Lankan Tamils to break coconuts for Hillary

[T-123456]

My humble request is that you cease to think in such global political categories and learn the specifics of the situation first. It is stupid, downright stupid, not to mention odiously condescending, to compare the situation to the situation in Cyprus. Both are difficult and extremely complicated. Your comment about state-sanctioned support and conspiracies might raise eyebrows in several quarters.

@Sinan @T-123456

Not worth it.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

If you say so. That is your opinion.How can one change an opinion? That is not a fact. Other facts can support or cast doubt on a fact.

No, no, no....a thousand times no. Arrogant, possibly, ignorant, no.

=

Thrill and tickle. Quite. I see the grave and serene touch in this observation. Anything else?
On the contrary, I am a self-professed south Asian history student. You added the Internet.

If you say silly things which show that you do not know the difference between Jaffna Tamils and Indian Tamils, and prefer to pass on the responsibility to your school textbooks, that is entirely your problem. Your school textbooks then turn out to be badly written and ignorant.

=

Technically, you are ON the Internet and i am not about to take your words seriously anytime soon .

+

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is by far the best informed post and I am humbly grateful at not having to work too hard to reply.

Thanks for the information.

In order to help your case study.

Very kind thought, but there was no effort at a case study, it was just a correction of egregiously mistaken statements.

1. Sri Lanka's conflict has much older origins, actually it goes far back to 1920s.
2. The quest for Eelam started in 1922 by a tamil leader called Arunachalam in 1922. Interestingly it includes Parts of Singapr31 Sri Lanka got universal suffrage that means every one has a vote. Tamil leaders went to London to protest against this decision and asked British not to do that. And asked at least not to give voting rights to women and low castes
4. With voting rights the political power in the country became more balanced with 75 percent sinhala holding more power and 25 percent minority holding 25 percent power. The tamil politicians did not like this. That is why they acted against universal suffrage.
5. In 1945 Tamil leaders asked for 50-50 which means 50 percent seats for 75 percent sinhalese and 50 percent seats for 25 percent minority. The british commissioner himself rejected it calling it ridiculous as it was an attempt at minority rule over majority.
http://www.colomboherald.com/world-politics/tamil-caste-discrimination
6. Sri Lanka saw the first Sinhala tamil riot in 1939. That was as a result of a tamil leader called GG Ponnambalam publicly claiming Sinhalese are a mongrel race and Sri Lanka is a Tamil country. They created a false history of Sri Lanka.
7. In 1947 , tamil politician GG ponnambalam publicly states that he is not a ceylonese and that he was a Dravida person

All these happened BEFORE Sri Lanka got independance...and hence nothing to do with any perceived discrimination.

That the Tamils did their bit to dig their own grave is undeniable. However, there is a lot that happened AFTER what you have narrated, as well. Before going on to discuss some of the points made by you, may I share with you my sense of delicious irony at what you have written and where you have written it. You might like to spend a future idle hour looking at a summary of the history of Indian independence, starting with the Minto-Morley Reforms of 1919, through the period of dyarchy, ending with the Government of India Act, 1935. You will find a minority seeking parity with the majority, to the extent where when they did not get it through reserved seats in the electorate, they sought it through reservations in the educational institutions, finding that ineffective, they wanted an equal number of seats in the legislature, to reflect the reality, according to their perception, that there were in effect two separate 'nations' within the geographical boundaries of a state.

Does it sound familiar? And are you aware of how Pakistan came into being? And would you share my delight at your unintended effrontery in putting up this injured and victimised defence of a majority that sought to keep the minority in its place, in, of all the zillions of places that you might have selected on the Internet, on a Pakistani forum?

Actually Sri Lanka has been inhabited 100000 years ago. Balangoda man is one such fossilized remains of such a man. The sinhala people come from them and of course immigrants were absorbed.

It is not possible to summarise the genetic growth of different types of evolutionary humanity. You may select Homo Sapiens, if that is your preference; or Homo Habilis, or Homo Erectus, perhaps the most (again unintentionally) appropriate for the place and time in which you are commenting; what you see in Balangoda can be summarised below:

The Paleolithic or Palaeolithic; pronunciation:/ˌpeɪliəˈlɪθɪk, ˌpæ-, -lioʊ-/) Age, Era or Period is a prehistoric period of human history distinguished by the development of the most primitivestone tools discovered (Grahame Clark's Modes I and II), and covers roughly 95% of human technological prehistory. It extends from the earliest known use of stone tools, probably by Homo habilis initially, 2.6 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene around 10,000 BP.

What you are, and what I am, can be traced to less than 200 families in Africa around 40,000 years ago (perhaps 50,000; it is in that region). That group sent emigrants out who traced their path along the sea-coast and covered most of Asia and Europe, up to Australia, within 50,000 to 40,000 BC. In doing that, they first co-existed with, then contested with and finally eliminated the earlier species of humans, for instance, Neanderthals.

Balangoda Man was not a Neanderthal species; he was from the Mesolithic age.

The Paleolithic era is followed in the Mesolithic. The date of the Paleolithic–Mesolithic boundary may vary by locality as much as several thousand years.

And I am not very sure why you have confused the earlier human habitations, which apparently range back to as much 300,000 years ago, securely in the Palaeolithic Age, with Balangoda Man, whose dates were around 34,000 years ago, and who was culturally a Mesolithic tool-maker, and a hunter-gatherer.

