No. 3-Fragmentary pillar inscription.
EI, XXXV, D. C. Sircar

The Amarаvatи (Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh) inscriptions published in Burgess's Archaeological Survey of Southern India, Vol. 1, were generally assigned to c. second century A.D. But the characters of one of them, appearing as No. 4 on Plate LVI and recording the gift of a pillar by a general named Muдakatala, were rightly regarded as of the Mauryan type and it was observed on the strength of this evidence that 'though, in the second century, vast additions, if not almost entire reconstruction, were effected, the great Chaitya (i.e. the one at Amarаvatи) dates originally from perhaps about 200 B.C.' A number of such early inscriptions were unearthed in the course of later excavations at Amarаvatи along with some records of later dates and, while publishing them in the pages of this journal, Vol. XV, pp. 258 ff., R.P. Chanda thus observed on the palaeography of the earliest group of them: 'all the signs from the ancient Brаhmи epigraphs from Amarаvatи agree with the southern variety of the Aщoka alphabet.'[Macron over e and o has not been used in this paper.] Recently more such inscriptions, along with some of later dates, have been traced or dug up at Amarаvatи and these are being noticed in the Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy for the year 1959-60. The most important among these epigraphs is a fragmentary record on the side face of a sand stone slab apparently cut out from an inscribed pillar of the Aщokan type probably for the purpose of using it as a stepping stone. It is stated to have been a surface find and was traced in the house of an inhabitant of the area near the great Stуpa at Amarаvatи. This inscription is edited in the following lines. The inscribed side of the slab measures about 10 inches in length and 17 inches in height.
Although the contents of the fragmentary inscription do not exactly tally with those of any of the known edicts of Aщoka, as will be seen below, the record certainly looks like an as yet unknown pillar edict of the Maurya king Aщoka (c. 269-232 B.C.). If its ascription to the Maurya king is justified, the record under study is the first pillar inscription of Aщoka so far discovered in South India.
In the first line of the inscription, we can read para[r]ta(tra)abh[i] which is followed by a damaged s so that the second word may be abhisita. Both these words, viz. 'paratra, 'in the future world', and abhisita (Sanskrit abhiшikta, 'anointed'), are often found in the inscriptions of Aщoka, although not both together in the same sentence. Since it is difficult to accommodate the ideas expressed by the two words in the same context, we may suggest a full stop between them. The most important linguistic and palaeographical feature of this line of writing is probably noticed in the word paratra in which tra appears to be written as rta. Both these features are found in the language and palaeography of the Girnar edicts of Aщoka and have not yet been noticed elsewhere.[See pаrarti(tri)kаya in Girnar, X, line 3, which is found in Aщoka's other records as pаlatikаya (Dhauli, Jaugada and Erragudi), pаlaмtikаye (Kalsi) and paratrikaye (Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra)]
The second line reads [dha] kho likhite [me] in which dha seems to be the second letter of idha so that the words of the sentence stand for Sanskrit iha khalu likhitaм mayа, 'indeed [it] has been written here by me'. The style of the sentence is no doubt clearly Aщokan and all the four words are found in Aщoka's edicts. It is also well known that the fact of writing down the edicts and getting them inscribed on stone (i.e. rocks and pillars) is often referred to in the known edicts of Aщoka. The word kho (Sanskrit khalu) is quite common in Aщoka's records [Cf. Girnar, IX, lines 3 and 7; X, line 4; Kalsi, IX, line 25; X, line 28; XIII, line 14; Shahbazgarhi, VI, line 16: IX, line 18; X, line 22; XIII, line 11; Mansehra, VII, line 32; IX, lines 3 and 4; X, line 11; Dhauli, IX, line 3; Jaugada, IX, lines 2, 3 and 5; Pillar Edicts (Topra), I, line 5; III, line 19: VII, line 30; Sarnath, line 3; Calcutta-Bairat, line 3; Brahmagiri, lines 2 and 4; Siddhapura, lines 5, 6 and 9; Jatinga Ramesvara, line 4], but is rare in other Prakrit inscriptions. The word idha occurs several times in the Girnar Rock Edicts (e.g. I, line 2; VI, line 12; XIII, lines 8 and 9) and once in Rock Edict IV at Dhauli.
