Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c5.s3.21

c5.s3.21

It is thus evident that the Vaṭṭeḻuttu differs greatly from the Canarese and Telugu alphabets; but if one compares the forms of **ī**, **k**, **t**, **r**, and even **a** and **ā**, in both, it is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that they are derived from the same source. That an alphabet should have been imported independently into Northern India (probably Gujarat) and also into the Tamil country much about the same time, seems strange; but it is nevertheless most likely, considering the circumstances of foreign trade with India as reported by the classical authors. The Periplus, for example, mentions a large trade with Āriakē, *i. e.* Bombay and the country of the Prakrit-speaking peoples; there is then a gap, and again large trade with Limurikē. Now this is simply the Western Tamil country or Malabar¹, and between the two provinces there was the Pirate Coast which preserved its evil name till within recollection of many. There would be no trade there, and the Western and S. Western Coast would thus be in fact distinct countries. Again there could not have been any communication by land, for Fa-hian (400 A. D.) mentions the Deccan as uncivilized and inaccessible; it is, therefore, more likely that the S. Açoka character and the Vaṭṭĕḻuttu are totally distinct importations, than derived the one from the other.