SUDHARSHAN SENEVIRATNE Ph.D., FSLCA
Professor of Archaeology. University of Peradeniya. Sri Lanka
Director Archaeology. UNESCO-Sri Lanka Central Cultural Fund Project at Jetavana, Anuradhapura.
Co Director. Anuradhapura Citadel Archaeology Project.
*This paper was originally presented in 2005 at the CONFERENCE OF THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH ASIAN  ARCHAEOLOGISTS.  JULY 4^TH TO 8^TH at the British Museum, London.

Anuradhapura, was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS) in 1981 and holds the distinction of being a prime pilgrim as well as a visitor destination in South Asia. The essay questions certain values assigned to historical sites and the extent to which such sites tend to overplay the bona fide status legitimizing identities of particular cultures/groups thereby intentionally or unintentionally marginalizing the histories/antiquity of the ‘other’. As much as World Heritage sites are recognized, declared and inscribed by UNESCO, conversely the underlying ideology or at least certain narrow functional needs of member countries that recommend particular cultural sites to be authorized is open to question. Similarly, the acceptance of such claims and nominations by UNESCO, without giving due consideration to long-term implications to the multi cultural reality of particular geo political regions, needs to be reconsidered. Finally, the anti thesis to World Heritage Sites is also taken into consideration in this essay. The dialectics of rejecting the cultural value of Anuradhapura (or similar sites) through acts of terrorism and the process of globalization imposed from above is a volatile issue that cannot be ignored any longer. While remedial strategies are now suggested, a paradigm shift is strongly advocated for those who either accept or reject the narrow cultural context of this Heritage Site, which is a gift to humanity from the past.

Situating Anuradhapura
The Sacred City of Anuradhapura is a prime World Heritage site in Sri Lanka and it is placed among one of the most valued heritage sites in South Asia. This recognition is awarded to Anuradhapura for its historical antiquity, its tangible and intangible cultural value and the scale and complexity of its cultural sites spreading over time and space. Above all, it is one of the largest living heritage sites in South Asia attracting not only pilgrims as devotees but also the local and global tourists as visitors.

Situated on the banks of the perennial stream Malwatu oya, Anuradhapura is conveniently linked with the hinterland raw material resource areas and the northwest and northeast seaports. This site was continuously occupied for thousands of years from the Pre Historic to the Late Historic when the jungle tide finally took over the monumental structures at Anuradhapura.

The Citadel of Anuradhapura, covering an area of about 400 square acres and reaching a depth of 40 feet below surface level, could be placed at par with some of the largest habitation sites in historical South Asia. Recent investigations at the Citadel revealed its techno-cultural sequence running back to the Middle Stone Age or the Mesolithic hunting-gathering culture dating to about 5000 BC at this site. The Mesolithic was succeeded by the Early Iron Age culture around 1000 BC, which was an extension of the Proto Historic Peninsular Indian techno-cultural matrix. The Iron Age folk introduced the earliest village culture thriving on a subsistence economy based on pastoralism and limited agriculture. This village community carried out family based crafts such as metals, ceramics (post-firing graffiti bearing Black & Red Ware and Black Ware) and bead production. Their primary ritual was associated with megalithic memorials. This culture achieved greater sophistication around 400 BC when commercial and cultural interactions with central and north India intensified. It ultimately ushered in new commercial interactions, social ideologies and incipient political formations.

Following the introduction of North Indian social ideologies, such as Buddhism and Jainism, and with the emergence of the pristine state in Sri Lanka, Anuradhapura gradually acquired its position as the primary ritual and political center in northern Sri Lanka. By the early Christian era an expansion in the long-distance trade vortex with West Asia, the Mediterranean and the Far East, Anuradhapura was already the prime religio-political center in the island and a great market city. The Classical Period of Anuradhapura, the Middle Historic Period (3rd Century AC and after), witnessed the establishment of the developed state, the construction of large reservoirs and advanced hydraulic systems, massive Buddhist stupa as ritual centers and the organization of vast monasteries as centers of residence and learning for local and foreign monks. The urban -religious landscape at Anuradhapura is characterized by a series of concentric circles made of reservoirs, ritual centers and monasteries encircling the Citadel. The larger monasteries housed around 2000 resident monks at any given time in each complex. Some of these sites also carried the largest stupa and monastic sites in the world and were independent economic units involved in agricultural, production and commercial activities as well. The cultural landscape of the Classical period is characterized by a wide range of sculptured art, monumental structure, ponds and parks among other features specific to that period.

The city of Anuradhapura gradually declined in the post 10th Century. Political unrest, invasions compounded by changes in trading patterns and environmental instability, at least in some areas, ultimately resulted in the gradual shift of the political center away from this region. This deprived the city of its patrons; demographic and economic base consequently leading to the disintegration of its urban ethos until its cultural resurgence during the Colonial and Post Colonial periods.
Constructing ideologies authorizing the past
Ideology is defined as a comprehensive system of concepts and beliefs, often political in nature, held by a group or an individual. The manifestation of belief systems and an ideological system galvanizing dispersed communities into a group quite obviously has a variation distributed in time, space, society and culture. Critical to our discussion is the evolution of an ideology, often imposed from above, by a particular group in society legitimizing its existence and perpetuation of its right over resources, territory and decision making authority.

South Asia is a historically evolved region drawing its ‘identity consciousness’ from the rich cultural heritage found in the classical literary texts and inscriptions, the sculptured art, architecture and from its extensive oral historical tradition. In modern times the study of such cultural material was set in motion in the 19th Century according to the visions of Colonial administrators, Antiquarians, Orientalists and Indologists. The study of the past based on cultural material was aimed at reviving the glory that was, a concept central to Orientalism, Colonial historiography, and post-Colonial ideological adaptations in South Asia. The past envisioned by antiquarians and Orientalists was perpetuated by various groups of Nationalists, who read the past from their own ideological position as an anti thesis to Colonialism. In the post Colonial period, an inward looking ideology of identities based on parochial views of the past was due to political expediency legitimizing control over resources, territory and decision making authority.

