188 



FURTHER NOTE REGARDING THE 



me quite plain, and essentially different from the 4, which occurs in the second line of the 

 inscription, (h.) In the translation published in the Journal, Vol. III. page 214, the 

 latter date was adopted : and I had since imagined that the circumstances of the frequent 

 destruction of the building, and its final completion in theyear 1305, A. D. were in some 

 measure borne out by the fact noticed in Colonel Tod's Rajasthan, of frequent expeditions 

 made from Mewdr in the 13th century " to recover Gaija from the infidels." Before ven- 

 turing however to allude to my own reading in opposition to Colonel Burney's, I 

 referred to the author at Ava, remitting him the portion of facsimile including the date, 

 for his re-examination. 1 now subjoin his reply, to which every deference is due; yet it 

 appears to me possible that the Burmese may have a bias in favor of the date which can be 

 best reconciled with their history ; in reading 667 they must have conceded the honor of 

 rebuilding the temple, as Colonel BuRNEY states, to the King of Arracan. — J. P. Sec. 



" Your letter of the 16th October reached me yestesday, and I lost uo time ia 

 showing to the Myawadee Woongyee (the most intelligent and learned Minister 

 here), to the late Burmese Vukeel Maha-tsee-thoo, and to a whole company of Bur- 

 mese Savans, your facsimile of the figures in the Gaya inscription, which however do 

 not differ in the least from those in the copy we had here before. My friends still insist 

 upon it, that the first figure in both dates is a 4, such as is commonly written in the stone 

 character, and not a 6; and referring to another 6 in the inscription, that denoting- the 

 day of the week, Friday, they ask me to observe the difference. In the figure 4, the last 

 portion of it does not rise so high or above the line as the same part does in all the three 

 sixes, and the body of the figure is rounder and more upright, and the elbow more 

 marked than in the 6. 



I cannot see also how your " collateral evidence from Tod's Rajasthan" is applica- 

 ble. Both Missions to Gaya, that which met with impediments, and that which succeeded 

 in repairing the temple, appear to have taken place during the reign of the same 

 King, Tshen-byoo-thak,hen-tara-men, and the period between the two Missions 

 could scarcely have been so great as that which elapsed between "the crusades of the 

 Rajputs to recover Gaya from the Infidels io 1200-1250," and your date 1305. These 

 crusades might have occurred after the temple had been re-built. 



" Again, the capital of Pagan was destroyed by the Chinese in the Burmese year 

 646, A. D. 1284, and for several years after this country appears to have been divided 

 into several little principalities— In 667, 668, A. D. 1305 and 1306, a King named 

 Theeha-thoo, reigned at Penya, a town to the south of Ava, iiermitting, as the Bur- 

 mese Chronicles say, Tsau-NEET, the grandson of Taroup-pye-men, the King who 

 fled from the Chinese, to reign at Pagan. Adopt your reading of the inscription, and 

 we must believe that this King of Penya, or (which I think is more probable), some King 

 of Arracan sent these Missions to Gaya. These Burmese Savans, however, insist upon 

 giving the credit of this good deed to Aloung-TSEE-thoo, King of Pagan.'" 



H. B. 



" Ava, 8lh December, 1835." 



