Talk:Tamil bell

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations
Wiki Raja 10:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Chola invasion of Srivijaya
I dont understand how a Pandian bell raises such controversy.. What is the big problem here? Here is another wiki article that covers Chola interactions with places across the Indian Ocean. [] It could have been a shipwreck, for certain, but that still doesnt call for Europeans' involvement in what is purely a pre-European-meddling era. 24.228.182.172 (talk)

Inscription
The inscription on the bell was given by the article (before today) as "The bell belongs to Sikaiyya Tanasva's ship" sourced to an Indian Government book from 1982 (pp 45-46 in the book, pp 70-71 in the PDF). The article explains that a translation of ""Mohoyideen Buks" was mistaken, giving a source of a 2012 Waikato Times article. is removing the "Sikaiyya Tanasva" translation, using a 1975 Journal of the Polynesian Society reference, although they also supplied further references on my talk page  with links to Te Papa and Te Ara. I am unsure which sources should prevail; perhaps we should present both sets and let the reader decide.- gadfium 06:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear gadfium,
 * Once again someone called "47.185.159.99" has reverted the page to uphold the Sikaiyya Tanasva reading. At this point, I suspect some foul-play, as the Mohoyideen Buks name is a Muslim name, which might not sit well with some people in India. This however, fits very well with the maritime history of Tamil Muslim groups like the Marakkars.
 * Besides that, anyone with a good enough grasp of the Tamil script can clearly tell that the words Sikaiyya Tanasva occurs nowhere in the inscription. As for the book "A Maritime History Of India", it mentions the Sikaiyya Tanasva reading without explaining how the inscription can be read that way. It doesn't point to sources that explain this bizarre reading either.
 * On the other hand, the Polynesian Society source clearly breaks down the inscription to explain the Mohoyideen Buks reading (see Fig 1 in the paper below):
 * https://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document//Volume_84_1975/Volume_84%2C_No._4/The_story_of_the_Tamil_bell%2C_by_Brett_Hilder%2C_p_476-484/p1
 * Another recent paper from 2020 upholds this reading as well:
 * https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811212512_0036
 * At this point I will be reverting "47.185.159.99"'s edits to the page. If you do want the readers to decide between the two readings, feel free to make edits to allow that. But do note that there might be people with vested interests brigading the page.
 * Regards,
 * Pandiya123 Pandiya123 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Discovered"
Is it really appropriate to say that it was discovered in 1836, since there were clearly already people using it? Might as well say it was discovered in 2024 by me, since I didn't know about it until today. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)