Agasthya brought from Dwaraka 18 kings (and their families) belonging to the lineage of Krishna, 18 types of kudi, including Velirs ( kudi / குடி means people belonging to a specific kutumbam or group or tradition. Each kudi may not include just one family, it may have many families. So there is scope for large number of people to have been brought to the South. Velirs belong to a particular kudi.) and others including Aruvaalar. This much has been told by Nacchinaarkkiniyar.
We can find distinction between these groups. The kings, 18 in number were brought to Tamil lands. 18 groups of kudi that include Velirs seem to occupy the second rung after the kings. The third category could also comprise of 18 groups, going by the specific numbers that Agasthya gathered for the other two. They could be the artisans with specialization in their fields.
In the 10th post of this series, we had a discussion on the King Irungovel whom the poet Kapilar recognizes as the 49th king in the lineage of the one who was born from the sacrificial fire (Dhrishtadyumna). This king seems to be from the group of 18 kings that Agasthya brought. We can view this in 2 ways. Either Irungovel belonged to the 49th generation starting from Dhrishtadyumna or he was the 49th king starting from the king who was brought from Dwaraka by Agasthya. This king was linked to the one who was born of the sacrificial fire.
In the former case, the counting must begin from 3000 BC while in the latter case the counting must begin from 1500 BC. 3000 BC refers to the period when Dwaraka was lost to the seas after Krishna's departure from the earth whereas 1500 BC refers to the period when the reconstructed Dwaraka at Bet Dwaraka (Dwaraka that was built after the submergence of Krishna's Dwaraka) was flooded by sea waters.
The period of the migrated people could well be around 1500 BC because that puts Kapilar's time around the start of the Common Era. Kapilar has written one group of the Pathitrup patthu songs. The kings of that book have belonged to a time around the beginning of the Common Era. A detailed research of Kapilar's all works (he has many) is needed to be done to determine his period. That would solve the question of when exactly the Dwarakans migrated.
Another issue is why the Dwarakans migrated.
In both the periods, the cause of the migration is obvious.
The submergence of the habitations had driven the people out.
In Musala parvam in Mahabharata, we find Arjuna taking the womenfolk of the vrishni race, their children and the aged along with the citizens of Dwaraka to North.
In section 7 of Musalaparva it is mentioned that he settled them at different places.
The places mentioned are Kurukshethra, Indraprastha under the ruler ship of Vajra, the grandson of Krishna and on the banks of Saraswathy under the rulership of Yuyudhana, the son of Satyaki.
Another group left beyond Himavat and settled in a place called Kalpa (may be in present day Afghanisthan or beyond).
Thus the people of Dwaraka had spread all over North India and even beyond the Himalayas. The mention of settling them on the banks of the river Saraswathy tells who the people of IVC were.
The IVC dating starts from 3000 BC only, making it a post Mahabharata culture. The IVC culture is a continuation of the earlier culture that was in place in Dwaraka, in Indraprastha and in North India in general, as we find connection between the regions and people of all the places of North India in Mahabharata. There is no mention of movement to the South in the narration in Mahabharata.
Dwaraka submergence was predicted in advance and Krishna had given instructions in advance to take the people out of Dwaraka before the submergence began. They all have left to the North through the banks of river Saraswathy.
The mention of movement of people from Dwaraka to the South is found only in Tamil texts in the two places I have covered in this series.
The people who were already well established along the Saraswathy river and in parts of Gujarat by building yet another city on the mouth of the ocean in Bet Dwaraka had continued to live until 1500 BC. Based on the findings of Prof S.R. Rao, we conclude that the people of this region were brought to Tamilnadu by the sage Agasthya when the ocean rose to engulf this settlement.
The mention of 49 generations of king Irungo veL fills up this gap from 1500 BC to the beginning of the Common Era.
There is another clue also from which we can deduce the time.
This comes from the Pandyan connection to the setting up of Sangam Assemblage.
The last time the 3rd Sangam was constituted was during the reigns of the Pandyan king Ugra Peruvazhuthi.
The details of the duration of each Sangam are available in the commentary to Irayanar Agapporul.
