Production Process and the Formation of

Agrarian Hierarchy

K.S. Madhavan “Primary producing groups in early and early medieval Kerala:
Production process and historical roots of transition to castes (300-1300 CE)”
Thesis. Department of History , University of Calicut, 2012
 Chapter Three
Production Process and the Formation of
Agrarian Hierarchy

The people who settled in each eco – cultural zone [tinai] were clan groups
who followed distinct forms of livelihood during early historic period.
During this period kin groups and labouring groups were not differentiated
and the kin groups were synonymous with labouring people. Hence, kinship
and livelihood forms were indispensably interrelated. People lived as clan
groups and a clan consisted of extended families of kinsmen called ki½ai and
kin relation was the base of the settlements. The extended kin groups were
divided in accordance with the lineage traced through elders and younger
members known as muthiyar and i½aiyar. Therefore, kutimākkal formed a
kinship group and they, including women, engaged in subsistence activities in
each tinai. Therefore, familial kin labour was the principal form of labour of
the various clans who practiced different life activities in multiple economies.
They lived in chirukuti and identified as chirukutiyān. The kutimākkal were
called by their life activities to mark their collective identity as kinship groups
in a settlement.
These early migrants cleared and reclaimed the biomass deposited and
silted areas in the river valleys and the estuarine plains for cultivation and
became the early settlers in this area. Formation of kutis in the riverine areas
in the midland became important as a productive space created by cultivators
for settled agriculture in river valleys and water-laden areas. The formation of
land holding groups from settler cultivators and the emergence of households
became cardinal in the expansion of agriculture. Apart from this a number of
Brahman settlements proliferated in the riverine areas as the chiefs and their
retinue donated productive lands to settle the Brahmans. The labour activities
in such Brahman settlements were also done by the kutis and the labouring

325
groups. The social groups called izhichinan who engaged in agricultural
labour was attributed a status of izhipirapālan, one who is born in low social
status.

From the above discussion we find a process of transition had taken

place by which certain groups among the settler cultivators had been
transformed into cultivating kutis who retained some elements of clan identity
and cultural features and continued to be settled as kutis. This also signifies
the transformation that occurred in the nature of kuti settlements from the
chirukuti in tina -varaku zone to the uzhakuti settlements in the river valleys
and water-laden areas in the midland. This process of transition occurred due
to the development of surplus production in both wetland and mixed crop
cultivation in the parambu areas, which transformed certain groups of the
settler cultivators into cultivating kutis and labour collectives.

When cultivation expanded and settlements proliferated, a labour force

of permanent nature was required to reclaim water logged areas and to slash
and burn in the river valleys and in harnessing the silt deposited marshy
plains. The expansion for the multi crops in the parambu and compound sites
also required large number of agricultural labourers. It was because of the
expansion of agriculture operations in water laden and riverine areas and in
the parambus that there emerged labouring population of permanent nature in
the ūrs in both laterite and in the wetland areas. The social division of labour
that developed in the ūr settlements of the settler cultivators also developed a
group who tried to control productive lands and to make use of labour in the
kutis. They developed as the land holding households from the settler
cultivators. The labouring populations variously called Kalamar, Kāvalar,
Arinar or Thozhuvar were engaged in various labour activities in the ūr
settlements, which were the production localities.

326
 The further expansion of agriculture required a servile population
which was met by bringing non-agricultural labourers and primordial settlers
from outside. The people who practiced punam cultivation and foraging
activities in the hilly areas were brought for reclaiming lands and cultivation
in the river valleys and the water logging areas. They were also employed for
irrigation activities to manage the floodwater, building embankments etc, in
addition to agriculture operations. They were also engaged in cultivation of
multi crop production in the parambu areas. They became the primary
producers in the social form that came into being. They were treated as
Izhichinan, of low socio-cultural status. The chirumākkal in the chirukutis in
the hilly forested areas who were also brought into the wetland agriculture as
laboring groups. It was from these groups that Pulayar and Cherumar of later
years developed and their condition of existence is denoted by the terms like
Āl or Adiyār in the epigraphical documents.

Production and Resource Generation in Multiple Economies

The epigraphical documents refer to a number of land and labour terms

indicating the existence of multiple modes occupational pattern in a diverse
environment, which must have developed from the socio-cultural and
economic world that existed in the early historical period. The multiple
economies that developed from early historical period also continued and
sustained different groups of people with their distinct life worlds. The
wetland agriculture in the riverine and riparian plains including the estuarine
lands was developed as part of the settlement of the settler cultivators and
cultivating kutis in the riverine areas and riparian plains. Similarly, the mixed
crop cultivation in parambu areas mostly in the laterite region also sustained
various groups of settlers. Pepper, cardamom and cinnamon were cultivated in
the forest adjacent to settled areas. The punam cultivation in the forested areas
also included millets and mountain paddy. Foraging activities and collection

327
of forest produce developed along with punam cultivation. This shows the
development of multiple economies in the region, which sustained different
groups of people engaged in various livelihood practices. Various types of
land use forms and terms pertaining to labour activities referred to in the
documents indicate the utilization of productive land spaces in the wet land
and parambu areas for wet crops and mixed crop cultivation, forested and
pastoral spaces for foraging, collection of forest produce and hunting and
punam cultivation for millets and paddy. It indicates the expansion of diverse
occupational pattern of different social collectives.

The riverine and riparian areas in the major river valleys were occupied
by people from the hilly areas. The productive spaces reclaimed in the water
logging areas in the flood plains led to the emergence of the production
localities called ūr settlements of the settler cultivators from whom the
cultivating kutis and group of labouring population developed. Agriculture
operations in wetland areas including cultivation in estuarine lands developed
a number of households among the settler cultivators. The social division of
labour that developed in these settlements also led the cultivating kutis, servile
labouring groups and the kutis who made accessories to agriculture
production. The settlements of the Brahmans were also developed in the
wetland and riverine area mainly because the chiefs and their retinue helped
the Brahmans to settle which came to be also known as ūrs. The cultivating
kutis and servile populations did substantial part of the labour in production
operations in the riverine and wetland areas where Brahman settlements also
proliferated. This was due to the patronage given by the prominent land
holding groups and chiefs.

Development of parambu cultivation in the laterite areas started from

the early historical period and it was linked with the millet zone. The
expansion of the parambu cultivation was accelerated with the movement of

328
the people into the river valleys and riparian areas and the wet land. The most
important aspect of the development of the parambu cultivation was the
development of varieties of mixed crops, which sustained different groups of
people who followed various forms of livelihood practices. The number of
crops including spices developed in the mixed crop areas in the parambus
which led to internal exchange networks. The reciprocal manner in which the
livelihood forms developed in the wet land and parambu areas gave impetus
to the development of parambu and wetland areas in a reciprocal manner.1

The settlements and livelihood practices that developed in both areas

were subjected to environment and resources used in each area that also
influenced the formation of socio-economic life of those who engaged in it.
The ūr settlements of the settler cultivators became the production localities
and nerve centre of the agriculture operations in both wetland and parambu
areas. The terms mentioned in epigraphical documents pertaining to punam
cultivation and foraging activities in relation to wetland and mixed crop
cultivation indicates the interrelated and interdependent development of
various life activities in the multiple economies that existed in the region
under discussion.

There developed the coexistence of economies and movement of

people from one economy to the other and transformations in the labour
activities and resource uses. The land names related to the foraging and
pastoral activities and punam cultivation indicate the existence of the multiple
forms of activities. The produces that reached the temples, mentioned in the
1
Reciprocity is involved in the development of exchange networks in this context and the
notion given by Karl Polanyi in analyzing the exchange process is important. Karl
Polanyi’s idea of reciprocity and redistribution has been ably used to interpret the trade
and exchange process in early and early medieval Kerala , Raghava Varier and Rajan
Gurukkal , Kēralacharithram, Vallathol Vidhyapeetham,Sukapuram ,[1991] 2004],
pp.76-86.

329
documents, indicate that forest produce like sandalwood was included in it.
Documents in Trikkadithanam and Tirunelli temples refer to cultivable lands
within the forest and hilly areas. The produces from such lands must have
reached temples indicating that the forest produces and the produces from the
punam cultivation areas were also part of the revenue of the temples and
Nāttutayavar.2 This is attested in other documents too.3 This shows the
importance of multiple economies, challenges the existing historiographic
understanding that gives centrality to the wet land paddy economy and the
social formation process centered on it and the subsequent development of
state.4 Therefore, we argue that various forms of life activities that emerged
with multiple economies sustained different forms of production process and
corresponding appropriation modes resulting in a stratified social
configuration and the formation of agrarian hierarchy.

Importance of Kutis in the Production Process

The migration and settlement of people from tina-varaku zone to wet land
region was a transformation which is attested in the continuation of certain

2
Land called kīzhkāttiypozhaichēikal donated to the Tirunelli temple[M G S,A-32,L.5]
and the nelvāthilkātu in one of the Trikkadithanam inscriptions indicate the forest land
and the punam cultivating lands were part of the temple lands or produces from such
lands were reached the temples. Certain lands called vettikkarikkātu and
kāttettikarikkātu are mentioned in Trikkakarainscription, M G S, A-25, Ls. [1]6 and
[3]8. Certain perumankādu [Nedumpuram Tali inscription of Kota Ravi, TAS.Vol.8.pp,
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit.no.10.pp.28-30 ] karikkādu[Trikkkakara inscription of
Bhaskararavivarman ,M G S,A-30], Nelvāthilkādu and karavayalkādu mentioned in
Trikkadithanam inscription indicate the forested area where paddy cultivated[, M G S,
B- 20]. There a number of land names related to forested spaces and punam cultivation
areas in Tiruvalla copper plates, M G S,A-80.
3
The terms like pullēlpaduvana [Tirunandikara inscription of Vikramadithya Varaguna,
TAS.Vol.1.p.42] and perumpullēl [Devidevesvaram plate, op.cit] indicate grazing lands
existed around both the wetland and parambu areas. The term vēli is also meant for
pastoral common lands for grazing [Tiruvalla Plates, M G S, A-80]. The terms like
kīzhkuzhipāzhchelli and mēlkuzhipāzhchelli mentioned in Kuravakavu temple
inscription [M G S,B- 24,] indicate the existence of the pastoral activities done by agro-
pastoral communities.
4
K N Ganesh, State Formation in Kerala: A Critical Overview, [ICHR, Bangalore,
2010],pp20-46.

330
kuti settlements from Sangam period to the ninth century C E as has been
revealed from references to chemmaruthar kudi5, āykudi6 and pērāyakudi7.
The early migrants and settlers are mentioned in a number of inscriptions
from the first half of the ninth century C E. It indicates the relationship
between early migrant settlers to the lands they reclaimed and cultivated.
They are represented in relation to the land or labour terms, which reveal that
these people might have been emerged in the process of reclaim activities
including the production of land spaces and agriculture operations by which
riverine and riparian areas had become productive lands conducting wet land
cultivation. It is important to note that the significant developments that
occurred after the fifth century in which land holding families and cultivating
kutis developed from the settler cultivators. As evident from the records of the
ninth century onwards, the cultivating kutis and the servile labouring
population were located in the ūr settlements of the settler cultivators, in the
lands under the Brahman ūrs, in the chērikkal lands of the Nāttutayavar and
the Perumāl or in the lands donated to the temples by private individuals.
Cultivating kutis and the servile labouring population were located in the
areas consisting of wet lands in the riverine areas and riparian plains,
estuarine lands, parambas and compound sites.

Epigraphical documents of the period under discussion refer to

cultivating kutis who reclaimed wetland areas and conducted agriculture
operations. It shows the expansion of wetland paddy cultivation in the riverine
areas and in the riparian plains. This process is evidently embedded in land
and labour terms.8 Certain Kīrankadambanār9 mentioned in relation to kari
lands in Vāzhapalli plate is indicative of the reclamation and cultivation
5
Puthussery Ramachandran,op. cit.,No.76.L.7.
6
Puthussery Ramachandran,op. cit., No.77, p.129.
7
Ibid, no.123, p.306.
8
The land and labour terms pertaining to the reclaim lands and cultivation process are
discussed in the first chapter.
9
M G S,A-1,L.7.

331
operations done by the settler cultivators and the cultivating kutis in the
marshy area. Certain Pakaithonkan, Thudavar, Mīnachchichirukundurār and
Kurunthorai Kundirār mentioned in Pārthivapuram plate10 are believed to be
cultivating kutis identified with wetland cultivation. Avittaththūr inscription
mentions ivvūrkutikal11, the cultivating kutis settled in the ūr settlement.
Chemmaruthar mentioned in Tirunandikkarai plate indicates the cultivators
settled as kutis, points to the location of a cultivating kuti whose existence
goes back to long historical past.12 Certain Karunantharuman, a settler
cultivator, is identified as a member of a cultivating kuti in the Pāliyam plate13
, also reveals that the cultivating kutis must have developed from the settler
cultivators. Certain Kannakālaiyudaiyār and Thachchanār, the people who
settled as cultivating kutis, were responsible for the creation of wet land
spaces from the marshy area14 for paddy cultivation. Kāraikkādudaiyar,
mentioned in a Trikkakara plate, seems to be a cultivator related to the
cultivating kuti in a wetland area.15 Kōthaiyūr, and pulaiveruvatti mentioned
in a Muzhikkalam inscription16 are indicative of the kuti cultivators and their
production operations in marshy area.

The above examples show that the cultivating kutis cultivated the lands
along with the servile labourers over which the dominant households of the
settler cultivators had certain control. A part of the surplus was donated to the
temple by the dominant households. This led to the proliferation of Brahman
settlements and emergence of Saivite or Vaishnavite structural temples. The
Nāttutayavars who either emerged from the dominant families from the settler

10
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit., No.75.p115.
11
M G S,A-10,L.14.
12
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit., No.76.p128.
13
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit., No.77.pp.129-133.
14
M G S,A-24, Kannakālaiyudaiyārpōttai and thachchanārpōttai .
15
M G S,B-10.
16
M G S, A-37.Kōthaiyūr vayilkādu, nedunganpār, and pulaiveruvatti are part of a
cherikkal lands.

332
cultivators or from the tribal chiefs, donated a share of the produce they
received from the cultivating kutis as obligatory payment and a few attipēr
grants were also donated to the temples by them. The settler cultivators
donated a produce from the lands they controlled and, at times, the productive
land itself was also donated to the temples. The important point is that what
was actually granted was a share of the produce from the land and not the
land as a whole and in case land was granted it was donated attipēr grants.

