GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020

ISSN 2320-9186 1935

GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020, Online: ISSN 2320-9186

www.globalscientificjournal.com

An Evolution process on the Sri Lankan Buddha image house

(from the 2nd Century AC up to 13th AC)
Dr. Dananjaya Gamalath
Senior Lecture
Postgraduate institute of Archaeology
University of Kelaniya

Introduction.
The terms patimaghara, prethimagruha, Denoting image house and
Prethimagruha has been formed by combining words prethima and gruha
meaning image and its abode respectively. The other term bimbalaya has
mentioned in the Silpa text called Manjusri vastuvidya shastraya (Jayasuriya,
H.F: Silva, R; Prematileke.P.L; 1995. ) denoting image house also has been
formed by combining the words bimbe or image and Alaya or abode (house).
The other Sinhalese terms pilimage, buduge, viharage are formed by using
the meanings of utility of the building and its spatial organization and while
the terms buduge and viharage specially reflected the meaning of the sitting,
standing and reclining (viharathi) abode of the master.
Image house or Pilimage was the most an unambiguous and well dependable
functional design was practiced within the Environment of organic Buddhist
monasteries in ancient Sri Lanka. An image house presents a multitude of
design forms in the course of its historical development. According to our
broad classification in 2016 which based on its ground plans reflected up to
13th century where spread out elsewhere in the country were divide in to four
main image house traditions in ancient architecture as follows,
Criteria for this classification of Buddha image house or Gandhakuti based on its
architectural mode given as follows,

1. Square and rectangular ground plan- was we called single roof type image
house.
2. Sanctum or garbhagara and frontier vestibule or mandapa type ground
plan.
Earlier scholars who were introduced this design as a gandhakuti plan.
(Paranavitana: 1957.11; Ariyasinhe: 1960.52; Prematileke:
1964.10;Bandaranayake:1974.196,203; Basnayake:1986.64;
1

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1936

Silva.R:1988.245;Gunawardene:2009.153) The word ‘Gandhakuty’ or perfume

chamber was interpreted as the living abod of lord Buddha at the Jetavana
vihara in Sravasthi. Bandaranayaka comments in 1974 that it brings to mind the
fact that these shrines commemorate in a meaningful architectural and
iconographic symbolism, the original perfumed chamber in which the Buddha
had his residence in the Jetavana. (Bandaranayaka:1974.190) according to this
prescribed meaning in any kind of building when in which housed a Buddha
statue was can called Gandhakuti of lord Buddha. Therefor froms this
verification we realized the term Gandhakuti was a utility name of the Buddha’s
living abode which was could applied any kind of architectural design in which
housed a Buddha image or its any other major physical components like asana,
yantragala or some other symbols on behalf of the Buddha where placed with
the statue.
In the pattern of fountain the term Gandhakuti aptly describes both the ritual
origins and the structural designs of these shrines. There for we forward a new
name for this kind of ground plan as double roof type image house it has two
roofs, one above the sanctum and the other over for the projecting vestibule in
front. (Gamalath:2016.23) This was an architectural name, though the design
of the roof can conjunct as Kutagara with top most finial.

3. Gedige or Ginjakavasata plan- A sanctum, antarala (entresol) and vestibule

– A developed Gandhakuti plan. This type of image house could be divide in to
three versons rendering its ground plan.
a. A developed ground plan which has components were sanctum, Antaralaya
and frontier vestibule or mandapa.
b. A gedige type image house which complies only the sanctum no antarala
and mandapa.
c. A double storied gedige type building utilized as Dhatughara cum image
house. The ground flow used as image shrine called Palle Male.
4. The image house which was established within the cave or rock shelter
called Len Viharaya.
5. The Tem Pita pilimage or an image shrine was constructed on stone
columns (stumps). (Gamalath:2016.23)
Rendering our observations (ibid.2016) about the placement pattern of image houses
within the monastic space could be highlighted several religious themes. In an early stage
of Buddha image placement that occur under the Bodhi tree and adjacent to the stupa,
mostly its stone paved maluva with provide shelters for Buddha images this evidence
mentioned in Mahavamsa under the King Vasaba’s (65-110 C AC) period, this pious king
made four shelters for four Buddha images those were placed facing four cardinal
directions under the Maha Bodhi at Anuradhapura. (Mv: 35,89)

