Talk:Karikala/Archive 1
Unsupported information - This article is not history but a work of fiction
[edit]What is the source for the date c.91 B.C.E.- c.45 B.C.E for the so-called ‘Karikala the Great’? Was he a real person or legendary? If real then what are the contemporary sources. Don’t site just Sangam poetry. They are not reliable historical sources.
What is the source for Karikala’s northern conquests? Is it Cilappatikaram? If so, Cilappatikaram also claims all three Tamil kings to have conquered up to the Himalayas. Is this true as well?
You have some dates for his conquests. What are your sources for these dates? Are there any inscriptions, copper-plate grants, or archaeological evidence?
You claim the so-called Kariaka the Great invaded Srilanka? Can you refer to any contemporary Sinhala documents to support this and the date 62 BCE?
You claim the so-called Karikala the Great invaded the northern kingdoms of Vidharba, Mithila etc. Are there any independent sources from these kingdoms supporting such an invasion and the dates?
You refer Akam 196 for supporting Karikala’s building canals. Akam 196 is given below:
நெடுங்கொடி நுடங்கும் நறவுமலி பாக்கத்து,
நாள்துறைப் பட்ட மோட்டிரு வராஅல்
துடிக்கண் கொழுங்குறை நொடுத்து, உண்டுஆடி
வேட்டம் மறந்து, துஞ்சும் கொழுநர்க்குப் பாட்டி
ஆம்பல் அகலிலை, அமலைவெஞ் சோறு
தீம்புளிப் பிரம்பின் திரள்கனி பெய்து,
விடியல் வைகறை இடூஉம் ஊர!
தொடுகலம்: குறுக வாரல் - தந்தை
கண்கவின் அழித்ததன் தப்பல், தெறுவர,
ஒன்றுமொழிக் கோசர்க் கொன்று, முரண்போகிய,
கடுந்தேர்த் திதியன் அழுந்தை, கொடுங்குழை
அன்னி மிஞிலியின் இயலும்
நின்நலத் தகுவியை முயங்கிய மார்பே!
Can you tell me which words say Karikala built canals?
You claim the so-called Karika the Great established the city of Kanchi and cite Puram 246 as reference. Puram 246 is below.
பொய்கையும் தீயும் ஒன்றே!
பாடியவர்: பூதப் பாண்டியன் தேவி பெருங்கோப்பெண்டு
திணை: பொதுவியல் துறை: ஆனந்தப் பையுள்
பல்சான் றீரே ; பல்சான் றீரே
செல்கெனச் சொல்லாது, ஒழிகென விலக்கும்,
பொல்லாச் சூழ்ச்சிப் பல்சான் றீரே;
துணிவரிக் கொடுங்காய் வாள்போழ்ந் தட்ட
காழ்போல் நல்விளர் நறுநெய் தீண்டாது,
அடைஇடைக் கிடந்த கைபிழி பிண்டம்
வெள்என் சாந்தொடு புளிப்பெய்து அட்ட
வேளை வெந்தை, வல்சி ஆகப்,
பரற்பெய் பள்ளிப் பாயின்று வதியும்
உயவற் பெண்டிரேம் அல்லேம் மாதோ;
பெருங்காட்டுப் பண்ணிய கருங்கோட்டு ஈமம்
நுமக்குஅரிது ஆகுக தில்ல; எமக்குஎம்
பெருந்தோள் கணவன் மாய்ந்தென அரும்புஅற
வள்இதழ் அவிழ்ந்த தாமரை
நள்இரும் பொய்கையும் தீயும் ஓரற்றே!
Where does it say Karikala established Kanchi?
Most of the supporting evidence you cite were written at least between 700 and 1200 years after Karikala’s period (as you have given). Are they reliable sources?
Whenever questioned about the authenticity your claims, you seem to retreat and accept they were wrong. Are you going to do this this time as well?
