________________
No. 7.)
AHAR STONE INSCRIPTION.
The inscription consists of twenty-eight lines which cover a space of 3'4" X 1' 81". The whole of the inscription is in a perfect state of preservation except for a portion measuring 8" x 5" which is defaced on account of the flaking off of the stone in the upper left corner of the slab. Three or four letters have also mostly disappeared in the lowest or last line. The letters measure about half an inch in height exclusive of the vowel marks. The characters are Nāgari of about the 10th century A.D., and are regularly and beautifully formed and artistically engraved from beginning to end. The language of the inscription is Sanskrit prose throughout, though the author of the record would seem to have been equipped with a meagre knowledge of Sanskrit grammar while some of the mistakes appear to betray the influence of the vernacular of the period. As regards orthography, ba has throughout been denoted by the sign for va, while the dental sibilant has often been employed in place of the palatal. Besides this we notice many other mistakes and defects of various kinds. Some of these are :
The use of the vowel for fr and & in eas in place of afas (11. 14, 16 and 20) and #tat for faarat (1. 24) and for (11. 11 and 27); the use of for sy (1. 3), a for FUS (1.5) and apa for aa (11. 12, 18 and 21); the use of short vowels in place of long ones as in
w a r in place of what atât (1. 3, etc.); single consonants for double ones and vice versa, as in wat for g (11. 7, 10, etc.), Centar for m * (11. 7 and 20), महाननेन for महाजनेन (11. 6, 20, etc.), पाधा for पाघाट (ll. 9, 10, 13, etc.) and भाइक for भाटक (II. 10, 11, 21, etc.).
Examples of wrong sandhi are oqro for atao (1.1); femtio for afaro (1. 5, etc.). In some cases sandhi is ignored between the component parts of the same compound as in gaf Tin 1.2; faqeemt in l. 6; HERZ in 1. 10; HEITA*: (1.13), etc. Specimens of extraordinary sandhi, one of which is repeated several times in the inscription, are चावार्याराघाटा in place of पावायाँ भाघाटा and पूर्वतो इसव for पूर्वत इहैव (1. 4). Examples of wrong absolutives are al for HT (1. 11), and ratat for retas (11. 8 and 18). Examples of irregular participles are sfaatria: (1.3) and face atat: (1.17), etc.
As regards the treatment of nouns, we observe the omission of case-endings in (0)1998 (1. 3), Ayna (1. 8), trufa (1. 10), etc. Sometimes wrong cases have been employed :
Ct. favnet for fandt (1.4), uit at for ugo (1.4), wory for var TT (1.7), etc. Bases ending in consonants are in some cases declined like those ending in ২, ৫.9., ৰব in place of ৭ (l 9), and ৰৰি for ঘি (l. 28).
In connection with compounds, the visarga is sometimes wrongly used in the earlier components, of. Giga:904° (1. 1). As instances of irregular causatives and their derivativer, ve notice afufuator (1.3), grafa (1. 7) and v 9 (11.5 and 28). In the text given below many of the mistakes have been corrected in round brackets. Owing to bad grammar the meaning of some of the passages remains uncertain. For this reason only a comprehensive summary of the contents instead of a complete translation is given.
Like the Siyaçõni stone inscription, the present epigraph is a collective public copy of a series of ten separate documents recorded at different dates. The inscription itself is not dated. but each of the component records contains its own date. Inscription No. I is interesting inasmuch as it is dated in the reign of the Paramabhattāraka Mahārājādhiraja Paramë. Svars and illustrious Bhojadēva (of Kanauj), the successor and, presumably, the son of the Paramabhattāraka Mahārājādhiraja Paransēsvaja and illustrious Rāmabhadradēva. Other kaown inscriptions of this king are the Devgadh Jain pillar inscription of the Vikrama year
