Page images

same way, two kings called Tissa were discriminated in the second century A.D., the elder one being called Bhātika. Provisionally, therefore, I attribute these inscriptions to a son of Bhātikābhaya (Naga) who is not mentioned by the historians; the king's title Mahāraja' in No. 80 shows that he was the supreme king of Ceylon, and not merely a subordinate ruler of southern Ceylon. The character of the father agrees with that of Bhātikābhaya, who was a most devout king. The third inscription at Bōwata is :


Undescribed symbols. Samaṇaha Tedapana Tisa raja Uti puta Aya Abayasa jita Abi Anuradiyā. (The cave of) Abhi Anurādhiyā, daughter of the Noble Abhaya, son (of) King Uttiya, (son of) the samaņa (monk) Tedapana-Tissa.

This King Uttiya may have been a king of Ruhuṇa or southern Ceylon, there being no ruler among the kings of Anuradhapura who can be identified by this name, except the first one, whose father died before Buddhism was introduced into the island.

With this, my list of the earliest inscriptions is ended. I believe that it includes all royal inscriptions cut prior to the Christian era, so far as they are known at present, unless Mr. Bell has found some that are not yet made public. It is unnecessary to give transcripts of numerous others that merely record the dedication of caves by unknown persons at unknown places. The latest record I have seen, in an inscription, of the grant of caves to the monks is contained in one by King Mēghawanṇābhaya II (304-332 A.D.).2

I add one other rock inscription of the second century A.D., as it was covered up when the embankment of Iratperiyakulam, a reservoir near Vavuniya in the Northern Province,

1 Dr. Müller has one (No. 34a) of a prince who cannot be identified. It is :-Pacina raja puta raja Abayaha puta Tisayaha lene agata, etc. 'The cave of Tissa the Noble, son of King Abhaya, son (of) the King of the East (or Pāsu country); to the Community, etc.' It appears to be of early date.

• Mr. Bell found one record of the twelfth century. (Arch. Survey, Annual Report for 1897, p. 9.)

was restored, and therefore will not be seen when the inscriptions of that Province come to be copied.

(83.) (1) Sida. Sata uparaja bare Ti(ya)gasala pa (2)

rinika parasiha pite Gamiņi Abha raja (3) ha hamaneka udi Alavicaka haraha tire Tihadaya wiharahi (4) bhiku sagahața dine.

Hail! The son-in-law (of) the wise sub-king (and) father (of) Tiyāgasāla, the pre-eminent hero, the Crown-prince, King Gāmiņi-Abhaya has given six amunas of undi (pulse) to the Community of monks at the Tihadaya wihāra, on the shore of the Alaviccha Lake.

This inscription belongs to Gaja-Bahu I (113-135 A.D.) whose father-in-law, Mahallaka-Nāga, succeeded him. The prince who is referred to in such unusual terms is not mentioned in the histories by this name. He would appear to have greatly distinguished himself in the invasion of Madura,1 the only war in which Gaja-Bahu is known to have been engaged. He may have died while his grandfather or uncles held the throne, as the prince who succeeded them, from 193 to 195 A.D., was called Culanaga. From this record we learn that the ancient name of the tank was the 'Scorpion Lake,' and this enables the Gōnusu (Scorpion) district which is mentioned in later times to be identified as this part of the island.

I annex a genealogical table of the early kings of Ceylon. The date when Dēvānam-piya Tissa ascended the throne is practically certain within a few years. The Dipavansa states that it occurred seventeen and a half years after the accession of the Indian emperor Aśōka, which may lie within four years of 263 B.C. Dr. Duncker, in his History of Antiquity, vol. ii, p. 525, has fixed it at 263 B.C. Sir F. Max Müller, in the Introduction to the Dhammapada, p. xxxvi, by entirely different reasoning arrived at the year 259 B.C. Professor Rhys Davids

1 He must have been a youth at the time; his brothers died in 195 and 196 a.d. The manuscript 'Pradhana Nuwarawal' states that Gaja-Bahu was only 16 when he became king. I suggest that Mahallaka Nāga was probably a son of Wasabha.

states in his Buddhist Suttas, p. xlvi, that it must be within a year or two of 267 B.C. I adopt 263 B.C. as a mean date; 1 the accession of Dēvānam-piya Tissa would thus take place in 245 B.C., and in any case not more than ten years earlier than that date.

In the Mahavansa, Tissa's father, Muta-Siva, is stated to have reigned 60 years, and the latter's father, Paṇḍukābhaya, 70 years. The same work also records that Paṇḍukābhaya was born in the year in which his grandfather, PaṇḍuwāsaDēva, died. Paṇḍuwāsa-Dēva was succeeded by his eldest son Abhaya, who after reigning 20 years was deposed by his brother Tissa.

