Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Ind-Arch] Brahmans were in Tamil Nadu before Sangam Age

Expand Messages
  • Carlos
    Thank you for your explanation. I agree that colonial thinking must be rejected but I doubt that your Sumero-Tamil conection could be proved yet. Carlos
    Message 1 of 88 , Apr 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for your explanation. I agree that colonial thinking must be rejected but I doubt that your Sumero-Tamil conection could be proved yet.

      Carlos


      --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "K. Loganathan" <ulagankmy@...> wrote:
      >
      > Carlos
      >
      > This is a historical myth making than anything else. I am interacting now with a wide range of Tamil scholars in TN and elsewhere and reaching a consensus on the fact that Sumerian is not only Archaic Tamil but also the Tamil of the First Sagkam. There is also now discussions on the Second Sangkam.  The Third Sagkam is dated from about 500 BC to around 200 AD.
      >
      > Also I want to mention here there was no time when there were no Brahmins as part of the Tamil society. Even in Sumerian times there were babbars (worshippers of the Sun?) who became the Third Sangkam paarppar. They were all Tamil speaking and probably blacks as were the Sumerians.
      >
      > You know I am showing even the Vedas to be derivatives of SumeruTamil.
      >
      > It was more a colonial game of isolating Sk and Brahmins  from the Dravidians for creating the myth of Indo-Aryan and with that project the current colonial situation to ancient India. It has divided the whole of India for the last 200 years.  I suppose you want to continue this colonial mischief
      >
      > Below I give an example of a poem from the Third Sangkam that shows that the Vedas were respected and hence the vediic sages were an integral part of Tamil Society. If you want I can cite other poems to that effect
      >
      > The poem cited must be quite ancient as it mentions Mahabharata War
      >
      > Loga
      >
      > >>>
      >
      > PuRam 1:
      >
      > Sung about Ceramaan PerunjcooRRu Utiyanj Ceeral Atan by Muranjciyuur mudi Naakaraayar (taken from the edition published U.Ve. S. Aiyer)
      >
      > 13- 25
      >
      > vaana varambanai niiyoo peruma!
      >
      > alaGkuLaip puRavi aivarodu cinai.i
      > nilantlaik koNda polampuut tumbai
      > iiraim patinmarum poruth kaLattu oziyap
      > peruNjcooRRu mikupatam varaiyaatu koduttoy!
      >
      > pAal puLippinum pakal iruLinum
      > nAal veeta neRi tiryinum
      > tiryaac cuRRamodu muzutu ceeN vialGki
      > nadukkinRi nilaiyaroo vattai yadukattuc 
      > ciRutalai navvip peruGkaN maappinai
      > anti aNtanar aruGkadan iRukkum
      > muttii viLakkiR tunjcum
      > poRkooddu imayamum potiyamum poonRee!
      >
      >
      > Trans
      >
      >
      > Though art a King having only the sky as you boundary!
      >
      > Thou art the one who gave the combatants 
      > unlimited food during the battle between the Five (PaaNdavas )
      > wearing the garland of  golden Tumbai flowers and riding on
      > five horses with brilliant manes and 
      > the hundred (Kauravas) who out of anger 
      > fought them and got eliminated by them in the battleground!
      >
      > Even if the milk becomes sour and the whole world becomes dark
      > Even if the Way of the Four Vedas become distorted and deviant
      > Thou shall flourish with  unchanging companions, shining brilliantly in the distant sky
      > and remain unshattered just like the 
      > Himalayas and Potiyam 
      > where abound the herds deer of  small heads but large eyes
      > and rest peacefully in the Light of Three Flames 
      > set up by the AntaNar to conduct their evening prayers!
      >
      > Notes:
      >
      > The battle that is being referred to here is certainly the Mahabarata War between the Five PaNdavas ( aivar) and hundred Kauravas ( iir aimpatinmar). It also shows that the war was between the people of the Pandi Nadu and in which the Ceras were helping out by providing food for the warriors. It is not clear where the battle was fought. However the information provided appears to be of direct observation and hence cannot  be something very  deep in the past. If we assign a date such as the 4th cent BC for
      >  this poem, perhaps Mahabarata War must have been fought around the 6th-8th cent BC.
      >
      > We must recall here that one of the most ancient Pandiya Kings is called Nilan Taru Tiruvin Pandian, mentioned in the forward to Tolkaappiyam itself, as the King in whose court it was studied and approved against the questioning of AtaGkooddu Asan, well versed in the Four Vedas. This attribute mentions that the PaaNdiya is the one who gave land or established a country. Could it be that having lost their lands to Kauravas, perhaps in the Himalayas, the PaaNdavas migrated to the South and became the PaaNdiyas? And such poems were composed while the Himalayas were fresh in heir memory?
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Carlos <carlosaramayotigres@...>
      > To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:05 AM
      > Subject: [Ind-Arch] Brahmans were in Tamil Nadu before Sangam Age
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      > Dear Radha,
      >
      > Recent research shows Purvasikha brahmans arrived in Tamil Nadu around 50 BCE or even 100 years earlier. T P Mahadevan considers the beginning of Sangam age precisely around 50 BCE, so brahmans influence in South started then or even earlier:
      >
      > ***
      > 39th Annual Conference on South Asia, 2010, University of Wisconsin-Madison
      >
      > Mahadevan, TP
      > The Karnaparvan in the Textual Scheme of the Mahabharata
      >
