Talk:Tamil-Brahmi

Dubious Template is not Valid

The person who write the Book "Excavations at Porunthal" only dates the Tamil-Brahmi as 490 B.C. and it was published in related newspapers also which were given as references in this article. But user Kwami again making false statements and put a Dubious template in Time Period. So I remove the Dubious Template.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. WP prefers secondary sources. We have secondary sources saying the script dates to the 2nd–3rd c. BCE. You have primary sources saying it might date to the 5th c. BCE, and you only report those sources. They are dubious because they are contradicted by secondary sources. This is entirely proper. Find good 2ary sources that back your claim, and we're fine. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous! How could you tell you have secondary sources? Why do you reject primary sources? Show me all your secondary sources, which is reliable.--Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 18:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you read my edit? Salomon is a secondary source. He says Mahadevan is the authoritative interpretation. Both agree on the date. Olivelle is another secondary source that agrees with Mahadevan.

I'm not rejecting primary sources, I'm following Wikipedia policy that WP:secondary sources are required. We certainly can't cherry-pick primary sources to the exclusion of 2ary sources when the two disagree. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I know and I'm following Wikipedia policy. It says "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages". Is How Porunthal’s Rice Grains Provided Insight to an Indian Writing System or The Hindu article entitled “Porunthal excavations prove existence of Indian scripts in 5th century BC: expert” primary, secondary or tertiary source? If yes/no, tell me the reason. --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Hindu article is not a reliable source at all, since it's simply a newspaper article. (Newspapers are not generally accepted for evaluation of the evidence, since their writers are not experts in the field, though we do use them to as evidence that claims have been made.) The Beta Analytic site just reports on the newspaper report. If we had the original article, that would be a primary source. If we had an expert in epigraphy or paleography who evaluated or summarized the Porunthal report, that would be a secondary source. And that's what we should have on WP. For all we know, there are primary sources out there which claim that Tamil Brahmi dates from 2000 BC, or from 200 CE. We don't want to list a bunch of contradictory dates, as that doesn't help the reader, but rather to report what the experts believe to be the most likely date, and not about their own work, where they may be biased, but about the consensus of the field as a whole. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't see my point "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages". --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 03:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should be discussed here. But when primary sources disagree with secondary sources, we need good evidence that those primary sources have been accepted. (The normal way we do that is by seeing how they are reviewed, and compared with contrary claims, in secondary sources.) And we can throw out newspaper articles altogether. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. What about that Book "Excavation at porunthal" which was written by K. Rajan? That is a secondary source. No one can claim single person can only have authoritative interpretation to fix the date of Tamil Brahmi. Even Salomon can write in his book like that you can't add it in Wikipedia.
2. First you refer One google book (Salomon) which don't have preview and that book was published in 1990's. Like that I add one Google Book "Excavation at Porunthal" by K. Rajan which don't have preview. But that person only claim Tamil-Brahmi was 490 BCE. Even that book don't have Preview in google that person Rajan only dated that as 490 B.C. and related news published in Newspapers also. You can't template that as dubious.
3. It's simple. Wikipedia works based on secondary source. You can't fix the Kasinathan's article as Primary. Give any Valid secondary source to refuse his Claim. You can't make your own Judgement in Wikipedia that Kasinathan's Article is not reliable.
4. Iravatam Mahadevan Post-Asokan Claim is not be supported by any archaeological dating methods. But K. Rajan have done a research and have an archaeological dating proof.
5. Natana Kasinathan have Consonant Method Proof.
6. First give me a secondary source which refuse K.Rajan's and Natana Kasinthan Claim and you can template this as dubious.

