Monday 4th July 2005
    
When an 18th century Tamil wanted to compile a 'chronicle' of the history of Jaffna peninsula it was to the Mahavamsa he turned to derive inspiration for the origin story. 'Vijaya' is his starting point as that of the Mahavamsa (Yalpana Vaipava Malai [YVM]—Britto's translation). So did the compiler of Mattakaappu Maniyam, (MM) the 'chronicle' of the East with same antiquity base its origin ('Makan' = Magha?) story on the Mahavamsa (Indrapala). Both works were undertaken at the behest of Dutch officials who wanted to create a separate
identity for Tamils of these areas to erode Kandy's claims over these regions. But the Mahavamsa and its historical tradition is being assailed as chauvinist except when it could be quoted advantageously for the Tamil cause. Both these Tamil works have not earned popularity among Tamil writers perhaps because they supported the Mahavamsa tradition. Mudliyar Rasanayagam called the compiler of YMP a "well meaning villager." (See also critique by Rev. Gnanapragasar). MM was
deprecated by a historian who refused to credit Mukkuwas of the Eastern Province as originators of Vanni chieftaincy in the East. That is how social prejudices have affected even modern historical interpretation.

The scientific interpretation of history of Sri Lanka has taken a bigger beating in recent times with almost every other person venturing into the field to give his/her personal interpretations of facts, events and myths and even engage in deceitful fabrications to satisfy his/her personal ego or in the pursuit of chauvinist ideas. Pseudo-historians have proliferated especially in the context of the ethnic debate trying to prove to the world who among the inhabitants came to settle in the island first. They include even respected
intellectuals, once wonderful men, now octogenarians perhaps, who like to delight in the 'childhood memories of giants, giant-killers." (I may be pardoned for misusing the phraseology used by Monier-Williams, great Sanskrit scholar and the Editor of the standard Sanskrit Dictionary. What he said was that "an octogenarian would not delight in the giants and giant-killers of childhood" in Indian Wisdom, New Delhi, p. 346). He was commenting on the Hindu character of ancient times as found in the Ramayana and Mahabharata who believed in stirring incidents of exaggerated heroic action; but our octogenarians are taking merry delight in talking of men with thousand heads and
others who slept during half the year as historical persona!).

Full Article


_________________
- The Academic

Beautiful !!!! Couldn't have said it better !!!!! Slap on the Face to Tiger Propagandists !!!!! & for heaven sake keep the thread alive on a level of knowlede & intellectualism, instead of going to the characteristic diatribe & exaggeration !!!!!

          At long last, an article which proves what I have been stressing all along. The homeland Hoax should at least now be buried along with it's long dead authors like Chelvanayakama & the rest... This Country is the Country of the Sinhalese, it's Nationality is Sinhalese, & the Tamil ethnic group could have lived with us in Harmony in this Paradise of a Country, as they have done for hundreds of years before the Portuguese came. As you all know there have been Dravadian kings as the rulers of this country with no objections from the Sinhalese on racial lines, as long as the king  recognized the Nationality of the Sinhalese & gave Buddhism it's historically due place !!!! Instead ambitious Tamil Politicians  wanted to venture along racial avenues which they believed would bestow them with power. Then they had to invent history, concoct inceidents to give a semblance of discrimination & in the process given birth to a monster, son-of-a-bitch Pirapaha who does not heed to it's designer's word. As I have always stressed, Chelva's lifetime would have been severly cut short if he had tried this acts of treason in his Native Malaysia !!!!!!!!!!!!!


_________________
"where there is the eye, Samiddhi, where there are forms, where there is eye-consciousness, where there are things cognizable by eye-consciousness, there exists the world or the concept of the world". (Samyutta Nikaya- Samiddhi Sutta)

This is not a reply or comment on the previous message from Helaya. But a question.

Is there a significnant psychological meaning for the quasi mythological features of the Mahavamsa (and other similar artistic productions of pre-modern times) relevant in conceptualizing and understanding even present day behavior of some so-called humans? Are there 1000 headed people now?

I was amazed one day at the respone of a US born youngster who had not heard the story before when I was discussing the 10 headed picture of Ravana, the famed ruler of Lungkaa (forgive my spelling, which is meant to sound more like the way I have heard the name said by Singhala speakers all the time) with him. He said: "Yeah 10 heads. But none of them were any good." (They were not functional - as a psychoanalytic anthroplogist may put it.) "That is why Ravana needed another head: Sita's head - (in tact please with a full body, preferably wearing a pink sari!  We don't want any decapitated heads.)

 Ravana needed a consultant - to put it in modern parlance, because he in fact had too many "heads".

The fantastic creatures of the old folk tales enshrined in our "histories" may have some truth to them. There is no smoke, as they say, without fire. Or smoke screens!



Last edited by A MM on Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

I am not sure what the purpose of this article.  If he wants to say Ramayana is a myth, he has my vote (every ancient cultures had their own myths including the Greeks and the bible too).  If he wants to say Mahavamsa is an accuate portrayal of Sri lankan history, we have to wait for other neutral historians for their analyses.  Partisans always twist history.  Whatever the history is, Tamils are in the isalnd now.  They came thousands of years ago and need their share of the power to shape their lives.  America was originally inhabited by native Americans, Sri Lanka by veddas, but nobody is interested in that history now.  Deal with the reality now!

Mahavamso does not need reappraisal, as long as "helaya" doesnt dispute that a lion was somewhere in his ancestry and he is half (or more ) tamil. (because Vijaya and others got their brides from Pandya kingdom.  

Or he might think he had descended from Kuveni's clan but those who wouldnt touch Vijaya even by a pole. But those folks have also . origin. If anything the Megalithic remains proves, it is that southern india and the island shared similar traditions/peoples.  The "adivasi"'s of tamilnadu and veddas of srilanka are not dissimilar.

