Tamil Society as existed 2000 years ago

kamald said:

Here is something interesting. References about Mahabharat in Sangam Literature

Muranjiyur Naganar( dude poet of the time) , while singing the praise of the king of that time, Mr. Cheraman Peruncheraladhan, records that he offered food without any limit to the fighting armies ofThe Five and The Hundred(this is the usual expression used) implying Pandavas and the Kauravas, till the latter fell down dying (Puram.2.13-16).

Are these references historical or mere poetic exaggeration?
More importantly Why no cross-reference is found in the Mahabharata itself, had a Chera King did such a service?

The Chera, Cholas and Pandyas have been mentioned in the text of Mahabharata giving their details of participation in Rajasuya, the Great war etc. Thus, in historical perspective, a Chera King might have participated in the War?

Click to expand...

As discussed earlier in other threads, MBH has very late additions. Though the core is very old, the newest part are as late as 200 AD-300AD. It is not surprising that cheras, pandyas are reffered or mentioned. Although saying they actually participated in the war is a stretch. The real answer is we dont know when MBH happened, if it ever happened and if it happened how much is exaggeration and how much is real.

kamald said:

And then there was another cool poet called Kapilar.
Now Kapilar says a few things about Irungovel (Puram.201:8-12). This Irungavel guy is very important. Lets see why.

1.Irungovel was born from a Yagna Pit (Tadavu) of a Rishi living in the North.
2.He ruled a city named “Tuvarai”, which had walls made of Copper like material.
3.He used to give alms without any discrimination.
4.He descended from the “Velir dynasty”, which had in existence for 49 generations before him. '49' generations.. Yep really you read it right.

So here is what we can conclude

1.If we take 15/20/25 years as the reign of each generation, then the Velir must have been ruling since 500 +735 / 500+980 / 500+1225 or since 1235 / 1480 / 1725 BCE. Incidentally, which tallies with the “Tramiradesa Sanngatham” that threatened the territories of Kharavela as recorded in the Kharavela / Hathigumpa inscription.

2.Surprisingly, the Kharavela’s inscription records that he defeated a confederacy of Dravidian Kings, which was threatening his territorial integrity. And that confederacy was 1300 years old during his reign.

3. Remember how in one of my earlier posts i mentioned about how a certain Jayswal read 1300 yrs as 113 yr since he had some pre-concieved notions about how old Dravidian civilization can be? but, actually, the inscription reads that it was 1300 old. Rock don't lie man...unless of course they forgot to do a spell check back then.

4. If we consider that “Tuvarai” was a famous town in as revealed through inscriptions existing in 12th century CE, then,the reign of first generation comes to 1st cent.BCE / 3rd cent.CE /4th cent.CE, which contradicts the Sangam chronology.

5. If we place the first dynasty at par with Mahabharata period, then, each dynasty must have ruled for nearly 40 years (3102-1000=2102/49=42 years), which may not be accepted by the modern scholars.Thus, the 1700-1400 BCE period appears to be reasonable. Then, the Chera King might not be offering food to the soldiers of the Great War as claimed by the Poet, if c.3100 BCE is taken as the date of Mahabharat War and he might have done so.

I hear you.."Whoa whoa! What are you saying Tamil kings as old as Aryan kings? Impossible... You must be a chauvinistic Dravidian nationalist..."

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/mahasangam.asp

Click to expand...

Our literary sources need to be backed by archeological finds. If there is continous urban habitation for 2000 years by a dynasty, then we surely need to find one site and then we can establish it. Me on the other hand have been asking all the posters over here if they can show me a MBH era structure/site/ruins/place. I till today have not got a response So the chances of finding BC site in tamilnadu is even more remote. North India is literally dug everywhere and yet dont find any site related to MBH. So all I say is this is really blurry, we really dont know anything about the timeline.

killerargo said:

As discussed earlier in other threads, MBH has very late additions. Though the core is very old, the newest part are as late as 200 AD-300AD. It is not surprising that cheras, pandyas are reffered or mentioned. Although saying they actually participated in the war is a stretch. The real answer is we dont know when MBH happened, if it ever happened and if it happened how much is exaggeration and how much is real.

