TUTORIAL: [M21410 Epigraphy-I] Prepare an illustrated project on aspects of cultural or intellectual history available in any inscription or set of inscriptions of your choice from premodern India.

COURSE NAME: M21410 Epigraphy-I
M. A. SEMESTER 1
TUTORIAL 2
TUTORIAL TOPIC: Prepare an illustrated project on aspects of cultural or intellectual history available in any inscription or set of inscriptions of your choice from premodern India.
SUBMITTED BY: Pranav Kushwaha
[DISCLAIMER: The following tutorial is being shared so students of CHS, JNU can get some idea regarding how a tutorial is to be written. This tutorial is by no means of high quality, and you might find some factual, spelling, and grammatical errors. Please refer to the BIBLIOGRAPHY section and the ENDNOTES for verifying the contents of the tutorial and for further study.

In the original file that I submitted, (i) the numbers in the square brackets were used to denote footnotes and were written in superscripts, and (ii) there was no dedicated section titled 'Endnotes', as each page contained footnotes. Endnotes are acceptable, but I'd advise you to use footnotes instead. Better yet, confirm from your professor what is required.]

                       

INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE SĪTĀBEṄGĀ AND THE JOGĪMĀRĀ CAVES

The Sītābeṅgā and the Jogīmārā caves are situated on the western slope of the northern part of Ramgarh Hill in Sirguja*, Chhattisgarh. To reach the caves, one has to go through a natural tunnel that is 180 feet long** (54.864 metres, approximately). The ceiling of the tunnel is so high that an elephant can pass through the tunnel, thereby giving it the name Hāthipol***. The Sītābeṅgā Cave lies towards the north while the Jogīmārā Cave lies towards the south.[1]

 

The Sītābeṅgā Cave is considered as “oldest existing performance space” or a theatre, belonging to the third century BCE.[2] The architecture of the cave supports this function of the cave, that it was used as a theatre for conducting plays. At the entrance of the cave, the rock has been cut in such a way as to give the impression of steps or benches, which would have been used to seat the spectators as the performances took place in front of them. These hemispherical rows of rock-cut seats, each row a little higher than the other, with semi-circular pathways in between the rows form a structure resembling an amphitheatre. The rising rows of rock-cut seats lead into the interior of the cave. Thus, the performance took place in front of the cave, where a stage was erected, and the backs of the spectators faced the interior of the cave. A couple of holes have been found in the ground near the cave entrance. Wooden poles would have been fixed in these holes, and a piece of cloth – acting as a curtain – would have been fastened to these poles to act as a barrier against the chilling wind and other environmental factors. Such an arrangement would have made it possible to continue the entertainment as the audience would have stepped inside the cave while the performances would have continued against the backdrop of the “curtain”.[3]

Figure 1. Front view of the Sītābeṅgā cave (black & white). Source: Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, Plate XLIII (c), p. 124.

Figure 2. Sītābeṅgā Cave: Section (black & white). Source: Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, p. 127.

This structure of the cave, which resembles an amphitheatre, has been linked to a Greek influence by Bloch. He later argues that the interaction with the Greeks would have influenced the manner in which the people living in the Indian subcontinent shaped their stories and built structures where these performances were conducted.[4] However, scholars like Varadpande[5] and Tripathi[6] dismiss the presence of any Greek influence.

An inscription has been found on the cave wall just below the ceiling. Although the passage of time has affected the readability of the inscription, we can still make out most of what was once inscribed.

Figure 3. Sītābeṅgā Cave inscription (black & white). Source: Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, Plate XLIII (a), p. 124.

Figure 4. Sītābeṅgā Cave Inscription (coloured). Source: Indrajit Bandyopadhyay, Sita Bengra Ambikapur Chhattisgarh Tour, https://www.boloji.com/articles/49492/sita-bengra-ambikapur-chhattisgarh-tour (Retrieved: March 29, 2022).

Figure 5. My transcription of the Sītābeṅgā Cave inscription based on Bloch's initial reading.

Dateable to the third century BCE – but no later than the second century BCE[7], the inscription is in the Prākṛta language. The usage of the Brāhmī script closely resembles the Aśokan version. Bloch has read the inscription as follows:[8]

Line 1: adipayaṁti hadayaṁ | sabhāva-garu kavayo e rātayaṁ …

      अदिपयंति हदयं | सभाव-गरु कवयो ए रातयं 

Line 2: dule vasaṁtiyā | hāsāvānūbhūte | kudasphataṁ evaṁ alaṁ g. [t.]

      दुले वसंतिया | हासावानूभूते | कुदस्फतं एवं अलं ग... [त]

The above, however, is not the final reading that has been done by Bloch. Instead, he argues for a couple of changes, thereby changing kudasphataṁ to kuṁdasphātaṁ (Sanskrit: kunda-sphītaṁ = “thick with jasmine flowers”), and revises alaṁ g. [t] to ālaṁgeṁti (= “to tie, to hang up”).[9] The final reading of the inscription thus becomes:

Line 1: adipayaṁti hadayaṁ | sabhāva-garu kavayo e rātayaṁ …

 अदिपयंति हदयं | सभाव-गरु कवयो ए रातयं

Line 2: dule vasaṁtiyā | hāsāvānūbhūte | kuṁdasphātaṁ evaṁ ālaṁgeṁti

   दुले वसंतिया | हासावानूभूते | कुंदस्फातं एवं आलंगेंति

Bloch gives his final translation as:[10]

Line 1: “Poets venerable by nature kindle the heart, who…”

Line 2: “At the swing-festival of the vernal full-moon, when frolics and music abound, people thus (?) tie (around their necks garlands) thick with jasmine flowers.”

