Template talk:Chola history

Early Cholas

The name 'Early Cholas' is an accepted name which can be found in authoritative books by K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, particluarly The Colas and the History of South India. The Early Chola article quotes text from these and other books and articles. User:Sarvagnya has repetedly reverted this template to change the name to his POV. None of the books I have read and cited refer to the early cholas as 'mythical'. Although there are no archealogical evidence found, there is sufficient evidence that can be found in literature to substantiate thier classification as Early Cholas - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than sufficient literature, infact many times more than you have for 'early' cholas to consider the Ramayana and Mahabharata as historic events; Rama and Krishna as historic kings. Yet, they are only in the realm of mythology and legend. If any of your sources say anything more than this, I'd like to know. I've seen the sources you cite and unless I've missed something, they are categorical that these so called 'early' kings were just mythical. If they say anything more than that, I need the page numbers to cross check. Otherwise I will be reverting. Sarvagnya 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in [[Legendary_Early_Chola_Kings this] article you created yourself, you yourself say, " Though legendary and apocryphal, the early Chola kings of the Sangam period and the life of people contributed much to the cultural wealth of the Tamil country. The Sangam literature is full of legends about the mythical Chola kings".

Unless you can prove that they were anything more than legendary and mythical, there is no reason to club them with kings whose historicity is proven. Rama and Krishna appear in literature and poetry in all languages all over India. And yet, nobody has gone as far as call them anything more than mythical. So I will be changing it. And one more thing, do NOT use popups in content disputes. You should know better considering the company you keep(No, I am not talking about Sundar... not even close). Thanks. Sarvagnya 05:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont tamper with Tamil history by reasoning such nonsense and don't play with Tamil sentiments by calling our kings as mythical. You have no business to be here considering that you're not Tamil. It's my advice to you - Don't mess here. Karikala Chola was one of the greatest kings India ever had and you're not qualified to call him mythical. Better read some books first. Shritami 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Cholas or 'Mythical cholas'

The crux of the problem seems to be the choice of the words to describe the Cholas of the Sangam period. The two articles in questions Early Cholas and the Legendary Early Chola Kings, both record the names of the names of the earliest Chola kings. Both articles clearly document the fact that "...kings recorded for whom there is no verifiable historic evidence." The second article clearly denotes the names of kings dating back to around 3000 BCE are legendary and apocryphal. This article was created to clearly distinguish what is accepted in the historical and academic circles as to what is myth and what is history.

The Cholas documened in the Early Cholas article cannot be classifed as 'mythical' because of the fact that the names of the kings found in the Sangam poetry are corroborated in later Chola epigraphy. While this on its own may not be accepted as historical proof, contemporary writing by Greek travellers and Roman merchants corroborate the descriptions of the Chola state found in the Sangam poetry. Asoka's edicts mention Cholas as one of the kingdom lying outside the mauryan empire. Historical method states that literary evidence is an accepted primary source. Moreover, some of the kings mentioned in the Sangam poetry are also found in the earliest epigrpahy found in Tamil Nadu.

The above reasons are why historians such as Prof. Basham and K.A.N. Sastri treated the early Chola kings such as Karikala Chola, etc as historical figures in their books rather than merely mythical.

Citations

Nilakata Sastri and Srinivasachari, Advanced History of India, pp 177
Nilakanta Sastri, The Colas, pp 30 - 56
A.L Basham, The wonder that was India, pp228

- Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]