Talk:Sangam period/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sangam period. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Attempted cleanup

I tried my best. I couldn't. Would appreciate if someone could spend a bit of time cleaning this up. cheers

Parthi (Venu62)

What is the source for the Tamil months? Are they Tamil months? I know of another set (other than Chitirai-vaikaasi-aani set, but the ones given here look different from the one I know. Further I'm not sure of the reference for my set). --Aadal 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Parthi:

 I read it in a book that the months are correct. Days in any month is depending on how long earth stays in a sign. That is the reason some time month like Eyyann (Aadi) has 31 or 32 days and Panmizh or Silai (Maarkazi) has 29 or 30 days. This is concepts of to helio-centric and the months are identified by the first star group on the sign. I'm unable to tell the book name; will update it once I go to Chennai.

Details of the Lords of each landscape - thinais , could have been useful. 121.247.87.206 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindu principals? Even though in some literature there are some reference to some of Hindu principles there is not sufficient enough information to say this. needed more information on it. esp since the older literaute are not talking more about Hindu principles, but more about socity.

Ancient Tamil country

The article is looking good so far, but still is a stub in its early stages. The ancient Tamil country is also known as Tamilakam in Tamil - and comprised of a distinct country of different royal dynasties. An article on this Tamil country, detailing specifics about the culture and history, its contributions, and way of life on this land and of its people is essential and hugely valuable. I've added that another term for this is Tamilakam and will add more to the article later. Good work. Wubbabubba 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging Ancient Tamil Country with Tamilakam

Tamilakam only means Tamil country. Ancient Tamil Country topic needs special attention and need not be merged with Tamilakam.

Agree Taprobanus (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

This article appears to be discussing the ancient history of South India. "Ancient Tamil country" appears to be a literal translation of Tamilakam, with an "ancient" tagged in front of it. It doesn't strike me as good English, and inasmuch as it is used in quotable literature, it seems to refer to the concept of Tamilakam within Sangam period Tamil texts rather than to the ancient history of the region in general. Maybe we can find a better title. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I come to the conclusion that this article should best be titled "Sangam period", i.e. the historical period, as opposed to the Tamil Sangams (assemblies) themselves, and the Sangam literature of the period, or simply "ancient history of South India" (presently a section redirect). "Ancient Tamil country" is used rarely in serious literature, and if at all, it appears, exclusively by Tamil authors. I get all of 9 hits for the term on jstor.org, about half of them in works on topics like "ancient Tamil music" by Tamil authors, and the other half in books reviews, which give direct quotes to illustrate particularly horrible passages in the books reviewed. We can certainly state "also referred to as 'ancient Tamil country' by Tamil authors", but that's about as far as the notability of this term appears to go. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the "Ancient History of South India" being redirected to "Sangam period". It has data only about the Tamil civilization, while the rest of the region is ignored. Should the redirect be removed?

Clarification sought

I believe that not many people in the state of Andhra Pradesh would know much about "Sangam Period" and "Tamilakam" which were believed to exist between 3rd century B.C and 3rd century A.D and Andhra Pradesh was part of them as the article stated. Interestingly the areas included were VaeLaavi Nadu( Vaengi)- Krishna and Guntur districts, Payalanadu( Vaiyaavi)- Anantapur etc, Vellimalai - North and West of Thirupathi , Vaengada Nadu - Rayalaseema dt ,Pungi Nadu - West Chittoor dt, Mazhampula Nadu -South of Kalahasthi up to Pulicat , Pulli Nadu - South East coast of Andhra Pradesh. Did these places exist in "Sangam Period" in Andhra region between 3rd century B.C and 3rd century A.D ? Who among Chola,Pandya and Chera kings ruled? Please Clarify on these with proper citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.81.121 (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

