Dravidian Settlements in Ceylon and the Beginnings of the Kingdom of Jaffna by Karthigesu Indrapala Complete Phd Thesis University of London 1965

MAP SHOWING SITES 4HE

N •M•

c_

E?tQp.p PIC)ACHAEOLOGcL I)ECE

\ tNDCTfN

.

SETTLEMENTS

WERE (

/••L

I

f+Ih

\

:

.

0 \

\ .+

.*.. '

\ \

.

4 .

.

--..

JI

I: - -

I

'

,+-

\ \

k

b

\

'\ "\' - ,

4 -- --v-v]

I

' \

\ "

—S

k

N

, ' ',

;___ w

A

\\

k

\\

t

1

-

I

, ®_



,x ' '

?tCQ \

\

b —

(

\

d,—

\- a ' \

. - -

;

\

c;ns

A

\

E

\

TH - cNTT N1

TRV

-

-

I

A

A

\

*

-

:'I

\'

4

a' ®

:



'

I I

,

1 +

7

p - 1

'% k

'

+ a

a I

— ?_ --

.t_

-, I *

N, —

--

I I -

a

I

+

4; I I )4

* + 4 4' A

'

1

1

DRAVID IAN ZETTLENEITS IN CETI)N AND TEE BEGI1NI1GS OF THE KIIDOM OF JAFFNA

by Karthigesu Indrapala

Thesis subziitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of London

1965

2 ABSTRACT

This thesis is a study of the settlements founded by Dravidian-speakers from South India, chiefly the Tamile, in Ceylon before the end of the thirteenth century. Although any notable Dravidian settlement was not established in the island until after the conquest of the Caa at the turn of the tenth century, we have included in this study the sporadic and scattered settlements of earlier times as well. The first chapter deals with these earliest settlements and analyses some of the theories put forward by earlier writers on the subject. The main section of the thesis, comprising the second, third, fourth and fifth capters, deals with the settlements established in the northern and north-eastern parts of Ceylon in the period between the beginning of the eleventh and the end of the thirteenth century. This study ends with an examination of the circumstances under which an independent kingdom, controlled by Dravidians, emerged in northern Ceylon. The sixth chapter deals with the events of the first half of the thirteenth century which directly led to the foundation of the kingdom, while the last chapter is concerned with the establishment of the dynaety of Iryacakravartins, from South In ia, ho consolidated the position of the new kingdo

3 ACKNOWLEDGENENS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr.J.G.de Cas aris, Reader in the History of South an South-east Asia at the School of Oriental and African Studies, who has su ervised the whole of this work and given me invaluable advice and guidance. I am thankful to Nr.W.J.F.LaBrooy, Reader in History, University of Ceylon, for his as i tance in choosin the subject and in obtaining budy leave from the University of Ceylon, which enabled me to undertake this work. I owe a particular debt to Nrs.Indranee Kan iah for her help in re aring the p. My thanks are also due to Mr.H.Somadasa, Librarian, University of Ceylon Library, Mr.Lyn de Fonseka, Librari n, National Mu eum Library, do bo and Nr.S.Tha biaii, Librarian, Jaffna College Library, V ddukoddai (Ceylon) as well as the staffs of the S. .A. . Library, ritish Museum Library and enate ou e Library for th ir help in connection with this work.

4 COTES

Page .

2

Acknowledgements .

3

Abstract

.

Abbreviations

.

Introduction

.

.

.

5

.

6

Chapter I

The Beginnings of Dravidian Settlements

Chapter II

Settlements in the Period of Ca Occupation

Chapter III

8k

.

Settlements in the Late Eleventh and 133

the Twelfth Century Chapter IV

Settlements in the Thirteenth Century 26

I - The Jaffna District • Chapter V

Settlements in the Thirteenth Century 306

.

II - Vanni Districts Chapter TI

The Beginnings of the Kingdom of 399

Jaffna-I Chapter VII

The Beginnings of the Kingdom of Jaffna-'II

•

•

•

•

•

A Select Bibliography •

.

•

•

Map

.

•

•

Conclusion

25

.

.

•

Lf77

•

542

•

549

endpocket.

5 ABBREVLMIONS - Annual Bibliography of Indian Archaeology, Leyden. A.B.I.A. - Ancient India (Bulletin of the Arch. Survey of India). A.I. A.S.C.A.R. - Anchaeological Survey of Ceylon Annual Report. - Ceylon Antiquary an Literary Register, Colombo. C.A.L.R. C.J.Sc. (G) - Ceylon Journal of Science, Section G, Colombo. - Cekarca-ckara-mlai Cc in. C.H.J. - Cey1n Historical Journal, Colombo. Cv. - Cilavasa Dv. - DTpavasa B.C. - Epigraphia Carnatica - Epigraphia Indica Elu-ay . - ju-attanagalvai - Epigr p ia Zeyalanica Gk. - Greek Hvv. - Hatthavanagalla-vi .ra-vasa l.A. - In ian Antiquary J.A.S. - Journ 1 of ian tudies J.R.A.S.(C.B.)Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch) N.S. - New Series Bk. car-kalveçu - Km. - KaiIyamlai L. - Latin M.E.R. - Madras Epi raphical Reports (Annual Report on epigraphy Southern Circle,adras Government. Mm. - M4akk4appu-zn iyam - Nahva N.I.A. - New In ian Antiquary ks. - Nikya-saipgrahaya Port. - Portuguese - Pjvalipa Py . Rv. - Rjvaliya 5.1.1. South In ian Inscriptions Sixth. - Sinhalese Skt. - Sanskrit T.A.S. - Trava core Arc ae logical Series - ak*ia- i1ca-purain - Tirikcala-purrn _. U.C. .C. • University of Ceylon History of Ceylon U.C.R. - University of Ceylon Review - Vaiyp1 VT. - verses TYrn. - ia-V ipava-nlai

6 INIRODUCT ION

In this work we have attempted a study of the early settlements established by the Dravidians, notably the Tamila, in Ceylon and of the beginnings of the Tamil kingdom in the northern part of the island. This aspect of the history of Ceylon has been neglected for a long time. The seriousness of this gap could be appreciated by anyone who reads the comprehensive history of the island recently published by the University of Ceylon Our subject has not been dealt with at all in this authoritative work. The chapter on the northern kingdom begins abruptly with the rule of the Xryacakravartins and nothing is stated about the beginnings of this kingdom. Until about the thirteenth century A.D., the history of Ceylon was the history of the Sinhalese people. But from about the middle of the thirteenth century, it has been the history of the SinhaleBe and Tamil people in the island. From that time for over three centuries, the majority of the Tamils were concentrated in a kingdom of their own in the northern part of the island. In 1620, the last of the Taml-1 rulers was executed by the Portuguese conquerors who brought the Tamil areas

1. University of Ceylon History of Ceylon, editor-in-chief R.C.Ray, I , pt.l

(1959), pt.2 (1960), Colombo.

7 under their direct rule. Like the Sinhalese in the maritime provinces of southern Ceylon, the Tamils passed through a period of colonial rule, first under the Portuguese and then under the Dutch. Under these two European powers the Tamil areas of northern Ceylon were administered separately from the other areas. In the nineteenth century, after the British took over from the Dutch, the whole country was politically unified and the administration was centralised. This enabled the Tainils and Sinhalese to work together in the national politica and government. During the period of British rule a further wave of Tamil immigrants went to the island as workers in the newly-opened plantations. The descendants of these recent immigrants, whose numbers exceed that of the descendants of earlier Tamil settlers, play a vita], role in the economy of modern Ceylon. These

Tmils are

officially designated Indian

Tamils while the descendants of earlier settlers are called Ceylon Tainils. The Tamils, who comprise nearly twenty-five per cent of the island's population, are now concentrated mainly in the Northern, Eastern and Central Provinces. The chronology and early history of the T-m-i1s of Ceylon have not yet been systematically and scientifically studied, A few works have been written, mainly in Tamil, on the history of the Taniil kingdom u.t many of these could hardly be described as scientific histories. Among the earliest writings

8 on this subject is Simon Casie Chetty's paper' 'On the History of Jaffna, from the Earliest Period to the Dutch conquest', read at a meeting of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in

18k7 and

published in the journal of that society

In this short paper, the author has based his account of the early history of Jaffna on the references to gas in the Mahvasa and on the Tenr(1 chronicles, Kailyaxnlai and

a-vaipava-

mlai. It is by no means a critical work. This was foUowed by a few Tamil works, almost entirely based on the T-mi1 chronicles and floating traditions. The earliest of these is S.Jobn's pa-carittiram (History of Jaffna), published in In

188k, V.V.Cataciva

Pillai published his

l879

a-vaipavam

( A Narrative of Events in Jaffna) It was followed by A.Muttutampi-pillai's

pa-carittiram (History of Jaffna), which

was published in 19l2 These, too, are uncritical narratives embodying almost the entire contents of the Tamil chronicles, with all their mythical and legendary elements. The sections dealing with the period of British rule are useful as source materials for that period since these are contemporary and near-

1. J.R.A.S. (C.B.), I, No.3,

l8k7-k8, pp . 69-79.

2. American Ceylon Mission Press, Jafmna Revised edition 3. Madras,

188k.

4. Jaffna, 1912.

1929.

1879. Second

edition

1882.

9 contemporary accounts. In this respect, K.Veluppillai's compilation, p$a_vaipavakaunniti, is a valuable work Its sections on the administration of Jaffna by British Government agents and on the leading families of Jaffna in the nineteenth century are useful sources for the modern period of the history of Jafmna, Equally important is the section on the place-names of Jaffna, in which the Sithalese origins of over a tbouáand names are dealt with This section, despite the fact that it is not&scientifiC study of the place-names, is a useful contribution to the topographic study of Jaffna, which is of utmost value for a work like ours. Almost all the works mentioned above are concerned with the history of Jaffna after the establishment of the Tamil kingdom and do not deal with the history of the Tmila who were settled outside the Jaffna kingdom or with the early Tamil settlements. This is chiefly due to the fact that they are narratives based on the Jaffna chronicles, which deal with the history of the Tamil kingdom only. Nudaliyar C . Rasanayagani' a Ancient Jaffna, published in

1926, marks

the first attempt at a critical history of Jafmna.

1. Vasvir, Jaffna 1918. Two sections of this work have been written by S,Kumaracuvami and S .Katiraverpillai. 2. S.Kamaracuvami, 'Taa-nikatt$a Cila Ia Peyark4i Varalu'.

10 Unlike the earlier works, Ancient Jaffna is the result of an attempt to trace the history of the

Tmi1

of Ceylon from the

earliest times to the sixteenth century. It has been based on a wider variety of sources and much effort has gone into it. For the first time the Sixthalese sources as well as the South Indian inscriptions were consulted. It marks a leap forward in the research into the history of the Tamils of Ceylon. But despite its distinct merits,Rasahayagam's work suffers front several serious defects. The work has been marred by an earnest attempt to prove the thesis that the Tamils were settled in Ceylon from pre-Christian times and that there was an independent1ç in northern Ceylon which existed front about the fifteenth century B.C. to the seventeenth century A.D. In his attempt to prove this thesis, Rasanayagam has used methods which are questionable and materials that are totally unrelated to the history of the Tamils in Ceylon. These have been briefly pointed put in our work. A more critical and, in many respects, a better work on the history of Jaffna is Fr.Gnanapragasar's

1a-

Yaip ava-viinarca (A Critical History of Jaffna), published in

l928

It stands in great contrast to the disappointing articles

of the same author published posthumously in the Tarnil Culture,

1. Accuvli, Jaffna

1928.

11 in l952 It may be reckoned as the most valuable study of the

early history of Jaffna in Tmil. Besides the South Indian inscriptions and the Sinhalese sources Ganapragasar has made use of place-name materials also for his study. The same author's Kings of Jaffna, published after the Taml-1 work, deals exclusively with the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Among the other works published around the same time and a little later are K.Matiyaparanazn's vaipavam2and Civanantan's

a-p1rv!ka

__am These two &lso

fall under the category of the earlier uncritical works. Two other works of recent years, which also fall under the same category, are K. Kanapathi Pillai' s Ilakai-v-Tami Vara]

and C.S.Navaratnani's Tamils and Ceylon The University of Ceylon History of Ceylon has &

chapter on the kingdom og Jaffna, entitled 'The Northern Kingdom', by S.Natesan As mentioned earlier, this section

1. 'Ceylon Originally a Land of Dravidians', T.C., I, No.1, Feb.1952; 'The Taniils turn Sinhalese', T.C., I, No.2, June 1952; 'Beginnings of Tamil Rule in Ceylon', T.C., I, No.3, Sept. 1952. 2. K.Matiyaparanam,

pp;a-prvjka-vaipavam, Jaffna 1927.

3. Kuala Lumpur, 1933. k. Peradeniya, 1956. 5. Jaffna 1958. 6. U.C.H.CI, I, pt. 2, pp. 691-702.

12 begins abruptly with the reign of the iryacakravartins. It is stated that the earlier part of the chapter was deleted by the editor. As a result, this chapter falls outside the period and subject matter dealt with in our work. The latest and among the most critical of the contributions to the history of the Jaffna kingdom is the article by S.Paranavitana in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, (Ceylon Branch), l96l in which the theories put forward by Rasan&yagam and other writers are analysed. In this penetrating an @ysis th. author has made use of new evidence as well. But some of his arguments have been marred by his attempt to give a Jvaka origin to the founders of the Jaffna kingdom. We have discussed these arguments in our work. Only the history of the Jaffna kingdom forms the subject of almost all the works mentioned above. These do not deal with the history of the Tamil settlements that preceded the foundation of the kingdom. This reason, above all others, has recommended itself to us for undertaking a study of this nature. The major part of our work, five out of the seven chapters, is exclusively devoted to a study of the Dravidian settlements that were founded in Ceylon between about the ninth and the end of the thirteenth century. This section serves as a background

1. J.R.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VII, pt. 2, 1961, pp. 17k-22k.

13 to the rise of the Tamil kingdom of Jaffna, in northern Ceylon, which forms the subject of the last two chapters. The term Dravidian is used in this work to mean the different communities of South India speaking the Draviian family of languages, chiefly Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Nalayalam. Although the only Dravidian-speakixig community to be found in the island now are the Tamils, there were settlers from the Kannada, Kerala and Telugu countries, who were ultimately assimilated into the major Dravidian group or into the Sinhalese population. The kingdom of Jaffna in this work refers to the Tamil kingdom of northern Ceylon which was founded in the middle of the thirteenth century and ceased to exist in 1620. A historical study of the early Dravidian settlements in Ceylon, like that of early settlements in any country, presents a number of problems that cannot be s4ved pirely with the help of such materials as chronicles and inscriptions. Other branches of studies such as archaeology, physical anthropology, historical geography and historical linguistics have an impoitant part to play in the solution of these problems. These problems would include among others the determining of the original home of the settlers, the causes of their migration, the routes of migration, the areas of settlement and the extent

14 of the survival of earlier inhabitants. The evidence of archaeology is very helpful in tracing the routes of migration and locating the areas of settlement. The historical linguist has an important contribution to make by his analysis of the place-name evidence, which helpd a good deal in the understanding of the social conditions under which the settlements took place and the institutional ties which first bound the settlers together as well as in the location of early habitation sites Place-names also help to an extent in the inquiry into the survival of earlier inhabitants. The historical geographer could help in the understanding of the influence of such factors as physique and defence on the location, and sometimes on the form, of the settlements. Sometimes the contribution of physical anthropologists is also valuable. In Britain attempts have been made, though not with much success, to use the evidence derived from cephalic indices and tables of nigrescence in the study of the Anglo-Saxon settlements. In this study of the Dravidian settlements, the use of evidence from sources other than inscriptions and literary

1. In this respect the place-name evidence in Britain has been of immense help to the historians of(Anglo-Saxon settlement. See A.wer and F.M.Stenton, An Introduction to the Study of English Place-names, pt.l, (Camb. Englaiid),

1929.

15 works has been rendered difficult. Even the inscriptions aiid literary works that we have used have proved to be inadequate in the reconstruction of a satisfactory history of the settlemerits and in the solution of many iiiportant problems. 1hile the Pli and Sinhalese chronicles of the island provide very reliable, fairly adequate and surprisingly continuous information regarding the political, and to an extent the religious, history of Ceylon, their contribution to our inquiry is very little. The activities of the Dravidians in Ceylon find mention in the chronicles only when these affected the political and religious affairs of the country. No evidence relating to the Dravidian settlements is available in these sources. We have made use of these sources mainly in the discussion of the circumstances under which the settlements were established arid the northern kingdom emerged into existence. On the Tamil side, the chronicles that are extant are those written nea1ly three centuries after the foundation of the Tamil kingdom. These are the ICailyamlai, Vaiypal, Vaiy,

a-vaipava-mlai and the Maakk4appu-mmiyam.

The chronicle Ircamura, mentioned in the Ciappuppyiraiu (preface) of the

pa-vaipava-mlai, is not extant now.

With the possible exception of the the other works cannot be dated exactly. But, as we shall see presently, certain references in these works make it clear that

16 these were all writtem after the fifteenth century. The Vaiypal is probably the earliest of these chronicles The mention of Parafiki (Portu uese) as well as the occurrence of certain Portuguese words in this work suggest that it was composed after the arrival of the Portuguese in the island (A.D. i5O5) Only one clumsy manuscript of this work, full of orthographic mistakes, has survived. 1n its present state, it is very confused and at times unintelligible. Fortunately, an old prose rendering of this chronicle has survived and it is with the help of this work that we are in a position to understand the Vaiyal. This paraphrase is known as Vaiy The early part of this chronicle is based on the Pxnyaa, the popular versions of the Viaya legend and on the popular etymology of some of the place-names of Jaffna. The sections dealing with the Dravidian settlements of the thirteenth century and later appear to have been based on certain genuine traditions which were current in a confuaed

1. Vaiypuri £iyar, Vaiypal, ed. J.W.Arutpirakacaia, Jaffna 1921.

2. Parafdd. 1= L. Franci) is the Timi1 name for the Portuguese. The occurrence of the names Parafiki (v.3k) and Piippa (Philip

v.58) and

such words as ayutanti (Port. adjutante) and

puravar3taiyar (Port. provedor) may not all be due to interpolations. 3. Vaiy, ed. Z.Gnanapragasar, Jaffna 1921.

1? form when this work was written. According to tradition, Vaiypuri

Aiyar, the author of this chronicle, was the court poet of one of the kings of Jaffna who bore the consecration name Cekarcack.ara As Gnanapragasar is inclined to believe, 'it would seem that the Vaiy was composed during the times of the last Jaffna kings' The contents of this work have been critically analysed and used with caution in our work. The Kailyamlai, a chronicle of the Kailyantar temple in Jaffua, contains an eulogistic account of the kings o Jaffna and. appears to have been composed at the beginning of the seventeenth century. It mentions the letupatis of 1?Rmnad, the first of whom began his rule around l6O 1 ^ Some sections of this work have been based on the Vaiypal. Perhaps the most useful section is that dealing with the settlement in Jaffna

of certain families from the Tamil country. The Y pa-vaipava-mlai is a prose chronicle of the Jaffna kingdom and was written, as stated in its preface,

when the Dutch Conimsindant Ian Maccara (Mkka.1a) was administering Jaffna (A.D. 1736). As admitted in the preface, the author has

title page.

1.

2. 'Sources for the Study of the History of Jaffna', T.C., II,

Nos. 3&k, p. 3]Lf, fn.18. t1f%mts I93i

3. Mutturca Kavircar, Kailyamlai, ed, C.V. Jampulinkazu Pillai,,.< C.Rasanaagam'a ForewGrd, ibid., p. lf ; J. .A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VII, pt. 2, p. 176. S

•

18 based his work on the Vaiypal, Kailyamlai and the two non-extant works Ircamur and Pararca-ckaraul The sections dealing with the period beore the Portuguese rule reproduce almost entirely the contents pf the Kailyam1ai and the Vaiypal. The 4akaappu-mmiyam is a chronicle of the Batticaloa district of the Eastern Province of Ceylon Its existence is not known to many writers on Ceylon history. This prose chronicle, in its present form, appears to have been written in the eighteenth century, for, it deals with the Dutch rule in Ceylon. Though a late work, it embodies many genuine traditions of earlier times which are remarkably corroborated by the P].i and Sizihalese sources. It is the only Tamil chronicle that preserves any memory of the very early times. It is also the only Tamil chronicle that mentions Ngha by name and des with his activities in Ceylo4. We have discussed these merits in our work. It main use for our work has been in the reconstruction of the history of Dravidian settlements in the Eastern Province and the rise of Vanni chieftaincies there. The traditional historical poems relating to Batticaloa, appended to the Mafakk4appu-mmiyam, have P1o.yslv.iQb

ed. LCapanatan, Colombo 1 953 ; Eng. tr. C,Brito, Colombo 1879. 2. Maaidc4appu_mniyam, ed. F.X.CNataraca, Coloinbo 1962.

