See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/366118535

Evidence-Based Anthropological Exploration of Lanka's People

Article in Ancient Lanka · December 2022

DOI: 10.29173/anlk635

CITATIONS READS

0 931

1 author:

Samanti Kulatilake
Mount Royal University
11 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Samanti Kulatilake on 11 December 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Evidence-Based Anthropological
Exploration of Lanka’s People

Samanti Kulatilake
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB., Canada
[email protected]

___________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Sri Lanka’s rich palaeoanthropological and archaeological record as well as

the present demographic aspects have much to offer in aiding our understanding of
the island’s ancient past and recent population structure. Sri Lanka has yielded
skeletal evidence for the earliest anatomically modern humans from South Asia
indicating very early settlement of the region. Following early hunter-gatherer
dispersals over 50,000 years ago, agricultural populations expanded to the region
with historic settlements and urbanisation creating complex societies in the last three
millennia. Through circum-Indian Ocean trade networks in historic times and colonial
expansion in the last 500 years, population diversification has continued with groups
of multiple genetic and ethno-linguistic backgrounds arriving and settling in the
island. These early and later migrants share a gene pool that connects them to
descendants of today, who form Sri Lanka’s multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multi-
religious society. Using an anthropological perspective, this article investigates how
complex societal and biological diversity would have developed over time in island
Lanka. An appreciation of deep time, beyond historic records, helps us recognize that
human evolution and diversification has been shaped over thousands of years, while
an evidence-based, scientific approach is proposed to eliminate flawed ethnocentric
interpretations.

Volume 1 (2022): Siran Deraniyagala Commemoration Volume

© 2022 by the author/s. https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk635

This is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Anthropological, paleoanthropological and archaeological background

Sri Lanka is an island nation state today. In this anthropological exploration,

however, we will consider this unique island landmass as “Lanka” focusing on its rich
geological and ecological backdrop that encouraged human habitation from ancient
times, well before any state formation processes began. Anthropology is the study of
humans in all places and all times, and a broad four-field anthropological approach
(including biological anthropology, archaeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistic
anthropology) is utilised to develop a holistic perspective on the island’s people. Here
a summary of scientific evidence that contradicts some biased and racist
contemporary interpretations are presented.
Island populations offer fascinating opportunities to study evolutionary and
cultural processes that contribute to human diversity. On the political map of the
world appears the island Sri Lanka, located in the Indian Ocean, at the southern tip
of peninsular South Asia. Today it is home to over 22 million people representing the
species Homo sapiens. Today, Sri Lanka’s people resemble a kaleidoscope of
biological and cultural diversity that developed through millennia. Following early
hunter-gatherer expansions over 50,000 years ago through agricultural population
settlements from around 17,500 years ago (Premathilake, 2003; 2006) to historic
settlements and urbanisation over 2500 years ago and colonial encounters in the last
500 years, the Lankan landmass has been settled by diverse groups (Allchin & Allchin,
1997; Allchin & Edrosy, 1995; Bandaranayake, 1994; Bandaranayake et al., 1990;
Coningham & Young, 2015; S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992; de Silva, 1981; Perera, 2010 ).
Palaeoanthropology and archaeology provide scientific methods to reveal and
reconstruct the human past. Palaeoanthropology is a subfield in biological
anthropology that focuses on the biological aspects of ancient people themselves
through the study of remains such as bones and teeth. The deep timeline explored in
palaeoanthropology spans about 55 million years from the earliest findings of our
non-human primate ancestors. Along with this palaeoanthropological view of deep
time, archaeology, a major subfield in anthropology, provides insights on material
culture - remains made or modified by ancient people. Artefacts like stone tools and
pottery from archaeological contexts help us understand past lifeways and
technological trends in the material culture and to reconstruct the past.
From about 3.3 million years ago, the earliest artefacts (e.g., stone tools) made
by our hominin ancestors, Australopithecus garhi, Paranthropus sp. and Homo habilis
are found in Africa (Harmand et al., 2015; Leakey et al., 1964; Susman, 2017). Starting
from this three-million-year deep timeframe, palaeoanthropology and archaeology
become intricately intertwined, where (1) human ancestors represented by biological
remains and (2) their material culture recorded in the archaeological realm from
artefacts such as stone tools, help reconstruct the past in a more comprehensive
manner. Many scholars who incorporate biological anthropology or
palaeoanthropology and archaeology in their work earn the title of “bioarchaeologist.”
For archaeologists, a tiny stone tool is as valuable as a gold relic casket. They both
speak to human cultural innovation in technology that can reflect subsistence
patterns, belief systems, and traditions.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

“Deep time” and island Lanka in perspective

Geologically speaking, Lanka became an island separate from mainland South

Asia some 7000 years ago in the Early Holocene, when a connecting land bridge was
submerged by rising sea levels (S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992). This separation paved the
way for many unique biological and cultural adaptations of the people who call it their
home today. On a scale of deep geological history, the past 7000 years is but a
minuscule fragment of time. It is imperative that we consider island Lanka in this
context, to understand ancient population dispersals and cultural phases that
preceded this geographical separation.
Evidence of Pleistocene fauna and early stone tools from Lanka comes from
the Ratnapura gem pits and the Iranamadu formation (P.E.P. Deraniyagala, 1963; S.U.
Deraniyagala, 1992). There is archaeological evidence that the island was inhabited
by human ancestors at least 150,000 years ago (Abeyratne et al., 1997; S.U.
Deraniyagala 1992). The archaeological culture represented around that time is
known as the Middle Palaeolithic, as evidenced at sites such as Bundala, Miniha
Galkanda and Patirajawela within the Iranamadu Formation (IFm) (S.U. Deraniyagala,
1992). While no hominin skeletal remains of the makers of these Middle Palaeolithic
tools have been found so far, it is highly probable that archaic humans (e.g., late
Homo erectus / Homo heidelbergensis) may have occupied Lanka at that time
(Kulatilake, 2016). These hominins may have been relatives of the Narmada hominin
of Central India, also associated with the Middle Palaeolithic (Kennedy, 1999, 2000;
Patnaik & Chauhan, 2009; Sonakia & de Lumley, 2006). Based on evidence from
scientific research, the archaeological and paleoanthropological story of Lanka
begins at that time. Despite gaps in the fossil and archaeological record, the story of
human habitation in Lanka is fascinating to reconstruct, based on the extensive
surveys and excavations of early human habitation sites by pioneer scholars in the
20th and 21st centuries.
To visualise geological time and archeological periods noted in this article, a
summary timeline with archaeological sites is shown in Table 1. The two major
geological epochs depicted are the Pleistocene (Late/Upper) and Holocene. Therein
the overlap of cultural periods is apparent, where microlithic cultures of hunter-
gatherers continue from ca. 48,000 cal BP in the Late Pleistocene till ca. 3000 cal BP
in the Mid Holocene. When some of their contemporaries in peninsular South Asia
were becoming settled agriculturalists, hunting and gathering continued to be a viable
and enduring subsistence pattern in Lanka. Upon considering deep time, note that
the Late Pleistocene spans a large timeframe in Lankan contexts, a period of about
40,000 years, whereas the Holocene (Early, Middle and Late) when rapid cultural
changes happen, is limited to a mere 10,000 years. In the map of Sri Lanka in Figure
1., several sites listed in Table 1 are shown.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. A representation of the geological timeline and associated selected

archaeological cultures and sites of Lanka.

