Talk:Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka/Archives/2023/April

Jaffna Kingdom inscriptions

 * Please give the names of inscriptions issued by Arya Chakravartis. Vast majority doesn't means one or two inscription.--L Manju (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

'Vast majority of inscriptions' refers to inscriptions after the 10th century AD. And both 'Tamil and Sinhala rulers alike' mean both native Tamil speakers and Sinhala speaking rulers issued Tamil inscriptions under their rule.

The readers can clearly see that out of the Tamil rulers, the Cholas issued the vast majority of surviving Tamil inscriptions. I do not see the need to overcomplicate this very simple introductory sentence. It is not factually untrue. Thank you Metta79 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not factually untrue.. Yes that is correct. But providing more specific sentences will be helpful for the readers to understand the subject in more precise manner --L Manju (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations
The estampages published in this article are seemed to be directly taken from books and other articles which are usually released as "All rights reserved" materials-- L Manju (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Tamil rulers
To L.Manju: the Cholas were not the only Tamil rulers under whose rule Tamil inscriptions were issued in Sri Lanka. This is well established beyond doubt. Tamil inscriptions were issued under the rule of the Arya Chakravarti dynasty, Vanniyar chieftains and also agents of the Pandya dynasty in the 13th century AD. Citations for these non Chola Tamil inscriptions have been given in the main body of the article. The opening sentences to this article are a succinct summary of this. Metta79 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Tamil inscriptions were issued under the rule of the Arya Chakravarti dynasty. Your statement is very interesting. Please give the names of inscriptions issued by Arya Chakravarti dynasty. Kotagama inscriptions is believed to have been issued by an unknown Arya Chakkravarti. Please mention the other inscriptions. I ask a specification because it provide more specific idea to the wiki readers--L Manju (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

reverted changes by blackknight
Finally, the periodisation changes by blackknight completely detract from the article. Tamil inscriptions are found even after the fall of the Kandyan kingdom. Timing in centuries for the introductory period is far more precise. There is nothing wrong with with the original period headings. Putting the Chola era dating from 1017 and not 993AD is inaccurate. Chola Inscriptions even date before 993 AD, as they had conquered parts of Sri Lanka in stages, as indicated by the inscriptions referred.

Lumping this period under the Polonnaruwa period is also flawed. The Chola occupation was certainly a distinct phase from the native rule in the Polonnaruwa period and this needs to be highlight more clearly. Removing the heading Jaffna Kingdom is also without good reason, this page is referring to Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka. So the political changes in areas most relevant to Tamil speakers is more relevant than using simple transitional phase.Metta79 (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Putting a large number of inscriptions under the sub-headline Jaffna Kingdom is incorrect. Many inscriptions there have been dated in the Sinhalese kings who are reigning in their own kingdoms and Jaffna can be just considered as a political entity in the northern part of the country. The other reason is there are only one or two inscriptions those can be connected with the Arya Chakravartis of Jaffna kingdom. Therefore categorizing inscriptions (those are not belong to the Jaffna Kingdom) under the heading Jaffna Kingdom will definitely mislead the wiki readers. --L Manju (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok that is a reasonable assertion. I have changed it to Transitional period.Metta79 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Tamil letters and words in Prakrit inscriptions

 * Have you got access to ceylon inscriptions volume 1? please look at the actual inscriptions 643, 331, 123. Paranavitana has misread the Tamil letters. I will insert the citation soon. The pushparatnam article you have cited earlier has some of the images with Tamil Brahmi letter endings. ThanksMetta79 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked and found that Pushparatnam has read them incorrectly (His Tissamaharama reading is also incorrect as he has used a corrupted sketch of the original graffiti of Tissamaharama potsherd)

