Ruminations on Sri Lanka’s Ancient Past-By Seneka Abeyratne

Source:Island

Let us now turn our attention to Sri Lanka’s prehistory corresponding to the Stone Age. Although it is possible that a Paleolithic, or Early Stone Age, culture existed in the island more than one hundred thousand years ago, the archaeological evidence in support of this hypothesis is somewhat sketchy. On the other hand, the discovery of rare fossil remains of homo-erectus in Balangoda, a region in south-central Sri Lanka, is strong archaeological evidence that the island was probably inhabited by primitive ape-like men about 34,000 BP. “These anatomically modern prehistoric humans belonged to what are called the Balangoda cultures,” as stated by de Silva, K.M. ‘A History of Sri Lanka’, fifth edition, 2016. The stone implements found in the island are mostly of the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age, type which date back to about 28,000 BP and are associated with a hunter-gatherer way of life. They are similar to those found in the South-Indian peninsula, which suggests that there were cultural connections between Sri Lanka and South India during prehistoric times.

But the stone implements of Sri Lanka show a higher degree of local specialization than those of South India, which suggest first, that migration of technique figured more prominently in this development than migration of peoples and second, that adoption and local adaptation of improved technology played a key role in both territorial and population expansion during that period. It must be emphasized that this interpretation represents the line of thinking pioneered by Senake Bandaranayake, which differs radically from the conventional viewpoint.

We may note in passing that new evidence, in the form of miniaturized bone and stone implements or ‘projectiles’, has emerged from the site of the Fa-Hien cave in Kalutara District (Western Province), to indicate that previous assumptions regarding the earliest period of human settlements in the island need to be re-examined. Employing radiocarbon technology, scientists have determined that the bone implements (arrowheads) were used around 48,000 BP (Hanson, Molly, ‘48,000-year-old bone arrowheads and jewelry discovered in Sri Lankan cave’, Internet, 2020) and the stone implements (microliths), around 45,000 BP (Randall, Ian, ‘Ancient 45,000-year old quartz tools ‘used to hunt animals up trees’ are found in Sri Lanka’, Internet, 2019). To quote Hanson: “If the researchers’ conclusions are correct, this finding marks the earliest definitive proof of high-powered projectile hunting in a tropical rainforest environment.”

Protohistory

It is important to note that there is little evidence of a clearly defined Neolithic (Late Stone Age) culture in Sri Lanka. It appears the island bypassed the Neolithic period on the whole and moved directly from the Middle Stone Age (Mesolithic Period) to the Early Iron Age. Since, in the South Asian context, the Early Iron Age and megalithic cultures are coterminous, the term ‘Early Iron Age megalithic culture’ is increasingly gaining currency (Seneviratne, Sudharshana. ‘Common Lankan, South-Indian Trade Routes in Early Iron Age’, Interview, 2006). We should also note that the Early Iron Age coincides with the island’s protohistory, the period between prehistory and Early Historic Period when the existing culture had not yet developed writing. Protohistory; megalithic culture; Early Iron Age, the timeframe for all three periods is more or less the same: 1,000 BCE to 500 BCE.Sudharshana Seneviratne is of the view that the megalithic culture of Sri Lanka was very similar to that of Southern India in respect of key attributes such as pottery types, symbols on megalithic pottery, iron technology, bead types, black and red ware (BRW), and megalithic tombs. Moreover, he opines that migration of techniques occurred in both directions.

The following quote helps identify the fundamental difference between ‘prehistory’ and ‘Early Iron Age’ in the South-Asian context: “The prehistoric period cannot be counted as a formative period since it is represented by nomadic stone-using groups which did not sustain institutions…But with the ushering in of iron came semi-settled village culture and most importantly, the domestication of plants and animals in the far South and Sri Lanka in association with the Early Iron Age culture. This was a watershed development…the point of commencement of Early Iron Age culture. By far South, I mean an area south of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, going all the way down to Sri Lanka, that is, an area engulfing modern Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Sri Lanka” (ibid).

Historic leap

A prominent feature of Sri Lanka’s historical trajectory that distinguishes it from the corresponding Indian experience is the relatively late but extremely rapid transition from stone-age hunting and gathering to an advanced, and literate, agrarian civilization, a historical leap, if you will, that seems to have occurred in the first millennium BCE (Bandaranayake, Senake, ‘The Settlement Pattern of the Protohistoric-Early Historic Interface in Sri Lanka’, 1989). We may also note another historian’s observations in this regard: “Historical age in any country begins from the time history can be clearly reconstructed with written records. It is generally believed that an alphabet and the art of writing were introduced into the island during the time of Devanampiya Tissa (250 BCE-210 BCE)…It is due to this reason that the Mahavamsa stories related to the period from the time of the demise of the Buddha to the reign of Devanampiya Tissa have to be examined with caution…From the third century B.C. onwards, a reasonably clear history could be reconstructed with corroborative evidence in contemporary lithic records and chronicles” (Siriweera, W.I. ‘History of Sri Lanka: From earliest times up to the sixteenth century’, second edition, 2004).

The territorial authority of the Anuradhapura monarchs from Devanampiya Tissa to Elara (250-161 BCE) did not extend beyond a limited region. There were several polities ruled by chieftains which were more or less autonomous. The first monarch to end the power of the feudal chiefs was Dutugemunu (161-137 BCE). Under his rule, the whole country was transformed into a unified political entity for the first time in its history (Ibid).

Under the unified system of governance, provincial administrative structures were established to complement the central bureaucracy. The key positions in the vast bureaucratic machinery were held by close or distant relatives of the king. Thus lineage was a key factor in enabling one to rise to a position of power and authority. Perhaps due to the influence of Buddhism, there was no attempt by the royalty to impose a Wittfogelian type of despotic rule over the island. “The king, as well as the bureaucrats, were expected to balance the scales of justice” (ibid). Moreover, wherever possible, the king was expected to ensure fair play in administration so as to discourage government officials from engaging in corrupt practices. Whereas the strong kings generally abided by these principles, the weak ones did not. Invariably, during the reign of a weak king, the bureaucracy ran amok and fomented revolt and dissent, especially in the provinces.