Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c20: 1. Discovery

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c20

Language
English

Contents

1. Discovery

c20.2

Discoveries of note are not of daily occurrence. Nor is the importance of such cognizable at first sight. In the field of research, where one has almost literally to grope in darkness feeling every step he takes, one cannot hit at the true worth of the finds before bestowing sufficient time, labour and thought, which they necessarily demand, not only of one, but of many heads.¹

c20.3

¹ K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 275.

1.1 Introduction

c20.s1.1

Until the commencement of the 20th century the earliest known inscriptions in Tamil were those of the Pallavas in the Tamil script from the 7th century and those of the Pāṇṭiyas in the Vaṭṭeḻuttu script from the 8th century A.D.² The existence of two scripts for the language was a puzzle, though their ultimate descent from the Brāhmī script could be inferred by comparative studies.³ Even more puzzling was the complete absence of earlier written records in Tamil, even though the earliest literary works pictured a great civilisation going back at least two thousand years.⁴ These puzzles were resolved only when the cave inscriptions in Tamil in a script closely resembling that of the Asokan edicts were discovered in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu around the turn of the 20th century.

c20.s1.2

² T.N. Subramanian 1938 (1996 reprint): p. 19; 1957: p. 1505.

c20.s1.3

³ T.A. Gopinatha Rao 1908, TAS. I (1988 reprint): pp. 299-344, 395-431. T.N. Subramanian 1938 (1996 reprint): Tables. C. Sivaramamurti 1952: charts.

c20.s1.4

⁴ The editions of U.Ve. Swaminathaiyar of the earliest Tamil literary works of the Caṅkam Age began to appear from 1887. The historical data contained in works like *Puṟanāṉūṟu* (1894) and *Patiṟṟuppattu* (1904) opened up a new world and led to a radical reassessment of the antiquity and historicity of early Tamil civilisation.

c20.s1.5

Subrahmanya Aiyer's classic paper of 1924, which laid the foundation for what we now call Tamil-Brāhmī epigraphy, begins with a survey of the cave inscriptions discovered up to that time.⁵ His listing, though in chronological order, begins not with the earliest discoveries at Mangulam (1882) or Edakal (1894) or even Kilavalavu (1903) by one of his colleagues, but with Marukaltalai (1906), the fourth of the caves to be discovered with similar inscriptions, apparently because this was the first site where the script was recognised as Brāhmī closely resembling the Asokan alphabet. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now make a chronological survey of the discoveries of the cave inscriptions from the beginning and up to the end of the 20th century. The uneven course of discoveries, sometimes coming up fast with heightened excitement and at other times slowing down with waning interest, may be studied in five stages.

c20.s1.6

⁵ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: pp. 275-278.

c20.s1.7

(1) Earliest discoveries (1882-1903).
(2) A flood of discoveries (1906-1918).
(3) Waning interest and random discoveries (1926-1952).
(4) Revival of interest: fresh copying of inscriptions (1961-80).
(5) Recent discoveries (1981-2000).

c20.s1.8

I have discussed the more important discoveries in each period in somewhat greater detail, bringing up the story to the present, anticipating the process of decipherment dealt with in the next chapter. As the Corpus of inscriptions, which forms the core of the present study, includes some Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions in order to link Tamil-Brāhmī with the later script, I have added some particulars of the discovery and significance of these inscriptions grouping them thematically.

c20.s1.9

While the present study is confined to inscriptions on stone, it is also necessary to have some idea of the contemporary Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions on pottery and other inscribed objects like coins, seals and rings in order to have a more complete picture of early Tamil society. These inscriptions are briefly described in the Annexure to this chapter.

1.2 Earliest discoveries (1882-1903)

1.2.1 Mangulam: Pāṇḍiya inscriptions of the Caṅkam Age

c20.s2.t1.1

The cave inscriptions at Mangulam near Madurai were first noticed in 1882 by Robert Sewell who recorded the following observation about the site:

c20.s2.t1.2

Mauncolum [Mangulam]: 12 miles north-east of Madura [Madurai] and 6 miles west of Melur. A mile east of the village is a small hill called Karugumalai [Kalugumalai] in which is a cave with inscriptions. There is also a rock which the natives call *Pañchapāṇḍavar paḍukkai* or the beds of the Five Pāṇḍavas.¹

c20.s2.t1.3

¹ R. Sewell 1882: vol. I, p. 294.

c20.s2.t1.4

The stone beds on the Kalugumalai hill at Mangulam were also noticed by Francis² in 1906. The cave inscriptions at this site were rediscovered by Subrahmanya Aiyer³ in the same year.

c20.s2.t1.5

² W. Francis 1906: vol. I, p. 278.

c20.s2.t1.6

³ *ARE* 1906-07: paragraph 3. K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 276.

c20.s2.t1.7

(i) Confusion over the name of the site

c20.s2.t1.8

While Sewell and Francis had recorded that the Kalugumalai hill is in the Mangulam village, the next report in *ARE* 1906-07 stated that the hill belonged "partly to Arittapatti and partly to Mangulam". However, according to Krishna Sastri, the cave inscriptions are "nearly 3 to 4 miles away from the [Arittapatti] village and belong properly to a smaller village named Mangulam".⁴ In spite of such clear documentation, the site was inexplicably called 'Arittapatti' in *ARE* 1906-07 and the subsequent Annual Reports and this name was adopted by Krishna Sastri⁵ himself and by Subrahmanya Aiyer¹ and others² following their lead. It was only in 1966 that the original name Mangulam was restored to the site.³ By this time however, the eastern hamlet of Mangulam called Meenakshipuram had become a separate revenue village and the name of the site was again changed adding to the confusion.⁴ Considering the long association of Mangulam with the now famous cave inscriptions at this site, the name has been retained in this study.⁵ Incidentally, another cave with a Tamil-Brāhmī inscription has been discovered recently at Arittapatti itself.⁶

c20.s2.t1.9

⁴ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: p. 336.

c20.s2.t1.10

⁵ Ibid.

c20.s2.t1.11

² E.g., T.V. Mahalingam 1967: p. 201.

c20.s2.t1.12

³ I. Mahadevan, *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968): Nos. 1-6.

c20.s2.t1.13

⁴ The new name Meenakshipuram for the site was first proposed in R. Nagaswamy 1972d: p. 49.

c20.s2.t1.14

⁵ In ancient times, the Kalugumalai hill was most probably included in the village of Veḷḷaṟai mentioned in two of the cave inscriptions on this hill (*ARE 462* and *463-464 /1906* = Nos. *6* and *3* respectively. Numbers in bold italics refer to the inscriptions in the Corpus in this vol.) The place may be identified as the village of Veḷḷari-p-paṭṭi to the south of the hill (V. Vedachalam, personal communication).

c20.s2.t1.15

⁶ K.V. Raman and Y. Subbarayalu 1971: pp. 229-232. The inscription is included as No. 7 in the present Corpus.

