“Indeed Dhātusena (455–73) had hardly consolidated his position when he was murdered by his son Kassapa who usurped the throne at Anurādhapura at the expense of Moggallāna I, Kassapa’s brother, whom Dhātusena had been grooming as his legitimate successor. There was, for a brief period under Upatissa II (517–18) and his successors, a return of the Lambakaṇṇas to power, but Mahānāga (569–71) re-established Moriya control. His immediate successors Aggabodhi I (571–604) and Aggdobhi II (604–14) managed to maintain the Moriya grip on the Anurādhapura throne but not to consolidate their position, for the Lambakaṇṇas were in fact always a formidable threat, and under Moggallāna III (614–17) they overthrew Saṅghatissa II (614), who proved to be the last of the Moriya kings. It took nearly six decades of devastating civil war for the Lambakaṇṇas to re-establish their supremacy, but having done so they maintained their pre-eminence once again over a great length of time. Indeed the second Lambakaṇṇa dynasty established by Mānavamma gave the island two centuries of comparatively stable government. In the last phase of the dynasty’s spell of power the severest tests that confronted it came from South India invaders and not local rivals.” [1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 18-19) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
| present |
| present |
| present |
| present |
| present |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| present |
| present |
| present |
| present |
| absent |
| Year Range | Anurādhapura IV (sl_anuradhapura_4) was in: |
|---|
“According to the written history, the origin of present Anuradhapura has connections with the migrations that happened during the 5th to 6th century BCE, from India. Accordingly, the name Anuradhapura is due to two ‘Anuradha’s settled at this site during different periods. The first Anuradha was a man, among the one of 700 followers of Vijaya (prince), who came from India, and landed on the north-west coast in Sri Lanka during the 5th to 6th century. Vijaya was the first king of this civilization. The second Anuradha was a prince, one of six brothers of princess Bhaddakachana, the daughter of a Sakyan king, who arrived in Sri Lanka with thirty-two maidens for the consecration of Panduvasudeva (444 BCE–414 BCE). Her six brothers arrived later to Sri Lanka and settled down at different places, according to their wish. One of her brothers, Anuradha, built Anuradhagama. ‘Anuradha built a tank, and when he had built a palace to the south of this, he took up his abode there.’ This gives an important insight to the long history of urbanism, settlement and the agriculture and irrigation of Sri Lanka. For the building of a tank, he might have utilized indigenous knowledge and work- force (of pre-Vijaya); the storage of water should be for the irrigation and cultivation, as Malwathu Oya nearby was well enough for the daily consumption. This geographical and historical information is evidence of the anthropological ethnographical experience of the natural landscape location of Anuradhapura as important for a human settlement, which guides the dwelling, process of dwelling and the orientation of the place.” [1] “In the Mahavamsa, the Great Chronicle, the time before the arrival of the first Aryan settlers is not described in detail. The chronicle refers to the island being inhabited by spirits and nagas—snakes or snake demons. It is assumed that this is the Aryans’ mythical conception of an indigenous population of hunters and gatherers. This indigenous population was first challenged by the arrival of the first Aryan settlers from North India. In the fifth century BC these Aryan settlers started to occupy parts of the island. They either pushed back the aboriginal inhabitants into the interior of the island or, at times, mixed with them. The Aryans were organised in clans. The Sinhalas, the most powerful clan, settled in the northern Dry Zone and introduced the cultivation of rice and the use of iron to the island. From intermarriages of the Aryans with the aboriginal people of Ceylon and with immigrants of South Indian Dravidian stock sprang the Sinhalese as an ethnic group. A regular supply of water was crucial for survival in the Dry Zone. Rainfall was not reliable and provided the settlers with only a single crop per year. Thus, the settlers started to develop considerable skills in the construction of irrigation works. At first, these works aimed at the conservation and storage of surplus water for the dry season, later the settlers also constructed works for the equal distribution of water in the region. The first large scale tank for the storage of water was constructed near the village of Anuradhagama which was later chosen as the capital of the region—under the name of Anuradhapura.” [2]
[1]: (De Silva 2019, 166-168) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection
[2]: (Wenzlhuemer, R. 2008, 19) Wenzlhuemer, Roland. 2008. From Coffee to Tea Cultivation in Ceylon, 1880–1900: An Economic and Social History. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/EMUGE5WD/collection
“The ancient city of Anuraduapura was the capital of Sri Lanka for over a millennium; its massive stupas rising over the jungle, its gigantic reservoirs turning an arid land green and its Kings and Queens ruling over the island of Sri Lanka.” [1] “Until the end of the 10th century, when its pre-eminence was eclipsed by the rise of Polonnaruva, successful rebels always continued to rule from Anur dhapura, and it is correct to maintain that for more than a millennium this fortified city represented the power of the state.” [2]
[1]: (Strickland 2017, 1) Strickland, Keir Magalie. 2017. A Time of Change: Questioning the Collapse of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4B8362A9/collection
[2]: (Gunawardana 1989, 158). Gunawardana, R.A.L.H. 1989. ‘Anurādhapura: ritual, power and resistance in a precolonial South Asian city’. Domination and Resistance edited by Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands, Chris Tilley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/G8CWKJ2U/collection
“The first large scale tank for the storage of water was constructed near the village of Anuradhagama which was later chosen as the capital of the region—under the name of Anuradhapura.” [1]
[1]: (Wenzlhuemer, R. 2008, 19) Wenzlhuemer, Roland. 2008. From Coffee to Tea Cultivation in Ceylon, 1880–1900An Economic and Social History. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/EMUGE5WD/collection
“The political structure whose main features we have analysed above survived the accession of Mānavamma and the establishment of dynastic stability in the period of the Lambakaṇṇa monopoly of power in the seventh to the tenth centuries. True, the succession disputes which kept the politics of the early Anurādhapura kingdom in a state of semi-permanent crisis largely disappeared. True also that there was an enlargement and greater sophistication in the administrative machinery, that royal authority was augmented and that particularism was at a discount when powerful rulers controlled Anurādhapura, as they did with greater frequency in this period. But neither singly nor in combination did these changes amount to a fundamental change in the political system of the Anurādhapura kingdom.” [1] “It took nearly six decades of devastating civil war for the Lambakaṇṇas to re-establish their supremacy, but having done so they maintained their pre-eminence once again over a great length of time. Indeed the second Lambakaṇṇa dynasty established by Mānavamma gave the island two centuries of comparatively stable government. In the last phase of the dynasty’s spell of power the severest tests that confronted it came from South India invaders and not local rivals.” [2]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 24) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[2]: (De Silva 1981, 18-19) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“Thus the adoption of Polonnaruva as the capital of the Sinhalese kingdom by four kings of the period between the seventh and tenth centuries, and the final abandonment of Anurādhapura in its favour, were determined as much by considerations of economic advantage as by strategic and military factors.” [1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 31) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“The Moriya challenge to the Lambakaṇṇas fizzled out by the end of the seventh century AD and the competition between them was replaced by a Lambakaṇṇa monopoly of power. But the comparative political stability of the period of the second Lambakaṇṇa dynasty owed less to the disappearance of the Moriya threat to their power than to other factors. Of these latter the most important had to do with the law of succession to the throne.” [1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 19) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
