The Archaeology ofTalkote

MATS MOGREN

Settlement patterns

The concept of settlement patterns, when encountered in the reality of field research, is one of the most elusive concepts in archaeology. In South Asia, for want of detailed field data (systematic field surveys), the settlement patterns have most­ ly been studied in macro-scale, using the often rather arbitrary information at hand (Perera 1978; Bandaranayake 1988; Ray 1989; to give a few good examples). This is not to say that these macro-scale studies are in any way dispensable. On the contrary. The methodological value of an article like Perera’s (leaving aside his somewhat uncriti­ cal speculations on how to interpret the correlations), which compares the density of irrigation tanks and inscription sites with the arable soils of Sri Lanka, is very high and a correct point of departure for future in-depth studies. Bandaranayake (1988) has pursued this line of study to the best possible result with the given material. However, one could and should question whether irriga­ tion tanks and (even more so) inscription sites are represen­ tative of a general settlement density in ancient times. They are features dependant on specific ecological and socio-political circumstances. The argument changes nothing, though, regarding the methodological value, since these specific features may be replaced by any suitable data unit at hand, e.g. pottery sites distribution. One very good example of a study taken from the South Asian context, using this unit of analysis at a medium scale, is Makkhan Lal’s dissertation Settlement History and Rise of Civilization in Ganga-Yamuna Doab (from 1500 B.C. to 300 A.D.) (1984). Lal bases his thesis on his own explorations in Kanpur district, Uttar Pradesh (more than thirteen times larger than the SARCP study area) and uses an ecological approach to investigate the settlement distribution. His catalogue com­ prises 150 sites. In the Lankan context, this has been attempted on a me­ dium scale by Ragupathy (1987), who found that certain ec­ onomic and technological variables, viewed diachronically, might reverse the correlation found by Perera. Where settle­ ment sites and pottery chronologies were the units of analysis used, the red loam of the interior of the Jaffna peninsula was found to be the last area of the region under study to be settled (Ragupathy 1987:138).

Figure 6:1 Talkote study area. Map showing distribution and approximate sizes of sites.

Even though SARCP is not modelled on Ragupathy’s wo­ rk in any way, his study has several traits in common with our project. Firstly, his point of departure, just as in SARCP, is a true source-critical view of written sources, i.e. a perception of the inherent bias of the very few written sources available, which necessitates archaeological investigations to gain any substantial knowledge. Secondly, he is also using an ecologi­ cal approach, correlating settlement distribution to available water resources, degree of salinity etc. Thirdly, Ragupathy clearly realized the necessity for using the absolute dating methods of the applied natural sciences for a true understanding of chronologies in Jaffna (Ragupathy 1987:9) but unfortunately resources in that field were not available to him. Instead, he used a pottery chronology, based on wares and elaborated by form types. We also believe that the study of wares is the correct starting-point for pottery analysis (see Appendix I to Mogren: "Objectives” this vol­ ume). Since the Jaffna study is the only true micro or medium region settlement study carried out in the island prior to the outset of SARCP, it is the only study with which we can make comparisons, and it would certaintly be of interest to discuss the similarities and dissimilarities of the results of the two projects in more detail than can be attempted here. The Jaffna district, Ragupathy’s area of study, is roughly twice the size of our study area; and the area covered by intense field-walking in the Sigiriya-Dambulla region roughly equates the area of Kayts island (Velanai).

During 1988-1991 we had registered 77 settlement sites, indicated by pottery scattered on the surface in that area. Ab­ out 70 of these can be tentatively regarded as being non-urban (see discussion below). A total of 152 sites has been registered a few also outside the intense field-walking area (Manatunga 1990, Wickremesekara 1990 and annexure to this article). Out of these, 145 were previously unknown to the scientific body. The number will certainly rise considerably with future fie­ ldwork. The chief well known archaeological sites of the reg­ ion, like Sigiriya, Dambulla, Pidurangala, Ramakale, Manikdena, Kaludiyapokuna, Lenadora, Ambulambe, Kot- galkanda, Enderagala, Malasna, Magallena, Nagalavava, Potana and Ibbankatuva, as well as the bulk of inscription sites such as Kandalama, Vayaulpota and Beliyakanda, are not in­ cluded in this number.

Ragupathy’s catalogue numbers 41 sites in the entire Jaf­ fna district. It is evident that he is aware of many more sites in the study area than those published in his catalogue, yet he chooses to present only 41 sites in a dissertation on settlement archaeology. First of all, it is a matter of principles in site designation. Obviously he has chosen to designate only the large pottery sites as settlements, but even if we take that into consideration, the number seems small. What could be the reason for the disparity in patterns? We are not familiar either with the physical landscape of Jaffna or the research layout of Ragupathy’s project, so any conclusions must be very tentative, but it might be of some pedagogical value to attempt a comparison. Had Jaffna been thinly populated in antiquity? With cer­ tainty, no. The area’s position, at the crosspoint of Indian Ocean communication routes, rules that out. Furthermore, a site like Kantarotai necessitates an agrarian population with a high carrying capacity. The answer will probably be found in the combination of Ragupathy’s resources, which he clearly states were very lim­ ited (we presume that he had to concentrate on the major settlement sites of the district) and the degree of demographic and exploitative pressure on land in the two regions. Ragupathy states several times in his dissertation that sites were seriously threatened or even cut away before his eyes, during the years of fieldwork in the early 80’s. This is really small wonder in a densly populated and circumscribed area like the peninsula. Happily the situation in the Sigiriya-Dam- bulla region is different. Here a great deal of the archaeological landscape has been preserved, owing to the comparatively low pressure on land until now; but the situation will probably change for the worse in this area too, in the not too distant future. There is yet another aspect which might be worth taking into consideration. Hypothetically, there might have been dif­ ferent patterns of residential stability in the two regions. The passage from Knox - quoted in Myrdal’s article on food pro­ curement, this volume - refers to the frequent movements of settlement sites, for reasons such as people being struck by illness at one site, and so on, and could prove to have serious source-critical implications. As also discussed by Myrdal, the small pottery sites found in our area (as described in the se­ quel), could be the result of such movements. Perhaps an entire cluster of sites was formed by settlement shifts of just one small residential group, within the time-span of one or two generations. Alternatively, the pattern in our area might be due to a specific settlement pattern with satellite hamlets, with perhaps

