The Staff, the Emperor and the Sacred Tree: Was Anuradhapura’s Submission to Asoka Written into the Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi?
Illustration of the period, not a historical photograph.
The Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi at Anuradhapura is venerated as a living symbol of Buddhism’s arrival in Sri Lanka. A modern interpretation asks whether the sacred tree also carried a political meaning: could it have represented the submission of Anuradhapura to the Maurya Empire under Emperor Asoka?
That is the argument advanced by Ranjan Chinthaka Mendis, author of An Invisible History of Early Sri Lanka, in a post shared by the Facebook page of the same name. Drawing on accounts in the Mahavamsa and Vamsatthappakasini, Mendis reads the exchange of royal gifts, appointments and ceremonies as evidence of a relationship that went beyond friendship. His conclusion is a distinctive interpretation, not an established historical consensus.
Three decorated staves and a question of sovereignty
The Mahavamsa describes Devanampiyatissa sending a valuable treasure to Asoka in the middle of the third century BC. It included precious stones and pearls, as well as three decorated bamboo staves. In the account, the creeper staff shone “like silver”, with golden-coloured creepers; the flower staff bore flowers of many colours; and the bird staff displayed birds and animals “as if living”.
Mendis focuses on the staves. Unlike gems and pearls, bamboo had little commercial value. He argues that such objects were unlikely to form the centrepiece of a royal gift unless they had substantial symbolic importance. In his reading, they were not simply artworks: they represented royal authority. He also notes a detail of the gift exchange that carries his reading: the delegation, according to the account, travelled with the regalia of the kings of Anuradhapura, and the king’s later consecration under Asoka’s auspices marked, in his view, the transfer of that authority.
The Vamsatthappakasini refers to the nava-yatthi, a “new staff” or sceptre, as a sign connected with the sovereignty of Anuradhapura’s kings. Mendis therefore argues that the yatthi (staff) sent to Asoka may have been royal regalia. From this, he interprets the gift as a surrender of sovereignty.
That is a significant step in the argument. The chronicles describe the treasure as a gift between rulers who were friends; the interpretation of the staves as a formal transfer of authority is Mendis’s reading of their possible symbolism.
The three staves at a glance
- Latha-yatthi (creeper staff): described as “white like silver”, with a creeper shining like gold.
- Kusuma-yatthi or puppha-yatthi (flower staff): decorated with flowers of blue, yellow, red, white and black.
- Sakuna-yatthi or dija-yatthi (bird staff): showed swans, fowls, pheasants and four-footed animals in natural colours.
Illustrative map graphic, not an authoritative reconstruction of an ancient route.
A delegation with senior officials
Mendis also points to the people sent with the treasure. According to his account, the delegation was led by Prince Arittha, described as Devanampiyatissa’s Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief. It also included Tissa, an official responsible for the royal treasury, and Parantapabbata, the king’s purohita. His royal chaplain and adviser.
The author contrasts this group with a routine diplomatic mission led by a dutha-navika, a term for an envoy or diplomatic messenger. A delegation including senior political, military, financial and religious figures, he argues, suggests important state business rather than a simple courtesy visit.
The Mahavamsa likewise records high-ranking envoys and the presentation of valuable gifts. However, it describes the exchange as taking place between rulers who had been friends for a long time, despite never having met. The delegation’s status is part of the historical account; what its composition proves about Anuradhapura’s political standing remains open to interpretation.
Asoka’s response: honours or imperial integration?
In the account used by Mendis, Asoka welcomed the envoys, provided accommodation and hospitality, and conferred positions on members of the delegation. Arittha received a command in Asoka’s army; Tissa received the honorific title Setthi, associated with a wealthy merchant, treasurer or guild leader; and Parantapabbata was appointed chaplain to the Emperor.
Mendis interprets these appointments as evidence that senior Lankan officials were being absorbed into Asoka’s imperial hierarchy. He also refers to the Arthashastra, which describes different categories of subordinate rulers. One possible category, a kingdom of “great utility”, could contribute resources or military support to an empire. In Mendis’s interpretation, Arittha’s military appointment may indicate that Anuradhapura was expected to provide troops when required.
The significance of the appointments is not self-evident. A position or title granted to visiting envoys could represent diplomatic honour, a close political relationship or a more formal arrangement. The author reads them as signs of subordination, but the cited texts do not, on their own, establish a system of imperial administration in Anuradhapura.
A second consecration and the title Devanampiya
The Mahavamsa, Chapter XI, records that Asoka sent Devanampiyatissa royal regalia and the necessities for a further consecration. The Lankan king was consecrated again, and the chronicle associates him with the title Devanampiya, meaning “beloved of the gods”.
