Talk:Pallava dynasty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources

@LovSLif and Nittawinoda: in order to find agreement over difficult issues, it would be best to focus on sources first. Can each of you please list here proper WP:HISTRS that can be used to find information on the origins. These sources should be high-level histories of the kind "History of India", "History of South India", "History of Tamilnadu" or some such general books. Once we have gathered the sources, I suggest that we take a break and study what each of these sources says about the issues of origins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Nittawinoda's sources

@Kautilya3: Here are the sources and statements I want included in the article,

1.It is important to note that there is no consensus among the historians when it comes to fixing the origin of the dynasty.

2.According to the Velurpalaiyam grant of Nandivarman III and the Bahur plates of his son and successor, Nripatungavarman, their ancestor Pallava was born from Aswattama. The Bahur grant further adds that their ancestor Pallava was born out of a union between Aswattama and a naga princess while the Velurpalaiyam grant attributes the naga liaison to their ancestor Virakurcha.

3.Velurpalaiyam plates of Nandivarman III dated to 852 AD, mention Kalabhartri as the father of Chuta-Pallava and as the grandfather of Virakurcha.

4.According to Gabriel Jouveau-Dubreuil, this shows that the Pallavas were alien to south India and were initially not kings and that one of them married a naga princess of the region and subsequently acquired a kingdom through this marriage.

5. Pallavas used Tamil in their records as early as sixth century. (The article incorrectly states that Tamil records are available only from seventh century AD).

Lastly, LovSLif (talk · contribs) block is very much relevant to this discussion as he used an alternate account to support himself [1] in this very page and in this very discussion. RViN341 (talk · contribs) was found to be his sock and Lovslif was blocked for this reason [2]. Nittawinoda (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Nittawinoda, none of these is an ideal source for history. Sanu Kainiraka is a fighter pilot turned military strategist. He might be a history enthusiast, but not a professional historian. His judgements cannot be relied upon. Chakravarti, Manimekalai workshop and Sircar's Epigraphy book are not secondary sources for history. They might make the points that you want included, but they are hardly useful for reaching CONSENSUS. Jouveau-Dubreuil's seems to be good but it is quite old (1917). So it is unlikely to have uptodate information. I will read through Kainiraka and Dubreuil only at this stage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Have you had a chance to review Dubreuil? Can we add the following statement as stated in his work [3]: "the earliest Pallavas were not kings and were alien to South India. One of them married the daughter of a king of the country and thus became king himself". If Dubreuil is not a good source then we must remove other references to him in the current article. Let me know your take on this.

Also want to add the following statement: As per the Bahur plates "Pallava was born out of the union of Asvathama with a naga princess" - let me know your thoughts on this as well.

"Pallavas claim in in their inscriptions that they descended from Asvattama"

Nittawinoda (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

LovSLif sources

@Kautilya3: Below are the sources and statements I want you to verify and decide.

For any dynasty, there shall be two major categories of origins to put forward.
1.Geographical origin - This relates to the region of origination
2. Ancestral Origin - This relates to lineage of founders or we can also say genealogy.
I hope one can agree on this and have no objection till this point.
I will first discuss about Geographical origin.
1. Geographical origin(irrespective of ancestral founders)
a) Andhra origin
SOURCES AND ITS CONTENT :
Source 1 Jouveau-Dubreuil, Gabriel (1995). The Pallavas. Asian Educational Services. p. 10. ISBN 9788120605749.
In page number 9,10, Author had put forward the derivations from - virapara plates at mydavolu(guntur, andhra pradesh), kondamudi(in same Guntur district), Order issued by prince about his fathers grants. He states that Pallavas succeeded andhras after the fall of Andhra dynasty in 236 AD. In page number 10 he concludes as follows: "We can therefore conclude that the pallava kings reigned at Amaravati in the first half of third century after Christ"

Source 2: Radhey Shyam Chaurasia (2002). History of Ancient India. Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2002 - India. p. 227.
What the source say : In page number 227 'In fact nothing definite can be said about the origin but one thing is sure that they were feudatories of andhra who declared independence in mid 4th century and established themselves on the east coast of India near krishna.

Source 3: Kumar Raj. Encyclopaedia of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Gyan Publishing House. p. 117.
What the book says : in page number 117 "The pallavas came into power with the decline of Andhras and began with the telugu country south of river krishna". Also states that "The early literary works of pallavas were traced in Prakrit and sanskrit from third century to sixth centuary and tamil literary records of pallavas were only available from seventh century."

Source 4: Subramanian, K. R. (1989) [first published 1932], Buddhist Remains in Andhra and the History of Andhra Between 225 and 610 A.D., Asian Educational Services, p. 72, ISBN 978-81-206-0444-5 {{citation}}: External link in |origyear= (help)
What source says: In page number 72 "The pallavas were first a Telugu and not a Tamil power." The author explains about "Trilochana pallava" and various earliest inscriptions of Guntur and Nellore districts and end the same stating "Pallava was an intruder into the Tamil country"
source 5: Journal of Indian History. Department of Modern Indian History, 1978. p. 77.
What book says: In page number 77 post analyzing the plates. " It is therefore beyond doubt that kumaravishnu or otherwise called Sivaskandavarman while being Yuva-Maharaja during the reign of his father probably ruling in andhradesa conquered the city of kanchi'

b) Other theories like parthian/pahalva and scythian:
There are mentions about parthian/pahalva/iranian origin theories of pallavas in a few sources (in Gabriel Jouveau book as well) but these were demoted with lack of strong evidences to support.
The Pallavas by Gabriel Jouveau Debreuil.

Hope I need not reaffirm on what books speak bcz it is very clear on the geographical origin of pallavas. I request moderater to go through the same and decide. Due to space constraint I have added only limited sources which I believe are reliable enough. The statements written above are directly from sources and not from my brain. I request even to thoroughly verify the same.

2.Ancestral Origin I will discuss tomorrow on ancestral or genealogical origin which has nothing much to alter the geographical origin of pallavas. I agree there are numerous theories on ancenstral origin of pallavas both mythological and non mythological. Thanks! By LovSLif (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif, Some comments on your sources:

• I have already discussed Debreuil under Nattawinoda's mention.
• Chaurasia's is a proper history book, but the author is not authentic, and Atlantic Publishers is not a quality publisher.
• Kumar Raj book published Gyan Publishing is not an acceptable source. The consensus among Wikipedians is not to use any Gyan books.
• K. R. Subramanian is again an old source, similar to Debreuil.
• The Journal of Indian History citation doesn't help, because it is a research paper, of which we have only snippet views.

Once again, these sources are not very good, and won't help settle the issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3 sources

Let me add some sources of my own.

• Source 1: Sen, Sailendra Nath (1999), Ancient Indian History and Civilization, New Age International, pp. 445-, ISBN 978-81-224-1198-0. Sen has written quite a few history books, which are cited all over Wikipedia. Even though it is not the best quality source, it is easily accessible. It seems to have about 10 pages of discussion on the Pallavas.
• Source 2: Aiyangar, S. K.; Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. (1960), "The Pallavas", in R. C. Majumdar; K. K. Dasgupta (eds.), A Comprehensive History of India, Volume III, Part 1: A.D. 300–985, New Delhi: Indian History Congress/People's Publishing House, pp. 314-. This is a high quality source published by Indian History Congress and the authors are among the top historians.
• Source 3: K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, ed. (1957), A Comprehensive History of India, II: The Mauryas and Satavahanas 325 SC.-AD 300, Calcutta: Indian History Congress/Orient Longman. This is the previous volume of the same series, which has various mentions of Pallavas in course of discussing Satavahanas and their aftermath. Full source available. Please use the search feature.

I suggest that all of us should look through all the sources before we start discussing.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am adding a couple more sources from the HCIP series:

• Source 4: Sathianathaier, R. (1970) [first published 1954], "Dynasties of South India", in Majumdar, R. C.; Pusalkar, A. D. (eds.), The Classical Age, History and Culture of Indian People (Third ed.), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, pp. 255–275
• Source 5: Sircar, D. C. (1970) [first published 1954], "Genealogy and Chronology of the Pallavas", in Majumdar, R. C.; Pusalkar, A. D. (eds.), The Classical Age, History and Culture of Indian People (Third ed.), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, pp. 275–290

These two take an opposite view, holding the position that the Pallavas were originally based in Kanchi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Thanks Kautilya3.

The sources also upheld the same origin of early pallavas as propounded by the above sources. For instance book Ancient Indian History and Civilization by Sailendra Nath says
" The most acceptible view seems to be that the pallavas rose into prominence in the service of the Satavahanas in the south eastern division of their empire and founded the new dynasty after the downfall of their overlords. This view gains credence from the earliest pallava inscription in Prakrit recently discovered in the Palnadu taluk of guntur district which clearly mentions simhavarman of the pallava dynasty"

Also speaks about early pallava inscriptions in Prakrit and Sanskrit during the reign of Sivaskandavarman. States "His father was simhavarman mentioned in a prakrit stone inscription recently discovered in Guntur district. Sivaskandavarman was the greatest of the early pallavas and his dominions extend from Krishna to the south pennar and to Bellary district."

