Talk:Sinhalese people

mahavamsa origin myth

Mr @JohnWiki159:, Mahavamsa says that Vijaya and his entourage married nobles women from the pandya kingdom. Southern Madura refers to madurai, and pandu refers to the pandya kingdom. The chapter also refers to thousands of settlers migrating from the Pandya kingdom (of the 18 guilds). See the notes in the Mahavamsa chapter at the end. In the Gananath Obeysekera article he clearly states that Vijaya married a pandya princess:

"Subsequently, in a formal ceremonial, he married a princess from South Madurapura (in the Tamil country, distinguished from North Madurapura, the land of Krsna). There were no heirs from this marriage, and Vijaya's brother's son was brought from Sinhapura to take over the kingship.(5) This is the foundational myth for Sri Lankan history and it is an inescapable part of the historical consciousness of the Sinhalas. Modern scholars have scarcely noted the fact that it is a myth of ethnic separation and integration. The land is consecrated and cleansed of evil spirits by the Buddha for Vijaya to land; the hunters are descended from Vijaya but by an illegitimate union, and hence outside the pale of legitimate kingship and Buddhist history and civilization. The Tamils are affines; they do not inherit the dynasty; it goes back to Pandu Vasudeva, whose name resonates with that of the protagonists of the Mahabharata. Yet, unlike the Vaddas, the Tamils are not only kinfolk but also co- founders of the nation. This aspect of the myth has been almost completely forgotten or ignored in recent times. The rest of the Vijaya myth appears everywhere and is so powerful that virtually everyone treats it as an empirically "true" beginning of Sri Lankan history."

Mahavamsa says:

"When the messengers were quickly come by ship to the city of Madhura they laid the gifts and letter before the king. The king took counsel with his ministers, and since he was minded to send his daughter (to Lanka) he, having first received also daughters of others for the ministers (of VIJAYA), nigh upon a hundred maidens, proclaimed with beat of drum: `Those men here who are willing to let a daughter depart for Lanka shall provide their daughters with a double store of clothing and place them at the doors of their houses. By this sign shall we (know that we may) take them to ourselves.’ When he had thus obtained many maidens and had given compensation to their families, he sent his daughter, bedecked with all her ornaments, and all that was needful for the journey,17 and all the maidens whom he had fitted out, according to their rank, elephants withal and horses and waggons, worthy of a king, and craftsmen and a thousand families of the eighteen guilds, entrusted with a letter to the conqueror VIJAYA. All this multitude of men disembarked at Mahatittha; for that very reason is that landing-place known as Mahatittha."

There is no mention in Mahavamsa of Sinhalese being descendants of Nagas. Vijaya and his men married women from the Pandya country (Note 16- Now Madura, in the south of the Madras Presidency.). Metta79 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No point mahawansa has said that the people from Madurai got absorbed to the Sinhalese identity neither them settling anywhere in sl and they were brought to help vijaya maintain the kingdom and vijaya died and they more likely left sl after his death because more people came to sl from north Ultra8K (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Read the first passage quoted above from the cited reliable source by Gananath Obeyesekere. It is a scholarly secondary source which is the highest form of reliable source on wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some types of sources

He clearly points to the myth suggesting that the Pandya women were "kinfolk and cofounders" of the Sinhala nation, along with the 'Vijaya' men. Metta79 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Mahavamsa mentions both mixture with yakkhas and pandya settlers, you cant selectively pick and choose what you want from Mahavamsa. Also it is very rude to ask to take it to the talk page and then make such biased edits, without discussion. Seriously you say Sinhalese are descended from yakkhas based on the kuveni story, whose descendants are described as the pulindas/veddahs. But then you ignore the thousands of settlers Mahavamsa mentions from the pandya kingdom, including the wives of Vijaya and his men. Metta79 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dakkhina Madura (southern Madura) of the Pandu kingdom as identified by scholars as Madurai of the Pandya kingdom. Pandu is the word used to describe the Pandya dynasty throughout the Pali chronicles of Mahavamsa and Culavamsa. Metta79 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo history and modern day folk etymology - siv hela has no place in an encyclopedia of repute

