________________
No. 14)
THREE INSCRIPTIONS IN BARIPADA MUSEUM
.
83
.
the inscribed stone at my disposal for examination when I visited the Orissa State Museum at Bhubaneswar in January 1956. The stone was brought from Baripada to Bhubaneswar for me and I am extremely thankful to Mr. Acharya for his kindness.
The characters of the records belong to the East Indian alphabet of the tenth or eleventh century and resemble those in the early inscriptions of the Bhañjas of Khijjinga-köţta (modern Khiching in the Mayurbhanj District at 21°55' N., 85° 50' E.) who call theruselves Adi-Bhañja and are known to have ruled in the eleventh century. The language is only seemingly Sanskrit. It is extremely corrupt in all the three records. But their objeot is fairly clear and it is to record certain gifts of land made in favour of a deity, called by the name Durga in Inscription No. 3. She seems to be none other than the goddess Bhimā now worshipped at Pēdāgadhi, findspot of the inscribed stone. No date is quoted in any of the epigraphs.
The first of tho throe inscriptions covers an area about 131 inches in length and 4 inches in height. There is no doubt about its reading and interpretation even though a few letters are broken away from the end of the lines and the first letter in both lines 2 and 3 is damaged. The inscription records the grant of the localities called Vanagrāma, Aranapadā and Bharāļihu made by Dhruvarāja as an agrahara (i.e. rent-free holding) for the bali and nivēdya (naivedya) apparently of a deity whose name, however, is not mentioned no doubt because the inscription was exhibited in the shrine of the said deity. As indicated above, the deity seems to be no other than the goddess Bhimă of Pēdāgadbi. Pandit Rajaguru, who could not decipher some of the letters and read some of them wrongly, translates the record as follows: "(It is a grant made) by Sri-Dhruvarājadēva for the purpose of bali and naivedya of the goddess) Bharādi of Arachhupada". But he admits that the letters håra in line 3 are unintelligible to him. Unfortunately he does not make it clear as to what the object granted by the king was and apparently fails to realise the absurdity of his interpretation of the record. As it stands, his translation would suggest that it was the inscribed stone which was granted by Dhruvarāja in favour of a deity for bali and naivedya. Since the stone has no cash value at all, the interpretation is absolutely unwarranted, even if Pandit Rajaguru's reading is accepted as correct. The goddess Bharādi of Arachhupada is no doubt imaginary.
The second inscription records a grant made by Kumāravarmarāja. The facts that the epigraph is carelessly engraved and that a few letters are lost at the end of lines 1 and 2 make it difficult to read and interpret the record. But it apparently necords a grant of land just as Inscription No. 1 noticed above. Possibly it mentions two gift villages as Dušākhi situated in Dūga .. rayēsa and Dāțiā lying in Loshthaja..rya. Pandit Rajaguru translates the record, as he has read it, as follows: "(It is) a grant made by Kumāra Dharmarāja (who is also called) Durgarāya in favour of Pinäkipati, for the fulfilment of his desires." But his reading of many of the aksharas in the passage Kumāra-Dharmarājēna Durgarāyēna Piņākhipate abhishtajavai is imaginary. I do not find any mention of Durgarāya and Pinäkipati in the record. His interpretation of pināki pati as Siva, called Pināki or Pinākin, is not happy while abhishtajavai is meaningless. Moreover, in this case also, Pandit Rajaguru fails to realise that his interpretation of the record involves the absurd suggestion that the donor re-granted the same stone previously granted by Dhruvarāja. Of course he seems to place Dhruvarāja's inscription in the eleventh century and the present epigraph in the ninth century. But the inherent impossiblity of a king making the grant of a stone and a later iuler granting it once again still remains.
The third inscription records the grant of a king whose name ends with the word bhanja. It was a grant of land made in favour of the goddess Durgā who, as suggested above, may be the same as the modern Bhimă of Pēdāgadhi. The gift land seems to have consisted of three localities called Tõlērpā, Bhujā and Rai .. which were all situated in Nēmi-grāma in the Maďāhā vishaya (district). The grant was made to last as long as the sun and the moon would exist. The passage
1 Boo .. above, Vol. XXV, Plate facing p. 160 ; N. N. Vasu, op. cit., Plates 79 ff., etc.
