Abstract

This article reconstructs a largely forgotten episode in the history of Buddhist studies: the period in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries when the Buddha was widely considered to have been Sri Lankan (Ceylonese) in origin. Contrary to modern scholarly consensus situating the Buddha firmly in northern India, early European encounters with Buddhism unfolded amid profound uncertainty regarding its geographical and historical origins. Drawing on colonial accounts, early translations, sacred relics, and the European interpretation of chronicle traditions, the article shows how Sri Lanka came to appear, within certain European scholarly frameworks, to possess a coherent and persuasive claim to Buddhist primacy, grounded in living religious practice, sacred geography, and continuous historical narratives. The article argues that the subsequent displacement of a Sri Lankan Buddha was not simply the result of improved evidence, but of a deeper epistemic transformation. During the nineteenth century, new standards of historical credibility—philology, cartography, archaeology, and comparative textual criticism—redefined what counted as authoritative knowledge. Through the interventions of figures such as Brian Hodgson and George Turnour, Ceylonese traditions were reclassified as local and symbolic rather than foundational. By tracing this shift, the article illuminates how scholarly consensus is produced through changes in method and authority, revealing how changing standards of evidence narrowed the range of historically credible possibilities.

Keywords