6 May, 2021

Blog

Why The Presidential Task Force On Archaeology In The Eastern Province & The Future Of The Tamils

By C.V. Wigneswaran

C. V. Wigneswaran

Someone asked me: What was the reason that prompted the Government to appoint a Presidential Task Force to protect archaeological sites in the Eastern Province? Who are its members? Will it affect the future of the Tamils?

My response was: The purposes as per Gazette Extraordinary dated 02.06.2020 are:

1. To Identify sites of archaeological importance in the Eastern Province,

2. To Identify and implement an appropriate program for the management of archaeological heritage by conserving and restoring such identified sites and antiquities,

3. To Identify the extent of land that should be allocated for such archaeological sites and take necessary measures to allocate them properly and legally, and

4. To Preserve the cultural value of sites of archaeological importance and promote the uniqueness of Sri Lanka, both locally and internationally, and make recommendations for the promotion of such heritages.

The Task Force is authorized to investigate and issue directions as may be necessary in connection with the functions entrusted to it and submit reports from time to time.

Further, the Presidential Task Force on Archaeological Heritage Management in the Eastern Province may issue instructions or request that all Government Officers and other persons requesting assistance in the provision of services, comply with such instructions.(sic.)

The President instructed all Government Officers and others to provide all possible assistance and provide all information that may be provided and directed the Task Force to report to him, all cases of delay or default on the part of any Public Officer or Officer of any Ministry, Government Department, State Corporation or other similar institution in the discharge of duties and responsibilities assigned to such public officer or such institution.

Eleven members of the Task Force on Archaeological Heritage Management in the Eastern Province include:

1. Archaeological Chakravarthi Ven. Ellawala Medhananda Thero

2. The Chief Prelate for the Northern and Eastern two Provinces, Chief Sanganayake of Thamankaduwa Division and Chief Incumbent of Arisimalai Aranya, Ven. Panamure Thilakawansha Thero

3. Major General (Retired) Kamal Gunaratne, Secretary to the Ministry of Defense

4. Dr. Senarath Bandara Dissanayake, Director-General of Archaeology

5. Ms. Chandra Herath, Land Commissioner General

6. Ms. A.L.S.C. Perera, Surveyor General

7. Prof. Raj Kumar Somadeva, Senior Lecturer, University of  Kelaniya

8. Prof. Kapila Gunawardena, Medical Faculty, University of  Peradeniya

9. Deshabandu Thennakoon, Senior DIG, Western Province

10. H.E.M.W.G. Dissanayake, Provincial Land Commissioner, Eastern Province

11. Dilith Jayaweera, Chairman of Derana Media Network

Responding to your question, the purpose appears to be to write a distorted history in favor of the Sinhala Buddhists, to expropriate areas in predominantly traditional Tamil areas under the pretext of preservation of archeological sites, erase traces of Tamilian and Saivite history, culture & heritage and make out that the Eastern Province was always Sinhala Buddhist and the Tamil and Muslim immigrants had expropriated Sinhala Buddhist lands and they must be returned to the State.

Wrong history has been doled out by the Sinhalese Historians hitherto which have conditioned the Sinhala Buddhists to believe this country was earlier Sinhala Buddhist and the later Tamil and Muslim immigrants are asking too many rights. But the fact is that this country was originally Saivite Tamil. After Buddhism was introduced many Tamils became followers of the Buddhist teachings (Demala Baudhayos). Centuries later the Tamil Buddhists preferred to return back to Saivism particularly after the Bakthi Movement was initiated by the Nayanmars in South India. The original inhabitants of this Island were the Tamil speaking people. They were Saivites and the ancient Lingams viz. Naguleswaram, Thiruketheeswaram, Muneswaram, Thirukoneswaram  and Thondeeswaram (Dondra) still with us are proof of pre Buddhistic Saivism. But history has been  distorted.

