Kandyan Fortifications: An Archaeological & Historical perspective
Kandyan Fortifications: An Archaeological & Historical perspective
By
Chryshane Mendis
Fortifications are
essential for the defence of territory and the Kandyan kingdom was no stranger
to it. Faced with aggression from the Portuguese, Dutch and British, the
Sinhalese of the mountain kingdom had to defend their homes in some form or the
other. One such method was building fortifications, however this was very
different from that of the European style of fortifications. The nature of the
Kandyan fortifications are less understood and when it comes to academia,
generally falling under the shadow of overall warfare studies other than an
inquiry of its own. This study attempts to do just that, bring it into its own
field of inquiry through an archaeological and historical approach. This rather lengthy article
contains extracts concerning the Kandyan fortifications from my MA thesis
titled “Fortifications and the Landscape: A GIS Inventory and Mapping of
Kandyan and Dutch Fortifications in Sri Lanka” from the University of
Amsterdam, 2020.
Kandyan fortification system
The Military of the Kandyan Kingdom
In
order to understand the perception of the Sinhalese towards fortifications
during the Kandyan kingdom, a look at their social organization is necessary
due to the fact that their military organization was based on the social
organization. The Kandyan political and social system revolved around the
monarchy[1]
with a rigid bureaucratic nobility functioning as the administrators in
political, economic, military and religious aspects of the state. The king and
the nobility administered an agrarian society which was socially stratified
into various ranks and castes.[2]
The Kandyan caste system was a system of labour specializing in various
services to the state and society.[3]
The relationship between the people and the state was of a property based
relationship. In lieu for using the land, the people were required to perform rājakāriya
or the compulsory service which was both military or otherwise.[4]
There
was no standing army; the military organization followed the same system above
through the compulsory service and was mustered and organized through the
provincial system during times of war. The pre-modern kingdoms of Sri Lanka
used two types of troops, foreign mercenaries and local conscripts.[5]
The local militia were drawn up from the villages of each Disāvany with the
army of the Disāvany being the final organization of the military. The people
eligible for military service were organized as Atapattus, Kodituvakkukārayo
and Hevāvasams. The Kodituvakkukārayo were drawn from the Padu
caste and were in charge of the light artillery of the same name. They further
performed the function of policing the Disāvany. The Atapattus were
drawn from the Govigama caste[6]
and kept guard at the palace and the Disāve’s residence. They formed the elite
troops in the army. The Hevāvasams meaning military landholders formed
the rest of the troops performing similar functions to the Atapattu.[7]
The
foreign mercenaries formed only a very small portion of the army usually tasked
with protecting the king and the palace, therefore the peasant army formed the
backbone of the Kandyan military. These peasant-soldiers were tasked with
keeping watch of the Kadavat (a form of watch-post described below) of
the province and for military excursions as part of their rājakāriya to
the state. They were required to supply themselves of weapons and provisions
during military campaigns and thus produced an efficient system of logistics
and mobility;[8]
however the only drawback was that a field army could not campaign for a long
period of time, as when provisions ran out, the soldiers would return to their
villages.
Therefore
with this lack of a permanent standing army and the temporarily organized army
of peasant-soldiers meant that no permanent garrisons were possible. This could
be stated as the reason for the lack of strong permanent forts as understood in
the European tradition.
The
fortifications
That
the Kandyans maintained forts and built fortifications is a fact attested by
historical and archaeological evidence, however these were very different from
European fortification philosophy. For the Kandyans a fort as a structure was
temporary whereas it was the site, the landscape, the terrain, that was of
importance. The temporariness of a Kandyan fortification however does not
relate to the material of construction, as will be seen below many temporary to
permanent sites were built of both masonry and earth (earth meaning all natural
material including wood).
