South Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE VATSAGULMA BRANCH

Prakrit sentences. The present grant has many technical expressions mentioning exemptions granted to the donees which are common to the grants of Pallava Śivaskandavarman, but unlike the latter, the present inscription shows several instances of double consonants, though cases of single consonants doing duty for double ones are by no means rare; see e.g. Chātuvejja-ggāma-majjātā, line 19 and contrast Revatijesi, line 18 etc. In some respects the language of the present record does not strictly conform to the rules of Prakrit grammarians; see e.g. tiṇṇā in line 17 instead of tiṇṇi laid down by Vararuchi, VI, 56. Other noteworthy forms are se in line 19 in the sense of tasya, ya in lines 7, 19, 25 and 26 meaning cha, and the euphonic nasal etthaṅ-gāme in line 9. As for the dialect used, it is, as might be expected, the Māhārāshṭrī, see, e.g., āpuṇo (for the regular appaṇo¹ ) in line 8, but it is curious to note that this record found in the heart of Mahārāshṭra exhibits some peculiarities which are usually ascribed to the Śaurasēnī; see, e.g., the softening of th into dh in Ādhivvaṇika, line 9, and the verbal forms rakkhadha, rakkhāpedha, pariharadha and pariharāpedha² in lines 25 and 26 and dāṇi³ in line 8. On the other hand, we have the hardening of d into t in majjātā, line 19 as in the Paiśāchī. These forms show that the peculiarities of the several dialects were not strictly confined to the provinces after which they were named.

...Especially noteworthy are the forms in si (or siṁ) used in the sense of the dative, e.g., Jivujjesiṁ (Sanskrit, Jīvāryāya), Ruddajesi (Sanskrit, Rudrāryāya) etc. in lines 10-18. According to grammarians⁴, the dative case has disappeared from the Prakrits, its place being taken by the genitive. The genitive singular of nouns in a usually ends in ssa(written as sa in very early records) and this is the form which is invariably found in other Prakrit in- scriptions. The form in si (or, siṁ) which is found throughout in the present inscription has survived in old Marathi works like the Liṭācharitra and the Jñānēśvarī. It is the parent of the Marathi dative affix sa.

... The only orthographical peculiarities that call for notice are the reduplication of a consonant after r (as in Dharmma-, line 1) and anusvāra (as in sā[ṁ] vvachchharaṁ, line 28), the use of j for y as in karejja, line 26 and the use of the classnasal in place of anusvāra in Sanskrit and Prakrit words; see e.g. Vindhyaśaktēr-, line 5 and a-chammaṅgālika, line 22.

... Like other finished Vākāṭaka grants, the present inscription opens with the word dṛishṭam ‘seen’, the auspicious word siddham being written in the margin of the first plate as in the Hirahaḍgalli plates of Śivaskandavarman. The inscription refers itself to the reign of the Vākāṭaka king, the Dharmamahārāja Vindhyaśakti. The object of it is to register the grant, by Vindhyaśakti, of the village Ākāsapadda⁵ which was situated near Tākālakkhōppaka in the northern mārga (Subdivision) of Nāndīkaḍa. The donees were certain Brāhmanas of the Atharvana charana or the Atharvaveda. It may be noted that a Brahmana of this Vēda is mentioned as the donee in the Tiroḍī plates of Pravarasēna II also. The names of the donees ended in ārya as in some other grants of the Vākāṭakas. The land or the revenue of the village was divided into four parts, of which three were assigned to eight Brāhmaṇas and the remaining one to one Brāhmaṇa. The shares of the former,
________________________

¹ Vararuchi, V, 45. In Śaurasēnī the form would be attano
² Ibid., XII, 3.
³ Hēmachandra lays down dāṇiṁ in VIII, 4, 277, but says that the final anusvāra is optionally dropped (VIII, I, 29).
⁴ Vararuchi, VI, 64.
⁵ The name of the village si given in the plural as Valūrakesu in inscription No. 13 at Karle. Ep. Ind., Vol. VII, p. 57.