Page 325 - Proceedings book

cd;sl mqrdúoHd iu¿j 2025
q
5. Conclusion

This research highlights the need to move away from colonial ways of telling Sri

Lanka’s history and to include more indigenous voices. Colonial archaeology focused
mainly on physical remains and foreign influences. It ignored the stories, beliefs, and

knowledge of local people. This paper used historical and textual analysis to show
how local sources, like the Mahāvaṃsa and community traditions, offer different and

deeper understandings of places like Anuradhapura, Sigiriya, and Ritigala.

The results show that these places are not just old ruins; they are still part of people’s

lives. Local interpretations give meaning to these sites that go beyond what colonial
writers saw. To create a more fair and complete picture of Sri Lanka’s past,

archaeology must include these local views.

This study is part of a growing movement to decolonize heritage and make
archaeology more inclusive. In the future, researchers and policymakers should work

with local communities when studying and managing archaeological sites. Doing so
will help protect both the physical remains and the cultural meanings that go with

them.

Reference

Bandaranayake, S. (1990). Archaeology of the Ancient Buddhist Sites in Sri Lanka.

Colombo: Central Cultural Fund.

Bandaranayake, S. (1993). Sigiriya: City, Palace and Royal Gardens. Colombo:

Central Cultural Fund.

Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Geiger, W. (1912). The Mahāvaṃsa: The Great Chronicle of Ceylon. London: Pali

Text Society.

304