Reclaiming Tamil’s Linguistic Legacy

---

Abstract

This article revisits the script commonly referred to as Tamil-Brahmi, challenging the association with Brahmi as a misnomer. It presents evidence from Tamil’s linguistic and cultural heritage, particularly the insights of Elhuthathikaram (Tholkappiyam), to argue for its rightful identification as the Tamili script (தமிழி எழுத்து). By analyzing archaeological findings, phonological necessities, and historical context, it redefines the script’s identity and highlights its implications for South Asian linguistic historiography.

---

Introduction

Language and scripts are more than tools of communication; they are embodiments of identity and heritage. The so-called Tamil-Brahmi script, long considered the earliest evidence of Tamil writing, has been framed within narratives that suggest dependency on external influences. This article argues that the script should be recognized as Tamili script (தமிழி எழுத்து), rooted in Tamil’s independent linguistic tradition.

To anchor the discussion, we begin with the discovery of early Tamil inscriptions, such as those found at Keelhadi (dated to approximately the 6th century BCE) and Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka. These findings reveal the geographic breadth and antiquity of Tamil writing, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of its evolution.

---

Historical Context

Misnomer of Tamil-Brahmi

The term Tamil-Brahmi combines Tamil with Brahmi, suggesting an external origin for Tamil’s writing system. This naming reflects a narrative influenced by northern-centric historiography.

However, the Tamili script (தமிழி எழுத்து) is far more likely to be an independent evolution, as evidenced by the depth of Tamil phonetics and grammar recorded in ancient texts like Tholkappiyam.

Insights from Elhuthathikaram

Tholkappiyam’s Linguistic Framework

Tholkappiyam’s Elhuthathikaram provides a sophisticated analysis of Tamil phonology and orthography through systematic classification and detailed rules. Key examples include:

1. Phonological Classification

The text presents a three-tier classification system:

• Primary Sounds (முதல் எழுத்து):
• 12 vowels: அ, ஆ, இ, ஈ, உ, ஊ, எ, ஏ, ஐ, ஒ, ஓ, ஔ
• 18 consonants: க், ங், ச், ஞ், ட், ண், த், ந், ப், ம், ய், ர், ல், வ், ழ், ள், ற், ன்
• Secondary Sounds (சார்பெழுத்து):
• Including ஃ (ஆய்தம்) and combined forms

2. Phonetic Rules (புணரியல்)

Tholkappiyam outlines precise rules for sound combinations:

“மெய்யீ ரொற்றும் உயிர்மெய் யாகும்”
(Two consonants joining with a vowel become a composite letter)

This demonstrates understanding of syllabic structure centuries before modern linguistics.

3. Orthographic Principles

The text establishes rules for:

• Letter Formation:
• “எழுத்தென்ப
  அகர முதல னகர விறுவாய்
  முப்ப ஃதென்ப”
  (Letters begin with ‘a’ and end with ‘na’, totaling thirty)
• Writing Direction: Left to right organization
• Character Spacing: Guidelines for letter and word separation

4. Sound Properties

Detailed analysis of:

• Duration (மாத்திரை):
• Short vowels: 1 unit
• Long vowels: 2 units
• Consonants: 1/2 unit
• Articulation Points (பிறப்பிடம்):
• Eight positions including throat, palate, tongue tip
  “அண்ணம் முதலா முப்பஃ தெழுத்திற்கு
  கண்ணிய புள்ளி தந்தன ரியற்றே”

Integration with Script Development

These linguistic insights directly influenced script design:

• Vowel Markers: Systematic placement reflecting phonological rules
• Consonant Clusters: Organized based on articulation points
• Special Characters: Development of unique Tamil characters (ழ, ள, ற) based on precise phonetic needs

Phonological Classification Table

Category	Sounds
Vowels (Kuril)	அ, இ, உ, எ, ஒ
Vowels (Nedil)	ஆ, ஈ, ஊ, ஏ, ஓ, ஔ
Consonants	க், ங், ச், ஞ், ட், ண், த், ந், ப், ம், ய், ர், ல், வ், ழ், ள், ற், ன்

