Second Century Sri Lankan Ship

Sudharshan Seneviratne Ph.D., FSLCA
Professor of Archaeology. Department of Archaeology. University of Peradeniya
Director Archaeology. UNESCO-Sri Lanka CCF Jetavana Project at Anuradhapura
Co-Director Anuradhapura Citadel Archaeology Project
Senior Advisor. Minister of Foreign Affairs

INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY

Introduction

The study or archaeology and the management of cultural sites in Sri Lanka have an antiquity dating to the Colonial period. The Archaeological Survey Department of Ceylon and the National Museums Department were constituted in the mid 19^th century for this purpose. It necessarily had a bias towards land-based monuments with special reference to better-known centres of culture associated with the Classical texts. Prioritisation of the archaeological agenda based on classical studies was set in motion by those who read the past through the eyes of Orientalism and Colonialism and it ran well into the early phase of the post Colonial period as well. It goes without saying that the history of common people and any cultural remains out side the physical area of the dry land mass was beyond the conscious scope of this agenda. During the post Independence period, especially after the decade of 1970, there has been a slow but a definitive change in the priority and agenda of archaeological studies in Sri Lanka. Not only did problem-oriented multi disciplinary archaeology feature high in the priority list, Sri Lankan archaeology ventured from the dry land mass into the sphere of marine ecology as well.

This indicated a positive shift at the conscious level with special reference to new adaptations, state-of-the-art technologies and techniques, the need to train resource persons and above all institutional planning. While the first stratified archaeological excavation was undertaken at the Anuradhapura Citadel in 1969, a new structural change was introduced to the sphere of heritage management with the inauguration of the UNESCO-SRI LANKA CENTRAL CULTURAL FUND. The CCF founded in 1981, was in many ways a timely catalyst that brought about a convergence of the two main archaeology-related bodies in Sri Lanka – the government Department of Archaeology and the university departments of archaeology into a working relationship.  University departments responded quickly by altering and structurally adjusting the syllabi and the level of professionalism sustaining this new concerted effort. It is within this situation that the first Marine Archaeology program came to be launched in Sri Lanka during the late 1980’s primarily due to the dedicated efforts of Commodore Somasiri Devendra who pioneered this effort along with a few others.  As a consequence of their efforts, the purview of Marine Archaeology was legitimised for the first time in the

Antiquities Ordinance of Sri Lanka 1998 Amendment.

It goes without saying that any new area of work carries a baggage of problems that will be and must be resolved with time. Quite obviously such things are not due to any shortcomings of the dedicated few who worked tirelessly to establish the rudimentary functioning of the marine archaeology program in Sri Lanka. In fact given the short time span and considering various limitations, the marine archaeology program has initiated several important ventures that have potential for further development.  The problem lies elsewhere. It is the mind-set, limited scope and institutional structures that have quite unintentionally retarded the dynamics of progress moving from the initial to the next plane of development. This is also an instance where, as I shall discuss later, Sri Lanka could emulate the path taken by our professional colleagues in India.

This paper looks at some long term prospects of marine archaeology in Sri Lanka and the role it is destined to play and the necessity to initiate a paradigm shift by redefining the concept and its working modalities with a futuristic vision. The science of archaeology in fact attempts to understand all material and environmental conditions within which human society lived, interacted and thought. For this purpose, the archaeologist utilizes all sciences associated with humanity.  The marine archaeologists is very much part of that process, who plays the same a role, but, in a different eco system.

Resource base

Limited fund allocation is one out of many impediments retarding the accelerated or at least a steady development of the marine archaeology program. To elaborate this aspect one may look at capital allocation. The Archaeological Department of Sri Lanka and the Central Cultural Fund are the two primary stakeholders of the Marine Archaeology program in Sri Lanka. The former has a zero budget allocation for marine archaeology. Marine Archaeology, as a subject comes under the Exploration Division of the Archaeological Department of Sri Lanka. The Archaeological Survey of India on the other hand has established an Underwater Archaeology Wing in 2001 with Alok Tripathi at its helm. Their activity record carried out since 2001 is impressive indeed. The CCF, which runs the Marine Archaeology program for the Archaeological Department of Sri Lanka, is yet to announce budget allocation for 2005, as there is an on-going assessment following the total destruction of the Galle Marine Archaeology facility by the recent tsunami. For 2004, however, the CCF budget allocation for the Galle Marine Archaeology program in Sri Lankan rupees was:

Rs.    327,850 for excavations and

Rs. 2,286,535 for conservation

Total: Rs. 2,614,385 (US$.26,143/-).

