Sangam

Lived Spaces in History: A Study in Human
Geography in the Context of Sangam Texts
K.N. Ganesh
Department of History
University of Calicut
There has been considerable research work on early South India, particularly early Tamilakam,
using archaeological, epigraphical and literary sources. Earlier, studies on early Tamilakam was
almost exclusively based on the early Tamil texts, called as heroic or bardic poetry. However, a
wealth of material has been generated by archaeological exploration, that have unearthed a
mass of material from paleolithic, mesolthic, neolithic and the iron age megalthic, bordering on
the early historic ages. A number of Tamil Brahmi label inscriptions have also been discovered.
However, the largst number of archeaological finds have been megalthic burial sites and habitation
sites are only in the process of being discovered. There are also difficulties in corroborating
archaelogical and epigraphic material with the enormous corpus of early Tamil texts. As a result,
there is a tendency to dismiss the early Tamil texts as not conducive to historical analysis. The
present article argues that we will still be able to use the material of the early Tamil texts using
the tools provided by human geography, and suggests a methodology for making use of the literary
material for further explorations in the early history of Tamilakam.
Keywords: locality, habitat, production, circulation, distribution, culture, artifact
In recent years, closer collaboration among archaeological, epigraphic and literary

studies has been attempted, in order to bring out the features of history-making in
early South India. Earlier studies had made a distinction between ‘pre-historic’
Tamilakam, as delineated by the archeological record from paleolithic through
neolithic to the megalithic ‘period’, followed by the ‘Age of the Sangam, as re-
vealed in the early Tamil anthologies.1 Recently, ‘the Age of the Sangam’ has
been replaced by the early historic, used for the period from the third century BC
to the third century AD, preceded by the ‘iron age megalithic’.2 It is admitted
that the two periods, the iron age and the early historic, overlap with the iron age
1
In his book Sastri (2002) introduces the pre-historic in Chapter II and the ‘Age of the Sangam’ as
Chapter VII. Interestingly, the text identifies ‘The dawn of History’ with ‘Aryanisation’ followed by
two further chapters on the Mauryas and Satavahanas.
2
Gurukkal (1955).
Studies in History, 25, 2, n.s. (2009): 151–195

SAGE PUBLICATIONS Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/025764301002500201
Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

152 / K.N. GANESH
actually covering the entire early historic also.3 The appearance of writing, with
Tamil Brahmi labels and inscriptions could be seen as separating the early historic
from the previous period.4
Sangam texts were essentially part of the oral tradition, composed by the numer-
ous singer-poets, put together in later centuries into composite texts.5 The oral
character of the texts makes the determination of the dates of composition of
individual texts extremely difficult. However, it is generally recognized that the
Tokai compilations except Paripatal and Kalittokai belong to an earlier period,
and the Kilkanakku texts, along with the epics, Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai,
as well as Tolkappiyam, belong to a later period.6 While later texts, including
Pattupattu, appear to represent a stage that has been depicted as ‘early historic’,
the early texts appear to overlap with different stages of transition from an anterior
iron age megalithic to early historic.7 Songs representing an advanced stage in
social formation can be seen in the early texts also, and it can be argued that some
songs in the later texts represent earlier stages of social formation.
Despite these difficulties, scholars have attempted to historicise several indi-
cators within the Sangam texts, such as the Tinai concept.8 Although Tinai is a
concept of literary space used by the Sangam singer-poets,9 efforts have been
made to ground them in early historical geographies, ecological regions and social
formations10 Earlier, Tinai was conceived as signifying the social evolution of the
Tamils.11 Recently, efforts have been made to demonstrate the simultaneity of
3
Gurukkal (1987: 46–57).
4
Mahadevan (1968, 2003).
5
The story of the three Sangams is narrated in the eleventh century text, Iraiyanar Akapporul
(Tirunelveli: Saivasiddhanta Publishing, 1953), which is a commentary of an earlier text, Iraiyanar
Kalaviyal. The story has become a powerful narrative that has played a significant part in constituting
the Tamil consciousness in recent years. See Ramaswamy (2007). The narrative, despite having the
functions of resistance as shown by Ramaswamy, remains to be validated by real evidence.
6
N. Subramanian, in his recent work (Subramanian (1997)), sticks to the position that Tolkappiyam
is anterior to all the other texts, including the Tokai songs. However, the text itself represents an
advanced period of cultural formation, dealing with the construction of Col. Ezhuttu and Porul.
Hence, the argument by Pillai (1956), attributing its composition to sixth century AD, appears to be
closer to reality.
7
The difficulties in developing an acceptable chronology for Sangam texts have been at the centre
of the difficulties in the periodation of early societies in Tamilakam. Even those who concede a later
date for Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai, accept pattupattu among the earlier works. For the purposes
of this study, attention will be paid to the six Tokais, over which all scholars appear to be in agreement.
8
Sivathamby (1974); Gurukkal (1989).
9
For a general discussion of Tinai and other poetical forms in Sangam texts see Chapter II,
‘Poetics’ in Marr (1985).
10
Seneviratne (1990); Gurukkal (1990).
11
Iyengar (1929); Dikshitar (1936). Similar positions were taken by Kamil Zvelebil (Tamil Poetry
200 years ago, Tamil Culture, Vol. X, 1979) and Thaninayagam (1966). N. Subramanian (Sangam
Polity, Bombay, 1966) disputes these claims.
Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Lived spaces in history / 153
Tinais and the existence of multiple economies within a tribal society.12 Terms
like menpulam have been seen as indicating the emergence of an agrarian society
based on plough agriculture.13 Growth of wetland paddy agriculture in the river-
borne alluvial regions has been shown to be portending the decline of an antecedent
tribal society characterized by the Tinai formations.14 Much of this discussion has
been hypothetical, based on the corpus of Sangam texts that include the pattupattu
and the Kilkanakku texts. Corroborative evidence has been sought to be extracted
from the available archeological and numismatic materials, including the iron
age megaliths purportedly antecedent to the early historic.
However, excavations of the port towns of Arikamedu, Alagankulam,
Vasavasamudram, Korkai, Kaveripoompattanam, and recently Pattanam on the
West Coast, as well as evidence from the interior sites of Karur, Uraiyur and
Kotumanal have contributed substantially to our knowledge of the early historic
references.15 The port towns and the interior town of Karur indicated flourishing
Roman trade. Excavations at Kotumanal revealed an indigenous trading and habita-
tion site adjacent to the beryl mines.16 Its role as a jewel manufacturing centre is
established by excavations.17 Excavations at Pattanam have brought out beryl
beads, showing a possible relation between Kotumanal and Pattanam. The other
important corroborative evidence emerged through the discovery of Roman coins.
Roman coins from republican to later imperial coins have been discovered in
various sites from Tamil Nadu and Kerala.18 Other coin hoards also include punch-
marked coins and indigenous coins of Ceras, Colas and Pandyas.19 The develop-
ment of exchange, trade and coinage, jewel and beadmaking appeared to indicate
the growth of an advanced social life.20
12
Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 16–76).
13
Gurukkal, ‘Aspects of Early Iron Age’, p. 48.
14
Gurukkal (1989). The thesis has been developed in the case of Kerala in Gurukkal and Varier
(1999).
15
Wheeler, Ghosh and Deva (1946: 17–124); Nagaswamy and Majeed (1970); Vasavasamudram
(Report on the Excavations Conducted During the year 1970), Department of Archeology, Madras,
1970; Nagaswamy (1973, 1974, 1991); Excavations at Uraiyur, Indian Archeological Reports
1964–65, 1965–66; Begeley et al. (1996); Selvakumar et al. (2005: 57–66); K.V. Soundara Rajan,
Kaveripattanam Excavations 1963–73, Archeological Survey of India, 1994, Majeed et al. (1992).
For a general discussion of the sites, see Champakalakshmi (1996: 117–40).
16
Rajan (1996: 72–86).
17
Ibid. (1989–90: 111–12).
18
See Suresh (2004). Champakalakshmi (1996: 158–74) provides a list of Roman coin hoards
and finds.
19
See Champakalakshmi (1996: 157) for a list of the punchmarked coin finds; Cola coins from
Kaveripattanam in IAR 1963–64, 1964–65; R. Krishnamurthy, Makotai coins in Studies in South Indian
coins No. 2, 1992, pp. 89–93; Idem, Pandiyar peruvaluti Nanayangal, Madras, 1987; Krishnamurty
(1997).
20
See Champakalakshmi (1996: 190–96). She points to the growth of merchants and long distance
trade in early Tamilakam, but points out that ‘long distance trade does not seem to have had any sig-
nificant impact over the emergence of a state society, for trade and urban processes were not built
into the core of transformation of a non-State into State society in early tamilakam’ (p. 196).

154 / K.N. GANESH
Although the growth of exchange need not directly presuppose the existence
of state, some scholars have sought to defend the existence of state in the early
historic period.21 However, the picture of an incipient state society on the basis
of the processes of trade and exchange in early Tamilakam has been seriously
contested.22 It has been argued that even with the ‘development’ of exchange and
trade, early Tamil society was a tribal society based on clan and kinship. The
transition from the ‘iron age megalithic’ to early historic accentuated some of the
social processes, but did not result in a qualitative transformation, which was
made possible only with the expansion of wetland paddy agriculture.
Discussion on early Tamil society is an excellent demonstration of the possi-
bilities and limits of a corroborative understanding of archeological and literary
evidence. The limits are probably created by the nature of the evidence itself.
While there are about two thousand megalithic sites in South India, large sites are
comparatively few.23 Although the Sangam texts are voluminous, absence of rigor-
ous chronological analyses of the songs has prevented their effective use as histor-
ical sources, except in general terms.24 Orality of the texts itself could be a barrier,
although attempts have been made to call them ‘bardic tradition’, compositions
by the professional bards to entertain aristocratic audiences.25 Works by profes-
sional bards would cover literary spaces from real to imaginary, immanent to
transcendental, and with the perfection of formulaic forms of bardic verse making,
any ascription of chronology to the verses themselves would be difficult. Despite
these obvious limits, the Sangam texts are grounded in the specific geographic
and cultural spaces of the Tamil-speaking people. They can be treated as the corpus
of the oral traditions of people who lived in the early Tamilakam.26
21
M.G.S. Narayanan has argued, ‘Rise of the military chiefs and the need for defending their
cattle appear to have compelled the peasants to seek the protection of the powerful military chiefs or
at least to acquiesce in their claims of sovereignty and pay the tribute. This is how the foundations
were laid for the 3 emergence of a nebulous form of State’. See Narayanan (1991: 106–31). Elsewhere,
he says that warriors ‘were at the beck and call of the great kings who waged incessant warfare’
(Warrior Settlements of the Sangam Age, Foundations, pp. 97–105).
22
The arguments are summarized in Rajan Gurukkal, ‘Beginnings of the Historic Period’
(pp. 250–56). See also, Gurukkal (1989) and Seneviratne (1990).
23
U.S. Moorti has listed 1933 megalithic sites in South India (which may now be over 2000, and
he identifies only 26 as large settlements (above 5 hectares); Megalthic Centres in South India:
Socio-economic perspectives, Varanasi, 1994. Tables 1.1 and 2.6.
24
An early attempt at a chronology based on the information on Velir and Ventans in the Sangam
texts was made by Pillai (1932). He regarded Kuruntokai, Narrinai, Akananuru and Purananuru as
the early texts, and the other Tokais as later. He brought the chronology of the chiefs through nine
generations from 50 BC to 200 AD. However, this effort was not followed up to any extent by the
later scholars.
25
Kailasapathy (1968: 7).
26
The term ‘corpus’ is used in the sense of Jan Vansina, who calls it ‘remembered information...
memory of memory i.e., one of something heard from somebody else. Hence, inputs into reality are
not confined to material heard from members of previous generations, but may include speculations

Archeological explorations have revealed paleolithic, neolithic and iron age

phases within Tamilakam.27 Iron age cultures within the region are part of the so-
called ‘megalithism’ as majority of them have been burial sites of various types.28
Habitations were relatively few,29 although it has been pointed out that the number
of habitation sites were not as low as it was believed.30 Habitations are found
along with port sites (Arikamedu, kaveripattinam) or with indigenous trade centres
(Karur, Kotumanal). Occurrence of larger sites, including habitations has been
noted along trade routes.31 Pattanam, the first port site to be excavated from Kerala,
is also a habitation site.
The problem of the relative absence of habitation sites has limited the discussions
on ‘iron age’ and the early historic period in Tamilakam, and has also resulted in
another important point of debate, the question of ‘grave goods’ and evidence
from the habitation sites. It has been pointed out that mortuary practices show
‘slow change’ and graves are ‘ritual in nature and it is a single time deposit... the
graves do not produce much stratigraphy.’32 The effort thus has been to look for
materials that deal with ‘parameters like trade, technology, architecture, political
authority, territorial integrity, urbanisation etc.’33 This is not surprising because
of the nature of evidence, particularly tangible evidence that archeologists are
likely to discover, which would be more in trade or urban sites, if one ignores
‘grave goods’. A trade centre can yield artifacts that can last longer, such as metal
objects and implements, edifices made of burnt brick, granite, limestone or other
about the past from contemporaries’. See Vansina (1985: 148–49). Sangam texts, even in the form
compiled at a later time, may be treated as such a Corpus.
27
Standard accounts include Rao (1972); Leshnik (1974); Sundara (1975) and Narasimhaiah
(1980).
28
The term ‘megalithism’ has been used by all archeologists to dente a typology of lithic con-
structions. Megalithism existed from pre-iron age context. See Mohanty and Selvakumar (2002) and
Settar and KoriSettar (2002: 313–51). Leshnik (1974: 12) thinks that the term ‘megalith’ ‘is not only
a misnomer, it is inadequate ... its vague definition and loose application has compounded the diffi-
culties involved in studying burials by allowing the occasional introduction of doubtful comparisons
to pass unnoticed.’ Leshnik’s remark appears to have been ignored in later literature.
29
Leshnik (Ibid., p. 247) has noted the absence of any identifiable habitational remains. The same
point is noted by Agrawal (1982: 257) and Allchin and Allchin (1983: 345).
30
Moorti (1994) has given a list of 66 habitation sites and 112 habitation cum burial sites. However,
most of them are in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. He has listed only 13 habitation and 27 habitation
cum burial sites from Tamil Nadu (out of 607 sites) and no site from Kerala (out of 270 sites). Hence,
there appears to be substance in the original observation as far as Tamilakam is concerned.
31
Ibid., p. 17. Notes about 30 ‘Settlement centres’ along the route from Palghat gap to Kaveri
River.
32
Rajan (2008: 43).
33
Ibid., p. 48. Trade, both internal and external, has been central in this effort, as seen in note 15,
and also the articles in Begley and De Puma (1992) and Ray and DeSelles (2003).

