I'm a long time member but very silent rather noncontributing member in this forum as i'm not a scholar in these respective fields. I'm just another curious human trying to get a glimpse of history.
I accidentally landed in an interesting blog were the author discusses rather i should say controversial things about our history. And he also provides proper references for his claims.
He also has articles on other stuff like Lord muruga/aryan-dravidian/tamils etc. with proper referencing.
As the name says, all his articles are kinda controversial and he targets tamils are not all what they claim to be. He is not offending but stirs controversial arguments and his analysis suffices his claims. Now, as a common man i can't go and read all literature and check whether he is right or wrong also i don't want to go by his conclusions without satisfying myself getting informed.
So, i request the literature and archeology scholars present here in this forum to visit that blog and share your thoughts with proper referencing also keep post rolling here.
Very few of us are really scholars here, you know... it's good to discuss these things, and quite often, we don't need to be scholars to contribute!
As for the link, I think he's reaching to find a controversy, and some of his speculation is just plain wrong to my knowledge. Here's what I found wrong in his analysis:
1. The Cholas are directly mentioned in Sangam literature, which dates to _at least_ 200 BCE, and in Ashoka's inscriptions which again date to about 300 BCE. Before that, we have very little idea, but in no Sangam literature are the Cholas referred to as foreigners. At least by the time of the Sangams, they were considered native Tamils.
2. The Kalabhras on the other hand, are *definitely* invaders, and their time is something like 200 CE, and they *destroyed the rule of the Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas.* It was Mahendra Varman's father, Simhavishnu, and his Pandya counterpart, Kadungon who drove them out. These people were *not* the Cholas.
3. Chalukya-Cholas, Telugu Chodas, etc: Again, this is *after* the Kalabhras, by something like half a millenium, so this doesn't say anything about the origins of the Cholas themselves
4. Inscriptions in Prakrit: What? Prakrit? Actually, they're mostly in Tamil and some of the copper-plates start in Sanskrit but the operative portion is again in Tamil. Besides, all the inscriptions we have of them (I don't know of any Sangam age ones) are from Vijayalaya down, so again one way or another, no evidence, even though his assertion is completely false!
5. Pallava origin theory: Again, first Pallavas we hear of are *after* the Cholas have been established by Ashokan inscriptions for 600 years or so. Mismatched timing!
6. Tigers: There are no tigers in Chola territory *today*, but that doesn't mean that there were never any tigers there; their range was in fact much larger in historical times, and included quite a bit of Chola territory too.
7. The Bengali stuff, he doesn't substantiate; no references...
What we know for certain is that there were definitely Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas and Satyaputras in around 300 BC, as evidenced by their coins and by Ashoka's edicts. We don't know when they arrived there, or where they came from. There just isn't enough data on the period before that. Good effort, but it doesn't lead anywhere.
Hi, This blog is not something new as I have been reading his articles from sometime. Somehow it appears interesting in first glance however when you read it carefully you will find that many of his claims are hollow. I had an extensive comment communication with him over his article on Kalidasa. He at first was very much interested to reply however after sometime, when he was cornered, then he stopped replying to my comments. I also left the talk as it as waste of my time.
But what is interesting is that he draws a good crowd to his pages, you can see his visitor history and counts etc. Its like that, sometimes, you get attention when you stir emotions of common mass, that's what I feel about his blogs. Very few people are interested in real content these days, and we somehow need to change this behavior for betterment of our history.
I too have asked him on his article on kanchi Mutt. Then i realised that he is neither aware of any epigraphs or for that matter has never visited kanchi at all.
He is just refering like " there was no such king in that area" etc.
Just collecting details from various blogs and writing as if he knows every thing. Very hallow but speaks as if he knows every thing.
Your message following that of Saurab is very interesting, throwing light on the subject,
I would like to add following information.
IN Sangam literature, scholars have identified seven Ccousins (dhayadis) including Karikal VaLavan. The trajedy was they were inclined to quarrel incessantly. The question arises which cousins strain are we to take up to construct a family tree.. Further during the Kalabra aggression the pandyas tried to resist and withdrew to south safely. But nothing is known about Chola s in Kalabra regime.
It is better to study, analyse and discuss social, political and economic history in depth than waste time on finding pedigrees.