This is an important finding in Tamil history. All along, northern scholars ( as usual ) were establishing that the Brahmi script was introduced to TN during Asoka times and Tamil had no writing before that.
Some Tamil scholars were proving the other side, they thought Tamil brahmi originated in TN independently and then adopted by the Jains and Buddhists.
If the period of this inscription is proved to be earlier than or around 500 BC, then the first theory is trashed.
Can you use your influence to get some pics of this inscription ? Or can you introduce me to some scholars at ASI?
Had a very very brief glimpse of what has been bought over from adichcha nallur - when myself and SPS was in ASI office 2 weeks back. ASI scholars were studying the urns when we went.
Never thought it had writings ! This could well change our popular theories about "tamil script came from brahmi.."
But what is the use, if these findings are discussed within a small group of 500 people. This has to be made public and school students should be taught about this as well. Will the ASI / Indian / TN Govt does have the conviction to change this belief that has been propagated for years???
First of all, the script should be evaluated by the scholarly world - such as Iravatham Mahadevan. Scholars have already expressed their concerns. I guess Iravatham Mahadevan has not yet seen the script from the interview he has given to "The Hindu"
Secondly the timeline has to be established with Radio carbon dating etc., I guess this is not yet done.
Thirdly, the current "reading" does not make any meaning!
> 2. Tamil culture was much ahead and gold / silver wares found; > 3. They have conducted Mathura under water expedtitions dating 10000 > yrs old
Its disheartening to note that inspite of such scientific evidences and proofs dating back to 10000 years,people still belive in the western aryan invasion theory and say that Indian civilization is hardly 3000-4000 years. If this is the case of Indian history itself, then how can we expect our fellow countrymen to accept that Tamil culture was/is superior and not as it is projected today.
Satish Enough is said about the aryan invasion theory Lets not go there please.... Every body accepts the Indus civilisation predates the so called Aryan invasion so that is native Indian Heritage and Culture
I can understand your irritation on seeing my mail. But why I quoted this is becuase, very many learned people still belive that Aryan invasion theory is true and our civilization is only 3000 years old. People like you, in our group might accept that Indus valley civilisations predates the so called Aryan invasion theory. But in our group, we now and then feel bad that true history is never getting published and only a limited group like ours comes to know the truth. My mail was in retrospection to such thoughts.
Dear SPS Correct me if I am wrong I thought Sanskrit was 4000-5000 years old and had a script?.....or is it legendery assumption without archeaological evidence?
Second does this script bear any resemblence to the Indus valley Scripts
Third..It said it read like Kariyarava(ta)na.....Are we talking about the remains of Ravana or something.....Legend is that rama performed penance in rameswaram did he bring his remains or something...
I know it all seems wild suggestions just thinking aloud Sri
That was a good imagination, may be true, who knows the fact. I even went one step further. When I read the news that the inscription was found inside the urn, the thing whcih struc me suddenly is, why anyone will write inside, which is difficult to rather than writing outside. Moreover, its said that it was not written before baking the urn but only after that. meaning it should be like a scrath,thats what I presume. (namma makkal ella koillyum heart varanchi arrow pottu peru ezhudhi veppangale, andha madhiri)
Why should anyone write something inside, which is very difficult, rather than easily writing it outside? When they wanted to write something, why not write it before baking so that the impression is good?And when they write, why didnt it was not written fully and only a few letters? I could think of only one reason for this. The person inside was burried alive(probably a punishment?) and before breathing his last breath he tried to write/scratch something which is incomplete(a few letters probably his name???).Thats why the letters are inside and not outside.
We are free to imagine, no limits right? -:)
Talking about the age of languages, personally I feel Tamil and Sanskrit are contempraries and should have started almost at the same time. But general feeling is Sanskrit, which was widespread throughout India, should have originated long ago. Its said that sanskrit is not just a human language but a deva basha. The vedas are nothing but vibrations prevailing all over the universe, which were transreceived by the rishis and given to the world. Thats why its said that vedas are not written by anyone but conceived by the rishis.Mahaswamigal has told about this in detail in "deivathin kural". Again this is a phylosophical thought and if we belive it does makes sense. But when we look at eveidence, we are left far behind.
