Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s15: 2.15 Second field expedition (1991-96)

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s15

Language
English

Contents

2.15 Second field expedition (1991-96)

c21.s15.1

Since the publication of the *Corpus 1966*, more cave inscriptions have been discovered and a vast new field has opened up with the discovery of pottery inscriptions in Tamil-Brāhmī from explorations or excavations of a large number of ancient sites, and of coins, seals and rings inscribed in this script. As mentioned earlier, corrections and modifications suggested by later researchers to the readings and interpretations in the *Corpus 1966* have been accumulating. The *Corpus* itself has long been out of print, and there has been a persistent demand for a revised and enlarged edition incorporating corrections and additions. However, I felt that merely revising the published material with additions and corrections would not be adequate and that the time had come for a completely new edition based on a fresh study of all the cave inscriptions *in situ* with a new set of tracings, published along with the best available photographs of estampages. Revised readings and interpretations of the inscriptions would be based on a reappraisal of their chronology, and palaeographic and linguistic features in the light of new developments in the field. A second field expedition was led by me with these objectives.

c21.s15.2

Figure 2.1. Copying of the cave inscriptions at Alagarmalai (1965). First field expedition (1962-66).

c21.s15.3

Figure 2.2. Copying of the cave inscriptions at Tiruvadavur (1992). Second field expedition (1991-96).

c21.s15.4

The second expedition lasted six working seasons mostly in the winter months of 1991-96. In all, 39 sites including two in Kerala and one in Karnataka were visited, many of them more than once.¹ The inaccessible inscriptions were studied from very close quarters from scaffolding erected with steel slotted angles (Fig. 2.2).²

c21.s15.5

¹ See Tables 1.2 & 1.3 and Map I.

c21.s15.6

² Arrangements for transport and erection of the scaffolding were made by N. Mahalingam, Chairman, Sakthi Group. M. K.Thangavelu, civil engineer, rejoined the team and made the tracings. The 'Madurai Group' (C. Bose, S. Rajagopal, C. Santhalingam and V. Vedachalam from the office of the TNSA at Madurai), accompanied me to almost all the sites. A. Seetharaman, Thanjavur, was my Research Assistant during the field trips. M.D. Sampath, Chief Epigraphist, ASI, and Natana Kasinathan, Director of Archaeology, Tamil Nadu, accompanied the team to some of the caves.

2.15.1 Aims of the expedition

c21.s15.t1.1

It was decided at the outset that the primary aim of the expedition would be to ascertain the exact texts as they occur on the stone, leaving aside the question of interpretation, the former being a question of fact and the latter largely a matter of opinion. In particular, special efforts were made by the team

c21.s15.t1.2

(i) to mark damaged, partly preserved or otherwise not wholly legible letters as such;
(ii) to note the loss of single letters or passages without any attempt to restore them; and
(iii) to make a special study of the letters variously read by previous investigators and determine their true values *in situ*.

c21.s15.t1.3

Each member of the team was encouraged to make his own transcription direct from the stone. Where a scaffolding had to be erected, members of the team took turns to sit on it to study and copy the inscriptions from close quarters.³ The transcripts were compared and differences, if any, settled on the spot by looking at the stone once again before leaving the site. It can now be claimed with reasonable certitude that the fidelity of the texts determined in the manner described above is beyond doubt, even though there is room for further improvement in the interpretations proposed in this volume, which are mine.

c21.s15.t1.4

³ The operation was not without risk. On the first day of our work in the Alagarmalai cave in January 1992, the scaffolding gave way throwing down Thangavelu and Vedachalam who escaped with minor injuries. Both of them reported for work on the second day unmindful of the injuries.

2.15.2 Special studies

c21.s15.t2.1

The following problem-oriented studies were also undertaken by our team during this expedition.

c21.s15.t2.2

(a) ***Looking for the elusive* puḷḷi**

c21.s15.t2.3

The *puḷḷi* cannot be easily located on the rough, uneven rock surfaces. It is virtually impossible to detect the *puḷḷi* from estampages or photographs. The discovery of the *puḷḷi* in the Anaimalai cave inscription by Jebarajan and Gift Siromoney in 1978 called for a response to try and locate its possible occurrence in other cave inscriptions also. The search undertaken by our team confirmed the existence of the *puḷḷi* already known at Anaimalai (No. ***60*** in the present Corpus) and Arachalur (No. ***85***), and led to the discovery of more occurrences in the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions at Pugalur (Nos. ***67 & 69***), Kunnakkudi (No. ***74***), Tondur (No. ***76***) and Kudumiyamalai (No. ***77***).¹ Most of the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions included in the present Corpus depict the *puḷḷi*; but we were surprised to find them in the Tirunatharkunru and Pillaiyarpatti inscriptions published much earlier without noticing the *puḷḷi* in them. The *puḷḷi* marks at Tirunatharkunru (No. ***116***) were detected by our team by observing the inscription in oblique lighting at sunrise and again at sunset; those at Pillaiyarpatti (No. ***117***) were brought to light by scraping off the thick layer of sandal paste over the inscription on the pilaster. A preliminary report on our fieldwork to locate the *puḷḷi* in the cave inscriptions was published by me in 1992² and has been further updated in this volume.³

c21.s15.t2.4

¹ The occurrence of the *puḷḷi* at Nekanurpatti (No. ***83***) was discovered by S. Rajavelu (1995a: pp. 7-8 with eye copy).

c21.s15.t2.5

² I. Mahadevan 1992: pp. 141-167.

c21.s15.t2.6

³ See sections 2.8, 5.14, 6.8 & 6.9.

c21.s15.t2.7

(b) ***Direction of writing***

c21.s15.t2.8

Almost all the cave inscriptions follow the normal direction of writing from left to right. There are, however, exceptions where the inscriptions have been engraved from the right and/or with the letters turned upside down. These exceptional cases occur at Kilavalavu (No. ***10***), Tirupparankunram (Nos. ***53 & 54***), Muttuppatti (No. ***56***) and Kunnakkudi (No. ***74***). A special effort was made by our team to establish the correct texts and to ascertain the reason for the unusual mode of engraving in these cases. The results of our study of the unusual mode of engraving are reported in Chapter 5 in this volume.⁴

c21.s15.t2.9

⁴ See section 5.8.