Ayiranikkalam inscription can be sited as a nodal example to suggest

this process to shows how the cultivating kutis and the labouring population
settled in the ūr settlements and came under the domination of brahmanical
temple. It also reveals the way in which production operations were
conducted by the cultivating kutis who lived in the extended households in the
puras. We find two ūr settlements where cultivation operations developed
both in paddy fields and in the mixed crop lands.17 The production operations
in these ūr settlements were done by cultivating kutis with the labour of the
servile population called Pulayar.18 The descent heads of the extended
families of the cultivating kutis are also referred to in the text as kutipati19 and
the cultivation operations were done with the leadership of the elders of each
extended family of the kutis called kutiyil mūththavan.20 The kutis inhabited
in the pura, the house sites of the cultivating kutis. The land cultivated by the
kutis was the collective possession of the extended households of the kutis,

17
The two ūrs where the lands spaces called kātu ,karai kazhi located to indicate the
forested area near mixed crop cultivating lands, elevated land spaces in the parambu
area and land located near the salt pan respectively. The epithet kīzhvāyanum
mēlvāyanum indicates the land produce and tree produce in both the wetland and the
mixed crop lands. The epithet mullu muyaru mukkan pampu kallum karitum
kanjirakuttiyum iththanaiyum ullodunka indicate the mixed crop lands, Puthusseri
Ramachandran, op .cit., No.8, Ls.3-5.
18
Athikārappetta pulayaralum, ibid L.3.
19
ivvīrandūrilum pathiyaiyum,ibid, L.6.
20
Pūmi kutiyil mūththavalai vazhakkatirai, ibid, L.21.

333
and the kutis controlled the lands they cultivated.21 The term kutiyil
mūththavan or mūththavar refer to the elder members of the cultivating
kutis who managed to cultivate the lands, which the extended households of
the cultivating kutis collectively possessed.

Parambu lands developed from the early historical periods. The

proliferation of settlements and expansion of mixed crop cultivation in the
laterite parambu areas can be seen in many a number of documents of the
period under discussion. Vāzhapalli plate mentions a purayidam of a
cultivating kuti called Kavathi kanna Sankaran puraiyidam22 and a purayidam
of a cultivating kuti located in an ūr settlement is also mentioned.23 Certain
Ittiyaikādar and Nārayanan Chāththan were related to multi culture operations
and compound sites, purayidams, in the laterite parambu areas.24 Similarly,
Kollarchēriavarkal is also related to the cultivation of paramba land.25 The
land spaces related to parambus26 in which the compound sites are located.
Similarly, multi culture garden spaces are mentioned in a number of
inscriptions. Parambus are predominantly multi crop cultivation areas and
purayidams are compound sites located in the parambus where multi culture
operations were also practiced. Chokkur inscription mentions the cultivating
kuti settled in a purayidam called kuraichīkandanpuraiyidam27 and kutiyirikka
puraiyidam28, which show cultivating kutis settled in the compound sites
located in the parambu lands. Ittiyarkadarpuraiyidam and Narayanan

21
Ivvūr kutikalarkkuttu karaipūmi, ibid, L.24.
22
M G S,A-1,L.9.
23
ūrakathu pīlikōttu purayidam,ibid,L.9
24
M G S,A-9
25
M G S,A-30, Kollarchēriyavarkaludayathediyanparambu.
26
pūyaththu parambu and perumparambu[Tirumuzhikkalam inscription of Bhaskara
Ravivarman, M G S,A-37]. āttūttiparambu and chethidanparambu[Tiruvalla Copper
Plate, M G S,A-80].
27
M G S,A-8, L.22. It also mentions certain Chattan Kandan who is a cultivator, ibid,
Ls.27-28.
28
Ibid, L.43.

334
Chaththan puraiyidam mentioned in the Nedumpuram tali inscription29 also
reveals the location of the purayidams of the cultivating kutis in the laterite
parambu areas.

Certain Vayila Kumaran Iyakkan30, Sankara Sridharan31, Thaniyan of

Chirathala32, Maniyan Kandan33 , Iyakkanar of Chalakkkara34 , Kadathiran
Kumaran of Kuveli35, Chandira Sekharanar of thavattikuveri36 and Narayanan
Sankaran of kuruvatteri37 mentioned in the Chembra inscription38 indicate the
existence of cultivating kutis who settled in the mixed crop lands which were
cultivated by their extended families presumably with the help of the labour
of the servile populations. The location of the kuti settlement in an undated
Chembra inscription also indicates the anterior development of this process.39
A share of the produce including the spices from these multi culture lands was
donated to the Chembra temple to meet certain expenses in the temple. The
purayidams mentioned in inscriptions such as Trikakara40, Trikodithanam41,
Kinalur42, Panthalayini43, Kollur Matham44, Kuravakavu45, Kilimanur 46
and

29
M G S,A-9, Ls.26.
30
He and his mother and sister of mother who held the mayilkkara puraiyidam, Chembra
inscription, M R Raghava Varier, op.cit., Ls.9-11.
31
He cultivates certain kunnathu purayidam, ibid, Ls.16-18.
32
He cultivates thirumaleri puraiyidam, ibid, Ls.18-20.
33
He cultivates vengayattu puraiyidam and kottaraveliyakam, ibid, Ls.21-27.
34
He cultivates izhikkattupurayidam, ibid, Ls.27-29.
35
He cultivate kottiyar veliyakam,manathunayar veliyakam,karumara veliyakam,
ibid,Ls.29-31.
36
He cultivates the lands called pallipuram, ibid, Ls.33-35.
37
He cultivates vallakulapattau ,uthiyanpuram , thirumangalam and a purayidam,
ibid,Ls.36-38.
38
M R Raghava Varier, Kēraliyatha Charithramānangal, op.cit.,
39
Ibid.
40
M G S,A-26 and M G S,A-43.
41
M G S,A-64and TAS.Vol.5.Part.2.No.58.
42
M G S,B-23
43
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit.,No.185,p.387.
44
M G S,B-15.
45
M G S,B-24.
46
Puthussery Ramachandran,op.cit.,No.101.pp.209-210.

335
Mampalli47 across the region suggest the proliferation of compound sites and
the development of parambu cultivation in the region under discussion. It not
only indicates the development of mixed crop cultivation but also the
settlements of the cultivating kutis and the location of the servile labouring
groups attached to such lands. Tiruvalla plates mention as many as 55
purayidams48 in which a number of cultivating kutis must have been settled.
The development of these compound sites is related to the expansion of multi
culture operations in the laterite areas in the midland and to the development
of cultivating kutis and the servile labourers settled in these areas. Thōttam49,
vila and vilākam are mentioned in the epigraphical documents, which also
indicate the cultivation of garden crops including coconut and sugar cane.

Kovinnanār, Paravanār, Pattiar50, tharappalil Unnathan, Inthiran and

Chāntār mentioned in Tiruvanvandur plate51 seem to be settler cultivators who
settled in the kuti settlements, indicate that these kutis or their ancestors might
have been responsible for the reclamation of estuarine lands or the kari and
vaipu lands from water logging estuarine areas. Certain Chirakkaraiyil
mūththavan mentioned in the same document is the elder member of the
cultivating kuti52and kuti, as mentioned elsewhere, must have been the
extended household. Pullan kannan thudava, nāganārthudava and
pulikkonur, thondanār thudavai are related to certain people who might have

47
TAS.4.pp.72-82.
48
M G S,A-80.
49
Thōranathōttam and āndilanthōttam [kollam inscription of Sthanu Ravi, MG S, A-6],
idaithōttanilam and punnaithōtam [Kollur Matham Plates ], nedumanthōttam
[Parthivapuram plate of Kokkarunnadakkar, AD.866], chembakathōttam, pūnthōttam,
perunthōttam and māvaliyālthōttam [Tiruvalla plates, MGS,A-80], arunkādan thōttam
[Tiruvannur inscription, M G S,A-76] and vayirāvanar thōttam [Kollam inscriptions,
TAS.Vol.5.part.1.pp.46-47]. Certain podikkāttuvilai indicates the multi culture
operation like pepper [Kollur Matham Plate].
50
M G S,B-14.
51
M G S,B-13, kovinnanār kari, paravanār kari, indranīlan kari, tharappalil unnathan
vaippu.
52
M G S,B-6.

336
been the original settlers and became part of the cultivating kutis of the area.53
The epithet chēnnankari uzhannavar mentioned in the Tiruvalla copper plate
indicates the existence of cultivating kutis who cultivated the estuarine
lands.54 Tiruvalla Copper Plate mentions as many as 67 kari lands to indicate
the cultivating kutis who cultivated these kari lands in the estuarine areas.55 It
also indicates the reclaim activities of such estuarine land spaces for wet land
agriculture which must have been done with the labour of the servile groups.

The Tarsa Church document mentions kuti settlements in the Kollam

nakaram. Certain nālukuti Īzhavar, one kuti of Vannār are mentioned in this
inscription.56 Two kuti of Chiruviyar, one kuti Thachar, nālu kuti Vellālar 57

and two kutipathis [Punnaithalaipathi and Pūlaikkutipathi] are mentioned to

indicate the cultivating kuti who settled and conduct the cultivation operations
in the lands and the descent heads of extended families of the cultivating kutis
and other kutis of auxiliary occupation. The land where these kutis settled was
donated to the Church of Tarsa. The epithet ippūmiyil kutikalayum 58mentions
the kutis settled in the land and pūmiththalaiyum kutikal pātum, to indicate the
relation between the cultivating kutis and the land they settled.59 Certain
nakarathil kutikal, the kutis settled in the town is mentioned in the Jewish
Copper plate.60 The kutis of Vāniyar and ainkammālar settled in the trade
settlements are mentioned in the Vira Raghava plate.61 Kutis of the auxiliary
occupants to agriculture like craft groups and metalworkers are also
developed as kutis. Cultivating groups were known as kutis and they were
settled in ūr settlements which is taken into account here as production

53
Kollur matham plates, M G S,B-15.
54
M G S, A-80.
55
M G S, A-80.
56
M G S,A-2,Ls.6-8.
57
M G S, A-6, L.2.
58
Ibid, L.18.
59
ibid Ls.20-21.
60
M G S,A-34,L.13.
61
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit., No.133, L.11.

337
localities. These production localities are located in both laterite and wetland
areas, wetland paddy cultivation areas are located in the alluvial areas where
the production localities of the cultivating kutis began to be subjected to the
domination of the dominant households of the settler cultivators,
Nāttutayavar, and brahman ūrs and to the temples.

The dominant households that developed from the settler cultivators

donated the share of the produce they received from the cultivating kutis to
the temples. The Nāttutayavars were able to establish over lordship over the
lands from where the share of the produce were given to the Nāttutayavars as
obligatory payments by cultivating kutis who settled and cultivated in such
lands. The cultivating kutis gave a share of the produce as obligatory payment
or katama to these Nāttutayavar and at times, Nāttutayavar donated these
share to the temples to meet the offerings they made in these temples.
Majority of the temples are located in the wet land paddy areas where the
Brahman ūrs were developed. The chērikkal lands of the Nāttutayavar and the
Perumāls were also located in wetland areas. Chērikals are also located in the
mixed crop areas where the cultivation operations were done by the
cultivating kutis with the labour of the servile groups. The important aspect in
the formation of the kuti settlements in the laterite area is the development
parambu cultivation and the proliferation of compound sites called
purayidams. The multi culture operations in the paramba areas developed the
settlements of cultivating kutis and the servile labourers, these groups were
located and developed different from that of the wet land area.

We also find that the kuti settlements became part of a tenuarial

relation called kārānmai – mithātchi in the southern part of the region where
the Āy dynasty established overlordship.62 The rest of the region where the

62
The kārānmai –mītatchi form of tenurial dominations were developed from the time of
the Pallavas when the Brahman temples established a tenurial dominance over the lands
from which the share of the produces were donated to the temples. Pulamkurichi

338
overlordship was established either by the Nāttutayavar , ūrālar of the
temples or by the Chēra Perumāls. The land holding households who
developed from the settlers cultivators used to donate the share of the produce
they received from the cultivating kutis. When they donated the share of the
produce to the temples these land-holding households in the ūr settlements
became the kārālar to the temples, as the temples were able to establish
certain tenurial control over such lands where the cultivating kutis engaged in
the production operations along with the labour of the Āl /Adiyār groups. It is
important to note that the cultivating kutis and the primary producers called Āl
or Adiyār were also subjected to the tenurial domination made by the
respective overlords in the areas concerned. The primary producers had been
attached to the lands held by the settler cultivators, Nāttutayavar and other
dominant groups including Brahmans and institutions like temples. The term
Pulayar became a specific term to denote their location in the labour process
in ūr settlements and their condition of servility is attested in the generic
terms Āl and Adiyār. The Āl and Adiyār are generic terms to indicate the
condition of existence of the primary producers in the production process in
both laterite parambu and wetland area where they were tied to the land as
instruments of production.

The development of wetland agriculture in alluvial areas and

multicultural operations in parambus indicate the growth of two forms of
economies that developed the cultivating kutis and the servile groups in
respective areas along with the shifting cultivation and foraging practices.

inscription also mentions such developments, Rajan Gurukkal, The Agrarian System
and Socio- Political Organization Under the Early Pandyas, c. A D 600-1000,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, JNU, New Delhi, 1984, p.21. Velvikuti inscription refers to
the grant of miyatchi and kārānmai rights over the village of Velvikuti, K A N Sastri,
The Pandyan Kingdom,[1929][University of Madras,1972], p. 78. Rajan Gurukkal
studied the kāranmai mītātchi relations developed over the lands mentioned in the
Parthivasekharapuram Plates, Rajan Gurukkal, The Agrarian System and Socio-
Political Organization Under the Early Pandyas, op.cit., pp.109-110.

339
Hunting and collection of forest produce were done by the forest dwellers, the
forest produce like honey, ivory, medicinal herbs, timber of different variety
and aromatic woods were made available at the local markets and from there
reached the ports of trades. Different groups of people engaged in the various
stages of production operations in the multiple economies. People subsisted
largely on the produce from the mixed crops in the parambas and crops
cultivated in shifting cultivation areas including varieties of millets and
mountain paddy. It indicates the fact that the majority of the population in the
region subsisted on the produces from the areas other than the crops cultivated
in wetland paddy area.