Comparative Analysis: Tamili vs. Brahmi Script

A side-by-side comparison illustrating the uniqueness of Tamili script:

Feature	Tamili Script	Brahmi Script
Grapheme for “lh” (ழ்)	Unique retroflex design, tailored for Tamil	Absent or approximated
Grapheme for “r” (ற்)	Specialized for Tamil phonetics	Simplified or generalized representation
Grapheme for “l” (ள்)	Curved and distinctive	Lacks differentiation for retroflex sounds
Representation of sounds	Phonologically precise	Generalized phonetics

This table demonstrates how Tamili script evolved uniquely to represent Tamil phonology, addressing gaps in the Brahmi system.

Comparative Evidence

Examples showing Tholkappiyam’s influence on script development:

• Early inscriptions following phonological rules
• Character modifications reflecting sound classifications
• Systematic adaptation of writing conventions

This sophisticated understanding of Tamil phonology predates many classical grammatical works, demonstrating an established writing tradition that evolved into the Tamili script independently and well before the period of so-called Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions.

---

Integration vs. Origin

Tamil-Brahmi may represent an adaptation or formalization of an earlier Tamil script during periods of interaction with Brahmi.

The addition of Tamil-specific sounds (ழ, ள, ற) to the script highlights Tamil’s resistance to external linguistic homogenization.

Archaeological Evidence

Tamil’s writing tradition extends back millennia, with key discoveries including:

• Keelhadi Inscriptions: Unearthed in Tamil Nadu, dated to approximately 6th century BCE—3rd century BCE, these findings reveal early Tamil inscriptions on pottery and artifacts.
• Anuradhapura Inscriptions: Found in Sri Lanka, these inscriptions provide evidence of Tamil writing’s spread beyond Tamilakam, underscoring its regional significance.

These inscriptions, written in what is commonly called Tamil-Brahmi, demonstrate a script uniquely adapted to Tamil’s phonetics.

Chronological Framework

The timeline of Tamil writing can be outlined as follows:

Timeline of Tamili Script Development	Key Features
Proto-Tamili Era (Pre-6th Century BCE)	Potential evidence of symbolic or proto-writing systems in Tamilakam.
Formalization (6th—3rd Century BCE)	Archaeological findings such as Keelhadi suggest the use of a formalized script.
Evolution to Vaṭeṭuttu (Post-3rd Century BCE)	Tamili script evolved into later forms, directly influencing modern Tamil script.

Scholars like Iravatham Mahadevan have debated the dating and classification of these scripts, with evidence increasingly favoring Tamil’s linguistic independence.

---

Linguistic Features of the Tamili Script

Phonetic Precision

The script’s ability to represent Tamil’s unique sounds, as detailed in Elhuthathikaram, showcases a linguistic system tailored to Tamil’s phonological structure.

The classification of sounds into vallinam, mellinam, and idaiyinam is unparalleled in other Indian scripts of the time.

Continuity and Evolution

From Tamili script to later forms like Vaṭeṭuttu and modern Tamil script, the continuity of Tamil’s writing tradition highlights its resilience and adaptability.

Tamili script served as the foundation for Tamil’s long literary and epigraphic tradition.

Phonological Necessities

The Tamili script was designed to represent Tamil’s unique sounds, as detailed in Elhuthathikaram (Tholkappiyam). Key features include:

• Vowels (Uyir Elhuthu): A comprehensive system distinguishing short (kuril) and long (nedil) vowels.
• Consonants (Mei Elhuthu): Classified into vallinam (hard), mellinam (soft), and idaiyinam (medium) categories.
• Retroflex Sounds: Letters like lh (ழ்), l (ள்), and r (ற்) are unique to Tamil and necessitated script innovation.

---

Cultural and Political Influences

Integration vs. Origin

The Tamili script’s adaptation into what is called Tamil-Brahmi was likely influenced by political and cultural exchanges during the later Tamil Kingdoms. However, this should not overshadow the script’s indigenous origins.

