Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Palaeography c13.s5: South India

Indian Palaeography c13.s5

Language
English

Contents

South India

c13.s5.1

South Indian palaeography received early attention with the publication of a monograph by Burnell in 1874. But the paucity of materials from the early period left many problems unsolved. The discovery of the inscriptions from the Bhattiprolu stūpa in the Kistna district and their masterly handling by Bühler raised for the first time the question of the southern alphabet and the script. Bühler had already maintained the existence of a Drāviḍī script, including in it the character of the Peninsular inscriptions of Aśoka. Bhattiprolu gave him a new idea, that South India had a script of its own derived independently of the Aśokan. This statement was not borne out by the discovery of the 'early' inscriptions from Amaravati. The palaeographers did not pay heed to this discrepancy between the Bhattiprolu and the Amaravati scripts, probably because the Amaravati inscriptions are all in Prakrit and hence need not include characters suitable to the Dravidian languages. But a large number of cave inscriptions discovered in the districts of Madura and Tinnevelli and in the former state of Puddukottai, which are all, as has been shown by Subrahmanya Ayyar, in Tamil, once again raised the question of the Drāviḍī script. Ayyar has pointed out the differences that are found between the Bhattiprolu and the cave inscriptions, but even now C. Sivaramamurti has not touched the important question of the origin of this script in his recent memoir on *Indian Epigraphy and South Indian Scripts*.

c13.s5.2

In the previous chapter we did not accept the division of Aśokan Brāhmī into northern and southern characters as propounded by Bühler. Aśokan Brāhmī is mainly imperial and it is hard to distinguish regional varieties. The evolution of the South Indian scripts can be traced only from the early inscriptions of Amaravati and Bhattiprolu, and from the cave records. There is one common denominator to all of them—they are Buddhistic in content. Hence the introduction of writing into the extreme south, as far as we know, must be ascribed to the activities of the Buddhist monks. It is hardly likely that these monks were isolated from the Buddhist order of North India. Another link is provided by the Prakrit used in most of these inscriptions. It is no wonder that there is a general similarity at this time between the scripts of South India and those of the north. The main differences arose only when an attempt was made to represent the local sounds in writing. Even these sounds, as we shall see, do not bring in altogether new shapes. Almost all the new letters are derivable from those of the existing script of the north. Hence there is no necessity for propounding an original Drāviḍī script different from Aśokan Brāhmī and tracing it to some ultimate source in Western Asia.

Bhattiprolu Inscriptions

c13.s5.t1.1

The most puzzling of these scripts is that used in the Bhattiprolu inscriptions (Pl. VII *a*, *b*). Even here we find a difference between the inscription on the crystal and those on the three caskets. They agree in differing from Aśokan Brāhmī in having the curve of *da* open to the right, exactly the reverse of *da* in Aśokan Brāhmī, and in the northern characters of this period; otherwise the crystal script shows all regular forms. In the caskets we have a few new forms: *gha*, *ja* (optional), *bha*, *ma*, *la* and *sha*. One new letter, *ḷa*, is added to spell South Indian names. All other letters are of the regular type except that they show regional variation. In the medial vowels the casket inscriptions have a short bar to express the short vowel *a* compounded with a consonant when it is not followed by *anusvāra*, and for long *ā* a farther downward slant from this bar. This is peculiar to the Bhattiprolu caskets and is not found elsewhere in South India, not even in the crystal inscription. As the casket inscriptions have a style of their own, it seems likely that they were written by one person, and the fact that a Dravidian sound *ḷa* has been introduced suggests that the writer was a local Buddhist. If his peculiar fondness for expressing short *a* by a bar is set aside, it is not difficult to derive the new forms from those known in Northern Brāhmī. Most of them appear to be the reverse of the regular forms. Fig. 7. I–IV shows how the Bhattiprolu forms of *bha*, *ma*, *la* and *sha* are derived from the regular forms. In *ja* we find the middle bar omitted when short *a* is not to be shown, and it appears only with two horizontals attached to either end of a vertical. The only letter which is strangely derived is *gha*, where the second loop is added to the long vertical at the top (Fig. 7. V). The new letter *ḷa* can be derived from *la* (Fig. 7. VI). These changes must be attributed to the man who wrote these inscriptions, as they are found nowhere else. I would regard them as mistakes on his part rather than accept them as a new script.

