Epigraphia Indica Vol 12

Author(s): Sten Konow
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 30

No. 4.]
CHATSU INSCRIPTION OF BALADITYA.
The inscription is engraved on a slab of black stone, and consists not of twenty-six, as Carlleyle says, but of twenty-seven lines, which cover a space of about 2' 11" broad by 1' 4" high. It is broken in three parts about one foot from the commencement of lines 9 and 10. Besides, a portion of the stone has peeled off near the lower corner of the proper left side. The size of the letters is larger in lines 1-20 and smaller in lines 21-27. It is largest in line 20. The characters are of the northern type of alphabet, approximately belonging to the tenth century. They include the somewhat rare forms of jk in Raj, ham, line 18; of i, e.g. in yachña-, line 6; and of i, e.g. in van-maytm, 1. 1. Attention may also b drawn to the curious forms of ph, e.g. in phaninah, 1. 3, and the subscript t, eg in mum. adhivasas-ity-uktam, 1. 2. The letter g occurs in two forms; the ordinary one may be noticed, 6.g. in -viprayoga, 1. 3, and the other one in, e.g. vahini-parigataj, 1. 18, or Sugrivad, 1. 19, in which case it can easily be mistaken for f. The signs for the ciphers 5 and 7 incised in lines 4-5 and of the avagraha occurring e.g. in 1. 4, are worthy of note. The language is Sanskrit, but is frequently anything but grammatical. Almost the whole fault in this respect may lie with the person who copied the inscription on the stone previous to its being engraved. But the composer of the prasasti is certainly responsible for the grammatically inadmissible word vi(bi)mvi(mbi)tan, undoubtedly a mistake for vi(bi)mvi(mbi)tani, in 1. 3. The word vivaha is used in 1. 7 apparently in the sense of "one whose vehicle is the bird", referring, of course, to Vishnu. Excepting the initial words [Om na] maḥ and the closing words from utkirnņi to samvat, the whole of the record is in verse, and, curiously enough, the first twentytwo verses only are numbered. In respect of orthography the following points may be noticed: (1) the letter b is throughout denoted by the sign for v; (2) t is invariably doubled in conjunction with a following r; (3) a consonant is, as allowed by the rules of grammar, doubled in conjunction with a preceding r, bh only being not doubled; (4) shri is used twice, in 11. 19 and 21 instead of the correct nighri; (5) -dushkha- is written in 1. 11 instead of duḥkha; (6) the letters is frequently employed instead of s, though once is used instead of s, viz. in -samayaḥ, 1. 22.
After the initial words Om namaḥ the inscription opens with obeisance to the goddess Sarasvati (v. 1), an invocation of blessings from the god Murari (vs. 2-5). Verse 6 introduces the family of Guhila, and the verse following states that in this family flourished one Bhartripaṭṭa, who was like Rama endowed with both priestly and martial qualities (brahma-kshatr-anvita). Rāma here referred to is obviously Parasurama, and what the verse intends saying is that just as Parasurama was a Brahmana by caste but did the duties of a Kshatriya, Bhartripaṭṭa also was a Brahmana by extraction but displayed martial energy; in other words, Bhartripatta was a Brahmakshatra, i.e. what is now known as Brahmakshatri. His son was. Isanabhața (v. 8), and Isanabhata's son was Upendrabhata (v. 9). From the latter sprang Guhila, and from him Dhanika (vs. 10-11). He is, I think, identical with the Dhanika of the inscription now deposited in the Victoria Hall, Udaipur, but originally found at Dabok in Mewar. It begins with Sam 407 Bhadrapada-sudi 8 asmin(n) di[va]se Paramabhaṭṭaraka-MahārājādhirajaParamesvara-Sri-dDhavalappadeva-pravadha(rdha)mana-rajye | Guhila-puttrāṇāṁ dDhanikasy-opabhujyamānāyāṁ Ddhavagarttayam, etc. If the date 407 be referred to the Gupta era, it becomes equivalent to A.D. 725. This agrees with the characters of the inscription, which cannot be earlier than the eighth, nor later than the ninth, century. I have elsewhere said that Dhavalappadeva, the paramount sovereign here mentioned, is the same as the king Dhavala of the Maurya dynasty referred to in the Kansuvam inscription of A.D.
Śri
1 For further treatment of this subject see my paper on the "Gahilote," Journ. & Proceedings, Beng. As. Soc., Vol. V, 1909, pp. 167 ff,
11
c 2