(parking ofTemplevechicles)inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Brahmin Inscriptionnoted landgranted toSucīnḍram temple forits religiousCeremonyand foodoffer toBrahmins.

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/196

173 Puravachērry AGS

1200

Tamiḻ Western sidekumudamwall innorthernuṇṇāḻi of Perumāḷ Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu

Puṟavari sathurvethimaṅgalam

Thaḻaikuḍi,puravari-sadurvēdic-maṅgalam,

Dēvar kaṉmigaḷ [Brahminwomen]

Landdonation toPerumāḷ temple forits ritualsand light toperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-I,P-9

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/311

198

174 Paṟakai AGS

Pāṇḍya

Māra varmaṉ SriVallabaṉ

1200

Tamiḻ Northern side floorof uṇṇāḻi in Madusūḍaṇa Perumāḷ Temple

Brahmin Damaged KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/300

175 Thiruviḍāṅ kōḍu

KLM

Tiruviḍāṅ

core

1200

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Northernside wall ofuṇṇāḻi in Nēlakaṇḍa swāmy temple.

Rāja Rāja Theṉṉāḍu

Vēmbāṉūr /Thiruvāipāḍi

Fivebullucksdonation byVēmbāṉūr Araṅgaṉ memorialforThiruvāipāḍi Senthinaṅgai to light aperpetuallamp inNelakandaswāmy temple.

TAAR,VOL-III:Division-I,P.80

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/105

176 Thirunandhikarai

KLM

1200

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Easternside wall(left side) incave temple

Nāñchilnāḍu

Kuṭṭy andMuthiraiyar ,Iḍaiyaṉ

Chithakuṭṭy Amphy @Aiñṉuṟṟuva Mutharayaṉ donated nine bullucktoThirunandhi-karaipaṭṭārar for light toperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-II,P-206

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/38-H

177 Thiruvaṭṭāṟu KLM

Tiruviḍāṅcore

VeraviUdhayamārthāṇḍa varmar

1200

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Southernside paṭṭi of firstpirahāra in Ādhikēsava Perumāḷ temple

Inscriptionmention to adonare ofUdhaya-mārthāṇḍa-varma-thiruvaḍi.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-II,P-118

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/46

199

178 Thiruviḍai kōḍu

KLM

1200

Tamiḻ Southern side rock ofsecondpirahāra in Saḍayapa Mahādēvar temple

Āḷūrvikrama-Chōḻapūram

Cheṭṭiyār,Brahmin

Udaiyaṉ paṭṭaṉ karpakaCheṭṭy donatedmoney toKārisāthaṉ for free foodto towelveBrahmin innew moonday rituals.

TAS,VOL-VP-144

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/81

179 Puravachērry AGS

1202

Tamiḻ Floor of Perumāḷ Temple

Ovaūr paḷḷi Uvayūr Damaged TAS, VOL-VII,DIVISION-1,P-10

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/314

180 Sucīndram AGS

1208

Tamiḻ First prahāra northernside wall inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ TemplenearJayanthiMahādēvar saṉṉathi

Sucīnḍra Sunḍara Chōḻa Sadurvēdic maṅgalam

Iraṇasiṅga-nallūr, Sunḍara-Chōḻa-sadurvedi-maṅgalam

This refersto theappointment ofSaṅkaranārāyaṇaṉ to SrimathDuvāragai temple forcollectingVictualsrequired forConductingthe dailyceremony.

TAAR,84/1096

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/150

181 Chōḻapuram AGS

1217

Tamiḻ Southern sidemugamaṇḍapam ofSōlīswarar Temple inbottomdivision

Nāñchilnāḍu,

Thiru-Kōṭṭāṟu, Chōḻa Kēraḷapuram

Kuḷathūr kēsavaṉarasu gifted goldto god ofRājēndra sōlīswaramuḍayar Mahādēvar for light toperpetuallamp.

TAS,VOL-VI,P-21:IA,VOL-XXVI,P.144

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/261

200

182 Sucīndram AGS

1224

Tamiḻ North side wall ofuṇṇāḻi in Duvāragai krishṇaṇ Temple

Vēṇāḍu paḷḷikal, Paṇḍāram, Nāyar,

Araṅgaṉ-Kaṇapathi appointedby paḷḷikal Nāyar, Piḍāra Thiruvaḍi and Vēṇāḍu Nārāyaṇaṉ Thiruvaḍi donatedmoney forlighting aperpetuallamp inSucīnḍram temple.

TAAR,72/1086

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/253

183 Sucīndram AGS

1226

Tamiḻ First paṭṭi (upstairs)of Northside walluṇṇāḻi in Duvāragai krishṇaṇ Temple

Land ofVaḍavaḷa nallūr donated fordēvaḍāṉam

Sucīnḍrathu pudumaḍam,Vaḍa-vaḷanallūr

Saṅkaraṉ- Uruthiraṉ donatedland(dēvaḍāṉam) of Vaḍa-vaḷa-nallūr to God ofSucīnḍram Duwāragai emperumāṉ.

TAAR,69/1086

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/251

184 Thirunayiṉār kuṟichir

KLM

1227

Tamiḻ Western side paṭṭi of uṇṇāḻi in Karaikaṇḍīswarartemple

Theṉṉāṭṭu Kuṟunāḍu

Kaḍigai paṭṭiṇam,

Āchāriaṉ Ādhichaṉ Kōthai donatedAchu (akind ofcoins) ofthirty andQuarter(301/4) toKaraikaṇḍīswarartemple.

