Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c12: 7 Epigraphy as a Source for the Study of Indian Culture

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c12

Language
English

Contents

7 Epigraphy as a Source for the Study of Indian Culture

7.1 Epigraphy and History

7.1.1 Political and dynastic history

c12.s1.t1.1

SIE 13–30; David P. Henige, “Some Phantom Dynasties of Early and Medieval India: Epigraphic Evidence and the Abhorrence of a Vacuum,” BSOAS 38, 1975, 525–49; J. F. Fleet, “The Present Position of Indian Historical Research,” IA medieval period, the picture is much brighter; in the case of such dynasties as the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, for instance, where epigraphic remains are relatively abundant, we can reconstruct a reasonably detailed account of their history, chronology, and geography. The difference between the earlier and later periods lies not only in the amounts of epigraphic material available but also in their contents. Thus in the early period we find such extraordinarily vague formulations as a dating merely “during the reign of the Śuṅgas” (*suganaṁ raje* = *śuṅgānāṁ rājye*; Bhārhut pillar ins., l. 1; SI I.87–8), whereas in medieval inscriptions the dating formulae and historical situation are often detailed and explicit. As an ideal example, in the inscriptions of the Eastern Cālukyas the genealogical introduction not only includes the usual eulogistic description of the forefathers of the current king but also states the number of years of their rule (SIE 19–20), enabling historians to reconstruct that dynasty’s chronology with particular precision.¹

c12.s1.t1.2

In most cases, of course, the situation lies somewhere between these two extremes. More typically, for dynasties for which we have a reasonable number of records dated in a continuous era, we can reconstruct a dynastic chronology with reasonable accuracy. The main problem is usually that for determining the earliest and latest dates of any particular ruler we are at the mercy of chance finds of dated inscriptions, and the precise date of transition of rule can be known only in such cases as we are fortunate enough to have records of two kings dated in the same or at least in successive years. Otherwise, we can only estimate these dates based on the range of attested dates for each king. The result of this situation is that for many of the better-represented dynasties of the medieval period, for example, the Rāṣṭrakūṭas or the Gurjara-Pratīhāras, we can usually date each king at least within a range of a few years, and frequently to the year.²

c12.s1.t1.3

But we are less well informed with regard to earlier, less abundantly attested dynasties or to those which dated their records in regnal years only. The chronology of the Pālas, for example, is considerably less certain than that of the contemporary Rāṣṭrakūṭas, not because of any scarcity of materials but because their records are dated only in regnal years. Regnally dated records require some type of historical synchronization which can provide absolute chronological “anchor points.” These are typically provided (if at all) by reference to historical personages or events known from other sources, the classic case being the absolute dating of Aśoka’s regnally dated inscriptions provided by chronological correlation with the known dates of the five Hellenistic kings (Turamāyo = Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt, etc.) referred to in his rock edict XIII, which enabled historians to definitively fix Aśoka’s reign at around the middle of the third century b.c.

c12.s1.t1.4

With regard to the genealogy of the various dynasties too, the state of our understanding varies considerably. In general, the succession of rulers can be determined from genealogical accounts in the inscriptions themselves, especially from the early medieval period onward, when it became customary to provide a quasi-historical preface to inscriptions (cf. SIE 14–15, and sections 4.¹.1 and 4.1.².1c). But the record is often less clear, especially in earlier inscriptions which lack full genealogical accounts. In such cases, the recurrence of the same name in different generations can be troublesome, as in the case, for example, of the Kuṣāṇas or the Guptas, where the repetitions of the names Kaniṣka and Kumāragupta,³ respectively, have caused no end of frustration to modern historians.⁴ Equally troublesome is the practice, especially in later inscriptions, of referring to the same king by two or even more different names in different records, which sometimes produces serious or even insoluble genealogical problems; see, for example, the problems of Gurjara-Pratīhāra genealogy discussed in R. C. Majumdar, ed., *The Age of Imperial Kanauj*, 37.

c12.s1.t1.5

¹ For other examples of precise dating, see Fleet, “The Present Position,” 9–10.

c12.s1.t1.6

² For examples of the types of chronological difficulties which can arise with era-dated inscriptions, see R. K. Dikshit’s *Candellas of Jejākabhukti*, 17–9.

c12.s1.t1.7

attested in inscriptions are generally deduced on the grounds of (1) the findspots of the inscriptions themselves and (2) claims of territories and conquests made in the inscriptions. The first method has two main limitations. First, the geographical record preserved by inscriptions, like their chronological record, is necessarily incomplete, providing merely random spots in a larger field; and also as in the case of chronological reconstruction, it is only in such cases (which are the minority) where we have a reasonably large number of records for a particular ruler that we can determine anything like a clear picture of the extent of his realm. Second, it cannot always be assumed that the findspots of inscriptions are their original location, particularly in the case of copper plates, which were sometimes removed from their original location by grantees who migrated to a different region.⁶ Thus a single instance of a portable inscription found outside the known limits of a ruler’s realm should not be automatically accepted as evidence of his vast conquests, but a consistent pattern of this may be historically.⁷

c12.s1.t1.8

⁶ For examples, see Fleet, “Epigraphy,” IGI II.28.

c12.s1.t1.9

⁷ But such cases must be treated with caution. Thus the apparent conquest of Bihar and Bengal by the Gurjara-Pratīhāra king Mahendrapāla has recently been shown to be an illusion (G. Bhattacharya, *South Asian Studies* 4, 1988, 71–3).

c12.s1.t1.10

The territorial and military claims put forth in the inscriptions themselves are even more problematic. That many rulers (or rather their court poets), especially in medieval times, shamelessly exaggerated the territorial extent of their empires or spheres of influence is well established. The question is how to distinguish fact, or at least a core of fact, from the conventional bombast and rhetorical exaggeration of the *praśasti* style. A classic contrast is provided by the claims of *digvijaya* or conquest of the whole world (i.e., of India) made on behalf of Samudragupta in the Allahabad pillar inscription and of the Aulikara ruler Yaśodharman in the Mandasor pillar inscription. In the case of the former, the extensive and detailed list of kings and territories in the south, west, and north of India whose conquest or submission Samudragupta claimed lends a semblance of credence, so that historians generally accept that he did in fact rule over or at least raid the places in question, despite the absence of any corroborative evidence. In Yaśodharman’s *praśasti*, on the other hand, the claims of sovereignty from the Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) River in the east to the ocean in the west and from the Mahendra Mountain in the south to the Himālayas in the north are obviously formulaic, and no historian would be willing to credit Yaśodharman with anything like a pan-Indian empire.⁸ Thus the rule of thumb followed by most historians with regard to such claims is that the more specific and nonformulaic they are, the more likely they are to be historically justified; in Sircar’s words, “Vague claims are generally less reliable than definite statements involving the mention of the personal names of adversaries” (SIE 27).

c12.s1.t1.11

⁸ For other examples, see SIE 25–7.

c12.s1.t1.12

Especially in later inscriptions, such grandiose and obviously spurious claims to vast territories become almost routine, even to the extent that poetic considerations overrule historical plausibility; thus in the Khajurāho inscription (EI 1, 126, v. 23) the Candella king Yaśovarman is described as *kośalaḥ kośalānāṃ naśyatkaśmīravīraḥ śithilitamithilaḥ kālavan mālavānāṃ*, “who seized the treasuries of Kośala, who destroyed the heroes of Kashmir, who weakened Mithila, and was like Death to Malwa.” Here, in Sircar’s words, “It seems that the lure of alliteration . . . carried the poet far away from historical accuracy” (SIE 27).⁹ Moreover, even those boasts of victory which are based on historical fact are almost invariably couched in highly rhetorical style in which mundane details of time, place, and military strategy are rarely specified.

c12.s1.t1.13

⁹ For other examples, see D. K. Ganguly, *History and Historians in Ancient India* (New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1984), 51–2.

c12.s1.t1.14

Given this situation, historians will naturally wish to evaluate the claims put forth in the inscriptions in the light of corroborative evidence, whether in the form of material from other inscriptions or from literary or other alternative sources. For instance, Pulakeśin II’s claims in the Aihoḷe inscription (SI II.443–50, v. 23) of a victory over Harṣa finds explicit corroboration in the testimony of the Chinese pilgrim Hsüan Tsang, and hence can be considered reliable. Corroboration from other inscriptions is often harder to establish, due not only to the general problems of the historical evaluation already alluded to but also to the tendency of the poets to gloss over, distort, or simply ignore their patrons’ military defeats (SIE 27–8). In some cases, however, such corroboration can be established, for example, in the case of Gurjara-Pratīhāra Nāgabhaṭa’s victory over his Pāla enemy referred to in the Gwalior *praśasti* (SII II.242–6) which is confirmed by similar statements in the separate records of three of Nāgabhaṭa’s subordinate allies: “[T]he combined testimony of the four different records, coming from four different sources, . . . leave no doubt that Nāgabhaṭa scored a great victory over his Pāla rival Dharmapāla.”¹⁰ “The Pāla records,” on the other hand, not untypically “make no reference to this struggle.”¹¹

c12.s1.t1.15

¹⁰ Majumdar, *The Age of Imperial Kanauj*, 26.

c12.s1.t1.16

¹¹ Ibid., 48.

c12.s1.t1.17

Occasionally we do find cases where a conflict is reported from both sides, and here we are faced with special problems of analysis. For instance, the same Gurjara-Pratīhāra King Nāgabhaṭa’s war with Indra, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king of Gujarat, seems to be alluded to in inscriptions in which victory is claimed by both sides; in such a case, if no further determination is possible, “It may be concluded . . . that no party gained a decisive victory.”¹² A similar problem has been raised by the recent discovery of the earliest inscription of the imperial Gurjara-Pratīhāras (New Delhi ins.; EI 41, 49–57), in which King Vatsarāja’s forces are said to have conquered all of Karnataka (*avajitāśeṣa-Karṇṇāṭa-*, ll. 5–6), while his contemporary in that region, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Dhruva, explicitly claims in his inscriptions to have defeated Vatsarāja. Here the editors comment, “These claims and counterclaims of victory are, more or less, a conventional part of epigraphic poetry and may indicate either the uncertain nature of the outcome of the battles . . . or may pertain to different battles in which the results were successively reversed and for which we do not have tangible evidence” (52). Such conflicting claims, in other words, can be settled or reconciled, if at all, only when other evidence, for example, the locations of subsequent inscriptions of the rulers concerned, provide clear corroboration of the claims of one or the other of them.

c12.s1.t1.18

¹² Ibid., 25.

c12.s1.t1.19

Such, in short, are some of the typical problems which confront the historian in attempting to evaluate the highly rhetorical, subjective, and often intentionally vague statements of eulogistic inscriptions. The results, not surprisingly, are more often than not less than entirely satisfactory. For the earlier periods of Indian history we often have little more than the vaguest outlines of events and chronologies. In the classical and medieval periods we are somewhat better off, but even here we have, with rare exceptions, only the bare outlines of chronology and events and relatively little in the way of details to flesh out the skeleton of history. There will always be many uncertainties, and any historical study based on epigraphic sources will inevitably be filled with qualifications like "probably," "possibly," and "it would appear that." Indeed, any such study that is *not* provided with such stipulations should be viewed with suspicion.

7.1.2 Administrative, economic, and social history

c12.s1.t2.1

In recent decades, several scholars have begun to undertake more detailed and sophisticated analyses of various aspects of political science, economics, and social history on the basis of inscriptional evidence. Such studies are primarily based on the copious documentation provided by later southern Indian inscriptions, especially those of the Coḷa and Vijayanagara kingdoms, which are sufficiently numerous and detailed to permit significant statistical analysis, as is generally not the case with the sparser data available from the north. The inscriptions in question include very large numbers (in the thousands) of stone temple inscriptions in Sanskrit and/or Tamil (or other Dravidian languages) recording various transactions, typically endowments or donations to the temples, which provide a wealth of information on virtually all aspects of social and economic life. These inscriptions have given rise to a sizable body of scholarly literature on medieval southern India which combines the study of inscriptions with modern methods of historical and social scientific research. In view of the ever-increasing volume and diversity of the literature in question, it can be introduced here only in outline; the studies cited are meant only to provide representative or outstanding examples of the genre, especially of more recent studies and of those which concentrate particularly on information derived from epigraphic sources.

c12.s1.t2.2

Among the several topics which have recently been addressed via the study of inscriptions, one of the most important and controversial is the nature of the state and of kingship among the traditional Indian kingdoms, with the Coḷa empire serving as the focus for most studies. The central figure in these studies is Burton Stein, whose works, most notably *Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India*, have stimulated extensive discussion and further research. Although Stein's characterization of the Coḷa empire (and by extension of other traditional Indian kingdoms) as a "pyramidal segmentary state" with a king whose principal function is more ritual than executive has not been universally accepted,¹³ it has come to constitute the central focus of subsequent discussion of the subject.

c12.s1.t2.3

¹³ See, e.g., the reservations expressed by Noboru Karashima in *South Indian History and Society: Studies from Inscriptions A.D. 850–1800*, xxv–xxviii.

c12.s1.t2.4

Numerous studies of administrative and bureaucratic systems in southern India and elsewhere have also been undertaken on the basis of epigraphic data. Noteworthy recent efforts along these lines include the studies of Noboru Karashima and his collaborators, which are conveniently compiled in his *South Indian History and Society: Studies from Inscriptions A.D. 850–1800* (esp. 55–68). Studies of these subjects are typically based on official terms and titles culled from the inscriptions. Such titles, however, are often unknown from other sources and are not always etymologically transparent, so that their significance must be inferred, with varying degrees of success, from the contexts in which they appear in the inscriptions.

c12.s1.t2.5

Systems of land tenure and modes of agricultural production have also been the subject of numerous studies based on or making extensive use of epigraphic data. Much of the argument has focused on the persistent controversy as to whether or not the term "feudalism" can be properly applied to the medieval states; see, for example, D. C. Sircar, ed., *Land System and Feudalism in Ancient India*. Some recent studies, such as those of Stein and Karashima (see esp. *South Indian History and Society*, 3–35), have succeeded in raising the discussion of land tenure to a higher level by avoiding ideological preconceptions and concentrating on analysis of the actual data provided by the inscriptions.

c12.s1.t2.6

Revenue systems are another important aspect of historical and economic studies for which inscriptions constitute a principal source of information, especially, once again, for South India. Among recent works, those of Karashima (compiled in *South Indian History and Society*, 69–158) are again noteworthy for their scrupulous attention to epigraphic details; although here too (as in the case of the official titles) many of the technical terms for types of taxes remain to be satisfactorily elucidated.

c12.s1.t2.7

Patterns of trade, both external and internal, can also sometimes be traced with some precision from the epigraphic records. Here, too, the Coḷa empire has been the focus of attention, as, for example, in Kenneth R. Hall's *Trade and Statecraft in the Age of Cōḷas*.

c12.s1.t2.8

Studies of traditional Indian society also look primarily to inscriptions for clues about the actual social situation at various times and places, as a check to the highly normative and theoretical formulations of social ideals provided in the Dharmaśāstras and other literary works. For the earlier periods, and in general for northern India, the information is, as usual, sparse, consisting for the most part of odd scraps of data from which it is difficult to draw anything like a comprehensive overall scheme.¹⁴ Once again, it is in the medieval south, and particularly in the Coḷa period, that epigraphic data attain a critical mass that allows for detailed studies of social structures and caste relationships and their historical developments. Here too the studies of such scholars as Stein (e.g., *Peasant State and Society*, 173–215) and Karashima (*South Indian History and Society*, 36–68) are representative of the application of sophisticated modern methods to the study of Indian society on the basis of epigraphic data. Also worthy of note is K. Sundaram's *Studies in Economic and Social Conditions of Medieval Andhra* (A.D. *1000–1600*).

c12.s1.t2.9

¹⁴ Though this is not to deny that a good deal of interesting information is available; see, e.g., D. C. Sircar's *Studies in the Society and Administration of Ancient and Medieval India*. See also the general comments by Aloka Parasher in "Epigraphy as a Tool for Writing Social History," JESI 18, 1992, 62–73.

7.2 Epigraphy and the Study of Indian Literature

c12.s2.1

G. Bühler, *Die indische Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunstpoesie*; C. Sivaramamurti, *IESIS*, 38–48; V. Raghavan, "Sanskrit and Epigraphy," in *Sanskrit: Essays on the Value of the Language and the Literature* (Madras: Sanskrit Education Society,

c12.s2.2

1972), 67–76; D. B. Diskalkar, “Indian Epigraphical Literature,” *JIH* 37, 1959, 319–39, and “The Influence of Classical Poets on the Inscriptional Poets,” *JIH* 38, 1960, 285–302. [For anthologies of literary inscriptions, see 8.1.3.1.]

7.2.1 Inscriptions as a source

c12.s2.t1.1

dynasty. The generally accepted dating for Māgha, author of the *Śiśupālavadha*, around the late seventh century is based mainly on the identification of the king Varmalākhya or Varmalāta mentioned in the poem's colophon with V (*Kirātārjunīya* 5.9) with his *pṛthu-kadamba-kadamba-kadambakam* (v. 10; cf. EI 6, 8 n. 6).

c12.s2.t1.2

Another *kavi* who is frequently cited in inscriptions is Bāṇa. The *maṅgala-śloka* of his *Harṣa-carita*, *namas tuṅgaśiraścumbicandracāmara-cārave* . . . is quoted in many Western Cālukya and Vijayanagara inscriptions, while his prose (along with that of Subandhu, author of the *Vāsavadattā*) serves as the model Diskalkar, JIH 37, 326), the *praśastis* are closely modeled on the *mahākāvya* style. But some earlier specimens partake of other genres as well; thus the Allahabad pillar inscription in mixed verse and prose reflects the *campū* style, and this and other prose inscriptions such as Mahākūṭa also show the characteristics of the prose *kāvya* style of the *ākhyāyikās* (*Indian Inscriptions*, 173).

c12.s2.t1.3

But despite their adherence to prevailing literary modes, the inscriptional compositions do not seem to have attained much acceptance in the literary tradition. Of the many notable poets such as Hariṣeṇa (Allahabad), Vatsabhaṭṭi (Mandasor), and Kubja (Tālaguṇḍa) whose names are preserved in inscriptional colophons,²¹ very few are known in the standard literary tradition.²² Cases such as that of Umāpatidhara (discussed in 7.2.1.3) are very much the exception rather than the rule, and are restricted to the medieval period. The genre of *praśasti* does, however, receive some explicit recognition in the later literary tradition, especially in the anthologies. The *Subhāṣitaratnakośa*, for example, has a brief separate section on this genre (the *praśasti-vrajyā*, section 46, containing 14 verses), though none of these have yet been correlated with actual inscriptions.²³ Other anthologies contain a few verses from known inscriptions; for instance, verses from Umāpatidhara's Deopāṛā *praśasti* are cited in Śrīdharadāsa's *Saduktikarṇāmṛta* (vv. 7, 23, 24, and 30 = *Saduktikarṇāmṛta*²⁴ 1614, 1455, 1395, and 1454).²⁵

c12.s2.t1.4

²¹ For an extensive (though admittedly not complete) list of signed authors of poetic inscriptions, see D. B. Diskalkar, “Sanskrit and Prākrit Poets Known from Inscriptions,” JOI 7, 1957–58, 78–85.

c12.s2.t1.5

²² See Diskalkar, JIH 38, 297, for further examples.

c12.s2.t1.6

²³ Cf. the comments of Daniel H. H. Ingalls in his introduction to the *praśasti-vrajyā* in his translation of the *Subhāṣitaratnakośa* (*An Anthology of Sanskrit Court Poetry*, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 44 [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965], 409).

c12.s2.t1.7

²⁴ Ed. Sures Chandra Banerjee (Calcutta: K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1965).

c12.s2.t1.8

²⁵ Further examples in Diskalkar, JIH 38, 292 and 298.

c12.s2.t1.9

Nonetheless, direct correlations between the literary and the inscriptional texts are on the whole disappointingly few.²⁶ It would appear that, for one thing, *praśastis* were essentially ephemeral compositions; in Diskalkar's words, “[T]he praśastis were rarely copied down and circulated among the literary world. They had their importance for the time being and though remembered by the court poets were forgotten by the general scholarly world” (JIH 38, 298). Second, it seems that, in many cases, “the inscriptional poets were not always real poets of inspiration but poets of accomplishment” (ibid., 298) who were “really practical men” and “more pandits than poets” (ibid., 299); that is to say, becoming a favored court poet may often have had more to do with political than literary skills. Moreover, poets of true talent who did attain to such positions may have expended their best efforts on other compositions (though unfortunately very few of such have been preserved; cf. Diskalkar 301), while the composition of panegyrics was perhaps more a labor of daily bread than of love.

c12.s2.t1.10

²⁶ Cf. Diskalkar, JIH 38, 297–8.

c12.s2.t1.11

7.2.2.2 Standard literary genres preserved in inscriptions

c12.s2.t1.12

7.2.2.2.1 Kāvya (poetry).

c12.s2.t1.13

There is a fair number of inscriptions which do partake of the character of *praśasti* insofar as their intention is to glorify the poet's patron portrayed in them as the hero, but which are essentially compositions of the standard literary genres.²⁷ These include *kāvya*s of various types, including a few late specimens of full *mahākāvya*s, notably the *Rājapraśasti-mahākāvya* at Udaypur.

c12.s2.t1.14

²⁷ Cf. section 4.1.8.

c12.s2.t1.15

Briefer poems which can be classed as *khaṇḍa-kāvya*s are also known, notably the several poems of the poet Narasiṃha inscribed near Warangal in Andhra Pradesh. His creations include a charming romantic adventure in sixty-two verses at Urusukoṇḍa (EI 41, 219–44) and an incomplete *niroṣṭhya-kāvya* (poem using no labial sounds) at Hanumakoṇḍa (EI 36, 209–18).

c12.s2.t1.16

7.2.2.2.2 *Nāṭaka (drama).* Complete or partial texts of some otherwise unknown dramas of the medieval period are preserved on inscribed stone slabs which were originally fixed on palace walls. These are the *Lalitavigraharāja-nāṭaka* of Somadeva and the *Harakeli-nāṭaka* attributed to the Cāhamāna king Vigraharājadeva, both of which were inscribed at Ajmer, and the *Pārijātamañjarī-nāṭikā* or *Vijayaśrī-nāṭikā* from Dhār (see 4.1.8 for references).

c12.s2.t1.17

7.2.2.2.3 *Stotra (devotional songs).* More common among literary inscriptions are poems of the *stotra* or devotional hymn genre,²⁸ which were often placed on the walls of temples. Here, contrary to the general pattern discussed previously, we find several cases where the inscriptional text matches a known literary composition. For example, the *Halāyudha-stotra* to Śiva, preserved in an inscription from the Amareśvara temple at Māndhātā, is also preserved in several manuscripts (EI 25, 174). The fragmentary hymn to the sun from Vidiśā (EI 30, 215–9) by Cittapa provides us with a composition by a poet otherwise known only from numerous quotations in the anthologies.

c12.s2.t1.18

²⁸ Cf. section 4.1.7.

c12.s2.t1.19

Sometimes *stotra*s are imbedded within larger inscriptions of the *praśasti* class. Such is the case with the *Gaurīśvara-stotra* in the first Baijnāth *praśasti* (EI 1, 97–112) and the hymn to Jvālāmukhī-Bhavānī in the Kāṅgrā Jvālāmukhī *praśasti* (EI 1, 190–5).²⁹

c12.s2.t1.20

²⁹ For other examples of inscriptional stotras, not preserved in literature, see section 4.1.7.

c12.s2.t1.21

7.2.2.3 Evaluation of inscriptional texts as literature

c12.s2.t1.22

As mentioned before (7.2.2.1), the position of epigraphic compositions within the Sanskritic literary tradition is more or less marginal. Much of the *praśasti* literature, it must be conceded, is not much better than hackwork. Nevertheless, there are not a few cases where inscriptional *kāvya* rises above the ordinary level. Besides the well-known *praśasti*s which are often cited as outstanding specimens of inscriptional poetry (Allahabad, Tālaguṇḍa, Mandasor, Aihoḷe, etc.), many other inscriptions could be mentioned as examples of good poetry; for example, the Cāṅgu-Nārāyaṇa pillar inscription (SI 1.378–82), with such fine turns of phrase as *pramṛṣṭakanaka-ślakṣṇāvadātacchaviḥ*, “whose skin was bright and smooth as burnished gold” (l. 52).³⁰ Among prose inscriptions, the Mahākūṭa inscription, among others, has been singled out for praise (cf. Naik, “Inscriptions of the Deccan,” 30). Some of the inscriptional *stotras* are of high quality, for example, the Māndhātā Halāyudha-stotra which expresses deep and sincere feelings of devotion in eloquent poetic style, as in the following verse (v. 63, ll. 47–48):

c12.s2.t1.23

³⁰ Also often cited in this connection are the Sanskrit inscriptions of Cambodia, several of which display all the standard features of the elaborate *kāvya* style (see 4.3.7.7).

c12.s2.t1.24

*avyaktākṣarajalpitair api śiśoḥ prītir ggurūṇāṃ bhavet*
*tenāsmadvacanaṃ malīmasam api syāt tuṣṭihetus tava /*
*śrāntas tvadguṇakīrttanāt kimapi yat puṇyaṃ mayopārjitaṃ*
*tena syāj jananāntare pi mahatī tvayy eva bhaktir mama //*

c12.s2.t1.25

A baby might please his parents even with babbling nonsensical sounds; so too may my words, faulty though they may be, bring you some satisfaction. And whatever merit I may have earned by exhausting myself in singing your praises, by that may I be born again with deep devotion to you alone.

c12.s2.t1.26

Altogether, the inscriptional records embody both the best and worst of Sanskrit poetry: its richness and variety of style and imagination, and its stiffness and pedantry. All of the standard features of the classical tradition—the various regional styles, the many *alaṃkāras* of sound and sense, the elaborate wordplay and manipulations of multiple meanings, even the *citra-kāvya* or visually configured verses³¹—are abundantly attested. In short, the inscriptional corpus constitutes an important branch of Indian literature as a whole which is not only significant as a historical tool but also worthy of study as a literary corpus in its own right.

c12.s2.t1.27

³¹ See, e.g., the *padma-bandha* and *cakra-bandha* in two inscriptions from Bōthpur (nos. 51 and 52), in P. Sreenivasachar, *A Corpus of Inscriptions in the Telingana Districts*, part II, 148–9, 157–61, 197.

7.3 Epigraphy and the Study of Religion

c12.s3.1

D. C. Sircar, *Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India*; V. Upādhyāya, *Prācīna Bhāratīya Abhilekha*, I.100–30.

c12.s3.2

As is the case with many other branches of Indology, epigraphy provides a solid geographical and chronological groundwork for the historical study of the religious traditions of ancient India. Among the many aspects of the history of religions which can be elucidated by inscriptions are the growth and relative popularity at different times and places of various devotional cults (see, e.g., 7.3.1.2), for which subject Sircar’s *Studies in the Religious Life of Ancient and Medieval India* constitutes a fundamental source of information. Inscriptions also reveal patterns of royal patronage to different religions and sects, providing a framework for their historical developments. The typical pattern is one of multiple patronage, wherein the same ruler may sponsor, for instance, both Brahmanical and Buddhist institutions. It is also common to find different rulers of the same line lending their support to different establishments, according to their personal preferences; the emperor Harṣa, for example, is described in his inscriptions (e.g., Bānskheṛā, EI 4, 208–11) as the descendant of devotees of the Sun (*paramādityabhakta*) but was himself a Śaivite (*paramamāheśvara*) and is known from other sources (mainly the Chinese pilgrim Hsüan Tsang) to have also patronized Buddhism. Similarly, the earlier kings of the Candra dynasty of East Bengal were Buddhists, while their successors Lahaḍacandra and Govindacandra adopted Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva faiths, respectively.³²

c12.s3.3

³² D. C. Sircar, *Epigraphic Discoveries in East Pakistan*, 51–2.

7.3.1 The Brahmanical/Hindu tradition

c12.s3.t1.1

7.3.1.1 The Vedic tradition

c12.s3.t1.2

While epigraphy obviously has little to offer for the historical study of the Vedic era itself, it nonetheless does provide useful information about the preservation and continuation of the Vedic tradition in the classical and postclassical periods. Inscriptions, especially copper plate grants with their often extensive lists of Brahmans and their Veda and *śākhā* affiliations, provide an important source for the history and especially for the geographical affiliations of the various Vedic schools; this material has been extensively utilized by, among others; Louis Renou³³ and, more recently, Michael Witzel.³⁴

c12.s3.t1.3

³³ *Les Écoles védiques et la formation du Veda*, Cahiers de la Société Asiatique 9 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1947), pars. 47, 73, 117, 197–9; *Le Destin du Véda dans l'Inde*, Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes 6; Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne 10 (Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1960), 29; and "The Vedic Schools and the Epigraphy," in *Siddha-Bhāratī or the Rosary of Indology* [Siddheshwar Varma Festschrift], ed. Vishva Bandhu, Vishveshvaranand Indological Series 2 (Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, 1950), II.214–21.

c12.s3.t1.4

³⁴ "Materialien zu den vedischen Schulen I. Über die Caraka-Śākhā," StII 7, 1981, 109–32 (esp. 128–31); "Regionale und überregionale Faktoren in der Entwicklung vedischer Brahmanengruppen im Mitteralter (Materialien zu den vedischen Schulen, 5)," in Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, eds., *Regionale Tradition in Südasien*, Beiträge zur Südasienforschungen 104 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, 1985), 37–75 (esp. 40).

c12.s3.t1.5

Numerous historical records of the performance of Vedic sacrifices, especially the *aśvamedha* (horse sacrifice), are preserved in inscriptions from about the second century B.C. onward, for example, in the Hāthībāḍā/Ghosuṇḍī inscriptions and the Ayodhyā inscription of Dhanadeva.³⁵ Sometimes the king is said to have performed the *aśvamedha* several times, and/or to have done several other *yajñas*, as in the case of Pravarasena and the Bhāraśiva kings mentioned in the records of the Vākāṭakas (e.g., CII 5, 12, ll. 1–6). An interesting early record of the performance of multiple sacrifices together with details of the *dakṣiṇā* paid is provided by a Sātavāhana inscription from Nānāghāṭ (SI 1.192–7).

c12.s3.t1.6

³⁵ For a detailed compilation of inscriptional records of the *aśvamedha*, see Sircar, "Hiraṇyagarbha and Aśvamedha," *Studies in the Religious Life*, 164–82.

c12.s3.t1.7

A second class of records of this type comprises those which directly commemorate the performance of Vedic sacrifices with inscriptions on the bricks of the sacrificial altar itself, for instance, the Jagatpur inscriptions from the fourth *aśvamedha* of King Śīlavarman (*caturthasyāśvamedhasya caityo yaṃ śīlavarmaṇaḥ*; cf. 4.2.3.2); or on stone *yūpas* which reproduce the wooden ones actually used in the sacrifice (4.2.1.2).

c12.s3.t1.8

7.3.1.2 The Vaiṣṇava tradition

c12.s3.t1.9

Several inscriptions provide important information on the history of the various Vaiṣṇava sects, especially for the earlier period of their development.³⁶ An outstanding example is the Hēliodōros pillar at Besnagar (Appendix, no. 2), which not only provides evidence for the Bhāgav

c12.s3.t1.10

³⁶ This material has been extensively compiled and utilized by Suvira Jaiswal in *The Origin and Development of Vaiṣṇavism: Vaiṣṇavism from 200 BC to AD 500*, 2d ed. (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1981); see esp. 27–9.

c12.s3.t1.11

7.3.1.4 Śākta and other traditions

c12.s3.t1.12

In similar ways, inscriptional records provide firm geographical and chronological anchors for the historical study of the Śākta and other of the less orthodox streams within the Brahmanical/ cific texts for the special study and attention of Buddhist monks and lay followers. Although there are serious problems in identifying these texts with those in the extant canon (HBI 256–9; bibliography, 258 n. 74) and in evaluating their significance in connection with the establishment of a fixed canon, the Bairāṭ inscription nonetheless provides an important clue for the canonical texts. Our knowledge and understanding of the beliefs and practices of the relic cult, for example, have recently been vastly enhanced by the discovery of new inscriptions and the reanalysis of older ones bearing on this important aspect of popular Buddhism.⁴⁶

c12.s3.t1.13

⁴⁶ E.g., Schopen, "On the Buddha and His Bones: The Conception of a Relic in the Inscriptions of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa," *JAOS* 108, 1988, 527–37; see also Schopen, "Burial '*ad Sanctos*' and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism: A Study in the Archaeology of Religions," *Religion* 17, 1987, 193–225 (esp. 204–5).

7.3.3 Jainism and other sects

c12.s3.t2.1

The very abundant and relatively well-documented inscriptions of the Jainas (8.1.3.4), especially in western India of the medieval period, offer a rich fund of information for the study of Jaina religion, ethics, and especially monastic organization. These sources have been extensively utilized in such general historical studies as Asim Kumar Chatterjee's *Comprehensive History of Jainism* and P. B. Desai's *Jainism in South India and Some Jaina Epigraphs*. Jai Prakash Singh's *Aspects of Early Jainism [As Known from the Epigraphs]* attempts a general survey of Jainism from epigraphic sources, but the results are less satisfactory. Paul Dundas' general study of Jaina religion and practice, *The Jains*, also extensively utilizes epigraphic data for chronological and historical corroboration.

c12.s3.t2.2

Inscriptions provide abundant details on the history of Jaina sectarian and monastic history and organization, in the form of the names, lineages, and positions of many Jaina clerics (cf. IC I.170). This data may be profitably used as a corroborative and supplementary source to information provided in the canonical literature. Works addressing Jaina sectarian history that make extensive use of inscriptional information include Shantaram Bhalchandra Deo's *History of Jaina Monachism from Inscriptions and Literature* (especially Part IV, "Jaina Monachism from Epigraphs") and Muni Uttam Kamal Jain's *Jaina Sects and Schools*. As examples of particular epigraphic documents with significant bearing on sectarian history, we may cite an inscription from Pattana (EI 1, 1892, 319–24) which provides a list of twenty-four heads of the Kharatara-gaccha and describes the patronage of that community by the Mughal emperor Akbar, and an old manuscript copy of a lost inscription from Śatruñjaya recording the resolutions of a council of Śvetāmbara monks in A.D. 1242.⁴⁷

c12.s3.t2.3

⁴⁷ See Umakant Premanand Shah, "A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Śvetāmbara Jaina Church or A Documentary Epigraph from the Mount Śatruñjaya," *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay* 30, 1953, 100–13.

c12.s3.t2.4

Studies of other aspects of Jaina history and practice may also benefit from epigraphic evidence, as, for example, in S. Settar's *Inviting Death*, a study of ritual death among Jains at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa based largely on over one hundred commemorative records.

c12.s3.t2.5

Inscriptions are also sometimes useful in the historical study of minor sects. A. L. Basham, for example, in his classic study of the Ājīvikas,⁴⁸ cites inscriptions attesting to the continued presence of members of this sect in the Tamil country as late as the fourteenth century. Even the heterodox skeptics of the Lokāyata tradition are attested in inscriptions, as noted by B. A. Saletore,⁴⁹ who has traced several references to them in Karnataka inscriptions of the tenth to fifteenth centuries.

c12.s3.t2.6

⁴⁸ *History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas: A Vanished Indian Religion* (London: Luzac, 1951; reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981), 187–96.

7.4 Epigraphy and the Study of the Arts

c12.s4.1

F. M. Asher and G. S. Gai, eds., *Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art* [IEBHA]; RIE 122–41 ("Epigraphy and Indian Art and Architecture").

7.4.1 The visual arts

c12.s4.t1.1

7.4.1.1 Epigraphy as a chronological guide to the study of the visual arts

c12.s4.t1.2

Given the paucity of information on the subject from literary records, inscriptions constitute a crucial source of information on the chronology and history of the visual arts—sculpture, architecture, and painting—in traditional India. The chronology, both relative and absolute, of these arts is to a great extent reconstructed from accompanying inscriptions, dated explicitly or by paleographic estimate. Typically, the developmental history of a given school or phase of Indian art is constructed around a basic chronological framework derived from those specimens which are accompanied by dated or datable inscriptions. Thus, for example, Joanna may suggest one conclusion about the relative or absolute chronological place of an inscribed work of art, while stylistic analysis of the work itself may suggest a different conclusion. For instance, the Kārle cave temple of the time of Nahapāna is attributed by most historians to the first century A.D. on paleographic grounds, while some art historians would prefer to date it on stylistic criteria to the first century B.C.⁵²

c12.s4.t1.3

⁵² Pramod Chandra, *On the Study of Indian Art* (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 68–9.

c12.s4.t1.4

In such a case, where two approximative dating methods suggest conflicting results, the scholar (whether art historian or epigraphist) faces the question of which method is more precise or reliable. Not surprisingly, art historians are often inclined to consider stylistic analysis as a more precise standard. For example, Karl Khandalavala says, “Where stylistic features conflict with the paleographical evidence, the former are much to be preferred in arriving at conclusions as to the period of a particular sculpture” (IEBHA 68); similarly J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw claims that “we receive far more support from the development which the style in these hundred years passed through, than from the changes in the form of the characters during the same period, because characters are more conservative than art, which is more liable to be affected by fashion and taste” (*The “Scythian” Period*, 264). Particularly important on this point are the comments of Pramod Chandra: “[T]he conclusions drawn are being deduced not from the work of art itself but from something that happens to be written on it. Used cautiously, paleography can certainly help us as we try to reconstruct chronology, but it cannot determine it. . . . The paleography of an inscription on a sculpture may help in determining its date, but the date of a sculpture, on the basis of its style, has an equal claim to modify our understanding of the paleography.”⁵³

c12.s4.t1.5

⁵³ *On the Study of Indian Art*, 67–8; see also 21–2.

c12.s4.t1.6

But the epigraphists naturally (and, as noted by Chandra, sometimes uncritically) tend to place a greater weight on the paleographic evidence; thus, for example, D. C. Sircar refers to the “less specific evidence such as that of architectural and sculptural style” (EI 33, 1959–60, 261). Ultimately, of course, one cannot make categorical judgments as to the relative weight of stylistic versus paleographic dating; in Chandra’s words, “There is nothing to distinguish one technique as being inherently superior to the other” (op. cit., 68); apparent conflicts between the two must be judged on a case-by-case basis. The real problem may be that there are very few scholars, especially in this modern age of specialization, who are expert both in art history and in epigraphy and paleography, and one naturally tends to give the most weight to that body of evidence with which one is most conversant and comfortable. All that can be done in such a situation is to remind scholars in both fields of the benefits of communication and cooperation.⁵⁴ There is room for criticism on both sides. Art historians have often placed too much trust in secondary sources which provide convenient but questionable interpretations of the paleographic data, and have failed to closely examine the original sources, while epigraphists often tend to focus too closely on the inscriptions themselves without paying due attention to the works of art on which they are written and the chronological or other evidence which may be provided thereby.⁵⁵

c12.s4.t1.7

⁵⁴ The publication of IEBHA represents a concerted attempt, albeit not entirely successful, to establish such communication. See also the supplementary comments by Gautam Sengupta in “Epigraphy and Art-History: On Some Inscribed Sculptures of Eastern India,” JESI 16, 1990, 112–8.

c12.s4.t1.8

Epigraphists should therefore always keep in mind that the art object can sometimes elucidate the accompanying inscription. An interesting application of this principle is Lohuizen-de Leeuw’s use of stylistic as well as paleographic and contextual criteria in support of her theory that certain sculptures with two-figure dates are to be attributed to the second century of the Kaniṣka era, with the figure for 100 omitted (*The “Scythian”

c12.s4.t1.9

in accompanying inscriptions.⁵⁹ The artists in question are referred to by various titles such as *rūpakāra*, *śilpin*, *sūtradhāra*, or *citrakāra*. Such inscriptions are much commoner in the medieval period, especially in the monuments of certain dynasties such as the Hoysaḷas, but some earlier specimens are also known. An important case is that of the renowned sculptor Dinna of Mathurā, whose name is recorded (e.g., *pratimā ceyaṃ ghaṭitā dinnena māthureṇa*, “And this image was created by Dinna of Mathurā”)⁶⁰ in four image inscriptions from Mathurā and Kasiā, and who seems to have been one of the master artists of his time.⁶¹ One of these inscriptions (the Mathurā [Govindnagar] pedestal ins., EI 40, 20–2) is dated in the [Gupta] year 115, enabling us to date Dinna to the first half of the fifth century A.D. An evidently prominent sculptor of the Pāla-Sena school, Amṛta, is also now known from two inscribed pieces bearing his name (*amṛtena suśilpinā*).⁶²

c12.s4.t1.10

⁵⁹ Lists and discussions of names of artisans recorded in inscriptions can be found in R. N. Misra, *Ancient Artists and Art-Activity* (Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1975), and C. Sivaramamurti, *Indian Sculpture* (New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations/Allied Publishers, 1961), 1–14. The subject is also discussed in several of the articles in IEBHA, notably R. N. Misra’s “Artists of Ḍāhala and Dakṣiṇa Kosala: A Study Based on Epigraphs” (185–90) and A. V. Narasimha Murthy’s “Study of the Label Inscriptions of the Hoysaḷa Sculptors” (215–20).

c12.s4.t1.11

⁶⁰ See D. C. Sircar, EI 35, 1963–64, 200.

c12.s4.t1.12

⁶¹ Sircar, EI 39, 1971–72, 120; Williams, *The Art of Gupta India*, 68.

c12.s4.t1.13

⁶² See G. Bhattacharya, “Susilpin Amrita,” JESI 9, 1982, 20–2.

c12.s4.t1.14

From the much more abundant material in later centuries, we learn the names not only of individual artists but also of familial or other lineages of artisans. For example, various followers of the artistic lineage of the Kokāsas (*śrīkokāsavaṃśa*; CII 4, 329, l. 43) are mentioned in several Kalacuri inscriptions of the twelfth to fifteenth centuries, and the eponymous Kokāsa is also mentioned in several Jaina texts.⁶³ These references to artisans and schools are potentially of great value for art history, for example, in helping to date pieces by known artists (Narasimha Murthy, IEBHA 215) or for refining our understanding of the development of local traditions (Misra, op. cit., 68).

c12.s4.t1.15

⁶³ Misra, *Ancient Artists and Art-Activity*, 70; “Artists of Ḍāhala and Dakṣiṇa Kosala,” IEBHA 187 and 189 n. 31.

c12.s4.t1.16

7.4.1.3 Technical and iconographic information derived from inscriptions

c12.s4.t1.17

Certain inscriptions—especially temple inscriptions from medieval southern India—provide information, sometimes in considerable detail, about architectural construction. The sequence and circumstances of the construction of the Tribhuvanacūḍāmaṇi-caityālaya at Mūḍabidure (South Kanara Dist., Karnataka), for example, are recorded in detail in a series of inscriptions of the fifteenth century (RIE 128–31). Details of the construction technique of the Īśvara temple of Tadalbāgi (Bijapur Dist., Karnataka) are recorded in an inscription of A.D. 1269 (SII 20, xxiv and 268).

c12.s4.t1.18

Also useful are the occasional citations in dedicatory inscriptions of technical architectural terms. Such references may be of use in identifying and analyzing the characteristics of the styles and features in question (e.g., RIE 125ff.).⁶⁴

c12.s4.t1.19

⁶⁴ An outstanding example of a study based on this approach is M. A. Dhaky’s *Indian Temple Forms in Karṇāṭa Inscriptions and Architecture* (New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1977).

c12.s4.t1.20

Inscriptions may also be helpful for the study of iconography by providing both descriptions of the attributes of various deities,⁶⁵ and labels (4.1.5) for sculpted or painted figures who might otherwise be difficult to identify, such as the numerous labeled *yakṣa* and *nāga* figures from Bhārhut, Patna, and other sites.⁶⁶ Since extant iconographic literature is generally late, such inscriptional labels often provide the earliest iconographic testimony for various deities. This type of information is also useful in connection with little-known, archaic, or local deities whose iconographic features may not be provided in the standard literary manuals of the subject, as, for example, the inscriptions labeling the *yoginīs* in the Caūsaṭh-yoginī temple at Bheraghāṭ.⁶⁷

c12.s4.t1.21

⁶⁵ Numerous examples provided in C. Sivaramamurti, “Iconographic Gleanings from Epigraphy,” *Arts Asiatiques* 4, 1957, 35–70.

c12.s4.t1.22

⁶⁶ Ibid., 35–6.

c12.s4.t1.23

⁶⁷ See R. K. Sharma, *The Temple of Chaunsathyogini at Bheraghat*.

7.4.2 The performing arts

c12.s4.t2.1

A few inscriptions, once again mostly from the south, provide extremely useful information on the performing arts, particularly music and dance.⁶⁸ Among the few inscriptions concerning music, the best known and most important is the Kuḍumiyāmalai inscription (EI 12, 226–37), which lists sets of notes arranged in groups of four (*catuṣprahārasvarāgāmāḥ*) for each of the seven *rāgas*. The inscription, which has been attributed by some authors to the Pallava king Mahendravarman I, is described by R. Sathyanarayana as “certainly the only primary evidence of contemporary musical practice in ancient India.”⁶⁹

c12.s4.t2.2

⁶⁸ See IESIS 14 and SITI III.2, 183–4, for general comments on these inscriptions.

c12.s4.t2.3

⁶⁹ *The Kuḍimiyāmalai Inscription on Music*, vii.

c12.s4.t2.4

Several inscriptions from Tamil Nadu recording the performance of various types of dances are collected by A. N. Perumal in “Art of Dance in the Temples of Tamil Nadu—Epigraphical Evidence” (JESI 5, 1978, 15–9). A remarkable epigraphic document referring to the classical dance is the label inscriptions, quoting the relevant verses from the fourth book (the *Tāṇḍava-lakṣaṇa*) of the *Bharata-nāṭyaśāstra*, which accompany the 108 sculptured figures depicting the corresponding dance poses (*karaṇas*) on the pillars in the eastern and western *gopurams* of the Naṭarāja temple in Cidambaram (ARSIE 1914, 40, 74–81).

7.5 Epigraphy and Linguistics

c12.s5.1

Although its relation to epigraphy is of prime importance, linguistics will not be discussed in detail here since the relevant material has already been covered in chapter 3. Suffice it to say that inscriptions provide a vast body of linguistic data which not only supplements but to some degree even supersedes information on the history and dialectology of the Indo-Aryan languages (as well as of the Dravidian and other South Asian language families) derived from noninscriptional, that is, literary, sources. The principal justification for this statement is that inscriptions provide relatively uncontaminated linguistic data, as opposed to literary texts which are often altered and tampered with in various ways in the course of multiple copyings over the centuries. Moreover, inscriptions often provide specimens of otherwise unattested or poorly attested dialects. This is particularly true in connection with the Middle Indo-Aryan languages, as in the case V. S. Agrawal, inscriptions are “[p]erhaps the richest and most authoritative source of Indian geography.”⁷³ Although a complete compilation of the relevant data remains to be achieved, a large amount of material has already been collected in the sources just cited.

c12.s5.2

⁷³ IHQ 28, 1952, 211 (“Ancient Indian Geography,” 205–14).

c12.s5.3

Among the most important uses of geographical data from inscriptions is the geographical identification of places known from literary or other nonarchaeological sources. Many important places have been successfully identified from inscriptions found at their sites; for example, Lumbinī, the traditional birthplace of the Buddha, is identified with Rummindeī in the Nepal Terai on the basis of the Aśokan pillar inscription found there which refers to the village Lummini as the Buddha’s birthplace (cf. 4.3.1.1.4). More recently, the nearby site of Piprāwā has been definitively identified by K. M. Srivastava⁷⁴ with the Kapilavastu of Buddhist tradition on the grounds of numerous inscriptions found there on seals and on a pot which contain the name Kapilavastu.⁷⁵

First 110 of 138 passages. Read on

Linked texts (24)