19 also been useful in this respect. Besides these chronicles, a few other Tamil works of Ceylon containing valuable historical information have also remained extant. Among these, the T ir-kc ala-puram Kc ar-kalve

Cekarc a-cëkar a-nilai1

and the Cekarca-ckaram have been of some use in rour work. The first three are chronicles of the temple of E5ttvaram, in Trincomalee. The exact date of these works cannot be erxnined. The Takiia-kailca-puram, written in the reign of a king of Jaffna who bore the consecration name Cekarca-ckata is probably a work of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The Kcar-kalvetu and the Tiri-kcala-purtam are later works. The Cekarca-ckara-mlai is an astrological work composed in the time of an Iryacakravartin named Vartaya who had the consecration name Cekarca-ckara According to the

ia-

vaipava-mlai, this ruler was the father of ?rttaa whom Paranavitana has identified with ?rttam Peruxn j un of the

1. Ed. P.P.Vayittilinka Tecikar, Point Pedro, Jaffua, 1916. 2. Ed. A.Canmukarattina Aiyar, Jaffna 1909.

4. Ed. I.S.Irakunata Aiyar, Kokkuvil, Jaffna 1942. 3. Appended to Takia-kailca-puriam. .

, 7:116.

6. Ccm., v.158.

20 Ndav4a inscription, dated in the third year of VikramabThu III

(l36o) If the identification is correct and if the statement is to be accepted, the Cekarca-

of the

ckara-nilai may be dated to the first half of the fourteenth century. Some are inclined to date this to the fifteenth century The Cekarca-ckaram is a medical work, the date of which cannot be determined easily The historical information, relevant to our studs, contained in all these works is incidental and very meagre. None of the Tamil works mentioned above contains any reliable information concerning the Dravidian settlernena in Ceylon prior to the thirteenth century. These have not been, therefore, made use of in the major part ofour work. Even for the period after the thirteenth century, these sources are full of legendary material that it has

b L

been difficult

to make much use of their evidence. For the major part of our work, we have depended mainly on epigraphic and archaeological materials. Though the evidence of these materials has been far more encouraging than that of the literary sources, it has been by no means adequate.

1. Yvm., p . 37 ; S .Paranavitana, 'The rya Kingdom in North Ceylon', J.P.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VII, pt. 2, p. 197. 2. U.C.H.C., I, pt. 2, p. 691 ; C.A.L.R., V, p. 175 ; J. .A.S. (c. .), N.S., VIII, pt.2, p. 372. 3. The verses of this work used here are those quoted in the introduction to the Ccm.

21 Excavation work is still an undeveloped branch of archaeological research in Ceylon. As long as excavation work remains undone, much that is relevant to our study will be wanting. For the period prior to about the third century A.D., we may reasonably expect a few sepulchral and other remains, which are invaluable for a study of settlements, to be brought to light. The only burials relating to Dravidian settlements in the island, namely those of Pomparippu, were discovered by chance and today, nearly forty years after the discovery, the sire still awaits a proper scientific excavation. For the period after the third century, it is aiva and Vaiava temples and icons as well as Tanill inscriptions that will help us in our inquiry. Here, too, owing to the lack of excavation work, we have to depend solely on surface finds. Archaeologists have not helped us so far to know something of the earliest aiva temples, such as the Tiru-ktTvaram temple at Mahtittha, referred to in the literary sources. No surface remains of these exist now and only an excavation of the sites is likely to yield something of value. The fer ancient temples so far unearthed have been èf immense value in locating and dating some of the earliest settlements of the Dravidians. Of greater value for our work are the Tamul inscriptions. More than a hundred of them have been discovered in the island and nearly half of them are unpublished. These epigraphic records1 most of them belonging to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, have helped us a good deal in the location, dating and the

22 determination of the nature of some of the settlements. The material for the first three chapters is mainly derived from these inscriptions. We have not been able to make use of the evidence of physical anthropology, historical geography and place-name studies for the simple reason that no work has been done in these fields so as to be of any help to us. A preliminary survey of the place-name material shows that much valuable information could be gleaned from it for our study. For instance, the earlier Sinhalese occupation of the Jaffna peninsula, the long survival of the Sinhalese there and the Taniil occupation of the North-central Province before the Sinhalese resettled there are unmistakably indicated by the place-names. The collection and analysis of these toponyms require a proper linguistic training Besides, the establishment of sound-pecligrees with the help of earlier forms and the analysis of sound and word substitution and Sinhalese-Tamil compounds are beyond the scope of our work. But wherever possible, place-name material has also been used though never as an independent evidence. Some attemptá have been made by certain physical anthropologists to analyse the physical characteristics of the people of Ceylon. Their surveys are neither exhaustive nor

23 complete and the results are not of any help to us Perhaps not much could be expected from physical anthropologists even in the future owing to the complex nature of the problem. It ma be difficult to contend that differences between human communities are easily recognizable in differences of physical structure. Distinctions based on physical characteristics may be unreliable in the present state of knowledge. Even if these were reliable neither the Sinhalese nor the Tamils of Ceylon can be regarded, in view of their previous history, as a sufficiently homogeneous group to enable any superficial distinctions to be used with confidence in their difUrentiation. In view of these limitations and difficulties, while we may claim to have added something to our knowledge of the history of the Tanmils of Ceylon, the account presented here is inevitably incomplete and not always definite. We have often been led to state our conclusions in hypothetical terms. As one Indologist has remarked, 'they are better than no conclusions at all or than categorical assertions based on inadequate evidence'.

1. N.D.Wijesekera, People of Ceylon, Colombo 1951. P.I.Chanmugamn, 'Anthropometry of Sinhalese and Ceylon T(1s', C.J.Sc. (G), IV, pp. 1-18 ; Marret and Wijesekera conducted an ethnological survey of Ceylon, the materials of which are in the National Museum, Colombo and at the University of Harvard.

24 This is especially so regarding the beginnings of the kingdom of Jaffna, where the gains from this research, valuable though they are, have not increased our knowledge of the origins of the kingdom. With the progress of archaeological research and place-name studies, we hope these limitations could be overcome to a great extent. As we have stated earlier, the materia]. used in the first part of our study dealing with the Dravidian settlements is mainly derived from sources hitherto untapped. These include nearly a hundred Tamil inscriptions, about half of which are unpublished, and the Tamil chronicles. Most of the Tamil inscriptions and. the Tainil chronicle Maak4appu-mmiyam have been used here for the first time. In this sense, a substantial section of the first five chapters forms an original contribution to our subject. In the transliteration of Tamil names and. words we have adopted the system used in the Madras Tamil Lexicon. However, in the case of more familiar names, we have used the transcription that is familiar to all Indologists (j., agam for Cafikani and P4ya for Piya). We have usually broken up the longer compounds with hyphens and simplified the junction of words ao as to facilitate the understanding of their meaning.

25 CHAPTER I

TEE BEG INNIS OF DRAVIDIAN SETTLEIEIITS Front the earliest times to the end of the tenth century A.D.

No appreciable light is thrown by either tradition or archaeology on the darkness in which the history of the earliest Dravidian settlements in Ceylon is shrouded. The archaeological finds so far have not been very encouraging and few definite conclusions can be drawn from the little that has been discovered. The Pli and Sinhalese chronicles furnish some evidence regarding the political relations between the Dravidian kingdoms and Ceylon, but contain little information on Dravidian settlements in the island. The late Tamil chronicles of Ceylon, on the other hand, hardly preserve any memory of the very early times. Under these circumstances, one has to piece together the hopelessly meagre evidence in the above sources to determine the chronology and nature of the early Dravidian settlements in Ceylon. It has been claimed by certain writers on the history of Jaffna that the people of northern Ceylon at the time of the earliest Indo-Aryan settlements, called gas in the chronicles, were T,n11s Some others have claimed that these gas were Tantil

1. S. Gnanapragasar, 'Ceylon originally a land of Dravidiana',

LQ .

I, No.1, pp.27 If.

26 in culture and language, although ethnically they were not Dravidian These conclusions, as we shall see presently, are based on the legendary accounts of the gas in the P1i chronicles and the Tamil Buddhist epic Maini!kalai as well as on the erroneous identification of some of the place-names mentioned in early Tami]. literature. Gaaaapragasar, a leading proponent of the theory that the Ngas of the Pli chronicles were TRndls, has put forward four n'xi{n arguments in support of it In the first place, he baa argued that the island of Ceylon as well as the language spoken there were known in ancient times as 1ain and that the name of the language was later corrupted to Eu. These factors, in his opinion, 'should lead one to conclude prima facie that, at the earliest times, am was occupied, at least in the main, by a Tamil-apeaking people' This argument is far from logical. Presumably it rests on the fact that am is now used only in Tamil as a name for Ceylon. But the origin of this name, far from indicating that the island was occupied by Taniil-speaking people in ancient times, shows that the people from whose name ain is derived were Sinhalese. The earliest occurrence of this name is in the Brhxri! inscriptions of South India. In these

1. C.Rasanayagarn, Ancient Jaffna, pp. 13 if. 2. S.Gnanapragasar,'ceylon originally a land of Dravidians', pp.27 ff 3. Ibid., p.

30.

27 inscriptions, from Tirupparafkuam and Sittaaval, occurs the Prit form of this name, namely

Evidently it is from

this Prkrit form that the Tamil Tam is derived. It could be shown that a is derived from Si *h4a through the Pli STh4a, or more probably through another Prkrit form Sihi.a. The name Siñh4a has two elements, s14 a and a. The Sanskrit siria becomes sha in Pli STha becomes sihi and a! (the consonant Ii is dropped when its position is between two similar vowels and the two vowels coalesce) in Sinhalese Si*h4a could, therefore, have become Sihija and later SIa in early Sirthalese, aJr4. probably even in other Prakritic languages, although no record of such a form has survived in Sinhalese It is not difficult

1. C.Narayana Rao,'The BrThini Inscriptions of South India', N.I.A., I, pp. 367, 368, 375. 2.

., 6:10.

3. S.Paranavitana, Sigiri Graffiti, I, p.xci.

Siiha- in

becomes Si-gin in Sinhaleae.

I.

Cf., Sihila (Sih4a) and Sihilaka (Si*h4aka) in a aroh inscription from Loriyn Tangai, in Wsat Pakistan, belonging to about the second century LD. S.Konow, Kharoth! Inscriptions, p. 110; U.C.H.C, I, pt.l, p. 90. j., also Sielediba in The Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes, ed. F.O.Winstedt, p. 250.

28 to derive the forms

Tja and

Iam from Sja. In the early period,

when Sanskrit and Prkrit words were borrowed into Tamil, those with the initial letter a often dropped that consonant The name Sja, when used in the Tamil country, would, therefore, have become a, as indeed it occurs in the pre-Christian Brhm* inscriptions there Since the a in Prkrit and the a in Tamil are interchangeable

a would become a and the final

form am is derived front this by the addition of the consonant in, which too is in keeping with the rules governing the form of borrowed Sanskrit and Prkrit words ending with the vowel a, 14. especially the neuter nouns or those designating inanimate objects. Thus, am could be derived from the name Sih4a and would, therefore, mean the land of the Sinhalese rather than indicate that Ceylon was originally settled by Tamils. Guanapragasar's arguments, on this score, will become groundless. The derivation

l.., Pkt. sipp (Skt. sukti)>

Tiinil ippi

ippi in Maimkalai,

XXVII, 1.6k; Cittnta-cikmaçi, 23:5 ; Madras Tamil Lexicon,I,p.297; cf. also Pkt. slsa>Tamil jyant ; Skt. san hi> Tamil anti. •This probably occurred in the Prakritic languages,too. Cf. Skt. Sih4a> Sinh. He or Heja > E.n and Skt. Si* 4a seems to have become Ia in Ia-nga (My . ,35:l5). 2. C.NarayanaRao, 3. i.

.

p. 375.

., Damia> Tamiar ; Co'a >

C1ar.

Skt. mafig4a ) mafik4am ; Skt. si*ha , cifikam

29 of !2am from Siñhaa is accepted by leading Tamil scholars Secondly, Gnanapragaar has argued that the original inhabitants of Ceylon came from South India and that these pre-Aryaii aborigines were Dravidians who seem to have spoken a Tamil dialect He bases this on the assumption that the preAryan inhabitants of India represeit an earlier wave of immigrants from the Mediterranean area and that no trace og any langtage other than Tamil is found in India till the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. Although the pre-historic relations between India and Ceylon are undeniable the rest of his arguments are based on mere assumptions. It is not true to say that all the non-Aryan inhabitants of India were necessarily Dravidian. There were others as well, chief among whom were the Mu-speaking people The chronology of the Dravidian migration to India is itself an unsettled question There is no evidence to suggest that Tamil was the only language spoken in India in pre-Aryan times.

1. S.Vaiyapuri Pillai, Madras Tamil Lexic n, I, p. 382; S.Krishnaswaniy Aiyangat in the Preface to S.Rasanayagam's Ancient Jaffna, p. v.

2. S.Gnanapragasar,'Ceylon originallyland of Dravidians', p.30. 3. U.C.H. ., I, pt. 1, pp. 75, 79. If. K.A.Nilknta Sastri, History of South In ia, p . 59. 5. Cf., C.von FUhrer Haimendorf,'New Aspects of the Dravidian

Problem', T.C., II, No.2, p .131. The author dates the Dravidian migration to the first millenium B.C.

30 His third argument is that 'hundreds of Taniil placenames in Ceylon are pre-Sinhalese' He has given a few examples of ele ents of present-day Sinhalese place-names and what have been considered by him to be their Tamil origins. It is clear that this argument is based on superficial similarities and not on any historical study of the development or evolution of these names. This could be seen in the two sets of elements as well as from their phonological development. He has clai ed, for instance, that the Sinhalese element dea, meaning 'low-lying land or valley', is derived from Tamil ti, meaning corn But dea and its more common variant de

are derived from

Sans1rit droi (=valley), through the Phi doi and medieval Sinhalese doa and The fourth argument that Sinhalese is based on Tamil and that, therefore, 'the original inhabitants of Ceylon' spoke Tamil is unconvincing Gnaaapragasar arrives at this conclusion by adopting unscientific methods in his linguistic research. One can only quote the views of Wilhelm Geiger on this matter:Gnanapragasar's methods are not at all Indian; they are simply a relapse into the old practice of comparing two or more words of the most distant languages merely on the basis of similar sounds without any consideration for

1. S.Gnanapragaaar,'Ceylon originally a land of Dravidians', p.31. 2. Ibid. Skt. Jambu-droi ) Phi Jambu-doi ) Sixth. Daba-dei

3.

and Daba-deiya. Cv., 81:15; Also, If.

ip c

Pv., p . 119;

nsciipven s

., p. k5.

u.c.riJ

S.Gnanapragasar,'Ceylon originally a land of Dravidians', p.31 ff.

31 chronology, for phonological principles, or for the historical development of words and. forms. 1 Similarly the attempts of Raaanayagam to show that the Ngas of Ceylon referred to in the Pli chronicles were Tamil in culture and language are based on the erroneous identification of some place-names in the Tamil Safigam texts, without any consideration for chr.ogy or for known historical facts An analysis of these early Tamil poems shows that the geography of their accountá is mainly confined to the Tam.tl country of their time, which was bounded in the north by the Vñkaam (Vgaam) hills, in the south by Kuzriari (Cape Comorin) and on the west and east by the seai There is no indication in any of the poems that chieftains and rulers from outside these limits were eulogised by the Tamil poets. A notable exception is the Arya king Pirakatta, (Brasta) who is mentioned in the colophon of Kapilar's

ifici-pu Despite this factor,

Rasanaya,gam has tried to identify -ilaAk8i, }ntai and ICutirai of the aigam poems with Ceylon, Mahtittha (in Ceylon) and Kutirai-malai (in Ceylon) respectively The

)-ilMciii

of

1. W.Geiger, A Grammar of the Sinhalese Language, p. vii. 2. C.Rasanaragaii,

. cit., pp.

13_h14.

3. Tolkppiyam, Pyiram, 11. 1-2 ; Cilappatikram, VIII, U. 1-2.

k.

ifici-pu, Pattu-pu , ed. U.V.Cuvmfnata Ayyar, p.

5. C.Rasanaagam,

. cit., pp.

19-26.

380.

32 the Tamil poems cannot be identified as Ceylon. It was a chieftaincy in the Tamil country when these poems were composed and has been identified as a region in the North Arcot district It is held to be the same as the Uttara-lk! of the Ca inscriptions There were also other places in the Tamil country with ilaikai as the chief element of their names which find mention in the agam poems. We hear of To-n-ilaikai, KIm-ila.fLkai and Nau-n fl-ni-ilai3.kai Of

, To-m-ileAki

is considered by some to represent Cey1on This may or mar not be correet, for there is no evidence in the Tamil poems to identify it properly. However, Ceylon was not the only place known to the Tamils as I].añkai. In the earliest literature and inscriptions of the Tamils Ceylon is referred to as a or In later times, the names Ci.kajam and

Ilafikai

were also used.

But when Ilañkai was uáed to denote Ceylon, it was usual to qualify it with some epithet so as to distinguish it from the

1. K.A.Nilakiinta Sastri, The Cas, pp. k35, kk2 fn. 83 V.Kanakasabhai, Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, pp. 27, 29 ; J.R.Narr identifies it as a place near Dharmapuri, The Eight Tarnil Anthologies with special reference to

and

Patiuppattn, thesis submitted to the University of London, 1958. 2. See infra, p. 3.

u-p

uppaai, 11. 119-120.

V.Kanakasabhai,

5.

. cit., p.27 ; J.R.Narr,

C.Narayana Rao, op.

p.375 ;

. cit.

applai, 1. 191.

33 other I1a..kais. The Cilappatikram refers to Ceylon as 'kaa1 Ilaiikai' (Iiakai surrounded by the sea) 1 while the Main1kalai cãUs it Ila3kti:pam (Skt. Laik-dvIpa) The most common epithet was tea, meaning south, thereby denoting that it was the Lk

in the south (Te-i1kii) By about the Ca period when Ceylon became the La.k par excellence such epithets bece.xne unnecessary. The place named ?ntai in the early Tami]. poems is also different from }Iahtittha, which is now known as }ntai. Intai is a recent name for the ancient port of Mahtittba. The name does not occur in any of the early works. In the Sixihalese inscriptions arid literature, Nahtittha is referred to as Ntoa, Mahavoi, Mahapuu, Mahavun, havautoa and Mhapaana ' In the Tami]. poems of about the seventh, eighth and. ninth centuries and in the Ca inscriptions of the eleventh century, the Tamilised form tam has been used By about the seventeenth century, the variant jam was in use In Ptolemy's map this

1. Ci1appatikram,

p.636.

2. M4inka1ai, XXVIII, 1. 107. 3. See infra, p . ++&.

k. C.W.Nicholas, 'Historical Topography of Ancient and Medieval Ceylon', J.R.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VI, 1959, pp. 75-81. r Tvra Tiruppatikafik4, Tirumuai, 2, Patikam 2k3 and Tirumutai

3,

Pabi1t&-381, pp. 518, &; S. 1.1., IV, Nos. ].k12, ]I].k.

6. Cf., Mantotte in Memoirs of Rijckloff van Goens 1665, Tr. S.Pieters p . 106.

34 port is named }Iodouttou The present name of 1ntai is evidently an abbreviation of I.ntam There is no evidence whatsoever to identify Jntai of the aâgam poems with Nahtittha. Similarly, the identification of Kutirai and Nutirarn with Kutiraimalai

in

Ceylon is untenable. Not only was there a

place by the name of Kutirai in the Tinii1 country there is also no reason to suppose that the name Kutirainialai for the place on the north-western coast of Ceylon was in use at the time of the añgam poems. It is clear from the references in the Tm(1 poems that Kutirai and !4utiram were chieftaincies

in

the Cra

kingdom The argument that Ptolemy's Hipporos (Gk. hippos = horse, oros = mountain) is identifiable as Kutiraimalai (Tamil kntirai = horse, malal = mountain) and that since Hipporos is a direct translation of Kutiraimalai, the Tami]. name was

in uBe

in Ptolemy's

time, is also not convincing. It is possible that the presentday Tamil name is itself a translation of an earlier Sinhalese name. We find that there is still a place called Avagiri (Skt. ava = horse, girl = mountain) very close to utiraimalai. Possibly Avagiri was the earlier name, covering a larger area,

1. C.W.Nicbolas,

p. 75; U.C.H.C., I,

.

pt. 1, map facing p.8.

2. Cf., Taflcavr > Taflcai. 3. V.Kanakasabhai, I.

. cit., pp. 113, 118.

v.168 . J.R.Marr, in the work mentioned above, locates Mutiram near Udamalpet.

35 and Kutiraimalai may be a Tamil rendering of later times However, the identification of Hipporos with Kutiraimalai is itself in doubt. It is admitted by critical scholars that the legendary accounts in the Pli chronicles about the Igaa are quite unreliable Even if there were a people called 1gas, there is no evidence to suggest that they were Tamfl- in language and culture. There were persons with the name Nga all over India. Even to this day we find a people called Ngas living in Northeast India. The Ngas of the chronicles, like those of many Pli and Sanskrit works, seem to be superhiinn beings Rasanayagam' s arguments for the existence of Taniil settlements in Ceylon in pre-Christian times, therefore, are wholly unacceptable1 Ceylon's geographical proximity to and close contacts with the Tami]. country and. early conquests by TRnr1 adventurers have been often used as the basis for the assumption that Tamils were settled in the island in the early centuries of its history.

1. There are other place-names on the north-western coast of 6eylon which are Tamil renderings of Binhalese names. Cf., Si13.h. J4agult o a-mune >Tamil Kaliy;a-tuai-mukam. 2. S.Paranavitana, 'The irya Kingdom in North Ceylon', pp. U.C. •C., I, pt.l, p. 3. See infra, p.

k.

