South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

turns out to be so well established a term that it should not be altered. We find it, sometimes spelt incorrectly, in the plates of the time of Śaśâṅkarâja, above, Vol. VI. p. 145, l. 21 ; in one of the grants of Daṇḍîmahâdêvî, ibid. p. 142, l. 33 ; the Gañjâm plates of Pṛithivivarmadêva, above, Vol. IV. p. 200, l. 19 ; the Kudopali plates of Mahâbhavagupta II., ibid. p. 259, l. 17 ; and the Purî plates in Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LXIV. Plate I. p. 126. Instead of it, we have saliladhârâ-puraḥsarâṇa vidhinâ in the plates of Vidyâdharabhañja, ibid. Vol. LVI. Part I. p. 160, l. 6 ; dhârâsalila-puraḥsarêṇa vidhinâ in the Gumsûr plates of Nêtṛibhañja, ibid. Vol. VI. p. 669 ; and udakapûrvêṇa in the Chicacole plates of Nandaprabhañjanavarman, Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 49, l. 4.

Like the expressions just now enumerated, the term akarîkṛitya in line 40 of our grant seems to be peculiar to inscriptions from the Gañjâm district and the countries adjacent to it, in which it occurs frequently. Instead of it we also find, in inscriptions from the same localities, akaratvêna, or, as in the Chicacole plates of Nandaprabhañjanavarman, simply akaram.

The term lâñchhitam, which we have in line 50, also occurs in the plates of Nêtṛibhañja, the plates of Vidyâdharabhañja, and the plates of Pṛithivivarmadêva, all from the Gañjâm district.

The characters employed in these plates are the same as those of e.g. the Gumsûr plates of Nêtṛibhañja, of which a rough lithograph is given in Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. VI. Plate xxxiii. ; the plates of Vidyâdharabhañja, of which there is a photo-lithograph ibid. Vol. LVI. Part I. Plate ix.; and the Gañjâm plates of Pṛithivivarmadêva. They represent a variety of the northern alphabet which has developed out of the northern alphabet such as we find it in the [Gañjâm] plates─ below denoted simply by the letter Ś.─ of the time of Śaśâṅkarâja of would call the Gañjâm variety of the northern alphabet.

Of initial vowels the text contains a â, i, î, and u. Of these, a and â are denoted by one and the same sign, which, as may be seen from a comparison with the sign for â in line 26 of Ś., is really th sign for a only ; see Âdityadêvasya, l. 39, akarîkṛitya, l. 40, api, l. 42, and âkshêptâ, l. 49. The sign for i is nearly the same as that used in Ś. ; compare the i of iva in line 6 of the latter with the i of indôr= in line 1 of the present plates. The sign for î occurs only in Puîpiṇô (or Pûipiṇô), l. 36, and that for u e.g. in utkîrṇṇaṁ, l. 50.

Of the signs for medial vowels only â, u and û call for remarks. In ṭâ, ñchhâ (the ñ of which does not really differ from the sign for ṇ), and occasionally in ṇâ, the â is denoted by a small hook, turned upwards and attached to the top of the consonant-sign ; see jaṭâḥ, l. 4, vâñchhâ, l. 13, and charaṇâya, l. 38, and compare in Ś. .taṭâ, l. 6, guṇâ, l. 14, and kaṇṭhâ, l. 7. The sign for â used (exceptionally) in mâ at the end of line 25 may be compared with the sign for â in pâ at the end of line 1 of Ś.─ For either of the vowels u and û we have^[2] (similarly to what is the case in Ś.) two signs ; compare puṇḍarîkaḥ, l. 22, and kumbha, l. 23 ; mûrtti, l. 7, and bhûmi, l. 18 (and with the last again compare bhûmi in lines 25 and 26 of Ś.). There is a fifth sign, resembling the ordinary sign for û in Ś., which is employed by the writer of the present
______________________________

^[1] The inscription is dated in the Gupta year 300, and the grant recorded in it was made at an eclipse of the sun. During the time which could correspond to a Gupta year 300 there was no solar eclipse which was visible in the Gañjâm district. The two solar eclipses nearest to that time which were visible in the Gañjâm district were one of the 4th November A.D. 617, and one of the 2nd September A.D. 620.─ Perhaps I may state here that in line 22 of the same inscription, in the place of the corrupt akshayanîyê, we must in my opinion read akshayanîvyâ. The term akshayanîvî occurs also (corrupt) in one of the [Gañjâm] grants of Daṇḍîmahâdêvî, above, Vol. VI. p. 139, l. 34.
^[2] I have disregarded in the above the exceptional denotation of u and û after r, e.g. in gurur=, l. 4, and prarûḍhô, l. 20 ; compare in Ś. chaturudadhi-, l. 1.─ In the 19 of the present plates the writer has really written mumûdê, not mumudê.