Epigraphia Indica Vol 07

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

Page 87

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. VII.
my mind, is raised to a certainty by Nâsik No. 5, where we read chhato lekho. Chhata would thus correspond to kshata from the root kshan. It is quite true that kshan ordinarily means only 'to hart;' but this meaning rests on the primary signification to hollow out, which is also attested for the form khan and is altogether quite analogous to the primary and essential meaning of likh. Why is the word likh, consecrated as it is by old custom, replaced in our texts by this equivalent ? I have no means to explain this; but the fact cannot be denied, I think. I can at least quote cases where khanati is employed as an equivalent of likhunts with reference to the engraving of a támrapatta; see the inscription of Madanapala in the J. As. Soc. Beng. 1900, p. 73. I do not venture to assert that our chhata is only a graphical variant of thata = khanit. At any rate, the close relation which exists between the two roots khan and kshan renders this explanation possible.
The characters which follow chha to, namely vijayathasature, are perfectly certain, except that the țh may be accompanied by an e, and except the last letter, which I would decidedly read kl hecause of the curve at the bottom, if the hook at the top were a little more rounded. As it is, the reading khe seems to me just as possible as the reading re. Is it at all probable that, as Buhler thought (p. 112, note, and compare p. 105, note), we have here a triple error of the scribe for vijayakha[m]thácare P This designation of the residence of a king is indeed well-known; but, putting aside the fact that such a conjecture is a little violent, one would wonder that such a camp is here, contrary to usage and to what we find in Nâsik No. 4, not determined by any topographical name. Shonld we look for such a name in the very indistinct characters following dato? As may be seen, they are far too doubtful to guide us by themselves; but a priori the interposition of dato between vijayakhandhavire and the name of the locality, whatever it could be, Tenders that hypothesis very guspicious.
If we stick to the apparent reading vijayathe satåkhe (or Cre), we are again obliged to embark on an ocean of conjectures fertile in shipwrecks. Here two emparisons suggest them. selves, which are curious, but at the same time perhaps not very safe. Satúre (or perhaps sátare) reminds of the well-known town and district of Satana on the south of Kârle. It is true that the name Satârâ has not yet been discovered in any document of ancient date (Bombay Gaze/teer, Vol. XIX. p. 224); but this may be simply accidental. Besides, it is not very probable-whatever the original form of the name may be that it should have already assumed the form Sátára in the time to which our inscriptions carry us back. At least it ought to have begun with Sata, whatever this means, and Sátákhya as the designation of a town whose name commences with Sáta' would not be without analogies. On the other hand vijayathe, i.e., without doubt, vijayasthe,
situated in my territory' or 'in the province called Vijaya,' reminds of the name of Vaijayanti, which we have already found applied to the town that has since received the name Banavasi, und which occurs again in Nåsik No. 4. The very peculiar manner in which this inscription introduces the word sendye suggests that we might have here a name given by virtue of a recent conquest to these southern territories, where the district of Satârâ occupies an intermediate position between Kârlê and Banavåsi. If this conjecture had any foundation, we should feel inclined to attribute this grant not to Vásishthiputra Puļumây, but to Gautamiputra Satakarpi, to whose reign Nâsik No. 4 belongs. Of course I am aware of the fragility of this assumption. As for the characters following dato, the reading therand is, with reference to the two last letters, as improbable as the evidently desperate analysis of the word, which Bühler suggested. The first letter might be the, but could also be ve. The comparison of Nâsik No. 4 suggests Benci kata or Benakataks ; but the place which dato occupies does not lead us to expect a topographical name, and I may add that the remaining traces would be little favourable to this restoration.
The figure 4 of the number 14' is hardly possible; I would rather think of a 5. But in fact the only point which is beyond doubt, is, that the year must fall between 11' and 19.'
One cannot help remarking the similarity of the names of several officers who are employed here and at Nasik by Vâsishthiputra Puļumáyi and Gautamiputra Satakarpi. In Nasik No. 3