The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Images

EDITION AND TEXTS

Inscriptions of the Chandellas of Jejakabhukti

An Inscription of the Dynasty of Vijayapala

Inscriptions of the Yajvapalas of Narwar

Supplementary-Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

DHURĒTĪ COPPER-PLATE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF TRAILŌKYAMALLA

were originally held together by a ring, which was cut off some time before Chakravarti examined them in the Treasury at Rēwā. The ring has a seal measuring about 17∙14 cms. by 11∙43 cms., bearing the figure of Gaja-Lakshmī and the legend Śrīmat-Trailōkyamalla in one line below it. The weight of the two plates along with the ring and the seal is stated to be equal to 190 klgms.

Each of the plates is inscribed on the inner side only ; and the writing, which is well preserved in consequence of the raised rims of the plates, as stated above, consists of 22 lines, each of the plates containing 11 lines. The approximate height of the letters is about l∙3 cms., except in the last two lines where they are written in a slightly smaller size, in view completing the remaining portion of the record in a limited space.

The Characters are Nāgarī. In spite of our observation that the signs of the mātrās and anusvāras are gracefully treated, the mechanical work evinces extreme slovenliness. The record contains glaring mistakes of grammar, for example, often using names without case-endings, as in l. 20, neglect of sandhi-rules even in a compoundword where it is necessary, and wrong sandhi in -suto, l. 13. The inscription was composed jointly by two village Paṇḍitas who had, as can be gathered from the gross errors occurring therein, very little knowledge of Sanskrit. The work of engraving is also sloven in omitting a letter here and another there, and occasionally also omitting strokes and limbs of letters ; some of these foibles being possibly due to oversight. All these mistake have been drawn attention to and corrected in the text or notes accompanying it.

With reference to the formation of letters, it may be pointed out that the vowel ē is confounded with pa, as in ēka-, l. 13 and paṁ, l. 22 ; and ch with v, e.g., in vichāra, l. 6 ; and that it is at times rather difficult to distinguish between the palatal ś and the dental s, showing a sort of combination of both these aksharas.

>

The language is Sanskrit, which is often incorrect, as already stated above ; and, excepting three verses in the beginning, the record is all in prose. There are no imprecatory verses as it is not a royal charter. The orthographical peculiarities are all as usual, for example, (1) the sign for v throughout does the duty to denote b also, as in vaṁdha-, l. 19 ; (2) occasionally there is a confusion between the correct use of the palatal and the dental sibilant, e.g., in –siva-śuta-, l. 18 ; and lastly, (3) the pṛishṭha-mātrā is used only here and there. The Somewhat rare word pravaṇi occurs in l. 14 ; and (4) often the signs of the mātrās and anusvāras above are gracefully formed.

The inscription refers itself to the reign of Trailōkyamalladēva ; and its object is to record the mortgage (vitta-bandha) of a village by the Śaiva ascetic Śāntaśiva in favour of one Rāṇaka Dharēka, on a date which is expressed in l. 7, in words, as the 7th day of the bright fortnight of Jyēshṭha in the year 963. The era, which is not specified, is taken by Chakravarti to be the Kalachuri era, and the equivalent Christian date, as calculated, is the 9th of May, 1212. But this fails to satisfy the requirements of the case, for, as rightly observed both by Chakravarti and Mirashi, in the current Kalachuri year 963 (1210-11 A.C .) the tithi fell on a Friday, and in the expired year 963 it fell on a Wednesday. We have therefore to agree with these scholars in their suggestion that the word Sōmē may have been wrongly written for Saumyē (i.e., Budhē) in the inscription. Without offering any other justification on the date-problem, however, I feel it doubtful if the use of Saumyē to indicate Budhē was known to the composers of the inscription with their limited knowledge.

The inscription opens with the auspicious Om, followed by salutation to Śiva and Gaṇapati and three verses thereafter, in honour of Mukunda, Śūlapāṇi (Śiva) and Sarasvatī, of which the last one is reproduced from the introductory portion of Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa. After this, the record refers in ll. 5-7 to the victorious rule of the illustrious Trailōkyamalladēva, whose epithets, besides the imperial titles commencing with Bhaṭṭāraka (i.e., Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja and Paramēśvara), occur also as the lord of horses (aśvapati), the lord of elephants (gajapati), the lord of men (narapati), the overlord of the three Rājas (Rājatrayādhipati), and what appears rather curious, the lord of Kānyakubja (Kānyakubjādhipati).1

Noticing a copper-plate grant from Rēwā, dated in the (Vikrama) year 1298 or 1240-41 A.C., Cunningham has already pointed out that the king Trailōkyamalla mentioned therein is doubt-
_______________
1 As suggested by Chakravarti, this title may possibly have been assumed by the Chandēlla ruler with the decline of the Gāhaḍavāla rulers who originally used it. See op. cit., p. 3.

Home Page

>
>