Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s4: 2.4 Breakthrough: Subrahmanya Aiyer's decipherment

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s4

Language
English

Contents

2.4 Breakthrough: Subrahmanya Aiyer's decipherment

c21.s4.1

The paper by Subrahmanya Aiyer presented at the Third Oriental Conference held at Madras (Chennai) is the breakthrough leading to an understanding of the real nature of the script and language of the Tamil cave inscriptions.⁸ In this paper, he presented his readings and interpretations of 30 inscriptions from 12 sites. While his readings of individual inscriptions are not without problems as we shall see presently, his elucidation of the phonological structure of the script, crucial identification of the special characters for the Tamil sounds *ḻ*, *ṟ* and *ṉ*, and his demonstration that the language of the cave inscriptions is basically Old Tamil with an admixture of Prakrit loanwords have remained valid and constitute the real point of departure for all further work in the field.

c21.s4.2

⁸ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: pp. 275-300 (=KVS).

2.4.1 Phonological structure of the script

c21.s4.t1.1

Subrahmanya Aiyer begins by pointing to a "powerful misguiding factor" that what is written in Brāhmī must necessarily be in Pāli or Sanskrit, as the script and the language are "inseparably associated in our minds".¹ Having freed himself from this assumption, he proceeds to delineate the phonological structure of the script employed in the cave inscriptions as follows.²

c21.s4.t1.2

¹ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 282.

c21.s4.t1.3

² Ibid. pp. 283-284.

c21.s4.t1.4

(1) The *varga-prathamas* have generally been used.
(2) The soft consonants i.e., the *varga-tṛtīyas* are conspicuous by their absence.
(3) *śa* and *ṣha* are not met with, though *sa* is occasionally found.
(4) The lingual *ḷa* occurs frequently.
(5) Almost all the vowels with the exception of *ai*, *au*, *ṛi*, *lṛ*, *aṁ* and *aḥ* are represented.
(6) In the case of combined consonants the occurrence of short *e* and *o* deserve special attention, the two being the special characteristics of the Dravidian alphabets.³
(7) The aspirates are seldom used; the only two letters that are met with are *ṭha*⁴ and *dha*.
(8) Some symbols which never find use in the contemporary Asokan edicts are here employed and the sounds which they represent remain to be determined. This is a factor which at once points out that the language employed in the inscriptions contains sounds that could not be represented by the symbols extant in the Asokan code.

c21.s4.t1.5

³ The reference is obviously to the short *e* and *o* sounds in Dravidian, which are not, however, graphically represented in the early cave inscriptions.

c21.s4.t1.6

⁴ *ṭh* does not in fact occur. The earlier form of *ḻ* was misread as *ṭh* by Krishna Sastri and Subrahmanya Aiyer.

c21.s4.t1.7

Subrahmanya Aiyer also drew pointed attention to the complete absence of conjunct consonants in this script.⁵ His analysis decisively ruled out Indo-Aryan as the language of the cave inscriptions.

c21.s4.t1.8

⁵ Ibid. p. 288.

2.4.2 Discovery of the special Tamil characters

c21.s4.t2.1

***ḻ*: The letter *ḻ* was first identified in the cave inscription at Tirupparankunram.**⁶ Krishna Sastri commented that "one can venture to say that it is somewhat like the modern Tamil letter *ḻa*".⁷ However, he did not venture far enough and finally opted to read it as *jaṁ* on the basis of its "very slight" similarity to the Asokan *j* at Khalsi.¹ Subrahmanya Aiyer identified the letter as *l* on the basis of its remarkable resemblance to the modern Tamil form.² As he pointed out, its significance would not have been missed but for its association with Brāhmī. The identification suited the context as it produced a recognisable Tamil word (*īla-*). The correctness of the identification has been amply confirmed by later discoveries of the letter in appropriate linguistic context in stone and pottery inscriptions.

c21.s4.t2.2

⁶ Corpus: No. 55.

c21.s4.t2.3

⁷ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: p. 336, n.7.

c21.s4.t2.4

¹ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: p. 336, n.7.

c21.s4.t2.5

² K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924 : pp. 284-285.

c21.s4.t2.6

However, even Subrahmanya Aiyer could not identify the still earlier form of the letter *l* with the 'circular top' found at Mangulam and other early sites, and misread most of the occurrences as *ṭh*.³ It was only in 1946 that the earlier form was correctly identified and illustrated in the palaeographic chart published in the report on the excavation at Arikamedu.⁴

c21.s4.t2.7

³ Cf. Nos. *2*, *3*, *34*, *43* & *44* for the older forms of *l*, which were not correctly identified in K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924.

