Sree Vijaya Ancestary
Bengal-Kalinga
According to Mahavamsa sree vijaya belonged to Vanga(Bengal) and Kalinga(orissa), subsequently got exiled from there because of the evil ways and landed in Tambapanni(ancient Lanka). Nissanka Malla's inscriptions mention Simhapura as the capital of Kalinga.
Gujarat-Konkan
The arena associated with the legend of Vijaya and his followers may be in Sihapura (Simhapura), in the Lala Rattha (Lata Rashtra) either latur area in present day konkan or one more in Gujarat.
sindh-Punjab
There is an epic reference to one Simhapura kingdom located on the upper Indus which shared borders with Ursa, Abhisara, Bhlika, Darda and Kamboja. Seventh century Chinese pilgirm Hiun tsang also refers to this Simhapura (Sang-ho-pu-lo) and localises it on upper Indus, in Gandhara (north--west Punjab).
So there is a substantial points of view of ancestary of Sri vijaya.
Showing posts with label Kerala. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kerala. Show all posts
Myth of Tamil Sangams
Sangam
According to the Sangam legends first described in the Irayanaar Agapporul (11th century AD) and a commentary to it by Nakkirar. There were three Sangams spanning thousands of years. The first Sangam, whose seat was then Madurai (southern Madurai), lasted a total of 4440 years and 4449 poets, which included some gods of the Hindu pantheon, took part in it. Lord Shiva presides it. The second Sangam was convened in Kapatapuram, which finds mention in Valmiki Ramayana (Kishkinda Kanda 42:13). This Sangam lasted for 3700 years and had 3700 poets participating. Both these places were held in legendary kumari kandam, which was submerged into sea. The third Sangam believed to be located in the current city of Madurai and lasted for 1850 years under 49 kings.
Sangam literature
Sangam literature refers to a body of classical Tamil literature during third Sangam period. This collection said to contains 2381 poems written by 473 poets, some 102 of who are anonymous authors. The period during which these poems were written is commonly referred to as the 'Sangam' age, referring to the prevalent Sangam legends claiming literary academies lasting thousands of years, giving the name to the corpus of literature. Sangam literature is primarily secular dealing with everyday themes in a South Indian context. The poems belonging to the Sangam literature was composed by Tamil poets, both men and women, from various professions and classes of society. These poems were later collected into various anthologies, edited and had colophons added by anthologists and annotators after 1000 AD. Sangam literature fell out of popular memory soon thereafter, until scholars such as S. V. Damodaram Pillai and U. V. Swaminatha Iyer rediscovered them in the 19th century.
The available literature from this period was categorized and compiled in the 11th century into two categories based roughly on chronology. The categories are: The Major Eighteen Anthology Series Pathinenmaelkanakku comprising The Eight Anthologies Ettuthokai and the Ten Idylls Pattupattu and The Minor Eighteen Anthology Series Pathinenkilkanakku
Evidences
Archeological evidence
There has been no contemporary archaeological or scientific evidence found to substantiate whether these academies existed at all and if so, the dates, the participants or their works. The historian and scientific community at large have dismissed claims of the description of sunken landmass Kumari kandam (Lemuria).
Between the fourth century B.C.E. and c 1000 B.C.E., the archaeological findings point to only a megalithic period, and going further back a Neolithic period starting from about the third millennium BC. These two prehistoric periods do not show any sign of a complex culture, and no clear connection with the dawn of urban civilization in Tamil Nadu.
Any accurate chronological assessment of literary works had been rendered difficult due to lack of concrete scientific evidence to support conflicting claims. Undue reliance on the Sangam legends have thus culminated in controversial opinions or interpretations among scholars, confusion in the dates, names and personal accounts of authors and doubts of even their existence in some cases.
The earliest archeological evidence connecting Madurai and the Sangams is the tenth century Cinnamanur inscription of the Pandyas.
Literary evidence
Although the term Sangam literature is applied to the corpus of Tamil literature claimed to belong to the 200 BCE – 200 CE, the name Sangam and the legend indicates much later date. The literature does not contain any mention of the Sangam academies, although some relationship between Madurai and literature may be found in some of the Sangam age literature. References to Sangam and its association with Madurai have been mentioned by poets such as Sekkilar, Andal, Auvaiyar and Kambar (all belonging to the tenth to the thirteen centuries CE). The actual poems of the Sangam literature themselves do not directly mention such academies. However the poem Mathuraikkanci (761-763), which belongs to the early collection of Pattupattu, describes kudala(Said to be Previous name of Madurai) as the 'place where authors met and interacted
Original Sangha
The word Sangam(confluence of Rivers) is Sanskrit origin, coming from Sangha, the Buddhist and Jain term for an assembly of monks. In Tamil the word means "assembly" or "academy".
Dravida Sangha
Many sangha’s with different acharyas were born after Kundakonda (1st century AD). The great Acharya Kundakunda is associated with Mula Sangh, According to Devasen the process of dividing from the Mula Sangha(Under Gangas in Mysore) began in the 5th century many Ganas, gachchas or sanghas originated. Chief among them are Sen gana (Karanja, Vidarbh), Balatkara gana (Balligame, Banswasi, Karnataka), Nandi gana Desi gana, Dramis gana, Kranur gana, Saraswati gachcha, Dravida Sangha, nandi Sangha, Mayur sangha, Kitthur sangha and Kulattu sangha.
We can also find Jain names such as Uloccnaar and Maathirthan among the early poets. Jain cosmology and mythology are also found mentioned in the early Sangam poems. The Sangam Literature liberally uses Vedic Legends, such as Thiru Murugatrupadai for Muruga Birth or all the Avathars of Vishnu in Paripadal, and paripadal even names Samaveda. Mathurai Kanchi refers a Sanskrit Assembly in Kanchipuram. Mankmekhalai even makes it much more clear that Anthanars used Sanskrit
Iravatham Mahadevan says that Devasena, the author of Darsanasara, a Prakriti work written in 853 A.D. has mentioned that Vajranandi, the pupil of Pujyapada, founded the Dravida Sangha in Madurai in 468-469 A.D. The work does mention Dravida Sangha , But the work does not mention it is from Madurai but in Amaravati in Andhra pradesh and it is not Tamil, but Jain religious Sangha. Iravatham Mahadevan is twisting facts here. The Dravida Sangha is also mentioned in Kannada inscriptions from Karnataka.
Analysis
If we see the evidence there is nothing to suggest Tamil sangam’s existed not in Tamil literature, inscriptions or other literatures. Only the Jain sangha’s have become legends and by the turn of 10th century AD, they have come to mean literary sangha’s. Iravatham Mahadevan seems to have proven to himself that Tamil sangam’s exist, but the verdict is still out there, they are still Jain sangha where Sanskrit was the Lingua franca. Another pillar of Tamil antiquity seems to have absolutely no backup.
According to the Sangam legends first described in the Irayanaar Agapporul (11th century AD) and a commentary to it by Nakkirar. There were three Sangams spanning thousands of years. The first Sangam, whose seat was then Madurai (southern Madurai), lasted a total of 4440 years and 4449 poets, which included some gods of the Hindu pantheon, took part in it. Lord Shiva presides it. The second Sangam was convened in Kapatapuram, which finds mention in Valmiki Ramayana (Kishkinda Kanda 42:13). This Sangam lasted for 3700 years and had 3700 poets participating. Both these places were held in legendary kumari kandam, which was submerged into sea. The third Sangam believed to be located in the current city of Madurai and lasted for 1850 years under 49 kings.
Sangam literature
Sangam literature refers to a body of classical Tamil literature during third Sangam period. This collection said to contains 2381 poems written by 473 poets, some 102 of who are anonymous authors. The period during which these poems were written is commonly referred to as the 'Sangam' age, referring to the prevalent Sangam legends claiming literary academies lasting thousands of years, giving the name to the corpus of literature. Sangam literature is primarily secular dealing with everyday themes in a South Indian context. The poems belonging to the Sangam literature was composed by Tamil poets, both men and women, from various professions and classes of society. These poems were later collected into various anthologies, edited and had colophons added by anthologists and annotators after 1000 AD. Sangam literature fell out of popular memory soon thereafter, until scholars such as S. V. Damodaram Pillai and U. V. Swaminatha Iyer rediscovered them in the 19th century.
The available literature from this period was categorized and compiled in the 11th century into two categories based roughly on chronology. The categories are: The Major Eighteen Anthology Series Pathinenmaelkanakku comprising The Eight Anthologies Ettuthokai and the Ten Idylls Pattupattu and The Minor Eighteen Anthology Series Pathinenkilkanakku
Evidences
Archeological evidence
There has been no contemporary archaeological or scientific evidence found to substantiate whether these academies existed at all and if so, the dates, the participants or their works. The historian and scientific community at large have dismissed claims of the description of sunken landmass Kumari kandam (Lemuria).
