universal existence of this matriarchal system among the early Dravidians he adduces two facts : (1) In the Dravidian languages 'the name for the fatherin-law and the maternal uncle is the same ; for the mother-in-law and the paternal aunt is the same'. (2) 'The division is unknown in Malabar, because its people never passed from the matriarchal to the patriarchal condition'. 'The eighteen communities of the right-hand side seem to have approved of the change, while the nine communities of the left-hand side seem to have opposed it'. Mr. Rice also observes that there is a 'doubtful passage in the Mahawanso which may be supposed to refer to it, and if so, the institution would seem to be of great antiquity'; and in support of it he quotes a tradition that when the Pandya princess was sent from Madura to Ceylon, in response to an embassy from Vijaya soliciting her hand in marriage, she is said (according to one version) to have been accompanied by a thousand members of the eighteen castes and five different clans of workmen'.
With due deference to the two high authorities quoted above, I doubt very much the tenability of their arguments in support of the origin and antiquity of the dispute for the following reasons :
It has been shown in the last essay that there was no caste systein among the ancient Dravidians like that which we find amongst them in modern times. Then how did the 18 panas or castes of the right-hand and the 9 panas of the left come
