Origins of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils

[The Last Stand]

I am not sure about KumariKandam BUT the sea can do some crazy shit; check out:

Kerguelen Plateau: 3-4 times the size of japan. a bit south of where KK is supposed to have been but much older than KK. Nothing of this remains today.
Zealandia: New zealand (270K sq.km) is a continent with only 7% above sea level, which means zeelandia= 3.8M sq.km.
Sundaland: large chunks of present day thailand, malaysia, indonesia, vietnam etc are underwater.
and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_lands

Sir as someone who barely escaped during 2004 Tsunami, I do not doubt that the sea is immensely strong, but

As a Tamil, all I ask to Dravidian supremacists is, prove the existence of Kumari Kandam as per the scientific protocol (scientific study, the continental plate, and peer-reviewed before publication and possible artefacts, etc found in the sea) instead of inanely quoting literature which mentions the extent of Kumari Kandam as between a river and a range of hills or size in an unknown unit.

And prove Tamils as the first Humans through proper DNA study instead of just bravado.

 

[Razor]

1. So it doesn't change the facts that Sinhalese originated in the island itself. Unlike the Tamils which are aliens.

2. Tamils are given every equal right which are enjoyed by Sinhalese. What they are denied is a separate country. Because they have no right to ask for such a thing. There is no issue with the earlier Tamils. They have already assimilate into the Sinhalese culture.

3. It further reinforce my view on Tamils. Which is that they are recent arrivals.

1. Nope. The Tamils are not aliens in SL. Why?
If you are looking at genetic origins (which seems to be your claim) both sl sinhalese and sl tamil are predominately same as each other. So same claim to the land for each. If you are looking at language then there are tamil inscriptions in Northern SL which date back to 2nd century BCE, while proto- Sinhalese language came from India a few centuries earlier, in 5th century bce, and later evolved into sinhalese. Tamils have at least the same claim to sl as the sinhalese. Essentially they are not aliens as you claim, because they have been in sl for at least 2 millenia and have maintained a distinct identity.

2. I don't think they completely assimilated, because other wise there wouldn't have been a jaffna kingdom nor a civil war.

3. Not really, because SL tamil differs from ancient tamil.

 

[Razor]

Sir as someone who barely escaped during 2004 Tsunami, I do not doubt that the sea is immensely strong, but

As a Tamil, all I ask to Dravidian supremacists is, prove the existence of Kumari Kandam as per the scientific protocol (scientific study, the continental plate, and peer-reviewed before publication and possible artefacts, etc found in the sea) instead of inanely quoting literature which mentions the extent of Kumari Kandam as between a river and a range of hills or size in an unknown unit.

And prove Tamils as the first Humans through proper DNA study instead of just bravado.

Maybe if you read my first line again. I said "I'm not sure about KK " (Reference see below quote)
So don't ask me these questions.
Because you said that you didn't believe large landmasses could have been flooded and submerged, I just showed that submerged continents are real; not that KK is real.

PS: I also barely escaped the tsunami, same pinch. apparo intha "sir" ellam koncho overaa theriyella.

Reference:

I am not sure about KumariKandam BUT the sea can do some crazy shit; check out:

Kerguelen Plateau: 3-4 times the size of japan. a bit south of where KK is supposed to have been but much older than KK. Nothing of this remains today.
Zealandia: New zealand (270K sq.km) is a continent with only 7% above sea level, which means zeelandia= 3.8M sq.km.
Sundaland: large chunks of present day thailand, malaysia, indonesia, vietnam etc are underwater.
and many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_lands

 

[The Last Stand]

Maybe if you read my first line again. I said "I'm not sure about KK " (Reference see below quote)
So don't ask me these questions.
Because you said that you didn't believe large landmasses could have been flooded and submerged, I just showed that submerged continents are real; not that KK is real.

PS: I also barely escaped the tsunami, same pinch. apparo intha "sir" ellam koncho overaa theriyella.

Reference:

I get what you're talking about.

I am not asking you. I am just making it an open question to anyone with that mindset.

