________________
166
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
(VOL. XXXIT The characters are Nāgari, being normal for the period to which the inscription belongs. The following peculiarities, however, deserve to be noted. The top mātrā which is generally a straight line is sometimes curved towards the left, the curve being turned into a loop in a few cases ; see for instunce t in ropita in line 7 and d at the beginning of the next line. The letters t and n are not distinguished in many cases; e.g. tanayo in line 17. The letter é presents two forms; e.g. Sākė in line 1 and budi in line 2. In regard to orthography, two rare instances of the doubling of the consonant after r are available and they are confined to one letter only which is t in varttamāni in line 7 and varttata in line 13. Sh is written for kh, e.g. Shöja in line 7. The language of the inscription is Sanskrit and the composition both prose and verse. There are four versos which are numbered. Of the large number of errors that have crept into the writing, a few may be attributed to the insufficient knowledge of the language on the part of the person who prepared the draft and the majority to the incompetence of the scribe who apparently failed to follow the draft fully. These blemishes are particularly glaring in verses 3-4 which have become difficult to decipher and interpret.
.
After the auspicious symbol the inscription mentions the date which is cited as Saka 1248, Kshaya," Kärttika su. 15, Monday (rizes 1-2). This regularly corresponds to the 10th November 1326 A.D. The epigraph then states that Mahārājādhiraja Suratana Mahamada was ruling at this time (lines 2-4). Next we are introduoed to his subordinate Mahāpradhana Mallika Kāmadina who was in charge of the whole administration and was governing Mahārāshtra-mandala (lines 4-6). The phrase found in this context, viz. samasta-mudrā-vyāpārān paripamthayati is interesting. The expression paripanthayati as it oocurs here cannot be traced in the lexicons, although it seems to have been used in the sense of conducting' or 'executing '. This phrase appears to have passed into the administrative terminology of this period as seen from its occurrence elsewhere also. Next comes a local official under the provincial governor. He was in charge of the area of the town of Kalyāṇa and called Shõjā (i.e. Khõjā or Khvājā) Ahamada (lines 7-8).
What follows (lines 8-10) is highly interesting though difficult to interpret fully on account of the faulty text. It seems that in connection with the revolution (viparyaya) caused by Bāhabadinu, Khõjā Ahamada, the officer of Kalyāņa, along with Jaņdamala, went to Syāra Mallike. This gave room for confusion which was taken advantage of by the unruly elements who seem to have caused serious damage to the temple of Madhukē vara and even broken the Siva-linga. Soon after this, some devotees of the god from the Karnata section of the population appear to have made a premature offer to embellish the temple. The text of the relevant passage after correction stands as Kārnāta-lokaih anjana-buddhih krită. But this move was not encouraged by the trustees of the temple.
After some time when the governor of the town returned, a representation was made to him in the matter of reinstating the deity and resumption of ceremonial worship as usual by Thakkura
1 The name of the eyclic year is given as Akshaya in verso 2 (lino 19). * Compare Likhapaddhati (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, No. XIX), PP. 33-34.