//You have primary sources saying it might date to the 5th c. BCE, and you only report those sources. They are dubious because they are contradicted by secondary sources.//

1. Each and every sentence is false. I refer K.Rajan book. That is secondary source. Same way I can also say you only argue Iravatam claim is only reliable and other sources which supports Pre-Dispersal is not reliable and primary. Tell some other Administrator to come to this page and say like that.
2. If you say this as unreliable then I'll say Iravatam Article is unreliable and remove his article from references. In 8th page of Kasinathan's article he mentioned why Tamil Brahmi is older than Asokan Brahmi. I ask anyone other than you can go through that reference and read that. But in Iravatam Mahadevan article he never make any reason why Asokan Brahmi is older than Tamil Brahmi. Can you say any reason why Iravatam Claim Asokan Brahmi is older than Tamil Brahmi?
3. According to the two books given below, Iravatam Mahadevan source is also dubious and contradicted by secondary sources.

//On the other hand, Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Emeritus Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, called the Porunthal Tamil-Brahmi script “an epoch-making discovery in the archaeology of Tamil Nadu” and said there “is no doubt” that Tamil-Brahmi belonged to the pre-Asokan period. In two of his books — “An Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology” and “India, an Archaeological History” — he had written that the evolution of Tamil-Brahmi should go back to circa 500 BCE.// [1] I add these two books as only in Reference.

1. First time you deleted the three references given by me. [2] This activity is completely against to wiki rules. I didn't delete any source. I just moved every source given by you to Post Dispersal subheading. You can't warn me in my talk page like this.
2. I request some other administrator come to this page and say what is correct. Because Kwami's activity is against to wikipedia.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with Tenkasi Subramanian and looking for help from sysop(s).

1. Kwami stated nothing in primary source, later disagree with primary source.
2. Kwami gave warning in my talk page. Is it according to Wiki policy?

--Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 07:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Admin help}} An administrator is not needed for this. Technical 13 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have created a separate section for help, below; {{helpme}} has been moved there. As I have asked a question pending reply, I have put {{helpme-wording}} instead. Gryllida (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When secondary sources contradict primary sources, which should we use for, say, the dates in the info box? And should we use newspaper reports as RSs for scientific claims? — kwami (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

[3] Is these references are newspapers? You did vandalism by deleted the three references and divert that refrences are news papers. I don't want to argue with you again. I request some other Admin to come to this page.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. You posted that you wanted a question answered, but you failed to specify the question. That's the question. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. What about that Book "Excavation at porunthal" which was written by K. Rajan?
2. Give any Valid secondary source to refuse his Claim.
3. Can you say any reason why Iravatam Claim Asokan Brahmi is older than Tamil Brahmi?

These are the questions you never answered. I mentioned them already above.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. That is a primary source.
2. Give a valid secondary source that confirms his claim.
3. I have no idea. Provide a 2ary source. That's how things work here. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I came over here because Kwami listed this discussion at WP:RSN.

This is the kind of question whose answer can be redically changed by a new discovery. In this case, that's what the archaeologist K. Rajan claims, and that's the claim that is reported in The Hindu. Right?

Since it is a radical change -- three centuries earlier than the previously accepted start date for this script -- it would be good to know what other academics think about it. I can't get far with that. His work is quite recent. It had the support of the Archaeological Survey of India (which is good), was published locally in pamphlet form (which is unlucky for us) by a good university (which is promising). I can find one book of 2013 which treats Rajan's other datings in this pamphlet with respect (see page 248 here).

Based on what I have so far, I see no reason to reject Rajan's work. It is reaching the scholarly mainsteam. So, for now, in the infobox, I would put 5th cent./2nd cent. BC. In the text of the article I would explain the state of the question, footnoting, for the 5th cent. possible date, (1) Rajan's pamphlet, (2) The Hindu (it's a very good newspaper, and adds a nuance to the claim that Rajan originally made), and (3) the excavation blog which is here. For 2nd cent. I would footnote some of the sources that we already have. Then I would wait and see: if other academics decide to reject his conclusions, more evidence of their views will soon turn up.

Don't know if that helps ... :) Andrew Dalby 10:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There's also the question of whether it's actually Tamil Brahmi, or just Prakrit Brahmi. If the writing is dated to the 5th c., that doesn't mean the adaptations to Tamil (extra letters, loss of the inherent vowel) were that early. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwami! I see that the Hindu article and the blog both say firmly "Tamil Brahmi". Without reading Rajan's pamphlet, we don't know (or, at least, I don't know) on what grounds they say it.