We belvie in Gita and other vedas and upanishads. We know that Mahabaratha is 5000+ yaers. Veda vyasa consolidated all the vedas towards the end of Dwapara yugam, which should be after the mahabaratha war. So from these we can strongly belive that Sanskrit origin cannot be traced. Dwarakas date has been found to be 10000 years. That what language was spoken then? Should bave been sanskrit. Probably the whole nation(or the world?) was talking one language at that time. As Sri say, I am thinking aloud -:)
your imagination is very good, but what i heard and read from mahabarathas script which we have today, and in rajaji's mahabharath there is a mention that a pandian king sent his army to the war of gurukshethra. moreover arjunans one of the wife alli rani was a pandian princess. bcos only the pandiya dynasty allows queen to rule the kingdom as hier from parents. in ramayana too in rajajis version when the vanaras are on search for the sita (i dont know who the exact character is) may be either sugreeva or jambavan told to hanuman that "when you move towards south take care not to enter the towns and villages of so called dravida nadu bcos their beautiful language will attract you and their songs dedicated to the gods in their own language will prevent you from fruther movement and it will be a greate obstacle in search of sita". we have to note two points here 1) ramayana is much older epic than mahabharatha 2) these things are from rajajijs point of view of veda vyasa and valmihi. bcos he is a schlor in sanskrit also. so it may be either exaggration or a truth god, rajaji and the two authors only knows. i think.
Your point is well taken we had in the past had discussion on the role of the various tamil kings in mahabarata...
Dear Arul Some Scholars will argue that Indus valley civilisation was Sanskrit based and the other theory of a Dravidian based Indus valley civilisation was pushed south due to Aryan Migration was a figment of Western imagination Though there isnt much relation to the Indus Script to Sanskrit but a great relation to Dravidian Tree http://www.harappa.com/script/index.html
> Though there isnt much relation to the Indus Script to Sanskrit but a > great relation to Dravidian Tree > http://www.harappa.com/script/index.html > Regards > Sri
I also have been to this website. Quite interesting one.
About the script found inside urn at Adichanallur, my guess goes as follows: 1) He should have been a kind of hero 2) He was buried there under compulsion( i.e. I have assummed that the guy was pandiya or chola or chera and he was killed in a war and the people who buried him didnt want his body to be captured by their enemy. So they buried him in this place) 3) He should have buried along with some other people and the people who buried them wanted to differentiate him from others. That could be the reason why the name was written inside urn and the name could be a nick name ( like thirumavalavan was given a name as karikaalan).
Thanks! I will come for this meeting w/o fail. Meanwhile, I will see if I can meet you sometime... May be some members can meet too. Please give contact info.
> About the script found inside urn at Adichanallur, > my guess goes as > follows: > 1) He should have been a kind of hero > 2) He was buried there under compulsion( i.e. I have > assummed that the > guy was pandiya or chola or chera and he was killed > in a war and the > people who buried him didnt want his body to be > captured by their > enemy. So they buried him in this place) > 3) He should have buried along with some other > people and the people > who buried them wanted to differentiate him from > others. That could be > the reason why the name was written inside urn and > the name could be a > nick name ( like thirumavalavan was given a name as > karikaalan). >
I guess the same.
But I think one inside the urn may be more Villain than Hero.. similar to the film "The Mummy". The first thing strikes my mind after reading the mail is this film, where the Villain, after he was mummified alive, scratch some thing inside the "The Mummy URN" he was in. Can this be possible here?
Of course, there is also posibillity that it can be a Hero died in the War. But for identification purpose they would mark outside the Urn, which is more easy and visible, than inside the Urn. Also the Urn won't be reopened if that is used for keeping Hero Dead Body. That i guess would be an insult to the person died.
Just a suggestion: Can we change that line you want added to "Agathiyar is a group comprised of Leanred and RESPECTED scholars - presently discussing several leads on Adichanallur.
Reverance for scholars can often lead to ossification of the process of learning :). You can respect someone and still tend to disagree with his/her views. Reverance , IMHO implies that you kind of take what a person says as "Veda Vakku" which is against the spirit of enquiry.
Wow! That is indeed good news! If it turns out to be 1500 BC, I wonder if the likes of Romila Thapar and gang will change their tune or give their ostrich-impressions!
Arun
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:43:02 -0000, Sivapathasekaran
Romila Thapar is one of the well known (in terms of publicity) historians in India who still holds on to outdated views like the Aryan Invasion theory. She recently wrote a book on the Somnath temple which claimed that the Muslim invasion didn't really target temples. Oh well.. Anyway.. she is a leftist (read MArxist) historian.
FYI. All CBSE / NCERT syllabus history books are all authored by Romila Thapar. Unfortunately I studied in a CBSE syllabus and had read nothing about Tamil history throughout my school life. I came to know a bit of Tamil history only after reading Ponniyin selvan.
Well Amar Chitra Kathas helped too :) I remember reading an article on Sulekha.com where someone sais that they had been to a conference in which Romila Thapar claimed that "Indians never attacked other countries" or words to that effect, to which this gentleman then asked: "Aren't you aware of the Chozhas of Tamil Nadu" to which Romila apparently replied that she didn't. Even if this isn't factually true, it demonstrates the apalling lack of focus on South Indian history by most Indian historians.
