Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s16: 2.16 Chronology of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s16

Language
English

Contents

2.16 Chronology of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions

c21.s16.1

The chronology of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions has not been free from controversy. The earlier investigators, Venkayya, Krishna Sastri and Subrahmanya Aiyer⁵ assigned the cave inscriptions discovered by them to about the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. on the ground that the characters resembled those of the Asokan edicts. This is a matter of direct and verifiable observation, and the criticism that the dating is based "on grounds which are largely theoretical" is hardly justified.⁶ Comparison with the Brāhmī inscriptions of Sri Lanka and the Bhattiprolu casket inscriptions confirms broadly the dating of the earliest Tamil cave inscriptions in the last centuries B.C. The chronology became controversial only when the earlier date was sought to be applied mechanically to inscriptions with late palaeographic features discovered subsequently as at Pugalur (*ARE* 1927-28) and Mamandur (*ARE* 1939-40).

c21.s16.2

⁵ V. Venkayya, *ARE 1906-07: paragraph* 3. H. Krishna Sastri, *ARE 1909-10: paragraph* 1. K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 280.

c21.s16.3

⁶ R. E. M. Wheeler *et al.* 1946: p. 109.

2.16.1 Chronology of pottery inscriptions in Tamil-Brāhmī

c21.s16.t1.1

(a) *Arikamedu:

c21.s16.t1.2

A major turning point in the study of Tamil-Brāhmī was reached when for the first time pottery inscriptions in this script were discovered in the excavations at Arikamedu. Wheeler assigned all the pottery inscriptions found at the site to the first two centuries A.D. based more on the evidence of associated imported Roman ware than of strict stratification.¹ Dani relied on the Arikamedu evidence to date the Tamil cave inscriptions to the first century A.D.² However, the coexistence of a Hybrid Sanskrit inscription in the Northern Brāhmī script of ca. 1st century A.D. with Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions in apparently earlier forms at Arikamedu is the result of the slower pace of evolution of Tamil-Brāhmī when compared to Brāhmī.³ This explanation is sufficient to reconcile the apparent discrepancy between the palaeographic and archaeological evidence at Arikamedu. A proper interpretation of the evidence from the pottery inscriptions at this site would be that the earlier palaeographic forms preserved in them must have been borrowed originally when such forms were still current, that is, not later than about the 2nd century B.C. The earliest Tamil cave inscriptions represent this stage.

c21.s16.t1.3

¹ R.E.M. Wheeler *et al.* 1946: p. 109.

c21.s16.t1.4

² A. H. Dani 1963 (Indian edition 1986): pp. 73-74.

c21.s16.t1.5

³ The pottery inscription in the Northern Brāhmī script of ca. 1st century A.D. is illustrated in Wheeler *et al.* 1946: Pl. XLI, No. 3 and discussed by Dani (1986: pp. 73-74) and I. Mahadevan (1973: No. 1). The inscription is exotic and its palaeography has no bearing on the local developments at Arikamedu.

c21.s16.t1.6

At Arikamedu itself, evidence has been accumulating that the time-spread for pottery inscriptions is wider than assumed by Wheeler. Vimala Begley has argued persuasively for a longer period from ca. 250 B.C. to 200 A.D.⁴ In particular, she has drawn attention to an important piece of evidence overlooked earlier viz., the inscribed sherd found in the excavation by Casal from the megalithic and Iron Age levels predating Roman trade at this site.⁵ According to the revised chronology proposed by Vimala Begley, the sherd is assigned to Phase A (mid-third to mid-second century B.C.).⁶ More recently, Vimala Begley has further modified the time-spread at Arikamedu to be between 200 B.C. and 300 A.D., with Phase A between 200 and 150 B.C.⁷

c21.s16.t1.7

⁴ Vimala Begley 1983: pp. 461-482, see especially Table at p. 466.

c21.s16.t1.8

⁵ J. M. Casal 1949: Pl. XIII-D. For a good photograph of the inscription, see Fig. 5.17 in Vimala Begley *et al.* 1996: p. 304. For the most recent reading of the inscription by I. Mahadevan, see *ibid.* p. 305.

c21.s16.t1.9

⁶ Vimala Begley 1983: Table at p. 466.

c21.s16.t1.10

⁷ Vimala Begley 1997: The Dating of Arikamedu and its Bearing on the Archaeology of Early Historical South India (unpublished).

