Talk:Tamil Sangams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India 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.
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.
More information about this article...

Contents

[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 www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/18730/2155/4, 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 --> [3] 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. ;) - —Preceding unsigned comment 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 seems that some kannadian knows better abou Tamil than Tamils[user:arun1paladin|arun1paladin] 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)



Tamil Changams are not myths but facts.Since the date of the Changams is not exactly denoted one cannot claim that Changams didn't exist befor 200B.C.Tamil literatures have clearly mentioned that earlier Changams got demolished due to KADARKOLE[Sea Calamities].They could have mentioned tsunami's by that word Kadarkole.And everybody knows that Tsunami is common in Tamil Nadu[[User:arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Thanks, I got my answer when my cited sentences about this being a hoax were removed unceremoniously by anon IPs, without any discussion. You can claim whatever you want, but that does not make Sangam or Changam as a factual account. Sea Calamities and tsunamis, looks like an Alice in Wonderland kind of a story. Tsunamis are common in Tamil Nadu? You must be joking... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are sangams a hoax?

An earlier version used 'History of south India' by Chopra et al, to claim that sangams are a hoax; on reading the book itself (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=4eRx-d821rYC&dq=history+of+south+india+chopra&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=qJH6C0YNlf&sig=lchCsoinWUCQ4ATY9O5oxHKSE1k#PPA32,M1) it is clear that the authors are not so clear on the issue. They deny the existence of the mythological landmass, presence of gods in the sangams and other such stuff, but allow the possibility of sangams having existed. I have made an edit to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corecirculator (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. The text as it stands, needs further de-crankification, if anything. Are you new here? Have I seen you somewhere? Sarvagnya 02:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What part of the change don't you agree with? Please don't be ambiguous ('Bollocks' is not a good reason for undoing a change).core (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)corecirculator
Kamil Zvelebil, in a paper in the Indo-Iranian Journal - which is not normally given to publishing "bollocks" - takes the view that three assemblies of scholars quite possibly existed, and discusses how the legends surrounding them may have developed. See Zvelebil, Kamil (1973a), “The Earliest Account of the Tamil Academies”, Indo-Iranian Journal 15 (2): 109-135, DOI 10.1007/BF00157289 . So yes, there are serious scholars who think there were three assemblies, whilst at the same time discounting the legends of sangams lasting thousands of years in vanished cities. -- Arvind (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This edit must be one of the finest examples of creative use of a source to support a point which is exactly the opposite of what the source actually says. I've edited the lede and provided a long quote from the book to make it clear that the authors do not hold anything like the views the article claimed they did. -- Arvind (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Creative use" is such an understatement! -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that we've provided citations to show that recent scholars think the Sangams were historical fact, to call them "mythical" in the first sentence - seems just wrong. I've removed the word. -- Arvind (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And whilst the article as it stood wasn't particularly great, the ongoing revision is introducing a number of statements which are simply wrong, and based on popular misconceptions. For example, Iraiyanar Akapporul is not the first mention of the Sangams, it's the first complete account, but there are earlier mentions. IA does not speak of Kumari Kandam as a continent, simply of cities that were submerged. The first reference to a large landmass is in Adiyarkunallar's commentary on the Silappadhikaram. Really, the secondary literature