The contentious part of human development in Sri Lanka has to do with the transition into the Iron Age, to the cultural characteristics of the human beings of that time, and their relationships with linguistic groups of today. It is NOT proven that those who speak Tamil today were not among the original inhabitants of the island. There is a clear case for their having been among groups who migrated, not into an empty land, but one with hunter-gatherer tribes in place, and the rudiments of early agriculture in place by 8,000 years ago, along with agglomerated dwelling places centred around mineral extraction activity. Two quotes will illustrate the main stream of thought (if you leave out Sinhala revisionism, an exact counterpart of Indian Hindutva revisionism):

Fluctuations in sea level led to Sri Lanka being linked to theIndian subcontinent from time to time over the past million years. The last such link occurred about 5000 BC.

It is difficult to imagine that when Homo Habilis had pushed into Australia by 40,000 years ago, Sri Lanka would remain with only her original Palaeolithic inhabitants in occupation.

Regarding language use, this might help, but it will clash with the Out Of Lanka ideology that is apparently being promoted by Sinhala nationalists of today (in an eerie mirroring of cultural kampf in India):

A large settlement appears to have been founded before 900 BC at the site of Anuradhapura where signs of an Iron Age culture have been found. The size of the settlement was about 15 hectares at that date, but it expanded to 50 ha, to 'town' size within a couple of centuries. A similar site has been discovered at Aligala in Sigiriya.

The earliest chronicles the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa say that the island was inhabited by tribes of Yakkhas(demons), Nagas (cobras) and devas (gods). These may refer to totemist Iron Age autochthones.

Pottery dating back to 600 BC has been found at Anuradhapura, bearing Brāhmī script (among the earliest extant examples of the script) and non-Brahmi writing, which may have arisen through contact with Semitic trading scripts from West Asia.

The emergence of new forms of pottery at the same time as the writing, together with other artifacts such as red glass beads, indicate a new cultural impulse, possibly an invasion from North India.

It is difficult to segregate this cultural impulse from the abrupt appearance of an Aryan language on the island. Nobody is saying that it did not graft onto other, older languages. That was precisely what took place with the Indo-Iranian derivative Indo-Aryan, which entered India some time in the 2500 BC to 1500 BC window, perhaps in a number of pulses, a phenomenon that was represented as an 'invasion' by colonial authors seeking to justify the legitimacy of colonial political authority. The Indo-Aryan language, very close to Avestan, was transmuted by admixture with the underlying Dravidian, according to some students; it was transmuted by admixture with a language largely Dravidian, but itself transmuted by its own admixture with an even older sub-stratum, that is associated with the Santhal languages.

Why should that not have happened in Sri Lanka? Especially when it is so unmistakably aligned to your myths? That the earliest inscriptions are in Prakrit, using Brahmi script, must have some significance?

It is difficult to understand how there can be a rogue occurrence of a member of the Indo-Aryan family of languages in Sri Lanka through spontaneous development, with no connect to the other members of that language family.

Sri Lanka cannot be compared with Singapore. Singapore is a modern nation with no historical baggage. Chinese came from china, tamils from india and malays from Malaysia. Sri Lanka is different it is the native homeland of Sri Lankan people.

Please can we ignore the negative contributions of some fribbles?

It is the tamils' ego centric misinterpretation of country's history that makes problems.

Speaking as a neutral observer, with no dog in this fight, it does seem that there is misinterpretation on more than one side. The claims, in their essence, are not irreconcilable; the same two linguistic groups co-exist in the sub-continent just to the north.

LOL do you have any evidence to back your claim? If tamils were before Sinhalese, they would be living in the south of the country. It is the first comers who were pushed into the interior due to invasions.

Please.

Just consider the probability of constant immigration, not in one mammoth wave, but in dribbles. Because that is the most likely model of what actually happened.

What do you know about Sinhala lanaguge? the evolution of Sinhala langauge can be found all over the island in inscriptions. It is the case with tamils

And the point is?

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

They should send all the Tamils to Joe Shearer's house in India.

nah he would prefer that Tamils remain in SL- to be bolstered by more Tamils from the mainland(as can be seen in the undertones of the statements of several Indian posters here) hahahahaha

 

[manlion]

Sinhalese has not came from anywhere else. Their culture has originated in the tiny island of Sri Lanka.

I think the lesson was taught to the rest of the world. Tamils, Bengalis, Malays, Portuguese, Dutch and English all tried to conquer this land by force but all were repulsed by Sinhalese. Only treachery could make us slaves for 100s of years.

So anyone who invades this land is driven out with heavy losses.

Sinhala origin

But the king Sihabähu, since he had slain the lion (was called) Sihala and, by reason of the ties between him and them, all those (followers of VIJAYA) were also (called) Sihala.

Genocide is not new to Sinhalas

Since he listened to her and did even (as she said) he slew all the yakkhas, and when he had fought victoriously he himself put on the garments of the yakkha-king and bestowed the other raiment on one and another of his followers.