Also throws light on most supported ancestral genealogy and states "Sanskrit charters mention more than 16 kings during the 350-575AD." "Viravarman or virakurcha(375-400AD) strengthed his position by marrying naga princess"

Other sources you mentioned also speak on the same pallava lineage.The one by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, speaks about early pallavas and their inscriptions found in Guntur district of andhra pradesh.

About Naga-Aswattama liasion: The inscriptions mention about 'Dhrauni' who is also called Aswattama. He is a mythological character from mahabharata and is the son of guru Drona and the grandson of the sage Bharadwaja. He fought in kurukshetra war of mahabharata in support of kauravas. Bahur plates were probably by one of the last pallava emperor 'nriptunga' who gave a divine touch to the genealogy of his family. Stating "From ashwattama was born the king named pallava". The inscription does not mention about union of naga-ashwattama(which is just another supposition in a book). Velurupalayam does mention about Virakurcha-naga coalition but confines aswattama to be divine head of the entire pallava race. "From him Aswattama in order pallava, the lord of whole earth..". The plates mention about virakurca-naga marraige. Which is already covered in article.

So Naga-Ashwattama maharshi marraige does not have reliable evidences rather a supposition from non-reliable sources. K R Subramiyan in his book calls this to be myth. Please suggest on the addition of the same.

My Suggestions on current version of article:
-> The current version of the pallavas is in sync to some extent but lacks any mention about 'satavahanas' in Origins section.

-> About early inscriptions(which support their origin),the one found in prakrit in Guntur districts can be suggested for addition along with Sanskrit charters which mention more than 16 kings during the 350-575AD. Please suggest.

-> This line in article " tamil literary records of pallavas were only available from seventh century" post referring the valid sources I suggest for removal of this line as they hold nothing to do with earlier pallavas and their origin from the above sources.

-> The paragraph "The Proceedings of the First Annual Conference of South Indian History Congress also notes: The word Tondai means a creeper and the term Pallava conveys a similar meaning.[5] Since the Pallavas ruled in the territory extending from Bellary to Bezwada, it led to the theory that they were a northern dynasty who contracted marriages with princesses of the Andhra Dynasty and so inherited a portion of southern Andhra Pradesh.[16] " Please have a look at the sources of the above paragraph. Seems sources are not reliable enough. If so , we can eliminate the same and also the redundancy of this from etymology section.

->Sources in Etymology section also doesn't seems to be reliable enough. Please check once and etymology of pallavas from the sources is clearly of 'Sanskrit' origin and neither tamil nor telugu.Thanks! By LovSLif (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some first impressions

@Nittawinoda and LovSLif: please indicate your views on these first impressions.

1. Pallavas were likely to have been subsidiaries of the Satavahanas, who continued under Andhra Ikshvakus.
2. Their original base is likely to have been the Palanadu region of western Guntur district. Since this was also the centre of Andhra Ikshvakus, it would appear that they were slowly usurping power from them.
3. Under Sivaskandavarman (r. 375–400), they conquered all the coastal belt down to Kanchi, which became their new capital. Sivaskandavarman is the first unambiguous sovereign power, by whose time the Andhra Ikshvakus were gone.

Do you agree with these conclusions? (I am not yet getting into the legendary material. This is just historical information.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately, these conclusions are contradicted by the two sources I added above: (Sathianathaier 1970) and (Sircar 1970), a crucial point being that Samudragupta claimed to have defeated a certain "Vishnugopa of Kanchi" well before Sivaskandavarman's time. Even the evidence cited by Aiyangar & Nilakanta Sastri (1960) is open to contest. Sivaskanda's first grant was issued from Kanchi when he was a Yuvaraja. So, Kanchi was the capital before him. Simhavarman's Palanadu grant (the earliest available) uses the term appano vejayike, which Aiyangar and Sastri interpret as "own kingdom". But a better interpretation would be "own conquered land". So, it wouldn't imply that Simhavarman was based in Palanadu.

Sathianathaier counters the Satavahana connections by stating that the coastal belt up to the Palar river was under the Mauryan control in Ashoka's time. Pallavas could have imported the north Indian administrative practices since those times, even without any Satavahana connection. I also don't see Satavahanas having reached that far south. So, Aiyangar & Sastri's "southeastern corner of Satavahana kingdom" wouldn't include the Pallava land.

I think we must treat both the theories with equal weight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, If you could refer the sources carefully, It was the order of sivaskandavarman on his father's grant of mydavolu copper plate grants of guntur district.siva Skanda Varma was not the first unambiguous emperor rather his father who was based out of guntur region. And it was not sivaskandavarman who ruled in 375AD rather viravarman or Virakurca father of him(as per first source of sailendranath). Please refer the 3rd source mentioned by you and also gabriel.Gabriel the pallavas book page 9 says it was father of sivaskandavarman who engraved mydavolu grant and first ruled at Amaravati as capital and it was later during Sivaskandavarma who further expanded his kingdom. But dates are much prior and from 3rd century.Even the sources quoted by you i.e neelankanta sastri state the same.

Also the sources say pallavas upsurp post satavahanas(they termed as andhra dynasty) rather than Andhra ikshvakus.

Hope it is clear now.Request you to ping me the link of any source if you feel is contradicting.So that I can also verify. By LovSLif (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: nothing is clear. The "third source" is an edited volume. You need to specify which article and/or page number you are referring to. Gabriel says "reigned at Amaravati", which does not mean "reigned from Amaravati". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Please find my answers below:

1. "Pallavas were likely feudatories of Satavahanas and Andhra Iksvakus" - Disagree for the following reasons. Pallavas always issued records in their own regnal years in the region. Pallavas are not mentioned in any Satavahanas records as Mahamandaleswara or in some other post. The absence of Satavahanas or Iksvaku records in Pallava regions during the same period. Pandyas and Pallavas co-existed but does that make one a feudatory of the other. As per Sastri/Aiyengar (your source), this statement is nothing but a theory and I disagree with this theory.

2. "original base was Palanadu region of guntur district" - Disagree for the following reasons. The basis for this statement is the presence of a Prakrit record of Simhavarman in the region. If this was true then as per your conclusions in Point 1 and 2, the Pallavas must have existed in the Andhra region for more than a few centuries. This should have been more than enough time for the rulers to issue records in the language of the locals. But then how do you explain the absence of Telugu records during this period. As per Sastri/Aiyengar (your source), Kanchi was neither lost nor conquered by SivaSkandavarman or Kumaravishnu. The authors conclude that Kanchi was always the capital. Cholas, for example donated Brahmadeyas in the remotest parts of their empire like Ceylon and Tondaimandalam(Kanchi). Does this then make Ceylon or Kanchi the epicentre of the Chola empire? Likewise, the Pallavas made grants in these regions but it does not necessarily mean that these regions were the base of the kingdom.

3."Kanchi was conquered". Disagree. According to Sastri/Aiyangar (your source) Kanchi was neither lost nor conquered by SivaSkandavarman or Kumaravishnu for that matter. The authors conclude that Kanchi was the capital and it was neither lost or conquered.

It would be interesting to see when the Pallavas started issuing Telugu records, if at all they did. I mean for all the frenzy about the theory that Pallavas originated in the Andhra, it is surprising that there is no Telugu record. The earliest Telugu inscription is a Renati Choda inscription dated to the sixth century.

Nittawinoda (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that I might have used language that was open to misinterpretation. When I asked whether you "agree/disagree", I meant to ask whether you agreed/disagreed that that is what the sources say. Since we don't publish our own views on Wikipedia, whether we agree with the scholars or not is completely immaterial. When we say "disagree" on a Wikipedia talk page, it is usually because we can produce evidence from somewhere else that contradicts the scholars' views. We do not engage in WP:FORUM.

Shastri and Aiyangar say this:

There is much in favour of the thesis that the Pallavas rose into prominence in the service of the Satavahanas in the south-eastern division of their empire, and attained independence when that power declined. (Aiyangar & Nilakanta Sastri 1960, pp. 315–316)

Since Kanchi was never part of the Satavahana empire, this implies that the Pallavas' original base was somewhere else. The authors say that the Palanadu grant corroborates this. They also note that Simhavarman does not bear any titles of independence in the grant and conclude that he must have been a subsidiary of Andhra Ishvakus.

You are right that they don't say that Kanchi was "conquered", but certainly their analysis indicates expansion from Palanadu towards Kanchi in the intervening period between Simhavarman and Sivaskandavarman (a period of 50 years estimated on paleographic grounds). So I would classify this as an "Andhra origin" theory (and that is not the same as a "Telugu origin" theory). In this time period, "Andhras" were north Indian migrants/conquerers, not Telugu speakers/natives.

