________________
No. 16.]
ROCK-INSCRIPTIONS IN THE KANGRA VALLEY.
117
The two inscriptions are so nearly alike in script, substance and general character that it appears desirable to publish them together, the more so as the Kanhiara inscription has not yet been edited satisfactorily and the Pathyâr inscription, as far as I know, has not been noticed before by any archæologist.
The legend in both cases is given in two different alphabets,- Brahmi and Kharoshthi, though evidently of two very different periods. In each case the inscription contains only two words in both scripts, whereas a third word occurs in one script only. But at Kanhiåra this additional word belongs to the Brahmi, while at Pathyar it forms part of the Kharôshthî legend. The explanation of this third word is somewhat difficult. Otherwise the reading may be said to be beyond doubt, owing to the enormous size and the clearness of the letters, which are deeply cut in hard granite boulders. Finally two auspicious symbols are in each case added after the Brâhmi legend, one of which is the well-known svastika.
The Kanhiâra inscription was read by Sir E. C. Bayley as follows :-Krishnayasasa dráma in Kharðshthi, and Krishnayasasya áráma medangisya in Brâhmi. I may state at once that the correct reading of the first word appears to be Krishamyasasa and Krishnaya asya respectively, whereas the length of the first a of áráma, as a matter of fact, is not expressed in Kharðshthi. He explains it as "the garden of Krishnayasas, to which in the second inscription some wag has apparently added the epithet medangisya (corpulent) from med (fat) and anga (body)."
Cunningham, however, preferred to consider áráma as a synonym of vihara, translating it by “the monastery of Krishnayasas," and even went so far as to derive the name Kanhiara from Kanhiya-yasas-áráma, Kanhiya being a synonym of Krishņa. The third word he read madangisya, and he thought it to be " the name of the district or possibly of the recorder of the inscription."
Now, before entering upon any discussion of these doubtful points, it will be well to examine the other inscription, which from its similarity is likely to contribute fresh evidence. The Pathyar inscription consists of two lines, cut into one stone. The upper line gives the two words in Brahmi followed by a svastika and a foot-print. In the lower line, which was partly buried in the ground, is the Kharoshthi legend, which consists of three words. The Brahmi letters are of considerable size, the final one being not less than 1% high. The Kharðshtbî characters are much smaller (5' to 9). Thus, notwithstanding the difference in the number of letters, both lines are about equal in length, viz. 73.
It is evident at once that the two words in Brahmi correspond to the second and third words of the Kharoshthi legend. I read them Vayulasa pukarin or, in correct spelling, Váyulassa pukkharini, the meaning being simply "Väyula's lotus-pond." With regard to the first word of the Kharðshthi, the meaning is less obvious. Manifestly it is a genitive defining the proper name Váyulassa. It seems to me almost certain that it has to be read rathidarasa, i.e. in Sanskřit rathitarasya. The i may be either short or long. If short, the word is to be taken as the comparative of rathin; if long, of the Vedic rathi. The meaning remains the same, vit. charioteer' (from ratha). According to the St. Petersburg Dictionary the word rathitara occurs as a proper name in the Vishnupurána also. But the meaning which has to be assigned to the word in the Pathyar inscription is, I believe, a different one. Rathi is the name of an agricultural caste in Kangra.3 If Váyula really was a Rathi, we may infer that, in the time of the inscription, the Rathîs were not inhabitants
1 I have to point out that the a has a small horizontal stroke to the right. But it is little prominent and may be & natural hole in the rock.
* The length of a in ud is expressed only in the Brahmi. The x-stroke of yw is not found in the Brahmi, but is perfectly clear in the Kharðshthi legend.
Gazetteer of the Kangra District, Vol. I. (1883-84), p. 88 f.
