of families constituted the different striates of the Tamil society.

Hence House hold life

of the Tamil People played a vital role in the development of Tamil Culture. The
Supreme philosophy of life as conceived by the Tamils clearly expressed in one the
verses of Purananuru the ancient Tamil classics. Every country is my country. Every
man is my Kins man.

CHAPTER - I

THE AGE OF THE SANGAM

The determination of the age of the Sangam had created a chronological

Conundrum. Diverse are the views expressed by Scholars. There are atleast three
schools of thought. One depending the traditions of the commentator of Iraiyanar
Kalaviyal, takes the age of the Sangam, much an anterior date across archaeological
ages to the surprise of archaeologists and dismay of historians. The second school
guided by the nineteenth century racial and linguistic theories saw in the origin of Tamil
script, literature, conventions and institutions a Sanskritic influence, inspiration for even
parenthood and brought down the age of Sangam to eighth to tenth centuries after
Christ. The third school attempts an objective approach to settle the problem and
various authors of this school fix a period from fifth century B. C. to fifth Century A.D., or
various stages with in this time span of one thousand years.

Among the third school, there are atleast three divisions, one for a thousand
years life span from fifth century B.C. to fifth century A. D., the second for about five
hundred years from second century B. C. to third century A.D., or with a little more at
the upper or lower limit and the third for about three centuries after Christ, some
including others excluding the first century after Christ. Of all the schools of thought,
the third branch of the third school had gained the acceptance of scholars at national
and international levels. They believe that it has relevancy to the cultural sequence and
enough interval for the cultural emergence and linguistic formation in between the
archaeological cultures and the classical age. According to the judgements delivered by
the archaeologists, the megalitheans, the Tamil speaking ancestors of the authors of the
Sangam civilization, entered Tamil Country via north-west from Iran or Eastern
Mediterranean2 with the intrusive element iron, the stimuli for cultural transfusion at
about third century B.C, according to their original judgment. But, now after further
enlightment taken the date back and placed it to cover a period from 10th century B.C
to 5th Century B.C.3

In their view, the three centuries before Christ while civilization was flourishing in
other parts of India, China, Egypt and Rome, the Tamils were in the formative period of
their culture and were partially relinquishing their tribalism. 4 The famous epigraphist
Dani's "observation5 that writing trickled down the barbarous caves of south, is one
example of the general line of thinking at wider levels.

This kind of thinking demonstrates how, an imperfect work of archaeology in

conjunction with imperfect understanding of the literary heritages of India can
jeopardize the correct understanding of the cultural heritage of the ancient Societies of
India. To make matters worse, depending on a fifteenth century A.D. classification of
the early literary products as eight collection, ten songs and eighteen didactics by
Mailainather and without a perfect stratification as done by Maxmuller to Vedic

2
Mortimer Wheeler E., Early Indian and Pakistan, London,1959, p.163, Christoph von Furer
Haimendorf."When, how and from where did the Dravidians come to India?" Indo Asian Culture, ii, No. 3
Delhi, January 1954, pp. 238-247; same author ''New aspects of Dravidian Problem", Tamil Culture, No. 2
1953 pp. 127-135; Nayar T. B., "The Problem of Dravidian Origins" (Madras, 1877; P.12; Nilakanda Sastri K.A.,
History of South India and Cultural contacts-Aryan and Dravidians, oxford 1955, p.3
3
Nagasamy R., Imachinnangal, Archaeological Hand Book Madras, 1968 pp. 108-111.
4
Suvira Jaiswal, "studies in the social structure of the early Tamils Indian Society-Historical probings", p.145;
Narayanan Manyar M.G.S., "Problem in Sangam literature", journal of Indian History Vol. LIII part 2,
1975), p. 243, N. Subramaniam, Sangam Polity, P.U.P. London 1980, p. 63.
5
Veluppillai A., for quoted Dani in Epigraphical evidences for Tamil Studies, I.I.T. Studies, Madras, 1980,
p.14.
literature and using the heaped up literature of the early period, speculative
judgements, on the age of the Sangam, have been passed, each challenging the rest and
none capable of giving a perfect and permanent solution to fix the age of the Sangam.
On account of this failure, a correct understanding of the cultural heritage of the Tamils
of the pre-Christian era has been kept in darkness and literary heritage of the ancient
Tamils exposed to debate placing Tolkappiyam posterior to the anthologies in the early
Pallava period.6 Hence a reassessment and rediscovery of the age of the Sangam is an
imperative necessity.

The first reference to the story of the Sangam and its approximate period of
existence appeared in the commentary to Iraiyanar Akapporul.7 According to the
commentator there existed three Sangams in the successive Pandiya capitals for a total
period of 9990 years. As this vast period invades even the lithic ages by millenniums,
archaeologists and historians raised their brows, and the story has been dismissed as a
figment of imagination. K.N.Sivarajapillai considered it as a product of the "fabulising
imagination of a later scholar" and a "daring literary forgery" Yet according to Dr. K.K.
Pillai8 the tradition is persistant9 and the entire story cannot be a fiction, though fact
and fiction are mixed up; tradition arise out of some base behind Velvikkudi grant an
archaeological source supply a hint; Pliny10 and Mahabharatha11 supply evidence for the
shifting of the capital of Pandyas; and therefore the story cannot be totally dismissed as
a fiction. The total number of 449 poets attributed to the third Sangam in the

6
Basham A.L., The Wonder That Was India, London, 1954, p.462; Hart G.L., "Ancient Tamil Literature; Its
scholarly past and future" in essays, on South India, (ed) Burton Stein, Vykas, 1975 p.41,
Chatterji S.K., "Old Tamil, Ancient Tamil and Premitive Dravidian" in Tamil Calcutta, 1956, p.13, K.N.
Sivarajapillai, The Chronology of the early Tamils Madras, 1932, p.44, Vaiyapuripillai S, "History of the Tamil
Language and Literature, T. C. Vol. III, 1954, p. 242.
7
Iraiyanar Akapporul, Saiva Siddantha Kazhakam (Pub), Madras, 1969, p.242.
8
op.cit., p.19.
9
Pillay K.K., "Historical Ideas in Early Tamil Literature", T.C., Vol. 6, 1967 p. 114.
10
Velvikudi grant, Parv, IX. 36.
11
Warmington, Commerce Between Roman Empire and India, Cambridge 1928, P. 167.
commentary is nearer according to the compulation of the Samajam edition and the
Hand book to Second International Conference of Tamil Studies. At least two out of the
many books referred to by the early Commentaors have been recovered from oblivion
recently. Some of the names mentioned in the Kalaviyal commentary have appeared in
inscriptions. Hence in the absence of marine archaeology, it is too early to dismiss the
commentators version of the story of the Sangam into as fictitious or literary forgery.

