freinds, sorry, i have no caste fixations. but is any sociological research possible without studying caste in india? history research includes sociol situations and its ramifications into modern society.
the so called zameens of t.s. pettai may well be not the genetic descendents of rajendra-111. the word zameens is definitely islamic derivation but why should it not be used in 17th century or later.
palayam concept is nayaka one.initially palayams were started in thirunelveli(by aryanatha mudhaliar)and palayam concept spread into other parts. there were palayams in karnataka too.
regarding the caste of cholas, it is often discussed in our history forum in chidambaram. the early cholas and later cholas were different.that is a bone of contention between two groups here!
when i was in kerala i met lot of people like valliya-attan (valiathan),kuttuvan,unnan... which are sangam age names. i can only wonder they are using those names still there. this only gives a thread for us to work further to trace the geneologies. one does not automatically mean they were descendendents of cheras.
if we are not healthy enough to view caste in that neutral angle, i will not raise it again at all here. MICHAEL WOOD eminent oxford historian uses caste in his history research in india.