A Historical account of the Mahabharata(m) war

[ramraghav]

The first part of this pdf deals with an attempt to date the Mahabharata war (though it involves both historical and non-historical references).

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/MahabharataII.pdf

[aravindhan]

Slightly more detailed comments:

1. "Paratavar" was most certainly not a general name for the people of the subcontinent. Despite the tempting similarity of the name to the Sanskrit "Bharata", "paratavar" in classical Tamil was actually the name of a coastal people from the south of Tamilakam, quite possibly the ancestors of the modern-day karaiyars (of whom one Mr. Velupillai Prabhakaran is perhaps the most famous). This is not so obvious from the puram verse you quoted, but it becomes very obvious when one looks at other occurances of the word in Tamil literature. We see the paratavars in the pukArkkANTam of the cilappatikAram, where they are described as fisherfolk ("மீன்விலைப் பரதவர்"), and named in connection with the preparations for intiravizha (pukArkkANTam, Ch. 5 line 25). They also find a mention in the maturaikkanci (one of the pattupATTu), where they are actually called "tenparatavar", exactly as in the puram song. For whatever reason,there is no general name for the people of the subcontinent in the main sangam anthologies. The first two lines should therefore read:
He routed the strength of the southern coastmen
and put to flight the swords of the Andhras"
[Vadukar=inhabitants of modern south-AP]

2. The problem with dating the Mahabharata to the time of Udayacheralatan is that it simply doesn't fit. The CilappatikAram tells us that Gajabahu of Ilankai and CenkuTTuvan were contemporaries. We know that Gajabahu reigned around the second century AD. From this, we can approximately date all the Chera kings mentioned in the PatiRRupattu, because it gives use a very good idea of the generation of to which they belonged relative to CenkuTTuvan. I do not remember offhand how many generations lie between CenkuTTuvan and Udayaceralatan, but at any rate he could not have reigned much before the 1st century BC, and most certainly only after Alexander. This is a little too late for the Mahabharata.

3. Quite apart from that, Purananuru 2 itself gives much less support to the historicity of the Mahabharata than it may seem to. In interpreting puram poems, it is important to remember the context in which the poems were written, particularly their tinai and turai, because the same words could have very different connotations in different turais. The turai for purananuru 2 (the Mahabharata) is described as being either ceviyaRivuRUu (an instruction to the king on the path of righteous living), or vAzttiyal (a song which describes how a king has been praised by one or more bards). A technique used in the former type of poem is to attribute to a king great deeds of the sort which a moral king would do; in the latter, it is possible to attribute to the king the great deeds of all legendary kings. Hence when the poet spoke of Udayacheralatan "feeding the hundred" as if it were a historic act, there is no reason to suppose that either he or his listeners took this literally: it is, on the contrary, extremely likely that they took it as a statement that this is what a king of Udayacheralatan's stature would have done. The fact that Peruntevanar classified the poem as belonging to one of these two, but was not certain which of the two it belonged to, would to me seem to indicate that it was never considered as being literal. I'm not very sure what to make of the references in the cilappatikaram to the same legend, but it is also worth noting that other bits of the song are also historically quite untrue. Lines 9 and 10 in my translation (see below) speak of the Chera king holding both the sea the sun rises in and the one it sets in. This is utter rubbish from a historic perspective - the Chera kings did not rule the Bay of Bengal coast in Udayacheralatan's time.

Also, my translation of purananuru 2 is rather different from yours, particularly between lines 9 and 18. I've re-ordered the lines somewhat, particularly at the end, in order to conform to English syntax, but not too much.

Like the earth made firm by mud
And the sky raised high by the earth
And the wind that sweeps across the sky
And fire that spreads on the wind
And water, that opposes fire - 5
your nature is like that of these five great elements
for you have endurance against your foes, and wide-ranging wisdom
and strength, and an all-consuming wrath, and noble love!
Rising from your sea, the sun once again
sinks into your western sea of white-headed waves. - 10
O king of a good land of fair towns!
O great one, bounded by the sky!
You who generously gave such food, the finest rice,
to the hundred until they were destroyed, fighting in fury
the five with horses of waving manes, - 15
the five whose land they had seized!
And even if milk turns sour, or the day dark,
or the four vedas turn from the path of virtue,
may you shine on, with no loss, with unwavering confidants,
unmoving, like Potiyam, like Imaiyam, - 20
where large-eyed does sleep in the twilight
near their small-headed fawns, by the light of the three fires
where the antaNars perform their difficult duties.

