गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

178 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
(l. 15), in numerical symbols here and throughout the series, is (Gupta)-Saṁvat 316,
Jyaishṭha-śukla-divâ-daśamyâm; which, with the epoch of A.D. 319-20, answers, approxi-
mately, to the 3rd May, A.D. 635.
B.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 5; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 168 f.—The
charter is issued from Mânagṛiha (line 1). The inscription is one of the Bhaṭṭâraka
and Mahârâja, the illustrious Śivadêva I. (l. 2 f.), the banner of the Lichchhavikula.
It recorded some act, the details of which are broken away and lost, done by him, as in
inscription A., on the advice, or at the request, of the Mahâsâmanta, the illustrious
Aṁśuvarman (l. 8 f.).¹ The date, and the name of the Dûtaka, are broken away and
lost in line 11 ff.
C.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 6; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 169 f.—The
charter is issued from the house or palace called Kailâsakûṭabhavana (line 1). The
inscription is one of the Mahâsâmanta, the illustrious Aṁśuvarman (l. 2). The
Dûtaka is the Mahâsarva[daṇḍanâ]yaka Vikra[masêna] (l. 14).² The date (l. 14)
is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 34, Jyaishṭha-śukla-daśamyâm; which, with the epoch³ of A.D.
605-606, answers, approximately, to the 18th May, A.D. 639.
¹ As in page 177 above, note 3.
² This is the name as completed by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji. But, if we accept it as correct, we
must be careful not to confuse this person with the Râjaputra Vikramasêna who was the Dûtaka of
inscription S. below, more than two hundred years later.—I have not seen the original rubbing of
this inscription.
³ This epoch is taken from Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit's calculation of the date in the Dighwâ-Dubaulî
grant of the Mahârâja Mahêndrapâla. At the end (Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 113, line 14) we have, for
the assignment of the charter, the year 155, Mâgha śu di 10; and from line 12 we learn that, when
making the grant, the Mahârâja had bathed on the occasion of the Kumbha-Saṁkrânti or entrance
of the Sun into Aquarius. The epoch of the era is fixed approximately by a statement of Albêrûnî
(Albêrûnî's India, Translation, Vol. II. p. 5), to the effect that, in a Kaśmîrî almanac, he had read
that Harshavardhana was six hundred and sixty-four years later than Vikramâditya. Subject to some
doubt as to whether Albêrûnî is speaking of the epoch of the era, or of its first current year, and as to
whether the Vikrama year indicated by him is to be taken as current or as expired, this statement
indicates, approximately, Śaka-Saṁvat 528 expired, and 529 current (A.D. 606-607), as the epoch or
year 0 of the era. And this is the epoch selected by Gen. Cunningham (Indian Eras, pp. 64 f., 157 ff.),
on the authority of Albêrûnî's statement. By calculations based on the Sûrya-Siddhânta, however,
Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit finds that an epoch one year earlier than this is required, in order that the details
of the date in the Dighwâ-Dubaulî grant may work out correctly. Thus, with the basis of Harsha-
Saṁvat 155 + Śaka-Saṁvat 527 expired = Śaka-Saṁvat 682 expired, the Kumbha-Saṁkrânti
occurred at 43 ghaṭîs, 40 palas, on Monday, the 19th January, A.D. 761; and the ninth tithi of the
bright fortnight of Mâgha ended about four hours later, at 53 ghaṭîs, 15 palas, on the same day. Or,
by the Ârya-Siddhânta, the times were, for the Saṁkrânti, 42 ghaṭîs, 30 palas; and for the tithi,
52 ghaṭîs, 41 palas. In both cases, the ghaṭîs and palas are from mean sunrise at Ujjain. And he
adds the note—"the puṇyakâla or meritorious time for performing religious duties in connection
with a saṁkrânti, is, according to some authorities, from sixteen ghaṭîs before, to sixteen ghaṭîs after,
the time of the saṁkrânti; and, according to others, in the case of some saṁkrântis, from ten to

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 179
D.—Mr. Bendall's inscription No. 2; Journey in Nêpâl, p. 74 f., and Plate ix.—
The charter is issued from Kailâsakûṭabhavana (line 1). The inscription is one of an
illustrious Mahâsâmanta, whose name is effaced, but may with tolerable certainty be
restored as Aṁśuvarman (l. 2). And it records the grant of two fields, for the purpose
of providing for the repairs of some building. The Dûtaka (l. 17) is the Mahâbalâdhyaksha
Vindusvâmin. The date (l. 16) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 34, prathama-Pausha-śukla-
dvitîyâyâm; which should answer,¹ approximately, to the 3rd December, A.D. 639.
E.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 7; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 170 f.—The
charter is issued from Kailâsakûṭabhavana (line 1). The inscription is one of the
illustrious Aṁśuvarman (l. 5), to whom no formal titles are allotted here. It mentions
sixteen or even forty ghaṭîs before the saṁkrânti, up to the time of the saṁkrânti, and, in the case
of the other saṁkrântis, from the time of the saṁkrânti, up to from ten to sixteen or even forty
ghaṭîs after it. But generally, when a saṁkrânti occurs at midnight,—as it did, roughly, in the
present instance,—the puṇyakâla is held to be on the following day. And, in the present case, there
is every probability of the bathing &c. having been performed on the following day; i.e. on Mâgha
śukla daśamî."—With other years, the given saṁkrânti cannot be brought into accordance with the
given day and tithi. Thus, with Śaka-Saṁvat 680 expired, the saṁkrânti occurred six or seven days
after the given tithi, on the Pûrṇimânta Phâlguna kṛishṇa 2; with 681 expired, on the Pûrṇimânta
Phâlguna kṛishṇa 13; with 683 expired, on the Pûrṇimânta Phâlguna kṛishṇa 5; with 684 expired,
on Mâgha śukla 1; and with 685 expired, on Mâgha śukla 12. It is certain, therefore, that the
correct English equivalent is the one obtained with Śaka-Saṁvat 682 expired. And, taking the given
Harsha year as a current year, and treating it as having the same scheme with the northern Śaka
year, the epoch is Śaka-Saṁvat 527 expired, or A.D. 605-606 current; and 528 years have to be
added, to convert current Harsha years into current Śaka years, and 527, to convert them into expir-
ed Śaka years as the basis of calculations. The commencement or first current year of the era, is A.D.
606-607 current.—I should remark, as I did when editing the grant, that a slight doubt may be felt as to
the value of the third numerical symbol, in the units place, which I interpret as 5. And the exact epoch
would be varied, by allotting a different value to this symbol. But the choice lies only between 4, 5, and
8. I do not think that any authority can be found for interpreting it as 4. And, if it were interpreted
as 8, then the epoch of the era would be A.D. 602-603; and its first current year would be A.D. 603-
604, for which year, as the commencement of the reign of Harshavardhana, there seems to be no
authority whatever.—I should also point out that the next inscription, D. below, of Harsha-Saṁvat 34,
refers to an intercalation of the month Pausha; and that Prof. Adams of Cambridge, and Prof. Schram
of Vienna, as reported by Dr. Bühler in the Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 338 (see also Journey in Nêpâl,
p. 76), obtained a mean intercalation of Pausha in A.D. 640; which would necessitate the adoption
of A.D. 606-607 as the epoch. But this intercalation remains to be examined in detail; and, for the
present, I have only a note by Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit that, according to the verse Mêsh-âdi-sthê savitari
&c. (see page 88 above, note 5), the intercalated period should be called Mârgaśîrsha; and that, in
calling it Pausha, exactly the contrary is done of the process by which we obtain Mârgaśîrsha as the
name of the intercalated period that is referred to in the Kaira grant of Dharasêna IV. of the year
330 (see page 93 ff. above).—The question will, I hope, be treated more fully by Mr. Dikshit hereafter.
Meanwhile, for present purposes, I adopt A.D. 605-606 as the epoch.
¹ As regards the equivalent English date, however, see a remark, in the preceding note, on the
indicated intercalary nature of this month Pausha.
y 8

