Talk:Naga people (Lanka)

Don't agree
"After the Tamil invaders arrived in Nagadipa, they surrendered and became two minority casts within the Tamil community. Nagas of Nagadipa used to speak Elu (elu=ela=hela=sinhala), but today speak Tamil."

i dont agree with this statement. specially "Today Speak Tamil". because of the war Terrorist wiped away all other ethnic groups including Sinhalese from Nagadipa. that is the main and well known reason for people of Nagadipa speaks tamil now.i hope everyone agree with me ! Eeriyaka (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

please provide proof "they surrendered and became two minority casts within the Tamil community" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeriyaka (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove this article
There is no citation about the facts. I think the article is based on racism, and want only prove with this article without citation, that the sinhalese people were the first inhabitants of Sri Lanka. Fact is, that the first inhabitants of Sri Lanka is till now not proved! Any independent Institute has proved the ethnic belonging of the nagas and yakkas

This article Jaffna Nagas is about the same Nagas, and the same citation problem. Remove this two articles immediately! --Tamilstyle (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here a Link about the Nagas!  --Tamilstyle (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
User: 112.135.0.159 is vandalising this Article! --Tamilstyle (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have traced the IP-Adresses! All the IP's are from Sri Lanka Telecom!--Tamilstyle (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone still doubt NPOV of this article?
If there's no reply in a week. I'll remove the NPOV dispute tag.Wikinpg (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job
--Tamilstyle (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge
This article is more Sri Lanka specific and the Indian article is India specific and based only on Mahabharatha which is myth and not based on any science. As such this should not be merged because Vaishnavaite religion based articles should not be merged with scientifically and historically based entries. The article has a Vaishnavaite bias. --Vikram2009 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In-universe tag??
The in-universe tag is for an article which "describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style." As best I can tell from reading this article, it is not describing a fictional people. Legendary, perhaps, but not fictional. Some work may be called for to make the article more comprehensible to readers who aren't familiar with the overall subject, but "in-universe" seems to be going too far. Or am I missing something here? Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Untrue Statement in the Article
This statement in the article is simply not true: "It was from the Naka people that the Aryans first learnt the art of writing; hence Sanskrit letters to this day are known as Deva-nagari."

The Devanagari script was not the first script used to write Sanskrit. Before that, Brahmi script was used. 70.110.27.31 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Hokie Tech

About Naga
Naga is just an entity created by today historians to differentiate between current SriLankan Tamil with ancient SriLankan Tamils(Naga people)who was the first civilisation in ancient Lanka thus this Naga is assumed as an different entity and this entity is used as a weapon of denial of rights of current SriLankan Tamils and this enables the Sinhala historians to manipulate or neglect the importance   and the heritage of ancient Srilankan Tamils in their own country.These Naga people also is used a weapon to prove that the sinhalese is the first civilisation on the land of Lanka and this also enables the current sinhalese people to propose new theory of migration of current SriLankan Tamil from India which historically enables them to prove that Sinhalese is all about Srilanka's history.It is also noted that co called Naga people(ancient SriLankan Tamils,ancestors of current SriLankan Tamils)have lived in Sri Lanka even before the arrival of Sinhalese in Lanka.--Tan Meifen (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree.(Tamilan101 (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Don't agree. There is no logic in the post.
 * Where it came Naga is first civilisation in ancient Lanka? There were 4 tribes based on what they worshipped. Raksha, Yaksha, Naga, Deva. All of them older than Ramayana.
 * Naga is not a Tamil heritage. Sinhala, came from siwhela (derived by siw +hela -> four natives) formed with Naga's too. Raksha Indrajit married to Naga. Also having several Sinhala kings from naga tribe who ruled kingdom of rajarata prove that there was a significant Sinhala naga power in Sri Lanka
 * When was the arrival of Sinhalese to Sri Lanka? Where a something like that mentioned or described in a any research ? Is there a book older than Ramayana ?
 * Even Tamil in the era of Pollonnaruwa kingdom are not ancestors of current SriLankan Tamils. Tamils who came before falling of Rajarata was very powerful. Most of them came with a princess of south India to be queen to the Sri Lankan king. They were positioned in higher ranks by the king. If you can visit Pollonnaruwa ( World Heritage Site) you can see Tamil temples inside the castle. Also the Tamil prince Sapumal Kumaraya is an adopted son of Parakramabahu in Kotte. King send Sapumal Kumaraya and his army to fight with Tamils who came to Sri Lanka after 1215. Current Sri Lankan tamils came after Magha's invasion in 1215. Tamils came before Magha stayed with Sinhala king. There was no reason to leave Sinhala king since they are close relatives of Queen of Sri Lanka. --Himesh84 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually to be frank,your post is the one that does not have any logic.Be it Veddah,Coastal Veddah or Naga,these people were all settlers who had their origins in ancient Tamilakam.They were called indigenous tribes of Sri Lanka island because these people were propable earliest settlers of this island.Please note one thing,Naga people was an important Tamil tribes who find mention in various Sangam literature.Some of these Nagas moved to Manipallavam(nagadeepa/Sri Lanka) after they embrace Buddhism some 2700 years ago.For your question,where it came Naga as first civilization of Lanka,please refer to Manimekalai where it is clearly stated that civilization of Naga in Nakanadu is one of the outstanding human organization at that early period of Tamilakkam.This article only speaks about Naga in Sri Lanka but the truth is the main settlements of Nagas were actually present in the coastal area of early Pandyan and early Cholas kingdoms as well as maritime area of ancient Sri Lanka and Sangam age Kerala(I’ll try to expand ths article to include Nagas findings in ancient Tamilakam as well)Several Tamil classics clearly describes the Tamil Naga tribes such as Maravar,Paravar,Eyinar and etc ,clearly mentioning their culture,occupation and language they spoke which is Tamil.Your etymology of Sinhala is something I don’t find in any article or history books,if this is your own research,we cant do anything with that.Please be clear that some elements in Ramayana as well as Mahavamsa could be myths,for example something called Rakksha is not exist at all and all these cant be taken as an historic accounts.
 * It is also noted that Naga,Sinhala and Buddhism were different things in past(which you are confused with)These problems occur in Sri Lanka history mainly because of European settlers who build major portions of Sri Lanka history mainly from Pali texts.This is clear when some Sri Lankan scholars proudly presented the rule of Nagas in Rajarata,but when it came to Northern parts of the country(Uttaradesa) these Nagas were dismissed as non-human beings pointing to sentences of Mahawamsa.Let us be clear here,Naga in Sri Lanka were mainly Buddhist with some Hindus,someone who were Buddhist in past does not to be a Sinhalese and same goes to these Nagas and there is nothing called Sinhala Naga present in this world.Other than that,informations about Naga can be also traced from Ptolemy’s descriptions which says that Nagas were Dravidians and they spoke Tamil and Prakrit.Even with the denial of Tamil identity of Naga,the presence of Tamils in Sri Lanka according to some both Sri Lanka and other scholars were stated as pre 300BCE stating the Tamil settlements in poonagari and different literary accounts as evidence.When it came to early history of Sri Lanka,the Tamil settlements of Kudiramali which is ruled by Naga king originating from Velir royal clans of TAmilakkam were often neglected in Sri Lanka history.These tamil settlements were dated somewhere pre 500 BCE by scholars.It is true that series of migration of Tamils occur well after these early periods in 7th,8th,10th,and 12th (It is obvious that a lot of Tamil merchants and warriors were assimilated to Sinhalese community through Kovigama and Karave caste after the end of Tamil rules in 11th and 13th century)centuries but these migration and invasion of Magha’s alone cant be taken as the main factor of the Tamils presence in Sri Lanka as various Tamil Kingdoms(early Jaffna Kingdom,Kudiramalai civilization) were already established in centuries BCE which is also confirmed by Mahavamsa.It is also irrelevant to state that current Sri Lankan Tamils were not ancestors of those early Tamils because be it Tamils from pre-600 BCE or post Kalinga Mahan Invasion  they belongs to same race.It is also irrelevant to state that current Sri Lankan came after the Magha’s invasion as Magha only brought 24 000 south Indians during the invasion and it is noted Tamil settlements were already present well before these periods.For the rest of your claims(alternative version of your history)please provideadequate references.I don’t  think my earlier post contain any false informations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs) 09:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Remove the unrelated history part which is not scientifically proved.