Dear helaya,  the homeland concept is not a hoax.  Even the Sinhalese told us that the northeastern part island is the homeland of tamils during 1983. (the tamils in the south were shipped there, incase you pretend not to remember).  Homeland is where the homes of the people of a nation are located. Take out the 1920 census records and see for yourself, where in the island the tamil people are located.  Use your common sense.

The tamils do not have to prove that they occupied their homelands even in the ancient times. (who owns the northeast now. it is tamils - go and check the deeds ).  What will the tamils achieve by proving to helaya/deSilva and their clan that tamils were there in the ancient times too?  Lets say that tamils prove to helaya's satisfaction that tamils are indeed native people even in ancient times, will he be ready to campaign for the disengagement of sinhala nation from tamil homeland??.   The tamils trusted the benevolency of the sinhala leaders to tream them fairly, rather than acting up a Jinna, trying to revoke  1833 merger of tamil homeland and sinhala homeland, they expected treatment as fellow bretheren.  What they got for their trust was Sinhala Only of 1956.  Tamils are not trusting the sinhala leaders any more. They are using their common sense.

If the the decisions made by sinhala leaders for tamils are not fair, then it is quite fair that tamils want to make decisions that affect them. The decision to part stems from this, rather than existance or non-existance of historical records.
Even the most recent massacre investigation (bindunewewa) proves that tamils cannot get justice in sinhala judiciary. Isnt this another one of factors that reinforce that tamils need a seperate supreme court/country.  How hard is this to understand.

Now allow me to provide feedback on de Silva's article.

I agree social prejudices affect even the modern historical interpretation. Not only social, but also ethnic. It is not necessary to find examples elsewhere, your article provides plenty of them.  Ramayana was myth and let us throw that into the dustbin.  But tell us why mahavamsa is not a myth? Didnt lions and humans have diverged from the animal ancestral tree long long time ago and their coopulation produces nothing (except perhaps helaya .  Your ethnic prejudice (btw, are you real sinhala or some european descendent, given your name, I ponder)  discards ramayana as myth and embraces Mahavamsa as the bible of history. The fact is given the modern twisting of history based on prejudices, it is not to be expected that Mahanama (writer of mahavamsa) was above prejudices.  The bridge (ramaya description) between the island and tamil nadu, does exist. Look at satellite photographs.  This is the bridge (not manmade, btw), that tamils used to cross to island and inhabit the island long long time before vijaya's ancesters figured how to build a boat. This particular bridge is submerged now for the twin reasons of globally higher sea levels and sinking of southern part of indian tectonic plate. Even if you do not accept this due to your prejudices, lets go back to the time when this island was devoid of humans.  Take a map and have closer scrutiny, tamils were living only about 20 miles away from the island, the sinhalese  (Kalinga - current Oriissa/Gujaraat) were living thousands of miles away.  Who would have made it to the island first ??   Use your commonsense.

When Mahanama sat down  to write mahavamsa,  his contemporarians "navukkarasar" and "sampanthar" were describing tamil hindu temples of "Ketheesvaram" of Mannar and "Koneswaram" of Trincomalee.  How come Mahanam didnt mention those temples, when he was situated geographically closer to these temples than navukkarasar or sampanthar?.  This points to one possible interpretation. When Mahanama was writing mahavamsa,  Mannar and Trincomalee were alien lands to him.  Why mention something that is non-buddhist, so that can be used by "tiger propagandists" ??   .   In the worldview of then buddhist clergy, tamil hindu abodes of mannar and trincomalee and their hindu temples didnt really exist. The situation is not much better now, despite centuries of so called progress.  It is actually worse, the same clergy and other sinhala intellectuals claim that tamil land belongs to sinhalas.   In the 2500 years of so called history, only during 16 years  (Sapumal kumaraya  -- Prakramabahu the Sixth), sinhalese ruled Jaffna.  What was there? Who ruled Jaffna during the rest of the years?   If 16 years of rule makes Jaffna belong to Sinhalese, doesnt 2484 years make it about 160 times more likely that it belong to someone else?   Use your common sense.     (dont try to explain away that Jaffna was forest during the rest of time. Given the close proximity to ancient sea routes, Jaffna was a city for a long time.  Read "Seeththalai saththanaar"'s  ornament dedicated to tamil language, to find out a vibrant jaffna city. During this time, tamils were also mostly practising Jainisim and Buddhism. The buddihist vihara in Nainativu - nagadeepa, possibly dates back from these times.)


Given the time constraints, let me say the following and conclude my contribution to this thread.
I generally agree, that more research is needed to figure the exact history taking into consideration the prejudices of tamil historians as well as sinhala historians. This research should also incorporate other evidence present in tamil literature and may be other epics such as ramayana.  The place Madura you mention in your article is the third Madura established. The previous two have gone under the sea.  I wonder what was lost there. Of the five ornaments dedicated to Tamil languge only two survived.  You complain that tamils do not accept Mahavamsa and try to distort history. If you are a researcher you would know how the scientific research progresses. Hypotheses are proven and disproven, so during the passage of time, the known history itself takes different version.  (remember how we concluded out-of-africa theory).  The sinhalese decided to use the ancient history to justify the discrimination of tamils, after conveniently forgetting the recent history of 1833 when tamil homeland and sinhala homeland are merged for admistrative convenience. Also the census of 1920 and earlier censuses are of no material evidence to sinhala intellectuals.  If the tamils have lived without an iota of doubt in the recent history, they would have likely done so in the ancient history, due to the proximity of island and southern india.

