North Indian Inscriptions

PART A

DONATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY

4 Dhanabhūtisa dāna[ṁ]^[1] vedikā
5 toraṇām cha ratanagṛih[e]^[2] sa-
6 rvabudhapujāye^[3] sahā^[4] mātāpi-
7 tihī^[5] sahā [cha]^[6] chatu[hī]^[7] parishahi^[8]

TRANSLATION :

   The gift of Dhanabhūti, the ………, the son of a (Vā)ts(ī) ……,……….. bhūti ……… (consisting in) a railing and gateways at the jewel-house in honour of all Buddhas, together with (his) parents and together with the four assemblies.

  Whereas the second part of the record is absolutely clear, the restoration of the sadly mutilated first three lines presents considerable difficulties. On the Eastern gateway at the Stūpa of Bhārhut there is an inscription (A 1) which records that the gateway was caused to be made and the stone work presented by Vācchiputa Dhanabhūti, the son of Gotiputa Āgaraju and grandson of rājan Gāgiputa Visadeva. And there is at Bhārhut another inscription on a rail (A 3) to the effect that the rail was the gift of the Kumāra Vādhapāla, the son of rājan Dhanabhūti. When Cunningham became acquainted with these inscriptions, he tried to establish a connection between the Dhanabhūti of the Bhārhut inscriptions and his namesake at Mathurā by supplying in the Mathurā inscription dhana at the end of the first line, restoring vātsī at the end of the second line and vādhapā between putrasa and the supposed lasa in the third line. In his revised facsimile, where the restored letters have-been entered, the first four lines appear therefore as follows:

kapa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (Dhana)-
bhūti[sa] .. .. .. .. .. .. (Vā)tsī-
putrasa (Vādhapā)lasa
Dhanabhūtisa dānaṁ vedika.

   Cunningham was of the opinion that from the record as restored by him we obtain an- other name of the royal family mentioned in the Bhārhut inscription in Dhanabhūti. II, the son of Vādhapāla, and grandson of Dhanabhūti I, and he used this arrangement of the pedigree for deriving important conclusions with regard to the date of the Bhārhut Stūpa. But a glance at the text of the inscription as established by Cunningham will be sufficient to show that it can never convey the sense that Cunningham gathered from it. Neither is Vādhapāla called the son of Dhanabhūti I, nor Dhanabhūti II the son of Vādhapāla. I doubt very much that there was any relation between the Dhanabhūti of Bhārhut and the Dhanabhūti of our inscription. Judging from the palaeography of the inscriptions, the latter must be at least fifty years younger. There is nothing to prove that he was a rājan or the son of a rājan. On the country, the assignment of a share in the gift simply to his father and mother tends to show that he was a private person. The restoration of . . ts. putrasa as Vātsīputrasa is probable, but it cannot be decided whether it is to be joined with the preceding name or with
____________________________

^[1]The anusvāra appears only in Cunningham’s revised facsimile, but as the inscription is carefully engraved, we may assume that it was overlooked in the first facsimile.
^[2]The e-sign is missing in the facsimile, but probably only by oversight.
^[3]The e-sign is distinct in the first facsimile, but omitted in the second.
^[4]Here and in the next line the word is clearly sahā.
^[5]Cunningham read mata pitrohi, Senart mātapitihi (?) and later on mātāpitāhi. For grammatical reasons the reading –pitithi would seem to be the correct one. The i-sign of hi is distinct.
^[6]The akshara which according to the facsimile was blurred and omitted in their transcriptions by Cunningham and Senart was evidently cha.
^[7]According to the facsimiles the last akshara was blurred. It was either hi or hi as read by Senart.
^[8]Cunningham and Senart read parishāhi, but here again the i-sign is distinct in the facsimiles.