Personally I think KK definitely existed, but if it was just that size then where's the evidence? (NOT ASKING YOU )

P.S. If you find out how old I am you will understand why I use "sir"

 

[dhananjay1]

Sinhalese nationalists are as hilarious as DMK dravidianists. Both peddling outdated pseudo-scientific 'theories' gifted to them by Brits.

 

[HeinzGud]

1. Nope. The Tamils are not aliens in SL. Why?
If you are looking at genetic origins (which seems to be your claim) both sl sinhalese and sl tamil are predominately same as each other. So same claim to the land for each. If you are looking at language then there are tamil inscriptions in Northern SL which date back to 2nd century BCE, while proto- Sinhalese language came from India a few centuries earlier, in 5th century bce, and later evolved into sinhalese. Tamils have at least the same claim to sl as the sinhalese. Essentially they are not aliens as you claim, because they have been in sl for at least 2 millenia and have maintained a distinct identity.

2. I don't think they completely assimilated, because other wise there wouldn't have been a jaffna kingdom nor a civil war.

3. Not really, because SL tamil differs from ancient tamil.

1. Because they have come from Tamilnadu very recently and doesn't have roots to the island of Sri Lanka. That's why they turn to Tamilnadu always. Hence they are alien to the island nation.

The genetics have no meaning when it comes to the inheritance of the land. People need to feel that the land is belonged to them. But the Tamils has shown no such a feeling. They always cling to Tamil only North and East concept.

There are also Roman coins and Nestorians crosses unearthed in Sri Lanka. Does that mean Romans and Nestorians have claim to Sri Lanka also?

The Tamils you are referring to are not the present Tamils who lives in North and East. That is the issue here.

2. Jaffna kingdom was not a Tamil dominated one in the first place. It was created by a Javaka Chandrabhanu. A Malayan or Indonesian origin prince. There are records that the majority of the Jaffna population were Sinhalese until the times of Sankili. Who massacred them. The modern Tamils who claim Jaffna as their own came very later in 17th century from India.

3. Jaffna Tamils have almost the same difference to the ancient Tamils as the Tamilnadu Tamils.

 

[HeinzGud]

WTF

SL entire history is parallel to Hindu-Buddhist history from Kalinga war--- Vijaya--- Prakrit/Pali language---Buddhism---- Oriya settlers-- Later Tamil kingdoms till 17th century/dutch arrival.

As far as Tamils
Tamil kingdoms ruled Malaysia&Indonesia till 16th century(later they converted to Islam) puny SL is not even an opponent.The bad luck is Hindu(Tamil kings in SL) kings never ever imposed their language and culture on others.

Oh really. That's why even Rajendra Chola forgot to ask their help when invading Sri Lanka.

 

[Razor]

1. Because they have come from Tamilnadu very recently and doesn't have roots to the island of Sri Lanka. That's why they turn to Tamilnadu always. Hence they are alien to the island nation.

The genetics have no meaning when it comes to the inheritance of the land. People need to feel that the land is belonged to them. But the Tamils has shown no such a feeling. They always cling to Tamil only North and East concept.

There are also Roman coins and Nestorians crosses unearthed in Sri Lanka. Does that mean Romans and Nestorians have claim to Sri Lanka also?

The Tamils you are referring to are not the present Tamils who lives in North and East. That is the issue here.

You implied in post #20 that Sinhalese were the originals in SL and tamils were different. That is why I "brought in" genetics.

Okay, lets try this one more time.
Both SL tmails and sinhalese are the same people from a biological pov. So take culture: both SL tamil and sinhalese have linguistic origins in Indian mainland and both arrived in lanka before the turn of common era i.e. 0 CE. Both have religious origins in indian mainland again both arriving before turn of common era.
Then how can you say that tamils are aliens in Lanka, and sinhalese are originals?
Just because the british brought in some indentured laborers? (which btw included not just tamils but also other linguistic groups)

 

[HeinzGud]

You implied in post #20 that Sinhalese were the originals in SL and tamils were different. That is why I "brought in" genetics.