makes all this abundantly clear. -- Arvind (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede and the first section, basically just correcting a few statements which weren't quite right and reorganising the material a bit. There's a lot of material that could be added, but I think I'll wait to see what sort of expansion Sarvagnya's planning, so there's no needless duplication of effort. -- Arvind (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that one of the topics I think this article is crying out for coverage on is the role the legends played in 20th century Tamil public life. If that's not something you're planning on dealing with, I'll do it. -- Arvind (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Quick comment - To be sure, Zvelebil does say that there are references to "cankam" earlier than the IA. It is not news. IA however is the source of the legends and it was my intention to clarify this and also to write about earlier fragmentary references to "cankam". And I am truly bewildered at your removal of "mythical". This article is about the Sangams described in the IA. The Sangams described in the IA are certainly mythical! Any account of full fledged literary academies in any part of the world 10,000 years ago has to be mythical! Do you disagree? Whether these myths and legends had their origins in real Sangams, if so, where and when did these Sangams exist etc., is subject to speculation and precisely what ==Historicity== should and will deal with. As for the role these legends played in modern Tamil Nadu, it is certainly very important encyclopedically and Sumathi Ramaswamy's two books come to mind as a good source. Please go ahead and add it. Sarvagnya 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is not relying only on IA (as you can see, there are more than 1 citations). Since historicity section deals with whether Sangams did take place, it is unfair to prematurely state it as mythical (as the historicity is decidedly controversial, not unanimous).core (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)corecirculator
I started looking at this article because I was working to clean up the Tamil language page a bit. Sarvagnya is quite correct that these details need to be clearly marked as mythical, especially given the date (10,000 years past), and the overall time period (4,440 years). If there is further information available about contemporary usage/impact, I would very much like to see that added to the article as well. Doc Tropics 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about Sangams as described in Iraiyanar Akapporul. It's about the Tamil Sangams, period. It makes very little sense to have separate articles about the Sangams as described in Nakkiranar's commentary to the Iraiyanar Akapporul, Sangams as described in Adiyarkkunallar's commentary to Silappadhikaram, Sangams as described in Paranjothi's Thiruvilayadal Puranam, Sangams as described in the second Thiruvilayadal Puranam, and the historical Sangams - or even one article about Sangam legend and one about Historical Sangams. It makes a lot more sense to have a single article which deals with all of them, in my opinion - and in that case, although we have several mythological accounts of the Sangams, the Sangams themselves are not mythical things, but (very likely) historical entities that acquired a place in Tamil legends. -- Arvind (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
hmm.. no. If this article was not about the Sangam of the IA and only about Sangams - both legendary and historical/quasi-historical then, we'd need to also discuss the several other pan-Indian non-Tamil Sangams/Sanghas of all hues. Because that would get unweildy, we'd then have to retreat and say that we'd restrict this article to just the Tamil Sangams. Then, we'd need to rewrite the lead stating that there were legendary Sangams and there were historical Sangams. Then the Sangam of the IA etc., would be discussed under ==Legendary Sangams== and the others under ==Historical Sangams==. Apart from the fact that we would then land ourselves in a bigger mess (may well enter into realm of OR - will explain later) than we already have, there still would be no moving away from the fact that the Sangams of the IA are/were mythical -- correct me if I am wrong, but anything that stretches back into the ice age has to be mythical. For perspective, this goes further back than even the earliest dates proposed for the Ramayana and Mahabharata -- and the Ramayana and Mahabharata and all their characters