Jump to content

Kumari Kandam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kumari Kandam
"Lemuria" inTamil nationalistmysticist literature as Kumari Kandam, connectingMadagascar,South India,and Australia (covering most of the Indian Ocean)
First appearanceKanda Puranam(purportedly alluded to inSangam literature,but not by this name)
In-universe information
TypeMythical continent,believed to belost[1]
LocationsIndian Ocean

Kumari Kandam(Tamil:குமரிக்கண்டம்,romanized:Kumarikkaṇṭam) is a mythical continent, believed to be lost with an ancientTamilcivilization, supposedly located south of present-dayIndiain theIndian Ocean.Alternative names and spellings includeKumarikkandamandKumari Nadu.

In the 19th century, some European and American scholars speculated the existence of a submerged continent calledLemuriato explain geological and other similarities betweenAfrica,Australia,theIndian subcontinentandMadagascar.A section ofTamil revivalistsadapted this theory, connecting it to thePandyanlegends of lands lost to the ocean, as described in ancientTamilandSanskritliterature. According to these writers, an ancient Tamil civilisation existed on Lemuria, before it was lost to the sea in a catastrophe.

In the 20th century, the Tamil writers started using the nameKumari Kandamto describe this submerged continent. Although the Lemuria theory was later rendered obsolete by thecontinental drift(plate tectonics) theory, the concept remained popular among Tamil revivalists of the 20th century. According to them, Kumari Kandam was the place where the first two Tamil literary academies (sangams) were organised during the Pandyan reign. They claimed Kumari Kandam as thecradle of civilisationto prove the antiquity of the Tamil language andculture.

Etymology and names[edit]

When the Tamil writers were introduced to the concept ofLemuriain the 1890s, they came up with the Tamilized versions of the continent's name (e.g. "Ilemuria" ). By the early 1900s, they started using Tamil names for the continent, to support their depiction of Lemuria as an ancient Tamil civilization. In 1903,V.G. Suryanarayana Sastrifirst used the term "Kumarinatu" (or "Kumari Nadu", meaning "Kumari territory" ) in his workTamil Mozhiyin Varalaru(History of the Tamil language). The term Kumari Kandam ( "Kumari continent" ) was first used to describe Lemuria in the 1930s.[2]

The words "Kumari Kandam" first appear inKanda Puranam,a 15th-century Tamil version of theSkanda Purana,written by Kachiappa Sivacharyara (1350–1420).[3]Although the Tamil revivalists insist that it is a pure Tamil name, it is actually a derivative of the Sanskrit word "Kumārika Khaṇḍa".[4]TheAndakosappadalamsection ofKanda Puranamdescribes the followingcosmological modelof the universe: There are manyworlds,each having several continents, which in turn, have several kingdoms. Bharatan, the ruler of one such kingdom, had eight sons and one daughter. He further divided his kingdom into nine parts, and the part ruled by his daughter Kumari came to be known as Kumari Kandam after her. Kumari Kandam is described asthekingdom of the Earth. Although the Kumari Kandam theory became popular amonganti-Brahmin,anti-SanskritTamil nationalists, theKanda Puranamactually describes Kumari Kandam as the land where theBrahminsreside, whereShivais worshipped and where theVedasare recited. The rest of the kingdoms are described as the territory of themlecchas.[5]

The 20th-century Tamil writers came up with various theories to explain the etymology of "Kumari Kandam" or "Kumari Nadu". One set of claims was centered on the purportedgender egalitarianismin the prelapsarian Tamil homeland. For example, M. Arunachalam (1944) claimed that the land was ruled by female rulers (Kumaris). D. Savariroyan Pillai stated that the women of the land had the right to choose their husbands and owned all the property because of which the land came to be known as "Kumari Nadu" ( "the land of the maiden" ). Yet another set of claims was centered on the Hindu goddessKanya Kumari.Kandiah Pillai, in a book for children, fashioned a new history for the goddess, stating that the land was named after her. He claimed that the temple atKanyakumariwas established by those who survived the flood that submerged Kumari Kandam. According to cultural historianSumathi Ramaswamy,the emphasis of the Tamil writers on the word "Kumari" (meaning virgin or maiden) symbolizes the purity of Tamil language and culture, before their contacts with the other ethnic groups such as theIndo-Aryans.[6]

