[Peptobismol]

good work MR.vANDAIYAR,
//They should have a vision that sanskrit root words are with tamil.

All sanskrit words are one or combination of tamil words phonetically changed/shrinked//
THAMIZH IS obviously elder to sanskrit, because Thamizh has no complicated phonetics like g/h/f/kh/ss/sh/z/ksh/kr/dh/dhh/dhr/bh/...

This is the simplest most obvious PROOF for the glaring truth that Thamizh was more earlier in the evolutionary path of human languages than all other classical languages!

[Ifroham4]

Thanks for the good researched reply Mr. Nedunchezhlian. Do make a record of all you have observed (visually,etc..) and that that exists now, for after sometime they might cease to exist and later generation may have nothing to say to these denials.

[NeroASERCH]

Dear Thiru idiappam,

You have revealed good queries before soloman. He has not mentioned truthful evidences in support his views. Thank you.

Dear Thiru soloman,

I pose you some questions since we have already discussed all the issues in varrious topics in this forum which you make front stage now.

You are boastfully trying to make sanskrit history equal to tamil.

Let me pose some questions to you which may induce you to give some answers.

1. Don't you think that so far evacuvated inscriptions of tamil Brahmi script all over india proves the antiquity of tamil( 500 BC) than sanskrit ?

2. Don't you think so far evacuvated pali Brahmi script of King Ashokas period (300 BC) never contains sanskrit and sanskrit devanagiri script so far evacuated in india is belonging to (800 AD) ?

3. Don't you think tamil has roots not only for sanskrit language but for old languages like sumerian,Arabian,Akkadian and semiththian whereas sanskrit never has resemblance with them ?

4. Don't you think tamil gods,worshiping habits & customs followed not only in world ancient civilizations but also in vedhic sanskrit?

5.Aryan theory is wrong and dravidian theory is also wrong. But Don't you think Sindhu valley civilisation never contains so called vedhic tradition?

6.Don't you think The east linguistics scholars accepted tamil's antiquity that it must be the language of man when he evolved? Don't you think 'Troskin'- a chinean revealed this ?

7. Don' t you think structurewise -Grammaticalwise all east world languages resemble tamil and not Sanskrit ?

8. Don't you think all tribal people of earth's southern hemisphere resemble tamil ?

9. Don't you think all west languages words have roots in tamil ?

10. Don't you think western linguistics accepted tamils antiquity ?

11. Instead of searching vedhic elements in tamil sankam literature Don't you think searching out tamil culture elements in vedhic literature ?

12. Don't you think tamil version and sanskrit version caste system are somewhat same in nature but different in meaning after tamil king 'manu' went north and formulated 'manusmirithi' and subsequently 'Bhagavatgita' ?

13. Don't you think tamil god inthra and siva used in all four vedhas ? And Manusmirthi and Bhagavatigita were formulated when saiva and vaishnava (vinnava) fighting was going ?

14. Don't you think all north indian tribal languages including the 'Pragui' which is now in palusistan are much resemble tamil and no way to connected to sanskrit ?

15. And at last why don't you discuss issue by issue here ? You seem to be lambasting dravidian at one hand and boasting sanskrit on another - why this hurry / dilemma ? Cool down solomon.

Let us go one by one . You start give sanskrit history with all your proofs. We give tamil history with all proofs. We still more extend this with analysing the structure and formation of language. Okay 8)


f.s.gandhi

[softy54534]

When would Mr Sudhamaa stop telling the hubbers what to do and what not to do!

Mr Geno, Lets get on with this thread!

[Lillie_Steins]

Dear Mr.Roshan,

Thank you for your information. I have downloaded 'tamil fonts' and am able to read Mr. geno's passage in this column.

Dear Mr.geno,

'Angadi', 'Angaththinar' are old words and why did Bharathiyar delete this word 'angaththinar ? The word 'Uruppu' might be getting sound when added with 'Aali'- like 'Ulzhaipali'.

But there are some tamils like R.C.Sakthi , a director in tamil cinema once wrote that he could not get equivalent best word for 'Sparisam'- . He did not know the word 'silirpu'

A great story writer like Geyakkanthan could not find the equivalent word for 'pravakam' which he considered the best word to reveal the situation of uncontrollable 'Unarchi'.

No tamil knows 'Pravakam'. He added 'Unarchi pravakam' which was the correct word to specify what he means to say as a situation in his story. 'Unarchi'-karaipuralthal, unarchi kattukadangathathu were not in his interest.

The equivalent word for 'Ragasiam' is 'kamukkam' which is old but used now only in colloquial language may not get attraction in the mind of modern story tellers / killers.

I have not had the chances of reading stories / novels of present day writers and I have escaped from these killers. I don't know How tamil is killed.

My point here is true devoters like Bharathiyar can only reemancipate tamil.

f.s.gandhi

[MannoFr]

The tone of your Replies by Idiayppam does not look like defending a truth , but to hurt an oppenant, so that Truth need not be analysed.

I Need not have to get a Certificate to Prove my mother Tounge is.

Dating of Literature is not done by me, but by Scholars especially without any internal motives. Tholkappiayam Dating with any Previuous needs appropriate proofs.

Tamil Literature is generally written in OLA and they cannot be preserved morethan 300 years, where as Bible was written on Leather and Papyrus. Similarly Ramayan Manuscript of 100 CE is dated to Ist Cen is in BARODA Museum, you can verify. Dating of RAamayan I gave is accepted by DevanayaPavanar and ALL International Universities, see www.wikhipedia.com

Dating of Rig Veda, was back dated by Maxmuller to 1300 to 400 BCE, that is to back Bible OT which Moses is dated to 13th Cen.
But evidence from Archealogy at Babylon and other places dates Vedas to 2000 BCE to 600 BCE, whereas Books of Moses to later than 350 BCE. See Cambridege, Oxford or any reputed Universities, researches.
India- properly Hindustan derives from the name -The Land mass between Himalayas to Indumaha Samudram, the previleaged place of God, and people here are Hindus, and Bible book of Esther-200BCE, names Hindu country.
Moreover Indian Culture extended up to Babylon, i.e., Iran and Iraq, the Khandara of Mahabharat is in Afganistan-Ghandahar of Highjack fame etc.,

Tholkappiar was Brahmin, who new Sanskrit and refers to Sanskrit Thrice for accepting Sanskrit words to Tamil and Sanskritized Letters (Vadamozhi), Tiruvalluvar uses Adi in Kural no 1 and other places, whereas Present Dravidian Govts changed the name Agaradhi- to AgaraMudali?

Sangam Literature names Nanmarai many a times and hiding this is foolish.
I donot wear My Special Dresses daily and till Writing was Perfected Sanskrit was not used in Stone Inscriptions and that doesnot mean it does not exisit earlier.
Pali is clearly a Collequial Sanskrit and Nobody can backdate it.