Siv hela and ravana 'theory' is well known pseudo history that has no place in an encyclopedia. Not one trained historian or linguist will agree with this fringe theory. I've already shown how it does not keep in with WP:PARITY. None of the sources you have used satisfy WP:SCHOLARSHIP and are poets, novelists etc. Not trained scholars in the field. Metta79 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@JohnWiki159:, the ancient Sinhala Prakrit word for 4 is catara, which is closer to Sanskrit/Prakrit catur (compare to modern Sinhala hatara, Sinhala often has c>h or s>h change from Prakrit/Sanskrit). This word 'Siv' is not even attested in the ancient period, let alone the fake term Sivhela. It is impossible for this fake term 'Siv-hela' to have existed in the prehistoric period. There is no evidence of this term existing anywhere in the ancient inscriptions or literature!!!

https://sirimunasiha.wordpress.com/about/vilaveva-inscription-a-short-notarial-deed-on-stone/

https://sirimunasiha.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/ancient-sinhala-numerals/

https://sirimunasiha.wordpress.com/about/a-table-of-numerals/

https://www.inscriptions.lk/

Metta79 (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"Siv hela and ravana 'theory' is well known pseudo history that has no place in an encyclopedia". This is your Point of View. Also the theory "Sive Hela" is not a fringe theory. I have provided multiple sources which talk about this theory. They have researched about the area. Also, I don't think you are a trained scholar to completely disregard their hard work. You are just putting forward your Point of Views. And you can't say with so much confidence "It is impossible for this fake term 'Siv-hela' to have existed in the prehistoric period". This "Siv hela" is a theory and should be mentioned under the etymology section. Also, I will give a link to a research done on this regard. https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/59020919/De_Koning_The_Many_15_12_2021_incl_kaft.pdf JohnWiki159 (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"Also, I don't think you are a trained scholar to completely disregard their hard work." You do not know my background, I actually do have formal university training in this field (History, Sanskrit, Linguistics). But that is besides the point.

Regarding the book you have linked, the author is clear that Ravana is MYTHOHISTORY:

"it shows that the identification of Lanka (from the Ramayana) with Sri Lanka and Ravana as the king of Lanka have been part of (alternative) mythistorical imaginations of the Sinhalese." Page 12.

Please at least read what you are linking. Just because some amateur nationalists believe in clearly made up mythohistorical imaginations (which only emerged in the post independence period mind you), does not give it the right to be put in a serious encyclopedia. Otherwise, we would have all sorts of myths and nonsense polluting a serious scholarly website, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be.Metta79 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Read page 131 onwards. The author analyzes "siv hela" concept and gives her ideas. This is a theory and anyone can agree or disagree on just like how some historians disagree with Mahavamsa. Then according to your logic, Mahavamsa should also be removed from the etymology section.

"Just because some amateur nationalists believe in clearly made up mythohistorical imaginations". The so called "amateur nationalists" have done research and presented their ideas. JohnWiki159 (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems you have problems understanding her words. She clearly says on those pages that this siv hela theory is 'creative' meaning made up by modern day people like the poet Arisen. She does not say anywhere that it's historical. The difference between Mahavamsa and this nonsense, is that Mahavamsa is an ancient chronicle with a lot of historical value and truth corroborated by ancient inscriptions, it's the most important source of ancient Sri Lankan history. It has been historically analysed by historians. It's not some modern made up myth created out of thin air like Siv Hela. Metta79 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at it as an outsider, I'd say that it is entirely permissible to add etymology that is commonly used but may be incorrect, or folk etymology, but it must be clearly stated as to what they are. This is because it helps people who have read about such etymology to understand what they have read may be inaccurate or entirely false, and how they are false. The sources used however should be academic sources to show that it is something that has been discussed in academic circles. Hzh (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes this would be fine, but the problem with the passage suggested by JohnWiki159 is that it does not make it clear that it is a clearly incorrect folk etymology created in the 20th century. The sources he is using are all by authors not considered scholarly in the field, including the original promoter of the term Arisen.Metta79 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The person who wrote the article linked, Deborah de Koning, appears to be a young academic whose work has been published. She quoted other academics like Nira Wickramasinghe, so perhaps there might be some discussion about this elsewhere. The would require more reading of other publications, and more time may be necessary to write something acceptable. Whether anyone wants to do that I don't know. It seems to be a popular theory amongst certain people, and because of that I expect that it would be constantly added and so needed to be dealt with. But, it should not be added without academic sources. Hzh (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nira's book that Deborah references does not mention anything about 'sivhela', i've just checked.

