Prof. Raj Somadeva had recently made a controversial statement that any archaeological evidence was not available to establish the story of advent of Prince Vijaya in Sri Lanka. Prof. Somadeva has been for the last several years pursuing archaeological research on a pre-historic civilisation in Sri  Lanka. He has made an exhaustive attempt to prove that Sri Lanka had been the nurture ground of a well-developed urban civilisation even before the advent of Vijaya. However, he has not received due recognition officially in the field of archaeology. They have been of opinion that Prof. Somadeva’s investigations are not in keeping with the standards of archaeological research and could not be scientifically established. The critics of this opinion who have pointed out those sceptical about Prof. Somadeva’s research work and denied him of due recognition are vassals of the Western culture having a superficial acquaintance with the great heritage of history of the powerful kingdoms of pre-historic kings of Bali, Tharu and Ravana. Prof. Senerath Paranavithana was once subject to slashing attacks of critics when his statement that archaeological evidence was not available to prove Buddha’s any visit to Sri Lanka resulted in a great deal of false propaganda. It had caused much anxiety to Prof. Paranavithana and died of sorrow as I learnt from one of his relatives. 

However, I once discussed with Dr. Shiran Deraniyagala the advent of Vijaya in Sri Lanka. Decades have elapsed since Prof. Wijeya Dissanayaka (psychiatrist) who conducted research on this aspect, which was not within his field, and published his work. Dr. Deraniyagala was of the opinion that the finds of excavations in the outer city of Anuradhapura, that included a layer of ashes, had laid bare the evidence of acity that existed abut about 2,500 years ago. His conclusion was that invaders destroyed it and built a new civilisation. His work on pre-historic civilisation in Sri  Lanka ‘Pre-History of Ceylon’ contained historical facts accepted by scholars all over the world. 

It is hard to decide whether history is a genuine picture of the past or a creation or both, because facts accepted as strong scientific evidence in some instance could be a creation

Puravidya Chakrawarthi Ven. Ellawala Medhananda Thera who upholds the view that Sri Lanka might have been the seat of a pre-historic civilisation said the individuals who were predominantly critical of the historical facts on the advent of Vijaya had purposely looked down upon accepted evidence of the Sinhalese dynasty and Anuradhapura kingdom. The Ven. Thera said the hostile attitude of those attempting to negate the legend of Prince Vijaya was aimed at destroying the heritage of the Sinhalese kingdom and 
the dynasty. 

An academic known to me had conducted a research in several villages in India to find a host of folktales and literary traditions of a prince called Vijaya, and Sinhala, his conquest of Sri Lanka and the kingdom established by him. 

Several historians have laid down yet another axiom that Vijaya’s name was Sinhala and that the Sinhala race originated from him. In my opinion, the claim of the Sinhalese people that they descend from a branch of Aryans who came to Sri Lanka with the advent of a prince called Vijaya (or Sinhala) according to the Mahavamsa is factual or not or a group of invaders established a new civilisation in the country should be subject to research by historians. 

However, the physical evidence of archaeological finds including architectural evidence, fossils, skeletal remains and carbonic chronological tests are to a certain extent interwoven with legends, traditions and folktales but any confusion of religious dogma with them should not be allowed. 

The physical evidence of archaeological finds including architectural evidence, fossils, skeletal remains and carbonic chronological tests are to a certain extent interwoven with legends, traditions and folktales but any confusion of religious dogma with them should not be allowed

Nevertheless, it is obvious that the high-tidal wave experienced some 15,000-17,000 years ago (the Milankovitch Cycles occurring once in 20,000 years) separated Sri Lanka from the Indian subcontinent forming an individual, environmental and geographical zone. Similar geographical changes have been experienced all over the world. Likewise, ruins of granite work, remains of urban architectural structures, graves and human skeletal remains have been found not only in Sri Lanka, Northwestern India and China but also in several European countries. Whether or not there had been a kingdom  of Ravana dynasty, a well-developed pre-historic civilisation had existed in Sri  Lanka. Under the circumstance, it is the responsibility of archaeologists to come to the right conclusion thorough formal research based on physical evidence without being led astray by folktales and legends. The government should not fail in its duty to provide funds for any such research work or else the controversy of Ravana and Vijaya episodes would drag on unresolved. 

In my view, Sri Lanka had been the habitat of Homo-sapiens at least from 100,000 years ago and that he had taken to agriculture and animal husbandry some 12,000 years ago. I believe Veddhas, village Veddhas and the rural folk evolved during this period and that they had constructed houses, formed extensive human habitats and towns 6,000 years ago. Evidently, they had come in contact with groups of Indian and other races that arrived at times. However, a remarkable change of civilisation and the kingdom occurred about 2,500 years ago. It is a responsibility of the scholars to decide whether this change was a task of an individual called Vijaya or Sinhala, or if it were due to the onslaught of an alien civilisation. Any exaggeration in this endeavour would be harmful to history. 

Archaeology is intended to draw a genuine perspective of the past based on physical evidence. However, it is not possible to build history exactly based on archaeological remains that include ruins that were not subject to decay and fossils would not permit. According to another school of thought, archaeology is to create glimpses of the past based on physical evidence added with the thinking of the researcher. However, it is not reasonable to analyse physical evidence giving them entirely different definitions. 

It is hard to decide whether history is a genuine picture of the past or a creation or both, because facts accepted as strong scientific evidence in some instance could be a creation.