The Eastern Precinct of the Sigiriya ComplexPRIYANTHA KARUNARATNE

Studies of Sigiriya have in the main concentrated on the western sector of the royal city complex. The Water Gardens, summer palaces, Royal Audience Hall, the fresco pocket, the Mirror Wall and the palace on the summit have always held the interest of both tourist and archaeologist alike. It was towards the end of the 19th century, however, that some attention was first paid to the Eastern Precinct, a long time previous to the present survey.

Of those who started their work on the eastern sector, Blakesley was the first to document his work. Although ex­ ploration of the eastern sector was not his sole objective, Blakesley seems to have roamed widely over the area, as seen from his notes. He has presented facts about the moats, ram­ parts and other structures built around the rock and even about the Sigiri Mahavava. Though Blakesley has not presented any systematic analysis of how the Eastern Precinct had been used, the systematic and descriptive plan he has presented shows that he had a broad understanding of the eastern area. His plan is an important source for the further study of Sigiriya (Blakes­ ley 1876).

Extensive archaeological research into the Sigiriya com­ plex was carried out during the last decade of the 19th century, under H.C.P. Bell. Particularly as a result of surveys and ex­ cavations Bell made after 1894, he was able to focus attention on the entire Sigiriya complex in a clear and broad perspective. He mentions in his report how he cleared the jungle which concealed the buildings and ramparts of the western sector. He did not stop at that, but also cleared the jungle in the eastern sector, up to the footpath leading to Pidurangala village. (Bell 1896:9)

H.C.P. Bell’s most important and splendid achievement in all his explorations at Sigiriya is his comprehensive plan of the Sigiriya complex, in which he has meticulously plotted not only the features of the western sector, but all the features of the Eastern Precinct (Bell 1907). He assumed that the main entrance to the ‘city’ area of the Sigiriya complex is from the west (Bell 1899:7).

After Bell and up to the 1980’s, the attention of researchers was mainly focused on the northern, southern and western sectors. The investigations begun under the Cultural Triangle from 1982 onwards, have provided a basis for the study of the Eastern Precinct and its functional activities as part of a total concept of urban form and function (Bandaranayake 1984). On the basis of data gathered from these 1982 and post-1982 explorations, the view that the Eastern Precinct at Sigiriya could have been an inner city area closely associated with the royal palace complex, was reiterated and began to be tested (Bandaranayake 1984). To confirm or reject this view, it be­ came necessary to carry out extensive surveys and ar­ chaeological excavations in this area. Several preliminary surveys were made in the early 1980’s, but a .concerted pro­ gram was began in 1988, with the present archaeological re­ search activities under SARCP (Solangaarachchi 1990:107).

Figure 11:1 Pillar structure in Eastern Precinct during excavation. Seen from south. Photo: Priyantha Karunaratne.

This paper presents the results of surveys carried out in the eastern sector of the Sigiriya urban complex. A number of scholars have researched the urban planning system of Sigiriya and expressed various views, but very little attention has been focused on the Eastern Precinct and the eastern sector. Studies of the ruined buildings and the garden complex are scanty, making it very difficult to develop a comprehensive interpreta­ tion of the urban plan at Sigiriya (Bandaranayake 1990:41-56).

Although the architectural and garden precincts pertaining to the residences and activities of the king, the royal family and the court are clearly identifiable and have been extensively investigated, our knowledge regarding the settlements of the courtiers and officials who maintained the kingdom and of the other social groups who constituted the wider urban popula­ tion, is almost non-existent. This would be a very important aspect in the understanding of the social organisation and set­ tlement pattern of Sigiriya and the Sigiriya region, hence the necessity to investigate the function served by the eastern sector in the formation of the Sigiriya complex.

It was to explore such problems that the present study was launched, with the following objectives in mind:

1. to carry out a broad survey of the Eastern Precinct at Sigiriya and its environs^ in order to document its extent and its inherent features.

2. to study the function of the Eastern Precinct within the total spatial organisation of the Sigiriya complex.

3. to examine the interpretations made in respect of the Eastern Precinct and to understand its settlement pattern and social character arising from such interpretations.