See infra, pp.

11oIt.

95.

180-183;

36 Our sources undoubtedly indicate that Tamils had established contacts with Ceylon by about the second century B.C., if not earlier. There is reliable data in our sources relating to the commercial, cultural, political and religious connections between South India and Ceylon in the early centuries of the island's history. One of the earliest references to such contacts occurs in the Akitti taka This taka story alludes to the intercourse between Kvripattinam, in the C1a country,and K.radipa, near NgadIpa. Ngadipa is identifiable with the Jaffna district which was known by that name in the pre-Christian and early Christian centuries Kradipa appears to be the island of Kraitivu, about two miles west of the Jaffna peninsula The Dlpavai1lsa and the Mahvaisa refer to the two Tamil usurpers, Sena and. Gutta.ka, who ruled from Anurdhapura in the second century B.0 They appear to have been connected with the horse-trade in the island. According to the I4ahvasa, their father was an a sa-nvika or ship's captain dealing with horses Sena and Guttaka were followed by the Tamil poli. tical adventurers, Era, Pulahattha, BAhiya, Panay nira, Piaymra

1. The Jtaka, IV, ed. E.B.Cowell, tr. W.K.D.Rouse, p. 150. 2. G.P.Malalaaekera, Dictionary of Phi Proper N nies II, p.k2. 3. C.W.Nicbolas,

. cit., p. 8k ; Malalasekera has i entified

it as 'an island in the Dami4a country',

k. Dv., l8:k7 ; Mv., 21:10. 5. Mv., 21:10.

. cit., I, p. 570.

37 and Dhika, who ruled at ânurdhapura for short periods in the second and first centuries B.0 Among the paramours of Queen Anul were two Tamils, who also rpled. at Anurdhapura for some time in the first century B.0 In the first century A.D., 4anga

(33_li 3) went over to South India and took mercenaries to win back his throne These merceflarie8 were probably supplied by some chief or ruler, apparently not unconditionally. For, we find that his son, Candukhasiva, was married to a Tamil lady who came to be known as Dami-dev Paranavitana is of the opinion that 'this alliance of his son with a TRmil princess was, perhaps, a part of the price which Ianga had to pay when he obtained military aid. from South India against his adversaries' But it is also possible that it was the result of a friendly alliance between a Tamil chief or ruler and Ianga. Thus, the

1. Mv., 21:13 ft.,

33:39 ft. ; Dv., 18:k9, 20:16-18. The relations

between South India and Ceylon during this period have been dealt with in great detail by W.M.K.Wijetunge in his thesis, The Rise and Decline of Ca Power in Ceylon, submitted to the University of London in 2. Nv.,

3.

1962.

31f:l9, 26 ; Dv., 20:27, 29.

., 35:26, 27.

11. Ibid., 35:k8.

5. U.C.H.C., I, pt.]., p. 176.

38 evidence of the Pli chronicles shows that from about the second century B.C. the Tamils of South India had established contacts with the island. The earliest literature of the Tamils, belonging to about the second and thud centuries A.D., does not contain information on this point. But there is a solitary reference in one work, the Pa

applai, to trade relations

with Ceylon. It mentions the vessels laden with food-stuffs from 1am (Ceylon) among those that called at the port of K'vri-pat'iam, in the Ca country In the aâgam anthology, there are some poems attributed to Pta-tvar, a Temil poet from Ceylon But it is from the seventh century that we get any direct reference to Ceylon in the literature of the Tsmils. The evidence of the literary sources is confirmed by a few inscriptions as well. There are three pre-Christian Brhm inscriptions in Ceylon which attest to the presence of Ts,w1R in Ceylon. One of these, from Axiurdhapuraz popularly

known as the Tamil Householders' Terrace inscription, records the building of a prsda (terrace), probably used as an assembly hail, by some Tami1s On one of the sides of the terrace are found inscribed the following names: Kubira, Tia, Kubira ujata, aga, Naata and Krava the navika (ship's captain). The last-

3. S.Paranayitana, 'Tsmi1 Householders' Terrace - Anurdhapura', A.B.I.A., XIII, pp. 13-1k. 1. Paplai, 1. 191. 2 • _________

; Kuuntokai, v 3L-3 ; Nariai, . fo

39 mentioned person seems to have occupied. the highest position among them, judging fro; the height of the terrace he occupied. As Paranavitana has pointed out, it is interesting to note that the person who occupied the highest seat was a ship's captain. This may mean that the community of Tmfls who insed this terrace was a mercantile community, possibly organized into a guild. The two other Brhmi inscriptions, from Periya-pi4iyan.k4am in the Vavuniy district, mention a Tm11 trader Lamed Vikha, who owned a cave in that place In South India, at Tirupparañkuam and Sittanaval, there are at least three Brhmi inscriptions of about the second century B.C. mentioning householders from Ceylon (a) The establishment of religious contacts with the Andiira country as early as the second century A.D. is attested to by inscriptions at Ngrjuikoa, which refer to the foundation of a monastery called the Sh4a-vihra by monks from Ceylon Probably Telugus from the ndhra country were in Ceylon, too t at this time. The Mahvaipsa mentions a 'Dam.13a' named Vauka, 'a city-carpenter in the capital', among the paramours of Queen Anul to be raised to the throne in the 1.

V, pt.2, p. 2k2.

2. C.Narayana Rao,

pp. 367, 368, 3755. . 3. J.Ph.Vogel, 'Ngrjuikoa Inscriptions', E.I., XX, pp. 22, 23.

40 first century B.0 Although the Mahvai1sa and the Dipavaipsa refer to him as a Daini4a, his name suggests that he was a Telugu, for Vauka is a term that was applied to the Telugus by the Tamila. Probably Vauka was an artisan from ndhra-dega. The archaeological sources provide valuable data regarding the cultural relations between ndhradea and Ceylon in the early centuries of the Christian era. It baa been pointed out by Paranavitana that the majority of the early sculptures of Ceylon bear a striking similarity to those of the ndiira school A number of portable marble reliefs and statues, which by their material and style belong to the ndhra school, have been discovered in the northern parts of Ceylon, in places like Z4aha-illuppallama, Sjgiriya, Hingurakgama, Naradnki dawe la, Pemadu and Kuccaveli Commenting on these finds, Paranavitana says:' The evidence of the influence of Indhra art on that of early Ceylon is so overwhelming that it may be suggested that a branch of that school was established in Ceylon and that the sculpture on the frontispieces of the ancient ______ are the work of sculptors from the Kiatna valley or local artists trained by them. k

1. Mv., 3k:20.

2. S.Para.navitana,'Examplea of ndhra art recently found in Ceylon', A.B.I.A., XI, pp. 15-18. 3. A.S.C.A.R. for 1952, p.2k ; A.S.C.A.R for 195k, P.5: A.S.C.A.R. for 1956, p. 11; A.S.C.A. • for 1957, p . 2k; A.S.C.A.R. for 1955, pp. 10,11,29 i. 'Evidence of earliest £ihhalese art', c'lon Observer, k.2.195o,p.6,

41 It is clear from the evidence that has been briefly adduced above that before the third century A.D. close contacts had been established between Ceylon and the Ta.xnil and Telugu countries. But this evidence does not necessarily suggest that there were settlements of Dravidians in the island at this time. The question to which we have to seek an answer is whether these early contacts between South India and Ceylon led to the rise of permanent and widespread settlements of the Dravidiama in the idland. The evidence outlined above reveals that commercial interests, political adventure and the prospect of military employment had led Tamils and possibly some Telugus to go to Ceylon

in

the early centuries of the island's history. Tamil

traders possibly established temporary settlements in the ports and main towns. But there is no reliable evidence in our literary or epigraphic sources to c&nclude that there were notable settlements of Dravidians in the island before the third century A.D. The Maivaisa and the late chronicle Rjvaliya contain some references to the migration of people from the

Tmi1 country

to Ceylon before the third century A.D. In the account of Vijaya, the )ahvasa refers to the arrival of a princess, seven hundred maidens and 'craftsmen and a thousand families' from the Pya country This statement does not inspire any confidence in us.

1.

;55 ff.

42 It is as unreliable as the many other elements that have grown, in the course of the centuries, around the traditiofl of the original Indo-Aryan settlements in Ceylon. It is significant to note that the earlier chronicle, Djpavaisa, has no semblance of this

tale in its account of Vijaya. It seems to have been

included later in order to enhance the prestige of the founders of the Sinhalese kingdom. The Pjvaliya would have us believe that GajabThu I

(U.k-136) settled twelve thousand Tamil prisoners

in the districts

of Alutktruva, Srasiyapattuva, Yainuvara, Uunu'vara, Tumpan , v5ha, Pansiyapattuva, Egoatiha and Megoatiha in the central highlands The cycle of Gajabhu legends in the literature and tradition of the Sinhalese has been discussed by scholars in some detail and it is now agreed that, although there seems to be some kernel of truth in the accounts regarding GajabThu's visit to South India, many of the details are highly incredible and improbable That GajabThu visited South India is confirmed by the Cilappatikrani Around the tradition connected with this event, several legends seem to have grown in the course of the centuries. The account of the Tami]. settlements in the

1.

valiya

., p. 35.

2. LC.H.C., I, pt.]., pp. 182-185 ; W.N.K.Wijetunge, 3. Cilappatikram, pp.

18, 636.

. cit.

43 may form part of the later details added to the original tradition. It is also possible that it is based on some minor Tamil settlements that were established in the island in the second centuryy or later. The second century A.D. appears to have been a period of expansion for the

Ca

country. The several accounts of Karikla

Ca's activities reveal that Tarnil settlements were established in the newly-cleared territories north of the Ca country, namely in Toaimaalam It is possible that the expanding population of the Ca country went in search of new lands and some of them settled in the western regions of Ceylon, where even now the few Tamil-speaking Sinhalese claim descent from those who are supposed to have been settled by Gajabhu. These events, or more probably later Tamil settlements, may have given rise to the legend of the twelve thousand prisoners in

later times. With the evidence that we have now, it is not possible to verify the account in the RLTvali y a. As it stands, however, it is difficult to accept it as reliable. Although the literary and epigraphic sources are not helpful in our inquiry regarding the Dravidian settlements of the earliest period, the evidence of archaeology has been of much value. The earliest and perhaps the most defiaite evidence

1. V.Kankabhai,

. cit., pp. 27-29 ; Pafapplai, 11. 280-28k.

44 concerning any Dravidian settlement in the island prior to the third century A.D.is provided by the megalithic urn burials from Pontparippu, on the north-western coast of Ceylon. Partial excavations at this site at different times during the last four decades have uncovered several urn-burials, which have rightly been related to the megalithic culture-complex of southern India The niegaliths of the peninsular Inìdian region have generally been associated with the Dravidian-speakers, who are believed to have occupied the area in the course of the first millenium B.C. This theory is held by most modern scholars, though there are several points of controversy which have not been satisfactorily solved Although the urn-burials at Pomparippu have been associated with the South Indian complex, they have not yet been systematically excavated, and it will be difficult to express anything conclusive till such ah excavation is completed and the finds thoroughly eximined. It was in 1925 that one of the pots from the burial site was exnii,ed for the first time by the Archaeological Department But it was not until 1956 that a systematic, though

1. C.J.Sc. (G), I, pt. 2, pp. 51-52 ; A.S.C.A.R. for 1 957, pp.

11-17,

30-31. 2. K.R.Srinivas..and N.R.Banerjee, 'Survey of South Indian Nega].itbs', Ancient India, 9, pp. 113-114. 3. C.J.Sc. (G), I, pt. 2, p. 51.

45 by no means extensive, excavation was carried out there. In 1956 more than a dozen jars were discovered and in and around these were smRller pots which contained skulls and other hnm,4n bones, some of which were post-cremation remaine In the next year, nearly fourteen urns were unearthed and these, too, contained human bones, skulls, food and personal belongings These burials were either fractional or secondary. Of the metal artefacts, four are of bronze and one of iron. Some of these artefatta are ainrilar to those discovered at the megalithic sites at Brahmagiri, in the Kannada areas of South India Deraniyagala, who was in charge of the 1956 excavations, has compared these with the finds of the fourth quarter phase of the Bronze Age in the Deccan, datable to about the third century B.C1 An examination of the material from Pomparippu shows that it is not to the material from Brahmagiri and Chandravalli that the Ceylonese artefacts bear the closest affinity, but to those from the sites in the Tamil country, such as 4dichchanalltlr. The Pomparippu site differs in one important respect from those of Mysore and Ker4a, in that its interments belong to a class called urn-burials and have no litbic appendage either in the

1. A.S.C.A.R. for 1 956 , p.i 2. A.S.C.A.R. for 1957, pp. 11-17, 3. Ibid., pp. 16-17.

k. Ibid., p. 17.

30-31.

46 form of a bounding circle or dolmens and cists. Even the absence of sarcophagi is conspicuous. Such burials have been found. in large numbers at icIichchanal].r, in the Tinnevelly district and are peculiar to the extreme south of the peninsula The Pomparippu site lies closer to dichchanallr in respect of the large contents of bronze ware, than to the sites of Mysore. But it has all the common features that makes it representative of the megalithic culture, namely iron implements, the wheel-turned Black-and-Red ware and the post-excarnation fragmentary and collective burials The large and. pyriform urns are similar to those from Adichchanallr and Brahmagiri. Probably the people responsible for these burials were Tamils from the neighbouring Tinnevelly district, the area which is closest to Poniparippu. The common prevalence of such urn-burials among the Tamils of early times is evidenced by the aam literature as well In the light of this evidence, the Poniparippu region could be taken as one of the earliest settlement sites of the Dravidians, probably Tamils, in Ceylon. The problem lies not so much in the identification of the authors of these burials as in the determination of their date. The South Indian sites have been dated variously from

1. K,R,Sriniyasan and N.R.Banerjee,

.

p. 110 ;

A.Raa, Catalogue of Prehistoric Antiquities from Adichchanallur and Perumbair. 2. K.R.Srjnjy asan and N.R.Banerjee, p. 115. 3. K.R.Srinivaaan,'The Megalithic Burials and Urn-fields of South India in the light of Trnnil literature and tradition', icient Thdia t.L,.. bp . q .

47 the seventh century B.C. to the first and second centuries AD. From the evidence of the añgam literature we find that such urn-burials were in vogue in the Tamil country as late as the second and. third centuries A.D By a closer comparison of our artefacts with their opposite numbers in the South Indian sites as well as on the basis of stratigraphy it is possible to arrive at a specific date for the Pomparippu burials. But unfortunately, the excavations at Pomparippu have not been systematically completed nor has a comparative study been undtaken. Till these things are done it is impossible for a non-archaeologist to pronounce a judgment on this vital question. The Adichchanallr and Perumbair sites in the Tinnevelly district can be dated to about the third century E.0 Considering the fact that our artefacts bear the closest similarity to those of the latter sites, it may not be wrong to assign them to about the same period. Al]. that could be said for the present is that the Poinparippu site is earlier than the third century L.D. and. is one of the earliest settlement sites of the Dravidiana in Ceylon. T p king into consideration the location of the site, near the mouth of the Kafl Oya, close to the pearl bnkR and only a few miles south of the ancient,

1. K.R.Sriuivasan,

. cit., pp. 9 U.

2. K.R.Srinivasan and N.R.Banerjee,

.

., p. 113.

48 though lesser known, ports of Kutirimlai and Pa].lugatuai, where ancient ruins are still to be seen, it is possible that this originated as a settlement of traders as well as pearl-divers and fishermen from the opposite coast. It is diZficult to say whether these Dravidians continued to survive as a distinct group till later times when Pomparippu definitely becomes k.nown to us as a Tstmil area, or whether they were assimilated to the local Sinhalese population before long. The proximity to as well as the continuous relations with South India may have helped them to maintain their ethnic identity for a long time. But these are matters of speculation. Another possible megalithic site is to be found in Katiraveji, on the north-eastern coast of the island. Some years back, Paranavitana discovered here several rude slabs of stone, cut to some size aDid shape, scattered. about the place, but not without some order. These stones 'lie in groups of four or five; and there are nnm1takable signs tbat some of them may have been set up on the ground. There is one group which still shows the original structure' Paranavitana also found 'other relics of hunmn occupation' On the basis of the description of such a structure in the Paramatta-jotik, be

1. C.J.Sc.(, II, pp. 91_95. 2. Ibid., p. 95.

49 surmised that these could be 'connected with a akha If these structures served the purpose of warship, as Paranavitana is inclined to believe, it is unlikely that several of them were erected in one particular site. It seems more probable that these were sepulchral structures, similar to those found in several parts of South India. Among the many different types of megaliths found in that peninsula, dolmenoid cista form one claas These are either made of dressed slabs of stone and coed by a capstone or are constructed with rough unhewn boulders. Such cists are found in places like Tiruvlag4u in Andhra Pradesh and Ariyr in Nadras But almost all these have portholes, whereas the dolmenoid cists in Cochin do not have this features It is possible that the cists at Katirav4i belong to the latter class. In fact, Paranavitana states that according to his guide there was at least one structure which had four side-slabs and another slab at the top, only a few years before he visited the site. Two of the side-slabs bad fallen down and the top slab had been removed for building a temple in the

1. C.J..Sc. (G), II, p. 95. 2. K.R.Srinivasan and N.R.Banerjee, p. 105. 3. Ibid., p. 106. if. Ibid., p. 106.

50 vicinity This means that all the other groups of stones at this site may have originally stood in the form of dolmenoid cists. Further, the name given to this site by the villagers, who are Tami].s, is Kura u-paai-eutta-vnrpu ( (The region of) the margosa tree under which the monkeys mustered). This name seems to connect these structures with the South Indian do].menoid date. For, in the Tamil country,the megalithic structures are known by a remarkably similar name, Kuraiku-paaai, a corruption of the name Kurakkuppaai, meaning 'a sepulchre or tomb lowered into the earth' The villagers of Katirav4i, like those of South India, believe that these stone structures mark the site where the monkeys of Rma's army encamped before the battle with Rvaa This is a case of popular etymàlogy based on the element kuraiku (=monkey), the corruption of kurakku • It is possible that the later Tamil settlers in the Katirav4i region, having seen the remarkable similarity between the megaliths of their South Indian homeland and these structures, used the name Kurakku-patai or Kuraku-pataai which later became Kuraz5.ku-paai. As no excavation was carried out at this site, it is not known whether burials exist here, and, therefore, it is not possible to say

1. C.J.Sc. (a), II, p. 95.

2. K.LSrinivaaan,

. cit., p. 9.

3. Ibid.; C.J.Sc. (G), 11, p. 95.

51 anything definite on this matter. Since the sire is on the coastal area not far from the ancient port of Gokya, it is not impossible that the people who erected these were traders from the Cochin area, the dolmenoid cists of which place bear the closest similarity to our cists. Perhaps the Katirav4i area bad a small settlement of Dravidians some time between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D., the period normally assigned to most of the South Indian megaliths. It is not impossible, however, that these structures are independent of the South Indian complex. But this is unlikely on account of their isolated character, which goes agint their association with some other culture—complex. Until the ninth century, with the exception of the megalithic remains of Pomparippu and the possible exception of those of Katirav4i, there is no definite evidence regarding any Dravidian settlement in the island. The P].i chronicles, South Indian literary works, and Cey].onese and South Indian inscriptions attest to the continuous relations between Ceylon and South India. Between the third and the ninth century, there were two South Indian invasions of Ceylon. The first was in A.D.529 which resulted in the rule of six Tamils at Anurdhapura for twenty-six years The second took place in the reigm of Sena I

(833-853). On this occasion, the Pya ruler ri Na

1. Cv., 38:11 ff. ; W.M.LWijetunge,

. cit.

Vallabha

52 defeated the Sinhalese ruler and returned with a large booty In the same period, at least on nine occasions, Sinhalese aspirants to the throne went over to South India and took mercenaries to achieve their enda There were also close relig&àus relations between the two regions. The Pli chronicles refer to Buddhist monks from

South India going to Ceylon and vice versa. Scholars like

Buddhadatta and Mahynists like Sagharnitta went from the Ca country. Monks from CLAn went to the ndhra country and from there helped to spread Buddbism In the time of the aiva revival in

the Tamil country (sixth to the ninth century), monks from

Ceylon are said to have gone there and participated in public disputations An interesting information regarding South Indian Buddhists in Ceylon is found in some late Telugu Jam works as well as in two Kannada inscriptions of about the twelfth century. The Telugu works, such as the RLj vali-kathe, Akalñka-carita and the âkalfika-stotra, refer to an eighth-century Jam teacher, Aka1ñka by name, from ravaa Belgola in !rsore, as having disputed with the Buddhists of 1flci and defeated them These Buddhists,

1.

50:12 ft. ; W.M.K.Wijetunge,

2. Mv.,

36: 115,

117:33

ft.,

119;

. cit.

Iv,, p. 1f9 ; Cv., 11.Lf:?l,1.0S, 125, 152; k5:18;

k6 ft. ; W.M.K.Wijetunge,

. cit. ; U.C.H.C., I, pp.3O95J

3. J.Ph.Vogel, .2, cit., pp. 22, 23. lf• .-iru viai 5. H.R.Wilson,

a1-pnam, pp.. W .Taylov, Mackenzie Collection, I, p..Lv ;

1L ., II, pp.k5, k6,a

53 we are told, were in consequence banished to Ceylon. The substance of these accounts seems true, for, two Kannada inscriptions of earlier dates also refer to the same incident.