Much
of the information on Kandyan fortifications come from the descriptions of the
foreigners, and while their functions can be inferred, their layouts are
ambiguous. The first references to Kandyan fortifications come at the beginning
of the Kandyan-Portuguese wars after the second founding of the Kandyan kingdom
in the mid-1590s. De Couto states that once Vimaladharmasūriya (1594-1604) took
control over the kingdom, he built a series of forts to guard the passes to the
hill country.[9]
And subsequently during the wars with Vimaladharmasūriya till his death in
1604, the Portuguese sources speak of several forts being erected by the
Kandyans in the fighting for the Four Kōralēs and Seven Kōralēs. These are
sometimes mentioned by name and described in various ways such as ‘a strong
wooden fort surrounded by a marsh’, ‘a fortified hill’, ‘a strong
place upon a river’ and numerous ‘stockades’ at passes. These are
most associated with the field army during the campaigns and where it camped
and entrenched itself in order to control a region. Many of these sites were
attacked by the Portuguese army immediately; thus were only in operation for
short periods of time. These types of fortifications are mentioned throughout
the Kandyan wars with the Portuguese, Dutch and British and are mostly located
at passes or on hills. Further fortifications described as stockades or
batteries[10]
are constantly mentioned by the foreigners during campaigns and are stated to
be numerous. For example, during the Mātara campaign of the Kandyan offensive
in 1761 and 1762, the Dutch Secret Council minutes of 1762[11] gives
a report of a spy recording numerous ‘batteries’ along the roads to Mātara,
some being built ‘of coconut trees’ and some ‘of stone’. Some are mentioned by
name as a ‘battery in Goiyāpāna’ while some are recorded as ‘13
batteries along the road from Tangalle to Dikvälla’.
As
stated before, Sinhalese sources on Kandyan fortifications are rare, and as
such the terminology to such structures are less.[12]
However two distinct types of fortifications can be seen in the vernacular; Balakotuva
and Kadavata. While the former means simply fort and is therefore more
ambiguous, the latter is a very specific type. The Kadavata is a watch-post or
as the English captive Robert Knox terms it, the ‘Thorn-gates’. The best
description of the Kadavata is from Knox; he describes these as large gateways
made of three pieces of timber like a Gallows with a door made of a type of
large thorn where it could be opened and closed vertically.[13] It
is interesting to note here the drawing (Fig.63) of a gate in an Elephant
kraal by Jan Brandes[14]
that it resembles the above description by Knox. In order to understand what a
Kadavata may have looked like, this could suffice as a good analogy for it
being a contemporary construction (drawing is late 18th century) by the
Sinhalese using natural materials in allowing and denying passage through an
enclosure.[15]
Fig. 63 The maalkraal. Water-colour painting by Jan Brandes. This is a good contemporary impression of how a Kadavata may have looked like.
The
kadavat (plural) were deployed at all the passes in the villages and towns and
during times of crisis only people with a sort of passport were permitted to
pass through. There is evidence that these were also used for economic control
as tolls and controlling the flow of trade.[16] The
keeping of these watches were assigned to certain villages and as is evident
from the Dutch military campaigns, these kadavat played an active military role
as stockades to hinder enemy advance.
Overall
the Kandyans considered their main fortifications as the hills themselves, a
fact that is attributed by many European writers. It was the site or the
terrain that made them to fortify a place, either as a camp for the field army
or with the intention of slowing down an enemy than stopping it.[17]
Kandyan
fortification architecture
Due
to the complete lack of historical plans of the forts (mostly due to their
temporary nature), only scares descriptions of them and the archaeological
remains of the fort of Balana can be used to infer their spatial layout. Nevertheless
short but interesting descriptions of the forts of Balana, Ganētänna and Galagedara
gives one an insight into what these sites may have looked like.
Balana
in 1603 (Queyroz p. 570)
“The
new fortalice of Balana stood on a lofty hill upon a rock on its topmost peak;
and it was more strong by position than by art, with four bastions and one
single gate; and for its defence within and without there was an arrayal of
8,000 men with two lines of stockade which protected them with its raised
ground, and a gate at the foot of the rock and below one of the bastions which
commanded the ascent by a narrow, rugged, steep, and long path cut in the Hill”
Balana
at present (see below for more details) – somewhat square and consist of three
circular bastions. Further attached to the fort is a line of wall running down
hill and to the base of the adjoining hill.
