Epigraphia Indica Vol 11

SR No.: 032565
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1911
Total Pages: 438
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 22 MB

Page 127

112
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XI.
(Line 27.) The sign-manual of Me the Mahisimanta, the Maharaja Dhruvasena. The messenger is the pratihara Mammaka. Written by Kikkaka. The year 200 and 10; (the month) Sravana; the bright (fortnight); the fifteenth (tithi).
III.-PALITĀNĀ PLATES OF DHRUVASĒNA I.; [VALABHI-] SAṀVAT 210.
These are two plates which have been described as follows by Rai Bahadur V. Venkayya,"Each of them has two ring-holes. Each plate is written only on one side. The working of the engraver's tool shows itself in a few places on the back. The length of the plates is about 101"; the height varies from 63" to 7"."
The plates are in a good state of preservation. The first contains 15 and the second 12 lines of well executed writing. The average height of individual letters is ".
The characters are of the same kind as in the plates dealt with above. They comprise the signs for an initial au in Aupasvasti-, 1. 17; for a final t in trimsat, 1. 17 and ve(va) set, 1. 24; for a final m in =ānujñātam, 1. 19. The curious shape of the visarga in krishataḥ, 1. 20; -gitāḥ, 1. 22; -adibhiḥ, 1. 23; -vasihanaḥ, 1. 25, is probably due to the engraver's misunderstanding bis draft. Note also the signs of -e- in -kām-eka-, 1. 11, and of lo in 1. 12. A sign of interpunctuation occurs in 1. 25. The numerical symbols for 200, 10 and 5 are found in 1. 27.
With regard to orthography the remarks made about the preceding grants also hold good here. The wrong samdhi in bhumjato krish-, 1. 20, may be a Prakritism. The same is perhaps the case with Drönasihams-siha iva, 1. 10. Consonants are doubled after r in the usual way; thus, -ärjjavöpärjjita-, 1. 2 f.; -dharmma Dharmma-, 1. 8; maryyadaya, 1. 20, etc. The doubling of a surd before y in -anuddhyātō, 1. 13, sambaddhyamana, 1. 15, is also in accordance with the practice in similar grants. There are several instances of careless writing; thus we find a for a in danaman-, 1. 2; vapi, 1. 16; brahmana-, 1. 17; -apyāyanaya, 1. 18; tā (sa)manyam, 1. 22; anumanta, 1. 24; -dayam, 1. 25; a for a in cha, 1. 24; krishṇāhāyō, 1. 25; u for u in bhumi-, 1. 25; ri for ri in triméat, 1. 17; è for a in veset, 1. 24; for ai in saraneshiniin, 1. 11; chch for ch in chch-anu-, 1. 24; chhy for ndhy in Vichhyaṭavishv, 1. 25; perhaps j for jya in -raja-, 1. 3; ñcha for sva in añchayuja, 1. 27; ta for ga in atami-, 1. 21; t for tt in -tatvanām, 1. 11; achchhētā, 1. 24; ta for să in tamanyam, 1. 22; p for y in mapapi, 1. 18.; de for mu in -aihikādēshmika-, 1. 19; n for n in maitrakānām, 1. 1, fort in nany-eva, 1. 24, and for v in anumantany-, 1. 22 p for y in pato, 1. 20; 8 for sh in suska-, 1. 25. L. 21 contains a series of mistakes in chavity any-aiśvaryyany-esthira mōnuryya tamanyam. Note also the superfluous anusvāra in sihams, 1. 10; suhrimt-, 1. 12; the superfluous na in 1. 21; the redundant ha in vasthanah, 1. 25; the omission of na in -ānīkā [nā"]m-, 1. 11; the omission of a visarga in rajabhi, 1. 23, and the form Kikakka instead of Kikkakēnu, 1. 26. In 1. 5, on the other hand, we find the correct samdhi -didhitir-ddin-, while the other grants of Dhruvasena have -didhitiḥ din-.
The grant was issued from Valabhi by the Mahasamanta, the Maharaja Dhruvasena to the Brahmana Skanda of the Aupasvasti gōtra, a student of the Vajisaneya sakha, a resident of Akrōlaka village, who was therewith confirmed in the possession of an irrigation well (vapi) and a field of thirty padavurtas, on the northern border of the village. I am not able to identify this village. The messenger was Rudradhara, who is not elsewhere known, and the writer, as in the preceding grants, Kikkaks. The grant is dated on the fifth (tithi) of the dark (?) fortnight of Asvayuja, in the (Valabhi) year 210, corresponding to A.D. 529. The syllable denoting the fortnight has been miswritten, and it is possible that it should be restored as fu and not as ba. The mistake is due to the final syllable of the preceding word being wrongly repeated.