(Published in Journal of Tamil Studies, Vol.77, June 2010)
Can Caṅkam corpus, the ancient extant Dravidian literature, be a source to identify the language of the Indus script; a collateral evidence to estimate the ethno-linguistic composition of Indus Civilization? I seek to answer this question in affirmative. I have located a group of place names in the Indus –Harappan geographies (modern Pakistan and adjoining regions), which I choose to call as "Korkay, Vanji, Tondi Complex." This 'complex' contains perfect parallels to "Koṟkai-Vañci-Toṇṭi" and many other geographical names and anthroponyms attested in Caṅkam Tamil texts. I propose that these identical name-heritage complexes of the north-western geographies and the extreme south provide reliable markers for the probable migration of Dravidians following the collapse of Indus Valley Civilization. I call in the evidence of "bone-eating camel" described in Akanāṉūṟu as a testimony for the earlier presence of Dravidians in the north-western geographies (particularly Gujarat). And, I conclude that the Caṅkam corpus in part represents the 'carried forward memories' of a remote past, the coordinates of which can be traced back to the Indus Valley Civilization and late Harappan cultures and relevant geographies.
1.1 Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan recognize the relevance of Old Tamil in the context of Indus Valley Civilization. Asko Parpola holds the Old Tamil traditions as a 'most important source in any attempt to decipher the Indus script based on the hypothesis of a Dravidian affinity for the Indus language' (Parpola 1994). According to Iravatham Mahadevan, "the Indus script is not merely Dravidian linguistically, but is also culturally much closer to Old Tamil polity than has been recognized so far." (Mahadevan, 2009)
1.2 However, both these proponents of Dravidian hypothesis qualify their above assessments with subtle reservations and preconditions. Iravatham Mahadevan treats 'the vast gap in space and time, something like 2000 years and 2000 miles' as a restricting factor that leads him to think that 'any direct relationship between the Indus Valley and the deep Dravidian south is unlikely' (Mahadevan's 1998 interview). Parpola is of the view that questions such as whether there was 'any historical relationship between the Tamil culture of the extreme south and the Indus Civilization of the northwest' existed and how did the Tamil culture arise and when and where did the Tamil language come from should be answered 'not only to legitimize the use of Old Tamil sources, but also in order to evaluate them better' (Parpola 1994)
1.3 On the other hand, there are voices that amount to downright rejection of the relevance of Tamil traditions. "The language codified in the Indus scripts cannot be Dravidian. Dravidian researchers rely on much later Tamil traditions, whose locus in historical times lay some two thousand kilometres from the Indus Valley", they say (Farmer, Sproat and Witzel 2004).
1.4 The presence of Brahui, a Dravidian language in Baluchistan, an Indus neighbourhood, by itself has failed to impress the detractors of Dravidian hypothesis. The 'great contrast'
between the 'highly developed city-civilization of Mohenjo-daro' and the' wandering tent-life
of the hill Brahuis' (Sir Denis Bray: 1934) makes the Brahui more of a problem than a solution. If the 'great contrast' is the problem for Brahui, the restricting factor for the use of Old Tamil is the 'great distance.' Unless a 'radically different' source material becomes available, as Parpola after decades of efforts concludes, "it looks most unlikely that the Indus script will ever be deciphered fully" (Parpola, 1994).
1.5 However, As new archaeological evidence that point to the common traits between the late Harappan Culture and the Iron Age Culture of the Tamils; potsherds with Indus like signs emerge in various parts of 'deep Dravidian south', there are indications that the 'vast gap in space and time' between late Harappan Culture and Old Tamil Culture and geographies bound to shrink.
1.6 Pending a convincing decipherment of the Indus script, the Dravidian authorship of the Indus Civilization has to be established through other fresh evidence. This would also mean to prove the physical presence of Dravidian speakers in the Indus-Harappan regions during relevant prehistoric times. And such proof shall come from within the Indus-Harappan geography or at least from the adjoining regions of late Harappan Cultures and should bear verifiable Dravidian markers. Reversely, some' exclusive' aspects of north-western geography shall also be traceable in the South Dravidian milieus which can be treated as a proof for the earlier presence of Dravidians in the geographies that could be linked to Indus –Harappan Civilization. And, that is the task.
