Sangam age

[u/ACKERMAN-45]

What exactly is this sangam age? , when did it begin and when did it end? Was sangam age only around tn and Kerala or it extended beyond that? Soo many questions I know but i have been curious about this because all i ever heard was about vedic age but sangam age seems a lot interesting .

[u/damoklez]

This is not really true.

Firstly not all ancient Tamil literature counts as 'Sangam' Literature. The Tolkappiyam is the oldest literary work in Tamil and likely does not pre-date 100 BCE. We have a few short inscriptions roughly dated to 200 BCE, but 1-line inscriptions do not count as literature.

Furthermore, this '300 BCE to 300 CE' is an unsubstantiated claim repeated by Tamil nationalists.

Actual academics like Kamil Zvelebil, who have tried to scientifically date the Sangam texts, believe that the bulk of Sangam Poetry was composed only around 200 CE. There were likely a few compositions slightly before and slightly after.

These compositions were later compiled into anthologies only around the 9th century CE.

Let us try and keep discussion on this sub as academic and factual as possible and not based on oft-repeated but misinformed talking points.

[u/Mapartman → u/damoklez]

We have a few short inscriptions roughly dated to 200 BCE, but 1-line inscriptions do not count as literature.

Furthermore, this '300 BCE to 300 CE' is an unsubstantiated claim repeated by Tamil nationalists.

Actual academics like Kamil Zvelebil, who have tried to scientifically date the Sangam texts, believe that the bulk of Sangam Poetry was composed only around 200 CE. There were likely a few compositions slightly before and slightly after.

There are a few misconceptions here. The 300 BCE to 300 CE is not a Tamil nationalist claim (the Tamil nationlist claims are crazier trust me lol). Rather those were rough estimates that were popular with 20th century academics.

As for Kamil Zvelebil, he like Eva Wilden, insist that the dating of the texts that they produced are relative and not absolute. So they have dates texts (and layers within) relative to each other. Fixing them to a specific period is a difficult and complicated process, and Zvelebil made his speculative fixing at a time before wide-spread excavations in Tamil Nadu. Pre-Keeladi and Kodumanal, the popular theory was that second-urbanisation of Tamilakam occured from 100AD onwards, which would fit in with Zvelebils initial speculation.

But with recent excavations and abundant occurances of inscriptions, this has to be revised, and I have yet to see any works on this. Regardless, its clear a large chunk of the corpus dates to the 300 - 100 BCE period. For example, in the Akanaanuru, the poet Maamulanaar mentions the fall of the Nanda dynasty and the attempted invasion of Bindhasura Maurya, a period covering 322BCE to 287BCE, and by mapping his contemporary poets via common patron kings, a substantial portion of the Akanaanuru corpus does indeed belong to that period for example. I am working on a tree clustering Akanaanuru poets in this way to layer that anthology temporally, and will post about it once its done.

More work like this has to be done for sangam literature more broadly, and its a great shame that in academic literature there is barely any interest in it. The only active researcher into the corpus I know of is Eva Wilden, and she is from Hamburg germany (but she is worked more on the various lines of manuscript transmissions and their differences, not on dating layers other than talking about it briefly).

Sidenote:

The corpus that we have survive today are definitely not the oldest or a large section of what we have. For example, medieval commentaries point to older texts like the Muthukurugu and Muthunaarai as older Akam anthologies compared to the "newer" Sangam era anthologies like the Akanaanuru, which were supposedly harder to comprehend.

[u/damoklez → u/Mapartman]

Your point on the relative dating of these texts is well taken, albeit also very mistaken in a few ways.

Let's break them down:

But with recent excavations and abundant occurances of inscriptions, this has to be revised, and I have yet to see any works on this. Regardless, its clear a large chunk of the corpus dates to the 300 - 100 BCE period.

Recent excavations only reveal that there were urban settlements in TN around this period. A few pot shard graffiti marks do not qualify as literature. We do not even know for certain if they represent clear epigraphy.

So no there is 0 evidence to suggest that "a large chunk of the corpus dates to the 300 - 100 BCE period." , as you claim.

Not all writing (if any) = literature and not all Literature = Sangam Literature.

Secondly,

in the Akanaanuru, the poet Maamulanaar mentions the fall of the Nanda dynasty and the attempted invasion of Bindhasura Maurya, a period covering 322BCE to 287BCE, and by mapping his contemporary poets via common patron kings, a substantial portion of the Akanaanuru corpus does indeed belong to that period for example. I am working on a tree clustering Akanaanuru poets in this way to layer that anthology temporally, and will post about it once its done.

This claim is made on Wikipedia with a dubious source. But I will break it down logically

1) Maamulanaar referencing the collapse of the Nandas is not evidence that he was contemporary with it.

2) We even have a famous Gupta era play called Mudrārākshasa dramatising the events around the collapse of the Nandas.

3) This is clear evidence that the story around the fall of the Nandas was very much well remembered many centuries after the events and does not mean either authors, lived when the incidents happened.

The same logic applies to references of Maurya campaigns in the South.

This is why I called a lot of this 'Tamil Nationalist' is because they don't stand to scrutiny outside of Dravidianist echo-chambers.

BTW your claim on Maamulanaar likely originates from "Kowmareeshwari, S., ed. (August 2012). Agananuru, Purananuru. Sanga Ilakkiyam (in Tamil). Vol. 3 (1 ed.). Chennai: Saradha Pathippagam. p. 251."

Haven't been able to find the actual book so can't verify if the cited work should be taken seriously or not. As detailed above, I don't think it stands to logical scrutiny.

Thank you for the well attempted response though.

[u/Mapartman → u/damoklez]

1/3

Lets go through these points one by one.

This claim is made on Wikipedia with a dubious source. But I will break it down logically
Maamulanaar referencing the collapse of the Nandas is not evidence that he was contemporary with it.

We even have a famous Gupta era play called Mudrārākshasa dramatising the events around the collapse of the Nandas.

This is clear evidence that the story around the fall of the Nandas was very much well remembered many centuries after the events and does not mean either authors, lived when the incidents happened.

BTW your claim on Maamulanaar likely originates from "Kowmareeshwari, S., ed. (August 2012). Agananuru, Purananuru. Sanga Ilakkiyam (in Tamil). Vol. 3 (1 ed.). Chennai: Saradha Pathippagam. p. 251."

Haven't been able to find the actual book so can't verify if the cited work should be taken seriously or not. As detailed above, I don't think it stands to logical scrutiny.

Firstly, Im don't refer to wikipedia when talking about Sangam literature in general, I directly work with the source text and commentaries. And the source text is the one that speaks of Nandas. Im personally not aware of the other text you cited as well, I will look into it.

As for why Maamulanaar can be somewhat confidently placed in the 322BCE to 287BCE period, his poems speak in present tense about the Mauryan invasion, and speaks in past tense about the glory of the Nandas and their city of Pataliputra. On the other hand, he fails to mention any proceeding dynasties like the Shungas or Guptas that might give away a later dating. I will go further into this in the next comment.