செவ்வாய், 26 ஜூன், 2012
The exhibits of the Potgul statue at the National Museum Colombo, and the Archaeological Museum Polonnaruva, have not (according to good authority) been labeled identifying it as a sage or a sovereign. This is not satisfactory, for museums are educational institutions whose heads are expected to be scholars who can decide which of the reasoned published interpretations is likely to be the correct one. Furthermore, the visiting public would now be misled into believing that no scholar has hitherto been able to identify the statue from its clear iconographical features.
Regarding the second possibility mentioned above, are the relevant authorities reluctant to publicise that the statue represents a Brahman sage or the great Sinhala king Parakramabahu I, who are both derived from Indian genes, the latter’s grandmother Tilokasundari being from Kalinga?
The Central Cultural Fund, which had taken charge of archaeological works in Polonnaruva thirty years ago, has this to say about the identity of the figure known as the Potgul Statue sited north of the Potgul Vehera in Polonnaruwa: “The Location of the site and the statue on the bind of the lake makes one wonder if it is a likeness of the great tank-builder and builder of the lake, King Parakramabahu himself. It could also very well be a representation of the sage Pulasti, after whom Polonnaruva was named Pulastipura”
(PL Prematilleke and LK Karunaratne 2004, Polonnaruva, CCF, Colombo.)
(PL Prematilleke and LK Karunaratne 2004, Polonnaruva, CCF, Colombo.)
Paranavitana (1933), my Old Chief, in his younger days found evidence at the site to support the observation made on stylistic grounds by P.H. Vogel, the eminent orientalist, who inspected the statue in 1925, that the image dates from a period earlier than that of Parakramabahu I (1153-1186), In Paranavitana’s words:
“On the rock on the site of which the statue is carved, and immediately behind the head of the figure, there are distinct traces of some old writing. The letters have been shallowly and rather carelessly incised; and not more than three or four can be made out with certainty. But they are enough to ascribe the writing to the eighth or ninth century. The remaining traces of writing are scattered over an area of about 3 ft by 3 ft and they do not seem to have formed a single record as one line is at right angles to the other”.
Paranavitana did not specify what the legible letters were, but discussed the possible origin of these writings and concluded that they may have been scribbling of the artisans who carved the image. Thus, Paranavitana concluded that the sculpture belonged to the eighth or ninth century AC.
In 1952, however, Paranavitana changed his mind about the subject and date of the statue. The sculpture (he said) represented a king; the object held in the hands was interpreted as the yoke of a cart symbolising the yoke of state or of justice, which a king was wont to bear; it was further concluded on the basis of style, and by comparison with the Gal Vihara images in Polonnaruva, that the statue belonged to the twelfth century AC. By implication, Paranavitana indicated that the statue represented Parakramabahu the Great (1153-1186), and so it was that the chief state archaeologist who gave weight to a popular belief. In his last reference to the subject, Paranavitana (1971) stated that in a document that he had recently read, it was recorded that this was a portrait of Vijayabahu I (1055-1110).
It is accepted that, often, with the development of research on any subject, earlier conclusions may have to be changed yielding place to new. This is a tenet of scientific enquiry. However, if any new theory does not accord with the relevant facts, then the theory has to be modified, if not discarded. It is not possible to reconcile the interpretation of a twelfth century dating for the Potgul statue with the fact of the existence of writings dated to eighth/ninth centuries on the rock surface, which were obviously contemporaneous with the carving of the statue. Hence, unfortunately Paranavitana failed to relieve us of our perplexity regarding the new dating of the statue; for he did not refer in his later (i.e.,1952) paper to the earlier (1933) find of dated inscribed letters on top of the rock.
I am unaware of any other person reporting on the existence of these letters, which were clearly of importance in assigning a date and, by implication, the identification of the statue. My enquiries from professionals interested in the subject also proved negative. No one else appeared to have seen the writings on the rock. While serving as Advisor to the Archaeological Department, I had both the time and the inclination to search for these elusive relics of a millennium ago. The exercise was undertaken in the company of my aides Wilson, Laboratory Attendant and Jayasekera, Modeller; we were equipped with the tools of our trade to track down the writings, if they existed.
The boulder which bears the status on its prepared south face is the southernmost of three contiguous rock outcrops which gain in height from north to south. The top surface of the boulder under consideration, about 11 feet high by the statue, is not easy of access. With the support of a helping hand, one can reach it by clambering onto the north boulder, smartly stepping on to the middle rock, and finally jumping across (or being helped on) to the large south boulder nearly three feet away, which rises in the southern and eastern directions.
To our great satisfaction, we found the writings. They were not seen behind the head of the statue, as stated by Paranavitana; they were observed towards the eastern side, i.e., the right-hand side of the statue on viewing it. I was able to recognise five Sinhala letters which resemble those of the eighth/ninth century script.
Exact impressions of them were taken using a cold-setting translucent synthetic resin (Technovit, Kulzer and Co., Bad Homberg, Germany) and a release agent. The letters so far recognised are too few to be a part of an inscription; they are the letters, ka, ma, na, ra, the ka being the clearest. Preceding the ka is a letter which takes the form of a zig-zag or vertical line. The ka and ma are indited next to each other; below, cheek by jowl, are the letters ra and na. It is interesting to note that the ra is cut as the mirror-image of the Sinhala ra of that period.
A further piece of evidence in support of Paranavitana’s plausible conclusion that the inscribed letters and the carved statue are of the same date was forthcoming: the head-dress of the statues and its backward projecting (i.e., northward) rock backing are at a higher level than the rest of the rock boulder in the vicinity. This would indicate that the rock surface there was removed to provide the excrescence for the required sculpting of the head-dress. Therefore, the writing that can now be seen on the rock surface must have been indited after its original level was lowered purposefully. It follows that the writings were indited after the work on the rock had commenced.
There is no alternative but to conclude, as Paranavitana did in 1933, that the Potgul statue belonged to the eighth or ninth century, and therefore cannot represent Vijayabahu I or Parakramabahu I.
The statue should be taken as that of a sage. Which sage? Claudio Sestieri (1958) Acting Archaeological Commissioner disagreed with Paranavitana’s identification of the statue and documented reasons why the object in the hands could not have been designed as a yoke, and concluded that the statue did not represent a king. I stated in 1976 (Guide to Polonnaruwa, ASD) that the Archaeological Department favoured the interpretation that the statue is of a brahmanical sage; that the names of Agastya, Kapila and Pulasti come to mind; that Agastya is discarded on account of the absence of his usual iconographical attributes of the pot and the necklace (Siri Gunasinghe 1958). It appears that the two foreign authors of the Central Cultural Fund 1982 Guide were unaware of the official guide published by the Archaeological Department in 1976.
Since then, I have had second thoughts about Agastya. It would appear that there was, in fact, a historical figure called Agastya, an Aryan hero who came to South India (i.e., south of the Vindhya mountains) and was later worshipped as a Tamil sage. Agastya finds mention in the ancient Indian epics Mahabharatha and Ramayana, and it the ancient Sanskrit texts known as the puranas. It appeared desirable that enquiries be made in two directions. First, are any iconographical features known that would enable one to conclude that a certain statue was made to represent Agastaya? Second, can any literary connection be found between the rishi Agastya and Sri Lanka, particularly Polonnaruva? Thus latter thought had struck Siri Gunasinghe for he states that at no time was there any mention of this sage in the literary works of the Polonnaruva period or any other period of our history.
Let us take a closer look at the iconography of Agastya. Gunasinghe admitted that in some respects the iconography of the Potgul statue would certainly indicate Agastya, but the absence of the necklace of berries (aksamala) and the water pit (kamandaly) ruled him out. This weighty conclusion needs scrutiny. Is it stated any-where that these particular attributes are a sine-qua-non for Agastya images? Is there any literary evidence to show that an image of Agastya may bear in one hand or in both any object other than the necklace and the water pot? Are any images of Agastya known and accepted as such even though the necklace and/or the water pot are absent?
