Indian Antiquary Vol 17

Author(s): John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 202

188
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(JULY, 1888.
ba with a notch in the top line occurs in none of the same, they do not always occur in the the other inscriptions, the ja with the same pecu- same words. There are further some more liarity only in Ka., and the va in the shape of or less important various readings, such as, an isosceles triangle, only occasionally in Na. sampatka (U. pl. I. 1. 12) against sampanna and Kå. Again the form of 16 agrees through- (I.), charchitángasamunnata (U.) against out in I. U. and Ka., while a different sign charchitasamunnata ; and very considerable is used once in Khê, I., more frequently in Khê. deviations in the description of the boundaries II. and throughout in Na. Similarly the peculiar of the villages granted (U. pl. II. 11. 2-3 and cha of U. and I. occurs in Kâ,, while Khê. I. I. pl. I. 1. 15). The natural explanation of Khô, II. and Na, have a very different sign. these facts is, I think, that the two grants were These instances will suffice to prove that Dr. written by two different persons. Of course, Bhagvânlal's grouping of the grants on palæo- they may also be reconciled with the theory graphic principles is not tenable. If I never- that both belong to one forger. But it seems theless accept his conclusion, my reasons are (1) to me impossible to assert that the agreement that, if a Gurjara inscription of Samvat 456 of the inscriptions is such that they must be is dated according to the Chêdi era, it is most considered the work of one hand. probable that those of Samvat 380 and 385 The same remarks apply to Dr. BhagvånJal's refer to the same era, (2) that hitherto no certain second argument, that the plates must be cases from the older times have become known forgeries, because they closely resemble the in which the word Samvat stands for Saka- admittedly forged grant of Dharashna II., Samvat or Sakansipakala.
dated Saka-Samvat 400, and have been evidently Dr. Bhagvanlal's remaining inference, fabricated by the forger of the spurious Valabhi that u. and I. are forgeries, seems to me inscription. The latter again shows a number untenable. His first argument, the assertion of very striking peculiarities in the alphabet that their perfect agreement in characters and not found in U. and I. The upper end of the form shows them to have been written by one superscribed mátrá has a strongly marked and the same person, rests, it seems to me, on curve and the same Aourish appears at an insufficiently accurate comparison of the two the lower end of the left limb of ta. documents. It is no doubt true that they are Further, in the syllables nå, no and Id the very similar. But their resemblance is just 4-stroke is marked by a vertical line turned such a one as might be expected in the case of upwards. Moreover the subscribed na in samtwo grants written by a father and son in an djñápayati (pl. 1. 1. 16), yajña (pl. II. 1. 2) and archaic alphabet, not in daily use. The main ajñána (pl. II. 1. 12) resembles that of Skanfeatures mostly agree, but in the details various dagupta's Kahâum inscription, not that of small differences are observable. Thus in U. U. and I. Again, in the letter pha the little the left hand stroke of the ta is drawn down tail, drawn through the bottom line, which U. much further than in I.; the top of ļa shows and I. show, is wanting. Finally in the groupe in I. frequently, e. g. in makufs (1.4) ghaļá beginning with s, e. g. sta, sva, sma, etc., the (1. 6) sphatika (1. 8) etc. a straight horizontal lower letter is invariably attached to the rightline which is wanting in U.; the use of the hand vertical of sa, while in U. and I. it is consuperscribed mátra and of the prishthamátrá nected with the left-hand limb." These very does not agree in the two documents; finally striking differences in the characters, as well as the signature of the king shows in U. cursive numerous various readings in the otherwise Någari characters and in I, the same alphabet similar portions of the texts, and some very in which the rest of the inscription is written. peculiar grammatical mistakes, make it, to my Again, as regards the wording quite a number mind, most improbable that the spurious Valaof discrepancies occur. It has already been bhi grant was done by the same personas pointed out above that, though the character U. and I. On the contrary, they prove that of the numerous mis-spellings and mistakes is the forger was acquainted with at least one of
Compare e.g. (ante, Vol. X. pp 283-284) pl. I. 1. 3. wirundsa, 1. 6 karan) and nipunatara: 1. 8 kirand; 1. 14 dhishano; I. 15 bhattaraka and gramakára.
15 Compare e.g. the first word masti in the three insoriptions.