156 / K.N. GANESH
forms of non-perishable structures, precious stones and beads, or artifacts from

other parts from India or the world. However, trade cannot stand independent of
production, nor can circulation of goods in any form exist without an exchange
network that involves population engages in different forms of subsistence. Such
inter-regional and intra-regional forms have already been established.34
The Sangam texts are used to understand the wider network of goods to goods
exchange among people having divergent means of subsistence.35 The identity
of exchangers and merchants are also sought to be corroborated with the help of
early Tamil texts.36 The problem of corroboration of archeological evidence and
literary texts is not completely resolved here. Some scholars who are primarily
historians, linguists and anthropologists appear to solve the problem by attempting
a semiotic or anthropological interpretation, thus introducing a ‘cultural’ solution
to the problem.37 For such scholars, every society takes its culture as continuity,
and understanding culture is representational and judgemental.38 Cultural solution
admits a subjective construction of the past, which is an ‘invention’. Archeologists
do not admit such a construction of the past, and their solution is technical, basing
themselves on the evidence gathered from excavations and explorations.They try
to incorporate social and ideological realms on the basis of the artifacts.39 Recently,
efforts have been to go beyond the technical features of the artifacts to cognitive
processes of their making, particularly with reference to mortuary practices.40
These solutions have their own limitations. The culturalist solution has attempted
to develop a theoretical construction on the transformation and breakdown of the
tribal society and the emergence of a state society as the consequence of a ‘crisis’
34
See Champakalakshmi (1996). Evidence on punch marked coins, rouletted ware, the presence
of Jainas and Buddhists, apart from the discovery of roman pottery are indications of this network.
Recently, the excavations in Queiseir ans berenike along the Red Sea Coast have added to this infor-
mation. For a general account, see Sidebotham (2006: 60–67).
35
Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 177–81).
36
Champakalakshmi (1996: 105–10).
37
Gurukkal (1996) and Gurukkal (1998).
38
Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 16–17). The authors continue: ‘...any culture is an imagined text
and any version of culture approximated as common to several societies or peoples of a sub-continent
is an invention—the conscious making of a consolidated vision about one’s heritage, an emotive
attempt of fabrication around the images of the past. In short, culture is a narrative—an imagined
text of the absolute and the transcendental culture approximated as common to several societies or
peoples of a sub-continent is imaginary and can well be conceived as an invention. It is the making
of a consolidated vision about one’s own heritage, an emotive attempt of fabrication around the
images of the past’.
39
This has been the contribution of the so-called processual archeology that gained substantial
influence through 1960s to the 1980s. See Binford (1962: 217–25); relevant positions can be found
in Binford (1968). Binford’s division of the artifacts into technomic, socio-technic and ideo-technic
has been used in the study of the South Indian Megaliths by Moorti (1994).
40
Selvakumar (2005).

within the tribal society.41 The theoretical construct on the transition from ‘tribe
to state’ has based itself on a kind of argument from absence, i.e., absence of evi-
dence for the continuity and (which amounts to the same) plausibility of discon-
tinuity. Archeologists have sought to argue from the presence of evidence, and
have not gone into questions of basic social transformations at all. Instead they
have attempted to use the evidence to develop pictures of a ranked society42 or a
more complex picture of clan based segmentary society for dolmen builders and
hierarchy based chiefdom society for authors of stone circles.43 These suggestions,
whether based on the ‘presence’ or ‘absence’ are useful, but they fail to overcome
the original problem of corroborating archeological evidence and literary texts.
There have been interesting early attempts to arrive at a credible relation between
the two.44 Of them, Professor K. Sivathamby has suggested four criteria for relat-
ing archeology and literary evidence:
1. Archeological Confirmation of the geophysical background depicted in

Sangam literature
2. Delineation of literary evidence to fit into the archeologically determined
phases of cultural growth
3. Archeological corroboration of certain literary evidences
4. Development of the art of writing in the period depicted in the Sangam
literature. The criteria require that closer look at the literary texts are re-
quired in order to achieve a meaningful correlation of archeology and
literature. The rest of the essay does not pretend to develop such a ‘mean-
ingful correlation’ nor an alternative to the existing forms of enquiry regard-
ing early Tamil society. It only attempts to suggest a way of reading the
Sangam texts using human geography in order to arrive at a methodology
to find literary evidence that may be archeologically confirmed.45
41
Gurukkal and Varier (1999) present the position thus: ‘Theoretically, it was the maturing of the
contradictory dynamic of the social formation that engendered all great transformations in history.
The historical process of the maturing of the contradictory dynamic and the consequent dissolution
of the existing social formation can only be understood as a theoretical construct and not as empirical
reality, for the characteristic frailties of the sources seldom bear directly upon as historical investigators.
Therefore, the question of direct evidence in matters concerning the transformation of a tamil heroic
society into a new system of relations and values does not arise’ (p. 245).
42
Moorti (1994: 107).
43
Darsana (1998), cited in Mohanty and Selvakumar (2002).
44
Srinivasan (1946: 9–16); Champakalakshmi (1975–76: 110–22) and Sivathamby (1998: 92–114).
45
Sivathamby(1998: 97). There are obvous limitations in the criteria, like the suggestion of finding
literary evidence ‘to fit into’ the archeological phases. The last criteria falls into the study area of
epigraphy, so well dealt by scholars like Iravatham Mahadevan. Still the criteria provide a starting
point as used by Sivathamby himself in the article cited that should be followed up further.

158 / K.N. GANESH
II
Among the efforts to correlate archeological evidence with literature, the first
was to produce actual evidence from early Tamil texts for the process of burial
that could be confirmed as megalithic burials.46 The second was the effort to link
the incidence of megalithic burials, along with habitational sites with the territories
of the Velir chiefs.47 The third was the effort to link the evidence from neolithic
and iron age to the geophysical features and modes of production and exchange,
including external trade, as characterized by the Tinai concept.48 This leads to the
postulation of the co-existence of cultural phases, as characterized by the Tinai
on the one hand, and on the other, leads to the examination of the accumulating
evidence on internal and external trade, including Roman trade.49 Since then, much
of the work has proceeded by identifying larger production and exchange zones,
or establishing increasing social stratification and complexity in trade centres
and centres of Ventan chiefs.50 However, they do not solve the problem of identi-
fying or corroborating specific archeological sites, or of specific places men-
tioned in the literary texts. Terms like menpulam and vanpulam may signify wetland
agrarian tracts and larger occupation areas respectively, and terms like Ur and
natu may refer to the territory of the chief.51 But the terms do not help us to under-
stand the locational significance of places, either as archeological sites, or as
places in the texts.
46
Srinivasan (1946) cited evidence for natukal (menhir), tazhi or cati (urn) as well as numerous
references to process of burial such as itutal (exposure), cututal (burning) patupatuttal (complete
inhumation of the body), totukulipatuttal (burial in pits), talvayinatattal (also termed kalvayinatattal)
(entomb in subterranean vaults), talirkavittal (inter in urns). This includes the now famous reference
from Manimekalai VI, II, 66–7 on the five types of burial.
47
See Champakalakshmi (1975). These chiefs include the founders of some of the earliest agrar-
ian settlements in Northern Tamil Nadu, such as Koonur in Nilgiris, Takadur in Dharmapuri and
Tirukkovalur in South Arcot.
48
Sivathamby (1998) seeks to identify the paleolithic with the Kurinci and Neital Tinai, neolithic
with Mullaitinai and agriculture along with commerce with Marutam Tinai. However, Sivathamby
rejects linear development through cultural ‘phases’ and emphasizes uneven development allowing
for the co-existence of cultural phases.
49
Sivathamby (1998: 103–04) himself points to the separation of urbanism, with the commercial
prosperity and influence of the merchants, from the outlying tribalism; Commercial prosperity was
due to the Roman impetus, which stimulated a ‘cultural efflorescence.’
50
Gurukkal (1993: 57–77) and Chapters 2 and 3 in Champakalakshmi (1996).
51
Gurukkal gives considerable importance to the distinction between menpulam and vanpulam in
literary texts, in order to substantiate the argument on the growth of wetland paddy cultivation as the
significant break point that led to decline of the tribal society and the growth of stratified societies
(Gurukkal, Aspects of Agrarian economy). But how do we locate a menpulam distinct from vanpulam?
A converse problem emerges with the identification of the territory of a chief with a placename, say
Tagadur. We are sure of the residence of the chief but not the territory unless we ‘locate’ the territory

An example of a place mentioned in a literary text which is also being identified

as an archeological site is that of Kotumanal. Kotumanal was famous as a centre
for producing jewels.52 In another song, the ruler is called the chief of the natu
where palunku (rock crystal) along with a number of stones are scattered in the
hills from where people gather precious stones.53 It has been shown that Cennimalai
hills, 18 km east of Kotumanal is rich in high quality magnetite iron ore and the
iron belt stretches up to Kanjamalai.54 The precious stones found from the site
include coral, onyx, amethyst, sapphire, agate, garnet, jasper, beryl, moonstone,
carnelian, lapis lazuli and soap stone.55 Kotumanal, considered to have lasted
from the second century BC to the fourth century AD corresponds to the acknow-
ledged period of the Sangam texts, and has been a location of jewel production
both as an archeological site and a literary place. Another similar location is Karur
in Tiruchirapalli District. Karur has been located in the literary texts as on the
banks of the River An Porunai (Amaravati), a tributary of the Kaveri.56 Excavations
have revealed the existence of a Gaeco-Roman trading centre, which has also
produced objects that synthesized indigenous and Graeco-Roman art.57 This site
was in occupation from pre-Christian to medieval times, and unlike Kotumanal was
directly treated as the residence of the Cera ventans.58 Karuvur is also identified
with another textual place Vanci.59 Although difficulties in locating two texual
on the basis of a group of megaliths ascribed to the Velir, as attempted by R. Champakalakshmi. Yet,
we are unable to identify possible territorial terms, such as the nalnatu of Pulli, Nannan, Vanavarampan
etc they may refer to a place, or a group of places or an unidentified ‘territory’. The problems of loca-
tion remain.
52
Patirrupattu VII.7.1–4; VIII.4.5–8.
53
Vanpalinku virai iya chemparan murampin
Ilankatir tirumani peru um
Akan kan vaippin natu kilavoye
(Patirrupattu, VII.6.17–20)
54
See Champakalakshmi (1996: 136) and Suresh (2004: 31).
55
Rajan (1989–90). Excavations have revealed a copper tiger, inlaid from head to tail alternating
triangular pieces of carnelian and sapphire. See Suresh (2004: 146).
56
Netunter kotai tiruma viyan nakar karuvur...
nel nir tan an porunai munturai uyarkarai,
Akananuru( hereafter AN), 93
Purananuru (hereafter PN), 36 mentions the Ur near An Porunai, with protected residence
(katimanai), bounded by lofty walls (netumatil). Although the name Karur (Karuvur) is not given
here, the description indicates the existence of a constructed urban area.
57
See Suresh (2004: 29–30, 101–02, 146–47).
58
PN 5 is addressed to Karuvur Eriya Olvat Kopperumceral. PN 36 refers to the Ventan residing in
the protected manai.
59
R. Nagaswamy, Karuvur Vanci, Capital of the Sangam Ceras; PN 373 refers to vancimurram
vayakkalan aka, ie, the courtyard (murram) of Vanci becoming the battlefield. However, there is no
reference to turai, netumatil, viyanakar as in the case of Karuvur.

160 / K.N. GANESH
places to one site remain, the correspondences appear to establish the location
to early historic period. Similar correspondences exist for Uraiyur,60 Korkai,61
Kaveripoompattanam62 and Kutal (Madurai).63 Correspondences have been at-
tempted for places like Takatur and Kovalur and recently Muciri.64 Many archeo-
logical sites like Arikamedu, Vasavasamudram, and Alagankulam have not been
corroborated by literary place names.
Literary texts have been abounding in a number of place names like Tondi,
Pazhi, Vakai, Naravu, Pandar, Mohur, Kazhumalam, Kamur, Iruppaiyur, Tenur and
Potiyil that are yet to be archeologically corroborated.65 The place-names in the
Graeco-Roman texts such as Naura, Tyndis, Nelcynda and Barake also need to be
archeologically corroborated. What have survived are at best inspired guesses.66
Even if we accept that some of the literary place-names are imaginary, a number
of places are mentioned as sites of material culture such as production, exchange,
60
Uraiyur (Urantai) is frequently referred to as a textual place in AN 34, 93, 122, 369, 385. This
is corroborated by the excavations at Uraiyur. Indian Archeological Reports, 1964–65, 1965–66.
61
Korkai is mentioned as a busy place with the sound of conch shells (AN 350), as a perunturai
famous for pearls (AN 27, Korkai am perunturai muttin anna); Nagaswamy (1970: 50–52).
62
Kaveripoompattanam is referred to in all the later Sangam texts, and one text, Pattanappalai, is
exclusively devoted to it. Much of the descriptions of early urban places in Tamil historical texts
derive from these descriptions. Archeological evidence (IAR, 1962–63) has not fully supported the
urban description. However, brick structures, including a wharf and a place for boats to anchor have
been found.
63
Madurai is the urban place most widely referred to, with a whole text, Maduraikanci, devoted
to it, and a number of Tokai songs mentioning it. However, no archeological excavation has been
attempted due to the continuous occupation of the place detailed surface explorations are possible.
Here is also the problem of two place names, Kutal and Madurai, and only an exploration can decide
whether they are two different sites or the same.
64
Champakalakshmi (1975). The identification of megaliths with the velar has been made on the
basis of the incidence of Black and red ware pottery, and hence references are made to the ‘Black
and Red ware People’. But such a cultural attribution of Black and Red ware has been questioned,
Singh (1982); recently, Pattanam, the excavated Roman trade site has been identified with Muziris.
See Shajan, Cheriyan and Selvakumar (2006: 50–59).
65
A text like Akananuru alone gives the following placenames: Mokur (AN 251), Kazhumalam
(44, 270), naravu (36, 173), vempi (247), velur (166), Kuzhumur (168), Korkai (350), Kamur (135,
365), Pazhi (152, 372), Kovalur (35), Azhumpil (44), Muciri (57, 149), Tondi (60), Kutantai (60),
Potini (61), Vilankil (81), cellur (90), Otunkatu (91), Viyalur (97), Purantai (100), Vakai (125), mantai
(127), Itaiyaru (141), Talaiyaru (152), Amur (159), OOnur (220). This list is not exhaustive, and it is
not a list of places, but only named places, and majority of them need to be archeologically
corroborated.
66
One method of location of such places has been the distances in terms of stadia mentioned in
texts such as the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea. The calculations have been made on the assumption
that Muziris is Kotunkallur on the mouth of Periyar River. Another assumption is based on a reference
for the temple of Augustus, in the second century text, Tabula Peutingeriana. If Pattanam is indeed
confirmed as Muziris, then the location of other places also needs to be altered.There is also the
problem of accepting at face value statements like 500 stadia given in the Roman texts, which could
be rough estimates rather than accurate calculations of the distances.

governance and war. They need to be confirmed, or rejected with the help of tan-
gible evidence, for which a methodology will have to be developed.
The problem of a methodology for correlation of archeological sites and literary
places becomes more relevant when we remember that majority of archeological
sites in South India, and in particular Tamilakam, are burial sites of various kinds.
Burials require people to be buried, stone masons to cut into the rock, labourers to
make the pit and make the grave. The labour is likely to be intense and more
skilled if it is a passage tomb or a pillared chamber. There has to be potters pro-
ficient in different kinds of pottery including the use of wheel, blacksmiths, gold-
smiths, jewellers, beadmakers and also people to transport goods and dead bodies
to the grave.67 Thus evidence for such burials indicates the existence of a habitation,
temporary or permanent in the immediate vicinity or the existence of inter-regional
communication.68 Some of the grave goods such as russetted coated ware indicate
modes of communication and dissemination of technology across long distances.69
Incidence of precious stones is another indication of long distance communication.
For example, quartzite beads are plenty in Kerala sites because of the abundance
of quartz in the region, but the presence of carnelian, beryl or diamond indicate
contact with other parts of South India.70
The location of the site would decide the nature of the burial goods and some
characteristics of the grave. For example, in most parts of Kerala, laterite is the
major form of stone, and graves could be cut into the laterite rock. Cists or Kodakals
could also be easily made from the laterite. If a granite slab is used in the making
of a grave in a laterite zone, the granite was, in all probability, brought from
another region.71 Iron slags and implements would be common in Kerala graves,
67
‘Studies estimating the number of man-hours required to construct such monuments have not
been conducted in India’. See Moorti (1994: 108).
68
Moorti’s analysis of megalithic sites (1994) (Table 2.4 and chapter II) shows that about 60 per
cent of the sites are located where no minerals or ores are. Even in the settlement sites archeological
traces of productive activities are found in only about 20 per cent of the sites (Table 3.3). These data
may indicate inter-regional communication.
69
Russetted Coated ware has been called ‘Andhra ware’, but it has been argued that the ware ori-
ginated in Kongunadu (Rajan 1991). But this does not alter the picture on the dissemination of
technology.
70
Recent excavations at Pattanam exposed beryl from the site. Coimbatore excavations brought
up beryl from several sites, which was exchanged with Roman coins. See Champakalakshmi (1996:
183–34); Suresh (2004: 146–47). The transit of beryl was probably through the route that linked
Palghat gap with Kotumanal via Sulur and Vellalur. The same route or another similar route linked
beryl producing region with Pattanam.
71
In a recent excavation of a megalithic burial at Anakkarai in Palghat District (2008, conducted
by R. Gurukkal; unpublished), a granite stone was found on one side of the burial, otherwise entirely
laterite. This stone was probably an intrusion, and was brought from elsewhere, for purposes un-
known. Rock cut chambers to the east of Tellicherry in North Malabar (for example, Panunda) make
use of granite, and it is not surprising as Western Ghats in Kannur region contain substantial amount
of intrusive granite. See Senthiappan and Nair (1980).

