Anuradhapura: Volume III: The Hinterland 9781407311890, 9781407341606

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
List of Colour Plates
List of Tables
List of Figures
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2: HISTORY OF RESEARCH
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 4: PHASING THE HINTERLAND
CHAPTER 5: SURVEY DATA
CHAPTER 6: NON-INTRUSIVE SURFACE SURVEY: GEOPHYSICS AND AUGERING
CHAPTER 7: EXCAVATION
CHAPTER 8: ENVIRONMENT AND WATER MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 9: GLAZED AND UNGLAZED CERAMICS
CHAPTER 10: TERRACOTTA OBJECTS
CHAPTER 11: CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS, STONE, GLASS, METAL, ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOBOTANICAL AND PLASTIC OBJECTS
CHAPTER 12: EPIGRAPHY IN THE ANURADHAPURA HINTERLAND
CHAPTER 13: DISCUSSION
CHAPTER 14: CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Index

Citation preview

Anuradhapura Volume III: The Hinterland

Robin Coningham Prishanta Gunawardhana with contributions from (in alphabetical order) Gamini Adikari, Paul Adderley, Ian Bailiff, Cathy Batt, C. I. Burbidge, A. J. Cresswell, Christopher Davis, Randolph Donahue, Krista Gilliland, Jennifer Jones, Mangala Katugampola, Krishnan Krishnan, Mark Manuel, Gerry McDonnell, Harendralal Namalgamuwa, Umanga Roshani Rammungoda, David Sanderson, Armin Schmidt, Jayampath Senanayake, Ian Simpson, Ben Stern, Keir Strickland and Ruth Young

BAR International Series 2568 2013

ISBN 9781407311890 paperback ISBN 9781407341606 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311890 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

viii

LIST OF PLATES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

x xi xii

1. INTRODUCTION Robin Coningham and Prishanta Gunawardhana

1

2. HISTORY OF RESEARCH Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Mark Manuel and Christopher Davis 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Textual Narratives 2.3 Early Accounts of Sri Lanka 2.4 Systematic Approaches 2.5 Landscape Archaeologies 2.6 Known sites within the hinterland of Anuradhapura 2.7 Discussion & Conclusion

9 9 9 10 10 11 13 14

3. METHODOLOGY Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Mark Manuel, Randolph Donahue, Armin Schmidt, Ian Simpson, Ian Bailiff and Ruth Young 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Archaeological Survey Methodology 3.3 Auger-Coring Methodology 3.4 Geophysical Survey Methodology 3.5 Excavation Methodology 3.6 Geoarchaeology Methodology 3.7 Luminescence Dating of Sediments 3.8 Luminescence Dating of Bricks 3.9 Discussion and Conclusion

21 21 21 23 23 24 25 26 26 27

4. PHASING THE HINTERLAND Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Christopher Davis, Mark Manuel, Ian Bailiff, Cathy Batt, Harendralal Namalgamuwa, Jayampath Senanayake and Umanga Roshani Rammungoda 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Previous Attempts to Define a Chronology for the Anuradhapura Period 4.3 The Excavations at the Citadel of Anuradhapura 4.3.1 Structural Period K – c.840-450BC 4.3.2 Structural Period J – c.450-350BC 4.3.3 Structural Period I – c.350-275BC 4.3.4 Structural Period H – c.275-225BC 4.3.5 Structural Period G – c.225BC–AD150 4.3.6 Structural Period F – c.AD150–600 4.3.7 Structural Period E, D, C and B – c.AD600-1200 4.3.8 Structural Period A – Modern 4.3.9 Discussion of ASW2 sequence 4.4 Monumental Architecture 4.4.1 Rock Shelters & Lenas 4.4.2 Organic/Centric or Hub Monastery 4.4.3 Focal Monastery 4.4.4 Pabbata Vihara 4.4.5 Pancayatana Parivena 4.4.6 Padhanaghara Parivena 4.4.7 Tampita Viharage

31 31 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 35

4.5 Sculpture 4.6 Inscriptions 4.7 Irrigation Works 4.8 Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka) Project Phasing 4.8.1 Phase I: Prehistoric (before c.800BC) 4.8.2 Phase II: Protohistoric (c.800–340BC) 4.8.3 Phase III: Early Historic (c.340BC-AD200) 4.8.4 Phase IV: Late Historic (c.AD200–AD600) 4.8.5 Phase V: Early Medieval (c.AD600–AD1200) 4.8.6 Phase VI: Late Medieval (c.AD1200–AD1500) 4.8.7 Phase VII: Kandyan (AD1500–AD1656) 4.8.8 Phase VIII: Colonial (AD1656–AD1948) 4.8.9 Phase IV: Modern (AD1948 onwards) 4.9 Discussion and Conclusion

35 36 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

5. SURVEY DATA Mark Manuel, Ruth Young, Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Mangala Katugampola, Jayampath Senanayake and Umanga Roshani Rammungoda 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Archaeological Sites 5.2.1 Ceramic Scatters 5.2.2 Ceramic Scatters with Metal-working Residues 5.2.3 Monastic Sites 5.2.4 Undiagnostic Sites with Stone Pillars and Blocks 5.2.5 Rock-Cut Holes 5.2.6 Bridges, Sluices and Annicuts 5.2.7 Lithic Scatters 5.2.8. Possible Megalithic Burials 5.3 Landscape Features 5.3.1 Tanks 5.3.2 Irrigation Channels 5.3.3 Quarrying Marks 5.4 Ethnographic Sites 5.4.1 Modern Activity Spots 5.4.2 Colonial and Abandoned Sites 5.4.3 Modern Temples 5.5 Microsurvey 5.6 Vegetation and Visibility 5.7 Discussion and Conclusion

49 49 49 49 51 52 61 63 64 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 68 68

6. NON-INTRUSIVE SURFACE SURVEY: GEOPHYSICS AND AUGERING Armin Schmidt, Mark Manuel, Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Jayampath Senanayake, Umanga Roshani Rammungoda and Harendralal Namalgamuwa 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Geophysical Investigation 6.2.1 B009 - Siyabalagaswewa 6.2.2 C033 - Sembukulama 6.2.3 C018 - Ghalwaduwagama 6.2.4 B004 - Wellaragama 6.2.5 C112 - Marathamadama 6.2.6 F101 - Rajaligama 6.2.7 F102 - Rajaligama 6.2.8 C313 - Upuldeniya 6.2.9 A155 - Veheragala 6.2.10 D129 6.2.11 C121 - Punchikulama 6.2.12 F517 - Pansal Pira 6.2.13 C515 6.2.14 F507 - Ihalawewa 6.2.15 D339 - Nikawewa 6.2.16 D357 - Moragoda

97 97 97 97 97 98 98 98 99 99 99 100 100 101 101 101 101 102 102

ii

6.2.17 Discussion 6.3 Auger Coring 6.3.1 Ceramic Scatters 6.3.1.1 A115 – Siyabalawa 6.3.1.2 A147 - Thala Halmillewa 6.3.1.3 B108, B109 & B110 - Matalegama 6.3.1.4 A102 6.3.1.5 C313 – Upuldeniya 6.3.1.6 C504 6.3.1.7 F101 & F102 - Rajaligama 6.3.2 Monastic Sites 6.3.2.1 C112 - Marathamaduwa 6.3.2.2 D129 6.3.2.3 B131 - Gallawa 6.3.2.4 C033 – Sembukulama 6.3.3 Undiagnostic Sites with Stone Pillars and Blocks 6.3.3.1 F517 - Pansal Pira 6.3.3.2 B062 & B063 - Siyambalawewa 6.3.3.3 D339 – Nikawewa 6.3.4 Discussion 6.4 Discussion and Conclusion 7. EXCAVATION Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Keir Strickland, Mark Manuel, Jayampath Senanayake, Harendralal Namalgamuwa and Umanga Roshani Rammungoda 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Ceramic Scatters 7.2.1 B009 Siyabalagaswewa - Dense Ceramic Scatter 7.2.2 F102 Rajaligama - Large ceramic scatter with metal-working residues, tile and brick 7.3 Monastic Sites 7.3.1 C033 Sembukulama - Stupa site not on outcrop 7.3.2 C018 Ghalwaduwagama - Stupa site not on outcrop and associated with metal-working residues 7.3.3 ZOO1 Parthigala - Large Monastic Complex 7.3.4 A155 Veheragala - Lena and Stupa 7.3.5 C112 Marathamadama - Large monastic complex 7.4 Other Sites 7.4.1 B004 Wellaragama - Abandoned Village 7.4.2 F101 Rajaligama - Undiagnostic site with pillars and blocks / Monastic Site 7.4.3 D339 Nikawewa - Undiagnostic site with Stone Pillars and Blocks 7.4.4 F517 Pansal Pira - Undiagnostic site with Stone Pillars and Blocks 7.4.5 B062 Siyambalaweva - Undiagnostic site with Pillars and Blocks 7.5 Discussion and Conclusion 8. ENVIRONMENT AND WATER MANAGEMENT Krista Gilliland, Ian Simpson, Paul Adderley, C.I. Burbidge, A.J. Cresswell, David Sanderson, Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Mark Manuel, Keir Strickland, Ruth Young, Harendralal Namalgamuwa, Umanga Roshani Rammungoda and Jayampath Senanayake 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Context 8.2.1 Geology 8.2.2 Climate and Palaeoclimate 8.2.3 Cultural context: Water management in the Dry Zone 8.2.4 Ethnographic context: Traditional village tank systems in Sri Lanka 8.2.4.1 Catchment description 8.2.4.2 Agricultural cycle and maintenance of soil fertility 8.2.4.3 Social organization 8.2.4.4 Repairs and maintenance 8.2.4.5 Religious importance of tanks 8.2.5 Historical context: Landscape organisation and water resource management 8.3 Results and Interpretation iii

102 103 103 103 103 103 103 104 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105 106 106 106

135 135 135 135 136 136 136 137 138 139 140 143 143 144 144 146 148 149

191 191 191 191 192 193 193 193 194 194 195 195 195 196

8.3.1 Geo-chronological Framework 8.3.1.1 Control Bund Construction 8.3.1.2 Geo-chronological framework of large-scale water features in the Anuradhapura hinterland 8.3.2 Soils, sediments and landscape history 8.3.2.1 Modern resource management: micromorphological controls 8.3.2.2 Archaeological Features 8.3.2.3 Nature of disuse 8.4 Discussion and Conclusion

196 196 196 197 197 198 200 202

9. GLAZED AND UNGLAZED CERAMICS Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Krishnan Krishnan, Christopher Davis, Mark Manuel, Umanga Roshani Rammungoda, Harendralal Namalgamuwa, Jayampath Senanayake and Ben Stern 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Glazed Ceramics 9.3 Fine Wares 9.3.1 Northern Black Polished Ware 9.3.2 Rouletted Ware (Arikamedu Type 1) 9.3.3 Undiagnostic Body Sherds 9.4 Coarse Wares 9.4.1 Ceramic Discs 9.4.2 Lamps and Bases 9.4.3 Stove and/or Lipa 9.4.4 Decorated Rim Sherds 9.4.5 Decorated Body Sherds 9.4.6 Ceramic Sherd with Graffito 9.4.7 Black and Red Ware (Category 16) 9.4.8 The Forms (Categories 17/ and 18/) 9.5 GC-MS Analysis of Ceramics 9.6 Discussion and Conclusion

229 229 229 230 230 231 231 232 232 233 234 235 235 236 236 237 312 313

10. TERRACOTTA OBJECTS Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Christopher Davis, Mark Manuel, Keir Strickland, Harendralal Namalgamuwa, Jayampath Senanayake and Umanga Roshani Rammungoda 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Human Figurines 10.2.1 Statues 10.2.2 Nose 10.2.3 Female Figurines 10.2.4 Seated Female Figurines 10.2.5 Hourglass Figurines 10.2.6 Human Figurines with Triangular Headdress 10.2.7 Pregnant Females 10.2.8 Non-Gendered Figurines 10.2.9 Phallus-Shaped Figurines 10.2.10 Appliqué Figures Attached To Vessels 10.2.11 Applique Breast Fragments 10.2.12 Figurine Headdresses 10.2.13 T-Shaped Headdresses 10.2.14 Head Fragments 10.2.15 Hand 10.2.16 Foot 10.2.17 Limb Fragments 10.2.18 Limb Fragments with Bangles 10.3 Animal Figurines 10.3.1 Zoomorphic 10.3.2 Bird 10.3.3 Elephant Ear 10.3.4 Elephant Head 10.3.5 Elephant Trunk

333 333 333 334 334 335 335 335 336 336 336 336 337 337 338 339 339 339 339 340 340 340 341 341 341 342 342

iv

10.4 Terracotta Beads 10.5 Architectural Fragments 10.5.1 Roof Finial 10.6 Vessels and Lamps 10.6.1 Hand Built Vessel 10.6.2 Base Fragments 10.6.3 Lamp Stands 10.7 Undiagnostic Fragments 10.8 Discussion and Conclusion

342 342 344 345 345 345 346 346 361

11. CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS, STONE, GLASS, METAL, ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOBOTANICAL AND PLASTIC OBJECTS Mark Manuel, Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Keir Strickland, Ruth Young, Christopher Davis, Jennifer Jones, Gerry McDonnell, Umanga Roshani Rammungoda, Harendralal Namalgamuwa and Jayampath Senanayake 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Tiles 11.2.1 Glazed Tiles 11.2.2 Curved Roof Tile 11.2.3 Form 35 (after Deraniyagala) 11.2.4 Form K-1 (Plain Tiles) 11.2.5 Form K-2 (Semi-Grooved Tiles) 11.2.6 Form K-3 (Bi-Lipped Tiles) 11.2.7 Form K-4 (Curved Tiles) 11.2.8 Other Tiles 11.2.9 Undiagnostic Tile Fragments 11.3 Brick 11.3.1 Brickbats 11.4 Lime Mortar 11.5 Daub 11.6 Stone 11.6.1 Beads 11.6.2 Grinding Stones / Hammers 11.6.3 Flakes 11.6.4 Cores 11.6.5 Debitage 11.7 Glass 11.7.1 Beads 11.7.2 Bangles 11.7.3 Undiagnostic Glass Objects 11.8 Metal Objects 11.8.1 Coins 11.8.2 Iron Axes/Adzes 11.8.3 Iron Nails/Nail Fragments 11.8.4 Iron Bars 11.8.5 Unidentified Iron Objects 11.8.6 Lead Objects 11.8.7 Copper Objects 11.9 Metal-Working Residues 11.9.1 Smithing Hearth Bases 11.9.2 Furnace/Crucible/Hearth Fragments 11.9.3 Metal-working Residues 11.9.4 Additional Metal-working Residues 11.9.5 Non-Diagnostic Metal-working Residues 11.9.6 Iron Ore/Nodules 11.10 Archaeozoological and Archaeobotanical Remains 11.10.1 Archaeozoological Remains 11.10.2 Archaeobotanical Remains 11.11 Plastic Objects 11.12 Discussion and Conclusion v

393 393 393 393 394 394 395 395 399 401 401 401 406 407 407 407 408 408 408 408 408 408 409 409 410 410 410 411 411 411 412 413 413 413 413 414 415 416 420 420 422 423 423 423 424 424

12. EPIGRAPHY IN THE ANURADHAPURA HINTERLAND Christopher Davis, Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana and Mark Manuel 12.2 Dataset and Methodology 12.3 Epigraphic Records in the Early Historic Period 12.4 Epigraphic Records in the Late Historic Period 12.5 Epigraphic Records in the Early Medieval Period 12.6 Discussion and Conclusion 13. DISCUSSION Robin Coningham, Prishantha Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Mark Manuel, Christopher Davis and Ian Simpson 14.1 Introduction 14.2 Theocratic Landscapes 14.3 Buddhist Temporalities 14.4 A Contested Landscape 14.5 The Changing Hinterland 14.6 Broadening Perspectives: Tropical Forest Civilisations, Hydraulic societies and Low Density Urbanism