180 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Aṁśuvarman’s sister Bhôgadêvî, who was the wife of the Râjaputra Sûrasêna,¹ and the
mother of the illustrious Bhôgavarman² and Bhâgyadêvî. It records certain orders ad-
dressed by Aṁśuvarman to the officials of the Western Province (paśchim-âdhikaraṇa-
vṛittibhujah, lines 5-6; and paśchim-âdhikaraṇa, line 14), in connection with three liṅga
forms of the god Îśvara or Śiva. The Dûtaka is the Yuvarâja Udayadêva.³ The date
(l. 22) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 39, Vaiśâkha-śukla-divâ-daśamyâm; answering, approximately,
to the 24th April, A.D. 644.
F.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s inscription No. 8; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 171.—This is not
a formal charter, issued from any specified place. It simply records that, by the favour of
the illustrious Aṁśuvarman (line 2), a praṇâlî or ‘conduit’ was caused to be built by
the Vârtta⁴ Vibhuvarman, for the increase of his father’s religious merit. The date (l. 1)
is (Harsha)-Saṁvat⁵ 44 or 45, Jyêshṭha-śukla . . . . . . . . . . . ., which has its equivalent in
the month of May or June, A.D. 649, or May, A.D. 650.
G.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s inscription No: 9; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 171 f.—The charter
is issued from Kailâsakûṭabhavana (line 3 f.). The inscription is one of the illustrious
Jishṇugupta (l. 4). It records that, at the request of the Sâmanta Chandravarman, a
tilamaka or ‘water-course,’ which had been constructed by the Bhaṭṭâraka and Mahârâjâ-
dhirâja, the glorious Aṁśuvarman (l. 6 f.), was made over by Jishṇugupta to Chandra-
varman, to be repaired; &c. The Dûtaka (l. 21) is the Yuvarâja, the illustrious Vishṇu-
gupta. The date (l. 21) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 48, Kârttika-śukla-2; answering, approxi-
mately, to the 30th September, A.D. 653.—Lines 1 and 2 of this inscription mention
Mânagṛiha,⁶ and, in connection wich it, the Bhaṭṭâraka and Mahârâja Dhruvadêva;
but the passage is much mutilated, and does not in itself suffice to explain the connection
between Dhruvadêva and Jishṇugupta.⁷
¹ The original is somewhat damaged, but it has undoubtedly s in the first akshara of this name;
not ś as given by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji in his text and translation. And the spelling is the same
in line 3 of an inscription of the Sûrasêna family published by him in the Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 34 ff.
But very probably ś is the more correct spelling; especially as line 8 of the present inscription men-
tions the liṅga named Śûrabhôgêśvara.
² See page 177 above, note 4.
³ The dates seem to prevent the identification of this person with the Udayadêva of the Ṭhâkurî
family, mentioned in inscription R. below.—He was perhaps a Lichchhavi, as suggested by Dr. Bhag-
wanlal Indraji. If so, in this Lichchhavi Dûtaka of a Ṭhâkurî charter, we have an instance parallel to
the Ṭhâkurî Dûtaka of a Lichchhavi grant, suggested in page 177 above, note 4.
⁴ Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji took Vârta as a family or tribal name. It seems more likely, however,
tnat, as suggested by himself, it is an official title, synonymous with the vṛittibhuj of inscription E.
above; and that the correct form is vârtta (with the double t) from vṛitti.
⁵ The second symbol is doubtful; but it is either 4 or 5.—I have not seen the original rubbing of
this inscription.
⁶ The two syllables mâna, immediately after svasti, are clear enough in the original rubbing,
though they hardly shew in the lithograph, and were not given by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji in his text.
⁷ The purport of it, however, must have been the same as in the next inscription H.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 181
H.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 10; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 173 f.—The
charter is issued from Kailâsakûṭabhavana (line 6). The inscription is one of the illus-
trious Jishṇugupta (l. 7). The details are much mutilated; but the subject is a tilamaka
or 'water-course,' which had been constructed by the Mahâsâmanta, the illustrious¹......
dêva. The name of the Dûtaka, and the date, have peeled off and are lost.—Lines 3 and
4 of this inscription again mention Mânagṛiha, and, in connection with it, the Bhaṭṭâra-
ka and Mahârâja, the illustrious Dhruvadeva, the banner of the Lichchhavikula. Be-
tween mânagṛiha and dita-chitta in line 4, there are four (or perhaps five) aksharas
which are much damaged, and are quite uncertain even in the rubbing; but the ha (not
hâ) is distinct enough; and this, and the whole construction, shews that we have here,—
not Mânagṛihât, the formal ablative of issue,—but the base Mânagṛiha, as the first mem-
ber of a compound, ending with santati, that qualifies śrî-Dhruvadêva, and means some-
thing like "who belonged to a lineage which had its thoughts [gladdened by residing] at
Mânagṛiha." As regards the connection between Dhruvadêva and Jishṇugupta,—in line
5, after śrî-Dhruvadêva, Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji read purassaré sakala, and interpreted
the passage as shewing that Jishṇugupta acknowledged Dhruvadêva as his lord paramount.
The interpretation is possibly correct; though the text may equally well mean nothing
more than a courteous reference by Jishṇugupta to one whose position was equal to his
own. But, from the rubbing, the proper reading is certainly purassara-sakala, in compo-
sition. The whole passage, in fact, from Mânagṛiha, line 4, down to mânasa, lines 5-6, is
one continuous compound, meaning, in the latter part, that Jishṇugupta's mind had been
brought into a state of contentment by devising the means of freeing from calamity all the
people headed by Dhruvadêva, &c. And the expression Dhruvadêva-purassara-sakala-
jana is analogous in its purport to the sa-nṛipatêr=jjagatô (hitâya), "(for the welfare) of
the world (i.e. of all the people), together with the king," of line 2 of inscription M. below.
I.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 11; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 174.—This is
not a formal charter, issued from any specified place. It simply records certain grants
made in the augmenting victorious reign of the illustrious Jishṇugupta (line 9). The
era-date, if any was recorded, is lost with lines 27 ff.
J.—Mr. Bendall's inscription No. 3; Journey in Nêpâl, page 77 ff. and Plate x.—
The charter is issued from Kailâsakûṭabhavana (line 1). The king's name is lost,
somewhere in lines 2 to 7. The inscription provides for the worship of the god Vajrêśvara
(l. 17), and other religious matters. The Dûtaka (l. 28) is the Bhaṭṭâraka, the Yuvarâja
Skandadêva. The date (l. 29) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 82, Bhâdrapada śukla-divâ.......;
which has its equivalent in the month of August, A.D. 687.

¹ In the original rubbing, śrî is very distinct at the beginning of line 14. Two aksharas are
illegible between it and dêvêna.

