Talk:Tamil-Brahmi

archive 1

More sources required

The article content can be easily increased with new sources and somebody can try that. 117.97.78.231 (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The alternate dating section

Is it being given undue weightage?. Of the two anchors of pre-300 BC hypothesis the ASI has back tracked on the first one - the pot sherd has gone missing [1] and no papers have been published on it. The second pazhani "vaira" discovery is being dismissed by the other group as a single sample result. I believe the section should be shortened and the bulk of the text moved to a footnote.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved it to notes and found citatiosn that question Mahathevan's theorey based on Anuradhpura findings. Infact I found number of journal articleas and academic books now take the view that post Ashokan in untenable. Kanatonian (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Second reading from Porunthal hereKanatonian (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dhani?

Who is he?. is this his full name?. i googled and couldnt find anything. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Kanatonian (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Decipherment

"Tamil Brahmi was not deciphered as a separate script until the 21st century CE." 20th or 21st?. Didnt mahadevan establish it clearly by the 1970s?--Sodabottle (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

By 1966, how do we state it ? middle 21st century ?Kanatonian (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mid 20th century.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2538550.ece It says, that the age of the Porunthal inscriptions has been proven by a second sample. There is no mention of it in the article. Infact this important information was wholly ignored as the source was implemented. Need to correct it.--MThekkumthala (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The porunthal findings are yet find widespread acceptance - they have not been published in peer reviewed journals yet. Till that happens (usually takes a few years) we cannot and should not take it as the definitive result and use it to supply a definitive dating.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. The wording was wrong, when this source was implemented. The other samples were not accepted (sic), but the Porunthal samples have not been debated nor rejected yet. It was simply handled like the other findings in a degrading way.--MThekkumthala (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Porunthal findings are important and infact we had actually used both (initial and secondary) the references in the article. But those references are Newspaper sources. This information will one day get into a peer reviewed journal article or academic books and then it might change the perspective of researchers. Currently as we speak, it should be in the notes section. Also you had introduced that section under epigraphic review, infact Poruthal belongs under Archeological review. Epigraphists are saying Vaira the word found in the inscription belongs to the 1st century CE but Archeologists say it should be 5th century BCE based on carbon dating. Tamil Brahmi is a controversal subject, there are lot of people who say it is not what it is. So we have to be careful giving undue weight to one point of view. Currently as we speak Literary, Epigraphic and Archeological conclusiosn to not concur with a specific date and we should leave it at that. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

People are often excited by newspaper articles, but the best paper that challenges Mahadevan's post 3rd Century dispersal is Rajan, K (2008), "Situating the Beginning of Early Historic Times in Tamil Nadu: Some Issues and Reflections", Social Scientist 36 (1/2): 40-78. Kanatonian (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points. The Tamil Brahmi topic is a highly sensitive area, which should be treated accordingly. But the text makes a false impression of the earliest findings. In the second article about Porunthal, we have a clear statement, that the dating of the first sample was not accepted by all, because the opposition wanted more samples. With the second sample, they conclude, that it has been proven. However, this is our version, though using the Kishore news article as a source (!) : "There have been number of inscriptions found in Tamil Nadu that have been tentatively dated to 6th century BCE in Adichanallur[10][11][12] and 5th century BCE in Porunthal.[13][6][14] But these early Tamil Nadu dating do not have mainstream acceptance.[6]" There is a mention in the sources, that earlier datings remained doubtful, but the Porunthal datings were not. Then why do we say, that all findings, including Porunthal, have no acceptance? It is a lie.--MThekkumthala (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The text doesnt say "no acceptance", instead it says no "mainstream acceptance" - that means acceptance from peers, scholars, other secondary sources and the like. What we now have is only a single paper published by Rajan K and the second dating confirmation hasnt been to peer review. Once that is done and multiple secondary sources - like other papers and text books - start revising their dating, then the dating is deemed to have "mainstream acceptance". (personally i believe the porunthal findings and wish to see more papers on it, but a single newspaper report isnt going to cut it) --Sodabottle (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Sodabottle, we write what others say and we dont make up our own mind here. When the article says that there is no mainstream acceptance, it actually is based on the paper article where number of scholars are debating it but not fully agreeing with it yet. I have watched this article from 2006, for the longest time it was mostly based on Adichanallur as if it was the only thing important. (Tamil wikipedia still follows that idea) But till today we dont have any journal articles on that findings, but may be Porunthal is a different matter all together.

Anuradhapura findings are even more legitimate and scholars have noted that Mahathevan did not take that finding into account with his post 3rd centuy BCE dispersal theorey. The article lists a number of scholars who say Brahmi came to Sri Lanka long before 3rd Century BCE and it may have come from Sri lanka into Tamilakam before 3rd century BCE as well. What is interesting (not in this article) is that type I of TB is same/identical with Sinhala Brahmi in Sri Lanka. Fundamentally the chronology is wrong, the math does not add up. There is no way one have wait for Ashokan writings to immdietly start seeing thousands of inscriptiosn (in pot sherds) across Tamilakam and Sri Lanka within 100 years, that's why Dhani said it has to be 1st century CE not 2nd Century BCE. Because it takes a long time to spread writing across such a large area. But we cant say all that, we have to wait for the appropriate joournal articles/academic books/seminar publications to come through. Remember Tamil Barhmi is a new field, only since 1966 since we have scholars looking at it and the first scholar who saw it is still active in this field. Kanatonian (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Great articles about Porunthal, another beautiful pictures as well. May be we can write a seperate article about it. Kanatonian (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)