c20.s2.t1.16

(ii) Mix-up of estampages

c20.s2.t1.17

There are four caves on the Kalugumalai hill (Fig. 1.¹), three of them at a higher level spread from south to north, and the fourth one at a lower level. The inscriptions in the upper caves are engraved on the brow of the boulders, and the one in the lower cave on its rear wall. The upper southern cave called the 'kitchen' has the longest inscription (*ARE 465/06*) of the site. The upper middle cave called the *paḷḷi-k-kūṭam* 'school' has two short inscriptions (461 & 462). The upper northern cave has a long inscription engraved in two segments (463-464) with only a small gap in between. The lower cave has another long inscription (460).⁷

c20.s2.t1.18

¹ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 289.

c20.s2.t1.19

⁷ The following is the correspondence between the serial numbers of the inscriptions of 1906 in *ARE 1906-07* and those in the present Corpus: 460 = No. *2*; 461 = No. *5*; 462 = No. *6*; 463-464 = No. *3*; 465 = No. *1*. Estampages of only three inscriptions (460, 462 and the first segment of 463-464) have been published in *ARE 1917-18*: Pl. facing p. 6. Another inscription has been discovered more recently in the upper southern cave (*ARE B.242 / 1963-64* = No. *4*).

c20.s2.t1.20

Krishna Sastri mixed up the estampages from two different caves in his readings, interposing the two short inscriptions (461 & 462) in between the two segments of the longer inscription (463-464).⁸ Subrahmanya Aiyer also followed this scrambled order in his readings.⁹ Not surprisingly, neither reading makes much sense. Other epigraphists, relying on the earlier readings without visiting the caves themselves, have made the same mistake.¹⁰ It was only in 1966 that the correct order of reading was restored on the basis of my study of the inscriptions *in situ*.¹¹

c20.s2.t1.21

⁸ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: No. IV B to E at p. 338.

c20.s2.t1.22

⁹ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: No. IV A to C at p. 292.

c20.s2.t1.23

¹⁰ E.g., T.V. Mahalingam 1967: pp. 201-211.

c20.s2.t1.24

¹¹ *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968): Nos. 3, 5 and 6 corresponding to the same serial numbers in the present Corpus.

c20.s2.t1.25

Figure 1.1. Mangulam: general view of the Kalugumalai hill.

c20.s2.t1.26

Figure 1.2. Mangulam: cave with the 'forgotten' inscription of Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ.

c20.s2.t1.27

(iii) The'forgotten' inscription of Mangulam

c20.s2.t1.28

The longest inscription at Mangulam,¹ which also happens to be the earliest and historically one of the most significant of the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions, was totally forgotten after its rediscovery in 1906 and was not heard of again for the next sixty years and its estampage has never been published.²

c20.s2.t1.29

¹ *ARE 465/1906 = No. 1.*

c20.s2.t1.30

I visited the Mangulam caves for the first time in November 1965. The bright winter sun had lit up the facade of the upper southern cave (Fig. 1.²) and the long one-line inscription on the brow of the boulder caught my eye. It was weather-worn and looked more like bruising on the rock than engraving, but was otherwise undamaged. The bold and legible letters were clearly visible to the naked eye. As I spelled out *ne-tu-ñ-ca-li-ya-ṉ* (*neṭuñceḻiyaṉ*) and *va-lu-t-ti-y* (*vaḻuti*), I realised with astonishment that I was indeed looking at an inscription of a Pāṇṭiya king of the Caṅkam Age not reported earlier. However, I found out later that I had only rediscovered the long-forgotten inscription of Mangulam, which had till then existed only as a catalogue number (*ARE 465/1906*).³

c20.s2.t1.31

² See Fig. 8.1 (direct tracing) and Pl. 1 (computer-enhanced print from direct colour photographs) of the inscription. See also sections 2.11 and 2.17 on copying of the cave inscriptions.

c20.s2.t1.32

³ In May 1966, I called on the veteran epigraphist, K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer, to apprise him of my findings at Mangulam and Pugalur and seek his blessings. In the course of our discussion that day, I asked him about the 'forgotten' inscription at Mangulam. He recalled that when he visited the site in August 1906, there was a large beehive on the brow of the cave very near the inscription, which made it hazardous to take a closer look or make copies. As the estampage made available later was too illegible, the study was not pursued further.

c20.s2.t1.33

During the same visit, I discovered that the name *neṭiñcaḻiyaṉ* (*neṭuñceḻiyaṉ*) also occurs in the long inscription⁴ in the lower cave at the site. It is strange but true that the incorrect reading of a single letter (*li*) as *ṭṭhi* by Krishna Sastri⁵ and as *ṟi* by Subrahmanya Aiyer⁶ resulted in their failure to recognise the famous name and the historical significance of the record. Both inscriptions, illustrated with tracings directly made from the stone, were published by me in 1966.⁷

c20.s2.t1.34

⁴ *ARE 460/1906 = No. 2*. See also Fig. 8.2 (tracing) and Pl. 2 (computer-enhanced print from an estampage).

c20.s2.t1.35

⁵ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: pp. 337-338.

c20.s2.t1.36

⁶ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: pp. 289-292.

c20.s2.t1.37

⁷ *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968): Nos. 1 & 2 = *Nos. 1 & 2*.

c20.s2.t1.38

The two cave inscriptions of Neṭuñceḻiyaṉ at Mangulam are the oldest historical records in Tamil discovered so far.⁸ Their archaic linguistic and palaeographic features indicate a date around the 2nd century B.C. The inscriptions record the gift of a monastery to Nanta-siri Kuvaṉ, a senior Jaina monk. These are the earliest known Jaina inscriptions of South India and among the oldest of the kind in the country.

c20.s2.t1.39

⁸ In the course of three lectures in the Seminar on Archaeology at Madurai University (I. Mahadevan 1970a: pp. 12-13 ), I referred to these two inscriptions. T.P. Meenakshisundaran, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, proposed that an expedition be organised the very next day to see the inscriptions at Mangulam, hardly an hour's drive from the city. The expedition was led by R. Nagaswamy, Director of Archaeology, Tamil Nadu, and included, besides myself, many archaeologists, epigraphists and linguists who were participating in the Seminar. The expedition proved to be a success as both the inscriptions were clearly visible and could be read without difficulty.