only a few households in each, located around a few larger villages, a pattern resembling that which can be studied in parts of the mountainous areas of the island today (Yalman 1967:27-29, 38). The implications of this are that, in antiquity, the total demographic pressure on land in two different areas such as the Jaffna peninsula and the ‘Sigiri Bim’, need not have dif­ fered. We are not in a position to draw any valid conclusions from our present state of knowledge, but this discussion sh­ ould be kept alive for future research in settlement archaeol­ ogy. These source-critical considerations seem to give the student a rough correlation (positive or negative) between the number, density and distribution of settlement sites and the resource input (the more manpower in surveying, the more sites), the destruction of sites due to pressure on land and the so far unknown degree of residential stability and settlement patterns in different areas. Although our research is providing us with a voluminous data base on settlements in the spatial sense, we cannot des­ cribe the settlement pattern of the ‘Sigiri Bim’ yet. What is needed, above anything else, is a valid artefact chronology, based on absolute datings. The Anuradhapura Gedige excava­ tions (Deraniyagala 1972,1986,1990; Coningham 1990) have had as one of their primary objectives the establishing of a pottery chronology. With up to nine meter-thick deposits th­ ere, and the controlled stratigraphy at hand, no site could b( better suited to achieve such a goal. But the Gedige represent; only one very specific social milieu and the results from then have to be supplemented by pottery chronologies from dif ferent rural sites, - like, for example Tammannagala, and lb bankatuva-Polvatta. The stratigraphic sequences at these sites an shorter, so a number of sites, representing different periods an( different social milieus, must be investigated. An analysi: based on wares was carried out in March 1992, during : pottery workshop at the PGIAR, and continued in the follow ing seven weeks, providing us with good and reliable data (set Appendix to Mogren: "Objectives" this volume).

The Talkote survey

The first attempt to work intensively with settlement structun on a true micro-level, was carried out in and around th- village of Talkote, just north-west of the Sigiriya complex Results of the surveys and test excavations are given below One of the test-excavated sites, Tammannagala (SO. 5), wa chosen for a large scale excavation and will be reported o separately. The results from the ethno-archaeological studie carried out in Talkote, and the results concerning irrigatior are presented in two articles by Myrdal (this volume) as well as in a forthcoming monograph. Readers are urged to aquaint themselves with these texts, to get the total view of the ar­ chaeology of Talkote.

Figure 6:2 Talkote study area. Map showing distribution of different site types.

When deciding to postpone fieldwork in peripheral areas (see Mogren: "Objectives" this volume) and concentrate on an intensive study of one part of the core area around Sigiriya, the choice of Talkote village was a fairly easy one. Accessibility, good personal contacts in the village and an intention to test exploration techniques in a predominantly tank-irrigated area, were decisive factors. In contrast to Lal’s and Ragupathy’s studies, the Talkote survey is micro-scale. The chosen area comprises about 8km" and is roughly delineated by a line running from Pidurangala rock south-westward to the north-west comer of the inner rampart of the Sigiriya complex; and from there along the western moat/rampart-system up to the vicinity of the rest house; on to the Talkote-Kimbissa road just southwest of Ahalagalavava; roughly northwards, west of the Talkote Ih- alavava and Dikkandavava and following the watershed be­ tween the catchments of Talkote and Avudamgava; up to the latitude of the Pahala Talkotevava paddy fields, including these and the paddy fields of Siyambalankoratuvavava, touch­ ing the paddy fields of the Pahala Pidurangalavava; and then roughly south by south-east back to Pidurangala rock (see fig. 6:1 and 6:2). The most important natural feature of the area is the Sigiri Oya, as the upper Yan Oya is named in this area. It flows roughly south-north for about 3km and is dammed by the bund of the largest tank of the chosen area, the Talkote Pahalavava. The rain water falling in the catchment is also collected in a number of tanks of lesser extent (see below). While lacking reliable datings, it is nearly impossible to construct a model for the settlement development of the reg­ ion. Thus any discussion based on our available material must be considered as very sketchy and tentative. There are, how­ ever, a few conspicuous patterns worth mentioning. The 55 sites of the Talkote area may be tentatively sub­ divided into seven main groups (note that three sites SO. 22-24 are recorded with both group 1 and group 2, that one site SO. 5, is recorded with both group 1 and group 3 or 4 (see below) and that group 2 possibly should be grouped with group 4). The sub-division is not in any sense absolute, as will be shown by the following:

1. "Prehistoric" sites, i.e. sites with a fair amount of lithic artifacts (5 sites).

2. Pottery sites in a stream bed context (6 sites).

3. Pottery sites in a tank context (16 sites).

4. Pottery sites in an urban context (12 sites).

5. Other sites in an urban context (2 sites).

6. Pottery sites in a monastic context (3 sites).

7."Monastic" sites, i.e. sites with stupa ruins and/or stone pillars (16 sites).

Prehistoric sites

SO. 5, SO. 22-24, SO. 35: The five sites with remains of a lithic technology, i.e. implements and quartz and/or chert waste, must be seen in a somewhat wider context. We may presume that they belong to a nomadic, or semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer culture and thus dependent on quite a dif­ ferent set of allocational factors than those determining the spatial pattern of a sedentary, agricultural society. Such a wider view will be presented by Adikari (this volume). Here it will have to be sufficient to mention something about the co-occurrence of lithic artifacts and pottery in the stream bed sites of the area.

Pottery sites in stream bed context

SO. 22-24, SO. 38, SO. 52, SO. 58: Whereas the tiny pottery fragments at the rock-face site of Millagala (SO. 35) are easily explained as contamination from the adjacent pottery site SO. 36 (see discussion on the nature of quartz flakes in sites connected to iron production, below), the co-occurrence of quartz, chert and pottery in the stream bed of the Sigiri Oya (SO. 22-24) requires more in-depth analysis. SO. 22 is more complex than the others; there is a lot of brick scattered in the area from a structure that has been cut through by the Sigiri Oya, and adjacent are also the remains of a possible ford-construction in the old stream bed. It is prob­ able that both these structures relate to the Sigiriya complex. Some of the pottery, however, has an ‘EHP-look’, as is the case at SO. 23. Of course this requires further analysis and certainly also excavation, but hypothetically we may assume that these stream bed sites represent a stage in development preceding the mature, tank-centred society. (On the other ha­ nd, the pottery from the fairly well dated ‘model gamgoda’ site Tammannagala (SO. 5) resembles to some extent the pot­ tery of SO. 22-23.) The fact that lithic material is mixed with pottery in these sites is most interesting. Several possible explanations can be given for this, but valid answers cannot be obtained without a larger excavation. If it is not a case of contamination, the sites have had obvious advantages to both prehistoric and protohistoric/Early Historic man and may thus represent a kind of continuity. It would also be useful to investigate further whether lithic technology had been used to some extent by the earliest sedentary society too: an explanation that is given some support by the fact that these sites differ very much from the other known sites with lithic material, regarding their topographical setting. At present the discovery of the stream-bed sites has brought up more ques­ tions than answers, but they may also provide a possible key to the problem of the protohistoric/Early Historic transition phase in the area. A word of caution: the effect of erosion on the deposits along the stream has not been studied, so speculation around these sites must be seen as hypothetical only. Three other sites of the area have been designated as ha­ ving a stream-bed context, but they differ very much from the sites discussed above. Sites SO. 58, close to the bridge at Talkote (and close to SO. 24), and SO. 52, in the northernmost part of the chosen area of exploration, are not even situated directly on the stream bed, even though they are closer to the stream than to any known tank of the area. They also differ in pottery assemblage and lack lithic material. SO. 38 may also be grouped with these sites, even though it is situated directly on the stream bed. Hypothetically, these sites, all of them minor in extent, represent single homesteads, short move­ ments of residence, as suggested above, or maybe (in the case of SO. 38) field huts (see discussion on SO. 68-69 and SO. 78 below) and may thus be left out of the general discussion on the settlement structure and its development.