Reclaiming the Narrative

The naming of Tamil-Brahmi reflects a broader historiographical trend to subordinate Tamil’s linguistic identity. Recognizing it as Tamili script restores Tamil’s cultural and historical autonomy.

---

A Vision for Reclaiming Identity

Why Tamili Script Matters

Renaming the script as Tamili is an act of reclaiming Tamil’s linguistic pride. It highlights:

• Tamil’s contribution to world linguistics.
• The autonomy and sophistication of Tamil’s writing tradition.

Implications for Tamil Heritage

This redefinition strengthens efforts to preserve Tamil culture, emphasizing its role as one of the oldest and most advanced linguistic traditions.

---

Future Research Directions

• Archaeological Exploration: Further excavations in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka to uncover more inscriptions.
• Deciphering Proto-Tamili: A deeper study into potential pre-Tamili writing systems.
• Cross-Script Comparison: Comparative studies with other ancient scripts to highlight Tamili’s uniqueness.

---

Conclusion

The so-called Tamil-Brahmi script is more accurately described as the Tamili script (தமிழி எழுத்து), a testament to Tamil’s linguistic and cultural resilience. By reclaiming its true identity, we honor the depth and independence of Tamil heritage and affirm its rightful place in the history of human civilization.

---

References

• Tholkappiyam (Elhuthathikaram): Insights on Tamil phonetics and script.
• Keelhadi Excavation Reports: Evidence of early Tamil inscriptions.
• Comparative Linguistic Studies: Analysis of Tamil and Brahmi scripts.
• Contributions from contemporary Tamil scholars and epigraphists.
• Studies on linguistic independence and historical script evolution.

Muhelen Murugan. December 1, 2024

The name we use for one of the major language families of South Asia is rife with colonial baggage and linguistic inaccuracy. For over 150 years, the term “Dravidian” has persisted, despite being a Sanskrit-derived misnomer that obfuscates the family’s true Tamil origins. It’s high time we rectify this injustice through a long-overdue renaming to “Tamilian.”

Why “Dravidian” is Problematic

The “Dravidian” label was coined in 1856 by British linguist Robert Caldwell, deriving it from the Sanskrit word “drāviḍa” used to refer to the geographic region of South India and its inhabitants. However, as Caldwell himself admitted, these languages have no genetic relationship to Sanskrit or other Indo-European tongues. Applying a Sanskrit name to an entirely unrelated language family represented the colonial-era biases and Eurocentric framing rampant in early linguistics scholarship on South Asia.

Even more troubling, the term’s Sanskrit roots reflect an external geographic labeling practice used by ancient Hindu texts to describe culturally and linguistically distinct local populations. This exogenous framing disregards the actual identities and linguistic realities of the speech communities themselves. In our modern post-colonial context, perpetuating the “Dravidian” misnomer serves to erase the family’s indigenous Tamil roots.

The Evidence for a Tamilian Core

Extensive evidence from comparative linguistic analysis, historical linguistics, glottochronology, and quantitative statistical methods consistently indicates that Tamil represents the oldest, most archaic, and prototypical branch that aligns closest with reconstructions of the proto-language, warranting recognition as the core source.

Linguistic Data:

Tamil exhibits deeply conservative phonological, grammatical, and lexical features that have remained closest to proto-Dravidian roots, while other major literary languages underwent greater degrees of innovation over time.

Core vocabulary: Tamil shares significant lexical roots for basic vocabulary with proto-Dravidian reconstructions.

Literary Tradition: The oldest continuous textual records in any Dravidian language are Tamil’s Sangam classics and the ancient Tolkāppiyam grammar work, predating literary sources from other branches by centuries or millennia.

Inscriptions: Crucially, early Dravidian language inscriptions from major sites across South Asia like the Indus Valley use Tamili script (Tamil-Brahmi) variants, highlighting Tamil’s historical primacy.

