Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 142

184
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[MAY, 1913.
the worship of father and mother, in order to show favour to Nainda together with his wife and his son, and to all beings (P). For the welfare of these () ...."
The inscription reports the sinking of the well in which it was found, by a number of persons who called themselves Dashaveras, if that name has been correctly read, and who are further characterised as Poshapuriaputra. Since it is said later on that the work was undertaken for the worship of father and mother, Dashavera can only be the family name indicating here a number of brothers belonging to it. The expression " Poshapuriaputra" one would be at first sight inclined to understand as "sons of Posbaparia "; bat PosLapuria would be a very strange personal name. I therefore believe that putra is here employed in the frequently occurring sense of member of,' belonging to," and that Poshapuria is derived from the name of the city of Poshapura, which is equal to Purushapura, the modern Peshawar. As for the form posa it can be authenticated from Pali writings.
Khane is no doubt derived from khan in the sense of “dug"; whether it is an adjective or a participle (Sk. khatah) should be left an open question, Khane kupe seems to have been used as a contrast to the natural fountains. The expression is of interest inasmuch as it enables us to explain a passage in the enigmatical inscription of Zeds. There occur after the date sam 10 1 Ashadasa masasa di 90 Utaraphaguna ise chhu nami, the characters which Senart reads: "[bha]nam u[ka] .... chasa ma .. kasa Kanishkasa raja[m] .... [dadabhat] da[na]mukha''; and which are read by Boyer' as : "khanam wsphamu :. chasa mardakasa Kanishkasa rajami [to]yadalabhai danamukha." Now the impression before me clearly shows that the three first aksharas of this passago are exactly the same as those following the date in onr inscription. Even thee of ne is joined to the matrika in exactly the same way as here. That the fourth character is neither ka nor spha but e, can now bardly be disputed. The words thereafter I read as: Varadasa mardukasa. They are pretty clear in the impression except the second akshara which may as well be ro. As regards the five aksharas coming after rajami, I can for the present only say that they can in no case be read as toyadalabha. Therefore the reading that we get is : khane kue Veradasa mardakasa Kanishkasa rajami ......... i danamukha. The form kue instead of kupe is found also in the Paja inscription and in the Machei inscription, 11
Much more important than the contents proper of the inscription is its date. Until now the numerous dates of the inscriptions of the Kushana period presented no difficulty at least in so far as the sucoession of the kings is concerned. They yielded for Kaņishka the years 3-11, for Vasishka 24-28, for Havishka 33-60, for Vasudeva 74-98. Here we suddenly find Kaņishka in the year 41.
To explain this contradiction it may be alleged that in the text of the inscription we find nothing to show that Kanishka was on the throne in the year 41. Kanishkasa sambatsara skachapari'iae literally means in the year 41 of Kanishka", and one might find in it the sense, "in the year 41 of the era founded by Kaņishka". Now it is self-evident that the combination of the number of year with the name of a king in the genitive case originally indicated the year of the reign of that king but I need cite no instance to show that later on in a similar way people combined the namoz of the reigning king with the number of the year of the current ora; and
• The final portion is not alear to me. • Comparo e. 9., nigamaputa in the Bhatti próļu inscriptions and other instances, ZDMG. 68, p. 608 f.
5 I adhere to the usual transoript of the two na signs without exproming that I consider them as bolatoly correot. 6 Jo. As VIII. 15, 197.
Ibid 2. 3486. • It woms that both Serart and Boyer have regarded the right hook of ku as portion of the preceding symbol. Otherwise I am unable to explain the reading nam .
See my remarks Jour. R. As. Soc. 1900, PP. 647 # 2. Ante, 87, 85,
11 Ibid, 87, 64; Jour. R. As. Sp. 1909, 664.