View Poll Results: Is the Vedic claim of 100,ooo years old Aryan kingline(yugas) acceptable?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • No way,imaginative

    7 50.00%
  • Yes,believable

    5 35.71%
  • can't say

    2 14.29%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Historians' TIMELINE of ancient Tamil Kings of Sangam works

  1. #1
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Historians' TIMELINE of ancient Tamil Kings of Sangam works

    As far as we have collected from sangam literature,
    the Timeline of ancient Thamizhagam is as follows[years in bold are historically correlated well identified dates]

    TO READ AS :[E]=EMPEROR OF HIS TIME;
    FIRST NAME+-SURNAME ACCREDITED NAME : YEAR OF ACCESSION TO THRONE: CHANGE OF CAPITAL TO:
    [E]kaai cina vazhuthi 9800 B.C.E.-THENMARUTHAM
    nedumeen thizhigan
    vael'meen kaavan
    ..........
    kadungoan 5400 B.C.E.-KU'ADAM (ALAIVAAI)
    ilanthirai vazhuthi 5370 B.C.E.
    ...........
    vaandroarchezhiyan 3100 B.C.E.-KOR'KAI
    mukkaavan vazhuthi 3020 B.C.E.
    ...........
    [E]alaivaai agazhch chezhiyan 2845 B.C.E. -old remaining land of the partially submerged city of KU'ADAM,then an island
    [E]thamizhi ,thizhigan 2800 B.C.E.
    [E]nar'seyan vazhuthi 2750 B.C.E. -KOR'KAI because the remaining KU'ADAM too submerges,
    porkaippandyan 2400 B.C.E.
    ol'vaenmaruthan 2350 B.C.E. -MAN'AVOOR
    ...........
    [E]yaazhthi kaavan 2300 B.C.E. -THIRUCHCHEERALAIVAAI
    kaavan thizhigan 2275 B.C.E.
    mudaththirumaar'an 1700 B.C.E.-MATHURAI
    ilanambi maar'an 1665 B.C.E.
    ...........
    [E]nediyoan, , vaimbalamba nindra,munneer vizhavin , perungalanediyoane 510 B.C.E.
    thizhigan
    chezhiyanvazhuthi
    ......
    .
    neduvazhuthi
    [E]nambi, , pandyan arivudai 360 B.C.E.
    paan'arvazhuthi
    nedunjezhiyan
    kochchezhiyanaval'an
    perunjezhiyan
    [E]poothappaan'diyan ollaiyur thandha poothappaan'dian 150 B.C.E. ....
    ....
    [E]nambi nedunjezhiyan 76 B.C.E.
    semmaaran 35 B.C.E.
    nedunjezhiyan , aryapadaikadantha, 10 B.C.E.
    [E]perumpaeyar vazhuthi ,karungai ol'vaall', 25 C.E.
    nedunjezhiyan , cithiramadathu thunjiya 85
    peruvazhuthi , velliambalathu thunjiya 110
    nanvazhuthi , koodakarathu thunjiya 118
    nanmaar'an , ilavanthigaipalli thunjiya 121
    [E]nedunjezhiyan , thalaiyaalangaanaththu 125
    cheru vendra pandyan
    ukiraperuvazhuthi, kaanapaereyil erindha 165
    [E]peruvazhuthi , palyaagasalai mudhukudumi 200 C.E.