445 445 446 447 448 449

459 459 460 461 463 464 468

14. CONCLUSION Robin Coningham and Prishanta Gunawardhana

480

15. REFERENCES

483

APPENIDX A: SURVEY DATA

495

APPENDIX B: EXCAVATION CONTEXTS

539

APPENDIX C: EXCAVATION BULK COUNTS

551

APPENDIX D: INSCRIPTIONS

579

INDEX

615

vi

PREFACE Roland Fletcher The recognition in the 1960s by archaeologists studying the Classic Maya cities of the third to the tenth centuries AD in lowland Central America, such as Tikal and Caracol, that these were extensive urban settlements of widely space residence around central monumental cores was both a great intellectual credit to the researchers and a fundamental breakthrough in the reinterpretation of Maya civilisation, as noted by Jeremy Sabloff in 1990. In addition, Michael Coe had commented in the 1950s on the resemblances between the Maya urban centres and those of the Khmer prior to the fifteenth century CE, represented by Angkor (1961). From the work of Christophe Pottier of the École Française d'ExtrêmeOrient (EFEO) at Angkor in the 1990s, it became apparent that the monumental centre was surrounded by vast numbers of scattered residential clusters and a network of road embankments and canals. Once the work of the EFEO and the Cambodian APSARA Authority, which manages Angkor, was joined by the team from the University of Sydney, the mapping was rapidly expanded by Damian Evans to cover the 3,000 square kilometres catchment area of Angkor and to record the approximately 1000 square kilometres extent of the Greater Angkor urban complex within that catchment. What became apparent was that the famous temples, such as Angkor Wat, lay at the heart of the largest area of agrarian-based, low-density urbanism, which was dependent on massive infrastructure such as the great baray or reservoirs and had comprehensively cleared the natural forest cover for rice production. With Bronson’s 1978 comparison of the Maya cities, Angkor and the northern Sri Lankan cities already indicating similarities, the paper by Coningham et al. in 2007, and the current volume on the landscape of Anuradhapura up to the twelfth century CE, present the case for an additional example of low-density, tropical forest urbanism to fill the gaping size difference between the maximum 200 square kilometres of Tikal and the circa 1000 square kilometres of Greater Angkor. The contents of this volume confirm that, with parts of ‘Greater’ Anuradhapura extending 12 to 50 kilometres out from the monumental centre, another low-density urban complex of the order of 500 square kilometres or more has been laid out before us. Clearly, Polonnaruva in the thirteenth century was likely to have covered an almost equally massive area given its huge reservoirs but it has not yet been intensively surveyed as Anuradhapura has now been. Most recently in 2010 and 2012, LiDAR surveys of Caracol in Belize and Angkor respectively demonstrated that we now possess a technology that is able to map urban landscapes in immense detail through dense forest cover. In Caracol, the Chases showed that the urban landscape included extensive terracing, as had been indicated by their earlier ground surveys (2012). In Angkor, the KALC survey co-ordinated by Damian Evans showed that the road grid pattern and the ponds

and occupation mounds found by the EFEO’s ground survey within Angkor Thom extended far beyond that nine square kilometre walled enclosure and was a characteristic of every temple enclosure built between the early twelfth and the early thirteenth century AD (Evans et al. 2013). Clearly, the urban centre was far more extensive than the walled enclosure at its core. A LiDAR survey of Anuradhapura and Polonaruva would be one of the glories of Sri Lankan archaeology and history – and a great event in World Archaeology. The clear implication of this volume’s coverage of the ground surveys of Anuradhapura’s hinterland is that lowdensity, dispersed agrarian-based urbanism was a distinct characteristic of tropical forest environments all around the world and was capable of reaching titanic size in those contexts. Several profound implications follow. Firstly, we need to find out why these cities could become so huge and extensive. Secondly, we need to understand the ecology of their complex anthropogenic environments and whether they were sustainable. Since the Sri Lankan, Maya and Khmer examples lasted at least half a millennium, and in the case of Anuradhapura perhaps more than a millennium, they had some robustness. But thirdly, we need to appraise their demise. Though complete regional abandonment did not occur, in all three cases the metropolitan heartland was largely abandoned and an urban diaspora occurred to the periphery of each of the three cultural regions. Rather than view this simply as collapse we should perhaps begin to consider what was developing at the peripheries when the great capitals were at their peak. The fourth issue has ominous implications for the present day and the future, because these similar urban diaspora occurred in vastly different socio-political systems apparently under the impact of intense climatic instability at the start of the Medieval Warm phase in the case of the Maya cities and Sri Lanka and at the end of the Medieval Warm phase for Angkor. Sri Lanka is crucial because the nature and precise timing of the climatic process and its operational relationship to the demise of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruva as major urban centres has yet to be resolved. These cases are of ominous significance for us today because 50% of humankind now lives in cities and the majority of the large expanding urban settlements are moving to an extensive low- density form. Examples are the nineteenth and early twentieth conurbations of Europe, the megalopoli of the industrial world since the 1950s and the sprawling desa-kota of southern and eastern Asia since the late twentieth century in which huge rural landscapes are encapsulated within urban expansion. What is ominous is that vast industrial low density cities which are depended on massive infrastructure, and creating huge anthropogenic landscapes and may now be facing severe climatic instability. Knowing about the past may be of some vii

relevance, since it tells us both that low density urbanism has long been used by human beings over many generations but is, somehow, seriously vulnerable to

severe climate change. Thus the present volume’s findings may assist us in planning for the future.

Professor Roland Fletcher Professor of Theoretical and World Archaeology University of Sydney Australia

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are extremely grateful to the following individuals for their help, guidance and assistance: Dr Senarath Dissanayake, Director-General of Archaeology; Professor Gamini Adikari, Director-General of the Central Cultural Fund, Dr Siran Deraniyagala, former Director-General of Archaeology; Professor M. Jayantha S.Wijeyaratne, former Vice Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya; Professor Jagath Weerasinghe, Director of Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology (PGIAR), University of Kelaniya, Prof A.A.D. Amarasekara, Department of Archaeology, University of Kelaniya; Mr.Amalka Wijesuriya, Department of Archaeology, Colombo; Mr. Sirinimal Lakdusinghe, former Director of the Colombo National Museum and former Director of the PGIAR; Prof Nimal de Silva, former Director of the PGIAR; and Prof Sudharshan Seneviratne and Dr W.H. Wijeyapala, former Directors-General of the Central Cultural Fund.

all the staff and students of the Universities of Baroda, Bradford, Durham, Kelaniya, Leicester, Rajarata and Stirling as well as the Department of Archaeology, Government of Sri Lanka for their help and assistance in the field. We would also record our gratitude to Drs Robert Bracey and Vesta Curtis of the British Museum for confirming that Sf1131 was a coin of Queen Lilivati, to Jayampath Senanayake for completing the drawings of the artefacts, to Dr Alejandra Gutierrez for the index and to Dr Mark Manuel for formatting the entire volume. Finally, we must record our gratitude to keepers of the Archaeology Circuit Bungalow in Anuradhapura for providing us with a home from home. We recognise the invaluable feedback and advice that we have received from the pioneers of Sri Lankan settlement survey, Prof Senake Bandaranayake, Prof Mads Mogren and Dr Eva Myrdal-Runebjer. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the contribution of the participants of the 2011 Tropical Low-Density Urbanism and Landscape Histories session at the Society of American Archaeology 76th Annual Meeting, the 2011 Advanced Seminars on Low Density Tropical Urbanism at the Amerind Foundation and the 2012 Wenner-Gren Foundation LowDensity Urbanism, Water Management, and Sustainability in the Tropics Workshop at Angkor and the following for their feedback and support: Prof Roland Fletcher and Prof Lisa Lucero, Dr Jaime Awe, Dr Brendan Buckley, Prof Arlen Chase, Prof Diane Chase, Dr Rafael Cobos, Dr Damian Evans, Prof J. Stephen Lansing, Dr Rodrigo Liendo, Dr Cameron McNeil, Dr Dan Penny, Dr Christophe Pottier, Prof Jerry Sabloff, Prof Vernon L. Scarborough, Prof Michael E. Smith, Prof Miriam Stark and Dr John Ware.

We should also like to express our thanks to the following members of the team for their help and dedication in the field and the post-excavation laboratories (in alphabetical order): Professor Gamini Adikari, Dr Paul Adderley, Prageeth Algiriya, K. M. Anulawathi, Prof Ian Bailiff, Nilanthi Bandara, U.A. Bandulajeewa, Dr Cathy Batt, C.I. Burbidge, Jayanika Chandani, Dr A.J. Cresswell, Nishshalya Darshanie, Dr Christopher Davis, Dr Randolph Donahue, Dr Adrian Evans, Dr Krista Gilliland, Prof Carl Heron, Jennifer Jones, Wathsala Karunaratne, Mangala Katugampola, Nadeesha Krisharthi, Prof Krishnan Krishnan, Harriet Lacy, Dr Gerry McDonnell, Fiona McLean, Tom Mahoney, Dr Mark Manuel, Harendralal Namalgamuwa, Priyanthi Podimanike, Priyantha Pushpakumara, Umanga Roshani Rammungoda, Melathi Saladin, Upamalika Sandakanthi, Dr David Sanderson, Dr Armin Schmidt, Jayampath Senanayake, Jo Shoebridge, Prof Ian Simpson, Dr Ben Stern, Dr Keir Magalie Strickland, Sarajini Wijenayake, Amalka Wijesooriya, Dinithi Wijesooriya and Dr Ruth Young. We are also grateful to

The fieldwork and project was generously supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, to whom we are extremely grateful.

ix

List of Colour Plates Plate 1: Distribution of sites during the Protohistoric period Plate 2: Distribution of sites during the Early Historic period Plate 3: Distribution of sites during the Late Historic period Plate 4: Distribution of sites during the Early Medieval period Plate 5: Distribution of sites during the Late Medieval period Plate 6: The Early Brahmi inscription at B062 Plate 7: sf4228 being excavated at D339 Plate 8: One of the monks from Veheragala monastery viewing the excavations at A155 Plate 9: sf624 (NBPW from A155 ) and sf637 (NBPW from A155) Plate 10: sf4213 (Terracotta Statue from D339) and sf4228 (Terracotta Statue from D339) Plate 11: sf4152 (Terracotta Seated Female Figurine from D339), sf4241 (Terracotta Human Figurine with Triangular Headdresses from D339) and sf4249 (Terracotta Human Figurine with Triangular Headdresses from D339) Plate 12: sf4156 (Terracotta Phallus-Shaped Figurine from D339), sf4159 (Terracotta Phallus-Shaped Figurine from D339) and sf4219 (Terracotta Applique Figurine Attached to Vessels from D339) Plate 13: sf4037 (Terracotta Applique Figurine Attached to Vessels from D339) and sf4307 (Terracotta Applique Figurine Attached to Vessels from D339) Plate 14: sf1571 (Terracotta Disc Bead from B628), sf1572 (Terracotta Disc Bead from B628), sf1546 (Terracotta Disc Bead from D607) and sf111 (Terracotta Squashed Spherical Bead from C018) Plate 15: sf1573 (Amethyst Bead from D613) and sf4021 (Carnelian Barrel Bead from F517) Plate 16: sf613( Pale Green Glass Bead) from A155, sf1511 (Green Glass Bead from D500) and sf1543 (Blue Glass Bead from D500) Plate 17: sf1649 (Red Glass Bead from B604), sf507 (Dark Blue Glass Bangle from F102), sf1512 (Blue Glass Bangle from C506) Plate 18: sf1131 (Polonnaruva Period Coin from D311, obverse), sf1131 (Polonnaruva Period Coin from D311, reverse) and sf202 (Lakshmi Plaque from Z001)

x

xix xix xx xx xxi xxi xxii xxii xxiii xxiii xxiii xxiv xxiv xxiv xxv xxv xxv xxv

List of Tables Table 5.1: Breakdown of archaeological sites identified through each survey methodology Table 5.2: Breakdown of archaeological sites identified within the micro-survey, and percentage comparisons with sites found on transect survey Table 5.3: Chronological breakdown of the main archaeological types Table 5.4: Breakdown of vegetation within the transect survey, and the number of sites recorded within each type Table 6.1: List of sites that were selected for geophysics, auger-coring and excavation Table 7.1: Radiocarbon determinations from the excavated sites Table 8.1: Climate regime and associated agricultural activities Table 8.2: Control sites, archaeological sites and historical associations Table 8.3: Optically stimulated luminescence dose rates, equivalent doses, ages and calendar dates Table 8.4: Micromorphological characteristics of surfaces below irrigation structures Table 8.5: Micromorphological characteristics of bund construction sediments Table 8.6: Micromorphological characteristics of infill and paddy sediments Table 8.7: Micromorphological indicators for anthropogenic and environmental processes, Anuradhapura Hinterland Table 8.8: Micromorphological characteristics of control samples Table 8.9: Results from bulk chemical analyses Table 8.10: Interpretation of inherited layered feature, C009 tank 3-2 Table 9.1: Count and weight of Fine Wares within the hinterland Table 9.2: Count and weight of ceramics within the hinterland Table 9.3: Count and weight of the coarse ware forms within the hinterland with B062 split from other undiagnostic sites Table 9.4: Summary of GCMS residue analysis on ceramics from the hinterland Table 10.1: Count and weight of terracotta objects in the hinterland Table 10.2: Count and weight of terracotta human figurines in the hinterland Table 10.3: Count and weight of terracotta animal figurines in the hinterland Table 11.1: Count and weight of tile in the hinterland Table 11.2: Count and weight of glass and plastic objects in the hinterland Table 11.3: Count and weight of metal objects in the hinterland Table 11.4: Count and weight of metal-working residues in the hinterland Table 11.5: Count and weight of animal bone from F101, F102 and A155 Table 11.6: Plant remains from Trench 1 at A155 Table 11.7: Plant remains from Trench 1 at F102 Table 11.8: Plant remains from Trench 2 at F101 Table 12.1: Frequency and percentage of donor ranks present in Early Historic inscriptions Table 12.2: Frequency of donation category by donor rank in Early Historic Inscriptions Table 12.3: Frequency and percentage of donor ranks present in Late Historic inscriptions Table 12.4: Frequency of donation category by donor rank in Late Historic Inscriptions Table 12.5: Frequency and percentage of donor ranks present in Early Medieval inscriptions Table 12.6: Frequency of donation category by donor rank in Early Medieval Inscriptions Table 13.1: Estimations of the number of people that could be accommodated within the main stupa courtyards of Anuradhapura

xi

72 72 73 73 107 151 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 315 315 316 317 364 365 365 426 426 427 427 427 428 428 428 452 452 452 452 453 453 471

