This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tamil-Brahmi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The person who write the Book "Excavations at Porunthal" only dates the Tamil-Brahmi as 490 B.C. and it was published in related newspapers also which were given as references in this article. But user Kwami again making false statements and put a Dubious template in Time Period. So I remove the Dubious Template.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 10:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
//You have primary sources saying it might date to the 5th c. BCE, and you only report those sources. They are dubious because they are contradicted by secondary sources.//
//On the other hand, Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Emeritus Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, called the Porunthal Tamil-Brahmi script “an epoch-making discovery in the archaeology of Tamil Nadu” and said there “is no doubt” that Tamil-Brahmi belonged to the pre-Asokan period. In two of his books — “An Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology” and “India, an Archaeological History” — he had written that the evolution of Tamil-Brahmi should go back to circa 500 BCE.// [1] I add these two books as only in Reference.
I do agree with Tenkasi Subramanian and looking for help from sysop(s).
-- Anton ·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 07:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
{{ Admin help}} An administrator is not needed for this. Technical 13 ( talk) 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
When secondary sources contradict primary sources, which should we use for, say, the dates in the info box? And should we use newspaper reports as RSs for scientific claims? — kwami ( talk) 07:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
[3] Is these references are newspapers? You did vandalism by deleted the three references and divert that refrences are news papers. I don't want to argue with you again. I request some other Admin to come to this page.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
These are the questions you never answered. I mentioned them already above.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 09:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Tenkasi Subramanian, please summarize the question. Help is requested, but I wouldn't like to read the entire discussion before seeing the question. Gryllida ( talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Question? (Singular)
I have Claims (plural) and questions (again Plural) as per references and sources. I give it as a Tabular Column as per academic sources and research Journals. Then it is easy to understand.
Claims | Primary Source, Year (referability) | Secondary source, year (referability) | Any other reference in case of absence in reference of primary/secondary sources? | User Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Support Pre-Asokan Dispersal | Dilip K. Chakrabati, 2006, 2009 (no) | K.Rajan, 2009 (no) | Hindu Paper Article, Radio Carbon Dating site of Beta lab | Even both sources (P & S) have no referability, at least this theory have referred in newspaper article and it was accepted by Beta lab. |
Refuse Pre-Asokan Dispersal | Kasinthan 2004, Dilip (2006, 2009), Rajan 2009, (no) | Mahadevan, 2003 (!?), Salomon, 1998 (!!?), (no) | NIL | How 2004, 2009 research o/p and 2006, 2009 academic sources can be rejected/questioned by secondary sources before 2003 and how it can be authoritative ( :) )/approved by 1998 secondary source? |
Support Post-Asokan Dispersal | Mahadevan, 2003, (no) | Salomon, 1996 (!!?), (no) | NIL | How 2003 primary source can be authoritative ( :) )/approved/supported by 1996 secondary source? |
Refuse Post- Asokan Dispersal | Mahadevan, 2003, (no) | Kasinathan, 2004, (JOTS Article) | No need. Because secondary source can be referable. | 2003 article was refused by 2004 Article. Even though Kasinthan article is a primary source to support Pre-asokan, it should be considered as a secondary source to refuse post-asokan dating provided by Mahadevan. But not vice versa. |
Comparision of 3 Primary sources | Kasinathan, 2004 (Yes) and K. Rajan (No) Vs Mahadevan 2003 (No) | NIL Vs NIL (As per my knowledge no author compared Kasinathan's, K.Rajan's and Mahadevan's dating method) | - | But K. Rajan refuse post asokan theory by his dating and Kasinthan also refused the same by his Consonant Method. But both of their Pre-asokan claims never rejected even by Mahadevan in any Research or academic sources. So see my points below the table. |
These points might have referability and it's my own according to my knowledge. I considered 3 dating primary sources in my account.
My Conclusions according to sources in Lack of referabilities.
//There are 2 sheet anchors from the epigraphical side for fixing date of early Tamil Epigraphs. One is Jambai and other is Pulankuricci. Jambai mentioned the ephithet Satiyaputo for athiyaman netuman anci. The same ephithet is found in Asokan II edict. Hence Jambai Inscription is to be equalled with asokan. Therefore it is to be assigned to 3rd Century BC//
Jambai inscription is in ET III of kasinathan's consonant method. Therefore ET I and ET II is prior than Asokan brahmi. So consider this Kasinathan's article as a secondary source to refuse Mahadevan's post asokan claim and primary source to the pre asokan claim by kasinthan himself.
Gryllida please read the all the contents in the sub-heading above (Break) and come to this sub-heading (Table).-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
//As for Kasinathan, it would help if you actually gave the reason. You repeatedly claim there is one, yet refuse to provide it.//
I said the reason for that claim mentioned in that article. But you failed to read. I want Wiki Common helper's point in this area.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 08:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is Keezhadi findings not even mentioned here when List of languages by first written accounts makes a mention of it. ChandlerMinh ( talk) 12:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Several news reports about recent excavations:
Feel free to add more interesting links.-- ThaThinThaKiThaTha ( talk) 07:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JmqNMJZoW0MJkPDdBwz98NbYXUbUkFmk/view?usp=sharing
This is a peer reviewed source by Julie Hanlon. She favours a Pre-Ashoka dating for Brahmi.
