________________
224
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ OCTOBER, 1924
III. Linguistic Evidence.
Alleged evidence against an early date.-The linguistio question has never been touched by any one except the late. Mr. V. Venkayya, Epigraphist for India, and that very meagrely. To quote him fully: "The language of the inscription is Tamil prose mixed with a few Malayalam forms, of which the following deserve to be noticed: irunnarula (a, 5) (for iruntarula), alannu (112) (for alantu), páváța (19) (for Pávâțai), Kuta (1-10) atima (111) para, nira, (112) Sarkara, enna ita and ullata (1·14) ita (116) and vise shal (116) (for visèshat). Koyilakam (15) would in modern Tamil mean the inside of a temple. In ancient Tamil inscriptions of the time of Rajaraja I, the word kôyil alone is used in the ⚫ sense of a royal palace. In the present inscription kôyilakam means a royal palace as in modern Malayalam. Of the words mentioned above, pavaṭai, kutai, parai occur also in the Cochin plates. The fact that they are there spelt exactly as in Tamil, and that in the subjoined grant they are spelt as in modern Malayalam, suggests that the Kottayam plate is later than the Cochin grant. The form ullala (114) occurs in the former, while irukkumatu and perumatu occur in the latter. This again points to the same conclusion." (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. IV, 1896-7, p. 292.)
Mr. Venkayya, it is evident, did not enquire when the forms he refers to came into use in Malabar, nor did he carefully compare, the Cochin plates and the plate in question, though he professes to have done so. We must compare the document in question with the ancient writings of Keralam.
Malayalam was once called the Tamil of the Malanâțu. The difference between this Tamil and that of the other parts grew greater, and greater, till in course of time they became two different languages. The priority, therefore, of one inscription to another should be decided by its resemblance to Tamil. The language of the country from Quilon southward is even now very different from that of the north, the former being considerably influenced by Tamil. That the difference was very much greater in former days is a point on which there can be no doubt. It is, therefore, of no use to compare the ancient writings of Quilon and the south with the document under consideration. Unfortunately we find no dated inscription prior to the seventeenth century in Cranganore and the adja. cent places, which were the real Malayalam area in days of old, but we have a certain literary work of the fourteenth century which will be considered later on. For the present we must confine ourselves to inscriptions, of which we have a few in Middle Travancore. The language of Middle Travancore is even now different from that of the northern regions like Cranganore, although ever since the sovereign of Travancore, whose dominion was formerly bounded on the north by Itava, south of Quilon, extended it to Cranganore and Parur, the language of the north and the south has been undergoing a levelling operation, while the press and the facilities of communication are now levelling the language further still throughout Keralam. In former days when these elements were absent, the Malayalam of Middle Travancore and that of the northern parts must have been very different. Anyhow as we have only Middle Travancore inscriptions available, let us compare with them the document in question.
The following are the dated and datable inscriptions available from Kantiyâr northward: the Kantiyâr inscription of A.D. 1218 (Trav. Arch. Series, Vol. 1, p. 290), and of 946 A.D. (Ibid., p. 292), the Kaviyûr inscription of 951 A.D. (Ibid., p. 288), and of 950 A.D. (Ibid., p. 289), the Mûvatattumatham copper plate of Tâņu Iravi, ninth century (Ibid., Vol. II, p. 85), the Rajsekhara copper plate in possession of Mûvatattumatham,16
16 This plate does not belong to Talamana Illam, Changanacherry, as stated by Gopinatha Rao, but to Müvatattumatham, Tiruvalla.
