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



king built the temples still to be seen at, Pu-gan called Shwe-kd, 

 and Tha-pinyo, He kept up intercourse with a king in the eastern 

 part of Bengal, called in the Burmese history, Pa-teik-ka-ra. He is 

 said to have married a daughter of this king. Alung-tsi-thu, when 

 he became old, was much troubled by the disobedience of his sons. 

 His oldest son Meng Sheng Tsau retired from the city, and settled 

 near where the city of A-ma-ra-pii-ra was afterwards built. There he 

 formed the lake called Aung-peng-lay. He wished, his second son 

 Na-ra-thii to succeed him. The king was now a hundred and one years 

 old, and had reigned seventy-five years. This son, desirous of hasten- 

 ing his death, had him carried from the palace to the Shwe-M temple, 

 where he was smothered under a heap of cloth. 



Na-ra-thu at once took possession of the palace. But his elder 

 brother marched rapidly towards the city. Na-ra-thu cunningly con- 

 cealed his intentions, and induced the chief, or bishop, of the Buddhist 

 monks, to send a message of peace and welcome to Meng Sheng Tsau. 

 The prince, being unsuspicious, came down the river with one boat 

 and a few attendants. He was met by his brother at the landing- 

 throne (See History of Arakan, in Journal, Asiatic Society, Vol. XIII. p. 39). 

 The inscription appears mainly concerned in recounting the religious ceremonies 

 and worship offered to the temple on a special occasion. And this event 

 occurred in the year 660. In the latter year, we must conclude that the in- 

 scription was written. This supposition appears to me to reconcile the incon- 

 sistency of the dates hitherto as read. The second date being' undoubt- 

 edly 660, the first cannot be 667, as it (the first in the inscription) gives the 

 rebuilding of the temple for that year, and the consecration or other religious 

 ceremony would be subsequent to that. The difficulty is removed if we read 

 the first date as 467 for which it has been shown there are good reasons. 11 the 

 inscription means that the worship offered in 660 was a sort of consecration of 

 the building, there is certainly no reason apparent why one hundred and 

 ninety-three years were allowed to elapse before this was done. But it may 

 be that there being a special and solomn worship in 660 a record was then 

 made re^ardin^ the offerings and the previous repeated building of the temple. 

 The inscription has been written by an Arakanese, and this might have been 

 done by the king of Arakan in 660 (A. D. 1298) more probably than by the 

 kino- of Pu-o'an, as the latter kingdom had at that time fallen into great contu- 

 sion in consequence of the Chinese invasion. In the histories of Burma and 

 - \rakan dates have no doubt, in some instances, been tampered with. But 

 there is no reason to suppose that this has been done to the extent of nearly 

 two hundred years. The first time that Burma is mentioned by an European 

 is I believe, near the close of the 13th century by Marco Polo The war made 

 bv Kublai Khan on Burma is by him stated to have occurred in 12/2. lhis 

 only differs by twelve years from the date given in the Burmese history. On 

 the whole as the hrst date in the inscription has only the last figures, 67, 

 clearly defined, and the second date is clearly 660, the aoove attempt at expla- 

 nation appears to be the most probable solution of the difficulty. 