The Tamil writers also came up with several other names for the lost continent. In 1912, Somasundara Bharati first used the word "Tamilakam" (a name for theancient Tamil country) to cover the concept of Lemuria, presenting it as thecradle of civilization,in hisTamil Classics and Tamilakam.Another name used was "Pandiya Nadu", after thePandyas,regarded as the oldest of the Tamil dynasties. Some writers used "Navalan Tivu" (or Navalam Island), the Tamil name ofJambudvipa,to describe the submerged land.[7]

Submerged lands in ancient literature[edit]

Multiple ancient and medieval Tamil and Sanskrit works contain legendary accounts of lands inSouth Indiabeing lost to the ocean. The earliest explicit discussion of akatalkol( "seizure by ocean", possiblytsunami) of Pandyan land is found in a commentary onIraiyanar Akapporul.This commentary, attributed toNakkeerar,is dated to the later centuries of the 1st millennium CE. It mentions that thePandyankings, an early Tamil dynasty, established three literary academies (Sangams): the first Sangam flourished for 4,400 years in a city called Tenmadurai (South Madurai) attended by 549 poets (includingAgastya) and presided over by gods likeShiva,KuberaandMurugan.The second Sangam lasted for 3,700 years in a city called Kapatapuram, attended by 59 poets (including Agastya, again). The commentary states that both the cities were "seized by the ocean", resulting in loss of all the works created during the first two Sangams. The third Sangam was established inUttara(North)Madurai,where it is said to have lasted for 1,850 years.[8][9][10]

Nakkeerar's commentary does not mention the size of the territory lost to the sea. The size is first mentioned in a 15th-century commentary onSilappatikaram.The commentator Adiyarkunallar mentions that the lost land extended fromPahruliriver in the north to the Kumari river in the South. It was located to the south ofKanyakumari,and covered an area of 700kavatam(a unit of unknown measurement). It was divided into 49 territories (natu), classified in the following seven categories:[10]

  • Elu teñku natu ( "Seven coconut lands" )
  • Elu Maturai natu ( "Seven mango lands" )
  • Elu munpalai natu ( "Seven front sandy lands" )
  • Elu pinpalai natu ( "Seven back sandy lands" )
  • Elu kunra natu ( "Seven hilly lands" )
  • Elu kunakarai natu ( "Seven coastal lands" )
  • Elu kurumpanai natu ( "Seven dwarf-palm lands" )

Other medieval writers, such as Ilampuranar and Perasiriyar, also make stray references to the loss of antediluvian lands to the south of Kanyakumari, in their commentaries on ancient texts likeTolkappiyam.Another legend about the loss of Pandyan territory to the sea is found in scattered verses ofPurananuru(dated between 1st century BCE and 5th century CE) andKaliththokai(6th–7th century CE).[11][12]According to this account, the Pandyan king compensated the loss of his land by seizing an equivalent amount of land from the neighboring kingdoms ofCherasandCholas.

There are also several other ancient accounts of non-Pandyan land lost to the sea. ManyTamil Hindushrines have legendary accounts of surviving the floods mentioned in Hindu mythology. These include the prominent temples ofKanyakumari,Kanchipuram,Kumbakonam,Madurai,SirkazhiandTiruvottiyur.[13]There are also legends of temples submerged under the sea, such as theSeven Pagodas of Mahabalipuram,the remains of which were discovered after the2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami.[14] ThePuranasplace the beginning of the most popular Hinduflood myth– the legend ofManu– in South India. The Sanskrit-languageBhagavata Purana(dated 500 BCE–1000 CE) describes its protagonist Manu (aka Satyavrata) as the Lord ofDravida(South India). TheMatsya Purana(dated 250–500 CE) also begins with Manu practicingtapasonMount Malayaof South India.[15]Manimeghalai(dated around 6th century CE) mentions that the ancient Chola port city of Kaverippumpattinam (present-dayPuhar) was destroyed by a flood. It states that this flood was sent by the Hindu deityIndra,because the king forgot to celebrate a festival dedicated to him.[16]

