|
Contents |
|
Index
|
|
Introduction
|
|
Contents
|
|
List of Plates
|
|
Additions and Corrections
|
|
Images
|
|
Contents |
|
Altekar, A. S
|
Bhattasali, N. K
|
|
Barua, B. M And Chakravarti, Pulin Behari
|
|
Chakravarti, S. N
|
|
Chhabra, B. CH
|
|
Das Gupta
|
|
Desai, P. B
|
|
Gai, G. S
|
|
Garde, M. B
|
|
Ghoshal, R. K
|
|
Gupte, Y. R
|
|
Kedar Nath Sastri
|
|
Khare, G. H
|
|
Krishnamacharlu, C. R
|
|
Konow, Sten
|
|
Lakshminarayan Rao, N
|
|
Majumdar, R. C
|
|
Master, Alfred
|
|
Mirashi, V. V
|
|
Mirashi, V. V., And Gupte, Y. R
|
|
Narasimhaswami, H. K
|
|
Nilakanta Sastri And Venkataramayya, M
|
|
Panchamukhi, R. S
|
|
Pandeya, L. P
|
|
Raghavan, V
|
|
Ramadas, G
|
|
Sircar, Dines Chandra
|
|
Somasekhara Sarma
|
|
Subrahmanya Aiyar
|
|
Vats, Madho Sarup
|
|
Venkataramayya, M
|
|
Venkatasubba Ayyar
|
|
Vaidyanathan, K. S
|
|
Vogel, J. Ph
|
|
Index.- By M. Venkataramayya
|
|
Other
South-Indian Inscriptions
|
|
Volume
1
|
Volume
2
|
|
Volume
3
|
Vol.
4 - 8
|
|
Volume 9
|
Volume 10
|
|
Volume 11
|
Volume 12
|
|
Volume 13
|
Volume
14
|
|
Volume 15
|
Volume 16
|
|
Volume 17
|
Volume 18
|
|
Volume
19
|
Volume
20
|
|
Volume 22
Part 1
|
Volume
22
Part 2
|
|
Volume
23
|
Volume
24 |
|
Volume
26
|
Volume 27 |
|
Tiruvarur
|
Darasuram
|
|
Konerirajapuram
|
Tanjavur |
|
Annual Reports 1935-1944
|
Annual Reports 1945- 1947
|
|
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2
|
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3
|
|
Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1
|
Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2
|
|
Epigraphica Indica
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 3
|
|
Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 6
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 7
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 8
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 27
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 29
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 30
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 31
|
|
Epigraphia Indica Volume 32
|
Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2
|
|
Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2
|
Vākāṭakas Volume 5
|
|
Early Gupta Inscriptions
|
|
Archaeological
Links
|
|
Archaeological-Survey
of India
|
|
Pudukkottai
|
|
|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
reason for such a belief. Nevertheless, considering the similarity in sound, one is tempted to ask
oneself if both the rivulet and the village are not named after the goddess Śaṅkarā, mentioned
in the present inscription. Dr. Bhandarkar has rightly pointed out that Śaṅkarā ‘on doubt,
appears to be the correct and original name of the goddess, and not Śākambharī by which she is
at present known.’1
Dr. Bhandarkar’s observations with regard to the caste of some of the members of the bankers’
association as well as to the invocatory stanzas of the inscription are based on the information
locally gathered and are hence very valuable. They are, therefore, quoted here in full. “One
of the gōshṭhikas, i.e., members of the temple supervision committee, was the Śrēshṭhī Maṇḍana
of the Dhūsara family. The surname Dhūsara is still well-known in the Jaipur State, but persons
bearing this surname call themselves Bhārgava Brāhmaṇas, though they are suspected by the
people to have been originally banias. But the popular suspicion, I think, is shewn to be a fact
by our inscription, for Maṇḍana Dhūsara is called a Śrēshṭhī, i.e., Śēṭ or Sēṭh, which
title is borne
by none but the bania class. Another gōshṭhika of the temple was the Śrēshṭhī Garga of the Dharkkaṭa family. I have shewn elsewhere that the name Dharkkaṭa has survived in the slightly altered form Dhākaḍ, a sub-division of the Osvāls. Curiously enough, the initial portion of this
inscription is also worth pondering over. It invokes the blessings of three deities, first of Gaṇapati,
next of Chaṇḍikā, and lastly of Dhanada, i.e., Kubēra. It is worthy of note that here Chaṇḍikā
is placed between Gaṇapati and Kubēra, and no doubt reminds one of the figures on the pedestal
of the shrine of Piplād mātā in Osiā. Of these last the central figure is that of Mahishāsuramardinī,
a form of Chaṇḍikā, and she is flanked by Kubēra and Gaṇapati on the right and left respectively.
When I was at the temple in Sakrāī, I was not allowed to go into the shrine and inspect the images,
which are well-nigh concealed under garments, but I was simply told that the goddess was Mahishā
suramardinī, and had none by her sides.”2
The following is the table, showing the donors’ names, parentage, etc. :─
No. |
Donor |
Donor’s
Father |
Donor’s
Grandfather |
Donor’s
Family |
1 |
Maṇḍana |
Rāma |
Yaśōvardhana |
Dhūsara |
2 |
Garga |
Madvana |
Maṇḍana |
Dharkkaṭa |
3 |
Gaṇāditya |
Vardhana |
Bhaṭṭiyaka |
Do. |
4 |
Dēvalla |
Do. |
Do. |
Do. |
5 |
Śiva |
Tatta |
|
|
6 |
Śaṅkara |
Vishṇuvāka |
|
|
7 |
Maṇḍubāka |
Ādityavardhana |
|
|
8 |
Ādityanāga |
Vōdda |
|
|
9 |
Bhadra |
Naddhaka |
|
|
10 |
Udyōtana |
Jēulla |
|
|
11 |
Śāṅkara |
Śōndhaka |
|
|
The record is dated. However, in the absence of full details, the given date cannot be verified. The year is expressed only by numerical symbols, which Dr. Bhandarkar has read as 879.
__________________________
[1] Ibid.
[2] Ibid., pp. 56-7.
|
