Talk:Anaikoddai seal

fringe theory

@Sasithmadu:: Please read all this (and the links) before discussing.

https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/soas_query.py?qs=kēvárta&searchhws=yes

Fisherman in Sanskrit is spelt kēvárta not Keveta.

Likewise Sinhala Prakrit is descended from Prakrit not Sanskrit.

The Prakrit form for Fisherman is kēvāṭṭa or kēvāṭa with a ට not ත.

This is attested in one of the Ashoka edicts as 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑀝 (kēvāṭa):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Pillar_Edicts#Major_Pillar_Edict_5 (line 14, word 2)

The Sinhala Prakrit form would have had retroflexion as indicated by the medieval Sinhala form kevuḷā.

kēvāṭa > kevuḷā

Established Sinhala phonology supports this:

"The intervocalic cerebrals (-ṭ-, -ṭh-, -ḍ-, -ḍh-) all become -ḷ - in Sgh"

ṭ > ḷ

ට > ළ

https://www.jstor.org/stable/608679

(The phonology of the Sinhalese inscriptions - page 271)

Incredibly unlikely that Sinhala Prakrit lost the retroflexion from kēvāṭa and all other recorded Prakrit forms, and then miraculously gained it back for the medieval form kevuḷā.

A chieftain signet ring reading kēvēta 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑁂𑀢 (a word not recorded anywhere), therefore can not represent the Prakrit word kēvāṭa 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑀝 (fisherman).

Prof. Indrapala, Iravatham Mahadevan, Prof. Ragupathy, Prof. Sudharshan Seneviratne, Prof. Pathmanathan, Prof. K.Rajan, Prof. Osmund Bopearachchi and Dr. KV Ramesh all accepted the Koveta reading. This is the mainstream reading, and for good reason. Metta79 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:L_Manju what's your opinion on the matter? (see my edit - which is now reverted - on this article, to know the issue.)Sasithmadu (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sasithmadu: You can add Prof. Somadeva's interpretation as a secondary opinion without any interruption from wiki users because many academicians disagree with this reading. Recently, another article was published in archeology.lk with a new interpretation.

Annaikoṭṭai Seal: Is it Tamil Brāhmī? – By Prasad Fonseka --L Manju (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:L_Manju This new article by Prasad Fonseka is not a reliable source, and is full of misquoting. It lacks good peer review. The author wrongly claims that both Indrapala and Somadeva read the second letter as 𑀯 (va) when they both clearly read it as 𑀯𑁂 (ve). He also wrongly claims that Indrapala reads the seal as Kovetem. When Indrapala clearly initially read it as Koventa/Kovetan, but then modified his views later to accept Koveta. Also reading the first letter as 𑀭𑁂 (re) is completely unsustainable going by the lower intersecting horizontal line, which makes it a clear 𑀓 derivative. Even the Mangulam inscription he mentions has forms of 𑀓 derivatives which are not symmetrical crosses. Just because many people write poor interpretations on a self published source does not make it reliable.

I mean I could write an archaeology blog and claim the inscription means Ko Veta, king of the Veddas by claiming dental 𑀢 (ta) really represents a word with retroflex 𑀝 (ṭa), like Somadeva does for kēvāṭa 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑀝, and that the skeletons prognathic jaw, a feature of aboriginal populations proves its a Vedda chief. But it would not be a reliable published source. The mainstream reading in academia (both published and peer reviewed sources) is still without a doubt Koveta, and the weighting of this article should reflect this (I personally think its a similar Dravidian survival from the South Indian originated megalithic culture such as Parumaka, Parumakaḷ, Marumakaṉ and Veḷ in Sinhala Prakrit). Metta79 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Metta79: Whether the interpretation of Somadeva is correct or not is not something we wikipedians should bother about. Wikipedia's task is not judging them.If you've read Verifibility, Not Truth this is clear. Reliable source means a source previously published by a authoritative person.whtehet that opinion is correct or not is not relevant. If we followed your policy on wikipedia in pages on debatable topics, we may not be able to add views of scholars who disagree each other. according to "Neutral Point of View" we must add all existing/prominent viewpoints on the matter.

please read following extract from the Verifibility, Not Truth (emphasis is mine)

Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

So please look at this issue, in a view of a Wikipedian, not as an archeologist. If you have any sources which mentions errors of Somadeva's view, you can add them too. But not allowing to adding it is not compatible with wikipedia policies. Sasithmadu (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)