Inferred from the following quotes. “One important theme emerges from this: the comparative weakness of the central authority vis-à-vis the outlying provinces under the Anurādhapura kings generally. Thus the Sinhalese kingdom was not a highly centralized structure but one in which a balance of political forces incorporated a tolerance of particularism. This held true for the whole history of the Anuradhapura kingdom”. [1] “The records relating to the Anuradhapura Period (fourth century BC to the end of the 10th century AD) give a convincing basis to the fact that the ancient Sri Lankan state had matured and evolved to the point that sophisticated city planning (for example, of the capital Anuradhapura) coexisted with a mode of highly decentralized governance. It would be a fair generalization to say that the Anuradhapura civilization was founded on a pattern of autonomous villages. While the king was the all-powerful ruler and custodian of all land, day-to- day life was controlled by a decentralized village administration.” [2] “Lists of officials which occur in inscriptions of the ninth and tenth centuries, when the irrigation network of Sri Lanka was most extensive and highly developed, have been cited as evidence of a hydraulic bureaucracy. Quite clearly the services of men with a high degree of technical skill were necessary for the construction of large and complex irrigation works, for their maintenance in good repair, and for the regulation of irrigation water to fields. [...] On the contrary, hydraulic society as it developed in Sri Lanka was not a centralised despotism, rigidly authoritarian and highly bureaucratic, but had many of the attributes of a feudal society, with power devolving on monastic institutions and the gentry. [...] Income-producing irrigation units, such as tanks and canals, and the fields fed by them paid a tax—bojakapathi—probably paid in kind. This the king sometimes granted to individuals as renumeration for services rendered to the state. Such grants were also made to the saṅgha. In a society in which irrigation was of such crucial significance, water was treated as a precious commodity which could be bought and sold as it passes through the tanks, the canals and fields, with the ‘owner’ or tanks (vapi-hamika) imposing a charge for the water that passed through and in turn paying for the water that came in. Because he had the largest of the tanks as his special preserve, and a controlling interest in the whole irrigation system, the king was the prime beneficiary of this levy on water. Until the beginning of the seventh century AD, this payment was called dakapathi. It was paid to the king as well as collected by private ‘owners’ of small reservoirs and canals. In the ninth and tenth centuries, the payment for the share of water made to the king was called diyadedum, and it was termed diyadada in the time of the Polonnaruva kings. In addition to the right to dakapathi, the king claimed a share of the produce from all occupied and cultivated land. Unoccupied waste, both fallow and cultivable, was regarded as being in the king’s ‘possession’, and over these—forests and waste lands, cleared and cultivated—he could grant virtually complete ‘proprietary’ rights to any individual or institution if he so wished.” [3] “Inscriptions mainly from the ninth century AD, contain references to a type of tenure known as pamuṇu or paraveṇi, which in the context of the land tenure system of that time conveyed the meaning of heritable right to perpetuity. Religious and charitable institutions received pamuṇu property in at least three ways, namely royal grant, purchase and inheritance (inheritance of land was normally within a framework of kinship). The king also granted pamuṇu rights to individuals, usually are rewards. Pamuṇu were subject to no service except in cases where the king stipulated at the time of the grant that a comparatively small payment shall be made to a religious or charitable institution.” [4] “The result was that while the corps of officials in the bureaucracy and in the court kept increasing in number, they did not, for much of the period of the Anurādhapura kings, develop into a baronial class, a feudal aristocracy with very large areas of the country’s agricultural land parcelled out among them. By the ninth century, however, this picture begins to change. The inscriptions of this period refer to a form of tenure known as divel—property granted to officials or functionaries in the employment of the state or of monasteries. (A divel holding from a monastery would be no more than the grant of the revenue of the land allotted to a functionary). Divel holdings were, in effect, property rights bestowed on an individual as subsistence in return for services rendered to the grantor, and were terminable on the death of an employee or at the will of the granting authority. The recipient of a divel holding got the revenue which the king or a monastery had enjoyed earlier. […] Divel tenure was thus doubly significant; it marked a strengthening of rights to private property, and the emergence of a trend towards feudal rights, and of a class of landlord-officials who became a powerful group of intermediaries between the cultivators and royal authority.” [5]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 23) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[2]: (Sirivardana 2004, 228) Wignaraja, Ponna and Susil Sirivardana. 2004. Pro-Poor Growth and Governance in South Asia: Decentralization and Participatory Development. New Delhi: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UBZVJ7PT/collection
[3]: (De Silva 1981, 33, 36-37) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[4]: (De Silva 1981, 37) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[5]: (De Silva 1981, 38) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
Inferred from the following quotes. “One important theme emerges from this: the comparative weakness of the central authority vis-à-vis the outlying provinces under the Anurādhapura kings generally. Thus the Sinhalese kingdom was not a highly centralized structure but one in which a balance of political forces incorporated a tolerance of particularism. This held true for the whole history of the Anuradhapura kingdom”. [1] “The records relating to the Anuradhapura Period (fourth century BC to the end of the 10th century AD) give a convincing basis to the fact that the ancient Sri Lankan state had matured and evolved to the point that sophisticated city planning (for example, of the capital Anuradhapura) coexisted with a mode of highly decentralized governance. It would be a fair generalization to say that the Anuradhapura civilization was founded on a pattern of autonomous villages. While the king was the all-powerful ruler and custodian of all land, day-to- day life was controlled by a decentralized village administration.” [2] “Lists of officials which occur in inscriptions of the ninth and tenth centuries, when the irrigation network of Sri Lanka was most extensive and highly developed, have been cited as evidence of a hydraulic bureaucracy. Quite clearly the services of men with a high degree of technical skill were necessary for the construction of large and complex irrigation works, for their maintenance in good repair, and for the regulation of irrigation water to fields. [...] On the contrary, hydraulic society as it developed in Sri Lanka was not a centralised despotism, rigidly authoritarian and highly bureaucratic, but had many of the attributes of a feudal society, with power devolving on monastic institutions and the gentry. [...] Income-producing irrigation units, such as tanks and canals, and the fields fed by them paid a tax—bojakapathi—probably paid in kind. This the king sometimes granted to individuals as renumeration for services rendered to the state. Such grants were also made to the saṅgha. In a society in which irrigation was of such crucial significance, water was treated as a precious commodity which could be bought and sold as it passes through the tanks, the canals and fields, with the ‘owner’ or tanks (vapi-hamika) imposing a charge for the water that passed through and in turn paying for the water that came in. Because he had the largest of the tanks as his special preserve, and a controlling interest in the whole irrigation system, the king was the prime beneficiary of this levy on water. Until the beginning of the seventh century AD, this payment was called dakapathi. It was paid to the king as well as collected by private ‘owners’ of small reservoirs and canals. In the ninth and tenth centuries, the payment for the share of water made to the king was called diyadedum, and it was termed diyadada in the time of the Polonnaruva kings. In addition to the right to dakapathi, the king claimed a share of the produce from all occupied and cultivated land. Unoccupied waste, both fallow and cultivable, was regarded as being in the king’s ‘possession’, and over these—forests and waste lands, cleared and cultivated—he could grant virtually complete ‘proprietary’ rights to any individual or institution if he so wished.” [3] “Inscriptions mainly from the ninth