|
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MAHISHMATI
The first of the two signs, which immediately follows the completion of the verse
in line 6, is definitely not a sign of interpunction as supposed by Majumdar; for, so far
as I know, such as sign is not used for his purpose anywhere else. Banerji seems to be
right in taking it to be a numerical symbol,1 notwithstanding the unusual omission of
an introductory word like varsha or samvat. The symbol, however, signifies 100, not 200;
for the horizontal stroke which is generally attached to the top of its vertical in order to
convert it into a symbol for 2002 is not noticed in this case. This symbol is followed
by two horizontal strokes, one below the other,3 signifying the unit figure 2. This
is followed by some aksharas which are indistinct. The first appears to be sa and the last
stu. They may be remnants of Siddham=astu.4
The date of the record is thus the year 102, which, being referred to the Kalachuri
era, becomes equivalent to 351-52 A. C. The tenth tithi of amānta Śvāvana va. di. 10 in
the expired year 102 fell on the 22nd July 352 A. C. The date does not admit of verification,
but it is supported by the palæographical evidence stated above
TEXT5
_______________________
1Majumdar’s statement that this sign is not used as a numerical symbol is incorrect. As a matter
of fact, it is the usual symbol denoting a hundred and is used in several records edited here. See, e.g.
the dates of Nos. 3, 6, etc.
2See e.g. the symbol denoting hundreds in the plates of Dahrasēna (No.8).
3These strokes are rather indistinct in the plate accompanying Banerji’s article in Ep. Ind., Vol.
XVI, but they appear clear in P1. cxxxix of the Monuments of Sāñchi, Vol III, and also in the fresh estampage
supplied to me.
4D.C. Sircar has suggested the reading svasty=astu. S.I., Vol. I, p. 181. It has however,
to be admitted that the first akshara shows no trace of the subscript v, and the second does not look like
stya. Mr. Majumdar takes the last akshara stu as a numerical symbol denoting 40. But see the forms of
the symbol for 40 in Plate IX 'in Bühler’s Indische Palæographic. The shape of that symbol is clearly different.
5From an inked extampage.
6This word is incised in the margin on the left, between lines 3 and 4.
7These four aksharas are damaged but can be read from the traces left. The following two
aksharas divya are fairly clear. Banerji reads which yields no good sense. Majumdar first read
s-ādtitya-and subsequentlytējah-prasādāt. See J.A.S.B., N.S., Vol. XIX and M.S., Vol I, p. 393.
8Majumdar read [rshsha], but as the akshara is much defaced, it is difficult to say whether the consonant
sh was reduplicated.
9There are some traces of an akshara after śa, which may be of mē as supposed by Banerji and
Majumdar. Read .
10Read .
11Read.
12Banjerji and and Majumdar But the reading is quite clear. Besides, there
is no trace of the medial ū of sū. The correct reading appears to be which was later adopted
by Majumdar.
13These six aksharas are illegible. I would restore The upper part of kā, the
medial i of ti and the visarga are clearly seen.
Home
Page |
