The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Additions and Corrections

Images

Contents

Bhandarkar

T. Bloch

J. F. Fleet

Gopinatha Rao

T. A. Gopinatha Rao and G. Venkoba Rao

Hira Lal

E. Hultzsch

F. Kielhorn

H. Krishna Sastri

H. Luders

Narayanasvami Ayyar

R. Pischel

J. Ramayya

E. Senart

V. Venkayya

G. Venkoba Rao

J. PH. Vogel

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

The inscription is engraved round a steatite vase, which was formerly kept in the Museum at Peshawar and is now in the Central Museum, Lahore. Nothing is known about its origin. Cunningham, it is true, was inclined to identify it with a vase said to be found by the villagers in one of the Stûpas near Shâhpur ; but this is nothing but a mere guess.

The inscription was first edited, together with a facsimile, in 1863 by J. Dowson in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XX. p. 24, and Plate iii. fig. 2. In the same year Cunningham published his version in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XXXII. p. 151, and added a correction ibid. p. 172. Cunningham’s readings were criticised by Dowson, ibid. p. 428. In 1871 Cunningham edited the record again, with a facsimile, in his Archæological Survey Reports, Vol. II. p. 125, and Plate lix. The present edition is based on excellent impressions and photographs, sent to me, at the request of Dr. Vogel, by Mr. Ram Singh, Officiating Curator of the Central Museum, Lahore.

TEXT.

Sihileṇa Siharachhiteṇa cha bhratarehi Takhaśilae ayaṁ thuvo pratithavito savabudhaṇa puyae.

>

TRANSLATION.

By the brothers Sihila (Siṁhila) and Siharachhita (Siṁharakshita) this Stûpa was erected at Takhaśilâ (Takshaśilâ) in honour of all the Buddhas.

REMARKS.

The characters, which vary in size from ¼″ to ½″, take an intermediate position between those of the Aśôka edicts and those of the later Kushan inscriptions. From the latter they are easily distinguished by the absence of the cursive element so strongly predominant there. The differences from the Aśôka characters are less numerous and less marked ; bur the la with its hook bent down and rounded and the sa with its vertical shortened at the top show clearly later forms than the corresponding letters at Shâhbâzgarhi and Mansehra. The type of the characters is thus the same as that of the Taxila copper-plate of Patika, and this fact seems to me decisive for the transliteration of the only nasal occurring in the present inscription. From a grammatical point of view it might appear more natural to read Sihilena, Siharachhitena and savabudhana ;but as the copper-plate inscription discriminates between na and ṇa, and as the sign for the lingual used there is identical with the sign found in the present inscription, we cannot but assume that the latter also represents a lingual ṇa. The copper-plate also furnishes one instance of instead of Sanskṛit n in the word Śakamuṇisa (l. 3). Whether this spelling reflects the actual pronunciation, or whether the North-Western dialect possessed but one n-sound, expressed in writing sometimes by the sign for the lingual, sometimes by that for the dental, I do not venture to decide at present, although the second alternative seems to me the more probable one.

In the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1906, p. 453, Mr. Thomas has endeavoured to show that the inscription is composed in an unknown metre. He considers the whole text to be one stanza divided into two rhyming lines, each line consisting of five feet of five mâtrâs with a concluding spondee. According to him the text, with the long vowels and double consonants expressed in writing, would run :─

Sîhilêna Sîharachchhitêna cha     bhrâtarêhi Takkhaśilâê |
ayaṁ thuvô pratitthâvitô           savvabuddhâna pûyâê ||

It appears at once that the regularity of the metre is less great than supposed by Mr. Thomas. His scansion is based on the wrong readings Gihilena and bhatarehi. The correct readings Sihilena, which can only stand for Sîhilêna, and bhratarehi would imply that

Home Page

>
>