Neelakanda Sastry has mentioned in his book, that the history of entire south India is almost forgotten by many historians in India. We are all taught about Chandragupta, Ashoka, Babar, Akbar, Shah jahan as the greatest rulers of India .. What a pity ;-((( Veera Pandia Kattabomman finds no place in the battles against English
Dear Mr.Vijay, Join the gang. That is why I am still nothing more than a novice in this group and restrict myself to simply reading the mails and trying to update myself.
I did a large chunk of my schooling in bengal and I remember the only things about South Indian history we were taught were about the Pallavas, Mahabalipuram and RajaRaja Chozha.
Also, if it is that bad for us South indians/Tamilians.. think of the poor northeasterners.. what do we even know about them?
hearty congratulations to the varalaru.com team memebers and mr.sps have a great press conference and successfull forth coming days. with best regards s.anandanatarajan
Dear SPS Thats a great news so the awareness is flowing...Unfortunately as of today Rajaraja Chola is the founder of the CHola dynasty according to World Heritage Centres http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=250
However I am pleased to inform you our NIC website has been amended and NIC
Well its not only NCERT Sylabus even our state govt and matric devote very little to tamil history...
You all will remember the maps of Chandragupta maurya Kaniska Somudra Gupta Asoka Akhbar Babar Shivaji Even Tipu Sultan....
But no mention of Rajendra Chola Who was the greatest conquerer.. of indian maritime history
We laern about Bentinct and Lord Rippon and land revenue and measuring When Rajaraja Chola had done them when the british were still living in hamlets...
Actually Arun It may sound as a nice tune to them because they have always maintained The Dravidians of Indus valley moved south...The Indus script...Resembles Dravidian Script ....
So if there was a written archeological evidence that showed tamil was a language with a script and did not borrow a script from north as it is always claimed...
They would stand vindicated Correct me if I am Wrong
Romila thapar is the most hated by Hindutva brigade and most respected Historian or may be herstorian by the west.
Reasons are she believes Indus Valley Civilisation was native Indian (?Dravidian) and the aryans migrated... It is seen as a pro western concept which believes that Aryans brought everything to India from Europe...But There was an Indian civilisation which predates that and that is Indus valley civilisation...
She has twice declined the Padmabhooshan
If you do a google search on her you ll find interesting reads hear are a few.
Just curious: Have you read any of Thapar's books that substantiates that she holds on to the outdated Aryan Invasion Theory? If so, could you point me to them? Since my schooling wasn't in the NCERT/CBSE boards, I have not come across her textbooks at all. But recently, out of curiosity more than anything else, I have been reading her Early History of India(Penguin has this in a couple of volumes). In her book, she definitely does not subscribe to the theory of Aryan invasion(the pciture of these valiant horse-riders weilding spears and swords to destroy Indus Valley is certainly not in the book); she talks about a slow migration instead. I do believe that the migration theory is also held by quite a few other historians. And as someone mentioned, if the age of this script is proved, Thapar and her gang will actually be vindicated. As much as I believe there is a lot of distortion in how history in being studied in this country, I do think that we need to go beyond sound bytes(the Hindutva kind or the 'Marxist' kind) to know what exactly is going on.
I have read Romila's Early History of India (read it a long time ago though). My impression at that time was that she was for the AIT. Maybe I ought to go back read it again.
I have read a number of her articles and she uniformally paints a distorted picture of history, especially of the Muslim rule. You know that in Bengal there was a conscious decision taken by the Communists to paint the Muslim rule in India in gentler colours. I am all for "untainted" history, not coloured by the "Hindutva" or the "Marxist" brigade. I don't hold anyone responsible for what a bunch of people did a 100, 500 or 1000 years ago. At the same time, I would like to know factually what happened.
implying that Ghazni was some sort of raider who didn't kill as many Hindus as was mentioned by his own biographer seems infantile... It reminds me of the time Prince Philip (Queen E's husband) came to India and went to Jallianwala Bagh. He read the inscription there about the number of people killed and then mentioned that he was at school with General Dyer's son and that his son had that he (Gen. Dyer) had told him (the son) that the number of killed was not actually that many.
Just as I don;t believe everything was hunky dory during the "Golden age of the Guptas" as Joshi and his chaps would have us believe, I don't also believe that the Muslim rule in India was benign. My problem with Romila Thapar and her fellow acredited historians is with their efforts to leave a coat of heavy paint over the history of India, in colours that THEY decide.