Atiyār/ Āl / Pulayar in the Labour Process

Agriculture production in wetland area included paddy, coconut, sugarcane

etc. Mixed crops like millets, lentils, pulses, yams, tubes, fibers and spices
were in the parambus and compound sites. Punan cultivation in the forested
area included the millets of different variety and hill paddy. The kutis
cultivated the lands in both alluvial wetlands and laterite parambus. The
people inhabited in forested spaces engaged in hunting, foraging activities and
collection of forest produce. They also engaged in punam cultivation. It was
in the wetland and parambu cultivation areas that the Āl / Adiyār /Pulayar
groups developed. We have already seen that they developed from the process
of agrarian production that consolidated by the beginning of the ninth century.
The settler cultivators and Brahman ūrs were concentrated in this area in the
beginning and began to spread to the hinterlands in course of time.
Overlordships over the cultivating kutis in the production localities in both
wetland and parambu areas were established by the various Nāttutayavars
who donated a share of the produce they received as kutima to temples. Some
of the Nāttutayavar granted lands and enabled the Brahmans to settle in the

340
productive lands where the cultivating kutis and population were already
settled.63

Pulayar were made to settle near the threshing ground or kalam

adjacent to the cultivating fields64 by either the settler cultivators or
Nāttutayavar and their labour services were required when the wetland
cultivation was expanded in the riverine and riparian areas. It is in this
document that we find the labour of the Pulayar was rewarded in the form of
land or the share of the produce. However, Pulayar were being increasingly
employed as servile labourers when the Nāttutayavar began to collect the
kutima or obligatory payment from the cultivating kutis.

The kutis cultivated lands from where the share of the produce was
donated to the temple by the Nāttutayavars. The kutis themselves were also
forced to give a share of the produce in the form of pāttam to the temples.
This was due to the dominance that the temples acquired over the cultivating
kutis. It was in this context that the generation of surplus became necessary as
the temples became wealthier over period of time. Extension of more
surpluses also necessitated that the primary producing groups were to be
settled to provide labour services in the activities of water management,
irrigation works and other agriculture operations including the protection of
fields as part of the expansion of cultivation in wetland region.

In order to meet the resource requirements of the various groups like

Nāttutayavar and their retinue, the landholding families, Brahmans and
temples, certain form of instituted process of labour realization was
inevitable. It was in this context that the cultivating kutis who in these areas
became subservient tenant cultivators to a number of overlords. Similarly,

63
Tirupparkatal temple inscription and the Tiruvadur inscriptions mention that the
Brahmans were settled by the initiative of the Nātutayavars.
64
Pulērku koduththa īrandēr nilaththinum kizhakkku, Parthivapuram Plate, TAS, Vol.3,
pp.52-56.

341
labouring groups like Pulayar were also subjected to the over lordship of the
temples and the Nāttutayavars.65 Marshy waterborn areas were being
increasingly brought under cultivation using the Pulayar66is one of the
features of the wetland agriculture in this phase of agriculture expansion in
the wetland area.67 The estuarine areas in the Kuttanatu region were
reclaimed and cultivation started68. References to siriyaparayankari and
padinjāyiruparayankari in the epigraphical material indicate, in addition to
Pulayar, servile population like Parayar were also made to settle to reclaim
the estuarine lands and cultivation in these lands.69 This developed a number
of Brahman land holding families in this area.70

Paraiyanpurāy71, paraiyanvalāl72, parayarkāttuchēri73 and

pulaiyanmuthai74 referred to in the documents reveal that the Parayar and
Pulayar groups must have been settled to reclaim land spaces and to conduct
the cultivation operations as part of the expansion of agriculture to meet the
resource requirements of the respective overlords. Certain old land or old
pasture lands called muthai such as karunthāzhemuthai, punalimuthai, were
65
Ivattintlyaikarayum pulaiyum kārāimamitātchi ulladanka iraiyilikōnīkki chemmaruthar
kudiyāga pārthivashēkharapurathuperumakkal kāttūttuvathāga attikkuduttathu,
TAS.Vol.1, p.42.
66
Padunilanīkki ithanakam tholikkottodu kūdappunjaikuttuntharikkurayuzhu kodu
chelluppulayarum, TAS.Vol.1, pp.275-283.
67
This was developed as punjai cultivation in the water-laden areas where it was practiced
as a summer crop and opposed to nanjai.
68
This is discussed in the previous chapter, the arduous labor of the Pulayar made
converted the waterscapes of the estuaries into cultivable fields for paddy cultivation.
69
Kandiyur inscription, TAS.Vol.1, pp.414-417.
70
Kandiyur inscription mention that certain persons such as Dāmōdiran Nārāyanan of
Nandāmanaichchēry and Kāman Sutti of KuttikkāduAkkisharman Nārāyanan of
VayiramanaiNārāyanan, Gōvindan of Vayiramanai, Iyakkan Paramēsvaran of
Punnaichchēry illam, Iyakkan Kēralan Punnaichchēry illam , Kumāran Maniyan of
Thāmarai palli, Kumaran Maniyan of Thāmaraipalli and Kandan Dēvan of
Malliyaichchēry and they became the landholding groups.
71
MGS,A-80.L.249.Certain ‘kāvathiyārpurāy’ mentioned in the Tiruvalla Plate may be
related to the same group, M G S,A.80,L.619.
72
M G S,A-80,L.611.
73
This land term is mentioned in a mid-fourteenth century Saththankulangara inscription,
TAS.Vol.4.pp160-161.
74
M G S,A-80,L.507.

342
being increasingly brought under cultivation.75 It indicates that the old lands
or pasture lands were being brought under wet land cultivation probably with
the labour of people like Pulayar. The references to the land called
kadapanangādu and the Āl attached to this land76 indicates the servile
labouring population must have been employed in the reclamation and
cultivation operations by the landholding groups. Certain chāntārkādu
mentioned in a document indicates the settlement of the laboring population
called Chāntār.77 Reference to pulayannadaipunnu78 in a Chennamangalam
inscription indicates that Pulayar were settled near a waterborne area for the
purpose of reclamation of a marshy land and cultivation in it.

The above examples suggest that the labouring population were

employed for reclaim the water laden areas, conduct irrigation activities and
in a variety of labour activities in the process of agriculture operations in the
wetland areas. The development of Brahman settlements and the proliferation
of structural temples in the ūr settlements, growth of the land holding
households and the consolidation of political power of the Nāttutayavar over
the nātus resulted from the labour realization of the cultivating kutis and the
servile groups in the wetland areas. The institutional mechanism that emerged
under the leadership of the Nāttutayavar and structural temples ensured the
realisation of labour for the expansion of wetland agriculture to meet the
varied resource requirements of the temples, Nāttutayavars and the land
holding households. It reveals the fact that the labouring population called Āl
/ Adiyār were made to settle and they came to be known as Pulayar, Parayar,
Chāntrar etc. The terms like Adiyār and Āl are used as generic terms to
denote their condition of existence as servile groups. The wetland cultivation

75
Land terms thara [L.458] and vadachēripurāy [L.524] mentioned in the Tiruvalla Plates
also indicate the reclamation and cultivation process made by the laboring population.
76
Thiruvalla plate M G S,A-80.L.499.
77
M G S,A-80.L.393.
78
TAS.Vol.6.part.2, pp.189-190.

343
developed in the areas where the land holding households, Nāttutayavar, and
Brahman settlements and the temples held overlordships over the lands where
the cultivating kutis and the labouring population created the surplus.

This process is further expanded into the hinterlands when the wetland
areas in the elevated spaces began to be brought under paddy cultivation
along with the mixed crop cultivation. The Pulayar attached to vayal and kara
lands in kannamangalam79 mentioned in a Trikkakara Plate can be sited as a
significant example in this context. It reveals that the wetlands where Pulayar
were attached were already developed in the production localities.
Landholding households held such lands and these areas had come under the
dominance of the Nāttudayavar when these production localities were made
part of the nātus and the political dominance of the Nāttudayavar. There were
attempts by which Nāttudayavar themselves arranged to settle such
population in chērikkal lands. It is significant to note that kutis who had
cultivated the lands which were held by the landholding families and the kutis
gave both the mēlpāti and kīzhpāti to the Nāttutayavar and to the landholding
families respectively. The mēlpāti, the obligatory payment, made by the kutis
to the Nāttutayavars was in turn donated to the temples by the
Nāttaudayavars to meet the expenditure of certain offerings made by them.
Kannan Kumaran, the Nattudayavar of Kālkarainātu made certain offerings in
the Trikkakara temple, which was met by such donation.80 The kīzhpāti was
also donated to the temple by the land holding households and they became
the kārālar to the temple.

The reference to peruvayal pūmi [land] and Pulayar attached to it

mentioned in a Trikkakara Plate also indicate the expansion of wetland
cultivation using the labour of the primary producers.81 It was in this context

79
Kannamangalathu vayalum karaiyumpulerum, MGS,B-10.
80
M G S,B-10.
81
TAS.3.PP.169-171.

344
that the Nāttutayavar themselves made arrangements to settle the servile
labourours for the reclaiming the lands and to conduct the cultivation
operations in it. Injaithuruththi and kuzhikkāduphūmi, and the servile
population called Āl attached to these lands which held by the Irāman
Māthēvi, the udayavar of Munjinātu82, is a clear indication to such
development.

The reference to vettikarikkāttukolla pūmiyumpulaiyarum83 in a

Trikkakara plate indicates certain process of the agrarian development in
which a slash and burn cultivation area was converted into a wetland
cultivation space by the labour of the Pulayar. This was occurred at a time
when the expansion of cultivation began to be developed under the settler
cultivators who had enjoyed the kīzhpāti or the lower share of the cultivated
lands. The cultivating kutis had to pay the obligatory payment called kutima
to the Nāttutayavar as mērpāti and Kannan Puraiyan, the Nāttudayavar of
Kālkarai nātu, donated his mēlpāthi84, i.e., the obligatory payment he received
from the cultivating kutis, to meet the expenses of certain offerings made by
him to the temple. The households of the settler cultivators also donated their
kīzhpāti85 to the temple to meet their offerings in the same temple.

Certain pāttamālan was nominated to look after the cultivation by

which pāttam or the lease holding became a form of tenurial domination upon
the cultivating kutis and the labouring population. Cultivating kutis became
tenant cultivators and the condition of primary producers like Āl and Pulayar
deteriorated along with the cultivating kutis. The expansion of wetland
agriculture and the fact that labouring groups were attached to the land is

82
Tiruvalla Plates,M G S,A-80.Ls.537-38.
83
M G S,A-25. Certain land called vettikarikkāttukollapūmi, situated to the west to
vāykālichirai [tank] and east to idaichirai, and Pulayar attached to it are transferred to
Trikkakara temple.
84
īppūmi mērpāthiyum paniyum konu, ibid.[2]1.
85
Mattepāthikkum.

345
indicated by the term puleverupatti in Muzhikkalam inscription.86 Another
document suggests87 that lease holding had become a feature of wet land
agriculture and tenant cultivators became a subject population to the overlords
along with the servile population. The Āl settled in the land as primary
producer is also mentioned in an Uliyannur plate is important.88

The growth of the servile labourers in the ūr settlements where settler

cultivators developed is a reflection of the development of agriculture. In the
riverine areas such lands came under the over lordship of the Chēra Perumāl
who donated two such ūrs settlements to the Ayiranikkalam temple.
Ayiranikkalam inscription mentions89 that the two ūrs were granted along
with the Pulayar attached to the lands in the ūrs. The epithet athikārapetta
pulayaralum90 indicates that the Pulayar were attached to the ūrs . This
labouring population must have been transferred along with the lands they
settled when the ūrs settlements were made part of the political domination of
the Chēra Perumāl and was donated to the temples by the members of the
royal lineage.

Expansion of cultivation in multiculture lands including the forested

area and in wetland can be seen in the Kilimānūr plates, which mentions
kilimānūr pūmiyum kādum karayum karapurayidaththinide māniyam.91 The

86
Tirumuzhikkalam inscription, TAS, Vol.2.No.7 [k].pp.45-46. It is important to mention
the terms puleruvetti and vettikarikkatu pumi as these terms indicate the Pulayar were
being attached to these lands. It also important that certain lands called chennīr vetti is
mentioned in a Chola inscription to indicate the compulsory labour and the term āl is
also mentioned in the inscription, Y Subharayalu, ‘State and Society during the Cōla
Period’ in R Champakalakshmi etl,[Eds] State and Society in Pre-Modern South
India[Cosmo Books Trissur,2002],pp.92-94[see appendix].
87
Certain peruvayal pūmi [land] and Pulayar attached to it is mentioned in a Trikkakara
inscription, TAS.3.PP.169-171[M G S,A-24].
88
Mithunukku molla pūmiyum ālum, TAS.Vol.7, part.2, No.15, p.98 [M G S, C-38].
89
Puthusseri Ramachandran, op cit, No.8.
90
Ibid, L.3.
91
Sri Vira Ādichcha Varma Tiruvadi of Venad ordered to give the village of Kilimānūr
with the forest, arable land, compound site, and kutis settled in it, TAS.Vol.5
Part.1.pp.63-85.

346
cultivating kutis and the labouring groups settled in the lands, kādum karayum
karapurayidavum ālum kūda92 and kādum karayum karapurayidavum ālum.93
The forested land spaces adjacent to compound sites in the parambas are
granted to the Tripalkatal temple, indicating that the labouring population
called Āl were an integral part of the mixed crop cultivation in the parambu
region in the midland. Development of the labouring population called Āl in
the mixed croplands was different from their counterparts in the wetland areas
as cultivation operations and labour process in the mixed crop cultivation
areas were different from the wetland areas. Similarly, Perunchellur
inscription mentions nilam and purayidam and the Āladiyār attached to such
lands94, indicates that the labouring groups belonged to the Āladiyār were
indispensible part of the parambu lands. The names of a number of
purayidams and parambus mentioned in epigraphical documents indicates
that the large extent of laterite area where a variety of mixed crops was
cultivated. References to parambu produces also indicate the expansion of
cultivation in parambu areas and in the forested areas adjacent to the
parambus.

The complexities involved in the division of labour in both wetland

and parambu lands and in foraging activities and shifting cultivation show
that there developed a number of groups among the cultivating kutis in terms
of occupational diversity. Kutis who engaged in metal working and carpentry
and the labouring groups like Pulayar, Parayar, Chantarar etc came to be
mentioned. This was a complex process by which the labouring population
consisted of people who involved in the agriculture operations in both
wetlands and parambu areas like irrigation workers, bund makers in water
logging areas, ploughmen, the field watchmen [kāvalar], the gatherers of

92
Ibid, L.8.
93
Ibid, L.50
94
pūmi nūrupothi viththupādum thangalkolla āladiyāreyum panayamāka vaipichchu,
Adharam, op.cit., Ls.12-13.