Click to expand...

Agree, there needs to be archeological evidence to back literary claims. But there are definite cross references. The Tamil Kings who have been trading all across the world's through the seas would certainly have had relations up north as well. The date may or may not be as old. But the Tamil Kings were not as insignificant as is tried to be portrayed here.

The Dravidian movement is not a Aryan vs dravidian language propblem, it is primarily the problem of Tamilian self identity who havent had a native king for 600 years and seek their past glory in an invented past

Click to expand...

The reason I am bringing such posts is to dispel this point being raised by many including you in another post that no native king for 600 years, nothing significant happened here and all are invented glories etc.

Likewise the Vedas hardly talk about Kings. We could easily assume these were a group of nomadic tribes chanting matras for 1000s of years with no significant dynasty of empire till the Asokan era. Because even here we don't have any archeological sites.

Till we find archeological sites it is worth exploring literary references. What is unwritten is anyone's guess.

No... not possible at all to put the Cheras to 3rd/ 2nd millennium BCE.. Of three Tamil crowned lineages Cheras are the one whose early genealogy has been constructed with some sort of reliability unlike that of Cholas and Pandyas thanks to some information given in the Tamil literary sources. Furthermore contrary to what it is being said here (ie lack of any archaeological source), there is actually a firm anchor in form of some donative inscriptions of Chera rulers, the corroboration of which with the literary sources give us some reliable dating for the Cheras. And based on this construction Udiyanjeral - the king who supposedly fed the armies of Kurukshetra is dated around 130 CE. And this makes sense since the same literature mentions that his son - Nedunjeral Adan not only defeated Kadambas but also took captive some Yavana traders. So he certainly can't be dated back to 2nd/3rd millennium BCE. And unless and until we assume that a Chera king lived for some thousands of years (which I am sure proponents of Kumari Kandan may certainly want us to believe), his father can't be dated back to the supposed time of Mahabharata war either. Furthermore according to Silappatikaram Udiyanjeral's grandson Senguttuvan was supposed to be contemporary of Sri Lankan king Gajabahu . And Gajabahu himself is dated c 173- 95 CE. So there are more than enough reasons to date Chera rulers mentioned in Sangam literature between 130 CE to 230 CE. It is certainly not based on some sort of preconceived notions. If one would have spent some time reading the works of eminent dravidologist like KAN Shastri who has given detailed reasoning for such dating (and accepted as such by many reliable dravidologists and Historians in general even today), rather than citing some flimsy sites with some flimsy stories one wouldn't have to wonder why titles like "chauvinistic Dravidian nationalist" are being used to describe one's lot.

Jinit said:

No... not possible at all to put the Cheras to 3rd/ 2nd millennium BCE.. Of three Tamil crowned lineages Cheras are the one whose early genealogy has been constructed with some sort of reliability unlike that of Cholas and Pandyas thanks to some information given in the Tamil literary sources. Furthermore contrary to what it is being said here (ie lack of any archaeological source), there is actually a firm anchor in form of some donative inscriptions of Chera rulers, the corroboration of which with the literary sources give us some reliable dating for the Cheras. And based on this construction Udiyanjeral - the king who supposedly fed the armies of Kurukshetra is dated around 130 CE. And this makes sense since the same literature mentions that his son - Nedunjeral Adan not only defeated Kadambas but also took captive some Yavana traders. So he certainly can't be dated back to 2nd/3rd millennium BCE. And unless and until we assume that a Chera king lived for some thousands of years (which I am sure proponents of Kumari Kandan may certainly want us to believe), his father can't be dated back to the supposed time of Mahabharata war either. Furthermore according to Silappatikaram Udiyanjeral's grandson Senguttuvan was supposed to be contemporary of Sri Lankan king Gajabahu . And Gajabahu himself is dated c 173- 95 CE. So there are more than enough reasons to date Chera rulers mentioned in Sangam literature between 130 CE to 230 CE. It is certainly not based on some sort of preconceived notions. If one would have spent some time reading the works of eminent dravidologist like KAN Shastri who has given detailed reasoning for such dating (and accepted as such by many reliable dravidologists and Historians in general even today), rather than citing some flimsy sites with some flimsy stories one wouldn't have to wonder why titles like "chauvinistic Dravidian nationalist" are being used to describe one's lot.

