stringtranslate.com

Hathigumpha inscription

The Hathigumpha Inscription (pronounced: ɦɑːt̪ʰiːgumpʰɑː) is a seventeen line inscription in a Prakrit language incised in Brahmi script in a cavern called Hathigumpha in Udayagiri hills, near Bhubaneswar in Odisha, India. Dated between the second century BCE and the first century CE,[2][3][4] it was inscribed by the Jain king Kharavela of the Kalinga kingdom.[5][note 1]

The Hathigumpha Inscription presents, among other topics, a biographical sketch of a king in the eastern region of ancient India (now part of and near Odisha). It also includes information on religious values, public infrastructure projects, military expeditions and their purposes, society and culture. Paleographically, the inscription dates from the middle of the first century BCE to the early first century CE.[1][7]

Location and history

The Hathigumpha inscription (transl. "Elephant Cave" inscription) of Kharavela is found at Udayagiri, about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) west of Bhubaneswar international airport. The Udayagiri hills host many ancient rock-cut caves such as the Rani Gumpha. Among these, to the west of Rani Gumpha, is a cavern called Hathigumpha on the southern face of Udayagiri hills.[note 2] The inscription is named after this cavern. It is found partly in front and partly the ceiling of the cave.[8] Though dated to between 2nd-century BCE and 1st-century CE, the inscription was unknown to the scholars till they were rediscovered by A. Sterling and published in Asiatic Researches XV in 1825. An eye-copy prepared by Kittoe was published by James Prinsep in 1837, followed by a trace by Alexander Cunningham in 1877.[8] R.L. Mitra published a modified version in his Antiquities of Orissa in 1880.

Entrance of the Hathigumpha monument. The pillared front, steps and other structures were added in 19th and 20th centuries to help conserve the monument.

The first cast of this important inscription was published by Bhagwan Lal Indraji in 1884, followed by publication of an ink impression in 1906 by Bloch.[8] Indraji was the first scholar to declare that the king eulogised in the Hathigumpha inscription was named Kharavela,[9] but the cast impression, his translation and interpretation had many errors.[10]

The translations, disputes, problems with Hathigumpha inscription and various corrections have attracted the attention of scholars such as Kielhorn, Fleet, Luders, Banerji, Jayaswal, Konow, Thomas, Majumdar, Barua, Pandey, Sircar and many others.[8][11][12] According to Walter Spink, a historian known for his studies on Ajanta and other cave monuments of India, early misreadings and misinterpretations of the Hathigumpha inscription have led to errors and incorrect theories being widely held about the history of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Deccan region and early India.[13]

Description

This inscription, consisting of seventeen lines has been incised in Prakrit language and Brahmi script. The inscription starts on the overhanging brow of Hathigumpha cavern and the first eight lines are visible at the front. The remaining nine lines continue on the same rock, but given the sloping shape of the cavern, it appears on the cavern's roof. The seventeen lines cover about 15 feet by 5.5 feet of the stone's surface.[14] Below this inscribed rock, the cavern's walls are rock-cut and some sections polished. These too have inscriptions, but these were added between the 10th and 11th-century, and are called minor Hathigumpha inscriptions. Closer to the floor, there are small rock cut partitions which do not form a wall between the cells.[8]

Composed as it is in a very obscure Prakrit, and its characters badly weathered by centuries of exposure to the elements and in places quite illegible, the Hathigumpha inscription has long been the subject of a great controversy among historians and paleographers.

— Arthur Llewellyn Basham[15]

A hand writing analysis suggests that three different ancient scribes likely worked together to produce this inscription.[8] The scribes likely chiseled the irregular overhanging rock and then deep incised the Brahmi text. Lines 1–6 of the main Hathigumpha inscription are well preserved, while last four Lines 16–17 show losses in the left part and the rest of these lines partially preserved. The other seven lines – Lines 7 through 15 – in the middle are problematic and can be read in many different ways.[16] According to Jayaswal, a scholar whose ink impressions and readings are among the most cited in the studies related to Hathigumpha inscription:[16]

These middle lines have been eroded and corrupted by natural processes over 2,000 some years. Processes such as rains, dripping water, dust, hornets and such causes have leveled or corrupted some Brahmi characters. In some cases so much that it is difficult to distinguish whether a cut is a chisel mark or a part of an aksara (letter). In other cases, the natural processes have added an angular-stroke or mark that can be included or rejected as an intended modification. The different hand writing styles found in the inscription further complicate what and how to read the letters. Thus, variant casts and ink impressions of the Hathigumpha inscriptions have been published, in part fueling the disagreements, interpretations and different scholarly translations.[8][16]

