Point of view:
Another look at the Mahavamsa
Mahavamsa has come to the attention of laypersons interested in the
history of ancient Sri Lanka. They have on several occasions, expressed
their reservations about the Mahavamsa. These historians say Mahavamsa
cannot be called the actual history of ancient Sri Lanka. They say that
the Mahavamsa ‘is an imaginative and descriptive document of the
adventures of monarchs. There are many missing pages’. The Tamil heroine
in ‘Road to Elephant Pass’ says she is not prepared to accept the
Mahavamsa because it is biased and unreliable on secular matters.
These commentators seem to have been briefed by the same source. They
all sing the same song. They do not seem to know anything about the
craft of history writing. They say that the Mahavamsa authors were
recording events of which they had no direct knowledge.
That the Mahavamsa authors were not first hand witnesses to the
events. That there was a time gap between the event and the written
record and the records they used are not available for verification
today. Also that the Mahavamsa authors were looking at the events from
their own perspective. These ‘weaknesses’ are common to most historical
documents. They are not unique to the Mahavamsa. They do not prevent
historians from making use of historical documents.
Those opposing the Mahavamsa say the ‘accuracy of events in the
Mahavamsa must remain a matter of conjecture.’ That is not so. The
information in Mahavamsa is corroborated in inscriptions and foreign
sources. For example Kaliyuga inscription of 1230 found in the Malay
Peninsula in 1918, confirms that Chandrabanu was a Buddhist and that he
came from Tambralinga.
Critics also say Mahavamsa is primarily based on myth preserved in
oral tradition. Oral tradition is important when reconstructing history,
but Mahavamsa is not based on oral tradition. It was prepared from
earlier texts. Mahavamsa author says it is a revised account of earlier
versions. The present Mahavamsa is composed of several layers of
information added on by succeeding generations of recorders. Kiribamune
says that it is possible to detect the earlier and later traditions.
The ‘post modern’ thinkers of the West criticized the Greek and Roman
histories for talking only of great events and battles. They said that a
written history should not stop at kings and wars. They would have liked
the Mahavamsa. Mahavamsa did not limit itself to the ‘great doings of
king and armies.’ It provides information on a wide range of events,
including building and architecture.
It is now accepted that Buddhism arrived in Sri Lanka in the time of
the Buddha, in 6th Century BC. I think that the Mahavamsa focused on the
entrenchment of Buddhism as the State religion in 3rd Century BC and the
royal patronage it continued to receive after that. This made Mahavamsa
an excellent source for political history.
Liyanagamage notes that the section from Saddhatissa to Jettatissa
(Chapters 33-35) ‘bears the stamp of annalistic recording with hardly
any exaggeration’. The Mahavamsa statement that Ajatasatru ruled after
Bimbisara is supported by historical evidence.
There have been attempts to improve on the Mahavamsa. Mahavamsa
account of Pandukabhaya was given a new interpretation in the film ‘Aba’.
Mahawamsa clearly states that Digagamani, Citta’s cousin, was the father
of Pandukabhaya. In the film ‘Aba’ it is suggested that Chittaraja and
not Digagamini was the father of Pandukabhaya. The public flocked to the
film. Historians, who usually run a mile from amateur history, moved
swiftly to control the damage.
They held meetings and wrote to the newspapers. They pointed out that
the Mahavamsa statement was sound. It was not used in the film because
the film had a specific agenda. It wished to erase the Mahavamsa claim
that Sinhala royalty was connected to the clan of Gautama Buddha.
Mahavamsa has been used by politically motivated persons to elevate
Elara above Dutugemunu. They criticized Dutugemunu for killing the aging
Elara and said that Elara was an exceptional king. That is not so. Bandu
de Silva says the bell of justice story has nothing to do with Elara. It
has been taken from the Persian legend about Anosharvan, Persia’s hero.
Dutugemunu had fought 32 Damila leaders to get to Anuradhapura and to
finish the war, it was necessary to take the ruler in his capital. Elara,
regardless of age had ideally, to be defeated by the incoming ruler, so
Dutugemunu took on Elara. The reverence paid to Elara’s tomb also needs
some examination. It strikes an odd note. There is no such tradition in
Buddhism or in the Sinhala royal tradition.
Dutugemunu’s conscience came in for unnecessary discussion in the
20th Century. Mahavamsa presents Dutugemunu’s regret at the deaths
caused by the war, in a perfectly acceptable manner. While resting on a
soft couch, surrounded by dancing girls, Dutugemunu looked back on his
glorious victory and observed that this victory came at the expense of
many lives. Dutugemunu did not regret his victory. It is ridiculous to
say he did. Sumangala Vilasini said Dutugemunu was in a triumphant mood
after his victory.
Rohana Wasala has pointed out that Sri Jayawardenepura University had
prescribed the chapters from Vijaya to Mahinda in the Mahavamsa to be
studied under Mythology for the 2008 external degree General Arts
Qualifying exam. The other texts are the Greek myths, Ovid and the
Bible. Wasala noted that Greek texts are primarily on wars such as the
Peloponnesian war. Herodotus included supernatural and popular beliefs
whenever evidence was lacking.