From Tamil Pāṇar to the Bāṇas: Sanskritization and Sovereignty in South India

Abstract

Historians include the Bāṇas among the important minor dynasties of South India. They are first mentioned as Bṛhadbāṇas in the Tāḷagunda inscription of the fifth century. Rulers with the Bāṇa name existed up to the sixteenth century in the Tamil country. During their history, they also married into major dynasties like the Cōḻas and claimed to be descendants of a lineage starting from Bali. Many historians have noted the semantic similarity between the term Bṛhadbāṇa and the earlier Tamil bardic Perumpāṇaṉ of the Caṅkam literature. The historians, however, have not explicitly addressed the issues of whether the Bāṇas originated from the Tamil Pāṇar and why they chose to claim Purāṇic Bali to be their progenitor. In the present essay, based on an analysis of Caṅkam texts, and epigraphic data, it is shown first that the Bāṇas must have originated from the Tamil bards. Later, the reasons for the Bāṇas choosing to have Bali as the progenitor of their lineage are explored. It looks like Tamil bardic age values might have played a role in this.

1. Origin of the Bāṇas

1.1. Introduction

Historians include the Bāṇas among the important minor dynasties of South India. They are first mentioned as Bṛhadbāṇas in the Tāḷagunda inscription of the fifth century CE. Rulers with the Bāṇa name existed up to the sixteenth century in the Tamil country, where they were called the Vāṇar. In many of their inscriptions, they are said to belong to the lineage of Bali, an Asura1. During their history, they also married into major dynasties like the Cōḻas. For instance, Vallavaraiyar Vandyadevar, the Bāṇa chief, married Kuntavai, the elder sister of Cōḻa Rājarāja I (South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 2, no. 6, p. 69). Earlier, Cōḻa Rājarāja I’s father’s sister, Aṟiñcikaip Pirāṭṭiyār, was married to another Bāṇa prince (South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 13, no. 197, p. 107).

Many historians have noted the semantic similarity between the term Bṛhadbāṇa and the earlier Tamil name Perumpāṇaṉ of the Caṅkam literature. Pāṇar (plural of Pāṇaṉ) were the bards of the Tamil country. These historians, however, have not explicitly addressed the issues of whether the Bāṇas originated from the Tamil Pāṇar and why they chose to claim Purāṇic Bali to be their progenitor.

The present essay consists of three parts. In this essay, I shall begin by discussing the role of bards in early Tamil society. Then, I shall look at what Tamil literary scholars have said regarding the origin of the Bāṇas vis à vis information from early Tamil literary texts and inscriptions in Tamil Nadu. Then, we shall explore if the early Tamil bards and warriors were from the same community. Next, I shall explore if descendants of some of the Tamil bards became chiefs called Pāṇaṉs ruling over a territory called Pāṇāṭu in the northern part of Tamil Nadu. Then, I shall discuss the Tamil terms Perumpāṇ and Perumpāṇaṉ and the Sanskrit term Bṛhadbāṇa since some historians seem to believe that the name of the chief Pāṇaṉ in the Caṅkam literature was really a Tamilized version of Sanskrit Bāṇa. In order to determine whether Bṛhadbāṇa became Perumpāṇaṉ or Perumpāṇ, I shall explore the dates of the poems in which these terms occur. Next, I shall look at linguistic and philological aspects of the sound variation from Pāṇar to Bāṇa to Vāṉar. Finally, I shall summarize the findings regarding the origin and movement of the Bāṇas over time.

In the second part, I shall consider the main features of early Tamil kingship. Then, I shall look at how Sanskritization impacted the Bāṇas’ identity. Next, I shall explore why the Bāṇas chose to trace their lineage to Bali, an Asura, while other dynasties were claiming a descent from a sage or Sun or Moon. Since Bali had lost his sovereignty over his domain, we shall compare Bali’s story with the story of Tamil chief Pāri, perhaps the best-known philanthropist of the early Tamil society to speculate if the bardic age values of duty towards the bards might have influenced the Bāṇas to choose Bali as their progenitor.

Finally, in the third part, I shall conclude with findings regarding the Tamil bardic culture, openness of the Tamil society that led to the formation of the Pāṇar dynasty, later dynastic shift, Sanskritization, and the adoption of a unique Purāṇic identity influenced by the old bardic values

1.2. Bards in Early Tamil Society

In the early Tamil society, there were many types of bards. The Pāṇar are the most frequently mentioned bards, who sang and played the yāḻ or lute. Other bards included the Porunar, who sang and played a drum called kiṇai or taṭāri; the Kōṭiyar, who played a drum called muḻavu and acted in theater; the Akavar or Akavunar or Akavalar were the heralds, carried a slender divining rod, and sang on the battlefields; and the Viṟaliyar, who were females, who played the lute, and sang too. There were also other terms like the Ceṉṉiyar, synonymous with the Pāṇar; the Kiṇaiyar, synonymous with the Porunar; and the Kūttar, Vayiriyar, and Kaṇṇular, synonymous with the Kōṭiyar. These bards did not form separate castes in the early Tamil society. They were a vocational/professional community. The differences in names referred to their functional differences. The Porunar, Pāṇar, and Akavalar visited and sang in praise of the battlefields of their patrons.

The bards were considered as possessing mutuvāy ‘ancient truth or wisdom’. Puṟanāṉūṟu 319.9 calls a bard mutuvāyp pāṇa ‘bard having ancient truth or wisdom.’ According to Palaniappan (2008, p. 42) bards had an important role in ensuring the auspiciousness and prosperity of the community. When the bards visited the kings and chiefs, they were given valuable gifts as seen in the following example in the translation of Puṟanāṉūṟu 29.1–5 by Hart and Heifetz (1999, p. 24).

During the day, may the bards crowd around the festive

sessions of your court and their dark heads and tangled hair

turn radiant with fragrant garlands of gold, beautifully

crafted of thin plaques fashioned in the shape of lotuses

tempered in the fire and threaded onto fine pounded wires!

The bards were also given elephants as gifts, as mentioned in the example below from Akanāṉūṟu 106.10–12.

the Pāṇaṉ who gets an elephant whenever Cēḻiyaṉ,

who has learnt faultlessly the art of war, and whose

army with shining swords kills in the battlefields

Tamil bards not only received gifts like gold ornaments and elephants, but they also received land. Puṟanāṉūṟu 302.6–7 mentions that the Tamil bards had received villages as gifts as given below.

kai vār narampiṉ pāṇarkku ōkkiya

nirampā iyaviṉ karampaic cīṟūr

the villages on poor land with narrow paths,

which were granted to the bards who pluck the strings with their fingers

The bards had also received a bigger territory, as shown by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109–11 as given below.

kuṟum poṟai nal nāṭu kōṭiyarkku īnta

kārik kutirai kāriyoṭu malainta

ōrik kutirai ōri…

The good country with small hills, which Ōri, whose horse was named Ōri and who fought with Kāri, whose horse was named Kāri, gave to the Kōṭiyar…

In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could have become the base of the Pāṇar, who, as we will see, later became the Bāṇas.

Early Tamil poetry, known as the Caṅkam poetry, was modelled after the earlier oral poetry of the Tamil bards like the Pāṇar.

As Thani Nayagam (1995, p. 243) puts it,

The bards were so prominent and numerous members of early society and were so identified with panegyrics, that in subsequent development when poets compose panegyrics in praise of kings and chiefs they do so in a ‘bardic convention’, as if a bard were praising the hero of the poem.

However, it should be noted that, based on the names of the poets, there were poets of bardic origin, who have composed Caṅkam poems too. For instance, we find Netumpalliyattaṉār, a male, and Neṭumpalliyattai, a female, both names meaning ‘great one of many musical instruments’ among the Caṅkam poets.

The Tamil bards played as important a role with respect to Tamil kingship as the Brahmin played with respect to the Indo-Aryan kingship in north India. Saskia Kersenboom-Story says the following regarding the Tamil bards’ relationship with the Tamil kings.

While in the Indo-Aryan tradition the purohit (Brahmin priest) accompanies the king (rāja, nṛpa-, bhūpa-, bhūpāla goptṛ-, nātha-,) on his chariot to the battlefield, his Tamil colleague the porunar and/or pāṇar (two types of bards) fulfill a similar function in the king’s (kō, iṟai, iṟaivaṉ) following. Although the Brahmin (antaṇar) is known at the Tamil court, and respected, he does not play any role of significance to be compared with the bards.

(Kersenboom-Story 1981, p. 32)

The Tamil situation may be considered the reverse of the Indo-Aryan. The Indo-Aryan king is steeped in Vedic and post-Vedic symbolism and ritualism due to which the Brahmins are of primary importance and far more indispensable than the panegyrists, genealogists and eulogists (māgadhas, sūtas). In contrast to the mythological equation of worldly power and (Vedic) cosmic power, the Tamil king lived for the immortality of glory (pukaḻ) of his forefathers, his clan and his own person. In this milieu of glorious death on the battlefield, worship of hero-stones, gruesome celebrations of Victory on the battlefield and of the conception of the ‘world of heroes’, the Tamil king was far more dependent on his bards who had the power to ‘actualize’ glory and thus to confer immortality. Their mutual tie was one of kaṭaṉ ‘sacred duty’ which a king gladly fulfilled for his own sake as well as that of his forefathers and the entire clan. Cosmic equation by Vedic sacrifice was not on his mind; it was performed in course of time perhaps as a fashionable ‘showing off’ to his enemies.

(Kersenboom-Story 1981, p. 33)

Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai stated in his introduction to the decad called “Pāṇaṉ Pattu” (decad about the bard) in his commentary on the Caṅkam text, the Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (p. 1030) that depending on the activities in which they are engaged, Pāṇar are denoted in texts by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and Porunar. That the same bard is addressed by different names can be seen in the Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai, a guide poem, in which a bard returning after having received rich gifts from a philanthropist encounters a poor Porunaṉ and his family on the way looking for support from a philanthropist. The returning bard tells the poor bard the name and place of the patron, who gave him gifts. He also advises the poor bard to go to the patron and gives him directions to get to the patron’s place.

In Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai, the poor bard is addressed as Poruna, Kōṭiyar Talaiva ‘leader of the Kōṭiyar,’ and Ēḻiṉ Kiḻava ‘one who possesses seven musical notes’ and the female accompanying the Porunaṉ is called Pāṭiṉi, the female of the Pāṇar community, as given below.2

vēṟu pulam muṉṉiya viraku aṟi poruna

(Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai 3)

O Porunaṉ knowing the appropriate conduct, who has sought different lands!

pāṭal paṟṟiya payaṉ uṭai eḻāal

kōṭiyar talaiva

(Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai 56–57)

O leader of the Kōṭiyar, who has the lute, which provides musical enjoyment associated with songs!

eḻumati vāḻi ēḻiṉ kiḻava

(Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai 63)

O owner of seven notes! Get up. May you prosper.

peṭai mayil uruviṉ perum taku pāṭiṉi

(Porunarāṟṟuppaṭai 47)

the Pāṭiṉi, who is of excellent qualities and looks beautiful like a peahen!

Since Ēḻiṉ Kiḻavaṉ is an expert in music based on seven musical notes, the term most probably should indicate a Pāṇaṉ, who is an expert in singing and playing the lute. Since ordinarily the Porunar are supposed to be players of the taṭāri or kiṇai drums, and the Kōṭiyar and Kūttar are supposed to be actors, the use of all three terms to address a single person means all these bards are from the same bardic community but only differing in their performative aspects. As the same person could perform as a singer in one instance and as an actor in another, one could be called a singer as well as an actor.3 Therefore, whatever we find regarding the life of the Porunar, Kōṭiyar, and Kūttar will apply to the Pāṇar too.