I am indebted to Dr. James C Harle, formerly of the Indian Institute, Oxford (one of my viva voce examiners for the doctorate) for sending me copies of an important paper on Agastya by KA Nilakanta Sastri (1936). This paper has assisted me in answering the questions raised above. According to the Vishnudharmottara-purana,and sixth century AC work on the arts, Agastya should be portrayed as carrying a necklace of berries and a water vessel. In terms of the Indian silpa worked on architecture and sculpture by Manasara, datable at least to about the seventh century AC, an image of Agastya should have a staff in the right hand and a book in the left; or there need not be a staff in the right hand but both hands may be similarly shown holding a book (ch. 57, vv. 15 – 18) (emphasis added). This conforms to the iconography of the Potgul statue, and it was first published by me in an article titled “A closer look at the Potgul statue” in the Ceylon Daily News of 24 January 1978. A copy of that paper was given to Dr. James T. Rutnam and his included this information in the booklet published by him in 1979 under the title The Polonnaruwa Colossus. A critique of an ancient statue (Tirumakal Pr., Chunnakam).
We now see that Gunasinghe’s interpretation that Agastya must always carry his necklace and water-pot no longer holds water. There is, in fact, an image of Agastya in the Siva temple of Tiruvadudurai, South India (tenth century AC) where the water-pot is replaced by a book in the left hand and a necklace is carried in the right hand.
It is now germane to look for any connection between Agastya and Sri Lanka. In his book titled God of Adam’s Peak (1958), Paranavitana referred to a statement in the Balaramayana (a drama by Rajasekara, a north Indian poet of the ninth century AC) that there was an abode of Agastya on Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka. He suggested that a cult of Agastya must have been observed by early Sinhala people before they embraced Buddhism. Godakumbure, has drawn attention to Anrgharagava, a ninth century Sanskrit work by a poet named Murari, in which there is mention of an abode of Agastya in Simhaladvipa (Sri Lanka).
The former name of Polonnaruva was Pulatthinagara (refer Mahavamsa) which can be translated as the city devoted to the sage, Pulastya. In the Vayupurana, a Sanskrit Indian work assigned to the fifth century AC, it is mentioned that Pulastya and his wife, Priti, had a son named Dattali and that Agastya was a reincarnation of this son. This indicates a close relationship between Pulastya, the patron saintly personage of Polonnaruva, and Agastya. Turning to Tamil literature, we find a legend contained in the preface to the Tolkappiyam, datable to about the fourth century AC, where it is stated that Agastya, before he travelled from North so South India in order to restore the balance that had been upset by the devas assembling on Mount Meru in the north, went to meet Pulastya, who gladly gave him his sister, Lopamuda, in marriage. By this token, Agastya was brother-in-law to Pulastya to whom Polonnaruwa was devoted in antiquity.
To return to the Vayupurana, Agastya’s abode is located on the Mandara mountain in Malayadvipa across the seas from India. The author describes the six islands around Jambudvipa (India), and one of them is Malayadvipa. This island (he goes on to say) contains the well-known Tri-kuta mountain, with its beautiful hills and valleys. On one of its extensive slopes is the great city of Lanka, and on the east of the island is sited a great Siva temple in a holy place called Gokarna. Now, the anglicised form of Trincomalee is derived from Tri-kona-malai (tri-kuta mountain), and Gokanna-tittha was the old name for Trincomalee where the great Siva temple of Konesvaram is situated. This topographical information about Malayadvipa would leave no doubt in one’s mind that this island is to be identified with Sri Lanka. It must then follow that it was an ancient belief that the rishi Agastya had an abode in Sri Lanka.
The conclusion from this study is that the Potgul statue was in existence before Polonnaruwa became the capital of the Sinhala kings, and that it was a representation of the sage, Agastya.
“On the rock on the site of which the statue is carved, and immediately behind the head of the figure, there are distinct traces of some old writing. The letters have been shallowly and rather carelessly incised; and not more than three or four can be made out with certainty. But they are enough to ascribe the writing to the eighth or ninth century. The remaining traces of writing are scattered over an area of about 3 ft by 3 ft and they do not seem to have formed a single record as one line is at right angles to the other”.
Paranavitana did not specify what the legible letters were, but discussed the possible origin of these writings and concluded that they may have been scribbling of the artisans who carved the image. Thus, Paranavitana concluded that the sculpture belonged to the eighth or ninth century AC.
In 1952, however, Paranavitana changed his mind about the subject and date of the statue. The sculpture (he said) represented a king; the object held in the hands was interpreted as the yoke of a cart symbolising the yoke of state or of justice, which a king was wont to bear; it was further concluded on the basis of style, and by comparison with the Gal Vihara images in Polonnaruva, that the statue belonged to the twelfth century AC. By implication, Paranavitana indicated that the statue represented Parakramabahu the Great (1153-1186), and so it was that the chief state archaeologist who gave weight to a popular belief. In his last reference to the subject, Paranavitana (1971) stated that in a document that he had recently read, it was recorded that this was a portrait of Vijayabahu I (1055-1110).
It is accepted that, often, with the development of research on any subject, earlier conclusions may have to be changed yielding place to new. This is a tenet of scientific enquiry. However, if any new theory does not accord with the relevant facts, then the theory has to be modified, if not discarded. It is not possible to reconcile the interpretation of a twelfth century dating for the Potgul statue with the fact of the existence of writings dated to eighth/ninth centuries on the rock surface, which were obviously contemporaneous with the carving of the statue. Hence, unfortunately Paranavitana failed to relieve us of our perplexity regarding the new dating of the statue; for he did not refer in his later (i.e.,1952) paper to the earlier (1933) find of dated inscribed letters on top of the rock.
I am unaware of any other person reporting on the existence of these letters, which were clearly of importance in assigning a date and, by implication, the identification of the statue. My enquiries from professionals interested in the subject also proved negative. No one else appeared to have seen the writings on the rock. While serving as Advisor to the Archaeological Department, I had both the time and the inclination to search for these elusive relics of a millennium ago. The exercise was undertaken in the company of my aides Wilson, Laboratory Attendant and Jayasekera, Modeller; we were equipped with the tools of our trade to track down the writings, if they existed.
The boulder which bears the status on its prepared south face is the southernmost of three contiguous rock outcrops which gain in height from north to south. The top surface of the boulder under consideration, about 11 feet high by the statue, is not easy of access. With the support of a helping hand, one can reach it by clambering onto the north boulder, smartly stepping on to the middle rock, and finally jumping across (or being helped on) to the large south boulder nearly three feet away, which rises in the southern and eastern directions.
To our great satisfaction, we found the writings. They were not seen behind the head of the statue, as stated by Paranavitana; they were observed towards the eastern side, i.e., the right-hand side of the statue on viewing it. I was able to recognise five Sinhala letters which resemble those of the eighth/ninth century script.
Exact impressions of them were taken using a cold-setting translucent synthetic resin (Technovit, Kulzer and Co., Bad Homberg, Germany) and a release agent. The letters so far recognised are too few to be a part of an inscription; they are the letters, ka, ma, na, ra, the ka being the clearest. Preceding the ka is a letter which takes the form of a zig-zag or vertical line. The ka and ma are indited next to each other; below, cheek by jowl, are the letters ra and na. It is interesting to note that the ra is cut as the mirror-image of the Sinhala ra of that period.