c21.s4.t2.8

⁴ R.E.M. Wheeler *et al.* 1946: Fig. 45 at p. 110. Subrahmanya Aiyer was one of the experts contributing to this section in Wheeler's report. The following comment is made on this letter in the report (p. 111): "The letter *la* has a more circular form in the cavern inscriptions, whilst at Arikamedu it has the almost modern open form. This is a point in favour of a later date for the Arikamedu graffiti".

c21.s4.t2.9

***r*: Krishna Sastri noticed the occurrence of two unusual letters in the cave inscription at Anaimalai,⁵ "the formation of which is not found elsewhere". He attempted to read them as *ḍu* and *ḍai*, but admitted that the readings were not certain and wondered whether they might be "conjunct consonants".⁶ Subrahmanya Aiyer was able to identify the letter correctly as *r*.⁷ He inferred from the shape of the letter resembling "a badly shaped *ṭu*" that it must be allied in sound with *ṭ*. He drew attention to the addition of medial signs to the letter, which showed that it must be a simple consonant and not a 'conjunct consonant' as suggested by Krishna Sastri. He pointed out that the only letter allied to *ṭ* for which a new character had to be added to the Asokan Brāhmī was the Dravidian *r*. He located the clinching evidence in the cluster *-nr-* occurring in the word *kunra-* 'hill' in the Anaimalai inscription itself, which conclusively established the value of the letter in question as *r*.⁸ Subsequent discoveries of the letter in stone and pottery inscriptions have fully confirmed the correctness of the identification.

c21.s4.t2.10

⁵ Corpus: No. *60*.

c21.s4.t2.11

⁶ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: 334, n.3.

c21.s4.t2.12

⁷ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 285.

c21.s4.t2.13

⁸ Ibid. pp. 294-295.

c21.s4.t2.14

However, even Subrahmanya Aiyer was not always able to distinguish between *r* and *ṭu* in the earlier inscriptions. The letter *r* occurs ten times in the inscriptions read by him; he was able to identify the letter correctly only in four cases and misread the other occurrences mostly as *ṭu*.⁹

c21.s4.t2.15

⁹ The letter *r* was correctly identified by Subrahmanya Aiyer in Nos. *11* (once), *49* (once), and *60* (twice), but not in Nos. *3*, *6*, *11* (once), *12* (twice) and *49* (once).

c21.s4.t2.16

***ṉ***: The most frequent letter in the Tamil cave inscriptions resembles an inverted J. It does not occur in the Brāhmī script, but looks somewhat like the *nā* of the Bhattiprolu script, which misled Krishna Sastri to identify it as *nā* of the "Bhattiprolu type".¹ Subrahmanya Aiyer took a different line and was successful in identifying the letter as the alveolar nasal *n* in Tamil. It is instructive to follow his line of reasoning summarised below.²

c21.s4.t2.17

¹ H. Krishna Sastri 1919: p. 337, n. 11 and p. 348.

c21.s4.t2.18

² K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 284.

c21.s4.t2.19

(i) The letter is the most frequent one in the cave inscriptions and generally occurs in word-final position.

c21.s4.t2.20

(ii) The letter cannot be *nā* which also occurs in the same inscription along with the new letter.

c21.s4.t2.21

(iii) The only letter in Tamil which is mostly word-final and is allied in sound to *n* is *n*.

c21.s4.t2.22

(iv) The value *n* fits the context in all cases (see especially *kunra-* 'hill' in the Anaimalai inscription).

c21.s4.t2.23

It is no exaggeration to claim that Subrahmanya Aiyer's identification of the correct values of the special Tamil characters for *ḷ*, *r* and *n* is a feat which places him in the front rank of palaeographers along with Prinsep and Bühler.

2.4.3 Identification of Tamil grammatical elements

c21.s4.t3.1

Subrahmanya Aiyer was the first to demonstrate convincingly the presence of grammatical features of the Tamil language in the cave inscriptions. Among the features pointed out by him are the following.³

c21.s4.t3.2

³ Ibid. pp. 286-287 & 296.

c21.s4.t3.3

(i) Pronominal terminations *-an*, *-ān*, *-ōn* and *-ōr*.

c21.s4.t3.4

(ii) Neuter nominative suffix *-m*.

c21.s4.t3.5

(iii) The archaic genitive case-ending *-a*.

c21.s4.t3.6

(iv) Verb forms like *kuṭupita*, *ceyta*, *piranta*, etc.

2.4.4 Language of cave inscriptions

c21.s4.t4.1

Subrahmanya Aiyer's analysis not only ruled out Indo-Aryan as the language of the cave inscriptions, but also established convincingly that the language is Old Tamil with an admixture of Prakrit loanwords. His conclusion that "it is quite consistent that in a Tamil country, the inscriptions, meant to be understood by the race, which is not known to have spoken any other language must be Tamil"⁴ has never been seriously disputed thereafter.

c21.s4.t4.2

⁴ Ibid. p. 286.