Essentially, if languages are like trees with branches, Tamil represents the oldest, sturdiest core trunk from which other Dravidian tongues branched out and diverged over time. Its linguistic profile most closely adheres to the proto-source, just as families like Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan are named for their primordial ancestral contributors. Calling this family “Tamilian” would finally realign its nomenclature with linguistic reality.

Comparative Linguistic Analysis:

Systematic comparisons across the major Dravidian subgroups demonstrate Tamil’s archaic retentions versus shared innovations in other branches. For example, the retention of ancient phonemes like /ḻ/, proto-grammatical archaisms in verb morphology and case marking, and a core vocabulary stratum mapping faithfully to reconstructed proto-forms.

Using computational phylogenetic models, we can quantify Tamil’s relatively higher degree of linguistic proximity and lower measured divergence from the proto-language compared to other subgroups. These methods infer proto-Dravidian as the clear genomic precursor radiating outwards along a branching tree structure, with Tamil representing the trunk closest to that root state.

Historical Linguistics: In-depth reconstruction work charts the linguistic evolution from proto-Dravidian roots to modern Tamil via principled sound changes and rule mappings. This diachronic analysis reinforces Tamil’s conservative profile retaining key ancestral traits.

The Linguistic Paleontology of reconstructed proto-vocabulary offers glimpses of the ancestral Dravidian homeland’s flora, fauna, and cultural context, strongly pointing towards Tamil Nadu as the Urheimat region.

Moreover, the chronological antiquity of Tamil’s linguistic influences manifests across other Dravidian branches through loanword and contact evidence accumulated over vast timescales.

Glottochronology:

Applying techniques like lexicostatistical modeling yields estimated chronological ranges for when Tamil first diversified from other Dravidian subgroups that align remarkably with archaeological dates for prehistoric migrations and population expansions from Tamil Nadu across south India and beyond.

At higher subgroup levels, glottochronological calculations suggest the initial proto-Dravidian diversification into daughter branches may trace back over 4-5 millennia, consistent with Tamil literary traditions’ antiquity.

Statistical Linguistics:

Bayesian phylogenetic analyses and computational cladistics methods demonstrate Tamil’s ancestral position at the root of the Dravidian family tree topology. Statistical models quantify Tamil’s higher statistical conservatism across linguistic traits compared to reconstructed proto-norms versus other languages’ divergent character states.

Integrating these multidisciplinary historical linguistic methodologies offers a vastly enriched empirical foundation situating Tamil as the prototypical core of this language family. From every angle – comparative analysis, linguistic paleontology, glottochronology, and quantitative phylogenetics – the evidence consistently highlights the unrivaled archaicity and central phylogenetic role of the Tamil branch.

This wealth of convergent technical scrutiny renders Tamil’s qualification as the root ancestral source unimpeachable. As the demonstrable prototypical exemplar mapping most faithfully onto proto-Dravidian origins, Tamil rightfully merits explicit nomenclature recognition through the more etymologically accurate designation “Tamilian” for this language family.

The Push for Decolonization

Beyond just linguistic accuracy, transitioning away from the “Dravidian” colonial misnomer represents an opportunity for decolonization and reclaiming the indigenous identity of these speech communities.

For too long, the externally imposed Sanskrit-rooted label has caused these languages to be framed through the lens of the dominant Indo-Aryan cultural complex, rather than their own authentic roots and historical identity. Renaming as “Tamilian” would decouple this family’s identity from that problematic exonym.

Of course, such a monumental shift in entrenched academic terminology governing millions of language speakers must be executed thoughtfully to address socio-political concerns around ethnic identities, nationalism, and pan-Dravidian solidarity. Inclusive efforts reassuring all sub-groups that their equal representation is maintained under the new “Tamilian” banner would be crucial.

A Roadmap for Change

So just how could the “Tamilian” shift be implemented? Here’s a potential multi-phase roadmap:

• Phase 1) Building consensus across linguistic societies, government language bodies, and key stakeholders through conferences and publications making the evidence-based case.
• Phase 2) Formal adoption in linguistics education curricula and instructional materials.
• Phase 3) Systematic updating of major reference materials like encyclopedias, dictionaries, and databases.
• Phase 4) Integration into government demographic surveys, legal codes, and constitutional contexts in Tamilian-speaking regions.

