Epigraphia Indica Vol 12

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

Page 73

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XII.
No. 10.-SPURIOUS ISLAMPUR PLATES OF THE GANGA KING VIJAY ADITYA.
THE 30TH YEAR.
BY K. B. PATHAK AND STEN Konow.
The ensuing paper is the joint work of Professor Pathak and myself. The description of the plates is due to Professor Pattak, whose reading of the text has, moreover, been adopted. in most places. The remainder has been added by me.-S. K. ]
The plates here edited belong to Mr. Bhiminna, alias Tatya Jinäppa Mudhale, a resident of Islāmpur, in the Válvė taalluqa of the Satárå District in the Bombay Presidency. They are however stated to have been originally brought from Mudbo in the Southern Maratha country, where the owner's ancestors lived. They are five in number, and are strung, together on a ring passing throngh holes on the left side. Each plate measures 6" by 3*. The weight of the plates and the ring is about 80 tolas. The edges of the plates have been raised into rims in order to protect the writing. The ends of the ring are soldered into a seat showing an elephant facing the left. The ring is oval and measures 3" by 2".
The inscription is in Sanskrit and is written in prose and verse. It is not dated. The characters are South Indian and closely resemble those found in other Ganga grants. The inscription seems to record the grant of two fields and a house to a Brähmaņa named Somaśarman in the time of the Ganga king Vijayaditya. The grant was shown to me some years ago, and I have since obtained the plates on loan through Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar, for the parpose of editing them. [K. B. P.)
This grant belongs to a series of spurious grants of the Western Gangas, which have been most extensively dealt with by Dr. Fleet, and which have been treated as genuine by Mr. Rice, whose theory would, e.g., lead to such results as that the king Durvinita, whose time would have been tho end of the 5th century, wrote a commentary on at least one Sarga of the Kirātárjuniya, though scarcely anybody would place Bharavi earlier than the first half of the 6th century.
The reasons for contesting the gennity of these records have been ably put forward by Dr. Fleet, and they fully apply to the present grant.
The Orthograpby is extremely faulty. Thus we find a for å and a for a in kul-amalavyöma-, 1. 1; -devata , 1. 8, etc. ; in foro in-bhāgineyan, I. 12; for a in-chirin., 1. 8; harēti. 1. 50; i for i in niti., 11. 6, 21; -krita-, 1. 10; pritis, 1. 10; cf. -kēsarih, l. 39; o for * in -Ex.bo[ru]has, 1. 9; k for g in Sakarādibhih, 1. 62; t for k in samyat-, 1.5; t for j in srimatJahna-, 1. 1 ; t for tt in-tatvah, 11. 25, 34; t for d in Patma-, 11; cf. 11. 7, 9, 58; for dh in -samatagata-, I. 34 ; t forn in frimat-Madhava-, 11. 6, 11 ; -prolasat-mā., 1. 40; t for v in -patana-, 1. 44 ; th for t in -silasthambha., 1. 2; d for dh in Sindu-, 1. 20; dh for d in -vidhäran-, 1. 3; -udhadhi., 1.7; dy for jy in -Tadya-, II, 5, 10, 40; nd for t in windyan, 1. 32: nu for nn in-sanva-, 1. 11; bh for b in Triyambhaka-, l. 9; -Kadambha-, 1. 12; b for in ba, 1. 60; v for bh in -avidhānē, l. 28, etc. Wrong Sandhi is of frequent occurence; compare -Tādyah Mukha-, 1. 10, and farther 11. 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 56. Final has often been dropped ; cf. 11. 6, 8, 9, 11, 24, 28, 31, 35, 40, 42, 43, 51, 57, 62. Also a final in is sometimes) missing ; thus bhaja, 1. 43; on the other hand we find casudham for vasudha, 1. 61. Single letters have been omitted in prăjuisvaryyam, 1. 42; dasita., 1. 37; duddhar., 1, 38; prðlasat1. 40, and whole syllables in 11. 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 23, 34, 40, 41, 44. On the other hand we
Ep. Ind., Vol. III, pp. 168. ff.; Ind. Ant., Vol. XXX, pp. 203, 212, 221 1.