North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SILAHARAS OF NORTH KONKAN

in situ, as the strokes and lines of the alphabet used have to be closely studied.”[1] Both Dr. Bhau Daji and Pandit Bhagvanlal found the plaster of Paris cast taken by Mr. Terry more useful for decipherment.

..The inscription is 3 ft. and 3½ in. (100.33 cm.) long and 5½ in. (13.97 cm.) high. It consists of six lines. Some letters in the last line are indistinct. The characters are of the Nāgarī alphabet resembling those of the grants of the Śilāhāra king Chhittarāja. The initial i still retains the old form consisting of a curve below two dots (see Bhāilaiy-ādi, line 4); the initial ē is in the form of an inverted triangle (see ētat, line 2) ; dh has not yet developed a horn on the left (see śamadhigat-ā-, line 1) and so a short horizontal stroke joins its two verticals in dhā in order to distinguish it from vā (see pradhā-, line 4); the left limb of ś is not separated from the right one (see śrīkaraṇa, line 4). The language is Sanskrit, and the record is wholly in prose. It is very incorrectly drafted and written. As regards orthography, we may note that v is occasionally used for b (see pañchamahāśavda, line 1) and s for ś (see Sukrē in the same line).

..The inscription contains a date in the first line, which was read by Bhau Daji as Śakasaṁvat 782 Jeṭha sudha 9, Sukrē[2]. Dr. Fleet supported this reading and showed that it regularly corresponded to Friday, 3rd May A.D. 860, if we take the Śaka year to be Śaka-saṁvat 783 current (782 expired). The correct reading of the date, viz. Śaka-samvata 982 Śrāmva (va)-[na*]śuddha 9, was first given by Bhagvanlal. He pointed out that the first figure of the year denotes 9 as in the Valabhī inscriptions and in the Gwalior inscription of Pratīhāra Bhōja.[3] He also stated that it differed from the figure 9 denoting the tithi in this very inscription, ‘which cannot by any means be assigned a value other than nine.’ He, therefore, conjectured that there were two figures in use at the time denote the same number 9. Bhagvanlal’s conjecture has been corroborated by the figures denoting the year 299 in line 22 of the Kāman stone inscription edited by me.[4] So there is now no doubt about the reading of the date 982, but its details do not work out satisfactorily. In Śaka 982, the tithi 9 of the bright fortnight of Śrāvaṇa ended 1 hour after mean sunrise on Monday, the 10th July A.D. 1060, and not on Friday as required. The date is thus irregular, but it can be somewhat reconciled if we suppose that the year 982 stands for 983 ; for in Śaka 983, the tithi Śrāvaṇa śu. di. 9 commenced 15 h. 20 m. on Friday, the 27th July A.D. 1061[5].

..The inscription refers itself to the reign of the Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara, the illustrious Māṁvāṇirājadēva, who is described as having obtained the five mahāśabdas and as having assumed the birudas Mahāmaṇḍalēśvarādhipati (the Chief of the Mahāmaṇḍalēśvaras), Ripu-daitya-dalanaDāmōdara (veritable Dāmōdara who has exterminated the demons that were his enemies) and Śaraṇāgata-vajrapaṁjara (an adamantine cage protecing those that seek his refuge). This king is evidently identical with Mummuṇi, the youngest brother of the Śilāhāra king Chhittarāja.
______________________

[1] J.B.B.R.A.S., Vol. XII, p. 329.
[2] Ibid., Vol. IX, p. 219.
[3] Ep. Ind., Vol. I, pp. 159 f.
[4] Ibid., Vol. XXIV, p. 331. I have pointed out in a note on that page some other records in which also both the signs were used to denote 9. See e.g. the Chālukya grant of Trilōchanapāla (plates between pp. 202 and 203 of Ind. Ant., Vol. XII).
[5] Fleet, who supported the reading 782 of the date given by Bhau Daji, said, “If Māmvaṇi belonged to the Śilāhāra family at all, he must be placed very much earlier in the genealogy, and perhaps before Kapardin I, with whom the list given in the Bhāṇḍup grant commences, and who was eight generations anterior to Śaka saṁvat 948.” Ind. Ant., XVIII, p. 25. Fleet later accepted the reading 982 in Bom. Gaz. (old ed.), I, ii, p. 543. ‘The second figure of the year, the name of the month and the tithi seem to me doubtful,’ says Kielhorn in his Inscriptions of Southern India, p. 55, n. 1.