No. 27, — 1884.] TISS AM A II A T\ A M A ARCHAEOLOGY. 



83 



The earnclian has nor boon met with in Ceylon by Mr. Hay- 

 ward, and the stone itself is probably Iudian. Carneliau is found 

 at the estuary of the Narbada. and is out and burnt there, accord- 

 ing to Mr. Streeter (Precious Stones and Gems, 3rd ed., pt. II., 

 p. 45.) A representation of a chair-like throne of a different 

 pattern, without the basket-work side, is not unusual in coius of 

 several countries and ages ; and there is every reason to believe 

 that the seat shown on the gem is the king's throne. As regards 

 the basket-work, the last remaius of it can still be seeu under the 

 sitting figure of the king on most Singhalese coius. Compare, 

 especially, No. 3 in the illustrations to Professor Rhys Davids' 

 work. In some later coins, however, this basket-work has de- 

 generated into a single line ! In the earliest identified Simhalese 

 coins the position of the sitting king is, in fact, exactly that 

 shown on this gem — the right arm hangs loosely down, and the 

 left hand holds up in front of the face a fiow r er (a lotus) as in the 

 gem. It seems clear, therefore, that the man represented on the 

 gem is a king of India or Ceylon on his throne. 



As to the age of the gem, no definite conclusion can be reached 

 uutil something is known of coius of the Island prior to Para- 

 krama Balm I. The close similarity between the position of the 

 figure on the gem and the sittiug king ou the coins is indicative 

 of the lapse of no very extended period between the execution of 

 the two engravings — not more, one could suppose, than two or 

 three centuries. Mr. Franks also considers the gem to belong to 

 about the 9th century. But this accords ill with the position in 

 which it was found ; that is. in company with karanduwas from 

 the relic-chamber of the Yatthala dagaba.. This association with 

 articles which, for the present, must be assumed to have been 

 deposited in the chamber when the dagaba was erected in 

 1220 B.C., can hardly be held to be accidental, especially when 

 the great value of such a gem is taken into consideration. 

 I observed no trace of any re-building of the dagaba ; the 

 inscribed bricks are distributed through it from top to bottom, 

 and the whole work, inside and outside, is of the same quality 

 and style. The strongest, evidence of all is the absence of bricks 

 of later types than those already described. The depth of cutting 

 made through the superstructure, in order to reach the relic- 

 chamber, shows conclusively that this chamber could never be 

 accidentally opened, by even the damage due to continued neglect 

 of the dagaba, extending over many centuries. Each side of the 

 cutting or heading stands up vertically, apparently just as it w r as 

 left when first opened. Up to the time of Magna, A.D. 1214- 

 123<3, none but Simhalese are know r n to have held possession of 



f 2 