Click to expand...

I am just trying to interpret a few things from literary works just as any of you. You just revalidated my assumption that quite a few of you are far too liberal in branding anyone who tries anything even remotely different from your rigid Supremacist view as a Dravidian nationalist.

Since some of us consider the Mahabharata as a real war that happened in the timeline I had given above. There are two things that I tried to connect given lack of archeological evidence to see if it was possible for Chera kings to have played any role. I was talking about Cheraman Peruncheraladhan..do you have any timelines for him?.

Udhiyanjeral however is also credited with feeding armies of the great war. This would not make him a contemporary but is generally thought of as a legend attributing this role of playing the host to the great war to some remote ancestor of the cheeras and here employed in a well known poetic convention in praise of Udiranjeyal.

Now in a different poem by Kapilar there is reference to ancient lineage spanning 49 generations which would roughly go back to the times of MB war. Until the times till which we find archeological evidence of MB war or Tamil dynasties dating back to such times we can only go by literary works.So, I was only exploring the possibilities.

Since you are so concerned only about archeological evidence and are dismissive of any literary interpretation, why don't you give me any archeological evidence of existence of people mentioned in the rig Vedas dating back to 2nd 3rd millennium BC? Else going by your own logic, I would be forced to conclude you are an Aryan Supremacist. It wouldn't be fair would it?

Just have an open mind.. I don't agree always with Tornada but just by the way he puts views across I feel convinced many times. That's how we should keep discussions here if we are to understand Indian history. It's an advice for me as well.

SSDD said:

Considering you can claim Manusmriti was written in 7th Century BCE, it is ok.

Here is a question for you, did Sangam Literature ever mention the word Tamil? Did it ever mention persecution by Brahmins? Which was supposed to take place? No.

Click to expand...

No. it is in 7th Century A.D.

I do not know which Sangam you are referring. While all the three sangams literature are written in Tamil , what is the necessity for it to mention Tamil.

Did any sanskrit literatures ever mention the word SANSKRIT? (If I ask this question to you, do you think this is a wise question)

Sangam literature , no, it has not mentioned anything about Persecution done by Brahmins.

But, Saiva sidhanda Tamil literatures says lot about Brahmin"s rituals(vedic Rituals) and strongly condemn it

kamald said:

Agree, there needs to be archeological evidence to back literary claims. But there are definite cross references. The Tamil Kings who have been trading all across the world's through the seas would certainly have had relations up north as well. The date may or may not be as old. But the Tamil Kings were not as insignificant as is tried to be portrayed here.



The reason I am bringing such posts is to dispel this point being raised by many including you in another post that no native king for 600 years, nothing significant happened here and all are invented glories etc.

Likewise the Vedas hardly talk about Kings. We could easily assume these were a group of nomadic tribes chanting matras for 1000s of years with no significant dynasty of empire till the Asokan era. Because even here we don't have any archeological sites.

Till we find archeological sites it is worth exploring literary references. What is unwritten is anyone's guess.

Click to expand...

that is exactly what witzel says. And we dont know vedas dates either...

kamald said:

I am just trying to interpret a few things from literary works just as any of you. You just revalidated my assumption that quite a few of you are far too liberal in branding anyone who tries anything even remotely different from your rigid Supremacist view as a Dravidian nationalist.

Since some of us consider the Mahabharata as a real war that happened in the timeline I had given above. There are two things that I tried to connect given lack of archeological evidence to see if it was possible for Chera kings to have played any role. I was talking about Cheraman Peruncheraladhan..do you have any timelines for him?.

Udhiyanjeral however is also credited with feeding armies of the great war. This would not make him a contemporary but is generally thought of as a legend attributing this role of playing the host to the great war to some remote ancestor of the cheeras and here employed in a well known poetic convention in praise of Udiranjeyal.

Now in a different poem by Kapilar there is reference to ancient lineage spanning 49 generations which would roughly go back to the times of MB war. Until the times till which we find archeological evidence of MB war or Tamil dynasties dating back to such times we can only go by literary works.So, I was only exploring the possibilities.

