The study of corporate bodies of various sorts has taken a significant place in the historiography of medieval south India. Among these corporate bodies, the Ayyāvoḷe Five Hundred (Ayyāvoḷe ainūṟuvar in Kannada and Aiyappoḻil ainūṟṟuvar in Tamil), supposed to be a guild of itinerant merchants1 met with all over south India, has been studied by several scholars as an economic and social institution. There are still some crucial gaps in our knowledge pertaining to this and the related bodies, partly due to the fragmentary nature of the available data and partly due to insufficient comparative study of the evidence spread over different linguistic zones. A recent comprehensive review of the evidence relating to the Ayyāvoḷe Five Hundred, hereafter Ayyāvoḷe-500, has helped in sharply focussing on certain aspects that had not been paid sufficient attention in earlier studies and also in revising some prevalent conceptions.2 In this paper a special category of commercial towns called eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam (also called vīra-paṭṭiṉam, vīra-taḷam, and eṟivīra-taḷam)3 is reconsidered in the light of the cumulative evidence presently available and attention is drawn to the implications for the larger understanding of the society and polity of the period.
1The term eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam4 has been interpreted differently by different scholars. K.R. Venkatarama Ayyar who was the first scholar to study the Ayyāvoḷe trade guild in some detail took it as a fortified mart.5 It is Indrapala who advanced further the understanding of this term on the basis of some Sri Lankan evidence.6 He said that it was a market town protected by the eṟivīrar, the “warriors who throw (javelins)”. Kenneth R. Hall took it as a place where “the heroes of the road” conducted trade.7 According to him the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam had a stance between the nakaram which was primarily centre for the exchange of goods of local origin and were periodically involved in the exchange of foreign commodities, and the paṭṭiṉam of the coast, dealing with the exchange of foreign merchandise, a position which allowed the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam to participate in both realms of commercial exchange. Hall also thought that the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉams were located in turbulent frontier areas where there was need for markets, but where royal authority provided little or no protection. Meera Abraham who took it as a protected trading base also suggested that its constitution had the sanction of royal charters.8 R. Champakalakshmi concurs with this view and does not agree with Hall’s suggestion that they were only located in frontier areas.9 She would rather take them as centres on trade routes used as warehouses by itinerant merchants.
2It may be seen from the foregoing information that there is unanimity of opinion about the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam being a protected commercial settlement. But there is no unanimity regarding the locale of the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam, the way it was created, and its relation to the king. A common difficulty that has to be faced in tackling these problems is paucity of reliable epigraphic records. Even the few relevant inscriptions have not been properly published with texts. Now, luckily, there is some fresh evidence both from Sri Lanka and south India (See Appendix).10 A few significant inscriptions have been added to the list during the past three decades. The Sri Lankan inscriptions, though they had been published three decades ago,11 could not be used until recently due to their unsatisfactory texts. The fresh copies made recently for them give an entirely new picture.12
3Most of the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam inscriptions fall within a time range of a century and a half, the earliest belonging to c.1050. A comparative study of all these brings out a striking similarity among them, though they are concerned each with some local transaction belonging to different years. A detailed analysis of a few typical inscriptions will illustrate this point. The inscription at Camuttirāpaṭṭi13 records that a big assembly called aḻakiya-pāṇṭiya-peruniravi which comprised the Five Hundred of the 18-bhūmi and nāṉātēci, and the Five Hundred of the town called Paniyānāṭu and a subordinate group (called nammakkaḷ, “our boys/sons”) comprising the nāṭṭu-ceṭṭis, taḷaceṭṭis, and other “servants” (paṇicai-makkaḷ), decided to make the town as eṟivīra-paṭṭaṇam, also called vīrataḷam. This was done to honour a warrior who saved several of his fellow warriors after fighthing and killing the enemies of the vaḷañciyas. They also decided to enhance the fees and the cloth-money (vīra-pāvāṭai) that the hero was getting in the town. In the concluding part, only the nāṭṭu-ceṭṭis and the “servants” put their signature to the transaction; that means, it is they who were the actual people doing the transaction. In this transaction two major groups were involved: (1) the body called “Five Hundred” (i.e., Ayyāvoḷe-500), (2) the body referred to as “our boys”, a term obviously used by the first group to address the second group. The first group was the body of merchants, which was very often referred to as the Five Hundred of the eighteen bhūmi/ viṣayam (“lands” or “countries”) and of nāṉātēci (“several countries”) to indicate its wide area of activity.
