________________
No. 12.]
A NOTE ON THE BUGUDA PLATES.
101
turns out to be so well established a term that it should not be altered. We find it, sometimes spelt incorrectly, in the plates of the time of Sasankarája, above, Vol. VI. p. 145, 1.21 ; in one of the grants of Dandimahadevi, ibid. p. 142, 1.33; the Gañjam plates of Přithivivarmadêva, above, Vol. IV. p. 200, 1. 19; the Kadopali plates of Mahâbhavagupta II., ibid. p. 259, 1. 17; and the Purî plates in Jour. Beng. As Soc. Vol. LXIV. Part I. p. 126. Instead of it, we have saliladhara-purahsaréna vidhind in the plates of Vidyadharabhañja, ibid. Vol. LVI, Part I. p. 160, 1.6; dhárásalila-purahsaréna vidhind in the Gumsûr plates of Nêtsibhañja, ibid. Vol. VI. p. 669; and udakapúrvena in the Chicacole plates of Nandaprabhañjanavarman, Ind. Ant. Vol. XIIL p. 49, 1. 4.
Like the expressions just now enumerated, the term akaríkritya in line 40 of our grant seems to be peculiar to inscriptions from the Gañjâm district and the countries adjacent to it, in which it occurs frequently. Instead of it we also find, in inscriptions from the same localities. akaratvéna, or, as in the Chicacole plates of Nandaprabhañjanavarman, simply akaram.
The term lanchhitam, which we have in line 50, also occurs in the plates of Nêtribhaja, the plates of Vidyadharabhañja, and the plates of Prithivivarmadêva, all from the Gañjâm district.
The characters employed in these plates are the same as those of e.g. the Gumsûr plates of Natribhañja, of which & rough lithograph is given in Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. VI. Plate xxxiii.; the plates of Vidyadharabhañja, of which there is a photo-lithograph ibid. Vol. LVI. Part I. Plate ix.; and the Gañjam plates of Prithivivarmadêva. They represent a variety of the northern alphabet which has developed out of the northern alphabet guch as we find it in the [Gañjâm] plates--below denoted simply by the letter s.-of the time of Sasan karaja of the Gupta year 300,published with a photo-lithograph above, Vol. VI. p. 144, and which I would call the Ganjam variety of the northern alphabet.
Of initial vowels the text contains a, a, i, i, and u. Of these, a and a are denoted by one and the same sign, which, as may be seen from a comparison with the sign for å in line 26 of S., is really the sign for a only; see Adityadévasya, 1. 39, akaríksitya, 1. 40, api, 1. 42, and ákshéptá, 1. 49. The sign for i is nearly the same as that used in S.; compare the i of iva in line 6 of the latter with the i of indórs in line 1 of the present plates. The sign for i occurs only in Puipino (or Paipino), 1. 36, and that for * e.g. in utkirnnań, 1. 50.
Of the signs for medial vowels only a, u and i call for remarks. In fa, nchha (the ñ of which does not really differ from the sign for ), and occasionally in ņd, the á is denoted by a small hook, turned upwards and attached to the top of the consonant-sign; see jatah, 1. 4, vašichha, 1. 13, and charanaya, 1. 38, and compare in S. tata, 1. 6, guna, 1. 14, and kantha, 1. 7. The sign for å used (exceptionally) in md at the end of line 25 may be compared with the sign for å in på at the end of line 1 of S.-For either of the vowels u and û we have? (similarly to what is the case in s.) two signs; compare pundarikaḥ, 1. 22, and kumbha, 1. 23; mürtti, 1. 7, and bhúmi, 1. 18 (and with the last again compare bhúmi in lines 25 and 26 of S.). There is a fifth sign, resembling the ordinary sign for din S., which is employed by the writer of the present
1 The inscription is dated in the Gupta year 800, and the grant recorded in it was made at an eclipse of the sun. During the time which could correspond to & Gupta year 800 there was no solar eclipse which was risible in the Gabjam district. The two solar eclipses Dearest to that time which were visible in the Gafjám district were one of the 4th November A.D. 617, and one of the 2nd September A.D. 620.- Perhaps I may state here that in line 22 of the same inscription, in the place of the corrupt akshayanlyé, we must in my opinion read akshayawivyd. The term akshayantof occurs also (corrupt) in one of the (Gañjam) grants of Dapdimah&dévi, above, Vol. VI. p. 139, 1. 34.
. . I have disregarded in the above the exceptional denotation of w and after , e.g. in gurura, l. 4, and praridho, 1. 20, compare in S. chaturudadhi., 1.1.- In line 19 of the present plates the writer has really written muide, not mumudé.