c21.s16.t1.11

At the other end of the timescale, some pottery inscriptions from Arikamedu have to be assigned to ca. 3rd century A.D. on the basis of palaeographic evolution.¹ There is also evidence that the site was occupied even in the medieval period. Furthermore, Arikamedu inscriptions are no longer confined to a single orthographic type (TB-II) as assumed by me earlier on the basis of the evidence available at that time. It is now known that all the three orthographic types (TB-I to III) are present at Arikamedu as in the cave inscriptions, though not in the same proportion.² For these reasons, Arikamedu can no longer be considered to be the "sheet anchor" for the chronology of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions as I described it earlier (1971).³

c21.s16.t1.12

¹ These are illustrated and discussed in I. Mahadevan 1996a: Nos. 5.6, 5.7, 5.28 and 5.30 at pp. 297-315. Some of the pottery inscriptions published earlier (Wheeler *et al.* 1946: Figs. 46 & 47, Nos. 4 & 15) have also to be assigned to ca. 3rd century A.D. on palaeographic grounds.

c21.s16.t1.13

² See I. Mahadevan 1996a: p. 295 for a list of the pottery inscriptions from Arikamedu belonging to TB-I and III types; all the remaining ones are in TB-II type.

c21.s16.t1.14

³ I. Mahadevan 1971: p. 84. See also section 6.12 in this vol. for discussion.

c21.s16.t1.15

(b) *Other sites*

c21.s16.t1.16

More recent excavations at ancient sites in Tamil Nadu have yielded an abundance of pottery inscriptions in Tamil-Brāhmī (see Table 1.4 and Map 2). Taking into account the other major sites alone, the inscribed pottery at Uraiyur has been assigned to ca. 1st century B.C., at Kodumanal from ca. 2nd century B.C. to 2nd century A.D. and at Alagankulam from ca. 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.⁴

c21.s16.t1.17

⁴ For discussion on dates of pottery inscriptions at these sites, see K.V. Raman (ed.) 1988: p. 71; Y. Subbarayalu: Report on Kodumanal Excavations 1988: p. 67 (unpublished); A. Abdul Majeed *et al.* 1992: pp. 12-13 respectively.

2.16.2 Changing trends in the chronology of cave inscriptions

c21.s16.t2.1

In the meanwhile, Wheeler's chronology at Arikamedu has had its impact on the dating of the cave inscriptions discovered later by the ASI. Thus the additional inscriptions discovered at Mangulam, Muttuppatti and Alagarmalai were assigned to ca. 1st century B.C. and those at Vikkiramangalam and Pugalur to ca. 1st century A.D. (*ARE 1963-64*) even though these inscriptions occur in the same caves along with inscriptions dated earlier to ca. 3rd or 2nd century B.C. The inscriptions discovered at Arachalur were assigned to ca. 3rd century A.D. (*ARE 1961-62*) and at Ammankoyilpatti to ca. 4th or 5th century A.D. (*ARE 1979-80*). The recognition that not all cave inscriptions belong to the same period is a welcome development; but the dates assigned to the recent discoveries in the *ARE* appear to be *ad hoc* and, except in very few cases, not supported by discussion of the palaeographic evidence. More recently there has been a backlash reflected in earlier dates being proposed again for the most recent discoveries as at Mettuppatti assigned to ca. 3rd century B.C. (*ARE 1985-86*).

2.16.3 Chronological classification

c21.s16.t3.1

Detailed chronological classification of all the cave inscriptions discovered up to the time was proposed almost simultaneously by Mahalingam⁵ and Mahadevan.⁶ These classifications are based on palaeographic evolution and orthographic conventions in the inscriptions. The dates assigned range between ca. 3rd century B.C. for Mangulam to ca. 4th century A.D. for Arachalur. The two lists are broadly in agreement with each other within the relatively narrow range of one century either way. Another slightly modified chronological scheme was also published by me in 1992, taking into account the occurrence of the *puḷḷi* in the cave inscriptions.¹

c21.s16.t3.2

⁵ T. V. Mahalingam 1967: p. 200.

c21.s16.t3.3

⁶ *Corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmī Inscriptions 1966* (1968): Appendix I at pp. 69-73.

c21.s16.t3.4

¹ I. Mahadevan 1992: Appendix at pp. 166-167.

