Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
[TamilNet, Thursday, 03 July 2008, 07:34 GMT]
The presentation of the History of Eezham Tamils, in some of the international reference
material such as Britannica Concise Encyclopedia and The World Factbook by the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has become a matter of serious concern for Tamils all
over the world. When the discipline of history itself is being deconstructed in the portals
of knowledge of the postmodern era on one hand, these international sources of
information are still harping on colonial brand of Orientalism, by basing history on
myths.
Culture Columnist Akazhaan
Many readers have been emailing excerpts from such publications to TamilNet for quite sometime.
Some of the relevant passages are cited below:
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
“The Sinhalese people are probably the result of aboriginal
inhabitants mixing with IndoAryans who began migrating from
India c. the 5th century BC. The Tamils were later immigrants from
Dravidian India, migrating over a period from the early centuries
AD to c. 1200. Buddhism was introduced during the 3rd century BC.
As Buddhism spread, the Sinhalese kingdom extended its political
control over the island but lost it to invaders from southern India in
the 10th century. Between 1200 and 1505, Sinhalese power
gravitated to southwestern Sri Lanka, while a southern Indian
dynasty seized power in the north and established the Tamil
kingdom in the 14th century.”
CIA, The World Fact Book:
“The first Sinhalese arrived in Sri Lanka late in the 6th century B.C.
probably from northern India. Buddhism was introduced in about
Satellite image of Tamil Nadu and Sri
the midthird century B.C., and a great civilization developed at the
Lanka, showing the Adam's Bridge reef,
a remnant of the land bridge between cities of Anuradhapura (kingdom from circa 200 B.C. to circa A.D.
extreme peninsular India and Sri Lanka. 1000) and Polonnaruwa (from about 1070 to 1200). In the 14th
[Satellite Image courtesy: NASA, Visible century, a south Indian dynasty established a Tamil kingdom in
Earth]
northern Sri Lanka. The coastal areas of the island were controlled
by the Portuguese in the 16th century and by the Dutch in the 17th
century. The island was ceded to the British in 1796, became a
crown colony in 1802, and was united under British rule by 1815.
As Ceylon, it became independent in 1948; its name was changed to
Sri Lanka in 1972. Tensions between the Sinhalese majority and
Tamil separatists erupted into war in 1983. Tens of thousands have
Cētu or Adam's Bridge, linking the
died in the ethnic conflict that continues to fester. After two
Paampan and Mannaar islands of India decades of fighting, the government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil
and Sri Lanka. [Satellite Image courtesy: Eelam (LTTE) formalized a ceasefire in February 2002 with
Wikimedia Commons]
Norway brokering peace negotiations. Violence between the LTTE
and government forces intensified in 2006 and the government
regained control of the Eastern Province in 2007. In January 2008,
the government officially withdrew from the ceasefire, and has
begun engaging the LTTE in the northern portion of the country.”
The excerpts only show that serious students of History are not involved in the making of such literature
and documents cited above.
History is a discipline based on verifiable evidence. Historical interpretations may differ, but there is no
academic justification to come out with historical myths serving political purposes.
The motive behind the cited passages is obvious. They are nuanced to deny the Tamil parity in the space
and time in the human and cultural heritage of Sri Lanka. They deny the inherent participation of Tamils
in the evolution of civilisation in this island.
The historiographical claims of Sinhala‐Buddhist exclusiveness, stemming from the Aryan migration
theory, have been denounced and countered even by many of the Sinhala historians of high academic
standards.
The Sri Lankan state, for reasons well‐known, may continue with its
exploits with history. But why international reference publishers and
Agencies of global ambitions have to lose their credibility by upholding
invalidated myths as historical facts?
On such matters of contention, it would have been prudent on the part
of the editors, had they consulted the recent publications on the
evolution of ethnicities in Sri Lanka by eminent Tamil and Sinhala
historians and archaeologists of the calibre of K. Indrapala and
Sudharshan Seneviratne, before presenting sensitive profile for world
readership.
The facts, views and academic debates arising from recent researches
cast an altogether different picture on the topic under discussion:
The red loam cliff seen at Kuthiraimalai,
which corresponds to the Tēris on the
opposite Thirunelveli coast of the Gulf
Sri Lanka was not an island when the first human beings inhabited it.
of Mannaar. This is considered as a There was a land bridge in the Cetu or Adams Bridge region, linking
remnant of the linked landscape of today’s Tamil Nadu with Sri Lanka, through which animals and humans
prehistoric times. [Satellite image
courtesy: Google Earth and NASA
walked to and fro.
