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

repeated use of the same sort of expressions and ideas, shows that the author was only a second grade poet. Interesting from the orthographical point of view is the frequent reduplication of a number of consonants, including the palatal and cerebral sibilants, in conjunction with r, either preceding or following. The same consonants, preceded or followed by r ;are, however, often found to be reduplicated in some cases but not so in others. Certain consonants followed by y are also found reduplicated in some cases (cf. ārāddhya in line 80). Final m, often before ś and h, has been changed to . It has been wrongly substituted by n in ºbhujān=rājāº in line 5 and is invariably changed to anusvāra at the end of the second and fourth feet of verses. In many cases, it has been changed to the corresponding nasal of the following consonant. Final n, which has been wrongly modified in dōshāṁ in line 35, has not been changed to anusvāra in sandhi in some cases (cf. ºmāns=tathaº in line 88).

There is no trace of any date in the preserved portion of the inscription before us ; but it is well known from Bāṇa’s Harshacharita and other sources that the king who issued the charter was already on the throne in 606 A.D., when he sent an embassy to Harshavardhana of Thanesar and Kanauj, and that, according to Chinese evidence, he was continuing to rule as late as 648-49 A.D.[1] The first half of the seventh century may thus be roughly regarded as the reign-period of the issuer of our charter. The Nidhanpur inscription seems to have been issued about the beginning of the last decade of the king’s career,[2] while the present charter may have been issued some time earlier.

t>

The charter under discussion was issued by king Bhāskaravarman of the Nāraka, Bhauma or Varman dynasty, the earliest known historical ruling family of ancient Assam. Its aim was the renewal of an older charter originally issued by a predecessor of the king. The first part of the name of this earlier king occurring in verse of 76 of our record is damaged ; but it may possibly be restored as Bhūtivarman who was the great-great-grandfather of Bhāskaravarman. It may be recalled in this connection that the Nidhanpur plates of Bhāskaravarman similarly record the revival of another charter of Bhūtivarman which was damaged by fire.[3] The original charter recording the present grant is also stated to have been completely damaged (ā-kshata) and that is why the plates were burnt (cf. samujjvālya) for removing the old writing on them, reshaping them and re-engraving the new document.

From lines 112-117 of our record, it appears that the original grant was made in favour of two Brāhamaṇs of a Ghōsha family belonging to the Kauśika gōtra and Vājasanēya charaṇa. They were Bhaṭṭamahattara Priyaṅkaraghōshasvāmin and the āvasarika-Bhaṭṭa Dēvaghōshasvāmin. But when the charter was renewed after the lapse of more than half a century, Dēvaghōshasvāmin was no more and, besides Priyaṅkaraghōshasvāmin, a number of other persons, who were entitled to shares of the property granted to the original donees, had to be mentioned as aṁśa-patis or share holders. Of these, Parāśara, Vishṇu, Yajña, Rudra, Vājin, Dhruva, Bhūma, Daksha and Śrēyaskara belonged to the same Ghōsha family of the Kauśika gōtra and Vājasanēya charaṇa and were probably descendants of the deceased Dēvaghōshasvāmin or of both Priyaṅkara and Dēva. Some other persons, belonging to gōtras like Maudgalya, Māṇḍavya, Kauśika and Ātrēya and not to the Ghōsha family to which the original donees belonged, are also mentioned as aṁśa-patis. They were probably descendants of the latter on the female side.[4] The case of these Ghōshas adds

______________________________________________________

[1] History of Bengal, Dacca University, Vol. I, pp. 63-64, 78 ; Kāmarūpa śāsanāvalī, Introduction. p. 18.
[2] History of Bengal, op. cit., pp. 77-78.
[3] Cf. viditam=astu bhavatām=ētad-vishay-āntaḥpāti-Mayūra śālmal-āgrahāra-kshētraṁ rājñā śrī-Bhūtivarmmaṇā kṛitaṁ yat tat=tāmrapaṭṭ-ābhāvāt=karadam=iti mahārājēna Jyēshṭhabhadrān vijñāpya punar=asy=ābhinava-paṭṭa-karaṇāya śāsanuṁ dattvā, etc. (Kāmarūpaśāsanāvalī, pp. 16-17.), and śasana-dāhād=arvāk, etc. (ibid., p. 27).
[4] It is also possible to think that Priyaṅkara and Dēva were the principal donees who shared the gift with the aṁśa-patis mentioned separately. In that case, the aṁśa-pati Priyaṅkara was different from the principle donee of that name.

Home Page