The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Additions and Corrections

Images

Contents

Bhandarkar

T. Bloch

J. F. Fleet

Gopinatha Rao

T. A. Gopinatha Rao and G. Venkoba Rao

Hira Lal

E. Hultzsch

F. Kielhorn

H. Krishna Sastri

H. Luders

Narayanasvami Ayyar

R. Pischel

J. Ramayya

E. Senart

V. Venkayya

G. Venkoba Rao

J. PH. Vogel

Index

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

At the broadest part they measure nearly 9 inches. Their height varies from 5⅜″ to 5½″. They are held together by a ring, which has been cut by me with the permission of the Curator. The ring, which is not quite circular, measures about 3″ in diameter. Its ends are secured in the base of a circular seal measuring 1½″ in diameter. The seal bears, in relief on a countersunk surface, an image of Lakshmî, seated apparently on a lotus and flanked by two lampstands, of which the one on the left is not quite distinct. The lotus extends on both sides to the height of the shoulders of the goddess and is surmounted on each side by an elephant with uplifted trunk. This is the usual representation of the goddess Gajalakshmî. The base of the seal is slightly damaged, and a nail seems to have been driven in to fix the seal to the ring.”

The inscription records a grant of land, made by king Mahâbhavagupta (I.) surnamed Janamêjaya in the eighth year of his reign. The alphabet resembles that of the grants of the same prince which have been published by Dr. Fleet. Initial o and au occur in Ôḍra (l. 16), ojjhâ (l. 44) and Autathya (l. 15), and the rare letter jh occurs in ojjhâ (l. 44). The letter of paṭu (l. 5) differs in shape from that of kuṭumvi (l. 10), etc. The group ṭṭa is throughout written as ṭa, except in âsphôṭṭayanti (l. 28), where it is wrongly employed. A final form of t is used in samvat (l. 41), and the virâma in dadyât (l. 27), vrâhmaṇân (l. 9), êtân and pârthivêndrân (l. 35) ; elsewhere the virâma is omitted. The decimal figures 1, 2 and 8 occur in l. 41.

>

The language is Sanskṛit. There is one verse in ll. 3-6, and 11 of the customary verses occur in ll. 23-38 ; the remainder of the record is in prose. The visarga is omitted in several cases. The rules of Sandhi are neglected in śrîmân (l. 4), ºchchhinnaḥ and ºṅgirasa (l. 15), ºdhyâyinê (l. 16), dadyât (l. 27) and ashṭamê (l. 40). The orthography is defective in many respects. The vowel i is mixed up with î, and u with û. In nôpûra (l. 1) for nûpura and dyôtaka (l. 41 f.) for dûtaka, ô is used instead of û. The vowel ṛi and the syllable ri are mixed up in samâhatri (for ºhartṛi) and sannidhâtri (l. 11), tṛidaśa (l. 4) and Tṛikaliṅga (ll. 8 and 39). In kṛichhna (l. 5) and samvachchharê (l. 40), ts is represented by chh. The dental n takes the place of the lingual in punya (ll. 19 and 30), hiranya (l. 20), gṛihnâti (l. 29 f.) and Saṁgrâmêna (l. 44). Of sibilants, s is used for sh in nisiddha (l. 14), and ś for s in śalila, puraśśara, śama (l. 18) and vaśêta (for vasêt, l. 26). A y is inserted in śâkhyâ (l. 16) for śâkhâ, and dyôtaka (l. 41 f.) for dûtaka. The consonant b is always represented by v, which must have been pronounced as b just as in Bengali. This may be concluded from the spellings sâmvra (l. 14) for sâmra, tâmvra (l. 19) for tâmra, ºdattâm=vâ (l. 32), samvachchharê (l. 40) and samvat (l. 41). Other irregularities are vuvdhâ (l. 38) for buddhvâ, triyârishaya (l. 15) for tryârshêya, Kaivilâsa and utkirita (l. 44) for Kailâsa and utkîrṇa.

The inscription opens with the words : “ Ôṁ. Hail ! From the prosperous Murasîman, where flights of merry pigeons rise up at the sound of the anklets of many beautiful maidens, (and) whose fame is spread by bards coming from all quarters.” Another grant of Mahâbhavagupta I. is dated from the same Murasîman, which is there spelt with a long û in the first syllable,─ apparently by mistaken, as Mura is a well known word, and as û is used erroneously for u in many other instances.[1] The next word of the same grant, -samâvâsita, may be meant for -samâvâsitaḥ. As, however, it would be difficult to imagine that the king resided at one place and issued his grant from another, I prefer to correct –samâvâsitât and to take the following word kaṭaka to mean ‘ a camp,’ and not the city of Cuttack.[2] Thus the inscription of the sixth year is dated “ from the prosperous camp of victory, pitched at Murasîman.” With the
_________________________________________________________

[1] Above, Vol. III. p. 341.
[2] Professor Kielhorn kindly refers me to three very similar instances in inscriptions from Northern India :─
1.─ Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 360, text line 6 f.─ śrîmad-Vishṇupur-âvâsita-śri-vijaya-kaṭakê.
2.─ Ibid. Vol. IV. p. 121, text line 23,─ śrî-Vaḍaviha-grâma-samâvâsita-vijaya-kaṭakê.
3.─ Ibid. Vol.. II. p. 309, text line 33, and Vol. V. App. p. 58, note 4,─ Prayâga-samâvâsita-śrîmad-vijaya-kaṭakat.

Home Page

>
>