The tamils are questioning and asking for conclusive proof from sinhala intellectuals and historians that sinhalese people actually lived in northeastern provinces and were evicted by tamils.  Do you have a proof ?  The current known history as presented by sinhala historians lacks any evidence on this score.  Due to this absense of proof, tamils prove by contradiction that northeast belonged to them even in ancient times.  This is not an attempt to distort the history, but asking questions with an attempt pry history as a tool from sinhala chauvanists and leave that to academics to research on.  The sad part is, even the genuine academics fear to tread in the field of history for the fear of being paint brushed into a category.

Unfortunately, there is not much to learn from your article as your prejudice converted your article into a rhetoric on prejudices. what an irony. You insistance on depending on Mahavamsa in the absense of other evidences to the contrary, will not allow you to "progress" in research.

In the absense of an academic climate to do proper acadmic research on the history of the island and the people, we have to depend on our common senses. That common sense alone can easily prove you who was on the island first?


-CSG-

Those who want to reduce the Mahavamsa to a myth, resort to sections of the chronicle that are obviously dubious of nature, to justify their claim. This is not only pedestrian & unbecoming of intellectualism, but is sheer hypocrisy.

To quote from one of my previous posts:
“On the subject of the Lion & Vijaya: “In ancient Sri Lanka several clans or families of the nobility existed: the Lambakannas, Moriyas, Kalingas, Thavachas, Balibhajakas & others. It is genuinely believed that these clan names had a totemistic origin- for instance the emblem of the Moriyas was a peacock” ( A History of Sri Lanka – K.M. de Silva ). We don’t believe that Sinhabahu was fathered by a Lion, no more than you do. But what is evident without doubt is that Aryan Colonisation from 5th Century BC gave rise to the birth of the Sinhalese ethnic group, & later the Sinhalese Nationality ( as would be shown later on ).”

However: “The evidence available at present would tend strongly to support the conclusion that Aryan or North Indian settlements & colonization preceded the arrival of Dravadian settlers by a few centuries. Ethnicity was not an important point of division in society in Sri Lanka in the period in this chapter, & it would seem that neither the Sinhalese nor the Tamils remained racially  pure.” ( A history of Sri Lanka – K.M. de Silva )

See my friend CSG, ( Commonsense is an inappropriate, misused term for me to address you by…. ) The fact of the matter is… with Aryan influence as the main contributory factor, although not ruling out minor Dravadian influences, there grew up a unique nation, with Buddhism as the fertilizer. “While the island’s proximity to India brought it within easy reach of a diversity of influence much of it’s history, the narrow stretch of sea which separates it from the sub-continent ensured that the civilization which evolved in Sri Lanka was not a mere prototype, but something distinctive or autonomous though the Indian element was never totally obliterated. Nothing contributed to this more than Buddhism” ( A history of Sri Lanka – K.M. de Silva ) This Nation was Sinhalé & it’s Nationality was Sinhalese. Speaking of Dravidians being the first arrivals of this land is not only to date unproven, even if one is to disregard all evidences pointing to the contrary, it is as stupid as the present day Italians asking the English to evacuate England since they lived in England before the present  day inhabitants !!!!!

Also don’t forget, contrary to your sweeping statements, there still exists reasonable doubts about the birth of the Dravadians !!!!! Certain Tamil historians like Nilakanta Sastri believe the Dravadians are thousands of years younger than they like to claim, but also leave serious doubts whether South India is realy Dravadian Country !!!!!

Speaking of a Tamil ethnic group having homelands in areas “unknown to” or “undiscovered” by the Sinhalese is purely laughable. What is more amusing is our friend’s claim that Jaffna had come under the control of Sinhalese only under Parakramabahu VI during the Kotte regime. If you were even remotely aware of the numerous rock inscriptions  & the Vallipuram Sannasa you wouldn’t even think of making these outrageous claims ! Don’t make us laugh !!!!!  The idea of this forum is to discuss serious matters & not thrive on amusement !!!!

Peoples of Dravadian origin (after the period of the Sinhalese civilization), came to Sinhalé several times

i.    With chola invasions of the eleventh century there had been a greater influx of Dravadians, mostly Tamils.
ii.    Magha from Kalinga & Chandrabhanu from the Malay Peninsula both employed South Indian mercenaries resulting in Tamil settlements, the latter in the thirteenth century. Further the latter resulted in Java Cachcheri tamilised as Chavakachcheri, today.
iii.    It was from 1805 AD that there was a flood of Tamil speaking ethnic Dravadian migrant seeking greener pastures. They were economic migrants. They followed the Tamil speaking administrative officers brought to Ceylon Ceylon by the East India Company. In 1824 the Sinhalese made up 90% of population in North & the East. By 1928, there had been a 25% increase of the Tamil speaking population !!!!! It was between 1824 & 1871 that the English Government sponsored the flooding of Tamil Speaking agricultural labour from Southern India.  It was only as late as 1880 that Tamil was recognized as one of the languages spoken by the Dravadians, by the English ! It was the English who invented provinces in the island. In 1911, the Tamils was declared as the majority in the Northen & Eastern Provinces !!!!!! By 1920, Sri Lanka Sri Lanka had a ‘Tamil Race’ in the Northern coastal strip.

Thus, the “ Tamil Ethnic Problem “ then is a fiction that has been crafted by relatively recent migrants whose historical homelands lie in South India. What history in Sri Lanka that Tamil speaking claim is the result of the decision taken by the British Colonialists, making “Tamils” a census category in 1911. It was after 1880 that the Britsh administration recognized Tamil as a language spoken in Sinhalé.