Geological Epoch Cultural Trends Selected sites (available dates)

with approximate
timeframe
Late Holocene Modern/Industrial Nation state of Sri Lanka (1948 - present)
Colonial/Modern Historic Colonised by Portuguese, Dutch and British
(ca. 3 kyr - present)
(ca. 1500 - 1900 CE)
Microlithic/hunter-gatherers Late Historic - Kandy (~1400 CE)
Middle Historic - Polonnaruwa (~1000 CE)
Early Historic - Anuradhapura, Kantharodai 500 BCE

Mid-Holocene
(ca. 6 kyr - 3 kyr) Iron Age/Protohistoric Ibbankatuwa (700 BCE)
Microlithic/ Mini-athiliya (4000 cal BP)
hunter-gatherers

Fa Hien-lena
Early Holocene Microlithic/
Kitulgala
(ca. 10 kyr - 6 kyr) hunter-gatherers
Kuragala
Bellan-bendi Palassa
Fa Hien-lena

Late (Upper) Horton Plains (ca. 17.5 kyr)

Pleistocene Domesticated plants
(ca. 50 kyr - 10 kyr)

(In other regions: Upper Appearance and evolution of very early

Palaeolithic/Late Stone microlithic cultures
Age Epipalaeolithic/
Mode 5)

Microlithic/
hunter-gatherers
Beli-lena Kitulgala
Batadomba-lena
Earliest anatomically
Fa Hien-lena
modern humans in
Lanka
(From ca. 48 kyr)

In this depiction, the Late Pleistocene spans approximately 48,000 years, and is shown as a larger
time block, but not to scale. Note that there is no established “Neolithic” in Lanka and the
significant diversity of subsistence patterns and techno-cultural variations in the Mid to Late-
Holocene times. (kyr: thousand years).
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

The terms “prehistory” and “history” are used to refer to periods of time in the
past. In Europe and Asia, the “prehistoric” archaeological record is generally
assumed to be older than the “historic” archaeological record. In South Asia historic
records begin to emerge along with state formation and urbanisation by the 6th
century BCE (Allchin & Allchin, 1995; Alchin & Edrosy, 1997; Coningham et al., 1996;
S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992). Convention dictates that “prehistoric” times and “historic”
times be distinguished through recognizing a boundary where historic records begin
to emerge in a given region. This linear evolutionary pattern is not supported in many
regions of the world where people who do not use written communication strategies
live contemporaneously with people who do. For instance, in Lanka, hunter-gatherer
societies existed alongside people who practised intensive irrigated agriculture and
used written forms of communication such as stone inscriptions (Deraniyagala, 1992).
The preoccupation with historic “valuables” and monumental architecture is a
biased perspective that drives many archaeological projects around the world. The
Archaeological Survey of Sri Lanka, the apex archaeological institution of the island,
was founded during colonial rule (in 1890), with an initial focus on researching historic
sites. Over time, research on prehistoric times and palaeoanthropology were deemed
as important as studying the numerous historic sites. While historic archaeology has
remained of primary interest, in consideration of deep time, prehistoric sites such as
cave sites and open-air sites dated to the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene
(Deraniyagala, 1992; Perera, 2010; S.U. Wijeyapala, 1997) have gained importance.
It is also evident in recent research that the so-called “protohistoric” people such as
Iron Age people of Lanka are being given due recognition (Dissanayake, 2022;
Karunaratne, 2010; Seneviratne, 1984; Somadeva, 2021).
Today archaeological research in Sri Lanka is diversified and carried out by the
central government-funded authorities of the National Department of Archaeology
(formerly Archaeological Survey), the Central Cultural Fund (CCF), as well as
archaeology departments of several universities (e.g., University of Peradeniya,
University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Rajarata University) and affiliated research
institutes, for instance the Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology (PGIAR), University
of Kelaniya.

Early anatomically modern humans in Lanka

The origin of anatomically modern humans in Africa is recorded through

skeletal and archaeological evidence from around 200,000 years ago. Subsequently,
early sites with evidence of our species manifesting behavioural modernity begin to
dot archaeological landscapes along coastal belts of the Middle East and South Asia
(Mellars, 2006; Stringer, 2016; White et al., 2003). It is hypothesised that the South
Asian landmass, especially its coastal regions, was accessed early and frequently by
early modern humans. A more southerly migration path out of Africa along Africa’s
eastern horn into coastal Arabia and towards South Asia has been established using
archaeological and genetic evidence (Dennel & Petraglia, 2012; Field et al., 2007; Lahr
& Foley, 1994; Majumder, 2010; Mellars et al., 2013; Reyes-Centeno et al., 2014;
Stock et al., 2007). Lanka, the southernmost region of the South Asian peninsula, was
within this expansion range. In Table 2, a series of selected sites and dates, along
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

with biological evidence of anatomically modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens)

presence in Lanka are listed.
Several Wet Zone cave sites such as Fa Hien-lena, Batadomba-lena and Beli
-lena-Kitulgala have yielded archaeological and biological evidence of early modern
human habitation in the Late Pleistocene, with some finds dated to as early as 45,000
years ago (45 kyr) (Abeyratne et al., 1997; Kennedy et al., 1987; Kennedy &
Deraniyagala, 1989; Perera, 2010; Wedage et al., 2020). In technological terms, these
earliest Lankan cultures are microlithic cultures, subsumed under Mode 5
technologies that make their first appearance in Africa. We avoid using the term
“Mesolithic” to denote these early periods as it is a Eurocentric term that
encompasses a more recent period (ca. 12-3 kyr) that is not applicable to Lanka. A
strong body of recent work has shown that the southern dispersal route of modern
humans out of Africa populated South Asia (and Lanka) earlier (starting around 65,
000 years ago) than the settlement of Europe, which was settled through more
northerly migrations out of Africa later (around 45,000 years ago) (Langley et al., 2020;
Mellars et al., 2013; Perera et al., 2011; Perera et al., 2016).

Table 2. Sample of Human Remains from Lankan Contexts

Archaeological Sites Dates* / Approximate Geologic Time MNI**

Fa Hien-lena ~47 - 30 kyr, and 8 - 5 kyr 14

Batadomba-Lena 37- 32 kyr, and 19 - 15.5 kyr 35

Beli-lena Kitulgala 15.5 - 13,5 kyr 13

Bellan-bendi Palassa 12 kyr 30

Kuragala 7,170-6,950 kyr 2

Mini-athiliya 3.5 - 4.5 kyr 6

Pallemalala Mid-Holocene? 7

Godavaya Mid-Holocene? 3

Sigiriya- Potana Mid-Holocene 2

Nilgala shelter Mid-late Holocene 3

*14 C dates and approximate dates from publications below and Nimal Perera, pers comm. 2022.
** Minimum Number of Individuals (Homo sapiens sapiens) data from:
Kennedy & Elgart, 1998; Kanthilatha et al., 2012; Kulatilake et al., 2014; 2018; Ranaweera & Adikari,
2022; Stock et al., 2022, Wahl, n.d.). kyr: thousand years.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

