and short e, எ and ஒ, which is one of the arguments that may be adduced in favour of the theory of the derivation of that alphabet from the Sanskritic alphabet of Asoka.' All these are mere theories. So far as we are aware, neither Dr. Caldwell, nor Dr. Buhler, nor even Dr. Grierson has disproved the other hypothesis by any crucial instances.
In support of the theory advocated by Mr. E. Thomas, Drs. Rhys Davids and Burnell—on whose side the balance of authority seems to rest—that the Tamilians had introduced the Vatteluttu and developed it independently of the Asoka or the Brahmi alphabet, the following arguments may be adduced:—
It has been shown in a previous essay that the Tamil people or rather the early Dravidians were a civiized race allied to the ancient Accadians, with whom they lived in Babylonia and Assyria before their migration to Hindustan. They were acquainted with the Phænicians and Egyptians as early as the 14th yr 15th century B. C. It would, therefore, be highly probable that these early Dravidians might have brought with then the alphabet when they migrated to India. And it is also probable that the Indo-Aryans borrowed it from their Dravidian neighbours.
Long before the settlement of the Aryans in South India, the Tamils had commercial intercourse with the Egyptians and other Western nations, as will be inferred from the existence of Tamil words like tokai (peacock) and agil (a fragrant wood)