None of these ancient texts or their medieval commentaries use the name "Kumari Kandam" or "Kumari Nadu" for the land purportedly lost to the sea. They do not state that the land lost by the sea was a whole continent located to the south of Kanyakumari. Nor do they link the loss of this land to the history of Tamil people as a community.[10]

Lemuria hypothesis in India[edit]

In 1864, the English zoologistPhilip Sclaterhypothesized the existence of a submerged land connection between India, Madagascar and continental Africa. He named this submerged landLemuria,as the concept had its origins in his attempts to explain the presence oflemur-like primates (strepsirrhini) on these three disconnected lands. Before the Lemuria hypothesis was rendered obsolete by thecontinental drifttheory, a number of scholars supported and expanded it. The concept was introduced to the Indian readers in an 1873 physical geography textbook byHenry Francis Blanford.According to Blanford, the landmass had submerged due to volcanic activity during theCretaceousperiod.[17][18]In late 1870s, the Lemuria theory found its first proponents in the present-day Tamil Nadu, when the leaders of theAdyar-headquarteredTheosophical Societywrote about it (see theroot racetheory).[3][19]

Most European and American geologists dated Lemuria's disappearance to a period before the emergence ofmodern humans.Thus, according to them, Lemuria could not have hosted an ancient civilization. However, in 1885, theIndian Civil Serviceofficer Charles D. Maclean publishedThe Manual of the Administration of the Madras Presidency,in which he theorized Lemuria as theproto-Dravidianurheimat.In a footnote in this work, he mentionedErnst Haeckel's Asia hypothesis, which theorized that the humans originated in a land now submerged in the Indian Ocean. Maclean added that this submerged land was the homeland of the proto-Dravidians. He also suggested that the progenitors of the other races must have migrated from Lemuria to other places via South India. This theory was also cursorily discussed by other colonial officials likeEdgar ThurstonandHerbert Hope Risley,including in thecensusreports of 1891 and 1901.[20]Later, Maclean's manual came to be cited as an authoritative work by the Tamil writers, who often wrongly referred to him as a "scientist" and a "Doctor".[21]

The native Tamil intellectuals first started discussing the concept of a submerged Tamil homeland in the late 1890s. In 1898, J. Nallasami Pillai published an article in the philosophical-literary journalSiddhanta Deepika(akaThe Truth of Light). He wrote about the theory of a lost continent in the Indian Ocean (i.e. Lemuria), mentioning that the Tamil legends speak of floods which destroyed the literary works produced during the ancient sangams. However, he also added that this theory had "no serious historical or scientific footing".[22][23]

Popularization in Tamil Nadu[edit]

In the 1920s, the Lemuria concept was popularized by theTamil revivaliststo counter the dominance ofIndo-AryansandSanskrit.[24]Tamil revivalist writers claimed that Lemuria, prior to its deluge, was the original Tamil homeland and birthplace of Tamil civilization. They often misquoted or miscited the words of Western scholars to grant credibility to their assertions.[25]During the British era, the loss of small patches of lands tocycloneswas cataloged in several district reports, gazetteers, and other documents. The Tamil writers of the period cited these as evidence supporting the theory about an ancient land lost to the sea.[10]

In curriculum[edit]

