Tolkāppiyam III: Poruḷatikāram
Inspected: Akattiṇaiyiyal, nūṟpā 5, complete six-line deity-and-landscape stanza
Establishes: The inspected edition prints a four-name sequence that associates Māyōṉ, Cēyōṉ, Vēntaṉ, and Varuṇaṉ with the forest-pastoral, mountain, sweet-water agricultural, and littoral worlds.
Boundary: The stanza establishes wording inside a poetics classification. It does not provide a complete pantheon, identify every name through later Sanskrit terminology, or reconstruct the history of worship.
Paripāṭal and Paripāṭal Tiraṭṭu
Inspected: Edition header; Tirumāl poems 1–4 and 13; Cevvēḷ poem 5; poem headings and colophons
Establishes: The edition presents poems grouped under named subjects and preserves headings or colophons that identify poets, music setters, and paṇ, together with the wording of the Tirumāl and Cevvēḷ poems inspected.
Boundary: The edition establishes what it prints and labels. It does not by itself verify legendary collection size, reconstruct a performance, or make the anthology a single systematic theology.
Nālāyira Divya Prabandham, Part 4: English translation
Inspected: Edition header and Tiruvāymoḻi pāsurams 3052–3054, 3147–3150, 3310–3320, 3541–3543, 3615–3628, 3648–3650, and 3849–3852
Establishes: The named English translation renders Nammāḻvār verses using forms including Māyan, Māl, Kaṇṇan, Nārāyaṇa, and Neṭumāl, and renders devotional speech tied to named temple places and Tamil poetic composition.
Boundary: This source establishes how one translator renders specified verses. It cannot replace the Tamil wording, settle every name’s semantic range, or prove the chronology and historical formation of the traditions invoked.
Patterns in Religious Thought in Early South India: A Study of Classical Tamil Texts
Inspected: Printed pp. 64–66, 71–74, 98–114, 150–154, and 218–221
Establishes: Subbiah supplies an attributed reading of the landscape stanza, commentarial deity identifications, the surviving Paripāṭal corpus, its subject counts and colophons, Vāliyoṉ, sacred places, and ambiguous epithets.
Boundary: The dissertation is a scholarly synthesis rather than a primary witness or archaeological report. Its translations, site identifications, historical framing, and evaluation of earlier scholarship remain attributed arguments.
The Giver of the Worn Garland: Krishnadevaraya’s Āmuktamālyada
Inspected: pp. 25–26, 30, 33–46, and 88–93: Tamil bhakti, Āḻvārs, Nālāyiram reception, and akam/tiṇai literary continuity
Establishes: Reddy presents an attributed account of the Āḻvār corpus, Nammāḻvār, temple localization, the traditional Nāthamuni compilation account, Tamil Veda reception, and literary reuse of akam and tiṇai modes.
Boundary: The work supports a scholarly history of literary forms and reception. Its reports of traditional authorship or compilation are tradition-attributed, and formal continuity does not prove an unchanged cult or identity.