Okay, lets try this one more time.
Both SL tmails and sinhalese are the same people from a biological pov. So take culture: both SL tamil and sinhalese have linguistic origins in Indian mainland and both arrived in lanka before the turn of common era i.e. 0 CE. Both have religious origins in indian mainland again both arriving before turn of common era.
Then how can you say that tamils are aliens in Lanka, and sinhalese are originals?
Just because the british brought in some indentured laborers? (which btw included not just tamils but also other linguistic groups)

Because Tamils didn't create their culture in Sri Lanka. Further more Sinhalese didn't come from India either. They originated in the island itself. Tamil generally came from India and settled.

The Sinhalese were forced to toil on every grain of sand and channel every drop of water not only to survive but to turn it into a glorious civilisation. Above all, they fertilised the soil with their blood. This is why the bonds of the Sinhala people to the land are far more stronger than the latter-day claims to a homeland of the Tamils.

With or without the Mahavamsa the Sinhala-Buddhists had a rightful and historical claim to the land because it was they who made both the history and the land. History and the land belongs to those who make it and not to those who come to destroy it. The Mahavamsa is the literary embodiment of the spirit and the soul of the people who created the monumental history recorded in it.

Tamils in Jaffna are brought in by Dutch not by British.

In short Sri Lanka belongs to Sinhalese because Sinhalese made a civilization in the island. Tamils didn't first they just came and assimilated with the Sinhalese. Secondly they were brought in and let to believe that they have a homeland in the island.

 

[Razor]

Because Tamils didn't create their culture in Sri Lanka. Further more Sinhalese didn't come from India either. They originated in the island itself.

No they did not "originate" in the island "itself."

Tamil generally came from India and settled.

Yes, more than 2 thousand years ago and other subsequent migrations. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils )

In short Sri Lanka belongs to Sinhalese because Sinhalese made a civilization in the island. Tamils didn't first they just came and assimilated with the Sinhalese.

They did not assimilate entirely, did they. Some may have but not all. Otherwise Tamil wouldn't be the language of jaffna kingdom. And Sinhalese developed their culture from ideas/foundations that came from mainland india. Similarly tamil culture of SL developed differently than other parts which spoke tamil, in indian mainland; but SL being so close to TN and therefore frequent interactions with TN, implied they maintained a touch with their original culture unlike the sinhalese.

 

[Razor]

Anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka

Despite India's alliance with the Sri Lankan government during the Sri Lankan Civil War, anti-Indian hatreds and prejudices are fairly common among the ethnic Sinhalese, escalated by Buddhist Nationalism and militancy. Attitudes towards Tamils are associated with Indophobia and Tamils are labeled "Indian spies". Indian traders and businessmen, patronized by the Tamil minority, have been shunned and attacked by the Sinhalese.[64]

During the 1950s, discriminatory measures taken by the Sinhala regime targeted Indian traders (typically from the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala), forcing the traders out of Sri Lanka. Following this, trade with India was deliberately scuttled, as was the sale of Indian magazines.[64]

The Indophobia of that era led the Sinhala government to go after the so-called Tamils of ‘recent’ Indian origin. These immigrant plantation workers were imported by the British more than a hundred years earlier and had already been stripped of citizenship by earlier legislation—the first Legislative Act of the newly independent country in 1948. Since then, these Tamils lived as ‘stateless’ persons and many returned to India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Indian_sentiment#Sri_Lanka

 

[HeinzGud]

No they did not "originate" in the island "itself."

Yes. Sinhalese did. If not there would've being Sinhalese tribe in India or elsewhere. But there is no such a tribe. What is your presumption on Sinhalese didn't originated in Sri Lanka?

Yes, more than 2 thousand years ago and other subsequent migrations. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils )

It doesn't give Tamil any right what so ever. They settled and assimilated with Sinhalese people. They didn't create a civilization.

They did not assimilate. Otherwise Tamil wouldn't be the language of jaffna kingdom. And Sinhalese developed their culture from ideas/foundations that came from mainland india. Similarly tamils developed distinct culture in SL, but being so close to TN and therefore frequent interactions with TN, implied they maintained a touch with their original culture unlike the sinhalese.

Who says Tamil was the language of the Jaffna kingdom. It's just a presumption. BTW who cares about where the ideas came from. What is important is the unique identity that has being created. Otherwise India won't even have anything to claim of their own.

Tamils didn't created any distinct culture. It's just the Tamil culture brought in from Tamilnadu. It may be distinct to Sinhalese. But it's not distinct to the Tamil from anywhere else.

