Epigraphic Notes
Summary
The epigraphic notes section contains two short studies. The first critiques the published edition of a copper‑plate grant issued by Arthapati Bhattāraka of the Nala family. The author points out errors in the earlier transcription and translation, such as misreading the royal titles and the date. By carefully re‑examining the plate, he corrects the genealogy of the Nala kings and clarifies the territorial jurisdiction granted to a Brahmin. The note underscores the importance of accurate readings in reconstructing the history of minor dynasties. The second note discusses the phrase tulita‑khaśa‑bala in the Khajuraho inscription of the Candella king Dhanga. Earlier scholars interpreted the phrase as referring to matched troops of the Khasas, implying that Dhanga’s army was equal to that of the Khasas. The author, however, argues that the term tulita should be understood in its literary sense of “depreciated” or “contemned,” citing examples from Sanskrit literature to show that the phrase means the Khasas were reduced to contempt. This reinterpretation changes the sense of the inscription, suggesting that the Khasas were humbled rather than matched in battle. Together, the two notes illustrate how precise philological analysis can refine our understanding of epigraphic records.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The first epigraphic note revises the reading of a Nala copper‑plate grant, correcting earlier mistakes and providing a more accurate genealogy and description of the grant. The second note reinterprets the phrase tulita‑khaśa‑bala from the Khajuraho inscription, arguing that it means the Khasas were despised rather than that their army was comparable. These corrections highlight the need for careful philological work when interpreting epigraphic sources.