Epigraphia Indica Vol 07

Author(s): E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 69

5
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. VII.
REMARKS. (1) The first & of ®kdtd in As, is surely only a clerical mistako. (2) The final anuodra seems to me perfectly visible.
TRANSLATION. "(This) pillar (is) the gift of the Yavana Sihadhaya from Dhenukakata."
For the combination of the singular Yavanasa with the plaral Sihadhayana[m] compart No. 3, where the plural theranan is followed by the singular Ishda devasa.
No. 8, Plate fit. (K. 8). Chaitya cave. On the fifth pillar; left row.
TEXT. (1) 1 Soparaka bhayatánam Dhamutari. (2) 2 yina sa n athasa (3) therasa . (4) 3 bha s a (5) amtev sisa bhana4 kasa Na . pats (6) gatimitas 5 saha ..t[i]hi (7) [tha]bho dinamakha (8).
REMARKS. (1) The inscription is maoh defaced, perhaps intentionally, as Bubler thinks, in order to be replaced by the following ono (No. 9). Hence all statements referring to it will have to be nade with special caution.- (2) AS. and OTI. read otdna and "tara". I consider the anusvåra and tho i of ri comparatively certain.-(3) OTI. and, with hesitation, A8. rend samdnathao. A singlo letter seems to be lost; but which P The m does not seem to me more probable than ally other.-(4) OTI. reads ma and AS. a as the last letter which I am unable to make out.(5) AS. and CTI. read tulasa. The first letter appears to be certainly a bh; compare the of aitevasisa. And I have no doubt that two letters have to be supplied between this letter aud the final sa.- (6) AS. Nadipatisa; OTI. Nadaputisa. Då or di are possible, but neither të certain. I do not discover any trace of an u below the p; but, after all, putasa is a priori
) probable that I can hardly doubt that this was the original reading of the stone. - (7) AS. .. . tiya; CTI. [matap:]tuya. The i above the t is more probable than the below, and the roading hi is, though not at first sight, at least as admissible graphically as ya. This zivos, with the possible restoration matapi, a completely satisfactory form. The reading tuya, permitting the restoration [ .. .dha]tuya, would seem to be recommended by the ex. pression sasariro in the following inscription (No. 9), which seems to bave been intended to replace the presont one. But why this substitation P Was it only in order to avoid the mention of the master of Satimita P Or perhaps for inserting the mention of the relics, which would have been passed over in silence in the first redaction and added ultimately by the donor - (8) The th is quito indistinot, but nevertheless certain. The final letter, road la by OTI. and left andetermined by AS., must be kh, sich gives us the excellent reading dinamakha[n]. The form of kl. is not quite usual. But it seems to be so nearly allied to certain variants of the samo lotter as to make this interpretation probable, which also gives a good sense. To judge from the form of kh in No. 13, the shape of this letter seems to have been particularly changeable and undetermined.
TRANSLATION “ (This) pillar (is) the gift of the preacher satimite, the son of Nanda (*) (and) the disciple of the Sthavira . .., .. . of the venerable Dhamutariya. (Dharmóttariyas), from SopAraka, together with his father and mother P)."