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1937

In the 3rd century AC King Mahasen’s period built three image houses within the
Bodhigara premises and theses image houses were directly adjacent to the famous stone
Buddhist Rail of the Jetavana main Bodhi which encircled the premices.
Another way of placement pattern, some image houses can identifying within the Stupa
maluva and some were adjacent to the Vatadage space. Ex: Jetavana stupa terrace, Yatala
stupa terrace, sandagiriya stupa maluva and kirivehera at Kataragama in Anuradhapura era.
In similer organization pattern executed in the stone terreces at Pabalu vehera, Rankoth
vehera, Kirivehera, Unagala vehera and finally Ruvanweliseya and Mirisavetiya built
image houses during Polonnaruva period for philgrimmers. Ex: the image shrines were
placed in connection with the Vatadage precinct that Tiriyayi, Medirigiriya, Tuparama and
Lankarama all built in Anuradhapura period.(Gamalath:2016)
The other most attractive spatial organization pattern of the image houses could be
identifying as free standing image houses placed within the separate malaka that in
connection with the nearby bhikku residential units. In every ancient Buddhist monasteries
can have like this kind of free standing image houses. We recorded nearly 150 image
houses in 2016 as an instances for this category of placement organization. (ibid:2016.)
Although rather specified and pre-planned aramic organization type have been identified
and interpreted as Panchayatana Pirivena complex highlighted in the Mahavihara type
monasteries in Anuradhapura are the Abhayagiriya, Jetavana and Mihintale. The spatial
organization pattern of these building units have a central quincunx which was utilized as
an image shrine. Another similar pattern of organization Bandaranayaka has been
introduced (Bandaranayaka:1974) as Semi Panchayatana have fixed three building unit
encircled by brick retaining wall and all these three cellas used as an image houses. Finest
examples for this type can traced in Jetavana no 40, 41 and 42 and Viharahinna at
Devahuva.

1. Single roof type Kutagara- Cella

a. A Square ground plan for seated and standing images and oblong
shape ground plan for the recumbent and composite images.
Architecturally the image house, in its essential form, derives from the eremitical
or monastic cell, the kuti. The feature must have been present in Buddha image
house architecture from the period in which the first anthropomorphic images were
introduced and possibly preserve something of the character of the original cells or
pavilions in which those early images were housed. It is in fact designed as a single
residential chamber for a Buddha image, which occupies the central position within
the shrine chamber sometimes in the late Anuradhapura period multiplied in to
three or more figers. Among these figures have bodhisattva statues from 5th century
onwards. Examples have seen at Nagalakanda image house-1, Dambegoda
Bodhisattvaghara and kottapitiya image house at Bakamunna ect.(Gamalath:2016.)

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1938

Bandaranayaka isolated in this context, as the primal kuti or residence of the

founder of the monastic order, it provides a kind of ritual saction both for the
monastic cell –from which, in turn, the patimaghara is thought to have been
derived-and for its occupants.(Bandaranayaka:1974)
Very incipient version of the square type ground plane has reflected by the cella
image house at Rideekanda in Gomarankadawala (Gamalath: 2016), Trincomalee
district. Architecturally which shows a primary stage of construction, a height of
the pillars is only 155 centimeters were erected for the roof, also these pillers have
very crude uneven edges. The orientation pattern of the door placement was very
ambiguous and strange. Comparative time fixing for this single roof type
gandhakuti was more probably 2nd to 3rd century AC. We examine broadly and
categorized in three types of oblong shape prasada image houses.

Ridee Kanda image house

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1939

Nagalakanda

An image house found at Ovagiriya in Ampara reviled the mature and very elaborate
organization which also follows square type ground plan including to 8th century period
while in the Buddha pada or costa of cella was housed a standing Buddha figure height is
3.8 meters which still in situ (12.6feet).(ibid.306-307) Most outstanding architectural
feature of this image house has a side doorway which was placed at south east corner in
the left side wall, and so nearest wright angle of the main entrance and it was placed in the
middle of the south wall. This is the only example so far recorded, was a side doorway
fixing to the sanctum or cella though according to the characteristics of the type of this
ground plan, typical vestibule or mandapa has not found yet in front of the sanctum. On
behalf of vestibule an ancient religious people who made a shelter in front of the sanctum
for protect from rainy, for example such as image house at Mihintale hospital complex,
Ovagiriya, Kottapitiya at Bakamuna and Medirigiriya 1 and 2 image houses.

b. Central quincunx of the panchayatana pirivena .