Visible Earth]
Geological evidences suggest that the land bridge disappeared just five
to eight thousand years back. Even afterwards navigational contacts
through the shallow waters linked by a chain of sand banks cannot be
ruled out, as it was within the means of primitive technology.
The exact time of the first human habitations is yet to ascertained
precisely, even though dates have been suggested going back to 70,000
years or more. But an obvious phenomenon repeatedly pointed out in
An example of a Tēri landscape of red the objective researches starting from 19th century, is the striking
loam and gravel, bearing prehistoric
tools in the southeastern coast of Tamil
affinities between the prehistoric Tēri (red loam and gravel mounds)
Nadu. Vadali‐vi'lai. [Photo courtesy cultures of the southeastern tip of Tamil Nadu with that of Sri Lanka.
www.tn.gov.in] (Noons, Zeuner, Deraniyagala and a host of other scholars)
The prehistoric people have not simply disappeared, but it is
misleading historiography to link the ‘aboriginal inhabitants’ of Sri
Lanka only with the formation of Sinhalese as projected in the
Encyclopedia Britannica version. Even though the Veddas are said to
be the direct descendants, the genetics and physical anthropology of
the said prehistoric strain are at the substratum of every native
Ira'naimadu formation. Landscape ethnicity in Sri Lanka and the ethnicities on the other side of the Palk
showing red loam and gravel deposits,
bearing prehistoric tools in Ira'naimadu,
Strait and the Gulf of Mannaar too.
Ki'linochchi. [Deraniyagala, Photo
courtesy: lankalibrary.com] This is a common anthropological heritage not only to Sinhalese,
Eezham Tamils and a large majority of Muslims in Sri Lanka, but also to the Hill Country Tamils of Sri
Lanka, for they have come in the 19th century from the same region of Tamil Nadu and through the same
route of that of the prehistoric people.
The culture that marked the phase between the end of prehistory and the beginning of history
(appearance of readable written documents) in the island of Sri Lanka is what has been termed today as
the Megalithic Culture.
In the Sri Lankan context it began around the early centuries of the first millennium BCE and continued
to the dawn of the Common Era, overlapping in its later stages with the advent of Buddhism and
appearance of phonetic writing.
Recent researches have shown the wide prevalence of this culture in the length and breadth of the island.
The scholarly perception today is that it was the Megalithic Culture that was at the genesis of
urbanization, civilization and the rise of states in Sri Lanka.
Kantarodai in the north, Anuradhapura in the centre and Mahagama in the south were some of the first
urban centres, (Vimala Begley, Allchin, Kennady, Coningham, SPF Seneratne, Deraniyagala, Sudharshan
Seneviratne, Indrapala, Sitrampalam and Ragupathy)
It is an established archaeological fact that the Megalithic Culture is
predominantly a South Indian phenomenon of the first millennium
BCE. Its prevalence, and absence of any other cultural trait in Sri Lanka
before the advent of Buddhism, makes it difficult to perceive the so‐
called Indo‐Aryan mass migration directly from North India, bringing
Sinhala people to the island.
Indo‐Aryan and Dravidian are rather linguistic terms in connotations
and it is misleading to use them to people of that times who left us with
no objective evidence of the language or languages they spoke.
The arrival of Buddhism in mid third century BCE, by the efforts of the
Mauryan Emperor Asoka is a historical fact. Written evidences in the
form of Brahmi inscriptions, providing the first objective information
on the ethnicities of Sri Lanka, also appear around the same time.
The alphabet of these Brahmi inscriptions has both traits: Tamil
Prehistoric tools (Microlithic) from
Brahmi as well as Asokan Brahmi. The language of these inscriptions is
Ira'naimadu formation, Ki'linochchi. largely Prakrit, intermixed with Dravidian terms. Sinhalese at this stage
[Deraniyagala, Illustration courtesy: was yet to evolve as an identifiable language.
Lankalibrary.com]
The genetic relationship between the Prakrits of India and Proto‐
Dravidian is another area that is yet to receive satisfactory attention
from scholars.
There is no mention of the word Sinhala or Sinhala ethnicity in the
thousand odd short inscriptions that come to us from this time. On the
contrary, a vast majority of the host of clan names and titles that we
come across in these inscriptions only show affinities with the clans of
the ancient Tamil country (Sudharshan Seneviratne and Indrapala).
Prehistoric tools (Palaeolithic?),
Ira'naimadu formation, ki'linochchi.