The treatment of the past in south Asian scholarship lacks no quantity in terms of publications dating from the Colonial period. Yet, the ‘mind set creators’ among such scholars are the products of the Colonial or the subsequent radical nationalist period. It is critical that we recognize the fact that every society carries its own and varied perceptions of the past. An alarming factor in the politics of south Asian ethno-national confrontation based on religion, language and other forms of cultural affiliations is the political use of culture related material retrieved from historical and archaeological sources. It is now applied with much sophistication and at an enhanced scale. The state and various other groups contending for power in the region have increasingly come to appreciate the functional value of symbols drawn from the past, especially in the construction of ‘national’ identities ultimately leading to the invention of ‘imagined’ political communities (after Anderson 1990). ‘Since its inception archaeology has been deeply involved in nationalist enterprises, above all in the construction of national identities’ (Kohl and Fawcett 1995:9; also Cleere 1989). Archaeology and heritage management in post Colonial Sri Lanka and South Asia in general continues to have an unmistakable socio-political content in its practice and presentation at the government, professional and public domains.

Historiography of the Colonial and the Nationalist Period in this region quite evidently reflects a sharp bias towards the history of religion, language, or community within a particular geo-political region (Thapar 1975; 1977; 2000:1-173, 963-1142). Most archaeologists and historians in south and north Sri Lanka (as for that matter in other parts of South Asia as well) are yet incapable of breaking the shackles of Orientalism and are also unable to resolve the problem of reading the past in an objective manner. This is conditioned largely by their ideological and methodological constrains. They are consciously involved in the process of subverting the study of the past for; both, parochial ends and political patronage (also see Durrans 1989; Kohl and Fawcett 1995:3-18). Tough problem-oriented archaeological studies in south Asia commenced from the decade of 1960, it has largely stagnated within the realms of methodological procedures of field reconnaissance cum retrieval systems and analytical studies. Interpretative studies are far less in quantity and most such studies are carried out within the rubric of classical studies and nationalist historiography. Its primary focus on ethno linguistic and ethno religious identities (especially in Sri Lanka and India) has strong undertones of political legitimization. This may be attributed to contradictions found in the transformation of socio-political identities and access to power and resources in the post-Colonial dependent economies. As a consequence, this had a crucial bearing upon the decision-making process, priorities, funding and above all on the agenda and ethics in the practice of archaeology and heritage management in this region, especially during the post-Colonial period (Seneviratne ).

This total situation necessarily brings up the critical problem of understanding the ideology of presenting the past, its functional uses and consequences on the society of a multi cultural island society.

Ideological phases of reading the past
Following its decline as a religio-political and economic center, the cultural resurgence of Anuradhapura under the British regime was not in any manner associated with philanthropic notions of the Colonial regime! It must necessarily be located within the context of ideological formations during the Colonial and Post Colonial Periods. It is indeed evident that this ideological formation of the Colonial administrators, antiquarians, Orientalists, Indologists and Nationalists most certainly drew much inspiration from the Classical texts and the ancient material culture of the island.

Ideological content of the classical texts, written since the 4th century AC by scholar monks, carried narratives based on historical facts and conjectural myths of origin associated with north India and invasions and confrontations associated with south India. The classical texts were codified in order to legitimize a particular faith, lineage, political as well as a ritual center within a pan-island context. In addition, they also provided an internal scheme of hierarchization to the historic cultural ecology of this island demarcating its center and periphery. Scholar monks perhaps thought it necessary to document this legitimating charter during a period of important socio-economic change and constant political and economic challenge directed from south India, a region in their eyes that was mainly inhabited by those who spoke the Tamil language and professed non-Buddhist faiths. In addition, the documentation of these legitimating charters by the Theravada monks became an imperative in view the up ward mobility of new social groups who replaced the old nobility and challenges posed to them by ‘heterodox’ Mahayana sects (Seneviratne).

It is a historical tragedy that the 4th century AC projection of the classical texts such as the Mahavamsa that had a specific limited agenda was misunderstood as the history of the island of Sri Lanka. It was uncritically picked up by Colonial administrators/historians, Orientalist-Indologists, Antiquarians and somewhat later by the Nationalists. This is the second segment in the process of ideological formation. Drawn out of context, the central thesis of history codified and documented in the classical texts formed the basis for Colonial historiography, the agenda of the Archaeological Survey Departments and the National Museums Department during the 19th Century. Colonial administrators and Orientalists, who themselves were nurtured within an imperial ethos and the Classical traditions of the Mediterranean, provided lasting contributions to the ideological matrix. They all derived their information about the past from a common group of sources, namely the classical texts, oral traditions, inscriptions, architectural monuments, sculpture and paintings, coins as well as vestiges of massive hydraulic works of the historical period.

“The study of history in Sri Lanka (as for that matter elsewhere in south Asia) in the 1940’s was very much tutored in the arena of Colonial historiography and nurtured in the best of classical and Orientalist/Indologist traditions. In this grand scheme of things past Asian societies were viewed as unchanging entities in the clutches of Oriental despots who manipulated their subjects through hydraulic systems. Colonial historiography had its own rubric. Explanation in history was quite obviously linear and symmetric while continuity dominated over change. Historical dynamics were attributed to the role of the individual and ‘Great Men’. The movement of historical processes was associated with evolution, diffusion and cultural implantation and certainly not with uneven and parallel developments in society. There were also generalized views over time and space including blanket developments within a pan regional context. Periodization was based either after great individuals, dynasties, royal capitals and religions or within the vulgar Stalinist notion of the Stages theory in history. Historiography within the British Empire was yet enmeshed in Positivist trappings and stunted by the poverty of empiricism” (Seneviratne 2001). Oriental Despotism was indeed a convenient explanation legitimizing the very existence of the Colonial Empire.

The introduction of racial categories such as arya and dravida or the perpetuation of mythical heroic races was a major contribution to the formation of a new ideological matrix. The belief in an imagined ‘fair-skinned’ pan arya race provided a notion of both racial and linguistic affinity in a wider demographic and regional context. This was set against the ‘dark skinned’ tribal and/or caste groups and dravida thereby introducing an imagined vertical division. The antecedents of modern ethno-nationalism in fact may be traced to these notions of the Colonial period.

To the Colonial historian, Orientalist and Antiquarian discovering the past and its Golden Age was a simple exercise where they linked hero kings and elite patrons in the texts to ancient monuments (mainly Buddhist), large reservoirs and court art. The mass of books on languages, religion and philosophy of the Orient, catalogues of coins, seals and inscriptions found in the region clearly reflect the agenda and priorities during the Colonial era. The damaging impact of these myths and ideological elements became apparent only in the subsequent period.

