Talk:Gajabahu synchronism

meghamitra 07:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)1.satkarni rules in 180BC and gajabahu I is 110-136AD , so they are contemproaries of Senguttuvan, how come? 300 years? 2.The silapathikaram mentions kayavaku not Gajabahu 3.The silapathikaram mentions Nurruvan Kannar not satkarni 4.One more king adhiyaman lived in 2nd century AD , who was subsequently defeated by another chera king irumporai.source jambai and pugalur edicts do not find any mention. So the whole work is a fiction of later date and that cannot be the basis of identifying periods.[reply]

meghamitra 10:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1,2,& 3 -> Explanation is in [1].

4 -> Its not clear what you want to say...

So the whole work is a fiction of later date and that cannot be the basis of identifying periods.

There is consensus among scholars regarding validity of the Gajabahu synchronism. And please do not post your OR. see WP:OR

Praveen 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

meghamitra 06:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)== Kanakasahbhapathi not in tune with archeological findings== I dont know how did kanakasabhapathi became a expert. If you the book it is full of theories ,which has no support. We cannot ignore archaeological evidences. Even if the author is great. who is the expert who has agreed to this fraudulent theory.meghamitra 07:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) meghamitra 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to write in proper English before accusing established authors of fraud. You can also contribute to Kannada wiki. Thanks Praveen 14:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you, please educate yourself on atleast Tamil history(if not the history of others) before even trying to argue with people who, unlike you, know what they're talking about. And you can feel free to contribute Kannada wiki too. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the personal attack due to frustration, I would advice the person who 'knows what he talks about' to first publish his 'findings' in a reputed medium before overindulging himself here. Cheers Praveen 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi praveen what is the evidence in Mahavamasa about Gajabahu visit.

meghamitra 06:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article claim so? Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay pathi if it has to be started from the beginning then fine who is gajabahu , how do you say there is a king called gajabahu when gajabahu is not even mentioned in Silapathikaram meghamitra 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the references. Praveen 13:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathirruppaththu[edit]

According to Pathirruppaththu[2] ,Senguttuvan was another famous Chera, whose contemporary Gajabahu II of Lanka according to Mahavamsa visited the Chera country. Nowhere senguttuvan is mentioned. You are quoting Pathirruppaththu for senguttuvan how come? meghamitra 05:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Date of the Tolkappiyam"[edit]

I can't seem to find a criticism of the Gajabahu synchronism in Swamy's "Date of the Tolkappiyam" article. I've looked through the article several times. Is it really that article that was meant? -- Arvind (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]