Most of the data required to fulfill these objectives was obtained from field research. In addition to this research and as a part of this study, data gathered from the surveys and excavations carried out by other units of the ‘Sigiriya-Dambulla Settlement Archaeology Research Project’ was used to find at least tentative answers to some of the problems highlighted above. A comparative study of the opinions expressed by early research workers on Sigiriya has also been attempted. And the importance of the Eastern Precinct in the context of the Sigiriya complex has been noted by reference to books con­ taining the writings of ancient authorities such as Kautilya, Manu and Yagnavalkya, who gave theoretical guidance in the construction of ancient royal complexes (Begde 1982:3-32).

A considerable number of persons participated in field surveys and excavations. The fieldwork was carried out in 1988,1989 and 1990, under the SARCP program.

Present research

These studies were carried out in three stages, in 1988, 1989 and 1990. The Eastern Precinct was divided into three zones : SEP 1, SEP 2, SEP 3 (see fig. 11:2). The first season was from September to October 1988. Owing to the situation that prevailed in the country during this period, this work could not be completed. However, research and surveying of the zone marked SEP 1, located close to Sigiriya rock, was completed (Solangaarachchi 1990:106- 112). Extensive research activities in the eastern sector were commenced in the second field season, from September to October 1989. Research work in the regions SEP 2 and SEP 3, which could not be completed in 1989, was accomplished in 1990.

This also included a contour survey of the Northern Gat­ eway, a plan of the pillared building immediately to the north of the gate, and excavating four 2x2m test pits at selected locations in SEP 1 and SEP 2.

Further, during the field research period of 1990, research activities were launched in the region of Sigirivava and in the area of the rampart running through the Mahavava and the stretch of land lying between the eastern entrance and Pi- durangala rock. Generally speaking, as a result of such research earned out during these three years, we had a clearer understanding of the eastern sector of Sigiriya and its environs.

Exploration

As explained above, research was carried out in several stages. The area was divided into several sections, each sec­ tion being subjected to intensive research. The principal tech­ nique followed was field-walking. Aerial photographs, one-inch maps and plans drawn by earlier research workers were studied before exploration activity was undertaken.

Field research included collecting surface samples, par­ ticularly pottery remains and other debris, since such finds help us to understand ancient settlement patterns. Plotting rough sketch plans, based on the data collected from field research, was an important aspect of the documentation. We can consider this work a preliminary attempt to lay out the main strategy of our research.

SEP 1

Although the Sigiriya Eastern Precinct (SEP) was divided into three main field areas in 1988, SEP 1 was again sub­ divided into eight parts and named SEP1A-H (Solangaarach- chi 1990:106-112).

For the purpose of the present study, a new division was found necessary. The main field areas, SEP 1, SEP 2 and SEP 3 were left unchanged, but the eight sub-divisions, SEP 1A-H, here stand for separate units, differing in extent from those in the 1988 field project, (see fig. 11:2)

Site A

This zone includes the Lion’s Paw platform and stone terraces situated at different elevations below it (see fig. 11:2).

The 1988 research report records the terraced walls on the eastern slope of the Lion’s Paw platform (Solangaarachchi 1990). Interpreting the function of these walls, which are scar­ cely visible on the surface and badly eroded at places, was one aspect of this study. It is presumed that as on the western slope of the Lion’s Paw platform, garden features would have been added to the northern and eastern sides, to maintain the aes­ thetic balance and symmetry of the landscape and building complex.

The remains of terrace walls on the eastern slope indicate that terraced gardens, similar to those restored on the western slope, had existed on the eastern side too.

Today the only available approach to the Lion’s Paw plat­ form is along the Mirror Wall staircase. However, the struc­ tural remains that have been discovered help us to conjecture that there once existed other means of access from the north and east, to the Lion’s Paw platform.

Site B

The area with large terraces made of gneiss rocks lying on the southern slope of Sigiriya rock has been marked Zone ‘B’. Here, as below the Lion’s Paw platform in the south, three terraces have been constructed, dropping in elevation in the direction of Sigiri Mahavava. A section of these terraced walls has been so constructed that the boulders lying on the Eastern Precinct have been incorporated in them. These terraced walls are in a better state of preservation than those below the Lion’s Paw platform. Although less importance has been attached to the terraces of the southern slope than to those of the Lion’s Paw platform of the royal complex, it is clear that these ter­ races must have been a part of a well-planned royal garden.

