Talk:Sangam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 One Thousand Three Hundred Years of Sangam Period 2 Rewriting this article 3 Concerns 4 15000 BCE 5 Blatant lies in the article. 6 Article rewrite

[edit] One Thousand Three Hundred Years of Sangam Period

(B.C. 1465 to B.C. 165)

For over 1300 years and 49 generations, the three ancient tamil kingdoms ruled by three kings and twelve velars, had an agreement of understanding or a treaty of cooperation and strictly abided by the same. The basis of this agreement was based upon the literary creation Tolkappiyam’s Purathinai.

The ancient Hathikumba inscription, its message on the Tamils The great king of Kalinga Karavela tells in his Hathikumba inscription (Elephant cave) “All the tamil kings were bound by an united alliance”, when he had visited these parts of Tamil country during 165 B.C. and states tha this alliance were in force since 1300 years back “ and these kings acted cohesively”. He feels that if this agreement continued to exist, it will be an impending danger even to his empire. It was at this time the Cheraputra Anthuvan defeated the Kongu country king at Karuvur and captures it. As per the existing agreement, the King sows decayed seeds in the fertile paddy fields and ploughs them with asses. However, Karavela induces the Cheraputra King to expand his kingdom by not relieving his captured territory, thereby enticing him to break the treaty which had lived over the ages. As the king Karavela showed a submissive attitude and respect towards the Tamil Kings, he was abundantly gifted by the Pandya King with precious gems and pearls as token of friendship.

The inscription of Hathikumba was fully deciphered by J.P. Jayaswal MA Barister, Patna and Professor R.D. Banerjee, MA Banaras Hindu University. They were of a doubt whether this alliance or agreement of the three ancient tamil kingdoms could have lasted 1300 years. Hence, they manipulated a major fact and based on prejudiced thoughts convinced themselves that the total number of years could not be 1300 years and decided it as 113 years. As I had already earlier clearly deduced and confirmed firmly through evidences from Sangam literature that this period is 1300 years, there would not be a need for further debate on this issue and it is fully evident that the “Agreement among the three ancient tamil Kingdoms” existed as early as 1465 B.C.

Though there are no inscriptions in Tamil Nadu that such agreements existed, it is true that such an agreement existed throughout the Samgam Period. To carryout such a treaty, it is a necessity to have a sort of control document. Hence, to implement such an agreement, these guidelines and rules were framed in into the famous book of Tolkappiyam which is considered a literary and legal bible of the Tamils. This could be found in Purathinai of Tolkappiyam. Just like a legal document, the Purathinai which comprises of the five divisions (Kurinji, Mullai, Marudham, Neidhal and Paalai), contains all the legal guidelines for this agreement. And this should have been done when Tolkappiam was formulated in its early ages. In a similar manner to Purathinai, Agathinai should also have been scripted together with Purathinai and created during its nascent stage.

In the olden age, the rules formed by the Tamil literary books had not been created by any one scholar. Each rule must have been created by one scholar (Pulavar) or by a group of learned men after considerable research. It was then created into an organized structure of rules and regulations. Most of the Rules / Regulations stated in Tolkappiyam ends with “enba” or “Mozhiba”. For example,

“Nunnithinayadhor kandavarae” “Yenmanaar Pulamayoerae” “Enba Unarumoerae” “Enba arichandinoerae”

are some verses of Tolkappiyam.

It can be inferred that these verses have been created and large volumes of regulatory/ legal books of Sangam literature have been created by means of conducting conferences (Tamil Sangam) of Tamil scholars during that age.

This legal document of Tamils, named Tolkappiyam, had evolved through the ages after its original creation by groups of Tamil pundits by suitably amending periodically and regulated as per the prevailing times and finally formed into a final shape as being read now. Both Agathinai and Purathinai were added with further information like “Agreement of Tamil Kingdoms”, and evolved into a biblical book called Tolkaapiyam, which means “to preserve the olden and enlighten it to the people”. Considering the beginning of the era of “Agreement of Three Kings” to be 1465 BC (as confirmed vividly before) this creation of the final issue of Tolkappiyam should be after about 5 years or in 1460 BC. From this day, the culture of the Tamils had been classified as “Agam” and “ Puram” and people had lived by it.