Since you are so concerned only about archeological evidence and are dismissive of any literary interpretation, why don't you give me any archeological evidence of existence of people mentioned in the rig Vedas dating back to 2nd 3rd millennium BC? Else going by your own logic, I would be forced to conclude you are an Aryan Supremacist. It wouldn't be fair would it?

Just have an open mind.. I don't agree always with Tornada but just by the way he puts views across I feel convinced many times. That's how we should keep discussions here if we are to understand Indian history. It's an advice for me as well.

Click to expand...

You should look up other threads if you want to know about vedas timeline, It is discussed over and over again.

The person who makes the assertion should have the burden of proof, since it is you making the assertion it is entirely upon you to prove beyond doubt that MBH had chera participation. So I ask why id MBH itself silent on cheras, if they did indeed participate in the war? Secondly how on earth did drought prone Tamilnadu with very low agricultural productivity feed the armies of the ganga belt. Does it not look fanciful?

Literary evidence is not taken at face value, it has to be backed by archeological evidence, it should have some datable events to prove the date of its composition and that the poet himself is not manipulating. Lot of times people claim things for various political reasons.

unmai53 said:

No. it is in 7th Century A.D.

Click to expand...

Any proof?

The author of Naradasmriti written 4th century knew the name of the author of Manusmriti and he said this in his book.

So if Manusmriti was written in 7th century then unless author of Naradasmriti had a time machine, he in no way could have known Manusmriti's author.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=h7WSAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=Manusmriti+200+CE&source=bl&ots=bc5LpEEfn6&sig=xs-C-o4EEKP_cUpyq9FMGHjq_8Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwA2oVChMIgZKom5-ZxwIVD46OCh3HPQd-#v=onepage&q=Manusmriti%20200%20CE&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=YaxEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Manusmriti+200+CE&source=bl&ots=bcEyvGrsBq&sig=im5gpWjsXgQdPvxe6-UTOoTsHko&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAmoVChMIgZKom5-ZxwIVD46OCh3HPQd-#v=onepage&q=Manusmriti%20200%20CE&f=false

I do not know which Sangam you are referring. While all the three sangams literature are written in Tamil , what is the necessity for it to mention Tamil.

Click to expand...

First 2 Sangams dont exist. they are mythology.

Did any sanskrit literatures ever mentioned SANSKRIT? (If I ask this question to you, do you think this is a wise question)

Click to expand...

It does.

As a term for "refined or elaborated speech" the adjective appears only in Epic and Classical Sanskrit, in the Manusmriti and in the Mahabharata. The language referred to as saṃskṛta "the cultured language" has by definition always been a "sacred" and "sophisticated" language, used for religious and learned discourse in ancient India, in contrast to the language spoken by the people, prākṛta- "natural, artless, normal, ordinary".

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit#Name

Sangam literature , no, it has not mentioned anything about Persecution done by Brahmins.

Click to expand...

History does not say that.

But, Saiva sidhanda Tamil literatures says lot about Brahmin"s rituals(vedic Rituals) and strongly condemn it

Click to expand...

I am talking about persecution. It is not persecution. Buddhist, Jain and Vaishnavite literature too condemn some what. But this is not persecution. Never forget the supposed "persecution" never reached the level of Inquisition or Crusades.

http://tamilandvedas.com/2014/04/28/more-interesting-quotations-from-manus-law-book/

killerargo said:

You should look up other threads if you want to know about vedas timeline, It is discussed over and over again.

The person who makes the assertion should have the burden of proof, since it is you making the assertion it is entirely upon you to prove beyond doubt that MBH had chera participation. So I ask why id MBH itself silent on cheras, if they did indeed participate in the war? Secondly how on earth did drought prone Tamilnadu with very low agricultural productivity feed the armies of the ganga belt. Does it not look fanciful?

Literary evidence is not taken at face value, it has to be backed by archeological evidence, it should have some datable events to prove the date of its composition and that the poet himself is not manipulating. Lot of times people claim things for various political reasons.

Click to expand...