After massacring all the yakkas, Vijaya started a new community (Sihala) by marrying Pandyan Princess and bringing in new settlers from Pandya's kingdom

But the ministers, whose minds were eagerly bent upon the consecrating of their lord, and who, although the means were difficult, had overcome all anxious fears about the matter, sent people, entrusted with many precious gifts, jewels, pearls, and so forth, to the city of Madhura[16] in southern (India), to woo the daughter of the Pandu king for their lord, devoted (as they were) to their ruler; and they also (sent to woo) the daughters of others for the ministers and retainers.

It is amusing how Sinhalas claim to be the origin inhabitants of the island when as per their historic text - they massacred (genocide) the ‘sons of the soil’

http://mahavamsa.org/mahavamsa/original-version/07-consecrating-vijaya/

 

[Dash]

Tamil is nor Aryan, its a Dravidian language and it is still spoken in Cameroon.

Murugan the Dravidian(Tamil) god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups is called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains.

Indo-Aryans attack the Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) because it makes them recent immigrants to India and to drive out Dravidians from India history. The attacks on AIT by Hindu Nationalists is made to give Indo-Aryan people a history they do not deserve.

First of all, Aryan is not a race ,it's a word that means civilised.

Rest what you said is an extremely wrong interpretation of AIT AMT whatever.

 

[manlion]

How can you distinguish the culture of 10,000 year old people as Tamils? Any source to back your claim up?

Yakka, Naga, Deva and Veddhas had a primitive culture they worshiped rocks and trees and deities. There is no evidence to suggest they are Tamils,

The un-assimilated veddas worship the lance - Kande yakka (Tamil- vel) and Sinhala tribals retain their pagan Tamil origin - Pattini cult

quote
The Veddas, the aborigines of Sri Lanka whose ethnic origin dates back to the very dawn of evolution are considered to descend from the yakkas or are related to the hunting tribe called Vettar in South India or to the Savaras of India or the Mundari people (Hugh Nevill 1886, Seligmann 1911, Parker 1909)

Further our study reveals, many indications which justify the assumption of the common origin of the Veddas of Sri Lanka and the wild tribes of South India such as:

1. The Veddas and the Kurinchi are basically pre-megalithic people.
2. The beliefs of Veddas bear the closest resemblance to the nature worship of aboriginal tribes of South India.
3. Their dance circling around the planted arrowhead tipped shaft in the center resembles the Kuriñci verriāttam around. Vel.
4. The god of the hills worshipped by the Veddas is similar to the hill god of early South India. The natural environment, the hilly tracts, streams and large trees were associated with the abodes of deities. Among these the rocks or hill tops received their greatest respect and they considered large rocks as the abiding place of unknown invisible deities, there are quite a number of dancing rocks in Vedda habitats (Parker p. 193). A high rock hill Natcima Vel Atte Malai, considered sacred by Veddas is called Vel Appa Malai by the Tamils. Among the Veddas of this area the names Vela and Vel latte are common. (Bell, p.5 )
5. The striking parallels between the God of the rock Malaisamy or Malayan indicates that the hypotheses that the primitive form of Gala Deviyo worshipped by the Veddas is the same as the god of the hills.
6. Their worship of Kanta Yaka7, most likely refers to Kanta Cāmi or Kantan which also means warrior in Tamil.
7. Etymological clues: "The Vaedda dialect as probably did the old Sinhala approaches far closer to Tamil than modern Sinhala in its pronunciation". (Hugh Neville. p.88.) The Vedda dialect, their spoken language is identical with Elu which was the spoken language of ancient Sri Lanka, which is semi-Tamil; as to the grammatical structure it is essentially Dravidian and simple (Emaneau, M.B 1961). Examples:
   
   Vedda dialect - meanings in Elu & Tamil
   1. Muruwn in Elu dialect denotes ananku the ancient Indian god Muru.
   2. Moriga arrow in Elu
   3. Muru is a form of ananku, in Elu and Tamil.
   4. Kanta boda hill side.
   5. Kur spike; same as in Tamil
   6. Iyaka, Iya arrow. kanu, vellu in Tamil
   7. Ira sun ray
   8. Ira pojja sun. iravi in Tamil.
   9. Neya Yakūn kindred spirit, neya is friendly in Tamil
   10. Taraka star, taraki in Tamil
   11. Kanta elephant.(mount of Murukan)
   12. Yakas includes both benevolent and malevolent deities
   13. Appa father, same as in Tamil
   14. Elam young, same as in Tamil

 

[rott]

LOL.

Now we know this member's capacity.

Incidentally I live in traditionally Dravidian speaking country where there is enough space to accommodate all the Tamils and the Singapore Chinese as well!

I was just messing around.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I was just messing around.

I know. Chill.