In spite of their cultural importance and prominent role in the Caṅkam poetry, for more than a millennium, there has been an enormous misinterpretation regarding their status and role in the Tamil society. Some of the Tamil scholars have considered these bards to be of low caste especially during the medieval periods.4 This should be attributed to a lack of interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the cultural history of the Tamils as has been shown earlier (Palaniappan 2008, 2016).5 In fact, these bards continued to enjoy high esteem in the Tamil society as performing artists, right up to the advent of the Vijayanagara rule in the Tamil country.

However, scholars had not addressed how some of these bards also became rulers in their own right, later known as the Bāṇas, a dynasty with more than a millennium of history. This fact has important implications for addressing the question of whether the early Tamil society was open to members of different communities becoming rulers or it was varṇa-based to begin with. Palaniappan (2008, pp. 49–50) had used information from Sanskrit texts to explain away indirectly the mention of nāṟpāl ‘four classes’ in Puṟanāṉūṟu 183.8–10 by Āriyappaṭaikaṭanta Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ ‘the Pāṇṭiyaṉ Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ who defeated the Aryan army’, who states the following:

And even among the four classes with difference known, if a person from a lower class becomes learned, even a person from a higher class will submit to him to study.

What Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ refers to is the caturvarṇa (four classes) which was prevalent among the Indo-Aryan speakers of North India and was absent in the Tamil areas. In fact, according to Manu, the Sanskrit lawgiver, all the Tamils (Drāviḍa) were Kṣatriyas who did not perform the Vedic rituals and, as a result, sank to the rank of Śūdras. In this, they were similar to the Greeks, and Chinese in the eyes of the Brahmins. Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ may have based his statement on a story such as the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad story of Dṛpta-bālāki of the Gārgya clan and Ajātaśatru, the king of Kāśi. In this story, Dṛpta-bālāki, a Brāhmin, realizes that he lacks the knowledge of Brahman and seeks to become the pupil of Ajātaśatru, a Kṣatriya. (As his name suggests, it is likely Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ has had encounters with the Aryan culture.)

What Manu says regarding the Tamils cannot be taken literally as the words of a historian. However, if every Tamil was a Kṣatriya, then there was no varṇa system among the Tamils and Manu may have inadvertantly alluded to the possibility of even a Tamil bard becoming a ruler of a territory! If it can be shown that a Tamil bard founded a ruling dynasty in early Tamil society, it will more directly and firmly establish the open nature of the society unconstrained by any birth-based social hierarchy.

1.3. Tamil Scholars’ Views on the Origin of the Bāṇas

With respect to the origin of the Bāṇas, Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai made the following comments (as translated by me) in his introduction to the decad called “Pāṇaṉ Pattu” in his commentary on the Caṅkam text, the Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (pp. 1028–29)6.

There were also pāṇar who were involved in the field of fighting and excelled in wrestling and protecting the country without learning music and theater. Among them, one called Pāṇaṉ ruled the kingdom north of the river Pālār [Akanāṉūṟu 113, 155, and 325]; Caṅkam poets praise saying ‘in the north is the land of Pāṇaṉ of the strong spear7;’ in that country, stone inscriptions mention Perumpāṇappāṭi8 and Pāṇmalai situated on the northern bank of the Pālār river. His descendants lived as Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, and Vāṇataraiyar. Their many inscriptions are in the Tiruvallam temple in the North Arcot taluk [South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 3, nos. 42, 43, 47 and 48]. In later times, they were spread all over the Tamil country; even those who were called Vāṇakōvaraiyar were also the descendants of the Pāṇaṉ. Another Pāṇaṉ excelled in wrestling and flourished in the Cōḷa court [Akanāṉūṟu 226]; an Akanāṉūṟu poem says that a person called Kaṭṭi from the region ruled by the Gaṅgas [in Southern Karnāṭaka] came to wrestle against Pāṇaṉ in the court of Veḷiyaṉ Tittaṉ and fled in fear as soon as he heard the sound of the kiṇai drum in the court preparing for battle [Akanāṉūṟu 226]; one Porunaṉ from the Āriya country to the north of Kuṭanāṭu, came with one Kaṇaiyaṉ of Kuṭṭanāṭu to wrestle against Paṇaṉ, but, being unable to withstand the strength of Pāṇaṉ, lost making Kaṇaiyaṉ shameful [Akanāṉūṟu 386].9

Following Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai, literary scholars like Varatarācaṉ (1973, p. 15) and Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987, p. 141) considered the chief Pāṇaṉ to be from the bardic community of Pāṇar.

1.4. Bards and Warriors

Views of Piḷḷai notwithstanding, there is a notion held by some scholars that the Caṅkam period Tamil bards and warriors were from different divisions of the early Tamil society. This was articulated by Hart (1975, pp. 56–57) in the following words:

The [Caṅkam] anthologies seem also to show a society divided into two different parts: on the one hand, there are the uyarntōr, or “high ones”, spoken of in the Tolkāppiyam, who are warriors and leaders of society and whose death is often commemorated by memorial stones; on the other hand, there are the iḻintōr, or “low ones”, represented by the kiṇai and tuṭi drummers, the Pāṇaṉ, the Vēlaṉ, washermen, leather workers, and others.

Let us see if what Hart says has been true regarding the Tamil bards and warriors during the Caṅkam period and later. With respect to the skills of bards and warriors, it is not impossible for one to have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription of the eleventh century CE, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 2, no. 66, pp. 275–76, there are several members of the elite troops of Rājarāja I, who were given grants as musicians. These troops were selectively recruited into several elite military units named after different titles of the Cōḻa king such as Kṣatriyasikhāmaṇi or Śatrubhujaṃka (Śatrubhujaṃga). These military units fell under the category of Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar meaning ‘selectively recruited right hand troops who will die if they fail to protect the king’. For instance, Aiyāṟaṉ Antari of the Aḻakiya Cōḻat Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar10 was a pakkavādyar or an accompanist who had belonged to the selectively recruited military unit called Aḻakiya Cōḻat Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḻaikkārar.

Here are some additional examples of pakkavādyar or accompanists:

• Catti Ārūr of Kṣatriyasikhāmaṇit Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkāṟar
• Catti Poṉṉaṉ of the Śatrubhujaṃkat Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkāṟar

Similarly, there were many gāndharvar or singers from these elite troops. Here are some examples of gāndharvar or singers.

• Maṅkalavaṉ Maṇi of Mūrttavikramābharaṇat Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkāṟar
• Taṇṭaṉ Kampaṉ of Mūrttavikramābharaṇat Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkāṟar
• Ārūr Tēvaṉ of Mūrttavikramābharaṇat Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkāṟar

Clearly, musicians and warriors were from the same community in the eleventh century CE. This was not a new development in the medieval period. Even in the Caṅkam period, Tamil bards and warriors came from the same community. For instance, the Tamil word porunaṉ (<*poru ‘fight’) can refer to a bard or a warrior. In Puṟanāṉūṟu 386.19, some bards are called porāap porunar ‘non-fighting warriors. On the other hand, in Puṟanāṉūṟu 17.13, aṭu poruna ‘killing/conquering warrior!’ is used by the poet to address the warrior-king making it explicit that by the vocative ‘poruna’ the warrior-king is addressed and not a bard.11

In Caṅkam poems, the arms of warriors are often compared to concert drums (muḻavu) as in Puṟanāṉūṟu 88.6. Another example of such usage occurs in a Caṅkam text called the Maturaik Kāñci. This text is the longest narrative poem of the Caṅkam literature. It was authored by the poet Māṅkuṭi Marutaṉ to advise the Pāṇṭiya king Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ, who was the victor of the battle at Talaiyālaṅkāṉam. It narrates all that goes on over a whole day in the Pāṇtiyan capital of Maturai (Madurai) and advises the king on what he should do to achieve fame like his ancestors and lead an enjoyable life. Maturaik Kāñci 99 uses the description muḻavut tōḷ muraṇ porunar meaning ‘bards of fight with arms like concert drums’ to describe some bards who receive gifts typically given to bards such as elephants and flowers made of gold12. Indeed, in Akanāṉūṟu 386, a wrestling fight between one Pāṇaṉ and a Porunaṉ from the Āriya land is discussed. Here, Pāṇaṉ is described as having arms like concert drums and he kills his opponent. In Akanāṉūṟu 226.13–17, Kaṭṭi, a chief, came to fight Pāṇaṉ, a warrior, who was in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. However, after hearing the sound of the drum in the Cōḻa court, Kaṭṭi fled without fighting.13 Finally, Akanāṉūṟu 189.5 employs the word maḷḷar to refer to bards. Everywhere else in the Caṅkam literature, maḷḷar has been used to refer to warriors.14 So, the bards must be from the same community as the warriors and there was no division between warriors and bards in the society as postulated by Hart.

1.5. Bards as Chiefs

That descendants of some Tamil bards were not only warriors but also chiefs can be seen in Akanāṉūṟu 113.16–17. However, to see that, we have to go beyond the interpretations of some past scholars to obtain a philologically accurate interpretation. Wilden (2018)’s translation offers the latest interpretation of these lines as given below.

Viḻavu ayarntaṉṉa koḻum pal titti15

eḻāap pāṇaṉ nal nāṭṭu umpar

beyond the good land of the bard who does not rise

from many rich snacks as if engaged in a feast

The problem with this translation is that it takes pāṇaṉ ‘bard’ to be an ordinary resident of the land. Wilden has not compared the present text pāṇaṉ nal nāṭṭu with the text nal vēl paṇaṉ nal nāṭṭu in Akanāṉūṟu 325.17 meaning ‘in the good land of Pāṇaṉ with the good spear,’ where Pāṇaṉ is clearly a warrior and not a bard. Moreover, in every instance in which the text ‘x nal nāṭṭu’ has been used in the Caṅkam literature, where x is a masculine singular person, x is always a ruler and not just an ordinary resident. Here are a few examples. Āay nal nāṭṭu (Akanāṉūṟu 198.14), ‘Erumai nal nāṭṭu’ (Akanāṉūṟu 253.19), ‘Pulli nal nāṭṭu’ (Akanāṉūṟu 311.12), ‘Naṉṉaṉ nal nāṭṭu’ (Akanāṉūṟu 349.8), and ‘Kaṭṭi nal nāṭṭu’ (Kuṟuntokai 11.6). It should be noted that Āay, Erumai, Naṉṉaṉ, Pulli, and Kaṭṭi were all chiefs. So, Pāṇaṉ should have been a chief as well. We also know that these names represent a generic name of a lineage of chiefs, best exemplified by Āy in whose lineage we have Āy Aṇṭiraṉ and Āy Eyiṉaṉ (Piḷḷai 1967, p. 1463). (The extra ‘a’ in Āay is inserted due to metrical reasons.) Wilden also has taken eḻāa to be the negative adjectival participle of eḻu ‘to rise’ (DEDR 851). Other scholars have interpreted the word differently.

Rākavaiyaṅkār and Irājakōpālāryaṉ, in their Akanāṉūṟu edition of 1933, interpret eḻāap pāṇaṉ as ‘Pāṇaṉ, who does not rise to fight those who flee from battle. In contrast, Nāṭṭār and Piḷḷai in their Akanāṉūṟu edition of 1946 interpret eḻāap pāṇaṉ as ‘Pāṇaṉ, who does not flee from enemies.’ Such different interpretations arise due to the difficulty of making sense of eḻāa, considered by these scholars as deriving from DEDR 851 eḻu ‘to rise’. Tamil eḻu ‘rise’ also has a homophon given by DEDR 5156 which has cognate words such as yāḻ, ñāḻ, ‘stringed musical instrument’; eḻu ‘to emit sound’; and eḻāal ‘musical notes of the yāḻ.’ For the affirmative use of eḻīi in the sense of bards making music, see Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7–8.16 So, if eḻāa in eḻāap pāṇaṉ is derived from DEDR 5156, it means ‘the bard who does not play the lute/make music’.17 This leads to the following translation of Akanāṉūṟu 113.16–17.

beyond the good land of Pāṇaṉ, who does not make music,

with many rich meat foods as if engaged in a feast

Here, ‘Pāṇaṉ, who does not make music’ makes it explicit that the poet is talking about a chief and not a bard. Not realizing the use of Veḷippaṭai technique in this poem involving eḻu of DEDR 5156, which gives a clear and direct meaning, the above-mentioned scholars have given widely diverging interpretations of eḻāap pāṇaṉ. Wilden’s interpretation, however, is partly right in that the origin of the chief is connected to a bard.