The books discussing the Kumari Kandam theory were first included in the college curriculum of the present-day Tamil Nadu in 1908. Suryanarayana Sastri's book was prescribed for use inMadras University's Master's degree courses in 1908-09. Over the next few decades, other such works were also included in the curriculum of Madras University andAnnamalai University.These include Purnalingam Pillai'sA Primer of Tamil Literature(1904) andTamil literature(1929), Kandiah Pillai'sTamilakam(1934), and Srinivasa Pillai'sTamil Varalaru(1927).[26]In a 1940 Tamil language textbook for ninth-grade students,T. V. Kalyanasundaramwrote that Lemuria of the European scholars was Kumarinatu of the Tamil literature.[27]

After theDravidian partiescame to power in the1967 Madras State elections,the Kumari Kandam theory was disseminated more widely through school and college textbooks.[28]In 1971, the Government of Tamil Nadu established a formal committee to write the history ofTamilakam(ancient Tamil territory). The state education minister R. Nedunceliyan declared in the Legislative Assembly that by "history", he meant "from the time of Lemuria that was seized by the ocean".[29][30]

In 1971, the Government of Tamil Nadu constituted a committee of historians and litterateurs, headed byM. Varadarajan.One of the objectives of the committee was to highlight "the great antiquity" of the Tamils. A 1975 textbook written by this committee detailed the Kumari Kandam theory, stating that it was supported by "the foremost geologists, ethnologists, and anthropologists".[31]As late as 1981, the Tamil Nadu government's history textbooks mentioned the Kumari Kandam theory.[32]

Characteristics[edit]

Tamil writers characterized Kumari Kandam as an ancient, but highly advanced civilization located in an isolated continent in the Indian Ocean. They also described it as thecradle of civilizationinhabited solely by the speakers of Tamil language. The following sections describe these characteristics in detail.

Isolated[edit]

Kumari Kandam is theorized as an isolated (both temporally and geographically) land mass. Geographically, it was located in the Indian Ocean. Temporally, it was a very ancient civilization. Many Tamil writers do not assign any date to the submergence of Kumari Kandam, resorting to phrases like "once upon a time" or "several thousands of years ago". Those who do, vary greatly, ranging from 30,000 BCE to the 3rd century BCE.[33]Several other writers state that the land was progressively lost to the sea over a period of thousands of years. In 1991, R. Mathivanan, then Chief Editor of the Tamil Etymological Dictionary Project of the Government of Tamil Nadu, claimed that the Kumari Kandam civilization flourished around 50,000 BCE, and the continent submerged around 16,000 BCE. This theory was based on the methodology recommended by his teacherDevaneya Pavanar.

The isolation resulted in the possibility of describing Kumari Kandam as a utopian society insulated from external influences and foreign corruption. Unlike its description in the Kanda Puranam, the Tamil revivalists depicted Kumari Kandam as a place free of the upper-casteBrahmins,who had come to be identified as descendants of Indo-Aryans during theDravidian movement.The non-utopian practices of the 20th century Tamil Hindu society, such assuperstitionsandcaste-based discrimination, were all described as corruption resulting from Indo-Aryan influence.[3]

A land lost to the ocean also helped the Tamil revivalists provide an explanation for the lack of historically verifiable or scientifically acceptable material evidence about this ancient civilization. The earliest extant Tamil writings, which are attributed to the third Sangam, contain Sanskrit vocabulary, and thus could not have been the creation of a purely Tamil civilization. Connecting the concept of Lemuria to an ancient Tamil civilization allowed the Tamil revivalists to portray a society completely free of Indo-Aryan influence.[3]They could claim that the various signs of the ancient Tamil civilization had been lost in the deep ocean. The later dominance of Sanskrit was offered as another explanation for the deliberate destruction of ancient Tamil works.[34]In the 1950s, R. Nedunceliyan, who later became Tamil Nadu's education minister, published a pamphlet calledMarainta Tiravitam( "Lost Dravidian land" ). He insisted that the Brahmin historians, being biased towards Sanskrit, had deliberately kept the knowledge of the Tamil's greatness hidden from the public.[35]