The un-assimilated veddas worship the lance - Kande yakka (Tamil- vel) and Sinhala tribals retain their pagan Tamil origin - Pattini cult

quote
The Veddas, the aborigines of Sri Lanka whose ethnic origin dates back to the very dawn of evolution are considered to descend from the yakkas or are related to the hunting tribe called Vettar in South India or to the Savaras of India or the Mundari people (Hugh Nevill 1886, Seligmann 1911, Parker 1909)

Further our study reveals, many indications which justify the assumption of the common origin of the Veddas of Sri Lanka and the wild tribes of South India such as:

1. The Veddas and the Kurinchi are basically pre-megalithic people.
2. The beliefs of Veddas bear the closest resemblance to the nature worship of aboriginal tribes of South India.
3. Their dance circling around the planted arrowhead tipped shaft in the center resembles the Kuriñci verriāttam around. Vel.
4. The god of the hills worshipped by the Veddas is similar to the hill god of early South India. The natural environment, the hilly tracts, streams and large trees were associated with the abodes of deities. Among these the rocks or hill tops received their greatest respect and they considered large rocks as the abiding place of unknown invisible deities, there are quite a number of dancing rocks in Vedda habitats (Parker p. 193). A high rock hill Natcima Vel Atte Malai, considered sacred by Veddas is called Vel Appa Malai by the Tamils. Among the Veddas of this area the names Vela and Vel latte are common. (Bell, p.5 )
5. The striking parallels between the God of the rock Malaisamy or Malayan indicates that the hypotheses that the primitive form of Gala Deviyo worshipped by the Veddas is the same as the god of the hills.
6. Their worship of Kanta Yaka7, most likely refers to Kanta Cāmi or Kantan which also means warrior in Tamil.
7. Etymological clues: "The Vaedda dialect as probably did the old Sinhala approaches far closer to Tamil than modern Sinhala in its pronunciation". (Hugh Neville. p.88.) The Vedda dialect, their spoken language is identical with Elu which was the spoken language of ancient Sri Lanka, which is semi-Tamil; as to the grammatical structure it is essentially Dravidian and simple (Emaneau, M.B 1961). Examples:
   
   Vedda dialect - meanings in Elu & Tamil
   1. Muruwn in Elu dialect denotes ananku the ancient Indian god Muru.
   2. Moriga arrow in Elu
   3. Muru is a form of ananku, in Elu and Tamil.
   4. Kanta boda hill side.
   5. Kur spike; same as in Tamil
   6. Iyaka, Iya arrow. kanu, vellu in Tamil
   7. Ira sun ray
   8. Ira pojja sun. iravi in Tamil.
   9. Neya Yakūn kindred spirit, neya is friendly in Tamil
   10. Taraka star, taraki in Tamil
   11. Kanta elephant.(mount of Murukan)
   12. Yakas includes both benevolent and malevolent deities
   13. Appa father, same as in Tamil
   14. Elam young, same as in Tamil

Very interesting. Can you write separately on the linguistics involved? How much of the Vedda vocabulary came into either Tamil or into Sinhala? Was there any grammatical influence? Are you aware of the Mundari sub-stratum to Dravidian, and the combined Mundari-Dravidian to Prakrit/ northern Indo-Aryan languages?

 

[manlion]

@Joe Shearer

dont have the expertise to delve into the linguistic (hence I had indicated 'quote' at the top of my post)

Btw, Sinhala has a considerable amount of vedda (Elu and sangam era Tamil) vocabulary - due to Sinhalas interaction with Tamils and Veddas

Its unfortunate that Sinhalas see their past through the current context

Tamilnadu was the centre of Thera vada Buddhism up to the 12th AD

Dharmakirti (13th century A.D.) of the Pandya country was another celebrated Buddhist acarya who was invited and patronised by Parakrama Bahu II (1236-68 A.D.). He organised in Sri Lanka an international conference of Buddhists. The Datha-vamsa and Culavamsa (latter part of Mahavamsa recording history of Sri Lanka from Mahasena to Parakrama Bahu II) are works which are ascribed to this Dharmakirti.

The Buddhist monks formed a galaxy of stars that illumined the Buddhist firmament in South India for nearly 1,300 years.

Courtesy World of Buddhism

 

[Maravan]

@Joe Shearer

dont have the expertise to delve into the linguistic (hence I had indicated 'quote' at the top of my post)

Btw, Sinhala has a considerable amount of vedda (Elu and sangam era Tamil) vocabulary - due to Sinhalas interaction with Tamils and Veddas

Its unfortunate that Sinhalas see their past through the current context

Tamilnadu was the centre of Thera vada Buddhism up to the 12th AD



Courtesy World of Buddhism

I hope you would find this interesting, Jallikattu is a traditional sport in africa's madagascar too, its called "savika" over there. Video link attached below, i believe you would enjoy researching more on this one....

http://www.wsj.com/video/savika-mad...deo/AF239B26-02E5-4CC3-8BBE-F0ADCCFB848B.html

 

[HeinzG]

After massacring all the yakkas, Vijaya started a new community (Sihala) by marrying Pandyan Princess and bringing in new settlers from Pandya's kingdom

If Vijaya massacred all the original inhabitants. How come then Phandukabhaya able to defeat Vijaya's grandsons with the help of the local tribes?

It is amusing how Sinhalas claim to be the origin inhabitants of the island when as per their historic text - they massacred (genocide) the ‘sons of the soil’

http://mahavamsa.org/mahavamsa/original-version/07-consecrating-vijaya/

As Indians we don't take the historical text to be the word of god. We take them with pinch of salt.

