|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA The two inscriptions are so nearly alike in script, substance and general character that it appears desirable to publish them together, the more so as the Kanhiâra inscription has not yet been edited satisfactorily and the Paṭhyâr inscription, as far as I know, has not been noticed before by any archæologist. The legend in both cases is given in two different alphabets,─ Brâhmî and Kharôshṭhî, though evidently of two very different periods. In each case the inscription contains only two words on both scripts, whereas a third word occurs in one script only. But at Kanhiâra this additional word belongs to the Brâhmî, while at Paṭhyâr it forms part of the Kharôshṭhî legend. The explanation of this third word is somewhat difficult. Otherwise the reading may be said to be beyond doubt, owing to the enormous size and the clearness of the letters, which are deeply cut in hard granite boulders. Finally two auspicious symbols are in each case added after the Brâhmî legend, one of which is the well-known svastika. The Kanhiâra inscription was read by Sir. E. C. Bayley as follows :─ Krishnayasasa ârâma in Kharôshṭhî, and Krishnayasasya ârâma medangisya in Brâhmâ. I may state at once that the correct reading of the first word appears to be Krishaṁyaśasa and Kṛishṇayaśasya respectively, whereas the length of the first a of ârâma, as a matter of fact, is not expressed in Kharôshṭhî.[1] He explains it as “the garden of Krishnayasas, to which in the second inscription some wag has apparently added the epithet medangisya (corpulent) from med (fat) and anga (body).â
Cunningham, however, preferred to consider ârâma as a synonym of vihâra, translating it by “the monastery of Krishnayasas,” and even went so far as to derive the name Kanhiâra from Kanhiya-yasas-ârâma, Kanhiya being a synonym of Kṛishṇa. The third word he read mâdaṅgisya, and he thought it to be “the name of the district or possibly of the recorder of the inscription.â Now, before entering upon any discussion of these doubtful points, it will be well to examine the other inscription, which from its similarity is likely to contribute fresh evidence. The Paṭhyâr inscription consists of two lines, cut into one stone. The upper line gives the two words in Brâhmî followed by a svastika and a foot-print. In the lower line which was partly buried in the ground, is the Kharôshṭhî legend, which consists of three words. The Brâhmî letters are of considerable size, the final one being not less than 1½’ high. The Kharôshṭhî characters are much smaller (5” to 9”). Thus, notwithstanding the difference in the number of letters, both lines are about equal in length, viz. 7½â. It is evident at once that the two words in Brâhmî correspond to the second and third words of the Kharôshṭhî legend. I read them Vayulasa pukariṇi[2] or, in correct spelling, Vâyulassa pukkhariṇî, the meaning being simply “Vâyula’s lotus-pond.” With regard to the first word of the Kharôshṭhî, the meaning is less obvious. Manifestly it is a genitive defining the proper name Vâyulassa. It seems to me almost certain that it has to be read rathidarasa, i.e. in Sanskṛit rathitarasya. The i may be either short or long. If short, the word is to taken as the comparative of rathin ; if long, of the Vêdic rathî. The meaning remains the same, viz. ‘charioteer’ (from ratha). According to the St. Petersburg Dictionary the word rathîtara occurs as a proper name in the Vishṇupurâṇa also. But the different one. <b>Râṭhî </b>is the name of an agricultural caste in Kâṅgṛa.[3] If Vâyula really was a Râṭhî, we may infer that, in the time of the inscription, the Râṭhîs were not inhabitants ___________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
