Indian Antiquary Vol 12

Author(s): Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 43

FEBRUARY, 1883.]
TWO KSHATRAPA INSCRIPTIONS.
simply given as Rudra instead of Rudra- which precede the name of his father. Mr. si ha, as the text has it. Rudrasena is also | Bhâu Dajt reads those letters mánasagotra, and said to be the "grandson" of Jay ad Âma, makes this apparently, the name of the family while the text calls him his great-grandson. (or perhaps, the place), to which the unknown
In the translation the date is given as the individual's father belonged. In his reading, seventh day; the reason of which I am some- however, he has omitted one sa (or rather sani, what puzzled to understand, seeing that in his as the facsimile has an anusvåra over the Nagari transcript Mr. Bhâu Daji gives the date second letter); for the text has manasasavicorrectly as the 5th, as the facsimile clearly has it. gotra, which I think would make it impossible The only explanation that occurs to me, is, that to translate in the way Mr. Bhin Daji has he may possibly have divided bahala and sa into done. Bat the two letters which he transcribes two words, and taken the letter (sa) as an abbre- sasasi, are clearly not sasam in the facsimile viation of saptame "seventh. There would but rather tutun. We have therefore mánathen be, however, a discrepancy between the tutungotra. This I would divide into two date in words and in figures, and bahula would words, and read mána with satralo as a combe uninflected. However, as he gave no explana- pound, satramánann i.e.," memorial of the munifition of this point in his translation, his reason for cence" (lit., "honouring of his satra"). Satra translating 7th may have been a different one. is properly "a kind of expensive Soma sacrifice
Mr. Bhâu Daji constructs the genitive of the extending over many days;" hence it comes to royal names as dependent on satra "the tank of mean" liberality" or "munificence" generally. · Raja, etc." which causes the genitives following It might possibly be here used in its proper
satra to remain unconnected and unintelli- sense. Satra is the correct spelling; here it is gible. But it is plain from the whole context spelled satra, after the Gathå fashion, which is that the first genitives are connected with apt to interchange the sibilants. In tutungotra, varshe, " in the year of the king, etc.", while I think, we have the name of the individual, the genitives belonging to satra are contained whose satra is commemorated. As the name in the names following it. The date 127, of must be in the genitive, I think, the following course, is not the year of the reign of Rudra- letter must be taken with it and read syli. sena, but of the era of his reign.
There is an indistinct mark under the letter, To satra Mr. Bhâu Daji gives the meaning which Mr. Bhâu Daji takes to be the vowel u; "tank." There are two objections to this trans- bat it is more probably the remnant of # lation. First, the predicate, utthavita, belong- subscribed ya; the whole letter, accordingly, ing to it, and which means " erected," shows that is sya; and the whole word is Tungotrasya the object referred to cannot have been a "tank," “of Tungotra." I omit one tu, because I but most probably the "stone-pillar" itself on think it was most probably repeated by the which the inscription is borne. Secondly, to carelessness of the writer. There is absolute judge from the Petersburg Dictionary it is very evidence of the inscription having been incised doubtful whether the word satra has the with much carelessness; e.g., in the fourth line meaning of "tank" at all.
we have Kshapasya, instead of Kshatrapasya ; in The last line, as Mr. Bhâu Daji translates it, the fifth line we have sihasya instead of sihapumentions the brothers of an individual who is the trasya. If the writer was careless enough to omit grandson and son of two men who are named, syllables, he was also likely to add them where but the individual himself is not named. This they were not required. Next follows the would be a very extraordinary proceeding, and name of the father of Tangotra, which Mr. certainly one which has not been found in any Bhau Dajt reads supra-náthaka; but "sa" is other inscription. It is evident that the name no part of the word; the second consonant.is of the individual must be contained in the letters not nd, but tú,88 and after it there is a lacuna
* At all events, whatever they may be, they are cer: tainly not two 808 ; for the sign for at occurs about twenty times in the inscription and is very different.
30 Mr. Bhu Daji reads satranh, but the facsimile has no anusvåra; to mina an anusvåra must be supplied, but that makes no difficulty, as the inscription is written in the Gatha, which is careless about angav fras.
31 If it is genuine, it might be the expletive particle tu; or, of course, the name itself might be Tatu ringotra.
* As I have not seen the original, it is just possible that these mistakes may be due to the copyist.
» The facsimile has clearly ti; the letter is precisely the same as in the last word utthavitásti.