No. 24. — 1881.] ANCIENT KALAIIj ETC. 69 



who was begotten by a lion and was conceived in the womb of 

 a Royal Princess, the daughter of Kalinga Chakrawarti." I 

 give Alwis's translation, but he should have translated it, 

 ' daughter of the King of Kalinga, King of Kings as Ckakra- 

 warttl (€)sge)?&^) is a King to whom other Kings are vassals. 



Gurulugomi goes on to quote Sanyiit Sangiya : " So likewise 

 both King Wijaya, the son of the Sinhala [this we must bear 

 in mind is grandson of Sinha] who having subdued the Yaksha, 

 took Lakdiva [Lanka !, also his younger brother King Sumit, 

 who reigned in Smhapura, also his son Panduwas Deva, who 

 having left Smhapura became King of Lakdiva, and his sons 

 and grandsons, were Sinhala." This passage I have translated 

 afresh as Alwis's version fails to convey the original correctly. 



It indicates that Wijaya,* grandson of Sinha, leaving his 



* It may be well here to append an amended table of the successors of 

 Wijaya, which I suggest as probably correct: — 



Devananpiyatissa, B. C, 241, is a well-established date, and may be taken 



as the starting point. B. C. 



Devananpiyatissa ... ... ... 241 



Mutusiva ... ... ... ... 271 



Pandukdbhaya ... ... ... 306 



A'bhaya and Gunatissa ... ... ... 343 



Panduwasa ... ... ... ... 373 



Upatissa ... ... ... ... 374 



Wijaya ... ... ... ... 412 



I quite agree with Turnour in regarding the reigns of Mutasiva and 

 Pandukdbhaya (60 and 70) as preposterously long, and it will be seen by 

 halving these we get a reduction of 65 years, which sum has proved to be 

 an introduction fraudulently inserted to carry back the Wijayan era. 



I have followed the Mahdwansa in allowing 37 years between Panduwasa 

 and Pandukabhaya, though this interval is open to doubt, and I shidl per- 

 haps elsewhere be able to elucidate it. With reference to the reign of 

 Wijaya, I follow the Malidivansa in giving it as 38 years. May we not 

 suppose the Sulu Raja Ratndkara gives it as 30 years, because the former 

 dates his reign from his accession on his father Sinhabahu's death, and the 

 latter from his return from India at the head of an army to conquer the 

 Island? The new light thrown upon the subject by the Chinese accounts 

 renders this explanation highly probable. 



