________________
166
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
g in lines 2, 18, 29, 30, 36; an office, apparently similar to the Marathi dor arta. Compare Ind. Ant., vol. XI, p. 221, 1. 21, and p. 242, 1. 9; also vol. XII, p. 195, note.
पचिक in कलपालमहत्तकपश्चिक:, line 19.
पालिका in line 26, and पलिका in lines 28 and 31; probably = पालि= प्रस्थ.
प्रसवदेवियारक in line 12.
we in recufa, line 30; perhaps 'a load' (of stones).
f in lines 6, 19, 29, 30, 45; evidently some public or official building of the town. Compare Ind. Ant., vol. XIV, p. 10, second col., line 5; and Journ. Beng. As. Soc., vol. XXX, p. 332, last line.
महर in ताम्बोलिकमहर, line 26; compare महत्तक in कनपालमहत्तक, line 19; and the Hindi a chief.' Compare Dr. Hultzsch, ante, p. 161, note 24. efect in line 6.
सुलाइतण in line 11.
युग or सुगा in युगेका देया, line , सुमेकं सुमेकं प्रति, line 20, and समस्तयुगानामुपरि line 21. रसीके in line 24.
in line 10, and far in line 26; perhaps the twentieth part of' or a name of a particular coin. We may compare fatt, which several times occurs in a copperplate inscription of the Lucknow Museum.
धारणा in lines 18 and 20; equivalent to परिपन्यना or विव.
in line 38, compounded with a proper name, and denoting perhaps a
trade. ferge in line 30, farge in verse 101 of the Såsbahû inscription, Ind. Ant., vol. XV, p. 40, ' a stone-cutter.'
eititure or eitferrura in lines 12, 16, 21, 28, etc., and in referereiteturer and Garrafoenenfacra in lines 13, 22, and 8; and tetura in lines 35 and 38. 'a market' in, line 15, ge, line 35, fe, lines 12, 16, 20, 21, 29, E, line 13, and E, lines 45 and 46; (also in T, lines 12,
14, etc.)
=
As regards the contents, the first part of the inscription is divided, by means of ornamental full-stops, into twenty-seven sections; and it records as many donations, made at different times, and almost all of them by traders and artizans, for providing the usual materials of worship of Vishnu and other deities, at the town of Siyadoni. The inscription, in fact, is a collective public copy of a series of deeds; and the occasional remarks that a certain portion was written by the karanika, or writer of legal documents, Sarvahari, the son of Bhochuka (line 4), another by Rachchhâka, the son of Sarvahari (line 34), another by Svåmikumara, another son of Sarvahari (line 36), and another again by the karanika Dhiravarman, the son of Svåmikumara (line 39), were copied with the rest from the original deeds, and must not be taken to refer to the inscription itself. There are some, I believe, minor points in several of the deeds here presented to us, which, owing at least in part to the ungrammatical state of the language and to the employment of obscure expressions, I do not fully understand. But the general import of the various donations is clear enough, and may be seen from the following statement, from which I omit, as of no interest, all reference to the boundaries of buildings which in the original are given with scrupulous care. Any