2. Removed the Jafna Penisula which is out side of the Nagadeepa (Nainathivu).

3. Remove the section of findings about Kerala Naga which is unrelated to this article.

4. Remove the section which said some part of the Sri Lanka was part of Early Pandyan Kingdom ( established around 600BC). It is evident that Sri Lanka had it's own kingdom in Rajarata since 543 BC. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some sources to support your alternative version of history? And I think we would need more than your assertion that material is "unrelated" and "not scientifically proved". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide informative proof at the first place rather than re-questioning the person who raised concerns
 * Sri Lanka was an extension of the Indian subcontinent for at least 800,000 years of the last one million years..........
 * The history part we haven't heard/see in any scientific research. Also what is the relation between Naga people and your scientific view


 * Why you insert Kerala Naga research to Sri Lanka Naga page ? Kerala is not a part of Sri Lanka. Totally unrelated.


 * Tamil:Nainathivu means naga land. Nainathivu is small island near Jafna penisula in Sri Lanka. Jafna Penisula is not a part of Nainathivu.


 * According to Sri Lanka History the first king in Sri Lanka is price Vijaya who established in 543 BC. That is the original version of history teach/booked in Sri Lanka in thousands of years. Please refer Annuradhapura kingdom wikipage which is attached with relaible sources. Also if you can come to visit Anuradhapura you can see ruins of the ancient kingdom. From where your version of history came from ? --Himesh84 (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

>> The present day Nallura of Jaffna is believed to have been the capital of the Nagas, with the form 'Nagapura' changing to Nakpur, nakkur and Nallur.

Nagas were in the western part of Sri Lanka (present - Kelaniya) and Naina thivu island close to Jafna Penisula. Nallura is neither inside Nagadeepa or Naina thivu. Also it is not close to Kelaniya.


 * Remove the northern ceylon from Naga list since naina thivu is specific and special to get "Naina Thivu " name over near locations.
 * Edited the declining of Naga section according to Mahavamsa
 * Removed the naga language description supported by unavailable source and Contradicting to Mahavamsa.--Himesh84 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Hillcountries, Mahavamsa cleary mentioned about Tamil kings ruled the Kingdom of Rajarata. But these kings are not labeled as Tamil kings in Mahavamsa. They are from Naga tribe. There is no other reason some of them add 'Naga' word to their name. I don't know to where you have been migrate from India. Sometime you might not find enough reference to learn about Sri Lankan people or Sri Lankan history or at least about Sri Lanka. But if you say there were no such Sinhala Naga in Sri lanka most of the Sinhalese will laugh at you.--Himesh84 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC) @@Hillcountries, This page is about Sri Lankan Naga. It is not about Sri Lankan Tamil Nagas. Ethnic background is irrelevant for this article. It should be solely about the their religion.

@@Hillcountries,You are a Indian who worked in a some foreign country. If you going to comment about other countries please learn about it first. You are overwriting referenced materials from Mahavamsa, which used as a reliable source to find history event in South Asia. For an example Mahavamsa had been used to find details about Indian emperor "Ashoka the great". If you want to overwrite anything from a reliable source you must have much reliable source than Mahavamsa, but you don't provide any single sources than your word. As Wikipedia users our responsibility is to give the correct picture to the readers. We can't allow someone who introduced them self as "experts on this" to overwrite hardly find referenced materials. Please obey to standards set by Wikipedia. Thanks --Himesh84 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Myths are just myths and not historical facts
1. This whole article is a masterpiece of original research, fake references, references to self published sources and the whole arena of constructions and distortions and a prime example of what an encyclopedia article should not be. Assumptions like, Sri Lanka being part of the Tamil country, Nagas of Sri Lanka being Tamils, Kerala Nagas being Tamils, ancient Sinhalese cities being Tamil emporiums ruled by Tamil Naga kings (sic.) from the Pandiyan kingdom (and some times they can't decide whether it was the Pandyan or Chera kingdom or Jaffna "kingdom"), nonexistent Tamil Brahmi inscriptions presumebly found at various places etc etc. The fact of the matter is, no part of Sri Lanka has ever being part of the Tamil country and Nagadeepa is not positively identified as Naganadu or Mannipalavam, but scholars agree that Nagadeepa in the Mahavamsa could most probably be the Jaffna penninsular. The Valipura (Tamilized into Vallipuram) also probably erronously called Wasabha's gold plate is not in Tamil brahmi, but is in Sinhala, according to Paranavitana, and according Indian epigraphist A. H Dani, it could belong to the Ishvakus of Andhra or it is Sinhalese with a strong influence of the Brahmi script used by the Ishavkus. Even fanatical Tamil academics like Velupillai who have been trying claim this gold plate has not claimed that it is in Tamil, the discussion has been whether it is in Old Sinhala (i.e Sinhala prakrit) or Andhra/Ishavaku prakrit. It is definitely not in Tamil and it definitely does not describe Nagadipa being ruled by Tamil kings. Also the only reference to Naganadu, the Manimekalai clearly states that the Nagas were not Tamils. The present version the article also present all characters in the Manimekalai as Tamils, when as said Manimekalai clearly states that the Nagas were not Tamils. According to both Manimekalai and the sister epic Silapadikaram the Nagas were cannibals and non-Tamils. The word Naga itself has several meanings. One being elephant. According to some scholars, the Jaffna penninsular could have been called as Nagadeepa because it was infested with elephants. Naga also means naked. Manimenkalai mentions the island of naked nagas. Nothing of this is even mentioned in the article.--SriSuren (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Nagas of Sri Lanka were most definitely not Tamils and they were neither Sinhalese. The Sinhalese sources mention the Nagas as supernatural beings, living under the ocean, always in the role of protecting the Buddha, the Buddhist relics, temples etc. The Nagas in this article is defined as snake worshippers. As for the Sinhalese they most certainly are NOT snake worshippers. The Sinhalese are dead scared of the snakes and therefore they have some rituals to the king Cobra and they think that this snake has some supernatural powers. They do have the Naga masks, some of which interestingly incorporate the Yakkshas and Rakshas too, but you could hardly call it worship. The case with Tamils is also similar. Sinhalese are mostly tree worshippers, as seen by their Bo tree veneration, and some sun worship too is done. Tamils are mostly stone worshippers, as seen by their incorporation of the lingam worship, and amoung Tamils too some sun worship exist. Both Sinhalese and Tamils are extremely superstitious people, and they believe in very many things, most of which most probably have common sources (Eg. the Pattini cult amoung the Sinhalese). So trying to pick religious practices and call them solely Sinhalese or Tamil in a Wikipedia article is inevitably going to result in edit wars. Back to the Nagas - in both Sinhalese and Tamil sources, the Nagas are not considered as their own kind, but is refered to as the other, this is especially true for the Mahavamsa, which potrays the Nagas as supernatural beings, sometimes helpful and friendly towards the Sinhalese, but not always (Eg. the story about the relics which they want to keep....:) ). So how come there are Sinhalese Nagas and Tamil Nagas suddenly in the 21st century?--SriSuren (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Also, Mahavamsa is not a fact book or a definite history of anything. It is a narrative/chronicle and is full of myths and legends, one of which is the Naga stories. But since it is the only source for information about Nagas in Sri Lanka, it has been used by scholars to present their views on the Nagas, and then we have a whole range of Sinhalese and Tamil nationalists misuing it. Whatever the Nagas were, they were not Sinhalese or Tamils. The Sinhalese kings with the Naga suffix, are most probably Nagavanshies or Naga gothra which some Sinhalese legends/books mention. You have the Yakkshas, Devas, Rakhas etc in the same category, in addition to the other vansha or kula divisions. Most of the kula/gothra/vansha origins are just a bunch of myths. Therefore four tribe myth of the Sinhalese, is also just a myth, and it should be presented as a myth or legend believed by the Sinhalese and nothing more. Same way, the Tamil people too have myths and legends they believe in, and should be included in the article as myths. Just because some Sinhalese kings have Naga suffixes in their names one cannot claim that these kings were not Sinhalese and that they Naga kings nor can one claim that the Nagas were Sinhalese. Some "scholars" mean that these kings with the Naga suffixes are Nagas who took Sinhalese names and became Sinhalese - that would make them Sinhalese kings of Nagavansha at best, but not Naga kings. Many of the Indian dynasties too are considered or claimed to be socalled Naga dynasties, including the Mayuran dynasty. So the question is, was Ashoka a Naga king who ruled a Naga kingdom and can we just call him a Naga king? --SriSuren (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