Understanding the core of the Treaty or Accord

1. Rule by Small Grouping: When this was decided, there was only one crown prince of the Pandya King who along with his two brothers divided the country into Chera, Chola and Pandya and ruled the entire kingdom. Later the 12 velirs divided the country into smaller areas and ruled with greater interaction with the common people. Even during ages when good transportation facilities did not exist, there existed such kings who can be called upon any time. This way of rule which existed so long ago in Tamil country has a special reputation on its own.

2. Way of working of these Kings: “Kudi purangathombi kutrangadithal vendhan thozhil” – this means the kings’ duty is to do service to his country men, render justice, carry out punishments for criminals, maintain an army to safeguard the country. He himself undergoes a lot of training regarding warfare.

3. Three countries and the Three Kings: The three kings were praised profusely for their rule. The many velirs in each of these kingdoms were a sort of subordinates to these kings. The geographical contours of these kingdoms were used to create the symbols of these kingdoms and these symbols were minted in their coins. The symbols and flags were individualistic for each of these three kings. Velirs did not have such symbols or flags.

4. Relationships – Friendships and enmity: Among the velirs and kings, relationships were maintained through marriages and this was maintained ancestrally like a rule or a regulation . This can be inferred from Kabilar’s visit along with Paari’s daughters for trying to engage these girls with Velir’s sons (Puram: 200, 201, 202). For any grudge/ disagreements, there were conflicts only among these velirs or kings. These conflicts were only among the 3 kings + 12 velirs and their relations and strictly as per the rules and guidelines of the literary legal books.

5. Capture of Territories: If war was conducted as per Purathinai, even if a king captures several countries, there will be no change in the state of the kingdoms. Only the bravery of the war was looked upon and praised. The books tell about the direct involvement of the kings in the war and their brave deaths. However, the three kingdoms always existed as separate entities and secured as per the common law. For the bravery of the warriors, symbols of bravery called “Ninaivu chinnams” (small buildings) were only created. There were no kings who had thought about inscriptions to show his pomp or pride.

6. The guidelines of the learned scholars: These pulavars sang in praise of the kings and velirs indicating their important achievements, functions and celebrations. It was a common practice that these kings and velirs listened to the advice of Pulavars regarding warfare and acted accordingly.

It was only because of the deceitful king Kalingathu Karavelan that this treaty was broken in 165 BC. In this period, we can find evidences of one ruler capturing another’s territory by Cheraputras and Sathyaputras. Even during this time, the Chola King Killivalavan spared the children of Malayan Kari when he ran away in fear, as advised by the Pulavar “Kovoor Kilaan”. Also the king abandons the Malayan Kari’s kingdom and does not take over it, but leaves the place.

Also, it is evident from the Sangam literature that these kings also participated in creation of Ilakkana Nool or literary books and they themselves were established Pulavars.

7. Division of Wealth: While capturing other kingdoms, the victorious always took over a lot of the loser’s wealth and brought them to his kingdom. However, he did not take it away for himself. It was divided to all the people of his country. It is not like usurping the entire wealth and dividing among a few greedy rich men. There is no such evidence in any of these literatures indicating such events. Also, there is no evidence of kings flaunting their wealth by constructing self enjoyment houses such as operas etc., There were a lot of developmental activity in agricultural, handicrafts in this age. Trade flourished by sea and land by improvement of infrastructures. It was unthinkable in the Tamil Kingdom of such selfish acts like the kings being draped in gold and treasures, and exorbitant expenditure to preserve their dead bodies by building pyramids as in Egypt, which does not serve as an example of an overall developmental culture of a society.