162 / K.N. GANESH
as they are produced in the region itself. But the presence of brass and bronze
objects would require inter-regional communication and transportation, or move-
ment of artisans and technology.72 Sites subject to continuous occupation in later
periods are liable to have been disturbed several times, which means that artifacts
not belonging to the original occupation are liable to be superimposed. Such dis-
turbances could result in the qualitative change of the site itself, such as the transfor-
mation of a site into a ritual centre.73
All these indicate that an archeological or even epigraphical or numismatic
site should not be taken in isolation as a site that has yielded a few objects or arti-
facts as evidence for macro-historical interpretation. They are relics of an ensemble
where people lived, produced, exchanged, consumed, created cultural forms or
systems of power, died, buried or cremated. Much of the artifacts that they created
in process have disappeared either due to decay or transformation by succeeding
generations who inhabited the site in the historical period.74 Those decayed leave
very little traces, except as biomass, geological forms, or as ‘treasure underneath’,
and those transformed leave their traces in the cultural life of the people, as artifacts,
rituals and as cultural traditions.75
Thus the archeological site becomes part of a larger process, which not only
brings the excavated artifact into being, a process in which the artifact itself is a
72
Copper and bronze objects are found in several Kerala sites such as Tiruvilvamala and Arippa.
This has been attributed to maritime contacts with West Asia. See Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 134).
73
Many temples in South India emerged where the ‘idol’, normally a stone ‘image’ emerged as
Svayambhu (born by itself). A typical example is the legend regarding the establishment of Chengannur
Bhagavati temple; see Sankunni (1982: 749–58). First a Siva temple was built when a woman of the
Kurava caste (Kuratti) rubbed her knife on a stone, and found blood oozing from it. The stone was
declared to be a Siva lingam. Then it was decided that a Bhagavati temple had to be erected along
side. Uliyannur Peruntaccan, the legendary stonemason, was hired to build the idol. Peruntaccan sim-
ply went to a particular spot on the courtyard of the temple and asked it to be dug, and a fully crafted
Bhagavati image was found on digging. Peruntaccan might well have acted as an amateur archeologist.
74
This has been one of the problems of ‘stratigraphic’ analysis, so central to the methodology of
the archeologist, as revealed in the quotation from K. Rajan cited earlier (Note 32). Stratigraphy
worked well in the case of undisturbed prehistoric remains with clear time intervals between one
layer and another, and less clearly so in the case of habitations close to the historical period, liable to
be disturbed. Burials could not be stratigraphic not only because they were not susceptible for change,
but also because they were less likely to be disturbed as they were burials. The lament that there
has been no syetmatic horizontal exacavation of a habitation-cum burial site,’keeping in view the
conceptual and methodological developments, Moorti (1994: 10) becomes significant here.
75
Here cultural change is conceived as the famous Biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it, ‘Human
cultural change runs by the powerful mechanism of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters.
Anything useful (or alas, destructive) that our generation invents can be passed directly to our offspring
by direct education’. See Gould (1997: 18–22). This can be contrasted with the position of Lewis
Binford that culture ‘as a system of articulated parts in which a change in one part would prompt a
processual change in other, that served as the means by which human organism adapted’. See O’Brien
and Lyman (2000: 167).

trace to mark cultural change in a larger sense.76 It is from this perspective that
concepts of ‘locality’ and ‘lived space’ are useful. Locational studies in processual
terms are to incorporate studies of geographical and ecological factors such as
drainage, soil types, biomass (including flora and fauna), minerals and ores, raw
materials for monuments and ‘cultural’ factors such as exchange structures and
settlement size (population).77 While such an analysis is useful, it can only explain
the process that gave rise to tangible artifacts as technological devices, and not
the meanings given by human beings to them, nor their economic and social move-
ments. A more dynamic perspective regarding location is obtained when it is
treated in terms of movement. In this sense, location is position occupied by a
material object in movement, and locational movements indicate changes in their
position, indicated by production and transportation where spatial changes of object
become essential.78 These changes may be locational and approriational, and in
both cases, location becomes a position, either in production and transportation
or in the circulation of goods and administration.79 The term locality becomes the
thing or quality having a place and position in space. Locality thus provides the
possibilities and limits of a social activity in a given space and time, and is indicated
by a name. Since social activities are diversified and occupy multiple trajectories
of position and movement such as production, circulation, consumption, cultural
forms, power relations and so on, localities are constituted by multiple spaces
that could be called ‘lived spaces’ created by human beings as a part of their life
activity. As localities are thus constituted in movement or change in relation with
other localities, so are lived spaces. There cannot be any locality or lived space in
isolation from others. Thus a burial site, a habitation, or an exchange centre cannot
exist as a locality independent of others.
In the case of Tamilakam, efforts at understanding localities and lived spaces
bring us back to the literary corpus of the Sangam texts. Sangam texts can be
treated as the corpus of remembered information within early Tamilakam, and
thus represent the information flows among Tamils.80 Remembered information
76
This is based on the position taken by Bruce Trigger in attempting a synthesis between pro-
cessualist and post-processualist archeologists. ‘The synthesis I have proposed involves trying to
investigate as many of the factors that constrain human behaviour as possible. These include not
only the external factord championed by the processualists but also the cultural traditions without
which human existence would be impossible.’ Cited in Wenke (1999: 36).
77
Chapter 2 in Moorti (1994).
78
Polanyi (1957: 247–56).
79
Polanyi, ‘The Economy’, p. 248.
80
‘Information Flows’ is taken from Vansina (1985: 152–58). They are part of communication
within every community. Formal performances and informal gossip are the main channels through
which it flows, but any gathering can be a channel. Discussions in judicial courts, assemblies, rituals,
funeral gatherings are all channels that can be important from this point of view. ... But such a flow
brings with it what historians have called a ‘feedback’, that is, the alterations brought about in mes-
sage by information acquired from others’.

164 / K.N. GANESH
also brings with it alterations in one message or feedback, which may include
imaginary landscapes or events, accepted as real by the composers of texts. But
that need not diminish the importance of the texts as such. Sangam texts form an
unavoidable corpus in the search for lived spaces of early Tamils.
III
Since localities are treated as positions in the movement of human beings, it is

easy to identify localities in various types of human movement, from nomadism
to sedentism. Nomadism also involves stationary aspect with reference to avail-
ability of food and water, fodder for cattle, and social and cultural aspects including
birth, child rearing, family life and death. Sedentism involves aspects of movement
such as migration, transportation, production and exchange. Hence, it is possible
to conceive of localities even for nomadic people, with the assumption that they
will be positions in movement. For sedentary people, there will be movements in
position, as movements take place between positions, or with respect to positions.
Positions in space within lived spaces can be divided into three broad categories:
habitational spaces, where people reside and/or conduct their daily routine, oper-
ational spaces, where people conduct production, circulation and exchange, which
also include ‘appropriational’ and ‘institutional’activities,81 and cultural spaces,
that include mortuary practices, patterns of ‘Information Flow’, such as interaction,
communication, performance and imagination, and systems of power. These spaces
are themselves grounded in aspects of human ecology such as water, soil, biomass,
metals and minerals, but the concept of ‘lived spaces’ visualizes that people operate
aspects of human ecology different perspectives and attribute different meanings,
based on their life activity. Localities are formed in position of all or any group or
combination of lived spaces, in which the central meaning to such a position as-
sumes priority. Thus a burial ground is a different kind of lived space from graz-
ing land, which is different from an exchange centre or a water front. Lived spaces
also can be defined in absence (where no humans live), or as dead, wasted spaces.
Lived spaces also can be imaginary or as feedback and their locality would corres-
pond to the nature of imagination or information.
Studies on the lived spaces in the Sangam texts have concentrated on the five
Tinais. Efforts have been made to identify the spatio-temporal, livelihood and
cultural features of the Tinai.82 While there have been attempts to identify these
81
These include what Polanyi calls ‘reciprocity and redistribution’, Polanyi (1957: 247–56).
82
This has been made on the basis of the characterization of the tinais in Tol Kappiyam as the
basis of mutal, karu and uri, mutal representing space and time, karu economic and cultural features
and uri the features of akam (love, internal aspects) and puram (war, external aspects). See Gurukkal
and Varier (1999: 162).

aspects with reference to different Tinais, it is recognized that each Tinai did not
consist of a single economic or cultural zone.83 This has led scholars to suggest
the existence of ‘blending zones’ such as Kurinci-Palai, Mullai-Palai, Mullai-
Marutam or Neital-Marutam as numerous livelihood operations actually cutting
across the Tinais.84 Another method used to cut across the difficulties in using
Tinai was to merge them altogether into the concept of the Pulam, conceived as a
trans-Tinai category.85 As will be discussed later, a number of denotations were
used for different landscapes in the Sangam texts, some of which correspond, and
others do not correspond to a particular Tinai.
There are denotational categories for lived spaces that can be found in all the
Tinai songs. Habitational spaces that appear regularly in the songs are il, manai
and kuti. Il indicates the location of the residence and includes the space and
structures, if any, erected for the purpose. This is denoted by various epithets that
are found together with the il, showing the prosperity, importance, spatial and
temporal features.86 Kurinci and Mullai songs mention a structure for the il called
Kurampai.87 Kurampai were made with wood and grass and were thatched huts.88
Cowhides were also used for making huts.89 There are references to dwellings of
hunters named Kurumpu.90 We have no clear references to the making of a Kurumpu,
and there is one reference to a Kurumpu possibly made with broken stone.91 We
also find the use of cut stone or mud brick in the construction of Kurampai.92
We know of Kurampai being erected on stone basements.93 The construction of
83
See Sivathamby (1966: 115–27). Sivathamby acknowledges that Mullai economy was not entirely
a pastoral one, but was a region where agriculture was slowly expanding. Another anlyasis is by
Varier (1996).
84
See Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 166).
85
See Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 163–64). ‘The zone of plough agriculture (marutam) was called
menpulam and the rest excluding neital collectively was called vanpulam. In short they were zones
of advanced agriculture and primitive agriculture respectively. Tamil songs refer to Pulam as a
landscape category that transcended tinai... based on human use.’
86
Thus we have mutil (older or longer standing il) PN 19; Ciril (younger or smaller il) PN 319;
Peril (famous or important il) PN 33; Vinai punai nal il (il made prosperous through labour) AN 98;
Cutil makkal (neighbouring people) PN 58.
87
AN 12, 63, 210, 229, 272, PN 129, 285, 302.
88
Pul vey Kurampai is mentioned in a number of songs, for example, AN 87, 172, 200, 369.
89
Karru uri kutupai AN 381.
90
Eyinar kurumpu AN 319; Vil Intu kurumpu AN 336; Panaittol kurumpu AN 253. Leshnik
(1974: 93) takes the term kurumpu to mean mischief and alludes to the tribe kurumpar, who lived in
the Mysore-Coimbatore region. But the context of the references point to hunters and possibly the
term kurumpar was a later name given to them on the basis of their habitation traits.
91
AN 31 kal utai kurumpu.
92
Chetukal Kurampai AN 63. Chetukal appears in other songs also, which could mean a cut
stone. Since chetu also means mud, it could be a reference to a mudbrick, given the geographical
context in which the term appears.
93
Kal cherpu irunta katuvay Kurampai, AN 129.

166 / K.N. GANESH
residences in neital area is not clear, except that they were built in the shades of
coastal vegetation, and made use of materials of the trees.94
Habitational spaces move from thatched forms of constructions made entirely
of mudbricks or stone. The general term used is manai.95 Manai would have a
mud plastered floor called tarai or tinnai.96 Mud might not have been the only
item of plastering. Cow dung was used, and archeologists refer to lime mortar
plastering of mud huts in Chalcolithic Deccan.97 Walls were erected from the
tinnai98 and doors were set up on the walls.99 There are also references to ampanam
(roof), cippu, elu (wooden cross-beam), kutumi (door hinge) and karun kan or
kattalai (window) showing that the structure of a house was coming into being.100
Walls were made of mud101 and also of stone.102 Elevated walls named eyil or
matil are mentioned around a structured house and also around cluster of houses.103
Walls were transformed into fortifications with the emergence of chiefs, and were
called aran.104
It is not clear whether manai was divided into several rooms, but the presence
of a cuvar allows for that possibility. There are references to cooking (atu) in a
separate area (attil).105 There is no mention of any cooking platform. Cooking
stones are mentioned.106 There is mention of cots107 and sleeping places.108 It is
not clear whether they were separated by a partition. It is possible that as the
manai came to hold a number of inhabitants or due to elevation of status, the
94
Residences on the shades of punnai Trees, Narrinai, 4. Reference to palmyra ( pennai) and its
leaves (matal ) in the making of kutampai, Nar. 123.
95
For example, AN 21, 46, 56, 58, 103, 157, 186, 272, 316, 389. Manai appears in different con-
texts, particularly relating to the location of women (manaiyol, manaivi), but the general reference is
to the habitational space.
96
AN 288, 289. AN 167 refers to a tinnai not plastered.
97
Leshnik (1974: 21) Figure 1 in p. 23.
98
AN 289, Tin Cuvar.
99
PN 98; Katavam on the wall (matir); PN 341, Tin Nilal Katavu.
100
Subrmanian (1997: 209).
101
There are references to jnayil in PN 350, 355. The term appears as denoting the component
parts of a wall, and appears to be etymologically related jnalam (earth, made of soil). The component
parts were made of soil, and hence mud walls.
102
Stone walls are referred to as inci. AN 35, PN 341, Patirrupattu VI: 8; II: 6. The distinction
between jnayil and inci is indicated in PN 350 Cornta Jnayil Citainta Inci (leaking jnayil and broken
inci).
103
AN 84; PN 6 (Ar Eyil); PN 71; PP IV: 7 (Man Eyil) PN 38 (Netumatil) PN 98. Man Eyil is
rendered as ‘fort of the chief (Mannan). It is possible that such walls enclosed a particular structured
house and the inhabitant was called a Mannan.
104
AN 45, 69, 381.
105
PN 120 refers to Coru Atu, Coru appears top be a general term for cooked grain or cooked
meat; AN 168 (Utiyan Attil); PN 160 (Neyyatu aticil ) Atai is another term for cooked food.
106
AN 119 Olikal Atuppu.
107
Kattil PN 82, 286.
108
Kitakkai, Ainkurunuru 401, 409.

number of partitions (muri) also increased. Manai thus became a more inclusive
structural unit than the kurampai, and more elaborately constructed, indicating a
shift in the social and economic staus of the inhabitant.
There was a further elaboration of habitational space when stones like laterite,
granite or burnt rock were used for buildings (nakar).109 Nakar became a general
term for lived spaces that had structures of stone and metal, and such spaces were
called netunakar.110 Headquarters of Ventans and Vels were also called netunakar
or viyan nakar.111
Thus textual spaces indicate the structural evolution of habitational spaces from
thatched huts to stone structures. Different forms of residences co-existed, as the
differentiation was on the one hand to the availability of materials to build such
spaces, and on the other, the capability of the inhabitants to use them. Availability
of stone as natural formations in the hilly regions allowed for the making stone
walls or fencing.112 In the case of neital, stone walls for habitational spaces are
not indicated with the exception of coastal exchange centres.113
Habitational spaces included an open area in front of the residence, called munril
or murram.114 Munril appears as a multipurpose area used by the residents. Munril
in front of manai or nakar was paved with sand.115 In Mullai songs munril is re-
lated to tending cattle. In one song there is reference to a cow tied to a pole in the
munril.116 In another song the reeds and grass hanging in the form of a pavilion is
eaten by calf and its mouth becomes red.117 In a kurinci song kuravar are said to
have rocky surfaces as munril.118 Murram becomes a feature when stone structures
are built.119
109
AN 15, 17, 35, 63, 99, 101, PN 127 etc. The term appears in a number of contexts, real or
imaginary and denotes different structures (Viyan nakar, Tirunakar, Valanakar). In general, the term
indicates a lofty walled structure. Since mountains are also lofty structures, the term nakar appears
also as a poetic device for hills and mountains also. Tirunakar varai (AN 63), Cir kelu viyan nakar
cilampu (AN 219).
110
AN 61, 93, 162, 176, 253, 310, PN 23.
111
Urantai Pon utai netunakar (AN 385); Avi Pon Utai netunakar Potinai (AN 61); Kotai tiruma
viyan nakar Karuvur (AN 93).
112
Perunkal veli (AN 132); AN 227 refers to the settlement of OOnur as katimatil varaippin
OOnur. AN 145 mentions uyar cimai netunkottu, which could be a natural formation.
113
Nar. 54 mentions kantal veli num natu kilavoye indicating the residence of a turai chief inside
a mangrove fence. In another song, a nakar is mentioned where kolumeen is brought, which is referred
to as punnai munril, frontyard of a punnai tree.
114
AN 127, 232, 315; PN 114, 118, 170.
115
AN 187 (Tarumanal jnaninriya Tirunakar Murram); AN 195 (Manai manalatuttu) AN 254
(Manal Mali Murram).
116
Oru aa yatta orutun munril (AN 369).
117
Kanru vay civappa munril tunkum patalai pantar (AN 87).
118
Viyanarai parikkum munril kuravar (AN 232).
119
Mantai nalnakar murrattu (AN 127); vanci murram (PN 373).

