Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s13: 2.13 Later publications on Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s13

Language: English

2.13 Later publications on Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions

This is a Tamil version of the texts of the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions (included in the *Corpus 1966*) with brief comments suggesting modifications in some of the readings and interpretations.² In particular, his reading and interpretation of the Arachalur musical inscriptions have superseded the earlier unsuccessful attempts by Mahalingam and myself.³ Another major improvement is the correction of my reading *mātavirai* 'great (Buddhist) nun' to *mātatirai* (> *matirai*) 'the city of Madurai', in an inscription from Alagarmalai, restoring the earlier reading by Krishna Sastri and interpretations by Subrahmanya Aiyer and Mahalingam.⁴ This is an important correction as it has done away with the only substantial evidence for associating the cave with the Buddhist faith. Nagaswamy also agreed with Mahalingam in reading *ivakuṉṟa-* 'elephant hill' in the Anaimalai cave inscription.⁵ He drew my attention to the occurrence of the *puḷḷi* in the stone-bed inscriptions at Pugalur.⁶ Another significant improvement due to Nagaswamy is the revised reading *perunta(c)caṉ* 'master mason' in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscription at Pillaiyarpatti, confirming that the excavation of the rock-cut shrine and the engraving of the inscription were coeval.⁷ This has helped in dating Pillaiyarpatti, the earliest of the rock-cut shrines in the Pāṇṭiya country, in the 6th century A.D. on palaeographic evidence. I have incorporated these and a few other minor improvements suggested by Nagaswamy in the present *Corpus*.

c21.s13.3

² R. Nagaswamy 1972d: pp. 48-80 (=RN). He has dealt with 72 out of 76 inscriptions included in the *Corpus 1966*.

c21.s13.4

³ Ibid. pp. 75-79.

c21.s13.5

⁴ Ibid. p. 60.

c21.s13.6

⁵ Ibid. pp. 62-63.

c21.s13.7

⁶ Ibid. p. 68.

c21.s13.8

⁷ Ibid. pp. 79-80. See also R. Nagaswamy 1973: p. 69.

c21.s13.9

2.13.2 R. Panneerselvam 1972

c21.s13.10

This is a critical study of 46 inscriptions selected from the *Corpus 1966*.⁸ The tracings which illustrate these inscriptions in the *Corpus* have been reproduced in his paper. While closely following the readings and interpretations in the *Corpus*, Panneerselvam has also suggested a few modifications. Among the improvements made by him and incorporated by me in the present *Corpus* are the revised segmentation of the longer Mangulam inscriptions¹ and the Sittannavasal inscription² leading to better understanding. Panneerselvam has also included in his paper a detailed linguistic study of the inscriptions. A comparison of Panneerselvam's inscriptional glossary and linguistic analysis with those by Kamil Zvelebil (1964) provides a measure of the progress achieved in understanding the language of the cave inscriptions.

c21.s13.11

⁸ R. Panneerselvam 1972: pp. 163-197 (=RPS).

c21.s13.12

¹ R. Panneerselvam 1972: Nos. 1 to 3 at p. 183.

c21.s13.13

² Ibid. No. 22 at p. 185.

c21.s13.14

Panneerselvam has also made a most valuable contribution by his identification of three generations of the Irumporai princes mentioned in the Pugalur inscriptions with the heroes of the Seventh to Ninth decades of *Patiṟṟuppattu*, establishing for the first time a definite link between the kings celebrated in Caṅkam literature and those mentioned in the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions.³ Panneerselvam's identification has won acclaim.

c21.s13.15

³ R. Panneerselvam 1968: pp. 421-425.

c21.s13.16

2.13.3 Mayilai Seeni Venkataswamy 1981

c21.s13.17

This study of the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions published posthumously in 1981 is the second book-length treatment of the subject, and the first to appear in Tamil.⁴ This volume contains readings and interpretations of 46 cave inscriptions from 17 sites. Most of the texts are illustrated with tracings reproduced from the *Corpus 1966*; a few other illustrations seem to be drawings apparently based on the photographs of estampages published by Mahalingam (1967).

c21.s13.18

⁴ Mayilai Seeni Venkataswamy 1981 (=MSV).

c21.s13.19

According to Venkataswamy, there was an earlier Tamil script in which the classical works of the Caṅkam Age had been written long before the introduction of the Brāhmī script in the Tamil country by Buddhist or Jaina monks in about the 3rd century B.C. The earlier Tamil script was gradually supplanted by the newly introduced Brāhmī script.⁵

c21.s13.20

⁵ Ibid. pp. 7-10; 25-28.

c21.s13.21

Venkataswamy also believed that the cave inscriptions were full of errors as those who wrote or engraved them did not know Tamil or had only an inadequate knowledge of the language. The most frequent expression in his book is *piḻai* ('error') attributed by him not only to those who wrote or engraved the inscriptions, but also to those who read or interpreted them in a manner not approved by him.⁶

c21.s13.22

⁶ Ibid. pp. 12, 26, 28,130, etc.

c21.s13.23

Venkataswamy compares his readings of the inscriptions with what he considers to be the corresponding forms in *centamiḻ* (Literary Tamil) and interprets them accordingly after making appropriate 'corrections'. For example, *nelveḷi*- is considered to be an 'error' (of the engraver or the copyist) for Nelvēli as only the latter place is known to Tamil tradition;⁷ *ataṉ* and *antai* are 'erroneous' forms of ātaṉ and āntai respectively as only the latter names are found in literary works;¹ *-caliyaṉ* is an 'error' for *ceḻiyaṉ* as only the latter form is grammatically correct;² and so on. Given this approach, his readings and interpretations turn out to be highly prescriptive, imposing on the language of the cave inscriptions norms which are not applicable to them.

c21.s13.24

⁷ Ibid. p. 77.

c21.s13.25

¹ Mayilai Seeni Venkataswamy 198: p. 78.

c21.s13.26

² Ibid. p. 86.

c21.s13.27

2.13.4 History of Tamil Nadu: Sangam Age (Political) 1983

c21.s13.28

Mayilai Seeni Venkataswamy's revised edition of the cave inscriptions appeared later as a chapter in the *History of Tamil Nadu* published by the Government of Tamil Nadu.³ 70 Tamil-Brāhmī and 2 Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions are included in this collection. A postscript to the chapter has been appended by the Expert Committee(s), adding further comments and suggesting some modifications of the revised interpretations of Venkataswamy. In this edition, tracings from the *Corpus 1966* have been replaced by what appear to be freehand drawings which are more or less in agreement with the new readings, but bear little resemblance to the original inscriptions. Even these drawings are further altered by the addition of dotted lines to bring them more in line with the proposed readings; e.g., *pāmitti* altered as *vāḻutti* and read as *vaḻuti*.⁴ Many of the readings are illusory and the interpretations far-fetched; e.g., the Anaimalai cave inscription is read and interpreted as follows:⁵

Linked texts (1)

Patiṟṟuppattu — Tamil