The Indian Analyst
 

South Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Preface

Contents

List of Plates

Abbreviations

Corrigenda

Images

Introduction

The Discovery of the Vakatakas

Vakataka Chronology

The Home of The Vakatakas

Early Rulers

The Main Branch

The Vatsagulma Branch

Administration

Religion

Society

Literature

Architecture, Sculpture and Painting

Texts And Translations  

Inscriptions of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Feudatories of The Main Branch

Inscriptions of The Vatsagulma Branch

Inscriptions of The Ministers And Feudatories of The Vatsagulma Branch

Index

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 MINISTERS AND FEUDATORIES OF THE
VATSAGULMA BRANCH

 

(e.g. Lāṭa-, line 14) it has assumed a dimunitive form. The language is Sanskrit and the inscription is in verse throughout. The verses are thirty-two in number. As regards orthography, we may note the doubling of the consonant after r as in nirvvāpaṇa-,line 1 and the use of the guttural nasal in stead of anusvāra in vaṅśa-, line 3. The upadhmānīya occurs in lines 2 and 10, and the jihvāmūlīya in line

...The inscription is one of the minister Varāhadēva of the Vākāṭaka king Harishēṇa. The object of it is to record the dedication of a cave-dwelling (vēśma) fully decorated with pillars, picture-galleries, sculptures etc. to the Buddhist Saṅgha. It is undated, but since Harishēṇa ruled from about 475 A.C. to 500 A.C., it may be referred to the end the fifth century A.C. It is noteworthy that Fergusson and Burgess also assigned the Ajaṇṭā cave XVI, where the present record is incised, to about 500 A.C. on the evidence of the style of its architecture1.

... The inscription falls into two parts. The first part comprising the first twenty verses gives the genealogy of the reigning king Harishēṇa and incidentally names and eulogises Hastibhōja and his son (Varāhadēva) who as ministers served the Vākāṭaka kings Dēvasēna and Harishēṇa. The second part describes the cave-dwelling containing a Buddhist temple (chaitya-mandiram) and an excellent hall (maṇḍapa-ratnam) excavated by Varāhadēva which he dedicated to the Buddhist Saṅgha for the religious merit of his father and mother.

... The main interest of the inscription lies in the first part which gives the Vākāṭaka genealogy right from Vindhyaśakti, the founder of the family. The present inscription describes Vindhyaśakti as a dvija (Brāhmaṇa) who became renowned on earth, having increased his power in great battles. His Pravarasēna I is next glorified in verse 6 as one whose lotus-like feet were kissed by the rays of the crest-jewels of hostile kings.

... Pravarasēna I’s son and successor was named and described in verse 7, but owing to the unfortunate mutilation of the record in this part, the name is partially lost. Only the latter part of it viz., -sēna is clear. Bhagvanlal, who first noticed the name, thought that sēna was preceded by a faintly traceable form like dra, so that the name might have been Bhadrasēna, Chandrasēna, Indrasēna, Rudrasēna, etc. In his transcript of the record he adopted the reading Rudrasēna evidently because this name occurs soon after that of discovered before. This reading was also adopted by Bühler, who next edited the present inscription. It must, however, be noticed that according to the aforementioned landgrants of Pravarasēna II, Rudrasena I was not the son of Pravarasēna I, but was his grandson, while the present inscription clearly states that the successor of Pravarasēna (I) was his son. We must therefore suppose either that the poet committed a mistake in describing this relationship, or the reading of the royal name adopted by Bhagvanlal and Bühler is incorrect. The former alternative does not appear likely; for the inscription was composed under the direction of the Vākāṭaka king Harishēṇa’s minister and is, on the whole, very correctly written. It is, however, very much abraded in the portion where the name occurs, and therefore a mistake in reading is not unlikely. Both Bhagvanlal and Bühler also were not quite certain about this reading, but the former thought that he saw ‘a faintly traceable form like dra’. If we refer to the lithograph used by both of them, we find that the upper member of the ligature read as dra is quite illegible, but there appears a loop below it, which seems to have been taken as the subscript r of dra. There are several instances of the subscript r in that lithograph, but in none of them is it denoted by a loop; it is always shown
__________________

... 1 The Cave-Temples of India, p. 306.

<< - 1 Page