________________
340
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXXIV
umā.. or saomā.. standing for Sanskrit sakumā and accepted Indraji's restoration of the next two letters as rāya, so that the word would be sakumārāya. Thus the gift portion was translated by him as '(the image of) a Nāga, a tank and a monastery (are) the meritorious gift of the Mahābhoji Sivakhadanāgasiri (Sivaskandanāgasri), the daughter of the great king, - of her whose son and (other) progeny is living, (and) who is associated in this donation) with her son'. With regard to the sentence etha kamatiko, etc., Bühler, besides interpreting kamatiko in a different sense, stops with Khadasāti, taking it as a nominative singular and connecting the following sa with jayalakasa, and interprets Sajayataka as an inhabitant of Samjayanti'. According to him, only one letter could have been lost at the end of the second line, and taking this lost letter to be i, he read the name in question as Idamoraka. He translated the last two sentences as with respect to these (gifts) the minister Khedasāti (Skandasvāti) (was) the superintendent of the work. The Näga has been made by Nataka (Nartaka), the pupil of the Acharya' [I]damoraka (Indramayura) of the town of Samjayanti.'
While Indraji and Bühler took Sivaskandanāgasri as the donatrix and the king's daughter, Rapson thought that the name refers to the prince and that the name of the donatrix is not mentioned in the record, she being only stated to have been the daughter of the great king who was associated in the donation with the prince. He also read the name of the family as Chutu instead of Dutu and identified the unnamed donatrix with Nāgamūlanikā of the Kanheri inscription," who is stated to have been the daughter of the great king and the mother of Skandanāgasātaka, and attributed the latter record to king Viņhukada-Chutukulānanda Sātakarni. He further identified the said king with his namesake mentioned in the Malavalli inscription. According to him, Sivaskandanāgasrl of the present record, Skandanäga ataka of the Kanheri epigraph and Sivaskandavarman mentioned in the Malavalli inscription were identical.
Lüders also regarded Sivaskandanagasri as the prince whose mother's name is not given in the record. The same view has been adopted by N. Lakshuninarayan Rao and R. S. Panchamukhi who accept the identification of king Vinhukada-Chuţukulānanda Sātakarni of the present inscription with his namesake mentioned in the Malavalli record. D. C. Sircar who also follows. Rapson in regarding Sivaskandanagasri as a prince, however, is doubtful about the Ascription of the Kanheri inscription to the king mentioned in the Banavāsi epigraph and thinks that from the palaeographical and linguistic points of view, the kings mentioned in the latter record and the Malavalļi inscription should be regarded as different.' In his opinion, the identification of Sivaskandanāgasri, Skandanāgaśātaka and Sivaskandavarman, suggested by Rapson, cannot be accepted.
I had an opportunity to study the record in situ in 1947-48 and recently again studied it from impressions preserved in the Office of the Government Epigraphist for India in its collection for the year 1935-36.8 My suggestions regarding the reading and interpretation of the inscription are offered below.
1 This word means here, according to Bühler, master-mason'. * Catalogue of Indian Coins, p. liii, No. 25.
ASTI, Vol. y, p. 86.
Ep. Carn., Vol. VII, p. 251. . Cf. List of Brahmi Inscriptions, No. 1186. . Karnatakada Arasumanetanagalu, p. 8
The Successors of the Satavahanas, pp. 221-23 ; The Age of Imperial Unity, pp. 208-09. .A.R. ED. 1935-36, No. E 128.
