KAMALIKA PIERIS

Kurundi Vihara has led to a lot of talk about how to conserve a Buddhist monument in Sri Lanka. Until Kurundi, there was no discussion on the subject.  The Department of Archaeology selected certain Buddhist monuments and renovated them.  There was no fuss.

But when the Kurundi vihara issue came up, the public was alerted by the Tamil Separatist Movement that there were restrictions on conserving Kurundi. The Buddhist public and the Department of Archaeology could not do as they liked. They had to take into account UNESCO’s Heritage policy. That was the modern way of doing archaeological work.

According to UNESCO’s Heritage policy, all aspects must be considered when managing an archaeological site, such as a stupa. The archaeological value of a site is only one of the many values to be considered.  Conservation should involve local communities and local authorities not just the central government. Preference cannot be given to one particular group, either.

There is also another obstruction, the Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The Venice Charter is a set of guidelines, drawn up in 1964 by a group of conservation professionals mainly from the west. It provides an international framework for the conservation and restoration of historic buildings including religious ones.

The Venice guidelines, which are actually stentorian orders,   say that conservation must not be simply conservation; it must also have a socially useful purpose.   It must help the nearby settlements. Also there must be no new additions to   the structure.  Venice charter’s relevance and applicability of the Asian context has been debated. The one size fits all approach of western conservation does not suit, critics said.

What this means for Kurundi, is that we are no longer free to renovate our   ruined Buddhist structures the way we want.  It must be done the way the Venice Charter wants.   As far as I know, Venice Charter has been invoked in Sri Lanka only for two places of Buddhist worship, Dalada Maligawa after the LTTE attack and now, Kurundi.

In the case of Dalada Maligawa bomb restoration, it was necessary to put aside Venice Charter and listen instead to the monks, said Gamini Wijesuriya who did the conservation. The later historic phase was selected to protect the layers underneath. In keeping with Venice Charter the walls had to be white, but the monks wanted the walls painted in color, because white   was difficult to maintain.

Buddhists laugh at the idea that conservation is something that has come to us from the west, via UNESCO and ICOMOS .Conservation practices have existed in Asia for centuries, they said. When Asian communities built monuments they were aware of the conservation needs and these were built into the process.  

Several speakers in the IAHS You Tube talks brushed aside the Heritage policy.   The important issue, for them, was the fact that Kurundi was a Buddhist vihara and Buddhism was a living tradition in Sri Lanka. .Buddhist heritage cannot be compared with other heritages, they said. We have looked after our heritage for thousands of years before UNESCO brought in its notion of Heritage. Those traditional methods of Buddhist heritage management are also a part of our heritage.

We need to change these Heritage laws,    participants said.  We need to start another dialogue  on Buddhist heritage and heritage management. We need to rethink heritage management, we are having a problem with it, they said.

Buddhists in Sri Lanka are not interested in Heritage policy or the   Vienna Charter. They say that Kurundi is an ancient Buddhist stupa. And a stupa is part of the living tradition of Buddhist worship.  That is the end of the matter.

All stupas function as sacred places of worship. A stupa is treated as a living Buddha and the respect paid to the Buddha should be paid to the stupa as well, said Ven. Walpola Rahula. A stupa is a sacred place, it contains relics. We have to respect this when   managing stupas, said Gamini Wijesuriya. (Conservation and management of heritage: Alternative theoretical reflections” published in   Ancient Ceylon” no 26. (2020).

The   Department of Archaeology has found that for stupas the only acceptable approach from the point of view of public was complete restoration. Those who criticized this do not  recognize the centuries old tradition of renewal and continuity, said Gamini Wijesuriya.

Conservation of Buddhist heritage in Sri Lanka requires the acceptance of the fact that  Buddhism is a living religion . The Buddhist heritage in Sri Lanka is a living heritage with its own values. These values have remained constant over time. That is not found in other types   of heritage, observed   Gamini Wijesuriya.  The modern approach has not taken into account this living heritage. This   quality is ignored in modern conservation policy, which is influenced by the secular ideas of the west.

The Buddhist approach towards conservation has been expressed in the Buddhist teachings as well. There is also the doctrine of impermanence in Buddhism and the natural acceptance of decay. This is also relevant to conservation.

UNESCO’s Heritage policy refers to ‘values’ . The original values of these heritage places remain intact and have been inherited by the present generation of Buddhists, replied Gamini. Present generation acts as guardians of the heritage. They also have the right to use this heritage to accomplish their religious needs.

analysts have drawn attention to a  statement in Supreme Court Determination 1/94 ( 1994) where Supreme Court said  The expression ‘Buddha Sasana’ is wider than ‘Buddhism’ and includes the entireestablishment together with objects and places of religious practices and worship of Buddhists”. Hence the term Buddha Sasana could be further extended to include Maha Sangha, archaeological sites, villages, lands and properties feeding Buddhist temples and Viharas. Therefore the Buddha Sasana includes both tangible and intangible features. 