      > It is established now beyond any reasonable contradiction that the Mahabharata epic, largely in its present form, possesses a continuous textual history from ca. 2nd BCE to the present. Further,the Pune Critical Edition of the epic captures an archetype of the epic from this time, preserved in a Sarada codex of the epic from the Kashmir region. I have shown that this text or one close to it, a *Sarada text, came to the peninsula with the Purvasikha Brahmans ca. 50 BCEâ€"or a century before, to allow for their acculturation to the Tamil culture and milieu and attested participation in the making of the Sangam poetry. I show from an analysis of the Sabhaparvan (SP) of the epic that they create the Southern Recension (SR) of the epic in the peninsula from this *Sarada text, ca. 300 CE. I propose to bring the Karnaparvan (KP) to a similar scrutiny.
      > P.L.Vaidya, its CE editor, considers it to be an unstable text in its Sarada versionâ€"by extension, the *Sarada text, seen to be present in the peninsula from the evidence of the SP of the SR. How do the Southern redactors "schematize" the KP of the *Sarada text into its SR version? I showed that the rise of Vaisnavism is reflected in the schematization of the *Sarada SP into the SR SP:
      > are there such sub-texts to be found in the SR KP? Karna answers more than all other heroes of the epic to the canror ethos of the Sangam poetry: is there any evidence of it in the KP of the SR?
      > My paper addresses these and allied questions.
      > ***
      >
      > Best regards,
      >
      > Carlos Aramayo
      >
      > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, ravilochanan iyengar <ravilochan_tn@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > The Sangam literature does mention Brahmanas in Chera territory as well as Vedic sacrifices done by the Chera kings. Pandya and Chola kings are also shown as followers of Vedic religion. The word 'Namboothiri' is not found in Sangam text. The reason is that the word is a later formation. But the ancestors of today's Namboothiris must have been in Kerala from the Sangam Age. After all, Tamil lands were first populated by the Purvasikha Brahmanas (like Namboothiris and Choziyas). The Aparasikhas came later and settled only in the Tamil Nadu region (from where they migrated to Palakkad) but never entered Kerala.
      > > Unless we can identify a Brahmana community in Kerala which precedes the Namboothiris, we have to accept that the Namboothiris have been in Kerala since Sangam Age. The popular belief that Brahmanas entered Kerala only in 4th century CE is proved wrong by the Sangam literature itself.
      > >
      > > regards
      > > Ravilochanan
      > >
      > >
      > > --- On Sat, 11/12/10, radha_canada <radha_canada@> wrote:
      > >
      > > From: radha_canada <radha_canada@>
      > > Subject: [Ind-Arch] Re: Ahichhatra: the largest proto-urban site in South Asia
      > > To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      > > Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 8:45 PM
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Interestingly, there is a traditional belief among the Namboodiri Brahmins that they came to Kerala from Ahichhatra enroute Tulu Nadu (Tulu speaking region in south western Karnataka.) It seems the Nairs too hold a similar belief. If such a mass migration did indeed occur, many believe that it might not have been from the Ahichhatra of 1000 or 600 BCE but more likely from the Ahichhatra of early centuries of the CE. As I understand it, many of the Sangam (Sangha) era classical Tamil compositions have the Chera (Kerala) country as their background, yet there is no mention of Namboodiris or Nairs in these literary works.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Thanks and regards,
      > >
      > > Radhakrishna Warrier
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Carlos" <carlosaramayotigres@> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Recent excavation at North Panchala's capital Ahichhatra shows this is the largest proto-urban site in South Asia in the PGW period between c. 1000 BC and 600 BC:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > "...markers are obtained from the excavations of 1940-44, 1963-65 and 2008-09, for the spread of PGW people. Total area so far known under PGW is 40 hectare..." (Vikram 2010:28).
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > The full article by Dr Bhuwan Vikram at:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > http://tinyurl.com/233xtjj
      > >
      > > > (pages 23-29)
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Until recently it was thought that the biggest Painted Grey Ware site was Satwadi in Pakistani Cholistan with 13.7 ha (Mughal 1984, Possehl & Gullapalli 1999:156).
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Previously, Coningham (1995:58) had mentioned the following sites as the largest proto-urban ones in South Asia at the end of 2nd millennium and beginning of 1st millennium BC:
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > "Hastinapura (ca. 1100-800 BC) 6.5 ha; Kausambi (ca. 1000-600 BC) 10 ha; Pirak (ca. 1600-800 BC) 9 ha; Anuradhapura (ca. 600-450 BC) 18 ha; Charsadda 13 ha; Taxila 13 ha; Inamgaon (ca. 1600-700 BC) 5 ha; Daimabad 30 ha".
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Later on, it was found that Akra, at NWFP in Pakistan, had about 20 ha at 900 BC: "Akra was already a large, and possibly urban, center" (Magee, Petrie et al. 2005:734).
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Now Ahichhatra's 2008-09 excavations show it is even twice the size of Akra. This points out to the fact that there was a proto-urbanization in South Asia and particularly in Ganga Valley much earlier than 300 BC (the set of Early Historic Period).
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Best regards,
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > > Carlos
      > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Francesco Brighenti
      ... Puhar/Kaveripattinam is *principally* known to archaeology for its trade with the Roman Empire, although its merchants certainly traded with other
      Message 88 of 88 , Jun 23, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Ravilochanan Iyengar wrote:

