Perceptive scholars of Indian epigraphy, including Tamil
epigraphy, well versed in the relevant disciplines have been of the forthright
view since decades ago, that Tamil should have had its own script centuries
before the time of Asoka and that the so called Brahmi script used by Asoka should have
evolved later on and that too only from that script. The views of two of them,
T.N.Subrahmanyan (1938/1957) and K.V.Ramesh former Director of Epigraphy of
India (2006) are reproduced in the Notes below 1 and 2. I have also in my “Date
of Early Tamil Epigraphs” JOURNAL OF TAMIL STUDIES, NO 65, June 2004 pp77-88
analysed this issue and pointed out that there is convincing evidence
suggesting that the early Tamil script
was not derived from the script of Asokan inscriptions, but existed in
Tamilnadu well before the period of Asoka – i.e. at least from 6th –
5th century B.C.
2. Clinching evidence for the above stand emerged when a
cist burial ( obviously of a minor chieftain) excavated by Dr.Rajan of Pondicherry
University in 2009 in a Megalithic grave at Porunthal village on the foot hills
of the Western Ghats, 12 km from Palani yielded a few artefacts, namely
I) two ring-stands (purimanai) inscribed with the
identical word ‘va-y-ra’ (meaning diamond) in Tamil script, together with
II) a four legged jar with 2 kg of paddy inside it.
The milieu of this find
enabled the fixing of the dates of the inscription as contemporary with that of
the paddy. Two different samples of the
paddy were carbon dated separately by Accelcrated mass spectroscopy (AMS)
through Beta Analysis Inc, Miami, U.S.A) and the samples yielded respectively
the dates 490 B.C. and 450 BC. ( T.S.Subramanian’s articles in THE HINDU Aug
11,2011 and Oct 11, 2011)
3. (a) The Archaeological context at Tamilnadu level
justifying the reasonableness of the above much earlier dates for Tamil (Tamil-Brahmi)
inscriptions has been argued convincingly in K.Rajan’s (2009) ‘Archaeological
Context of Tamil – Brahmi script – some issues’ in the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 38-1. Jan 2009.
57-86
(b) The still wider (geographically
and chronologically) Archaeological context of relationship between the
proto-Dravidian Indus civilisation and the south Indian Dravidian Megalithic
culture(from 1500 BC or earlier) will vouch for the reasonableness of the view
of scholars like Poornachandra Jeeva (2004) who thinks that Indus Script is
really Syllabic (and not “logo-syllabic” as Parpola and others take it to be).
The Proto- Dravidian provenance of Indus Civilization culture, religion,
artifacts(including weights and measures—see Venkatachalam(1983), language and
script is accepted universally by all competent and unbiased scholors – Heras
in 1950s to Zvelebil, Parpola, Wolpert, Mahadevan, R.Balakrishnan et al (vide
bibliography) in our times. Therefore the following scenario envisaged by Jeeva
can be accepted tentatively, till a better alternative emerges:-
“There was prolonged contact between Indus civilization and the Middle East civilization of the speekers of
Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic etc. It was in the Indus syllabic script milieu
that the phonetic concept arose first. In the Tamil land in South India of
those times the ‘Tamil’ (or its fore-runner) script was evolved utilizing
diacritic marks to indicate “vowel-consonants”. On the other hand the Phonecians
who borrowed the phonetic concept from Indus people, did not resort to diacritic
marks but evolved a Syllabary on the lines of consonant + vowel = vowel
consonant (v+o = vo). The Tamil model did not evolve at once but only gradually
and all other Indic scripts (including Asokan Brahmi) followed suit”.
4. The above lengthy
prolegomena is unavoidable before proceeding to the object of this paper,
namely to point out the unacceptability of the ex cathedra pronouncement of Dr
Nageswamy in his MIRROR OF TAMIL AND SANSKRIT 2012 (one among many other such
pronouncements in that book) that there was no pre-Asokan Tamil
inscription; that in Saraswathi valley (present Punjab) where Sanskrit
grammatical discourses were alive in pre Asokan times, the Brahmins should have
evolved the Brahmi ( called Bammi in Prakrit) script in tune with the
requirements of Sanskrit, taking into account also the relevant forms in Greek
and Aramaic alphabets; and that Asoka utilized that Brahmi script for his inscriptions
in most parts of India; Tamilnadu did not have any script at all before Asoka.
The maverick nature of this pronouncement will be clear from paras 1-3 above.
However it will be useful to set out some of his dicta and comment on them.