Parthi (Venu62) 09:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As you have said elsewhere, in your own words, "
The storyKarikala is mixed with legend and anecdotal information gleaned from Sangam Literature. Karikala has left us no authentic records of his reign. Only source available to us are the numerous mentions in Sangam poetry. The period covered by the extant literature of the Sangam is unfortunately not easy to determine with any measure of certainty.
" I can easily say the evidences based on which your kARIKALA page is the same for this one. The basic sources are the same, so donot pose questions the answers you mostly know. okay? However Iam trying to give my points of delineation down.
A SHORT HISTORY OF LANKA
by Humphry William Codrington
CHAPTER II
DUTTHA GAMANI TO KASSAPA OF SIGIRIYA
THIRD CENTURY B.C.- SIXTH CENTURY A.D.
To site a few samples..."Gaja Bahu of Lanka attended the consecration of the Pattini temple at Vanji by the Chera King Senguttavan. To this king's maternal grandfather, the Chola Karikala, is attributed the construction of embankments along the Kaveri river. "
The Great Chronicle of Lanka
Translated from Pali
by Wilhelm Geiger
THE MAHAVAMSA
6th Century BC to 4th Century AD
[2] It says Gajabahu reigned from 113 C.E. and hence Cenkuttuvan's period is the around the same . His ancestor Karikala II's time comes to befora two generations around 60 C.E.
It is imperative more often one cannot expect documenting disgraceful defeats to the home kings to be mentioned in the historical records of losing countries, so many a time one cannot easily find such invasion of Karikala, into the north and SL . But in Sri Lankan chronicle (links shown above) one can find many princes with "Chola" title name in the 1st Century B.C.E. and 1st Century C.E. corresp to KK I and KK II 's period s .
Regarding Puram and Agam I am looking into the numbers of the source chapters,myself. Give me till Friday time . But my sources are from "Battles of South India" by K.Appatturai .
Otherwise, iobserve youhave problems accepting the antiquity though clear evidence based on inscriptions alone ,is still wanting and is on the rise . Why don't you question Kuru dynasty, Vedic pages of Wiki , which as you reasoned elsewhere do not mention any "mythological or imaginative" superscription, and I am on my way myself, to query your same questions to them , and if you and Sundar really mean about established authenticity for history in general( I am not presuming you all are Tamil-aversive like other anonimous intruding editors ) march to the other such unsustained? history pages,. Its easy to say "its not my job", but your authenticity worries should be real ly good and impartial to both North Indian, Vedic,,, Andhra and Kerala and Kannada pages. Senthilkumaras 12:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Also for 9800 B.C.E. YEAR derivation just add on the years of the Nakkeerrar's documentation of early Sangam period, I can mention the same Sangam Wikipedia page which you yourselves copyedited. You seem to do the same work I do, but keep on bullying my work, you seem to tale the sole credit and want only your name and page in the Tamil pages , I welcome the attitude, but donot pose different views one in your own pages an other in my talk pages, okay.! Senthilkumaras 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Karikala Chola article does not assign any spurious dates to any of his exploits. Neither does it cliam he invaded the northern kingdoms or Sri Lanka. Read it carefully. My questions to you regarding yout two Karikala articles are about the definite dates you give for each of his achievements and the definite manner in which you tell the story. There is nothing definite in the information we have on Karikala. I don't even know how you got to Karikala the Great and Karikala II.
- In the reference you cited from Mahavamsa, where does it say Karikala invaded Sri Lanka?
- I am not on a policing job on Wikipedia. My questions are only regarding your article. If you want to raise issues with other pages, feel free to do so.
- I am not as you say 'Tamil averse'. I am the one who created the articles on Sangam Literature. I will continue creating these articles until we have a complete documentation. The current Sangam page is not mine. You can see my version here: Talk:Sangam/Venus62_version. The unreasonable admin person reverted it. Do you still hold that the Pandyas were ruling from 9800 BCE?? How do you know there were more than one Sangam? Do you belive the Gods Siva and Muruga participated in these events? Do you believe there was a huge continent south of the current subcontinent where Pandyas were ruling? Because that's what the Sangam article claims and which I tried to improve by separating the legend from known facts.