The third line has jano bahуnи, 'the people . . . . many . . . .' and both the words jana and bahu are found many times in the records of Asoka. The form jano in masc. nom. sing. occurs in Girnar, VII, line 2; IX, lines 1 and 2; X, line 1; XIII, line 5; XIV, line 4; and also in Shahbazgarhi VII, line 3; IX, line 18; XIII, line 6. The other word appears in the forms bahuni and bahуni in most versions of the edicts of Aщoka.
Line 4 has anusuyaмti sa followed by a damaged letter which may probably be read as [me]. This would stand in Sanskrit as anuщochanti tat mayа, '[They] regret. Therefore . . . . . by me.' The verb anusu may also stand for Sanskrit anuщru, 'to hear repeatedly as from a sacred authority'. In that case, anuщrуyante tat mayа would mean '[The texts] are, therefore, heard
by me repeatedly.' If there is really any reference to religious texts, they may of course be the dharma-paryаyas enumerated in the Calcutta-Bairat Minor Rock Edict [CII, Vol. I, p. 172 f.]. This would then show that the inscription under study is almost certainly an Aщokan edict. Whatever, however, may be the interpretation of the passage, it is in perfect Aщokan style, though the word anusuyaмti is not found in the inscriptions of Aщoka so far discovered.
Line 5 has ra chhijiti vijaye (Sanskrit . . . chhidyate vijaye), in which chhijiti means 'is broken or cut or destroyed' and vijaye, 'in conquest', i.e. 'when one gets a victory [in a battle or war]'. The word vijaye may also be regarded as standing for Sanskrit vijayaх masc. nom. sing. instead of masc. loc. sing. This word reminds us of the concluding part of Rock Edict XIII wherein Aщoka denounces the conquest of peoples by arms and applauds the conquest of their hearts through Dharma and wherein the word vijaya occurs several times. The word chhijiti, however, is not noticed in the known inscriptions of Aщoka.
The extant aksharas of line 6 are [pi cha] mame(ma) pi (Sanskrit api cha mama api, 'and then again of myself also'). The last three aksharas may also be read as m[а]m=api, 'me too'; but that is less likely since, in that sense, maм pi would probably be the proper expression in an inscription of Aщoka (cf. maм for Sanskrit mаm in Pillar Edict VI). The first three letters of line 7 look like pi tata probably standing for Sanskrit api tatra, 'too . . . . .there'.
This is in consonance with the Buddhist tradition that the said Maurya emperor built no less than eighty four thousand Stуpas throughout his empire[Smith, Early History of India, 1924, p. 172.]. The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen-tsang, who travelled in India in the first half of the seventh century A.D., says that he found a Stуpa built by Asoka as far south as Kагchиpura near Madras [Watters, On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, Vol II, p. 226.]. Hiuen-tsang also visited the headquarters of the country called T'e-na-ka-che-ka (i.e. Dhаnyakaтaka, i.e. Dharaнikoтa near Amarаvatи) or Ta-An-to-lo (i.e. Great Andhra) [Ibid., pp. 214, 216; Cunningham, Geography of Ancient India, p. 622. Hiuen-tsang places the Pуrva-щaila and Aparaщaila to the east and west of the capital of the country.]. He does not speak of any Aщoka Stуpa there, though he refers to one Aщoka Stуpa at Ping-k'i-lo (probably Ping-k'i-pu-lo, i.e. Vengиpura), the capital of the neighbouring An-to-lo or Andhra country, and another at the capital of the Chu-li-ya country, i.e. the territory of the Telugu-Choжas[Ibid., pp. 209, 224. The pilgrim saw an Aщoka Stуpa at the capital of Kaliкga, probably at Kaliкganagara, modern Mukhaliкgam near Щrиkаkuлam (ibid., p. 198), but may not have visited Sаlihuндаm, in the Srikakulam District, where also there was probably a Stуpa built by Aщoka according to an early tradition (above, Vol. XXXI, p. 88, note 2)]. But the silence of the Chinese pilgrim regarding the existence of a Stуpa built by Aщoka at Dhаnyakaтaka or Amarаvatи cannot of course be regarded as definitely proving that none actually existed there. The present inscription seems to suggest that the Amarаvatи Stуpa was built by Aщoka about the middle of the third century B.C.