That the Pāṇar were also chiefs or warriors is brought out by Kuṟuntokai 328, which has been misinterpreted by scholars who thought that the Pāṇar had functioned only as musician bards. Consider the text below.

…alarē

vil keḻu tāṉai vicciyar perumakaṉ

vēntaroṭu poruta ñāṉṟaip pāṇar

puli nōkku uṟaḻ nilai kaṇṭa

kali keḻu kuṟumpūr ārppiṉum peritē

(Kuṟuntokai 328.4–8)

The gossip was louder than the roar of the noisy village in the arid tract, that saw the stance of the Pāṇar that resembled the look of the tiger, when the chief of Vicciyar of army abounding in archers fought against the kings.18

The Pāṇar in this poem should be interpreted as chiefs or warriors and not as bards based on philology. In all other occurrences of ‘pāṇar’ in Classical Tamil literature, pāṇar is mentioned with one or more of their usual attributes such as given below.

• The bard’s musical instruments;
• The bard’s performance/music/song;
• The bard’s poverty;
• The bard’s hunger;
• Gifts received by the bard such as food, clothes, elephants, gold flower, and land;
• The bard’s maṇtai, a vessel, in which they received food;
• The bard’s patron;
• The bard’s large entourage of relatives.

Kuṟuntokai 328 is the only exception where none of the above attributes is mentioned. The only attribute given to these pāṇar is their ‘puli nōkku’ (fierce look).19

It should also be noted that the Caṅkam poems also use plural forms like Cōḻar, Āriyar, and Vicciyar to denote multiple members of a dynasty or the members of a dynasty’s army as given in the example below.

māri ampiṉ maḻait tōl cōḻar

vil īṇṭu kuṟumpiṉ vallattup puṟamiḷai

āriyar paṭaiyiṉ uṭaika…

(Akanāṉūṟu 336.20–22)

‘Like the army of the Aryan kings at the external protective forest of Vallam strengthened by the bows of the army of the Cōḻas with rain-like arrows, clouds- like shields’

Here, ‘Cōḻar’ really signifies the army of the Cōḻas. Vallam most probably refers to the town called Tiruvallam, the capital of the Bāṇas in Perumpāṇappāṭi several centuries later.

That is why the Pāṇar in Kuṟuntokai 328 cannot be taken to be functioning as bards but as chiefs or warriors with the fierce look of a tiger. These ‘‘Pāṇar’ chiefs or warriors must have been involved in fighting.

Therefore, Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai is right in characterizing a section of the Pāṇar community as being chiefs and warriors. However, Turacicāmip Piḷlai is wrong to interpret the name Pāṇaṉ as the given name of a person who founded this dynasty as he states in his commentary on Naṟṟiṇai 148. Pāṇaṉ represented the generic name of a member of the dynasty of Pāṇar in Akanāṉūṟu 113, 155, and 325 in the same way names like Ceḻiyaṉ, Cēral, and Cempiyaṉ are dynastic names, which stand for individual kings of those dynasties in Akanāṉūṟu 36.13–20. We really do not know who the originator of the dynasty was.

1.6. Is ‘Pāṇaṉ’ (The Name of the Chief) from ‘Pāṇaṉ’ or ‘Bāṇa’?

In terms of meanings referring to people, the Tamil Lexicon glosses Pāṇ as ‘Pāṇar caste’ and Pāṇaṉ as ‘an ancient class of Tamil bards and minstrels.’ However, philologically, the word just means Pāṇar, i.e., the plural of Pāṇaṉ as can be seen in Puṟanāṉūṟu 348.4, where pāṇcēri (< pāṇ ‘bards’ + cēri ‘street’) is used to refer to the street, where the bards live. The Tamil Lexicon also glosses Pāṇaṉ as a Tamil rendering of Sanskrit Bāṇa, an Asura devotee of Śiva. How can we determine if the name of Pāṇaṉ, the ruler, is etymologically related to Pāṇaṉ, the bard, or is a Tamilized form of Sanskrit Bāṇa? The use of the verb eḻu of DEDR 5156 etymologically connected to making music in Akanāṉūṟu 113.17 in connection with the chief Pāṇaṉ makes it clear we are not talking about a Tamilized form of Sanskrit Bāṇa. There is also additional evidence from a Sanskrit text that there was a territory named after Pāṇar.

The reluctance of historians to identify the Pāṇaṉ, the chief, whom they identify as belonging to the Bāṇa dynasty, with the bardic community of Pāṇar is due to the implied assumption that the Caṅkam poems are Tamilizing the word Bāṇa as Pāṇaṉ because Tamil orthography has no separate character to denote the initial voiced obstruent ‘b’ of Bāṇa. So, instead of voiced ‘b’ the Tamil poets are assumed to have used the Tamil character representing voiceless ‘p’ resulting in Pāṇa. The final ‘ṉ’ in Pāṇāṉ results from the process of adding the masculine singular suffix to the Sanskrit name Bāṇa giving us the full name of the chief, Pāṇaṉ.

This unstated assumption seems to be behind historians like Vētācalam (1987, p. 5), who has identified Pāṇaṉ, the chief mentioned in Akanāṉūṟu 113 and Akanāṉūṟu 325, as belonging to the Bāṇa dynasty. However, they did not identify the chief as connected to the ancient bardic community of the Pāṇar.20 This unstated assumption is also revealed by what Venkatesan (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 42, p. 175) says in connection with a sixth-century inscription from Paṟaiyanpaṭṭu in Gingee taluk in former South Arcot district. The inscription mentions a Jain teacher Vaccaṇanti from Pāṇāṭu. Venkatesan says,

“The territorial division viz., Pāṇāḍu, is in all probability, the same as Bāṇāḍu i.e., the nāḍu of the Bāṇas. (emphasis mine) The Bāṇas were an ancient line of kings, who also ruled a portion of the Tamil country. This is the earliest so far known inscription, which mentions their territorial division as Pāṇāḍu. The names Vāṇagōppādi-nāḍu and Perumbāṇappādi, etc., are employed in the Tamil inscriptions of the latter period to indicate the territory of the Bāṇas. This territory probably formed the southern portions of the modern North Arcot District and probably also a portion adjacent to it in the South Arcot District. The village Mēlvaṇṇakkambāḍi, possibly the corrupt form of Mēlvāṇagōppāḍi, may have been the western boundary of Vāṇagōppāḍi, and the village Kīḻvaṇṇakkambāḍi near Dēvikāpuram may have been the eastern boundary of the same division. The provenance of our inscription viz., Paṟaiyanpaṭṭu was well within the Bāṇa territory.”

One has to note that the name Bāṇāḍu is not attested anywhere in texts or inscriptions. It is simply an assumption by Venkatesan that Bāṇāḍu was the original form and Pāṇāḍu was the Tamil rendering of it. Fortunately, we have clinching evidence from a Sanskrit text that resolves the issue.

Discussing the occurrence of pāṇāṭṭu in the Paṟaiyaṉpaṭṭu inscription, Mahadevan (2003, p. 629) says that pāṇāṭṭu is an oblique form of pāṇāṭu and that Pāṇāṭu is a compound made of pāṇ and nāṭu. He further explains:

Cf. LT palvayiṉ payanirai cernta pāṇāṭṭu āṅkaṇ. ‘there in Pāṇāṭu where at many places milch cows gather’ (Aka. 155:6–7). pāṇāṭṭu is taken to be the sandhi of pāṇ + naṭṭu and also interpreted as ‘in the country of the pāṇaṉ, by R. Raghavaiyangar (1933)21 and by N. M. Venkataswamy Nattar and R. Venkatachalam Pillai (1949) in their editions of Akanāṉūṟu, even though some old manuscripts give the variant reading pāḻ nāṭṭu (> pāṇāttu) ‘the ruined country’ which does not suit the context. (I am grateful to Dr. S. Palaniappan, Dallas, USA, for the references. I consulted the unpublished notes of U. Ve. Swaminathaiyar at the Swaminathaiyar Library. While noting the reading pāḻ nāṭṭu in Aka. 155, he has given cross-references to verses 113 and 325 referring to pāṇaṉ nal nāttu ‘in the good country of the pāṇaṉ’.) The present early inscriptional reference to pāṇāṭṭu is a valuable confirmation of the correct reading and interpretation of the expression.22

Mahadevan has not pointed out an important explanation regarding Akanāṉūṟu 155 by Rākavaiyaṅkār and Irājakōpālāryaṉ in their 1933 edition. As Mahadevan has noted, they interpret pāṇ in pāṇāṭu as Pāṇaṉ. However, in order to buttress their interpretation of singular Pāṇaṉ, they cite the use of pāṇvaravu in Puṟapporuḷ Veṇpāmālai 12.30, describing the theme of the arrival of a Pāṇaṉ as a messenger in love poems. However, we have noted already that in the Caṅkam poems, Pāṇ is a synonym of plural Pāṇar. This means pāṇāṭu means ‘the land of the Pāṇar’ referring to the country of the dynasty of the Pāṇar.23 In any case, what is important here is that Rākavaiyaṅkār and Irājakōpālāryaṉ have related the Pāṇar dynasty to the bards.

The same connection is provided by a Sanskrit text. According to Lewis Rice (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 14, p. 334):

…the manuscript of a Digambara Jain work in Sanskrit, named Lōkavibhāga, has been discovered by the Mysore Archaeological Department (see the reports for 1909 and 1910), treating of Jaina cosmography. The contents, it says, were first delivered by the Arhat Vardhamāna, and handed down through Sudharma and a succession of other teachers. The Rishi Siṃha-sūri (or Siṃha-sūra) produced the work in a translation (? From Prākrit into Sanskrit). And the Muni Sarvanandin formerly (purā) made a copy of it in the village named Pāṭalika in the Pāṇa-rāshṭra. The interesting point is that the precise date is given when this task was completed, namely the 22nd year of Siṃhavarman, the Lord of Kāñchī, and is 80 beyond 300 of the Śaka years…Pāṭalika, the village in which Sarvanandin made his copy, may be Pāṭalīpura, in the South Arcot District. The Periya-purāṇam makes it the seat of a large Jaina monastery in the 7th century. Pāṇarāṣhṭra is no doubt the territory of the Bāṇa kings.

