Talk:Tamil-Brahmi/Archive 1

Notability

HOw come Ashoka inscriptions became tamil brahmi inscriptions. This is not confirm with factsmeghamitra 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tamil Brahmi has its own notability to have its own article. just do a google book search. Taprobanus (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamil is old no doubt. But many so called tamil-brahmi inscriptions are doubtful or may just be misinterpreted. Look at some of the inscriptions in [[1]] that reads for ex camutaha , peravatan , nedunki_li. These appear so new as if etched few days back. It is hard to believe they are from BCE period. Old inscriptions should look old as well. Another ex is of word katan in an inscription, which we can read as catana. This particularly does not appear like tamil-brahmi. Lets hope these dont make another case like in fakes of Isreal. Any thoughts?(talk) 04:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for origianl research or ones own pet theories. We write what other reliable sources have written. See all reliable books on this subject matter. If one day it is found out as a hoax and if relibale sources say as such then we can write about it too. Maenwhile if you want to deal with this subject matter about your theories then I suggest a personal website or internet group as a starting point. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But the ones quoted as reliable sources also contain their version of so called pet theories. If something can be inferred by their appeareance how will it become original research? The sources mentioned as reliable is and should be termed as Original research and not something that can be verified by commonsense. Usually when it comes to inscriptions that is of antiquity only experts should be able to interpret it. And if common people can make out something out of it, then it needs re-examination. This is because usually many experts are highly biased and often things such as these go unnoticed especially when many inscriptions(including Tamil) are lying all over many parts of south India untouched and only some are given high prominence. These will definitely call for some questions to be answered before including it. which source is totally reliable? (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also note that most references given are newspaper reports which can hardly be termed reliable because it may be written hastely.(talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you so interested in the subject why not spend the time researching and writing about it. When I like a subject matter such as Kataragama temple, I do a complete write about it. I hardly care about what othrrs are thinking about it. But I follow all wik rules, neutrality, reliable sources and dont allow my persnal bais to come into to it. Currently I am researching about Tribals people in Andhra and Maharashtra that speak languages akin to Tamil so I am not going to spend time on this yet. Kanatonian (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your replay is hardly to the point. Anyway thanks for suggesting that, I will do that when possible. (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dating

How can this be possible , since asoka inscription is dated 300 BC and the recent finding at adichenelor ( Tamil nadu and SriLanka ) on tamil Brahmi Script dates back far earlier - 600 BC ? , this is so illogical !!

Brahmi has been found in Sri Lanka that is dated to 6th century BCE, which turns the theory that it came from the north on its head. There are theories that say that it was invented in the west coast of India(Kerala) by merchants (Buddhist/Jains) who were in touch with traders from Cannan the originators of Aphabet and was adopted by Ashoka letter.Taprobanus (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So, what language were the Aborigins of India using during 5000 BC?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dhani?

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

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

Decipherment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reviewing the state of pre-Ashokan evidence

This site appears to give a straight account of the situation. The background is this:

• It had been generally accepted that this script had been derived from a Semetic script, developed in Northern India in the third century BC, and spread southwards until it reached Sri Lanka (Buhler, 1896; Winternitz, 1927; Dani, 1963; Von Hinuber, 1990).
• The first (serious) suggestion that it may be older seems to be due to Deraniyagala (1990).
• The Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka) Project, Phase I (ASW2), excavated 1989 to 1994, published by Coningham (1999, 2006), found evidence to support a 4th-century date
• Adichanallur: the 6th-century date published in 2005 seems to be spurious, and purely based on The Hindu headlines.
• since 2009, there is the Porunthal evidence which suggests a 5th century date

The spurious 6th-century claims have damaged this case, as there seem to be at least two serious candidates, the one from Anuradhapura (4th century) and the one from Porunthal (5th century). The proper way of phrasing things would thus be that the received consensus is a 3rd century "post-Ashokan" dispersal, but that since the year 2000, there have been two serious candidates for a pre-Ashokan date. The measurment of the Porunthal find came in last October, so it is definitely too early to say how this is going to affect the mainstream view. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate what you are trying to do here, but have you finished editing or still in the process ? Because you have left few sentences half incomplete and lost the focus of the article on the diferences of opinion between three different scientic fields (archeology, epigraphy, literry history). Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

literacy in pre budhist india

Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India

Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC)

- There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing

Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)

1.The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final

2.The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis

Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)

1.Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi

Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.176.66 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Two theories of origin

It is extremely vital to avoid insinuating that Tamil-Brahmi is solely a varient of Standard Brahmi. This is under serious contention as per the "The script" subsection. There are a group of notable theorists (I. Mahadevan, for example) who argue for independent origins of Tamil-Brahmi (or Damili). The views of both scholars should be accurately reflected in this article to maintain neutrality.