4Ayyāvoḷe-500 is usually referred to as a guild or sometimes as a corporation of itinerant merchants. Careful studies of the inscriptions relating to this body by G.S. Dikshit and others suggest that it was not a single, unified guild or corporation for the entire south India, though inscriptions bearing almost identical eulogistic preamble are found throughout south India and Sri Lanka, written in Kannada, Tamil, and Telugu languages.14 It was rather a concept of an overarching merchant organization that took shape in the early 10th century, to bring together all possible specialist merchant groups, itinerant and sedentary, local and foreign, and form potential networks spread over several regions.15 This seems to have taken shape concomitant with the growth of big states, like the Chola in Tamil area and the Chalukya in Karnataka. The areas of such networks were actually confined to certain geographical zones, like southern/northern Karnataka, Pandya-Kongu, etc. Under these circumstances it is the local associates of these networks, transacting in different commercial centres (nakaram, paṭṭiṉam) who can be recognized as the chief figures of the concerned record. In most of the Ayyāvoḷe inscriptions this distinction can be made.16 In Camuttirāpaṭṭi inscription, the Five Hundred of the local town called Paniyānāṭu occupies a distinct position, whereas the Five Hundred of the 18-bhūmi and nāṉātēci is mentioned in general terms.
5The other group which is given the attribute nammakkaḷ comprised nāṭṭu-ceṭṭi, taḷa-ceṭṭi and paṇicai-makkaḷ. Actually it is this group who recorded the decision. This suggestion is supported by the names of signatories to the decision. Those signatories, numbering ten, are having the titles nāṭṭu-ceṭṭi and taḷa-ceṭṭi, koṅkavāḷaiyan, āṇṭāṇ, etc. as part of their names. This group was predominantly composed of warriors, or eṟivīrar, though they are not directly mentioned as such in this inscription. The writer of this document, however, is called Eṟivīra-paṭai-ācāriyaṉ. The attribute eṟivīra-paṭai is obviously named after the army (paṭai) of eṟi-vīrar.
6Some of the Sri Lankan inscriptions are more explicit about the nature and composition of eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam. An inscription at Viharehinna17 has the following information. The 18-bhūmi-vīrar in appreciation of the timely help extended by the Greatmen (perumakkaḷ) of the town called Mācēṉakāmam alias Taṉmacākara-paṭṭaṉam in getting release of one of their “brethren” who had been put in chains by a local chief and also to show their gratitude to the Greatmen for honouring them by designating their town as eṟivīrantāṉam after the warrior clan kulam,18 decided themselves to honour the Greatmen. For that they decided to give up their right to collect lamp oil and their right to collect money fees in that town. They would continue to get only the day meal and 4 kācu for dress (pāvāṭai) as per the existing custom. This they swore upon their chivalrous tradition (vīrum cīrum āṭṭuttāvum). This statement is followed by an imprecation warning that those who dared to obstruct the decision would receive severe corporal punishment and would be given a dog’s burial.
7The next inscription at Budumuttava gives similar information. The Greatmen of Mākal alias Vikkiramacalāmēkapuram honoured in several ways the warrior group called the 18-bhūmi-vīrakoṭi: When some individual warriors were facing some hazardous situation on a highway, they were helped (perhaps by sending reinforcements) and protected in several ways; Further the Greatmen gave the epithet vīra-mākāḷam (in the name of the vīrar) to the temple of Lōkamātā, the mother of the vaiśrāvaṇas (i.e. the merchants). For all these good things, the vīrakoṭi gratefully decided to grant their lamp oil and the money dues that they had been enjoying in the town in favour of the deities Paramēśvari (Durga) and Lōkapperuñceṭṭi (the Buddha or a Bōdhisatva) of Aññūṟṟuvaṉ-paḷḷi. They swore upon their chivalrous tradition to protect the gift. Lastly it is mentioned that it is the stone of vīrataḷam. There are two more similar inscriptions in Sri Lanka, at Detiyamulla and Galtenpitiya. Though they are very much mutilated, the available lines show that they are similar to the above two records in their purport.
8In all these Sri Lankan cases the Greatmen or perumakkaḷ of the respective town must be considered as the members of nakaram, the corporate body of the town. They may be considered as the local associates of Ayyāvoḷe-500. The Budumuttava inscription has a short eulogy of the Five Hundred and following this the perumakkaḷ are said to be the “sons” (makkaḷ) of Paramēśvari of Aiyappoḻil. This is the way the Ayyāvoḷe-500 body is usually described in several records. The perumakkaḷ are later denoted as vaiśrāvaṇar of the 18-bhūmi, which also would support the links.
