Page 1
THE TAMILS ANE
C
Segara
Peraden
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 2

THE TAMILS AND TRINCOMALEE
Seladurai Gunasingam, M. A., Ph. D
Lecturer in History, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
Peradeniya 1979

Page 3
TO
V. N. THAMBIRAJAH (Former Chairman, Village Council, Sanapaltivu) who first induced the author to begin archaeological work in Trincomalee
First edition : 1979
Selladurai Gumasineam
The Tamils and Trincomalee by Dr. Selladurai Gunasing am Department of History, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
Printed at : Price : Rs. 5.00 Aseervatham Press, Jaffna.

THE TAMLS AND TRNCOMAEE
In his edition of a Tamil slab-inscription discovered at Nilayeli in the Trincomalee District, an inscription which records important historical information concerning the temple of Koneswaram and Tirukonamalai where the temple is situated, the present writer has incidentally remarked in the following manner on the place name accurring in the inscription :
“The first reference to the place name Tirukonamalai is to be found in the present inscription. It is noteworthy that the name Tirukonamalai by which Trincomalee is knowa among the Tamils to this day occurs in precisely the same form in this inscription. The persistence of this name over a period stretching for nearly a thousand years is strongly indicative of a remarkable continuity in the Tamil connection with Trincomalee. Considering the vicissitudes to which the names of some other centres seem to have been subject over relatively shorter periods of time, this may be indicative of the stability of the Tamil population in Trincomalee.'
* As this paper is written in the form of a re-joinder to K. N. Q. Dharmadasa, the author is only concerned in this paper to establish the continuity and stability of the Tamil population in the Trincomalee District, from the beginning of Cola rule in Sri Lanka. The continuity of the
Tamil connection with Trincomalee prior to the Cola rule, for which evidence is not lacking would be dealt with in a separate paper. S. Gunasingam, 'A Tamil slab-inscription at Nilaveli, The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Peradeniya, 1975), p. 68.

Page 4
The above remark is repeated in its entirety (in italics and non italics) by K. N. O. Dharmadasa in his paper “Place - Names and Ethnic Interests: The Case of Tirukonamalai in which he endeavours to question its validity.2 The untenability of Dharmadasa's position stems, in a sense, from his failure to distinguish between the work of a trained historian and that of amateurs. He has not produced any evidence which could truly call into question the validity of the above remark, which suggests, perhaps, that his reaction derives from a misapprehension of certain phrases the present writer employed in the above remark, namely, 'continuity of the Tamil connection with the Trincomalee district, and “the stability of the Tamil population in Trincomalee' and an inadequate knowledge of the medieval history of Sri Lanka, something which will be demonstrated in the subsequent pages. -
Before taking up the arguments raised by Dharmadasa, it may be observed that in research, strict objectivity, free of any personal predilection or patriotic bias is absolutely essential; one must receive light from whichever quarter it comes and follow truth to wherever it leads. It is from this standpoint that the present author's remark quoted above on the toponymy found in the Nilaveli inscription has been made. While editing the inscription, the author found that that was not the proper place to indulge in an elaborate discussion on the utility of toponymic evidence for such research, since the aim of an editor of inscriptions is to decipher, translate and comment on them against the relevant historical background on a scientific basis. Briefly, a discussion of methodology regarding place-names is a matter which has little relevance in the edition of this inscription. Surprisingly, Dharmadas a seems to expect
2 K. N. O. Dharmadasa, ' Place Names. and Ethnic Interests :
The Case of Tiruko na malai ’, Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 2, (1976), pp. 108-114.

for some reason or other, that a lengthy discussion of the usefulness of toponymic evidence should have been undertaken by the present writer. However, Dharmadasa's comments help the present author to re-assert the veracity of his claims made regarding the place-name Tirukonamalai found in the present inscription and the historical importance of the temple of
Koneswaram.
V Dharmadasa presents the views of writers such as Svam
Gunaratana, Ven. Pandita Kada Vaddu've Nandarama, Dompe
Pieris Samarasiaghe and Ven. Hendiyagala Silaratana in order to show that the technique the present writer has employed is nothing new and that it has been employed earlier by the above writers. However, there is a fallacy in this argument of Dharmadasas. First of all, the present writer unlike the above writers, is a trained historian, familiar with historical methodology and technique. Secondly, the present writer's conclusion unlike those of the writers named by Dharmadasa, has not been exclusively based on toponyms. The present writer never for a moment imagined that definite conclusions can be based solely on toponyms and his conclusion has been based on not only a study of the toponym but also a knowledge of strong archaeological and historical evidence relating to the medieval history of Sri Lanka, which is presented in a detailed manner in the following pages. Dharmadasa gives the impression that the author's conclusion like those of the other, writers named by him is devoid of a historical basis. In this he is mistaken and therefore is wrong to put the present writer in the same category as the other writers he names in his article. One can judge for oneself whether the following statement with emotional overtones of
3. Ibid., p. 108.

Page 5
Ven. Pandita Kadavadduve Nandarama and Dompe Pieris Samarasinghe, reProduced by Dharmadasa is that of a trained historian.
“In place of the Sinha lese (village) names which were there in the Northern and Eastern provinces what we find today are half Sinhalese and half Tamil names which in appearance look Dravidian... In fact that most of these transformations occurred during the Anuradhapura and Polonnaruva periods is attested by history. Just because something was wrested away (from somebody) the robber does not become the owner. Nothing mentioned above has so far been handed over legally to the Tamils.'
The present writer's remark, which provoked strong reactions from Dharmadasa, pertains to a period covering nearly a
thousand years starting from the Cola conquest of Sri Lanka.
The list of Pali and Sinhalese forms of the ancient name of Trincomalee presented by Dharmadasa, however, relates mostly to the period prior to the Cola conquest. Nevertheless, for
the purpose of the point which the present writer has his attention on, it is not for him to take into account the
historical development of the earlier period. Given his original point, it would suffice for him to begin confining himself
to the Cola period, for two main reasons : one is that the inscription in question belongs to the Cola period; and the second, that this was the period in Sri Lanka when South Indian influences were felt in greater measure than ever before so that this poriod formed an important phase in the development
of the Tamil settlement in the island.
4 bid., p. 108.
4

PERIOD OF THE COLA RULE IN SRI LANKA
The archaeological remains on which, in the absence of reliable contemporary literature, we mainly depend for the study of Cola rule in Sri Lanka, show that in the closing years of tenth and the whole of the eleventh centuries Tamil settlers belonging to various social groups migrated from South India to Sri Lanka in the wake of the Cola invasions, and that the major part of Sri Lanka was constituted as a province
of the Cola empire till A. D. 1070. The Cola warriors, officials
artisans and Brahmins who migrated to the island in considerable numbers formed the core of the Tamil settlements during this period.
The continuity and the stability of the Tamil population in the Trincomalee District, which we will speak of in the succeeding pages and because of which the Triacomalee District marks itself out from the other Tamil areas, resulted mainly from the close association that the Colas had with Trincomalee. As it is, to explain the continuity and the stability of the Tamil population in the Trincomalee District, the first phase of which
started from Cola rule, it is necessary to briefly understand the association of the Colas with the Trincomalee District.
On the basis of the archaeological and epigraphical
remains, it could be observed that the nature of the Cola impact in the island varied from place to place. In spite of the fast
that the archaeological remains of Cola rule are mainly confined to four localities, namely Polonnaruwa, Padaviya,
Matottam and Trincomalee, there are several considerations which suggest that the Cola impact was the most profound in
Trincomalee. The Cola inscriptions in the Trincomalee District * S. Gunasingam, Some Aspects of the impact of Cola rule in the Trineomalee District, A paper read before the
Ceylon Studies Seminar, 19th September, 1973
5

