________________
INSCRIPTIONS FROM JAGGAYYAPETŢA.
SEPTEMBER, 1882.]
and hatasukhaya (1. 6.) for hit. There is also a curious sign for tu in bhátukash (1. 4), where a stroke, probably intended to indicate the lengthening of the u, has been attached to the top of the t. Not one of these points is, however, of any importance for the correct interpretation of the document, as No. II. gives the correct forms. I have, therefore, not corrected them in the Devanagari transcript. As regards the transcript of No. II., the letters placed between brackets are indistinct in the original. Owing to the state of the original some of the anusváras are doubtful.
The characters of the two inscriptions are decidedly of the Andhra type which prevails in the inscriptions from Amarâvati and those from the Western Caves. But it seems to me that they represent a late development of that most ancient among the Southern alphabets. To this conclusion point the notches in the lower horizontal lines of the letters va, ma, and la, and the shape of the letters na and ha. All these peculiarities are highly characteristic of the later Southern alphabets, and occur in many Chalukya inscriptions of the 7th and later centuries. I am, however, not prepared to assign so late a date to these inscriptions, because it happens not unfrequently in Indian epigraphy, that forms and characteristics which are constant in late inscriptions, are found sporadically in older documents. All I mean to say is that on epigraphical grounds I would place these documents after the inscriptions of Gotamiputra II Siriyaña Sâtakanni. In the case of No. II. the mason has done his best to show off his skill in making the letters ornamental and their form artistic. The language is perhaps a little more closely allied to those of the literary Pâli than that of the other Buddhist dedicatory inscriptions of the South and West. But the forms âpano (11. 3. and 6) for Pâli attano, the occurrence of the dual bálaká (1. 4) which the literary Prakrits do not admit, the irregular euphonic change in náka or naka (11. 2. 4.) for nága, as well as the irregular construction of the pass. perf. part., which is taken in the sense of the active and governs the accusative khambhe, deserve to be noted.
Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. vol. XII, p. 407. Bhagvan1Al's transcript gives the incorrect form Madhariputa,
257
The chief importance of the inscriptions which record the erection and dedication of some pillars near the Stupa by a pious Bauddha manufacturer or artisan lies in the date which is given according to the regnal year of a king of the Ik haku, i. e. Ikshvâku or solar race of Rajputs. He is called M â dhariputa, i. e., the son of the queen of the Mâdhara (in Sanskrit Mâțhara) family. The same epithet belongs to an Andhra king whose existence Pandit Bhagvanlâl first made known. One is sorely tempted to identify the two individuals. But a careful consideration of the circumstances makes such a view, I fear, untenable. For the Andhra M & dha riputa, who, as Pandit Bhagvânlâl has shown, ruled between Vasithiputa (Palumâyi) and Gotamiputa II. (Yañasiri Sâtakanni) is called in the Kanheri inscription, Sirisena (on the facsimile Sakasena) and on the coins Sivalakura, which latter word, I presume, is a title or a biruda. The monarch mentioned in the Jaggayyapetta inscriptions, on the other hand, bears the name Purisadata, i. e. Purushadatta, 'given by Purusha or Vishnu' or 'he whom Purusha may give.' The words Sirivira (Śrivira) which are compounded with Purisadata, contain, I think, a honorific title, similar to Vedisiri, Hakusiri, Siriyaña or Yañasiri and Sirisena. For if Sirivirapurisadata were translated by 'the illustrious Virapurisadata,' it would be necessary to assume the existence of a deity, called Virapurisa, which hitherte is not known. But whether my explanation of the compound Sirivirapurisadata be right or wrong, it seems to me impossible that the individual, denoted by it, can be the same person as Mâḍhariputa Sirisena Sivalakura. I do not even think it safe to assert positively that king Purisadata belonged to the Andhra dynasty; though the list of the Purâņas mentions one whose name is variously given as Pravilasena, Purikasheṇa, Purindrasena and Purishabhiru, and somewhat resembles our Madharputra's in its first portion. For the Andhras appear to have belonged to the Satavahana race, while Parisadatta calls himself an Ikshvâku. All I venture to say for the present is that probably some time after
but on his facsimile the stroke for the long & after the m is faintly visible.