List of kingdoms and states

I moved the list from the article to talk because these lists are unclear and unreferenced. RJFJR (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Naanjil(1)- in the present Kanyakumari district in Tamil Nadu.
Pothigai (Aai) nadu(2)- the Cardamom hills and Palani hills of Southwest Tamil Nadu.
Kaandhal KuRa Nadu(3)- TenKasi and Kutrraalam, Thirunelvaeli dt.
Koadai malai(4)- Kodaikkanal, Dindigul dt.
Malai Nadu(5)- the Anaimalai Range in Kerala.
Evvi's Needoor-Mizhalai (6)- Pudukottai district in TN.
Parampu malai(7)- West Namakkal dt.
Thoandri malai(8)- Pachchai malai,Perambalur dt.
MuLLur Nadu and capital ThirukKoilur (9)- West Vizhuppuram, West Thiruvannamalai dt's.
Kolli malai nadu (10) - East Namakkal dt.
Oaymaan Nadu (11) in the Aruva Nadu and Aruva vadathalai nadu region- East Thirvannamalai and East Vellore dt.
Punnaadu(12)- East Thiruvannamalai dt.
VaaNar Nadu(13)- West Vellore and Chittor dt's.
ThoNdai Nadu (14)- Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur dt's.
Mukkaaval Nadu (15) - Vellore dt.
Kaankezhu Nadu (16) or Thirumunaippadi- East Vizhuppuram dt.
Mudhira malai (17)- Chennai dt.
Athigan Nadu(18) and its capital Thagadur- Dharmapuri dt.
Kudhirai malai(19)- West Dharmapuri and East Mandya dt's.
Payalanadu( Vaiyaavi )(20)- Krishnagiri, Kolar, Anantpur, Bellary dt's.
VaeLaavi Nadu( Vaengi )(21)-Krishna and Guntur dts.
Vellimalai(22)- North and West of Thirupathi.
Vaengada Nadu(23) - Rayalaseema dt.
Pungi Nadu (24)- West Chittoor dt.
Mazhampula Nadu (25)- South of Kalahasthi up to Pulicat.
Pulli Nadu (26) - South East coast of A.P.
Erumai Nadu (27)- Central and Northwest Mysore dt.
VeLimaan Nadu (28)-West Mysore
Oonoor Kosar (29)- Raichur dt.
Idaichchura Nadu (30) - Raichur dt.
Irungoe Nadu or Araiya Nadu(31) and Citraraiyam and Paeraraiyam forts- Tumkur and Chitradurga dt's.
Vichchikoe Nadu(32)- North of Ooty dt.
Thoatti malai (33) -Ooty dt.
Kuda Nadu or SengaNmaa Nadu (34) - Coorg dt.
Kuttuva Nadu (35)- North Malbar dt.
Cera Paayal malai (36) - North Malabar dt.
Kadamba Nadu (37) -Hangal, Hampi(Banavasi), Uchchangi,Dharwar dt's and KoNkan coast up to Goa.
KoNkaana Nadu (38)- Southwest Maharashtra's KoNkan coast, north of Goa.
Malli Nadu (39)- Udipi dt.
Karuvoor Chera Nadu (40)- West Karur dt.
Kongu Nadu (41)- In the present day Coimbatore, Tirupur, Erode, Salem, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri, Namakkal, Karur, Dindigul, Nilagiri dists of Tamil Nadu.(In Olden days included parts of Southern Karnataka and Eastern Kerala)

Cities

Naalai city state(41)- Nanguneri, Thirunelveli dt.
Poandhai city state(42)- Kulachchal, Kanyakumari dt.
Koodalpattinam- Tootukudi dt.
Eyilpattinam- North coastal Ramanathapuram dt.
Pidavoor- Thuraiyur tk., Thiruchchi dt.
Sirukudi- Thiruchchi dt.
Kaanappaereyil- North Sivagangai dt.
Azhunthur(43) - South Salem dt.
Moagur (44) - South East Naamakkal dt.
Pazhai Nadu- East Karur and South Namakkal dt's.
Vallaar- North Pudukottai dt.
Aali- North Thanjaavoor dt.
Cellur- North Bangalore dt.
Eernthur- North Thiruchi dt.

SriSuren's sources are unreliable.

V.Kanakasabhai's information is clearly outdated. If your read some of the paragraphs it clear that he is completely biased and ignorant of Tamil presence on the island of Sri Lanka. He claims the Nagar tribes to have only inhabited Tamil Nadu forgetting the CLEAR the Naga culture of the Sri Lankan Tamils today. He also claims that Northern races were "superior" and the "Aryans"(non-existant and proven wrong) had learned writing from the Nagas. Which is clear B.S because scripts had derived from Brahmi in the Indian Subcontinent where the Tamil script of the "nagas" had developed much later. SriSuren also claims the limits of Tamilakam on behalf of Kanakasabhai's book however you are also forgetting that Kanakasabhai had claimed a placed known as "Manipallavam" which is located in today's Jaffna Peninsula also written in the same book. I am not sure if everything in this book is fabricated or biased however as you can see the clear examples I have provided above prove that this source cannot be used on Wikipedia because it is simply unreliable until further notice. (Tamilan101 (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

