Talk:Tamilakam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 08:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tamilagam in modern Tamil

The article clearly states that In modern Tamil usage Tamilakam is indeed Tamil Nadu and to deny it without known Tamil is bad faith. I can quote at least 100 examples where Tamilakam தமிழகம் is used as synonym of Tamil Nadu in popular Tamil Media. To start with MSN India, Thatstamil - part of Oneindia.in and even BBC Tamil use it as a synonym. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 03:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed link SriSuren (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Tamil Nadu" is a political state status given to a part of tamilakam that comes under indian political space. Going back to pre-indian independence period would the term "Tamilakam" refer to the same space referred as "Tamil Nadu" today?. Tamilakam (Tamil Community) shall be term used to refer places whereever tamils form community and exercise the tamil culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.47.5 (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

---

We should make the distinction between lingual usage and historical fact. Tamilakam is much older as a concept than Tamil Nadu, even though in the minds of some people, the two may have merged.

Revised history

So what's with the seclusion of Tamil Eelam from Tamilakkam? Wiki Raja (talk)

I've corrected the irregularities. Thanks for pointing out.--Malaikaran (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for Ila Nadu

• SriSuren has challenged whether Tamizh Eezham is a part of Tamizhagam. Here are a few references to support the claim.

+ What are you trying to discuss? None of these references say anything about this mythical Tamil Eelam. Please do not remove referenced material to add dubious claims. What you call Tamil Eelam is the north and east provinces of Eelam/Sri Lanka. Do not remove referenced well documented edits to add this kind of dubious ideas. What you need is reliable third party sources which say that Ila-nadu was/is this Tamileelam and then that this Tamileelam was/is part of Tamilakam. There's absolutely no dispute amoung scholars that the Tamil country (Tamilakam) was in South India and no part of Sri Lanka was part of Tamilakam. Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka. --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "He enjoyed the beauty of the Ila Nadu and the Northern territory with his mental eyes."

+ The source does not define Ila Nadu. Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "...gift of 50 sheep for a perpetual lamp in the temple of Mahadevar at Tiruchivindiram in Nanchi-nadu, by Malavaraiyan Chenni Kandan of Ila-nadu."

+ Does not say the ethnicity of this person nor does the source define Ila-nadu. Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka--SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "a celebrated temple dedicated to Tirukedisvarar, a temple in Ila-nadu (Sri Lanka) sung by the Tamil saint Sambandar (seventh century ad)."

+ So? Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "This is absolutely a misconception since the term Tamilakam is never used to include the non-annexed Tamil parts of Ilam." (Here the author refutes identifying Ceylon with Ilam, implying 'Tamizhagam was used for the annexed Tamil parts of Ilam.)

+ Very unclear. Which is annexed to which entity is not explained. Anyway there's no dispute that SL was called Eelam in tamil. So I am not going to waste my time with this. --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Tamilakam of Ceylon comprised in the Northern and Eastern Provinces was from time immemorial"

+ So we have to now discuss about two Tamilakams?--SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "These treatises deal with a 'Tamilakam' that stretched from the Dekkhan to Ceylon, comprising the lands of the Colas, Ceras, and Pandyas."

+ So? Land of the Cholas, Ceras, Pandyas = Tamilakam. There's no dispute about that. Monoharan is not in anyway a reliable source for this matter, but the sentence u have quoted doesn't contradict with what I am saying. As for Pfaffenberger, he has studied the Sri Lankan Tamil caste system thoroughly and he states clearly that their caste system is imported around the 13th-14th centuries, when the colonization of the north by the Tamils started, not something that developed indigenously. --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, Tamizhagam like India or Ceylon is a conceptual nation, that is, we can say History of India although it was not until the British Empire, the whole of what is today called India today came together. Similarly, with different kingdoms territories changed in India, Tamizhagam and Ceylon alike.

+ Partly true - but it becomes a contradiction when you adamently push for a separate Tamil nation in Sri Lanka, called Tamileelam (Eelam Tamil nation) which is not even properly conceptualized. Also, as long as nations and states are concerned - the Tamil state formation was in Tamilakam and the Sinhala state formation was in Ceylon/Eelam/Sri Lanka. This is attested by both Tamil and Sinhala history, literature, archeology, inscriptions etc etc. A good pointer for u is to try to answer as to why, when the Tamils kings constantly fought wars amoung themselves and also with the Sinhalas, why is there no record of Tamil kings fighting wars against Tamils in Sri Lanka? --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, SriSuren is kindly asked to debate before editing. I will revert your edits until a general consensus is reached in the talk page. Thank you.--தமிழ் வாழ்க; யாதும் ஊரே, யாவரும் கேளிர் 20:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

+ The academic consensus about this matter is that Tamilakam is the territory between Cape Comorin and Venkatam (Thitupati) hills - this is based on the vast body of 2000 years of Tamil literature and political history. There is no dispute about this. Therefore you can't demand that I waste my time debating with you about issues that there is absolutely no valid dispute about. So do not try to talk yourself into changing the known and documented history. The references you have given is not on the subject matter, and none of them defines Ila nadu or this imaginary Tamileelam (sic). Please do not remove referenced edits, and then come to the talk page with dubious arguments using socalled references which do not even cover the subject and the matter you are disputing, and demand that I must come to a "general consensus" about it. This matter is not even disputed. Therefore your unsourced edit is reverted. --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the organic nature of Tamizhagam has been pointed out in the article:

"Tamizhagam was divided into various provinces named nadu, meaning 'country'. These provinces changed throughout history, so the following list is not exhaustive."--தமிழ் வாழ்க; யாதும் ஊரே, யாவரும் கேளிர் 20:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

+ So? Still all that was in Tamilakam and not in Eelam/Sri Lanka. Also please adhere by wikipolicies and do not refer to disputed material in the article to confuse. Anyway this list is not correct. I am just taking out Ila nadu now, and will write in more detail about the nadus, as described mainly by the renowned Tamil scholar V. Kanakasabhai from Sri Lanka, with a short description of how the Nadus changed and also about the three Tamil kingdoms. As you understand the task of describing all the details of the nadus and how they changed and the references to their poistion etc is difficult, and I do not know how much of that should be included here, since there are other articles which deal with those areas. Whatever the details of the nadus are, the fact still remains that not an inch of Eelam/Sri Lanka was ever included in the Tamil country (Tamilakam) and that is my main conern about this article. I think if what you are saying has been a subject matter V. Kanakasabhai being from Sri Lanka would have have known about it. You seem not to bother about writing correct information about your culture, ancient literary and hisotrical heritage, but only occupied with trying to distort facts about Eelam/Sinhala/Sri Lanka. See the references given in the article for details. Please try not to use signs like 'zh' in the articles or when u are discussing, as pr. naming conventions. --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

--> Sadly if you want to establish facts saying "I waste my time debating" is not good enough.Also, kindly read WP:CON.

+ You have totally misunderstood what it is that is meant by "reaching a consensus". There's no scholarly dispute over the boundaries of the historical Tamilakam. You are trying to make your own theories about it and you do not have references, so you want to use the talk page as a discussions forum, to get around the problem of you not having references. --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

--> Saying Tamizhagam has a territory is like saying India has a territory, please compare the Republic of India against British India. Obviously the territories have changed, but the fact remains both are called 'India'

+ Then why are you adding parts of Sri Lanka to Tamilakam if the territory is not defined? !!!!! The territories of Tamilakam is defined in the Sangam literature. If you want to dispute that, you are about 3000 years too late. --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

--> While detailed explanation of each Nadu is good, but overall Tamizhagam is "In an academic context, Tamilakam is used to refer to these territories as a single cultural area, where Tamil was the natural language and culture of all people" which naturally includes the cultural area that is now called Eelam.

