Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c20.s6.t1.5

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.