Another Big myth, Sanskrit was never spoken, Friends these Popular Foolish statements may get Applause in meetings, but any Serious and Sincere Linguistic Scholar would not put such Statement, every one knows it takes Centuries for the formation to take place. Moreover Literary evidences tells much, Ramayan and Mahabarat are in more sppech toungue, where as Kalidas etc., goes to highly Gramerised Yappu, and that was the reason for slow moving of Sanskrit fom common person, where as Veda Vyasa had Non-Brahimin Disciples.
We Cannot understand Tamil if Pure Senthamilz is spoken, we need Explanations for Even Tirukural. Which is in Simple Tamil. By insisting Purity of Language, Sanskrit grew, but without being a commoner Speaking it. We can explain this To LATIN, inspite of Raman Govt Language, insistance of Grammer Purity it lost itself. Hebrew which was just used in worship became common language of Israel is now widely used now by Jews, whereas Foolishly we adopted Hindi-English in the name of Secularism and now these flasehood researchers spread false preachings.

If anybody accept Tamil and Sanskrit, he is not a Anti-Tamil but accepts Truths.

FSG: Because Christianity(Xty) wanted to spread itself, spoiled the natives , today America, Australia, Philipines –the natives are minorities to less than 10%, by the time Xty came to India, Civilisation has grown and Killing was not possible and They used Dividie and rule. The Earliest visitor to Madurai-Robert-Denobili had to learn Telugu/Tamil and Sanskrit to Probagate, and made A Forgery Veda and Caught and left and died a lonely death in Chennai.

Hating Sanskrit and spreading Falsehood does not help, where as Tamil has much better Grammer and much widely spoken is a Truth.

None of the Tamil Literaure Olaichuvadis are older than 16th Cen, and saying Carbon dated are clear Lies.

DevanaeyaPavanar a Christian started Falsehood, and he uses theBible Genesis story of Noah flood, by dating the book to 5000BCE, which is actually 300 BCE, and that the Cosmic flood dated by Bible in 2200BCE, is now rejected as a Pure Legend, as Mummies and Indus-Saraswathy Archealogy proves.

Dividing of all roots is possible, but they are not Linguistically correct and any body can interpret on their convenience.

Sanskrit and Tamil was created from common say Proto-Indian Language and hence similarites always is there, and religious beliefs say that way only.

-edited-

MosesMohammedSolomon

[doctorzlo]

While googling for Telugu online dictionaries, I noticed the following:
http://www.boloji.com/history/025.htm
I do not know how authorative the article is but it seems to suggest that some words went from old Tamil to Samskrit.
Swarup

[PhillipHer]

Dear Thiru Vasanthan,

I am glad to note your enthusiastic efforts and lively Research presentation.

Before I seek your clarifications on several points on your Report, I have to put forth here one RUDIMENTARY TRUTH here, based on authentic Research studies by many of the Non-British Historians.

(1) The FIRST CLASSICAL LANGUAGE of Humanity?

The FIRST LANGUAGE ever spoken by Mankind anywhere in the whole world is.... undoubtedly.... TAMIL only originated from North India, on the banks of Saraswathi River while the rest of the country was only Forests. Even during the Ramayana period we find that the South India as also the Nasik region of Western India was so. In the regions of the present Turkey, Burma, and Middle-East the Humans were only Savages. The rest of the world mostly were capped up with Ice.

(2) Who the ARYANS?

British dictators purposively made the false histories written just with a malefic intention of DIVIDE AND RULE Policy over the huge mass of enslaved but wise Indians on the whole.

Dr Ambedkar used to call himselves as the True Aryan.

Mahakavi Bharathi says...

"Aariya" naattinar aanhmaiyoadu iyatrum seeriya muyarchigalh.

"Aariyarum" nara veeriyarum...... Vandhae maatharam

Whom does the Tamil-poet Bharathi mean as ARYANS and which country does he call as ARIYANAADU ?

It is totally wrong to say that the so called ARYANS entered into India as Domiciles from the Middle-East and that the most Ancient people of India were called as DRAVIDIANS. In fact there were no separate Races as Aryans and Dravidians. The so called Aryans were the Indian nationals BY BIRTH and NOT BY DOMICILE. There were ONLY ONE RACE initially all over India, then confined to only the Northern part and that Race was the Aryans. the descrption of their complexion height and look are all the False stories, Myth and Imaginary creations made by the British rulers who invaded on the Indian Culture too.

There were only one mass of people in North India, in the days of Linguistic origination, who were subsequently named as ARYANS in Sanskrit, which means ... Uthaman... Great-Man. In Sanskrit Literature and stories we can find the wife addressing the Husband as ARYA. Even Seetha-Dhevi addressed so as per Valmiki Ramayana.

(3) Who the DRAVIDA?

First of all we have to think over, from which Language this Word DRAVIDA has emanated? Is it a Tamil word?. No Not at all. Because the Tamil Language does not have the cluster of letters like Dra, Pla, Kru etc., whereas Sanskrit and all other Indian Languages have so.

In fact the word DRAVIDA is a Sanskrit term, the Sanskrit DHAATHU for which is ... "DRU".... meaning ..."MOVE".

From the same Dhaathu, the word "Dravyam" meaning Money / Wealth since it always passes from hand to hand and does not remain at one place.

And why the so called Dravidians were named so?

The Sanskrit word DRAVID means WAGABOND ("Naadoadi" in Tamil)

Why should they be called so ?

One section of the people were highly intelligent, enterprising and ADVENTUROUS enough (similar to British) to boldly venture into new areas of the forests and make an advanced life there. This sections of people were mockingly called as WAGABONDS (Dravid in Sanskrit) by their own brethren who were contented to be static in the specific regions already well-developed. Whereas the moving Indians advanced more ahead by means of wisdom, sincerety and hard toil.... as the History speaks of the Tamilians of Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore and elsewhere, well-known for such exemply Human potentialities coupled with with high human calibre.

The proverbs .... YAADHUM OORAE YAAVARUM KAELHIR.... and ....

.... THIRAI KADAL OADIYUM DHIRAVIYAM THAEDU....

.... are only in Tamil, and in no ther Languages anywhere in the world.

(4) Origin of the new Language SANSKRIT?

The first Group of Mankind speaking Tamil had no Religions of their own but were worshipping the Sun as the Super-power. They were mostly eating Pond-Fish and Agro-products.. Later the Rishis came to these regions, who called themselves as the messengers of God.

The local people believed it because they had some Super-human powers and declared that they had seen God with naked eyes. New skilss like Manthra-sathram, Dhanur-Sasthram (Bow & Arrow), Ayur-Vedam, Jothisham, Vaana Sasthram etc. added honour to that subsequent classical language. That is how the Hinduism originated in India., through which the Language Sanskrit were taught by the Rishis, along with the Vedas as Gospels, naming it as the VOICE OF GOD. That is how Sanskrit is called as Deva-Bhasha for Hindus, (similar to Arabic for Muslims and Hebrew for Christians, since their Gospels are written in those Languages).

Kings encouraged that Deva-basha, spread it amongst the Linguistic scholars but considered Tamil as a cheap Tribal Language and inferior to Sanskrit., which alone were suited for the Intellectuals.