Before you ask me to read entire threads i request you to read just my specific question atleast. Let me rephrase it if it helps. I asked you about archeological evidence for the people mentioned in vedic texts or sites that belong to Vedic times. Timelines are arrived at based on literal works and linguistic studies only. Gaggar-Hakra cqarbon dating is usually given as proof. But are there real archeological sites of the vedic period.

The vedic texts do not talk of civilizations or cities. Heck we don't even know conclusively about where they came from.

Since there is no practice to recite mantras for generations like in Sanskrit, we don't have evidence to show how long the spoken language of Dravidians existed before assuming a written form. Regarding the burden of proof, I have presented what I think is proof. I have explained how and why they make the claim. I have presented some explanation to your doubts. Whether the proof is conclusive enough is debatable.

And are you sure MBH doesn't mention about southern kingdoms? They are mentioned, I think you have overlooked my post. Why don't you look it up?

killerargo said:

The person who makes the assertion should have the burden of proof, since it is you making the assertion it is entirely upon you to prove beyond doubt that MBH had chera participation. So I ask why id MBH itself silent on cheras, if they did indeed participate in the war? Secondly how on earth did drought prone Tamilnadu with very low agricultural productivity feed the armies of the ganga belt. Does it not look fanciful?

Click to expand...

Not all areas of present day TN are drought prone. Prior to the construction of the dams the river basins had plentiful agricultural produce. Even then we are not talking about present day TN alone here and And we are talking of a timeline that stretches over 1000s of years. Do you have any links showing that south India was drought prone with less agricultural productivity even in CE times.

To answer your question, no it does not look fanciful.

kamald said:

Not all areas of present day TN are drought prone. Prior to the construction of the dams the river basins had plentiful agricultural produce. Even then we are not talking about present day TN alone here and And we are talking of a timeline that stretches over 1000s of years. Do you have any links showing that south India was drought prone with less agricultural productivity even in CE times.

To answer your question, no it does not look fanciful.

Click to expand...

The southern Tn is severely drought prone, there are no major rivers except cauvery. This is common knowledge. TN could barely feed itself till independence and even today doesnt produce any surplus. I can make judgements based on data available not onw hich it isnt present.

kamald said:

I am just trying to interpret a few things from literary works just as any of you. You just revalidated my assumption that quite a few of you are far too liberal in branding anyone who tries anything even remotely different from your rigid Supremacist view as a Dravidian nationalist.

Since some of us consider the Mahabharata as a real war that happened in the timeline I had given above. There are two things that I tried to connect given lack of archeological evidence to see if it was possible for Chera kings to have played any role. I was talking about Cheraman Peruncheraladhan..do you have any timelines for him?.

Udhiyanjeral however is also credited with feeding armies of the great war. This would not make him a contemporary but is generally thought of as a legend attributing this role of playing the host to the great war to some remote ancestor of the cheeras and here employed in a well known poetic convention in praise of Udiranjeyal.

Now in a different poem by Kapilar there is reference to ancient lineage spanning 49 generations which would roughly go back to the times of MB war. Until the times till which we find archeological evidence of MB war or Tamil dynasties dating back to such times we can only go by literary works.So, I was only exploring the possibilities.

Since you are so concerned only about archeological evidence and are dismissive of any literary interpretation, why don't you give me any archeological evidence of existence of people mentioned in the rig Vedas dating back to 2nd 3rd millennium BC? Else going by your own logic, I would be forced to conclude you are an Aryan Supremacist. It wouldn't be fair would it?

Just have an open mind.. I don't agree always with Tornada but just by the way he puts views across I feel convinced many times. That's how we should keep discussions here if we are to understand Indian history. It's an advice for me as well.

Click to expand...

My views are based on the findings of KAN Shastri - a rather eminent scholar with expertise in both Sanskrit and Tamil (in addition to other southern languages like Kannada and probably Telugu and Malyalam if I am not mistaken). His opinions are acknowledged by other renowned scholars and chronology established by him is used even by the most recent works of high acclaim such as Upinder Singh's book on ancient and medieval India or the work on South Indian history edited by Noburu Karashima. As such when I accept his views on the matter, which are based on rather thorough study then I am not taking any"rigid Supremacist view" but rather acknowledging very reliable opinion of a learned scholar accepted by many other learned scholars. Rejecting his view without any sort of proper rebuttal on the other hand can be explained only by the preconceived notions born out of some sort of "ism" which in this case is "chauvinistic dravidianism".