If u have ability to read Brahmi letters, the above stated things should be noted without any difficulty. Pushparatnam used these fragments of inscriptions to show that there are Tamil elements in the Brahmi inscriptions in Sri Lanka, but he never read any of these inscriptions completely (that is impossible). He used these arguments to justify his findings on Tissamaharama graffiti, but due to the wrong sketch he used, he identified that legend incorrectly too--L Manju (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The estampage No. 643 clearly shows word "marumakanaka", not "marumakan": The last letter is "na" and not the unique Tamil-Brahmi letter "n". However, the word Marumakan clearly indicate the Tamil influence.
 * No: 331 is "Parumakalu" and not "Parumakal": The last letter is usual Brahmi "la" (not unique Tamil-Brahmi "la") and it has the 'u' stem (it is indicated by the short line that stretch down from the Brahmi letter "la".). Therefore it is pronounced as "lu".
 * No.123 is "Velu" and not "Vel". As I stated above, here also the "la" has the 'u' stem.
 * No. 498 starts as "Parumaka-Nadika-putasa" (Chief Nandika's son= The name Nadika is found in a number of Brahmi inscriptions). But Pushparatnam wanted to read it as "Parumakan-Dika-putasa" (Chief Dika's son). However, Dika is not a Sinhala Prakrit name/word. When we see the estampage, it is clear that the inscription has Brahmi "na" letter and not that unique Tamil-Brahmi letter "n".


 * Please try and get hold of Mahadevan Early Tamil Epigraphy book, and read the Karunaratne reference. Also please read the Sudharshan seneviratne reference, its available online. In established Tamil Brahmi conventions the 𑀴 when found at end of words is read as -aḷ (ள்) not standard retroflex ḷa (ள). The word 'Veḷa' is read as Veḷ not Veḷa (even though it is technically spelt like that). Likewise, it is Parumakaḷ not Parumakaḷa (read the Sudharshan and Falk references). The Falk reference on the tissamaharama pot you mentioned also covers this letter 𑀴, and he also identifies the Tamil name Veḷ on the potsherd (pages 50-51, 86-87). Paranavitana's interpretation of this character has been shown by multiple scholars to be inaccurate (karunaratne, seneviratne, mahadevan, falk, pathmanathan, sittramapalam etc).


 * Also in early Tamil Brahmi, 𑀦 and 𑀷 and were often used interchangeably to end words. But the readers knew what these letters meant in the context. 𑀷 evolved later from 𑀦. Actually many of the 'Parumakana' (𑀧𑀭𑀼𑀫𑀓𑀦) letter sequences should be read as 'Parumakaṉ' despite using the ambiguous 𑀦 letter. We know it can be read as Parumakaṉ because we also have the attested form Parumakaṉ (𑀧𑀭𑀼𑀫𑀓𑀷) ending with 𑀷. This applies to the 'Marumakana' words too. 643 has a clear 𑀷 with the hooked top. Check all the Parumaka references and see the sheer number which have subsequent words supposedly beginning with 'Na' (𑀦), the truth is many of those words don't really begin with Na.


 * I agree the Tissamaharama potsherd on the balance of evidence is likely Prakrit (after reading all the interpretations).
 * Metta79 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Falk says the following: "Veḷa is frequent in early rock inscriptions, which Paranavitana (1970: 122a) continuously misread as veḷu to avoid admitting that veḷa is a Dravidian clan name."


 * Pathmanathan quotes both Karunaratne and Mahadevan regarding this letter in his 'Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka' book (2019) p93:


 * "As recognized by Saddhamangala Karunaratne, a former Archaeological Commissioner, the occurrence of ḷa(𑀴), which is one of the four letters specific to Tamil - Brāhmi, is noticeable in a record from the first of the aforementioned localities. In this short record a trader who had the name Visakha is referred to as a Damēla which is a Prakrit form of the word Tamil. The frequency in the occurrence of the Tamil- Brāhmi letter ḷa (𑀴) is comparatively higher in these inscriptions. It occurs as the last letter in the following words: parumakaḷa, vēḷa, nuguyamaḷa and sikaramaḷa.


