Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
caves
Monks,
reassessment
in
Buddhism
and
of
Sri
kings:
the
Lanka
nature
of
early
Robin A. E. Coningham
Abstract
Thispaperbeginsbydescribingthe earlyhistoryof Buddhismin SriLankaas recordedin the two Pali
chronicles,the Dipavamsaand the Mahavamsa.Theirgeneralapproachtreatsthe introductionof
Buddhisminto the island as a royal packagesent by the EmperorAsoka to his Sri Lankanally
DevanampiyaTissa, throughthe former'sson anddaughter,Mahindaand Sanghamitta.Buddhism
was immediatelyacceptedas the state religion,thuslinkingit withthe destinyof the Sinhalapeople.
This patternis not, however, supportedby the only extantcategoryof Buddhistarchaeological
remainsfrom this period - over 1,000 Buddhistcave-dwellings.It is clear from their dedicatory
inscriptionsthat they were constructedby patrons bearing high royal titles about whom the
chroniclesare remarkablysilent.
By drawingfromstudiesof modernforest-dwellingmonks,it is possibleto identifymorefullythe
processesat workand to identifythe discrepancybetweenthe two records.It is arguedthatthe first
monksattractedpoliticalpatronageby virtueof theirasceticdisciplineand soon becameone of the
vehicles for competitionbetween localizedpoliticalorganizations.As this competitionended, a
single high king rulinga loose politicalfederationemerged, with the formerlyascetic monastery
communitiesas wealthyfeudallandlords;both were increasinglyinterdependent.This relationship
led to the creationof a foundationmythforevercementingthe interestsof the legitimaterulerswith
the survivaland patronageof Buddhism.
Keywords
Anuradhapura;EarlyBuddhism;forestmonks;inscriptions;kingship;SriLanka.
Introduction
The island of Sri Lanka (former Ceylon) covers some 65,525 km2 and is located off the
extreme southeastern coast of the Indian Peninsula (see Chakrabarti Fig. 1, this volume).
Although it is separated from India by a narrow physical distance, the Palk straits,
culturally that distance is far wider. Whilst the southern Indian polities have been typified
as consisting of Hindu Dravidian speakers, the Sri Lankan polity has been typified as
World Archaeology
223
224
Robin A. E. Coningham
Palk
Straits
ot~~~~~s3
Figue
Mn
Uradhapur&
\ t
\ g
apura
aswng
/
\
District
Mihintale
~~~Ritigala *
\
Ma
tle
Po~~~~~alannaruva
Dist
L -
District
?k
50
s~~~~~~~d
Distric
Kegall\7Distrect<S
\nx
gS
E
X
~Ba
X
lla
D istr
Di
~~~~~C~afagala
Mof
Noorth\
-FigureI
50krn
"'S
t
0 a0
*t-t*- @
;0w'
* 'I
O
.t~~~~~
Ct~~~~~~~~~~~~
North
nuadhpur
Figue
.
Mapof
ri
H~~~~~~~~~~0
5~~~~~~0k
_
ank
~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
.
lnscrlptlons.~~~~~~~~~*0
sh
win
th
lo
ati ns o ca e-d
225
ellngs
wit
ealy
udd istdontio
Abhayagiri
Vihara
Malwattu
(Bulan
kulm
I Anuradha
City
Monasteries
Ve {river)
(reservoir)
0
O
cistern
227
ura
apovana)
0 0
0
Garden
ahananda
Basewk
tu
Thupara
Kuiem (reservoir)
Mahavihara
Gard
(Mahameghavan
*
Bo-treeorWw
rr~r
O lsurumuni
Tisa
Wwa
North
Vlh
ra
(reservoir)
Vessagiriye
hara
1km
king of the gods).12 The six agreed and allegedly flew to Sri Lanka and landed near
Anuradhapura, the capital of king Devanampiya Tissa, on the Missaka mountain (now
known as Mihintale) 'as swans (alight) on the summit of a hill'."3It is also recorded that
Mahinda possessed great magical powers and the six supernatural faculties,14 whilst his five
companions were equipped with the six supernatural faculties.'5
Devanampiya Tissa was hunting on Mihintale and was led to the group by the yakkha
(spirit) of the mountain in the disguise of a stag.'6 Mahinda addressed the king by name'
and successfully converted him and his accompanying hunters.'8 The king requested the
six to proceed to his capital, but, declining the use of a chariot, they allegedly flew to
Anuradhapura."9A pavilion was erected for their use in the grounds of the palace so that
228
Robin A. E. Coningham
they might preach to and convert the ladies of the court.20The six then preached to the
city's citizens in the Elephant Stables21and in the Mahanandana pleasure garden to the
south of the city,22converting great numbers of them.