347
leaves and hides, the cattle herd, makers of agricultural implements, the
makers of bamboo products and so on. The cultivating kutis, kutis of
auxiliary occupants and labouring groups continued to settle in the ūr
settlements as producing class. The kutis who were also kinship collectives
from whom the dominant persons and descent heads developed came to be
called kutipatis who also possessed productive lands. The cultivating kutis
had to give a share of the produce to such kutipatis.

Development of Landed Intermediaries

The formation of settler cultivators in both wetland and parambu areas was
part of a transitory process by which the riverine and riparian areas were
reclaimed. Systematic cultivation started and settlements proliferated. The
expansion of cultivation and proliferation of settlements developed in the
parambu areas where the settler cultivators played a pivotal role in the
process of agrarian development. The cultivation and proliferation of
settlements from the early historical period and the growth of the settler
cultivator was part of this process. Epigraphical references on the settler
cultivators are available from the first half of the ninth century onwards,
which indicate a number of settler cultivators as having located both in
wetland and parambu areas, the anterior locations of such group in the region
can be traced to a few centuries back when the area began to be occupied by
the migrant people from the Mullai-Kurinchi region.

Vāzhaipalli plate mentions certain Kāvathi Kannan Sankaran, a private

individual, who held certain puraiyidam, is an indication to this group95 who
must have been settled in the parambu area where mixed crops were
cultivated. The people called omayanāttār, chengazhunāttūr, mudalānāttar,
padappanāttar and valluvanāttar mentioned in Parthivapuram inscription

95
M G S,A-1,L.9.

348
indicating the development of cultivating groups in the ūr settlements.96 The
development of garden lands called tho¶¶am and the multicultural operations
including coconut found mention in the Kollam plate in which certain
punnaithalai Āndilan held thōttam lands. It is possible that he might have
been a member of an extended household of the settler cultivators.97 Certain
Karkottupurathu Kadamban Kumaran seems to have belonged to a household
and donated land [thannudaiya] to the Chōkkur temple.98 The document also
attests the expansion of cultivation in both wetland and parambu areas. The
same document also mentions certain Kuraichīkandan who settled in a
puraiyidam located in a parambu area and Chāttan Kandan who held certain
thūni extend of land were part of the cultivating families donated a share of
the produce to the temple.

Certain Nārayanan Anki and Thirakānthan are stated to have been

cultivators who held dominant status as landholders donated a share of the
produces to meet the expenses of the temple of Tiruppangodu.99 An individual
called Iravi Ādichchan made certain offerings in the Trippunittura temple.100
The paramour land and puraiyidam mentioned in Chembra inscription is
clear indication to the development of cultivating groups in both wetland and
parambu areas. The two witnesses mentioned in the document seem to have
been cultivators.101 Certain individuals, mentioned in a Trikkakara plate, seem
to have belonged to the cultivating households in the ūr settlements donated
their share of produce [kīzhpāti] to the temple to meet the expenses of the
offerings they made in the temple.102 It not only indicates the emergence of

96
Puthussery Ramachandran , op. cit. , pp.115-126.
97
M G S,A-6,L.14.
98
M G S,A-8
99
M G S,A-13,Ls.32-33 and 71-72.
100
M G S,A-16,L.3.
101
M R Raghava Varier, Kēralīyatha Charithra mānangal, op.cit., pp.99-134.
102
M G S,A-25 they are Pōzhan Kumaran of mēlthali, Ūran Nakkan Kēralan, Ūran
Chēnnan, Kōtha Iravi of vantalachēri, Chinkapirān Kumaran of Mēthali,Ūran kumaran
Chāmi Kannan and Ekkan Pōzhan of Venpamala. The prefix ūran to the names of these

349
landholding families from settler cultivators in the ūr settlements but also
points to the fact that brahmanical temples increasingly received donations as
produces from the settler cultivators103. Kēsavan Sankaran who settled in a
puraiyidam in a parambu area and Kannan Kumaran of kārilam who made
certain offering in the Trikkakara temple seem to have been the landholding
groups in the ūr settlement.104 The witnesses mentioned in the document are
also members of land holding households.105

The development of the structural temples resulting from largely made

the dominant groups and the Nāttutayavars made possible that the temples
became a center of gold deposit. Certain Kōthai Kēralan of chirumattapuzhai
donated certain quantity of gold to the Trikkakara temple.106 The dominant
groups who developed from the settler cultivators took this gold deposit
against landed property on pledge can be seen in a few documents. Certain
Tuppa Narayanan and Tuppan Krishnan who received gold by pledging the
lands they collectively possessed.107 Those who received this gold from the

people indicate these groups must have originated from a long historical past when the
wetland region had been started to cultivation and settlement.
103
M G S,A-25 , They are ; Thēvan Chāttan of Attānikkōttam, Kēralan Nārāyanan of
Ilamthuruththi, Kanda Nārāyanan of perumthottam, parambudaiya Kumaran, Kanda
Nārāyanan of kuppavāzhkai,Kēralan Srikumāran, Kumāra Nārāyanan of parambudaiya,
chiraiyankōttu Iravi Vāsudēvan, kannan Pōzhan of pantrithuruththi, Kannan Kumaran of
ventalamanal,Kottan Puraiyan of kīzhakam,Kandan Puraiyan of Kuntriyur, Ūran Kottan
Kōthai , Ūran Unnichirukandan,Ūran Kumaran Chirukandan,Ūran Pōzha
Nārāyanan,Pōzhan Chāttan of velliyāmpalli and Sankaran Kumaran of pullipalli. The
witnesses mentioned in the document also seem to have belonged to the cultivating
households.
104
M G S,A-26,Ls.[2].3 and [5].3.
105
M G S,A-26, they are; Thēvan Thēvan of malapuram, Kēsavan Sankaran of
perumanaikōttam, Pōzhan Nārāyanan of Kulassēkhara Pattanam, Ūran Pōzhan
Chirikandan, Pōzhan Chāttan of velliyanpallli, Kumaran of malaiyilmpalli.
106
M G S,A-28,L.[1]5.
107
Trikkakara inscription, M G S,A-30,L.[3]1. Witnesses mentioned in the document are
belonged to settlements of the cultivators; they are Chāttan Kumaran of Velliyānpalli
and Kālan Gōvinnan of nedumkollil.

350
temple by pledging their collective landed possession also happened to be part
of the landholding households.108

Two cultivators, mentioned in one of the Trikkakara inscriptions,

Nakkan Iravi and Adichchan Iravi, who cultivated the land called
kannamangalam in chirumattapuzhai109, donated the produce from this land to
meet certain offerings in the Trikkakara temple. Certain Kōtha Nārayanan of
Cherumattapuzha and Kanda Nārāyanan of Mākkannapalli seem to have been
the land holders. 110 This indicates that the emergence of temples as centers of
wealth power was a result of increased and the subsequent rise of wealthy
landholding households and groups.111 The dominant group who developed
from the cultivators can also be seen as ūridavakai Vellālar in a Tirunelli
inscription.112 It reveals that such groups were also important functionaries of
the polity of the Nāttutayavar. There also developed the tendency of donating
landed property to the temples by the cultivators and landholders.113

Another significant development was the growth of the idaiyītar who

must have been developed from the land holding families114 in the ūr
settlements. The descend heads called kudipathis, also must have been
developed from the cultivating households in the ūr115 and thereby

108
M G S,A-28,L.[2]1-2, they are Thēva Nārayanan of ilamkulam and his brothers,
Thēvan Subramanyan, Thēvan Chuvākaran and Thēvan Chēnnan.
109
M G S,A-45.
110
Trikkakara inscription, M G S,A-44. Certain Gōvinnan Kuntrapōzhan of kulavāyini is
mentioned as the cultivator in one of the Trikkakara inscriptions, M G S,A-35,Ls.3-4.
111
Certain persons mentioned as witnesses in one of the Trikkakara inscriptions seem to be
cultivators of ūr settlements [M G S,A-41], they are Kesavan of neythalmangalathu,
Kesavan of Perumanakkadu, Narayanan of vandapadi , Chattan Chennan and Kannan
Chennan.
112
M G S, A-36, L.8.
113
One of the Tirukkadiththanam inscriptions mentions that certain Yakkan Gōvinnan of
mulankādu submitted certain lands to the temple, M G S,A-38,Ls.3-4
114
Certain Thenchēri Chēnnan Thāyan whose landed property had been confiscated due to
his mismanagement in the temple wealth was an idaiytan to the Trikkadiththanam
temple and he is also the land holder in an ūr settlement, M G S,A-64.
115
Perunnai inscription mentions, kāpālimangalathum muttūttum olla kudipathikal, M G
S,A-68.There are also references to the kutipatis who took important position in the

351
incorporated to the polity of the Nāttutayavar and subsequently to the Chēra
Perumāl. Tiruvalla copper plates mention a number of groups who held lands
as the collective property of the extended families and donated either the
lands or the share of the produce from the lands they held to the temple.116

Narayanan Chandrasekharan of idanadu made certain offerings in the

Kandiyur temple and he donated the kārānmai share of certain lands to meet
its expenses.117 Yakkan Kothai of Iravimangalam is stated to have been a
dominant landholder in one of the Trikkakara temple inscriptions.118 A
cultivator, murukanāttu Sankaran Kuntrapōzhan, held dominant position in
the ūr settlement, instituted certain offering in the Triprayar temple.119 Kothai
Chandiran of kuppaiyarpulam and Kothai Manavijayan seem to be part of
landholding group instituted certain offerings in the Pukkottur temple and
they made arrangement to meet the expenses from certain lands120held by
them. Mampalli plates mentions cultivators who held dominant position in

Kollam inscriptions as punnithalaipati and pūlaikutipati,M G S,A-2 and A-6. In the

former case, they were delegated to collect the āttaikkōl from the Perunnayil ūr
settlement and in the latter the transaction of land was made in the presence of the
kutipatis to the Tarsa Charch.
116
Mulaiyil Nambu Nāranan donated share of the produce from certain lands to meet the
expenses of his offerings in the Tiruvalla temple [M G S,A-80,L.106] is said to be a
settler cultivator. Nambi Raman of Komakattil, Pallamudaiyar[Ibid.L.152], Ponni
Yakka Nayan of kidanguparal made certain offerings and donated the produces from
lands they held collectively. Kesavan Kandan,Pallamudaiyar,Kesavan Thayan,Kunnan
Govinnan of pallam [Ibid,L.461.], Thevan Chennan of madaman and Ayyan
Godavarman of ponjikkara were part of the settler cultivators who donated a share of
the produce from the lands they held to the Tiruvalla temple to meet the expenses of the
offerings they made in the temple. Kōilpurathu Chennankumaran and his nephews held
certain lands in thēngavēlikōnam [Ibid, L.544-545] and Kovinnan Achchuthan and his
nephews granted one – fourth of produce on a land called panichchaviruthi to the
temple were part of the settler cultivators [Ibid,L.552]. Thayan Vikraman of kizhcheri is
also mentioned as a cultivator.
117
Puthussery Ramachandran, op .cit., no.154, pp.351-352.
118
M G S,B-10.
119
M G S,C-31.
120
M G S,C-23.

352
the ūr settlements and donated the large extent of landed property to the
Virakeralapuram temple.121

Production Localities and the Brahman Settlements

Formation of Brahman settlements seems to have developed from the early

historical periods when individual Brahmans were patronised and given
productive lands by chiefs. As Brahmans received lands as gifts the kutis who
were already settled in those lands became subject population to the Brahman
settlements. This process started from early historical period and individual
Brahman households called mangalams developed outside these Brahman
villages.122 As ūr settlements of the settler cultivators widened the production
localities increased. This led to the growth of land holding households which
in turn accelerated the development of the Brahman settlements. The rise of
temples in the Brahman settlements changed the character of the Brahman
settlements which led to the consolidation of the brahmanial power over the
cultivating groups. However, the settlements of the settler cultivators and the
cultivating kutis outside these Brahman settlements were larger in number and
large extent of land was cultivated in these settlements than that of the
Brahman ūrs. Thus the proliferation of the Brahman settlements and the
enlargement of the resource base of these settlements would not have been
possible without having the resource pooling from the settlements located
outside the Brahman settlements where cultivating kutis and the laboring
groups generated the resources.

The efforts made by the Nāttutayavar for the expansion of the nātu
territories brought the ūr settlements of the settler cultivators and the
cultivating kutis under the overlordship of the Nāttutayavar in the nātus. The
Brahmans also sided with the Nāttutayavar and participated in the process of

121
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit., pp.214-218.
122
K N Ganesh, Historical Geography of Natu in South India, op.cit.,p. 13.

353
making control over the cultivating settlements by way of ritual and
ideological legitimacy to the political power of the Nāttutayavar. It was
actualised through embellishing the cultural idioms, which incorporated the
land holding groups and the ruling families into the rituality of the temples,
perpetuated the offerings and donations to the temples in the form of share of
the produce, productive lands and other precious materials etc. The dominant
groups like settler cultivators, Nāttutayavar and their retinue and others
granted the share of the produce, from the lands where the cultivating kutis
and the labouring groups engaged in the production operations, to the temples
in the form of donations.

Certain legal and juridical forms were formulated by the temples in

which the discourse of sin and fear was used to control the land holding
groups and the cultivating kutis. The tenurial practices that were evolved to
ensure the resource requirements of the temple were protected through the
rituality and cosmological worldview, which made the temples parasitic
institutional and incorporative structures. The Brahman settlements and the
temples began to proliferate as the Nāttutayavars made the Brahmans to settle
in the production localities of the settler cultivators where the cultivating kutis
had already settled and cultivated. The institutional dominance and
ideological supremacy of the temples and Brahmans resulted in ensuring the
donations from the households of the landholding groups and the chiefs. They
donated a share of the produce they received from the cultivating kutis to the
temples. This situation enabled the temples to establish certain tenurial
control over the lands in the production localities located outside the Brahman
settlements from where the produce was donated to the temples. This was a
long process which proliferated the Brahman settlements and the temples
corresponded to the expansion of cultivation in river valleys, estuarine areas
and in the mixed crop parambu areas on the one hand, and the development
of nādu formation in the midland regions and subsequently consolidation of

354
political authority of the Nāttudayavas over the production localities of the
settler cultivators and cultivating kutis on the other. This is led to the rise of a
number of occupational and service groups in the production and
redistributive process as well.