are still strictly in the realm of fiction and mythology. Not only that, the "Sangam" in "Sangam literature" alludes to the Sangam of the IA, not the Sangam of Vajranandi or some such. The Fourth Tamil Sangam was the "fourth" because they were carrying on from where the IA left off. This is a hurriedly worded post, so dont read between lines.. I only hope you get my drift. In a nutshell, if we were to attempt a 'course correction' now and start off on a tangent that this article is not about the "legendary Sangams of Tamil tradition" (where the IA Sangam is of course the most prominent) then, I feel we'll be digging ourselves deeper. Sarvagnya 04:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to stress that I am not at all knowledgeable about the specific subject of Tamil Sangams, however it seems clear to me that an encyclopedia absolutely must differentiate between what is known to be fact and what 'may or may not' be actual fact. Allowing historical facts to appear next to myths, without distinguishing between the two, would seriously compromise the article's credibility. Doc Tropics 05:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The article can be moved to Tamil Sangam to scope it enough. We can even have separate main articles on the legends and the historical Sangams and use them in this article with a good lead section clearly showing which is a myth and which is not. As to Doc Tropics' concern above, while I agree that myths should not be passed off as facts, the reverse should not happen too. Blindly labeling anything to do with Sangams as myths creates a different misconception altogether. Still worse, this misconception is a million times more believable for the uninitiated and hence that much more damaging. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Not necessarily, Sarvagnya. As Sundar points out, all we'd need to do is move the article to Tamil Sangam, and restrict it to the predominant use of the term (i.e., the three ancient assemblies), create a Tamil Sangam (disambiguation) to refer to other uses (such as the Madurai Tamil Sangams, the Jaina Sangam of Vajranandi, and the modern organisations that style themselves as Tamil Sangams, assuming any of them pass the threshold of notability. Sangam itself should then become a disambig, pointing to - amongst other things - the various places called "Sangam".
The lede should then say that Sangams are the stuff of many legends, and have inspired 19th / 20th century movements, but modern historians believe they were based on actual assemblies (Along the lines of: "The Tamil Sangams are legendary assemblies of Tamil scholars and poets that, according to traditional Tamil accounts, existed in the remote past. The legends describe three assemblies, the first two of which were held in cities since "taken by the sea", and the third of which was held in Madurai and created the earliest extant works of Tamil literature. Whilst the legendary accounts are generally rejected as being ahistorical, many modern scholars believe that they are based on actual historical assemblies. The Sangam legends played a significant role in inspiring political, social and literary movements in Tamil Nadu in the early 20th century.") Then a section describing the legend (and its progressive evolution), a section describing Zvelebil's reconstruction of the historical bodies, a section on the literature attributed to them (including how the term expanded in scope in the popular imagination from just the ettuthokai to include the patthupattu, the pathinenkizhkkanakku, and the aimperunkappiyangal). And, finally, a section on its role in 20th century Tamil culture.
Also, the Sangam legend as such isn't really based on Nakkirar's account. None of the things most closely associated with the Sangams feature there - for example, Kumari Kandam so dear to the nationalist picture of the Sangams isn't there, nor is the magical pottamaraikkulam. Nakkirar mentions them in passing to flesh out his account of the divine origin of the Akapporul and the supernatural excellence of his commentary, that's all. The legend doesn't originate in Nakkirar's account - his is simply the earliest extant account of a folk legend which also crops up here and there in other texts (much like the Silappadhikaram is simply one telling of the popular legend of Kannagi and Kovalan, which also crops up in other versions).
(I may not have internet access till Wednesday now, but this more or less sums up what I think) -- Arvind (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