In contrast to Aiyangar and Sastri, Satianathaier and D.C. Sircar, argue for a "Kanchi origin" theory, even though Sircar allows that:

The Pallavas may have been originally provincial rulers under the Later Satavahanas and risen to power in the Kanchi region at the expense of the Nagas. (Sircar 1970, p. 275)

But it seems he believes that the Palanadu grant was posterior to their controlling Kanchi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Also want to add the point that there were two separate branches of Pallavas. One ruling from Kanchi and the other ruling the Telugu districts. This would also explain why Trilochana Pallava is not known to Kanchi line. He never figures in the ancestry of the Kanchi Pallavas. He is said to have killed the first Chalukya(eastern) Vijayaditya who ventured south. He is also credited with donating 70 or 700 agraharas to the brahmins in Srisailam area. I furnish below the sources in support of two branches.

1. As per K.R Subramanian, "These would lead us to infer there was another branch of Pallavas in the Telugu districts as different from the Pallavas of Kanchi"

2. As per Kandavalli Balendu Sekaram, "senior branch of Pallavas ruled in Kanchi and a junior branch in Andhra"

Giving one more reference below to support a Kanchi origin,

"The immediate conquerors of the Andhras were the Pallavas who seemed to have risen to power suddenly in the south. Starting from Kanchi, their capital, they extended their empire northwards, till it included Vengi Nadu."

I also have a general request. Please create a subsection called CONCLUSION and list down the points that have been discussed before moving on to the next topic. This way everyone is clear on what has been discussed and concluded based upon the sources.

Nittawinoda (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

None of these sources is reliable for history. The Andhra historians generally write for each other, and very rarely rise to the national level, let alone international level. Plenty of folklore and mythology passes for "history" among them.

The Classical Age volume says of Trilochana Pallava (p. 230), "an imaginary person; cf. the legend of Trilochana Kadamba". All the sources I have mentioned, which meet the requirements of WP:HISTRS, only mention two theories of Pallava origins.

Once it is clear to me that we have some points of agreement, I will create a draft of the Origins section and let you people comment on it. I think we have enough material from historical evidence, even without getting into legendary material. So we should omit all legends. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

References

• Nittawinoda You have pinged me and again reverted.stop doing that.I am only propounding origin of pallavas from Andhra region and it has nothing to do with Telugu during their origin.Do not mislead or divert the same.I wonder that you agree the same sources which you disagree sometime before.

I would have just stop arguing with you the moment you stated as below.

the Pallavas must have existed in the Andhra region for more than a few centuries. This should have been more than enough time for the rulers to issue records in the language of the locals. But then how do you explain the absence of Telugu records during this period.

Oh please!This is enough to state the extent of grip you had on the ancient history and what was the language prevailed then.🙏 By LovSLif (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Kautilya3 Sorry If I intrude!You may create the draft and I hope you would thoroughly refer the sources.One thing I want to state here that I am only propounding what historians stated about the origin from a region and not by language.During the origin of pallavas Telugu script has not evolved.Prakrit was the language used by satavahanas and even they made contributions in Prakrit.one such example 'Gatha saptasathi' by hala in

Maharashtra prakrit.Hence early pallavas used Prakrit and sanskrit.Tamil on the other hand already evolved by 3rd century AD.We could only notice any Tamil grant after 4 centuries of pallava origin.Even the same was propounded by historians to state they intruded further south. ->On Conquest of Kanchi: For your reference I am adding here a source which may help us.

"Rev. H Heras, SJ (1931) Pallava Genealogy" Part 1 On conquest on kanchi by pallavas.Author translated various inscriptions including velurupalayam grants.He analyzed both positive & negative cases and thus finally deciphered the conquest of kanchi twice by pallavas.

This is a strong evidence from Velurupalayam grant to state that Pallava's origination is clearly not from Kanchi.They conquered it.Please check the book once before drafting.

https://archive.org/stream/studiesinpallava035101mbp/studiesinpallava035101mbp_djvu.txt By LovSLif (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I was under the impression sources published during the British Colonial era were not supposed to be used. This was told to me by other users like @Sitush: when I was discussing about something elsewhere. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, WP:HISTRS requires "modern historical scholarship" for reliable sources, and that is generally taken to have begun around 1950. So, British Raj era sources don't qualify. Both of you have been using Raj-era sources, and the article is full of them too. That is in fact one of the reasons why there are so many disputes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

First draft

@Nittawinoda and LovSLif: here is a first draft of my write-up on Origins. It follows WP:YESPOV.

Origins

The origins of the Pallavas have been debated by scholars. The available historical materials include three copper-plate grants of Sivaskandavarman in the first quarter of the 4th century CE, all issued from Kanchipuram but found in various parts of Andhra Pradesh, and another copper-plate grant of Simhavarman half century earlier in the Palanadu area of the western Guntur district. All the early documents are in Prakrit, and scholars find similarities in paleography and language with the Satavahanas and the Mauryas. Their early coins are said to be similar to those of Satavahanas. Two main theories of the origins have emerged from this data: one that the Pallavas were former subsidiaries of Satavahanas in the Andhradesa (modern Andhra Pradesh) near the Krishna River and later expanded south up to Kanchi, and the other that they originated in Kanchi and expanded north up to the Krishna river.

The proponents of the Andhra origin theory include S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar and K. A. Nilakanta Sastri. They believe that Pallavas were originally feudatories of the Satavahanas in the south-eastern part of their empire who became independent when the Satavahana power declined. They are seen to be "strangers to the Tamil country", unrelated to the ancient lines of Cheras, Pandyas and Cholas. Since Simhavarman's grant bears no regal titles, they believe that he might have been a subsidiary to the Andhra Ikshvakus who were in power in Andhradesa at that time. In the following half-century, the Pallavas became independent and expanded up to Kanchi.

The proponents of the Kanchi origin theory include R. Sathianathaier and D. C. Sircar. Sircar points out that the family legends of the Pallavas speak of an ancestor descending from Asvatthama, the legendary Brahmin warrior of Mahabharata, and his union with a Naga princess. According Ptolemy, the Aruvanadu region between the northern and southern Penner rivers (Penna and Palar) was ruled by a king Basaronaga around 140 CE. By marrying into this Naga family, the Pallavas would have acquired control of the region with Kanchi as its capital. While Sircar allows that Pallavas might have been provincial rulers under the later Satavahanas with a partial northern lineage, Sathianathaier sees them as natives of Tondaimandalam. He argues that they could have well adopted north Indian practices under the Mauryan Asoka's rule. He relates the name "Pallava" to Pulindas, whose heritage is borne by names such as "Pulinadu" and "Puliyurkottam" in the region.

Overlaid on these two theories is another hypothesis that "Pallava" is a derivative of Pahlava (the Sanskrit term for Parthians). Partial support for the theory is derived from a crown shaped like an elephant's scalp depicted on some sculptures, which resembles the crown of Demetrius I.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nittawinoda's comments

@Kautilya3: looks okay to me. Just a few things you can consider adding.

1. Mention the names Mayidavolu and Hirehadagalli where plates of Sivaskandavarman were found so that readers can understand that benefactions were made in the remotest parts of the empire but from Kanchi (as I had earlier suggested)

2. Check the dates of Sivaskandavarman's plates as these are dated to 3rd century [4]. Also sivaskandavarman and charudevi's plates are earliest known records of Pallava as per this source.

3. Mention that Simhavarman's relationship to Sivaskandavarman is not known [5]

4. Mention that elephant scalp crown is found in the sculptures depicting the coronation story of Nandivarman II Pallavamalla (who came from Vietnam/Cambodia). So this is pretty late in Pallava history. (source- Sastri [6])

These are my thoughts at the moment, I will add others as the discussion progresses.

Nittawinoda (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda, My responses to your points:

• 1. The Origins section is not meant to be a History section. When you and others develop a History section, those issues can be covered as needed.
• 2. The source you are looking at is a PRIMARY source from 1910s. It has been overridden now. Moreover, none of the grants carry a date. The dates are only scholarly estimates. (I will check what the various sources say about the dates, but that doesn't alter the narrative as such.)
• 3. We don't need to say what we don't know.
• 4. I suppose it is clear that I am underplaying the Pahlava theory. I don't think it is worth spending more space on it.

In my view the draft section is already too long. We should refrain from making it any longer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes please check the dates in regards to Point#2. This will alter the narrative as currently the draft gives the impression that Simhavarman is the earliest Pallava. However according S.K Aiyengar [7] (page 147-148), the earliest plates were those of Sivaskandarvarman. A modern source would be Vijaya Ramsamy(Prof. of History) [8] (page 259) according to whom, "Sivaskandavarman is the virtual founder of the Pallava dynasty".

This would alter the narrative and lend support that Kanchi was already occupied by the Pallavas before Simhavarman's time

According to the above (S K Aiyangar) source, Charudevi was the queen of prince Buddhavarman who was in turn the son of VijayaSkandavarman/Sivaskandavarman/Skandasishya

This more or less agrees with the ancestry section of the Velurpalaiyam plates in which Simhavarman is only mentioned 4 or 5 generations later.

So request you to kindly check the dating for plates and if Simhavarman came before or after Sivaskandavarman.

