Epigraphia Indica Vol 26

SR No.: 032580
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1945
Total Pages: 448
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 24 MB

Page 209

106
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XXVI
The characters used in this inscription belong to the South Indian Nagari type and may be assigned to the 10th century A.D. With regard to the formation of individual letters, it may be pointed out that ē, t, th, p and u have two signs each, as found in the following examples : vishaė (1.9) and ētad (1.13); "vatas (1.1) and onātah (1.22); nātha (1.6) and "thivi (1.9); parama (1.8) and pratio (1.28); ovatas- (1.1) and ovāsinah (1.3). Besides d and n have three forms each, as found in the following examples : pädā (1. 6), khátādi (1. 15) and paradao (1. 28); nivão (1.3), nichaya (1. 4) and onēka (1. 7). So far as the medial vowels are concerned, i has five signs as found in Svētkā (1.1), karana (1.2), bhatão (1. 3), samanta (.4), odhyāto (1.6); i three signs as found in svasti (1. 1), shatki (1. 4), giri (1.6); i two signs as in Kalio (1.5), kirti (1. 18); u three different signs as in bhuja (1.4), mätyuo (1. 11), bhutvā (1. 26); è three signs as found in Svētkā (1.1), śēsha (1. 4), madhe (1. 15); ai two signs as found in kaidi" (1. 15), vārunai (1. 30); o six signs as found in guro (1. 1), hétor= (1.2), Kolāula (1. 6), grāmoo (1. 13), Gośvão (1. 17), yönyāni= (1. 30); au two signs as found in gauravit (1. 22), gau° (1. 22). The language of the record is Sanskrit and the composition is in prose except that eight of the customary verses occur in 11. 23–34. In respect of orthography the following points may be noted : (1) In certain cases a is used instead of a as in akshēptā (1. 27). (2) u has been wrongly placed instead of au as it is found in ubhau (1. 29). (3) In vishae (.. 9), the vowel é is substituted for ye. (4) Sometimes the letter ñ is wrongly used instead of ś, as in otan-cha (1. 14). (5) In 1. 12 the form rāttra has been used for Sanskrit răshtra apparently due to the influence of the local dialect. (6) Sometimes has wrongly given place to th, as in sashthim (1. 26). (7) n is used instead of TM as in Gökarnē" (1. 3). (8) As in many other inscriptions of this period, no separate sign for b has been employed, it being invariably expressed by the sign for v. (9) é is wrongly used for 8 and sh as in "kasya (1.3) and sashthim (1.26) respectively. (10) sh is wrongly used for 6 and 8 as is found in shatki (1. 4) and shalila (1. 20) respectively. (11) 8 is wrongly used for sh and $ as in "ghosa (1. 7) and dasa (1. 15) respectively. (12) Anusvāra is wrongly dropped as in bhavatā (1. 13) and also wrongly used as in samnka (1. 24). (13) In the like manner visarga is sometimes omitted, as after nichaya (1. 4) while it is also wrongly used as in vahubhih (1. 23). Other errors in writing have been noticed in the text or the footnotes accompanying it.
Indravarman mentioned in this inscription is the same as Indravarman noted in the other Badakhimedi copper-plates on account of the following reasons. First, the script used in both these inscriptions is exactly the same. Secondly, the drafts of both these inscriptions are of the same nature. Thirdly, both were issued from Svētaka, written by Sri Samanta and engraved by Svayambhu. If we study the Ganjam plates of Prithivivarman,' the Badakhimedi copperplates of Indravarman and the present record, then we can form the following genealogical table :
Mahindravarman
Prithivivarman
Indravarman #GõBvõmini
1 There is a great similarity between this inscription and the plates of Bhupendravarmadēva (above, Vol. XXIII, p. 266 ff.) which, from the palaeographical point of view, have been rightly ascribed to the 10th century A. D. The Ganjam plates of Prithivivarman (ibid., Vol. IV, p. 198 ff.) who is the father of Indravarman mentioned in this and the other set of copper-plates (ibid., Vol. XXIII, p. 78 ff.) should necessarily be ascribed to the 10th or the latter half of the 9th oentury A.D. and not to the 12th or 13th century a suggested with doubt by Kielhorn nor to the 12th oentury as held by Mr. Bhattachay .
• Ibid., Vol. XXII, p. 78 ff. • Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 198 ff. • Ibid., Vol. XXIII, p. 78$