DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36954#0104
where he could photograph inscriptions and drawings, some of
which have been published by STEIN (1944). The year of the
publication by the end of the second world war seems to have
been as much in the way of an immediate recognition of the
value of this material as the political upheaval following the
partition of British India, by which the inaccessibility of this
area due to poor means of communication was increased, and
hindered any systematic research.
The next important discovery, though not recognized as such im-
mediately, was the inscription at Danyor, seen for the first time
by K. JETTMAR in 1958, while staying in the fJpper Indus
region as a member of an Austrian mountaineering expedition,
long before he discovered the first drawings on rocks near Thor
in 1975 (JETTMAR 1980a: 186). Earlier, in 1955, P. SNOY had
seen some graffiti in Kharosthi and Brahmi not too far from Gil-
git at Alam Bridge. It took more than twenty years before this
group of inscriptions was published finally in the pioneering
article by G. FUSSMAN: Inscriptions de Gilgit (1978)h
The beginning of a systematic collection and documentation of
inscriptions and drawings, however, was made possible only since
the Karakorum Highway has been completed and opened during
the winter 1978/79. Although it is by far too early to attempt
even a first survey of what has been found so faP, it may be use-
ful nevertheless to publish some of those inscriptions which may
prove to be of special value for tracing the history and culture
along the ancient Upper Indus Valley, even if a final evaluation is
not possible at present. Besides the limitations resulting from the
content of the inscriptions presented here, generally only those
have been taken into consideration, which I have inspected
myself on the spot. They are supplemented occasionally by
inscriptions accessible to me merely as photographs. In spite of
1 For comments on this edition see HUMBACH 1980; 100, no. 5,34
should be read sn ^armo instead of sn r//7arwa with a superscript wa;
104, no. 21,15 on srf^yasota^a cf. v. H1NUBER 1983a: 273; HUM-
BACH 1980: 105, no. 21,16, read srfrg/?a- (?) with Dardic metathesis of
liquids instead of sfg^ra-.
2 A comprehensive, though perhaps somewhat rash and premature inter-
pretation has been published by DANI 1983.
42
which have been published by STEIN (1944). The year of the
publication by the end of the second world war seems to have
been as much in the way of an immediate recognition of the
value of this material as the political upheaval following the
partition of British India, by which the inaccessibility of this
area due to poor means of communication was increased, and
hindered any systematic research.
The next important discovery, though not recognized as such im-
mediately, was the inscription at Danyor, seen for the first time
by K. JETTMAR in 1958, while staying in the fJpper Indus
region as a member of an Austrian mountaineering expedition,
long before he discovered the first drawings on rocks near Thor
in 1975 (JETTMAR 1980a: 186). Earlier, in 1955, P. SNOY had
seen some graffiti in Kharosthi and Brahmi not too far from Gil-
git at Alam Bridge. It took more than twenty years before this
group of inscriptions was published finally in the pioneering
article by G. FUSSMAN: Inscriptions de Gilgit (1978)h
The beginning of a systematic collection and documentation of
inscriptions and drawings, however, was made possible only since
the Karakorum Highway has been completed and opened during
the winter 1978/79. Although it is by far too early to attempt
even a first survey of what has been found so faP, it may be use-
ful nevertheless to publish some of those inscriptions which may
prove to be of special value for tracing the history and culture
along the ancient Upper Indus Valley, even if a final evaluation is
not possible at present. Besides the limitations resulting from the
content of the inscriptions presented here, generally only those
have been taken into consideration, which I have inspected
myself on the spot. They are supplemented occasionally by
inscriptions accessible to me merely as photographs. In spite of
1 For comments on this edition see HUMBACH 1980; 100, no. 5,34
should be read sn ^armo instead of sn r//7arwa with a superscript wa;
104, no. 21,15 on srf^yasota^a cf. v. H1NUBER 1983a: 273; HUM-
BACH 1980: 105, no. 21,16, read srfrg/?a- (?) with Dardic metathesis of
liquids instead of sfg^ra-.
2 A comprehensive, though perhaps somewhat rash and premature inter-
pretation has been published by DANI 1983.
42