Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c11.s2: 6.3 The Period of Maturity (1861–1900)
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c11.s2
- Language
- English
6.3 The Period of Maturity (1861–1900)
c11.s2.1
The state of epigraphic studies at the beginning of the 1860s is reflected in such papers as Bhau Daji's edition of the Junāgaḍh inscription of Rudradāman published in the JBBRAS in 1863.¹⁰⁷ Although this important record had already been published several times before,¹⁰⁸ Bhau Daji's edition and translation show definite improvements and can be said to be the first version which comes close to an authoritative edition. While not quite correct in all respects, it provides a substantially accurate text and translation that were to be improved upon in later editions such as that of Kielhorn in EI 8 (1905–6) for the most part only in matters of detail.¹⁰⁹
c11.s2.2
¹⁰⁷ *JBBRAS* 7, 113–21.
c11.s2.3
¹⁰⁸ See the bibliography in Lüders' *List of Brāhmī Inscriptions* (EI 10), no. 965.
c11.s2.4
¹⁰⁹ Cf. Windisch, *Philologie und Altertumskunde in Indien*, 6–7.
c11.s2.5
The state of Kharoṣṭhī studies at the same period is attested by Rājendralāla Mitra's new edition, published in 1861,¹¹⁰ of the important Wardak inscription. While still far from completely correct, this was the most mature treatment of a non-Aśokan Kharoṣṭhī inscription to date. Further progress was demonstrated soon afterward by J. Dowson's important article "On a Newly Discovered Bactrian Pali Inscription; and on Other Inscriptions in the Bactrian Pali Character" in 1863.¹¹¹ Here Dowson reviewed all the Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions known at the time; and although his versions are less close to definitive than was Bhau Daji's edition of the Junāgaḍh inscription, this reflects the overall lagging of Kharoṣṭhī studies behind Brāhmī rather than any shortcoming in Dowson's scholarship. Dowson's article represents a major advance in the study of Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions, attributable to the greater number of inscriptions that had become available as well as to his scholarly and cautious approach to them. It also contained (228–47) the first good explanation of the numerical system of Kharoṣṭhī (see 2.4.2), correcting the errors of Cunningham, who had incorrectly assumed that the numbers followed a decimal/place-value system. Hence the principal credit for determining the values of Kharoṣṭhī numerals goes to Dowson.
c11.s2.6
¹¹⁰ *JASB* 30, 337–47.
c11.s2.7
¹¹¹ *JRAS* 20, 221–68.
c11.s2.8
Thus by the early 1860s the study of Indian inscriptions was poised at the edge of maturity. And although the rest of that decade did not see any major breakthroughs, a steady flow of papers continued to appear, for the most part in the same journals as mentioned in connection with the previous period. The JBBRAS in particular continued to be the predominant vehicle for inscriptional studies, publishing, among others, a large number of articles by Bhau Daji; others who made important contributions through the Bombay Society include J. F. Fleet, Bhagvānlāl Indrajī,¹¹² and R. G. Bhandarkar. But the most important development in this decade, which was to have far-reaching consequences for epigraphic studies even to the present day, was the establishment by the British government of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under Alexander Cunningham as archaeological surveyor to the government of India and, after 1870, as Director General of the Survey. Between 1861 and 1885 Cunningham and his assistants (J. D. Beglar, A. C. Carlleyle, and H. R. W. Garrick) undertook a series of archaeological surveys of northern and central India which were published in the form of twenty-three Reports (Old Series) (ASIR) between 1871 and 1887.¹¹³ These reports included a very large number of inscriptions, some previously known but subjected to new examination, and many entirely new. The inscriptions were illustrated in facsimile form and described, in varying degrees of detail and accuracy, in the text. While the accounts of the inscriptions in the volumes of the ASIR do not constitute anything like authoritative editions, they did make available to epigraphists a vast body of material which was to occupy their attention for many years to come.¹¹⁴ Moreover, the foundation of the ASI marked a commitment (albeit a grudging and sporadic one, in the early years) by the government of India to pursue and support archaeological and epigraphic research, which were thereby established as permanent and recognized fields. From this time onward, most Indian epigraphic studies have been carried out, directly or indirectly, under the auspices of the ASI.
