150 



JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON). [VOL. XIV. 



used internally in the early buildings at Anuradhapura, certainly not 

 in the Ruwanweli dagoba. Tennent refers to a similar fact in the case 

 of a structure in India. (Foot-note, vol. L, p. 480.) 



It is also most likely that the roof of the upper chamber (if there 

 were two) was in the form of an arch, as is the case in buildings at 

 Polonnaruwa (Tennent, vol. I., p. 483), for there are no signs of the 

 flat slabs that would otherwise have been employed to hold up the 

 mass of brickwork at the top. Of course this is mere conjecture, there 

 being not the slightest trace of an arch any more than of slabs of 

 stones ; but the arch would be of bricks laid horizontally, and all trace 

 of it might be lost if the roof fell in, whilst the stone would still be 

 visible somewhere. Ellis tells me the place was filled with a mass of 

 irregular brickwork, so it is quite probable the roof may have fallen 

 in. I do not think with him that the brickwork was placed there by 

 the builders, for that would render the task of building the chamber 

 entirely useless. 



It is a great pity the upper part of the inscription has been destroyed. 

 It would no doubt have explained the reason for building the dagoba, 

 and have given the name of the builder. 



The presence of the pillars, let into the ground so firmly as they are, 

 seems to point to a stone roof, or, as the remains of that cannot be found, 

 to a wooden roof supporting the bricks forming the top of the dome. 



It is quite possible this dagoba may have been built not to contain 

 relics but to commemorate some event, as was the Mirisavetiya dagoba 

 at Anuradhapura ; but if so, what was the use of a chamber at all ? 

 Altogether it seems a puzzle that there should be a chamber containing 

 no relics, unless the place can have been entered perhaps hundreds of 

 years ago and then filled up again. This seems to me the only hypo- 

 thesis by which to explain the presence of a carefully built chamber 

 completely filled with rough brickwork and containing no relics. 



As for the other dagoba — that I call your dagoba, in contradistinc- 

 tion to Ellis's dagoba — except one or two doubtful points, everything 

 seems to prove its antiquity. 



I am sorry I cannot give many references to authorities, my only 

 one being Tennent ; but I have looked through his two volumes for 

 anything bearing on dagobas, and there are some things difficult to 

 reconcile with the Mudaliyar's supposition that the dagoba was erected 

 by Panduwas, 2,331 years ago. 



In the first place, Buddhism could scarcely be said to have had an 

 existence in Ceylon until long after the reign of Panduwas. Tennent 

 (vol. I., p. 339) says : "In the meantime the effects of G-otama's early 

 visits had been obliterated, and the sacred trees which he planted were 

 dead * ° His (Wijayo's) immediate successors were so eager to 

 encourage immigration that they treated all religions with a perfect 

 equality of favour. Yakko temples were provided, * ® * but no 

 mention is made in the Mahawansa of a single edifice having been 

 raised for the worshippers of Buddha." 