(unindent)"The Tamil Sangams are legendary assemblies of Tamil scholars and poets that, according to traditional Tamil accounts, existed in the remote past. The legends describe three assemblies, the first two of which were held in cities since "taken by the sea", and the third of which was held in Madurai and created the earliest extant works of Tamil literature. Whilst the legendary accounts are generally rejected as being ahistorical,..." -- fine so far. maybe just replace "remote" with "hoary" or something similar.. but fine.

"...many modern scholars believe that they are based on actual historical assemblies..." -- Not exactly. Zvelebil does not "believe" that they were based on actual historical assemblies. He is quite circumspect and only 'hazards a guess'(so to speak) that they (the legends) may have had their roots in actual historical Sangams.(TSoM, pp 47-49) Zvelebil only refers to the Sangam of Vajranandi etc., in passing. Hart is even less circumspect and and dismisses as "unlikely" that the Sangam legends were based on any historical Sangams.(Hart, 1975) And then of course, many dismiss the whole thing as fiction as Chopra says. So it would be inaccurate to describe that many scholars "believe..". "Speculate" or "surmise" or something even less categorical would be better.

Also, the Sangam legend as such isn't really based on Nakkirar's account. -- Not sure I agree completely. For now, I'll just say that the 'kernel' of the legend is certainly traceable to the IA/Nakkirar. Whether there are/were fragmentary descriptions of the same legend in earlier/later works, and how and when, if at all, connections were made between those legends and the one in IA is certainly encyclopedic and feel free to add all the info you can find about that.

for example, Kumari Kandam so dear to the nationalist picture of the Sangams isn't there, -- Kumari Kandam is important, but it wouldnt exist outside the context of the Sangam legends even in the scheme of Tamil nationalist ideologies. As far as Tamil nationalism is concerned, the Sangam academy legends have always been the 'mother of all legends'. Sarvagnya 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On modern scholars: Zvelebil is a lot less cautious in his Indo-Iranian Journal piece, and he repeats that in later books. But anyway, that'll sort itself out in the historicity section. Would you be OK with "modern scholars have suggested that the legends may be based on actual historical assemblies"?
On IA, the later descriptions of the legend in the two Thiruvilaiyadalpuranams, and even in Naccinarkiniyar's commentary, are much more detailed - and less fragmentary - than the description in Nakkirar's commentary to IA. The point I was making is that the "popular" aspects of the Sangam legend don't come from Nakkirar's account. Anyway, the way to deal with this is to flesh out the section which describes the legend.
Are you also OK with moving the article to Tamil Sangams, and moving Sangam (disambiguation) here? -- Arvind (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"modern scholars have suggested that the legends may be based on actual historical assemblies" - something on the lines of ..."modern scholars are divided... with some surmising that they (the legends) may have their basis in actual-historical sangams while others dismiss such notions as ahistorical" is more NPOV. Also, the historicity of the Sangams and the historicity of the submergence are different things and should not be clumped together. The submergence and Kumari Kandam is patently fiction, unless we have bathymetric or other studies proving otherwise. About your other point about various accounts of the academies, I am not sure I get your point. The 'kernel' - ie., that there were three sangams, and the number of kings and poets and patrons etc., is already in the IA.. correct? Tiruvilaiyadal may have built upon what IA/Nakkirar had already described (?).. .. the legend continued to be worked on even into the 20th century. Correct? Anyway.. like you say, a section dedicated to the legend and its evolution/growth over centuries should take care of it. And yes, I am ok with the article moves. Sarvagnya 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Submergence of cities is also represented in later Sri lankan sinhalese chronicles alluding to some Tsunami like events that seem to have lingered in popular culture as a myth on both sides of the palk straights. I have the book but not the time , but I am going to create an article on Dravida Sangha of Vajranandi when time permits 22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Kumarikkandam is a part of the Sangam legend, so there should be a sentence or two explaining that it's not taken seriously by modern science, I think. The details, as you say, should be in Kumari Kandam. I'll see what I can work up over the coming week.
An article about the Dravida Sangha is a good idea. We should, ultimately, aim to have articles about Jaina influences on Tamil literature and Buddhist influences on Tamil literature. -- Arvind (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the article and started reworking it. I'll keep plugging away on and off over the next few days. -- Arvind (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaina inluence on Tamil literature

The following professor is a proponent of this view and belives that current Tamil society has not fully realized or acknowledged these efforts. He has number of academic publications that deal with this subject matter. The contacts are