A migrant population never qualifies for national status in the host Country. The 5% Turks who live in Germany do not make a “nation” – their Nation is in Turkey !!!! Similarly the Nation of the Tamil speaking Dravadian groups exists in South India. So the “Nation” thus defined is inconsistent with international norms of nation making, Nationalism & aspirations to national self-determination.

Finally, what does the word Eelam mean === Sinhalam or land of the Sinhalese.
And how far can you trace your ancestors ? I know that you have come to Sri Lanka as recently as the 19th century, & possibly traceable relations with TamilNadu to date !!!

Sources- A case against a federal constitution for Sri Lanka- Report of an Independent & Representative Committee
       A history of Sri Lanka – K.M. de Silva
       Tamil Lexicon
               A history of South India – Nilakanta Sastri
Awaiting your response with patience. Nirupam Sen’s claim that Tamil Grievances, if recognized to be any, should certainly be addressed, no doubt about it, but within a Unitary State !!!!

As far as comon sense is concerned, Common sense does not allow us to give in to the concoted historical claims & Terrorrism. Period !!!!!


_________________
"where there is the eye, Samiddhi, where there are forms, where there is eye-consciousness, where there are things cognizable by eye-consciousness, there exists the world or the concept of the world". (Samyutta Nikaya- Samiddhi Sutta)

It is funny that Ramayana is dismissed as a myth because the main character had ten heads, but people are willing to selectively believe sections of Mahavamsa while dismissing other sections as myth.  Indian historians are not exactly neutral either.  They also try to prove Aryans existed before Dravidians in India because most of the historians are of Aryan origin.  These historians are looking for evidence that Harappa civlization is of Aryan origin althouth most people believe that it is ..  It is even more funny that people came to the Island supposedly ONLY 1000 years ago are migaratory but people came in boats another 1000 years before are natives.  By this definition, America is controlled by the migratory population now.  LTTE is then justified in using force to protect the rights of migrants who came at least 1000 years ago!

Whatever the history is, Tamils are in the island and not going to be driven into sea by the Sinhalese. They are not going to allow themselves to be subjugated either.  So deal with the reality or live in poverty forever.  Already the women are sent to the middle east to work as maids and raped and abused by their employers.  Keep doing that and be proud of your history.

Myths will always be myths, be they The Ramayana or The Mahavamsa. One cannot extract truths and base ones judgment on significant issues from a book that is intermingled with some facts and lots of myth. The whole book then becomes useless. More like a drop of posion in a glass of pure cows milk.

Fully agree about the situation of the maids in the ME and am a firm believer that every single rightminded, decent, Sri Lankan MUST call for its TOTAL ban if we are to have anys emblance of self respect and dignity. The whole saga of recruitment and despatch of maids to work overseas, from doortsep to doorstep, stinks for miles. You got to see it to believe it.

Where have all the voices gone?


_________________
citizenMM

As far as chronology of events is concerned, I would say no the Mahavamsa does not need a reappraisal.  It has been confirmed again and again by both external historical traditions and internal archeological evidence.  It remains one of the longest and unbroken historical traditions in the world.  That its critics have been unable to construct a credible alternative chronology of events in the island backed by literary and archeological evidence speaks volumes in itself.  The Sinhala historical tradition is not perfect- there are some discrepancies particularly in regard to conflicts with S. Indian kings in the medieval era which need to be noted.  However, these are not enough to disqualify the Mahavamsa overall as an authoritative text.

There is no such thing as a perfect historical text- one can never learn history by reading just one source.  The same applies here.  The Mahavamsa is very strong with chronology- stronger than any other tradition in S. Asia.  However, it does not describe finer details such as social/cultural changes and demographics.  One must turn to other sources to fill in these gaps.  For example, the surviving Sinhala texts had been penned by monks belonging to the Mahavihara, the traditional and oldest Buddhist monastery.  They represent the interests and perspective of that tradition.  Somebody reading these texts would get the impression that the Mahavihara had dominated religious life in Sri Lanka, whereas the archeological evidence shows that their rival the Abhayagiri monastery was dominant from the 3rd century to 12th century CE.  Abhayagiri was an internationally recognized seat of learning which had received a good deal of influence from the S. Indian Buddhist traditions.  This tradition had been responsible for constructing the Aukana Buddha, for example.  Although it eventually declined, its influences still remain.  Yet, the Mahavamsa only refers to it in disparaging terms.

Tamil historians have claimed in different forms that the Mahavamsa marginalizes Tamil culture in Sri Lanka.  I would agree with some arguments but disagree with others.  I do not accept that there was a distinct Tamil civilization in Sri Lanka prior to the establishment of Jaffna kingdom in 14th century CE.  There is no archeological nor literary evidence to support this.  One cannot blame the Mahavamsa for neglecting to mention something that did not exist.  However, there is a great deal of evidence to show that Tamils have migrated to Sri Lanka in ancient times and that they had been there about as long as the Sinhalese.  These Tamils had contributed a great deal to Sinhala culture although they did not create a distinct civilization.  It is quite obvious that the Sinhalese language had been influenced significantly by the . languages, and that Sinhalese and Tamils are genetically similar.  The Mahavamsa does not describe these influences, because it is a tradition rooted in chronology not forces/influences.  Nevertheless, it does include quite enough descriptions of Sinhalese-Tamil royal matrimonial alliances to shred apart any notion of a pristine, unconditioned Sinhala culture.  It is interesting how Tamil chauvinists do not hesitate to remind the Sinhalese of this, while rejecting the rest of the Sinhalese historical traditions which do not serve their political agenda.
  