+ The natural language of Eelam/Sinhala is and was Sinhala. The area where Tamil was the natural language is very well defined in the Tamil literature spanning over one and a half millenia. --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

--> ""Tamilakam of Ceylon comprised in the Northern and Eastern Provinces was from time immemorial" and "This is absolutely a misconception since the term Tamilakam is never used to include the non-annexed Tamil parts of Ilam." quite clearly refer to the link between Tamizhagam and Eelam.

+ Dubious, anonymous and out of the blue, emotional statements like this, without any backing can hardly be considered in a scholarly discussion. --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

--> *"He enjoyed the beauty of the Ila Nadu and the Northern territory with his mental eyes."

+ The source does not define Ila Nadu. Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka --SriSuren (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

--> Looks like personal research to me.

+ I have not written the Madrass Tamil lexicon or the other dictionaries. --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• "...gift of 50 sheep for a perpetual lamp in the temple of Mahadevar at Tiruchivindiram in Nanchi-nadu, by Malavaraiyan Chenni Kandan of Ila-nadu."

+ T.V. Mahalingam has this to say about the territory of Tamilakam: "Tamil country extending from Tirupati in the North to Cape Comorin in the south" "In the Sangam age the Tamil country was divided amoung the three crowned heads of the area.... " T.V Mahalingam also clearly differentiates between the Tamil country and Sri Lanka. "It is believed that the standard kasu was introduced into the Tamil country from Sri Lanka. It was probably due to the close contacts between the Tamil country and Sri Lanka" Moreover he is one of the many scholars who used scholars who cites V. Kanakasabhai. So where does that leave your arguments about everything? --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

-->While the name Ila Nadu may have its root in the word Eezham, the attribution of the honorific 'Nadu' is not present in Eezham. So why should Ila Nadu have be called a nadu if Eezham was not? It is because Ila Nadu was a part of Tamizhagam.

+ What are you saying now? Are u now suggesting that Eelam was not a part of the Tamil country? I can't understand what you are saying at all. What exactly are you calling Ilanadu? Also, is Nadu an honourific? Although that is besides the point under discussion, can you please give a reference as to Nadu being an honourific!!! The Tamil lexicon says Nadu is a province or a country . So please don't try to confuse the matter further. And if Nadu is not used in Eelam, then how can this be applied to Eelam/Sri Lanka at all? Please try to atleast be logical in your arguments. Just because the Tamils called Sri Lanka as Ila nadu, or Nagadipa as Naganadu these places do not automatically become parts of the Tamil country (Tamilakam). During the period under discussion, some of Tamil literature calls Sri Lanka Cinkalam (Sinhalam), Cikaladesam (Sinhala country) etc too, as the references to the Tamil lexicon and dictionaries, I have given you in my earlier post proves. Moreover Manimekalai, clearly says that the people in Nagadipa (what you call Naganadu) did not speak Tamil. So how could it possibly be a part of the Tamil country? --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

--> Finally, Ila Nadu is not the only Nadu from Ceylon. Naka Nadu also is a part of what is now Ceylon. "Both the Tamil literature and Pa.li chronicles mention Jaffna (Naka natu or NagadTpa) as a political unit of itself, during this phase. "

+ This is pure invention by Mr. Ponnambalam. The Mahavamsa does no such thing and no supporting references are given by this Mr. Ponnambalam for his claims either. The text of the Mahavamsa is free available for anybody to check. Moreover the Tamil literature he is talking about identifies Nagadipa as an island outside the Tamil country. The Tamil literature which refers to Nagadipa is Manimekalai and it clearly says that the people in Nagadipa did not speak Tamil. as the references to the Tamil lexicon and dictionaries, I have given you in my earlier post proves. Moreover Manimekalai, clearly says that the people in Nagadipa (what you call Naganadu) did not speak Tamil. --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

CREDIBILITY OF V. Kanakasabhai

• Unfortunately, this scholar seems to not be very credible on the grounds that he seems to have advocated Kumari Kandam, which is now considered nothing more than pseudo-history by credible scholars.
• Proposed the origin of Tamil from Tamralipti, an ancient Bengal village, etc. This is impossible as a) Tamil language is much older than Bengali, b) and, they are from completely different language families.
• He proposed that Tamil people originated from Mongolia.
• I quote from the article, "Kanakasabhai's claims of Mongolian origin for Tamils and the relation of the word "Tamil" with Tamralipti have invited sharp criticism from contemporary historians."
• So there is little reason to believe his claims on the alleged 'territories' of Tamizhagam.

+ If you have a problem with what you call "the Credibility" of this particular authour and his book then you should take it up at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. This book is quoted by scholars and the section which I have used from the book is not the author's own theory but he is describing the territory of Tamilakam (the Tamil country), by merely saying what is attested in the vast body of Tamil literature of the Sangam period and later, starting from Tolkappiyam, which clearly defines the territory of the Tamil country as the land between Cape Comorin and Venkata Hills. Since he is a Tamil from Sri Lanka, it gives additional weight and makes that section all the more credible. Moreover I have given you 8 other sources, namely the following which says the exact same thing and all of which you have just deleted:

1. Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar (1994). Evolution of Hindu Administrative Institutions in South India. Asian Educational Services. pp. 6. ISBN: 978-81-206-0966-2. [2]
2. Vincent A. Smith (1 January 1999). The Early History of India. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. pp. 438. ISBN : 978-81-7156-618-1 [3].
3. K. Rajayyan (2005).Tamil Nadu, a real history. Ratna Publications. page 9 [4]
4. Krishnaswamy Ranaganathan Hanumanthan (1979). Untouchability: a historical study upto 1500 A.D. : with special reference to Tamil Nadu. Koodal Publishers. [5]
5. Muttusvami Srinivasa Aiyangar (1986). Tamil studies: essays on the history of the Tamil people, language, religion, and literature. Asian Educational Services. Retrieved 24 April 2012.page 9 [6]
6. Sumathi Ramaswamy (20 November 1997). Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891-1970. University of California Press. pp. 89. ISBN 978-0-520-20805-6 [7].
7. Vijaya Ramaswamy (2007). Historical Dictionary of the Tamils. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-5379-9.p.xxxix [8]
8. Abraham, Shinu (2003). Chera, Chola, Pandya: using archaeological evidence to identify the Tamil kingdoms of early historic South India. Asian Perspectives: the Journal of Archaeology for Asia and the Pacific 42. [9] (This article does not mention Venkatam and Kumari, but uses the term Tamilakam to refer to Tamilnadu and Kerala through out the whole article, with maps and marking of places in Tamil nadu and Kerala. The article is about how Tamils try to label artifacts found in Tamilakam (Tamilnadu + Kerala) as Tamil, to claim a cultural separateness, while these artifacts are found all over India from the North to the South of India eg. Megaliths and craft objects allied with them such as Black-and-Red Ware, beads, bangles etc).

+ You removed all the above references without stating a reason and added the mid 20th century construction called "Tamil Eelam", as being part of the historical Tamilakam, without giving any reference at all and asking to discuss in the talk page (Differences in the article versions). Please note that you can't remove well referenced edits and on top of that add dubious unsourced claims and you have not given any references to what you have actually added to the article. Upto now, you have not given any references at all which supports your claims that the Tamileelam was a part of Tamilakam and that Ilanadu and what you call Naganadu, were nadus in Tamilakam, but you have written a lot of stuff in the talk page. Of the two references you have added this one does not mention a Naganadu at all, but Nagadipa, i.e the completely opposite of what you say and the other one (Mr. Ponnambalam) does not say that Nagadipa (Naganadu) was a part of Tamilakam. Mr. Ponnambalam is not at all a reliable source in this matter anyways, but even he does not say that. Tamils calling places in other people's countries as Nadus does not make those places Tamil. Eg. Gujarat has been called Vajranadu, does it make Gujarat also a part of the Tamil country? If so what would Aryanadu be? So your claims and arguments are not supported by the available evidence. --SriSuren (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Ila Nadu

SriSuren has referred to an image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79350369@N02/6962213956/in/photostream

Certainly the references in the picture say Eezham = Ceylon. There are three problems with this: 1) This does not back up the alleged: Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka 2) Sri Lanka is a name adopted recently 1970 by an island that was up until then known as Ceylon, refer to British Ceylon 3) These dictionaries were compiled during the period of British Ceylon, hence, it is natural they are calling it 'Ceylon'. If we were translating Ilam today we call it 'Sri Lanka', we would have called it 'Ceylon' 200 years ago, and further back we would have called it 'Sinhala-dvipa', etc. Unless you discover the meaning of Eezham during the time of Tamizhagam in the Nikantu Noolkal (Tamil dictionaries).

