South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

The characters belong to the northern class of alphabets. They bear a striking resemblance to those of the Madhuban plate of Harsha1 and, in a lesser degree, also to those of the Kudārkoṭ stone inscription.2 This resemblance is a significant point inasmuch as it has a great bearing on the question of the date of the present inscription to be discussed below. Prof. Kielhorn’s remarks regarding the palaeography of the Madhuban plate generally hold good in the case of our record as well. Still it may not be out of place here to draw attention to some of the outstanding characteristics of the script. The form of ṇ, for instance, may easily be confused with that of l, as may be illustrated by vidalita-dvēshiṇaś=Chaṇḍikāyāḥ and -nīl-ōtpal-ābhō mukuṭa-maṇi-, l. 2. A medial ā is usually expressed by a pṛishṭhamātrā. In a few instances, however, it is denoted by a śirōmātrā, which, like medial i, ī, ē, etc., is ornamentally treated, as may be seen in –chāp-ānuviddhō, l. 2. A superscript r occasionally occurs on the line, while generally it is placed above the line. The two varieties are typified in Garggō dharma-, l. 4. The sign for jh, which is of rare occurrence, is met with in -jhaṅkāritaṁ. l. 1. The forms of jā in pūjā, l. 2 ; of jñ in saṁjñakē, l. 3 ; of rtha in atgarthaṁ, l. 5 ; and of stha in -sthalaṁ, l. 1, are equally noteworthy.

The language of the record is Sanskrit. Its composition is in verse, except for a few words, expressing the date, at the end. As regards orthography, the following points deserve notice. A b is expressed throughout by the sign for v, except in Maṇḍubākō, l. 6. An anusvāra occasionally takes the place of a class nasal, as in raṁjitaḥ, l. 2. Conversely, it is substituted by ṅ in the word raṅśa, ll. 3, 4 and 5. A consonant after r is usually ‘ lengthened’ or reduplicated, as in Mahāgaṇapatēr=mmukhaṁ, l. 1. Visarga is changed to upadhmānīya in –talāyāh prabhrashṭ-, l. 1. An anusvāraat the end of a verse or a half-verse is retained as such, and not reverted as m as it should. In vaṇik=Chhivaś=, l. 6, we have a wrong sandhi, and in mahad-dyutiḥ, l. 6, an irregular samāsa. Phonetically, the syncopated forms ujvalē, l. 3, satv-, l. 5, -ōdyōta-, l. 1, and -Ōdyō[tana ?], l. 6, are worthy of note. Such forms, with one of the twin consonants omitted, are recognized by certain lexicographers as correct. The forms udyōta and Udyōtana can, in fact, be justified by supposing a different derivation.3 The syncopation of one tin prāpnōtvatyarthaṁ, l. 5, is, on the other hand, very misleading. It may prima facie be taken for prāpnōtu + atyarthaṁ, whereas in reality it is to be constructed as prāpnōt + tu + atyarthaṁ, as required by the context. Ananditau for aninditau, l. 6, is obviously a slip on the part of the scribe.

The object of the inscription is to record the construction of a maṇḍapa in front of the goddess Śaṅkarā by an association or a committee, composed of eleven members, all of whom were bankers. Their names, parentage, etc., are given in the inscription and appear below, arranged in a tabular form.

The expression surāṇāṁ maṇḍap-ōttamaḥ, ‘ excellent pavilion of gods’, leads one to think that the pavilion was intended to receive images of various secondary deities by the side of the principal divinity that was Śaṅkarādēvī. And the fact that eleven different members of a wealthy community jointly put up that structure warrants, as it were, that it was not a mean addition to the temple of Śaṅkarādēvī. Possibly what was dedicated by the śrēshṭhins was not a bare pavilion, but a pavilion cum images of various gods, each properly installed in its respective niche. However, such details as these can no longer be verified ; for, according to Dr. Bhandarkar’s report on the temple in question, very little of the original structures now survives.4

In his report just referred to, Dr. Bhandarkar has expressed the opinion that the village of Sakrāī is named after the rivulet called Śarkarā. And this view has been cited in the opening paragraph of this essay, too. Dr. Bhandarkar, who personally inspected the site, must have good

__________________________

^[1] Above, Vol. VII, pp. 155 ff. and plate.
^[2] Above, Vol. I, pp. 179 ff. and plate.
^[3] See below, p. 31, n. 9.
^[4]PRASIWC for the year ending 31st March 1910, p. 56.