Also contrary to your assertion I have never said that I am concerned only about archaeological evidence and dismissive of any literary interpretation. However you can't just randomly pick whatever you like and dismiss everything else. Careful analysis of various personalities and their inter relationship in addition to other hints in Sangam literature makes it abundantly clear that it is written within span of maximum 3-5 generations. One can rely solely on literary sources but it does require corroboration from other independent sources whether literary or archaeological. And it is based on this rigorous approach that existence of many of the personalities of Pre Mauryan north has been accepted and not some rather childish fancy full reasoning as shown in the links given by you. And it is due adherence of these high standards that whatever history of Pre Mauryan north has been constructed is rather patchy with blank spaces in between yet authentic. Other wise there is enough Puranic literature which gives long genealogies which we can just take on face value to accept it as authenticate history.

And btw if some Tamil king claims of feeding armies in Kuruksherta war then most probably he would have seen himself as Arya king anyway. And this supposed movement from north to south has been noted by many scholars although it actually taken as indication of migration of Aryas and Sanskritization of the Dravidian people already existing in south at that time and not the migration of Dravidians themselves to the south (for which we don't have any literary evidence). And none of these stories talk about forceful migration under some sort of stress anyway.

killerargo said:

The southern Tn is severely drought prone, there are no major rivers except cauvery. This is common knowledge. TN could barely feed itself till independence and even today doesnt produce any surplus. I can make judgements based on data available not onw hich it isnt present.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that Sangam age polities weren't actually centralized states which could generate large amount agricultural surplus in terms of revenue collection. Further more there were more than one lines of Cheras (and Cholas and Pandyas, too) who were ruling simultaneously. As such the actual resource base of every king would have been even smaller.

It is worth mentioning here that society which would have fought a war as enormous as Kurukshetra must have left behind the impressive archaeological record in terms of urban settlements (indicative of agricultural surplus), forts, etc. So would have the society which supposedly fed that humongous army. While in reality the archaeological evidence for the time period when the war was supposedly fought doesn't give any such indication. The only region which actually provides the impressive archaeological record for the supposed time period of war is the north west India which I am sure none here would like to associate with Mahabharata or Aryas!!!

Jinit said:

It is worth mentioning here that society which would have fought a war as enormous as Kurukshetra must have left behind the impressive archaeological record in terms of urban settlements (indicative of agricultural surplus), forts, etc. So would have the society which supposedly fed that humongous army. While in reality the archaeological evidence for the time period when the war was supposedly fought doesn't give any such indication. The only region which actually provides the impressive archaeological record for the supposed time period of war is the north west India which I am sure none here would like to associate with Mahabharata or Aryas!!!

Click to expand...

Well, I do......

killerargo said:

The southern Tn is severely drought prone, there are no major rivers except cauvery. This is common knowledge. TN could barely feed itself till independence and even today doesnt produce any surplus. I can make judgements based on data available not onw hich it isnt present.

Click to expand...

You are talking specifically about only southern TN. Plus we don't know how big an area was under their control then. It's also a large timespan we are talking about. The population would also have been less. There is no written record of agricultural deficit in any of the Sangam literatures too.

kamald said:

Likewise the Vedas hardly talk about Kings.

Click to expand...

Who told you Vedas don't talk about Kings. Ever heard of the Dasharajana (Battle of the Ten Kings) mentioned in Vedas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings

This is the same battle which mentions about an Iranic tribe called Dasyus or Dasa (Iranian cognate: Dahyu or Daha, Greek: Dahae) and Dasyus were not Dravidians(unlike claimed by Aryan invasion supporters).