Correct Period

According to literature of sangam total period is 9990 years(1-4440yrs,2-3700 yrs & 3-1850 years).But here it is shown as 3rd century BC to 4th century AD on what sources.Go to http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/ and in search text enter dwaraka for its almost correct period. 14.140.179.162 (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Proofs

This article making claims of an non-existence tamil kingdom in north and east of SL.. while admitting the fact several successful invasions were carried out by the southern indian kingdoms during the said period, I am not sure how that would make east and north SL a tamil country !! There are no historical evidences to prove there were significant number of tamil people in the east and north, and if anything I can prove easily that tamil inscriptions didn't even exist in SL till the 11 th century !! And even that was a code of conducts, issued by the great Sinhalese king Parakramabahu To the south indian merchants.Not for local tamils!! I have asked for citations 3 months ago, and I am yet to get them..Either those remarks should be deleted or OR tag should be kept..But having said that, I am not saying all the contents in the article is OR, esp I am not disputing what the article say about Ancient tamil country in India. Thanks .Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

truth. search it ! tell it! 07:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

yes sir, but the following facts are apparent.

1. mahavamsa itself says there were inhabitants -3 tribes atleast when vijaya and soldiers landed in srilanka.

2. srilanka is at the closest just less than 24 km from tamilnadu.

3. by commonsense the island would have been inhabited naturally, as human habitation in tamilnadu is archaeologically evidenced earlier than 2000bc e.

4. in all srilankan chronicles, since ancient times since their arrival whole of north and part of central island was mentioned nonsinhalese atleast until duttagamini.

5. ther had been contiguous mention of tamil people in these areas in all chronicles -mahavamsa and others.

6. there is no sinhalese/pali inscriptions earlier than 200bce, but there are tamil inscriptions dating to earlier than 300 bce atleast

7. by birth all sinhalese are maternal cousins to pandya tamils, as pandyan brides married vijaya's men as per mahavamsa.

i ve just quoted from history of srilanka. dare anybody deny. read mahavamsa first and come .

citations of archaeological evidences:

http://www.archaeology.lk/http:/www.archaeology.lk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dinithi-Volume-1-Issue-4.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissamaharama_Tamil_Brahmi_inscription

http://noolaham.net/project/18/1733/1733.pdf

Early Settlements in Jaffna, P.Raghupathy : 1983, 100's of references cited here all from Srilankan and western scholars

Deraniyagala SU, 1972, 1980: C-14 dating of potteries of Kantarodai/Jaffna from 1290+/-60 bc

Ref works of Indrapala K, Viomala Begley,

Dipavamsa, ed. Bimala Churn Law, 1959

Dennis Fernando, 1980: ecological zones of Sri Lanka

Peiris PE, The Kingdom of Jafnapatnam 1645, The Ceylon Daily News Printers, 1920.

Akitta Jataka, Buddhist chronicles 3rd cent bc

Fernando Queyroz, The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon, Colombo, 1980.

MAHAVAMSA, ED. WILHELM GEIGER, CEYLON GOVT INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, COLOMBO, 1960

John Carswell and Martha Prickett, Mantai 1980: Ancient Ceylon, 1984.

Kendrew, WG: The climate of the continents, OUP, New York, 1942.

Ekanayake L.A.D.I.: Bulletin of the Ceylon Geographical society, 1945.

Background Briefing of 13.11.69:Dept. of Information, GoSL.

Kularatnam K:1964: Geology and Water in the North.

Cooray PG: An Introduction to the Geology of Ceylon.

Wayland, E.J. and Davis,A.M.: The Miocene of Ceylon:QJES, LXXXIX, Part 4, 1923;

Somerville, B.T.: The Submerged Plateau surrounding Ceylon: Spolia Zeylonica, 1908

Jayasingham, W.L.: Urban Geography of Jaffna town, C;ark University, 1951.

Susantha Guoonatilake, The formation of Srilankan culture, Ancient Ceylon, 1981.

Senthilkumaras (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sir I would like to request two objectives. First, please Capitalize the first letters of the words 'Tamil' and 'Indian'. If not this action will hurt millions of people from India. More over these words are proper nouns and should be written with capitalization of first letter.