List of Figures Fig 1.1: Plan of Anuradhapura including the Sacred City, Citadel and trench ASW2 Fig 1.2: Map of Sri Lanka Fig 1.3: Idealised plan of a city’s hinterland from the Arthasastra Fig 1.4: Team photo from the second field season (Summer 2005) Fig 2.1: Map of South Asia and places mentioned Fig 2.2: Map of Sri Lanka and places mentioned Fig 2.3: Map of Anuradhapura and some of the more well-known sites in the hinterland Fig 2.4: View of site C173 (Maligapedesa) – one of the monastic complexes on the edges of Anuradhapura’s monastic zone Fig 2.5: View of Mihintale Fig 2.6: View of the meditational walkway at Ritigala Fig 2.7: View of the Vatadage at Ranjanganaya (D512), a popular tourist and pilgrimage site at the southern boundary of the hinterland survey Fig 2.8: View of the rock-cut Buddha at Aukana Fig 3.1: Map of the hinterland showing the location of the non-probabilistic transects Fig 3.2: One of the teams undertaking probabilistic transect survey Fig 3.3: Map of the micro-survey area showing the location of the probabilistic transects, as well as the location of different sites that were encountered during both transect and micro-survey in the area Fig 3.4: One of the transect survey teams entering an area of dense vegetation, despite the potential low visibility of sites Fig 3.5: Undertaking auger-coring at site B009 in order to establish the depth of cultural material at the Site Fig 3.6: Members of the team undertaking geophysical survey Fig 4.1: Map of Sri Lanka and sites mentioned in the chapter Fig 4.2: Image of the Gedige within the Citadel of Anuradhapura Fig 4.3: View of the excavations at trench ASW2 Fig 4.4: View of the Jetavana stupa, one of Anuradhapura’s monumental structures Fig 4.5: Diagram of the brick focal stupa constructed on top of an earlier stupa at C527 Fig 4.6: Plan of a pabbata vihara (after Wijesuriya 1974: Fig VII) Fig 4.7: View of one half of a double-platform structure at Ritigala Fig 4.8: View of the double-platform structures at the Western Monasteries, Anuradhapura Fig 4.9: Plan of a padhanagara parivena after Wijesuriya (1974: Fig IX) Fig 4.10: an example of aniconic sripada from site B308 in the hinterland of Anuradhapura Fig 4.11: An example of iconic sculpture from site A155 in the hinterland of Anuradhapura Fig 4.12: The Tissawewa, one of the large tanks surrounding the city of Anuradhapura Fig 4.13: Chronological phasing of the project Fig 5.1: Map of key hinterland sites mentioned in the text Fig 5.2: Map of all sites within the hinterland Fig 5.3: Map of ceramic scatters (all periods) Fig. 5.4: Distance from AW2 of ceramic scatters (by period) Fig 5.5: Ceramic scatter B009 Fig 5.6: Ceramic scatter A021 Fig 5.7: Size of ceramic scatters by period (size in square metres) Fig 5.8: Size vs distance of ceramic scatters (all periods) with ASW2 as a reference Fig 5.9: Map of ceramic scatters with metalworking residues (all periods) Fig 5.10: Distance from AW2 of ceramic scatters with metalworking residues (by period) Fig 5.11: Map of monastic sites (Early and Late Historic) Fig 5.12: Map of monastic sites (Early and Late Medieval) Fig 5.13: Distance from AW2 of monastic sites (number and period) Fig 5.14: Lena with drip ledge at Katu Potha Kanda (A004-A011), with a modern structure built into the base Fig 5.15: Lena at D131 Fig 5.16: Rock-cut bed at D131 Fig 5.17: Stupa constructed on an outcrop at B195 Fig 5.18: Stupa constructed on an outcrop at D005, with evidence of further structures in the foreground Fig 5.19: Plan of site D005 Fig 5.20: Focal stupa on the summit of an earlier stupa at C527 xii

5 6 7 7 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 28 28 29 29 30 30 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 46 46 47 47 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 84

Fig 5.21: Distance from AW2 of stupas (number and period) Fig 5.22: Distance from ASW2 vs the height of stupas (all periods). Stupas marked as 0m in height are too badly damaged to ascertain their original height Fig 5.23: Rock-cut staircase cut into the outcrop at A161 Fig 5.24: Plan of D357 Fig 5.25: Non-stupa monastic complex not on an outcrop at D357 Fig 5.26: Tampita Viharage at D361. Note how the more recent structure is built on earlier stone pillars Fig 5.27: Large monastic complex at A030. The stupa is visible on the outcrop in the distance, whilst other structures are present in the foreground. Fig 5.28: Large monastic complex at Z001. Several buildings are visible by the alignment of stones on the surface Fig 5.29: Map of undiagnostic sites with pillars and blocks (all periods) Fig 5.30: Undiagnostic site with pillars and blocks at C348. This site may also form part of a bridge crossing the Malvatu Oya Fig 5.31: Conical hole at C344 Fig 5.32: Square-cut holes at D377 Fig 5.33: Map of bridges, sluices and annicuts (all periods) Fig 5.34: Remains of a crossing point at A366 Fig 5.35: Part of the sluice at Z021 Fig 5.36: Tank B351 with a wild elephant bathing Fig 5.37: Tank C003 with Katu Potha Kanda visible in the distance Fig 5.38: Quarrying at B043. These pillars were quarried from the outcrop at Katu Potha Kanda, but were never resized or shaped ready for use Fig 5.39: Map of ethnographic sites Fig 5.40: Brick-making site B209. The wooden frame for shaping the bricks is visible to the front of the stack of bricks that are being readied for firing Fig 5.41: Pottery vessels after firing in a kiln Fig 5.42: Colonial period railway bridge Fig 5.43: Modern stupa constructed close to stone pillars Fig 5.44: Stupa under construction in the background, whilst the foreground shows the interior of a looted Stupa Fig 6.1: Map of sites Fig 6.2: Geophysical survey at B009 Fig 6.3: Overview of geophysics at C033 Fig 6.4: Geophysical survey at C033 Fig 6.5: Overview of geophysics at C018 Fig 6.6: Geophysical survey at C018 Fig 6.7: Overview of geophysics at B004 Fig 6.8: Geophysical survey at B004 Fig 6.9: Geophysical survey at C112 Fig 6.10: Overview of geophysics at F101 and F102 Fig 6.11: Geophysical survey at F101 Fig 6.12: Geophysical survey at F102 Fig 6.13: Overview of geophysics at C313 Fig 6.14: Geophysical survey at C313 Fig 6.15: Overview of geophysics at A155 Fig 6.16: Geophysical survey at Area 1 of A155 Fig 6.17: Geophysical survey at Area 2 of A155 Fig 6.18: Overview of geophysics at D129 Fig 6.19: Geophysical survey at D129 Fig 6.20: Geophysical survey at C121 Fig 6.21: Geophysical survey at F517 Fig 6.22: Geophysical survey at C515 Fig 6.23: Geophysical survey at F507 Fig 6.24: Overview of geophysics at D339 Fig 6.25: Geophysical survey at D339 (D340) Fig 6.26: Geophysical survey at D339 Fig 6.27: Geophysical survey at D357 Fig 7.1: Map of the excavated sites Fig 7.2: Overview of site B009. The stupa visible in the background is at Mihintale Fig 7.3: Plan of Trench 1 at B009 xiii

84 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 152 152 153

Fig 7.4: View of B009 looking south; Trench 1 showing context 4 with postholes 5, 7, 9 and 11 Fig 7.5: B009 Trench 1 Harris Matrix Fig 7.6: Overview of F101 and F102 Fig 7.7: Photo of F102 Trench 1 looking east Fig 7.8: F102 Trench 1 west facing section Fig 7.9: F102 Trench 1 Harris Matrix Fig 7.10: View of Trench 1 at C033 looking west Fig 7.11 C033 Trench 1 south facing section and plan Fig 7.12 C033 Harris Matrix Fig 7.13: Overview of C018. The stupa is underneath the overgrown mound. The trench was laid out in the foreground of this image Fig 7.14: C018 Trench 1 east facing section Fig 7.15: C018 Trench 1 looking west; contexts 4 and 5 Fig 7.16: C018 Trench 1 Harris Matrix Fig 7.17: Z001 and Z021 overview Fig 7.18: View of Z001 Trench 1 before excavation looking east Fig 7.19: Z001 Trench 1, south facing section Fig 7.20: Z001 Trench 1 looking north Fig 7.21: Z001 Trench 1 Harris Matrix Fig 7.22: A155 Overview Fig 7.23: View of the trench at A155, with the new monastic structure being built close by to the east Fig 7.24: A155 Trench 1 south facing section Fig 7.25: View of A155 Trench 1 facing west; contexts 9, 13 and 14 Fig 7.26: View of A155 Trench 1; contexts 19, 20 and 24 Fig 7.27: A155 Trench 1 Harris Matrix Fig 7.28: C112 Overview Fig 7.29: View of the double-platform bridge at C112 Fig 7.30: C112 Trench 3 north facing section Fig 7.31: C112 Trench 3 looking south after excavation Fig 7.32: C112 Trench 2 plan Fig 7.33: C112 Trench 2 looking southeast, contexts 206, 207 and 209 Fig 7.34: C112 Trenches 1 and 2 west and north facing sections Fig 7.35: C112 Trench 1 looking east; contexts 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12 Fig 7.36: C112 Trenches 1, 2 and 3 Harris Matrix Fig 7.37: B004 Overview Fig 7.38: B004 location of Trench 1 across the largest mound at the site Fig 7.39: B004 Trench1 north facing section and Trench 2 west facing section Fig 7.40: B004 Trench 1 looking west; context 14 Fig 7.41: B004 Trench 2 looking north; context 8 Fig 7.42: B004 Trench 1 and 2 Harris Matrix Fig 7.43: F101 Trench 2 laid out after surface cleaning Fig 7.44: F101 Trench 2 north facing section Fig 7.45: F101 Trench 2 plan Fig 7.46: F101 Trench 2 Harris Matrix Fig 7.47: F101 Trench 2 looking north; context 3 Fig 7.48: D339 Overview Fig 7.49: D339 before cleaning Fig 7.50: D339 Trench 1 and 2 west facing section Fig 7.51: D339 Trench 1 and 2 plan Fig 7.52: D339 Trench 1 midway through excavating context 103 Fig7.53: D339 Trench 2 looking north; contexts 206 and 207 Fig 7.54: D339 Trench 1 and 2 Harris Matrix Fig 7.55: F517 after cleaning back vegetation Fig 7.56: F517 Trench 1 west facing section Fig 7.57: F517 Trench 2 west facing section Fig 7.58: F517 Trenches 1 and 2 looking northeast. The moonstone is visible in the top right Fig 7.59: F517 Trench 2; contexts 205 and 206 Fig 7.60: F517 Trench 1 and 2 Harris Matrix Fig 7.61: B062 Overview Fig 7.62: B062 plan of trenches Fig 7.63: Plan of Trench 2 before (top) and after (bottom) excavation xiv

153 154 154 155 155 156 156 157 157 158 158 159 159 160 161 161 162 163 163 164 164 165 166 166 167 168 168 169 169 170 170 171 171 172 172 173 174 175 175 176 176 177 177 178 179 180 180 181 181 182 183 183 184 184 185 185 186 187 187 188

Fig 7.64: B062 Trench 2 looking south before excavation Fig 7.65: B062 Trench 1 looking east Fig 7.66: B062 Trench 2a looking north Fig 7.67: B062 Trench 2a close up of ceramic dump Fig 8.1: Summary of palaeoclimate, Sri Lanka and monsoonal Asia Fig 8.2: Traditional dry zone village tank system Fig 8.3: Geoarchaeology study sites, elevation and drainage, Anuradhapura hinterland Fig 8.4: Stratigraphy from the control sites Fig 8.5: Stratigraphy from the bund sites Fig 8.6: Stratigraphy from the paddy and tank infill sites Fig 8.7: Stratigraphy from the moat and channel infill sites Fig 8.8: Integration of early water management infrastructure dynamics in the Anuradhapura hinterland Fig 8.9: Micromorphological features from paddy and bund control sediments Fig 8.10: Micromorphological features from chena and paddy control soils Fig 8.11: Micromorphological features from pre-bund surfaces, surface/bund interfaces, and bunds Fig 8.12: Modern niyara (arrows) and lower Z021 stratigraphy Fig 8.13: Channel C018; Thin section C018-7/8 Fig 8.14: Inherited layered feature, C009 tank 3-2 Fig 8.15: Detail of inherited layered feature, C009 tank 3-2 Fig 8.16: Detail of inherited layered feature, C009 tank 3-2 Fig 8.17: Micromorphological features of infill sediments Fig 9.1: Map of sites mentioned in the text Fig 9.2: Map showing the distribution of Fine Wares and Black and Red Ware in the hinterland Fig 9.3: Map showing the distribution of key forms within the hinterland Fig 9.4: sf5108 (A155) and sf401 (B004) Glazed Ceramics Fig 9.5: sf624 and sf637Northern Black Polished Ware from A155 Fig 9.6: sf689 Rouletted Ware form F101 and sf1670 Undiagnostic Fine Ware from F517 Fig 9.7: sf1653 (A601) and sf1313 (C342) Ceramic Discs Fig 9.8: sf5142 (B062) and sf1256 (D339) Oil Lamps Fig 9.9: sf1012 (A153) and sf1666 (D628) Stove or Lipa Fig 9.10: sf1669 (A618) and sf1551 (B509) Stove or Lipa Fig 9.11: sf1835 (F517) and sf4145 (D33) Decorated Rim Sherds Fig 9.12: sf5165 and sf5166 Decorated Body Sherds from B062 Fig 9.13: sf5169 and sf5167 Decorated Body Sherds from B062 Fig 9.14: sf5154 and sf5168 Decorated Body Sherds from B062 Fig 9.15: sf1216 (B346) and sf1657 (B536) Decorated Body Sherds Fig 9.16 sf1019 (C148) and sf1581 (C519) Decorated Body Sherds Fig 9.17: sf1515 (C515) and sf1901 (C600) Decorated Body Sherds Fig 9.18: sf1582 Ceramic Sherd with Graffito from C503 Fig 9.19: sf5147 (B062) and sf609 (A155) Black and Red Ware Fig 9.20: sf1661 (B547) and sf1030 (B159) Decorated Body Sherds Fig 9.21: New Forms 1/C/B/1, 1/C/B/2, 1/H/A/1/, 2/F/C/3, 7/C/A/1 and 7/C/A/2 Fig 9.22: New Forms 23/A/A/2, 23/A/B/2, 23/B/A/2, 23/D/A/1, 23/C/B/1, 28/B/A/2, 62/B/B/2, 62/E/A/1, 65/A/B/1 and 68/A/A/1 Fig 9.23: Key Forms found within the hinterland Fig 9.24: Distribution of nambiliya within the hinterland Fig 9.25: Distribution of tali within the hinterland Fig 9.26: Distribution of patraya within the hinterland Fig 9.27: Distribution of mati-koppe within the hinterland Fig 9.28: Applique pottery from context 120 in trench ASW2 Fig 9.29: top sf1012 (A153) and bottom sf1850 (C506) both Lipa Fig 10.1: Distribution of terracotta objects within the hinterland Fig 10.2: Map of sites mentioned in the chapter Fig 10.3: sf4213 and sf4228 Terracotta Statues from D339 Fig 10.4: sf4164 and sf4292 Terracotta Statues from D339 Fig 10.5: sf1008 and sf1015 Terracotta Noses from B167 Fig 10.6: sf1257 and sf4262 Terracotta Noses from D339 Fig 10.7: sf1005 (B167), sf4290 (D339) and sf4298 (D339) Terracotta Female Figurines Fig 10.8: sf4148 and sf4149 Terracotta Seated Female Figurines from D339 Fig 10.9: sf4152 and sf4252 Terracotta Seated Female Figurines from D339 Fig 10.10: sf1258 and sf4334 Terracotta Seated Female Figurines from D339 xv

189 189 190 190 215 215 216 217 218 219 219 220 221 222 223 223 224 225 226 226 227 318 319 319 320 320 320 321 321 321 322 322 323 323 323 324 324 324 325 325 325 326 327 328 329 329 330 330 331 331 364 366 366 367 367 367 368 368 368 369