4. Nagas being mythical characters, this article must be written reflecting that or this article must be merged with the article on Nagas or just plain deleted, as it does not add any value to Wikipedia. If we are to keep this article, we must all get together and find out what to do, and do our best to present the information in a neutral way and not present myths as historical facts and post bogus information like Tamil Nagas having emporiums in Nagadeepa and all over Sri Lanka or Sinhalese Nagas having supreme power etc etc, because as said whatever the Nagas were they were definitely not Sinhalese or Tamils. --SriSuren (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are not myths. They are history. Ancients worshiped Raksha,Yakshas,Naga,Deva,.... Even they had temples for those tribes. King Pandukabhaya who established the kingdom of Anuradhapura created 2 temples for 2 Yaksha's (can't remember the names. but something like chiththaraja and kalawela ) who supported him and died to save him.

http://sundaytimes.lk/070204/Independencesupp/59Independence2.html --Himesh84 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sinhalese Nagas
It is very much founding fact that Sinhalese were unification of hela groups and sinha. Also it is very much famous fact that there were 4 hela groups in the island. Origins of the Hela Race. Hela was combination of Raksha, Yaksha, Deva, Naga.

Raksha were extreamly powerful in the history but may be lost power due to battles,.. At the time of start writing the history, Raksha and Deva wasn't powerful. Naga was the most powerful authorities. That time only they had kingdoms. It is evident that they ruled two kingdoms Kelaniya and Jaffna. Others lived as small groups ( kuveni's story).

Rajarata area was ruled by Yakshas before Vijaya. After 2,3 generations from Pandukabhaya, kings tend to suffix 'Tissa' and 'Naga' to their names. Tissa name is comes from Sinha tribe. There is no reason they added Naga to their names other than representing Naga tribe. This says later Naga royal families in one of the 2 kingdoms ( most probably Nagadeepa) made connections to the royal family in Rajarata. Nagas came to Anuradhapura and joined the Sinhas and Yakshas and actually able to dominate over others. So kingdom of Nagadeepa was lost from the history and Rajarata was trying to gain Naga/Sinha identity in which there had been a Yaksha rule. But kelaniya was there and ruled as maya rata.

It is also very much evident Naga were the dominant tribe withing the core of the kingdom to protect their king. Those days without having clear power king can't survive. Yaksha's had clear control of Rajarata during the period of Pandukabhaya. But later Naga influence of the kingdom started to growth due to connection between royal families. Since conflicts between tribes hasn't been ended, Naga/Sinha king wasn't be a fool to rule middle of Yaksha on those days. Also we can see there is a clear discrimination against yakshas and had introduced a superiority on Nagas defining solosmasthana. Also some Yakshas leave the Rajarata and come other areas. Ritigal Jayasena was one of them.

So Nagas dominated over Rajarata and Maya rata but still others may had the control in Malaya rata and Ruhuna. SL was unified on tribe basis. After SL was converted to buddhism it wasn't required to unify tribes which based on religion. Since Ruhuna also accepted Buddhism (due to fear for Asoka) Rajarata king could made his brother ( MahaNaga) as the king of Ruhuna without considerable resistance. So it is very much evident that Sinhalese mainly consist of Nagas. --Himesh84 (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here what ref says ....


 * We, the ‘Sinhala Race’ boast of a ......
 * Originallyyyy weeee were known as ‘Hela’ or ‘Helayo’ or ‘Helayan’
 * Helayo comprised four tribes - ‘Raksha’, ‘Yaksha’, ‘Naga’ and ‘Deva’.
 * simply human-beings not Iniquitous, Devils, Serpents, Gods

Here's another references
 * The nation
 * Island

Here's a foreigner wrote book Legend of Ram–Retold By Sanujit Ghose

or simply search google. there are lot  --Himesh84 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lambakanna
Lambakanna are lived in Nagadeepa. Vasaba who found Lambakanna dyn is from Nagadeepa. A gold ‘Sannasa’ (plate) which was discovered in a land close to the Vishnu Devale of Vadamarachchi refers to this fact. Vasaba. Also Lambakanna often suffixed Naga to the name. Mahallaka naga, kuda naga,.... --Himesh84 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs help to establish the basic facts and limitations
... modern media society has given the past unprecedented prominence and marketing potential. More history than ever is today being revised or invented by people who do not want real past, but only a past that suits their purpose. Today is the great age of historical mythology ...

To avoid our past mistakes (where we debated months regarding the facts that not even relevant to the article) I think it’s better to establish the timeline and the geographical space. I have summarized the facts (in my opinion) that I have gathered about the Nagas. Please correct me if I’m wrong….

Origin: South India – “The people known as the Nagas were the group that inhabiting that area [Nagadipa] in the EIA. They have to be considered as the earliest settlers there. That the Nagas were also among the people of the opposite coast, in southeastern Tamil Nadu, is known from the earliest Tamil sources and from surviving place names of Nagapattinam (the port town of the Nagas)……….”Siran Deraniyagala is also of the view that the Nagas were Protohistoric EIA settlers from India.” K Indrapala - p 71.

Tamil Nadu Nagas vs Nagas of Lanka (mind you the title of the article): “The Nagas of Tamil Nadu, it would appear were on the way to being integrated in to the dominant Tamil speaking group in Tamil Nadu when Naga migrations to the northern Sri Lanka began. The earliest Tamil poems of Sangam Anthology reveal names of poets with Naga connections, indicating their assimilation in to the Tamil speaking population.”K Indrapala - p 102.

