Talk:Kumari Kandam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've just redirected Kumari kandam (lowercase) here. It contained the same barely legible and at times incoherent text inserted here by 61.247.245.72 (talk · contribs), which I've also reverted. If someone more patient and knowledgeable is able to extract additional information from that, feel free to check the history. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor modifications in this page today. Very, very little is really known about the legend and lots of additions have been made over the millennia, but I think I have managed to modify or add a bit to what was here before.

--Anup Ramakrishnan 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to tamilguardian.co.uk. This was a literal hoax by the 'great' Graham Hancock and the single irregular, shapeless structure off the coast of Poompuhar has been proven to be a natural rock formation by conventional oceanographers more than three years back. Numerous such structures have been found all over Asia, Africa, Europe and North America at similar and even greater depths.

Anup Ramakrishnan 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Myth vs fact

Kumari Kandam is a myth. Claims about it are unverifiable (not merely unverified). I have added the OR tag to it, since unverifiable content is considered Wikipedia:OR. Discuss here if you disagree.-- ॐ Kris 07:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kumari Kandam is a myth. And the myth has been explained according to what is available in the epics Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai. In fact, the article starts out by indicating that it is a 'legendary' landmass. As long as the subject is notable, and the article is clear in indicating that it is a myth, I think it's fine. Are we going to purge WP of all articles related to myths?
Also, I think what is in the article is mostly what is in the epics (except for the map etc). So, I don't see why the article was tagged with OR. --Madhu 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Madhu. There is nothing called unverifiable legends. When its agreed that its a myth there is no need of the WP:OR tag. I am removing it since there had not been a reply to Madhu for a month now and in case if someone else is concerned please do not catergorise me removing the tag as vandalism and discuss it here. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 14:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy

This is obviously racism. It is a known fact that there have been great tsunamis in the past that have sunk parts of the region. It is thought that a part of Sri Lanka has been submerged by two tsunamis. Similarly parts of India might have submerged as well. But understand that India and Sri Lanka separated many millenniums ago. By hiding it under your mythical land means that Thamilnadu has found a new way of creating a new reason for separating from India and also invading Sri Lanka. It is thought that Maha Meru is situated in Afganistan. All languages on earth were merely corrupted Tamil dialects? JUST BE REALISTIC. (Written with the signatures of "Hiranya kasup 20:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)" and "User:124.43.102.94 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)")

Yes, take a long and deep break. Don't forget, we're all conspiring against you here ... ;-) --Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. You really shouldn't rework your texts in user discussions as if it were Tamil history ... Pun intended. And please don't delete your signatures, that's also not nice. Once more ;-) --Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Atlantis moved here from article page

South of the World was very important because there did live people who did build great civilization and contributed to bring their knowledge in the upper parts of the world. The most mysterious name that comes in mind is Atlantis (Atlan Island).


ATLANTIS which the whole world was looking for so long is the Land of Atlan or Atlas, the Sun Land that was located in the South Asia. Which big island is still in that part of the world now? AUSTRALIA. There is even the name Atlas (inside it) still.There were many islands around the big Island. Some of them are still around now. From that beautiful part of the World the Paradise Civilization has moved and rebuild in many other parts of the world like Asia, Africa, Europe, and Americas. For that we have so many similarities in all the old civilizations that were build to copy the Highest Civilization of the Golden Age which was in Atlantis. For that many people have planted in their mind the Lost Paradise idea. But we are not that lost. Atlantis lives and we find it still in the remains of the Southernlands; Australia, New Zeland and many islands around it as far as the Pacific Ocean. After the Natural Destraction maany of the Atlantians were relocated. That is the reason that the Atlantian "models" did show later everywhere in Europe, Americas, Asia and Africa. India and Somalia, Iran and Egypt, Greece and Italy is the main direction of these great people (superhumans)who did move from the Lost South Civilization to other lands where they created new civilizations. There were other direction of their move up to Asia and Americas. This red, olive skin people did contact with other white, yellow and black race people and they did changed them and their life. But after many years pass and many of the people of the Sunland did forget their past. But never they lost their contact with the Southern World. Did Phonicians and Egyptians later go to Atlantis; Autralia and other islands? Yes they did and not just them but everyone who still knew where has come from or knew that there was a big island somewhere in the south. And they did go there and visit from different directions, from the Mediterain sea, passing around Africa or direct from the Dead sea and Asia. Australia was the land of the Giants too and this round continet was called Sunland. Its red skin people did mixed with Asians and Africans and Europeans to come back again one day as a mixed race to the Land where the Golden Age's knowledge has come from.