When night came the king asked them to stay in the garden, but Mahinda replied that
'The town . . . is too close by; in the night there will be a great noise; nay let us go to that
mountain which is like the palace of Sakka and well fitting for a retired existence'.23 The
king then offered another royal pleasure garden, the Mahameghavana, which 'is well fitted
for a retired existence and suits ascetic people'.24 The six agreed to spend the night there in
the royal pavilion.25The next day the garden was given to the sangha for the construction
of the Maha Vihara or great monastery (Fig. 2).26 Together Mahinda and the king
identified the locations of the important buildings to be built there,27and the king marked
the limits of the monastery with a plough.28 Each day the six went into the city to preach
and receive alms from the king; but when the rainy season approached, they returned to
Mihintale.29 Devanampiya Tissa followed them there and offered them cave-dwellings
saying 'venerable thera, take possession of these rock-cut cells'30and Mahinda marked the
new monastery's boundaries.3' Following this, the king's nephew and fifty-five chiefs were
ordained and joined the sangha.32
At the end of the rainy season, relics of the Buddha, consisting of his alms-bowl and
collar-bone, were collected from Asoka33 and the king of the gods;34and Devanampiya
Tissa began the construction of the Thuparama stupa (a stone and brick mound or
tumulus) for them.35The king's wife requested ordination from Mahinda but was told that
it could only be conferred by bhikkhunis (Buddhist nuns).36Therefore Mahinda's sister,
Sanghamitta, was sent for. She brought a branch of the bodhi-tree, under which the
Buddha obtained enlightenment, to Anuradhapura37and planted it in the Maha Vihara.
Royal patronage continued with the founding of further religious establishments,
including the Isurumuni monastery,38 Vessagiri monastery,39 Colakatissa Vihara,40 and
two convents.4' Devanampiya Tissa was succeeded by his younger brother, Uttiya, during
whose reign Mahinda died at Mihintale42and was cremated near the east gate of the Maha
Vihara where the site was marked with a stupa.43
These documents imply that the establishment of Buddhism in Sri Lanka was a royal
prerogative. Mahinda was sent during the reign of Asoka as part of the latter's efforts to
convert neighbouring states to Buddhism. The two principal missionaries, Mahinda and
Sanghamitta, were even his children. It is also clear that, once the Sri Lankan king had
been converted, Buddhism immediately become the state religion of the Anuradhapura
kingdom with royal sponsorship, and all the early Buddhist establishments and their
monuments were the result of the king's patronage. Although we know the locations of
nearly all of these early Buddhist establishments, they have been so developed and
expanded by later kings that no trace of the original structures have been identified.
229
74,
Plate I General view of early cave-dwellings at Vessagiri monastery in Anuradhapura (freestanding ornamental ashlar are later additions).
survival is due to their indestructibility; whilst other monuments have been remodelled or
robbed out, they have remained in a pristine state. Unlike the contemporary Indian
rock-cut caves of Barabar which were completely rock-cut, most Sri Lankan examples are
in a more natural state (Plate 1). Rahula describes a fifth-century AD technique for making
natural caves habitable. The cave was filled with firewood and set alight in order to remove
unpleasant smells and dislodge loose splinters of rock. The cave was then cleared of debris,
a wall built across the mouth and a drip ledge cut above the mouth to prevent rainwater
flowing into the cave (Rahula 1956: 114).