So the Kings and the Scholars were conversing in Sanskrit while the people were speaking Tamil. In course of time both the languages got mixed up in different forms at different regions and got named as various initial Offshoot Languages like Pali and Prakrit.

We can note in Sakunthalam original text written by the Sanskrit poet Kalidasa,....

King Dushyantha speaks to Sakunthalai ( Tribal-girl) in SANSKRIT .... !!!

.... while Sakunthalai as also the Fishermen speak in PRAKRIT ???

Since Sanskrit was attributed as the Godly Language it was given high honour by the Kings, without whose adequate support, Tamilians could not comparatively flourish well. So they had to move down far south towards the dense forests leaving off their original settlements in North India.

(5) How different Languages within ONE COUNTRY of ONE RACE?

After several centuries of origination of Tamil, these various groups of people migrated to different regions of North India, speaking the admixed forms of Tamil and Sanskrit with further additions of foreign languages like Arab, Persian, Portugese, Latin and Greek in different modes., named them as separate languages. .... If the Tamilians of Kanyakumari, Thirunelveli, Coimbatore, Madurai,Chennai and SriLanka do not mutually meet for more than a century, the various forms of Tamil they are using now would have been named as different Languages other than Tamil.

(6) TAMIL ... not a Deva-basha (DIVINE LANGUAGE) ?

Subsequently... rather very late after several centuries... the Tamil-speaking section of people of one and the same race came to know that TAMIL ALSO IS A DEVA-BASHA (Divine-Language) since they found that even an ordinary man, an illiterate Hunter, innocent Farm-labour, and an ignorant Pot-maker could speak with Gods in Tamil as well as see Him in different forms of their choice as Lord Vishnu, Vinayaka, Siva, Muruha, Kali and so on ... the Deities of the same Religion, so called SANATHANA-DHARMA or Hinduism. and the

... Gods themselves declared TAMIL ALSO IS THE DEVA-BASHA (Divine-Language)

Any Comment .... or... Criticism?

[Lt_Apple]

Every one of us would love Our Mother Tongue to be the best in the world and Tamil to be the Oldest.

Historical Linguistics is a Secular Science without preferences.

While the Earliest of Tamil Literaure Tholkappiyam is dated to 350 CE, we have Sanskrit Literature Like Valmiki Ramayan aound 1000BCE, And we have complete manuscript with Carbon14 dated to 1st Century CE. Vedas- which is in unrefined SANSKRIT is dated now 2000-600 BCE( see wikipedia), but many Tamil Scholars in eagerness to lift Tamil try to date Sanskrit to later date, without proper basis.

As friends shows, the earliest Brahmi- Stone inscrptions have Telugu and Kannada words dated 300 BCE, though we donot have any literature from this languages for another 1000 years atleast.

We should accept that Sanskrit and Tamil as Two Eyes of India.

European Scholars, seeing that Sanskrit Literature- has somuch, said Indians cannot have such Knowledge and Identified SAnskrit is from them and called Aryans- for which there is no basis.

Anybody trying to call a section of Indians, as Aryan or Dravidian accept that Indians are not knowlegable.

Let us be proud of both.
MosesMohammedSolomon

[Paul Bunyan]

Dear Mr.Geno,

You are correct.

After first century A.D. only Vedhas in sanskrit were written. The element of Inthiran worship in vedhas had derived from tamil culture.

Maxmuller says in his book,' A history of Ancient Sanskrit literature,page 264' that eventhough script was written in later half of first century all literature in sanskrit were mouth pieces from time immemorial.

Maxmuller words led historians who want to boastfully eulosize vedic culture,tell that vedic culture is prevailing from time immemorial. That is from 5000 B.C to 10000 B.C. They can even tell 15000 years from now or add up without proof more than that.

PANINI wrote his sanskrit grammar 'Ashtaththayi' in prakrid not in sanskrit that too in second century A.D. This proves sanskrit is a artificial/created language.

Iravadham Mahadevan also has some ambiguity in telling the truth because he follows vedhic culture and sanskrit notion (He is also a sanskrit scholar).

Dr. Mathivanan deciphered the sindhu script and found the tamil words.

Nobody can hide the truth for ever.

Culturally and languagewise tamils are the forefathers of world civilizations.

f.s.gandhi

[radikal]

Both the languages are equally good. Tamil language is our mother tongue. Sanskrit is our rashtra basha. we should learn sanskrit to read our religious literature.

[HedgeYourBets]

Dear Thiru Soloman,

History telling is based on scientifical facts and not that compromising like ‘two eyes’ and such kind of integrity / unity making.

You think that there are three major religions. But there are lot of religions in world which induced this three religions. That spoke history. These three religions have made world divided. Unification of these / the trying to do this will make another religion.
Hence Kindly do not make history interpretation based on commonness but make through facts.

Tamil is the eldest. The results got from the following interpretations proved this.

1. All Indo-European root words are available in tamil.

2. Most of the Indo-European root words are not available in Sanskrit.

3. Roots of all Sanskrit words are available in tamil whereas most of the Sanskrit roots are not available with Sanskrit.

4. Sanskrit literature were made collectively during 2nd and 3rd centuries. Carbon dating proof is there.

5.The astrological calculations mentioned in the Sanskrit literature do not mean the historical incidents of prehistoric period happened while people talked Sanskrit language. This is like someother history telling in someother language.

6. Sanskrit literature belongs to certain religion which was induced by cultural habits of old tamils.

7. Tamil literature are secular in nature because lot of religions formulated in tamil land / / Indian land whereas Sanskrit literature belongs to latest evolved religion.

8. Sanskrit was never spoken anywhere in India. It was ‘othuvar’ language / God language / Deva Basha.

9. Pragrid was evolved from tamil and the archestrated form of Pragrid is Sanskrit. Sanskrit Grammar was not written in Sanskrit.


If you analyse history in this perspective you will find lot of evidences / proofs.

f.s.gandhi

[Paul Bunyan]

I have read the previous discussion forums comparing Tamil and
sanskrit. Its true that Tamil and sanskrit have complimented each
other i.e Sanskrit has borrowed many words from Tamil and Vice
versa. But it completely saddens me to see that some of them
have concluded saying Tamil has been derived from sanskrit. I
have made a year long research on this area and I have written a
article based on all my findings. I have also published my article as
blogs in various sites. Plz check the URL
http://testoftime.blogspot.com/ or mail to
vasanthan.b@rediffmail.com to get the article as PDF file.

Vasanthan B

[Lillie_Steins]

Sudhaama!

Thanks for "inviting" me to post here! anyways, i wud "jump in" the thread where i feel i need to post!

But you haven't answered the elaborate post that Nedunchezhiyan has given for your post on dec 18, 2004!!!

He has made that post on dec. 21, 2004, and you haven't responded to his post!

Please do so - so that we know where you stand on this issue!

And dont worry, if im not able to respond to you immediately, then - great hubbers like thiru. Nedunchezhiya,. thiru. Idiapam, and thiru. Masillamani would be kind enuf to come here and post - so that you can have constant engagement!