Page 6
are greater in number than those in Polonnaruwa, which was the centre of Cola administration in the island. The sporadic archaeological surveys of the Trincomalee District have revealed a good number of Cola records despite the fact that this area has received comparatively less attention from the Archaeological EDepartment. These records, far from being
6 Archaeological Survey of Ceylon Annual Report (ASCAR) for 1954, (Colombo, 1955), p. 14: K. Indrapala, Fourteen Cola inscriptions from the Ancient Rajarajaperumpali (Velgam veharà/Nata har kovil) at Petiya kulam”, Epigraphia Tamilica (ET), Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jaffna, 1971), pp. 37-51; A. Veluppillai, Two shert inscriptions from Natanar kovil', Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions (CTI), part 1, Pera deniya, 1971, pp. 12-15; A. Veluppillai, "Four More Inscriptions from Natanar kovil or Velgam vihara", Ibid., pp. 16-19; A. Veluppillai, Some More Inscriptions from Natanar Kovil', Ibid., part 2, (Peradeniya, 1972), pp. 1-6; S. Gunasingam, Two Inscriptions of Cola Ilankes vara Dēva, Trincomalee Inscriptions Series, No. 1. Peradeniya 1974, pp. 1-22; s. Gunasinga m, ʻA Ta mil slab inscriptiön at Nilaveli, PP. 61-71; S. Guna singam, Tirukonamalayil iru Colar kalat tamilk kaivettukka, Virakesari, 17th June 1972; s. Gunasingam', Tirumalayil Raja rajanin Kalattal muntiya Kalvettukkal', Elanadu, 6th August, 1972; S. Gunasingam, “Kidarattil Kandeduta Kali Amman Wikrakan”, Virakesari, 16th July 1972; S. Gunasingam, Three Cola Inscriptions from Trincomalee, Trinicomalee Iriscriptidins Series, No, 2, forthcoming; W. E. Baker and H. M. Durand, Facsimiles of Ancient Inscriptions. Lithographed by Jas. Prinsep; The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. 4, Calcutta, 1836, pp. 554-55; Sir Alexander Johnston, 'An Account of an inscription found near the Trincomalee in the island
of Ceylon, Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 1, (London, 1827), pp. 539-40.

confined to any particular site, have come from various localities scattered widely over the Trincomalee District.
It is perhaps useful to point out that any assessment of
the degree of the impact of Cola rule on the Trincomalee District should not be based on a mere comparison of the number of inscriptions found in that district with the number found in other areas. For during the past thousand years a large number of the records in other localities might have been destroyed or lost. However, the contents of the inscriptions found in the Trincomalee District indicate that Cola influence in this district was more interase than in any of the others. In this context the fact that a greater number of Cola inscriptions were found in the Trincomalee District than in any other appears significant.
The contents of two recently discovered inscriptions from the Kantalai Sivan temple and мanankeni Vilpapathirar temple
we have of Cola rule, deserve special consideration on account of the fact that they add a new dimension to the picture of Cola rule in the island." The two inscriptions refer to the prince Cola ilankëswara Deva (together with aetails relating to his regnal years) whose title and epithet (as found in the instriptions) belongs to the rulers of Sri Lanka and indicate that he was a consecrated ruler. Hitherto, it has been the view of scholars, including K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, that the Colas administered their possessions in Sri Lanka through represen'tatives who were either generals (or officials of high rank. 7a
7 S. Gunasingam, Two Inscriptions of Cola Ilankesvara Deva,
pp. l -22 7a K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, “Ceylon as a province of the Cola empire', University of Ceylon History of Ceylon (UCHC), Vol. 1, part 2, (Colombo, 1960), pp 413-14; W. M. K. Wijayatunga, "Seme Aspects of Cola Administration of Ceylon in the 11th century', University of Ceylon Review (UCR), Wol, XXIII, nos 1 & 2, (1965), pp. 69-70
7

Page 7
But with the discovery of the Kantalai and Manankeni inscriptions we now have clear evidence to support the view that Cola
Ilankeswara Deva was a representative of a Cola emperor sent
to Sri Lanka to rule there with regal status in accordance with a practice followed by such emperors in the case of other parts of South India.
As both these inscriptions referring to the Cola Ilankes wara Deva, are from the Trincomalee District, it may be that the Trincomalee region received greater attention from the Cola government. Although it is true that a definite conclusion cannot be drawn merely on the basis of the provenance of the inscriptions, it may, in conjunction with certain related considerations, be used with caution as evidence that is of relevance to the matter.
The Kantalai inscription of Cola Ilankeswara Deve also refers to some economic activities of the members of Perunguri of the Brhmadesam called Rajarajacaturvedimangalam in Rajaviccatiravalanadu, otherwise called Rajendraeolavalanadu. The Kantalai Rā jarājacaturvadimangalam referred ιο above had a
long and continuous history. Though we do not have clear evidence about the size of this settlement, it is not difficult on the basis of the available data to portray the nature of this settlement.
Even after the fall of Cola rule in the island, this settlement continued to flourish and was supported by such rulers of the
Polonnaruwa period as Vijayabahu I (1095-118) A. D.) and Nissankamalla (1187-1196). Moreover, as was usual with such
S. Paranavitana, "A Tamil slab-inscription from Palamottai,
Epigraphia Zeylanica (EZ), Archaeological Survey of Ceylon, Vol. IV, (London, 1943), no. 24, p, 125; D.M.De Z. Wickremasinghe, "Kantalai Gal Asana Inscription of Kitti Nisanka Malla (1187- 1196 . A. D.)ʼ, EZ, II, no. 42, . (London, 1926), pp. 283-90.

sittlements in South India, it had an organisation of its own for the regulation of its affairs, for we are told that Perunguri Perumakkal (the great people of the great assembly) functioned
at Kantali. The existence of such a settlement with established traditions of administration would indicate a fairly stable population of Brahmins at Kantalai during the period of Cola rule and thereafter at least up to the reign of Nissanka malla. It could, therefore, be inferred that the number of religious institutions set up by the Colas and the religious requirements of the Cola presence around the region of Kantalai were of
such magnitude as to need the services of a large number of Brahmins.
In connection with the problem in hand, it would also be of interest to note another reference to the assenably “ Perunguri Perumakkal”. In the medieval South Indian
inscriptions frequent reference is made to various local bodies called Ur, Sabha, Natu, and Nagaram. From the fact that
these sabhas were normally located in caturvedimangalams and from the nature of the qualifications required of their members it is evident that these bodies were exclusively Brahmin in composition. However, their activities were not confined to religious matters. They functioned more like local bodies with general functions and powers. Like most other institutions in the Tamil country this institution also dates from the Pallava period; but it reached the peak of its development during
the Cola period. The sabha was an important element in the local government, the perfection of which was one of the most
notable features of Cola administration in South India. Our inscription thus provides evidence of the introduction of this type of local government in the Trincomalee District thereby
revealing that the local affairs at Kantalai were managed by this kind of sabha. *
The information recorded in the Nilaveli inscription that the Көтезиуағат temple received a lavish endowment of about 9