8. The invasion of other nations: It is evident that when a foreign invader threatens any of these Tamil countries, all the 3 kings and 12 velirs joined together to form an alliance. There had been training grounds to fight bravely and effectively in a war. It is clear that even the Maurya king could not invade the Tamil country because of their unity.

9. The long existed Treaty: This accord of understanding created in 1465 BC survived this longest period ever for 1300 years among the Tamil kings and velirs by scrupulously following the Rules and Regulations by all the kings and rulers, which finally faltered in 165 BC by the Kalingathu Karavelan.

Cheraputhra – the law breaker: Unlike the Pandya and Cholas, the cheras were called as “Cheraputras” as evident from Ashoka’s inscriptions and Greek Scholar Ptolemy’s “Periplus” writings.

After the invasion of Aryans, they elevated themselves by means of their habits and created good relations with kings and big merchants. They were helpful to the influential class by helping them in creating contacts with foreign nations, language translations, understanding other languages and telling their meanings etc., Many Aryans also learnt Tamil and became scholars. It is understood that the word “Cheraputra” must have been introduced by the Aryans during Ashoka’s invasion.

A group of descendants of Chera king (Cheraputra) became dominant over a period and captured important positions in trade and governance. It was these bandits who had crept into the Kongu country and captured the big trade center Karuvoor and its allied Chola country. By the wily advice of the Kalingathu Karavelan, these cheraputras had retained the captured country for themselves. These culprits were in hold of the captive regions for about 2 - ½ years.

Chilapathikaram was written by Chera King. In it are the details of the Kongu Komaan (Zamindaar) and Kongu existing as a separate velir country. When this literary creation was being formulated, these cheraputras might have already started dwindling their evil designs and would have returned back to their country.

After the 2 – ½ years, even though the original cheras returned back to power, they were like men without strength. As they had already been in a time gap of about 10 generations, they were unable to establish themselves like their earlier counter parts and failed to created history.

Karuvoor has been depicted as a Trade center only in Karavela’s inscriptions. It is not the capital of Chera King. As per Sirupaanatrupadai (Verses 41 – 50), the capital of Chera king was Vanchi Nagar, situated in kutta naadu.

It is in recent times are being written by numismatists that the capital of Chera king was Karuvoor, which is false, as Karuvoor was in the hands of Cheraputras and Cheras. If Karuvoor is considered a Chera capital, then it is like betraying the present Kerala out of the original Chera country, which cannot be true.

Cheraputras never followed the “common treaty or accord”. Their complete ancestral details are available in the book Pathitrupathu. Lots of treasures were distributed among the Pulavars. As per the accord, since the kingdoms do not belong to them, their coins minted in Kongu desam did not have any sovereign symbols. Slowly the Ways of the Sangam Age degenerated and Sangam Period is believed to have ended in AD 200. The powerful alliances of these Sangam Kings declined and rulers of other nations emerged and new ways of governance began to arise.

Bibliography

1. Tholkappiyam – Porul Adhigaram, 1963, Saiva sidhandha Publishing society, Chennai 18.

2. EPIGRAPHICA INDICA – Vol. XX 1929-30, New Delhi, 1983, No. 7, Hathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela. Authors: K.P. Jayaswal Barrister at Law, Patna and Prof. R. D. Banerji, Banares Hindu University, Publisher: Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi.

3. Thamizhaga Thonmayum Sirappum, Author: M. Kandaswamy, Kumaran Publishers, 3, Muthukrishnan street, Pondy bazaar, Chennai – 17.

4. Purananooru – Vol I and II Commentator: Avvai S. Duraiswamy Pillay. Publishers: Saiva Sidhanta Publishing society, Chennai 18.

5. Cilappadhigaaram

6. Chirupanatrupadai

7. Pathitrupathu

---

I've just made the above page a redirect to this article. If anyone has the time and expertise, perhaps they could see if any of the material could usefully be incorporated into the Sangam article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting this article

Hi, I have rewritten this article by separating what is known to us scientifically and what is considered as myths and legends. I have also removed the section on the 'Treaty between the Tamil kings' as I couldn't see the relevance of this in this article.