182 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
K.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s inscription No. 1; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 163 ff.—This
furnishes the following short genealogy:—Vṛishadêva (line 3):—his son Śaṁkaradêva
(l. 12), with a reference in lines 9 and 10 to other sons, who, however, are not mentioned
by name;—Śaṁkara’s son, Dharmadêva (l. 16), who with justice [governed] a great
hereditary kingdom (kula-kram-âgatam . . . . . . . . . . râjyaṁ mahat, line 17), and whose
wife was Râjyavatî;—and Dharmadêva’s son Mânadêva (l. 20), who was appointed
to reign by his mother on his father’s death. The inscription then records that
Mânadêva made an expedition to the East, and reduced to obedience some “roguish,”
ill-behaved, or rebellious Sâmantas there; and then went back to the West, where also
he heard of misdoings on the part of a Sâmanta. Here, unfortunately, the available
part of the inscription terminates, the rest being buried underground. The date (l. 1 f.)
is (Gupta)-Saṁvat 386, Jyêshṭha-mâsa-śukla-pakshê pratipadi 1 Rôhiṇî-nakshatra-yuktê
chandramasi muhûrtê praśastê=Bhijiti; the exact equivalent of which, as we have seen at
page 95 ff. above, is Tuesday, the 28th April, A.D. 705.
L.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s inscription No. 12; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 174 ff.—The
charter is issued from Kailâsakûṭabhavana (line 1). The inscription is one of the
Paramabhaṭṭâraka and Mahârâjâdhirâja, the glorious Śivadêva II. (l. 3). The Dûtaka
(l. 23) is the Râjaputra Jayadêva. The date (l. 23) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 119, Phâlguna-
śukla-divâ-daśamyâm; answering, approximately, to the 20th February, A.D. 725.
M.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s inscription No. 2; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 166 f.—This
is not a formal charter, issued from any specified place. It simply records that, by the
favour of the illustrious ‘king’ Mânadêva (line 1), a certain Jayavarman erected a liṅga
named Jayêśvara, for the welfare of the world, (i.e. of all the people), together with the
king,¹ and endowed it with a permanent endowment.² The date (l. 1) is (Gupta)-
Saṁvat 413, equivalent to A.D. 732-33, without any further details.
N.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s inscription No. 13; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 176 f.—This
inscription is very much damaged.³ The name of the palace whence the charter was
issued, is lost. And the king’s name is illegible in line 3; but, as it is preceded by the
titles of Paramabhaṭṭâraka and Mahârâjâdhirâja, the name was probably that of Śivadêva
II., as in inscription L. above; and Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji filled up the lacunæ in that
way. This is a Buddhist inscription. The Dûtaka (line 36) is the Bhaṭṭâraka, the
illustrious, or perhaps the venerable, Śivadêva. The date (l. 37) is somewhat doubtful;⁴ but
¹ sa-nṛipatêr=jagatô hitâya; line 2. ² akshaya-nîvî; line 2.
³ I have not seen the rubbing of this inscription.
⁴ In Śaka-Saṁvat 672 current, or 671 expired, the month Jyêshṭha was intercalary (see Indian
Eras, p. 161, and Chronology, p. 126). And the absence of any hint of this in the present record,
would, if the reading of the second numerical symbol as 40 could be established, be a point in favour of
the year being Śaka-Saṁvat 671 current, or 670 expired; which is in accordance with the epoch of
A.D. 605-606.

[Header] THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 183

Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji read it as (Harsha)-Saṁvat 143, Jyaishṭha-śukla-divâ-trayôdaśyâm ;
answering, approximately, to the 25th May, A.D. 748. There is, however, the possibility
that the second numerical symbol is 20 or 30, instead of 40.
O.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 14; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 177 f.—All the
introductory part of this inscription, recording the palace whence the charter was issued
and the name of the king, is broken away and lost. The Dûtaka (line 17) is the Yuvarâja
Vijayadêva. The date (l. 17) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 145, Pausha-śukla-divâ-tritîyâyâm ;
answering, approximately, to the 6th December, A.D. 750.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, tak-
ing Vijayadêva as a "vicarious" name of Jayadêva II., allotted the inscription, chiefly on
this account, to Śivadêva II. As far as the date goes, the inscription may be one either
of him, or of Jayadêva II. But Vijayadêva cannot be a "vicarious" name of Jayadêva
II. Occasional instances may be cited, in which the special terminations of names vary;
thus, the Vasantasêna of inscription P. below, appears in R. line 10, and in the Vaṁśâvali,
as Vasantadêva ; and Jayadêva I. of R. line 8, perhaps appears in the Vaṁśâvali as Jayavar-
man. But even this is rare enough. And, apart from the substitution of birudas or secon-
dary titles, the only epigraphical instance that I can quote, of any variation in the first and
really distinctive part of a king's name, is to be found in line 46 ff. of the Kauṭhêm grant¹
of the Western Châlukya king Vikramâditya V., of Śaka-Saṁvat 930, where the Daśavar-
man of other inscriptions is called Yaśôvarman. But that instance is not a very satisfac-
tory one.² And in the present case there is not any metrical exigency, as there is in the
places where the name of Daśavarman occurs, to justify any variation. If the present in-
scription is one of Śivadêva II., then Vijayadêva was another son of his; if, as seems to
me more probable, it is one of Jayadêva II., then Vijayadêva was a son of the last-mentioned
person.
P. —Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 3; Ind. Ant. Vol IX. p. 167.—The char-
ter is issued from Mânagṛiha (line 1). The inscription is one of the Mahârâja, the illus-
trious **Vasantasêna.**³ The Dûtaka (l. 21) is the Sarvadaṇḍanâyaka and Mahâpratîhâra
Ravigupta. The date (l. 20 f.) is (Gupta)-Saṁvat 435, Âśvayuji śukla-divâ-1; answering,
approximately, to the 23rd September, A.D. 754.
Q.—Mr. Bendall's inscription No. 4; Journey in Nêpâl, p. 79 f. and Plate xi.—This is
not a formal charter, issued from any specified place; nor does it give any king's name.
It only records a grant by a private person to a Pâñchaka or Committee. The date
(line 1) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 151, Vaiśâkha-śukla-dvitîyâyâm; answering, approximately, to
the 8th April, A.D. 756.
R.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 15; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 178 ff.—This
is not a formal charter, issued from any specified place. The inscription, which gives a

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XVI. p. 23.      ² See id. p 19 f.
³ In inscription R. below, line 10, he is called Vasantadêva.