1.2.2 Edakal: Cēra inscriptions of the Caṅkam Age

c20.s2.t2.1

Edakal hill, about 6 km. south-west of Sultan's Battery (Sultan Batheri) in Wynad District, Kerala, is near the junction of the present states of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The hill is about 1500 ft. above the local ground level and 4000 ft. above the mean sea level. On the western slope of the hill near the summit is a large cave whose walls are covered with prehistoric carvings, among which a few inscriptions of later times are found (Fig. 1.³).

c20.s2.t2.2

The cave was discovered in 1894 by Fawcett, the Superintendent of Police, Malabar District. He visited the cave several times more in the next two years and made careful drawings and took photographs of the rock carvings and inscriptions. He transmitted the photographs to Hultzsch, the Government Epigraphist, for his comments on the inscriptions. Hultzsch made immediate arrangements for taking estampages of the inscriptions and published a brief note (without illustrations) on the discovery.¹ He also forwarded the estampages with his detailed comments on the inscriptions to Fawcett who incorporated them along with his own drawings and photographs in the paper published by him in 1901.² Hultzsch identified four inscriptions at Edakal as in "cave characters" (the older name for the Southern Brāhmī script).³ He read two of them, one each in Sanskrit⁴ and Tamil,⁵ and assigned them to about the end of the 5th century A.D. He declared that the other two inscriptions⁶ were "unintelligible" to him, but "decidedly archaic".

c20.s2.t2.3

¹ Madras Government Orders Nos. 1062 & 1063, Public, dated 10th August 1897, paragraph 14; Nos. 120-123/ 1897 (in *ARE 1896-97*). Cf. one-volume reprint of *ARE 1887-1905* (1986).

c20.s2.t2.4

² F. Fawcett 1901(reprint 1985): pp. 409-421. See also Rajan Gurukkal and Raghava Varier 1999: pp. 85-95, 191-197.

c20.s2.t2.5

³ *ARE 120-123/1897* corresponding to estampages 1-4 in Fawcett 1901 (Pl. facing p. 412). No. 120 is a Sanskrit inscription not included in the present study. Nos. 121 & 122 corresponding to Nos. ***118 & 119*** are Tamil inscriptions in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu script. No. 123 is actually a pair of short inscriptions engraved in one line, but separated by a natural cleft in the rock. They are included as Nos. ***81 & 82***.

c20.s2.t2.6

⁴ *ARE 120/1897*.

c20.s2.t2.7

⁵ *ARE 121/1897*.

c20.s2.t2.8

⁶ *ARE 122 & 123/1897*.

c20.s2.t2.9

(i) *Inscriptions neglected and lost

c20.s2.t2.10

One would have expected that the announcement by Hultzsch of the discovery of inscriptions in 'cave characters' not known till then to occur in the Tamil country (including the Kerala region) would have aroused the curiosity of other investigators to examine the unread inscriptions. What happened thereafter is an incredible story of long neglect and the eventual loss of the two earliest inscriptions at Edakal.⁷ During the next century, that is, between 1897 when Hultzsch had the estampages taken and 1995-96 when our team visited Edakal, there is no record of any attempt to read the inscriptions. In course of time, the inscriptions fell into total oblivion as there is virtually no mention of them in any later epigraphical publications.⁸

c20.s2.t2.11

⁷ *ARE 123 / 1897*.

c20.s2.t2.12

⁸ The only exceptions are: *SII*. VI (1928): Nos. 74-77 = *ARE 120-123/1897* without the texts. The Sanskrit inscription at Edakal as read by Hultzsch was republished in the *Corpus of the Kadamba Inscriptions*. No. 50.

c20.s2.t2.13

The rediscovery of the Edakal cave inscriptions came about accidentally. I was attending a seminar on epigraphy held in March 1995 in the University of Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram. There I saw exhibited enlarged photographs of Hultzsch's 1897 estampages of the Edakal inscriptions (taken from the 1985 reprint of *Indian Antiquary*, vol. XXX). None of the epigraphists from Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu who were participating in the seminar had heard of these inscriptions. The photographs clearly showed that two of the inscriptions were in the Tamil-Brāhmī script of ca. 3rd century a.d. Both commence with the Tamil word *kō* 'king, chieftain' and one of them ends with the alveolar *ṉ* available only in Tamil-Brāhmī.¹

c20.s2.t2.14

¹ *ARE* 123 / 1897 = estampage No. 4 in Fawcett 1901= Nos. *81* & *82*.

c20.s2.t2.15

The unexpected discovery of the occurrence of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions in Kerala led to organising an expedition to the Edakal cave in October 1995 and again in February 1996.² During our first visit to the cave, we copied the Sanskrit inscription and the two Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions, all deeply engraved on the south rock wall of the cave and still in an excellent state of preservation. But in spite of intensive search we could not locate the pair of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions reported to be engraved on the north rock wall of the cave. We had to discontinue the search as it was getting late and we had to reach the plains before darkness fell. A second visit was organised by the team in February 1996 and this time, we were equipped with exact measurements based on Fawcett's photographs of 1894-96. We were able to locate the spot ³ where the inscriptions ought to have been, but found, to our dismay, that they had been totally obliterated by the mindless vandalism of tourists who had incised their names over them on the soft rock.⁴ At present, the only source for these two inscriptions is the excellent reproduction of Hultzsch's 1897 estampage in Fawcett 1901.⁵

c20.s2.t2.16

² The members of the team which visited the cave were, besides myself, Rajan Gurukkal and M.R. Raghava Varier from the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, S. Swaminathan from the Directorate of Epigraphy, ASI, Mysore, and A. Seetharaman, Thanjavur.

c20.s2.t2.17

³ See Fig. 1.3 in the present volume reproducing the photograph in Pl. VI: Fig. 1 in Fawcett 1901. The Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions are visible at top left. They are no longer extant.

c20.s2.t2.18

⁴ The vandalism had started right from the discovery of the cave. Hultzsch noted, "To the right of the second line, [photograph] No. 1. shows the signature of a certain C. Kannan in modern Malayalam characters". Fawcett added drily, "In reference to the above remarks, I may note that the C. Kannan was the work of one of my own men" (Fawcett 1901: p. 412). Mercifully, the said C. Kannan did not engrave his name over the inscriptions, a fate which later befell *ARE* 123 / 1897 (estampage No. 4 in Fawcett 1901).

c20.s2.t2.19

⁵ Reprinted in Pl. 37 in this volume.

c20.s2.t2.20

(ii) *New discoveries at Edakal

c20.s2.t2.21

The proverbial silver lining in the dark cloud appeared in the form of the discovery, as a result of our intensive search in February 1996, of two more Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions ⁶ on the north rock wall of the cave, which had earlier escaped the attention of Fawcett. All the four short Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions appear to be contemporary and may be assigned to ca. 3rd century a.d. on palaeographic grounds. The occurrence of the expression *kaṭummiputa cēra* in one of the newly discovered inscriptions¹ proves that these are records of the times of the Cēra dynasty of the Caṅkam Age. The Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions from the Edakal cave have now been read and are included as Nos. **79-82** in the present *Corpus*.²

c20.s2.t2.22

⁶ Nos. *79* and *80*. The inscriptions were discovered by S. Swaminathan of our team.

c20.s2.t2.23

¹ In No. *80*.

c20.s2.t2.24

² Our expedition to Edakal also led to an improved interpretation of the Sanskrit inscription in the cave, a revised reading of the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscription read by Hultzsch and the decipherment of the second Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscription in the cave regarded as "unintelligible" by him (the latter two in Nos. *118 & 119* respectively). See the detailed report on the expedition to the Edakal cave (I. Mahadevan 1999: pp. 1-19.)

c20.s2.t2.25

Figure 1.3. Edakal: cave with prehistoric rock carvings. Photograph taken in 1894-96. The Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions (top left) are no longer extant.

c20.s2.t2.26

Figure 1.4. Kilavalavu: cave with Tamil-Brāhmī inscription. (The pillars are recent structures.)