About Brahmi inscriptions in S. India- It would be a good idea for Dr. de Silva and other Sinhalese historians to read the work of Iravatham Mahadevan, a senior archeologist from Tamil Nadu who is probably the living authority on Tamil epigraphy.  He is also very familiar with Sinhalese epigraphy in Sri Lanka and even shows the influence of S. India on Sinhala inscriptions.  Mahadevan has argued that the earliest Brahmi inscriptions in Tamil Nadu are in Tamil language not Indo-Aryan prakrit, although there are prakrit loanwords.  The argument of the red-and-black pottery thus is irrelevant.  It shows that there was a similar culture living in Sri Lanka and S. India in prehistoric times, but it does not show that this culture was Indo-Aryan (it also does not show that it was . either, contrary to the claims of some Tamil historians).  

Dear Helaya:  Although I despise the LTTE and separatism I have to point out to you that these days the only people who have the courage to fight the Tigers are Tamils not Sinhalese.  If you and other Sinhalese want to play a constructive role it would not hurt to learn a little about Tamil history and culture.  Sinhala ignorance of Tamil has led to fear and violence which in turn had built the strength of the Tamil Eelam movement.  In 1983 riots, some of the most anti-Tamil Sinhalese were those whose grandparents read Tamil newspapers and were practicing Hindus.  This ignorance and Tamilphobia is a disease which has ruined Sri Lanka and has brought disgrace upon Sinhalese and Buddhism.  If you want to know why LTTE has been able to survive despite being a numerical minority, you should consider that the Tamils know more about Sinhalese than the Sinhalese know about Tamils.  Think about it.

Dear Commonsense:  Actually I've heard that Tamil Nadu aborigines and Sri Lankan Veddahs are quite different on the genetic level, with the Veddahs having closer affinities to Malaysian aborigines.  There are quite a number of words in the Sinhala/Veddah lexicon which are neither Indo-Aryan nor . in origin such as 'Colombo' ('port'), yet have been used since ancient times.  Incidentally these words do not exist in Sri Lankan Tamil lexicon either which would disprove the notion carried by some Tamil historians that Sinhalese and Tamil cultures have the same origin.

Before you criticize Mahavamsa, it would help for you to read it first.  The final chapter describes 'deva temples' in Trincomalee, Eravur, and Mannar which were destroyed by King Mahasena under the influence of a Tamil Buddhist monk.  The commentary to the Mahavamsa describes the Trincomalee temple as having a Shivalingam (although the commentary was written during imperial Chola times, I think).  The Mahavamsa contains a great familiarity with Jaffna peninsula.  The first chapters describe the myth how the Buddha ended a war between the Nagas at Nagadipa (Nainativu), which is why Nagadipa is one of the three most sacred Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka.  Manimekalai has the same story, although the island is Manippalavam.  This would suggest that the site had been holy to both Sinhalese and Tamil Buddhists.  Mahavamsa also describes Jambukola, the port in Jaffna where the first Buddhist monks from Mauryan Empire had arrived.  Even today, the bo tree which had commemorated the site from ancient times still remains.  So it is impossible for you to argue that the North and East were unknown to the Sinhalese.

I have read Manimekalai and it does not describe Jaffna or a city in Jaffna, more or less Tamils in Sri Lanka at all.  It only describes Manippalavam and the Buddha's bowl and some Nagas.  If you want to learn how the Sinhalese in Eastern Province became Tamilized in colonial times, read C.M. Lushington's 1898 report or S. O. Kanagaratnam Mudliyar's 1921 Census Report.  

If you want to understand biases of Tamil historians, you do not need to conduct great research.  Just consider that if a Tamil historian says something which the National Leader disapproves of, he will be intimidated and/or exiled.  Look what happened to K. Indrapala who has recently released a book of Tamil identity in Sri Lanka from 300 BCE to 1200 CE.  My two-word dissertation on chauvinism in SL Tamil studies comes down to "gun politics."

You have made a mistake regarding Tamil literature.  Civaka Cintamani had survived along with Cilapatikaram and Manimekalai- 3 out of the five makakkappiyangkaL.

Quote:

But what is evident without doubt is that Aryan Colonisation from 5th Century BC gave rise to the birth of the Sinhalese ethnic group, & later the Sinhalese Nationality ( as would be shown later on ).”

The theory that Sinhalese are (genetically) the descendents of Aryans while the Tamil are Dravidians does not hold water.  In terms of skin color distribution and other physical features, the Tamils and Sinhalese are almost identical.

[quote]Actually I've heard that Tamil Nadu aborigines and Sri Lankan Veddahs are quite different on the genetic level, with the Veddahs having closer affinities to Malaysian aborigines.  There are quite a number of words in the Sinhala/Veddah lexicon which are neither Indo-Aryan nor . in origin such as 'Colombo' ('port'), yet have been used since ancient times.  Incidentally these words do not exist in Sri Lankan Tamil lexicon either which would disprove the notion carried by some Tamil historians that Sinhalese and Tamil cultures have the same origin.[/quote]

Dear rodness,

Very interesting and informative posting.  I did not know about the etymology of the word "Colombo".  I had assumed that it was a Portuguese name.  How about the words such as "waththa" (garden) and "uRaa" (pig)?  Are they Wannileoto words or do they have Pali origin?  I don't think they are Tamil words.

Dear helaya,

Did I reduce Mahavamsa to a myth?. I have infact used Mahavamsa to prove that Jaffna 160 times less lilkely to belong to sinhalese. Btw, where did you find  rock inscriptions contrary to Mahavamsa. Are you saying these rock inscription and Vallipuram sannasa disprove Mahavamsa or vice versa??  Are you quite sure that these rock inscriptions and vallipuram talks about sinhalese or buddhists.  Tamils had been buddhists in the past.

