Sri Lanka News Updates with Discussions

What happened to the evidence for the so-called 'Muti-something' Anuradhapura Kingdom? :-) Didn't you yet find any evidence that 'Clearly identifiable native Demadas' ruled the Anuradhapura Kingdom ?

YES, that's what Prof. Indrapala says in his new book. Its ONLY U$.14.

Well, well, I must have touched a raw nerve on this person; it is not surprising is it?

Do you know what is the problem in his fatherland, Australia?

They tell you that 'you are equal', but they NEVER give EQUAL STATUS to Tamil Language or Hindu Culture in the West. There are no Tamil Medium Public Schools nor Mahasivarathree or Thaipongal or Deepwali public holidays (unlike X-mass or Easter).

Tamils in Sri Lanka are as native as the Sinhalese regardless of religious affiliations.

* The Tamils of Sri Lankan do not dispute that their ancestors originated from India. *

MURU, why should we need to have such archaeological evidences to establish that Tamil speakers were nothing but mainly a migrated lot. We are not speaking here about a massive migration that occurred between two continents. Please do not exaggerate the facts (like our friend SHAN always does). The issue we are dealing here is a migration of a relatively small population across a fairly narrow straight. Even in the worst case scenario, what we are dealing here is a migration of mere 750,000 people from a massive 55 Million population across a 21 miles wide straight. We do not need to have any archaeological evidence to believe this, do we?

Whatever the languages spoken in the pre-historic period, what is of importance for a proper understanding of the early phase of Sri Lankan history is the recognition that the speakers of these prehistoric languages were never annihilated by newcomers. Archaeologists have so far not met with evidence of either a mass migration of people at the end of the mesolithic period or annhilation of the existing population. The arguments of anthropologists about a biological continuum from prehistoric times lend support to Paravitana's assertion that 'the vast majority of people who today speak Sinhalese or Tamil must ultimately be descended from those autochthonous people of whom we know next to nothing'. NO DISPASSIONATE STUDENT OF SRI LANKAN HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY CAN ESCAPE THIS CONCLUSION.'

The spread of new cultural influences, including that of new languages, has often been taken as an indication of new migrations and the displacement of earlier inhabitants. ANCIENT HISTORIANS AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTS ARE NOW INCLINED TO REJECT SUCH THEORIES

The mesolithic culture that prevailed in Sri Lanka until about 1000 BCE was one that was common to the whole SISL region. There was a free flow of humans and their cultural traits across various parts of this region. The whole region shared a common technology. EVEN THE LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY THE MESOLITHIC PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMON TO THE WHOLE REGION

It is now argued that Brahmi script came with trade and religious carriers, if you may call them so, the missionaries. But one also has to look at the pre-existing - what I would call the megalithic symbols - that may have had phonetical sounds. The discovery of the famous copper ring at Anaikoddai from the early historic context that (the copper ring) had both the megalithic symbols and the Brahmi symbols, the Brahmi symbols reading a Dravidian term. There are doubts whether it is Kovendha or Kovendhan. Both refer to the identity of a ruler or chieftain. But what is important is there seems to be a phonetical value in these (megalithic) symbols. For instance, the Brahmi ka is often found among the megalithic symbols as well. There are other symbols, which are found (both) in the Brahmi script and the megalithic symbols.
For you must remember that the megaliths found in south Asia have traits similar to those found on the coast in West Asia and may be even in north Africa. Black and red ware have been found from an earlier chronological context all the way from north Africa, West Asia and the late-Harappan context. We should not, therefore, get parochial about the 'indigenous' context of the megaliths.
It is unfortunate that the megalithic monuments happen to be one of the most racialised monuments in south Asia. I have mentioned in my keynote address and elsewhere about how this got entwined with the Dravidian identity.

Tamils, as persons, like everyone else, is native while Tamil culture is not.

The name Koveta is not Prakit. It is comparable to such names as Ko Atan and Ko Putivira occuring in the contemporary Tamil Brahmi inscriptions in South India and has to be read as Ko Veta. IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS EARLY TAMIL, although one cannot rule out the possbility of it being some other Dravidian language. Ko in Tamil and Malayalam means 'King' and in no doubt refers to a cheiftain here.

There is no need to give any prominence to the writings of pseudo-historians and fringe archaeologists who have emerged on both sides of the ethnic divide. Readers will understand if these writers have not been taken seriously in any discussion in this work. As Sudharshan Seneviratne has rightly pointed out, 'such lumpen intellectuals...belong in the dustbin of history'. But there is the need to be concerned about their misrepresentations of history. Some of these are based on misinterpretations of significant literary and archaeological sources of ancient Sri Lankan history. IT IS IMPORTANT TO SET OUR FACES AGAINST SUCH UNSCIENTIFIC MISREPRSENTATIONS OF THE PAST