Talk:Pandya dynasty/Archive 1

It seems to me like "Pandiyan" is a better transliteration than "Pandyan". Any thoughts? Absolutely not. Pandyan is the correct term. Pandiyan is (from what I've heard) quite insulting.

NO. Pandiyan means "one from the old"(the ancient) . Pandyan and Pandiyan are both same. The above mentioned "insulting" meaning of the word is prevailing in Kerala, because of an indigenous hatred the people grew with due to overdomination and (?)cruelty of the Later Pandyan kings towards them. Kerala was ruled by the Pandiyan kings as a Vassal state until 880 Ad till Varaguna Pandiyan was defeated and Killed by the Pallava Abarajitha. Trivandum was founded by Nedum Chadaya Pandiyan in 789 ad.(It is a local legend among the Nadar community/ Venadinte Charitam -Siva Sankaran Nair does mention about Nedum Chadaya Pandiyan). Later days the Ay kings of Venad revolted against the Pandiyas with the help of the Chola Kings and joined the Chera kingdom.(Cheraman Perumals). When the Ay kings revolted against the Pandiyans punitive raids was organised by Pandiyans around 900 ad. In the later days the Nayaka armies plundered the Travancore each year.Venad was paying tribute to the Pandiyan rulers/Muslims and Nayaka rulers until the British arrival.

Pandiyan is the correct pronunciation. Obviously.Pandyan is old;other examples, Pandaaram=old man, Pandithyam=long-studied, expert Pandithyam is Vada Mozhi (Sanskrit). Pandiyan kingdom predates Sanskrit by many thousand years. Pandaaram means Treasurer and not related to Pandiyan Kingdom. Pandiyan means old and Big. The origin of Pandiya Nadu could be from Panayudaya Nadu, The country with Palm trees -The Thamraparni area where the Royal house of Pandiyans was situated. Chola Nadu Choru(rice) + alam (field)Nadu(country).

Puhar is Chola!

Does anyone know why Puhar is mentioned in this article? It was a Chola port. If ther s no valid reason, I will remove the reference. - Kingsleyj 16:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous claim of Pandyas going back to 9000 B.C.E.!

It is utterly ridiculous to claim that the Pandyas could be traced back to 9000 B.C.E. Ther is not a single justifying reference for this claim. If we want to keep these pages reliable, this list needs a thorough clean up.

Parthi (Venu62) 05:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pandiyas are as ancient as India and civilization in the world.They predate the Aryans atleast by six thousand years. The meditteranean or the Proto Saharan migration starts almost as early as 9000 BC or earlier. Most of the IndoAryans are surprised by these dates. But most of the Dravidians are not surprised.(Kal Thonti Mann thonta kalathu.....).The First Tamil Sangam is believed to be 15000 yrs old which was held at Kumari Kandam now drowned.

Will have a look at that later in the day. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the rewrite and find it amazing. Can you replace the current article with the rewrited version? After doing that, we can add mor stuff on Pandyan architecture taking some points from ta:பாண்டியர் காலக் கட்டிடக்கலை. Also, the existing map in the article showing the later extent includes some Indonesian islands. We should check sources with User:Senthilkumaras and incorporate redrawn maps into the article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar for your award. I will look into extending this article with the social and cultural information from the Pandyan period. I will also look to source an authentic map. - Parthi (Venu62) 09:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting the article - a response to senthilkumaras

User:senthilkumaras wrote:

sir, this page is okay, but Sangam king names have been put aside, and corresponding map also needed. You say it is controversial, but kindly look in all the kingslist of other dynasties, even in the Wikipedia pages, eg, early Pallavas, Satavahanas early list, Sisunaga and Nandas list, in all these only names are known that too from their indigenous literatures only, neither have inscriptions and coins es proof . This even goes to Chinese and Sumerian lists, all from copied down pieces of literatures only . What I say is when we have the names why dont we use them in the list, or else if you want arch evidence and not rely on literat,

kindly delete the lists of Sisunaga, Sumerian, and all others in Wikipedia pages.

Anyway I think the list I gave was justifiable from at least 500 B.C.E. If from Puram and other Sangam works one cannot understand the genealogy (it's there so open, only people who can read , write Tamil and understand Old Tamil can derive the list ) that's not the fault of Sangam authors either . And much earlier kings are known from Nakkeerar's Iraiyanaar agapporul which also gives duration, number of authjors, poets, kings,presiding poets of each Sangam .

In your new work, after Caenthan some four middle Pandyan names are missing. kindly see my middle Pandya list . Picture of Madurai temple can be included, I think . Thankyou . Senthilkumaras 08:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be getting confused with ‘mythological’ king lists and real historical ones. Neither Sumerian nor the Chinese lists claim the ancient genealogy historically accurate. The articles Three August Ones and Five Emperors and Xia Dynasty clearly display the admission that the lists are mythical and not to be considered as authentic. In fact, Xia Dynasty says : This article is about the extremely ancient Chinese dynasty whose existence has yet to be thoroughly confirmed by archaeology. Shang Dynasty is the first one to be clearly verified by archaeological evidence.

There is no dispute that the Sangam Literature mentions a number of kings from all three main dynasties. But does it also give you the years in which they ruled. How did you come up with the year 9800 BCE? How do you support your claims of all the other dates for the pre-Sangam kings? Is it in code only which only a select few can understand? Is that the reason, none of the thousands of books written about South India haven’t claimed the ancient king lists of Pandyas and Cholas to go back 12000 years?