Pottery sites in a tank context

SO. 3-7, SO. 28, SO. 31-32, SO. 39, SO. 46-48, SO. 50, SO. 55, SO. 78: Of the 15 pottery sites designated as tank context sites, 12 have a direct relation to one of the known tanks of the area. The 12 directly tank-related settlement sites are:

Talkote Pahalavava: SO. 6, SO. 46, SO. 48

Talkote Ihalavava: SO. 5

Halmillavava: SO. 32

Dikkandavava: SO. 31

Siyambalankoratuvavava: SO. 50, SO. 55 (SO. 7, see below)

Ahalagalavava: SO. 3, SO. 4

Palugaha-alavava: SO. 39, SO. 47

The sites SO. 6, 5, 32, 31 and 4 conform exceedingly well to a pattern with a settlement site at one end of a tank bund. Applying the ‘gamgoda-dagaba-vava-yaya-hena’ model as described by Perera (1978:66) and Madduma Bandara (19- 85:103), these sites must be considered as typical gamgoda, but SO. 5 has certain chronological traits that may group it with the urban sites. If we assume that the gamgoda position represents a ‘normal’ pattern, we have to try to explain the ‘anomalous’ sites that do not conform. SO. 46 is a minor site on sloping, non arable ground. It must be remembered that we do not know the full extent of site SO. 6, which is assumed to be the main settlement: the gamgoda, related to Talkote Pahalavava. SO. 46 and SO. 48, which seem to relate to a vav kotuva, the ‘three-family-tank’ of Kotalahimbutugahavava, might have been parts of a very large settlement site, similar to SO. 5 that covers 70000 - 80000m2. It is also not improbable that a micro-tank like Kotalahim­ butugahavava has not had any related settlement at all, a so- called olagam vava (see Myrdal this volume). Furthermore, we do not know the relative chronology of either tanks or settlements (with the exception of SO. 5). SO. 46 may be part of the older strata of a large-size SO. 6, that has been exposed by erosion. The only plausible conclusion we can draw at present is that SO. 48 seems to be older than Kotalahimbutugahavava, since the high-water mark of this vav kotuva seemingly cuts the site into two separate portions. SO. 3 seems to relate to Ahalagalavava, though not as clearly as SO. 4, east of the tank. The tank seems too small to be able to support twin settlements, so we may have to reckon with a shift of the gamgoda at some time. A certain regard must be paid to the proximity of the stupa site SO. 64. There may be other allocational factors still unknown, since the area south-west of SO. 3 has still not been subject to a detailed survey. Site SO. 78 is situated in and around the Vanni Hamige Amuna, north of Ahalagalavava. Very little is known about it and it might possibly be the result of a field hut connected to the Amuna, but the functional connection to the small reser­ voir has not been established. The most conspicuous anomalies from the model occur in the case of Siyambalankoratuvava; the two pottery sites SO. 50 and SO. 55, which seem to relate to the tank, are situated ‘behind’ the tank. Before proceeding any further, however, we must discuss the matter from a source-critical standpoint. First of all, the entire area is covered with dense scrub, making any exploration impossible except along footpaths and open ch- enas. We cannot even grasp the full extent of the tank itself. Not having found the bund limits, we do not know whether gamgoda sites in the model position really exist, or not. SO. 50 may be such a model gamgoda, but such a hypothesis requires further extensive surveying. Furthermore, we know nothing about the development of the tank. It might have been of smaller extent originally, so that SO. 7 fits into an earlier model position. This pottery site resembles SO. 56 (see below, under monastic context) in that its pottery is found in the bund fill of the tank. Hence SO. 7 could have been a settlement antedaing the tank altogether. The Talkote gammandiya has also been designated as a site (SO. 28). It does not fit into any of the tentative groups of this discussion, but since it is known to have been the site of a wet-rice cultivating settlement, it has been grouped with the tank context sites. Lawrie, in his A Gazetteer of the Central Province of Ceylon, records two villages, Pahala Talkote and Ihala Tal­ kote. Pahala Talkote is mentioned as deserted, whereas Ihala Talkote, or just Talkote, is mentioned as having 70 inhabitants in 1881 (Lawrie 1988 (1898):815-816).

Figure 6:3 A test pit is opened at stone pillar structure in present Talkote pansalvatta (SO. 10). First excavation carried out under the SARCP program. View from south-east. Photo: Mats Mogren

The inquiry carried out by the interview unit of the 1988 field team brought the information that the original settlement had been on the high ground west of the Pahalavava bund, from whence it had been moved to a site adjacent to the present day Talkote Pansalvatta. Both those sites were pointed out to us by the villagers, and they were visited in 1988 as well as in 1989. The abandoned settlement at the Pahalavava bund was recorded as SO. 6 and the site of the cluster village (gam­ ma ndiy a) at the present village site, was recorded as SO. 28. SO. 6 which we may presume is identical with Lawrie’s Pahala Talkote, was said to have been the village site of Talkote during "ancient kings times”. However, the presence of a siyambala (Tamarindus indica) tree at the site and the fairly ‘modern’ appearance of the pottery sampled at the site indicates that the village site was in use in the 19th, or at least 18th century. The Talkote gammandiya, SO. 28, was chosen as a test excavation site for the 1989 season. The results show that there seems to have been activity at the site before SO. 6 was abandoned (see below). It would not be too presumptious to suppose that there have been two villages named Pahala and Ihala Talkote existing at the same time. Whether the pansala (sites SO. 10 and 25-27) should be considered as the allocational genesis of the settlement, or if the site should be grouped with SO. 50 and 55 is impossible to judge upon at present, but the results of the test excavation in the pansalvatta seem to imply that the temple site was aban­ doned after the 11th century. The present structures at the site could hence have been erected at a ruin site after the estab­ lishment of the settlement (SO. 28). The Bo tree at the site is seemingly of considerable age and may antedate the re-estab­ lishment of religious functions at the site..