Please read the following section from p66:
2.3. The chronology of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions: Origins and evolution
Now with the latest finding from Keezhadi carbon dated to 580 B.C. It is very clear now that Brahmi is pre Ashoka. This is the archaeology report from the Department of Archeaology in Tamil Nadu:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-3Hdu7P7WW1i214cATQDnxINOwk4OMG_/view?usp=sharing
Are the detractors seriously claiming that the multiple scientific carbon dates from both Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu as spurious? Metta79 ( talk) 12:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Keezhadi excavation reports for phase 1-3 on the way: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/25/centre-hands-over-reports-on-first-three-phases-of-excavation-to-tn-2038660.html ThaThinThaKiThaTha ( talk) 07:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC) International team to analyse Keezhadi DNA, including linguists: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/mku-harvard-university-to-collaborate-in-dna-study-madurai/article29512576.ece ThaThinThaKiThaTha ( talk) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Robin7013: I have reverted your edits because the newspaper is not RS, and the "book" you cite is actually WP:SPS. Any source whose peer-review process is absent or unclear is questionable, and all WP:SPS fall in that category. Tentatively, I am moving that claim into the main article with proper attributions. We must not use wikipedia voice for such exceptional claim(s) made by employee(s) of one government organization, and which vast majority of scholars do not. In the lead and main, we need to stick with what the mainstream scholarly sources are stating. Do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly publication for the "Tamil-Brahmi 6th-century BCE dating"? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 11:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"which vast majority of scholars do not." This is patently false. There are multiple scholars who support a pre Ashoka dating for Brahmi.
K.V. Krishnan, K.V. Raman, S. Deraniyagala, R.Coningham, K.Rajan and Dilip K. Chakrabarti have all argued that Brahmi script was developed in South India or Sri Lanka prior to the Ashokan edicts.
This argument that Brahmi predating Ashoka is a fringe belief is ludicrous. The only thing that can be said now with confidence is that there is no agreed consensus on this question. Metta79 ( talk) 14:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is this script's name given 25 times with hyphen and 54 times without hyphen? Shouldn't it be standardized? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Glennznl: The current opening sentence doesn't make sense.
That it coexisted with Brahmi does not indicate that it was not a variant. So what does that sentence mean? I removed the link to Brahmi script and replaced it with Brahmic script. Srnec ( talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tamil-Brahmi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The person who write the Book "Excavations at Porunthal" only dates the Tamil-Brahmi as 490 B.C. and it was published in related newspapers also which were given as references in this article. But user Kwami again making false statements and put a Dubious template in Time Period. So I remove the Dubious Template.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 10:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
//You have primary sources saying it might date to the 5th c. BCE, and you only report those sources. They are dubious because they are contradicted by secondary sources.//
//On the other hand, Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Emeritus Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, called the Porunthal Tamil-Brahmi script “an epoch-making discovery in the archaeology of Tamil Nadu” and said there “is no doubt” that Tamil-Brahmi belonged to the pre-Asokan period. In two of his books — “An Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology” and “India, an Archaeological History” — he had written that the evolution of Tamil-Brahmi should go back to circa 500 BCE.// [1] I add these two books as only in Reference.
I do agree with Tenkasi Subramanian and looking for help from sysop(s).
-- Anton ·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 07:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
{{ Admin help}} An administrator is not needed for this. Technical 13 ( talk) 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
When secondary sources contradict primary sources, which should we use for, say, the dates in the info box? And should we use newspaper reports as RSs for scientific claims? — kwami ( talk) 07:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
[3] Is these references are newspapers? You did vandalism by deleted the three references and divert that refrences are news papers. I don't want to argue with you again. I request some other Admin to come to this page.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
These are the questions you never answered. I mentioned them already above.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 09:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Tenkasi Subramanian, please summarize the question. Help is requested, but I wouldn't like to read the entire discussion before seeing the question. Gryllida ( talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Question? (Singular)
I have Claims (plural) and questions (again Plural) as per references and sources. I give it as a Tabular Column as per academic sources and research Journals. Then it is easy to understand.