This is what Deborah says on page 131:

"In the 1980s and 1990s, Mirando Obeyesekere and

Arisen Ahubudu provided creative etymological explanations of Sinhala/Sinhalese as

derived from Siv Hela, with siv meaning four"

Both of these people are not scholars in the relevant field. In fact the term Siv Hela appears only to have existed since the 80s! Metta79 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I read that part, but I was hoping for a bit more definitive statements about how the siv hela concept (that presumably arose from the hela movement) was created, and how it is false. The "creative" part indicates it may be a newly invented and unreliable theory (therefore likely considered "fringe" in academic circles), but a bit more information would be useful. Fringe theories are not forbidden in Wikipedia articles as such, there are a number of relevant guidelines like WP:FRINGELEVEL and WP:EVALFRINGE, and if a fringe idea is popular, then there are more reasons to include it if only to explain why it is not an accepted concept. But, I suppose the article might hold off adding the "siv hela" idea until there are more discussions in academic sources to give a more rounded description of the idea. Hzh (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hzh Hi, thank you very much for providing your opinion on this. I included this theory under the etymology section by citing reliable sources. The "Siv Hela" theory I included in the etymology section is as follows.

Another theory is that there were four major clans of "hela" in ancient Sri Lanka even before the arrival of Prince Vijaya, and that Sri Lanka was called as "Siv hela" (siv=four in the Sinhala language) and later it was changed into "Sinhala".

I have given multiple sources but @Metta79 keeps dismissing them by calling them fringe theories. Also Arisen Ahubudu is a scholar who has done research on this. I believe this should be included in the etymology section. Can you provide your opinion regarding this? I have cited multiple sources as well. JohnWiki159 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The people involved are mentioned in the Deborah de Koning article, so they are not new information. From what we can gather, the siv hela theory does appear to be a recent creation, and as such, it needs independent assessment by academics to evaluate its validity. The one cited (de Koning) does not appear to consider the derivation as having firm foundation (as indicated by the use of the word "creative"), therefore may be considered "fringe" in academic circles, however, we really need more independent academic sources discussing the idea to have a better idea how the theory is regarded. Per WP:PROFRINGE the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. The sources you gave are primarily "proclamations of its adherents". As already mentioned, I don't have any problem with adding any theory even if it is considered fringe, particularly if the theory is popular, but it needs to be carefully written to reflect independent academic opinion so that it is not an WP:UNDUE promotion of a fringe idea. If you can find more assessment by independent academics, try again with something that's carefully-worded, and if your edits get continually disputed, then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to gather opinions from the wider community on whether it can be included in the article. Hzh (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for proving your valuable opinion regarding this. JohnWiki159 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sinhalese people with the Nilame dress.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sinhalese dna study

The most extensive genetic study done on the srilankan ethnicities point out that Sinhalese have a higher gene flow from the bengalis than any other race but the person name Metta79 keep on removing that info from Wikipedia when most of the genetic studies provided by both private and government studies shows that Sinhalese have higher gene flow from bengalis than the others and I hope it will be changed soon to the updated one Ultra8K (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Metta79 61.245.171.75 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"The most extensive genetic study done"

Do you have a WP:RS supporting this claim?

"when most of the genetic studies provided by both private and government studies shows that Sinhalese have higher gene flow from bengalis"

Can you provide a WP:RS pointing to 'government studies'? The 2023 study cited in the introduction that you are trying to remove was led in part by Sri Lankan professors from University of Colombo (if anything that is closer to an official government institution affiliated study):

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/study-reveals-insightsinto-genetic-historyof-sinhalese-tamils/articleshow/103299516.cms

It uses more higher resolution markers than previous studies for greater accuracy.

And also can you please point me to the evidence suggesting that "most of the genetic studies" indicate a higher gene flow from Bengalis. Thanks. Metta79 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Source: Peoples and lauguages of srilanka by Asiff Hussein, I find it funny how it says that the Sinhalese and srilankan Tamils are genetically close it never says that the Sinhalese have a higher flow of tamil than North Indians and I think you are forgetting that the srilankan tamils have more Sinhalese genes than tamil so yeah the srilankan tamils will be close to the Sinhalese but it dosent mean that the Sinhalese have huge flow of tamil genes it means that the srilankan Tamils have a higher flow of Sinhalese genes this changes the topic so basically you are confused or you are purposely doing this Ultra8K (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

please link to the source which indicates that "the most extensive genetic study done" supports the claim of higher gene flow from bengalis.

