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 18^th 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-18^th 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 17^th 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.

 

 Fig. 71 Distribution of Kandyan archaeological and monumental sites in Sri Lanka according to function type – Central Sri Lanka.

 

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.

Knox, R., 1681. An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon p. 55

[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 18^th 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 17^th and 18^th 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.