________________
120
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
( JULY, 1916
EPIGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUESTIONS.
BY D. R. BHANDARKAR, M.A.; POONA.
(Continued from Vol. XLII, p. 258.)
XXI.-Thu Taxila seroll inseription of the year 136. This inscription was discovered by Sir John Marshall, Director-General of Archaeology, near the Chir Stúpa in his excavations at Taxila. The first line of this record, which contains the date, has very much exercised the scholars interested in adian epigraphy. It runs thus: sa 136 ayasa Ashadasa masasa divase 15. Here the most knotty word is ayasa. Sir John takes it as the genitive singular of Aya, the name appearing in the Kharoshthi legends on the reverse of the coins of two Indo-Scythian kings called Azes in the Greek legends on the obverse. He translates the line by " in the year 136 of Azes, on the 15th day of the month of Ashadha," and refers the year 136 to an era founded by Aya-Azes Il. Dr. Fleet at first doubted the reading ayasa and tentatively proposed viyasa as a corruption of and in the sense of dvitiyasya. He is now, however, convinced in regard to the correctness of the reading, and does not hesitate to say on the strength of the forms aa:imi ani aya'nsi-asmin supplied by Pischel's Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen $ 429, that ayasa must by an equivalent of asya, of this'. Accordingly he gives the following translations:
"In the year 136 : of the day 15 of this present month Aghadha." "In the year 136 : on the day 15 of the month Ashâdha of this year."
Now, an epigraphist need not be told that it is exceedingly improbable that ayusa of this inscription is the genitive singular of Aya-Azes. No Hindu king has so far been mentioned in any Sanskrit ur Prakrit inscription without any regal titles or at any rate honorofio prefixes or suffixes to his name specially as many years could not have elapsed since his death as appears to be the case from this interpretation. In fact, such a thing is opposed to the traditional Hindu sentiment of reverence for kings. Secondly, even if aya in ayisa really stood for Azez, the date 136 cannot be interpreted as a year of the era originated by Azes, but merely as a year, when Azes was reigning, but of an era starter! by ano her king preseding him. This is the only construction an epigraph ist would put upon it on the analogy of similar wordings of the dates. There is therefore no recourse left but to interpret ayasa in a different and simpler way. Dr. Fleet no doubt takes it to stand for the Sanskrit asya. But this procedure, I am afraid, is open to objection. In the first place, on the analogy of aa imi and aya nsi-asmin which Dr. Fleet has cited on the. authority of Pischel, we would expect aya isa and not ayasa as the equivalent form of asya. Sacon lly, if this interpretation is ascepted, the first line of the scroll inscription cannot be ma le to yield a natural sense. Because when the year 136 is actually specified, where is the propriety of speaking of the month Ashadha as this (i.e. the present) month or speaking of it as the month AshAdha of this (i.e. the present year)? Of course, if the year had not been mentioned along with it, there would have been perfect sense in referring to Ashâdha as this (or the present) month or as Asha dha of this (or the present year). Such is not, however, the case. I cannot, therefore, help supposing that ayasa must be understood
1 This view was first propounded by him in the Jour. R. A. Soc., 1914, pp. 976-7 and subsequently defended in Ibid. 1915, p. 193 and ff. He still clinge to the view (Arch. Suro. Ind.) Annual 1912-13, p. 19.