The land holding families were also in need of the cultural resources of
the brahmans and the ideological legitimacy of the temples as majority of the
landholding families developed from the settler cultivators. The Brahmans
sought the political and the physical protection of the Nāttudayavars and
Nāttutayavars were in need of the ritual and ideological legitimacy from the
temples and brahmans. It made the Nāttudayavar and brahmans to undertake
expansive efforts to make control over the agrarian surplus generated by the
cultivating kutis and the primary producing groups. It not only resulted in the
political dominance of the Nāttudayavars over more and more production
localities where the cultivating kutis settled but also to increase the donations
made by the Nāttutayavars including the ruling households and the land
holding groups in the form of the share of the produce cultivated by the
cultivating kutis and the primary producers settled in the production localities
to the brahmanical temples.

The structure and location of Brahman ūrs and the functioning of

brahmanical temples located in these ūr settlements have become important in
this context. The term ūr is meant for any settlements and the settlements of
Brahman and other groups were also known as ūr settlements. However,
historiography on early and early medieval Kerala increasingly prioritized
Brahman ūrs in understanding social formation process. Yet being
conspicuous by the silence on ūrs and settlements of communities and groups
other than that of the Brahmans.

355
 The earliest epigraphic reference to ūr settlements is in the Vazhapalli
plate.123 Similarly, certain ūrmaraiyār124 or ūrār is mentioned to indicate the
Brahmans settled in the ūrs. The epithet ūrkkumpuramāvithu, that a Brahman
could be expelled from the ūr, also indicates those who settled in the Brahman
ūrs.125 The ūrār of the Thāzhekātu gave certain land to the traders [vānikar,
namely Chattan Vatukan and Iravi Chattan of manikkiramattār to build a
pītikai [shop].126 Certain ūrum pothuvālum is mentioned in a Trikkadithanam
inscription.127 The epithet peruneythal ūrum pothuvālum has become
important in this context.128 Thirumūzhikkalathu ūr is also reveals the
importance of the ūr settlement.129 Brahman settlement was made by way of
donating productive lands to the Brahmans by the ruling families. This was
made above the settlements of the settler cultivators and cultivating kutis who
were already settled. In this sense, all most all Brahman settlements were
being raised in the productive lands where the kutis were already settled and
were cultivating the land.

The lands donated to the Brahmans were part of the settlements where
people had already settled as its original settlers. Brahmans were donated with
productive lands and they were not cultivators themselves. The new Brahman
settlers must have recognised and acknowledged the rights of the settler
cultivators who already settled in the area. As the cultivating kutis who held
certain right over the lands in which they settled and cultivated, it was
possible that the Brahmans had either migrated or were made to settle and

123
M G S,A-1,L.2, the epithet vāzhaipalli ūrār indicates the existence of a settlement as
well.
124
M G S,A-4,L.3.
125
Triprangottu inscription, M G S,A-13,Ls.58-59.
126
M G S,A-54,Ls.2-3, A stipulation is made that the ūrālar of the temple should not
enter in to the shop interfere in the activities and disturb the functioning of the shop,
Ibid,Ls.6-8.
127
M G S,A-31,L.2.
128
M G S,A-33,L[1]3.
129
M G S,A-37,Ls.2-3.

356
hence they must have adopted the names of such primordial settlements and
acknowledged the rights and privileges already enjoyed by the original
settlers. It must have been one of the reasons that these settlements were to be
known by a generic term called ūr. Brahman settlements were forced to retain
the rights and privileges enjoyed by the original settlers consisting of land
holding households and the cultivating kutis. The rights and privileges of the
settlers and the separate existence of the ūr assemblies of the land holding
groups were acknowledged by the Brahmans. The existence of non Brahman
assemblies together with the Brahman assemblies is mentioned in the
documents. The Brahman assembly of the temples called sabha which must
have acknowledged these non-Brahman assemblies of the landholding groups
among the settler cultivators. Both the Brahman and non-Brahman assemblies
were existed in relation to the landed property and the relations developed on
it.

The Brahmans settlements where the temples were built were in need
of the support of the original settlers of the area. This must have been the
reason for Brahmans to recognise the privileges and rights of the original
settlers and the assemblies of the landholding families of the non Brahman
land holders. They were incorporated into the power structure of the
brahmanical temples and this is attested in the documents pertaining to many
a number of transactions made in the temples. This made the assemblies of
the landed gentry of non-Brahman groups under the dominance of the temples
and the separate existence of these non-Brahman assemblies as autonomous
entity had been considerably reduced. Inscriptions from Ayiranikkalam130 ,
Triprangode131, Chembra132, Tirukkatiththanam133, Perunna134,

130
Puthussery Ramachandran, op.cit ., No.8, L.9 and M G S,C-36, L.2.
131
Puthusseri Ramachandran, op.cit., No.12.Ls.6-8.
132
M R Raghava Varier, keraliyatha Charithramanangal, op.cit., pp.99-118.
133
M G S,A-42,L.3.
134
M G S,A-49,L.[2].1.

357
Chennamangalam135 and Tirunalli 136
temples explicitly mention the decision
taken by both Brahman sabha and the non-Brahman assembly called ūr
together. It reveals the fact that the assembly of the land holding groups called
ūr which developed from the land holding households of the non-Brahman
groups indicates the importance of such group as landed gentry.

Ayiranikkalam inscription mentions ayirānikkalththūrārkkum

paradaiyārkkum137 and ayirānikkalththū paradaiyārum ūrārum138, indicating
the temple assembly of the Brahman called paradai and the non-brahman
assembly of the land holding groups called ūrār. Triprangode inscription also
refers to triprangōttu paradaimārum ūrpattārum139 which made arrangement
to lease certain lands. This indicates the separate existence of Brahman and
non Brahman ūrs and its assemblies called paradai and ūrpattār respectively.
Similarly, we have edanūrum thapaiyum in Chembra inscription to mention
the ūr assemblies of Brahman ūr settlement called thapai /sabhai and non
brahman ūr assembly called ūr.140 Tirukkatiththanam inscription mentions
ūrum parudaiyārum141 and thirukkadiththānaththūrārum paradaiyārum and
ūrum paradaiyum sabhaiyum.142 Perunna inscription mentions peruneythal
ūrum parudaiyārum.143 Similarly, we have the epithet paraiyūr
ūrārumparadaiyārum in Chennamangalam inscription.144 Ūrum ūrida
[nālida] vakai vellālarum mentioned in a Tirunalli Plate in which ūr

135
M G S,C-34.L.7
136
M G S,A-36,Ls.7-8.
137
Puthusseri Ramachandran, op.cit., No.8.
138
Ibid,L.9. Another document in the same temple mentions, ayirānikkalththū
paradaiyārum ūrārum,M G S,C-36, L.2.
139
M G S,A,A-3,Ls.6-8.
140
M R Raghava Varier, keraliyatha Charithramanangal, op.cit., p.111-112.
141
M G S,A-42,L.3. thirukkadiththānaththūrārum paradaiyārum and ūrum paradaiyum
sabhaiyum,
142
Another inscription in the same temple, M G S,A-64.
143
M G S,A-49,L.[2].1.
144
M G S,C-34.L.7

358
represents the non -Brahman assembly of the land holding households and
ūrida [nālida] vakai vellālarum denotes the land holding households.145

These assemblies of the non-Brahman landholders must have existed

as incorporative entity along with the Brahman sabha in the functioning of the
temples. It also shows the fact that the temples were established and
continued to exist with the active support of the land holding groups of the
non Brahmans and the temples were forced to accept their rights and
privileges. It made the temples, with the active support of the non Brahman
assemblies, to develop certain tenurial control upon the lands from where the
share of the produce was donated to meet the expenses of the offerings of the
temples and the grants of lands which were predominantly made by the land
holding groups and ruling families. This tenurial control over the lands
cultivated by the cultivating kutis changed the status of the land holding
households into kārālar and the cultivating kutis to tenant cultivators. This
also developed the Kārālar to manage cultivation process done by the
cultivating kutis and the primary producers. It developed a tenurial control in
which the intermediaries like pāttamālar were made to mediate the tenurial
dominance of the temples upon the cultivating kutis and to realize the labour
of the primary producing groups in the generation of the agrarian surplus.

Similarly, The Vellālars had already developed as the cultivating

groups and became the kārālar to the land donated to the Tarsa church as
indicated in the Kollam inscription in which the land was donated to the
church by the Nāttutayavar, pūmikku kārāzhar nālukudi vellālarum.146

145
M G S,A-36,Ls.7-8.
146
M G S.A-6. Wet land cultivation and mixed crop cultivation were done by them under
the karanmai, thēvarku naduvana nattu iduvana ittu, saw and cultivate the land for the
Thēvar, ibid.

359
Sometimes, the land holding households became the kārālar to the temple by
donating the lands or the produce of the lands to the temples concerned.147

Development of Intermediaries and the Consolidation of Production

Process

Kārālan is appointed to cultivate the mixed crop land and his share is also
mentioned in document148 and, sometimes, we have the epithet ithukkumēlāli
to indicate certain persons who were appointed to supervise the cultivation.149
Similarly, Chembra inscription reveals that certain mixed croplands are
placed under certain person to cultivate on kārānmai.150 The epithet ippūmi
ellām uzhavu, cultivate these lands by Mangalaththavakal and his sons and the
151
elder of Chiraikkarai as kārālar is a clear indication that the kārālar
developed from the households of the settler cultivators. It was from such
land holding households that the share of the produce of the lands they
collectively held or, sometimes, lands itself donated to the temples.152 When
the Nāttutayavar of Kālkarainātu made donations of a portion of the produce
he received as obligatory payment from the lands cultivated by the cultivating
kutis, he donated it to the temple by exempting the dues given to the Nādu
153
,Vāzhkai and Pani. The land from where the temple received the share of

147
Tirupparangodu inscription, M G S.A-13. Certain Kolavāyan and his descendants are
appointed as the kārālar, ibid.
148
M G S, A-19. The kārālan and take 20-kalam paddy as his share,
irupathinkalamūkārālankondu, cultivate the vayal and kara lands ,ibid.
149
Pukkala Kōpan of Valampurimangalam and Chāththan Kannan of thāyattu are
appointed to manage the cultivation of certain land called kaviyalpurathu ayini , a paddy
land, Narayankannur inscriptions, M G S,B-3 and B-21.
150
Kumaran Iyakkan of Vāyila, Sankaran Sridharan, Thariyanan of Chirathala, Maniyan
Kandan Iyakkanār of Chālakkara , Kadāthiran of Kuvēri, Chandrasēkharanār of kuvēri
are the cultivators who settled in purayidams or house site gardens and vēliyakam. ,
Chembra inscription, M R Raghava Varier, Kēraliyatha Charithramānagal, op.cit., pp-
.99-118.
151
M G S,B-6.
152
Narayanan Kesavan and Narayanan Kirittan of Mangalam donated some lands to the
Kaviyur temple, M G S,B-6
153
M G S,A-26.

360
the produces in turn given to cultivate on kārānmai.154 The obligatory
payment given to the Nāttutayavar by the cultivating kutis called kadama and
the kārānmai, the dues given to the kārālar who is supposed to conduct the
offerings made in the temples by the donors with the produce given by the
cultivating kutis155.

We also find that the mērpāthi, ie, the obligatory payment given by the
cultivating kutis from the lands cultivated to the Nāttutayavar and kīzhpāthi or
the lower share enjoyed by the land holding households on these lands were
granted to the temple by the respective holders.156 When both the shares were
donated to the temple, it led to the domination of the temples on lands which
in turn it was leased to a person who was part of an intermediary group
generally called pāttamālan. Trading activities were also related to the land
relations of the period under discussion157.

Donations made by the landholding households were in the form of the

share of the produce from the lands cultivated by the cultivating kutis and the
servile labouring population. The land itself became part of such grants to the
temple and donors of such lands also became the kārālar to such lands.158
Both wet land and mixed crop lands including the double crops lands became
part of such tenure.159 The functionaries like pathavāramākkal, those who
collected the pathavāram to the Nāttutayavar or to the Perumāl,
kutipothuvāls, the functionary of the temple who was in charge of looking
after cultivation done by the kutis from whom the share of the produce came
to the temples, and kārālar were appointed to look after the jīvitham of the

154
muttikkil kārānmai vidakkadaviyar,Ibid.
155
The epithet kadamakūdakārānmai kānpithu indicates this development, MGS.B-10.
156
M G S,A-25.
157
The document stipulates that the expenses should be met by the pāttamālan of this land
by cultivating these lands.
158
Certain Ethirangavīran and his descendants became the kārālar to the temple lands, M G
S,C-41
159
Ichchērikkalirippū kārānmai cheyyumavanum, M G S.A-37.

361
mēlsānthi in the temple.160 This points to the dominant role that the kārālan
had enjoyed in the temples under the new form of tenurial relation.161
Generally, kārālar had to meet the expenses of the offerings made in the
temples by the donors162 and thereby functioned as an intermediary group to
dominate the cultivating kutis on account of the tenurial dominance made by
the temples.

Sometimes, the Nāttutayavar granted the lands and they and their
descendants became the kārālar of such lands.163 The expansion of cultivation
in multi culture lands on kārānmai tenure was also developed164which played
a crucial role in the production of mixed crops including the spices. This must
have been a reason to support the trading groups who were mainly engaged in
the exchange of parambu products especially spices and forest produce and
they were granted lands on kāranmai tenure. Jaina shrines also made tenurial
dominance called kārānmai165upon the cultivating kutis. There is also an
indication to the tendency of tension that developed between the temples and

160
M G S,A-41, kārālanum pathavāramākkalum īrandu kuti pothuvālmārum kūti
kankānichu, kārālan, pathavāramākkal and kutipothuvāl are to supervise the cultivation
in the land.
161
Certain Chālavēli kēralan Pōzhan who was appointed as the kārālan of certain lands
[chālavēli kēralan pōzhan konda kārānmai] . He along with the Pathavaramakkal and
the Pothuval of the temple kārālanumpathavāramākkalum īrandukudi pothuvālmārum
kūdi kankānichchu.
162
Ichchelavinollapūmi kārānmai cheythu cheluththumavar is mentioned in Tiruvalla
Plates M G S,A-80,Ls.34-35.
163
Iravi Chirikandan, udayavar of Venpolinādu, granted [māvarakondu muthalamaya
attikoduthān] his lands called Muttāru [his own land or muthal, 3500-kalam nilam] and
continues to be cultivated it on kārānmai by him and his descendants. M G S,A-80, Ls.
51-54. Kumaran Udhayavarman of Vēnadu became the kārākar certain land, Kollam
inscription of Rāmartiruvadi, M G S,A-71.
164
The lands including kannankazhi, thōlanchirai, vayal and kara are mentioned in
Panniyankara inscription, M G S,A.-53.
165
Chāttan Arukkati, Kuntran Chirunankai and Chāttan Chirukandan are appointed as the
kārālar of certain chērikkal lands donated to the jaina shrine at Kinālūr by Arappan
Kunji, kurumbranattu udayavar, to meet some of the expenses in the temple, M G S,B-
23. The epithet, uzhākārānmai indicate this development, M G S,C-28.

