32. NEW LIGHT ON SOUTH INDIA’s TRADE WITH THE MEDITERRANEAN ________________________________________ An interesting potsherd from Berenike bearing Brahmi letters has created significant interest among archaeologists. Śri I. Mahadevan has written an article on this sherd (Mahadevan, I. Tamiḻ Brāhmi Graffiti in Berenike Berenike 1995 Preliminary report of the 1995. S. E. Sidebothom and W.Windrich, eds, 1996, pp 205-208 and in the book by Vimala Begley. The Ancient Port of Arikamedu : Pondicherry.1997). This paper is a re-examination of the pot sherd and its readings. Mr. Mahadevan has stated at the beginning that “the language of the inscription found on the pot sherd is in Tamiḻ language” and reads the graffiti consisting of two words, words, “Kora Pūmāṉ”. Mahadevan also holds that it belonged to a Cērā chief. He has derived the word Pūmāṉ found on the sherd as a derivative from the Sanskrit word Bhū-māṉ based on Tamiḻ lexicon (5-2841). Dating the pot sherd to first cent CE, he also says that this is the earliest known attested usage of the expression (Pūmāṉ) in Tamiḻ (p.225)”. There are only two words consisting of five letters in this pot sherd and no other words to determine the language of the text. The primary question that arises in this context is if the word is derived from Sanskrit Bhū-māṉ then the word can not be considered to be in Tamiḻ language, but should properly be termed vaṭa-col i.e., northern word. The word could be correctly identified as a Prākṛt word. The use of the first letter of a varga in place of the second, third or fourth letter of the same varga is a very common trait in Prākṛt. Examples: • Pū (Tamiḻ) < Bhū (Sanskrit) • Pūmi < Bhūmi (Skt) • Pūdevi < Bhudevi (Skt) • Pucam < Bhujam (Skt) • Kaṭam < Ghaṭam (Skt) • Kani < Gani (Skt) Several hundred usages could be cited for such a change and as Mahadevan himself calls it a derivative of Sanskrit it can not be identified as Tamiḻ language. The word ends with the suffix “aṉ” it may be claimed as a Tamiḻ trait, but the “aṉ” suffix is common to Sanskrit as in Rājaṉ and Prākrit as in Pūmāṉ. It is also necessary to examine the reading of the word from Paleographical point of view. The first two letters have nothing much to offer for the reading “Ko ra” is correct but which also occurs in Telugu. The reading of the second word read as Pūmāṉ is not correct and needs revision. It consists of three letters Pū + mā + ṉ (according to Mahadevan). The reading of the first letter is “Pū” is correct. The reading of the second letter as “mā” is incorrect. The letter “mā” at the beginning was like a capital “U” with a horizontal line joining both the vertical lines. Later the horizontal line touches only the right vertical line and not the left vertical line. Even this occurs only after third century C.E. (A.D.) and not before. This “mā” does not occur at all in any of Mahadevan corpus of “Tamiḻ Brāhmi Inscriptions”. In the figure shown both in the photo and line drawing published, the horizontal line does not touch the right vertical but the left vertical line. So the letter is not “mā” but “hā”. (Fig 3). This form of “hā” appears in many Brāhmi inscriptions. So, the horizontal line touching the left vertical is the sign for long "ā". The reading of the last letter as “ṉ”. is correct. So according to my revised reading it is “Pū-hā–ṉ”. This word is found in many ancient law books Dharma-śāstra as Pūhaṉ which means “one belonging to a merchant guild”. The dating of the Berenike pot sherd to first century C.E., by Mahadevan is not borne out by any illustration furnished by him in his exhaustive list. Further the square formation of the lines in letters like “ū”, “hā” etc., indicates clearly a much later date than first century C.E. This sherd can not be dated before 3rd cent C.E. if one follows Mahadevan’s paleographic chronology. And consequently the potsherd should have arrived at the Egyptian coast around fourth century CE (AD). Different classes of assemblies of men are mentioned in ancient law books such as Naigamas, Samaveṭṭas, Pūgaṉs, Gaṇas, Saṅghas, Silpis etc. Such a classification itself is called naigamādi samjnā, i.e., the nomenclature such as naigama. For example Kātyāyana a well known authority on Indian law says, “the Association of different City dwellers is called Naigamā; different weapon wielders (soldiers) are called Samaveṭṭas, the Assembly of merchants is called “Pūgaṉ” the assembly of Brahmins is called gaṇa, and the Assembly of Jains or Buddhists is called Sangham”. It is clear that the assembly of merchants is called Pūgaṉ (like Nagarattār) i.e the “Guild of Five hundreds” from thousand directions and also from different countires,. (Kritya kalpa druma (p.810) compiled by Lakshmidhara. The word Pūgaṉ becomes Pūhaṉ in Prākṛt, like bāgam becoming pāham. Further the word Pūgaṉ also changes into Pūhāṉ with a long “ā”. The correct reading of the word in the Berenike potsherd, refers to a member of a merchant guild. Evidently, this word Pūhāṉ is also derived from Sanskrit and not Tamiḻ language. Those who went to Berenike were merchant guilds and not likely to be a Cērā, carrying inscribed pottery. It shows for the first time that the Indian traders especially from South India have gone to Egyptian coast. Though the language of the inscription is not Tamiḻ, it does not mean they were not from Tamiḻnāṭu. It is well known to Epigraphists that the Assembly of merchant guild belonged to different regions and different languages and were called nānā desi ticai āiyirattu ainnuṟṟuvar, Evidently, the traders were moving from one country to an other in search of trade and some had Prākṛt names as well. It should also be mentioned that the enormous amount of Roman coins found in South India need not necessarily have been brought by Romans, but possibly that they were also brought by Indian traders who acquired them in trade from middlemen when they visited the Mediterranean. The presence of gold jewels and artifacts of Indian Origin found along with Roman coins as at Veḷḷalūr near Coimbatore indicate this trend. Three more inscribed pot sherds have been found in that region which possibly suggest a regular colony of South Indian traders at the Egyptian coast. It is customary for some scholars to always speak in terms of Romans and Egyptians coming to the Southern coast of India and their discovery of monsoon that favoured their visits mainly from the western point of view. The presence of this colony now should call for a more scientific study of Mediterranean trade in ancient times pointing to Indian merchants regularly visiting through Bahrain, probably had some colonies in the Egyptian and Arab coasts. It is known that Bahrain was frequented by Indian traders even from the Harappan age.