Pottery sites in an urban context

SO. 36-37, SO. 68-77, (SO. 5): Twelve sites are situated in locations that cannot be designated as either stream bed or tank related: SO. 36 and SO. 37 are pottery sites, found along the footpath named ‘Millagala road’, just north of the north­ ern outer moat of the Sigiriya complex. It is difficult to find any other allocational factor worth considering than the pr­ esence of the urban complex. So we may consider them, tentatively, as ‘suburbs’ of Sigiriya. As such they form two most interesting pieces in the jigsaw puzzle that is the settle­ ment of Sigiriya. Further surveying along and outside the outer moats has yielded more sites of the same type. To this category must be counted SO. 70, 71, 73, 75 and 76. SO. 68 and SO. 69 could either be grouped with the ‘urban’ sites, or considered as field hut sites, as they seem to relate to the Varada Manala Haras Karapu Amuna. SO. 74 has a complex artefact assemblage and may be part of SO. 22. SO. 22 may be counted in this group during its later phases. SO. 77 is seemingly related only to the Sigiriya complex, but the occurrence of Black-and-Red Ware in that site gives it a special significance, and it could possibly be related to the Early Historic settlement at Ma- pagala. Site SO. 5 could possibly be suburban, judging from the radiocarbon dates, but cannot be discussed as such from a topographic point of view.

Other sites in an urban context

SO. 67, SO. 72: the unfinished ‘stone seat’ SO. 67 in the paddy fields west of the Sigiri Oya, is a singular site which very tentatively has been considered to have an urban connec­ tion. Nothing much can be said about it. One site that really might complicate the analysis is SO. 72, an iron production site. Whether contemporary with the urban complex or not is unknown at present. One must not exclude iron production from urban contexts, on the contrary: iron production might be seen as one of the factors that have created central places. The complicating factor is that iron production produces quartz debris in the ore crushing and cleaning process, so the two stream bed sites SO. 22 and SO. 23 could be even more complicated than stated above. If the quartz is explained as iron production waste and not as prehistoric remains, through the chert flakes are more difficult to explain away. SO. 72 is not unique in the area. Millagala, SO. 35, has a conical hole, a type of ancient feature shown to be connected to iron production, namely the ore crushing process (see Mo- gren 1990:58; Forenius and Solangaarachchi this volume I; and a forthcoming volume on the iron production sub-project). Around the conical hole grains of magnetite have been found. Furthermore, the area between Pidurangala and Sigiriya abounds in iron slag. It is obvious that iron production has been widespread in the area, but datings have not been corre­ lated to the chronology of the Sigiriya complex yet.

Pottery sites in a monastic context

SO. 56, SO. 60-61: these three sites seem to relate directly to the extensive monastic complex of Pidurangala. SO. 56 is a pottery scatter that is partly found in the temple tank bund, partly in the areas beneath it. The tank is said to have been constructed in the 20th century. Pidurangala is a monastery considered to have an unbroken continuity from pre-Christian times. Whether the pottery originates from the monastic com­ munity, or from a lay community related to it, is impossible to judge in the context of present knowledge.

Figure 6:4 Map of the northern part ofTalkote village with sites belonging to the monastic complex (SO. 10, 25-27) and marking the three test pits at SO. 10.

Monastic sites

SO. 9-10, SO. 25-27, SO. 29-30, SO. 33-34, SO. 51, SO. 53-54, SO. 57, SO. 62-64: The 16 sites designated as ‘monastic’ in the area are actually only 10, as SO. 33, SO. 34, SO. 57 and SO. 63 are parts of the vast Pidurangala complex; and as SO. 10 can be grouped with SO. 25-27 into a single monastic complex, even though of lesser extent. In excluding the rock shelter complexes of Sigiriya and Pidurangala for the moment, it is obvious that we cannot group the free standing monastic sites of the area according to age, simply because we lack reliable datings at present. (One ex­ ception is SO. 10, where a 14C-dating is at hand; see below). Any distinction attempted must be based on scale and top­ ographical setting and these 10 sites do differ very much in both respects. The ten sites, or complexes, may be ordered into a multi­ tiered scale, three-tiered as a suggestion. Quite outstanding is the Pidurangala complex. The free standing complex west of the road covers about 120000m2, vast parts of it are still not thoroughly explored. The complex has been preliminarily sur­ veyed and mapped and the subject of a spatial/quantitative analysis, just like the Ramakale complex. The middle tier is represented by the complex around the present Talkote pansalvatta, i.e. SO. 10 and SO. 25-27. This complex seemingly lacks a stupa. The nearest known is the one at Halmillavava, about 750m to the south-east. Another site or complex that could be grouped with this middle tier is SO. 53, in the northern part of the explored area. That site has a stupa ruin, as does SO. 64. SO. 64 was encountered at the close of the field season and still awaits a detailed survey. It may prove to be the nucleus of yet another middle-tier com­ plex. The sites of the lower tier are, so far at least, mostly one- structure sites. A few stone pillars, a solitary stupa ruin, as at SO. 9, or cutmarks in solid rock as at SO. 29, sketch the outlines of a building, including a moonstone at the entrance. The topographical setting also has some noteworthy fea­ tures. Apart from the largest complexes, the sites can be sub­ divided into two general groups, which we may call 'vava context’ and the 'yaya context’. The sites in vava context correspond well with the ' gamgoda-dagaba-vava-yaya-hena' model touched upon above. That is, they are located on some­ what higher ground at one end of the tank bund (SO. 9 and SO. 29), or on a non-flooded promontory behind the bund (SO. 62). The latter setting is not unique, as there are other sites in the greater research area of the project with similar topographi­ cal settings, e.g. MO. 2 at the Timbiriyattavalavava (Wick- remasekara 1990:98). Sites in 'yaya context’ are placed below the tank bund within or adjacent to the paddy fields. The best example is the small stone pillar site just below the bund of Dikkandavava (SO. 30). Also, SO. 54 below Siyambalankoratuvavava and the larger, possibly ‘middle-tierd’ SO. 53 below Talkote Pa- halavava, must be considered typical ‘ytzya-context’ sites. We know next to nothing at present whether tanks and monastic sites are contemporary or not, but if we assume that they are, the functional background of sites in this setting should have had some connection with paddy cultivation. The big question mark when discussing a topographical setting is SO. 51. It is located in a chena about halfway be­ tween Siyambalankoratuvavava and Halmillavava, at least 300m from each. At present the site does not seem to relate to anything, but further exploration in this partially known area may give an explanation. The setting resembles, to some extent, the strange location of KO. 46 in Pattilava, which is a chena between Gallin- da and Udavalayagama (Manatunga 1990:84). It may perhaps be useful to delineate a third group, the 'hena context’, for this type of setting.

