The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

Additions and Corrections

Images

Contents

Dr. Bhandarkar

J.F. Fleet

Prof. E. Hultzsch

Prof. F. Kielhorn

Prof. H. Luders

J. Ramayya

E. Senart

J. PH. Vogel

Index-By V. Venkayya

Appendix

List of Plates

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

either it establishes sendhura (for which, however, I cannot find any other authority) as a corruption of sindhûra, for sindhura, ‘ elephant,’ or else, and more probably, it is a mistake for “ siṁdûraṁ = seṁduraṁ,” based on a habit which, Dr. Kittel has told me, the manuscripts have of not unfrequently presenting an aspirated instead of an unaspirated letter and vice versâ. Beyond that, I can only say that Mr. Rice’s Karṇâṭakaśabdânuśâsanam of Bhaṭṭâkalaṅkadêva (1890), p. 108, under the illustrations of sûtra 160, does give sendura as the corruption of sindûra.

So far, no authority has been found for the assertion that sindhura, ‘ an elephant,’ becomes sindûra. We have only obtained sindura, with the unspirated d but retaining the short u, as a corruption of that word, and sindhûra, with the long û but retaining the aspirated dh, as another form of it.

But, also, we have not found any conclusive authority for sendûra or sêndûra as a corruption of sindûra, ‘ red lead.’ We have only obtained, more or less certainly sendura with the short u, and doubtfully sêndhûra with the aspirated dh, and sêndûra apparently deduced by inference from it. Turning, however, to other sources of information, we there obtain something quite definite. In a language closely allied to Kanarese, Mr. C. P. Brown’s Telugu-English Dictionary (1852) does not give sindura, sendura, sendûra, or sêndûra. It does give siṁdhuramu, with the meaning of only ‘ an elephant,’ and siṁdûramu, with the meanings of only ‘ red lead, minium,’ and ‘ a sort of tree.’ And, while it does mention siṁdhûramu with the aspirated dh and the long û, it specifies it as an “ error ” for siṁdûramu. But, in a language of which the vocabulary is very much mixed up with that of the Kanarese of the southern districts of the Bombay Presidency, Molesworth and Candy’s Marâṭhî-English Dictionary (1857), while not presenting sindhura, ‘an elephant,’ or sindura, does give siṁdûra, with the meaning of only ‘ red lead, minium,’ and gives śêṁdûra (with the palatal ś) as a popular form of it, and also sêṁdûra (with the dental s) with the indication that it is commonly written śêṁdûra. And Professor Pischel, in § 119 of his Prâkṛit Grammar (1900), Vol. I., Part 8, of the Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, has given sendûra, with the short e and the long û, as the corruption of sindûra. On the other hand, the Pâiyalachchhînâmamâlâ of Dhanapâla, according to Dr. Bühler’s edition (1879), does not seem to deal with sindûra, but indicates, in verse 9, that sindhura, ‘ an elephant,’ retains the tatsama-form siṁdhura, and does not present any corruption of that word.

t>

It would thus seem that, among the Kanarese authorities, there has been some confusion between sindhura, ‘ an elephant,’ and sindûra, ‘ red lead, minium, vermilion,’ which confusion, however, is in all probability confined to mistakes by copyists. But I cannot discover any authority of any kind for the assertion that sindhura, ‘ an elephant,’ takes the form sindûra, or any indication that the word sindûra has the meaning of ‘ an elephant.’ And there are no reasonable grounds for imputing any confusion between the two words to the writers of the ancient records. On the other hand, sendûra, sêndûra, and śêndûra are given as corruptions of sindûra by authorities of an unquestionable kind. We may, therefore, safely discard any idea that sindûtalañchhana and sendûralâñchhana can mean ‘ an elephant crest.’ And we may safely revert to my original rendering of it as the mark of vermilion, for which, however, there is now to be substituted, in more technical terms, the red-lead crest.

The only point that remains, is, to determine exactly what we are to understand by a red-lead crest. Now, Monier-Williams’ Sanskṛit Dictionary, revised edition, gives sindûra-tilaka as meaning ‘ a mark on the forehead made with red lead.’[1] And, similarly, Dr. Kittel’s

____________________________
[1] Also, we may remark, it gives sindûra-tilaka as meaning ‘ marked with red lead, an elephant,’ and sindûra-tilakâ as denoting ‘ a woman whose forehead is marked with red lead (and therefore whose husband is living).’ And H. H. Wilson was mentioned a particular use of the sindûra-tilaka by women, in telling us that a widow, about to commit suttee, “ in making preparations for ascending the funeral pile, used to mark her forehead with sindûra, and to deck herself sumptuously with all the symbols of a sadhavâ,” or woman whose husband is still alive ; see his Works, Vol. II. p. 300.

Home Page