You also seem to think that the Sangam poems are beyond question and had to be taken literally without any need for supporting independent evidence. If this is so, then your concept of historical documentation is flawed. In most of your articles such as on Kariakala and others, you seem to be depending solely on works written almost 1200 years after the event without any authentic contemporary evidence. To give an example, it is like claiming that there was a real person by the name Nadhini, who was involved in the murder of Aditya Chola, solely based on Kalki’s Ponniyin Selvan.

Parthi (Venu62) 02:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I am sorry here. In your new work, after Caenthan some four middle Pandyan names are missing.(Arikesari Maaravaramban aka NindraSeer NeduMaaran 640 - 674. Kochchadaiyan Iranatheeran ThennaVaanavan675 - 710 .Arikesari Parangusa Maaravaramban aka Rasasingan I 710 - 765. Neduncadaiyan Paraanthakan 765 - 790 Rasasingan II 790 - 800 .Varagunan II 800 - 830 . Seermaaran SriVallabhan Paracakra Kolaakalan.) kindly see my middle Pandya list . Picture of Madurai temple can be included, I think . Thankyou . I think Jatavarman( do not again say that NASastri wrote so, if anybody made a mistake , it does not mean one should follow the same or should not correct, it. Even copying and reproducng should be sensible enough.) is Sadaiya varman, as seen before as Koccadaiyan and Neduncadaiyan . Senthilkumaras 08:10, 22 March 2006

(UTC)

nadarhistory 09:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)==Tulu Pandyas==

In the Tulu traditions of Tuluvanadu, there are important local kings with Pandya as a title. In the Tamil tradition this link is completely not noted either because it was a coincidence or they are not aware of it. But similarity in names of early Tulu kings with a segment of Tamils is intriguing the very least. This needs to be properly brought into this article.

User:RaveenS 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See List_of_rulers_of_Sri_Lanka for Sinhalese kings with Pandya as title. So we have some early Tulu kings and some later Sinhalese kings claiming Pandya royal ancestry.RaveenS 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tulu Pandyas In ancient times the Pandiyan kingdom comprised of the whole of kerala and Southern Tamil Nadu. The ancient Pandiyas and Chera kingdoms were ruled by related people( Nadalvars and Villavar). The Villavars (Billava) in Tulunadu are related to Villavars of Chera Kingdom. The ancient Pandiya Mara Nadalvar(Nadu+Alwar=Nadalwar,Nadalvar=Nadava=Nadar)are represented by the Pandya Nadava community of the Thulunad. The Nadavas of Karnataka appears to have joined the Bunt community (A northern tribe which is more related to Nairs of Kerala) and seem to have lost their history though some of their legends which still talk about their Pandyan ancestors. Thus Nadavas of Tulunad could have been the equivalents of Nadalvars(Nadars)in the ancient times.[1] The Pandyan Capital at Thulunadu was Nithra (Nelthara). In the ancient times the Chera country had Pandiya Sakhas(principalities) and vice Versa and there was not a clearcut demarcation between Pandya and Chera KIngdoms. In the later times the Pandyan kingdom was bifurcated by the Chera Kingdom.

The Srilankan Pandyan kings The Pandyan kings of Srilanka were called Panaya Mara or Panya Mara. The word Panaya indicates Pandiyan ruler. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadarhistory (talk • contribs) 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

North India & Central Asia Rig Veda talks about Panis,Panim, Paneem or Panaya tribes whom the Vedic Aryans (angiras) encountered at North India and in the Greater India.

Pandiyan looks better than Pandyan

Hello all,

Pandiyan is the correct spelling,remember the State Transport Buses in Madurai was Pandiyan Roadways.The current Pnadyan looks ridiculous.It also matched the exact Tamil pronounciation.If no one objects then may be I may shift it to Pandiyan and re-direct the current content over there.

--Southernstar 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pandiya is the correct pronunciation. Pandya is the Aryanised version.

Nicolaus of Damascus / Strabo

The article currently says:

Pandyas also had trade contacts with Ptolemaic Egypt and, through Egypt, with Rome by the first century, and with China by the 3rd century. The 1st century Greek historian Nicolaus of Damascus met, at Damascus, the ambassador sent by an Indian King "named Pandion or, according to others, Porus" to Caesar Augustus around 13 CE.

I can't find the relevant quote in Nicolaus of Damascus. Strabo says exactly the same thing in section 15.1.4, but I can't find any indication that he got it from Nicolaus. Can anyone provide more information on this, or should I change it to reflect the Strabo passage instead? --Iustinus 05:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iustinus. I am not sure if the account by Nicolaus of Damascus still exists, but Strabo does mention that he obtained the story from him (see Nicolaus of Damascus article, Strabo, xv, 1-73). PHG 05:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I'll look for that bit then. Thanks as always! --Iustinus 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Maaravaramban Kulasekara Pandyan I

How can Maaravaramban Kulasekara Pandyan I die in 1308 and rule until 1311?

"# Maaravaramban Kulasekara Pandyan I (1268 - 1311)" "On the death of Maaravaramban Kulasekara Pandyan I in 1308, a conflict..."

I have gone ahead and changed the final year of his rule as 1308. Please do leave a message if that's inaccurate. --Madhu 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)