Lastly the other editor keeps repeating that according to the Velurpalaiyam plates "Kanchi was conquered". This must be disregarded as I said already he/she is interpreting a primary source on his own. Sastri/Aiyangar have already said that Kanchi was neither lost nor conquered and that the translation should be "Kumaravishnu held on to Kanchi". Even going by the other editor's claims that Kanchi was conquered, it does not necessarily mean that it was conquered for the very first time. They may have lost it briefly before conquering again. So the claim of the other editor is not correct.

Nittawinoda (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda: the S. K. Aiyangar book that you are citing is from 1923! It can't contradict what he wrote in 1960. Vijaya Ramasamy says 300-325, which is the same as what I wrote. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

LovSLif's comments

Kautilya3,
Does not look ok to me.There is nothing called 'Kanchi origin'.
Below are my observations.
-> Even if one looks at what Sircar stated "By marrying into this Naga family, the Pallavas would have acquired control of the region with Kanchi as its capital."

• Merely cannot rely on this book where authors themselves not clear on the thesis.
• There is no evidence sourced by authors to state that 'kanchi was gifted' and made the capital.In fact no such evidence exist.
• The author himself not sure and used 'Would have' verbal probability. Used a poor theory of Basaronaga of 140 CE.
  
• 140CE is not in sync with the origin window of pallavas from other sources which began from 3rd century.Also, Nagas were not confined to pennar region rather they widely spread across deccan including karnataka/andhra/maharashtra. How can author assume that they married only from specific region?
  

Gabriel clearly states that these plates are not clear on naga liasion from where they belong.

• Bahur plates state "From ashwattama was born the king named pallava" nothing else on the region is mentioned. In Velurupalayam grants nowhere mentioned that kanchi was gifted. Virakurca married naga princess and even if he got some land as gift it was not Kanchi. Grants clearly mention that kanchi was conquered by his son Kumaravishnu.
  

Postive case
Let us assume the positive case of Sircar.

• Even if Pallava was gifted the land and made it capital, This does not infer that pallavas originated from kanchi rather it could be apt to state 'married and strengthened the dynasty'.

Please read the actual translation of the velurupalayam grants from the book "Rev. H Heras, SJ (1931) Pallava Genealogy". It states kanchi was conquered by kumaravishnu. This is not any misinterpretation rather exact translation of what is written on the grants.

Thus the word 'Kanchi origin' is a complete mislead. By LovSLif (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: you cannot cite older sources and you cannot cite inscriptions and draw your own conclusions from them. The two volumes I have used in my write-up are authentic multi-volume histories edited by India's top historians. You cannot contradict them by your own research. Wikipedia has to report what these scholars say. That is WP:NPOV, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3,

• I am contradicting to the usage of term 'Kanchi origin' rather than Authors. Authors did not state that they originated in kanchi.They rather merely expressed their view on the marriage with Naga. Just one sentence I see from it 'Sathianathaier sees them as natives of Tondaimandalam'. Can we use term 'Kanchi origin' relying on this one line on what author sees.

I also want to highlight that tondaimandalam is not kanchi. Rather the area between Pennar and palar which comprise of both Andhra and Tamil region. How can we use kanchi synonymous to it?

Also I have added source below from a famous Tamil historian and from latest source. Request you to verify the same. By LovSLif (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Kanchi origin" or "Andhra origin" do not mean that the Pallavas including their ancestors for hundreds of generations were from those locales. It just means that when the Pallavas became an independent power, that is where they started. Aiyangar and Sastri think they started from Andhra. Sathianathaier and Sircar think they started from Kanchi. In addition, Sathianathaier thinks they were natives of Thondaimandalam. He is one out of four taking this view. And, that view is given the least emphasis in my write-up. Several later sources have acknowledged the view or agreed with it:

• Sources of Some of the Relief Sculpture on the Kailāsanātha at Ellora, 1971
• History and Culture of the Tamils: From Prehistoric Times to the ..., 1976
• A History of Ancient India, 1963

So the view cannot be removed altogether.

I think "Kanchi origin" is reasonably clear and easily understood. Sircar essentially uses the same terminology, e.g.,

but the independent rule of the Ikshvakus in the Krishna-Guntur region appears to have been extirpated by the Pallavas of Kanchi about the end of the third century.

I actually believe Sircar is quite right. The appano vejayike terminology used by Simhavarman in Palanadu (right next door to Vijayapuri/Nagarjunakonda) means that the Pallavas had conquered Ikshvakus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,

The book you were citing for Sircar and Sathianathaier is not authored by either of them rather edited version of another author. could you explain if that old edited version falls under WP:HISTORY?. From what Sircar said in his original book I no where find him calling pallavas to be originated kanchi.You were referring to the another edition which was published by another user who clubbed both the views of Sircar and Sathianathaier. Scholors including Sircar have already made it clear that Pallavas as a dynasty originated elsewhere and not indegenuous to kanchi.Kanchi was later seized by pallavas. Request you not to derive new conclusions with the term 'Kanchi origin' which was no where used.
Hope you been through the lines I stated from original book of Sircar stating "pallavas not indegenous to kanchi".He went on to derive when they seized kanchi. If he propounds them to be natives of Kanchi , why does he state it. Hope you believe what Sircar said. Request you to refer original sources of him not the edited ones by other authors.
"Sathianathaier thinks they were natives of tondaimandalam" , can I please get original references of Sathianathaier? The one you sourced is not authored by him. Also, as It was stated in sources Tondaimandalam , is a place between palar and Pennar and is not confined to kanchi.Rather spread over south Andhra and north Tamil Nadu. Discussion was first started by some other user to include manimekalai thesis with celyon connection.later another user intruded to request on adding naga-ashvattama liasion & bahur plates thesis. Now user again changed his tone and came up with new version with your support as 'Kanchi origin', which is nothing but a joke.I appreciate your moderation but at the same time I believe it is not transparent.Thanks for your moderation. I will move to DRN. By LovSLif (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

All my citations are blue links, which you can click on to get full information. Full texts of my sources are available on archive.org. (Clicking on blue links is something you should have learnt from day 1 of your career at Wikipedia!) I started my moderation by gathering all the sources and advised all the involved editors to study them [9]. If you haven't done so yet, it is really high time that you do it now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

New sources from LovSLife

@Kautilya3,With your permission.I am utilizing some more space.This is because I have got some better sources which I request you to verify and I want to conclude on what basis I am supporting 'Andhra origin' in short & striking points. 1. Velurupalayam grants translated by "Rev. H Heras, SJ (1931) Pallava Genealogy" clearly contain the lines stating that kanchi was conquered by pallavas.

• who conquered ? - Yuva maharaja Kumaravishnu or skandavarma.Kumaravishnu isuses orders from kanchi in 8th and 10th reignal years( as per gabriel)
  
• What the orders contain?- those contain the details of land grants made by his father in guntur region in prakrit language.(as per gabriel)
  

Now clearly Kumaravishnu, who conquered kanchi from cholas and issued prakrit grants in his reignal years which contains land grants made by his father in guntur region.
So Definately his fore fathers were not from kanchi. Where else? - the grants in prakrit found in palnadu/mydavolu of andhra region.(not from tamil region and not in tamil).

2. Sangam literary texts state Pallavas to be feudatories of satavahanas. Sangam texts recognises to only 3 kingdoms called pandyan/chera/chola who ruled tamil land until north tiruvengadam hills inEcluding tondaimandalam.

3.Tamil literary sources do not recognize pallavas to be natives of their land. I have got a reference from a book by famous Tamil scholor K._D._Thirunavukkarasu. Refer page 3,4 which clearly states pallavas are from andhra region and hardly any evidence that they originated from tamil land. This is not old source rather published in 1994. This is a very famous book. By LovSLif (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Heras is an old source. You can't use it to contradict a modern source. As for Thirunavukkarasu, it is not clear whether he is even a historian. I can't see pages from this book. What does he say about Sathianathaier and Sircar? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,please let me know what is the cutoff year for the sources on wikipedia.

K D Thirunavukkarasu,is a living notable Tamil scholar and writer.He is a sahitya academy awardee for his literary contributions. His literary works are most revered in all national libraries including national libraries of other countries like Singapore and Australia. His book is a latest one and states "It is significant to note that there is hardly any reference to the Pallavas of Kanchi in the Sangam" "on the ashes of satavahana empire,the pallavas laid foundation in the southern part of the Andhra country towards the middle of the fourth century A.D" This book is published in 1994. By LovSLif (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

---

@@Kautilya3: There is already wiki page on Thirunavukkarasu explaining what is he and his contributions.
I request other user not to interfere on my comments. Well, I have got one source by D C Sircar on early pallavas Which states as below.Snippet from the book.

SCHOLARS are now generally of opinion that the Pallavas were not indigenous to the K&fici region. Thus Prof. S. K. Aiyanger says, "The Pallavas seem nevertheless to have been foreign to the locality as far as our evidence takes us at present" (op. vit., p. x). The question is now : When did the Pallavas attain political supremacy in the K&ftci region"

For the book by Heras , when I asked you to refer, you said them to be old sources and I could see even the books sourced by you on Sircar and Sathianathaier was nothing but a single source written by another author were pretty old. The book is not the one which was originally written by either of the authors. Rather it was a comparison of views of Sircar and sathianathaier.

