________________
111
APRIL, 1889.] GRANT OF BHIMADEVA II.; VIKRAMA-SAMVAT 1266.
Society. I have no information as to where they were found. A lithograph of the inscription will be published hereafter, in Indian Inscriptions, No. 11.
The plates, of which the first and the last are inscribed on one side only, are three in number; each measuring about 11 by 7". They are quite smooth; the edges of them being neither fashioned thicker, nor raised into rims. But they are in an excellent state of preservation; and the inscription is perfectly legible throughout. The plates are numbered, in the margin after the end of the writing on the first and third plates, and on the second side of the second plate. -In the lower part of the first plate, and the upper part of the other two, there are holes for a ring to connect them. The ring is a plain copper ring, about thick and 2" in diameter. It had been cut when the grant came under my notice. There are no indications of a seal having been attached to it, and abstracted from it. And the seal of this grant, if there was one, is not now forthcoming.-The characters are Nagari, of the regular type of the period and locality to which the inscription refers itself. They include in lines 2 and 29, and in the numbering of the plates, the decimal figures 1 to 6, and 9. The average size of the letters is about"; but it is not preserved very uniformly. The engraving is good and clear. The language is Sanskrit; and the whole record is in prose, except for one benedictive and im precatory verse quoted in line 47-48. There are a good many mistakes; but, curiously enough, in mentioning Nagarjuna, the king of Kâvi, in line 17, this inscription supplies a satisfactory reading, which has not been found in the previously published grants of this dynasty. The text contains, in lines 2, 3, 23 ff., many abbreviated words, not all of which are recognisable; and in some instances, as in suta, pandita", and éréshti, in lines 52-54, the mark of abbreviation seems to be used unnecessarily. It also contains some words that require explanation; palladiká, in line 43; kasthaka, in line 55, which probably stands for kachchhaka, since in line 43 we have kachhaka or more properly kachchhaka; and vuhani, in lines 35, 38, 41, 42, which, from the mention in line 41 of "the vahani of the village (of Bhûharaḍa)" and in line 41-42 of "the vahani of (the village of) Sivaliya," seems to be not a village-name, as otherwise it might have been understood. In respect of orthography, the only points that call for notice are (1) the constant use of the anusvára instead of the proper nasal, e.g. in chamunda, line 6; avanti, line 10; and ranamgana, line 12; (2) the omission, throughout, to double consonants after r, except in karnna, line 9; dharmména, line 44; and dharmmártha, line 48; and (3) the use of v for b throughout, in prativaddha, line 28; vrahmaja, line 50; and vrahmapuriya and vrahmana, line 52.
The inscription refers itself to the reign of the Chaulukya king Bhimadeva II. of Anhilwaḍ. But the charter contained in it refers only to certain arrangements made by some subordinate persons. The inscription is non-sectarian; the object of it being to record some grants of land for the maintenance of an irrigation-well and a watering-trough attached to it.
The places mentioned in this inscription, in addition to Anahilapataka, or, as the name is written here and in some other records, Anahillapataka, at which city the record was drawn up in writing, are, Ghantelana, the village in which were situated the irrigation-well and the watering-trough; the villages of Akavaliya, Bhtharada, Sakali, Samadiya, Sivaliya, and Varadi, and the river Soshadi, mentioned in connection with the details of the grants; the village or hamlet of Brahmapuri, mentioned in the list of witnesses; and Dharmavarhika, apparently a town or village, at which place the written charter was delivered by the Dútaka, and was engrossed on copper-plates. And the neighbourhood in which they are to be found, is indicated by the mention, in the preamble, of the Surashtraḥ mandala, which is the modern province of Kathiawad, and of the city of Vamanasthali, which is the modern
chchh is frequently represented by sth. But it must be noted that the proper chchh is used in gachchhamâna,
line 38.
2 This, at least, is the word that I think is intended. But the sign which I interpret here as chh, and which does represent chh in gachchhamana, line 33, is used for th in sthand, line 51 and other places; though not in atr arthé, line 49. It also occurs in chheda, line 52, where it is rather differently formed; and in machhitya (unless we should here read mathitya) by mistake for mathétya, line 50.
