chap04 Mirror of Tamiḻ and Sanskrit R. Nagaswamy chapter_03.html chapter_04.html chapter_05.html 4. THE ORIGIN OF BRĀHMI SCRIPT
Contents | Previous | Next | Academy
The earliest inscriptions in Tamiḻ land, often referred to as cave inscriptions have now been studied in detail by I. Mahadevan and a better picture is available now for comparative study. It can be now clearly demonstrated that the Tamiḻ script as we know them now as Brāhmi and also the Grantha script employed in writing Sanskrit in Tamiḻ land are, unquestionably derivatives from the characters. In the absence of any definite date, Scholars mainly rely on paleographic evidence to date the cave inscriptions; the earliest of them vary from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century C.E., a period of nearly 500 years. There are other investigators, whose approach to the subject is marked more by emotion than reason, who would, however, like to reject this suggestion and postulate the existence of an earlier script, independent of Brāhmi, about which little is known and which according to them has disappeared from the scene altogether. According to them the earliest body of Tamiḻ literature known as the Saṅgam classics depicts a society, absolutely uninfluenced by the Northern elements. K.V. Soundararajan suggests in his paper that there were, “Favourable chances for developing a simple script postulated by learned people with geometrical bias, out of a fused Āryo-Dravidian genius, in the period between 950 to 600 B.C.E.”. In the next column, he states “that concrete script emerged in public documents with a finite alphabetical pattern, distinctly separate from Dravidian tongues and script of the South”. Obviously, K.V. Soundararajan postulates a Dravidian script of the South, distinctly separate from the Northern script between 600 B.C.E. and 200 B.C.E. Neither has he cited even a single instance to prove the existence of a separate script of the South in such an early period, nor has he spelled out the reasons for the sudden separation of the Āryans and Dravidians in this period to have “a separate tongue and speech of their own, while in the immediately preceding period, there was a fusion of Āryo-Dravidian genius”.

4.1. Epigraphical Evidence

The language of the cave inscriptions is Tamiḻ with a mixture of Prākṛt words. The Tamiḻ grammars mention twelve vowels a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, e, ē, ai, o, ō and au. The eighteen consonants mentioned are ka, gna, cha, jña, ta, na, ta, na, pa, ma, ya, ra, la, va, la, ra, ña. Apart from the last four, the rest are common in both to Prākṛt and Tamiḻ languages. In the cave inscriptions, the vowels ai and au have not so far been found. According to Tamiḻ grammar, the short e and o will be distinguished from the long ones by the addition of dots. As the early cave inscriptions are mostly written on rugged surfaces, it is difficult to judge whether dots have been applied or not. Leaving aside these forms, if we consider the other letters, it is seen that the cave inscriptions, though in Tamiḻ language, are written in the same Brāhmi characters as in the North. No other script is found employed for writing Tamiḻ language either earlier to these cave records or contemporaneous with them. It has been demonstrated by Buhler, T.A. Gopinatha Rao, and K.V. Subramania Iyer that the modern Tamiḻ and Grantha scripts evolved from this cave script. More evidence has come to light in recent times, which has removed even the slightest doubt on this subject. We have seen that all the vowels and consonants used in these records are the same Brāhmi letters. The four special letters - ḻa, ḻ, ṟ, ṉ- found in the records will be discussed in the sequence. The Tamiḻ language has no use for the varga letters and in writing Tamiḻ words, the varga letters have not been employed. But in writing Prākṛt words the varga letters as dha, da, bha, śa, and ṣa, are employed without any hesitation. These are found not only in the cave inscriptions but also on potsherds, found in excavations at Koṟkai, Uṟaiyūr, Karūr, Arikkamēdu, and Kāñchipuram. We will now discuss some of the distinguishing features of the script employed in Tamiḻnāṭu. There are four special forms i.e., ḻa, la, ṟ, ṉ employed in cave inscriptions which are peculiar to the Tamiḻ language and therefore, considered special letters. It has been demonstrated clearly that the symbol standing for r is a combination of ṭ and ta. Regarding this sound, Caldwell has the following remarks: “The hard rough of the Dravidian languages is not found in Sanskrit and is not employed in pronouncing Sanskrit derivatives. In the use of this rough r in Tamiḻ, there are two peculiarities that are worthy of notice: (1) r when doubled, is pronounced as ttr. The 't' of this compound differs both from the soft dental t of the fourth varga and from the cerebral t. The double ttr or tt of the Tamiḻ (r) is sometimes softened in Telugu to a single t and in Kanarese still further into t, e.g., Tamiḻ Paṟṟu (a laying hold) is represented as