Connected with South India[edit]

The Kumari Kandam proponents laid great emphasis on stating that theKanyakumaricity was a part of the original Kumari Kandam. Some of them also argued that entireTamil Nadu,entireIndian peninsula(south ofVindhyas) or even entire India were a part of Kumari Kandam.[36]This helped ensure that the modern Tamils could be described as both indigenous people of South India and the direct descendants of the people of Kumari Kandam. This, in turn, allowed them to describe the Tamil language and culture as the world's oldest.[37]

DuringBritish Raj,Kanyakumari was a part of theTravancorestate, most of which was merged to the newly-formedKeralastate after the1956 reorganization.The Tamil politicians made a concerted effort to ensure that Kanyakumari was incorporated into the Tamil-majorityMadras State(nowTamil Nadu). Kanyakumari's purported connection with Kumari Kandam was one of the reasons for this effort.[38]

Cradle of civilization[edit]

According to the Kumari Kandam proponents, the continent was submerged when thelast ice ageended and the sea levels rose. The Tamil people then migrated to other lands, and mixed with the other groups, leading to the formation of new races, languages and civilizations. Some also theorize that the entire humanity is descended from the inhabitants of Kumari Kandam. Both narratives agree on the point that the Tamil culture is the source of all civilized culture in the world, and Tamil is the mother language of all other languages in the world. According to the most versions, the original culture of Kumari Kandam survived in Tamil Nadu.[3]

As early as 1903, Suryanarayana Sastri, in hisTamilmoliyin Varalaru,insisted that all the humans were descendants of the ancient Tamils from Kumari Kandam. Such claims were repeated by several others, includingM. S. Purnalingam PillaiandMaraimalai Adigal.[39]In 1917,Abraham Panditharwrote that Lemuria was the cradle of human race, and Tamil was the first language spoken by the humans. These claims were repeated in the school and college textbooks of Tamil Nadu throughout the 20th century.[37]

M. S. Purnalingam Pillai,writing in 1927, stated thatIndus Valley civilisationwas established by the Tamil survivors from the flood-hit Kumari Nadu. In the 1940s, N. S. Kandiah Pillai published maps showing migration of the Kumari Kandam residents to other parts of the world.[40][41]In 1953, R. Nedunceliyan, who later became the education minister of Tamil Nadu, insisted that the civilization spread from South India to the Indus Valley andSumer,and subsequently, to "Arabia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Spain and other places".[42]They presented modern Tamil as a pale remnant of the glorious ancient Tamil language spoken in Kumari Kandam.[39]

Some Tamil writers also claimed that the Indo-Aryans were also descendants of proto-Dravidians of Kumari Kandam. According to this theory, these Indo-Aryans belonged to a branch which migrated to Central Asia and then returned to India. Similar explanations were used to reconcile the popular theory that proto-Dravidians migrated to India from theMediterranean region.A 1975 Government of Tamil Nadu college text book stated that the Dravidians of Kumari Kandam had migrated to the Mediterranean region after the submergence of their continent; later, they migrated back to India via theHimalayan passes.[43][44]

Primordial but not primitive[edit]

The Tamil revivalists did not consider Kumari Kandam as aprimitive societyor a rural civilization. Instead, they described it as autopiawhich had reached the zenith of human achievement, and where people lived a life devoted to learning, education, travel and commerce. Sumanthi Ramaswamy notes that this "placemaking" of Kumari Kandam was frequently intended as a teaching tool, meant to inspire the modern Tamils to pursue excellence. But this pre-occupation with "civilization" was also a response to the British rulers' projection of the Europeans as more civilized than the Tamils.[37]