ALVAPPILLAI VELUPPILLAI Faculty Associate,Department of Religious Studies, ASU-P.O. Box 873104, Tempe, AZ, 85287-3104 Dept: 480-965-7145; Fax: 480-965-5139;E-mail: alvappillai.veluppillai@asu.edu; Website: http://www.asu.edu/clas/religious_studies/ (Dept. page) Taprobanus (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All the writings are here. I firmly believe that Tamil literature trajectory cannot be any different than Kannada literature trajectory. That is there is a firm and solid Jaina and Buddhist period that began with the early Prakrit speaking traders and missionaries in 3rd BCE in ancient Tamilagkam and culminated or ended by the 7th century CE with the ascendancy of Saiva revival. Sangams historical and mythical are all products of that period. Taprobanus (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's commplicated. If one leaves aside the didactic section of the Purananuru, there is actually not that much evidence of Jain or Buddhist influence in the ettuthokai as a whole - but there is a decent bit of evidence of familiarity with Hindu gods and customs (the poetics of the thinais for example is entirely connected with Hindu gods). And whilst there're examples of Buddhist attempts to write hymns to Buddha modelled on the ones to "Thirumal" in Paripadal, there's little evidence of the opposite. As Marr points out, the reality is probably that Sangam literature reflects a complicated mixture of all three "northern" traditions, slowly influencing indigenous Tamil traditions. Anyway, all of this will make for a fascinating section on "The role of religious traditions" in the article on Tamil literature, but there's too much disagreement to present Jaina influence as anything like settled fact in this article. -- Arvind (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is fairly nuanced as Arvind points out. We'll deal with it when we get to that point on Tamil literature and Sangam literature than on this article. Sarvagnya 21:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I just don’t have the time now to expand on it currently, as I spent most available time in on some articles of interst to me but modern Tamil and Kannada language and culture are some what parallel and both do owe a lot to what the Jaina missionaries. This is fascinating reading Mahadevan also credits the Jain monks with responsibility for developing the Tamil–Brahmi script to introduce the art of writing to Tamil language. He also assigns the authorship of some Tamil texts like the Tolkāppiyam, the Tirukkural and the Cilappatikāram to Jains.[4] Just a few lines from the review of Iravatham Mahathevans great contribution. What is interesting is the real link between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is brought about through inscriptions. And also the Gajabahu synchronization seems to be also out of favor according to Mahathevan.
On a different note is what clinched me about date of Tolkappiyam is if the Sri Lankan Tamil community uses pre Tolkappiyam words in their daily usage as Sri Lankan Tamil dialects indicate then Tolkappiyam cannot be that old because the place names from where they come from clearly indicates they relatively late to the place. Another angle is that they migrated from what is today Kerala from a time when the Tamil dialect used in that land was archaic and conservative compared to rest of Tamil Nadu. Either way Tol has to be post fourth CE. Taprobanus (talk)
Well.. the view that Jains were the first "cultivators" of both Kannada and Tamil (and perhaps Telugu (among South Indian languages) is fairly common. My impression (from what I've read) is that in the case of Kannada it is the "consensus" and in Tamil it is somewhat of a "majority" or "oft-repeated-wide-currency" view. In Tamil however, the balance is upset by some Buddhist or suspected-to-be-Buddhist contributions (atleast 2 or the 5 epics?) and also the lack of consensus among scholars about the religious leanings of the authors - be it Valluvar or Tolkappiyar. And it is perhaps not helped by the largely "secular" nature of the early works. However, my humble personal view is (and has always been) that both Kannada and Tamil and indeed Indian literature owe a great deal to the Jains. And talking of Kerala and Tolkappiyam and early tamil literature, I think it is also a fairly common view that much of the early literature including Tolkappiyam was written by authors hailing from present day Kerala (perhaps in the western dialect of Old Tamil?), rather than present day Tamil Nadu. Sarvagnya 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Two are Jain - Silappadhikaram and Sivaka chintamani - and two are Buddhist - Manimekalai and Kundalakesi (which isn't extant). You're quite right that much of early Tamil literature was written by folks from Kerala. As I understand it, though, Tolkappiyam is usually taken to describe Eastern Tamil rather than Western Tamil, although its author may well have been from the Kerala region. Interestingly, and in passing, one of the arguments the Lilatilakam, which is the Malayalam equivalent of Kavirajamarga, makes for breaking the link between written "Kerala bhasha" and the "Chola" and "Pandya" languages is that Kerala bhasha is better Tamil than Chola / Pandya bhashas (I think the author uses the Thiruvaymozhi as the touchstone). -- Arvind (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really make linguistic sense to speak of pre-Tolkappiyam features in spoken Tamil - the Tolkappiyam dealt with literary Tamil, not spoken Tamil, and there are spoken dialects even in TN which have preserved features more archaic than written Tamil. Anyway, it's probably best to discuss this in connection with the appropriate article.
Apart from that, Gajabahu synchronism does need an update - one reason it's fallen out of favour amongst some scholars is that it's based on secondary sources (commentaries / patikams) rather than primary sources (the text itself). More on that on the relevant talk page soon. -- Arvind (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)