Apart from the image houses connected with the organic monasteries, we have at least 12
cases of shrines in Anuradhapura those are associated with the “Panchayatana ” complexes
in the Abhayagiri, Jetavana and Mihintale monasteries. The one strong sect of Mahayana
was the Dharmaruchi has been maintained and followed by the bhikkus who lived in these
monasteries. The Jetavana had followed the Sagala sect which also Mahayana. In this type
of organic organization have five building unit, four of them were placed in each corners
of the precinct and the main building is central quincunx, which was many occasions used
as storied prasada image house. The shape of the ground plane followed oblong type
designed. All the cases of this kind of image houses found yantra gala or relic stone with
5

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1940

25 pockets with Padma pitha or rounded lotus pedestal, which was placed against center
point in front of the screen wall, upon it fixed standing Buddha figure, all those are in stone.
In 2016 we published 30 image houses as an example for this category.
(Gamalath:2016.251-316)
This type of ground plan and design while accommodate Buddha images named prasada
patimaghara.the other utilities of this kind of prasada was used as uposataghara and
residential unit of chief incumbent of the monastery (Prematileka:2010,
Bandaranayaka:1974, Silva:1988, Gamalath:2016)

Central Building of the Panchayatana Pirivena at Abhayagiri Vihara

c. An independent image house for recumbent Buddha figure and
composite figures.
This type of image house has been developed when the entire shrine was
constructed according to rectangular ground plan with single roof in brick
and clay mortar and the images were molded in brick and stucco. Although
images of this material were fashioned as early as in the 5th Century, the
free standing image houses took time to develop. Mihintale expecting 7th
Century AC. that was the earliest free standing image house for recumbent
figure was highlighted in the organic monastic scheme, was more detalable
in that it has triple entrance(Silva:1988). But most oldest suspected date can

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1941

be adopted to the image houses of oblong shape plan was situated in the
Kirivehera maluva at Kataragama, which was for housed composite figures.
A clue is given by Mahavamsa, that the first independent image house built
by king Upatissa I (368-410 A.C) at Mangala Chethiya (Cv:37.183-184),
while the Kirivehera at Kataragama is alluded to as the Mangala maha
chetiya in an inscription read by Paranavitana (Paranavitana: 1931.218;
Silva.R:1988.267; Gamalath:2016.325-326) The other image houses also
were followed this ground plan can be seen at Tissamaharama like Sadagiri
saya maluva and Yatala saya maluva, those are dated 5th to 7th Century A.C.
according to their architectural and literary evidences. (Gamalath:2016.327-
329) The other famous examples of this type of ground plan was related for
housed recumbent Buddha figure is in Madirigiriya, Thiriyay, and
Velgamvehera and those at Polonnaruva which include the Quadrangle and
the terraces of the Rankotvehera and Pabaluvehera, all are built in the 11th
C. AC.
Out of these examples related to 11th – 12th century period, much impressive
and elaborately conceived image house plan was highlighted at the
quadrangle in Polonnaruwa. It has a circumambulation path running round
central cella to form outer verandah. We recorded 15th building of this kind
of variety. (Ibid.325-364)
Third category of the oblong shape ground plan type image houses for
recumbent figure entered its final phase of development when free- standing
edifices were constructed around an image that was carved of rock. In such
cases the image shrine was constructed in masonry with timber roof as well
as above mentioned second category. Thantrimale and Atharagollava are
the examples of this type were about 8th to 10th century AC. (Ibid.333ff)

2. Double roof type Kutagara-

A ground plan compiles sanctum or garbhagara –cella with frontier veranda /
mandapa or vestibule.
Evolution processes of the spatial organization on this type of ground plan was
reflected by three stages of development from the ground plans of relevant
examples are given below.
 Originate stage – sanctum with frontier vestibule and not any divisions
made in between these two architectural unites. In this incipient stage
this design consist of basically simple square room or cella without any
visible interior divisional features, to which has been attached a small
projecting vestibule. This porch or pronaos that was narrower than the
cella. The shrine chamber, which constitutes the major spatial entity of
the entire structure, is just adequate to house the Buddha image.

