@r_inba

following the ke-che discussion with much interests and learning.



Was googling about Asoka’s 2nd edict – which I guess predates literary reference to the Cheras by 3-4 centuries. I had some typically half-baked thoughts which I shall foist on you

Pre-Edict
the Pandyas and Cholas are referred as such but the Cheras are not and (if indeed it refers to them) are referred to as Keralaputras, as you have stated.

Wiki mentions the Periplus (a Greek 1st hand account of the navigation of the Indian ocean) referring to them as Celobotra – but that doesn’t alleiviate the frustration as it throws no light on whether the Ce is சே or கே ! (சே I think - must ask those who know how Greek pronunication works)

But anyway the time of periplus is alongside the earliest of Sangam poems (which mention the cheras) I see. So, well after the Asokan edicts.

Keralaputra - Cheraputra

Most certainly there were Cheras after the edict. So should the question be broadened to include what changed to what?

The composition of Aranyakas and Mahabharatha predate the edicts of course. Wiki mentions they refer to the Cheras. What exactly is the word used may need to be looked up.
But I am guessing it is very reasonable to assume they were indeed known as the chEras first.

If we agree on that prior, and given they were most certainly known as the cheras later, isn’ it curious that they’d be referred to differently at the time of the edict alone.
Is the edict indeed referring to the same people? Or did both names coexist? - is a line of inquiry.

While on the edict, who were the Satiyaputras he refers to.
Not clear here http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5740972

Ke-Che
But in that link above, see how there is a variation in the translation of keralaputra. One translates it as kEdhaLapuththo (கேதளபுத்தோ.) – as the text is indeed in Prakrit – not Sanskrit.

This begs the question: is kEdhaLaputhO a ‘simplification’ of kEraLaputra – as we (adhAvadhu I) are instinctively inclined to think. Or is kEraLaputra a retrospective reading of the text itself – after all the edicts were discovered and deciphered by the British in the 19th/ early 20th century.

There could be a simplified mapping between the Prakrit and Sanskrit (dhamma –dharma) so my point could be moot. But to the extent we are talking about the pronunciation itself, I think there may be something to consider – kEdhA…in addition to kEra, chera. ஏதோ என்னால முடிஞ்ச புதுக்குழப்பம் :D

Btw sE NOT ChE

Btw, isn’t சே at the start of the word sE and not chE?
The ch sound is only after ச் or ஞ், right? (something roundly missed by those who want to introduce new letters to Tamil to capture sounds ‘unambiguously’).
So it would be nedunjEralaadhan, maandharanjEral but sEran senguttuvan and not chEran senguttuvan. Am I right?

I belabor this point to test – even if only to rule out the - possibility of the edict reading sEraLaputra and being ‘misread’ as keraLaputra

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/brahmi.htm
This is the alphabet for the Asokan brahmi. Check out the symbols for ka and sa (not cha) are similar.

I am not sure how exactly they look with the உயிர்மெய் modifiers – for kE and sE (NHM writer latest version allows you to type brahmi font, but I am not able to read it :-| )
So one more thing to add to the list of plausible theories: it may have been sE, but misread as kE, because it was being interpreted in the 19th-20th century.
I tried looking for an image of the 2nd edict online but couldn’t find it. This link has the pic of the 1st edict but not the second http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
The idea was check if that contentious letter was fully visible etc.

I admit again that these kind of basics would likely have been ruled out by the experts.
But then, as those following the debates around the indus valley seals would tell you, there is sometimes precious little data and the complete vs. incomplete rendering (to be interpolated with theory) makes a difference.

இதனால் நான் சொல்ல வரும் கருத்து
ஒண்ணும் இல்லை. None of this explains in definitive terms the etymology of kEraLA. I anyway lack the wherewithal for such pronouncements; just being an infovore gorging on the speculations of the plausible.

Reply · Report Post