The regional Lankan microlithic culture is called the Balangoda culture (S.U.
Deraniyagala, 1992). While the term “Balangoda People” (“Balangoda Man”) could be
used to describe the people associated with the Balangoda culture, human skeletal
remains associated with these finds are strictly those of anatomically modern Homo
sapiens sapiens and not of a different species or subspecies (Kennedy &
Deraniyagala, 1989; Kulatilake, 2000). In common parlance, early anatomically
modern Homo sapiens sapiens of Europe have been called “Cro-Magnon People”
(“Cro-Magnon Man”). Likewise, it is appropriate to refer to early anatomically modern
Homo sapiens sapiens of Lanka as the Balangoda People (using “People” instead of
“Man” to reflect inclusive language). Denoting them as a separate subspecies (e.g.,
“Homo sapiens balangodensis”) is inaccurate.
The site of Fa Hien-lena has yielded the earliest fossil evidence of modern
humans in South Asia (ca. 47 kyr) (Kennedy & Zahorsky, 1997; Perera, 2010), followed
by evidence from Batadomba Lena (ca. 28.5 kyr) (Abeyratne et al., 1997; Perera,
2010). Hunting, gathering and fishing were the main subsistence activities carried out
by these earliest peoples (Langley et al., 2020; Perera, 2010). Numerous sites that
date to the Early and Middle Holocene have yielded human remains and large
quantities of faunal remains representing food refuse. Bellan-bendi Palassa,
Kuragala, Pallemalala, Mini-athiliya and Godavaya are among these sites identified
as hunter-gatherer microlithic sites of the Early to Late Holocene (10,000-3000 years
ago) (S.U. Deraniyagala, 1994; Eragama, 2022; Karunaratne et al., n.d.; Kennedy,
2000; Kulatilake et al., 2014; Perera, 2010; Roberts et al., 2022; Somadeva &
Ranasinghe, 2006; Stock et al., 2022).
In the latter stages of the Holocene, in addition to wild game, bones of
domesticated animals occur in sites across Lanka (Benecke et al., 2022; S.U.
Deraniyagala, 1992; Helwing et al., 2022; Kulatilake et al., 2018; Perera, 2010).
Evidence from palaeobotanical studies of the central regions have been used to infer
early domestication of rice in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene (Premathilake,
2006). Clear and abundant evidence of sites with domesticated plants and animals
date to the mid-Holocene (S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992; Kennedy, 2000; Perera, 2010).

Settlements, population expansions and diversification

Settled agriculture became the predominant mode of subsistence in Lanka by

the Late Holocene (S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992; Coningham & Young, 2015), and
evidence of wide use of metallurgy is prominent in the Early Iron Age sites
(Bandaranayake, 1994; Bandaranayake et al., 1990; S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992;
Karunaratne; 2010). Early Iron Age people had constructed cist burials, so far noted
as unique to Lanka as an Iron Age mortuary practice (e.g., at Kalotuwawa,
Ibbankatuwa, Ranchamadama) (Perera, 2010; Somadeva, 2021). Megalithic
cemeteries belonging to the Iron Age that share archaeological affinities with South
Indian megalithic cultures are also found in many parts of Lanka (e.g., Ibbankatuwa,
Kok Ebe, Pomparippu) (Allchin & Allchin, 1997; Dissanayake, 2022, Karunaratne,
2010; Kennedy, 1975; Seneviratne, 1984). These semi-nomadic/pastoral and/or
horticultural people from the Iron Age who represent very early agriculturalists of
Lanka have been under-represented in archaeological discourse, due to the
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

prominence given to historic records kept by later intensive agricultural communities

who had centralised governance.
Culturally and biologically diverse people (e.g., pastoral people, settled
agriculturalists, urban dwellers) are represented in many parts of South Asia during
the Bronze Age/Chalcolithic and Iron Age (Kulatilake, 2000). Eased by long distance
migration across lands and oceans, Dravidian and Indo-European language speakers
would have intermingled at this time. As a result, rapid diversification of South Asia’s
people is observed from approximately 5000 years ago through to historic times
(Kulatilake, 2000; 2016). Lanka would not have been exempt from these regional
demographic processes contributing to this biological and cultural diversity of South
Asia. The legendary record of settling Lanka by elite groups such as Prince Vijaya and
his followers from northern parts of South Asia (as shown in Dipavamsa and
Mahavamsa) must be considered as a symbolic representation of one and not the
sole socioeconomic group that migrated and settled island Lanka in those times. It is
obvious that diverse groups representing many regional and cultural backgrounds
settled Lanka over millennia.
The historic age of South Asia is characterised by several large cities that arose
between about 600-300 BCE (Allchin & Allchin, 1995; S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992;
Bandaranayake, 1996; Silva, 2004; Coningham & Young, 2015). In Lanka,
Anuradhapura, Kantharodai, Matota (Manthai) and Mahagama (Tissamaharama) are
such large settlements (or cities) (Deraniyagala, 1972; Coningham & Young, 2015;
Helwing et al, 2022; Weisshaar & Wijeyapala). The earliest deciphered written records
of South Asia appear on potsherds found in Anuradhapura. Dated to around 400-500
BCE, these inscriptions are in an early Indo-European (Middle Indo-“Aryan”) Brahmi
script (S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992; Coningham et al., 1996). Archaeological evidence
points to large scale and enduring colonisation of island Lanka by Indo-European
language speakers of North India, from ca. 500 BCE (S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992; Allchin,
1996; Coningham & Young 2015). Lankans’ biological and cultural makeup today
indicate clear assimilation, borrowing and acculturation between the Dravidian (e.g.,
Tamil) and Indo-European (Sinhala) language speakers.
The succession of people who entered South Asia in the recent past have led
to significant changes in the composition and culture of peoples already living in the
area. Here, historic accounts relate events that can often be corroborated with
archaeological evidence. For instance, the official state supported Buddhism as
written in historic records is manifested in associated archaeological remains of
monumental architecture such as stupas and monasteries (Allchin & Allchin, 1997).
During rapid expansion of agriculturalists (both Dravidian and Indo-European farming
populations), complex societies have been established and land has been claimed
aggressively for intensive agriculture. As a result, Indigenous people (described in the
chronicles and legends as the Yakka and Naga communities) who subsisted by
hunting and gathering or by following nomadic horticultural practices (e.g., Megalithic
communities) may have retreated into remote marginal areas, their people dwindling
or assimilating with the dominant groups. Although some such societies retain their
original subsistence patterns (e.g., “Chena”: shifting or swidden cultivation) and belief
systems (e.g., animism), while being in symbiotic contact with complex societies;
more often, small-scale groups become assimilated into the larger societies that
engulf them. Globally and in Lanka, this pattern of cultural assimilation is observed
from the past to present times. Selected key sites are shown on Figure 1.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. Map of Sri Lanka with key sites

 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Biological, cultural and linguistic anthropology of Lankans

Evidence from biological anthropology

Biological anthropology considers humans as biological organisms, subject to

the evolutionary processes as are all living beings. Evolutionary processes
encompass (1) mutation - changes in the genetic code producing variation, (2) natural
selection - leading to enhanced reproductive success of individuals that possess
beneficial traits, (3) gene flow via interbreeding, and (4) genetic drift - random
fluctuation of gene frequencies significantly affecting small populations. Humans are
subject to all these evolutionary processes, while also being bound by prescribed
cultural criteria that often dictate non-random mate selection. For example, caste
endogamy and sex-biased migratory patterns (where male seafarers select female
mates in distant lands) play a role in human gene flow and interbreeding.
Advances in the field of genetics have revolutionised our understanding of
human biology, and among the many applications of genetic analyses are those
describing past population genetic composition that aids in tracing ancestors among
living groups. Recall that island Lanka and peninsular South Asia was one continuous
landmass till around 7000 years ago (S.U. Deraniyagala, 1992) and as such there was
continued gene flow of all recent South Asians. In other words, modern languages
and ethnicities of South Asia and by extension of Lanka (e.g., Tamil and Sinhala)
began to diversify, assuming cultural distance only very recently.