- Can you show me an instance where I have taken credit for other's work? I am not afraid of people questioning my contributions. I have no point of view to push in my articles. I am not here to bully anyone nor do I want to take all credit. I only ask questions where relevant. You are welcome to ask me any questions on anything I have written.
Parthi (Venu62) 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I had hurt you, I still believe all the Kumari Kandam, Lord Muruga as Sangam poet, and others are legends, but legends can be true or not true (mind you they are still searching Atlantis with huge oceanographical missions ), like you still say legendary Don Bradman and legendary King Arthur, that didnot mean they never existed, Ofcourse legends may have some exaggerations in narrating ones achievement, mixed with euphemisms and uvamaigal and uvamaanangal, like if Karikala was said to remove one eye of the three eyed king of Andhra, it just means he destroyed the pride of the king and made him submit to hi m ,; Coming to the lost continent legend dont you believe there were deluges at the end of last ice age, and ofcourse the deluge stories and lost land legends exist in every ancient civilizations . You accepted Venni and Vaagai paranthalai battles from Puram, butnot other invasions, First any historical records will only try to hide and forget losses to an invasion, and no losing king will ask his men to inscribe on stones about his great defeat and loss! Practically you find stories of invasions only on the literatures of the victorious and not on the losing king's coppergrants and stone inscriptions . Like, you have Tamil invasions only in Tamil literatures and not in Noth Indian literatures, also, similarly Pallavas never agreed that Pulikesi conquered the ir whole country, and they claim driving the invader away after winning them at Pullaloor battle, while there is no such recordings in Pulikesi's script, and like in Chalukyas never mention multiple defeats of their great king Vikramaditya in any inscriptions, but the Cholas doso, many times in grants,and literature with precise location and time and events leading to and after these battles.Also like many North Indian works donot say Porus was ruined by Alexander ,also like while Shivaji was just trapped when attending a peace meeting at Delhi, on the contrary Mughal literature say Shivaji was defeated and captured as aprisoner .These are just basic derivations of how the losers and victorious document their history , and also it is sad to understand there was no practice of making records like in Copper grants , edicts during Sangam age, it starts very late with only 5thc in Tamil history .
Other references, "History of Chers " A.Chidambaram, pg 36-37 on Chera invasion around 80 c.e.
V.S.Subrahmanyacharya's works on "Karikalas" and Dr.Rajamanickam's works on Early Tamil kings ,
and K.Appatturai's "Battles of South India "
Kanchi estab quoted is from these works and Cilap and Manimegalai. If you say Telugu Cholas stone inscrip was a imaginative, or "might have" suggestion as early Chola clan , why do you think they write ia stone inscription on a Tamil king 1000years back, in Sanskrit and not in Tamil or in Telugu . This particular Sanskrit lines are found many times repeaated like a mantra in many Andhra Pradesh temples (from the sources mentioned above ). While we know there was a king Mukkanha or Trilosana in Satavahana kinglist, another stone inscription I referred to of 1356 C.E. by Bhakti Raya of Bastar in Wajra Bhoj country, mentioning again, that Karikala invaded north, and o the way defaeted Satavahana king Trinetriya and his Bhoj ancestor before conquering the Ganga valley nations .Such references and mentionings to the achievements of KK the Great were too many and too similar and found as mentioned and claimed by king s of diff Central Indian kingdoms , just too many to discard as any isolated mutant imaginative work by a single person . It is Cilap saying Kaveri banks,( do you say Kallanai or Grand Anaicut was not by Karikala? ) and Kanchi, and Agam 246 and Porunaraatrruppadai 143-148 on Venni I, and Purananuru 65,66 on Venni II battles , Agam 125 on Vaagai battle ,; Pattinappaalai 283-5,286, explains new settlements, cities with temples ,Cilap and Agam 222 both sing Adhimanthi KK's daughter ( Cilap is comparable to Sangam works and both doc biography , events in country, and hist battles ). Infact Cilappatigaram is with real events that the story of anklet Goddess Pattini Deivam is mentioned in Mahavamsa and also we know Ilango was brother of Cenkuttuvan of Gajabahu age-113 c.e. It is of importance that we get to the approximate dates of these ancient historical events with all these external records and sources using them as far as possible. Anby way thankyou for keeping one involved . Senthilkumaras 09:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- What your beliefs are regarding Lemuria or Kumarikandam is irrelevant. This article is regarding History - not fiction.