It seems, anyway, that evidence was already gathering for Tamil Brahmi as early as 4th/3rd century BC (as our section "Archeological review" explains), so there is still good reason (I'd say) to allow the infobox to give a date range rather than a firm 2nd century BC dating. Andrew Dalby 11:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources I've been able to check for the early dates are not actually for Tamil Brahmi, which makes me doubt the rest. One source has an early date for Brahmi in Tamil Nadu, but still 2nd c. for Tamil Brahmi itself. But in the less reliable sources there seems to be a tendency to call anything from Tamil Nadu "Tamil", whether it is known to be or not. — kwami (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, one can see reasons for that! From the language point of view, to find Prakrit in use in Tamil Nadu in the 5th century BC would be a big surprise, I think (for me, anyway); to find Tamil in use there is no surprise at all. From the script point of view, it's a different thing: when was it introduced, how quickly was it adapted, what name should we give to the earliest samples? Andrew Dalby 12:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Before we blindly accept the earliest claim of a date for the geographic region as a date for the script, we should have a RS that it actually is the script: Brahmi adapted to Tamil, or at the very least transcribing Tamil. Tamil Brahmi is defined an the Brahmi script adapted to Tamil; our sources describe how it differs from Brahmi used to write Prakrit. (Except for Tamil Brahmi used secondarily for Prakrit.) Since I can't access every citation, I can't disprove it, but the ones I have checked are not supportive of the claim. I've asked for quotations, but have met only resistance, which makes me suspicious that the refs do not actually say what they're being used to support. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on what I know and can read, assuming a script found in a Tamil Nadu context and reliably dated to the 5th century BC, to call it "Prakrit Brahmi" would be a much wilder stab in the dark than to call it "Tamil Brahmi". How did Prakrit come to be written in Tamil Nadu in the 5th century BC? How did the language even get there? If I were writing about it I'd just call it "Brahmi", at least until I knew what the inscription says ... But that's it, I think. I'd much prefer someone else to comment who knows the linguistic context better, so I'll bow out here. Good wishes to all. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Break

Tenkasi Subramanian, please summarize the question. Help is requested, but I wouldn't like to read the entire discussion before seeing the question. Gryllida (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Question? (Singular)

I have Claims (plural) and questions (again Plural) as per references and sources. I give it as a Tabular Column as per academic sources and research Journals. Then it is easy to understand.

Claims	Primary Source, Year (referability)	Secondary source, year (referability)	Any other reference in case of absence in reference of primary/secondary sources?	User Comments
Support Pre-Asokan Dispersal	Dilip K. Chakrabati, 2006, 2009 (no)	K.Rajan, 2009 (no)	Hindu Paper Article, Radio Carbon Dating site of Beta lab	Even both sources (P & S) have no referability, at least this theory have referred in newspaper article and it was accepted by Beta lab.
Refuse Pre-Asokan Dispersal	Kasinthan 2004, Dilip (2006, 2009), Rajan 2009, (no)	Mahadevan, 2003 (!?), Salomon, 1998 (!!?), (no)	NIL	How 2004, 2009 research o/p and 2006, 2009 academic sources can be rejected/questioned by secondary sources before 2003 and how it can be authoritative ( :) )/approved by 1998 secondary source?
Support Post-Asokan Dispersal	Mahadevan, 2003, (no)	Salomon, 1996 (!!?), (no)	NIL	How 2003 primary source can be authoritative ( :) )/approved/supported by 1996 secondary source?
Refuse Post- Asokan Dispersal	Mahadevan, 2003, (no)	Kasinathan, 2004, (JOTS Article)	No need. Because secondary source can be referable.	2003 article was refused by 2004 Article. Even though Kasinthan article is a primary source to support Pre-asokan, it should be considered as a secondary source to refuse post-asokan dating provided by Mahadevan. But not vice versa.
Comparision of 3 Primary sources	Kasinathan, 2004 (Yes) and K. Rajan (No) Vs Mahadevan 2003 (No)	NIL Vs NIL (As per my knowledge no author compared Kasinathan's, K.Rajan's and Mahadevan's dating method)	-	But K. Rajan refuse post asokan theory by his dating and Kasinthan also refused the same by his Consonant Method. But both of their Pre-asokan claims never rejected even by Mahadevan in any Research or academic sources. So see my points below the table.