According to Jain (2007, p. 132), Lokavibhāga of Sarvanandi belonged to the sixth century CE. We also know that the sixth-century Paṟaiyanpaṭṭu inscription mentions the oblique form of Pāṇāṭu (<pāṇ+nāṭu). The first part pāṇ- in Pāṇāṭu refers to the bardic community of Pāṇar, whose adjectival form is Pāṇa. The latter part of Pāṇāṭu, -nāṭu, means ‘country’. It is well-known that Tamil nāṭu is translated as rāṣṭra in Sanskrit. For instance, in Paṭṭattāḷmaṅkalam plates of Pallava Maṅkalanāṭu in Tamil is translated as Maṅgalarāṣtra in the Sanskrit portion (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 18, pp. 1925–26, 116). Similarly, Larger Sinnamanur Grant renders Tamil Vaṭakaḷavaḻi Nāṭu as Vaṭakaḷavaḻi Rāṣṭra in Sanskrit (South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 3, Parts 3 & 4, pp. 459, 462). Similarly, Muṇḍa; Rāṣṭra was the Sanskrit name of Muṇḍa Nāḍu comprising part of Nellore District of erstwhile Madras Presidency (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 29, p. 94, n.2). Scholars also consider Veṅgorāṣtra in Māṅgalūr copper plates refers to Vēṅki Nāṭu or Vēṅgi kingdom (The Tamil Varalatru Kazhagam 1966, pp. 292–93). So, what we have in Pāṇa-rāṣṭra is a translation into Sanskrit of Pāṇāṭu, the country of the Pāṇar and not the Bāṇar. After all, Sanskrit with the separate phoneme of ‘b’ could have rendered the name Bāṇa-rāṣṭra, if indeed the original name of the rulers was Bāṇa.24 However, we should note that while the name Pāṇāṭu has remained the same for about six centuries, the extent of the territory covered by the term over this time period could have fluctuated widely.

We have shown that a dynasty founded by the Pāṇar, the Tamil bards, had been established in the northern part of the Tamil country. Next, we have to determine whether the Pāṇar dynasty and the Bāṇas are one and the same.

1.7. Perumpāṇ versus Bṛhadbāṇa

Historians also make another assumption regarding the origin location of the Bāṇas, i.e., they originated north of the Tamil country and progressively moved south into the Tamil land. For instance, Vētācalam (1987, p. 5) states that one could say that the Bāṇas’ political life began under the Sātavāhanas near Kurnool and Kolar regions, presently in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, respectively.

T. N. Ramachandran, the historian, states (Ramachandran 1931, pp. 300–302):

References to the Bāṇas are made in inscriptions dating from very early times. The earliest mention is in the Talaguṇḍa inscription of the Kadamba king Kakusthavarman (430–450 A.D.) in which it is said that Mayūraśarman, the first Kadamba king (345–370 A.D.) was helped by an ally of his called “Bṛhad Bāṇa” in his fight with the Pallavas in the forests of Sri Parvata and that he levied tribute from this “Bṛhad Bāṇa” as well as from other kings25. It would appear that the territory of this “Bṛhad Bāṇa” was very near Śrī Parvata, i.e., the present Śrīsailam in the Kurnool District…

The term “Bṛhad Bāṇa” in the Talaguṇḍa inscription corresponds to the Tamil term Peruṃ-Bāṇa of the territorial term Peruṃ-bāṇappāḍi. It was by the latter term that the Bāṇa dominions were denoted…

According to tradition the Bāṇa capital was known as Paṟivipuri, whose other forms were Prapurī, Paṟvipura, Paṟivai, Paṟvai, Paṟvi, Paṟivaipura, Paṟivipurī and Parigipura. Indeed, the last term, Parigipura, has led the late Rai Bahadur Venkayya to identify it with Parigi in the Hindupur Taluk of the Anantapur District. The claim of Tiruvallam in the North Arcot District for the Bāṇa capital, inasmuch as it was also known by the appellation Vāṇapuram, is easily explained by him as merely meaning that Tiruvallam was one of the important towns, if not the capital, of the Bāṇa territory. Long after the Bāṇas had ceased to rule, their scion, wherever they were, claimed to be lords of Paṟivipura and of Nandagiri, another equally important place. Nandagiri is the present Nandi-drug in the Chikballapur Taluk, Kolar District, Mysore. The fact that most of the inscriptions of the Bāṇas have been found in the Arcot, Kolar, Anantapur, and Kurnool districts makes one believe that the term Perumbāṇappāḍi which denoted the Bāṇa territory was applied to the large tract of territory with Śrīsailam in the north, Kolar and Puṅganūr in the west, Kālahasti in the east and the river Pālār in the south. In the north they appear to have been the governors of the Pallava territory till the latter were driven down by the western Cāḷukyas in the latter part of the 6th century A. D…

…The rise of the western Cāḷukya power in the 7th century acted as a check not only to the Pallava power in the Telugu country but also to that of the local Bāṇas who appear to have guarded the Pallava territories there. Consequently, the Bāṇas, as Venkayya supposes, were forced into the northern portion of the North Arcot district …

Thus, according to Ramachandran and Venkayya, the Bāṇas were non-Tamils, originally hailing from the Telugu-Kannada region north of Tamil Nadu. They migrated to the Tamil country as a result of the pressure from the Western Cāḷukyas. However, Chopra et al. (1979, p. 32) state that Mayūraśarman of the Kadamba dynasty “is known to have levied tribute from the subordinates of the Pallavas particularly the Brihadbanas who are known to Tamil Sangam literature as the Perumbanar.”26 One will notice that Chopra, Ravindran, and Subrahmanian do not explicitly state that the Bāṇa dynasty descended from the bardic community of Pāṇar.

However, in the Tamil Caṅkam literature, Perumpāṇ occurs in Naṟṟiṇai 40.3 and Maturaik Kāñci 342 and Perumpāṇaṉ occurs in Kalittokai 96.35. In all three occurrences, Perumpāṇ or Perumpāṇaṉ refers to the bardic community of Pāṇar. If one can establish the dates of occurrence of Pāṇaṉ as a chief and Perumpāṇ in these Caṅkam poems as preceding the occurrence of Bṛhadbāṇas, then one can argue that ‘Bṛhadbāṇa’ is only a translation into Sanskrit of ‘Perumpāṇ.’ We can look at Tamil philology and Indian epigraphy to explore this issue.

1.8. Dates of Tamil Texts with the Occurrence of Chief ‘Pāṇaṉ’ or Perumpāṇ

Akanāṉūṟu 325 was authored by the poet Māmūlaṉār. Regarding his date, Zvelebil (1975, p. 276) says, “There is unfortunately not a single reference giving a direct clue to his exact date; but by inference we may date him ca. 245 A.D.” Zvelebil has obviously missed an important reference regarding his date. Akanāṉūṟu 31.14–15, also authored by Māmūlaṉār, are given below followed by their translation.

tamiḻ keḻu mūvar kākkum

moḻi peyar tēetta paṉ malai iṟantē

crossing the many mountains of the land, where the language changes, which the three kings with Tamil nature (Cēra, Cōḻa, and Pāṇṭiya) protect27

What Māmūlaṉār talks about in these lines is the northern border region of the Tamil country, north of which the spoken language changes from Tamil to Telugu or Kannada. The most interesting fact brought about by these lines is that the border region is protected by all three Tamil kings even though only the Cēra and Cōḻa lands adjoin the northern border. The Pāṇṭiya kingdom lies south of the Cōḻa land. This means that Māmūlaṉār is referring to a confederacy of Tamil kings which also is mentioned by the Hathigumpha inscription of Khāravela (mid-first century BCE) who claimed to have broken up the confederacy (Thapar 2002, pp. 211–12).28 The confederacy was supposed to have lasted for 113 years (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 20, p. 88).29 The existence of the confederacy is also suggested by some Caṅkam poems as given below.

potumai cuṭṭiya mūvar ulakamum

potumai iṉṟi āṇṭiciṉōrkkum

(Puṟanāṉūṟu 357.2–3)

even for those who ruled without sharing

the land to be shared in common by the three (kings)

…vaḻuti

taṇ tamiḻ potu eṉap poṟāaṉ…

(Puṟanāṉūṟu 51.4–5)

…The Pāṇtiyan king Vaḻuti

will not tolerate the statement that the cool Tamil land is common (to Cēra, Cōḻa, and Pāṇṭiya kings)

Since Māmūlaṉār uses the non-past tense form kākkum ‘protect’ to describe the action of the confederacy, it was in existence when he authored the poem. So, Māmūlaṉār must have lived in the first century BCE before Khāravela broke it up. This means that Pāṇaṉ, the chief, mentioned by Māmūlaṉār in Akanāṉūṟu 325 and the territory ruled by him, Pāṇaṉ nal nāṭu or Pāṇāṭu, must have existed at that time, if not earlier.

As for the occurrence of Perumpāṇ in Maturaik Kāñci 342, Zvelebil (1975, p. 273) dates the Maturaik Kāñci to ca. 215 CE. Since Tāḷagunda inscription of the fifth century is the only inscription mentioning Bṛhadbāṇa, Bṛhadbāna seems to be the translation of Tamil Perumpāṇ. To confirm this, we shall look at Dravidian linguistic data as well as the inscriptions mentioning the Bāṇas as they first shifted out of Tamil areas to Telugu and Kannada areas and moved back to the Tamil area later.

1.9. Pāṇar Dynastic Movement

Next, we consider the question of how the Pāṇar rulers geographically moved over time. The original home of the Pāṇar rulers, Pāṇāṭu, was in the Tamil country in the first century BCE. The place name had persisted up to the sixth century CE, as shown by the Paṟaiyanpaṭṭu inscription. However, between these two timepoints, major movements of people had taken place. Kalabhras north of the border of Tamil country moved into the Tamil country.30 A branch of the Tamil Cōḻas established themselves in Andhra as the Telugu Cōḻas of Rēnāṇḍu or Rēnāḍu.

H. Krishna Sastri, in his discussion of Mālēpāḍu copper plates of Puṇyakumāra, a Telugu Cōḻa of the seventh century CE31, says the following (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 11, pp. 339, 344–45).

After an invocation to Śiva, the record introduces us to a king Nandivarman of the Kāśyapa-gōtra. He was born in the family of Karikāla who was “the (celestial) tree mandāra on the mountain Mandara—the race of the Sun, the doer of many eminent deeds such as stopping the overflow over its banks of the (waters of the) daughter of Kavēra (i.e., the river Kāvēri), who made his own the dignity of the three kings (of the South)…”32

K. A. Nilakanta Sastri has discussed many Telugu Cōḻa records collected in 1947–1948 from Anantapur and Cuddapah districts (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 27, pp. 220–51). On paleographical grounds, these records of the Rēnāṇḍu Chōḻas range from the second half of the sixth century to the end of the eighth century CE. (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 27, p.220). He further says, “We have therefore to assume the existence of the Telugu-Chōḻas in the Telugu country earlier than the Pallava conquest of the Chōḻa country of the Kāvēri basin.” (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 27, p. 247).

One of the records of these Telugu Cōḻas is the Chāmalūru inscription of Pṛthvīvallabha Vijayāditya Cōḻa (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 27, pp. 242–44) found in the village of Chāmalūru in the Jammalamadugu taluk. This inscription mentions a Bāṇa as Vāṇarāja, who was ruling at ca. 750 CE in Pāṃbuḻiggi possibly identified with Hāvaḷige in the Gooty taluk in Anantapur District. Sastri writes in connection with this inscription (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 27, p. 243):

It would be of interest to trace here the activities of the Bāṇas during the period prior to their subjugation by the Telugu Chōḻa Vijayāditya of the present record. Several inscriptions of Chāḷukya Vijayāditya found in the locality around the place where the present record has been discovered, mention a number of Bāṇa chiefs ruling over this region…The Perbāṇa family to which some of these Bāṇas of the Ceded Districts are stated to belong, may have, as their family name indicates, belonged to the Bṛihad-Bāṇa line, the foes of Kadamba Mayūraśarman, mentioned in the Talaguṇḍa inscription of Kākusthavarman.

