The Date of the Sanskrit Inscription of Vo-canh
Summary
The article examines the dating of a Sanskrit inscription from Vo‑canh (South Annam) and debates its chronology. Dr. Dines Chandra Sircar proposed in the Journal of the Greater India Society that the inscription belongs to the early fourth century CE. He argued that palaeographical evidence supports a post‑third‑century date. Earlier scholars, including A. Bergaigne, had dated the inscription to the second or third century CE. Bergaigne noted that the inscription’s metre and palaeography resemble those of the Girnar inscription of Rudradaman and suggested that the Vo‑canh record might predate the fourth century. The author critiques Sircar’s reliance on metre and suggests that the use of Sanskrit metre such as Vasantatilaka does not necessarily indicate a late date. He points out that Sanskrit kavya metre was already fully developed in the first century CE, citing recently published Brahmi inscriptions from Mathura with stanzas in the Bhujangavijrmbhita metre. If complex metres were engraved on stone by the early first century, there is less reason to assume that the Vo‑canh inscription must be fourth century. The article examines Dr. Sircar’s argument that Sanskrit was not widely used in Indo‑Chinese inscriptions until later periods. The author counters that relations between India and Indo‑China were active and frequent; Sanskrit and its literary forms could have spread rapidly. He notes that there was no long Prakrit tradition in Indo‑China, so Sanskrit adoption might have occurred earlier. He also cites Chinese historical sources linking the line of Mara mentioned in the inscription to the early kingdom of Fou‑nan, suggesting a date around 192 CE. Ultimately, the article favours a second‑ or early third‑century date for the Vo‑canh inscription. It emphasises that palaeographic evidence alone should not be dismissed and that multiple lines of evidence—metre, linguistic forms, historical synchronisms—should be considered. The debate demonstrates the complexities of dating early South‑East Asian inscriptions and underscores the need for cautious interpretation of isolated epigraphic data.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The author concludes that Dr. Sircar’s proposal to lower the date of the Vo‑canh inscription to the fourth century is unconvincing. The use of elaborate Sanskrit metres and the broader historical context of Indo‑Chinese relations imply that Sanskrit inscriptions could appear much earlier. By comparing the Vo‑canh text with the Girnar inscription and considering Chinese historical references, the author argues for a date no later than the early third century and possibly as early as the second century CE. This conclusion emphasises the need to balance palaeographic evidence with linguistic and historical considerations when dating early inscriptions.