The dating of these caves is facilitated by the presence of inscriptions on the drip ledges
above the caves (Plate 2), without which it would be impossible to date or suggest a
function. The majority of these were recorded and deciphered during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century; however, this work had begun as early as 1855 AD
(Paranavitana 1970, I: i). Although Paranavitana's monograph, The Early Brahmi
Inscriptions of Ceylon, contained 1,234 donations of caves, he noted that 'it cannot by any
means be claimed that all such records in the Island have been included' (ibid.: v). Each
inscription records the donation of at least one cave to the sangha between the third
century BC and the first century AD.
The inscriptions often contain information about the royal and religious affiliation and
occupation of the patron (Table 1). Of the 1,234 donations, seventy-nine were from royal
patrons or members of the royal family (ibid.: xlvi). To this number we may add
230
Robin A. E. Coningham
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plate 2 Detail of a drip ledge and early Buddhist donation inscription at Vessagiri monastery in
Anuradhapura.
Paranavitana's category of local rulers and princes, resulting in a total of 6.4 per cent royal
donations. Twenty-one donations were from brahmans (members of high caste Hindu
priestly families) and their families, with occupations listed as treasurers, chiefs, royal
physicians and teachers. They represent 1.7 per cent of the sample, and one even records
royal connections (ibid.: no. 814). The majority of the titled donors, 372, are recorded
from individuals bearing the title parumaka (chief) and their families (ibid: lxxiv),
representing 30.2 per cent of the inscriptions. Donations by gamikas (village squires) and
Table I Details of the rank of donors of early Buddhist cave-dwellings in
Sri Lanka
Donor
Royal
Brahmans
Parumakas
Gamikas
Gapatis
Craftsmen
Others
Total
No. of donations
79
21
372
103
66
13
580
1234
% of donations
6.4
1.7
30.2
8.3
5.3
1.1
47
100
231
their families (ibid.: lxxxvii-iii) account for 103 inscriptions, representing 8.3 per cent.
Another significant group is that of the gapatis (householders) and their families with a
total of sixty-six inscriptions, representing some 5.3 per cent. There are only thirteen donations from craftsmen, representing 1.1 per cent of the sample. It is also possible to make
comments on the religious affiliations of donors. As mentioned above, twenty-one caves
were donated by Brahmans or the relatives of Brahmans (ibid.: lxviii); in addition, there
were five donations by individuals with names that belong to a Brahman gotra (family)
(ibid.: lxix). The majority of patrons had names suggesting the very varied religious affinities possessed by the first patrons of Buddhism (ibid: cxxiii). One inscription even suggests
that the donor was himself a Brahman who had become a Buddhist monk (ibid.: lxviii).
Although there are seventy-nine royal donors, very few can be identified with individuals in the chronicles. Paranavitana failed to identify a single donation from the first royal
patron of Buddhism, Devanampiya Tissa (r. 250-210 BC). However, it seems possible that
nos. 2 and 31 are donations from one of his consorts and from the sister of one of his consorts (ibid.: liv). Only three donations, nos. 34, 46 & 47, have been identified from king
Uttiya (r. 210-200 BC), Devanampiya Tissa's brother and successor (ibid.: lii). Other
identified kings include Vankanasika Tissa (r. AD 111-114), the donor of no. 54 (Paranavitana, 1970, II. 1), and Lanjatissa (r. 119-109 BC), the donor of twenty-five caves in no.
428 (Paranavitana 1970, I).
Although it may be argued that many inscriptions do not allow the identification of a
particular king, there are cases of donations from kings who are not mentioned in the
chronicles. We can construct the genealogy of three generations of a previously unknown
royal family from the four inscriptions in the Kandy/Matale region. Pacina Rajha (king)
Naga, his sons Rajha Abaya and Tisa-aya (prince), and his grandson Tisa-aya, are mentioned in nos. 814, 831, 832 and 833. Another royal family were patrons in the Kegalle
area. Four generations of the family of king Duhatara made donations at the same sites
(ibid.: nos. 786, 792 and 795). They record the donations of the king himself; his son,
prince Siva; his grandson, prince Dusatara; and his great-grandson, Gamani-Siva. Three
generations of another unknown royal family are recorded in Badulla District (ibid.: nos.