1.7 I propose to accomplish this objective through a 'two -way check' by identifying some 'exclusive' Dravidian markers in the Indus-Harappan geography and also some 'exclusive' aspect of north-western geographies in the 'deep Dravidian South.' And, that is the offer.
2 Why Caṅkam texts can be a source material?
2.1 The Harappans are estimated to have numbered about one million and the Civilization did not suffer a sudden death; it gradually declined. Harappan traditions continued without a break, becoming transformed gradually into the various Late Harappan cultures. If so, what happened to those architects of one of the most advanced urban civilizations, the craftsmen and maritime traders? It is unlikely that they climbed up the high hills and became Brahuis or started hunting and food gathering in Central India. If the evidence for the Dravidian hypothesis has to be gathered from within the modern Dravidian milieus then the vestiges of late Harappan cultures shall be explored appropriately in a culture with an attested antiquity. Caṅkam texts represent the ancient extant Dravidian literature and there comes the prima facie case for the use of Old Tamil.
2.2 The chronology of Caṅkam literature is generally placed between the 3rd century BC and 1st century A.D and the Caṅkam texts provide a good deal of insight into the contours of Tamil prehistory. The entire corpus of Caṅkam literature cannot be treated as a 'running commentary' on the events of the Caṅkam age. Tolkāppiyam, the ancient extant Tamil grammar makes numerous mentions of earlier works. There are many names in Caṅkam texts which probably had become archaic by the time Caṅkam texts were compiled. As, M.A.Dorai Rangaswamy states: "It is the memory of the old traditions that could have been preserved if at all in these names. These names because of their distinction and difference may be looked upon as a vague memory of an ancient tribal organization" (Dorai Rangaswamy, 1947). By any reckon the contents of Caṅkam texts at least in part, dealt with a period prior to the Caṅkam age and to that extent a period closer to the collapse of Harappan civilization.
2.3 Caṅkam texts dealt with the geographies beyond the current geographical boundaries of modern Tamilnadu. Caṅkam texts refer to territories such as Tuḷu and Koṇkāṉam which were ruled by Tamil chieftains. Koṇkāṉam is identified with the areas adjoining Maharashtra. As the archeological evidence shows the definite spread of late Harappan cultures in Maharashtra, the Caṅkam texts by implication take us closer to the late Indus-Harappan cultures.
2.4 There is a direct reference in the Caṅkam text, to the ancient migrations of Vēḷir from Tuvarai identified with modern Dwaraka region in Gujarat where Indus-Harappan culture once flourished. Thus, Caṅkam texts enable us get closer spatially and temporally to Indus and late Harappan cultures and there exists a strong prima facie case for considering Caṅkam Tamil texts as a potential source material in the context of locating the remnants of post-Harappan cultures in the current geographies of Dravidian speakers.
3 What is the relevance of Caṅkam Names in the context of Dravidian Hypothesis?
3.1 Place names could prove to be more ancient than the ancient most civilizations for place names preexisted the dawn of civilizations and have outlived their collapse. Place names survive the language and populations shifts and remain as a 'fossilized representation of an immemorial past' and can provide reliable markers for past migrations.
3.2. Scholars like Allchins, Sankalia, Parpola, I.Mahadevan and F.C. Southworth have used the toponymic evidence in the context of Dravidian hypothesis. Parpola Says: "Harappan Place Names could provide potential clue to the identification of Harappan language. (Parpola 1994) "According to I.Mahadevan, "the opening phrases of Indus texts are likely to contain place names"
3.3 If Dravidians once lived in Indus-Harappan regions, notwithstanding the collapse of the civilization some 3500 to 3800 years back, the tell-tale markers for their earlier presence can still be anticipated to remain fossilized in the form of place names in the very regions and if the Dravidians had moved into other regions following the collapse of the civilization they can be expected to have carried their Indus place names and reused them in their new locations. Even though the comparative toponyms of the 'deep Dravidian South' and the Indus-Harappan geographies (modern Pakistan) may contain identical remnants there will still be a problem in providing a time-tag to the migration of these names. In this context, the attested antiquity of names gain significance and the Caṅkam texts being the ancient extant Dravidian corpus the names attested in the corpus acquire legitimacy to be used in a study of this nature and objective.