Evidence from linguistic anthropology

Linguistic anthropology, especially historical linguistics along with genetic

data, can offer important insights on how humans spread to occupy vast areas of
land on many continents. Today a large information database exists on many
Indigenous and ethno-linguistic groups of South Asia (Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994). With
links to biological anthropology, these linguistic affiliations have helped to reveal past
migrations and group demographic variables. Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues (1994)
concluded that there are at least four major linguistic subgroups in South Asia with
corresponding genetic affiliations within each group. Of these groups, the Indigenous
(possibly pre-Dravidian language speakers), the Dravidians and Indo-Europeans are
represented in Sri Lanka as the “Vedda”, Tamil, and Sinhala people, respectively. The
term “Vedda” is given in quotation marks to signify that it is not used here in a
pejorative sense as seen in historic records.
More recent studies in population genetics have identified two broad groups
of South Asia: Ancestral Ancient South Indians (AASI or ASI) and Ancient North
Indians (ANI). The AASI/ASI groups represent early hunter-gatherers dating
approximately 65,000 years ago whereas Ancestral North Indians (ANI) are
represented by Eurasian pastoralist expansions (i.e., Proto-Indo-European/Yamnaya
of Eurasian Steppes) adding diversity to the gene pool from approximately 5,000
years ago (Majumder, 2010; Moorjani et al., 2013; Reich, 2018; Narasimhan et al.,
2019).
Modern day major ethnolinguistic variations including Dravidian and Indo-
European (“Aryan”) language families of South Asia began to establish themselves in
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

the Bronze Age and historic times, approximately 5000 years ago. Here the neutral
geographically oriented, anthropologically sound “Indo-European” term is used to
denote the latter thus avoiding the term “Indo-Aryan” with its notorious racist and
ethnocentric connotations of historic and modern times. Prior to this time, hunter-
gatherer populations may have spoken vastly different languages. South Asians
(including island Lanka) regardless of language, ethnic group, “tribe”, caste, and
geography would inevitably share a combination of genetic markers from both the
ancient hunter-gatherer people and later pastoralist/agricultural people and intensive
farming (Bronze/Iron Age) populations (Moorjani et al., 2013; Narasimhan et al., 2019).

The people of Sri Lanka today

Ethnic conflicts of the modern day highlight recent cultural differences, fuelled
by misleading and prejudiced interpretations of historic records. A broad
understanding of timelines and how human diversity evolved helps us to recognize
that some of these interpretations are shortsighted, questionable and biased towards
elevating one ethnic group over another. There is zero biological evidence to suggest
the existence of any “pure” ethnic group: not in Lanka nor in the world. The present-
day inhabitants of Lanka are representatives of the earliest people of peninsular South
Asia and later arrivals during historic times, forming a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and
multi-religious society (Kulatilake, 2000; 2016; 2020).

The biocultural traits shaping the people of Lanka from ancient times to the
present is described as follows:

“The peoples of (Lanka) are heterogeneous, and this heterogeneity is

multilayered, akin to a palimpsest, where traits have been introduced
by ancient migrants, superimposed with the traits of more recent
arrivals, then erased or highlighted over time as the result of a
combination of evolutionary, historical, and cultural processes and
events.” (Kulatilake, 2016).

Linguistic anthropological evidence shows two major language families

represented in Lanka: The Dravidian language family and the Indo-European
language family. Tamil, which belongs to the Dravidian family, is a language with a
deep history and is widely spoken in South India. Tamil (“Dravida” or “Damila”)
speakers of Lanka share closer genetic and cultural ties to the descendants of the
“Ancestral Ancient South Indian” (AASI/ASI) populations (Majumder, 2010; Moorjani
et al., 2013). In contrast, Sinhala is an Indo-European language with roots traced to
Pali and Sanskrit, (Gair, 1982; Bernhard, 1983; S.U. Deraniyagala 1992; Ranaweera
et al, 2012), whose speakers would share cultural and linguistic affinities primarily
with “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI), yet have been in geographic proximity to
Ancestral South Indians (AASI/ASI) for millennia, sharing a common gene pool in the
South Asian region, including the landmass of Lanka. The ethnolinguistic groups of
modern-day Sri Lanka based on 2012 Census data are presented in Figure 2.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2. Ethno-Linguistic Groups of Sri Lanka (2012 Census Data)

The Indigenous people of Sri Lanka

The Indigenous “Vedda'' people are considered descendants of original

hunter-gatherers based on Sinhala legends (e.g., Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa) and
colonial-era literature (e.g., Knox, 1681; Tennent, 1860; Parker, 1909).
Bioarchaeological studies corroborate such historic accounts (S.U. Deraniyagala,
1992; Kennedy, 2000; Hawkey, 2002). Both Sinhala and Tamil ethnic groups of Lanka
share biological and cultural connections with the “Vedda'' people (Kennedy, 2000;
Ranasinghe et al., 2015, Kulatilake, 2020). Non-metric dental traits of the “Vedda''
show that they also share affinities with early South Asian populations including
Indian and Lankan Mesolithic ancestral groups, while not being significantly different
from modern South Asians, due to long-term gene flow between groups (Hawkey,
2002; Peiris et al., 2011). Early studies on the anthropometric and anthroposcopic
aspects of living Lankan people indicate some biological similarities and differences
amongst the major ethnic groups (Hill, 1932, 1941; Stoudt, 1961).
Genetic evidence of South Asians shows sustained isolation leading to genetic
drift among small populations, differentiating groups such as the “Vedda” people
from later agriculturalist settlers (i.e., Sinhala and Tamil) (Peiris et al., 2011;
Ranaweera et al., 2014). However, while being characterised as a culturally distinct
ethnic group, the “Vedda” or “Wannila Atto” (people of the forest) do not subsist
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

primarily on hunting and gathering and speak an Indo-European language akin to

Sinhala (Wijesekera, 1964; Dharmadasa, 1974). Geographic proximity and historic
contact with Sinhala and Tamil cultures would all have contributed towards this
homogenisation process (Kulatilake, 2000; 2020).
When biological anthropologists describe human diversity today, they strictly
avoid drawing conclusions that perpetuate racist views based on early evolutionary
classification systems. The possibility that Lanka was occupied by the earliest AASI
groups migrating out of Africa but have not left genetic descendants is a possibility.
The Eurasian (or ANI) links of the “Vedda” have been identified by many researchers
(Howells, 1995; Peiris et al, 2011; Kulatilake, 2000; Ranaweera et al, 2014,
Ranasinghe et al., 2015; Kulatilake, 2020). In terms of cranial shape, the “Vedda” most
closely resemble Dynastic Egyptians in (Howells 1995) and to North Indians and
people from the Middle East such as Saudi Arabians (Kulatilake, 2000). Therefore,
the Vedda may be descendants of Eurasians who had affinities from the Middle East,
arriving sometime during the Upper Palaeolithic (Howells, 1959). Dynastic Egyptians
are of Eurasian origin and by extension are closer to ANI populations. It is possible
that ancestors of the “Vedda” were connected to the ANI and may be more recent in
time. Thus, traces of early AASI populations who would have been in the region
appear to be obliterated.
Following many years of colonial occupation and nationalistic political
upheavals in Sri Lanka, the “Vedda” have diminished in number (Brow 1978, Jasinghe
& Fernando, 2012) and with urbanisation and modernisation “Vedda” cultural heritage
is rapidly disappearing. These losses significantly compromise the retention of
cultural diversity in Lanka (Blundell, 2012). Today the “Vedda” people either engage
in promoting professional indigeneity for tourism and/or have been marginalised
victims of development (Jasinghe & Fernando, 2012; Attanapola & Lund, 2013;
Ranasinghe & Cheng, 2017).

