Epigraphia Indica Vol 21

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 87

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XXI.
Pillar-inscription M 17. (1. 11) .... [Siri-]Vira purisadatasa] ..... (1.2) .... [ve]jayike api(cha) .....
Pillar-inscription M 18. (1.1) ... mahāgenapa tisa] ....
Pillar-inscription M 19.(1.1) ..... [Si]ri-Virapu[risadatasa] ....
Ayaka-pillar Inscription N belonging to Stüpa No. 9.. The Stūpa No. 9, to which we have had occasion to refer above, must have been provided with ayaka-pillars in the same manner as the Mahächetiya. But only one inscribed pillar was recovered on this site, and the inscription engraved on it is incomplete. The preserved portion contains nothing but a string of names, so that a translation is superfluous.
Transcript. (1.1) ... rinamkānam Mūlasirinaka[sa] Sidhatha- (1.2) [ka]sa Pudhinakasa bālika(ā) (1.3) Mahatuvaņika Sidhathamņikā Jakhana .....
Chadamukhasa
Addenda and Corrigenda to the previous article. In the First Apsidal Temple Inscription E, translation, read stone hall' instead of stone shrine' (sela-mamtava[m]) and chaitya-shrine' instead of 'chaitya-hall' (chetiya-ghara).
The Second Apsidal Temple Inscription F, line 3, contains the following passage :Kamtakasele mahāchetiyasa puva-däre sela-mamdavo. As explained in the 'Glossary' (p. 35) the text has Kartakasole ; but as in the Nagarjunikonda inscriptions errors with regard to vowel-marks are very common, I ventured to correct the word into Kamakasele, which would correspond to Sanskrit Kantakaśaile. Cf. Puvasele (Skt. Purvasaulē) in the same inscription.
At the time it had escaped my notice that an inscription from Amaravatit contains the genitive singular of the noun Kamtakasolaka, meaning a resident of Ko. As here the vowelmark attached to the 8 is clearly the o-sign, we shall have to assume that, after all, the reading Kamtakasole is correct. The form with o agrees, indeed, more closely with Ptolemy's Kaytaxonoúna. The entry in our Glossary of Geographical Names! 8.0. Kamakasela should be corrected accordingly.
In this connection it may be pointed out that another Amarāvati inscription makes men tion of a locality, probably a town, of the name of Vijayapura.' It is, of course, impossible to decide whether this place is identical with the Vijayapuri referred to in the second Apsidal Temple inscription F, line 2, in the following passage : Siripavate Vijayapuriya-puva-disăbhāge vihäre Chula-Dharmagiriya chetiya-gharaṁ 80-pata-samthāram sa-chetiyam savamiyuta käritam uväsikäya Bodhisiriya. It may, however, safely be inferred from this passage that the town once situated in the valley of Nāgārjunikonda was named Vijayapuri. For there can be little doubt that the chatyaghara mentioned here is the Apsidal Temple, on the stone flocr of which the long inscription is engraved. All details tend to corroborate this assumption. Not only does this building enshrine a chaitya, measuring 5 feet in diameter, and is it paved with
13. Burrous, The Buddhist Shu pas of Amararati and Jaggayyapela, p. 106, No. 54. "Op. ah, p 81, No. 30, plate LVIII.