North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA

VIDISHĀ STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF JAYASIṀHA (II)

...The characters are Nāgarī of the thirteenth century A.C., and the language is corrupt Sanskrit. The most glaring mistakes of grammar consist in the use of śrēya- for śrēyō- in 1. 4, and dēvī Sā(Bhā?)numatī , in the first and not the third case, as required by the construction. In respect of orthography, what is specially worth noting is that the letter kh is represented by sh in Vaiśāsha in 1.1, and y by j in jabhati, in the last line.

...The inscription refers itself to the reign of the illustrious Jayasiṁhadēva, evidently the same as the Paramāra king Jayavarman of the preceding record,[1] in whose dominion the town of Bhilsā, as we learn from it, was included. The object of the inscription is to record, at that place, a pious deed, viz., the donation of Dvōrmēla(?), which appears to be the name of a locality. The donation was made by a lady of the name of Sānumatī (or, Bhānumatī?), residing at Kuptakā(?), for the religious merit of Paṁ (Paṇḍita) and Ṭh (Ṭhakura) Madanasiṁha, who seems to have been her husband. The name of the donee is not mentioned ; and it thus appears that the donation was made in favour of a deity, probably an image, near which the stone bearing the record may have been originally set up.

...The inscription is dated in 1. 1, as the (Vikrama ) year 1320, on Thursday, the third tithi of the bright fortnight of Vaiśākha. According to Sircar, the year is Kārttikādi, current, and the date regularly corresponds to the 12th April, 1263 A.C.[2]

... While dealing with the Udaipur inscription of the time of Dēvapāla, dated V.S. 128[9]. we have seen that the Paramāras, after their defeat at the hands of Iltutmish, succeeded in reconquering the town of Bhillasvāmin (Bhilsā) from the Muslims ;[3] and the present inscription which comes from the same place, corroborates the findings.[4]

...As for the localities mentioned in the record, Bhillasvāmidēvapura (1-2) is evidently Bhilsā, as seen above, and the other localities mentioned in it cannot be traced.

TEXT[5]

[1] For details, see below, No. 60.
[2] Ep. Ind., Vol. XXXV. p. 187. To me the year appears to be expired, of course with the same calculation,
[3] Above, p. 188.
[4] For further discussion on the subject, see below, No. 60.
[5] From facsimile facing p. 187 in Ep. Ind., Vol. XXXV.
[6] Expressed by symbol, the formation of which is rather peculiar and not generally found in inscriptions.
[7] Sircar remarked that the reading of this numeral may be 2 also, but then it would offend against the week-day (Thursday) mentioned just after it and which, according to him, is regular.
[8] At the beginning of this line there is a trace of one akshara which I am unable to make out. It appears as su(?).
[9] This akshara appears also as प्ता, and thus the reading is uncertain. Compare with it the formation of the first akshara in 1. 5. However, I follow Sircar in the reading of this name as also of others which occur in 11. 4-6.
[10] That is, Paṇḍita-Ṭhakkura.
[11] As Sircar has already suggested, read देव्या सानुमत्या. The reading of the first akshara of the name, however, appears to me to be doubtful, as it may also have been भा.
[12] What appears after this akshara may not have been a redundant daṇḍa, as taken by Sircar, but a kāka- pada-sign, which is partly preserved
[13] Read मातरं
[14] Read यभति. The double daṇḍa that follows is joined at the top by a horizontal stroke.

Home Page