Between the fourth century B.C.E. and c 1000 B.C.E., the archaeological findings point to only a megalithic period, and going further back a Neolithic period starting from about the third millennium BC. These two prehistoric periods do not show any sign of a complex culture, and no clear connection with the dawn of urban civilization in Tamil Nadu.
Any accurate chronological assessment of literary works had been rendered difficult due to lack of concrete scientific evidence to support conflicting claims. Undue reliance on the Sangam legends have thus culminated in controversial opinions or interpretations among scholars, confusion in the dates, names and personal accounts of authors and doubts of even their existence in some cases.
The earliest archeological evidence connecting Madurai and the Sangams is the tenth century Cinnamanur inscription of the Pandyas.
Literary evidence
Although the term Sangam literature is applied to the corpus of Tamil literature claimed to belong to the 200 BCE – 200 CE, the name Sangam and the legend indicates much later date. The literature does not contain any mention of the Sangam academies, although some relationship between Madurai and literature may be found in some of the Sangam age literature. References to Sangam and its association with Madurai have been mentioned by poets such as Sekkilar, Andal, Auvaiyar and Kambar (all belonging to the tenth to the thirteen centuries CE). The actual poems of the Sangam literature themselves do not directly mention such academies. However the poem Mathuraikkanci (761-763), which belongs to the early collection of Pattupattu, describes kudala(Said to be Previous name of Madurai) as the 'place where authors met and interacted
Original Sangha
The word Sangam(confluence of Rivers) is Sanskrit origin, coming from Sangha, the Buddhist and Jain term for an assembly of monks. In Tamil the word means "assembly" or "academy".
Dravida Sangha
Many sangha’s with different acharyas were born after Kundakonda (1st century AD). The great Acharya Kundakunda is associated with Mula Sangh, According to Devasen the process of dividing from the Mula Sangha(Under Gangas in Mysore) began in the 5th century many Ganas, gachchas or sanghas originated. Chief among them are Sen gana (Karanja, Vidarbh), Balatkara gana (Balligame, Banswasi, Karnataka), Nandi gana Desi gana, Dramis gana, Kranur gana, Saraswati gachcha, Dravida Sangha, nandi Sangha, Mayur sangha, Kitthur sangha and Kulattu sangha.
We can also find Jain names such as Uloccnaar and Maathirthan among the early poets. Jain cosmology and mythology are also found mentioned in the early Sangam poems. The Sangam Literature liberally uses Vedic Legends, such as Thiru Murugatrupadai for Muruga Birth or all the Avathars of Vishnu in Paripadal, and paripadal even names Samaveda. Mathurai Kanchi refers a Sanskrit Assembly in Kanchipuram. Mankmekhalai even makes it much more clear that Anthanars used Sanskrit
Iravatham Mahadevan says that Devasena, the author of Darsanasara, a Prakriti work written in 853 A.D. has mentioned that Vajranandi, the pupil of Pujyapada, founded the Dravida Sangha in Madurai in 468-469 A.D. The work does mention Dravida Sangha , But the work does not mention it is from Madurai but in Amaravati in Andhra pradesh and it is not Tamil, but Jain religious Sangha. Iravatham Mahadevan is twisting facts here. The Dravida Sangha is also mentioned in Kannada inscriptions from Karnataka.
Analysis
If we see the evidence there is nothing to suggest Tamil sangam’s existed not in Tamil literature, inscriptions or other literatures. Only the Jain sangha’s have become legends and by the turn of 10th century AD, they have come to mean literary sangha’s. Iravatham Mahadevan seems to have proven to himself that Tamil sangam’s exist, but the verdict is still out there, they are still Jain sangha where Sanskrit was the Lingua franca. Another pillar of Tamil antiquity seems to have absolutely no backup.
Kumarikandam (Lemuria) Tamil Myth
Kumari Kandam is a land mass that is supposed to be submerged under the India Ocean, extending from the southern tip of peninsular India, to Madagascar in the west, and Australia in the east. It is sometimes considered as part or all of Lemuria, a hypothetical continent variously located in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. References to Kumari Kandam can be found in the Tamil literature. Inferring from these references suggest that extensive land areas occupied by the Tamils have been lost to the sea due to massive tidal waves or tsunami. Legends say two sangams were established. First two sangams - Muthal sangam, Idai sangam was in kumari kandam and it was devoured by sea only the pandya king escaped and thus we don't have any literature of this period.
kumarikOdum kodunkadal koLLa..." The mighty sea at the end of kumari(kanyakumari) submergedHere the author ilango adigal speaks about sea around kumari submerging the puhar(keveri pattinam) port.Silappadikaram'also describes Kadal Vadimpalampa Nindra Pandyan said to have thrown his spear towards the sea. The sea retaliated by swallowing a large area including Pahruli river and Panmalai Adukkam.
Manimekalai says,
Records the same incident of the puhar being engulfed by sea.Both silapathikaram and manimekalai both not being eyewitness accounts and known for gross exageration of facts clearly talk sea engulfing the city of puhar.
Kalittogai
Sangam literary work, `Kalithogai' (Mullaikkali, verse number 4) calls it `Kadal vowal.' The poem says that when tidal waves swept away his land, the Pandyan monarch did not despair, but forged ahead into the territories of Cheras and Chozhas and brought the invaded country under his sway, thus making good the loss of territory due to the sea-swell.
What does the sinhala literature say?Mahavamsa records sea taking the land in 326BC which is also mentioned in Rajwalikathe.
Analysis
All the above theories about Lemuriya went out of the window, the Continental dift theory was proposed.Kumari kandam was thrown out of the window when the tsunami data was analaysed, Still the Tani tamil Iyakkam and tamil elam activists held the theory for legitimisation of tamil elam demand. But after the Tsunami hit the sub continent, everybody knew what is said in the Silapathikaram and manimekalai is either strom surges or Tsunami.
Still many hold on to the theory , because it advances the age of Sangam , they can always claim all the literature was lost to the sea. Interestingly the three sangams were proposed in 11th century AD by Iraniyar agamporul.
Conclusion
There is no such thing as kumari kandam , it is just another attempt to increase tamil antiquity to prehistoric times.
- History of kumari kandam (Lemuria) theory.
1860 Philip Lutley Sclater Puzzled by the presence of fossil lemurs in both Madagascar and India, but not in Africa nor the Middle East, Sclater proposed that Madagascar and India had once been part of a larger continent, which he named "Lemuria" for its lemurs.The acceptance of Darwinism led scientists to seek to trace the diffusion of species from their points of evolutionary origin - Melchior Neumayr in his book Erdgeschichte in 1887. Many hypothetical submerged land bridges and continents were proposed during the 19th century, in order to account for the present distribution of species.
- Ernst Haeckel, a German Darwinian taxonomist, proposed Lemuria as an explanation for the absence of "missing link" fossil records. According to another source, Haeckel put forward this thesis prior to Sclater (but without using the name 'Lemuria'). Locating the origins of the human species on this lost continent, he claimed the fossil record could not be found because it had sunk beneath the sea.
- In 1999, drilling by the JOIDES Resolution research vessel in the Indian Ocean discovered evidence that a continent about a third of the size of Australia sank about 20 million years ago. Samples showed pollen and fragments of wood in a 90 million-year-old sediment. This might lead one to expect similarity of dinosaur fossil evidence and will help to understand the breakup of the Indian and Australian land masses.It does not support the concept of Lemuria as a land bridge for mammals.
- Madame Blavatsky's Lemuria,Lemuria entered the lexicon of the Occult through the works of Madame Blavatsky, who claimed in the 1880s to have been shown an ancient, pre-Atlantean Book of Dzyan by the Mahatmas. Within Blavatsky's complex cosmology, which includes seven "Root Races", Lemuria was occupied by the "Third Root Race", which was about seven foot tall, sexually hermaphroditic, egg-laying, mentally undeveloped and spiritually more pure than the following "Root Races". Before the coming of the Lemurians, the second "Root Race" is said to have dwelled in Hyperborea.After the subsequent creation of mammals, Mme. Blavatsky revealed to her readers, some Lemurians turned to bestiality. The gods, aghast at the behavior of these "mindless" men, sank Lemuria into the ocean and created a "Fourth Root Race"—endowed with intellect—on Atlantis.Lemuria and Mount Shasta
- In 1894, Frederick Spencer Oliver published A Dweller on Two Planets, which claimed that survivors from a sunken continent called Lemuria were living in or on Mount Shasta in northern California. The Lemurians lived in a complex of tunnels beneath the mountain and occasionally were seen walking the surface dressed in white robes.This belief has been repeated by such individuals as the cultist Guy Warren Ballard in the 1930s who formed the I AM Foundation. It is also repeated by followers of the Ascended Masters and the Great White Brotherhood. This list includes such organizations as Bridge to Freedom, The Summit Lighthouse, Church Universal and Triumphant, The Temple of The Presence, and The Hearts Center.According to L. Sprague de Camp, Mme. Blavatsky was influenced by other writers on the theme of Lost Continents, notably Ignatius L. Donnelly, a cult leader named Thomas Lake Harris and the French writer Louis Jacolliot.
