Talk:Tamil bell

message: The following link wwas added as a reference but it has been removed.
http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm
Click on Radical --> Tamils
The inscription, 23 characters, running around the rim of the bell has been identified as Tamil, the oldest language spoken in India, and more specifically, as old Tamil. Translated literally, it says "Mukiayaten Vakucu owning ship owning bell" and translated freely it says "Mukiayaten's ship's bell".
There are various interpretations that can be read from the actual manner of the script. The Archaelogical Survey of India, for example, place the bell in the late Tamil period, which could be anywhere from 200 AD to the present.
Another variation of the name is the Mohaideen, a Moslem association, from about 1500 to 1600 AD.
"Mukiayaten" does impy an Islamic influence, dating the bell around 1500 AD, and the last character suggests that it came from the Cholas as a subculture within the Tamils, which burgeoned in the 850's AD.''
Sorry i forgot to sign my comments the last time around.
-Ravichandar84 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was removed, and it should stay removed, because that site is obviously not of a standard that can be used to verify information. You should also be aware that by 1836, Māori themselves were travelling aboard ships around the world, including to India, and that by then ships had been continuously visiting New Zealand for over 60 years for trade and other purposes. There are many ways that a bell from India or Sri Lanka could have got here. The Bell itself is well known in New Zealand, but I cannot find any references to it in New Zealand as the 'Chola Bell' - I have always heard of it as the Tamil Bell and that is the form of the name that appears in NZ sources as far as I can tell Kahuroa 05:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Te Ara and Te Papa are reliable and authoritative sites. It was because you quoted these two sites in the first place that I suggested that an article on this bell would be viable; clearly the bell exists. The other site you wish to reference is extremely unreliable; it gives the same credibility to this bell as to theories of Celtic visits to New Zealand. Essentially, quoting that site undermines the article.-gadfium 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A better source hereTaprobanus 03:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not proof, because the bell might have been transported to NZ by a non-Tamil ship long after its manufacture.-gadfium 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, and just as likely, an abandoned Tamil ship or wreckage drifted on the tides to the shores of NZ where it beached, perhaps hundreds of years ago. At some subsequent time, local Māori discovered the debris and salvaged what they could, and the bell was among the items. In other words, the bell was never brought here, it arrived fortuitously. Akld guy (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Wiki Raja 10:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

message: Is it really appropriate to say that it was discovered in 1836, since there were clearly already people using it? Might as well say it was discovered in 2024 by me, since I didn't know about it until today. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discovered"