c13.s5.t1.2

The cave inscriptions also introduce new letters to express Tamil sounds. The most easily recognizable of these is *ṉa*, which is derived from the dental *na* (Fig. 7. VII). The second is *ḷa*, derived from the regular form of *la*, thus proving that the reverse form of Bhattiprolu was a mistake (Fig. 7. VIII). We have another *ṟa*, derived from the form of Sanchi *ḷa*, ultimately originating from *ṭa*, as already shown (Fig. 7. IX). We have to distinguish this from Sanchi *ḷa* and from that occurring later in Western India, even though these forms are related to each other. Phonetically they are distinct. Sivaramamurti was mistaken (see his fig. 64) in linking *ḷa* of the north and west with *ḷa* of the south. One more new letter that appears in the cave inscriptions is *ḷa*, which form Subrahmanya Ayyar derives from the double-looped *ja*. But it is more probably derived from the Sanchi *ḷa* by the addition of a loop (Fig. 7. X). Thus this palaeographical study confirms the opinion propounded long ago by Caldwell¹ that the source of the southern alphabet is the North Indian character.

c13.s5.t1.3

¹ *A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages*, London, 1856, p. 93

c13.s5.t1.4

FIG. 7

c13.s5.t1.5

After discussing the source of the South Indian scripts we have now to trace the course of their development. In this we shall not look to the evolution from Aśokan Brāhmī for comparable material. One task will be rather to trace a new standard for this region.

c13.s5.t1.6

The inscriptions from Bhattiprolu are regarded as the earliest in date, and Bühler has assigned them to the second century B.C. at the latest. This date is not borne out by critical analysis. I shall describe here only the relevant letters. The vertical of *ka* is lengthened. *Ga* is both angular and rounded. *Cha* has one peculiar triangular and another quadrangular loop. The circle of *chha* has changed into a rough oval. *Da* has also a rounded form. *Dha* is of the regular type, such as became common in the later period. *Bha* has a straight vertical. *Ma* copies in reverse a form from the Girnar R.E. of Aśoka, but this form is also present in Nanaghat I and in the Amaravati inscriptions. The *ma* on the crystal is crudely drawn with a single stroke. *Ra* is either a straight vertical or has a curve at the lower end. *La* has the cursive round form of the later period. *Va* has a long loop recalling the triangular form. The medial *o* is a single straight line, and the medial *u* in *bu* is added by prolonging the right vertical downwards. These features suggest a connexion with the development that was going on in North-west Deccan, and in no case can the Bhattiprolu inscriptions be dated earlier than those of Nanaghat. When we recall that all these Buddhists were in close contact, we may place the Bhattiprolu inscriptions in the first century A.D. This conclusion is strengthened when we turn to the main groups of the southern inscriptions known from Amaravati and the caves of South India.

c13.s5.t1.7

The early inscriptions from Amaravati, as published by R. P. Chanda,¹ confirm my dating of those of Bhattiprolu. Here we find writing more closely related to the group II inscriptions from Western Deccan. In Amaravati the form of *bha* is varied. Besides the straight vertical form, we find examples which retain the slanting vertical. *Ma* has its lower circle changed into a triangle. No definite rule is observed in the length of the verticals. Angularity is noticeable in forms such as *sa*, *pa* and *ha*. *Va* has a long loop recalling the triangular form. *Ra* has a straight vertical, and *cha* has its lower circle changed into a quadrangle. The form of *ka* has its vertical longer above the horizontal than below it. Hence these Amaravati inscriptions can be safely placed in the earlier half of the first century A.D. They are succeeded directly by inscriptions containing forms which are traceable from the Kushāṇa inscriptions. It must, however, be pointed out that there is a marked difference between the forms of letters in North-west Deccan at this time and those of Amaravati, for the latter seem some fifty years older than the former. This discrepancy is due to the time-lag in the adoption of new styles. The same difference is noticeable in comparing inscriptions of West Deccan with those of Orissa. As I have explained before, these facts have to be accepted.

c13.s5.t1.8

¹ *Epigraphia Indica*, xv. 264–6, nos. 1–20.

c13.s5.t1.9

When we leave Amaravati and turn to the cave inscriptions, we find further confirmation of this theory of the time-lag. These inscriptions are divisible into three groups: (1) those found in Madura and Tinnevelli districts, (2) that found at Sittanavasal in the former Puddukottai State (Pl. VII), and (3) that found at Guntapalli (not illustrated here). The last is a very late record, as it shows deliberate head-formation and also slight curvature of the lower verticals which, as will be shown in the next chapter, are features which did not develop before the second century a.d. The inscription from Sittanavasal is unique in South India in that it copies certain northern letters which are not known even in Amaravati. The most remarkable is the form of *la*, which occurs in the Śaka Kshatrapa records of Mathura. The forms of *na*, *pa*, and *ya* are also remarkable. Hence this inscription cannot be dated earlier than the first half of the first century a.d. But the form of *i*, with a dot on either side of a vertical, occurring in this inscription is not seen at this time outside South India. This sign is used for long *ī* in North and West India in the next and subsequent periods. Could this form have been introduced from the south into the north? The development of this new form from the three dots of the short *i* is possible in South India, as it is used here both for short and long *ī*.