The un-assimilated veddas worship the lance - Kande yakka (Tamil- vel) and Sinhala tribals retain their pagan Tamil origin - Pattini cult

quote
The Veddas, the aborigines of Sri Lanka whose ethnic origin dates back to the very dawn of evolution are considered to descend from the yakkas or are related to the hunting tribe called Vettar in South India or to the Savaras of India or the Mundari people (Hugh Nevill 1886, Seligmann 1911, Parker 1909)

Further our study reveals, many indications which justify the assumption of the common origin of the Veddas of Sri Lanka and the wild tribes of South India such as:

1. The Veddas and the Kurinchi are basically pre-megalithic people.
2. The beliefs of Veddas bear the closest resemblance to the nature worship of aboriginal tribes of South India.
3. Their dance circling around the planted arrowhead tipped shaft in the center resembles the Kuriñci verriāttam around. Vel.
4. The god of the hills worshipped by the Veddas is similar to the hill god of early South India. The natural environment, the hilly tracts, streams and large trees were associated with the abodes of deities. Among these the rocks or hill tops received their greatest respect and they considered large rocks as the abiding place of unknown invisible deities, there are quite a number of dancing rocks in Vedda habitats (Parker p. 193). A high rock hill Natcima Vel Atte Malai, considered sacred by Veddas is called Vel Appa Malai by the Tamils. Among the Veddas of this area the names Vela and Vel latte are common. (Bell, p.5 )
5. The striking parallels between the God of the rock Malaisamy or Malayan indicates that the hypotheses that the primitive form of Gala Deviyo worshipped by the Veddas is the same as the god of the hills.
6. Their worship of Kanta Yaka7, most likely refers to Kanta Cāmi or Kantan which also means warrior in Tamil.
7. Etymological clues: "The Vaedda dialect as probably did the old Sinhala approaches far closer to Tamil than modern Sinhala in its pronunciation". (Hugh Neville. p.88.) The Vedda dialect, their spoken language is identical with Elu which was the spoken language of ancient Sri Lanka, which is semi-Tamil; as to the grammatical structure it is essentially Dravidian and simple (Emaneau, M.B 1961). Examples:
   
   Vedda dialect - meanings in Elu & Tamil
   1. Muruwn in Elu dialect denotes ananku the ancient Indian god Muru.
   2. Moriga arrow in Elu
   3. Muru is a form of ananku, in Elu and Tamil.
   4. Kanta boda hill side.
   5. Kur spike; same as in Tamil
   6. Iyaka, Iya arrow. kanu, vellu in Tamil
   7. Ira sun ray
   8. Ira pojja sun. iravi in Tamil.
   9. Neya Yakūn kindred spirit, neya is friendly in Tamil
   10. Taraka star, taraki in Tamil
   11. Kanta elephant.(mount of Murukan)
   12. Yakas includes both benevolent and malevolent deities
   13. Appa father, same as in Tamil
   14. Elam young, same as in Tamil

You are try hastily to link the Veddhas to the local Tamil tribes of India. But the thing you forget is that Sri Lanka contains some 40,000 year old pre historic human presence. What is your opinion on that?

It is more safe to assume that Veddhas to be the descendant of the prehistoric tribes of Sri Lanka rather than pagan Tamils of India.

Modern day Veddha's even in the days of Dr. Spittel were mixed with both Sinhalese and Tamils. He even states that there were no original Veddhas' living in the country around 1930s. Therefore there are Tamilized Veddha's with Tamils names and vernacular. It doesn't mean Veddha's are Tamils.

 

[HeinzG]

#Settlements of culturally similar early populations of ancient Sri Lanka and ancientTamil Nadu in India were excavated at megalithic burial sites at Pomparippu on the west coast and in Kathiraveli on the east coast of the island. Bearing a remarkable resemblance to burials in the Early Pandyan Kingdom, these sites were established between the 5th century BCE and 2nd century CE.

It shows that those early people shared a similar burial rituals. It doesn't mean they are all belong to a single culture. Specially it doesn't mean that they are all Tamils.

skeletal remains of an Early Iron Age chief were excavated in Anaikoddai, Jaffna District. The name Ko Veta is engraved in Brahmi script on a seal buried with the skeleton and is assigned by the excavators to the 3rd century BCE. Ko, meaning "King" in Tamil, is comparable to such names as Ko Atan, Ko Putivira and Ko Ra-pumaan occurring in contemporary Tamil Brahmi inscriptions of ancient South India and Egypt.

Never found any source for such a discovery anywhere.

#Potsherds with early Tamil writing from the 2nd century BCE have been found from the north in Poonagari, Kilinochchi District to the south in Tissamaharama. They bore several inscriptions, including a clan name—vela, a name related to velir from ancient Tamil country. Epigraphic evidence shows people identifying themselves as Damelas or Damedas (the Prakritword for Tamil people) in Anuradhapura, the capital city of Rajarata the middle kingdom, and other areas of Sri Lanka as early as the 2nd century BCE. Excavations in the area of Tissamaharama in southern Sri Lanka have unearthed locally issued coins, produced between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE, some of which carry local Tamil personal names written in early Tamil characters, which suggest that local Tamil merchants were present and actively involved in trade along the southern coast of Sri Lanka by the late classical period. Other ancient inscriptions from the period reference a Tamil merchant, the Tamil householder residing in Ilubharata[c] and a Tamil sailor named Karava.[d] Two of the five ancient inscriptions referring to the Damedas (Tamils) are in Periya Pullyakulam in the Vavuniya District, one is in Seruvavila in Trincomalee District, one is in Kuduvil in Ampara District and one is in Anuradhapura. Mention is made in literary sources of Tamil rulers bringing horses to the island in water craft in the second century BCE, most likely arriving at Kudiramalai. Historical records establish that Tamil kingdoms in modern India were closely involved in the island's affairs from about the 2nd century BCE. Kudiramalai, Kandarodai and Vallipuram served as great northern Tamil capitals and emporiums of trade with these kingdoms and the Romans from the 6th–2nd centuries BCE. The archaeological discoveries in these towns and the Manimekhalai, a historical poem, detail how Nāka-Tivu of Nāka-Nadu on the Jaffna Peninsula was a lucrative international market for pearl and conch trading for the Tamil fishermen.