Venu62 05:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Great work Venu. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I rveerted the edit pending more explanation. the main problem was that the new version says that "Sangam" is something completely different from what the original article said it was. That sort of massive change needs discussion and explanation on the Talk page before it's instituted. Could you explain why the old article was wrong and why the new one is right? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mel

There was nothing 'wrong' about the original article. No information is wrong if categorised appropriately. This is supposed to be an article about the Tamil Sangam. I find the major portion of the article to be about the myth of Sangam giving the minutest details about the hypothetical history of the Tamil kingdoms from 1500 B.C.E. There was not one shred of supporting material provided to verify.

The changes I made were simply attempts to make the article more readable and factual. I clearly separated the myth from known facts, highlighting that although the Sangam legend is current among popular Tamil history, there is no scientific or archaeological proof supporting it. I didn't totally omit the legend as found in the original article. I rather attempted to make it more readable.

I also didn't find the relevance of the section detailing the so called 'Life and culture during the Sangam period'.

The definition of Sangam found inthe original article says : The Sangam is a collection of Tamil literature composed between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago. - This is wrong. Sangam does not refer to the collection of literature, it rather refers to the forum in which such literature was discussed. The article itself contradicts this definition further down when it talks about the three Sangams.

The original article has a Copy Edit request. My edits were reviewed by an admin.

So, considering the above, I would like to request you to revert back my edits. I am open to be challenged on factual matters, but I'm afraid this reversal was not due to a dispute of facts.

Venu62 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As discussion at Talk:Philosophy indicates, I'm not keen on unilateral complete rewites except where a stub or a 1911 Britannica article is involved. Wikipedia prefers major changes to be discussed on Talk pages first, to avoid exactly this situation. Could you give me a day (I'm busy teaching today) to look again at the two versions, and get back to you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mel

It's been almost a week since you reverted my edits. Have you come to a decision as yet?

Venu62 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I do apologise. can you give me until Friday afternoon? I'm teaching all day tomorrow, but I'll make this a priority from Friday morning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel

I think you will agree that I have given you enough time for you to review the article and respond to my query regarding your revert. I spent a lot of time in research and writing in my effort to make this article more useful. Please spend the required time to respond or roll back your revert.

thanks Venu62 05:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've placed your version at Talk:Sangam/Venus62 version, and will ask for other editors to comment by placing the article at RfC. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add that, aside from the grammatical and formatting errors introduced by your new version, there are no sources (only a link to a general Tamil page). No source that I've been able to find supports your contention that there was a particular academy called "Sangam"; rather, there were many sangams. Do you have a source for your claim? At the moment, it reads rather as though one were to say that Scholastic philosophy was the product of a mediæval academy called "School". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mel

I have added a number of citations to the Talk:Sangam/Venus62 version article, although my one source cited in the original article was one more than was provided prior to that. May I ask how the original article was assessed and cross-referenced?

The crux of my changes were to point out although there are legends surrounding the three Sangams lasting millienia BCE, there is no tangible scientific evidence to support it, and that what we know currently is based on surmise and conjecture.

My apologies for any grammatical errors in my text. - Venu62 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The original article had three extenal links, to different parts of the site to whose main page you linked. No problem about the English — the existing article needs a thorough copy-editing too.

Couldn't the point about the historical uncertainty be added to the article without a major re-organisation? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel, If you want to do that then go ahead. However I think the majority of the text concentrates on the legend. Anyway as there seems no interest from any ofd the other editors, I will leave it up to you to make the decision. I think I can contribute more productively elsewhere.