century AD, contain references to a type of tenure known as pamuṇu or paraveṇi, which in the context of the land tenure system of that time conveyed the meaning of heritable right to perpetuity. Religious and charitable institutions received pamuṇu property in at least three ways, namely royal grant, purchase and inheritance (inheritance of land was normally within a framework of kinship). The king also granted pamuṇu rights to individuals, usually are rewards. Pamuṇu were subject to no service except in cases where the king stipulated at the time of the grant that a comparatively small payment shall be made to a religious or charitable institution.” [4] “The result was that while the corps of officials in the bureaucracy and in the court kept increasing in number, they did not, for much of the period of the Anurādhapura kings, develop into a baronial class, a feudal aristocracy with very large areas of the country’s agricultural land parcelled out among them. By the ninth century, however, this picture begins to change. The inscriptions of this period refer to a form of tenure known as divel—property granted to officials or functionaries in the employment of the state or of monasteries. (A divel holding from a monastery would be no more than the grant of the revenue of the land allotted to a functionary). Divel holdings were, in effect, property rights bestowed on an individual as subsistence in return for services rendered to the grantor, and were terminable on the death of an employee or at the will of the granting authority. The recipient of a divel holding got the revenue which the king or a monastery had enjoyed earlier. […] Divel tenure was thus doubly significant; it marked a strengthening of rights to private property, and the emergence of a trend towards feudal rights, and of a class of landlord-officials who became a powerful group of intermediaries between the cultivators and royal authority.” [5]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 23) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[2]: (Sirivardana 2004, 228) Wignaraja, Ponna and Susil Sirivardana. 2004. Pro-Poor Growth and Governance in South Asia: Decentralization and Participatory Development. New Delhi: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/UBZVJ7PT/collection
[3]: (De Silva 1981, 33, 36-37) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[4]: (De Silva 1981, 37) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[5]: (De Silva 1981, 38) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“It is an Indo-European language (associated with north Indian Prakrit branch) that evolved from the foundational Sinhala Prakrit (which was in use until the third century CE), to Proto-Sinhala (until the seventh century CE), medieval Sinhala (twelfth century CE), and modern Sinhala (twelfth century CE to the present).” [1]
[1]: (Schug and Walimbe 2016, 582) Schug, Gwen Robbins, and Subhash R. Walimbe. 2016. A Companion to South Asia in the Past, 2016. Somerset: Wiley. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/7MXIBSHQ/collection
Also known as Sinhalese. “Sinhalese oral histories about the peopling of Sri Lanka suggest that north India ruling castes migrated to Sri Lanka around the sixth century BCE and that was the origin of Sinhalese speakers in Sri Lanka today.” [1] “Sinhalese as a distinct language and script developed rapidly under the joint stimuli of Pāli and Buddhism. Indeed it would be true to say that the art of writing came to Sri Lanka with Buddhism. By the second century AD Sinhalese was being used to literary purposes, and thereafter a body of religious writing explaining the Pāli canon was accumulated, primarily for the purpose of conveying its ideas to those not conversant with Pāli. The Sinhalese language was also enriched by translations from Pāli. But Pāli did not remain for long the only or even the dominant influence on Sinhalese. Sanskrit, the language of the Mahāyānist and Hindu scriptures, which was richer in idiom, vocabulary and vitality, left a strong impression on the Sinhalese language in the later centuries of the Anurādhapura era. There was also a considerable Tamil influences on the vocabulary, idiom and grammatical structure of Sinhalese.” [2]
[1]: (Schug and Walimbe 2016, 582) Schug, Gwen Robbins, and Subhash R. Walimbe. 2016. A Companion to South Asia in the Past, 2016. Somerset: Wiley. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/7MXIBSHQ/collection
[2]: (De Silva, 1981, 58) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
Influence of Hinduism is inferred from the following quotes. “Anuradhapura (377 BCE–1017 CE) was the first Buddhist city in Sri Lanka.” [1] “it is very likely that the early Aryans brough with them some form of Brāhmanism. By the first century BC, however Buddhism had been introduced to the island, and was well established in the main areas of settlement. According to Mahāvaṁsa the entry of Buddhism to Sri Lanka occurred in the reign of Devānampiya Tissa (250-210 BC), a contemporary of the great Mauryan Emperor Aśoka whose emissary Mahinda (Aśoka’s son, as some authorities would have it, or his brother, as is suggested by others) converted Devānampiya Tissa to the new faith. Once again the Mahāvaṁsa’s account of events conceals as much as it reveals, and what it hides in this instance is the probability that Buddhists and Buddhism came to the island much earlier than that.” [2] “ “It was in the later centuries of the Anurādhapura kingdom that the Hindu influence on Buddhism became more pronounced as a necessary result of political and religious change in South India. The early years of the Christian era saw Buddhism strongly entrenched in South India, and Nāgārjunikoṇḍa (in Andhra) and Kāñchī were famous Buddhist centres there. Close links were established between these South Indian Buddhist centres and Sri Lanka. There was a Sri Lanka vihara at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa, and the introduction and establishment of the new heterodox Buddhist sects of Sri Lanka was the work primarily of visiting ecclesiastics from India or Sri Lankan students of famous Indian theologians. After the sixth century all that remained of South Indian Buddhism, inundated by the rising tide of an aggressive Hindu revivalism, were a few isolated pockets in Orissa, for example, maintaining a stubborn but nonetheless precarious existence. There was no recovery from that onslaught. The intrusive pressures of South Indian kingdoms on the politics of Sri Lanka carried with them also the religious impact of a more self-confident Hinduism. All this was especially powerful after the Cōla invasions and Cōla rule. There was, for instance, the influence of Hindu ritual and modes of worship; faith in the magical effect of incantations, a great Vedic phenomenon, and more importantly in bhakti (devotion as a means of salvation), which was an important part of Hinduism from about the seventh century AD, strengthened the shift from the ethical to the devotional aspects of Buddhism initiated by Mahāyānism. Hindu shrines came to be located close to vihāras. The assimilation of Hindu practices in Buddhism, of which this was evidence, was reinforced by the gradual accommodation in Buddhist mythology of Hindu deities such as Upuluvan, Saman and Nātha. This latter occurred by the tenth century.” [3] “Thus Sri Lanka’s Theravāda Buddhism accommodated a variety of religious influences—pre-Buddhistic cults and practices, Mahāyānism, Tantric Buddhism and Hinduism—but was not overwhelmed by any or all of them.” [4] “The closest and most intimate ties were with the Buddhist kingdoms of South-East Asia, especially with lands where the prevalent form of Buddhism was Theravādin. Thus there were frequent exchanged of pilgrims and scriptural knowledge with Rāmaṇṇa in Burma. These links became stronger after the tenth century. The resuscitation of the Sinhalese saṅgha after the destructive effects of the Cōḷa conquests owed a great deal to bhikkhus from upper Burma sent over for this purpose by its king at the request of Vijayabāhu I (1055–1110).” [4] “Around 1000 CE, the future of Buddhism in Sri Lanka came into danger as well, as the South Indian Cōḻas under the kings Rājarāja and Rājendra set out to not only conquer the island and its capital Anurādhapura, but also made it a province of the Cōḻa Empire for most of the eleventh century. Despite being separated from the mainland, the Anurādhapura kingdom had always been part of the political structure of South India and had experienced invasions from the mainland on several occasions. The latest Cōḻa conquest was a particular disaster, as it first resulted in the plunder and destruction of the capital and then the integration of the island into the Cōḻa empire, with Poḷonnaruva becoming the capital of the new province. More importantly, the destruction and plundering of the capital terminated the hitherto uninterrupted lineage of the Mahāvihāra. Never again mentioned in the chronicles, it continued to exist only as a notion, while relics (and especially the Tooth Relic) took the monastery’s place as a central religious site. The relics were salvaged by monks, who had managed to escape to Rohana, the island’s southern region. It also was in Rohana that a resistance movement formed under Vijaya Bāhu I, which eventually succeeded to restore the former Sinhala kingdom in the north and push the Cōḻas back to India. But before this, by the mid-eleventh century, Theravāda Buddhism seemed set to become extinguished on the island.” [5]