Ganētänna
in 1630s (Queyroz p. 797)
“a
fortalice of wood with a ditch 60 feet in breadth and as many deep, with spikes
of bamboo and burnt nibo, all of which made it so strong that it was impossible
to carry it by assault”
Ganētänna
fort site in 1924 (Queyroz p. 570 footnote)
“the
outlines of the earthwork of this fort are still visible [1924]. It is a
quadrangle with four bastions at the four angles and a well within”
Galagedara
in 1765 (Diary of Van Eck p.42,43)
“[there
were] six batteries which had been erected one behind the other across the road
on the march up. There was built on this hill a square fortress of masonry with
two moderate-sized gates, one just opposite the other”
(the very same description is given by Cordiner in 1803 when the British took the
fort; Girihagama fort is noted to have similar construction in both 1765 and
1803)
The
above are some of the only descriptions of Kandyan forts. Once again no
specific layout can be attested but a square plan seems to have been the norm
when possible. The adoption of the European style of bastions is an interesting
note but them being of circular than angular is the point of departure. Further
these above sites are some of the only fortresses noted throughout the period
of the Kandyan kingdom and thus could be considered permanent forts; however
not in the sense of material or structure but rather the site.
Classification of Kandyan fortifications
Producing
a strong classification of the Kandyan fortifications like the classification
of Jayasena (2010), would require much data. There is a general lack of data
such as historical descriptions and plans, but the limited time of this thesis
and inaccessibility to many local sources due to the COVID-19 pandemic further
contributed to a lack of data. Nevertheless with the data gathered at the
moment, a rough classification was made. However it must be noted that this
would do better for a thorough classification with solid field data.
As
the data relies much on the European sources, there is the issue of terminology
which makes it hard to determine the exact nature of the Kandyan defences; many
writers term the fortifications in various ways. The varying degree of
terminology of these is evident from the fact that Galagedara is described by
Van Eck[18]
as a fort while Cordiner[19]
just less than 40 years later terms it as a redoubt[20];
all the while the site being the same (unchanged, as both their descriptions mirror
each other). However the role these fortifications played could be determined
and it is from this functional aspect that this classification was made.
In
examining the functional aspect of Kandyan fortifications, two broad functions
can be observed. First are fortifications relating to a field army during a
campaign. These can be described as larger fortifications such as camps for a
field army but again can be of temporary material. The Portuguese chronicles
describe few such forts during specific military campaigns and mainly relate to
them in the movement of the field army of the Kandyans. Hence such sites are
few in number.
Second
are small/temporary fortifications at passes and roads during campaigns. These
can be numerous and vary in size and material. Some are described while others
are just mentioned as ‘fortified the passes etc’. These are variously referred
to by the Europeans as stockades, batteries[21], or
watches. Based on the description and function of these, they were more to
either secure passes for lines of communication and logistics, as watch posts
or to obstruct enemy movements and advances.
Further
adding to the fortifications of the Kandyans is the unique feature of the Kadavata
as described in page 75. Based on the descriptions, kadavat can be a somewhat
fortified place or possibly nothing but a natural pass guarded by soldiers.
Some of the larger forts like Balana and Girihāgama also functioned as kadavat,[22]
therefore it can be said that a fort can be a kadavata but a kadavata cannot be
a fort, however a kadavata can be a field fortification.
Historical
descriptions state various materials of construction, from masonry (stone and
motar) to earth and wood (natural temporary materials). The type of material
used however does not really impact the function or typology of the Kandyan
fortifications, as larger sites like Ganētänna and the smaller numerous
batteries are described as being built of masonry and/or earth. Therefore the
distinction between ‘permanence’ and ‘temporariness’ as parameters for
functional classification are actually in relation to space or place
rather than structure or materials.
As
such two broad categories of Kandyan fortifications can be identified.
1)
Campaign[23]
and Non-campaign fortifications. Larger and more permanent in nature (permanent
in place). This class would display some degree of permanence and could be
further subdivided into four categories.
2)
Campaign specific field fortifications. This class would display a degree of
temporariness.