9The Kāṭṭūr inscription which had been quoted often in the studies on eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam is not much different from the above. According to this, the assembly of merchants (nāṉātēci-peruniravi) decided to convert Kāṭṭūr as vīra-paṭṭiṉam (same as eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam). This body met at Mayilārppil (Mayilāppūr, now part of Chennai) while Kāṭṭūr was about 30 km north of this place. Ultimately the assembly of the guards or soldiers (vīra-peruniravi) is said to have endorsed the decision of the camayam (same as nāṉātēci-peruniravi).19 The decision stipulated that the nammakkaḷ should not collect any dues from the town and if they did so they should incur a fine, i.e., they should return twice what they collected. The stipulation is not so clear, as the background to the decision is not mentioned. One thing is, however, certain: sometimes the guards (nammakkaḷ) were exacting and behaved rudely when collecting their fees. Such unruly guards were warned of excommunication from the town.20
10From the foregoing records, it is clear that the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam was just a new designation to an old town and the town itself was not newly created. The designation was given to the concerned town to mark an occasion — to remember the brave deeds of some of their guards. Though the initiative for the conferment of the designation was taken by an assembly merchants in a few cases, as that of Kāṭṭūr, it was done generally by the guards (vīrar) themselves. It may be noted that the guards also acted as a corporate group or assembly, which was denoted always in plural by such variant names as 18-bhūmi-vīrar, 18-bhūmi-vīrakoṭiyār, eṟi-vīrar, or just vīrar.
11The background information to the advent of each eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam is more important than the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam itself for the social history. The guards who were honoured by conferment of eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam are said to have fought bravely with some enemies of the vaḷañciyar. The term vaḷañciyar denoted the premier constituent group of the Ayyāvoḷe-500. In several instances it was used as a synonym of the guild itself. The very fact that such acts of bravery were appreciated and recorded permanently would show that the merchant groups were mostly transacting in a hostile and unsafe atmosphere. Generally it may be the robbers who were creating the problem. Sometimes the trouble came from some local chiefs too. In the Viharehinna inscription a local chief called Vēṇāṭuṭaiyāṉ arrested a guard of the merchants. An inscription at Singaḷāntakapuram, Tiruchirappalli Dt., adds a supporting evidence. The inscription is not well preserved and therefore some crucial detail cannot be understood from the available text. As far as it can be made out, it is found that two big persons, Iruṅkōḷar and Magadai-nāṭāḻvāṉ,21 and their mercenary soldiers (kūliccēvakar) attacked and killed the merchant guards and that they were overcome by the efforts of a warrior group called Valaṅkai-uyyakkoṇṭārkaḷ, of Ciṅkaḷāntakapuram, which was an eṟivīra-taḷam.
12A third inscription from Vēmbatti, Erode Dt, is very interesting. Actually it does not refer to any recent incident. But the names of some of the guards reflect clearly the various important encounters they had faced with the enemies. The following names may be cited: (1) Piḻaikkaṇḍaḻi who cut Cuntiracōḻa-muttaraiyaṉ at Muciri alias Mummuṭicōḻapuram, (2) Eṟiyum-viṭaṅka-ceṭṭi, who cut the chief of Cūralūr in Toṇṭai-nāṭu, (3) Vīrakaḷmatalai, who cut Kōtai Cōlai, a captain belonging to the village Kākkai in Kallaka-nāṭu of Pāṇṭināṭu. These are not just local encounters as may be seen from the places relating to the different encounters. The place of the inscription is in Erode District, while Kākkai is in Ramnad Dt, Muciri is in Tiruchirappalli Dt, and Cūralūr is in Nellore Dt, at distances ranging between 100 and 300 kilometers from the place of the inscription. Similarly in Camuttirāpaṭṭi inscription an encounter is said to have taken place at Tirumayam situated at a distance of about 50 km from the findspot of the inscription. All these would suggest that the vīrar were accompanying the merchants wherever they went on the trade routes.
13When the guards were not on the move they must have been stationed at the particular towns to which they belonged. In fact, their livelihood was dependent on that town. They were given some money dues and special allowances for cloth (pāvāṭai), and oil from each of the households of the merchants. Oil must have been meant for torches, very essential for guarding the towns during night time. The wording of the inscriptions suggests that there existed a close bond between the merchants and their guards. The merchants were always considerate towards their loyal servants, whom they referred to as “our boys” (nammakkaḷ) while the latter were very faithful to their masters, and referred to them as “our greatmen” (nam perumakkaḷ). The vīrar had developed a group consciousness and an ideal of chivalry, swerving from which was considered a sin. The ideal of chivalry is expressed by the phrases vīramuṟaimai (“the code of warriors”) and vīrum cīrum āṭutal (“to practise the code of warriors”). Under these circumstances it is inappropriate to call the merchant warriors as just mercenaries of the merchant guild.