[1]: (De Silva 2019, 163) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection
[2]: (De Silva, 1981, 9) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[3]: (De Silva 1981, 50-51) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[4]: (De Silva 1981, 51) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[5]: (Frasch 2017, 70) Frasch, Tilman. 2017. ‘A Palii cosmopolis? Sri Lanka and the Theravada Buddhist ecumene, c. 500–1500’. Sri Lanka at the Crossroads of History. London: UCL Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JQMKSIWF/collection
Influence of Hinduism is inferred from the following quotes. “Anuradhapura (377 BCE–1017 CE) was the first Buddhist city in Sri Lanka.” [1] “it is very likely that the early Aryans brough with them some form of Brāhmanism. By the first century BC, however Buddhism had been introduced to the island, and was well established in the main areas of settlement. According to Mahāvaṁsa the entry of Buddhism to Sri Lanka occurred in the reign of Devānampiya Tissa (250-210 BC), a contemporary of the great Mauryan Emperor Aśoka whose emissary Mahinda (Aśoka’s son, as some authorities would have it, or his brother, as is suggested by others) converted Devānampiya Tissa to the new faith. Once again the Mahāvaṁsa’s account of events conceals as much as it reveals, and what it hides in this instance is the probability that Buddhists and Buddhism came to the island much earlier than that.” [2] “ “It was in the later centuries of the Anurādhapura kingdom that the Hindu influence on Buddhism became more pronounced as a necessary result of political and religious change in South India. The early years of the Christian era saw Buddhism strongly entrenched in South India, and Nāgārjunikoṇḍa (in Andhra) and Kāñchī were famous Buddhist centres there. Close links were established between these South Indian Buddhist centres and Sri Lanka. There was a Sri Lanka vihara at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa, and the introduction and establishment of the new heterodox Buddhist sects of Sri Lanka was the work primarily of visiting ecclesiastics from India or Sri Lankan students of famous Indian theologians. After the sixth century all that remained of South Indian Buddhism, inundated by the rising tide of an aggressive Hindu revivalism, were a few isolated pockets in Orissa, for example, maintaining a stubborn but nonetheless precarious existence. There was no recovery from that onslaught. The intrusive pressures of South Indian kingdoms on the politics of Sri Lanka carried with them also the religious impact of a more self-confident Hinduism. All this was especially powerful after the Cōla invasions and Cōla rule. There was, for instance, the influence of Hindu ritual and modes of worship; faith in the magical effect of incantations, a great Vedic phenomenon, and more importantly in bhakti (devotion as a means of salvation), which was an important part of Hinduism from about the seventh century AD, strengthened the shift from the ethical to the devotional aspects of Buddhism initiated by Mahāyānism. Hindu shrines came to be located close to vihāras. The assimilation of Hindu practices in Buddhism, of which this was evidence, was reinforced by the gradual accommodation in Buddhist mythology of Hindu deities such as Upuluvan, Saman and Nātha. This latter occurred by the tenth century.” [3] “Thus Sri Lanka’s Theravāda Buddhism accommodated a variety of religious influences—pre-Buddhistic cults and practices, Mahāyānism, Tantric Buddhism and Hinduism—but was not overwhelmed by any or all of them.” [4] “The closest and most intimate ties were with the Buddhist kingdoms of South-East Asia, especially with lands where the prevalent form of Buddhism was Theravādin. Thus there were frequent exchanged of pilgrims and scriptural knowledge with Rāmaṇṇa in Burma. These links became stronger after the tenth century. The resuscitation of the Sinhalese saṅgha after the destructive effects of the Cōḷa conquests owed a great deal to bhikkhus from upper Burma sent over for this purpose by its king at the request of Vijayabāhu I (1055–1110).” [4] “Around 1000 CE, the future of Buddhism in Sri Lanka came into danger as well, as the South Indian Cōḻas under the kings Rājarāja and Rājendra set out to not only conquer the island and its capital Anurādhapura, but also made it a province of the Cōḻa Empire for most of the eleventh century. Despite being separated from the mainland, the Anurādhapura kingdom had always been part of the political structure of South India and had experienced invasions from the mainland on several occasions. The latest Cōḻa conquest was a particular disaster, as it first resulted in the plunder and destruction of the capital and then the integration of the island into the Cōḻa empire, with Poḷonnaruva becoming the capital of the new province. More importantly, the destruction and plundering of the capital terminated the hitherto uninterrupted lineage of the Mahāvihāra. Never again mentioned in the chronicles, it continued to exist only as a notion, while relics (and especially the Tooth Relic) took the monastery’s place as a central religious site. The relics were salvaged by monks, who had managed to escape to Rohana, the island’s southern region. It also was in Rohana that a resistance movement formed under Vijaya Bāhu I, which eventually succeeded to restore the former Sinhala kingdom in the north and push the Cōḻas back to India. But before this, by the mid-eleventh century, Theravāda Buddhism seemed set to become extinguished on the island.” [5]
[1]: (De Silva 2019, 163) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection
[2]: (De Silva, 1981, 9) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[3]: (De Silva 1981, 50-51) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[4]: (De Silva 1981, 51) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[5]: (Frasch 2017, 70) Frasch, Tilman. 2017. ‘A Palii cosmopolis? Sri Lanka and the Theravada Buddhist ecumene, c. 500–1500’. Sri Lanka at the Crossroads of History. London: UCL Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JQMKSIWF/collection
“Though it was never able to displace Theravāda Buddhism from its position of primary, Mahāyānism had a profound influence on Sri Lankan Buddhism. This it achieved by the response it evoked among the people, in the shift of emphasis from the ethical to the devotional aspect of religion. To the lay Buddhist Mahāyānist ritual and ceremonies had a compelling attraction, and they became a vital part of worship. The anniversary of the birth of Buddha became a festive occasion celebrated under state auspices. Relics of the Buddha and of the early disciples became the basis of a powerful cult of relic worship.” [1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 49) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
levels.1. Capital :2. Major religious sites ::3. Provinces :::4. Towns (inferred) ::::5. Villages (inferred) :::: “Influenced by Buddhism, large stupas and monasteries were sponsored and constructed by the rulers; many of them have survived the ravages of time and are testament to the historical links established between peninsular South Asia and island Sri Lanka.” [1] “Buddha visited the Anuradhapura during the third visit to Sri Lanka, seated with his disciples, in a meditative posture, at the places where the great Tupa (present Ruwanwelisaya), Thuparamaya and sacred Bodhi tree coming afterward, marked three important points.” [2] “With the passage of time, the number of administrative units within the island increased. By the first quarter of the sixth century, there were already three of these. Silākālā (518-31) handed over the administration of two of the provinces of the kingdom to his elder sons, retaining the rest for himself. To his eldest son Moggallāna he granted the division to the east of the capital; Dakkhinadesa, which was the southern part of the Anurādhapura kingdom, went to his second son, together with the control of the sea-coast.” [3] “The introduction of Buddhism, during the reign of Devanampiyatissa (247 BCE–207 BCE), by Arhat Mahinda (from India) made a significant contribution to advancing the urban landscape to the Buddhist sacred city Anuradhapura. The growing demand for food due to the increasing number of urban population in monasteries, worshiping places, related services, and the workforce employed in new constructions, reshaped the landscape and urban agriculture achieving the new balance and created a Buddhist sacred city. However, the new city comprehends the same orientation directed by the natural landscape elements. Adding three more large wewa, and related agriculture lands further strengthened the orientation (Fig. 7d). The citadel and monasteries were in the same location as in the Pandukabhaya’s city, continuing the same anthropological – ethnographical understanding. Agriculture and irrigation signify the boundary/periphery of the urban landscape while the centre is represented by the stupa, monasteries and the citadel. In brief, the orientation in Anuradhapura directs the centre, physically and non-physically. In the urban landscape, centre is symbolized through piers of the stupa, urban monasteries, and citadel, while agriculture and irrigation at the periphery enhance the centre.” [4]