Traditional School

The votaries of the first school (traditionalist) treat the Akapporul Commentary in
toto as a historical document. Thudisaikkilar Chidambaranar distributed the entire
period of 9990 years adding one hundred years more at different stages from fifteen
millennium B.C. to first millennium A.D. Weaving the literary traditions across the warp
i.e. astronomy and Geology, he placed the first Sangam between 14004 B.C. and 9564
B.C. with Southern Madurai as its seat, the Second Sangam between 6805 B.C. and 3105
B.C. with Kapadapuram as its seat and the third between 1715 B.C. and 235 A.D. With
Madurai as its seat.12

He also believes the existence of four prior academic ages before 14004 B.C.
Devaneya Pavanar takes a different course and approximates the first Sangam between
10.000 B.C. and 5500 B.C. second between 4000 B.C. and 1500 B.C. and the third
between fifth century B.C. to fourth century A.D. No evidence is given. V.K.
Suriyanarayna Sastri distributes the entire 9990 years in continuity terminating at
100A.D. Inclusive of the Epics he added 500 years more at the lower end. 13 P.T. Srinivasa
Aiyangar too treats legend as history.14

12
Cherar Varalaru Saiva Siddantha Kazhakam (Pub); Tamil Sangankalin Varalaru, Madras Reprint, 1967, pp.52-62,
70-89, 100.
13
Raghava Iyengar R. Tamilvaralaru, Madras, 1952, pp.245-249.
14
Srinivasa Iyengar P.T. History of the Tamils, Madras, 1929, pp.111-113.
 Justice Damodharan Pillai, the learned editor of Tolkappiyam, Virasoliyam,
Kalithogai and other works considers a period from 10150 B.C. to 150 B.C. as the
academic period of the Tamils. The scholars of the traditionalist school failed to cull out
historical elements from the legends and failed to establish the age of the Sangam with
Corroborative evidences.

The Second School

The second school takes a different approach and goes to the opposite extreme.
The chief voteries of this school are Robert Caldwell, L.D. Swamikkannupillai and N.P.
Chakravarthi. Robert Caldwell, who completed his monumental work on Dravidian
Philology in 1856 was carried away by the linguistic and racial theories of the German
philologists of the 19th century. Banking faith on the supremacy of Sanskrit and thinking
the language of the south as mere dialects of Sanskrit, joined hands with Burnell he
placed the earliest literary period of Tamils at 9th and 10th centuries 15 A.D., on
palaeographical grounds.16 The learned Bishop was not only misled but in turn also
misguided the English writers on Tamil literature like Dr. Grierson, Dr. Rost and Frazer
by his writings.

They in turn propagated Caldwell's erroneous theories in the western world.

Caldwell's theories faced the pungent criticism of Prof. Sundaram Pillai through his
work, "Some Milestones in the History of Tamil Literature". L.D. Swamikkannu Pillai,
based on the astronomical data found in Nedunelvadai17 Kudalur Kilar's puram18 and
Silappadikaram19 placed the age of the Sangam at 8th century A.D., thinking that the

15
Ibid., pp. 232-236.
16
Robert Caldwell, A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian and South Indian Family of Languages, (Madras
1961, pp. xi, 67.
17
Nedunalvadai, Lines, 160-162.
18
Puram, 229.
19
Kadukankathai, 1-3, and Katturai, 133-137.
knowledge of zodiac came to south, very late, as Sanskrit literature had not referred to
zodiac and the planetory horoscopes till third century A.D.20

It is the general belief and faith that the Sanskrit authors of astronomical
treatises depended their knowledge of zodiac and the seven day week on the Greeks.
But Rev. Ebeneser Burgess who translated the Surya Siddhanta, negatived their opinion
on Greek source. According to him the greatest contribution to astronomy was made by
the Babylonians and not the Greeks. The Indians developed their rasi astronomy in their
own way according to Mahamahopadhyaya P.V. Kane. In the period of assimilation of
native thought, the Sanskrit astronomers had consulted the Nadis (Nadinool). The Nadis
were store houses of knowledge on celestial bodies.21 Indologists had neglected the
Dravidian tradition and in the Dravidian names for sun, moon and planets there is
nothing Sanskritic in them. The stray references to astronomical elements made in the
early Tamil literature22 has to be taken as the remnants of knowledge on astronomy
preserved in Nadis, now lost to posterity. The early Tamil musicology too is linked to
well developed astronomy.23

L.D. Swamikkannu Pillai based his calculations on wrong premise. From the
Silambu data, V.R.R. Dikshithar had read the period to be belonging to second century
A.D. It has relevance to Gajabahu Senguttuvan Synchronism.

Dr. N.P. Chakravarthi, former Director General of Archaeology, in the light of his
knowledge on the writing pattern of early cave inscriptions of Tamil country, rules out
the existence of any classical period for Tamil language before sixth century A.D.24 The
caves were intended for Jain or Buddhist mendicants. The incomplete sentences of

20
Swamikkannu Pillai L.D., The Indian Exphemeris, Vol.I, Part i, p.496.
21
Badrinarayanan, “Illustrated Weekly of India” Sep. 7-13, 1980, p.19.
22
Puram 2, 229; Nedunelvadai; 160-162 Silambu, Kadukankathai 1-3, Katturai 133-37 etc.
23
Koothanool, Panchamarapu and Silambu Arakerrukathai.
24
Presidential Address, Indian History Congress, Ahmedabad, 1954.
donative nature were incised by commoners unlike the text of the medieval inscriptions
which were composed by poets.
N.P. Chakravarthi was unfortunately not aware that from sixth century A.D.
commenced the Pallava age in political history and Devaram age in literary history.

Three Branches of the Third School

The third school which has more subscribers is objective in their approach. M.
Srinivasa Iyengar finds the Akapporul story a trife. He assigned a period of one thousand
years from 500 B.C. to 500 A.D. for the period of Academies. He allowed a marginal
period beyond the upper limit ie. 500 B.C. for the literary composition preceding the
academic period.25 V. R. R. Dikshithar assigned one thousand years from 500 B. C. to
500 A.D. for the Sangam Age.26 By calculating the astronomical data found in the
Silumbu, he advanced the period by six centuries than the findings of L.D. Swamikkannu
pillai.

25
Srinivasa Iyengar M., Tamil Studies, Madras, 1914, pp 212-213.
26
Ramachandra Dikshitar V.R., Studies in the Tamil Literature and History, Madras, 1936.
 He regarded South as a separate unit by itself from geological and historical times
and Dravidian languages especially Tamil had developed independent of Sanskrit. K.G.
Sesha Iyer27 and K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar taking the line of V.R.R. Dikshithar assigned the
same date, 500 B.C. to 500 A.D. as the extreme limits.