Site C

The region between the areas marked A and B, sloping to the east of Sigiriya rock, has been marked ‘C’. The section of the rampart in the Eastern Precinct that curves towards Sigiriya rock is the only part of the original construction that remains. Debris fallen from the buildings that were once situated on the summit of the rock are found in plenty in this area.

Site D

This is the area that was marked SEP 1G and SEP 1H in the 1988 campaign (Solangaarachchi 1990). The area sur­ rounded by the curved rampart, called ‘the Middle Rampart’ in that report, was marked ‘D’ in the present research. The two gaps in the curved rampart, or at least one of them, may have given access to the Lion’s Paw terrace.

When we consider the construction and layout of ramparts in the eastern approach, a resemblance is shown to the rajan- gana rampart in the western sector. However, the boulders within the middle rampart of SEP 1 (Solangaarachchi 1990:106) are not marked by cut marks for brick work, for buildings, as found on the boulders of the western slope.

SEP 2 Site E

This is the area through which the gateway leading north from the eastern approach was located (see fig. 11:2). It can be assumed that as much, or more importance was attached to this entrance as given to the now restored northern gateway of the Western Precinct, facing the present road leading to Piduran- gala Vihara from the Sigiriya complex. To the left of the northern gateway of the Eastern Precinct are the stone pillars of a square building constructed across the moat. This has been included in Bell’s plan of 1907. According to his report, a seven-hooded cobra sculpture was discovered near this build­ ing (Bell 1896:9). Architecturally, this building has a remark­ able singularity compared to other buildings in Sigiriya, in that it is the only building with stone (gneiss) pillars in the whole of the (Sigiriya) complex. What function this building served isuncertain. The cobra stone could lead to the conclusion that this building may have been used for some purpose connected with water, or served a security purpose.

Since a large amount of potsherds from different types of vessels were scattered around the building (container vessels, a few lids, spouts etc.) and a few pieces of terracotta frag­ ments, which could not be identified, were also found, this building may also have functioned as a venue for religious or cultural rituals.

Site F

Central building in the Eastern Precinct

A remarkable feature in the Eastern Precinct is a long rock with square post-holes. The post-holes form a rectangle ap­ proximately 80x10m, which is evidence of a pavilion having stood on this rock. This building, built on a rock surface, must have had timber pillars to support the roof. According to the positioning of the post holes, it may be presumed that this building was rectangular in shape, placed in a north-south direction, facing the east.

The roads leading from the northern, southern and eastern gateways, which seem to have been the main entrances to the Eastern Precinct, all seem to have met in proximity to this building, as can be seen in the conjectured plan of the road­ ways (see fig. 11:4).

Site G

During explorations, the question was raised whether the present Sigiriya-Habarana road passed through an earlier gap in the southern rampart, or had an opening been cut to allow access?

Blakesley (1876) in his plan of Sigiriya, depicts a gap in the southern rampart through which a footpath to Pidurangala village is shown. Bell (1907) has made a very comprehensive plan of the Sigiriya complex. Here too, this footpath to Pid­ urangala is shown. Neither Blakesley nor Bell identifies the break in the rampart through which the footpath runs as a gateway.

When the current road map (Survey Department) was su­ perimposed on Bell’s map, the present Sigiriya-Habarana ma­ in road coincided with the Sigiriya-Pidurangala footpath. S crutiny of the Sigiriya complex plan shows that the gap for the road lies immediately opposite the northern gate of the Eastern Precinct. So it could be assumed that the roads passed through an existing gap in the rampart. Hence there is a great pos­ sibility that this gap would have been the southern gate of the Eastern Precinct.

SEP 3

The flat land surrounded by ramparts lying to the east of the Sigiriya Habarana road is the site marked SEP 3.

This area is not heavily forested now, having been subject to chena cultivation a few decades ago. Therefore unobst­ ructed observation of the ground is possible through the sh­ rubs. There is no evidence of any settlements or buildings on the surface. By digging a few test pits one should be able to have a clear understanding of the area. The main and only gateway (J) to the Sigiriya complex from the east is located here, exactly at the centre of the Eastern Precinct.