5.(i) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view (page 59)
It
is also known that there was no form of readable writing in the south beyond Kanchi to Kanyakumari either during or
after him and so any claim that Brahmi Script was originally the script which
was adopted of by Asoka later is untenable.
Comments:
Paras 1-2 above rebut this categorically. Apart from the
recent Poruntal datings the other pre-Asokan Tamil inscriptions are
(1) Tamil
word found inscribed inside a funeral urn excavated at Adichanallur in 2005
(pre 500 BC according to Dr.T.Sathyamuruthi and M.D. Sampath). The Hindu, February. 17, 2005
(2) Words on sherds excavated at Anurathapura
dated to BC 600 – 500 by Deraniyagala. (Inscriptions
of Ceylon Vol.II, Radio Metric dating of Early Tamil Brahmi Script in Sri
lanka 600-500 B.C. p.745); Bridget and Reymond Allchin’s calibrated date
370-340 B.C.
(3) Alagankulam
pottery sherd inscription dated to BC 360 according to Nagaswamy himself.
(Carbon 14 dating, Alagankulam Carbon)
(4) Korkai
pot-sherd inscription in Tamil dated to 300 B.C. by Ngaswamy himself.(Damilica, vol. I,p. 51,(1970).
(5) Mangulam
(near Madurai) inscription; 5th B.C. (Natana .Kasinathan, Tamilakam Harappan Nakarikat Tayakam, (2006),
P.24)
(6) Pulimankombai
dolmen and Dhadapatti menhir inscriptions discovered by Tamil University,
Thanjavur. ( Prior to 3rd
century B.C. (Dinamalar 5.4.2006, Hindu.5.4.2006:Dinamalar Trichy edition
23.9.2006).
(7)Battiprolu
casket inscription : 4th
century BC ( Dr.Jitendra Dass’s statement appeared in Hindu, on 20.12.2007.)
Obviously
Dr Nagaswamy has chosen to ignore all the above facts; The figures in the
Appendix will show how the Asokan Brahmi evolved new forms for “varga” letters
by simple addition of strokes, circles and curves to basic “k” etc: besides new
forms of other Prakrit letters.
5.(ii) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view (page 60)
It seems to us the script that was used by
Brahmanas was called Bammi and we may not be wrong to identifying the Brahmi
script as an invention of Brahmanas.
Comments:
Bammi is one of the 18 scripts mentioned in the Jain work
Samavayanka
Sutta (circa BC 300) and in 1968 Nagaswami himself had expressed the view that
both Bammi and Damili are probably derived from a common source. Bammi in
Prakrit is written as Brahmi in Sanskrit. But it is far-fetched to argue that
Brahmi should have been created by Brahmins. Nowhere has it been mentioned that
the script of Asokan inscriptions is Bammi. D.P.Verma mentions ( The Origin
of the Brahmi script, 1979: p 109) that Bammi might have referred to a
pictorial script. Perhaps it might have referred to a Harappan-like script.
Asokan inscriptions (except in Northwestern India) are all in Prakrit with
certain minor variations of detail. Before Asoka, Prakrit (like Sanskrit) had
also probably no script; that is why there are no words inscribed on the
Archaeological artifacts in North India till Asokan period.
Bammi script in Prakrit language ought to be equivalent to Brahmi script in
Sanskrit Language. Similarly Damili script in Prakrit language is
equivalent to Dravidi in Sanskrit. It is acceptable. In this context those who
believe that Asoka used the Bammi script
for his inscriptions should have called Asokan’s script only ‘Bammi’ not ‘Brahmi’
which was a later name used for Bammi in Sanskrit Language. Further these
scholars should have called South Indian or Tamilian script as Damili instead
of South Indian Brahmi or Deccan Brahmi or Tamil Brahmi. If they desire to use
the later Sanskrit equivalent of ‘Damili’ they should have called it ‘Dravidi’.
The Westerners were more eager to mention the Sanskrit
name than Prakrit name. Because they were then of the opinion that Sanskrit is
the earliest branch of Indo-European Languages. The Indian elite also followed
the suit.
Damili is the Prakrit term and Dravidi the Sanskrit term for Tamil. Hence all the
scholars who are in this field should prefer to use the term “Tamil” script than
the Sanskrit name Brahmi ( or Tamil Brahmi)
5.(iii) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view (page 60)
Asoka was quick to recognize the importance
of regional languages and scripts as evidenced by the Greek and Aramaic scripts
in the North West and that Bammi was the invention of the Brahamans in the
service of Asoka, drawn from the experience of seeing writing in NW India and
devising a script for Sanskrit tradition before Asoka”s Kalinga war.