Test excavations

Figure 6:5 Discussion in the field at SO. 10, test pit 1. In the foreground Srini Adihetti, J. A. D. S. Jayaweera and W. A. Kumaradasa. Photo: Mats Mogren.

Figure 6:6 Profile of test pit 1 at SO. 10.

designated as the site SO. 10. Pit 1 was dug next to the stone pillar structure and pit 2 and 3 were dug in the open ground to the north-west and south-west of pit 1 respectively (see fig. 6:4). The test pits measured 2x2m and were taken down to virgin soil. Pit 1 was the most rewarding of the three. A brick wall was encountered, running through the southern half of the pit. It was standing to a height of about 0.9m, but cultural layers had gradually accumulated against it and its destruction layer (co­ ntext 3, fig. 6:6) was just 0.1-0.3m below the wall interface. It contained bricks and tiles of the ‘Polonnaruva period type’.

14 C-dated charcoal from this layer has given a tentative des­truction date for the structure as 11th century. The calibrated age range for the sample, using one sigma, is 924-1134 AD (Ua 1939). Pit 2 did not yield anything that could be designated as an intact cultural layer. Some pottery was found, but only in a shallow, disturbed surface context. The upper layers of pit 3 were also badly disturbed by recent constructional activity, but context 3 (see fig. 6:8) was considered a fairly undisturbed cultural layer, with a pottery assemblage (Kasthurisinghe and Adikari, unpubl. reports in the PGIAR archive). Because of the limited extent of the excavations at SO. 10 and the absence of a reliable and detailed Lankan pottery chronology to date, nothing explicit can be said about the dating of the beginnings of activities at this site. There was, however, an absence of material indicating activity in pre- Kasyapan or Kasyapan times, e.g. tiles of the typical ‘finger rills’ type found in such great quantities in the Sigiriya com­ plex. As stated above, the end of the ancient activity phase is perhaps indicated by the 14C-dating of context 3 of pit 1. Only one dating is a rather hazardous base for interpretation. It seems to be fortified however by the concurrence of the flat ‘Polonnaruva type’ of tiles, so it can stand as a point of depar­ ture for further discussion.

Gammandiya (SO. 28): Two test pits (see fig. 6:9) were excavated in the open area, in the centre of the village des­ cribed as the gammandiya (former cluster settlement site) of Talkote. The objective was primarily to try to date the begin­ nings of occupation in (Ihala) Talkote. There were no indications of ancient settlement visible on the surface at the outset of the excavation. The area was an open ground frequented by cattle and covered with coconut husks and cattle dung. A few stone pillars of ancient ap­ pearance were lying close by, but these were presumably placed there secondarily, and used for steps or the like. Thus nothing but the testimony of the villagers directed the selection of sites for the two pits.

Figure 6:7 Brick wall found in test pit 1 at SO. 10. Photo: Mats Mogren.

Figure 6:8 Profile of test pit 3 at SO. 10.

The section of pit 1 shows three post holes, which stra- tigraphically belong to the phase of occupation immediately proceeding abandonment of the site, that is early and mid-20th century. They might even represent an activity after the disper­ sal of the cluster village. No other structural indications were discernible. Below the dung-mixed top soil, three distinct cul­ tural layers were documented. In the upper one (see fig. 6:11, context 2) parts of a slate pencil were found. The pottery assemblage was entirely of plain Red Ware. Context 3 con­ tained a nail, slag pieces, red ochre and a heavy scatter of pottery. In this layer, charcoal was sampled. In context 4 the only cultural remains were potsherds. In pit 2 nothing but very recent material was found. The cultural deposit was mostly 0.1-0.2m thick (fig. 6:12, context 2) and in one comer was a garbage pit. The finds consisted of gun cartidges, bottle glass, pieces of a plastic comb, nails, pottery etc (Colombage and Karawgahanga, unpubl. reports in the PGIAR archive). One 14C dating was attempted on charcoal from pit 1, but it was found to be less than 250 years old. In conclusion, the site of the (Ihala) Talkote gammandiya can be considered as being only slightly older than its first mention by Lawrie in 1898.

Sketching a history of Talkote

Out of the still very fragmentary evidence retrieved from the various archaeological (and other) observations in the survey area of Talkote village, a tentative sketch of its history may be attempted. There might be more than just one story to tell. It is impor­tant to comprehend that the area of the present, very dispersed settlement of Talkote, could not have been the scene of the development of only one rural settlement unit. We have seen that most of the tanks of the area have had a settlement in a gamgoda position. Only one of these gamgodas has been dated, the largest one at SO. 5 (Tammannagala, see Somadeva and Kasthurisinghe this volume) and that one might well have been a suburban settlement of Sigiriya, and rather shortlived as such. At least someone had dug a pit at the site in the 9th century, but we cannot say if this indicates a re-settlement or some other kind of activity.

Figure 6:9 Map of central parts ofTalkote village, marking the two test pits in the gammandiya.

.

Figure 6:10 Test pit no 1 is opened at the Talkote gammandiya (SO. 28). View from the east. Photo: Mats Mogren.

Figure 6:11 Profile of test pit 1st at Talkote gammandiya (SO. 28).

Figure 6:12 Profile of test pit 2 nd Talkote gammandiya (SO. 28).

Was the monastic complex at SO. 10, destroyed in the 11th century, ever connected to a village called Talkote, or should we see it as part of the Sigiriya and/or Pidurangala complexes? Was SO. 6 (the site of Lawrie’s Pahala Talkote, where villagers lived in "ancient kings’ times") established by then? What do all the other settlements of the area stand for? Can we presume that at least most of them were contemporanous? If so, what does such a dispersal of settlement over a rather restricted area, signify in the socio-economic perspective? During which period did it occur? What do all the small monastic structures at various locations in the landscape stand for? Village temple grounds, or something else?

We can assume with some certainty that the village of Talkote, existing in Kandyan and British times, gradually, shifted location from SO. 6 to SO. 28, and that this probably happened during the 19th century and was completed before the end of that century. During the last 50 or 60 years the cluster settlement at SO. 28 was broken up and dispersed over the area now under investigation. A preliminary survey like the Talkote investigation raises more questions than answers. A lot of work remains to be done before we really can start sketching the history of Tal­ kote. An excavation in SO. 6 with the sole objective of datings, would contribute a great deal; and a continuation of the same at the other major settlements in the research area would probably clear many problems. One can say that a basis is laid for some young researcher who wants to undertake the task, to prove to the world that the history of a rural settlement like Talkote can be as complex and intriguing as that of an urban centre like Sigiriya.