SiteH

Site ‘H’ is the area situated outside the Eastern Precinct, between the northern rampart of this precinct and the outer rampart of the Sigiriya complex (see fig. 11:2). The above mentioned pillared building is located next to this area. In our survey we discovered potsherds strewn on the surface, at va­ rious points.

The road leading from the northern gate of the Eastern Precinct towards Pidurangala would have run through this area. Although no evidence of any structure could be found, this survey revealed definite evidence of settlements in this area.

Site I

A large area to the east of the gravel road, leading to Pidurangala from the northern gate of the western approach to the Sigiriya complex, lying between the outer rampart of Sig­ iriya and Pidurangala rock, has been marked site T’ (see fig. 11:2).

At this site there is evidence of the northern outer rampart that starts at Vilpitaravava. This rampart runs east-west, past the Apsara camp site and merges into the ground and disap­ pears here. It could be construed that this outer rampart hadnot been completed and so what is seen at the site is the uncompleted eastern end of the wall.

In the region outside the outer rampart, potsherds and iron slag deposits were found at several places, extending to Pi- durangala. This shows that at some point of time there had been a large settlement in this region. Considering this loca­ tion and its connection to the Sigiriya complex, one can at­ tribute this settlement to have been contemporaneous with the Kasyapa period.

Sigiri Mahavava region

Sigiri Mahavava, situated to the south of the eastern approach

to the complex, is the main feature of the irrigation system of the ‘Sigiri Bim’. The 5km long bund gives an indication of the capacity of the reservoir and the well-planned irrigation system that supported the agriculture-based economy of Si­ giriya. According to Myrdal, it may have been three tanks of smaller extent which were later connected (Myrdal: ’’The Archaeology of Irrigated Agriculture", this volume). This tank also fed the surrounding moats and ornamental ponds of the pleasure gardens (Ellepola 1990:205; Myrdal this volume).

The rampart that runs through the Mahavava presents a conundrum. It runs east-west for about 2km through the vava and suddenly takes a 90° turn to the north, and extends for nearly a kilometre. This raises many questions. What purpose did the rampart originally serve? Why was it located within the Mahavava? Which was built first, the vava or the rampart, or were they part of some more complex planning? Myrdal points out that the canal bund which runs from Vavala to­ wards the southern rampart of Sigiriya may have supplied water to the outer moat (Myrdal this volume).

It must be noted that this rampart is of like proportions to now existing outer ramparts and further, that this wall too disappears into the ground, like the incomplete outer rampart (see under site G above). When the lines of these two ramparts are superimposed on a plan of the complex, it is possible to trace a point where the two incomplete walls would have met, as the nothem outer rampart meets the western outer rampart at Vilpitara (see fig. 11:2). It must be noted that the conjec­ tured extension of the rampart within the vava, towards the west, would not connect to the rampart in the south-western section of the complex. The conjectured extension would end

up about 40m north of the south-western corner (see Myrdal this volume).

Excavations

After the Eastern Precinct of Sigiriya was subjected to exten­ sive research, a better understanding of the structural layout of the region became possible; and a rough idea of how the Eastern Precinct and its environs had been utilised took sh­ ape.

To understand the function of the Eastern Precinct, survey activities alone were not enough; therefore test pits, 2x2m in size, were dug at Aligala, meda pavura (central rampart), the ‘Mica’ and Apsara sites situated within the area surveyed (see fig. 11:4).

Aligala excavations

This site is located in the area marked SEP 1. A few frag­ ments of pottery that could be dated to the Kasyapa era were found in the first and second strata. Strata beyond these ye- ilded evidence of both prehistoric and protohistoric habita­ tion. Although this site stands within the citadel, the curious fact emerges that the prehistoric strata has been left undis­ turbed through the Kasyapan phase (see Karunaratne and Adikari this volume).

Mica site excavations

This excavation site was located in the SEP 2 area. Accord­ ing to the evidence gathered from excavations (see fig. 11:4) there has been no settlement in this area. Cultural evidence was found only from the third stratum and that too, may have been deposited by water drawing down from higher lands (Karunaratne unpubl.).