The third segment in this process is seen when, both, Sinhala as well as and Tamil-speaking nationalists used the same sources of information including the writings on antiquity and history in search of the Golden Age. This was to be the anti thesis to Colonialism and was provided with an ideological content as well. It is significant to note that even to this day a majority of archaeologists in South Asia who are serving within the Government Departments and within the university system are products of the Late Colonial period influenced by the nationalist ideology drawing its inspiration from the past.
The earliest phase of this process may be seen when 20th century Nationalists within the Sinhala as well as Tamil-speaking groups formalized their identity or group distinctiveness associated with a range of symbols drawn from the texts and archaeological remains. Such symbols were utilized for the purpose of ‘authenticating’ the antiquity of the community, its region of origin, territoriality, ‘imagined’ biological, cultural, linguistic and ideological homogeneity as a basis for legitimizing and sanctioning advantageous access to resources and the decision making process within a particular geo-political context. A common language and a ‘racial’ selection as dravida or arya became a basis for providing this group affinity. This was also extended into a cross regional affiliation either with ‘arya’ north India or ‘dravida’ south India. It is significant that the ’we-they’ distinction originally maintained against the colonialist gradually came to represent a Sinhala Buddhist – Tamil Hindu dichotomy. Ironically enough this group distinction is used as a mechanism of internal alienation and marginalization by both Tamil as well as Sinhala speaking communities against the Vedda aboriginal groups, the gypsies and even on particular caste groups. At the end of the Colonial period, anti Colonial Nationalist perspective had already interlocked with a communal as well as a racist ideology. The concept of an original homeland, a common mother language conclusively located this ideological expression within the narrow confines of ethnocentrism compartmentalized on the basis of language-culture zones along imagined racial line. It is the legacy of Colonial and Nationalist writings that nurtured sectarian historical information known to the generations after 1948. The historiography of the Post Independence liberal-empiricist school, socialist and Marxist schools had little impact in neutralizing this sectarian Tamil and Sinhala historiography conditioning parochial images of the past in the minds of the present generation.
Post Colonial ideological formations emerged out of the above situation and are reflected in the post – Colonial socio-political sphere. Clearly the dominating features of this period are: economic alienation and the possibility of geo-political units being carved out on ethno-cultural or more specifically ‘racial’ lines. One of the logical outcomes of socio-economic injustice and the need for alternative political systems was the emergence of social ideologies of the JVP (Peoples Liberation Front) and the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). While the former has a dominant membership in the Sinhala – speaking areas, the latter is exclusively associated with Tamil – speaking people in the north and east. Both groups share a romanticized version of Socialism, common ideals of the motherland and national consciousness associated with the majority ethno-cultural group in a particular geo-political zone.

Since the decade of 1970, the Sri Lankan state has been waging a protracted war against dissent and centrifugal tendencies. While it speaks of an overarching ‘National culture’, the state under successive regimes is increasingly projecting itself as the defender of Buddhism and chief patron of Sinhala culture. Conversely, the LTTE has unleashed a similar process of hegemonic control over primarily Tamil-speaking areas and has imposed its ideological control from above. One of the most unfortunate features of the war is the conscious and unconscious impact it had on cultural resource management and the archaeological agenda of this country. Secondly, it also resulted in the destruction directed at cultural property by all participating groups.

Ordering the past in a sacred city: the Colonial experience
Situating Anuradhapura within a central position, both, in reading and presenting the past has to be viewed from the above backdrop. It is significant to note that a supreme position was assigned to this city over all other ancient cultural sites. The process through which this situation evolved from the Colonial period trough the post Colonial period has a dynamic engulfing, both, communities and space. It juxtapositions the Sinhala-speaking and Buddhists with the ‘other’, and the North Central province (or Raja-rata) with ‘other’ regions of the island. Jeganathan (1995: ) has pointed out four facets of rediscovering Anuradhapura i.e. historiographic formation, spatial formation, archaeological formation and aesthetic formation. The first is the reading of this city and its history in the newly translated Pali texts (such as the c. 5th Century AC Mahavamsa). Nurtured in the Classical traditions, Colonial administrators and its intelligentsia found no problems of discovering the ‘Golden Age’ of Sri Lankan history with Anuradhapura an association of its monuments with Great Men and also its parallels found in the British Empire (Jeganathan 1995; also see Nissan 1989). Spatial formation, as Jeganathan argues, emerged out of economic and political needs. First the need to colonize dry land plains (as against the mountain zone where rebellions occurred) and the establishment of a rapid route network for the transportation of Indian workers to coffee plantations in the central hills from South India through the North Central province. The fusion between these two formations is evident in the writings, maps, narrations and expeditions carried out at Anuradhapura and the North Central Province, or Rajarata (Land of Kings).

The commencement of restoring, irrigation works, stupa, monasteries and work on the art and architecture, what is called the archaeological formation, opened up more definitive links with the historical narration, major players in the chronicles and material remains. 19th Century also witnesses the narrowing down of archaeological work and restoration work to monuments constructed by Great Men such as Dutugamunu (‘National Hero’ in the Mahavamsa who expelled the invading ‘Tamil’), Kashyapa, the builder of Sigiri, and other ‘great kings’ kings who constructed large reservoirs, stupa and monasteries and others who fought off Tamil invaders from South India or those who carried out Buddhist activities. The Colonial administrators and Orientalists had already constructed the rubric for archaeological expeditions and restorations. Anuradhapura was now marketed as an exciting ruined city announcing its existence to the antiquarians who had been through a whole series of ancient cities starting from Troy. The aesthetic formation is associated with the progress made in archaeological and restoration work. The scenic beauty is lauded and the glory of the monuments is compared with that of other civilizations. Anuradhapura is gradually transformed from a ruined city into an ancient city. Artists were actually encouraged to capture the beauty of the reservoirs, sculpture and the stupa on canvass. By the end of the 19th Century Anuradhapura was ready for the tourists and several Guide Books appeared during the same period.

Restoration of Anuradhapura takes an interesting pattern during the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, which coincides with the early phase of the Nationalist movement, primarily led by Sinhala-Buddhist organizations. It goes without saying that they too were products of the Colonial schools and highly influenced by the views of Orientalists and Indologists. For instance, early Nationalist writers and activists such as Walisinghe Harischandra strongly advocated further excavations and restoration of Buddhist religious monuments at Anuradhapura and often cited Colonial writings justifying his cause (Jeganathan 1995:129-130; Harischandra 1904 & 1908). Neither Harischandra nor the Colonial masters were interested in probing the large habitation site at the Citadel of Anuradhapura. Elitism implicit in this situation is quite obvious. The focus was purely on grand monuments, royal parks and the sculptured art. Slag heaps, potsherds, faunal remains from excavations did not evoke any interest.