Cheers

Venu62 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I've been passively watching this discussion and I do feel that there is nothing seriously wrong with the rewritten version of Venu. Of course, he should have discussed it in the talk page before making the edit. But, that doesn't mean we should reject it altogether. Why don't you take the effort in copyediting the current version or make changes, if needed ? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can find me the citation that backs up the claim that "Sangam" was the name of a particular ancient academy? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[1], [2] (I have only access to snippets, the actual papers require subscriptions.) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The first link is to an article, which doesn't make the claim in question; the second is to a Google result, and none of the sources that I looked at there made the claim either. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get involved in this anymore, but couldn't resist. Mel, I don't think I understand your question. Are you looking for proof for the existance of Sangam or an academy by that name? If so my rewrite says there is no scientific proof such an organisation existed. What we know is merely based circumstantial evidence and folklore. The support for this statement can be found in the may citations I have included in my rewrite. Venu62 03:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. It only has mentions in literature. The legends that the first Tamil Sangam was initiated by Lord Shiva etc., is false, IMO. But, the third Sangam seems to be plausible to me. The well documented fourth Sangam started by King Sethupathi and a brief unsuccessful attempt by Jain munis before that point to a continuum, IMO. (As an aside, having grown up in Madurai, I've seen efforts to start a fifth sangam for Tamil computing by the then DMK government, which still exists.) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The new version, against which I'm arguing, stated that Sangam was an ancient academy; every source at which I've looked says that sangams were academies (or other, similar terms), that there were many of them, and that the type of literature was named after them. I don't really understand why this point isn't clear, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The new version talks about these other "theories" in another section, from what I see. Perhaps the lead paragraph in the new version can be rewritten per WP:LEAD. From a cursory reading, the old version appears to claim that the first Sangam was during 14000 BCE without stating that it's not a proven theory while the new version states that these are legends. Mel, instead of debating for one version or the other as mutually exclusive options, why can't we merge the texts into a better article? I'm sure you'd agree that the older version needs a LOT of improvement. If you can take the lead in improving that incorporating content from Venu's version, I'd very much appreciate that. I don't know how much I can help, given that I've little time for wikipedia. But, I'd definitely try to help copyediting it. Posting this in Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics might get more contributors. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns

The lead into the article reads thus : Sangam refers to ancient gatherings or a school of literary critics founded to foster the Tamil language under the patronage of the Pandiya monarchs of the ancient Tamil country during the early centuries of the common era. Sangam literature is among the the oldest extant Dravidian literature. Written in Tamil, they give a literary account of life in the Chola, Chera and Pandya kingdoms. They deal with a variety of topics like love, war, governance, trade, eloping, bereavement, and mourning. Sangam literature is mostly secular in nature. Though the exact begining of Tamil Sangam has been lost in the early mists of tradition. This loss has been further solidified with the rise of puranic stories in South India which have more or less caused the obliteration of important landmarks in history by giving ordinary events a mythological twist.

Later into the article, the article says that Sangam was merely a legend, but the lead says anything but that. In the lead, it is made to sound like these were historical academies, which is totally false. Let me first put down some facts as I know it.

1. The Sangams(all three of them) were merely legendary. There is not an iota of evidence to establish their historicity.
2. The extant Tamil literature that is attributed to these academies(Sangams) is obviously not legendary and are literary facts.
3. While the literature that is attributed to these Sangams may be considered historic, the same cannot be said of the accounts that these literatures provide of kings and queens and dynasties etc.
4. In other words, all accounts of any dynasty and kings whether Chola, Chera, Pandya or any other as provided in this corpus of literature is also in the realm of legend and mythology. Not history.
5. Now someone may argue that Ashoka's edict of the 3rd century BC also talks of Cheras etc.,. Agreed. However, that is not enough evidence to go ahead and grant an aura of history to all the colourful accounts the Sangam literature paints of these dynasties. Not just the accounts but even the lineage of kings as constructed from these literature cannot be deemed as history.

