________________
NOVEMBAR, 1924) KOTTAYAM PLATE OF VIRA-RAGHAVA CHAKRAVARTI
251
one at Perunna, one at Tirukkoţittanam and one at Kurralam. We have one ninth century document and another of the sixth century-35 big copper plates now preserved in the Trivandrum Museum-written at Tiruvalla itself. We do not find in any of them this particular form of lu which appears in the Tiruvalla plate of Rajasekhara. No scholar will contend that all this is due to mere chance. It, therefore, follows that Vira Raghava and R&jaśêkhara are the earliest and Parkara Iravi the next in point of date. Some may point to the Paliyam plates and the Parur inscription (cols. 20, 21). The characters of the Paliyam plates (A.D. 1663) are very different from the ancient inscriptions. The symbol 1 which is uniform in all ancient inscriptions has undergone a change in the Paliyam plates. The vowel u and is added to I, not as it is in Vatteluttu, but as it is in Malayalam or Grantha. The symbol lu of the Michirai Matham plates (A.D. 1770) is not like that of the Paliyam plates (ools. 20, 22). As for the Parur inscription (col. 21), the symbol lu is exactly the Tamil lu-vide the character in the facsimiles of the ancient or modern Tamil inscriptions. (Trav. Arch. Series, Vol. I, pp. 6-9). The symbol 1 of Vatteluttu and Tamil are the same. The Tamil alphabet was commonly used in Keralam during the seventeenth century. The writer of the Parur inscription had to write a lu after a l. He therefore may have written & Tamil lu by confusion. Or else he thought it proper to introduce a Tamil lu into the Vatteluttu alphabet. Anyhow none followed him.
Conclusion. We can now summarize what we have said on the date of the copper plate in question We find that there are only four dates which suit the Astronomical requirements given in our plate-A.D. 230, 680, 775 and 1320. I don't think that any one will ascribe to this plate so late a date as the fourteenth century, after reading the specimens of Malayalam prose of the thirteenth century which I have quoted above.
Paleography has made it very cloar that Vira Raghava is earlier than the eighth century. The year 775 is also, therefore, out of the question.
Now there remain A.D. 230 and 680. It is unquestionably proved on Astronomical grounds that Pårkara Iravi Varmar was of the sixth century. Among the witnesses of the Vira Raghava plate we do not find the king of the Venpolinátu who is mentioned in the Cochin plates of Parkara Iravi. If the dynasty of Venpolinátu was in existence at the time of Vira Raghava, it would have been by no means omitted, seeing that Venpolin&tu was a strong Christian centre. Vira Raghava, therefore, must be earlier than Parkara Iravi, Virakerala Chakravartti, who lived during the middle of the first century B.O., is mentioned as tho great predecessor of Vira Raghava, but Pårkara Iravi Varmar does not make mention of him. Perbaps he belonged to a different dynasty or, on account of the great distance of time, the name of Virakerala Chakravartti was omitted. This also leads us to think that Vira Raghava was older than Parkara Iravi Varmar. Vira Raghava is & pure Sanskrit name, but Pårkara Iravi is a Tamilised Sanskrit name, and consequently is of so late a date that the Aryan kings in the south allowed their names to be Tamilised. Vira Raghava, therefore, is earlier than Parkara Iravi.
Paleographic evidence, especially that afforded by the character lu of Vatteluttu, also leads us to the conclusion that Vira Raghava was earlier. The date, therefore, of Vfra Raghava is Marah 6, 230 A.D.
