Origin And Spread Of The Tamils

ORIGIN AND SPREAD OF

THE TAMILS

(A COURSE OF TWO LECTURES DELIVERED

UNDER THE SANKARA-PARVATI ENDOWMENT,

UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS)

BY

V. R. RAMACHANDRA DIKSHITAR, M.A.,

University of Madras

THE ADYAR LIBRARY

Printed by C. Subbarayudu, at the Vasanta Press,

The Theosophical Society, Adyar, Madras

P. I. C. No. 85–5-5-1947.

PREFACE

THE following pages represent a course of lectures delivered under the terms of the Sankara-Parvati Endowment, University of Madras, on the 29th and 30th of November 1940.

An endeavour has been made in these lectures to examine the prevalent opinion held by scholars, both Western and Indian, on the origin of the Dravidians and their culture, and it is shown that the Tamils were the original inhabitants of the land, who had evolved an independent culture of their own which is generally known as Dravidian. These Tamils have handed down their culture to the succeeding generations in the East as well as in the West. Thus their contribution in the ancient and the modern times is something original, arresting and impressive. The ‘Notes’ appended to these lectures may enable the readers to form a judgment on the conclusions reached by the author.

I have to thank the Syndicate of the University of Madras for inviting me to deliver these lectures and permitting me to print them.

I am grateful to Dr. G. Srinivasa Murti, B.A., B.L., M.B. & C.M., Vaidyaratna, Captain, Honorary Director of the Adyar Library for having generously included this book in the Adyar Library Series. My thanks are also due to Sri Rao Bahadur K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar for having read through the typescript of the lectures and Dewan Bahadur C. S. Srinivasa Chari for having helped me in the preparation of the ‘ Notes.’ I also record my thanks to Mr. A. N. Krishna Aiyangar of the Adyar Library for pushing the work through the press by correcting the proofs and furnishing the book with an Index. The neat and expeditious printing of the work by the Vasanta Press has placed me under great obligation to the Manager, Mr. C. Subbarayudu.

CONTENTS

Preface

Lecture I: Authors of Early Tamil Culture

Lecture II: Spread of Tamil Culture Abroad

Notes to Lecture  I

Notes to Lecture II

Index

LECTURE I

AUTHORS OF EARLY TAMIL CULTURE

IT is said that Geology looks farther than History. According to the geologist the antiquity of South India and Ceylon goes to the earliest Geological times. From Palaeozoic times there was the continent of Gondwana extending from Australia through Peninsular India and South Africa on to South America. At the close of the Mesozoic era this continent of Gondwana land broke up; large areas went under the ocean. Australia, India, South Africa and South America became separated. But it is believed that India and Africa were still connected by an isthmus bridge, and to this the name ‘Lemuria’ has been given. In the Jurassic epoch the eastward extension of the Indian Peninsula sank beneath the sea and gave rise to the Bay of Bengal.¹ Towards the end of the last Glacial period the sea level which was low, rose again with the melting of ice and resulted in extensive reef formation. It was during this period again the large area of dry land including Sumatra, Java and Borneo became eroded and peneplaned, and when the sea rose, the peneplaned area became drowned, thus separating various islands. This geological action is explained as the occurrence of a great deluge in the Vedic, Epic and Purāṇic works. Manu who survived this catastrophe became the father of mankind.

According to the account in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, a part of the Draviḍa des’a which centred the Malaya Hill survived this deluge. It is said that a fish who is regarded as the first avatār of Tirumāl (Sans. Viṣṇu) showed Manu a boat nearby to save himself from being drowned. In this connection it is worth noting that the emblem of the Pāṇḍya kings of South India was the Fish. The diluvial legends are not peculiar to our country.² For we have versions of this in Hebrew, Babylonian and Sumerian, not to speak of other countries of the ancient world. These legends could not be summarily dismissed as myths but should be taken to have been based on certain historical traditions as the science of Geology would undoubtedly testify. I have pointed elsewhere the striking coincidences between the Babylonian and Indian legends. It is interesting that the Mesopotamian story of the deluge retains two Tamil words mīn (fish) and nīr (water) (Census of India, 1931, p. 366).³

According to the evidence of Geology, rocks of great antiquity—whether they are the Deccan traps or the foundation rocks of the south—have been found in the Indian Peninsula which forms one of the ancient land surfaces of the globe. The Nilgiris, the Palni and Anamalais hills are supposed to be primeval ones. And it is the view of experts that the paleolithic man of South India⁴ did not live in forests but on hilly plains. He was not a gross savage unlike the paleolithic man of other countries. So South India must have prepaleolithic people who were the aboriginals and sons of the soil. These, as I shall show in the sequel, were the forefathers of the ancient Tamils who have not even a doubtful tradition to point out the otherwise of autochthony.

The ethnic and other affinities between South India and the Mediterranean basin must be due to the fact that Southern India was once the passage ground by which the ancient progenitors of northern and Mediterranean nations proceeded to the different parts of the globe which they now inhabit (Dr. E. Maclean). It is interesting that the Indians of North America and ancient Egyptians had a tradition that they were immigrants, and Heeren was inclined to postulate the Indian origin of Egyptians basing his theory on the form of the skull of the Egyptians. There is also a theory that the land of the Punt, the original home of the Egyptians was perhaps the Pāṇḍyan land including the Malabar coast. But more evidence, it is said, is needed to confirm this.⁵

A good number of theories hold the field in respect of the origin of the ancient Tamils⁶ and I propose to deal with some of the important ones. The theory that the Dravidians were immigrant to South India seems to have gained much ground and looks as if it were an established fact. A claim has been made that all non-Brahmans in South India speaking the Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Canarese and Maharashtra languages are descendants of these early Dravidians. From the point of view of race the Brahmans are considered to belong to the Aryan stock while the depressed classes who generally go by the name of Pañcamas (now Harijans) are designated Ādidrāviḍas. The implication is that before the Dravidians entered South India and settled in large numbers the natives of the country who lived in the wilds, who were uncivilized, and who became subject to the invading conquerors came to be known as Ādidrāviḍas. It is generally held today that the Aryan is as much an invader to the Indian continent as the Dravidian. It is also maintained that the Dravidian invaded this land long before the Aryan. In support of this theory it is said that the Dasyus and Dāsas mentioned in the Vedic literature, especially the Ṛg Veda Saṁhitā, are the early Dravidians who were conquered by the invading Aryan hosts and converted as slaves. We shall refer to this later on. Suffice it to say here that none of these theories are acceptable, on the mere fact, that the evidence cited is meagre and highly inconclusive.

This leads us to examine the question, ‘who are the Dravidians?’ In this again there is no unanimity of opinion among scholars. The current theory is that at the time of the Aryan invasion there was in India a Dravidian civilization of a highly developed character, and that the Dravidians were a section of the great Mediterranean race. Consequently, it is claimed that the Dravidian civilization was derived from outside sources, and was linked up with Egypt and Mesopotamia.⁷

Physical features have been taken into account in determining racial elements. Prehistoric craniology can be studied from the finds at Adichanallur, Nal in Baluchistan and Mohenjo Daro. It has been concluded that the Mohenjo Daro skulls of Proto-Australoid type are related to the skulls from Kish, from Adichanallur and from those of the modern Veddahs. According to Elliot Smith an Adichanallur skull is indistinguishable from the early Egyptian type. The generally accepted theory is that the earliest inhabitants of the