Dr. K.K. Pillay, giving partial assent to the Akapporul tradition believes in the
existence of three Sangams, but rejected the high antiquity. Banking upon the Gajabahu
Senguttuvan Synchronism and the Indo Roman Sources 28 accepted the probability of
the existence of third Sangam between first and third centuries B.C.29 Taking it as the
basic substratum of the Chronology of the early Tamils, reckoned backwards, placed the
Second Sangam at first and second centuries B.C and the first Sangam at the third and
fourth centuries B.C. In his opinion Tolkappiyam belonged to a period not earlier than
second century B.C.30 The two earlier Epics are kept outside the corpus of Sangam
literature and assigned 4th and 5th centuries A.D. to them.31 Fr. Xavier, S.
Thaninayagam placed the anthologies and the Epics between 200 B.C. and 300 A.D.32

Dr. N. Subramanian who did intensive work on Sangam Polity, Culture and
Civilization noticed a cultural continuity in Tamil Nadu from the period of the
foundation of the Mauryan Empire. He held "that the entire body of eight anthologies
(Ettuttogai). the Ten Idylls (Pattuppattu) and the 18 minor works (Padinenkilkanakku)
and the two epics (Silappadikaram and Manimekalai) belong to the Pre-Pallavan
period,33 that is to the few centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian

27
Sehsha Iyer K.G., Cera Kings of the Sangam Period, Madras, 1970, pp. 97-122.
28
Pillay K.K., Op.cit., p. 114.
29
Ibid, p. 106.
30
Pillay K.K., Social History of the Tamils, Madras, 1980, pp. 93-100.
31
Pillay K.K., T.C. Op.cit., p.118.
32
“Subramanian N., Educators of Tamil Society”, T.C. 1956, p.105.
33
The Sangam Polity, Op.cit., pp. 25, 32.
era. Tolkappiyam belongs to an age slightly earlier”34. But the learned scholar has
differed in his own conclusions on the age of the Sangam.

34
Ibid., p. 25.
In the same work "Sangam Polity", at one stage he regarded the early centuries of the
Christian era as the age of the Sangam.35

Finally, he held that the entire mass of the Sangam literature covers a period of
three or four generations or about two hundred years before fourth century A.D. 36 Dr.
N. Subramanian who noticed a cultural continuity in the Tamil Country from the period
of the foundation of the Mauryan empire37 in the fourth century B.C. and who located
the age of the anthologies, didactics and epics centuries before and after Christ was
misled and disillusioned with the erroneous equation of Velkelu Kuttuvan of
Pathittuppattu and Cheran Senguttuvan of Silappadikaram and confined the age of the
entire mass of the Sangam literature to three or four generations.

While the strange notions of Caldwell and Burnell were reigning the intellectual
world and the Sangam studies were at its initial stages, materials at hand were scanty,
Kanakasabhai made his attempt to throw light on the Augustan age of the Tamils,
through a series of papers from 1895, later published under the caption "Tamils
Eighteen Hundred years Ago”. He was the first to bring the Gajabahu, Senguttuvan,
Satakarni Synchronism as the foundation for fixing the age of the Sangam. He fixed the
age of Gajabahu of Ceylon between 113 A.D. and 125 A.D. and placed the age of the
Sangam at the early centuries of the Christian era.38 He did not direct his investigation
to the period before fifty A.D. His views on the Sangam age was taken as authoritative
by eminent historians like V.A. Smith, L.D. Barnett and R.C. Majumdar. His calculations
of the age of the Sangam is guiding the scholars ever since, though his work is
incomplete and is suffering from a serious flaw in equating Velkelu Kuttuvan, the hero
of the fifth decade of Pathittuppattu with Senguttuvan of Silappadikaram. The mistake

35
op. cit., p.27.
36
Ibid. p. 28.
37
op. cit, p. 25.
38
Kanakasabbai Pillai V., Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, Madras, 1904, p. 8.
was originally committed by the compiler or later scribe and over sighted by all
including Kanakasabhai.

R.Raghava Iyangar, placing Elalan's period between 205 and 16l B.C. and
Gajabahu I of Ceylon between 111 A.D and 133 A.D and linking both assigned 350 years
as the age of the third Sangam.39 According to Dr. T.P. Meenakshi Sundram the
"Earliest literature available is attributed to the third academy or Sangam, probably
beginning before the Christian era and continuing; upto the end of the third century
A.D."40 He placed Tolkappiyam at the earlier part of the first millennium B.C.41

K. N. Sivaraja Pillai who attempted to "settle the vexed question of Tamil

chronology", which he claimed to have absolutely fixed42 was methodical in approach,
attempted stratification of the literature keeping in view the supremacy of Sanskrit,
brought Ainkurunuru, Kalittokai and Paripadal as the works of lower strata,43 of
Sangam literature placed the epics at sixth century A.D., and kept the didactics in
between the anthologies and the epics. He placed Tolkappiyam three centuries after
purananuru. But he had not worked out the chronological order of the poets and their
songs who were widely separated in time and space. However, he succeeded in locating
the existence of two Karikalas. He kept the Chola44 line of Kings belonging to ten
generations as the central core of his working chronology, dismissed the Gajabahu
Senguttuvan Synchronism as a fragile element to count upon, created a new
Synchronism with Ptolemy, Aye Andiron and Pasumpon Pandiyan. Keeping Karikala, the
Second at the intermediary stage following an ascending and decending process, fixed

39
Raghava Iyengar R., Op.cit., P. 41.
40
Menakshi Sundarm.T.P., Tamil, A Birds Eye View, Madurai, 1976, p. 3.
41
Puranalingam Pillai M.S., History of Tamil Literature Hyderabad, 1965, p. 11.
42
Sivaraja Pillai K.N., Chronology of Ancient Tamils, Madras, 1932, p.161.
43
Ibid., 41, 44.
44
Op.cit., p. 170
50 B.C. as the date of commencement of the rule of the Chola line of first generation
and 200 A.D. as the end of the rule of the Chola line of the 10th generation. This period
of 250 years he held to be the age of Sangam. His equation of the period of Aye Andiran
with that of Pasumpon Pandian has no historical, literary or even evidence from
tradition. As and when the author of this chronology accepted that his equation of
Pasumpon Pandiyan with Aye Andiran is arbitrary45 the chronology, claimed to have
been proved beyond doubt and soaring so high, lost its fell to the ground and broken to
dust.

Approach of the linguists

After K.N. Sivarajapillai, S. Vaiyapuripillai had made a systematic study on a

general stratification of the Sangam works to fix the age of the Sangam. His approach
was methodical. But he had drawn some premises keeping in view, the writings of the
early cave inscriptions of Tamil Nadu, astronomical elements found in Nedunelvadai
Sanskrit etymology, religious and social ideals-found in the early Tamil works which
according to latest analysis are questionable. He drew the following premises before
fixing the date of the Sangam. The Dravidian dynasties known to Megasthenese and
Katyayana in the 4th Century B.C had high antiquity. Their successors in the second
century B.C adopted Brahmi script for purposes of writing. 46 There was no written
literature for Tamil before 3rd century B.C. and it took shape only after its oral
existence. The written language was in its formative stage during the first and second
centuries B.C

Therefore he concluded that no poet of the Sangam age was earlier than second
century A.D.47 and that the early Sangam literature flourished from second century A.D.

