it is the view of experts that the paleolithic man of South India* did not live in forests but on hilly plains. He was not a gross savage unlike the paleolithic man of other countries. So South India must have prepaleolithic people who were the aboriginals and sons of the soil. These, as I shall show in the sequel, were the forefathers of the ancient Tamils who have not even a doubtful tradition to point out the otherwise of autochthony.
The ethnic and other affinities between South India and the Mediterranean basin must be due to the fact that Southern India was once the passage ground by which the ancient progenitors of northern and Mediterranean nations proceeded to the different parts of the globe which they now inhabit (Dr. E. Maclean). It is interesting that the Indians of North America and ancient Egyptians had a tradition that they were immigrants, and Heeren was inclined to postulate the Indian origin of Egyptians basing his theory on the form of the skull of the Egyptians. There is also a theory that the land of the Punt, the original home of the Egyptians was perhaps the Pāņdyan land including the Malabar coast. But more evidence, it is said, is needed to confirm this.
A good number of theories hold the field in respect of the origin of the ancient Tamils and I propose to deal with some of the important ones. The theory that the Dravidians were immigrant to South India seems to have gained much ground and looks as if it were an established fact. A claim has been made that