A further piece of evidence in support of Paranavitana’s plausible conclusion that the inscribed letters and the carved statue are of the same date was forthcoming: the head-dress of the statues and its backward projecting (i.e., northward) rock backing are at a higher level than the rest of the rock boulder in the vicinity. This would indicate that the rock surface there was removed to provide the excrescence for the required sculpting of the head-dress. Therefore, the writing that can now be seen on the rock surface must have been indited after its original level was lowered purposefully. It follows that the writings were indited after the work on the rock had commenced.
There is no alternative but to conclude, as Paranavitana did in 1933, that the Potgul statue belonged to the eighth or ninth century, and therefore cannot represent Vijayabahu I or Parakramabahu I.
The statue should be taken as that of a sage. Which sage? Claudio Sestieri (1958) Acting Archaeological Commissioner disagreed with Paranavitana’s identification of the statue and documented reasons why the object in the hands could not have been designed as a yoke, and concluded that the statue did not represent a king. I stated in 1976 (Guide to Polonnaruwa, ASD) that the Archaeological Department favoured the interpretation that the statue is of a brahmanical sage; that the names of Agastya, Kapila and Pulasti come to mind; that Agastya is discarded on account of the absence of his usual iconographical attributes of the pot and the necklace (Siri Gunasinghe 1958). It appears that the two foreign authors of the Central Cultural Fund 1982 Guide were unaware of the official guide published by the Archaeological Department in 1976.
Since then, I have had second thoughts about Agastya. It would appear that there was, in fact, a historical figure called Agastya, an Aryan hero who came to South India (i.e., south of the Vindhya mountains) and was later worshipped as a Tamil sage. Agastya finds mention in the ancient Indian epics Mahabharatha and Ramayana, and it the ancient Sanskrit texts known as the puranas. It appeared desirable that enquiries be made in two directions. First, are any iconographical features known that would enable one to conclude that a certain statue was made to represent Agastaya? Second, can any literary connection be found between the rishi Agastya and Sri Lanka, particularly Polonnaruva? Thus latter thought had struck Siri Gunasinghe for he states that at no time was there any mention of this sage in the literary works of the Polonnaruva period or any other period of our history.
Let us take a closer look at the iconography of Agastya. Gunasinghe admitted that in some respects the iconography of the Potgul statue would certainly indicate Agastya, but the absence of the necklace of berries (aksamala) and the water pit (kamandaly) ruled him out. This weighty conclusion needs scrutiny. Is it stated any-where that these particular attributes are a sine-qua-non for Agastya images? Is there any literary evidence to show that an image of Agastya may bear in one hand or in both any object other than the necklace and the water pot? Are any images of Agastya known and accepted as such even though the necklace and/or the water pot are absent?
I am indebted to Dr. James C Harle, formerly of the Indian Institute, Oxford (one of my viva voce examiners for the doctorate) for sending me copies of an important paper on Agastya by KA Nilakanta Sastri (1936). This paper has assisted me in answering the questions raised above. According to the Vishnudharmottara-purana,and sixth century AC work on the arts, Agastya should be portrayed as carrying a necklace of berries and a water vessel. In terms of the Indian silpa worked on architecture and sculpture by Manasara, datable at least to about the seventh century AC, an image of Agastya should have a staff in the right hand and a book in the left; or there need not be a staff in the right hand but both hands may be similarly shown holding a book (ch. 57, vv. 15 – 18) (emphasis added). This conforms to the iconography of the Potgul statue, and it was first published by me in an article titled “A closer look at the Potgul statue” in the Ceylon Daily News of 24 January 1978. A copy of that paper was given to Dr. James T. Rutnam and his included this information in the booklet published by him in 1979 under the title The Polonnaruwa Colossus. A critique of an ancient statue (Tirumakal Pr., Chunnakam).
We now see that Gunasinghe’s interpretation that Agastya must always carry his necklace and water-pot no longer holds water. There is, in fact, an image of Agastya in the Siva temple of Tiruvadudurai, South India (tenth century AC) where the water-pot is replaced by a book in the left hand and a necklace is carried in the right hand.
It is now germane to look for any connection between Agastya and Sri Lanka. In his book titled God of Adam’s Peak (1958), Paranavitana referred to a statement in the Balaramayana (a drama by Rajasekara, a north Indian poet of the ninth century AC) that there was an abode of Agastya on Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka. He suggested that a cult of Agastya must have been observed by early Sinhala people before they embraced Buddhism. Godakumbure, has drawn attention to Anrgharagava, a ninth century Sanskrit work by a poet named Murari, in which there is mention of an abode of Agastya in Simhaladvipa (Sri Lanka).
The former name of Polonnaruva was Pulatthinagara (refer Mahavamsa) which can be translated as the city devoted to the sage, Pulastya. In the Vayupurana, a Sanskrit Indian work assigned to the fifth century AC, it is mentioned that Pulastya and his wife, Priti, had a son named Dattali and that Agastya was a reincarnation of this son. This indicates a close relationship between Pulastya, the patron saintly personage of Polonnaruva, and Agastya. Turning to Tamil literature, we find a legend contained in the preface to the Tolkappiyam, datable to about the fourth century AC, where it is stated that Agastya, before he travelled from North so South India in order to restore the balance that had been upset by the devas assembling on Mount Meru in the north, went to meet Pulastya, who gladly gave him his sister, Lopamuda, in marriage. By this token, Agastya was brother-in-law to Pulastya to whom Polonnaruwa was devoted in antiquity.
To return to the Vayupurana, Agastya’s abode is located on the Mandara mountain in Malayadvipa across the seas from India. The author describes the six islands around Jambudvipa (India), and one of them is Malayadvipa. This island (he goes on to say) contains the well-known Tri-kuta mountain, with its beautiful hills and valleys. On one of its extensive slopes is the great city of Lanka, and on the east of the island is sited a great Siva temple in a holy place called Gokarna. Now, the anglicised form of Trincomalee is derived from Tri-kona-malai (tri-kuta mountain), and Gokanna-tittha was the old name for Trincomalee where the great Siva temple of Konesvaram is situated. This topographical information about Malayadvipa would leave no doubt in one’s mind that this island is to be identified with Sri Lanka. It must then follow that it was an ancient belief that the rishi Agastya had an abode in Sri Lanka.
The conclusion from this study is that the Potgul statue was in existence before Polonnaruwa became the capital of the Sinhala kings, and that it was a representation of the sage, Agastya.
References
De Silva Raja 1976. Archaeological Guide to Polonnaruwa, Colombo: Archaeological Departments.
Godakumbure 1971. Personal communication.
Gunasinghe Siri 1958. Cey. Journal Historical and Social Studies 1(2): 180-191.
Nilakantha Sastry, KA 1959. Land-en Volkenkunde Deel 76-471-545.
Paranavitana S 1933. Ceylon Journal Science 2(3): 229-234.
Paranavitana S 1952. Artibus Asiae 15: 209-237.
Paranavitana S 1971. Art of the ancient Sinhalese. Colombo: Lake House Investments p.138.
Paranavitana S 1958. The god of Adam’s Peak.
Ascona. Artibus Asiae Supplementum 18.
Sestieri PC 1958. East and West 9(3): 233-237.
Godakumbure 1971. Personal communication.
Gunasinghe Siri 1958. Cey. Journal Historical and Social Studies 1(2): 180-191.
Nilakantha Sastry, KA 1959. Land-en Volkenkunde Deel 76-471-545.
Paranavitana S 1933. Ceylon Journal Science 2(3): 229-234.
Paranavitana S 1952. Artibus Asiae 15: 209-237.
Paranavitana S 1971. Art of the ancient Sinhalese. Colombo: Lake House Investments p.138.
Paranavitana S 1958. The god of Adam’s Peak.
Ascona. Artibus Asiae Supplementum 18.
Sestieri PC 1958. East and West 9(3): 233-237.
