________________
No. 7.7
THE ARA INSCRIPTION OF KANISHKA II: THE YEAR 41.
18)
#calogy from other Kushana names such as Kanishka, Vācishka, and Huvishka strongly favours the reading Vajheshka. Finally, the compound shp does not occur in any other known Kheroshthi inscription.
The name Kanishka has been written with a cerebral n by Mr. Banerji. In order to justify my reading Kamishka, it will be necessary to go into detaile.
It is a well-known frct that two different n-6 are used in Kharðshthi, one with a bont head, which the late Professor Bühler treated as the regular sigu of the cerebral pa, and another consisting of a broken line with a curvature at the head, which he transliterated na. I have shown that the two sigos are regularly distinguished in this way in the Central Asian Kharoshthi manuscript of the Dhammapada, and that we can there lay down the rule that every single between vowels became cerebral, while every initial n and every double n between vowels was dental. This is the same state of things which prevails in & series of modern vernaculara, and it should be noted that the cerebral pronunciation of a single intervocalic n is strongly rendered in Sindhi and other north-western tongues. We may safely infer that such was the CABO in the ancient speech of North-Western India, more especially if we bear in mind that the dialect of the Dhamma pada manuscript certainly is a North-Western Indian form of speech. We would then naturally expect to find at least distinct traces of a similar distribution of the two n-Bounds in Kharðshthi insoriptions. Nobody will, of course, think of judging these records After the exigencies of Sanskrit grammar. If we now examine the more important ones from this point of view, and assume, for the sako of argument, that the two signs are distinguished in the same way as in the Kharoshtht man script of the Dhammapada, we will find that the following is the state of things:
In the Taxila vase inscription of Sihila and Siharachhita only nocours, and always between vowels. The samo is the case in the Machai inscription of Sam. 61.
The Taxila plate of Patika has initial n in nama, nagare, navakarmika, and single » between vowels in utarena, Sakamunisa, Rohinimitreng. On the other hand, we find against the rule sarvabudhana and mahadanapati, where it is perhaps possible to think of the influence of Sanskrit.
The Mahaban, Paja, Kaldarra, Panjtar and apparently also the Takht-i-Bahı inscriptions only have na, and always between vowels. On the Mathura lion capital, on the other hand, we only find dental na. The Tazlia inscription of Sam. 136 uses na throughout, even when then is initial. It will be seen that this is in accordance with the practice in the old Prakrits, and in both cases it is possible that we have here to do with an attempt at generalizing such features as were not clearly understood. At least I have grave thisgivings about the use of a cerebral initial n in the Prakrits.
I ain unable to make any statement with regard to the Dewal inscription of San. 200 and the Skārah Dhēri inscription of Sam. 399, though the latter certainly in some cases writes na between vowels.
The Lorián Tangai inscription of San. 318 has only na and always between vowels, while no n occurs in the Hashtnagar imnge inscription of Sam. 384.
If we turn to the inscriptions of the Kanishka group, we have first the Suo Vihar inscription of Sam. 11, which is throughout under the influence of Sanskrit. Here the only instance of & oerebral n is in viharasvamini.
The interpretation of the Zeda inscription is too uncertain to allow any inference. There *are however some certain instances of n between vowels.
In the Māņikiāla inscription of Sam. 18 we regularly find † in navakarmigena and in kaneshkasa, gushana, dadanayago, vespafiena, kujachiena, Buritena, viharakarafaena, sařena,
Pratichrift Windisch, p. 88.
.
