________________
138
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XXIV.
The inscription is composed in Sanskrit language and the characters belong to the Southern class of alphabets. As remarked by Krishna Sastri, though the record is full of mistakes, it is important enough for supplying information for Pallava genealogy prior to the time of the Simha, vishņu line of Conjeeveram. A few Telugu expressions occurring in the description of the boundaries are noticed below. The mistakes in sandhi, etc., are corrected in foot-notes accompanying the text. The following orthographical pecularities deserve to be noticed :
The anusvāra is often replaced by the class nasal, which is joined on to the following consonant in a conjunct letter: eg, Jitam-bhagavata, (l. 1), Pallavänän-dharmma, (l. 16), paran-danan-na bhutan-na (1. 31), papan-na bhutan-na (L 32), etc. In this respect this resord resembles the Mangaḍür grant of Simhavarman. The letter ja is often miswritten as ja with the central cross-bar elongated. Consonants following r are doubled in certain places (e.g., bal-ärjjit-örjjta, in 1. 2, maryyadasya in 1. 3, varmma in ll. 10, 16, etc. and dharmma in 11. 8, 16, etc.), but not in others (e.g., nidhër-vidhi in 1. 3, nivartana in 1. 25). The word purvva is invariably written as purvva (11. 19, 28) and uttara as utara (1. 22). The following corrupt forms are worthy of notice: Kandavarma (11. 4 f.), ratre (11. 16 f.), sancharantaka (11. 17 f.), grihathtāna-thtita (1. 24), pauvutra (1. 26), etc. The expression naiyavika1 (1. 17) appears to be meant for naiyämika derived from niyama and used for naiyamika or niyamika signifying law officers'. The word kshetra is wrongly used in the masculine form (1. 24) and kshetran for kshetram in 1. 25. The upadhmaniya is employed in yasaḥ-prakāśaḥ (11. 12-13). The use of the Telugu expressions muyuru (r)kutuva (i.e., the meeting-place of three villages) and mēlitapa in 1. 21 are also noteworthy. Melitapa is perhaps used in the sense of a stepped platform to stack ploughs (meli-modern mědi). Muditi-taṭakaḥ (1. 24) is another mixed expression probably meant to indicate an ancient (mudi)
tank.
The inscription records the gift of one hundred and eight. nivartanas of land and a housesite with a garden (väțikā) in the village of Chura in Karmma-rashtra by the Dharmma-mahārāja Vijaya-Vishnugopavarman of the Bharadvaja line and the Pallava family, to the Brahman Chisamisarman, who was the son of Dvedaya-Vriddhasarman and grandson of VishnuBarman and was a resident of Kunduru, who belonged to the Kasyapa-götra and was well-versed in the four Vēdas, as a brahmadeya, exempting it from all obligations or endowing it with all exemptions (parihärair-upēta) on the occasion of the Uttarayana. The gift was made for the increase of the king's life, strength and success.
The record commences with salutation to the Bhagavat as in some other early Pallava copper-plates, and this is followed by the name of the place of issue, viz., Vijaya-PalätkatAdhishthana, i.e., the prosperous capital Palatkata. The genealogy of the king is given thus :
Kandavarman (Skandavarman)
Vishnugopavarman
Simghavarman I
Vijaya-Vishnugopavarman
1 Cf. (1) neyike of the Hirehadagali plates (above, Vol. I, pp. 5 and 8) and (2) naiyogika of the Chendaluru plates of Kumaravishnu II (ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 235).
The village name Dvědaigomapuram occurs in the Tandantöttam plates of Vijaya-Nandivikramavarman : S. I. I., Vol. II, pp. 519 and 532 and in certain Chola inscriptions: 8. I. I., Vol. II, pp. 259 and above, Vol. XXII, p. 54. Dvědai and Dvědaya are perhaps corrupt but radha forms of Dviveda.
