|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA of that fertile part of the valley to which Paṭhyâr certainly belongs. For, if this had been the case, a man belonging to the Râṭhî caste would hardly have designated himself as such in order to distinguish himself from his neighbours. This, as far as I can see, is the only historical conclusion which can be drawn from the Paṭhyâr inscription. Its chiefs interest, therefore, is purely palæographical. If we compare the two inscriptions, it is obvious that the Pa?hyâr stone exhibits a much earlier type of script than the Kanhiâra one. This is evident in part from some of the Kharôsh?hî letters, e.g. the s, which at Pa?hyâr has the closed shape of the Asôka period, whereas at Kanhiâra it is open as in the Saka-Kushana inscriptions. On the whole, however, the Kharôsh?hî of both inscriptions is fairly identical. But a striking difference is shown in the Brâhmî legends. The Kanhiâra inscription was assigned by Bayley and Cunningham to the first century after Christ. Possibly it is later. The y with its three vertical strokes of equal length agrees best with forms of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[1] The â shows a great resemblance to the type of this letter in the 2nd century.[2] The m is angular instead of rounded as in the more ancient type. The s, on the contrary, with its straight strokes, has a more archaic form. So has the g, which is angular and not rounded. The Brâhmî type of the Paṭhyâr inscription, however, corresponds entirely with that of the Aśôka period ─ the earlier Maurya type as Professor Bühler called it─ and therefore can safely be said to belong to the 3rd century B.C.[3] We may infer that both Brâhmî and Kharôshṭhî were known and used in the Kâṅgṛa valley from that time until the first or second century after Christ.
It is a fact worth noticing, that, while the indigenous character and developed considerably during the course of the three ot four centuries, the foreign alphabet had practically remained the same. The most plausible explanation would be that in those parts the Brâhmî was the popular script used in commerce and common life, while the use of the Khaṛôshṭhî was limited to official documents and was in consequence fairly constant. The greater importance attached to the Brâhmî may also appear from its taking the first place in the Paṭhayâr inscription and from the larger size of the letters, though it must be admitted that the fuller reading is given in Kharôshṭhî. In the Kanhiâra inscription the Brâhmî has the additional word. But in both inscriptions the maṅgalas are placed after the Brâhmî and not after the Kharôshṭhî. Now, to return to the Kanhiâra inscription, it remains to be considered whether the newly found inscription throws any light on its meaning. First of all one feels inclined to assigned to the word ârâma the ordinary meaning of ‘garden’, and not that of ‘monastery’ as Cunningham did.[4] For, considering that Vâyula found it worth while to cut an inscription which would stand the ages, simply to indicate that he was the owner of a lotus-pond, there is no reason to assume that Kṛishṇayaśas did not do the same with regard to his garden. Moreover, in the case of a monastery the founder would preferably have written his name on the building, and not on two boulders lying near it.
With regard to the doubtful term medaṁgisya, we may with Cunningham rejects Bayley’s
supposition that the word was added by some wag in order to ridicule Kṛishṇayaśas. It would
have been a very poor joke indeed and scarcely worth the trouble of cutting into hard granite.
And are we do believe that the same wag had cut the two maṅgalas also, possibly to make
amends for the offence ? Corpulence, moreover, is looked upon with a different eye by the Hindû
[1] See Bühler’s Indische Palæographic, Plate iii. 31, XV. and XVIII. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