Comments:
This is also a baseless inference. Aramaic and Kharoshti
were written from Right to Left. Whereas Asokan Brahmi is written from Left to
Right like Tamil. For Northwest India, Asoka followed the Kharoshti script
known there; and for South India he followed
the Bammi, a modified version of the Tamili in use in South India since
a few centuries earlier.
5.(iv) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view No.4 (page 60)
Asoka has not left any inscription in Tamil
or other language. Therefore we come to
the conclusion that there was no Tamil script prior to Asoka.
Comments:
The Tamil country was never under Asokan (Mauryan) rule.
But was ruled by Chera, Chola, Pandyan kings and chieftains like Atiyaman
(Paras 1-3 above have marshelled the evidence for the wide use even by common
people of the Tamil script from BC 5th century or earlier). There is
ample evidence for the gradual evolution of the Tamil script in Tamilnadu and South
India (and an analogous script in use in Ceylon) from much earlier than 500 BC.
There are references to different varieties of script in the verses quoted in
the commentary to the last Sutra of YAPPARUNKALA VIRUTTI (11th c.AD),
The nikantus, Pinkalantai and Divakaram also refer to different varieties of
script.
Had the “Saraswati valley” Brahmans created a new script
(later used by Asoka) as Nagaswamy believes, such an epochal achievement would
have been recorded repeatedly in resounding terms. But we find no reference to
such an event in any of, say the following works, which would have recorded it
if it had really happened:-
Katyayana (3rd C BC) in his Varttikas mentions only Yavanani
script)
Pathanjali (2nd C BC) in his Mahabashya on Panini refers to Brahmi only as a medicinal plant.
Brhatkatha, Puranas, Mahabharatha, Ramayana and
Historical works lik Bana’s Harshacharita
and Kalhana’s Rajatarangini and
Ceylonese Mahavamsa also do not
mention either Bammi or Brahmi.
Amarakosa, the Sanskrit
nikantu: mentions Brahmi only as one of the Saptamatrikas.
The Indian philosophers
considered “Brahmi” as divine only as referring to the spoken word, and not as
referring to any script as the scholar Sankaranarayanan
points out.
5.(v) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view (page 59)
There is a 7th century Chinese
annal that speaks of the creation of Brahmi and Kharoshti script in India and
by Indians . We may confidently say the
invention of Brahmi script was made by Brahamanas in the region of Saraswati
valley, Punjab.
Comments:
What he mentions as “Chinese Annals” is obviously the
CHINESE ENCYCLOPEDIA, Fa – Wan – Shu – Lin, dated 668 A.D, in which the author of the relevant entry
mentions only the Brahmi script running from left to right was created by Brahma (God) referred to in
Chinese as “Fan”.
5.(vi) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view (page 30)
Scholars
mainly rely on palaeographical evidence to date the cave inscriptions, the
earliest of them vary from 3rd century B.C to 2nd century
C.E.
Comments.
Till some 25 years ago Scholars relied mainly only on
Palaeographic evidence . When the
excavations at Korkai, Kodumanal, and
Alagankulam, revealed Archaeological evidences also, such evidence also began
to be used. Korkai has given a carbon date to 3rd
century B.C as Nagaswamy himself announced. Kodumanal inscribed sherds were, dated to 4th century B.C. by Dr.
Rajan and Alagankulam sherds assigned to 4th century B.C. vide my Tamils
Heritage (2006), p.78.
Leave alone the recent irrefutable Porunthal datings
490/450 B.C., it is not clear how Dr. Nagaswamy chose to ignore all the said
earlier datings also.
It is pathetic to find that he safely ignored all those above datings proved by the
archaeological evidences.
5.(vii) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view (page 32)
The sounds la and na are clearly based on
the parent form with slight addition. A stroke is added to the right of Brahmi la to
represent this la. So also a curve is added at the top right of Brahmi dental
na to represent the sound na (in his book it is na). These are clear
adapataions.
Comments.
The method of the formation of the above letters are acceptable. But it can not
be agreed that these were the derivatives from Prakrit Bammi (Sanskrit Brahmi).
These letters were the products of those who created Tamil letters.
5.(viii) Dr.
