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

SUPPLEMENTARY INSCRIPTIONS

The script is Nāgarī and the record appears to have been in a local dialect. The purport cannot be made out. The inscription refers itself to the reign of the illustrious Dhārāvarsha, whose name is fortunately preserved in l. 4 in it. It is dated, as we read in the beginning of it, on the 3rd day of the bright half of Śrāvaṇa in the (Vikrama) year 1276. The probable equivalents V. 1276 the surrounding years are ; Northern V. 1276 current : = Friday, 27th July, 1218 A.C. Northern V. 1277 current : = Tuesday, 16th July, 1219 A.C. Northern V. 1277 expired : = Saturday, 4th July, 1220 A.C. Northern V. 1275 expired : = Friday, 27th July, 1218 A.C.

None of these equivalents shows the week-day to be a Monday, as mentioned in the inscription ; and, in view of the second of these alternatives, which is of course the nearest from the point of view of the week-day, I am inclined to think that the true equivalent seems to be the 15th of July, 1219 A.C., when the third tithi commenced on it at .35 of the day and ended at .41 moment of the next day, on the 16th. But nice the object of the inscription cannot be made out, I can give no reason why the day should have been joined with the tithi which commenced on it.

The importance of the epigraph under study is that it shows the western most limit of the dominions of Dhārāvarshā, evidently the Ābū Paramāra ruler, since it is the only record found so far of his time in the adjoining tehsīl Rēodhar. The record is also important from the point of view of its date. Before its discovery the last known date of Dhārāvarsha was supplied by the Kāṇṭal inscription dated V.S. 1274 (1216 A.C.)[1] and the epigraph under study extends his reigning period by about three years. The next certain date that we know is V.S. 1277 (1221 A.C.) when his queen Sṛiṅgāradēvī was looking after the administration of his son Sōmasiṁha[2] whose earliest known date is furnished by the Ābū inscriptions of V.S. 1287 (1230 A.C.).[3] Thus we may presume, of course hypothetically, that Dhārāvarsha died some time after July, 1222 A.C. and was succeeded by his son Sōmasiṁha who was a minor at that time and the administration of whose kingdom was conducted by the dowager queen Śṛiṅgāradēvī for about 7-8 years, particularly during the time when the kingdom was threatened by the Sōngirā Chauhāns from the north, as we know from the Bārlūṭ inscription of V.S. 1283 (1226 A.C.).[4]

>

The only geographical name appearing in the record is Makāvāla (l. 6), which is evidently the place where the inscribed stone was found.

TEXT[5]


__________________________
[1] No. 75, above.
[2] No. 77, above.
[3] Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, pp. 208 and 219.
[4] Ibid., Vol. XXXVI, pp. 33 ff.
[5] From an impression.
[6] Expressed by a symbol.
[7] The letter in the brackets appears as a conjunct. The rest of the inscription is obliterated, as stated above.

Home Page

>
>