 

The Sītābeṅgā inscription is a lyrical inscription[11], though the metre (chand) is no longer identifiable, probably due to losing its popularity over time.[12] This inscription gives a lively account of the people enjoying themselves during festivities and celebrating with music. The people are moved, if not enchanted, by the verses recited by poets, and the former express their gratitude and reverence by garlanding the latter with jasmine. Bloch links “the swing-festival of the vernal full-moon” with what we now know as Holi, stating that the vernal full-moon falls in the month of Phālguna, and that the festivities associated with this cosmic event are still called the dol-jātrā (=swing festival) in Bengal.[13]

The Jogīmārā Cave is home to one of the earliest painted frescoes. Both the paintings and the inscription are dateable to the third century BCE.[14] The five-line Jogīmārā inscription, that is inscribed below these paintings, is not only lyrical in nature[15], but it is also one of the few inscriptions inscribed in pure Māgadhī. It also resembles more to the “Māgadhī of the grammarians” than to Aśokan Māgadhī due to the “exclusive” usage of ś. Moreover, long vowels like ā, ī, and ū are shortened to a, i, and u.[16]

Figure 6. Jogīmārā Cave inscription (black & white). Source: Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, Plate XLIII (b), p.124

Figure 7. Jogīmārā Cave inscription (black & white (top) and coloured (bottom)). Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/2nd-century_BCE_Jogimara_cave_inscription%2C_Brahmi_script%2C_Chhattisgarh.jpg (Retrieved: March 29, 2022).

Figure 8. Jogīmārā Cave inscription (lines 3 to 5) based on Bloch's as well as my own reading of the inscription.

The first two lines of the inscription have been inscribed in smaller sized letters. Line three has the same content as the first two lines. Lines three to five are inscribed in larger sized letters. Bloch reads the inscription as follows:[17]

Line 1: Śutanuka nama

      शुतनुक नम

Line 2: devadaśikyi ****

      देवदशिकि

Line 3: Śutanuka nama | devadaśikyi |

      शुतनुक नम | देवदशिकि |

Line 4: taṁ kamayitha bal[u]na***** śeye |

      तं कमयिथ बलुन शेये |

Line 5: devadine nama | lupadakhe |

      देवदिने नम | लुपदखे |

Citing Boyer, Bloch translates the names from Māgadhī to Sanskrit, and arrives at the following translation:[18]

Line 1: “Sutanukā by name,

Line 2: “A Devadāsi.

Line 3: “Sutanukā by name, a Devadāsi.

Line 4: “The excellent among young men loved her,

Line 5: “Devadinna by name, skilled in sculpture.”

There is, however, another interpretation offered by Bloch. Due to the unclear nature of some of the inscribed letters, a number of changes in how one reads this inscription are possible. These include changing the meaning of lupadakhe from skilled in sculpture to skilled in painting. This new translation, as suggested by Bloch, is:[19]

“Sutanukā by name, a Devadāsī, made this resting place for girls. Devadinna by name, skilled in painting.”

 

Thus, the Jogīmārā inscription can be interpreted in two ways. According to the first interpretation, Devadinna, a sculptor, and Sutanukā, a devadāsī, were lovers. Perhaps it was Sutanukā who inscribed these words, or perhaps it was Devadinna who engraved this inscription. Or perhaps both of them played some part in the creation of the inscription, commemorating their love, and leaving behind their names for posterity. The occupation of Devadinna, be it a sculptor, a scribe, or an officer related to coinage[20], would have certainly helped, regardless of whether he engraved the inscription himself, whether the couple did it together, or Devadinna paid someone else to do it for them.

There is, however, considerable disagreement regarding the occupation of Sutanukā, who has been described as a devadāsī. Salomon considers her to be a temple prostitute[21], echoing Bloch’s statement that the term devadāsī implies “‘a dancing girl’ probably much the same as gaṇikā”[22]. Singh, on other hand, opines that although the term came to refer to “a temple woman, but its meaning in this early context is uncertain”[23].

The second interpretation shifts the narrative from a love story to one of plain facts and simple commemoration of a job well done. In this interpretation, Sutanukā established or repurposed the cave as a resting place for girls, who were perhaps actresses performing in the dramas that were presented at the nearby Sītābeṅgā cave theatre. There is also the possibility that Sutanukā herself was a dancer and even participated in the performances that were organized at these cave theatres.[24] The role of Devadinna also changes. He goes from being a lover to the artist who made the paintings that adorn the Jogīmārā cave. Thus, the mentioning of his name becomes nothing but a signature.

