P. R. Srinivasan. - EI, XXXVII, No. 24-THREE WESTERN KSHATRAPA INSCRIPTIONS

Of the three inscriptions edited here and referred as A [A.R. Ep., 1963-64, No. B 108.], B [Ibid., No. B 109.] and C [Ibid., No. B 110.] for the sake of convenience, A and C were discovered long ago, the former in the Bhuj District and the latter in the Kutch District, while B, also from the Kutch District, was discovered recently. All the three epigraphs are now preserved in the Museum at Bhuj. I copied them in November 1963 during my visit to Bhuj, in connection with my annual collection work. Of these A has been edited in the Journal of the Oriental Institute, M. S. University, Baroda, Vol. XI, pp. 237-38 with a facsimile, B has been merely mentioned in Indian Archaeology-1961-62, A Revieiw (cyclostyled copy) IV-8, item No. 21, and a tentative text of C has been published, in the Annual Report of the Museum of Antiquities, Rajkot, for 1923-24, p. 13. Since these publications and notices have not treated the inscriptions either fully or satisfactorily, they are dealt with below in detail.
All the three records belong to different rulers of the family of the Kshatrapas of Western India, established by Chaøōana, the son of Ysāmotika. [This name is read as Ghsamotika also. Macron over e and o is not used in this article.] This family is called by some as the Kārdamakas. [E. J. Rapson, Cat. of the Coins of the Andhra, etc. dynasties, Introduction, p. ciii. Rapson, however, is inclined to think that the Kārdamaka princess, referred to as a daughter of the Mahākøatrapa Ru[dra] and as the wife of Vāsiøōhčputra Sāta[karíi], in a Kanheri inscription (ASWI, Vol. V, p. 78, No. II; Luôders' List, No. 994) might have been indebted to her mother for this distinction (op. cit., note 2).]

A. Andhau Inscription of Rudradāman I, Year [5]3

This inscription, as stated above, has been published by M. J. M. Nanavati and H. G. Sastri.[Journal of the Oriental Institute, M. S. University, Baroda, Vol. XI, pp. 237-38, and Plate.] They have stated that the stone slab measuring 15'4"x3'2"x11, on which the record is engraved, was discovered, by Messrs. J. M. Nanavati and M. N. Gandhi on a small mound about half a mile to the south-west of Khāväā in the Kutch District. [Ibid., p. 237.] But this claim to the discovery is not true. For, this inscription is apparently the fifth Western Køatrapa record noticed in January-February 1906, along with four others, by D. R. Bhandarkar, in PRAS, WC., 1905-06, p. 35 and referred to again by him in ibid., 1914-15, pp. 8 and 67. He has stated therein that this inscription was in situ while the other four were removed to the Museum at Bhuj. Besides, on p. 8 of PRAS, WC, 1914-15, Bhandarkar has also said that a transliteration of the record prepared by K. N. Dikshit and checked by him, was to be published in the Epigraphia Indica although this did not come to pass. As regards the findspot of the record, Bhandarkar has stated in two places [PRAS, WC, 1905-06, p. 35 and ibid., 1914-15. p. 8.] that it was found at Andhau in Khāväā while at another place [Ibid., 1914-15, p. 67.] he has said that it was at Khāväā.
As has been, stated above, the record belongs to the time of Rudradāman I. We know of two groups of dated records throwing light on the reign of this ruler. One of them consists of the four Andhau inscriptions of the year 52. They show that Rudradāman, ruled conjointly with his grandfather Chaøōana [Above, Vol. XVI, pp. 23 ff., and also Plate.2 Ind. Ant., Vol. XLVII, p. 154, note 26.] and both the rulers bore only the simple title of Rājan, while Rudradāman's father Jayadāman, mentioned therein, did not bear any title. The second group consists of the only record, viz. the Junāgaäh inscription of the year 72, which belongs to the independent reign of Rudradāman. Uptil now, only from this Junāgaäh inscription, besides some undated coins, [Rapson, op. cit., pp. 73 ff.] we know that Chaøōana bore the titles Rājan. Mahākøatrapa and Svāmi, his son Jayadāman was endowed with the titles Køatrapa and Svāmi and the latter's son Rudradāman assumed the title Mahākøatrapa besides bearing the title Rājan. [Above, Vol. VIII, pp. 36 ff.] A comparison of the style of referring to the set of kings in our record and that referring to the same set of kings in the above-mentioned groups of records, clearly reveals that the date of our record falls somewhere between the year 52, the date of the Andhau records and year 72, the date of the Junāgaäh inscription. There are two dates, between these years, possessing the unit figure 3, and they are 53 and 63. Since the Junāgaäh inscription says that Rudradāman acquired for himself the title of Mahākøatrapa, [Ibid., p. 44, text line 15.] it seems that this event took place round about year 72, and that the ruler was endowed with the other lesser titles like Rājan and Køatrapa prior to that. As stated above, our record, though belonging to the time of Rudradāman's independent rule, refers to him merely as Rājan and Svāmi. Though it is difficult to be certain about the duration of the period when this king continued to be addressed thus, it may not be unreasonable to assume that considerable time elapsed between, this stage and the stage when he became Mahākøatrapa. The absence of the higher title to this king in our record points to the nearness of its date to that of the four inscriptions from Andhau.
The year 53, just as the years in the other records of this dynasty, is to be referred to the Ųaka era and its Christian equivalent would be 131 A. D. The importance of this record lies in the fact that it is not only the earliest inscription known so far of Rudradāman I's independent rule but also the earliest to show that Chaøōana, Rudradāma's grandfather, possessed all the three Køatrapa titles.
The object of the inscription is to record the erection, of a yaōhi, evidently as a funeral monument, in memory of a certain A[. .]ka, son of Ųatruėsaha and a novice (ųrāmaíera) probably of Jainism, belonging to some gotra, the name of which is lost, by his son Dhanadeva. The nanie of Dhanadeva's father consisted of four letters of which the middle two are completely lost renderiug its reading difficult. But of the two middle letters, the second one was probably th as indicated by the presence of an arc, obviously of a circular letter, in the place. Between this th and the very first letter a, there is sufficient space to accommodate letters like p, m, etc. We know of an inscription from Bhilsa area, wherein a man with the name Apathaka [Above, Vol. II, p. 101, No. 42.] figures. On this analogy we may restore the first of the two lost letters also as pa, and read the name as Apathaka. The name of the gotra of this Apathaka is also lost. In line 6, where this was engraved, there is space only for two or three letters after -sa of ųrāmaíerasa and before go- of gotrasa. Of these letters one may have been sa which should have preceded gotrasa so as to read sagotrasa. So, the name of the gotra should have been composed of only two letters at the most. Two gotra names, viz., Opaųati and Ųenika, both consisting of more than two letters, are already known from the other Andhau records, as borne by ųrāmaíeras of that place and time. Since the gotra name in our record was of two letters, it was apparently different from these two. Only one gotra name with two letters belonging to the period and region is known, and that is Vachha, from an inscription at Junnar. [Luôders' List, No. 1174.] But this name and its Sanskrit variant Vatsa [Ibid., No. 1200.], are known to be a Brahmanical gotra names and it is difficult to say if it was borne by the followers of Jainism too.
An interesting feature of our record is that it contains the expression yaōhi (yaōōhi) adhisōhāpitā in the place of the synonymous expression laøōi(laōōi) uthāpita, meaning, the slab was caused to be erected, of the other Andhau records.