1.2.3 Kilavalavu: the earliest reference to Tondi on the east coast

c20.s2.t3.1

In 1903, Venkoba Rao discovered an inscription in "archaic characters" in a cave on the rocky outcrop at Kilavalavu, a small village about 38 km. north-east of Madurai (Fig. 1.4).³ Even though the inscription is engraved in bold and legible characters and is reasonably well-preserved, it could not be read and its significance was not recognised until much later after many similar inscriptions had come to light. Neither Venkayya⁴ nor Krishna Sastri⁵ refers to it in the Annual Reports on the discovery of the cave inscriptions up to 1909. It was only in 1910, seven years after the discovery, that the Kilavalavu cave and its inscription find a mention in Krishna Sastri's report.⁶ Even thereafter, the estampage of the inscription was not included in the large number of photographs of the cave inscriptions published in the Annual Reports during 1911-18.⁷ The correct reading of this inscription has eluded the investigators until recently probably because of the unusual manner in which it is engraved.⁸ The present Corpus includes the most recent direct reading from the stone and the interpretation based on it.⁹ The inscription is notable for the earliest reference to the port of Tondi on the east coast.

c20.s2.t3.2

³ G. Venkoba Rao: *ARE* 135 /1903 = *SII.* VIII: No. 422 = No. *10*. He also discovered another inscription in similar characters in this cave. Krishna Sastri makes a passing reference to it as "much damaged" (*ARE* 1909-10: paragraph 4). The inscription is not included in *ARE* 1903 or *SII.* VIII, but I have seen the almost completely illegible estampage (133B / 1903) in the Directorate of Epigraphy, ASI, Mysore. During my visits to the cave, I have not been able to locate this inscription which seems to have been completely eroded as it was engraved above the drip ledge.

c20.s2.t3.3

⁴ *ARE 1906-07*: (paragraphs 1-5) and 1907-08 (paragraphs 1-7).

c20.s2.t3.4

⁵ *ARE 1908-09*: (paragraphs 1-9).

c20.s2.t3.5

⁶ *ARE 1909-10*: (paragraph 4).

c20.s2.t3.6

⁷ The estampage was first published in T.V. Mahalingam 1967: Pl. 7.

c20.s2.t3.7

⁸ The inscription is engraved from right to left and with most (but not all) of the characters turned upside down. See section 5.8 (Direction of writing) for discussion on this peculiar feature found at Kilavalavu and a few other caves.

c20.s2.t3.8

⁹ No. *10* is a revised version of my earlier attempt in the *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968): No. 9). See also Fig. 8.8 (tracing) and Pl. 8 (estampage).

1.3 A flood of discoveries (1906-18)

c20.s3.1

The cave inscriptions at Mettuppatti,¹⁰ a village 40 km. north-west of Madurai, were first reported by Francis in 1906. In the same year, L.A. Cammiade, a Deputy Collector, discovered a cave inscription at Marukaltalai¹ near Tirunelveli and Subrahmanya Aiyer discovered another at Anaimalai² near Madurai. The cave inscriptions at Mangulam³ and Mettuppatti⁴ were rediscovered by Subrahmanya Aiyer in 1906 and Venkayya in 1908 respectively. Unlike at Edakal and Kilavalavu, the newly discovered cave inscriptions were immediately recognised as written in the Brāhmī script.⁵ The unexpected occurrence of Brāhmī inscriptions in the Tamil country aroused great interest and, as a result of vigorous search, no less than 39 inscriptions from 12 caves were found in quick succession from the southern Districts of Madurai, Ramanathapuram and Tirunelveli.⁶ The list of inscriptions copied each year was published in the *ARE*⁷ along with description of the caves and other interesting features associated with them.⁸ During this period, photographs of estampages of most of the cave inscriptions discovered up to 1918 were also published in the *ARE* from time to time.⁹ Among the inscriptions discovered during this extraordinarily productive period,¹⁰ the most significant ones are, besides the two Pāṇṭiya inscriptions from Mangulam mentioned earlier, those from Alagarmalai which record the gifts of merchants from Madurai and another from Sittannavasal providing interesting evidence for early contacts with the Jainas of Karnataka.

c20.s3.2

¹⁰ W. Francis 1906: vol. I, pp. 294-295. See also Fig. 1.14 in this vol.

c20.s3.3

¹ *ARE* 407 / 1906.

c20.s3.4

² *ARE* 457 / 1906.

c20.s3.5

³ *ARE* 460-465 / 1906.

c20.s3.6

⁴ *ARE* 45 (a)-(e) / 1908.

c20.s3.7

⁶ Marukaltalai, Anaimalai and Mangulam (1906); Varichiyur, Mettuppatti, Tirupparankunram and Alagarmalai (1908); Kunnakkudi (1909); Kongarpuliyankulam and Muttuppatti (1910); Karungalakkudi (1911) and Sittannavasal-A (1914). Additional inscriptions were also discovered at Alagarmalai in 1910 and Mettuppatti in 1917-18.

c20.s3.8

⁷ See *ARE* for the respective years for details of the location of the inscriptions.

c20.s3.9

⁸ V. Venkayya in *ARE* 1906-07: paragraphs 1-5; 1907-08: paragraphs 1-7. H . Krishna Sastri in *ARE* 1908-09: paragraphs 1-9; 1909-10: paragraphs 1-5; 1911-12: paragraphs 1 & 2; 1914-15: paragraphs 1 & 2; 1917-18: paragraphs 8 & 10.

c20.s3.10

⁹ *ARE* 1911-12, 1914-15 and 1917-18.

c20.s3.11

¹⁰ Varichiyur was discovered by L. Vibert, Additional District Magistrate, Madurai, and Karungalakkudi by the Collector of Madurai ( whose name is not recorded in the *ARE*). Sittannavasal was discovered by Radhakrishna Aiyar of the Pudukkottai Educational Service. The other inscriptions found during this period (after 1908) were discovered by officers working under the Government Epigraphist.

c20.s3.12

Figure 1.5. Alagarmalai: general view of the hill.

c20.s3.13

Figure 1.6. Alagarmalai: cave with Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions.