Before Abhaya's deposition his nephew Paṇḍukābhaya had taken the field against him, and had also married his niece Suvanna-Pāli. It may therefore be assumed that Paṇḍukābhaya's son, Muta-Siva, was born about the time when Abhaya was deposed, which was 17 years before Paṇḍukābhaya succeeded in acquiring the sovereignty. According to Sinhalese chronology, the age attained by Muta-Siva would thus be the length of his own and his father's reigns, plus this 17 years, or a total life of 147 years. Even if we allow him an extremely long life we cannot accept more than 90 years as his age when he died; but as a more probable lifetime I take 80 years. This would fix the deposition of Abhaya at 325 B.C. as the earliest reasonable date, if the accession of Dēvānampiya Tissa took place in 263 B.C.

The lengths of the reigns of the two preceding kings, Wijaya and Paṇḍuwāsa-Dēva, given in the table, are those of the Mahāvansa. As it is unlikely that both Muta-Siva and his father lived exactly 80 years, I have apportioned 70 years to the latter, whose life would then terminate in 275 B.C. This does not affect the total length of their two reigns.

What I wish to emphasise is that if the lengths of the reigns of Wijaya, Paṇḍuwāsa-Dēva, and Abhaya are correctly given by the annalists, and no kings are omitted by them, Wijaya

1 In his Early History of India, p. 145, Mr. V. A. Smith makes the date 272 or 273 B.C.

cannot possibly have become king more than a few years prior to the date, 414 B.C., given by me as the earliest reasonable one for his accession.

Although it has been suggested that the names of some Sinhalese kings may have been dropped by the historians, it appears to me clear that all probabilities are strongly against the omission of the names of any other early sovereigns. By omitting them the chroniclers would be merely intensifying the difficulty which they experienced in stretching back their chronology so as to make it extend to 543 B.C., the assumed date of the death of Buddha. Being left without other kings to fill up the gap, they were obliged to double the lengths of the reigns between 205 and 245 B.C., and also those of Paṇḍukābhaya and Muta-Siva, thus making these two last stretch. to a ridiculous and impossible extent. As the existence of other kings would have relieved them from this necessity of falsifying the chronology they would be most unlikely to omit their reigns.

It is much more probable that fictitious names would be inserted in order to span the gap up to 543 B.C. than that the names of actual rulers of Ceylon would be struck out of the list.

If there is any additional error, therefore, it must be looked for in the lengths of the first three reigns. But it is evident that in any case these cannot be lengthened more than a very few years. The historians allow a reign of 38 years to Wijaya, 30 to Paṇḍuwāsa-Dēva, and 20 to Abhaya, who however was alive for more than 17 years later, since it is recorded that his nephew Paṇḍukābhaya appointed him after that, period City Conservator of Anuradhapura. As Paṇḍuwāsa-Dēva was married immediately after he came to the throne, we may assume the age of Abhaya, his eldest son, to have been 66 1 when he was appointed to this office. There is nothing to show that he died immediately afterwards, and he may have survived for several years. Thus it is clear that no addition can be made to the length of reign allotted to him by the

1 Made up by 29 years of his father's reign, 20 of his own, and 17 years of his life after his deposition.

historians, since a service of only four years as Conservator would bring his age to 70 years.

We are therefore left with only Wijaya and PaṇduwāsaDēva as the sole kings whose reigns might have lasted a little longer than the time stated in the histories. If it be permissible to assume that both were not more than 25 when they became kings, Wijaya's age would become 63 at his death, and Paṇduwāsa-Dēva's 55. Even if we extend both up to 70 years it would carry the beginning of Wijaya's reign only 22 years further back. But the probabilities are overwhelmingly against such an addition to their ages. It would show, as a result, that in the case of five legitimate consecutive rulers (omitting Tissa, the brother of Abhaya, as a usurper), not one died under the age of 70 years. Such a chain of long-lived monarchs is unheard of, and is manifestly inadmissible.

I am not concerned in attempting to reconcile the date of Gōtama Buddha with that of Wijaya, who is stated to have arrived in Ceylon and become the first Sinhalese king in the year when Buddha died.1 According to the genealogical table of Buddha's relatives they appear to have been contemporaries, as the queen of Paṇḍuwāsa-Dēva, the nephew of Wijaya, was the daughter of Buddha's cousin, if the Sinhalese histories are correct. Any error in the chronology is likely to be found among this queen's ancestors; it is possible that two or three names have been omitted between her and Amitōdana, the uncle of Buddha. Such an omission would account for the discrepancy in the dates of Buddha and Wijaya, without its being necessary to assume that the list of Sinhalese kings is at fault. I have shown this in the table, therefore.

1 Mr. V. A. Smith, in his Early History of India, 1908, p. 42, states that Dr. Fleet now considers 482 B.C. the most probable and satisfactory date of the death of Buddha.

« PreviousContinue »