The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Additions and Corrections

Images

Contents

A. S. Altekar

P. Banerjee

Late Dr. N. K. Bhattasali

Late Dr. N. P. Chakravarti

B. CH. Chhabra

A. H. Dani

P. B. Desai

M. G. Dikshit

R. N. Gurav

S. L. Katare

V. V., Mirashi

K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyar

R. Subrahmanyam

T. N. Subramaniam and K. A. Nilakanta Sastri

M. Venkataramayya

Akshaya Keerty Vyas

D. C. Sircar

H. K. Narasimhaswami

Sant Lal Katare

Index

Appendix

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

realise the importance of the record. The inscribed stone was found on a step-well called Gaṇeśabāvaḍī (ºbāwrī) at Taḍā-Rāising (Torā Rāya-siṁha) in the Jaipur District of Rājasthān about 16 miles to the north of Deolī and 20 miles to the south-west of Tonk. The inscription contains seventeen lines of writing, although two of these lines have to be read actually as four as the first half of both of them belong to a supplement. The inscribed space covers an area about 14¼ inches in length and 11¾ inches in breadth.

The characters of the inscription are Nāgarī of the ordinary type. The sign for v has been used to indicated b as in the record edited above. In a few cases (cf. rāva-rāv=rāw in line 8 ; Bhīva=Bhīv=Bhiw in line 14, etc.), however, the letter v has been distinguished by the addition of a dot apparently to signify a modification in the pronunciation. This has been transliterated in our transcript by w. The single daṇḍa standing for a mark of interpunctuation is often placed so close to the preceding akshara as to look exactly like an ā-mātrā. The record is partly written in Sanskrit and partly in a dialect of Hindī. We have transliterated the Hindī words as they have been written and not as they are pronounced ; e.g. we have quoted a word as bahuta and not as bahut. The Hindī part of the inscription contains some Arabic and Persian words, e..g. Pātisāha (Persian Pādshāh or Pādishāh, of which the popular Bādshāh is an Arabic corruption), khasama or khasamu (Arabic khasam), kārāgara (Persian kārīgar ;cf. Marāṭhī kārāgīr). An orthographic peculiarity of the inscription is the representation of class nasals by the anusvāra and, in most cases, of kh and ś respectively by sh and s. The spelling of names like Narāiṇa (Sanskrit Nārāyaṇa), Parasarāma (Sanskrit Paraśurāma), Udaiyasiṁgha (Sanskrit Udayasiṁha), etc., is interesting. The Muhammadan names Sher Shāh and Islām Shāh (sometimes spelt Islīm Shāh) have been written as Sera Sāhi and Asalema Sāhi respectively. In the words saṁvatu (line 4) and khasamu (lines 11-12), the medial u substitutes the mark indicating a half consonant probably due to a peculiarity of the local pronunciation. In prasādāt (line 1), however, the half t has been written in the usual way. The linguistic peculiarities exhibited by the inscription are noticed in the western dialects of Hindī.

>

The genitive suffixes used are kau (i.e. ko, masculine singular ; cf. sāhikau, line 10 ; bhūmikau and lākha 11 kau=11 lākhakau, line 11), (feminine singular ; cf. vāikī, line 17) and kai (i.e. ke ; cf. vāikai, line 19)[1] In vārau (i.e. vāro, line11) and rāṇau (i.e. rāṇo, line 12), the nominative singular case-ending au has been added to words of the masculine gender ending in a or ā.[2] In the passage Mevāḍyai nāṇai (line 18), the locative singular case-ending ai (i.e. e) has been suffixed to words ending in ā.[3] The word nāṇā is derived from Sanskrit nāṇaka meaning ‘a coin’. The pronominal word tina (pronounced tin, line 15) is genitive third person plural and means ‘ of them ’. The inscription uses a number of contractions such as pro, ṭaṁ chi, jo, etc.

The date of the record is quoted in lines 4-5. This is the second tithi of the dark half of the month of Mārgaśira in Vikrama Saṁvat 1604 and Śaka 1469. The name of the week-day is quoted as Vārhanīpati which apparently stands for Bṛihaspati. The date is irregular ; but it must have fallen in October-November, 1547 A.D.

The inscription begins with a variety of the Siddham symbol, followed by the word siddhi and a passage in Sanskrit invoking the grace of the god Gaṇeśa. Next follows a verse in Sanskrit containing an adoration to the god Vighnavināśana (i.e. Gaṇeśa), praised as the Supreme Being. The date of the record, already referred to above, is then quoted in lines 4-5. In lines 5-7 are given the names of the following persons : proº Kānhaḍa (from Sanskrit Kṛishṇa), his son proº Nārāyaṇa his sons proº Maheśa and proº Chakrapāṇi, and the latter’s sons chiº Kāśīdāśa and chiº Kimudāsa. It seems that the contraction chi before the names of Kāśīdāsa and Kimudāsa stands for Sanskrit

_______________________________________________

[1] For kau in Brajbhāshā and kai in Mewāṛī, see S. H. Kellogg, A. Grammar of the Hinai Language, 3rd ed., 1938, Table II facing p. 120.
[2] Cf. nominative singular in o in the Rājputānā dialects (Kellogg, op. cit., p. 109, § 169).
[3] See Kellogg, op. cit., p. 110.

Home Page

>
>