Au

inscription

from Tirumak4lu-NarasIpr t1k, of A.D. 1183, alludes to 1 S

Akal.ka's defeat of the Buddhists, while another from Sravaa Belgola celebrates Aka1fika or his victory at flci over the 2 Buddhists who were in consequence banished to the island of Ceylon'. Since more than one literary work and two Lt1Gr&pions record this traditionand since the details of the account are not intrinsically impossible, it may be allowed qualified credence. In the cultural sphere, too, there is evidence of close relations between South India and Ceylon in this period. sew'w.f The influence of Pallava art and architecture onhe buildings and sculptures of the island between the sixth and the ninth century bears testimony to this. The land'ä Geig stands out as a unique monument of Pallava architecture in Ceylon The well-

known Man-and-Horse's-Head and the bas-relief from Isurumuniya as well as the dvrap1a statues at Tiriyy and the bodhisattva figtthes from Situlpavva and Kurukk4-maam exhibit unmistakable

1. E.C., III, Inscr. No.105 from 1iruniaklu-Naras!ptr t].nk '-tl. 2. E.C., II, Inscr. No.5k from ravaa Belgola, p. k. 3. A.S.C.A.R. for 1910/11, pp. 112-50.

54 influence of the Pallava school of scu1pture The use of the Grantha script of the Pallavas in the Sanskrit inscriptions at Tiriyy and the influence of this script on the Sinhalese script in the seventh and eighth centuries bear further testimony to the expansion of South Indian influence into Ceylon in the later Anurdhapura per iod In the context of all these relations between Ceylon and South India a certain amount of two-way traffic in population may be expected, too. According to some traditions in Kerala, there was a migration from Ceylon to that part of the subcontinent in early times and the descendants of these Sinhalese are said to be the caste of people still known as 1avar (Sin.halese or Ceylonese) Probably there were some settlers from Ceylon in

1. A.S.C.A.R. for 1936, pp. 16-19 ; Artibus Asiae, XIX, pp. 165ff., 335 ff. ; Indian Arts and Letters, XI, p. 28 ; U.C.H.C.,I, pt.2,

p. 403. 2. A.S.C.A.R. for 1953, pp. 21, 26 ; P.E.E.Fernando, 'Palaeographical development of the Brhm! script in Ceylon', U.C.R., VII,pp.300-301. 3. V.Nagam Aiya, Travancore State Manual, II, pp. 398-402; T.K.Veluppillai, Travancore State Manual, II, (19 40), pp. 14-15; C.A.)4enon, Cochin State Manual, pp. 33, 203.

55 South India in early times. In Ceylon, South Indian traders probably established temporary settlements in the ports. The fact that the two earliest and most renowned iva temples of Ceylon are to be found in the ancient ports of Mahtittha and Gokaa may point to the establishment of South Indian settlements in these ports at an early date. The antiquity of these shrines can be traced to about the third century A.D. The aiva Tmi-1 works of later times, prominent among these being the Takçia-kailcapuram and the T

a-vaipava-rlai, trace their origin to

pre-Christian times Much of the material in these works, relating to the early period, falls outside the realm of historical probability and one has to turn to other sources for reliable information concerning this quwation. The iva temple at Nahtittha namely Tiru-kttvaram, appears to have been noti g e1 in the Dhvaisa. According to this work, there was a temple of god at the port of Mahtittha in the ninth year of Kitti Sin Megha (A.D.3lO) The existence of a iva temple at Goka4a in the time of }1ahaena

(27k-3 01) is vouched for by the Naiivasa, which mentions the construction by Mahsena of a vihra at Goka after the destruction of a temple of god there The Laattha pp

1.

., Tirnmalai Carukkam ; Yvm., p.

6.

2. Dahavatsa, ed. and tr. B.C.Law, p. k2.

3.

., 37:kl.

inI, the commentary

56

on the 1fahvasa, states that this temple of god was a ivaliga teniple Probably it was the predecessor of the Kvaram temple, about which we bear from the seventh century onwards. It

i8

first

mentioned in the hymns of Taa-campantar, the aiva hymnodist of the seventh century A.D He has also sung a hymn on Tiru-ktivarazn, the diva temple of Mahtittba These iva temples of the island, situated at the major ports of the Anurdhapura period, were presumably built by South Indian aiva traders. Probably there were temporary settlements of South Indian mercantile communities at these places from the early centuries of the Christian era. But it is not tin the ninth century that we get any definite evidence of any Dravidian settlement in the island. Considering the number of occasions when South Indian mercenaries were enlisted, it appears bhat before the ninth century more South Indians went to Ceylon as hired soldiers than as traders. Most of the mercenaries went to the island in the seventh century, when Sinhalese aspirants to the throne enlisted them on no less than seven occasions. There is no positive evidence to suggest that these South Indians remained behind in the island

1. Laatthana1sin!, II, (P.T,S.), p. 685. 2. Tiru-fia-canipantar Tvra Tiruppatikak4, pp. 810-812. 3. Ibid., pp. 518-520.

57 and established permanent settlements. Probably they, or most of them, stayed behind permanently. The situation created by the increasing numbers of Ker4a and Taniil mercenaries in the seventh century and later is comparable with that caused by the Teutonic federates in Britain and on the Rhine and the Danube frontiers of the Roman empire in the fifth century A.D. The British parallel is striking in this respect. We find that a British king employed Saxon mercenaries from the mainland to repel the invasions of his ememies and granted land in the eastern parts of his kingdom for their settlement. Eventually the federates created trouble over payment, plundered the country and asserted their power Although the situation in Ceylon was not similar in magnitude, it is in a similar ninner that the South Indian mercenaries appear to have behaved on several occasions between the seventh and the tenth century. The Cflavasa refers to instances when the mercenaries showed no desire of returning to their homelands, resisted to being expelled by the Simhalese rulers, created trouble over payments, plundered the country and at times took over power at the capital. For instance, immediately after the death of Kassapa II (650-659), his nephew

].. R.G.Collingwood and JN.L.Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, pp. 358-359. 2. Ibid., p. 359.

58 1na 'had the Damias expel1ed' But they resisted this and 1banded themselves with the resolve: With that resolve 'they

seiied

we

will drive him out'

the town' and it was only by

making a mock treaty with them that ?.na was able to regain power This uneasy truce did not last long. Soon after this a Sinhalese aspirant to the throne, Hatthadha, returned to the island with a Tamil force and the Tamile who were already in the island 'arose and joined him on the way as he approached' 'Hattbadha who had won over the party of the Dain4as for himself, occupied the royal city' and ruled for some time On an earlier occasion, T'mi-1 mercenaries of Dhopatissa I (639-650) resorted to plunder and destruction. 'The canoes in

the Mahpli Hall he left to the Damias; (and)they burned

down the royal palace together with the Relic Teniple'

In

the

reign of Sena V (972-982), the Tamil mercenaries were again in power. 'The Dam4as now plundered the whole country like devils and pillaging, seized the property of its inhabitants'?

1.

45:11.

2. Ibid., 45:12. 3. Ibid., 45:13-16. 4. Ibid., 45:19. 5. Ibid., 45:21. 6. Ibid., 44:134. 7. Ibid., 54:5-6.

59 Not long after this, in the tenth year of Mahinda V

(992),

'the Ker4as who got no pay planted themselves one with another

at the door of the royal palace, determined on force, bow in hand, armed with swords and (other) weapons, (with the cry) "So long as there is no pay he shall not eat" When the king fled to Iohaa, 'Ker4as, SIh4as and K$aa carried on the government as they pleased' Just as the Saxon mercenaries founded Teutonic settlements in places like Kent, it appears that the Dravidian mercenaries, namely the DamIas, Ker4as and Kaaae, founded small settlements in Rjaraha which formed the nuclei of later settlements. As we shall see in the sequel, the Sinhalese rulers seem to have granted lands for the settlementsof mercenaries. The inscriptions of the tenth century refer to Tamil allotments and lands, which, according to Paranavitana, seem 'to have been set apart for the maintenance of the Tamil soldiers in the king's service' But it appears that there were Tamil allotments, lands and villages which were not necessarily set apart for the maintenance of TamiJ. soldiers but were places where Tamila were living There is also some indirect evidence in the Clavasa which points

1.

, 55:5-6.

2. Ibid., 55:12.

3. L

k. Se

.

,

III, p. 273.

infra, p. 71.

to the existence of minor Tamil settlements in Rjaraha in the seventh and ninth centuries That Tamils were living scattered here and there is hinted at in a reference in the account of Eatthadha (68k). It is stated that when Ratthadha went to Ceylon with an army of mercenriea from South India and marched towards Anurdhapura, presumably from Mahtittha, 'all the Damias who dwelt here arose and joined him on the way as he approacbed' Evidently this is a reference to the Tamils who lived in the areas between the port and the capital. Another reference is found in the account of the Piya invasion during the reign of Sena I

(833-853). When

the Pya ruler ri

a r1 Vallabba invaded

the island and encamped at Mahtlitagma, '

many Dam4as who 2 . / dwelt scatteredi here and there, went over to his side'. Probably there were minor settlements of mercenary and other Dravidians in some parts of Rjaraha from about the seventh century. A reference in the ClaTaWsa seems to imply that many of the Tamils

in the island in the eighth century were soldiers. While recounting the meritorious deeds of Nahinda II (777-797), the chronicle states that he gave horses to the Dami.as 'as they would not take cattle' This probably refers to the Tamils in the capital city,

1.

k5:19.

2. Ibid,,

5O:lE.

3. Ibid.,

48:lk5.

61 for, it is unlikely that Nahinda II distributed horses to the Taxnils living in all parts of the kingdom. That these Tamils refused cattle and acdepted horses may mean that they were not a settled peasantry but mercenaries who had more use for horses than for cattle. But this, however, is a flimsy evidence and the Tamils who received horses were probably a few mercenary leaders. It is in the thIih and tenth centuries that we again get any definite epigraphic and archaeological evidence, though meagre, pointing to Dravidia.n settlemOnts. For the first time in these centuries, Tamil inscriptions come to light and Sinhalese inscriptions refer to Tamil lands and villages. The earliest of the ruins of iva temples are also datable to the same period. Several Saiva ruins, aptly termed the Tamil Ruins, have been discovered in a section of the norbhern quarter of Anurdhapura These ruins consist of temples and residences for priests, with some lesser buildings scattered here and there. Some of these are ivali.ga temples while some others are dedicated to

the mother goddess. Several stone lifigas, too, have

been unearthed in this area. Al]. the shrines are of ome design, which is simple and reminiscent of the style of early Dravidian temples. These have a vestibule (antaria), a middle—room (ardhama4) and a sanctum (garbha-gha), and were all built of brick 1. £S.C.A.R. for 1892, p. 5 ; A.S.C.A.R. for 1893, p. 5.

62 basentents These aiva ruins of Anurdhapura, according to ParaxLavitana, belong to the 'latest period of that city's history' The style of these temples, which is in marked contrast to the embellished granite temples of the Ca and later ?eriods, is undoubtedly pre-Ca and, therefore, belongs to about the ninth century, if not earlier. This date for these ruins, or at least for most of them, has also been cnfirmed by the Tamil inscriptions found among them, these being the earliest known Tamil records in the island. Two of them are dated in regna]. years of Ciiicañka-pti rya (Skt. Sri Sagbabodhi Mhrja) who has been identified as Aggabodhi III (629-639) by Krishna Sastri This identification rests on the consecration name,

Sababodhi,

and on the script of the inscriptions. He seems ts have been guided mainly by the consecration name or 'throne name', judging from his statement: 'The writing employed in the records is sufficiently archaic to be referred to the time of Aggabodhi III, who according to the Ceylonese chronicle Mahvasa, was surnamed Sin Sahabodhi' Apparently, Sastri was not aware of the fact 1. A.S.C.A.R.for 1893, p. 5. 2. U.C.H.C., I, pt. 1, p. 386. 3, S.I.I., IV, Nos, 1k03, lkOk. li. M.E.R. for 1913, p. 103. 5. Ibid.

63 that Sin S4ghabodhi and Sil.megha were borne alternately by Sinhalese kings as consecration names in much the same way as Rjakari and Parakari were used by the Ca rulers. The name rI Saghabodhi was used by several rulers from the time of Aggabodhi II and it is not easy to identify the ruler of our inscriptioriswith any one of them. But it is possible to date the inscriptions on other grounds. The occurrence of the terms kumrakaam and akkcu in these inscriptions is of some help in this respect. The term kuxnrakaiam, referring to a group or a corporation in the position of a board of managers or trustees of single shnines does not occur in axy of the

Tmi1

inscriptions of South India before the ninth century It appears

1. U.C.H.C., I, pt. 1, p. 365. 2. See _____ 3. K.Kanapathi Pjllaj, A Study of the Language of the Tamil Inscriptions of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries A.D., thesis submitted to the University of London, 1936. Even the two early as of South India, namely the u1ka4am and the amtagaa find mention in the inscriptions only from te time of Nandivarman III (8kk-866) and Aparjita (879-897) respectively, C.Minaksbi, Administration and Social Life under the Pallavas, pp. 130, 132.

64 to have been an institution of the early Ca period. The term (Ceylon money), referring to a particular type of cèin of Ceylon, occurs for the first time in the inscriptions of Parntaka I (907-955) and not earlier It is unlikely that this term had come into use in the time of Aggabodhi III, nearly three centuries earlier. The king mentioned in our inscriptions is also given the title of rya (Mahrja). This is an attribute given to Mahinda IV,(956-97a), along with the name Sri Sagbabodhi, in

the Vessagiri inscription But since the use of the title

}rya may have been indiscriminate, it is not possible to date these inscriptions to the reign of Nahinda IV on this evidence alone. Besides, this date may be somewhat late considering the script of the records. Probably these belong to the ninth century. The aiva ruins amidst which these epigrapha were found may also be dated to the same time. These Tamil inscriptions from Anurdhapura clearly attest to the existence of corporate organizations among the Tamila of Anurdhapura around the ninth century. One of the records, dated in the fifth year of Cii-cafika-pti }Trya,, registers

1. A.Velup:pillai, A

Study of the Language of the Tamil Inscriptions

of the Ninth arid Tenth Centuries, thesis submitted to the University of Oxford, 2.

I, p. 3.

196k.

65 the grant of money, amounting to

thirty akkcus, for the daily

offerings and the burning of the perpetual lamp, evidently to one of the Siva temples in the area, by the members of a kumrakaam (kunrakaattu prrm), from the money loaned by Cki1 Cei Caâka The other inscription, dated in the seventh year of the same king, records the gift of the same amount of money, for the identical purpose, by the same group, from the money given by Ckki

Ceai The phrase kumrakaattu prrm was misunderstood

by Krishna Sastri when he rendered it as 'residents of KumrakaatttaPr1r' Kurakaattu-prir is certainly not the name of a village. Prrm literally means 'we the residents of the big village' and stands for the members of the village assemblies or corporations in the same way as

(residents of the district) and

nakarattr (residents of the town) means members of the district assemblies and mercantile guilds of the towns respectively Kumrakaam is a term which occurs in contemporary South Indian inscriptions and stands for a group or corporation holding trusteeship of single shrines

1. S.1.I., IV, No. 1k03 2. Ibid., No.lkOk. 3. M.E.R. for 1913, p . 103.

k C.Minakshi, .2g. cit., p. 122. 5. K.A.Ni].knta Sastri, The cZ±, p.

refers to those villagers

66 or citizens who were members of the kunrakaam. Since these groups were not mercantile guilds, it cannot be said that they bad extra-territorial interests. This would mean that the I€un1rakaam of our inscriptions was a local body without any kind of relationship with a South Indian body. The important fact to be noticed Ia that the Tamils settled in Anurdhapura in this time bad organizations and institutions similar to those of their kinsmen on the mainland and used Tamil, presumably for the first time in Ceylon, in their donative records. A third Tami]. inscription from the same ruins throws further interesting light on the Tamils who lived in that area This long but badly weathered epigraph records the building of a Buddhist vihra by the Nñku Nu Tamia± ('The Tamils of the Four Countries'). It is dated in the reign of Seavarma. Since palaeographically the epigraph may be said to belong to the ninth century, this Seavarma could be either Sena I or II (833-853 and 853-887). The 11ku Iu Tamiar of this inscription also refer to themselves as Nku

(We of the Four Countries).

It appears that they were a single body rather than a group of Tamils from four different countries. The evidence of some of the Kannada inscriptions shows that it is so. These inscriptions are those left by the mercantileAcalled the AiMMTuvar and their

1. S.I.I., IV, No. 1k05.

67 associates and belong to about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries In these inscriptions, we find references to a community called the lku }u (Four Countries), who were among the associates of the Aififlh1uvar. They were probably a trading community like the lu Nakarattr (Those of the Four Cities) bit there is no evidence on this point. The Nku

Nu,

ku Nu Tamiar o Tm11- of the

mentioned in our inscription from Anurdhapura, seeni

to have been members of the same community as the lku

I4u of

the Kannada inscriptions. It is interesting to note that this community of Tamila erected a Buddhist temple at Anurdhapura some time in the ninth century and named it )kktai-pai. }kktai is an epithet that refers to the Cra or Keraja king The fact that the Buddhist

or vihra built by the Tamils

WLS

of the Nku I tu, suests that they may have hailed from Kerala. On the basis of the mounds of tile fragments and potsherds met with all over the area of the Tamil Ruins, H.C.P.Bei]. has surmised that the TRmII community relegated to this quarter would appear to be the caste of the potters Tt would, however, seem rather difficult to ascertain the profession of the community

1.

., VIII, p . 89 of the text ; see infra p.-o

2. M.LR. for 1916, No.130 of 1916.

3. T.A.S., V,

p. 100 fa.

4. A.S.C.A.R. for

1893, p. 5.

68 that lived in this quarter on the basie of these mounds. It is somewhat far-fetched to suppose that the Tamils at Anurdhapura were assigned different quarters of the city on the basis of their castes. Further, the evidence of the above inscriptions, revealing the presence of the

ku Iu who were possibly traders,

goes against this conclusion. This area, where the ruins are all of a religious nature, appears to have had aiva as well as Buddhist temples which were common places of worship for the Draidians who lived in and near the city. Although the Tami]. Ruins are concentrated in the area between the path from Jetavaxirnia to Vijayrina and the path to Pa.k4iya from Kuctam PokuQa scattered remains of aiva monuments have been discovered here and there even outside these limits, but almost all in the northern part of the city. For instance,

in the

area north of the Basavak4ant

tank some stone liñgas were dizcovered Near the sluice of the same tank was discovered a stone-based Piaiyr teniple Ih the Citadel area, the figure of a small na.ndi and the argha of a _____ were unearthed A quarter of a mile north of the Thprma

1. LS.C.A.R. for

1892, p .

5.

2. A.S.C.A.R. for 1890, p. 2. 3. Ibid., p. 3

k.

A.S.C.A.R. for 1898,

p. 3.

69 a small Hindu temple similar to those in the Tamil Ruins was also excavated In Vihra No.1 at Pañki4iya, there are three inscriptions in Tamil and Grantha scripts Some of these remains may belong to later times but generally several of them seem to belong to the period before the Ca occupation. The consensus of evidence from all these finds should lead us to conclude that there was a Dravidian settlement in the northern part of Anurdhapura. By the time of Kassapa IV (898-91k) we get in the Sirihalese inscriptions definite references to Tamil villages and lands. There are three significant terms which occur in this connection in these inscriptions. They are Dem4-kblla, Dem4at-vlademin and Dem4-am-bim, which have been translated as 'Tamil allotment' ,'Tamil lands' and 'Tamil villages and lands' respectively As pointed out earlier, Paranavitana has interpreted

1. A.S.C.A.R. for 1898, p. 5. 2. A.S.C.A.R. for 1892, p. k ; 5.1.1., IV, Nos. 1399, lkOO. 3. D.Lde Z.Wickramasinghe, 'Anurdhapura Slab Inscription of Naheridra IV', E.Z., I, p. 117 ; S.Paranavitana, 'Colonibo iseum Pillar Inscription of Kassapa IV', E.Z., III, pp. 272,

273;

'Polonxiaruya Council Chamber Inscription of Abhaya Sa1mevan', IV, p. 36 ; ' Girital Pillar Inscription of Udaya III', III, p. 1k3.

70 the term Dem4-kblla to mean 'an allotment of land in a village, set apart for the Tamils'. In his o4nion, they seem 'to have been set apart for the maintenance of Tamil soldiers in the king's service and must have been administered by royal officers' On an examination of the different occurrences of this term in the published inscriptions, it appears that the abpve interpretation does not always yield a satisfactory meaning. It is difficult to arrive at the exact meaning of this term; it appears to be an allotment of land enjoying privileges different from those of lands classified as paniunu But certainly it is not always an allotment from the royal household. For instance, in the Polonnaruva Council Chamber inscription, a Tamil allotment occurs as the private property of an individual In this record the allotment was granted immunities as a pamunu on condition of paying annual'y oie pla of dried ginger to a hospital. There is no reference in this record, or for that matter in any of the records where the term Dem4-kbfla occurs, to any share of the revenue being allocated for the maintenance of the Tamil soldiers.