Additional inscriptions mentioned by Sastri (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 27, 243) include one of 719 CE at Koṇḍupaḷḷi in Anantapur District of Vikramāditya Bali Indra Bāṇarāja, son of Balikulatilaka Narasiṃha Bāṇādhirāja and one of Western Cāḷukya Vikramāditya I (eighth century) at Arakaṭavēmula in Cuddapah district. Additionally, the Sāliggāme grant of the Ganga king Konguṇi Muttarasa of the eighth century from Nandaguḍi in Bangalore district mentions a Bāṇa chief by the name Perbbāṇa Muttarasa (Annual Report for the Mysore Archaeological Department for the Year 1941, pp. 132–33). Annual Reports on Indian Epigraphy (no. 418 of 1940–1941) from the eighth century of the Western Cāḷukya king Kīrttivarma Satyāśraya (II) from Koṟṟapāḍu in Jammalamadugu taluk in Cuddapah district registers a gift of land made by Per-Bāṇādhirāja. A Tamil herostone inscription in Pāppampāṭi in Dharmapuri District (fifth century CE) mentions a Bāṇa chief Vāṇaperumaraicaru as dying in a fight with the Ganga ruler in the 4th regnal year of Kōvicaiya Viṇṇaparumaṉ (Tarumapuri Kalveṭṭukaḷ (Mutal Tokuti), p. 57).33 Another herostone inscription (fifth or sixth century CE) in the same location mentions possibly the same Bāṇa chief as Vāṇaparuma araicaru (meaning Bāṇavarma Rāja) (Tarumapuri Kalveṭṭukaḷ (Mutal Tokuti), p. 56). A Tamil herostone inscription in Cantūr in Krishnagiri district during 7th regnal year of Pallava Mahendravarman I (597 CE) mentions a Perumpāṇaviḷavaraicar.34 Another herostone inscription of 18th regnal year of Mahendravarman I in Taṇṭampaṭṭu in Ceṅkam area in Tamil Nadu mentions a Bāṇa chief named Perumpāṇaraicar (Ceṅkam Naṭukaṟkaḷ, no. 1971/77). A herostone inscription of ca. 697 CE set up in Tā. Vēḷūr in the Ceṅkam area during Pallava Narasimhavarman II’s rule mentions a Bāṇa chief by the name Vāṇakōo Atiraicar (Ceṅkam Naṭukaṟkaḷ, no. 1971/54). Another herostone of ca. 705 CE in Tāḻaiyūttu in the Ceṅkam area in Tamil Nadu mentions a Bāṇa chief named Perumpāṇatiyaraicar set up during the same Pallava Narasimhavarman II’s rule (Ceṅkam Naṭukaṟkaḷ, no. 1971/73). A herostone inscription from the 30th regnal year of Kaṭṭāṇaiparumaṉ of the eighth century CE in Cantūr in Krishnagiri District mentions a Perumpaṇilavaraicar (Kiruṣṇakiri Māvaṭṭak Kalveṭṭukaḷ, p. 28). Five years later under the same ruler, another herostone inscription from the same location mentions a Pāṇiḷavarai[*car] (Kiruṣṇakiri Māvaṭṭak Kalveṭṭukaḷ, p. 30).35 The Rāyakkōṭṭai copper plates of Skandaśiṣya (a possible enemy of Nandivarman Pallavamalla) mentions a Mahāvalivāṇarājar (The Tamil Varalatru Kazhagam 1966, p. 104). The Pullūr copper plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla mentions Bāṇādhipa (The Tamil Varalatru Kazhagam 1966, p. 186). Thus, we see that in the Tamil area, Vāṇa-, Perumpāṇ-, and Perumpāṇa- occur interchangeably at least from the sixth century. Even during the Caṅkam period, some kings had the prefix Peru- and others did not. A ninth-century herostone inscription of Pallava Kampavarman in Kīḻputtūr in Chingleput district of Tamil Nadu mentions a person by the name Perumpāṇaṉ Cakkaṭi Araiyar (South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 12, no. 102, p. 46).

The following table summarizes all the epigraphic data regarding the Bānas we have discussed above.

The locations of inscriptions included in

Table 1. References to the Bāṇas in Various Inscriptions.

Number	Date	Local Language	Place	Name
1	fifth century	Kannada	Tāḷagunda, Shimoga district36	Bṛhadbāṇa
2	fifth century	Tamil	Pāppampāṭi, Dharmapuri District	Vāṇaperumaraicaru
3	fifth or sixth century	Tamil	Pāppampāṭi, Dharmapuri District	Vāṇaparuma araicaru
4	sixth century	Tamil	Cantūr, Krishnagiri District	Perumpāṇaviḷavaraicar
5	seventh century	Tamil	Taṇṭampaṭṭu, Ceṅkam area	Perumpāṇaraicar
6	seventh century	Tamil	Tā. Vēḷūr, Ceṅkam area	Vāṇakōo Atiraicar
7	seventh century	Telugu	Arakaṭavēmula, Cuddapah District	Perbāṇa vaṃśa
8	eighth century	Tamil	Tāḻaiyūttu, Ceṅkam area	Perumpāṇatiyaraicar
9	eighth century	Tamil	Cantūr, Krishnagiri District	Perumpāṇilavaraicar
10	eighth century	Tamil	Cantūr, Krishnagiri District	Pāṇiḷavarai[*car]
11	eighth century	Tamil	Rāyakkōṭṭai, Krishnagiri District	Mahāvalivāṇarājar
12	eighth century	Tamil	Pullūr, North Arcot District	Bāṇādhipa
13	eighth century	Tamil	Tiruvallam (Vāṇapuram), North Arcot District	Mahāvalikulotbhava Śrīmāvalivāṇarāyar, Mahāvalivāṇarāyar
14	eighth century	Telugu	Chāmalūru, Cuddapah District	Vāṇarāja
15	eighth century	Telugu	Koṇḍupaḷḷi, Anantapur District	Bāṇarāja
16	eighth century	Kannada	Nandaguḍi, Bangalore District	Perbbāṇa Muttarasa
17	eighth century	Telugu	Koṟṟapāḍu, Cuddapah District	Perbāṇādhirāja (Perbāṇa-adhirāja)
18	ninth century	Tamil	Kīḻputtūr, Chingleput District	Perumpāṇaṉ

are shown in Figure 1. The distribution of Perbāṇa- or Perbbāṇa- components in Bāṇa names in non-Tamil areas not earlier than the fifth century and the names Perumpāṇ or Perumpāṇaṉ in Tamil areas from approximately 215 CE to the ninth century confirm the direction of borrowing for Bṛhadbāṇa, i.e., Perumpāṇ or Perumpāṇaṉ > Bṛhadbāṇa.

All the epigraphic data presented above show that the Telugu Cōḻas as well as the Bāṇas were present in Anantapur, Cuddapah, and Kurnool Districts at least from the seventh or eighth century, if not earlier. If Cōḻas could migrate to this region from the Tamil country, so could the Bāṇas to the same region as well as southern Karnataka.

This means that ca. first century BCE the original home of the Bāṇas, known as Pāṇar then, was in the northern part of the Tamil country. Between then and the fourth century CE, when Kadamba king Mayūravarman levied tribute on the Bṛhadbāṇas, the Bāṇas seemed to have migrated to the region north of the Tamil country into Telugu and Kannada regions. In approximately the fifth century CE, when the Tāḷagunda inscription was authored, they must have been called Perumpāṇar in Tamil, which became Perbāṇa or Perbbāṇa in Telugu and Kannada regions, respectively, and translated into Sanskrit as Bṛhadbāṇa. Later, under pressure from the Western Cāḷukyas, the Bāṇas moved south and returned to the region straddling the northern border of the Tamil country as well as the southern Telugu and Kannada regions.

1.10. Linguistic Variation from Pāṇar to Bāṇa

The reasons for considering Sanskrit Bṛhadbāṇa as a borrowal from Tamil Perumpāṇar are discussed below.

The use of Peru- in combination with the name of a dynasty or profession as a title or name to denote recognition of excellence is an indigenous Tamil tradition. Examples include Peruñcēral (Patiṟṟuppattu 8th Patikam, line 10), Peruñcōḻaṉ (Patiṟṟuppattu 9th Patikam, line 6), Peruvaḻuti (The Tamil Varalatru Kazhagam 1967, p. 22), Perumuttaraiyaṉ (Nālaṭiyār 200.1), and Perumpaṇāṉ (Kalittokai 96.35). In contrast, the Sanskrit dynastic title, Bṛhadbāṇa is very unusual. The only other known dynastic title beginning in Bṛhat or Bṛhad, Bṛhatphālāyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in the case of Bṛhatphālāyanas and Sālankāyanas, according to Gopalachari (1941, p. 151), the scholars have simply used the gotra names in the absence of dynastic names. (Gopalachari 1941, p. 151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the Tāḷagunda inscription we find the occurrence of Bṛhadbāṇa. Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the dynasty are called with names beginning in Bāṇa-, Perbbāṇa, Perbāṇa, and Vāṇa-. In other words, we do not find Bṛhadbāna anywhere else. However, in Tamil, we find many instances of Perumpāṇaraicar, and Perumpāṇaṉ. This leads one to infer that the author of the Tāḷagunda inscription was simply translating the name Perumpāṇaṉ into Sanskrit. One of the features of Dravidian languages is that voiceless obstruents become voiced in post-nasal positions (Krishnamurti 2003, pp. 144–45). In Tamil, -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced as -b-, but it is still written in Tamil with -p- due to Tamil orthography. This means what is written as Perumpāṇaṉ in Tamil is pronounced as Perumbāṇaṉ. The author of the Tāḷagunda inscription has translated the first component of this name, Tamil Perum-, as Bṛhad- in Sanskrit and rendered the second part as -bāṇa. This suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should have been Pāṇaṉ, which was later re-analyzed as Bāṇa.

It is also possible that in the Kannada and Telugu areas ‘Pāṇa-’ was being pronounced as ‘Bāṇa’ due to p-/b- variations in word-initial positions such as in Tamil poykai ‘natural spring or pond’, Kannada bugge, and Telugu bugga (DEDR 4533) independent of the post-nasal pronunciation of -p- in Perumpāṇaṉ (Krishnamurti 2003, pp. 130–31). Another such example is Tamil pommai ‘puppet, doll, effigy’ (DEDR 4530), Kannada bombe, and Telugu bomma. The Periyapurāṇam mentions two Śaiva devotees from the bardic community of Pāṇar. One was from the Pāṇṭiya country and known as Pāṇaṉār Pattiraṉār, where Pāṇaṉār37 is an epithet indicating that he is a respected person of the bardic community and Pattiraṉ (<Sanskrit Bhadra) is his given name. The other one was Tirunīlakaṇṭa Yāḻppāṇar from the Cōḻa country.38 For details regarding their stories, see Palaniappan (2016, pp. 316–22). The Periyapurāṇam was authored during the rule of Cōḻa Kulottuṅga II, who reigned from 1133–50 CE. The name Pāṇaṉār Pattiraṉār has been Sanskritized as Bāṇabhadra in Sānskrit works possibly due to the influence of Kannada or Telugu. A Kannada inscription from Ablūr in Karnataka mentions a Śaiva devotee by the name Bāṇan (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 5, 246). The editor of the inscription identifies Bāṇan with Bāṇabhadra since the inscription also mentions Malayēśvara, presumably referring to the saint-king, Ceramāṉ Perumāḷ, who interacted with the bardic devotee from Madurai (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 5, 254–55, n5). If this inscriptional Bāṇaṉ represented one of the two bardic devotees, since the inscription is dated ca. 1101 CE, the inscription must reflect knowledge about that devotee on the part of the Kannada Śaiva tradition before 1101 CE i.e., anterior to the Periyapurāṇam.39

The Sanskritized name Bāṇabhadra could also result from hypercorrection changing Pāṇa- to Bāṇa-. Harikesanallur Muthiah Bhagavatar, a well-known composer of Carnatic music songs and erstwhile palace musician of Mysore, has used the name Bāṇabhadra in a Sanskrit composition beginning in “pāñcavaktram āśraye’ham” in which Śiva is praised as one who is pleased with the music of Bāṇabhadra (Subramanian 1946, p. 313).40 In his biographical dictionary of Carnatic composers and musicians, Rajagopalan (1992, p. 59), refers to the Pāṇar devotee Pattiraṉ as Bāṇabhadra. Elaine Fisher, in her summary of the story of the same Pāṇar devotee, calls him Bāṇabhadra too (Fisher 2017, p. 199). Thus, it is possible for Tamil Pāṇar > Bāṇa also with word-initial p- changing to b-.

