Date of Purananooru

Various dates are proposed for purananooru, 1000BC, 10,000BC , 1 Million years old etc.
Let us try to find the probable date. This is based on the premise that if  X mentions Y , then X is later than Y.

Purananooru - 378
Purananooru mentions mentions Rama and sita ,so it cannot be more than 4000BC old.
Purananooru mentions mentions Mahabratha war so, it is atleast later than 3000BC

Purananooru - 175
Purananooru mentions mentions Maurya ,so it is later than 175BC atleast.

Dating problem
purananooru mentions Ilamcetcenni stopped Mauryas from coming to south, Silapathikaram mentions Karikal chola who is dated (by most ardent tamil chuvanists) to be in 2nd century AD. So Father-son ruling 500 years apart. which shows that the the poet who composed the poet cannot be dated anywhere near the two dates. so give atleast 200 years to forget the periods , that puts purananooru to 400 AD.

Purananooru 46
Killivalavan was a chola king mentioned in Sangam Literature, and Father of Nedunkilli and Nalankilli , in the Purananuru and Agananuru.The etymology of Killi is kilai (Branch in Tamil)

Killi Valavan
The word Pallava means branch in Sanskrit, denoting that they are a later offshoot  (Kilai-> Branch(tamil)) of Chutus (satkarnis).Pallava is rendered as Tondaiyar in the Tamil language.  The Pallava kings at several places are called Thondamans or Thondaiyarkon. The territory of the Pallavas was known as Tundaka Visaya or Tundaka Rashtra.(tundaka -> Branch) The Sanskrit meaning of Pallava is Kilai The Tamil Thondai means the same,  It shows that Pallavas are descendants (Kilay or Pirivu) of Chutus(satakarnis). Karnata dynasties Chalukyas and Rastrakutas call themselves Vallabhas and  Pallava also from Karnata have called themselves vallabhas in some places, which translates to valavan in Tamil.

If we take the killi ->; Kilai and Pallava ->; kilai and vallabha -> valavan

We have killi valvan and it shows that killi valavan is generic term applied to pallava vallabha.

After the pallavas revenge against pulikesin II,  Ganga king who had marital relations with chalukyas took revenge against pallavas and chased them out of kanchi.  So the pallavas shifted themselves to a place called Kaduvetti, which is now in chola country. Many of their inscriptions are from kaduvetti. Only after this time we see cholas rising.  Cholas might have marital relations with pallavas and  putting killivalavan as one of their ancestors,   shows their ancestors are  pllavas. Until Nirputunga pallava cornation ,they were feudatories of pallavas. This also solves myth Pallavas are not mentioned in Sangam literature-so sangam literature has to be dated before pallavas. So if we take this account then the purananooru has to be dated after pallavas that after 9th century AD.

Karikala, Maurya ,Ramayana and Mahabharata war
There is a karikala known as Aditya Karikala ruling in 9th century AD.  Mauryan kings were ruling until 7th century AD in Konkan.  So the knowledge of Mauryas and Karikalan were fresh.  During 9th century AD to 13th century AD, saw all the dynasties trying to connect themselves to Ramayana and Mahabharata Warriors, not surprising the Purananooru does similar act of connecting the tamil kings to Mahabharata heroes.  Karikala said to have defeated Oliya nagas and according to Mahabalipur Inscription of Rajendra I oliya nagas are of his period( 11th century AD.).  So  Purananooru is defintely 10th century AD  to 11th century AD or later than that.

Irunkovel

Here is an inscription belonging to one of the kings of the Irunkovel line from the Adhipuriswara temple in Tiruvorriyur district:

Records in the reign of the Ganga-pallava king Kovijiya Kampavarman, gift of 27 kalanju of gold for offerings by Pudi Arindigai, wife of Videlvidigu-Ilangovelar of Kodumbalur in Ko-nadu. The money was placed in the hands of the residents of Vaikattur, a suburb of Tiruvorriuyur, on interest at 3 manjadi per kalanju per annum 

Kampavarman is dated to 870-900AD ,Irunkovel mentioned in Purananooru , so the date of purananooru has to be later than this date. Interestingly there was a dynastic struggle between Kampavarman(elder) and Nrputunga(boy) for the throne like Nedunkilli and Nalankilli

Hoysalas

The dating gets even curious because the Purananooru mentions Pulikatimal (Hoysalas with emblem of Sala killing the Tiger that is Hoysalas ending the chola rule(Tiger Emblem)), who are of  period 10th -14th Century AD . Interestingly it also says pulikatimal is from neighbhouring country. So if we take Hoysalas into  picture, the date has to be after 11th century AD.  Probably between 11th to 13th century AD. After which there was a intergennum because of Muslim invasion.