- Dravidologist Devaneya Pavanar, who held that all languages on earth were merely corrupted Tamil dialects proposed Kumari Kandam is a sunken kingdom also known as Lemuria . According to these modernist interpretations of motifs in classical Tamil literature — the epics Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai that describe the submerged city of Puhar — the Dravidians originally came from land south of the present day coast of South India that became submerged by successive floods. There are various claims from Tamil authors that there was a large land mass connecting Australia and the present day Tamil Nadu coast.Adiyarkkunelar, described the distance between the Prahuli and Kumari rivers as 700 kavathams. This distance has been interpreted as about 7,000 modern miles (11,000 km).
What does the Tamil Literature say exactly?Three literary sources are said to say something about the kumari kandam , let us see what they say.
kumarikOdum kodunkadal koLLa..." The mighty sea at the end of kumari(kanyakumari) submergedHere the author ilango adigal speaks about sea around kumari submerging the puhar(keveri pattinam) port.Silappadikaram'also describes Kadal Vadimpalampa Nindra Pandyan said to have thrown his spear towards the sea. The sea retaliated by swallowing a large area including Pahruli river and Panmalai Adukkam.
Manimekalai says,
Records the same incident of the puhar being engulfed by sea.Both silapathikaram and manimekalai both not being eyewitness accounts and known for gross exageration of facts clearly talk sea engulfing the city of puhar.
Kalittogai
Sangam literary work, `Kalithogai' (Mullaikkali, verse number 4) calls it `Kadal vowal.' The poem says that when tidal waves swept away his land, the Pandyan monarch did not despair, but forged ahead into the territories of Cheras and Chozhas and brought the invaded country under his sway, thus making good the loss of territory due to the sea-swell.
What does the sinhala literature say?Mahavamsa records sea taking the land in 326BC which is also mentioned in Rajwalikathe.
Analysis
All the above theories about Lemuriya went out of the window, the Continental dift theory was proposed.Kumari kandam was thrown out of the window when the tsunami data was analaysed, Still the Tani tamil Iyakkam and tamil elam activists held the theory for legitimisation of tamil elam demand. But after the Tsunami hit the sub continent, everybody knew what is said in the Silapathikaram and manimekalai is either strom surges or Tsunami.
Still many hold on to the theory , because it advances the age of Sangam , they can always claim all the literature was lost to the sea. Interestingly the three sangams were proposed in 11th century AD by Iraniyar agamporul.
Conclusion
There is no such thing as kumari kandam , it is just another attempt to increase tamil antiquity to prehistoric times.
Kalabhras Interruption Tamil Myth
Kalabhras are said to be invaders from the North who ruled entire tamil nadu between 3rd and the 6th century C.E. displacing the ancient Chola, Pandya and Chera dynasties. Information about their origin and details about their reign is scarce. They did not leave any artefacts or monuments. The only source of information on them is the scattered mentions in Buddhist and Jain literature. They were displaced around the 6th century by the revival of Pallava and Pandya power.
Let us anlayse the facts regarding the mysterious rulers.
Who are Kalabhras?
AnalaysisWhat we have is about thieves who took illegally or forcefully the land and cattle from people and they were not afraid of kings.we dont have fixed names for these people, there are numerous names, Kalabhras, Kalbharkula, Kalbhran,etcThere is no evidence in othere literary sources outside tamil nadu.
conclusion
Let us anlayse the facts regarding the mysterious rulers.
Who are Kalabhras?
- Let us find out what the existing theories say.
Muttaraiyar of Kondubalur (eighth to eleventh century C.E.). Some historians believe that Muttaraiyar (Mudirajas) are the descendants of Kalabhras , who lived in the uplands Karnataka (Hampi Region), and Tirupati (Vengadam) Hills. The areas of Hampi and Tirupati hills were part of Dandakaaranya in Deccan India. - Karnatas on the strength of a reference in Tamil literature to the rule of a Karnata king over
- MaduraiKalappalar, belonging to Vellala community and referred to in Tamil literature .
- Kalabhras with the Kalavar, and the chieftains of this tribe mentioned in Sangam literature are Tiraiyan of Pavattiri and Pulli of Vengadam or Tirupati. The latter is described as the cattle lifting robber chief of the frontier. The Kalavar must have been dislodged from their habitat near Tirupati by political events of the third century A.D., viz. the fall of the Satavahanas and the rise of Pallavas, resulting in political confusion in Tondaimandalam.
- Kalabhras => kalabbha => kalamba => kadamba. He is said to have flourished when king Accutavikkanta of the Kalamba (Kadamba) dynasty was one the throne. It is difficult to identify King Accuta or Accutavikkanta (Acyta Vikrama) of Kalabhra with the Kadamba dynasty. But the Kalabhras once made a great influence over the Chola territory and Simhavishnu, the Pallava king, defeated them in late sixth century. Colian king Acytavikranta or Acytavikrama who is described as 'Kalambakulnandana' or 'Kalabbhakulanandana' (also Vaddhana).
- According to Poygai Alvar, the Vengadam hill was the habitat of elephants, which the "Kuravars" or "Kurbas" who inhabited or frequented the hill used to capture and tame and also scare away huge pythons. He observes that, the Tamil term Kuravar used by the early Alvars is corruption of "Kuraba", who were residents of this area and also of Kurnool, Mysore, Salem, coimbatore and the Nilgiris. He mentions the names of Kurubalakota, Kurubalpatti, Kuruba Nagalapuram, Kurumba Palayam, Kurumbapatti, Kurumbharhalli etc. in various areas. He says Kurabas or Kuravar were a verile people, who were in possession of Tirupathi Hills and surrounding area before Pallavas conquerred it. Kalabhras => karabhras => kurabhras = kurabaskurabars <=> kuravarskurubas <=> kuruvas
- Buddhadatta, the great writer in Pali, mentions his contemporary, King Achchutavikranta of the Kalabharakula, as ruling over the Chola country from Kaveripatnam. He was a Buddhist, Tamil literary tradition refers to an Achchuta who kept the Chera, Chola and Pandya king in captivity. On the basis of the time of Buddhadatta with Buddhaghosha, Achchuta may be assigned to the fifth century. Thus after the Sangam age, the Cholas were forced into obscurity by the Kalabhras, who disturbed the placid political conditions of the Tamil country.
- The period of Kalabhras was marked by the ascendancy of Buddhism, and probably also of Jainism, was characterized by considerable literary activity in Tamil. Most of the works grouped under the head, 'The Eighteen Minor works' might have been written during this period as also the Cilappadhikaram, Manimekalai and other works. Many of the authors were the characterised to belong to the `heretical' (meaning Buddhists and Jains) sects. However, the great Tamil lexicographer Vaiyapuri Pillai had ascribed later dates to many of these works. This theory would undermine the link between the Kalabhras and the Eighteen Minor works.
AnalaysisWhat we have is about thieves who took illegally or forcefully the land and cattle from people and they were not afraid of kings.we dont have fixed names for these people, there are numerous names, Kalabhras, Kalbharkula, Kalbhran,etcThere is no evidence in othere literary sources outside tamil nadu.
conclusion
- There is no evidence to support anybody named kalabhras existed.
- Pallavas were in south, chalukya in north and Gangas in the middle, so there is no evidence to show anybody else existed.
- Looting was a common practice to refer others as thieves. So this must be just that.
- This is just an attempt to advance tamil antiquity. It advances the sangam works age to before christ. The legend just gives some three hundred years of history in between that advances the tamil antiquity.
Myth of Tamil Antiquity Hathigumpha Inscription
Kharavela of Kalinga records his conquest of a federation of Tamil kings in his Hathigumpha inscription, so the the antiquity of Tamil rulers is established.
You might see this statement everywhere in the net. The only other inscription apart from Ashoka edicts to date that mentions rulers south of Kaveri or Tamil Nadu. However the truth is far from this. Let us see first what is Hathigumpha inscription?
The Hathigumpha inscription("Elephant Cave" inscription), from Udayagiri, near Bhubaneshwar in Orissa, was written by Kharavela, the king of Kalinga in India, during the 2nd century BCE. Hathigumpha inscription consists of seventeen lines incised in deep cut Brahmi letters on the overhanging brow of a natural cavern called Hathigumpha in the southern side of the Udayagiri hill near Bhubaneswar in Orissa. It faces straight towards the rock Edicts of Asoka at Dhauli situated at a distance of about six miles.
The inscription is written in a type which is considered as one of the most archaic forms of the Kalinga brahmi alphabet, also suggesting a date around 150 BCE.
The inscription is dated to 165th year of the era of the Maurya kings, and the 13th year of Kharavela's reign, which, considering the coronation of Chandragupta in 321 BCE as the probable start of the era, makes a date of 157 BCE for the inscription, a date of 170 BCE for Kharavela's accession, and a date of 162 BCE for the conflict against the Yavana king Demetrius.
Let us see the Lines of the inscription where the said to be quoted.