756 and 757). Two inscriptions allow us to construct the genealogy of king Siva, his son,
prince Siva and his grandson, prince Siva. Another previously unrecorded king is found in
western Anuradhapura District, where no. 111 refers to Rajaputta (son of a king) Kanna,
the son of king Kanna. Yet another unknown king, Diparajha (king of the island), can be
identified in the donation of his daughter at Mihintale (ibid.: no. 37). Paranavitana believed that this referred to the ruler of Nagadipa (the Jaffna Peninsula) (ibid.: lxiii). The
most interesting donation is no. 813 in Kandy District. From this single inscription it is
possible to reconstruct five generations of a royal family which can be identified in the Sri
Lankan chronicles. The genealogy begins with king Mahaculi Mahatissa (r. 77-63 BC), who
was succeeded by his son, king Kutakanna Abhaya (r. 41-19 BC); his grandson, king Mahadathika Mahanaga (r. 9-21 AD); and his great-grandson, king Amanda Gamani Abhaya
(r. 22-31 AD). The cave itself was donated by the latter's son, Gamani Tissa, a son about
whom the chronicles are completely silent. They record only that his father, Amanda
Gamani Abhaya, was usurped and murdered by his uncle, leading Paranavitana to suggest
that 'the silence of the chronicles about him is due to the reason that he did not succeed'
(ibid.: lxi).
233
beautiful body came through the sky in a gold chariot' and requested him to 'please
come' (ibid.: 88).
A third attraction is the ascetic dedication of forest monks. The Tapasa (ascetic)
Movement of the early 1950s attracted much lay support when Tapasa Himi, a former
orthodox monk, and his disciples lived in cemeteries (ibid.: 61). This association with
death is also found in other groups of forest monks; several use a skeleton as the focus
for meditation on the human body (Gombrich 1991: 332). Some more extreme groups
have even been known to use the bodies of the recently deceased for this purpose (Ravi
Jayewardene, pers. comm. 1994). Many forest monks also still collect their food by
begging within surrounding villages, rather than having it brought by lay donors as at
village or city monasteries (Gombrich 1991: 324-5). They are also generally thought to
practise solitary meditation rather than scholarship or preaching. This is not to suggest
a strong dichotomy between forest and urban monks; Tambiah points out that it is
possible to find scholars in forest monasteries and accomplished mediators in urban
monasteries (Tambiah 1984: 53). In many recent groups strict disciplinary practices
have been combined with meditation (ibid.: 58) (it is held that through meditation,
monks can arrive at a higher stage); however, there is insufficient space here to discuss
the various stages, whilst Tambiah has discussed these points in some depth (Tambiah
1984).
A fourth attraction is the miraculous or supernatural power, which is often recorded,
of forest-dwelling Sri Lankan monks. It was rumoured of Tapasa Himi that he could fly
and speak ten languages (ibid.: 61). There are many similar cases for both ascetic
behaviour and miraculous powers amongst recent forest monks of Thailand (ibid.:
272).
These four factors attract lay support, given in the form of buildings, alms and
pilgrimage. Many lay-folk feel that the more ascetic the recipient of alms, the more
merit produced for the donor. New buildings are often loaned to monks during the
rainy season - earning merit for the donor, giving the house an auspicious start, and
requiring the monk to preach for the donor family (Gombrich 1991: 326). Merit can be
gained by renovating and cementing monks' dwelling-caves (ibid.: 378). Merit may also
be gained by offering food to monks; one forest monastery, Salgala, is so popular that
donations of food must be booked a year in advance (ibid.: 324). On occasions donors
have almost come to blows in their competition to feed notable ascetic monks
(Carrithers 1983: 206). Many lay-folk will go on pilgrimage to visit such monks. When
Tapasa Himi and his disciples stayed in Kandy in 1953, tens of thousands of pilgrims
visited them, including Hindus and Muslims (ibid.: 125). These reports are so similar
and fantastic that they might be based upon a template of an ideal saint's hagiography,
but this appears to be exactly the format in which the lay-folk wish to accept it.