Related Posts
origin of Cholas
Date of Karikala
Date of Pallava
Myth of Tamil Sangam
Date of Silapathikaram
Topics

Myth of British creating India

It was the british who created a united India, and before the british came, there was no concept of India at all. This was one of the myth that has been repeated so often , people seem to believe it.
Let us see

• Alexander first Europeon to attempt conquer the world, want to conquer India , not some kingdom. So India is there at that time itself.
  
• In 1492 Columbus set out to discover a sea route to which place? India, right? It was not any particular kingdom of India that Columbus was targetting. It was INDIA ITSELF! That is the reason, when he mistook America to be India, he called the natives of America as ‘Red Indians’.So India was there before British came.
• The poilitical picture in pre-british India was that parts of India were ruled by different Kings called the Maharaja, and would report to the strongest of all who would be the ruler of entire Indian subcontinent and was called the Chakravarti. Chakravarti means the king of kings. So the pan-indian Empire is already there.
• British did not unite and rule whole of india , there were many Maharajas who were independent.

Condensed from link

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.

1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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.

Silapathikaram says,
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.

Myth of Kallanani by Karikalan

Myth of Kallanani by Karikalan
The Grand Anicut, also known as the Kallanai, is an ancient dam in Tamil Nadu state of south India. The Grand Anicut is the most ancient surviving irrigation work in Kaveri river delta. It is attributed to the Chola king Karikalan, and dates back to the 2nd century. It is considered the oldest water-diversion structure in the world still in use.
A poet sings
“Karikaalan kattivaithaan kallanai”

Let us analyze the facts
The sangam literature Pattinappaalai sung by uruthirang kannanar was solely sung in praise of Karikaal chola. It has no mention of Kallanai. We only understand that he strengthened the banks of cauvery.
Thiruttani and Velanjeri Copper Plates
Parantaka's plate is dated 932 A.D. It gives the names of the progenitors of the Chola line beginning with Vishnu, followed by Brahma, Marichi, Kasyapa, Surya and Usinara. Karikala, Sibi and Koccengannan.
Karikala
Three important events in the life of Karikala are mentioned.
(1) He caused the crest of the Cholas marked on the slopes of Himalayas.
(2) He raised embankments on either side of river Kaveri and controlled its flood
(3) He made Kanchi a city of palaces.
Udayendram plates
Parantaka Chola's Udayendram plates mention only the name of Karikala without referring to his exploits.

Hence Thiruttani and Velanjeri Copper Plates are perhaps the earliest Chola record to refer to the exploits of Karikala. Even though his conquests and building Kanchi palaces are as debatable let us see only Kallanai now.

The copper plates which mention Karikala as one of the ancestors of Cholas do not mention anything about Kallanai. Usually it is customary to record the grandest achievements of their ancestors (Sibi- sparrow, Manu needhi - chariot etc)

One more inscription throws a different light about uruthirang kannanar A mandapa was donated to kannanar by Karikala . Around 1200 AD Sundara pandiyan ransacked the whole of chola kingdom. He destroyed all forts, palaces etc. but left this one single mandapa untouched! There is a detailed inscription in thiruvellarai - in the form of a Tamil poem – which records this. Though it was a chola who donated the gift, it was a gift for a Tamil poet - uruthirang kannanar - that's all pandiyan considered!
Second if they measured the chola land to device an ulagalanthan KOL, then there must be some mention of water sources and dams. However there is no such evidence.

Karikalan never built Kallanai. Kaverikku iru puramum karai eduppiththaan.That's all. Kallanai was constructed during Nayak period. That was verysmall dam and today what we see is the expansion by British people. Astudent of Jawaharlal Nehru University did a PhD on Kallanai and provedbeyond any doubt that it was built by nayaks and subsequent expansions byBritish people.

If we analyze the date of Karikalan , we can come to a conclusion of around 9th century or later ,And the other Famous chola king Ko Chenkkannan praised in sangam literature built Jambukeshwarar Temple which still stands today is around 10th century AD, But the legend advances the date of sangam literatue to 2nd century AD without any basis.

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.