I have now furnished original compilation of Sircar which contradicts to 'kanchi origin' which in fact does not exist as such. I believe moderation is not something to compromise both the parties.It should be transparent enough. I am neither googling of any theory nor I am in favor on any such. I am only fighting for the factual content to be on wikipedia. I am sorry to say, I cannot accept your first draft with 'kanchi' thesis.It could be better we land on DRN. By LovSLif (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thirunavukkarasu is not a notable historian. I would not throw away the content by other notable historians based upon Thirunavukkarasu's book. Also want to add that draft states that Pallavas were strangers to the Tamil country. So no one is arguing that Pallavas were Tamil. So their absence in Sangam literature is not an issue. On another note, this editor had expressed concern when the other editor (who got banned) had quoted the Pallava origin based upon the Chola-naga liaison story mentioned in Sangam epic Manimekalai, but now seems to be okay in using the argument that Pallavas are not Tamil as they are not mentioned in Sangam epic. I would have to add that Sangam literature mentions Tondaiyar which according to historians is another title for the Pallavas. Nittawinoda (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I am quite happy to add to the draft the fact that Pallavas are not mentioned in the Sangam literature. This is admitted by Sathianathaier also. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: A few points:

1. The other user has said that he will no longer take part in the discussion [10]. At this point reading through the contributions it appears that the other user has effectively hijacked the discussion to their talk page [11] and is haggling with you on the content. I must say that this is no longer a moderated discussion but has degenerated into a dialogue between the two of you. I request you to bring the discussion back on track, that is back here where it rightly belongs. If the other editor is not happy with your draft then so be it. I request your and Abecedare's help in adding your draft to the article.

2. In regards to the content under dispute it appears that the other editor wants to keep the portions favorable to him and wants to scrap the sections he is not happy with. As you rightly mentioned [12], it is the principle of wikipedia to maintain a NPOV and report the findings of all researchers.

3. If you're going to add that Pallavas are not mentioned in Sangam literature then you must definitely consider adding that the Tondaiyar are mentioned in Sangam literature and that historians such as S. Krishnaswami Aiyengar and Raghava Aiyengar considered "Pallavas to be natives of Tondaimandalam and equated the word Tondaiyar with the Pallavas" [13](page 22)

4. Also want to know if we can add the Chola-naga liaison story as follows (as per historian C.Rasanayagam): "The Pallavas are considered to be the descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan the offspring of Chola King Killivalavan and naga princess Pilivalai, the latter being the daughter of king Valaivanan of ManiPallavam. The dynasty took its name (Pallava) after the name of the mother's kingdom manipallavam."

Nittawinoda (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that he said he won't post here. Don't worry. If and when he comes up with points that affect the draft, I will ask him to make them here.

Regarding the Sangam mentions, I will have to investigate. The Chola-naga liaison is not mentioned in any of the three sources I am currently using. It seems fictious to me. Unless historians have argued for its authenticity, I wouldn't bother including it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Sangam literature is not fiction. According to Sailendra Nath Sen[14] (Page 204), "the literature provides valuable information about history and culture..". The subjects of Sangam literature are historical personalities. Please review article Ilandiraiyan. Some consider him to be the progenitor of the Pallava dynasty. How about the source [15], History of Ancient India by Ram Shankar Tripathi, Page - 442. Also check [16] Ancient Jaffna: Being a Research Into the History of Jaffna from Very Early ...by C. Rasanayagam, Pages 26-30. As per the second source,

Thondaimandalam as a separate kingdom under the sovereignty of Tondaiman Ilandiraiyan must have come into existence about 150 or 175 AD. He was the progenitor of the powerful dynasty of the Pallavas who reigned over an extensive kingdom in the eastern coast of India over several centuries. This Naga origin of the Pallavas is confirmed by the Velurpalaiyam plates that the first member of the family of the Pallavas acquired all emblems of royalty on marrying the daughter of the Lord of Serpents. The ruling dynasty of Tondaimandalam in all probability, derive the name Pallava from Manipallavam the native place of Ilandiraiyan's mother. (Pages 30-31)

Please let me know if this information can be added to your draft. Nittawinoda (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Rasanayagam book is from 1923, and Tripathi says "he holds that...". Tripathi is a history teacher, not a practising historian. He has no peer-reviewed publications. We can't rely on his judgments. Note that Aiyangar & Sastri dismiss these stories as "so many layers of legends". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that the Velurpalaiyam plates are from the 9th century, trying to making claims about family genealogy in the 2nd century. No historian worth their salt would touch such claims with a tadpole. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Second draft

After LovSLif's feedback and Abecedare's excellent rewording, I have made this second draft. The new wording is in green. I have also found another historian source that throws light on the subject and added it to the draft:

• Rama Rao, M. (1967), Ikṣvākus of Vijayapurī, Sri Venkateswara University

M. Rama Rao is an Andhra historian who has risen to the national level, e.g., see JSTOR 44140697.

Origins

The origins of the Pallavas have been debated by scholars. The available historical materials include three copper-plate grants of Sivaskandavarman in the first quarter of the 4th century CE, all issued from Kanchipuram but found in various parts of Andhra Pradesh, and another copper-plate grant of Simhavarman half century earlier in the Palanadu area of the western Guntur district. All the early documents are in Prakrit, and scholars find similarities in paleography and language with the Satavahanas and the Mauryas. Their early coins are said to be similar to those of Satavahanas. Two main theories of the origins have emerged from this data: one that the Pallavas were former subsidiaries of Satavahanas in the Andhradesa (modern Andhra Pradesh) near the Krishna River and later expanded south up to Kanchi, and the other that they originated in Kanchi initially rose to power in Kanchi and expanded north up to the Krishna river.

The proponents of the Andhra origin theory include S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar and K. A. Nilakanta Sastri. They believe that Pallavas were originally feudatories of the Satavahanas in the south-eastern part of their empire who became independent when the Satavahana power declined. They are seen to be "strangers to the Tamil country", unrelated to the ancient lines of Cheras, Pandyas and Cholas. Since Simhavarman's grant bears no regal titles, they believe that he might have been a subsidiary to the Andhra Ikshvakus who were in power in Andhradesa at that time. In the following half-century, the Pallavas became independent and expanded up to Kanchi.

The proponents of the Kanchi origin theory include R. Sathianathaier, D. C. Sircar and M. Rama Rao. Sircar points out that the family legends of the Pallavas speak of an ancestor descending from Asvatthama, the legendary Brahmin warrior of Mahabharata, and his union with a Naga princess. According Ptolemy, the Aruvanadu region between the northern and southern Penner rivers (Penna and Palar Ponnaiyar) was ruled by a king Basaronaga around 140 CE. By marrying into this Naga family, the Pallavas would have acquired control of the region with Kanchi as its capital. While Sircar allows that Pallavas might have been provincial rulers under the later Satavahanas with a partial northern lineage, Sathianathaier sees them as natives of Tondaimandalam (essentially Aruvanadu). He argues that they could well have adopted north Indian practices under the Mauryan Asoka's rule. He relates the name "Pallava" to Pulindas, whose heritage is borne by names such as "Pulinadu" and "Puliyurkottam" in the region. Rama Rao assigns their initial location to a small area in present day Nellore and Chittoor districts, within the Aruvanadu area.

Overlaid on these two theories is another hypothesis that "Pallava" is a derivative of Pahlava (the Sanskrit term for Parthians). Partial support for the theory is derived from a crown shaped like an elephant's scalp depicted on some sculptures, which resembles the crown of Demetrius I.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I would like to add the following 2 things to your draft,

1. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar also considers the Pallavas to be natives of Tondaimandalam [17] (Page 22). I was told by other experienced users that if an old source is interpreted in a recent source then it can be used as a reference. So I am quoting this source instead of quoting Aiyangar directly.

2. Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund too consider the original nucleus of the Pallavas to be Tondaimandalam [18] (page 120). This is a very recent source so I hope there is no issue in quoting authors/historians.

Your draft may be modified as follows,

..Sathianathaier and S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar see them as natives of Tondaimandalam (essentially Aruvanadu). Sathianathaier argues that they could well have adopted north Indian practices under the Mauryan Asoka's rule. He relates the name "Pallava" to Pulindas, whose heritage is borne by names such as "Pulinadu" and "Puliyurkottam" in the region. Historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund too consider the original nucleus of the Pallavas to be Tondaimandalam.

Nittawinoda (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Since Krishnaswami Aiyangar himself wrote a later summary of his view (and that too jointly with Nilakanta Sastri), we have to take that as the authentic summary of his views. I am pretty certain that he considers the early Pallava inscriptions as deriving from the Satavahana inscriptions. On the Rama Rao might have squared the circle by suggesting origins in the Nellore + Chittoor districts. We have to check if this agrees with the "southeastern corner of the Satavahana empire" as described by Aiyangar & Sastri.