., III, p. 273. 2. A pamunu was 'an estate possessed in perpetuity by a family in hereditary succession, or by an institution like a monastery pr a hospital', U.C.H.C.., I, pt. 1, p.

3.

., IV, p. 36.

375.

71 It is, therefore, clear that a Dernej-kbUa did not always denote an allotment from the royal household nor was it necessarily set apart for the maintenance of Tamil soldiers. It could only mean an allotment in a village where Tamils lived, presumably separated from the others. Some other references in the inscriptions seem to lend support to this interpretation. In the Rjarnigva inscription of }lahinda IV (956-972) it is recorded that certain immunities were granted to the village of Kiigama The piralkkam, who appear to have been a class of officials, were granted certain privileges in Dem4-kiigam but not in Kiigarna. It is clear from the context that Dem4-kiigam was not far away from Kiigama. Deme.-kiigam (Tamil Kiigam) appears to have been a

Tmil sector

which was originally part of the village of

Kiigama. This probably is an example of a Deme-kb].la. The Colombo Museum Pillar inscription refers to an officier called Deme-adhikra, who was presumably in charge of matters concerning Tamils, or more probably Tamil mercenaries, for, as Paranavitana has remarked, it is. when the edicts are concerned with the Tamil allotments that this official takes a part in the promulgation of edicts It is unlikely that it is one of the titles that were

1.

II, I,56.

2. E.Z., III, pp. 272, 27k ; U.C.H.C., I, pt. 1, p. 372.

72 conferred on certain officiala of the kingdom. In the time of ParkraniabJiu I (1153-1186) we come across at least two officials who were known as Damiadhikrins. The ciava4sa refers to

Dmf-.

dhikrin Rakkha who was a comm8nder in ParkramabThu's army The Galapta-vihra rock inscription, which is sometimes held to be of the time of Parkramabhu II but appears to belong to the reign of Parramabhu I, mentions Dem4a-adhikra Kahaibalk4u J4indaln, held to be probably identical. with Nagaragiri or Nagaraga.11a Nahinda of the Clavasa, who was one of the military comm'nders o Parkramabhu I From the last two occurrences of this title or designation, Dem4a-adhikra or Damidhikrin seems to have been a term applied to a military officer. Probably be was in charge of the Tamil mercenary forces and was, therefore, known as Dem4a-adhikra (Tamil official or authority). Probably the Dem4a-adhikra mentioned in the tenth century Colombo Museum Pillar inscription was also an official commanding the Tamil mercenary forces. His participation in the promulgation of edicts concerning Tamil allotments was probably due to the reason that these Tamil allotments were places where Tamil mercenaries had settled down. The presence of Tamil settlers in some of the villages of Rjaraha in the ninth and tenth centuries is also evidenced by the term Dem4e-kuli which occurs in some of the Sinhalese

1. 2.

75:20, 69, 74.

2. LZ., IV, p. 208 ; tJ.C.H.C., I, pt. 2, p. 488.

73 inscriptions of that time. This term occurs always with the term B4e-ki4i. Wickrainasinghe translated the terms as 'Tamil coolies' and 'Sinhalese coolies' respectively but Paranavitana has rightly rendered them as two types of imposts levied from Tamils and Sinhalese respectively It seems clear from the context that these refer to some kind of tax and not to people. It is a very probable conjecture that the foreign settlers had to pay imposts different from those paid by the Sinhalese. It is not always that these two terms occur when a reference is made to imposta. For example, in the case of the immunities granted in respect of the village of Kiigaina, mentioned earlier, the term k$i (impost) occurs without the epithet Dem4e (Tamil) or

H4e (Sinhalese) We have seen earlier that there was another village called Dem4-kiigam, which was probably a Tarnil allotment in Kiigama Since Dem4-ld4igazn was treated as a separate village, there was apparently no need to qualify the term ku with Dem4e and Here in respect of the immunities granted to KiQigama. This may suggest that the two distinct types of k4! were mentioned in the immunity grants only in regard to villages where both Tanhils and Sinhalese were living. On the basis of this

1.

. ,I, pp. 170, 175.

2.LZ., IV, p. 511,fn.

3. !'' II, p. 6. k. See supr,p.'I.

6.

.74 body of indirect evidence, it may not be wrong to conclude that in the ninth and tenth centuries there were Tamils living in separate allotments in some Sinhalese villages and that such an allotment was known as a Deme-kbtlla. There seems t-e- he to have been such allotments in royal as well as pmivate villages. Similarly, the term Demea-v!lademin (lands enjoyed by Tm11s) 1 also appears to refer to the lands that were owned by Tm11s This phrase occurs in the Giritale Pillar inscription of Udaya III (935-936). The Anurdhapura Slab inscription of Mahinda IV (956-972) lays down that '(the produce) of trees and shrubs which exist ...... in the Tamil villages and lands (Dem4 gam-bim) (situated) in the four directions shall be appropriated in accordance with former custom' Bere the phrase 'Tamil villages and lands' evidently refers to the villages and lands where Tamils had settled. As mentioned before, the Clava111sa also refers to Tanii].s living here and there in Rjaraffha The placename evidence relating to Dravidian settlements in this period is negligible. Besides Dem4-ki4igam, there is another place-name with the element Deme occurring in the Ayitigvva inscription

1. I am indebted to R.A.L.H.Gunawardena for explaining this term to me. 2. E.Z., III, pp. 139, lk3.

3. LZ . , I, p. 117. k. See supra, p. co•

75 of Kassapa IV (898-9lk) The Ku ur_,1'an-d m ina Pillar inscription of the same monarch refers to a place called Kera].gama which may have been a place where Ker4a settlers were found The foregoing evidence of the Sinhalese inscriptions and the Clavasa is far too scant; and vague that it is difficult to arrive at definite conclusions regarding Dravidian settlements outside Anurdhapura in the ninth and. tenth centuries. These evidences certainly point to the presence of some Tamil settlers in the villages not far from Anurdhapura. It is interesting to note that Tamil inscriptions of the eleventh century have been discovered within a few miles of the Dem4-kbllas and Deme-gam-bim mentioned in the Sinhalese inscriptions This fact may not be purely coincidental but may be a pointer in the same direction, namely that these allotments and lands had settlements of Tamils. These settlements were probably sm'11 and embryonic. To sum up the evidence so far discussed, we have in the first place references in the chronicles to the presence of Tamil traders, invaders and mercenaries in the island from abont the second century B.C. There is no evidence, however, to

].. E.Z., II, p, 38.

IL

S ) te t.. !j..

fiti..y.'•

2. Ibid., pp. 22-23. The reading of this name is tentative for the inscription is damaged at this point. 3. See map at the end of the thesis.

76 suggest that there were Dravidian settlements either in the pre-Christian period or in the early centuries of the Christian era, On the contrary, the general impression given by the Pli chronicles is that the Tamils were foreign to Ceylon. Their usurpations and unpleasant intrusions are not always dealt with favourably. We have the evidence of three Brhm! cave inscriptions, datable to the second or first century B.C., for the presence of Tamils, presumably traders, in the island. But here, too, the impression given by the inscriptions is that these Tamils were foreigners. Although the inscriptions were set up by Taniils, whose names are mentioned in them, the language of these records is Proto-Sinhalese as in the case of all the other inscriptions of the island at this time. But more important than this is that the recorders have described themselves as Tamils, which would indicate that they considered themselves to be distinct from, if not alien to, the general population, just as much as the Sixihalese donors in the pre-Christian cave inscriptions of the Tami]. country made known the fact that they were Sinhalese householders kuunipikan = Skt. Sifih4a kuumbikrini) In later times, too, we get instances of Tamils, who made grants to temples outside the Tamil country, recording them in the language of the arbut

1.

Mu., 25:110; Cv., 38:35-37.

2. C.Narayana Rao,

. cit., pp. 367, 368, 375.

77 niking mention

of the fact that they were Tamils There is,

therefore, no epigraphic evidence suggesting the existence of Tainil or other Dravidian settlements in Ceylon in the period before the ninth century. It is only the archaeological evidence that points to the existence of a Dravidian settlement at Pomparippu and possibly another at Katirav4i, between about the second century B.C. and the third century A.D.After this there is a long gap till we reach the seventh century, when we get some flimsy evidence that points to possible Tamil settlements in the island. According to the Pli chronicle, bands of Tamil mercenaries were taken to the island at least on seven occasions in the seventh century. It also contains vague references to Taniils living in some parts of Rja.taha. Certain prominent Tamils, in possession of villages and tnk, also find meution In the contemporary Tamil works of South India, there are references to iva temples at the ports of Gokaa and Mahtittha which were venerated by Taniils. However, it could not be claimed that there is any definite evidence relating to Tamil settlements in the seventh century. It is only in the ninth and tenth centuries that we get such evidence in the Sinhalese and Tainil inscriptions

in the

archaeological sources and to an extent

1. E. g ,, LE.P. for 189k, No. 18k of 1893. 2. Cv., 146:l92k.

in the

Pli

7r chronicle. That by the tenth century permanent Dravidian settle ents had begun in the island is fairly clearly borne out by these SOurces. On the basis of this meagre evidence that is available, we have to conclude that there were no notable Dravidian settlements of a widespread nature before the ninth century. The settlement at Pomparippu and the possible settle ent at Katirav4i have to be treated as isolated earlier settlements. These are comparable to the earliest Saxon settlements in Britain, at places like Dorchester, where the Teutonic artefacts are so early that they are not sometimes considered to belong to the period of Saxon settlement at all The burials at Pomparippu apart, the evidence as a whole does not warrant the assumption of a date earlier than the ninth century for the beginning of permanent and distinct Dravidian settlements in Ceylon. Before that century, there was intercourse between South India and Ceylon in the commercial, political, cultural and religious spheres in the wake of which some Dravidians went over to the island and possibly settled down there. Probably there were some mercenary settlers, too, from about the seventh century. Many of them may have been assimilated to the Sinhalese population before long. Besides the absence of positive evidence, there are also other considerations which lead us to think that Dravidian settlements worthy of the name were not founded before the ninth

1. R.G.Co].lingwood and J.N.L.Myres,

. cit., p. 39k.

79 century. As we shall see later, the evidence of the literary and epigraphic sèurces indicates that the present-day Tamil areas were then settled by Sinhalese people. The evidence of place-names, too, supportithis conclusion. A number of Simhalese inscriptions of this period have been discovered in the Maar, Vavuniy, Trimoomalee and Batticaloa districts, where Dravidian settlements were found in the thirteenth century. Some of these inscriptions provide us with the earlier Sinhalese names of villages and tanks which now bear Taniil names. For instance, the Mar Kaccri Pillar inscription of about the ninth century mentions the villages of 'Pepodatua, Kumbalhala,and Tumpokon, situated in the Kuakadavuk division of the Northern Coast', presumably close to Kahtittha, where the record was found The Sinhalese name of Alaricca for the raperiyak4am tank occurs in an inscription of GajabThu I (1l11. _136), from the same place The Sinhalese name for Kurunta-k$am, in the Northern Province, a appears as Kuruñgama in an inscription of l4ahinda III (801-80k) from that vi1lage In this last name, the derivation of the Tm11 form from the Sinhalese is clearly evident. Besides,these considerations, it is also worth noting that the Tamils of South

1.

., III, p. 105.

$e1?'

2. A.S.C.A.R. for 1905, p. 3. Ibid.

k3.

80 India did not consider Ceylon as a Ta.mil-speaking region till very late times. In their early demarcation of the 'good Tamilspeaking world' (Tamiu-nal-ulakam), the omission of Ceylon is conspicuous We may, therefore, conclude that evidence for extensive or permanent Dravidi-an settlements bearing the signs of a date earlier than the ninth century is definitely absent. Permanent settlements of the Dravidians probably began by about the ninth century. Before the eleventh century these were by no means extensive. There were Tamils and possibly Ker4as and Karas settled in the northern quarter of Anurdh pure. after the ninth century. Outside the capital city

Tmi1,

and probably other Dravidian, settlers were found scattered in some of the villages of Rjaraha. It is not possible to locate all these villages with the evidence at our disposal. The Dem4-k1b11a referred to in the Colombo Museum Pillar inscription is stated in that record to have been situated in 'Gaagami, a revenue(village) of Valvii in the Northern Province' Unfortunately, neither Gaagami nor Valvii admits of any identification.Since the provenance of the record is also unknown, not even a rough location is possible. Since the village was in the Northern Province of the kingdom, it is to be located somewhere north of Anurdhapura. The Deme-k lla mentioned in the Polonnaruva

1. See supra,

2.

., III, p. 276.

81 Council Chamber inscription is identifiable. This al].Qn1ent, according to the inscription, was in the village of Kogm, in the district adjoining Mahara, in the province of Ginvaiunn-danaviya Nicholas has identified this village with the present Kogan-vela, in }tal Eaet In the Giritale Pillar inscription of Udaya III some Tamil lands are stated to have been situated in the Panisk4iya district of the Eastern Province This Parisk$iya district, according to the identification of Nicholas, extended over the Giritale areas Dem4inheihaya of the Ayitigvva inscription has been identified by Nicholas with the present Ayit1gv!va, in the flurulu division of the Anurdhapura distnict It has not been possible to identify Dem4-ki4igam mentioned in the R jmigva inscription of Nahinda IV. According to the inscription, this place was in the Eastern Province Probably it was situated somewhere in the region east of Anurdhapura. There is a KiLigama to the southeast of Anurdhapura but it is rather difficult to identify this

1. E.Z., IV, p. 36. 2. C.W.Nicholas,

. cit., p. 3k.

3. E.Z., III, p . 139. 1, C.W.Nicholas, p. 18k.

5. E.Z., II, p. 38 ; 6.

E.Z., Ii i p. 56.

C..Nicholas, p. 168.

82 b4

with the Xi4igani of the above inscription, for, the mo&ern

Kiigama seems to fail outside the limits of the ancient Eastern Province. The village named Kerellgama in the Kuurumahan-dmna Pillar inscription was in the district of Valapu, in the Western Province of the Anurdhapura 1cingdoni It baa not been possible to identify this village exactly. Since the provenance of the inscription is 14al1iinau, in the Vilpattu National Park, which lies in the area of the ancient Western Province, we have to seek the ancient Kerelgama soniewere in that region. The ripixuiiyva and RabUva inscriptions of the time of Sena II (853-887) refer to the impost, Dem4e-ku2, in connection with the villages of Posonavull and Gliduru-gomaala, which have been identified as !ripinniyva and RaMblva respectively The Vihrgama Pillar inscription of Kassapa IV also refers to Deme

in connegtion

with another village, the name of which is not preserved Another inscription of Kassapa IV, mentioning Dem4e-kulI comes from Sgiriya The nature of these possible Tamil settlements and the strength of the Tamil population in the island caxu.ot be determined with the help of the meagre evidence available to us.

1. E.Z., II , pp. 22-23. 2. E.Z., 1 pp. 1 67, 175 ; C.W.Nicholas, p. 3. E.Z, IV, p . 52.

k.

A.S.C.A.R. for 1911/12, p. 108.

169.

83 It appears that the Tainil settlers were found scattered in different villages and probably there was no single area which was peopled entirely by Dravidians. Many of the settlers may have been mercenaries who were taken to the island froa time to time by

Sinha].eae

princes. All that could be said with some

amount of certainty is that the ninth and tenth centuries saw the beginnings of the Dravidian settlements which covered several parts of the northern half of the island in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

84 CHAPTER II

SL'rTLENTS IN THE PERIOD OF CLL CCC TJPAT ION (c • 993-1070)

The period of some two centuries that lies between the fall of Anurdhapura and the collapse of Polonnaruva has long been recognized as one of very close political, cultural and social intercourse between South India and Ceylon. The events of this period, it may not be wrong to claim, led to some of the far-reaching changes that took place in the history of the island in the thirtbenth century. These changes determined the course of the future history of the island in many ways. But the two main results were undoubtedly the drift of Sinhalese political power from Rjara

to the south-west and the rise of Tm{1

power in the northernmost regions of the country. The events leading to these dramatic changes may be said to begin at the turn of the tenth century with the Ca occupation For the first time a large part of Ceylon became a province of a TRm41 empire, and this naturally drew the island into the arena of South Indian politics and opened the way to the influence of South India and the influx of the Dravidian people into Ceylon.

1. See W.LK.Wijetunge, The Rise and Decline of Ca Power in Ceylon, thesis submitted to the University of London, 1962.

85 The history of the Ca occupation of Ceylon has been critically examined by W.X.K.Wijetunge in a thesis submitted to the University of London in

1962. It

is, therefore, not our

intention to deal here with the Ca conquest which was begun by Rjarja I in c.992/993 and completed by Rjndra I in 1017. In this chapter, we shall confine ourselves to a discussion of the Dravidian settlements that were established in the period of the CN1a occupation. Although it is possible to argue that the transformation of northern and a part of eastern Ceylon into Tamil-speRking areas must have been well under way by the time of the foundation of the independent Tamil kingdom of Jaffna in the thirteenth century and that this process must have begun at least a century or two before the latter event, it is not so easy to trace the course of the Dravidian occupation of these areas. The settlements of the Dravidians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries cannot be told as a na*rative with the materials at our disposal. We can only attempt to seek an answer to some of the important questions concerning their migration and settlement. Was there any large-scale migration of Dravidians in the period of Ca rule 2 What was the nature and extent of some of the settlements indicated by the inscriptional and archaeological materials 9 It may not be possible to set out on our inquiry with the hope of arriving at the whole truth, but at least we may be able to

86 arrive at more than what has been known so far. The first problem that confronts us in examining the course of the Dravidian settlements in this period is the question of whether there was a migration of South Indians into the island in the wake of the C

1a conquest. Of the different

kinds of evidence that lie before us, that of the literary sources is not of much help to opr inquiry. The only literary works that contain any notable references to the Ca conquest are the PV.i ClavaU1sa and the Sinha.lese Pjvaliya and RLvaliya. No notice of the occupation of the island is found in any of

the contenrporary Tamil works of South India, apart from the incidental allusions to the conquest in such works as the Kaliñkattu-parai The Tami]. chronicles of Ceylon, written in much later times, strangely enough do not preserve even the memory of the Ca conquest of the eleventh century. The names of such C 1a conquerors as Rjarja and Rljndra are not even mentioned in these sources. Such works have little claim on our confidence for the history of Tam11 settlements in the eleventh or earlier centuries. The account of the C!lavqsa is by far the most important literary source for the history of the period of CN1a

1. Xaliñkattu-parai, v. 6k.

87 rule. Four of its chapters have been devoted to the events of this period and these have been written not very long after the time of the foreign occupation But despite this distinct value, it is of little use in our inquiry. The author of this section of the Pli chronicle, while relating the untold dpmages wrought by the C]as and denouncing their wickedness, does not interest himself in the affairs of the Ca administration or in those of the Tamils and Sinhalese in the Ca domains. The subject of his history is the resistance organized by some Rohaa princes. Of these princes, VijayabThu, the final liberator of the country from the C

1a yoke, is chosen as the hero of this

section of the chronicle. The conquest of the island and the desecration of the monasteries by the invaders are dismissed in a dozen verses in the chapter entitled 'The Pillage of _____ After these, any reference to the Caa is made only in connection with the resistance that was carried on against them. Repeated references are made to the hordes of Taini]. invaders who were taken to the island to suppress rebeliions In short, it is an account of the miseries wrought by the Cas and of the bitter

1. Cv.,

55-58.

2. Ibid.,

55:13-25.

3. Ibid., 55:25 ; 58:1k ;

58:25.

88 struggle that went on between the patriotic Sinhalese rebels and the ruthless £oeign invaders. The traditions concerning the areas uhder foreign rule may have been considered irrelevant to the purpose of the author. But it is more likely that the author was depending on records which were preserved in the south of the island and which, therefore, did not contain any information regarding the goings-on in the districts contrèlled by the Cas. All that we can positively gather from the P12i chronicle is that Tamil armies were sent to Ceylon at frequent intervals and that they were stationed in different parts of Ceylon. Whether there were Dravidians, other than these soldiers, who went over to the island at this time is a question that cannot be answered with the the help of the Ctflavqisa. In the Clavaisa account of the final campaign of Vijayabhu against the Caa, some of their strongholds in D2kkhiadesa and

in the eastern part of the island are named.

It was after the subjugation of these places that the Sinhalese commanders sent word to VijayabThu to join them at Poloxuiaruva The strongholds in D2kk(iadesa are given as Muhunnaru (Ruvar2k1), Badalatthala (Batalagola), Vpinagara (VEziaru), Tilagulla (Talagall.1a), Nalilgalla (Ngalla or Nikavrai), NaagaUa (Mahamaagalla)

1. .2z. 58:k6.

89 and Buddhag.ma (I nikdea) Of thãse in the east only Chagrna (Sikãxnain) is mentioned by name It is not known from the Clavasa whether there were any Tamil settlements in these

Ca

strongholds. Evidently there were many Ca troops stationed

at these places and possibly some of them settled down there.