362
the kārālars166signaling the clash of interest that had been developed between
the institutional interest of the temples and the landholding groups who were
subjected to the tenurial norms dictated by the temples. Pothuvāls were also
167
appointed as kārālar which reveals that the temple functionaries also held
land in addition to their service tenure called virutti or jīvitham.

The consolidation of the polity of Nāttutayavar also strengthened the

kārānami holding by which Nāttutayavars themselves donated lands or the
produce from the lands to the temples, resulted in bringing the cultivation of
such lands under kārānmai tenure. When Manikantan Mādhaviyāna Pillayār
thiruvadi of kīzhpērūr donated certain mixed crop lands including kādu,
karai , karapurayidam, and Āl [the servile labours attached to the lands ] to
the Trippālkadal temple in turn the temple made these lands on kārānmai,
kārānmayāka adhikarichchukondu.168 This was increased when Nāttutayavar
donated the obligatory payment they got from the cultivating kutis to the
temples.169 The agriculture expansion in estuarine lands developed kārānmai
relations which are largely represented in the documents from the estuarine
lands in Kuttanātu area.170

Another significant development was the formation of pāttamālar and

the transformation of cultivating kutis into the tenant cultivators. When lands
or the shares of the produce from the lands were donated to the temples, these
were leased to the cultivators and an intermediary group, pāttamālar, was

166
This is mentioned in a Trikulashēkharapuram plate in which a provision is made that
those kārālar who make quarrel with the kōilmānichcham and the Pothuvāls would lose
their kārānmai, M G S,C-32.
167
Maniyur inscription mentions attipērkoduththān kārānmai āka pothuvālmār yithu, M G
S,C-2.
168
Kilimanur plates, TAS.Vol.5Part.1.pp.63-85.
169
The mērpāthi on certain chērikkal land cultivated on kārānmai was transferred to
Tirukunakkara Vishnu temple, kārān nilaththilkollum mēlpāthiyum kādum, Puthussery
Ramachandran, op.cit. No. 102.pp.210-211.
170
The Haripadu inscriptions mention the epithets like niravāthittai
kārānmai,[TAS.Vol.6.Part.1.No.24, kārānmaikūr [Ibid, No.28, p.41.] and
thēvaridaikāranmai ,Ibid, No.31.p.42 to indicate this development.

363
developed as part of the leasing practices made by the temples.171 This
indicates the development of intermediary groups between the temples and
the cultivating groups172, which made the tenant cultivators a subjugated
group. When the chērikkal lands were donated to the temples, the pāttamālar
were appointed to manage the cultivation in the donated lands or the lands
from where the share of the produce was donated to the temples.173 The
Nāttutayavar also donated their mērpāti to the temple and the temple
appointed pāttamālar to cultivate such lands.174

However, even when the pāttam became a tenurial mode, temples

did not become owner of such lands rather such lands had come under the
tenurial dominance of the temples in which the cultivating kutis and the
servile labourers were subjected to the overlordship of the temples as well as
the intermediaries like pāttamālar . The chērikkal lands had increasingly
become part of the pāttam mode of tenure.175 This reveals the fact that the
political authority of the Nāttutayavar also developed in relation to the
tenurial structure providing the political support to the domination of such
practices. The development of such practice made the expansion of

171
Thāzhvārathu pāttamalakkakadaviyan, M G S,A-9.
172
We find reference to certain Ukkiramangalam who arranges to cultivate certain lands on
lease in a Nedumpuram tali inscription, M G S,A-27. If such pāttamālvan were failed to
measure out the paddy in the temple, pāttam may be taken as kānam for a year pāttam
āttaikkānamkolvithu, ibid.
173
One of the Trikkakarai inscriptions mentions that Kizhānadikal granted certain lands to
the temple to meet the expenses of her offerings and the land should be cultivated on
lease, ippūmipāttamāndu, M G S,A-24.
174
Since the expenses of the offerings made by Nāttutayavar of Kālkarainātu in the
Trikkakara temple the mērpāthi held by the udayavar was donated to the temple, as
such land called vettikarikkāttu and the Pulayar attached to it were come under the
pāttam mode of tenure under the Trikkakara temple. M G S,A-25. The kīzhpāthi, held
by certain individuals, is also granted to the temple to meet the expenses of their
offerings in the temple, ibid.
175
Tiruvanvandur inscription mentions certain pāttamālar managed to cultivate chērikkal
lands given to the temple by the Venatu ruler, Srivallabhan Kotha. M G S,B-13.

364
cultivation realizing the labour of more servile groups.176 This shows the fact
that the formation of the land holding households who developed from the
settler cultivators and the donations made by them predominantly in the form
of the produce from the lands they collectively held as extended households
or the lands itself were donated to the temples which were , of course, a few
in numbers. The tenurial dominance of the temples upon the cultivating
settlements developed the kārānmai tenure. Unlike the early form of
kārānmai relation the production process was consolidated leading to a
practice of lease holding called pāttam and the number of intermediaries.
Agricultural production process was mediated by the tenurial control of the
temples and political domination of the nāttutayavar in which the cultivating
kutis and the servile groups engaged in the labour activities and cultivation
operations under oppressive condition.

This transformed the cultivating kutis as tenant cultivators of the

temples and the Nāttutayavar and to other functionaries and groups of landed
gentry. The condition of labouring groups who did their labour on such lands
became deteriorated. The cultivating kutis became subjected to the leasing
practices dominated by the temples and was mediated by the intermediary
group called pāttamālar. The members of the temple committee called
paradai and ūrālar began to hold pāttam when the condition of the cultivating
kutis further deteriorated on account of the development of a number of
intermediaries between temples and the cultivating kutis. Therefore, the
formation of an intermediary group called pāttamālar indicates the formation
of gradation in the tenurial relation starting from the primary producers and
the cultivating kutis to the temple or the Nāttutayavar.
176
CertainThaviranūr pāttavālan mentioned in the Chokkiram plate M G S, C- 17],
pāttamidavumperārūrālar in the Pukkattur inscription [M G S, C-23], the pāttam form
of cultivation of lands in the Panniyankara inscription also and certain land in
Erālanādu is cultivated by pāttavālan [M G S, C-12]. It makes the point that temples
were able to establish a super imposed tenurial dominance over the lands cultivated by
the cultivating kutis and the labour service made by the Adiyār / l groups.

365
Landholding Groups and Intermediary Tenure

The Brahmans who settled in ūrs inhabited the extended house sites called
manai and each family was given a portion of the land from the collective
possession of the ūr to settle down and to meet their livelihood. When the
Brahmans were brought and made to settle by the ruling families177, they
settled as familial households with lands as padakāram.178 When the
structural temples of both Vaishnavite and Saivite groups were built in the ūrs
and temple centered Brahman villages proliferated the members of certain
families became part of the assembly of the temples called ūrālar sabha or
paradaiyār. This is indicated in a number of epigraphical documents and
certain ivvūrikkūrālan, the ūrālan of the temple who settled in the ūr, is
mentioned in a document of Avittaththur temple179 to indicate this
development. The ūrālar had certain rights in the temple like membership in
the temple assembly called parudai, sthānam, and idaiyīdu in the temple
lands etc. Being the members of the temple assemblies, they took, as the
documents mention, unanimous decision180regarding the donation, leasing of
lands and to frame the norms regarding the functioning of the temple and
legal notions related to the tenurial control etc. This is indicated in one of the
Trikkakara inscriptions181 in which certain kālkaraināttūrālar and
thachchanāttūrālar are mentioned. The document of Pullūrkutavalam temple
refers to certain kutavalathu ūrālar.182 Similarly, Tirumittakodu inscription

177
Kilimanur plates and Tiruvadur inscription mention the Brahmans were settled in the
northern and southern part of the region by the ruling families of Venatu and
Kolathunatu,TAS Vol.5,pp.78-85 and Puthussery Ramachandran, Op cit, Nos.125 and
126,pp.309-311.
178
1325 para seeding capacity of lands was granted as 23 padakāram among the Brahman
households settled, Devidevesvaram Plates,M G S,B-15.
179
M G S,A-10,L.12.
180
avirōthattāl is the term usually used in the documents to denote the unanimous decision
taken by the assemblies of the temples.
181
M G S,A-25,Ls.[6]6 and [7]3.
182
M G S,A-39,Ls.13-14.

366
mentions the ūrālar of the temple who were entrusted to receive the pāttam183
from the cultivating kutis. Certain irupaththoruvar is mentioned in
Ayiranikklam inscription184 to mention the ūrālar assembly of the temple and
Avittaththur inscriptions185 also refers to such assembly. Triprangōttu
paradaimār is mentioned in Triprangottu inscription186is also a case in point.
Thapai is also mentioned in Chembrai inscription.187 Sometimes, they were
also known as ganattār188 and uttiraganattar.189

The above examples suggest the collective nature of the sabha that was
exclusively a Brahman assembly of the temple. The two groups that
developed from the land holding households of the settler cultivators as the
landed gentry are the land holding group of the non Brahmans and they
constituted their assembly called ūr and, secondly, the group called idaiyītar
who were able to keep the lands donated to the temple under an intermediary
tenure called idaiyītu. Many of the idaiyītar were the members of the
assembly of the non-Brahman landholders called ūr. The existence of these
non-Brahman assemblies is attested in a number of epigraphical documents of
the period under discussion.

We also find the existence of certain group called patinettunāttār along

with the sabha and this must have been a non Brahman group who managed
the construction activities of the temples.190 The ūrālar and temple

183
Puthussery Ramachandran , op. cit. , No.55,p.90.Ls.21-23.
184
Puthussery Ramachandran, op. cit., No.8, L.2.
185
M G S,A-10,Ls.2-3.
186
M G S,A-13,Ls.6-7.
187
MR Raghava Varier, Kēraliyatha… op.cit., L.7.
188
M G S,A-47,L.[2]1.
189
M G S,A-32.
190
Thiruvāttuvāy Pathinettunāttār and Pathinettunāttār are mentioned in the Vāzhapalli
plate [M G S, A-1, L.2] and Nedumpuram Tali inscriptions [M G S,A-27,L.2.and A-
43,L.3].Tiruvatur inscription mentions kazhakaththu ninna patinettu nāttār,
Panthalayini Kollam document also refers to pathinettu nizhalkal[MGS,A-
29],Pudukkodu inscription mentions puthukkotu patinettunāttār [M G S,A-29],
Godapuram inscription also mentions Pathinettunāttār [M G S,C-28] and Netupuram

367
functionaries could also be the itaiyītar of the temple lands.191 There is also
reference to indicate that there developed clash of interests between the
temples and the idaiyītar who held intermediary tenure on the temple lands.192
These groups raised objections to the expenses of the offerings made in the
temples.193 The tendency of appropriating the produce of the temple lands was
also increased and some of the members of the temple assemblies were the
itaiyītar.194 The brahman families who had no ūrānmai in the temples could
have held itaiyitu in the temple lands.195

Multiple Economies and the Consolidation of Political Power

The chiefs who later came to be known as Nāttutayavar were, in fact,

developed from the tribal chiefs located in the millets zone in the mullai-
kurinchi region and from the dominant households in the midland region.
These chiefs tried to control both the mixed crops paramba lands and the
wetland cultivation areas. They also tried to make control over the ports of
trade where many of the parambu products including spices and forest
products reached. The control over the production localities comprised of

tali document mentions certain nithyaviyāzhesvarathup athinettunāttār [M G S,A-27].

The craft groups and temple builders were important at a time when structural temples
of both both Vaishnavaite and Vaishnavaite were built and they must have been
attached to the temples.
191
Irungādikūdal idaiyīdullayidaththu is mentioned in Iringalakuta inscription [M G S,A-
3].Certain thencheri Thāyan , the treasurer of the Trikkadithanam temple held certain
idaiyītu land [M G S.A-64]and the epithet ūrānmaikkidayīdum kettu indicates that The
ūrālar in the temple is also the idayītar of the temple lands,Ibid.
192
Tiruvāttuvāy inscription mentions those idaiyitar who follow the righteous paths should
be fed, arathinaridai īdu udayārāchērvarkalai ūttakkadavar indicating there might have
existed the itaiyitar who had broken the norms stipulated by the temples [M G S.A-4].
193
The epithet, idayītan ichchelavu virōthikkil, if idayītan makes objection to this
expenditure, mentioned in Perunnayil inscription, would liable to pay fine to the
sabhai,[ M G S.C-42].
194
Kumaranallur inscription mentions, ūrkkidayīdumkettu, those ūrālar who make
obstruction in the cultivation in the temple lands lose their idaiyītu in the ūr.
195
Document of the Kumaranallur temple[M G S,C-43] also mentions
ūrānmaiyillāththavarul ikkachcham pizhaippōr illangaludaya idaiyīdu akanāzhiyai
chelavinōdokkum, those who do not have the ūrānmai in the temple and if they violate
this kachcham, idaiyītu of their illam [house] should be gone for temple expenses.

368
parambu and wetland areas and hill crops as well as forest produce provided
them the resource base for expanding their political authority. Formation of
nātus indicates the process of agrarian expansion and the incorporation of
various economies existed in diverse eco systems consisted the kātu and nātu
areas under the over lordships of these chiefs. Brahman villages and the
temples developed in these settlements had become part of this process. This
was a process by which the products from both the wetland and parambu
lands were appropriated by a class comprised of the households that held land
rights and developed from the settler cultivators , Brahman ūrs , temples and
the Nāttutayavar and their retinue and the households of ruling lineages .