Also did I say that we need reappraisal of Mahavamsa?  Dont jump to conclusions. Major theme of my post was if any humans had to come to this island first,they would have been from southern india.  Now you say southern indians are not dravidians, please provide a name to denote these people. (I afford you the previledge of naming these group of people )

I am not going to comment on K.M. de Silva's  notes.  Not because I cannot, but because he most likely wont have the right of reply here. (also I am paranoid of extracts provided by others).  Fortunately, NASA didnt hire people like you to do space exploration. Because of your logic that humans can travel farther distances easily than shorter distances.  I am glad they didnt, otherwise NASA would have tried to land people in Mars before it attempted on Moon. (according to your logic, Mars is farther, so should be easier to travel   .).  I ask, how come Aryans can come to the backyard of dravidians travelling thousands of miles,  before dravidians (or people X in southern india) cross mere 20 miles ( on foot, when Adam's bridge was not submerged), when Aryans themselves are entering the northern india.

You complain that I am unbecoming of intellectualism.  Does it hurt so much to realize that you could be more than half tamil?  Please have a pity on me. I am 100% tamil (my suspicions however).  It really really hurts me to be a tamil..  You want me to trace my ancestral history. I am actually from Wickrama Raja singhan's (last king of kingdom of Kandy) relative.  (in those days, you use to call us  "Vadukar", now you are calling us "Kottiya"). I dont know who I am.  It doesnt matter to me, as long as Sri Lankan government sets lower tax rate for me.  I have less rights, because helaya has proof that I am a recent migrant came in 19th century, so why am I taxed at the equal rate as any other sinhalese with my income ???  


I agree with you that people of . Origin came to the island in many waves (streams, driplets or whatever).  But the first wave you identify merely dates back to 1000 years (Chola's times).  If Dravidians can come in so many waves within a span of a millenea,  what prevented them from doing so many millenea that came before that?.   Perhaps they were waiting for Sinhalese to cross treachurus Bay of Bengal for thousands of miles, before they could  learn to walk across the land bridge .  (Another point, the animals on this island havent had the chance to evolve into distint species when compared what is found in southern india  ---- another indication of the existance of land bridge).   Also, you identify Chola arrival as the first tamil arrival.  That is because that is the first wave *sinhalese have noticed*. That doesnt necessarily mean that is infact the first wave.  How much more I have to write, to explain this simple logic.

"Tamil Ethnic Problem" is not a fiction. Do you really understand the word fiction? The problem is enshrined in the law of Sri Lanka. Legislative sanctioned discrimination lead to the problem. Not someone wrote about it. You leaders wrote it into the laws.  I wonder in what worldview you live.  After the internet, and so much information, if you living in a well;  then how can I complain to Mahanama about not writing about the tamil hindu nation that existed in northeastern part of the island. That poor fellow lived in some pansala, whose worldview was limited to the buddhist country. (except of course when he heard of travellers landed in Jaffna and travelled south).

I am not an intellectual who can define or argue big concepts like Nation etc. Or not a linguist to provide insights into the word eelam.  I am a very simple minded fellow who asks questions based on what seems like common sense.  

. whose claims are concocted? Truth will satisfy rational logic.  I asked for evidence that Tamils evicted Sinhalese in the northestern part of the island (that is the plausible explanation if those areas had been sinhalese earlier and now magically tamil) ?  I asked for evidence how people can travel farther distnaces more easily than shorter distances?  Why are you keeping quiet?

The main reasons for the support of tamils to Tigers is due to the effects of state terrorism unleashed on them (58,66,77,83 riots/pograms -- and the massive destruction caused by the terror of srilankan forces).   The tamils are determined to not to give into to this terrorism as well.  How do we resolve this? not certainly unitary state.  that is non-existant already, incase you havent read the news.

Period is always followed by a new sententence  

btw, thank you for supporting me. You say:
"it is as stupid as the present day Italians asking the English to evacuate England since they lived in England before the present  day inhabitants !!!!!  "

Yes, like the sinhalese who came to the island much later to the southern extreme of south india  (as refuges banished from their country, rather than marching roman army) are now questioning that the original inhabitants (southern indians -- since you prohibit me to use .) about their ancestry.

If Nilakanda Shastri doesnt know from where Dravidians came  (much later than aryans, you say) to south india,, could you please find that out and tell us (as well as inform Nilakanda shastri) from where they came from??


---  end of response to patiently awaiting helaya ---



Last edited by common sense on Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total

Very interesting and accurate analysis by Rodness. Thanks so much.
No doubt history is the representation of events as per the historians view.

That is exactly the reason why we must NOT use history to fight for ownership of land and state.


_________________
citizenMM

Dear rodness,

First, thank you for correcting my mistakes.  I am not very good with my memory, but I worship the god of logic and reason.

I too consider Mahavamsa as invaluable tool to do research on the history of the island and its people.  What I was lamenting was,
many sinhalese mistake Mahavamsa worldview to equate the entire island. What I was pointing out was there were things that
were beyond the worldview of Mahavamsa. You too provided some examples of the limited scope of Mahavamsa.
But then you too join the chorus of the rest and say Mahavamsa cannot be faulted for not saying some thing that didnt exist without
really providing evidence that ancient tamples of Ketheesvaram and Koneswaram didnt exist.  I have provided tamil literature pointers to research
on the histories  of Trincomalee and Mannar, they simply lay beyond the worldview of Mahavamsa.  These pointers were at the period
when tamils underwent hindu renaissance, (well before the rise of Cholas).  Mahavamsa is essentially buddhist chronicle rather
than sinhalese chronicle.  