1.3.1 Alagarmalai: endowment by merchants from Madurai

c20.s3.t1.1

The cave at Alagarmalai, about 20 km. north-east of Madurai, is located at a considerable height on the hill range and can be reached only after a stiff climb (Fig. 1.⁵).¹¹ The cave is spacious and has a number of stone beds carved on the rocky floor and a deep pool in one corner. The ceiling of the cave is quite high and it is very difficult to read or copy the inscriptions engraved at an inaccessible height on the brow of the cave. The inscriptions were copied only in 1910, two years after they were discovered, when a high wooden scaffolding was erected with the help of the village headman.¹ After a long interval, the Alagarmalai inscriptions were copied again by the ASI in 1963-64 when two more inscriptions were noticed on the brow of the cave.²

c20.s3.t1.2

⁵ *ARE* 1906-07: paragraph 1; 1907-08: paragraph 1.

c20.s3.t1.3

¹¹ For an account of the discovery of the Alagarmalai cave and its features, see H. Krishna Sastri, *ARE* 1908-09: paragraphs 5-7; 1909-10: paragraph 5. The inscriptions are numbered *ARE* 334 / 1908 and 70-79 / 1910.

c20.s3.t1.4

¹ "Estampages of these [inscriptions] were secured from a high scaffolding erected there under the order of the Collector of Madura by the energetic village munsif of Kidarippatti who spared no pains in securing the necessary materials from insignificant hamlets and sending them up a very steep and inaccessible height of rock". H. Krishna Sastri in *ARE 1909-10*: paragraph 5.

c20.s3.t1.5

² *ARE 244 & 245 / 1963-64*. Both had been copied earlier also in 1910, but not included in the Annual Report.

c20.s3.t1.6

Figure 1.7. Sittannavasal-A: general view of the cave.

c20.s3.t1.7

Figure 1.8. Sittannavasal-A: stone bed with inscribed edges.

c20.s3.t1.8

The importance of the Alagarmalai inscriptions was not recognised for a long time after the discovery as the estampages of the weather-worn inscriptions are mostly illegible,³ and their photographs published in the *ARE*⁴ are too small in size to show much detail. The attempts by Krishna Sastri⁵ and Subrahmanya Aiyer⁶ to edit the inscriptions from estampages were not successful.

c20.s3.t1.9

³ The Alagarmalai estampages copied in 1963-64 by the ASI are included in the present Corpus (Nos. *36-48*).

c20.s3.t1.10

⁴ *ARE 1911-12*: Pl. facing p. 50; *ARE 1917-18*: Pl. facing p. 6.

c20.s3.t1.11

⁵ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: pp. 344-346. However, he could offer no interpretation of the texts.

c20.s3.t1.12

The Alagarmalai inscriptions were copied again by two successive teams led by me, once in 1965 and again in 1992, from specially built steel scaffolding, each time securing better copies than what were available before. The earlier readings were published in 1966⁷ and the further improved readings are included in this volume.⁸

c20.s3.t1.13

The Alagarmalai cave (Fig. 1.⁶) has 13 Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions, the largest number from a single site. One of the inscriptions is engraved on a stone bed on the floor and the others on the brow of the cave. The inscriptions may be assigned to ca. 1st century B.C. on palaeographic evidence. They record the endowment made by a group of merchants and other donors, all from Maḍurai. The merchants are identified as traders in salt, sugar, iron implements and textiles. One of the donors is a goldsmith. Among the others are an accountant (described as the 'chief of scribes'), a Jaina nun and probably a Pāṇṭiya prince. The Alagarmalai inscriptions provide important evidence for the support extended to the Jaina monasteries by the merchant communities in this period.

c20.s3.t1.14

⁶ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 299. He confined himself to the reading of a few disjointed expressions.

1.3.2 Sittannavasal: abode of a Jaina nun from Karnataka

c20.s3.t2.1

One of the better-known early cave inscriptions in Tamil Nadu is at Sittannavasal in Pudukkottai District. A large natural cave locally known as Ēḻaṭippaṭṭam (Fig. 1.⁷) is situated near the summit along the eastern face of the hill.⁹ Inside the cave is a large and smoothly polished stone bed. A Tamil-Brāhmī inscription is deeply engraved along two adjacent edges of the bed (Fig. 1.⁸). As the stone bed is inside the cave and the characters of the inscription have been carefully smoothened, this is the best preserved of the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions discovered so far.¹⁰

c20.s3.t2.2

⁷ *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968): Nos. 30-44. See also Fig. 2.1.

c20.s3.t2.3

⁸ Nos. *36* to *48*. See also Figs. 8.20-8.22 (tracings) and Pls. 16B-20 (estampages).

c20.s3.t2.4

⁹ For a description of the upper cave of Sittannavasal and its features, see H. Krishna Sastri in *ARE 1914-15*: paragraphs 1 & 2.

c20.s3.t2.5

¹⁰ *ARE 388 A / 1914*. See the excellent reproduction of the estampage in *ARE 1914-15*: Pl. I.

c20.s3.t2.6

There are 16 more stone beds in this cave, some of them bearing later inscriptions in the Tamil characters of ca. 8th century A.D. These beds are not so well-made and some of them are damaged. A study *in situ* has shown that the centrally located and exceptionally well-made stone bed with the Tamil-Brāhmī inscription was fashioned much earlier and remained the only one in the cave for centuries until the other stone beds with inscriptions in the Tamil script were added in the early medieval period.

c20.s3.t2.7

The well-preserved and easily accessible Tamil-Brāhmī cave inscription at Sittannavasal has received attention from many scholars. Krishna Sastri made two attempts to read the inscription; ¹ but neither was successful as he could not suggest any plausible interpretation of his own readings. Subrahmanya Aiyer's reading produced the first broadly correct interpretation of the inscription, even though he misread some of the letters occurring in proper names.²

c20.s3.t2.8

¹ *ARE 1914-15*: paragraph 2. H. Krishna Sastri 1919: pp. 344-346.

c20.s3.t2.9

² K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: pp. 296-299.

c20.s3.t2.10

As some of the expressions like *erumināṭu* in the inscription appeared to indicate contacts with Karnataka, I felt that it should be re-examined by an interdisciplinary team with expertise in Tamil and Kannada epigraphy. At my invitation, M.D. Sampath, Chief Epigraphist, ASI, joined our team which visited Sittannavasal in December 1991.³ After a very careful study of the inscription and review of earlier readings, the expert team arrived at the following translation:

c20.s3.t2.11

³ The other members of the team, besides myself, were N. Srinivasan, TNSA, Madagadi Thangavelu, civil engineer, (who made the tracing) and A. Seetharaman from Thanjavur.

c20.s3.t2.12

(To) Kavuṭi born at Kumuḻūr in Erumināṭu.
The seat was made by the Iḷayar of Teṉku Ciṟupocil.⁴

c20.s3.t2.13

⁴ See No. **49** and the Commentary on it. See also Fig. 8.23 (tracing) and Pl. 21 (estampage).

c20.s3.t2.14

The most remarkable fact emerging from the re-examination of this inscription is that the stone bed was specially made and gifted to a Jaina nun named Kavuṭi (Ka. *gavuḍi*). She is described as being born at Kumuḻūr in Erumināṭu (*erumaināṭu*, the Mysore region of Karnataka). The inscription is the earliest epigraphic evidence for contacts between the Jaina communities in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