2.16.4 Reappraisal of chronological evidence

c21.s16.t4.1

As part of the present comprehensive study, it was decided to take a fresh look into the relative and absolute chronology of the Tamil-Brāhmī and Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions included in the Corpus. Relative chronology is based on palaeographic evolution (recorded in the Palaeographic Charts included in Chapter 5) and developments in the orthographic and linguistic features of the inscriptions. Absolute chronology is based on datable external contacts as in the case of the presence of Tamil-Brāhmī characters in Early Sinhala-Brāhmī inscriptions in Sri Lanka and in Southern Brāhmī inscriptions in the Deccan. Conversely, the discovery of Brāhmī and Early Sinhala-Brāhmī inscriptions on pottery found in datable contexts in the Tamil sites and the presence of datable Southern Brāhmī features in Late Tamil-Brāhmī cave inscriptions in the border regions also help to determine absolute dates for Tamil-Brāhmī. The discovery of Tamil-Brāhmī pottery inscriptions from the Red Sea ports in Egypt has provided valuable evidence of external trade contacts. While the results of these studies are included in the respective chapters in this volume, a brief summary of the more important evidence forming the basis for the chronology of Early Tamil inscriptions is given below.²

c21.s16.t4.2

² See also Tables 2.1 & 2.2 appended to this chapter.

2.16.5 Palaeographic evidence

c21.s16.t5.1

(i) *Mauryan Brāhmī

c21.s16.t5.2

The fundamental basis for dating Early Tamil-Brāhmī is its obviously close resemblance to Mauryan Brāhmī. The near-identity in the shapes of the common letters and medial vowel signs between the two leaves no reasonable doubt that Tamil-Brāhmī was formed from Brāhmī before the end of the Mauryan Age. A small but significant detail is the formation of the Tamil-Brāhmī *ḻ* from the rare Asokan *ḍ* not known to have been in use after his time.³

c21.s16.t5.3

³ See sections 5.4, 5.6.1 and 5.12.1 (b); Palaeographic Charts 1 to 3.

c21.s16.t5.4

(ii) *Occurrence of Brāhmī letters in Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions

c21.s16.t5.5

The Brāhmī letters *dh* and *s* occur only in Early Tamil-Brāhmī cave inscriptions, the latter occurring also in the legends on coins, seals and rings. The presence of Brāhmī letters with non-Tamil sounds indicates an early date corroborated by palaeographic evidence.⁴

c21.s16.t5.6

⁴ See section 5.5 (n. 2).

c21.s16.t5.7

(iii) *Sinhala-Brāhmī

c21.s16.t5.8

Early Tamil-Brāhmī and Early Sinhala-Brāhmī also resemble each other very closely indicating their descent from Mauryan Brāhmī at about the same time. As Early Sinhala-Brāhmī has been dated with the help of a few royal inscriptions from about the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 2nd century B.C., Early Tamil-Brāhmī can also be placed in the same period. The earliest common structural feature is the absence of conjunct consonants in both the scripts. The two scripts also share the special forms of *ī* (read as *i*), *m* and *ḷ*, all of which get replaced in Late Sinhala-Brāhmī by the corresponding Southern Brāhmī forms. Recent discoveries of the occurrence of the special Tamil-Brāhmī letters of *ḻ*, *ṟ* and *ṉ* (in addition to *ḷ* known earlier) in Early Sinhala-Brāhmī inscriptions provide confirmation that Early Tamil-Brāhmī and Early Sinhala-Brāhmī are coeval.¹

c21.s16.t5.9

¹ See sections 5.6.4; 5.12.1 (e), 2 (c), 3 (c) & 4 (c); Figs. 5.5, 5.7 & 5.8.

c21.s16.t5.10

(iv) *Southern Brāhmī*

c21.s16.t5.11

The 'circular top' form of Tamil-Brāhmī *ḻ* occurs in the Ikshvaku inscription of ca. 3rd century A.D. at Gurzala in Andhra. By this time however, the character in Tamil-Brāhmī had evolved into the 'loop' form. The preservation of the archaic form in the Ikshvaku record indicates that the 'circular' form of *ḻ* in the Proto-Telugu-Kannada script originated from Tamil-Brāhmī.² The Tamil-Brāhmī form of *ḷ* occurs uniquely in the Prakrit inscription of ca. 1st century A.D. at Malakonda in Andhra.³

c21.s16.t5.12

² See section 5.12.1(g).

c21.s16.t5.13

³ See section 5.12.2 (d).