The Sinhala and Tamil people of Sri Lanka

The nation state of Sri Lanka’s two major ethnic groups are Sinhalese and
Tamils where they constitute the majority of the population. The Sinhala ethnic group
makes up approximately 75% of the population, while the Sri Lankan Tamil (11.1%)
and Indian Tamil (4.1%) ethnic groups together make up approximately 15% of the
population. Sri Lankan Tamils trace their ancestry to early Dravidian expansions while
the Indian Tamil population of Sri Lanka were settled by European colonists as
indentured labourers. Linguistic, cultural and religious differences among the Tamil
and Sinhala people exist, but when considered holistically these differences can be
traced to a relatively recent time (Indrapala, 2015).
One early genetic study revealed that the Sinhalese are genetically affiliated
with the people of northeast India and South India (Kirk, 1976). These shared South
Indian affinities are not surprising when considering geographic proximity and deep
time during which interbreeding between ancient ancestral groups took place. The
Sinhala and Tamil people of Sri Lanka are genetically closer to each other than either
of them is to their ancestral groups in northern and southern India, respectively. For
instance, Sri Lankan Tamils are more closely genetically related to the Sinhalese than
they are to Tamils of South India (Kshatriya, 1995; Ranasinghe et al., 2015; Liu et al.,
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

2017). Interestingly, a recent genetic study showed that the Sri Lankan ethnic groups
- Sinhala, Sri Lankan Tamil, Moor and Indian Tamil – all share affinities with the Bhil
(an Indigenous group) of northwestern South Asia and Bangladeshi populations to
the northeast (Perera et al., 2021).
Tamil is spoken by 600 million people worldwide, whereas Sinhala is spoken
by approximately 16 million speakers. On a global scale, Sinhala is a minority
language isolated to southern parts of South Asia (Gair, 1982), where Dravidian
languages predominate. Sinhala is an example of island-based linguistic divergence
following isolation after early migrations from a mainland source, that is, northern
peninsular South Asia. However, due to deep ancestral roots on the mainland, where
gene flow between Tamil and Sinhala speakers’ ancient ancestors took place, the
two groups currently living in Sri Lanka share strong biological links with each other;
but less so with their ancestral groups in mainland South Asia.
Drawing deep biological divisions between these ethno-linguistic groups, who
share ties from ancient times in mainland South Asia prior to Neolithic cultural and
linguistic divergence, is a futile exercise (Kulatilake, 2016). Within Lanka, following
dispersals throughout prehistoric and historic times, there has been considerable
gene flow between the Tamil and Sinhala groups. An example of past diversity comes
from recent scientifically conceived studies on Kantharodai in the Jaffna peninsula
where the site embodies South Indian and Sri Lankan megalithic traditions of
ancestor worship, Hinduism and Buddhism of both Tamil and Sinhala people (Harris,
2019; Thiagarajah, 2016).

Other ethnic groups of Sri Lanka

Over 9% of the Sri Lankan population is Muslim, following Islam as their

religion. Muslims of Lanka comprise mainly of the Moors who trace their ancestry to
the Middle East (Arabian regions). A smaller number of Muslims, the Malay people of
Sri Lanka, trace their ancestry to Southeast Asia (Indonesia). It was very recently,
less than 1500 years ago, around the 7th century CE when Muslim (Arab) traders
began settling in large numbers in Lanka (de Silva, 1981). These Middle Eastern male
traders intermarried with local women of Tamil or Sinhala ethnic origin. Thus, most
Muslim people in Lanka have strong ancestral biological affinities with the Sinhala
and Tamil ethnic groups of the island.
The Malay people arrived and settled in the island even later, in the 18th and
19th centuries CE starting during the Dutch occupation of Lanka. Accordingly, the
genetic structure of the Muslim people of Lanka today would be a mix of the most
diverse backgrounds, with shared links across multiple regional ethnicities and
linguistic affiliations (Sinhala, Tamil, Moor-Arabic, Muslim-Malay). An analysis of X-
chromosomal (maternally inherited) genetic polymorphisms among Sri Lankan ethnic
groups has shown that the Sinhala and Moor people share the closest genetic links
(Perera et al., 2021). Once again, while religious and cultural differences exist, we
cannot draw firm biological boundaries to separate the Muslim (Islamic) people of
Lanka from the Sinhala and Tamil people due to centuries of interbreeding between
the people of these ethno-linguistic groups.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

The Burgher community of Sri Lanka today, are descendants of Sinhala and
Tamil people who interbred with European colonists representing islander links to
Europe’s colonial legacy. The Burgher people (associated with Eurasian ethnicities)
are predominantly affiliated with Catholicism and Christianity. Prior to the introduction
of Catholicism/Christianity, the Sinhalese were Buddhist and Tamils were Hindus.
However, the colonial practice of spreading Christianity has found its recruits among
both the Sinhala and Tamil ethnic groups. Accordingly, in modern times, someone
from the Tamil ethnic community could be religiously affiliated with Hinduism or
Christianity and someone from the Sinhala ethnic community could be a Buddhist or
a Christian.

Discussion: evidence-based approaches

Large scale population changes and small-scale changes over large swathes
of time continue to shape human population biology and demographic makeup. The
palaeoanthropological and archaeological record of Lanka has much to offer in aiding
our understanding of the ancient past and recent population structure. However, we
use the perspective of deep time to clearly understand how present day biological,
cultural, and linguistic composition of people has been shaped over thousands of
years. We investigate how complex societal structures developed over time and
appreciate the innovative and creative spirit of our ancestors and obtain perspective
on human adaptability to changing environments.
Archaeology - the science of spatial and temporal analysis of the past - has
powerful tools to understand and reconstruct past events and conditions. “ology” in
archaeology denotes the “scientific study” of the past. Genuine, scientifically
conceived site archaeology is an absolute requirement in the exploration of Lanka’s
past to inform present and future generations. Unfortunately, the scientific endeavour
is often buried under the hype generated by the media, often prioritising the relentless
search for sites and finds in an attempt to curate ancient objects and to locate
monuments. Problem-oriented archaeological surveys and research that prioritise
relative dating chronologies (e.g., stratigraphic sequences) and absolute dating (e.g.,
radiocarbon dating) (Perera, 2022), must replace unscientific pursuits.
Lanka’s historic chronicles such as Mahavamsa, which are integral works
stemming from the Buddhist monastic tradition, are sources that show a sequential
timeline of events and rulers in historic times. These highly prized written records
present coherence with the archaeological record and are in close agreement on
broad phenomena including the history and impact of agricultural and irrigation works
and large-scale transcontinental trade networks. Yet, some interpretations and
hyperbole in historic sources (while useful and delightful as human literary creations
in their own right), can be inherently biased. These historic authors speak to facets of
human experiences they thought were relevant and useful for them (i.e., for the writers
themselves or the religious and secular leaders of that time who sponsored these
writings). We know that monuments are built through the sweat and toil of the
masses. Yet, it is the king’s name or politician's name that goes on the stone
inscription or plaque in written format, minimising all the efforts and thereby erasing
the existence of the majority of people. Therefore, it is the task of archaeologists to
perceive historical records as (hi)stories, use and evaluate them for their value, but
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

follow the scientific method to decipher hidden facts that can reconstruct the past
more holistically.
Historic records must be viewed objectively. They are subjective accounts.
Believing them without questioning them or using them to justify a group’s agenda is
unscientific and problematic. Religious difference is a significant source of conflict on
a global scale. Any organised religion justifies the subjugation of others who do not
subscribe to said religion. Misusing historic records by a few (e.g., elites, priests,
politicians, fanatics) and highlighting stories told by the “winners” that create biased
interpretations have time and again caused much suffering to many others. Lankans
have not been spared of discrimination and violence based on religious fanaticism.
On a global scale, taking the written word from historic records as absolute truth to
guide actions, has wreaked havoc among humans, leading to discrimination, sexism,
racism, homophobia, violence and genocide (e.g., globally - Abrahamic religions’ Old
Testament and the Quran; regionally - the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and locally in Sri
Lanka - Mahavamsa etc.). World history, Lanka’s history and unfolding events of the
modern day offer many lessons on how to avoid such negative outcomes that are
fuelled by misinterpreting and justifying accounts in historic chronicles. The
anthropological perspective highlights that discrimination based on religious and
cultural affiliations have no ethical nor scientific support. Such discrimination not only
violates human rights but specifically in the case of Lanka, cannot be justified when
considering blurred biological boundaries that exist between the Sinhala, Tamil,
Muslim, Burgher and other ethno-linguistic groups as shown above.
Scientists test hypotheses while being open to changing their interpretations
should new evidence emerge and acknowledging ignorance when there is no
supporting evidence. Starting with a “theory” based on historic accounts and
following it to prove it using haphazard phenomena does not constitute science. This
approach is aptly called pseudoscience and in the case of unscientific, but so-called
“archaeological” pursuits, pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoscience and
pseudoarchaeology form limiting beliefs that perpetuate ignorance, leading to conflict
and suffering. Until strong evidence is found, scientists are happy to remain objective,
whereas pseudoscientists or pseudoarchaeology panders to the public and offer
definitive “theories” and statements. For a comprehensive treatment of
pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology see Archaeological Fantasies: How
pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public (Fagan, G., 2007).
Often pseudoarchaeological claims and statements are heavily biased and are
not supported by evidence. For instance, recent claims that significant locales
associated with the historic Gautama Buddha are found in Lanka, remain
unsupported by any scientific evidence, whereas strong archaeological and linguistic
evidence indicate that Gautama Buddha can be traced to the Iron Age / protohistoric
times and sites located in what is now India and Nepal (Allchin, 1995; Coningham,
2002; Coningham & Young, 2015). Important Lankan archaeological sites and the
people who built them are demeaned and dismissed in these flawed interpretations.
Origin myths and ancestry legends honoured by people, are subject to interpretation
and distortion over many years and must be viewed with caution. For instance, we
recognize that the settlement of Lanka by ANI groups from northerly regions of the
peninsula cannot have been only by royalty (e.g., Prince Vijaya and his followers) as
noted in the chronicles. Diverse groups from diverse socioeconomic, genetic and
ethno-linguistic backgrounds would have settled Lanka in the last 10,000 years and
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