As for Kulke and Rothermund, I don't mind adding their names to the first sentence. Burton Stein would also seem to fall into this camp. Since they didn't do independent investigations of their own, it wouldn't be proper to devote an entire sentence to them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, I would wish to move to DRN as I believe the moderation is poor.

If you could notice above sources, half of them were the sources by Majumdar who interprets views of scholors like Sircar.I have already highlighted the same in my earlier discussions.When we have original books , why are we referring majumdar's or other mediators?

You may look at the book sourced for Aiyangar views. Please note even the book sourced was not the original one rather an edited publication by some other scholors. Aiyangar in his book clearly supported Andhra origin.I request user to show in which part Aiyangar mentioned their nativity to Tondaimandalam.
Here are snippets of what Aiyangar quoted in his original books.

As far as material accessible to us takes us at present, this dynasty of rulers seems to have come into the territory of tondaimandalam after the disappearance of the rule of the andhras in deccaan and the decline of the power of their successors, the chutunagas of Karnataka and southern maharatta

And

They seems to have advanced from the special province of Satavahanas and occupied the territory to which kanchi gives the name the Tamil division known as Tondaimandalam

This clearly shows how non-transperant the moderation has advanced.
Earlier charters issued from kanchi speak about the land grants of their ancestors who ruled andhrapath.Also,Combining various thesis of later pallavas with that of their origin is a complete myth.
@@Kautilya3:, I appreciate the time you spent moderating this discussion.But I believe it lacks quality and purely driven by own conclusions supported by re-edited sources.
In brief:

• Original sources by 'original authors', referred above were totally sidelined and republications by other mediator authors were considered.
  
• Own conclusions were drawn based on a line or two from non-original editions.
  
• Discussion was started to add some other thesis and ended up in a demand to add the other.
• No clarity on the statements made,which contradict among themselves.
  

Its been quite a long time of our discussion here and yeilded nothing.I request Abecedare to conclude, so that we can move to DRN.

By LovSLif (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: please add citations for those quotations you have provided.

@Abecedare: the WP:CIR issues in this post of the editor are overwhelming, where he displays a lack of understanding of even edited volumes. Neither is it clear what in the draft he is exactly objecting to. I think going to DRN would be a waste of time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare:,

I will only address you.I have added sources from Aiyangar's book.

My objection is on Secondary WP:SECONDARY sources when primary sources of original authors exist.

If you could refer the sources cited for second draft 'Sircar|1970' is secondary source by Majumdar.
The source which User cited for Aiyangar's view is secondary source and line from 'TV Mahlingam's book

On my talk page I have quoted from primary sources of Sircar and it contradict with kanchi theory written in second draft. Assigning the term 'Proponent'to Sircar is incorrect cz Sircar speaks about all theories and Naga theory, as a possibility.
Sircar book also contradict with 'Kanchi as capital'.Kanchi was not their capital immediately post acquiring Naga territory. have clearly quoted snippets of his book on my talk page.
I do not know, how far is it correct to pick a line from a book and derive WP:RSSELF. For example
In second draft, user quotes Rama Rao as 'Proponent' of Kanchi theory.Which is incorrect conclusion.I am quoting below lines from the same book sourced above.

These two grants show beyond doubt that the Andhra patha, or the northern part of Guntur district was under the rule of pallavas during the time of at least two rulers of the pallava family viz., the predecessor of Vijaya or sivaskandavarman and sivaskandavarman himself.

It is possible that the decendants of pallava sivaskandavarman lost the nellore and guntur region some time before 340 A.D. the probable date of Gupta invasion.This shows sivaskandavarman and his father flourished for about 30 to 40 years before this date between 300-330 A.D.

Please check the above lines.

It is clear even from Rama Rao's book and other sources that Pallavas as rulers originated in Andhra, ruled and extended to South conquering kanchi later.

Appreciate if user furnishes data from original sources rather than merely picking a line from secondary sources and concluding.
@Admin,we have had enough discussion.I hold great respect for your suggestions.Please conclude on the same and suggest if I can approach better place for resolution. By LovSLif (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Which "Aiyangar's book", LovSLif? I have asked for a citation, not a vague allusion. Please provide a full citation along with page numbers.

Your claims regarding Rama Rao are a repeat of source misrepresentation issues that you have displayed earlier. "Guntur district was under the rule of pallavas" does not mean that Guntur district was the origin of Pallavas. The draft cites precise page numbers of Rama Rao's book, which contains this sentence:

It is quite possible that this Pallava Simhavarman was originally a fuedatory of the Iksvakus and governed a small area in the southern most part of the Nellore and the northern most part of the Chittoor districts.

It might be possible to represent this as a third intermediate position between "Andhra origin" and "Kanchi origin" theories. Let me note that, at that time "Andhra" extended south up to the Penna River. And, the region between Penna river and the Ponnaiyar River was known by the name Aruvanadu, some part of which was also called Tondaimandalam. Nellore and Chittor, while being part of Aruvanadu, were its northern frontier bordering on Andhradesa. I have characterised Rama Rao's view earlier as an effort to "square the circle".

Nittawinoda, what is your view on this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Attached source of Aiyangar's original book. You may refer.

Please use the words sparingly and I need not quote 'misinterpreted data' as you mentioned above.I request you to assume good faith.It is true that You have added content from secondary sources.You have not yet answered to my query over your secondary sources.
For Ramarao's book, the quotes which I mentioned above are from page 47. You may refer again and I request you to completely read the content before making any conclusions.Merely picking lines from secondary sources and drawing conclusions, is something I believe not a valid moderation.
Also,the discussion by you on 'Aruvanadu' is another attempt of wrong interpretation by merging various secondary sources.
I request you to source from the original books and please refrain from WP:OR.
Also,for the Naga theory I have various other sources to showcase nagas were feudatories of Satavahanas and were originally from vanavasi.
There is nothing called 'Kanchi origin' except from your draft,which is holding on secondary sources and WP:OR.
Small request, please do not moderate the discussion because I do not feel the moderation is strong enough or transparent.Appreciate your efforts on moderation.
Had enough discussion. Let us leave the matter to admin users now to decide what is good and what is not.
I have addressed to admin Abecedare and I am awaiting for his inputs before proceeding further. If you have something to address then please address to admin.I do not wish to listen any more misinterpretations.Let admin validate our sources and statements.
@@Abecedare: Need your intervention as we have already spent quite big time over discussion.Please suggest if I can move to DRN. By LovSLif (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It should have been clear that I am not "moderating" in the traditional sense any more. When I found that the sources previously being discussed were inadequate, I found new sources and proposed drafts based on them. In that sense, I am a regular contributor to the article now, and I am part of the CONSENSUS process. You do not have the ability to ask me to stop, if that seems to be your intent.

I am still trying to find a consensus version of the text. So, please limit your comments to substantive policy-based objections, if you have any.

As for the secondary sources issue, please note WP:SECONDARY:

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

You would recall that, when I first started gathering sources, I asked for books of the form of "History of India" or "History of South India". Those are the kind of sources on which the draft text is based.

Your presentation of an older book of Aiyangar makes no difference to the draft because it talks about a "special province of Satavahanas", which has been clarified as the "southeastern corner of the Satavahana empire" in the later source of Aiyangar & Sastri. So there is nothing new here.

As for Rama Rao's position, there is nothing on page 47 that contradicts what the draft states. It does not state what you have claimed.

You really need to comment on my proposal above for restating Rama Rao's position as an intermediate position. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

1. When you say that you would add Kulke and Rothermund to the first line, you mean the first line of the Kanchi theory right (since they mention Tondaimandalam to be the original nucleus of the Pallavas)?

2. The other editor has quoted the following,

These two grants show beyond doubt that the Andhra patha, or the northern part of Guntur district was under the rule of pallavas during the time of at least two rulers of the pallava family viz., the predecessor of Vijaya or sivaskandavarman and sivaskandavarman himself.

This does not mean that their(Pallavas) base was Guntur. It only means that Guntur was under the the rule nothing more nothing less.

3. Next Kautilya you have quoted Ramarao

It is quite possible that this Pallava Simhavarman was originally a fuedatory of the Iksvakus and governed a small area in the southern most part of the Nellore and the northern most part of the Chittoor districts.

I haven't had a chance to review Rama Rao but going by the above quote, it is not correct to conclude that the Pallavas originated in Guntur because Simhavarman was not the earliest Pallava. This is still under contention, for example Vijaya Ramasamy(a modern source) considers Sivaskandavarman to be the founder of Pallava dynasty. Even Gabriel compares the various grants and lists the different order of kings mentioned in each of the genealogies. I understand Gabriel is an old source but Vijaya Ramasamy is a recent and cannot be disregarded. So if your statement in the draft "Rama Rao assigns their initial location to a small area in present day Nellore and Chittoor districts, within the Aruvanadu area" is based upon the above quote from the book, then I disagree with it as this is based upon the assumption that Simhavarman was the earliest Pallava king.