Campaign and Non-campaign
fortifications |
|
P1. Large campaign specific
fortifications |
Larger
forts for the field army during a campaign; may function as a camp, a base of
operations, and as a defence work. The material of construction varies. Use
of a variety of materials according to the layout of the site. |
P2. Large non-campaign specific fortifications |
Forts
or places that are used over successive periods; over several campaigns over
the centuries. Material of construction varies. But a conscious ground plan
can be observed. |
P3. Large non-campaign specific
fortifications acting as Kadavat |
Forts
or places used over successive periods which are also used as a Kadavata
which performs civilian, administrative and economic functions. |
P4. Kadavata |
Works
which are mainly used for administrative, civilian and economic control but
could function as military works. These could be guarded posts and are
permanent in terms of place or material. |
Campaign specific field
fortifications |
|
T1. Campaign specific field
fortifications |
These
are fortifications of varying size and form to cover roads and passes and as
batteries for cannon. |
Table 07. Kandyan forts
functional classification.
Balana, a Case study
Fig. 67 Entrance to Balana fort (Author, 2018)
As stated above and in the
introduction, studies focusing on fortifications of the Kandyan kingdom are
lacking. Identifying this research gap, the author conducted a field survey of
the fort of Balana between 2017 and 2018 and has since produced a ground plan
of the fort and studied its layout, including identifying hitherto unstudied
sections of the fort which have been over taken by foliage and was known only
locally. Part of these findings were published in the website www.archaeology.lk
titled The Gates of Kandy: an Archaeo-historical perspective of
Balana.[24]
A more systematic manuscript detailing
the methodology of the survey and including the hitherto unknown sections has
been submitted to the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka. The
data for this explanation is taken from this yet unpublished manuscript.[25]
The
Balana pass is a hill located about 20km to the west of the city of Kandy from
where the old road from Colombo ran through. This was considered a vital point
in the access to Kandy and was a constant objective of invading armies. While
Balana is mentioned several times in the 1500s, the first mention of a fort is
in 1603 (see above description on page 77). It is constantly mentioned during
the wars with Kandy and the Portuguese where the latter even occupied the site
for about a year or two in around 1615 (it is recorded that the Portuguese also
made a fort of wood). The last description of a fort at Balana is in 1762 where
it is noted as a stone battery. The present remains of the fort are thought to
date to around that period (mid-18th century). The fort is located
on the summit of Balana hill and currently consist of foundations of three
circular bastions on a quadrangular ground plan with a narrow entrance from the
southeast. The remains are made of stone and motar. Further from the northwest
point of the fort is a line of wall which runs northwards down the hill, across
the road and up to about the base of the opposite hill – completely blocking
access across the pass between these two hills. Records and folklore state that
it functioned as a kadavata as well. The layout of the fort on the summit
indicate that it has used the natural terrain to the maximum on the summit with
the foundations of the bastions starting from a high slope. The northern wall
too follows the terrain with sections acting as retaining walls as well (Fig.68
is a large section of such a retaining wall).
Fig. 68. Section of the line of fortification wall running north. This part of the wall is perpendicular to the main wall.
Distribution of Kandyan fortification sites
Archaeological and Monumental sites
Due to the generally temporary structure of fortifications of the Kandyans, very few substantial remains exist. Through this study only four sites were identified as having some form of archaeological trace. The site of Balana is a well-known site in Kandy whereas the others are least known.
The site of Ratmeevala was visited by the author during the field survey at Balana. This site is located less than a kilometer to the east of Balana and was shown to the author and the team by the Grāma Niladāri Officer (local government officer) who accompanied the team on the survey. This is not a protected site and only consists of a large dry ditch; it has been noted only as a footnote by Paul. E. Peiris in Ceylon the Portuguese Era Vol. I.[26]
The site of Galagedara is a famous fort in literature, however not much is known of the remains; it was brought to the author’s attention that remains do exist but their extant was unknown.
The
site of Galēnuvara (Medamahanuwara) is another least known site located on a
high hill about 40km east of the city of Kandy. It is said to have been built
in the early 17th century as a refuge for kings during times of war.
Hamilton in 1888 notes extensive ruins at the summit of the hill scattered over
several acres.[27]
A recent trip report on the website www.lakdasun.org
notes substantial remains of stone walls still surviving at the summit.[28] The
below table is arranged to indicate the Function type based on table 07 and
their present status and function.