TAS,VOL-IV-,P-84

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/38-A

201

185 Sucīndram AGS

1228

Tamiḻ Western side wall(inside) ofCheṇpagarāmaṉ maṇḍapam inDāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Sommasimaṅgalam , Khīḻchērrry maṅgalam and Srivallamaṅgalam

Khīḻchērry Mullaimaṅgalam,Vaḍachērry

Āchāri (carpendor)

Only,TempleSabhāi shouldenjoy thetempleproperty.Temple landshould notbemortgagedor sold byanyone, Ifthey do so,they shouldpay fine of20 kaḻañju and 5kāṇam.

TAAR,2/1105

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/160

186 Sucīndram AGS

1228

Tamiḻ First paṭṭi (upstir) ofsouth sideuṇṇāḻi in Duvāragai krishṇaṇ Temple

Āchāri (writer)

Refers tolanddonated andtax collectedfrom templetank.

TAS,VOL-VIII,pp.35-36 :

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/247

187 Sucīndram AGS

1229

Tamiḻ A rock of the southwest cornerof uṇṇāḻi in Duvāragai krishṇaṇ Temple

Sri Chalavillage

It mentionsto templedonationand name ofSriGōvinḍaparaññaPaḍārar and SriSālagrāma Bhagavāṉ.

TAAR,82/1091

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/249

202

188 Sucīndram AGS

1230

Tamiḻ First paṭṭi (upstir) ofNorth sideuṇṇāḻi in Duvāragai krishṇaṇ Temple

Duvāragai, Thiruvaṉanda puram

Paṇḍāram,Nāṭṭaṉ andĀchāri (writer)

Refers toDwaragaitemple andthe rights tomaintainthe templewas given toGōvinḍaparaññaPaḍārar and then toTrivandramPeriathiruvaḍi.

TAAR,70/1086

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/248

189 Vāḷvacha kōṭṭam

KLM

1234

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ& Grantha

Southernside wall ofuṇṇāḻi in Mahishā suramarthiṉi temple

Vēṇāḍu Mēl-maruyathūr

Bhagavathitemple wasbuild byKāval-Araṅganārāyaṇaṉ a villager ofMēl Maruyāthūr.

TAS,VOL-VI,DIVISION-II,P-171

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/129

190 Thiruvaṭṭāṟu KLM

1234

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

Southernside paṭṭi of krishṇaṇ saṉṉathi in Ādhikēsava Perumāḷ temple

poetry formofinscription.Jayasuvaraṉ a villager ofThiruvaṭṭāṟu donated toĀdhikēsava Perumāḷ temple.

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/65

191 Aruvikkarai KLM

1235

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

secondpaṭṭai of westernside uṇṇāḻi in krishṇaṇ temple

Aruvikkarai,Thiruviḍāṅkōḍu,Pālak kōḍu,Māthūr

Land giftedbyPālakoṭṭu Nārāyaṇaṉ toAruvikkaraipurushōthama dēvar.

TAS,VOL-VII,DIVISION-II,P-113[50/1096]

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/3

203

192 Maṇalikkarai KLM

Vēṇāḍu

Vēravi kērala varmar

1236

Tamiḻ A pillar of Āḻvār temple[Nowlocated inPathmaṉāpa purampalace]

Vēṇāḍu (Vēl+nāḍu)

Kōthainallūr,Maruthakachērry

Inscriptionnoted tocouncils ofūr and Sabhāi of Kōthai-nallūr were fixedstandardLandRevenue.

TAS,VOL-III,DIVISION-I,PP.61-63

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/123

193 Sucīndram AGS

1237

Tamiḻ Southern side paṭṭi uṇṇāḻi of Subramaṇiya swāmy saṉṉathi in Dāṇumālaya Perumāḷ Temple

Paṇḍāram

Inseriptionmentionsdonation toSucīnḍram temple forits dailyexpences.

TAS,VOL-VIII,P.32

KK.Ins,VOL-II,1972,NO;1968/169

194 Aruvikkarai KLM

1237

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

secondpaṭṭai of uṇṇāḻi in krishṇaṇ temple

Araiyaṉchērry,Māthūr,Aruvikkarai

Potter,Carpenter,Vāriyaṉ

Kaṇḍañch chādavēda paṭṭar a villagers ofAraiyaṉ-chērry donatedland toAruvikkaraiPurushōthama dēvar.

TAS,VOL-VII,P-114

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/2

195 Aruvikkarai KLM

1240

Vaṭṭeḷuttu andTamiḻ

First paṭṭai of northenside uṇṇāḻi in Krishṇaṇ temple

Kaṟpaga-maṅgalam

Aruvikkarai, Māthūr

Duppa-Nārāyaṇaṉ, Duppañchēndaṉ and kaṇḍanthuppaṉ donated land toAruvikkaraiSriPurishōthama dēvar.

TAS,VOL-VII,PP.114-115

KK.Ins,VOL-IV,1979,NO;1969/1

204

196 Chōḻapuram AGS

1243

Tamiḻ Northern side wall ofstore roomin Deivavināyaga piḷḷaiyār Temple

Nāñchilnāḍu, Kuḍanāḍu

Kuḍa nāṭṭu Gaṅgai maṇḍaḷam

Mummuḍi-Chōḻa nallūr, Gaṅgai-maṅgalam, Khīḻvēli

Āālāla Sunḍara Perumāḷ donatedland toRājēndra Sōlīswarar temple fordailyworship

ARE,36/1896:TAS,VOL-IV,PP.22-23

KK.Ins,VOL-III,1972,NO;1968/272

197 Sucīndram AGS

1244

Tamiḻ South side wall(inside)first paṭṭi of Kailāsanāther saṉṉathi inDānumālya Perumāḷ Temple

Parasivadēvaṉ a villager ofSucīnḍram donated topudupoṉ achu (newgold coin) toSucīnḍram temple

Āchāri (writer)