Professor Sudharshan Seneviratne has already warned us about the dangers facing historical and archeological research here. This statement by him appeared in the Island Paper of 4th August 2001. It is as follows: The future of both historical and archaeological studies in Sri Lanka is at cross roads facing a dilemma of priorities, choices, resource persons, attitudes and above all quality of research. It is indeed reasonable to question the extent to which a new breed of charlatans and political animals in these disciplines are responsible for the emergence of (an) ahistorical attitude and an anti-historical bias in schools, at seats of higher education and the country in general. “Anti –Orwellian “ historians in this country who have slithered their way through “corridors of power “ have not only compromised the very fundamentals of intellectual decency but are now in the process of subverting the study of history for personal ends and political expediency.”

Professor Leslie Gunawardana too has said as follows: A trend which appears to be gathering strength is represented by some researchers in the field of archaeology and history who see in their work the fulfillment of a duty to highlight the splendour of the Sinhala or the Tamil group as the case may be, and to bolster the claims of one’s own group to disputed territory. While it has led to a growth of interest in research related to ethnic studies, this development has brought in its wake a noteworthy relaxation of intellectual rigour in research.” (Gunawardana 1994 ; 213 )

Many so called Archaeologists and Historians today appear to fall into the category of the new breed mentioned by Professor Sudharshan Seneviratne. Such Archaeologists and Historians finding place per chance in the above said Task Force would ensure that the Task Force in their work would see the fulfillment of a duty to highlight the splendour of the Sinhala Buddhists and bolster the claims of the Sinhala Buddhists to disputed territory.

Certain questions arise when one peruses the purposes set out in the Gazette Extraordinary.

Firstly what steps have been taken to identify Hindu, Christian and Muslim sites of archaeological importance? Has the President included Historians and Archaeologists from these three categories? Do the present Members of the Commission understand ancient Tamil language leave alone modern Tamil? Tamil was the lingua franca of the entire Island long before the introduction of Buddhism. It were the Tamils who received Buddhism into the Country. A thorough knowledge of ancient Tamil is absolutely necessary to conduct archaeological investigations into the pre Buddhistic times. Without Tamil speaking Historians in equal numbers finding place in the Task Force how is archaeological investigation going to be done properly? Or has the President made up his mind that there cannot be any archaeological remains except Sinhala Buddhist in the Eastern Province? He appears to believe that there could be no remains of the period of the Demala Baudhayos. A proper investigation should no doubt confirm the antiquity of the Tamil speaking people in the North and East. But is the President giving a chance for a proper investigation? His purpose seems to be indirectly delineated by the type of Members included in the Commission.

Secondly have the consent and concurrence of the Tamil speaking people of the North and East been obtained before appointing such a Commission? Such consent should come from the Eastern Provincial Council. Is it to avoid having to ask for their consent that this is being done at a time when the EPC has gone into hibernation? One may ask why their consent? The post Buddha Hindus jettisoned Buddhism and went back to Hinduism. They are no more interested in Buddhistic revival in Hindu areas. So are the Christians and the Muslims not interested in Buddhist revival in traditional Tamil speaking areas. The Tamil speaking form the majority in the Eastern Province. Therefore in a democratic country such consultation is necessary.  May be forcible conversion to Buddhism seems to be in the agenda of the powers that be.

Thirdly is it not a fact that the President through this Commission is trying to hurriedly expropriate traditional Tamil lands and hand them over to Sinhala Buddhist organizations with an ulterior motive of changing the demography of the Eastern Province? We brought this fact out in our recent Land Grabbing International Zoom Conference which Hon’ Madame Navaneetham Pillai too participated.

Fourthly such open land grabbing and forcible eviction of the Tamil speaking people from their traditional habitats coupled with  the  forcible construction of Buddhist places of worship in non Buddhistic areas would amount to genocide.

Article 11 of the Genocide Convention states as follows:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The International Community will no doubt take cognizance of such high handed acts of the Government and there is every possibility that such activities could be fore runners to the Balkanisation of the Country.