Excavation of the central rampart

This excavation site is located in the steep slope below the Lion’s Paw terrace, close to the Aligala site. All strata of deposits have been formed as a result of redeposition by erosion. Cultural artefacts that were found (pottery, pieces of lime mortar, pieces of brick) seem to have slipped down from the direction of the Lion’s Paw terrace. Hence the site will not be discussed further (Sirisena unpubl. b).

Apsara excavation

This site is located in the area marked H (see fig. 11:2). Important evidence of settlement belonging to the Kasyapan era was uncovered in this region.

Of the seven contexts, evidence of settlement was found in contexts 1-3. All belonged to the same era. First stratum yielded 10kg of tile pieces, while the second stratum yielded 5 iron nails and 80kg of tile pieces. From the third stratum we found an iron nail, a copper coin (which can be presumed to be a Roman coin) and a piece of resin-coated buff ware which, perhaps, would have belonged to an imported wine jar (see fig. 11:6) (Sirisena unpubl. a).

It is of interest that settlement evidence was found at the Apsara site, which is outside the Eastern Precinct, but no traces of buildings belonging to the Kasyapa era were found in any of these three pits in the Eastern Precinct. Although this could actually be a special feature, it does not mean that there were no buildings in the Eastern Precinct. Considering the extensive area of this region, data collected from three test pits of 2x2m size would be inadequate to determine the whole of the Eastern Precinct. However, using the data collected from the exploration and excavation and comparing it with other areas in Sigiriya, we may be able to express some opinion about the Eastern Precinct.

What was the utility of the Eastern Precinct and the

area adjoining it, as parts of the Sigiriya complex ?

During the explorations of the Eastern Precinct, the hypo­ thesis was put forward that the Eastern Precinct was probably a garden and not a settlement area. It was also thought that the area between the outer rampart and the boundary of the Eastern Pre­ cinct was the inner city, occupied by the nobility and other social elite. But the evidence from the excavations at the Eastern Pre­ cinct was insufficient and inadequate to confirm these hypoth­ eses. Yet again, no evidence was found to confirm the concept of earlier scholars that the eastern precinct was the inner city.Going by the evidence discovered from explorations and considering the internal plan of the eastern approach, one could deduce that the eastern approach would have been used as the main entrance of the city of Sigiriya.The post-holes that mark an elongated pavilion, on a rock located in the middle of the SEP 2 area - centre of three gateways into the Eastern Precinct - resemble a garden building rather than part of a built-up urban area. It would not be wrong to assume that the Eastern Precinct too, was ado­ rned with beautiful ornamental gardens.

It is clear that the roadway up to the rajangana rampart (citadel wall) across the Water Garden, was built right through the centre of the Western Precinct. It can be assumed likewise that the roadway starting from the eastern gate of the Eastern Precinct bisected the precinct. The Culavamsa (Ch.39:v.9) comments that the entrances to the city of Sigiriya had been adorned with parks. Bell and Paranavitana and Bandaranayake (1984:5) identify the Western Precinct as a royal park.

Taking these records and investigated evidence into ac­ count, we see in the Eastern Precinct the same motifs of a rampart to wall off the precinct, a road bisecting the area (see above), with a pavilion which spans this centre roadway, and significant signs of yet uninvestigated ramparts; and we can assume that the Eastern Precinct too must have been an or­ namental royal garden.

Inner city

The inner city of a royal complex should consist of roadways, markets, conference halls and other buildings used for com­ mon purposes, like religious centres etc. (Begde 1982). Con­ sidering the extent of the Sigiriya royal complex, its inner city appears to have been spread over a considerable area.

The construction of ramparts outside the Eastern Precincts could have been an attempt to expand the city complex. Thus it can be inferred that the structural plan of the inner city of the Sigiriya complex, or rather the inner city as conjectured by the writer, was located outside the Eastern Precinct, but within the two outer ramparts.

The presence of a large amount of potsherds that could be dated back to 5th century AD, from the surface of site H (see fig. 11:2) points to the existence of a contemporary settlement. Apsara excavations confirm masonry of buildings in this area (Sirisena 1989 a). The discovery of fragments from imported wine jars, buff coloured on the outside and coated with a thick black resin inside, points to this site being an area of elite habitation. The Smutisastra, Nithisastra, Silpa Sastra and Purana record that nobles and the elite resided outside the royal complex, but within the inner city. The remains of a stone-pillared building near the northern gate of the Eastern Precinct and the potsherds found close to it, imply that this was an upper class residential area.

