Southern history re-examined - Part 3:

Kelaniya becomes part of Magama kingdom

by Rajitha Weerakoon

Early Aryan migrants according to the ancient chronicle Dhatuvamsa favoured the South and the South East to set up colonies. Rock inscriptions of the 3rd century BC found in Batticaloa, Ampara, Digamadulla, Monaragala, Badulla and Hambantota speak of the heavy colonisation of this area.

By about 225 BC when Magama had emerged as the most powerful principality of the South, history speaks of yet another politically important kingdom - Kelaniya. Dr. S. Paranavitana going by a rock inscription titled 'Kelanika Thisa' found near the eastern coast says that ancient Kelaniya was located around present Heda oya, close to coastal Paanama in the east.

But who was 'Kelanika Thisa' or Kelanitissa who ruled Kelaniya? Vansattappakasiniya says that the two brothers - Kelanitissa and Uttiya were grandsons of Mutaseeva and that the elder son was named Tissa after Devanampiyatissa and the other Uttiya after his father. Therefore, Kelanitissa and Uttiya were the sons of King Uttiya - the brother of Devanampiyatissa who succeeded the throne in Anuradhapura.

Until the South Indian horse traders - Sena and Guththika captured Rajarata in 237BC, Uttiya and his two brothers after him and ruled Rajarata for a mere shaky 30 years.

Thus, the arrival of Uttiya descendents from Rajarata to the South East is explained. Therefore, while Elara (205-161BC) was ruling Rajarata, descendents of two brothers of Devanampiyatissa - Mahanaaga and Uttiya had set up kingdoms in the South and the SE.

A Brahmi inscription at Kusalana Mount cave in Batticaloa district says, Yuvaraja Naga, his son Abhaya and his son Gaminitissa. It should be concluded therefore, that Gotabhaya was the brother of Yataalatissa and that Gotabhaya and Yataalatissa were two sons of Mahanaaga.

Greek myth

The ancient text Pujavaliya writes that Yataalatissa ruled Kelaniya and built Kelani Viharaya including Kelani Pahaya. Did Yataalatissa therefore, set up the kingdom in Kelaniya while brother Gotabhaya succeeded Mahanaaga in Magama? Then, did Kelanitissa's family take over Kelaniya from Yataalatissa? Vansatappakasiriya says that Vihara Maha Devi was the granddaughter of Mahanaaga's brother Uttiya.

Therefore, as mentioned in Dhatuvamsa and Sihalavattupakaranaya, Kavantissa and Vihara Maha Devi - grandchildren of two brothers, grew up knowing each other and Vihara Maha Devi was given in marriage at an appropriate time. Rasavahiniya says that Kavantissa knew Vihara Maha Devi since they were children.

Paranavitana, in his Inscriptions of Ceylon - First Volume; 1970 wrote that Vihara Maha Devi's celebrated sea journey, as related only in the Mahavamsa, coud be therefore an enchanting story inspired by a popular folktale.

Professor Merlin Peris, one time Professor of Classics of the University of Peradeniya in his 'Mahavamsa Studies - Greek Myths in the Ancient Tradition' says that the first half of Vihara Maha Devi story where deities angered against an offence inundated the land requiring the King to sacrifice the daughter to the waves, enumerates the famous Greek myth Andronmeda.

In Andromeda, the queen of King Cepheus angered sea-gods by claiming to be better than them. Whereupon, they caused an inundation on his Ethiopian Kingdom. To appease the Gods, he sacrificed the daughter to the sea.

The second half bears a striking resemblance to the Greek myth of Danae - the floating of the princess in a vessel to the sea but of her landing in another country where fishermen found her and led her to their king who married her.

Professor Peris says that Greek story-motifs must have found its way into the Attakatha Mahavamsa before Mahavamsa author incorporated them when he related the early history.

Mahavamsa in fact has several references to Greeks that Pandukabhaya settled a "yona" community in Anuradhapura - yona meaning Greek. And during the Bactrian Greek rule in India, a delegation of Greek Buddhist monks under the leadership of Mahadharmakkhita came from Alasanda for the inauguration of the Ruwanweliseya.

Rehandled

Vihara Maha Devi and the boat episode has not been written in the Deepavamsa or any other ancient text. Professor Peris states that the ancient authors rehandled the exotic Greek motifs localising, intermixing, inventing or working on their details so as to make them nearly unrecognisable in their own context.

The name of King Siva of Kalyani-Kannika comes up when Kavantissa arranged the marriage between his sister Somadevi and King Siva's brother Prince Abhaya or Giriabhaya. They could be Vihara Maha Devi's brothers or close relatives who took over the Kelaniya Kingdom from her father Kelanitissa. Kavantissa got Prince Abhaya to rule Girinuwara after the marriage to Princess Somadevi. Did Kavantissa arrange the marriage to win over the rulers of Kalyani-Kannika?

Dhatuvamsa writes that Kavantissa sent Gamunu to Girinuwara with a Minister and an Army to live there with the uncle. Was it with the intention to take over Girinuwara and adjoing Kalyani-Kannika which eventually did happen? Or, was it because Kelaniya Kingdom as mentioned in Pujavaliya, was set up by Kavantissa's uncle - Yataalatissa and was succeeded by Kelanitissa - his cousin? Therefore, did Kavantissa believe that by right, Kalyani Kingdom belonged to his family?

Argument

An argument on claims of superiority of their respective families over the other between the two princes ended the visit with Gamunu returning home. As Mahanaaga who was next in age to Devanampiyatissa, fled Anuradhapura, Uttiya took over the reign of Rajarata.

There would have been as a result, confusion about the rightful claim to the throne between the descendents of Mahanaaga and Uttiya. Could it be that the claim made by Gamunu was pre-arranged in order to clear the situation?

Abhaya disgusted after this episode, abandoned Girinuwara and went to the ruler of Serunuwara - King Siva. Prince Abhaya, on King Siva's advice set up his kingdom next to Seru naming it after his wife - Somanuwara. No mention is made as to who King Siva of Serunuwara was.

As the continuation of Kalyani Kingdom is not mentioned thereafter, it may have been annexed to the Magama Kingdom. Another principality is mentioned in the ancient texts called Lona or Loka as located next to Soma and Seru and ruled by a king by the name of Mahanaaga.

Therefore, there had been several blueblooded royals of North Indian origin ruling these southern kingdoms interconnected by marriage. None of them however, had accepted the other's authority.

Therefore, Kavantissa who had by now annexed most of the kingdoms to Magama, was not comfortable with King Siva and Prince Abhaya ruling kingdoms in the northernmost border of Ruhuna, just south of Mahaweli. It was not lost on Kavantissa that these kingdoms were located at the entrance to Rajarata. Waging war however on minor principalities was not part of Kavantissa's srtategy. Yet, he was conscious of the threat of Elara.

Exploiting

We see at this point, Kavantissa exploiting the piety of the people. He spread a rumour that the Buddha had made a prophecy that Kavantissa would enshrine a relic at a dagoba in Serunuwara which he heard from a Thera who was related to Vihara Maha Devi and Prince Abhaya.

Then he proceeded to Serunuwara through Somanuwara and Lona principality accompanied by this Thera, Vihara Maha Devi and the Army announcing that all inhabitants should help him to accomplish this prophecy.

Since the King came on a religious mission and the Thera was much respected by the rulers of these principalities, they were compelled to help him. Kavantissa thus built Seruwila Dagoba at Serunuwara using people's religious fervour as a vehicle to take control over these kingdoms and cultivate relations with the rulers in the process.

Next - Southern history re-examined - Part 4: Why was Kavantissa's role underplayed?