This inscription is engraved on a thin gold plate, said to have been discovered – along with other minor antiquities – beneath the foundation of an ancient structure on the lank belonging to the Viṣṇu temple at Vallipuram, a village in the Jaffna District, in or about 1936. On palaeographic grounds, the record can be assigned to the second century A.D. It is dated in the reign of King Vaha and records the establishment of a vihara at a place called Badakara-atana by an individual named Piyaguka Tisa when the Minister Isigiraya was the governor of Nakadiva (Nāgadīpa). The king’s name, written as ‘Vaha’, is probably meant for ‘Vahaba’ (Vasabha), whose reign lasted approximately from 126 to 170 A.D.

 

Senarath Paranavitana edited and translated the inscription in 1939 (Epigraphia Zeylanica 4, pp. 229–237). However, his translation proved immensely controversial and the plate was drawn into the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Paranavitana described the language of the plate as Siṅhala Prākṛt, which he calls “old Sinhalese”, but subsequent scholars have suggested that it can be read as Prākṛt with a Tamiḻ substratum (Vēluppiḷḷai 1990: 10–42), Prākṛtised Tamiḻ (Nāgacāmi 1994: 220–222) and Paiśāci-Prākṛt (Schalk 1996: 306). Since the text is so short, one can argue for all four possibilities. As Schalk points out, the determination of the language is open to political exploitation, since the different linguistic possibilities can be used to redraw the ethnic identity of the Vallipuram area. If the language is Siṅhala, the inscription can be framed as evidence of a Siṅhala Buddhist tradition in the region, which rationalises Siṅhala settlements in Tamiḻ areas. By contrast, if the language is Prākṛt with a Tamiḻ substratum or Prākṛtised Tamiḻ, it can be mobilised to support the case for autonomous Tamiḻ administration. Hence the inscription was often the subject of what Schalk calls “interested” historical writings during the civil war period (Schalk 1996: 308).

Bibliographic information

Senarath Paranavitana edited and translated the inscription in 1939 (Epigraphia Zeylanica 4, pp. 229–237, no. 29). However, his reading has proved immensely controversial and the plate has been drawn into the ethnic conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Paranavitana reasserted his position in 1983 (Inscriptions of Ceylon, vol. 2, pp. 79–81), prompting other scholars and politicians to follow in his spirit, including S. B. Hettiaratchi (1988: 139–140) and President R. Premadasa (Sunday Observer 20 January 1991, Daily News 2 February 1991). Meanwhile, Tamil scholars including Veluppillai (1981: 1–14) and Nāgacāmi (1994: 228–237) have offered alternative readings of the inscription. For an overview of the debate surrounding the inscription, see Schalk 1996: 295–312, and Gunawardana 1995: 10–16.

Inscription Concordance

Epigraphia Zeylanica 4 (1934–41) 229–237, no. 29

Veluppillai (1981) 1–14

Paranavitana (1983) 2: 139–140

Hettiaratchi (1988) 139–140

Nāgacāmi (1994) 228–237

Gunawardana (1995) 10–16

Schalk (1996) 295–312