ilam<sihala
?
An
Assessment
of
an
Argument
by
Peter
Schalk
Uppsala
Universitet,
Uppsala
2004
ISSN
0439-2132,
ISBN
91-554-5972-2
(distributed
by
Uppsala
University
Library,
www.uu.se
[use
the
search
engine
for
Acta
Universitatis
Upsaliensis])
This
is
a
very
important
book
for
the
understanding
of
the
relationship
of
the
terms
ilam
and
sihala
from
ancient
times
to
the
immediate
present.
Because
of
the
contemporary
political
situation,
this
relationship
is
of
interest
as
historical
arguments
are
frequently
used
to
back
up
political
ones.
The
book
is
a
reaction
to
the
assertion
of
certain
philologists
that
the
word
ilam
is
derived
from
the
word
sihala.
The
assertion
is
of
consequence
in
the
world
today
because
many
assumptions
flow
from
it.
An
example
given
in
the
book
is:
In
1981,
he
[R.A.L.H.
Gunawardana]
published
an
often
quoted
and
stimulating
paper
called
"People
of
the
Lion.
The
Simhala
Identity
and
Ideology
in
History
and
Historiography."
Even
if
the
word
sihala
occurred
in
the
Dipavamsa
only
from
the
4th
centure
AD,
Gunawardene
found
it
reasonable
to
stipulate
a
somewhat
earlier
date.
He
took
up
the
well-known
[Caldwellian]
interpretation
that
the
Tamil
word
ilam
was
allegedly
derived
from
sihala.
Therefore,
whenever
and
wherever
we
find
the
word
ilam,
we
can
conclude
that
this
word
has
been
preceded
by
the
word
sihala/simhala.
As
the
word
ilam
first
appears
in
the
Brahmi
inscriptions
of
South
India
from
the
1-2nd
centureis
AD,
he
concluded
without
further
ado
that
the
term
sihala
was
used
at
this
time.(p.31)
In
the
constant
ideological
battles
about
who
are
the
'real'
owners
of
the
island,
this
philological
argument
that
ilam
is
a
derivation
of
sihala
hands
those
interested
in
claiming
the
island
for
the
Sinhala
a
convenient
tool,
one
of
the
"ideological
pillars
in
Simhalatva,
which
is
ethnonationalist
in
character...instrumentalizing
Buddhist
terms."(p.5)
"Caldwell
has
been
made
use
of
in
a
political
and
pseudo-linguistic
debate
that
concerns
the
rise
of
Simhala
assertiveness
as
against
the
rise
of
Tamil
assertiveness."(p.31.
See
also
p.157)
Wherever
there
is
a
mention
of
ilam,
then
there
is
an
implication
of
sihala
and
this
sihala
preceded
ilam.
The
argument
is
part
of
the
effort
to
show
that
the
Sinhala
people
belong
to
the
island,
while
the
Tamils
are
merely
'vines
which
grow
on
the
Sinhala
tree.'
It
is
argued
that
the
Tamils
on
the
island
have
never
had
an
independent
existence,
even
in
the
language
they
use,
and
therefore
should
not
have
an
independent
political
existence
now.
Schalk
says
that
his
interest
in
the
subject
of
the
origin
of
the
words
was
piqued
by
the
entry
in
A
Dravidian
Etymological
Dictionary
(DED)
by
T.
Burrows
and
M.B.A.
Emeneau
which
puts
a
question
mark
after
the
formulation
ilam<sihala.
Schalk
has
dug
deep
into
this
question
mark
in
his
250
page
book.
He
answers
the
question,
'What
connections
do
the
words
ilam
and
sihala
have
to
each
other?'
(p.28)
and
the
two
subordinate
questions
of
"which
are
the
first
written
sources
for
the
words
ilam
and
simhala/sihalala/cinkalam?"(p.32)
and
what
does
the
word
ilam
refer
to
(an
island,
toddy,
a
plant
and
gold)
and
what
is
their
relative
chronology?
Schalk
concludes
that
"ilam
and
simhala/sihala/cinkalam
are
unrelated
phonemes
[speech
sounds]
and
morphemes
[collection
of
phonemes],
albeit
with
the
same
referent
[the
island]."
Schalk
finds
it
unlikely
that
ilam
could
be
derived
from
sihala
through
phonological
transformation.
Certain
sounds
change
into
others
according
to
certain
rules
and
that
transformation
would
have
been
farfetched.
The
first
reference
to
ilam
is
in
about
150
AD
in
Tamil
Nadu
(or
Tamilakam
as
he
calls
it)
refering
to
the
island
as
a
whole,
and
the
first
reference
to
sihala
is
about
the
same
time
on
the
island
itself.
Because
the
two
words
appear
about
the
same
time
and
in
different
locations,
Schalk
concludes
that
ilam
could
not
be
derived
from
sihala.