Please read the actual 2023 study not just the news articles on it. It states that the highest dna shared (identity by descent - IBD) with the Sinhalese is with the Piramalai Kallar of Tamil Nadu (amongst the Indian populations). So it's not just Sri Lankan Tamils. Metta79 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a book not a cheap website and the link provided talks about the Sinhalese and the sl Tamils having similar gene pool nothing about the Piramalai Kallar people and you didn't answer my question and claiming I haven't read the website, the person here who haven't read the article is not me it's you

If you are unable to read and understand what the article has said or other countless books probably you need to get some serious help rather than spreading propaganda here Ultra8K (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)01874-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2589004223018746%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Here is the link to the 2023 study which used higher resolution markers than previous studies. It found that there was higher gene flow from South India (statistically significant) to the Sinhalese than from North India, with the Sinhalese sharing the highest Identity by descent with Piramalai Kallar (Indian Tamil caste) compared to the other Indian populations studied. The study also found heightened sharing with the Maratha of north western India which was lacking in Tamil and other South Indian populations, consistent with a trace of North Indian affiliation to the Sinhalese population. Metta79 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations this is said by the article itself

Funniest part is that even the article provided only says that the Sinhalese and the srilankan Tamils are genetically similar it is because the srilankan Tamils have more Sinhalese genes than tamil it is not because the Sinhalese got tamil genes put it inside your thick brain

If you are not broke even the books published on the genetic studies on Sinhalese says that they are closest to the bengalis there's no point ever a mention about Indian Tamils

You are here confusing readers and spreading propaganda on a neutral site which is used to educate people with info

No point in your own two articles a mention about the Sinhalese having a higher gene flow from the Indian Tamils which proves that your point is false Ultra8K (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, refrain from personal attacks WP:PA ("thick brain"). Wikipedia is built on consensus and polite conversations.

You said:

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations this is said by the article itself

But the article actually says this:

However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations

That was statistically not significant. It was referring to the Maratha link if you read the tables in the supplementary data.

The statistically significant gene flow is this:

We also calculated D-statistics to infer the direction of gene flow between North vs. South Indian populations models (Yoruba; Sinhalese/STS/STU; X; Y) and obtained results suggesting that higher gene flow occurred between both the populations from the South than the North Indian populations.

You say:

Funniest part is that even the article provided only says that the Sinhalese and the srilankan Tamils are genetically similar.

This is false. I quote verbatim from the article itself:

"We observed that South Indian Piramalai Kallar shared the highest IBD with Sinhala and STU, while, both populations showed highest IBD sharing, for short and long DNA segments with Piramalai Kallar."

And you can see confirmation of this in the graph on figure 6 itself:

https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/44397dfd-d203-4b00-b17a-0df7aa7e82c8/gr6.jpg Metta79 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is also wikipedia policy for an editor to support his statements with evidence from the book that he citing from (even if it not accessible online). So you need to provide the quote from the source that you claim supports your edits. So please provide the quote which says that "government studies" and "the most extensive genetic study done" supports the claim of higher gene flow from Bengalis. Thanks. Metta79 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

the Sinhalese showed that 70 % of the gene pool

originated from the Bengali. When the analysis included Gujarati as the third parental population,

the proportion of the Bengali genes in the Sinhalese increased to 72 %. VNTR data were

available on Bengali, Panjabi and Gujarati and when these three populations were considered as

parental populations, the VNTR results indicated that 82 % of the Sinhalese genes originated

From Bengali admixture confirming that the present-day gene pool of the Sinhalese seems to have

Originated largely via migration from the northeastern region ot India.

Sample of 121 Sinhalese collected trom Colombo were

analysed and the overall pattern of genetic relationships pointed towards a substantial Bengali

contribution. A number of genetie admixture calculations using Tamil, Bengali, Gujarati and

Panjabi as parental populations showed that when the parental populations were used, the Bengali

Contribution remained strong (50-66 %), followed by Northwestern (20-23 %) and the rest

Contributed by Tamils

Some of the facts given by the book Ultra8K (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you confirm this is from 'ZEYLANICA - A Study of the Peoples and Languages of Sri Lanka' by Asiff Hussein? It does not say neither "government studies" or "most extensive genetic study", those are words you have created yourself. Metta79 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have bought the book you can check his sources he used and most of his sources are either from universities or governmental researchers and in the cover page you can find that it says most comprehensive study of the subject to the date and the info that I provided earlier was from these researchers not from what assif has conducted to begin with he never conducted what he does in his book is bring all the actual sources and come to a conclusion at the end you shouldn't jump into conclusions without thinking .

