The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Addenda Et Corrigenda

Images

EDITION AND TEXTS

Inscriptions of the Paramaras of Malwa

Inscriptions of the paramaras of chandravati

Inscriptions of the paramaras of Vagada

Inscriptions of the Paramaras of Bhinmal

An Inscription of the Paramaras of Jalor

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

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF CHANDRAVATI

VASANTAGAḌH STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF PCRNAPĀLA

Piṇḍwāḍā, the chief town of a tehsīl of the same name in the Sirōhī District of Rājasthān. Burt published the inscription in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume X (for 1841), pages 664 ff., from ‘a very unsatisfactory transcript’ prepared by pt. Kamalākānt ; and some time after, the stone which had detached itself from its original spot, was thrown by the Bhīls of the place in the well. It was re-discovered in about 1904, when the water in the well dried up due to shortage of rains, by Pt. Sukhanandji, who removed it to Sirōhī ; and subsequently it was taken to the Rājputānā Museum, Ajmer, where it is now deposited.

...The inscription was also noticed by D.R. Bhandarkar in the Progress Report of the Western Circle, for 1905-6, pp. 47 and 49; and from impressions provided by Pt. Gaurishankar Ojha, it was edited by F. Kielhorn in the Epigraphia Indica, Vol. IX (for 1907-8), pp. 10 ff., with transcript (pp. 12-15) but without a facsimile. It is edited here from the original stone [1] and an impression supplied to me by the Chief Epigraphist of the Archaeological Survery of India.

...The inscription consists of 23 lines of writing which covers a space about 60 cms. broad by 43 cms. high. The last of the lines extends over about three-fourth of the breadth of the other lines. In the proper right corner, a part of the stone is broken away so that a few aksharas are lost (from 15 to 21) at the commencement of 11. 1-9. With the exception of this portion, the writing is throughout well preserved; and though there are some small abrasions on the surface of the stone, it is legible. The size of the letters is between .8 and 1 cm. The signs of mātrās are often gracefully formed.

>

...The characters are Nāgarī of the eleventh century current in Rājasthān and Mālwā, but in their formation they slightly differ from those of the contemporary inscriptions. The letter , which occurs twice in 1. 11, has not developed its dot ; the signs of ch, dh and v are the same ; cf., e.g. kul-ōchchaya and vidhṛita, both in 1. 10 ; occasionally th also shows the same form, as in tathā, 1. 1; and the letter b has a sign of its own ; see babhūva, 1. 10. appears as r, as in gaṁḍa-, 1. 6 ; and r is often engraved in its complete form with its superscript half drawn ; cf. Pramāra-, 1. 2 and prōtphulla, 1. 11. The aksharas kh, t, l and s have generally not developed the tail of the left limb; see mukhīṁ and sita, both in 1. 11 ; and kila in 1. 3. The difference between the forms of the palatal and the dental sibilant is often marked in that the former of these is engraved with a tail of the left limb, which is missing in the latter ; cf. suśubhā, 1. 22.

...The letters are not deeply engraved so that occasionally the impression shows only dots of the loops of n and m, with the strokes altogether missing ; see nāmā, 1. 4, and sainya-madhyē, 1.5. This shallow engraving is responsible for the wrong reading Śrīnātha-ghōshī for the correct śrīmān-yath-ōrvvīṁ, in 1. 4. which had raised a historical problem, as to be seen below. [2] The medial ā is often denoted by a stroke above the top of a letter, as in nāmā, 1. 22 ; and occasionally the form of a medial i (short or long) is only a curve above the top and not taken below, as in hita, 1. 16, and nītā, 1. 17.

... The language is Sanskrit, which is often incorrect, particularly from the point of view of grammar, e. g. the use of jyōti-vidāṁ for jyōtir-vidām, 1. 1, of nāmaṁ for nāma, 1.5 of vēśmaiḥ, for vēśmabhiḥ, 1.14, and vēśmaṁ for vēśma, 1.9 bhūbhujēna, for bhūbhujā 1. 8, and tapaṁ for tapaḥ, 1. 13. With the exception of the customary obeisance to Śiva (which may have been at the commencement), and the words asy-ānvayō-pi and nagar-ānvayō-pi in 11. 8 and 13, respectively, the text is in verse. In all there are 35 verses ; they are not numbered but are separated by a pair of daṇḍas which are also put at the end of the first half of a verse and occasionally at the end of the first and the third foot. The composition is poor ; and the use of particles like vai (11.4 and 12), tu (11. 12 and 22) and su (1. 14) is often resorted to. We have also instances of use of
________________________________________________

[1] In my examination of the stone in the Rājputānā Museum, Ajmer, I found that it measures 72 cms. broad by 63.5 cms. high. including a broad border of 3.5 cms. on all sides. The inscription is completed in about two-third of the portion of the stone, above, and the rest is left blank. It also contains marks of water of the well in which it was thrown and where it remained for a number of years till it was re-discovered by G. H. Ojha, as already stated above; and I also found a number of letters choked with white-wash.
[2] For the correct reading, see the expression in text, below, 1. 4 and n. Also see H.P.D., p.299. where D. C. Ganguly says that ‘the name Śrīnāthaghōshī had totally disappeared from the place where it was supposed to have existed’. But in fact it is only an example of wrong reading and there is no question of its disappearance.

<< - 2 Page

>
>