Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s4.t2: 2.4.2 Discovery of the special Tamil characters
Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s4.t2
- Language
- English
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.