North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF CHANDRAVATI

the third is Sōhaṇa, probably to be corrected to Śōbhana. It is not definitely known how the record ends.

... The inscription states nothing about the lineage of Ālhaṇasiṁha, or the family to which he belonged, but he is mentioned with the Imperial titles as reigning at Chandrāvatī in V. 1300 or 1243 A.C. No king with this name ruling in this year is known to us from any other source, The Girvaḍ stone inscription of V.1344 or 1285-86 A.C., which we have edited below, [1] informs us that in that year, i.e. in 1285-86 A.C. the throne of Chandrāvatī was in possession of Pratāpasiṁha, the son and successor of Kṛishṇadēva or Kṛishṇarāja, none of whose records has come to light so far. And considering the year of the present inscription with the one found at Girvaḍ, I agree with Pt. Gaurishankar Ojha [2] in holding that Ālhaṇasiṁha may have been either an elder brother of Pratāpasiṁha and thus a son of Kṛishṇarāja, which indicates the possibility of his name being omitted in the Girvaḍ inscription, or, belonged to any other ruling house which may have captured Chandrāvatī for the time being. His Imperial title is also note worthy here. Neither of these suggestions can be finalized until we get a corroborative evidence.

...The only geographical name mentioned in the inscription is that of Nānakalāgara in 1.6. This appears to have been a complete name of the village where the inscription was found but which no longer exists.

TEXT [3]


_________________

[1] No. 82.
[2] G. H. Ojha : Sirōhī-Rājya-kā-Itihāsa. p. 154.
[3] From Jinavijaya’s transcript in his Prāchīna-Jaina-Lēkha-Saṁgraha, Pt. II, pp. 260-61, No. 426.
[4] This is संवत्‌. The correction in the hundred figure of the year as done here does not appear to be necessary.
[5] Read वर्षे ज्येष्‍ठ सु दि.
[6] Sandhi between Śrī and the following vowel is not performed here for the sake of clarity, as in Śrī Udayāditya, as often noted by us.
[7] Read राज्ये.
[8] An expression like व्यापारे orश्र्पधिकारे is omitted here,
[9] This akshara does not stand here for
. In the name of the person sh appears to have been used for kh, and in the next line the suffix ka is used for the case-ending.
[10] Read पंडित. or कुलेन
[11] Read either श्र्पहं षे(खे)ताकः  or मया पे(खे)ताकेन.
[12] The purpose of the gift and the dimensions of the land appear to have been mentioned here.
[13] A word like pālanīyani and the first half of the customary benedictory verse appear to have lost here.
[14] Read भुमिस्तस्य.
[15] This is the local word for साक्षी
[16] This akshara appears to be the abbreviation of ब्राह्मण.