The variety of millets and paddy cultivated in the punam tracts and the
spice and forest products reached the exchange centers or ports of trade, a
share of which must have also reached the temples and to the dominant
Brahman and non-Brahman households. When the territorial control of the
chiefs began to develop over the nātu territories, the chiefs became the
udayavar of these nātus and the production localities of the settler cultivators
were integrated to the political authority of these nātus along with the people
consisting of cultivating kutis , the labouring groups, punam cultivators ,
pastoral groups and the forest dwellers. Thus, the nātus became the resource
base of the political authority of the Nāttudayavars, which included the
production localities in both wetland areas and parambus; the various ports of
trade to which the parambu products and forest produces reached. Those
Nāttutayavar who were able to control these ports of trade became powerful
and they developed the paraphernalia of political control. It also reveals the
fact that the resources from multiple economies and the control of ports of
trade provided the base of the political power of the Nāttutayavar.

When the nātus became the political territories of the Nāttutayavars

the production localities comprised of various ūr settlements were subjected

369
to the over lordship of these Nāttutayavars. The cultivating kutis and
labouring population settled and cultivated in both parambu and wetlands
were brought under the institutional domination of the polity of the
Nāttudayavar. The cultivating kutis had to give the obligatory payment called
kutima or mēlpāti to the Nāttutayavar. The expansive endeavors made by the
Nāttutayavars with their kins and retinue developed an institutional
mechanism of the polity of the Nāttutayavar which played crucial role in the
process of appropriating the agrarian surplus and realizing the labour of
cultivating kutis and servile groups. It was from this mechanism of resource
appropriation and the realization of labour that the institutional structure of
the polity of the Nāttudayavar developed. This was enlarged when more
areas comprised of different livelihood forms existed in multiple economies
were incorporated to the polity of the Nāttutayavar. They included the
descend heads of the cultivating kutis called kutipatis, dominant groups from
the land holding families, heads of the primordial settlers, martial groups and
tribal chiefs and so on.

It was this process, which brought the non-cultivating groups,

primordial settlers, punam cultivators, those who subsisted on hunting and
gathering etc into the cultivation operations in the parambu and wetland areas
as labouring groups. Some of them were retained as the permanent labouring
groups for reclaim the lands and cultivation operations. The political power of
the Nāttutayavars was realized by extending the reach of power to various
social groups in different economies. This resulted in wider reach, composite
character and secular power of the polity of the Nāttutayavar. Certain
intermediaries developed from the process of consolidation of the polity of
the Nāttutayavar mediated the resource appropriation from the groups who
were positioned as producing class in various economies. The associates and
the retinue of the Nāttutayavars delegated the political power of the
Nāttudayavar. They were designated as the Kutipatis, Vāzhkai, Nātu, Nizhal,

370
Pani, Prakriti, Adhikārar, Nūttuvar etc to be functioned as the mediators and
arbitrators of the political power of the Nāttutayavar.

The surplus generated by the cultivating kutis and the laboring groups
like Adiyār /Āl /Pulayar was appropriated in the form of pāttam based on a
tenurial control by which the cultivating kutis had to give the portion of their
produce at the stipulated times as tenant cultivators. This was remitted to the
temples usually at the time of harvest196, mostly, in Thulām and Mēdam
months197, sometimes it was in Idavam198or Vrischikam.199 The produces were
measured either at the kottakāram200 [granary] of the temple, kalam201 ,
threshing ground attached to the cultivated lands in the production localities
called ūrs, thāzhvāram202 or near the cultivated land and palakaithalai 203
in
the temple itself, or simply in the mukkālvattam204 i.e. the temple or at the
person appointed as patinaruvar205 for the purpose. Documents show that it
was to be measured without involving any extra labour charge called
puraikūli.206 Certain īrandu kudipothuvālum mentioned in the inscriptions207

196
Kumaranallur Plate mentions this as koithālollathu [M G S, C-43. L.3].
197
thāzhvārathu alpiyai vizhuvinum chittirai vizhuvinum nellalakkakadavan ,M G S,A-
27,L.7, chittirai vishu[Trikkadithanam,M G S,A-38,L.3 and Trikkadithanam ,M G S,A-
43,L.[3].4].
198
Idapamnjāyor, Trikkadithanam, M G S, A-42, L. [3].2], Idavam month[M G S,A-
49[2].2].
199
Vrichika njāyar [month]is mentioned in a Trikkakara Plate, [M G S, and A-30].
200
Trikkakara Inscription, M G S, A-19, L. [3]1.
201
Avvūrkalaththil alanthukodukka kadavar, Ayiranikalam inscription, Puthusseri
Ramachandran, op. cit., No.8.L.16.
202
ithināttāzhvārathukōil pāttamalakkakadaviyan,Nedumpuram Tali Inscription,M G S,A-
9,Ls.5-6, thāzhvārathu alpiyai vizhuvinum chittirai vizhuvinum nellalakkakadavan ,M
G S,A-27,L.7.
203
Trikkakara Inscription, M G S,A-30,Ls.[5]3 and [6]1.
204
Tirukkadithanam Inscription, M G S, A-42, L. [3]3.
205
Ibid.L.3.
206
Puraikūli nīkki [Vellayani inscription, Puthussery Ramachandran, No.102, L.4, pp.210-
211] and puraikūliyum nīkki mentioned in Tiruvayambadi inscription, [Puthussery
Ramachandran, No.99,Ls.23-24,pp.204-206] to denote that the incidental charges to be
incurred in taking the paddy to the courtyard of the temple or the place mentioned as the
case may be [ see the remarks made by the editor in TAS .Vol.3 . Part.1.No.9] , ie ,
paddy should be measured at the place stipulated without involving any extra labour
charges. Sometimes, we have the epithet nāzhikuravu pokkakodukkakadavar

371
indicates that the persons called kutipotuvāls were given charge of managing
the affairs related to the cultivation and the collection of share of the produce.
Not only the cultivation operations but also the shares of the produces to the
respective overlord were to be carried out by the direct producers called
Adiyār / Āl or Pulayar to the destination concerned. The lands that were
designated and based on service tenure are called virutti, where cultivation
operations were done by the cultivating kutis as tenant cultivators, and they
also had to pay the respective shares to the virutti holders who were the
temple functionaries as well.

There developed certain forms of measurements in relation to the

appropriation of the surplus. Uri and nāzhi208 are the smallest measures used
to measure corn like paddy and two uri is equal to one nāzhi.209 Certain
thēvar nāzhi210 and kongu nāzhi are also mentioned in Chembra inscription211.
Idangazhi212 is next to the nāzhi213. A Nedumpuram tali inscription assigned
to eleventh century referrers to the exchange rate of 600-nāzhi paddy as 30-

[Trikkakara inscription, MG S,A-28,L.[4]3. The cultivators should measure out the

produce [paddy] after processing and drying at the temple in the month of Idavam is
mentioned in a Trikkadithanam inscription, pūmuyuzhumavar unakki uripōki nellu
idapam njāyittu thiruvōnaththin munnēy mukkāl vattaththu alavukodukkakadaviyar, M
G S,A-42,Ls.[3]1-3.
207
Certain īrandu kudipothuvālum is mentioned in the Avittattur temple inscription [M G
S,A-10,L.3] Porangattiri inscription mentions īrandu kudipothuvālum [M G S,A-14].
Kārālanum pathavāramākkalum īrandukuti pothuvālmārum kūti kankānichchm is
mentioned in a Trikkakara inscription [M G S, A-41].
208
Vazhappalli plate , M G S,A-1,L.8,Tiruvattuvay inscription,M G S,A-4,L.3, Iranikkalam
inscription , Puthussery Ramachandran, op. cit., No.8,L.11, Nedumpuram Tali
inscription, M G S, A-9, Ls.9-10, Avittaththur inscription, M G S, A-10, L.6. Trikkakara
inscription, M G S, A-19,L.[3]3and [4]1, Chembra inscription, , M R Raghava Varier,
Keraliyatha Charithra Manangal, op cit ,L.26.
209
M G S Narayanan, Perumals of Kerala,op.cit., p.160.
210
Thēvar nāzhi is also mentioned in the Chokkur inscription, MGS, A-8, and Ls.91-92.
211
Chenbra inscription, M R Raghava Varier, Keraliyatha Charithra Manangal, op. cit.,
Ls.32,35
212
Iranikkalam inscription , Puthussery Ramachandran, op .cit., No.8,L.12, 15,
Nedumpuram Tali inscription ,M G S,A-9,L.6,Avittaththur inscription,M G S,A-10,L.7.
213
Trikkakara inscription M G S,A-45,L.[2].2, Maniyur inscription mention certain
Kōilidangazhiyāl,Puthussery Ramachandran , op. cit., No.191,Ls.28-30.

372
kazhanju gold.214 Para215 is next to idangazhi and certain onpatināzhipara216
is mentioned. Thēverparai or the parai of the Trikkakara temple is mentioned
in one of the Trikkakara inscriptions.217 Kilimanur plate mentions para.218
Certain patināzhipara / puththanpara is also mentioned.219 It shows that
original measure in the region under discussion is para, which conforms to
the system of lower measures.220 The biggest measure was called kalam 221

and ten patināzhnāzhipara or hundred nazhi constituted a kalam.222 Tūni is

mentioned in number of documents223 and it was an intermediate measure
between the nāzhi and para.224 Different types of tūnis are mentioned in
Tiruvalla Plates.225 Twenty tūni constituted a kalam.226 In the northern part
of the region where certain measurement called pothi227 existed. There were
stipulations to the cultivating kutis to measure out the produce according to
the measures of the temples, which were variously termed as thēvernāzhi,
tirumataipallināzhi, thēvartirumadaipallināzhi, thēvar idangazhi, thēvar

214
Muppathin kazhanju pon idangazhiyāl arunnūttunāzhi nel, M G S, C-38.
215
Trikkadithanam inscription, M G S,A-38,L.7,
216
Mampalli Plate, M G S, B-11, L.10, Tiruvanvandur inscription, M G S, B-13, Ls.3-4.
The onpatinazhipara is confined to Venatu region, M G S Narayanan, Perumals of
Kerala, op .cit., p.166.
217
M G S,B-10,L.[4].1
218
Kilimanur plates,[1168 C E]Ls.47,49 and 50.
219
Kollam Ramesvaram Plate, M G S, A-71, LS.24-27 and Trikkakara plates, MGS, A-80.
220
M G S Narayanan, Perumals of Kerala, op. cit., p.166.
221
Trikakara Plate , M G S,A-24,L.13nālpaththirukala nel .Ramesvarathukoil inscription, M
G S,A-71,Ls.71-72 muppaththarukala nellu. Vazhapalli Plate ,M G S,A-1,L.7-8
irupaiththankalamum. Tiruvattuvay Plate M G S,A-4,L.2 chēnnan chēnnanārkari
pathinkalamum.
222
Ibid.Nedumpuram Tali inscription M G S,A-9,L.7 nūttukalamithinātttiruvamirthinu .10
nāzhi = one kuruni and 15 kuruni = one kalam, see Elamkulam Kunjan Pillai ,
Janmisambrathayam Keralathil, in N Sam [Ed] Elamkulam Kunjan Pillaiyude
Therenjedutha Krithikal ,op .cit. ,p.594,f n.2.
223
Chokkur inscription mentions a number of tuni terms ,MGS,A-8, Porangattiri Plate, M G
S,A-14,Ls.44-51,Manipuram plate, Kinalur plate,MGS,B-23,L.23.
224
M G S Narayanan, Perumals of Kerala, op. cit.,p.166.
225
Valiya tūni, iratti tūni and onpati nāzhi tūni, M G S, A-80.
226
Ibid.
227
Peruchellur inscription Adharam, op cit, Ls.7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16. Tiruvattūr inscription,
Puthussery Ramachandran, op. cit., No.126 [2] L.15 svāmikkainathu pothi nellu.
Kuttiyattur inscription, M G S, C-3, Kinalur, M G S,B-23,L.24.

373
parai228 etc. The surplus received by the temples as pāttam from the
cultivating kutis was used for meeting various expenses in connection with
rites and rituals including the Brahman feeding and to the meet the expenses
of the services rendered by the various functionaries in the temples.229

Certain patavāramakkal were entrusted to collect the pathavāram, one

–tenth of the vāram or dues collected in kind from the cultivating kutis, in the
case of the katamai, which is given to the Nāttutayavars and to the Perumal230
by the kutis. A Trikkakara inscription mentions kārālanum
231
pathavāramākkalum īrandukuti pothuvālmārum kūti kankānichchu means
that the kārālan who was entrusted for cultivation in the lands with the kutis
and the Adiyār groups; pathavāramākkal, the persons deputed to collect the
pathavāram or dues to the Perumāl, and kutipothuvāls, the pothuvāls
appointed by the temples to supervise cultivation in the lands by the kutis and
the adiyārs. They were represented the settler cultivators, the Chēra Perumāl
and the temples, to control the kutis and collect the respective shares of the
produces on behalf of the overlords concerned. Sometimes, patavāram ,i.e.,
one-tenth of the produce was given as share to the temple as thēverude
pathavāram.232

228
Trikkakara inscription,, M G S,B-10,L.2,Chokkur inscription, M G S,A-8,Ls.91-
93,Tiruvalla Plates,M G S ,A-80,Ls.530-531,Trikkakara,M G S,A-30,L.5,Trikkakara
inscription, M G S,A-28,L.2,M G S,B-23,Ls.23-24. M G S Narayanan, Perumals of
Kerala, op.cit., pp.166-167.
229
Chānthithalaiyāy chīkkōlkadaiyāy, the temple functionaries from sānti to the menial
labourers, are mentioned in Trippunithura inscription [M G S, A-16, and Ls.4-5]. Kōil
manuchchēr is mentioned in Tirunelli plate M G S,A-46,L.17 and 20].The menial
labourers of the temple like virakidunnavan,echchiladippān,thalika āyumavan etc, are
mentioned in a Trikkakara inscription[ M G S,A-19,L.[7]2-3 and [8]1]. Pothuvals like
Akapothuval, Urpothuval, Purapothuval, and Varier and Uvachchakal are mentioned in
Kollur Matham plates, M G S, B-15.Thēvidichchi nālvar [four dancing girls] mentioned
in Tiruvalla Temple,M G S ,A-80.
230
Kārālanum pathavāramākkalum īrandukuti pothuvālmārum kūti kankānichchu is
mentioned in a Trikkakara inscription [M G S, A-41]
231
Ibid [M G S, A-41].
232
thēverude pathavāramzhippathāka, Triprangotu inscription, M G S,A-13,Ls.95-97.