General conclusion

There is no general, taken-for-granted model of rural settle­ ment in pre-modern times that will stand up against a com­ parison with the concrete field data from a project of the SARCP type. In the light of these data we discern a com­ plexity of rural land use which, of course, has diachronic reasons and variables. The one-village-one-tank model is not untrue, but it is only part of the total reality, and may be termed an oversimplified armchair product. One of the most important results of det­ ailed, micro-regional studies, as in SARCP, is that it is pos­ sible to prove the complexity of reality. The natural conclusion is, of course, that models of society must be treated with caution; they may even create a bias in the perception of the researcher in the field. So what can we put up, instead? Is the alternative a chaotic, unstructured mass of data? Certainly not. There will always emerge a new model of some kind, but the most important thing to learn from this is that any model is nothing but a model mirroring one specific stage in the learning process (which more than often becomes ossified); and that research in the sequel will produce data reflecting a higher level of complexity; and that there will always be frequent exceptions to the rule. This awareness is one of the most important prerequisites for valid results in research into settlement archaeology.

REFERENCES

Adikari, G. Excavation Report on Tammanagala Pit 1. Un­ published Excavation Report. PGIAR Archive. Cat. No. 1989/17.

Bandaranayake, S. 1988. Ancient cities and settlements. The National Atlas of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Survey Depart­ ment.

Deraniyagala, S.U. 1972. The Citadel of Anuradhapura 1969: Excavations in the Gedige Area. Ancient Ceylon. 2: 48- 169.

Deraniyagala, S.U. 1986. Excavations in the Citadel of Anu­ radhapura: Gedige 1984, a Preliminary Report. Ancient Ceylon. 6: 39-47.

Deraniyagala, S.U. 1990. The Proto- and Early Historic Ra­ diocarbon Chronology of Sri Lanka. Ancient Ceylon. 12: 251-292.

Kasthurisinghe, M. Excavation Report on Ihalavava Tam­ managala Pit 2. Unpublished Excavation Report. PGIAR Archive. Cat. No. 1989/10

Lal, M. 1984. Settlement History and Rise of Civilization in Ganga-Yamuna Doab (from 1500 B.C. to 300 A.D.). De­ lhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.

Lawrie, A. C. 1898 (repr. 1988). A Gazetteer of the Central Province of Ceylon. 2 vols. Colombo: National Museum. Madduma Bandara, C.M. 1985. Catchment Ecosystems and Village Tank Cascades in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka: A Time-Tested System of Land and Water Resource Man­ agement. Strategies for River Basin Management. Lun­ dqvist, J., U. Lohm and M. Falkenmark, (eds.). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.

Manatunga, A. 1990. The Kiri Oya Basin. The Settlement Archaeology of the Sigiriya-Dambulla Region. Bandar­ anayake, S., M. Mogren and S. Epitawatte (eds.). Colom­ bo: PGIAR.

Mogren, M. 1990. Project Strategies: Methodology and Per­ spectives. The Settlement Archaeology of the Sigiriya- Dambulla Region. Bandaranayake, S., M. Mogren and S. Epitawatte (eds.). Colombo: PGIAR.

Perera, N. P. 1978. Early Agricultural Settlements in Sri Lanka in Relation to Natural Resources. Ceylon Historical Journal. Vol. XXV: 58-73.

Ragupathy, P. 1987. Early Settlements in Jaffna. An Archa­ eological Survey. Madras: Thillimalar Ragupathy.

Ray, H. P. 1989. Early Historical Settlement in the Deccan: an Ecological Perspective. Man and Environment. Vol. XIV, No 1.

Wickramasekara, C. 1990. Sigiri Oya and Mirisgoni Oya Basins. The Settlement Archaeology of the Sigiriya-Dam­ bulla Region. Bandaranayake, S., M. Mogren and S. Epi­ tawatte (eds.). Colombo: PGIAR.

Yalman, N. 1967. Under the Bo Tree. Studies in Caste, Kin­ ship and Marriage in the Interior of Ceylon. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Figure 6:13 Tammannagala settlement site after excavation, viewed from the north. Photo: I. S. Madanayake.

Appendix: A Catalogue of Archaeological Sites in the Talkote Area

The following site list is an extract from the Sigiri Oya basin site list, comprising observations made in and around Talkote (see fig. 6:1 and 6:2) during the fieldwork seasons of 1988, 1989 and 1990 (see Wickremesekara 1990: 97-98). SO. 3: Pottery site. About 300m west of Ahalagalavava, in the garden of B.M. Abeyratna. Potsherds are extensively spread, but the site is very difficult to delineate. Visited in 1988 and revisited and plotted in 1989. SO. 4: Pottery site with a few tile pieces and iron slag. Situated about 30m east of Ahalagalavava. The site is difficult to delineate towards the south, but it extends at least 90m north-south. A minor site. Visited in 1988 and revisited and plotted in 1989. SO. 5: Tammannagala. Pottery site with tile pieces. Situated at the southern end of the Talkote Ihalavava bund and east of Tammannagala rock. A very large site, covering an area of around 280x280m on both sides of the Kimbissa - Talkote road. Visited in 1988 and revisited and plotted in 1989. Test excavations in 1989 and large scale excavation in 1990. SO. 6: Pottery site. Situated about 250m west by north­ west of the western end of the Talkote Pahalavava bund. Site with a tradition: according to Talkote villagers, this was the village site of Talkote during "ancient kings’ times". A siyam- bala tree and a fairly ‘modern’ appearance of surface-sampled pottery may indicate that the village site was in use until at least the 18th, possibly into the 19th century. Presumably the site mentioned by Lawrie as Pahala Talkote, noted as aban­ doned in 1898 and with no census figures from 1881 or 1891. Delineation difficult; the site may comprise a single habitation area together with SO. 48; and, possibly, also with SO. 39, SO. 46 and SO. 47. Visited in 1988 and revisited and plotted in 1989. SO. 7: Pottery site. Situated near a breach in the southern part of the Siyambalankoratuvava bund, possibly within the high-water mark of the tank. Potsherds are extensively spread. Visited in 1988 and revisited in 1989, when no potsherds could be found owing to the dense vegetation. The site has been very tentatively plotted, as it is covered with dense scrub jungle. Exact plotting impossible without extensive survey. SO. 9: Dagaba site. Situated about 70-100m south-west of the southern end of the Halmillavava bund. There are two mounds standing close together, the larger of them a dagaba ruin which shows signs of having been looted. Potsherds and brickbats spread in the environs. Visited in 1988 and revisited and plotted in 1989. SO. 10: Stone pillar site with brickbats, tile pieces and potsherds. Situated at the site of an old Bo tree north-west of the school at Talkote. An area of scattered potsherds extends about 30m towards the north-west from the stone pillar struc­ ture. A number of potsherds have been found also in the area north of the school and east of the Bo tree. Together with SO. 25, SO. 26 and SO. 27, it comprises a single monastic complex. Visited in 1988 and revisited, plotted, mapped and test excavated in 1989. SO. 20: Stone pillar and pottery site. Situated west of the western gate of the Sigiriya complex and outside the outer moat. Visited in 1988 and revisited and tentatively plotted in 1989. SO. 22: Pottery site with brickbats, tile pieces, chert and quartz flakes. Situated in and beside the Sigiri Oya stream bed at the south-west comer of the Vilpitaravava paddy fields, west of the outer moat (= Vilpitaravava) of the Sigiriya com­ plex. A cultural layer is found beneath 0.4m of topsoil. It has been cut through by the canal for Mahavali water. In the former Sigiri Oya stream bed, 13m to the east, is a probable ford, constructed of stones and bricks. Potsherds, chert and quartz implements, and waste, are scattered in the stream bed at least 150m downstream. Apparently a multi-period site. Visited and plotted in 1989. Test excavated in 1990. SO. 23: Pottery site with quartz waste. Situated in the Sigiri Oya stream bed/Mahavali water canal bed about 250m upstream from the bridge at Talkote. Seems to have a cultural layer containing potsherds under about one meter of topsoil, cut through by the Mahavali water canal construction. In the stream bed is a scatter of potsherds and quartz waste. Ap­ parently a multi-period site. Visited and plotted in 1989. Test excavated in 1990. SO. 24: Pottery site with quartz waste. In the Sigiri Oya stream bed about 40m downstream from the bridge at Talkote. A possible cultural layer has been cut through by the canal for Mahavali water. Potsherds and quartz waste scattered in the stream bed. A minor, possibly multi-period, site. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 25: Stone pillar and stone slab site with pottery. Situated about 100m north by north-west of SO. 27, partly in the garden of the Dharmadasa family, partly south of it. Eighteen stone slabs and 8-10 stone pillars are scattered over an area of about 12x16m. Potsherds are found within that area and south of it. Visited in 1988, but not given a separate site number. Revisited, plotted and mapped in 1989. SO. 26: Stone pillar site. Situated about 60m north of the stone pillar structure at SO. 10. One 10x18m structure is delineated by stone pillars in the south and stone slabs and crop-marks in the west, north and east. There are 10 pillars, visible 10-20cm above ground. Pottery scattered around the structure. Visited, plotted and mapped in 1989. SO. 27: Single stone pillar site. Situated about 80m west by south-west of SO. 26, in the garden of the Mutubanda family. No pottery found. Visited, plotted and mapped in 1989. SO. 28: The Talkote gammandiya. Abandoned. Two stone pillar-like slabs found at the site. Visited in 1988, but not given a site number. Revisited, mapped and test excavated in 1989. SO. 29: Monastic site. Situated at the northern end of the Talkote Ihalavava bund, on top of a rock. A moonstone-like shape cut into solid rock and, 1.6m south of it, two wall lines at right angles to each other, also cut into the rock. According to villagers there was a Buddhist structure on this site "in the old days". The site is now being used as a quarry, so it is probable that parts of it have been destroyed. A hundred meters west by north west is a single stone pillar with a symbol cut into the stone. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 30: Stone pillar site. Situated in an abandoned paddy field below (75-110m east of) the Dikkandavava bund. Four stone pillars visible. Site visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 31: Pottery site. Situated about 100m north-west of the northern end of the Dikkandavava bund. A minor site judging from quantity, but with a high percentage of sherds from large jars. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 32: Pottery site. Situated about 20-100m south of the southern end of the Halmillavava bund, in the footpath be­ tween Mr Rambanda’s house and the Pidurangala temple tank paddy fields. Extension about 80m in the footpath, with an adjoining dense scatter about 30m further east by north-east. Full extension not possible to explore owing to dense scrub. Site visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 33: Stone pillar site with tiles and bricks. Part of the Pidurangala monastic complex. Two stone pillars situated about 95m north by north-east of the northern end of the Pidurangala temple tank bund. Pottery, tile pieces and brick­ bats scattered in the footpaths over the entire area between the stone pillars and the tank bund. Site visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 34: Stone pillar site. Part of the Pidurangala monastic complex. Situated 180m north by north-west of the SO. 33 stone pillars. Five pillars visible in a low mound about 8m in diameter. Site visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 35: Quartz waste site with pottery and a conical hole. Situated on top of Millagala, a rocky outcrop south of the Pidurangala temple tank. Quartz debris is densely scattered in three separate gravel pockets, together with badly worn pot­ sherds. The pottery could be associated with the adjoining SO. 36. Signs of quartz quarrying on the southwest side of the rock. One conical hole in the solid rock is visible at the southern end. A few, very small fragments of magnetite ore and iron slag can be found. Millagala has three natural ponds containing water even in the dry season. Whether a prehistoric campsite or an attempt to establish an iron production site (or at least an iron ore pounding site), or both, is yet impossible to ascertain. Visited and plotted in 1989. Revisited in 1991. SO. 36: Pottery site with brickbats. Situated immediately south ot SO. 35 in the footpath called Millagala road, leading to Talkote. Pottery and brick scatter extends into surround­ ing gardens. Visited and plot - d in 1989. SO. 37: Pottery site. Situated about 300m west of SO. 36 in the Millagala road. Dense scatter in a 2x3m area, but pottery found over an 80m distance in the road. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 38: Pottery site. Situ.’, ted in the west bank and at a bend in the Sigiri Oya, about 400m north of the Talkote Pahalavava bund. Some pottery scattered over a 15x15m area. Minor site. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 39: Pottery site with some iron slag. Situated in a chena about 350m north by north-west of the western end of the Talkote Pahalavava bund and about 70m east of the main electrical power line. Close by, towards thp west and south­ west and north-east of site SO. 47, is a bund, or a ridge. It is, most probably, an ancient tank bund, even though the villagers do not have a name for it. (Another bund is found further to the south-west, beyond site SO. 47). Minor site. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 46: Pottery site. Situated in the road to the Talkote Pahalavava paddy fields, about 70m north of the bund and 250m east of the main electrical power line. Pottery visible only in eroded parts of the road, where a deposit of limonite gravel comes to the surface. Minor site. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 47: Pottery site. Situated at the breach in the south­ western one of the two ancient tank bunds that have dammed the stream from Avudamgavavava to Sigiri Oya, north-west of Talkote Pahalavava and directly below the main electrical power line. Pottery is found in the bund fill as well. Probably a minor site. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 48: Pottery site. Situated about 120m west of the western end of Talkote Pahalavava, below the main electrical power line. The site consists of two patches of limonite gravel containing pottery, separated by about a 40m wide hollow, taken to be part of the Kotalahimbutugahavava tank bottom. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 50: Pottery site. Situated in a chena south-west of the western end of Pidurangala Pahalavela. Site impossible to plot with any fair degree of exactness. Visited in 1989. SO. 51: Stone pillar site. Situated in a chena about 350m south-west of SO. 50 and about 200m north of the footpath between Talkote and Pidurangala villages. One single stone pillar in a fairly large mound. The site is impossible to plot with any fair degree of exactness. Visited in 1989. SO. 52: Pottery site. Situated in a small chena about 250m north-east of SO. 38 and about 80m east of the Sigiri Oya. Minor site. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 53: Monastic site. Probable dagaba ruin, 20m in diameter, not very well preserved. Brickbats scattered around the structure. About 100m towards the north-west are two stone pillars, and around these a fairly extensive scatter of pottery and brickbats, reaching into the paddy fields, towards the west. Site visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 54: Stone pillar site. Situated in a footpath about 350m north-east of the eastern end of the Talkote Pahalavava bund and 50m south of the Siyambalankoratuvavava paddy fields. The site comprises two structures, towards the south-west with 12 visible stone pillars, the other towards the north-east, with 9 visible stone pillars and a probable terrace wall. Surroundings impossible to explore owing to dense scrub. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 55: Pottery and iron slag site. Situated about 200m north-west of Pidurangala Pahalavela. Pottery scattered in a chena south of the cart track between Pidurangala Pahalavela and the Siyambalankoratuvavava paddy fields. Iron slag found in fairly large quantities in the cart track. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 56: Pottery site. Situated adjacent to and below the Pidurangala temple tank bund. Pottery found 0.2-0.3m below the surface, visible in the cut for a canal leading water to the new paddy fields, south-west of the tank, over a distance of 50m. Pottery found in the bund fill, all along the tank bund, as well. Site visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 57: Stone pillar site. Part of the Pidurangala monastic complex. Situated adjacent to (north of) the northern bund of the Pidurangala temple tank. Five stone pillars visible. Brick­ bats scattered around. Site visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 58: Pottery site. Situated in a garden about 150m east of the bridge over Sigiri Oya, at Talkote. Pottery scattered around a low mound. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 59: Rock-cut cistem site. Situated in a rock boulder about 120m north of Tammannagala, close to SO. 5, of which settlement it may be a part. The cistern measures 1.2x2.2m and holds a depth of 0.65-0.7m. It is cut into solid rock on top of the boulder. No other cut marks or other remains are visible. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 60: Pottery site. Situated between the northern edge of the ‘Pidurangala Archaeological Forest’, the point where the footpath leading north from the dagaba reaches the chena and the junction between that footpath and the footpath leading from Talkote to Pidurangala village (about 250m north of the dagaba). A fairly intense pottery scatter, but very difficult to delineate owing to dense scrub. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 61: Pottery site with iron slag. Situated in the footpath about 250m north of the footpath junction at SO. 60. The site has a lot of limonite gravel as well. Minor site, difficult to delineate owing to dense scrub. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 62: Stone pillar site. One single stone pillar situated in the cart track between Pidurangala Pahalavela and the Siyam­ balankoratuvavava paddy fields, about 100m east of the point where the cart track crosses the Siyambalankoratuvavava bund. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 63: Stone pillar and brick wall site. Part of the Piduran­ gala monastic complex. Situated in the footpath about 250m north-west of the dagoba. Consists of one single stone pillar by the side of the path and a brick wall crossing the path obliquely. Visited and plotted in 1989. SO. 64: Dagaba site. Situated in a chena, about 400m west by south-west of Tammannagala rock. A scatter of brickbats and pottery around the ruined structure. Visited in 1989. Revisited and tentatively plotted in 1990. SO. 67: An uncompleted rock-cut structure, called "stone­ bed" by the villagers. Situated in the slope just below the top of a rock named Siyambalagahalangagala. The stone has been cut vertically to the rock, to form an uncompleted ‘seat’, 3x1.8m in extent and with a depth of 0.3m at the highest back end. The vertical cut is nicely finished without residual cut marks. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 68: Pottery site. Situated about 40m east by northeast of Varada Manala Haras Karapu Amuna. Pottery visible over an area of 12x20m. Minor site. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 69: Pottery site. Situated in present chena land north­ east of the Siyambalagahalangagala, SO. 67. Difficult to delineate, but pottery is scattered over an area of about 30x40m. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 70: Pottery site with brickbats and tiles. Situated east of SO. 22 on the eastern side of Sigiri Oya, visible in the cut for the sluice in Vilpitaravava and south-westwards for at least 100m. Difficult to delineate owing to dense scrub jungle to the south, the vava bund to the east and paddy fields to the west. It might be a continuation of SO. 22. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 71: Pottery site. Potsherds visible in a dense con­ centration, from about 0.2m below surface level, in the walls of a hole cut in the ground below the Vilpitaravava western bund. It might be a continuation of SO. 70. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 72: Iron production site. Situated about 80m north by north-west of the north-western comer of the Vilpitaravava bund. Consists of an earthen mound, measuring about 5.5x15m in plan and with a maximum elevation over the surrounding paddy fields of about 1.7m. Slag and pieces of furnace wall were found in the mound and slag was also scattered in the fields surrounding the site. Visited and plotted in 1990. Slag sampled for analysis in 1991. SO. 73: Pottery site with brickbats. Low mound in dense forest. Difficult to delineate. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 74: Pottery site with quartz waste (and microliths?) and a few small pieces of iron slag scattered in sand around a low rock, 14x7m, about 250m north of the Sigiriya-Kimbissa road and 150m south-west of the Sigiri Oya. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 75: Pottery site with a few pieces of badly worn tiles and a few pieces of slag. Situated in dense scrub jungle about 220m north of the Sigiriya-Kimbissa road and 100m south­ west of Sigiri Oya. The site is probably a continuation of SO. 74, but no pottery was visible in between. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 76: Pottery site with tiles and badly worn bricks. Situated in dense forest on the western bank of Sigiri Oya. The site was not possible to delineate properly, but it covers at least 75x20m. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 77: Pottery site with a few pieces of tiles. Situated in the paddy fields west of Sigirivava and south of the Sigiriya complex. Pottery (including BRW) is visible in the field bunds and also in the walls of three holes dug in the fields. In the westernmost hole, pottery is visible from 0.8m below surface level in a dark, 0.45m thick kaoline and sand-mixed layer, deposited on top of the bedrock. Visited and plotted in 1990. SO. 78: Pottery site with a few tile pieces. Situated in and around the Vanni Hamige Amuna, north of Ahalagalavava. Full extent remains to be plotted. Visited and plotted in 1990.

Figure 6:13 View ofTalkote village taken from Tammannagala. In the background are Pidurangala and Sigiriya rocks on left and right. Photo: Gamini Adikari.