From the early 20th Century with the growth of the anti Colonial movement on the one hand and the development of a stronger Sinhala Buddhist identity on the other, Anuradhapura gradually emerges as a central sacred space legitimizing religious and ethnic identity over other historical capitals such as Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Kotte, Kurunegala or Kandy. This period also witnesses the selection of monuments to be excavated and restored (rather than conserved). Buddhist sites headed the list and among Buddhist sites too the Theravada sites were given priority. It is significant to note that such sites had a direct or indirect bearing on kings, recorded in the chronicles, who fought the invading South Indian rulers. Monuments belonging to ‘heterodox’ sects such as the Mahayanist and Tantrayanist, including Hindu monuments were not given the same importance assigned to Orthodox Theravada monuments. The discovery of a Nestorian cross within the Citadel of Anuradhapura was not up for further research either. To the Buddhists, Anuradhapura presented an organic link with the sacred Buddhist sites and with the Arya – Buddhist North India as against the Hindu Tamil south India.

A study carried out by Aruna Rajapaksa, points out that the pressure created by independent Restoration Societies of Buddhists pushed the Colonial regime to initiate more restoration programs, mainly after 1910. He also argues that macro level planning at Anuradhapura commenced in 1942 with the establishment of the Anuradhapura Preservation Board. According to this research, money was granted by the Parliament to invite a town planner from England to plan out the Sacred City. In 1949 the construction work on the new town of Anuradhapura commenced, where the population was relocated from the Scared City. Rajapaksa also argues that this development conclusively established “the conglomeration of ruins and monuments and the lands in between as an entity rather than separate monuments… and the removal of encroachments and incongruous buildings and provision of opportunities to pilgrims…”(Rajapaksa 2002:1-3). Thus before the Colonial rule ended in 1948, Anuradhapura was physically integrated into an officially recognized sacred entity consequently endowing its spatial area to Buddhist pilgrims thus marginalizing the other.

Post Colonial incorporation of Anuradhapura
The symbolic presentation of the above process was witnessed in the restoration and the consecration ceremony associated with the Great Stupa or Suwarnamali chetiya (constructed by Dutthagamani, the ‘National Hero’ of the Mahavamsa) soon after national independence. The post 1950 development of radical nationalism based on racial ideologies mobilizing non urban, primarily Sinhala speaking non westernized social groups, the official declaration of Sinhala as the national language, periodic confrontations between Tamil and Sinhala ethnic groups enhanced the ‘real value’ of Anuradhapura beyond the sacred associated with religion per se. It was transformed into a benchmark in the power and territorial coordinates. Anuradhapura was directly located in the ‘border area’ facing the ‘Tamil country’. It had to be safeguarded and protected. One may also note that Anuradhapura, has since then been transformed into the largest military base in Sri Lanka housing all three forces. In addition, since independence, all Prime Ministers, Governor Generals and later Presidents carried out an essential pilgrimage to the Sacred Bo Tree and the Maha chetiya (Suwarnamali chetiya) following their appointments. Politicians of the lower rungs followed this practice and set off a rhythm of imitation absorbing the local and regional politicians to the sacred vortex. The period from 1950 to late 1970 witnessed multiple avenues through which the sanctification of Anuradhapura was intensified. For instance, the introduction or revival of various cult ceremonial offerings (e.g. ceremony offering jasmine flowers) mobilizing city and rural folk at this sacred space, an increased tempo of pilgrimages, new Buddhist Restoration Organizations and the new school text books (published after the nationalization of schools in 1956) disseminating parochial history associated with Anuradhapura as the central place, may be noted here. All this set the basis for the next phase of ideological adaptation of Anuradhapura, strangely enough happened through its recognition as a UNESCO declared World Heritage site.

The UNESCO-Sri Lanka Cultural Triangle
The constitution of the Cultural Triangle (CT) in the early 1980s inducted a more sophisticated incorporation of Anuradhapura into the Sinhala-Buddhist ethos. The decade of 1980 is indeed watershed in the political-economy and the cultural history of Sri Lanka. With the establishment of the Open Market policy and opening up the country for foreign investment and tourism, a new premium was added to the cultural sites as a marketable commodity. Direct confrontations between Tamil militants and the state accelerated and the state now began to project its position as the chief patron of Buddhism and the protector of the Sinhala community. The idea of promoting cultural tourism was taken to a new height with the establishment of the UNESCO – Sri Lanka Cultural Triangle Project. The Triangle connected the ancient sites of Anuradhapura > Polonnaruwa > Kandy. Within the triangle were the sites of Rangiri Dambulla and Sigiriya World Heritage Sites. With the exception of Sigiriya all other sites are religious sites mainly associated with Buddhism. All sites without exception are connected to historical kings and personages recorded in the chronicles. This incorporation of ancient cultural sites in to a single unit depicting the history of the majority community conversely marginalized and culturally disfranchised other ethnic, language and religious groups. Rajarata was made an extended sacred space of Anuradhapura. Of the six UNESCO World Heritage sites, four sites are located in Rajarata.

For our purpose it is useful to take note of the ideology constituting the Cultural Triangle. The motto of the CT is ‘to revive the Glory that was Sri Lanka’, quite obviously harking back to the ‘Golden Age’! Reading sections of the original resolution adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 20th session in 1978 is a revelation. The opening page of the document carries the statement of the Secretary General of UNESCO and it records, “Anuradhapura, the holy city that was the first capital of Sinhalese-Buddhism.” (Silva and Guruge: 1) [My emphasis]. He continues to thank the Sri Lankan government for taking “steps to preserve and restore most of the age old monuments in the ancient cities”. There are direct references legitimizing history and identities in the following words. “The first Aryan colonization took place from northern India about 6th Century BC…In the two thousand years of the country’s greatness the Sinhalese constructed massive domed shrines…the ancient Sinhalese were able to build huge reservoirs as long ago as the fourth Century BC.” (Ibid. 5) [My emphasis]. The Secretary General’s closing paragraph is noteworthy: “…if not for UNESCO’s interest in cooperating with and stimulating further efforts of the national authorities, we would not have seen the birth of this important project” (ibid. 7). This is indeed a legitimizing charter sanctioned by UNESCO. This statement raises some critical issues and implications as to ‘who owns the past’, ‘who orders the past’ and ‘who legitimizes the past’.