Either way, the inscription is about Sutanukā, a woman not of royal descent nor a person making a donation to some religious institution. Practically nothing is known about her, except that either she was in love with a sculptor or was simply a common person making arrangements for the residence of theatre performers and dancers, a group she was probably a part of. And no matter which interpretation you prefer, she once crossed paths with Devadinne, and the nature of their encounter was significant enough that both their names were deliberately left behind in stone.

 

 

In other words, regardless of which translation or interpretation seems the most suitable to you, the two inscriptions represent a different and special aspect of the life of the third century BCE. There is no interference of the state, no socio-political manoeuvring to gain the favour of the people, no military expeditions being led for the expansion of state boundaries. The presence of religion – how it shaped and affected the social fabric of the time – cannot be identified either. Instead, these two inscriptions tell us about the normal life of the people. In the absence of any religious obligation, and away from the political control of any ruler, here we see a glimpse of the relatively quiet, everyday life. I’d argue that if and when we separate the historian from the person, we are liable to think of history as something that is already done, complete, solely in the past. We often forget – and the farther we go back, the more detached we become – that even ancient history happened to people, real people who enjoyed themselves in festivities, fell in love, created something for others, and inscribed their names to be remembered for eternity. In a way, it doesn’t matter how many centuries separate us from each other; people are the same at their core, simply existing now just as they existed then. In other words, even though we are separated from each other by several millennia and countless changes have occurred in that time, these common human experiences have remained the same, and therefore, connect us across time. These two inscriptions, in my opinion, excel at signifying this aspect of history and the human nature.

 

 

A NOTE ON THE LANGUAGE USED IN BOTH THE INSCRIPTIONS:

Bloch argues that the language used in the Sītābeṅgā inscription resembles the Śaursenī dialect that was used to write dramas. This inscription is also lyrical, and given the dialect used, could have been the work of a poet. Although both the inscriptions were written around the same time, the person writing the Sītābeṅgā inscription would have enjoyed a higher social status as compared to the person who wrote the Māgadhī inscription of the Jogīmārā cave. He notes that although similar to each other, as both the dialects are different forms of Prākṛta, the Śaursenī dialect was used for the dialogues of people of higher social rank in the dramas, while the Māgadhī dialect was used by characters belonging to a lower position in the social hierarchy. By his own admission, Bloch says that the occurrence of these two different dialects might just be a coincidence, however, it is “curious in any case” and “could not…[go]…unmentioned”.[25]

                       

ENDNOTES

* Also known as Surguja

** Kamalesh Datta Tripathi states the tunnel is 60m long. See, Kalamesh Datta Tripathi, ‘Sitabenga Cave’, in Ananda Lal (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 449.

*** Tripathi gives another spelling variant, i.e., Hatipal.

[1] T. Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions in Rāmgarh Hill’, Archaeological Survey of India: Annual Report 1903-04, Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India, 1906, p. 123.

[2] Goverdhen Panchal, ‘Architecture’, in Ananda Lal (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 16.

[3] Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, pp. 126-27.

[4] Ibid., pp. 127-128.

[5] M. L. Varadpande, Ancient Indian and Indo-Greek Theatre, New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1981, p. 83.

[6] Kalamesh Datta Tripathi, ‘Sitabenga Cave’, in Ananda Lal (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 449.

[7] See, Tripathi, ‘Sitabenga Cave’, p. 449; Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, p. 126.

[8] Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, p. 124. The | has been used for the purpose of punctuation both in the actual inscription and in the readings and translations provided by Bloch.

[9] Ibid., pp. 124-125.

[10] Ibid., p. 125.

[11] Richard Salomon, Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 125.

[12] Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, p. 125.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid, p. 130.

[15] Salomon, Indian Epigraphy, p. 125.

[16] Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, p. 128.

[17] Ibid, pp. 128-129.

**** Bloch has used kyi to express the “palatalized form of k…due to the influence of the preceding vowel i” [see pages 128-129]. My transliteration in Devanāgarī is based on my own reading and understanding of the inscription.

***** Although Bloch writes bal[a]na in the first transcript, he later argues that he “should prefer to… read [balana as] baluna” with Boyer.

[18] Ibid, p. 129.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd, 2016, eBook, eISBN: 9789332569966, p. 50.

[21] Salomon, Indian Epigraphy, p. 141.

[22] Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, p. 129.

[23] Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, p. 50.

[24] Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, pp. 129-130; Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, p. 50.

[25] Bloch, ‘Caves and Inscriptions’, p. 131.

                       

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bloch, T. ‘Caves and Inscriptions in Rāmgarh Hill’, Archaeological Survey of India: Annual Report 1903-04. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India, 1906, pp. 123-131.

Beglar, J. D. Report of Tours in the South-Eastern Provinces in 1874-75 and 1875-76, Volume XIII. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1882.

Brown, Percy. The Heritage of India: Indian Painting. 4^th ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Lal, Ananda, ed. The Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Liu, Siyuan, ed. Routledge Handbook of Asian Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Salomon, Richard. Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd, 2016. eBook. eISBN: 9789332569966.

Varadpande, M. L. Ancient Indian and Indo-Greek Theatre. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1981.