Suryanarayan Sastri,in 1903, described the antediluvian Tamils as expert cultivators, fine poets and far-traveling merchants, who lived in an egalitarian and democratic society. Savariroyan Pillai, writing a few years later, described Kumari Kandam as a seat of learning and culture. Sivagnana Yogi (1840–1924) stated that this ancient society was free of anycaste system.Kandiah Pillai, in a 1945 work for children, wrote that Kumarikandam was ruled by a strong and just emperor called Sengon, who organized the sangams. In 1981, the Government of Tamil Nadu funded a documentary film on Kumari Kandam. The film, personally backed by the Chief MinisterM. G. Ramachandranand directed byP. Neelakantan,was screened at the Fifth International Conference of Tamil Studies in Madurai. It combined the continental drift theory with the submerged continent theory to present Lemuria as a scientifically valid concept.[45]It depicted Kumari Kandam cities resplendent with mansions, gardens, arts, crafts, music and dance.[37]

Alleged lost works[edit]

The Tamil revivalists insisted that the first twoTamil sangams(literary academies) were not mythical, and happened in the Kumari Kandam era. While most Tamil revivalists did not enumerate or list the lost Sangam works, some came up with their names, and even listed their contents. In 1903, Suryanarayana Sastri named some of these works asMutunarai,Mutukuruku,MapuranamandPutupuranam.In 1917,Abraham Panditharlisted three of these works as the world's firsttreatisesof music:Naratiyam,PerunaraiandPerunkuruku.He also listed several rare musical instruments such as the thousand-stringedlute,which had been lost to the sea.Devaneya Pavanarprinted an entire list of the submerged books. Others listed books on a wide range of topics, including medicine, martial arts, logic, painting, sculpture, yoga, philosophy, music, mathematics, alchemy, magic, architecture, poetry, and wealth. Since these works had been lost to the sea, the Kumari Kandam proponents insisted that no empirical proof could be provided for their claims.[46]

In 1902, Chidambaranar published a book calledCenkonraraiccelavu,claiming that he had 'discovered' the manuscript from "some old cudgan [sic] leaves ". The book was presented as a lost-and-found work of the first Sangam at Tenmadurai. The author of the poem was styled as Mutaluli Centan Taniyur (" Chentan who lived in Taniyur before the first deluge "). The work talked about the exploits of an antediluvian Tamil king Sengon, who ruled the now-submerged kingdom of Peruvalanatu, the region between the rivers Kumari and Pahruli. According to Chidambaranar, Sengon was a native of Olinadu, which was located south of theEquator;the king maintained severalbattleshipsand conquered lands as far asTibet.In 1950s,Cenkonraraiccelavuwas declared as aforgerybyS. Vaiyapuri Pillai.However, this did not stop the Tamil revivalists from invoking the text. The 1981 documentary funded by Government of Tamil Nadu declared it as the "world's firsttravelogue".[47]

Extent[edit]

Themedievalcommentator Adiyarkunallar stated that the size of the land south ofKanyakumari,lost to the sea was 700kavatam.The modern equivalent of kavatam is not known.[48]In 1905, Arasan Shanmugham Pillai wrote that this land amounted to thousands of miles.[49]According to Purnalingam Pillai and Suryanarayana Sastri, the number was equivalent to 7000 miles.[50]Others, such as Abraham Pandither, Aiyan Aarithan, Devaneyan and Raghava Aiyangar offered estimates ranging from 1,400 to 3,000 miles.[51]According toU. V. Swaminatha Iyer,only the land amounting in area to only a few villages (equivalent to the Tamil measure of two kurram) was lost. In 1903, Suryanarayana Sastri suggested that Kumari Kandam extended from the present-day Kanyakumari in North toKerguelen Islandsin South, and fromMadagascarin the West toSunda Islandsin the East. In 1912, Somasundara Bharati wrote that the continent touchedChina,Africa,Australiaand Kanyakumari on four sides. In 1948,Maraimalai Adigalstated that the continent stretched as far as theSouth Pole.Somasundara Bharati offered an estimate of 6000–7000 miles.[52]

Maps[edit]