In fact James Emerson Tennent believes the word comes from Tamil meaning 'gold' conforming to the belief that three peaks of Eezham correspond to the golden Mount Meru. Considering your dictionary references also corroborate that Eezham means 'gold', this would seem a more plausible derivation than saying Eezham camed from Sri Lanka.

+ -:) Who has told that Eelam is derived from Sri Lanka? My picture is a reference to the various names used for Sri Lanka - it is not meant as a quarrel about which is derived from which. Anyway I really cannot see how you can say that Sir James Emerson Tennent believes what you have written above. What he says is that the Tamil name for Ceylon is Ilam, and it signifies gold, but that there is no gold in Ceylon!! I think anybody can understand the point he is making.--SriSuren (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

+Then he goes on to quote Simon Casie Chitty (another Tamil scholar from SL), where Chitty has quoted Valmiki's Ramayana story about how Lanka was made - namely by 3 of the 1008 golden peaks which split from Mount Meru during the fight between Shesha and Vasudeva. Chitty mentions this as an example of an early notice of Sri Lanka, in the Ceylon Gazzeter of 1834. You have taken this and distorted it to arrive at your conclusion. Anyway what James Emmerson Tennent says about the derivation of Ceylon is that it is from Sinhala through Sinhaladipa and Serendip, and then he quotes Lassen who says that Ptolemy's & Marcianus's Salike is from Sri Lanka!!!! Ref. the same book you have quoted page 549 (I'll post an image of all this too, if u want to make a dispute about this too, but the whole book is available at Google books). Where u got the idea that Sri lanka is a new name is hard to know. Sri lanka is one of the commonest names used by the Sinhalese for their country. Ceylon is the English form of Portuguese Ceilao we can't call our country as outsiders and foreign want to in foreign languages. Only about 5% of the population speak English. Besides Sinhalese sources from that time, Portuguese documents too attest to the fact that Lanka and Sri Lanka was a common name. "The Natives call it Lancab" (Lankava), "Other nations in conformity with the information they had of its fruits and wealth, by this word "Scrilanca" (Sri lanka) call it Paradise"). --SriSuren (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"This indicates Naga descent, with a probable connection to Jaffna, the Sri Lankan home of the Nagas.5 All the territories of Tamilakam, including Jaffna peninsula, were united by a common language."

+ Raymond Pfister?? Who is he? http://www.pfister.ws/English_Version/english_version.html  :))

Raymond Pfister is a Penteconst priest. While Kanasabai is not reliable for you, a pentecost pastor who you have never heard about and who has not even written the statement u have quoted is reliable? Just shows how DISHONESTLY you are trying to construct your theory by picking dubious thin sources and statements from here and there. You are just wasting my time and yours, trying to prove something u cannot.--SriSuren (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Iron Age culture of Tamilakam is increasingly dealt with in isolation and associated with early Sangam literature. ... culture extends over an area from Vidarbha in Maharashtra to Sri Lanka, ie well beyond the limits of Tamil Nadu" =>A point to note in this Journal by the ICHR in 2002 is that it gives the modern state names like Maharashtra, Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu; but still differentiates the historic 'Tamilakam'. Likeso the dictionaries you point to would have done something similar by giving the contemporary place names of that time like Ceylon.

+ So, why do Tamils keep on claiming that the artifacts from the Iorn Age Culture like the Megaliths and associated artifacts like the Black-and-Ware is Tamil? They are found all over India, not only in Tamilakam (Tamil nadu). Also does this mean that Maharashtra too will be claimed as Tamil by the Tamils? Because this how the logic is applied. See the article by Shinu Abraham. The Madras Tamil lexicon and dictionaries have summarized what is found in the vast body of Tamil literature, starting from Tolkappiyam's time. The territory defined as the Tamil country is pretty much the same, even when you come to the 13th century, where Nannool also says that the Tamil country is between Thirupathi and Cape Comorin. --SriSuren (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pali and Sanskrit literatures generally distinguish Lanka and Simhaladvipa or " Tambapanni " as separate countries.14 The sense becomes clear when we take Tamraparni or Simhala as the southernmost part of Tamilakam"

+ Bizzare!! All known exant Pali literature until the second millenium comes from the Mahaviharaya, the Sinhalese Buddhist monastry in the Sinhalese capital city of Anuradhapura, except for one or two disputed examples. Could hardly imagine that the Sinhalese would write that their island was part of the Tamil country. As for Lanka in Sanskrit texts, there's some disagreement amoung Sanskrit scholars as to whether Ravana's Lanka was Sri Lanka, and that, identification of Sri Lanka with Ravana's Lanka was done quite late, but no scholar with acknowledged crediblity has ever said that Sinhaladvipa or Sinhala was a part of the Tamilakam. There's supposed to have been another Simhala in the Punjab area, but not a Sinhaladvipa; Sinhaladvipa being particularly bounded to the Sinhalese people. And what about the documented Tamil history? According to the whole corpus of the 1500+ years of Tamil literature, Cinkalam is named as a foreign country. Not a single line of Tamil literature has ever indicated that Cinkalam was a part of Tamilakam. Also, already in the Mahabharata, the Tamil kingdoms are distinguished from the Sinhala country. What about the ancient Romans, Greek, Arabs and Chinese literature? Are they all wrong suddenly? Also, how can Sinhaladvipa/Sinhala be placed inside the Tamil country, when the southern limit of the Tamil country (Tamilakam) is Cape Comorin??SriSuren (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2012

Reliable and clear references needed for the claims about parts of Sri Lanka being a part of Tamilakam

Reliable and solid references from mulitple third party sources are needed for the claims that this 20th century construction called "Tamileelam" was a part of Tamilakam (Tamil country). Also references are needed for the claims of Ilanadu and Naganadu being Nadus of Tamilakam - References must clearly identify and define what these places are and the references must clearly define Tamilkam as constituting of Ilanadu and Naganadu in addition to the south India part. Statements like "he dreamt of Ilanadu" or "sheep were donated by xx in Ila-nadu..." etc do not say anything about Ila nadu / Naga Nadu being a part(s) of Tamilakam, nor do this kind of statements clarify anything else. If these claims are not verified by reliable sources within 7 days, they will be deleted. --SriSuren (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2012

Over one month has passed, but no sources have been given for this claim. If sources are not given and this fake history is being added again, I will open a dispute resolution on this to come to a final consensus. --SriSuren (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

SriSuren's sources are unreliable.