3.4 Caṅkam literature is an Onomastic treasure trove. It is indeed a literature of names. Caṅkam Tamils had well-established naming conventions and names occupied a central stage in the collective consciousness of Caṅkam Tamils. There is evidence to show that the ancient Tamils reused their place names in their new locations as is evident in the case of place name 'Maturai'.
3.5 The 'litmus-test' to establish the Dravidian authorship of Indus Civilization would be to locate the place names of Indus- Harappan area (modern Pakistan) in Caṅkam texts or vice-versa.
4. "KVT Complex" in Indus-Harappan Regions
4.1 Place names Korkay, Gorkay (Afghansitan), Gorkai, Gorkhai, Vanji, Tondi, Matrai, Urai, Kudal Garh, and Koli of Pakistan probably represent the prehistoric footprints of the names of capital towns and ports of Caṅkam age.
4.2 Place names Ambar, Toti, Tonri, Ilam, Kachi, Kakai, Kanam, Kalar, Kong, Nalai, Neri, Pothi, Por, Malli, Mantoi, Moshe, Wallar, Wakai, Vani, Milai and Kandir of modern Pakistan have their exact replicas as place names in Caṅkam texts.
4.3 It is a common phenomenon that river names occur as toponyms. Place names Kawri, Porni and Poruns of Afghanistan and Kaweri Wala, Phornai, Puronai, Khariaro of Pakistan are comparable with the river names attested in Caṅkam texts. Korkai again is the name of a river in Pakistan. Pohru is the name of a tributary of Jhelum River in Pakistan and it evokes the memories of the name of the submerged river i.e 'Pakruli' attested in the Caṅkam texts.
4.4 Similarly, the toponyms Podineh, Parambu Darrahe and Awi (Afghanistan); Potiyan, Palani, Toti (Pakistan) are comparable with the ancient Tamil hills. The place name Potikeh of Iran where many other toponymic foot prints of ancient Tamil place names can be found remind us of Potikai mountain of Caṅkam texts.
4.5 Place names Karka, Wen, Kudam, Kutta, Sidha, Malai, Talai and Pongar wali of Pakistan invite valid comparison with the names of Tamil dialect regions referred to in ancient Tamil texts and commentaries.
4.6 Place names such as Malai, Kodu, Kunru, Warai, Mudi, Parai, Sunai, Enal, Kadu, Kanam, Pulai, Purai, Adawiy, Aru, Yaru, Kalani, Manal, Nilam, Nilai, Tarai, Teru, Manai, Tirai, Kalari, Palai, Suram and Kurumbai occur as mono-word place names in Indus-Harappan regions and beyond. These names are the exact parallels of generic terms assigned to various geographical features associated with different geo-physical regions referred to in the Cankam texts. place name generics such as Malai, Kodu, Warai, Kunru and so on as mentioned above occurring as mono-word place name without any prefix is indicative of antiquity and direction of name-flow.
5. Migrants from KVT Complex carried their place names as their personal names
5.1 Alexander Beider who has done an extensive study on Jewish surnames says that appellations based on place names are formed not from the name of locality where the person lives, but from the name of the locality from which he came. In the context of migrations out of Indus-Harappan area (identified as Meluhha in Sumerian texts), Asko Parpola informs about the migrants from Meluhha who had integrated in Mesopotamian society had carried the name Meluhha as not only a place name but also as personal name (Parpola 1994).
5.2 If we assume that the Dravidians of Indus- Harappan areas during the decline or after the collapse of the civilization migrated to other parts of India particularly towards Gujarat, Maharashtra and from there to southern India we can very well assume that they would have carried their existing place names as their place names in the new locations and also as their personal names. We have already seen the evidence of identical place names that are common to the KVT Complex of Indus-Harappan regions and Caṅkam texts. Then what about KVT place names becoming personal names? It seems they did.