According to this,
the first sangam assemblage lasted for 4,440 years in which 4,449 poets inaugurated their works,
the 2nd Sangam lasted for 3,700 years with 3,700 poets contributing their works and the 3rd Sangam lasted for 1,850 years with 449 poets making their contributions.
49 kings of the Pandyan lineage have constituted the 3rd Sangam.
The last one in that line-up was Ugra Peru vazhuthi.
This king is praised in 2 places in Purananuru. In verse 367 of Puranauru, the poetess Ovaiyar praises this king who was seen along with the other 2 kings (of Chera and Cholan dynasties) as it was very rare to see the kings of all the 3 dynasties (Pandyan, Cholan and Cheran) together. The Cholan king who was spotted along with Ugra Peruvazhuthi was Peru narkilli (who did Rajasooya yaga)
Looking at the genealogy of Cholan kings given in Thiruvalankaadu copper plates, this king had preceded Karikal Cholan who built embankment along Kaveri.
The Pandyan genealogy in Sinnamanur plates http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/copper_plates_at_tirukkalar.html
tells about the king who made victory strides in Thalayalankaanam (Thalayalankaanatthuch cheru vendra Pandyan Nedum chezhiyan), followed by an information that Mahabharata was translated in Tamil and this news is followed by the information than the Pandyan king established Sangam in Madurai.
This refers to Ugra Pewruvazhuthi.
Much later in this king's lineage came Arikesari Parankusan whose time has been determined as 650-700 CE http://tamilartsacademy.com/articles/article08.xml
From all these we can say that Ugra Peruvazhuthi lived sometime between the beginning of the CE and before 600 AD. His period marks the end of 3rd Sangam which went on for 1,850 years.
Counting backwards we get sometime around 1500 BC to 1200 BC as the time of the beginning of the 3rd Sangam.
Tholkaapiyam was inaugurated during this Sangam.
From its contents it is known that it was written after the migration of Dwarakans.
The 7 fold division of the Kumari was given up and in its place the 5 fold division was introduced. The clearing of the forest tracts for Mullai lands was done to facilitate habitations for the Dwarakan citizens most of whom happened to be cowherds.
The very reference in Tholkaapiyam to the 5 fold division begins with Mullai lands of forest tracts for which Mayon (Vishnu) was the lord. The accordance of the first place to Mullai in Tholkaapiyam with its attendant season is an issue in debate today. Viewed from the prospect of Dwarakan settlement, this is not an issue. It is an age old custom of Tamil people to give prime importance and attention to athithis (virunthombal / விருந்தோம்பல்) . True to that custom, the people who came to Tamil lands in search of succor were given prime importance.
With their arrival, reorganization of lands was done and that was reflected in Tholkaapiyam. Before that the Pandyans also were displaced due to the submergence of their lands. That must have been much before the arrival of the Dwarakans. If we say that the 3rd Sangam started around 1500 BC to 1200 BC, it shows that the Pandyans were well established by the time 1500 BC. The submergence of Kumari must happened well before that time, may be around the time of Yuga-pralaya (the deluge at the start of kali yuga which also saw the submergence of Krishna's Dwaraka around 3000 BC) and it could have taken a millennium for the people of Tamilnadu to cope with the deluge and re-settlement. The history of this period is not known. Even the genealogy of Cholans and Pandyans found in inscriptions are silent on this period. This seems to be a period of picking up lost threads.
This period is mute in the North Indian history also. The only exception is the IVC people, the descendants of the displaced people of Dwaraka. They continued their life and moved on to greener pastures as Saraswathy became increasingly unhelpful. But misfortune struck those settled in Bet Dwaraka, when they experienced a tsunami like invasion on their lands. Their first option could have been to move along the Saraswathy as their clans did long ago. But Saraswathy became unreliable by 1500 BC.
They would not have opted to cross the Vindhyas and the dense forests of Dandaka. But sage Agasthya could have come to their help and offered to take them beyond the Vindhyas to Deep South which was his home.
Thus came the Dwarakans to Tamilnadu and settled down in the allotted tracts and later spread to other places.
The people of Dwaraka seem to have brought with them the skills they specialized.