An extreme form of such hypercorrection is seen in the following excerpt from the book Mirror of Tamil and Sanskrit describing the content of a twelfth-century inscription in the Tiruviṭaimarutūr temple (Nagaswamy (2012, pp. 373–74)). The inscription discusses the order by Cōḻa Kulottuṅga II41 to appoint a Pāṇaṉ to sing before the deity, appoint other Pāṇar, and train two classes of temple women to sing.

A new service was started in the temple of Thiruvidaimarudūr creating an enactment for singing the Thirup-padiayams [sic] and also arranging for the dancing girls of the temple to sing in the 9th year of Vikramachola, the son of Kulottunga II. The service was called “Bānap-peru” (Bānap-pani). This was a royal appointment issued by Vikkramachola [sic] and a certain Irumudi Cholan alias Acancala Peraraiayan [sic] was appointed to do the service...The record states that he was to sing in the presence of God of the Thiruvidaimarudūr temple and direct other Bānas for arranging the Dancing girls to sing (Thiruvidai marudur—udaiyārukku—pādavum, ikkoyil Taliyilārai pāduvikkavum ikkoyil Devaradiyārai pāduvikkavum Bānapperāka). The Bānas were great singers from the Sangam age and we find the Bānas, Yālpāna was a close friend of Jnāna-sambandar and again we find the Bānas were appointed in the Great temple of Thanjavaur [sic]. According to this inscription the service should be added to the temple service and the Bāna should be paid one kalam of paddy per day to the Perariayan [sic] for singing. He should be allotted one residence as Bānak-kudiyiruppu as before…It is interesting to note that the singing service is called Bānapperu.

In the above excerpt, except for Yālpāna, all other instances of original Pāṇa- have been hypercorrected to Bāṇa!

Thus, whether due to the influence of post-nasal voicing of -p- in Perumpāṇaṉ or voicing of word-initial p- in Kannada and Telugu or due to hypercorrection, Tamil Pāṇaṉ changed into Bāṇa- in Kannada, Telugu, and Sanskrit.

Finally, there seems to be a difference between early literary sources and inscriptions when it comes to rendering Bāṇa in Tamil. As seen in inscription 10 in Table 1, Bāṇa is only rarely rendered in Tamil as Pāṇ-. However, early Tamil literature has consistently rendered Bāṇa as Vāṇaṉ. There is an instance in the Maturaik Kāñci, where the name Vāṇaṉ seems to refer to Bāṇa, the Asura, in the context of referring to his fabulous wealth as given below.

teṉpula maruṅkiṉ viṇṭu niṟaiya

vāṇaṉ vaitta viḻuniti peṟiṉum

(Maturaik Kāñci 202–03)

even if (you) obtain the excellent wealth, which Bāṇa, the Asura, stored so that it filled the mountains in the southern region

We should note that the Cilappatikāram refers more explicitly to the same Bāṇāsura as Vāṇaṉ and not as Pāṇaṉ as given below.

vāṇaṉ pērūr maṟukiṭai naṭantu

nīḷ nilam aḷantōṉ āṭiya kuṭamum

(Cilappatikāram 6.54–55)

the pot dance performed by the one who measured the vast world

having walked along the street of the city of Bāṇa

The Maṇimēkalai describes the dance of Kṛṣṇa’s son Pratyumna on the streets of Bāṇa’s city in words reminiscent of the words of the Cilappatikāram above.

vāṇaṉ pērūr maṟukiṭait tōṉṟi

nīḷ nilam aḷantōṉ makaṉ muṉ āṭiya

pēṭik kōlattup pēṭu…

(Maṇimēkalai 3.123–25)

the transgender dance, which the son of the one who measured the vast world

having appeared on the street of the city of Bāṇa as a transgender person and danced

Clearly, the Tamil texts that had been composed in the sixth century CE or earlier consistently refer to the name Bāṇa as Vāṇaṉ. When the Caṅkam poems were authored, if they had to refer to a Bāṇa chief, since Tamil did not have the phoneme ‘b’, they would have referred to him as ‘Vāṅaṉ’ and not as ‘Pāṇaṉ’. Since Akanāṉūṟu 113, 226, 325, and 386 refer to chief ‘Pāṇaṉ’, the original pronunciation of the chief’s name should have been ‘Pāṇaṉ’ and there was no association of these chiefs with Bāṇa, the Asura.

Even Peruntokai 1190, a medieval poem of ca. twelfth century, maintains the distinction between Bāna, the chief, and Pāṇaṉ, the bard, as given below (Irākavaiyaṅkār 1935–36, p. 272).

ulaikku uriya paṇṭam uvantu irakkac ceṉṟāl

kolaikku uriya vēḻam koṭuttāṉ—kalaikku uriya

vāṇar kōṉ āṟai makatēcaṉukku intap

pāṇaṉōṭu eṉṉa pakai

When I went to solicit provisions meant for cooking

he gave a male elephant meant for killing.

For Makatēcaṉ of Āṟakaḻūr, the chief of the Bāṇas, renowned for art,

what is the enmity towards this Pāṇaṉ, the bard?

The original name of the Pāṇaṉ chiefs changed to ‘Bāṇa’, when their territory shifted outside the Tamil region. When contemporary dynasties were Sanskritizing and inventing Purāṇic pedigrees, the Bāṇas connected their lineage to Bāṇa, the Asura. Later when they moved south under pressure from the Western Cāḷukyas, ‘Bāṇa’ became ‘Vāṇa’ following long-established linguistic and philological patterns. Thus, we have the following sound variation in the name of this dynasty:

Pāṇaṉ > Bāṇa > Vāṇaṉ

1.11. Summary of the Arguments for the Origin of the Bāṇas from the Tamil Pāṇar

In the discussion so far, the following have been established.

1.11.1. The Bards Were Also Warriors

The usages, porāap porunaṉ and aṭu porunaṉ, show that Tamil bards and warriors were from the same community but differed in their functions. The description of arms like the concert drum (muḻavuttōḷ) in the case of the bards just like in the case of warriors and Pāṇaṉ with such arms killing a fighter in Akanāṉūṟu 386 establishes the bards to be from the same warrior community. Moreover, Kuṟuntokai 328 also establishes the Pāṇar as warriors/chiefs. Additionally, Akanāṉūṟu 189 employs the word maḷḷar (warriors) to refer to bards.

1.11.2. A Section of Pāṇar Being Rulers

There was a country the Pāṇar possessed that was called the good land of Pāṇaṉ (Akanāṉūṟu 113 and 325) or Pāṇāṭu (Akanāṉūṟu 155). It has been shown using Tamil philology that Pāṇaṉ was the chief of his land.

1.11.3. Bāṇas Originating from Tamil Pāṇar

The link between the Pāṇar, the bards, and the Bāṇas is provided by the use of Bṛhadbāna in the Tāḷagunda inscription (fifth century CE), the first inscription dealing with the Bāṇas and the use of Perumpāṇ and Perumpaṇāṉ in Caṅkam literature. The use of ‘Bṛhadbāṇa’ is seen a few centuries later than the use of ‘Perumpāṇ’ (Naṟṟiṇai 40.3 and Maturaik Kāñci 342). Thus, while the direction of borrowing could work both ways between Bṛhat- and Perum-, the Tamil attestation of Perumpāṇ clearly precedes Bṛhadbāṇa giving primacy to Perum- > Bṛhat- in this case.

Can one argue that the only evidence for the presence of Bānas at the time of Cānkam literature (because no written evidence of Kannada or Telugu existed that early) is given by the Tamilized name Pāṇaṉ mentioned above (<Bāṇa) and associated Pāṇāṭu? This is ruled out because of Pāṇāṭu translated into Pāṇarāṣṭra is attested in the Lokavibhāga. If the original name of the Bāṇa dynasty indeed began with B-, since the Bāṇas had continued to exist as the Bāṇas (as shown by the Tāḷagunda inscription), Sanskrit Lokavibhāga of the sixth century would have presented their land as Bāṇarāṣṭra. It did not. However, the Caṅkam period usage of the name Pāṇātu had continued up to the time of the Pāṟaiyaṉpaṭṭu inscription (sixth century CE).

Considering all this, we can conclude that a section of the Tamil bards, Pāṇar, became rulers of a territory in the northern part of the Tamil country. They migrated to Kannada and Telugu lands and came to be known as the Bāṇas. Later, they moved back into the Tamil country and the region under their control was known as Perumpāṇappāṭi. Later, they also claimed to be descendents of Mahābali, the Asura. In the next part, we shall explore the motivations for such a claim of theirs.

2. Sanskritization and Sovereignty of the Pāṇar/Bāṇas

2.1. Tamil Idea of Kingship

Tamiḻakam, the name for the Tamil country, was ruled by a confederacy of three kingdoms of Cēra, Cōḻa, and Pāṇṭiya for a long time. The kings belonging to the three dynasties were called the mūvēntar (three kings) or muṭiyuṭai vēntar mūvar (three kings with crowns). In addition to these three, there were also several minor kings or chiefs called kuṟunila maṉṉar (kings of small territories), who often allied with one or the other three kings. Indeed, one dynasty of these chiefs is mentioned in the second rock edict of Aśoka as Satiyaputō, known in Tamil as Atiyamāṉ or Atiyaṉ. The Brāhmī inscription at Jambai mentions Satiyaputō Atiyan Neṭumān Añci, a member of this dynasty (Mahadevan 2003, pp. 399, 588–90). Another dynasty of chiefs was the Pāṇar, whose members had survived at least from the first century BCE for more than 11 centuries. They were also known as the Bāṇas.42

The early Tamil concept of kingship is expressed in the following Classical Tamil poem (Puṟanāṉūṟu 186) translated by Hart and Heifetz (1999, p. 119).

Rice is not the life of the world nor is water the life!

The king is the life of this world with its wide expanses!

And so it is incumbent upon a king who maintains an army

wielding many spears to know of himself: “I am this world’s life!”

Thus, the Tamil view of kingship focused on the king’s life which is the life of his country. In the Caṅkam society, the legitimacy for the king’s sovereignty did not depend on any divine intervention or grace or descent from Indo-Aryan gods. It depended on his ability to sustain and protect his subjects. This often involved warfare in the heroic age in which they lived. Their success in warfare and their ability to protect the subjects earned for them and their ancestors lasting fame.

2.2. Sanskritization

The Caṅkam literature also shows the beginnings of an influx of Indo-Aryan myths that were used by poets to praise the kings. The Cōḻa kings were praised as descendants of Śibi, who saved a pigeon that took refuge with him, by offering his own flesh to the hawk that was pursuing the pigeon.43 Another poet praised the chief Iruṅkō alias Iruṅkōvēḷ as the chief among chiefs who ruled the City of Tuvarai (Dvāraka?) for 49 generations with their progenitor having been born in a pot or sacrificial pit of a sage in the northern region. There is really no evidence for any ruler basing his legitimacy on such stories, in spite of the poets using them. This will, however, change as Sanskritization increased over the centuries.

