Hydraulic empire par excellence

Ruminations on Sri Lanka’s Ancient Past – Part VII

By Seneka Abeyratne

While the building of small-scale irrigation reservoirs or minor tanks was undertaken largely by village communities, the construction of large-scale irrigation reservoirs or major tanks was undertaken by the monarchs and upper tiers of the irrigation bureaucracy. Since the population was growing rapidly, there was a constant need to increase production of the staple food crop. Hence, under both schemes, large and small, the irrigated lowlands were planted to rice.

The large-scale reservoirs built in ancient times are located in various parts of the dry zone. The oldest medium-scale reservoir still in existence is Basavakkulama Wewa. Legend has it that this tank was built by Pandukabhaya, the first monarch of Anuradhapura, who reigned from 437 to 367 BCE. We may note that like Vijaya, Pandukabhaya is also viewed as a mythical figure by some modern historians. Tissa Wewa Anuradhapura was built in the 3rd century BCE by King Devanampiya Tissa (purported grandson of Pandukabhaya), who reigned from 250 to 210 BCE. Nuwara Wewa, the largest of the three major irrigation reservoirs in Anuradhapura, was built in the 1st century BCE by King Vattagamani Abhaya, also known as Walagamba, who ruled (for the second time) from 89 to 77 BCE.

From small to large tanks

Tissa Wewa, Tissamaharama, constructed by King Mahanaga (brother of Devanampiya Tissa) in the 3rd century BCE, is worthy of special mention due to its innovative design, which Henry Parker (Ancient Ceylon, 1909) described as something of an engineering marvel. What caught his attention was the unusual angle of the dam built across Kirindi Oya to divert water to Tissa Wewa. That the first oblique dam in the world was probably built in Sri Lanka (about 2,000 years before it appeared in Europe) is proof that the Sinhalese had developed advanced methods of dealing with large bodies of water in ancient times.

The Ruhuna (southern) kingdom, which was founded by Mahanaga in the early 3rd century BCE, carried on the irrigation engineering and religious architectural traditions of the Anuradhapura kingdom. Many large tanks, monasteries and shrines were built. But in respect of archaeological research, the Southern Province as a whole has received far less attention than the NCP.

The evolution from small to large tank systems was a gradual process nurtured by a civilization that possessed a sound practical understanding of the fundamentals of irrigation engineering. As R.L. Brohier observes (Ancient Irrigation Works, 1934), the island began embarking on large-scale hydraulic works about fifteen centuries before the Norman Conquest of England.

It is generally accepted that the first king to pioneer large-scale irrigation works on the island was Vasabha, who ruled Anuradhapura from 67 to 111 CE. According to historical records, several large reservoirs and irrigation canals were built by this monarch in support of rice cultivation. While the origins of minor tanks clearly predate the origins of major tanks, there is little doubt that after a certain point the spread of both systems occurred simultaneously. But it is likely that the construction of irrigation reservoirs in the dry zone (large or small) would have more or less ended with the collapse of the Polonnaruwa Kingdom in 1236.

The ingenuity of the ancient Sinhalese irrigation engineers is best reflected in the invention of a sluice called bisokotuwa in the 3rd century BCE, which has remained more or less unchanged since then. The bisokotuwa is the equivalent of the modern valve-pit, which helps regulate the outward flow of water. As stated by Parker, without this invention, the construction of reservoirs for storing water could never have extended beyond minor tanks. In his view, the large reservoirs built in ancient times still rank among the finest in the world.

Repeated South-Indian invasions led to turmoil in the Rajarata (NCP) and abandonment of the major tanks in the 13th century CE. Thanks to the British, who ruled the island from 1792 to 1948, most of these tanks were restored. Thousands of small village tanks, on the other hand, continued to function despite the demise of the Rajarata kingdom, albeit at a low survival level. The major tanks were managed by a centralized bureaucracy, which is why they fell into disuse when the kingdom collapsed. The small-tank system survived largely because its management was community-based. Even though the management practices of the local community-based organizations (as per minor tanks) were less sophisticated than those of the centralized bureaucracy (as per major tanks), they proved to be more sustainable.

Theocratic landscape

The views of Wittfogel, Leach, Gunawardana, and Coningham et al, as presented below, are briefly discussed in a study by Nuwan Abeywardana, Wiebke Bebermeiere, and Brigitta Schutt (Ancient Water Management and Governance until Abandonment, and the Influence of Colonial Politics during Reclamation, 2018). It was K.A. Wittfogel (Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, 1959) who coined the terms ‘hydraulic empire’ and ‘oriental despotism’ to describe the system of water management and governance in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, China and Sri Lanka. In his view, this system was extremely centralized and despotic. E.R. Leach, however, argued that the Sri Lankan system, viewed in its entirety, was by no means despotic and accordingly presented an alternative model called “hydraulic oriental” feudalism, based on his premise that it was, in some respects, similar to European feudalism (Hydraulic Society in Ceylon, 1959).

A different interpretation is offered by Leslie Gunawardana (Irrigation and Hydraulic Society in Early Medieval Ceylon, 1971), who views the system in terms of dual patronage between monarchs and the local community, with the monasteries, who were in receipt of irrigation grants, playing the role of intermediaries. The grants had a dual purpose in that they were expected to make the monasteries self-sufficient and also empower them to become administrative and political centres.

This perspective is further developed by R. Coningham et al (The state of theocracy: Defining an early medieval hinterland in Sri Lanka, 2007), who coined the term “theocratic landscape” to describe the dual role of the larger monasteries in religious and secular administration. Perhaps the monasteries had to play this dual role to compensate for the absence of urban centres and lower-level administrative bodies in the hinterland. Whether the power and influence enjoyed by monastic institutions in the island’s ancient hydraulic civilization were so pervasive as to justify the use of the term “theocratic landscape” is a matter for debate.