--தமிழ் வாழ்க; யாதும் ஊரே, யாவரும் கேளிர் 19:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's simply idiotic. A little common sense, please. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Using the word tentative; "mainstream consensus" does not allow that the article to maintain NPOV. Each ought to be given same weight.

Also, go right ahead in claiming a "mainstream consensus", but prove that such a thing does exist by providing appropriate citations from reliable sources.

In my opinion, NPOV cannot be maintained by issuing arguments solely in favour of one at the expense of the other.

--Avedeus (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If by "independent" you mean that Brahmi originated in the south and spread north to the Mauryan empire, then that's a feasible hypothesis. If however by "independent" you mean "independent" – that Tamil Brahmi is unrelated to northern Brahmi – then that's an idiotic claim, and presumably is pseudo-history that should be removed from the article altogether. And no, we do not give equal weight: we assign WP:WEIGHT according to the degree of acceptance in the academic community. At the Earth article, for example, we don't give "equal weight" to theories that the Earth is round and that it's flat. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts in Editing

If we write about one article advantages (Merits) of the thing in article name should be stated first. After that disadvantages (demerits) should be stated. Like wise in Tamil Brahmi article Pre-3rd-century BCE dispersal should be stated first and Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal should be stated next. Like wise you can state in viceversa in Asoka Brahmi Article. So I revert the edit again. I hope User:Kwamikagami will understand this.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per WEIGHT, the most-widely accepted hypothesis should come first, and ideas challenging it after. — kwami (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

May I know how you state Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal theory is widely accepted? That theoty was expired after 1980's. Now Pre-3rd-century BCE dispersal is only widely accepted. You can compare the number of references, books and authors who supports each theory. Can you list out who are all support Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal and Pre-3rd-century BCE dispersal?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Authors in Article who supports post theory

1. Iravatham Mahadevan
2. Ahmed Hassan Dani questioned the 3rd BCE date
3. T.V. Mahalingam
4. Richard Salmon

List of Authors in Article who supports pre theory

1. Mayilai Seeni Venkataswamy
2. Rasamanikam
3. K. Rajan
4. R. Mathivanan
5. Natana Kasinathan
6. K. V. Subrahmanya Ayyar
7. H. K Krishna Sastri
8. K.K. Pillai etc etc.

But Kwamigami argues Outdated Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal theory is widely accepted?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Do you have any good secondary sources that state it's out of date? Are any from northern India or outside the subcontinent? — kwami (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

kwami Did I say this is vote? Don't assume yourself. You only ask for Majority.(widely accepted) After I gave the proof you convert these as vote.

//Do you have any good secondary sources that state it's out of date? Are any from northern India or outside the subcontinent?//

I revert the same type of Question to you. Do You have any secondary Sources which say Asokan Script was before Tamil Brahmi after 1995's? Don't go for outside of Indian Sub-continent. Can you show secondary source even from Indian Subcontinent Itself?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

//Do you have any good secondary sources that state it's out of date? //

Hello, the list mentioned above was Archaeologists. They are also good sources.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

#reviewing the state of pre-Ashokan evidence see this also.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say like "Delete the Post Dispersal Theory". I am saying only that to order Post Theory after Pre theory.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to know how sources work on WP. Maybe you could look over WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I knew how sources work on WP very well and even these RS and Weight. But you only don't appear to know about archaeological excavations and results after 1995's related to Tamil Brahmi. I didn't make any research here.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Consonant Method in Tamil Brahmi

//It is distinguished from Standard Brahmi, by an inherent vowel marker for pure consonants and consonants.//

I wrote one article in Tamil Wikipedia regarding to this point in article. But I request anyone of you to Translate this from Tamil to English.

Refer this article. ta:அகரமேறிய மெய் முறைமை.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Kasinathan is a primary source and is rather incoherent. He says things are "apparent" or "plausible" and then proceeds as if they were true. I'll need to look at this more closely, but given our preference for secondary sources, and the lack of any indication that Kasinathan is credible, it might be best to remove his claims. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Loss of the inherent vowel is confirmed. However, this is presented as discarding the convention of Ashokan Brahmi, not as an earlier stage of the script. We need 2ary sources that Kasinathan is notable before we include his claims. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Consonant method is not only a dating method. This method is also used to identify whether the script is in Tamil or Prakrit Languagues. And this sub heading is not related to dating.

