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 319

244
EPIGRAPHIA INDIJA.
[VOL. IX.
It thus appears that the symbol has hitherto been treated sometimes as 40 and sometimes as 70, but it will be readily conceded, I think, that it is impossible to assign two different values to the same sign in inscriptions of the same locality and the same period. But before we can decide which of the two interpretations is the correct one, we shall have to examine also the other symbols supposed to represent either 40 or 70 in the early Brahmi inscriptions of Northern India. The following inscriptions, which for convenience sake I number in continuation of the list given above, must be taken into consideration:
(8) Mathura inscription of the time of maharaja Huviksha, Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 387, No. 9, and Plate. The symbol resembles the ligature pta and was read by Bühler as 40.
(9) Mathura inscription, Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 387, No. 10, and Plate. The general appearance of the symbol is the same as in No. 8, but its lower part is not quite distinct in the photo-lithograph. Bühler read the sign as 40.
(10) Mathurâ inscription, Arch. Surv. Rep. Vol. III. p. 33, No. 10, and Plate; Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 396, No. 30, and Plate. The symbol generally has the same form as that in No. 8, but its lower part is a little more cursive. Canningham and Bühler read it as 40.
(11) Mathurâ inscription of the time of maharaja Huvishka, Arch. Surv. Rep. Vol. III. p. 34, No. 15, and Plate. The symbol is the same as in No. 8. Cunningham read it as 40, and I have followed him in my treatment of the record in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XXXIII. p. 103,
No. 14.
(12) Mathurâ inscription, Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 204, No. 20, and Plate; p. 321, and Plate. The upper part of the symbol is the same as in Nos. 8-11, but its lower part is a distinct loop. Bühler read the sign as 70.
(13) Mathura inscription, Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 387, No. 11, and Plate. As Bühler expressly states in a footnote that the symbol is a plain pta, it may have been so in the impression before him. In the photo-lithograph, however, it does not bear the slightest resemblance to that sign, but looks exactly like the letter bra. Bühler read the symbol as 40.
(14) Saachi inscription of the time of maharaja rájátirája devaputra Shâhi Vâsashka, Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 369 f., and Plate. The symbol found here has quite a peculiar shape. Provided that the vertical standing behind it does not belong to it, but is part of the following sign for 8, it resembles the usual sign for 20. As such it was read also at first by Bühler, but at Cunningham's suggestion he afterwards took it to be 70. The reading of the sign was then discussed at length by Dr. Fleet in a paper in the Journ. Roy. As. Soc. 1903, p. 326 ff., and he came to the conclusion that it was 20. But later on, when Mr. Vincent Smith in his Early History of India, p. 238, had suggested that the symbol might be read as 60, Dr. Fleet admitted the possibility of this interpretation; see Journ. Roy. As. Soc. 1905, p. 357.1
Leaving aside for the present the symbols found in the last three inscriptions, it appears that there are two symbols, the St. Andrew's cross and the pta, one of which must represent 70 and the other 40. Now in the inscription which forms the subject of this paper the St. Andrew's cross cannot represent 40, as in that case the inscription would be dated in the year 44 in the reign of a king whose name begins with Vasu, whereas we know that from 33-60 Huvishka was the reigning monarch in this part of the country. Here, therefore, the St. Andrew's cross must represent 70, and we must accordingly assign the same value to the symbol also in the inscriptions enumerated above under Nos, 1-7. We thus get the dates S. 72 for No. 1, S. 74 for
1 Another sign that originally was read 40 by Bühler, is found in the Mathura inscription of the time of mahdrája rájátirája dévaputra Huvashka, Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 386, No. 8, and Plate. Later on Bühler declared that on further consideration he read the symbol as 60, and as such it has been treated since then everywhere; see Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 204, note 61.