(Line No. 4) done at (the cost of) thirty-five-hundred-thousands, and (he) gratifies the People. And in the second year (he), disregarding Satakamini, dispatches to the western regions an army strong in cavalry, elephants, infantry (nara) and chariots (ratha) and by that army having reached the Kanha-bemna, he throws the city of the Musikas into consternation. Again in the third year,
(Line No.11) .................. And the market-town (?) Pithumda founded by the Ava King he ploughs down with a plough of asses; and (he) thoroughly breaks up the confederacy of the T[r]amira (Dramira) countries of one hundred and thirteen years, which has been a source of danger to (his) Country (Janapada). And in the twelfth year he terrifies the kings of the Utarapatha with .................. thousands of
Line Four
Many argue that line number four mentioning Musiks as mushikas of North Kerala. However that has been well established that they are the tribal people in North West India.
Line seventeen
Scholar such as K A Neelakanta shastri argue the following ,Line number 17 show that there was a confederacy of Tamil kings and that was defeated by Kharavela. Let us see if it is possible.
1. Kharvela if he has to come south has to cross Satvahana country. I don’t feel Satakanni would have allowed that.
2. Kharvela not mentioning the crossing of Satvahana country is impossible.
3. No Tamil literature work, even if we accept that sangam work is of that period has shown any such event.
4. Tamira is copper, that is the only reason sirlanka is called Tampa panni, and there is no confusion over that. Even Mahabharata mentions only Dravida, not Tamira.
So the Tamira mentioned is not Tamila as said by Neelakanta Sastri. Tamira is somewhere else.
Where is the Tamira present?
You don’t have to look further than Bengal. This Tamira fits the bill, and there could be a confederacy of Copper traders here.
Tamralipta is the name of an ancient city on the Bay of Bengal corresponding with Tamluk in modern-day India. Tamralipti may have been one of the most important urban centres of trade and commerce of early historic India, trading along the Silk Road with China, by Uttarapatha, the northern high road, the main trade route into the Middle East and Europe; and by seafaring routes to Bali, Java and other areas of the Far East. [edit] Origin of the Name Tamluk
According to some scholers Tamluk derives its name from the Sanskrit word Tamra Lipta meaning "Full of Copper".
Tamralipta (Tamluk), lower down the river Hooghly and sea port, had been an important waterway for more than 3000 years. It gets its name from the copper which was mined, as it is even now, at Ghatsila, Jharkhand, Orissa areas which are not far from the city. Copper had been eclipsed by iron around 100 B.C., so the name must have originated during the Copper Age, when Tamralipti exported the ore and metal to peninsular India; the alternative was the less accessible Rajasthan area. The longer, original name of the port was in use till the third century B.C., when Ashoka's daughter and son sailed from it for Sri Lanka.
According to local folklore the name Tamralipta came from the King Tamradhwaja (which means The King with Copper Flag/symbol) of the Mayura-Dhwaja (Peacock) dynasty. If you go according to Mahabharat's description the ruling period of the King Tamradhwaja is nearer to the end of the Copper Age. Probably this ancient king had a huge base of copper, and the metal brought prosperity to the region at his time. Thus both of the names -- Tamralipta and Raja Tamradhawja -- might have been originated from it.
Some early Vaisnav religious texts tell a facinating story about the origin of the name of Tamralipta. Once, when Lord Krishna was playing Maharaas in Vraj at Vrindavan Surya (Sun God) Dev rose from the east and accidentally saw Lord Krishna in intimate situation with his Gopis and Sri Radhika. Immediately Surya Dev had felt ashamed, became embarrassed and blushed a reddish copper colour like Tamra. And then Surya Dev again returned to the same corner of the east coast of Bharata and did hide (Lipta) himself in the Bay of Bengal. Where Surya Dev went back and hid himself is the place called Tamralipti.
History of Tamluk
This ancient port city and kingdom was bounded by the Bay of Bengal in the south, river Rupnarayana in the east and Subarnarekha in the west. The Rupnarayana is the joint flow of the river Dwarkeshwar and the river Shilai. The Bay of Bengal and these great rivers and their numerous branches created a prosperous and easy water navigational system fostering commerce, culture and early contacts with the people outside the region. At the same time, these rivers helped to develop the agriculture in this region.
Archaeological remains show continuous settlement from about 3rd century BC. It was known as Tramralipti (in the Purans and the Mahabharata) or Tamralipta (in Mahabharata) or Tamalika (in historical documents) or Tamalitti (in foreigners' descriptions) or Tamoluk (in the British Raj). It was a seaport, now buried under river silt. For this reason, Tamluk has many ponds and lakes remaining today.
In the Mahabharata (Bhishma Parba/Nabam Adhyay) while describing the names of the holiest rivers and kingdoms of India, Sanjay took the name of "Tramralipta" to Dhritarastra.
Tamluk was also known as Bhivas (in religious texts) and Madhya Desh (as the Middle State of Utkal/Kalinga and Banga).
According to Jain sources, Tamralipti was the capital of the kingdom of Venga and was long known as a port.
So the clever KA Neelakanta sastri has taken this reference to mean that it represents tamil. Even though being a distinguished Historian he should have known there is other Tamira nearby. No body including Bengalis have missed point. Kalingas are happy that their empire stretches to south India. Yet another attempt to stretch the antquity of tamil.
You might see this statement everywhere in the net. The only other inscription apart from Ashoka edicts to date that mentions rulers south of Kaveri or Tamil Nadu. However the truth is far from this. Let us see first what is Hathigumpha inscription?
The Hathigumpha inscription("Elephant Cave" inscription), from Udayagiri, near Bhubaneshwar in Orissa, was written by Kharavela, the king of Kalinga in India, during the 2nd century BCE. Hathigumpha inscription consists of seventeen lines incised in deep cut Brahmi letters on the overhanging brow of a natural cavern called Hathigumpha in the southern side of the Udayagiri hill near Bhubaneswar in Orissa. It faces straight towards the rock Edicts of Asoka at Dhauli situated at a distance of about six miles.
The inscription is written in a type which is considered as one of the most archaic forms of the Kalinga brahmi alphabet, also suggesting a date around 150 BCE.
The inscription is dated to 165th year of the era of the Maurya kings, and the 13th year of Kharavela's reign, which, considering the coronation of Chandragupta in 321 BCE as the probable start of the era, makes a date of 157 BCE for the inscription, a date of 170 BCE for Kharavela's accession, and a date of 162 BCE for the conflict against the Yavana king Demetrius.
Let us see the Lines of the inscription where the said to be quoted.
(Line No. 4) done at (the cost of) thirty-five-hundred-thousands, and (he) gratifies the People. And in the second year (he), disregarding Satakamini, dispatches to the western regions an army strong in cavalry, elephants, infantry (nara) and chariots (ratha) and by that army having reached the Kanha-bemna, he throws the city of the Musikas into consternation. Again in the third year,
(Line No.11) .................. And the market-town (?) Pithumda founded by the Ava King he ploughs down with a plough of asses; and (he) thoroughly breaks up the confederacy of the T[r]amira (Dramira) countries of one hundred and thirteen years, which has been a source of danger to (his) Country (Janapada). And in the twelfth year he terrifies the kings of the Utarapatha with .................. thousands of
Line Four
Many argue that line number four mentioning Musiks as mushikas of North Kerala. However that has been well established that they are the tribal people in North West India.
Line seventeen
Scholar such as K A Neelakanta shastri argue the following ,Line number 17 show that there was a confederacy of Tamil kings and that was defeated by Kharavela. Let us see if it is possible.
1. Kharvela if he has to come south has to cross Satvahana country. I don’t feel Satakanni would have allowed that.
2. Kharvela not mentioning the crossing of Satvahana country is impossible.
3. No Tamil literature work, even if we accept that sangam work is of that period has shown any such event.
4. Tamira is copper, that is the only reason sirlanka is called Tampa panni, and there is no confusion over that. Even Mahabharata mentions only Dravida, not Tamira.
So the Tamira mentioned is not Tamila as said by Neelakanta Sastri. Tamira is somewhere else.
Where is the Tamira present?
You don’t have to look further than Bengal. This Tamira fits the bill, and there could be a confederacy of Copper traders here.
Tamralipta is the name of an ancient city on the Bay of Bengal corresponding with Tamluk in modern-day India. Tamralipti may have been one of the most important urban centres of trade and commerce of early historic India, trading along the Silk Road with China, by Uttarapatha, the northern high road, the main trade route into the Middle East and Europe; and by seafaring routes to Bali, Java and other areas of the Far East. [edit] Origin of the Name Tamluk
According to some scholers Tamluk derives its name from the Sanskrit word Tamra Lipta meaning "Full of Copper".
Tamralipta (Tamluk), lower down the river Hooghly and sea port, had been an important waterway for more than 3000 years. It gets its name from the copper which was mined, as it is even now, at Ghatsila, Jharkhand, Orissa areas which are not far from the city. Copper had been eclipsed by iron around 100 B.C., so the name must have originated during the Copper Age, when Tamralipti exported the ore and metal to peninsular India; the alternative was the less accessible Rajasthan area. The longer, original name of the port was in use till the third century B.C., when Ashoka's daughter and son sailed from it for Sri Lanka.