//We need 2ary sources that Kasinathan is notable before we include his claims//

Kasinthan didn't find consonant method. Iravatam Mahadevan only mentioned it first. Later the same consonant method was referred in K. Rajan, Mayilai S. Venkataswamy and Kasinathan. And all of them Include the same point Tamil Brahmi is older than Asokan Script.

//You don't appear to know how sources work on WP.//

I knew it very well. I want to someone other than you to talk about this, who know about Archaeological Excavation reports after 1995 related to Tamil Brahmi. Because you confuse Identification/Differentiation method with dating method. It's look like You don't know about Consonant method and Techniques used to differentiate the Tamil Brahmi and other brahmi scripts.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you obviously do not know. We do not evaluate primary sources ourselves. Rather, we let secondary sources do that, and we report their conclusions. Provide reliable secondary sources for your claims, and we'll have no problem. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

//No, you obviously do not know. //

I don't have a problem in your assumptions.

//We do not evaluate primary sources ourselves.//

Did I say to evaluate Primary source? Who said that Natana Kasinathan's article is Primary source? Is the Journal is Primary Source means what is secondary source?

[2] what about this edit? Did you see Third Para of the eighth page in that Journal? You mentioned like though no reason for thinking they are earlier has been given. And in the next edit you just delete that Journal Link.

And What about other citations given in Pre-Theory? You didn't talk any word regarding to this.(EX: Porunthal)

You include one reference. But it didn't include Tamil Brahmi in it's title. See this. [3] Is this a good reference? Even I am not able to find a word Tamil in this link.

//Indian Epigraphy : A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages://

Tamil is not an Indo-Aryan Language. Hence the reference given by you is not valid.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't make sense of your objections. You highlight the word "Tamil" in a text and claim the word "Tamil" does not appear in that text. You say a source is invalid because you do not like the title. The journal link I deleted was one which I had added just a few minutes before. As for the other sources, I have not had time to evaluate them all. Could you give a reliable secondary source which supports the idea that Tamil Brahmi is ancestral to or at least older than Ashoka Brahmi? — kwami (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

//because you do not like the title. //

Stop your assumptions first. You are making false statements against me continuously.

//Could you give a reliable secondary source which supports the idea that Tamil Brahmi is ancestral to or at least older than Ashoka Brahmi? //

I didn't say anything like ancestral or older. I said the sources saying Tamil brahmi is older than Asokan Brahmi. You again and again questioning about Natana Kasinthan Journal article. What about other references?

Tamil is not coming under the category of Prakrit and Indo-aryan languages. Then how can you refer the below book which doesn't include Tamil Brahmi for Time period of Tamil Brahmi.

//Indian Epigraphy : A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages://--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your objections are utterly ridiculous. You're not saying it's "older", only that it's "older". Could you explain the difference?

A source doesn't discuss Tamil Brahmi if the word "Tamil" isn't in the title, even if it discusses Tamil Brahmi. To me that seems irrational. Could you clarify how the only content of a book is its title? — kwami (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your false making statements are only utterly ridiculous. Read it again.

//I didn't say anything like ancestral or older. I said the sources saying Tamil brahmi is older than Asokan Brahmi.//--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts to Include Kasinathan Article

[4]

This is the article From kasinthan. This consonant method is subscribed first by Iravatam Mahadevan Itself and it was expanded by Natana Kasinthan. And the reason for supporting Pre-asokan theory is given clearly in 8th page of the article. But Kwami deletes it with the edit summary which told that Kasinathan never give the reason.

And I'll list out the stages proposed by Iravatam Mahadevan and expanded by Kasinthan soon. I need time. Even though I had studied the Mahadevan Article it is not available in net.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is very little that is clear about that article. A lot of supposing and guessing, and it's silly to think X therefore it must be Y, but almost nothing verifiable. Could you quote what you think justifies an earlier date? I'm just not seeing it. — kwami (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

First you study the article completely. And for you, it is essential to know the stages of Tamil Brahmi proposed by Mahadevan. I'll come later.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How could you say you are not seeing? Read the entire article and come to the point. Don’t you like to accept the fact what Karai Rajan and Natana Kasinathan found or do you say it is unacceptable? Is there anyone who disclaimed the findings of Karai Rajan and Natana Kasinathan? Don’t point you finger simply and say “Dubious“ and “edit war”. What do you do in regards of “Dubious “and “edit war”? I think “Tenkasi Subramanian” needs time to write the article and I will give my input when time permits. --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 15:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Tenkasi Subramanian gave the link for "Date of Early Tamil Epigraphs" at 7:21 and Kwamikagami replied at 07:30, and stated “I'm just not seeing it”. How could Kwamikagami open, read the article in just 09 minutes and replied? --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 16:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

