Upali C Wickremeratne, presenting a critical review of Sinhala Consciousness in the Kandyan Period: 1590s to 1815, by Michael Roberts, (Colombo, Vijitha Yapa Publications, 2003)…. originally presented in Ethnic Studies Review, vol. XXI, No. 2, July 2003, pp. 207-20…. with pictorials imposed by Roberts against the grain of this article. NOTE: the title is that chosen by Wickremeratne … and is in fact a misnomer.
It is hard to think of a book, amongst those written by those affecting to be scholarly, which is based more on conjecture than this. The criteria for evidence should be considered. It is not a question of whether the sources are oral or documentary. After all the evidence in a law court is mainly oral. It is a question of considering the arguments for and against any particular point of view. It is a question of weighing the evidence. A civil case is decided on a balance of probabilities and a criminal case on whether there is a reasonable doubt. It is not a question of facts or the truth. Law draws a distinction between hearsay, opinion and evidence based on cross-examination. Collingwood wanted an army of questions led into the sources. They would enable one’s own biases and predilections to be questioned. It would supply the place of cross-examination.

Continue reading →