The descriptions of Mahinda in the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa appear to correlate
closely with the above descriptions of modern forest monks. Mihintale, where the
monks first arrived and which they later chose as their rainy season residence,44 was far
enough from human settlement for Devanampiya Tissa to organize a hunt.45 It has
many outcrops which are still occupied by wild animals. In the 1920s, Still noted that
villagers had to clear bears out of the caves of Issurumuniya (Plate 3), another of the
first cave monasteries built in the reign of Devanampiya Tissaj before they could be
I~~B
re-occupied by monks (1992: 132). Paranavitana, who collected many of the inscriptions,
recorded that:
Camping out at such sites was fraught with danger to life and limb, for they were, as
many of them still are, in the haunts of wild elephants, buffaloes, bears and
leopards. . . . Arriving at a cave which two thousand years ago gave shelter to a bhikkhu
who suffused the whole universe with thoughts of good will, one might be rudely
confronted by a she bear anxious about her youthful progeny.
(Paranavitana, 1970, 1: iv)
The chronicles also record that the first monks had various encounters with the
supernatural. Sakka, the king of the gods, asked Mahinda to convert the island.47The
yakkha or spirit of Mihintale, in the form of an elk, led Devanampiya Tissa to the monks.48
It is also recorded that devas (demi-gods) listened to Mahinda preaching at Mihintale and
were converted.49 Mahinda sent one of his followers to Asoka's court to collect the
Buddha's alms-bowl and then to the court of the king of the gods to collect the Buddha's
collar-bone.50 Mahinda and his five companions also possessed miraculous powers. They
flew from India to Mihintale,5' and from Mihintale to the city of Anuradhapura.52
Mahinda could communicate with his sister in India and asked her to bring a branch of the
bodhi-tree.53 Other miracles included relics of the Buddha:
235
Amid the assembly the relic rose up in the air from the elephant's back, and floating in
the air plain to view . . . throwing the people into amazement . . . it wrought that
miracle of the double appearances, that caused the hair (of the beholders) to stand on
end.54
The miracle of the double appearance is when phenomena of the opposite character
appear in pairs, for example, the Buddha's miracle of producing streams of fire and water
(Geiger 1934: 120).
Earthquakes and other phenomena were witnessed, associated with the monks. When
Devanampiya Tissa presented the Maha Vihara to the sangha, a great earthquake
occurred;55 and, when Mahinda and the king walked round the new monastery,
earthquakes occurred at sites where important monuments would be built.56Later, when
the bodhi-tree was planted, an earthquake occurred and a great cloud produced rain for a
week.57 No connection is made between the early monks and meditation, the earliest
reference to a meditational trance occurring during the reign of king Subha (r. AD 60-7).58
A further reference is given during the reign of king Dhatusena (r. AD 455-73).59 However,
epigraphical evidence suggests that some of the early monks were taking part in
meditation. A number of cave-dwellings were inscribed with the name 'delighting the
mind', three with the name 'peak of intuition' and one with the name 'bringing the gods
down' (Paranavitana 1970, I: cxx).
It is thus proposed that the form of early Buddhism that came to Sri Lanka was very
similar to that practised by modern forest-dwelling monks. Such an analogy is not
far-fetched, since there is evidence for a long tradition of forest monks within the island.
There are references to forest monks and ascetics in the later Sri Lankan chronicle,60the
Culavamsa (Geiger 1928). Such monks were differentiated in this chronicle from those
monks living in villages (Geiger 1960: 202). Between the seventh and ninth centuries AD
they appear to have been given groves by donors rather than villages in the case of most
monks,6' a practice also found recorded in some of the earliest inscriptions in the island,
dating to between the third century BC and first century AD (Paranavitana 1970, 1: no. 469).
During the seventh century AD, a group called pamsukulins (those clothed in rags from
dustheaps) appear to have attracted substantial royal patronage.62Although they did not
occupy caves, they were located in isolated areas of jungle, strewn with boulders. Their
residences have been identified archaeologically at Ritigala, the Western Monasteries at
Anuradhapura (Bandaranayake 1974: 115), and at Vessagiriya, also in Anuradhapura.
