|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
Gôvinda III. of A.D. 804 ;[1] it is here seen best in the mâ of nelanum=Âditya, line 14, No. 7 : it
occurs again in likhitam, in the line below the sculptures, where it is formed somewhat smaller
than usual, so as to mark it as a final form ; it is a character which may often be confused with
one form of re, rê. The corresponding form of the v occurs, but not very clearly, in the upper v
of sarvva, line 16, No. 10.─ The language is Kanarese, of the archaic type, in prose. In
śâsanamum, line 9-10, the copulative ending uṁ is attached to the usual archaic ending of the
nominative singular neuter in ṁ, m ; on the other hand, in line 8 it is doubtful whether the m
has been retained,─ mahâjanamuṁ, or whether it has been softened into v,─ mahâjanavuṁ. In
line 20 we seem to have the accusative singular neuter in v,─ dharmavaṁ ; while, on the
other hand, in line 17 we have clearly the more archaic form in m,─ sthânaman. In line 14,
in sthânamuvaṁ or sthânavuvaṁ, the ṁ, m, of the copulative suffix, with the accusative ending
after it, seems distinctly to have been softened into v ; but, whether the m of sthânaṁ, sthânam,
has been retained before it, or has been softened into v, is doubtful. Line 10 gives us─ (unless
we assume a mistake of s for ś)─ dise, as another variant of diśe, -dese, ‘ a quarter or point of
the compass, direction, region, side ;’ line 12 gives niru-gal, which seems clearly to mean ‘a setup stone,’ niru being, no doubt, connected with niri, 1, ‘ to be properly arranged or prepared, to be
ready,’ from which we have nirisu, ‘ to put down, place, arrange, adjust, prepare,’ which occurs
in line 20 in respect of the setting up of the stone itself that bears the record ;[2] line 15 gives
pelchisu, as a variant of perchisu, pechchisu, ‘ to cause to increase, to multiply’ ;[3] and line 21-22
gives brahmâti, as a variant of brahmati, brahmêti, = brahmahatyâ, ‘ the killing of a Brâhmaṇ.’
─ The orthography does not present anything calling for comment.
The inscription refers itself to the reign of the Râshṭrakûṭa king Amôghavarsha I.,─ son
and successor of Gôvinda III.,─ who was on the throne from A.D. 814 or 815 to A.D. 877 or
878. And it mentions a feudatory of his, named Kuppêya,[4] who was governing the Purigere
district. The object of it was to record the grant of some lands to a priest named Gôkarṇapaṇḍitabhaṭâra. The sculptures at the top of the stone mark the record as a Vaishṇava record,
and thus shew that the donee was a Vaishṇava. And it seems worth noting that one of the
donors was a Gorava or Śaiva priest.
The record is dated on the full-moon day of Vaiśâkha of the Pârthiva saṁvatsara, coupled
with Śaka-Saṁvat 787. Whatever system of the cycle is applied, the Śaka year is the expired year.[5]
________________________
[1] Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 127, and Plate.
[2] Compare î śâsanaman=nirisidar, “ they placed, adjusted, or set up, this charter,” in the Daṇḍâpur inscription (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 223, text line 12).─ Compare, also, nirisida kinnari-galla guḍḍe nâlka in an inscription at Naregal in the Rôṇ tâluka, Dhârwâr (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XI. p. 229, text lines 51, 53, 55), and
nirisida guḍḍe nâlku (ibid. p. 230, line 57). As regards the first of these passages, the occurrence of the combination kiṁnarigal (line 51) or kinnarigal (line 53, 55) in a record at a place named Naregal,─ which is mentioned
as Hiriya-Nareyaṁgal in a neighbouring record (ibid. p. 248, line 20-21), and name of which would often be
written Narigal in the present day,─ led me to think that the text referred to a smaller or later Naregal, distinguished from Hiriya-Nareyaṁgal ; but I now see that we should interpret the text as meaning, not “ four heaps of
stones, above graves of Kiṁ-Narigal,” etc., but “four set-up heaps of stones (bearing representations) of female
Kinnaras together with a liṅga andascetics and a cow.”
[3] Compare pel-dore, ‘ the great river,’ for the more usual per-dore in the Muḷgand inscription of A.D. 975 ;
Vol. VI. above, p. 259, text line 5.
[4] The vowel of the penultimate syllable is apparently to be taken as the long ê, on the analogy of the ê in
Baṅkêya, which is marked as long by the metre in line 58 of the inscription at Konnûr (Vol. VI. above, p. 33) ;
but it is not quite that the long ê is not used there simply to suit metre. The name of Baṅkêya or
Baṅkeya appears also as Baṅka, in Baṅkêśa (Vol. VI. above, p. 30, text line 19.) So, also, the name Kuppêya or
Kuppeya appears─ (but in the case of another person)─ as Kuppa, and Kuppaṇna, in the Niḍagundi inscription,
F. below, page 214.
[5] By the luni-solar system of the cycle, northern or southern, the Pârthiva saṁvatsara was Śaka-Saṁvat 788,
current,=A.D. 865-66. By the mean-sign system, it began on the 27th September, A.D. 864, Ś.-S. 786 expired,
and ended on the 23rd September, A.D. 865, Ś.-S. 787 expired.
|