If one compares this against the budget allocation by the CCF to the Jetavana site in 2005, a very high disparity may be noted:

Rs.  8,666,500 for excavations and

Rs.34,570,000 for conservation

Total of Rs.43,236,500 (US$. 432,365/-).

In all fairness to the CCF it must be noted that its financial support was augmented to some extent with funding (along with material and human resources) through Australian and Dutch agencies. Yet, Sri Lankan stakeholders must realize the importance of playing a bigger role in fund allocation. This is essential in order retain its bona fide status in the decision making process and to trigger off many new avenues of marine archaeology activities and research. In addition, external-funding sources may not comprehend and appreciate local requirements, priorities and even the cultural and historical context in this field of study.  If the marine archaeology program is to diversify into new areas of fieldwork and research, it must have an assured and better-endowed financial resource base for its sustenance.

A second area in the resource base is the availability of resource persons, who are, trained archaeologists capable of carrying out tasks within an aquatic environment. We are indeed grateful to our colleagues in the Sri Lanka Navy and local aquatic clubs and those from Australia for training some of the resource persons. It is even better, if the trainer and trainee are professional archaeologists or those who have a working knowledge about marine archaeology artefacts with an interest beyond sunken ships. No University department of Archaeology has seriously introduced marine archaeology in the curricular or gets regularly involved with the on going project in Galle thereby drawing in interested young undergraduate/postgraduate archaeologists who are sometimes excellent swimmers and divers. Unfortunately, most of them end up as land-based archaeologists and their capabilities are never diverted to aquatic archaeology. In fact there is only a single graduate from my department who is in the marine archaeology project in Galle. It is a fact that my department of study coordinated the marine archaeology program for a short spell under my supervision and later under Dr. Moira Tampoe. We are located in the central hills and logistical factors alone do not encourage our sustained involvement in the littoral region. We had at one time suggested the University of Ruhuna or the University of Colombo (both located in maritime provinces) as link universities since they also possess Faculties of Science that have a focus on aquatic resource studies. I am happy to learn that the Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology will soon introduce a postgraduate course in marine archaeology augmenting the proposed UNESCO sponsored field school for marine archaeology in Galle. We sincerely hope that these programs would eventually materialize and not be tucked away in some administrators file.

It goes without saying that the government agencies have not completely got into the act of popularising marine archaeology and Sri Lanka’s aquatic cultural heritage to the public, especially to the next generation. It must move beyond the scope of drafting legislation, which has been in the pipeline for many years. We have one maritime museum in Galle and a gallery on maritime history in the Colombo Museum.  Both are presented with limited imagination and information.

Marine archaeology beyond the ocean

The Sofia ICOMOS Charter of 1966 was intended to encourage the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage in inland and inshore waters. This was more specifically defined by the 2001 Paris UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, which specifically states “all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally underwater, periodically or continuously for at least 100 years”.  This is another area that is yet to be given priority in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is an island and its oceanic relationship is an integral component that has a symbiotic relationship to both its land mass and resident community. It is also an equatorial country that has a high rainfall density and an uneven landscape supporting a drainage system watered by perennial streams. This island produced one of the most spectacular hydraulic civilizations with some of the best water management systems in antiquity with a high degree of control maintained over large reservoirs and grand canales. Settlement archaeology studies indicate that most of the settlements in the pre modern period, from the Pre Historic to Colonial, were situated near rivers and natural or human made water bodies. In addition, recent environmental and geological studies on landscape evolution patterns in antiquity strongly established the change of river courses and the expansion of reservoir system that had inundated pre existing settlements and industrial sites in Sri Lanka.

The agenda of marine archaeology in Sri Lanka must therefore shift its focus from the narrow confines of sea-based activity. We are indeed happy to note that some amount of investigations had been undertaken on ancient crafts (dating to 9^th Century AC) in inland watercourses at Ratnapura and in the Western Province. Investigative and research agendas must cover a wider horizontal and vertical spectrum. For instance, some of the largest reservoirs, such as Kalawewa (4^th Century AC) and Parakramasamudra (11the Century AC), were enlarged at the expense of pre existing human-made or natural water bodies. Settlement sites associated with these reservoirs have a greater chance of survival than surface sites that were exposed to centuries of cultivation and other human and/or natural activities. Similarly, when large reservoirs were constructed (3^rd Century AC Minneriwewa for instance), it is a known fact that those areas were first depopulated. This leaves behind and excellent hoard of archaeological vestiges in a water capsule!

