________________
29]
No. 39] BHUBANESWAR INSCRIPTIONS OF BHIMADEVA
233 nina aksharas) and the smallest in line 10 (about two aksharas). The two records cover spaces measuring respectively 16 inches by 19 inches and 184 inches by 19 inches. We have said that a third inscription is engraved between these two, below Inscription No. 1 and above Inscription No. 2. The space covered by this epigraph measures 9 inches by 194 inches. There are in this in all eight lines of writing; but the letters of the left half of the last line are partially preserved owing to the peeling off of a portion of the stone.
The inscriptions are written in the Gaudiya script as used in Orissa about the thirteenth century A.D. Their language is corrupt Sanskrit. Nothing needs special mention in regard to the palaeography, language and orthography of the records as in these respects they resemble olosely other Orissan epigraphs of the same age.
Both the inscriptions are dated in the Anka reckoning of the reign of Bhimadova (Anangabhi ma III). Unfortunately the portion containing the date is damaged in both the cases. The preserved parts of the letters in lines 4-5 of Inscription No. 1, however, appear to suggest the reading : trayovirh sati-samvatsarė Makara-krishna-tritiyāyāṁ Guru-vārd., i.e. Thursday, Makara(Mägha)-badi 3. in the 23rd Anka or 19th regnal year of Ganga Anangabhima III. The astronomical details would tally with the 9th January, 1230 A.D., which may be the date of the record. As regards the date of Inscription No. 2, owing to the miserable state of the preservation of the passago, we only know that it was Chaitra (Mina)-gudi 15 of a particular Anka year of the same Bhimadēva (Anangabhima III). Under the circumstances, it is impossible to determine whether the date of this record is earlier or later than that of Inscription No. 1. We have to admit that the introductory passages are the same in both the inscriptions and that they are not found in any other known record of the Ganga king in question. These facts may suggest that their drafts were prepared by the same person within a short period of time. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that the two records are not engraved one immediately below the other but have another inscription incised between them. This third epigraph bears a date in Saka 1140 (1218 A.D.) and has the introductory part couched in an altogether different style. If both the inscriptions under study actually bore dates falling about the year 1230 A.D., we have to assume that they were engraved above and below an already existing record of 1218 A.D.
As regards the date of this third inscription, which has been indicated above, we owe a word of explanation to the world of scholars. As already stated, the date portion of the record was transoribed by Chakravarti. His reading of the passage in question runs as follows: Sākābd-aikādatadate chutvārisat-ādi(dhi)ke-panchamakai mbha(vi)ra-Ananigabhimadevasya pravaddhati-sameatsara... (year illegible)......Dhanu-Krishna-pratipadi Bhauma-vārë. He took the year to be Saka 1145 and suggested the date, on the basis of the astronomical details (Amānta), to be Tuesday, the 9th January, 1224 A.D. I had recently an occasion to examine some good impressions of the inscription, which are preserved in the office of the Government Epigraphist for India, and found that Chakravarti's transcript of the passage quoted above contains several errors.
The first three lines of the epigraph actually read : 1 Siddham' svasti sri-Sākāvdh-ai(bd-ai)kābha(da)sa-Ba(sa)tē chū(cha)tvāvē(rim)sat=ādi
(dhi)kē paramavai2 [sh]ņav-Anankabhimadēvasya pravahati samvasarë(samvatsarē) dasarka-tādi[tē] (dag
änka-ganité ?) sū(su)
1 Expressed by symbol.