Pattu in Telugu and Hattu in Kenarese. It is evident that the sound is a combination of ṭ and t and so when the Tamiḻs sought to represent the sound they used the symbol of ṭa and ta. Following the northern tradition of writing samyuktākshara (combined consonants) the ṭa was placed above and the ta below it”. This is another proof to show that the Tamiḻ script is a derivative. The sounds ḷa, and la are clearly based on the parent form with slight additions. A stroke is added to the right of Brāhmi la to represent this ḷa. Except for the trained ears, there is hardly any difference between la and ḷa. Also, a curve is added at the top right of Brāhmi dental na to represent the sound pa. These are clear adaptations. Regarding the sound ḻa sometimes written as zha, Coldwell has the following remarks. “Of these distinctively Dravidian semi-vowels is used most largely by Tamiḻ. Generally, Telugu uses da instead, as the Kanarese la”. This is now represented by a circle like tha with the Brāhmi da attached to it. Either it is written with a tha sign above and da below or the da superimposed on that sign. I. Mahadevan considers this to be an inverted da of Aśokan sign found in some edicts. But in such an Aśokan sign the da has a small dot at the bottom but in Tamiḻ there is a big circle underneath to which the da sign is added. It seems to me that following the method of writing samyutakshara in Brāhmi, the Tamiḻs have also used tha and da one above the other. Caldwell has shown that though this sound is used in Tamiḻ, it is pronounced differently in different Tamiḻ districts. The sound should have been a harsh da at least to the writers of the cave script. Thus, the two letters ṟa, and ḻ are denoted by conjunct letters of the Brāhmi and la and na shown with a slight addition to the Brāhmi equivalent. It is, therefore, clear that there is no letter in cave inscriptions that is not a Brāhmi letter.

4.2. Grammatical Evidence

The earliest Tamiḻ grammar so far available is Tolkāppiyam though an earlier work ascribed to Agastya is available only in fragments. The date of Tolkāppiyam is far from settled, but the most modest estimate places it in the beginning of the current era. Like Pāṇini and Bharata, Tolkāppiyar was a master grammarian paying meticulous attention to all aspects of grammar. Tolkāppiyam consists of three chapters - letter (eḻuttu), words (col) and meaning (poruḷ). The word used to denote script in Tamiḻ is eḻuttu. Tolkāppiyar uses it in two senses - the phonetic sense and the written sense. It is derived from the root eḻu, i.e., to pronounce, raise, or write. The commentators say that the script is intended for those who lack the finer sense of perception for whom written letters are introduced from among the 32 forms like square, circle, etc. Tolkāppiyar refers to many northern traditions of Āryan beliefs, such as the caste system, and so on, in the chapter on poruḷ, so much so, some Scholars consider many sūtras, in the chapter on script, deal with phonetic sound. However, a few as detailed below relate to the written script: I offer my remarks below on the above sūtras: Indication of a pure consonant with a dot is a new innovation. According to the above sūtra, the dot is added to remove the inherent a in the cononantal forms. The system adopted is a syllabury and not alphabetic. To denote a shortened m a dot is written within the consonantal form ma. This is obviously after Aśokan Brāhmi tradition which denotes anusvara with a dot. To shorten u at the end of a word (kuṟṟiyal - u) a dot is added (sūtra 105). To show the shortened e and o, a dot is added to the basic form. Sanskrit is devoid of short e and o. In the Tamiḻ script, the dot to denote short e and o is used though irregularly. Caldwell points out this as one of the arguments that may be adduced in favor of the theory of the derivation of that alphabet from the Sanskrit alphabet of Aśoka. In the early cave inscriptions, separate symbols for vowels ai and au are not found, though in vowel-consonants, like rai, dai, etc., the signs are used. In the Aśokan script, separate vowel signs for ai and au are not noticed. In this connection, the Tolkāppiyam sūtras Nos. 4, 55, where a + u is au and a + I becomes ai is interesting. These vowels could be represented by the combination of two were probably employed as such. We have seen that the Tamiḻ grammarians have innovated a dot to represent a pure consonant. From where did they get this idea of applying a dot? Indicating an anusvara by a single dot placed on the right top sometimes in the middle and very rarely at the bottom right, was well-known to Aśokan Brāhmi. The Tamiḻ grammar also prescribes a dot to denote shortened m (noting but anusvāra). Dani has drawn our attention to one interesting fact. ‘In the Jaugada Edict, there are three swastikas with curved arms and three mas engraved in the margin, one of the latter having a possible dot in the centre of its circle. It could be read as mam and taken to stand for manṅgala. “As these symbols definitely auspicious marks the