These points might have referability and it's my own according to my knowledge. I considered 3 dating primary sources in my account.

1. Mahadevan article was in 2003. According to his consonant dating method (He only proposed this consonant dating method first). He proposed 3 stages of Tamil Brahmi.
   1. ET 1 - Ex: Mangulam Inscription 2nd century BC.
   2. ET 2 - Ex: Jambai Inscription 1st Century BC.
   3. ET 3 - Ex: Neganurpati Inscription After BC (AD).
2. Kasinathan's article was in 2004. According to his Developed/Updated consonant dating method (He included one other stage in Tamil Brahmi) and for comparision with other brahmi he took Battiporulu and Asokan inscriptions.
   1. ET 1 - Ex: Mangulam Inscription 5th century BC.
   2. ET 2 - Ex: Pugalur Inscription 4th century BC.
   3. ET 3 - Ex: Jambai Inscription 3rd Century BC.
   4. ET 4 - Ex: Neganurpati Inscription After (AD).
3. K. Rajan radio carbon results in 2009.

My Conclusions according to sources in Lack of referabilities.

• Though Mahadevan proposed 3 stages of Early Tamil brahmi, he didn't mention the reason why he dated Asokan brahmi is prior than Tamil-Brahmi 3 stages. And this post dispersal theory don't have an archaeological proofs like Radio carbon dating.
• Kasinathan proposed 4 stages of Early Tamil brahmi. He mentioned the reason why he dated 2 stages of ET is prior, one is co-existing and one is later than Asokan brahmi. As Kwami said that Kainathan never mentioned any reason, so it's my duty to give that reason here from 8th page of JOTS Article below. You can also refer the PDF link above.

//There are 2 sheet anchors from the epigraphical side for fixing date of early Tamil Epigraphs. One is Jambai and other is Pulankuricci. Jambai mentioned the ephithet Satiyaputo for athiyaman netuman anci. The same ephithet is found in Asokan II edict. Hence Jambai Inscription is to be equalled with asokan. Therefore it is to be assigned to 3rd Century BC//

Jambai inscription is in ET III of kasinathan's consonant method. Therefore ET I and ET II is prior than Asokan brahmi. So consider this Kasinathan's article as a secondary source to refuse Mahadevan's post asokan claim and primary source to the pre asokan claim by kasinthan himself.

• Pre-asokan dispersal also supported by radio carbon dating. No brahmi post sherds which was radio carbon dated or dated according epigraphic methods before 300 BC was founded in North India. But in Tamilnadu there are brahmi postsherds and epigraphs which were dated according to radio carbon and Epigraphs method.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Table

Gryllida please read the all the contents in the sub-heading above (Break) and come to this sub-heading (Table).--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what "referability" means.

Several of your supposed 2ary sources are actually 1ary.

Beta Lab is not a separate source, it just reposts the Hindu article.

As for Kasinathan, it would help if you actually gave the reason. You repeatedly claim there is one, yet refuse to provide it.

You also keep referring to Brahmi, but we're not dealing with just any Brahmi: We're interested in Tamil Brahmi specifically. Brahmi could date to the 5th c. in the region and Tamil Brahmi still date to the 2nd. — kwami (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Referability - Ex: Google Preview, JOTS article, Any PDF's etc.
2. //Several of your supposed 2ary sources are actually 1ary// List that sources in first four rows in the table I mentioned above.
3. In case of Failed reference only I proposed that. Not for others. But you don't have that also for your claim.
4. Mahadevan failed to give a reason for his post-asokan claim according to his consonant method. But Kasinathan gave the reason for his pre-asokan claim as well as to refuse Mahadevan Post-Asokan Claim.