45
S. Vaiyapuripillai S., Tamil Sudarmanikal, Madras, 1949, p. 332.
46
Ibid, p. 341.
47
Op.cit., p. 357.
to third century A.D. That was the genuine Sangam period according to him. He placed
Nedunalvadai of Nakkirar at third century A.D. He excluded Paripadal and Kali of the
Eight Anthologies, Thirumurugattuppadai of Pattuppattu, 18 didactics, the two early
epics and Tolkappiam at 600 A.D. Taking note of the etymological variations,
differences in poetics between Tolkappiyam and the Anthologies, the learned scholar
held that Tolkappiyam succeeds the anthologies with a time distance of three
centuries.48 He placed Tolkappiyam at the. 5th century A.D. For giving a posterior
dating to Tolkappiyam, he brought the age of Kautilya to 3rd century A.D.49 The Etymo-
logical dictionary of Dravidian Languages by the Professors of Sanskrit, Burrow and
Emeneau, Literary History of Sanskrit by Burrow 50, G.L. Hart's recent researches51. S.K.
Chatterji's Studies in the fare race movements and cultural evolution in early India 52
supplies sufficient materials to remove the hallucination of the protalgooists of Sanskrit
about the massive impact of Sanskrit and Vedic thought over the early Tamil literature.
Hence Vaiyapuripillai's pet conclusions have, now, no peg to hang. Yet scholars at
national, and international levels who depend Kanakasabhai's dating for the age of the
Sangam, are guided by S. Vaiyapuripillai's theories relating to the corpus of the Sangam
literature.

M. Raghava Iyengar limits the entire corpus of the Sangam literature to the life
span of Cheran-Senguttuvan and fixes the age of the Sangam at 5th century A.D.53 By
the General flaw of mixing Velkelukuttuvan and Cheran Senguttuvan54, the learned

48
Ibid., p. 51.
49
Burrow T., The Sanskrit Language, “Loan Words in Sanskrit”, Collected Papers, Annamalainagar, 1968, pp. 284,
285.
50
“Related Cultural and Literary, Elements in Acient Tamil and Indo Aryan’ Ph.D. Dissertation, Harward
University, 1969
51
Majumdar R.(ed), Race Movement and Prehistoric Culture, in vedic Age Bombay, 1965, pp. 162 – 618.
52
Cheran Senguttuvan (Tamil) Valluvar Pannai (Pub), 5th ed, Madras, 1964, p. 197.
53
Raghava Iyangar, Ibid, p. 9
54
Nilakanda Sastri K.A., The Colas, Madras, 1975, p.3.
author had mixed up the relatives' of the two great heroes and found a wider span of
time to accommodate the entire corpus of Sangam literature to a single generation.
K.A.N. Sastri who assigned the early centuries of the Christian era 55 as the period of
compositions of the early litetature, excluding the Epics, had limited the age of the
Sangam to five or six generation covering a period of 150 years from 100 A.D, on the
strength of Gajabahu Senguttuvan Synchronism, keeping the reigning period of
Gajabahu between 173 A.D.56 Falling in line with S. Vaiyapuripillai he excluded
Paripadal, Kalittogai (of Eight Anthologies) and Thirumurugarruppadai (of Ten Idylls)
from the corpus of Sangam literature.57 Recently, an American scholar from the
University of Wisconsin after a comparative study of the ancient Tamil and Sanskrit
literatures, placed the six of the Eight Anthologies (excluding Paripadal and Kalittogai) at
the second and third centuries A.D., Kalittogai, Paripadal and Pattuppattu were placed
at a period a little later and Tolkappiyam at fifth century A.D.58 Though his
work is original in approach and treatment, he is unable to relieve himself completely
from the impact of the line of thinking of Prof, S.Vaiyapuripillai.

The theories on the age of the Sangam assessed so far suffer from one or the
other of the following serious misconceptions or errors.

Evaluation of the Three Schools of Thought

1. The indifference shown to the political situation in the Tamil Country during
the second, third and fourth centuries had compelled many scholars to transplant the
age of the Sangam over the Kalabhra and early Pallava age in the history of Tamil Nadu.
Even the lower Strata of Anthologies present a political situation of a different and

55
Balasubramanian S., History of South India, Madras, 1973 p. 187
56
Sastri K.A.N., (ed) A Comprehensive History of India, Vol. 2; Bombay, 1957, p. 503.
57
Hart G.L., “Ancient Tamil Literature; Its Scholary Past and Future” in Essays on South India, (ed) Burton Strein
Vykas, 1975, p. 41.
58
Journal of Madras University. Vol. LI, No. 1 Jan, 1979, off print, p. 25.
ancient type. During the last phase of the Sangam age, the princes were masters of the
fertile valleys with their main and subordinate capitals along the commercial routes.
Their capitals were commercial cities unlike the temples cities of the later ages. The
activities of Yavana merchants were more at the coastal as well as the capital
cities of the Tamil monarchs during this period. The Roman coins of Tiberius (14 A.D,
to 37 A.D.) Caligula (37-41 A.D.), Claudius (A.D. 41 to54 A.D.) Nero (A.D. 54-68),
Vespasian (A.D. 69-79), with a little break, Titus to Hadrian (79-138 A.D.) with the final
breakage from133, A.D. found in the then Tamil Nadu substantiate it. According to the
political situation figure in the early epics, Ilanthirayan, Cheraladan and
Ariyappadaikadantha Neduncheliyan, Senkuttuvan were kept at close proximity. At the
closing period of the Sangam age and at its periphery according to the political picture
presented in Manimekalai, Pukar continued to be the Chola capital with
Nedumudikkilli as the ruler. His brother Ilam Killi was at Kanchi. Thondaiman
Ilanthirayan also figure at Kanchi. Seliyan, the Pandya ruler was at Madurai with his
subordinate capital Korkai. The importance of Vanchi, the Chera capital continued
without break.

It is widely accepted that the Kalabhra interlude commenced in the third century
A.D Arunachalam in his paper on the Kalabhras59 held that, Kalabhra rule started in the
Pandinadu from 250 A.D. It shows that they had occupied the northern parts of the
Tamil Country still earlier. The nature of the Kalabhra rule is hinted in Velvikkudi grant.
From the third century A.D., Kanchi in Tondainadu, Kaverippattinam in Cholanadu,
Madurai in Pandinadu, all in the fertile river valleys were in the occupation of invading
tribes from the North. Their language was not Tamil. They used a corrupted form of Pali
with Sanskrit admixture for purposes of administration 60 and as the language of religion.

59
Tamil Valarchi Kazhagam (Pub), Ten Pandya Copper Plates, Velvikkudi Grant. AM 139 Madras, 1967, pp.11-40
60
Xavier Thaninayagam, ‘Earliest Jain and Buddhist Teachings in Tamil Country’, T.C, Madras, 1959, Vol. III
No.4, pp 337 – 342.
Their religion was neither Vedic nor local form of Hinduism, known during the age of
Sangam or Pallava period. Buddhist scholars of Theravada Buddhism dominated Kanchi
in the third century A.D. Dinnaga who lived in the 3rd and 4th centuries was a
Mahayanist Yogacarica teacher.61 The role of Dharmapala, Bodhi dhamma and
Buddhadatta are well known. These had totally erased the panegyric and
anthropacentric age of the anthologies and set at motion a predominantly philosophical
and didactic age, characteristic feature reflected in the post Sangam works. 62 The Social
curtain which presented the picture of war, heroism and love diminished, giving place
to the one presenting the picture of mediating mendicants and arguing philosophers at
Pattimandapas.