Fig 10.11: sf4151 Terracotta Hourglass Figurine from D339 Fig 10.12 sf4060 and sf4134 Terracotta Hourglass Figurines from D339 Fig 10.13 sf4241, sf4245 and sf4249 Terracotta Human Figurines with Triangular Headdresses from D339 Fig 10.14: sf1272 (A336), sf4347 (D339) and sf4178 (D339) Terracotta Pregnant Females Fig 10.15: sf1779 Terracotta Non-gendered Figurine Fig 10.16: sf1842, sf4156 and sf4159 Terracotta Phallus-Shaped Figurines from D339 Fig 10.17: sf4308 and sf4317 Terracotta Phallus-Shaped Figurines from D339 Fig 10.18: sf4308 and sf4317 attached Fig 10.19: sf4099 and sf4219 Terracotta Applique Figurines Attached to Vessels from D339 Fig 10.20: sf4037 and sf4307 Terracotta Applique Figurines Attached to Vessels from D339 Fig 10.21: sf4130, sf2005 and sf4299 Terracotta Applique Figurines Attached to Vessels from D339 Fig 10.22: sf4201, sf4261, sf4270 and sf4271 Terracotta Applique Breast Fragments from D339 Fig 10.23: sf4282, sf4335, sf4336 and sf4337 Terracotta Applique Breast Fragments from D339 Fig 10.24: sf4371, sf4287, sf4315 and sf4323 Terracotta Applique Breast Fragments from D339 Fig 10.25: sf1819 (C535), sf4188 (D339) and sf4274 (D339) Terracotta Figurine Headdresses; and sf1021 (C535) Terracotta T-Shaped Headdress Fig 10.26: sf4235, sf4239 and sf4341 Terracotta Figurine Headdresses from D339 Fig 10.27: sf1765 (C535), sf4175 (D339), sf4250 (D339) and sf4263 (D339) Terracotta Head Fragments Fig 10.28: sf4115, sf4338, sf4227 and sf4327 Terracotta Hands from D339 Fig 10.29: sf4366, sf4369, sf4224 and sf4296 Terracotta Feet from D339 Fig 10.30: sf1022 (C348), sf4066 (D339), sf4062 (D339) and sf5004 (D339) Terracotta Limb Fragments Fig 10.31: sf4183 and sf4214 Terracotta Limb Fragments with Bangles from D339 Fig 10.32: sf4233 and sf4240 Terracotta Limb Fragments with Bangles from D339 Fig 10.33: sf4107 and sf4111 Terracotta Zoomorphic Figurines from D339; sf4314 Terracotta Bird Figurine from D339 Fig 10:34: sf1017 (B167) and sf4248 (D339) Terracotta Elephant Ears Fig 10.35: sf1780 (C535), sf4182 (D339), sf4229 (D339) and sf1816 (C535) Terracotta Elephant Ears Fig 10.36: sf4226 Terracotta Elephant Head from D339 and sf1014 Terracotta Elephant Trunk from C152 Fig 10.37: sf1571 (B628), sf1572 (B628) and sf1546 (D607) Terracotta Disc Beads Fig 10.38: sf111 Terracotta Squashed Spherical Bead from C018 Fig 10.39: sf4028 and sf4036 Terracotta Architectural Fragments from D339 Fig 10.40: sf1672 (B519) and sf5030 (B188) Terracotta Roof Finials Fig 10.41: sf5032 (B188) and sf4104 (D339) Terracotta Hand Built Vessels Fig 10.42: sf1008 (B167) and sf1257 (D339) Terracotta Nose Fig 10.43: sf4152 Terracotta Seated Female Figurine from D339 Fig 10.44: sf4252 Terracotta Seated Female Figurine from D339 Fig 10.45 sf4245 Terracotta Human Figurine with Triangular Headdress from D339 Fig 10.46: sf4249 Terracotta Human Figurine with Triangular Headdress from D339 Fig 10.47: sf1779 Terracotta Non-gendered Figurine from C535 Fig 10.48: sf4156 Terracotta Phallus-shaped Figurine from D339 Fig 10.49: sf4159 Terracotta Phallus-shaped Figurine from D339 Fig 10.50: sf4037 Terracotta Applique Figure Attached to a Vessel from D339 Fig 10.51: sf4099 Terracotta Applique Figure Attached to a Vessel from D339 Fig 10.52: sf4219 Terracotta Applique Figure Attached to a Vessel from D339 Fig 10.53: sf4299 and sf4307, Terracotta Applique Figures Attached to Vessels from D339 Fig 10.54: sf4341 Terracotta Figurine Headdress from D339 Fig 10.55: sf4235 Terracotta Figurine Headdress from D339 Fig 10.56: sf4239 Terracotta Figurine Headdress from D339 Fig 10.57: sf4115 Terracotta Head Fragment from D339 Fig 10.58: sf1017 Terracotta Elephant Ear from B167 Fig 10.59: sf4248 Terracotta Elephant Ear from D339 Fig 10.60: sf4226 Terracotta Elephant Head from D339 Fig 10.61: sf1270 Undiagnostic Terracotta Fragment, most likely Human from D339 Fig 10.62: sf1018 (A153) and sf1546 (D607) Terracotta Disc Beads Fig 10.63: sf4036 Terracotta Architectural Fragment from D339 Fig 10.64: sf1319 Terracotta roof Finial from C377 Fig 10.65: sf1672 Terracotta Roof Finial from B159 Fig 10.66: sf5032 Terracotta Hand Built Vessel from B188 Fig 10.67: Map of the island-wide distribution of terracotta figurines xvi

369 370 370 370 371 371 371 372 372 372 373 373 373 373 373 374 374 374 374 375 375 375 375 376 376 376 377 377 377 378 378 379 379 380 380 381 381 382 382 383 383 384 384 385 385 386 386 387 387 388 388 389 389 390 391 391 392

Fig 11.1: Map of sites mentioned in text Fig 11.2: sf5176 and sf5179, Glazed Tile from A030 Fig 11.3: sf4074 Form K1 Tile from D339, and sf1247 Form K1A Tile from D311 Fig 11.4: sf 579 and sf583, both Form K2 Tiles from A155 Fig 11.5: sf1577 From K2 Tile and sf5078 Form K2A Tile, both from C112 Fig 11.6: sf1154 Form K2B Tile from D339, and sf578 Form K2C Tile from A155 Fig 11.7: sf 4020 Form K3 Tile from F517, and sf5094 Form K3 Tile from A518 Fig 11.8: sf1516 Form K3A Tile from A518, and sf1823 Form K4 Tile from C535 Fig 11.9: sf596 Undiagnostic Tile from A155, sf4006 brick from C112 Fig 11.10: sf1000 Lime Mortar from Z001, sf1565 Daub from D615 Fig 11.11: sf1573 Amethyst Bead from D613, sf4021 Carnelian Barrel Bead from F517 Fig 11.12: sf1188 Grinding Stone from A380, sf1006 Hammer Stone from A153 Fig 11.13: sf1834 Quartz Flake from C112, sf1041 Quartz Debitage from A052 Fig 11.14: sf613 Pale Green Glass Bead from A155, sf1511 Green Glass Bead from D500 Fig 11.15: sf1543 Blue Glass Bead from D500, sf1649 Red Glass Bead from B604 Fig 11.16: sf507 Dark Blue Glass Bangle from F102, sf1512 Blue Glass Bangle from C506 Fig 11.17: sf202 Lakshmi Plaque from Z001 Fig 11.18: sf1131 Polonnaruva Period Coin from D311, obverse and reverse Fig 11.19: sf5500 Iron Axe/Adze from B062 Fig 11.20: sf203 Iron Nail from Z001, sf1002 Iron Nail from Z001 Fig 11.21: sf104 Iron Bar from C018, sf205 Iron Bar from Z001 Fig 11.22: sf110 Bent Lead Bar from C018, sf4024 Corroded Copper Alloy Object from F517 Fig 11.23: sf1605 Furnace Fragment from F565, sf5140 Furnace Fragment with ceramics embedded from B062 Fig 11.24: sf5164 Iron-working Residue from B062, sf107 Copper Droplet from C018 Fig 11.25: Distribution of tile within the hinterland Fig 11.26: sf5176 Glazed Tile from A030 Fig 11.27: sf1577 Form K-2 Tile from C112 Fig 11.28: sf5076 Form K-2 Tile from C112 Fig 11.29: sf578 Form K-2-C Tile from A155 Fig 11.30: sf4211 Form K-2-C Tile from D339 Fig 11.31: sf5096 Form K-3 Tile from F517 Fig 11.32: sf4021 Carnelian Barrel Bead from D339 Fig 11.33: Glass Beads and Bangles Fig 11.34: Distribution of iron objects within the hinterland Fig 11.35: Iron Nails from F517 and D339 Fig 11.36: Iron Nails from C112 and F517 Fig 11.37: Distribution of metal-working residues within the hinterland Fig 12.1: Map of inscription IDs within the Anuradhapura hinterland Fig 12.2: Map of Early Historic inscriptions Fig 12.3: Frequency of Early Historic inscriptions by donation category Fig 12.4: Map of Late Historic inscriptions Fig 12.5: Frequency of Late Historic inscriptions by donation category Fig 12.6: Map of Early Medieval inscriptions Fig 12.7: Frequency of Early Medieval inscriptions by donation category Fig 12.8: Distance from centre of different donor categories Fig 12.9: Map of Early Medieval alienation donations, with one kilometre, three kilometre and five kilometre buffers Fig 13.1: Map of hinterland sites mentioned in the text Fig 13.2: Idealised plan of a city’s hinterland from the Arthasastra Fig 13.3: Devotee making an offering to the modern vihara at Veheragala (A155) Fig 13.4: Stupa at C527, with focal stupa on its summit Fig 13.5: Coconuts, carried by pingo, being offered at the Sri Mahabodhi in Anuradhapura Fig 13.6: Deva shrine at Veheragala (A155) Fig 13.7: Nun and her followers at Dethispala Bodhirukkarama, Viharamahadevigama Fig 13.8: Kiri Amunukole Shrine near Nachchaduwawewa Fig 13.9: Construction time of major monuments and hydraulic works in Anuradhapura and the hinterland Fig 13.10: Graph highlighting the ‘monastic shadow’ around Anuradhapura, as shown by the paucity of key indicators found within 12km of trench ASW2 Fig 13.11: Yantragala from the Bodhighara at Jetavana, Anuradhapura xvii

429 429 430 430 430 431 431 432 432 432 433 433 433 434 434 434 435 435 435 436 436 436 437 437 438 438 439 439 440 440 441 441 442 442 443 444 444 453 454 454 455 455 456 456 457 457 471 472 472 473 473 474 474 475 475 476 476

Fig 13.12: Meru Stone, courtesy of the National Museum in Colombo 477 Fig 13.13: Rice Boat or Canoe from Mihintale 478 Fig 13.14: The Mauryan Empire redrawn as a series of networks and nodes rather than a territorial empire 479

xviii

Plate 1: Distribution of sites during the Protohistoric period

Plate 2: Distribution of sites during the Early Historic period xix

Plate 3: Distribution of sites during the Late Historic period

Plate 4: Distribution of sites during the Early Medieval period xx

Plate 5: Distribution of sites during the Late Medieval period

Plate 6: The Early Brahmi inscription at B062

xxi

Plate 7: sf4228 being excavated at D339

Plate 8: One of the monks from Veheragala monastery viewing the excavations at A155 xxii

Plate 9: sf624 (NBPW from A155 ) and sf637 (NBPW from A155)

Plate 10: sf4213 (Terracotta Statue from D339) and sf4228 (Terracotta Statue from D339)

Plate 11: sf4152 (Terracotta Seated Female Figurine from D339), sf4241 (Terracotta Human Figurine with Triangular Headdresses from D339) and sf4249 (Terracotta Human Figurine with Triangular Headdresses from D339)

xxiii

Plate 12: sf4156 (Terracotta Phallus-Shaped Figurine from D339), sf4159 (Terracotta Phallus-Shaped Figurine from D339) and sf4219 (Terracotta Applique Figurine Attached to Vessels from D339)

Plate 13: sf4037 (Terracotta Applique Figurine Attached to Vessels from D339) and sf4307 (Terracotta Applique Figurine Attached to Vessels from D339)

Plate 14: sf1571 (Terracotta Disc Bead from B628), sf1572 (Terracotta Disc Bead from B628), sf1546 (Terracotta Disc Bead from D607) and sf111 (Terracotta Squashed Spherical Bead from C018)

xxiv

Plate 15: sf1573 (Amethyst Bead from D613) and sf4021 (Carnelian Barrel Bead from F517)

Plate 16: sf613( Pale Green Glass Bead) from A155, sf1511 (Green Glass Bead from D500) and sf1543 (Blue Glass Bead from D500)

Plate 17: sf1649 (Red Glass Bead from B604), sf507 (Dark Blue Glass Bangle from F102), sf1512 (Blue Glass Bangle from C506)

Plate 18: sf1131 (Polonnaruva Period Coin from D311, obverse), sf1131 (Polonnaruva Period Coin from D311, reverse) and sf202 (Lakshmi Plaque from Z001)

xxv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION Robin Coningham and Prishanta Gunawardhana The UNESCO World Heritage site of Anuradhapura is one of Asia’s major archaeological and pilgrimage centres. The Sri Lankan capital for 1500 years, its rulers oversaw monumental building programmes utilising over 500,000 cubic metres of brick, which resulted in the construction of a lavish ring of Buddhist monasteries and three vast reservoirs around the city. Between 1989 and 1994 a team of Sri Lankan and British archaeologists excavated trench Anuradhapura Salgaha Watta 2 (ASW2) close to the centre of the Citadel of Anuradhapura. The trench measured 10 metres by 10 metres and its 10 metre deep sequence demonstrated continuous habitation at the site from c.900BC to the twelfth century AD (Coningham 1999a). Presenting a unique sequence of structural development, trench ASW2 defined the transition of the settlement of Anuradhapura from a small Iron Age village to the capital of a pivotal Mediaeval Indian Ocean power and a major centre for Buddhist pilgrimage. Moreover, so secure was its internal stratigraphic consistency, that it presented a robustly chronometricallydated artefactual catalogue filling the very clear lacunae in the chronological and artefactual sequences for the island’s Iron Age, Early Historic and Early Medieval archaeology (Coningham et al. 2006a). Taken separately, individual data streams from the excavations have assisted in revising a number of extremely long-held academic traditions. For example, chronometrically dated artefacts confirmed without doubt the presence of preAsokan Brahmi, a pre-Mauryan fortification wall around the Citadel and later material indicating the advent of preRoman Indian Ocean trading networks. Individually, they have helped to challenge Sri Lanka's cultural stereotype that it was the latest recipient of innovation situated at the southern tip, and hence the periphery, of Peninsular India. As importantly, these combined data sets offered, in the words of the late Raymond Allchin “a wonderful database of evidence relating to the Iron Age and Early Historic periods of South Asia and from it we can study the stages of the emergence of a city and its subsequent growth.” (Allchin 2006: xi). As noted above, the excavations at trench ASW2 were closely focused on exploring the structural sequence within the Citadel of Anuradhapura and studying the material evidence of its role within Indian Ocean trade. The latter, detailed in Volume II: the Artefacts, identified the pivotal role of the settlement as a locus where raw materials, such as ivory, semi-precious stone and metal were transformed into finished luxury objects. The artefactual evidence also demonstrated the role of the settlement as a hub for traded goods throughout its sequence as changing fashion and differential access replaced Hellenistic and Roman inspired goods with

Islamic and Chinese products. These functions appeared all the more striking as the Citadel was established over 72 kilometres (as the crow flies) from the coast – a journey of 85 kilometres along the Malvatu Oya which colonial officers recorded as taking weeks rather than days. There was a slowly growing awareness too of the presence of networks of settlements that were necessary to support Anuradhapura as both Sri Lanka’s primate city and a centralized manufacturing centre. Volumes I and II had already begun to anticipate the importance of such settlements to the functioning of Anuradhapura, both its secular and industrial Citadel and its surrounding ring of monasteries, stupas and shrines, known as the Sacred City. Indeed, in Chapter 3: The City of Anuradhapura (Volume I), Seneviratna’s fourfold division of the city was adopted with concentric bands of fortified Citadel or inner city, monastic zone, a zone of villages and tanks and an outermost zone of forest and hermitages (1994: 82). Whilst the first of these zones was clearly delineated by a wall and ditch, the outer zones were less well defined, although Senake Bandaranayake restricted his study of Anuradhapura’s monastic structures to the major establishments of the Mahavihara, Jetavana and Abhayagiri (1974). The zone of tanks and villages included the major irrigation works of Tissawewa, Nuwarawewa and Basavakkulam as well as their associated farming communities and their fields (Seneviratna 1994: 83). The outermost zone, that of forest and hermitages, was defined by Seneviratna as one of encircling forests with nine communities of forest monks at Vessagiri, Isurmnumi, Pacimarama or the Western Monasteries, Toluvila, Pacinatissa Pabbata, Puliyankulama or Pubbarama, Pankuliya or Asokarama, Vijayarama and Kiribat Vihara (1994: 81). There was an awareness, however, that these zones were intimately linked into a broader landscape through the provision of feeder canals, tanks and stone bridges which facilitated “the movements of large numbers of pilgrims…as well as providing a suitable infrastructure to support the trade between the inland capital, its hinterland and the coast” (Coningham 1999c: 27). At that time, however, there was also an awareness that the traditional focus of excavations and archaeologists within Sri Lanka on major structures of brick and stone had been to the neglect of buildings of timber and clay. Indeed, it was directly noted that this preoccupation had resulted in the neglect of categories of settlements and stated that, “[t]his is not a problem which affects not just the archaeology of Anuradhapura but that of the island as a whole” (ibid.: 25). One could also easily expand this problem to a South Asian perspective where few archaeologists working at