    CHOZHA KINGS
    mudiko,mael,kaal'aiyam,thagaiyan 2750 B.C.E.-POOMPUGAAR
    ilangokkeezhkaalaiyanthagaiyan 2730
    [E]nedunjaetchozhathagaiyan ?2710
    keezhnedumannan 2680
    kaal'andhagan 2665
    ilangeezhnannan ? 2645
    [E]kaal'aiyangudingyan ?2630
    nedungaal'andhagan 2615
    vaengaineduvaelvaraiyan 2614-2615
    vaetkaal'kudingyan 2600
    il'avaelvaraiyan 2590
    [E]sibi vendhi 2580 B.C.E.
    [E]parunonjichaamazhingyan 2535
    vaeqratrtrichembiyachozhan 2525
    [E]saamazhichozhiyavael'aan 2515
    uthivengaalaithagan 2495
    nannanthatkaal'aithagan 2475
    velvaenmin'di 2445
    nedunjembiyan 2415
    [E]nedunonji vendhi 2375
    [E]vaelpaqratrtri 2330
    perunthoan'nonji 2315
    kudikopungi 2275
    perungoeppoguvan 2250
    koeththatrtri 2195
    [E]vadisembiyan 2160
    [E]aal'ampoguvan 2110
    nedunjembiyan 2085
    perumpaeyarpoguvan 2056
    kadunjembiyan 2033
    [E]nedunkathan 2015
    [E]parunakkan 1960
    van'isembiyan 1927
    udhachir'amondhuvan 1902
    perunkaththan 1875
    [E]kadunkandhal'an 1860
    nakkamonjuvan 1799
    maar'kovaelmondhuvan 1785
    ven'kaandhal'an 1753
    perunakkan thatrtri 1723
    vaerkaththan 1703
    [E]ambalaththu irumundruvan 1682
    kaarimondhuvan 1640
    ven'nakkan thatrtri 1615
    vaqroat cembiyan 1590
    [E]maar'kochunthuvan 1565
    [E]vaerparunthoan'mundruvan 1520
    [E]udhankaththan 1455
    [E]kaarikosunthuvan 1440
    vendrinungun'an 1396
    mondhuvan vendhi 1376
    kaandhaman 1359
    mundruvan vendhi 1337
    kaandhaman 1297
    monjuvan vendhi 1276
    an'isembiyan 1259
    nungun'an vendhi 1245
    maar'kopperum cenni 1229
    monjuvan nanvendhi 1180
    [E]kopperunarchenni 1170
    monthuvanjembiyan 1145
    narchenni 1105
    caetchembiyan 1095
    nakkarchenni 1060
    [E]parunjembiyan c.1045
    venjenni 998
    musugunthan 989
    maar'kopperunjembiyan 960
    nedunjenni c.935
    thatchembiyan 915
    ambalaththuiruvaerchembiyan 895
    kaarikochenni 865
    venvaerchenni 830
    [E]kaandhaman , 788
    perunjenni
    kaandhal'an 721
    caetchenni 698
    van'inungun'an 680
    mudhusembiyan vendhi 640
    peelanjembiyachchozhiyan 615
    maeyangadungo 590
    [E]thiththan 570 -UR'AIYUR
    perunarkilli porvaiko 515
    kadumundruvan 496
    nedunjembiyan 495
    nakkanaranjozhan 480
    thevvangochozhan 465
    naranjembiyan 455
    [E]nakkampeelaval'avan 440
    iniyanthevvanjenni 410
    var'cembiyan 395
    kopperunjozhan 386
    narkilli mudiththalai 345
    ambalathuirungochchenni 330
    perunarkilli 316
    kochaet cenni 286
    [E]ilanjaetcenni cerupazhi erinda, 275
    pamuloor erindha
    neithalangaanal
    nedungopperunkilli 220
    [E]cenni ellagan (elder brother of Ellaalan who conquered Srilanka 205-POOMPUGAAR
    perungilli 165
    [E]kopperunjozhiyavil'anjaetcenni 140
    perunarkilli mudiththalaiko 120-UR'AIYUR
    ilamperunjenni 100
    perungilli vendhi 70
    nalangilli caet cenni , ilavanthigaipalli thunjiya 45
    vaenalangilli 15 B.C.E.
    ilanjaetcenni , uruvapakraer 10-16 C.E.
    [E]peruval'aththaan , karikaalan 31-POOMPUGAAR
    perunarkilli , vaerpaqradakkai 99
    perunthirumaval'avan ,kuraapalli thunjiya 99
    nalangilli 111
    [E]perunarkilli , kulamutrtraththu thunjiya 120
    perunarkilli , irasasuyavaetta 143-URAIYUR
    vaelkadunkilli 192
    kochengan'aan 220

