386 



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



doubt was attached to the carving on the stone on the Breakwater. 

 It was, he thought, absolutely clear that the cross above the royal 

 arms was by a different hand from the carving of the royal arms 

 and date. Perhaps the date had nothing to do with the coat-of- 

 arms which it adjoined, and might possibly have been the fancy 

 work of somebody who carved on the rock perhaps long after the 

 coat-of-arms was made. 



Mr. C. M. Fernando thought the photograph was inaccurate, 

 and that the tail of the " 6 " had been worn off. There was no 

 historical mention of Ceylon having been visited by the Portu- 

 guese in 1501 , and he agreed with Mr. Donald Ferguson in what he 

 stated, that the first landing was in 1506, because it harmonized 

 with what the historians stated. If Ceylon was discovered in 1501 

 six years would not have been taken to report the discovery to 

 the king. 



Mr. R. G. Anthonisz remarked that he had been disappointed 

 with the former discussion which took place at a Meeting some 

 eight years ago, at which he was present. He had more than 

 once examined the inscription on the stone. He did not think that 

 any one who saw the stone could imagine the characters to be 

 other than 1501. The "5" was exactly one of those sixteenth 

 century five's they were always coming across ; and he thought 

 that there was no " 6 " there at all. The cipher was perfectly clear, 

 and there was no mark above the cipher to show that it could 

 have at any time been a " 6," part of which had since worn off. 



Mr. Fernando pointed out that they were dealing with the '* 6." 



The Chairman explained that the question was whether the 

 date was 1501 or 1506. 



Mr. Anthonisz said the last figure was clearly a " 1 " and 

 nothing else. He thought that the discovery of a monument of that 

 kind was one that suggested to them certain theories. As a piece 

 of evidence it should not be summarily thrown aside. Mr. Donald 

 Ferguson had fairly discussed the matter of Dom Lourenco de 

 Almeida's arrival, and, he thought, established his contention that 

 this took place in 1506. But he admits that Barros, Castanheda, 

 and other historians contradict each other on certain points. 

 Because no historian mentioned the year 1501, should they cast it 

 aside ? Monumental evidence, such as this, was very important. 

 They had to follow historians from the date at which Vasco da 

 Gama returned to Portugal in 1498 to that of Dom Francisco de 

 Almeida's arrival in India in 1505. What he would like to ask 

 was : Were they thoroughly satisfied that it was impossible for 

 some Portuguese captive or adventurer to have found his way to 

 Ceylon in 1501 ? That was the question he would like to put to 

 any student of Portuguese history. It appeared that there were 

 Portuguese visiting the west coast of India during this period, 

 who came in contact with the Arabs. Pedro Alvares Cabral and 

 his ships were at Calicut in August, 1500, and from there he pro- 

 ceeded to Cochin. From that time up to 1501 they were cruising 

 about or residing at Cananor, Cochin, and Quilom They had 



