• Sites not being gazetted means we don’t legally own them – Archeology Dept. DG  

  In January, Professor Anura Manatunge was appointed the new Director General (DG) of the Department of Archeology. His appointment came seven months after archeological excavations were given new prominence with the establishment of the Presidential Task Force for Archeological Heritage Management under the Defense Secretary in June 2020. Prof. Manatunge has over three decades’ experience in the field of archeology in Sri Lanka and his research interests include archaeological theory, the history of archaeology, locational archaeology, the collapse of civilisations, and South Asian archaeology. The Morning spoke to Prof. Manatunge regarding his vision for the Department of Archeology and what changes he is planning to implement to realise that vision.  The following are excerpts from the interview.     [caption id="attachment_117610" align="alignright" width="447"] Professor Anura Manatunge[/caption] Could you tell us about your background and experience in the field of archeology? I am a senior Professor in Archeology at the University of Kelaniya. I came here on sabbatical leave. I worked on a consultancy basis for several places. I was the consultant Archaeological Director for the Centre Cultural Fund (CCF) from 1999-2012. I have also been a member of the Advisory Board of this Department for the last 20 years. I joined this month as the DG. I am also a member of the Presidential Task Force for Archeological Heritage Management, which is under the Defense Secretary.   What are your plans as the new DG of the Department? I would like to change our research area from the Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa eras to the early Colombo Period and Kotte Period. I also want to explore the road networks from ancient times to build links. At the beginning, when we started the Department, our emphasis was on objects. It progressed to monuments, and then to sites. Now I think we have to think about a road network to link these things. I am interested in amending the Antiquities Ordinance. It should be given priority now. Some of the laws have to be strengthened, and others need to be made more flexible. We have already drafted the changes, and it has to go through a panel of experts. I have pinpointed some expert names, and hopefully by the end of this month, we would be able to present these changes to the public.  I also want to develop archeology as an internationally recognised subject with exchange programmes happening here.    Do you think a task force such as the one for archeological heritage management is necessary? It is good, because it shows that the President is interested in doing archaeology work. The military involvement is good because most of the archeological sites have been encroached upon by persons with vested interests. It is also partly due to our negligence. Mainly due to the war, we couldn't go to the Eastern Province for three decades, and lands were encroached upon. Therefore, this task force is the need of the hour.    What are your thoughts on military involvement in archeology? Do you think they have the necessary skills, training and cultural sensitivity to be involved in this subject? The archeology of this country was started by the military in the 19th Century. Sigiriya was discovered by military officer, Major John Forbes. Polonnaruwa was discovered by M.H. Fegan, another military officer. Major Thomas Guiner made the first map of Anuradhapura. We can't divorce the military from archeology completely.  However, today, we do not obtain their expertise on archeology, but we utilise their skills, technical support, human resources, and technology. They don't use them for war now. We ask them to use those to engage in para-archeology. Para-archeology involves planting trees, paving roads, and preparing infrastructure. Military persons work under our direction. The Army is always under our supervision, since we are concerned about the necessary skills that go into this.    There are accusations of land-grabbing by the Archeology Department, which mostly harms the minority populations. How would you respond to these allegations? This is not at all like colonisation. Consider the number of sites we have excavated in the Eastern Province – it is very few. We have excavated more in Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. We can't be scared; we must explore those sites as well. It is good for the locals as well, since these places will then be developed. Most of these sites, whether we are happy to admit it or not, are Buddhist sites.    Why do you claim they are Buddhist sites? It is very clear. Most of these ruins are from the Anuradhapura Period, and have lasted till the Polonnaruwa Period. Just by visually examining them, we can say so. The British have also reported about them and declared them as Buddhist sites. For example, Digavapi is a Buddhist site – it’s a stupa, there’s no question about that.  We would also like to invite the locals to work with us. If we develop these places, excavate, explore, and conserve them, it is good for the people living in those areas. But the problem is that most of them are not interested in these things. During the war, concerned monks were interested in this though.    How do you hope to overcome this problem and engage the locals and minority populations too?  We had a good meeting with the university scholars of the six archeology departments of the universities, including the University of Jaffna, and we discussed a good plan on how to incorporate them into our plans. Archaeology is not only for Buddhists, but there are many Buddhist sites, and we have to work with that.    How will these plans with the university scholars proceed? We are going to meet every month; the next meeting is at Peradeniya University, and the one after at Jaffna University.    What is your ultimate objective of having these meetings?  The goal is constant dialogue with them. Problems are created when there is no dialogue. It will be a consultative, two-way process, where students and professors will be included in these activities. We have pinpointed a number of archeological sites in the North, East, and a few other places. I think the demand for excavation should also come from those provinces, because then we can help in the development of those sites as well.     What are your criteria for selecting a site for excavation?  Firstly, we don't like to excavate each and every site. We would like to preserve them as they are. Only some sites are picked for excavation. The public demand is also a very important factor here. We work for the public with public funds. The site must have a historical value and also we determine how valuable it is for a country’s identity.  We also consider whether the site can be used as a tourist site. Then, we have to think about the financial factors. Importantly, the security factor – we can't just go dig and come back. We have to have means to preserve and secure them as well.  We are the sole authority who determines and gives permission on which sites can be excavated or not.    By your estimate, how many sites are currently unidentified?  We have a lot, even in Colombo. We have to explore each and every Grama Sevaka Division, and I estimate it would take about 25 years to do so. But this country is also densely forested. Arabian countries have deserts, and there are very few trees, but due to the tree cover here, we mostly have to walk, which is not an easy task. Another thing is, people are not interested in the small aspects of archeology – they are only interested in the large monuments. Due to that reason, we are facing a big problem with human resources. We have only a few archeologists. We also do not have proper vehicles to reach the sites. We follow the steps of exploring, excavating, and/or conserving.  We would prefer to keep the sites as they are, but the biggest problem is treasure hunters. There are treasure hunters, and some people purposely vandalise these sites. This is why there is a certain public demand for us to search for these things.    How many sites have been explored by the Department so far? Almost every year, we explore about 100-200 sites. Up to now, since it started, we have recognised about 25,000 sites. Each tank, each reservoir, is an archaeology site.    Do you think the Department’s mandate is sufficient? What are the main challenges the Department faces? The legal mandate is enough. The problem is financial requirements and human resource problems. We also lack trained professionals. Most of the archaeological areas have not been gazetted, so legally we are not the owners – we have to grab them for ourselves. There are large areas that have not been gazetted, and that is not an easy process because we have to measure them. Even government lands have been encroached upon by people. Even the Colombo Fort is a completely archaeological site, but we can't take those lands back now. Archeology is a very lively subject.  We declare sites as protected areas when we identify them. But the law is not enough, we need large awareness programmes as well. Ultimately, I believe that living in a heritage site should be a reason for self-pride.