c13.s5.t1.10

The other cave inscriptions are cruder in workmanship, but some of the forms are related to the Sittanavasal inscriptions. The comparable letters are *va*, *la*, *ma*, *ṛa*, *ḷa*, *ṇa*, *ta*, *cha* and *ka*. *Ma* is of a new form in these inscriptions, resembling a U with a crossbar in the middle. This will be called hereafter the Dravidian *ma*. This form has been found in Sanchi.¹ These inscriptions are not far removed in time from the Sittanavasal inscription, though they are cruder in workmanship, and their date must fall in the first half of the first century a.d.

c13.s5.t1.11

¹ Marshall and others, *Monuments of Sanchi*, pl. CXXXIII. 354.

c13.s5.t1.12

My dating of these cave inscriptions receives confirmation from the evidence supplied by the excavated materials at Arikamedu (Pl. VII. 11, 12). There some inscribed potsherds have been found in datable strata. Even if we do not rely on the evidence of the stratification, as dated by Wheeler, these inscriptions may also be dated on palaeographical grounds. They fall into two groups. The first, which we will call Arikamedu I, has legends in Tamil, and the script, though crudely scratched on the pots, agrees with that seen in the caves of the Madura and Tinnevelli districts. In Arikamedu II only one potsherd is illustrated, which reads *yakhamitrasya*, and not *yakhamitasa*, as is given in the published report. The importance of this inscription lies not only in the use of a northern language but also in the script, which is quite different from that of the other potsherds. Obviously the difference is due to the persons who made the pots—the single piece of Arikamedu II was inscribed by a potter who knew some Sanskrit, if only very poorly, and who probably came from the north, while the others were made and inscribed by the local southerners. This probably accounts for the marked difference in the scripts followed. The southerner follows the crude style of the cave inscriptions, while the northerner copies forms that can be traced from the records of the Mathura Kshatrapas (note especially the letters *kha*, *ma* and *ya*). Here we get the meeting point of the northern and southern scripts in the first century a.d., dated both by the palaeography as well as by the other materials produced by the archaeologists. This evidence sets at rest all controversies regarding the age of the cave inscriptions. They cannot be placed earlier than the beginning of the Christian era.

c13.s5.t1.13

Eastern India

c13.s5.t1.14

1. Nagarjuni Hill (Gaya district, Bihar) cave inscriptions of Dasaratha in *Mem. A.S.I.*, no. 1, pl. I.
2. Piprahwa (Basti district, U.P.) vase inscription, *J.R.A.S.*, 1898, pp. 573–88.
3. Sohgaura (Gorakhpur district, U.P.) copper plate inscription, ibid., 1907, pp. 510–32.
4. Mahasthan (Bogra district, East Pakistan) stone plaque inscription, *Epigraphia Indica*, xxi. 83–91; *I.H.Q.*, 1934, pp. 57–66.
5. Ramgarh (Chhattisgarh, M.P.) cave inscriptions, *An. Rep. A.S.I.*, 1903–4, pp. 123–31.
6. Bharhut inscriptions in Cunningham's *Stupa of Bharhut*, London, 1879.
7. Bharhut pillar inscription of the time of the Śuṅgas, *Indian Antiquary*, xiv, 1885.
8. Bodhgaya inscriptions in Cunningham's *Mahabodhi*, London, 1892.
9. Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela, *J.B.O.R.S.* iii. 425–72.
10. Inscriptions in the Udaygiri and Khandagiri caves, *Epigraphia Indica*, xiii. 159–66.
11. Two Pabhosa cave inscriptions, ibid. ii. 240–3.
12. Ayodhya stone inscription of Dhana(deva), *J.B.O.R.S.* x. 202–8.

c13.s5.t1.15

¹ Allan, J., *A Catalogue of the Coins of Ancient India*, London, 1936.

c13.s5.t1.16

² Gardner, P., *Coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings in Bactria and India in the British Museum*, London, 1886.

