Talk:Dakkhina Stupa

controversy

@L Manju read this quote from Nira wickremasinghe's book:

"Dakkina Stupa had been honoured for centuries by local people, not as the tomb of Dutugemunu but as that of King Elara, the Tamil who was slayed by Dutugemunu. But in 1946, ashes were discovered which Archaeological Commissioner Senarat Paranavi- tarna testified were those of Dutugemunu. The stupa was renamed and became known as Dutugemunu’s stupa, while the ashes were collected and regularly displayed at times when people needed to be reminded of their past glories.[42] The name change occurred, interestingly, in the Sinhalese nationalist discourse of the 1980s, at the same time the Dutugemunu ashes were paraded by Minister Cyril Matthew. This event shows the conflict over the ownership of a site and how a heritage claim by common people was displaced by a state-led narrative supported by expert knowledge. It begs the question: is veracity of facts important in a situation where both claims appear equally questionable? [42] For a more detailed account of the controversy about the ashes see Gananath Obeyesekere, ‘Dutthagamani and the Buddhist Conscience’ in Doug- las Allen (ed) Religion and Political Conflict in South Asia: India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992, pp. 135–160."

I don't know how you can describe this as being 'generally accepted". There are enough scholars of international repute (mainstream scholars) who have flagged this up as controversial (gananath obeysekere, indrapala, wickremasinghe etc).Metta79 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There are divided opinions regarding this case. However, the 1978 committee's report headed by Dr. Nandadewa Wijesekara (see:Report of the Committee appointed to examine the ashes of King Dutugemunu, 1982. pp.13-20) says that the ashes extracted from the site could be the ashes of Dutugemunu. I think that report was not enough challenged yet to just say that there is only a controversy over the Paranavitana's theory. That is why I used the part "generally accepted". See the following quote (Uduwara, J., 1990. Archaeological Department Centenary (1890-1990): History of the Department of Archaeology, Vol. 1.);

These ashes which were at the Archaeological Museum, Anuradhapura, for about thirty years till 1978 were taken charge of by the late Mr. Nalin Ratnaike, Secretary, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, for scientific examination and identification. As a first step, the government appointed a Committee of twelve specialists drawn from different disciplines to establish the identity of the ashes ......>> Meanwhile, the Government Analyst made arrangement for the examination of the ashes by scientific agencies. .... After a lengthy probe which spread over eight months, the committee issued an official report the finding of which establish that the ashes are of King Dutugemunu.

I am not in the opinion to say that this report is totally correct. But it still there with this matter --L Manju (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the evidence to say that these were Duthagamani ashes? There no corroboration from the ancient inscriptions or chronicles. It seems purely based on a legend (similar to the Elara one, but arguably less well known and with less evidence of transmission over the centuries). It seems very dubious for a committee to make such definite claim. First Wijesekara says it "could be" the ashes of Duthagamani, than the committee makes a definite statement saying that the ashes "are of" Duthagamani. Very questionable as rightfully pointed out by the other scholars. Government committees are not infallible nor immune to political pressures.Metta79 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed some parts--L Manju (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)