The role of the international body legitimizing the ideology and claim of the majority ethnic, language and religious group is questionable. The Cultural Traingle never extended its angle further north incorporating the dominantly Hindu and Tamil-speaking zone. While all major Universities were affiliated to the Cultural triangle Project the University of Jaffna was not enlisted to the Project. On the other hand, the original projects at Anuradhapura (Jetavana and Abhayagiri) were headed by two academics specialized in history and Buddhist studies respectively. In terms of scientific investigations, the multi cultural character or the existence of several religious groupings in this city was never high lighted. For instance, the discovery of a Nestorian cross at Anuradhapura dated to the 6th Century AC; the retrieval of several Hindu statues from the (1980’s) excavations of Jetavana; the discovery from the same site a Mahayana statue bearing a 11th Century Tamil inscription inscribing its offer by the South India mercantile guild, the Nanadesin, are yet to be taken into a serious dialogue. In addition, the powerful presence of Mahayana and Tantrayana sects as dominant groups in Anuradhapura is a factor not taken up for discussion at all. In terms of material evidence, large quantities of Sassanian pottery (that has a bearing on the Nestorian cross) and other imported ceramics from India, China and the Mediterranean; large amounts of imported raw material for bead making (e.g. onyx, agate, lapis), imported raw material such as cuddapah stone from southern Deccan; coins belonging to the Classical civilizations in India, the Mediterranean and China found at the Abhayagiri, Jetavana, Mahavihara and evidence from the Citadel excavations highlighting the complex commercial vortex and the presence of a considerable multi cultural residential group in Anuradhapura may be noted here. The Mahavamsa in its city description of Anuradhapura, quite categorically records the living quarters of Yavana, or those who arrived from the west. Though the text mentions this as a 4th Century BC situation, it must be noted that the Mahavamsa was documented in the 4th/5th Century AC, which was the peak period of commercial relations between West Asia and Sri Lanka. This factor is now well substantiated by the excavations at Mantai or ancient Mahatittha, the great port city in North West Sri Lanka. Frequent invasions, friendly political interactions and matrimonial alliances between the royal house of Anuradhapura and those in South India as well as the presence of mercenary forces assisting the kings who had separate dwelling areas is recorded in the texts and inscriptions of the Late Historic period.

With the commencement of excavation and conservation work at the two great monasteries in Anuradhapura it created other implications. Following the 1983 July ethnic violence the CT sites became the ‘spring revitalizing the lost glory of the Sinhalese’. The focus was essentially to revive Buddhist sites and conserve large stupa monuments associated with monastic sites. Local and central government politicians made regular trips to Anuradhapura for press briefings with each ‘glorious’ discovery. The antiquarian mindset was in motion again and the finds at Jetavana were termed ‘Treasures of Jetavana’! Beautiful beads, sculpture, statues, ceramics were elegantly displayed at site museums along with the historical narration of the Middle Historic texts. The social archaeology in the functioning of the monastery, production, trade, metal technologies were alien concepts to this mind set. Hoards of iron slag and other remains of non-deluxe ware were hardly inventorized and studied. A research agenda was almost non-existent in the excavation or field reconnaissance program at Anuradhapura. Serious analytical studies were sporadic and interpretative studies were mainly commissioned to strengthen the Buddhist history of Anuradhapura and to authenticate the Mahavamsa narration. One of the most valuable archaeological sites in South Asia, the Citadel of Anuradhapura did not even enter the picture as a significant component of the heritage site of the Cultural Triangle! The Citadel now stands on its own right as one of the prime archaeological sites in South Asia and its research program revealed an alternative perspective on the early social formations and peopling of Sri Lanka.

The CT work also triggered off more conservation cum presentation work at other Buddhist sites in the ancient city. Several powerful ministers (Late Gamini Dissanayake and Cyril Mathew) in the decade of 1980 founded their own Buddhist Restoration Societies and undertook restoration and conservation work at Anuradhapura. They disregarded the authority and purview of the Government Department of Archaeology and subverted and contravened all laws of conservation. The Misrisawetiya stupa is a case in point. The late minister Gamini Dissanayake, selected this stupa founded by Dutthagamini. The stupa itself had an emotional appeal to the Buddhist. The Mahavamsa records that the relic of the Buddha that was placed in the spear carried at the helm of the ‘liberating forces’ of Dutthagamani during their march to expel the invading Tamils was enshrined in this stupa (see Greenwald …..). A series of other smaller stupa conservations carried along with this stupa, adhered to the stereotype bubble shape of the Suwarnamali cetiya, disregarding the original shapes of these stupa monuments. This perhaps was the main disservice done to conservation and presentation by contemporary politicians. The heritage site of Anuradhapura became the trend setter in the archaeological and conservation agenda in Sri Lanka.

Intangible heritage, national heritage and anti thesis to World Heritage
Rapidly altering social and economic situations due to economic and cultural globalization expressed through new market relationships and investment ventures inducted by the open economy, aggressive evangelic activities carried out by fundamentalist Christian organizations and the growing fear of a vertical geo-political division of this island and acts of terrorism carried out by the LTTE at scared spaces poses some questions about the management of heritage sites and strictures imposed by UNESCO in the grand scheme of presenting and maintaining the authenticity of such sites. This is with special reference to the sentiments expressed by local communities, which may be seen as an anti thesis to inscribing Anuradhapura, and other sites as WHS. This is a real situation in relation to existing and/or the renewal of individual or community identity with the traditional culture drawing its inspiration from the past. It is essentially interwoven with the intangible heritage and its practical expressions. These sentiments are associated on the one hand with the ‘right to be associated psychologically and physically with sacred and cultural spaces’ and on the other hand the right to protect and safeguard such symbols nurturing and perpetuating such identities.

In our own experience, site management decorum applied at living WHS becomes an impediment on the free flow of the intangible heritage. Neatly demarcated pathway ‘forcefully’ guiding the movement of the pilgrims and visitors, restrictions imposed on certain types of rituals and expressions that were practiced for thousands of years at these very sites, restriction of entrée after visiting hours (when such sites are aesthetically most appealing) tend to dilute the ‘living’ heritage at heritage sites! Some of these sites, as the archaeological record show, were market centers where exchange took place between the pilgrim and vendors during the Classical period of the city. At present, sites within the Anuradhapura Scared City are docile and are devoid of ‘life’. Neatly manicured turfs and planted trees, planned pathways and conserved monuments displays the contemporary psyche of the corporate architect rather than the aspirations of the rightful stake holders of the heritage – the devotee and the visitor. The critical question to pose is how one ‘manages’ the intangible, who ‘owns’ the past and the imposition of certain borrowed ideas and concepts from above and/or the west. This situation calls for a reassessment of the modalities of site administration where a greater partnership between the state and all stakeholders are called for.