Page 8
one thousand seven hundred and ten acres (two hundred and
fifty four veli) of wet and dry land to meet its daily expenses helps establish that this temple performed various services and remained an institution to cater to the various needs of a large number of population there.' To put it briefly, the
Konesvaram temple and a great proportion of the Tamil settlements that existed in Trincomalee seem to have been interdependant in the development of religious, social and cultural affairs.
Besides patronizing the Kontesvaram temple, the Colas set up other Saivite temples in different localities in the
Trincomalee District. Ruins of Cola temples ht ve been found at Kantalai and Mānānkēni. In this connection, it is useful to consider the evidence on the Palamottai inscription of the time of Vijayabahu I. This inscription refers to a Hindu temple called Vijayaraja Isvaram situated at Kantalai, otherwise called Vijayarajapuram. As Kantalai, where a Caturvedimangalam had been created, was a strong hold of the Colas, it may also be argued that, contrary to the view shared by Parana vitana and Indrapaha that this temple was probably built during the reign of Vijayabahu I, a Cola structure originally named after a member of the Gola family was perhaps renamed in the
reign of Vijay abahu I as in the case of various other institutions subjected to the same process.
Further we have evidence to the effect that all the five villages that were granted in both money and kind for the maintenance of the Great temple at fanjore in the time of
Rajaraja T were from the Trincomalee District and that two
9 S. Gunasinga (m, A Ta m 1l sl,ab inscriptio a at Nilaveli, pp. 61-71
10° S. Para navitana, A. Ta mil slab inscription from Palamottai,
pp. 191-96; K. Indrapala, ilankayir Travidak Kaddidakkalai, (Colombo, 1970), p. 26
10

of them were renamed after Cola princes during the period of Cola occupation in Sri Lanka. It may be taken as supporting evidence to show that the Colas had a closer
association with the Trincomalee District than with other parts of Sri Lanka in their possessions.
The a foremention éd considerations leave us in no doubt
that Trincomalee attracted the special attention of the Colas during their rule in Sri Lanka The cause for this special attention could be sought in the context of their maritime policy. Trincomalee, being the closest and most convenient of the major ports of Sri Lanka for the Cola vessels on their
voyages to South East Asia provided a vital link in their routes of overseas trade; such compelling factors did not exist in relation to the other parts of Sri Lanka. As a
result of the greater attention of the Colas to and the
consequent impact of Cola activities on Trincomaloe, this region had fairly strong Tamil elements in its population during this period. The Tamil settlement in this region seems to have extended from Trincomalee to Periyakulam and
Mankanai in the north, Kantalai and Pothankadu in the west
and possibly Verugal in the south.
POST colА PROD
In 1070 A.D. Vijayabahu I defeated the Colas and became the ruler of the whole island. The words summing up his achievements in the Ambagamuva rock inscription of Vijaya
11 South Indian Inscriptions (3), Archaeological Survey of South
India, Vol. II, part II, No. 26, p. 27
11a For details see: S. Gunasingam, Some Aspects of the impact of Cola rule in the Trincomalee District, Ceylon Studies Seminar, 19th September 1973.
11

Page 9
bahu I, 1 namely, “with his own valour he drove away wholly the darkness of Tamil forces, and brought the whole island of Lanka under one canopy (of dominion) do not, as will be seen subsequently, mean that the re-assertion of Sinhalese
power in the whole island under Vijayabahu I eliminated altogether the Tamil influence from Sri Lanka.
The restoration of such sovereignty under Vijaya bahu I was not in any way accompanied by violent measures directed against the Tamil settlements which had sprung up
under Cola rule inspite of the long and bitter struggle that had taken place. Several factors which are listed below, were perhaps jointly responsible for the absence of retaliatory
measures by Vijayabahu I against the Tamils and these resulted in the prevalence of a peaceful atmosphere, immediately after the transfer of power from the Tamils to the Sinhalese.
(1) Firstly, Vijayabahu I, as a ruler himself, was probably magnanimous enough to think that damages to institutions in the eourse of wars were unavoidable, as war is seen to be a grim business of fire and sword so that retaliatory measures were not ealled for.
(2) The patronage of the Colas, contrary to what is narrated in the Culavamsa, extended to the Velgam-Vihara in Trincomalee, which was renamed as Rajarajaperumpalli after Rajaraja I.
(3) Thirdly, Kulottunga I, who came to power in the
Cola empire when Vijayabahu I liberated Sri Lanka, perhaps on the timely realisation of the fact that any hostile measure by him against the Sinhalese after the transfer of power would bedevil the situation from the point of view of his own people in Sri Lanka, did not exibit for a long period of about fifteen
12 D. M. De Z. Wickremasinghe, "Ambagamuva Rock Inscription of Vijaya bahu I (1058-1 1 14 A. D.)”, EZ, II, No. 35, p. 216
2

years any open hostility towards Vijaya bahu I, insteáð feigning friendly relations by asking for Vijayabahu's sister in marriage and despatching a * concili atory embassy te the Polonnaruwa còirt.
(4) The dyhastic affiliations with the Pandyas the Sinhalese court had in the far south of Sri Lanka, which had remained outside the sphere of Cola rufe, also perhaps contributed towards quelling the animosity that Vijayabahu I might have had against the traces of Cola rule in Sri Lanka after his victory over the Colas.
In this peaceful atmosphere under which the transfer of power from the Tamils to the Sinhalese occurred, the Hindu institutions in the Trincomalee region continued to flourish even in the reigns of Sinhalese shonarchs as evidenced by contemporary records, A Tamil slab inscription from Palamottai in the Trincorpfalee District, dated in the 42nd year of Vijayabahu I, records the religious donations made by a Brahmin lady in memory of her busband to the God Sri Vijayaraja Iswaram Udaiyar of Ten Kailasam in Kantalai alias Vijayarajacaturvedimangalann.
it is clear from this record that Rajarajacaturvedimangalam which existed during Cold rule in Sri Lanka, and also probably a Hindu Temple there of Cola origin were renamed after Vijayabahu I and that his zeal for Buddhism did not prevent him from extending his patronage to the Hindu faiths.
The reference to a vēlaikkra regiment in this record is also significant. The Velaikkara troops were brought from
South India to Sri Lanka during the course of the Cola conquest in the late tenth and early elventh centuries. Even
after the expulsion of Cola power from Sri Lanka, Velaikkaras continued to stay in the island, and the present reference to
13

Page 10
the Velaikkaras shows that settlements of these forces were found in Trincomalee even after Cola rule. It is again in the reign of Parakramabahu I that, according to the Calavamsa, there was a Velaikkara army stationed at Kottiyar, 13 In addition, a 13th century inscription from Padaviya records the
construction of a vihara by a Velaikkara general. 14
In the context of the influence of Tamil elements in the Trincomalee District the fact that the fairly long stone slab
measuring 2 ft. 10 in. by 1 ft. 4 in., from Palamottai was inscribed in twenty five lines in Tamil even in the reign of
the Sinhalese monarch Vijayabahu I, must be accorded some significance - at least in conformity with the view of Paranavitana on a small golden plate (measuring 3 9/16 in. by 1 in. ) of only four lines of writing in old Sinhalese from Vallipuram in the Northern Province, that this inscription proves that Sinhalese was the prevailing language there at the time of the plate.
For the period which intervened between the end of
Vijayabahu's rule and the shift of the capital from Polonnaruwa to Dambadeniya, we have evidence to establish that the Tamil elements continued to exert influence in the Trtncomalee District.
The brahmin settlement "Caturvedimangalam”, which existed
at least from the reign of Rajaraja in Sri Lanka, continued, as we noticed earlier, to receive patron age from the non-Hindu
rulers, as evidenced by the Kantalai inscription of Cajabahu II
13 Culavanasa, translated by Wilhelm Geiger (into German) and , from German into English by C. Mabel Rickmers, Colombo,
1953, 74:, 44-49
14 S. Para navitana, “A Sanskrit Inscription from Pe daviya”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Ceylon Branch (JRASCB), New Series, Vol. VIII, part 2, pp. 261-64
15 S. Parana vitana, “Valli puram Golden Plate Inscription of the
Reign of Vas abha”, EZ, Vol. IV, No. 29, p. 235