V.Kanakasabhai's information is clearly outdated. If your read some of the paragraphs it clear that he is completely biased and ignorant of Tamil presence on the island of Sri Lanka. He claims the Nagar tribes to have only inhabited Tamil Nadu forgetting the CLEAR the Naga culture of the Sri Lankan Tamils today. He also claims that Northern races were "superior" and the "Aryans"(non-existant and proven wrong) had learned writing from the Nagas. Which is clear B.S because scripts had derived from Brahmi in the Indian Subcontinent where the Tamil script of the "nagas" had developed much later. SriSuren also claims the limits of Tamilakam on behalf of Kanakasabhai's book however you are also forgetting that Kanakasabhai had claimed a placed known as "Manipallavam" which is located in today's Jaffna Peninsula also written in the same book. I am not sure if everything in this book is fabricated or biased however as you can see the clear examples I have provided above prove that this source cannot be used on Wikipedia because it is simply unreliable until further notice. (Tamilan101 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

The general point of my source is to prove that there were TAMIL relations in both mercantile and martial ways between Thamilakam and Illam until 15th century before pali-Sinhala traditions. Illa Nadu and Naga Nadu generally hold the same geography (Northern Ceylon) so I will be merging them under "other" Nadus of Thamilakam.(Tamilan101 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC))

None of this makes any part of Sri Lanka a part of the Tamil country. Having relations with the neigbhouring country does not make it part of that country!! The Nagas of Sri Lanka did not speak Tamil as pr Manimekalai, which is the source which mentions Manipallavam. (see my references above - Indrapala). The Tamil country is and was in south India. There has never been a dispute amoung scholars and academics about the limits of Tamilakam. Only anonymous writers and the type of characters like Manoharan, which Avedeus etc have tried to use as references. There are virtually no references where parts of Sri Lanka is included in Tamilakam (Tamil country/Tamilnadu). As for Kanakasabhai - he is a Tamil scholar from Jaffna, if your version about the Tamil country, its territories and about Nagas etc is correct then he would have known it. As pointed out earlier, the historical falsifications like the ones you are spreading here, had not really taken off during Kanakasabhai's time, and the Tamils in Sri Lanka were still saying that they came from Tamilnadu/Tamilakam to the Sinhala country and they didn't have a problem with it. The problem started later. The version you are saying was fabricated mostly after the 1910/1920's, that too was a gradual development and done mainly to get support for the separatist agenda. So accusing this scholar of fabrications and bias and other stuff on these particular issues are unfounded. Also, he was not alone about race theories, the scripts etc of that time and upto the present day, the Aryan issue is not settled, neither is the script issue. He is a reliabel source for the issues pertaining to the territory of Tamilakam (Tamil country) and no other respected scholar has ever challenged this, as it is already written down in the Sangam- and post Sangam literature and inscriptions. --SriSuren (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Answer for Sri Suren

I totally agree that Sri Lankan Tamils migrated from south India region,but only because of that we can’t say that they migrated from south India to Sinhalese country.Same like Tamils,Sinhalese also migrated fron eastern part of India whish is known today as parts of Bengal and Orissa.We cant simply conclude that Sinhalese migrated earlier than anyone else to the island.The date that is given as Vijaya’s arrival(543 BC) according to some historian is coincided with the date of Buddha’s death.We also cant be sure that Vijaya and his 700 men ruled entire Sri Lanka.We also cant be sure that Vijaya speaks the Sinhala language as the language and Sinhala race were formed as a result of assimilation of different races living in Sri Lanka in past.Mahavamsa itself confirms this where it is stated that upon landing in Sri Lanka,Vijaya married a Yakkha queen Kuveni. Mahavamsa also recorded that they were already different types of people inhabited the island before the arrival of Prince Vijaya from eastern India which also contain some impossible stories but also contain some useful information about the early inhabitants of Sri Lanka ,culture and their civilization.

Talking about early inhabitants of Sri Lanka,you stated that Naga’s were not Tamil speakers according to Manimekalai.It is true that Cittalai Sattanar mentioned that Naka Nadu/Tivu is an autonomous entity but is is also noted that he also stated that the rest of the island were ruled discountinously by Tamil Kings.Mahavamsa also support this account where during the war between Elara and Duttagamini,Duttagamini who is portrayed as Sinhalese king is said to killed Elara and other 32 Tamil chiefs.He is also claimed to kill 60 000 Tamils in their settlements.The war between Elara and Duttagamini might be a myth,but it is noted that kingdom and settlement which is dominated by Tamils exist even before 100 BCE.Manimekalai also gave a clear picture that Naka’s culture belongs to Tamil Buddhism.Other than that,information about Naga’s can be traced from Ptolemy’s description which says that Naga’s were Dravidian and spoke Tamil and Prakrit.He further included some Tamil territories in Tamillakam and north Sri Lanka as Naka territories .It is also noted that Naga tribes such as Maravar,Oliyar amd Parathavar speak Tamil. It is clear that early civilization of Sri Lanka belongs to Naka who were Dravidians.Anywhere we cant conclude that Naga were Tamils as they were also often associated with other Dravidians although most accounts about Nagas living in Sri Lanka more towards Tamils rather than other Dravidians.Besides this controversial Naga ,there are also people called Veddhas.This Veddhas also were Dravidians and inhabited South India before arriving in Lanka,assimilated linguistically and culturally with Sinhalese.Veddhas,based on their origin is more towards Tamilakkam than Sri Lanka.Disccusing about early inhabitants of Sri Lanka,we also cant deny the influence of Villavars.Villavars were civilization which later evolved into Chera and Pandyan Kingdoms who inhabited South India and Sri Lanka before the arrival of Naga even to South India.The name Ezham and Ezha Tivu were derived from Ezhinar,a Chera king who ruled Sri Lanka in which their settlement is older than the Nagas.Unlike Nagas,the Villavars today can be identified as Tamils,Malayalees and to lesser extent Kannadigas.Ezham is then Sanskritised into Hela.There were also accounts that Naga tribes like Maravar,Oliyar and Paravar move to Sri Lanka after they adhere to Buddhism which corresponds to Manimekalai.

All these accounts give a clear picture of interaction between Tamilakam and Sri Lanka and most of accounts confirms that the people interacted were Tamil speakers although we cant be sure about Naga but Villavars yes.Other than this, Tamil inscriptions belongs to Sangam age(as early as 200 BCE) were found in Sri Lanka both north and south.These kind of inscriptions is only found in present Tamil Nadu,Kerala and Sri Lanka.These inscription clearly give a clear picture of interaction between Tamils in Sri Lanka and Tamilakkam which is also equivalent to interactions of Tamils between other parts of Tamilakkam which we can also conclude that Sri Lanka is a part of Tamilakkam both during and post Sangam age. Other than this Sri Lanka also have grand and sacred Hindu temples same as Tamilakkam which further indicates the presence of same culture and settlement in Tamilakkam.Besides this,the massive influence of South Indian Kingdoms of Tamilakkam in culture and politics of the people can also be a reason for Sri Lanka to be included in Tamilakkam.The worship of Muruga and Kannagi(Pattini) can be the example where they are worshipped by everybody in Sri Lanka even until today.It is also clear that during the period in between 600AD-1300AD a large parts and later entire Sri Lanka is ruled by imperial Pallavas,Pandyas and Cholas.During this period is is widely accepted by historians that Sri Lanka is a part of Tamilakkam as the rule of these Tamil dynasties has the same or more significant as other dynasties in Sri Lanka including the Sinhalese dynasties.Other than that,the idea of Sinhalese nation only came after the colonization of Europeans unlike Tamilakkam concept which exist before hundreds of BCEs same like unification of Chinese motherland of by Qin emperor,Qin Shi Huang Di.So it is wrong to assume that Tamils migrated to Sinhalese nation in ancient times and it will be appropriate to include Sri Lanka as a part of Tamilakkam,which is also widely accepted by international community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

removed citations

The following sources were removed by an IP, moving them to the talk page for other editors to have a look at them--DℬigXray 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the Tolkappiyam, the limits of Tamilakam in Southern India was between the hills of Venkatam in the north, and Cape Comorin in the south.

• Source 2 does not mention the Tolkappiyam. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Source 30 does mention the hills of Venkatam and Cape Comorin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Coppercholride what is your dispute?

