Epigraphia Indica Vol 09

SR No.: 032563
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: E Hultzsch, Sten Konow
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1907
Total Pages: 498
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 28 MB

Page 318

No. 33.]
THREE EARLY BRAHMI INSCRIPTIONS.
243
NOTES. The orthography shows the usual featares. The lengthening of the vowel in danda appears again in the same word in the Set-Mahet inscription, above Vol. VIII, p. 181, and we may farther compare such forms as ditevasisa and antêvásiniyd in the Mathura inscriptions, Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 198 f., Nos. 1 and 4.
As regards the date, the first symbol of the date of the year requires a fuller consideration. as it has been differently interpreted. As already stated above, it has the shape of a St. Andrew's cross. Cunningham originally read it as 40, and he was followed by Dowson, who in editing the Mathura inscriptions everywhere adopted Canningham's readings of the dates. In 1891 Bühler expressed his belief that the sign really represented 70,8 and this opinion was endorsed in the following year by Cunningham in his paper on the coins of the Kushapas in the Numismatic Chronicle, Ser. III. Vol. XII. p. 50, note 6.
I accordingly read the symbol as 70 when I published the inscription in the Indian Antiquary, and I am still convinced that Bühler was right, but in order to settle this question definitely, it will be necessary to examine the other Northern Brahmi inscriptions where the same sign occurs. They are the following seven, all of which come from Mathurd or its neighbourhood :
(1) Mathará inscription of the time of svamin mahakshatrapa Sodása, Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 199, No. 2, and Plate. In the Vienna Or. Journ. Vol. V. p. 177, Bühler read the symbol as 40, adding 70 in brackets. In the Ep. Ind., loc. cit., Bühler again gave 40 in the text, but added in a note that the symbol might possibly be 70. And lastly in Ep. Ind. Vol. IV. p. 55, note 2, he stated that he would now remove the alternative reading 42, which he had thought admissible at first.
(2) Kaman inscription, Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 212, No. 42, and Plate. Here Bühler rendered the sign by 70 in the text, but added in a footnote that it might also be read as 40.
(3) Mathurà inscription, Journ. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXIX. Part I. p. 130, No. 17, and Plate; Journ. Roy. As. Soc. New Ser. Vol. V. p. 183, No. 5, and Plate ; Arch. Suru. Rep. Vol. III. p. 33, No. 11, and Plate. Cunningham and Dowson read the sign as 40, and I have followed them in Ind. Ant. Vol. XXXIII. p. 102.
(4) Mathurà inscription, Journ. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXIX. Part I. p. 127, No. 1, and Plate; Journ. Roy. As. Soc. New Ser. Vol. V. p. 182, No. 1, and Plate; Arch. Suru. Rep. Vol. III. p. 33, No. 12, and Plate. Canninghan and Dowson read the sign as 40, and I have adopted this reading in Ind. Ant. Vol. XXXIII. p. 101, No. 11.
(5) Mathura inscription, Journ. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXIX. Part I. p. 127, No. 2, and Plate : Journ. Roy. As. Soc. New Ser. Vol. V. p. 183, No. 2, and Plate ; Arch. Suru. Rep. Vol. III. p. 34, No. 13, and Plate. Cunningham and Dowson read the sign as 40, and I have followed them in Ind. Ant. Vol. XXXIII, p. 102, No. 13.
(6) Mathara inscription, Journ. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXIX. Part I. p. 130, No. 18, and Plate. The facsimile is very poor. In the Ind. Ant. Vol. XXXIII. p. 101, No. 12, I have read the sign as 40, but I have pointed out also that the inscription is possibly identical with that referred to under No. 3.
(7) Mathuri inscription, Journ. Roy. As. Soc. New Ser. Vol. V. p. 184, No. 7, and Plato : Arch. Suru. Rep. Vol. IIL. p. 34, No. 14, and Plate. Canningham and Dowson read the sign as 40.
1 The absurd opinions of Rajendralala Mitrs may be pused over in silence. • Compare Cunningham's remarks, Journ. Roy. 41. Soc. New Sor. Yol. V. p. 196. * Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 373, note 7.
2112