        > It has to be noted that Pattinappalai does not mention the
        > word 'Yavanar' anywhere as far as I can remember. So, why should it
        > be assumed that Karikala belonged to the period of trading with
        > Greek states or even the Roman empire? Should the presence of a
        > port necessary imply trade with Romans?

        Puhar/Kaveripattinam is *principally* known to archaeology for its trade with the Roman Empire, although its merchants certainly traded with other countries too.

        In this connection, let me introduce a new element of textual analysis which, though I am not claiming it to amount to "proof" that Roman (`Yavana') merchants -- i.e. ethnic Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs etc. -- are mentioned in the Pattinappalai, appears worth of discussion to me.

        The Pattinappalai (in J.V. Chelliah's English translation) refers to the "fair", "coral-like" complexion and the "pink" feet of the bejewelled women living in the harbour quarter of Puhar in the age of Karikala; the poet further compares the hands of those women to flowers of kAntaL (Malabar glory lyly, having orange or red-and-yellow flowers) and makes a simile between their (foreign?) tongue(s) and the screech of the parrot's call:

        In cloud-topped, lofty, storeyed halls
        Around which there are piers built
        Are numerous courts and doors, both large
        And small, and spacious cloisters reached [160]
        By long ladders with close-set steps.
        In them do gather fair women
        Whose feet are pink, whose thighs close-set.
        Adorned are they with gauds of gold.
        Their hips are broad, their dress is soft;
        Fair are their red coral-like skins.
        Arrayed are they like gay peacocks.
        Their eyes are deer-like, and their speech,
        Like the parrot's prattle; these enjoy
        The breeze that blows through the windows. [170]
        They worship with bejewelled hands
        Resembling clusters that do sprout
        From kAntaL's joints whose blooms do spread
        Their pollens sweet on mountain slopes.
        Wide is the street where people trade...

        As is well-known, the Pattinappalai also tells us that in the age of Karikala Puhar was a large port-town having colonies of foreign merchants:

        As those who are united close
        By various high cultures, at times
        Together come to ancient shrines,
        So people speaking diverse tongues
        That come from great and foreign homes
        Mix free in friendly terms with those
        Who occupy this glorious town. [260]

        (N.B. Of course, the Cilappatikaram [5. 1-10] *explicitly* refers to `Yavana' merchants living in their separate quarters in Puhar, but this is another matter as this Tamil epic dates from the 5th-6th centuries CE.)

        Could not the fair-complexioned women referred to in the Pattinappalai, whose tongue, seemingly unintelligible to the poet, is compared by him to the parrot's call, be `Yavana' women – that is, women hailing from the Roman Empire?

        Regards,
        Francesco
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.