Coppercholride what exactly are you disputing?--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to mention both, opposing, views? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion. This is what has been done in other Sri Lankan disputes.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A quick background:

• Jaffna kingdom, Tamil kingdom in the North of Sri Lanka from 1215-162
• 20th century, demand for a separate state by Sri Lankan Tamils
• Sri Lankan Civil War, LTTE fought for aspirational state of Tamil Eelam, located in present North and East of Sri Lanka
• Present, majority of the North and East of Sri Lanka populated by Tamils.\

"Whether present day Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka was a part of Ancient Tamil country." (Ancient Tamil country spanning a period from c. 3rd century BCE to c. 4th century CE.)

and use of Tamil Eelam in this article--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply by User:Coppercholride: Firstly the terms Tamilakam and Tamil Eelam stand highly volatile due to the variations in their usage(both evolved and conspired) over periods of time. Tamilakam is basically a cultural homeland of Tamils whose ancestors were the Proto-Dravidian people who are believed to have constituted the Indus Valley Civilization and the pre-historic Central Indian Civilizations. The Tamils are the closest to the Proto-Dravidian People by their language, while Malayalam, Tulu, Kodagu, Kannada, Telugu, Gondi etc. have developed in their descending order over periods of isolation and linguistic inter-mixing with Indo-Aryan language(primarily Sanskrit). Basically during the times of the ancient and medieval civilization and right since the fall of the Indus Valley Civilizations, Tamil and Sankrit are considered to be the two primary languages of South Asia.

While Sanskrit which was primarily restricted to the literate population of the Indo-Aryans would give birth to several languages uniformly across all regions before the language itself would be extinct following the Persian Confluence to it, which would lead to the birth of the Hindi language.On the other hand however, Tamil was not broken up uniformly as such.It was Geographic isolation which would lead to Tamil develop into new languages Gondi, Telugu... till Malayalam which was the last in the 14th Century. All these languages has had/and continues to have its speakers concentrated in a particular geographic area such as Kannada speakers in Karnataka, Tulu Speakers in Tulu Nadu(Mangalore-Kasargod Lowlands) etc.

Tamilakam (pre 14th Century at least)

The timeline of these events are to be noted with caution since, Malayalam which was the last language that evolved from Tamil got its script by the 14th Century in the Western territories of the Chera Kingdom which had been a Tamil dynasty since the medieval times. And so Blacknight12 has agreed upon the Jaffna Kingdom being established in the early 13th Century.

Tamil royal dynasties in this period are known to have patronized Tamil Saivite culture in the east of Sri lanka that paralleled the growth of the community in the area, and by the 6th century, a special coastal route by boat was functioning to the Koneswaram temple of Trincomalee and Thirukkovil temple of Batticaloa.

Dravidian Demographics(post-colonial South Asia)

Now while a kingdom does not necessarily reflect on a people's language they spoke(history records Tamil was spoken in Sri Lanka much before the rise of the Jaffna Kingdom), Tamils obviously constituted the island when Tamilakam(including present day Kerala) was conceived.

Now having presented the basis of my comments let me quickly outline the dispute here:

• Throughout The Classic Era Tamilakam is used to refer to these territories as a single cultural area, where Tamil was the natural language and culture of all people.

• The earliest available Tamil usages(See The Sangam Era) the word Eezham not only stood for the geographical identity of the island but also denoted the ethnic and cultural identity of the Tamils coming from that island, differentiating them from the Tamils of the mainland.

However, in the usages found in the later Tamil literature and inscriptions, the word was widely used not only for the island but also for anyone belonging to that island, irrespective of ethnicity.

That being the fact Tamil epics such as the Tolkapiyam never could uniformly define what the limits of Tamilakam was due to constant variations of views and apparent differences developing. Editors like Sri Suren have been thus excessively citing it as an evidence to stress and pre-fix a territorial boundary to the article. While they have leaned and put their trust on such Tamil epics, they have also vociferously rejected claims by the Tamil epics such as the Manimekalai and the Silappatikaram which document the existence of a Tamil-speaking Naka Nadu in the North of Sri Lanka, the Nagas according to Tamil and Malayalam legends were of snake-worshipping caste(still Tamil people), a custom common even in mainland South India. Sinhalese editors however prefer to enlist them as a mythical folk who bear no resemblance to any ethnic group(perhaps they may even go to the extent that they have encroached from Outer Space).

• Coming back to the point, Tamilakam in a widely public sphere(Referenced in the article) is seen as a geographic cluster of Tamil speakers across present day South Asia. The fact that there exists an indigenous Tamil-speaking population in Sri Lanka is what these editors all are gunning to deny by removing the entire context here.

Now Tamil Eelam again is seen as the traditional homeland of native Tamils(excluding the Colonial migrations) and due to strong Tamil nationalist sentiments in recent times, the Sri Lankan Tamils define it as their territorial claims whether backed by mainland Tamil epics/or opposed by the Sinhalese ones.

History records the modern Tamil civilization(the last surviving classical civilization on Earth) has evolved extensively in present day Keralam,Tamil Nadu and North-East Sri Lanka, so I have on my part with sufficient references to back my claims have mentioned:

"Tamilakam in South India along with Tamil Eelam in present-day North East Sri Lanka are claimed according to anthropological evidences and archaeological evidences, the birthplace of the modern Tamil civilization."

Please verify here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamilakam&oldid=546244343

And as far as that goes, I believe it causes no trouble to any nation's sovereignty nor invades any other community's territories. NEITHER DO ANY OF THE SRI LANKAN EDITORS NOR THEIR DUBIOUS RESOURCES HAD CONTESTED THIS.

As far as Tamil Eelam's inclusion in Tamilakam stands, I see no problem there, since by large Tamilakam's boundaries is defined by a few epics and (not by any World Organization) for legitimizing them. And moreover the certainty of these epics' knowledge spanning beyond their respective kingdoms(Eg:Pandya Kingdom) is disputed nor their primary topic/subject was covering Tamil Civilizations. And again, there are as many epics to contest them and raise more doubts which can only be avoided.

So I suggest, neither the Manimekalai nor the Mahavamsa can possibly define Tamilakam or Tamil Eelam but the historic habitation of the Common Era Tamil civilization that thrived across South Asia.

A Hindu Temple in Trincomalee, East Sri Lanka built in 205 BC, a classic example of Tamil-Architecture

A 605 AD Hindu Temple in Kanchipuram, present day Tamil Nadu, similar example of traditional Tamil architecture

So what basically editors like SriSuren has done is add some two dozen sources that repeat the same thing(eg:references to Tolkapiyam) and has constantly intimidated other editors by POV pushing in the article.

My edit in 22nd March seemingly brought peace(to all parties perhaps) was challenged by Blackknight12 and resolved in the last week of March itself(assuming no issue raised in the talk page, nor were there further reverts).

Now SriSuren who has made a comeback to wiki, has once again engaged in POV pushing, slyly removing cited content while presenting his POV two of which are totally unrelated. While I reverted his last edit for the same reason, Blackknight12 has resorted to do the same thing now.

I highly recommend that SriSuren be reprimanded for all his edits in this wiki which throughout aims at purely pushing his POV rather than make sense or work out consensus with the other editors' claims. As for Blackknight12, he has just been vandalizing content from a lot of articles I contribute to and lets just say this is one of them.

Reply by JJ: So.... if I understand it correct: different opinions can be voiced, and underscored with sources, on the "borders" of Tamilakam. These borders can be understood either geographical or culturally. I'd say it's good to mention those various opinions and approaches, and also to mention the sensitivities involved here-in. Being an European from a white middle-class background, living in a peacefull country, I'm somewhat overwhelmed by those sensitivies. We've got clashes too between various ethnical and cultural groups, but compared to the problems in your area, our "problems" are probably almost a laugh. I hope we can find a text which is acceptable to all parties. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

JJ, Basically borders and civilizations are two fundamentally different topics, isn't that what you believe? I don't know why my text had to feature under the borders part. If you are convinced that Tamil Eelam may ought to be a part of Tamilakam, you may state that Tamil Eelam as a part of Tamilakam then and add it to the lead as well. Either that, or Clearly underline Tamil Eelam was along with Tamilakam(Present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala) a cultural home to a vast Tamil civilization as per the sources or their respective articles. Sri Lankan editors have only been able to provide to some extent what the territorial boundaries of Tamilakam was, they could not deny/disprove an existence of a Tamil civilization in Sri Lanka which is referred to as Tamil Eelam.--CuCl2 04:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Nishadhi:

CuCl2, Dear friend,

To avoid a lengthy discussion I’ll straight away go to the facts. The facts that you are trying to include in to the article are in dispute due to two reasons.

