North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

FRAGMENTARY MAHŌBĀ STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF PARAMARDIDĒVA

this document was edited by Dr. V. V. Mirashi in the Bhārata-Kaumuudī,¹ Part I, pp. 433 ff. with a facsimile, facing p. 438. The inscription is edited here from an excellent inked estampages kindly placed at my disposal by the Chief Epigraphist of the Archaeological Survey of India.²

The inscription is a fragment, incised on a slab which is broken at the top and also on both the vertical sides from to bottom, and the broken parts are all lost. It contains seventeen imperfect lines, the first of which shows only the lower parts of four or five letters. The total height of the extant portion of the writing is 46∙5 cms., and the length of it, beginning with 35∙5 cms. in the second line, gradually increases to 65∙5 cms, in l. 11 and decreases again to 61∙5 cms, in the last line. The breaks are all irregular. The upper proper right corner of the stone, which already had a crack extending up to l. 9 cms. at the time of Cunningham, has also since been lost. An approximate idea of the original length of the writing can be had from l. 11, which has lost only six of the letters, three on either side, the total breadth of which can be estimate to be about 6 cms., in view of that of that of the others ; and thus the total length may be considered to have been about 71∙5 cms. As for the original height of the writing, Prof. Mirashi observed that “it is now impossible to conjecture, but if it contained a praśasti of the reigning king’s ancestors, as it is not unlikely, its height must have been at least the double of the present one of l’ 3” (31∙73 mms.).” But we generally find that in a praśasti one of the kings is described in more number of verses than another and often some of them are mentioned only by name or are even omitted ; and thus it precludes the possibility of saying anything definitely about the original height of the writing. The size of the letters is between l∙5 and 2 cms.

The record has also suffered due to weather and rough treatment, but excepting two letters which are totally lost though they are of minor importance and can conjecturally be restored with confidence, viz., sya in l. 12 and smṛi in l. 14, the extant portion of it is all legible. The letters are all symmetrically and carefully drawn and engraved. But there are some slips ; some of the signs of the mātrās, anusvāras and the superscript r, which are expected on the top-strokes, are either faintly visible or are altogether missing ; however, comparing all the three impressions before me, I could only conclude that these signs were engraved shallow on the original itself rather than taken as lost on account of the exposure. This was confirmed in my examination of the original, as stated above.

The characters are Nāgarī. They are ornamental, showing their bends and joins angular, and in this respect they resemble the Mahōbā inscription ending with the name of Kīrtivarman.³ To note the general feature of the forms of the letters, their vertical strokes are often not drawn below where they meet the ends of the left-hand curve, particularly in the case of p, y and v. As regards individual letters, the loop of k when the first member of a conjunct consonant is replaced by a horizontal stroke, as in kshōbha, l. 3 ; the left limb of kh begins with a loop as the palatal ś, e.g., in khaṁḍita, l. 6 ; ch is distinguished from v ; cf. chaila- and vikīrṇa-, both in l. 8 ; the conjunct ṇṇ appears as nl, see the latter of these examples ; and t as superscript, and often s also, are devoid of their tail, e.g., in –ttanu-, l. 2, and –āsīt, l. 4. Dh continues to be
_________________________
¹ Studies in Indology, in honour of Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji, Indian Press, Ltd., Allahabad, 1945. In his article Dr. Mirashi draws our attention to some of the errors committed by Smith. It is shown, e.g., that Smith’s reading of the name Nānika in l. 14, and connecting it with that of Nannuka, the founder of the Chandēlla dynasty is entirely wrong, since the actual reading is Nōna and the person who bore this name is stated to have belonged to the Kāśyapa (not Chandēlla) family and constructed the temple referred to in the inscription. That the error committed by Smith continued for long may be pointed out by stating that in an excellent Volume entitled ‘The Early Rulers of Khajurāhō (published in 1958) the same statement is repeated. See p. 232, No. 40. In my visit to the Provincial Museum, Lucknow, in January 1973 I had an opportunity to study the original stone which is No. E’-22 of the Museum Catalogue ; and I noticed that the record is in a sunken panel of black marble, the borders of which measure 4.5cms broad. The lower border is almost complete. The letters are well formed but the incisions are shallow. It was also noticed that some of the strokes and signs of mātrās and anusvāras which have not come out in the impression and therefore corrected by me in the text below in brackets, are visible on the original. In this respect attention is also invited to n. 7 in the text.
² In addition to this I have two more impressions kindly supplied to me, at my request, by the Director of the Lucknow Museum where the stone is at present exhibited. This material was indeed helpful to me in comparing my reading of the text, which, as shown below in the foot-notes appended to the text, differs in some places from that of Prof. Mirashi. These differences are, of course, minor importance.
³ Above, No. 113.