|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
13 munnūru nēla Mā- TRANSLATION Hail ! Prosperity ! In the 5th year of the increasing victorious reign of Pōrmukharāma Puṇyakumāra Prithivīvallabha Chōlamahārāja, (queen) Vasantipōri─Chōlamahādēvī gave to the people of the flower garden (pūlla-vaṭṭam) in the (temple of) Vasantīśvara in Tārumunru, land of the extent of three hundred (mattars ?) by the royal measure including two gardens in the field belonging to Viriparu, Mārpiḍugu Raṭṭaguḷḷu being the āṇati (i.e., Ājñapti). He who destroys this gift (incurs the sin of) killing 1000 Brāhmaṇas at Vārāṇasi (Benares). The black-smith (kammari) of Gaṭṭu-Viriparu, Viniyaṇa, wrote this.
H. Chilamakuru Inscription of Vikramaditya Chola-Maharaja II This inscription (No. 400 of 1904 of the Madras Epigraphical Collection), which is damaged towards the ends, is engraved on one of the three faces of a pillar that once stood in front of the Agastyēśvara temple at Chilamakūru, Kamalapuram taluk, Cuddapah district. The stone has since been removed to the Madras Museum. The other two faces of the pillar contain two other inscriptions which mention a certain Baṇḍaya but are not issued in the name of any ruling king. Some words of linguistic interest are found in the record. The word Sāmantakamuḷ in lines 6-7 affords another instance, like dēvuḷ in line 5, of the use of the honorific plural for sāmantakam or ºkamu. The word tēni in line 21 is used either for dēni or dīni, meaning ‘ which ’ or ‘ this ’ respectively. The distinction between t and d which exists in Sanskrit, does not appear to have been observed in early Telugu, a feature which is also characteristic of other Dravidian languages. Lines 4-5 which seem to have been read as Eḷañchōlamahādēvuḷ as reported in the Epigraphical Report for the year 1905, have been re-read here as ēḷan-Chōlamahādēvuḷ so as to comprise two words and not one compound word taken to refer to ‘ a queen of Eḷanchōḷa ’. The inscription abounds in archaic Telugu words, the meaning of some of which it has not been possible to determine exactly. The record reveals a few peculiarities of palaeographical interest. The letter which has been read as the final l in -jul of line 4 is worth noting. It is not certain if the letter stands for the final l as a sign of rēpha is found attached to it, rl. It is possible that the medial vowel sign n has been omitted to be attached to rl in which case the letter intended would be rlu the honorific plural suffix of Rāju (Rājurlu). The distinction between the short e and the long ē, initial, is not indicated, e.g., in ēḷan in line 4. The distinction does not arise in Sanskrit as the short e has no ______________________________ [1] Space for two lines left between lines 20 and 21, but there are no traces of writing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
