Your are obviously referring to 49 naadukaL that were claimed to be part of the kumari kandam. PahRuLi, kavaadapuram - have numerous references which could not be explained away as imaginary places. And ofcourse, we cannot support wild claims either.
There have been widespread criticisms that by combining Lemuria and Kumarkandam - tamils do a disservice to their history, which have a point.
Looks like you are referring to this document:
https://indianfolklore.org/journals/...ewFile/178/183
In that document itself - in page 11/16 - it says "Coastline exposed 15,000 years ago" and that Map confoirms, actually, what i have posted in my previous post! It claims the landmass exposed at 15,000 BCE would be around 100 kms south/east and West of Kumari.
I have mentioned that there are beliefs that close to 300km of land must have been above the sea, south of kumari. 100km - 300km could probably be explained by more accurate experiments. This Landmass is enough to support dozens of "naadukaL" or princedoms.
Kumarikkandam, probably can be proved if we stuck to real geological and oceanographic experiments and not wishful thinking. But, We must also keep in mind that Madagascar has sangam sounding names such as Antananarivoo!
Even if Kumari kandam was not spread until australia, it definitely proves that the Tamil inam, Nation was at its peak, and that it had Cultural links with Most of the Southern hemishpere. And Dravidians and Australian aborigines are mutually related, we are Austaloids (or Australo Dravidoids if we had our way, as ooposed to say Caucasoids!).
Tamils do have links with Aborigines of Australia as the Aborigines might have "walked" the contiguous landmass all those millennia ago thru the Southern Tamil continent.
Hyperboles of some uninitiated Tamils doesnt qualify to be dismissed as "myth".
Bookmarks