Second, please put forward your proofs to disprove the particular issue/topic/subject. Thanking you

truth. search it ! tell it! 07:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[1]. RIP. Sembiyan (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I find the whole article and map baseless

Is this a clean article ? 182.48.204.40 (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, previous map based on purananuru states and cities was more sensible . somebody replace it. this author not even knows tirupati coorg konkan mysore jaffna were sangam Tamil states. pity this and using data from rash works and scribbles of mal/kann/iyengrs etc and north Indian authors who had not even read sangam literature,archeology and Tamil grammar basics, writing Tamil history, all such ineligible sources/authors make history pages lose credibility and integrity!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.233.82.248 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

...  ..who had not even read sangam literature,archeology and Tamil grammar basics, writing  Tamil history, all such ineligible sources/authors make history pages lose credibility and integrity!!

i do agree with this, valid points

Senthilkumaras (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Citation quoting Prof. Hart is itself not a correct link. So practically a forged citation

Quote of Prof.Hart: ..legend of the Tamil Sangams or literary assemblies: was based on the Tamil Jain sangham at Madurai:

There was a permanent Jaina assembly called a Sangha established about 604 A.D. in Madurai. It seems likely that this assembly was the model upon which tradition fabricated the cangkam legend."
"It seems likely..." ---a grotesque guess in itself. Without proof of suggested fabrication --- FABRICATION is a ver serious very casual idea. There is only one approximate mention of a jain sanga in 6th century. But there is volumes of literatures, with authorship, references, in Agaporulurai, quoting Nakkeerar's discourse, though dates are expansive, 100s of poets are infact mentioned as authors of verses of Sangam literature.
That too based only on the similar sounding words --- Sangam (literature) and Sangham (of Jains),
Need to provide solid evidence that both these words denote the same before proceeding with the Hart suggestion.
When a Tamil word exists as i had edited - Sivi and Sanga meaning high idea of using this native Tamil word Sanga to analyse the name of a Tamil literary concept is more apt and logically acceptable than considering a pali word sangam . Senthilkumaras (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to accuse anyone of a forged citation. This is from his book The Poems of Ancient Tamil: Their Milieu and Their Sanskrit Counterpart and there is a link at ^[dead link‍]. The rest if your comment is original research. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts.

WITH DUE RESPECT, Prof.Hart's article is not an updated one as per archaeological finds in Tamil Nadu.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Skeletons-dating-back-3800-years-throw-light-on-evolution/articleshow/1354201.cms?referral=PM
http://hindu.com/2005/02/17/stories/2005021704471300.htm
http://asi.nic.in/asi_exec_adichchanallur.asp
He still mentions Asoka period as ?first adaptation of Braahmi into Tamil writings, from that source he estimates the Sangha period as 1st c-3rd c ad. But the above link gives 500-1500bce period local war hero's burial pot contents with an advanced Brahmi-Tamil script use.
The citation for a possible Jain sangha is cited with 3 Jyoti Prasad lain, The Jain Sources of the History of Ancient India (Delhi, 1964) pp. 160-161.
The credibility of this source and its evidence is not known.
Hart's FABRIcation-idea is his ORIGINAL guess/fabrication, not even an ORIGINAL RESEARCH. He clearly does not give any citations at all.
so one can cite some nonnative scholar's original presumptions and guesses in Wiki;interesting.
Anyhow I have updated your Hart ref in Wiki:TamilSanghams page also.
Hart contradicts many of KA Neelakanda Shastri's presumptions regarding Sanskrit/Prakrit influence in early Tamil literature. He clearly proves early Tamil literature period was before the direct adaptations and arrival of North Indian/Aryan/Prakrit concepts into mainstream Tamil Nadu,; that is clearly several centuries before the so-called Jaina Sangha;
also he himself says TirumurikaaRRuppaTai, one of the ten poems of the PattuppaaTTu, which is later than most of the poems of the anthologies, contains only two percent Sanskritic words, even when such words as miin, taamarai, and muttu, which are now known to be of Dravidian origin, are counted as Sanskritic.9 A survey of the Mahaabhaarata would, I believe, show a much higher percentage of Dravidian words.
Why cannot we mention this point of his -an ORIGINAL RESEARCH, not a guess like above fabrication point.
Senthilkumaras (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Our articles are often based on the original research of scholars. When we say "no original research" we are only referring to editors. Why in the world would we decide to use only scholars from a particular country in writing about that country? That would be a flagrant violation of one of our key polices, WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Sangam period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716191851/http://www.tamilagaarasiyal.com/ActionPages/Content.aspx?bid=817&rid=43 to http://www.tamilagaarasiyal.com/ActionPages/Content.aspx?bid=817&rid=43

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

Etymology for the term 'Sangam' is needed. Guess it is off IE origin. ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)