44 
JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON). [VoL. XXII. 
should have cited " the other contemporary writer " from whom 
" it can be shown that Sri Parakrama Bahu was the son of Jay a 
Mahala," That monarch's own sannas declare that his father 
was " king," and the Rdjdvaliya and Valentyn bear out that he 
was Vijaya Bahu VI. {vide Appendix A). 
(4) In saying that he " can think of no authority " for my 
statement that " Parakarama Bahu struck off the head of the 
usurper Alakesvara at the bidding of Vidagama Maha Sami," the 
Mudaliyar has forgotten to quote the two previous words of the 
sentence, " Legend says." * The Rdjdvaliya, which he declares 
" does not support it," states : "In this manner the prince lived 
in obscurity until he had attained the age of 16 years, when the 
elder Visidagama summoned the leading men, and having consulted 
together, sent for the prince ; and, without the knowledge of 
Alakesvara, brought him out to the people under the asterism 
Phusa, on Thursday, the 7th day of the bright fortnight of the 
month Wesak. Having caused Alakesvara to be put to death, he 
raised the prince to the throne under the name of Sri Parakrama 
Bahu." The legend merely supplies the detail who was the 
agent the priest employed to kill the usurper. 
The identification of Gurubebila with Hanwella would appear 
to have as much warrant as its identification with Vanaguru- 
godella. But I expressed no decided view, and will yield to 
special local knowledge. 
The question of the origin of Alakesvara has no immediate 
bearing on the subject, and was fully dealt with by me in a 
previous Paper. The contemporary authorities quoted there 
show conclusively that he belonged to a Dravidian family from 
Conjeveram, whose settlement was at Rayigam. The proposition 
that the family name is Amaragirivasa cannot be maintained, as 
the word merely means that Alakesvara resided at Amaragiri. 
E. W. Perera. 
5. Simon de Silva, Mudaliyar, submitted a Memorandum 
dissenting from some of Mr. Perera' s statements,! 
6. Mr. D. B. Jayatilaka said that the Paper was very interest- 
ing and threw a flood of light upon on exceedingly obscure period 
of Ceylon history. He drew the attention of the Meeting to a few 
points in regard to which he could not agree with the writer. % 
7. W. F. Gunawardana, Mudaliyar, disagreed with two points 
in the Paper. § 
* The " legend," — if such exists, is so manifestly unworthy of 
credence that it should best be not countenanced. — B., Ed. Sec. 
t See Appendix E. | See Appendix F. § See Appendix G. 