By the appointment of the Pan Sinhala Presidential Task Force definitely the future of the Tamil speaking people of the North and East is in jeopardy.

*Justice C.V. Wigneswaran, M.P. Jaffna District.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 7
    5

    “Anti –Orwellian “ historians in this country …….. have not only compromised the very fundamentals of intellectual decency but are now in the process of subverting the study of history for personal ends and political expediency.”
    Quite true what Dr. Senevirathna says. But this applies not only to archaeology but even medicine and science, which have been hijacked by charlatans like Padeniya and Jayasumana.
    Inconvenient parts of our history are covered up, like the fact that Buddhist clergy have been hijacking or destroying Hindu temples for centuries.

    • 3
      1

      old codger

      While you are on Orwell, here is something that many in this forum would find useful except, EE, Soman, …. HLD M, Prince of Darkness, … SJ… :
      What Orwellian really means
      By Noah Talvin – TED Ed
      https://www.ted.com/talks/noah_tavlin_what_orwellian_really_means/transcript?language=en#t-114539

      • 1
        0

        Native,
        Like a Humanitarian Operation?

        • 0
          0

          OC,

          Archaeological excavations in the North & East are conducted by Sinhala-Buddhists, Buddha statues and Prakrit inscriptions appears from nowhere (bury and rediscover) whereas, whenever they discover statues of Siva or Tamil Brahmi inscriptions, it disappears (goes missing) or gets misinterpreted.
          All those ancient Buddhists heritage sites in the North and East do not belong to the Sinhalese. They are NOT Sinhala-Buddhist heritage sites but Tamil-Buddhist heritage sites. They are the remnants left by the Tamil-Buddhists of the past. The Sinhalese are trying to put a ‘Sinhala’ label to Tamil Buddhist sites of North & East.
          It is obvious to anyone with a little bit of intelligence that erecting Buddha statues in Non-Buddhist North & East predominantly occupied by Hindus and Muslims is not meant for worship or veneration. First, a Buddha`s statue is installed which is then followed by Buddhist monk (s) taking residence nearby. Since the monks need the support of lay Sinhalese for their survival, illegal Sinhala thugs are brought in from the south to form a new colony.

    • 2
      0

      Old codger
      For all I know Buddhist clergy have been establishing Kovils inside temples for centuries to the chargin of many purists.
      Be honest. Buddhist do worship some Hindu gods, have a place for them inside their temples, visit Hindu Covils while the Hindus display an enormous respect for the Buddha.
      One thing though. They don’t like each other’s priests.

      Soma

      • 0
        0

        Soma,
        As the Mahavamsa says in its preface, you should read this “for your pious edification”:

        “Apparently King Mahasen (277-304 AD) destroyed the (Trincomalee) Hindu Temple, According to the Mahavamsa and founded three viharas, destroying temples of the (brahmanical) gods: the Gokanna (vihara), (and another vihara) in Erakavilla, (and a third) in the village of the Brahman Kalanda;13”

        http://mahavamsa.org/mahavamsa/original-version/37-king-mahasena/

        To be fair, Mahasen was even- handed and destroyed some Buddhist Viharas as well. I suppose there were no Muslims at the time.
        You really should read the Mahavamsa with an open mind. It’s like reading the Bible with an open mind.

  • 6
    8

    “Responding to your question, the purpose appears to be to write a distorted history in favor of the Sinhala Buddhists, to expropriate areas in predominantly traditional Tamil areas …”

    Nothing but BS!
    North East of Sinhale was where Sinhala Kingdoms Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa existed that were destroyed by Dravida invaders who invaded this country 52 times forcing Sinhalayo to retreat to South. After Portuguese occupied the coastal areas of the country they brought Dravida coolies from Hindusthan to Yapanaya to work in tobacco plantations. Demalu who were dead scared of malaria were confined to Yapanaya peninsula until British dragged and settled them in the East. So, a large majority of Demalu in North East are descendants of coolies brought to Yapanaya by Portuguese. The rest are descendants of Dravida invaders or illegal immigrants.