14The names of individual warriors found in eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam inscriptions generally reflect their closeness to merchant body. Those names include such attributes as tēci, nāṉātēci, kavaṟai, etc., for example, Tēci-piccaṉ, Nāṉātēci-āṇṭāṉ, Kavaṟaikaḷ-uyyakkoṇṭāṉ. The names were actually made of long string of titles emphasizing their martial quality. One striking thing about the names is that very similar names come from widely separated places between Mysore in the north and Sri Lanka in the south. That means, there was very good communication and exchange of ideas among these guards.
15In all the available inscriptions relating to eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam, the guards are found to be already part of the old towns. To put it otherwise, they were not settled newly in the concerned eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam. A related question is whether all other towns had their own guards. This fact cannot be ascertained from the sparse evidence now available. It has to be stressed that all the known eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam inscriptions are found in Tamil only. There are nearly 110 towns in the area of Tamil inscriptions,22 including southern Karnataka and Sri Lanka, with links somehow or other to Ayyāvoḷe-500, and only about twenty of these towns are called eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam, wherein the presence of guards is clearly attested to. For the rest of the towns, except a few, no direct evidence is forthcoming on this aspect. Most probably those towns also had the guards, as in the eulogies of the Ayyāvoḷe-500, wherever some big gathering is met for some common purpose, the guards are specifically mentioned as a constituent of the assembly.
16Moreover there is another piece of evidence in the same eulogies. It is said therein that the members of Ayyāvoḷe-500 transacted their business in some 18 paṭṭiṉam, 32 vēḷāpuram, and 64 kaṭikai-tāvaḷam. Obviously the numbers 18, 32, and 64 are conventional attributes to denote that the places were several in number. The order of the description of these places would suggest that there was a kind of hierarchy among them: paṭṭiṉam was the bigger town, either on the coast or in the interior, the vēḷāpuram was the harbour place, and part of a bigger town.23 Kaṭikai-tāvaḷam is a compound of kaṭikai and tāvaḷam. For tāvaḷam there is good lexical authority and local usage to say that it is a seasonal market or fair.24 The term ghaṭika-sthāna is used as a Sanskrit equivalent of kaṭigai-tāvaḷam. It may be noted sthāna, which has the generic sense of place or location, does not convey the exact meaning of tāvaḷam. More so, the term ghaṭika, which in Sanskrit is associated with measure of time or pot.25 This is therefore a case of bad Sanskritisation. Actually kaṭigai must be a Dravidian word, related to the Tamil root kaṭi, meaning protection.26 That is, kaṭikai-tāvaḷam is a protected market or fair. This would imply the presence of some armed persons in those places. In Padaviya, Sri Lanka, a kaṭikai-tāvaḷam was part of an Aipoḻil-paṭṭiṉam. We cannot therefore assert that only eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉams were protected commercial settlements. They took their designation only due to some extraordinary situation, as noted above.
17The suggestion of Champakalakshmi that these were centres on trade routes used as warehouses by itinerant merchants may be accepted, but there is no evidence to support her other suggestion that they were created by royal charters. In all the fourteen inscriptions discussed here, it is only the vīrar and occasionally the merchants who decided the designation. King’s role is not hinted either directly or indirectly. Only three of these inscriptions are dated in a king’s reign. Interestingly the record of the decision itself is called specifically as vīraśāsana, “charter of the vīrar”, in two inscriptions, namely at Basinikonda and Padaviya.
18It may be recalled here that the eulogy of Ayyāvoḷe-500 always emphasizes in the beginning that the merchant body was adorned with or in possession of five hundred vīraśāsana. The obvious conclusion would be that the five hundred charters (whatever be the significance of the big number) are the charters of their own making, and not obtained from any king. This is not to say that the kings did not play any role in the creation of the commercial settlements. There are several instances of royal patronage, which can be verified from the new names of towns, which usually have the royal names plus the suffix puram or paṭṭiṉam, for example, Jayaṅkoṇṭacōḻa-puram, Kulōttuṅkacōḻa-paṭṭiṉam.27