c11.s2.9
¹¹² On Bhagvānlāl, see Javerilal Umiashankar Yajnik's "Memoir" in *JBBRAS* 17.2, 1887–89, 18–46.
c11.s2.10
¹¹³ The first three reports were initially published as supplements to *JASB* 32–4 (1863–65).
c11.s2.11
¹¹⁴ Some of the materials concerned were later separately published by Cunningham himself in his monographs, notably *The Stûpa of Bharhut* and *Mahâbodhi, or the Great Buddhist Temple Under the Bodhi Tree at Buddha-Gaya*.
c11.s2.12
Another turning point in the history of epigraphic studies was reached in 1872 with the issue of the first volume of *The Indian Antiquary* (IA), subtitled *A Journal of Oriental Research in Archaeology, History, Literature, Languages, Folklore, &c, &c*, under the editorship of James Burgess. This was the first Indological journal to be explicitly dedicated to, among other subjects, archaeological research; and this field, by the standards of the era, implied a prominent role for epigraphy. IA thus immediately became the leading vehicle for the publication of inscriptions (although others, notably JBBRAS, continued to play an important role), and in the volumes published in the remainder of the nineteenth century the most frequent contributors of epigraphic articles include such great names as G. Bühler, J. F. Fleet, E. Hultzsch, Bhagvānāl Indrajī, F. Kielhorn, and B. Lewis Rice.¹¹⁵ The editions and translations of inscriptions in IA were consistently of high quality from the very beginning, so that many of the articles published in the early volumes remain definitive today.
c11.s2.13
¹¹⁵ For references to these and other papers in IA up to 1921, see Lavinia Mary Anstey's *Index to Volumes I–L (1872–1921): Indian Antiquary*. The journal continued to be published until 1933 (vol. 62), when it was superseded by the *New Indian Antiquary*, published in nine volumes from 1938 to 1947. A "Third Series" of the *Indian Antiquary* was published in five volumes from 1964 to 1971.
c11.s2.14
The next landmark was the publication in 1877 of the first volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum (CII),¹¹⁶ Cunningham's *Inscriptions of Asoka*. The need for such a series, along the lines of the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, had long been felt, and as early as 1837¹¹⁷ Prinsep referred to "the long-expected '*Corpus inscriptionum Indicarum*.'" According to Cunningham's preface, the series was originally planned for three volumes, containing the inscriptions of Aśoka, of the Indo-Scythians and Satraps, and of the Guptas and contemporary dynasties, in order "to bring together, in a few handy and accessible volumes, all the ancient inscriptions of India which now lie scattered about in the journals of our different Asiatic Societies" (i). Although the actual subsequent publication of the CII differed considerably from this original scheme, and although Cunningham's edition of the Aśokan edicts was soon to be superseded by Émile Senart's *Les Inscriptions de Piyadassi* (1881), and eventually by E. Hultzsch's revised edition of CII 1 in 1925, the publication of this volume was nonetheless a major development in setting the precedent for the continued publication of the CII up to the present day. The volume also illustrates the continuing discovery of Aśokan inscriptions, including new versions of the rock edicts from Kālsī and Jaugaḍa and minor rock edicts from Sahasrām, Rūpnāth, and Bairāṭ.
c11.s2.15
¹¹⁶ See also section 8.1.2.
c11.s2.16
¹¹⁷ JASB 6, 663; see also EI 1, v–vi.
c11.s2.17
The progress of the CII was further promoted by the appointment in January 1883 of John Faithfull Fleet as epigraphist to the government of India for a term of three years, "with the primary duty of preparing the volume [of CII] that was to contain the Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings" (CII 3, preface, 1). This goal was reached with Fleet's publication in 1888 of the volume in question. His success can be measured by the fact that, although his volume was superseded by the revised edition by D. R. Bhandarkar published in 1981, it remains an indispensable research tool and in some respects at least is still more reliable than the volume which superseded it.¹¹⁸ When Fleet's appointment as government epigraphist expired in June 1886, Eugen Hultzsch was appointed to succeed him in August of the same year and continued to occupy this office until 1903.
