1865.] ' Report of the Archeological Survey. 253 
by Buddhists, the prediction was of course fulfilled, and upwards of 11 
centuries afterwards, the tank in which the King had sought to avoid 
the flames was pointed out to the credulous Hwen Thsang. 
330. We hear nothing more of Sravasti until one century after 
Kanishka, or five centuries after Buddha, when, according to Hwen 
Thsang, Vikramaditya, King of Sravasti, became a persecutor of Bud- 
dhists, and the famous Manorhita, author of the Vibhdsha Sdstra, being 
worsted in argument by the Brahmans, put himself to death. During 
the reign of his successor, whose name is not given, the Brahmans 
were overcome by Vasubandhu, the eminent disciple of Manorlita. 
The probable date of these two Kings may be set down as ranging 
from A. D. 79 to 120. For the next two centuries Srdvasti would 
seem to have been under the rule of its own Kings, as we find Khira- 
dhéra and his nephew mentioned as Rajas between A. D. 275 and 319. 
But there can be little doubt that during the whole of this time Sra- 
vasti was only a dependency of the powerful Gupta Dynasty of Ma- 
gadha, as the neighbouring city of Saketa is specially said to have 
belonged to them. ‘Princes of the Gupta race,” says the Vayu 
Purana, “ will possess all those countries; the banks of the Ganges to 
Prayiga, and Saketa, and Magadha.” From this time Srivasti 
gradually declined. In A. D. 400 it contained only 200 families; in 
A. D. 632 it was completely deserted: and at the present day the 
whole area of the city, excepting only a few clearances near the gate- 
ways, is a mass of almost impenetrable jungle. 
331. Before attempting to identify the existing remains of Séhet- 
Méhet with the famous monuments of Sravasti, it will be as well to 
compare and reconcile the few discrepant statements of the Chinese 
pilgrims, so that the description of the holy places may not be inter- 
rupted by discussion. Of these discrepancies perhaps the most notable 
is the difference in the name of the city itself, which Fa Hian gives as 
She-wei, while Hwen Thsang writes it, as correctly as it is possible to 
do in Chinese syllables, She-lo-/a-sité, or Sravasti. But this difference 
is more apparent than real, as there can be little doubt that She-wez 
is only a slight alteration of the abbreviated Pali form of Sewet for 
Sdwatthi, which is found in most of the Ceylonese books. Similarly 
the modern name of Séhet is evidently only a variation of the Pali Sdwet. 
The other name of Mdhet I am unable to explain, but it is perhaps 

