|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
written for medial u in lines 3, 8-9, 11-16, 22-23, 26, 35-36), but also of practically all Orissan inscriptions of about the same age. The form of medial u in tku in line 11 is different from the one usually found here. As usual, b has been indicated by the sign for v. N has two different forms ; see nivāsi in line 3 and manasi in line 4 Final m occurs in line 16 and final t in line 19. Ta for final t occurs in lines 3 and 18 and naḥ[1] for final n in line 28. Initial u has been employed in line 22 while the sign for avagraha is found thrice in lines 32 and 37. Medial ṛi has different forms. Its sign in kṛita and sad-dṛishṭi (line 4) and hṛidaya (line 6) is not the same as in kṛitāḥ (line 7). Note also the sign of the same vowel in ºbhṛitaḥ (lines 6 and 9). The symbols for 200 and 80 are employed in writing the date in line 37. The language of the inscription is Sanskrit. It is written partly in prose and partly in verse. The introductory portion of the inscription (lines 1-25 containing fifteen stanzas) is in verse with the only exception of a small prose passage in line 3. These verses are also found in the Bāṇpur plate, although there are a few omissions in the two Gañjām plates. It is interesting to note that the usual imprecatory and benedictory verses found at the end of charters are conspicuous by their absence in the record under notice. In point of orthography, the present inscription closely resembles the Gañjām and Bāṇpur plates. There are some errors such as svē for śvē and tī for ti (line 1), vi for bhi (line 7), ṇṭha for ṇṭa (line 14), śṛī for śri (line 16), vi for vī (line 17), ṭṭi for ṭi (line 23), nī for ni (line 34), ni for nī (line 37), etc. In some cases, anusvāra has been written for final m (see lines 4 and 19). In line 9, it substitutes final n.
The date of the inscription is given as the year 280 of an unspecified era. The symbol for 200 is a clear lū and we know from Nepalese and Bengali manuscripts that, while lu indicates the figure 100, lū signifies 200.[2] But the difficulty in regard to the date of the present record is that, in the Gañjām plate (A), as rightly pointed out by Kielhorn,[3] “the symbol for 100 is something between lva and lu just as the symbol for 200 in the Bāmanghāṭī plate (of Raṇabhañja) is lū.” The case is the same with the first symbol in the date of the Bāṇpur plate. Now the problem is while the first symbol in the dates of the Gañjām and Bāṇpur plates have to be read as 100 and while the second symbol indicating 80 is the same in those records as well as in the present charter, the first symbol in the date of the record under discussion is clearly to be read as 200. It can hardly be normal to read the date of one record of a person as 180 and that of another record of the same person as 280, as one is not expected to date one’s different records in two different eras with epochs separated exactly by one century. The first symbol in the date of the Gañjām and Bāṇpur plates as well as of the present record thus seems to have the same value, either 100 or 200. There seems however, to be strong evidence in favour of the reading 100 instead of 200. It has to be remembered that all the rulers of the Bhauma-Kara family used the same era in dating their documents and that there is no doubt about the reading of many the dates. The Dhauli inscription[4] of Śāntikara I is undoubtedly dated in the year 93. The date of the Hindol plate[5] of his son Śubhākara III is also clearly 103. This king was succeeded by his mother Tribhuvanamahādēvī I, the date of whose Bhīmanagarīgarh plate[6] is probably the year 120. The first symbol in the dates of the records of Śubhākara III and Tribhuvanamahādevī I is a quite clear lu. Now, as will be clear _________________________________________________
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|