[Deraniyagala, Illustration courtesy: There are also instances in these inscriptions where individuals
Lankalibrary.com] identified themselves as Tamils, made donations to the Buddhist order.
What is inferred is that the people who eventually identified themselves as Sinhala have not come from
any distant land. They largely belonged to the same substratum of the people of the neighbouring
peninsular India, shared similar cultural sequences and gradually evolved into a distinct ethnicity,
similar to that of the ethno linguistic identities next to them.
The continued popularity of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, even when it disappeared in peninsular India and
the resultant influence of Pali, which is one of the Prakrits, rendered a different hue to the Sinhala‐
Buddhist formation.
A definable Sinhala‐Buddhist identity along with its associated myths appear for the first time only in the
Pali chronicles, Dīpavaṅsa and Mahāvaṅsa, dateable to 4th‐5th century
CE. Even such a literature, which projects Tamils as invaders, could
not help linking the Pandyas of southern Tamil country in the genesis
of Sinhalese in Sri Lanka.
The mythical hero of the chronicles and his associates, said to have
come from an unidentified location of the sub‐continent, brought
wives from the Pandyan country and the descendants were the
Sinhalese.
Prehistoric cave site, Beli‐lena, Sri
Lanka. [Deraniyagala, Photo courtesy:
Lankalibrary.com] The historical projections of these Buddhist chronicles; compelled by
their sectarian needs, loaded with myths and talking of events several
centuries prior to their compilations need to be carefully screened
before considering them for the writing of objective history.
The earliest written forms of Sinhala, i.e., Sīyaḷa and Sīhaḷa are rather
geographical than ethnic when they first appear in the inscriptions
outside of Sri Lanka in the early centuries CE. A little earlier, at the
dawn of the Common Era, the word Eezham appear, again outside of
Sri Lanka in a Tamil Brahmi inscription and in the Changkam
Aththirampaakkam. Palaeolithic site literature.
near Chennai in Tamil Nadu being
excavated. [Photo courtesy:
antiquity.ac.uk/projGall]
Sīhaḷa, Sīyaḷa, Eezha, Iḷa, Eḷu and Hela seem to be early geographical
terms of the island. Maldivians traditionally referred to Sri Lanka as
Eḷu‐dhoo‐karaa (the land of Eḷu island). Lanka is another geographical
term, which simply meant island, probably in aborigine language.
The geographical terms, which in attributed sense stood for anyone
who belonged to the island, came to be viewed as exclusive ethnic
terms with the polarization of identities. While Eezham became
popular with Tamils for the geographical identity, Sinhala became the
ethnic identity of the Sinhalese.
The Tamil identity is peculiar in this respect, by basing itself on
language and not confining to the general pattern of South Asia where
geography is the basis for the ethno linguistic identities.
What is seen from the evidences is that the Eezham Tamil identity of
Sri Lanka was not only parallel to the Sinhala identity but also parallel
to that of the Tamils of Tamil Nadu.
It is not merely an extension of the Tamil identity of Tamil Nadu. The
Eezham Tamil social formation is an evolution and is a result of people
Prehistoric tool (Palaeolithic) being
embedded on a lump of clay. From interacting with the land of Sri Lanka throughout its phases of history.
Aththirampaakkam excavations in
Tamil Nadu. [Photo courtesy: A person who caused the writing of a Tamil Brahmi inscription,
antiquity.ac.uk/projGall]
dateable to the dawn of the Common Era, at Thirupparangkun’ram in
Tamil Nadu styled himself as Eezha Kudumpikan (the house‐holder
from Eezham). Another, a poet of the Changkam literature also was titled as Eezhaththu Poothan
Theavanaar (the Poothan Theavan of Eezham). The need for these
Tamils to assert to their Eezham identity in Tamil Nadu is significant in
perceiving the parallel development.
The Eezham Tamil formation was an active partner in the affairs of the
state, economy and culture of the island throughout its history. Among
the rulers of Sri Lanka there were some Tamils and many with Tamil
connections. There were Tamil generals on the side of the Sinhala
rulers who fought against invasions and imperial rule of the South
Indian dynasties.
A Megalithic burial monument of the
type of Dolmen, Maraiyoor, Kerala. Historical developments eventually led the Eezham Tamil formation
[Photo courtesy: Wikimedia Commons]
and the Sinhala formation to polarize separate geographical regions
for them and to have separate kingdoms after 13th century CE. There
are no evidences that they either waged war or competed on ethnic
grounds during this phase. Confrontations were feudal but not cultural.