19When it comes to the question of the armed guards of merchants vis-à-vis the king or the state, it is quite ambiguous. Several instances of the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam are found in the 11th century, i.e., when the Chola power was at its pinnacle. This curious phenomenon can be explained in two ways: (1) Even the great Chola kings (or for that matter, the Chalukya and Sri Lankan kings too) were not able to provide protection to the merchants on the trade routes, (2) The state did not care about such affairs generally, leaving the people to look after themselves. The second explanation is the more plausible one. The south Indian itinerant merchants certainly had a tradition of protecting themselves, right from the early 10th century. Coupled with this armed tradition, they had also maintained a studied neutrality as they were moving across a multitude of political regimes. Spencer has summed up this quality of merchants in a nice statement: “Far from being the ´creatures´ of any particular dynastic regime, the itinerant merchants exercised a chameleon-like ability to adapt themselves to local regimes to suit their own convenience. “28 Karashima has also commented on the merchant body’s non-commitment to any political power after analyzing the Tamil inscriptions of the Ayyāvoḷe-500 found in Southeast Asian countries.29
20The Ayyāvoḷe-500 inscriptions, particularly those relating to the eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam, include the names of several groups of the warriors, like aṅkakāṟar, koṅkavāḷ-700, paṉmai-300, ciṅkam, ciṟupuli, nāṭṭuc-ceṭṭi, valaṅkai, vēḷaikkāṟar and so on.30 All these together are denoted by the common designation vīrar or vīrakoṭiyār of 18-bhūmi. The group nāṭṭuc-ceṭṭi may be mistaken for a group of ceṭṭi or merchants, but actually in the context they are found to be a prominent warrior group. Koṅkavāḷ-700 and paṉmai-300 are found from the early 10th century. Though valaṅkai figures rarely as a group name, it is found as an attribute in the names of several individual warriors. The name vēḷaikkāṟar occurs a few times. Of these, a few names like koṅkavāḷ, valaṅkai, and vēḷaikkāṟar are found among the names of regiments of the Chola army. While the latter generally have some royal titles as their prefixing attributes, like Parāntaka- koṅkavāḷār, the merchant warriors do not have any association with king’s titles. The general name vīrakoṭiyār occurring very often in Ayyāvoḷe-500 inscriptions is not found among the Chola regiments. Therefore the similar names of warriors, which are but a few, does not take us far. The names valaṅkai and vēḷaikkāṟar might have been adopted by the merchant warriors from the Chola army, while such names as koṅkavāḷ, “the swordsmen of Koṅku”, may have been taken from a common source of recruitment. These names are found among the merchant warriors from the beginning.
21Lastly, the evidence of the famous Polonnaruwa inscription31 of the vēḷaikkāṟas may be considered for the possible relation of the itinerant merchants and the royal army. In this inscription, which is dated sometime in the first half of the 12th century, the big army (mahātantram) of the vēḷaikkāṟa soldiers took a vow to protect faithfully the great Buddhist temple of Tooth-relic at Polonnaruwa, which had been entrusted to them by the Sri Lankan king. This solemn oath was taken in the presence of the vaḷañciyar and nakarattār, who are addressed respectively as our “elders” (mūtātaikaḷ) and “associates” or “compa nions” (kūṭivarum) by the army people. The army is said to have included valaṅkai, iṭaṅkai, ciṟutanam, piḷḷaikaḷtanam, vaṭukar, malaiyāḷar, parivārakkontam, and palakalaṉai, most of which names are found earlier among the army units of the Cholas. On the basis of this inscription and on the fact that the Ayyāvoḷe- 500 was associated with several groups of warriors, Indrapala suggested the possibility of the merchant community supplying mercenaries from south India to Sri Lankan kings during the 11th to 13th century.32 Hall makes an addition to this proposition that the merchant-controlled regiments would have even been loaned, or hired out, to the Chola king.33
22The available evidence is too little to support such speculations. Hall’s suggestion of the Chola king hiring soldiers from the merchant bodies can easily be refuted. The warrior groups of Ayyāvoḷe-500 became conspicuous in the latter part of the 11th century, whereas evidence for the Chola army units (kaikkōḷar and vēḷaikkāṟar) are found right from the beginning of the 10th century. By early 11th century in the reign of Rājarāja I (985–1014) the army attained huge proportions by the medieval standards.34 Therefore it is anachronistic to think that the merchant soldiers were hired out to the Chola king. The evidence of the Polonnaruwa inscription is, however, a bit intriguing, as it certainly suggests some close relations existing between the merchant communities and the vēḷaikkāṟa army. But there is no evidence in any Ayyāvoḷe- 500 record in south India that the south Indian merchants transacted in “human” merchandise. It is possible that most of the vēḷaikkāṟa soldiers were the descendants of the Tamil soldiers of the Chola army who stayed back in Sri Lanka even after the Chola power had been withdrawn from the island country in the 11th century. Some must have recently migrated from the Pandya country, which was always friendly with the Sri Lankan kings. And some may have been originally merchant soldiers too. Most probably, they all being Tamils ethnically, they wanted to have the Tamil merchant elite of Polonnaruwa as witnesses to the solemn occasion associated with the Buddhist temple. And the Ayyāvoḷe merchants themselves were ardent patrons of Buddhist institutions in Sri Lanka as elsewhere.35
Appendix
Summaries of Eṟivīrapaṭṭiṉam Inscriptions36
1) Camuttirāpaṭṭi, Madurai (Dindukkal) District. On a standing stone slab (now removed to Tirumalainayak Mahal Museum, Madurai). Avanam, 2, pp. 6–8. Chola-pandya king Vikrama, AD 1050.