168 / K.N. GANESH
Thus, the primary habitational space involves structures growing around the
original thatched hut to stone structures, performing multiple functions. The sus-
tenance of such a space would involve features like water supply, drainage, avail-
ability of stone, wood, minerals and also floral and faunal mass. These features
appear when we discuss a group of residences. The link of habitational spaces to
operational and cultural spaces also would emerge when we discuss habitational
spaces as aggregates, as a settlement.
Kuti is the standard name for such a settlement, a term that is found in all the
Tinais is and hence commonly accepted. The term kuti might also have evolved
from a single habitation,120 where the inhabitant or settler of the kurampai is also
called kuti. This form of identification of the settler with the habitation results in
the term kutimakkal, frequently used in songs. The identification of a person with
habitation becomes clearer through the identity of a person being born in it.121
Those born in a kuti form a seniority order, which means that kutimakkal formed
a kinship group.122 Seniority order also involved a certain gradation of privileges,123
which were handed down through generations.124 Thus kuti or settlement is inte-
grated with kinship and descent groups, also called kuti. Such kinship groups
having a specific life activity would be named through their activity.125
The identification of the habitation of the kuti with the inhabitants and the fur-
ther correspondence of the kinship group with different life activities depend upon
the specific relations that the settlement have with operational and cultural
spaces.126 Once a settlement develops in a geographical space, it has to have access
to vital resources like land and water. Access to water supply is ensured by locating
the settlement near a river or a stream.127 Settlements on the hills had access to
120
PN 170 mentions Netuvarai kutinjai, where the kutinjai might be associated with malai kelu
natan kur vel pittan. PN 120 mentions pul vey kurampai kuti torum pakarntu. The context is the dis-
tribution of ghee and kurampai and kuti refer to the same habitation, with kuti indicating the inhabitant.
121
Ikkuti pirantor (PN 43).
122
Oru kuti piranta pallorkullum mutton varuka ennatu (PN 183).
123
Muttor muttor kurram cheytena (PN 75). Kurram meant a land division in later period, but here
it appears to be related to kuru (fractional right obtained as a member of the group).
124
Pirar Pirar kuru vazhi (PN 150). Vazhi here means the descent, and in the context handing
down the name and fame of the addressed person through generations.
125
For example, vettakkuti (PN 333) Cirukuti maravar (AN 297).
126
Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 165–66) identify eight social groups on the basis of their subsistence
activities, Kuravar, vetar, Itaiyar, Kallar, Uzhavar, Tozhuvar, Paratavar and Umanar as the main in-
habitants of the five Tinais. Subsistence activities would be based on the relation between habitations
and operational spaces and a careful analysis of the kuti references would help us to clarify the social
divisions.
127
The crucial term is turai. Linguists have underscored the poetic convention of the turai. Historians
have referred to perunturai, located along neital. However, there are clear references to location of
settlements near water resources in all Tinais, such as netukarai kan yarru katumpu nal ayar avil aral

mountain streams.128 Aquifiers in rocky regions were also used for settlement.129
Attempts to make water resources resulted in digging wells by cutting into rocks.130
Growth of a kuti would necessitate the availability of a permanent supply of water
and hence would mean the creation of a water reservoir or cirai.131 A cirai was
created by constructing a bund (vilanku) across the water channel or a stream.132
There is reference to flood water being brought to a cirai.133
The spread of habitation spaces to settlements also would require various kinds
of minerals and carbon-based substances. Basic substances among them would
be stone and wood, as even in structured habitations they are the most important
ingredients.134 Majority of the hunting or pastoral implements were made of stone
or wood.135 Activities like cooking, grinding, churning milk, preserving food, milk
and other materials also involved resources of earth, clay, wood and stone.136
Stone implements began to be replaced by iron even among the forest resi-
dents.137 One example of the transformation is the axe, which made the shift from
stone to iron, and was used as battle axes also.138 Cooking stones came to be re-
placed by hearths (ulai).139 Ulai came to be a general term for various kinds of
konta viravu manal akan turai (AN 25), noti vitu kallin poki tanturai (AN 256); talainal amamalar
tan turai tayanka (AN 326), turai nani marutam (PN 344), aruvi ampal kalitta munturai (AN 356).
AN 34 refers to a turai in Mullai tinai.
128
AN 162 refers to a place in the atukkam of a mountain stream in Kollimalai.
129
References to cinai or perumcinai; alanku cinai (AN 236), Olikelu peruncinai (AN 298),
AN 343.
130
AN 79, 321, 399, PN 132, 331, PP III:2. References are to the use of axe (kanicci) to dig
(Kuzhitta) and remove or break rocks (kal uruttu Iyattiya, utaitta kal) to create a water stream (kuvam)
or well (Kinar).
131
AN 82, 152, 346, PN 84, 169, 263.
132
Akan yarru kunru vilanku cirayin (PN 169), malai pulai veru vilanki (AN 2) arunkanam vilanki
(AN 295).
133
Kol punal cirai (PN 263).
134
Stone and metallic implements are distinguished by the explicit mention of the ingredients
used to produce them. This indicates continuing use of stone and wooden implements. But the
terms like katun or kotun referring to the hardness or strength of the implement may indicate hard
rocks like granite or a metallic resource.
135
This inclides vil or cilai (bow), ampu (arrow) kavanai (catapult), vel (pole), kol (staff), tuni (the
case where bows were kept), Uthuli (blowgun) AN 9, 35, 79, 215, 239, 309, 319, 326, 335, PN 88
etc.
136
References to kataikol cirutee (AN 274); Kuratti mattiya varkataikolli (PN 108); Il Irai ceri
Iya Jneli Kol (PN 315); and also to kalam (PN 235, 228). Ulakkai eri milakil itittu (PP V: 1) teentayir
katainta tiralkal mattam (PN 87).
137
Irumpu vatittu karunkan kanavan (AN 172).
138
References to val vay kanicci (AN 21), naviyam ( PN 23, 37) and Mazhuval (AN 220) demon-
strate this transition. PN 195 refers to kanicci kur m patai, an army wielding battle axes.
139
Ettuka ulaiye akkuka core (PN 172).

170 / K.N. GANESH
heating devices including furnaces for making iron implements.140 Iron replaced
stone and wood in forging a number of household and operational implements
and weapons.141
The third kind of resource is floral and faunal wealth. They formed an integral
part of the food cycle with human beings. There were number of hunted animals
and those used as hunting companions.142 Neital songs refer to variety of fish.143
The references to cattlepens suggest domestication of animals.144 Despite domes-
tication and cattle herding, meat was a major part of the diet. There is reference to
eating of raw meat.145 Meat was cut into pieces and roasted.146 Meat was used for
making a pudding,147 and cooked in a scrambled form as well as in the form of
cakes.148 There are references to cooked fish and fish with cooked rice.149
Despite the substantial floral diversity in the Western Ghats and other parts,
texts refer repeatedly to an assorted number of trees and plants. Some of them
like jack tree (pilavu) were famous as fruit trees.150 Others were important pre-
sumably for their timber and as forest trees.151 Some trees had further signifi-
cance by being associated with chiefs.152 Neital trees included plamyra (pennai),
140
PN 170 refers to the use of Ulaikkal by blacksmiths for making iron. It is possible that ulai
implied both a stone or brick furnace as well as large scale cooking devices made of stone or iron.
Discoveries of iron tripods and quadrupeds should be looked at from this context.
141
The sword is one typical weapon that became metal cast. (Tam Irumpitai pazhaval PN 316),
and references to a ‘shining sword may be an indication of this (Oliru val tanai AN 306; ol val
punirru AN 338. Another term is karunkai val ( PN 267); the staff used by cowherds (itaiyar, Kovalar,
ayar) was also metal cast, kotunkol (AN 74). There is reference to a metal cast velvel vatittu kotuttal
kollarkku katan PN 312) Another refernce to iron rod (totti) appears in PN 150: Irumpu punail tiyatta
perumpeyar totti.
142
These include varai vazhvarutai (mountain goat) AN 378; veruku, mei atu (sheep) mulavu
(porcupine), eru (buffalo), aa, an (cow), kalai (ox), man (deer), enam (pig), apart from kaliru
(Elephant), leopards (puli) and stray references to lion (vayaman). Hunting dogs or wolves (katanay)
are also referred to (AN 88, 107, 378).
143
The most common forms are iramin and curamin. There are references to varaal (AN 196) and
also to ayirai, valai, katumin, and kozhumin Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 171–72).
144
Tozhu arai kanru utai perunirai (AN 253); Manaittalai makavai amarkan ana netunirai
(PN 117).
145
Pacca un tintru (PN 258).
146
There are a number of references to kozhunkurai (AN 236, 237, 196, PN 125 etc.). The term
kurai meant fragments of pieces of meat (Panri kurai AN 322). The term appears to have become a
general term for fragments.
147
Un pulukku (AN 172).
148
Uncoru, appearing in many songs (e.g., PN 33) was probably made of meat alone, and cooked
rice was called vencoru (white coru). The cake was called appam (maivitai veelappam PN 113).
149
Varaal tutikkan kozhunkurai (AN 196); kozhuminaru peruppa coru (PN 103) Ayilai vencoru
(AN 196).
150
AN 12, 208, 209, PN 109.
151
They include tekku (AN 143, 225, 251), ayani (AN 91), kanci (AN 156), murukku (AN 229)
nelli (AN 69; PN 91), Erukku (PN 106), marutu (AN 286), Omai (AN 5).
152
Vengai (AN 38, 162, 344, 349); veppu (AN 309); katampu (AN 127); vakai (AN 199) etc.

mangrove (kandal)153 and punnai. Among the other forest produce included
bamboo,154 sandal155 and pepper.156 There are references to pulses, plantains and
gingelly.157 Sugarcane is mentioned in Mullai and Marutam regions. 158 This assort-
ment shows that floral wealth already provided a wide variety of resources, to
which cultivated crops like tinai, varaku and paddy was added. Many trees also
appear to have been grown within the habitational spaces.159
The linkages between habitational spaces and natural spaces are demonstrated
by the ‘integrative’ terms to denote the positions of habitational spaces. One ex-
ample is the link of coastal kutis with coastal vegetation spaces (kanal).160 Similar
examples can be found from other geographical spaces also.161 These ‘integrative’
representations indicate another major feature of the position of the habitational
spaces that they are subject to the movement on the basis of the life activity of the
people for their subsistence. These movements link the habitational spaces with
the operational spaces of the inhabitants. Operational spaces are decided by the
availability of the resources for productive and distributional activites and the
possibilities utilization of these resources. These are likely to be different in dif-
ferent human geographical contexts and hence, the nature of operative spaces
represent this diversity.162
Operative spaces for hunters and food gatherers do not specific limits as they
have to follow the tracks of other animals or understand the production (fertility)
cycles of plants. Hence, it is not surprising that only terms like malai, varai,
porai, kal, kunram are used, with denotations regarding the height (netun), distance
(akan) or proximity (cilampu).163 People who made their subsistence from such
153
Kandal kanal or mangrove forest (AN 260). But a more common word was tazhai, found in a
number of neital songs.
154
Kazhai is mentioned in a number of songs e.g., AN 221, 241.
155
Mentioned as cantu (AN 51, 172, 282, PN 58) and aram (AN 100, PN 108) etc.
156
Kari (AN 149, 272).
157
Kavvai (gingelly) avarai, katalai (PN 120), payar (PN 262), vazhai (PN 168).
158
AN 156, 217 (akan vayal nitu kazhai karimpu kanaikkal).
159
Venkai (PN 202, AN 344); nelli (AN 69); jnalal, punnai (AN 70, 260) etc. There is also men-
tion of habitational spaces within tree shades (Nizhalin neelitai tanimaram PN 119).
160
Kanal am cirukuti (AN 140, 320, 330 etc.).
161
Punpulam tazhiiya am kuti (PN 324); karkelu cirukuti (AN 318); palpalainellin palkutipparavai
(AN 44).
162
Efforts have been made to explain the dialectics of socio-economic change in Tamilakam on
the basis of the modes of human adaptation in each micro-eco-zone (or tinai) and the environmental
and socio-economic contradictions that it generated (Seneviratne 1990). The weakness of such eco-
logically based arguments is that they fail to recognize the levels of human intervention in the ecozone
resulting in their transformation. It is helpful to view the human-nature interaction as a dynamic pro-
cess that mutually influence, whether in a debilitating or reinforcing manner.
163
For example kal aka cilampin (AN 202) akan perunkunram (AN 45) Perunkal appears in a
number of Kurinci songs. Malai, porai, kunru, perumalai, perukunru, netumperunkunru are referred
to in AN 17, 52, 150, 192, 258, 268, 328, 332, 382.

172 / K.N. GANESH
spaces were identified with their instruments of subsistence rather than with natural
spaces.164 In neital songs, the sea is the common reference point with terms like
katal, perunir, or irunir.165 References to sand and sand dunes indicate no borders.166
However, settlements and turais are found normally in coastal vegetation zones.167
Even the sea is mentioned in terms of its resources.168 Like the hunters and gath-
erers, the seagoing people are also mentioned along with their instruments,
including boats.169
In the case of the relation between cattle keepers and grazing lands, there is an
important change. There are general references to the relationship, but the name
of the geographical space is more specific as in the case of the reference to
kurumporai or smaller hills, a distinction from normal hills and mountains.170
Such lands are clearly related to grazing.171 Mullai songs repeatedly refer to a
specific space called puravu in order to consolidate the distinction and denote the
operational space of the cattle keepers.172 There is also the reference to punpulam
signifying grassland.173 Thus, the cattlekeepers appear to have made the first dis-
tinctive operative space different from the natural resource regions operated by
the hunter gatherers and fishermen. This was because of the domestication of
cattle, which required their own habitational space.174 Like the hunters and seagoing
people, the cattlekeepers were identified by their instruments.175
Cattle keepers only made use of grazing lands or kurumporai already part of
the natural space, but the introduction of cultivation involved the transformation
164
Kotuvil Eyinar (AN 79, 319), Kur nal ampin Kotuvil Kooliyar (PN 23), vituvai chenkanai
kotuvil atavar (AN 179), kola vil atavar (AN 97) etc.
165
Perunir cherpan (AN 290, 320); Irunir Cherpin (AN 280).
166
Terms like Ekkar and Manal are used to refer to beach sands that could form into mounds, Izha
tamin kuvavumanal netunkottu (AN 350) kotu uyar tini manal (AN 30) Ilamanal Ekkar (AN 250),
Intiya vatu val ekkar manal (PN 55), muntakam keli iya mottumanal ataikarai (AN 130).
167
Talai aval tazha kanal am perunturai (AN 90); jnalalotu punai varikkum kanal am perunturai
(AN 70) pozhil manai punnai (AN 260) kanal am perunturai (AN 280).
168
Kottumin valankum parappin (AN 170).
169
Kotun timil paratavar (AN 70) valai paratavar (AN 250). Fishermen are called Inameen vettuvar
or fish hunters (AN 270) shark hunters are mentioned as kolai vemparatar (AN 210).
170
Kovalar mullai viyanpulam parappi kurumporai (AN 14); kollai itaiya kurumporai marunkil
(AN 133).
171
Meipulam parappa (AN 41); Torutta vayal (PP.II.3).
172
AN 34, 74, 133, 134, 234, 297, PN 35, PP.II.3.
173
AN 284, PN 35.
174
Songs refer to kal (mountain) and katal (sea) as resource regions (patirrupattu, II.4; katalam
and kallam). In another place, sea and the forest (kanam) are mentioned (PP.III, 2.9–10). But they are
to be treated as natural resource regions in which the humans intervened, extracting wealth (porul).
Carving out puravu or punpulam as a distinct operational space appears to be one of the outcomes of
this intervention.
175
Kol kai kovalar (AN 54), kolan (PN 72) katunkol kalla kovalar (AN 74), kol refers to the staff
in the hands of the cattleherd.

of geography itself, where production involved the production of space also. The
first example of this is the punam cultivation, involving production of tinai and
varaku, found in association with mountain or forest space.176 Punam involved
slash and burn cultivation,177 which extended to both forest (kanam) and grassy
(kollai) lands. Such lands were still considered as natural vegetation areas, even
with paddy cultivation.178
Transformation of natural spaces into locations for production resulted in two
major conceptual changes in operational spaces. One is the concept of a limit that
would decide the extent of the production space, which is indicated by the term
veli.179 Veli originally implied, but later indicated fencing with thorns, plants and
trees.180 Cultivated grains needed protection, as grains would be eaten by birds.181
As cultivation spread to grazing lands and meadows, the fencing and protection
appears to have taken a more systematic form, in the cultivated tracts called enal.182
Enal was protected by women called kotichiyar who drove away the birds.183
Enal with tinai and varaku cultivation thus denoted a production space with phys-
ical borders that were protected by the inhabitants who operated them,184 and the
protectors included women.
Conversion of natural space into productive space was denoted by the distinc-
tion of natu from katu. Natu appears in kurinci songs distinct from natural spaces
such as kunru natu, kunrukelunatu, perumalainatu, perunkalnatu, caralnatu,
kurumporainatu and kananatu. They are found in areas that include habitational
spaces and productive spaces.185 They are not only limited to kurinci, but found in
coastal and grasslands also.186 It is possible that extension of productive spaces
resulted in more regions being denoted as natu. Productive spaces in neital formed
176
Perumpunam kunram (AN 395); tinai perupunam (AN 102); kalaikal kazhiya perumpuna
varakin (AN 194); meltinaipunakam (AN 237) paintal centinai katunkural irayan punam (AN 242).
177
Kanavan cutu uru viyanpunam (AN 368); kanavar karipunammayakkiya akankar kollai
(PN 159); kavai katir varakin yanarpanthalmutal cuval mulkiykan cutu karu unpukai (AN 359); eri
kavar puunta karipura perunilam (AN 233).
178
Pul vilai vethirai nel vilai katu (AN 397).
179
Perunkalveli (AN 132); kunraveli (AN 232); malaiveli (PN 17). Here the limits are decided by
the natural spaces themselves.
180
Kurmulveli (AN 46); mulnutaiveli (PN 116); mulkazhalveli (PN 306); mullaiveli (PN 144);
nelliveli (PN 170); paruttiveli (PN 299).
181
Cirutinai patukili katiyar (AN 78, 323); kili mariiya viyanpunattu (PN 138).
182
AN 12, 73, 82, 118, 132, 188, 192, PN 159.
183
Kotichiyin kural kiliye tatukkathu painkural enal (Ainkurunuru 289); Kotichi kakkum painkura
l enal (AKN 296); AKN 282, 288.
184
Enal am kavalar (AN 12); tinaikaval kanninam (AN 92) totuvalarpaintinai nitukural kakkum
totimakalir (AN 368).
185
Gurukkal and Varier (1999: 174).
186
Neitalam ceruvuin valankelu nalnatu (AN 113); neital em perunkalinatu (AN 120); nanpoon
erumaikutanatu (AN 115); punnatu (AN 155).

