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

No. 5─BHUBANESWAR INSCRIPTION OF ANANGABHIMA III ; ANKA YEAR 34

(1 Plate)

D. C. SIRCAR, OOTACAMUND

In an interesting article entitled “ Chronology of the Eastern Gaṅga Kings of Orissa ”,[2] published half a century ago, the late Mr. M. M. Chakravarti noticed some inscriptions on the walls of the Liṅgarāja temple at Bhubaneswar (Puri District, Orissa), which were ascribed by him to the Gaṅga monarchs Anaṅgabhīma II (c. 1190-98 A.C.) or Anaṅgabhīma III (c. 1211-38 A.C.). About fifteen years ago, I had an opportunity to examine the impressions of three of these records which were edited by me elsewhere.[3] One of these three inscriptions in incised “ on the south jamb of the porch ” of the temple. Chakravarti assigned it to Anaṅgabhīma III as he read the following passage in lines 1-4 : Rājarāja-tunuja-Anaṅga-Bhīma-vīra . . . rājasya sāmrājy-ābhishēka-chaturtha-saṁvatsarē. It was, however, shown by me that the record actually belongs either to the Gaṅga ruler Narasiṁha I or more probably to the Sōmavaṁśī king Vīravarakēsarin and that the passage in question really reads : Rājarāja-tanuj-ātmajasya . . . Vīravara-Kēsari-dharādhipasya[4] . . . . . sāmrājy-ābhishēka-chaturtha-saṁvatsarē. The second inscription, engraved on the same jamb, was ascribed by Chakravarti to the fourth regnal year of Anaṅgabhīma II and the following passage

t>

__________________________________________________

[2] JASB, Vol. LXXII, 1903, 97-147.
[3] Ind. Cult., Vol. III, pp. 122-25 ; Vol. VI, pp. 71-73, 73-76. See Chakravarti, op, cit., p. 118, No. 1 ; p. 115. No. 2 ; p. 118, No. 3. The first of the three inscriptions was edited by me jointly with the late Mr. J. C. Ghosh.
[4] This is the clear reading suggested by the facsimile of the inscription published in Ind. Cult., Vol. III. Another impression of the record has recently appeared in Or. Hist. Res. Journ., Vol. I, No. 4, Plate 53, and the name of the king has been read on its basis as Vīranarakēsarin, taken to be identical with Gaṅga Narasiṁha I (op. cit., pp. 301 ff.). In this facsimile the lower end of the left curve of the disputed letter does not touch the bottom of the right vertical and suggests the reading of the letter to be na. A few impressions of the epigraph, preserved in the office of the Government Epigraphist for India, appear to support this new reading. It appears therefore that the impression of the inscription published by me in Ind. Cult. was defective. On a re-examination of the record with the help of these impressions I now find that neither of the two published transcripts of the inscription is fully free from errors. It may be pointed out in this connection that the name of the vishaya mentioned here is neither Chakralamvota nor Chakralamvora. It is Kalamvora as known now from several other inscriptions.

Home Page