1.4 Waning interest and random discoveries (1926-52)

c20.s4.1

After 1918, interest in the cave inscriptions waned.⁵ During the next four decades, only five sites with seventeen inscriptions were discovered at long intervals, all of them accidentally. Only two of the newly discovered sites (Vikkiramangalam and the upper cave at Tirupparankunram) are from the southern region to which the earlier search was confined. The other three sites are Pugalur near Karur in the western region, Tiruchirapalli in the eastern region and Mamandur near Kanchipuram in the northern region. The new discoveries made by officers working under the Government Epigraphist, were routinely announced in the *ARE*,¹ and only one estampage (of the inscription from Tirupparankunram)² was published. Among the few new discoveries made during this period, the Pugalur cave inscriptions of the Cēras of the Caṅkam Age stand out. The inscription on the hill at Tiruchirapalli is no longer extant.³

c20.s4.2

⁵ Ironically, it is during this lean period for discovery that two major studies on the cave inscriptions appeared, which laid the foundation for all future research in the field (H. Krishna Sastri 1919 and K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924). We shall consider their contribution in the next chapter.

c20.s4.3

¹ Vikkiramangalam (in) *ARE 1926-27*: paragraph 8; 621-623/1926 = Nos. *20-22*. Pugalur (in) *ARE 1927-28*: paragraph 1; 341-347/1927-28 = Nos. *61*, *63-64* & *66-72*. Tiruchirapalli (in) *ARE 1937-38*: paragraph 3; 139/1937-38 = No. *78*. Mamandur (in) *ARE 1939-43*: paragraph 1; 171/1939-40 = No. *73*. Tirupparankunram (upper cave) (in) *ARE 1951-52*: p. 3; No. B. 140-142/1951-52 = Nos. *53* & *54*.

c20.s4.4

² *ARE 1951-52*: Pl. facing p. 22.

c20.s4.5

³ *ARE 139/1937-38*= No. *78*. It was discovered by the ASI in the narrow passage on the northern face of the hill leading to the cave shelter on the western side (see Fig. 1.15). The passage is a mere cleft and " a portion of the approach has to be negotiated on all fours underneath a projecting boulder, a false step meaning a fatal drop down the precipitous side" (*ARE 1937-38*, Part I, paragraph 2). During our search in December 1991, one of the members of our team nearly lost his foothold and was saved in time, but he dropped the brush (used in preparing estampages) which rolled down the precipice. In spite of our intensive search, the inscription could not be located and is presumed lost. It has been edited in this volume from the estampage taken when the inscription was discovered.

1.4.1 Pugalur: Cēra inscriptions of the Caṅkam Age

c20.s4.t1.1

An outstanding discovery⁴ of great historical importance was made at Pugalur in 1928; but the cave inscription was not correctly deciphered at the time, and its significance as a Cēra record of the Caṅkam Age remained unrecognised for almost four decades thereafter.

c20.s4.t1.2

⁴ *ARE 349/1927-28*.

c20.s4.t1.3

Pugalur (ancient Pukaḻiyūr) is situated on the south bank of the river Cauvery about 15 km. north-west of Karur, the ancient Cēra capital (and presently the headquarters of the District with the same name). Overlooking the river is a hill called Āṟunāṭṭārmalai (known in ancient times as Pukaḻimalai) with a Subrahmanya temple at the summit. On the southern slope of the hill, there are two caves with Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions on the brow and on the stone beds (Figs. 1.9 & 1.10).⁵ There is also a cave on the northern side of the hill with another inscription on a stone bed.⁶

c20.s4.t1.4

⁵ *ARE 341-346/1927-28*.

c20.s4.t1.5

⁶ *ARE 347/1927-28*.

c20.s4.t1.6

(i) *The 'forgotten' inscription at Pugalur

c20.s4.t1.7

The Annual Report for the year described the Pugalur cave inscriptions as "mostly damaged" and commented on the longest inscription found at the site as follows:

c20.s4.t1.8

In the first cavern there is a comparatively long record of four lines (No. 348) which ends with the word *aṟattār* meaning those who follow *aṟam* (dharma). As the rock is very much weather-beaten, it is difficult to make out this record completely. One of the monks of the Buddhist order mentioned in it whose name can be read clearly is a certain Kōsiṟaṇ Ātaṇ. This word reminds us of Ātaṇ, the name borne by a few Chēra Kings.⁷

c20.s4.t1.9

⁷ *ARE 1927-28*: paragraph 1. 'No. 348' mentioned in the Report is a typographical error for No. 349.

c20.s4.t1.10

Figure 1.9. Pugalur: cave with Cēra inscriptions.

c20.s4.t1.11

[Figure: Figure 1.10. Pugalur: inscriptions on stone beds on the floor of the cave. Note modern pornographic graffiti on one of the stone beds.]

c20.s4.t1.12

The reading is garbled and the only word correctly made out is Ātaṉ which was, however, incorrectly identified as the name of a monk.¹

c20.s4.t1.13

¹ Apparently, the reading was based on the almost wholly illegible estampage which I have seen in the Directorate of Epigraphy, ASI, Mysore. The equally illegible estampage taken in 1963-64 has been published by T.V. Mahalingam (1967: Pl. 23, printed upside down); but his reading (ibid. p. 280) appears to be based on the tracing published by me earlier (I. Mahadevan 1965a).

c20.s4.t1.14

Two more cave inscriptions were discovered much later in 1963-64 at Pugalur.² These were also described as "very much damaged due to their exposure to the weather".³ One of these inscriptions also has four lines and is engraved on the brow of the same cave just above the one discovered earlier. This has been described as follows:

c20.s4.t1.15

² *ARE* B. 296 & 297/ 1963-64. Even though the newly discovered inscriptions occur in the same caves at Pugalur as those reported in *ARE* 1927-28, the name of the site has been changed in the later Report as Velayudhampalaiyam. Considering the long association of the hill with Pugalur since ancient times, the original name of the site has been retained in the present study.

c20.s4.t1.16

³ *ARE* 1963-64: pp. 28-29.

c20.s4.t1.17

No. 297, in the second cave before the turning in the overhanging rock, records that the rock (*kal*) was cut (*arupita*) by Kaḍuṅgōṉ-Eḷaṅgōṉ Kōḷaṉ, son of Kōṉ Kaḍuṅgōṉ. Probably the reference is to the cutting of the overhanging rock below which this record is found.⁴

c20.s4.t1.18

⁴ Ibid.

c20.s4.t1.19

Even though two Tamil words are correctly identified, the reading of the personal names is garbled and the purport of the record was as completely missed as in the case of the lower inscription found earlier.