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1942

According to mahavamsa the first independent image house was erected

by the time of king Upatissa 1st (368-410AC), which was established
near the palace at Anuradhapura,(Cv:37. 200-201) in the land of ancient
citadel and which was not occur in bhikku residential monastery. The
archaeologist were found an image house in the area above mentioned
(Bell:1898.3;Gamalath:2016.384), though ground plan of this reflected
square sanctum and much narrower open porch and it is un identical
oblong shape with a formal flight of steps in front of a main door. Only
two pillars were erected to support for the roof of this frontier open
porch. While examine this porch can be traced that was actually later
addition to the sanctum. The foundation and wall base of the front wall
of the sanctum was completely underneath the later constructed porch.
(Gamalath: 2016.385) Stratigraphically Deraniyagala has assigned this
edifice to a dated to the 4th and 5th century AC. The carbon samples
taken from the foundation of this building suggest a date of
1630+_70BP,or 250-390AD.(Deraniyagala:1972.48ff) Therefore could
be suggested this edifice was as the very first dated double roof image
house in Sri Lanka.
Rolad Silva compared this building in architecturally with some other
similar shrines in sanchi no 17 and tigowa image shrine. Sanchi no 17
was earliest in India. This edifice has been tribute to the period of
Chandragupta II (about380-415AC) He observed and concluded the
Anuradhapura shrine was the an improvised design, possibly from an
existing design which had been seen at Sanchi or Tigowa has been
translated to suit the kings pious requirements. (Silva.R:1988.236) In
other words he further comments Anuradhapura shrine was quite simple
and functional design, unlike the classical character of those at Sanchi
or Tigowa.(ibid:237)
Similar architectural elements with similar dimensions we traced from
another fine shrine lies at Viharahinna-2 image house in Matale
District.(Gamalath:2016.405-407) When compered frontier porch with
the Anuradhapura building is similar narrower open type one and this
porch also later added unit to the main square sanctum as match with
above mentioned Anuradhapura shrine. Here also like above only two
columns has erected for support to this frontal shelter.(ibid.406)
Recently found an image house in Polonnaruva, which found
underneath Siva shrine no.1, while the Siva shrine was removed for
conservation purpose done by the architectural conservators in central
cultural fund. When this spot was examine by the archaeologist who can
identified undauntedly this valuable image house also including to the
earlier stage one of its type of construction process, which have only

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1943

sanctum and frontal vestibule, not any other architectural features are
visible. This image house probably can includes to earliest era of double
roof type construction, we shall assume the date early 4th century AC.
Maligavila no 2 image house should also including to this early
constructional phase. (Gamalath: 2016. 419) This shrine was attached
to the Panchayatana pirivena it was in similar organization as at
Abhayagiri vihara complex.

Abhayagiriya – Site 30
 Second stage- an inner door with a wall or screen wall between sanctum
and vestibule and surrounding of the sanctum have a space for
9

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1944

circumambulation path or ambulatory passage. Which organize inside

the outer wall of the sanctum. The shrine chamber and vestibule are not
separated in this stage of image house construction. There may have
been some form of temporary partition between these two, but
architecturally they are certainly conceived as a single entity.

Jetavana - 40
Bandaranayeke discussed about the characteristics with some preserved
cases like Medirigiriya, Jetavana no. 40, 41, 42, and we observed
Abhayagiriya site 30, Pachinatissapabbata, Lankarama and Jetavana
Bodhigara Site image house 1 and 2
ect.(Bandaranayeka:1974;Gamalath:2016.) He introduced this type as
open non- compartmental plan. (Bandaranayeka:1974.196 ) But he
finally concluded this non – compartmented image house plan does not
necessarily imply any chronological sequence and some of the fully
developed image houses of the last phase at Anuradhapura era
structurally separated into two compartments but the overall design is
more fully integrated. On the other hand some of the Polonnaruwa
period shrines have open, non-compartmented plan. As for example
image house no 2, 5 and 8 in Rankotvehera maluva or stone terrace
(Gamalath:2016.580-583), showing from those cases in 12th century

10

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1945

that the compartmented and non- compartmented two alternative

designs are in fact coterminous in the mature periods, both in final
phase at Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. (Bandaranayeka:1974.196)

Madirigiriya

 Third stage- Demarcate an inner chamber for Buddha image inside the
sanctum and surrounding has circumambulation passage while for
functioning purpose of this unite create an Antarala in between sanctum
and frontier vestibule and placed four doors in each faces of this
Antaralaya. A kind of organization made a brick wall for demarcate of
inner chamber. Pillar placement pattern for give a support to the roof of
the sanctum is followed a system that three or four clusters of columns
lay in each corner of the sanctum (Gamalath:2016.136). Although a side
door way placed on wright wall of vestibule for purpose of pilgrims exit
after ending ambulatory from the image house.

