NO. 47. — 1896.] ANCIENT CITIES AND TEMPLES. 



153 



My copy of a manuscript termed " Kadaim-pota saha Praddna 

 Nuwarawal " has some variations from that which you quote. 

 The chief differences are : — 



400 palaces. 



900 buildings with thrones. 

 1 kunam (not kuman*) house. 

 1 aviary. 



Stables for hunting buffaloes are omitted. 



Residences for dancing girls are omitted. 



The tank is stated to be a " great tank." 



The 300 " warriors" are Mahd bala yodhayan, "giants of 



great strength." 

 8,000 masons. 



400 wells lined with earthenware rings (urd-lin). 



It would be interesting if you could give a section of the 

 Kota-wehera dagoba, showing the two relic-chambers, one over the 

 other. The dimensions of the bricks used in it will be a safe approxi- 

 mate guide to its age ; but unfortunately I have not measured them. 

 I have now no doubt that it is of far later date than the time of 

 Panduwas Deva ; it is not likely to belong to pre-Christian times. 



The other dagoba is of later date than the tenth century. The 

 broken inscribed pillar in it is of that century, and the inscription 

 refers to one of the usual grants made to a vihare, from which it must 

 have been removed to its present site inside the dagoba. 



Anuradhapura was built on the Kadamba river, which must be the 

 Malwatta-oya. One would therefore expect to find Upatissa Nuwara 

 on the banks of that river ; but of course there may have been another 

 river of the same name. On page 34 of the English version of the 

 Mahdwanm it is quite clearly stated, however, that Upatissa Nuwara 

 was north of Anuradhapura. The extract regarding it is — 



" On the bank of the Kadamba river the celebrated village called 

 Anuradha (was built). To the north thereof, near that deep river, 

 was the village of the Brahmanical Upatissa, called Upatissa." 



Panduwas Nuwara is therefore not Upatissa Nuwara, where Pandu- 

 was Deva reigned. 



Panda-vewa must, I think, be distinguished from Panda-vapi. What 

 I wrote regarding it was that Panda-vapi must be the contracted form 

 of Panduwasa-vapi, which Panda-vewa is not likely to be. 



The extract from the Mahaioansa you give cannot refer to Panda- 

 vewa, the description of the tank being inapplicable to it. I venture 

 to prefer the translation of the extract given in my report on 



* A misprint in the proof, which has been since corrected. 