and that of Nissa nka Malla. 1°a The inscriptional evidence of the patronage extended by Gajabahu II to Hinduism in the Trincomalee District is well corroborated by literary evidence.
Attesting to the patronage extended by Gajabahu II to the Konteswaram temple, Konesar Kalvettu, a Tamil chronicle, narrates that when the services of Koneswaram temple were disturbed on account of the death of the Pasupatha Brahmin, Gajabahu arrived in Trincomalee, summoned the Vanni pam, Thanam and Vari Pattu and the Nattavar and investigated into why the temple services were given up. As he was told that
it was due to the demise of the Pasupatha Brahmin, he elevated the Brahmins who came from abroad to the status of
Mutan mai. Beside , he granted the Котезиагат temple 1100 gold coins and proclaimed that a tenth of the grain tax and of the proceeds from the sale of goods should be earmarked
for the Temple. Gajabahu II is also i credited in the Takshinakailasapuranam with his patronage of the Brahmins attached to the temple of Koneswaram at Trincomalee 17 The
Takshinakailasapuranam also refers to the antagonism between the Saivites and the Sinhalese and the subsequent conversion
of Gajabahu II to Saivism. 18 Though the work is not alto
15a K. D. Swaminathan, 'An 1 nscription of Gajabahu II", Ceylon
Historical Journal, Vol. 10, Nos. t t o 4, (1960-61), pp. 43- 6; D. M. De Z. Wickrema singhe, “Kantalai Gal-Asana Inscription of Kitti Nissankamala ( 187-196)', pp. 283-290 16 The text of the Konesar Kaivettu is appended to the edition
of Taksinakailasa Puranam. 17 Taksinakailasa Puran am (Tkp), ed. P. P. Vaittiyalinga Tecikar,
Kalaniti Press, (Poit Pedro, 1916), p. 87; also see : Tirukonacalapuranam, ed by A. Sinmugaratna Aiyar, Jaffna, 1909, Kayavāku patalam, pp. 170-78 1* Tkp, 7, 89-96
15

Page 11
getih ter reliable, in this instance, 'the tradition seems to be based on some historical incide rits. The antagonism between the Sinhal ese
and the Saivites and the subsequent conversion of Gajabahu II to Hinduism may be explained with reference to the process of assimilation of the Sinhalese culture into the Tamil culture or the gradual transformation of the Trincomalee region into a Tamil speaking area during the period when it was well on its way along the lines of developments that were laid
down during Cola rule in Sri Lanka.
The extent of the patronage of this monarch to Hindu faiths in Trincomalee reaches its highest point in the reference found in the Culavamsa to him as one who had fetched nobles of heretical faith from abroad and has thus filled Rajaratta with briers (of heresy).9 These all induce us to think that
Gajabahu II had Saivite leanings and that bereft of all hope after his overthrew, he chose to sperid his last days in a Hindu atmosphere in Trincomalee. 20
The reference in the Koniesar Kalvettu to the Van nipam in
connection with Gajabahu's activities goes to prove the existence around the period of 12th c., of the Vanniyirs who became influential elements in the population of Trincomalee in the later centuries.
Although it is true that a number of unreliable traditions have got mingled in the story of the Vanni chift ancies as found in the Tamil chronicles, it could be made out that
Kulakkottan, a Saiva prince froth the Cola country, played an important role is establishing Vanni chieftancies in the Trincomalee District after renovating the Koneswaram temple there. Even if
a precise view of the identity and chronology of Kulakkottan
19 CV., ch. Lxx, vv. 53-55
20 See : S. Kiribamune, “The Royal Gonsecration in Medieval.
Sri Lanka: The problem of Vikramabahu I and Gajabahu II', The Sri Lanka Journal of South Asian Studies, Vol. , No. 1,
(Jaffna, 1976), pp. 12-32 6

is not possible, his activities could be ascribed to a period
somewhere between the end of Cola rule and the emergence of a Tamil Kingdom in the north.
The fact that from Trincomalee and its adjoining Padaviya, about ten inscriptions which refer to various social groups, including merchants and soldiers, were discovered during the period between 12th and 13th centuries must be allowed some significance in the context of the Tamil influence over the Trincomalee region.2
The foregoing discussion, thus, underlines the general view
of Arasaratnam that “the overthrow of the and reassertion of Sinhalese power did not mean the extermination of Tamil influence The increase in numbers of the Tamil community, their general affluence, and the influential positions they held in the militia and administration made this impossible.'
PERIOD OF TAM KINGDOM IN THE NORTHERN SRI LANKA
The events that were set in motion in the North and
North-Eastern parts of Sri Lanka in the wake of the Cola rule in the island, the political developments that took place in
South India consequent to the fall of the Cola empire and the
invasion of Magha which may be called a land mark in the an Dals of the Tamils of Sri Lanka, were, though varying in degrees, jointly responsible for the transfer of the capital from Polonnaruwa and the emergence of a Tamil Kingdom in the first
21 K. Kanap at hipillai, “ Mankanai inscription of Gajabahu II, UCR, XX, No. I, p. 12; S. Paranavitana, A Tamil Slab
Inscription from Palamot tai”, EZ, No. IV, pp. 191-96; K. D.
Swaminathan, “An inscription of Gajabahu III”, CHJ... Vol. 10, Nos. 1-4, (1960-61), pp. 43-46; A. Velupillai, “Two Inscriptions
from Kantalai”, CITI, II, pp. 37-41; Vilunrik Kandas wamy Kovilil Irandu Tamilk Kalvet tukkal,
Tinakaran, 18th November, 1972 2° S. Arasaratnam, Ceylon, (1964), p. 103

Page 12
half of the thirteenth century comprising the north and northeastern regions of Sri Lanka. With the emergence of the Tamil Kingdom, the contacts of the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka with South India became greater and the position of the Kingdom was more and more strengthened. It is interest
ing to note here that the Киdитiyaтalai inscription dated in the 11th regnal year of Jatavarman Vira Pandya, a co-regent of Jatavarman Sundarapandya in the Second Pandyan empire, includes Sri Lanka among the conquests of vīra Pāndya, and it records that Virapandya, after his victory, planted a flag of victory with a double fish emblem on it at Konamamalai and on the peaks of the Trikuta mountain and received elephants
as tribute from the other king of Sri Lanka.23
The survival of the carving of the double carp to the present day on the left side of the gateway of Fort Fredrick at Trincomalee, the workmanship of which is much anterior to the Tamil inscription found on the right side of the main entrance
to the fort, adds historical support to the claims of Virapandya
in his Kudumiyamalai inscription as regards his activities in
卷 Trincomalee.
The inclusion of Sri Lanka among the conquests of Virapandya dees not mean that Virapāņdya conquered the whole of the island. By the time of the invasion of Virapandya, the formation of an independent Tamil kingdom in the north and the north-east was well accomplished and Virapandya's activities in Sri Lanka were confined only to the Tamil Kingdom.
At this juncture, the question as to why Virapandya chose Kõnamamalai for celebrating his victory over the whole of the
Tamil Kingdom by setting up a flag with the double carp, cannot be without significance.
23 Inscriptions of the Pudukkotai State, ed. by T. Desika Chari, Sri Brihadamba State Press, (Pudukkottai, 1921), vol. 1, No. 366

Reserving a detailed investigation in the absence of satisfactory evidence, for a future occasion, an attempt could be made at present to szek an answer to the question on the basis of some circumstantial evidence.
In the course of the narration of Virapandya's invasion of Sri Lanka, the inscription goes on to record that Virapandya
captured from the defeated king regiments of forces, chariots, silk garments, ear ornaments, a heap of nine gems, the throne of the enemy, the crown armoury, a long pearl necklace, flags, an umbrella, a drum, a couch, a staff, elements of royalty and so forth and he restored the son of the Javakas to the
kingdom of Ilam formerly ruled by his father. This narration of events which, as seen from the above details, implies a courteous atmosphere, suggests that the activities of Virapandya were more or less concentrated on the centre of
power, and when the centre of power where the battle probably took place, was captured, as a mark of
victory, he planted a flag with his royal symbols at Konamamalai where the centre of power was situated. If this interpretation is accepted, we may say that Trincomalee remained an important place of power of the newly formed independent Tamil kingdom,
as it had been during the Cola occupation of Sri Lanka under the Cola representative, Cola Ilankeswaradeva of Kantalai and
Manankeni inscriptions-something which reminds us of the remark
of Cordiner in 1800 that "thoughts have been entertained of rendering Trineomalee the seat of Government in preference to the fruitful district of Colombo.'
It is alsọ possible that Virapan dya Wgent to Trincomalee to celebrate his victory over the Javaka and pay homage to the
deity at Konamamalai as he probably thought that it was the most sacred centre of the Tamils from earlier times as noted in the preceding pages.
24 Tennakoon Wimalananda, The British Intrigue in the Kingdom
of Ceyloo, Guna sena Historical Series, Vol. II, 1973, Introduction xlvii.
19

