Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c20.s2.t1: 1.2.1 Mangulam: Pāṇḍiya inscriptions of the Caṅkam Age
Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c20.s2.t1
- Language
- English
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.