No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An inscription of Jayapāla Śāhī
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
In 1970, while I was in search of coins and other archaeological material relating to the Śahī dynasty, I visited the town of Hund (also called Und or Ohind), the ancient Udabhāṇḍapura, the capital of the Hindu Śāhī kings. Here I made contact with Mullah Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān, a local collector of and dealer in antiquities, and from him I obtained the photograph and rubbing of a remarkable inscription of the Śāhī period. Unfortunately I was unable to see the inscription itself, since, according to the Mullah, the slab had been sent to Quetta, where it was in the hands of a private collector. Its exact provenance was uncertain, but apparently it had been discovered in the locality of Hund by workers collecting stones for building purposes.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1978
References
NOTES
1 See for instance Sahni, Daya Ram, “Six inscriptions in the Lahore Museum”, Epigraphia Indica, XXI, 1938, 298–9 and 301.Google Scholar
2 This fact is almost too well known to require references, being recorded in numerous Muslim chronicles. See Nāẓim, M., Sulṭān Maḥmūd of 
Cambridge, 1931, 87.Google Scholar
3 The small angular mark at the bottom of smā is the anusvāra of rvaṇ on the next line.
4 The original appears to read praṭhāmya, obviously a scribal error.
5 In the Rājatarangiṇī and elsewhere this city is referred to as Udabhāṇḍa. The r in our reading is based on the small triangular mark to the left of the vertical stroke. This might also be interpreted as a u, giving the reading Udabhāṇḍuṁ.
6 The original seems to read thus. Since the subject of the sentence is UdabhāṇḌram, a neuter noun, the text should be emended to yac ca.
7 Appears at first glance to be -ver, but the letters dha and va are very similar, and this seems the poet's intention.
8 Possibly bhṛśṭayā “by roasting (heat)”. In either case the ś is an error, found in other inscriptions of the period, for ṣ.
9 Probably intended for cirād, or perhaps divād. The context seems to demand a word implying fear, and one is tempted to read an anomalous bhirād.
10 This unusual conjunct represents the Jihvāmūlīya form of visarga.
11 Before the ya appears a faint tra, possibly an error of the engraver which was partially erased.
12 This line seems fairly clear, but the sense is obscure. Possibly dahodyānaṇ.
13 Assuming that dro is correct, this syllable should read ṇas.
14 The mark on the right of va, indicating the long vowel, is very slight, but I take it as intended, since this is demanded by grammar, and clear occurrences of va elsewhere in the inscription have no projection on the right whatever.
15 Correctly ai.
16 I am thankful to Professor Sir Harold Bailey for his valuable suggestions on this point.
17 The letter has a small tick to the right of the upper line, which might be interpreted as implying a long vowel, which would be grammatically incorrect.
18 We use f to represent the upadhamānīya form of visarga occurring before labial sounds.
19 There is a small mark at the top right of the akṣara which may be intended as an anomalous long ā.
20 No trace of a subjoined y can be seen, but this is probably due to the obliteration of the lower part of the two letters in this line.
21 The verb kuryus appears to have no object.
22 The comparison seems strange and inapt, but I can suggest no better reading.
23 Shakur, M. A., A handbook to the Inscription Gallery in the Peshawar Museum, Peshawar, 1946, 2–3, and Pl. 11, 1.Google Scholar
24 op. cit., 3.Google Scholar
25 East and West, N.S., XX, 1970, 103–4, and Fig. 1.Google Scholar
26 Epigraphia lndica, XXII, No. 16, 1936, 97–8 and Pl.Google Scholar
27 Sahni, , op. cit., 97,Google Scholar and Shakur, in his Handbook, 12, read 168 and 169, but the editor of Sahni's article rightly remarks that the second digit of the figures looks more like 5 than 6. (See Sahni's, Footnote 3, p. 98).Google Scholar
28 The Tochī Valley inscriptions, dated Saṃvat 32 and 38, may also be referred to this era without even disturbing their suggested dates. There seems to be little possibility of the use of the Laukika or the Śāstra eras after Kallar's usurpation of power and the establishment of a new era. See below.
29 See above, n. 2.
30 al-'Utbī, , Tārīkh yamānā, 159;Google ScholarElliot, and Dowson, , History of India as told by its own historians, London, 1867–1877, II, 27.Google Scholar
31 al-'Utbī in Elliot, and Dowson, II, 26Google Scholar.
32 Elliot, and Dowson, , II, 424Google Scholar.
33 op. cit., 29.Google Scholar Nāẓim's estimate is based on al-'Utbī, who says that Maḥmūd was 15 years of age at that time.
34 See Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī (Indian reprint, 1970), tr. Raverty, H., I, 76Google Scholar.
35 Sachau, E. C. (tr.), Alberuni's India, London, 1910, (Indian reprint, Delhi, 1964), II, 13.Google Scholar
36 Jawāmi' al-ḥikāyāt, I, xii, 18; Elliot, and Dowson, , II, 172;Google ScholarNiẓámud-dīn, M., Introduction to the Jawámi'ul ḥikáyát. …, London, 1929, 164.Google Scholar
37 “Zur Geschichteder Câhis von Kâbul”, in Festgrüss an Rudolf Roth, Stuttgart, 1893, 200.Google Scholar
38 In A.D. 851–2 (237 H.) Ya'qūb was only promoted from the leadership of a band of outlaws by ṣāliḥ ibn Naḍr, the Ṭāhirid governor of Sīstān, to the command of his armies. See Ibnal-Athīr, , Kāmil al-tawārīkh, VII, 64–5;Google ScholarKhwānd, Mīr, Rawḍat al-ṣafā, IV, 11;Google ScholarTārīkh-i Sīstān (Tehran edition), 193.
39 al-Bīrūnī's, India (Arabic Text), Hyderabad, 1958, 348;Google ScholarSachau, , Alberuni's India, II, 8–9.Google Scholar
40 The author wishes to thank Professor A. L. Basham, Mrs. L. A. Hercus, and Mr. T. Rajapatirana, all of the Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, for invaluable help. Lastly he would thank Professor Sir Harold Bailey for very useful suggestions received through correspondence.