Date

The mid and late-19th century scholarship suggested that this inscription may be from the 3rd or 2nd-century BCE. According to Buhler, the palaeographical analysis suggests this inscription cannot be earlier than the 2nd-century BCE, or later than 1st-century BCE.[17] In 1920, Jayaswal and Banerji stated that this inscription cannot be placed before the 2nd-century, and may be a bit later.[17] On palaeographic grounds and considering it with information in other ancient Indian inscriptions, Sircar places this in the second half of the 1st-century BCE, or possibly in the first decades of the 1st-century CE.[18]

Inscription

The seventeen lines of the inscription has been variously translated by many. The translation published by Jayaswal and Banerji in Epigraphia Indica Volume 20 (public domain), with alternate readings by other scholars, is as follows: [19]

Significance

Hathigumpha inscription of King Khāravela at Udayagiri Hills as first drawn in "Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Volume I: Inscriptions of Asoka by Alexander Cunningham", 1827

The Hathigumpha Inscription is the main source of information about the Jain Kalinga ruler Kharavela. His year-by-year achievements in this inscription, states Richard Salomon, "approximates the character of a pure panegyric".[34] This is an early prototype of prashasti style of inscriptions.[35]

The disagreements between scholars is in reading with interpolations, interpreting, dating and then linking the names of places and people mentioned with other records and general chronology of ancient events assuming a particular reading is correct. Notable mentions in the Hathigumpha Inscription include:[36][37]

"Satakarni" in the inscription.
Actual, fairly damaged portion, and the disputed reading 𑀫𑀥𑀼𑀭𑀁𑀅𑀧𑀬𑀢𑁄𑀬𑀯𑀦𑀭𑀸𑀚𑀸𑀤𑀺𑀫𑀺𑀢 "Madhuraṁ apayāto Yavana-rāj[ā] D[i]mi[ta]" ("The Yavana king Demetrius retreated to Mathura"). This reading is considered as "extremely doubtful".[1]

According to Salomon, the "readings, translations, and historical interpretations" of the Hathigumpha inscription "varies widely by different scholars", and it is not possible to establish its single standard version. These interpretations have created significantly different histories of ancient India, some with phantom eras, states Salomon. Newly discovered inscriptions at Guntupalli in Andhra Pradesh have shed further light on this inscription.[46]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ The inscription is loaded with Jaina phrases, though the inscription explicitly states in verse 17 that he is sava-pasamda-pujako (worshipper of every religious sect).[6]
  2. ^ The Hathigumpha is between the Sarpa Gumpha (on its right) and Svargapuri and Mancapuri Gumpha (left).
  3. ^ One of many chronological problems, explains D.C. Sircar, with identifying this damaged word in the inscription with Demetrios is that it he is generally dated to about 180 BCE, which would place Kharavela in early 2nd-century BCE, the Nanda kings in early 5th-century BCE, the Mauryas before the Indo-Greeks, and make the Mauryas contemporary or earlier than the most accepted dates for the death of the Buddha and his contemporary Mahavira. This is grossly inconsistent with other known records.

