Epigraphia Indica Vol 01

Author(s): Jas Burgess
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 37

16
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
III.-ASOKA'S TWELFTH ROCK-EDICT
ACCORDING TO THE SHAHBAZGARHI VERSION, BY G. BÜHLER, PhD., LL.D., C.I.E.
The subjoined edition of the lately discovered twelfth edict of the Shâh bâzgarhi series is based on (1) a heliotype facsimile taken from an impression; (2) a slightly mutilated paper impression taken by Captain Deane, Assistant Commissioner of Yusafzai, and (3) a direct photograph of the right half of the inscription, taken from the rock.
The inscription is incised in 9 unequal lines on a granitic boulder, and is about 2 feet 6 inches broad and 9 feet 8 inches long. The rock appears to be full of large and small fissures, exfoliations, and holes. Some of these seem to have existed before the inscription was engraved, as the mason has avoided them in cutting the letters. Thus the last two syllables of the word dhramamahamatra in 1. 9, stand more than an inch apart from the preceding ones, and the impression clearly shows the traces of flaws in the intervening portion of the stone. But in most cases the fissures and holes are of later origin and have destroyed smaller or larger portions of the letters. This circumstance makes a certain proportion of the vowel signs, anusváras and subscribed ra-káras doubtful. In a very few cases the consonants too are not clearly distinguishable.
The alphabet of the inscription is the so-called Baktro-Pâli or North-Indian, which according to Sir A. Cunningham was current in Indian Kâbul and in the Panjåb from the beginning of the historical period to the third century A.D. The letters are mostly 1 to 2 inches high. Owing to the want of perfectly readable impressions and trustworthy facsimiles of the inscriptions in this character, and specially of the edicts of Aśoka, a good many minor details in the reading of these characters have still to be settled. Though this is not the place for the discussion of all the doubtful or disputed points, I must refer to a few of them in explanation of my transcript.
1. I have in general adopted the new interpretations of some signs, e.g., of + andwhich Dr. Bhagvânlâl Indraji and Dr. Hoernle have given in their articles on the first rock-edict of the Shahbazgarhi version, and of the Suibihârâ inscription, Indian Antiquary, vol. X, pp. 105 & 324, and vol. XI, p. 128.
2. I am however not able to agree as yet with Dr. Bhagvânlal's remark in the last article, that the short line slanting upwards, which is sometimes found on the left side of the lower end of consonants and a, denotes the long d. In our edict it occurs distinctly in the first sign of bahuvidha, 1. 2, where the reading báhuvidha is impossible. It is further found in the va of devanam, 1. 1, where the reading devánam is required. In a third word, ataprashaḍavadhi, 1. 8, it perhaps occurs in the initial letter, and the reading áta is possible. But I do not dare to put these two lengths in the transcript, as none of the numerous other letters after which a must have been read, such as da in prashamdani, tha in grahathani, show a similar contrivance. Moreover, neither Dr. Bhagvanlal's facsimile of the rock-edict nor the photograph of the Shahbâzgarhi version which I owe to the kindness of Sir A. Cunningham, nor the facsimile and photograph of the Mânsahra version, which I have l' ewise received from him, confirm the assertion that the distinction between a and a clearly marked in the Aśoka inscriptions. Hence I have noticed these slight peculi.ties of the letters merely in the notes to the transcript.