Page 13
The impact of Pandya supremacy over the newly formed Tamil kingdom was decisive and it ultimately led to the rise of
the Aryacakravarti dynasty. When it is considered that consequent to the death of Maravarman Kula sekara Pandya about 1310, when the Pāndya empire began to disintegrate, and, as a result, Sundra Pandya was reduced to the necessity of having to seek
the help of an Ariya Cakravarti of the northern kingdom, the dominant and recognised position the northern kingdom assumed
under Aryacakravartis is easily understandable.
To sum up the political developments of this time, the establishment of a Tamil kingdom under the Pandyas and the
Ariyacakravartis, the influential position of some minor chieftancies in the nothern and eastern regions of Sri Lanka and the lack of intimate contacts between the Sinhalese and the Tamils consequent to the drift to the South West by the Siahalese were largely responsible for the partition of Sri Lanka into two different linguistic regions.
It should be mentioned here that the temporary eclipse the northern kingdom suffered when it was subjugated by Prince
Sapumal and brought under the suzerainty of Parakra mabahu VI, did not in anyway alter the ethnic composition of its population. After a period of seventeen years, it regained its independence which it continued to maintain till 1591 when it became virtually subject to the Portuguese.
When the Aryacakravartis established their power in northern Sri Lanka, they extended their authority in the Trincomalee District. On the basis of the literary and archaeological evidence at our disposal, it could be asserted that
some Wanni chieftancies, accepting the authority of the Aryacakravartis, carried on political and administrative activities in the Trincomalee District.
The inscription from Kankuveli in the Trincomalee District, which is assignable to 14th century A. D. on palaeographical
20

considerations, records a land grant in the village of Kankuveli
to the God of Konanathar by Vanniyanar and the Adappars of seven villages.2.5 The concluding portion of the record
mentions Muda Ilımar, Thanaththar and Varippattu as witnesses to the grant. The Tamil work Yal pan availpayamalai refers to seven Vanni divisions (eluvannipam) and these divisions may be identified by means of what is referred to in the Kankuveli
record as Elur (seven villages).25a. Whether or not this identification is accepted, what may be understood from the record is that during the time of this record the Trincomalee region included the seven villages administered by the officers called Adappar under the lordship of the Vanniyanar. In the context of the fact that in current place name usage the word Malai represents Trincomalee, what is referred to in the record as Malaiyil Vanniyanar' ( Vanniyanar of malai) may be taken to
mean the Vanniyanar of Trincomalee; if this explanation is accepted one may assert that the whole of Trincomalee was
under the charge of a Vanniyanar, something which is corroborated by literary evidence. The other reference in the record to
Mutalimai, Thanam and Varipattu, these officers who are said to have been the witnesses of the land grant, strengthens what
is stated in another Tamil work, Maddakkalappu Manmiyam,
to the effect that Mut alimai, Thanam and Varippattu had always assisted the Vanni chieftancies in administration.26
In terms of the close cultural contacts between the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka it should also be mentioned that, as evidenced by more or less contemporary literature,
the lavish patronage to the Kones waram temple by Aryacakra
25 K. Indrapala, “Kilakkilankaic Cacan ankal’, Cintanai, Vol. 2,
parts 1 & 2, (1968), pp. 37-40
25a Yalpanavaipavamalai (Yvm), text edited by Mudaliyar
K. Sabanathan, Colombo, 1953, pp. 38-39 26 See: S. Pathmanathan, Vaaniyar, (Peradeniya, 1970), pp. 33-47
21

Page 14
vartis and later on by the kings who bore the alternating throne names, Pararasasekaran and Sakarasasekaran, fairly
indicates that the Koneswaram temple served as a constant source of communication between the north and east.
COLONAL PERIOD
On the basis of the literary and archaeological evidence at our disposal, it is clear that the Vanni chieftancies who had established their influence in the Trineomalee District
under the Aryacakravatis of the northern kingdom in the 14th century A. D., continued to exercise their power in Trincomelee even during the Portuguese rule in Sri Lanka, acceptitag the overlordship of the later kings of Jaffna. .
The Verugal inscription which may be assigned to the 16th century on the basis of palaeography and its contents, records the names of persons who built the four walls of a temple, 2a In eonnection with building the walls, the record refers to
the proper names of Kayilayavanniyanar and Timassa, son of Simayapillai. The reference to Kayilayavanniyanar in this record may indicate that Trinco males during this period was under the
authority of a Vanni chieftain calied Kayilayavanniyanar and thereby corr borates what is said in the contemporary literature about the association of the Vanniyars with the Trincomalee region. The influential position, Vanni chieftains held even after the end of Portuguese in Sri Lanka would probably have partly formed a base to the view of Dutch Governor Ryckoff Van Goens (1663 - 1675) that the district of Trinequene malee as far as Poeleraw or Passe Secco extends nearly in a north west direction and is called Vanni.” 27
During the period of Portuguese rule in Sri Lanka Triacomalee had attracted the Portuguese mainly in two respects. One is
26a A. Velupillai, 'A note on the Verugal inscription, CT, I,
pp.9-ll
27 Memoirs of Ryckloff Van Goens (1663-1675), The Dutch Records of the Ceylon Government, No. 3, trg. by E. Reimers, 1932, pp. 14 - 15
22

the harbour and the other is the Hindu temple of Koneswaram. It seems to us on the basis of the descriptions of the temple by Father Queyroz, that the temple had a greater attraction for the Portuguese than the harbour. Speaking of the principality of Trinco malee, Father Queyroz observes:
"The Kings of Ceylon erected three Pagodes, two at the extremities of the hill overhanging the sea, and one in the middle and the highest point, which was the principal one and one of the most venerafed in India, being worshipped bv. the idolatrous navigators who descry it fret the sea, and much frequented by a concourse of Pagans from the whole of India), so faratioal in their false devotion, that from he last 'agode which stands on the roek over the sea, they throw themselves dwin in sacrifice to their idols reaching the bottom in pieces being persuaded that by that leap into Hell they are lifted upto paradise......' 28
Tn another instance, attributing the fame and reputation of
the Koneswaram temple to the knowing of many things by Indians about Trincom? alee, Queyroz says:
"The pagode of Triquilimale was at this time the Rome of the Gentiles of the Orient, and more frequented bw pilgrims than that of Ramanacoir near the shoals of Chilao, and that of Xilavarao, eight leagues from Nagapatao, and that of Canjavarao, two days journey from S. Thome and Tripiti and Tremel in Bisnaga and Jagarbati in Orixa, and Vixante in Bengai, which are the most frequented in these days by the Gentiles."29
It should be remarked here that Father Queyroz had made the above observation at a time of religious bigotry when Christians were fired by a crusading zeal against oriental beliefs and systems which they described as heathenish.
In the light of the description of the temple by Father Queyroz, it shows that C. R. de Silva has aptly observed that the spot chosen for the fort at Trincomalee was the site of
the famous Kones ar temple. This temple had been one of the
Father Queyroz, The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon, tra. into English by Father S. G. Perara, Book 1, (Colombo, 1930), pp. 66 - 67.
29 Ibid., p. 236
23