Although the evidence of the C1tTlavasa is rather flimsy for such a speculation, there are other considerations which support it. The discovery of Tamil inscriptions of the twelfth century and the occurrence of place-names denoting Taniil settlements in or not far from most of the C]a strongholds mentioned above suggest that there may have been Tamil settlers in and around the Ca strongholds in the eleventh century The Cflavaisa claims that 'all the warlike, valiant Co.as who were to be found here and there, gathered together in Pulatthinagara' on the óe èf the final debacle, and that the army of Vijayabhu, when it triumpahntly entered the city, 'at once exterminated a].]. the Damias root and branch' The statement that all the Te mils who lived in Polonnaruva during the C]a rule were annihilated is obviously an exaggeration.

1.

58:k2-k5.

2. Ibid.,

.$.C.

3.See infra,

'I.

58:51, 56.

90 That Vijayablhu did not have any animosity against the Tamils but was only fighting the C

1as is

borne out by ample evidence.

The employment of the Vaikkras, some of whom. may have been 2 erstwhile mercenaries of the Cas, 1 his patronage of Saiva temples, and his political and matrimonial alliance witb the PIyas3 show that Vijayabhu did not harbour any grievances against the Tamils. The evidence of the Abagamuva inscription that he 'drove away the whole darkness of the Dam4a forces' appears to be closer to the truth than the Clavasa statements The Pfli C.PiCtPVi

chronicle has, therefore, no valuable inforniation, }nt ai, C1t1ren1rjis

)C4?r1.

yamputtr> vai, AurItapuram > &urai,

518 is not difficu].t to explain. The Tamil rendering of the Sinhalese name would have been used only in literary works while the old Sinha].ese name would have continued to be used by the orthary people in its Tamilieed form of Vl4i

mai, which is still

current. Such a practice is in keeping with Ind{n literary tradition. In the Ceylonese chronicles, we find that very often Sinhalese names are rendered in Phi, as for instance Mahltittha for Etoa. However, neither C4ra1nIu nor N aiçal and its variants appear to have been commonly used as the name of the northern kingdom. Th*r disappearance

in the

later literary

works supports this conclusion. We are inclined to agr.e with Gnanapragasar that this northern kingdom was lmown as am or Ili Akai, without any special epithets to distinguish it from the southern kingdom. The Taki4a-kailIca-1,uriam refers to a CekarIca-ckara,, one of the rulers of Jaffna, as the king of Ilp Mr2 i The Kai1hyanlai calls the first $rya ruler as Teilei-m2mava (ling of IlMi in the South) The Kuumiymz1ai inscription mentioned earlier refers to the ruler of the northern kingdom as one of the kings of Ceylon We have

1. Tkp., Ciappupphyirain. 2.

., p.

6.

3. See supra,

519 also seen that the aa of the inscriptions of )avarma Sundara PIya I may refer only to the northern {ndoa The inscriptions of the Vijayanagara period, too, refer to the nortber{'dom of Ceylon as am From about the beginn ing

of

tb

lnof

Earihar* II (acc. 1377), JaZfna was subdued by_ the Vlj&yanagara rulers. But the subjugation of Jaffna is regard& in_the earlier inscriptions and literary works, anch as the Nria4T-vilIsam, as the conquest or re-conquest of Cey1on But in the fifteenth century, the name flppIam came to be applied to the northern kingdom and am was reserved for the Linhalese kingdom in the south. Thus, we see for the first time a Vi4ayngara.i4scription from Iakri, dated aka 1357 (A.D. 1k35), referring, to the northern and southern kingdoms as IIppIam and. am.respectively The name TIppe m suBt have gained currency in the liLteenth century. In all the grants of the Setnpatis of Bmnad the northern bingdom is referred to as !1ppIam or flppa-tcam (the land of !ppiam) In the Portuguese works, the ugdoa is

1. See supra, p. 2. LE.R. for 1918, Woe. 128 and 13k; M.E.R. for 1923, No. 92 of 1923.

3 S.Krishnaswamy A.iyangar, Sources of Vifayanagara History, p. 153; U.C.H.C., I, pt. 2, p. 687. k.

LE.L for 1901, No. 128 of 1901; S.1.1., VII, No. 778.

5. See enpra,

P"i-iC

520 often referred to as Jafanapata The Sinhalese literary works of the fifteenth century refer to tb. 4ryacakravartins as the rulers of flp1pauna (the Sinhalese form of JafZna) flpIpauna certainly designated the capital of the northern kingdom. This is clear from the context in which it occurs in the Sizihalese owrks But whether it was applied to the whole of the nothern kingdom as well is not clear. Probably it did. The evidence of the Sinhalese Nampota suggests that the whole of the Tamil kingdom, including parts of the modern Trincomalee district, was also known to the Sinhalese as Dem4a-paanama. In this work, a number of villages which are now situated in the Jaffna, I4uflaitTvu and Trincomalee districts, namely Ngak'vila (NkarkZvil), Kadurugoa (Kantarfai), Telipola (Tellippali), Malligama (Mal].kam), Ninivañgamu (VTm1cnuin), Taini-divsyina (Kayts), Mni-divayina (&alai-tTvu), NIga-divayina (NIkatTvu or NayiI-tvu), Puvagi-divayina (Pwi$u-tTvu), £ra-divayina (Krai-tTvu), )4olliylvala (N43iyav4ai), TrikiTm1 aja (Trinoozna].ee), Vilgamvehera (NItar-kvil or Vilgam-vihra), Tiss m ahavebera and Ilandago4a, are mentioned as places in Dem4a-paanama1

1. F.de Queyroz,

. cit., p. k8.

2. See supra, p. o.o 3. See eupra, p.

lj.00

k. Nampota, pp. 5-6.

521 Dem4a-paaji.ma (Tamil Port) was probably first applied to the seat of the Tamil rulers in the northern region and then extended to mean the whole of the Tamil kingdom. There is also another Sinhalese name for the Tamil kingdom in an old K4aimpota (Book of Boundaries). In this work, the whole of the northern kingdom is referred to as J1vaama, as mentioned earlier This is the only work mentioning this Tl eme. Perhaps it was not widely used by the Sinhalese. The capital of the florthern kingdom, which we may now call the Jaffna kingdom for purposes of convenience, is often given in the early Tamil works of Ceylon as

Ciiea1 or

C4kai

nakar. These works, the Cekarica-ckara-mlai, Cekarca-ckaram and the

a-kai1ca-nlai, mgkp it clear that Cl

?ks( was

the place where the Xryacakravartins r.eided The only Tamil inscription

in the

island mention4 ng an Xryacakravartin also

refers to C41ki-nakar as his seat Cikii is also mentioned, along with Aurai (Anurldhapnra) in the inscriptions of Arikari Parkrama PI 4ya (].k22-lk6l) 1 It is clear from these references that ClMi or Ciki-n,kar was the capital of the

1. See aupra, p. lF&3 2. Ccm.,

v.36; Cekarlca-c!karam,

quoted in the Cern., p.xiv,b. ;

., p.78, v. 109. 3. See supra, p . 4wk. M.E.R. for 1912, No. 1i of 1912.

522 Jaffna kingdom in the early period of its existence. The later chronicles, however, do not mention Ci-Mai as the capital of the Taniil.kingdom, although these refer to the Iryacakravartins as C lcpi Ariyas The

ppa-vaipava-n1ai and the Iailyanlai

give Na111r as the capital of the first iryacakravartins Na1].r is not mentioned in any of the earlier Tamil works or in inscriptions. It has, therefore, been suggested that C1?ik2i-nkr was the first capital and. NallUr the second capital, established in the fifteenth century after the conquest of the 11ngdom by Sapumal EunrayI The Linhalese works of the fifteenth century refer to the seat of the Jaffna rulers as TIppauna The fourteenth-century traveller Ibn Batuta states that he visited an ryacakravartin at Battala, which some have attempted to identify with Putta].am, on the western coast of the island But the topographical details furnished by the Muslim traveller show$ that this town was somewhere to the north of Manr. Probably Ibu Batuta was referring to !IE1pauna. The element una

in this

name has the variants

anama and ffa1ama_in Sinhalese In fact1 de Queyroz gives

1. Tym., p. 27. 2. Ibid., p. 26; !!• p. 7. 3. S.Gnanapragaaar,

pp. 106-107.

k. See supra, p. 1frD. 5. S.Gnanapragasar,

pa-vaipava-vimarcana, p.

88.

6. S.Paranavitana, 'The Irya ingdom in North Ceylon', p. 211, fn.136.

523 Jafana-en-putalain as a variant of Jafaua-pata5 Battala of Ibm Batuta, like the putalam in the name given by de Queyroz, may be related to

alama. However, it is not impossible that Ibm

Batuta met the ruler of Jaffna at a place which was not the capital. The Portuguese sources inform us that at the time of the arrival of the Portuguese in the island, that i. in the first decade of the sixteenth century, the seat of the rulers

4

of Jaffna was Na11ttr Thus, we have Ci %Jri-n.kir, npip una or !Ilppaa and Na11x' being mentioned in the literary works and inscriptions as the capital of the Jaffna klngdom. Whether theme three names refer to the same city or not is a matter of some controversy. Since Sinhalese literature contemporaneous with the 4ryacaavartins refers to their capital by the name of Tpipauna, Paranavitana is- inclined to presume that 'the name Ci?'ical- or C1#i{-naker was restricted in its use to court circles and literary men, as GagIsiripura for Gaip4a, for instance, and. that 'Yipipaçuna' was the popular name' Natesan has suggested that it is possible that C1?ir,i-nakar was re-named as NaUtr in later centuri.st Rasansyagam and Gnaiiapragaear hav 1. Y.de Queyroz,

i•

.£

' p. 47.

2. Ibid., p. 47. 3. S.Paranavitana, 'Tb. 4rya Kingdom in North Ceylon', p. 201. 4. U.C.E.C., I, pt. 2, p. 695.

524 maintained that NallUr was founded in the fifteenth century after the invasion of Sapu mal Kumray1 of the KT kingôom and that C1ki-nkar was the earlier capital, to be located in the region of Vallipuru, near Point Pedro According to these writers, the ancient potsherda and brickbate near the sea at Vallipuram indicate that this place was the anciant capital of the 1d-ngs of_Jaffna. This is not an acceptable argument. The occurrence of ancient artefacts in a place does not necesmarily prove that that place was the seat of kings. VaUipurwn, where a gold plate of the time of Vaeabha (67-111) was discovered, is the site of an ancient vibra, as evidenced by the go]4-plate inscription But there is no evidence to indicate that it was the capital of the kings of Jaffna. Lf we group the different references chronologically, we find, that the Tamil works datable to the fourteenth century mention C(1Thski-nakar as the capital. The Loagama inscription, datable to the fourteenth century, also refers to the

4ryaa of

Jaffna as the *ryaa of Ci1 1r i-ne l ar. The Sinhaleae works of the fifteenth century give flpIpauna as the capital of the T.i1 rulers. In the sixteenth century, when the Portuguese weiit to

1. C.Rasanayagam, . cit., pp. 117-118; S. Gnanapragaear,

a-vaipava-vimarca, p. 67.

2. S.Parsnavitana, 'Vallipuram Gold-plate Inscription of the Reign of Vaaabha', E.Z., IV, p. 237.

525 the island, it was Na11Lr that was the capital of the Jaffna kingdom. Is it possible that the kings of Jaffna changed their capitals Be often ? This is unlikely. Un l11re th. south-western region of the illand, where the Sinhalese kings at this time changed their capitals frequently, a change of capitals in a sm1l flat area like the Jaffna peninsula would not have afforded any real strategic advantages. Further, there is no archaeological evidence in support of such a change of capitals. So far the only place where evidence of secular buildings datable to the tine of the kings of Jaffna is found is Nall'ar. When the Portuguese went there in the sixteenth century Na11r seems to have been the only city worthy of mention in the peninsula. In the words of de ueyroz, 'they never had any other city save Ne].ur (Naillir) which is not half a league distant from the town and praça of the Portuguese' The latter is the port of Jaffna which later grew into the modern Jaffna town. This port is identifiable with the flplp4una (Port of Tipi or good Port) of the Linhalese sources and the fllpp4a-paffa4am of the Setupati grants Na11r, where the royal palace was situated , was within two miles of this town in the sixteenth century (today Nalfltr comes within the limits of the Jaffna Municipality). It is possible that original-ly

1. 7. de Queyroz, 2. See supra, p.

.

., p. 50.

rn

the royal palace was also in the port of Jaffna and that it was later shifted towards the interior to Nallr. The foudation of NallUr is sometimes attributed to Sapii m. l KurayI who conquered and ruled the Jaffna kl-ngdoa in the middl, of the fifteenth century This view is based on *evidence that associates him with th. building of the £kknda templ. at NallUr. A formula called the kaiyam which is recited by the priests in the temple refer to a person named SrT Saghabodhi BhuvanekabThu Ue is identified as Sapw nal Kunray who, after his rule in with the name of Bhuvanekablhu

Jaffna, became the ruler of (VI,

lk70-lk78) The

ppa-vaipava-iflhlai also credits a

person called Puvanftavku (Bhuvanekablhu) with the building of the Skanda temple at NallUrti Be is described in this chronicle as a BrThmaa minister of the first Iriya ruler and is also credited with the building of the outer city walls ef Nal1Ur A stray verse, published along with the

Kai].Uym1ai, attributes

the building of the Skanda temple at NallUr and of TIppa-ni1reri (the City of lIppan) to a certain Puvaakavku The verse

a-vaipava-vimarcag, pp. 106-107.

1. S. Gnanapragasar,

2. S.Paranavitan.a, 'The 4rya Kingdom in North Ceyloa', pp.

U.C.H.C., I,

pt.2, p.

695; C.Raaanayagam,

3. Ibid. I. lvii., pp.

31-32.

5. Ibid. 6.

., p.

23; lvii.,

p. 32, fn.

1

22• cit.,

192-193;

p. 332.

527 does not state whether he was a minister ox' a king. Both this verse and the a-vaipava-nlai dat. these activities of Bhuvanekabhu to Saka 870 (A.D. 9148). The Puvan!kavku of the pa-vaipava-mlai is evidently the

stray vers, and of the

same as rT Sa4ighabodhi BhuvanekabThu mentioned in the

iyam

of the Skanda temple. A recitation preserved in the form of a formula and recited regularly it the temple for centuries is likely to be more authentic than the late Taniil chronicle and the stray verse. The title rI Saghabodi used in the kaiyam f or Thuvanekabahu indicates that he was a ruler of the Sixihalese kingdom, for this title, as far as we know, was used only by the Sinhalese rulers as their consecration name. The oni; Bhuvanekabhu who bad any association with the Jaffna kingdom was Bhuvanekablhu V or Sapumal Kunfirayl, who ruled there for some time before be ascended the throne of reasonable to identify Bhuvanekabhu of the KunrayI. The

TIlppa-vaipava-n1lai has

with a minister of

an 4ryacakravartin.

building of the temple the

is

It is, therefore,

kaffiyaiu as Sapiinil

evidently confused him

The date given for the

also unreliable. If, as i.e claimed in

a-vaipava-nlai and the stray T2mil verse, BhuvanekabThu

had anything to do with the building of the city of Na1].r or f l 1ppia- n

i r '.ri,

it

is

possible to conjecture that he may have

been responsible for the shift of the court from Jaffna (town) to NaUUr. It

is

not possible to hold that he shifted the capital

52d from some other place to Jaffna, as it.intained by Gnanapragaaar,

for the latter place was weU known as the seat of the 4ryacaavartina before the time of Zapnml EunrayI's occupation. The Linhales. eand!a poems composed at the time of this occupation refer to Sapnml KuiflrayI's sack of flplp4una, which is described as th. seat of the Iryacakravartins A Vijayanagara inscription dated Saka 1357 (A.D.1k35), nearly fifteen years before the occupation of Sap nmal KuuIrayI, mentions th. campaign undertaken by I ldr

46a D.4anyaka

to destroy IyI]ppIam (Jaffna) It is,

therefore, clear that in the fifteenth century, certainly in the first halt of the century, TIppauna or IIppIam (Jaffna) was the capital of the northern kingdom. When the Portuguese went to the island, NaUr was the place where the ruler of Jaffna resided. As we have suggested, it was probably in the time of &apllmRl Kumlrayl that the court was shifted to It may not be necessary to treat this as a change of capitals, considering the close prori-4ty of NallI!r to Tppia-paa4am. As indicated above, C(1ri-nakar is mentioned as the capital of the ryacakravartina in the Tamil works of th. fourteenth century. This is confirmed by epigraphic evidence as well.

1. S.. supra, p

ç

2. S.I.I., VII, No.

t4OO

778.

529 But till very recently there was no contemporary evidence regarding the capital of the northern kingdom in the thirteenth century, that is, during the early decades of its existence. But the Sanskrit inscription from Anurdhapura, recently deciphered by Paranavitana as we have already noted, refers to Subha-pkana, identifiable with Jaffna. Subha-pafana is the £anskrit rendering of flpIpauna and, if we are to accept the decipherment of Paranavitana, we have to conclude that in the early years of its existence, too, the capital of the rulers of the northern kingdom was flpIpauna or flppam. This would mean. that in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries flIp4una was the capital. In the fourteenth century it was Cif&kai or Ci-fikLi--nakar. Was C1-k1, therefore, another name for flpIpauna I The answer seems tobbe in the affirmative. Inscriptions of.4.rikari Parkrama PI.ya (lk22-].1+6l), belonging to the period between 11149 and

11+51+,

refer to the victories won at c{Mei and. Aurai

(Anurdhapura) It would appear, therefore, that in the middle of the fiftbenth century the capital of the Jaffna kingdom continued. to be C(MC1. Since the Sinhalese works of the fifteenth century and a Vijayanagara inscription of

11+35

refer to the

capital as flppaina or IyIppIam, it is reasonable to conclude

1. See supra, P.tp) 2. Travancore Archaeological Series, VI, pp. 89-91; l.A., XLIV, p. M.LR. for

1891+,

No, 17 of 1891+; M.E.R. for 1907, No.

LE.R. for

1922,

No.

561+

of

191.

395

251+;

of 1906;

53t that C1rai was another name for TIpIpauna. But there is one difficulty. The mention of Aurai, which in these inscriptions, as in the Koaga.ma inscription, evidently refers to the Sinha.lese capital of the time of the epigrapha, shows that C1jai could. very well have been the name of an earlier capita]. of the Jaffna. kingdom applied by South Indians, by mistake, to flplp4una as well. This is possible but unlikely. The evidence of de queyroz appears to go against such a possibility. According to him, when the Portuguese landed at Koumputtuai, about two miles from Jaffna town, in 1590 and marched towards Nallr, they had 1 to get past a stockade by the name of Chunguinaynar. We are inclined. to agree with Gnanapragasar that this name is a corruption

i -

of CiMr i nakar Thia may indicate that Ci1i-nakar was in the vicinity of Nallr. In the sixteenth century, the name C(1c.1nakar was probably zised only for a fortified section of the capital. Before the court was shifted to Nallar, the Jaffna rulers may have held. their court in this place. Ci ?k

ii

and IIpIpauna may,

therefore, be considered as one and the same place. The silence of the later chronicles regarding tbeexistence of a capital called C4-'ai-nakar also points in the same direction. It i. not likely

1. P.ae Queyrom, 2. S.Gnanapraga.ear,

.

., p.k52; pa-vaipava-vimarcan,

p.68.

531 that CiA1t2ink,r and flpipafuna were two different plac.e and that the capital of the Jaffna kidom was shifted. from the latter to the former place in the fourteenth century and back to the latter place in the fifteenth century. It seems more likely that Cik,i-n*kar, like NallUr, was another fortified place in the vicinity of the port of Jaffna. C4ai-nakar, NallUr and flppauna have to be treated as sections of the same city rather than as different places. Probably the court of the Jaffna rulers was held in all three places at different periods. The capital of the northern kingdom has, therefore, to be located in the region of the present-day town of Jafmna. The emblem of the kings of Jaffna, as we know from their coins, was the couchant bull or nandi. That this emblem was used on their flags, too, i.e evident from the references in the Tamil literary works These works are the CekarIca-ckaramlai, Kailic a-Dure4 and

Takia-kailc a-pur 4am, Kaillyainllai

ai-viu-tUtu. But in the account of Ceyavra Cifzkaiin the

ga-vaipava-iai, it is said that this

Iryacakravartin brought the whole is1rid under his mitup,a I21i

(Mitu,a lute Zlag) This raises the question whether the kings

1. Ccm., v. 76 ; KailIca-purlam, CiappuppIyiram ;

., Ciappup-

pyiram ; ., p. 5 ; Ki#ai-vit u- ttn , v. 152.

2. Nitua (Gemini) lute is one of several kinds of lutes need in India.

532 of Jaffna used the lute emblem on their flags at any time. Gnaxiapragasar has drawn our attention to the reference in the Kal11I1rpttn-para4i to the v!;ai ( £kt. v1 - lute or lyre) flag which was among the many flags that were lowered by the Cae when their tiger flag was raised everywhere Guanapragasar has posed the question whether this would mean that the lute emblem was used oi the flags of the Jaffna rulers in the eleventh century, since we do not know of any other Indian dynasty having used that flag As there is no evidence that an independent kingdom existed in Jaffna

in

the eleventh century, it is not

possible to suggest that the lute flag was that of the Jaffna rulers. But there is iinm1takable epigraphic evidence that points

1. ICalikattu-para4i, v. 18, p.

25 ;

al ffii kalai yIli vai cilai Keai e!Jaiya pal koi a M!ruvil uyartta Cempiyar i pu].i koi ta1a{1dv. The single tiger flag of the Cempiyar (Cas) that is planted. on the )Zru rises high,

as the

boar, plough, deer, lion, lute,

bow and fish flags and others are lowered. (Boar - Cllukyas, plough - fldavaa, deer - Pilas, lion - Zinhalese, bow - Clrae nd fish - PIyas). 2. S.Gnanapragasar,

ppa-vaipava-vimarcap, p. 50.