    There are no traditional Tamil areas in Sinhale. Tamil areas are in Tamil Nadu. Demalu are occupying land in the North East where Sinhalayo lived for thousands of years. It is ‘Paradeshi’ Demalu who try to distort the history of Sinhale, the Land of Sinhalayo and Vedda Eththo because they do not have any evidences to prove that they are indigenous people in this country.

    • 4
      2

      EE
      Attaching Sinhalayo to Vedda Eththo is to hitch a ride on an authentically indigenous people.
      Others, be they R, T or M, are all immigrants and descendants of mixed birth.

      • 5
        0

        During the ancient period, everything (Race, religion, culture, language, etc.) came to Sri Lanka either from or via South India. Out of the early South Asian tribes, you will also find Nagas, Yakshas (Yakkas), and Devas who spread (migrated and settled) in many parts of India and in Sri Lanka (known in Sri Lanka as Hela/Eela/ila tribes). According to Prof. of Archeology and history Ramachandra Dikshitar, the Naga tribe spread from North East India (Assam) to other parts of India including South India and Sri Lanka. The Nagas were traders who rose to prominence not only in the Eastern parts of South India (Nagapattinam, Nagercoil, etc.) but also in the Western part of South India (ancient Malabar/Chera) and in Sri Lanka (NakaNadu/Nagadipa). The Yaksha (Yakka in Pali) tribes were living in the area surrounding Mount Kailash of Himalayas in North India. Their king, Kuvera, was a worshipper of God Siva. They migrated and settled around mountains and remote dense forests of Sri Lanka. The Deva people/clan were from the North Western part of India (Gujarat) who came via Malabar (Chera/Sera) to Sri Lanka. None of them came direct from North India to Sri Lanka, they all came via the massive and powerful South India. They must have spoken both North Indian Prakrit and South Indian Dravidian languages.
        Continued…

        • 5
          0

          Continuation from above…
          The distinguished scholar and historian Dr. Paul E. Pieris in his paper to the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society said, “It stands to reason that a country which is only 30 miles from South India and which would have been seen by fisher men every morning as they sailed out to catch their fish would have been occupied as soon as the continent was peopled by men who understood how to sail.”
          According to the Buddhist scholar Dr. Hikosaka, Buddhism might have gone to Sri Lanka from South India by sea-route, a route by which one can reach Sri Lanka easily. King Asoka’s son Mahinda who was responsible for the introduction of Buddhism in South India and Sri Lanka. Mahinda is said to have erected seven viharas at Kaveripattinum, the capital of Chola while he was on his way to Sri Lanka.
          Even the European colonial rulers, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British came to Sri Lanka via South India.
          The Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa (biased towards North India against the South) were written several centuries after the introduction of Buddhism, Pali language, Bhrami script, Buddhist culture and Buddhist architecture. The Mahavihara monks who wrote the Pali chronicles have imagined/visualized a mass ‘Aryan migration’ from North India (bypassing South India) during the proto-historic period.

          • 4
            0

            Vijaya and his 700 followers who were forced to leave their own country (Bhārata/Hindustan) came to the island looking for shelter. They were credited for creating/forming the Sinhala race in the island and establishing a separate Tambapanni kingdom at Anuradapura. Prior to the advent of the Sinhala race, there were other human beings (non-Sinhalese) inhabiting the island when Vijaya set foot, as I have elaborated above. The Sinhala race that Vijaya and his 700 men formed produced their progeny only after importing females from one of the South Indian kingdoms (not Sinhala but Pandyan Tamil women). There is no record that Vijaya and his men brought females from where they came or took women from the ila/Eela/Hela people who lived in the island (except Kuweni from the Yakkas for a short period). Besides the then inhabitants (before Vijaya) not being Sinhala, neither were they, nor Vijaya and his men, Buddhist as Buddhism had not arrived in Sri Lanka then, today, it is absolutely hilarious that the progeny of Vijay and his men (Sinhalese) wants to call this island Sinhala-Buddhist just because they became a majority by enlarging their population after mixing with everything that landed on the shores of the island.

