The Indian Analyst
 

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

the same order as in the Hindol plate of Kulastambha, son of Jayastambha and grandson of Raṇastambha. But the language of the verses in our document is slightly different from that of the Hindol plate. Moreover, the important verse referring to the son of Raṇastambha and father of the reigning king Kulastambha is defective inasmuch as the foot containing the name of Jayastambha as found in the Hindol plate is omitted in the record under review no doubt through the inadvertence of the writer. There is, however, little doubt that Kulastambha who issued the charter under discussion as well as the other Puri (Rāghavadāsa Maṭha) plate published by Chakravarti was no other than the issuer of the Hindol plate.

Another interesting fact worth noticed in this connection is that the text of the introductory part in our record closely follows that in the Bhimnagarigarh (Dhenkanal) plate of Kulastambha,1 although, where this latter mentions Vikramāditya and his son Raṇastambha, the present record mentions Raṇastambha and his son (name omitted through negligence of the scribe, but known from the Hindol plate to have been Jayastambha). The Bhimnagarigarh plate represents its issuer, king Kulastambha, as the lord of all the Gōndramas with Śaṅkhajōṭī forming the borderland of his kingdom exactly as in the record under notice. Since the relation of Kulastambha, referred to as issuing the charter, with Raṇastambha mentioned in the introductory part is not specified clearly in the inscription, the Bhimnagarigarh plate is generally believed to have been issued by Raṇastambha who is suggested to have had Kulastambha as a second name. But we have elsewhere2 remarked, “ The Bhimnagarigarh plate represents Mahārāja Raṇastambha as the ātmaja (line 10) of Vikramāditya. The word suta (line 12) again used before the following mention of Kulastambha may suggest that the record in question belongs not to Raṇastambha-Kulastambha but actually to a Kulastambha who was the son of Raṇastambha”. The close resemblance of the Bhimnagarigarh inscription with the record under discussion in regard to both language and style, however, now appears to suggest that the corrupt introduction of the former epigraph actually intended to describe, as that of the present charter, Kulastambha, grandson of Raṇastambha. It further appears that the text of the introductory part of the Bhimnagarigarh plate was copied without proper adjustment from a grant of Jayastambha.3

>

Verse 1 our inscription, found in most of the Śulkī records, is in adoration to the god Giriśa, i.e. Śiva, while verses 2-3 introduce king Raṇastambha of the Śulkī family, favoured by the goddess Stambhēśvarī, as having constructed some temples probably for the god Sadāśiva. Verses 4-5 describe Raṇastambha’s son whose name is inadvertently omitted, while the following two verses (verses 6-7) described the reigning king Kulastambha, son of Raṇastambha’s son, as issuing the charter in question from Kōdālōka.

The grant portion of the document which is in prose and follows the introduction in verses represents Mahārāja Kulastambha, called lord of all the Gōndramas, as in good health. A defective passage in the description of the ruler seems to attribute to him the feudatory title samadhigatapañchamahāśabda, although the change introduce in it may have been deliberate. Such deliberate modification of feudatory titles was often resorted to by subordinate rulers who claimed a semi-independent political status.4 The future rulers and the present and future administrators, associated with the maṇḍala (district) extending up to the Śaṅkhajōṭikā, are then addressed. The way in which the maṇḍala is mentioned suggests that it comprised either the whole dominions of the Śulkīs or, at least, the central part of the Śulkī territories. The lists of the rulers and administrators include the rājanaka, rājaputra, mahāsāmanta, vishayapati and others. The charter then

_________________________________________________

[1] JBORS, Vol. II, pp. 401 ff.
[2] Above, Vol. XXVIII, p. 109.
[3] Cf. the text of the Dhenkanal plate of Jayastambha in JBORS, Vol. II, pp. 406 ff.
[4] Cf. the Mahada plates (above, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 283 ff.).

Home Page

>
>