61
Ibid, T.C. 1956, p.107.
62
Sircar D.C., The Successors of Satavahanas, pp. 164 -166
 Again on the political scene at Kanchi, the rule of Simhava raman around 300
A.D.63 or 325 A.D.64 is established on the analysis of the early Prakrit charters of the
Paliavas.65 Around 350 A.D. one Vishugopa met the Gupta forces at Kanchi according to
Allahabad Pillar Inscription.66 The British museum plates of queen Charu Devi, Vijaya
Skanda Varman, Buddha-varman and Buddhayankura were ruling from Kanchi in the
fourth century A.D. Not a single atom of reference to the above can be noticed
anywhere in the collections, Songs or in the epics. The second serious misconception,
that had vitiated the correct understanding of the cultural attainments of the early
Tamils, is the incomplete nature of the investigation of the megalithic monuments and
the Nilgiris and Adichanalloor bronzes and their dating. The megalithic sites
experimented so far is very meagre. But the judgements awarded on them has universal
application with far reaching implications. They declared that the iron using intruders
with Tamil speaking tongue entered Tamil Country at about 300 B.C. 67 This thought
process in conjection with the notions on the origins of orthography had created a
disjunction in the cultural evolution which otherwise had a cultural continuity and
stability of population.

The archaeologists fail to keep their eyes on the overall picture. In their
preoccupation with the trees they lost sight of the woods. Now after compulsive
evidences the process of predating the megalithic culture is at work 68. The
archaeologists have oversighted the conservative nature of the Dravidian culture, the
fact of overlap between the Neolithic cum Chalcolithic cultures and Megalithic culture;
63
Heras H., Studies in Pallava History, Madras, 1933, pp. 9 - 22
64
Epicgraphia, Indica XXI, pp. 87 - 90
65
Corpus Inscriptionamum Indicanum, Vol. VII. p. 6. Subramanian N., History of TamilNadu, Madurai,
1976, p. 115.
66
Mortimer Wheeler, op. cit. p.163
67
Clarence Maloney, “Archaeology in South India Accomplishments and Prospect” in Essay on South
India, (ed) Burton Stein, p. 9; R. Nagasamy, Ibid, pp. 108 - 111
68
Shunmugam, Kodumudi, S., “Palaeography” Heritage of the Tamils: Language and Grammar, Madras, 1980, pp.
8 – 9.
the appearance of greyware as well as copper age elements in TamilNadu sites.
Archaeological anthropology showing the uniformity in the physical types of builders of
Neolithic and Megalithic cultures speak for the stability of population. The theory of the
introduction of Tamil by an iron using intruding population had already been ruled
out.69 These factors in conjection with the basis substratum of linguistic and religious
elements in Vedic literature compel us to inform that the performance of archaeology is
incomplete, and the conclusions reached at an incomplete stage of investigation are
misleading.

3. The Third serious defect that vitiated the correct understanding of the literary
history of Tamil is the misinterpretations of the scripts found in the early cave
inscriptions of Tamil Nadu. The epigraphists held that the Tamil language had no scripts
till third century B.C. and therefore there was no possibility of developed literature
before Christ. The earliest inscriptions, found in the Pandya Country Arickamedu
fragment inscriptions,70 and the inscriptions found in other parts of the Tamil Country
are in Tamil language according to Krishna Sastry and A.V. Subramania Iyer. Iravatham
Mahadevan who attempted a second reading of the Arikkamedu Inscriptions reasserted
the language to be Tamil71. Though the language is Tamil due to the 19th Century
linguistic theories and the Semblance of the scripts to Asokan Brahmi, the epigraphists
believed that the scripts, reached TamilNadu, in the 3rd century B.C, with the arrival of
Asoka's misssionaries. The epigraphists over sighted two important factors before
arriving at their hasty conclusions.

(i) They have over sighted Graffiti handled by ordinary men in every day life
relating to Asokan, Pre Asokan and post Asokan times. Their premise that the first
written documents are in stone alone is erroneous. The use of palm leaf and evolu-
69
Proceedings and Transactions of Third All India Oriental Conference, Madras, 1924, pp. 275 – 300.
70
Tamilica (1973), Vol. II, Part 3, pp. 60 – 64.
71
A. Velupillai, op. cit. p. 10.
tionary process are ignored. Both Sangam literary compositions and early grammatical
works should have been written in manuscripts earlier than the inscriptions in
question72 (ii) The epigraphists again oversight the marked differences in the scripts
employed in the Southern inscriptions. They have ignored the frequency of 1.l,r and n
.(o> s> w> d) and the absence of the hard consonants in the inscriptions south of
Bhattiprolu.73

These differences establish that the southern scripts are different from Asokan
Brahmi and bore the name Damili while the northern ones are called Bombi according
to the Jain Suttas.74 When Bombi by displacement of vowel became Brahmi75 during the
period of Lalithavisthara, the Buddhist work, the Southern scripts bore the name
Dravida lipi.

The Korkai excavations conducted by the State Department of Archaeology

brought to light,76 scripts dating 9th to 8th centuries B.C. similar to those found on rock
and pottery mixed up with the characters resembling Indus scripts. It reinforces the
evolutionary theory of B.B. Lai.77 The discovery of similar characters in the Island of Sri
Lanka78 of Pre-Asokan and Asokan times in conjection with Chalcolithic crossings in
TamilNadu suggests the extension of Harappan culture at a wider area. The discovery of
a bilingual metal soal at Sri Lanka bearing Tamil scripts and pictograms believed that
conclusions of the Brahmi origin of Damili Scripts. The differences of southern and

72
Mahalingam T.V., South Indian Palaeography, Madras, 1980, p. 138.
73
Samavayanga Sutta and Pannavansutta, Quoted, Ibid. p. 110.
74
ghk;gp> g;h; mk;gp; g;h; Mk;gp = g;uhk;gp (g-k) = g;uhk;kp.
75
Shunmugam, Kodumudi, op. cit., pp. 455 - 465
76
“From the Megalithic to the Harappan; Tracing Back the Graffiti on Pottery”, A16, 1960, pp. 1.24
77
Kanagarthnam, D.J. Tamil and cultural pluralism in Ancient Sri Lanka, (Pilimtalawe, 1978) p. 26; Karunaratna,
‘Palaeographics Development of the Brahmi script of Ceylon’ First International Conference Seminar of Tamil
Studies, Kaula Lumpur, 1966; J.T. Xavier, The Land of Letters Trincomalee, 1977, pp. 155 - 174
78
Mahendale M.A., “Language and Literature” in the age of Imperial Unity,(ed) Majumdar R.C., Bombay, 1968, p.
268, 282.
northern varities of scripts amidst semblances suggest the common origin of Damili, the
script of the south and Brahmi, the Script of the North.

4. The fourth factor which misled the scholars is the illusions on the massive
impact of Vedic thought and Sanskrit etymology in Sangam literature.

The literary history of Sanskrit before the age of the Gupta's is interpreted with
a tinge of vagueness. The linguistic theory of Monier Williams has not been re-
interpreted even after the epoch making discovery of 1922 in Indian History. Panini
wrote a grammar for Bhasha i.e. the spoken language. When compared to the
Prathisakiyas it is artificial in character. At the time of the Brahmanas, before Panini,
there were three major spoken language groups, Udicha (N.W.) Madhyadesiya (C.I.)
and Prachya (E.I.)79.

In the fifth century B. C. Buddha preached in the languages of the masses which
was later known by the common term Prakrit. The Jain and Buddhist works show the
existence of Ardha Magadhi, Magadhi, Suraseni and Maharastri. The Buddhist
cannonical language, Pali was originally a dialect of Avanti.80 It was under these
linguistic background Aswagosha, the contemporary of Kanishka, wrote his famous
dramatic works. In the works of Asvagosha and Bhasa unpaniniya forms are found, 81
though Patanjali, believed to the contemporary of Pushyamitrasunga, reinforced
Paniniyam with his elucidation and supplementaries. Gunadhya's Brihatkatha was
written in the Paisacha language and Hala's edited work, Gata Sapta Sati, a collection of
the lyric poems of numerous poets including poetesses was a product of Maharastriyan
Prakrit. Kautilya's Arthasastra, the antiquity of which is doubted as it's date is
ambiguous is a work on state craft. As such there-was no secular literature for Sanskrit

79
Ibid, p. 283.
80
Ibid, p. 279.
81
T.C. 1955, Vol. 4, p. 294.
before Kalidasa.82 Secular literature in Sanskrit began with Kalidasa.83 Deva-Naga-Ari
also appeared in inscriptions only during the Gupta period. These facts have been
oversighted by the literary historians of Tamil while interpreting Vadacol, northern
word and Vadamoli, northern language occuring in Tamil literature and grammar.

Ancient Tamil and Maharastrian literature were closely related in metrical

system, techniques of rhyme, suggestion themes and conventions84 as the early
Dravidian was a single speech around 1500 B.C. 85 Kalidasa who synthesised the
elements of two great traditions, Dravidian and Aryan, heavily depended Maharastriyan
Prakrit literature86 of which Hala's edited work Gatkasaptasati was a part and made
greatest contribution to classical Sanskrit. Some of the themes found in early Tamil
literature are found in Sanskiit epics-Mahabharatha and Ramayana. These themes along
with other Dravidian elements entered North Indian literature from the original Deccan
culture87 according to G. L. Han. It should also be remembered that the full
development of the Puranas, the Smriti literature and the final touches of Epics had
taken place only during the Gupta Age according to G.V. Devastali.88

A close study of the Vedic literature would suggest that the Hindu religious
name like Siva, Parvati, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Kanna (Kanha of Prakrit; Balarama, Skanda
etc. have a Non-Vedic origin and later entry into Vedic and later Vedic literature. 89 The
Agamic stream now found in Hindu religion of the historic period90 and social practices

82
Devastali G.V., “Literature Sanskrit”, in the Classical Age (ed) R.C. Majumdar Bombay, 1970, p. 302
83
Hart G.L., op. cit., p. 45.
84
Chatteriji S.K., Dravidian origins and the west Calcutta, 1970, p. 148.
85
Hart G.L., op.cit., p. 45.
86
Ibid, p. 45.
87
Op. cit., p. 291.
88
Chellam V.T., A New light on the Early History of TamilNadu, Tiruchi, 1981, pp. 45- 54.
89
Chatterji S.K., “Race Movements, etc. Calcutta, 1956, p. 162 - 268
90
Hart G.L., op. cit, p. 44 Austerity and Tonsure of Widows entered for the first time in Sanskrit literature in
Skandapurana in early medieval times; Puram 248 – 251; 280.
like ritual purity had later entry in upper Indian literature.91 An analysis of the so called
Sanskrit loan words in Tamil in the light of the work done by Sanskrit Professors of the
West like Burrow, Emeneau, and Sir Ralph Turner would suggest that the borrowings
were more from the opposite source than Prof.S. Vaiyapuripillai and other scholars
conceived of. The Tamil literary historians failed to assess Prakrit literature distinguish
the Prakrit words and the later evolution of Sanskrit secular literature.

"The Sangam poems are in Akaval metre, the first in the long course of
development of Tamil metrical system. It is indigneous and has no parallel in
Sanskrit..."92 in the opinion of S. Vaiyapuripillai. Early Tamil literature shows originality
and was complete in itself as a means of cultural expression.93 Before Sanskrit
expansion became wider and deeper through official documents) diplomacy and
general communication from the 4th century A.D. Tamil literature was already fully
developed and was ready to meet and survive the later massive invasion of Sanskrit."94

Historians and literary historians have failed to locate the exact period of
commencement of Vedic settlements in the south. The Vedic colonisation was active
during the second century B.C. i.e., the Sunga-Kanva age in upper India95. In all
probability it commenced during the closing period of third century B.C, when the
Imperial Mauryan state control lost its grip. The early Brahmin settlements of South in
the Second century B.C. according to recent researches,96 came along the west coast
carrying the Parasurama legend. In the coromandel plain Rajasuyam Vetta Perunarkilli

91
Vaiyapuripillai S., op. cit. p. 357.
92
Chellam V.T., op. cit., p. 287.
93
Ibid, p. 298.
94
Subramanian N., op. cit., p. 28
95
Kesavan Veluthat, Brahman Settlements in Kerala, Calicut, 1978, pp. 12 – 14, Cellur “Early Aryan
Settlement” Journal of Kerala Studies, March 1957; Vol. II. p. II; Chellam V.T., op. cit., p. 57
Panikar K.M., History of Kerala, Annamalainagar 1959, p. 2 Akam. 216, 220, 290.
96
Subramanian N., op. cit., p. 28.
is known to have inaugurated Vedic sacrifices. According to the present study, he
belonged to the second century A.D. A close study of the evolution of Agamic and
Nigamic elements of Hindu culture will reveal that the Vedic influence on early Tamil
literature was at its initial stages.

The last and the serious error which jeopordised the correct calculation of the
age of the Sangam is the erroneous equation of Velkelu Kuttuvan, the hero of fifth
decade of the Pathittuppattu with Senguttuvan of Silappadikaram.

The name Senguttuvan no where appears in the text of the Eight Anthologies or
Ten Idylls songs. Paranar in the 5th decade of Pathittuppattu and Puram 369 names
Velkelukuttuvan and not Senguttuvan. Velkelukuttuvan was the contemporary of
Paranar, and Manakkilli the Chola prince whereas Senguttuvan was the contemporary
of Gajabahu, Satakarni and poet Sathanar the author of Manimegalai. There is
difference in the parentage as well and therefore both were widely separated in time.
The equation of Velkelu Kuttuvan with Senguttuvan and his induction in the Gajabahu
Senguttuvan Synchronism had helped to jumble two personalities into one and bring to
a single platform many personages who were separated in space and time. Dr. N.
Subramanian who failed to locate this mistake finds his own justification 97 by inventing
a time lag in the absence of North Indian exploits in the songs of Paranar. Another
factor which misled literary historians is the error in the identity between Karikal
Valavan, the hero of Porunarattuppadai and Thirumavalavan, the hero
of Pattinappalai. Karikalvalavan (Karikala I) was the contemporary,
of Paranar, Kudakko Neduncheraladan. Kalathalayar, Vennikkuyathiyar,
Mudathamakkanniyar and a junior contemporary of Mamulanar. He belonged to the
third century B. C. He came to the throne while he was very young by the right of direct

97
Porunararruppadai, 132.
inheritance.98 Thirumavalavan (Karikala II) was the contemporary of Kadiyalur
Uruthirankannanar, Thamppal Kannanar, Kovur Kilar, Konattu Erichaloor Madalan
Kumaranar, Kuttuvankothai, Kurappalli Tunjiya Killivalavan and his brother Nalankilli.
He came to the throne by accident of fortune.99 Tirayar or Tondaiyar occupation of
Kanchi became prominent during his time.100 He belonged to the first century A.D.

The identity error in the Gajabahu Senguttuvan Synchronism which otherwise is a

valid ground to fix the lower limit of the age of the Sangam had thrown overboard the
possible political frame work. The possibility of fixing the chronology of the Sangam age
through cross references was thrown out of gear and all those who attempted
calculation on the basis of this sheet anchor were misled, confused and landed at a
wrong stage.

The greatest handicap for fixing the chronology of the Sangam works is its lack of
stratification of the songs of individual poets in the chronological order. The present
grouping as of collections, 10 songs and 18 didactics, now available was made in the
15th century by Mailainathar. The attempts of classification made by K. N. Sivaraja Pillai
and S. Vaiyapuri Pillai are of general nature. The first serious attempt towards
stratification in recent times is attempted by P.K. Velayudham of Tiruchi. He succeeded
in bringing the poets of the anthologies in a chronological order by dividing the period
from Mauryan ascendency to 125 A.D. into six units keeping famous poets who enjoyed
longevity in pairs as milestones in the chronological chart. The period of Mamulanar and
Paranar tops the chart.101 His work too is incomplete. The next effort of note in this
direction has been made by S. Retnasamy of Annamalai University. He brought together

98
Pattinappalai, 227.
99
Perumpanarruppadai, 454.
100
Vel Attavanai, Attached to College Magazine, Melur, 1974, pp. 56 – 68.
101
Retnasamy S. A Short History of the Ancient Tamils and their Literature, Annamalainagar, 1979.
pp. 78 – 92.
the cluster of poets clinging to the individual princes and chieftains. 102 The works of
these two scholars help to pegmark the scheme of stratification of the Sangam works.

Fresh Attempt

Eliminating the identity error in the Gajabahu Senguttuvan Synchronism one can
ascend along a chronological chart through cross references to poets and princes. But
the steps for ascendancy are not in continuity. On the other hand in Pathittuppattu we
come across a working chronological scheme as provided by the author of the
colaphone. The Mauryan problem in Sangam literature provides the signal and the key
for the time landing. Linking both, a working chronology is possible. The Nandas,
Mauryas and Padaliputra have reference at least in six songs.103 Four
poets,Mamoolanar, Paramkottanar, Athirayanar and Mocikiranar made direct
unequivocal references. S. Vaiyapuripillai,104 Kanakasabhai,105
K. N. Siva-raja Pillai and others106 and in a recent paper D. Sadasivam of Madras
University doubted the comtemporanity of Mamoolanar to Mauryan intervention in
South Indian politics due to the ring fence chronology created by
V. Kanakasabhai without eliminating the identity error in Velkelu Kuttuvan of
Pathittupattu and Karikalan, hero of Porunarattuppadai.

M.G.S. Narayanan of Calicut University in his book Re-interpretations of South

Indian History107 broke the ring fence created by Kanakasabhai and Sivaraja Pillai, and
asserted that "there is no valid reason to compel us to imagine that Mamoolanar was
not a contemporary or near contemporary of the Nandas and Mauryas who are known
102
Akam, 251, 265, 281, 69 Puram 175 and Kurunthokai 75.
103
Ilakkiyadeepam, Pari Nilayam Madras pp. 131 to 144.
104
op. cit., p. 198.
105
op. cit., p. 48.
106
“Historical Gleanings from Sangam Poet Mamoolanar” T.K. Venkataraman’s Birth Day
Commemoration Volume, pp. 229 – 225.
107
Mauryan Problem in Sangam Works, Journal of Indian History (Aug. 1975), Vol. LIII
part II. pp. 243 - 254
from archaeological evidence to have made their presence felt in places like Maski and
Siddbapore in Mysore.108 The Jambai Inscription discovered in Tamil Nadu, recently by
the State Department of Archaeology brings Athiyaman Neduman Anji, the hero of
Avvaiyar to the close proximity to Rock Edict No. II of Asoka. It further reinforces the
Theory of Mauryan intervention and the calculation of the age of Sangam with the aid
of Mauryan problem in Sangam Literature.

The North South contact in Mauryan times is further substantiated by the

presence of punch marked silver coins at Erode, Pollachi, Kallidaikkurichi and other
places in large quantities.109 The nature of Akam poems mentioning Nandas and
Mauryas are contemporary with the poet in the estimation of Dr. H. S. David. 110 The
songs of Mamoolanar contain reference to specific events personalities and regions.
They demonstrate the poets intimate knowledge of political situations in India. The
context in which Mamoolanar Paramkottanar and Atirayanar make the references to
Mauryan invasion is an authentic evidence that

108
Clarence Meloney, op. cit., p. 17
109
“The Earliest Tamil Poems Extant” T.C. 1955, Vol. 4, p. 93
110
Akam, 65, 233
the incidence was in the green memory of their readers. Mamoolanar's phrase Velpor
Nandar has also political significance.

The question now posed is about the period of Mauryan intervention in Tamil
Politics. Applying time factor theory V.A. Smith ruled out ChandraGupta. Asoka's
conquests confined to Kalinga only, though he enjoyed the possession of territory
bordering Tamilagam. Historians left the choice to Bindusara and Saranath added fuel
with the story of the destruction of 16 States. Asoka's peaceful possession of Deccan
was a symptom of habitual obedience of a long standing. Chandragupta Maurya's
selection of Sravana Belgola for a religious life after retirement along with Bhadrabahu
suggest an earlier Mauryan expansion under the first conquering prince and Bindusara's
action might have been against the disobedient princes. Hence the Mauryan
consolidation of the south as seen from the Sangam sources had taken place during the
period of the first conquering prince ChandraGupta Maurya.

Mamoolanars references like Velpor Nandar and Vampa Moriyar, suggest that
the poet was a contemporary to Nanda-Mauryan transition. He was also the junior
contemporary of Udiyan Cheral111 by indirect evidence the hero of the first decade of
Pathittuppattu. Treating Udiyan Cheral as the contemporary of Nanda-Maurya
transition and allowing a remaining period of fifteen years. Since 321 B.C, Udiyan
Cheral's, rule is taken up to 306 B.C. The chronological scheme provided by the compiler
of Pathittuppattu is followed with marginal adjustments and we reckon the
approximate chronology of the Chera Princes as follows:

1. Udiyan Cheral, 15 Years from 321 B.C. to 306 B.C., Hero of

I decade.

2. Nedum Cheraladan, 15 Years from 306 to 291 B.C., Hero of II decade.

111
Puram, 183.
3. Palyanai Selkelu Kuttuvan, 15 Years from 291 to 276 B.C., Hero of III decade.
 4. Kalangai Kanni Narmudi Cheral, 15 Years from 276 to 261
B.C, Hero of IV decade.

5. Kadal Pirakku Ottiya Kuttuvan, 30 Years from 261 to 231 B.C, Hero of V
decade.

6. Adukotpattu Cheraladan, 38 Years from 231 to 93 B.C., Hero of VI decade.

7. Mantaram Cheral Irumporai, Contemporary of Vadama Vannakkan

Perunchathanar Antuvan Cheral, and other unnamed, 72 Years from 194 to
120 B.C. Intervening.

8. Selvakkadunko VaIiyadan, 25 Years from 120 to 95 B.C., Hero of VII Decade.

9. Perum Cheral Irumporai, 17 Years from 95 to 78 B.C., Hero of VII Decade.

10. Ham Cheral Irumporai, l6 Years from 78 to 62 B.C., Hero of IX Decade.

11. Yanaikatchei Mantaram Cheral, 37 Years from 62 to 25 B.C., Hero of IX

Decade, Contemporary of Koodaloorkkilar.

The period of collection and edition of Ainkurunuru and Patirrupattu

Kuttuvankothai ,Kokkotai Marpan, Kanaikkai Irumporai and other unnamed kings are
placed from 25 B.C. to 75 A.D., and Cheraladan from 75 A.D. to HO A.D.

The lower limit of the Sangam age we fix with the aid of Gajabahu Senguttuvan
Synchronism. Senguttuvan, the son of Cheraladan and the hero of Silappadikaram was
occupying the Chera throne during the second century A.D. according to Gajabahu
Senguttuvan Synchronism. Though famous, as per the versons of Silappadikaram none
of the poets of the anthologies and sung about him. Further Silappadikaram represent a
philosphical age which is different from the naturalistic anthropocentric age of the
Sangam bards. These factors establish that the age of the Sangam was already over
during his time. Ariyappadaikadantha Nedunchezhyan was the contemporary of
Cheraladan. Ariyappadai-kadaniha Nedunchezhyan's song finds a place in Puranam112.
Hence we take these two monarchs among the last representatives of the Sangam age.
Since Cheraladans rule is placed from 85 A.D. to 110 A.D. to the beginning of the second
century A.D. is taken to mark the end of the age of the Sangam.

The upper age limit of the age of Sangam has to be settled. The import of the
song of Mamoolanar, referring Velpor Nandar place the song of Mamoolanar to fourth
century B.C. The style and metrical perfection of the anthologies suggest an evolution
over a long period.113 Some of the verbal constructions of the poem in Puram114 like
Valangundu Pookundu became obsolate during latter times. Hence the period of
composition of the earlier songs found in the anthologies have to be taken at least a
century before Mamoolanar and hence we fix fifth century B.C. as the upper age limit of
the anthologies, though some of the songs of the anthologies belong to an earlier
period.

The problem of the age of the Sangam is not over as Tolkappiyam stands
detached from the anthologies. Basing Kalaviyal commentary
K. Vellaivarananar115 placed it as 5320 B.C. Though he justifies such an early dating, he
has not established his date with enough proof. Tamil literary historians and critics like
K.N. Sivaraja Piliai and S.Vaiyapuri Pillai and almost all scholars at National and
International levels116 awarded 5th century A.D. dating to Tolkappiyam allowing a poste-
rior interval of Three Centuries in between the period of composition of the anthologies
and Tolkappiyam on account of the lapses in verbal usage and poetics in the
anthologies. S. Vaiyapuri piliai, also banked his faith on the impact of Sanskrit grammari-

112
S. Vaiyapuripillai, T.C. op. cit., p. 242
113
Puram 440, 399, 398, 396, 395, 393, 391, 390, 387, 384, 338, etc
114
Tolkappiyam, (Annmalainagar, 1978) p. 126.
115
Chatterji S.K., op. cit. p. 13., A.L. Basham op. cit p. 462, G.L. Hart op. cit (Essays) p. 41; K.N. Sivaraja
pillai; op. cit. p. 44; S. Vaiyapuripillai, Tamil Sudar manikal, (Madras 1949), p.p. 42 - 54
116
Vaiyapuripillai S., Op.cit., p. 54.
ans, Bharatha and Manu-for dating Tolkappiyam at fifth century A.D.117 His views have
been accepted by Catholic reverance by most of the scholars at National and
International levels without going into the root of his arguments.

1. Tolkappiyam was intended for a secular literature and at the time of panini
and pathanjali there was no secular literature in Sanskit language.

2. Tolkappiyam like parthisakiyas is natural and simple in its treatment unlike

Panini.

These factors will show that Tolkappiyam had an independent start and is
independent of Panini or Pathanjali.

3. Tolkappiyam's Meipattiyal represent natural expressions which has

representation in literature in love themes, the pleasures, joys, pangs and
sorrow of the characters.

The names of musical instruments used in Koothanool a very ancient work, bear tamil
roots in them,118 whereas Bharatha's musical instruments. Kuranja, Muraja, Kulal etc.
show Dravidian origin according to Sambamoorthy. 119

4. In the ancient Tamil Music, there was more application of astronomy120

Tolkappiyam's octave is having twelve divisions where as Bharatha's has
twenty four. Panchamarapu in Sutra 16 relates the various types of voice to
the twelve Rasies.

These factors in conjunction with Bharatha's Confession in his Natyasastra121

about his inspiration from southern varieties explain the existence of Dravidian varieties

117
Ibid, p. 42 – 44.
118
Koothanool, Sutra, 146, (124) South India Music, p. 146.
119
Panchamarap, Sutras 14, 15, 16.
120
Natya Sastra, Chap. 4. Sloka, 31.
121
Akaro, Vyrai, Jananam.
of music before Bharatha and Tolkappiyar's dependence on Bharatha is therefore
nullified.

5. The menstral purity clause of Manu is a common sense question for all
Societies and Manu's inspiration on Tolkappiyam is only an assumption of S.
Vaiyapuripillai. The Vedic and Sanskritic influence in Tolkappiyam is the
innovation of later commentators and speculation of S. Vaiyapuripillai as
they had taken the face value of many of the clauses of Tolkappiyam in
the light of the Socio-religious background of their times.

The lapses in poetics of Tolkappiyam during the time of anthologies with special
reference to Paripadal, the disuse of the terms like Mijiru and change in the
connotations of terms like seval moothu, Kadam during the age of anthologies place
Tolkappiyam anterior to the anthologies and not posterior as believed by some scholars.
In view of the accepted interval of three centuries in between the period of composition
of Tolkappiyam and the anthologies and the proximity of Tolkappiyam to Praihisakyas
we assign Tolkappiyam a date, not later than seventh century B. C.

Tolkappiyam represents a different age in the history of Tamil literature. Some of

the literary works of this age exist in name and in fragments as quoted by later
commentators. The recently recovered book Koothanool, in view of its varbal cons-
truction and specific listing of the important works referred to by later commentators
as works of the age of Tolkappiyam, in sutra two, is regarded as the other
representative of the age of Tolkappiyam. The lower limit of the age of Tolkappiyam we
fix as 504 B. C. the date of dislocation of landmass by natural havoc, referred to in the
Ceylonese chronicles. The date of the upper age limit of the age of Tolkappiyam is
inconclusive at present in view of the initial stage of marine archaeology in TamilNadu.

In the light of the arguments given so far, we conclude that the three academic
periods mentioned in the commentary to Iraiyanar Kalaviyal is a figurative
representation of the three stages in the literary history of Tamil language. As in the