Nagaswamy’s view (page 33)
“ It seems to me that, following the method
of writing Samyuktakshara in Brahmi, the Tamils have also used ‘tha’ and ‘da’
one above the other. Thus the two letters ‘ra’ (‘tha’ and ‘ta’) and ‘la’ (‘tha’
and ‘da’) are denoted by conjunct letters of the Brahmi and ‘la’ and ‘na’ shown
with a slight addition to the Brahmi equivalent. It is therefore clear, that
there is no letter in cave inscriptions.which is not a Brahmi letter.
Comments.
the purport seems to be is to assert that the
Samyuktakshara method also was adopted in the Tamil cave inscriptions and that the supposed four special letters la,
la, ra and na of Tamil, are also to be considered as Prakrit Bammi (Sanskrit Brahmi).
The method applied for la and na should also be applied for the letters la and
ra . The formation of la appears to have
happened by making ‘va’ sign upside down
(topsy turvy position) extending the lower line through the circle upto
the top. in some cases the la is found written in the form of a full circle
without a central vertical line and having a small curve at the end of the
lower line. (Mangulam, No.3; karungalakkudi, No.34, Sittannavasal; No.49.)
Likewise the ‘ra’ sound could have been the basic form for the formation of
‘ra’ sign. In some cave inscriptions
‘ra’ is found written only as a line having few curves. (Nos.8and 9, Tiruvatavur). Hence the top curve of the line could have
been altered as a slightly big curve and a slanting line was added on the right
of the lower part of the same line. Hence the la and ra letters have also been formed by adding curves and lines.
It
is erroneous to argue that the samyuktakshara method was adopted in the Tamil cave inscriptions, these special characters were created by Tamil calligraphists to suit the
phonology of Tamil language following the simple method of adding of lines and
curves.
5.(ix) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view No.9 (page 36)
The innovation of a dot to denote a pure
consonant seems to me an adaptation from the Asokan system.
Comments.
The renowned philologist T. N. Subramanian’s following remark
about the dot is crucial. “It will thus
seen that in writing the Tamil language the addition of a dot to the form of
‘i’ denotes the shorter form of it , while in the northern Brahmi it denotes
the longer form. Probably the above change was effected in conformity with this southern
principle”. (S.I.T.I.Vol.III,Part II,p 1510)(1957)
It is obvious from his observation that the system of
applying dot in Tamil alphabets is the reverse of the Brahmi alphabets. It is not correct to argue, that the
application of dot to indicate Tamil short ‘e’ and ‘o’ was the adaptation of
Asokan Prakrit Bammi alphabets.
In Asokan Prakrit Bammi script the pure consonants do not
have dots. If the pure consonants are
added with anusvara dots they should be read as ‘kam’ (ka+anusvara), cam(ca+anusvara)
etc But in Tamil script if the vowelled
‘Ka’ is added with a dot it should be taken as pure vowelless consonant only
and it will not have any added sound.
Therefore the innovation of a dot to denote a pure consonant was not
an adaptation from Asokan system.
The dot system on consonants was
also in conformity with the Tamil language principle.
In this conncetion one should bear in mind that in the earlier
Tamil cave inscriptions the dot was not
used to differentiate either short e or short o from long e or o vowels and
they are to be read according to the
context only. Dr. Mahadevan’s view and the table given at pages 198, 199 of
this book are. He says pulli (dot) does
not occur in the early Tamil Brahmi inscriptions and it occurs for the first
time in the Late Tamil Brahmi inscription at Anaimalai (No.60 ca 2nd
century A.D.) However its use is rare in
the late period. The frequency of the
pulli (dot) gradually increases until it occurs without exception with all the
basic consonants in the early Vatteluttu period. The pulli is however seldom found in pottery
inscriptions. It may also be noted that
, when compared with its occurrence with the basic consonants, the pulli occurs
relatively much less with the short ‘e’ and ‘o’ (initial and medial) even in the
Early Vatteluttu period. Nagawamy
appears to have ignored all the above
facts conveniently. That there was no
pulli in the Early Tamil inscriptions is itself a proof that Tamil inscriptions
are earlier than Prakrit inscriptions.
Had Tamil script followed the anusvara method for
applying dots, why it didn’t adopt the original anusvara system itself. If it had followed the anusvara system it would not have shortened the sound, instead it
would have lengthened the sound. Dr.Nagasamy
feels the Tamil script had adopted the anusvara as if it would have adopted the
entire ‘varga’ forms also for writing varga phonetics. But it did not do so. This also proves clearly that the Tamil script had
originated in Tamil Nadu earlier than Prakrit Bummy (Sanskrit Brahmi) of
Mauryan Empire. After adopting the Tamil script, the Northerners created varga form in order
to suit Prakrit phonetics.