6. Indus-Harappan Place names as ethnonyms and personal names in Caṅkam Texts
6.1 Place names Ayar, Marawar, Kalamar, Konkar, Andar, Kalai, Panar, Dhudian and Ariwala of Pakistan could be indicative of the exact names attested as tribe names in Caṅkam texts. It is relevant to recollect George R. Stewart's observation that 'many tribal names are certainly derived from place-names.' (Stewart 1975)
6.2 The place names such as Ceran, Seran, Seran Wali,Seral, Chola, Cholara landi, Pandi, Pandiar, Pandian Wala, Porai, Kotai, Udian, Udhiar, Kutwan Nala, Kutvar, Valudi, Killi, Chelian Wala, Maran, Karikalan, Garigal, Sibi, Kavera, Manak, Killi, Kalangai, Mandaran Wala etc., bear evidence to the suggestion that the genesis of the names of tribes, dynasties, surnames and personal names of Caṅkam kings can be traced to their toponymic origin in the north-western geographies.
6.3 What is true of Royal names is equally true of clan names and personal names of the chieftains of Caṅkam texts as well. Place names Titian, Panni, Nalli, Kodan, Pari, Pittan, Pindan, Matti, Muwan, Kati, Udian in the Indus Harappan regions and other areas of modern Pakistan are indicative of the trend. Place names such as Adiyaman, Adiaman, Nedaman, Anni, Minzli, Velian and Pegan of Iran; Anji, Chatan, Atan of Afghanistan provide tell-tale markers for the trajectories of ancient migrations.
7. Migration of Gods
7.1 When a Civilization moves could gods be left behind? There are place names such as Korri, Korrai, Anang, Anangurai, Mayan, Mal, Perumal Kuhe, Seyan, Murugan Wala, Muruk, Vel, Welan, Kumaran Wali, Vendar, Sivan, Esan, Esar, Valli, Kamawel, Kurram, Sur, Suran in the region under focus remind us of the names of Tamil Pantheon of Gods.
7.3 Iravatham Mahadevan has interpreted Indus signs 47 and 48 as 'Muruku', the Tamil god (Mahadevan 1999). He cites archeological parallels found in the potsherds at Sanur, Mankudi in Kerala and at Muciri in Kerala bearing 'Muruku' like Indus signs to prove his point. Asko Parpola reads "...the sign of 'two intersecting circles' engraved on many Harappan bangles as s the Dravidian word muruku..." (Parpola 1994). In this context place names of Indus-Harappan geographies such as Murugan Wala, Murghan, Welan, Kumaran Wali, Kamawel that remind us of the names of god Murugan attested in Caṅkam texts are of significant relevance. The place names Palani, Tanike, Parang, Kunru, Sental of Pakistan; Chendi, Cholay, Podini Ghar, Podineh and Eraka of the neighboring Afghanistan that remind us of the abodes of Murukan attested in ancient Tamil texts further endorse the above view.
8. KVT Complex- not a mere coincidence
8.1 The KVT complexes of Indus-Harappan geographies and the Caṅkam Tamil texts cannot be a mere coincidence. The counts of identical names are too enormous to be ignored. There is a clear thematic coherence such as place names of significant importance, dynasty names, tribe names, royal names, names of chieftains, names of gods and so on. There has been a definite migration of names involving the geographies of these two KVT complexes. This leads us to some inevitable questions. How to prove the direction of this name transfers and how to give a date-line to these migrations and how to link these migrations to Indus-Harappan Civilization?
8.2 We are not sure about the importance of place names such as Korkai, Vanji, Tondi, Matrai etc., in the exact context of Indus Civilization. But, we are sure that these names enjoyed a great deal of reputation in the context of Caṅkam texts. In that sense, notwithstanding the direction and timeframe of these name- transfers we may hold, at this stage that place names that came to be celebrate exclusively in Caṅkam texts have survived till date in the Indus-Harappan geographies as well. Then how about finding something 'exclusive' to north-western geographies in Caṅkam text that could prove the physical presence of Dravidians in Gujarat that would provide the crucial link to bridge the 'vast gap in space and in time' between two KVT complexes?