Parakramabahu VI of Kotte
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Parâkramabâhu VI (1410/1412/1415–1467) was a king in the Sri Lankan kingdom of Kotte. He is the last great Sri Lankan king to have united the whole island of Sri Lanka under one flag. His rule is famous for the political stability which he maintained in that time period and the thriving of literature, specially poetry. Classical literature (prose and verse) as well as many rock inscriptions and royal grant letters (patent letters, sannas) have been found, rendering much information pertaining to this period.
Contents[hide] |
[edit]Early life
Despite the fact that there is much information (as mentioned before) on the late period of his rule, there is meagre details found on his former life. How he came to power preceding whom, is yet unknown. His mother was Sunethra Maha Devi. His father was Lameni Jayamahalena (Prince Jayakahalena), a lord. If so, he is the grandson of Prince Parakramabahu, who was Savulu Vijayabahu's son. Savulu Vijayabahu is the fifth to go by that name. His son Parakramabahu is the one who ruled the country, from Dedigama. Another scholar says that Jayamahalena was the grandfather of Parakramabahu. However, he is supposed to belong to the family, that came after Parakramabahu V.[1]
[edit]Coronation
Although most sources say 1415 as his year of coronation, they also say that he coroneted after ruling three years from Raigama.Saddarmalakaraya says the coronation was in 1410. Parakramabahu VI's queen's name is Swarnamanikya or Ranmenika. A new palace was built in Jayawardane-pura Kotte. A 'Temple of the Tooth' was also constructed.
[edit]Rule
King Parakramabahu VI suppressed the revolts in Malayarata. The chiefs of Vanni who wielded power there, were defeated by this king.[1] In 1435, a south Indian invasion from the Vijayanagara Empire, is recorded. Sri Lankn sources say that the king thwarted the invasion successfully but south Indian records contradict this. Soon after this time, king Parâkramabâhu VI directed a naval attack to south Indian ports, resulting from a dispute that arose after the incident of steeling of a cargo ship by an Indian called Rayan Malavar. This was around the year 1443.
[edit]Conquering Yapa Patuna
This battle was led by king Parâkramabâhu VI's adopted son, Prince Sapumal (Sembagapperumal). Selalihini Sandeshaya records how prince returned from after winning the Yapa Patuna (Jaffna). This is around year 1449. The king took advantage from the fact that AryaChakravarthi could no longer get military assistance from Vijayanagara. As troops advanced across Mannar to Jaffna by land, naval forces must have cut south Indian assistance by patrolling the Pork Strait. First fearce battle happened in JavaKotte near Elephant pass. Later Jaffna was attacked and Arya chakravarthi was forced to retreat to India.
[edit]Demise
In year 1463, there was a rebellion in the hill country and Sena sammatha Wikramabahu became king of Senkadagala. The king died in 1467. And his grand son Jayabahu became king. But this was followed by much political turmoil. The stability of king Parâkramabâhu VI would not return for centuries to come.
[edit]
[edit]Contribution to Buddhism
He had built a 'Dalada Maligawa' which imbuded with 3 floors for reposing the tooth relic.So also he constructed a Greatest monument having honour of his mother called 'Papiliyane Sunethradevi Piriwena'.
 | |||
| ISSN: 1391 - 0531 |
Sunday April 27, 2008
|
Vol. 42 - No 48
| |
| Funday Times - Mahawamsa | |||
| |||
Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Parakramabahu)
| Parākramabāhu I (Parakramabahu the Great) | |
|---|---|
| King of Polonnaruwa | |
 The statue in Polonnaruwa traditionally held to be of Parākramabāhu the Great | |
| Reign | 1153–1186 |
| Born | 1123 |
| Birthplace | Punkhagama |
| Died | 1186 |
| Place of death | Polonnaruwa |
| Predecessor | Gajabahu II |
| Successor | Vijayabâhu II |
| Consort | Queen Lilavati |
| Royal House | Polonnaruwa Kingdom |
| Father | King Manabharana |
| Mother | Queen Ratnavali |
Parākramabāhu I (Sinhala: මහා පරාක්රමබාහු Maha Parākramabāhu (Parākramabāhu the Great);[1][2] 1123–1186) was king of Sri Lanka from 1153 to 1186. During his reign from his capital Polonnaruwa, he unified the three sub kingdoms of the island, becoming one of the last monarchs in Sri Lankan history to do so. He oversaw the expansion and beautification of his capital, constructed extensive irrigation systems, reorganized the country's army, reformed Buddhist practices, encouraged the arts and undertook military campaigns in southern India and in Myanmar. The adage "not even a little water that comes from the rain must flow into the ocean without being made useful to man" is one of his most famous utterances.[3]
Parākramabāhu spent much of his youth in the courts of his uncles Kitti Sri Megha and Sri Vallabha, the kings of the principalities of Dakkhinadesa and Ruhuna respectively, as well as in the court of the King of Rajarata, Gajabahu II. He succeeded his uncle Kitti as king of Dakkhinadesa around 1140 and over the next decade improved both Dakkhinadesa's infrastructure and military. Following a protracted civil war, he secured power over the entire island around 1153 and remained in this position until his death in 1186. During Parākramabāhu's reign, he launched a punitive campaign against the kings of Myanmar, aided the Pandyas against the Chola Empire in southern India and maintained extensive trade relations with China and countries in the Middle East.[4] Within the island, he consecrated religious monuments, built hospitals, social welfare units, canals and large reservoirs, such as the Sea of Parakrama.
Contents[hide] |
[edit]Background
[edit]Early 12th century
The island of Sri Lanka was in part dominated by the powerful Chola polity of South India, following Raja Raja Chola I's invasion of Sri Lanka in 993. These regions remained under Chola control until the reign of King Vijayabahu I (1055–1100). Vijayabahu I successfully drove the Chola invaders out at the beginning of his reign and shifted the capital of Rajarata from Anuradhapura to a new, planned city,Polonnaruwa (Pulatthinagara). By the reign of King Vikramabāhu I (1111–1132), the island was divided into three kingdoms—Rajarata, Dakkhinadesa, and Ruhuna. Vikramabāhu was however regarded as the greatest in dignity as he possessed Rajarata with its sites of religious and historical importance. However, Manabharana, king of Dakkhinadesa ("South Country"), and his brothers Sri Vallabha and Kitti Sri Megha, the joint kings of Ruhuna, were formidable rivals for the crown.[5] Furthermore all three were the descendants of Vijayabahu's sister, and thus had a strong claim to the throne; they are referred to in the Culavamsa as the Arya branch of the royal dynasty, whilst Vikramabāhu I is of the Kalinga branch.
[edit]Birth
According to the ancient chronicle Culavamsa, Parākramabāhu's birth was predicted by a figure akin to a god seen in a dream by his father, King Manabharana of Dakkhinadesa.[6] A son was duly born to Manabharana's wife Ratnavali, and was named Parākramabāhu because of his "foe-crushing arms".[7] Though the year of his birth cannot be known exactly confirmed, it is generally thought to be around 1123.[citation needed] The location would almost certainly have been the capital of Dakkhinadesa, Punkhagama.[8]
Upon being informed of the child's birth, Vikramabāhu I in Polonnaruwa ordered that the boy be brought up as the heir to his throne. This kind of adoption may have been an olive branchof sorts on the part of Vikramabāhu, who wished to keep the throne until his death, after which it would be passed on to Parākramabāhu. Manabharana, however, rejected the offer, stating that "It is not (prudent) ... to send away such a jewel of a son". He also speculated that "...if the boy is taken thither, the party of Vikkamabahu... will gleam with mighty, up-shooting flames, but our misfortune, alas so great, will become still worse!"[9] The schism that existed between the royal clans of Sri Lanka was too deep to allow for this manner of accommodation.
