TENSING RODRIGUES
We said last time that Saluvankuppam site seems to offer us evidence on early Mamallapuram. So, who were these early builders of Mamallapuram? At Saluvankuppam we see the beginnings of Mamallapuram as early as fourth century CE; which is not too far from third century CE when “waves of kalabhra ‘invaders’, made their way from beyond the northern boundaries of Tamilakam to take over the once-prosperous city of Madurai” [‘Mackenzie Manuscripts’, Book No. 14, Section 7]. If we accept that the kalabhra-kurumba was the stock from which the Pallavas arose, the transformation seems to have been rather rapid.
‘Mackenzie Manuscripts’ paint the kalabhras as a band of invaders; yes, invaders they were indeed; but they need not have been savage. We know the tamil named the ‘vadukars’ (those from across the northern border of Tamilakam) as robbers. But that was perhaps only because of their mutual distrust and hatred. The kurumbas from Brhatkomkan and the tamil were ethnically different; who had perhaps evolved from the ‘out of Africa’ AMH (Anatomically Modern Humans) along different routes; so, there was an ab initio rift between them; very much like the hatred between the ‘hemad’ and the ‘velip’ in Goa.
Now, leaving behind the kurumba – tamil rivalry, we can visualise the gradual rise of kurumba as a force to reckon with. Their subjugation of the tamil kingdoms of the Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas was the beginning of their rise. But they did not seem to have territorial ambitions beyond a certain limit; their goal seems to have been trade across the eastern ocean for which they seized a port; need not be exactly the present site of Mamallapuram; and they tried to gain political power to support it. That is when they came to be called the Pallavas. It was the beginning of fourth century CE
by then.
But as we have seen earlier, there does seem to have been a ‘learning curve’; albeit rather steep. We know that the kurumba took over the political control ruthlessly. We do not know much about the trajectory of their political rise; but the learning curve is obvious in the art and architecture for which they became famous. The early Pallava temples were of brick and mortar. Granite seems to have become a norm as a medium of construction of Pallava temples only after the sixth century as the stratigraphic analysis shows; although granite was locally available. Most of the later Pallava monuments are in monolithic granite, that is, they are hewed out of a single granite hill; the best example perhaps is the ‘Rathas’. They were built top down – that is first the top and then the base. Perhaps the only non-Pallava temple constructed top down in India is the Kailasa Temple, Ellora; built by Krishna I of the Rashtrakuta Dynasty constructed during 600 CE to 1,000 AD.
Going back to the Saluvankuppam site, at a depth of 3.0 m from the surface, there exists another 10 cm layer of fine-grained sand, possibly of marine origin. This discontinuous layer of sand occurs above the ruins of the oldest brick structure (Phase I) and as in the case of S1, this is also prominent on the southern wall with a slimmer eastward extension. [Rajendran et al, 2006: ‘Evidence of ancient sea surges at the Mamallapuram coast of India and implications for previous Indian Ocean tsunami events’, Current Science, Vol. 91, No. 9, p. 1242] Rajendran et al presume that the presence of granite outcrop may have provided favourable conditions for the selective deposition of this layer as well.
The Pallava rise to glory seems to have come with their leap across the ocean to the Far East. For a better insight into this we move to Vasavasamudram, now a coastal village, 18 km south of Mahabalipuram, close to the mouth of Palar River near Oyalikuppam; and 5 km south of Sadras (Sadurangapatnam).[Nagaswamy & Majeed, 1978 : ‘Vasavasamudram-A report on the excavation conducted by the Tamil Nadu State Dept of Archaeology’] Earlier in the Sangam Age, at the beginning of Common Era, Tiraiyars who, claimed to be a branch of the ancient Cholas, were in control of this region. A port in this region is celebrated in Perumpanarruppadail, one of the Sangam classics as follows: “Its grand shore was surrounded by ships which brought horses, white like milk, with waving manes, from the west and the products of the north. In the streets covered with sand there were warehouses guarded by servants. There were also stately mansions in which merchants lived.” The name of the port is given in the text as Nirpeyar. Some scholars identify Nirpeyar of the Sangam classics with Sadras. Mention is also made of Vayalurin connection with the overseas rule of the Pallavas. Being situated at the mouth of the River Palar, providing a natural entrepot it should have played a vital role in the overseas contact of the Pallavas, which is indicative of the maritime importance of the village.
Another village Punjeri is also mentioned in this connection. The Punjeri was known in ancient times as Puhum-Ceri, which means “The Village of First Entry”. So the very name of the village indicates that it was a place, where the ships used to enter to unload their goods. The village is situated about 15 kms west of Mamallapuram on the western bank of the Great Salt Lake.[Thread by @ThanjaiMadhavan: – ‘A Pallava Sea-port near Mamallapuram!’ https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1147724868927934464.html#google_vignette]
Note that: ‘west of Mamallapuram on the western bank of the Great Salt Lake’. Perhaps we could not get a better verification of what we had speculated: Great Salt Lake as a harbour protected by Tripalur Reef. Running throughout on the western side of this has been noticed a set of three or four deep-cut ‘trenches’. On the northern side, near the Kotikal Mandapam, which is dedicated to Goddess Durga, known in Tamil inscriptions as “Vadavayil Selvi”, the goddess of northern quarters, these trenches take turn towards east. So, it is quite possible that these were foundations of a fortification wall. The purpose of the fortification may be to store the imported cargo and that to be exported. We find such fortifications in pre-historic ports in Kathiawar too, like in Dwarka (the place gets its name from Dvaravati, the ‘many gated fort’); and Khirsara.
Khirsara was both a manufacturing location as well as a trading outpost. It produced beads made from carnelian, agate, jasper, lapis lazuli, steatite and chalcedony as well as shell articles, which had a market in Mediterranean region. Khirsara in the Kacch Island, the north-western extension of the Kathiyavad Peninsula in the gulf of Kacch (Cutch). An extraordinary feature about Khirsara is that it not only had an outer fortification wall around it, but every complex inside had its own fortification wall, be it the citadel, the warehouse, the factory with its habitation annexe and even the potters’ kiln, which lay outside the outer fortification wall. [Nath et al, 2013: ‘Fortified Factory at Harappan Metropolis Khirsara, Gujarat, in Heritage : Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology’, 1, 658] The dates for the shell working industry in Khirsara have been put at around 2,600BCE to 2,200 BCE based on the carbon dating of the samples of organic remains. Or think of Betulkot for Valipattan, on the opposite bank of River Sal in Goa.
It may be difficult to pinpoint at any one – Nirpeyar, Sadras, Vasavasamudram, Punjeryor Vayalur, as the precursor of Mamallapuram; perhaps that may be wrong too. Because all of them at different times and for different purposes, and perhaps even collectively, might have served as ports; we have spoken of Kathyawadas a port complex. Pre-historic and medieval ports have mostly functioned as port complexes evolving over time to accommodate to changing circumstances – change in sizes of vessels, change in nature of trade – domestic or overseas, etc.