[Summary given in the body of the article]
232) Basinikoṇḍa, Madanapalle Tk, Chittoor, District.
24ARE, 1912, 342. Chola king Rajadhiraja I, AD 1050.
First the king’s eulogy is given in brief. Then it is mentioned that the village Ciṟuvaḷḷi was converted into an eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam (with the attribute nāṉātēci dasamaḍi) by a big merchant assembly (camayam) called Aññūṟṟuva-peruniravi comprising the nāṭu, nakara, and nāṉātēci along with several warrior groups serving the camayam (camaiyattu tiruvaṭikku paṇiceyyum). It seems that the warriors were the actual executors of the record and the record itself is called vīraśāsana. They relinquished something (not clear due to damage to the last portion of the inscription) which they had been collecting from the town. The sacrifice was made by the warriors as they had been fortunate to get some fresh vigour (ciṉaipeṟṟuṭaimaiyāl).
3) Kempaṇapura, Mysore District. Epigraphia Carnatica (n.s.), iv, Ch.146. c. 1050.
Vēlūr alias Rājādhirāja-caturvēdimaṅgalam in Padi-nāṭu was made an eṟivīra-paṭṭaṇam, most probably by the vīrar themselves in the presence of the camayam. Some allowance for dress is provided to some guards and lamp oil was gifted to the temple of Kavaṟaiīśvarm-uṭaiyār.
[The published reading and translation of the inscription are defective to a great extent].
4) Mūḍlukoppalu, Mysore District. Epigraphia Carnatica (n.s.), v, Kr.116. c. 11th century.
One Gaṅgamaṇḍala-tēciyappaṉ of Iṭaituṟai alias Erimaṟai-vira-paṭṭaṇam in Iṭaituṟai-nāṭu helped the 18-bhūmi-vaiśrāvaṇar and the 18-bhūmi-vīrakoṭi by his brave deeds, by killing enemies of Vaḷañciyar. For that the vaiśrāvaṇar (merchants) honoured him by conferment of some privileges. [The details are not clear due to mutilation of the text].
255) Vēmbatti, Erode District. (now at Kalaimagal School Museum, Erode).
26ARE, 1977, 213. Kulottunga I, AD 1074.
A big assembly of warriors (vīra-peruniravi) made Vikramapalavapuram on the north bank in Chaiyamurināṭāḻvār-nāṭu a vīra-paṭṭaṇam and vowed to protect the gift they had assigned to the Śiva temple of the village. Several of the warriors are mentioned by their titles flaunting their individual martial achievements.
6) Kāṭṭūr, Ponneri Tk, Chengalpattu District. Vīṟṟiruntaperumāḷ temple. ARE, 1912, 256. c. AD 1100.
The big assembly (camayam) called Nāṉātēci-peruniravi comprising the ceṭṭi, ceṭṭi-putran, kavaṟai, kātrivan, kaṇḍaḻi, bhadrakan, kāmuṇḍasvāmi, ciṅkam, ciṟupuli, valattukkai, and vāriyan which met at Mayilārppil decided to convert the town Ayyappuḻal alias Kāṭṭūr into a vīra-paṭṭiṉam and permitted some privileges to the town. The privileges mentioned by a vague phrase reading “that which is being paid shall not be paid (hereafter) and that which is collected should be collected (forfeited?) twice the rate”. The nammakkaḷ were warned against collecting fees and tolls in the town using brute force. The agreement was accepted both by the camayam (assembly of merchants) and by the vīra-peruniravi (assembly of vīrar).
277) Cinkaḷāntapuram, Musiri Tk, Tiruchirappalli District. On a standing stone slab called cantikkal in the village.
28ARE, 1943–44, 237. c. AD 1100.
The 18-bhūmi-vīṟakoṭis decide to honour a group of their comrades, called valaṅkaiuyyakkoṇṭārkaḷ, of Ciṅkaḷāntaka-puram which was an eṟivīra-taḷam, in appreciation of the latter’s heroic feats in vanquishing their enemies, which helped them obtain resurgence (uṭaleṭuttamaiyāl).
298) Nattam (Koyilpatti), Nattam Tk, Madurai (Dindukkal) District.
30Avanam, 3, pp. 35–36. c. AD 1100.
Damaged. Relates to the planting of foundation stone of vīrataḷam by the 18-bhūmivīrakoṭi of the town called Eṟipaṭai-nallūr in honour of some fellow warriors who did some heroic feats to protect them. The Five-hundred and the nāṭṭu-ceṭṭis were present in the big assembly along with the vīrakoṭi.
319) Viharehinna, near Moragolla of Kandapalle Koralle, Matale North District, Srilanka.