“Since the Jaffna peninsula was not settled by Mesolithic people, the Nagas would have been the first settlers there paving the way for the area to be called the Nagadipa. Not only did they bring new Iron Age cultural elements from south India but may have also introduce the Tamil language with their own.” K Indrapala - p 102.

Nagas of Lanka – Definition: ““Siran Deraniyagala has speculated that the term ‘Nagas’ refers to the protohistoric early iron age peoples of Sri Lanka and that they displaced the earlier Mesolithic hunter gatherers from northern and western parts of the island from about 1000 BCE” John Holt p - 73. “ …settlers from India.” K Indrapala - p 71.

Naga (Lanka) territory: “….northern and western parts of the island….” John Holt p - 73. “If one is to go by the evidence of the legends in the Pali chronicles and the Jataka stories the Nagas were in Southern Sri Lanka, too, as far as Kelaniya. “K Indrapala - p 71.

Naga (Lanka) decline: “By the end of the ninth century, there is no evidence relating to the Nagas. Clearly by that time, or very probably long before that time, the Nagas were assimilated in to the two major ethnic groups [Hela -Sinhala and Demala -Tamil] of the island. “

“the adoption of the Tamil language was helping the Nagas in the Tamil chiefdoms to be assimilated into the major ethnic group there” John Holt p – 74. I think author is referring to the Tamil Nadu Nagas and not to the Nagas of Sri Lanka. (Please correct me if I have misunderstood the whole segment)

Timeline of Nagas of Sri Lanka: 1000 BCE (John Holt p – 73) to 9th century CE (John Holt p – 74). Protohistoric (John Holt p – 73) literature level i.e. no writing ability but referred by other historic cultures with a writing ability; early Iron Age technology. Naga people vs Naga mythical people: “In the Mahavamsa and in the Manimekalai, as indeed in the ancient Sanskrit and Pali literature in general, the Nagas are never represented as human beings, but as a class of super human beings, who inhabited a subterranean world, whose normal form of that of serpents, but who could assume any form at will.” S Paranavithana - p 181.

“Euhemerisation of these Nagas in to human beings, though fashionable with certain scholars, is not justified; the arguments for taking Nagas as human beings would also enable the Devas to be included in the same category.” S Paranavithana - p 181.

“According to references to Nakanatu in the Manimekalai it cannot be taken as identical with Manipallavam. It is said in Canto VIII, I. 54, that Nakanatu was situated below the expanse of the earth. Canto IX, II. 13-22, states that an earthquake that destroyed a city in Gandhara also affected 100 Yojanas of Nakanatu, which is impossible if Nakanatu was Jaffna. These references clearly prove that Manimekalai meant the Naga world, which the ancient Indians located below the earth, by the name Nakanatu.” S Paranavithana - p 182.

“The Tamil world Natu has the meaning of ‘world’ in addition to the better known meaning of ‘country’.” S Paranavithana - p 182.

“Proper names with Nagas as component if they signify anything, would give us an idea of the religious beliefs current among the people who favored such names, but not their ethnic affiliations.” S Paranavithana - p 183.

Bibliography


 * 1) Indrapala K. The evolution of an ethnic identity – The Tamils in Sri Lanka c. 300 BCE to c. 1200 CE. Sydney: MV Publications for the South Asian Studies Centre;2005.
 * 2) Paranavithana S. The Arya kingdom in north Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1961;VII(2):174-224. (He is referring to the Arya-Cakravartis and not to the Aryans)
 * 3) Holt, John (2011), The Sri Lanka Reader: History, Culture, Politics, Duke University Press;2011.

Caution Holt's work is based on K Indrapala's work. So they are more or less the same rather than two different sources.

Nishadhi (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Holt's book is a collection of papers from various authors, both modern and ancient (I think there's one by Parakramabahu too:)). Indrapala has a 6 page article called "Tamil identity in Ancient Sri Lanka" (pages 69 - 74). It is more or less a concise version of what he writes in his book, "Evolution of an Ethnic Identity". So I think for the sake of clarity, and consistency, the reference here and in the articles which this reference is used, should be changed to something like "Indrapala, in John Holt's book" or "Indrapala in Sri Lanka reader", because John Holt didn't say any of it. In articles its infact a Wiki guideline to write the correct author when refering to works such as this book. (I have written this in small fonts to avoid clutter, and this could be deleted afterwards, as its not relevant to the discussion). SriSuren (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, my fault.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Manimekalai to Tamil kingdom in the Northern Sri Lanka, Gaps in the string of arguments.
The problem when claiming that Nagas were Tamil using Manimekalai as evidence is that it leaves three gaps in the string of arguments. I have summarized the counter argument just to show the large number of assumptions made by "scholars" when declaring (I'm yet to see the source) that "Tamil epic Manimekalai speaks of the prosperous Naga Nadu, a Tamil Buddhist kingdom in the North of Sri Lanka."

Nakanathu/Nakanadu is a human settlement?


 * “Euhemerisation of these Nagas in to human beings, though fashionable with certain scholars, is not justified; the arguments for taking Nagas as human beings would also enable the Devas to be included in the same category.” S Paranavithana - p 182.


 * “According to references to Nakanatu in the Manimekalai it cannot be taken as identical with Manipallavam. It is said in Canto VIII, I. 54, that Nakanatu was situated below the expanse of the earth. Canto IX, II. 13-22, states that an earthquake that destroyed a city in Gandhara also affected 100 Yojanas of Nakanatu, which is impossible if Nakanatu was Jaffna. These references clearly prove that manimekalai meant the Naga world, which the ancient Indians located below the earth, by the name Nakanatu.” S Paranavithana - p 182.


 * “The Tamil world Natu has the meaning of ‘world’ in addition to the better known meaning of ‘country’.” S Paranavithana - p 182. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishadhi (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)  Oops sorry. Nishadhi (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * “The names of some Naga kings in Ceylon legends, Mani-naga or Maniakkhika and Mahodara also find mention in Sanskrit literature among superhuman Nagas.(Mahabharata, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Edition, Adhiparva chap, 31, v. 15.)” S Paranavithana - p 181.


 * “Continuing this method of extracting history out of legend, a Naga Damsel who is said in the Manimekalai to have appeared in a garden near Pukar, remained for some time with a legendary Cola King and disappeared after conceiving a child, is taken to have been a princess from Jaffna, and her father an ancient ruler of Jaffna.” S Paranavithana - p 181.


 * “Legends of human kings begetting sons of Naga damsels are not uncommon.” S Paranavithana - p 182.

'''Manipallavam of Manimekalai and Nagadipa of Mahawamsa are the same? or former situated in the latter?'''


 * “It is stated in the chronicle that the Buddha, during his second visit to the island, pacified two Naga kings of the island who were arrayed in battle over a gem set throne. This throne was offered by the grateful Naga kings to the Buddha who left it in Nagadipa under a Rajayatana (Kiripalu) tree as an object of worship.” S Paranavithana p 180.


 * “The Manimekalai does not state that the two Naga kings had their abode in Manipallavam, or that they were preparing for combat there. The Buddha seat is said have been placed in Manipallavam by Indra, not by the Buddha himself.” S Paranavithana p 182.