1. Manipulated facts and original research
2. Unreliable sources

Manipulated facts and original research Under the subsection “Cultural area” it is stated that “ Several authors state, based on anthropological evidences and archaeological evidences, that the birthplace of the modern Tamil civilization includes both Tamilakam in South India and Tamil Eelam in present-day North East Sri Lanka” then there are four references given as sources.

• Ref no 39 : Akazhaan - Tamilnet – I’ll discuss this under unreliable sources
• Ref no 40 : Krishnan, Shankara (1999) I’m afraid there is not a single reference to any kind of anthropological or archaeological evidence in this source.
• Ref no 41 and 42 : Aryan or Dravidian or Neither? Both these references leads to the same journal article, A Study of Recent Attempts to Decipher the Indus Script. There are three theories with regard to the language of the Indus script which is yet to be deciphered, that it’s an Aryan script, a Dravidian script or neither of above. In this study, editors try to outline selected evidence to support each. Here, there are two sections (4.8 and 4.9) which refers to the Jaffna Seal, according to the reference which should support the statement that is in dispute. It’s regarding a metal seal which was found at a megalithic burial complex at Jaffna. It has two lines of symbols, where 1st line resembles Indus script and the second line resembles Brahmi script. According to the article a theory has been proposed whether it a bilingual script like rosetta stone which allows the deciphering of Indus script. However, interestingly there is not a single reference to a “Tamil Eelam” in Sri Lanka, throughout the article. (Read for yourself [10]).

Unreliable Sources Ref no 30: Tamil net is described as a pro LTTE website (obviously with reasons). So why go for a controversial source. If these anthropological and archaeological evidence exist, clearly you can give reference to a peer reviewed journal article. Right?

So these are the reasons why I am against the inclusion of Tamil Eelam in this statement. Finally with regard to the Tamil Eelam, in my opinion, Its not relevant to the current dispute but we will get there in another time. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Looks to me like there are some sources which say that there were merchants who settled at Eelam [11] [12]. That's something, but not the same as "Eelam was part of Tamilakam".
• I've read the parts from Mahadevan; indeed noting about Eelam.
• Krishna does not say that Tamil culture originated in both South India and Sri Lanka; page 172 is about a press conference.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Thanks for the mediation. Just some notes: I think you have expanded and articulated the article well, however I think you should keep in mind WP:WEIGHT. So far it is ok, but the cultural influence paragraph could soon turn into a history Tamils in Sri Lanka, which is beyond the scope of the article. Also there are many things that could start another dispute, so it is best to keep things simple.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Nishadhi: True JJ. Its a well known fact that there had been Tamil trader settlements dating back to 3rd to 2nd century BCE. There are inscriptions regarding the donations made by Tamil traders to Buddhist monasteries and even about Tamil Buddhist monks. However Sri Lanka being a part of a Tamil kingdom? Its a complete different thing. You can get a detailed account about early Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka here. ("Indrapala K. Early Tamil settlements in Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1969;XIII:43-63." However it has its limitations. This study was done in sixties when the excavation technologies and opportunities were at a minimum. Soon the war began and even though it ended in 2009 due to demining (land mines) process there won't be any new excavations for at least 10 more years. But this is the best, published and peer reviewed data we have.) Nishadhi (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: Ah, thanks. You know, I don't know much about Indian history. In the west, there's a simplified and idelaised picture of India as being a spiritual and tolerant nation. Since I edit on Hinduism-related articles, I'm confronted again and again with Indian cultural, ethnic and religious sensitivities. I never kwew that India is such a complicated country. Most westerners probably don't. But this makes India really fascinating - much better than the simplified and idealised image. NB: ther is also aPhD-thesis. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nagas were not Tamil

Indrapala K. The evolution of an ethnic identity – The Tamils in Sri Lanka c. 300 BCE to c. 1200 CE. Sydney: MV Publications for the South Asian Studies Centre;2005.(Link). OCLC 61520644.

“… a rare reference to the language of Nagas is found in a story included in the Buddhist Tamil epic Manimekalai. In the story, a Tamil maritime trader is shipwrecked in the land of the Nagas (presumably Nagadipa) but manages to get assistance ‘because he had thoroughly learnt their language’ (XVI: II.60-61). Such a statement implies knowledge among Tamil-speakers that the Nagas spoke a different language.” P 350.

“That the Nagas spoke a language different from Tamil is seen from a rare reference to their language in the Manimekalai, 16: II 60, 70.” p 372.

“Siran Deraniyagala has speculated that the term ‘Nagas’ refers to the protohistoric early iron age peoples of Sri Lanka” p 173.

“In the traditions preserved in the early Sri Lankan chronicles as well as early Tamil literary works the Nagas appear as a distinct group.” p 173.

“By the end of the ninth century, there is no evidence relating to the Nagas. Clearly by that time, or very probably long before that time, the Nagas were assimilated in to the two major ethnic groups [Sinhala and Tamil] of the island. “ p 174.

Paranavithana S. The Arya kingdom in north Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1961;VII(2):174-224. (He is referring to the Arya-Cakravartis and not to the Aryans)

“Euhemerisation of these Nagas in to human beings, though fashionable with certain scholars, is not justified; the arguments for taking Nagas as human beings would also enable the Devas to be included in the same category. Even if the Nagas be taken as human beings, there is no particular reason to treat them as identical with Dravidians.” P 181.

“Though there is no doubt that the Jaffna peninsula was known in ancient days as Nagadipa, there were also other regions in Ceylon which had the same name.” p 182.

“The reason that the poet [author of Manimekalai] imagined Manipallavam as possessing a Buddha seat does not prove its identity with Nagadipa, for more than one place in the ancient Buddhist world competed for the honor of possessing this sacred object. According to the belief of Talaing Buddhists, this seat was preserved at a place in the Malay peninsula.” P 182.

Nishadhi (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: "Chelvadurai Manogaran (1987): Ethnic conflict and reconciliation in Sri Lanka p21" is highly suggestive and selective. A sensitive topic like this deserves better sourcing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Though the ethnicity of Nagas is something Sri Lankan authors tend to dispute about, the Manimekalai does mention Naga Nadu(Present day Jaffna Peninsula) a chronological Tamil Habitation. And if SriSuren case cite Tolkapiyam for boundaries, it should be equivalent to have the Manimekalai too likewise. Either don't edit the version Im doing, or remove both Tolkapiyam and Manimekalai if you do not prefer either.--CuCl2 14:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How thrustworthy is the Manimekalai as a historical source? Yet, you've got a point about the Tolkapiyam. But, the Tolkapiyam is also mentioned by secondary sources. so if you can provide reliable secondary sources which use the Manimekalai, it may be used in the article, if it's properly contextualised - such as mentioning the date of 6th century CE, and it's Buddhist agenda. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

But does the Manimekalai say that the Nagas were Tamils? John Holt writes that "in the early Sri Lankan chronicles as well as in the early Tamil literary works the nagas appear as a distinct group" p.73. He also writes that "the adoption of the Tamil language was helping the Nagas in the Tamil chiefdoms to be assimilated into the major ethnic group there" p.74.

Suggestive re-write

With this edit Coppercholride changed...