184 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL III
good deal of genealogical information, to be commented on below, is one of Jayadêva II.
(line 14), who also had the second name or biruda of Parachakrakâma (l. 18). The object
of it is to record that he caused a silver water-lily to be made, for the worship of Śiva under
the name of Paśupati; and that it was worshipped and installed by his mother Vatsadêvî.
The date (l. 35) is (Harsha)-Saṁvat 153, Kârttika-śukla-navamyâm; answering, approxi-
mately, to the 16th October, A.D. 758.
S.—Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's inscription No. 4; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 168.—The
commencement of the inscription, recording the place whence the order was issued and the
king's name, is broken away and lost. And the inscription, therefore, is of importance
only as indicating the period during which the era that is referred to in it, continued to be
used. The Dûtaka (line 17) is the Râjaputra Vikramasêna.¹ The date (l. 18) is
(Gupta)-Saṁvat 535, Śrâvaṇa-śukla-divâ-saptamyâm; answering, approximately, to the 1st
July, A.D. 854.
When Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji summed up, according to his view of them, the histori-
cal results of his inscriptions, Mr. Bendall's inscription No. 1, A. above, was not known;
and the only available clue was the mention, in B. C. E. F. and G., of Aṁśuvarman, who
was evidently to be identified with the king of that name who was reigning during, or
shortly before, Hiuen Tsiang's visit to Northern India, in or about A.D. 637. Acting on
this identification, he very properly referred the dates of (C.) 34, (E.) 39, (F.) 44 or 45,
(G.) 48, (L.) 119, (N.) 143 (?), (O.) 145, and (R.) 153, to the era dating from the com-
mencement of the reign of Harshavardhana of Kanauj in A.D. 606 (or 607).
Mr. Bendall's discovery of the Gôlmâḍhitôl inscription, furnished the key-note for the
interpretation of the whole matter. For, mentioning Aṁśuvarman as the contemporary of
Śivadêva I., and giving for the latter the date of the year 316, it shews that this date, and
all belonging to the same uniform series, must be referred to an era commencing just about
three centuries before the Harsha era; i. e. to the so-called Gupta era, with the epoch of
A.D. 319-20; for then the year 316 + A.D. 319-20 = A.D. 635-36, which is in the
closest possible accordance with the first recorded date of Aṁśuvarman, in A.D. 639.
But, when Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji wrote, nothing was certain about the other larger
dates of (K.) 386, (M.) 413, (P.) 435, and (S.) 535; except that all the circumstances of
the case shewed that they were not of the same series with the smaller dates belonging to
the Harsha era. And, after examining the theory of the Śaka era, commencing A.D. 78,
and rejecting it on the grounds that even this was not early enough, Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji
finally referred them to the Vikrama era commencing B.C. 58.
Curiously enough, the Nêpâl Vaṁśâvali states that Vikramâditya came to Nêpâl, and
established his era there. And, as we have seen at page 74 f. above, an offshoot of the
Vikrama era certainly was introduced into Nêpâl in A.D. 880. But the statement of the
Vaṁśâvali refers to the time of the predecessor of Aṁśuvarman; i.e. to the end of the
¹ See page 178 above, note 2.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 185
sixth, or the beginning of the seventh, century A.D. And Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji
shewed¹ that the statement is certainly quite wrong as regards the name of the king and
the particular era intended; and that what it probably contains, is a reminiscence of the
conquest of the country by Harshavardhana of Kanauj, and the adoption of the Harsha
era as the result. This statement, therefore, can have influenced him but little, if at all,
in his assignment of the above-mentioned dates to the Vikrama era.
The real grounds for his doing so,—grounds which, in spite of the existence of
the date of (Gupta)-Saṁvat 316 for Śivadêva I. and Aṁśuvarman, still require to be
cleared away, in order that we may properly adjust the whole of the early chronology
of Nêpâl,—are to be found in his erroneous treatment of R., the inscription of
Jayadêva II. of (Harsha)-Saṁvat 153.
Starting with a mythological genealogy, this inscription carries the descent from the
god Brahman (line 3), through Sûrya or the Sun,² Manu, Ikshvâku, and others, down to
Raghu, Aja, and Daśaratha (l. 6). After Daśaratha, there were eight kings, in lineal suc-
cession of sons and sons' sons, who are passed over unnamed; and then there was the
illustrious Lichchhavi (l. 6). Then comes verse 6, which records that "even still," at
the time of the writing of the inscription, "there exists a family which bears the pure second
name of Lichchhavi;"—svachchhaṁ Lichchhavi-nâma vi(bi)bhrad=aparaṁ vaṁśaḥ, (l. 7).
Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, in his lithograph, text, and translation, gave aparô vaṁśaḥ "a new
race ................ which bears the pure name Lichchhavi." But, on examining his
original rubbing, I find that the real reading is aparaṁ (nâma), "another name, a second
name;"—not aparô (vaṁśaḥ), "another race, a new race." This verse, therefore, is of some
interest, in shewing that,—in addition to the appellation of Lichchhavivaṁśa or Lichchha-
vikula, the latter of which actually occurs in inscriptions A. B. and H. above,—the family
had another original name, which, however, is not recorded. After Lichchhavi there came
some kings, who again are passed over unnamed, and the number of whom is
illegible³ at the end of line 7 and the beginning of line 8; and then the illustrious king
Supushpa (l. 8) was born at the city of Pushpapura.⁴ After him, "omitting in the interim
(to mention the names of) twenty-three kings," there was another⁵ king, the famous
¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 421 f.
² In accordance with this, the Vaṁśâvali enters the historical Lichchhavis of this inscription as
members of a Sûryavaṁśi family.
³ But the number was probably twelve, as hitv=âpa[vân=dvâdaśa] seems to suit best the metre
and such traces as are discernible in the rubbing.
⁴ i.e. Pâṭaliputra, the modern Paṭna in Bihâr; Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 180, note 44.—This part of
the inscription, therefore, relates to a period antecedent to the settlement of the Lichchhavis in
Nêpâl.
⁵ As no previous Jayadêva. with whom this one could be contrasted, is mentioned in the inscrip-
tions, apara seems to introduce another branch of the Lichchhavi family, not directly descended from
Lichchhavi and Supushpa.

186 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
Jayadêva I. (l. 8), who was treated by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji as the first really historical
member of the family, and the founder of the Nêpâl branch of it,¹ and on the Vikrama-
Saṁvat theory, was placed about A.D. 1. After this “victorious” Jayadêva I., and again
“omitting in the interim (to mention the names of) eleven ...... kings,” the inscription
gives the first unbroken succession of names that it contains; viz.—Vṛishadêva (l. 9);—
his son, Śaṁkaradêva;—his son, Dharmadêva;—his son, Mânadêva (l. 10);—his
son, Mahîdêva;—and his son, Vasantadêva. The first four of these names have
already been made known by inscription K. above; and the sixth, in the form of Vasanta-
sêna, by inscription P. And these six kings plainly belong to the family, the genealogy
of which forms the subject of all the preceding part of the inscription; viz. the
Lichchhavikula.
Then follows, in lines 10 and 11, the eleventh verse, which was entirely misunder-
stood by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, and which, through that misunderstanding, led to the
erroneous reference of the larger dates of his inscriptions to the Vikrama era. He read this
verse—asy=ântarê=py=Udayadêva iti kshitîśâj=jâtâs=trayôdaśa [tata]ś=cha Narêndradêvaḥ
mân-ônnatô nata-samasta-narêndra-mauli-mâlâ-rajô-nikara-pâṁśula-pâdapîṭhaḥ; and tran-
slated — “afterwards came thirteen (rulers), sprung from king Udayadêva (l. 10),² and
then Narêndradêva (l. 11), who was proud, and whose footstool was covered with the dust
from the row of diadems worn by numerous prostrated kings.” With the exception that
the original has pâṁsula, not pâṁśula, the reading and translation of the second half of the
verse represent the original correctly. It is the first half that has not been properly treat-
ed. In the first place, asy=ântarê does not mean ‘afterwards,’ or ‘after him.’ The literal
meaning of antara is ‘an interval;’ and in anantaram it helps to make up the equivalent
of ‘afterwards,’ only from its meaning in the first place ‘no interval after.’ But, standing
without the negative particle, antara can have only the meaning of ‘interval;’ and it is
used twice before by the composer of this inscription, in lines 8 and 9, distinctly in that
sense. Asy=ântarê can only mean “in an interval of this;” and, supplying vaṁśasya, from
the vaṁśaḥ of line 7, in apposition with asya, we have “in an interval, i.e. at an intervening
point, of this (lineage that has just been detailed).” The expression plainly introduces
some names, in respect of which it is intended to be conveyed that they are of another
family or branch; and that the last of them comes contemporaneously with or immediate-
ly after the name of Vasantadêva, the last mentioned of the immediately preceding suc-
cession, and the first comes at some unspecified point intervening between Vṛishadêva and
Vasantadêva. In the second place, Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s reading of kshitîśâj-jâtâs
cannot be maintained. In the two syllables jjâtâ, the rubbing shews distinctly the double
jj, of which, in the lithograph, the lower one is only sketched in faintly, as if it were doubt-

