In studies of the ancient language of the island of Eelam (Sri Lanka)
In studies of the ancient language of the island of Eelam (Sri Lanka)
In studies of the ancient language of the island of Eelam (Sri Lanka), Brahmi inscriptions are regarded as important primary sources. Many scholars who have studied the language of these inscriptions have accepted it as a form of Prakrit that existed in India (Karunaratne 1984:39–47). William Geiger identified this language as Sinhala Prakrit, while Paranavithana called it Proto-Sinhala, explaining that it must have spread either from the western or eastern regions of North India. This interpretation was based not only on similarities between languages, but also on the traditional historical belief that the ancestors of the Sinhalese people were Aryan migrants from North India.
Although it has long been assumed that Prakrit became the inscriptional language of Eelam because Buddhism and its associated Prakrit language were introduced there together, these inscriptions appear to predate the time of Emperor Ashoka. Therefore, it is more likely that this Prakrit language emerged through the spread of Jainism prior to Buddhism. Since most of the cave inscriptions found here are associated with Jainism, it is possible that the language was introduced alongside that religion.
More than twenty words found in these inscriptions also occur in almost identical form in the Brahmi inscriptions of Eelam (Pushparatnam 2000:16–24). There is also evidence in Pali literature that Jainism existed in Eelam before Buddhism. In the earliest Brahmi inscriptions found at Periyapuliyankulam, Mihintale, and Vessagiriya, one can observe the influence of Tamil-Brahmi. According to Abayasinha (1965:29), these were introduced from Tamil Nadu together with Jainism. From this perspective, it is reasonable to conclude that the Prakrit language in Eelam spread to some extent along with Jainism.
Even though Prakrit functioned as the language of inscriptions, there is no evidence that it served as the spoken language of the general population. All inscriptions discovered so far convey only messages related to Jainism. Furthermore, like the Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions of Tamil Nadu, they usually contain only brief statements about donors and recipients. In most inscriptions, a limited set of names, titles, and terms recur repeatedly. Many non-Prakrit words were also widely used. This suggests that Prakrit vocabulary was not extensively employed in these inscriptions (Ragupathy 1991).
Moreover, most inscriptions appear to be associated with people of high social standing. Except for around 200 out of 1,234 inscriptions, the remainder refer mainly to royal lineages, social leaders, and Brahmins. These sources suggest that Prakrit may have been used as an inscriptional language only by a particular upper social class.
Although Prakrit was the language of inscriptions, not all the words and names used in them can be considered Indo-Aryan. Many personal names found in the inscriptions end with the Tamil suffix “-an,” firmly establishing that the individuals were Tamils. In several cases, instead of the letter “ன்” (ṉ), the form “ந்” (n) appears with the same suffix. Similar forms are also found in Tamil Nadu inscriptions.
However, scholars such as Paranavithana Sanskritized or Prakritized these inscriptions and used their script and language as evidence that the ancestors of the Sinhalese came from North India. Consequently, he cited North Indian inscriptions and literary sources to argue that the words in them belonged to Indo-Aryan languages. While he acknowledged that some words belonged to Tamil, he explained them as later borrowings. Other words he classified as belonging to the “Elu” language and justified them as Old Sinhala.
Yet, the claim that Tamil words were later borrowings obscures the indigenous history of the Tamil language and Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka. His argument essentially implied that no indigenous languages existed in the region before this Prakrit inscriptional language. However, during that same period Tamil was not only an inscriptional language but also the language that first produced the rich Sangam literary tradition. Sangam literature (Akananuru 88, 231, 307; Kuruntokai 189, 343, 360; Narrinai 366), as well as Tamil Nadu inscriptions (Mahadevan 1966: Nos. 51, 52), confirm that Sri Lankan Tamils maintained connections with Tamil Nadu as poets and merchants.
Historical records also describe Eelam as a land associated with the Tamils (M.V. XXI:10–11, 15–34; XXXIII:37–41; I.C. 1970 Nos. 94, 356–357; E.Z. II:111–114). These sources may be regarded as evidence of the ancient historical connection of the Tamils with the land of Sri Lanka. Among the important sources supporting this are the Brahmi inscriptions themselves.
In this context, let us examine the name “Tissa,” which is highly prominent in Eelam’s history. Among the personal names found in Eelam inscriptions, “Tissa” occurs most frequently. Inscriptions and contemporary Pali literature indicate that many people from different social strata—including kings, minor rulers, and regional chieftains—bore this name. Although the name appears in more than fifty inscriptions in Prakritized forms such as Tisa, Tissa, Tisaha, Tisaya, and Tisiyā (I.C. 1970 Nos. 114, 120, 275, 424, 1027), one inscription discovered in the Kandy district records the name as “Tisen(na)” with the Tamil suffix “-an,” confirming that the name belonged to a Tamil individual (I.C. 1970 No. 813).
Because the inscription is somewhat unclear, it cannot be definitively determined whether the final letter is “ன” or “ந.” Nevertheless, it is evident that the form differs from standard Prakrit personal names. Regarding its significance, the epigraphist Mahadevan stated that since the name ends in the suffix “-an,” it should be read as “Tisen,” regardless of whether the final consonant is “ன” or “ந.” Since there are examples in both Tamil Nadu and Eelam Brahmi inscriptions where literary forms of names were altered in inscriptions, he argues that reading it as “Tisen” is appropriate.
Even today, Tamil names with a similar pattern—such as Thisaveerasingham and Thisainayagam—remain in use among Tamils. There is also evidence that Tamils in ancient times bore this name. For example, a potsherd discovered at Alagankulam in Tamil Nadu bears the name “Tisa-an” (Rasagopal 1991). Likewise, a 2nd-century BCE inscription discovered at Kuduvil in the Amparai district refers to a Tamil named Tisa living in Digavapi (Paranavithana 1970: No. 480).
Another inscription states that Tamils gathered and established a hall for conducting trade-related discussions, and that a Tamil named Tisaha participated in this merchant group (Paranavithana 1970:94). Pali chronicles further state that the son of Tamiladevi (Tamil Devi), queen consort of Ilanaga who ruled Anuradhapura in the 2nd century CE, later ruled Anuradhapura for seven years and eight months under the name Tissa (M.V. XXXV:48–50).
Therefore, these sources strongly suggest that the individuals associated with the Prakrit name “Tissa” found in ancient Eelam inscriptions were in fact Tamils. As supporting evidence, one may observe the name “Tisan,” bearing the Tamil suffix “-an,” appearing in the final three letters of the first sentence of the inscription discussed here.
Translation by Hari
0 Comments