Although the 6th century CE Manimekalai "speaks of the great Naga king Valai Vanan and his queen Vdcamayilai who ruled the prosperous Naga Nadu with great splendour and a rich Tamil Buddhist tradition", and "some scholars [...] suggest [...] that [...] the Nagas were Tamil-speaking people who worshipped the cobra (Naga) [...] in the prehistorical period dating back to 1000 BCE", Tolkappiar, the writer of the Tolkappiyam, does not mention a Tamil part of Sri Lanka.

into...

Although Tolkappiar, the writer of the Tolkappiyam, does not mention a Tamil part of Sri Lanka, another ancient Tamil epic, the 6th century CE Manimekalai "speaks of the great Naga king Valai Vanan and his queen Vdcamayilai who ruled the prosperous Naga Nadu with great splendour and a rich Tamil Buddhist tradition", and "some scholars [...] suggest [...] that [...] the Nagas were Tamil-speaking people who worshiped the cobra (Naga) [...] in the prehistorical period dating back to 1000 BCE".

This may look like a little difference, but it moves 'the burden of evidence' from the Manimekalai to the Tolkappiyam, suggesting that the Manimekalai is more accurate or factual correct. This is reinforced by placing "some scholars" at the end, whereby this part is used as "evidence" pro-Tolkappiyam, instead of this part being contradicted by the Manimekalai. This rewrite also neglects the fact that the Manimekalai was written eight centuries after the Tolkappiyam, and can't be taken as a factual account. Another point is that page 21 of "Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka" by Manogaran gives an overview of speculations of early Tamil settlements at Sri Lanka, and not an overview of widely accepted theories. This is done at the end of page 21, and at page 22, where Manogaran writes:

... there is general concensus among historians that Sinhalese settlements preceded Tamil settlements on the island by a few centuries [...] we can only speculate that the ancestors of the present-day Tamils were already in Sri Lanka when the Sinhalese began colonizing the island.

The sentence "Some scholars [...] BCE" was already taken from Manogaran, as is clear from the reference. To add this refernce double shows a clear neglectance of the article and its structure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Manimekalai & Naga

User:Coppercholride restored his preferred version by [13] and [14], thereby removing edits from User:Nishadhi [15] and User:Joshua Jonathan [16]. His reverts are problematic for several reasons:

• Removal of a source: "Indrapala K. Early Tamil settlements in Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1969;XIII:54"
• Inserting statements that are not backed by the given sources: "'many other great Tamil epics such as the Manimekalai speaks of a prosperous Naka Nadu in the island with great splendour and a rich Tamil Buddhist tradition."
  • Tamilnadu.com [17] mentions only the Manimekalai, not "many other great Tamil epics" that speak of Naka Nadu, so this is WP:OR;
  • srilankaguardian.org [18] also doesn't mention "many great Tamil epics", but only the Silappadikaram and Manimekalai, so this is also WP:OR;
  • The Daily news [19] does not mention Naga Nadu, nor is it about Sri Lanka; it only says "the Nagas [...] were a pre-historic, Dravidian race of people, [...] who were the forefathers of the early Thamils of Sri Lanka and Thamil Nadu." Quite a claim, for which no further sources are given;
• The Manimekalai is from the 6th century CE, which is not exactly from the same time as the Tolkappiyam, namelythe 2nd century BCE; correct paraphrasing would be "Mythological accounts date the presence of Tamil-speaking people further back in time", to make clear that the Manimekalai is not a factual account; this correct paraphrasing was also removed; as given by Coppercholride, the text is suggestive, by leaving out info;
• These three sources are web-pages, and don't provide proper scientific sources;
• A second removal of sourced info: "In the third centurie BCE the first Tamil settlers arrived at Sri Lanka." (source: Wenzlhuemer 2008 p.19-20)
• [20] also is a web-article without proper references to secondary literature.

I would appreciate it if you first address these points, instead of simply reverting. You're ignoring several policies, if only WP:CONCENSUS, let alone WP:RS and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I highly suggest not using accounts from mythology, as mythology itself is highly subjects to disputes. I would not consider mythology a source for reference, especially in a article of this nature. This includes the Nagas, as illustrated in the section above by Nishadhi.

Also the cultural influence section is now becoming a paragraph on Tamil influence in the rest of the world, soon you will see the inclusion of Singapore and Malaysia. The section is supposed to be about the cultural influence of Tamilakam, (Tamil country) not Tamil people. In other words the influence of the state, not the expatriates. The inclusion of the Giraavaru people and Nagas are off topic, and a manipulation of sources.--Blackknight12 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishahdi: Manimekalai by S.K.Aiyangar [21]]. Poem starts at p 111. (Caution: there are lots of translations out there. This is only one out of many versions. Linked just to get an idea about it) Nishadhi (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - to all future editors: I think it would be interesting find out the influences of Tamilakam towards north India. How Tamilakam helped to shape the current day India.... or something like that... Nishadhi (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be interesting indeed - but also a topic loaded with nationalistic sensitivities, because of the "Sanskritization" c.q. "Indo-Aryanization" of India, and the faultline between northern and southern India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic context

The sentence "In an academic context, Tamilakam is used to refer to these territories as a single cultural area, where Tamil was the natural language and culture of all people." was not supported by the sources:

• Kanakasabhai 1997 is in fact a reprint from a 1904 publication; that's not exactly representative of a contemporary academic context in general
• Abraham writes: "the archaeological data from protohistoric Kerala and Tamil Nadu is not so clear--cut and, in fact, appears to challenge the very notion of a separate culture region." That's the opposite of what wa said in the lead.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Tolkappiar and Sikiandiyar

What are (the) Tolkappiar and Sikiandiyar? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As u might have found out already Tolkappiar or Tolkappian is the writter of Tolkappium, while Sikandiyar wrote a treasie on Music. Both are supposed to be disciples of Agastya (Agastyar). In reality Tolkappium was most probably written by several authors at different times, and the author of the main part of Tolkappium, Tolkappiar might have been a Pandyan prince. SriSuren (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ila Nadu as a part of Tamilakam

Sorry if my argument was unclear. Let me summarise it as follows: 1.) Tamilakam is a socio-cultural unit consisting of several political units (called Nadus) https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Tamilakam+sociio+cultural&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&client=opera&hs=2FN&rls=en&channel=suggest&tbm=bks&q=Tamilakam+socio-cultural+unit&oq=Tamilakam+socio-cultural+unit&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...13675.15783.4.16025.2.2.0.0.0.0.224.282.1j0j1.2.0...0.0.6V8z-O0Opdk&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=1c4b1f6a729768f6&biw=1067&bih=565

Hence, the quote from Tolkappiyam </ref>SriSuren reflects the boundaries of the time of Tolkappiyar only.

As evidence I quote from one of the sources you cited, "At present, Tamilakam is wherever the adventurous Tamilar settle for trade and commerce and cultivate Tamil."

2.) We are talking about territories called 'Ila Nadu' and 'Naga Nadu' which in today occupies an aspirational state called Tamileelam.

The following are evidence for a separate political unit called Ila Nadu:

• "He enjoyed the beauty of the Ila Nadu and the Northern territory with his mental eyes."

• "...gift of 50 sheep for a perpetual lamp in the temple of Mahadevar at Tiruchivindiram in Nanchi-nadu, by Malavaraiyan Chenni Kandan of Ila-nadu."
• "a celebrated temple dedicated to Tirukedisvarar, a temple in Ila-nadu (Sri Lanka) sung by the Tamil saint Sambandar (seventh century ad)."

• "This is absolutely a misconception since the term Tamilakam is never used to include the non-annexed Tamil parts of Ilam." (Here the author refutes identifying Ceylon with Ilam, implying 'Tamizhagam was used for the annexed Tamil parts of Ilam.)

• "Tamilakam of Ceylon comprised in the Northern and Eastern Provinces was from time immemorial"

• "These treatises deal with a 'Tamilakam' that stretched from the Dekkhan to Ceylon, comprising the lands of the Colas, Ceras, and Pandyas."

