The Fate of the Portuguese forts of Sri Lanka

 Conference Paper: 5th International Conference on the Humanities, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka

The Fate of the Portuguese forts of Sri Lanka

H. M. Chryshane Mendis

Independent Researcher

 

ABSTRACT

The Portuguese were the first European colonial power to establish themselves in Sri Lanka in the 16^th century. A prime tool to project their power and foothold on the land was the fort, which they promptly established in many sea ports and inland sites in the country. These forts functioned as economic and administrative nodes as well in the territories they controlled and thus were the main targets of the Dutch and Kandyans. The Portuguese forts were promptly captured and most often rebuilt by the Dutch in their fashion. But what exactly was the fate of these forts? Archival evidence and recent archaeological evidence from Jaffna and Galle shed new light on this topic. This presentation would explore these lines of evidence which shows that although the Dutch re-designed the captured forts to their layouts, parts of the Portuguese walls were incorporated into their new ramparts wherever they overlapped. This indicates a pragmatic approach to fortress construction exploiting existing features for resource utilization.  

 

EXTENDED NOTES

What prompted me to investigate this?

Identity and Ownership are tricky concepts. Many a time have I seen a particular fort being referred to as a Portuguese fort or a Dutch fort, and at times even arguments for whose fort it is. In general, most of the colonial period forts remaining at present are wholly considered as Dutch forts. This identification with a colonial monument as Dutch has led to many misconceptions. Even well-known British period buildings are known as Dutch by the public. When one reads the history of the colonial period of Sri Lanka, the warfare of the Portuguese and Dutch, especially between them is mostly centred on fortresses. The generalized narrative is that the Portuguese established forts, and the Dutch captured them and reused them. Due to this at times, many people may refer to the history of a fort as successive occupations by different groups without much distinction from construction, demolition, reuse, re-building, altering, modifying etc.

However a scholarly approach to the origin and identity of the colonial forts at present will point towards a Dutch origin. Mainly due to the distinct architectural layout between the Portuguese forts and those of the Dutch (in the early to mid-17^th century). Thereby rightfully calling most of the remains at present as Dutch forts/or of Dutch origin or construction. Then what happened to the Portuguese ones? Where they all demolished? Where they continued to be used by the Dutch? Where they modified? Because answering these would shed new light into the present day identity issue, as said before, that some people refer to the present forts as being Portuguese forts. Is this by virtue of them being the first to construct a fort at a site, or is it because that the present fort’s structural origin is Portuguese and that the Dutch simply occupied it? Or is it a mix? – there is no direct answer.

How does one then explore and unravel this issue?

Recent archaeological evidence will help throw an objective light into this debate and enhance the other lines of evidence such as archival materials including maps and other historical sources.

Some tentative conclusions:

·    Almost complete demolition but incorporation of sections of Portuguese walls wherever they overlap with the Dutch plan – e.g. Colombo, Jaffna

·       Re-development of the Portuguese walls usually as a core for the Dutch walls or addition of Dutch style bastions to existing wall – e.g. Galle, Kalutara, Anguruwatota

·       Complete demolition of Portuguese fort and rebuilding of new Dutch fort; time gap between demolition and new construction – e.g. Trincomalee, Batticaloa

·       Re-use of Portuguese fort by partial reconstruction; Abandoned Portuguese fort and renovations of it by Dutch – e.g. Ratnapura, Anguruwatota?

        This shows that although the Dutch had different architectural styles for their military works, they did not completely demolish nor completely reuse Portuguese forts as some historical accounts may have the reader think. They employed a pragmatic approach where resources could be utilized effectively, and yet get their own designs implemented. They would see to alter the existing Portuguese fort in anyway which could include from complete demolitions, to partial demolitions and whole incorporations or complete reuse (rare); this would have been done on a case by case basis.

So then how can we address the concept of identity and ownership at present? Can we call, say the Galle fort, as a Dutch Fort? – it is not wholly Portuguese, neither is it wholly Dutch also! On the other hand, one could even identify the Galle fort as a British fort, and for that matter all the existing forts, as when the British took over from the Dutch, they occupied and used the existing forts. Therefore I would argue that identity and ownership of a fort should be spoken of in context of discussion.

 

***

 

Panel discussion video: https://youtu.be/ZBleDcdEWvY

(The author is working on developing this argument with more evidence and hopes to present a research paper in the near future)