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 424.
² Or, again, — “after him (Vasantadêva), followed thirteen, sprung from the lord of the earth
called Udayadêva;” Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 425, note.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 187
ful; but the second is as distinctly ta, not tâ, as is in fact shewn in the lithograph. There
is a slight abrasion mark between the ta and the following akshara, which does not appear
in the lithograph; but the rubbing shews most distinctly that this mark is no remnant of
a half-obliterated â, and that the stroke for â, for which in fact there is no room, never was
engraved here The reading of the original, in short, is jâtas, the nominative singular;
not jâtâs, the nominative plural. This is the first objection to the more serious error, the
introduction of trayôdaśa, 'thirteen,' immediately after jâtas. The second is, that, of the
six following aksharas which are read s=trayôdaśa [tata], the only parts that can be pro-
nounced on with any certainty, are s, as part of the first, and, at the beginning of line 11,
da, the third, which is well preserved and unmistakable. The others are hopelessly injured
and unrecognisable; and,—with the exception that the first probably had a t below the s;
and that the second looks more like thâ (tathâ), or dâ (tadâ), or pô (tapô), than yô,—it is
quite impossible, even from the rubbing, to say what they may be. But the culminating
and final objection to the reading of trayôdaśa [tata]ś=cha is, that, in the passage, as thus
read, there is no such word as vyatîtya, vihâya, hitvâ, or tyaktvâ, "having passed over or
omitted (to mention the names of)," which we have in lines 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, where, in each
case, a specified number of kings is passed over; and that the metre does not allow of our
introducing any such word. The lacunæ at the end of line 10 and the beginning of line 11
render it, as I said, impossible to decide what the original reading may have been. But the
whole structure of the passage leaves no doubt whatever that the original contained nothing
but an epithet, or perhaps two, of Narêndradêva; and that, so far from thirteen rulers
having intervened between him and Udayadêva, he was the son of Udayadêva.
Narêndradêva's son was Śivadêva II. (line 12), who married Vatsadêvî, of the family
of the Maukharis who abounded in strength of arm,¹ the daughter of the illustrious
Bhôgavarman, and the daughter of the daughter of "the great" Âdityasêna, the lord of
Magadha (l. 13). And their son was the Râja, the illustrious Jayadêva II. (l. 14), also
called Parachakrakâma (l. 18), whose wife was Râjyamatî, of the family of king Bhagadatta
or of the Bhagadatta kings (l. 16), the daughter of Harsha, king of Gauḍa, Ôḍra; &c., and
Kaliṅga, and Kôsala (l. 15). The rest of the inscription details the beauty of the silver
water-lily which Jayadêva II. caused to be made, and how it was worshipped and installed
by his mother Vatsadêvî; and then concludes with the date.
Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji's acceptance of Udayadêva as the successor of Vasantadêva,
and insertion of thirteen rulers between him and Narêndradêva, led of necessity to the
reference of the dates for Mânadêva of (K.) 386 and (M.) 413, and for Vasantadêva of
(P.) 435, to the Vikrama era. It is unnecessary to repeat his calculations in full. But,
starting with fifteen names between Vasantadêva and Śivadêva II., or nineteen from Mâna-
¹ The original has dêvî vâ(bâ)hu-va(ba)l-âḍhya-Maukhari-kulâ śrîvarmma &c.; not kula-śrî-
varmma, in composition, as in the published text.
3 2b

188 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL III
dêva to Śivadêva II. (both included), all of which denote "generations of kings, not reigns
of collaterals,"¹ and taking twenty-one years as the smallest possible average for these
generation-reigns, he found that no era later than the Vikrama era would meet the
requirements of the case ; and that that era would meet them. For, on the Vikrama-Saṁvat
theory, Mânadêva's first date represented A.D. 329 ; the interval from this to A.D. 759,
the date of Jayadêva II., was 430 years; and this, divided by nineteen gave about
twenty-two years and three-quarters as the average for each generation-reign. This was
all right enough from his point of view.
But let us now take the matter from the correct point of view; viz. that Udayadêva
did not come after Vasantadêva. This frees us at once from the necessity, under which
Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji laboured, of forcing Vasantadêva and his ancestors back to such
early times ; and leaves us at liberty to follow the analogy of inscription A., and to refer
his date and Mânadêva's to the Gupta era. The result is, that we have for Vasantasêna
the date of (P.) A.D. 754, just synchronous with the dates of perhaps (O.) A.D. 750,
and certainly (R.) A.D. 758, for Jayadêva II., exactly what inscription R. seeks to
convey ; and we have for Mânadêva, the grandfather of Vasantasêna, the dates of (K.)
A.D. 705 and (M.) A.D. 732-33, just about one generation before Jayadêva II.'s father
Śivadêva II., for whom we have the dates of (L.) A.D. 725 and probably (N.) A.D. 748 (?).
Here the question naturally suggests itself :—As Udayadêva and his descendants were
not successors and descendants of Vasantasêna, who were they ? I think the answer is
perfectly plain :—That they were successors of Aṁśuvarman ; and, though not his direct
lineal descendants, belonged, like him, to the family which in the Vaṁśâvali is called the
Ṭhâkurî family
Inscription R., in fact, furnishes another instance of the double government of
Nêpâl, to which Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji drew attention in the case of Śivadêva I. and
Aṁśuvar-man ; and which is illustrated in the most pointed way throughout these
inscriptions.² We have two separate families, ruling contemporaneously and mostly on
equal terms, but each preserving certain distinctive characteristics of its own.
On the one side (see Table XI. page 189 below), we have the Lichchhavikula of
the inscriptions,—the Sûryavaṁśi family of the Vaṁśâvali,—issuing its charters from
the house or palace called Mânagṛiha ; and using the Gupta era. To this family
belong inscriptions A. B. K. M. P. and S. ; and it was represented in A.D. 635 by
¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 425.
² So also in later times. See, for instance, the colophon of a manuscript of the Ashṭasâhasrikâ-
Prajñâpâramitâ (Bendall's Catalogue of Buddhist MSS. p. 4), dated in Nêpâl-Saṁvat 128 (A.D.
1007), which speaks of the double rule of Nirbhaya and Rudradêva ; and another manuscript bearing
the same title (id. p. 151), dated in Nêpâl-Saṁvat 135 (A.D. 1015), which speaks of the government
being enjoyed, half by Bhôjadêva and Rudradêva, and half by Lakshmîkâmadêva.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 189
TABLE XI.
List of the Early Rulers of Nêpâl.
THE LICHCHHAVI OR SŪRYAVAṀŚI FAMILY OF MĀNAGṚIHA. | THE ṬHĀKURI FAMILY OF KAILĀSAKŪṬABHAVANA.