The most important point here is that you have fail to bring forth any credible evidence to suggest that there was a strong independent Tamil kingdom that existed on the island for 2000s of years. All you could muster is some reports on findings of Tamil inscriptions or related inscriptions all around Sri Lanka. Such discoveries are normal when considering there were trading post situated in coastal towns of Sri Lanka.

#In Mahavamsa, a historical poem, ethnic Tamil adventurers such as Elara invaded the island around 145 BCE. Early Chola king Karikalan, son of Eelamcetcenni utilised superior Chola naval power to conquer Ceylon in the first century CE. Hindu Saivism, Tamil Buddhism, Jainism and secularism were popular amongst the Tamils at this time, as was the proliferation of village deity worship. The Amaravati school was influential in the region when the Telugu Satavahana dynasty established the Andhra empire and its 17th monarch Hāla (20–24 CE) married a princess from the island. Ancient Vanniars settled in the east of the island in the first few centuries of the common era to cultivate and maintain the area. The Vanni region flourished. In the 6th century CE, a special coastal route by boat was established from the Jaffna peninsula southwards to Saivite religious centres in Trincomalee (Koneswaram) and further south to Batticaloa (Thirukkovil), passed a few small Tamil trading settlements in Mullaitivu on the north coast. The conquests and rule of the island by Pallava kingNarasimhavarman I (630–668 CE) and his grandfather King Simhavishnu (537–590 CE) saw the erection and structural development of several Kovils around the island, particularly in the north-east – these Pallava Dravidian rock temples remained a popular and highly influential style of architecture in the region over the next few centuries. Tamil soldiers from what is now South India were brought to Anuradhapura between the 7th and 11th centuries CE in such large numbers that local chiefs and kings trying to establish legitimacy came to rely on them. By the 8th century CE Tamil villages were collectively known as Demel-kaballa (Tamil allotment), Demelat-valademin (Tamil villages), and Demel-gam-bim (Tamil villages and lands).

Mahavansa does not even mention a independent Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka.

Here I am. There was no group called Sinhalese. They began to call themselves that long after settling down on the island. Their original name might have had Singh in it, as it is typical of Kshatriyas and later, in mediaeval times, of Rajputs; so Vijayasimha's name gave birth to Sinhala. They were not known as Sinhala anywhere else. Those they descended from became Biharis, and Maithils, and Bengalis, and Odiyas, and Tripuris, and Assamese (pre-Ahom ones).

That is my whole point. Sinhalese originated in the island of Sri Lanka.

But that's what I've been saying; that Tamil was local, Sinhala was exotic. Here, read for yourself.

The oldest Sinhalese Prakrit inscriptions found are from the third to second century BCE following the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, the oldest existing literary works date from the ninth century. The closest relative of Sinhalese is the language of theMaldives and Minicoy Island (India), the Maldivian language.

Pali had nothing to do with it, as I've been trying to explain to you. VERY patiently.

If Sinhalese called themselves the same after settling down for a long time. How can they become a exotic bunch?

The above statement you quoted clearly shows how Sinhalese language developed itself through the years. If it was brought from outside, we would have seen lot of inscription from the time of Vijeya's arrival.

Moreover Maldivian language divehi is a offshoot of Sinhalese language. Because the Maldivians are originally Sinhalese fishermen.

Here is some non-serious history to get your digestive juices started.

• The two groups of Tamils located in Sri Lanka are the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Indian Tamils.
• There also exists a significant population in Sri Lanka who are native speakers of Tamil language and are of Islamic faith. Though several evidence point them towards being ethnic Tamils, they are however controversially listed as a separate ethnic group by the Sri Lankan government.
• Sri Lankan Tamils (also called Ceylon Tamils) are descendants of the Tamils of the old Jaffna Kingdom and east coast chieftaincies called Vannimais.
• The Indian Tamils (or Hill Country Tamils) are descendants of bonded labourers sent from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka in the 19th century to work on tea plantations.

Yes. There are two groups of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The first bunch was brought in by Dutch for Tobacco farming in Jaffna and the second bunch was brought in by the English for Tea plantations.

There was no Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka. There was only a Tamil rulers governing parts of the country when the central authority was weakened.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It shows that those early people shared a similar burial rituals. It doesn't mean they are all belong to a single culture. Specially it doesn't mean that they are all Tamils.

They might well have belonged to the same culture; burial rites are among the identifying features of a culture.

On the other hand, Tamil is a language. It can be used, and is used to this present day, across several cultures. A language and a culture are not identical. The people who used these burial rites displayed a common culture; unless there is material evidence of movement, it is reasonable to conclude that this unified culture adopted Tamil at some stage, or originated Tamil.