Whatever is found in IVC in terms of pottery, metal works, cultivation etc are noted in Tamilnadu with the same stamp, thanks to the import of those skills by the Dwarakans.
A paper read in the World Tamil Conference points out to the similarities in the names of places in Tamilnadu with those in Maharashtra and Gujarat. The author seeks to link this to Dravidian roots from IVC to Tamils.
No it is wrong.
Tamils have been there for 1000 s years before Dwarakans came to their lands.
The similarity in names is because the Dwarakans made their presence very strong in Tamilnadu and almost invaded all walks of life and placed their stamp everywhere.
No wonder none of the 3 kings (Pandyans, Cherans and Cholans) liked them and were all the time focused on destroying the Velirs and Kings of Dwarakan lineage. The artisans (other kudi and 18 groups of people and sects like Aruvalar ) might have been skilled ones but might not have received kind reception and acceptance in due course. This might have led to discrimination against them which gradually made them subjugated castes. The caste conflict must be evaluated from this angle too.
To cite some examples, Vanniyars of Tamilnadu might be the Banyas of Gujarat. They might have belonged to the clan of Dwarakans who migrated. Similarly the metal workers, furnace workers, potters and others of Dwaraka who were engaged in a variety of jobs might not have received an equal treatment from local Tamils at all times. All these would have given rise to caste discrimination in due course.
It must be recalled that Parayan, Thudian, Kadamban and PaaNan were the olden clans / castes mentioned in Puranauru (verse 335). The cowherds have been there right from kuamri days onwards.(Kalith thogai 104) They shifted to the present day Tamil nadu along with the Pandyan king when Kumari was lost to the seas, says the verse in Kalith thogai. We will discuss the issues related to them in future posts in this series.
Presently, the information that Dwarakans of different clans - all of them having a good tradition by birth and by skills – coming to Tamilnadu in good numbers gives rise to a theory that they might have faced differences leading to struggles and conflicts that would have put the weaker ones at the receiving end of differential treatment.
There is scope to say that the Dwarakans did a cultural invasion – the notable one being the introduction of Krishna cult and Balarama worship in Tamil lands. There are other ones also which will be discussed in the next post. The Dwarakan merger needs to be studied for the kind of cultural and social invasion of Tamils by them.
The Dravidian concept has no place in this situation.
The Dravidian displacement is only a myth.
The Dravidian identity of Tamils is a fallacy.
If those who have shifted to Tamilnadu were considered as Dravidians, then they were not Tamils.
They were the people of Dwaraka or of North who came to Tamilnadu seeking a place for them to live in the midst of Tamils.
It is a pity that Mr Karunanidhi and his coterie did not realize this.
Given below are the excerpts of the paper on similarity between names in Tamilnadu and Gujarat presented by Mr Balakrishnan IAS in the just concluded World Tamil Conference.
The interesting info is that these places are found in the Cheran lands (Kerala) and the east of the Western ghats where the Dwarakans settled in large numbers. This goes well with my contention of Dwarakan migration.
The names he has mentioned:-
Amoor (ஆமூர்),
Avur (ஆவூர்),
Aiyur (ஐயூர்),
Mogur (மோகூர்),
Kallur (கள்ளூர்),
Korkai (கொற்கை),
Vanji (வஞ்சி),
Thondi (தொண்டி)
By adding the suffix 'am' the following names found in the North sound like Tamil words.
Arang (அரங்),
Kandeer (கண்டீர்),
Kavir (கவிர்),
Kuraal (குரால்),
Maarok (மாறோக்),
Maanthar (மாந்தர்),
Muthiraa (முதிரா),
Thondak (தொண்டக்)
என்ற இடப்பெயர்களுடன் அம் என்ற விகுதியைச் சேர்த்தால், சங்க இலக்கிய இடப்பெயர்களான அரங்கம், கண்டீரம், கவிரம், குராலம், மாறோக்கம், மாந்தரம், முதிரம், தொண்டகம் போன்றவற்றை மீட்டுருவாக்கம் செய்யலாம்.