//As for Kasinathan, it would help if you actually gave the reason. You repeatedly claim there is one, yet refuse to provide it.//

I said the reason for that claim mentioned in that article. But you failed to read. I want Wiki Common helper's point in this area.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. It's not much of a reason, which is why I kept looking for something more substantial. Yes, he says that the Ashoka-like texts are later than the dissimilar texts, but AFAICT he gives no reason for that conclusion. His "reason" doesn't include an actual reason, AFAICT. There aren't any established dates prior to the 3rd c; the 4th and 5th c. dates are mere guesses. Guesses based on an unsupported conclusion are not very convincing.

As for referability, several of those books are available at GBooks. The sources I quoted should all be (yes).

Rajan, Mahadevan, and Kasinathan are all primary sources, are they not? Though Mahadevan has the support of 2ary sources. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any specific question. That said, when there are multiple scholarly opinions about a topic, Wikipedia should report them all, in proportion to the support among academics they enjoy. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Instead we misrepresent sources and declare the (in)correctness of theories in Wikipedia's voice. That's particularly evident in our use of Olivelle 2006 to refute the post-Ashokan dispersal theory developed by Mahadevan. Firstly, that should not be a part of the "pre-Ashokan dispersal" section in the first place. Secondly, while Olivelle does say that Mahadevan did not take into account the Anuradhapura findings, he doesn't say that's a failure of Mahadevan's theory and in fact argues that Anuradhapura shows close association of mercantile endeavours and Buddhist clergy - which would indicate that the shards are dated post-Ashoka. He's entirely content with Mahadevan's dating of other shards through archaeo-magnetic tests. Finally, even if Olivelle contradicted Mahadevan, we should report that, not simply claim that Mahadevan is wrong. Huon (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Keezhadi findings not even mentioned here when List of languages by first written accounts makes a mention of it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Tamili script found in Keezhadi dated to 580 BCE

Several news reports about recent excavations:

• https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/major-discovery-tamil-nadu-s-keezhadi-possible-link-indus-valley-civilisation-109165
• https://scroll.in/article/937484/who-were-the-sangam-tamils-next-round-of-keezhadi-excavations-could-provide-crucial-evidence
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/keeladi-findings-traceable-to-6th-century-bce-report/article29461583.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-study-connects-tamil-nadu-with-indus-valley-civilisation/story-ESlR55vEIZQPvq2Q0jXeVP.html
• https://thewire.in/the-sciences/keezhadi-excavation-tamil-nadu-sangam-era-asi-tamil-brahmi
• http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/21/findings-in-keezhadi-expose-asi-lies-on-tamil-civilisation-su-venkatesan-2036782.html
• http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/19/sangam-civilisation-older-than-thought-says-new-report-2036042.html

Feel free to add more interesting links.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see the peer reviewed report and any response to it, but meanwhile it doesn't belong in the article. The media is not a reliable source for archaeology. Nor in fact are all journals. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, this is all fascinating, but it's also political another reason we shouldn't use the media reports. See [https://thewire.in/the-sciences/keezhadi-excavation-tamil-nadu-sangam-era-asi-tamil-brahmi this which you also linked to above. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not advocating to use the newspaper sources for wikipedia articles. Just making people aware of recent developments. Eagerly awaiting the peer-reviewed material.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 to Doug Weller. I have removed all 500 BCE etc exceptional claims based on newspapers, questionable websites and other non-RS. Ancient chronology we use in wikipedia articles must come from peer-reviewed scholarly sources. I have also checked the sources and reworded/cleaned up this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

JAIN MONKS, MERCHANTS, AND KINGS IN EARLY HISTORIC SOUTH INDIA

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JmqNMJZoW0MJkPDdBwz98NbYXUbUkFmk/view?usp=sharing

This is a peer reviewed source by Julie Hanlon. She favours a Pre-Ashoka dating for Brahmi.

