Page 320 - Proceedings book

mqrdúoHd fomd¾;fïka;=j

suggesting that Sri Lankans were not capable of protecting or understanding their own

history. This helped justify British control over the island’s culture and heritage
(Goonatilake, 1993). Even the government institutions set up to study archaeology,

like the Department of Archaeology founded in 1890, followed Western ways of
thinking and did not include local voices (Bandaranayake, 1990, pp. 22–24).

This paper tries to challenge those old colonial views. It asks how we can understand
Sri Lanka’s history in ways that respect and include the knowledge of local

communities. The study focuses on ancient places like Anuradhapura, Sigiriya, and

Ritigala. By comparing colonial writings with local historical texts, the paper shows
how the past can look very different when told from an indigenous point of view. This

kind of approach is important not just for Sri Lanka but for any country trying to tell
its own story after colonialism.

2. Methods

Methodology
This study uses a qualitative research approach, relying on two main methods:

historical analysis and textual analysis. These methods help compare colonial
narratives with indigenous perspectives in the field of Sri Lankan archaeology. They

allow for a deeper understanding of how knowledge about the past has been produced,

framed, and contested over time.

Historical Analysis
The historical analysis focuses on reviewing primary colonial-era documents,

especially the writings of British administrators, travellers, and early archaeologists
such as James Emerson Tennent (1859) and Henry Parker (1909). These individuals

played a major role in shaping how Sri Lanka’s past was presented to both local and

international audiences. Their works were often influenced by the colonial goal of
establishing control over the cultural and intellectual landscape of the island.By

carefully reading these texts, this research aims to identify patterns and biases in how

colonial scholars portrayed Sri Lanka’s archaeological sites. For example, many of
them suggested that significant architectural and cultural developments in Sri Lanka

came from Indian, Persian, or European influence, downplaying or ignoring
indigenous contributions. This method helps to uncover how these colonial writings

299