32On a stone slab within the ruined Buddha Vihara complex.
33Avanam, 9, pp. 33–34. c. AD 1150.
[Summary given in the body of the article].
3410) Budumuttava, Kurunegala District, Sri Lanka. On a stone slab fixed into a wall in the Rājamahā Vihāra.
35Avanam, 9, pp. 37–38. c. AD 1150.
[Summary given in the body of the article].
11) Detiyamulla, Kurunegala District, Sri Lanka. Buddhist temple. Avanam, 9, pp. 34–36. c.1150.
The vīrakoṭi decided to relinquish their fees and cloth-money for the lamp service to the deity of Lōkaperuñceṭṭiyār in the town called Śrī bhayankarapura-nāṉātēci-paṭṭaṇam in appreciation of the patronage and the honours they received from the Greatmen (perumakkaḷ) of the town.
12) Galtenpitiya (near Mahanameriya), Kurunegala District, Sri Lanka. Buddhist temple. Avanam, 9, pp. 36–37. c.1150.
The inscription is worn out much. The contents seem to be very similar to the above.
3613) Padaviya near Hattipola, Kurunegala District, Srilanka.
37A. Veluppillai, Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions, I, pp. 54–55; Ibid, II, pp. 19–20. (Text from a fresh ink copy). c. AD 1150.
The 18-bhūmi vīrakoṭi of Pati alias Southern (teṉ) Aipoḻil-vīrapaṭṭaṉam, including Vikkarama-kaṭikaittāvaḷam, having assembled in full, decided to contribute the money (paṇam), cloth (pāvāṭai), and all other dues they were entitled to in this town for the lamp service to god Viṭaṅkar called Valaṅkai-vēḷaikkāṟan. The document of the decision is called vīraśāsana at the end.
3814) Vahalkada, Anuradhapura District, Sri Lanka.
39Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions, I, pp. 53–54 & plate; II, pp. 7–8. c. AD 1150.
40The 18-bhūmi-nāṭṭu-ceṭṭis and the 18-bhūmi-vīrakoṭis took oath to protect the town Kāṭṭa
41nēri as it was a nāṉātēci vīra-paṭṭaṇam.
NOTES
1 The designation “guild” is used as a convenient label only, as the body does not fit the proper definition of a guild. See below.
2 Noboru Karashima, ed. Ancient and Medieval Commercial Activities in the Indian Ocean: Testimony of Inscriptions and Ceramic-sherds, Taisho University, Tokyo, 2002.
3 That all these are variants of one and the same designation is clear from their usage in similar contexts in different inscriptions. Sometimes more than one variant are found in the same inscription.
4 Also spelt as -paṭṭaṉam and -paṭṭaṇam.
5 K.R. Venkatarama Ayyar, “Medieval Trade, Craft and Merchant Guilds in South India”, Journal of Indian History, 25, part 1 (1947), pp. 269–80.
6 K.Indrapala, “South Indian Mercantile Communities in Ceylon, circa 950–1250”, The Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies, (n.s.), vol. 1, no.2 (1971), pp. 101–13.
7 Kenneth R. Hall, Trade and Statecraft in the Age of the Colas, Abhinav Publications, New Delhi, 1980, pp. 143, 188. Hall’s translation of eṟi as road, however, has no lexical authority.
8 Meera Abraham, Two Medieval Merchant Guilds of south India, Manohar, New Delhi, 1988, pp. 111– 12.
9 R. Champakalakshmi, Trade, Ideology and Urbanization: South India 300 BC to AD 1300, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp. 52, 219, 318.
10 Fourteen inscriptions are listed here with summaries. A few more inscriptions which simply mention the name of eṟivīra-paṭṭiṉam have been omitted from the list.
11 A.Veluppillai, ed., Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions, vols. I and II, Peradeniya, 1971–72.
12 These were copied during fieldworks undertaken in 1997 and 1998 as part of an International project organized by Prof. Noboru Karashima to study Ancient and Medieval Commercial Activities in the Indian Ocean under the sponsorship of Taisho University, Tokyo. The newly made texts are published in the report on the project (see note 2 above) and Avanam (Journal of the Tamil Nadu Archaeological Society), 9 (1998), pp. 32–39.
13 References to this and other inscriptions quoted below are given in the Appendix.
14 For a discussion of this problem, see Meera Abraham, op.cit., pp. 74–75; R. Champalakshmi, op.cit., pp. 311–12.
15 Noboru Karashima, ed. Ancient and Medieval Commercial Activities…, pp. 84–87.
16 Ibid., pp. 78–83.
17 For a detailed discussion of this inscription, see Y. Subbarayalu and Noboru Karashima, “A Trade Guild Inscription from Viharehinna, Sri Lanka”, Ibid., pp. 27–35.
