5. PŪLĀṄKUṞUCHI Pūlāṅkuṟuchi is a small village in Tiruppattūr tāluk of the modern Sivagaṅgā district (in old Pudukkoṭṭai region) in Tamiḻnāḍu. It has a small hillock with a sloping rock which has yielded a historic inscription in Tamiḻ language in a script that may be termed transition between Brāhmi to Vaṭṭeḻuttu form. It was first brought to my notice by Tulasi Raman and Abdul Majeed of our department (Tamiḻnāḍu State department of Archaeology) and first published by me in all the local newspapers. Subsequently, some further studies have taken place. It is one of the most important discoveries for Tamiḻ history as it is a dated record. This consists of three different but interrelated records and issued by one and the same king and most probably during the same year. The first record is completely worn out beyond recognition. The second is damaged at many places due to flaking and long exposure to the Sun's heat. The third is fully preserved except for some minor loss. So, we will first take the well-preserved record. At the outset, it must be mentioned that this record refers to the construction of temples for Hindu Gods and appointment of priests, gift of lands and gold to Vedic Brāhmaṇas, lands mentioned as Brahmadāyam. The Brahmadāyam lands are prominently mentioned, and the donees called Brahmādāyak-kiḻavars seems to receive the royal gift and order. As such the record deals mainly with Brāhmaṇas in Tamiḻnāḍu in ancient times.
The records under discussion are dated in the era “one hundred and ninety-two” (270 CE) as this is the only Saka era, known in such an early period. No other date is possible (though some fanciful dates are assigned they are not substantiated). The name of the king is mentioned as Cēndaṉ Kūṟṟaṉ. The full date given is the 12th day of the bright fortnight in the month of Tai (தை மாதம்), of one hundred and ninety second year and thirty sixth day. As this does not mention the weekday and the nakṣatra, it is difficult to precisely date the day as some enthusiast’s attempt.
As Saka is the only era in 3rd century the inclusion of the day as the thirty sixth shows that Tamiḻnāḍu was aware of counting the Saka era with days. The evolution of paleography does not conflict with the year 270 CE.
It was in this year, when the Ruler was Kūṟṟaṉ, son of Cēndaṉ, a certain Ilaṅkumāṉ, a Mahāsēnāpati, of the king, who was the son of Vēl Murugaṉ, caused to be built: - 1. A temple to God (deva-kulam) on top of the mountain Pacceruccil in the territorial subdivision of Ollaiyūr-kūṟṟam. 2. A temple to God (deva-kulam) in the village of Viḻamar, in the territorial subdivision of Mutthūṟṟuk-kūṟṟam and 3. A temple to Vāsudevanār in the monastic building (Tāpatap-paḷḷi) residential building for recluses on the northern bank of a tank Ulaviyattāṉ tank at Madurai. 4. The Attikōcattār, Muṉmaṉaiyar, and the officials of the four-fold tiṇais, brought these temples under the protection of themselves, and took appropriate actions and after due deliberations appointed persons for performing worship, guardians for managing the lands and other religious endowments made for the worship, Bandaṅgars (treasurers), watch and wards (Sevukars), Brahmācāris, Dharmikaḷ and village protectors. They were to administer proper worship. In the temple on top of the hill at Velkūr, no priest’s family other than the family appointed by the king, who died at Kūdalūr should be permitted. They should arrange to have worship of other temples performed as stipulated, failure of which should be fined and punished (the record is slightly damaged here). These procedures must be written down in a document (ceyyavum eḻuti vaikkavum eṉṟu).
