SIGIRIYA -

Escaping the prison of history

By Savan Wijewardene

ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED years after King Kasyapa was said to have engaged his rival and half brother Mogalana in open war for the Anuradhapura Kingdom under the shadow of Sigiriya's mighty rock, battle continues to rage around the ancient ruins at Sigiriya.

While today's skirmishes are fought not with swords and spears but with letters, books, and articles - feelings run equally high. Reputations are at stake as the proponents of various competing theories regarding the history of this world heritage site now engage in an open academic warfare.

A faction of upstarts have thought to question the original tale told in the Mahavamsa and supported by HCP Bell, the father of archaeology on the island and Paranavitharana whose studies on Sigiriya are considered to be authoritative.

Chief amongst these renegades is Raja de Silva, a former commissioner of archaeology who in a series of books and papers has claimed that Sigirya was never a fortress but a monastery.

Citing the indefensibility of the rock - isolated, and easily surrounded - and lacking archaeological evidence of a palace ever having stood atop of Sigirya, De Silva and his followers have taken issue with the tale familiar to every Sri Lankan.

Instead is an alternative theory which suggests that Sigirya was, for centuries before and after Kasyapa, a monastery and that it was never used as a royal palace.

In fact he suggests that Sigiriya was not only a monastery but a thriving centre of the Mahayana School of Buddhist Thought which was opposed by the Theravada chroniclers of the Mahavamsa.

In the Mahavamsa, Kasyapa is said to have killed his father and seized the throne from the legitimate heir his half brother Mogalana.

Mogalana is said to have fled to India from where he planned to return with an army to retake his kingdom.

Kasyapa who feared the imminent return of his brother abandoned the ancient seat of Sinhala kings at Anuradhapura and constructed a fortress on top of the inaccessible Rock at Sigiriya.

However De Silva's hypothesis suggests that Kasyapa never ruled from Sigiriya. He claims that the ruins on the rock's summit are too rudimentary to indicate that a royal palace ever stood there, and that the famous frescoes could not have been completed in Kasyapa's rule alone.

He reinterprets the archaeological evidence at Sigirya and proposes an alternative to the traditional tale.

He claims that the Mahayana religion a form of Buddhism with a strong esoteric and mystical element was widespread in Sri Lanka at the time of Kasyapa's rule.

His claim is supported by a range of sources which indicate that the Jeethvanarama at Anuradhapura was traditionally a centre of Mahayana thinking. A range of artifacts found throughout Sri Lanka - carvings of Bhodisatvas and the goddess Tara at Veragala etc. also indicate a strong Mahayana presence.

Sigiriya according to De Silva was a major centre of the Mahayana school. Its frescoes depict not Kasyapa's consorts but the heaven of the Mahayana Goddes/Bodhisattva Tara.

Which explains why it continued to be visited after Kasyapa's death and why the images were not defaced by Mogalana who would have wanted to destroy every trace of his usurping brother. Certainly he would not have allowed a site that was nothing but a tribute to the egoism of his nemesis to become an attraction.

While Kasyapa never resided at Sigiriya, ruling instead from Anruadhapura, De Silva suggests that he may have been sympathetic to the Mahayana school and made lavish donations to the Sigiriya monastery serving as its principle patron.

Thus his description as a debauched parricide who reigned from a hedonistic pleasure palace at Sigiriya might have been deliberate effort by the Theravada chroniclers of the Mahavamsa to erase the memory of a king who was supportive of a once powerful rival movement.

The evidence supporting the De Silva interpretation is extensive - it is clear from the archeological evidence that Sigirya served as a monastery for centuries - while the archaeological evidence regarding its functioning as a palace is much less clear.
Sri Lanka - A New Story

With reference to our cover story last month - 'SRI LANKA - A NEW STORY' we publish below the list of references which were inadvertently omitted in our last issue

List of References

Point Pedro Institute of Development

'Randora - National Infrastructure Development Programme' - Ministry of Finance & Planning

Mr. Anushka Wijesinha - 'Private-public partnership key to Jaffna's economic revival', Daily Mirror - 21 January 2009.

Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Annual Report - 2008

Board of investment of Sri Lanka - www.boi.lk

Department of Census and Statistics - www.statistics.gov.lk

It is also clear that Sigiriya has historically had several entrances which is not compatible with a defensive fortress and more congruent with the layout of a monastery.

Of course De Silva's theory regardless of the evidence available is just that - a theory. Ultimately it is simply not possible to speak with certainty about the events that took place 1500 years ago.

However by challenging the accepted version of events De Silva has brought history back into the public eye.

Arguments regarding the history of Sigiriya now feature prominently in the newspapers and even on blogs. A passionate debate has followed recent suggestions about the origins of Sigiriya and several scholars coming forward to defend the orthodox of Mahavamsa version of events.

Regardless of who prevails in this scholarly skirmish what is of importance is that after decades of dogmatic paralysis, the study and discussion of history in Sri Lanka appears to be showing signs of life.