The source you used neither has any backing from any historian or the government so it cannot be used as a actual source

Dosent have access to significant number of Sinhalese like the government neither used a government research or any other research as a reference

You keep ignoring the fact that there's Tamils out there who forgot there original roots and claims that they are Sinhalese when they are actually not if the research was conducted on some fake ones like that of course the study will show something stupid like what you use as a source

For example there are blacks in srilanka that was brought by Portuguese that now claim that they are Sinhalese and have forgot there original roots if a research was conducted on them it shows a relationship to the Africans are you gonna claim that Sinhalese are related to the Africans cause these blacks now identify as Sinhalese? Ultra8K (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to make claim here what's in the book. Here is the book - [1], which gives the source as [2]. They are not government scientists, nor is that a government publication. This study is also quite old (more recent publication is generally preferable), and is not a well-cited paper (meaning that it is mostly ignored by the scientific community), and the Cell publication given by Metta79 is far more prestigious. Also need to consider that a single publication does not make it a fact, since the result can varied depending on what is being looked at, and a review article that can assess the overall view is generally preferable for science articles. Hzh (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all if you have read the book, he have used both independent and governmental research's and second no point I have claimed he have published it through a government publication

Old dosent mean inaccurate and this is a well cited book and this is the only book historians recommend and the only book about genetic studies that is being sold in a government museum so this book is definitely no where close to being ignored

If cell is so prestigious can you tell me why dosent any historian or a independent writer use it as a source in any book

Another fact we can't forget is that there are Tamils who forgot there original roots and now call themselves as Sinhalese if one of those fake ones were part of the research of course the research would itself be a fail for a example there are blacks who was brought by the Portuguese and now has forgotten their roots and claims that they are Sinhalese if one of them were in the research then the research will show Africa as the closet people to the Sinhalese

This is why the book claims itself as the most comprehensive study on srilankan races and has been recommended by historians itself.

I hope you do a check on several other genetic studies and let me know your thoughts on it

Ultra8K (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I find it funny how everything you say gets proven wrong in genetic study books and you keep using a source which is not recommended by historians also neither taken into study by any book and it dosent have access to significant populations of Sinhalese like most of the genetic studies that is either funded or done by the government, theres no proof that backs up them so it can't be used as a authentic source.

You better show me a actual source Ultra8K (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a peer reviewed source in a reputed scientific journal which follows WP:RS, whereas your source is neither peer reviewed nor published in a reputed publishing house. In fact the author Asif Hussein is a journalist without a doctorate, hardly a reputed scholar. BA degree and diploma is a basic level of higher education. In other words, he is not a trained historian or geneticist. Metta79 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that he used research that is released by government and his book isn't something he conduct its something he got from other researchers who are specialized in genetic studies and etc and the source that I used was not something he said it's what other researchers came to conclusion and he have added it to his book Ultra8K (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The source you used is no where close to being reputed journal and I'm not surprised wiki lets those fake sources to be added on wiki when they let propaganda sources to be used as a source

The source I used is reputed and even recommended by historians and even is for sale in government museums and has used sources from government led research's referring the book as a invalid is source is the same as referring the government research's as invalid and have got permission to use the government research's in the book.

Ultra8K (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Asiff dosent need to be a geneticist when there are government and reliable geneticist who have done a research and provided it to Asiff, Asiff just has to use the reliable sources and come to a conclusion

The quotes that I provided from the book isn't even what Asiff has said it was the government research's conclusion, so now are you tryna say that the government geneticist also dosent have proper training lol and in the book Asiff always used sources and he never have written what his thoughts cause he haven't conducted his own research what he have done in his book was bringing all the reliable sources to one single book so attacking Asiff is a stupid thing to do

This whole argument is stupid when every reliable sources has said the Sinhalese and the bengalis are genetically most similar both by genetically and anthropometrical studies. Ultra8K (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)