|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA type : the intended form can be seen best in the upper b of the rbba in sâsirbbar, line 6, No. 5 ; and a noticeable feature in it, is the marked crook, halfway up the left side of the letter, with which the formation of the character commenced : we can see that the writer began at that point, and formed the rest of the character by one steady sweep of the pen, running along the top, down the right side, along the bottom to the left, and then up to the starting-point ; and it is easy to realise that the later cursive type may have been developed almost directly from this particular form of the old square type, by making the downstroke immediately after completing the crook, and then forming the rest of the character to the right instead of to the left. We have the l in the la of kâlaṁ, line 4, No. 3 ; and it, also, is of the old square type : it occurred again in phalam, line 5 ; it is almost entirely destroyed there ; but such traces as are discernible in the impression, indicate that there, also, the old square type was used.─ We have the remains of a Sanskṛit imprecatory verse in line 8. But the language of the body of the record is Kanarese, of the archaic type, in prose. In Mugundaduḷ, line 3, we have the somewhat exceptional locative ending nḷ ;[1] but we have the usual ending oḷ in [Vâra]ṇâsiyoḷ in line 6, and apparently also in grahaṇa[do]ḷ, line 4.─ The orthography does not present anything calling for comment. The inscription refers itself to the reign of a king Kattiyara, under whom a certain Dosi was governing the Banavâsi twelve-thousand province. The object of it was to record a general assignment of some tax under the orders of the king, and the special assignment by Dosi of a quarter-share of the tax of the village of Saṅgavûr to the Mahâjanas of Mugunda,─ doubtless for expenditure by them on communal objects.[2] Of the two villages mentioned in the record, Saṅgavûr is evidently the modern ‘ Sungoor ’ of the maps, about two miles on the north of Diḍgûr.[3] Mugunda seems to be the earlier name of Diḍgûr itself. The record tacitly, but plainly, places both these villages in the Banavâsi twelve-thousand province. And it seems likely that the Mugunda mentioned here is the town from which there was named a group of villages called the Mugunda twelve, of which mention is made in an inscription of A.D. 1075 at Baḷagâmi. That record registers the grant, for the temple of the Nârasiṁha at Baḷḷigâve, of a town or village (bâḍa) named Kundavige in “ the Mugunda twelve which was a kampaṇa of the Banavase nâḍ.”[4] The maps do not shew any such names as Mugunda and Kundavige in the neighbourhood of Baḷagâmi. Diḍgûr is only twenty-four miles away towards the north-by-east from Baḷagâmi. And, though there, also, the maps do not shew any such names now, there is no objection, such as on account of excessive distance from the temple to which the grant was made, to locate Kundavige somewhere near Diḍgûr.[5]
The record is not dated. But the characters of it are fairly referable to closely about A.D. 800. The names of the king and of the local governor are not known as yet from any other records. It seems impossible to explain the existence of this record in the Râshṭrakûṭa territory and in the period to which it must be referred, except on the supposition that Kattiyara was one of the twelve confederate kings and princes, headed by Stambha-Kambayya, who shortly after A.D. 794 sought to dispute the sovereignty of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Gôvinda III.[6] And, in my opinion, that is certainly the explanation of the matter. Further, it seems likely that, of the emblems on the stone, the boar belongs to the king Kattiyara, and the other animal to the _____________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|