English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The chronology of classical Tamil Caṅkam texts appears, judging from the literature available on the subject, to be quite a problematic affair. Two works containing serious approaches have been published in recent years, the lack of consensus between which seems to have gone largely unnoticed − which is in itself archetypical for this area of study. One of them, Champakalakshmi 1996, has a historical approach, the other, Takahashi 1995, a philological one, and the flow of information between the disciplines is notoriously slow. While Champakalakshmi, in a study of urbanization processes in Southern India, sees the core Caṅkam age in the period between 300 B.C. and 300 A.D., Takahashi, investigating the development of poetic themes in poems and poetics, dates the early anthologies roughly to the first three centuries A.D.1 This means that there is a difference of about 300 years, maybe not overly disturbing (at least to Indologists) with respect to a period for which the density of information is rather low, but nevertheless notable, though it is certainly partly to be explained by a difference of interests, i.e. either in the period or in the texts documenting it. But the affair becomes downright disconcerting with the publication of Tieken 2001, a study

Towards an Internal Chronology of Old Tamil Cankam Literature Or How to Trace the Laws of a Poetic Universe