2.4.5 Problems with Subrahmanya Aiyer's readings

c21.s4.t5.1

A study of Subrahmanya Aiyer's work reveals that in spite of the correct premises he proceeded from, his readings were often less than successful mainly on account of the following reasons.

c21.s4.t5.2

(a) *Incorrect orthography

c21.s4.t5.3

Subrahmanya Aiyer was aware that the orthographic conventions relating to medial vowels in the Tamil cave inscriptions were different from those of the Asokan Brāhmī script. He refers to the Bhattiprolu casket inscriptions and actually cites Bühler's crucial discovery that "the medial short *-a* is indicated in the Southern Mauryan script by the addition of a horizontal stroke to the top of the consonant, which denotes the long *-ā* in Mauryan", but rejects its application to the cave inscriptions on the ground that "the addition of the horizontal stroke without any further change represents the long *-ā* in the Pāṇḍyan inscriptions".¹ Subrahmanya Aiyer's alternative suggestion that there is "unnecessary lengthening of penultimate short consonants (read syllables) in some words"² is not supported even by his own readings; e.g., *sālākāṇa* > *sālakaṇ*, where the last two vowels are 'lengthened'. The simpler solution that, unlike at Bhattiprolu, the medial stroke represented both *-a* and *-ā* according to the context in the cave inscriptions did not occur to him.

c21.s4.t5.4

¹ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 283.

c21.s4.t5.5

² Ibid.p. 286.

c21.s4.t5.6

(b) *Overestimating the Prakrit element

c21.s4.t5.7

According to Subrahmanya Aiyer, "a large number of Sanskrit words in their Prākṛit forms" occur in these records.³ Later studies have shown that he tended to overestimate the presence of the Indo-Aryan element in these records, though not perhaps to the same extent as was done by Krishna Sastri. Many of the so-called Prakrit words turn out to be due to incorrect reading. For example, out of the fifteen words listed by Subrahmanya Aiyer in their Sanskrit form to illustrate his point, about half the number do not in fact occur in the inscriptions read by him.⁴

c21.s4.t5.8

³ Ibid.

c21.s4.t5.9

⁴ Ibid. *karaṇi*, *kārita*, *kula*, *caitya*, *putra*, *yaksha* and *vatsa* in this list are the result of misread words.

c21.s4.t5.10

(c) *Reliance on unsatisfactory estampages

c21.s4.t5.11

Even though Subrahmanya Aiyer discovered many of the cave inscriptions and had seen most others *in situ*, he appears to have edited the inscriptions for publication relying on unsatisfactory estampages of weather-worn inscriptions. Otherwise, the mixing up of estampages at Mangulam and the incorrect sequence of reading the inscriptions at Kongarpuliyankulam, Vikkiramangalam and Mettuppatti could not have happened.⁵ I have no doubt that direct editing from the stone would have produced more accurate texts in most cases.

c21.s4.t5.12

⁵ See notes on locus in Nos. **3**, **12**, **13**, **21**, **27** and **28**. K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer himself states that his interpretations are based "mostly on the three plates given by Mr. Krishna Sastri" (1924: p. 282).

c21.s4.t5.13

(d) *Some 'strange' readings

c21.s4.t5.14

The cumulative effect of the problems discussed above has been to produce some strange readings as the examples given below show. (The upper lines in normal type reproduce Subrahmanya Aiyer's readings, while the lower lines in italics are the corresponding texts in the present Corpus).

c21.s4.t5.15

(1) **veḷ aḍaiy nikāmatāko potir yakāsīti kāaritāva . . .**¹
***veḷ-aṟai-y nikamatu kāviti-iy kāḷitika antai . . .***

(2) **ūpācāa pōta neṭula vōccō koṭu paḷiī.**²
***upaca-aṉ toṇṭi=lavōṉ koṭu paḷi-i.***

(3) **kuṭu koṭālaku itātāviṇ ceṭu atāṉ lēṇ.**³
***kuṟu koṭalku ittavaṉ ceṟ-ataṉ-ōṉ.***

c21.s4.t5.16

¹ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 292: No. IVC= No. *3*.

c21.s4.t5.17

² Ibid. p. 294: No. V=No. *10*.

c21.s4.t5.18

³ Ibid. p. 295: No. VIIIC=No. *12*.

2.4.6 Assessment of Subrahmanya Aiyer's work

c21.s4.t6.1

Notwithstanding the errors in Subrahmanya Aiyer's readings of individual inscriptions, which have been corrected by later research, his basic findings on the phonological structure of the script and nature of the language of the cave inscriptions have remained intact. They have provided the secure foundation for further work which has revealed that the cave inscriptions turn out to be in simple and intelligible Tamil when read with proper values for characters and with appropriate orthographic conventions.

Linked texts (2)