[62] Abstracted from Turnour’s ‘Mahawanso,’ p. 4.
[63] There may be an error in this date to the extent of its being from fifteen to twenty years too early.
[64] The principal particulars of this story are contained in a Cingalese work called the ‘Daladavamsa,’ recently translated by Sir Mutu Comara Swamy. I have collected the further evidence on this subject in a paper I read to the Asiatic Society, and published in their ‘Journal’ (N.S.), vol. iii p. 132, et. seqq., and again in ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ p. 174, et. seqq.
[65] The date being given as 245, Samvat has generally been assumed to be dated from the era of Vicramaditya. I am not aware, however, of any inscription of so early an age being dated from that era, nor of any Buddhist inscription in which it is used either then or thereafter.
[66] The same fate had overtaken another tooth relic at Nagrak in northern India. Fa Hian, B.C. 400, describes it as perfect in his 13th chapter. ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. ii. p. 97, describes the stupa as ruined, and the tooth having disappeared.
[67] For a translation, &c., see ‘Journal Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. v. p. 33. See also Bird, ‘Historical Researches,’ Bombay, 1847.
[68] ‘Foé Koué Ki,’ ch. xii. p. 77.
[69] ‘Hiouen Thsang,’ vol. i. p. 83.
[70] ‘Foé Koué Ki,’ p. 353. A detailed account of its transference from the true Gandhara—Peshawur—to the new Gandhara in Kandahar will be found in a paper by Sir Henry Rawlinson, ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xi. p. 127.
[71] Among the bas-reliefs of the Bharhut tope is one representing just such a domical roof as this ([Woodcut No. 90]). It is not, however, quite easy to make out its plan, nor to feel sure whether the object on the altar is a relic, or whether it may not be some other kind of offering.