1. Jayadêva I.—About A.D. 330-355.
6. } Names not re- } A.D.
7. } corded in the } 355-630.
8. } inscription. }

[Śivadêva I., Mahârâja.—A.D. 635.] 13. Vṛishadêva.—About A.D. 630-655. | Aṁśuvarman, Mahâsâmanta, and afterwards Mahârâjâdhirâja.—A.D. 635, 639, 644, and 649 or 650.
[Dhruvadêva, Mahârâja.—A.D. 653.] 14. Śaṁkaradêva, son of preceding.—About A.D. 655-680. | Jishṇugupta. — A.D. 653.
15. Dharmadêva, son of preceding.—About A.D. 680-704. | Udayadêva. — About A.D. 675-700.
16. Mânadêva, son of preceding.—A.D. 705 and 732. | Narêndradêva, son of preceding. — About A.D. 700-724.
17. Mahîdêva, son of preceding.—About A.D. 733-753. | Śivadêva II., Mahârâjâdhirâja, son of preceding. — A.D. 725 and 748 (?).
18. Vasantasêna, or Vasantadêva, Mahârâja, son of preceding.—A.D. 754. | Jayadêva II., Râja, son of preceding.—A.D. 750 (?) and 758.
Śivadêva I., (in A.D. 653 by Dhruvadêva),¹ in A.D. 705 and 732-33 by Mânadêva,
and in A.D. 754 by Vasantasêna or Vasantadêva.
And, on the other side, we have a family, the name of which is not given in the in-
scriptions hitherto brought to notice, but which in the Vaṁśâvali is called the Ṭhâkurî
family; issuing its charters from the house or palace called Kailâsakûṭabhavana;
and using the Harsha era. To this family belong inscriptions C: D. E. F. G. H. I. J.
L. N. O. Q. and R.; and it was represented in A.D. (635),² 639, 644, and 649 or 650, by
Aṁśuvarman, in A.D. 653 by Jishṇugupta, in A.D. 725 and 748 (?) by Śivadêva II.,
and in A.D. 750 (?) and 758 by Jayadêva II.
From the fact that each of the two families issued its charters from a palace, not a
town, and the fact that all the inscriptions are either at Khâṭmâṇḍu itself, or close in the
neighbourhood, the two palaces of Mânagṛiha and Kailâsakûṭabhavana appear to

¹ From Jishṇugupta’s inscription, G.
² From inscription A of Śivadêva I.

have been in the immediate vicinity of each other, in different divisions of one and the
same ancient capital. And, though the inscriptions give no specific information on this
point, from the fact that the order of Aṁśuvarman, recorded in inscription E., is issued to
the officials of the western province, and from the way in which, in inscription K., Mâna-
dêva is described as marching to the east and reducing to obedience the rebellious Sâman-
tas there, and then returning to the west, it seems pretty clear that the Lichchhavikula or
Sûryavaṁśi family had the government of the territory to the east of the capital; and the
Ṭhâkurî family, of the territory to the west of it.
Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji treated Aṁśuvarman as if he was at first the feudatory
of Śivadêva I. There is, however, nothing in the inscriptions to support this. The in-
scriptions of Śivadêva I., it is true, record acts that were done by him "on the advice," or
"at the request," of Aṁśuvarman; but this expression, though often used in respect of
feudatories and officials, does not of necessity imply any state of subordination. And,
whereas Śivadêva I. uses in respect of himself only the feudatory title of Mahârâja, in his
own inscriptions he allots to Aṁśuvarman the equal title of Mahâsâmanta; not simply
Sâmanta, as represented almost throughout by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji. Śivadêva I. and
Aṁśuvarman were only co-ordinate feudatories of a paramount sovereign, viz. Harshavar-
dhana of Kanauj. During the time when Aṁśuvarman was a Mahârâjâdhirâja
or paramount sovereign, as recorded in inscription G., the Lichchhavis must have been
feudatory to him. This was after his inscription C. of A.D. 639. His other two inscrip-
tions E. and F., which give him no titles except that of śrî, "the illustrious, or the
glorious," perhaps belong to a transitional period, when he hesitated about adopting the
paramount title, and yet was unwilling to use a feudatory title any longer. He probably
assumed the paramount rank and title, on the death of Harshavardhana; when, as Ma-
twan-lin tells us,¹ the kingdom of Kanauj fell into a state of anarchy, and the minister Na-
fo-ti-a-la-na-shun usurped the supreme power. And Aṁśuvarman is probably the king of
Nêpâl, who came with seven thousand horsemen to help the Chinese general Wang-hiwen-
tse who defeated the usurper. In the time of Dhruvadêva and Jishṇugupta, it is
possible that the Ṭhâkurî family may to a certain excent have acknowledged the Lich-
chhavis as superior to them. But Śivadêva II. again had the paramount title and rank;
and the Lichchhavis were then, of course, again the feudatories of the Ṭhâkurî family.
Finally, the fact that the Lichchhavi genealogy is given in the Ṭhâkurî inscription R.,
coupled with the use by Jayadêva II. in this inscription of no title but that of Râja (line
14), with the epithet śrî, 'the illustrious,' may perhaps indicate that at this latter time the
Ṭhâkurîs again acknowledged a certain amount of superiority on the part of the Lich-
chhavis. Or it may be nothing more than another expression of the mutual courtesy of
the two families, already exhibited in the inscriptions of Śivadêva I. and Jishṇugupta.

¹ Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 20.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX IV. 191
In the Lichchhavi family, the earliest name for which we have as yet a definite
date, is that of Śivadêva I., A.D. 635. And either Śivavṛiddhavarman, No. 14 in the
Vaṁśâvali list of the Sûryavaṁśi family, or Śivavavarman, No. 16 in the same, seems to be
intended for him. The next name is that of Dhruvadêva, A.D. 653, who is not given or
represented in the Vaṁśâvali. The connection between Śivadêva I. and Dhruvadêva, is
not as yet explained. But they probably belonged both to one branch of the family;
though, from their not being mentioned in inscription R., certainly not to the same branch
with Vasantadêva and his ancestors. Their contemporaries of the Thâkurî family were re-
spectively Aṁśuvarman and Jishṇugupta. They were followed by another branch of the same
family, introduced about A.D. 630 (not A.D. 260, as proposed by Dr. Bhagwanlal
Indraji) by Vṛishadêva, who was the contemporary of Śivadêva I.; and represented, as far
as definite dates go, by Mânadêva in A.D. 705 and 732-33 (not A.D. 329 and 356), and by
Vasantasêna or Vasantadêva in A.D. 754 (not A.D. 378). The six names from Vṛishadêva
to Vasantasêna, are given correctly in the Vaṁśâvali, as Nos. 18 to 23 of the Sûryavaṁśi
family. If inscription R. is to be accepted throughout, this branch of the family was founded
by Jayadêva I. He is doubtless the person who is intended by Jayavarman, No. 3 in the Vaṁ-
śâvali list of the Sûryavaṁśi family. And, calculating back fifteen generations, at the average
rate of twenty-five years, from Mânadêva, whose generation is represented by his recorded
dates, we have for Jayadêva I. the initial date of about A.D. 330 (not A.D. 1). But, if
Vṛishadêva was a direct lineal descendant of Jayadêva I., it is rather peculiar that the com-
poser of inscription R., writing only five generations after him, was unable to give the names
of the persons, only eleven in number, who intervened before him and after Jayadêva I. It
would seem, therefore, that, though the number of generations may be accepted, there was
at this point a break in the direct succession.
In the Thâkurî family, the earliest name is that of Aṁśuvarman, with the extreme
dates of A.D. 635 and 649 or 650; and the next is that of Jishṇugupta, A.D. 653. Aṁśu-
varman is mentioned in the Vaṁśâvali, under exactly the same name, as the founder of the
Thâkurî family; but Jishṇugupta's name is not given or represented. The connection between
them is not as yet explained. They were followed by Udayadêva (about A.D. 675, not
A.D. 400) and his descendants, who, from there being no mention of Aṁśuvarman and
Jishṇugupta in inscription R., plainly belonged to another branch of the family. Udayadêva
was contemporaneous with Dharmadêva of the Lichchhavi family; he is not mentioned in
the Vaṁśâvali, being certainly not the Udayadêvavarman, No. 24 in the Vaṁśâvali list of
the Sûryavaṁśi family. His son, Narêndradêva, is possibly the person intended by Narên-
dradêva, No. 7 in the Vaṁśâvali list of the Thâkurî family. His son, Śivadêva II., A.D.
725 and 748 (?), is not mentioned in the Vaṁśâvali. His son, Jayadêva II., A.D. 750 (?)
and 758, is possibly the person intended by Jayadêva, No. 11 in the Vaṁśâvali list of the
Thâkurî family.

