Epigraphia Indica Vol 30

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

Page 99

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[Vol. XXX original or in my impressions but as he wanted to read them. This is very clearly demonstrated by the fifteenth akshara of the second line of the record as found in his impression. The doctored impression shows this letter. clearly as nya and that is how it was read by Dr. Bhattasali originally, although it has been read in his paper published in the Epigraphia Indica tentatively as dēva. This is no doubt because the doctoring was done when the author was eager to read the letter as nya; but, when apparently it was later pointed out to him that nya is rather awkward in the context, he was compelled to change his reading to dēva in spite of the fact that the new reading is quite plainly against the evidence of his impression.
Let us analyse here the mistakes in Dr. Bhattasali's transcript of the Badagangā inscription one by one.
1. In line 1, what has been read as bhāgasata is clearly bhattāraka. Thus the king in question (i.e., Bhūtivarman of the Bhauma or Näraka dynasty of Prāgiyotisha or Kamarupa, i.e., modern Assam) is described here as a Paramabhaffäraka which is an ordinary imperial title and not as Paramabhagavata which would have shown that the ruler was a devout worshipper of the Bhagavat, i.e., the god Vishnu.
2. The ninth letter of line 2 is a clear na even in Dr. Bhattasali's impression; but he suggested the reading of the letter as nāri and read the entire passage as ®asvamēdhayājinām éri-Bhuti. varmmadeva pādānām. It is now seen that the correct reading is aśvamēdhayājina[ho] briBhitivarmmasya, although 'varmmasya is a mistake for varmmanah.
3. At the beginning of line 3, Dr. Bhattasali reads the year of the date as 200 30 4 which is followed in his transcript by the akshara mā taken by him to indicate the month of Māgha. As Mr. N. Lakshminarayan Rao, who examined my impressions, first pointed out to me, the correct reading of what Dr. Bhattasali has read as 200 30 4 ma is āyushkāmam and there is no trace of the syllable sam at the end of the previous line. Thus the actual reading of the passage in question is no doubt opädänām āyushkāmam vishay-āmātyao. The inscription therefore does not contain either any date in the Gupta era or the name of any vishaya. The expression Kyushkamar simply refers to the fact that the vishay-āmātya (governor of a district) performed a meritorious work for the longevity of his master, king Bhūtivarman.
4. The name of the vishay-āmātya referred to above was read by Dr. Bhattasali as Aryyaguna or Adyaguna. The first letter of the name is and not ā, while the second is either va or da without any subscript. A comparison with y in oyājina in line 2 and in vishayā° in line 3 shows beyond doubt that the second akshara of the name in question cannot be ryya. The reading of the name seems to me to be Avaguna. The sense of the name is rather derogatory; but names with derogatory sense are not uncommon in India'. Thus the Badaganga inscription speaks of Paramadaivata Paramabhattāraka Mahārājādhirāja Bhūtivarman, & performer of the Afvamëdha sacrifice, during whose reign a royal officer named Avaguna, who was the governor of a district of Bhūtivarman's kingdom, made an āśrama at the findspot of the epigraph for the longevity of his master. The area governed by Avaguna seems to have comprised parts of the present Nowgong District of Assam and the adjoining area including the valleys of the rivers Hārkāthi and Dighalpani mentioned above. An interesting information supplied by the inscription is that the Nowgong
The recently discovered Dubi plates give Varman as another name of the family.
There is a popular notion in Eastern India to suggest derogatory names for the children especially of women who repeatedly give birth to dead boys and girls. Cf. Bengali and Oriys names like Ekkari (literally, purchased by, i.o., worthy of, one cowrie only), Arakshita (literally, helpless, i.e., wretched, or a beggar), Fakfr (mendicant), eto. The idea behind such naming is that the attention of the god of death may be diverted from a child bearing a dorogatory namo. Such children are often given away to somebody and then purchased by the parents at a nominal price. For the similar naine Dukhu or Dub khi (i.o., miserable), of. Modern Review, July 1954, p. 79.