Indian Antiquary Vol 48

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

Page 38

34
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
and may be translated as
[ MARCH, 1919
inscription are distinguished from the letters of the inscription by the largeness of their size. Any one who looks at Bühler's table for numerical symbols may satisfy himself that only a general, and by no means a close, resemblance is noticeable between the symbols for the same figure, in the same period. To take an instance, one may compare the two Kushan symbols for 70given by Bühler. Under these circumstances, it is permissible, I hope, to rer d our symbol as 70 inasmuch as it shows a general resemblance with the Kebatrapa form, which appears to be interchangeable with the Kushan form, as well as with the Gupta form. The whole inscription may thus be read as
Yakhe sam Vajinam 70
"(The figure of a) Yaksha, (made) in the year 70 of the Vajis.".
Now the word Vaji is the wellknown Prakrit equivalent for the tribal name Vrijji, the confederate group to which the Lichchh avis belonged. The era of the Vajjis may, therefore, be taken to be identical with the Lichchhavi era, the same era being apparently designated either after the confederate tribe or its most influential section at the time. For we know that other members of the tribe are lost in oblivion while the Lichchhavis established a kingdom in Nepal and entered into matrimonial alliance with the Gupta Emperors.
Thus the year 70 of the Vajjis would be equivalent to A.D. 180-181.
If my reading and interpretations be correct, the inscriptions must be loked pon as of great historical importance. I do not wish to dilate upon this point till the substantial correctness of my views is established beyond dispute, but shall content mysel by merely pointing out the various directions in which the inscriptions are expected to throw important light.
First, they will prove that the statues really represent Yakshas as Cunningham mairtained long ago, in spite of the objection raised thereto by Mr. Jayaswal from the point of view of Indian art.
Secondly, as the statues bear a known date, they may be used as an important landmark in the evolution of Indian art, and, in particular, we shall have to abandon the vicws of Mr. Jayaswal, apparently endorsed by Mr. Arun Sen, that the statues were pre-Mauryan.
Thirdly, the inscriptions will go a long way in proving the political supremacy of the Lichchhavis over the Imperial city of ancient India, shortly before the time of the Guptas. This has been long suspected but never proved with any definiter.ess The inscriptions thus not only fill a blank in the history of Pâțaliputra but also explain the pride of the Imperial Guptas on their connection with the Lichchhavis.
Fourthly, they supply us with early dates of the Lichchhavi era ccmirg from a locality far away from the Nepal Valley where alone it is so far known to have been used.
I shall conclude my remarks on the Patna statues with a short reference to the note on the subject by Mr. R. D. Banerji, M.A., Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Western Circle, in the latest number of the J BORS. which is just to hard. Mr. Banerji remarks: "There may be difference of opinion about the different parts of Mr. Jayaswal's theory but there cannot be two opinions about the readings Aco and Vata Nandi and therefore Mr. Jayaswal's identification of these two pieces of sculpture as statues as against images and as statues of two Sâisunâka Emperors, Aja Udayin and Vartan Nandin, rests on very solid grounds." (p. 210.)
Now, as has been shown above, there is room for difference of opinion as to the readings 8 June, 1919, p. 210 ff.