In total, rolling out the comprehensive global transition could take 10-15 years and would require oversight from international regulatory bodies. While substantial, the costs would be moderate compared to the immense impact and decolonizing benefits.

We’ve Revised Misnomers Before

Those scoffing at attempting such an ambitious terminological overhaul should remember that the fields of linguistics and academia have successfully replaced engrained misnomers in the past when new evidence came to light. A prominent example is the shift from the colonial geographic label “Malayo-Polynesian” languages to the more inclusive and accurate “Austronesian” nomenclature in the 1960s-70s.

That transition provides an illuminating template, demonstrating how interdisciplinary cooperation across linguistic societies, government bodies, publishers, and educational institutions allowed a more evidence-based terminology to systematically supplant conventions rooted in outdated colonialism over time.

Anticipating Opposition

Naturally, such a proposal will face pushback from entrenched institutional perspectives and bad-faith allegations of linguistic chauvinism or Tamil nationalism. These critiques can be substantively addressed.

Legacy Terminology: While the sheer longevity of “Dravidian” as the convention has afforded it staying power, its lack of linguistic justification outweighs the inertia. Strategic planned rollout can phase in “Tamilian” systematically.

Insufficient Differentiation: Some may claim Tamil’s divergences don’t warrant separate nomenclature. However, the data clearly shows Tamil has preserved the most ancestral grammar, sounds, and vocabulary mapping to proto-Dravidian roots. The very existence of linguistic subgroups necessitates accurately labeling the core source.

Tamil Nationalism Claims: Doubtless some political actors will cynically accuse this proposal of stoking Tamil ethnic chauvinism. But our stance fundamentally upholds principles of nomenclature based on linguistic evidence rather than identity politics. Proactive collaboration across sub-communities can mitigate solidarity concerns.

Ultimately, our commitment to linguistic rigor based on substantive evidence, recognition of the languages’ indigenous roots, and adherence to established field standards of how families are identified demands that we rectify the glaring “Dravidian” misnomer. Just as the Austronesian transition corrected a geographic misnomer, so too must we rid ourselves of this inaccurate Sanskrit-derived relic of colonial framing.

The Path to Linguistic Truth

While the path to enacting this change will require careful navigation of complex socio-political realities, the linguistic truth at the core of this renaming effort is clear and compelling. Tamil represents the undisputed root source and most prototypical exemplar of this language family. Continuing to propagate the colonial-era misnomer “Dravidian” represents a perpetuation of obfuscation and linguistic injustice.

As a field committed to empirical evidence over entrenched convention, we have an imperative to align this family’s exonym with its demonstrable linguistic realities. Adopting the more etymologically and historically accurate appellation “Tamilian” would finally recognize the indigenous identity and primordial roots of these speech communities free from the baggage of colonial-era misnomers. It’s time we complete this long-overdue act of linguistic decolonization.

Join me in embracing this change, as we honor the rich linguistic tapestry of South Asia with a name that truly represents its origins and essence. Let’s welcome the age of “Tamilian.”

Muhelen Murugan. April 1 2024

January 1 and Thai 1 (Pongal) hold profound significance as markers of time, both in the global and Tamil contexts. While the former inaugurates the Gregorian calendar year, the latter signifies the commencement of the Tamil month of Thai and marks the Tamil New Year according to the Thiruvalluvar calendar. These dates reveal intriguing intersections of history, culture, and astronomy, offering a deeper understanding of their importance in both traditional and contemporary contexts.

---

Cultural Significance

New Year’s Day (January 1st)

New Year’s Day, celebrated globally on January 1, heralds the start of the Gregorian calendar year. Its selection was influenced more by historical and administrative considerations than by astronomical phenomena. The adoption of this date by various cultures underscores the Gregorian calendar’s global reach and standardization.