Page 15
best known and most frequented Hindu temples in this region in the 16th century, and had made Trinco malee a pilgrim as well as a trade centre. "30
The ruthless destruction of the temple on new year's day by the Portuguese Viceroy Constantine de Sa a when he took possession of the port of Trincomalee in 1622 A. D.,
may remind us of the Mahasena's sacrilegious activities in the 3rd century A. D., of demolishing a Hindu shrine in the
same district for the reason, as given in the Mahavamsatika, that it remained a stumbling block to the spread of Buddhism in that area. 3
The thriving and flourishing position the Koneswaram temple attained before it was subjected to sacrilege by the Portuguese, may be attributed to the presence of a sizable Hindu population in the Trincomalee District during this period, for any temple, even the finest or the most wonderful, cannot survive for long without a fair concentration of devotees and their patronagesomething which is at tested by the unfortunate fate of the
temple of Gangaikonda Colapuram, ene time the finest in South India, the costly workmanship of which is sadly neglected in what is now a desolate land...a
On the strength of the above observations and the nature
of the patronage the Korteswaram temple enjoyed, it may be asserted that this temple reached the peak of its fame and reputation in the first quarter of the 17th century and thereby it not only functioned to cater to the religious and cultural
30 Chandra Richard De Silva, The Portuguese in Ceylon,
1617-1638, Colombo, 1972, p. 67.
o G. P. Malalasekera, (Editor), Vamsatthappakasini, Commen
tary on the Mahavamsa, PES, London, 1935, XXXVII vv. 15 – 25
31a See: K. A. NilakantaSastri, The Colas, University of Madras
1955, second revised edition, pp. 234 - 35
24

needs of the people mainly of Trincomalee but also remained a constant sourc of communications between Sri Lanka and outside Sri Lanka until it received the fatal blow of complete demolition by Portuguese cannon in 1622 A. D.
At this juncture it should be mantioned that the contention of Tennakoon Wimalananda who figures in the footnotes of Dharmadasa's papir, that “with the expansion of Muslim power in India...... Frincomalee too with its religious establishments passed into oblivion'32 lacks any historical basis.
The tables that follow, one of which covers the period extending from the first half of the 19th century to the third quarter of the 20th century, clearly show the stability of the Tamil population in the Trincomalee District. According to the 1881 census which is the earliest available population wise, the strength of the Tamil population was 14,394 and it was more or less fourteen times and three times greater than the Sinhalese and Muslim population of that area respectively.
The enormous numerical strength of the Tamil population as compared with other groups in the Trincomalee District in the last quarter of the 19th century as shown by that year's census, must be, no doubt, attributed to the natural growth from earlier times and there is no evidence to shew that during the Dutch and the British rules in Sri Lanka, any events took place so as to lead to the creation of new Tamil settlements on an impressive scale in the Trincomalee District.
At this juncture it is useful to invite the attention of readers of this paper to the concluding portion of a letter of lst July 1827, accompanied by a facsimile of a long inscription said to have been found in the Trincomalee Fort, to the secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland by Sir Alexander Johnston, the Chief Justice and President of His Majesty's Council in Sri Lanka under Sir Thomas Maitland, the then Governor of the island of Sri anka.
* Ten nakoon Wimalananda, op. cit., introduction, xlvii
25

Page 16
er
La SS S S LLLL S S LL S LLEL SS rS S S L S SLMSL SS S SseJS SS LS SS SSSJLLL g | 当 | & 3 g 姿 2 S 。 2 ※ 済 る | e I エ S S > 2 @ g 3 G 2 S ゴ S さ 2 2 を s 3 3 。
8
e A2
O ug : 323 当 瑟 宗 茎 $ g 3 ○ > e ド .E ; 歪 | s 総 & 姿 ※ 空 ? ぎ き s శా5 ۔ سے "~", er DS «S S . S” یہ 3 岑
ug:
se ur ~ ar ved CN «Հ EIF་ཕྱི ཚོན་རྩེའི་ 《ཕྱི་ ཕྱ2 |ཕྱི}ཤི་ཏེ༄༅ང་འཚོ་ཕྱི་སྲི་ཚོ་ཕྱི་ཕྱོ -- - (n ତn ଧ୍f ଐତି A.
○ダ] 3 A C on Vd
n Co Ved C - 0 &. 连 栽 菱爵接添畿囊囊藻系 类
༠་༩་༠། ༩ གཉན་༠༠ ; ک ܩ ܐ ܝܼܡܩܼ;
( ) -ی O
a O
. N. چیتے ہیں۔ سمس ب er er - 宙哥 燕 $ 系 系 系 妄 豪 资 踪 奖 函 L S S S Ls S LsL S eee S eqSLS sLS SSS S eS qeqS sSq S S qMLSSS sS SLLL S LLL S AAA S MSS SS SMMA S A AAAS S SAAASSSAS SSSSS TeuS S SkAuS S LiLiLS ہ< { - O سه
33
26
Nipholas Bergman, Return of the population of the Island of Ceylon, Colombo, 1827; The Census of Ceylon, 1901, (Colombo, 1902), pp. 82-83; Census Publications, Ceylon, 1921, Vol. IV, (Colombo, 1926), p. 239; The Census of Ceylon, 1911, Colombo, 1922, p. 35; Census of Ceylon, 1946, Vol. 1, part 1, General Report, Colombo, 1950, pp. 172-91; Census of Population, Ceylon 1953, Vol. 1, part 2; Census of Population, Ceylou, 1963, (Colombo), 1967), p. 32: The author thanks Dr. P. Balasundaram pillai for his assistance in preparing this table.

*****-+-+-+---+---------------___________ 68616||
0ZX89|| LI 688 9Z691 Z { { #9 SSL6{ 1寸寸8Z ŞțLSZ L6{ZZ
sioow uespu I
== W I
:sjóow uosÁɔɔ
= WƆ
!
Iļuue ł, uespuI = LI
----
Istue L doskoo = Lɔ sɔsøsatsuisdespueX = SX :øsə{equis Kanunoo wo T = s/oT
8881 099 I †0ZZ 90ZĘ 6Ł ł { 0.Lf7 { į [6|| £60|| Z I I I
0 #8 019 898
£801
ț78 I Ş81
86909
0s61*
8ţ'LLZ 98 177 Z99 ZÍ 6ZS6 89Z8 9Z#9 9ț7LS
68 19 066Z Z8#€. Z999 8寸寸 0Zɛ
91 Ģ19 0901s $90 #8 99 #0£
8£I 81
$ | 69 | 690L l L{ | L | rooi
8006Z
0Z8|| Z. Z9ċ0ị {6! ! ! £9L £8€. Z£9 6ỐI Į SÊ6
Í Lét $961 o £96 | 9ț6|| | Z6|| I I 61 | 06 I | 68||
| 88!
[ e ]0,\L
suɔqụO
W s
JLI
J 29A
8ççÁụunuuuuoɔos ouspuoɔɔy}ɔɲassiq aoleuoɔuļu u Jo uoụeỊndoa
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔م۔م۔۔۔سی۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ م۔مح*-س~~~۔
-- -- -ܫܚ ܝ ܢܚܫܚ ܚܚܚܫܚܚܘܗܝ ܗܝ
quam
e-par
----------------
33 a bid.
27