          • 2
            5

            Lanka Canuc,
            No wonder you are taking this rubbish because you have not read any of the findings of archeologists P.E.P. Deraniyagala, S.U. Deraniyagala and Raj Somadeva who conducted research on Pre-History of Sinhale/Sri Lanka. Based on their research they have concluded with scientific evidences that Sinhalayo evolved from Homo sapiens who lived in the Southern Coastal areas about 125,000 years ago. Sinhala language which is not spoken in any other place in the world was developed by Sinhalayo.

            • 6
              1

              EE
              The archeologists P.E.P. Deraniyagala and S.U. Deraniyagala have NEVER EVER said anywhere that the Sinhalayo evolved from those who lived in the Southern Coastal areas about 125,000 years ago. Dr. Deraniyagala tested the DNA/genetics of all the remains of pre-historic mankind in Sri Lanka (including the Balangoda Manawakaya). It was found that the Vedda Eththo had a certain percentage of admixture with the pre-historic mankind in Sri Lanka whereas the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims had ZERO admixture with the pre-historic mankind of Sri Lanka indicating very clearly that the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims are immigrants to Sri Lanka.

              Raj Somadeva is highly paid by the authorities to misinterpret his research. What Raj Somadeva interprets or rather misinterprets (his own assumptions) has no scientific evidence. Archaeology has always been political in Sri Lanka and it’s no different even today. However, I have never come across Raj Somadeva claiming anywhere that Sinhalayo evolved from those who lived in the Southern Coastal areas about 125,000 years ago.

              You are a Blatant Liar and this is once again one of your biggest lies. Simply by repeating the same lie over and over you cannot make it true. Stop fooling people.

              • 1
                4

                Lanka Canuc,
                There was a guy called Amarasiri who talked the same rubbish as you do. I thrashed his arguments and he ran away from CT. Are you a reincarnation of Amarasiri? If not, I am not interested in restarting the same debate to educate another Demala person who utter the same rubbish. If you want to know what I told Amarasiri go and read my replies to his comments.

                • 4
                  0

                  EE
                  When caught with your pants down, looking for escape routes. You are a Pathological liar. All what you blabber here is nothing but lies picked up from thin air. You do not have any evidence or links to prove any of what you blabber. Who/What Amarasiri?? Who cares what your lies/reply to Amarasiri? Don’t talk gibberish. Repeating the same lies over and over will not make it true.

              • 2
                0

                LC
                By now you should know that EE is highly skilled at fabricating “facts” out of thin air. Ask him for proof , and he runs away. “Blatant liar” is an understatement.

                • 3
                  0

                  OC
                  Both P.E.P. Deraniyagala and S.U. Deraniyagala were highly respected archeologists and their research is totally unbiased. This moron (EE) is lying to the extent of making them look cheap like Raj Somadeva (the biased researcher).

            • 4
              2

              Eagle Blind Eye

              “…………………………. S.U. Deraniyagala and Raj Somadeva who conducted research on Pre-History of Sinhale/Sri Lanka. “

              Its so happened I have access to
              The Prehistory of Sri Lanka. An Ecological Perspective. Part I and II.
              DERANIYAGALA, S. U.

              Could you refer us to the page/chapter number to support your extraordinary claim.

              • 5
                2

                Eagle Blind Eye

                Please let us have details of Raj Somadeva’s research papers/books connected to your claim?

                I have listened to his lectures.
                Nothing much in them.

                • 2
                  0

                  Native,
                  You really expect EE to get his grandchildren to Google all that stuff?
                  Good luck!

      • 3
        6

        SJ,
        You are wrong. Archeologists who have done research on pre-history of Sinhale/Ceylon/Sri Lanka say with scientific evidences that both Sinhalayo and Vedda Eththo evolved in this country. Sinhala language which is spoken only in Sinhale was developed by Sinhalayo. If you can understand Sinhala, go to You Tube and watch ‘Unlimited History’ video.