Please read the following section from p66:

2.3. The chronology of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions: Origins and evolution

Now with the latest finding from Keezhadi carbon dated to 580 B.C. It is very clear now that Brahmi is pre Ashoka. This is the archaeology report from the Department of Archeaology in Tamil Nadu:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-3Hdu7P7WW1i214cATQDnxINOwk4OMG_/view?usp=sharing

Are the detractors seriously claiming that the multiple scientific carbon dates from both Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu as spurious? Metta79 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Metta79: first question is who is M. Karan - I see no evidence they have authority to share those publications, however it's possible that that is automatically the case for them as government documents.. My big problem is trusting government bodies. I need ask about that. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly an authentic report (thanks for that!), but it should be publically available, so we could link it with the article.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The link was emailed to me. It is also available here: https://archive.org/details/keeladibookenglish18092019 Metta79 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The uploader seems to be connected to projects related to the development of Tamil. I also found, that he uploaded the Tamil version of the report. But theoretically this could be uploaded by an impersonator in a forged version. My suggestion is to wait for reliable third party feedback. In the meantime we should keep this report in mind when we make edits to the article.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

PS: There is also news, that Adichanallur and related excavation sites get reported soon (after a very long gap). That information will also serve to improve the article.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Keezhadi excavation reports for phase 1-3 on the way: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/25/centre-hands-over-reports-on-first-three-phases-of-excavation-to-tn-2038660.html ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC) International team to analyse Keezhadi DNA, including linguists: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/mku-harvard-university-to-collaborate-in-dna-study-madurai/article29512576.ece ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

6th century BCE claims and WP:SPS

Robin7013: I have reverted your edits because the newspaper is not RS, and the "book" you cite is actually WP:SPS. Any source whose peer-review process is absent or unclear is questionable, and all WP:SPS fall in that category. Tentatively, I am moving that claim into the main article with proper attributions. We must not use wikipedia voice for such exceptional claim(s) made by employee(s) of one government organization, and which vast majority of scholars do not. In the lead and main, we need to stick with what the mainstream scholarly sources are stating. Do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly publication for the "Tamil-Brahmi 6th-century BCE dating"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think your edit did mix up claims about Indus script and Tamil Brahmi. The report claims 1001 graffiti inscriptions and 56 Tamil Brahmi inscriptions (page 14).ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"which vast majority of scholars do not." This is patently false. There are multiple scholars who support a pre Ashoka dating for Brahmi.

K.V. Krishnan, K.V. Raman, S. Deraniyagala, R.Coningham, K.Rajan and Dilip K. Chakrabarti have all argued that Brahmi script was developed in South India or Sri Lanka prior to the Ashokan edicts.

This argument that Brahmi predating Ashoka is a fringe belief is ludicrous. The only thing that can be said now with confidence is that there is no agreed consensus on this question.Metta79 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Metta79: Without prejudicing or agreeing with what you write above, do you have any source links in peer-reviewed publications? Please note that article's talk pages are not a WP:Forum. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: Why did you revert the wikilinks? ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ThaThinThaKiThaTha: After some source checks, I have restored the last better version and commented out the latest TNAD publication (which also commented out your wikilinks). Let us wait till these findings get accepted in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. The 3rd-century BCE and after dates are in many peer-reviewed scholarly sources including Zvelebil. Rajan's work is not new, the article already mentions it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Spelling discrepancy

Why is this script's name given 25 times with hyphen and 54 times without hyphen? Shouldn't it be standardized? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

@Glennznl: The current opening sentence doesn't make sense.

Tamil-Brahmi was originally known as a variant of the Brahmi script, but new evidence proves it coexisted with Brahmi. It was used to write inscriptions in the early form of Old Tamil.

That it coexisted with Brahmi does not indicate that it was not a variant. So what does that sentence mean? I removed the link to Brahmi script and replaced it with Brahmic script. Srnec (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec: I checked the source and corrected the sentence to what the source says. --Glennznl (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)