Person: Senarath Paranavitana

This inscription is engraved on one side of a stone slab, which stands at the foot of the flight of steps leading to the main shrine of the dēvāle at Alutnuvara. A related inscription is engraved on the other side of the slab (IN03206). The slab is situated to the right of the steps as one ascends. It is badly weatherworn and only the lower part of each face remains legible. Another inscribed slab stands on the other side of the steps but its inscription has been totally obliterated, apart from a few lines at the end (IN03207). The slabs were discovered in the late nineteenth century and their inscriptions were first published by H. C. P. Bell in 1892 (Report on the Kegalla District of the Province of Sabaragamuwa, pp. 80–81).

The present inscription contains a declaration of allegiance by the inhabitants of Satara Kōraḷē to the kingdom of the Highlands (Kanda-uḍakaṭṭuva). The inscription on the other side of the slab (IN03206) forms a response to this declaration presumably from the ruler of the Highlands, in which he proclaims that neither he nor any other member of the royal family will cause loss of property, limbs or life to the people of Satara Kōraḷē. It is therefore clear that the two documents were published at the same time. No regnal year or date is found in either inscription. However, the king’s edict (IN03206) states that it was set up Vikramabāhu Ǟpā at the command of King Senāsammata Vikramabāhu. Bell took this king to be Vikramabāhu III, who reigned from Gampaḷa in the middle of the fourteenth century, but this supposition was shown to be incorrect when H. W. Codrington proved that Senāsammata Vikramabāhu was in fact an independent ruler of the Hill Country who flourished in the latter half of the fifteenth century, his reign beginning in 1474 or 1475 at the latest. The identity of the individual called Vikramabāhu Ǟpā, who set up the edict on Senāsammata Vikramabāhu’s behalf, is not clear. In the medieval period, the title ǟpā was usually reserved for the heir-apparent. It would therefore appear that Senāsammata Vikramabāhu had an heir who was also called Vikramabāhu, although this would conflict with Codrington’s survey of the documentary evidence, which seems to show that the king’s successor was in fact named Jayavīra.

Ruwanwelisaya, Anuradhapura

Ruanweli Dagoba, c. 1891. Image from: Ricalton, James, (1891). ‘The City of the Sacred Bo-Tree (Anuradhapura),’ Scribner’s Magazine 10, pp. 319–336, image opposite p. 328.

This inscription is engraved on a large stone slab in the pavement of the Ruvanvälisǟya at Anurādhapura in close proximity to its southern vāhalkaḍa. A short donative records that the slab was incorporated into the paving at this spot in the ninth century. Before that, the slab seems to have served as the landing above a flight of steps in some old building. The inscription consists of twenty-two lines and was evidently never completed, since the last line ends abruptly before coming to a period and the horizontal partitions that separate the lines of writing are only complete up to the fourteenth line. It seems that, for some reason or other, the engraving of the inscription was interrupted before the final touches could be completed, perhaps as a result of the many internal revolutions and foreign invasions that marked the early thirteenth century in Sri Lanka. Although the inscription was apparently in relatively good state of preservation when it was discovered for scholarship in the nineteenth century, it has since suffered considerable damage, largely as a result of carts having been driven over the slab during the restoration of the dāgäba. The language of the inscription is Sinhalese, although it also includes a large proportion of Sanskrit words. The record is dated in the second year of Kalyāṇavatī (r. 1202–1208) and gives an account of the offerings made to the Ruvanvälisǟya by a minister called Vijayānāvan, his wife and his sister’s son. Vijayānāvan is described as having administered the treasuries of kings, including Parākramabāhu.

This inscription is engraved on all four sides of a fragmentary stone pillar in the collection of the National Museum in Colombo. The provenance of the pillar has not been recorded. It appears to have been repurposed, sometime after it was originally inscribed and erected, as a riser in a flight of steps, resulting in the loss of some letters from the inscription. The text originally continued on the lower half of the pillar, which has been lost. The inscription can be dated on palaeographic grounds to the early tenth century. From the surviving portion of the text, it is clear that the record registered a grant of immunities by a king who had the viruda name of Abhā Salamevan and who is described as a brother of King Sirisaṅgbo Kasub (Sirisaṅghabodhi Kassapa). Senarath Paranavitana argues that the latter monarch is probably Kassapa IV, since he was the only monarch of the name who ruled in this period and had the viruda title Sirisaṅgbo. However, Kassapa IV is not known to have any younger brothers who succeeded him on the throne. Hence the identity of the Abhā Salamevan of the present inscription remains unclear.

Ambasthala Dagoba, Mihintale

This inscription is engraved on the perpendicular face of a rock situated about 40 or 50 yards (35 or 45 m) to the north-east of the Ambastala Dāgäba at Mihintaḷē. The epigraph has been seriously damaged by the action of the weather and possibly also by the destructive attentions of vandals, to the extent that large portions of the writing are now totally effaced and many letters are not very clear. However, with help from Sylvain Lévi, Senarath Paranavitana identified part of the inscription as a copy of the Trikāyastava, a Sanskrit hymn consisting of three Sragdharāverses adoring the three bodies of the Buddha and a fourth verse in the same metre embodying the wish of the reciter. Lévi published a version of the Trikāyastava, restored to Sanskrit from a Chinese transliteration, in 1896, and another version was published by Baron A. von Staël-Holstein from a Tibetan codex in 1911. Neither version was perfect: the Tibetan version was missing the fourth verse and, although the Chinese version was complete, Lévi was unable to recognise certain words due to the fact that the Chinese alphabet does not allow for precise transliteration of Sanskrit. Nonetheless, using these two version together, Paranavitana was able to read the Trikāyastava in the Mihintaḷē inscription, filling in those portions which are missing on the stone. The Trikāyastava starts towards the close of the sixteenth line of the inscription and is continued over the next two and three-quarter lines. The first sixteen lines of the inscription also appear to be in Sanskrit verse and may include other religious hymns. However, the inscription’s poor state of preservation means that none of these verses can be deciphered. Equally difficult to make out are the final lines of the inscription, which contain some verses in the śloka metre. These verses appear to give an account of the person who had the epigraph engraved on the stone and his religious aspirations in doing this meritorious act. His name is not preserved but he seems to have been a monk.

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).