According to local folklore the name Tamralipta came from the King Tamradhwaja (which means The King with Copper Flag/symbol) of the Mayura-Dhwaja (Peacock) dynasty. If you go according to Mahabharat's description the ruling period of the King Tamradhwaja is nearer to the end of the Copper Age. Probably this ancient king had a huge base of copper, and the metal brought prosperity to the region at his time. Thus both of the names -- Tamralipta and Raja Tamradhawja -- might have been originated from it.
Some early Vaisnav religious texts tell a facinating story about the origin of the name of Tamralipta. Once, when Lord Krishna was playing Maharaas in Vraj at Vrindavan Surya (Sun God) Dev rose from the east and accidentally saw Lord Krishna in intimate situation with his Gopis and Sri Radhika. Immediately Surya Dev had felt ashamed, became embarrassed and blushed a reddish copper colour like Tamra. And then Surya Dev again returned to the same corner of the east coast of Bharata and did hide (Lipta) himself in the Bay of Bengal. Where Surya Dev went back and hid himself is the place called Tamralipti.
History of Tamluk
This ancient port city and kingdom was bounded by the Bay of Bengal in the south, river Rupnarayana in the east and Subarnarekha in the west. The Rupnarayana is the joint flow of the river Dwarkeshwar and the river Shilai. The Bay of Bengal and these great rivers and their numerous branches created a prosperous and easy water navigational system fostering commerce, culture and early contacts with the people outside the region. At the same time, these rivers helped to develop the agriculture in this region.
Archaeological remains show continuous settlement from about 3rd century BC. It was known as Tramralipti (in the Purans and the Mahabharata) or Tamralipta (in Mahabharata) or Tamalika (in historical documents) or Tamalitti (in foreigners' descriptions) or Tamoluk (in the British Raj). It was a seaport, now buried under river silt. For this reason, Tamluk has many ponds and lakes remaining today.
In the Mahabharata (Bhishma Parba/Nabam Adhyay) while describing the names of the holiest rivers and kingdoms of India, Sanjay took the name of "Tramralipta" to Dhritarastra.
Tamluk was also known as Bhivas (in religious texts) and Madhya Desh (as the Middle State of Utkal/Kalinga and Banga).
According to Jain sources, Tamralipti was the capital of the kingdom of Venga and was long known as a port.
So the clever KA Neelakanta sastri has taken this reference to mean that it represents tamil. Even though being a distinguished Historian he should have known there is other Tamira nearby. No body including Bengalis have missed point. Kalingas are happy that their empire stretches to south India. Yet another attempt to stretch the antquity of tamil.
king Atiyaman - Tamil Myth
As far as today there is no inscriptions by Sangam kings in Tamil Nadu. Which is a really surprising considering the inclination of sangam kings towards learning. However some would beg to differ. Let us see, how good is this theory.
The inscription is found on a rock inside a cavern, on the hillock of Jambai, a village in South Arcot district, Tamil Nadu. The village is 15 k.m. away from Thirukkoilur town. The epigraph is in Tamil-Brahmi (except for the title in Prakrit) and rads:
Satiyaputo Atiyan Natuman Anci itta Pali
The meaning of the epigraph may be rendered as 'The abode (pali) given by (itta) Atiyan Neduman Anci (name), the Satyaputra (title)'. In this inscription both the northern Brahmi letter sa and the Tamil-Brahmi letter Li have been used.
In his Girnar rock edict II, Ashoka details the arrangements made by him within his empire and also beyond its borders:
Ye Ca anta ata Coda, Pada, Satiyaputo, ceraputo, Tambapanni, Antiyogo nama Yonalaja
'Everywhere in the conquered dominions of king Priyadarsin, the beloved of the gods, and the dominions on the borders as those of the Chola, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputo, the Keralaputra, Tamraparni, the Yavana King named Antiyoka and the other neighboring kings of this Antiyoka, two kinds of medical treatment were established by king Priyadarsin, the beloved of the gods viz. Medical treatment for human beings and medical treatment for cattle'. This is said by experts taking Coda as chola , Pada as pandya, ceraputa as cheras , Tambapanni is srilanka(which is well known as the place of Copper or Tamira).
The Satiyaputras are placed, it may be seen, among the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Keralaputras. While the countries of the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Keralaputras are well known, the identity of the Satyaputra was the subject of controversy among scholars.
Some identified the Satyaputra with the Satavahanas, while others identified them with the Satputas of Maharashtra. Still other scholars located their country in northern Kerala, some also refer to a community mentioned in Tamil literature as Vaimozhi kosar in western seaboard of Karnataka. According to K.G. Sesha Aiyer and K.A. Nilakanta Sastri:- Judging from the way Ashoka mentions them the Cholas, the Pandyas and also the Keralaputras, and the fact that they were outside the domain of Ashoka’s rule, so they should be identified with one or other of the known rulers of the Tamil land.
So satyaputo in Girinar Edict has been equated with Satyaputo in Jambai edicts. And we have atiyaman who is supposed to have existed around 2nd century AD according to Tamil literary sources is linked to Ashoka edicts. How come he can live for 500years, He belongs to a dynasty of Satyaputas. Really!
Let us see the Tamil literature for facts
The last dynasty mentioned is supposed to be the 'Atiyar' mentioned in Tamil literature. But they were considered as chieftains and not as kings. No Atiyar chief is known by the name prior to Atiyaman mentioned in the Classical literature. The only mention of an ancestor of him is that he introduce sugarcane cultivation. On the other hand Atiyaman is very well known to Tamil poets. If indeed there were Atiyar in Ashoka's time, and the lineage continued for another 400-500 years (if we accept the dating of Atiyaman as belonging to 2nd or 3rd century C.E, the Tamil poets would have talked about the Tamil land as being shared by the four dynasties instead of three. So the King mentioned in the Jambai edicts is not Atiyaman and there is no dynasty before him.
This is again the classic case of advancing Tamil Kings antiquity. Just similar sounding names are used to advance the age. A totally new theory has been put to establish Antiquity.
The inscription is found on a rock inside a cavern, on the hillock of Jambai, a village in South Arcot district, Tamil Nadu. The village is 15 k.m. away from Thirukkoilur town. The epigraph is in Tamil-Brahmi (except for the title in Prakrit) and rads:
Satiyaputo Atiyan Natuman Anci itta Pali
The meaning of the epigraph may be rendered as 'The abode (pali) given by (itta) Atiyan Neduman Anci (name), the Satyaputra (title)'. In this inscription both the northern Brahmi letter sa and the Tamil-Brahmi letter Li have been used.
In his Girnar rock edict II, Ashoka details the arrangements made by him within his empire and also beyond its borders:
Ye Ca anta ata Coda, Pada, Satiyaputo, ceraputo, Tambapanni, Antiyogo nama Yonalaja
'Everywhere in the conquered dominions of king Priyadarsin, the beloved of the gods, and the dominions on the borders as those of the Chola, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputo, the Keralaputra, Tamraparni, the Yavana King named Antiyoka and the other neighboring kings of this Antiyoka, two kinds of medical treatment were established by king Priyadarsin, the beloved of the gods viz. Medical treatment for human beings and medical treatment for cattle'. This is said by experts taking Coda as chola , Pada as pandya, ceraputa as cheras , Tambapanni is srilanka(which is well known as the place of Copper or Tamira).
The Satiyaputras are placed, it may be seen, among the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Keralaputras. While the countries of the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Keralaputras are well known, the identity of the Satyaputra was the subject of controversy among scholars.
Some identified the Satyaputra with the Satavahanas, while others identified them with the Satputas of Maharashtra. Still other scholars located their country in northern Kerala, some also refer to a community mentioned in Tamil literature as Vaimozhi kosar in western seaboard of Karnataka. According to K.G. Sesha Aiyer and K.A. Nilakanta Sastri:- Judging from the way Ashoka mentions them the Cholas, the Pandyas and also the Keralaputras, and the fact that they were outside the domain of Ashoka’s rule, so they should be identified with one or other of the known rulers of the Tamil land.
So satyaputo in Girinar Edict has been equated with Satyaputo in Jambai edicts. And we have atiyaman who is supposed to have existed around 2nd century AD according to Tamil literary sources is linked to Ashoka edicts. How come he can live for 500years, He belongs to a dynasty of Satyaputas. Really!
Let us see the Tamil literature for facts
The last dynasty mentioned is supposed to be the 'Atiyar' mentioned in Tamil literature. But they were considered as chieftains and not as kings. No Atiyar chief is known by the name prior to Atiyaman mentioned in the Classical literature. The only mention of an ancestor of him is that he introduce sugarcane cultivation. On the other hand Atiyaman is very well known to Tamil poets. If indeed there were Atiyar in Ashoka's time, and the lineage continued for another 400-500 years (if we accept the dating of Atiyaman as belonging to 2nd or 3rd century C.E, the Tamil poets would have talked about the Tamil land as being shared by the four dynasties instead of three. So the King mentioned in the Jambai edicts is not Atiyaman and there is no dynasty before him.