@Abecedare and Kautilya3:, since the other editor has told that he would no longer be part of this discussion [19], please help in adding kautilya3's draft to the article as per the Consensus so far. I broadly agree with the draft and would like it to be added. The content may be changed at a later point depending on DRN decision etc. but right now I think the content of the article should be altered to reflect the various things discussed so far and the consensus reached.

Nittawinoda (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda: Re. point 1, yes in the Kanchi theory. The point 2 does not concern the draft. For point 3, please note that Vijaya Ramaswamy's book is a "historical dictionary", which contains only the briefest possible summaries. She is not dealing with the issue of origins, and she labels Sivaskandavarman as the "virtual founder" of the dynasty since he is the first one known with a regal title. If we want to follow her lead, we would need to delete all talk of origins and start with Sivaskandavarman. I wouldn't mind that, but I doubt that is your intent.

You are right that if the other editor does not wish to participate in the consensus-reaching process, then we need to go ahead without him. I will remove Rama Rao mention for the time being, because his position is subtly different from the "Kanchi theory". I will make another draft with his intermediate position later on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

References

@@Kautilya3:,Thanks for letting me know that you were not moderating anymore.The same is pretty clear for me by looking at the content in your drafts which are yes, clearly based on non conclusive lines from WP:SECONDARY sources. Since you are now a regular contributor, I request you not to guide me on which is correct and which is not.

Let us be patient and Let's not worry about the content and sources.Let WP:EXPERT team decide. Going forward I will only address admin or those,who can provide resolution on this topic. I will no more ping you and I expect the same from you and I wish not to see anymore extension on this thread addressing me.Bye! By LovSLif (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Andhradesa and Aruvanadu

100km
62miles

Penna

Ponnaiyar

Reddipalem

Kalahasti

Tirupati

Kanchi

  

Aruvanadu

Here are the definitions of these terms. For Andhradesa:

The Andhradesa of our period was limited in the north by Kalinga and in the east by the sea; in the south it did not extend far beyond the northern part of the Nellore district (the Pallava Karmarashtra), in the west it extended far into the interior.

For Aruvanadu:

There can hardly be any doubt that this Aruvanadu between the Northern and Southern Pennars is the Arouarnoi of Ptolemy's Geography. This Arouarnoi is practically the same as the Kanci-mandala, i.e. the district round Kanci.

and

... River South Pennar where began the division known as Aruvānādu, which extended northwards along the coast almost as far as the Northern Pennar.

For Tondaimandalam:

The region set over this in the interior including perhaps even, a considerable part of what is marked off as Aruvānādu constituted the Tondaimandalam, a division occupied by the Tondayar and belonging to them. It is this Tondamandalam that was dominated by Kanchi and extended vaguely northwards as far as Tirupati, which seems to have marked off the northern boundary, which sometimes extended farther northwards quite up to the northern borders of the Pulicat Lake, the region round Kalahasti on one side of it at any rate, being borne in the old accounts even now as Tondaman Magaṇi.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Chittoor district is not "far away" from the coast. Tondaimandalam which was fully included within Aruvanadu, encompassed Tirupati and Kalahasti, which are very much part of the Chittoor district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

References

LovSLif's suggestions on Second draft

Dear Abecedare, I will list out my suggestions/objections from Second draft by Kautilya3.Based on your inputs I will decide to move to DRN.
1. First suggestion:
Rama Rao assigns their initial location to a small area in present day Nellore and Chittoor districts, within the Aruvanadu area
and

Kanchi origin theory include R. Sathianathaier, D. C. Sircar and M. Rama Rao

Rama Rao's book mentions as below:

it may be reasonably surmised that Simhavarman overthrew the Iksv&ku king, Purisadatta II and annexed his territories, entered into matrimonial alliance with a NtSga ruler

it is possible that this Pallava simhavarman was originally a feudatory of the Iksvakus and governed a small area in the southern most part of the Nellore and northern most part of the Chittoor disctricts.

As mentioned by Ptolemy,there were two naga kingdoms on the east coast, streching far into interior ,about the middle of the second century

• Rama Rao, in his book no where has mentioned 'initial location' to be a part of Aruvanadu. This is a self interpretation WP:OR.
• If one reads second quote, He refers to Ptolemy's geography. Ptolemy geography refers to Aruvanadu , which was being ruled by Nagas and not Pallavas initially. This is iterated by Rama Rao.

User referring to below statement

... River South Pennar where began the division known as Aruvānādu, which extended northwards along the coast almost as far as the Northern Pennar.

This does not refer to the entire region between South and North pennar spanning 3 states of India.

Below is the full text of the same

South pennar where began the division known as Aruvanadu, which extended north wards along the coast almost as far as the Northern pennar. There can be any doubt taht this aruvanadu between Northern and southern pennars is arournoi of Ptolemy geography(Gopalan view). This is the same as kanchi mandala i.e the district round kanchi.

WP:CONSENSUS Aruvanadu,which extended north wards along the coast, This has to be noted here.In both the sources this location along the coast was being ruled by 'nagas' and not pallavas.

It is completely against the CONSENSUS to assign Aruvanadu,(a historical division),which extended north wards along the east coast and was being ruled by Nagas to 'northernmost part of Chittoor district' ruled by Pallavas, which is far away from the east coast. Authors have not assigned the region to be Pallava's initial location.They have assigned to Nagas.

As per Rama Rao's book, Pallavas initial location which is part of Northern most Chittoor and southern Nellore, comes under present day andhra region and assigning the author to kanchi theory is a wrong interpretation.
It is good to retain what sources speak rather than our self interpretations.

As per my general CONSENSUS,I differ with the above lines in the draft.

2.Second suggestion:
I will update second objection shortly. By LovSLif (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing off

I have installed the second draft version in the main space, omitting all discussion of Rama Rao's theory. Since the section is already long enough, I think there is no particular need to add Rama Rao. His ideas have the ability to combine both the viewpoints, but they are not fully worked out or properly articulated. So it is not easy to state them succinctly to fit into this section.

My own general thoughts reflect Burton Stein's assessment. The long-lasting nature of the Pallava dynasty and the acceptance of them by the local people as legitimate rulers imply that they were natives to Tondaimandalam/Aruvanadu. Otherwise they could not have survived in the midst of the "authentic" Tamil ruling families like Pandyas and Cholas, or other competitors from the Andhradesa. The tussle between Telugu and Tamil claims of their nativity merely reflects the ambiguous nature of the Tondaimandalam/Aruvanadu region.

A couple of sources here deal with this region in detail. It appears that Aruvanadu was vaguely divided into two parts: southern part that was called "Aruvanadu" and the northern part that was called "Aruva-vadadalainadu". It appears that most of the northern Aruvanadu has always been bilingual (and this includes not only the Nellore-Tirupati area but also Vellore-Chennai region). So the Pallavas would have been uniquely positioned to claim regions both to the north and the south, as the opportunities presented themselves.

The only reason for the squabbles is the fact that the early Pallava inscriptions were in Prakrit and Sanskrit. But since all these inscriptions were found in the Telugu regions where the Mauryas and Satavahanas had extended their influence, Pallavas could have naturally followed the standards appropriate to those regions. At the same time, all these inscriptions had also described them as "Pallavas of Kanchi" (even if the inscriptions were in all likelihood issued locally). So the Pallavas were clearly advertising their Kanchi homebase.

The scholars don't seem to have noticed that there is a clear intermontane route between Tirupati and Palanadu. So it is possible that there was a competition for control of this region between the Pallavas and Ikshvakus and the Pallavas finally prevailed. Both of them are likely to have depended on hill tribes for their fighting forces. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for moderating and being patient. I appreciate it. The origin section looks a lot better now. Nittawinoda (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Discussion was closed off without arriving at CONSENSUS from all participants

Hello All,

I could notice discussion without the acceptance from me. This discussion was closed off by including POV content in the article.
Discussion was actually started for the addition of a content from mythological source and ended adding up with the addition of POV content which no where relates to what the discussion was started for.

Below are my disagreements/suggestions:

1. The single Source on which this paragraph is holding in article, states the possibility of Pallavas rising to the power in the region by marrying in Nagas family who were present somewhere between Penna and Ponniyar river with malanga as capital(not kanchi). The region was referred to Aruvai or kuntala in various sources. Nagas as feudatories of Satavahanas, originated from south western region and spread towards east.

The Kanchi theory is propounded by historians R. Sathianathaier and D. C. Sircar, with endorsements by Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund and Burton Stein. Sircar points out that the family legends of the Pallavas speak of an ancestor descending from Asvatthama, the legendary Brahmin warrior of Mahabharata, and his union with a Naga princess. According Ptolemy, the Aruvanadu region between the northern and southern Penner rivers (Penna and Ponnaiyar) was ruled by a king Basaronaga around 140 CE. By marrying into this Naga family, the Pallavas would have acquired control of the region with Kanchi as its capital. While Sircar allows that Pallavas might have been provincial rulers under the later Satavahanas with a partial northern lineage, Sathianathaier sees them as natives of Tondaimandalam (the core region of Aruvanadu).