9. The "Bone-Eating Camel" (Akanāṉūṟu 245)
9.1 The Caṅkam corpus does not give an impression of pālai or wasteland being seen as a naturally occurring ecology of Tamil land. In modern Tamil, expressions such as 'vaṟaṇṭa nilam', 'vāṉam
pārtta pūmi' etc are used to denote 'arid land'; 'rain-fed land' respectively. The expression 'pālai' is used to denote 'desert land' (like Thar Desert) but, pālai does not form part of southern geography. Because of this it required Iḷampūraṇar, the commentator for Tolkāppiyam, to explain that the landscape of the wasteland (with which the term pālai is associated) emerges when other landscapes whither under the heat of the burning sun and pālai is seen as a mixture of Mullai (forest) and Kuṟiñci (hilly) tracts, rather than as a mere sandy area
9.2 But, Tolkāppiyam (Marapiyal 18) and Akanāṉūṟu 245) hold a surprise for us by referring to Camel, an animal associated with deserts. In the context of prescribing appropriate generic terms that are traditionally used in poetry to denote the various baby-animals, Tolkāppiyam informs that the camel-calf is called 'kaṉṟu'. It is relevant to note that in the Tamil poetic conventions camel is not treated as a 'constituent element' (karupporuḷ) to the corresponding pālai landscape. That means pālai as a geographical unit was not referring to 'desert' like Thar Desert but 'desert like waste land' If so, what could be the rationale for Camel-calf being dealt with in Tolkāppiyam?
9.3 In Akanāṉūṟu (245) we not only come across camels in wild, desert like geo-setting but also find the description of starving camels desperately eating white- bones there. The poem comes under the conceptual unit of Palai (i.e desert land). The relevant lines read as follow:
"செல்சாத்தெறியும் பண்பில் வாழ்க்கை......ஆங்கண் குறும்பொறை யுணங்குந் ததர்வெள் ளென்பு கடுங்கால் ஒட்டகத் தலீகுபசி தீர்க்கும் கன்னெடுங் கவலைய கானம்"
9.4 In the above poem the poet talks about uncultured life in a rough and tough landscape where the caravans of traders are attacked and looted mercilessly. The poet talks in graphic details about the stony expanse where the starving camels eat the scattered white-bones (of perished animals) in desperate hunger. The poet even appellatively describes the anatomy of camel with an emphasis on its 'tough- leg' (kaṭuṅkāl oṭṭakam). This description adds to the understanding of the toughness of the terrain. The author of this poem is one Maṭurai Marutaṉ Iḷanākaṉār. As his name indicates he was a resident of Madurai. The question is how and where this poet from Madurai could have witnessed the scene of camel s eating white-bones in hunger in the backdrop of a stony expanse where traders were transporting their merchandise. We are not sure whether the traders were using the camels as beast of burden or the camels were seen in wild. Whatever the case, this leads us to following questions: Whether Camel, an herbivorous, will really eat bones and if so under what circumstance? The Camel-truth is as follow:
- When a camel travels across the desert, food may be hard to find. If food is very scarce, a camel will eat anything--bones, fish, meat, leather, and even its owner's tent. ((http://camelfarm.com/camels/camels_life.html)
- A camel can go 5-7 days with little or no food and water. Camels in the wild eat whatever they can find, including even leather, bones, seeds or dried leaves. (www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/camel.htm)
9.5 It is clear that Camels do eat bone in the wild; not by choice but out of desperation when they go without food for days together. If so, how could a poet of Caṅkam age from a 'no-camel land' could closely observe the scene of camels eating bone and could provide a graphic picture in his poetry? This would mean that the "extended geography" of Caṅkam literature (not necessarily the actual physical geography of the Caṅkam age and its polity) included a desert region where camels ate scattered white bones in wild. The nearest desert to the Tamil country is in Gujarat, where Late Harappan and post-Harappan cultures once flourished. It is relevant to note that Gujarat along with Maharashtra is counted among five Dravidian lands (Pancha Dravida). This paradox of 'bone-eating camel' in the poetry compiled in the 'non-desert, non-Camel' Tamil geography can be reconciled only by recognizing the fact that the pre-Caṅkam past of the Tamils probably had a desert connection and the 'bone-eating Camel' and this desert -experience first became part of oral poetry and later became part of Caṅkam texts when the bardic oral literary traditions were given a formal poetic expression when Caṅkam texts were compiled.
9.6 If so, is there any other literary evidence or a potential clue that could suggest a connection between Tamils of Caṅkam age or their ancestors to the areas now form part of modern Gujarat? Answer to this is available in Puṟanāṉūṟu 201
10 Vēḷir Migration from north-western geographies (Puṟanāṉūṟu 201)
10.1 Kapilar, a prominent poet of Caṅkam age addresses a Vēḷir ruler reminding him of his remote ancestors who once ruled a place called Tuvarai.