[1]: (Schug and Walimbe 2016, 581) Schug, Gwen Robbins and Subhash R. Walimbe. 2016. A Companion to South Asia in the Past. Somerset: Wiley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/7MXIBSHQ/collection
[2]: (De Silva 2019, 168-170) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection
[3]: (De Silva 1981, 21) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[4]: (De Silva 2019, 170). De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection
levels.1.Kings :2. Court Officials ::3. Provincial/regional governors :::4. Pramukhas ::::5. Village headmen ::::: “With the establishment of the second Lambakaṇṇa dynasty, succession to the throne came to depend more on custom and well-established practice, and kings followed each other in the succession from brother to brother and on to the next generation. In combination with a stable and accepted mode of succession to the throne, the sanctity that now surrounded the king—due to the spread of Mahāyānist ideas, in particular the belief that kingship was akin to divinity—made it much more difficult for pretenders to the throne and rivals in general to command a politically viable following even when weak kings ascended the throne. […] These auxiliaries became in time a vitally important, if not the most powerful, element in the armies of Sinhalese rulers some of whom, notably Aggabodhi III (628, 629-39) favor because they owed their position largely to their support. From serving the strictly limited purposes for which they had been hired—fighting on behalf of aspirants to the throne, or sustaining a ruler in power—they became in time king-makers, a volatile unpredictable group and a turbulent element who were in themselves, quite often, the greatest threat to the stability of the realm. […] With the passage of time, the number of administrative units within the island increased. By the first quarter of the sixth century, there were already three of these. Silākālā (518-31) handed over the administration of two of the provinces of the kingdom to his elder sons, retaining the rest for himself. To his eldest son Moggallāna he granted the division to the east of the capital; Dakkhinadesa, which was the southern part of the Anurādhapura kingdom, went to his second son, together with the control of the sea-coast. […] By the tenth century there was a regular hierarchy of officials with a wide range of titles. Evidently a complex administrative structure had emerged; its writ ran in many parts of the country and affected many aspects of the lives of the people (especially in the field of irrigation). But it is impossible to reach any firm conclusions about the precise function of the bulk of these officials, or to assess the nature of their impact on the outlying provinces. […] There is also the position of the parumakas (from the Sanskrit pramukha, chief or notable) or the kulīna gentry closely connected with the clan structure of Sinhalese society. They were clearly people of standing and importance, a social elite of distinctly higher status than the village headmen (gamika) and others. Kinship ties linked some of them to the ruling elite—high officials in the court and elsewhere—and in some instances to the royal family itself. Very likely they had special privileges in terms of land, and their claim to ‘proprietary’ rights over land and irrigation works for back to the earliest inscriptions.” [1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
Full-time specialists “Lists of officials which occur in inscriptions of the ninth and tenth centuries, when the irrigation network of Sri Lanka was most extensive and highly developed, have been cited as evidence of a hydraulic bureaucracy. Quite clearly the services of men with a high degree of technical skill were necessary for the construction of large and complex irrigation works, for their maintenance in good repair, and for the regulation of irrigation water to fields.” [1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 33) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“By the tenth century there was a vast array of irrigation works spread over a substantial part of the dry zone of the country. The monumental scale of the large tanks is positive evidence of a prosperous economy and a well-organised state which had so great an agricultural surplus to invest in these projects as well as on religious and public buildings designed on a lavish scale. By itself the irrigation network of ancient Sri Lanka was a tribute to the ingenuity of her engineers and craftsmen, and the organisational skills of her rulers. […] Proximity to the Mahaväli, the longest river in Sri Lanka, increased the economic potential of this region. Mahāsena had built the famous Minneriya tank there, and between the fourth and ninth centuries a number of smaller tanks in the region would have helped sustain a considerable population producing a substantial agricultural surplus. The economic importance of the region was further enhanced by the development of commercial relations with China and South-East Asia, in which the port of Gokonna (modern Trincomalee) would have played a prominent part. Thus the adoption of Polonnaruva as the capital of the Sinhalese kingdom by four kings of the period between the seventh and tenth centuries, and the final abandonment of Anurādhapura in its favour, were determined as much by considerations of economic advantage as by strategic and military factors. [1]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 31) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“The outer reaches of the city are defined by the presence of three artificial lakes, the Basawak Kulam, the Tessa Wewa and the Nuwara Wewa covering areas of 91, 160 and 1288ha respectively. With dates ranging from the fourth century BC for the Basavak Kulam in the first century AD for the Nuwara Wewa, they were augmented in the fifth century AD with feeder channels and canals (Brohier 1934). This hydraulic system allowed excess wet season water to be stored for drinking and irrigation agriculture as well as enabling the diverting of water from other river catchments to large storage tanks, such as the Nachchaduwa, before being released into Anuradhapura’s system.” [1] “Proximity to the Mahaväli, the longest river in Sri Lanka, increased the economic potential of this region. Mahāsena had built the famous Minneriya tank there, and between the fourth and ninth centuries a number of smaller tanks in the region would have helped sustain a considerable population producing a substantial agricultural surplus. The economic importance of the region was further enhanced by the development of commercial relations with China and South-East Asia, in which the port of Gokonna (modern Trincomalee) would have played a prominent part. Thus the adoption of Polonnaruva as the capital of the Sinhalese kingdom by four kings of the period between the seventh and tenth centuries, and the final abandonment of Anurādhapura in its favour, were determined as much by considerations of economic advantage as by strategic and military factors. [2]
[1]: (Coningham, Robin et al. 2007, 703). Coningham, Robin et al. 2007. “The State of Theocracy: Defining an Early Medieval Hinterland in Sri Lanka.” Antiquity. Vol 81:313. Pp 699-719. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/M4HWIC84/collection
[2]: (De Silva 1981, 31) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