Never found any source for such a discovery anywhere.

Perhaps that is a sign that you should read more widely.

The most important point here is that you have fail to bring forth any credible evidence to suggest that there was a strong independent Tamil kingdom that existed on the island for 2000s of years. All you could muster is some reports on findings of Tamil inscriptions or related inscriptions all around Sri Lanka. Such discoveries are normal when considering there were trading post situated in coastal towns of Sri Lanka.

LOL. What credible evidence do you wish for other than the time-tested ones of pottery remains, in dated layers, of epigraphy, or of coin hoards? These are indicators of Tamil habitations, of administrative arrangements, and of communities engaged in occupations requiring settled conditions. Did you expect a signboard in stone saying that two thousand years later, this should be taken as proof that there was a Tamil kingdom? Do you think that people were living their lives, that administrators were doing their duties, and that kings were ruling while looking over their shoulders to see what somebody would think of them after centuries? It is for us to discover the reality from what scientific evidence is there. It is also for us to interpret whatever comes to light. If you wish to insist doggedly on your point of view in spite of the mounting body of evidence that has been presented, then even a film from those times or a photographic album or an affidavit from a reigning monarch will not convince you. If you open your mind, you might benefit. Arguing doggedly that nothing fits, that everything can be explained away is, frankly, only amusing, and childish.

Mahavansa does not even mention a independent Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka.

That is precisely what I meant.

The Mahavamsa mentions names, dates, incidents and your response is that it doesn't mention an independent Tamil kingdom. The authors did not realise that you would be poring through looking for incontrovertible evidence; they composed what they thought was appropriate. Now we have a Tamil prince, who is named, whose presence in Sri Lanka is corroborated, and whose dates are indicated, and the objection put up is that there is no specific mention of a Tamil kingdom. Elara's invasion was the first action. His establishment of a Tamil kingdom is available from other sources as well. Please look at the totality and then argue your case.

That is my whole point. Sinhalese originated in the island of Sri Lanka.

Please read the argument carefully. Just because people left an ethnic group and travelled thousands of miles away and called themselves something else does not mean that the original ethnic group ceases to exist, or that the separation and migration did not take place. And only the name Sinhala came into common usage on the island of Sri Lanka, not the language.

If Sinhalese called themselves the same after settling down for a long time. How can they become a exotic bunch?

The above statement you quoted clearly shows how Sinhalese language developed itself through the years. If it was brought from outside, we would have seen lot of inscription from the time of Vijeya's arrival.

This is really a confused argument.

That the users of the Sinhala language were exotic in the first place is no bar to their becoming settled inhabitants over the years. The Amerindians were originally exotics when they crossed the Bering Strait; they were certainly not exotics when the European colonists landed on the north American continent.

Second, you are obviously approaching this from a standpoint completely new to historical and ethnographic context, and only due to a loyalty to an ethnic grouping, which is admirable in you personally, but which explains a lot of elementary errors. Inscriptions were not common right from the outset; nor was the use of a script. Both of these were antedated - preceded - by language, which in turn was preceded by culture. Once a language is formed, there is the possibility of a script, not before. Once a script is devised, there is the possibility of an inscription in that script. If you look at the relative dates of the devising of Brahmi script, and its appearance on Asokan pillars, and the date of Vijeya's arrival in Sri Lanka, you will get your answer.

Moreover Maldivian language divehi is a offshoot of Sinhalese language. Because the Maldivians are originally Sinhalese fishermen.

Quite possible. This has no conclusive bearing either way.

Yes. There are two groups of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The first bunch was brought in by Dutch for Tobacco farming in Jaffna and the second bunch was brought in by the English for Tea plantations.

Sadly, no. The Jaffna Tamils were long-established, over centuries, and acknowledged so by literary testimony of Sinhala origin itself, quite apart from numerous Tamil documents and literary works. Only latter-day revisionist histories, by the same sorts of people in Sri Lanka who drive Hindu nationalism in India, have attempted to force a recent myth of origin on the Jaffna Tamils, based on the single solitary instance of tobacco cultivation by the Dutch. Incidentally, according to this hilarious account, all the material body of evidence (the same evidence that you discounted so gracefully - potsherds, epigraphs, inscriptions, archaeological remains) disappears; we cannot have two contrary theories co-existing!

There was no Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka. There was only a Tamil rulers governing parts of the country when the central authority was weakened.

Sure.

Whatever floats your boat. Just be prepared to face the same ridicule as Hindutvavadis face for their Vedic science - flying vehicles, weapons of mass destruction, advanced medical techniques - face from the world.

It's a free world.

 

[HeinzG]

They might well have belonged to the same culture; burial rites are among the identifying features of a culture.

On the other hand, Tamil is a language. It can be used, and is used to this present day, across several cultures. A language and a culture are not identical. The people who used these burial rites displayed a common culture; unless there is material evidence of movement, it is reasonable to conclude that this unified culture adopted Tamil at some stage, or originated Tamil.

It is not reasonable to assume that just because people on both sides of the strait used similar burial methods that they belong to the same specific Tamil culture. There are simply not that much evidence to prove that.

