Archives: Posts

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).

This inscription is engraved on a rock near the ruined stupa on the ancient site now known as Veheragala at Tim̆biriväva in the Mahapotāna Kōraḷē West of the Anurādhapura District. There are four other inscriptions on the same rock, all of which are more or less fragmentary. Written in the Brāhmī script of the early centuries A.D., these records were first brought to notice by H. C. P. Bell in 1896. The present inscription registers the gift of a tank by a lady named Anuḷabi to the monastery called Gagapavata, which was doubtless the name of the ancient vihara at the site. It is dated in the second year of King Mekavaṇa Aba, who is described as the son of the great king Sirinaka (Sirināga). Bell took Mekavaṇa Aba to the same as Sirimeghavaṇṇa, the son of Mahāsena. However, highlighting a number of flaws in Bell’s reasoning, Senarath Paranavitana argued instead that Mekavaṇa Aba should be identified with Goṭhābhaya, the father of Mahāsena. The identity of Goṭhābhaya’s father is not recorded in the chronicles but Paranavitana suggested that he may have been Sirināga II, identifying both kings as members of the dynasty founded by Vasabha. (Paranavitana’s genealogical table of this dynasty can be viewed here.)

Vessagiri rock shelters, Anurādhapura

This inscription is engraved on a small, solitary boulder near the ruined structure to the west of Rock B at the site now called Vessagiri, near Anurādhapura. The record dates from the third or early fourth century A.D. It is unusual because it records a grant of tanks and villages made by one king, presumably to the monastery on the site, but is dated in the reign of another monarch. The king who donated the tanks and villages is named as Tisa (Tissa), the son of Sirinaka and grandson of Tisa. Meanwhile, the king in whose reign the inscription is dated is called Sirinaka (Sirināga), the son of Tisa and grandson of Sirinaka. Although the repetition of family names is somewhat confusing, it appears from the text that Sirinaka, the publisher of the grant, was the son of king Tisa, the donor of the benefactions. Both kings were, it seems, named after their grandfathers and their genealogy may be diagrammatically represented as follows:

Tisa Maharaja

|

Sirinaka Maharaja

|

Tisa Maharaja (the donor)

|

Sirinaka Maharaja (the publisher)

The identification of these kings presents no difficulty as the chronicles mention only two kings named Sirināga, who were indeed related as grandfather and grandson. The publisher of this inscription must therefore have been Sirināga II. Working backwards, his father – the donor of the grant – must have been Vohārika Tissa, who is described in the chronicles as Sirināga I’s son. This king’s personal name was ‘Tissa’ but he was given the additional epithet ‘Vohārika’ to commemorate his knowledge of the law.

This inscription is engraved on the wall of a cave at Habässa, the site of an ancient monastery in the forest on the right bank of the Kum̆bukkan Oya, about six miles south-east of the village called Okkampiṭiya in the Buttala Kōraḷē of the Ūva Province. At this site are two long and narrow hummocks of gneiss rock running north-west to south-east. Both have steep overhanging sides, forming a number of caves with drip-ledges. The cave containing the present inscription is one of three caves situated at the southern extremity of the southern range of rock.

The inscription can be dated on the basis of the script and language to the second century A.D. It records the grant of an irrigation channel and three fields to the ancient monastery of Ulibikala-Naka-maha-vihara by the uparāja Naka (Nāga), grandson of King Vahaba (Vasabha) and son of King Utara (Uttara). No king named Uttara is mentioned in the chronicles of Sri Lanka, hence this inscription is of great historical importance as a record of his existence. As his son, Nāga, is described here as a grandson of King Vasabha (r. 66–110 A.D.), it is clear that Uttara was either a son or a son-in-law of the latter – probably a son, since royal genealogies from this period tend to trace the descent directly on the paternal side. The Mahāvaṁsa and the other chronicles mention only one son of Vasabha, namely Vaṁkanāsika Tissa (Tissa the Crooked-Nosed), who succeeded him as king. ‘Uttara’ may, therefore, have been another name of Tissa but it is equally possible that certain historical facts were omitted from the chronicles and that Vasabha did, in fact, have another son who became king.

The present inscription was probably engraved during the reign of Tissa’s son and successor, Gajabāhu I. However, it is noteworthy that the donor of this inscription – an individual called Nāga, who is described here as holding the subordinate rank and office of uparāja – did not deem it necessary to mention the paramount sovereign of the day. In later medieval periods, the title uparāja was generally used by the heir-apparent and the same may be the case here. This conjecture finds support in the chronicles, which record that Gajabāhu’s successor was Mahallaka Nāga (‘Old’ Nāga), indicating that Tissa did have an heir called Nāga.

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.