References

  1. ^ a b c Verma, Thakur Prasad (1971). The Palaeography Of Brahmi Script. p. 86.
  2. ^ Alain Daniélou (11 February 2003). A Brief History of India. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. pp. 139–141. ISBN 978-1-59477-794-3.
  3. ^ a b Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya (1974). Some Early Dynasties of South India. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 44–50. ISBN 978-81-208-2941-1. Archived from the original on 29 May 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016.
  4. ^ Rama Shankar Tripathi (1942). History of Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 199–201. ISBN 978-81-208-0018-2.
  5. ^ Krishan 1996, p. 23.
  6. ^ Norman, K. R. (1973). "Review of Shashi Kant: The Hᾱthīgumphᾱ inscription of Khᾱravela and the Bhabru edict of Aśoka—a critical study". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 36 (2). Cambridge University Press: 472–473. doi:10.1017/s0041977x00134536. S2CID 179013997.
  7. ^ Shimada, Akira (2012). Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The Great Stūpa at Amarāvatī (ca. 300 BCE-300 CE). BRILL. p. 57. ISBN 978-90-04-23326-3. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 26 December 2019.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g K P Jayaswal; R D Banerji (1920). Epigraphia Indica Volume XX. Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 71–72., Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  9. ^ A. F. Rudolf Hoernlé (1898). "Full text of "Annual address delivered to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 2nd February, 1898"". Asiatic Society of Bengal. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
  10. ^ J.F. Fleet (1910), The Hathigumpha Inscription, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 824–828, JSTOR 25189732
  11. ^ Majumdar, R.C. (1922). Second Note on the Hathigumpha Inscription of Khâravela. Archived from the original on 16 August 2021. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
  12. ^ M. S. Pandey (1964), A Note on the Hathigumpha Inscription, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 26, PART 1, pp. 132-136, JSTOR 44133109
  13. ^ Spink, Walter (1958). "On the Development of Early Buddhist Art in India". The Art Bulletin. 40 (2): 99, context: 95–120. doi:10.2307/3047760. JSTOR 3047760.
  14. ^ Kant, Shashi (1971). The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela and the Bhabru Edict of Aśoka: A Critical Study (2nd Edition, published in 2000). Prints India. pp. 6–8. Archived from the original on 16 August 2021. Retrieved 16 August 2021. (Note: Sections of Shashi Kant book is exact copy of EI-Vol.XX, the ASI publication in 1920)
  15. ^ Kant, Shashi (1971). The Hāthīgumphā Inscription of Khāravela and the Bhabru Edict of Aśoka: A Critical Study (2nd Edition, published in 2000). Prints India. pp. vii. Archived from the original on 16 August 2021. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
  16. ^ a b c B Barua 1929, pp. 3–4.
  17. ^ a b K P Jayaswal; R D Banerji (1920). Epigraphia Indica Volume XX. Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 72–76 with footnotes., Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  18. ^ D. Sircar (1965), Select Inscriptions Volume 1, Calcutta University Press, page 213–214 footnote 1
  19. ^ a b c d e Jayaswal, Kashi Prasad; Banerji, Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay (1983). "No.7- The Hathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela". In Sastri, Hiranand (ed.). Epigraphia Indica Volume XX. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 83–89 with footnotes., Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  20. ^ B Barua 1929, pp. 40–41, for his rationale, see footnote 6 on pages 41–42.
  21. ^ a b B Barua 1929, pp. 40–41.
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i K P Jayaswal; R D Banerji (1920). Epigraphia Indica Volume XX. Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 86–89 with footnotes., Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  23. ^ B Barua 1929, pp. 42–43 with footnotes.
  24. ^ Sircar 1965, p. 215, Footnote 7.
  25. ^ Sircar 1965, p. 216, Footnote 1 and 3.
  26. ^ Sircar 1965, p. 216, Footnote 5.
  27. ^ B Barua 1929, pp. 43–44 with footnotes.
  28. ^ Sircar 1965, p. 216, Footnote 8 and 9.
  29. ^ Sircar 1965, p. 216, Footnotes 6-13.
  30. ^ a b c d e f g K P Jayaswal; R D Banerji (1920). Epigraphia Indica Volume XX. Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 87–89 with footnotes., Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  31. ^ a b B Barua 1929, pp. 44–45 with footnotes.
  32. ^ Sircar 1965, p. 217, Footnote 6.
  33. ^ B Barua 1929, pp. 45–46 with footnotes.
  34. ^ Salomon, R. (1998). Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-19-535666-3. Archived from the original on 6 July 2014. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
  35. ^ a b Thapar, Romila (2013). The Past Before Us. Harvard University Press. p. 329. ISBN 978-0-674-72651-2. Archived from the original on 29 September 2020. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
  36. ^ K P Jayaswal; R D Banerji (1920). Epigraphia Indica Volume XX. Archaeological Survey of India. pp. 73–89 with footnotes., Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  37. ^ D. Sircar (1965), Select Inscriptions Volume 1, Calcutta University Press, pages 211–217 with footnotes
  38. ^ Spink, Walter (1958). "On the Development of Early Buddhist Art in India". The Art Bulletin. 40 (2): 99–101 with footnotes. doi:10.2307/3047760. JSTOR 3047760.
  39. ^ a b Singh 2016, p. 273, 444–445.
  40. ^ Helmuth von Glasenapp (1999). Jainism: An Indian Religion of Salvation. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 431–. ISBN 978-81-208-1376-2. Archived from the original on 19 August 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  41. ^ B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao (1992), Religion, Politics and Society in Early Deccan, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 53, p. 47, JSTOR 44142769
  42. ^ Thapar, R. (2004). Early India: From the origins to AD 1300. University of California Press, pp. 211–213
  43. ^ Quintanilla, S. R. (2007). History of early stone sculpture at Mathura, ca. 150 BCE-100 CE. Brill, p. 47
  44. ^ Sircar 1965, p. 216.
  45. ^ Sailendra Nath Sen (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. pp. 176–177. ISBN 978-81-224-1198-0. Archived from the original on 16 May 2016. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
  46. ^ Salomon, R. (1998). Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 142, 165 with footnote 12, Section 5.5.1.17 on p. 195. ISBN 978-0-19-535666-3. Archived from the original on 6 July 2014. Retrieved 16 August 2021.

Bibliography

External links