c11.s2.18
¹¹⁸ See *JAOS* 105, 1985, 788.
c11.s2.19
The year 1888 also marked the publication (in October) of the first fascicle of the *Epigraphia Indica* (EI). The EI was initially conceived as a sort of supplement to CII; James Burgess, the editor, states in his preface, "This volume is thus to be regarded as properly one of the series of the *Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum*, and practically may stand as the fourth volume of that publication" (vi). The purpose of the EI was to facilitate the prompt publication of newly discovered inscriptions, since the compilation of the volumes of the CII was already proving to be a far more complex and time-consuming project than originally foreseen. But here, too, as in the case of the CII itself, the original plan for the EI proved to be overly modest; and it soon became clear that, rather than being a sort of ancillary to the CII, the EI was to take on an independent and continuing life of its own. Publication of the journal, originally conceived as a quarterly, was at first somewhat sporadic, so that the first volume was not completed until 1892; but from the third volume on, the EI was regularly issued as a biennial in eight quarterly parts.¹¹⁹ The remaining years of the nineteenth century saw the publication of the first five volumes of EI under the editorship of Burgess (vols. 1 and 2) and Hultzsch (vols. 3–5), containing articles by many scholars, most prolific among whom were Fleet, Hultzsch, G. Bühler, and F. Kielhorn. The high standards maintained in these early volumes made EI the premier epigraphic journal, although IA, JBBRAS, and other journals continued to print important articles in this field. With these developments, the last two decades of the nineteenth century constituted a sort of classical age in the study of Indian epigraphy, in which publications were characterized by both great quantity and excellent scholarship.
c11.s2.20
¹¹⁹ See also section 8.1.1.1. For further details of the history and publication of EI, see Sircar's foreword to Lahiri's index in EI 34, part 6, 1962, Appendix, i–vi (reprinted, with minor additions, in *EINES* 153–9).
c11.s2.21
While the publications discussed here tended to concentrate mainly on northern Indian and Sanskritic materials (although southern and Dravidian materials were also included in EI from the beginning, and were to become more prominent in years to come), equally momentous developments were taking place in the same period in the field of southern Indian epigraphy. In 1879 [B.] Lewis Rice published *Mysore Inscriptions*, containing translations of 175 inscriptions, and in 1886 the first volume of *Epigraphia Carnatica* (EC), while in 1890 vol. 1 of South Indian Inscriptions (SII) appeared under Hultzsch's editorship. The two latter publications were to constitute, in effect, southern Indian counterparts to the northern-oriented CII and would ultimately far outstrip the latter in the amount of material published.
c11.s2.22
Besides the continued issues of these serial publications, the last decade of the nineteenth century also saw for the first time the publication of authoritative epigraphic research guides and research. Publication of the standard epigraphic journals and serials such as EI, CII, IA, SII, and EC continued at a steady pace through the first half of the century, promoted in part by continuing discoveries of new inscriptions. But in this period many of the new materials were found not so much by chance or in the course of superficial surveys as in earlier days but as a product of planned and systematic archaeological excavations. Inscriptions could thus be studied not only in and of themselves but also in a chronological and archaeological context. In this sense, the turn of the century may be said to mark the beginning of the era of archaeological epigraphy in India. This development reflects the influence of Sir John Marshall, who served as director general of the Archaeological Survey of India from 1902 to 1934 and transformed the survey from an agency essentially involved in antiquarian collection to one sponsoring orderly excavations carried out according to the scientific standards prevailing at the time.