Modern celebrations now reflect:

• Global participation exceeding 7 billion people across 195 countries
• Diverse cultural adaptations while maintaining core timing
• Evolution from administrative marker to cultural phenomenon

Pongal (Thai 1)

Pongal, also known as Thai 1, holds immense cultural significance in Tamil traditions, transcending religious boundaries. This festival of thanksgiving honors nature’s bounty and aligns with the Tamil solar calendar’s onset of the month of Thai. Pongal’s timing coincides with “Vadaselavu” (Uttarayanam), the sun’s northward journey, underscoring its deep-rooted connection to natural and celestial cycles.

Contemporary significance includes:

• Celebration by 80+ million people worldwide
• Preservation of traditional agricultural connections
• Adaptation to modern urban contexts while maintaining core values

---

Astronomical Significance

New Year’s Day (January 1st)

Although January 1 was not chosen for its astronomical significance, it occurs near perihelion, the point in Earth’s elliptical orbit closest to the Sun. This proximity influences Earth’s climate dynamics, including shorter winters in the Northern Hemisphere due to increased solar energy received during this period.

Detailed astronomical parameters:

Earth's Position at January 1st:
- Distance from Sun: 147.1 million km (Perihelion)
- Axial tilt effect: 23.5° away from the Sun
- Solar energy reception: +7% compared to aphelion

Pongal (Thai 1)

Pongal’s intrinsic astronomical connections remain central to its significance:

• Marks the Sun’s transition into Capricorn (Makaram)
• Signals the sun’s apparent northward shift (Vadaselavu/Uttarayanam)
• Aligns with winter solstice effects
• Correlates with agricultural cycles

Modern astronomical calculations show:

Thai 1 Astronomical Parameters:
- Sun's declination: -23° to -20°
- Day length variation: +2 minutes/day
- Agricultural impact: Optimal photosynthesis period begins

---

Calendar Systems

New Year’s Day (January 1st)

The Gregorian calendar’s establishment in 1582 represents a crucial development in standardizing global time measurement:

• Corrected Julian calendar discrepancies
• Established precise year length calculation
• Created framework for international time standardization

Pongal (Thai 1)

The Tamil calendar’s lunisolar system demonstrates sophisticated astronomical understanding:

• Harmonizes lunar months with solar year
• Maintains alignment with celestial phenomena
• Preserves agricultural and astronomical synchronization

---

Environmental Impact and Modern Adaptations

Climate Change Considerations

• Impact on traditional timing of celebrations
• Changes in agricultural patterns affecting Pongal
• Adaptation strategies for traditional practices

Sustainability Initiatives

• Traditional eco-friendly practices
• Modern sustainable celebrations
• Carbon footprint reduction efforts

---

Sociological Evolution

Generational Perspectives

• Traditional practice preservation
• Modern interpretation and adaptation
• Cross-cultural celebration patterns

Urban Adaptation

• Space constraints and solutions
• Time management strategies
• Community celebration innovations

---

Technological Integration

Digital Transformation

• Virtual celebration platforms
• Social media influence
• Cultural knowledge preservation

Modern Tools for Traditional Practices

• Apps for astronomical calculations
• Digital planning tools
• Virtual community building

---

Comparative Insights

The original comparison between January 1 and Thai 1 remains fundamental:

1. Global and Secular vs. Cultural and Astronomical:

• January 1: Global, secular milestone
• Thai 1: Deep cultural and astronomical connections

1. Astronomical Contexts:

• January 1: Incidental perihelion alignment
• Thai 1: Intentional celestial synchronization

1. Symbolism:

• January 1: Administrative and personal renewal
• Thai 1: Natural cycles and community celebration

---

Conclusion

January 1 and Thai 1 continue to provide complementary perspectives on humanity’s relationship with time and nature. While January 1 exemplifies the evolution of standardized global time measurement, Thai 1 demonstrates the enduring relevance of traditional astronomical and agricultural connections. Together, they illustrate how ancient wisdom and modern practices can coexist and evolve while maintaining their essential character and significance.

---

Muhelen Murugan. Published: January 1, 2024 | Updated: January 1, 2025