According to Kautilya, the residences of the royal teach­ ers, ministers and clergy and the place where religious fes­ tivals were held, had to be situated north-east of the royal palace (Begde 1982:15). Considering the facts, it is justifiable to assume that the inner city of the Sigiriya complex was located not within the Eastern Precinct of Sigiriya, but outside the precinct, surrounded by the outer ramparts.

Sigiriya complex in comparison with city plan layout in Indian literature

In studying the theoretical concepts of ancient Indian city architecture, it is an interesting question whether Sigiriya architects also used such classical works. This will also help us to solve the basic problem in our research.

We find a number of Indian classical works by such em­ inent scholars as Manu, Yagnavalkya and Kautilya, dealing with royal and religious architecture. In those works, ancient royal complexes, which included palaces and fortresses, were categorised according to their security plans. These have been termed giridurga (protected by rock), pankadurga (protected by mud), jaladurga (protected by water), wanadurga (pro­ tected by jungle), prakaradurga (protected by rampats) etc. In this manner the necessary structural features have been des­ cribed in detail. These works must have influenced the ar­ chitecture of India and Sri Lanka in no small way. The Sigiriya complex was adorned with ponds, moats, fountains and tanks and has well-planned micro-hydraulic sy­ stems (Ellepola 1990:169-227). According to Vastu Sastra by Visvakarma, "summer palaces should be built in such parks, with halls cooled by ponds around such palaces" (Begde 19- 82). Halls cooled by ponds and summer palaces have been discovered within the Western Precinct of Sigiriya (Bell 18- 99:8; Bandaranayake 1990:47).

When we collate the data relating to various architectural features discovered in surveys of the Eastern Precinct, it can be presumed that several such buildings must have existed in this Eastern Precinct.

The central point of the Sigiriya complex is the royal palace. This is in keeping with Visvakarma architectural con­ cepts, according to which the royal palace has to be built at the centre of the city and other buildings located around it in a concentric pattern. According to Kautilya, the residences of the royal teachers and distinguished persons of the court sho­ uld be housed in a north-easterly direction from the palace. Evidence from the Eastern Precinct shows this area to have been occupied by an elite group (see above).

In Indian architecture, the royal gates adorned with lion figures were called lion gates (sinha-dvara) (Bedge 1982). The Culavamsa description, says that Sigiriya had several staircases adorned with lion figures (Ch.39:v.3). Probably the term ‘Sigiriya’ originated from the ‘Lion Gates’. According to recent research on the park gates in Sigiriya’s Western Prec­ inct, opinions have been expressed about the lion figures ador­ ning them (Gunawardana unpubl.). If there had been such lion gates they would have been placed not only in the western sector and the Lion’s Paw yard, but also at the entrances in the Eastern Precinct.

Taking these facts into consideration, there is no doubt that the Sigiriya architects were familiar with the Indian classical sources, but in formulating their plans and designs it is clear that the local architects did not slavishly follow the rules and concepts of the Indian masters, but drawing inspiration from them, used their own knowledge and talent to preserve the identity of the indigenous architecture.

A study of the architecture of the Boulder Garden shows interesting parallels and correspondences with Chinese archi­ tectural rules and concepts of integrating the natural features of the landscape into the final layout (Bandaranayake, per­ sonal comments). Thus, the master architects of Sigiriya were familiar not only with the architecture of the Indian sub-con­ tinent, but knowledgeable about other sources - and so must have had an all-round education that helped them to master their art.

The concept of the outer city

Bandaranayake in his model of the EMHP city has defined an outer and suburban area (Bandaranayake 1991). From the explorations done outside the ramparts, it was evident that the outer region was inhabited. Large quantities of potsherds were discovered on the surface. These sherds provide evi­ dence that people who rendered services to the Sigiriya com­ inhabited by many. It is probable that people belonging to the urban social strata settled in areas close to the royal complex, outside the rampart (Mogren :"The Archaeology of Talkote" this volume). This would be the conceptual ‘outer city’, or suburban area, which was not secured by ramparts.