By the eighth century CE, South Indian kings were buttressing their claims of royal legitimacy with descent from gods like Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Sun, Moon, or Vedic sages.44 For instance, we saw earlier that the Telugu Cōḻas claimed to belong to the lineage of the Sun, and the Pāṇṭiyas claimed to belong to the lineage of the Moon (The Tamil Varalatru Kazhagam 1967, p. 33). The Rāyakkōṭṭai plates of Pallava Skandaśiṣyavarman of the eighth century claim the Pallavas to belong to the lineage of Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Aṅgiras, Bṛhaspati, Śaṃyu, Bharadvāja, and Droṇa (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 5, p. 52). The Udayēndiram plates of Prithivīpati II issued in the early tenth century CE include a Cōḻa genealogy including Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Kaśyapa, Sun, Rudrajit, Candrajit, Śibi, Kōkkiḷḷi, Cōḻa, and Karikāla.45

The Tamil Buddhist epic, the Maṇimēkalai, mentions that the queen of the Tamil Cōḻa king was the daughter of a descendant of Māvali (Mahābali). Although it does not explicitly mention the name Pāṇa or Vāṇa, given the absence of any other ruling dynasty claiming to belong to the lineage of Mahābali, it is obvious that it is the earliest mention of the Mahabali Bāṇas. The earliest inscriptional mention of Mahābalivāṇarājar occurs in the Rāyakkōṭṭai plates of Pallava Skandaśiṣyavarman of the eighth century CE, we noted earlier. Thus, the Bāṇas alone claimed to be descendants of Asuras or demons.

The Bāṇa dynasty’s choice of Bali as the progenitor of the lineage seems to have been based on the fact that the Sanskrit mythology had named Bali’s son as Bāṇa or Bāṇāsura.

2.3. Bali Mythology in Bāna Inscriptions

In an eighth-century inscription in Tiruvallam in North Arcot District,46 the expression “sakala-jagat-tray-ābhivandita-sur-āsur-ādhīśa-Parameśvara-pratihārī-kṛta-Mahābali-kulotbhava-Śrīmāvalivāṇarāyar” is found, which is translated by E. Hultzsch as “the glorious Māvalivāṇarāya, –born from the family of Mahābali, who had been made door-keeper by the lord of gods and demons, Paramēśvara (Śiva), who is worshipped in all three worlds.”47 However, Venkayya says the following (Epigraphia Indica, vol. 11, p. 232, n. 4) regarding an alternate interpretation:

The expression sakala-jagat-tray-ābhivandita-sur-āsur-ādhīśa-Parameśvara-pratihārī-kṛta-Mahābali-kulodbhava is translated by Mr. [Lewis] Rice, on the strength of some Kanarese tradition, “born of the family of Mahābali, who had made Paramēśvara, lord of gods and demons worshipped in all the three worlds, (his) door-keeper;” Ep. Car. Vol. X. p. ii, Note 5.

While being a doorkeeper may not be attractive for a dynasty trying to showcase its legitimacy of sovereignty, having Śiva as a doorkeeper would certainly add to its prestige. A more detailed genealogy of the Bānas is provided in the Udayēndiram Plates of the Bāṇa king Vijayabāhu Vikramāditya III48 of the tenth century.

(Verse 1.) May that Śiva promote your well-being, whose true nature even the Vēda cannot fully reveal, from whom the creation, the preservation, and the destruction of all the worlds proceed, on whom the devotees meditate, (and) whose two feet are tinged with the collections of red rays of the rows of jewels in the diadems of the crowds of the chiefs of the gods who in person bow down before him!

(V. 2) May that Nārāyaṇa, whose body ever rests on the lord of serpents, (and) whose two feet are worshipped by crowds of gods, guard you! He, whom the gods and Asuras, desirous of churning the matchless sea of milk, discarding the Mandara laid hold of, as it were, to obtain a second time the nectar of immortality, (and) who then shone, even more than ordinarily, as if he were the Añjana mountain!

(V. 3.) There was the regent of the Asuras, named Bali, whose sole delight it was to engage in acts of violence towards the gods, while his one vow was, to worship the two feet of Śiva. He, after having presented as an excellent sacrifice a respectful offering to the primeval god, the enemy of the Daityas, with great joy (also) gave to him who bore the form of a dwarf the earth with its islands and with all things movable and immovable.

(V. 4.) From him sprang a mighty son, a treasure-house of good qualities, towards whom was ever increasing the great pure favour of Śambhu on whose head are the lines of the lustre of a portion of the moon, –Bāṇa, the foe of the gods, who with his sword struck down the forces of his enemies.

(V. 5.) As the cool-rayed moon rose from the sea of milk, so was born in his lineage Bāṇādhirāja, who, possessed of never-failing might, with his sharp sword cut up his enemies in battle.

(V. 6.) When Bāṇādhirāja and many other Bāṇa princes had passed away, there was born in this (lineage), not the least (of its members), Jayanandivarman, the fortune of victory incarnate, and an abode of fortune.

(V.7.) This unique hero of great might ruled the land to the west of the Andhra country, like a bride sprung from a noble family unshared by others, having his feet tinged by the crest-jewels of princes.

…

(V.15.) To him was born a son Vijayabāhu, named Vikramāditya a unique light of the Bāna family, who has followed the path of prudent conduct, before whom the assemblage of opponents has bowed down, (and) who has Kṛishṇarāja for his friend. Eminently prosperous (he is, and) free from evil and distress.

(Line 45.) This (prince), the dust of whose feet is tinged with the lustre of the jewels on the edges of the diadems of all princes without exception, and whose two arms are filled with ample fame, gained in victories over the multitude of arms of the adherents of many different hostile princes, after pouring out a stream of water from the beautiful golden jar, held by the palms of his hands the bracelets on which are thickly covered with various bright jewels,—(has given) to the excellent twice-born, dwelling at Udayēndumaṅgala, who delight in, what is their proper duty, the knowledge of the truth of all the Vēdas and Vēḍāṅgas and philosophy, (and) are eager to impart the knowledge of things which is stored up in their minds, …

Here, we can see the explicit connection between Bāṇa, the Asura, and the Bāṇa chiefs. The aim of the plates was to issue a grant to the twice-born or Brahmins. What is interesting in this genealogical description of the Bāṇa king is that verse 3 notes how Bali gave the entire earth with great joy to the enemy of Asuras, Viṣṇu, who took the form of a dwarf.

The seemingly strange thing about the choice of Bali as the progenitor of the lineage is that according to Sanskrit mythology, his grandfather was Prahlāda (Taylor 2021, p. 141). The Bāṇas’ choice of Bali seems strange also because, the stories of Vāmana incarnation of Viṣṇu in the extant Sanskrit texts mention that Bali lost his sovereignty of the world and was forced to live in Pātāla.49 Here is how Bali’s story is presented in the Mahābhārata (12.326.74–76).

The great Asura Bali, the powerful son of Virocana, will arise and cause Indra to fall from his kingdom. When the triple world has been stolen by him despite the opposition of the husband of Śacī, I will take birth as the twelfth son of Aditi and Kaśyapa. Then I shall restore the kingdom to Indra, of infinite glory. I shall return the Devas to their positions, O Nārada, and Bali I shall cause to dwell in the region of Pātāla.

(Hospital 1984, pp. 25–26)

Here, Bali is presented as stealing what was not his. However, over time, his portrayal in Sanskrit texts changes. Hospital (1984, pp. 262–63) says:

We can see Bali bearing different kinds of relationships to Indian attempts to conceptualize what is significant, valuable and real. In the earlier phases of the Epic-Purānic [sic] texts, Bali represents forces inimical to a central idealized reality of the universe., that of dharma (virtue, righteousness, and order). Thus Viṣṇu, often seen as upholding dharma, is portrayed in his Dwarf avaṭāra as overcoming this disorderly and disturbing force.

But gradually, the focus shifts, and in the period of the middle and later Purāṇas the total corpus of Bali presents something of a debate or tension between different foci of significance—dharma, bhakti, and prosperity. In Bali there is an exploration of the relation between these features, of which the total effect is to suggest that although Bali may be good, and a great devotee, that does not necessarily mean that his kingly role is legitimate. The fact that his kingdom is eminently prosperous may even be seen as problematic. But from another viewpoint within the same arena of debate, Bali can be shown as the true devotee who has learned not to be attached to anything. Bali lost his kingdom but found his Lord.

Some Sanskrit texts that have Bali losing his sovereignty also have stories of Bāṇa, the son of Bali, ruling as a king. For instance, the Harivaṃśa makes it clear that Bali was still in Pātāla, when Bāṇa was ruling as a king (Broadbeck 2019, p. 312). For a group trying to establish its legitimacy of sovereignty, to choose a king who lost his sovereignty would be a strange choice indeed. There must be some other reason outside the Sanskrit world. What could it have been?

Unfortunately, Hospital (1984) did not address the question of the Bāṇa chiefs claiming Bali to be their progenitor. We do not know the relative dating of all the texts vis à vis the Bāṇas’ claim to belong to the lineage from Bali.

2.4. Why Choose Bali as the Progenitor of the Dynasty?

Let us look at the possible reasons as to why the Bāṇas could have chosen Bali as their progenitor. It would make sense if there was a different tradition of stories in South India that had a different outcome for Bali’s encounter with Vāmana. After all, the earliest mention of Mahābali connecting him to a dynasty occurs in the sixth-century text, the Maṇimēkalai mentioned earlier (Richman 1988, p. 161).

The Vāmana avatāra is mentioned in Tirukkuṟaḷ 610 dated 450–500 CE (Zvelebil 1975, p. 124). Cilappatikāram 6.55 of ca. 450 CE (Zvelebil 1975, p. 114) calls Viṣṇu as nīḷ nilam aḷantōṉ (one who measured the extended world). Later Cilappatikāram 17.34.2 mentions Viṣṇu covering all the three worlds in two steps and Cilappatikāram 17.35.1–2 mentions Viṣṇu covering all the three worlds in under two steps. There is no mention of Bali here.

The Cilappatikāram, however, has stories connected to Bāṇa, the son of Bali, which are not found in the Sanskrit texts. The Cilappatikāram mentions that Mātavi, the dancer, with whom the hero Kōvalaṉ fell in love, knew how to perform well the following 11 dances.50

Koṭukoṭṭi—dance of Śiva clapping his hands at the time he burnt down the triple cities

Pāṇṭaraṅkam—dance by (Śiva in the form of) Bhāratī who applied ash all over the body at the time he destroyed the triple cities

Alliyam—dance by Krṣṇa when he broke the tusk and killed the elephant sent by Kaṃsa to kill Kṛṣṇa

Mal—dance by Viṣṇu when he defeated the demon (Bāṇāsura) in wrestling51

Tuṭi—dance by Murukaṉ with the tuṭi drum when he killed the demon standing as a Mango tree in the sea

Kuṭai—dance by Murukaṉ with an umbrella/parasol when he defeated the demons

Kuṭam—dance by Kṛṣṇa with pots on the streets of the city of Bāṇa (Bāṇāsura) when Bāṇa had imprisoned Aniruddha, the grandson of Kṛṣṇa

Pēṭu—dance by Kāma, who took the form of a transgender person (in Bāṇāsura’s city)

Marakkāl—dance by Durgā when she wore wooden legs to defeat the demons

Pāvai—dance by Lakṣmī in the form of beautiful Kollippāvai at the time she defeated the demons

Kaṭaiyam—dance by Indrāṇi at the northern gate in the city (of Bāṇāsura)

In the above list of 11 dances, four involve stories related to Bāṇāsura, Bali’s son. Cilappatikāram 17.35.3 also mentions the destruction of the fort of the City of Cō (Sōṇitapura) of Bāṇa by Viṣṇu-Krṣṇa. This shows the popularity of stories connected with Bāṇa in the Tamil country in the fifth century CE. However, these stories are not found in any Sanskrit texts such as the Harivaṃśa and Viṣṇu Purāṇa (Broadbeck (2019, pp. 311–43); Taylor (2021, pp. 424–28). Discussing the history of the story of the Cilappatikāram, Parthasarathy (1993, p. 318) says:

It is generally accepted that the Cilappatikāram existed long before it was put down in writing. Scholars are of the opinion that the epic, with the rest of early Tamil literature, must have had a long oral existence before it acquired its present form. For generations, bards (pāṇaṉs) have recited or sung the story of Kōvalaṉ throughout the Tamil country, embellishing it with myths. It was this story from the oral tradition that was at some point transcribed by a learned poet (pulavaṉ). Thereafter, both the oral and written versions freely circulated, each drawing upon the other. One such written version that has come down to us from the distant past is attributed by tradition to Iḷaṅkō Aṭikaḷ, a prince of the Cēral royal family and Jaina monk.