The fact that both sinhala historians and tamil historians can use Mahavamsa to claim thing proves only one thing. That is tamils and
sinhalese  (in the island) are most closely related people/nations.  You concur with genetic evidence.  But how many sinhalese think so?
They think tamils are aliens in the island.  (you too fall into this trap when you say, that the first evidence of tamil kingdom was from
14th century  ---  why do you omit kulakkOddan who ruled from Trincomalee and who built Kantalai tank much much earlier )

You also talk about tamils having the strength to fight tigers.  But tamils are smart enough to know that it is really a stupidity to "aithavan
irukka ampai novathen --  dont complain about the arrow, complain about the person who shot the arrow).  These so called tiger-fighting
tamils are merely tools in the payroll of SL govt, and most of the tamils know it.  They do not provide alternative to tigers, but rather a
reason for tamil people to support tigers more.

You are telling me that veddas are more related to tribes in Malaysia than the ones in tamil nadu.  That is certainly possible, if you
consider the out-of-africa route the humans took, coupled with the fact that the tribes in southern india had more chance of intermingling,
while Malaysian/Indonisian tribes and Veddas were isolated -- relatively speaking.  But if that study expands the scope to discout for
intermingling in southern india, then the conclusion could be different.  I havent seen that study, so I dont know for sure. But this still
doesnt disprove the notion that southern indians came to the island first.  (it doesnt matter how you label them, rakhshas of ramayana,
,nagas, dravidians, malabars, tamils or kottiyas).  

about your contention that manipallavam doesnt equate to jaffna but nagaduvipa.  Have you been to this island nagaduvipa (nagas island) /nainativu ?
It is one kilometer long and about half a kilometer wide island.  Is it this island manipallavam or the jaffna peninsula that sported many
ancient ports. Common sense tells me that to have naga kings fight over, it should be more than the size of nainativu?.
The peninsula itself is not really like a peninsula, but rather more like an island and joined to the mainland by the thin strip (elephant pass).
Nainativu is sort like the western most point.  Nagar kovil is sort of like the eastern most point that defines Jaffna peninsula. (if you dont
know where the nagar kovil is, ask the airforce which school they successfully bombed and killed many children in 96 -- they will
point you in the map).  The writer of manimehalai didnt anticipate the future name change to Jaffna to help with readers who may lack
common sense.

I do not say that northeast was not known to sinhalese as I am well aware that Vijaya himself possibly landed on northern shores. (shortest
route from Kalinga to the island).  All I was saying is sinhalese didnt occupy northeast. Nagas/dravidians/tamils occupied these places. Sinhala
as a language was never spoken in these parts.  Proto-. languges gave way to modern . language tamil.

You are quoting Lushington's report and 1921 census report.  I havent read them, but all I know is in the early part of 1900's the sinhala
population in the east was 4%. Numbers dont lie.  Let me pose some questions on the news you bring me that sinhalese in the east
were converted to tamils.  This is the time period when british was ruling the roost. They would have no motivation to convert sinhalese
to tamils, they would rather convert to English speaking.  The early 1800's and before the east was part of Kandian Kingdom and ruled
by generations of Vadukar's --- tamils.  If the king himself was a tamil, and most of his cabinet was also tamil  why would he convert
his citizens to another languge?  How come the so called treaty between sinhalese and british of 1815 was signed in tamil by many folks
from kandy?  So tell me how the "sinhalese" of east were converted to tamils.

The tamils of western coast you refer to in your reply Helaya, did convert to sinhalese completely as sinhala became Official language.
(gradual process began before that however)

As much as sinhalese want to preserve their language and culture, tamils also wants to do the same.  The denial of this to tamils by
legislative action, and colonisation of the east, have led to the current situation.  They hypothesis of K.indrapala doesnt figure in this.
You can hug all you want to indrapala's hypothesis, but warn the poor sinhala masses theory of impermanence as suggested by buddha
and how it applies to hypotheses in a normal scintific discourse.  K.indrapala is asking questions and hypothesiing, but doesnt produce
axioms. I for one certainly do not discourage Indrapala and others to question the status quo. I know the value of contrary view
in a scientific research. Sinhala historians can shout as much as they want (include Indrapala's hypothesis or not), but it doesnt
change a thing for tamils in the island.   When compared to the "sinhala" history  -- not buddhist history.  the tamils are in much
better position when you consider northeast parts of the island as long as you adhere to the law of common sense.

Ayubowan Rodness,

Your comment "If you and other Sinhalese want to play a constructive role it would not hurt to learn a little about Tamil history and culture. "  

                    I take it in the correct spirit & as constructive criticism. As a mere student of History, I am very much interested in learning Tamil History. Further I thank you for your detailed post regarding the subject.


ahh.. next to my friend common sense...

              First & foremost, you will have to excuse my long delays in responding, since writing to this forum does not feed me, & I have to find time to write while doing a 9:00- 5:00 + after hours job... I hope you would not consider this as silence  