There are also other water-borne situations that merit our attention for marine archaeology. Internal marshlands created both by tectonic activities and river changes have inundated several major habitation and religious sites of the historical period. The Somawathi complex, some areas in the upper Mahaweli system and the lower plains of some southern rivers are excellent study areas. Somawathi complex may have had an inland port that connected it to the eastern seaboard through the Mahaweli River. Early and middle historic texts carry several lists of fords and settlement sites associated with such points of convergence. The 2001-field reconnaissance program along the Malwatu oya bordering the Jetavana monastery revealed granite stubs of stone pillars (within a distance of half a kilo meter) that once supported bridges across this river. We must now come up with strategies to launch marine archaeology programs in alternative culturalsacpes and landscapes with a focus on inland water bodies, marshland areas and river systems in an effort to retrieve data from eco systems that are not often ventured by the land-based archaeologists.

Redefining ocean archaeology

Due to limited resources and resource persons, the marine archaeology program in Sri Lanka has a central focus on the ocean and that too on shipwrecks and with special reference to the Colonial Period. We have to redefine this role both in terms of time, space and material culture. The coastal line in Sri Lanka presents one of the richest artefact repositories in the world. The fact that Sri Lanka is located on a primary transoceanic sea route witnessed the movement of people and cultures from the Indian Ocean rim countries and beyond. Our resource use and resource movement studies indicated that the settlement sites of the inland areas and the marine littoral had a symbiotic relationship. As much as the Sri Lankan historical economy was sustained by agriculture, wealth derived from the long distance luxury trade played a pivotal role triggering off social and technological change and material achievements of the Classical period. In view of this the coastal belt, estuaries and lagoons must form an integral component in the marine archaeology program.

Our colleagues in India have already indicated the vital need to focus on Indian Ocean archaeology. This is a concept that takes up the ocean and the coast as a single unit. This strategy not only envisions the inland connection to the littoral but the interactive process that externally binds the Indian Ocean rim as a cultural entity. There must be a concerted effort by land-based and marine archaeologists to carry out joint ventures on a multi disciplinary basis. This vision goes beyond the ocean per se. It goes beyond sunken vessels. It also transcends the narrow confines of Colonial vestiges. Investigations in the last two decades unveiled a wide variety of sites belonging to different techno-cultural periods along the littoral.  Pre Historic sites along the southern, eastern and western coastal sites, Early Iron Age megalithic sites and Black & Red Ware sites found in the littoral belt, port sites of the historical period and numerous religious sites and finally many of the Colonial settlements in the Maritime Provinces is an indication to this rich heritage. It goes without saying that all such sites had an organic link with the inland area and with the sea and hence any studies done in such eco systems and culturalscapes must necessarily treat the ocean and the littoral as one entity and organize its research agenda and action plan for the future.

This brings us to another vital area that requires concerted involvement of marine archaeology and other institutions such as NARA (National Aquatic Resource Agency) and even university departments carrying out the study of oceanic and other aquatic resources. This is with special reference to the study of sea-level indicators. Beach rock reefs indicating palaeo-tide levels, off shore geological formations taken together with inland landscape evolution patterns indicate sea level as well climatic changes in Sri Lanka from the Late Pleistocene to the Early Holocene. An understanding of this process of Quaternary sea level history provides an insight to coastal management and the impact of rising sea level consequent to global warming. The recent tsunami gave us a wake up call about the importance of understanding the coastal area as an integral component of the ocean. For instance, If we had carried out underwater studies near Kudiramalai (in an around the ancient port city which is inundated by the Indian Ocean) or attempted to understand the pattern of silting process that dried up the ancient port of Mahathirtha, we may have understood the dynamics of coastal upliftments due to tectonic activity.  Ironically it is only after the recent tsunami did the archaeologists begin to wake up to the material evidence and textual data on such events that ravaged this island during the historic period.

