North Indian Inscriptions

SPURIOUS SUDI PLATES.

......In the same way, the later Mallohaḷḷi grant, No. 6,─ the characters of which are all suspicious enough, even at first sight,— is conclusively betrayed by another tell-tale letter. The form of the b used in it (see labdha-bala, line 2, and other words all through the record) is the later one, which, also, in Dr. Burnell’s Tables, appears first in his Plates vi., of the alphabet of A.D. 945 or thereabouts (in the lithograph of the grant of Amma II., on which charter the plate is based, for the b, see, for instance, labdha, line 2, bâlam, line 17, and bandhujana, line 29). Like the later form of the kh, and by precisely the same records, the later form of the b is carried back to the time of Amôghavarsha I.¹ And, in the same way, it cannot be carried back to an earlier date than A.D. 804 : for, the earlier form alone occurs in the Kanarese grant of Gôvinda III., dated in that year (see the words bṛihaspati, line 3, gâmuṇḍabbe, line 5, bandalli, line 8, and all the other words in the record that include a b ), and throughout the Wokkalêri grant of Kîrtivarman II., of A.D. 757. So, here, again, we have the beginning of the ninth century A.D., as the earliest possible period for the concoction of the record.

......The characters of the Nâgamaṅgala grant follow the early forms almost throughout. They are mostly of very good and uniform execution,— considerably more so than would be thought from the lithograph published with Mr. Rice’s paper on this record ; and, to shew this and to illustrate my other remarks, I now give a lithograph of plates i. and iii. b, from my own ink-impressions of the original plates, the opportunity of seeing which I owe to Mr. Rice. And, being of an almost isolated type, they might, at first sight, be easily accepted as belonging really to the time to which they refer themselves. But they, again, are betrayed by the way in which the writer dealt with the letters kh and b. Of the kh, the old form appears in khaḍga and khaṇḍta, line 2, âkhyas, line 26, and probably vikhyâta, line 38 ; but in mukha-makha, line 15, mukhaḥ, line 16, dhanushkhaṇḍa and nakha, line 30, akhilaṁ, line 38, mukharita, line 40, akhaṇḍita, line 52, khaṇḍa, line 58, chhakhyaṁ and duḥkham, line 75, and likhitam, line 79, the writer forgot himself, and lapsed into the later form which is subsequent to A.D. 804. So also with the b : the old type is followed in labdha-bala, line 2, and in various other words all through the record ; but the writer forgot himself, and gave the later form, subsequent to A.D. 804, in bahala, lines 28-29, âmbara, line 34, balârir (and in the first b of bbahu), line 37, vibudha, line 45, budha, line 48, bâṇa, line 51, babhûva, line 56, bahubhir=bbasudhâ, line 76, and brahmadêyam, line 80. And so here, again, the beginning of the ninth century A.D. is fixed as the earliest possible date for the fabricatiom of the record ; a time which is later by at any rate twenty-seven years than the given date of it.²

......Finally, the British Museum grant aims at producing the old type of characters throughout ; including even the kh and b. But the execution of them is very indifferent all through ; and, with the very marked corruptness of the orthography, and the displacing of portions of the text, which has already been noted, it proves, beyond any possibility of doubt, the spurious
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ In the Śirûr inscription of A.D. 866, only the older form of the b is used. In the Mantrawâḍi inscription of A.D. 865, only the later form occurs. In an undated inscription of the same king at Niḍagundi near Shiggaon, the two forms are mixed : the older form occurs mostly : but the later is found once.
......² I have said, above, that the characters of this grant are of an almost isolated type. Among published instances, I know none that exactly match them, except those of the spurious grant of Ravindatta from the Coimbatore district (Ind. Ant. Vol. XVIII. p. 362, and lithograph). And the resemblance is so marked, that it seems very likely that the two records were written, for reproduction by the engraver, by the same hand.— There is also a close verbal connection between the spurious Coimbatore grant and the spurious Western Gaṅga records ; the former gives some actual phrases from the latter.— In editing the Coimbatore grant, I expressed the opinion that the date of its concoction might perhaps be placed about the commencement of the eighth century A.D., but certainly no earlier. As, however, it includes the later form of the kh (in mukha, line 4, and chhakhyaṁ and duḥkham, line 32), it cannot be placed before A.D. 804.— As in the case of the Merkara grant (see page 162 above, note 5), the means of determining the exact date of the fabrication of the Nâgamaṅgala grant may exist in the names, mentioned in it, of some Jain teachers in the Pulikal-Gachchha of the Eregittûr-Gaṇa in the Naudi-Śaṁgha in the Mûla-Gaṇa.