Where have I denied the influence of Dravadians in the birth of the Sinhala Civilization, Mate ? Tell me ? In fact I am big enough to quote K.M. de Silva who says that there is apparent Dravadian influence  in Sinhala Civilization. What I vehemently deny is an independent Tamil Civilization or a Tamil kingdom before the 10th Century AD !!!!!!  Don’t try to use the deceptiveness of the language to get away, my friend. You resort to your version of common sense to claim that the Dravadians ( not purely Tamils only, since  Dravadians include malabars, Andra, telugu etc. ) may have walked across the fairly obvious, then existent land stretch that joined India & Sinhalé. What authority do you have to claim that there was a Dravadian civilization at the point of seperation of Sinhalé from India !!!! Which period of ages are we speaking of.  Don’t mix up wishful thinking with commonsense ! Wishful thinking concocted to suit one’s petty goals by way of speculation, does not add up to common sense !!!  My point is, for the upteenth time, there arose a unique civilization from Aryan factors & Dravadian factors, the Sinhalese Civilisation !! The Sinhalese Nation !!!! Why are you silent about the obvious meaning of Eelam !!!!! The irony is, the word,  the term dropped these days is tamil eelam- that is tamil sinhalam, or tamil, land of the sinhalese, or denial of Sinhala land by the tamil !!! Having said that let me identify that, a Tamil is necessary a Sinhalese if he is a citizen of Sri Lanka. That is because, Sinhalese is a nationality ( the British tried extremely hard to reduce us to an ethnic group, & there are forces still trying to do so ) & tamil is an ethnic group !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your quote “Does it hurt so much to realize that you could be more than half tamil? “
No, I doesn’t hurt me. For all I know, I may have been a 100% tamil somewhere down the line, I don’t know !!! But the difference is, in that event,  my ancestors have accepted that they are part of the Sinhala Nation & thus became citizens of Sinhaleé. They didn’t dream of a non-existed, fairy tale independent Tamil homeland from the BC era !!!! It was people like chelva, who got the notion into your heads that the tamils are a looked down upon ethnic group in Sinhalé.


Your quote “As much as sinhalese want to preserve their language and culture, tamils also wants to do the same.  The denial of this to tamils by legislative action, and colonisation of the east, have led to the current situation.”

My Tamil friend should know that it is essential that he preserves his rich heritage, which makes Sri Lanka that much more beautiful. But that rich heritage does not have any place for megalomaniacs, & mass murderers who he tries to justifies in the name of pseudo- tamil nationalism.  However the second sentence is mere distortion of facts aided by petty minded tamil politicos like chelva… That has been dealt with as appropriate elsewhere.. ( in the news items forum: I hope my silence will be louder than a gun shot: my response to fahim – part 4) Please read it & respond there on that thread, then we could continue the dialogue there. This is a discussion on history. Tha thread was more on contemporary poitics.

About the Dravadians… ( again this is an extract from a previous post of mine to the fore-mentioned thread )

Let’s look at Dravadians. When one says Dravadian it is not exclusively Tamil. Telugu, Andra, Gujarati, Malabar, Marati & Tamil are all Dravadians. Certain scholars have found similarities between the Dravadians & the Indus Valley Civilisation. There are others scholars who think that the early ancestors of Dravadians arise from the Ausraloids of Harappa who are believed to have spread across the Indian Sub-continent. But what discourages this is the archeological evidence which point to a much more recent date. Another ideology regarding the Dravadians is that they came to India from as recent as 1st Century BC, as professed by Nilakanti Sastri. ( The above mentioned theories about Dravadians are from that much celebrated book, “The wonder that India was” by A.L. Basham & also “a  history of South India” by Nilakanta Sastri.) If it was indeed the ancestors of Dravadians who were the Indus valley people or the Harappa people, then not only Sri Lanka, all of India, Pakistan extending up to possibly Iran was Dravadian. Besides after the arrival of the Aryans from North-west India, it was Aryan influence which resulted in the new Aryan culture. The Dravadians moved to South India, & to date there are marked differences between the linguistics & culture between Dravidians & the Aryans in the North. Sinhalese is the oldest surviving developed Aryan language ( source – the wonder that India was – Basham; not a Sinhala “Chauvanist” ) with it’s first appearance n written form appearing in stone inscriptions as far as 2nd Century BC !!!!  In contrast how old is the oldest tamil ( the most developed of all Dravadian Languages ) writing recorded ? Only as old as 1st Century AC !!! I am forced to submit all these theories & proof of World renowned Historians about Dravadians, since our HISS-storian Fahim claims that my Country, Sinhalé, known as Sri Lanka from 1972 onwards, has been a Dravadian  one for over 50,000 years !!!!!  Dravadians may or may not have been there from the ancient times. It is still unproven. Even if they did exist, it does not imply that the development of the Indian Philosophies & Cultures are the work of the Dravadians. It was only after the advent of Aryans that there evolved the cultures in North India & Sri Lanka !!!  


Finally….your quote “"it is as stupid as the present day Italians asking the English to evacuate England since they lived in England before the present  day inhabitants !!!!!  "
Yes, like the sinhalese who came to the island much later to the southern extreme of south india  (as refuges banished from their country, rather than marching roman army) are now questioning that the original inhabitants (southern indians -- since you prohibit me to use ...) about their ancestry.””
This is mere pedestrian diatribe unworthy of  serious comment, from commonsense who through 3 posts so far has  failed to present a semblance of evidence, leave alone actual evidence, to justify the myth that there existed an independent . Kingdom of thousands of  years.  The myth of Tamil homelands have already reduced to mere fabrication by Dr. Harischandra Wijetunga against 75 Tamil State Councils as I have already stressed. Why are you silent on that ? Speaking of which I remember very clearly Mr. Udaya Gammanpila, stressing on prime time TV on a political discussion, that if the Tamils can prove the concept of the Tamil Homelands, that the (then) Sihala Urumaya will join the (then) TULF in fighting for the Tamil homelands. Though I am not a supporter of any Political Party as such ( yeah, you could do mark me otherwise, but then you have the freedom to do so ), even on such an invitation the Tamil historians are to date dead silent, merely resorting to speculation & so called common sense to talk of the never existent Tamil Kingdom!!!

On a personal, friendly note, if I have not addressed any part of your response pls. point out, since I am jotting this down in absolute haste !!! After all your involvement in this dialogue is much appreciated ( unlike in Tigerland         )


_________________
"where there is the eye, Samiddhi, where there are forms, where there is eye-consciousness, where there are things cognizable by eye-consciousness, there exists the world or the concept of the world". (Samyutta Nikaya- Samiddhi Sutta)