Hospitals (as an example of a utilitarian public building although this kind of public building does not reflect the four variables to follow), Irrigation systems, drinking water supply systems. “Amenities at the city included institutions for medical care. In the 4th century Upatissa I provided maternity homes, hospitals and homes for the crippled and the blind (1925, Ch. 37, v. 182).” [1] “The outer reaches of the city are defined by the presence of three artificial lakes, the Basawak Kulam, the Tessa Wewa and the Nuwara Wewa covering areas of 91, 160 and 1288ha respectively. With dates ranging from the fourth century BC for the Basavak Kulam in the first century AD for the Nuwara Wewa, they were augmented in the fifth century AD with feeder channels and canals (Brohier 1934). This hydraulic system allowed excess wet season water to be stored for drinking and irrigation agriculture as well as enabling the diverting of water from other river catchments to large storage tanks, such as the Nachchaduwa, before being released into Anuradhapura’s system.” [2] “The earliest projects were no doubt directed more at conserving than at diverting water on any large scale. But by the first century AD, large-scale irrigation works were being built. The construction of tanks, canals and channels which this involved exhibited an amazing knowledge of trigonometry, and the design of the tanks a thorough grasp of hydraulic principles. The tanks had broad bases which could withstand heavy pressures, and at suitable points in the embankment there were outlets for the discharge of water. The Sinhalese were the ‘first inventors of the valve pit’ (bisokotuva), counterpart of the sluice which regulated the flow of water from a modern reservoir or tank. The engineers of the third century BC or earlier who invented it had done their work with a sophistication and mastery that enabled their successors of later centuries merely to copy the original device with only minor adaptations or changes, if any. […] The reign of Dhātusena (455-73) matched, if it did not surpass the achievements of Mahāsena and Vasabha in the extension of the island’s irrigation network. He is said to have added t the irrigation works in the Mahaväli region by building a dam across that river. But the main focus of attention in irrigation activity during his reign seems to have been the development of water resources in the western part of the dry zone. By far the most impressive achievement by this period is the construction of Kalāväva, which trapped the Kalā-Oya and helped to supplement the supply of water to Anurādhapura and the area round the city. […] By the tenth century there was a vast array of irrigation works spread over a substantial part of the dry zone of the country. The monumental scale of the large tanks is positive evidence of a prosperous economy and a well-organised state which had so great an agricultural surplus to invest in these projects as well as on religious and public buildings designed on a lavish scale. By itself the irrigation network of ancient Sri Lanka was a tribute to the ingenuity of her engineers and craftsmen, and the organisational skills of her rulers. […] Proximity to the Mahaväli, the longest river in Sri Lanka, increased the economic potential of this region. Mahāsena had built the famous Minneriya tank there, and between the fourth and ninth centuries a number of smaller tanks in the region would have helped sustain a considerable population producing a substantial agricultural surplus. The economic importance of the region was further enhanced by the development of commercial relations with China and South-East Asia, in which the port of Gokonna (modern Trincomalee) would have played a prominent part. Thus the adoption of Polonnaruva as the capital of the Sinhalese kingdom by four kings of the period between the seventh and tenth centuries, and the final abandonment of Anurādhapura in its favour, were determined as much by considerations of economic advantage as by strategic and military factors. [3]
[1]: (Gunawardana 1989, 163). Gunawardana, R.A.L.H. 1989. ‘Anurādhapura: ritual, power and resistance in a precolonial South Asian city’. Domination and Resistance edited by Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands, Chris Tilley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/G8CWKJ2U/collection
[2]: (Coningham, Robin et al. 2007, 703). Coningham, Robin et al. 2007. “The State of Theocracy: Defining an Early Medieval Hinterland in Sri Lanka.” Antiquity. Vol 81:313. Pp 699-719. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/M4HWIC84/collection
[3]: (De Silva, 1981, 28, 30, 31, 32) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“In the Buddhist sacred place of Anuradhapura centre is represented by the great stupas, resembling the mountains a vital element in the sacred landscape, while water tanks encircle the city attached with paddy fields and everyday life performance of people represent the periphery the boundary of the place.” [1] “The most constant feature of Buddhist Sri Lanka is the stūpa or cetiya which came to the island from Northern India. These stūpas generally enshrined relics of the Buddha and the more celebrated illuminati of early Buddhism, and were on that account objects of veneration. They dominated the city of Anurādhapura and the landscape pf Rājaraṭa by their imposing size, awe-inspiring testimony to the state’s commitment to Buddhism and to the wealth as its command. The stupa, generally a solid hemispherical dome, gave a subdued but effective expression to the quintessence of Buddhism—simplicity and serenity. There were five importance stūpas at Anurādhapura. The first to be built was the small by elegant Thūpārāmā. Duṭṭhagāmaṇī built two, the Mirisaväṭi and the Ruvanvälisäya or the Mahāstūpa. Two stupas subsequently surpassed the Mahāstūpa in size, the Abhayagiri and the largest of them all, the Jetavana. The scale of comparison was with the largest similar monuments in other parts of the ancient world. At the time the Ruvanvälisäya was built it was probably the largest monument of its class anywhere in the world. The Abhayagiri was enlarged by Gajabāhu I in the second century AD to a height of 280 feet or more, while the Jetavana rose to over 400 feet. Both were taller than the third pyramid at Giyeh, and where the wonders of their time, with the Jetavana probably being the largest stupa in the whole Buddhist world.” [2]
[1]: (De Silva 2019, 950) De Silva, Wasana. 2019. ‘Urban agriculture and Buddhist concepts for wellbeing: Anuradhapura Sacred City, Sri Lanka’. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol 14: 3. Pp 163-177. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JIJEFKG3/collection
[2]: (De Silva 1981, 52-53). De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
Hospitals: “Amenities at the city included institutions for medical care. In the 4th century Upatissa I provided maternity homes, hospitals and homes for the crippled and the blind (1925, Ch. 37, v. 182).” [1]
[1]: (Gunawardana 1989, 163). Gunawardana, R.A.L.H. 1989. ‘Anurādhapura: ritual, power and resistance in a precolonial South Asian city’. Domination and Resistance edited by Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands, Chris Tilley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/G8CWKJ2U/collection
“The Chinese pilgrim Fa Hian, who visited Anur dhapura in the 5th century AD and stayed there for two years, was clearly impressed with the city, and his account is perhaps the most detailed description of cities visited by him. He noted that there were in all four principal streets. All the streets and lanes were well-maintained and were ‘smooth and level’ (Fa Hian 1957, p. 47). However, as in the case of the city wall, in their layout the streets appear to have belied their origins. For instance, the main street, called the Ceremonial Street, started at the southern gate near the Th p r ma, and it is said to have veered eastwards and then northwards ( 1931, pp. 572–3). Clearly it followed the casual and meandering path of an unplanned street.” [1]
[1]: (Gunawardana 1989, 156). Gunawardana, R.A.L.H. 1989. ‘Anurādhapura: ritual, power and resistance in a precolonial South Asian city’. Domination and Resistance edited by Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands, Chris Tilley. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/G8CWKJ2U/collection
“Anurādhapura itself, as the capital city, became increasingly important as a commercial centre. There was from early times a colony of Yavannas (Greeks) and by the fifth century AD a colony of Persian merchants too. Fa Hsien refers to the imposing mansions of the resident merchants, and states that one of them probably had the office of ‘guild lord’. There were also colonies of Tamil merchants in the city. This, of course, was apart from the indigenous merchants. The only other towns of commercial importance were the ports of the north-west, in particular Mahatittha. Trade in all these centres, it would appear, was mainly in foreign luxury goods. […] From the seventh century onwards till the Cōḷa occupation these commercial ties assumed ever-increasing importance on account of the profits available from the island’s foreign trade, and the importance of Mahatittha in the trade of the Indian Ocean. Up to the eve of the Cōḷa invasions in the tenth century, internal trade at least had been largely in the hands of the Sinhalese merchants who dominated the main market towns and were granted special charters by the kings. During the period of Cōḷa rule in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Indian merchant alliances displaced these Sinhalese merchants, especially along the principal trade routes of the Rājarṭa. But their ascendancy was of limited duration and did not survive the restoration of Sinhalese power.” [1]