c21.s16.t5.14

There has been movement in the reverse direction also. Southern Brāhmī forms are seen in the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions during the Late Period (ca. 2nd to 4th centuries A.D.) in the border regions of the Tamil country adjoining Andhra and Karnataka. The Southern Brāhmī forms with known dates help in determining the dates of the less well-known Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions in which the forms occur; e.g., *v* at Pugalur and *k* and *m* at Mamandur (ca. 3rd century A.D.); *k* and *t* at Ammankoyilpatti and *k* at Arachalur (ca. 4th century A.D.)⁴

c21.s16.t5.15

⁴ See sections 5.6.2 and 5.11; Palaeographic Charts 5A, 5B & 6.

c21.s16.t5.16

(v) *Legends on Sātavāhana coins*

c21.s16.t5.17

The legends on the reverse of the famous series of silver portrait coins issued by the Sātavāhanas in ca. 1st-3rd centuries A.D. are in Tamil in the Late Tamil-Brāhmī script. The occurrence of the Late Tamil-Brāhmī forms of *c* and *m* and the distinctive Tamil-Brāhmī characters *ḻ* and *ṉ* and the *puḷḷi* in the coin legends are noteworthy. As the coins are of known dates, the Tamil-Brāhmī characters occurring in them help to date the inscriptions with similar forms.⁵

c21.s16.t5.18

⁵ See section 5.15 and Figs. 5.9 & 5.10.

c21.s16.t5.19

(vi) *Pottery inscriptions*

c21.s16.t5.20

The increasing numbers of pottery inscriptions in Tamil-Brāhmī from Tamil sites and from outside Tamil Nadu provide a powerful new method to determine the chronology and evolution of Tamil-Brāhmī. The presently available dates for pottery inscriptions range from ca. 200 B.C. to 300 A.D.⁶

c21.s16.t5.21

⁶ See section 1.13, Tables 1.4 & 1.5 and Map 2.

2.16.6 Orthographic evidence

c21.s16.t6.1

A method of dating uniquely applicable only to Tamil-Brāhmī is the relative chronology of the three successive (though overlapping) stages of orthographic conventions known as TB-I to III.

c21.s16.t6.2

It is now becoming possible to fix absolute dates also by this method, as all the three orthographic stages have also been found in excavated pottery inscriptions whose dates have been determined by other methods.¹

c21.s16.t6.3

The Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions have some orthographic peculiarities like the use of *ī* for *i*, *ū* for *u*, etc., not continued in the Late Period. Their presence indicates an earlier date which is generally corroborated by palaeographic evidence.²

2.16.7 Linguistic evidence

c21.s16.t7.1

Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions have many archaic lexical items (e.g., *antai* as a free word) and rare grammatical usages (e.g., *-a* as the genitive suffix) which are not found in the Late Period. Causative verb forms are more frequent in the Early Period, rare in the Late Period and absent in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions. The causative suffix *-(p)pi-* is much more frequent than *-vi-* in the Early Period. By about the 5th century A.D., that is, from the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu Period, Sanskrit supplants Prakrit as the source of loanwords from Indo-Aryan (e.g., *irācar* < *rājan*). The presence of archaic linguistic features indicates an earlier date which is generally corroborated by palaeographic evidence.³

c21.s16.t7.2

³ See sections 3.2.2 (v) and 3.2.3 (vi).

2.16.8 Revised chronological scheme

c21.s16.t8.1

The chronological scheme adopted in this study has been somewhat simplified as follows.

c21.s16.t8.2

| Early Tamil-Brāhmī Period | : ca. 2nd century B.C. to 1st century A.D. |
| Late Tamil-Brāhmī Period | : ca 2nd to 4th centuries A.D. |
| Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu Period | : ca. 5th and 6th centuries A.D. |

c21.s16.t8.3

The present Corpus is arranged in an approximate chronological order as follows.

c21.s16.t8.4

| Early Tamil-Brāhmī Period | : *Inscriptions 1-59* |
| Late Tamil-Brāhmī Period | : *Inscriptions 60-89* |
| Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu Period | : *Inscriptions 101-121* |

c21.s16.t8.5

An attempt has also been made to determine the dates of the inscriptions century-wise rather than assign them to periods of two centuries each as in my earlier attempts (1968, 1992). The following two Tables (2.¹ & 2.²) arrange the inscriptions in chronological and alphabetical order respectively; Table 2.2 also includes data on the orthographic types (TB-I to III) of the inscriptions.

c21.s16.t8.6

¹ See section 6.12.

c21.s16.t8.7

² See sections 2.14, 6.14 to 6.19.

Linked texts (1)