        • 4
          2

          SJ

          All the latest scientific research/evidence on DNA/genetics proves beyond any doubt that Sinhalayo and Vedda Eththo have no connection what so ever. Vedda Eththo were early immigrants (Yaksha/Yakka tribes) from Bhārata/Hindustan where as Sinhalayo are recent immigrants from North and South India. Vijaya and his 700 followers from North India after importing females from one of the South Indian kingdoms created/formed the Sinhalayo.

          • 2
            0

            LC
I do not know if you are objecting to anything in my first sentence: “Attaching Sinhalayo to Vedda Eththo is to hitch a ride on an authentically indigenous people.”
If it is the typo in the next sentence which should be “Others, be they S T or M, are all immigrants and descendants of mixed birth”, I regret it.
*
You say that “Vedda Eththo were early immigrants from Bhārata/Hindustan”.
Was there a Bhārata/Hindustan state or people ever, until after the British unified a land mass as a colony? (Asoka’s empire in South Asia was not identified that way either. Nor were Akbar’s and Rajarajan’s.)
Since humanity did not originate in India, all Indian ethnic groups would be immigrants from who knows where.
*
Modern humans are said to have arrived in India as early as 75,000 years ago, but the oldest archeological evidence dates to around 34,000 years ago. Archaeological evidence of a matching period exists for this island (which may have been a peninsular extension of the South Indian land mass).
*
Yakkas and Nagas are spoken of (if in early Tamil literature I doubt); but there is little to identify their physiology.
Of those who exist, Vedda Eththo have been here much earlier than all others.

            • 2
              1

              SJ
              Vedda Eththo are believed to be Kuweni’s descendants from the Yaksha/Yakka tribe. The Yaksha (Yakka in Pali) tribes were living in the area surrounding Mount Kailash of Himalayas in North India. They migrated and settled around mountains and remote dense forests of Sri Lanka during the ancient period. At that time, Bhārata/Hindustan did not exist and Lanka would have been attached to today’s India.

        • 3
          2

          Eagle Blind Eye

          “Archeologists who have done research on pre-history of Sinhale/Ceylon/Sri Lanka say with scientific evidences that both Sinhalayo and Vedda Eththo evolved in this country.”

          Could we have evidence to support your fantasy.

          “Sinhala language which is spoken only in Sinhale was developed by Sinhalayo.”

          Parts of Sinhala language is spoken in South India, North India, Portugal, UK, ……. Holland, ….

          • 3
            1

            Native,

            “Parts of Sinhala language is spoken in South India, North India, Portugal, UK, ……. Holland, …”
            Brilliant! I’m still rolling on the floor.

    • 5
      2

      Blabbering nonsense and repeating the same nonsense over and over is not going to make it a fact/truth. Which history book talks of ‘Sinhale’? There is no evidence what so ever to prove ‘Sinhale’.
      Neither the Northern Kingdom of Anuradapura nor the Eastern Kingdom of Polanaruwa (what the Cholas established) or the Southern kingdom of Rohana were ever known as ‘Sinhale’ or ‘Sinhala kingdom’. All the chronicles (Mahawamsa, Deepawamsa) were written in Pali (Sinhala language did not exist) that a Sinhalese can neither read nor understand. Mahavamsa says Mahinda Thero preached Buddhism to the people of the island in Dipa basa (NOT ‘Sinhala basa’). None of these history books say anything about a Sinhala country (Sinhale) or a Sinhala kingdom or a Sinhala king or a Sinhala civilization or a Sinhala nation.
      The early foreign traders (before the 12th century) from Arabia, Persia, Rome, China and so on called Sri Lanka by many different names but NOT ‘Sinhale’ and NONE of them mentioned about the existence of a Sinhala Kingdom/King or a Sinhala nation.
      Separate Tamil and Sinhala kingdoms came into existence only after the 12th century AD (after the Cholas left), before that there were neither Sinhala kingdoms nor Tamil kingdoms in Sri Lanka but of course Buddhism (including the worship of Hindu Gods) was the main religion for both Sinhalese and Tamils.