 * "The letter ḷa ( of Tamil-Brāhmi is formed by attaching a small angular stroke (looking like an inverted L) to the letter. In course of time the attached stroke at the right of the letter moves downwards or upwards. In late Tamil-Brāhmi, the right side of the letter and the attachment merge into a single vertical line"


 * Henry Parker recognized the occurrence of the Tamil-Brahmi letter ḷa (𑀴) in some of the Brāhmi inscriptions in Sri Lanka. However, his view was unacceptable to the European Indologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. For some reasons of his own Senarat Paranavitana accepted their view. Nevertheless studies on Tamil - Brāhmi inscriptions in the late 20th century clearly established that the letter ḷa (𑀴) found in Sri Lankan Brāhmi inscriptions was adopted from Tamil-Brāhmi. In this connection the observations of Iravatham Mahadevan are noteworthy. He says:


 * "Parker's identification of ḷa (𑀴) in the early Sinhala-Brahmi inscriptions was disputed by Paranavitana even after the correctness of the identification was proved beyond doubt by the occurrence of the letter in appropriate linguistic contexts in the numerous Tamil cave inscriptions discovered since then. Paranavitana's laboured attempt to read the letters as ḷu is unconvincing as forms like li and le occurring in Sri Lankan cave inscriptions clearly indicate that the basic form must be a simple consonant. The loanwords from Tamil occurring in these inscriptions can be read meaningfully only if the letter in question is treated as ḷ. Karunaratne accepts the value ḷ and records the occurrence in five early inscriptions assigned by him to the 2nd century B.C.E. He has pointed out that this form of ḷ was later replaced by the form in vogue in the Brāhmi inscriptions of India. The occurrence of ḷ in early Sinhala Brahmi inscriptions proves the contemporaneity of the two scripts."Metta79 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sudharshan says in the following article on page 111: http://dlib.pdn.ac.lk/handle/123456789/2078


 * "In Sri Lanka too a series of early Brahmi inscriptions carry the name Veḷa.
 * The Brahmi 𑀯𑁂𑀴, is read as Velu by Paranavitana. However, the letter 𑀴 is read as ḷ in south Indian Brahmi inscriptions, and we read 𑀯𑁂𑀴, as Veḷ > Veḷa and not Velu. The parumaka in fact form the single largest group (12/22) having the name Veḷ/a, which quite obviously indicated the lineage and socio-cultural identity of some parumaka chieftains. The occurrence of a personal name in some cases along with the parumaka and Veḷ/a identity is a case in point, e.g. parumaka Veḷ/a s'umana puta parumaka Veḷ/a (No' 647)."Metta79 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Falk states on page 74:
 * "1. “Big man / woman” – parumaka, parumakaḷ
 * The term is the Tamil parumakan, “big / impor-tant man”, many of which have made natural rock-shelters inhabitable for Buddhist monks. The wife of such a person is called parumakaḷ" https://www.academia.edu/11754083/Owners_graffiti_on_pottery_from_Tissamaharama Metta79 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanations and refs. Unfortunately some of the letters (I think Tamil-Brahmi letters) you have used here I can't see (may be due to a Unicode problem). I think I should find out and read refs you have mentioned above. Give me the time--L Manju (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reread No. 498 as a whole. I now think it is more likely Parumaka-Nadika despite the dental Na having a slight extension to the right at the top which makes its look ambiguous. It possibly is a mistake of the engraver or a scratch mark.

Mahadevan says the following regarding Marumakaṉ/Marumaṉ:

"Occurrence of Tamil-Brahmi ṉ in Sinhala-Brahmi inscriptions

Pushparatnam, has recently discovered the occurrence of the Tamil-Brahmi letter ṉ in a couple of Sinhala Brahmi inscriptions published by Paranavitana (e.g., detail in Fig. 5.8). He made the discovery in the course of his study of the Tamil loanword marumakaṉ occurring in the cave inscriptions of Sri Lanka. While in most cases the loanword is spelt with the dental n, the alveolar nasal ṉ of Tamil-Brahmi occurs twice. This discovery is important because the expression is shown to be borrowed from Tamil, and also because the occurrence of ṉ, the most characteristic letter of Tamil-Brahmi, in the Sinhala-Brahmi inscriptions proves the existence of the Tamil-Brahmi script from at least the 2nd century b.c., the date to which one of these inscriptions (No. 643) may be assigned on palaeographic evidence." Metta79 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)