|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Ś has developed a rounded back and its central limb is hanging down from its left curve. M has got a round base (cf. ºmita), but in the case of v it is round in some cases (cf. vātāyani) and nearly triangular in others (of. Aśvaº and aśvamedha[[1]). The lower portion of t is no longer angular as in the Aśokan inscriptions ; it has become pronouncedly round as in the Pabhosā and Hāthigumphā inscriptions. Medial ā is shown by a straight stroke to right (cf. ºvātāº) ; but medial e is indicated by a slanting stroke to the left of the letter (cf. ºmedha). Medial i is denoted by a straight upward stroke slightly bent at the base and attached to the top of the letters (cf. ºyani and ºmita). The palaeography of the inscription is nearest to that of the Pabhosā inscription, both the records belonging to the Allahabad region. We may therefore refer it to a date about the first century B. C. The language of the record is Prakrit influenced by Sanskrit. There is a punctuation mark similar to the so-called Ujjain symbol at the right end of the record. It is therefore clear that it ended with its present last word. Two letters at the beginning are damaged and we cannot altogether rule out the possibility of the inscription having begun on another brick, not yet recoverd. This possibility is, however, slight and it appears more probable that the inscription was a short record consisting of four words only. Apart from the initial word, the record presents no difficulty in decipherment. It reads Aśvavātāyaniputasa Devamitasa aśvamedha.[2] There is a mark above dha which looks like a superscript r. Only the last two letters of the first word are clear ; they read beke. The preceding letter is incomplete ; it looks like a cha or chā. There was probably one more letter, which has been too badly destroyed to be deciphered. The first word ends in locative singular and probably denotes the name of the place where the sacrifice was performed. It ended with beke.
The inscription records an Aśvamedha sacrifice performed by Devamitra[2], who is simply described as the son of Aśvavātāyani. The sacrificer’s mother obviously belonged to the Aśvavātāyana gotra and was therefore known as Aśvavātāyani (Sanskrit Āśvavātāyanī). The custom of naming the mother by her gotra name was quite common at the time of the record. The only information which this record gives about Devamitra, who performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice, is that his mother’s gotra was Aśvavātāyana and that the sacrifice was performed at . .. [cha]beka. It is remarkable that not a single royal title is associated with the sacrificer’s name. If he had borne such a title, it would probably have preceded the expression Aśvavātāyaniputasa. But by no stretch of imagination can the extant first two letters be regarded as part of any royal title. It may be that Devamitra was either not even a king or that he did not care to put his title before his name, there being no space for it in the short space on the brick. The former alternative seems improbable ; we are yet to get an instance of a commoner performing the horse-sacrifice. It may be noted that most of the kings of Ayodhyā, Kauśāmbī and Pañchāla content themselves with giving only their names on the coins, without prefixing any royal title to them. If, however, we assume that Devamitra was a king, we are not in a posititon to identify him with any known ruler of Madhyadeśa. A king named Devamitra flourished among the rulers of Ayodhyā, who issued coins of the Bull and Goose (or Cock) type ; he is known from a solitary specimen in the Indian Museum.[4] It is tempting to identify him with the sacrificer mentioned in this record ; the provenance of the coin and the inscription would support thus view. But the palaeography of the legend on the coin is decidedly much later than that of the brick inscription. V on the coin is not only triangle-based but also broad-topped, and m has neither a round nor a __________________________________________________
[1] [Macron over e and o has not been used in the article.─Ed.]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