5.(x) Dr. Nagaswamy’s
view (page 90)
There is substantial Prakrit usage ,
especially in the early inscriptions listed by IM. When the very first inscription listed by IM
is studied there are only 12 words in it , out of which six Kani, Nandaka, Siri, Kuvakan, Tarumam and Pali
are indisputably Prakrit words. In such
a usage the language cannot be asserted as Tamil, as claimed, but clearly a
mixed language of Prakrit and Tamil……..
Commens.
The inscription in
question reads as follows, in IM’s list.
“Kan-iy
Nanda-.a-.siri-y- i
Kuvanke Dammam
Itta-a- Netuncaliyan
Pana-an- Kadal-an Valutti-y
Kottupitta-a- Pali- iy”
The above inscription does not
contains the words Nandaka , Kuvakan,
Tarumam and Pali? (Paali) as imagined by Nagaswamy.
The above inscription is readas
follows by this author as follows in his Kalleluttukkalai
(2009) as stated below.
“Kani Nandasiriyai Kuvanke Dammam itta
Netuncaliyan panan katalan valutti kottipitta
paliy”. (Pali).
Out of these eleven words only one, Dammam belong to Prakrit; all the other words Tamil .This
author has given a table in his recent book Tamilaka Varalarrut Thatayankal (The sources for the History of Tamilnadu,
2011) classifying in separate
columns the Prakrit Tamil Pali words of the cave inscriptions. In the same
book (page, 83) this author has pointed out that less
than 10% Prakrit words are found mentioned in Early Tamil inscriptions and pottery
inscriptions. Hence the argument of
mixed Prkrit and Tamil language in Early inscriptions is untenable.
6. Conclusion: Asmentioned in paras 1-3 above, read along with the two Foot
notes below –the views of the two pre-eminent scholars in the field, T. N.
Subramanian and K. V. Ramesh, we can conclude that the Tamil (Damili) script was in use widely in Tamil country (and in
adjacent south Indian/Ceylonese regions) since very much earlier than 5th
century B.C. ; that after being used by the name “Polindi” in Ceylon it spread to Bhattiprolu and from there to
Bengal, Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan with appropriate modifications
required by Prakrit language. The Archeological finds such as Punch marked
coins, Northern Black Polished ware Pot-sherds, semi precious stones etc., at numerous places in Tamilnadu attest the wide
commercial contact between TamilNadu on the one hand and Magadha (and other parts
of India ) as well as Ceylon on the other. For his inscriptions adjacent to the Tamil
country Asoka just adopted the Tamil (Damili) script with such modifications as
were necessitated by Prakrit phonetics (varga letters etc)
NOTES
1. View
of T. N. Subramanian (in his South
Indian Temple Inscriptions,Volume III , part II ,(1957) work).[ He had expressed the same views
earlier in tamil in 1938 in his pantai
tamil ezhuttukal].
The
Brahmi script would have been designed for a Dravidian language very likely the
Tamil which was the oldest and primary language of the group and later on
adopted for Prakrit when it was evolved synthesizing the Dravidian Languges and
made the common language of the whole country.
2.
Views of K.V. Ramesh (2006)
1. There
was the Damili script, fully answering to the phonetic needs of ancient Tamil in use in the Pandyan tract of the
extreme south of the peninsula even before the days of Asoka, though we have,
at present, no means of asserting how much before.
2. The
script is found used, without the need for using any Indo-Aryan phonetic
symbols, not found in ancient Tamil, for writing out a three-letter word ‘arama’,
of Buddhist import on a potsherd found at the 5th-4th
century B.C. levels of an excavated site in northern Sri Lanka, which sherd
should have belonged to the boat people who were plying between the eastern
coastline of Northern India and north Sri Lanka.
3. These
very boat people carried this Damili (Polindi) script first to Bhattiprolu and
then to Bengal, eastern UP and Rajasthan, all the time displaying gradual
transformations as demanded by Prakrit and Sanskrit phonetics.
4.
It
is this script that the composers, writers and engravers of the Asokan edicts
used in their writings, introducing in that process, many far-reaching changes
and developments which we find in the North Indian vernacular script.
Bibliography
Robnson,
Andrews 2001. Lost languages – the enigma of the world’s undeciphered, scripts, New York Mc Graw Hill, see pp
265-295.
Satyamurthy
T.2009 “Indus to Tamraparni” at pp 247-257 of T.S. Sridhar (Edr) Indus civilization and Tamil language.