Buddhist temples were regularly conserved   in the ancient and medieval period in Sri Lanka. Continuous renewal of temples was a part of the Buddhist tradition.  Records show that in  Sri Lanka  Buddhist   temples were renewed constantly. There are many ancient sites with a long record of historical continuity.

Mahavamsa has hundreds of references to the continuous repair of religious buildings by kings, monks, and public. Thuparama was improved or repaired, by 16 Sinhala kings starting with   Lajjatissa (119-110BC) and ending with Parakrama bahu I (1153-86).

 Parakrama bahu I had sent a minister to carry out restoration of monasteries, Nissanka Malla (1187-96) did the same. Kirthi Sri Rajasinghe (1747-82) repaired many temples in the Udarata kingdom.

In Sri Lanka when a stupa was built it was the practice to endow it also with land for repairs and maintenance. Kings provided endowments of lands that monks could use to generate income for the upkeep of the monastery. Sometimes grants were made exclusively for repairs. Such endowments were protected by law and exempt from all taxes. Supervision of the renovation was delegated to   Minister or high ranking official. The term ‘Loke Arakmena’ in Nissanka Malla inscriptions has been translated as ‘chief conservator of monuments ‘.

A  Sanskrit inscription dated to 9th century    found at Jetavana talks about a village which held a skilled workforce of stone cutters and carpenters, entirely dedicated to temple conservation work.  

The inscription said that skilled craftsmen shall be given land for their services. Land was also to be given to the officer who superintends the work.  Craftsman’s ability be first checked, his name, duties, recorded in the register. Craftsmen are fully responsible for the work they do. Time limit is two months and five days. Those who do not complete the work shall not be given their entitlement, the inscription said. (Epigraphica Zeylanica Vol 1: 8-9).

According to the Vinaya monks can carry out repairs to the religious buildings.  The construction of monastic buildings and doing repairs to them are meritorious acts  and  both lay Buddhist s and monks readily carried out these tasks . Records show that Bhikkhus and laymen donated stone steps and bricks to Buddhist  structures in ancient times.

During British rule, Buddhist  monks  started to  explore, find and  restore isolated ruined  temples, entirely   on their own. One example is Tantirimale. They knew that unless they took over these ruined temples ,the temples would disappear. Wijesuriya argued that their work was justified, it was  influenced by Buddhist teachings.

 Restoration societies also started, at  this time  to repair abandoned stupas. Monks and  lay Buddhist participated. This movement was also linked to  the national struggle for independence, observed analysts.

In 1930, Dr Victor Goloubew ,( 1878-1945) a  well known archaeologist  of the  Ecole Francaise  d’Extreme Orient,located in  French Indo China, spoke to the Royal Asiatic Society Ceylon branch . Goloubew  criticized both the  individual monks and the restoration  societies for meddling. He said the  monks   doing restoring were pious and that Buddhists were starting to view with the alarm the work of these restoration committees. Gamini Wijesuriya, writing in 2020, defended the pious vandals” and said that was part of the traditional social process.

Goloubew  also  said  the Buddhists of Ceylon seem to have an amazing lack of regard towards the proper conservation of their sacred buildings. It is wrong to place a new structure on an old ruin, that is not conservation. You must conserve what it left but not add new material. The Archaeology Department of British Ceylon will not  carry out  grandiose schemes to restore Anuradhapura   to  its former glory. It will remain a city of ruins, he said. That was in 1930.Things are different today.

One inch maps of the Survey Dept set up under British rule, act as the base document for identifying monuments and sites today, said Senerath Dissanayake,  Director of  Archaeology, writing in 1996.  Surveyors had identified a large number of monuments and located them in these maps. A large number have been marked as archaeology  reserve in the maps. There is now a massive collection of maps. Some of the monuments that have disappeared can still be identified with the help of these maps, he  said.

To conclude, here are Siran Deraniyagala’s views on our archaeological heritage. Siran Deraniyagala  said in  Monuments and sites Sri Lanka”  (ICOMOS 1996 ) that Sri Lanka’s archaeological heritage is divisible into Prehistoric (Stone Age) Protohistoric (Iron Age) and historical periods. This covers an estimated 1 million years, or more. The Iron Age appearing at about 1000 BC and the historic a period at about 500 BC.

There is a high degree of awareness   of  the historical period.   The ancient chronicles sets out Sri Lanka history in considerable detail since the 2 century BC and less reliably back to the 6 century BC. These chronicles are supplemented by over 4000 inscriptions on stone from the 3 century BC.

This historical awareness is a concomitant of Sri Lanka almost total immersion in the Buddhist tradition, notably Theravada from the 3 century BC down to the present. This unbroken intellectual heritage manifests itself materially in an extremely rich archaeological heritage. This is very much a living entity and many of the monuments continue to function as places of worship. In managing this heritage the concept of it being a living entity must necessarily take paramount position.  For the past 2000 year rulers have conserved and restored the more important monuments.  archaeologists cannot  intervene in the management of these sites  without due consideration  being paid to the country’s strong historical consciousness. This is fundamental   in the preservation of the archaeological heritage of Sri Lanka, concluded  Deraniyagala. ( Continued)