[1]: (De Silva, 1981, 43-44) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“From the seventh century onwards till the Cōḷa occupation these commercial ties assumed ever-increasing importance on account of the profits available from the island’s foreign trade, and the importance of Mahatittha in the trade of the Indian Ocean. Up to the eve of the Cōḷa invasions in the tenth century, internal trade at least had been largely in the hands of the Sinhalese merchants who dominated the main market towns and were granted special charters by the kings. During the period of Cōḷa rule in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Indian merchant alliances displaced these Sinhalese merchants, especially along the principal trade routes of the Rājarṭa. But their ascendancy was of limited duration and did not survive the restoration of Sinhalese power.” [1] “Trade, as it touched the mass of the people, was of a humbler kind: the exchange by barter, or by a limited use of currency (kahavaṇu and purāṇas or eldlings), of the surplus grains at their disposal, and of manufactured goods and services. This internal trade in the early Anurādhapura period was well-organised. Among the donors of caves in the early inscriptions are guilds (pugiyana) and members (jete and anujete) of such guilds. There are occasional reference in the Mahāvaṁsa to caravan traffic to and from central highlands in search of spices and articles such as ginger. Such caravans consisted of wagons and pack animals. Apart from these there must have been some limited local trade in cloth and a few luxury articles.” [2]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 43-44) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[2]: (De Silva, 1981, 44) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
“It has been hypothesized that the site of Sigiriya, a creation of Kassapa I (r. 473–91 CE) and historically a site that attracted large numbers of visitors and pilgrims, was constructed symbolically to recreate the city of Āḷakamandā, the celestial home of Kubera, god of wealth. Inscription 28 of the Sigiriya graffiti records: ‘The resplendent rock named Sighigiri captivates the minds of those who have seen [it] as if [the mountain] Mundalind, which was adorned by the King of Sages, had descended to the earth.’ Mundalind has been equated with Mount Meru and, continuing this symbolism, Paranavitana suggested that the lake at Sigiriya represented the celestial lake Anotatta, the white- washed boulders before the outcrop stood for the snow-clad Himalayas, and the royal palace pointed to the abode of Kubera on the summit of Meru. The famous Sigiriya frescoes have also been interpreted in various ways, one being that they are depictions of divine cloud damsels representing cloud and lightning, reaffirming Kassapa’s ability to control the elements. If indeed viewed as the creation of Kassapa, the graffiti and cosmological symbolism of Sigiriya produced what is argued to be the clearest example of an urban microcosm in early Sri Lanka.” [1]
[1]: (Coningham et al. 2017, 30) Coningham et al. 2017. ‘Archaeology and cosmopolitanism in early historic and medieval Sri Lanka.’ Sri Lanka at the Crossroads of History. Edited by Zoltán Biedermann and Alan Strathern. London: UCL Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/DCQMW8E3/collection
“It has been hypothesized that the site of Sigiriya, a creation of Kassapa I (r. 473–91 CE) and historically a site that attracted large numbers of visitors and pilgrims, was constructed symbolically to recreate the city of Āḷakamandā, the celestial home of Kubera, god of wealth. Inscription 28 of the Sigiriya graffiti records: ‘The resplendent rock named Sighigiri captivates the minds of those who have seen [it] as if [the mountain] Mundalind, which was adorned by the King of Sages, had descended to the earth.’ Mundalind has been equated with Mount Meru and, continuing this symbolism, Paranavitana suggested that the lake at Sigiriya represented the celestial lake Anotatta, the white- washed boulders before the outcrop stood for the snow-clad Himalayas, and the royal palace pointed to the abode of Kubera on the summit of Meru. The famous Sigiriya frescoes have also been interpreted in various ways, one being that they are depictions of divine cloud damsels representing cloud and lightning, reaffirming Kassapa’s ability to control the elements. If indeed viewed as the creation of Kassapa, the graffiti and cosmological symbolism of Sigiriya produced what is argued to be the clearest example of an urban microcosm in early Sri Lanka.” [1]
[1]: (Coningham et al. 2017, 30) Coningham et al. 2017. ‘Archaeology and cosmopolitanism in early historic and medieval Sri Lanka.’ Sri Lanka at the Crossroads of History. Edited by Zoltán Biedermann and Alan Strathern. London: UCL Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/DCQMW8E3/collection
“The most valuable source of knowledge for scholars probing the legends and historical heritage of Sri Lanka is still the Mahavamsa (Great Genealogy or Dynasty), a chronicle complied in Pali, the language of Theravada Buddhism, in the sixth century. Buddhist monks composed the Mahavamsa, which was an adaptation of an earlier and cruder fourth century epic, the Dipavamsa (Island Genealogy or Dynasty). The latter account was compiled to glorify Buddhism and is not a comprehensive narrative of events. The Mahavamsa, however, related the rise and fall of successive Buddhist kingdoms beginning with Vijaya, the legendary coloniser of Sri Lanka and primogenitor of the Sinhalese migrant group.” [1] “On the history of the island up to the end of the first millennium, and indeed for three centuries of the second, there is a wealth of historical data. Of these the first category consists of the Pali chronicles, the Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa with its continuation the Cūlavaṁsa, which together provide scholars with a mass of reliable data, not available for other parts of south Asia for most the period under study. Next come the archaeological remains of the civilizations of Sri Lanka’s dry zone, the magnificent array of religious and secular monuments written about in the chronicles mentioned earlier, and the irrigation works. […] “On the history of the island up to the end of the first millennium, and indeed for three centuries of the second, there is a wealth of historical data. Of these the first category consists of the Pali chronicles, the Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa with its continuation the Cūlavaṁsa, which together provide scholars with a mass of reliable data, not available for other parts of south Asia for most the period under study. Next come the archaeological remains of the civilizations of Sri Lanka’s dry zone, the magnificent array of religious and secular monuments written about in the chronicles mentioned earlier, and the irrigation works.” [2] “Although its authorship is unknown, the Dīpavaṃsa is believed to have been compiled in the fourth century CE, while the Mahāvaṃsa has been argued to have been written by various monks of the Mahāvihāra and compiled into a single document by the Buddhist monk Mahānāma in the fifth to sixth century CE. It narrates the history of the island from its colonization by Prince Vijaya through to the reign of King Mahāsena (r. 275–301 ce). The Cūḷavaṃsa was a continuation of this narrative, detailing the island’s history up to the eighteenth century CE. Initially scholars believed these narratives to be legends, but the rediscovery of palm leaf manuscripts by George Turnour at Mullgirigalla near Tangalle led to the serious reconsideration of their contents as historical. Sir James Emerson Tennent, Colonial Secretary of Ceylon between 1845 and 1850 CE, stated that this ‘long lost chronicle... thus vindicated the claim of Ceylon to the possession of an authentic and unrivalled record of its national history’.” [3] “Literature for much of the Anurādhapura period was Buddhist, written in the Pāli language. The Buddhist scriptures were preserved on the island, first orally and then in writing. The three main monastic orders added their own commentaries, but only some of the Mahāvihāra texts survive. In the later Anurādhapura period, the production of Pāli literature declined and literary works in Sinhala appear.” [4]
[1]: (Ross and Savada 2002,98) Ross, Russel R. and Savada, Andrea Matles 2002. Sri Lanka: Current Issues and Historical Background edited by Walter Nubin. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JQ8T59TD/collection
[2]: (De Silva 2005, 3) De Silva, K.M. 2005. A History of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka: Vijitha Yapa Publications. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/BHJ4G3V7/collection
[3]: Coningham et al. 2017, 21) Coningham et al. 2017. ‘Archaeology and cosmopolitanism in early historic and medieval Sri Lanka.’ Sri Lanka at the Crossroads of History. Edited by Zoltán Biedermann and Alan Strathern. London: UCL Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/DCQMW8E3/collection
[4]: (Peebles 2006: 26) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection.