The provided image appears to be completely blank/white with no visible text or inscriptions to transcribe. Please provide an image containing the text or inscription you would like transcribed.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; APPENDIX V. 193
APPENDIX V.
System of Transliteration.
The system of transliteration followed in this volume, except in respect of modern
Hindu personal names, in which absolute purism is undesirable, and in respect of a few
Anglicised corruptions of names of places, sanctioned by long usage, is this:—

194 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
into the next line; intermediate divisions, rendered unavoidable here and there by printing
necessities have been made only where absolutely necessary for neatness in the arrange-
ment of the Texts.
A double hyphen is used to separate words in a sentence, which in the original are
written as one word, being joined together by the euphonic rules of saṁdhi. Where this
double hyphen is used, it is to be understood that a final consonant, and the following initial
vowel or consonant-and-vowel, are in the original expressed by one complex sign. Where it
is not used, it is to be understood of the orthography of the original, that, according to the
stage of the alphabet, the final consonant either has the modified broken form, which, in
the oldest stages of the alphabet, was used to indicate a consonant with no vowel attached
to it, or has the distinct sign of the virāma attached to it; and that the following initial
vowel or consonant has its full initial form. In the transcription of ordinary texts, the
double hyphen is probably unnecessary; except where there is the saṁdhi of final and
initial vowels. But, in the transcription of epigraphical records, the use of this sign is
unavoidable, for the purpose of indicating exactly the palæographical standard of the ori-
ginal texts.
The avagraha, or sign which indicates the elision of an initial a, is but rarely to be
met with in inscriptions, and does not occur at all in the present series. Where it does
occur, I find it most convenient to represent it by its own Dêvanâgarî sign.
So also, practice has shewn that it is more convenient to use the ordinary Dêvanâgarî
marks of punctuation; than to substitute the English signs for them.
Ordinary brackets are used for corrections and doubtful points; and square
brackets, for letters which are damaged and partially illegible in the original, or which,
being wholly illegible, can be supplied with certainty. An asterisk attached to letters or
marks of punctuation in square brackets, indicates that those letters or marks of punctuation
were omitted altogether in the original. As a rule, it is more convenient to use the brackets,
than to have recourse to footnotes; as the points to which attention is to be drawn, attract
notice far more readily. But notes are given instead, when there would be so many
brackets, close together, as to encumber the text and render it inconvenient to read. When
any letters in the original are wholly illegible and cannot be supplied, they are represented,
in metrical passages, by the sign for a long or a short syllable, as the case may be; and,
in prose passages, by points, at the rate, usually, of two for each akshara or syllable.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS.
TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS.
No. 1; PLATE I.
ALLAHABAD POSTHUMOUS STONE PILLAR INSCRIPTION
OF SAMUDRAGUPTA.
THIS inscription appears to have been first brought to the notice of the public in 1834,
when, in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, Vol. III. p. 118 ff., Captain
A. Troyer published his reading of the text and a translation of it, accompanied by a lithograph
(id. Plate vi.), which was reduced by Mr. James Prinsep from a copy commenced by a
brother of Lieutenant T. S. Burt, of the Engineers, finished by a Munshî, and revised
by Lieutenant Burt himself.—In the same volume, p. 257 ff., the Revd. Dr. W. H. Mill,
working from the same lithograph, published a revised version of the text and transla-
tion; followed, at p. 339 ff., by a supplementary paper containing the first genealogical tree
of the dynasty. His version, however, though it was an improvement on that of Captain
Troyer, still fell very far short of exhibiting the original completely or accurately;
especially in his failing, like Captain Troyer, to recognise that the inscription is a posthu-
mous one; in his misreading lines 11 and 21, in such a way as to introduce into the trans-
lation and genealogical tree, without any foundation whatever in the original, the indepen-
dent princess Saṁhârikâ, with a daughter, name unknown, who was the wife of Samudra-
gupta, other mothers-in-law of the same king, and a royal issue expected at the date
of the inscription; and in his treatment of line 30, where, instead of âchakshâṇa iva bhuvo
bâhur=ayam=uchchhritaḥ stambhaḥ, "this lofty column (is) as it were an arm of the earth,
proclaiming (the fame of Samudragupta)," he read rôma-charmaṇaḥ ravi-bhuvô bâhur=
ayam=uchchhritaḥ stambhaḥ, and translated "of this child of the Sun, though clothed
in hairy flesh, this lofty pillar is the arm," which led him to refer Samudragupta and his
dynasty to the Solar Race, a mistake that sometimes seems to have been not even yet
completely eradicated.—In 1837, in the same Journal, Vol. VI. p. 969 ff., Mr. James Prinsep
gave a fresh and much improved lithograph of the inscription and its alphabet (id. Plate lv.),
reduced from impressions on cloth and paper made by Captain Edward Smith, of the
Engineers; and, with it, his own version of the text and translation.¹ His rendering of
the inscription still failed to represent the original with any real approach to accuracy and
completeness. But it was a very great improvement on the two versions that had pre-
ceded it; especially in avoiding the leading mistakes of Dr. Mill, pointed out above.
And it has remained the standard version up to the present time; except that in 1872
¹ The translation is reprinted in Mr. Thomas' edition of Prinsep's Essays on Indian Antiquities,
Vol. I. p. 233 ff.
B₁