 * “The reason that the poet [author of Manimekalai] imagined Manipallavam as possessing a Buddha seat does not prove its identity with Nagadipa, for more than one place in the ancient Buddhist world competed for the honor of possessing this sacred object. According to the belief of Talaing Buddhists, this seat was preserved at a place in the Malay peninsula.” S Paranavithana p 182.


 * “Though there is no doubt that the Jaffna peninsula was known in ancient days as Nagadipa, there were also other regions in Ceylon which had the same name.” S Paranavithana p 182. (So the Nagadeepa mentioned in Mahawamsa might not be the Jaffna Peninsula.)

Nagas were Tamil?


 * “Even if the Nagas be taken as human beings, there is no particular reason to treat them as identical with Dravidians.” S Paranavithana - p 182.


 * “… a rare reference to the language of Nagas is found in a story included in the Buddhist Tamil epic Manimekalai. In the story, a Tamil maritime trader is shipwrecked in the land of the Nagas (presumably Nagadipa) but manages to get assistance ‘because he had thoroughly learnt their language’ (XVI: II.60-61). Such a statement implies knowledge among Tamil-speakers that the Nagas spoke a different language.” K Indrapala - p 350. (Here, Indrapala is referring to the Naga people, but I included it since it directly state that Manimekalai claiming that even the mythical Nagas spoke a different language.)


 * “That the Nagas spoke a language different from Tamil is seen from a rare reference to their language in the Manimekalai, 16: II 60, 70.” p 372.

K Indrapala in his PhD-thesis provides some additional information on the subject. - p 403 onwards. (A thesis is not a reliable source when creating an encyclopedic article, but I linked it just to show that Paranavithana’s ideas are shared by another scholar, who is a Sri Lankan Tamil. (Since some believe that neutrality is affected by ethnicity.)

Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Was there a separate Tamil kingdom in northern Sri Lanka before 13th century? - facts
"The 6th century CE Tamil epic Manimekalai speaks of the prosperous Naga Nadu, a Tamil Buddhist fief in the North of Sri Lanka as a separate kingdom, distinguished from Ilankatipam, the island of Lanka."

The above argument was included in to the Tamilakam, citing a web article of Peter Schalk. This assumption (please see above for the discussion) which departs from mainstream history of Sri Lanka is based solely on Tamil epic Manimekalai, and has been proven as baseless using various literary, epigraphical and archaeological evidences. Here I have summarized some of the facts (using quotes) from various sources.

Overview

 * "... the argument based on literary evidence set forth by modern writers for the existence of a Tamil kingdom in North Ceylon before the thirteenth century can be shown to be fallacious. There is no archeological, epigraphical or numismatic evidence for such a conclusion. No inscription, coin or any other type of monument lending support to such a conclusion has ever been brought to light in the Jaffna peninsula. In fact, the oldest Tamil inscriptions known from Ceylon have been discovered in other parts of the island."S Paranavithana - p 189.


 * "South Indian inscriptions which contain numerous references to this island make no mention of a Tamil kingdom of North of Ceylon before the thirteenth century, but after we begin to obtain glimpses of such a kingdom from the Sinhalese historical writings, evidence for it is found in Pandya records and the Vijayanagara documents make direct mention of Jaffna and its rulers."S Paranavithana - p 189.

Literary evidence

 * Local and South Indian:


 * Pali Chronicles:"Reference as we have in Pali chronicles and commentaries to Nagadipa and religious sites there in indicate that the region did not differ, with regard to the religion and language of its people, from other areas of the island."S Paranavithana - p 189.


 * Tamil Literature:"Early Tamil literature excludes Ceylon from the regions in which Tamil was the language of the people"S Paranavithana - p 189.


 * Sammohavinodani:"The Sammohavinodani gives us the story of a blind prince called Diparaja who was the ruler of Nagadipa, and a prince of this name is mentioned in a pre Christian Brahmi inscription found at Mihintale. But this Diparaja was a son of the Anuradhapura king, who is not named and must have governed Nagadipa as a feudatory of the latter just as feudatory princes in other parts of the island did."S Paranavithana - p 189.


 * "… a king in ancient Sri Lanka gave a promise to one of his consorts that he would make her son to succeed him on the throne. But the prince, before he grew in to adulthood, lost one of his eyes in an accidents while watching a cock-fight. Later when the prince’s mother reminded the king of his promise, the latter explained that it would be against the custom to make a person with a physical defect to succeed to the throne. But he was happy to make him Diparaja, the ruler of the Nagadipa. In the Yvm, this story is mixed up with the story based on folk-etymology to explain the name Yalppanam (Jaffna). According to this story, a blind lutanist (yalpati) came from the Cola country to the court of a king in Sri Lanka, sang the praises of the king and obtained peninsula of Jaffna as his prize. Thus he became the founder of the kingdom of Jaffna." Kartigecu Indrapala - p 372.


 * Travellers:


 * Cosmas Indicopleustes: "'This is a large oceanic island lying in the Indian sea. By the Indians it is called Sielediba, but by the Greeks Taprobane, and therein is found the hyacinth stone…. There are two kings in the island, and they are at feud the one with the other. The one has the hyacinth country, and the other the rest of the country where the harbor is and the centre of trade.' The translator of Caosmas is of opinion that by hyacinth in this passage is meant the sapphire; others take it to be the amethyst. In either case, that part of the island wherein is found the hyacinth must be Rohana, which produced and still produces precious stones, including sapphires and amethyst. The king who had the hyacinth country was thus the ruler of Rohana, who at times was not subservient to his suzerain at Anuradhapaura. The other king who possessed that part of the country where the harbor was, must have been the king of Anuradhapura, for whose existence it is not necessary to quote evidence." S Paranavithana - p 184.


 * Vajrabodhi:"Another traveler who visited Ceylon sometimes after Cosmas has also referred to the two kings of the island. Vajrabodhi, who came to Ceylon from Kanci shortly after 689 AC, spent some time at Anuradhapura, honored by the king. He mentions Abhayaraja Vihara (Abhayagiri), definitely establishing that it was at Anuradhapura that he sojourned. Later he wished to go on a pilgrimage to Sripada, and for this purpose ‘passed in to the kingdom of Lou-ho-na (Rohana)’. Vajrabodhi expounded the Mahayana doctrine to the king of Rohana. Thus, when two kings of Ceylon are mentioned with reference to the Seventh century, we have to understand the paramount sovereign at Anuradhapura and the feudatory prince at Rohana."S Paranavithana - p 185.


 * Ptolemy:"Ptolemy refers to Nagadiba as one of the thirteen major coastal towns of Taprobane (Sri Lanka)." Weerakkody - p 87. Kartigecu Indrapala - p 172.

Epigraphical evidence

 * Vallipuram Gold Plate:"The Vallipuram gold plate establishes that the Nagadipa was governed in the reign of Vasabha (65-109 AC) by a minister (Amatya) of that king." S Paranavithana - p 189.


 * Nainathivu Inscription:"The Nainativu Tamil inscription proves that not only the Jaffna Peninsula but also the neighboring islands acknowledged the authority of Parakramabahu I. The fact that this inscription is in Tamil may indicate that the population of these islands and of the Jaffna peninsula was then largely Tamil. On the other hand, the inscription which Nissamkamalla left at Ramesvaram was in Sinhalese." S Paranavithana - p 189 - 190.

Archeological evidence

 * "Specimens of sculpture, architectural fragments and coins recovered at ancient sites in the Jaffna peninsula are of the same type as those found at ancient sites of the pre Christian and early Christian centuries in other parts of the island." S Paranavithana - p 189.