attribution of alphabetic meaning to one of them seems far-fetched”. In this case, the dot inside the figure ma is to be noted. In Tolkāppiyam, there is a sūtra specifically prescribing a dot inside the figure of ma to shorten its sound. The reading of ma with a dot in the centre in Jaugada as ma seems to me as correct and the Tamiḻs have made use of the same’. In the cave inscriptions, the figures of the short vowels a, i, and u are the basic forms to which a horizontal stroke is added to denote the long vowels. This is the logical evolution. But in the case of short e and o, this logical system is not adopted. The forms of long vowels e are o are taken as the basic forms from which the short is derived by the dots. This would clearly demonstrate that the script adopted by the Tamiḻs was used in a language that did not have the short e and o sound. The idea that a dot could be used to shorten the sound is there in Aśokan which has been utilised by the Tamiḻs to shorten e and o besides the kuṟṟiyal u and m. This idea has been dexterously introduced to denote a pure consonant as well, where the placing of a dot removes or arrests the medial sound a. So, the original forms adopted for Tamiḻ had the a inherent in the letter and is obviously the syllabic system of the Aśokan Brāhmi. The innovation of a dot to denote a pure consonant seems to me an adoption from the Aśokan system. It has been demonstrated by P.S. Subrahmanya Sastri, that Tolkāppiyar was well-versed in Vedic grammars like Prātisakhyas, the Nirukta of Yaska and Panini’s Aṣṭhādhyayi. This is demonstrated from the chapter on letter (eḻuttu) which is considered original by all Scholars. With reference to the origin of sound speech, Tolkāppiyar directs the students to refer to the grammar of Vedic Brāhmaṇās for fuller studies. Thus, a study of Tamiḻ grammar, particularly with reference to script, clearly indicates, that the great grammarian Tolkāppiyar had before him northern Brāhmi models.

4.3. Literary Evidence

The earliest body of Tamiḻ literature called the Saṅgam works, is generally assigned to the period between 1st century B.C.E., and 2nd century C.E. There are many references in them to Roman contact. Archaeological excavations at Arikkamēdu, show that the active period of contact between the Tamiḻ country and Rome, was for about three centuries, from the end of the first century B.C.E. The Saṅgam works reveal that the Vedic sacrifices have become a part of Tamiḻ life. Almost all the celebrated rulers mentioned in the works performed Vedic sacrifices. Karikāla Cōḻā, the most outstanding of the Cōḻā rulers, performed a Vedic sacrifice on an altar prepared in the shape of a garuda - an obvious reference to garuda-chiti. The verse mentions that the performance was as enjoined in the Vedās. A descendant of this ruler named Peruṇarkilli, performed the Rājasūya-yāgā and assumed the title Rājasuyam Vetta Peruṇarkilli. Among the Pāṇḍyās, Mudukudimi Peruvaludi was a famous personality, who performed many Vedic sacrifices and was called Mudukudumi Peruvaḻudi of several yāgasālas. In fact, a poet singing his glories states the number of yupa-sthambhas erected by him, to commemorate the sacrifices he performed by pouring ahutis, of ghee as prescribed in the four Vedas was far greater than the pillars of victory he erected on the battlefields. Another celebrated ruler of the same line, Neduñceḻiyaṉ, the victor of Talaiyāḷaṅgaṇam, performed Vedic sacrifice aided by Brāhmaṇās well-versed in the four Vedas and served by many kings. Obviously, it is a reference to the Rājasuya-yāgā. A collection of poems called Patiṟṟup-pattu on the Cērā rulers, makes frequent references to the sacrifices made by various rulers of the dynasty. Apart from references to yajñās, the works also refer to four Vedās, Ṣadaṅgās, offering of ghee as ahuti (44) and also what is called Vikṣanakriya, in Mīmāmsā. The land of Cōḻā, Kiḷḷivaḷava was famous for the sacrifices made by the Vedic Brāhmaṇās. These references indicate the personal involvement of the ruling monarchs in the Vedic religion and the great regard they had for Vedic concepts. Apart from these references to yajñās, there are innumerable references to other northern traditions. The names of many poets of the Saṅgam age include gotra names of the Vedic followers such as Gārgi, Kosika, Kapila, Gautama, Sāndilya, Ātreya, Kaṣyapa, Vātula and Madala (Maudgalya). Some other names of poets are Achyuta, Dāmodaram, Rudra, Deva, Nātha, Kumāra, Sātta and Bhūta. These gotra names and the decidedly northern names indicate the integration of the northern traditions with the South from the very beginning of the Saṅgam age. While the Vedic tradition is so pointedly reflected in Saṅgam literature, there is no reference to either Buddhism or even Jainism, in the early Saṅgam age. At least the royal involvement directly in the propagation of these two religions is not mentioned in these works. In this connection a few points deserve to be remembered. The Tamiḻ country remained independent of Aśoka’s rule. Excavations even