Talk:Karikala

Untitled

Excuse me, is there any evidence Karikala ruled in 120 bc or even in the first c. Karikala is not one's name, it is just a title for black legged, so wat is his real name,? As far as many scholars, he is just a legend, from fables of the past and from Sangam literature, which are inturn just songs of praise for want of money and can it be relied for historical information , please provide better archaelogical and numismatic proof for existance of such a king called Karikala Chola . Also Cilapatikaram is a retrospect account of life of 3 people, written later than Puram, Pattupattu, etc. So it is not reliable evidence. Mudalar and N.Sastri's works are based on the above lierature only so not a proper referenc. Archaelogical and numismatic proof gives early Tamil history only from 6th c. ad . please donot publish abstract and imaginary information . What'sthis 09:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, it says: The story of Karikala is mixed with legend and anecdotal information gleaned from Sangam Literature. Karikala has left us no authentic records of his reign. Only source available to us are the numerous mentions in Sangam poetry. The period covered by the extant literature of the Sangam is unfortunately not easy to determine with any measure of certainty.

We don't know his real name. Do you? This article is solely based on KAN Sanstri's authoritative COLAS. The article is careful to stay away from the Cilapatikaram stories of Karikala conquering up to the Ganges.

If you want to read imaginary information and legends regarding Karikala then there are other articles purporting to be history . See Karikala and Karikala II.

Parthi (Venu62) 18:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You are having your own problems and the same dates and validity of Sangam literature evidence, here , in your KK and how strange you ask the same questions you neither cannot answe to me in my KK apage,?? Now what is the evidence for ?120 C.E. date for KK,

You have mentioned in your USERTALK page about contributing to KK I and KK II, and simultaneously say to me that there are no proofs for two KK's, what is all these, are you kidding me ?

who wrote Cilappatigaram(getting to the basics.) is it Ilanko adigal? then isnt he brother of Cenkuttuvan, ? How do you say Cilappatigaram and Ilango adigal and Cheran Cenkuttuvan belong to 6th century, I really dont understand, do explain!!

ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS ,' Senthilkumaras 10:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kindly move Urayur inyour map to near Thiruchchi from around Pattukottai . Senthilkumaras 10:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is very clear to me that you have no idea about writing information supported by verifiable sources. Neither can you sustain a valid argument. You didn't have to create a user ID What'sthis just to ask me some questions. Be brave and ask the questions in your own user ID.

The question mark before the date means it is not clear whether this is correct. This is the standard notation for denoting unconfirmed information. This is a far cry from your definite dates in your fiction.

My user page was created long time ago when I had intentions of usefully contributing to these articles. That was before you wrote your fiction. I don't update my user page often.

I can suggest a number of books that agree on the 6th century date for Cilappatikaram. Start with U.V. Swaminatha Iyer's introduction in his publication of Cilappatikaram (U.V. Swaminatha Iyer Library, Chennai) in which he determines the date to be between 5th and 6th century C.E. based on linguistic grounds. There is Thamizh Literature Through the Ages, தமிழ் இலக்கியம் - தொன்று தொட்டு இன்று வரை by Dr. C.R. Krishnamurti, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada. He reckons mid 5th century for Cilappatikaram.

But you won't understand it because K.A. Appadurai didn't say so.

Don't be a gutless wimp. Try to answer my specific questions in your Karikala the Great Talk page.

Parthi (Venu62) 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatis this not my id, may be some 1 from same netcafe.

? is not seen inarticle, "around 120" seen, why not ?100 or ?200.

KK I have clearly given my justification of dates with"?" symbol

Urayur is at Thiruchchi, mark in map

Neither Sastri, nor myself saw KK and Ilanko in their times,sorry.

note SitalaiSattan(Manimegalai)in Puram59,onPandyawho diedin court.

note Cenkutuvan also in Puram(before 2nd c CE)

does Sastri say Cenkutuvan's brother Ilanko wrote on him in6thc.

Liguistic evidence is controversial,these Buddhist& Jain works.

Since theyhave high use of Pali,Prakrit words from earliest times.

Whatuse of contemporary workswith such flaws,without deep thinking.

let commonsense prevail.

it doesnt mean one should follow their same mistakes.

I respect your Tamil literature work(ThiruMurugatrrupadai-a beauty)

one should be sincere in analysing the abovepresent facts.

If Sastri and others is clearly wrong,it is our duty to correct him

I dont mean to hurt you or Sastri.

Thankyou,Senthilkumaras 08:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

According to a kannada school of history, which warns that a lie well told will be taken as truth, 1. Karikala said to have defeated Oliya nagas and according to Mahabalipur Inscription of Rajendra I oliya nagas are of his period( 11th century AD.) 2. There is no record of karikala chola existence before 9th century. 3. Tamil historians follow circular logic in dating , they say karikala is 2nd century AD and so the authors should be around that time. And in another instance the literary works are of that age, so the king should be that age. 4. Kalingathu parani, which speaks about karikala, was composed at the time of Kulothunga chola (1070-1120). Kulothunga was chalukyan prince who crowned himself as chola king. 5. . The pattinappaalai is dated to 1st century BC to 1st century AD, But the king mentioned in work is dated 2nd century AD. 6. A tamil poem states that sundara pandian ( 1200 AD) did not ransack a mandapa because it was dedicated to uruthirang kannanar , by Karikala. So the karikala and the poet could not have lived earlier than 1000 AD.

http://controversialhistory.blogspot.com/2007/10/origin-of-cholas-tamil-myth.html --Kadambaraya (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How does one write his name in Tamil?

I see in the article that his name has been mentioned as Karikala chozhan both in tamil and in English. Isnt it Karikal Peruvalathan(கரிகால் பெருவளத்தான்) - One with a 'ல்' and not a 'ல'--GurufromIndia 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Karikalan (கரிகாலன்) is the correct name found in Sangam literature. - Parthi 11:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

solan udaiyaar

karikala solan udaiyaar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.57 (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis

Please revise this or add references to substantiate claims made. Assuming Good Faith - sthalapurana are much more recent than the Sangam era Chola. Removing synthesis on "mukthi" - not neutral - WP:SYN.

Please provide accurate sources and NPOV. So write: Karikalan died at X. Not Karikaan attained salvation at the feet of God. This is an enclyclopaedia not a religious blog!--Avedeus (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sangam era names = Chola Karikalan

It should also be noted that all Tamil names before the middle ages follow the Naming conventions of ancient Tamil country. So the name is Chola Karikalan, not Karikala Cholan as per the Sangam literature as the kutipeyar follows the iyatpeyar. Many scholars follow the Middle Age convention of following the iyatpeyar by the kutipeyar which is incorrect for the Sangam era names.

See below:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2AQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA65&dq=cola+karikalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v3LtUuX2JsuY1AXurIC4Cw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cola%20karikalan&f=false

Dating karikala

The karikalan mentioned in the Silapathikaram (90 CE) is not same the mentioned in the Sangam literature (c400 BCE) as told by Ramachandra Dikshitar.

Do discuss before adding the year of Birth or Reign in the main page. 2A02:8071:2180:21E0:39F2:10D7:D760:9D5E (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)