11

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1946

Viharahinna
The earliest examples for the image houses with side entrance, the two
image houses were found from the Jetavana Bodighara shrine premises,
where these image house were adjacent to north east and south east
corners of its stone rail which was flank the Bodighara. When discuss
about the placement pattern of the side door, an architecturally major
differences was highlighted in orientation and side door placement in
vestibule of these two cases when compared with more later developed
8th to 10th century image house plans is the subsidiary door way has been
placed on the left wall of the vestibule though not in as the proper wright
hand side wall. By comparing the levels of stratified layer details were
found after the proper excavation works has carried out on this premises,
was able to fixed comparative date on these two image houses as was
very beginning decade in 3rd century Ac up to 4th Ac period. The other
architectural details also were reflected from these two patimagharas
are very possible conformation in this period. But till up to 11th century
Ac so far not record an image house was constructed with a side door
placed like as mentioned above. Although in the Rambavihara monastic
site could be seen an 11th century image house, was in which side door
placed on the left hand side wall of the frontier vestibule occurs as same
as Jetavana image houses were highlighted above. Possible reasons
were related to this much realized according to an architectural design
and organization purpose in the vestibule of this image shrine.(ibid:435)

12

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1947

In the results of our research works can focus attention on an image

house established the left hand side of the bodighara site no.30 in
Abhayagiriya monastery which including to 5th century AC, identified
according to the information’s given by Culavamsa,(Cv:38.67-68).It
prescribed king Dhatusena who built Bodhisatta image house at the left
side of the Bo tree shrine at Abhayagiriya Vihara. This is the first
reference relates to construct of Bodhisatta patimaghara in the
chronicle was mentioned. In which has a side door fix in to the wright
hand side wall of the vestibule. This is the earliest example an image
house with a side door has placed on proper
orientation.(Gamalath:2016.387) As an architectural expression the
front door continued to be used as the main point of entry while a
smaller side entrance was positioned in wright wall of the vestibule. At
this originate period of construction of this side door, it was very often
uncomfortably in corner where the sanctum and vestibule joined each
other. The narrowness of the steps indicate that the side door was the
less important. Best example is this Abhayagiriya image shrine.
Hereafter this double roof type ground plan design evolved with vast
development from 5th century AC to 10th century AC period. These kind
of mature image house designs were reflected within the organic
monastic organization in which there was established as independent
image shrines most probably adjacent to or within the bhikkhu
residential units and religious precinct. In this context, some of the
double roof type image houses those are occasionally attached to the
monumental stupas at Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and vatadage
precinct like Tiriyayi, Medirigiriya. We discussed in 2016, acctuel 41
image houses were including to this kind of monastic settlements, is in
island wide. (Gamalath;2016.373-468)Another 18 image houses were
reflected within the stupa malaks such as ,Jetavana, Medirigiri, Yatala,
Tiriyayi, Ruvanveli and Rankoth vehera at Polonnauva were most
probably allocated to the 7th to 12th century AC period. Some of the fully
developed image houses situated within these category of religious
precinct were including to last phase of Anuradhapura era were
structurally separated in to two compartments but the overall design is
more fully integrated like at Sadagiriya in Tissamaharama, Situlpawwa,
Divulweva-2, Hattikuchchi at Rajanganaya, Viharahinna-1at
Devahuwa, Padaviya Moragada, Muhudumahavihara, Mihintalaya-2
and Panduwasnuvara-1and 2 are the finest examples(ibid:2016).
An image house was set in the premises of vatadage in Tuparama at
Anuradhapura contains later additions but the earlier design could be
identified as usual inner cella or sanctum with a narrower vestibule than
the sanctum. A further development in the design was the enclosing of