Your final point debunk everything you say upto now. If Tamil interacted and maintained a touch with Tamilnadu why didn't they bother to wipe Sinhalese out of Sri Lanka? They could've easily done that with the numerically superiority they possessed.

 

[Razor]

Yes. Sinhalese did. If not there would've being Sinhalese tribe in India or elsewhere. But there is no such a tribe. What is your presumption on Sinhalese didn't originated in Sri Lanka?



It doesn't give Tamil any right what so ever. They settled and assimilated with Sinhalese people. They didn't create a civilization.



Who says Tamil was the language of the Jaffna kingdom. It's just a presumption. BTW who cares about where the ideas came from. What is important is the unique identity that has being created. Otherwise India won't even have anything to claim of their own.

Tamils didn't created any distinct culture. It's just the Tamil culture brought in from Tamilnadu. It may be distinct to Sinhalese. But it's not distinct to the Tamil from anywhere else.

We could keep arguing about these things all day. I already made some points, I am not satisfied with your replies and obviously you aren't satisfied with mine either. I'll leave it at that. I'll just make a quick point regarding below.

Your final point debunk everything you say upto now. If Tamil interacted and maintained a touch with Tamilnadu why didn't they bother to wipe Sinhalese out of Sri Lanka? They could've easily done that with the numerically superiority they possessed.

Debunk everything? Not really.
For example chera, chola & pandya, were fighting in spite of all being tamils (with different dialects.)
So just being same language doesn't mean they'll always be helping each other, several other factors are at play.
And you make it seem as though
1. ancient people had no other job other than wiping each other out; not tru. Except for nomadic peoples most other people were primarily interested in trade rather than war.
2. "wiping" out a people is something very easy. Not at all true.

 

[HeinzGud]

We could keep arguing about these things all day. I already made some points, I am not satisfied with your replies and obviously you aren't satisfied with mine either. I'll leave it at that. I'll just make a quick point regarding below.

The thing is you have nothing to back your claim up. But I do.

Debunk everything? Not really.
For example chera, chola & pandya, were fighting in spite of all being tamils (with different dialects.)
So just being same language doesn't mean they'll always be helping each other, several other factors are at play.
And you make it seem as though
1. ancient people had no other job other than wiping each other out; not tru. Except for nomadic peoples most other people were primarily interested in trade rather than war.
2. "wiping" out a people is something very easy. Not at all true.

Same story. They were all Tamils and Sinhalese are also similar to Tamils. They all fought for land and their is no reason at all the Tamils in Sri Lanka not to fight with Sinhalese. Even when Chola empire invaded the Sinhala lands they had a chance to conquer Sinhalese lands. Then in the times of Pandyas. When Sinhalese were at their weakest. The so called Sri Lankan Tamils didn't do anything. They went against the natural way of life. I find it bit odd.

 

[Razor]

The thing is you have nothing to back your claim up. But I do.

The thing is you are repeating the same claims again and again. That is not backing up your claim. You saying that Sinhalese originated in the "island itself" (and not from mainland india) and that 2 thousand years of tamils still renders SL tamils as foreigners and repeating that again and again is not backing up your claim. And I don't have time for circle jerks. I'm not even tamil, there are many tamils around here, maybe you try that circle jerk game with them.

Same story. They were all Tamils and Sinhalese are also similar to Tamils. They all fought for land and their is no reason at all the Tamils in Sri Lanka not to fight with Sinhalese. Even when Chola empire invaded the Sinhala lands they had a chance to conquer Sinhalese lands. Then in the times of Pandyas. When Sinhalese were at their weakest. The so called Sri Lankan Tamils didn't do anything. They went against the natural way of life. I find it bit odd.

You aren't making much sense. First you said that ancient tamils from TN should have hepled the SL tamils in conquering and wiping out sinhala and that since sinhala have not been wiped out it is proof of tamils being "foreign". Then I pointed out such a relationship may not have existed b/w tn tamils and sl tamils in ancient times and now you are saying sl tamils should any way have conquered and wiped out sinhala and since they haven't done that sinhala are originals.
So in a piece of land if two peoples exist, and if one hasn't wiped the other out then the former isn't original. Seriously don't have time for this nonsense.