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland Buddhist monastic sites have managed to penetrate through what is known as the ‘Maruyan Horizon’, referring to its very apparent monumental brick and stone construction and through into the timber and clay structures beneath (Coningham et al. 2013). Combined, these concerns also alluded to the pioneering surveys of Bandaranayake and his colleagues, as well as Ragupathy and Pricket-Fernando, which had successfully found evidence of such settlements elsewhere, and concluded by stating that, “it is only the lack of archaeological survey activity in the Anuradhapura region which is responsible for this lacuna.” (ibid.: 25).

was keen to stress both the social and economic roles of monasteries within the Kirindi Oya basin as well as to recognise the importance of the cohort of research advancing what he termed “a Social Approach” to the study of Buddhist monasticism in Sri Lanka (2009: 37). Discussions between the two of us and Gamini Adikari, another former member of Bandaranayake’s field team and the team excavating trench ASW2, led us to consider advancing our own field activities from within the walls of the Citadel of Anuradhapura and out into its hinterland. As noted above, despite our understanding of the urban process at Anuradhapura, our knowledge of the role played by non-urban communities remained poor as the majority of Early Historic excavations in Sri Lanka had focussed on urban forms or monastic sites (Coningham & Allchin 1995). We further recognised that it was impossible to study how the city itself functioned without studying its relation to its hinterland. In this academic vacuum, this new field project represented the first multi-disciplinary attempt to model the development of an Early Historic city in South Asia, and to assess its impact on non-urban communities, and the environment within its hinterland as well as their impacts on the development of the urban form itself. Therefore, the project team as a whole framed the following research questions:

This recognition was not new as the anthropologist Edmund Leach had raised concerns as early as the 1960s that “We know nothing at all about the organisation of village life in the ancient Sinhalese kingdom” (1961: 17). Thus, at the same time that the Sri Lankan and British archaeologists were excavating the deep sequence at trench ASW2, Senake Bandaranayake, Mats Mogren and colleagues had set out to tackle this lacuna to the south of Anuradhapura in the Sigiriya-Dambulla region. As discussed more fully in Chapter 2, Bandaranayake and Mogren started designing their survey in 1988 with the aim of undertaking an investigation of ancient settlement networks within the Sigiriya bim or territory through a methodology which utilised surface survey, excavation, post-excavation analysis and ethno-archaeological recording (Bandaranayake et al. 1990). Although preliminary summaries were published in 1990 and 1994 (Bandaranayake & Mogren 1994), security concerns and logistic and capacity challenges prevented the realisation of such ambitious aims or a final definitive monograph (Mogren 1999). Their endeavour was by no means singular, as similarly pioneering surveys were being conducted by Ragupathy in the Jaffna Peninsula in the early 1980s (1987), Prickett-Fernando in the Upper Mau Ara Basin (1994) as part of an environmental impact assessment for the Hambantota Integrated Rural Development Project (1994) and by Juleff in Samanalawewa in the Hill Country in advance of the construction of a hydro-electric plant (1998). However, few of these projects were systematic in approach or were fully published. Furthermore, most were unable to dedicate sufficient resources to post-excavation analysis or lacked the tight artefactual and structural sequences linking the hinterland to the urban core, as offered by the findings from trench ASW2.

 how did settlement and land use patterns respond to urbanisation?  was the plain’s environmental context altered during urbanisation?  did certain traits (writing, monuments, imports) become restricted to the city?  how did urbanisation affect the organisation of craft production?  was the plain entirely abandoned in the eleventh century AD? In addressing these five research questions, we aimed to model the networks between urban and non-urban communities and the environment within the plain of Anuradhapura over the course of two millennia and, in so doing, we wished to define and interpret the following characteristics:  the spatial location and sequence of urban and nonurban communities;  the morphology and function of urban and non-urban communities;  the subsistence base of urban and non-urban communities;  soils and sedimentary sequences within the plain;  resource patterns and enhancement within the plain.

The genesis of the Anuradhapura hinterland project was developed in this intellectual context when Prishanta Gunawardhana, one of the earlier researchers involved in Bandaranayake’s team from Kelaniya University was awarded a Commonwealth Scholarship to complete his doctoral dissertation between 2001 and 2003 under the supervision of Robin Coningham. Gunawardhana’s research was focused on the city and hinterland of Tissamaharama and examined the relationship between trade, urbanism and Buddhist monasticism within the Kirindi Oya basin of the south coast (2009). Based on field recording between 1999 and 2003, Gunawardhana

Generously funded by the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council, we conducted six seasons of fieldwork between 2005 and 2010. With participants drawn from the Universities of Durham, Kelaniya, Stirling, Bradford, Leicester and Rajarata, field seasons were logistically challenging with as many as 60 staff and students in the 2

Introduction field. Based in the Archaeology Department Circuit Bungalow beside the Sri Mahabodhi tree at Anuradhapura, field teams undertook settlement survey, geophysical survey, geoarchaeological soundings, auger coring, excavation, post-excavation analysis and interviews and observations of contemporary practices for six weeks each season. We were also keen to disseminate and test our early findings and held workshops at the end of each season at the University of Kelaniya and developed a trilingual website http://www.dur.ac.uk/arch.projects/anuradhapura. In addition, we published a preliminary report in South Asian Studies (Coningham et al. 2006a), a preliminary interpretation of our data in Antiquity (Coningham et al. 2007), a report on the analysis of modern ceramic production (Krishnan & Adikari 2008), a consideration of core and periphery within the hinterland of Anuradhapura (Gunawardhana 2010), a study of the terracotta figurines from the hinterland (Coningham et al. 2012). These were then augmented by a study of the development and disuse of water management infrastructure in the Anuradhapura hinterland in the Journal of Archaeological Sciences (Gilliand et al. 2013) and a report on the OSL dating of stupas within the hinterland (Bailiff et al. 2013) in Antiquity, as well as ensuring that emergent data was mainstreamed more broadly (Coningham 2011; Coningham & Gunawardhana 2012).

where monastic centres played a dual role of religious and secular administrators” (ibid.: 717). We further developed our working hypothesis to describe the authority and function of hinterland monasteries as ‘Buddhist Temporalities’ (Coningham et al. 2011) and the recognition of non-Buddhist cults within the hinterland further led us to confirm that the landscape had indeed been heterarchically organised and that resources and authority had been contested (Coningham et al. 2012). The following chapters will now test the validity of these early working hypotheses and present a diachronic analysis of Anuradhapura’s hinterland. As such, we are aware that our findings will be of significance to archaeologists and historians of Early Historic and Early Medieval South Asia as well as those concerned with the frequent isolation of studies of Buddhist monasticism from consideration of their links with secular communities (Coningham 2001, 2011). Moreover, it will also appeal to those archaeologists with comparative research interests in landscape morphology, irrigation management and settlement function, particularly those colleagues facing similar low density urban patterns around Khmer and Maya cities (Fletcher 2009). The present volume is divided into a total of 13 chapters, ranging from survey data to artefactual categories and overviews. The first part of the volume commences with Chapter 2, a presentation of previous settlement survey and research within the hinterland of Anuradhapura and within North Central Province as a whole. This is followed by Chapter 3 which describes the systematic methodology adopted by the team and the sample universe before discussing the chronology and phasing selected to date sites within that universe in Chapter 4. This introductory section is then followed by four core data collection chapters, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Chapter 5 presents and analyses the settlement survey data, Chapter 6 the findings from the non-intrusive surface survey, Chapter 7 the results of the excavations at selected sites and Chapter 8, the analysis of the environment and water management of the hinterland. Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12 present the artefactual record recovered from the survey and excavation are largely divided according to material. Glazed and unglazed ceramics are discussed on Chapter 9, terracotta objects in Chapter 10, construction and building materials and miscellaneous materials in Chapter 11 as well as archaeozoological and archaeobotanical remains. As adopted for Volume II: The Artefacts, each artefactual chapter follows a similar organisation and contains an introduction to the materials, followed by a complete catalogue of each artefactual group, recording special find number (sf) and weight; dimensions are recorded if necessary. An analysis of the published epigraphical record of the hinterland is presented in Chapter 12 and all these aspects are then discussed in Chapter 13 before key features are confirmed in Chapter 14: Conclusion.

Whilst we had anticipated that we would encounter a tiered Early Historic settlement hierarchy similar to that recorded by both Erdosy (1987) and Lal (1984) in Northern India and anticipated from a reading of Kautiliya’s Arthashastra, our first preliminary report recorded that “categories of towns and lower order administrative and manufacturing centres are missing from our survey universe” (Coningham et al. 2006a: 63). Furthermore, we indicated that we would investigate the possibility that “the plain’s numerous Buddhist monasteries performed the administrative, economic and political functions usually associated with towns, presenting a very different geo-political landscape from that to the north of the Sub-Continent.” (ibid.). A further two field seasons demonstrated that this bimodal categorisation of sites was unchallenged and we thus began to develop a series of working hypotheses to interpret our data. That debate was presented within an Antiquity paper, where we began to present a model which interpreted our most numerous category of sites, small and shallow ceramic scatters, as “small farming and/or pastoral communities” and deeper monumental sites as well-established monasteries with links to luxury items (Coningham et al. 2007: 707). In view of the absence of higher order settlements within the hinterland, we further suggested that “the hinterland’s numerous Buddhist monasteries performed the administrative, economic and political functions usually associated with towns” (ibid.: 717). We posited the presence of heterarchies within the landscape of Anuradhapura and, with reference to comparative examples within Mesoamerica and Cambodia, suggested that “the hinterland of Anuradhapura was a theocratic landscape,

As already noted in Volumes I and II, certain conventions adopted in the text should be explained. Firstly, De 3

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland Silva’s list of Sri Lanka’s rulers (See Volume I: 155-8) has been accepted as an initial framework for the island’s chronology (De Silva 1981). It is understood fully, however, that as this framework was based upon a combination of sources including the Mahavamsa, the Culavamsa and various inscriptions, and it is not necessarily without error or omission (Coningham 1995). Secondly, it should be noted that diacritical marks have been dispensed with following the convention used in the

Cambridge Encyclopedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives (Robinson 1989). Finally, it should be noted that in some reports, the project is titled the British Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka) Project: Phase 2 and in others the Upper Malvatu Oya Exploration Project. Both were, and remain valid titles and were developed for different academic and public audiences.

4

Introduction

Fig 1.1: Plan of Anuradhapura including the Sacred City, Citadel and trench ASW2

5

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland

Fig 1.2: Map of Sri Lanka 6

Introduction

Fig 1.3: Idealised plan of a city’s hinterland from the Arthasastra

Fig 1.4: Team photo from the second field season (Summer 2005)

7

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland

8

CHAPTER 2

HISTORY OF RESEARCH Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Mark Manuel and Christopher Davis

2.1 Introduction This chapter examines the history of scholarly research into the wider ancient landscapes of Sri Lanka and, in particular, within the environs of Anuradhapura. The history of research into Anuradhapura itself, including the secular Citadel and core monastic zones has been comprehensively covered elsewhere (see Volume I, Chapter 3 (Coningham 1999b: 15-27)). As might have been anticipated from Chapter 1, previous research has tended to have primarily focused on the monumental core of the city, with little attention paid to the surrounding lands. The only exceptions are the systematic clearance and reconstruction of monastic sites such as Mihintale, Ranjanganaya, Ritigala and Dambulla, the identification and translation of inscriptions throughout the landscape (Paranavitana 1970, 1983; Dias 2001) and the mapping of hydraulic systems (Brohier 1934). However, the clearance of sites has often been motivated by religious re-engagement or economic reasons, such as stimulating tourism and pilgrimage or the fresh cultivation of abandoned fields, as opposed to archaeological investigations. In lieu of this data, there has been an overreliance on textual sources for reconstructing the past landscape and, as such, this has been heavily biased towards the focus of those texts. Scholarly research within the island, and around Anuradhapura itself, may be divided into three main phases: historic accounts of the region, the systematic analysis of remains, and multidisciplinary approaches to landscape archaeology. They are discussed in more detail in the following sections. However, we begin by reviewing textual and historical accounts of Anuradhapura and, in particular, the rural hinterland surrounding it.

2.2 Textual Narratives The Pali Chronicles, the Mahavamsa and Culavamsa in particular, have been central to both discourse and the reconstruction of Sri Lankan history and archaeology since the early nineteenth century. The Chronicles provide a narrative of the Island’s history from the Vijayan colonisation middle of the first millennium BC (Mvs: VII.3) through to the defeat of the last Kandyan King, Sri Vikrama Rajasimha, by the British in 1815 AD (Cvs: CI.19). Initially believed to be oral traditions and legends, the discovery of manuscripts by George Turnour at a vihara in Mullgiri-galla, near Tangalle (Tennant 1859), led contemporary scholars to acknowledge that Sri Lanka possessed an authentic historical record (Wickramasinghe 2006: 89). Providing an historical framework for the island from initial colonisation, through contact with the Mauryan Empire and then to British rule, James Tennant, the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon from 1845 to 1850, stated that the translation of the Chronicles gave the island “possession of continuous

written chronicles, rich in authentic facts… presenting a connected history of the island” (1859: 312). The efforts of Buddhist monks from the Sri Lankan sangha who collated, edited and translated the Chronicles from Pali into Sinhalese, and their correspondences with European scholars, stimulated the fledgling discipline of Oriental scholarship in the nineteenth century Europe (Guruge 1984: xiv, xvii). The first English translation of the Mahavamsa was published in Edward Upham’s Historical and Sacred Books of Ceylon (1833), and the first critical translation of this Chronicle was produced by George Turnour in 1837 (Devendra 1959: 24). This led to an increased interest in the history of Sri Lanka and the monuments recorded within, although most scholars hold the latter translations of Geiger to be the definitive editions of the chronicles. (1912, 1929). The Mahavamsa is held to have been written by a number of monks belonging to Anuradhapura’s Mahavihara (Rupenvelisaya) and was then compiled into a single text by the Buddhist monk Mahanama in the fifth century AD (Geiger 1912: xi). The monks of the Mahavihara tradition were also credited with the continued recording of the Island’s history through the compilation of the later Culavamsa. The events and list of monarchs provided, although in parts sometimes disputed, do tend to broadly corroborate dates and records deciphered from epigraphic sources (Coningham 1999b: 3) and the accuracy of the Chronicles has been supported by their references to Classical sources, such as Ptolemy (Sinnatamby 1968: 55). Due to this possession of an apparently accurate narrative of the Island’s past that provided information on identifiable standing remains, most nineteenth century studies of Anuradhapura focussed on the large monumental Buddhist structures, such as the major stupas, Brazen Palace and the Bodhi tree, describing these monuments in their contemporary ruined state with their histories extracted uncritically straight from the pages of the Chronicles as exemplified by De Butts (1841: 241-245), Tennant (1859: 610-624), Carpenter (1892: 99-115), Ballou (1894: 67-68), Cumming (1901: 268-271), Harischandra (1908: 22-60) and Parker (1909: 262-315). The availability of such a unique textual source also directed the subsequent conduct of archaeology and, as colonial scholars based their work primarily on the Chronicles; Seneviratne has termed this the “Mahavamsa view” of Sri Lankan history (1997: 6). Although the Chronicles record events and places outside Anuradhapura and subsequent capitals, archaeologists have focussed their efforts on large readily identifiable monumental remains in the vicinity of the urban forms. This has led to a neglect of archaeological remains that were present beyond these centres, which continued in

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland the post-independence period (Seneviratne 1997: 7). In addition, as the Chronicles were both Buddhist and royal in their accounts, they may relate events and issues relevant to the elite strata of society, leaving other segments of the populace’s history are invisible due to the selectivity of the authors of the Chronicles (Geiger 1960: xxi). However, although these limitations have been recognised, they have largely been ignored, partly due to the affiliations of those researching Sri Lanka’s Early Historic and medieval history (Valentine Daniel 1997: 49).

Governor. He also described a large lake "which may be a mile over, not natural, but made by art, as other ponds in the country, to serve them to water their corn grounds" (ibid.: 159), presumably referring to one of the artificial tanks in the vicinity of Anuradhapura. Later accounts relied less heavily on first-hand knowledge, preferring textual narratives instead. In his early account of the island, James Tennent used the Mahavamsa and the accounts of the fourth century AD Chinese pilgrim Faxian for explaining the initial construction of the monasteries at Mihintale, and the construction of Anuradhapura's temple complexes (1859: 298).