This is again the classic case of advancing Tamil Kings antiquity. Just similar sounding names are used to advance the age. A totally new theory has been put to establish Antiquity.
Myth of Antiquity of Tholkappiam
Let us continue seeing how tamil languages date is taken to antiquity
Date of Tholkappiam
The dating of the earliest tamil grammatical work Tholkappiam has been debated much and it is still imprecise and uncertain and has seen wide disagreements amongst scholars in the field. It has been dated variously between 8000 BCE and 10th CE.
While most of the antediluvian datings which stem mostly from a descriptive commentary in an 12th century work called Iraiyanar AgapporuL, about the existence of three Tamil Academies, which have been rejected as being devoid of any evidence, the genuine disagreements now center around widely divergent dates lying between the 3rd BC and 10th AD. As the Tolkappiyam is often claimed as the earliest extant work of Tamil literature, the dating of Tolkappiyam is inherently tied to the dates ascribed to the birth and development of Tamil literature as a whole.
Viyapuri Pillai, the author of the Tamil lexicon and towering figure in the field dated Tolkappiyam to not earlier than the 5-6th CE.
Kamil V. Zvelebil, a Czech indologist specialised in the Dravidian languages, dates the core of Tolkappiyam to pre-Christian era.
Robert Cladwell, a 19th century linguist who, for the first time, categorised all Dravidian languages as one language family, maintains that all extant Tamil literature can only be dated to what he calls the Jaina cycle which he dates to the 8th-9th CE to 12-13th CE.
Dr.B.G.L Swamy, a renowned botanist by profession and an acknowledged historian in his own right, contends that the Tolkappiyam cannot to be dated to anything earlier than the 10th CE.
Takahashi Takanobu, a Japanese Indologist, argues that the Tolkappiyam has several layers with the oldest dating to 1st-2nd CE, and the newest and the final redaction dating to 5th-6th centuries CE.
T.R. Sesha Iyengar, an eminent scholar and expert on Dravidian literature and history, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to have been composed 'before the Christian era'.
Dr. Gift Siromoney, an expert on ancient languages and epigraphy, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to be around the period of Ashoka(c 300 BCE)
V. S. Rajam, a linguist specialised in Old Tamil, in her book A reference grammar of classical Tamil poetry: 150 B.C.-pre-fifth/sixth century A.D. dates it to "pre-fifth century AD".
Herman Tieken, a Dutch author, who endeavours to trace the influence of the Sanskrit Kavya tradition on the entire Sangam corpus, argues that the Tolkappiyam dates from the 9th century CE in his book, "Kāvya in South India : old Tamil Caṅkam poetry". He arrives at this result by reassigning new dates to the traditionally accepted dates for a vast section of divergent literature.
A C Burnell, a renowned indologist of the nineteenth century who has contributed seminally to the study of Dravidian languages dates the Tolk., to the 8th CE in his book.
Iravatham Mahadevan an Indian epigraphist, in his work on epigraphy published in 2003, advances a theory where he claims that Tolkappiyam could not have been written before 2nd CE.
Tholkoppiam quotes poruladhikaramsutra , a horary astrologer of 400AD.
You may say Holy God. Why such a variation. But this is the nature of dating tamil literature. People come with dates usually the oldest based on flimsy assumptions.
Pulli theory
One of the dating methods used is the use of alphabets to determine the date. As tholkappiam talks about alphabets. Pulli theory is one of the such. The pulli is being talked about in tholkappiam ,it is a point on top of the alphabet as against the brahmi pulli which is on side. Since there is no evidence of such pulli in any inscriptions before 7th century AD, The tholkappiam is said to belong to later than 7th century AD.
Influence of Sanskrit
Influence of Sanskrit grammarians See also: Aindra school of grammar Tolkāppiyam is claimed to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school. The preface of Ilampuranar's twelfth century commentary of the Tolkappiyam, describes it as aindiram nirainda ('comprising aindra'). This annotation was interpreted by Arthur Coke Burnell as alluding to the pre-Paninian Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar mentioned in the Ashtadhyayi. To investigate his hunch, Burnell compared the Tolkappiyam with the non Paninian Katyantra grammar and concluded that the Tolkappiyam indeed exhibited a strong influence of the non Paninian school of grammar. However, this claim has also been met with skepticism from recent researchers. The issue of the Aindra school notwithstanding, the grammar expounded by the Tolkappiyam owes a great deal to Sanskrit. The influence of various Sanskrit works like Manavadharmashastra, Arthashastra, Natyashastra and grammarians like Panini and Patanjali is evident in the Tolkappiyam. Parts of the Collathikaram are, for instance, almost a direct translation of the Sanskrit texts. The eight feelings mentioned in the Porulathikaram seem to be heavily inspired by the eight rasas or the rasa theory of the Natyashastra.
If you see the various arguments you will find that date cannot be before 8th century AD forget about before christian era.
Date of Tholkappiam
The dating of the earliest tamil grammatical work Tholkappiam has been debated much and it is still imprecise and uncertain and has seen wide disagreements amongst scholars in the field. It has been dated variously between 8000 BCE and 10th CE.
While most of the antediluvian datings which stem mostly from a descriptive commentary in an 12th century work called Iraiyanar AgapporuL, about the existence of three Tamil Academies, which have been rejected as being devoid of any evidence, the genuine disagreements now center around widely divergent dates lying between the 3rd BC and 10th AD. As the Tolkappiyam is often claimed as the earliest extant work of Tamil literature, the dating of Tolkappiyam is inherently tied to the dates ascribed to the birth and development of Tamil literature as a whole.
Viyapuri Pillai, the author of the Tamil lexicon and towering figure in the field dated Tolkappiyam to not earlier than the 5-6th CE.
Kamil V. Zvelebil, a Czech indologist specialised in the Dravidian languages, dates the core of Tolkappiyam to pre-Christian era.
Robert Cladwell, a 19th century linguist who, for the first time, categorised all Dravidian languages as one language family, maintains that all extant Tamil literature can only be dated to what he calls the Jaina cycle which he dates to the 8th-9th CE to 12-13th CE.
Dr.B.G.L Swamy, a renowned botanist by profession and an acknowledged historian in his own right, contends that the Tolkappiyam cannot to be dated to anything earlier than the 10th CE.
Takahashi Takanobu, a Japanese Indologist, argues that the Tolkappiyam has several layers with the oldest dating to 1st-2nd CE, and the newest and the final redaction dating to 5th-6th centuries CE.
T.R. Sesha Iyengar, an eminent scholar and expert on Dravidian literature and history, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to have been composed 'before the Christian era'.
Dr. Gift Siromoney, an expert on ancient languages and epigraphy, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to be around the period of Ashoka(c 300 BCE)
V. S. Rajam, a linguist specialised in Old Tamil, in her book A reference grammar of classical Tamil poetry: 150 B.C.-pre-fifth/sixth century A.D. dates it to "pre-fifth century AD".
Herman Tieken, a Dutch author, who endeavours to trace the influence of the Sanskrit Kavya tradition on the entire Sangam corpus, argues that the Tolkappiyam dates from the 9th century CE in his book, "Kāvya in South India : old Tamil Caṅkam poetry". He arrives at this result by reassigning new dates to the traditionally accepted dates for a vast section of divergent literature.
A C Burnell, a renowned indologist of the nineteenth century who has contributed seminally to the study of Dravidian languages dates the Tolk., to the 8th CE in his book.
Iravatham Mahadevan an Indian epigraphist, in his work on epigraphy published in 2003, advances a theory where he claims that Tolkappiyam could not have been written before 2nd CE.
Tholkoppiam quotes poruladhikaramsutra , a horary astrologer of 400AD.
You may say Holy God. Why such a variation. But this is the nature of dating tamil literature. People come with dates usually the oldest based on flimsy assumptions.
Pulli theory
One of the dating methods used is the use of alphabets to determine the date. As tholkappiam talks about alphabets. Pulli theory is one of the such. The pulli is being talked about in tholkappiam ,it is a point on top of the alphabet as against the brahmi pulli which is on side. Since there is no evidence of such pulli in any inscriptions before 7th century AD, The tholkappiam is said to belong to later than 7th century AD.