174 / K.N. GANESH
with the growth of saltpans or kazhi natu in neital was formed around kazhi.187
The soil in which saltpans were made was called ceruvin.188
Growth of productive spaces became manifest in the river valleys with the
growth of paddy cultivation. Paddy cultivation involved water management and
preparation of the ground that had their origins in the natural spaces. Digging the
soil for planting189 and use of animals like donkey and pig for digging the ground
were done in the tinai cultivating spaces.190 The river bank area involved extensive
water management devices and ground preparation, which is achieved in the
productive space called kalani or vayal.191 Vayal referred to the field for cultivation
(valam vayal), while kalani referred to the field with paddy planted.192 Kalani,
which concentrated on the produce rather than the quality of the field could be the
earlier term.193 Ploughed space was called cal.194
The making of such productive spaces depend on the availability of water, and
the presence of waterscapes is shown by the terms palanam,195 poykai,196 and
kayam.197 With the presence of waterscapes and water management in the vayal,
wetlands are created. Creation of the wetlands is also facilitated by the flooding
of rivers (punal), as the habitation and production spaces were in the waterfront.198
Floods and their withdrawal ‘created’ lands suitable for cultivation enriched
through sediments and biomass brought by floods (pataippu),199 or land masses
made by such deposits (vaippin).200 These references to the confluence of land
and waterscapes to develop a new productive space for paddy cultivation indicate
the consummation of a process at work in all other natural spaces, the creation of
an operative space for production distinct from the natural spaces themselves.
187
AN 120. There are a number of references to kazhi, such as culkazhi (AKN 111) irunkazhi
(AN 140, AKN, 116, 120, 164, 167).
188
Cirukuti paratavar Irunkazhi Ceruvin uzha atu ceyta (AN 140); Preparing the ground for saltpans
was also called uzhuka. Also neitalam ceruvin (AN 113).
189
Examples are cultivating plantains (AN 328) and tuber crops (kozhunkoti vallikizhangu
PN 109). There is also a possible reference to a digging stick (Kol uzhai).
190
Mentinai meynta tirukatpanri (AKN 261, 262) vel vay kazhutai pullinam putti (PN 15). Also
Nar. 399.
191
AN 13, 26, 40, 220, 236, 256, 326, 376, PN 57 etc.
192
Avar nattu iranku katir kalani (PN 57).
193
It is possible that large scale saltpans were also called kalani (uppuvilaikalani, kuruntokai,
269). The term was borrowed for water basins where paddy was grown.
194
Uzhupataiyunru cal marunkin (PN 36).
195
AN 46, 146, 256, PN 249.
196
AN 96 (Palanapoykai); 181, 336.
197
AN 6, 44, 263, PN 137.
198
AN 59, 116, 137, 156, 179, 255, PN 7, 98, 136, etc.
199
Malipunal poruta marutu onka pataippu (AN 376); kalani perumpunal pataippu (PN 98).
200
Patal canra payankeluvaippin (PP III) tanpanai punal poru vaippin (AN 255).

As noted earlier, menpulam has been conceived as signifying the wetland paddy
cultivation areas, distinct from vanpulam, treated as non-agrarian tracts.201 Pulam
signifies arable land, with the term denoting fertility.202 The term appears in dif-
ferent natural or productive spaces.203 The epithets used along with pulam signify
the character of arability or fertility. Thus mel or men means ‘soft’ (or ‘thin’) and
‘van’ means hard. The softness of the field is based on the ability to prepare the
field for cultivation, availability of water, porous, brittle soil texture, and the ab-
sence of hard rocky surfaces. Thus wetlands were called menpulam, but it does
not mean that ‘hard’ lands where tinai and varaku were grown along with fruit
trees, tuber crops etc. were ‘non-agrarian.’204 The distinction arises more because
menpulam was probably ‘created’ by floods and continuous sedimentation of the
river banks as well as rivers changing their courses.205 Other epithets of pulam
refer to different characteristics or states of the arable/fertile land.206 Thus pulam
appears in general to signify productive and fertile agricultural space, and the
various ways in which the term is used signify the diversity in agricultural produc-
tion. Unlike specific terms like enal, kazhi or kalani, pulam had a rather extensive
connotation, concentrating on the fertility of the land. This also meant a shift in
the concept of space, from the floral, faunal wealth or resources available or could
be produced in the space to the quality of the space itself, which could be utilized
for production.
Once a productive space is formed, extension of the space follows. Extension
occurs by conversion of the natural space for production or ‘creation’ of new pro-
ductive spaces. The term used is pataippu, a term that occurs in different productive
spaces.207 Pataippu appears in fields cultivating paddy and sugarcane.208 It appears
201
Gurukkal (1995: 244).
202
Pulam peyar marunkin (AN 113). Marunkin is a general term for land, used in various contexts,
the phrase signifies the loss of arability or fertility of land. Also pulam peyarntu (AN 241).
203
Pulampoon tiraiyan in neital area (AN 340) pulam puniru tirnta putuvaral ar ciram (AN 273)
pulan uzhutunmar pin kan anci (PN 45).
204
References to vanpulam is seen in such tracts AN 79, 94 (vanpulakatunatu), 309, PN 146
(vanpulanannatu). The identification of the natu with vanpulam is significant as natu indicated a
productive space.
205
This could be the meaning of vaippin, menpulavaippin (PN 42, 341). Paleochannels also could
be candidates for such formations.
206
The terms include vatupulam (AN 377) verupulam (AN 346, PN 30) punpulam (PN 35),
Chetpulam (PP VII.1), Cempula marunkin (AN 389). Some terms indicate the location of the pulam,
such as kutapulam (AN 340) tenpulam (AN 24) munaipulam (AN 157).
207
AN 68, 96, 100, 120, 146, 158, 204, 227, 256, 284, PN 6, 137 etc.
208
Kaynel pataippu (AN 204); kalani karumpu amal pataippu (AN 256); kazhanivayil pazhanai
patappai (PP.III.3).

176 / K.N. GANESH
in the coastal regions, including saltpans and palmyra groves.209 Pataippu appears
in relation to pepper, indicating that pepper was being cultivated.210
Another term that signifies ‘creation’ of space through the generation of new
crops or formation of new settlements associated with the extension of productive
space is yanar.211 Yanar appears as ‘new arrival’ or ‘emergence’ in all spaces. In
agricultural spaces, yanar appears in relation to vaippin or land-water conflu-
ences.212 Yanar is associated with saltpans,213 varaku cultivation214 and hilly areas.215
The term is indicated for new settlement216 or natu.217 Yanar thus becomes the
general term for the emergence of new productive spaces.
The emergence and expansion of productive spaces related to agriculture also
implied a distinction in the relation of the inhabitants with operative spaces. In-
habitants are not only identified with their instruments but also with the type of
labour they performed in the soil. There are references to those who did plough-
ing,218 planting and tending the crops,219 and reaping.220 They formed part of the
the concept of labour called vinai,221 and the term was applied to non-specialized
forms of physical labour performed.222 Texts also make a distinction between dif-
ferent acts of labour (vinai) with forms and kinds of labour (tozhil).223 These dis-
tinctions in terms of skills, acquisition or acts of labour also implied the process
of division of labour in productive spaces.
209
Kaitai am pataippu (AN 100); Pennai onkiya venmanal pataippu (AN 120); Irunkazhi
patappai marunkur (AN 227); pennayam patappai natu kilavon (PN 126); punnaikanalam patappai
(Nar. 91).
210
Kari ivar patappai (AN 272).
211
AN 44, 90, 117, 181, 216, 220, 226, 228, 269, 300, 359, PN 2, 61, 63 etc.
212
Yanar tanpanai (AN 220, 269); yanar vaippin (PN 2, 7, 63) yanar katumpunal ataikarai
(AKN 171).
213
Irunkazhi yanar (AN 300).
214
AN 359.
215
Perunkal yanar (AN 228).
216
Azhumpil (AN 44) cellur or celli (AN 90, 216).
217
Yanar nalnattu porunan (PN 61).
218
Vil er uzhavar (AN 193) arikal milirapolanta tiraipakattuzhavar (AN 41) erumai uzhavar
(Nar. 60).
219
Kottatai talai cutiya vilaignar (AN 194).
220
Arinjar kilmatai konta val (PN 42) kalani vel nel arinjar (AN 40, 236).
221
Ezh ur potuvinaikku (Kuruntokai 172). Vinai appears to have been applied to different acts of
labour, including the ‘labour’ of fighting (katuvinai maravar AN 319, also AN 105).
222
Eri akantu anna tamarai itai itai cennel arintu kal kuvitta vinaignar (AN 206). Apparently
they were used in waterlogged areas. References to ceyvinai (AN 260, 333) ‘labour performed’.
223
Ventu uru tozhilotu verupulattuvantu alki vinai mutittanam ayin (AN 254). Also cirutozhil
(AN 206) vay anku tozhil tariiyar valan erpu vilanki (AN 298). In all these cases, tozhil refers to the
labour one could do or has acquired (a form of skill) rather than the act of labour.

Production also involved identification of the means and instruments of labour

as well as the labourer.224 This was the result of the realization that production
process in agriculture involved not only different acts and forms of labour, but
also different instruments. Unlike the hunting gathering and pastoralism, and form
of labour is separated from labour process. This allows for the growth of specialized
labour forms and production of instruments. Perhaps the specialized labour that
was directly involved in the agricultural production space was that of the potter,
in the making of vessels for eating, drinking and that of storage.225 There are
references to pots for storing milk and toddy.226 Large scale storage pots are called
tazhi.227 Pots are handmade in the beginning, but there is also reference to potter’s
wheel.228
Increase in the operational spaces in general and productive spaces in particular
would lead to exchange in products and goods. The process of exchange called
notuttal is well documented,229 and appears to correspond to the expansion in
agriculture. Exchange within production spaces take place between pastoral and
agricultural spaces in milk, curd and ghee.230 Use of cattle in ploughing the wet-
lands would have involved exchange.231
Maruku was the name of the exchange centre and the term appears in dif-
ferent spaces.232 Maruku appears along with kutis in hills.233 Carts are mentioned
as moving through maruku.234 Kutal or Madurai is mentioned as matamalimarukil,
probably an indication that it began as an exchange centre.235 Another term is
224
uzhuta non pakatu azhitini nanku (PN 125) pakatu poonta uzhavu (AN 262) Oxen for plough-
ing. Use of the ploughshare nancil (AN 42, 141, PN 56); PN 42 refers to val used for reaping; also
pasaval itikkum irunkal ulakkai (AN 141).
225
The terms used are mantai (PN 103, 115), kalam (PN 228, 235). There is a reference to talam
or eating plate (PN 120).
226
References are to kotu (toddy pot AN 166, PN 114) and tasumpu (pot for milk and curd PN 33).
There is also reference to the sediments of toddy in a pot (mattuvay PN 113). Pot for storing curd is
called kumici (Nar. 12).
227
Ar kurumpai tazhi mutal (AN 129).
228
Terkal vaitta pasuman karuu tiral pole (PN 32).
229
Uppu notai nellin (AN 60) salt and paddy; naravunpotai nellin (AN 61, 83) toddy and paddy.
pachamin notuthe velnel (AN 340, PN 343) fish and paddy. Note that paddy is the common element
in the exchange.
230
PN 33, Nar. 142 (pal notai itaiyan). References to eating rice along with ghee also indicates
exchange (nellutai kavalamotu ney miti pera PN 44).
231
Tatu eru marukin (AN 165) appears to refer to a cattle market. Direct references to exchange of
cattle are few, but descriptions of rows (nirai) of cattle with jewels hanging the moving along the
mountain paths (viyan curai patumani inanirai AN 321; payan nirai AN 155; AN 211 etc.), might
indicate the movement towards the centre of exchange.
232
AN 122, 149, 192, 220, 270, 331, 346, PN 151, 338.
233
AN 192, 331.
234
Ezhaterotu marukiyum (AN 220).
235
AN 346.

178 / K.N. GANESH
avanam, which is also found together with maruku.236 Larger exchange centres
were called angadi.237
Growth of exchange was accompanied by the movement of people who were
involved in exchange. The spread of kazhis in the coastal spaces resulted in salt
production, and salt became one of the first goods for exchange, apart from meat
and fish. Durability of rock salt (kal uppu) also enabled it to be transported across
long distances. This resulted in the growth of a separate group of salt exchangers
or umanar. Umanar reached agricultural spaces, pastoral lands and forests.238
Umanar carried salt in carts called ozhukai, fitted with a yoke (nukai).239 Salt was
not only exchanged by umanar but also bargained for a price, and as a result, ex-
change was actually done for a bargain rather than simple barter.240 This form of
bargaining was adopted by other exchangers also, particularly those moving to
habitational spaces from outside.241
Movement of carts and people, including exchangers resulted in the formation
of pathways called aru.242 Such pathways went through and crossed large open
spaces or crossroads called kavalai.243 There are also references to peruvazhi, but
they appear to have been wider and more limited in spatial extent than aru.244
There is also reference to pathways called neri.245 These different pathways and
crossroads resulted in a steady movement of people across long distances.246 Move-
ments took them across mountains and mountain passes (curam).247 There is a
reference to crossing curam to reach different exchange centres.248 Such journeys
required better traveling instruments and the result was the construction of ter or
animal drawn cart. Ter was drawn by cattle249 or by horses.250 Ter was fitted with
236
Mallal avanam maruku itai matiyil (AN 122); AN 227.
237
Nalangadi (AN 93).
238
Umanar kanam niraianna kurumporai (AN 337), nellum uppum nel kolliro (AN 391) kanamcal
umanar AN 169, PN 295.
239
Uppoy umanar ozhukaiyotu vanta (AN 310), AN 119, Uman kotu nukai ozhukai (AN 159).
There is reference to ozhukai pakatu showing that they were ox-driven carts (AN 173).
240
Receiving the bargain was called kollai catti (AN 140, 390, 391). The term umana cattu came
to denote the bargain struck by umanar.
241
Atar cattu (AN 167) appears to have referred to such a migrant exchanger. Also, yavatum cattu
itaivalanka cencimai atara (AN 291) refers to a group of exchangers from a distant place (cen cimai)
AN 245 refers to aggression on such exchangers.
242
AN 115, 121, 148, 175, 193, 247, 343, 363, 389 etc. Aru later became the term for the river, and
possibly indicated the long winding pathways followed.
243
AN 35, 72, 115, 117, 147, 193, 247, 257, 343, 359, 381, PN 116 etc.
244
AN 14, 64, 74.
245
Nar. 4.
246
Arucelmakkal (AN 119, 121, 363, 389).
247
AN 7, 35, 103, 119, 129, 169, 313, 331, 349 etc. ref. to curam irantor or malai irantor.
248
Vevveru maruku viyancuram iranthanan (AN 361).
249
Inam ter (AN 314).
250
Pariutai nal ter (AN 100).

wheel and axle.251 There is a reference to the use of axle and crossbeam to avoid
accidents.252 Ter was mainly for human use and there is reference to another cart
named cakatu or cakatam.253 Cakatam was a heavy vehicle used for carrying
goods, drawn by bullocks.254
Exchangers moving in bullock carts and people traveling in ters over long dis-
tances facilitated the interlocking of habitational and operational spaces. This
resulted in the growth of additional or supplementary habitational spaces called
ceris.255 Ceri was referred to as a space distinct from the normal lived space.256
Ceris were areas where exchange also took place.257 Exchange centres formed
around the paths through carts travelled and rested.258
Movement through waterscapes, both rivers and the oceans are also mentioned.
The most common vessel was timil.259 There were also other vessels like ampi,260
toni,261 uru262 and punai.263 There are also references to marakkalam or kalam,264
navay 265 and vankam.266 Water vessels carrying cargo and people reached turais
along sea and river.267 Large scale exchange centres developed in the habitation
and operational centres along the coast near the salt pans, and were called
pattanam.268 Probably, terms like kuppai and pakkam indicated the antecedents to
the formation of pattanam.269
251
The term for wheel is tikiri (AN 69, 233) another term is azhi (PN 99 azhi cuttiya). The axle is
called aram (aram atu tikiri, PN 99).
252
Ter visu irukkai ara nokki (PN 69).
253
AN 191, PN 102, 90, 256, Nar. 4.
254
Panta cakatu (PN 90) cakatam pantam (PN 102).
Erute ilaiya, nukam unarave
Cakatam pantam peritu peytanre (PN 102) cakatam is here is used by umanar, who complain
that weight of the cart is too large to be handled by young oxen and (feeble) nukam.
255
AN 76, 115, 216, 220, 276, 347, 140, 390, PN 348 etc.
256
Urum ceriyum (AN 220) vevvay ceri ampal mutur (AN 347).
257
Salt and paddy were exchanged in ceri. Nellinner venkal uppu ena ceri maruvilai kuralil
(AN 140); Also AN 390.
258
Iyan ter ur teruvin (AN 189); AN 220; Acu il teruvil (Kurun 277).
259
AN 65, 70, 190, 260, 330, PN 303 etc.
260
Nar. 74.
261
Katal mantu toni PN 299.
262
Palnira uru (PN 58) also panakkoti.
263
PN 192; PN 56 (punaikkalam).
264
AN 127, 149, 152, PN 30, 56 etc.
265
AN 110, PN 66, 126.
266
AN 255.
267
They are called perunturai and munturai; kuta atu irumpon vakaiperunturai (AN 199); tondi
munturai (AN 290); An porunai munturai (AN 93); Perur munturai (AN 352). Even a large scale
port like muciri is called a munturai (AN 57).
268
Puvin netunkali nappan perumpeyar patappai kaviripattanattu (AN 205). Irunkalipatappai
marunkur pattanattu (AN 227).
269
Ayir kontu kuppai itta ekkal venmanal vaippin (AN 181); netuvel uppin nirampa kuppai
(AN 206). Kuppai indicated a mound (of salt and other goods). Pakkam are extended settlements

180 / K.N. GANESH
Growth of exchange centres and ceris adjoining habitational spaces, crossroads

and spaces adjoining land and waterscapes resulted in the growth of productive
spaces for artisans, such as metalworkers, carpenters and others.270 The activities
of the artisans provided the extension of productive spaces to exchange centres
also.
The interlocking of operational and habitational spaces in different parts of the
geography of Tamilakam provided opportunities for the movement of people from
other places. Texts refer to yavanar,271 Moriyar,272 and vatukar.273 There are also
references to the movements of new wayfarers or strangers (vampalar).274 It is
possible that some of them were wandering hawkers or peddlers.275 There are
references to the wayfarers being attacked on the road.276 Paths of these wayfarers
also brought merchants, and the term niyamam referred to such a merchant settle-
ment.277 There were other merchants, such as kaviti, apart from cattu mentioned
earlier.278 The presence of such groups indicates inter relations of the operative
spaces with other parts of the world.
Relations with other parts of the world enable us to consider the third important
aspect of the lived spce, that of the cultural spaces. A part of the cultural produc-
tion has already been dealt with while discussing the artifacts of the habitational
and operational spaces. The features of the cultural space is based on the concept
‘common’ or ‘public’ as designated in the term ‘potiyil’.279 Potiyil was a space
covered by trees280 in the vicinity of habitation spaces. A more frequently used
term for a public space is manram.281 Manram is a space with grassy land282 and
cirukutipakkam (AN 70, 118, 187) and in one case there is reference to marukil cirukutipakkam
(AN 270), where pakkam is associated with an exchange centre. It should be remembered that
kaveripattanam had two sections, Pattanapakkam and Maruvurpakkam.
270
PNB 87, 290, 206 (taccan); PN 21, 37, 170, 180 (kollan). PN 125 (weaving woman). Songs by
Auvaiyar praising atikaiman anci and pokuttezhini give also descriptions of the artisans at Takatur.
271
AN 149, PN 56.
272
Iyalter Moriyar (AN 69), venvel poru netukutai kotither Moriyar (PN 175).
273
Katanay vatukar (AN 107, 378), vampa vatukar (AN 375).
274
AN 95, 107, 113, 175, 191, 277, 289, 343, 375, 289, PN 78, 79 etc.
275
R. Champakalakshmi treats them as hawkers or peddlers along with vilaignar and pakarnar.
(Champakalakshmi 1996: 195). Howeve, the references in the Tokai texts do not clearly mention
their occupation.
276
Cilai Ettai kanai vil vampalar uyarpatukku varnta tar koti (AN 289).
277
AN 83, 90; PP.II:6, III.10, VIII.5. The references appear to be of the same settlement in the
place occupied by Kosar. Niyamam mutur is considered to be a guild called nigama mentioned in
Tamil Brahmi inscriptions. See Mahadevan (1968).
278
Kaviti is called a ‘guild chief’ by Mahadevan, Corpus of Tamil Brahmi Inscriptions.
279
AN 25, 251, 287, 322, 377, PN 51, 89, 128.
280
Cetukal caynta mutukal potiyil (potiyil where trees have fallen down) AN 373; tolmutu alattu
arumpanai potiyil (potiyil around the old pipal tree) AN 251.
281
AN 14, 75, 103, 157, 158, 232, 239, 321, PN 35, 76, 135, 220, 270 etc.
282
Puntalaimanram (AN 321), pulenmanram (AN 157).

covered by trees.283 Manram or adjacent areas were also used for grazing.284 Another
elated term with a slightly different connotation is ampal or ampalam.285 Ampalam
was a resting place with the surface almost the same as manram or potiyil. Ampal
was a place where people congregated.286
In this sense, potiyil, manram and ampal had the role of the assembly or con-
gregating place of the inhabitants. There is also reference to a slightly larger space
called okkal.287
There were two kinds of assemblies, vizha or festivals, and assemblies with a
political function. The space for vizha was a kalam, the space for dancing, per-
formances and other festivities.288 Different types of vizhas like pankuni vizha,
ulli vizha, vilvizha, munneervizha and nalmanvizha are mentioned, which shows
the diversity in festivities.289 Some of the festivities were celebrations of victory
in war or other contests of power, and they are called arpu, cirappu or amalai.290
There is reference to vizha conducted in the battlefield (porkalam).291 Musical
instruments formed a major part of the festivities and a number of musical instru-
ments are mentioned, which were used for festivities and for war.292
Another form of festivity involved feasting. Feasting collective feeding or
undattu293 and Peruncoru or grand feasting also became an essential feature of all
celebrations and festivities.294 Marriages or manam appear to be another form of
283
Manru tonratu maramum mayum (AN 239) manra venkai (AN 232) tiral aria manra vempin
(PN 76).
284
Kanru payir karala manru nirai puku tarum (AN 14).
285
AN 218, 282, PN 53.
286
Alarvay ampal urum avanotu mozhiyum (AN 282) uror etutta ampal am cinai (AN 273).
287
PN 95, 193. Okkal appears to imply surroundings (curram) and people who lived there
(currattar). Okkal also seems to refer to a group or crowd (illor okkal talaivan: leader of the multitude
of have-nots (PN 95).
288
Arkali vizhavu kalam (AN 232) koothar atu kalam (PN 28, 78) vizhavukkalavirayin tonrum
natan (AN 82).
289
Pankuni vizha (AN 137), ullivizha (AN 353, 368) vilvizha (AN 109, Kurun. 31) nalmanvizha
(AN 385) munneer vizha (PN 9).
290
Arpu (AN 253) cirappu (AN 231, PN 64, 72) amalai (AN 86, 142) etc.
291
Poretirttu empai porkalam pukine kallenperur vizhavutai (PN 84).
292
They included yal (AN 266, 331, PN 64) mizhavu or muzha (AN 35, 222, PN 68) murasam
(AN 334, 25, 227, PN 50) utukkai (AN 19) tuti (AN 19, 35, PN 287 (played by pulayar) izhukupparai
(AN 19) katunkural (AN 19) paraikkuiral (AN 23) tannumai (AN 40, 297, PN 270) tandakapparai
(AN 118) Itakkai (AN 52) katuntuti, pani (AN 261) kurumparai (PN 67) tol isai (AN 352).
293
AN 219, PN 18, 257, 297, 331. In one song the poet says:
Unti kotuttor uyir kotuttor
Unti mutarru unavin pintam
Unavena pativatu nilattotu neer (PN 18).
Thus land and water create food, food sustains human body, and those who feed are giving life.
Thus the poet provides a powerful legitimization of the practice of feeding.
294
AN 86, 233, 266, 275, PN 2, 220, 261 etc.

182 / K.N. GANESH
festivity.295 References to formal marriage as a festive form are comparatively

rare and must have been a later addition to the festivities. Marriages appear to
have taken place in separate marriage ‘halls’.296
The second kind of assembly is formal ‘political’ or informal group or groups.
The formal assemblies are referred to as avai or avaiyam and they met to take
legal or moral decisions (aram)297 Avayam is found normally in the public spaces
of chiefs. Another informal activity of the assembly is gossip, which is referred to
as pazhi.298 Public pazhi or ‘blaming’ is a powerful agency to preserve legal or
moral codes.
Public spaces also became spiritual centres. Celebrations, feasting and dancing
could br transformed into spiritual ‘seances’ and they are called veri or kali. Veri
is performed by velans and sometimes by women who are possessed by muruku.299
Kali, again indicating possession involved with aggressiveness also becomes a
part of ritual dancing.300 Women, called virali are involved in these forms of ‘pos-
sessed’ ritual dancing.301 Manrams are referred to as spaces where offerings (pali)
are made.302 Sacrificial offerings (kuruti) are also mentioned.303 The use of manram
as ritual space might have facilitated larger sacrifices called velvi.304
Emergence of the borders of habitational spaces and protection has already
been noted. Need for protection extended to both habitational and operational
spaces. The terms for protection are various, in which kati and mile appear to be
prominent, apart from the normal terms kaval and kappu.305 Kati and mile also
appear together.306 Kati appears along with kaval also.307 Protection in one sense
clearly indicates the use of humans as in the use of the term kavalar.308 There
were also protection groups called katiyar or katikaiyar.309 Protection was extended
295
AN 136, 141, 397. Nar. 386 (vatuvai-marriage).
296
Katinakar (AN 141); Tirumana illam (AN 136).
297
Aram kelunal avai urantai (AN 93) nalavai (of titiyan AN 331, of tittan veliyan AN 226),
chemmal nalavai (PN 53), aramarakkanta neriman avayattu (PN 224), also PN 71, 83, 157 etc.
298
AN 360, PN 72. This form is related to aram AN 281, PN 39.
299
AN 232, 292, PN 111, Nar. 173 etc. Muruku, apparently the same as god Murukan, appears as
a spirit that possesses velans and women(Ven ena unarnta ar iya am nai netuvel Nar. 173).
300
AN 222, 232, PN 51, Nar. 288.
301
AN 352, Nar. 328 Viral appears to be a general term indicating the dancing spaces.
302
Itupali nuvalum akantalai manrattu
Vizhavutalai konta palaviral mutur (Nar. 293).
Other references are found in AN 35, 167, 213, 187, PP.III.10.
303
PN 50, 285.
304
AN 13, 220, PN 15, 205, 224.
305
AN 133, 336 (Mile) AN 15, 32, 35, 49, 136, 224, 232, PN 37, 92, 95, 97, 202 etc.
306
AN 216, PN 181.
307
Kati utai viyan nakar kaval (AN 232).
308
Javanam kavalar (PN 172) tantai arunkati kavalar (AN 2) Perunkulam kavalan pole (AN 252)
tunca kannar kavalar (AN 122).
309
AN 32, 35, PN 202.

from large houses and buildings to operative spaces.310 The task of protection
shifted from kavalar and katikaiyar to chiefs.311 Breaking of protection or defenses
of the enemies was an achievement of the chief.312
There are indications also that protection of the supernatural was invoked.313
Protection of the habitation space also involved maintenance of a group of trees.314
It is possible that the concept of protective trees used by chiefs like vakai, katampu,
veppu and venkai appeared from such protective floral spaces.315 The protective
trees were associated with the supernatural.316 Thus protection extended from the
physical protection of the kavalar and katikaiyar to chiefs and supernatural power,
broadly termed as katavul. The concept of protection extends to protection from
hunger and from natural calamities, including blight.317 God is considered as the
protector of the earth.318 Even the performance of a Vedic sacrifice was related to
protection as in the case of Cellur.319
While habitation and productive spaces are subject to protection, the situation
in the spaces of circulation and distribution was different. Cattle raids had an
institutionalized character.320 Different puram tinais such as vetci, tumpai, karantai,
kanci, and vanci corresponded to the formulaic ‘stages’ in the cattle raid and war-
fare between chiefs as well as spaces for the purpose. Texts refer directly to such
raids.321 Wayfarers were subject to robbery by armed groups.322 Such raids and
310
Katimanai matam (AN 255) katimanai (PN 37) cirutinai patukili kati iyar (AN 32) kati utai
viyan nakar (AN 15) kati mile puravu (AN 216) katiya katazhum netuvarai pataippu (PN 203).
311
Marappor pantiyar arattil kakkum korkai (AN 27) nannan Utiyan Arunkati pazhi (AN 258).
312
Onnar katimatil aran pala katanta netuman anci (PN 92).
313
Kati uatai viyan nakar kaval kanni
Muruku ena velan taru um (AN 232)
Katinakar punaittu katavul peni(AN 136).
314
This was apparently the meaning of mile. Villintu karumpin vallattu puramile (AN 336). In
another song, katu and kavu are distinguished, where kavu appears to be protective group of trees
(AN 383).
315
Katampu is associated with the enemies of Imayavarampan (AN 347). It is also the ‘sacred’
tree of Murukan. Vakai is the protection tree of nannan (AN 199).
316
Neey li katavul marathe mulmitai kutampai (AN 270) teyvam chernta pararai vempin (AN 309)
tonrurai katavul chernta pararaimanra pennai vemku matar kutampai (Nar. 303) Al amar katavul
(PN 198). Pararai is the foot of the tree that is considered to be the seat of the supernatural (katavul).
317
Vicipani muzhavin kuttuvan kappa pasiyena ariya panaipayil irukkai (AN 91) protection of the
natu from blight by uyar varai ventoy verpan (AN 42).
318
Jnalam kavalar (PN 18).
319
Kayiru arai yatta kantaku vanappa arunkati netunthoon (AN 220) netuntoon is translated as
yupa but the protective function is obvious.
320
Narayanan (1981).
321
Attakalvar aatolu arutta ena (AN 6); karunkan mazhavar kalavu ulavu ezhunta (AN 91)
katipulam niraippurattu atipunai totutolparaiyaeki ... kavrnta kanrutai inam (AN 101); AN 239,
anpil atavar kanru aru kavara (PN 161) etc.
322
Aru alai kalvar (AN 193) AN 289, AN 207, 215, 257 etc.

184 / K.N. GANESH
robberies would result in conflicts, which took place in spaces called munai.323
The potential for disturbance (kalankal) in the munai was recognized.324 Munai
was also recognized as the battlefield involving the enemy.325 Curams or mountain
passes were also potential battlefields.326 Interestingly such fields are given the
same name as the space for vizha, that is, kalam.327 Spaces destroyed by battle are
mentioned.328 Such destruction is indicated by the destruction of the ‘protection
trees’ of the chiefs or habitation space.329 Destruction caused by battles or by na-
tural calamities laid waste whole areas, including habitational spaces.330
Groups such as Maravar, Mazhavar and Kalvar are involved in such battles,
and they had their own habitational spaces.331 Battles and plundering were treated
as ‘labour’ of these groups.332 Battles and conflicts had their own cultural connota-
tion, just as production and protection had. The cattle raids and their stages were
related to flowers, as in the case of livelihood operations. There is indication that
some groups wore flowers while fighting.333 Wearing garlands is related to war-
riors.334 Chiefs are mentioned as wearing garlands called kanni or tar while fight-
ing.335 Destruction or defeat was indicated by withering of garlands.336
Flags, like garlands are another cultural feature of such engagements. Flags
signified the identity of the persons, groups and cultural or economic practices.
Thus flags were attached to the carts of chiefs or groups.337 Flags signified the
presence of a chief 338 or an armed group in movement.339 Flags were attached to
323
AN 35, 40, 45, 14, 129, 107 etc.
324
Vanavarampan atal munai kalankiya (AN 45), kalankumunai cirur. (AN 129).
325
AN 349.
326
AN 331 refers to the curam where Ay Titiyan fought the Velir.
327
Paruvur parantalai iruperuventarum porutu kalattu ozhiya (AN 96). Also the term porkalam
in the songs (e.g. PN 84). Parantalai is used as a general term indicating battle space.
328
Irelu velir iyankorunkerinta Kamur (AN 135).
329
Titiyan tolnilaipinai muzhumutal tumiya pannikuraitha jnanrai (AN 45). Cutting the ‘protective
tree’ was presumably a license to destroy habitational spaces.
330
Yankanum kuti pathi peyarnta cuttu utai mutupazh (AN 77); karumanuril inaintu kanpakkum
paituara venpiya pazh cer attam (AN 371). Attam is the general term for spaces outside protected
habitational or operational spaces.
331
AN 21, 75, 297, PN 43 etc.
332
Kolaivey kolko kotuntozhil Maravar (AN 363) Kotuvinai Maravar (AN 319) vinai vilampil
vizhuntotai Maravar (AN 305) etc.
333
Konkar wore flowers while fighting pasumpoon pantiyan (AN 253).
334
Atiyaman Anci is mentioned as holding weapans and wearing garlands made of vetci,venkai,
and pontai flowers (PN 100). The term Kotai Marpan used for a Chera chief indicates the practice of
wearing garlands (AN 100).
335
Nar ceriya totutta kanni (PN 81), Anci is called netuvel mazhavar perumakan, wearing kulaitar
(PN 88).
336
Kanni vatiya manna marunkin (AN 343).
337
AN 36, 396, PN 45 (Kotither).
338
AN 354, 358.
339
Velkoti tunci kal anna punai ten Kosar (AN 251).

exchange spaces340 places where toddy was sold341 and ships.342 Another group of
signifiers are lamps, beacons and torches by which things or spaces could be
identified at night. There appears to be distinction between cutir or ollir to be seen
at long distances or lighted for festivities343 and lamps in habitational and oper-
ational spaces.344 Wars were themselves festive occasions and victories in war
involved celebrations along with those who fought the war.345 An interesting fea-
ture of this identity is that many musical instruments that were part of festivities
were also used for war.346
War and plunder began with the acquisition of cattle, but extended to goods
considered as precious. The general term for such goods was kalan (nankalan,
anikalan, etc.).347 They included precious stones and beads (mani), pearl (muttu),
metal (pon) and threads/chains (izhai).348 There is also mention of diamond.349
Besides, there are references to cosmetics.350 Mention of these precious objects
and their distribution indicates that they reached different parts of Tamilakam
through exchange as well as through war. War involved forcing the defeated chiefs
to surrender precious goods as tirai.351 War also involved plunder of the spaces
of the enemy.352 Plunder was followed by arson, and there are references burning
the habitational spaces and battlefields.353
Conflicts and battles taking place in the circulation spaces and affecting habi-
tational and operational spaces indicated a transfer of resources from the deafeated
to the winners, a process that resulted in the formastion of centres of power. It
should be noted that most of the chiefs are to be located in natural spaces, such as
malai or kunru or coastal areas.354 When the chiefs stayed in habitational spaces,
340
Koti nutanka marukin kutal (AN 149) kalkotinutankum avanam (PP.VII.8).
341
AN 126, 196, PN 51 etc.
342
AN 110.
343
AN 15, 17, 65, 84 (peruncuttu) PN 16, 38, 69 etc.
344
PN 2, 7, 324, 326, 359, PP V.7.
345
Takkai peruncirappin kutumi koman (PN 64) Onkiya cirappin uyirnte kelvi mankuti marutan
talaivanaka (PN 72). Also references to am alai (AN 86, 142) and Tunankai kuttu (PP.VI.2).
346
Examples are murasam (AN 188, 334) yal (PN 64) muzha (PN 68).
347
AN 127, 371, PN 127, 218.
348
AN 27, 73, 225 (muttu); AN 6, 47, 58, PN 89, 105 (Izhai); AN 4, 35, 69, 79, 202, 321, 368
(mani); AN 230, 258, PN 218 (pon).
349
AN 127.
350
AN 181, 262, PN 563 etc.
351
Viruntin mannar arukalan teruppa (AN 54); also AN 84, 127, 334.
352
Munai pazhaka arunkurumpu erinta perunkala verukkai cuzhatucurukkum nannan nalnatu
(AN 349)
353
Ur cutu vilakkattu (PN 7) nanantalai perur eriyumtakka (PN 57) munai cutavezhinta mankul
mappukai (PN 103) etc.
354
They include velpor vanavn kolli (AN 33, 213) malaiyaman Tirumutikkari, parampumalai
pari, nannan of Ezhilkunram, Pulli of venkitamalai, Konkanakizhan (PN 154), Ayiraikkon (PN 157)
among others.

186 / K.N. GANESH
their residences were invariably fortified, as in the case of the ventans.355 Symbols
of the power of the chief included the kol or cenkol.356 The chiefs used public
spaces such as manram and potiyil to hold their assemblies (avai). Thus public
spaces became the cultural spaces for both the immanent power of the chiefs and
the transcendental supernatural power.
Texts signify the existence of another kind of cultural space, which may be
called as ‘dead spaces’ to distinguish them from natural spaces. Dead spaces appear
in the form of ruined exchange centres, fortifications or habitations or more fre-
quently as burials. Burials can appear as part of habitationa or as evidence for
destruction. References of burials in warfields and other destroyed sites indi-
cate the pattern of destruction of dead spaces.357 Information appears to indicate
the practice of exposure of dead bodies of fallen people, a practice indicated by
the term itutal.358 A general; term for a burial ground that appears is perunkatu,359
which appears along with a cattle raid in one place.360 In another place, there is
reference to the construction of a rock cut burial chamber.361 There is also reference
to urns in perunkatu.362 However, the description of perunkatu as full of dreadful
creatures is reminiscent of exposed burials.363
Cremation also came into vogue, as in the case of Netuman Anci.364 There are
references to urn burials also.365 There is reference to a pit (kuzhi) surrounded by
demons (irunpal kooli) in a space completely burnt, probably referring to burnt
corpses buried in a pit.366 These instances correspond to the burial types mentioned
in Manimekalai, referred earlier.367
It is possible that exposure, cremation and pit burials were the simple burial
forms and urn and cist burials involved labour. Thus burials indicated the early
355
This is shown by references to netunakar or netumatil, such as Urantai pon utai netunakar
(AN 385) Avi pon utai netunakar potinai (AN 61), karuvur as ventoy netunakar (AN 93) tannur
netumatil (PN 37).
356
Tankol iyanka teyattu uraiyum chanron (PN 217) vilanku pakai katinta kalanka cenkol
(PN 230).
357
Al azhittu uyarta ancuvarupatukkai kar nuti cevvai ervai ceval (AN 215) mattal yoci viral
orrimani kontu valvaypetaikku ceriyum ankan (AN 233). Also PN 231, 239.
358
PN 239.
359
PN 246, 247, 250, 259, 364.
360
Kavarnta kanrutai inam kollaiyar talai peyarkum nanantalai perunkatu (AN 101).
361
Perunkattu panniya karunkottu eemam (PN 246).
362
Tazhi iya perunkatu (PN 364).
363
The description in PN 359, for example.
364
PN 231. interestingly, Anci is called a mazhava, and even if cremation was a northern practice,
as has been sometimes argued, the practice had become indigenized.
365
PN 256, 228, 238, 364, PP.V.4.
366
AN 233. The song states that earlier the land was fertile and was fed with rains, where Utiyan
ceral gave his Peruncoru. This may point to the devastation of an earlier settlement, of which only
the pit burials remained.
367
See note 46.

forms of social stratification. Social stratification is clearly manifested in the

erection of stones above burial spaces. There is reference to a stone circle in a
forest, which may be a cairn circle.368 More frequent references are to natukals.369
There is a song addressing a chief in the form of a natukal, showing not only that
the natukal has been erected over a burial, but also figuratively that the dead per-
son ‘resides’ in the stone.370 Erection of natukals of Kopperuncolan and Netuman
Anci has been mentioned in the texts.371 A pot filled with toddy was placed inside
the burial of Netuman Anci, indicating burial goods.372
Natukals had engravings (ezhuttu) made of sharp chisels.373 The engravings
were in honour of the dead.374 There are references to a particular engraving on the
stone, which is in the shape of the plumage of a peacock or a quill (pili cuttiya).375
Although natukals were recognized as monuments for the dead, it is possible that
they began to be worshipped.376 There are references to offerings made before
natukal.377 There is reference to the new wayfarers gazing at a natukal without
understanding the ezhuttu on it.378 All these indicate the element of mystique around
natukals and their engravings (and their possible sculptured forms), leading to
their deification. There is reference to an engraving worshipped as katavul.379
These engravings were the likely predecessors to constructed figurines like
kollippavai alluded to in the texts.380
The mystique around dead spaces and the concept of a journey beyond (umpar)
leads to the concept of another world (veru ulakam) to which the dead go. The
368
Kallen curram (Nar. 57).
369
AN 211, 289, 343, 387, PN 261, 265, 306, 314, 329 etc. Natukal is an erected stone over a
burial, normally identified with a menhir.
370
Ur nani iranta parmutir parantalai
Onku nilai venkai ollinar naruvi-
Pontai am tottin punam tanar totuttup-
Pal an kovalar patalai cutta
Kal ayineye-katuman tonral (PN 265).
371
PN 223 (Kopperuncolan); PN 231, 232 (Netuman Anci).
372
Nar ari cirukalattu ukuppavum (PN 232). The poet (Auvaiyar) wonders whether he will receive
the liquor.
373
Kur uli kayinra kotumai ezhuttu (AN 343).
374
Peetum peyarum ezhuti (AN 67, 131, 297).
375
AN 67, 131, PN 232, 64. It is possible that the natukal was cut into such a form. Atar torum pili
cuttiya piranku nilai natukal (AN 67).
376
Otiyatu natukal kaitozhutu paravum (PN 306).
377
Netunilai natukal nalpali kutum curam (AN 289); putai natukallin nalpaliyutti (PN 329).
378
Peyar payam patara thonru kuyil ezhuttu iyaipu utan nokkal chellatu acaivitan arucel vampalar
vitunar kaliyum (AN 297).
379
Ezhuttu ani katavul (AN 167).
380
The form of Kollippavai appears in Nar. 185. Kolli kutavayin tenutai netuvarai teyvam ezhutiya
vinai man pavai pol.

188 / K.N. GANESH
idea probably started with the world to which Maravar dying in the battlefield
departed.381 Those buried are mentioned as going to teyva ulakam.382 This probably
explains the meaning of burial goods and the later deification, as the dead space
was conceived as other worldly space.
The other worldly space is the opposite of the lived space, which settles into
the area of habitation, production, circulation and cultural operations. There is
reference to geography, such as venkatamalai in the north and kumari in the south.
But there is some ambiguity, as some texts refer to imayam in the north and
aykuti in the south.383 The more crucial indicator is that of Tamil language.384 The
identification of spoken language with lived space is shown by the frequent refer-
ences to lands where another language is spoken (Mozhipeyar teyam or colpeyar
teyam).385 There are references to the ‘harsh’ and ‘high’ language spoken by the
people who lived there.386 Kosar, a frequently referred group living in such a
place, are mentioned as speaking the ‘enemy’ language.387 The linguistic distinc-
tion thus became a crucial feature of the spatial identity of the Tamils distinguish-
ing them from the northerners (vatukar), although lands to the north became part
of their imaginary, such as references to Ganga, patali and Imayam.388 People
who lived in the lands beyond the Tamil speaking space were speaking in other
languages.389 It is possible that references to Vedas as marai indicated this linguistic
difference, which rendered them inaccessible apart from the insulatory practices
of the Brahmanas themselves.390
IV
The foregoing overview of the evidence from Sangam texts on the habitational,
operational and cultural spaces brings us back to the problem we tried to pose in
the earlier sections of this study. The spaces that we tried to focus in the texts at
times correspond to the tinais, otherwise appear as trans-tinai forms. The prob-
lem also exists in the appearance of tinais. A typical example is palai tinai, which
deals with war, conflict and destruction. The space itself is vividly detailed in
381
Cey ir tiram peyara teruvar nal amar katainta taru kanalar (AN 77).
382
Teyva ulakam eytinan (PN 228).
383
Vatatisai atuvantoy imayam tentisai aykuti inrayin (PN 132).
384
PN 50, 58.
385
AN 31, 67, 127, 205, 211, 295, 349.
386
Kalla nil mozhi (AN 107); pani mozhi payirriyum (AN 220) tane vay mozhi nilai iya cen
vilanku nal isai valankelu kosar (AN 205); tuppu etirntetutta netu mozhi mannar (PN 53).
387
Onru mozhi kosar (AN 196).
388
AN 127,175, 399, PN 35, 39 (Imayam) AN 265 (patali) AN 265, Nar. 189, 369 (ganga).
389
Vilanku iruncimaiyakunrattu umpar verupal mozhiyateyam munni (AN 215).
390
Marai meant to conceal, and the knowledge of the Brahmanas probably indicated ‘concealed
knowledge’, a source of power. Reference to jnan marai mutunul (AN 181).

Purananuru, but the descriptions are less vivid and at times imaginary in akam
songs.391 Spatialities of puram tinais are also problematic, except as cultural
spaces.392
This means that any attempt to find tangible evidence on the life activity as
discussed above will have to start from the identification of the habitational and
operational spaces. Cultural spaces are either embedded in the habitational and
operational spaces themselves or as dead spaces in the context of exchange, war,
destruction and death. The location of the lived spaces of the Tamil speaking
people cannot be identified as tinai or other similar literary spatial indicators. Just
as language becomes the signifier of the generalized cultural space, locational
features will have to be identified with the habitational and operational spaces of
the living, into which the cultural spaces of the living and the dead (and the other
worldly) are embedded. The tangible space lived space that formed the locality of
the Tamils appears to be Ur, which appears in all Tinais and is identifiable with all
spatial forms. Ur is the habitational space and hence identifiable with kuti. Different
kinds of operational spaces are also identifiable with Ur.393 Exchange centres are
also part of Ur.394 Cultural and ritual forms are also identified with Ur.395 Ur was
also among the protected spaces either by chiefs or by ritual means.396
The numerous references to Ur show several features of its location. Ur is
proximate to or inclusive of a water body.397 Ur includes habitations (kuti, pati,
ceri), exchange centres (maruku, teru, angadi) assembly space (manram) and is
proximate to or inclusive of proximate spaces. It is not clear from the texts whether
burial spaces were proximate to the Ur, but the type of labour involving in recet-
ing a natukal or a rock cut chamber involves access from the habitation space.
391
A recent paper by Subbarayalu (2005) discusses the problems in the standard representations
of the palai tinai.
392
Purattinai according to Tol Kappiyam are seven, vetci, vanci, ulinai, kanci, tumpai, vakai and
patan. Other sources add karantai, nocci and potuviyal to the list. Kaikkilai and peruntinai appear
as akam tinais. Among them except the five standard akam tinais, others lack clear eco-spatial
identification.
393
Examples are perunirveli yem ciru nallur (AN 310-neital); karuukoti pakanra cuti mutur por
ceri mallarir paukutarum uran (AN 316-artisans); caral perur munturai (AN 382-water bodies in
hill slopes); punpulavaippin cirunal ur (AN 394-grazing lands) avvayal kanniya valam kelum uran
(AN 26-wetland) tanturai ur (AN 56-river side water front) kaitai am patappai em azhunkal ur
(AN 100-coastal delta) pulan mamalai pulampu kol cirur (AN 203-hills).
394
Cerinta ceri Chemmal mutur (AN 15) tatu eru marukin mutur (AN 165) Iyan ter ur teruvin
(AN 189) yal isai maruku nittur (AN 266).
395
Pazhaviral mutur (AN 17), kalimakizh Ur (AN 146) Ampal Ur, Ampal Mutur (AN 218, 282,
PN 53) Cirur vizhavin (PN 65) Kural otu mara am cirur (AN 265, ref. to kuravaikuttu).
396
Arukati kappin anaivarum mutur (AN 114); nirai nilai jnayil netumatil Ur (AN 124); Ur tarum
katimaram tulankiya kavum (PN 23).
397
Terms like Turai kel Ur (AN 276) nam Ur munturai (AN 278) tanturai Uran (AN 286) Mutur
vayin panikkayam (PN 279) etc. show this.

190 / K.N. GANESH
Ur also appears to cover habitation and operation spaces of different habitational

and operational spaces of different technological and cultural development. It
should also be noted that Ur did not signify the different habitational, operational
and cultural spaces, but the confluence of lived spaces signified the Ur. This is
also shown by the references to Mutur, indicating older generations.398
Ur was not a stationary space. It was subject to transitions in production and
distribution, as well as protection and destruction. There are references to migra-
tions from the Ur as a result of destruction.399 Movement from the Ur in search of
wealth was another form of migration.400 War, exchange, and movements of vari-
ous kinds transformed the lived space, apart from the internal processes of
transition. Transitional forms lead to new germination as habitations, operational
spaces, or even cultural forms, which are referred to as yanar. Spaces referred to
as yanar would produce surplus that could be realized as tirai.401 This is the opposite
of conditions of misery known as pini or noy. These could be conditions ranging
from the effects of natural calamities, destruction or hunger.402 In this sense, the
songs of all the Tinais, despite their emphases addressed the identical lived spaces.
Thus the lived space of the Ur became the locality in the larger context of the
Sangam texts. Ur as locality provided the tangible elements of life activity of the
Tamils in the form of artifacts, habitational and operative spaces, and burial spaces,
and it also left linguistic and cultural traditions of production, festivity, destruc-
tion and misery piled as traces in the literary texts and performances. These compil-
ations were in the form internal expressions of the localities and expressions of
the larger interlocking spaces where contact and conflict developed, which were
termed as akam and puram, respectively.403 Akam and puram can be described as
variations of information flows in the corpus of Sangam texts that represent the
contradiction inherent in the lived spaces.
Identification of the Ur as the tangible form of locality that signifies the lived
spaces leads to the possibility of developing a methodology that understands his-
torical sources in a different way. This begins from the assumption that every
artifact produced by humans as a part of their life activity occupies a particular
398
Oru tam akiya uravor umpal mallal mutur (PN 18).
399
Ur Ezhuntu Ulariya-vacating villages as a result of destruction.
400
Ponpatu marunkin malai iraintor (AN 173) nan utaimaiyin ninki ceynatu arumporul valitta
nencamotu (AN 187).
401
Vata yanar tirai kotuppa (PP.VI.3).
402
Vin noy pirankal malai iraintor (AN 111); naninoy eykkumpanikur atukkattu (AN 288) pasippini
(PN 173) etc.
403
The classification of akam and puram as narratives of love and war appear to be incorrect.
Instead, both forms appear to address both, only that their spatial perceptions are different. Puram
also concentrates on themes of conflict, power, death and survival that affect all lived spaces, from
the vantage point of the interlocking spaces.