Soon after the child's birth, Manabharana fell ill and died. His younger brother Kitti Sri Megha, who was joint king of Ruhuna, ascended the throne of Dakkhinadesa, while Sri Vallabha was declared sole king of Ruhuna. Parākramabāhu, his mother Ratnavali and his two sisters Mitta and Pabhavati, were sent to live in Mahanagahula, the capital of Ruhuna, under the care of Sri Vallabha.[10]
[edit]Youth
[edit]In Ruhuna and Dakkhinadesa
The politics of Sri Lanka inevitably played a significant role in Parākramabāhu's upbringing. Whilst he was still young, his eldest sister Mitta was forcibly married to their cousin, Manabharana, the son of Sri Vallabha of Ruhuna, against the wishes of Queen Ratnavali.[11]Ratnavali was herself of the Kalinga clan of the royal family, and though she was the widow of a king of the Arya branch of the royal family, she preferred to see her daughters married to a king from the Kalinga clan. During his time at Sri Vallabha's court, Parākramabāhu met his future mahesi (queen consort) Lilavati, Sri Vallabha's daughter,[12] who following Parākramabāhu's death went on to rule the country in her own right.[13]
In 1132, following the death of Vikramabāhu, Gajabahu II succeeded to the throne of Rajarata. Taking advantage of the new king's youth, the two monarchs of the Arya branch of the Royal family, Sri Vallabha and Kitti Sri Megha, tried unsuccessfully to seize Rajarata by force.[14] Gajabahu established himself firmly as ruler and therefore nominally senior to the two Arya kings[14] and neither Sri Vallabha nor Kitti Sri Megha would live to see the king of Rajarata dethroned.
After the end of the Arya-Kalinga civil war, Parākramabāhu left Sri Vallabha's palace in Ruhuna and returned to Sankhatthali, the new capital of Dakkhinadesa, where he took up residence with his uncle.[15] The Culavamsa attributes the departure to his impatience and lack of stimulation in Ruhuna.[16] It may also have been caused by Sri Vallabha's plans to place Manabharana of Ruhuna on the throne of Rajarata, which made Parākramabāhu's position increasingly precarious in court.[16] In Dakkhinadesa, on the other hand, he was well received by Kitti Sri Megha, who had no sons of his own, where he was essentially adopted; the Culavamsa thereafter refers to Kitti as Parākramabāhu's father. During his time at Dakkhinadesa, he studied important works of Kautilya, and subjects such as grammar, literature, elephant-riding, martial arts, song and dance.[17]
[edit]In Rajarata
Some time after his coming of age, the young prince left Dakkhinadesa in secrecy and set out for Gajabahu II's realm in Rajarata. Having met his allies at Badalattha (modern Batalagoda), he visited the Senapathi(commander) Sankha, on the border between Rajarata and Dakkhinadesa. When Sankha tried to inform Kitti Sri Megha of the prince's journey, Parākramabāhu had him killed.[18] Sankha had been his guardian and Kitti Sri Megha described him as 'mightiest vassal in my kingdom', making the murder all the more serious.[19]Parākramabāhu then seized Buddhagama (modern Menikdena Nuwara) and all of Sankha's property.[8] He continued his journey, having evaded a force sent against him by Kitti Sri Megha, who feared complications with the court of Polonnaruwa, and traveled through the Malaya region to Gajabahu's court.[8]
The reasons for Parākramabāhu behavior are considered uncertain, but according to the Culavamsa, his journey was essentially one of reconnaissance.[20] Although the three monarchs of the provinces were united, they all harbored the wish the govern the kingdom of Rajarata. At the time, however, it was suggested that none of them could take control of Rajarata, due to the limited resources available in their small provinces.[20] Parakramabahu did not wish to believe this, and thus traveled to Rajarata to learn the conditions of the province himself.[20]
The reason provided for Kitti Sri Megha's efforts to bring the prince back to Dakkhinadesa are presented as nothing more than concern for the well being of his nephew as well as concerns that Parākramabāhu may reignite hostilities between the Arya and Kalinga factions. However, that the king of Dakkhinadesa was "tenderly attached" to his nephew is regarded as "fiction", and it is pointed out that "the spirit in which the accounts of these conflicts are conceived is irreconcilable with the theory of untroubled relations between uncle and nephew."[21]
During his time in Gajabahu’s court, the Parākramabāhu did two things of significance. The first was to enmesh the court of Gajabahu in a web of espionage and the other was to marry one of his sisters called Bhaddavati, to King Gajabahu. Through this marriage, and various other acts
 | This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (February 2009) |
, Parākramabāhu managed matters that the ruler (Gajabahu I) completely trusted him, as much as he did the royal family.[22]Nevertheless, he retained the entirety of Bhaddavati’s dowry for himself, and entered into secret negotiations with Gajabahu’s general Gokanna. Gajabahu eventually grew suspicious of Parākramabāhu’s activities, and Parākramabāhu departed Rajarata in secrecy by night and returned to Dakkhinadesa.[23]
[edit]Return to Dakkhinadesa
In Dakkhinadesa, Parākramabāhu was reluctant to enter the capital Sankhatthali to see his uncle, King Kitti Sri Megha, until persuaded by his mother Ratnavali to do so. Kitti Sri Megha however died soon after Parākramabāhu's return and the Culavamsa notes that the prince "was not mastered by the agitation called forth by the grief at his father's (sic) death"—perhaps a sign of lingering ill feeling between the two.[24] Parākramabāhu was now king of Dakkhinadesa.
[edit]King of Dakkhinadesa
[edit]Government
Parākramabāhu's objective for Dakkhinadesa was to expand it so that it would surpass the greatness of other kingdoms, in a short period of time.[25] He started a huge program of construction and renovation, the remnants of which can still be seen in central Sri Lanka today. It is mentioned of him as having restored an ancient causeway called the Kotabaddha, over the Deduru Oya (Deduru Lake) near modern Kurunegala.[26] The new king's personality was illustrated when the architects commissioned to the project informed him that it was well-nigh impossible to carry out, to which Parākramabāhu replied that "What is there in the world that cannot be carried out by people of energy?".[27] He ordered the construction of canals and dams, and cleared a large area of forest around them for newfields. Most notably, he constructed the Parakrama Samudra (Sea of Parakrama), a giant reservoir from which a large swathe of territory derived its water supply. On islands in the middle of the reservoir he constructed a palace and a dagoba.[28]
He transformed the royal court, making it a hub of cultural activity, attracting young nobles skilled in various arts such as riding elephants or horses, swordsmanship, in the use of foreign tongues and in dance and song. He reformed the government of Dakkhinadesa, creating two ministries; the military affairs and the internal administration to which he later added a third department, which oversaw the management of mines. Trade was an important component of Dakkhinadesa's income since the island of Sri Lanka, given its geographical position, had always been at the junction of several major trade routes. Chinese silk was a significant import and was used in the consecration of statues and shrines.[29] Pearls and gems (of which the king took particular interest) constituted an important part of the island's exports, as did cinnamon (which remained, until the 19th century, Sri Lanka's major export), and war elephants.[30] Most trade was carried out through the main seaports of the principality, Kalpitiya, Halaavatha (Chilaw) and Colombo.[31]
[edit]Preparation for war
Parākramabāhu's army had a diverse ethnic make-up. Some of his officers were from the two grand old clans of Sri Lanka, the Moriya and the Lambakanna, who had between them dominated Rajarata from Anuradhapura. A group of Tamil soldiers from near Kurunegala also rallied to him, under a man styling himself the king of Malaya (modern Dumbara). By the time hostilities broke out between Dakkhinadesa and Rajarata, the former's forces also included Veddas,[32] Cheras, and people from the lower castes not traditionally involved in martial activities. The Culavamsa places the number of soldiers at somewhere around 100,000 people, but the real figure was probably lower.[33] Parākramabāhu would have been able to field war elephants, cavalry, and siege engines, and his force represented a serious threat to Gajabahu's power in the north.
