________________
Some problems raised by the Khāravela
inscription
— Sten Konow
The Hāthigumphā inscription was noticed as early as the year 1825 by Stirling,' who also published a reproduction of an imperfect copy of the record. Later on a better transcript was prepared by Kittoe and read by James Prinsep. The epigraph has consequently been published by Cunningham, Rajendralala Mitra“ and Bhagwanlal Indraji. The inscription has always been considered as a document of primary importance. It is one of the oldest lithic records of India, and it is of considerable length and apparently contains information about important historical events. The reading and interpretation of the text is, however, beset with great difficulties. The rock itself consists of a coarse sandstone grit which has been very roughly dressed, and the chisel-marks of the dressing are said to be misleading and apt to be taken as letters. The surface has been further damaged by weather and rain and several portions of the record are apparently quite illegible. No wonder that the plates hitherto published are rather unsatisfactory. Kittoe's facsimily is based on a hand-copy, while Cunningham's reproduction has been reduced from a large photograph of a plaster cast taken by Mr. Locke, and this cast has also been used for Bhagwanlal Indraji's plate, which is, however, besides prepared from an eye copy taken in 1866. Nor is Cunningham's reproduction a purely mechanical one. Dubious passages have evidently been filled up by the hand.
T
4511 37067 -
17, 2006 C
-
89
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