[Paul Bunyan]

Dear Thiru senthilkumaras,

Kindly refer my postings in threads, 'Sanskrit - tamil myth' dated April 17,2005 and 'Is tamil is derived from sanskrit' dated April 25, 2005 regarding Dr.Mathivanan's findings.

He used mesopatomian and Brahmi script to dechipher out sindhu valley script.

f.s.gandhi

[Slonopotam845]

Dear Idiyappam,
you have not given a single evidence to back you, see dating of Vedas and Other Sanskrit literature in Wikipedia for yourself.
Devaneyan, very clearly accepted, Tholkappiyar as BRahmin, and I shall gives his various book references tomorrow. Kappiyakudi means a family which makes Kathakalarshebams and thats clear of his back ground.

Tholkappiyar talks about Vadasol many a times and if you want references all can be given tomorrow, and You can mail me by priate mail and I can reply you.

I am putting my article presented in another forum for your reading.

DRAVIDIAN MOVEMENT- WHAT IS IT?

The Europeans seeing that India has the mother of all their Languages- Sanskrit and Tamil, and Much Superior Divine contacts than the much confused Hebrews.

Portughese, first under Loyala and later by Fransis Xavier, broke each and every temple in Goa, then Inquisition was brought. "Anybody who has ANy God idols are helping Brahmins can be killed", this was Xavier wanted law. Robert DENObili, tried deception, he staying in Madurai, during Naicker Period, was required to read Tamil and Telugu but also required SANSKRIT, made a fraud Veda, called Yesur Veda, but failed miserably, and caught for fraud, left Madurai and died lonely in Chennai, and his converts remained less than 300 by all deception means.

One Colonel.Boden, who served in India for morethan 2 decades, felt bad on failure of Conversion Business, Pledged Huge Amount to OXford University for Sanskrit Scholarship, to help Missonaries.

Came RajaRamMohanrai, wel versant in Sanskrit and Persian, other than Bengali and English, Learned HEBREW, GREEK AND LATIN and found Brahmo SAmaj,
British who felt his ideals are closer to Christians and a Conversion of A Prominant Brahmin, would fetch huge returns, appointed a Learned Bishop to shaddow Rai, and convert him. RESULT, Rev. Fr. Adams was converted from Xty to Brahmos.

This created huge problems, then using the Boden's Trust, a Non-British, Non-Anglican church member Young Maxmuller was picked to translate Vedas, and ALL Indian Libraries were forced to buy his books. Monier Williams etc., are the product of this Boden Trust.

Wrong Fradulant translation by Muller, etc., was used for Aryan race theory.
By this they say Hinduism is not Indian and also the Europeans are the Aryans, who then becomes the cradle of Sanskritetc.,

Any body who calls a section of Hindus as Aryans and others as Dravidians are accepting the Missionaries fraud that Indian are not brained to make Sanskrit and Tamil and they are European imports.

Dr. Ambedkar, who was never a Hinduism supporter, wrote:

1.THe Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.
2.There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be the natives of India.
3.There is no evidience to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.
4. THe Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryas were different in colour from the Dasas and Dayus .....

" If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine the race of a people ..... then its measurements extablish that the Brahmins and the Untouchables belong to the same race. From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans the Untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the Untouchables are also Dravidians....

WRITINGS AND SPEECHES - EDUCATION Dept. Govt. of Mahrashtra vol -7 page 85 and 302-303.

The Casteism is increased due to the Dravidian rule.

The Dravidian Fathers want their Posting and Party Leadership to their Sons. Eg.Karunanidhi, Ramdoss etc., practicsing Varnasram dharma.

Unless We Indians understand the Mission of Church- to divide and Convert, of which Hate - Brahimins means hate Hinduism, Church comes in; Indian Civilisation and Culture would have grave problems.
Further I BRING another posting in hub itself which was locked here so that every body can reply.

pirayaaniNewbie HubberJoined: 31 Mar 2005Posts: 7 Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject: Vedic Roots of Early Tamil Culture?