From
http://www.nakkheeran.in/users/TamilClassicalConference.aspx?TCC=133
சிந்துசமவெளியில் தமிழ்ப் பெயர்கள் :
பாலகிருஷ்ணன் ஐஏஎஸ்
ஒருபுறம், சிந்து சமவெளிப் பகுதியிலும் அதற்கு அப்பாலும் வழங்கும் இடப் பெயர்கள் தற்போது தென்னிந்தியாவில், குறிப்பாகத் தமிழகத்தில் வழக்கிலுள்ள இடப் பெயர்களை அச்சுமாறாமல் அப்படியே நினைவுபடுத்துகின்றன.
அதுமட்டுமன்றி, அவ்வடமேற்குப் புலத்தில், சங்க இலக்கியங்கள் குறிப்பிடுகிற ஊர்களின், ஆறுகளின், மலைகளின், துறைமுகங்களின், தலைநகரங்களின், பல்வேறு அரசுக்குடிகளின் ஆட்சிக்குள்பட்ட பகுதிகளின் பெயர்களை மட்டுமன்றி பல்வேறு பழந்தமிழக் குடிகளின், மன்னர்களின் பெயர்களையும், குடிப்பெயர்களையும், வேளிர், அதியர் மற்றும் பல குறுநிலக் குடிகளையும் குறுநிலத் தலைவர்களின் பெயர்களையும் அப்படியே நினைவுறுத்தும் இடப் பெயர்கள் இன்றும் வழக்கில் உள்ளன.
மறுபுறம், தமிழகத்தில் இன்றும்கூட சிந்துவெளி இடப் பெயர்களுடன் ஒப்பிடத்தக்க இடப் பெயர்கள் வழக்கில் உள்ளன என்பதுடன், ஏராளமான சிந்துவெளி மற்றும் வடமேற்குப் புலப் பெயர்கள் தமிழகத்தில் வாழும் பழங்குடிகள் மற்றும் வேளாண்குடிகளின் இடப் பெயர்களாகவும், குலப் பெயர்களாகவும், குடிப் பெயர்களாகவும் விளங்குகின்றன. இவை, சிந்து சமவெளியின் தமிழ்த் தொடர்பிற்கு புதிய வெளிச்சம் தரும் என்பதில் ஐயமில்லை.
சிந்து சமவெளி நாககத்தின் திராவிட, மிகக் குறிப்பாகத் தொல்தமிழ்த் தொடர்பை, சிந்து, ஹரப்பா பகுதிகளிலும் அதற்கு அப்பாலும் வழங்குவது இடப் பெயர்களைக் கொண்டு நிறுவுவது இயலும். குறிப்பாகத் தமிழக, கேரளப் பகுதிகளில் அண்மைக்காலங்களில் கண்டறியப்பட்டுள்ள தொல்பொருள் அகழாய்வுகளும் அவை தரும் தரவுகளும் சிந்துவெளி திராவிடத் தொடர்புக்கு சான்றளிக்கின்றன.
எடுத்துக்காட்டாக, ஆமூர், ஆவூர், ஐயூர், மோகூர், கள்ளூர், கொற்கை, வஞ்சி, தொண்டி போன்ற பெயர்கள் அச்சுமாறாமல் அப்படியே ஒலிக்கப்படும் பெயர்கள் வடபுலங்களில் உள்ளன.
இப்பகுதிகளில் வழங்கும் அரங், கண்டீர், கவிர், குரால், மாறோக், மாந்தர், முதிரா, தொண்டக் என்ற இடப்பெயர்களுடன் அம் என்ற விகுதியைச் சேர்த்தால், சங்க இலக்கிய இடப்பெயர்களான அரங்கம், கண்டீரம், கவிரம், குராலம், மாறோக்கம், மாந்தரம், முதிரம், தொண்டகம் போன்றவற்றை மீட்டுருவாக்கம் செய்யலாம்.
கடலுள் மூழ்கியதாகக் கூறப்படும் பஃறுளி ஆற்றின் பெயர் பக்ரோலி என்ற ஊரின் பெயராக இருப்பதையும் காணலாம்" இவ்வாறு பாலகிருஷ்ணன் தனது கட்டுரையில் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.