“The most valuable source of knowledge for scholars probing the legends and historical heritage of Sri Lanka is still the Mahavamsa (Great Genealogy or Dynasty), a chronicle complied in Pali, the language of Theravada Buddhism, in the sixth century. Buddhist monks composed the Mahavamsa, which was an adaptation of an earlier and cruder fourth century epic, the Dipavamsa (Island Genealogy or Dynasty). The latter account was compiled to glorify Buddhism and is not a comprehensive narrative of events. The Mahavamsa, however, related the rise and fall of successive Buddhist kingdoms beginning with Vijaya, the legendary coloniser of Sri Lanka and primogenitor of the Sinhalese migrant group.” [1] “On the history of the island up to the end of the first millennium, and indeed for three centuries of the second, there is a wealth of historical data. Of these the first category consists of the Pali chronicles, the Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa with its continuation the Cūlavaṁsa, which together provide scholars with a mass of reliable data, not available for other parts of south Asia for most the period under study. Next come the archaeological remains of the civilizations of Sri Lanka’s dry zone, the magnificent array of religious and secular monuments written about in the chronicles mentioned earlier, and the irrigation works. […] “On the history of the island up to the end of the first millennium, and indeed for three centuries of the second, there is a wealth of historical data. Of these the first category consists of the Pali chronicles, the Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa with its continuation the Cūlavaṁsa, which together provide scholars with a mass of reliable data, not available for other parts of south Asia for most the period under study. Next come the archaeological remains of the civilizations of Sri Lanka’s dry zone, the magnificent array of religious and secular monuments written about in the chronicles mentioned earlier, and the irrigation works.” [2] “Although its authorship is unknown, the Dīpavaṃsa is believed to have been compiled in the fourth century CE, while the Mahāvaṃsa has been argued to have been written by various monks of the Mahāvihāra and compiled into a single document by the Buddhist monk Mahānāma in the fifth to sixth century CE. It narrates the history of the island from its colonization by Prince Vijaya through to the reign of King Mahāsena (r. 275–301 ce). The Cūḷavaṃsa was a continuation of this narrative, detailing the island’s history up to the eighteenth century CE. Initially scholars believed these narratives to be legends, but the rediscovery of palm leaf manuscripts by George Turnour at Mullgirigalla near Tangalle led to the serious reconsideration of their contents as historical. Sir James Emerson Tennent, Colonial Secretary of Ceylon between 1845 and 1850 CE, stated that this ‘long lost chronicle... thus vindicated the claim of Ceylon to the possession of an authentic and unrivalled record of its national history’.” [3] “Literature for much of the Anurādhapura period was Buddhist, written in the Pāli language. The Buddhist scriptures were preserved on the island, first orally and then in writing. The three main monastic orders added their own commentaries, but only some of the Mahāvihāra texts survive. In the later Anurādhapura period, the production of Pāli literature declined and literary works in Sinhala appear.” [4]
[1]: (Ross and Savada 2002,98) Ross, Russel R. and Savada, Andrea Matles 2002. Sri Lanka: Current Issues and Historical Background edited by Walter Nubin. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/JQ8T59TD/collection
[2]: (De Silva 2005, 3) De Silva, K.M. 2005. A History of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka: Vijitha Yapa Publications. Seshat URL:https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/BHJ4G3V7/collection
[3]: Coningham et al. 2017, 21) Coningham et al. 2017. ‘Archaeology and cosmopolitanism in early historic and medieval Sri Lanka.’ Sri Lanka at the Crossroads of History. Edited by Zoltán Biedermann and Alan Strathern. London: UCL Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/DCQMW8E3/collection
[4]: (Peebles 2006: 26) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection.
“Sinhala has its own script. Its alphabet is known as hoodiya. Only Sinhala is written with the letters of the Sinhala hoodiya. The Sinhala writing system is largely phonetic in that one can understand how words are pronounced simply by looking at their spelling.” [1] “Literature for much of the Anurādhapura period was Buddhist, written in the Pāli language. The Buddhist scriptures were preserved on the island, first orally and then in writing. The three main monastic orders added their own commentaries, but only some of the Mahāvihāra texts survive. In the later Anurādhapura period, the production of Pāli literature declined and literary works in Sinhala appear.” [2]
[1]: (Chandralal 2010, 21) Chandralal, Dileep. 2010. Sinhala. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AC8BQ53V/collection
[2]: (Peebles 2006: 26) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection.
“Yet another set of letters prevails there without corresponding phonetic values: Although Sinhala is considered notable among the major Indo-Aryan languages in having no aspirate stop phonemes (Coates & De Silva 1960), the written variety had preserved the symbols for aspiration in numerous words it has borrowed from Pali and Sanskrit.” [1]
[1]: (Chandralal 2010, 22) Chandralal, Dileep. 2010. Sinhala. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/AC8BQ53V/collection
Buddhist and Hindu texts. “Just as Pāli was the language of Sinhalese Buddhism, Sanskrit, was the sacred language of the Brāhmans (and Hinduism) and of Mahāyānist scriptures were written in that language.” [1] “Literature for much of the Anurādhapura period was Buddhist, written in the Pāli language. The Buddhist scriptures were preserved on the island, first orally and then in writing. The three main monastic orders added their own commentaries, but only some of the Mahāvihāra texts survive. In the later Anurādhapura period, the production of Pāli literature declined and literary works in Sinhala appear.” [2]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 59) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[2]: (Peebles 2006: 26) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection.
Buddhist and Hindu texts. “Just as Pāli was the language of Sinhalese Buddhism, Sanskrit, was the sacred language of the Brāhmans (and Hinduism) and of Mahāyānist scriptures were written in that language.” [1] “Literature for much of the Anurādhapura period was Buddhist, written in the Pāli language. The Buddhist scriptures were preserved on the island, first orally and then in writing. The three main monastic orders added their own commentaries, but only some of the Mahāvihāra texts survive. In the later Anurādhapura period, the production of Pāli literature declined and literary works in Sinhala appear.” [2]
[1]: (De Silva 1981, 59) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[2]: (Peebles 2006: 26) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/HJG4VBC5/collection.
Literary and poetic works inferred from the following quotes. “Sinhala, along with Tamil, is among the first local languages (deśabhāsā) used for literature in southern Asia, with significant examples of poetry and criticism surviving from at least the seventh century.” [1] “The ninth century poetic handbook, Siyabaslakara (Poetic of one’s own language) urgers “clever poets” to be on the lookout for unintentional vulgarity in poor turns of expression on the grounds that they might come to be perceived as acceptable.” [2] “The most notable work was that of Kumāradāsa (a scion of the Sinhalese royal family but not a king), who composed the Jānakīharaṇa in the seventh century AD. Its theme was the Rāmāyaṇa.” [3] “The earliest known Sinhalese work was the Siyabaslakara, a work on rhetoric, a Sinhalese version of the well-known Sanskrit text on poetic, the Kāyādarśa. Its author was probably Sena IV (954–6). There were also exegetical works and glossaries, but none of them had any literary pretentions. Some of the inscriptions of the first and second centuries BC appear in verse. Much more interesting as examples of a lively and sensitive folk poetry are the verse written on the gallery wall at Sīgiri by visitors to the place in the eighth and ninth centuries, of which 700 stanzas have been deciphered.” [4]
[1]: (Hallisey 2003, 690) Hallisey, Charles. 2003. ‘Works and Persons in Sinhala Literary Literature.’ Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. Edited by Sheldon Pollock. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/838278KW/collection
[2]: (Hallisey 2003, 691) Hallisey, Charles. 2003. ‘Works and Persons in Sinhala Literary Literature.’ Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. Edited by Sheldon Pollock. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/838278KW/collection
[3]: (De Silva, 1981, 59) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection
[4]: (De Silva 1981, 3) De Silva, K.M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. London: C. Hurst & Company, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/7F5SEVNA/items/4R6DQVHZ/collection