c13.s5.t1.17

North-west India

c13.s5.t1.18

3. RAPSON, E. J., 'Counter-marks on Early Persian and Indian Coins', *J.R.A.S.*, 1895.
4. BÜHLER, G., Jaina inscriptions from Mathura, *Epigraphia Indica*, i and ii.
5. Besnagar inscription of Heliodorus, *An. Rep. A.S.I.*, 1908–9 and pl.
6. Sanchi inscriptions: by Bühler in *Epigraphia Indica*, ii; by R. P. Chanda in *Mem. A.S.I.*, no. 1; by N. G. Majumdar in J. Marshall and others, *Monuments of Sanchi*, Calcutta, 1940.
7. Mora stone slab inscription of the time of Śoḍāsa, *Mem. A.S.I.*, no. 1, pl. VI.
8. Mathura fragmentary pillar inscription of the time of Śoḍāsa, *Mem. A.S.I.*, no. 5.
9. Ganeshahra inscription of Ghaṭaka, *An. Rep. A.S.I.*, 1907–8, p. 95, pl. XXX. 1.
10. Barli fragmentary inscription; by G. H. Ojha in *Bhāratīya Prāchīna Lipimālā*; by K. P. Jayaswal in *J.B.O.R.S.*, xvi; by D. C. Sircar in *J.B.R.S.*, 1951.
11. Ghosundi stone inscription by R. R. Haldar in *Indian Antiquary*, lxi. 203–5.
12. Bhilsa pillar inscription of Bhāgavata in *Mem. A.S.I.*, no. 5.

c13.s5.t1.19

North-west Deccan

c13.s5.t1.20

1. *Archaeological Survey of Western India*, no. v. Bühler's edition of the following inscriptions: (i) Nanaghat inscription of Queen Nayanikā. (ii) Minor inscriptions from Nanaghat, nos. 3–8.
2. *Archaeological Survey of Western India*, no. iv. Burgess's edition of the following inscriptions: (i) Bhaja nos. 1–6. (ii) Kondane inscription. (iii) Pitalkhora nos. 1–7. (iv) Nasik nos. 1–2. (v) Ajanta nos. 1–2. (vi) Ajanta Painting no. 6.
3. GHOSH, A., *Indian Archaeology, A Review*, 1955–6, p. 29, pl. XLIVA, for a new Bhaja inscription on wooden ceiling.

c13.s5.t1.21

¹ BURNELL, A. C., *Elements of South Indian Palaeography*, 2nd ed., London, 1878.

c13.s5.t1.22

² SIVARAMAMURTI, C., 'Indian Epigraphy and South Indian Scripts', *Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum*, Madras, 1952.

c13.s5.t1.23

³ BURGESS, J., *Archaeological Survey of Southern India*, I (only inscription no. 4 from Amaravati).

c13.s5.t1.24

⁴ CHANDA, R. P., 'Some Unpublished Amaravati Inscriptions', *Epigraphia Indica*, xv. (only nos. 1–20).

c13.s5.t1.25

⁵ *Madras Reports on Epigraphy*, 1912, plate facing p.

c13.s5.t1.26

⁵⁷ The following inscriptions are studied: those from (i) Karungalakudi, (ii) Kongarpuliyangulam, (iii) Tirupparangunram, (iv) Anaimalai, and (v) Mettuppatti.

c13.s5.t1.27

⁶ *Madras Epigraphy Report*, 1915, pl. 1 facing p. 86, inscription no. (a) from Sittannavasal in Puddukottai.

c13.s5.t1.28

South India

c13.s5.t1.29

7. *Madras Epigraphy Report*, 1917, p. 5, inscription from Guntapalli *stūpa* in Kistna district.

c13.s5.t1.30

8. *Madras Epigraphy Report*, 1918, pl. 1 facing p. 7. The inscriptions from the following places are studied: (i) Mettuppatti, (ii) Varichchiyur, (iii) Alagarmalai, (iv) Arittapatti, and (v) Kunnakkudi.

c13.s5.t1.31

9. SUBRAHMANYA AYYAR, K. V., 'The Earliest Monuments of the Pandya Country and their Inscriptions', *Proceedings and Transactions of the Third Oriental Conference*, Madras, 1924, pp. 275–300.

c13.s5.t1.32

10. BÜHLER, G., 'The Bhattiprolu Inscriptions', *Epigraphia Indica*, ii. 323–9.

c13.s5.t1.33

11. Arikamedu inscribed potsherds in the excavation report on Arikamedu in *Ancient India*, no. 2, Delhi, 1946.

Linked texts (5)