The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.s2.45

v2.c16.s2.45

No. 4 At the end of the inscription occurs a third mystic symbol, (Woodcut No. 4), which has somewhat the appearance of a street-lamp mounted on a cubic base. It has been noticed as a Buddhist monogram, and figured in Cunningham's Bhilsa Topes (Plate XXXII). That it has a phallic signification like the first three, I am very much disposed to believe, but what that signification is I am not in a position to explain. It has been suggested to me that it may be symbolic [30] representation of the *bo* tree with a rail round its trunk; but the cubic base has no similitude to the characteristic Buddhist rail. The symbol occurs at the beginning of the short inscription by the door of the Tiger Cave but there the base is divided by a cross into four compartments only, Within the cave there are several inscriptions, but of later dates some being in ill-formed and very carelessly scratched Gupta character of a degenerate type, others in equally degenerate Kuṭila. Four of these minor inscriptions occur on the east wall, three on the north wall of the second compartment, and two on the north wall of the third compartment. Prinsep thus describes these inscriptions: "The fragments (figs. 2 to 11) carelessly cut on various parts of the caves are for the most part imperfectly legible. They are in all probability merely the names of visitors as at Allahabad, Gaya, &c. The word *hotta*, 'a burnt-offering,' occurs in Nos. 3 and 6. No. 8 contains the name of KUVERAGNI, and No. 10 the title *uttoma kula vamśa*, 'descendant of an illustrious family.' It is unnecessary to dwell upon the reading of the rest, in which many letters and detached syllables might be easily transcribed, because they carry with them no trait of interest further than the fact, that the same transitions of the written character visible elsewhere are equally developed in the remains of these Kalinga monuments."²⁷ They were incised probably by idle monks who occupied the caves from time to time, or by silly visitors impelled by the same motive which leads to the carvings of obscure names under the dome of St. Paul. Lieut. Kittoe is said to have noticed a dated Kuṭila inscription of the tenth century,²⁸ but I did not find it. In Prinsep's plate (LIV. of vol. VI. *Journal, A.S.B.*), it forms No. 1 of the "Ganeśa or Elephant Cave inscription," and this shows that Prinsep identified the Ganeśa and the Elephant Caves to be the same, and no less an antiquarian than Mr. Fergusson has been misled by it so far as to assign a very modern date to the Ganeśa Cave on the strength of it. The two caves, however, are different and distinct, and the use of the alternative name with the word cave in the singular number is evidently due to a confounding of the two names from the fact of Ganeśa having an elephantine head, and being apt to be identified with an elephant. That the Kuṭila record is intended to be accepted as brought from the Elephant Cave is obvious from the inscriptions which are put below it, and described as from the same cave, and corresponding with the transcripts brought by me from the Hathi Gumphā. That Prinsep had the Elephant Cave in his mind in connexion with the record, is clear also from the remark in which he says: "The name of the king under whose just rule, the elephant cave was formed into a sacrifice cave connected with the worship of Prabhviśvara or Jagannāth, does not appear."²⁹