North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

The inscription is dated on the sixth day of the bright half of Śrāvaṇa, on Wednesday, of the (Vikrama) year 1368. Calculating the details of the date, we find that its Christian equivalents are : For the Chaitrādi Vikrama current = 1st August, 1310 A.C. ; Saturday. ,, ,, ,, ,, expired = 22nd July, 1311 A.C. ; Thursday. ,, ,, Kārttikādi ,, ,, = 10th July, 1312 A.C. ; Monday.

None of these equivalents shows the week-day to be a Wednesday, as given in the record; however, taking the second of them, we find that the sixth tithi actually commenced on 17 moments of the day (4 h. 5 m.) after mean sunrise when the fifth tithi ended ; and according to this calculation, the date of the record would correspond to 21st July, 1311 A.C., which may really have been intended.

Citing some evidences we have noted in the preceding inscription that the reign of Hammīravarman terminated either in the latter half of 1308 or the earlier half of 1309 A.C. The present inscription, however, which is dated at least a year and a few months later, evidently shows that though Alā-ud-dīn annexed the region round about Damōh in 1309 A.C., Hammīravarman continued to hold under his sway the fort of Ajayagaḍh at least up to July 1311 A.C., the date of the present inscription.

TEXT¹

No. 154 ; PLATE CXXXXI

ḌUBKUṆḌ STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF VIKRAMASIṀHA

[ Vikrama ] Year 1145

THIS inscription was discovered by Captain W. R. Melville who was in charge of Gwālior Survey, in 1866, at Ḍubkuṇḍ, also known as Dubkuṇḍ, in the Shivpurī District of Madhya Pradesh. He sent two copies of the record to the Asiatic Society o Bengal, but the inscription was not published probably because both the copies were too imperfect for editing it. A brief and somewhat imperfect notice of it appeared subsequently in the Journal of the same Society, Volume XXV, p. 168 ; it was made by General Cunningham’s draftsman, Babu Jwala Prasad, who accompanied Melville in his visit to Ḍubkuṇḍ. An account of the record, together with a small photolithograph from one of Cunningham’s rubbings, appeared in his Archaeological Survey of India Reports, Vol. XX, (1882-83), p. 99 (with pl.), and Preface, p. 5. And in 1894 the inscription was edited by F. Kielhorn in the Epigraphia Indica, Vol. II (1894), pp. 232 ff., from one of Cunningham’s rubbings, apparently the same from which the photolithograph published by the latter scholar was prepared.⁶ The inscription is edited here from the original
__________________________
¹ From Hiralal’s transcript in Ep. Ind., Vol. XX, p. 134, n. 2.
² This appears to be the name of the woman and the preceding one, of her husband.
³ Note the subordinate title given to Hammīravarman, though it is not a sure sign that he was reduced to subordination. We have also to bear in mind that it is after all a private record.
⁴ Probably to read .
⁵ Supply a daṇḍa here.
⁶ This article of Kielhorn is not illustrated.