Subrahmanyan T.N. (1938) Pantai Tamil Eluttukal; see also
his “ The Tamil Palaeography (Appendix to South
Indian Temple Inscriptions Volume III part II 1957)
pp 1587-1609.
Subramanian,nT.S.
Articles in THE HINDU, Chennai dated
11-8-2011 and 11-10-2011.
Tamil Civilisation IV 3-4 Indus script
special [ 1983 seminar at Tamil Unversity.
Thanjavur.]
Thapar,
Romila 2002, Early India from the
origins to AD 1300 OUP; New Delhi [“As regards the current attempts being
made by some enthusiasts to prove the indigenous origin of the Indo-European
speakers the evidence points to the contrary”]
Varier, M.R. Raghava,
2000 Evolution of the early Brahim in historical outline. Aavanam
Volume II (2000), pp 135-144.
Venkatachalam K.
Civilisation. 1983 A study of weights and
measures of Indus Valley Vidale, Massimo (2007). The collapse melts down – a reply to Farmer, Sproat
and witzl. East and West (2007).pp 333-366.
Wolpert, Stanley (1991) An
introduct5ion to india; University of California.
Wright, Rita P.2010. The ancient Indus: urbanion, economy and society;
Cambridge.
Wood, Michael
2007. The story of India; BBC books , London Zvelebil K.V. 1990 Dravidian
linguistics - an introduction Pondicherry Institute of linguistics and culture.
SELECT BIBILIOGRAPHY
Allchin, Bridget and
Raymond 1988. The birth of civilization
in India and Pakistan. Cambridge.
Balakrishnan R.2010
“Tamil Cintu nagarikam? Vatamerku Indiavil Korkai, Vanchi, Thondi mudaliya
Idappeyarkal” Journal of Tamil studies
June 2010.
Dani, Ahmad Hassan 1963
(II:1985) Indian Palaeography Fairservice,
Walter A 1971 The roots of Ancient
India.
Frontline (Chennai)
13.10.2000 and 24.11.2000 [ views of Witsl, Parpola, Mahadevan, et al on
unacceptability of deciphering Indus script as vedic Sanskrit.
Gurumurthy S 2010 Cintu
veli Nagarikamum Tamilar Nagarikamum,Tamil university, thanjavur.
2010 The antiquity and chronology of the Tamil
language and the classical Tamil literature Tamil University, Thanjavur.
Habib, Irfan 2002. The Indus Civilization; NewDelhi,
Tulika Books.
Heras Rev H. 1953. Studios in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean culture;
Bombay
Jeeva, Poornachandra
(2004) Cintu Veliyil muntu Tamil.
Matarapakkam: Thaiyal pathippagam
Levit.S.H.2009 The ancient Mesopotamian place name Meluhha
STUDIA ORIENTALIA 107; 135-176
Mahadevan, Iravatham
2009 Vestiges of Indus Civilisation in
old Tamil (9.10.2009 address at 19th session of Tamilnadu
History Congress.
2011 August The Indus fish swam in the Great Bath: a new
solution to an old riddle Bulletin of the Indus Research Centre; Roja
Muthiah Library; Taramani
Madhivanan R.1995 Indus script among Dravidian speakers;
Madras
Kasinathan, Natana
(2004) Date of Early Tamil Epigraphs Journal
of Tamil studies: 65 June 2004; 77-87
2012 on the pre-Asokan
origin of the Ancient tamil script 9Tamil-Brahmi) D.L.A.News; Jun 2012: p2
Panneerselvam R.1972 ‘A
critical study of the Tamil Brahmi inscriptions ACTA ORIENTAL XXIV: 163-197
Parpola, Asko 1994. Deciphering the Indus script “2010” A
Dravidian solution to the Indus scrpt problems; CICT Chennai-05.
Possehl, Gregory 1996 Indus Age: the writing system;oup
2002. The Indus civilization- a contemporary
perspective; New delhi; Vistaar
Rajan K(2004) Tholliyal Nokkil Sangakalam; IITS;
Chennai
2009 Archaeological
context of Tamil Brahmi script- some issues IJDL. 38-1, Jan 2009. pp 57-86.
Ramanathan P.2008.
Hypothesis of Proto darvidian provenance of Indus Civilization, Arima Nokku 2.2 July 2008, pp.16-26
Ramesh, K.V.2006 Isndus
inscriptions: a study in comparison and contrast ICHR; Southern Regional
Centre; Bangalore
I am thankful to
Thiru.P.Ramananathan former Additional Secretary to Govt for having kindly
clarified certain important points in connection with this paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment