|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
TRANSLATION. This translation is that of my predecessors. I confess that the explanation of Dhaṁma-Yavanasa appears to me somewhat doubtful. At Nâsik (No. 18, l. 1) we find a Yavana who was the son of Dharmadêva. But the simple name of Dhaṁma applied to a Buddhist surprises me.[1] This combination of a proper name with a tribal name in a compound is unusual. In other cases (above, No. 7, and at Junnar, CTI. Nos. 5 and 8) the word Yavana precedes the proper name, and both have the termination of the genitive. On the other hand, an inscription at Junnar (CTI. No. 4) supplies a compound which resembles ours at first sight. This is the attribute dhaṁmanigama applied to a certain Vîrasêna. It has been translated ‘an upright merchant.’ I doubt this translation for several reasons. First, it is hardly probable that the donor, a simple private person, should bestow such compliments on himself ; what one would expect, is, not an encomium, but a positive statement like the title gṛihapatipramukha, which resembles dhaṁmanigama. Further, nigama does not mean ‘a merchant,’ which would be negama. Of course the change of e into i is not impossible in Prâkṛit, but it is a priori improbable in a case where the change would produce a confusion with the usual nigama, which means, among other things, ‘a group of people’ or ‘a company of merchants.’ It is still less credible, if one compares the two expressions, that Dhaṁma-Yavana could be used for ‘an upright Yavana.’ Hence I feel tempted to take Dhaṁma in both cases in a specifically Buddhist sense, and to understand by dhaṁmanigama ‘a member of the guild of Buddhist merchants ;’ compare nigamasabhâ at Nâsik (No. 12, l. 4). On this analogy, Dhaṁma-Yavana would be ‘the community of the Buddhist Yavanas,’ or rather a Buddhist Yavana who has modestly omitted his personal name.
No. 11, Plate i. (K. 11).
TRANSLATION. â (This) pillar (is) the gift of Mitadevaṇaka, son of Usabhadata, from Dhênukâkaṭa.” I feel inclined to believe that Mitradêva is the son of that Ṛishabhadatta who is mentioned ra No. 13 and many other inscriptions as the son-in-law of Nahapâna. For this name is not very common, and I find another connecting link in the name of Ṛishabhadatta’s wife Dakhamitrâ (Nâsik No. 11). The silence kept regarding Nahapâna as well as the titles and donations of Ṛishabhadatta would suggest that the inscription is later than the downfall of the Khaharâtas ; compare Nâsik No. 4. In the palæographic forms I do not see sufficient reasons for denying that the present inscription could be slightly later than No. 13.
No. 12, Plate i. (K. 12).
TEXT.
______________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