The battle for history

History is important. It is not simply a collection of events and happenings trapped for ever in an immutable and distant past, but a living and dynamic force that plays a powerful role shaping our ideas and perceptions regarding the present. People's beliefs about themselves, their nation and their society are largely influenced by their sense of history; their ideas about the past.

In what is effectively a young country - Sri Lanka - that boasts of just sixty years of independence, a myriad of ethnic groups and little history of unity in the recent past, history is particularly important.

The founding fathers of the nation understood the importance of history and fuelled by the archaeological and academic discoveries of the British colonial period drew on the islands ancient past to promote a version of the country's history that emphasized the greatness of the nation's ancient civilizations.

What the nations founders realized was that pride is essential in building a successful nation and that a people must believe in themselves if they are to achieve anything. In order to inculcate in people who have been subject to colonialism and the denigration of their indigenous culture for over 400 years, emphasizing the very real achievements of the islands ancient kings seemed entirely logical.

Highlighting the fact that, at a time when most other parts of the world were in comparative darkness, the people in the dry zone of this island had developed an advanced hydraulic civilization, would it seemed help restore the people's pride in their nation and belief in the capability of indigenous people and rulers.

Every Sri Lankan should after all feel proud about the achievements of the ancient people of Anuradhapura.

The stories of ancient kings and dynasties uncovered in the Mahvamsa were incorporated into every text book and the lives and achievement of Dutugemenu, Devanmapitytissa etc. were firmly established in the minds of every student in the country.

While this historical restoration - placing ancient heroes into the national consciousness in order to keep alive national pride was certainly a worthy endeavor ultimately the project failed.

It is perhaps unusual to think of history in terms of success and failure but ultimately history is a tool that can be used to build unity and inculcate in people a sense of their common identity and heritage. The American emphasis on the story of the pilgrim fathers for example - but in Sri Lanka that did not happen.

Emphasizing the legends and stories recounted in the Mahavamsa to restore national pride did not create a sense of inclusiveness. Rather, what emerged was a sense of a country belonging to a single ethnic group, the one that claimed closes affinity to those ancient kings - the Sinhalese.

As the stage was gradually set for a post-independence conflict between the nation's two major ethnic groups, politicians began to use history to put forward their own agendas - to portray other groups as aliens, aggressors, invaders and usurpers.

With the emergence of the ethnic conflict history itself became a battle ground with both sides putting forward versions of history that supported their claims.

Tamil historians used the intermittent existence of Tamil kingdoms in the north of Sri Lanka to claim more and more of the country in the name of a Tamil homeland while the Sinhalese popular imagination began to cling doggedly to the strictures of Mahavamsa which appear to establish that Sri Lanka as an island belonging exclusively to the Sinhalese and the Buddhists.

The principle victim in this particular conflict of interests, ideologies, and ethnic groups was in fact history itself. In that the genuine study of history in an apolitical context became impossible. It became difficult to explore evidence of Sinhala settlement in the north and east of the country without being labeled a chauvinist, while anyone who attempted to give proper prominence to the substantial period of Sinhala history where Hinduism and South Indian influence was pervasive risked being dismissed as a traitor.

Again the purpose of this article is not to attack the version of history presented in the Mahavamsa and in the nation's text books, rather it is to make the fairly obvious point that in history little or nothing is certain, that many points of view are valid and that therefore every reasonable opinion deserves to be expressed and explored.

The Mahavamsa is undoubtedly an extraordinary document recording, from a particular perspective, over a millennium of history. It is a document of which all Sri Lankans should be proud but ultimately it is only a facet, a tool, in uncovering a much wider and broader history. A history of many voices and perspectives that in all probability stretches to long before the canonical date of 543 bc stated in the great chronicle as the genesis of the Sinhala nation.

This history however remains to a large extent hidden from the public eye buried in the earth and in dusty journals and the forgotten discussions of 50 years ago, for in Sri Lanka's recent past history has been subjugated by nationalism and political interests.

The arguments made by various sides have by repetition become increasingly ingrained and dogmatic. Stories, myths, legends and theories have become unquestionable tenets of faith and belief in your 'nation' The academic study of history has become marginalized - under-funded and ignored with historians unable and unwilling to question established orthodoxies.

This is tremendously unfortunate as it has prevented us as a people from developing a broader, more inclusive and ultimately truer version of our history.

So many of this country's problems have their origins in history but history itself is often at the very bottom of the government and the peoples list of priorities and interests.

One need only to look at the sorry condition of so many of the country's museums - under-funded, patronized only by school children (forced to go by their school) and the odd tourist to see the importance that history now holds in the national consciousness.

Ultimately however history is not merely a matter for the children's pages or under funded, and dead museums - it should be showcased and debated on the most visible forums available and presented from as many standpoints as possible to stimulate genuine discussion and interest.

What is truly undeniable and incontrovertible is that the history of this nation is long and utterly fascinating and its study, outside the confines of a political context will enable the people of this nation to answer the fundamental question that confronts all Sri Lankans - who we are and where are we going - with greater unity and perhaps; truth.