      • 4
        0

        LC
        All who declare ownership of this land for millennia, based on claims of some mythological fiction, are, as you say, “blabbering nonsense and repeating the same nonsense over and over”.

      • 0
        1

        Lanka Canuck,
        “All the chronicles (Mahawamsa, Deepawamsa) were written in Pali (Sinhala language did not exist) that a Sinhalese can neither read nor understand.
        —-
        Ven. Mahanama used records kept by Buddhist monks, documents written in Sinhala by Buddhist monks and folklore as reference materials to write Mahawansa.
        Have you heard about the documents called ‘Seehala Attakatha’ used by Ven. Mahanama as reference material to write Mahawansa?

        • 4
          1

          EE
          What a Joke!
          If the Mahavamsa is the history of the Sinhalese, what good does it make to the Sinhalese in translating it from Sihalabhasa into a language (Pali) that they (Sinhalese) cannot understand? LOL!
          What did Mahanama Thero do with the so called “Sihala atthakatha” after translating to Pali? The Mahavamsa does not say anything about a “Sihala atthakatha”. It is the 13th century AD commentary to the Mahavamsa by an unknown author known as the ‘Tika’ to interpret the Mahavamsa talks about “Sihala atthakatha”. He must be someone similar to you.

          • 0
            2

            Lanka Canuck,
            You have got mixed up ‘Mahawansa Attakatha’ with ‘Seehala Attakatha’.
            Dravida invaders have burnt ‘Seehala Attakatha’ along with hundreds of other documents.
            Pali became the common language of Therawada Buddhists. Ven. Buddhagosha translate ‘Thripitaka’ written in Sinhala to Pali.

            • 0
              0

              EE
              There is nothing called ‘Mahawansa Attakatha’. You find ONLY up ‘Mahawansa’ written by Ven. Mahanama Thero. Then there is also something called the ‘Mahawansa Tika’ written by an unknown author in the 13th century. It is the ‘Mahawansa Tika’ that talks about a mysterious ‘Sihala Attakatha’ (which never existed). If ‘Sihala Attakatha’ was the history of the Sinhalese, then why did Mahanama Thero translate it to Pali that the Sinhalese cannot read or understand? He could have kept it in Sinhala so that the Sinhalayo could read it. If the Dravida invaders burnt the ‘Sihala Attakatha’ after Mahanama Thero translated it to Pali, why didn’t they burn the Mahavamsa? You may be able to fool a few Sinhalayo with your stupid jokes but not others.
              BTW, Ven. Buddhagosha NEVER translated ‘Thripitaka’ from Sinhala to Pali. Someone has written a prologue (most probably very much later) to Buddhagosha’s Pali translation of ‘Visuddhimagga’, and it is in this prologue that it is mentioned about Sinhala.

            • 0
              0

              Eagle,
              “Dravida invaders have burnt ‘Seehala Attakatha’ along with hundreds of other documents.”
              So, really there isn’t any Seehala aththakatha. What a lame excuse!

  • 6
    2

    Dilith Jayaweera may have been included in this list so as to ensure that the Archaeological findings can be traded on the Stock Market!

  • 4
    4

    Some retard here in CT wanted to know the meaning of ethnic cleansing.

  • 3
    4

    These moves have nothing to do with Archaeology. The Government is settling South Indian Tamils (ie Sinhalese according to Rohan25) and low caste Dravidian settlers (ie Sinhalese according to Pandi Kutti) in predominantly Tamil areas. Which Tamil can argue with that policy?

    • 1
      2

      Good one Paul.