[edit]Conquest of Rajarata
[edit]War with Gajabahu
Around 1150, Parākramabāhu made his first move by seizing control of Malaya, strategically securing his eastern flank. He then moved his forces against various chieftains on the border of Rajarata. The final stage of this early campaign was the defeat of an army of Gajabahu himself, after which there was a brief ceasefire between the two sides.[34]
Hostilities resumed soon afterwards. Gajabahu had resorted to securing support from abroad, and by the time hostilities resumed between him and Parākramabāhu, the army of Rajarata included nobles of heretical faith from abroad.[35] Parākramabāhu himself did not participate in the invasion of Rajarata, but was responsible for the overall strategy of the campaign, which was based on the writings of Kautilya.[36]
The forces of Dakkhinadesa struck at the fortress of Mallavalana near the mouth of the Kala Oya, seizing it and occupying the western coast of Sri Lanka. The army then sailed up to the north and landed at a place called Muttakara or Mutukara ('Pearl-mine') near modernMannar.[37] In the meantime, Gajabahu's senior general Gokanna suffered several defeats in the vicinity of Kala Vewa and was forced to appeal to the king of Rajarata for reinforcements.[38] Despite receiving these and meeting with some success in Malaya, Gokanna was again defeated by Parākramabāhu's general Mahinda, a rout so total that Gokanna fled the battle scene leaving behind his umbrella, an important status symbol in medieval Sri Lanka. The remnants of his force constructed a fortress in a jungle and took no further part in the war.[39]
By 1153, Parākramabāhu's forces were in a position to take Polonnaruwa. Rakkha and a junior general named Sukha inflicted another defeat on Gajabahu just 15 kilometres (9 mi) from the city, seizing the capital of Rajarata soon afterwards.[40] The king and his two sons, Colaganga and Vikramabāhu, were imprisoned. Parākramabāhu was magnanimous in defeat, and laid out clear orders for the treatment of both the former king and the townspeople to his generals:[41]
| “ | If the heads of districts and the officers, grown insolent by their victory in fight, slay the King (Gajabahu) whom they have captured, that is not right. And if they plunder the town and ill-treat the people and become unbridled, that is likewise not right. The gaining of the royal dignity takes place for the welfare of the order (Sangha) and the people alone, but not for the purpose of slaying... Therefore thou must go there, hold the unbridled in check, take the King under thy protection and make the town secure | ” |
However some members of Parākramabāhu's army are known to have disregarded his commands and broken open house doors in Polonnaruwa, plundered goods and stole raiment and ornaments from the people of the city.[41][42]
The pillaging of Polonnaruwa was to have dire consequences for Parākramabāhu. Angered by the actions of the forces from Dakkhinadesa, the nobles and allies of Gajabahu—including his general Gokanna—appealed to Manabharana of Ruhuna, who was at Sorabara, in the center of the country, for assistance. Despite having an alliance with Gajabahu, Manabharana had remained neutral in the war up till that point. Then, on the eve of Parākramabāhu's victory, he stepped into the conflict and launched an invasion of Rajarata.[43]
[edit]War with Manabharana and Gajabahu
Parākramabāhu sent his Senpathi (commander) Deva to restore order to Polonnaruwa, but he found himself in battle with Manabharana before he could reorganize his troops.[43] The king of Ruhuna kept to his word and delivered Parākramabāhu's forces a crushing blow, driving them from Polonnaruwa. For the Kalinga clan however, the alliance with Manabharana backfired as it was soon made clear that Manabharana intended to keep the city for himself. He put to death many of Gajabahu's senior officials, and imprisoned Gajabahu in a dungeon.[43] Manabharana's mother, Sugala (the niece of Vijayabahu I), and his wives were soon summoned from the south to live in Rajarata. The sacred Tooth Relic and the Alms Bowl Relic, long kept in the south, were now returned under his aegis to the north.[44]
Gajabahu then appealed to Parākramabāhu for assistance, and Parākramabāhu ordered his troops to cut off grain supplies to Polonnaruwa and harass travelers on the roads between Ruhuna and Rajarata. As a result, all the people in the town with King Manabharana became "weakened birds in a cage".[45] With the sporadic attacks from Dakkhinadesan forces slowly grinding down his power in the north, Manabharana left Polonnaruwa to attack a force commanded by Rakkha that had been wreaking havoc in western Rajarata. In his absence Parākramabāhu's forces seized Polonnaruwa, liberated Gajabahu II, and took into their possession the entirety of Manabharana's treasury. The disheartened king of Ruhuna returned to the south with his family and the sacred relics.
Gajabahu, who had been set free, left Polonnaruwa before Parākramabāhu arrived and decided to leave the country by ship. However, an attack by some of Gajabahu's followers on Parākramabāhu's troops reignited hostilities between the two, and Parākramabāhu sent his army to capture Gajabahu. By late 1153, after suffering a number of defeats, Gajabahu realized his capture was imminent, and appealed to the Sangha to intervene.[46] They persuaded Parākramabāhu that the ailing king no longer posed a threat, and that he should be allowed to live out the rest of his days in peace. Manabharana tried to woo the king back to the battle against Parākramabāhu, but Gajabahu refused,[46] having the words "I have made over Rajarata to Parākramabāhu" inscribed on a stone tablet to confirm his abdication in favor of Parākramabāhu.[47] Gajabahu moved to Gantale (Kantalai[48]), where he died in the 22nd year after his coronation as king of Rajarata.[8]
[edit]Coronation and defeat of Manabharana
Parākramabāhu was immediately crowned king of Rajarata, but the war was far from over. Manabharana struck again, sending his armies to the Mahaweli River and attempting to cross into Rajarata via two fords. In the meantime, Narayana, a chieftain based at Anuradhapura, rose in rebellion, and Parākramabāhu's hold in the north was again threatened.
On this occasion Parākramabāhu decided to vanquish Manabharana once and for all; "Not even in Rohana will I permit King Manabharana who is here crushed in war, to find a hold".[49]Rakkha was commanded to hold the fords at the Mahaweli River, whilst Parākramabāhu himself attacked from Dakkhinadesa into Ruhuna. Narayan's rebellion was suppressed by another force, leaving Rakkha, who had successfully held the fords at the Mahaweli River, free to invade from the north.
If Parākramabāhu had hoped for a swift victory, it did not happen. Manabharana defeated Rakkha's army and drove them back to Rajarata. Parākramabāhu found himself facing dissension within his own ranks and the defeat of his forces in Malaya; Manabharana even recaptured Polonnaruwa and with it most of Rajarata.[50] Despite this Parākramabāhu persevered with the offensive, withdrawing from his southern campaign and concentrating his forces in the north. Manabharana once again found himself besieged in Polonnaruwa. Both sides were exhausted by the incessant warfare of the preceding years, and Manabharana eventually fled the city for Ruhuna. His forces were overtaken at the Mahaweli River by Parākramabāhu's army and annihilated; the king returned to the south in time to pass away from a combination of disease and exhaustion.[51]
Parākramabāhu was finally the unquestioned lord of the entire island of Sri Lanka, even though it had been at the cost of around five years of incessant warfare. In years to come the king himself was to regard this war as one of the most significant events of his reign, mentioning it in several of his edicts carved on stone, such as the one near Devangala.[52] He celebrated by summoning Manabharana's son to Polonnaruwa and concluding a peace with him, followed by a lavish coronation ceremony.[53]
| Timeline of accession of Parākramabāhu to the throne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kingdom | Monarch | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1090 | 1100 | 1110 | 1120 | 1130 | 1140 | 1150 | 1160 | 1170 | 1180 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rajarata | Vikramabāhu I | Gajabāhu II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dakkhinadesa | Vijayabāhu I | Manabharana | Kitti Sri Megha | Parākramabāhu I | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ruhuna | Sri Vallabha & Kitti Sri Megha | Sri Vallabha | Manabharana | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit]Reign
Parākramabāhu established himself at Polonnaruwa (Pulatthinagara as mentioned in the Chulavamsa) from 1153 onwards and ruled over the entirety of Sri Lanka for the next 33 years. During this time he undertook much of the work he is best remembered for, most significantly in the areas of religious reform, construction, and war.
