Epigraphia Indica Vol 28

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 88

No. 8] MADRAS MUSEUM PLATES OF THE TIME OF NARENDRADHAVALA
45
face of the first plate and this has also affected some letters of the inscription on the oth r side of the plate (of. lines 1, 2 and 10). All the three plates have a ring-hole which is about ' in diameter and is about t from the proper right margin. When the plates were examined in the office of the Assistant Archaeological Superintendent for Epigraphy there was no ring with them. This is known from a short note found with the impressions. The ring was apparently taken out by making a slit at the margin near the ring-hole, which is still noticed in the second and third plates. The margin near the ring-hole in the first plate is broken. The Catalogue of Copperplate Grants in the Government Museum, Madras, however, describes the plates as "strung on ring without a seal ", and this ring is seen with the plates even today. Whether the ring was found with the plates or was later made for them cannot be easily determined.
Regarding the palaeography of the inscription, the Assistant Archaeological Superintendent for Epigraphy says in his report, “ The characters are of about the thirteenth century like those of the plates of Dandimahädövi (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. VI, p. 136) " He is no doubt right in Assigning the record on palaeographic grounds to a dato not much later than the age of the BhaumaKara queen Dandimahidövi of Orissa ; but it is impossible to believe now, with Kielhorn' whom he follows, that the characters of Dandimahādēvi's inscriptions belong to the thirteenth century. They are certainly earlier than the first half of the twelfth century, when the greater Gangas were in possession of the lower part of Orissa. Dandimahādēvi must have ended her rule considerably before the Ganga king Anantavarman Chōdaganga who was crowned in 1078 A. D. Some records of Dandimahādēvi are dated in the year 180 or 280 probably of the Harsha era. The date would thus correspond to A. D. 786 or 886. It has also to be remembered that the date is written in the old style with symbols for 100 or 200 and 30 and that this system is not usually found in inscriptions of a date later than the tenth century. The plates under discussion should, therefore, be assigned to a date not later than the tenth century A. D. As we shall presently see, this dating is supported by the internal evidence of the inscription.
Interesting from the palaeographical point of view is the use of the initial vowels a (lines 8. 14, 16, 18, 23, 27, 28), ā (line 6), i (lines 14, 26), u (lines 12, 13, 19, 30) and 2 (lines 15, 17). Medial a has two forms being used often above the consonant as in modern Dövanagari and sometimes to the left of it as in Bengali and Oriya. The first type is quite common, while the second is employed only in a few cases. There is no distinction between the signs for v and b and between those for subscript v orb and dh. What resembles a visarga sign has in all cases been put before the dandas apparently as a part of the punctuation mark.
The language of the record is only seemingly Sanskrit and is greatly influenced by the local dialect. The rare use of the case-endings, especially the first and the sesond, has rendered the real interpretation of the inscription greatly difficult. Attention may be drawn to the use of words like bsihata (line 10) or brihada (line 8) for Sanskrit brihat and pāthara for Sanskrit prastara (lines 8, 10, 12, 13). Words like māhāśāminta or māhūsämanta (for mahāsāmanta, lines 13-14), pasaï (for pabaih, line 26), jasya (for yasya, line 24) and many others are interesting from the view point of orthography and exhibit influence of local pronunciation. The duplication of dh in Ardhdhastri (line 8) is also interesting. The dan das, which have been quite extensively used, are in most cases not necessary at all.
1 Above, Vol. VI. p. 136.
Bhandarkar, List, No. 1099. The lower part of Orissa was conquered by Chödaganga from the Somarandi and not from the Bhauma-Karas.
* Above, op. cit, p. 139; Bhandarkar, op. cit., No. 1413. The correct reading of the hundred symbol seems to be 100 and not 200.
G. H. Ojha, The Palaeography of India (in Hindi), 1918, p. 116.