308 
JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON). [YOL. XVIII. 
on that as the capital besieged, when two years after, or in 1410, he 
admits the seat of Government was transferred to Kotte. The 
historian, however, does afford some particulars to justify his selection 
of Gampola. He says the Siiiihalese King decoyed the Chinese General 
and force into the interior, threw up stockades with a view to their 
capture, and ordered soldiers to the coast to plunder the junks. But 
that Ching-Ho, by a dexterous movement, avoided the attack and 
invested the capital (Gampola). All that, however, is much more 
compatible with the Kotte district, fort, and capital being the scene 
of operations ; and they are far enough inland to warrant a reference 
to the " interior." The subject is certainly one well worthy of in- 
vestigation : if the Chinese had penetrated to Gampola, there would 
surely be references in local traditions, the scene of battle, &c. Per- 
haps it would have been better had the " Gazetteer referred to 
Tennent's connection of Gampola with the Chinese invasion, in order 
to say that their penetrating so far was discredited, and that Kotte was 
much more likely the capital of the Sinhalese King at the time." — 
Observer, Jan. 18, 1897. 
4. The Chairman invited discussion on the Paper read. 
5. Mr. J. Harward said that the author should have given more 
consideration to the view expressed by Mr. Bell in his Kegalla 
Archaeological Report. It was extremely doubtful whether the Ala- 
keswara who was minister to Wikrama Bahu III. in the middle of the 
fourteenth century, was identical with the Alakeswara who resisted 
the Chinese early in the fifteenth century. 
6. Mr. W. F. Gunav^ardhana said that the Paper was a valuable 
contribution to the history of an obscure period. He agreed with 
the author that Alakeswara, the Yiceroy, whose life proved the subject 
of the Paper, was not the person who became King of Ceylon as 
Bhuvaneka Bahu V. Bhuvaneka Y. was a royal prince of the 
Solar dynasty. Alakeswara was a Dravidian noble, who belonged to the 
hill tribe (Giriwaigsa) of India. He did not agree with the author 
that this was proved definitely by the Mahdwama, The passage in 
the Mahdwansa was as follows : — 
o 
Pure tahim pancamo so 
Bhuwaneka Bhayo ahu 
Taken with the context this might be translated : "In that city he 
(i.e., Alakeswara of the context) became king as Bhuvaneka Bahu 
V." This was the rendering given by Wijesi^ghe in his published 
translation of the Mahdioama, and it ought not to be described as a 
" crowning blunder." The passage might also be rendered : " In 
that city there lived the illustrious Bhuvaneka B4hu V." In view of 
other evidence this rendering should now be adopted. He hoped that 
the author of the Paper would collect the evidence which proved that 
Alakeswara was not identical with Bhuvaneka Bahu Y. The Chinese 
chronicles appeared at first sight to point to the opposite conclusion, for 
they gave the name of the king deported to the land of the Celestials 
as A-lee-koo-nae-warh, i.e., Alagakondra, the Tamil form of which the 
Sanskrit rendering is Alakeswara. But there was more than one Ala- 
keswara, and we learn from the Saddharma Ratnakarayaya that the king 