The first map to visualize Lemuria as an ancient Tamil territory was published by S. Subramania Sastri in 1916, in the journalCentamil.This map was actually part of an article that criticized the pseudohistorical claims about a lost continent. Sastri insisted that the lost land mentioned in Adiyarkunallar's records was barely equivalent to ataluka(not larger than a few hundred square miles). The map depicted two different versions of Kumari Kandam: that of Sastri, and that of A. Shanmugam Pillai (see above). The lost land was depicted as a peninsula, similar to the present-day Indian peninsula.[53]

In 1927, Purnalingam Pillai published a map titled "Puranic India before the Deluges", in which he labeled the various places of Kumari Kandam with names drawn from ancient Tamil and Sanskrit literary works. Pulavar Kulanthai, in his 1946 map, was first to depict cities like Tenmaturai and Kapatapuram on the maps of Kumari Kandam. Several maps also depicted the various mountain ranges and rivers of Kumari Kandam. The most elaborate cartographic visualization appeared in a 1977 map by R. Mathivanan. This map showed the 49nadus mentioned by Adiyarkunallar, and appears in the Tamil Nadu government's 1981 documentary.[54]

A 1981 map published by N. Mahalingam depicted the lost land as "Submerged Tamil Nadu" in 30,000 BCE.[55]A 1991 map, created by R. Mathivanan, showed aland bridgeconnecting Indian peninsula toAntarctica.A few Tamil writers also depictedGondwanalandas Kumari Kandam.[7]

Criticism of the concept[edit]

Kumari Kandam is a mythical continent,[1]and therefore, the attempts to mix this myth with Tamil history have attracted criticism since the late 19th century.[56]One of the earliest criticisms came from M Seshagiri Sastri (1897), who described the claims of ante-diluvial sangams as "a mere fiction originated by the prolific imagination of Tamil poets."[57]CH Monahan wrote a scathing review of Suryanarayana Sastri'sTamilmoliyin Varalaru(1903), shortly after its publication, accusing the author of "abandoning scientific research for mythology".[58]K. N. Sivaraja Pillai(1932) similarly stressed on the need to closely examine the historical authenticity of Sangam works and their commentaries.[59]

In 1956,K. A. Nilakanta Sastridescribed the Kumari Kandam theory as "all bosh", stating that geological theories about events happening millions of years ago should not be connected to the human history of a few thousand years back.[60]Historian N. Subrahmanian, writing in 1966, described the Lemuria myth as the most characteristic example of "anti-history" in Tamil Nadu.[29]He noted that these myths persisted in the minds of Tamil people despite modern education.[61]According to him, the land lost to sea, as described in the ancient Tamil legends, was a small area comparable to a present-daydistrict,and submerged around 5th or 4th century BCE.[24]