Sure. I never believed in stuff like that, but your arguments have changed my heart. Count me a believer now. -- 134.95.5.107 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sangam literature does not mention Kumari kandam

Please correct this statement. Also footnotes/refs are only pointing to Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai which are post-Sangam. Cilappatikram mentions "kumarik kOTu" where kOTu is taken to be "mountain" by one medieval commentator and "banks" by another. The editors should trace the origin of the phrase "kumarik kaNDam" to other sources. perichandra1 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Merge with Lemuria (continent)?

I think this article may be safely merged with Lemuria (continent): as most public proponents of Kumari Kandam use this name synonymously with "Lemuria" (tamilized "Ilemuria"), and as the emergence of that lost continent motif mainly goes back to the end of the 19th century, being intrinsically linked to the concept of Lemuria (in terms of history of science; see Sumathi Ramaswamy's "The Lost Land of Lemuria"), it should better be a subchapter of that article. Much information here and there is redundant, while in Lemuria (continent) there is much information complementary to Kumari Kandam. Actually (and rightfully so), there is already a short subchapter on Kumari Kandam in Lemuria.

In time that sub-entry may grow beyond a certain point, and then it could be shifted back into an own "main article", as is usual in Wikipedia (like e.g. History of England as a main article complementary to England). But in its present state, Kumari Kandam is to short (and - imho - of a quality too poor) to stand on its own. -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding that in the talk page for Lemuria (continent), Kumari Kandam also figures very much as a topic for discussion. Wikipedia may gain as a repository of knowledge by having also these discourses merged, as they are basically on the same topic, just as seen from different cultural angles. -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think that is a good idea. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No. I oppose the merge. Both products of dementia alright.. but Lemuria and Kumari Kandam exist(ed) as seperate entities until Tamil nationalists, in seeking to give their nonsense some modicum of credibility, tried to conflate the two. The two articles deal with seperate things and need to be seperate. Sarvagnya 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know (and take from S. Ramaswamy's book that has won much academic acclaim), the idea of Kumari Kandam (as it is understood today) didn't really exist before it was merged with the concept of Lemuria. There are some very disparate places in the huge corpus of classical Tamil literature referring to actual or mythical submerged areas of land, plus the isolated mentioning of a submerged "Kumari Kandam" (without an explanation of what that may have been). In the end of the 19th century all these loci have been rounded up, "put in order" and "made sense of" by Tamil litterati, thus being made into a standardized narrative under the heading "Kumari Kandam" - equaling it from the very beginning with Sclater's concept of Lemuria which arguably inspired that process. By the way, I am not at ease with your description of these concepts as "dementia": in Sclater's times, the concept of Lemuria seemed like a very serious and scientifically progressive idea, while the concept of Kumari Kandam also had its role in the development of a Tamil national consciousness. The problematic thing is that it obviously became very early something like a self-runner: its proponents at some time stopped to check back with geo-sciences, thereby missing the paradigm-shift from a theory of vertical to horizontal continental movement in the middle of the 20th century (Wegener's plate-tectonics). It was only then that the theories of Lemuria and Kumari Kandam stopped being scientifically viable.
I suggested the merger because there were only isolated fragments of nowaday's Kumari Kandam narrative (without the idea of a Kumari continent) before the emergence of the Lemuria concept, and thus Kumari Kandam as well as Lemuria are intrinsically linked almost from the very first beginning. And I think that this "almost" doesn't justify a separate existence for a Kumari Kandam article. In the history of thought, Kumari Kandam equals with Lemuria from its modern beginnings when some Tamil scholars started to read and interpret their classics suddenly in ways totally different from before. Should the community decide not to merge the two articles, then the greatest part of the Kumari Kandam article should still be moved and integrated into the Lemuria article, and the remaining article should become an article dealing with the history of Kumari Kandam as a motif in Tamil nationalist mythology. But I doubt that anyone would write a Wikipedia essay like that during the next few years, and thus (for the time being) it would be the cleanest way to simply redirect "Kumari Kandam" to a sub-entry in Lemuria (continent). Let it grow there over the years, and when the time is ripe, turn it into a separate "main article". -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are sure on the points you have mentioned, then please go ahead with the merge. Merging overlapping articles that need expansion is quite a good way to get the important points into one article first. If it should turn out that Kumari Kandam deserves its own article - after this topic has been expanded - then it could just be split off again. Just allow a few more days for discussion. Zara1709 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)