13

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1948

the porch or vestibule together with a second doorway positioned axially

at the center. This additional constructions were occurred in the 11th
century AC by the evidence given in Culavamsa.
(Gamalath;2016.575;Cv;60.56-57)
The another carefully designed and perennial form of development on
the double roof type image house ground plan can traced with in the
form of pre-planned monastic organization called Panchavasa pirivena
or so- called moated sites or Pabbatha vihara, these are situated in the
periphery of Anuradhapura, far away from the central monasteries of
three major sects, namely the Mahavihara, the Abhayagiri vihara, and
the Jetavana vihara in to which the singhelese Buddhist sangha was
divided during the first millennium AD.(Gamalath;
2016.473;Silva.R;Prematileke.P.l;1968.61-68) the vihara’s are
consider, Vijayarama, Pankuliya, Puliyankulama,
Pachinatissapabbathavihara, Toluvila, Vessagiriya, all are at
Anuradhapura periphery and Kaludiyapokuna at Sigiriya, Manikdena
near Dambulla, Magulmahavihara at Lahugala,(ibid;1968.61-62) and
we added sites more like Pidurangala-Sigiriya, Dematamalviharaya at
Okkampitiya, Beragama Vilgamviharaya at Ambalantota,
Namalpokuna at Dibulagala, Hennanigala at Dehiatthakandiya and
Pulukunavi at Ampara (Gamalath;2016.473-536) in 1995 and 2016.
(Silva.R, Prematilleke. P.L,Jayasuriya.H.F;1995.215ff)The remains of
these monasteries showed a distinct discipline in planning and layout
which signifies a clear and well defined function within the
establishment of the monasteries. When considering the planning
concept of the Pancavasa monasteries that have been codified in the
treatise, the vastuvidya Sastreya by Manjusri, on can draw out a series
of generalizations. In considering pitha and upa pitha plans one is able
to group these edifice in to three broad categories. The first one of these
three is more important to mentioning here to discuss about the
development of image houses. This monastic type compiles five
religous building units was called Pancavasa and their positioning
system within the enclosing space had called sacred quadrangle
occurred according to the relevant codas has been enacted in the
Manjusri silpa text.
These five units constitutes namely, series of generalizations.
1. Sabha (Assembly Halle)
2. Bimbalaya(Image House)
3. Caitya(Stupa)
4. Rajavrksa(Bodhi)
5. Prasada(Uposatha Hall)

14

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1949

Toluvila
The Bimbalaya or Patimaghara was expressed the most specifically elaborated design in
this pre-planned vihara complexes. In our array of this double roof image house plans, 16
nos in 2016 (Gamalath; 2016.473-536).In architecturally the inner sanctum is almost
square in plan and the floor of this area is generally paved with stone slabs. The image of
the Buddha is placed in a position to the rear middle of the room on a pedestal with
sufficient room for the worshippers to circumambulate round the statue. The pedestal is
usually of stone and quite often it is placed over a relic container called Yanthregala . The
outer bay is oblong its width being narrower than the sanctum. This outer bay only performs
the function of a lobby in that the worshipper enters the shrine room through its main
entrance in to the outer bay and through this in to the inner sanctum. The exit is different
to the extent that the worshipper passes through this outer bay to the outside by a side exit
to the right and not by the main entrance. The inner sanctum and the outer bay are together
positioned on a raised platform or plinth with its outline similar in plan to the two units.
Both units were roofed and tiled originally, but the superstructure including the walls has
completely disappeared.
In the year 1990 the Dematamalvihara image house was completely re-constructed and it
represent its functional aspects when as its alive status in 8-9TH Century AC.
The climax of the double roof type image house construction was achieved with brick and
timber techniques were fulfilled by the ancient Sri Lanken master architects and engineers
worked after 10th century in Polonnaruva period. The two Dhatugharas (Relic Houses)

15

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1950

Atadage and Hetadage in Polonnaruva the finest examples were displays plans those
combined the sanctum and vestibule in to one unit and at the same time retained the
customary side entrance. The images were positioned in these two Dhatugharas with
sufficient space at the rear to allow for circumambulation. Therefor the ground flour plan
of these Dhatugharas utilize as image shrines which was called Palle Male. Both these
Dhatugharas had upper stories where masters relics were deposited. When compare with
the double roof type image house plan available in 8th and 9th centuries, the design of the
edifice seems to have been conceived with moor sophistication. Atadage built by king
Vijayabahu the great (1055-1110 Ac) and Hatadage built by king Nissanka Malla (1189-
1198AC) respectively in 11th and 12th centuries.

Atadage
The final examples for this kind of image house plan experienced in the period of segment
of 12th century at Paduvasnuvara done by architects and builders who worked under the
king Parakramabahu the great (1153-1186 AC).We published under the tattled as
Panduvasnuvara-1 and 2 (Gamalath;2016.444-450), the side doorway of these two
patimagharas were more sophisticate than its very incipient period, which was discussed
earlier in this paper. The vestibule and sanctum was divide each other by the brick wall and
doorway as in to separate two architectural units.