"நீயே, வடபால் முனிவன் தடவினுள் தோன்றிச்
செம்பு புனைந்தியற்றிய சேணெடும் புரிசை
உவரா ஈகைத் துவரை யாண்டு நாற்பத் தொன்பது
வழிமுறை வந்த வேளிருள் வேளே"
"Oh Vēḷir among the Vēḷir! you are descended through forty-nine generations of the lineage of unwearying liberality which arising out of the water-pitcher of the Northern Sage, ruled over Tuvarai surrounded by long and soaring walls made of bronze" he says.
10.2 The above legend is again recalled by Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar in his commentary on Tolkāppiyam. Commentators have identified Tuvarai with Tuvarāpati and Iravatham Mahadevan identifies Tuvarai with Dvārakā in Gujarat
and 'Northern Sage' with Akattiyar, the Tamil sage. (Mahadevan, 2009)
10.3 Thus the Caṅkam text not only provide evidence to the fact that the bone-eating camels were part of the prehistoric geographies of the Tamils (pre-Caṅkam Tamils) but also provide information locating the remote ancestors of Vēḷirs of Caṅkam age in late Harappan regions (modern Gujarat), the geographies of the bone-eating camels.
11 Toponymic evidence for a 'Dravidian Gujarat'
11.1 The Remnants of Dravidian name- heritage in the toponymy of Gujarat can be traced in multiple ways.
- Dravidian place name suffix occurring as a mono-word place name: Malai, Palli, Padi
- Exactly matching or showing close resemblance to the place names attested in Caṅkam texts: Virai, Por, Mankudi, Pali, Thuvar,Kachchh, Kural, Kurala, Bakrol, Pattan, Kadiyali
- Place names that can be connected to Vēḷir legend referred to in Akam.201: Meru, Agatiya, Thuvar, Velala, Velpura, Velari, Vindh, Kaveriya, Potiya.
- Place names that resemble the names of Tamil dialect areas mentioned by commentators: Malai, Panri, Kuda, Vena
- Place name that matches current place name in Tamilnadu: Eral, Mankudi
12 Toponymic evidence for a 'Dravidian Maharashtra'
12.1 There are 71 place names in Maharashtra with 'Palli' as suffix. Kurumpalli, Singampalli, Arkapalli, Chirepalli and Tekampalli can be cited as few examples. As many as 119 place names with 'Ur' as suffix can be identified which include names such as Karur, Anjur, Manur, Penur, Anur, Yelur, Alur, Kallur, Telur, Illur, Sellur, Malur, Madur, Badur and so on.
12.1 Besides, there are place names such as Karkudi, Torankudi, Cholai, Malai, Mahalkadu, Chakadu, Manurwadi, Yelwadi, Kandarwadi, Tamalwadi, Telengwadi, Tandalwadi, Cheravali, Tekavali, Kudavali, Narivali, Kudavali, Vayal, Neri, Shivaneri, Atpadi, Karpadi, Parainar (Parainad), Italnar (Italnad), Akkarpatti, Sundarpatti and many such place names that occur in Maharashtra confirm that place names in Maharashtra, where archeological evidence for late Harappan culture has been found , provide the essential link between the late Harappan cultures and the Dravidian south.
13 How these name transfers can be connected to IVC?
13.1 The names such as Korkai, Vanji, Tondi and many other names that are common to north-western geographies (Indus-Harappan regions of modern Pakistan and adjoining areas) and Caṅkam Tamil texts are not attested in Indo-Aryan literature and thus came to be inherited, owned up and repeatedly used only by the Tamil speakers. As these names are found in the Indus-Harappan regions questions arises as to how and when these names travelled from one region to the other? Opinion may differ when it comes to the direction of these name transfers. But, that cannot take away the importance of these names being common to both the regions and its relevance in identifying the language of the Indus script.