374
 The nūttuvar indicate the number of households who were recruited to
the militia of the nāttutayavar. Nātus233 themselves were organization of these
groups of household units.234 These households functioned to appropriate the
resources from the cultivating kutis. The local power centers, Vāzhkai235 Pani,
and Pathi236 developed from the settler cultivators and dominant households.
These groups were integrated to the political territory of the Nāttutayavar
called nādus and began to function as the collectors of dues and delegators of
power in the polity of the Nāttudayavar. The vāzhkai were those who
developed from the local power holders from earlier period and when the
Nāttutayavar developed their overlordship over the production localities these
local power holders were integrated to the polity of the Nāttutayavar and were
assigned to collect the dues from the local area237 to the Nāttutayavar. Nizhal
and Pani238 were part of the personal guards and functionaries of the
Nāttudayavar received a share of the produce appropriated from the kutis as
katamai. Therefore, Nātu, Vāzhkai and Pati functioned as the agents of the
political authorities to appropriate the surplus produced in the cultivating
settlements within the nātus. Sometimes, the āttaikōl, the annual dues to the

233
Natus themselves were organization of groups of household units, rather than separate
villages, K N Ganesh, Historical Geography of Natu in South India …….., op.cit., p.19.
234
Ibid.
235
Nāttinum vāzhkaikum panikkum, except the dues given to the nātu, vāzhkai and pani ,
mentioned in a TrikakaraPlate, M G S,A-26.A few vazhkai terms are also appeared in
Tiruvalla Plates , M G S,A-80.
236
Punnaithalai pati and Pōlaikudipati were present while Ayyanatikal, the udayavar of
Venatu, made the land transaction to Tarasa church at Kollam, M G S, A-2.
237
Trikkadittanam inscription says āttamkollum utampāttāl vāzhkai āka pāttam, MGS,A-
31.Collection of dues from various local areas were assigned as vazhkai, K N Ganesh ,
Historical Geography of Natu in South India …….., op.cit., p.16. There are a number of
vāzhkai terms are mentioned in Tiruvalla Cpper plates; nediyānvāzhkai, irumbuzhi
vazhkayāl, kānjirakkōnathuvāzhkai,
aņukkaņvāzhkkai,thāzhapattivāzhkai,chūralppādivāzhkai,arikkāttuvāzhkkai,thattampāra
vāzhkai,virippuvāzhkai,pātturvāzhkai,parappallivāzhkai,vaļaikkachchivāzhkkai,
vaduthala vāzhkai and ediya idathittavāzhkkai , M G S,A-80.
238
Tirunelli Plate, M G S,A-46,Ls.5-6 and 22-23 [atikal puraikizhārum nizhalum paniyum].

375
Nātttudayavar and to the Perumāl were collected by the Vāzhkai.239
Āttaikolvār240 , Adikārar241 and Kudipathis242 were re-designated and was
entrusted to collect dues from the cultivating settlements in the Perumāl
area.243 They were also managed to the collection of pathavāram. The
āttaikōl244 was collected from the cultivating kutis in the ūr settlements of
different nātus by the representatives of the Chēra Perumāls as and when the

239
Trikkadithanam inscription says āttaikolvār and the epithet āttaikollum utambāttāl
vāzhkai āka pita indicating the annual dues were collected by the vazhkai, M G S, A-31.
240
Trkkadiththanam inscription mentions the āttaikōl and āttaikolvār, those who collect the
āttaikōl, M G S,A-31,panthīru kalanellu āttaikolāka amaichu and īrandarai kānamum
āttaikolvārku.
241
Athikārarum prakrithiyum [Tarisapali Plate, M G S, A-2, L.4].Athikārarum
prakrithiyum arunnūttuvarum punnaithalai pathiyum mentioned in Tarisapali Plate [M
G S,A-6,L.9]. Athikārar ivvīrandūrilum olla pathiyēyum mentioned in Ayiranikkalam
inscription, Puthusseri Ramachandran, op. cit, No.8, p.21, L.6.
242
Perunneyil inscription mentions that āttakkōl are collected by Kudipathīs from the kutis
settled in the Perunneyil ūrs for the Perumal. It seems that these āttaikkōl were
previously collected by the kudipathis, īrandūr kudipathiyum,[kāpālimangalaththum
muththūttum olla kudipathikal] from the settlements of the cultivators where kutis also
settled and after an order [kōiladhikārikal issued a royal order to both kudipathis]
kudipathis refrained from collecting these from the Perunneythal settlements, M G S,A-
68.
243
The inscriptions refer to the Perumal area are ; Irinjalakuda inscriptions of Sthanu Ravi
[RVRIB[10]1.p.43., Tirumuzhikkalam inscription of Indu Kota, TAS,3.No.48,
Tirumuzhikkalam inscription of Bhaskara Ravivarman,TAS,2.No.7.[K], Irinjalakuda
inscriptions of Bhaskara Ravivarman, [RVRIB[10]1.pp.44,Iranikkulam Inscription ,
[RVRIB[10]2.p.134 and. See also MGS Narayanan, the State in the Era of the Ceraman
Perumals of Kerala in R Champakalakshmi , et al[Eds],State and Society in Pre-modern
South India,op.cit.,pp.111-119.
244
The āttaikōle is collected from the area between Trikkadittanam to the Pullur Kotavalam
during the period of the Bhaskara Ravi. Āttamkollum utampāttāl vāzhkai āka pāttam
mentioned in Trikkadithanam inscription [M G S,A-31].The āttaikōl of three kazhanju
gold is granted to the Pullur Kotavalam temple by Chera Perumal Bhaskara Ravi,
Puthussery Ramachandran, op, cit, No.195,Ls.7-8, [M G S,A-39] , it is reasonable to
argue that the āttaikōl must have been collected from the cultivating kutis settled in the
area and they must have given it by commuting the share of the produce in to gold. A
Perunna inscription mentions nantuzhaināttinu āttaikōlāka kotuppānamainja [M G S,A-
49]. Āttaikōl ainkazhanju pon is mentioned in Kulathur inscription,
M R Raghava Varier, Keraliyatha Charithramanangal, op. cit.,pp.119-134.During the
time of the Chēra Perumal Ramakulasekhara āttaikōl was collected from the
Peruneythal ūr settlement and this must have been collected from the cultivating kutis
settled there, āttaikōl nālpathin kalamum, Puthussery Ramachandran op .cit.,
No.64,p.103. Attaikōl is collected from the kutis in the ūr settlement is mentioned in
Panthalayini Kollm inscription,panthalāyini ūril kollāttaikōl arunāzhi anjāzhi
Puthusseri Ramachandran, op. cit., No.68, p.109.

376
latter made over lordship over the nātu territories and polity of the
Nāttudayavars. The produce collected from the kutis settled in the ūrs as
āttaikōl is, sometimes, commuted into gold and was donated to the temples245
or the produce collected as āttaikōl itself was donated to the temples.246 The
kutis settled in the nakaram [town] in the Perumāl area also gave irai or dues
on their profession to the Perumāl.247 The Pathavāramākkal also functioned
as the collectors of dues called pathavāram. Certain emergency dues called
aranthai, especially at the time of war, was also collected from the kutis in the
ūr settlements for the Perumāl.248

The cultivating kutis became the tenant cultivators to the lands they
settled and cultivated. Though share of the produce of the lands cultivated by
the kutis had to be given as customary payment called kīzhpāti or kutima or
pāttam, the cultivating right and control of lands were vested with the kutis.
Both customary and obligatory payments made by the kutis to the respective
overlords indicate that the kutis retained the right to cultivation and
settlement. The absence of kutinīnkkikārānmai in the documents of the region
under discussion also reveals this. The right of the kutis of the occupational
groups for settlement and control of resources for the production was also
protected. However, these rights were denied to the Adiyār/Āl /Pulayar and
they were attached to the lands as instruments of production.

The surplus generated by the producing class, the cultivating kutis,

primary producers called Āl /Adiyār/ Pulayar and the auxiliary occupational

245
The āttaikōl of three-kazhanju gold is granted to the Pullur Kotavalam temple by Chera
Perumal Bhaskara Ravi, Puthussery Ramachandran, op. cit., No.195, Ls.7-8, [M G S, A-
39]. Āttaikōl ainkazhanju pon is mentioned in Kulathur inscription,M R R aghava
Varier, Keraliyatha Charithramanangal, op.cit.,pp.119-134.
246
Trikkadithanam inscription MGS,A-31,Peruneythal inscription , Puthussery
Ramachandran, op.cit., No.64,p.103 and Panthalayini Kollm inscription, Puthusseri
Ramachandran ,op.cit., No.68,p.109.
247
Jewish Copper Plate, M G S, A-34, Ls.13-14.
248
Puthussery Ramachandran , op. cit., No.64,p.103, Peruneythal aranthaiyum,M G S
Narayanan, Perumals of Kerala,op cit.,p.86.

377
kutis, was appropriated and re/distributed among a number of non-producing
groups. The Nāttuayavars , their retinue and functionaries comprised of
Vāzhkai, Pathi, Nātu, Pani, Nūttuvar, etc and the Chēra Perumāl, his
Ahikārar, Pathavāramākkal, Āttaikolvār etc, constituted a stratified
assemblage of agrarian hierarchy who became the ruling class in the agrarian
order under discussion. The households in the Brahman ūrs, the structural
temples and its functionaries were part of the ruling class who appropriated
the surplus produced by the producing class. The dominance of the polity of
Nāttudayavar and Chēra Perumāl was mediated upon the cultivating kutis
and servile labouring population through a number of functionaries like
Vāzhkai , Pathi, Nātu, Pani, Nūttuvar, etc, in which Nūttuvar249 functioned as
the most powerful agency of the polity of the Nāttutayavar who suppressed
the cultivating groups.

The ritual dominance of the temples and Brahman ūrs was materialised
by appropriating resources in the form of pāttam and fines250 from the
cultivating kutis, the brahmanical codes like kachchams251, the concept of

249
Vēnātuarunnūtttuvar [Tarisapalliplate, M G S, A-6. L. 9], nantuzhainātuvāzhumavar
munnūttuvarum [M G S,B-13.L.10-13], nantruzhai nāttu munnūttuvarum [M G S,B-
14,L.6]and nantruzhainātumunnūttuvar [MGS,C-41.L.6],mūttakūttil ezhunnūttuvarum
[Tirunelli Plate,M G S,A36,L.7], ichchērikkalvalluvanāduarunnūttuvarkkunkāval [M G
S,A,74.L.19],thirumannūrpatārarudaiyathēvaththuvamum pirammaththuvamum
arunnūttuvarkku kīzhītu [Tiruvannur plate , M G S,A-62] Tirukkadiththanam inscription
mentions munnūttuvar [M G S,A-64],kīzhmalaiarunnūttuvarum and nantruzhainātu
munnūttuvarum [M G S,B-20]kurumporai natu munnuttuvar is mentioned in Kinalur
plate, M G S,B,23.L.51].Also see K N Ganesh, Historical Geography of Natu in South
India …….., op.cit., pp.15-16.
250
The term muttukil mūttiratti is used to denote the double payment of the pāttam or the
portion of the share given to the temples for default, see M G S Narayanan Perumal of
Kerala, op.cit., p.175.
251
The mūzhikkalam kachchams which is variously mentioned as muzhikkala
vyavasthai,muzhikkalathu ozhukkam and muzhikkalachchavatai in a number documents
such as Chokkur inscription,[M G S,A-8,L.50],Porangattiri inscription[MGS,A-
14,Ls.33-34.],Trikkakara inscriptions [M G S,A-25,L.[7].7],M G S,A-44,L.8, MGS,B-
9,L.[5].1.],Tirunelli Plate,M G S,A-46,L.28, Muzhikkalam [M G S,A-37,L.4],Tiruvalla
Plates [M G S,A-80],Narayan Kannur inscription, [MGS,B-3,Ls.25-26],Kaviyur Plate
[MGS,B-5andB-6],Tiruvanvandur,[MG S ,B-13,L.13and B-14,L.[6]],Maniyur,[M G
S,C-32,L8],Pukkottur,M G S,C-23],Alanallur,[M G S,C-24and25],Tripryar,[MGS,C-

378
panchamahāpāpams or sin and the ideological schema of varna especially the
brahmanical notion sūdra varana252 were used as the most powerful
ideological weapon of the temples and Brahmans to suppress the producing
class. This stratified assemblage of groups and functionaries evolved through
the process of production, appropriation of resources and its redistribution.
Those who were engaged in the production of agrarian resources were
constituted at the bottom of this stratified order and the rest became part of the
appropriation of the resources and the suppression of producing class was at
the top. This stratification process resulted in the consolidation of an agrarian
hierarchy which was entrenched in the social relation of production of the
period and impregnated with class relations and social conflicts.253

Consolidation of this stratification process and formation of agrarian

hierarchy retained many of the social groups who developed from the
production process and appropriation of agrarian wealth. These social groups
that emerged with kinship descent structures and endogamous marriage
relations began to function as particular jātis assuming relational positions in
the already developed hierarchy.

31,L.11],Kumaranallur[B-43,L.14],Navayikulam,[M G S,C-14],Tirunandikkara,[M G
S,C-45,L.39] and Tirumittakodu [M G S,A-52] .The Muzhikkalam kachcham was
followed by Brahman settlements as the model for all over Kerala, from Narayan
Kannur to Tirunandikkarai, MGS,Perumalsof Kerala,op.cit., p.114. The earliest record
to quote the Muzhikkala kachcham is Chokkur inscription and the latest is
Tirumittakodu, M G S Narayanan, Perumal, op. cit., p.114. Other kachchams are
Kalangattu kachcham [Avittaththur inscription,M G S,A-10,L.18 and Trippangotu
inscription,M G S,A-14,Ls.55-57and Chokkiram plate MGS,C-17],Sangaramangalathu
kachcham,M G S,C-20]and Kaitavarathu Kacham,[M G S,A-80].
252
ūrakathu udiyirikkum chūttirar is mentioned in Kumaranallur Plate [M G S, C-43, and
L.8.] indicates the brahmanical notion of varna had been used to denote the cultivating
kutis .
253
Mukkāl vattaththu vaichchu kūttavum kalaikkavum chelavum perār [Kumaranallur Plate,
M G S, C-43, and L.2] indicates the injunction stipulated by the temples as kacham that
also represents the social conflict developed in the ūr settlements between the
cultivators and the land holding households of Brahmans.

379