2.3 Early Accounts of Sri Lanka

From 1890 onwards, the Government of Ceylon initiated a series of 'circuit tours' of the island, establishing a permanent presence at major sites and publishing results in the Annual Reports of the Archaeological Survey of Ceylon. Whilst much of the work was ad hoc and descriptive in nature, it began a period of detailed recording and interpretation of the island's past. It also allowed scholars to look beyond the textual evidence for the first time. Henry Parker, for example, was fascinated by the large number of conical holes and quarrying marks found throughout the North Central Province, in particular those found at Ritigala. He suggested that smaller cup-holes, between 2 and 3 centimetres deep and 5 centimetres across, had been used as oil lamps during festivals (1909: 232). Regarding larger conical holes, he identified a link between their location and Buddhist monasteries, but noted that they were most probably the result of repeated friction, rather than a single drilling event. However, no local villagers could offer him an explanation and he noted that the Sinhalese word for them, kōwa, translated as "crucible" and thus suggested that they may have been used in the process of metalworking. Parker also suggested that they may have been a traditional method of extracting coconut oil, effectively mortars. The pieces of coconut would have compressed between the pestle and the side of hole or mortar, and the oil gradually squeezed out of them (1909: 233f). A contemporary of Parker and first head of the Archaeological Survey of Ceylon, H.C.P. Bell's excavations and clearances at Anuradhapura and Mihintale were matched by his desire to understand more about outlying sites within the region. He focused heavily on Ritigala, particularly the ascetic nature of the monks who had resided there, linking them with the Pamsikulika sect of Buddhist monks (Bell & Bell 1993: 129f). He also worked at Tantrimale, a monastic complex located to the north-west of Anuradhapura, clearing and dating part of the site to the eleventh or twelfth century AD and the reign of Parakrama Bahu the Great (r.AD1153-1186) and thus contemporary with Polonnaruva (ibid.: 134).

The earliest independent account of Sri Lanka is thought to have been derived from Pliny the Elder, a Roman scholar who published his Naturalis historia in AD77, although much of the work is thought to have derived from earlier Greek scholars, such as Megasthenes. Pliny described the island of Taprobane as having no cities, but several hundred villages although later he contradicted himself by describing a town with a south-facing harbour that housed 200,000 people and was home to the King (Majumdar 1960: 345-347). However early, his account provided little information regarding the interior of the island in comparison with the records kept by Faxian, a Chinese Buddhist monk, who travelled through South Asia between AD399 and 414 and compiled detailed records of the religious, economic and political landscape of the subcontinent. Sailing south from the mouth of the Ganges, Faxian described the island as a land of giant pearls, precious stones and where plants and tress flourished all year round (Giles 1923:66-67). Faxian also recorded the planting of a cutting from the Bo Tree, and described a city, presumably Anuradhapura, that contained a shrine housing a tooth relic of the Buddha (ibid.: 68-69). Within this city, there were between 5060,000 priests who were fed from communal stocks of food, to which the King contributed about one tenth. Faxian also made reference to several sites close to Anuradhapura. These included Mihintale, forty li (21 kilometres) to the east where a monk, Dharmagupta, resided in a cave for over forty years (Giles 1923: 71f) and a great shrine, seven li (3.7 kilometres) to the south, which housed 3,000 priests, and a large wooden, royal cremation pyre nine metres high located four to five li (2.4 kilometres) east of there (ibid.: 72). Tantalising graffito at Sigiriya record the visits of a number of other early visitors from north and south India but their attention appears to have been focused on the wall paintings rather than recording settlement details (Paranavitana 1956). The earliest European accounts of Anuradhapura were recorded by Robert Knox, an English sailor taken captive by the Kandyan King for 19 years until his escape in 1679. Following the route of the Malvatu Oya, he noticed large numbers of stone pillars, paved areas and three collapsed stone bridges (Knox 1681: 6). On arriving at the town of Anuradhapura, he stated that it was sparsely occupied save for a small group who watched over the ancient city, but still important enough to warrant its own

2.4 Systematic Approaches This systematic approach continued into the next century and, in the 1930s, R.L. Brohier followed previous research by documenting the nature and extent of irrigation works across the island, including those within the vicinity of Anuradhapura. He identified the ancient river, tank and canal systems that fed the city of 10

History of Research Anuradhapura (Brohier 1934: 3), as well as noting the close links between the location of tanks and villages. This hydraulic system originated in the Matale Hills before draining into the first of a series of large artificial tanks, the Kalawewa, formed by the construction of a dam across the Dambulla and Mirisgoni Oyas and covering 18 square kilometres. From this tank, the Malvatu Oya and Jaya Ganga and Yoda Ela canals carried water north-west via Nachchaduwawewa towards the major tanks of Anuradhapura (ibid: 7-10). Brohier's work was intrinsically tied into the Government of Ceylon’s attempts to reinstate and modernise the ancient irrigation works, not only to reinvigorate the ancient city of Anuradhapura but to open up new areas for settlement, agriculture and economic exploitation. By doing so, irrigation surveyors inadvertently generated the first systematic recording of a key element of Anuradhapura's hinterland. His work has remained the mainstay of studies of the development of island’s irrigation system and is still frequently cited by comparative studies (Scarborough 2003). Brohier’s model for the development of the hydraulic networks of ancient Sri Lanka was expanded by Joseph Needham, who suggested a first stage of simple rain water tanks, a second stage where stream and river water was collected within small tanks, a third stage where the large tanks submerged these earlier small bunded tanks and a fourth stage with annicuts diverting water into artificial channels and the cutting of transbasin canals (Needham 1971).

Although attempts to record the island’s rich corpus of inscriptions had commenced in the nineteenth century (Müller 1883), Senerat Paranavitana began systematically compiling and translating Brahmi inscriptions across the island (1970, 1983), mirroring Brohier’s mapping of the hydraulic systems of North Central Province. Building on the work of individuals, such as Don Martino De Zilva Wickremasinghe, H.W. Codrington, Parker and Bell who had first identified many of the inscriptions, Paranavitana recorded and translated over 1200 inscriptions within caves and carved into outcrops, rock faces and boulders (1970: i-vii). The inscriptions recorded, translated, mapped and published by the Archaeological Survey of Sri Lanka, detail epigraphic records of donations made to religious, mostly Buddhist, institutions throughout Sri Lanka (Paranivitana 1970, 1983; Dias 2001; Ranawella 2001, 2005, 2009). The inscriptions themselves will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.

2.5 Landscape Archaeologies As noted in the Introduction, in the 1970s and 1980s most archaeologists working on the Iron Age and Early Historic period of Sri Lanka were drawn to excavate at large individual sites in order to develop deep sequences and chronologies as at Mantai, Kantarodai and Anuradhapura (Figure 2.1). For example, north-west of Anuradhapura, excavations traced the development of the port of Mantai (Carswell & Prickett 1984), linked to Anuradhapura by the Malvatu Oya. The excavations uncovered numerous ceramics ranging from Black and Red Ware and Rouletted Ware in the earliest layers to Sasanian, Dunsun, T'ang and Yueh ceramics imported from East and West Asia in the 8th-11th centuries AD (ibid.: 57-59). Notably fewer archaeologists at that time took a landscape-based approach but there were a number who undertook pioneering survey research. For example, Wilhelm Solheim II and Siran Deraniyagala undertook a survey and excavation programme along the north-east east coast of Sri Lanka in 1970 and identified a number of rock shelters and mounds (Solheim & Deraniyagala 1972). They were followed between 1980 and 1983 by Ponnampalam Ragupathy, who undertook a pioneering settlement study of the Jaffna Peninsula aimed at undertaking a comprehensive exploration of archaeological sites in the peninsular “to exact as much information as possible from their location and from the available artefacts; to piece together the sequence of early Jaffna” (1987: 3). The Peninsula’s geographical distinctiveness, a lack of archaeological research in the area and the relative paucity of textual sources relating to Jaffna all provided an ideal backdrop for his archaeological exploration (ibid.: 3). Initially, a surface exploration was undertaken, although Ragupathy was not explicit how this was conducted, recording the location and ecology of each site as well as any associated artefacts recovered (ibid.: 6). Due to the limited resources at his disposal, Ragupathy was unable to use absolute dating methods at any of the sites he studied. As a result, relative dating methods were introduced after Ragupathy created his own pottery chronology for the Peninsula, utilising known ceramic types such as Rouletted Ware as

As irrigation works were renovated and the surrounding land cleared, it became increasingly clear that the entire North Central Province had been incorporated into this ancient irrigation system, a system which Edmund Leach termed Hydraulic Society (1959). Leach argued that the hydraulic systems of the region were not just designed to divert water from outside the catchment area but were also utilised for storing water for local use throughout the year. Furthermore, whilst perennial agriculture was largely impossible without irrigation systems, centralised hydraulic engineering was not an essential component (Leach 1959: 7f), thus rejecting Wittfogel's (1957) notion of Hydraulic Civilisation for Anuradhapura and Polonnaruva (Leach 1959: 11f). Leach suggested that the ancient settlement pattern of Rajarata had comprised a dispersed population, consisting of small villages of less than fifty families, each with its own paddy land irrigated from tanks constructed by damming a river valley with a long but not necessarily high bund. Thus, the resultant local reservoirs were large but shallow (ibid.: 8). He further recognised that the engineering became more elaborate closer to Buddhist monasteries and Leach suggested that the numerous inscriptions recording that kings donated tanks to monasteries were an indication of the decentralised nature of the hydraulic system. Finally, Leach argued that the water system required professional managers and engineers and that it was they who became the rulers of the country, and that Parakrama Bahu I (r. AD1153-1186) was noted for his hydraulic achievements rather than conquests (Leach 1959: 9f). 11

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland chronological markers (ibid.: 9). However, Ragupathy did not have a published excavated sequence on which to base his chronology and as such was unable to associate many of the ceramic forms as they were largely decontextualised surface finds. The only excavations conducted were at two megalithic sites, thus limiting the character and chronologies of site categories recorded. However, although some of the chronological aspects may be questioned, his study brought to attention the pivotal role of regional and Indian Ocean trade (ibid.: 150-156) and highlighted the neglected settlement archaeology of Jaffna and its potential for research. Similarly, Martha Prickett-Fernando, the excavator of Mantai along with John Carswell, began to focus in the south of the island in the Malala Oya Basin near Hambantota during an environmental impact assessment (Prickett-Fernando 1994). There, when faced with only six known sites from within their survey area indicated by the Department of Archaeology’s Register of Sites and Monuments, the published corpus of inscriptions and a study of ancient place names, the field director commented that “Hence it was deemed necessary to undertake as much field survey as possible” (ibid.: 52). The team undertook only nine days of survey with three days to sample the 16 square kilometres of the Galamunawewa tank basin, one day for the trans-basin canal line measuring 20 by one kilometres and a further five days for the downstream holding reservoirs and fields of 60 square kilometres. A different survey strategy was adopted for each area with the first involving walking transects, the second and third involved questioning local informants and vehicle transects along available tracks. Diagnostic artefact collections were made at all sites and structures photographed and measured, but the team recorded sites ranging from ceramic scatters to brick and ashlar buildings. The field director noted that the team had been unable to complete the survey strategy for Galamunawewa basin due to time constraints but reflected that “The dearth of sites with a prehistoric component…probably reflects this difference in survey strategy rather than a difference in Prehistoric occupation. The ephemeral nature of prehistoric sites makes it unlikely that they would be noted by un trained informants, and highly likely that those in field areas would have already been destroyed by agricultural practices” (ibid.: 55). The team recorded 183 sites which ranged from megalithic tombs, ceramic and slag scatters, various rock-cut structures, monastic complexes and over 100 irrigation features. The results of the survey were never published, which is unfortunate as there were a number of methodological reflections from the field director, including the recognition that differing survey techniques and quality of informants may have affected the apparent density of sites (ibid.: 60).

a result of the construction of a dam for the Samanalawewa hydro-electric scheme (Juleff 1998a: 4). Samanalawewa does not possess the perceived ‘tank and temple’ landscape of the dry zone, and it was suggested that this had led to the region being neglected as an area of archaeological interest. A survey area of approximately 58 square kilometres was chosen for investigations in the region that was to be flooded, and through the use of maps, aerial photographs and local guides 252 sites, dating from prehistoric through to the present, were identified (Juleff 1990: 80, Juleff 1998a: 40–99). However, the survey methodology was not systematic and it was stated that “given the often thick vegetation cover and the steepness of the terrain, the survey strategy adopted can best be described as `selective', with areas of likely archaeological activity, open hilltops and valley bottoms, being explored in preference to less accessible areas” (Juleff 1998b: 3). The reasons given for the lack of a systematic survey, in addition to the vegetation and topography, were time constraints, due to a first field season of three months, as well as the field personnel available who were “generally inexperienced in systematic fieldwalking and recording techniques” (Juleff 1998a: 40). The 252 sites identified comprised 79 prehistoric campsites, identified by stone tool and usually located on open hilltops, 34 historic and modern settlements, situated in valleys and identified by the presence of pottery sherds, and 139 iron-working sites, located both on hilltops and in valleys close to settlements and identified by the presence of slag (Juleff 1998b: 3). Of these 139 iron-working sites were 77 so-called westfacing smelting sites, which utilised monsoon winds for high quality metal production (Juleff 1996). These ironworking sites were dated to between the seventh and eleventh centuries AD through radiocarbon determinations, the absence of evidence for domestic habitation reinforced the argument for seasonal activity associated with monsoon winds (Juleff 2009: 55-560). Though an important study highlighting the archaeology of the Hill Country, especially the evidence for the development of iron-working in Sri Lanka, the published reports of the Samanalawewa Archaeological Project suffer from a number of limitations. Firstly, as mentioned above, the survey lacked a systematic methodology. Secondly, whilst the project aimed to extract a representative sample of the archaeological record (Juleff 1998a: 40) the overall focus of survey, excavation and ethnography was towards iron-working, a position enshrined within the project’s aims and objects (Juleff 1998a: 21-22, Juleff 1990: 85, 87), at the expense of gaining a fuller understanding of landscape development. Whilst Pricket-Fernando’s and Juleff’s rescue survey were defined by the needs of impact assessments, of greater direct relevance to our own research was the design of the Sigiriya-Dambulla settlement archaeology project (SARCP). Started in the 1988, it was at the time the largest multi-disciplinary and international collaborative archaeological survey ever undertaken in

The Samanalawewa Archaeological Project, led by Gill Juleff, was undertaken in the foothills of southern central highlands of Sri Lanka. Within this forested hilly landscape to the east of the town of Balangoda, the project implemented an archaeological impact assessment to record heritage that would be destroyed by flooding as 12

History of Research Sri Lanka. SARCP attempted to investigate settlements as well as settlement networks in a small, yet representative sample of the archaeological landscape of the Northern Dry Zone. It was deemed “perhaps the first attempt expressly directed at studying in some detail the archaeology of ancient village systems in Sri Lanka” (Bandaranayake 1990a: 15). The four main water catchment areas of the region were chosen from within the study area for analysis and were investigated through a combination of interviews with local residents, fieldwalking, excavation, ethnography, epigraphy, palaeobotany, and a study of irrigation systems (Mogren 1990, 1994a). Fieldwalking was a major facet of SARCP and a site was identified and defined as “contiguous ‘concentration’ areas with an occurrence of a fairly large amount of pre-modern pottery and/or iron slag, and areas with brickbats or more extensive ruins, indicated by stone pillars or other structural remains”, and from each site found a representative sample of artefacts and pottery was taken for further processing (Mogren 1990: 55). The primary task of fieldwalking was to locate and plot sites and, secondly, to follow up this initial investigation with excavations at representative site types to clarify the characteristics of various sites and to establish chronologies for the hinterland (Mogren 1990: 51). However, fieldwalking was only used extensively in the Kiri Oya valley (Manatunga 1990) and at a micro-survey level around the village of Talkote (Mogren 1994b). Furthermore, the areas selected for survey were predicated on information from local residents, even though SARCP identified that “no other method can replace fieldwalking” and that “any spatial analysis must be founded on exploration by foot” (Mogren 1990: 54). This approach was exemplified in the Talkote survey, where, prior to SARCP’s research, one site was known to archaeologists, a further eight discovered through interviews and a further 47 sites discovered after extensive fieldwalking (Mogren 1994a: 25). Further to this methodological constraint, fieldwalking teams were hampered by thick jungle and chena, which were purposely avoided and survey teams followed water courses and traditional forest pathways (Mogren 1990: 54-55). However, the authors acknowledged that “the site distribution maps to a certain extent might show surveyable land as much as a genuine settlement pattern” due to this method of fieldwalking (Mogren 1990: 54). The results presented by SARCP are still preliminary in nature and although the project must be applauded for generating a huge amount of data and information on the settlement archaeology of a specific area within the Northern Dry Zone, which has provided ample research topics for Sri Lankan postgraduate researchers, the project as a whole has yet to draw together its multidisciplinary strands to provide a published synthesis of its results and conclusions.

the main research foci in this region has been the ancient Sri Lankan territory of Ruhuna with its capital of Mahagama (Tissamaharama). As at Anuradhapura, research has focused on the Citadel of Mahagama, where excavations were conducted by a joint German-Sri Lankan team (Weisshaar, Roth & Wijeyapala 2001), but it was not until surveys undertaken by Somadeva (2006) and Gunawardhana (2009) that the hinterland was investigated in detail. Initially, Gunawardhana identified the location and distribution patterns of monasteries in and around Mahagama and, at each of these institutions, the architectural features were recorded so as to define the chronology of the monastery and to what sect it belonged (ibid.: 47). He identified that the development of hinterland monasteries was linked to the development of long distance trade and the process of urbanisation at Mahagama (ibid.: 49-51). He also identified Protohistoric megalithic sites, which were included in a discussion of the genesis of stupa architecture and the choice of location for monasteries. As such, Gunawardhana's study highlighted the importance of the development of monasteries in the core and peripheries of settlement systems, and the role monasteries played in trade and commerce. Somadeva's survey was in the same river basin as Gunawardhana, the Kirindi Oya and he focused on both monastic and non-monastic sites, and landscape features such as tanks and irrigation channels (Somadeva 2006: 91-100). He argued that population growth over time was driven by urban development, the adoption of iron tools and increasing levels of literacy (ibid.: 278). However, within his survey he excluded any artefact scatter less than 0.15 hectares, or 1500 square metres (ibid.: 95f), and he relied almost entirely on local knowledge of villagers to direct him to sites as opposed to systematic survey (ibid.: 93). This lack of clarity on site definition and a reliance on village-to-village survey weakens the reliability of the settlement data collected.