    CERA KINGS

    [E]maavalicheran c.1150 B.C.E.-NAR'AVU
    [E]parasuramaraadan c.1050 B.C.E.
    [E]uthiyan cerlaadhan , perunjoatrtru c.900 B.C.E.
    .........
    [E]nedunjeraladan , imayavaramban 680
    ......
    [E]ceral irumborai , naarmudi 300-VANJI(in his later years)
    .....
    [E]anthuvanjeral irumborai 130
    perunjeralirumborai , ol'vaall' 100 B.C.E.
    ....
    [E]kuttuvankoadhai 45 B.C.E.
    kudakko ilanjeraladan 10 C.E.
    perunjeraladan 40
    kudako nedunjeraladan 99
    [E]cenguttuvan , kadal pir'akkoattiya
    vaelkezhu 99
    selvakadungo , vaazhiyaadhaan 120
    paalai paadiya
    sikkarpalli thunjiya
    [E]perungadungo , vaazhiyaadhaan 137
    thagadoor erindha
    marutham paadiya
    maariven'ko 165
    irumborai , kanaikkaal 198
    CERA KINGS FROM THON'DI
    kodhai maarban 120-THON'DI
    maaandharanjeral 124
    irumborai
    maakkoadhai , kottambalathuth thunjiya 143 C.E.
    [sources: Delineated timeline of ancient civilizations, Gerald Hugo & Lesley Wells,1974 with incomplete Pandyan line and Cera kinglines, Nakkeerar's Timeline of Tamizh Koodal Academies and Sumerian kinglist of Ur and Uruk.]

    Most historians accept the timeline (historical dates) given in the ancient works like Mahavamso , Vedas,Chinese texts, Roman scripts and Greek texts and epics , eventhough they all are mixed with mythological and imaginary stories of their respective civilizations;
    but how is that they do not look into the truth and narration of historical events without any adulteration of mythology in the ancient Tamilzh works like Puram,Agam,etc.
    Is it because of the ignorance and inefectiveness of our Tamizh scholars
    are lack of documentation of such historical dates of events from our Sangam works due to carelessness or lazyness.
    Kindly friends, put on your valuable thoughts.
    thankyou;

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like
    timelines mean historical dates of important events decided mostly on the basis of archaeology and literatures and recorded texts:
    for example,
    Vedas claim the aryan civilization existed for 400,000 years having the long epoches divided into YUGAS.[archaelogical evidence-date only from 1500 B.C.E...]
    The Chinese have recorded texts of important historical events of their country which elaborate their timeline of kingdoms from 3000 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 2000 B.C.E...]
    similarly the Sumerianshave recorded texts of history from 2600 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 2600 B.C.E...]
    Romans have timeline from their literary works dating from 750 B.C.E.;
    Greeks have texts claiming history from beyond 2900 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 1700 B.C.E...]
    even the SriLankan literature texts claim their history from 500 B.C.E.;[archaelogical evidence-date only from 100 B.C.E...]
    WHY DON'T WE CLAIM OUR TAMIZH HISTORY DATES FROM OUR SANGAM WORKS MUCH and WHY DO THE OTHER HISTORIANS DONOT ACCEPT ALSO OUR ANCIENT LITERATURES AS SOURCES OF HISTORICAL DATELINES as the Sangam works are full of such recorded dates of ancient historicxal events,
    eg. Till now the International historians accept the earliest Tamizh literature date as 200 B.C.E. to 200 A.D only;and historyline date from 500 B.C.E. only;while even the archaelogical evidence-date from 4000 B.C.E.(from the excavations of Porunai valley....] while
    .Puranaanoorru shows poems written during the Mahabharatha war which even the North Indian scholars claim to have happened around 800-900 B.C.E. and that means we have poems written in 900 B.C.E.this 900 B.C.E. TIMELINE is with the last Koodal academi only;even without the previous Koodal [academies] or Sangam literature works which were deemed to have been lost in the last ice age floods.
    why do the historians donot accept the documented dates of events in our ancient Tamizh works.
    Are we not doing enough popularizing like our ANorth Indian counterparts?

  4. #3
    Senior Member Devoted Hubber
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    jeddah, saudi Arabia
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dear Thiru Senthilkumaras,

    You wrote

    // why do the historians donot accept the documented dates of events in our ancient Tamizh works.
    Are we not doing enough popularizing like our ANorth Indian counterparts //

    We have enough popularised our works.

    But all historians are north Indian oriented. Few south indians historians are who are also sanskrit oriented. Tamil oriented historians are less in India. This is bitter but truth.