    • 3
      0

      Paul

      ” The Government is settling South Indian Tamils (ie Sinhalese according to Rohan25) and low caste Dravidian settlers (ie Sinhalese according to Pandi Kutti) in predominantly Tamil areas. Which Tamil can argue with that policy?”

      There are a few questions pertaining to your assertion.
      Will they be counted as Tamils, Sinhalese or Sinhala/Buddhists in the next population census?
      What is the primary purpose of their displacement?

      Why cannot these people be settled in areas close to their village or town?

      What is the guarantee that these migrants are not hardcore criminals, war criminals, pedophiles, rapists, absentee fathers, Gota’s Gundas, drug peddlers, arsonists, …… were they subjected to any screening procedure?

      What do they contribute to their new adopted village/town …. or what do they bring to these new areas?

      In the subsequent elections are they going to vote for a local home grown candidate or the one who is being planted by the Sinhala/Buddhists/fascists, for example Sunil Ratnayake, …. ?

      How many Sinhala/Buddhist Vihares are being planned to be built?

      How many Saffron clad thugs be put in charge of these Vihares?

      I have another 1001 questions for you however these are sufficient for now.

      As I am bit thick please answer all my questions.

  • 2
    3

    The latest genetic evidence shows Sinhalese actually have large amounts of East Asian DNA. For example, ““Genetic markers of immunoglobulin among the Sinhalese show high frequencies of afb1b3 which has its origins in the Yunnanand Guangxi provinces of southern China.It is also found at high frequencies among Bengalis, certain Nepali and Northeast Indian, southern Han Chinese, Southeast Asian and certain Austronesian populations of the Pacific Islands.At a lower frequency, ab3st is also found among the Sinhalese and is generally found at higher frequencies among northern Han Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Korean and Japanese populations. ” Wiggy’s claim about Tamils being the original inhabitants is wrong. There is no genetic similarity between Vedda’s and Tamils. Combined with linguistic evidence, Tamils are late arrivals to the island.

    • 4
      1

      Lester
      Those who call themselves ‘Sinhalese’ are a heavily mixed people. Not only the Sinhala race (I have heard people saying that the Sinhalese mixed with anything and everything that landed on the Sri Lankan shore) but also the language and culture is heavily mixed. Sinhala language evolved (not originated) in Sri Lanka by adopting several languages of the South Asian region and later European. They are mixed with not only North & South Indians (including Nepal), but also Chinese, Javanese, Afghans, Africans, Europeans and what not. It won’t be a surprise if they find that the Sinhalese also have Genghis Khan’s genetics. The majority of those who call themselves Sinhalese today are actually recent immigrants from South India (overnight Sinhala-Buddhist converts who came during Portuguese period). That is how the Sinhalese became a majority in the island within a short period while the indigenous Veddas and ancient Tamils still remain as minorities. However, there is no genetic similarity between Veddas and Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims except a very small percentage due to intermarriages in the recent past. The DNA/genetics of all the remains of pre-historic mankind in Sri Lanka also do not have any admixture with the Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims. There is NO evidence to prove that the Sinhalese were early arrivals and the Tamils are late arrivals to the island.

      • 4
        0

        Lester,
        As SJ says, since humanity did not originate in this region, all ethnic groups would be immigrants. It was found that the Vedda Eththo had a certain percentage of admixture with the pre-historic mankind in Sri Lanka whereas the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims had ZERO admixture proving that Only Vedda Eththo have been here much earlier than all others. All other claims are based on some mythological fiction.

    • 2
      0

      So now, Lester is saying that the Chinese are Aryans too. What next?
      To be fair, he must include Nigerians, Arabs, Eskimos, as well.

  • 1
    1

    Who cares who came first or who came last? We are all so mixed up that it is irrelevant. I swear there is much more peace and amity amongst all sorts of people actually living in Sri Lanka than there is in these columns.

  • 2
    0

    Lanka Canuck, Vijaya did not travel from India to Sri Lanka with 700 followers, it was another guy with the same name.
    .
    If you cannot understand me, forget it.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.