[edit]Religious reform
During the reign of king Vatta Gamini Abhaya (king Valagamba) (104 BCE, 88 BCE – 76 BCE), the sangha (Buddhist monks) of the country had divided into three rival orders—theTheravada order of the Maha Vihara, the order of the Abhayagiri Vihara and the order of the Dhakkina Vihara.[54] One of Parākramabāhu's ambitions was the reunification of these groups into one order, as had existed at the time of King Dutugemunu. Furthermore, much of the sangha had become corrupted over the years, with monks marrying and having children, and in many cases behaving much like laymen in their pursuit of worldly gain.[55]
Around 1165, a council was called in Polonnaruwa to discuss the reform of the sangha.[8]Parākramabāhu's chief agent in the enterprise was to be the Mahathera Kasyapa, an experienced monk who "knew the Tipitaka and was exceedingly well versed in theVinaya".[56] There was immense resistance to Parākramabāhu's efforts, in particular from the Abhayagiri sect who now adhered to the heretical Vetullavada tradition, and whom the king found to be particularly corrupt. Many monks moved abroad rather than participate in the reforms, whilst others simply abandoned the cloth and returned to lay life. In this they may well have been encouraged by Parākramabāhu, who seems to have felt that the "purification" of the priestly orders depended as much on the expulsion and exclusion of the corrupt as it did on the rewarding and encouragement of the orthodox.[57] There are several references to individuals being given "lucrative positions" in order to keep them out of their respective Orders.[58] Finally, the king summoned the leaders of the sangha on the island once a year, centering the visit on a ritual on the banks of the Mahaweli river—possibly a practical means of keeping up-to-date with their progress and their standards.[57][58]
Following the crushing of Queen Sugala's rebellion in 1157, Parākramabāhu had the Tooth Relic and the Alms Bowl Relic brought to Polonnaruwa; the former was placed inside a jewel in the Temple of the Tooth Relic in Polonnaruwa.[59] Such constructions became a hallmark of Parākramabāhu's reign; his buildings for the sangha are described in great detail in the Culavamsa and comprise an impressive body of work, often accompanied with inscriptions stating his intentions and accomplishments, such as at the Gal Vihare.[60]
[edit]Construction
Parākramabāhu's constructions work made up a significant chunk of the material history of Sri Lanka. Much of the remnants of Polonnaruwa date from his reign, as well as sites in western and south-eastern Sri Lanka. One of Parākramabāhu's first projects was the restoration of Anuradhapura, the ancient capital of Sri Lankan Kings which had been utterly destroyed by the Chola army, including the restoration of Thuparamaya (which had been lost to the jungle), Mihintale, and Ruwanweliseya.[62][63] Then, having founded an administrative center called Parakramapura, he turned his attention on Polonnaruwa. Unsurprisingly, due to the near-yearly sieges, the city had suffered and had reached a state that nothing but its name remained. It is perhaps because of this that so little of pre-12th century Polonnaruwa remains today.[29]
The king initially divided the city into four districts or suburbs, each marked with its ownalms-giving house for the clergy, containing "vessels of bronze, cushions and pillows, mats, carpets and bedsteads".[64] He ordered the construction of hospitals, which he visited on several occasions.[65] He also expanded Polonnaruwa's city walls, constructing an elaborate three-walled complex featuring turrets for archers and fourteen gates. None of which has survived till modern times. Beyond the city precinct it is believed he constructed or renovated three smaller townships, in addition to Parakramapura - Rajavesi Bhujanga, Raja Kulantaka (Sinhapura), and Vijitapura.[66]Extensive gardens were also laid down around Polonnaruwa, featuring ponds and bathing-pools, one of which, the Twin Pools, survives till this date. One such garden, the 'Island Garden', extended into the middle of Thupa Vewa ('Vewa' meaning 'tank' or 'reservoir' in Sinhala) on a promontory.[67]
Much else survives, such as the Gal Vihare, or "Stone Shrine", near Polonnaruwa. The Culavamsa attributes the monument in its entirety to Parākramabāhu, though in truth his contribution may have been extensive refurbishment.[68] The Vatadage, or "Circular Temple", was constructed around 1157 following the suppression of Queen Sugala's revolt in Ruhuna, to host the recently recovered Tooth Relic and Alms Bowl Relic. The Lankatilaka Temple, Alahena Pirivena, Jetavanaramaya and the Demala Maha Cetiya were also constructed in his reign. At the center of Polonnaruwa Parākramabāhu expanded and beatified the royal palace. Little of it remains today, but its soaring walls hint at the grand scale of the king's vision.
Parākramabāhu also continued his program of hydraulic works begun in Dakkhinadesa, including the renovation and reconstruction of reservoirs and canals wrecked during the Chola invasion. Inscriptions detailing his work can be found at the Maha Vewa near Uruwela, Padaviya Vewa and Panda Vewa in North-Western Province. A column discovered at the bottom of the Padaviya Vewa in the 19th century included the inscription "Made for the benefit of the whole world by the prosperous Sri Parakrama-Bahu, born at Sinhapura, minded of what was fit to be done".[69] Though the Culavamsa attributes the construction of various tanks to him, it has been suggested that much of Parākramabāhu's work was renovation, and indeed that some of the projects undertaken by his successor Nissanka Malla may have been attributed to him.[70] In all Parākramabāhu is said to have restored or constructed over 216 reservoirs and tanks.
Despite their magnificence, Parākramabāhu's works exacted a heavy toll on the populace and the treasury. For much of the work in Anuradhapura he utilized Tamil prisoners of warseized during the Pandyan War.[71] Nevertheless taxation and rajakariya (a feudal system in which work was owed to the king by commoners) contributed in large part to the projects. An interesting indicator of the burden of taxation is the disappearance of larger gold coins towards the end of Parākramabāhu's reign.[8]
[edit]Military campaigns
Parākramabāhu's reign is memorable for two major campaigns—in the south of India as part of a Pandyan war of succession, and a punitive strike against the kings of Ramanna (Myanmar) for various perceived insults to Sri Lanka. He also had to suppress revolts against him in Ruhuna on several occasions.
[edit]Revolts
In 1156, Queen Sugala of Ruhuna, the mother of Manabharana of Ruhuna who had fought Parākramabāhu bitterly for the throne, joined a revolt against Parākramabāhu. The situation turned dire when a group of mercenaries took the opportunity afforded by the absence of Parākramabāhu's army, and his most formidable general Rakkha, to revolt in 1157.
Whilst the insurrection continued in the north, Parākramabāhu dispatched another general, Bhuta, to assist Rakkha, who had become bogged down in conflict in Ruhuna. The Culavamsa mentions the soldiers in Bhuta's army wearing "doublets made of buffalo hide"[72] to protect themselves against arrows. Despite reinforcements Rakkha and Bhuta appear to have become stuck in a war of attrition not unlike Parākramabāhu's wars for the throne. Certainly it outlasted a simultaneous rebellion in the north, which after three months of fighting ended after an engagement in the vicinity of Dik Vewa. The only major victory of this early phase of the rebellion in Ruhuna was the seizure of the Sacred Relics in late 1157.