would have been sharing a gene pool for an even longer period. It has also become
popular to devote time and energy to justify legends and beliefs that situate ancient
events and people noted in such legends (e.g., Legend of King Ravana).
Anthropologically speaking, legends and folk tales are invaluable to obtain
perspective on humanity. However, certain misconceived and misguided endeavours
in attempts to study the past, which disregard methodological rigour and real
evidence shape public opinion.
It is timely to prevent and/or mitigate the damage caused by pseudoscientific
and pseudoarchaeological work characterised by sensationalism that misleads the
public. Although historic sources support archaeological data and archaeological
data support historic references, historic records are only a recent addition to the
human cultural tool kit. Developing an appreciation of deep time is essential to
understand human evolution and diversification within geographic regions and in this
case, to apply that knowledge to appreciate the diversity of modern-day Sri Lankans.
Island Lanka offers remarkable evidence to study the rise of urbanisation and
social complexities in historic times. Yet, it is imperative to consider population
processes that preceded and continue to shape these more recent events. If you go
back in time to the early Holocene - a mere 10,000 years ago - the extant ethno-
linguistic groups such as Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim of modern-day Sri Lanka did not
exist. This knowledge is critical to build enduring peaceful relations of coexistence
with each other. Strong, hypothesis-driven, empirically sound scholarly work must
guide anthropological and archaeological research in Lanka. It is important to use an
evidence-based approach, relying on a holistic anthropological perspective to obtain
a broad understanding of Lanka's people, while eliminating ethnocentric
interpretations that lead to flawed evaluations and social injustices.

Acknowledgments

A version of this article was originally submitted for the Felicitation Volume for Dr.
Siran Deraniyagala. I am grateful to Dr. Nimal Perera, Professor Anura Manatunga,
Reshani Dharmawardene and colleagues at the Sri Lanka Department of Archaeology
for this opportunity. I thank Chryshane Mendis for compiling the map of Sri Lanka
and feedback. I am grateful to Dr. Julie Cormack and Dr. Nimal Perera for the editorial
review that helped improve this article. It is with deep gratitude and appreciation that
I dedicate this to honour Dr. Siran Deraniyagala.

References

Abeyratne, M., Spooner, N. A., Grün, R., & Head, J. (1997). Multidating studies of
Batadomba Cave, Sri Lanka. Quaternary Science Reviews, 16(3–5), 243–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(96)00098-4
Allchin, F. R., & Erdosy, G. (1995). The archaeology of early historic South Asia: the
emergence of cities and states. Cambridge University Press.
Allchin, B., & Allchin, F. R. (1997). Origins of a civilization: the prehistory and early
archaeology of South Asia. Viking Adult.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Attanapola, C. T., & Lund, R. (2013). Contested identities of indigenous people:

