මහාවංශය (Great Chronicle of Ceylon)

gotta) appears in connexion with Dadabhīsāra. This is evidently the Dundubhissara of the Dīp. and the Mahābodhivaṃsa who was also among those theras elder monks who won the Himalaya countries to the Buddha’s doctrine.¹

Finally the name of the thera who, according to tradition, presided over the third council under Asoka’s rule, is also shown to be authentic by an inscription in a relic-casket from Tope no. 2 of the Sāñchi group.² There is no doubt that by the Sapurisasa Mogaliputasa is meant the Moggaliputta Tissa of the Ceylonese Chronicles.

4. Moreover, the narrative of the transplanting of a branch of the sacred Bodhi-tree from Uruvelā to Ceylon finds interesting confirmation in the monuments.

At least GRÜNWEDEL, in an ingenious and, to me, convincing way,³ points out that the sculptures of the lower and middle architraves of the East Gate of the Sāñchi Tope are representations of that event. Since the Sāñchi-sculptures belong to the second century B. C. the representation is distant from the event by, roughly speaking, only 100 or at most 150 years.

§ 4. Errors in the Chronology of the Earliest Historical Period.

I consider that such objective confirmation of the Chronicles proves at the very least this much: that their statements are not absolutely untenable and are at least worthy of being tested. Naturally they are not infallible and the longer the interval between the time of the events and the time when they are related, the greater the possibility of an objective error, and so much the more will the influence of legend be noticeable.

As regards the oldest period from Vijaya to Devanampiyatissa we feel a certain distrust of the tradition and traditional

---

¹ CUNNINGHAM, *l. l.*, pp. 316-317. ² CUNNINGHAM, *l. l.*, p. 289. ³ GRÜNWEDEL, *Buddhist. Kunst in Indien*, pp. 72-73. Cf. also RHYS DAVIDS, *Buddhist India*, p. 302.