________________
APRIL, 1904.)
EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES.
107
Vasudeva. From the facte collected above it will appear that this is not the case, and I see no reason whatever why Vâsushka should not be treated as an individual name and different from Vasudeva. In that case we should have four Kushana rulers at Mathura, whose dates would be according to the inscriptions: Kanishka 5-18, Huvishka 33.60,57 Vanushka 74-78, Vasudeva 80-98. But even those who should prefer to adhere to the belief in the identity of Vâsushka and Vasudeva, will probably admit that the difference in the use of the two naraes cannot be due to mere chance, and they will have to assume that about the year 79 Vâsushka, in order to please his Hinda subjects, adopted the name of one of their national heroes.68
No, 21. -Mathura Jaina image inscription of San. 83: edited by Dowson, Journ. Roy. As. Soc. New Ser. Vol. V. p. 184, No. 6, and Plate,
and by Cunningham, Arch. Suro. Rep. Vol. III. p. 34, No. 16, and Plate. Cunningham's transcript of this inscription is a great improvement on Dowson's tentative reading, and taking no account of the inaccuracies of his transliteration, his reading of the first line may be called correct. The second line he transcribes :
. . tridattasya vagragevya . cha , sya gad-dbikasya .. vichitiye Jina-dásiya protima,
Bibler has already suggested (Vienna Or. Journ. Vol. IV. p. 824) to alter gaddhikasya into gandhi kasya, and from Cunningham's facsimile it appears that we have to read tu instead of tri, and pra instead of pro, which perhaps is only a misprint. Before the tu in the beginning of the line there are traces of another akshara which cannot be anything but dhi. The gra looks rather queer, and I have no donbt that in reality it is dhu. Finally, I am convinced that the word between candhikasya and Jinadásiya is to be read kutumbiniye. The tu is quite distinct, and that the next sign in fact is mbi and not vichi, is proved by Dowson's facsimile which in this case is the more accurate of the two. Besides, the latter facsimile has some letters omitted in Cunningham's drawing. On the right, almost between the first and the second line, it shows a dha, and on the left, at the beginning of the first line ánan, which certainly is to be restored to dánant. Of course, the text cannot have commenced with this word. Apparently the inscription runs in a circle round the pedestal of the statue, and [d]ánath is to be read at the end of the first line. And this also cannot have been its proper place, but it was probably placed there only for want of space in the second line. A similar disarrangement of the words of the text is found in the inscription, Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 202, No. 15.
The dha which I take to belong to the second line I would hesitatingly restore to dharma and connect with [d]ánas. With these corrections the whole text reads: -
1 Siddham mahârâjasya Vasudėvasyal sa 80 3 gri 2 di 10 6 étasys pûrvvayê
Senasya 2 [dhi]tu Dattasys vadhuyê Vya .. cha .. sya gandhikasya kutumbiniyê Jina
dasiya pratima dharmad]ûnam.c1 "Success! In the year 89 of maharaja Vasudeva, in the second month of summer, on the sixteenth day, on that date specified as) above, - an image, the pious gift of Jinadasi (Jinadást), the daughter of Sêna, the daughter-in-law of Datta, the wife of the perfumer Vya .. cha..."
The description of the donatrix agrees with that of the inscriptions quoted above, p. 37.
57 Probably Huviahka was already on the throne in 28 ; see above, p. 39.
" I would state that it was Dr. Fleet who first expressed his doubts about the identity of Visushka And Vaudeva in a letter to mo, but his arrangement of the list of the Kushana kings is different from mine. I should like to add that these notes were written before Dr. Fleet's paper on the subject had appeared in the Journ. Roy. As. Soc. for 1903, p. 325 ff.
According to Dowson's facsimile the reading would rather be Vandevorya. " Dowson's facsimile seems to read Vridacalasya, which Ownnot be correct. a The last two syllables stand at the end of line 1.