Besides, There are no evidence indicating that Tamils as a separate group from ancient times controlled part of the island as their kingdom. The pottery ware, burial urns or any other evidence that you have put forth do not justify such a notion.

Perhaps that is a sign that you should read more widely.

Perhaps you should show me where does it written. Or else it can be taken as a internet hoax.

LOL. What credible evidence do you wish for other than the time-tested ones of pottery remains, in dated layers, of epigraphy, or of coin hoards? These are indicators of Tamil habitations, of administrative arrangements, and of communities engaged in occupations requiring settled conditions. Did you expect a signboard in stone saying that two thousand years later, this should be taken as proof that there was a Tamil kingdom? Do you think that people were living their lives, that administrators were doing their duties, and that kings were ruling while looking over their shoulders to see what somebody would think of them after centuries? It is for us to discover the reality from what scientific evidence is there. It is also for us to interpret whatever comes to light. If you wish to insist doggedly on your point of view in spite of the mounting body of evidence that has been presented, then even a film from those times or a photographic album or an affidavit from a reigning monarch will not convince you. If you open your mind, you might benefit. Arguing doggedly that nothing fits, that everything can be explained away is, frankly, only amusing, and childish.

It is not a indication of Tamil habitation. First off, there are many findings of Roman coins and Chinese pottery ware in Sri Lanka. That doesn't mean that Roman or Chinese settlements were existed long ago. Similarly pottery or coins does not necessarily mean there was a Tamil settlement.

Moreover you have completely forgotten to discuss about the prehistoric people of Sri Lanka. Who are dated to live more than 40,000 years ago. Do they also be considered as Tamils?

That is precisely what I meant.

The Mahavamsa mentions names, dates, incidents and your response is that it doesn't mention an independent Tamil kingdom. The authors did not realise that you would be poring through looking for incontrovertible evidence; they composed what they thought was appropriate. Now we have a Tamil prince, who is named, whose presence in Sri Lanka is corroborated, and whose dates are indicated, and the objection put up is that there is no specific mention of a Tamil kingdom. Elara's invasion was the first action. His establishment of a Tamil kingdom is available from other sources as well. Please look at the totality and then argue your case.

Mahavansa is a chronology. It has mentioned the related incidents with great details. There is no way that it has forgot to mention about the independent Tamil Kingdom of Jaffna for that past 2000 years of it's narration.

Elara was a invader who has come from India. Not from Jaffna. He established his kingdom in Anuradhapura, the ancient capital of Sinhalese kings. He didn't establish a Tamil kingdom in anywhere else.

Please read the argument carefully. Just because people left an ethnic group and travelled thousands of miles away and called themselves something else does not mean that the original ethnic group ceases to exist, or that the separation and migration did not take place. And only the name Sinhala came into common usage on the island of Sri Lanka, not the language.

This is really a confused argument.

That the users of the Sinhala language were exotic in the first place is no bar to their becoming settled inhabitants over the years. The Amerindians were originally exotics when they crossed the Bering Strait; they were certainly not exotics when the European colonists landed on the north American continent.

Second, you are obviously approaching this from a standpoint completely new to historical and ethnographic context, and only due to a loyalty to an ethnic grouping, which is admirable in you personally, but which explains a lot of elementary errors. Inscriptions were not common right from the outset; nor was the use of a script. Both of these were antedated - preceded - by language, which in turn was preceded by culture. Once a language is formed, there is the possibility of a script, not before. Once a script is devised, there is the possibility of an inscription in that script. If you look at the relative dates of the devising of Brahmi script, and its appearance on Asokan pillars, and the date of Vijeya's arrival in Sri Lanka, you will get your answer.

Americans did the same. No one calls them British.

Moreover Vijaya and his gang was not Sinhalese. They were Indians. They came to the island of Sri Lanka and established there while intermarrying local tribes. Those intermarriages and alliances made a new unique culture and civilization called Sinhala. It was neither Tamil nor Bengali.

If the Sinhala language is brought with the Vijaya, then where are the evidence to suggest that it existed in India?

Sadly, no. The Jaffna Tamils were long-established, over centuries, and acknowledged so by literary testimony of Sinhala origin itself, quite apart from numerous Tamil documents and literary works. Only latter-day revisionist histories, by the same sorts of people in Sri Lanka who drive Hindu nationalism in India, have attempted to force a recent myth of origin on the Jaffna Tamils, based on the single solitary instance of tobacco cultivation by the Dutch. Incidentally, according to this hilarious account, all the material body of evidence (the same evidence that you discounted so gracefully - potsherds, epigraphs, inscriptions, archaeological remains) disappears; we cannot have two contrary theories co-existing!

What are the numerous Tamil documents and literary works? Name them please.

Jaffna Tamils were not even identified by the Cholas, Pandyas or Vijayanagars. How can you claim that they were long-established, over centuries, and acknowledged.

The earliest written document of the Jaffna Tamils were even written in the time of the Dutch.

The evidence of the potsherds, epigraphs, inscriptions, archaeological remains doesn't even contradict themselves. Those evidences shows us that their were strong link of connection between Sri Lanka and Tamilnadu. Not that there was a independent Tamil kingdom of Jaffna and East coast of the island.

If you want evidence, what can you say about Vallipuram gold plate inscriptions about a Buddhist temple and the Kandarodai Buddhist temple complex.