He said page 8. I don't see anything on p. 8. Rather than whining, why don't you just say what you're referring to? — kwami (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

//I don't see anything on p. 8.// Did you see blank page? It's your judgement. You try to ignore. But, you try to show your references are fact and true. Is it? --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. I asked for you to say what supports the claim. Since you refuse, I will assume that you are incapable of doing this because nothing supports the claim, and that the reference is invalid. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous too. Answer to the below question! --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 18:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not answer the question below. Since you won't answer, I assume you can't answer. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The alternate dating section

Is it being given undue weightage?. Of the two anchors of pre-300 BC hypothesis the ASI has back tracked on the first one - the pot sherd has gone missing [5] and no papers have been published on it. The second pazhani "vaira" discovery is being dismissed by the other group as a single sample result. I believe the section should be shortened and the bulk of the text moved to a footnote.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I am also a bit disappointed here. I was inclined to believe the early date was genuine, and began to work under the general assumption that the earliest Brahmi epigraphy is found in Sri Lanka. Of course there is a lot of patriotism at work here, and obviously, the Sri Lankan institutions desperately want their inscriptions to be older than the northern ones, but, just for once, it seemed possible that what they wanted to be true also turned out to be the case.

But now it seems as if this was just another stunt of falsifying and massaging data to get the result you desperately needed to be true. This isn't science, or scholarship, it is a disgrace. Since Popper, we know that the best way to test a hypothesis is to try hard to falsify it. These people have done nothing at the kind, they have just thrown the oldest dates they could possibly get away with to the press. At this point, as with so many other topics of Indian antiquity, this seems to boil down to citing a walled garden of die-hard patriots who stick to the early dates. In this article, it appears, this role is taken by a 2008 article published, of all places, in Social Scientist. And, as always with these cases of older-than thou, the real and very interesting topic gets buried under an interminable discussion of the spurious age claims. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a serious problem in all of the wikipedia articles dealing with Tamil-Brahmi and Brahmi with people inserting these claims of early dates based on newspaper articles. If all of this stuff is real, why isn't it showing up in journals? The one paper by Coningham et al. about Anuradhapura gives pretty good evidence that very primitive-looking forms of Brahmi (NOT Tamil-Brahmi) were showing up in the 4th C BCE, and people have generally been accepting that it this could be real, but all this other nonsense in the press is getting ridiculous. I can find press reports about UFOs and Bigfoot - that doesn't mean aliens invented Tamil Brahmi 10,000 years ago. We need to start enforcing reliable sources. I've been trying to apply a light touch by framing these things like "Press reports of blah blah have appeared but not been published academically", but wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a collection of tabloid rumors, regardless of whether the reporter thinks the person giving the story is the world's greatest expert. If these findings are supportable, let them be submitted to peer review, and then put them in wikipedia after they've been properly scrutinized by a community of experts. Tarchon (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the full Article and References First

If anyone argues Asokan Brahmi is prior than Tamil Brahmi please read the Wikipedia article completely and read the all references given in it. It looks like User Kwamigami didn't read the article and references completely.

This is the Beta Analytic Lab report of Tamil Brahmi in Porunthal Excavation.[6]--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

They're taking that from a newspaper article! There are dozens of claims like this that never pan out, so how is the academic community reacting to it? — kwami (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the other sources in that section, they're mostly either primary sources, newspaper articles, or don't actually address the topic. The one 2ary source would appear to be Olivelle (2006), though he repeats Mahadevan's date of 300 BCE (whic Mahadevan later revised to 200 BCE). Olivelle's report of Prakrit Brahmi from 360 BCE in Sri Lanka is good to note, though of course it's not evidence of Tamil Brahmi from that date. I don't see the dichotomy, though: There's always been doubt that Brahmi actually originated with the Mauryan Empire; this is just a part of that story.

My objection to this article is not the date of Brahmi, or when Prakrit Brahmi first appears in Sri Lanka, but the imbalance created by trying to prove a point rather than simply reflecting the literature, such as pretending that Prakrit is Tamil and cherry-picking the earliest dates. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We should not ignore K. Rajan’s claim since he was the director of the excavation project at Porunthal, and we should conclude Mahadevan claim was right. Let’s bring the sources and brush-up the idea. Once upon the time world was flat! --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 04:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

//They're taking that from a newspaper article!//

Even though your statement is right!, they only make the Radio carbon dating for Porunthal Excavation. They have the rights to make the date.

//so how is the academic community reacting to it?//

Are you coming to say Pseudo authoritative interpretation community formed by you under Mr. Mahadevan in this edit [7] is the only academic community in this World?

Otherwise Google Books? If means I'll also add some google books.