‘space-time’.404 It is important to recognize that space-time appears differently in

different sources. Thus in archaeology, space-time appears heuristically in the
chronology of a given site, and the artifact contained therein, the enumeration of
which will help us identify the site and the artifact as belonging to a specific tech-
nological age, or a state of culture and covilisation. This may not help us understand
the intent or meaning of the artifact. The intent or meaning, which gives it the
social value in the given state of space-time can be obtained from the perceptions
of human beings themselves, as found in the expressive traditions, songs, art
forms, rituals, ceremonies and other traditions, including the philosophical and
cosmological meanings attributed to them. It is possible to argue that while the
artifacts are concrete and tangible, the literary works are works of fiction and
imagination. However, within the given space-time, literary works, however
fictional they are, also represent the culture of the space-time, and reproduce the
historicity of human experience.405 In this sense, the archeological site becomes
more then a site, and become the representation of material culture from a given
space-time, and so are the literary texts, as expressions of the human perception
and experience. Archaeological artifacts appear as objects and the literary texts
as expressions of subjective experience, but the apparent opposition is resolved406
by the relations of the artifacts themselves to the given landscape where the site
appears and the use of spatial categories such as Tinai in the literary texts. This
also means that archeological sites could be rendered in terms of material cul-
ture as occupying lived spaces at a given time ad the literary texts could be seen
as perceptions or experiences of the lived space. As suggested in the foregoing
discussion, Ur becomes the lived space where production of artifacts and pro-
duction of perceptions and experiences are grounded.407
404
Space-time is here used in much in the same sense as David Harvey (2001: 222–23) uses it.
Harvey uses the term from the perspective of a geographer; the attempt here is to introduce the
spatial dimension to what is normally viewed as linear temporal ‘events’.
405
Ricoer (1981: 131) calls this as ‘distanciation’ and makes it positive attribute of the text, which
makes more than a particular case of intersubjective communication. It becomes historical ‘commu-
nication in and through distance’.
406
Such a resolution is specific to the Tamil texts, as the Tamil texts demonstrate a strong sense of
materiality throughout. However, it is possible that such a resolution could be in terms of ideational,
symbolic forms, which are long lasting expressions of material culture. See Shanks and Tilley (1987:
130–34).
407
Post-processual archaeologists, like Shanks and Tilley, treat other archealogical and literary
productions as texts (Ibid.: 111–12). In this sense they move away from the dialectical perspective
they advocate. The better way to express this may be to cite the words of another archaologist of the
same disposition. ‘An alternative approach is to examine the way in which similarity and difference,
continuity and change are constructed through material culture, and interpret the way in which these
constructions play a role in the dialectical relationship between the structure and the event’. See
Hodder (1987: 8).

192 / K.N. GANESH
But the spaces themselves are undergoing continuous change, and so are the
meanings given to the spaces and objects in general. The changes in spaces and
their meanings are produced by the life activity of the human beings, their practice.
Evidence of their life activity is found in artifacts from sites, but the early Tamil
texts express the contexts in which the artifacts are produced. They provide us
with the expressions of sexual union and separation, destruction and construction,
war and peace, production and exchange and also with moments of mirth, cele-
bration, anguish and sorrow, affluence and destitution, all of which might have
gone into the making of the artifacts that we see today. Thus the presence of a
cluster of burial sites signifies the anterior presence of habitation, and the pres-
ence of habitation site would obviously signify burials or cremation grounds
nearby.Wars of destruction could be followed by periods of construction, and
periods of migration and wandering would be followed by periods of settlement
All the cultural forms produced by human beings in a definite space-time may be
reproduced temporally over long periods, and could be carried to other regions by
migrants, just as technologies. Literary texts indicate such movements and cycles,
and have created their own categories to signify them.408 All these mean that we
are not to be satisfied with physical stratigraphy, but also cognitive and cultural
stratigraphy, which is likely to be complex and difficult, but not impossible. De-
scription of the artifacts and poetic traces in this is sense is not simply an empirical
arrangement of evidence that has to be cofirmed by an existing ‘model’, but is
theoretically incorporated, in order to bring out the life activity of the people,
their material culture, in the given space-time. This form of description, which is
by way of an explanation, is also a method to arrive at a relation between archaeo-
logical evidence and literary texts. This also means that such a description may
lead to the possibility that the technological and cultural distinctions assumed
by the archeologists and historians may be obliterated or transformed in a given
locality, allowing for the presence of active survivals of the past as well as ‘futur-
istic’ intrusions that help shape the life activity of the people.409 Then history also
becomes a non-linear process.
408
A well-known example of such categories in early Tamil texts is Turai. Kailasapathy has cat-
egorized them as literary themes. See Kailasapathy (1968). Their presentation in Tolkappiyam in the
case of Puram Tinai is in the form of moments in which events occur. In spite of their formulaic char-
acter, the Turais provide sufficient diversity and flexibility to account for a wide variety of life activity.
409
One typical example appears to be the conduct of the sacrifice called velvi. The songs indicate
that velvi was performed in the public space of the Ur and thus performance of the velvi becomes
spatially identical with the performance of pali or kuruti. Yet velvi is called a vedic sacrifice, performed
by the Brahmanas. We have no clear indication as to which of the vedic sacrifices was performed for
the chiefs by the Brahmanas, and it is possible that Brahmanas were transforming an earlier practice
by invocation of vedic hymns and rituals, for the benefit of the power of the vels (hence the term
velvi). This may be an intrusion of the Brahmanas, which paved the way for Brahmana ascendance in
future.

Archeological and other tangible forms of sources help us to ground these

transitions in terms of given localities, seen as dynamic space-time entities, exist-
ing in relation with other localities. It should be stated that ‘localities of the pre-
historic or early historic have nothing to do with the enumerated localities of
today. They would have fuzzy boundaries, and would even be locations in move-
ment. They are units of larger spaces, the lifeworlds (ulakam) of the people. They
would be named and continually reproduced in the same place only with the ad-
vancement of material culture and the emergence of some level of stratification
and institutional structures. We have been able to identify some of the Urs that
have yielded tangible evidence, particularly trading and exchange centres and
political centres. As noted above, Sangam texts refer to a number of other Urs
with definite names and having identifiable space-time indicators. It should be
possible to explore such localities as habitational, operational and cultural spaces
on the basis of the relationship between the object and the context.410 ‘Local His-
tory’ thus constructed could be grounded in the existing knowledge on social for-
mation and transition, as expressed by the artifacts studied, without underrating
the possibilities of obtaining creative breakthroughs that may transform our his-
torical knowledge.
References
Agrawal, D.P. (1982), The Archeology of India, London.

Allchin, B. and R. Allchin (1983), The Rise of Civilisation in India and Pakistan, New Delhi.
Begley, Vimala and R.D. De Puma, ed. (1992), Rome and India: The Ancient Sea Trade, Madison.
Begley, Vimala, et al. (1996), The Ancient Port of Arikamedu, New Excavations and Researches
1989–92, Pondicherry.
Binford, L.R. (1962), ‘Archeology as Anthropology’, American Antiquity, Vol. 28: 2, pp. 217–25.
Champakalakshmi, R. (1975), ‘Archeology and Tamil Literary Tradition’, Puratatva, VIII, pp. 110–22.
——— (1996), Trade, Ideology and Urbanisation: South India 300 BC–AD 1300, pp. 117–40.
Darsana, S.B. (1998), ‘Protohistorical Investigations in the Upper Palar Basin (Tamil Nadu), Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Poona.
Gurukkal, R. (1989), ‘Forms of Production and Forces of Change in Ancient Tamil Society’, Studies
in History, Vol. 5: 2, pp. 159–75.
——— (1990), ‘Social Formation and Political Processes in Early Tamilakam’, Seminar on State in
Precolonial India, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
——— (1995), ‘The Beginning of the Historic Period: The Tamil South’, in Romila Thapar (ed.),
Recent Perspectives of Early Indian History, Bombay, pp. 246–70.
——— (1996), ‘Towards a New Discourse: Discursive Processes in Early South India’, in
R. Champakalakshmi and S. Gopal, eds, Tradition, Dissent and Ideology: Essays in Honour of
Romila Thapar, New Delhi.
——— (1998), ‘Historicising Culture’, Presidential Address, South Indian History Congress, XIII
Session, Kalady.
Gurukkal, Rajan and Varier, Raghava, ed. (1999), Cultural History of Kerala, Vol. I,
Thiruvananthapuram, pp. 165–76.
410
Hodder (2003: 84–86).

194 / K.N. GANESH
Gururaja Rao, B.K. (1972), Megalithic Culture in South India, Prasaranga, University of Mysore.
Harvey, David (2001), Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography, pp. 222–23.
Hodder, I. (2003), The Archeological Process, pp. 84–86.
——— (1987), ‘Contribution of the Long Term’, in Ian Hodder, ed., Archaeology as Long Term
History, Cambridge University Press, p. 8.
Jay Gould, Stephen (1997), ‘A Tale of Two Worksites’, Natural History, Vol. 106: 5, pp. 18–22.
Kailasapathy, K. (1968), Tamil Heroic Poetry, Chapter V, Oxford.
Krishnamurty, R.K. (1997). Sangam Age Tamil Coins, Madras.
Leshnik, L.S. (1974), South Indian Megalithic Burials: The Pandukal Complex, Wiesbaden.
Lewis and Sally Binford, ed. (1968), New Perspectives in Archeology, Chicago.
Mahadevan, I. (1968), ‘Corpus of Brahmi Inscriptions’, in R. Nagaswamy, ed., Seminar on Inscrip-
tions, Madras.
Mahadevan, I. (2003), Early Tamil Epigraphy: From Earliest Times to the Sixth Century AD, Cre-A
Chennai and the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.
Majeed, Abdul, et al. (1992), Alagankulam, A Preliminary Report, Department of Archeology, Madras.
Mohanty, R.K. and V. Selvakumar (2002), The Archaeology of the Megaliths In India: 1947–1997,
in Settar and Korisettar, eds, Indian Archeology in Retrospect Vol. I Pre-history and Archeology
of South Asia, Delhi, pp. 313–481.
Moorti, U.S. (1994), Megalithic Cultures, Delhi.
Nagaswamy, R. (1970), ‘Korkai Excavations’, Damilica, December, pp. 50–52.
——— (1973), Kaveripattanam, A Guide, Department of Archeology, Madras.
——— (1974), ‘Karuvur Vanci: The Capital of the Sangam Cheras’, Journal of Kerala Studies,
Vol. I, pt. IV.
——— (1991), ‘Alagankulam: An Indo-Roman Trading Port in C. Margabandhu, K.S. Ramachandran,
A.P. Sagar and D.K. Sinha, eds, Indian Archeological Heritage (K.V. Soundara Rajan felicitation
Volume), Delhi.
Nagaswamy, R. and A. Abdul Majeed (1970), Vasavasamudram (Report on the Excavations Con-
ducted During the year 1970), Department of Archeology, Madras.
Narasimhaiah, B. (1980), Neolithic and Megalithic Cultures in Tamil Nadu, New Delhi.
Narayanan, M.G.S. (1981), ‘Cattle Raids in the Sangam Age’, Proceedings of the Indian History
Congress.
——— (1991), ‘Peasants and Warriors in the Sangam Age’, in Foundations of South Indian History
and Culture, Kanishka, pp. 106–31.
Nilakantha Sastri, K.A. (2002), A History of South India, Nineteenth Impression.
O’Brien, M.J. and R. Lee Lyman (2000), Applying Evolutionary Archeology, New York.
Pillai,Vaiyapuri (1956), History of Tamil Language and Literature, Madras.
Polany, K. (1957), ‘The Economy as an Instituted Process’, in K. Polanyi, C. Arensberg and H. Pearson
eds, Trade and Market in Early Empires, Glenco, pp. 247–56.
Raghava Varier, M.R. (1996), ‘Neital Tinai: A Socio-economic Analysis’, an unpublished paper,
University of Calicut.
Rajan, K. (1989–90), ‘Iron and Gem Stone Industries as Revealed from Kodumanal Excavations’,
Puratattva, No. 20, pp. 111–12.
——— (1991), ‘Stratigraphical Position of Russetted Coated Painted ware’, in C. Margabandhu,
K.S. Ramachandran, A.P. Sagar and D.K. Sinha, eds, Indian Archeological Heritage,
K.V. Soundararajan Feschcrift, Delhi.
——— (2008), ‘Situating the Beginning of Early Historic Times in Tamil Nadu: Some Issues and
Reflections’, Presidential Address, Archeology Session, Indian history Congress, Delhi, 2007,
Social Scientist, Vol. 36: 1–2, p. 43.
Ramachandra Dikshitar, V.R. (1936), Studies in Tamil Literature and History, Madras.
Ramaswamy, Sumathi (2007), Fabulous Geographies and Marvelous Histories, Delhi.
Ray, H.P. and J.P. DeSelles, ed. (2003), The Archeology of Sea faring in the Indian Ocean.

Rao, G. (1972) Megalithic Culture in South India, Prasaranga, Mysore.

Ricoer, Paul (1981), Hermeneutics and Human Sciences, in J. Thompson, ed., (trans.) J. Thompson,
Cambridge, p. 131.
Sankunni, Kottarathil (1982), Aitihyamala, Third Impression, pp. 749–58.
Selvakumar, V. (2005), ‘Cognitive Aspects of the Iron Age—Early Historic (“Megalithic”) Cultures
of South India’, paper presented at the national seminar on Indian megaliths—Archeological and
Ethnographic Sources, organized by Indira Gandhi Rashtra Manava Sangrahalaya,
28–30 November.
Selvakumar, V., et al. (2005), ‘Trial Excavations at Pattanam, A Preliminary Report’, Journal of the
Center of Heritage Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 57–66.
Seneviratne, S. (1990), ‘Pre-State Societies and State Societies, Transformations in the Political
Ecology of South India with Special Reference to Tamil Nadu’, Seminar on State in Pre-Colonial
South India, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
——— (1993), ‘From Kudi to Nadu: A Suggested Framework for the Study of Pre-State Political
Formations in Early Iron Age South India’, Sri Lanka Journal of Humanities, Vol. 19: 1–2,
pp. 57–77.
Senthiappan M. and M.M. Nair (1980), ‘Geomorphology of Parts of Kannur District, Kerala’, Geo-
logical Survey of India papers, Centre for Earth Science Studies, Trivandrum.
Settar, S. and Ravi KoriSettar (2002), Indian Archeology in Retrospect Vol. I Pre-history and
Archeology of South Asia, Delhi, pp. 313–51.
Shajan, K.P., P.J. Cheriyan and V. Selvakumar (2006), ‘Pattanam Musiris thanneyo?’, Adharam,
Vol. 1, pp. 50–59.
Shanks, M. and C. Tilley (1987), Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, Cambridge,
pp. 130–34.
Sidebotham, Steven E. (2006). ‘Contacts Between Kerala Coast of India and Early Roman ports on
the Red Sea Coast of Egypt, Kottayam’, Adharam, Vol. I, pp. 60–67.
Singh, H.N. (1982), History and Archeology of Black and Red Ware (Chalcolithic) People, Delhi.
Sivaraja Pillai, K.N. (1932), The Chronology of Early Tamils, Madras.
Sivathamby, K. (1974), ‘Early South Indian Society and Economy: The Tinai Concept’, Social
Scientist, Vol. 3: 5.
——— (1998), ‘Cankam Literature and Archeology’, in Studies in Ancient Tamil Society: Economy,
Society and the State Formation, Chennai, pp. 92–114.
——— (1974), ‘An Analysis of the Anthropological Significance of the Economic Activities and
Conduct Codes Ascribed to Mullai Tinai’, Studies in Ancient Tamil Society, pp. 115–27.
Soundara Rajan, K.V. (1994), Kaveripattanam Excavations 1963–73, Archeological Survey of India.
Srinivasa Iyengar, P.T. (1929), History of the Tamils, Madras.
Srinivasan, K.R. (1946), ‘The Megalithic Burials and Urnfields of South India in the Light of Tamil
Literature and Tradition’, Ancient India, No. 2, pp. 9–16.
Subbarayalu, Y. (2005), ‘Literature and Social History (with reference to palai tinai )’, presented in
the ICHR Seminar on Literature and History, Mangalore University, Mangalore.
Subramanian, N. (1966), Sangam Polity, Bombay.
——— (1997), Tamil Social History, Vol. I, Chennai, Institute of Asian Studies.
Sundara, A. (1975), Early Chamber Tombs of South India, Delhi.
Suresh, S. (2004), Symbols of Trade, Roman and Pseudo-Roman Objects Found in South India,
Delhi, p. 31.
Thaninayagam, S. (1966), Landscape and Poetry, London.
Vansina, Jan (1985), Oral Tradition as History, Nairobi, pp. 148–49.
Wheeler, R.E.M., A. Ghosh and Krishna Deva (1946), ‘Arikamedu: An Indo-Roman Trading Station’,
Ancient India, No. 2, pp. 17–124.
Zvelebil, Kamil (1979), ‘Tamil Poetry 200 Years Ago’, Tamil Culture, Vol. X.

Sangam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sangam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sangam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lived Spaces in History: A Study in Human

Geography in the Context of Sangam Texts

Keywords: locality, habitat, production, circulation, distribution, culture, artifact

In recent years, closer collaboration among archaeological, epigraphic and literary

Studies in History, 25, 2, n.s. (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Archeological explorations have revealed paleolithic, neolithic and iron age

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

forms of non-perishable structures, precious stones and beads, or artifacts from

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

1. Archeological Confirmation of the geophysical background depicted in

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

An example of a place mentioned in a literary text which is also being identified

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Since localities are treated as positions in the movement of human beings, it is

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015

Studies in History, 25, 2 (2009): 151–195

Downloaded from sih.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on May 31, 2015