The right to protect the site of Anuradhapura strongly emerges during the post 1980s decade with foreign investments, Christian evangelic movements in the North Central province and the intensification of the war on terrorism in the north. Efforts made by a US and Japan based multi-nationals in collaboration with the state to exploit one of the largest phosphate deposits in South Asia at Eppawala drew much protests from environmentalists and village communities. The slogans had a strong focus denouncing world capitalism, the west and the ‘white’ imperialists. Slogans were mainly focused on the dangers this extraction will ultimately unleash upon Anuradhapura, its culture and environs. In addition to various civil activities, regular religious ceremonies were held at the sacred Bodhi tree and Ruwanveli cetiya. Posters and slogans called for the resurrection of hero kings of Anuradhapura to save it again from the foreign devils. Anuradhapura again became a place of convergence for national sentiments and an inverted cultural expression. This also witnessed coalescence between the sacred life-giving natural resources and sacred religio-cultural spaces.

The growth of Buddhist militancy and its direct culmination in Buddhist monks occupying parliamentary seats and a new awareness of controlling cultural sites and its resources – in some cases the income from tourism, has given vent to challenges leveled at the writ of the state and UNESCO over WHS. At the ground level too there is a small but growing public sentiments questioning the ‘right’ to interfere by an external agency. For instance in the Heritage city of Kandy, some members of the mercantile sector who openly flout these strictures for economic expediency, advocate the city taking care of itself. There is however a stronger sentiment expressed by certain Buddhist monks, which may require a closer understanding of the ground realities. In a statement given to a national newspaper (Sunday Times June 12th 2005), the chief incumbent priest at the WHS of Rangiri Dambulla has categorically stated that Dambulla “…which has existed for more than 2000 years, is in reality a Buddhist heritage and not a World Heritage Site. The inclusion of the Rangiri Dambulla Vihara in the World Heritage List was a tactic of the modern colonialists”. (Emphasis mine). The priest recounted the significance of the Rangiri Danbulla where the 1848 rebellion against the British rule was carried out from this site by the local leadership. He states further: while the World Bank and IMF control third world countries, UNESCO is attempting to control world’s cultural and heritage sites; the relevance of being in the WHS list when the UNESCO stood helpless as the Taliban demolished the Bamiyan statues!

One cannot simply consider these as statements of Buddhist chauvinism and brush them aside. They are responses to real and at times to hopeless situations. Impoverished village communities – threatened by terrorism, multi nationals, fluctuating prices due to the global integration, new religions – have been compelled to embrace their memory and seek solace in the past. It is a reality that they have been unable to deal with situations often beyond their control or miseries imposed on them through external agencies. The nascent development of social fascism occurs precisely within such situations and history has its case studies in the rise and growth of Nazism when the folk culture was romanticized and communities looked back to the lost ‘Golden Age’ under seemingly hopeless situations.

The internal war situation is yet another dimension in this anti thesis challenging the status quo of the UNESCO WHS. The tragic rejection of the official ordering of the past expressed through violence is a case in point. In 1984 the LTTE carried out a bloody massacre of the peaceful pilgrims at the sacred Bodhi tree and a second attack in 1998 on another WHS, the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic in Kandy. Thus heritage management had now to contend with a new and violent political dimension. These attacks had many ramifications on heritage sites, its management and the very justification of their existence. The terror unleashed on the Sri Maha Bodhi and the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic is a calculated attack striking at the heart of the legitimizing symbols of the Sinhala-Buddhist community. Both sites (and their content) linked the Sinhala-Buddhist community to ‘Aryan’ North India (accepted region of origin of the Sinhala ‘race’), Buddhism (ideology) and sacred spaces nurturing their tangible and intangible heritage and finally to the protector-patron of the community (the Sri Lankan state). This was also an indirect challenge posed to world bodies that recognized heritage sites of only one community. Secondly, following these attacks, real changes had to be introduced to the management strategies (especially streamlining visitor access controlled by security systems) and also to sites infrastructure. All this had an impact on the landscape, curtailment of presentation and even the authenticity of the site. It is significant to note that the Heritage Site at Anuradhapura, until very recent times, had an authentic look of a fortified town.

Archaeology and conflict Resolution: Remedial strategies at Anuradhapura
There is yet a great dearth of research evaluating contemporary socio-political ideologies based on the past. Many scholars, in the social sciences and the humanities, are yet to realize the significance of ethno-cultural history of south Asia as a powerful undercurrent within contemporary political structures. The lacuna in synthesizing contemporary studies with cultural sources such as the historical texts, oral history, ancient material cultural evidence including biological studies deprived a larger section of such scholars making a complete evaluation of contemporary socio-political ideologies drawing a good deal of inspiration from the past.

Efforts are made on the part of certain academics and Non Governmental Organization sponsored study circles to cater to a Western audience suffering from the ‘Post World War Guilt Syndrome’. Not only have they over anthropoligised the past, but they are guilty of adhering to a linear view of history where it is believed that contemporary ethno-nationalism is rooted in the ideology of the Classical Middle Historic texts of Sri Lanka. We have identified this situation as Post Post-Modern Orientalism and Mahavamsa-bashing (Seneviratne 1996:275; 1999). It is often thought to be fashionable to be critical of the ‘oppressor’, in this case the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’! In fact though there are good critical studies analyzing ‘Sinhala-Buddhist parochialism’, ‘Tamil parochialism’ or other ethno-parochialisms are yet to receive critical evaluation in the hand of liberal scholars (Jeganathan and Ismail 1995).

In our recent studies we have questioned some accepted views on the peopling of Sri Lanka, the ‘Aryan’ identity, center-periphery interaction, the ‘agrarian’ character of the Early Iron Age economy during the Formative Period and myth of a Dravidian race and the perpetuation of myths and the subversion of history and archaeology by the decision-makers of both communities (Seneviratne 1984; 1996; 2005). De-mythification of these basic premises, invented through Colonial and Nationalist historiography, becomes a virtual necessity in order to have an objective view of historical processes. Ground realities of the sub continental situation also demand that scholarly studies in reading the past must be devoid of parochialism, especially in educating the next generation (Stone and MacKenzie 1994; Seneviratne 2001b) and in interpretative studies.

With the evolution of a totalitarian political system in north and east of Sri Lanka and an increasing tempo of parochialism in the south of Sri Lanka, it is important that scholarly and balanced studies are undertaken on the political structure, concept of identity and its underlying social ideology. Intellectuals with a sense of humanistic social awareness are compelled now to take up a new challenge. Scholarly tasks must be located beyond the narrow confines of a mere intellectual exercise of the academic.