16

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1951

3. Gedige image house pattern-

A mode of construction “GEDIGE” which based on the ground plan which consist
of architectural units are sanctum,antarala and frontier mandapa or ‘vestibule. It
was Paranavitana who first isolated this type on the grounds that Buddhist literature
described a structure entirely built of bricks which was residence of the Buddha.
(Paranavitana: 1945) The monuments of that name today seen at Anuradhapura and
Polannaruwa, provided with entirely brick vaulted roofs. It therefore applied to
brick – built vaulted structures. But Door – frames, window – frames and steps
which are of stone, the building is entirely of brick construction except doors and
windows, wood having had no place in the architectural scheme, even for the roof.
The springing of the dome which roofed the edifice can be noticed in the portion
the buildings like Gedige shrine at Anuradhapura, Thuparama and Lankatilake at
Polonnaruva are still preserved.

In which the double roof type Kutagara plan undergoes some changes in its
standard design with purely constructional basis and although they do not deviate
fundamentally from the classic cella (Sanctum) - cum- vestibule plan.
At the same time, the close relationship between the double roof type ground plan
and Gedige plan is obvious enough when comparing the ground plans, and is
perhaps best seen in the image house at Jethavana (Gedige ), which we have earlier
presented as an example of the structures that displays the characteristic of the
mature double roof type plan like as Abhayagiriya site 30 and Hatthikuchchi at
Rajanganaya all are in middle and late Anuradhapura period.

The earliest example for Gedige type image house plan seeing in the Kiribathvehera
at Anuradhapura at 7th C.AC. Although it appears to be a double roof type plan, its
massive walls and narrow confines allow the possibility that it once had a vaulted
roof and was thus an incipient version of the Gedige. In mature version which
relates to this type of construction was the Jetavana Gedige in Anuradhapura at 8-
9th Century AC. and climax of this brick vaulte dome technology can visible from
the masterpieces built in Polonnaruwa at 12th century AC.

17

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1952

Gedige Jetavana vihara

The application of the term was thus extended to vaulted edifices of stone
like Nalanda at 9th Century AC, Gadaladeniya and Natha Devalaya at 14th
Century AC, as well as of brick construction. Therefor Paranavitana
concluded that a Gedige at first signified a brick built edifice with a vaulted
roof and later any building of that architectural form, whether built of stone
or brick. (Paranavitana:1945)

The roof of the 12th Century gedige image houses like Thuparama,
Lankathilake and Thivanke in Polonnaruva carried pavilions which were
medley of forms and shapes intricately worked so as to look like miniature
vimanas. The Thuparama has such an arrangement on its vaulted roof
therefor according to Roland Silva’s conclusions the shapes, of this building
which add to the baroque character of the façade, reflect an enrichment
without which the roof would have proved a poor climax to the ornate
rhythms of the base and walls below. (Silva.R: 1988)

This type of image house consists of three main categories ,

 Squre type ground plan- in this type of organization has only sanctum and
circumambulatory passage – 13 sites (Gamalath:2016)

18

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1953

 Mandapa type ground plan – which consist of frontier mandapa, entresol

(antarala) and sanctum. – 20 sites (Gamalath:2016)
 Double storied type ground plan – Dathugara or Daladage – surrounded
by ambulatory passage. 3 sites, Anuradhapura tooth relic temple, Gedige
shrine at citadel Anuradhapura and Mirisavatiya tooth relic temple.
(Gamalath:2016).

