Indian Antiquary Vol 48

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

Page 40

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ MARCH, 1919
Again, Vatanamdi, as the name of a Sajóunaga emperor, is not to be found in any of the Puranas. But Mr. Jayaswal identifies him with Nandivardhana in a most ingenicus manner. He notices that Vayu Puráşa calls him Varti Vardhana, and assuming "that Varti ought to be Varta ”, he takes the latter to be another name of Namdivardhana. He apparently overlooks the fact that the Vayu Purana has got three variants, not one, riz. Varti Vardhana, Vardhi and Kirti', and that all of them end in 'i'. But let us grant that Varta was another name of the emperor Namdi who had the imperial title Vardhana. But, then, how to explain the curious form Varta-Namdi, composed as it is of the two variant proper names? We can expect either Nandi Vardhana or Varta Vardhana, but surely no one would expect Namdi Varta or Varta Nardi. There are no doubt historical instantes of kings possessing double names. Thus Chandragupta II was also known as Devagupta, and Vigrahapala had a second name Sûrapala. But who has ever heard of compound names like Chandra-Deva or Deva-Chandra, and Sura-Vigraha or Vigraha-Sûra?
We hope Mr. R. D. Banerji, who has endorsed the view of Mr. Jayaswal, would offer satisfactory explanation of all these difficulties. He admits that the inscriptions on the statues are of a considerably later period, and simply because there are some letters in them which by a stretch of imagination, more remarkable for in genuity than soundness, can be equated with two names in the Saltunåga list, he uphesitatingly endorses Mr Jayaswal's theory that the statues are to be looked upon as those of the two Sajóunaga emperors!!
Regarding the age of the inscriptions Mr. Banerji remarks: "Even if we reject other evidence about the date of these two specimens the script of the short inscriptions on their backs would be sufficient to prove that the statues of Kanishka is decidedly later in date than the Patna ones." (p. 210.)
In other words, the script of the Patna statues is, in the opinion of Mr. Banerji, decidedly earlier in form than the early Kushan alphabet. Yet when Mr. Banerji proceeds to examine in detail the palacography of the inscriptions on Patna statues, he notes that(1) the vowel A in Aco very closely resembles in form the same vowel in the
Sarnath Inscriptions" (which the editor of the record referred to the year 40
of the Kushana era on palæographic considerations).10 (2) "the form of ca...... in the Patna inscription resembles that in a Mathura
inscription of the year 52 of the Kurana era." (3) the form of cha in choni....in the Patna inscription resembles the Kugana form.” (4) "examined paleographically the inscription on the statue of Varta-Nandin also
points to the same conclusion.” (p. 213.) It is difficult to reconcile the results of this detailed examination by Mr. Banerji with his general statement that the script of the Kushana inecriptions is decidedly later in date than that of the inscriptions on the Patna statues. On the whole, the logical outcome of Mr. Banerji's argument is that the inscriptions on the Patna statues really belong to the Kushan period, and in this view Mr. Chanda and myself are in entire agreement with him
Mr. Banerji's argument to explain the occurrence of a late inscription on an early statue (p. 214) is weak in the extre me and need not be seriously considered. It is enough to point out that if it were the object of somebody connected with the Art gallery 'to make the Saisunaga statues famili ar to the people who had altogether forgot them, he should certainly have chosen a most conspicuous place to insert the name which, by the way, would most probably have been associated with usual royal titles and the family name, viz. Saiśnnaga.
10 Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 172.