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

Survey of India, Western Circle, 1906-07, p. 28 ; and Bhandarkar’s List of Inscriptions of Northern India, No. 689. The inscription is as yet unpublished ; but the Progress Report of the Archæological Survey, referred to above, gives the following information regarding its findspot and contents : “ In the vicinity and in front of the Achalēśvara temple are standing some ancient temples, mostly Vaishṇava, the exterior of which is profusely sculptured with erotic figures. At the back is a step-well, which, as the inscription attached to it tells us, was constructed by Mōkala and others in Saṁvat 1387 varshē Māgha sudi 3 Bhārgava-dinē when Śarvēśvara mahā-munīndra was the high priest the Achalēśvara mahā-maṭha and king Tējasiṁha was reigning at Chandrāvatī ”. The date of the inscription corresponds to Friday, January 11, 1331 A.C.

The inscription consists of seventeen lines of writing. The relevant portion of the record (lines 4-15) reads as follows :─

4 .............. svasti śrī-Arbuda- ||
5 || mahāśailē śrī-Achalēśva(śva)ra-mahāmaṭhāt paramabhaṭṭāraka-paramamāhēsvaraḥ(śvara)- para- ||
6 || niraṁjanaḥ(na)-kaṁdarpadarpadalana-svavaṁsaüdyōt(śōddyōta)kara-rāja-śrī-Sarvēsva(śva)- ra-mahāmunīdra(ndra)-vi- ||
7 || jayarājyē || sat=īty=ēvaṁ kālē pravarttamānē sati Chaṁdrāvatībhūmaṁḍalē samastarā- jāva-
8 || līsamalaṁkṛita-parāmamāhēsva(śva)ra-parāchīnavastōpalakshita[1]-paraṁ(rama)brahmā(hma)- laksha- ||
9 || prasādāva(vā)pta-rāja-śrī-Tēja[ḥ*]śi(si)ṁha-vijayarājyē || tasmin kālē varttamānē | śrī-Vapa- ||
10 || kānvayakulapradīpa-ripudāvadāvānala-ripula[la*]nāvaiva(dha)vyadi(dī)kshāguru-kalikā- [||*]
11 || lābhinavakalpapādapa-sadāśiṁ(śaṁ)bhudhyānarata-rāja-śrī-Bathā-suta-Mōkala-G[ē](Gō)hilō- ||
12 || tra ta(s=ta)thā Sa[chya]shēlā-ṭhākura[ḥ*] |[2] kuma(mā)ra-Suhaḍasala ta(s=ta)thā Sīṁgāradē= Ū(vy=Ū)tima-suta-Vīkala[ḥ*] puna[ḥ*] ||
13 || pāvadyāṁ(ḍyām) Gē(Gō)hilōtra-Mōkala udhōraṁ kārāpitaṁ[3] || śrī-Achalēśvara-pra[s]ādēna || saṁvat [||]
14 || 1387 varshē Māgha-sudi 3 Bhārgava-dinē Śatabhishā-nakshatrē kuṁbhasthē chaṁdrē prarti- shṭā[4] [||]
15 || kārāpitaṁ || śubhaṁ bhavatu || . . .

t>

It will be seen that the language of the inscription is corrupt, although in many parts it can be quite easily corrected. The most important persons mentioned in the record are of course three : (1) Paramabhaṭṭāraka-paramamāhēśvara Rāja-śrī-Sarvēśvara-mahāmunīndra of the Achalēśvara-mahāmaṭha on the Arbuda-mahāśaila (i.e. Mount Abu), described in lines 4-7 ; (2) Samasta-rājāvalīsamalaṁkṛita-Paramamāhēśvara Rāja-śrī-Tējaḥsiṁha of the Chandrāvatī-bhūmaṇḍala, described in lines 7-9 ; and (3) Gōhilōtra Mōkala (described) in lines 9-12 and mentioned in line 13) who belonged to the family of Vapaka, i.e., Bappa, and was either himself a Rājan or was the son of Rāja-śrī-Bathā. Mōkala was no doubt a subordinate of Tējaḥsiṁha ; but whether the

________________________________________________

[1] The meaning of this defective passage is not clear.
[2] The daṇḍa is superfluous.
[3] The context seems to require here something like ētaih . . . kāritam. The word udhōra is not Sanskrit. Mr. A. K. Vyas suggests to me that the intended reading is udhāra (Sanskrit uddhāra) used in the sense of ‘ repair ’. Pāvaḍī seems to stand for Hindi bāvrī, ‘ a step-well ’.
[4] Read pratishṭhā kāritā.

Home Page