Raising to the power in a particular region cannot be Termed as a Theory of Origin.Also, the content relies on LEGEND not HISTORY.

2. General CONSENSUS does not permit to accept below line
is propounded by historians R. Sathianathaier and D. C. Sircar

• If one goes through the edited publication cited, D.C Sircar has not propounded any such Origin. With Author merely quoting a possiblity of raising to the power in a perticular region, cannot assign him the tag 'Proponent'.

For your reference I am providing you the original WP:HISTORY source of D.C. Sircar and quotes from his book:

According to the evidence of the Mayidavolu grant, dated in the reign of

Sivaskandavarman's father, the Andhrapatha (i. e. the Andhra country) with its headquarters at Dhamfiakada (Dh&nyakataka) passed from the Iksvakus to the possession of the Pallavas. Pallava Sivaskandavarman, who was like CamtamQla I a performer of the great Vajapeya and Aivamedha sacrifices, was preceded in the suzerainty of the Andhrapatha at least hy his father who must have ruled the country after Ehuvula

Camtamula II. Sivaskandavarman therefore can hardly be placed earlier than A. D. 300.

We have seen above that the Nagas were ruler: of ths Kafici region before the rise of the Pallavas int that locality; it is therefore not impossible that VirakQrca married the heiress

But, how did the Pallavas occupy the Kanci region which was once under the Nagas 1 This question is difficult to answer, as we know nothing definitely about

I request please go through both the edited publication and original sources to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS

3. Various modern sources from notable Scholors like K._D._Thirunavukkarasu were sidelined stating 'Nothing scholar says can override what the historians have concluded after decades of research'.This statement contradicts on WP:HISTORY policy to use modern sources.

On the ashes of the satavahana empire, Pallavas laid foundation in the southern parts of the Andhra country

4. The Etymology section is also holding on poor sources and purely a POV content masking actual origin of 'pallava', i.e, from Sanskrit

I have had enough discussion and I believe the factual content was masked with WP:OR which was posted in Article. I leave this matter to DRN team for final conclusion. By LovSLif (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you are not satisfied yet, you need to go to WP:DRN. Just a couple of points before you go there:

• The Andhradesa at the time extended south at most up to the Penna river. South of the Penna river was called Aruvanadu. Some core region of Aruvanadu was called Tondaimandalam. Sathianathaier believes the Pallavas were "native" to Tondaimandalam. Sircar is a bit more uncertain, but he agrees that their rise to power owed to the union with Nagas who were native to Aruvanadu (which was "the district around Kanchi").
• Thirunavukkarasu was sidelined because he is not a historian. He is a literary scholar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Etymology Of pallavas

Hello Kautilya3, I am opening new discussion on 'Etymology' section added by Nittawinoda. I believe the content added by the user is not following WP:NPOV.

The content added by the user under Etymology section is as below

The word Pallava means a creeper or branch in Sanskrit. They were also called Tondaiyar after the word Tondai, meaning creeper. The Pallavas were also known as Kaduvetti in the Ganga grants. The term Kaduvetti means destroyer of forests, in Tamil, an obvious reference to their role in the establishment of agrarian settlements and townships by clearing the forests and introducing civilization.

My objections on the same

1. The word Pallava means a creeper or branch.
My view: As per the sources , The word Pallava is a sanskrit word and the same was masked by user.

2. They were also called Tondaiyar after the word Tondai, meaning creeper.
My comment: Pallavas who migrated further south to tondai and adopted local traditions which happened in later statges and pallavas and the word existed much before that. Tondaiyar and pallava are two different words of two different languages. Hence I believe 'Tondaiyar' is a kind of translation in other language at later stage and adding the same in etymology is what I believe 'unnecessary content. I leave this to admin suggestion to retain or not

3. The Pallavas were also known as Kaduvetti in the Ganga grants.
My comment: As per the same sources, later pallavas were called by this name. what one has to do with etymology of 'Pallava' with that of what later pallavas being referred in some grants of other dynasty.,br>

4. in Tamil, an obvious reference to their role in the establishment of agrarian settlements and townships by clearing the forests and introducing civilization.
My comment: I believe this is not sourced rather self written. Even if sourced it does not look as it any has relevance with etymology of 'Pallava'.

Apart from the above,

Pallavas etymology is also believed with that of 'Pahalvas' and even this should be included

@Kautilya3, Request your moderation on the same. Thanks By LovSLif (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, Request you to also validate the soutrces and content by

Nittawinoda for etymology. The content written in the section is a complete POV self written with out of context matter.Not even single sentence in this section deserve any support. By LovSLif (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Restart

@Kautilya3: Hi would like to tweak the etymology section as follows, please let me know your thoughts on this:

"As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the name Pallava which means leaves or foliage is the Sanskrit equivalent of the the Tamil word tondai which designates their original domain, namely Tondaimandalam." Moreover, the later Pallavas also called themselves as Kaduvetti, meaning destroyer of forests. -- Nittawinoda (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Nittawinoda, I find it difficult to follow how the scholars are able to connect Pallava = leaves to Tondai = creeper. Every plant has leaves, whether it is creeper or not. This seems like confirmation bias to me.

In any case, we need to state the facts first before getting into interpretations.

• In the first inscription of Simhavarman, the name is spelt as "Palava". (Aiyangar & Nilakanta Sastri 1960, pp. 315–316)
• The southernmost people of Mauryan empire were named "Paladas" (Sanskrit: Pulindas) in some of the Ashokan inscriptions (Sathianathaier 1970, pp. 256–257)

These connections seem much more direct than the Pallava ~ Tondai connection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth bothering about "kaduvetti" because it is described as a 'title' or 'epithet', not their name. Moreover, "later Pallavas" are supposed to have used it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I concur with you when you say the connections are not direct between Tondai and Pallava. Besides, Chutu Pallava is mentioned as the ancestor of Veera Kurcha. This is noteworthy to mention. They used the term "Pallava" not Tondai. To quote from the Bombay Historical Society, "The father of Virak'ircha, according to the same authority, was a prince called Chuta-Pallava".

References

By LovSLif (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: A few things,

1. We're talking about "etymology" of the word "Pallava". So merely suggesting someone was named Pallava or that they figure in some inscription will not suffice. We should rather try and identify how the Pallavas came to be called as such. The word Pallava has been translated variously as sprout, twig, bud, branch, creeper, leaves, foliage etc.

2. Ram Sharan Sharma states that the word Pallava means creeper and is the Sanskrit version of the Tamil word Tondai.

3. So whether Pallava is translated as leaves/foliage or as a creeper, scholars and historians equate it with the Tamil word Tondai. This is key because Tondaimandalam was named after the Tondaiyar (or vice-versa), the people whom some historians equate with the Pallavas. Now if you consider this reasoning it is much easier to understand why they may have called themselves as Pallavas in the Sanskrit-Prakrit grants for it is simply the Sanskrit word for Tondai. FYI, the Pallavas never called themselves Pallava in the Tamil grants. They were called Pottarasar or Pottaraiyar like Nandipottaraiyar or Narasimhapottaraiyar etc.

4. Now my question to you is, why are you second guessing Kulke and Rothermund's interpretation? I thought this was not a Forum as you earlier told me [20]

5. Chutu-Pallava should not be included as you mentioned earlier [21], since the 9th century Velurpalaiyam plates tries to make claims about ancestors in the 2nd century. This is one of the reasons why the different grants do not agree on genealogy. If at all the earliest ruler named Pallava must be mentioned and this ruler is the son of "Aswattama" as per the plates (check [22])

Nittawinoda (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Well, NPOV issues are not settled by citing particular sources, but by looking at all the reliable sources. Since we have two theories in the Origins section, we can't write the Etymology section as if only one of them is valid. Not all scholars equate Pallava and Tondai. Aiyangar & Nilakanta Sastri don't do it. Srinivas Iyengar has said it is "untenable". It would be best if we report facts in the Etymology section and fewer theories. (And I am certainly not going to go anywhere near Virakurcha theories.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Iranian culture

Hi,

I removed below from history/origin of pallava. Because there cannot be any link to Pallava in Tamilanadu to Iran. It is just vandalising this page. Non of the south Indian history on pallava predicts their origin to other than Inida. Palalvas not just follow Hinduism and south indian culture, they cultivated Hindusim, enriched, enhanced Hindu system from their heart. Nothing linked to Iranian culture. See the links to their Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venkateswara_Temple,_Tirumala. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamallapuram.

Removed content; The Iran chambers have sighted it is from Iranian lineage in this website http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/india_parthian_colony1.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1327:3429:945B:5B24:2E5B:AE1B (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice work. That was an unreliable racialism filled site. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Tamil:பல்லவ சாம்ராஜ்யம்) (Telugu:పల్లవ సామ్రాజ్యం) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:6F0:9973:8555:8FE7:4BEA (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What is this about? Are you trying to add these in teh infobox or lead. Not happening as per our WP:NOINDICSCRIPT policy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)