Influence of Sanskrit
Influence of Sanskrit grammarians See also: Aindra school of grammar Tolkāppiyam is claimed to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school. The preface of Ilampuranar's twelfth century commentary of the Tolkappiyam, describes it as aindiram nirainda ('comprising aindra'). This annotation was interpreted by Arthur Coke Burnell as alluding to the pre-Paninian Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar mentioned in the Ashtadhyayi. To investigate his hunch, Burnell compared the Tolkappiyam with the non Paninian Katyantra grammar and concluded that the Tolkappiyam indeed exhibited a strong influence of the non Paninian school of grammar. However, this claim has also been met with skepticism from recent researchers. The issue of the Aindra school notwithstanding, the grammar expounded by the Tolkappiyam owes a great deal to Sanskrit. The influence of various Sanskrit works like Manavadharmashastra, Arthashastra, Natyashastra and grammarians like Panini and Patanjali is evident in the Tolkappiyam. Parts of the Collathikaram are, for instance, almost a direct translation of the Sanskrit texts. The eight feelings mentioned in the Porulathikaram seem to be heavily inspired by the eight rasas or the rasa theory of the Natyashastra.
If you see the various arguments you will find that date cannot be before 8th century AD forget about before christian era.
Date of Silapathikaram
Let us see how the date of tamil language is advanced
Date of Silapathikaram
Gajabahu synchronism
Gajabahu synchronism is the chronological device used by historians to help date tamil literature. From a mention in the silapathikaram, the Lanka king Gajabahu is taken to be a contemporary of the cheran king senguttuvan
The passage
"The monarch of the world circumambulated the shrine thrice and stood there proferring his respects. In front of him the Arya kings released from prison, kings removed from central jail, the Kongu ruler of Kudagu, the king of Malva and Kayavaku, the king of sea-girt Ceylon, prayed reverently to the deity thus.."
Kayavaku here, despite disagreement has been taken to mean Gajabahu. According to the Mahavamsa , Gajabahu I reigned between 113 - 134 CE, while Gajabahu II reigned in the 12th century CE. This, in turn, has been used to imply that the Chera king, who according to the pathirupattu ruled for 55 years may be dated to c. 110 - 165 CE. This computation, which was first proposed by V Kanakasabhai Pillai in his book, The Tamils 1800 years ago (1904), has come to be known as the Gajabahu synchronism. Kanakasabhai also mentions another reference from Silappatikaram which has the Chera king meet the Magadha king Nurruvan Kannar who is interpretted to as satkarni, satvahana dynasties as an additional proof for the synchronism.
Kanakasabhai's reasoning for not considering Gajabahu I as the king mentioned is as follows:
“ In the long list of kings of Ceylon preserved in Singhalese chronicles, the name Gajabahu occurs only twice. Gajabahu I lived in the early part of the second century A.D. and Gajabahu II in the twelfth century. If the latter was king referred to in the Cilappathikaram, Karikala Chola, the grandfather of the Gajabahu contemporary, Imaya Varamban should have lived in the eleventh or twelfth century A.D. But in many Tamil poems and inscriptions on copper plates recording the grants of Chola kings who lived in the tenth and the eleventh centuries, Karikala Chola I is described as one of the earliest and most remote ancestors of the Chola kings then reigning. It is evident therefore that the Gajabahu referred to in the Cilappathikaram could not be Gajabahu II, but must have been Gajabahu I, who was king of Ceylon from about A.D. 113 to A.D. 125."
However Many contentious points remain
1. How come Kayavaku becomes GajaBahu
2. How come Nurruvan Kannar becomes Satkarni
3. Gajabahu is dated by Mahavamsa at 110 to 165AD , But satkarni is not the same period how come they have come and attended a ceremony.
4. How come there is no other citation of Satkarni attending the ceremony.
5. A king of malwa attending the ceremony should be great news , how come it goes with just reference.
6. There is no reference of of Gajabahu ever coming to Kerala both in Mahavamsa and others.
Not just this there is no evidence of author Ilanko adigal ever lived as witness, he does not have any evidence to show that he was a eyewitness. As he never goes into details. The king senguttuvan is said to have taken a great expedition and conquered himalayas , that also we dont have any proof.
Since karikalan cannot be dated to 12th century does not mean he has to be dated to 2nd century , he might well be 9th century or 10th century AD.
So the whole Gajabahu synchronization falls flat on the face.
That is used to justify the antiquity of tamil literature is a really not going with facts.
Date of Silapathikaram
Gajabahu synchronism
Gajabahu synchronism is the chronological device used by historians to help date tamil literature. From a mention in the silapathikaram, the Lanka king Gajabahu is taken to be a contemporary of the cheran king senguttuvan
The passage
"The monarch of the world circumambulated the shrine thrice and stood there proferring his respects. In front of him the Arya kings released from prison, kings removed from central jail, the Kongu ruler of Kudagu, the king of Malva and Kayavaku, the king of sea-girt Ceylon, prayed reverently to the deity thus.."
Kayavaku here, despite disagreement has been taken to mean Gajabahu. According to the Mahavamsa , Gajabahu I reigned between 113 - 134 CE, while Gajabahu II reigned in the 12th century CE. This, in turn, has been used to imply that the Chera king, who according to the pathirupattu ruled for 55 years may be dated to c. 110 - 165 CE. This computation, which was first proposed by V Kanakasabhai Pillai in his book, The Tamils 1800 years ago (1904), has come to be known as the Gajabahu synchronism. Kanakasabhai also mentions another reference from Silappatikaram which has the Chera king meet the Magadha king Nurruvan Kannar who is interpretted to as satkarni, satvahana dynasties as an additional proof for the synchronism.
Kanakasabhai's reasoning for not considering Gajabahu I as the king mentioned is as follows:
“ In the long list of kings of Ceylon preserved in Singhalese chronicles, the name Gajabahu occurs only twice. Gajabahu I lived in the early part of the second century A.D. and Gajabahu II in the twelfth century. If the latter was king referred to in the Cilappathikaram, Karikala Chola, the grandfather of the Gajabahu contemporary, Imaya Varamban should have lived in the eleventh or twelfth century A.D. But in many Tamil poems and inscriptions on copper plates recording the grants of Chola kings who lived in the tenth and the eleventh centuries, Karikala Chola I is described as one of the earliest and most remote ancestors of the Chola kings then reigning. It is evident therefore that the Gajabahu referred to in the Cilappathikaram could not be Gajabahu II, but must have been Gajabahu I, who was king of Ceylon from about A.D. 113 to A.D. 125."
However Many contentious points remain
1. How come Kayavaku becomes GajaBahu
2. How come Nurruvan Kannar becomes Satkarni
3. Gajabahu is dated by Mahavamsa at 110 to 165AD , But satkarni is not the same period how come they have come and attended a ceremony.
4. How come there is no other citation of Satkarni attending the ceremony.
5. A king of malwa attending the ceremony should be great news , how come it goes with just reference.
6. There is no reference of of Gajabahu ever coming to Kerala both in Mahavamsa and others.
Not just this there is no evidence of author Ilanko adigal ever lived as witness, he does not have any evidence to show that he was a eyewitness. As he never goes into details. The king senguttuvan is said to have taken a great expedition and conquered himalayas , that also we dont have any proof.
Since karikalan cannot be dated to 12th century does not mean he has to be dated to 2nd century , he might well be 9th century or 10th century AD.
So the whole Gajabahu synchronization falls flat on the face.
That is used to justify the antiquity of tamil literature is a really not going with facts.
Myth of Tamil Brahmi
Myth of Tamil Brahmi and script.
There is Ashokan Brahmi standardised by Ashoka found all over India. And there is tamil Brahmi. Let us see the genesis of Tamil Brahmi.
Tamil Brahmi Genesis
The early Brahmi inscriptions posed a greater challenge on account of their archaic characters and orthographic conventions, which were different from the original Brahmi used for Prakrit. The challenge seemed insuperable even to the most competent among the pioneering epigraphists. The major breakthrough in the decipherment of the cave inscriptions of Tamil Nadu came with K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer (1924). He was the first to recognise that these are inscribed in Brahmi, but with certain peculiarities and new forms of letters, due to its adaptation for the Tamil language which has sounds (phonetic values) not known to the Prakrit (Indo-Aryan) language and northern Brahmi script. Yet, this lead was not seriously followed and was soon forgotten. Even Subrahmanya Aiyer did not pursue his line of enquiry to its logical conclusion. Other scholars like V. Venkayya and H. Krishna Sastri were constrained by the assumption that all Brahmi inscriptions were invariably in Prakrit or Pali, as Brahmi was used predominantly for Prakrit in all other regions of India from the Mauryan (Asokan) period. Their readings failed to convey any meaning.
Irvatham Mahadevan
Now enter the picture Irvatham Mahadevan an administrator-turned scholar, we have tamil Brahmi. By reviving Subrahmanya Aiyer's early decipherment and reading and at the same time more systematically studying these inscriptions in all their aspects, including palaeography, orthography and grammar, and seeking corroboration from the Sangam Literature and Tolkappiyam, the basic work on Tamil grammar. Mahadevan has virtually re-deciphered these inscriptions and shown them to be inscribed in Tamil. Hence the name "Tamil-Brahmi," one variety of the Brahmi script.
Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
1.Brahmi script was adapted and modified to suit the Tamil phonetic system.
2.Palaeographic changes were made to suit the Tamil language, with the omission of letters for sounds not present in the Tamil language and by additions to represent sounds in Tamil that are not available in Brahmi.
