Talk:Date of the Tolkappiyam

Trautman's quote on Tolkappiyam
On p. 55, Trautman's "Languages and Nations - The Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras" says, "Although the final form of Tolkappiyam may not have been fixed till about 500 A.S., its earliest form is probably to be placed in the first century B.C. (Zvelebil 1995:705-6)"

Trautman talks about A.C. Burnell's search for non-Paninian grammar and his 'discovery' of Tolkappiyam and his comments about Tolkappiyam and Panini and Prakrit grammars, but I don't know where the comment about 8th century CE is mentioned as a date for Tolkappiyam.--Aadal 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever used that citation, please reproduce relevant portion of citation in the form of quote. Thanks Praveen 23:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lower time frame
Of all the people who have dated Tol late only Herman Tieken is true expert in his field of study. Theoritically that should be the lower limit of the discussion. Taprobanus (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this BGL Swamy?
What reputation does Dr Swamy has with regard to his knowledge of Tamil language or literature. His bio says that he was a reknowned botonnist. I couldn't find anything about his training in Tamil or Tamil literature. How is his assertion is to be taken at the same level of those of Dr. Zvelebil, Prof Hart, etc??

All Dr Swamy has done is write a book in Kannada Tamilu Talaiga Naduve (Lit: Among the Tamil Heads) on his experience of living in Madras as the head of Botony department at the Presidency college. Is this a research article? What a joke?

I can cite hundreds of equally reputable Tamil 'scholars' who assirt that Tamil ruling dynasties date back to 10000 BCE! Let's get real here. Parthi talk/contribs 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That too a Kannada article?! As if we could not find reputable English source. Venu, I agree with you in removing this quote from Botonist(?!). Praveen 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cant you read? Cant you see that I have referred to his "English" work in a peer reviewed and reputed publication?  BGLS has published other papers(about history) also in other peer reviewed reputed journals.  His book, "Chidambaram and Nataraja:problems and generalisations" is available in university libraries all over the world.  Do a search before you shoot your mouth off.  As for his papers on botany, they're referred even today all over the world(do a search on Google scholar).  That last part was just to demonstrate that 'scientific rigor' was not unknown to him.  I should also perhaps remind you that Vaiyapuri Pillai was an advocate and Iravatham Mahadevan a IAS officer.  And, U Ve Swaminathair, a self styled Indiana Jones.   So your 'oh he's a botanist! ' just doesnt cut it.  Good luck.  And btw, about BGLS' command over Tamil, it was second to none.  During his 30 year stay in Madras, he also was a columnist for some Tamil newspapers and magazines.  Sarvagnya 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And by the way, who's this Shesha Iyengar quack? Does he have any publications in peer reviewed academic publications?  Or did you fish him out of here.  Seems like another Pavanarian crackpot.  Can you gimme more details please. Sarvagnya 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some reference to some of the 'peer reviewed' research papers produced by BGL Swamy on Tamil literature and linguistics? Parthi talk/contribs 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The one thats necessary for this article is already in the references. Sarvagnya 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If command over tamil is his qualification on commenting on Tolkappiyam, then we are in shallow waters here! Parthi talk/contribs 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote about his command over tamil because you raised that issue. You seem to have a memory that goes back 5 minutes or so.  Thats not my problem. Sarvagnya 09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to 'know' Tamil - one would expect that given that he lived in Madras for so long, but totally another matter regarding his qualification to comment on Tamil literature. My question was regarding his knowledge of Tamil literature. I think you will understand that. Parthi talk/contribs 10:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Peer reviewers of peer reviewed journals have asked such questions long before you did and have been satisfied. Too bad if you cant satisfy yourself.  Suffice to say, BGLS' knowledge of Tamil and Tamil literature was as good as anybody.  Sarvagnya 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And oh btw... tamilu talegaLa naDuve is not about his experiences as Professor and later principal of Presidency College. That he describes in great humorous detail in pradhyapakana peeTadalli, kaleju ranga and kaleju taranga.  TTN, is infact about Tamil history and literature from the first page to the last. Sarvagnya 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Peer reviewed by other quacks in Karnataka. Thats really a nice qualification. Could you quote some relevant portion from his 'work'? Praveen 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the reference in Kannada necessary? Since there is another reference in English, I think we can remove the Kannada reference (There is no translation. Not every body understands Kannada). Praveen 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Iraniyar is 12th century AD, unncessarily he has been quoted as 8th century AD to advance date. Iraniar quoted three sangam dates. The last being 10th century AD. so he cannot be before 10th century,he is generally accepted as 12th century, why put him as 8th centurymeghamitra 09:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;border: 1px solid #a2a9b1;text-align: left;"

! style="background:lavender" | Expand to see comments by some unsigned ips I think what we refer often now is an Urai(Bhashya)Nool of original Iraiyanar Agaporul(which is lost). Dr.Rawsa Mawnikkanawr has written a book in Tamil on Literary History(Ilakkiya Varalawru) and he has this in sum to say on Tolkappiyam: Many hold the view that Tol predates Eight Anthologies but Prof.Vaiyyawpuri had a different view and expressed in his work but all his points were refuted by another author Vellai Vawranawr.One of the point vital to belief that Tol predates other sangam work is that the literary syntaxes appearing in that work vary at many instances in the later works had TOl been a later work then it would have accomodated those as well.R.Raghava Iyengar quotes the same contradictions viz that explained in TOl is not exploited in the later works and that exposited in the later works are not enumerated in tol to adduce its predating. Venkateswarulu Reddy has the same view.M.Raghava Iyengar has in his book come out with details of the hypothesis of predate. Panam Pawranawr supposed to be the disciple of Tolkappiyar has mentioned about kumariyawru which is supposed to be there as (Vada Vengadam-Then kumari as boundaries)before Kadal KoL.Proves it predates many Tamil works. 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. Though there are no inscriptions in Tamil Nadu that such agreements existed, it is true that such an agreement existed throughout the Sangam 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 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.