c11.s2.23
Among the excavations undertaken under Marshall’s auspices that yielded major epigraphic finds were those at Sārnāth, Nālandā, Bhīṭā, and Basāṛh. The results of such excavations were reported in detail in the New Series of Annual Reports (ASIAR), which commenced in 1902 and continued until 1937. The commitment of the new regime to epigraphic studies was further demonstrated by the creation in 1906 of the post of “Government Epigraphist for India,” in the person of Sten Konow, and by the support obtained for the central Asian expeditions of Marc Aurel Stein in the first two decades of the twentieth century, which resulted in epigraphic discoveries of vast significance (see 4.3.7.12).
c11.s2.24
The two new volumes of the CII published during this period marked major milestones. The first was Hultzsch’s revised edition of volume 1, *Inscriptions of Aśoka*, published in 1925. This volume not only replaced Cunningham’s original edition of CII 1, which had already been superseded long ago (see p. 219), but also incorporated and improved upon the editions of various Aśokan inscriptions published in the meantime by É. Senart, H. Kern, Bühler, and others. Hultzsch’s volume also included several inscriptions which had not yet been discovered at the time of the earlier edition, including the rock edicts at Mānsehrā, the Rāmpurvā pillar edicts, the minor pillar edicts from Nepal (Rummindeī and Nigālī Sāgar) and Sārnāth, and the minor rock edicts from Mysore (modern Karnataka), indicating continuing progress in the discovery as well as the study of Aśokan inscriptions. The second new volume was Sten Konow’s *Kharoshṭhī Inscriptions with the Exception of Those of Aśoka*, issued in 1929 as CII volume 2, part 1.¹²¹ The publication of this volume marked at long last a stage of maturity and development in Kharoṣṭhī studies such as had already been attained for Brāhmī several decades earlier.
c11.s2.25
¹²¹ As noted earlier (p. 219), the second volume of the CII had originally been planned to cover inscriptions of the “Indo-Scythians and Satraps.” In the preface to his volume (v), Konow mentions a subsequent plan to publish a volume of Kharoṣṭhī and Brāhmī inscriptions to be edited by Lüders and Rapson, but this too was not carried out. Part 2 of vol. 2 by Lüders was finally published posthumously in 1963 and was limited to the inscriptions of Bhārhut, so that the original plans for the second volume were never completed.
c11.s2.26
In the period in question, and in its latter half in particular, Indian scholars began to be increasingly active and influential in the field of epigraphy. Whereas at the turn of the century the subject had been dominated by Europeans, by the middle of the twentieth century it had become largely the preserve of Indians. Volume 17 (1923–24) of EI, for instance, was the first to The publication of anthologies and secondary works has also burgeoned in recent decades. Collections of inscriptions by state and region, works on general and specific paleographic topics, and historical and cultural studies of various corpora are being published in far greater numbers than ever before.¹²⁴ Among recent works of this class which uphold the best traditional standards of epigraphic research may be mentioned A. K. Bhattacharyya’s *Corpus of Dedicatory Inscriptions from Temples of West Bengal* and Mukunda Madhava Sharma’s *Inscriptions of Ancient Assam*. Nor has the modern period witnessed any slowing in the rate of discoveries of inscriptions; new items, including several of major importance (see various examples noted in section 4.3), continue to be found at a steady pace, as a result both of chance finds and of systematic surveys and planned expeditions. In the latter category, several of the excavations undertaken by the central and local archaeological departments have yielded abundant epigraphic results, for instance, those at Sālihuṇḍam, Sannati, and Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.
c11.s2.27
¹²⁴ See sections 8.1.3–8.2.3.
c11.s2.28
At present, the study of Indian inscriptions is carried on principally under the auspices of the Office of the Director of Epigraphy (formerly Government Epigraphist) at Mysore (formerly Ootacamund), who also serves as the editor of EI; this office is currently held by Madhav N. Katti. The foundation of the Epigraphical Society of India in 1975 was an important development, and this society now holds a prominent position in the field. Epigraphy is pursued at most major universities in India, many of which have established separate departments for epigraphy and ancient Indian history, and at some institutions in neighboring South Asian countries such as Pakistan and Sri Lanka.