Indian Palaeography c14.s4: Kauśāmbī Style
Indian Palaeography c14.s4
- Language
- English
Kauśāmbī Style
c14.s4.1
The inscriptions of the Magha rulers of Kauśāmbī display another style of writing. They are dated between the years 52 and 139 of an unspecified era. They preserve the tapering style of the eastern region and in the majority of the cases they follow the older system of marking the medial vowels, though occasionally the Mathura style of vowel marking intrudes. But they make a complete departure in preferring the looped *na*, the open-mouthed *ṇa*, the tailed *ma*, the open-mouthed *ma*, the hooked *la*, the looped *sa*, and the hooked *ha*. A definite Kushāṇa influence is seen in the use of the hooked variety of the subscript *ya*, while the looped form of *ya* is seen when used singly. These cursive forms of the letters are familiar to us from the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudra Gupta, and later, in the fifth century a.d., these forms became current in the Gangetic Valley. On the face of this evidence there has been a controversy as regards the era used in these inscriptions. But a comparison makes the distinction clear. By their tapering style they are related to the eastern style of the Kushāṇa period, while the Gupta inscriptions of the eastern region all have the line head-mark—a tendency which became current in this region much later—and are an ornamental development of this Kosam style of writing. This cursive style is distinctive of the Magha inscriptions in this region. Though some of these cursive forms occur exceptionally at Mathura in the Kanishka inscription of the year 14 and the Huvishka record of the year 33, they must be taken as intruding elements from this region. Therefore there should be no hesitation in dating these inscriptions in the Kanishka era. The use of this era in no way implies the subordination of the rulers of Kauśāmbī to the Kushāṇas, but merely shows the continuation of a system of dating that was made popular by Kanishka in this region. In fact the presence of these rulers and the total absence of Kushāṇa inscriptions in the eastern region after Kanishka support the suggestion made by Dr. N. P. Chakravarti³ that this area slipped from the Kushāṇa control.
c14.s4.2
³ *Epigraphia Indica*, xxxi. 175.