3.All but four of the 26 letters are derived from Brahmi and have the same phonemic values.
4.Even these four - i.e., l,l, r, n - are adapted from the letters with the nearest phonetic values in (Asokan-) Brahmi, i.e., d, l, r, n.
5.Letters were also modified with a special diacritic mark, viz., the pulli (dot). These are reflected in the development of the Tamil-Brahmi in three stages (TB I, II and III):
Stage I
1. Inherent a (short-medial vowel) was absent in the consonants
2. strokes (vowel notations) were used for both the short and long medial a, and hence the need for the reading of consonants with reference to context and position;
Stage II
when the stroke for medial a marked only the long a;
Stage III
1. when the use of diacritics like the pulli was introduced for basic consonants and for avoiding ligatures for consonant clusters (as in Simhala-Brahmi).
2.The pulli was used also for distinguishing the short e and o from the long vowels, for the shortened - i and -u (kurriyalikaram and kurriyalukaram)
3.The pulli used for the unique sound in Tamil called aytam, all of which are unknown to the Indo-Aryan ( Prakrit and Sanskrit).
It is the recognition of the absence of the inherent vowel a (short) in the early phases, e.g. ma, ka, na with strokes or medial vowel notations, which are actually to be read as ma, ka, n (the inverted J symbol for the nominal suffix `an' characteristic of Tamil), and the addition of the pulli as a diacritic, that provided the key to the whole re-decipherment. Herein lies the basic contribution of Mahadevan to the study of the script and alphabet. That these findings are corroborated by the phonetic rules of the Tolkappiyam.
Above passages gives the Genesis and Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
Where are these Incriptions
1.Pottery inscription in Tamil-Brahmi giving the name Catan. 1st century A.D. Found at Quseir-al-Qadim on the Red Sea coast of Egypt.
2.Rock-cavern inscription in Jambai 2nd Century AD.
Let us see what spoils such a great discovery
Related Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Indus Script Myths
Pallava Granta Script
There is Ashokan Brahmi standardised by Ashoka found all over India. And there is tamil Brahmi. Let us see the genesis of Tamil Brahmi.
Tamil Brahmi Genesis
The early Brahmi inscriptions posed a greater challenge on account of their archaic characters and orthographic conventions, which were different from the original Brahmi used for Prakrit. The challenge seemed insuperable even to the most competent among the pioneering epigraphists. The major breakthrough in the decipherment of the cave inscriptions of Tamil Nadu came with K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer (1924). He was the first to recognise that these are inscribed in Brahmi, but with certain peculiarities and new forms of letters, due to its adaptation for the Tamil language which has sounds (phonetic values) not known to the Prakrit (Indo-Aryan) language and northern Brahmi script. Yet, this lead was not seriously followed and was soon forgotten. Even Subrahmanya Aiyer did not pursue his line of enquiry to its logical conclusion. Other scholars like V. Venkayya and H. Krishna Sastri were constrained by the assumption that all Brahmi inscriptions were invariably in Prakrit or Pali, as Brahmi was used predominantly for Prakrit in all other regions of India from the Mauryan (Asokan) period. Their readings failed to convey any meaning.
Irvatham Mahadevan
Now enter the picture Irvatham Mahadevan an administrator-turned scholar, we have tamil Brahmi. By reviving Subrahmanya Aiyer's early decipherment and reading and at the same time more systematically studying these inscriptions in all their aspects, including palaeography, orthography and grammar, and seeking corroboration from the Sangam Literature and Tolkappiyam, the basic work on Tamil grammar. Mahadevan has virtually re-deciphered these inscriptions and shown them to be inscribed in Tamil. Hence the name "Tamil-Brahmi," one variety of the Brahmi script.
Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
1.Brahmi script was adapted and modified to suit the Tamil phonetic system.
2.Palaeographic changes were made to suit the Tamil language, with the omission of letters for sounds not present in the Tamil language and by additions to represent sounds in Tamil that are not available in Brahmi.
3.All but four of the 26 letters are derived from Brahmi and have the same phonemic values.
4.Even these four - i.e., l,l, r, n - are adapted from the letters with the nearest phonetic values in (Asokan-) Brahmi, i.e., d, l, r, n.
5.Letters were also modified with a special diacritic mark, viz., the pulli (dot). These are reflected in the development of the Tamil-Brahmi in three stages (TB I, II and III):
Stage I
1. Inherent a (short-medial vowel) was absent in the consonants
2. strokes (vowel notations) were used for both the short and long medial a, and hence the need for the reading of consonants with reference to context and position;
Stage II
when the stroke for medial a marked only the long a;
Stage III
1. when the use of diacritics like the pulli was introduced for basic consonants and for avoiding ligatures for consonant clusters (as in Simhala-Brahmi).
2.The pulli was used also for distinguishing the short e and o from the long vowels, for the shortened - i and -u (kurriyalikaram and kurriyalukaram)
3.The pulli used for the unique sound in Tamil called aytam, all of which are unknown to the Indo-Aryan ( Prakrit and Sanskrit).
It is the recognition of the absence of the inherent vowel a (short) in the early phases, e.g. ma, ka, na with strokes or medial vowel notations, which are actually to be read as ma, ka, n (the inverted J symbol for the nominal suffix `an' characteristic of Tamil), and the addition of the pulli as a diacritic, that provided the key to the whole re-decipherment. Herein lies the basic contribution of Mahadevan to the study of the script and alphabet. That these findings are corroborated by the phonetic rules of the Tolkappiyam.
Above passages gives the Genesis and Characteristics of Tamil Brahmi
Where are these Incriptions
1.Pottery inscription in Tamil-Brahmi giving the name Catan. 1st century A.D. Found at Quseir-al-Qadim on the Red Sea coast of Egypt.
2.Rock-cavern inscription in Jambai 2nd Century AD.
Let us see what spoils such a great discovery
- Pulli TheoryScholars have observed two notational systems of Brahmi for writing Tamil. The first system is older than the second and the latter is very close to the Asokan Brahmi system. In the first system the short medial, a, is marked by a short horizontal stroke. In the second system the same mark indicates a long medial a. For example, scholars once used to read a certain word as maakaana following the second system. It did not make much sense. When the first system was used to read the inscription, the meaning became clear. The same word was read as makan, a common Tamil word for son. These two systems of Brahmi are different from the Tamil Pulli system described in Tholkappiam. The earliest stone inscription in the Tamil script is found at Vallam near Chinglepet and it belongs to the early seventh century A.D.There the dot over the pure consonants can be clearly seen. In the numerous inscriptions found on rock-shelters on hillocks near Madurai, scholars have failed to observe the Pulli in any of the inscriptions. The occurrence of the Pulli is closely linked with the date of Tholkappiam believed to be the oldest Tamil work. The late occurrence of the Pulli in Tamil inscriptions will indicate either the late date for the tholkappiam or prove Tamil Brahmi theory as false.
- Lack InscriptionsFor all the theories about inscriptions , we find only two or three inscriptions in the period mentioned 300BC to 500AD. Almost all the inscriptions are some grafitti. If the sangam literature and Tholkappiam if assumed are from this period then there should be flurry of inscriptions the absence show that written culture was not widespread.
- Inconsistencies of two Tamil brahmi and Tamil Pulli systems.The second system is closer to Ashoka Brahmi then the first one. And pulli does not show up until 7th century AD. Some scholars have even argued that Ashoka brahmi came from Tamil Brahmi, but that is not a creditable argument. Only few inscription sometimes only one inscription have been cited to show they are different. Anyone can see there will be some changes even if same person writes and the script surviving great distances with only few variations is itself miracle. So these differences are just few errors crept into the writing not a seprate script.
- Citing evidences where tamil was not present
Mahadevan has been citing the southern Brahmi script found in Karnataka and Andhra to prove his theory especially Bottiporulu inscription. Which cannot be considered in the context of tamil. Many of the inscriptions dates not verified by competing authority. many references have been heresay and preliminary data on the first sighting. Many of the inscriptions are handcopied which again can introduce errors. - Regional variations not surprising
There are number of regional variations in Brahmi itself. Northern brahmi, southern brahmi , sinhala brahmi and others. In southern brahmi itself in bottiporulu inscription simultaneouly different variations have been found. - Sinhala Brahmi
Tamil brahmi is very similar to Sinhala brahmi. Here Mahadevan will claim sinhala brahni came from tamil brahmi, but evidence shows otherwise. Until 3nd century AD the tamil brahmi and srilankan brahmi are carbon copy of each other. only with advent of pallavas the script went in different ways. - Scientific evolution of Brahmi
Brahmi's limitation in phonetics in each region of India was overcome by adding megalithic symbols over the brahmi script that is why we have so many scripts in India. These are called vowel markers. This nothing new. - Literary works at later period
The written literture comes from later period of 8th century AD , it reaches a peak in 12-13th century AD. Writting seems to have started around 6th century AD during Pallava region.
Related Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Indus Script Myths
Pallava Granta Script
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)