Marine archaeology and development

We must also ascertain how marine archaeology sustains the national development grid. Tourism is indeed one of the key factors contributing to development in the region. Underwater expeditions undertaken to sunken ships (which is already done in Galle) or to the off shore historical monuments in the south, west and east coast or in the mangrove natural canals looking for settlements including aesthetically beautiful natural oceanic reef formations are some spheres of activity that may be initiated in this regard. Each year, the international millionaires club visits Sri Lanka in their yachts. A more outward looking marine archaeology program may be able to attract such up-market tourists in their eco tourist adventures. Vacation time training schools, for diving and conservation may be held for local as well as overseas amateur archaeologists. It is with dismay that we note that as early as 1992 the Natural Resources and Environment Policy Project highlighted bio diversity as a basis for Scientific and Ecological Tourism in Sri Lanka. It specifically identified major habitats and ecosystems for this purpose and one such area noted was the ‘lagoon, dune, mangrove and marine habitats’. A realistic action plan is yet to be worked out by decision- making organizations in the state sector or in the private sector.

Environmental and geoarchaeological activity carried out in the ocean is bound to yield valuable information on mineral resources. We are yet to recognize this potentially vital area in marine archaeology. Several archaeological studies have been carried out on mineral resource zones in antiquity that indicates direct connections with the sea or where there are deposits associated with the coastal area and its adjacent seaboard. Middle Historic texts and inscriptions in fact mention resource areas that were located adjacent to ancient port sites and habitations.

The proposal to introduce a training school for the Asia-Pacific region in Galle is a positive move in this direction. This looks at the possibility of establishing a centre of excellence, which will also bring in funding and revenue through taught courses. The role of the Sri Lankan marine archaeologists, more specifically geological under water surveys in developmental activities is yet to be recognized, understood and defined. They are yet to be drawn in for, both, environmental and cultural impact assessment studies. New harbour projects, new fisheries, post tsunami rehabilitation and even the Sethsamudram proposal do not indicate the involvement of archaeologists. A well-developed program and cadre is now an imperative not only to look at these important economic assets, but also to protect the underwater cultural and natural heritage from human pillage and natural disasters.

Reassessing maritime history

Studies on the maritime history of Sri Lanka are mainly based on textual and inscriptional evidence. Until recent times it also had a religious bias with special reference to Buddhism. While we recognize the importance of these sources, it is time we look at the tangible evidence such as nautical technology, currency nexus, traded goods, the archaeology of ports, comparative studies with overseas sites, with special reference to South Asia and the India Ocean Rim maritime regions. Recent analytical studies and ethnoarchaeological studies carried out on ceramics, beads, metals and other material objects indicate a strong international commercial vortex that linked Sri Lanka to the outside world. These must be made an essential component in marine archaeology thus making it one of the major players in that research agenda.

Cultural, technological, commercial and the biological histories that went into form this multi cultural island community is largely a synthesis of intrusive and internal dynamics. The structural dynamics of various techno-cultural periods in Sri Lanka and associated institutional formations cannot be studied as an inverted process. The impact of larger trans continental systems that operated from outside and the interactive vortex that linked this strategically located island into such mega systems must be understood through a redefined program in marine archaeology.

Marine archaeology and security concerns

In our recent studies we have attempted to work out multiple strategies in applied archaeology supporting the activist archaeologist. Some of these areas are archaeology and sustainable development, archaeology and identities, archaeology and knowledge information systems, archaeology and conflict resolution to mention a few.  The island society of Sri Lanka has experienced for over two decades a bloody war of attrition. Archaeological information, if disseminated with wisdom, is a powerful medium that could resolve present tensions created by various cumulative biases and prejudices transmitted from the past.

In this total scenario, security concerns of communities play a pivotal role sustaining conflict resolution. This factor manifests itself in multiple forms. The issue that is closest to the heart of the problem today and concerns both India and Sri Lanka is the ocean as an exit and entry point to arms dealers, drug runners and antique pirates. Often the same groups get involved in these activities. The study of marine littoral ecologies, with special reference to estuary areas and lagoons may reveal possible focal points that act as safe havens to nautical terrorists. It is insufficient to pass the exclusive responsibility to the respective naval forces of the two countries. The marine archaeologists working with a multi disciplinary team could well charter such locations in the sphere of security concerns.

Security concerns must also take cognisance of the larger picture. Various groups from the international community operate (officially and unofficially) in the maritime boundary areas of the SAARC region. There is little monitoring and control over such activities. We reliably understand that some international groups who request for permission to carry out archaeological activities are nothing but antique pirates for the international market. There are others who had even mapped particular coastal and lagoon areas that coincidentally have become some of the strongest LTTE naval bases or hit-and-run coves in their escape routes! Marine archaeologists working with geologists could assist in mapping out mineral resources in coastal and oceanic depths thereby the data bank remains with legitimate authorities. External agencies that had come in for marine archaeology activities are reported to have carried out their (clandestine) mineral resource mapping in this region.