 * "The settlements at Pomparippu and the possible settlement at Katiraveli have to be treated as isolated earlier settlements. These are comparable to the earliest Saxon settlements at places like Dorchester where are the Teutonic artefacts are so early that they are not sometimes considered to belong to the period of Saxon settlements at all. The burials at Pomparippu apart, the evidence as a whole does not warrant the assumption of so early a date as the second century AD for the beginning of permanent Tamil settlements. In this context, it is worth noting that Ceylon is conspicuously omitted in the list of Tamil speaking areas included in the Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam written about the fifth century AD." Kartigecu Indrapala (Early Tamil Settlements) - p 54.


 * "In the seventh century, it is possible that there were mercantile and mercenary settlements in the capital and the main ports. But evidence for extensive settlement bearing the signs of a date earlier than the tenth century is lacking. On the basis of the present evidence we could say that it was only about the tenth century that permanent settlements of the Tamils began."Kartigecu Indrapala (Early Tamil Settlements) - p 54 - 55.


 * "It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that permanent Tamil settlements on a notable scale began very probably about the tenth century and these became fairly extensive early in the eleventh century."Kartigecu Indrapala (Early Tamil Settlements) - p 55.

Bibliography


 * 1) Indrapala K. The evolution of an ethnic identity – The Tamils in Sri Lanka c. 300 BCE to c. 1200 CE. Sydney: MV Publications for the South Asian Studies Centre;2005.
 * 2) Paranavithana S. The Arya kingdom in north Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1961;VII(2):174-224. (He is referring to the Arya-Cakravartis and not to the Aryans)
 * 3) Indrapala K. Early Tamil settlements in Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1969;XIII:43-63.
 * 4) Weerakkody D P M. Taprobanê : ancient Sri Lanka as known to Greeks and Romans.Turnhout, (Belgium): Brepols; 1997.

Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Chola Naga origin of Pallavas?
"The Manimekalai speaks of the great Naga king Valai Vanan and his queen Vdcamayilai, who ruled the prosperous Naga Nadu with great splendor. According to the Manimekalai this kingdom had a rich Tamil Buddhist tradition. Their daughter, the princess Pilli Valai had a liaison at Nainativu islet with the early Chola king Killivalavan; out of this union was born Prince Tondai Eelam Thiraiyar, who historians note was the early progenitor of the Pallava Dynasty who were the rulers of the Thondai Nadu till 9th Century CE."

The above statement is used in several articles, leaving several questions behind. Is it accurate? Is it properly sourced?

First of all, does Manimekalai say that this Chola Naga union gave rise to the Pallava dynasty? No. Its just a traditional belief.


 * "Another tradition weaves a romantic story round the name. A prince fell in love with a Naga princess of the netherworld. When he finally had to leave her, that if she set their child adrift with a young creeper or twig tied to its body he would recognize the child on finding it and would bestow part of the kingdom on the child. The princess did so and the child was duly recognized and installed as the founder of Pallava - literally a young twig - dynasty." Romila Thapar p 328.

Such traditions are not uncommon regarding Pallava origin.


 * "The biography of a latter king, encapsulated in an inscription claimed a descent from the brahman Ashvatthama and a mother who was an apsara, a celestial women." Romila Thapar p 329.

Both Manimekalai and the former tradition refers to a Naga princess from Nagaworld (netherworld/underworld).


 * “According to references to Nakanatu in the Manimekalai it cannot be taken as identical with Manipallavam. It is said in Canto VIII, I. 54, that Nakanatu was situated below the expanse of the earth. Canto IX, II. 13-22, states that an earthquake that destroyed a city in Gandhara also affected 100 Yojanas of Nakanatu, which is impossible if Nakanatu was Jaffna. These references clearly prove that manimekalai meant the Naga world, which the ancient Indians located below the earth, by the name Nakanatu.” S Paranavithana - p 182.


 * “The Tamil world Natu has the meaning of ‘world’ in addition to the better known meaning of ‘country’.” S Paranavithana - p 182.

However, C Rasanayagam in his book Ancient Jaffna (published in 1926 by Everyman's Publishers, Madras), putting manimekalai and several traditions together, proposed a theory that this Naga princess might have come from (he used the words "perhaps of north Ceylon") Nagadipa (Jaffna peninsula) of Sri Lanka. This interpretation including the Chola-Naga origin of Pallava dynasty, has been criticized for its methodology. (Read) K Indrapala in his thesis (see above) claimed "... identification of place names without regard to chronology or relevant historical facts is hardly acceptable." (p 404)


 * “Continuing this method of extracting history out of legend, a Naga Damsel who is said in the Manimekalai to have appeared in a garden near Pukar, remained for some time with a legendary Cola King and disappeared after conceiving a child, is taken to have been a princess from Jaffna, and her father an ancient ruler of Jaffna.” S Paranavithana - p 181.


 * “Legends of human kings begetting sons of Naga damsels are not uncommon.” S Paranavithana - p 182.

Now what are the theories proposed in mainstream history, regarding the origin of Pallava dynasty?


 * “We know very little of the origins of this remarkable and gifted line of kings. Scholars like Vincent Smith, Rice, Jouveau-Dubreuil tended to regard them as foreigners and to identify them with the Pahlavas or Parthians who invaded the Punjab after the fall of the Maurya empire. This view, however, has now been given up and the Pallavas are considered an indigenous dynasty. The view that they were of Chola Naga origin has not been accepted. They seem to have risen to power on the decline of the Satavahanas. It is generally assumed that they were of northern origin as their culture was largely northern. They were patrons of Sanskrit culture and they issued their early charters in Prakrit and Sanskrit. It was only in their latter charters that they used Tamil but even then the Prasati section was in Sanskrit.” L H Horace Perera, M Ratnasabapathy p 149-150.


 * "Origin of the Pallava dynasty is obscure. It is not even clear whether the early Pallavas of the 3rd century were the ancestors of the latter Pallavas of the 6th century, who are sometimes distinguished by the title "imperial". It would seem though that their place of origin was Tondaimandalam, with its center at Kanchipuram (ancient Kanchi). Prakrit Copper plate charters issued by the early kings from Kanchipuram often mention places just to the north in Andhra Pradesh, suggesting that the dynasty may have migrated to the Kanchipuram area." Kenneth Pletcher p 97.


 * "The Vakataka, the Northern Brahmanical and Chola-Naga origins of the pallavas has not withstood the test of historical research. A. Krishnaswami p 88.

Bibliography


 * 1) Kenneth Pletcher. The history of India. New York, NY : Britannica Educational Pub. in association with Rosen Educational Services; 2011.
 * 2) Romila Thapar. The Penguin history of early India : from the origins to AD 1300.London [u.a.] : Penguin; 2003.
 * 3) L H Horace Perera, M Ratnasabapathy. Ceylon & Indian history from early times to 1505 A.D.. Colombo, W.M.A. Wahid; 1954.
 * 4) Krishnaswami A. Topics in South Indian history : from early times upto 1565 A.D.Annamalainagar : Krishnaswami; 1975.
 * 5) Paranavithana S. The Arya kingdom in north Ceylon. Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1961;VII(2):174-224. (He is referring to the Arya-Cakravartis and not to the Aryans)

Thanks.

