According to Dr.Mu.Manickam (quoting Neelakanda sastri and other scholars), the upper limit is not more than first century when lower limit is fixed as 3rd century (from cirupaanatrupadai)
I have spoken to few other scholars who do not take tholkappiyam beyond 500 BC.
Vedas are considered to be atleast 1500 BC.(Dr.Romila thappar)
So we have a 1000 year span between vedic period and Tholkappiyam in which there are no literary evidence. But there are other evidences in terms of rock art, excavations etc
Can somebody try to fix adichchanallur, lalgudi finds,, naarthamalai finds into their respective periods ?
And what tholkappiyam says about society religion etc is even more interesting....
I am not a great scholar and do not know anything about tamil litrature...
but > Vedas are considered to be atleast 1500 BC.(Dr.Romila thappar)
Is it true? NASA and many other scholars have convincing evidences that Mahabharatha happened before 3000BC. BhagatGita is during this era. Krishna says he is 'Rig vedam' among vedas in Gita....then obviously veda's should be even more older than 3000BC...
Then how come Romila tapar or any one say Vedas are from 1500BC....
Cho in his "Hindu Maha Samudram" says, no one is clear about the date of vedas and each one had their own opinion. So during their bargain everyone came to conclusion like, unakkum vendam enakku vendam..oru 3000 varursham vechikalamnu...they narrowed down on 1500BC...
Interestingly, in "Thennattu Porkalangal" Appadurai says that the poet of "Purananuru"(am I correct? nyabagam illa) who speaks about the chera king who provided food to the Kurukshetra Army during the war is a contemprory of Mahabaratha time and so sanga ilakkiyam are as old as 5000 Years. He goes a step ahead and says, that time only Tamil was the language used throughout India and Sanskrit came only after that...due to Aryan invasion...
evanga arasiyalla nammala manda kaya vekkarangappa...
You are right in satish. I think we need to take 1500 BC as the lower limit.
I know this is not a topic which can be conclusive, but I am interested more in knowing the time between vedas and tholkappiyam.
Most scholars I read do not take sangam beyond 500 BC. Perunchotrudhiyan is the pandiyan king you are talking about. But I think associating him with mahabharatha etc could be a later thought. I am not sure
> Can somebody try to fix adichchanallur, lalgudi finds,, naarthamalai > finds into their respective periods ? Adichchanallur is the very old than the period what you are discussing their species itself is somewhat different from us. They had elangated cheek etc,
I am is very sure that their period will be =>1000 above 1500 BC.
If needed I can search and give the entire article for you.
> 5000 Years. He goes a step ahead and says, that time only Tamil was > the language used throughout India and Sanskrit came only after > that...due to Aryan invasion...
But, this above is true. You may heard of Harappan civilisation[Indus vally civilisation] that was 4500 years ago. We have material/archeological evidence for that. Then Arians came through the kaiibar and bOlan passes. That place is still protectedly existing in the Indus vally of Pakistan.
The people lived there are Tamilians called thravidans
actually Tamilians are falsely pronounciated[maruvu] by Arians as
thramilans->then ->thravidans
Do you know there are 64 thravidan languages branched out of Tamil. Still one thravidan species existing in the Paluchisthan of pakisthan. They are living as nomads. They speak one of the 64 languages.
Dear Mr Ganesan I would strongly condemn such use of language in this forum You are entiltled to your opinion ut there is a way to voice it I am going to delete your message from the archives and expect an apology to Gokul failing which we will have to request you to leave us
This mail of yours deserves appreciation. But my experience and request for you is that if anything is said in soft and good words will definetly reach more and more minds. Even like minded people cannot support the theories said in an offensive and unacceptable language.
It came as a series of articles in Hindu newspaper[Hard copy]. It was the salient findings of archeologist Mr.Sathyamurthi and others.
They found mudhumakkal thazhies, in which they found the complete sketetons, skulls etc, By examining the bones of face they found elangated cheeks and which of the very ancient race and they called that as 'thravidan+ " race. So, they are the ancesters of thravidans. They found lot many things which reveals about the civilisation of that time.
I will search in Hindu's site and if I could find those series of articles I will respond you with the links.
Some how I found a old article from my collections[Hard copies]. This article came in the 27th November 2004th issue of 'thErAnathi' monthly ilakkiya ithazh, published by Kumutham publications.
> Dear Sathish, > > > The people lived there are Tamilians called thravidans > > actually Tamilians are falsely pronounciated[maruvu] by Arians as > > thramilans->then ->thravidans >
Dear VV,
Dont want to get into the Aryan-Dravidian myths because people are not ready to accept that it is a myth. The points laid out by Mr.Ganesan, though not good in presentation aspets, are very valid and true.
Aryans didnt call tamilians as Dravidians. First of all there is no Aryan race or dravidian race at all.
Dravidian was coined by the Europeans from the inscriptions of Ashoka. In Ashoka's incriptions the souther countries or rather te people were misspelt as tramilars or something similar. (pathi tamizh karangalukke zh solla theiryathu. north indians.a kekanuma). So the european scholars used their best intellignece and creativity to coin a race called Dravdian and since in Sanskrit, all the noble wise men were called Arya, they framed a race of north indians as Aryans.
So the first usage of the word Dravidian is from Ashoka's inscription and not that Aryans called tamilians so..
There are several theories of prevalence of Tamil in ancient India.
[1] Several people have claimed to have successfully deciphered Indus Valley inscriptions as proto-Tamil. I bought 2 books on this on the Book Exhibition. 1 of the books claim to talk about bilingual rings, coins etc., with Indus script and Tamil Brahmi script on it from Srilanka! I will try to send some insights on this soon.
[2]The Satavahana kings have issued coins in which one side of it is written in Tamil. These kings belong to the era of the last Cankam - there is enough evidence that the Brahmi script evolved in Tamilnadu and spread to the north!
[3]Tamil Kings are mentioned by Ashokar himself.
[4]There is mention of Nava Nandars etc., in Cankam literature. There are simillar other mentionings.
[5] There are some groups in Yahoo ( Tolkappiam in particular) that is trying to establish that the ancient Indian language was proto-Tamil ( you can call this in any name if you dont like Tamil to be elevated to that level! ) which was an evolute of Sumerian spoken in Indus valley itself ) RigGrit ( the language of Rig Veda ) and Tamil evolved. Other languages were evoled from them much later. Some of the evidences posted there have word to word equivalence to ancient Tamil and very surprising! take a look at them if you have time!
[6] Books such as Periplus of the period of the Christ give exact names and details of the ports in Tamilnadu, they also talk about other ports. The whole of India was known as Tamilnadu then.
[7] I read somewhere that genetically the Indian race is same. There is no aryan blood in our veins!
We are all one nation and one ethenic group. The aryan/dravidan theory is a dead theory. Let us be proud of our nation and work for its progress.