Three such Sangams, Talaicchangam (the first), Idaicchangam, the middle and Kadaicchangam (the last), had poets, musicians, kings and nobles as members. According to other accounts, even before the first Sangam, another one with the name of Mahendramalai Tamil Sangam is said to have existed, between 16000 BCE and 14550 BCE. These ideas were first expressed in a commentary to Iraiyanar Akapporul, a medieval work on Akam poetry. While the work itself(Agaporul) is dated by K.A. Nilakantha Sastri to c. 750 CE, '''the commentary dates to the 13th century. ''' Just because it is Tamil not spoken by a large section of Indian population it is being questioned right royally.Sanskrit which is not spoken by any is predated without evidennce(SK Brahmi do not go beyond 300BC and Tamil Brahmi has gone upto 800BC). Why should people construe 1330 years as 113 years in Tamil(hathi matta)while they could attribute hoary antiquity to SK works.Why should Iraiyanar be doubted for 9990 Years he did not have an agenda that point in time and most possibly he was in hold of an earlier work suggesting the same.Tamils had the calender at that time and could count numbers well.It is Not just fantasy story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Date_of_the_Tolkappiyam#Who_is_this_BGL_Swamy.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannada_language I do not think we should place more importance to BGL swamy over many other authors unless he has such ranking.Probably he has a mind set and the expression arose out of that mind set. Kannada and Tamil cannot have been distinguished prior to 1500 Years and TOl dating minimum 2500 Years have clearly mentioned about Kodun Tamizh in 12 regions of India.Kannada is no different and expresses well to Affinity towards Tamil .It is the immigration of the ruling class in that part of the country that changed the structure of Tamil over that land as happened to malayalam when large immigration from foriegn lands occured.
 * }

Quickly redacted the text on the BGL swamy part. Unless anyone has a work that cites the BGL swamy's reference and quash it, I think we better include it; believe one needn't stoop just because an editor is less than civil. Also, if there is a recent paper that compiles various views and presents a plausible, _scholarly_ view, we should just cite that as the most reliable source and move rest to controversies/contentions. Anyway, I am doing a bit of research and, in due time, will present a rewrite to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.147.188 (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

8000 BCE is farfetched!
8000 BCE?? The earliest books on Tamil are generally agreed upon to be around 2000 to 3000 years ago, which is also considered to be the rough age of the language. 8000 BCE would indicate that Tolkapiyam has been around for more than 10000 years seems too far fetched. Further, there is no backing for the same. This needs to be corrected. 122.167.99.104 (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 8000 BCE doesn't seem quite right. someone please correct it. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

indeed, there are a few zeros missing here. The actual date is 80000015 BCE, the text was written by an advanced alien civilization on Kumari Kandam. Tamil culture, needless to say, is a direct continuation of this advanced alien culture. --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"inherently tied"
I've tagged the statment that the date of the Tolkappiyam is "inherently tied to the dates ascribed to the birth and development of Tamil literature" with a verify source tag. As I'm sure most folks here know, one of the most disputed questions in relation to the Tolkappiyam has been the question of whether it preceded, postdated, or was contemporaneous with the rest of Tamil literature. As such, the assertion that the dates are "inherently tied" seems somewhat doubtful, and I'd like to see the source which's been relied on to get an idea of the context of the statement. If the idea behind the statement was really to say something else, a clarification would probably be helpful.

I should note that I've made a few more edits to the article today - I think my edit summaries for each edit should explain why I thought they were necessary. -- Arvind (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Iravatham Mahadevan : did he see the original tolkappiyam??
"Iravatham Mahadevan, an Indian epigraphist, argues that epigraphy sets an upper limit of around the 2nd century CE on the date of the Tolkappiyam, on the basis that the Tolkappiyam is familiar with the use of the puḷḷi - a diacritical mark to distinguish pure consonants from consonants with an inherent vowel - which does not occur in inscriptions before that time."

Original writings of Tolkappiyam is not available. He might have seen copies of the text. whos this guy?! --V4vijayakumar (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating of old literature ?!
By dating old indian literature like Vedas, Tolkappiyam, etc to modern accepted dates, one is just doing injustice to such works. Actually vedas as per tradition is not made but given to humans. Similarly the Tolkappiyam was said to be written during the second sangam age and the demi-gods were said to have attended it. So if you give date it to say 300BC then it may not suit it, because it was not in this era but may be in previous era. And science has no answer to these indian eras. If you say about scientific dates, then it can be argued that it cannot be dated at all because no one know how many times it was remade. So this so called scientific stuff is itself western form of corrupting the eastern dates and culture. The tamils by accepting the western lies like aryan invasion, aryan-dravidian divide, etc are doing great injustice to not only indian but to entire tamil literature. Those indologists are very afraid of their counterparts of the west to really do some proper studies and strides in their fields. The dating of indian antiquity is totally wrong and devoid of any facts...
 * If you still want to quote the dates of respective authors, include the methodology of such dating and how it is proved correct or wrong.27.57.89.107 (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)