I had hoped to post this in the history section, but apparently it is only for moderators. Anway I just wanted some opinion on this claim: In recent years attempts have been made to cast a new look at ancient India. For too long the picture has been distorted by myopic colonial readings of India’s prehistory and early history, and more recently by ill-suited Marxist models. One such distortion was the Aryan invasion theory, now definitively on its way out, although its watered-down avatars are still struggling to survive. It will no doubt take some more time—and much more effort on the archaeological front—for a new perspective of the earliest civilization in the North of the subcontinent to take firm shape, but a beginning has been made. We have a peculiar situation too as regards Southern India, and particularly Tamil Nadu. Take any classic account of Indian history and you will see how little space the South gets in comparison with the North. While rightly complaining that “Hitherto most historians of ancient India have written as if the south did not exist,”[ 1]Vincent Smith in his Oxford History of India hardly devotes a few pages to civilization in the South, that too with the usual stereotypes to which I will return shortly. R. C. Majumdar’s Advanced History of India,[2] or A. L. Basham’s The Wonder That Was India[3] are hardly better in that respect. The first serious History of South India,[4] that of K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, appeared only in 1947. Even recent surveys of Indian archaeology generally give the South a rather cursory treatment. The Context It is a fact that archaeology in the South has so far unearthed little that can compare to findings in the North in terms of ancientness, massiveness or sophistication : the emergence of urban civilization in Tamil Nadu is now fixed at the second or third century BC, about two and a half millennia after the appearance of Indus cities. Moreover, we do not have any fully or largely excavated city or even medium-sized town : Madurai, the ancient capital of the Pandya kingdom, has hardly been explored at all ; Uraiyur, that of the early Cholas, saw a dozen trenches ;[5] Kanchipuram, the Pallavas’ capital, had seventeen, and Karur, that of the Cheras, hardly more ; Kaveripattinam,[6] part of the famous ancient city of Puhar (the first setting of the Shilappadikaram epic), saw more widespread excavations, yet limited with regard to the potential the site offers. The same may be said of Arikamedu (just south of Pondicherry), despite excavations by Jouveau-Dubreuil, Wheeler, and several other teams right up to the 1990s.[7] All in all, the archaeological record scarcely measures up to what emerges from the Indo-Gangetic plains—which is one reason why awareness of these excavations has hardly reached the general public, even in Tamil Nadu ; it has heard more about the still superficial exploration of submerged Poompuhar than about the painstaking work done in recent decades at dozens of sites. (See a map of Tamil Nadu’s important archaeological sites below.) But there is a second reason for this poor awareness : scholars and politicians drawing inspiration from the Dravidian movement launched by E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker (“Periyar”) have very rigid ideas about the ancient history of Tamil Nadu. First, despite all evidence to the contrary, they still insist on the Aryan invasion theory in its most violent version, turning most North Indians and upper-caste Indians into descendants of the invading Aryans who overran the indigenous Dravidians, and Sanskrit into a deadly rival of Tamil. Consequently, they assert that Tamil is more ancient than Sanskrit, and civilization in the South older than in the North. Thus recently, Tamil Nadu’s Education minister decried in the State Assembly those who go “to the extent of saying that Dravidian civilization is part of Hinduism” and declared, “The Dravidian civilization is older than the Aryan.”[8] It is not uncommon to hear even good Tamil scholars utter such claims. Now, it so happens that archaeological findings in Tamil Nadu, though scanty, are nevertheless decisive. Indeed, we now have a broad convergence between literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence.[9] Thus names of cities, kings and chieftains mentioned in Sangam literature have often been confirmed by inscriptions and coins dating back to the second and third centuries BC. Kautilya speaks in his Arthashastra (c. fourth century BC) of the “easily travelled southern land route,” with diamonds, precious stones and pearls from the Pandya country ;[10] two Ashokan rock edicts (II and XIII[11]) respectfully refer to Chola, Pandya and Chera kingdoms as “neighbours,” therefore placing them firmly in the third century BC ; we also have Kharavela’s cave inscription near Bhubaneswar in which the Kalinga king (c. 150 BC) boasts of having broken up a “confederacy of the Dravida countries which had lasted for 113 years.”[12] From all these, it appears that the earliest Tamil kingdoms must have been established around the fourth century BC ; again, archaeological findings date urban developments a century or two later, but this small gap will likely be filled by more extensive excavations. But there’s the rub : beyond the fourth century BC and back to 700 or 1000 BC, all we find is a megalithic period, and going still further back, a neolithic period starting from about the third millennium BC. While those two prehistoric periods are as important as they are enigmatic, they show little sign of a complex culture,[*] and no clear connection with the dawn of urban civilization in the South. Therefore the good minister’s assertion as to the greater ancientness of the “Dravidian civilization” finds no support on the ground. In order to test his second assertion that that civilization is outside Hinduism, or the common claim that so-called “Dravidian culture” is wholly separate from so-called “Aryan” culture, let us take an unbiased look at the cultural backdrop of early Tamil society and try to make out some of its mainstays. That is what I propose to do briefly, using not only literary evidence, but first, material evidence from archaeological and numismatic sources as regards the dawn of the Sangam age. I may add that I have left out the Buddhist and Jain elements, already sufficiently well known, to concentrate on the Vedic and Puranic ones, which are usually underemphasized. Also, I will not deal here with the origin of South Indian people and languages, or with the nature of the process often called “Aryanization of the South” (I prefer the word “Indianization,” used in this context by an archaeologist[13]). Those complex questions have been debated for decades, and will only reach firm conclusions, I believe, with ampler archaeological evidence. Vedic & Puranic Culture—Material Evidence Culturally, the megalithic people of the South shared many beliefs and practices with megalithic builders elsewhere in the subcontinent and beyond. Yet certain practices and artefacts were at least compatible with the Vedic world and may well have prepared for a ready acceptance of Vedic concepts—a natural assimilative process still observable in what has been called the “Hinduization” of tribals. Thus several cists surrounded by stone-circles have four vertical slabs arranged in the shape of a swastika.[14] The famous 3.5 metre-high figure of Mottur (in North Arcot district), carved out of a granite slab, is “perhaps the first anthropomorphic representation of a god in stone in Tamil Nadu.”[15] Some megalithic burials have yielded iron or bronze objects such as mother goddess, horned masks, the trishul etc. As the archaeologist I. K. Sarma observes, such objects are intimately connected with the worship of brahmanical Gods of the historical period, such as Siva, Kartikeya and later Amba. The diadems of Adichanallur burials are like the mouth-pieces used by the devotees of Murugan.[ 16] The archaeologist K. V. Raman also notes : Some form of Mother-Goddess worship was prevalent in the Megalithic period ... as suggested by the discovery of a small copper image of a Goddess in the urn-burials of Adichchanallur. More recently, in Megalithic burials the headstone, shaped like the seated Mother, has been located at two places in Tamil Nadu.[17] Megalithic culture attached great importance to the cult of the dead and ancestors, which parallels that in Vedic culture. It is also likely that certain gods later absorbed into the Hindu pantheon, such as Aiyanar (or Sastha), Murugan (the later Kartik), Korravai (Durga), Naga deities, etc., were originally tribal gods of that period. Though probably of later date, certain megalithic sites in the Nilgiris were actually dolmen shrines, some of them holding Ganesh-like images, others lingams.[ 18] Megalithic practices evocative of later Hinduism are thus summarized by the British archaeologists Bridget and Raymond Allchin : The orientation of port-holes and entrances on the cist graves is frequently towards the south. ... This demands comparison with later Indian tradition where south is the quarter of Yama. Among the grave goods, iron is almost universal, and the occasional iron spears and tridents (trisulas) suggest an association with the god Siva. The discovery in one grave of a trident with a wrought-iron buffalo fixed to the shaft is likewise suggestive, for the buffalo is also associated with Yama, and the buffalo demon was slain by the goddess Durga, consort of Siva, with a trident. ... The picture which we obtain from this evidence, slight as it is, is suggestive of some form of worship of Siva.