Tooth Relic Temple cum image house at citadel Anuradhapura

19

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1954

Gedige- Citadel Anuradhapura

4. Cave image shrines or len vihara Gandhakuti tradition.

Originate period in 2nd century B.C. which was trace by the evidence in the cave
inscriptions under the dripledge Cave 1 at Rasvehera. There is a evidence to prove
incipient Gandakuti Cave named Kandake with the stupa inside it which also
named by the Brahmi inscription as Kandake. This is the oldest example for we
have to prove an incident, that the ancient kings and elites who were made attempt
to make Gandhakuti shrines inside the natural caves. It proved about the antiquities
were relates for veneration of the symbols of the master like miniature stupas,
engraving foot prints on stones, and stone seat were found from some caves
including to 2nd century BC up to 1st century AD, and while these objects were
received highest veneration in India within the same period. Till the mid1st century
AD in both countries not represent Buddhas anthropmophomic form. From
thereafter an evaluation processes was reflected on both Buddha image and the
image house within the concept of sculpture and architecture. In year 2019 we
found a cave image shrine which lies in thick jungle at Erawur Patthu in Batticoale
district was still unknown can visible the recumbent Buddha statue in this cave
which made out of brick and clay masonry with length of 40 feet(12.5 meter) , may
including to 7-8th century AC. This architecture on the cave image house tradition
was gained vast improvement from Anuradhapura, Polonnaruva and beyond up to
18th century.

20

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1955

Yet 24 sites has been published including to Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa eras.
(Gamalath: 2016)

Among our data gathering we alludes Kandegamakanda cave image and its shrine
was the most oldest example for this kind of architecture in Sri Lanka. The date of
this site can comparatively fixing in to 3rd to 5th century AC.

5. Tampita vihara – A type of construction of image house that was archived from
12th Century onwards.
The Tampita pilimage or timber image house on stone columns were popular
constructions after the 12th century while those of brick and stone were the
exceptions. These image houses can be broadly divided in to three categories.
1. Square type ground plan without frontier mandapa.
In this pattern consist of a timber shrine resting on short
pillars, but without mandapa example like Madawala.

2. Single storied tampita vihara –

Significance of this forms as the timber pilimage was
supported by short stone columns with the mandapa
positioned in front. Seen at Suriyagoda, Nakkawattha and
Pinnawale. Most oldest square design can clearly visible
now only short pillars in the hospital complex at
Pollonnaruwa which including to 13th Century AC, when the
restoration works carried out by the Dambadeni princers.
Now there is no signs about the frontal mandapa. Other two
examples can visible Magulmahavihara at lahugala and
Baragama vihara at Ambalantota. There are including to
square ground plan type tampita viharas.

3. Double- storied tampita vihara-

This type was a most developed stage in which both floors
were occupied and a mandapa was added in front as at
Dambadeni. In this type of pilimage consisted of two
building unites. The raised shrine and frontal porch. The
mandapa positioned in front of the shrine at ground level is
most reminiscent of the original image house plan.
The most elaborated edifices are still preserve at
Budumutthave, Nakkawattha, Gonameriyava and later

21

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1956

constructions at Medavala and Bihalpola. Mostly those are

including to 18th Century.

Ariyasinghe, Abaya., 1960.

Archaeological Survey of Ceylon Annual Report (ASCAR)

Basnayeke. H.T. 1986.

Sri Lankan Monastic Architecture, Delhi.

Silva. Roland,1988,
Religious Architecture in Early and medieval Sri Lanka, mepple.
Prematileke, P.L, 1964.
Religious Architecture and Sculpture of Ceylon, (Anuradhapura Period)
London, an unpublished Thesis.
Marasinghe, E.W, 1989.
The Vastuvidyasastra Ascribed to Manjusri, Delhi

Geiger. Wilhem 1950.

Mahavasma (Mv), Colombo.
______1953, Chulavamsa (cv) Part I, II, Colombo.

Paranavitana,1957.
Architecture, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Ed. G.P. Malalasekara, Volume of Specimen
articles, Colombo.

22

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2020
ISSN 2320-9186 1957

Gunawardene. P, 2009.
Buddhist Monasteries Towards Urbanism in Southern Sri Lanka, Pannipitiya.
Deraniyagala. S.U, 1972,
The Citadel of Anuradhapura 1969: Excavation the Gedige Area, Ancient Ceylon, No.2,
48-169.
Jayasuriya. M.H.F, Prematileke. P.L, Silva, Rolad, 1995.
Manjusri Vastuvidyasastra, Colombo.

Silva. Roland., Premathileka. P.L., 1968, A Buddhist Monastic Type of Ancient Ceylon Showing
Mahayanist influence, Artibus Asia (A.A.) VoL XXX, Switzerland.

Paranavitana, S, 1945. Gedige Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (CB)(JCBRAS);Vol.XXXVI,Part

III, No.99.

.u,;a okkach" 2016' nqoaO m%;u

s d .Dyfha wjldYSh ixúOdkh" je,a,ïmsáh'

23

GSJ© 2020
www.globalscientificjournal.com