South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

which hides the bottom of their legs. The Prâkṛit pubbâdo = pûrvataḥ does not raise any difficulty. Bühler has well defined the meaning of vêdikâ by “bands or string-courses carved with the rail pattern.” In No. 17 and elsewhere the term veyikâ is applied to fragments of this kind.

No. 4, Plate i. (K. 4).
Chaitya cave. Over the right doorway.

TEXT.
Dhenukâkaṭâ (1) gaṁdhikasa Si[ṁ]hadatasa (2) dânaṁ gharamugha.

REMARKS.

(1) The vowel-signs are not very pronounced ; but the two â-signs seem to be certain. After this word is a space filled with cracks, which would leave room for two characters ; one might feel tempted to believe that originally the stone bore Dhenukâkaṭakasa (compare No. 6). But I reject this conjecture because the â of ṭâ is very probable, and there are no traces of ka and sa, which ought to show among the cracks. Besides, the simple ablative is frequently used in the same sense elsewhere.─ (2) Though neither AS. nor CTI. notices the anusvâra of Siṁ, it seems to me probable.

TRANSLATION.

“ (This) door (is) gift of Siṁhadata, a perfumer from Dhênukâkaṭa.” Dhênukâkaṭa is a name of frequent occurrence in the cave-inscriptions here and elsewhere in these parts. Several Yavanas profess to be natives of that place. Therefore it ought to be looked for in the north-west ; but it has not yet been identified. Compare AS. p. 24.

No. 5, Plate iii. (K. 5).
Chaitya cave. On the pillar of the verandah in front of the central door, above the inscription No. 6.

TEXT.
1 Gahatasa Mahâdeva-
2 ṇakasa matu Bhâyilâyâ (1) dânaṁ.

REMARK.

(1) I cannot say that the â of the last syllable appears to me certain.

TRANSLATION

“The gift of Bhâyilâ, the mother of the householder Mahâdêvaṇaka.” Regarding the name Mahâdevaṇaka = Mahâdêva, compare No. 2.─ The name Bhâyilâ has been explained by Bhrâjilâ. This transcription is not the only possible one, though it appears to me the most probable. But could not this be the translation of a foreign name ? It occurs again at Kuḍâ (AS. No. 13), where a Brâhmaṇî Bhâyilâ is stated to have been the wife of a certain Ayitilu who, though called a Brâhmaṇa, bears a name of very barbarous form, which reminds us curiously of Azilizes, etc. I do not pretend to affirm that our Bhâyilâ is the same, though the writing of the two inscriptions appears to be quite contemporaneous and to be intimately related in certain details, e.g. the yi. I may add that the title of gṛihastha,^[1] applied to
______________________________

^[1] For the loss of the aspiration in gahata compare e.g. stâna in an inscription at Mathurâ, Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 390, No. XVIII.