 

[HeinzGud]

The thing is you are repeating the same claims again and again. That is not backing up your claim. You saying that Sinhalese originated in the "island itself" (and not from mainland india) and that 2 thousand years of tamils still renders SL tamils as foreigners and repeating that again and again is not backing up your claim. And I don't have time for circle jerks. I'm not even tamil, there are many tamils around here, maybe you try that circle jerk game with them.

You say Sinhalese originated in mainland India. Therefore it is you who should bring forth any evidence to support your theory. Secondly you say there were Tamils in Sri Lanka for 2000 years. Again you should come up with evidence to support that theory. Maybe it's time I should bring up some facts to back me up. Unless of course your ready to listen to them.

You aren't making much sense. First you said that ancient tamils from TN should have hepled the SL tamils in conquering and wiping out sinhala and that since sinhala have not been wiped out it is proof of tamils being "foreign". Then I pointed out such a relationship may not have existed b/w tn tamils and sl tamils in ancient times and now you are saying sl tamils should any way have conquered and wiped out sinhala and since they haven't done that sinhala are originals.
So in a piece of land if two peoples exist, and if one hasn't wiped the other out then the former isn't original. Seriously don't have time for this nonsense.

Well it's just general human behavior. No competing power could exist in a small place like Sri Lanka. Therefore either one of them should conquer the other. The perfect example is Tamilnadu as you mentioned it. If your theory is correct then Chera, Pandya and Chola should live as seperate entities in TN right now.

So I guess it is evidently clear who speaks nonsense here.

 

[Razor]

You say Sinhalese originated in mainland India. Therefore it is you who should bring forth any evidence to support your theory. Secondly you say there were Tamils in Sri Lanka for 2000 years. Again you should come up with evidence to support that theory. Maybe it's time I should bring up some facts to back me up. Unless of course your ready to listen to them.

Well it's just general human behavior. No competing power could exist in a small place like Sri Lanka. Therefore either one of them should conquer the other. The perfect example is Tamilnadu as you mentioned it. If your theory is correct then Chera, Pandya and Chola should live as seperate entities in TN right now.

So I guess it is evidently clear who speaks nonsense here.

Yes, it is evident and it is you.
Chera, chola pandya(ccp), they did fight each other but they also did co-exist at the same time for a considerable duration of time. And thereby breaking your logic that they should have destroyed each other and that only one of them is original.
Now today, none of them exist as political entities but their descendants do, in various states of South india.

Btw none of these are ideas that you put forth (like only one power can rule at a time) are actual scientific evidence and "backing up your claims"

 

[Sword]

The thing is you are repeating the same claims again and again. That is not backing up your claim. You saying that Sinhalese originated in the "island itself" (and not from mainland india) and that 2 thousand years of tamils still renders SL tamils as foreigners and repeating that again and again is not backing up your claim. And I don't have time for circle jerks. I'm not even tamil, there are many tamils around here, maybe you try that circle jerk game with them.


You aren't making much sense. First you said that ancient tamils from TN should have hepled the SL tamils in conquering and wiping out sinhala and that since sinhala have not been wiped out it is proof of tamils being "foreign". Then I pointed out such a relationship may not have existed b/w tn tamils and sl tamils in ancient times and now you are saying sl tamils should any way have conquered and wiped out sinhala and since they haven't done that sinhala are originals.
So in a piece of land if two peoples exist, and if one hasn't wiped the other out then the former isn't original. Seriously don't have time for this nonsense.

You're not making any sense, because you're retarded.

 

[Razor]

You're not making any sense, because you're retarded.

Only smart people can understand what I was talking about.
I see you are pissed at me because of the Lion vs. Tiger and Lion vs. Cheetah threads and you are taking out on me, here. Nice one bro.

Let me guess this is the post that pissed off the Lion-fetishist: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...cheetahs-not-indigenous-to-india.49840/page-6

 

[Sword]

Only smart people can understand, what I was talking about.
I see you are pissed at me because of the Lion vs. Tiger and Lion vs. Cheetah threads and you are taking out on me, here. Nice one bro.

Just admit it, you're mentally retarded.