Jinit said:

My views are based on the findings of KAN Shastri - a rather eminent scholar with expertise in both Sanskrit and Tamil (in addition to other southern languages like Kannada and probably Telugu and Malyalam if I am not mistaken). His opinions are acknowledged by other renowned scholars and chronology established by him is used even by the most recent works of high acclaim such as Upinder Singh's book on ancient and medieval India or the work on South Indian history edited by Noburu Karashima. As such when I accept his views on the matter, which are based on rather thorough study then I am not taking any"rigid Supremacist view" but rather acknowledging very reliable opinion of a learned scholar accepted by many other learned scholars. Rejecting his view without any sort of proper rebuttal on the other hand can be explained only by the preconceived notions born out of some sort of "ism" which in this case is "chauvinistic dravidianism".

Click to expand...

Have any of these writers discussed about these specific poems that I have talked about? If so can you please give me links?
I have only pointed out points that may not have been discussed here before simply because the vast majority here are not interested in them. Sure lack of archeological evidence is a problem but as I have stated before there aren't archeological evidence that even the MBH occurred. So I am looking at the possibilities.
What are the views on these scholars on this poems? If they didn't have any opinion but if i was you who keeps repeating the same things over and over again without proper rebuttals, I do think you have some sort of rigid mindset. I am no one to accuse you of 'ism' but when you are far too liberal in accusing others of 'isms' be ready to understand that the other side may also have mutual feelings about you too.

Also contrary to your assertion I have never said that I am concerned only about archaeological evidence and dismissive of any literary interpretation.

Click to expand...

One of your points was the lack of archeological evidence of such a king. So I had to show that there are no archeological evidence for any Vedic kings as well. You can't be selective in accepting one thing and dismissive of the other.

However you can't just randomly pick whatever you like and dismiss everything else.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a random quote. I did bring about cross references between the MBH and Sangam literatures. There are so many references of lost cities, ancient kings spanning multiple generations, specific city and king names etc. Its just a rigid mindset that refuses to even consider the possibility.

Careful analysis of various personalities and their inter relationship in addition to other hints in Sangam literature makes it abundantly clear that it is written within span of maximum 3-5 generations.

Click to expand...

No only is doubting the span of Sangam literature. Please understand compared to Vedic texts which concentrate mostly on religion and practices and less on lives of people of the civilizations, Sangam texts delve deeper into the lives of people and history of he kings. We also know conclusively that there were older Sangam literatures of Sangam 1 which have been lost to sea.

One can rely solely on literary sources but it does require corroboration from other independent sources whether literary or archaeological. And it is based on this rigorous approach that existence of many of the personalities of Pre Mauryan north has been accepted and not some rather childish fancy full reasoning as shown in the links given by you. And it is due adherence of these high standards that whatever history of Pre Mauryan north has been constructed is rather patchy with blank spaces in between yet authentic. Other wise there is enough Puranic literature which gives long genealogies which we can just take on face value to accept it as authenticate history.

Click to expand...

There is very less authentic information we have about pre Mauryans North. The Vedic texts do not mention about kings or cities. There is a huge blank timeline here. Do we have any evidence that MBH occurred yet?

There are historians in India who interpreted the inscriptions by kharavela about Pandyans kings where1300 yrs was read as 113 yrs simply because they couldn't imagine Tamil dynasties could have pre-dated many of the Aryan kings. This is the standard we have here. Written inscriptions are interpreted wrongly to suit popular narratives.

And btw if some Tamil king claims of feeding armies in Kuruksherta war then most probably he would have seen himself as Arya king anyway.

Click to expand...

See you just validated the previous statement [emoji14]

Devdas said:

Who told you Vedas don't talk about Kings. [emoji14]ush: Ever heard of the Dasharajana (Battle of the Ten Kings) mentioned in Vedas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings

This is the same battle which mentions about an Iranic tribe called Dasyus or Dasa (Iranian cognate: Dahyu or Daha, Greek: Dahae) and Dasyus were not Dravidians(unlike claimed by Aryan invasion supporters).

Click to expand...

I said hardly and are these the only kings/tribes that were present in the entire time spanning thousands are years? Like I mentioned the Vedic texts hardly talk about kings or the civilizations of the time to give us exact picture of these 2nd 3rd millennium BC period. Also don't pick a few lines here and there, do understand the context on why it was said.