________________
No. 33.]
THREE EARLY BRAHMI INSCRIPTIONS.
245
No. 2, and S. 77 for Nos. 3-7. The inscriptions themselves contain nothing to contradict this result. No. 4, it is true, mentions the mahiraja rajaliraja décaputra Hûvish ka, but not in connection with the date, the inscription simply recording a gift to the riluira of that king. As to the date S. 72 for the mahikshatrapa Solåsa, I refer to the remarks of Dr. Fleet in the Journ. Roy. As. Soc. 1907, p. 1024 ff.
If the St. Andrew's cross represents 70, the sign resembling pta must be 40. The inscription No. 8, therefore, would be dated in S. 44, No. 9 in S. 45, No. 10 in S. 47, and No. 11 in S. 48, which is in accordance with the statements of Nos. 8 and 11 that their dates fall into the reign of Haviksha or Huvishka.
The symbol occurring in No. 12 undoubtedly differs from cither of the two symbols found in Nos. 1-11, but whereas it bears no resemblance whatever to the cross-shaped sign, it is easily intelligible as a cursive development of the pta sign. In my opinion therefore this sign also must be taken as 40, and the inscription as baing dated in S. 49, not $. 73. There is another point in favour of this intepretation. The inscription records a gift made at the request of the venerable Vșidhahasti (Vrid lhahustin), & preacher in the Kottiya(Kottilayana, the Vaira (Vajri) sikh. There is another Matburi inscription dated in S. 60, recording a gift made at the request of the yanin, the venerable Kharuna, a papil of this same Vriddhahastin. If Vriddhahastin in S. 60 had a pupil who had acquired the dignity of ganin, he must have been a man advanced in years at that time, and although, of course, it is not impossible that he was still alive in S. 79, it would certainly seem more natural to find him as a spiritual adviser in S. 49 and his pupil in the same capacity eleven years later on, in S. 60.
Little can be said about the symbol occurring in No. 13. The form appearing in the photolithograph is quite pevaliar and unlike any other symbol in the inscriptions from Mathurå or elsewhere, but in accordance with Bühler's statement, it may be provisionally taken as 40.
As regards the symbol in No. 14, I agree with Dr. Fleet that there is no reason whatever why it should be 70, as even the sign in No. 12, which Bühler cited in support of this interpretation, is to be read not 70, but 40. On the other hand, I feel sure that it is not 20. I have lately received through Dr. Konow impressions of an inscription ranning round the base of a pillar preserved in the Mathura Museum. The inscription, which is in Brâhmi characters of the Kushapa type, is partly worn, but the date is quite distinct. Now the sign for the tens in the date of the year is the same as that in the Sanchi inscription, showing again the vertical, which is thus proved to be an integrant part of it and not to belong to the following sign. And although unfortunately the text of the inscription contains nothing that would enable us to form & positive opinion on the value of the symbol, we may safely assert that it cannot be 20, as we find this number expressed by the usual sign in the date of the day. Lastly also the proposal to treat the symbol as 60 cannot be said to be convincing, the sign that has hitherto been read as 60 in the inscriptions of the Kashana periods certainly being entirely different. I do not want to offer & new hypothesis. In my opinion we shall have to wait for fresh materials before we can hope to arrive at a satisfactory result in this question. In how far the restoring of the king's name in our inscription of S. 74 is influenced by this uncertainty, will be shown below.
I know that the results arrived at above are partly not in harmony with those deduced from the coins of the Western Kshatrapas. The nameral signs occurring in the legends of those coins are given in table IX, col. V, of Bühler's Indische Paläographie from Professor Rapson's table in
1 Perhaps the symbol found in No. 9 forms the intermediate stage between the pta and the looped sign. As I have stated above, its lower part is not quite distinct in the photo-lithograph, but it does not seem to me imporsible that here alvo it consists not of the usual fork, but of a loop, though a much smaller one than in No. 12.
? Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 386, No. 8, and Plate.
Bp. Ind. Vol. I. P. 886, No. 8, and Plato; Vol. II. p. 204, No. 19, And Plate; Arch. Suro. Rep. Vol. XX. p. 37, and Plate y, fig. 6.