Schalk's
discussion
of
the
things
that
ilam
refers
to
is
interesting,
if
not
a
happy
one
for
the
teetotalers
among
us.
I
conjecture
that
ila
first
referred
to
a
milky
juice
that
was
then
applied
to
both
toddy
and
the
white
juice
of
the
spurge
plant.
They
show
a
diachronic
[relating
to
phenomena
as
they
change
over
time]
and
synchronic
[at
the
same
time]
relatedness
of
meaning.
They
form
therefore
one
cluster.
ilam
was
made
to
refer
to
toddy,
to
the
spurge
plant
and
to
the
place
where
toddy
was
cultivated
abundantly,
to
the
island....
I
suggest
that
ilam
meaning
'gold/metal'
should
be
handled
as
a
different
homonymous
[words
spelled
alike,
but
different
in
meaning]
lexical
item
because
it
shows
no
synchronic
or
diachronic
relatedness
of
meaning
to
toddy
and
spurge
plant.(p.235)
(Some
of
you
may
be
confused,
not
knowing
this
reference
to
toddy.
"Evidently
this
femented
sap
was
called
ilam
in
Tamilakam
in
the
premodern
period,
and
only
there.
Yet,
there
is
no
evidence
that
it
has
ever
been
used
in
Ilam
as
signifier
for
toddy.
Even
in
present
day
Tamilakam,
ilam
has
been
replaced
by
kal(l)u."(p.200))
Not
only
do
we
delve
into
the
use
of
words
two
thousand
years
ago,
but
Schalk
also
brings
us
up-to-date
with
a
discourse
on
how
Sinhala
and
Tamil
nationalists
use
the
different
terms
and
what
the
terms
mean
to
them.
Even
in
the
beginning
of
the
20th
century,
the
toponym
Ilam
was
used
to
refer
to
the
whole
island...When
in
the
1920s,
a
conflict
arose
between
Tamil
and
Simhala
learders
about
the
future
of
the
two
communities
in
an
envisaged
decolonized
island,
a
semantic
shift
in
the
use
of
Ilam
became
discernable...Gradually
there
was
a
gliding
of
referent
from
a
cultural
aspect
to
a
political
territory,
to
an
independent
Tamil
nation-stae.
This
gliding
reached
its
accomplishment
in
1956
as
a
reaction
of
Tamil
leaders
to
the
Simhala-only
program...(p.225)
...Soon,
however,
a
terminological
confusion
arose.
Some
political
leaders
started
to
talk
about
Ilam,
but
referred
to
Tamililam.
They
also
talked
about
ilavar,
but
they
did
not
refer
to
toddy
tappers
or
to
inhabitants
of
the
whole
island
of
Ilam,
but
to
citizens
of
the
new
state
of
Tamililam.
This
new
political
use
can
therefore
be
regarded
as
retrieval
from
the
past
only
with
regard
to
the
signifiers,
but
not
to
their
historical
referents.
These
were
completely
new.(p.
226)
...Today,
an
ilavan
is
a
person
who
promotes
a
type
of
state
formation
known
as
Tamililam.
ila-v-an
in
this
case
is
a
regular
derivation
from
ila-m
through
affixation.
(p.229)
The
book
is
a
fascinating
read
in
a
great
mix
of
history
and
linguistics,
with
dashes
of
politics,
sociology,
numismatics
[study
of
coins],
religion,
etc.
thrown
in,
for
those
interested
in
the
southern
tip
of
South
Asia.
It
is,
however,
more
of
an
academic
monograph
than
a
book
for
the
general
public.
One
must
contend
with
an
alarming
variety
of
linguistic
terms
such
as
polysemous,
ethnonym
and
alveolar,
so
keep
your
dictionary
handy.
There
is
no
concession
to
the
poor
mortals
who
do
not
know
Sanskrit,
Greek,
Latin,
German
or
French.
Be
prepared
to
know
what
a
demos
is,
for
instance.
If
one
remembers
the
root
of
the
word
democracy
this
is
not
too
hard,
but
takes
thought,
as
does
just
about
everything
in
the
book.
The
introduction
and
conclusion
are
more
complex
than
the
other
chapters,
however.
It
must
be
recognized
that
this
book
is
not
an
easy
read,
but
is
very
worthwhile
for
anyone
with
an
interest
in
the
subject
of
the
origin
and
subsequent
use
of
words
that
have
become
charged
with
meaning
in
the
current
political
climate.
Some
of
you
may
remember
a
discussion
on
this
same
subject,
the
relationship
of
the
words
ilam
and
sinhala
a
few
years
ago
in
the
Tamil
Circle
that
did
not
progress
very
far
because
many
of
those
in
the
discussion
did
not
have
the
tools
to
take
it
forward.
This
book
takes
the
discussion
so
far
forward
it
is
out
of
sight.
Review
by
Avis
Sri-Jayantha