94 On the History of the Burma Race. [No. 2, 



possess the holy tooth relic which was in the province of Can-da-la-rit 

 in China. He therefore marched with a vast army, accompanied by 

 Kyan-tsit tha and Shwe-by-in-gyi and Shwe-by-in-nge. The em- 

 peror of China shut himself up in his city, and not being aware of 

 the greatness of A-nau-ra-hta, took no notice of him. At length by 

 means of an artifice accomplished by Shwe-by-m-gye and Shwe-by-in- 

 nge, and by the boldness of Kyan-tsit-tha the emperor became alarmed. 

 The two sovereigns had a friendly meeting. The king, however, fail- 

 ed to procure the holy tooth relic. He brought away, however, an 

 emerald studded image, which had been sanctified by contact with the 

 holy relic ; and in a divine communication from Tha-gya Meng, was 

 informed that he might have a forehead bone relic which king Dwot- 

 ta-bung had formerly brought to Tha-ye-khet-ta-ra from the country 

 of the Kam-ram. A-nau-ra-hta then returned, taking with him the 

 emerald image. While passing through Shan, a Chinese province of 

 Mau, he married Tsau-mwun-hla, the daughter of the prince of the 

 province. This marriage and the subsequent adventures of the prin- 

 cess, have been made the subject of one of the most popular dramas 



in Burma. 



After this the king went to Tha-re-khet-ta-ra, and pulled down the 

 pagoda in which king Dwot-ta-bung had enshrined the forehead 

 bone relic. In the histories of Arakan, it is said, he brought this relic 

 from that country;* but that is not true. It had indeed originally 

 been brought from thence by king Dwot-ta-bung. A-nau-ra-hta, 

 fearing that the city of Tha-re-khet-ta-ra might fall into the hands of 

 enemies, destroyed it. When he arrived at Pu-gan, he built the 

 Shwe-zi-gun pagoda for the holy relic to repose. But although 



* In the history of Arakan which I have consulted, it is stated that ^A-nau- 

 ra-hta invaded that country to carry away a celebrated brazen image of Gau 

 da-ma which was in the temple of Maha-mu-m. He did not succeed in doing 

 so The Arakanese history represents this first invasion as occurring ; m the 

 vear 994 A D., but records that the same king invaded Arakan twenty -fom 

 fears laterfwhen the Arakanese king was killed. *%^^*™?% 

 to Burmese history, did not succeed to the throne until the year 1017 A. D or 

 1010 AD.! more correctly reckoned, the two statements cannot be reconciled. 

 Pint the date of A nau-ra-hta's succession varies in different copies of the Maha- 

 Efdztwen". In the appendix to Crawfurd's embassy to the Court of Ava 

 that autho^ives a list of the kings of Burma from manuscripts procured by 

 hti in the Country. The accession to the throne of A-nau-ra-hta is stated to 

 W 997 A D. This agrees better with the dates in the Arakanese history 

 Considering that the father of A-nau ra-hta was still alive when the son ascended 

 the tbronef there may have been doubts as to the proper date. 