13.2 The names of KVT have not been attested in Vedic texts. If these name transfers due to a large scale migration of people had taken place during historic periods the event as well these names would not have escaped being mentioned in the indo-Aryan literature. In the deep Dravidian south, the compilation of Caṅkam texts can be anticipated to have been preceded by a long period of oral tradition. This is evident from the fact that many of these names were archaic when Caṅkam texts were compiled. The very attestation of these names in the Caṅkam texts and the fact that some of the personal names of Caṅkam texts which occur as place names in north-western geographies also occur in the early inscriptions in Tamilnadu provide a minimum guaranteed antiquity to these name transfers.
13.3 Caṅkam texts and Tamil traditions have clues to early migrations. There is reference to Vēḷir migration from Tuvarai (identified with modern Gujarat) in ancient times. The knowledge about the bone- eating camels which probably reached Caṅkam poetry through oral bardic minstrel poetry stands witness to the journey of names, in other words the journey of a civilization.
13.4 Besides, the place names of many archaeological sites in south India with Indus markers and evidence for Neolithic and other prehistoric settlements are traceable in the north-western toponomies i.e Indus Valley and beyond. Place names such as Sanur, Arikeh, Virai (Iran); Tondi, Gorkai, Tiruth, Kallur, Porewarai, Warigan, Mankudi (Gujarat in India) can be cited as examples. These names suggest a sort of an indicative and tentative 'archaeological context' to these name transfers from the north-western geographies. This also underscores the need for studying the directions and trajectories of past migrations in the relevant contexts of spread of farm cultures, irrigation and other technologies from the pre-Indus times and till the spread of post-Harappan cultures.
14.1 Based on these comparative Onomastic evidence and other inputs available from the Caṅkam texts we may conclude that Caṅkam texts can be a legitimate source material to identify the language of Indus script. KVT complex that is common to north-western geographies and Caṅkam text not only link the 'deep Dravidian south' to the geographies of Indus-Harappan Civilization but also gives significant clues to understand the trajectories of ancient Tamil migrations and by implication to the locus of Tamil prehistory and their probable origins. Caṅkam corpus may not provide a "Rosetta Stone" for deciphering the Indus texts but it promises to be a meaningful touch- stone to test the validity of the 'Dravidian Hypothesis.'
In Para 10.1, I have followed the translation of the relevant lines of Puṟanāṉūṟu 201 by I.Mahadevan (2009).
Beider, Alexander.1993. A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire, Teaneck, NJ: Avotaynu
Cōmacuntaraṉār, Po.Vē. 1983. Akanāṉūṟu. Chennai: Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caiva Cittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam.
Dorai Rangaswamy. 1947. The surnames of the Cankam age literary & tribal, University of Madras.
Duraicāmippiḷḷai, avvai. 1973. Puṟanāṉūṟu. Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caiva Cittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam. Chennai
Farmer, Steve, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel. 2004. The Collapse of the Indus script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan Civilization. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11(2): 19-57
Lehmann, Thomas and Thomas Malten. 1993. A Word Index for Cankam Literature. Madras: Institute of Asian Studies.
Mahadevan, Iravatham. 1981. Place Signs in the Indus Script. V International Conference –Seminar of Tamil Studies, Madurai.
Mahadevan, Iravatham.1998. Interview. www.harappa.com/script/mahadevantext.html
Mahadevan, Iravatham.1999. Murukan in the Indus Script, Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies 16 (2):21-39
Mahadevan Iravatham.2009. Vestiges of Indus Civilization in Old Tamil, print out of Tamilnadu Endowment Lecture, Tamilnadu History Congress, 16th Annual Session, 9-II October 2009
Parpola, Asko.1994. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge University Press.
Parpola, Asko. 2005. Paper read at the 50th ICES Tokyo Session on 19 May 2005 in Tokyo.
Raghavaiyangar, M. 1907 (2004). Vēḷir Varalāṟu. Chennai.
Stewart, R.George.1975. Names on the Globe. Oxford University Press, New York.
Tolkāppiyam- Poruḷatikāram- - Iḷampūraṇar Urai. 1982. Chennai: Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caiva Cittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam.
Tolkāppiyam- Poruḷatikāram- - Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar Urai. 1983. Chennai: Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caiva Cittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam.
Vaiyapurippillai. S. 1940 (1967).Caṅka Ilakkiyam, Pāṭṭum tokaiyum. Pāri Nilaiyam. Chennai.