Name |
Function
type |
Present
status |
Present
function |
Balana |
P3 |
Conserved and unconserved remains |
Well preserved foundations of upper fort. Open
access archaeological site. |
Galagedara |
P2 |
Status
unknown |
Least
known archaeological site. |
Galēnuvara (Mädamahanuvara) |
P2 |
Unconserved remains |
Open access archaeological site. |
Ratmeevala Vevalagoda |
T1? |
Unconserved
remains |
Only
a dry ditch. Known only locally. |
Table. 08 Kandyan archaeological and monumental sites.
Historical sites
These are the sites which are noted in historical documents and which no traces are known, at least not in the known literature and public domain. Like the above example with the Ratmeevala site, there could possibly be traces of the below in these locations known only to the locals. This inventory is far from exhaustive as these were only traced through a handful of material, mainly of foreign sources. The only historic Sinhalese source referred to was the Mandarampurapuvata.[29] It is possible that more sites are mentioned in other historic Sinhalese sources such as the Kadaim Pot (boundary books), Hatan Kavi (war poems) and Sannas (royal letters). Furthermore sites could be even found in other foreign literature not accessed through this study. Another possible source is local folklore. As the kadavat were numerous, located at every entry/exit point in a province and manned by the nearby villages, it is possible that village folklore still prevails on the sites of kadavat. Nevertheless this list serves as a start for an inventory as no such inventory exists on Kandyan sites. Through the historical survey, there were several sites whose present location could not be identified and hence were excluded from the GIS inventory. The below table is arranged to indicate the Function type based on table 07.
The
series of detailed maps that follow this table are the distribution of all
Kandyan sites both historical and archaeological & monumental (the above 4
sites).
|
Name |
Period mentioned |
Function type |
1 |
Kandy City |
|
City fortifications |
2 |
Mudukondapola |
1597 |
City fortifications |
3 |
Katuvana |
1597 |
P1 - Large campaign specific fortifications |
4 |
Mulkirigala |
1761 |
P1 |
5 |
Ruvanvälla |
1630s |
P1 |
6 |
Mottappuliya |
1599 |
P1 |
7 |
Iddamalpāna |
1597 |
P1 |
8 |
Kiriwallapitiya |
1599 |
P1 |
9 |
Dädigama |
1597 |
P1 |
10 |
Wädava |
Early 1650s |
P1 |
11 |
Gōnapatana |
Early 1700s |
P1 |
12 |
Mandaramnuvara |
Late 1500s |
P1 |
13 |
Ganētanna |
1602, 1630s |
P2 - Large non-campaign specific fortifications |
14 |
Girihāgama |
1765, 1803 |
P3 - Large non-campaign specific fortifications acting as
Kadavat |
15 |
Vilachchiya |
1764 |
P4 - Kadavata |
16 |
Iramiyankulama |
1764 |
P4 |
17 |
Idalgashinna |
|
P4 |
18 |
Vadugoda
Vidiya |
Early 1800s |
P4 |
19 |
Mahaiyava |
Early 1800s |
P4 |
20 |
Buvelikada |
Early 1800s |
P4 |
21 |
Hinabowa |
|
P4 |
22 |
Visēnāva |
1764 |
P4 |
23 |
Kirinda |
1764 |
P4 |
24 |
Vilbava |
1764 |
P4 |
25 |
Ginipenda |
1764 |
P4 |
26 |
Nalanda |
1815 |
P4 |
27 |
Valalgoda |
1765 |
P4 |
28 |
Batugedara |
1815 |
P4 |
29 |
Embulgama |
1762 |
T1 - Campaign specific field fortifications |
30 |
Pitigala |
1604 |
T1 |
31 |
Goviyapana |
1762 |
T1 |
32 |
Bogoda |
1764 |
T1 |
33 |
Mugurugampola |
1803 |
T1 |
34 |
Attanagalla |
1803 |
T1 |
35 |
Ratmalgalle |
1803 |
T1 |
36 |
Tangalle |
1762 |
T1 |
37 |
Gatambe |
1611 |
T1 |
38 |
Buralacota
(Entrance stockades to Balana) |