18 The text runs as “nāmañcātti kulattiṉ pēriṭṭu peruñciṟappuc ceytamaiyil”.
19 The terms camayam and peruniravi are used synonymously to denote a big gathering or assembly.
20 The Epigraphist in his short note on this inscription took the unruly people as the merchant classes themselves. ARE. (=Annual Report on Epigraphy), 1912–13, p. 100. This has been repeated in several works without verifying the text again. The qualifying term nammakkaḷ can apply only to the vīrar and not to the merchants.
21 These are actually some of the titles taken by officials and local leaders during the time of the Chola rule, Noboru Karashima, South Indian History and Society: Studies from Inscriptions, AD 850– 1800, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1984, pp. 56–68.
22 For a list of the places and their inscriptions, see Karashima, ed., Ancient and Medieval Commercial Activities…, pp. 297–307.
23 In Barus inscription this fact is clearly supported. Y. Subbarayalu, “The Tamil Merchant-Guild Inscription at Barus, A Rediscovery”, Claude Guillot, ed. Histoire de Barus, Sumatra, Le Site de Lobu Tua I, Études et Documents, Cahiers d’Archipel 30, 1998, Paris, pp. 25–33.; Avanam, 4 (1994), pp. 118– 19.
24 Tamil Lexicon, p. 1850–51.
25 Sir Monier Williams, ed. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, reprint, 1981, p. 375.
26 Tamil Lexicon, p. 667.
27 Hall, op.cit, pp. 219ff.
28 George W. Spencer, The Politics of Expansion: The Chola Conquest of Sri Lanka and Sri Vijaya, New Era Publications, Madras, 1983, p. 57.
29 Karashima, ed. Ancient and Medieval Commercial Activities…, pp. 16–17.
30 For a detailed list of these groups, see Karashima, ed. Ancient and Medieval Commercial Activities…, pp. 76–78.
31 Epigraphia Indica}, xviii (1925–26), pp. 330–40.
32 Indrapala, op.cit.
33 Hall, op.cit., p. 192.
34 South Indian Inscriptions, vol. I, Introduction.
35 Besides the eṟivīra-paṭṭinam inscriptions of Sri Lanka, which provide evidence for the patronage of the Buddhist institutions by the Tamil merchants, there are in Polonnaruwa itself some supporting inscriptions. For example, a short 11th century inscription records a Buddhist temple called aññūṟṟuva-perumpaḷḷi established by the Ayyāvoḷe-500 at that place. A.Veluppillai, Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions, vol. II, p. 12.
36 For each inscription, its findspot, reference, and date are given first, followed by the summary. The original copies for the unpublished texts (Nos. 2, 5–7) were checked in the Office of the Director for Epigraphy, Archaeological Survey of India, Mysore. As the summaries have been made from a fresh reading of the texts there are bound to be differences with the summaries reported in Annual Reports on Epigraphy of that office.
ENDNOTES
1 The strict transliteration system used in this Felicitation Volume (which follows the conventions used in the Tamil Lexicon) has been, in the case of this contribution, checked against the spellings in the 2 vol. Glossary of Tamil Inscriptions (Tamiḻk Kalveṭṭuc Collakarāti) edited by Professor Y. Subbarayalu and published by the Santi Sadhana Trust (Chennai, 2002 & 2003). However, the delay having being very short for proofreading, due to various constraints, I apologize for any typographical error that might remain (Editor).
AUTHOR
Y. Subbarayalu
Y. Subbarayalu (b. 1940) was educated at Madurai and Madras (Chennai). He taught as lecturer in Ancient History at Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and as professor of Epigraphy and Archaeology at Tamil University, Thanjavur. He was visiting Professor for one year in the Department of Oriental History, University of Tokyo and for two months at EPHE, Paris. His special fields are: South Indian epigraphy, particularly Tamil Epigraphy, history of Chola and Vijayanagar times, early historic archaeology of Tamil Nadu. He has been associated with Prof. Noboru Karashima of Tokyo University in the study of South Indian inscriptions, and in research projects relating to South-East Asia and Sri Lanka. His publications are: Political Geography of the Chola country (1973), A Concordance of the Names in the Chola Inscriptions (1978) (co-author with Noboru Karashima and Toru Matsui), Palm-leaf Documents of Tiruchirappalli District (1989), A Glossary of Tamil Inscriptions (2002-03), and several articles relating to the Chola state, historical geography, and names of persons. He is presently coordinating an ambitious project on a Historical Atlas of Tamil Nadu and Kerala from prehistoric times to 1600 CE. at Tamil University, Thanjavur in collaboration with French Institute of Pondicherry.