Based on the above, I will makes some changes to the article, particularly the lead. Sarvagnya 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 15000 BCE

In the article under "First Sangam" it says, (a)It lasted 4400 years. (b)it ended in 11000 something BC or BP(whatever). So 15000 BCE is not an exaggeration. Yes probably by 2000 years.. So should I say 13000 BC? Actually 13000 BC if I am right is a conservative figure going by few other accounts of Sangam that I've read elsewhere. Sarvagnya 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

15000BCE is before the time of the Ramayan, where people in the South spoke Sanskrit, how the hell can it be 15000 BCE? The article goes into historical cruft. The best source says 5th millenium BCE [3], which is more likely than 15000BCE during Woolly Mammoth time.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed go that long back. That is why it is in the realm of legend and myth. And that is exactly why Kris(and I agree with him as can be seen above) has been so particular in asking people not to blur history and myth. And infact, like I said, 15000 is a conservative figure. I have seen sources(I cant remember where) where its been taken even further back than 15000. If possible get your hands on this book --> [4] or this. These "tamil" legends start at a time when southern africa, madagascar, southern india, s-e asia etc., or something like that was "ONE" humongous land mass. Then at the end of each sangam, there supposedly was a tsunami sort of thing that sunk all of it by the end of he 2nd sangam. The "tamils" kept fleeing northwards.. and finally ended up in Madurai. This is the legend of Lemuria and Sangam. Sarvagnya 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should remove all mythical references to Sangams, or best mention them properly and unambiguously as myth. The current article recounts mythical Sangam events and dates in simple past tense without giving any clue of its mythological character. This has great danger of misleading the readers totally. Wikipedia must retain its encyclopediac character, and we should as such try to make it so. -- ॐ Kris 07:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the {{OR}} tag since the claims are unverifiable (not merely unverified). Please discuss here before (and instead of) commencing an edit war here.-- ॐ Kris 07:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kris. Infact, I would even support a hoax tag. This is in the realm of such things as UFOs and the Loch Ness or the Yeti. Unless the article takes the pains to reword and make amply clear that this whole thing is a myth, Kris' tag should stay.

Infact if you notice, the article has sentences like,

The idea that early Tamil literature was fostered in ancient academies on a now-submerged land mass is controversial and widely disputed. !!!

I mean, wth!! This is like saying, "The existence of the Loch Ness is controversial and disputed"... What is there for someone to even dispute here? This is so patently, a fantastic hoax due to somebody's imagination run wild. These Sangams didnt leave any epigraphical or literary evidences. How then did someone reconstruct fantastic lineages of kings and his sons and grandsons and great grandsons??!! Even assuming that the extant literature we have today was indeed written during the third sangam, how did the poets of the third sangam(which ended in 3rd CE) reconstruct royal lineages of the Ice Age??!! And how come there are no references in the Sangam literature to wooly mammoths? Sarvagnya 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright do you think 15000BC is factual? At least the Ramayan, Mahabharat left some traces, LEmuria and Tamils fleeing northward seem a like like myths, considering that movement to Madagascar came from the east (via Indonesia), not via Africa.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not factual as far as we know. There is no scope for any known language beyond 5000-6000BC, leave alone a presently used language. The earliest evidence available for existence of Tamil is from rudimentary Tamil inscriptions of Ashokan period (around 300BC or so) in Brahmi script.-- ॐ Kris 19:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that it was factual. Infact, it is anything but factual. But that(15000 BC) is what the legends say. And that is exactly the reason, the article needs to be rewritten as right now it is in, like Kris says, 'simple past tense'. Except a 'statutory warning' kind of "Legend" buried somewhere, the rest of the article reads as if its proven, recorded history. Moreover, like I've pointed out below, there are blatant factual errors and lies in the article that one can spot even with a cursory reading of the article. Sarvagnya 21:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And btw, dont take the route of migration whether it is from madagascar to indonesia to india or the other way round so seriously. It is just a legend which has not only no basis in history and archeology, but has also been debunked by scientists as 'scientifically' impossible. Such humongous land masses cannot 'scientifically' get submerged overnight. Also, Lemuria has different connotations in different cultures. In tamil legends it is actually called Kumari Kandam until someone somewhere wedded Kumari Kandam to 'Lemuria' - a term that had wider currency around the world. Lemuria aks Kumari Kandam is just something like 'Atlantis'. There is nothing to be 'disputed' in these legends nor is there anything that is 'controversial'. Neither historians nor scientiest ever took it seriously to actually 'dispute' it. So even saying that, this myth of Kumari Kandam is 'controversial and disputed' can be seen as an attempt to give it 'validity'. Sarvagnya 22:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant lies in the article.