These, along with the Kannada tradition of Śiva being the doorkeeper of Bāṇa according to Lewis Rice mentioned earlier, suggest the possibility that there could have been stories related to Bali too, in which he might not have lost his sovereignty. The present Kerala tradition of Mahābali and Ōṇam, which considers Bali to have been a good king, who returns to Kerala once a year, might contain traces of an early tradition regarding Bali in the Tamil country, which had not been picked up by early written literature.

Beyond the question of whether there was a tradition of Bali in South India different from what is found in the Sanskrit texts, the story of Bali might have had a special resonance for those familiar with the Tamil bardic culture and especially participants in that culture, the bards.

2.5. Pāṇ Kaṭaṉ of the Bardic Culture

One of the Caṅkam era Tamil chiefs was Pāri, who ruled the territory which included the hill called Paṟampu Malai. Pāri was one of the seven famous Tamil chieftains of the Classical Tamil period known for their philanthropy. The three Tamil kings wanted to marry the daughters of Pāri. However, for some reason Pāri refused and the angry kings formed an alliance and laid siege to his hill. However, it was of no use. The hill was self-sufficient in all respects and Pāri did not surrender. The siege went on for a long time. Pari’s close friend was a poet called Kapilar. Kapilar wanted to tell the three kings their efforts were useless. One day he went down to the kings and told them:

maram toṟum piṇitta kaḷiṟṟiṉir āyiṉum

pulam toṟum piṇitta tēriṉir āyiṉum

tāḷil koḷḷalir vāḷil tāralaṉ

yāṉ aṟikuvaṉ atu koḷḷum āṟē

cukir puri narampiṉ cīṟiyāḻ paṇṇi

viraiyoli kūntal num viṟaliyar piṉ vara

āṭiṉir pāṭinir celiṉē

nāṭum kuṉṟum oruṅku īyummē

(Puṟanāṉūṟu 109.11–18)

Though you have tied your elephants to every tree there,

though your chariots are spread all over the fields,

you will not defeat him through your efforts!

He will not give in to your swords.

But I do know how you can obtain his possessions!

If you, [as Pāṇar,] would only play on a small lute with its polished twisted strings

while your [queens follow you as] Viṟalis with their rich fragrant hair,

and you come dancing and singing,

he will give as gift his country as well as his hill.

Although Kapilar’s advice was meant to dissuade the kings from continuing the hostilities, according to Tamil tradition, the three kings took up the idea of passing off as bards seriously and did succeed in capturing the chiefdom of Pāri, and also killed him52. What this story highlights is the concept of pāṇ kaṭaṉ ‘the duty or obligation towards the bards or minstrels’ held dear by the Tamil kings during the heroic age or the bardic age of the Tamils. According to Kailasapathy (1968, p. 57),

… the word kaṭaṉ is used in the particular sense of duty or responsibility. It is in this sense that a responsibility for the bards is prescribed for the kings. It may not have been as rigid as legal enactments. But the conduct of the heroic society was itself bound by a code of honour and the obligation to adhere to it was almost absolute…

When one compares the attitude of Pāri, who was willing to lose his sovereignty and even life for upholding his duty towards the bards, with that of Bali, who was willing to lose his sovereignty for honoring his word to give three ‘steps’ of land to the Brahmin Vāmana, one can see a willingness to carry through one’s philanthropic commitment to another person in both. In the case of Prahlāda, Bali’s grandfather, he was known for his steadfastness in his religious devotion, but not a philanthropic commitment to somebody else. That Bali’s philanthropic commitment was valued by the Bāṇas can be seen in the Udayēndiram Plates’ mention of Bali giving with joy the whole earth to his enemy, Viṣṇu in the form of a dwarf. Considering that it was most probably due to the concept of pāṇ kaṭaṉ that the Pāṇar/Bāṇas obtained their territory to begin with, it is probably because of Bali’s philanthropic commitment that the Pāṇar/Bāṇas chose to have Bali as the progenitor of their lineage instead of Prahlāda.

Moreover, even towards the later part of the Caṅkam period, when chiefs known for philanthropy like Pāri had been long gone, the rulers treated alike the bards, poets, and the Brahmins with regard to philanthropy. For example, according to Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 203–206, the entrance to chief Nalliyakkōṭaṉ’s well-guarded palace was always open to bards, poets, and Brahmins. So, the bards, who had earlier received villages and territories from rulers could probably relate to the Brahmin Vāṃana receiving land from Bali. Given the parallelism between the importance of the Brahmin to the Indo-Aryan king and the importance of the bard to the Tamil king of the bardic age as laid out earlier by Saskia Kersenboom-Story, the Bāṇas could probably appreciate Bali’s solicitous attitude towards Vāṃana.

As Sanskritization increased over the post-Caṅkam period, and other rulers invented Purāṇic pedigrees, the Pāṇar/Bāṇas did not resort to an origin from a Vedic sage or Sun or Moon but seemed to have settled on Bali as their progenitor. In this, while the lineage of Bāna, the Asura, might have been chosen because of the name Bāṇa, the choice of Bali as the progenitor was probably due to his philanthropic nature similar to the pāṇ kaṭaṉ of early Tamil kings.

After all, if anybody tried to belittle their origin, they could claim that it was Bali who magnanimously gave Viṣṇu-Vāmana his land just like earlier Tamil rulers had given the bards their territory. It also happened that Bali’s son was their namesake.

3. Conclusions

The Bāṇas were an important minor dynasty of rulers in South India. They survived for more than a millennium and married into royal dynasties like the Cōḻas. The Bāṇas were referred to as Bṛhadbāṇas in the Tāḷagunda inscription. Many historians have noted its semantic similarity with the Tamil term Perumpāṇaṉ, a term to denote excellent bards. However, no scholar has analyzed how this similarity has come about. In this essay, I first looked at the role of bards in early Tamil society and any socio-political changes that might have happened over time. Then, I looked at the epigraphic records of the Bāṇas from a wide area of South India as well as literary texts in Tamil from first century BCE up to the twelfth century CE. I hoped to arrive at a reasonable conclusion regarding the origin of the Bāṇa dynasty. However, that is only half the story. The Bāṇas have been unique in Indian history in Sanskritizing their origin story in which they claimed as their progenitor Bali, the Purāṇic Asura, who lost his sovereignty and was exiled to the netherworld by Viṣṇu-Vāmana. I hoped to explore the possible motivations behind this claim too. Here are the findings.

The early Tamil bards had an important role in the society and especially with respect to kings and chiefs. The bards were known by different names depending on what they performed. They were considered to have ancient wisdom and believed to bring auspiciousness and prosperity. By their oral poetry and performance of music and dance, they disseminated the valorous deeds of the rulers and their ancestors contributing to their lasting fame. Consequently, the bards were treated with respect by the kings and chiefs, who offered them gifts like elephant and gold ornaments. However, more importantly, they also gave them land which could range from small villages to large territories. This much has been known already.

What has not been widely known till now is the fact that there was no difference between the bards and warriors in terms of social origins. They were all from the same community. Sometimes they were even called by the same name such as the Porunar and Maḷḷar. Given these facts, it is easy to imagine how a bard, who has received a large territory as a gift, might choose to become a ruler himself. This has happened very early in the Tamil history with a ruler or rulers mentioned in Caṅkam literature as Pāṇaṉ. Tamil scholar Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai was the first to suggest this ruler’s lineage as the origin for the Bāṇas. While some Tamil scholars accepted this finding, historians have been reluctant to do so. These historians looked on the Bāṇas as non-Tamils with an origin in the Telugu-Kannada areas.

A careful analysis of the literary and epigraphic data shows that the Tamil Pāṇar dynasty got its start in the northern part of the Tamil country as early as the first century BCE. Then, for some political reasons such as possible Kalabhra incursions into their region, they moved further north into Telugu and Kannada areas. In this, they were similar to the Cōḻas, a branch of whom established themselves as the Rēnāṇḍu Cōḻas or Telugu Cōḻas at the same time.

Concomitant with the move into non-Tamil areas, there was a linguistic variation introduced into their name, which changed from Pāṇar to Bāṇa. Later, when they came under pressure from the Western Cāḷukyas, the Bāṇas moved back into the northern part of the Tamil area known as Perumpāṇappāṭi. Their move back into the Tamil area introduced another linguistic variation in their name from Bāṇa to Vāṇar. The linguistic history of their name can be shown as Pāṇar > Bāṇa > Vāṇar.

Their move into non-Tamil areas was also the time when their contemporary neighboring dynasties were Sanskritizing their origins and claiming themselves to be descendants of Vedic sages or gods, Sun and Moon, with a view to claiming to be paramount overlords of the world as discussed by Ali (2000, p. 185). May be because their name happened to be Bāṇa at that time, the Bāṇas seemed to choose to link themselves to Puraṇic Bāṇa, the Asura. However, Bāṇa’s father was Bali, whose father was Virocana, and whose father was the famous Prahlāda. Prahlāda’s father was the notorious Hiraṇyakaśipu, who was killed by Viṣṇu-Narasiṃha. Given this lineage, one would not expect the Bāṇas to claim Hiraṇyakaśipu to be their progenitor. Prahlāda was a devotee of Viṣṇu and the Bāṇas might have been expected to choose him as their progenitor. They did not. Instead, they chose Bali, who lost his sovereignty and was exiled to the netherworld by Viṣṇu-Vāṃana.

Why did the Bāṇas choose Bali as their progenitor? The Tamil texts like the Cilappatikāram and the Maṇimēkalai as well as local traditions in Kannada-speaking areas point to differences in stories related to Bāṇa that seem to suggest that what we find in Sanskrit texts form only a subset valorized by the authors of those texts. This means that the local traditions involving Bali might possibly have presented a more positive view of him, which made him acceptable as a progenitor.

Alternately, if one considers the context in which Bali lost his sovereignty, there might be another reason for the choice by the Bāṇas. Viṣṇu-Vāmana went to Bali as a Brahmin dwarf and asked for three strides of land. True to his philanthropic attitude, Bali agreed to that request. However, then Viṣṇu-Vāmana grew into his cosmic form and took all the land Bali had. In effect, Bali lost his sovereignty to a deception perpetrated by Viṣṇu. Having come from the Tamil Bardic tradition, the Bāṇas would have been familiar with the story of Pāri, who was committed to upholding the heroic age’s code of pāṇ kaṭaṉ, which required the ruler to protect and support the bards. However, Pari was treacherously deceived by the three Tamil kings who possibly disguised themselves as bards and took his kingdom and killed him. Originating in the bardic community, the Bāṇas might have valued the philanthropic attitude of Bali highly and disregarded his loss of sovereignty.

An important result of this research is the finding that the varṇa system did not apply to the early Tamil society. Palaniappan (2008, pp. 49–50) had indirectly shown that the four-fold varṇa system did not apply to the early Tamil society. We know that bards in early Tamil society fished53 and sold fish54 as well as made music. In other words, the same community would have done jobs that belonged to different varṇas. This work shows that the early Tamil society was open enough for a bard to become a ruler of a territory and establish a dynasty that lasted more than a millennium.