533 to the use of the vT4 flag in Ceylon in the twelfth century. An inscription of the second regnal year of Kul5ttuñga C5]a III (1.180) mentions the vTai-koi_Cik4ar (the Sinhales• whose flag is the v) There is no reference to the vT flag in any of the Sinhalese sources. Since the i1ant bad been unified by 1180 under Parlkramablhu I, it is not possible to surmise that the reference in the South Indian inscription is to one of the minor rulers of the island. It would, therefore, appear that the Sinhalese ruler.

5the

v41 flag in the

twelfth century, although it was not probably considered to be the main banner. The reference

in the

Kali.kattu-pare4i is

probably to the Sinhalese. Paranavitana is inc1ind to believe that the vt flag of the Sinhalese must have been used by the Kaliga rulers of JaZfna. He argues that the 'Xaliâga kings of Polonnarnva claimed in their inscriptions to be the legitimate successors of ParamabThu I' and that they, after founding the northern kingdom, 'must have continued to use the royal insignia of the Polonnaru kings, which included the lyre-flag' This, however, remains only a possibility. Since the evidence of the earlier Tamil works and of the coins of the 4ryacakravartina

1. S.I.I., V, p. 269. 2. A.Paranavitana, 'The rya Kingdom in North Ceylon', p. 222.

534 clearly inform us that the couchant bull (nandi) was the emblem of the Jaffna rulersand since it is reasonable to presume that )gha and his associates, who seem to have founded the kingdom, introduced the emblem of their home-land, we may conclude that the main emblem of the Jaffna. kingdom was the couchant bu1l The lute flag may also have been used as one of the minor banners of the kingdom. The exact li'n4t* of the Jaffna kingdom are somewhat difficult to determine with the evidence at our disposal. It is only in the time of the Portuguese occupation that we get proper information of the boundaries of the various kingdoms. A valuable description of the territories of the Jaffna kingdom is given by dc Queyroz:The modest kingdom is not confined to the little district of Jafanapata, because to it are also added the neighbouring lands, and those of the Vani tVanni] which is said. to be the name of the Lordship which they held before we obtained possession of them, separated from the preceeding (ale) by a salty river, and connected only in the extremiby or isthmus of Pachalapali accilai-p4aJ , within which were the lands of Balig&mo Tai Ucmam1, Temerache e-marcci) , Bedamrache aa-marccj) , and Pachalapalt }accilai-p4a for ing that pe4nsula, and outside it there stretch the lands of the Vani crosswise, from the side of Manar to that of Triquilem.]. rincomaleeJ , being sepaated also from the country of Nantta nt5ffam or Nahtittha] in the jurisdiction of the Captain of Nanr MaIr by the river Paragali;

1. See supra,

535 which (lands) end in the River of the Cross in the midst of the lands of the Vanl and of others which stretch as far as Triqnilemal, which according to the map appears to be a large tract of country. These lands are divided into Patue and the first near the River of the Cross is Tanamavaraddi eM mi'a-viiJ , a very fine country, but almost uninhabited because of war, and because it was thenroute of our arrayale, the husbandmen who escaped from the war bet1c1-ng themselves to the woods, leaving ver few for cultivation. Prom thence to the side of I4anar is the Province of Muliauali ufliyav4ai] , which consists of three p8tus, Varcama, Valadadi and )!lpatu. This Province is th. principal one of all the lands of the Vant, and is fruitful, though badly peopled on account of war and because it is unhealthy. Next comes Carnaptu tjCarunvai-pattij1 and the province called krmaiirJ, the ne of the Vani who resided Panag.mo there. It consists of the P&tu of Urugare and of Valavi which border on the lands of NantSta, and along the coast of the sea or gulf of Ceylon there are the villages of Parangali, Uerauil Punari, and others of lesser importance. 1 This evidence of the Portuguese writer is generally corroborated by the Sinhaleae and Tamil works. Prom the references in the a-vaipava-mlai and the VaiyIpIal it is clear that the kings of Jaffna directly ruled over the peninsula of Jaffna and the adjoining islands. The villages that were assigned, according to the

ppj$a_vaipava-ntlai, to the nobles from South India

by EMti Ckkaravartti, the first princely ruler of the kingdom, are all in the Jaffna penlnula and the adjacent islanda But it

is often

entioned that the seven Verni chieftaincies outside

the peninsula were subordinate territories of the Jaffna kingdoin

1. 7.d. Queyroz,

. cit., p. 51.

2. See era, 3. Tm., pp. 38, kO.

53 Whenever these revolted ag{Tist the authority of the Jaffna ruler and attempted to support the Sinhalese rulers, the former took necessary steps to subjugate them The Sinhalese Kaainrpotas (Boundary Books) of about the fifteenth or sixteenth centurl refer to the territorial divisions of the northern kingdom and and mention that stone pillars with Ta il writing on them were set up as boundary stones in those divisions But these works give neither the boundaries of the Jaffna kingdom nor a full list of all the territorial divisions .f therCa%eaterritorial divisions of the Jaffna district are usually given along with the other divisions of the whole of Pihiiraa (former RjaraHha). But one of these Kaainrpotas, the Tn Si1ha Kaaim saha Vitti, has a reference that appears to be useful to our inquiry. This work mentions that in Jvagama there were five ham districts, namely Javariparaa, )rac c i-naa, Balat a4i-.raa, I4udundu-ma

lliyI..

raa and K41kkii-r4a Some manuscripts give the form Cvagacri or Civagatcini for Javaripa This has enabled the identification of Java.riparaa with the Clvakaccri region of the Jaffna peninsula.

1.

pp. 38, 'io.

2. Tn Si$h4! Kaaim saha Vitti, ed. A.J.W.Narambe, (1926), P. 21; Sini-lak Kaaimpota, ed. Sri Charles de Silva, (1961), pp. 22-23 3. Tn Siha! Kaaim saha Vitti, . cit., p. k. S.Paranavitana, 'The Irys. Kingdom in North Ceylon', p. 195.

537 Mracci-r4a has been identified as the area now comprising the two revenue divisions of North and South Marlcci in the eastern half of the Jaffna peninsula Balata4i-raa is to be located in the vicinity of M4iyav4ai, in the Mullaittivu district. This location rests on the reference in de ueyroze Conguista to Valadadi, identifiable with Ba].atai, as one of the three Ptus (pattus - divisions) of the district of }fuliauali O44iyav4ai) Madundu-m.11iy-r4a appears to be the present MuUiyav4ai division. There are certain considerations for this identification. In the first place, Mudundu-mallij-raa occurs with lat4i-raa and Ie4u1dc1i_raa which can be located in the areas adjoining Muiya-v4ai. The element mafliy seems to be a variant of • Further, in the VaiyipTal, Muiyav4ai is called )i-nf-nakar as well as Mi_ma anutai_n'

r Mudundu may be

a corruption of )-maanuai. In view of these considerations, the Mudundu-me 11 iy-raa of the Kaa1nipota may be identified with the modern Muiyav4ai division, in the Mullaittvu district. Ka u

{i-raa is, of course, the same as modern Kaukk!i,

referred to in the VaiyIpIfal ma Kauk i—nskar1 in the same

1, S.Paranavitana, 'The 4rya Kingdom in North Ceylon', p.195. 2. F.de Qneyroz,

. cit., p. 51 ;

P.E.Peirie, Celon: The Portnguee Era, II, p. 152.

3.!•' I. Ibid.

YT. 35, k2.

538 district. Thus, the five main districts of Jvagama, mentioned in. the Kaaimpota, can be located in. the Jaffna and )4ullaitTvu districts of the Northern Province. This raises the question whether Jvagama was another name for the Jaffna 1 ngdom. Paranavitana is inclined to think that Jvagama is a Tamil form of Jvaka, 'no doubt due to the reason that the region was under the rule of Jvaka princes' This is possible, though by no means certain. Whatever the origins of the name, it probably stood for the northern kingdom. In that case, it would appear that the kingdom was mainly confined to the Jaffna peninsula and some parts of the MullaitTvu district that adjoins it. An earlier work, the PL]lvaliyp, refers to the domains of the Tamils as lying beyond Salgal-kaMura It has not been possible to identify this place. It is generally considered to be somewhere north of Polonnaruva. It is, however, difficult to define the exact l4m{t of the Jaffna kingdom and it is unlikely that it ever had any well-defined limits. It is certain that the Jaffna peninsula and the adjoining islands formed the main. section of the 1ngdom. The V yini chieftaincies of the rest of the modern. Northern_Province usually owed allegiance to the kingdom and. were considered to

1. S.Paranavitana, 'The Arya Iingdoa in North Ceylon', pp. 1914-195. 2. Pv., p. 111.

539 be subordinate territories of it. The Mar region, judging from the evidence of Ibn Batuta and of the !ppla-vaipava-fflE.ai, which refer to the control of pearl bnkR by the ryacakravartins, may have also been directly under the rule of the Jaffna kings But the region of the pearl bsnkR appears to have remained a bone of contention between the Sinhalese and the Tamil rulers It is not clear whether the Trinconialea area was also considered to be part of the Jaffna kingdom. In the

a-kailIca-pur

,

one of the Iryaca.kravartins is closely associated with the temple of Kvaram at Trincomalee This may mean that the Jaffna rulers had some sort of jurisdiction over the affairs of that region. The Nampota, as we have seen , includeá Triku$m1aya (Trinconialee) and Vilgam-vehera (NtaIr-k'5vil) in ihe list of places in Dem4a-paanama which were sacre& to the Bud.dhists1 As we have pointed out, Dem4a_pat .numa appear&to have, been another name for the kingdom of Jaffna. Possibly Trincomalee was considered to be part of the northern kingdom. We have seen that in the Tamil works of the fourteenth century and later the kings of Jaffna are given the epithet

1. The Rehla of Ibn Batuta op. cit., p. 217 ff• ; Tvm., pp.k2-43. 2. 3.

, pp. k2-k3. ., Tiruakara Carn1dcm, v.107 U.

k. Nampota, p. 6.

540 Ctn-Ivalar, meaning 'Protectors of the CTtu' (RImvaram) In th. Ta4ia-.kaiIIca.-pn±4am, an 4ryaca1avartin is referred tp as Tvaiyinma ( King of Tvai, i.e. RImvaram) and C!tu u yar karai kva1 vnta ( the Guardian King of the Nigh Coast of C!tu) Tradition has it that the kings of Jaffna used to send flowers and milk for the daily services at the temple of RIn!varam from some of the illands of! the coast of Jaffzia The epithets Ctu-kivala and T!vaiyi-ma, say not imply any control of the Rimvaram area by the rulers of Jaffna. We are inclined to agree with Paranavitana. that these were inherited from the earlier Iryacakravartins ofT!!Iad. Tb. rulers of Jaffna probably continied to be closely associated with the temple at RZntvaraa and considered themselves to be its lawful protectors. We may, therefore, conclude that the Jaffna kingdom was mainly confined to the peninsula of Jaffna and the islands adjoln lr g it. It had some sort of suzerainty over the Vanni chieftaincies of northern Ceylon, probably those that th were in the modern Northern Province. Thus, with the advent of the iryacakravartine, a stable Tamil ringdom came into existence in the northernmost part of Ceylon. As we have mentioned, earlier, the foundation. of this

1. See aupra, 2.

., Tiruna1rara Car nkk s m , iv. 107, 116.

3. A.}uttuttampi Pillai,

4a-carittiram, (1912), p. 52.

541 kingdom marks the cul mination of the forces that began to work in the northern part of the island with the C5]a occupation in the eleventh century. Gradually the Dravidian elements, chiefly the Tamils and the Ker4as, increased their numbers and influence. The invasion of )1gha and the downfall of Polonnaruva soon led to the emergence of a kingdom in the northern part of the island, which, though at first controfled by )gha and then by the vkas, remained their sphere of authority for over three centuries. From there they attempted to control the rest of the island and at times met with partial success. The Sinhales* who remained behind in the northern areas were in all probability assimilated to the Tamfl population and by the time of the Portuguese occupation the present Jaffna district had been transformed into a predo m i nantly Tamil-speH ng area.

542 CORLUS ION

We have seen in the foregoing chapters the stages by which the Dravidian-speakera from the neighbouring subcontinemt settled in Ceylon and the circumstances under which a new kingdom, dominated by theBe South Indians, emerged into existence in northern Ceylon. The Dravidian settlements that began at the turn of the tenth century gradually covered several parts of northern Ceylon and culminated in the rise of the Tamil kingdom. We have, therefore, considered the foundation of thiB kingdom a convenient point at which to stop. As we have seei, two main stages can be distinguished in the course of these settlement8. The first begins about the tenth century and extends till the end of the twelfth century. The process of settlement during this stage may be said to have reached a fairly notable scale in the eleventh century. The Ca conquest of the island was certainly responsible for this. Although there is evidence of several settlements in northern Ceylon, it cannot be said that there was a mass scale migration of peaceful settlers in the wake of the C2a conquest. The mercenary and the mercantile bodies appear to have been the predominant elements among the Dravidians present

543 in the island in this period. The main areas of settlement lay outside the Jaffna district which in later centuries bad the highest concentration of Tsimils. In fact several of the places which yield, evidence of Tamil settlement in this period are no more occupied by Tamils. Four main areas of settlement can be seen in this period. One is in the north-eastern littoral, another in the western region or what is now known as the North-western Province and the other two are in the region of Anurdhapura and Polonnaruva. There is also evidence of Tamil settlement in the main ports, eapecial].y Mahtittha and rbba. The most important feature of these settlements is the presence of a number of trading communities, such as the Aiffffuvar, Ceis, and mercenary bodies like the

Nakarattr and 11drar and the

Aganrpa4is. In the first stage of the Tamil settlements, therefore, the main areas of settlement were still outside the Jaffna and Batticaloa districts. Of the present-day Tamil areas, only the upper half of the Eastern Province and parts of the western coast had Dravidian settlers in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The main stage in the process of Tamil settlement which eventually led to the transformation of the present Northern Province into a predominantly Thmil-speaking area had not yet

544 been reached in the twelfth century. This stage was reached with the conquest of ?gha and it is doubtful that the Tamil settlements of the period before the thirteenth century would have resulted in. a permanent division of the country into two linguistic regions. cept during the period of Ca occupation, migration from South India seems to have been slow though steady. The bulk of the settlers in. this first stage appear to have gone to the island within the half-century of Ca rule. The predominant elements among the settlers appear to have been mercenaries and traders. The absence in the Tamil chronicles of traditions relating to the C]a period may also suggest that the

settlements

were founded in the period after the twelfth century. The second and most important stage of the Dravidian settlements is covered by almost the whole of the thirteenth century. tn this second stage, two different phases can be distinguished. The first phase covers roughly the first half of the thirteenth century and the second almost the whole of the latter half. As in the first stage, the arrival of fresh mercenary forces and a quick succession of invasions from the mainland led to the establishments of new settlements in the first phase. But the nature of the invasions and of the settlements that followed wamein many was different from the nature of the earlier invasions and settlements. While the earlier invasions could be treated as episodes in. the history of the island,

545 the invasions of )!gba and the Pya rulers in the thirteenth century cannot be dismissed as mere episodes. The settlements of the earlier period did not result in the vidible dislodgement of the Sinhalese population. As far as we can see, those were not the result of the forcible occupation of lands belonging to the Sinhalese. Those early settlers may have become assimilated to the Sinhalese population in due course. But it was the events of the thirteenth century that prevented such an assimilation in the greater part of the northern and eastern districts. The invasion of )Tgha with the help of ier4a and Tamil mercenaries was far more violent than the earlier invasions. Its chief importance lies in the fac that it resulted in the permanent dislodgement of Sinhalese power from northern Ceylon, the confiscation of lands and properties belonging to the Sinhalese and the consequent migration of the official class and several of the common people to the south-western regions. These factors more than any other helped the transformation of northern Ceylon into a Tamil region and directly led to the foundation ofçkingdom there, which soon became a kingdom of the Tamlia. In the second phase, with the foundation of an independent kingdom and several chieftaincies, a deliberate policy of settling South Indians in the Jaffna district and the Vanni regions seems to have been followed by the northern rulers

546 and chieftains. This led to a migration of peaceful settlers from South India. It was this peaceful mogration that was largely responsible for the Tamil settlement of the Jafina district, The settlement of Dravidians in the northernmost regions may, therefore, be said to have been radically different in cbaracter from the process of mercenary or military settlement in parts of the present North-central and North-western Provinces.and Vavuniya district. This is demonstrated by the evidence of literary works and place-name materials. Whereas in the Jaffna peninsula we come across a large perceatage of place-names with with Sinhalese elements, the Tamil element is predominant in the local nomenclature of the North-central Province and the Vanni regions. The former indicate a slow and peaceful penetration of Tamils in Jaffna and the latter a violent and sudden occupation of the other areas. The survival of Sinhalese place-names, especially of Sinhalese territorial names, in Jaffna tells strongly against a wholesale extermination or displacement of the Sinhalese living there. At the same time, Tamil names of estates denoting family settlement which are found scattered across the peninsula, confirm the evidence of the Tami2. chronicles regarding the settlement of prominent Xml1ies from South India by the early kings of Jaffna. The settlements of the thirteenth century, therefore, mark the most important stage

in the

course of the early TRWIil

and other Dravidian settlements in Ceylon. The political conditions

541 of the thirteenth century favoured the rise of an independent kingdom in northern Ceylon. There is little doubt that the Dravidian elements were the force behind )4gha and his associates when they founded the new kingdom. With the establishment of the Jaffna kingdom and the Vanni chieftaincies of the ortbern and Eastern Provinces, the first steps towards the division of the island into two linguistic regions were taken. The process of settlement and assimilation did. not end with the fotuidation of the northerh kingdom. Tamil settlers continued to n.grate to Ceylon and presumably most of them went to the Tamil kingdom. But there were also several Tamils, traders and others, who settled in the Sinhalese areas as is indicated by the Tamil inscriptions and Sinhalese literature and traditions. These settlers were evidently assimilated to the Sinhalese population in due course. In the Jaffna kingdom a similar assimilation seems to have gone on in the centuries after the foundation cZ the kingdom. Here many o the earlier Sinhaleae settlers seem to have been assimilated to the Tamil population. The emergence of an independent kingdom and some minor chieftaincies

in the

northern and eastern regions of the

island and the lack of intimate intercourse between the Tamil and Sinhalese kingdoms as a result of the abandonment ef the North-central Province were factors that led to the division of Ceylon into two linguistic regions. The Sinhalese

kings, as

a rule, did not show any interest in subduing the northern

43 kingdom and unifying the whole country. Even when a prince from the Ee kingdom succeeded in conquering the Jaffna kingdom in the middle of the fifteenth century, he ruled it as an independent kingdom. The Ke rulers were aati8fied with receiving nominal all.giance Ifrom the rulers of Jaffna. It was after the arrival of the Europeans in the island that the Sinhalese and Tamils were brought together, though the country was not unified politically and administratively till the nineteenth century.

549 A SELT BIBLIOGRAPUT

I. Primary Sources (Printed) A, Tami]. 1 • C d.ka-ilakkiyam (Complete afigam works), ed. S.Vaiyapuri Pillai, )Ldras 19k0. 2, Cekarca-ckara-m1aj, ed. I,C.Irakunata Aiyar, Kokkuvi]. 19k2. 3. Ci1appatikrani, ed. V.P.P.M.Kaci Vicuvanatan, Madras 1950. If. Cint.ma4i-nikau, ed. Cuvaminata Pantitar, Madras 1909. 5. Kailyam].ai, ed. C.V.Jampu].iñkani Pillai, Madras 1939. 6 • Kalinkattu-paraj, ed. Puliyur Kecikan, Madras 1958. 7. Kamparmya, ed. V.M.Gopa].a Krian.amacaryar, Madras 19k88. Kantapuram, M.T.Panukavi, Madras 1907. car-ka1veu, 9. ed. A.Canmukarattina Liyar, JaZfna 1909 (Appended to the Takiia-kai].ca-purpam ) 10. )ikkavcakar Tirnvcakam, ed. Cuppiramania Pillai, Madras 19k9. 11. Maakk4appn_inThmiam, ed. F.X.C.Nataraca, Colombo 1962. 12. Musvara-nfnmiyam, r! Vavmpik Sata Muantasvmi Tvastam Kiyarccaai Malar, Coloznbo 1961. 13. N4a-vep, , ed. LRkavacarj, Madras 1938. 1k. lT1akci, ed. A.Cakravartti, Madras9l936. 15. Patuppn, ed. U.V.Caminata Aiyar, Madras 1918. 16. Piflkala-n{ktu, - ed. Rippon Press, Madras 1917. 17. Takja-kailc a-puram, ed. P.P.Vaittiyalinka Tecikir, Pt. Pedro 1916, 18. Tami].-nva1ar-caritai, e d • T • Kanakacunt arampillai, Madras ,3.921. 19. Tiri-kc a1a-puram, ed. &.Canmukarattina Aiyar, Jaffna 1909.