This order of the king was noted down by (keṭṭār) Kumaraṉ-pondai, the chief of Ambar (Amba-kiḻār), who was an officer of the rank of Ulaviyap-peruntiṇai. Kaṇṇan Kāri, the scribe of the order (ōlai) drafted, came, and communicated thus after listening to the order. Nariyaṉ Kāri, of Veṇṇāḍu got this final order written down and issued the same. The first inscription which is seen inscribed above the second, is lost in several parts but allows a reconstruction which is given below. It is clear at the beginning it is the record of the same king and dated in the same year. It begins “in the one hundred and ninety (second) year of Cēndaṉ Kūṟṟaṉ,” The wet-lands and drylands (of) Pacceruccil hill, Brahmādāya of Vellēṟṟāṉ maṅgalam and the Brahmadāya-kiḻavars (rightful owners of Brahmadāyam)... The village Ciṟṟaiyūr in Kūḍalūru nāḍu (territorial subdivision of), and the rightful ownership of Brahmadāya, and ... Ownership of Brahmadāya, (Village name lost)... The cultivable land called kaḍai vayal, (land at end) of that village.... And the dry land sold by Pulattēvan.. The chief of Brahmadāya in that village named... The ownership of Brahmadāya... The one who receives the Mācu of that village (may be the yield - mahacūl of later years) The yields of wet and dry lands, and others, The rights of the (Brahmādāya kiḻavars) of Pāṇḍināḍu and Koṅgunāḍu, the right of rainwater irrigation, lordships, right of paddy in kind, (kalak-kiḻamai) thei kālācam, their groves, their relatives, their tenants, owners of Brahmādayas, (... Owners and), the protectors of Nāḍus (territory), the protectors of outer regions, (Puram kāppārs), protectors of Muppūrikkuḍi (village) administrators of Brahmadāya endowments, and Dattamān... All the above individually... (collected) one thousand kāṇams ... Examined by the senior Inspector General (Ulaviya-perun-Tiṇai) Ilaṅgumāṉ, the chief Nallam kiḻāṉ Examined by another chief Kumaraṉ Examined by another inspector general, the chief of Ālattur (Ulaviya Peruntiṇai).. And one Vaḍukaṉ Kumaraṉ The scribe who wrote the record on leaf.... Though fragmentary it is clear that the order is in the light of the temples built on the top of the hill Pacceruccil and (other places mentioned in the second record namely Viḻamar and at Madurai) relates to a number of villages gifted to Brāhmaṇas as Brahmadāyas who had the right over the produce of lands gifted to them as Brahmadāyas and had rights over their relatives and tenants and were to pay certain amount towards the maintenance of these temples. Several people of the Brahmadāya villages in Pāṇḍya and Koṅgu country was involved in the protection of these lands. There was also a separate department to administer the Brahmādāya endowments (Brahmadāya aram neri ceyvāras). A number of high-ranking Inspector General’s (Ulaviya Peruṅtiṇai) over saw the collection of dues. There is one person who was called Vaḍukaṉ Kumaraṉ who originally migrated from the north, probably from the Telugu country who served as Inspector general. Territorial divisions mentioned in the record: -
The suffix māṉ added to personal names follows the general practice found in Saṅgam age as Ceramāṉ, and Atiyamāṉ. Vāsudevaṉ may refer to Kṛṣṇa or the Jaina Tīrthaṅkara of that name.
Vaḍugaṉ Kumaraṉ shows that an immigrant from Telugu or Kannada region, serving in an official capacity in Tamiḻnāḍu in such an early period. The Saṅgam literature includes several poems by immigrants from the north such as Vadama vannakkaṉ, Dāmōdaraṉ, Vadama vannakkaṉ bhēri cāttanār, Vadama vannakkaṉ Perum cāttanār, Vadama Nedum edāttanār and others who have composed Puṟam songs.
When the Dravidian movement was at its height, reaching virtually a crescendo, a claim was made that there was “Pure Tamiḻ” at the beginning which was adulterated by the Āryas. The irony was that the movement was the most outstanding rationalistic movement. Either they were unaware of hundreds of northerners contributing extensively to the Tamiḻ movements in Saṅgam age or willfully suppressing the facts of this nature. As many of the rationalistic Dravidian leaders were Tamiḻ professors, it is unlikely they were unaware of the presence of such large numbers of people from Telugu and Kannada regions in Tamiḻnāḍu in the Saṅgam age. The question of “Pure Tamiḻ” never existed. That is why the earliest Tamiḻ Grammar Tolkāppiyam included the use of vaḍacol, the northern words in Tamiḻ poems. In addition to the existence of northern words as personal names, there were also many northern words in the early Saṅgam poems like vēdam, cāpam, kataka. i.e., bracelet.
An excerpt from the right side Pūlāṅkuṟucci inscription: viṟṟu koṇḍu koṭutta pun cey kārāṉmai mācu koṇṭāṉum tamakkuk kāvalāka avaṟṟukkuṟṟatu ceyakkoṇṭamaiyāl āṟṟay vaḻipaṭuvatum avaṟṟukku peyappaṭṭa aṟappuṟan naṭai koṇḍāṉum ārāintu vaikkapoattāru
