Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s16.t1: 2.16.1 Chronology of pottery inscriptions in Tamil-Brāhmī

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s16.t1

Language: English

2.16.1 Chronology of pottery inscriptions in Tamil-Brāhmī

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.