________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XXIII.
other two of nine each, in clearer and bigger letters, were evidently engraved later without first completely smoothing the surface, for it shows traces of a previous engraving a considerable part of which can still be read. It presents the same text as found in 11. 27-32 of our inscription. It also betrays the same hand to which the incision of the present charter is due. Probably, the engraver, while incising the record on the plates, omitted the text contained in the 11. 24-26. But later, when he had engraved the subsequent six lines, he discovered his mistake. Thereupon he rejected that plate and carved afresh on the other one, beginning with what he had omitted. The rejected engraving was left as it was. The later addition of the three lines of writing in bigger characters, though quite clear, does not yield any coherent sense to me.
The alphabet belongs to a Northern variety and resembles closely that of the other known records of the king, Dēvēndravarman. The writing is cursive and is rather carelessly done. It does not look uniform. There are even instances where two independent syllables have been written with one flowing stroke, cf. Osali of kusali, 1. 14, and sati of samadićati, 1. 16. In these as well as in certain other cases, the letter & does not show the central bar which is shown clearly elsewhere, e.g., in sagāṁka, 1. 5. Several letters exhibit each more than one form, ef. g in-dagarāns, 1. 3, -gure, 1.4, bhagavato, 1. 6, and Gāng, 1. 8; ; in vijaya", 1.2, -janita-, 11. 9-10, -jaya-, 1. 10, 1 in ortu., l. 1, pratishthi°, 1. 4, gata- 1. 8, -tilako, 1. 9, janita-, 11. 9-10, and samavētām, 1. 15; d in samadišati, viditam=, 1. 16, and -ādibhiḥ, 1. 26; n in -ānu", 1. 1, and -janita-, 11. 9-10; r in sa-charāchara-, 1.4; 1 in Kalanga, 1.2, and mala-kula-tilako, L. 9; & in šašāmka-, 1.5, - savda-, 1. 10, and -danda pāśik-, 1. 26; 8 in sa-char-āchara-, 1.4, sa[ka]la-, 11. 4-5, and -saghatta-, 1. 9, etc. Moreover, only in one instance, m has its Nāgari form, whereas in all the other cases it has been represented by its ancient form. Both of them may be compared in Srīsāmantēna and pravarddhamana in the last line, i.e., 1. 38. It may further be noticed that, except in one or two cases, the media) long i has throughout been represented by the sign of the medial short i, the exceptions being
tki, 1. 37, and tri-, 1. 38. In like manner the signs of medial u and ů are not distinguished, that of the former representing the both.
The record is composed in Sanskrit prose, except that three verses occur in 11. 28-36. It offurs only a few noteworthy points of orthography. The consonant after r is very rarely doubled; see for example sarvvartu-, l. 1, nirman., 1. 5. - Rājëndravarma-, l. 13, Yajurvēda-, l. 18, Govindasarmanè, 1. 19, and -kirttay[i], 1. 35. In most cases v is used for b, like in -sarda-, 1. 10. Anusvāra is used instead of the class nasal, in sašāmka-, l. 5, -kalamkā, 1. 8, -ambu- 1. 33, etc., as well as for the final n, cf. samavētāri, l. 15, and jānapadām, 1. 16. In certain instances an akshara or visarga has been wrongly left out, e.g., in 11. 2, 6 and 8. A few more mistakes of spelling, possibly attributable to the engraver, will be noticed in the footnotes to the text.
The charter records the gift of a village called Purujvanā (?) in Bukudravaka or Bukudravakõna, in Lõhadhangara, by the Ganga king Dēvēndravarman, son of the Mahārāja Rajendravarman, to one Govindaśarman, son of Bhatta Nārāyana. The donee is described to be & resident of a place in Uttara-Rādhā, a member of the Vatsa-gotra and a follower of the Yajurvēda and the Katha-charana. The name of the donee's native place could not be clearly made out. The name of the donated village which may be read as Purushthanā or Purujvanā occurs in l. 21, but the subsequent details are not clear, as that part of the inscription is badly disfigured.
What is of chief importance in this record is its date which is the year 308. Although it is indicated only by decimal figures, yet there can be no uncertainty or ambiguity about its reading. This mention of date thpows, as we shall presently see, a decisive light on the date, which up till now rests on a mere surmise, of another grant of the same ruler