    You talked about Greece,Romans and Singalas. They have their own nations. Wheareas tamils dont have nation but have taken India/Malaysia/Singapore as nation or atleast in citizenship.

    Perhaps If tamils some 100 years back accepted Hindhi / Hindhustani, left their own language tamil in education and other spheres, never tried to legitimise their originality and turned into some language like telugu and kananada the so called north Indian historians would have accepted and familiarise the tamils history spread stories that tamils were the foremost race of indians history.

    The confusion could have been rejected in their mind.

    Some of the historians are accepting the truth in the sense that there is some proto-dravidian / Archaic tamil / you give a name other than tamil.

    The best way to make all indian historians accepting tamil heriditary is to tell them there is no tamil anywhere in india / world.

    Is this possible ? Think it over.

    f.s.gandhi
    "Kal thonri man thontra kalathay mun thonri mootha kudi"- a second century literature- means when before stone became sand in earth the tamil tribes were formulated

  5. #4
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    74
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hello

    I think the ignorance about our literature is primarily due to external forces. Culture and language usually fourish in the presence of military and economic independence and social development. Actually they are all inter-connected and it is difficult to say which leads to what.

    Since we have been under varying degrees of foriegn rule for around 800 years now, it is just natural that this is happening. Of course, now that India is moving towards increased capitalism and federalism, regional priorities and preferences will play an important part in national politics. And that in turn will show some good results on the culture/language front.

    Hopefully.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Regular Hubber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    Pandiyan KINGS Chronollogy

    Friends,

    The list given looks attaractive, but Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and Alines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says.

    The Fables of Kumari KANdam etc., are not supported by Sangam LIETerature.

    Please quote all Sangam songs wherever is required.

    Otherwise all your post looks highly Speculative, as Tholkappiyam clearly refers to Vethams and other Vedhic references.

    MosesMohammedSolomon

  7. #6
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like
    //The list given looks attaractive, but Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and A lines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says.

    The Fables of Kumari KANdam etc., are not supported by Sangam LIETerature. //

    If Pandyars took over Madurai around 300 BCE, where do you think they lived before that? The Capital cities of Pandiyan Kingdoms and other Thamizh Kingdoms changed due to the destruction of their capital cities. Furthermore, it is believed that Pandiyars had most of the 'KumarikkaNhdam' under their rule and when the KumarikkaNhdam, submerged, they took over and moved to the upperland which was under the rule of differection Thamizh sect.

    Anyhow go read Silapathigaram to find out the reference to the 'Kumarikkandam.' I believe Ilango refer it something like, 'PakruLi aarum panmaet kodum ...something'

    I don't remember the full sentence, but it refer to the KumarikkaNhda mountain range and to the pakruLi river which ran south of nowday 'Eezham' aka Sri Lanka in Singhalam.



    //Please quote all Sangam songs wherever is required.

    Otherwise all your post looks highly Speculative, as Tholkappiyam clearly refers to Vethams and other Vedhic references. //

    Solomon you know your a real moron! You ask others to give specific reference where as you quote
    [[[...Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and A lines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says. ]]]

    I hope my reference to the Kumarikkanhdam in Silappathikaram is more than enough FOR YOU. I'm tired of seeing you, an anti-Thamizh virus who praise Sanskirit, while some Thamizhars like AP MASILAMANI and FSG have proved again and again that Sanskirit has Thamizh roots and Sanskirit isn't something that you praise it as.

    //The Fables of Kumari KANdam etc., are not supported by Sangam LIETerature. //

    Solomon you talk as if you have acquired the whole knowledge of the Thamizh Sangam Literature and that finally you have come to a conclusion that Kumari KaNhdam is a fable story.

    You moron, even without a country the Thamizhs have enough evidence to support Kumarik KaNhdam, having a country would help to do an archealogical excavation regarding KumarikkaNhdam. You can't expect anything from the Government of India nor from any other Governments who suck the juice out of Thamizh people.