c20.s4.t1.20

(ii) *Rediscovery of the Cēra inscriptions at Pugalur*

c20.s4.t1.21

I visited Pugalur for the first time in February 1965. I reached the western cave on the southern side of the hill late in the afternoon. The brow of the cave was bathed in the orange glow of the setting sun, the oblique lighting picking out clearly the boldly engraved characters of the lower inscription.⁵ I had come prepared to see a damaged or fragmentary inscription. What I saw was a weather-worn inscription which was otherwise not damaged at all and could be read without much effort. As I read the words *kō*, *ātaṉ* and *irumpoṟai*, I realised with astonishment that the inscription was indeed a record of a Cēra king of the Irumporai line which ruled from Karur in the Caṅkam Age. The name of the city is mentioned as *karu-ūr* in one of the stone-bed inscriptions in front of the cave.⁶

c20.s4.t1.22

⁵ *ARE* 349/1927-28 = No. *61*. See also Fig. 8.29 (tracing) and Pl. 27 (computer-enhanced print from a direct colour photograph).

c20.s4.t1.23

⁶ *ARE* 343/1927-28 = No. *69*.

c20.s4.t1.24

The upper inscription⁷ on the brow of this cave is much fainter and more difficult to make out. However, with some effort, it could also be read almost completely except for three letters lost in the second line due to flaking of the stone. It turned out that the upper inscription is a near-identical repetition of the lower one and the few letters lost in the former could be restored from the identical passage in the latter.

c20.s4.t1.25

⁷ *ARE* B.297/1963-64 and Pl. IIIb = No. *62*.

c20.s4.t1.26

The preliminary report on the decipherment of the Cēra (Irumporai) inscriptions at Pugalur published by me in a newspaper article ¹ in March 1965 aroused much scholarly interest,² since no inscriptions of the Caṅkam Age were known to exist till then.³

c20.s4.t1.27

¹ I. Mahadevan 1965a. The Pugalur inscriptions, illustrated with tracings of some of the better preserved ones, were also published by me in the *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968): Nos. 56-67. Revised readings illustrated with improved tracings and estampages have been included in the present Corpus (Nos. 61-72).

c20.s4.t1.28

² K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer whom I met in May 1966 was pleasantly surprised that the two Cēra inscriptions at Pugalur are preserved well enough to be visible to the naked eye even though their estampages are illegible. He informed me that he had not personally visited the site.

c20.s4.t1.29

³ I was so excited by the unexpected discovery that I wrote, somewhat too lyrically perhaps, that "the Tamil kings of the Sangam Age have at last come into the limelight of history and archaeology from the twilight of fables and ballads" (I. Mahadevan 1965a).

c20.s4.t1.30

The inscriptions record the construction of a rock shelter for Ceṅkāyapaṉ, a senior Jaina monk on the occasion of the investiture of Iḷaṅkaṭuṅkō as the heir apparent. The prince is described as the son of Peruṅkaṭuṅkōṉ who is the son of King Ātaṉ Cel Irumporai. The inscriptions may be assigned to the 2nd century A.D. on palaeographic evidence.

1.5 Revival of interest: fresh copying of inscriptions (1961-80)

c20.s5.1

There was a revival of interest in the cave inscriptions in the sixties of the last century when the Government Epigraphist undertook fresh copying of the inscriptions discovered earlier.⁴ The exercise resulted in the discovery of eight additional cave inscriptions from five sites already known.⁵ Further, six new sites with a total of nine cave inscriptions,⁶ and two more inscriptions, one each from the earlier sites ⁷ of Kunnakkudi and Vikkiramangalam, were also discovered during this period by scholars outside the ASI.¹ Four of the inscriptions were illustrated with estampages in the *ARE* of the respective years.² While only very few inscriptions were discovered during this period (1961-80), much progress was made in reading and interpreting the inscriptions.³

c20.s5.2

⁴ Unknowingly, I had a small part to play in this development. At my request, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the renowned historian, obtained a set of estampages of the inscriptions from the Government Epigraphist in 1961 for me to study. I struggled with them for a few months but made no progress at all. Nilakanta Sastri advised the Government Epigraphist to copy the cave inscriptions again, which was undertaken during 1963-64 (H.K. Narasimhaswamy 1968: p. 191).

c20.s5.3

⁵ Mangulam: *ARE* B. 242/1963-64 = *No. 4* . Muttuppatti: *ARE* B. 243/1963-64 = *No. 56*. Alagarmalai: *ARE* B. 244 & 245 / 1963-64 = *Nos. 36 & 37*. Vikkiramangalam: *ARE* B. 285 & 286/1963-64 = *Nos. 19 & 23*. Pugalur: *ARE* B.296 & 297/1963-64 = *Nos. 65 & 62* respectively.

c20.s5.4

⁶ Arachalur: *ARE* B. 280-282 / 1961-62 = *Nos. 85-87*. Tiruvadavur: *ARE* B. 275 & 276 /1965-66 = *Nos. 9 & 8*. Aiyarmalai: *ARE* B. 231/1973-74 = *No. 50*. Arittapatti: *ARE* B. 264/1978-79 = *No. 7*. Mudalaikulam: *ARE* B. 265/1978-79 = *No. 35*. Ammankoyilpatti: *ARE* B. 258/1979-80 = *No. 84* .

c20.s5.5

⁷ Kunnakkudi: *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968), No. 70 = *No. 75*. Vikkiramangalam: G. Siromoney and E. Jebarajan 1978 = *No. 18*.

c20.s5.6

¹ Arachalur was discovered by M.S. Venkataswamy and S. Raju; Kunnakkudi (No. *75*) and Tiruvadavur by I. Mahadevan; Aiyarmalai by M. Chandiramurthy (TNSA); Arittapatti by K.V. Raman and Y. Subbarayalu; Vikkiramangalam and Mudalaikulam by G. Siromoney and E. Jebarajan; and Ammankoyilpatti by P.B. Venkataraman.

c20.s5.7

² Arachalur: *ARE* 1961-62 (B.280) = No. *85*. Pugalur: *ARE* 1963-64 (B. 297) = No. *62*. Tiruvadavur: *ARE* 1965-66 (B. 276) = No. *8*. Aiyarmalai: *ARE* 1973-74 (B. 231) = No. *50*.

c20.s5.8

³ See Chapter 2 for details.

1.5.1 Arachalur: musical notations

c20.s5.t1.1

The other most outstanding discovery of the period comes from Arachalur. The musical notations in the Arachalur cave inscriptions,⁴ assigned to ca. 4th century A.D. on palaeographic grounds, are the earliest epigraphic evidence for the cultivation of music and dance in the Tamil country.⁵ The inscriptions are also important from the palaeographic point of view as they mark the end of the Tamil-Brāhmī period and anticipate the emergence of the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu script from Tamil-Brāhmī during 5th-6th centuries A.D.

c20.s5.t1.2

⁴ *ARE* B. 280-282 / 1961-62 = *Nos. 85-87*. See also Fig. 8.41 (tracing) and Pls. 40 & 41 (estampages).

c20.s5.t1.3

⁵ The interpretation was first suggested by T.N. Ramachandran (1962), with further improvements by R. Nagaswamy (1972d) and K.G. Krishnan (1973-74b).