3.) The claim of "Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka" has no reliable sources

Certainly the references in the picture say Eezham = Ceylon. There are three problems with this:

• This does not back up the alleged: Ila-nadu= Ila mandalam = Eelam = Sinhala = Sri Lanka
• Sri Lanka is a name adopted recently 1970 by an island that was up until then known as Ceylon, refer to British Ceylon
• These dictionaries were compiled during the period of British Ceylon, hence, it is natural they are calling it 'Ceylon'. If we were translating Ilam today we call it 'Sri Lanka', we would have called it 'Ceylon' 200 years ago, and further back we would have called it 'Sinhala-dvipa', etc. Unless you discover the meaning of Eezham during the time of Tamizhagam in the Nikantu Noolkal (Tamil dictionaries).

In fact James Emerson Tennent believes the word comes from Tamil meaning 'gold' conforming to the belief that three peaks of Eezham correspond to the golden Mount Meru. Considering your dictionary references also corroborate that Eezham means 'gold', this would seem a more plausible derivation than saying Eezham camed from Sri Lanka.

4.) Evidence for Naga Nadu as a political unit and part of Tamilakam

• "This indicates Naga descent, with a probable connection to Jaffna, the Sri Lankan home of the Nagas.5 All the territories of Tamilakam, including Jaffna peninsula, were united by a common language."

5.) Evidence of what is currently known as Ceylon/Sri Lanka (or parts of which) as a part of Tamilakam

"The Iron Age culture of Tamilakam is increasingly dealt with in isolation and associated with early Sangam literature. ... culture extends over an area from Vidarbha in Maharashtra to Sri Lanka, ie well beyond the limits of Tamil Nadu" =>A point to note in this Journal by the ICHR in 2002 is that it gives the modern state names like Maharashtra, Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu; but still differentiates the historic 'Tamilakam'. Likeso the dictionaries you point to would have done something similar by giving the contemporary place names of that time like Ceylon.

• "Pali and Sanskrit literatures generally distinguish Lanka and Simhaladvipa or " Tambapanni " as separate countries.14 The sense becomes clear when we take Tamraparni or Simhala as the southernmost part of Tamilakam"

6.) SriSuren you have been attempting to foist scholarly consensus from the above sources, such as the following:

• "So, why do Tamils keep on claiming that the artifacts from the Iorn Age Culture like the Megaliths and associated artifacts like the Black-and-Ware is Tamil? They are found all over India, not only in Tamilakam (Tamil nadu). Also does this mean that Maharashtra too will be claimed as Tamil by the Tamils? Because this how the logic is applied. See the article by Shinu Abraham. "
• "Raymond Pfister is a Penteconst priest. While Kanasabai is not reliable for you, a pentecost pastor who you have never heard about and who has not even written the statement u have quoted is reliable? Just"
• "This is pure invention by Mr. Ponnambalam."

I am not interested in your academic debate, and frankly neither is wikipedia. Please see WP:V and WP:NOTOR. And I quote: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable."

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to discuss your views and opinions about authors. Whereas you can challenge the credibility of sources launching personal attack based on religion like, I quote, "a pentecost pastor" or on an individual like "This is pure invention by Mr. Ponnambalam." is not acceptable.

Nagadwipa is Sanskrit, its Tamil equivalent is Naga Nadu

"Writers state that the northern part of the Island, especially the Jaffna Peninsula, was known as Naga Nadu (Tamil) or Naga Dipa (Sinhala)."

Nagas were Tamils

Tamil Nadu is not far away from Jaffna (Naka Nadu), why is it not possible that the ancient Tamils​​. ​​were the first settlers of Jaffna ?

Ancient Tamil people were the the first settlers of Maldive

Comparative studies of Maldivian oral, linguistic and cultural traditions and customs indicate that the first settlers were Dravidian people from Kerala in the Sangam period (300 BC–AD 300), most probably fishermen from the southwest coasts of what is now the south of the Indian Subcontinent and the western shores of Sri Lanka. One such community is the Giraavaru people descended from ancient Tamils. They are mentioned in ancient legends and local folklore about the establishment of the capital and kingly rule in Malé.

Nagas belong to the Dravidian group

The Naga Clan were no mystical beings but normal people. They are snake worshipers and they belong to the Dravidian culture like Tamils. H. Parker, a British historian said the Nagas are offshoot of the Nayars of Kerala. Nayar were a martial clan as the Villavar or Vanniyar. The serpent is worshipped by Nair families as a guardian of the clan. Kerala was a part of the Tamilakam until the birth of Malayalam. The worship of snakes, was a popular custom among Dravidians. Archaeological excavations and studies provide evidence of palaeolithic inhabitation in the Tamil dominated Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka and in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The findings include Nāka idols and suggest that serpent worship was widely practised in the Dravidian regions of India and Sri Lanka during the megalithic period.

Name of Naga king

Manimekalai speaks of the great Naga king Valaivanan ruled the Naga Nadu.

Valaivanan is a name of Tamil origin like.

• Manivanan
• Tamilvanan
• Ponvanan
• Maravanan
• Saravanan

Language

Nāka people were snake-worshippers, a Dravidian custom, and spoke Tamil based on Ptolemy's description of the Nāka people. They also spoke Prakrit, a language of the school of Amaravati because the early Tamils of Jaffna had strong cultural relations during the classical period with Andhra Pradesh. Telugu is the only Language which kept a separate name for Tamils. The Telugu people of Andhra Pradesh called Aravas to the Tamils. Aravam means in ancient Tamil snake.

Chera Nadu and Kongu Nadu ARE DIFFERENT

Stop conflating Kongu and Chera Nadu pls. Why would they have separate references in "A handbook of Kerala" if they were the same place?!!

[1]http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Tondai+Nadu+Andhra+pradesh&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&channel=suggest&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=Kongu+Nadu+(kongu+ndtu)+was+one+of+the+Nadu-s+(nadu)+in+Tamilakam+just+like+the+Chola%2C+Pandya%2C+Chera%2C+Tondai+(tondai)&oq=Kongu+Nadu+(kongu+ndtu)+was+one+of+the+Nadu-s+(nadu)+in+Tamilakam+just+like+the+Chola%2C+Pandya%2C+Chera%2C+Tondai+(tondai)&gs_l=serp.3...10946.10946.0.11187.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.1...1c.1.fNX9T4zgr5Y&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c6ff831061e496b8&bpcl=36601534&biw=1040&bih=565

"... that Kongu Nadu (kongu ndtu) was one of the Nadu-s (nadu) in Tamilakam just like the Chola, Pandya, Chera, Tondai ..."

They are given separate mentions i.e. they were two different countries of Tamilakam.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=yalnadu&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#bpcl=36601534&channel=suggest&fp=a95bff877a5c63f8&hl=en&q=%22During+the+Sangam+age+Kerala+was+part+of+Tamilakam%22&rls=en&tbm=bks

"During the Sangam age, Kerala was part of Tamilakam"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=yalnadu&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#bpcl=36601534&channel=suggest&fp=a95bff877a5c63f8&hl=en&q=The+earliest+epigraphic+record+which+methions+of+the+Chera-nadu+(Kerala)+is+&rls=en&tbm=bks

"The earliest epigraphic record which methions of the Chera-nadu (Kerala)"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=yalnadu&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#bpcl=36601534&channel=suggest&fp=a95bff877a5c63f8&hl=en&q=%22Chera+Nadu+which+included+most+of+the+present+day+Kerala%22&rls=en&tbm=bks

"Chera Nadu which included most of the present day Kerala."

These sources give Chera Nadu as being modern Kerala!!

Remember Malayalam split out of Tamil in the 14-15th centuries under the patronage of Ezhuthachan, before this time Chera Nadu (or Kerala) was a part of the wider Tamil cultural unit.