2.6 Known sites within the hinterland of Anuradhapura As is clear from the discussion above, the ancient hinterland of Anuradhapura is not terra incognita but a landscape which has been steadily populated over the last hundred years by the study of major irrigation works and a number of known sites, the majority of which are either monumental monastic complexes or locations of inscriptions (Figure 2.2 & 2.3). There are also a number of monuments on the fringes of Anuradhapura itself, which whilst recorded by the Department of Archaeology, have not yet been fully studied or reconstructed (Figure 2.4). The present section will now introduce a number of these to provide context for new sites discovered within the hinterland, and to help frame discussion of the distribution, function and development of other locales within the hinterland. One of the largest and best known archaeological sites within Anuradhapura's hinterland is that of Mihintale (Figure 2.5), where the first systematic excavations and clearance at the site was undertaken by the Archaeological survey in 1910 (Bell 1914). Located 12.5 kilometres to the east of the Citadel, the site spans a series of large granite

Although the south-east of the island has traditionally received much less attention from archaeologists in comparison to the northern areas, focused within the 'cultural triangle' of Anuradhapura, Sigiriya and Kandy, this position is slowly being rectified (Figure 2.2). One of 13

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland outcrops rising 300 metres above the plain, and was the rainy-season residence of many of the monks from Anuradhapura (Coningham 1999b: 7). It is recognised as being the site where Mahinda, son of Asoka, first met and converted King Devanampiya Tissa to Buddhism in the third century BC. Devanampiya Tissa was reputed to have constructed 68 cave dwellings for monks at the site (Seneviratne 1994: 236). The later monastic complex at Mihintale comprised a series of stupas, monasteries and service buildings. The earliest stupa, the Maha Saeya, was constructed from brick and measures 25 metres in diameter and 13.5 metres in height, and was built by Devanampiya Tissa in c.243BC and is recorded to contain a strand of the Buddha's hair (Parker 1909: 275ff). The Idikatu Dagaba (or stupa), constructed between 40 and 20BC from stone and brick at the base of the Mihintale hill was one of the earliest examples of the bell-shaped stupas (ibid.: 318ff) and was located in the southeastern corner of a large brick-built monastery. The Ambatthala Dagaba was constructed between AD9 and AD21 at the point where Mahinda and Devanampiya Tissa first met (ibid.: 320-321). Later constructions include a hospital (AD853-887), stone stairways, ponds, and a series of service buildings (Seneviratne 1994: 221270). Today, the site is an important pilgrimage and tourist location, however, few systematic excavations have been undertaken at the site with focus being placed on investigating relic chambers of some of the stupas (Paranavitana 1951), and none of the structures have been dated scientifically.

aligned with the cardinal directions (Wijesuriya 1998: 62f). The mountain is also closely associated with yakkhas or spirits (Coningham 1995: 235). A number of other sites are also present within the hinterland of Anuradhapura, including Ranjanganaya (Figure 2.7) or ancient Hatthikucchi Vihara as it was known, Aukana (Figure 2.8), Susvihara, Rasvihara and Tantirimale. These sites have been systematically cleared, reconstructed and are now important pilgrimage and tourist destinations. However, little or no scientific archaeological research has been conducted at them and they have not been incorporated into any discussions involving the wider impact and control that Anuradhapura may have exerted over the landscape or the reliance upon sites in the hinterland that the city may have had.

2.7 Discussion and Conclusion As noted above, the earliest accounts of the landscape of Anuradhapura were derived from the travelogues of individuals such as Robert Knox and James Tennent, who were detailing not only the landscape but recorded the inhabitants encountered. This was followed by the recording of archaeological and historical features by enthusiastic amateurs and later by professional archaeologists, such as H.C.P. Bell. As North Central Province began to be re-colonised for settlement and exploitation, the large-scale systematic recording of the landscape became not only a necessity in logistical terms but also engendered scholarly research. However, in order to place the landscape within an historical framework, most scholars looked towards textual evidence, principally the Mahavamsa, for their chronologies and the identification of monuments. This inevitably led to the clearance and reveneration of a large number of stupas and shrines within and around Anuradhapura. However, due to the urban and monastic focus of these early texts, the broader landscape became neglected within academic discourse, with a heavy focus upon monumental monastic architecture, such as by Bandaranayake (1974) and Wijesuriya (1998), the mapping of irrigation works or the cataloguing of find sites of inscriptions, such as by Brohier (1934) and Paranavitana (1970, 1983). Due to the sensitive religious nature of the sites, intrusive excavations have been few and far between (Ratnayake 1984, 2001, 2002; Wikramagamage 1984, 1992), and what research has been undertaken remains largely unpublished. Notable exceptions are within the Citadel of Anuradhapura (Deraniyagala 1972, 1986, 1992; Coningham 1993, 1999, 2006), but this situation remains the case beyond the urban core. More recently, there has been a shift towards integrating landscapes into archaeological research, but often with poorly defined methodologies, or hindered through a lack of available funding and limited postexcavation analysis and publication. It is important to note that this phenomenon is not unique to Sri Lanka as a similar situation exists throughout South Asia although there are notable exceptions with Shaw's work around Sanchi (Shaw 2000, 2007; Shaw and Sutcliffe 2003), Smith’s study of the Early Historic town of Kaundinyapura (2001), Fogelin's study around

Located 40 kilometres south-east of Anuradhapura and close to edge of our survey universe, Ritigala is a mountainous peak rising 600 metres above the surrounding plain. It was discovered by James Mantell in 1872 and later explored by Bell (Bell and Bell 1993). The eastern slope of the peak contains an extensive monastic complex of double platforms, meditational pathways (Figure 2.6) and residential units extending for about 1.2 kilometres up the hillside (Wijesuriya 1998: 29f). The earliest monastic occupation at the site was, as throughout most of Sri Lanka, in the form of monastic cave dwellings, of which about 70 have been identified. The site was later occupied in the seventh century AD by a group called the pamsukulika, translating as "those clothed in rags from dustheaps", an ascetic group who appear to have attracted substantial amounts of royal patronage (Coningham 1995: 235) and to whom the majority of the visible structural remains are attributed. Although now covered in dense forest, and designated a Strict Nature Reserve, the meditational pathway and larger double platform structures have been reconstructed. At the base of the hill is a complex of buildings including a jantaghara (bath house), a cankamana (meditational walkways) and a large building, possibly an uposatha hall (chapter house). A pathway extends westwards and uphill for just under a kilometre ending at a complexes consisting of several large residential units. Smaller residential units, at least 35 and possibly as many as 50, were constructed, either side of the pathway, utilising natural rock outcrops and were 14

History of Research Thotlakonda Monastery in Andhra Pradesh (2006) and Young and Ali's surveys in the Northern Valleys of Pakistan (Ali et al. 2002; Ali et al. 2008). However, these projects remain the exception rather than the rule, and demonstrate the need for broader, integrated, multidisciplinary projects in order to bring the urban and rural

elements together in scholarly discourse. Having thus set the comparative context for our own survey, the following chapter will define the aims, objectives and methodology of our survey within the hinterland of Anuradhapura.

15

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland

Fig 2.1: Map of South Asia and places mentioned

16

History of Research

Fig 2.2: Map of Sri Lanka and places mentioned 17

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland

Fig 2.3: Map of Anuradhapura and some of the more well-known sites in the hinterland

Fig 2.4: View of site C173 (Maligapedesa) – one of the monastic complexes on the edges of Anuradhapura’s monastic zone 18

History of Research

Fig 2.5: View of Mihintale

Fig 2.6: View of the meditational walkway at Ritigala 19

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland

Fig 2.7: View of the Vatadage at Ranjanganaya (D512), a popular tourist and pilgrimage site at the southern boundary of the hinterland survey

Fig 2.8: View of the rock-cut Buddha at Aukana 20

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY Robin Coningham, Prishanta Gunawardhana, Gamini Adikari, Mark Manuel, Randolph Donahue, Armin Schmidt, Ian Simpson, Ian Bailiff and Ruth Young

3.1 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 2, despite more than a century of archaeological and antiquarian interest in the sacred and secular cities of Anuradhapura, almost nothing was known of the nature of non-urban communities within the hinterland of Anuradhapura and, as a result, the second phase of the Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka) Project was launched with the aim of modelling the networks between urban and non-urban communities and the environment within the plain of Anuradhapura over the course of two millennia. Specifically, the project aimed to define and interpret the following objectives as a foundation for understanding resource patterns and enhancement within the plain: the spatial location and sequence of urban and non-urban communities; the morphology and function of urban and non-urban communities; the subsistence base of urban and non-urban communities; the soil and sedimentary sequence within the plain. In line with these objectives, a methodology consisting of archaeological survey and auger-coring was developed to map the nature and location of non-urban sites, soils and resources, with a sample of sites later subjected to geophysical survey and excavation. Furthermore a program of geoarchaeology and OSL dating was implemented at a number of sites. The following sections outline our key methodologies for the core activities. Additional methodological information is provided within the chapter text for more specific and unique elements of the project.

3.2 Archaeological Survey Methodology Our sample universe extended for a 50 kilometre radius from trench ASW2 in the Citadel of Anuradhapura (Coningham 1999a). Initially, this was a 25 kilometre radius, but was expanded to 50 kilometres after security issues prevented us from working north of Anuradhapura. One may hypothesise that such distances from the city were of significance with reference to Ismail's study of ancient transportation within northern Sri Lanka. Specifically, she recorded that most goods were carried on a pingo (two baskets hung at either end of a pole which is carried over the shoulders) or on the head, with traders using ox-carts and the elite using elephants and horses (1995: 113). It is also possible that some canals and streams allowed the additional movement of people as illustrated by the fact that it took only two days to travel the 62 kilometres from the Kalawewa to the Tissawewa by boat in 1887 (Karunananda 2006: 280). In terms of the measuring of distances, Davy recorded that a day’s journey by foot with a pingo load was about 32 kilometres (1821: 181). However, the ox-cart was much slower with a daily range of no more than 25 kilometres.

As such, we initially devised the 25 kilometre survey area based on one day’s travel from the city with an ox-cart. Within this universe, we adopted two parallel survey methodologies; a randomly generated series of transects, and non-probabilistic survey along the Malvatu Oya or river. As noted in Volume I, Anuradhapura’s hinterland is a dry lowland plain with a gently undulating surface transversed by a series of rivers which rise in the foothills of the Hill Country to the south (Haggerty & Coningham 1999: 7). The plain is punctuated by eroded low granite mounds and outcrops with a number of isolated granite inselbergs which reach heights of 600 metres at Ritigala and 309 metres at Mihintale (Figure 2.2). Anuradhapura sits within the catchment of the Malvatu Oya which flows 120 kilometres from the foothills to the mouth of the Aruvi Aru to the south of Mantai. As will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8, the hinterland contains a range of soils with low humic gleys, alluvial soils and reddish brown earths (Epitawatte 1990: 44). The hinterland lies within the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka with an annual rainfall of 2000 millimetres, a short wet period between midFebruary and April related to the south-west monsoon and a main wet season between August and December related to the north-east monsoon (Somasekeram 1998). As much as 38% of the water falling in the Dry Zone is lost through run-off and the majority of its rivers are nonperennial (Cooray 1984: 256). The plains offer a “natural carrying capacity” of 0.4 people per square kilometre, thus explaining the massive investment in hydraulic engineering (Coningham 1995: 67). Throughout the hinterland, and within all survey approaches (transect, river, canal and micro), sites were consistently defined as a cultural feature, a lithic find spot or a scatter of more than five ceramic sherds per square metre. Sites were recorded with GPS, photographed and sketched, with diagnostic material, such as debitage, slag and wasters collected for processing at Anuradhapura. Data was then uploaded each evening onto the project server. The hinterland survey was undertaken by staff and students from the universities of Durham, Kelaniya, Rajarata, Bradford, Leicester and Stirling, as well as from the Sri Lankan Department of Archaeology and Central Cultural Fund. The first element of the survey methodology was a probabilistic sample of 21 transects of 20 kilometre randomly generated within the survey zone (Figure 3.1). Each transect was covered by two groups of archaeologists walking in parallel lines 500 metres apart, who recorded topography, vegetation, land use, resources and cultural features (Figure 3.2). This approach aimed to

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland establish a representative sample of sites, landscapes and vegetation cover within the hinterland, as well as identifying key sites for further archaeological investigation. The transects were concentrated within the southern hemisphere of our universe as, after the first two seasons, due to security conditions, the team were unable to conduct survey north of the A12 road. However, this also allowed us to expand our survey universe, but without compromising the intensity of our survey strategies. The use of randomly generated transects ensured that we were not biasing our data collection by targeting a particular area, vegetation type or only surveying areas that are easily accessible. The generated transects were often in largely uninhabited areas away from roads and settlements. Equally, they would often pass through villages, towns and in some cases large, well-known archaeological sites. In the case of the latter, the sites were recorded and given new site numbers, but we acknowledged the work of earlier teams who had worked at them. However, these sites were still incorporated into our database and discussion of hinterland settlement patterns. Similarly, there were a series of other well known sites within our survey universe, such as Mihintale, Ritigala and Aukana, that whilst not encountered on survey and as such not included in the site database, they still formed part of our discussion. Sites were often encountered ‘off-transect’, that is either discovered whilst travelling to and from vehicles to the day’s start or end point, or where local villagers directed teams to sites that were not within the bounds of the allotted transect. When this occurred, sites were recorded as normal, but were clearly marked as ‘off transect’ in the database, and were not included within our quantitative analysis, but were in the qualitative analysis.

landscapes (Fletcher 2009), landscapes not entirely dissimilar to that of North Central Province. Finally, an intensive micro-survey of a twenty-five square kilometre area was undertaken during the fourth season between two sites excavated during earlier seasons. A 5 by 5 kilometre block was intensively surveyed through 25 five kilometre long transects situated 200 metres apart to maximise our coverage of the micro-survey zone (Figure 3.3). Again, topography, vegetation, land use, resources and cultural features were recorded using the same criteria as above. The micro-survey was developed and undertaken in order to develop a detailed archaeological understanding of a small section of the hinterland from which we had already begun to build our working hypotheses and to test whether a more intensive survey regime would yield similar results to those of the larger transect survey. As is clear from Chapter 2, this survey methodology differed significantly from those undertaken elsewhere on the island (Mogren 1990; Prickett-Fernando 1999; Somadeva 2006), particularly through the use of non-probabilistic transect survey and the broader variety of sites identified. Sites identified on all forms of survey had their locations recorded using GPS in degrees.minutes.decimal seconds, were photographed and sketched, where appropriate, and diagnostic material was collected for further analysis. Data was uploaded onto the project server each evening. Sites were then categorised into one, or occasionally two, of the following categories: Landscape Feature (tank, quarry etc.), Ethnographic Site (brickmaking, potterymaking, fishing etc.), Ceramic Scatter (only ceramics, brick or tile found), Metal-Working Site (slag found in association with ceramics, but no monastic features), Monastic Site (with clear monastic features such as caves with drip ledges or lenas, stupa, sripada, yantrigala, meditational beds and staircases), Rock-Cut Holes (often found devoid of any other material upon outcrops), Stone Bridge or Annicut, Channel or Canal, and Undiagnostic Site with Pillars and Blocks (stone pillars and blocks found with no other obvious monastic features). These site categories were developed to reflect those of the Sigiriya-Dambulla Survey Project, one of the few other large-scale archaeological surveys undertaken in the northern regions of Sri Lanka (Mogren 1994a). However, they were also refined to represent the nature of our archaeological findings from the Anuradhapura hinterland.

