Epigraphia Indica Vol 16

Author(s): F W Thomas, H Krishna Sastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 45

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XVI.
C records the erection of a funeral monument by Madana, son of Sinnbila, to the memory of his wife Yasadata (Yasodatta), a novice (frāmanēri), the daughter of Sihamita (Simhamitra), of the Senika (Śrēnika) gotra, on the same day. Thus inscriptions A, B, and C record the erection of monuments by one Madana, son of Simhila, to the memory of his brother Rishabhadēva, his sister Jeshtaviri and his wife Yasodattă. The fourth inscription records the erection of a faneral monument to the memory of Rishabhadēva, son of Treshtadata (Trishţadatta), by his father Treshtadata, a male novice (srāmanera), of the Opasati (Aupašatika) götra, on the same date as that mentioned in inscriptions A, B, and C. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar is certainly wrong in stating that this inscription "is a memorial stone of Rishabhadeva, of the Opasati gotra and son of Treshtadata, erected by Madana his brother." It is a memorial stone of one Rishabhadeva, son of Treshtadata, of the Opasati gotra; but there is no mention of a brother named Madana. It is evident that the learned Professor failed to read the last line of inscription D. He appears to have read Sri-Madanena instead of frāmanerena, which is very clear on the stone itself and distinct in impression. It is not very easy to understand how Prof. Bhandarkar reconciles the words pitr[a] Treshtadatena, which occur at the beginning of the sentence, with the word immediately following them, if he read Sri-Madanena. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar's inability to decipher this word has led him to make some unnecessary conjectures regarding the personages mentioned in inscription D. He states, "this is rather puzzling, because the gotra Opaśati and the name Madana point to this Rishabhadeva being the same as that of the first inscription, Treshtadata being in that case presumed to be the other name of their father Sihila; but it is inconceivable that two stelæ were put up or can be put up in memory of one and the same individual." His remarks induced me to examine inscriptions B and D very carefully; but I am now sure that his difficulties were caused by his own inability to read the last line of the record. The fourth inscription does not mention Madana as the brother of Rishabhaděva: therefore this Rishabhadeva cannot be the same person as that mentioned in inscription B. In fact, inscription D records the erection of a funeral monument to another Rishabhadeva, son of Treshtadata, who was a different person from Sihila, the father of Rishabhadēva mentioned in inscription B. The stele was raised by Treshtadata, the father of the deceased, who was a Buddhist monk (brūmanera).
The mention of Chåshtana. son of Ysmotika, immediately before the name of his grandson Rudradaman, son of Jayadáman, in these four records, without any connecting link, has led scholars to make a number of conjectures. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar states that originally he thought that the word pauttrasya had been omitted in each and every inscription, but now he is inclined to agree with his assistant Dr. Romesh Chandra Majumdar in thinking that the omission of the word pauttrasya or potasa indicates that in the year 52 Chashịana and Rudradāman were reigning jointly. Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar states in a popular account of the history of Deccan named "Dekkan of the Satavahana period” that “Mr. R. C. Majumdar of the Calcutta University has kindly offered the guggestion that the date had better be ascribed to the conjoint reign of Chashtana and Rudradå man." Apart from the possibility of Buch an event in India, nobody having ever thought or tried to prove conjoint reigns of two monarchs except Messrs. Bhandarkar, there is sufficient evidence in the Andhau inscriptions themselves to prove that the author of the record was quite ignorant as to the exact relationship between Chashtana and Rudradaman. It is very well known that, though Rudradáman was an independent monarch, he never used the title Rajan alone. This is true of all princes of this dynasty and of that of Svāmin Jivadöman. There is not a single coin or inscription of this dynasty in which the title Rājan is used by itself and not
Annual Program Report of the Archeological Survey of India, Western Cirele, 1914-16, p. 67. • Ibid.
Indian Antiquary, Vol. XLVII, 1918, p. 154, note 36. • Ikid.