Mendis regards the ceremony as a clear acknowledgement of Asoka’s overlordship: the Lankan king, in this reading, received royal legitimacy under the Emperor’s auspices. The Mahavamsa presents the event as part of an exchange between the two rulers and records Asoka’s encouragement to embrace the Buddhist teaching. Whether the second consecration was an act of subordination or a diplomatic and religious gesture is a point of interpretation, not a settled conclusion.
A brief timeline
- c. 307–247 BC: Traditional dates given for King Mutasiva’s reign.
- 260 and 257 BC: Asokan inscriptions refer to Tamraparni, the ancient name associated with Sri Lanka.
- Mid-third century BC: The chronicles place Devanampiyatissa’s treasure and diplomatic delegation to Asoka.
- Following the exchange: The Mahavamsa records a second consecration for Devanampiyatissa using regalia sent by Asoka.
- 288 BC: A commonly cited date for the planting at Anuradhapura of the Bodhi sapling brought by Sanghamitta; ancient chronologies and their modern conversions are approximate.
The sacred tree as a meeting of sovereignties
In the tradition concerning the Bodhi Tree, Asoka sends a branch of the tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment, accompanied by Sanghamitta, his daughter. The Extended Mahavamsa describes Asoka consecrating the “young Great Bodhi Tree” with the sovereignty of his empire three times, and instructing Devanampiyatissa to honour it in the same way. The Lankan king is said to have honoured it with the sovereignty of the whole island of Thambapanni, an ancient name for Sri Lanka, for three days.
Mendis interprets this ritual as bringing together two claims to authority. The tree, in his view, came to embody both Asoka’s imperial sovereignty and the sovereignty of Anuradhapura: a symbolic fusion of empire and kingdom.
The narratives also describe striking ceremonial gestures. Mendis highlights the account that Devanampiyatissa entrusted the affairs of state to members of the Indian delegation accompanying the tree, while taking on the role of gatekeeper himself. The Mahabodhivamsa further relates that the king placed his crown on the visiting dignitaries in turn and paraded them through the city on the royal elephant.
Artistic period illustration; the sapling is symbolic and is not a photograph or depiction of the living Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi.
These episodes give the political interpretation its force, but they come to modern readers through religious chronicles, not contemporary administrative records. The tree’s role as a sacred gift and a symbol of Buddhist connection is central to the tradition; whether its ceremonies also signified political submission is debated.
Friendship, religious mission and a contested reading
The Mahavamsa describes the kings as friends and presents the exchange of gifts within that relationship. Standard accounts also emphasise the diplomatic context of the Buddhist missions: Mahinda’s arrival and teaching, followed by Sanghamitta’s journey with the Bodhi sapling. A 2016 Sunday Times feature likewise presents the introduction of Buddhism as the outcome of diplomatic ties and royal patronage, while noting that historical accounts do not show a clear display of Lankan allegiance to the Mauryan Emperor.
Mendis offers a different political reading of the same broad tradition. He connects the staves, the composition of the delegation, the appointments, the second consecration and the Bodhi Tree ceremonies to argue that Anuradhapura was subject to Asoka’s authority. Readers should distinguish that thesis from the well-established account of an important religious and diplomatic relationship: the surviving material does not make political subordination a settled fact.
The Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi remains a deeply revered tree at Anuradhapura, within the ancient city’s sacred landscape. It is commonly described as the oldest living human-planted tree with a known planting date, often given as 288 BC. Its continuing significance in Sri Lankan religious and cultural life does not depend on accepting any particular interpretation of ancient sovereignty.
Illustration of ancient Anuradhapura, not a historical photograph or an exact reconstruction.
The question behind the interpretation
Mendis closes with a question: why would Devanampiyatissa submit to a ruler whose capital lay more than 2,000 kilometres away, who had limited naval power and who was apparently on friendly terms with Anuradhapura? The question points readers towards his wider argument in An Invisible History of Early Sri Lanka.
The debate turns on how the chronicles’ ceremonial details should be read. The tree, the gifts and the royal honours may be understood as evidence of close diplomatic and religious ties; Mendis argues that together they reveal a deeper political relationship. His interpretation invites closer examination of the texts, while the distinction between historical record and modern analysis remains essential.
Sources and further reading
- The Mahavamsa, Chapter XI: The Consecrating of Devanampiyatissa
- The Extended Mahavamsa: The Journey of the Great Bodhi Tree
- Sunday Times: “Diplomatic ties behind the introduction of Buddhism”
- Ceylon Today: “Beyond the Chronicles”
- Daily Mirror: “A glimpse into Sri Lanka’s hidden ancient history”
- Original source: “An Invisible History of Early Sri Lanka” post shared by eLanka