Indigenization or integration of the Veddas in Sri Lanka. Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography, 34(2), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12022.
Bandaranayake, S., Mogren, M., & Epitawatte, S. (1990). The Settlement Archaeology
of the Sigiriya-Dambulla Region. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Postgraduate Institute of
Archaeological Research.
Bandaranayake, S. (1994). The Premodern City in Sri Lanka: the first and second
urbanization. In World Archaeological Congress-3. New Delhi, India.
Benecke, N., Moser, J., & Weisshaar, H.-J. (2022). Venison for the Citadel: Early
Historic Tissamaharama, in Ruhuna, Sri Lanka. Ancient Lanka, 1.
https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk659
Bernhard, W. (1983). Ethnogenesis of South Asia with special reference to India.
Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 41(2), 93–110.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29539422
Blundell, D. (2012). Vedda (Vanniyaletto) as folk life: Intangible cultural heritage in Sri
Lanka. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 32, 23-28.
https://doi.org/10.7152/bippa.v26i0.12006.
Brow, J. (1978). Vedda villages of Anuradhapura: The historical anthropology of a
community in Sri Lanka. University of Washington Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Cavalli-Sforza, L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The history
and geography of human genes. Princeton university press.
Coningham, R. (2002). The archaeology of Buddhism. In Archaeology and world
religion (pp. 75-109). Routledge.
Coningham, R. A., Allchin, F. R., Batt, C. M., & Lucy, D. J. C. A. J. (1996). Passage
to India? Anuradhapura and the early use of the Brahmi script. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal, 6(1), 73-97.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774300001608.
Coningham, Robin, and Ruth Young. 2015. The Archaeology of South Asia: From the
Indus to Asoka. Cambridge University Press.
De Silva, K. M. (1981). A history of Sri Lanka. University of California Press.
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dByI_qil26YC/page/n1/mode/2up.
Dennell, R., & Petraglia, M. D. (2012). The dispersal of Homo sapiens across southern
Asia: how early, how often, how complex?. Quaternary Science Reviews, 47, 15-
22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.05.002.
Deraniyagala, P. E. P. (1963). Prehistoric archaeology in Ceylon. Asian Perspectives,
7(1/2), 189-192. https://Www.Jstor.Org/Stable/42929009 .
Deraniyagala, S.U. (1972). The citadel of Anuradhapura: Excavations in the Gedige
area. In Ancient Ceylon 2 (49-169). Colombo: Department of Archaeology.
Deraniyagala, S.U. (1992). The prehistory of Sri Lanka: An ecological perspective.
Colombo: Department of Archaeology.
Dharmadasa, K. N. O. (1974). The creolization of an aboriginal language: The case of
Vedda in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Anthropological Linguistics, 79-106.
Dissanayake, R.B (2022). Megalithic Cemeteries and Land Use in the Yān Oya River
Basin of Sri Lanka. Ancient Lanka, 1. https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk655
Eregama, S. K. (2022). Archaeological Evidence from the Kuragala Site, Sri Lanka.
Ancient Lanka, 1. https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk647
Garrett G. Fagan (ed.). (2007). Archaeological Fantasies: How pseudoarchaeology
misrepresents the past and misleads the public. London & New York: Routledge.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Field, J. S., Petraglia, M. D., & Lahr, M. M. (2007). The southern dispersal
hypothesis and the South Asian archaeological record: examination of
dispersal routes through GIS analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,
26(1),88-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2006.06.001.
Gair, J. W. (1982). Sinhala, an Indo-Aryan Isolate. South Asian Review, 6(3), 51-64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02759527.1982.11933091
Harris, E. J. (2019). Contested histories, multi-religious space and conflict: A case
study of Kantharodai in Northern Sri Lanka. Religions, 10(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10090537
Harmand, S., Lewis, J. E., Feibel, C. S., Lepre, C. J., Prat, S., Lenoble, A., ... &
Roche, H. (2015). 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West
Turkana, Kenya. Nature, 521(7552), 310-315.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14464.
Hawkey, D. E. (2002). The peopling of South Asia: evidence for affinities and
microevolution of prehistoric populations of India and Sri Lanka. Spolia
Zeylanica, 39, 1-300.
Helwing, B., Perera, N., Pushparatnam, P., Perera, J., Siriwardana, T., Wright, M. R.,
& Faulkner, P. (2022). The Lifeways of Early Kantharodai, Sri Lanka. Ancient
Lanka, 1. https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk654
Hill, W. C. O. (1932). Anthropology of Veddahs. Nature, 130(3293), 891-892.
https://doi.org/10.1038/130891b0.
Hill, W. C.O. (1941). The physical anthropology of the existing Veddas of Ceylon,
Part 1. Ceylon Journal of Science (G), 3, 84-144.
Howells, W. W. (1995). Who's who in skulls: ethnic identification of crania from
measurements. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
82.
Howells, W. W. (1959). Mankind in the Making. Secker & Warburg.
Indrapala, K. (2015) The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity: The Tamils of Sri Lanka C.
300 BCE to C. 1200 CE. Ohm Books Publishing.
Jasinghe, S., & Fernando, S. (2012). Sri Lanka. In C. Mikkelsen (Ed.), The Indigenous
World (pp. 361–367). Copenhagen: IWIGIA Transaction Publishers.
Kanthilatha, W. S. P. Y. N., Yasawardene, S. G., Adikarie, G., Boyd, W. E., &
Pathmalal, M. M. (2012). Re-visiting the Bellan-Bandi Palassa human remains
of the Mesolithic period, Sri Lanka. Man and Environment, 37(2), 7-17.
Karunaratne, P. P. (2010). Secondary state formation during the early iron age on the
island of Sri Lanka: The evolution of a periphery. University of California, San
Diego. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3gd470bz.
Karunaratne, P., Kulatilake, S., Vidanapathirana, P., Perera, J., Harmsen, H., Perera,
N., … Ranjanie, M. D. S. (in review). Revisiting the Godavaya Mid-Holocene
Coastal Hunter-Gatherer-Fisher Camp Site in Southeastern Sri Lanka. In P.
Karunaratne et al., (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Sri Lankan
Archaeology. Colombo: Institute of Archaeology and Heritage Studies.
Kennedy, K. A. & Elgart, A. A. (1998). Hominid Remains and Up-date: South Asia:
India and Sri Lanka. Anthropologie et Prehistoire, 73–94.
Kennedy, K.A.R, & Zahorsky, J.L. (1997). Trends in Prehistoric Technology and
Biological Adaptations: New Evidence from Pleistocene Deposits at Fa Hien
Cave, Sri Lanka.” In R. Allchin & B. Allchin (Ed), South Asian Archaeology (pp.
839-854). New Delhi Oxford-IBH.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Kennedy, K. A. (2000). God-apes and fossil men: Paleoanthropology of South Asia.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kennedy, K. A., & Deraniyagala, S. U. (1989). Fossil remains of 28,000-year-old
hominids from Sri Lanka. Current Anthropology, 30(3), 394-399.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203757
Kennedy, K. A. (1999). Paleoanthropology of south Asia. Evolutionary Anthropology:
Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 8(5), 165-185.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1999)8:5
Kennedy, K. A., Deraniyagala, S. U., Roertgen, W. J., Chiment, J., & Disotell, T. (1987).
Upper pleistocene fossil hominids from Sri Lanka. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 72(4), 441-461.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330720405.
Kirk, R. L. (1976). The legend of Prince Vijaya—a study of Sinhalese origins. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 45(1), 91-99.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330450112.
Knox, R. (1681). An Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon in the East Indies. New
York: R. Chiswell.
Kshatriya, G. K. (1995). Genetic affinities of Sri Lankan populations. Human Biology,
843-866.
Kulatilake, S. D. W. (2000). Cranial Diversity and the Evolutionary History of South
Asians. University of Cambridge.
Kulatilake, S. (2020). The Sarasins’ Collection of Historical Sri Lankan Crania.
Anthropological Science, 128(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1537/ase.200428
Kulatilake, S. (2016). The peopling of Sri Lanka from prehistoric through historic times:
Biological and Archaeological evidence. In G. Robbins-Schug, & S. Walimbe
(Ed.) A Companion to South Asia in the Past (pp 426-436). Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119055280.ch27
Kulatilake, S., Peiris, R.D., Perera, H.N., & Perera, H.J. (2018). Out of Context, in
Association: Human Remains Salvaged from the Mini-athiliya Shell Midden, Sri
Lanka. Asian Perspectives 57(1), 51-82. doi:10.1353/asi.2018.0002.
Kulatilake, S., Perera, N., Deraniyagala, S., & Perera, J. (2014). The discovery and
excavation of a human burial from the Mini-athiliya shell midden in Southern Sri
Lanka. Ancient Asia, 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/aa.12319.
Lahr, M. M., & Foley, R. (1994). Multiple dispersals and modern human origins.
Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 3(2), 48-60.
https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.1360030206
Langley, M. C., Amano, N., Wedage, O., Deraniyagala, S., Pathmalal, M. M., Perera,
N., ... & Roberts, P. (2020). Bows and arrows and complex symbolic displays
48,000 years ago in the South Asian tropics. Science Advances, 6(24),
eaba3831. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba3831.
Leakey, L. S., Tobias, P. V., & Napier, J. R. (1964). A new species of the genus Homo
from Olduvai Gorge. Nature, 202(4927), 7-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/202007a0.
Liu, X., Lu, D., Saw, W. Y., Shaw, P. J., Wangkumhang, P., Ngamphiw, C., ... & Teo,
Y. Y. (2017). Characterising private and shared signatures of positive selection
in 37 Asian populations. European Journal of Human Genetics, 25(4), 499-508.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.181.
Majumder, P. P. (2010). The human genetic history of South Asia. Current Biology,
20(4), R184-R187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.053.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Mellars, P. (2006). Going East: New Genetic and Archaeological Perspectives on the
Modern Human Colonization of Eurasia. Science, 313(5788),796–800.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128402
Mellars, P., Gori, K. C., Carr, M., Soares, P. a, & Richards, M. B. (2013). Genetic and
archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of
southern Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 110(26), 10699–10704.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306043110
Moorjani, P., Thangaraj, K., Patterson, N., Lipson, M., Loh, P. R., Govindaraj, P.,
Berger, B., Reich, D., & Singh, L. (2013). Genetic evidence for recent population
mixture in India. American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(3), 422–438.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.07.006
Narasimhan, V. M., Patterson, N., Moorjani, P., Rohland, N., Bernardos, R., Mallick,
S., Lazaridis, I., Nakatsuka, N., Olalde, I., Lipson, M., Kim, A. M., Olivieri, L. M.,
Coppa, A., Vidale, M., Mallory, J., Moiseyev, V., Kitov, E., Monge, J., Adamski,
N., … Reich, D. (2019). The formation of human populations in South and
Central Asia. Science, 365(6457 eaat 7487).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7487
Parker, H. (1909). Ancient Ceylon. Luzac and Co.
Patnaik, R., & Chauhan, P. (2009). India at the cross-roads of human evolution. In
Journal of Biosciences (Vol. 34, Issue 5, pp. 729–747).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-009-0056-9
Peiris, H. R. D., Arambawatta, A. K. S., Hewapathirana, T. N., Nanayakkara, C. D.,
Chandrasekara, M., & Wickramanayake, E. (2011). Nonmetric tooth crown traits
in a Sri Lankan aboriginal Vedda population. HOMO- Journal of Comparative
Human Biology, 62(6), 466–477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchb.2011.08.007
Perera, H. N. (2010). Prehistoric Sri Lanka: Late Pleistocene rockshelters and an open
air site. In BAR (British Archaeological Reports) (Vol. 2142). Archaeopress.
Perera, N. (2010). Early Historical Clay Cist Graves at Kalotuwawa (Sri Lanka).
Zeitschrift für Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen 3, 67–72
Perera, N. (2022). Siran Deraniyagala: Founder of Modern Sri Lankan Archaeology.
Ancient Lanka, 1. https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk628
Perera, N., Galhena, G., & Ranawaka, G. (2021). X-chromosomal STR based genetic
polymorphisms and demographic history of Sri Lankan ethnicities and their
relationship with global populations. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92314-9
Perera, N., Kourampas, N., Simpson, I. A., Deraniyagala, S. U., Bulbeck, D.,
Kamminga, J., Perera, J., Fuller, D. Q., Szab??, K., & Oliveira, N. v. (2011).
People of the ancient rainforest: Late Pleistocene foragers at the Batadomba-
lena rockshelter, Sri Lanka. Journal of Human Evolution, 61(3), 254–269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.04.001
Perera, N., Roberts, P., & Petraglia, M. (2016). Bone technology from late pleistocene
caves and rockshelters of Sri Lanka. In Vertebrate Paleobiology and
Paleoanthropology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0899-7_12
Petraglia D., M., & Allchin, B. (2007). The Evolution and History of Human Populations
in South Asia: Inter-Disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological
Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics. Springer.
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Premathilake, R., & Risberg, J. (2003). Late Quaternary climate history of the Horton
plains, central Sri Lanka. Quaternary Science Reviews, 22(14), 1525-1541.
Premathilake, R. (2006). Relationship of environmental changes in central Sri Lanka
to possible prehistoric land-use and climate changes. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 240(3), 468–496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2006.03.001
Ranasinghe, R., & Cheng, L. (2017). Tourism-induced mobilities and transformation
of indigenous cultures: where is the Vedda community in Sri Lanka heading to?.
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2017.1393081
Ranasinghe, R., Tennekoon, K. H., Karunanayake, E. H., Lembring, M., & Allen, M.
(2015). A study of genetic polymorphisms in mitochondrial DNA hypervariable
regions I and II of the five major ethnic groups and Vedda population in Sri
Lanka. Legal Medicine, 17(6), 539–546.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2015.05.007
Ranaweera, L., & Adikari, G. (2022). Human skeletal remains analysis from Pallemalala
shell midden in southern Sri Lanka. Int. J. Morphol, 40(5), 1386–1394.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022022000501386
Ranaweera, L., Kaewsutthi, S., Win Tun, A., Boonyarit, H., Poolsuwan, S., & Lertrit,
P. (2014). Mitochondrial DNA history of Sri Lankan ethnic people: their relations
within the island and with the Indian subcontinental populations. Journal of
Human Genetics, 59(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/jhg.2013.112
Reich, D. (2018). Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New
Science of the Human Past. Pantheon Books.
Reyes-Centeno, H., Ghirotto, S., Detroit, F., Grimaud-Herve, D., Barbujani, G., &
Harvati, K. (2014). Genomic and cranial phenotype data support multiple
modern human dispersals from Africa and a southern route into Asia.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20).
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323666111
Roberts, P., Stock, J., Kulatilake, S., Boivin, N., Petraglia, M., Deraniyagala, S., &
Perera, N. (2022). From Forests to the Coast - Multidisciplinary Investigation of
Human Adaptations at the Mini-athiliya Shell Midden, Sri Lanka. Ancient
Lanka, 1. https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk650
Schug, G. R., & Walimbe, S. R. (2016). A Companion to South Asia in the Past. In A
Companion to South Asia in the Past. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119055280
Seneviratne, S. (1984). The archaeology of the megalithic black and red ware complex
in Sri Lanka. Ancient Ceylon, 5(23), 7–30.
Silva, R. (2004). Architecture and Town Planning in Sri Lanka during the Early and
Medieval Periods: Part 2, Thūpa, Thūpaghara and Thūpa-Pāsāda. Department
of Archaeology.
Somadeva, R. (2006). Urban origins in southern Sri Lanka. Uppsala University.
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A167598&dswid=2190
Somadeva, R. (2021, August 20). An ancient burial culture found in Sri Lanka.
https://rajsomadeva.com/an-ancient-burial-culture-found-in-sri-lanka/
Somadeva, R., & Ranasinghe, S. (2006). An Excavation of a Shell-midden at
Pallemalla in Southern Littoral Area of Sri Lanka: Some Evidence of a Prehistoric
Chenier Occupation on c. 4th millennium BC. Ancient Asia, 1, 14–24.
http://doi.org/10.5334/aa.06103
 Kulatilake, ANLK Vol 1 (2022)
__________________________________________________________________________