Page 17
Sir Alexander Johnston, referring in his letter to many traditions in the country respecting the contents of the inscription, had concluded in the following manner:
“However contradictory those traditions may be as to tho meanitig which they attach to the inscription, I think it may safely be concluded, both from them and from all the different histories which I have in my possess. ion, that the race of people who inhabited the whole of the northern and 6astern provinces of the island of Ceylon, at tho period of their greatost agricultural prosperity spoke tho same language, used the samo written charactor, and had the same origin, religion, castes, laws, and manners, as that race of people who at the same period inhabited the southern Poninstula of India; and that it is therefore probable that some information as to the character and language in which the inscription is written may be derived from the ancient histories and traditions of that part of India. an any of which I procured from the Brahmans of Ramisserum, Trichendore, Madura, Seringham, Combe conum, Chillembrum, Congeveram, and Tripetty while I was travelling in the Peninsula in 1807 and 1817.34
In his above statement, Sir Alexander Johnston, a foreigner and a former Chief Justice who may be presumed to have been free of bias, had not specifically stated the precise period which his above statement has relevance to. It may, therefore, not be wrong to say that the incomparably large proportion of Famil population in Trincomales during the period of his office - the last quarter of the 18th century and the very beginning of the 19th century, and his fruitful endeavour to understand on the available data at his disposal, the long stretch of history of the region where the inscription was discovered from, probably enabled him to make such an assertion.
The preceding pages, thus, reassert the veracity of the remark on "the continuity and stability of the Tamil population in the Trincomalee District' for a period of nearly a thousand years from the period of Cola rule in Sri Lanka made by the present writer on the strength of the continued persistence of
34 Sir Alexander Johnston, "An account of an inscription found near Trincomalee in the island of Ceylon', Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Soeiety of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 1, (London, 1827), p. 540
28

the place name “Tirukõnamalai” as well as on the basis of known archaeological and literary evidence.
The second comment of Dharmadasa, though in general, centres round the temple of Koneswaram, is, in the main, confined to the reference found in the Иayиригатат to a temple of God
named Gokanna with which the temple of Koneswaram has been 1dentified by the present writer. ܢ
In his comment on the above reference, Dharmadasa mainly
deals with the location of the temple the Vayupuranan refers to.
In his edition of the inscription under question, when the
- O --- present author identified the “Gokaraa' shrine of Vayupuraman with the Koneswaram temple of Trincomalee, he has qualified
his statement by reference to his work entitled Koneswaram.3. In his monograph, the author, devoting about nine pages, has made an attempt for his identification as above, taking into consideration the diverse views already expressed by different writers
on the identification of the Gokarna shrine referred to in the Иayириганат.
Dharmadasa has, however, made no attempt to pursue the arguments adduced by the present writer in support of his
identification of the Gokarna shrine with the Koneswaram temple on the eastern coast of Sri Lanka. Dharmadasa's comments which have not been based on an examination of the present writer's views in Koneswaram cannot be taken seriously. Dharmadasa's failure to go through the present writer's arguments on the indentification may be attributed to his ignorance of
Tamil in which the book Koneswaram has been written; but this ignorance cannot, in any way, exculpate Dharmadasa when he
33 s. Gunasingan, коaeswaram, Peradeniya, 1973, pp. 55-64
29

Page 18
decides to enter a controversy with regard to the identification of the site.
BBLOGRAPHY
Alexander Johnston, “An account of an inscription found near the Triacomalee in the island of Ceylon", Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Voll, 1, (London, 1827), pp. 537—45
Arasaratnam, S., Ceylon, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice
Hall, 1964
Archaeological Survey of Ceylon Annual Report (ASCAR), 1954,
Colombo 1955
Baker, E. W. and Durand, H. M. Facsimiles of Ancient Inscriptions, Lithographed by Jas. Prinsep, Inscriptions of Trincomalee', The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. V, Calcutta, 1836, pp. 554-61
Bergman, Nicholas, Return of the population of the island of
Ceylon, Colomby, 1827
Census of Ceylon, 1901, (Colombo 1902); Census of Ceylon, 1911, (Colonbo, 1912); Census of Ceylon, 1921, Vol. IV, (Colombo, 1926); Census of Ceylon, 1946, Genèfa Report, Vol. I, part I, Colombo 1950; Census of Ceylon, 1953, Vol. 1, part 2; Census of Ceylon, 1963, (Colombo, 1967); Census of Population, 1971, Sri Lanka, Colombo 1978
36 The author wishes to thirik Mr. K. Selvaratnam, Dr. S. Pathmanathar), Dr. T. Kandiah and Professor A. Veluppillai for their comments on this work. The author also acknowledges his debt to Mr K. Kanthasamy for placing at the author's disposal a photo copy of 'a Tamil inscription of the time of Vikrama bahu [ from Trincomalee District and for help in other ways. Finally, the author's thanks are due to those attached to the Aseervatham Press, Jaffna for their service in the competent execution of the printing of this work.
30

Cullavamsa, Being the more recent part of the Mahavamsa, translated by Wilhelm Geiger (into German) and from German into English by C. Mabel Rickmers, 1, Colombo, 1953
De Silva, Chandra Richard, The Portuguese in Ceylon, 1617-1638,
Colombo 1972
Dharmadasa, K. N. Q.: “Place Names and Ethnic Interesta; Tho Case of Tir ukonama lâi’, The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, Vol. 1, No. 2, (Peradeniya, 1976), pp. 108-114 Gunasingam, S., “Tiruko namalayil iru Colar kalat Tamil
kalvettukkal’, Virakosari, 17th June 1972
“Kidarattil Kandedutta Kāli Amman Vikrakamo, Virakosari,
16th July 1972 “Tirumalayit Rajarajanin Kalattal muntiya kalvettukkal',
Elanadu,6th August, 1972 o 8 'Sivan Kovi (Kahtaåi) kalvettukkal', Tinakaran, 10th
September, 1972 Konēswaram, Peradeniya, 1973, pp. 1-124
Somo Aspects of the impact of Cola rute in the Trincomalee District, a paper read before the Ceylon Studies Seminar, 19th Sept., 1973
ཡ-- ག་ང་།། بؤ : ' ر في غية "... 3 و - " " " - Two inscriptions of Cola Ilankesvara Deva, Trincomalee
Inscriptions Series No. 1, Peradeniya, 1974 "A Tamil Slab-Inscription át Nilaveli', The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, Vol. 1, No. 1, (University of Sri Lanka, Peradeniya Campus), 1975, pp. 61-71 “An maikkalattil kilakku mākān attil mer kollappatt a tolpor u arātciyum - at han ar pera ppat ta varalarruc ceytikaluna’,
Battie aloa Tami Research Conference Souviner, 1976, pp 1 - 16
31

Page 19
“Panpattu ātikkappottiyil tol porutkal paka daik kaykal: Paraiyan kulattil kidaitta Kali Amman silai”, Virakesari, 1st May 1 77 o Three Cola lrascriptions from Trincomalae, Trincemalee
Inscriptions Series, No. 2, (forthcoming) “Tiruko namalai mavattattil kidaitta mutalam Vikramabahuvin kalattu tamilk kalvetu', llanka tir, A Journal published annually by the Tamil Society, Peradeniya University, (1978-1 79), forthcoming Indra pala, K., “Fourteen Cola Inscriptions from the ancient Rajarajapperumpali (velgam vehare I Natanar Kõvi) at Periyakulam', Epigraphia Tamilica, Vol. 1, part 1, (Jaffna, 1971), pp. 37-51 'Kilakkilankaic Casanankar, Cintanai, A Quarterly Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, parts 1 & 2, 1968, pp. 37-40 Ilankayir Dravidak Kattitakkalai, Colombo, 1970
Inscriptions of Pudukkoddai State, ed. T. Desika Chari, Sri
Brihadamba State Press, (Pudukkoddai, 1921)
Kanapathipillai, K. “Mankanai Inscription of Gajabahu II”, Uuiversity of Ceylon Review (UCR), Vol. XX, No. 1, (1962), pp. 12 - 14
Memoirs of Ryckhoff Van Goens (1663-1675), The Dutch Records of the Ceylon Government, No. 3, tra. E. Reimers, 1932
Nilakanta Sastri, K. A., “Ceylon as a province of the Cola Empire', University of Ceylon History of Ceylon (UCHC), Vol. 1, part 2, ed. S. Paranavitana, (Colombo, 1960), pp. 43 - 416
"The Ceylon Expedition of Jata varman Vira Pandya", Proceedings and Transactions of the nighth All-india Oriental Conference, Mysore, December 1935, (Bangalore, 1937), pp. 508-526
The Colas, Second revised edition, Madras University Histori
2 cal Series, No. 9, University of Madras, 1955. 3

