Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c20.s6.t1: 1.6.1 Jambai: inscription of Atiyaṉ Neṭumāṉ Añci

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c20.s6.t1

Language
English

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

c20.s6.t1.12

¹ See also the earlier account of this episode in my Foreword in R. Nagaswamy 1995.

c20.s6.t1.13

² See remarks on Jambai in Mayilai Seeni Venkataswamy 1954 (1980 reprint): pp. 42 & 122.

Linked texts (2)