C., and
to the establishment of the boundaries of originality between the
different systems.
APPENDIX A.
Copies of the mutilated inscriptions referred to, were published by
General Sir A. Cunningham in his _Archaeological Survey Reports_,
vol. III, plates xiii-xv. Unfortunately they have been presented from
'copies' and are therefore full of errors, which are due for the most
part, doubtless, to the copyist and not to the sculptor. It is not
difficult, however, in most cases under consideration here, to restore the
correct reading. Usually only vowel signs are omitted or misread and,
here, and there, consonants closely resembling one another as _va_
and _cha, va_, and _dha, ga_ and _['s]a, la_ and _na_
are interchanged.
The formulae of the inscriptions are almost universally the same. First
comes the date, then follows the name of a reverend teacher, next, the
mention of the school and the subdivision of it to which he belonged. Then
the persons, who dedicated the statues are named (mostly women), and who
belonged to the community of the said teacher. The description of the gift
forms the conclusion. The dialect of the inscriptions shows that curious
mixture of Sansk[r.][)i]t and Prak[r.][)i]t which is found in almost all
documents of the Indo-Skythian kings, and whichas Dr. Hoernle was the
first to recognise--was one of the literary languages of northern and
northwestern India during the first centuries before and after the
commencement of our era.
Pages:
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66