Paranavitana, S. Vallipuram gold-plate inscription of the reign of Vasabha", Epigraphia Zeylonica, Vol. 4, part 5, 1939, No. 29, pp. 229-237
ʻA Ta mil slab-in scription from Palamõttai”, Epigraphia
Zeylanica, Vell. 4, No. 24, 1943, pp. 191-196 "A Sanskrit inscription from Padaviya', ournal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, New Series, Vol. 8, part 2, 1963, pp. 262-264
Pathmanathan, S. Vanniyar, Peradeniya, 1970
'Social and Religious Conditions Under Cola Rule in Sri Lanka: A. D. 993-1070, a paper read before the Ceylon Studies Seminar, Ceylon Studies Seminar 1975 Series. No. 1, Serial No. 53, pp. 1-8
"The Velaikkarar in Medieval South India and Sri Lanka, Tha Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, Vol. 2, No. 2, (1976), pp. 120-137
Queyroz, Fernao de, The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon, trad. into English by father S. G. Perara, Book 1, Colombo 1930.
Sırima Kiribapmune, “The Royal, Consecration in Medieval Sri
Lanka: The Problem of Vikramabahu I and Gajabahu II", The Sri Lanka Journal of South Asian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1976, University, of Sri Lanka, Jaffna Campus, pp., 12-32
South Indian inscriptions (SII), Archaeological Survey of South
India, Wol. 2, part 2, (1936)
Swaminathan, K. D. "An Inscription of Gajabahu II", Ceylon Historical Journal, Vol. 10, Nos. Il to 4, (1960-61), pp. 43-46
Taksinakailasapura nam, (Tkp), ed. P. P. Vaittiyalinga Tecikar,
Kalanithi Press, (Point Pedro, 1916)
Tirukomasalapuranam, ed. A. Sanmu garatna Aiyar, Jaffna, 1909
33

Page 20
Vamsatth appakasini, ed. G. P. Malalasekara, Commentary on
the Mahavamsa, PTS, London, 1935
Velupillai, A. Two short inscriptions from Natanar kovil', Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions (CT) part 1, Peradeniya 1971, pp. 12-15;
A note on the Verugal inscription, CT, part 1, pp. 9-ll
“Four more inscriptions from Natanar kovil or velgam vihara"
CTI, part 1, pp. 16-19
'Some more inscriptions from Natanar kovil', CT, part 2,
(Peradeniya, 1972), s. pp. 1-6
Two inscriptions from Kantalai". CT, part 2, pp. 37-41
Wickremasinghe, D. M. De. Z., “Kantalai Gal Asana Inscription
of Kitti Nissanks malla (1187 - 1196 A. D.)', Epigraphia Zeytanica, Vol. II, No. 42, (London 1923), pp. 283-90;
ʻA m baga muv 1 R 3ck (n scription of Vijay abihu T (1058-1 114 A.D.)”, Epigraphia Zeylanica, II, No. 35, pp. 202-218
Wijayatu nga, W. M. K. “Som : Aspects of Cola Administration of Ceylon in the lith Century, University of Ceylon Review, Vol. XXII, Nos. 1 & 2, (1965), pp. 67-82
Wima lan anda Tennakoon, The British Intrigue in the Kingdom
of Ceylon, Guna sena Historical Series, Vol II, 1973.
Yalpa navaipava mālai (Yvm), text edited by Mudaliyar K Saba
nat han, Colombo, 1953

INDEX w
Adappar- 21 Alexander Johnston- 28. Ambagamuva rock
inscription- ll Arasaratnam- 17 Archaeological Department- 6 Aryacakravarti- 20-22 Artisans- 5 Bengal- 23 Bisnaga- 23 Bahmadesam- 8 Bi ahmins- 5, 9, 13, 14, 15 Buddhism- 13 Canjavarao- 23 Catul vedimangala m- 8 9, 14 Chilao- 23 Chilembrum - 28 Cola- 4-13, 16, 17 Cola ilankeswara Deva - 6-8, 9 Com becomum- 28 Congeveram- 28 Constantine de Saa- 24 Culavamsa- 12, 14, 16 Dambadeạiya- l4 de Silva C. R.- 23 Dharmadasa- 1-4, 24, 29 Dempe Pieris Samarasinghe-3,4
Elur- 21
Éluvannipa m- 2l Gajabahu II- 14-16 Gangaikonda Colapuram-24
Gokarna- 29 Hinduism-- 15, 16 llam- l9 Jagarnati- 23
Jatavarman Sundara Pandya-18
Јаvаkаs- 19 Kankuvelli- 20, 2 ! Kantalai- 6-11, 13, 14, 19
Kantalai Sivan Temple- 7
Kayilaya Vanniyanar- 22 Konama malai- 18, 19 Konanathar- 21 Konesar kalvettu- 15, 16 Koņesa! Temple- 23
Koneswaram- 1-3, 9, 10, 15
s 16, 29
Kottiyar- 21-24 Kudumiyāmalai- 18 Kulakkotan- 16 Kulottunga- 12 Maddakkalappu Manmiyam- 21 Madura- 27 Magha- 17 Mahasena- 24 Malaiyi1 Vanniya nar- 21 Manankeni- 6, 7, 10, 11, 1* Mananken i Villpapathirar
temple- 7
Mankanai- 10 Maravarman Kulasēkara
Pandya- 20
Matottam-5 Mudallimar- 21
Mutan mai- 14 Nagapatao- 23
35

Page 21
Nagaram- 9 Nattavar- 15
Nilakanta Sastri- 7 Nilaveli- 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 Nissankamalla- 15
Padaviya- 17 Paradisë- 23
Parakramabahu - 13
Parākramabahu VII- 20 Paranavitana— 8, 10, 14
Pararasasekaram- 22 Pāla mottai- 10, 13, 14 Pandyas- 13, 19, 20
Pasupatha Brahmins- 15 Periyakulam- 11 Perumakkal- 9
Perunguri- 8 9 Polonnaruwa – 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17, Portuguese-20, 21
Pothank adu- 11 Queyroz- 23
Rajaratta- i6 Rajaraja, I- 10, 12, 14
Rajarajaaturಳ್ಲlಜ್ಜ- 3
༥ ་་ ; *:* 。 ,
Rajarajaperumpali- 12
RājAyiccāiravaliņā
Rājendracolavala nadu-8 Ramanacoir- 23
Ramisserum- 27 Ryckloff Van Goens- 22.
Sabha- 9 Saivism- 15 Sарumal— 20
\6
Sekarasasekaram- 22 Seringham- 27 Simayapilai- 21 South East Asia. 11 Sundra Pandya- 29 Swami Gunaratana- 23 Taksina kailasapuranam- 15 Ta mil Kingdom — 17, 18 Tanam- 21
fanattar- 24
Tenkailasam — 13 Tennakoon Wimalananda- 24 Thomas Maitland- 27 Timassa — 22
Tiruko namalai- .1 28 و3 و2 م, Tremel- 23 . . Trichendore- 27
Trikuta- 18 Trinequenemalee- 22 Tripetty
Tripiti- 23. Triquilimalę- 23 Ur- 9
Vallipuram - 4 Vanni- 22 Vannipam- 16
Vanniyamar-21, 22
Vayupuranam- 29 Ven. Hendiyaga la Sillaratana-3 ven. Pandita Kada Vadduve
Nandarama 3, 4
Verugal— 1, 12, Vijayabahu I-8- 14. Vira Pandya- 18, 19
Yai panawaipavamalai- 21

Page 22