This inscription is engraved on a rock by the side of the flight of steps leading to the shrines and monastic buildings at the Galapāta Vihāra, situated about two miles south-west of the Rest House at Bentoṭa in the Valallāviṭi Kōraḷē. Edward Müller published the first scholarly account of the inscription in his Ancient Inscriptions in Ceylon (1883, p. 71, no. 165). The record opens with a Sanskrit śloka in the Śārdulavikrīḍita metre, before switching to Sinhalese prose. It states that a dignitary named Mindal (Mahendra), who held the office of Demaḷa-adhikāra and was administering the Pasyodun District, founded the Galapāta Vihāra with the royal assent and with the cooperation of his mother, his nephews Kodānāvan of Miyaṅguṇubim and Vijayānāvan of Degalaturubim, and his kinsman Kaṭuvitnā Sätumba or Devu. It also gives a long list of the lands and serfs granted to the temple by its founders and ends with the signatures of the donors and of the witnesses to the document.
The date of the inscription is a subject of scholarly debate. The record is dated in the thirtieth year of a king called Parākramabāhu. There are three kings of this name who ruled for more than thirty years: Parākramabāhu I (r. 1153–1186), Parākramabāhu II (r. 1236–1271) and Parākramabāhu VI (r. 1412–1467). Since the inscription can be dated on palaeographic grounds to the twelfth or thirteenth century, the last of these kings can be ruled out immediately. However, scholars disagree over whether the inscription should be attributed to Parākramabāhu I or II. Overall, the evidence is not wholly decisive and the record could belong to either monarch.
| Metadata | |
|---|---|
| Inscription ID | IN03197 |
| Title | Galapāta Vihāra Rock Inscription |
| Alternative titles | |
| Parent Object | OB03156 |
| Related Inscriptions | |
| Responsibility | |
| Author | Senarath Paranavitana |
| Print edition recorded by | |
| Source encoded | |
| Digitally edited by | |
| Edition improved by | |
| Authority for | |
| Metadata recorded by | |
| Authority for metadata | |
| Metadata improved by | |
| Authoriy for improved | |
| Language | සිංහල |
| Reigning monarch | Parākramabāhu I or II |
| Commissioner | |
| Topic | states that a dignitary named Mindal founded the Galapāta Vihāra with the royal assent, then gives a long list of the lands and serfs granted to the temple by its founders and ends with the signatures of the donors and of the witnesses to the document |
| Date: | |
| Min | 1183 |
| Max | 1266 |
| Comment | The inscription is dated in the thirtieth year of a king called Parākramabāhu. There are three kings of this name who ruled for more than thirty years: Parākramabāhu I (r. 1153–1186), Parākramabāhu II (r. 1236–1271) and Parākramabāhu VI (r. 1412–1467). Since the inscription can be dated on palaeographic grounds to the twelfth or thirteenth century, the last of these kings can be ruled out immediately. However, scholars disagree over whether the inscription should be attributed to Parākramabāhu I or II (see Miscellaneous Notes for an overview of the main arguments). Overall, the evidence is not wholly decisive and the record could belong to either monarch. |
| Hand | |
| Letter size | 3.81 cm |
| Description | The average size of the letters is 1½ inches (3.81 cm). Sinhalese script of the twelfth or thirteenth century. |
| Layout | |
| Campus: | |
| Width | 358.14 |
| Height | 152.4 |
| Description | Twenty-eight lines engraved on the surface of the rock. The writing is incised between parallels lines drawn about 2 inches (5.08 cm) apart. The record is weathered considerably, particularly towards the end, rendering some letters indecipherable. However, these losses occur mainly in the long list of temple slaves and in the portion of the document containing the names of witnesses; they do not, therefore, hinder our understanding of the inscription as a whole. |
| Decoration | |
| Bibliography | |
| References | Edward Müller described the inscription in his Ancient Inscriptions in Ceylon (1883: 71, no. 165), but he provided neither a text nor a translation of the record, his brief summary of its contents is not accurate. H. C. P. Bell published an account of the inscription, including a text and a translation (excluding lines 15 to 22, which contain the names of slaves dedicated to the temple), in Ceylon Notes and Queries (Supplement to the Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society), July 1914, pp. lxix–lxxvii, but his reading also features inaccuracies. Senarath Paranavitana published a corrected edition and translation in Epigraphia Zeylanica 4 (1934–41): 196–211, no. 25. Yatadolawatte Dhammavisuddhi discussed the date of the inscription in an article for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1971: 44–51). |
| Add to bibliography | |
| Misc notes | Edward Müller (Ancient Inscriptions in Ceylon, p. 71, no. 165) assumed that the king mentioned in this inscription was Parākramabāhu II (r. 1236–1271), since the Mahāvaṁsa records that he was responsible for some works of religious merit at a vihara in Bentoṭa. H. C. P. Bell made the same assumption in his account of the inscription for Ceylon Notes and Queries (July 1914, pp. lxix–lxxvii).
However, in the 1930s, Senarath Paranavitana (Epigraphia Zeylanica 4, pp. 196–211) argued that the inscription should be attributed to Parākramabāhu I (r. 1153–1186). As Paranavitana noted, the dignitaries named in the inscription cannot be identified with any officials from Parākramabāhu II’s time but historical personages with similar names are known to have lived during Parākramabāhu I’s reign. Paranavitana also pointed out that Parākramabāhu II’s religious works at Bentoṭa are reported to have consisted of the celebration of a festival, the laying out of fruit gardens, the construction of bridges, and gifts to the priesthood – not the foundation and endowment of a monastery and shrines, as recorded in the present inscription. There is no record in the chronicles of Parākramabāhu I undertaking religious works at Bentoṭa but, since the present inscription claims that the Galapāta Vihāra was established by a local chief with royal assent, rather than by the monarch himself, we should perhaps not expect the monastery to be listed among the king’s religious foundations.
Of course, the same argument could also be used to explain why the foundation of the monastery was not mentioned among Parākramabāhu II’s deeds. Highlighting this flaw in Paranavitana’s logic and countering a number of his other claims, Yatadolawatte Dhammavisuddhi reasserted the case for Parākramabāhu II in 1971 (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 44–51).
Overall, the evidence is not wholly decisive. The record could belong to either Parākramabāhu I or II. |