As an alternative to the monologue with the past we now carry out a dialogue with the past. We now utilize archaeology and heritage studies as a major avenue of conflict resolution. The state, UNESCO and the public at large must come to terms of a partnership in relation to Heritage Sites. Unless and until we learn to present the past incorporating all communities as its stakeholders and develop an unbiased historical explanation of the past, it will only alienate different groups for different reasons. The same data and evidence that was used to divide communities is used now to provide an alternative history on the reality of cultural pluralism and diversity of the Sri Lankan cultural mosaic.

We have been able to carry this out at one level through the familiarization of the concept of shared cultures. The primary target group in our effort is the next generations, who are the primary stakeholders of the heritage. While they belong to different religious, language and ethnic denominations they essentially form the future leadership of heritage managers. Our activities are carried out from the base at Jetavana, which is one of the segments within the Sacred City of Anuradhapura World Heritage Site (End note 1). Following two decades of excavations and conservation, Jetavana is now ready for public presentation based on a new concept, vision and state-of-the-art techniques. The projected year for the completion of this new site presentation is 2006-07. It unveils a totally novel concept in the presentation of heritage sites in Sri Lanka known as the Public Participatory Interactive Museum and Site Presentation. This idea signals a definitive paradigm shift in site presentation away from Orientalist-Antiquarianism and it introduces an alternate concept of Shared-Cultures representing the actual but somewhat less known personality of such World Heritage sites situated in multi-cultural societies.

The Social Archaeology of Museum and Site Presentation
It is said that “since a major function of museums and reconstructions is to socialize the public, the ideological content of their archaeological messages has an especially pronounced impact’ (Blakey 1990: 38). Quite evidently, along with the census and maps, museums form a key institutional concept in the grammar of Colonial power (Maskell 1998:3).

Site and museum presentation in Sri Lanka, since the Colonial Period, had established an inverted scope at the off set. Both take a tunnel view and present the site more often in isolation in time and space that ultimately conditions a parochial vision. The museum presentations are essentially constructed within an ‘Antiquarian gallery’ mindset i.e. pottery gallery, bead gallery, sculpture gallery etc. The social archaeology of production, technology, labor, resource movement, cognitive value of sculptured art is never featured in display systems. Museums also project and elite dimension and less the history of people. It is also a one dimensional exclusive history of the Sinhala-speaking people and Buddhism. Other cultures, ethno-religious or language groups are hidden in history. It represents not only a history of half truths; but also imposes from above an exclusive history on an inclusive society.

In view of this an alternative perspective will be applied at the Anuradhapura Jetavana site. Two primary segments in this presentation will be the site and the archaeological site museum where the site and its museum will be presented as a synthesized whole. The target group will be local and foreign cultural tourists, pilgrims and young students (the next generation). The concept views the public as stakeholders of its presentation and heritage. The whole exercise is also done with a view to present the Anuradhapura in its real context. This magnificent heritage site has been for too long presented in the main as a religious site and identified with a dubious term ‘Monastic City’. Anuradhapura has been robbed off its legacy as a multi cultural city and a thriving commercial hub. The social archaeology of artefacts provides an insight to the actual dynamics and the personality of this site. Hundreds of thousands of beads, ceramics, ivory, and other luxury items speaks volumes for the arrival of merchants from the Mediterranean, the Far East, West Asia, and the existence of Christian, Islamic and Hindu worshippers as well (see end note 2).

Grasping the social archaeology is a vital factor in the rationale for a shift in the paradigm of site presentation. The intangible cultural value is critical in establishing an identity to the site. It is identified as a place of religious observances that is entwined with sentiments of piety and dedicated expressions and emotions. Though this is primarily a religious site, the rationale of the site presentation is to situate Jetavana within a socio-cultural context representing its international dimension to the visitor as well.

Jetavana will be presented as a segmentary site in relation to the composite whole and to the site itself. The visitors will first experience a ‘virtual tour’ through the following presentations within the museum. The flow of information linking the object to cognition and interpretation will play a central role in this process.
The above process envisages a multiple synthesis.
1. Synthesis between the site and the Heritage city and beyond
2. Synthesis between the museum and the site
3. Synthesis between the visitor and the site
4. Synthesis between time and space

In addition to foreign tourists, Jetavana draws a large number of school children from the Tamil speaking Hindu and Muslim groups in north and east Sri Lanka. The presentation on site and in the museum will be carried out on a strictly non-parochial manner and in all three national languages providing the best evidence of the multi-cultural personality of this island society. In an effort to project the inclusive character of this island’s society (as against the exclusive society projected by chauvinists of both southern and northern Sri Lanka) it is appropriate that the history of this country be presented as a shared culture with all ethnic, religious and language groups as stakeholders of the historical legacy. Out-reach program planned out from the site is primarily geared as a flow of information system for school children enhancing their participatory role and capacity-building through awareness programs and hands-on activities Some of the systems in place are: mobile presentation in schools, periodic exhibitions, participatory role in site cleaning, excavation and conservation programs, publication of a user-friendly hand book on project writing with special reference to heritage site management for GCE (AL) examination, post graduate research officers set apart for school archaeology program, painting, poetry and essay competitions, interactive hands-on activity on site with special reference to photography and artifact analysis, site visits to India by research officers on the Outreach program for Shared Cultures, where they carry out short term study tours to secular and religious sites and sites representing various regional and pan South Asian architectural styles and the sculptured art.

In the final analysis, the ideological basis of site presentation will not end with our generation. New formations will most certainly emerge and leave behind its mark and fingerprint. We are however confidant that the next generation will celebrate the world heritage based on shared culture as the most valuable gift endowed to humanity from the past.

———

End notes
1. The name Jetavanarama has an antiquity dating back to the time of the Buddha. A forest grove, purchased by the merchant-banker Anathapindika from Prince Jeta was bestowed to the Buddha and his monks as a monastery of residence, was called Jetavanarama. Hundreds of miles south of the middle Gangetic valley and some eight Centuries later a second Jetavana came into existence, within the pre-existing Nandana grove. The great stupa and the monastery complex at Jetavana are situated adjacent to the southeast fortification of the citadel of Anuradhapura. The watercourse, Malwatu oya and Halpan-ela (an irrigation cannel) demarcate the natural boundaries of this site. The archaeological reserve approximately covers an area of 80 hectares. King Mahasena is credited with the founding of the Jetavana monastery around the latter half of 3rd Century AC and it grew in size and splendor throughout the Middle Historic period. The founder of the great stupa is not known but it had reached its present proportions by 8th Century AC. This magnificent monument in its completed form scales nearly 350 feet in height from the ground level and yet holds its position as the tallest brick monument in the world and almost comparable in size to the third pyramid of Giza in Egypt.

