|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA has been read by scholars as 4[1], is strangely enough, 100 according to Banerji and 12 according to Mr. Rājaguru. There is, however, little doubt that the date of the charter under discussion is the 11th of the bright half of Kārttika of the 14th regnal year of king Śatrubhañja and that there is no question of any reference to the Śaka or Vikrama era. As will be shown below, there is some evidence in favour of assigning the charter roughly to a date near about 1000 A.D. Among other mistakes of a serious nature in the published transcripts of the inscription we may refer to the names of Śatrubhañja’s grandfather Mallagambhīradē[va*] and great-grandfather Yathāsukhadēva. The first name is read by Banerji as Pallagambhīradēva and the second by Rājaguru as Pathāsukhadēva. The name of the vishaya in which the gift village was situated was Sulvāḍḍa, although Banerji read it as Salvadda and Rājaguru as Salvādra. The name of Kōntamullō, the gift village, was read by Mr. Rājaguru as Kōntamallō. Rājaguru describes the record in the following words : “ The charter consists of three copper-plates hinged on a circular ring which is about 5⅓″ in diameter and which is secured by a circular seal at its joint, bearing the family emblem of a lion standing at its top. Each plate measures 5¾″ in length and 3″ in breath.” He also describes the writing as ‘ very distinct and legible ’. The palæography, language and orthography of the inscription do not call for any special mention as they closely resemble those of other records of the early Bhañjas of Khiñjali-maṇḍala,[2] to whose family the issuer of the present charter apparently belonged. The charter begins with two verses in praises of the god Śiva, which are known to form the introduction of the grants[3] issued by several rulers belonging to the earlier Bhañja dynasty of Khiñjali-maṇḍala.
After the introductory word svasti, followed by two verses in honour of the god Hara (Śiva), the record introduces the reigning monarch Maṅgalarāja in the third verse. Maṅgalarāja was apparently another name of king Śatrubhañjadēva who is next mentioned as an ornament of the Bhañja family and as the son of Śilābhañjadēva, grandson of Mallagambhīradē[va*] and great-grandson of Yathāsukhadēva (lines 8-11). Śatrubhañja is also described as a devout worshipper of Mahēśvara and as meditating on (or favoured by) the feet of his parents. The king’s order in regard to the grant was addressed to the rājan, rājanaka, rājaputra, vishayapati, mahāsāmanta, śrī-sāmanta-mahāsāmanta and other administrators together with their adhikaraṇas (administrative offices or departments), who might be associated in different periods in the administration of Sulvāḍḍa-vishaya (district) and also to the villagers including the Karaṇas and Brāhmaṇas. In the list of officials and feudatories, the expression śrī-sāmanta-mahāsāmanta is difficult to explain in view of the separate mention of the mahāsāmanta, unless it is believed that mahāsāmanta was twice engraved through inadvertence. The village of Kōntamullō, which was situated in the said vishaya and had a fixed area and definite boundaries, was granted by the king in favour of two Brāhmaṇas named Vishṇusvāmin and Narāyaṇasvāmin who belonged to the Vāsishṭha gōtra and the Taittirīya charaṇa of the Yajurvēda. The village was made a rent-free holding and people were asked not to stand in the way of its enjoyment by the two donees. In lines 22-31 some of the usual imprecatory and benedictory verses are quoted with the introduction uktañ=cha dharma-śāstrē. Lines 31-32 say that the dūtaka or executor of the grant was the Mahāsāmanta Kṛitavarman who had probably also the official designation Pañcha-karaṇ-ādhikṛita[4] which seems to suggest that he was attached to no less than five administrative departments. It is said that _________________________________________
[1] See the Cuttack Museum plates of Sainyabhīta Mādhavavarman II of the Śailōdbhava dynasty, edited by
N. G. Majumdar, above, Vol. XXIV, pp. 148 ff. Plates, line 46 (Śrāvaṇa-dina 20 4, i.e. 24). Mr. Rājaguru
has recently edited the inscription in Or. Hist. Res. Journ., Vol. II, Nos. 3-4, pp. 17 ff., without noticing
that it was previously published. His transcript does not contain any reading of the symbols after dina ; but
elsewhere (p. 24) he reads the second symbol as 3.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