Our second core survey strategy involved a nonprobabilistic survey of the banks of the Malvatu Oya river system and the Yoda Ela and Jaya Ganga canal systems. The Malvatu Oya was surveyed from Nachchaduwawewa northwards to a point five kilometres north of the Kiribat Vihara stone bridge, although this was undertaken during the first two seasons before the ban on working north of the A12 road came into effect. Both banks of the Yoda Ela canal were surveyed between the Nuwarawewa and Nachchaduwawewa, whilst the west bank of the Jaya Ganga canal was surveyed from between the Tissawewa and the Kalawewa (Figure 3.1). The river and canal survey was undertaken in order to test the possibility that settlements had been located along the main arterial route from the coast to the city, rivers and canals, and from the city into the hinterland along the canals. We also hoped that the survey would provide useful evidence of key crossing points across the rivers and canals. Such a model would reflect the fact that the port of Mantai, close to the mouth of the Malvatu Oya and 72 kilometres to the northwest of Anuradhapura, appeared to be the main trading conduit for the huge volume of exotic and imported material found within the city (Coningham 2006). Moreover, colleagues working at Angkor in Cambodia demonstrated to us that Khmer canals had functioned as important arterial routes through densely vegetated

As well as identifying sites, another key facet of transect and micro-survey methodology was to record vegetation along transects as well. Through this recording, we were able to correlate the identification of archaeological sites with vegetation types, allowing us to identify whether different types of sites were easier to identify within different vegetation types (Figure 3.4). Vegetation was divided into several categories: Village/Garden, Ploughed Field or Dry Paddy, Wet Paddy, Parkland, Chena Cultivation, Abandoned or Overgrown Chena, Elephant Grass, Forest/Jungle and Tank, as well as recording Granite Outcrops and naturally occurring Granite 22

Methodology Boulders. Vegetation recording was not undertaken for the canal and river survey methodologies as the nonprobabilistic approach negated the need for such data. Sites identified on survey as exemplary of a particular site category or as unusual or unique were flagged for followup within the database. Necessitating a field visit, a number of these sites were then selected for further evaluation through auger-coring, geophysical investigation and/or excavation. The following sections outline the methodologies used for each.

auger-coring, to facilitate the placing of trenches and to create a contexts for excavated features; or to provide further site information where other archaeological investigations were not possible. In addition to the archaeological rational, the selection was also based on geophysical consideration to evaluate the effectiveness of magnetometer surveys as part of the project for different soils, geologies and archaeological sites/features. The selection was also influenced by site conditions. For example, densely overgrown areas, especially chena, could not be investigated productively.

3.3 Auger-Coring Methodology Having already piloted the successful application of auger-coring within the Citadel of Anuradhapura in 1994 (Coningham et al. 1999: 49), we were keen to include the technique in our study of the hinterland. As identified then, auger coring quickly allowed us to identify the depth and extent of the sites as well as providing the ability to record general macro-stratigraphic details. A rapid, cheap and very portable method of sub-surface investigation, the project aimed to auger a minimum of five sites each season. The selected sites were augercored until bedrock was reach in order to gain an idea of both the depth of cultural material and the depth of soils across the hinterland (Figure 3.5). The cores were removed and analysed in 20 centimetre sections, with soil colour and consistency and mineral inclusions recorded and cultural inclusions removed and collected for analysis. Soil colour was judged using Munsell soil colour charts. As anticipated, the results of the augercoring helped dictate whether sites were then selected for further investigation through geophysics and/or excavation, and used to develop an understanding of the depth and nature of a representative cohort of the archaeological sites within the hinterland. The results of the auger-coring are presented in Chapters 6.

The areas selected were subdivided into grids of 10 by 10 metre size, mostly using tapes. Only where high or dense vegetation did not permit the use of tapes for gridding, a Total Station was used. The latter was very time consuming but a valuable learning experience for participating students. Nearly all grid corners were subsequently measured with a Total Station and a plan was constructed for all investigated sites, linking the geophysical anomalies with major features. The location of the Total Station was determined with a handheld GPS (accuracy 5-20 metres) and a compass was used to determine the bearing of the Total Station (accuracy 3). The resulting site plans have an internal accuracy of c.0.1 metres (accumulated errors of Total Station surveys after several changes of the temporary benchmarks), but their absolute geographical location and orientation has a much higher error. Since major features (buildings, large trees) were recorded, the errors in absolute location were not deemed a hindrance to accurately locating geophysical anomalies on the ground. Given the small size of expected archaeological features, for example, single width stone walls, it was decided that a high spatial sampling resolution was necessary. Survey grids were hence laid out with a line spacing of 0.5 metres and sampling along the lines was carried out at least at 0.25 metres resolution (only 1 metre line spacing for site D129). Initially, grid lines were laid out for the traverses to allow operators to walk in straight lines. However, in 2007 traverses were only indicated by markers at the intersection with the 10 metre grid squares and operators walked towards these. Although this reduced the time for laying our survey lines, it sometimes led to errors when the identification of the relevant end marker was unclear and traverses had to be repeated.

3.4 Geophysical Survey Methodology Again successfully piloted within the Citadel of Anuradhapura in 1994 (Coningham and Cheetham 1999), the geophysical surveys were used as part of the integrated prospection strategy in order to derive as much useful information as possible about sites in a short time, and to aid further archaeological investigations, especially excavations. Due to the normally very dry soil conditions and the shortness of available time, it was decided to only use magnetometer surveys and not earth resistance or Ground Penetrating Radar. Sites were selected for geophysical surveys based on previous information, either from archaeological survey directly or after auger-coring. Only one site (F102) was first investigated by the geophysics team as ‘off transect’, highlighted by local villagers and subsequently investigated by excavation. The main reasons for selecting sites were to aid other archaeological investigations either by providing information on sites that already showed archaeologically interesting elements, such as pillars, stone foundations, slag), so as to determine the potential for excavation; or by evaluating sites that were selected for excavation based on other criteria, for example relationship to other sites,

According to the IGRF-2005, the earth’s magnetic field near Anuradhapura has an inclination of +1.0°, a declination of –2.5° (W) and an intensity of 40516 nT. Magnetic anomalies recorded with a vertical-component fluxgate gradiometer therefore produce characteristic bipolar anomalies over buried features, with positive peaks to the south and negative troughs to the north, both with equal strength. With the Caesium total field system a dipole anomaly measured with a single sensor produces a negative trough over the feature, surrounded by a positive halo. Due to the very small vertical field component away from geophysical anomalies, the setup procedure for fluxgate gradiometers (Geoscan FM36, seasons 2005 and 23

Anuradhapura: The Hinterland 2006) is difficult and time consuming. However, that time was used productively by other members of the team to lay out survey grids and lines. In 2007 a Caesium total field instrument was used (Geometrics G-858) for the magnetometer surveys. The spatial resolution was kept to a line spacing of 0.5 metres by mounting the two sensors of the G-858 on a horizontal staff 0.5 metres apart, operating as two independent total field single sensors. Diurnal variations were compensated for by fitting regression lines to the traverse data. Traverses were walked at one metre intervals so that after combining the data from both sensors the resulting data set had 0.5 metre line spacing. Data were recorded every 0.1s and were subsequently re-sampled to 0.25 metres along the traverses.

with Zero Mean Traverse, due to slight heading errors of the instrument, which led to strong variations in this low magnetic latitude. For the Geometrics G-858 data were first investigated with Magmap2000 (by Geometrics Inc.) and line errors or errors in entering start and end positions of lines were edited. The resulting data were saved in ASCII format (.stn files) and then converted into Geoplot composites using specifically developed software. Geoplot was then used for all subsequent processing. Since the instrument was not used in gradiometer mode, highpass filtering of the data was required to remove broad underlying features and to highlight small changes, which would more likely be attributed to archaeological features. Two different methods were used. Bi-directional filtering applied a standard highpass filter box to the data. Uni-directional filtering first applied a lowpass filter along the traverse lines using a long data window to remove all short-wavelength variations. The resulting long-wavelength data were then subtracted from the original data leaving only the short-wavelength variations along the lines and also eliminating slight differences between traverses. Both processed data sets were investigated to interpret the data for archaeological features but only the bidirectionally filtered data are shown in this volume. The results of the geophysical survey are presented in Chapter 6.

Initial field tests showed that the often rough ground made it difficult to keep a constant survey walking pace. As a result, data measured with the fluxgate gradiometer, which is particularly prone to heading errors (especially when the setup procedure is difficult, see above) would show sheared anomalies if acquired along ‘zigzag’ lines. It was hence decided that all fluxgate gradiometer surveys should be undertaken along parallel transects. Due to the far smaller heading error of the Caesium magnetometer, surveys in 2007 were undertaken ‘zigzag’ (i.e. recording data in both direction). Sensors were oriented at approximately 45 to the earth’s field (i.e. horizontally halfway between NESW) so that the change in direction (forward/backward) caused minimal heading errors.

3.5 Excavation Methodology

For the Geometrics G-858, fiducial markers were recorded with the marker button every 5 metres or every 10 metres, depending on grid sizes and site conditions. It was found that the operating console had to be at least 1 metre away from the sensors to not disturb the readings, and that the horizontal bar with the two sensors had to be held very firmly by an operator to eliminate unwanted movement that would have strongly altered the readings. The instrument had hence to be assembled and carried completely different from the manufacturers design (Figure 3.6). The front operator was responsible for maintaining a constant walking pace along straight lines and holding the sensors steady. The back operator maintained a distance commensurate with the length of the sensor cables and operated all controls of the console, including start/stop/mark. Both operators had to be nonmagnetic and needed to be well versed in the use of magnetometers, and the console and its very many controls. It was hence necessary for the two permanent members of the geophysics team to operate the instrument together, which meant that both were tied up with undertaking the survey. The time saved by not having to set up a fluxgate gradiometer was hence used up by using two members of staff to operate the total field instrument.

Having identified sites on survey and preliminary nonintrusive investigations through augering and geophysical survey, a number of sites were then selected for excavation. Few sites within Sri Lanka have been excavated outside the major urban or religious centres, presenting very little indication of the relationship between urban and non-urban communities. As a result, our new programme of excavations allowed us to develop a better understanding of the function, morphology and depth of occupation of the categories of sites identified on survey within the hinterland. Moreover, it allowed us to access a number of stratigraphically-controlled sequences of artefacts rather than relying on just surface materials. These materials we could then compare against the periodised catalogue created at trench ASW2. In total, twelve sites were excavated ranging from small ceramics scatters, a recently abandoned village to a major monastic complex or pabbata vihara. At each site, a total of four square metres was excavated, utilising one or more trenches, to bedrock or virgin soil. This four metre horizontal maximum was imposed to ensure that an equal area was excavated at each site, thus ensuring that a comparative sample of material was available from sites of different nature. The location of trenches was decided on using the results from auger cores and geophysical survey, where available. At some sites, a single four square metre trench was excavated, either a 2 by 2 metre or a 4 by 1 metre, whilst at other two trenches were opened with a combined size of four square metres.

Data were downloaded from the magnetometer at the end of the day and further processed. Data from the Geoscan FM36 were directly loaded into Geoplot (by Geoscan Research) and processed there. Some required destriping

As in the excavation at ASW2, the trenches were all excavated according to the context system (Coningham 1999d: 71). Each differentiated archaeological feature or deposit, for example posthole, posthole filling, pit, pit 24

Methodology filling etc., was given a unique context number. A context sheet was filled out for each context number, recording its location, texture, compaction, Munsell colour, cultural context and relationship to other context numbers. All major contexts were recorded on plans and sections and were photographed. All deposits were sieved in order to collect smaller artefacts, such as hammer scale and debitage. Sieving was undertaken on-site using a two millimetre fine mesh. As with artefacts collected on survey, each small find was given a unique special find number (sf) but excavated material was also given a trench number, context number and, wherever possible, its recovery spot was recorded three-dimensionally. The results of the excavations are presented in Chapter 7.

record, and provide an explanation of their origins and development through comparative, contextual and ethnographic analyses. Attempts to address these objectives were complicated by the sheer number of bunds and tanks in a ‘living’ landscape. The selection of four sites for detailed study focussed on abandoned bunds, tanks and channels in particular locations closely linked to an emerging archaeological record developed through the associated and complementary survey and excavation programmes. The analysis of on-site sediments permits, through geoarchaeological investigation, consideration of the landscape prior to settlement, the processes of surface platform creation, and different aspects of site abandonment. This second geoarchaeological focus allowed us to better understand site function, activity and abandonment within a range of archaeological sites in the Anuradhapura hinterland.

Environmental samples were collected in order to recover plant and animal remains from the excavations for comparison with the very rich collection recovered from trench ASW2. Animal bones were collected by hand, where visible, and small animal bones and plant remains were obtained through the flotation of soil samples from each excavated context. One litre of soil was taken from each context and processed using 4 millimetre, 1 millimetre and 500 micron sieves. The plant and animal assemblages were analysed at the University of Leicester. During the excavations, particular attention was paid to the collection of wood samples, charcoal and bone that were suitable for radiocarbon dating. These samples were obtained by hand during the excavations themselves and through the flotation of context samples. Environmental samples were given Y numbers to distinguish them from dating samples, which were given X numbers. Block sediment samples were also taken to allow preliminary investigations into the viability of optically stimulated luminescence dating, and cultural sediments studied using thin-section micromorphology and associated X-ray microprobe analytical techniques for further definition. The archaeozoological and archaeobotanical data are presented in Chapter 11, although additional information is introduced in Chapter 8.

Hand-dug stratigraphic sections from each of the sites were drawn and described using Munsell colours, texture and inclusions, enabling field-based interpretations that guided sampling. Stratigraphic sections from known contexts, identified during semi–structured ethnographic interviews with local farmers, were sampled as modern controls. These controls consisted of a recently constructed bund, recently cultivated paddy and chena soils, and alluvial sediments. Undisturbed soil samples were taken from key contexts in the stratigraphies using 5 x 8 centimetre Kubiëna tins, and thin sections were manufactured at the Thin Section Micromorphology Laboratory, University of Stirling following standard procedures - (http://www.thin.stir.ac.uk/methods). Thin sections were described using plane polarized (PPL), cross-polarized (XPL), and oblique incident light (OIL), using magnifications ranging from 10-400x. Semiquantitative estimation of groundmass components and pedofeatures was based on standard visual aids (Bullock et al. 1985; Courty et al. 1989; Stoops 2003). Bulk sediment samples were taken from individual horizons in the immediate area of the thin section sample; analyses was performed on the