[ 19] About the third century BC, cities and towns appear owing to yet little understood factors ; exchanges with the Mauryan and Roman empires seem to have played an important catalytic role, as also the advent of iron. From the very beginning, Buddhist, Jain and Hindu[*] streaks are all clear. Among the earliest evidences, a stratigraphic dig by I. K. Sarma within the garbagriha of the Parasuramesvara temple at Gudimallam,[*] brought to light the foundation of a remarkable Shivalingam of the Mauryan period (possibly third century BC) : it was fixed within two circular pithas at the centre of a square vastu-mandala. “The deity on the frontal face of the tall linga reveals himself as a proto-puranic Agni-Rudra”[20] standing on a kneeling devayana. If this early date, which Sarma established on stratigraphic grounds and from pottery sherds, is correct, this fearsome image could well be the earliest such representation in the South. Then we find “terracotta figures like Mother Goddess, Naga-linga etc., from Tirukkampuliyur ; a seated Ganesa from Alagarai ; Vriskshadevata and Mother Goddess from Kaveripakkam and Kanchipuram, in almost certainly a pre-Pallava sequence.”[21] Cult of a Mother goddess is also noticed in the early levels at Uraiyur,[22] and at Kaveripattinam, Kanchipuram and Arikamedu.[ 23] Excavations at Kaveripattinam have brought to light many Buddhist artefacts, but also, though of later date, a few figurines of Yakshas, of Garuda and Ganesh.[24] Evidence of the Yaksha cult also comes from pottery inscriptions at Arikamedu.[25] The same site also yielded one square copper coin of the early Cholas, depicting on the obverse an elephant, a ritual umbrella, the Srivatsa symbol, and the front portion of a horse.[ 26] This is in fact an important theme which recurs on many coins of the Sangam age[27] recovered mostly from river beds near Karur, Madurai etc. Besides the Srivatsa (also found among artefacts at Kanchipuram[28]), many coins depict a swastika, a trishul, a conch, a shadarachakra, a damaru, a crescent moon, and a sun with four, eight or twelve rays. Quite a few coins clearly show a yagnakunda. That is mostly the case with the Pandyas’ coins, some of which also portray a yubastambha to which a horse is tied as part of the ashvamedha sacrifice. As the numismatist R. Krishnamurthy puts it, “The importance of Pandya coins of Vedic sacrifice series lies in the fact that these coins corroborate what we know from Sangam literature about the performance of Vedic sacrifices by a Pandya king of this age.”[29] Finally, it is remarkable how a single coin often depicts symbols normally associated with Lord Vishnu (the conch, the srivatsa, the chakra) together with symbols normally associated with Lord Shiva (the trishul, the crescent moon, the damaru).[30] Clearly, the two “sects”—a very clumsy word—got along well enough. Interestingly, other symbols depicted on these coins, such as the three- or six-arched hill, the tree-in-railing, and the ritual stand in front of a horse, are frequently found in Mauryan iconography.[31] All in all, the material evidence, though still meagre, makes it clear that Hindu concepts and cults were already integrated in the society of the early historic period of Tamil Nadu side by side with Buddhist and Jain elements. More excavations, for which there is great scope, are certain to confirm this, especially if they concentrate on ancient places of worship, as at Gudimallam. Let us now see the picture we get from Sangam literature. Vedic & Puranic Culture—Literary Evidence It is unfortunate that the most ancient Sangam compositions are probably lost for ever ; we only know of them through brief quotations in later works. An early text, the Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam, dated by most scholars to the first or second century AD,[*] is “said to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school.”[32] Its content, says N. Raghunathan, shows that “the great literature of Sanskrit and the work of its grammarians and rhetoricians were well known and provided stimulus to creative writers in Tamil.... The Tolkappiyam adopts the entire Rasa theory as worked out in the Natya Sastra of Bharata.”[33] It also refers to rituals and customs coming from the “Aryans,” a word which in Sangam literature simply means North Indians of Vedic culture ; for instance, the Tolkappiyam “states definitely that marriage as a sacrament attended with ritual was established in the Tamil country by the Aryas,”[ 34] and it uses the same eight forms of marriage found in the Dharmashastras. Moreover, it mentions the caste system or “fourfold jathis” in the form of “Brahmins, Kings, Vaishyas and Vellalas,”[35] and calls Vedic mantras “the exalted expression of great sages.”[36] The Tolkappiyam also formulates the captivating division of the Tamil land into five regions (tinai ), each associated with one particular aspect of love, one poetical expression, and also one deity : thus the hills (kuriñji ) with union and with Cheyon (Murugan) ; the desert (palai ) with separation and Korravai (Durga) ; the forests (mullai ) with awaiting and Mayon (Vishnu-Krishna) ; the seashore (neytal ) with wailing and Varuna ; and the cultivated lands (marutam) with quarrel and Ventan (Indra). Thus from the beginning we have a fusion of non-Vedic deities (Murugan or Korravai), Vedic gods (Indra, Varuna) and later Puranic deities such as Vishnu (Mal or Tirumal). Such a synthesis is quite typical of the Hindu temperament and cannot be the result of an overnight or superficial influence ; it is also as remote as possible from the separateness we are told is at the root of so-called “Dravidian culture.” Expectedly, this fusion grows by leaps and bounds in classical Sangam poetry whose composers were Brahmins, princes, merchants, farmers, including a number of women. The “Eight Anthologies” of poetry (or ettuttokai ) abound in references to many gods : Shiva, Uma, Murugan, Vishnu, Lakshmi (named Tiru, which corresponds to Sri) and several other Saktis.[37] The Paripadal, one of those anthologies, consists almost entirely of devotional poetry to Vishnu. One poem[38] begins with a homage to him and Lakshmi, and goes on to praise Garuda, Shiva on his “majestic bull,” the four-faced Brahma, the twelve Adityas, the Ashwins, the Rudras, the Saptarishis, Indra with his “dreaded thunderbolt,” the devas and asuras, etc., and makes glowing references to the Vedas and Vedic scholars.[39] So does the Purananuru,[40] another of the eight anthologies, which in addition sees Lord Shiva as the source of the four Vedas (166) and describes Lord Vishnu as “blue-hued” (174) and “Garuda-bannered” (56).[41] Similarly, a poem (360) of a third anthology, the Akananuru, declares that Shiva and Vishnu are the greatest of gods[42] Not only deities or scriptures, landmarks sacred in the North, such as the Himalayas or Ganga, also become objects of great veneration in Tamil poetry. North Indian cities are referred to, such as Ujjain, or Mathura after which Madurai was named. Court poets proudly claim that the Chera kings conquered North Indian kingdoms and carved their emblem onto the Himalayas. They clearly saw the subcontinent as one entity ; thus the Purananuru says they ruled over “the whole land / With regions of hills, mountains, / Forests and inhabited lands / Having the Southern Kumari / And the great Northern Mount / And the Eastern and Western seas / As their borders....”[43] The Kural (second to seventh century AD), authored by the celebrated Tiruvalluvar, is often described as an “atheistic” text, a hasty misconception. True, Valluvar’s 1,330 pithy aphorisms mostly deal with ethics (aram), polity (porul) and love (inbam), following the traditional Sanskritic pattern of the four objects of human life : dharma, artha, kama, and moksha—the last implied rather than explicit. Still, the very first decade is an invocation to Bhagavan : “The ocean of births can be crossed by those who clasp God’s feet, and none else”[44] (10) ; the same idea recurs later, for instance in this profound thought : “Cling to the One who clings to nothing ; and so clinging, cease to cling” (350). The Kural also refers to Indra (25), to Vishnu’s avatar of Vamana (610), and to Lakshmi (e.g. 167), asserting that she will shower her grace only on those who follow the path of dharma (179, 920). There is nothing very atheistic in all this, and in reality the values of the Kural are perfectly in tune with those found in several shastras or in the Gita.[45] Let us briefly turn to the famous Tamil epic Shilappadikaram (second to sixth century ad), which relates the beautiful and tragic story of Kannagi and Kovalan ; it opens with invocations to Chandra, Surya, and Indra, all of them Vedic Gods, and frequently praises Agni, Varuna, Shiva, Subrahmanya, Vishnu-Krishna, Uma, Kali, Yama and so forth. There are mentions of the four Vedas and of “Vedic sacrifices being faultlessly performed.” “In more than one place,” writes V. Ramachandra Dikshitar, the first translator of the epic into English, “there are references to Vedic Brahmans, their fire rites, and their chanting of the Vedic hymns. The Brahman received much respect from the king and was often given gifts of wealth and cattle.”[46] When Kovalan and Kannagi are married, they “walk around the holy fire,” a typically Vedic rite still at the centre of the Hindu wedding. Welcomed by a tribe of fierce hunters on their way to Madurai, they witness a striking apparition of Durga, who is addressed equally as Lakshmi and Sarasvati—the three Shaktis of the Hindu trinity. There are numerous references to legends from the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and the Puranas. After worshipping at two temples, one of Vishnu and the other of Shiva, the Chera king Shenguttuvan goes to the Himalayas in search of a stone for Kannagi’s idol, and bathes it in the Ganges—in fact, the waters of Ganga and those of Cauvery were said to be equally sacred. Similar examples could be given from the Manimekhalai : even though it is a predominantly Buddhist work, it also mentions many Vedic and Puranic gods, and attributes the submergence of Puhar to the neglect of a festival to Indra. As the archaeologist and epigraphist R. Nagaswamy remarks, “The fact that the literature of the Sangam age refers more to Vedic sacrifices than to temples is a pointer to the popularity of the Vedic cults among the Sangam Tamils.”[47] I should also make a mention of the tradition that regards Agastya, the great Vedic Rishi, as the originator of the Tamil language. He is said to have written a Tamil grammar, Agattiyam, to have presided over the first two Sangams, and is even now honoured in many temples of Tamil Nadu and worshipped in many homes. One of his traditional names is “Tamil muni.” The Shilappadikaram refers to him as “the great sage of the Podiyil hill,” and a hill is still today named after him at the southernmost tip of the Western Ghats. It would be tempting to continue with this enumeration, which could easily fill a whole anthology. As a matter of fact, P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri showed with a wealth of examples how “a knowledge of Sanskrit literature from the Vedic period to the Classical period is essential to understand and appreciate a large number of passages scattered among the poems of Tamil literature.”[48] Others have added to the long list of such examples.[ 49] In other words, Vedic and Puranic themes are inextricably woven into Sangam literature and therefore into the most ancient culture of the Tamil land known to us. Historical Period The historical period naturally takes us to the great Pallava, Chola and Pandya temples and to an overflowing of devotional literature by the Alwars, the Nayanmars and other seekers of the Divine who wandered over the length and breadth of the Tamil land, filling it with bhakti. But here let us just take a look at the rulers. An inscription records that a Pandya king led the elephant force in the Mahabharata War on behalf of the Pandavas, and that early Pandyas translated the epic into Tamil.[50] The first named Chera king, Udiyanjeral, is said to have sumptuously fed the armies on both sides during the War at Kurukshetra ; Chola and Pandya kings also voiced such claims—of course they may be devoid of historical basis, but they show how those kings sought to enhance their glory by connecting their lineage to heroes of the Mahabharata. So too, Chola and Chera kings proudly claimed descent from Lord Rama or from kings of the Lunar dynasty—in other words, an “Aryan” descent. As regards religious practices, the greatest Chola king, Karikala, was a patron of both the Vedic religion and Tamil literature, while the Pandya king Nedunjelyan performed many Vedic sacrifices, and the dynasty of the Pallavas made their capital Kanchi into a great centre of Sanskrit learning and culture. K. V. Raman summarizes the “religious inheritance of the Pandyas” in these words : The Pandyan kings were great champions of the Vedic religion from very early times.... According to the Sinnamanur plates, one of the early Pandyan kings performed a thousand velvi or yagas Vedic sacrifices.... Though the majority of the Pandyan kings were Saivites, they extended equal patronage to the other faiths ... and included invocatory verses to the Hindu Trinity uniformly in all their copper-plate grants. The Pandyas patronised all the six systems or schools of Hinduism.... Their religion was not one of narrow sectarian nature but broad-based with Vedic roots. They were free from linguistic or regional bias and took pride in saying that they considered Tamil and Sanskritic studies as complementary and equally valuable.[51] This pluralism can already be seen in the two epics Shilappadikaram and Manimekhalai, which amply testify that what we call today Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism coexisted harmoniously. “The sectarian spirit was totally absent,”[52] writes Ramachandra Dikshitar. “Either the people did not look upon religious distinctions seriously, or there were no fundamental differences between one sect and another.”[53] That is also a reason why I have not stressed Buddhism and Jainism here. Those two faiths were no doubt significant in the early stages of Tamil society, but not as dominant as certain scholars insist upon in an attempt to eclipse the Vedic and Puranic elements. Buddhism and Jainism did contribute greatly in terms of religious thought, art and science, but faded centuries later under the flood of Hindu bhakti ; their insistence on world-shunning monasticism also did not agree very well with the Tamil temperament, its cult of heroism and its zest for life. In any case, this superficial glance at Sangam literature makes it clear at the very least that, in the words of John R. Marr, “these poems show that the synthesis between Tamil culture and what may loosely be termed Aryan culture was already far advanced.[ 54] Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines, “There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”[55] The Myth of Dravidian Culture And yet, such statements do not go deep enough, as they still imply a North-South contrast and an unknown Dravidian substratum over which the layer of “Aryan” culture was deposited. This view is only milder than that of the proponents of a “separate” and “secular” Dravidian culture, who insist on a physical and cultural Aryan-Dravidian clash as a result of which the pure “Dravidian” culture got swamped. As we have seen, archaeology, literature and Tamil tradition all fail to come up with the slightest hint of such a conflict. Rather, as far as the eye can see into the past there is every sign of a deep cultural interaction between North and South, which blossomed not through any “imposition” but in a natural and peaceful manner, as everywhere else in the subcontinent and beyond. As regards an imaginary Dravidian “secularism” (another quite inept word to use in the Indian context), it has been posited by many scholars : Marr,[56] Zvelebil[57] and others characterize Sangam poetry as “secular” and “pre-Aryan”[58] after severing its heroic or love themes from its strong spiritual undercurrents, in a feat typical of Western scholarship whose scrutiny always depends more on the magnifying glass than on the wide-angle lens. A far more insightful view comes from the historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature “no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.”[ 59] He concludes : The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture.[ 60] However, it is not as if the Tamil land passively received this culture : in exchange it generously gave elements from its own rich temperament and spirit. In fact, all four Southern States massively added to every genre of Sanskrit literature, not to speak of the signal contributions of a Shankara, a Ramanuja or a Madhwa. Cultural kinship does not mean that there is nothing distinctive about South Indian tradition ; the Tamil land can justly be proud of its ancient language, culture and genius, which have a strong stamp and character of their own, as anyone who browses through Sangam texts can immediately see : for all the mentions of gods, more often than not they just provide a backdrop ; what occupies the mind of the poets is the human side, its heroism or delicate emotions, its bouncy vitality, refined sensualism or its sweet love of Nature. “Vivid pictures of full-blooded life exhibiting itself in all its varied moods,” as Raghunathan puts it. “One cannot but be impressed by the extraordinary vitality, variety and richness of the poetic achievement of the old Tamil.”[61] Ganapathy Subbiah adds, “The aesthetic quality of many of the poems is breathtakingly refined.”[62] It is true also that the Tamil language developed its own literature along certain independent lines ; conventions of poetry, for instance, are strikingly original and more often than not different from those of Sanskrit literature. More importantly, many scholars suggest that “the bhakti movement began in the Tamil country and later spread to North India.”[63] Subbiah, in a profound study, not only challenges the misconceived “secular” portrayal of the Sangam texts, but also the attribution of the Tamil bhakti to a northern origin ; rather, he suggests, it was distinctly a creation of Tamil culture, and Sangam literature “a reflection of the religious culture of the Tamils.”[64] As regards the fundamental contributions of the South to temple architecture, music, dance and to the spread of Hindu culture to other South Asian countries, they are too well known to be repeated here. Besides, the region played a crucial role in preserving many important Sanskrit texts (a few Vedic recensions, Bhasa’s dramas, the Arthashastra for instance) better than the North was able to do, and even today some of India’s best Vedic scholars are found in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.[*] As Swami Vivekananda put it, “The South had been the repository of Vedic learning.”[65] In other words, what is loosely called Hinduism would not be what it is without the South. To use the proverbial but apt image, the outflow from the Tamil land was a major tributary to the great river of Indian culture. Conclusion It should now be crystal clear that anyone claiming a “separate,” “pre-Aryan” or “secular” Dravidian culture has no evidence to show for it, except his own ignorance of archaeology, numismatics and ancient Tamil literature. Not only was there never such a culture, there is in fact no meaning in the word “Dravidian” except either in the old geographical sense or in the modern linguistic sense ; racial and cultural meanings are as unscientific as they are irrational, although some scholars in India remain obstinately rooted in a colonial mindset. The simple reality is that every region of India has developed according to its own genius, creating in its own bent, but while remaining faithful to the central Indian spirit. The Tamil land was certainly one of the most creative, and we must hope to see more of its generosity once warped notions about its ancient culture are out of the way. http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/tamilculture.html
-pirayaani
I USE Net from Netpark and hence my research notes are not availble, I standby everyword mentioned and reply can be given.
MosesMohammedSolomon

