DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36958#0226
indication of a Buddhist origin of the inscription may be found in
line 3, where LlVSlC follows MÜLLER and BENVENISTE in reading
cyfitü, supposedly an otherwise unattested variant of the common
word cyAr "inside". This reading too is unacceptable, since the
second letter leans the wrong way to be ay (see PI 4b, 5a). A
more likely reading is possibly representing Caitra, a com-
mon Sanskrit personal name which may also be attested in a pre-
viously unpublished inscription on a neighbouring rock. Unfortuna-
tely the beginning of this latter inscription (No 11, see PI 13),
which consists of a single word, is obscured by gigantic Tibetan let-
ters of later date, but the end of the word seems to be closely
comparable, even in ductus, with that in the main inscription, so
that it is plausible to suppose that they may both have been writ-
ten by the same man.
If is rightly interpreted as a name, it follows that inscription
No 2 does not name one person but two, Caitra and Nösh-farn, in
which case the word following the second name, which appears to
be T! (PI 5b, 6a), may perhaps be interpreted as a variant of the
rare postposition âja/ïë "together with"/ The two men whose
names are thus linked together may be joint subjects of the verb
in line 2 (PI 4b), which need not necessarily be emended to the
first person sg preterite j9Üy{f}ym "I arrived" (as LivsiC sug-
gested) but can be read as the first person pi imperfectymlsym "we
sent" or (perhaps) "we were sent"/ It is probably Caitra rather
than Nösh-farn who is referred to as "Samarkandian",
since the ethnic adjective would normally follow rather than
precede the personal name. As a Sogdian bearing an Indian name
he must surely have been a Buddhist. Whether the title im/ry
"monk" belongs with the preceding or the following name is de-
batable, since one can find parallels for either word-order/ but
7 See SlMS-WlLLLAMS-HAMILTON 1990: 73, note G15.4. BENVENISTE's reading
yA, accepted by LlVSlC, must be rejected for the same reason as cynA: the
second ietter leans backwards rather than forward as a y should.
8 Assuming that y/yi, imperfect y'yy, may derive from a (secondary) passive
stem */A-uy%- as well as from the active ^mzAym. Another possibility to be
considered is that the word is a personal name with ym "glory" as its prior
component.
9 Eg uy/A Amy (HENNING 1944: 138, 1. 30), but Amy y7;yy7; (YOSHI-
DA-MORIYASU 1988: 5, H. 3 and 6).
154
line 3, where LlVSlC follows MÜLLER and BENVENISTE in reading
cyfitü, supposedly an otherwise unattested variant of the common
word cyAr "inside". This reading too is unacceptable, since the
second letter leans the wrong way to be ay (see PI 4b, 5a). A
more likely reading is possibly representing Caitra, a com-
mon Sanskrit personal name which may also be attested in a pre-
viously unpublished inscription on a neighbouring rock. Unfortuna-
tely the beginning of this latter inscription (No 11, see PI 13),
which consists of a single word, is obscured by gigantic Tibetan let-
ters of later date, but the end of the word seems to be closely
comparable, even in ductus, with that in the main inscription, so
that it is plausible to suppose that they may both have been writ-
ten by the same man.
If is rightly interpreted as a name, it follows that inscription
No 2 does not name one person but two, Caitra and Nösh-farn, in
which case the word following the second name, which appears to
be T! (PI 5b, 6a), may perhaps be interpreted as a variant of the
rare postposition âja/ïë "together with"/ The two men whose
names are thus linked together may be joint subjects of the verb
in line 2 (PI 4b), which need not necessarily be emended to the
first person sg preterite j9Üy{f}ym "I arrived" (as LivsiC sug-
gested) but can be read as the first person pi imperfectymlsym "we
sent" or (perhaps) "we were sent"/ It is probably Caitra rather
than Nösh-farn who is referred to as "Samarkandian",
since the ethnic adjective would normally follow rather than
precede the personal name. As a Sogdian bearing an Indian name
he must surely have been a Buddhist. Whether the title im/ry
"monk" belongs with the preceding or the following name is de-
batable, since one can find parallels for either word-order/ but
7 See SlMS-WlLLLAMS-HAMILTON 1990: 73, note G15.4. BENVENISTE's reading
yA, accepted by LlVSlC, must be rejected for the same reason as cynA: the
second ietter leans backwards rather than forward as a y should.
8 Assuming that y/yi, imperfect y'yy, may derive from a (secondary) passive
stem */A-uy%- as well as from the active ^mzAym. Another possibility to be
considered is that the word is a personal name with ym "glory" as its prior
component.
9 Eg uy/A Amy (HENNING 1944: 138, 1. 30), but Amy y7;yy7; (YOSHI-
DA-MORIYASU 1988: 5, H. 3 and 6).
154