2 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. IX. p. cxcvi. ff.,
Dr. Bhau Daji notified, from a copy on cloth made by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, some
corrections in the historical part, in the names of the kings and countries conquered by
Samudragupta.¹
The round monolith sandstone column, thirty-five feet in height, on which this inscrip-
tion is, dates from the third century B.C., as is shewn by the famous edicts of Aśôka on it. It
now stands in a conspicuous position inside the Fort at Allahâbâd (properly Ilâhâbâd), the
seat of Government of the North-West Provinces. It is doubtful, however, whether the
column was originally erected at this place, or whether, as has been suggested by General
Cunningham,² it was first set up at the ancient Kauśâmbî, now represented by the village
of Kôsam³ on the left bank of the Jamnâ, about twenty-eight miles west by south from
Allahâbâd; and, being still at that place when the present inscription was engraved,
was afterwards moved from there to Allahâbâd by one of the early Musalmân kings
of Dehli, just as the two Aśôka columns now at Dehli were brought there from original
positions at Mêraṭh and in the Siwâlik hills. The points in favour of the latter supposi-
tion are (1) that the column contains a short Aśôka edict addressed to the rulers of
Kauśâmbî;⁴ and (2) that the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsiang makes no mention of this
column in his account of Po-lo-ye-kia, i.e. Prayâga or Allahâbâd.⁵
The writing, which covers a space of about 6′ 8″ broad by 5′ 4″ high, commences on
the north of the column, towards the north-east, and in the longest part, line 30, runs all
round the column, except for a space of about 1′ 9.″ The bottom line is about 6′ 0″ above
the point where the column starts from its present pedestal. There is a large crack in the
column, from above the first word of the first line, and extending down to the beginning
of the fourteenth. And the upper part of the inscription has suffered very much, partly
from some of the mediæval inscriptions, which are so abundant on the column, being
engraved on and between the original lines here, and partly from the peeling off of the
surface of the stone in several places. But nothing of a historical nature appears to have
been lost; except, perhaps, after the mention of Nâgasêna in line 13, and in connection
with the mention of Pushpapura in line 14. A few letters, again, have been damaged or
destroyed by the peeling off of the stone near the beginning of line 23, and in the centre
of lines 23, 24, 31, and 32; but, except in line 32, the letters can be supplied without
any doubt. The really important part of the inscription, the historical and genealogical
passages commencing with line 19 and ending in line 30, is fortunately in a state of
¹ This notice was published in 1872; but it was read before the Society two years earlier, on
the 11th August 1870. It records that Dr. Bhau Daji submitted to the Society a revised facsimile,
text, and translation, of the inscription; but they do not appear to have been ever published, or to be
now forthcoming. His suggestions were perhaps more correct in his own notes, than in the form in
which they stand printed in the Journal.
² Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. I. p. 39.
³ The ‘Kosam and Kosim Kheraj’ of maps; about eight miles to the south of Karârî, the chief
town of the Karârî Parganâ in the Manjhanpur or Mânjhandpur Tahsîl or Sub-Division of the Allah-
âbâd District. . Indian Atlas, Sheet No. 88. Lat. 25° 20′ N.; Long. 81° 27′ E.
⁴ Corp. Inscr. Indic. Vol. I. pp. 39, 116, 141, and Pl. xxii.; see also after the end of line 10 of
the present inscription in the Plate now published.
⁵ Beal's Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. I. p. 230 ff.; Stanislas Julien's Hiouen
Thsang, Vol. II. p. 276 ff.—At the same time, it must be noted that Hiuen Tsiang also makes no
mention of any such column in his immediately following account of Kiau-shang-mi or Kauśâmbî.

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS; No. 1, PLATE I. 3

excellent preservation, and is decipherable without the slightest doubt from beginning to
end.—The size of the letters (by which I mean, here and throughout, the height of such
letters as cha, da, pa, ma, ba, va, &c., which are formed entirely within the limits of, so
to speak, the lines of writing, without any projections above or below) varies from ⁷/₁₆" to
¼". As regards the palæography of this and the other inscriptions in the volume, this
division of the subject is so extensive as to require a separate treatise to itself; and I can-
not here do more than touch in a general way on such special points as call for particular
notice. The characters of the present inscription belong to what it has been customary to
call the Gupta Alphabet. This, however, like all other similar dynastic appellations, is an
unsatisfactory and misleading term. In the first place, these characters were not confined
to the inscriptions of the Early Gupta dynasty; for they were used, with slight modifica-
tions, but not such as to affect their essential nature, on the coins of the later Indo-
Scythian kings of the Pañjâb. Even in respect of a character of such leading importance
as the letter m,—though some of these coins exhibit what is called the Indo-Scythic
form,¹ in distinction from the m of the northern Gupta inscriptions, yet, on one coin which I
had the advantage of examining in General Cunningham's collection, and which has on it
the name of Samudra,² the m that is used is the so-called Gupta m, somewhat later
than the m of the present inscription, but of exactly the same shape with the m of
mahârâja in line 8 (to choose a clear example) of the Mathurâ inscription of Chandra-
gupta II., No. 4 below, Plate iiiA. And in the second place, the inscriptions of the Early
Guptas themselves were by no means written exclusively in this alphabet. To say nothing
of the frequent use of the Indo-Scythic m on Samudragupta's coins,—illustrated, for

¹ Setting aside the few exceptional instances that we have of irregular usage, confined, I think,
entirely to coins, this letter is in itself sufficient to shew, for the whole period covered by the
inscriptions in this volume, whether the characters of a particular record belong to the northern or to the
southern class of alphabets. The m of the Indo-Scythic inscriptions, a good representation of which
may be seen in the word mahârâjasya at the beginning of the Mathurâ inscription of Huvishka of the
year 39 (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. III. Pl. xiv. No. 1), is simply a stiff angular development of the m
of the Aśôka period. This particular form was not confined, however, to the Indo-Scythian records.
We have it, in all its angularity, in the word svâmi in the Sâñchi pillar inscription, No. 73 below, Plate
xliiA.; and, with very little modification, in the early inscriptions from Nâsik and that neighbourhood
published in the Archæol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. IV. Plates xliv. ff. And in the slightly modified form,
with simply the angles rounded off, which it must have had in the earliest stages of development of the
southern alphabets, we have it throughout the Sâñchi inscription of Chandragupta II., No. 5 below,
Plate iiiB., e.g. in mahâvihârê, line 1; the Gaṅgdhâr inscription of Viśvavarman, No. 17 below, Plate x.,
e.g. in appratimêna, line 4; and the Mandasôr inscription of Kumâragupta and Bandhuvarman, No. 18
below, Plate xi., e.g. in bhavanam=idam=udâraṁ, line 23. While, in a more modified form, which
must have been of later development, though the instances in this volume happen to be of earlier date,
we have it throughout the Êraṇ inscription of Samudragupta, No. 2 below, Plate ii.A, e.g. in samara,
line 21; and throughout the Udayagiri cave inscription of Chandragupta II. of the year 82, No. 3 below,
Plate iiB., e.g. in mahârâja, at the beginning of line 2.—The m of the inscription now under notice
must also be simply a development of the Aśôka m, arrived at by forming the left part of the letter in
a different way, viz. by one unbroken movement, leading gradually to its being separated entirely from
the right part, which then eventually assumed a straight form, instead of curved. And, though the
instances in this volume happen to be of later date, undoubtedly the form that we have in, for
instance, mahârâja, in line 8 of the Mathurâ inscription of Chandragupta II., No. 4 below, Plate iiiA.,
must have preceded the form used in the inscription now under notice.
² The three components of the name are written one above the other, inside the spear and under
the left arm of the king, on the obverse; and they are practically identical with the components of the
same name on the coin of Samudragupta given by Mr. V. A. Smith in Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. LIII.
Part I. Pl. ii. No. 6.

B 2.