The same view is also shared by historianK. K. Pillay.He writes

... to accept this is not to accept the view that the entire Lemuria orGondvanacontinent existed in the age of the Tamil Sangam, as is sometimes believed. Some of the writers on the Tamil Sangam might have held that the first Tamil Academy flourished in South Madurai which according to them lay to the south of the tip of present South India. This view has been sought to be reinforced by the Lemurian theory. But it is important to observe that the Lemurian continent must have existed, if at all, long long ago. According to geologists, the dismemberment of the Lemurian or Gondvana continent into several units must have taken place towards the close of the Mesozoic era.[62]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^abTheresa Bane (2014).Encyclopedia of Imaginary and Mythical Places.McFarland. p. 91.ISBN978-1-4766-1565-3.
  2. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 104–108.
  3. ^abcdeRichard S. Weiss (22 January 2009).Recipes for Immortality: Healing, Religion, and Community in South India: Healing, Religion, and Community in South India.Oxford University Press. pp. 89–97.ISBN978-0-19-971500-8.
  4. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 268.
  5. ^C. Brito (1884)."Curiosities of Tamil Literature".Orientalist: A Journal of Oriental Literature, Arts, and Sciences Folklore.Trübner & Co.pp. 98–102.
  6. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 105–106.
  7. ^abRamaswamy 2004,pp. 204–211.
  8. ^William P. Harman (1992).The Sacred Marriage of a Hindu Goddess.Motilal Banarsidass.p. 39.ISBN978-81-208-0810-2.
  9. ^Shulman 1980,pp. 55–56.
  10. ^abcdRamaswamy 2004,pp. 143–145.
  11. ^Kalittokai 104:1–4
  12. ^Purananuru 6:1–2, 17:1, 67:6.
  13. ^Shulman 1980,pp. 57–69.
  14. ^"Tsunami uncovers ancient sculptures in Mahabalipuram in Tamil Nadu".Down to Earth.6 July 2015.Retrieved14 August2020.
  15. ^Shulman 1980,p. 57.
  16. ^Shulman 1980,p. 62.
  17. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 99.
  18. ^Henry Francis Blanford (1874) [1873].The Rudiments of Physical Geography.Thacker, Spink. pp. 119–20.
  19. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 55.
  20. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 101–102.
  21. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 266.
  22. ^Nallasami Pillai, J. 1898. Ancient Tamil Civilization. The Light of Truth or Siddhanta Deepika 2, no. 5: 109–13.
  23. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 103.
  24. ^abS. Christopher Jayakaran (9–22 April 2011)."The Lemuria myth".Frontline.28(8).
  25. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 98–100.
  26. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 178–179.
  27. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 105.
  28. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 174.
  29. ^abRamaswamy 2004,p. 151.
  30. ^Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Debates 24 (1972): 76.
  31. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 179.
  32. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 102.
  33. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 148.
  34. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 117–118.
  35. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 120.
  36. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 172.
  37. ^abcdRamaswamy 2004,pp. 109–113.
  38. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 173.
  39. ^abRamaswamy 2004,pp. 122–126.
  40. ^1945. Namatu Natu [Our nation]. Madras: South India Saiva Siddhanta Works Publishing Society.
  41. ^N. S. Kandiah Pillai, 1957. Varalarruk Kalattirku Murpatta Palantamilar [Prehistoric ancient Tamilians]. 3rd ed. N.p.: Progressive Printers. Page 12.
  42. ^Nedunceliyan, R. 1953. Marainta Tiravitam [Lost Dravidian land]. Madras: Manram Patippakam.
  43. ^Government of Tamilnadu. 1975.Tamilnattu Varalaru: Tolpalañkalam [History of Tamilnadu: Prehistoric times].Madras: Tamilnadu Aracu. Page 127.
  44. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 124–125.
  45. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 98.
  46. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 115–117.
  47. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 116–117.
  48. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 131.
  49. ^Ramaswamy 2004,p. 205.
  50. ^Subramania Sastri 1915–16, 420–21; Swaminatha Aiyar 1978, 14.
  51. ^Abraham Pandither 1984, 55; Aiyan Aarithan 1904–5, 274; Devaneyan 1940, 50; Raghava Aiyangar 1938, 91.
  52. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 130–131.
  53. ^Subramania Sastri 1915–16, 466–67.
  54. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 212–213.
  55. ^Mahalingam 1981b, 136–37.
  56. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 151–152.
  57. ^M. Seshagiri Sastri (1897).Essay on Tamil Literature.Printed at the S.P.C.K. Press. p. 39.
  58. ^Ramaswamy 2004,pp. 223–224.
  59. ^Sivaraja Pillai (2007) [1932].The Chronology of the Early Tamils.Read Books.ISBN978-1-4067-5885-6.
  60. ^KA Nilakanta Sastri (1956) [1941].Historical Method in Relation to Problems of South Indian History.University of Madras. p. 87.
  61. ^N. Subrahmanian (1996).The Tamils: Their History, Culture, and Civilization.Institute of Asian Studies. p. 25.
  62. ^Pillay, K. K.(1963).South India and Ceylon.University of Madras. p. 6.
Further reading
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumari_Kandam&oldid=1234709872"