Page 322 - Proceedings book

mqrdúoHd fomd¾;fïka;=j

Also it reveal significant contrasts between colonial interpretations and indigenous

understandings of key archaeological sites in Sri Lanka. These differences are not
only about specific facts but reflect broader divisions in how history and heritage are

viewed. While colonial scholars approached archaeology through a Eurocentric lens
that prioritized material structures, written evidence, and foreign influence,

indigenous narratives focus more on spiritual significance, cultural continuity, and

local traditions.

Colonial era writings, such as those by James Emerson Tennent and Henry Parker,

tended to interpret archaeological sites through the values of Western scholarship. For
example, they concentrated on architectural styles, inscriptions, and evidence of

contact with civilizations such as India, Greece, or Rome. This approach often framed
Sri Lanka’s cultural achievements as the result of external influence, thereby

diminishing the role of local innovation and religious traditions.

In contrast, indigenous texts like the Mahāvaṃsa and Cūḷavaṃsa present a deeply

rooted and interconnected understanding of history, where archaeological sites are not
just physical remnants but sacred spaces actively woven into religious and social life.

These texts highlight the importance of Buddhist teachings, royal patronage of the
Dhamma, and the symbolic role of sites in expressing values like piety, harmony with

nature, and spiritual discipline.

The table below shows how three major sites are viewed differently in colonial and
local narratives:

Site Colonial Interpretation Indigenous Interpretation

Ancient capital, focus on architecture Sacred city, center of Buddhist practice
Anuradhapura
and layout and rituals

Royal palace, symbol of power and Later monastery, spiritual site linked to
Sigiriya
luxury meditation

Healing place, home to forest monks and
Ritigala Minor or neglected in colonial records
local myths

301