Nishadhi (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

(Caution: Krishnaswami's book is self published book. However it is one of handful of books which discuss Chola-Naga theory with other theories and its from South India. I used it here because he is a well known scholar in India.) Nishadhi (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How trustworthy is the Manimekalai as a historical source?
Manimekhalai, as already remarked, is a poem first and foremost; whatever subject is actually brought into it is therefore treated poetically. That must be carefully borne in mind in examining it for any purpose that one may have in view. As an epic poem it sets before itself the didactic purpose of enforcing the superiority of the Buddhism as a religion both as conducive to good conduct in this life and happiness in the life hereafter. The fact that it is primarily a poetical work, and the feature that its object is the exaltation of Buddhism, neither of them, prima facie holds out promise of anything historical being found in the work. Nevertheless the poem could contain and does contain, much that may be considered historical provided the material is used on principles of sound criticism. Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar.Manimekhalai in its historical setting.London : Luzac & Co.; 1928.12-13

Sometimes, Manimekalai has been used by historian to support their conclusions. For instance Prof K Indrapala used Manimekalai to support his claim that Nagas were not Tamil. But his claim is supported by many other evidences and scholars.

On the other hand, Peter Schlak has used Manimekalai to conclude that Nagadipa was a separate Tamil kingdom. This claim is solely dependent on Manimekalai and contradicted by many archaeological, epigraphical and literary evidences.

Nishadhi (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Replacing references by cn-tags
With this edit TanMeifen replaced references by cn-tags. Quite inappropriate, I think. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal
Sourced content (Holt) was removed twice, without any explanation, or even mentioning it diff diff:


 * "Holt concludes that they were not Tamils, but a distinct group."

and replaced with obvious POV-pushing based on a source which can't be found at Google, except for a foreword at Scribd:


 * "The Nagas are considered by some scholars as a Dravidian group due to the facts like snake worshipping, which is a dravidian custom. "


 * References


 * Sources
 * Holt, John (2011), The Sri Lanka Reader: History, Culture, Politics, Duke University Press

It's clear that this is unacceptable. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   09:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
The same two edits diff diff also added an etymology section, based on Early Tamils of Ilankai and [The Christian topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian monk (1897). Early Tamils of Ilankai is unverifiable, if not non-existent; and 1897 is long outdated. Given these considerations, and the manners of the editor who added this section, I presume the trustworthyness of this "info" to be zero. [[User:Joshua Jonathan| Joshua Jonathan  ]] -  Let's talk!   09:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a section for etymology:

"Naga, A Sanskrit therm meaning cobra, but the word is also sometimes used generically to mean 'snake'. The Nagas were also known as Cheras, which means both hill and tree. They probably were called Cheras because they probably were hill and forest tribes. Since the nagas were known as Cheras, the island was known as Cerentivu, which means 'island of cheras'. Thus, Sri Lanka was known as Seren deep by the Romans, and by the Greek as Sielen diva. From the word Sielen, many Europeans words derived including the English Ceylon."


 * It was been deleted by L Manju and Joshua Jonathan, without any further reason by stating that the sources are not WP:SPS, although the book "Early Tamils of Ilankai" is a book based on many dravidologists like Constanzo Beschi, P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, U. V. Swaminatha Iyer and many more, and thus is considered WP:SPS. I would like to have from them both proves on what is wrong written in the sections.


 * @Joshua Jonathan: You should do more researches on the book then. You can read the whole book on http://it.scribd.com/doc/36055988/Early-Tamils-of-Ilangai#scribd. - Muvendar


 * If "The Christian topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian monk" is outdated, then chronicles like Mahavamsa and others are also outdated.Outdated doesn't mean it is wrong.


 * Could you answer here and stop deleting content without clarifying the reason, Joshua Jonathan ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muvendar (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 April 2016


 * I've explained my deletion here, at this thread, which I opened, and to which you added a reply before my initial message. Early-Tamils-of-Ilangai is self-published; 1897 is indeed outdated; even more so 1819 and 1834.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Date of assimilation
This edit removed sourced info, instead adding info based on the same source, which was duplicated, and removed other info from the same source. It was re-inserted after I removed it. the fact that sourced info was removed, while the source in question was duplicated, makes me pretty confident that these editors are not really paying attention the source. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been ripping into this article. The edit you refer to is one of many examples of poor contributions made by that person but, more generally, it is just atrocious. I am going to leave it for a bit now and see what others can do. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that a lot of references given do not contain any of the information or suggestions given in this article referring to those sources. So that information should either be original research or un-researched and unproven ideas. --User: Lightspreader7 06:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svm1 63 (talk • contribs)


 * The real problem has already been stated: ignoring what the sources say.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing.
Hi L Manju. The content starting from Senarath Paranavithana under "Identifying Manipallavam" is too close paraphrasing. Could you rewrite this part and at the same time also keep neutrality in the article without giving hints of ethnic interest. On a light note, I feel we both are editing this article without much consensus. Hope we could further improve this. Hope we can make more discussion here before adding huge changes. Peace Xenani (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

Hi L Manju. I have now edited that part as you suggested on your talk page. However I see there are some issues regarding the sources you put in form of notes; note 4 and note 5. It would be nice if they were put in as citation. The reliability of the sources are not easily confirmable in their present form. I also have a little doubt regarding note 3 where there is a claim backed up by the book Ancient Jaffna by Mudaliyar C.Rasanayagam from page 26-28, however those page only mentions the story in Manimekalai and makes no reference to the statement in the note. That should be also corrected. According to Template:Note is the note template not recommended for citing, so note 1 should also be put in a citation template. Would be great if you could sort that out. Thanks Xenani (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Xenani, the note 1, 4 and note 5 were indicated in the original article (ref 38) as footnotes. I checked the note 3 and found that it support the story in the note, given briefly in the latter part of the statement but not the beginning part. So now I also think that it should be put in to the correct place.--L Manju (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naga people (Lanka). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20031008212242/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2003/09/21/fea17.html to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2003/09/21/fea17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing sources.
Is there a better reason for this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naga_people_(Lanka)&diff=829247307&oldid=829247149 L Manju ? Could you make a discussion here before removing sources. You mentioned it as theories of Indrapala, but then again removed the whole content in the lead. Xenani (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Addition of wrong content
Dear Xenani, by these two edits (first and second) you had reverted the last versions without looking the reason for them. These are the wrong contents in the article I removed but you had added again.
 * Some scholars regard them as an ancient tribe who started to assimilate to Tamil culture and language from the 3rd century BCE.{sfn|Holt|2011|p=73-74} By the 9th centuries had the Nagas assimilated into the major groups, the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Sinhalese.{sfn|Holt|2011|p=74} - This statement is actually from Indrapala not by Holt. We shouldn't use the third party references but original. That is why I changed the ref name from Holt to Indrapala. Also that statement claims that the Nagas assimilated into the major groups, the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Sinhalese. But actually in the ref it refer the two major groups as Hela and Demala, indicated as in the inscriptions.
 * Scholars concludes that they were a distinct group.(sfn|Holt|2011|p=73)(efn|John Holt writes that "in the early Sri Lankan chronicles as well as in the early Tamil literary works the Nagas appear as a distinct group.(sfn|Holt|2011|p=73) Holt also writes that "the adoption of the Tamil language was helping the Nagas in the Tamil chiefdoms to be assimilated into the major ethnic group there".(sfn|Holt|2011|p=74)) - This line is completely wrong.
 * 1)These are Indrapala's writings not Holt. So it mislead the readers
 * 2)Scholars concludes that they were a distinct group- This line also mislead the readers as it has distorted the original ref by Indrapala - (In the traditions preserved in the early Sri Lankan chronicles as well as in the early Tamil literary works the Nagas appear as a distinct group. page 173, Indrapala 2005)
 * The Nagas had by the 9th century AD or probably earlier assimilated into the major groups, the Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese. Naga identity was visible in history through persons with the name Naga added to their personal names.{sfn|Holt|2011|p=}  - This is the same I explained before.