    You haven't looked into Silapathigaram or any other Sanga works which refer to the existence of the Thamizh Continent 'KumarikaNhdam.' Haven't you realized anything out of the recent 'aAzhipperalai' (Tsunami)? You won't even consider the possibility of such unthinkable disasters, which would have led to the very extinction of the KumarikkaNhdam. I bet you don't even know how many 'avvaiyars' existed throughout the Thamizh History. Go read things before you come to a conclusion like 'KumarikkaNhdam didn't exist, because you said so.' Who care if you jus had a nightmare or not?! Go read books solomon, don't read the Sanskiritized version of the texts either.

    nanRi
    paNhivu

  8. #7
    Member Junior Hubber
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like
    typos
    'Pandiyan Kingdoms' as Pandiyan Kingdom

    //I don't remember the full sentence, but it refer to the KumarikkaNhda mountain range and to the pakruLi river which ran south of nowday 'Eezham' aka Sri Lanka in Singhalam. //
    I meant to say that Ilango referred in his text 'Silappathigaram' that the pakruLi river and the mountain rangers around it submerged under the sea, I believe the mountain range could have been the 'Meru Mountain' range or the left over portion of the 'Meru Mountain Range'

  9. #8
    Senior Member Regular Hubber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like

    KUMARI KANDAM FABLES

    Friends,

    I have quoted from the book authored by V.P.PURUSHOTHAM- Sanga Kala Mannargal Nilai Varalaru, which has also a foreword by Director of International Tamil Studies and ThaniTamil movement Scholor Mr.SalaIlanthiraiyan.

    Silapathikaram Line tells Kumari Kodu, does not means Kandam, and moreover Satelite Pictures do not support any Below SEA land mass Between Indian Ocean to Pacific.

    Pavanar Schools Mr.Kodumudi Shanmugam in his Recent book completely Disowns Kumari Kandam Fables siting the above and the CENTENARY Meeting in Honour of Pavanr in Chennai University.

    MosesSolomon

  10. #9
    Senior Member Senior Hubber Idiappam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    675
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: KUMARI KANDAM FABLES

    Quote Originally Posted by solomon
    Friends,
    Silapathikaram Line tells Kumari Kodu, does not means Kandam,
    "kumarikOdum kodunkadal koLLa..." Why would 'kodu' not mean 'kandam'?? But 'kodu' or 'kandam', Elango said it was submerged, didn't he?

    and moreover Satelite Pictures do not support any Below SEA land mass Between Indian Ocean to Pacific.
    It must have been a hazy day. Wait for clear day -- give 'em poor things another chance!!

  11. #10
    Senior Member Regular Hubber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi Solomon, you are quoting others works as a basis for rejecting Kumari kandam. Hey different people have different opinion some are great and some are even foolish(belive me there people who belive that earth is flat and sanskrit existed Before the birth of christ). Please provide your analysis of the original work or its translation (apparently your knowledge of tamil langauge is higly limited).
    As correctly said by Idiyappam, does is matter if it is called kodu/kandam/continent ? as long as it conveys that a huge land mass was submerfged by the sea. I sympathize with you, being a sanskrit fan you can only give importance to the structure and not the content, words become important than what they convey, dogmatism is the your way of life.

    solomon wrote: Otherwise all your post looks highly Speculative, as Tholkappiyam clearly refers to Vethams and other Vedhic references

    what is your point ?

    solomon wrote: but Pandiyars have taken over MADURAI ONly in around 300BCE, and Alines from outside is what Sangam LITerature says.
    Mahabharatha specifically refers to pandyas as participating in the war, are you trying to say that mahabharatha war happened much later than 300BCE, Solomon Contradiction and confusion are your middle name.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tamil Kings of Kerala (Chera country) from B.C.100 – A.D.250
    By virarajendra in forum Indian History & Culture
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 8th March 2018, 09:42 PM
  2. SANGAM LITERATURE & TAMIL
    By devapriya in forum Indian History & Culture
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 16th December 2008, 07:25 PM
  3. Timeline evidences in ancient Tamil works:Earliest Grammar
    By senthilkumaras in forum Indian History & Culture
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22nd February 2006, 08:21 PM
  4. ANCIENT CHOLA KINGS
    By senthilkumaras in forum Miscellaneous Topics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19th April 2005, 07:46 PM
  5. tamil in pre 3 rd sangam period-pre 3rd century bc
    By Oldposts in forum Tamil Literature
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16th December 2004, 12:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •