Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s3.t3: 3.3.3 Sanskrit inscriptions from western India in the Kṣatrapa period

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s3.t3

Language
English

3.3.3 Sanskrit inscriptions from western India in the Kṣatrapa period

c8.s3.t3.1

The inscriptions of the earlier house of Western Kṣatrapa kings, namely, the Kṣaharāta line of Nahapāna (middle of the first century A.D.?), are mostly in Prakrit or in hybridized Prakrit, with the important exception of Nāsik inscription no. 10 of Nahapāna's son-in-law Uṣavadāta (SI I.167–70). The opening portion of this inscription (ll. 1–3), eulogizing Uṣavadāta, is written in a fair approximation of standard Sanskrit with some hybrid features such as frequent sandhi hiatus (e.g., *dharmātmanā idam*, l. 3) and hybrid morphology such as *bhojāpayitrā* (l. 1). The remainder of the inscription, recording the actual donations, is in a somewhat more hybridized style. Senart (EI 8, 79) pointed out that about the first half of the eulogistic portion is virtually a Sanskrit rendition (or, as Senart puts it, a “reproduction in Sanskṛit orthography”) of the description of Uṣavadāta in the Prakrit Kārle cave inscription of the time of Nahapāna (SI I.171–2). The linguistic innovation in this inscription presumably reflects contemporary developments in Mathurā and adjoining regions, though it is not clear why Sanskrit was used for this inscription only; apparently, this is an instance of the orthographic options alluded to previously (3.2.3.2).

c8.s3.t3.2

The Junāgaḍh rock inscription of Rudradāman (SI I.175–80), the greatest king of the second Western Kṣatrapa line of Caṣṭana, was written shortly after A.D. 150 and represents a turning point in the history of epigraphic Sanskrit. This is the first long inscription recorded entirely in more or less standard Sanskrit, as well as the first extensive record in the poetic style. Although further specimens of such poetic *praśastis* in Sanskrit are not found until the Gupta era, from a stylistic point of view Rudradāman’s inscription is clearly their prototype. But as noted by Kielhorn⁴⁸ and others,⁴⁹ the language of the Junāgaḍh inscription is not pure classical Sanskrit in the strictest sense of the term. The orthography is inconsistent in the use of *anusvāra* and *visarga* and in the notation of double consonants, and the nonclassical retroflex *ḻ* occurs several times (e.g., *pāḻī*, l. 1). Local dialect features are probably reflected in the lengthened vowels in *nīrvyājam avajītyāvajītya* (l. 12). *Vīśad-* instead of standard *viṃśati-* (l. 7) also reflects local dialect pronunciation of the epic variant *viṃśat-* (cf. *sīha* for *siṃha* in the Guṇḍā ins., discussed in the next paragraph). *Patinā* instead of *patyā* (l. 11) in the sense of ‘lord’ is likewise a common epicism, though technically incorrect. Other questionable uses from the classical point of view include *anyatra saṃgrāmeṣu* instead of *. . . saṃgrāmebhyaḥ* (l. 10; cf. Kielhorn, EI 8, 40 n. 2) and the redundant *ā garbhāt prabhṛti* (l. 9). The language of the Junāgaḍh inscription is thus a close approach to high classical Sanskrit, but, like early literary Sanskrit generally, it shows the influence of the less formal epic-vernacular style in which some of the grammatical niceties of Pāṇinian/classical Sanskrit were not observed. But the nonstandard features in question are in general not of the same order as those which characterize the hybrid and hybrid-influenced inscriptions of Mathurā. Thus although we can suspect that the inspiration for using Sanskrit for epigraphic purposes emanated from Mathurā (there are clear historical connections between the Western Kṣatrapas and the Scythian dynasties of Mathurā), the source of the Sanskrit of the Junāgaḍh inscription was evidently the preclassical literary style current among the literati of the day rather than the Sanskritized hybrid of Mathurā and adjoining regions.

c8.s3.t3.3

⁴⁸ EI 8, 39–40.

c8.s3.t3.4

⁴⁹ E.g., Renou, *Histoire de la langue sanskrite*, 96, refers to “des épismes linguistiques.”

c8.s3.t3.5

This literary style of Sanskrit was not, however, employed in the inscriptions of the time of the Western Kṣatrapa rulers who succeeded Rudradāman. These inscriptions, which are unofficial records, reflect a less formal style which retains some characteristics of the hybrid language. A typical example is the Gundā inscription (SI I.181–2) of the time of Rudrasiṃha I (Śaka 103 = A.D. 181), which contains such nonstandard forms as *(tri)yuttaraśate* for *tryuttara-* and *rudrasīhasya* for *rudrasiṃhasya* (cf. *vīśad-* for *viṃśat-* in the Junāgaḍh inscription), as well as the hybrid sandhi *rājño kṣatrapasya*. Inscriptions of contemporary dynasties in western India show similar linguistic characteristics. A Sātavāhana inscription of the time of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Śrī-Śātakarṇi (second century A.D.) from Kaṇherī (Bühler, IA 12, 1883, 272) is in hybridized Sanskrit (e.g., *śrī-sāta[karn]ī[s]ya*, l. 1). From a slightly later period, the Kānākheṛā inscription (SI I.186–7) of A.D. 279 is in mostly standard Sanskrit but still shows some features reminiscent of hybrid, such as the causative participle *khānāpito* (l. 6).

c8.s3.t3.6

Also from the third century A.D., we have several Sanskrit inscriptions on *yūpas* from Baḍvā (SI I.91–2) and Barnāla (EI 26, 118–23) in Rajasthan. Their language still shows significant hybrid characteristics, most strikingly in the dating formula *kṛtehi* or *kritehi* for Sanskrit *kṛtaiḥ*, i.e., “in [lit. ‘by’] Kṛta [= Vikrama] years.” This follows the familiar pattern of inscriptions from the early centuries of the Christian era (e.g., the Morā well inscription discussed earlier), with the portions concerning the date and other mundane information in more Prakritic language. This suggests that everyday documents were still being written in MIA or mixed dialects at this time, so that people would habitually employ set phrases like *kṛtehi* in recording dates, even at the head of documents which were to be composed in Sanskrit.⁵⁰

c8.s3.t3.7

⁵⁰ The Devnīmorī stone casket inscription (SI I.519), dated in the year 127 of the “Kathika kings” (*kathikanṛpāṇām*), is written entirely in correct classical style. The date of the inscription, however, is controversial; Sircar (ibid.) interprets it as a year of the Śaka era, equivalent to A.D. 205. Others, however, such as P. Srinivasan (EI 37, 67–8), judge the inscription to be considerably later on paleographic grounds and think that the otherwise unknown “Kathika” era may be equivalent to the Kalacuri-Cedi era, in which case the date of the inscription would be ca. A.D. 376. The latter opinion is preferable on linguistic grounds, as the classical style would be quite typical of the early Gupta era but unusual for the early third century (see also 5.5.1.16).

Linked texts (2)