South Indian Inscriptions

Contents
Index
Introduction
Contents
List of Plates
Additions and Corrections
Images
Contents
Chaudhury, P.D.
Chhabra, B.ch.
DE, S. C.
Desai, P. B.
Dikshit, M. G.
Krishnan, K. G.
Desai, P. B
Krishna Rao, B. V.
Lakshminarayan Rao, N., M.A.
Mirashi, V. V.
Narasimhaswami, H. K.
Pandeya, L. P.,
Sircar, D. C.
Venkataramayya, M., M.A.,
Venkataramanayya, N., M.A.
Index-By A. N. Lahiri
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

BHADRAK INSCRIPTION OF GANA ; REGNAL YEAR 8

(1 Plate)

D. C. SIRCAR, OOTACAMUND

Sometime about the middle of the year 1951, reports reached me that Mr. S. C. De, Curator of Archives, attached to the Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar, had found an inscribed stone in the Vicinity of the well-known town of Bhadrak in the Balasore District of Orissa. I also learnt that the stone, believed to have been originally the lintel of the door of a temple, had been secured for the Orissa State Museum and brought to Bhubaneswar. I wrote to the authorities of the Museum requesting them to send me a few impressions of the inscription for examination ; un-

_________________________________________________

^[1] Chakravarti reads : yathādisati viditam=astu bhavatāṁ Gōulō-khaṇḍa, but takes the name of the subdivision to be Ulōkhaṇḍa.
^[2] Chakravarti reads : sambandhaḥ Pajāragrāma sayari karataḥ sō dēśa sa.º
^[3] Read sambaddha.
^[4] Read s-ōparikaraḥ.
^[5] Chakravarti reads : ºrbba-vādhā-vivarjita chatuśraya simā laya parīka.
^[6] Read vādhā-vivarjitaś=chatuḥ-sīma-valaya-parikṛiti.
^[7] Chakravarti reads : rata paryantaḥ | karastaru pla 10 Āviddhā.º
^[8] The daṇḍa is superfluous.
^[9] Read śāsanatvēna dattaḥ.
^[10] I.e., rūpya-palāni daśa.
^[11] Chakravarti reads : vinirgata Bhaṭa-putra Vēlukasya āṇa.
^[12] The shashṭhī vibhakti is preferred apparently because Vēlluka received the village (possibly by purchase) as a kara-śāsana and not as a revenue-free gift.
^[13] Read sutasya.
^[14] Read taṭākānāṁ.
^[15] Read śatāni cha.
^[16] The reading intended is yasya yasya yadā bhūmis=tasya tasya tadā phalam. The first half of the stanza is inadvertently omitted.
^[17] The intended reading is Mā bhūd=a-phala-śaṅkā, etc.
^[18] The intended reading is sva-dānāt=phalam=ānantyaṁ, etc.
^[19] The reading intended is Sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā, etc.
^[20] The second half of the stanza could not be completed owing to want of space.

Page 102 - >>

<< - 100 Page

Home Page