550 20 • Tiru-fia-c amp ant ar Tv!ra Tirppat ikafik4, Tami 1Ka 1akazn, Madras 21. To1kppiyam,I, ed. B.Vaiyapuri Pillai, )Iadras 193k. 22, Vaiy!, ed. S.Gnanapragasar, Jaffna 1921. 2 3. Vaiypa1, ed. J.W.Arutpirakacam, Jaffna 1921. pa-vaipava-in1ai, 2k. ed. K.Capanatan, Colombo 1953.

B. Sinhalese and P1i: 1. Cilava, ed. W.Geiger, 2 vols., P.T.S., London 1925,1927 tr. W.Geiger, tr. from the German into English by C.Xabel Rickmers, 2 pte. Colombo 1953. 2 .Dabadei-asna, ed. D.D.Ranaainha, Colombo 1917. 3. Da1ad-sirita, ed. Sorata Nayaka Thera, Colombo 1950. k. Dthvaisa,

ed. and tr. B.C.Law, Lahore 1925. Eu-attanaga1uva1sa, 5. ed. P.Aryaratna, Colombo 1932. 6. Gir-sandaya, ed. T.Sugathapala, Alutgama 192k. 7, Hat thavanaa11a-vihra-vaçwa, ed. C.E.Godakumbure, P.T.S., London 1956. 8. Katikvat-sagar, ed. D.B.Jayatilaka E1ci1a-sand&aya, 9. ed. P.S.Perera, Colombo 1906. 10, Nahvaipsa, ed. and tr. W.Geiger, assisted LH.Bode, Colombo 1912, Reprinted 1950. 11. )1ayra-s and aya, ed. W.LLDharmavardhana, Colombo 1960. 12. Nampota, M.D.Gunasena & Co., Colombo 1955. 13. Nikya-sathprahaya, ad. D.P.R.Samaranayaka, Colombo 2.960. tr. C.Llernando, revised ad. D.Y.Gunawardhana, Co].ombo 1908. 1k. Paravi-sandaya, ed. Ziri Sunandasabha Mahathera, Natara 1925.

551 15. PLTva1iya,

ed. A.V.Suravira, Colombo 1961.

16. RLva1iya, 17. 15. 19. 20. 21. 22.

2k.

ed. B.Gunaseka c i, Colombo 1953 (2nd,ed.) Saddharm1añkraya, ed. Bentara Saddha Tissa Thera, Colontbo 1951. Saddbaramaratnkaraya, ed. I.Nanavlmla Thera, Coloinbo 19k8. S1a1ihini-sand!aya, ed. M.C.Fernando, Moratuva 1956, Sammohavinodan!, ed. A.P.Buddhadatta, P.T. S. London 1923. Siàh4a-smitya-lipi, ed. D.B.Jayatilaka, 14a.h aragama 1956. Siri-1ak-kaa1m-pota, Sri Charles de Lilva, Colonibo 1961. aha Vitti, _________ ____ ed. A.J.W.Marambr, Randy 1926. Vaisatthapaksinj, ed. G.P.Malalasekera, P.1.5., London 1935,1936.

C. Others: 1. Batuta, Ibn, 2. 3.

k. 5.

6. 7.

The Rehla of Ibn Batuta, tr. Nandi Eussain, Baroda 1953.Cosmas Indicopleustee, Christian Topography, ed F.O.Winstedt. 6e ueyroz, Ferna, The Temporal, and. Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon,11 tr. &.G.Perera, Colombo 1930. Krishnaswaniy Aiyangar (compiler), Sources of Vijayanagara Bistory, Madras 1919. Pring].e, A.T. The Diary and Conu1tation Book of the Agent, Governor and Council of Fort St.George, let Series, III, Madras 1b95. Rijckloff van Goens, Memoirs of Rijckloff van Goens 1665, tr. S.Pietere, Coloinbo 1910. Varthema, L. The Travels of Vartheina, tr. T.W.Jones, 1863.

552 II. Manuscriptss (in the National Museum Library, Colonibo) 1. Vanni Rjvaliya 2. Vanni Upata

III. Epigraphic and Archaeological Sources 1. Ancient India, Bulletin of the Archaeological Surrey of India. 2. Archaeological Survey of Ceylon Annual Reports,

1890-196k.

3. Ceylon Journal of Science, Section G, I & II, 1928-1933. 4. Epigraphia Carnatica , I 5. Epigraphia Indio, I 6. Epigraphia Zeylanica, I-V. 7. Inscriptions (Texts) of the Pudukkoai State,

1929.

8. Eharot1iI Inscriptions, (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, II) S.Konow, Calcutta

1929.

9. Madras Epigraphical Reports, (Annual Reports on South Indian Epigraphy),

1887-1945.

10. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of Ceylon, I.yVI. 11. Memoirs of the Colonibo Museum, Seiies A, No.1, Colonibo

1914.

12. Nellore Inscriptions , see Butterworth, A. under modern works.

( '13. Tamil and Sanskrit Inscriptions, ed. J.Burgesa, tr. I(Archaeological Survey of South India, IV, Madras 14. Travancore Archaeological Series, I - VI. 15. South Inj Thriptions,v.la. I-Till.

1886).

553 IV. Modern Works (Articles on epigraphic and archaeèlogica]. materials ae included in this section). 1. Appadorai, A Economic Conditions in Southern 'India, 17& II, Madras 1936. 2. Ariyapala, M.B. Society in Medieval Ceylon, Colombo 1956. 3. Balendra, W, 'Trincomalee Bronzes,' T.C., II, No.2, Ap. 1953, PP . 176-198. k. Bashan, A.L. The Wonder that was India, London 195k. 5. Bell, H.C.P. Report on the Kga1la District, Colonibo 1892. 6. Brito, C. Mukkuva Law, Colombo 1872. 7. Burgess, James1 Tamil and Sanskrit Inscriptions, (Archaeological Survey of South India IV tr. S.}1.Nateea Sastri, Madras 1886. 8. Butterworth,A. and Venugopal Chetty, V. A Collection of Inscriptions on Copper Plates and Stones in the Nellore District, 3 pta. Madras

1905.

9. Casie Chety, Simon Ceylon Gazetteer, Colombo 183k. 'On the History of Jaffna, from the Earliest Period to the Dutch Conquest', J.R.A.S. (C.B.), I, No.3 , 18k7-k8,

pp. 69-79.

10. Chanmugam, P.1. 'Anthropometry of Sinhalese and Ceylon Tamils', C.J.Sc. (G), IV, pp. 1-18. 11. Civanatan (no initials) , Pt.1, Kuala Lunxpur, 1933. PQa-kuti y 12. Codrington, H.W. 'The Inscription at Fort Frederick, Trincorna1ee,

J.R.A.S. (C.B.), No.80. 'Notes on the Dabadei Dynasty', C.A.L.R., X,

pp. 37-53, 88-89. 'The Gampola Period of Ceylon History', J.R.A.S.(C.B. mTI,No,86, PP . 258-309.

554 13. Collingwood, R.G. and Myree, J.N.L. Roman Britain and the English Settlements, (Oxford History of En1and, I) , Oxford 1936. 1k. Coomaraawamy Anauda K. Bronzes from Ce yl on (Memoirs of the Colombo Museum, Series A, No.1), Colombo 191k. 15. Cox, H.F. A Manual of North Arcot, I, reviAed by H.AStuart, Madras 1895. 16. de Laval, Pyrard, Discours du Voyage des Francai aux Indes Orientales I, 1887. 17. Derret, J.D.M. The Hoysalas, Madras 1957. 18. Ekwail, E. 'The Celt&c Element', Introduction to the Survey of English Place-names, ed. A.Mawer and F.N.Stenton, Cambridge (England) 192k. 19. Fernando, P.E.E. 'Palaeographical Development of the Brhni! Script in Ceylon', U.C.R., YII No. 11, Oct. 19k9. 20. Fleet, J.P. 'Sanskrit and Canarese Inscriptions', l.A., VI, May 1877, pp. 136-1k2. 'Inscription at Nanag.i', E.I., V, 1898-99, pp.9-31 21. Godakumbure, C.E. 'Bronzes from Polonnaruva', J.R.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VII, pt.2, P p . 239-253. 22. Geiger, Wilhelm 'Die Vannis', Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischwn Akademie der Wissensohaften, II, Heft k, Juni 19k1, 131nohen, pp.3-il. Culture of Ceylon in Medieval Times, Wiesbaden,1960. 23. A Grammar of the Sinhalese Language, Coloabo 1938. 23. Gnanapragasar, S. Ya-vaipava-vimarcan, Aocuvli 1928. 'The Forgotten Coinage of the Kings of Jaffna', C.A.L.R., V, pt.k, pp. 172-179. 'Ceylon Originally a Land of Tamils', T.C., I, No.1. , Feb. 1952. I, No.2, June 'The Tamils Turn Siiiha1Lese',

1952.

'Begilninge of Tamil Thile in Ceylon', T.C., I,No.3, Sept. 1952. 'Sources for the Study of the History of Jaffna', T.C., II, Nos.3&k, Sept. 1953.

555 2k. Indrapa].a, Karthigesu 'The Nainativu Tamil In8cription of Parkramabhu ' U.C.R., XII, No.1, April 1963. 25. John, S. .a-carittiram, Jaffna (American Ceylon Missi.

1a79. 26. Kanakasabhai, V. Tamils Eighteen Eunred Years A go, Madras 1956) first edition 190k. 27. Kanapathi Pillai, K. I1afikai-v1 Tamilar Varalr, Peradeniya 1956. 'A Pillar Inscription fro Moragahawela', U.C.R., XVIII, Jan-Ap. 1960. 'A Tmil Inscription from Pa4uvasnuvara', C.R., XVIII, Noa. 3&1+, July-Oct. 1960. 'Maik;ai Inscription of GajabThu II', U.C.R.., XX, No.1, Apr. 1962. 28. Kumaracuvami, S. 'Vaa mkattujja Cila Iappeyark4i Vara1u', ppa-vaipava-kaumuti by K.VeluppiAlai, Vas y i.A, Jafina 1918. 29. Lewis, J.P. Manual of 'che Vanni Districts, Colombo 1895, ' .ohaeo1ogy of the Vanni', J.R.A.S. (C.B.), No.11-5, 1891. 30. Mahalingam, T.V. South Indian Polity, Madras 1955. 31. ?4ajumdar, R.C. Corporate Life in Aticient India, Calcutta 1922. ed. Classical Age,(History and Culture of the Indian People)11), Bombay 195k. 32. Matiyaparanam, K. Y,pa-prvika-vaipavam, Jaffna 1927. 33. Mawer, A. aad Stenton, g.M. An Introduction to the Survey of English PlaceNames, Pt.1, Cambridge En gland 1929. 3k. Menon, C.A. Cochin state Manual, 1911. 35. }iinakshi, C. Administration and Social Life under the Pallavas, Madras 1938. 36. Nodder, F. A Manual of the Puttalam District, Colombo Gazetteer of the Puttalam District, Colombo 1908. 37. Moore, L. Nalabar Law and Gust oml,1 Madras 1900. 38. Murphey,Rhoads, 'The Ruin of Ancient Ceylon', J.A.S., XVI, pp.181 ff

556 39. Muttuttampi-piilai, A,

pa-carittiram, Jaffna 1912,

140. Nagam Aiya, V.

Travancore State Manual , I, 1906. h i. Narayana Rao, C. 'The Brhn Inscriptions of South India', N.IIA., I, Sept. 1938 142.Natesan, S. 'The Northern Kingdom', U.C.H.C., I, pt.2, pp.691 fZ 143.Navaratnam, C.S. Tamils and Ceylon, Jaffna 1958. Vanni and the Vanniyars, Jaffna 1960. 14k. Nicholas, C.W. 'Historical Topography of Ancient and Medieval Ceylon', J.R.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., Vt, 195g. k5. Nicholas and Paranavitana, S. Concise History of Ceylon, Colombo 1961. 46. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A. The Cas, Madras 1955 (Revised ed.). The Pan Kingdom, London 1929. 'A Tamil Merchant Guild in Sumatra', Tijdschrift Voor Indieche Taal-, Land-. en Volken Kunde, LXXII, 1932, Batavia. 'The Ceylon Expedition of Jara'varman VT.ra Pya', Eighth All Indjan0riental Conference Proceedings and Transactions, 1937, pp. 50b-526. 'Vijayabhu I, the Liberator of Ceylon', J.LA.S. (C.B.), LS., IT, 19. 'Parkramabhu I and. South India', C .H. 3., IV,

pp. 32-51. 'Ceylon and rI Vijaya', JR.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VIII, pt. 1, pp. 125-l+0.

A History of South India, 1958. 147.Pantarattar, C.V.Cataciva Piyar VaralHri, Madras 1956 (3rd ed.) 148.Paranavitana, Senarat Art and Architecture of Ce y lon - Polonnaruva Period, Arts Council of Ceylon, o1ombo 195k. Sigiri Graffiti, I, London 1956. The Shrine of Upulvan at Devundara, Memoirs of of the Archaeological Survey of Ceylon, VI, Colombo 1953.

The Stpa in Ceylon, Memoirs of the Archaeological

Survey of Ceylon, V, Colombo 1914-6.

557 k8. Paranavitana,

Senarat (contd.) 'The Polonnaruva Inscription of Vijayabhu 1', E.I., XVIII, 1926. 'A Tamil Slab Inscription from P4amai', E.Z., IV,pp. 3.91-196. 'Ga1apta Vibra Rock Inscription', E.Z., IV. 'Vallipuram Gold-Plate Inscription of the Reign of Va8abha', E.Z., IV. 'Gaa1dei Rock Inscription', E.Z., IV. 'The Tamil Inscription on the Galle Trilingual Slab', E.Z., III. 'Ktip Slab Inscription', LZ., V, pp. 157-158. 'A Fragmentary Sanskrit Inscription from Trincomalee', E.Z., V. 'Pa4kauva Copper-plate Charter 6f Vijayab.hu I', L.& . V, pt.1. 'Colombo Museum Pillar Inscription of Kassapa IV', III, 'Polonnaruva Council Chamber Inscription of Abhaya Salamevan', E.Z., IV. Giritale Pillar Inscription of Udaya III' III. — 'Two Tami]. Inscriptions from Budunnittva', E.Z., III. 'An Inscription from Padaviya', J.E.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VIII, pt.2. 'TamilUouseholders' Terrace ', A.B.I.A., XIII, .13: Epigraphica]. Summary', C.J.Sc.(GI, II, pp 17-29;

99-128; 175-228.

'Archaeological Summary', p.J.Sc. (G), II, pp. 160 ff. 'A Bas-relief_at Isurumuni', Artibus Asiae, XIX. 'anxples of Andhra art recently found in Ceylon',

A.B.I.A.,XI, pp. 15-18.

'Evidence of Earliest Sinhalese Art', Ceylon Observer 11 .2.1950, p. 6. 'The Irya Kingdom in North Ceylon', J.P.A.S. (C.B.), N.S., VII, t.2, pp. 1711-22k. 'Ceylon and Malaysia in Medieval Times', J.R.A.S. (C.B), N.S., VII, pt. 1, pp. l-k2. 'Ceylon and Malaysia', J.R.A.S.(C.B.), N.S,, VIII, 'pt. 2. 'Newly Discovered Bistorical Documents Relating to Ceylon, India and South-east Asia', Lecture delivered at the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, on k.11.l96k (unpublished).

a

558 If

9. Parker, Henry

'Irrigation in the Northern Province', Papers Laid Before the Legislative Council of Ceylon (Sessional Papers), No.XI, 1886, pp. 105-116. 50. Peiris, Paul E. Ceylon: The Portuguese Era, II , Colombo 191k. 'gad!pa and Buddhist Remains in Jaffna', J.R.A.S. (C.B.), XXVI, No.70,

1917, pp. I1O67.

5].. Ra.ghavan, M.D.

The Karva of Ceylon, Colombo 1961.

52. Rae anayagam, C. Ancient Jaffna, Madras 1926. 53. Ray, Hem Chandra (ed.)

University of Ceylon History of Ceylon, I, 2 pts. Colombo 1959 and 1960. k. Rea, A.

Catalaogue of Prehistoric Antiquities from dichchana11Ur and Perumbair, Madras 1915.

55. Rice, L.

'The ChaJ.ukyas and Pallaas', l.A., VIII, Jan. 1879, pp. 23-29. 56. Saletore, B.A. Social and Pè3itical Life in the Vijayanagara Empire, 2 vole., Madras 193k. 57. Satasiva Pillai, VV. ppa-vaipavam, Madras, 188k. 8. Sircar, D.C. 'Karfas Outside Kara', J.N.Banerjea Volume, Calcutta 1960. 51. Srinivasan, K.R. 'The Megalithic Burials and Urn-fields of South India in the light of Tamil Literature and Tradition', Ancient India, Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India, No.2, July 19k6,

pp.9 fZ.

52. Srinivaan, LR. and Banerjee, N.R.

'Survey of South Indian Megaliths', Ancient India,

No.9, 1 953 special number, pp. 113 ff. 53. Sriskantaraca, A. 'TiruImlai Vara1u Tirnick!car Ilaa Kumppika Malar, Trincomalee 1963. 5k. Stanley, E.J. s of Vasco da Gama and His Viceroa1



das da India,of Gaspar Correa, 1tS69.

55. Sturrock, J.

56. Subramanya

Manual of South Canara, 189k. Ayyar, K.V.

'The Tirumuk.ka]. Inscription of Vrarjndra', XXI,

559 57. Taylor, William,

Catalowue Raisonn of Oriental ernment Library, 4L, iaras .00u. tion and Analysis of the Mackenzl Manuscripts, Nadra8 1b.

58. Tenneht, Emerson Ceylon: An Account of the Island Physical,

Historical and Topographical, London 1860. 59. Thambiah, LW. Laws and Customs of the amils of Jaffna, Colozubo 60. Thiagarajan, N. A Manual of the Pudukottai State, Puthkottai 1921. 61. Vaithianathan, Kanthiah Tiruketheesvaram Papers, Colombo ,1957. 62.Veluppillai, . Ya-vaipava-kaumuti, Vasavilaii Jaffna 1918. 63. Veluppillai, T.K.

Travancore State Manual, II, Travancore 19140. 64. Venakatasubba Ayyar, V. 'TiruvLafig4u Inscription of Rjdhirja II', E.I., XXII, PP . 86-92. 65. Vogel, J.Ph. 'Ngrjuakoa Inscriptions', E.I., XX, pp. 1-37. 66. von FUhrer Haimendorf, Christof

'New Aspects of the Dravidian Problem,' T.C., II, No.2, pp. 131 ff. 67. Wickrsmainghe, Don Nartino de Zilva 'Po1onnar*va Xnau1und.va Slab Inscription', E.Z., II, T baganiuva Inscription of Vijayabhu I', E.Z., II. 'The Slab Inscription of 1rti Ni&afika Mafla at Ruvnv1i Dgba, Anurdhapura', E. Z., II. . ,II, 'Bpii Slab Inscription of Xa1yavtT', pp. 190-192. 'Anurdhapura Slab Inscription of Mahinda IV', E.Z., I, pp. 29-38. D of Queen LflvatT', 'The Slab Inscription Marked E.Z., I, pp. 176-182. 'Polonnaruva Slab Inscriptions of the V.{kkras', E.Z., II, pp. 242-255. 'Kant4ai Ga1-sana Inscription of Eitti Ni?ika Malla', LZ., II, pp. 282-290. 68. Wijesekera, N.D. People of Ceylon, Colombo 1951. 69. Wijetune, W.M.K.

'Who was Vaflabha, the invader of North Ceylon

U.C.R., XX, No.2, Oct. 1962, pp. 287-291.

70. Wilson, KJ. - - Mackenzie Collection, I, Calcutta 1828.

V

56 V. Unpublished MoflOr'i1s 1. Kanapathi Pi].la.i, K. A Study of the JJ.

L&

Thesis submitted to the University of London for the Ph.D. degree, 1936. 2. Liyanagma,ge, Amaradasa The Decline of Polonnaruva and the Rise of Dabadeiya Thesis submitted to the University of London for the Ph.D. degree, 1963. 3. Marr, J.R. tholoies with svecial refere

if.

5.

Thesis submitted to the University of London for the Ph.D. degree, 1958. Wickramasinghe, Sirima The Age of Parkramab.hu I Thesis submitted to the University of London for the Ph.D. degree, 1958. Wijetunge, W.LK. The Rise and Decline of CN.a Power in Ceylon

VI. Reference Works 1. Cintniai-nika4u Cd. Cuvi 1Iilnata Pantitar, Madras 1909. 2. Dictionary of Pli Proper Names, 2 vole. G.P.Malalasekera, London 1937, 1938. Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, 3. Burrow, T. and Emeneau, LB. Oxford 1961 if. Encyclopaedia of Buddhism - Volume of Specimen Articles e • -in-chief G • P. Nalalasekera, Colombo 5. Gazetteer No. 119; Ceylon Official Standard Names Approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Rames, Office of Geography, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 1960. 6. Hobson-Jobson Yule, K. and Burnell, A.C. London 1903. 7. Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol. XVIII, 8. Madras Tti"1 Lexicon, S.Vaiyapuri Piflai, Madras 192k9. Sanskrit-English Dictionary 14. l4onier-williama