The Archaeology of Jetavana
The excavation and conservation program of the UNESCO-CCF was carried under the directorship of Dr. Hema Ratnayake while the present writer executed the reoriented archaeology program since 2000 (Seneviratne 1999; 2001; 2001a). Pre historic microlithic tools, flakes and raw material (clear quartz and chert) and bone remains, bearing some resemblance to the faunal assemblage of the Pre Historic levels in the Citadel, were retrieved from deep excavations around the stupa. It is suggested that the stupa area did possess a pre Christian sacred space associated with Thera Mahinda who is credited with the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka (Ratnayake 1997; 1982).A one-mile field reconnaissance along the banks of the Malwatu oya (2000 and 2001) established clear signs of Pre Historic tool production sites and small mounds of the Early Iron Age culture. Investigations also indicated that the stupa area and the western quarter of the site had a relatively high density of cultural activity during the Early Historic period (3rd Century BC to 3rd Century AC) representing a habitation. This may indicate a demographic spill over from the Citadel area and early commercial activity associated with trunk routes moving from the south along the Halpan watercourse into the primary habitation in the Citadel.

Following the establishment of the monastery on a section of the ground wrested from the Mahavihara, the Jetavanarama grew over the next six centuries. “The monastery as a whole consists of all major elements of a highly developed complex with monastic edifices: stupa, image shrine, Bodhi tree (Ficus Religiosa) shrine, chapter house, assembly halls and residential complexes of several units “(CCF 1994). In addition the residential monks were provided with wells, ponds, toilets, hot water baths, refectories and a series of ritual buildings for various observances and practices.

Over two decades of excavations also provides an insight to the material culture at this monastery. These include local ceramics from overseas (Sassanian, Indian, Chinese and Mediterranean Ware), intaglio, seals and beads (numbering over thousands) manufactured from imported and locally available semi precious stone and other raw material, objects made of silver, gold, iron, copper, bronze, ivory, glass, shell and chank including imported cuddaph marble stone for sculpture. The discovery of the gold plates inscribed with the Mahayana text, the Pragnaparamita in 1982 is considered to be one of the most remarkable cultural finds from Jetavana.

2. The monastic site has a wide range of remains representing almost the entire range of buildings and other aspect of architectural features associated with the sculptured art. Balustrades, moonstones, sculptured steps, guard stones and other forms of males, females and cult figures in stone decorate precisely located positions in the monastery. The sculptured remains of Buddha statues, Mahayana statues and post 10th Century bronzes of Hindu deities (Ratanayake 1997) unveil an interesting chapter in the multi cultural nature of this site. Trading activity is represented by an array of coins of Sri Lanka and foreign origin such as the Punch Marked, Roman, Satavahana, Kushana, Indo-Greek and Colonial coins. In addition, inscriptions dating from 3rd-4th Century AD to the 12th Century provide a useful corpus on the ritual and monastic practices of this site.
1. Pre Jetavana period: the Pre History, Early Iron Age and the intrusion of the Gangetic valley civilization at Anuradhapura.
2. The Site Hall: the most representative functional monuments in the site will be presented in the visual form and with material remains. The visitor will receive an insight to the lay out and functions of the site at this point
3. The ‘Sculptured statue garden’ will display the best representations of the sculptured art found at Jetavana, arranged thematically and chronologically.
4 The visitors will be guided into the ‘Hall of social archaeology and ancient material culture’. This section is expected to be the heart of the museum. Results of long years of toil carried out by the young archaeologists will be presented here. The presentation will break away from the mind-set of the antiquarian. While finished products (so far known as ‘treasures’) will be featured, every item will be presented from its status as raw material to the finished product. This would feature procurement of raw material, production technologies, the life of the producer, movement of resources etc. Objets of metal, stone, beads, ceramics, ivory, coins, floral and faunal remains including paleobiological remains will be on display. The ‘Wall of letters’ situated in this Hall is a display on paleographic evolution and the epigraphical notices at Jetavana.
5 The ‘Corridor of classical built environment’ is a section that will elaborate various types of architectural features and their functional uses.
6 The Hall of Heritage Management brings the visitor into the data and information section comprising conservation presentation, theory and practice of archaeology, information on international conventions and the looting of cultural property. This Hall will be furnished with a user-friendly library.
7 The visitors will exit from the museum and commence on their walk tour of the site. In approximately 11/2 hours visitors will literally touch various monuments. For user-friendly presentation purposes the site will be divided into four sectors i.e. residential area, the sacred space, functional area, ritual area. Combined with the virtual tour in the museum, on site material evidence from these segments provides a greater understanding on the dynamics of the monastery and its behavior pattern.
8 At the end of the walk tour a facility will be provided for children for hands-on experience in artifact handling, documentation and photography.

Reference

Central Cultural Fund 1994
The Cultural Triangle of Sri Lanka International Campaign. Colombo. CCF

Rajapaksa, Aruna 2002
“Redefining the Heritage Site of Anuradhapura: Problems of site management and Tourism in a World Heritage Site” Paper presented at the Workshop on Material Culture and History of society. The social Archaeology of Pre Modern Sri Lanka. AISLS and the Department of Archaeology, University of Peradeniya.

Ratnayake, Hema 1982
First Archaeological Excavation and Research Report. Jetavana Project. Anuradhapura. Colombo. CCF

1997 “Jetavana Stupa and Monastery Complex”. The Cultural Triangle. Paris.
UNESCO-CCF.

Seneviratne, Sudharshan 1996
“Peripheral Regions and Marginal Communities: Towards an Alternative Explanation of Early Iron Age Material and Social Formations in Sri Lanka”. Tradition, Dissent and Ideology: Essays in Honour of Romila Thapar. Ed. R. Champakalakshmi and S. Gopal. Delhi. Oxford.264-312.

1999 “Deconstructing the Past and Reconstructing the Present: Ideology in Archaeology and Heritage Management in South Asia” Paper presented at the 15th Conference on South Asian Archaeology. Leiden.

2001 Archaeological Investigations and Research at Jetavana, Anuradhapura. Report submitted to UNESCO

2002 Archaeological Investigations for 2002. Report submitted to the Director General of Archaeology

Related posts:

Tags: HERITAGE, MULTI-CULTURAL
Posted in Monthly Theme, Prof. Sudharshan Seneviratne