If you Claim Kasinathan Article is not reliable means I'll also claim Mahadevan Article is not reliable. Because 1. Dr. Ramesh ASI's Joint Director-General in 1993, 2. M.R. Raghava Varier former Professor, Department of History, Calicut University, 3. Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Emeritus Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge refused post asokan theory. So according to you (Kwami) one source from out of India Subcontinent refuses post Asokan Theory.

We'll talk regarding to Kasinathan's article especially about that consonant method with detail before include it.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We use secondary sources on WP. Provide secondary sources for your claims. Very simple. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The reverted edit by you includes the secondary sources.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers and some place we can verify them? Because previous citations have failed verification. — kwami (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

//Page numbers and some place we can verify them? Because previous citations have failed verification.//

This rule is common to all. You give the page numbers first for Iravatam Mahadevan Book. And Salomon Book which says about Tamil Brahmi.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing these radiocarbon results repeated as justification for this, but one radiocarbon result is not the end of the story. Radiocarbon has to be analyzed within context, and the appropriate avenue for analyzed that is an academic article that carefully deals with issues like contamination, taphonomy, and context. The world of pseudoarchaeology is full of one-date wonders. Just having a lab report is too primary of a source for wikipedia. It's got to be published and peer reviewed before it's acceptable as a reliable source. Tarchon (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

More sources required

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

Porunthal brahmi was older than Ashokan brahmi . Porunthal brahmi dated 540 BCE. Scientifically proven. Please add this on wiki. Parun3247 (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

discredit only belongs to 2005 findings

User:Florian Blaschke

what the link you shown in Talk:Early_Indian_epigraphy#Early_Tamil_Writing was discredited in 2005 itself. But Rajan findings are post 2005. So don't revert it with 2005 discredit.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion in the previous section? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am one of them in discussion. Don't revert with 2005 discredit.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw that. You haven't addressed the objections of the others, though. The point is, pre-Ashokan datings are highly controversial, so they don't belong into the infobox. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your view point is not neutral. See the neutral point from above discussion by Huon. We should represent both Scholar Points.

Below one is the Neutral point of Huon.

//That said, when there are multiple scholarly opinions about a topic, Wikipedia should report them all, in proportion to the support among academics they enjoy.// --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Huon and Kwamikagami: We need your input, and clarification of your contributions. How large is the support among academics for the pre-Ashokan datings? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the pre-3rd century theory is rather in WP:FRINGE territory. I'm not an expert on ancient Indian history, but a quick Google Books search found plenty of sources that confirm a post-Asokan dispersal, with many noting the eminence of Mahadevan and his work. Rajan, on the other hand, seems a lone voice, academically, and I believe every single one of our sources arguing for an earlier dispersal points back to Rajan. Even Rajan himself seems to mostly cite his own work for early dates of Tamil-Brahmi. I looked up one of the three papers citing Rajan's 2013 work, and it didn't cite Rajan for anything language-related, further indicating his position on this issue does not enjoy widespread support. If anything, the pre-3rd century theory should be further de-emphasized, not given equal weight to what seems to be the scholarly consensus. Huon (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any change in the field, not that negative evidence means much. There is however a chronic nationalist attempt to 'prove' India was literate pre-Ashoka, often deriving the brahmic scripts from Indus script. It's not reasonable to demand that the issue be revisited every year or so just because the nationalist ideology hasn't gone away. (And isn't India a proudly oral culture? seems odd to base its legitimacy on writing.) — kwami (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami

First of all India is not a Nation. Anyway don't go beyond core.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, India is a nation – an extremely multicultural, multilingual and multi-ethnic nation, but still a nation. Similarly, Switzerland is an explicitly multicultural and multilingual nation. Mexico, Brazil and Nigeria are further examples of multi-ethnic nations. By no means does a nation have to be overwhelmingly dominated by a particular single culture, language or ethnic group for it to be a nation.

Kwami, actually in this case I think it's not just Indian nationalism – it's specifically Tamil nationalism, continuously struggling with the north to assert the priority and antiquity of Tamil culture. This battle is waged by nationalist POV warriors throughout Wikipedia. (And it may actually be typical of Tamil nationalists to deny the nation status of India.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tamil Brahmi script found in Porunthal( near palani). Porunthal Tamizhi dated 540 BCE. Older than Ashokan brahmi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parun3247 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tamizhi or Tamili

@37.37.215.13, @2603:9000:a90a:d26e:d0a8:c3e1:cf32:7aed and others: the cited source by Salomon does not mention these terms. Instead of edit warring Tamizhi or Tamili into the lead, please provide a peer-reviewed scholarly source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)