Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s9: 2.9 The first book on cave inscriptions

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c21.s9

Language: English

2.9 The first book on cave inscriptions

c21.s9.1

In 1967, Mahalingam published the first book-length study of the Tamil cave inscriptions. In this volume, Mahalingam presented his readings and interpretations of 54 inscriptions from 17 sites discovered up to the end of 1962.¹¹ For the first time, almost all the inscriptions included in the volume have been illustrated with photographs of reasonable size supplied by the ASI. About 20 of the photographs appear here for the first time.

c21.s9.2

¹¹ T.V. Mahalingam 1967: pp. 201-298 (=TVM).

c21.s9.3

Publishing his work in the late sixties of the last century, Mahalingam started with several distinct advantages. The language of the cave inscriptions had been proved to be Tamil, and the four special Tamil characters *ḻ*, *ḷ*, *ṟ* and *ṉ* had been identified. The presence of the Bhattiprolu convention and the Tamil *puḷḷi* in the cave inscriptions were known to him. The number of inscriptions had almost doubled providing more material for comparative study.

c21.s9.4

In spite of these advantages, Mahalingam's readings and interpretations are disappointing. The failure is almost certainly due to his reliance on photographs of estampages and his apparent omission to check the readings *in situ*.¹ Had he done so, he could not have missed the longest Pāṇṭiya and Cēra inscriptions respectively at Mangulam and Pugalur not included in his book; ² he would have also avoided the mix-up of estampages at Mangulam, the incorrect order of reading the inscriptions at Kongarpuliyankulam and Mettuppatti ³ and quite a few incorrect readings (like *ṭ* for *ṟ* and *ṭh* for *ḻ*).⁴ Following Subramanian, Mahalingam also claimed to have found the presence of two strokes attached to consonants to indicate the *-ā* medial vowel in two of the inscriptions edited by him.⁵ This claim is also not borne out by actual evidence *in situ*.⁶

c21.s9.5

¹ Except Kunnakkudi and Arachalur caves which he visited (T.V. Mahalingam 1958 and 1962 respectively).

c21.s9.6

² Nos. *1* and *62* respectively.

c21.s9.7

³ T.V. Mahalingam (1967) follows the incorrect order in K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924.

c21.s9.8

⁴ E.g., *veḷ-aṭai* for *veḷ-aṟai* (T.V. Mahalingam 1967: No. 1 D & E at pp. 210-211); *eṭhuyūr* for *eḻaiy-ūr* (ibid. p. 213).

c21.s9.9

⁵ T.V. Mahalingam 1967: p. 228, n.6; pp. 253-254.

c21.s9.10

⁶ See n.3, No. *11* and n.4, No. *55*.

c21.s9.11

Mahalingam's interpretations, even when the readings are clear, lack plausibility in many cases. For example, he segments *koṭupitavaṉ* (LT *koṭuppittavaṉ* 'he who caused to be given') as *kōṭu* 'hill' and *pitavāṉ*, linking the latter to Skt. *pitā* 'father'; ⁷ he reads *poṉ* 'gold' for which he suggests the alternative meanings of 'Mount Mēru' or 'trap' or 'cavern'; ⁸ he reads *ita* and interprets it as 'Indra'; ⁹ the personal name *ātaṉ* is derived from Skt. *āpta* and interpreted as "a holy person belonging to the Ājīvika faith"; ¹⁰ in none of these cases, the suggested interpretations fit the context.