Conclusion

Data collected from the surveys and research carried out in the Sigiriya Eastern Precincts have been reviewed above. Here we discuss the concepts formed as a result of those reviews. Speaking of the layout of the ancient capital of Anuradhapura, Bandaranayake (1991) conjectures that the royal court lived within the citadel, or rajangana wall. Be­ yond this wall was the inner city, bounded by the inner city wall and the rajangana. The area outside the inner city wall was designated the ‘outer city’. A rampart enclosed this outer city area. In discussing EMHP urban planning, Bandaran­ ayake has referred to the "concentric organisation of social space". A deviation from this is seen by the present writer in regard to the Sigiriya complex.

According to views based on SARCP research regarding the composition of a royal complex, there has been an inner city between the inner moat and the outer rampart. Outside the outer rampart lay the outer city precincts (see fig. 11:7).

The main deviation appearing in the new structural sketch (presented through current research associated with the Si­ giriya complex) is that the outer city of the Sigiriya complex is the area outside the ramparts of the royal complex (see fig. 11:7).

This seems to have been the beginning of a new innova­ tion in the context of spatial allocations of a royal complex. Thus, this new spatial arrangement had been: the royal palace on the summit of the rock, a forecourt or park that until now had been identified as the inner city, the Boulder Garden and the Water Garden on the west, all surrounded by a rampart. The hypothesized inner city falls between the two ramparts side of the complex - this area up to now had been identified as the outer city. It is now clear that the outer city lies outside the outer ramparts (see fig. 11:7).

At Sigiriya, the small tanks lying in the periphery of the citadel, outside the proposed outer city, would have been in operation during the 5th century AD. Thus, it is clear that the density of population gradually diminished in proceeding fr­ om the outer city region, largely giving place to rural settle­ ments.

This is a general conclusion that could be arrived at, based on contemporary research of the Sigiriya royal complex. In order to assess the success of the research so far carried out, it would be necessary to subject the Eastern Precinct and the outer city, or satellite suburban settlement of Sigiriya, to fur­ ther archaeological excavation.

REFERENCES

Bandaranayake, S. 1984. (ed.). Sigiriya Project, First Ar­ chaeological Excavation and Research Report. Colombo: Central Cultural Fund, Ministry of Cultural Affairs.

Bandaranayake, S. 1990. Sri Lanka’s contribution to the stu­ dy of Asian Garden History: the Royal Gardens at Sig­ iriya and Anuradhapura. Ancient Ceylon. 10: 41-56.

Bandaranayake, S. 1991. The Morphology and Spatial Or­ ganisation of the Premodem City in Asia: the ‘First’ and ‘Second’ Urbanization in Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the 12th Conference of the Association of the Historians of Asia. Hong Kong, June 1991.

Begde, P.V. 1982. Forts and Palaces of India. New Delhi: Sagar

Bell, H.C.P. 1885, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1901, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909. Archaeological Survey of Ceylon An­ nual Report (ASCAR).

Blakesley, T.H. 1876. On the Ruins of Sigiriya in Ceylon. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch. 8. Vol.I and II. Culavamsa: Being the more recent part of the Mahavamsa. Geiger, W. (ed.) 1925,1927. London: Pali Text Society.

Ellepola, C. 1990. Conjectured Hydraulics of Sigiriya. An­ cient Ceylon. 77,vol.5: 169-227.

Gunawardena, P. Sigiriye Doratu (Sinhala). Unpublished B.- A. dissertation, Department of Archaeology. University of Kelaniya Archives. Cat. No. 25.

Karunaratne, P. Preliminary Report on Mica Site Excavation, 1989. Unpublished Excavation Report. PG1AR Archives. Cat. No. 1989/1-10.

Sirisena, M. (a). Preliminary Report on Apsara Excavation. Unpublished Excavation Report. PGIAR Archive. Cat. No.1989/1-10.

Sirisena, M. (b). Preliminary Report on Middle Rampart Ex­ cavation. Unpublished Excavation Report. PGIAR Archi­ ves. Cat. No. 1989/1-10.

Solangaarachchi, R. 1990. Preliminary Explorations in the Eastern Precinct. The Settlement Archaeology of the Sigi­ riya - Dambulla Region. Bandaranayake, S., M. Mogren and S. Epitawatte (eds.). Colombo: PGIAR.