about three inches high, follows the local pattern, with the hands lying palms upward, in the lap, one above the other; the other, a fragile shell of gold, about half the size of the first, is of an unmistakable Burmese character, the image having Mongolian features and being represented with the right hand drooping over the knee in Burmese style.

Excavation has proved that the roofs of these buildings were made of tiles, and that the " bridge itself was roofed. There are, however, no indications that the outer platforms of the "pavilions" were covered in at all; for, besides the fact that there were no pillars, there are no stones cut to receive wooden posts such as might have been substituted for them, thus we are driven to the conclusion that this portion was a sort of open courtyard.

In Block B a special feature is a deep well, cut partly out of the rock in a curved basin, and partly lined by shaped stones; a rock-hewn flight of steps descends to it.

Close to the junction of the Arippu and Outer Circular Roads are Blocks D and E. The former is a most interesting specimen-in fact, if time lacks, and only one group can be visited, this should be chosen. The moat is very deep and wide, and can be especially well seen from the back. If a system of running water were in use -and the Cingalese were so clever in this matter one can hardly doubt it was so-this surrounding moat must have kept the living-rooms pleasantly cool. It is impossible to suppose that these people, who were so punctilious in the matter of

ΙΟ

ablution, would have allowed stagnant water, with all its horrible possibilities for evil, to lie around their dwellings.

The most interesting detail in this block is a mutra-gala, or urinal, so highly decorated and sculped as to be almost startling in the midst of buildings whose sole adornment is a plain mouldor maybe a little fluted pilaster in low relief. The decoration of this wonderful piece of work can only be described as flamboyant; on the horizontal slab is a representation of the inevitable house.

In the first block of " pavilions" examined there is a specimen of a perfectly restored porch showing the arrangement of the pillars which supported it. In Block F it will be noticed that a similar porch has sunk forwards; this has been left untouched just as it stands, but the slant was evidently not intentional on the part of the ancient builder, being due to a subsidence (see p. 134). Mr. Burrows says of these entrances :

"They were all constructed to one design. Small porticoes project from front and back to the door-frame; these are supported on eight inner and a like number of outer uprights, and roofed by horizontal slabs laid athwart crossbeams. Upon the ceiling slabs a sikhara of some sort in brick-work must have risen, for the slabs are roughed externally above.

"It was the undue weight of these superstructures, undoubtedly, which caused the spreading of the outer pillars and the sinking-always inward of the roof, so as to give the appearance of a deliberately designed backward slope."

1 Quoted in Archæological Report, 1911-12.

1

After seeing some or all of these ruins, the question inevitably arises what can have been their purpose? Why do they all so closely resemble each other and so strikingly differ from anything else in ancient Anuradhapura? Some people have seen in them the residential part of the town as distinct from the religious edifices, and others have gone so far as to identify them with the palaces of bygone kings. The latter are not experts, but the local guides, finding that the term "palaces" attracts popular attention more than any other word, have enlarged on this view.

The complete excavation of these groups of buildings was carried out by Mr. Ayrton, Archæological Commissioner in 1913, but of course their existence had been known long before that date.

By far the best authority, of course, is Mr. Bell, with whose judgment and experience in such a matter no one can attempt to compete. In the 1911-12 Report he gives a detailed account of the buildings so far as they were then known. He says they were photographed as long ago as 1870, and that Mr. Burrows did some digging, and described them in 1885. He quotes from Mr. Burrows' Report, from which an extract appears on the previous page. Then he adds a few remarks of his own. He suggests they are monasteries, but monasteries of a peculiar type. He compares them with the similar buildings found at Ritigala to the number of about fifty.

In his own words:

"What ascetical monks then once bore with the isolation and physical discomfort of habita