The latter is also one of the earliest cave monasteries allegedly founded by Devanampiya
Tissa.63Generally, these sites do not possess the typical Buddhist cult structures found at
other monastic complexes such as stupas (Silva 1988: 1), but they are associated with
numerous meditational pathways, suggesting a strong link between meditation and forest
dwelling. The Western Monasteries have been identified as the Tapovana (grove of
penitents) of the Culavamsa (Geiger 1960: 203). It also is interesting to note that two of the
great mediaeval monastic forest centres, Dimbulagala and Ritigala, are associated with
yakkhas or spirits in the early chronicles.!' It is thus proposed that we may agree with
Tambiah that modern forest monks have a strong continuity with the past forest monks
(Tambiah 1984: 58).
molten
- - - - w--
molt-n
br
- - w-- -U
glas__-s
molten
_
glass
brick
237
< CD
;
el
deb-t-ge
slag
shell
alg
cores
crucible
Ivorye
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ebitsge
- - -
antl~t~j
4Lvotuk3
ie~aebtg
__-^
.~
sla g
,--
-_bitege
~ ~
slag.
1dit
Figure 4
craft-working activities.
supported by the archaeological evidence of a royal complex with access to little more
wealth and resources than evidenced at those complexes belonging to wealthy citizens.
It is in this light that we must view the political background to the arrival of Buddhism.
Royal donations had existed before Mahinda's arrival. During the foundation of
Anuradhapura in the fifth century BC, some two centuries before Mahinda, king
Pandukabhaya erected numerous religious structures in and around the city. He built
shrines to yakkhas or spirits on the east, west and south of the city and a further one in the
royal precincts.78 He dedicated a chapel to the Queens of the West and tree-shrines to
Vessavana (Kubera, the god of wealth) and to the Demon of Maladies near the western
gate of the city.79He also established a cemetery to the west of the city and to its north,
structures for ascetics, a hermitage for ascetics, houses for niganthas (naked ascetics),
other 'ascetics of various heretical sects', and a monastery for wandering mendicant
239
to the arrival of Buddhism; but Buddhism itself offered perhaps what the other groups
could not: harsh ascetic practices; miraculous powers; a desire to be in places of wilderness
normally inhabited by wild animals, demons and gods; a strong organization with links all
over the subcontinent; and an imperial connection in the form of Asoka's son, Mahinda.
The power of kingly connections should not be underestimated. It is clear from more
recent revivals of forest monks in Sri Lanka that leaders with noble connections appear to
have been the most successful in attracting material support (Carrithers 1983: 72). The
importance to rulers of such exceptional attractions has been characterized by Helms as
'the authority of distant knowledge' (1988: 131-71). The ascetic lifestyle of the early
monks may also have been an attraction; donations to individuals with great powers who
underwent hard ascetic practices could have been believed to bestow on the donor more
merit and prestige. Tambiah suggests that it was possible to 'fortify monarchical legitimacy
and creative powers by tapping the purity and charisma of the untarnished forest ascetics'
(Tambiah 1984: 77). However, once this had been done and a single royal succession
established, there was a need for a different form of tradition.
A new relationship between the king and the sangha was formed, leading to an
interdependence. Religious and ceremonial legitimization was given to the king by the
sangha in return for patronage. The rewards of patronage are clear from the words of
Mahinda to the first high king, Devanampiya Tissa:
A son of thy brother the vice-regent Mahanama, one named Yatthalayakatissa, will
hereafter be king, his son will be the king named Gothabhaya; his son will be (the king)
named Kakavannatissa; this king's son, 0 great king, will be the great king named
Abhaya, renowned under the title of Duttagamani.83
The king's response was to 'set up a pillar of stone, whereon he inscribed these sayings'.84
This relationship changed the Maha Vihara, originally a forest establishment, into the
centre of orthodox Buddhism in Sri Lanka, making it the established church of the island.