The more I read this article the more I can confirm that this article is a hoax. For example this article puts the Tolkappiyam back into the second sangam. The second sangam is supposed to have started in 10000 BC around, and continued for 3700 years. So if we do the math, it means that the Tolkappiyam's date has now been pushed back to around 6300 BC!!!

We all here know from the famous letter that Prof.Hart wrote to someone that, the oldest parts of the Tolkappiyam go back to 200 BC.

So what we have here, is the article pushing Tolkappiyam's date from 200 BC and the first sangam into the second sangam and to 6300 BC. And further, the article goes on to describe dozen works with the author's first and last names which supposedly drew their references from the Tolkappiyam. And Tolkappiyam from what I know translates to 'Old kaappiyam' or old kavya. And I also have been lead to believe that it was a work of grammar. This article however says that it was an authoritative text about law. And it seems these Sangam kings have cooperative treaties based on this law book!!!

If all this is not a hoax, tell me what is?

My suggestion to salvage anything from this article is to blank out the whole article and rewrite. I am in no mood to salvage this hopeless wreck of an article. Unless someone volunteers to do it and starts off with blanking out what is there right now, I will be tagging this article a hoax. Sarvagnya 08:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article rewrite

I have rewritten this article with more than sufficient citations, clearly stating that the Sangam legends are what they are - legends. If the other editors would take more positive attitude towards WP, ie, if they find something not correct, try and fix it with appropriate citations, instead of whinging on the Talk pages and declaring they are not in the mood to work on the article, most of the India related articles in WP would be in much better shape now. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(To the writer of this above paragraph): How are you certain that they are ONLY legends? I think the double-standard of what is considered "historical-legend" for non-Abrahamic cultures is quite alarming. Where does it say in the Jesus article that it is in fact ONLY a legend? Try fixing the double-standard before trying to prove that you "know" something. ;) - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.209.60 (talk • contribs).

Let me answer you. Any account which describes fantastic kingdoms, royal lineages and poets in the Ice Age is most certainly only a legend. There is absolutely no bias here and things have to be said the way they are. Whether or not people like to hear it that way is immaterial. This applies to both 'Abrahamic' and 'non-Abrahamic' religions and cultures. I am neither very interested nor very knowledgeable about Abrahamic cultures, so I can comment on its historicity. Also remember Jesus is said to have lived almost 15000 years after these Sangams started. Nobody claims that Jesus lived in the Ice age alongside wooly mammoths. That said, even here on Wikipedia there are articles like this and this which you should probably check out. If you really feel that there is a bias and 'Abrahamic' articles are free of any scrutiny, feel free to go and correct it. Article X on Wikipedia being free of any scrutiny shouldnt be an excuse for Article Y to go scotfree too. Sarvagnya 01:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my opinion that users who dont play spoilsport can much better help WP by keeping quiet on subjects they know zilch about. This is also an important need-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally second this. For example, some ignorant editors claim that Cilappatikaram does not represent Tamil culture becasue its author could have been a Jain! Can you believe that? That was so stupid. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah its an exercise in futility dealing with morons who live in english speaking countries but dont understand english. Lets cultivate some character first.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to clean WP of blatant fancruft and spamming to start with. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, some total morons are there, who's only intention is to troll on pages which others create painstakingly and show their wikipedia skills to damage content. These need to be kicked out, many of them are in their 40s and above (physical age). Mentally underdeveloped with least decorum to boot.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 00:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we start a Wikiproject:Vendetta to deal with these people?!!! - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)