[softy54534]

Mr. Gandhi,

Iravatham Mahadevan says that "thamizh vattezuthu"(sometimes als ocalled as thamizh brahmi) - containing potsherds have been found during many archealogical excavations, both in Tn and also some in andhra.

These date back to atleast 3rd century BCE according to I.Mahadevan. He also speculates that some could be as early as 5th century BCE.

But any "written" stone inscriptions for "Sanskrit" is NOT known to be found any earlier than 2nd Century CE - that is atleast 5-6 centuries AFTER thamizh vattezuththu evidences have been found!

This should comprehensively prove that - Sanskrit has borrowed heavily from the Prakrit & Pali for words (which are theorised as ancient kodunthamizh) - and also that "thamizh" ezuththu is far ancient than the Sanskrit script!

How come such a huge evidence be NOT accepted by those who seek to give Sanskrit more ancinetness than thamizh?!!

It is suspiscious to say the least!

[Lillie_Steins]

Dear pirayaani,

1. >

2.This is totally incorrect. The "great northern mountains" are the
tirumalai hills which have for aeons been accepted as the borders of
Tamilakam. To try and represent them as the Himalayas (which are
always mentioned by name as "amaiya" in the sangam texts) either
displays utter ignorance or is deliberate falsification.


No.1 fits for prehistoric period.

No.2 fits for sankam period.

'Ariyar' reference was not only for north. It was there in karikal chola period.

Karikal chola had four armies namely Ariyappadai , Manappadai, puduppadai and Pampappadai. Ariyam here specifies the 'first '.

'Atruppadai' literature tells this. 'Ariyapapadai kadantha Neduncheliyan' in sankam literature doesn't mean north ariyan but cholan army.

'Ayya, Ayira' roots formed ariya in paly language to specify hothas first and kings later.

Ayya - ariya - 'Araiyar' - Arasar was the tamil formation.

What Mr. Solomon quoted from Ambetkar's words is the correct interpretation of Aryans.

Daerius a king in Persia called himself as 'Ariyan' in the sense of Topper / king.

There was no Aryan race either in north or in South.

Periyar used 'Dravidia' word for cultural difference and not for race difference since it is specified in MahaBharata.

Orissa (old Kalinga) Poori Ranganathar temple has inscriptions about chola kings as dravida kings who were tamils.

Rai cholas were called Dravida kings who were tamils.

f.s.gandhi

[NeroASERCH]

FSG Vandayar,

Go to the following site and download TSC_AvarangaL fonts to read Tamil scripts.

http://www.tamil.net/tscii/tools.html

And download the key board tool called e-kalappai to type Tamil scripts. But when you download and intstall e-kalappai , TSC Avarangal fonts get automatically installed.

So I would suggest you download e-kalappai once and for all . Good luck !!

Happy Tamil typing and viewing !!

[Paul Bunyan]

Quiet lot of lies are put across.
I give quotes from Devaneyar- called Pavanar:
"The best of SANSKRIT Grammer book, in Panini of 4th Cen BCE, In Sanskrit grammer books are called Vyakarnam and claims even before Panini there were grammer for Numerals etc., and the oldest was IYenthiram of Vedic Period - Page 56-57, Tamilar Varalaru.

"Iyenthiram Niranthe Tholkappiyar " says Panamparanar;
Thol- 880, Thol1570, Kappiyar refers Ariyam, hence we can conclude that Sanskrit has established considerably in Tholkappiyar' period. Page 40 same book.

Four Vedas or Nanmarai, arangam, agamametc., means Sanskrit works and the word Anthanar in Tholkappiyam and all Tamil Sagnam and later books except refers to Aryan Brahmins only- Page 101, Tamilar Matham.

Devaneyan further in his book Oppiyan Mozhinool says- "s Panamparanar refers him knowing FourVedas, Iyenthiram and Kappiyar differenciates Vadasol Grammer with Tamil and that TholKappiyar made Arangetram before AthangottuAsan, all confirm that Tholkappiyar is A Brahmin."

Tholkappiyar is dubiously dated to 700BCE by Devaneyan, with no reason given, but objective scholoars who look at Tholkappiyar- giving Grammer for Wrting, means advanced stage of North Indian brought Brammi letters i.e., 200-150B.C.E.

I request all to maintain dignity on commenting on Scholars, One is talking so uglyly of UU.VE.SA and other on Iravatham Mahadevan.
The pains taken by Uvesa got us Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature, which otherwise could have lost, and his honest serch of Originals are fully appreciated. Iravatham Mahadevan was the first to decipher Tamil from BArahmi scripts and has also deciphered Indus-Saraswathi scripts.

Tamil is such a wonderful Language, whose highllights can be said for pages and nobody needs to FaLsely belittle other Indian language and India' equal pride Sanskrit.

Most of the European Universities have intited Closing Tamil Departments and these myths of splitting words only Paint that we are Frauds.
Any Literature dating can be referred from www.wikhipedia.com and that is the opinion of All MAjor Universities of the World, any falsehood spread by few are spreading Hatered meaninglessly.

We do not have a single Tamil Literature before Sanskrit has taken route as I showed.

Please give truths and when you say Your assumed Dates please mention that you assume, when you say cARBON DATED , please gives proper reference, otherwise Wikhipedia is the ideal.

If anybody says my views are wrong give with proofs and not blindly sat wrong or Lie, it looks childish.

MosesMohammedSolomon