This is not to suppose that forest monks and their way of life disappeared; on the contrary,
these still played an important role in society. As Tambiah states, 'their better documented
role historically is their acting as a vitalizing force and a countervailing agent to the
religious establishment during times of religious purification and cultural renaissance'
(Tambiah 1984: 77).
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to the following individuals for their help and advice whilst I was
researching this paper: Mr Rukshan Jayewardene, Mr Ravi Jayewardene and Dr
Christopher Knusel. As the research was carried out whilst I was conducting fieldwork at
Anuradhapura, I am also grateful to the following sponsors for their financial support: the
Society for South Asian Studies, the British Academy, the McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research at Cambridge University, and Bradford University.
Department of Archaeological Sciences
University of Bradford
West Yorkshire BD7 I DP
241
242
Robin A. E. Coningham
References
Bandaranayake,S. D. 1974.SinhaleseMonasticArchitecture.Leiden:E. J. Brill.
Bandaranayake,S. D. 1992.The settlementpatternsof the protohistoric-earlyhistoricinterfacein
Sri Lanka. In South Asian Archaeology:1989 (ed. C. Jarrige).Madison, WI: PrehistoryPress,
pp. 15-23.
Bechert, H. 1978. The beginnings of Buddhist historiography:the Mahavamsaand political
thinking.In ReligionandtheLegitimisation
of Powerin SriLanka(ed. B. L. Smith)Chambersburg:
Southand SoutheastAsian Studiesby Anima& ConococheagueAssociates,pp. 1-12.
Blanton, R. E. 1978. MonteAlban:SettlementPatternsat theAncientZapotecCapital.New York:
AcademicPress.
Carrithers,M. 1983. The ForestMonksof Sri Lanka:An Anthropologicaland HistoricalStudy.
Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.
Coningham,R. A. E. 1994. Urban Texts: An Interpretationof the Architectural,Textual and
Artefactual Records of a Sri Lankan Early Historic City. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation,
Universityof Cambridge.
Coningham,R. A. E. and Allchin, F. R. 1992. Anuradhapuracitadel archaeologicalproject,
preliminaryresultsof the thirdseason of BritishSri Lankanexcavations.SouthAsian Studies,8:
155-67.
De Silva, K. M. 1981.A Historyof Sri Lanka.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Geiger,W. (ed.) 1928.Culavamsa.London:PaliText Society.
Geiger,W. (ed.) 1934. TheMahavamsa.London:PaliText Society.
Geiger,W. 1960.Cultureof Ceylonin MediaevalTimes.Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz.
Gombrich,R. F. 1991. BuddhistPreceptand Practice:TraditionalBuddhismin theRuralHighlands
of Ceylon.Delhi: MotilalBanarsidassPublishers.
Helms, M. W. 1988. Ulysses' Sail: An EthnographicOdyssey of Power, Knowledge and
GeographicalDistance.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Hocart,A. M. 1928.Townplanning.CeylonJournalof Science,SectionG, 1.4: 150-6.
Oldenberg,H. (ed.) 1982. Dipavamsa.New Delhi: AsianEducationServices.
Paranavitana,S. 1970. Early brahmiinscriptions.In Inscriptionsof Ceylon, I & 11.1. Colombo:
ArchaeologicalSurveyof Ceylon.
Rahula,W. 1956.Historyof Buddhismin Ceylon.Colombo:Gunasena.
Renfrew,A. C. 1984.Approachesto SocialArchaeology.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.
Renfrew,A. C. and Cherry,J. F. (eds) 1986. Peer Polity Interactionand Socio-politicalChange.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Robinson,F. (ed.) 1989. TheCambridgeEncyclopaediaof India,Pakistan,Bangladesh,Sri Lanka,
Nepal, Bhutanand theMaldives.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Silva, R. 1988. Religious Architecturein Early and Medieval Sri Lanka. PhD dissertation,
Universityof Leiden. Leiden:KripsReproMeppel.
Somasekaram,T. (ed.) 1988. TheNationalAtlasof SriLanka.Colombo:SurveyDepartmentof Sri
Lanka.
Still, J. 1992.JungleTide.Dehiwala:TisaraPress.
Tambiah, S.J., 1984. The BuddhistSaints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.