Old Bramhi Inscriptions In Udaygiri And Khandagiri

SR No.: 020516
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Benimadhab Barua
Publisher: University of Calcutta
Publication Year: 1929
Total Pages: 354
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 42

14
OLD BRAHMI INSCRIPTIONS
2
6 Pamcame1 cêdani vase Namdaraja-tivasasata 3-oghațitam Tanasuliya-vātā panāḍim" nagaram pavesayati ['] sata(saha)sehi ca (khanā) pa(yati) 1o [.]
8
1. Prinsep reads paca or pacala; Cunningham, pamcapam. Indraji and Jayaswal correctly read pamcame.
2. Prinsep, Cunningham and Indraji read dāni. Jayaswal reads dāni. One cannot be sure about the second vertical stroke in front of i-mark of ni. It appears that rain. water trickling down from the letter ca of dutiye ca in L 4, has formed a canal, which has cut through the letter ki of kiḍāpayati in L 5, and flowed down as far as and parallel to the i-mark of ni. Dani may be accepted as an alternative reading.
3. Prinsep and Cunningham read tivasasata; Indraji and Jayaswal, tivasasatam. I find no dot-stroke denoting m in front of ta.
4. Prinsep and Cunningham read ughaṭitam; Indraji and Jayaswal correctly, oghatitam. Ramaprasad Chanda rightly argues in favour of the reading tiva sasata-oghāți. tam, instead of tivasasatam oghāṭitam, when he points out (1) that there is no anusvär asign (m) either above or beside the final ta of tivasasata, and (2) that the absence of a suffix after tivasasata is due to the fact that it forms part of a compound word Namdaraja-tivasasata-oghäṭitam, an instance like guna-upetena, where the two words, sata and ogha are not combined according to the rule of the Sandhi. To these arguments of Chanda, I may add (1) that unless Namdaraja-ti vasasata be treated as part of a compound word, it becomes unmeaning, and (2) that Namdaraja-tivasasatam has no meaning at all as a separate word in the present context. Sten Konow, too, reads Namdarāja-tivasasata-oghāțitam.
5. Prinsep reads tamnisaraliya or tanasaraliya; Cunningham, tanamsuliyam; Indraji Tanasuliya; Jayaswal correctly, Tanasuliya.
6. Prinsep reads vaja; Cunningham, văța. Indraji and Jayaswal correctly read vāţă. 7. Prinsep and Cunningham omit m.
8. Prinsep and Cunningham omit m.
9. Prinsep reads pavesa rise; Cunningham, pavesa viso. Jayaswal reads the last letter
as ți.
10. Jayaswal reads the concluding words as so pi vase chadam, completing his former reading so?... vi., and treats them as the opening words of the record of Kharavela's 6th regnal year. I think there can be little doubt about the correctness of the reading proposed above to complete the statement regarding the 5th year.