Difference between Puloman and Pulomavi

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

The well known name of Pulomavi is associated with the Puranic

lists of Andhrabhrityu dynasty which has ruled Magadha

between 766 bce to 316 bce.

 

However, there is another name Puloman which is attested by Chinese chronology.

 

Let us briefly look at the history of name of Puloman.

 

The name Puloma (fem.) or Puloman occurs in scriptures and almost

always denoted Demons i.e. tribes which were opposing

Indra.

 

In Mbh, they are associated with Nivata Kavaca , the Asuric tribes of

South India annihilated by Agastya. These Pulomas were conquested by

Arjuna. Thus, we can say that Pulomas are a " non Aryan " South

Indian tribe.

 

That Indra has come to South India from Iran , before he made his

progress towards Sapta Sindhu also is supported by this

attestation of Pulomas. Indra has married Saci by force and

her father was an Asura by name Puloma. Indra has killed

him so that he can marry Saci.

 

That Andhras were also 'non Aryan " and come from South India as

attested by Satapadha Brahmana and other texts create a common platform

of ancestry for these two tribes.

 

Pouloumein of Chienese annals (Ho-lo-mien) died in 648 CE, according to De Guignes (A.R. IX.87) . There

is a further identification in the case of

Ho-lo-mien, which makes it certain that a prince of India was

intended, as he was called by the Chinese

Potoli-tse-Ching (son of Potoli) . While some have tried to

identify this with Pataliputra, especially in view of the word

son, it is clear that Pataliputra has lost its fame by then and

in any case, was not ruled by any South Indian at that

time. ( Magadha was being ruled by One Purnavarman, who called himself

a heir to Priyadarsi ; he was a v assal of Harsha)

 

Thus, it is clear that Pulomein of Chinese annalas was of Potali , Bodhan in Andhra Pradesh.

 

Bodhan was traditionally connected to the kingdom of Asmaka or

Assaka , who have later ruled Magadha, before Andhra

bhrityus for 442 years. They were replaced by their own

servants but continued to be a powerful kingdom in the South as

attested by Megasthanese.

 

However, Satavahanas (Sri Parvata Andhras) have later subjugated

this kingdom of Andhras as attested by Balasri in her

Nasik cave inscription, which also clarifies that Andhra (Assaka)

kingdom and Andhrbhrityus are two different dynasties.

 

However, this Andhra kingdom seemed to survived these ups and

downs of luck into much later times of 7th Century CE as

verified by Chinese references mentioned above.

 

On the other hand, Pulomavi is someone who is connected to Puloman

and must be a direct derivation of the dynasty's name 'Andhra

Bhrityu " , the servant of Andhras , since Puloma n is an Andhra

king.

 

I invite comments from the learned members of the group,

 

best regards,

 

Kishore patnaik