1.6 Recent discoveries (1981-2000)

c20.s6.1

During the last two decades, eleven more cave inscriptions have been discovered, out of which eight are from six new sites⁶ and three from two known sites.⁷ Many of the recent discoveries have been made by the younger epigraphists of the TNSA, who are familiar with the terrain and have acquired remarkable proficiency in reading the Tamil-Brāhmī script.⁸ Only one of the inscriptions has been illustrated with estampage in the *ARE*.⁹ However, estampages of all other newly discovered inscriptions have been promptly published by the scholars who made the discoveries or who have read the inscriptions – a welcome new development in the field.

c20.s6.2

⁶ Jambai: R. Nagaswamy 1981a & b (No. *59*).Tirumalai: *kalveṭṭu*, No. 24, 1989 (Nos. *51 & 52*). Tondur: *Dinamani*, Chennai, October 20, 1991 (No. *76*). Nekanurpatti: *Dinamani*, Chennai, March 26, 1992 (No. *83*). Kudumiyamalai: C. Santhalingam 1999a (No. *77*). Mannarkoil: *The New Indian Express*, Chennai, December 21, 2000 (Nos. *88 & 89*).

c20.s6.3

⁷ Mettuppatti: *ARE* B.373/1985-86 (No. *24*). Edakal- A: I. Mahadevan & S. Swaminathan 1998 (Nos. *79 & 80*).

c20.s6.4

⁸ Jambai was discovered by K. Selvaraj; Tirumalai by C. Santhalingam and V. Vedachalam; Tondur by M. Chandiramurthy; and Kudumiyamalai by P. Rajendran and C. Santhalingam. Nekanurpatti was discovered by S. Rajavelu (ASI) and C. Viraraghavan and Mannarkoil by Manohari, research scholar, Parasakthi College, Courtallam. The additional inscription at Mettuppatti was discovered by E. Jebarajan, American College, Madurai, and those at Edakal-A by S. Swaminathan (ASI), a member of the team led by I. Mahadevan.

c20.s6.5

⁹ Mettuppatti in *ARE* 1985-86 (B. 373) = No. *24*.

c20.s6.6

Figure 1.11. Jambai: general view of the hill.

c20.s6.7

Figure 1.12. Jambai: cave with the inscription of Atiyaṉ Neṭumāṉ Añci.

1.6.1 Jambai: inscription of Atiyaṉ Neṭumāṉ Añci

c20.s6.t1.1

The most outstanding discovery in this period comes from Jambai,¹ a small village on the north bank of the South Pennar river near the town of Tirukkoyilur in Viluppuram District. There are two caves on the hill (Fig. 1.11) to the east of the village, one of them (Fig. 1.12) with a Tamil-Brāhmī inscription, which is exceptionally well preserved as it is engraved on the rear rock wall deep inside the cave. Selvaraj, a young trainee student in the TNSA, stumbled on the inscription in October 1981 during a routine field survey. He informed Nagaswamy, Director of Archaeology, who deciphered the inscription and announced the discovery through a couple of newspaper articles.²

c20.s6.t1.2

¹ No. **59**. See also Fig. 8.27 (tracing) and Pl. 26A (estampage).

c20.s6.t1.3

² R. Nagaswamy 1981a & b. I. Mahadevan 1994a: pp. 123-127. See also section 4.5.1.

c20.s6.t1.4

The Jambai inscription records the grant of the cave shelter by *atiyaṉ neṭumān añci* who has the title *satiyaputō*. The record can be dated to ca. 1st century A.D. on palaeographic grounds. The donor of the grant has been identified by Nagaswamy as Atiyamāṉ Neṭumāṉ Añci, the famous chieftain of Takaṭūr (modern Dharmapuri), celebrated in the Caṅkam classic, *Puṟanāṉūṟu*. The title *satiyaputō* occurs in Asoka's Second Rock Edict along with names identified as Cēras, Cōḻas and Pāṇṭiyas. It has been suspected earlier on linguistic grounds that *satiyaputō* is connected etymologically to *atiyamāṉ*. The Jambai inscription which provides conclusive evidence in support of this identification has been aptly described by Nagaswamy as a 'new link' between Asoka and the Tamil country.

c20.s6.t1.5

Jambai ranks with the Mangulam, Pugalur and Edakal cave inscriptions as a historical record of exceptional importance. One would have thought, therefore, that the discovery would have been hailed. That was not what happened. The 'authenticity' of the inscription was called into question by some scholars on two grounds, namely, that a Prakrit expression like *satiyaputō* cannot occur in a Tamil inscription and that the dental *n* was employed in the inscription in the place of the correct alveolar *ṉ*.³ Neither objection can stand scrutiny. Numerous Prakrit loanwords occur in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions; it is indeed this feature which sets apart the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions from the later Tamil inscriptions. For example, compare *satiyaputō* at Jambai with *kaṭummiputa* at Edakal,⁴ *utayaṉasa* 'of Utayaṉaṉ' at Mettuppatti⁵ and *sapamitā* (name of a Jaina nun) at Alagarmalai.⁶ As regards the second objection, Tamil epigraphists know only too well that the use of dental *n* for alveolar *ṉ* is the commonest scribal error in Tamil inscriptions, and the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions are no exception to this general trend.⁷ Neither the palaeography, nor the general appearance of the inscription, nor the circumstances of the discovery give rise to the slightest suspicion about the authenticity of the record confirmed by numerous scholars who have visited the cave since the discovery.

c20.s6.t1.6

³ E.g., K.V. Ramesh 1985: pp. 3-4.

c20.s6.t1.7

⁴ No. **80**.

c20.s6.t1.8

⁵ No. **24**.

c20.s6.t1.9

⁶ No. **41**.

c20.s6.t1.10

⁷ E.g., Nos. **20** & **70** for other examples.

c20.s6.t1.11

I became concerned about the controversy and decided to conduct an investigation *in situ*. With the co-operation of the District Collector and the Revenue authorities, I convened a meeting at Jambai on 14th December 1991, which was attended by Revenue officials and the village elders. Appavu, the village *talayāri* who along with two cowherds of the village had guided Selvaraj to the cave, testified at the meeting that they had known about the inscription since their boyhood as they used to rest in the cave when grazing their cattle nearby. And then the clinching evidence turned up. Kodumudi Shanmugam, a senior engineer of the Public Works Department and noted Tamil scholar, who attended the meeting, arranged to have the topsoil removed from the floor of both the caves. Two stone beds of the usual description associated with Tamil-Brāhmī cave inscriptions elsewhere, were discovered in the cave just opposite to the one with the inscription. The discovery put an end to the needless controversy.¹ Jambai is also known to have been a flourishing Jaina centre in later historical times.²

First 189 of 496 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)