Sonakia, A., & de Lumley, H. (2006). Narmada Homo erectus - A possible ancestor of
the modern Indian. Comptes Rendus - Palevol, 5(1–2), 353–357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2005.10.002
Stock, J. T., Lahr, M. M., & Kulatilake, S. (2007). Cranial diversity in South Asia relative
to modern human dispersals and global patterns of human variation. In M. D.
Petraglia & B. Allchin (Eds.), The Evolution of History of Human Populations in
South Asia (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5562-5.
Stock, J., Pomeroy, E., Wedage, O., Eregama, S., Deraniyagala, S., Perera, N.,
Roberts, P., Boivin, N., & Petraglia, M. (2022). Early Holocene Human Burials
from Fa Hien-lena and Kuragala, Sri Lanka. Ancient Lanka, 1.
https://doi.org/10.29173/anlk637
Stoudt, H. W. (1961). The Physical Anthropology of Ceylon. Based on the data
collected by J.R. de la Haule Marett. In Ethnographic Series 2. National
Museum.
Stringer, C. (2016). The origin and evolution of homo sapiens. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1698).
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0237
Susman, R. (2017). Who Made the Oldowan Tools ? Fossil Evidence for Tool Behavior
in Plio-Pleistocene Hominids? Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(2), 129–
151.
Tennent, J. E. (1860). Ceylon: An Account of the Island, Physical, Historical and
Topographical. Longman, Green & Roberts.
Thiagarajah, S. (2016). Kantarodai Civilization of Ancient Jaffna 500 BCE-800 CE: A
Study in Archaeology and Other Disciplines. Kumaran Book House.
Wahl, J. (n.d.) Godawaya (Sri Lanka) – Excavation 2008, Trench A: Anthropological
Investigation, unpublished report. Konstanz: Regierungspräsidium. Stuttgart:
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege.
Wedage, O., Roberts, P., Faulkner, P., Crowther, A., Douka, K., Picin, A., Blinkhorn,
J., Deraniyagala, S., Boivin, N., Petraglia, M., & Amano, N. (2020). Late
Pleistocene to early-Holocene rainforest foraging in Sri Lanka: Multidisciplinary
analysis at Kitulgala Beli-lena. Quaternary Science Reviews, 231, 106200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106200
Weisshaar, H. J., Roth, H., & Wijeyapala, W. (Eds.). (2001). Ancient Ruhuna (Vol. 1).
Philipp Von Zabern.
White, T. D., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G. D., Suwa, G., & Howell,
F. C. (2003). Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature,
423(6941), 742–747. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01669
Wijesekera, N. D. (1964). Veddas in Transition. M.D. Gunasena.
Wijeyapala, W. H. (1997). New light on the prehistory of Sri Lanka in the context of
recent investigations of cave sites. University of Peradeniya.

View publication stats