at such places as Kāviri-pūmp-pattiṇam, Kāñchi, Uṟaiyūr, Karūr, etc., in Tamiḻnāṭu have not yielded any large-scale Buddhist activity that could be assigned to the Saṅgam age. It should have taken at least two or three centuries to find a large number of votaries in Tamiḻ land. I. Mahadevan considered some of the cave inscriptions as belonging to the Buddhist order. In not a single cave, we find Buddhist vestiges even of a later date. On the contrary, in most of the cases, there are Jain Tirthankara images found carved on the rock itself in the 8th century C.E., as at Ānaimalai, Aḻagarmalai, Kongarpuliyaṅkulaṉ, etc. They show these caverns with inscriptions and have been held in high esteem by the Jain followers at least up to 8th-9th century C.E. Tamiḻ literature such as Sambandar’s Tēvaram, Tiruviḷaiyadal Puraṇam, etc., refer to these caverns as Jain abodes. These clearly refer to these caverns as Jain abodes. These clearly indicate that the cave inscriptions are the works of Jain monks. In one instance I. Mahadevan reads tavira and sapamit and concludes that they are Buddhist in nature pointing to Theravada Buddhism. The inscription occurs in Aḻagar-malai. Very near this inscription, there is a Jaina Tirthankara image assignable to the 8th century C.E. This indicates the cavern was dedicated to the Jain faith. The reading also is not beyond doubt. I have worked on these inscriptions. The inscriptions refer to a number of merchants from Madurai written as Mattirai. The word read by Mahadevan as Ma-ta-vi-ra is in fact Ma-t-ti-ra. A reference to Tavira-Theravada is doubtful. In the history of Tamiḻ land and its literature Jainas played a more important role, were numerically great, and have left more monuments, ar,t and literature. They did have an edge over the Buddhists, which indicates that they came to the Tamiḻ country in larger numbers and wielded gradual influence among the people and the royal courts. This is again reflected in royal patronage extended to Jainism as reflected in inscriptions. The Meenakshipuram epigraph shows the Pāṇḍyā’s grant while the Pugalūr inscription shows the Cēraās gift. In the lives of the Śaivite saints and Vaiṣnavite Āḻvārs, who lived in the 7th century C.E., the rulers of the time are said to have followed only Jainism before their conversion. Even at that period, there is no pointed reference to the king’s involvement in Buddhism. In none of the cave inscriptions the words connected with the Buddhist religion like Bhikkus, Saṅgha appear. All the cave inscriptions are, therefore, Jain in nature. It shows that even in the 1st - 2nd century. Buddhism was only on a low note in the Tamiḻ country. It has been mentioned that it was the Vedic religion that was mainly influential in the Tamiḻ country during the Saṅgam period. There is only one reference of royal patronage to Buddhism. It refers to the erection of a stūpa at Kāñchipuram by one Cōḻā Prince Iḷamkiḷḷi. But this is referred to in a later work viz. Maṇimēkhalai. Similarly, the reference to a stūpa erected by Aśoka at Kāñchipuram mentioned by Yuwan Chwang is also a later tradition. Our contention is not that Buddhism could not have come to Tamiḻnāṭu in the time of Aśoka. But Tamiḻ literature does not reflect the popularity of the religion. The paucity of archaeological evidence also points in the same direction. There is a verse in Saṅgam work mentioning a chieftain named Iruṅgovēl. The poet says that the chieftain was the 49th descendant of a race which ruled Dvāraka, and which emanated from the sacrificial pitcher of a northern sage. Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, the commentator on Tolkāppiyam records a tradition about the grammarian. (Tolkāppiyar was a disciple of Agastya who migrated from the North to the South, with 18 rulers, 18 families of chieftains, and innumerable other families from Dvāraka. These chieftains are called Vēḷir. One Ay Vēḷir ruling Vēnādu territory near Kanyākumari in the 8th century claims himself to be a descendant of the Yādava family in his copper plate charters. All this decidedly prove that there was a cultural migration from the Dvāraka region to the Tamiḻ country, spear-headed by Agastya a Vedic seer. This goes well with the literary tradition, which shows a strong base of Vedic religion in Tamiḻ Nadu of the Saṅgam age. It is now clear that the Brāhmi script spread throughout the dominion of Aśoka because of the tremendous zeal, and authoritative power. The traders and Jainas have taken this soon after, whose inscriptions are generally ascribed to the 2nd or 1st century B.C.E. Even if a minimum of one hundred years are given for the adoption of the script to the Tamiḻ language, it would indicate only the first century B.C.E., as the period for its introduction in a majority of the inscriptions falling within the current era. The earliest cave inscriptions could at best be assigned only to the first century B.C.E., Epigraphical, archaeological, literary, and grammatical evidence point in the same direction.
Contents | Previous | Next | Academy