Putting the wrong authorship on several contents is considered an offensive thing. I am not sure why you add irrelevant sources in to the articles with your edits which I have already showed you before. Therefore I revert you again.--L Manju (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi L Manju. Fault is on my side, didn't look too deeply into it. Thanks for the detailed clarification. But on a side note, it is not correct to name this section "Addition of wrong content" nor is your statement on one of your edit summary "Rm misleading content" correct as they are neither wrong nor misleading, only the presented source are kind of misleading. Xenani (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Problems with calling Nagas as only supernatural beings
The Yakshas are another group which are predominantly portrayed as a supernatural race in pan Indo-Aryan literature (Sanskrit and Pali literature in both India and SL). However, there is also positive evidence in the Mahavamsa which strongly identifies them as also being a historical people, and in particular being related to the Veddahs.

Indo-Aryan literature has a tendency to portray non-Arya natives as mythical creatures (e.g. rakshasa, yaksha, Naga).

Likewise, the term Naga is used throughout pan-Indo-Aryan literature to refer to native tribes, often giving them supernatural or savage characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naga_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagas_of_Padmavati

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilamata_Purana

We have Nagas in Mahabharata, Nagas in Mahavamsa, Nagas in Manimekalai, Nagas in Kashmir, Nagas in Kerala (Keralolpathi) etc. Writing off ALL these Naga legends as just being supernatural beings is dangerous.

For example, we know that ancient Kerala was inhabited by Sangam era Tamils before the Namboothri Brahmin migrations, yet when the Indo-Aryan speaking Brahmins wrote their legendary history of Kerala they referred to the natives merely as Nagas.

The term was clearly a common term used to refer to non-Indo-Aryan natives by Indo-Aryan speakers.

It is highly doubtful that all these disparate groups actually called themselves 'Naga' an native Indo-Aryan word with Sanskrit etymology.

Coming to SL and in particular the North and West coasts which were described as strongholds of the semi-human Nagas. We know there were a iron using agricultural population who carried out urn and megalithic burials, and used black and red ware pottery with Indus script derived graffiti in these regions prior to the migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers. They shared the same elite culture as Dravidian south India.

Could 'Naga' be a term used by the later Indo-Aryan speakers to refer to this population? And that their higher concentration in early iron age Jaffna gave the peninsula it's historical name?

Ancient Jaffna was called Nagadipa, Nakadiva, Nagadibois, Nakanadu, Nagabhumi, Nakanakar in various Prakrit, Sanskrit, Tamil and Greek sources.

Naga island, Naga land, Naga soil, Naga city. There was evidently an extremely strong association with the peninsula and the Nagas.

Pali literature refers to an older name of Nagadipa being Serumadipa. This could be a cognate of cherantheevu and serendib. The word Cheran in Tamil also means snake. Cheraman in Tamil refer to a Chera chieftain.

If the Nagas indeed were a real people, they most likely got prakritised by the early historic period. Manimekalai refers to Nakanadu being a non-Tamil speaking area. The Vallipuram inscription is in Sinhala Prakrit with a Dravidian substratum (Badakara, Nakadiva etc).

The Anaikottai seal shows evidence of a Dravidian substratum with the term Kove(n)ta. The skeleton found in Anaikottai has marked prognathism which is a feature associated with Australoid and high AASI populations (AASI = Ancient ancestral South Indian). It is not a typical physical feature of the average modern day Tamil or Sinhala. It is more common in tribal or Dalit populations, or those descended from them.

Paranavithana was incorrect to say that the Manimekalai portrayed the Nagas as supernatural beings. They are portrayed more as humans:

https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/English-Texts/Manimekhalai/index.htm

Metta79 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The title should be "Naga people (Sri Lanka)" because there is no place presently called 'Lanka'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amritsvāraya (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2021
Naga people (Lanka) → Naga people (Sri Lanka) – incorrect place name YaSiRu11 (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lanka is, if I understand correctly, a name given to the island of Sri Lanka in ancient epics. Since these Naga people are also of an ancient/mythical nature, the current title seems to make sense. In any case, this move is not uncontroversial. Lennart97 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since that place name is no longer used it would make sense to the reader if the current place name is used. And, I requested a technical move since the page Naga people (Sri Lanka) is already existing and it's redirected to this page
 * Two comments:
 * The disambiguator "Lanka" is somewhat opaque for the unintiated reader. A connection to Sri Lanka comes to mind, but how many readers (and editors in the WP community) are actually familiar with Lanka?
 * Why do we use the natural disambiguator "people" here in the first place, which is normally used for well-attested ethnic groups? The Naga described in this article are attested from epics and associated with mythological characteristics ("a class of superhumans taking the form of serpents" per lede). And even if there is a historical core of people which was later attributed with mythological characteristics, for consistency, none of the tribes listed in the Rigveda take the disambiguator "people".
 * I argue the current page title is a misnomer from the start, and rather suggest something like "Naga (ancient tribe)". –Austronesier (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several types of people and mythological creatures named 'Naga' all over the Indian subcontinet. Examples are Naga people in India, Nāga, Nagas of Padmavati and Naga languages. So the 'Sri Lanka' part is necessary. Amritsvāraya (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these fully matches with the disambiguator "ancient tribe" though: Naga people are contemporary, Naga languages are languages, Nagas of Padmavati are a dynasty; the Nāga are always understood to be not 100% human, whereas tribe – like the Naga of this article – refers to a group of humans (which then may have secondary non-human attributes in certain traditions). –Austronesier (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, can you change it then? Amritsvāraya (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we shouldn't do it in the middle of a RM discussion, unless the OP @ agrees about a change for the proposed target. what do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I am the OP my username was changed from to Amritsvāraya Amritsvāraya (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Question: If this refers to a mythological tribe then wouldn't Naga (mythological people/tribe) be more correct? Ancient tribe appears to give credence to their existence. (Not sure why this was on my watch list!)--RegentsPark (comment) 15:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. From what RegentsPark says, it seems that referring to them as an "ancient tribe" may be somewhat problematic. Also, I'm not inclined to support the original proposal, given that the text explicitly links the Naga with "Lanka", saying that it was "often identified with" Sri Lanka, which suggests its primary identity is Lanka. Probably the current title is fine. Also the OP has seemingly been indeffed, if they are indeed the user Amritsvāraya. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

People?
Are you in for a bold move to "Naga (mythological tribe)"? The natural disambiguator "people" most strongly gives credence to their existence, which is something we want to avoid. –Austronesier (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, however "people" in and of itself does not in many other articles necessarily denote real people opposed to those in various mythologies. For all we know the Naga were real people who were adept at illusion and pulled the wool over many eyes. Because I have a problem with this title and its two forms of disambiguation, natural ("people") and parenthetical, in use within the same title, perhaps a better title might be Naga (Lanka)? Also like Naga (mythology), however that already redirects to Nāga. Confusing when we see Naga people as shown with others at Naga (disambiguation), where Naga people (Lanka) are listed under "Clans and ethnic groups" rather than under "Mythology".  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 21:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)