|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA nine aksharas) and the smallest in line 10 (about two aksharas). The two records cover spaces measuring respectively 16 inches by 19 inches and 18½ inches by 19 inches. We have said that a third inscription is engraved between these two, below Inscription No. 1 and above Inscription No. 2. The space covered by this epigraph measures 9 inches by 19½ inches. There are in this in all right lines of writing ; but the letters of the left half of the last line are partially preserved owing to the peeling off of a portion of the stone. The inscriptions are written in the Gauḍīya script as used in Orissa about the thirteenth century A.D. Their language is corrupt Sanskrit. Nothing needs special mention in regard to the palaeography, language and orthography of the records as in these respects they resemble closely other Orissan epigraphs of the same age. Both the inscriptions are dated in the Aṅka reckoning of the reign of Bhīmadēva (Anaṅgabhīma III). Unfortunately the portion containing the date is damaged in both the cases. The preserved parts of the letters in lines 4-5 of Inscription No. 1, however, appear to suggest the reading : trayōviṁśati-saṁvatsarē Makara-kṛishṇa-tṛitīyāyāṁ Guru-vārē., i.e. Thursday, Makara(Māgha)-badi 3, in the 23rd Aṅka or 19th regnal year of Gaṅga Anaṅgabhīma III. The astronomical details would tally with the 9th January, 1230 A.D., which may be the date of the record. As regards the date of Inscription No. 2, owing to the miserable state of the preservation of the passage, we only know that it was Chaitra(Mīna)-sudi 15 of a particular Aṅka year of the same Bhīmadēva (Anaṅgabhīma III). Under the circumstances, it is impossible to determine whether the date of this record is earlier or later than that f Inscription No. 1. We have to admit that the introductory passages are the same in both the inscriptions and that they are not found in any other known record of the Gaṅga king in question. These facts may suggest that their drafts were prepared by the same person within a short period of time. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that the two records are not engraved one immediately below the other but have another inscription incised between them. This third epigraph bears a date in Śaka 1140 (1218 A.D.) and has the introductory part couched in an altogether different style. If both the inscriptions under study actually bore dates falling about the year 1230 A.D., we have to assume that they were engraved above and below an already existing record of 1218 A.D.
As regards the date of this third inscription, which has been indicated above, we owe a word of explanation to the world of scholars. As already stated, the dated portion of the record was transcribed by Chakravarti. His reading of the passage in question runs as follows : Śākābd-aikādaśa-śatē chutvāriśat-ādi(dhi)kē-paṁchamakai mbha(vī)ra-Anaṅgabhīmadēvasya pravaddhati-samvatsarē ..... (year illegible).....Dhanu-kṛishṇa-pratipadi Bhauma-vārē. He took the year to be Śaka 1145 and suggested the date, on the basis of the astronomical details (Amānta), to be Tuesday, the 9th January, 1224 A.D. I had recently an occasion to examine some good impressions of the inscription, which are preserved in the office of the Government Epigraphist for India, and found that Chakravarti’s transcript of the passage quoted above contains several errors. The first three line of the epigraph actually read :
1 Siddham[1] svasti śrī-Śākāvdh-ai(bd-ai)kābha(da)śa-sa(śa)tē chū(cha)tvāvē(riṁ)śat=ādi-
(dhi)kē paramavai-
__________________________________________________ [1] Expressed by symbol. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