The tide finally turned when reinforcements arrived in Ruhuna, probably in early 1158, through Sabaragamuwa, and from the western coast.[8] Mahagama was seized and Queen Sugala captured. The forces of Parākramabāhu then inflicted something of a bloodbath on the nobility and citizens of Ruhuna, seemingly with the king's approval. "They caused many foes to whom severity was due, to be brought before them, and at villages and market-towns they had numbers of stakes set up on which they impaled many hundreds of the enemy. Many other foes they had hanged on the gallows and burnt and showed forth in every way the majesty of Parākramabāhu".[73] It may well have been the case that the king was tired of the constant animosity directed at him by the kingdom. The brutal suppression of the rebellion ensured that, apart from a brief insurrection in 1160, Ruhuna remained quiet for the rest of his reign. The fate of Queen Sugala is not recorded. The only other rebellion of Parākramabāhu's reign occurred in the region of modern Mantota in from 1168–1169.
[edit]War with Bagan, 1164–1165
The kingdom of Bagan (Arimaddhanapura) in what is now Myanmar, and Sri Lanka had enjoyed a cordial relationship based on trade and a common faith (Theravada Buddhism) for a long time. Bagan emerged as a power in the 9th century and by the 11th century its capital city, Arimaddhanapura, was a centre of Buddhist learning.
However with the accession of Narathu (1160–1165), the grandson of Alaung Sithu, to the throne, the situation changed dramatically. Initially he deprived the envoys of the King of Sri Lanka the maintenance they were previously granted.[74] He also issued an order prohibiting the sale of elephants to foreign countries and did away with the age old custom of presenting an elephant to every foreign vessel which brought him gifts. He later had the Sri Lankan envoys imprisoned and tortured, and had all their possessions, including their money, their elephants and their vessels confiscated. He later summoned them and declared,
| “ | "Henceforth no vessel from the Sinhala country shall be sent to my kingdom. Give us now in writing the declaration that if [messengers] from there are again sent to us, in case we should slay the envoys who have come here, no blame of any kind will attach to us. If ye give not the declaration ye shall not have permission to return home."[74] | ” |
It is not certain whether this was part of a particular moved against Sri Lankan merchants, or a general closing down of Baganese borders. Whatever the reason, Parākramabāhu was incensed. Assembling a fleet at Pallavavanka, he dispatched to Bagan a formidable force. The size of the army is not known, but it is recorded as containing a year's supply of grains, specially modified arrows, and Sri Lanka's fearsome war elephants. Despite setbacks en route, including the sinking of one ship and the loss of a few others, the army arrived at the city of Kusumiya (modern Pathein) on the banks of the Bago river, and captured it.[8][75] Thereafter, the armies captured several other cities, including Arimaddhanapura, killed Narathu, and restored relations between the two countries to normal.
The account of the campaign in Bagan is possibly exaggerated, particularly as Burmese chronicles do not contain any information on a massive invasion from Lanka. Nevertheless there is evidence to indicate that there was some form of campaign undertaken, and that it was a successful one. The story of a Sri Lankan invasion that dethroned Narathu is known in Myanmar.[76] Furthermore, contemporary inscriptions from Devanagala mentions the awarding of land to the general Kitti Nagaragiri for his leadership in a campaign to 'Ramanna', naming the king of Bagan as 'Bhuvanaditta', a possible Lankanization of 'Narathu'.[77]
[edit]Pandya War, 1167–1183
In 1167 the Pandyan king Parakrama appealed to his namesake in Lanka for assistance against an alliance of his rival Kulasekhara Pandya and the Cholas. Such an appeal was not unusual, as the Pandya had long found allies in the Sinhalese against the Cholas, and their nobility had spent some time in exile at the court of Mahinda IV (956–972) after the invasion of their land by Parantaka Chola II.
On this occasion however the Sri Lankan help came too late. By the time Parākramabāhu's general Lankapura arrived in Pandya Nadu, Kulasekhara had captured the capital Madhuraiand killed King Parakrama's wife and children. His son Prince Virapandu however had managed to escape. Rather than head for Madhurai, Lankapura landed in the vicinity ofRamanathapuram and captured the city of Rameswaram, which remained in Sri Lankan hands for the next thirty years or so.[8] Here they built a fortress called Parakramapura. In this early phase of the war they fought Kulasekhara on several occasions, eventually laying siege to him in Madhurai and seizing the city. Virapandu was restored to power, but apparently only as a puppet, as the Sri Lankan army under Lankapura remained in Madhurai and continued to engage the Chola across south India.[78]
The Culavamsa dedicates much of chapter LXXVII to a description of the ensuing war between Lankapura and Kulasekhara, who apparently fought on with assistance from the Cheras. The Lankan effort was so successful that Parākramabāhu appears to have established a near-permanent authority over Pandya Nadu (the chapter is entitled Conquest of the Pandya Kingdom), even establishing a city called Panduvijaya in commemoration of the conquest.[79] However the account ends abruptly. No mention is made of Lankapura's return to Sri Lanka, nor of whether Virapandu III succeeded on hanging on to power.
The remainder of the story can be gleaned from inscriptions in south India and by inference. The Sinhala army is known to have scored a number of victories over the Chola army. However, the Pallavarayanpettai inscription indicates that Lankapura was defeated in 1171 and his head was nailed to the gates of Madhurai by Rajadhiraja Chola II (1163–1178).[8][80] Nevertheless the forces of Parākramabāhu appear to have remained in Pandya Nadu, scoring victories over Rajadhiraja II in 1176. It was not until 1181 when Virapandu III was defeated that the Sri Lankan army withdrew from Pandya Nadu, retaining only the area around Rameshwaram.
[edit]Death and legacy
Further information: Queen Lilavati
The Culavamsa states only that Parākramabāhu "carried on rule for thirty-three years", and that he died in Polonnaruwa. He was succeeded by Vijayabahu II, described as his 'sister's son", who he had summoned from Sinhapura, capital of Kalinga.[81] It is highly unlikely that Vijayabahu was son of either Pabhavati or Mitta, Parākramabāhu's sisters who were married to Manabharana of Ruhuna, as this would not explain why he had to be summoned from Kalinga. Nor could he be son of Gajabahu and Bhaddavati, the other named sister of the king, as the Culavamsa explicitly states that Gajabahu had no sons who outlived him.[82] It has been postulated that Vijayabahu was in fact the son of an unknown fourth sister who had been married to a king of Kalinga.[citation needed] His place of burial is unknown.
During his reign, Sri Lankan power contributed to the destabilizing of the Chola power of south India and Sri Lankan forces continued to have a presence in Rameswaram till the end of the 12th century. There are also records of Sinhala victories until well into the reign of King Nissanka Malla (1187–1196).[8] Furthermore the sheer size and extent of the king's construction projects can still be seen in Polonnaruwa today, as well as in the various carvings dotted around the country vaunting the accomplishments of the "Great King". However such success came at a price. Relentless warfare took its toll on the country and Parākramabāhu's reliance on Tamil mercenaries proved to be a destabilizing force after his death. Taxation was high under his reign and high-value coinage all but disappeared towards the end of his rule, a sign of increasing poverty. One of his successor Nissanka Malla's most popular actions was reducing taxation.[8]
Despite his personal reputation and authority, Parākramabāhu did not take any steps towards ensuring a smooth succession. One reason offered is the strength of Sri Lankan conventional law, which contained fairly fluid conventions for the replacement of rulers.[83]The chronic instability of the years after his reign undid many of his accomplishments and developed into a crisis that the country never recovered from. The popularity of Parākramabāhu is attested by the fact that no less than seven monarchs adopted his name over the next four centuries, of whom only two or three could lay claim to even a fraction of his successes. His ultimate weakness was the lack of restraint in his spending, taking Sri Lanka to greater heights that it had reached in a long time, but exhausting the island's resources in the process.[84]
The Sri Lankan Navy has two ships named after the King.
இதற்கு குழுசேர்:
இடுகைகள் (Atom)