Jignasa Journal Of History Of Ideas And Culture Part 01

Author(s): Vibha Upadhyaya and Others
Publisher: University of Rajasthan

Page 235

Study of Ancient Indian Inscriptions : Some Methodological Considerations
/ 197
26. Study of Ancient Indian Inscriptions :
Some Methodological Considerations
S.R. Goyal
The attitude of the 19th century epigraphists was credulous and uncritical. Of course, they tried their best to decipher and translate the ancient documents correctly, but they accepted every piece of information contained in them as historically trustworthy usually without discounting even the most obvious embellishments. They did not realize that as source-material inscriptions belong to the category of written or literary sources and need to be studied with a method different from the one we apply to the archaeological antiquities. The non-literary material, such as, the archaeological remains, dug out scientifically or otherwise, is always relatively more simple, straightforward and tangible, inasmuch as it directly comes from the past to the present without being contaminated either by the culture of the intervening period, or by the formative influences of literature contemporary to it. Of course, the historian may himself fail to interpret and evaluate it properly, but the evidence itself does not lie. The literary material, such as the Purānas, epics, historical biographies, dramas of historical genre, foreign accounts, dynastic and regional histories etc., on the other hand, comes to the historian in a finished form. It constitutes direct evidence only of the "state of mind' of its author or the person who controlled its composition. It is, therefore, only indirectly concerned with the people whose history is to be written and thus is secondary in the sense of a mediate source. It is no doubt usually fuller and more revealing than the non-literary material, but the actuality involved in it has to be grasped after weaning away the moulding influence of the author.' It is always coloured by the prejudices and predilections of its author, sometimes unconscious, which mechanically splash in his writing, but oftentimes deliberate and wilful. Therefore, in order to understand properly the entire process, the modern historian has to put himself in the place of ancient author, a task which is not always easy.
Epigraphy, though conventionally regarded as a branch of archaeology, is in fact content-wise much closer to the evidence of the literary genre. For, the evidence of an epigrapho comes to us more or less in a finished form, having a pattern and ready to tell a story. It cannot, therefore, be properly evaluated without taking into consideration the nature and purpose of the document, and the mental outfit, attitude, prejudices and predilections of its author and such contemporary colour which unconsiously spills over into his composition. For, after all, like the authors of the itihasa, ākhyāyikas, kavyas and other literary works, the authors of the royal documents, especially of the praśastis, were also influenced by the contemporary ideas of history and ways of inference and interpretation.