Tamil and Saivism received patronage even in the Sinhalese kingdoms
without any animosity. The king of Kotte, Bhuvanehabahu VII, signed
the treaty with the Portuguese in Tamil. At the fall of the last kingdom
of Kandy to the British, one of the Kandian Chieftains, Ratwatta
Disawa, the ancestor of Srimao Bandaranayake, signed the treaty in
Tamil.
Modern concepts of nationalism based on language, religion, ethnicity
etc have come to us especially through British colonialism.
History, which was evolved as a modern academic discipline in the 19th
century Europe to become a handmaid of nationalism and imperialism
Remains of a Megalithic burial
also was introduced to us by this time.
monument of the type of Dolmen, seen
at Kathirave'li, Batticaloa district, Sri The colonial Orientalist scholars, who were enthusiastic to invent Indo‐
Lanka. Such monuments were called
Kurakkup‐paddadai in old Tamil.
Aryan cousins in this part of the world, created enough myths in that
(Kurakku means death and Paddadai is process for Brahminism in India and Sinhala‐Buddhist elitism in Sri
enclosure). The site at Kathirave'li is Lanka.
locally called as Kurangkup‐padai‐
vempu (vempu means barren land in
Tamil). [Photo courtesy: Early The partiality in historiography brought in new social gaps,
Settlements in Jaffna, 1987] confrontations and competition.
It should be noted that none of those Orientalist scholars who
translated and brought to light the Sanskrit texts and Buddhist
cannons ever attempted to do the same to the Tamil texts. The ancient
Tamil texts had to wait for Tamil scholars like Arumuga Navalar,
Thamotharam Pillai and Saminathaiyar to see the light of publication.
They still wait for a comprehensive translation.
The Tamil and Sinhala formations would have been understood by
each other and by outsiders in a better sense, had culture studies been
comparative than divisive. An example is that even today we don’t have
a comparative etymological dictionary between Tamil and Sinhala. The
combination of Orientalism and nationalism in Sri Lanka chose the
path of being exclusive than inclusive.
The combined result of the forces at work was the mischievous
oversimplification of Sri Lankan History that the Sinhalese are Indo‐
Aryans who came from North India in the 6th century BCE and the
Megalithic urn burials, being excavated Dravidian Tamils are later migrants who came as invaders, traders and
at Aathichcha‐nalloor on the banks of mercenaries to snatch a part of the promised land of the Sinhalese
Thaamiravaru'ni river in the Thirunelveli away.
district of Tamil Nadu. [Photo courtesy:
Frontline, Vol. 20, issue 07]
For that matter, late Tamil and Malayalee migrants can be found more among the Sinhalese, especially
among their elite, as was with the case of the ancestors of the Bandaranayake and Jeyawardane families
(James T. Rutnam).
To conclude in the words of a noted Sri Lankan historian, Prof. Leslie Gunawardana:
“It is important to note that the Aryan theory was not merely something imposed from above by
Orientalist scholars. It was eagerly welcomed by most Sinhala scholars who found the Aryan theory
flattering in that it elevated them to the ranks of the kinsmen of their rulers” (Colonialism, Ethnicity
and the Construction of the Past, 1994)
An example of Brahmi inscription in Sri
Lanka. [Photo courtesy: Ceylon Brahmi
An example of Tamil Brahmi inscription Inscriptions]
in Tamil Nadu. [Iravatham Mahadevan,
Megalithic urn burial exposed by sand‐
Photo courtesy: Frontline, Vol. 20, issue
scoopers and salvaged in a rescue
07]
excavation at Aanaikkoaddai, Jaffna.
[Image courtesy: Early Settlements in
Jaffna, 1987]
Pottery inscribed with Brahmi and
Grafitti, from the excavations of
Graffiti on the first line and Brahmi in
Anuradhapura. The fragmentary one on
the second line. A seal from the
top reads '... Tayā ‐ Kuṭe + graffiti
Megalithic burial at Aanaikkoaddai,
symbol'. (somebody's pot) Kuṭe is
Jaffna. The Brahmi legend reads 'Koveta'
Prakrit as well as Dravidian. (Kudam in
(Kō‐vēt‐a), which in Tamil / Dravidian
Tamil.) [Illustration courtesy:
means: the King's. This steatite seal has
nibbanam.com]
been identified as a part of a signet ring.
[Image courtesy: Early Settlements in
Jaffna, 1987]