- You're still missing the point. Writing history does not mean inventing theories based on some vague assumptions. I asked very specific questions. Let me repeat them here:
- What are your contemporary sources for the specific dates you had given for Karikala's reign?
- What are your contemporary sources for the specific dates you assign for karikala's various battles?
- What are your contemporary sources for your claim that Karikala conquered the north? - Simply citing Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai or quoting 14th or 15 century sources is not enough.
- What are your contemporary sources for your claim that Karikala invaded Sri Lanka? - Mahavamsa does not say Karikala invaded the island. Mentions of some Chola princes ruling the island from time to time is not proof of Karikala's invasion.
- They may be some differences of opinions regarding the extent of Pulikesin's invasion of the Pallavas, but there is no dispute regarding it ever happened. The same goes for Alexander's invasion as well.
- Cilapptikaram and Manimekalai are not relable historical sources. They were written much later than the events and they are works of fiction and full of exaggeration.
- You are squirming out of my specific questions. The references you had for Karikala building canals and establishing Kanchipuram are bogus. You have absolutely no supporting proof for the events or the dates and yet you write as if you were there to witness it. This is not how you write a Wiki article. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- If you don't have spcific sources for the information or the dates, then remove them from the article or I will do so.
- Please remember, we Tamils are a great people. We don't need to invent spurious history to assume non-existing achievements.
Parthi (Venu62) 20:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatis this not my id, may be some 1 from same netcafe.
? is not seen inarticle, "around 120" seen, why not ?100 or ?200.
KK I have clearly given my justification of dates with"?" symbol
Urayur is at Thiruchchi, mark in map
Neither Sastri, nor myself saw KK and Ilanko in their times,sorry.
note SitalaiSattan(Manimegalai)in Puram59,onPandyawho diedin court.
note Cenkutuvan also in Puram(before 2nd c CE)
does Sastri say Cenkutuvan's brother Ilanko wrote on him in6thc.
Liguistic evidence is controversial,these Buddhist& Jain works.
Since theyhave high use of Pali,Prakrit words from earliest times.
Whatuse of contemporary workswith such flaws,without deep thinking.
let commonsense prevail.
it doesnt mean one should follow their same mistakes.
I respect your Tamil literature work(ThiruMurugatrrupadai-a beauty)
one should be sincere in analysing the abovepresent facts.
If Sastri and others is clearly wrong,it is our duty to correct him
I dont mean to hurt you or Sastri.
Thankyou.Senthilkumaras 08:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- First of all read my questions before copying your answers from other discussion pages.
- There is no proof that says the author of Cilappatikaram, Ilanko Adigal was the brother of the Chera king. All we know is that he was a jain monk.
- Neither Sastri nor us were there in person to witness the events two thousand years ago, but that's why we depend on education and objective research of people like Sastri.
- What qualifications do you have to assert that Sastri is wrong? Sastri's book have been in continuous print for over seventy years and have been reviewed by renowned historians.
- Your articles reflect your desire to push your one-eyed Nationalistic agenda. It is because of people like you the Tamil history and culture has been hijacked by a few selfish idiots with no knowledge if the topics they are talking about.
As there has been no valid answers to my questions and as this article has no supporting documentation apart from relying on legends and guess work as seen in this talk page, I am redirecting this article to Karikala Chola in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.