Regional cooperation in marine archaeology

It is apparent that factors listed above demands a closer working relationship within the South Asian region at one level and the Indian Ocean Rim countries at another level. We need to take cognisance of specific issues relating to the South Asian and the Indian Ocean Rim countries and formulate stronger joint regional ventures and sharing of information and resources. Though the 1980’s and 1990’s SAARC archaeological meetings did refer to marine archaeology activity, no concrete proposals or action plans emerged from this. It is my personal and professional opinion that while thanking our colleagues from the western and eastern hemispheres for the support they have extended in setting up the marine archaeology program in Sri Lanka, we have to work more closely with our regional neighbours in formulating our next phase of activity. Marine archaeology is very much within the scope of shared cultures of South Asian and Indian Ocean Rim countries.

A redefinition of marine archaeological activity and a paradigm shift therefore is required for a successful implementation of this interactive scenario in Sri Lanka. If this is not done, soon we may end up in the category of pirates, antique collectors and treasure hunters!

Select Readings

Bandaranayake, Senake et al (Ed) 1990

Sri Lanka and the Silk Road of the Sea. Colombo. UNESCO Commission & Central Cultural Fund

Deraniyagala, S.U 1992

Pre History of Ceylon: An Ecological Perspective Vols. II & I. Colombo. Department of Archaeological Survey.

Devendra, Somasiri 2005

Sri Lanka’s Maritime Heritage. Colombo. Central Cultural Fund

Gupta, S.P. & Sunil Gupta (Ed) 2004

Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology. Number 1

Green Jeremy and Somasiri Devendra (Ed.) 1993

Maritime Archaeology in Sri Lanka. The Galle Harbour Project – 1992. Colombo. The Archaeological Department of Sri Lanka, The Central Cultural Fund, The Western Australian Maritime Museum, The Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology.

Herath, J.W. 1985

Economic Geology of Sri Lanka. Colombo. Natural Resources, Energy & science Authority

ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage

Karashima, Noboru 2002

Ancient and Medieval Commercial Activities in the India Ocean: Testimony of Inscriptions and Ceramic Sherds. Tokyo. Taisho University

Katupotha, Jinadasa 1995

Evolution and the Geological Significance of Late Pleistocene Shell Beds of the Southern Coastal Zone of Sri Lanka. Colombo. Natural Resources, Energy and Science Authority of Sri Lanka

Paranavithana, Senarath 1970

Inscriptions of Ceylon Vol. 1. Colombo. Department of Archaeology

Prematilleke, P.L. 1989

Report on the Inventory of Places of Religious and Cultural Significance and Areas of Scenic Beauty and Recreational Value Within the Coastal Zone of Sri Lanka. Colombo. Coast Conservation Department of Sri Lanka.

Seneviratne, Sudharshan 1985

‘The Baratha: A case of Community Integration in Early Sri Lanka” in Festschrift 1985 James Rutnam. A.R.B. Amarasinghe and S.J. Sumanasekare Banda (ED.) Colombo UNESCO. 40-56.

1994

“Ecology and Archaeology of the Seruwila copper-magnetite Prospect, North east Sri Lanka” in Mark Kenoyer (Ed.) From Sumer to Meluha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F. Dales. Madison. Wisconsin Archaeological Reports. Vol. 3. 261-280.

Staniforth, Mark (undated)

Assessing the Significance of twentieth century underwater cultural heritage

Solheim Wilhelm G. 1972

“Archaeological Survey to Investigate Southeast Asian Prehistoric Presence in Ceylon”. Ancient Ceylon (Occasional Paper No.1)

Weisshaar h. J. et al (Ed.) 2001

Ancient Ruhuna. Vol. 1. Mainz. Verlag Philipp Von Zabern

Tripathi, Alok 2004

Excavation of Princess Royal. New Delhi. Organizing Committee of the International Seminar on Marine Archaeology 2003

Weerakkody, D.P.M. 1997

Taprobane: Ancient Sri Lanka as known to Greeks and Romans. Turnhout. Brepols.

Wikramanayake, Eric. C. 1992

Opportunities for Scientific and Ecological Tourism in Sri Lanka: Developing Infrastructure. Colombo. International Resource Group

Second Century Sri Lankan Ships

Related posts:

Tags: MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY
Posted in Monthly Theme, Prof. Sudharshan Seneviratne