The main differences in translations are lines 9 and 10. நின்கடற் பிறந்த ஞாயிறு பெயர்த்தும் நின் வெண்தலைப் புணரிக் குடகடல் குளிக்கும் seems to clearly talk about the sun rising from one sea and setting in the other [nayiru - the sun; peyarttum - maruppaTium, puNari - wave; kuTakaTal-western sea, kuTaku is an old word for "west", related also to the name for Coorg (Tamil kuTakam, Coorgi kodagu)] which, as I point out above, is significant. In addition, in my reading the king is only described as having fed the hundred, not both armies; and the war is not described as having destroyed dharma (because line 16 ends with a vocative construction "koTuttOy", the following lines form a new sentence and therefore should be understood as being in the subjunctive, i.e., "Even if").

[devapriya]

Friends,

It is felt by many Tamil Scholars, as he is called Perunchotru; it is probable that there USED to be annual event of Celebrations when Mahabaratha is told as story and PLays are enacted; and The king fed both the Viewers and Actors. The tradtion got mixed that he fed the War itself.
Udayan Cheralathan is dated to around 25O BCE, by V.P.Purushotham, there could be some mistakes. but still this work was really researched with deep over complete Sangam Lit.

[sundararaj]

Very interesting discussion here. Very informative. Thanks for all the participants.

[P_R]

Interesting discussion.. brought forward

[aanaa]

interesting
proceed

[podalangai]

It is felt by many Tamil Scholars, as he is called Perunchotru; it is probable that there USED to be annual event of Celebrations when Mahabaratha is told as story and PLays are enacted; and The king fed both the Viewers and Actors. The tradtion got mixed that he fed the War itself.

The problem with this theory is that the motif of Udiyan Cheran feeding the armies occurs so many times in Sangam literature, and is assigned so much significance (as seen from the appellation "perunchoRRu", for example) that it's unlikely to have been given for something as trite as feeding actors. It makes far more sense (I'd even say it only makes sense) to interpret it as referring to a legend that, in the Sangam period, was believed to be historically true.

There's another theory, originally proposed by N. Subrahmanian, which I (personally) have come to find rather persuasive, which it finds a possible historical event to which the poem might refer.

In ancient Tamil literature, the term "the hundred" is used of a known, historical dynasty of the Deccan - the Satakarni line of Satavahanas. In the Silappathikaram, for example, they're called "nuRRuvarkannar" ("nuRRuvar" < "sata"; "kanna(r)" < "karni"), and they're described as allies of the Cheras who assist Senguttuvan in his wars in the North.

Other historical sources also confirm that the Satavahanas had dealings with the ancient Tamil land. We know from excavated Satavahana coins, for example, that at least one (possibly more) of the Satakarnis issued bilingual coins with inscriptions in Tamil and Prakrit.

N. Subrahmanian suggests that the "ir aimpathu" mentioned in Purananuru 2 were the Satakarnis, and the "aivar" were the "aimperum velir", the five Velir chieftains of Kongu Nadu in the Sangam period. He suggests that at some stage, the Satakarnis invaded Kongu Nadu, were opposed by the Velirs and lost. The Velirs were feudatories of the Cheras, and the Satakarnis their allies. Udiyan Cheran therefore followed the ancient Tamil custom of "peruncoRRunilai" - where a king fed a general and his army in a great hall before a battle - but with both armies in the same hall before the battle. You can easily see why this would have made a huge impression on the Tamils of the time, and why it became almost a leitmotif associated with Udiyan Cheran.

Historically, too, it's plausible. The Mahabharata war makes no sense, either in time or location. But the Satavahanas were right on the doorstep of the Tamil country, right around the time of Udiyan Cheran, and an attempt by them to invade Kongu Nadu is certainly quite likely from a historical perspective - ambitions of ruling the Tamil country would explain why they issued a brief spate of bilingual coins, for example. It also fits with the contemptuous references to the army of the hundred fed by Udiyan Cheran in the Akananuru (in poem 233, they're referred to as "kULi cuRRam") - as foreigners trying (unsuccessfully) to invade the Tamil country, they would have been treated with contempt by at least some poets.

[Shakthiprabha]

Podalangai,

Please check ur pm.

Can u please mention the name of book written by

N.Subrahmanian?