Talk:Sangam period

Attempted cleanup

I tried my best. I couldn't. Would appreciate if someone could spend a bit of time cleaning this up. cheers

Parthi (Venu62)

What is the source for the Tamil months? Are they Tamil months? I know of another set (other than Chitirai-vaikaasi-aani set, but the ones given here look different from the one I know. Further I'm not sure of the reference for my set). --Aadal 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Parthi:

 I read it in a book that the months are correct. Days in any month is depending on how long earth stays in a sign. That is the reason some time month like Eyyann (Aadi) has 31 or 32 days and Panmizh or Silai (Maarkazi) has 29 or 30 days. This is concepts of to helio-centric and the months are identified by the first star group on the sign. I'm unable to tell the book name; will update it once I go to Chennai.

Details of the Lords of each landscape - thinais , could have been useful. 121.247.87.206 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindu principals? Even though in some literature there are some reference to some of Hindu principles there is not sufficient enough information to say this. needed more information on it. esp since the older literaute are not talking more about Hindu principles, but more about socity.

Ancient Tamil country

The article is looking good so far, but still is a stub in its early stages. The ancient Tamil country is also known as Tamilakam in Tamil - and comprised of a distinct country of different royal dynasties. An article on this Tamil country, detailing specifics about the culture and history, its contributions, and way of life on this land and of its people is essential and hugely valuable. I've added that another term for this is Tamilakam and will add more to the article later. Good work. Wubbabubba 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proofs

This article making claims of an non-existence tamil kingdom in north and east of SL.. while admitting the fact several successful invasions were carried out by the southern indian kingdoms during the said period, I am not sure how that would make east and north SL a tamil country !! There are no historical evidences to prove there were significant number of tamil people in the east and north, and if anything I can prove easily that tamil inscriptions didn't even exist in SL till the 11 th century !! And even that was a code of conducts, issued by the great Sinhalese king Parakramabahu To the south indian merchants.Not for local tamils!! I have asked for citations 3 months ago, and I am yet to get them..Either those remarks should be deleted or OR tag should be kept..But having said that, I am not saying all the contents in the article is OR, esp I am not disputing what the article say about Ancient tamil country in India. Thanks .Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

truth. search it ! tell it! 07:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sir I would like to request two objectives. First, please Capitalize the first letters of the words 'Tamil' and 'Indian'. If not this action will hurt millions of people from India. More over these words are proper nouns and should be written with capitalization of first letter.

Second, please put forward your proofs to disprove the particular issue/topic/subject. Thanking you

truth. search it ! tell it! 07:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging Ancient Tamil Country with Tamilakam

Tamilakam only means Tamil country. Ancient Tamil Country topic needs special attention and need not be merged with Tamilakam.

Agree Taprobanus (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

this article appears to be discussing the ancient history of South India. "Ancient Tamil country" appears to be a literal translation of Tamilakam, with an "ancient" tagged in front of it. It doesn't strike me as good English, and inasmuch as it is used in quotable literature, it seems to refer to the concept of Tamilakam within Sangam period Tamil texts rather than to the ancient history of the region in general. Maybe we can find a better title. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I come to the conclusion that this article should best be titled "Sangam period", i.e. the historical period, as opposed to the Tamil Sangams (assemblies) themselves, and the Sangam literature of the period, or simply "ancient history of South India" (presently a section redirect). "Ancient Tamil country" is used rarely in serious literature, and if at all, it appears, exclusively by Tamil authors. I get all of 9 hits for the term on jstor.org, about half of them in works on topics like "ancient Tamil music" by Tamil authors, and the other half in books reviews, which give direct quotes to illustrate particularly horrible passages in the books reviewed. We can certainly state "also referred to as 'ancient Tamil country' by Tamil authors", but that's about as far as the notability of this term appears to go. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification sought

I believe that not many people in the state of Andhra Pradesh would know much about "Sangam Period" and "Tamilakam" which were believed to exist between 3rd century B.C and 3rd century A.D and Andhra Pradesh was part of them as the article stated. Interestingly the areas included were VaeLaavi Nadu( Vaengi)- Krishna and Guntur districts, Payalanadu( Vaiyaavi)- Anantapur etc, Vellimalai - North and West of Thirupathi , Vaengada Nadu - Rayalaseema dt ,Pungi Nadu - West Chittoor dt, Mazhampula Nadu -South of Kalahasthi up to Pulicat , Pulli Nadu - South East coast of Andhra Pradesh. Did these places exist in "Sangam Period" in Andhra region between 3rd century B.C and 3rd century A.D ? Who among Chola,Pandya and Chera kings ruled? Please Clarify on these with proper citations.