1602 |
T1 |
39 |
Attapitiya |
1638 |
T1 |
40 |
Buddassagoda |
1602 |
T1 |
41 |
Kotiyakumbura |
1764 |
T1 |
42 |
Udugama |
1764 |
T1 |
43 |
Madulupitiya |
1764 |
T1 |
44 |
Kurunegala |
1764 |
T1 |
45 |
Davatāva |
1764 |
T1 |
46 |
Katugampala |
1764 |
T1 |
47 |
Malgamuva |
1764 |
T1 |
48 |
Udubaddava |
1764 |
T1 |
49 |
Bunnehepola |
1764 |
T1 |
50 |
Kunumada |
1764 |
T1 |
51 |
Etampola |
1764 |
T1 |
52 |
Kongoda |
1764 |
T1 |
53 |
Mirissa |
1762 |
T1 |
54 |
Kekanadura |
1762 |
T1 |
55 |
Nilvela |
|
T1 |
56 |
Kottagoda |
1762 |
T1 |
57 |
Dove island |
1762 |
T1 |
58 |
Gannoruva |
1800 |
Table. 09 Kandy Historical sites
[1]
Silva, K. M. de. ed., 1995. History of Sri Lanka Volume II p.321
[2]
Silva, K. M. de. ed., 1995. p375
[3]
Silva, K. M. de. ed., 1995 p.336
[4]
Ibid p.393
[5]
Wickremesekera,
C., 2004. Military organisation in pre-modern Sri Lanka: the army of the
Kandyan kings p.139
[6]
The farmer caste and generally considered the highest
caste in the hierarchy.
[7]
Wickremesekera,
C., 2004. p.141
[8]
Wickremesekera,
C., 2004. p.144
[9]
Barros, Joaõ de., Couto, Diogo do., (n.d.) The
History of Ceylon from the earliest times to 1600. Translated by D. W.
Ferguson., 1908, p.408
[10]
Battery – a defensive structure or platform used to place several cannon in a
line
[11]
Paulusz, J.
H. O., 1954. [translated by] Secret minutes of the Dutch political council, 1762
[12]
However this study was also limited in access to
Sinhalese sources due to the time limit and lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic.
[14]
Jan Brandes (1743-1808) was a Dutch pastor and
watercolourist who made a large number of watercolours of scenes in Java, Sri
Lanka and South Africa in the late 18th century. Bruijn,
de Max. and Raben, R. eds., 2004. The world of Jan Brandes, 1743-1808.
[15]
This comparison was pointed out to me by Dr. Wagenaar
[16]
Silva, K. M. de. ed., 1995, p.202 states that in
1700 the Kandyans closed the kadavat to the low country in order to channel the
export of arecanuts through the king’s port than through Dutch hands. Page.391
states that the opening and closing of the ports by the Dutch and opening and
closing of the kadavat by the King resulted in an economic tug of war which
continued throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.
[17]
Wickremesekera,
C., 2004
[18] Buultjens, A. E., 1899. [translated by] Van
Eck's Diary of the 1765 Expedition. JRASCB Vol. 16 No. 50.
[19]
Cordiner,
J., 1807. A description of Ceylon
[20]
Redoubt – a temporary (usually) defensive structure
generally lesser in category to a fort.
[21] Battery – a defensive structure or platform
used to place several cannon in a line.
[22]
Pieris, P. E., 1939. Tri Sinhala The Last Phase 1796-1815. p. 180- descriptions by Ehelepola in 1815
[23]
A military campaign – expedition
[24] Mendis, H. M. C., 2017. The Gates of Kandy, an
archaeo-historical perspective of Balana. Archaeology.lk [online] Available
at: https://www.archaeology.lk/6170.
[25]
The yet untitled manuscript is co-authored with
Dhanesh Wisumperuma.
[26]
Pieris, P. E., 1913. Ceylon the Portuguese Era Vol. I, p.375
[27]
Hamilton, J. H. F., 1888. The Antiquities of Medamahanuwara
[28]
Edirisinghe, Niroshan., 2020. Hill Fortress Medamahanuwara kanda/ Rajagala
kanda (1339m). [online]. Available at: http://trips.lakdasun.org/hill-fortress-medamahanuwara-kanda-rajagala-kanda-1339m.htm
[29] Ven. Lankananda Labugama., 1996. Mandaram
Pura Puvatha.
Comments
Post a Comment