Dimbulagala

Discovered for scholarship by H.C.P. Bell in September 1897, the inscription is cut into the surface of the rock near the crest of a ridge at Mōlāhiṭiyavelēgala, a low reach of rock running East–West in parallel with the Dim̆bulāgala hills, about ten miles to the south-east of Poḷonnaruva. Four inscriptions, including the present record, are engraved at the termination of two long parallel lines in the rock, possibly marking a “procession path”.

The present record refers to another inscription, which is incised directly above it. The two inscriptions are surrounded by a decorative frame and it is clear that they are intended to be read together. The upper inscription (IN03118) records that king Abaya donated a canal to the monks residing in the Pilipavata monastery. The lower inscription (i.e. the present record)  records the confirmation of this donation by king Naka. Senarath Paranavitana identified Abaya and Naka – the two kings mentioned in these records – with, respectively, Bhātika Abhaya (r. 20 B.C.–A.D. 9) and his younger brother and successor Mahānāga, surnamed Mahādāṭhika (r. A.D. 9–21).

Dimbulagala Hills, Sri Lanka

Discovered for scholarship by H.C.P. Bell in September 1897, the inscription is cut into the surface of the rock near the crest of a ridge at Mōlāhiṭiyavelēgala, a low reach of rock running East–West in parallel with the Dim̆bulāgala hills, about ten miles to the south-east of Poḷonnaruva. Four inscriptions, including the present record, are engraved at the termination of two long parallel lines in the rock, possibly marking a “procession path”.

The present inscription records that king Abaya donated a canal to the monks residing in the Pilipavata monastery. Directly underneath the inscription, another record is inscribed (IN03119). The two inscriptions are surrounded by a decorative frame and it is clear that they are intended to be read together. The second inscription records the confirmation by king Naka of the donation mentioned in the first inscription. Senarath Paranavitana identified Abaya and Naka – the two kings mentioned in these records – with, respectively, Bhātika Abhaya (r. 20 B.C.–A.D. 9) and his younger brother and successor Mahānāga, surnamed Mahādāṭhika (r. A.D. 9–21).

Dimbulagala Hills, Sri Lanka

The inscription is engraved on a smooth raised panel on the roof of a cave in the scarp near the summit of the north-westerly side of Dim̆bulā-gala (referred to in the text as Dum̆bulā-gala), a range of hills about ten miles to the south-east of Poḷonnaruva or sixty miles from Anurādhapura in the same direction. The Archaeological Commissioner, H. C. P. Bell, recorded the inscription during his exploration of the locality in September 1897. The text seems to be complete but its unusual ending raises the possibility that it is in fact continued on other nearby panels. Consisting of seven lines, the inscription records that Sundara-mahādevī, the chief queen of Vikrama-Bāhu I and the mother of Gaja-Bāhu II, caused the construction of a road at Dum̆bulā-gala between Sanda-maha-leṇa (the great Moon-cave) and Hiru-maha-leṇa (the great Sun-cave); that she had it paved with stone and had also cave temples built with statues, dāgabas, and sacred bodhi trees; and that she further testifies to a certain benefaction which she had made to Demaḷǟ-pähä.

The text gives the date of this benefaction as the twenty-seventh year after the coronation of Jaya-Bāhu I. However, as Wickremasinghe points out, Jaya-Bāhu I’s reign is believed to have lasted considerably less than twenty-seven years: he ascended to the throne in 1110 and was deposed the following year by his nephew Vikkrama-Bāhu I. The latter reigned for a number of years before being succeeded in 1132 by his son Gaja-Bāhu II, who in turn ruled until 1153. By this chronology, the twenty-seventh year after Jaya-Bāhu’s coronation would have been around 1137, when his great-nephew Gaja-Bāhu II was on the throne. Wickremasinghe therefore dates the present inscription to Gaja-Bāhu II’s reign. Assuming this interpretation is correct, it is highly curious that the inscription’s date should be given from the coronation of a deposed (and by this point deceased) king.