Claims | Primary Source, Year (referability) | Secondary source, year (referability) | Any other reference in case of absence in reference of primary/secondary sources? | User Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Support Pre-Asokan Dispersal | Dilip K. Chakrabati, 2006, 2009 (no) | K.Rajan, 2009 (no) | Hindu Paper Article, Radio Carbon Dating site of Beta lab | Even both sources (P & S) have no referability, at least this theory have referred in newspaper article and it was accepted by Beta lab. |
Refuse Pre-Asokan Dispersal | Kasinthan 2004, Dilip (2006, 2009), Rajan 2009, (no) | Mahadevan, 2003 (!?), Salomon, 1998 (!!?), (no) | NIL | How 2004, 2009 research o/p and 2006, 2009 academic sources can be rejected/questioned by secondary sources before 2003 and how it can be authoritative ( :) )/approved by 1998 secondary source? |
Support Post-Asokan Dispersal | Mahadevan, 2003, (no) | Salomon, 1996 (!!?), (no) | NIL | How 2003 primary source can be authoritative ( :) )/approved/supported by 1996 secondary source? |
Refuse Post- Asokan Dispersal | Mahadevan, 2003, (no) | Kasinathan, 2004, (JOTS Article) | No need. Because secondary source can be referable. | 2003 article was refused by 2004 Article. Even though Kasinthan article is a primary source to support Pre-asokan, it should be considered as a secondary source to refuse post-asokan dating provided by Mahadevan. But not vice versa. |
Comparision of 3 Primary sources | Kasinathan, 2004 (Yes) and K. Rajan (No) Vs Mahadevan 2003 (No) | NIL Vs NIL (As per my knowledge no author compared Kasinathan's, K.Rajan's and Mahadevan's dating method) | - | But K. Rajan refuse post asokan theory by his dating and Kasinthan also refused the same by his Consonant Method. But both of their Pre-asokan claims never rejected even by Mahadevan in any Research or academic sources. So see my points below the table. |
These points might have referability and it's my own according to my knowledge. I considered 3 dating primary sources in my account.
My Conclusions according to sources in Lack of referabilities.
//There are 2 sheet anchors from the epigraphical side for fixing date of early Tamil Epigraphs. One is Jambai and other is Pulankuricci. Jambai mentioned the ephithet Satiyaputo for athiyaman netuman anci. The same ephithet is found in Asokan II edict. Hence Jambai Inscription is to be equalled with asokan. Therefore it is to be assigned to 3rd Century BC//
Jambai inscription is in ET III of kasinathan's consonant method. Therefore ET I and ET II is prior than Asokan brahmi. So consider this Kasinathan's article as a secondary source to refuse Mahadevan's post asokan claim and primary source to the pre asokan claim by kasinthan himself.
Gryllida please read the all the contents in the sub-heading above (Break) and come to this sub-heading (Table).-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
//As for Kasinathan, it would help if you actually gave the reason. You repeatedly claim there is one, yet refuse to provide it.//
I said the reason for that claim mentioned in that article. But you failed to read. I want Wiki Common helper's point in this area.-- Tenkasi Subramanian ( talk) 08:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is Keezhadi findings not even mentioned here when List of languages by first written accounts makes a mention of it. ChandlerMinh ( talk) 12:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Several news reports about recent excavations:
Feel free to add more interesting links.-- ThaThinThaKiThaTha ( talk) 07:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JmqNMJZoW0MJkPDdBwz98NbYXUbUkFmk/view?usp=sharing
This is a peer reviewed source by Julie Hanlon. She favours a Pre-Ashoka dating for Brahmi.
Please read the following section from p66:
2.3. The chronology of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions: Origins and evolution
Now with the latest finding from Keezhadi carbon dated to 580 B.C. It is very clear now that Brahmi is pre Ashoka. This is the archaeology report from the Department of Archeaology in Tamil Nadu:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-3Hdu7P7WW1i214cATQDnxINOwk4OMG_/view?usp=sharing
Are the detractors seriously claiming that the multiple scientific carbon dates from both Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu as spurious? Metta79 ( talk) 12:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Keezhadi excavation reports for phase 1-3 on the way: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/25/centre-hands-over-reports-on-first-three-phases-of-excavation-to-tn-2038660.html ThaThinThaKiThaTha ( talk) 07:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC) International team to analyse Keezhadi DNA, including linguists: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/mku-harvard-university-to-collaborate-in-dna-study-madurai/article29512576.ece ThaThinThaKiThaTha ( talk) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Robin7013: I have reverted your edits because the newspaper is not RS, and the "book" you cite is actually WP:SPS. Any source whose peer-review process is absent or unclear is questionable, and all WP:SPS fall in that category. Tentatively, I am moving that claim into the main article with proper attributions. We must not use wikipedia voice for such exceptional claim(s) made by employee(s) of one government organization, and which vast majority of scholars do not. In the lead and main, we need to stick with what the mainstream scholarly sources are stating. Do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly publication for the "Tamil-Brahmi 6th-century BCE dating"? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 11:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"which vast majority of scholars do not." This is patently false. There are multiple scholars who support a pre Ashoka dating for Brahmi.
K.V. Krishnan, K.V. Raman, S. Deraniyagala, R.Coningham, K.Rajan and Dilip K. Chakrabarti have all argued that Brahmi script was developed in South India or Sri Lanka prior to the Ashokan edicts.
This argument that Brahmi predating Ashoka is a fringe belief is ludicrous. The only thing that can be said now with confidence is that there is no agreed consensus on this question. Metta79 ( talk) 14:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is this script's name given 25 times with hyphen and 54 times without hyphen? Shouldn't it be standardized? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 02:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Glennznl: The current opening sentence doesn't make sense.
That it coexisted with Brahmi does not indicate that it was not a variant. So what does that sentence mean? I removed the link to Brahmi script and replaced it with Brahmic script. Srnec ( talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)