________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXX repeated use of the same sort of expressions and ideas, shows that the author was only a second grade poet. Interesting from the orthographical point of view is the frequent reduplication of a number of consonants, including the palatal and cerebral sibilants, in conjungtion with r, either preceding or following. The same consonants, preceded or followed by rare, however, often found to be reduplicated in some cases but not so in others. Certain consonants followed by y are also found reduplicated in some cases (cf. äräddhya in line 80). Final m, often before & and h, has been changed to n. It has been wrongly substituted by n in bhujan-rājā° in line 5 and is invariably changed to anusvāra at the end of the second and fourth feet of verses. In many cases, it has been changed to the corresponding nasal of the following consonant. Final n, which has been wrongly modified in dōshām in line 35, has not been changed to anusvära in sandhi in some cases (cf. mans-tatha in line 88).
290
There is no trace of any date in the preserved portion of the inscription before us; but it is well known from Bana's Harshacharita and other sources that the king who issued the charter was already on the throne in 606 A.D., when he sent an embassy to Harshavardhana of Thanesar and Kanauj, and that, according to Chinese evidence, he was continuing to rule as late as 648-49 A.D. The first half of the seventh century may thus be roughly regarded as the reign-period of the issuer of our charter. The Nidhanpur inscription seems to have been issued about the beginning of the last decade of the king's career, while the present charter may have been issued some time earlier.
The charter under discussion was issued by king Bhaskaravarman of the Naraka, Bhauma or Varman dynasty, the earliest known historical ruling family of ancient. Assam. Its aim was the renewal of an older charter originally issued by a predecessor of the king. The first part of the name of this earlier king occurring in verse of 76 of our record is damaged; but it may possibly be restored as Bhütivarman who was the great-great-grandfather of Bhaskaravarman. It may be recalled in this connection that the Nidhanpur plates of Bhaskaravarman similarly record the revival of another charter of Bhütivarman which was damaged by fire. The original charter recording the present grant is also stated to have been completely damaged (a-kshata) and that is why the plates were burnt (cf. samujjvalya) for removing the old writing on them, reshaping them and re-engraving the new document.
From lines 112-117 of our record, it appears that the original grant was made in favour of two Brahmanas of a Ghōsha family belonging to the Kausika götra and Vajasaneya charana. They were Bhaṭṭamahattara Priyankaraghōshasvamin and the avasarika-Bhatta Devaghoshasvamin. But when the charter was renewed after the lapse of more than half a century, Devaghoshasvamin was no more and, besides Priyankaraghoshasvamin, a number of other persons, who were entitled to shares of the property granted to the original donees, had to be mentioned as amsa-patis or share holders. Of these, Parasara, Vishnu, Yajña, Rudra, Vajin, Dhruva, Bhuma, Daksha and Sreyaskara belonged to the same Ghosha family of the Kausika götra and Vajasaneya charana and were probably descendants of the deceased Devaghoshasvamin or of both Priyankara and Deva. Some other persons, belonging to götras like Maudgalya, Maṇḍavya, Kausika and Atreya and not to the Ghosha family to which the original donees belonged, are also mentioned as amsa-patis. They were probably descendants of the latter on the female side. The case of these Ghōshas adds
1 History of Bengal, Dacca University, Vol. I, pp. 63-64, 78; Kamarupa basanavali, Introduction, p. 18. History of Bengal, op. cit., pp. 77-78.
Cf. viditam-astu bhavatam elad-vishay-äntaḥpäti-Mayura bälmal-agrahara-kshetram rajñā bri-Bhutivarmmană kritam yat tat-tämrapaṭṭ-abhävät karadam=iti mahārājēna Jyeshthabhadran vijñāpya punar-asy-abhinava-patta. karanaya sasanam daltvä, etc. (Kamarüpabasanavali, pp. 16-17.), and sasana-dähäd-arvak, etc. (ibid., p. 27).
It is also possible to think that Priyankara and Deva were the principal donees who shared the gift with the ambu-patis mentioned separately. In that case, the améa-pati Priyankara was different from the principal donee of that name.
