The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.86

v2.c16.86

The only arguments that can be brought forward in favour of the last conjecture are, the presence of the Svastika mark at the beginning of the Elephant cave inscription, and also on the elephant cave delineated on the frieze, the prominent position which the frieze occupies in the monastery, the labour and expense which have been incurred in carving it, and the association of the name of the place with a queen. But on the other hand, the Svastika mark occurs so frequently both in Buddhist and Hindu records that it cannot be accepted as a safe guide. Then a rich and elaborate frieze occupying a prominent position, as friezes usually do, does not necessarily imply that the history of the founder of the structure on which it occurs is given in it ; and all friezes designed as they are to serve as ornaments, must involve labour and expense, for we scarcely can separate the idea of ornament from labour and taste. There is, beside, literally not a little of evidence to show that the cave under notice was from the first called Rāṇī Naur or Rāṇī Gumphā, ‘the Queen’s Palace,’ and the argument founded upon the name is, therefore, hardly a convincing one. Any hypothesis founded on it would be a conclusion drawn from an unknown premise. Further, there are two Queens connected with the history of the cave, the wife of the hero of the inscription and that of Lalatendra Keśarī, The latter is said to have been the last occupant of the cave. This is based on the assertion of some *byrāgīs* or mendicants, whom Sterling questioned on the subject in the early part of this century, and its utter mendacity will be apparent when the fact is called to mind that Lalatendra Keśarī was a devout Śivite, who completed the Great Temple of Bhuvaneśara, and his wife was the least likely to seek the asylum of a of a Buddhist sanctuary. If, on the authority of the *byrāgīs*, it be accepted that the queen had abjured Hinduism, and, becoming a Buddhist nun, had betaken to the monastery, the argument will not be advanced in the least. We must, on the same authority, believe the queens to have been “the last occupant,” and not the founder. The present name may have come from her, or more probably from the queen in the frieze interpreted by a modern observer ; but that does not suffice to associate the foundation of the cave with a queen. It is worthy of note also that there are three friezes in the monastery, and only one of them gives the story of the abduction, and I can see nothing to justify the selection of the last for the history of the founder. Moreover, the cave above, which has an only frieze and that of the abduction, is named, not after the queen, but after Gaṇeśa, a Hindu god, who had as little connexion with it as with the topes of Sāñchī or the Tower of the Sārnāth. The name of a thing, it may be added, is not of itself sufficient to afford any clue to its origin ; its authenticity and antiquity must be first proved before it [14] can be used as evidence, and proof to that effect in the present instance is entirely wanting. It may be presumed that the queen of the inscription gave her name to the cave, but it cannot be accepted as proved fact.