Substrate Siddham ID: OB00089
Material stone Object type slab
Dimensions width 47 cm height 40 cm depth 24 cm
Discovery 1983, dug up from the ground in Risthal (probably 24°07’46”N 75°19’50”E) Current location Naṭnāgar Śodh Saṃsthān, Sitamau (on exhibit)
Inscription Siddham ID: IN00098
Dimensions width 44 cm height 33 cm Char size 6 mm Line height 15 mm
Date CE 515–516 Basis of dating dated (Mālava) 572 expired, summer (l16–1)
Topic construction of a water reservoir dedicated to the memory of Vibhīṣaṇavardhana and a temple of Śiva Persons mentioned Prakāśadharman, Drapavardhana, Jayavardhana, Ajitavardhana, Vibhīṣaṇavardhana, Rājyavardhana, Doṣa,
Vāsula, Kakka Places mentioned Daśapura
Compendia GKA 363–365
Other editions Ramesh and Tewari 1983; Mirashi 1984a; Sircar 1984a; Salomon 1989
Description
The inscription is on a thick slab of dense and hard, dark grey stone (possibly quartzite), approximately 47 centime-tres wide by 40 high and 24 deep. Its shape is rectangular, but the edges are roughly cut and there is some chipping at the centre and right-hand side of the top edge. The bottom right corner of the slab is also missing, but this does not affect the inscription and the stone may have been shaped in this way to begin with. The inscribed surface is smooth and may have been polished, but all other faces of the rock are very rough, so the slab was probably built into a wall with only the front visible.
The inscribed area is about 44 by 33 centimetres, in 21 lines spaced at an average 15 millimetres one below the other. Character bodies are about 6 millimetres tall. The engraving is quite shallow, possibly because of the hard-ness of the stone. However, it was executed with great care, and the surface is in excellent condition (again, perhaps thanks to the hardness of the stone), so most of the characters are perfectly preserved and the small spots of damage do not impede reading to any great degree. The lines are perfectly straight and spaced quite evenly, char-acter size is even, the left margin is also very straight, and the right margin comes close.
The stone was discovered in 1983 while digging the foundations for a building in the village of Risthal (रीस्थल, probably 24°07’46”N 75°19’50”E), about 27 kilometres east-northeast of Mandsaur.208 The remnants of a baked 208 I summarise the circumstances of discovery from the report of Wakankar and Rajpurohit (1984, 14–15). I am indebted to Kailash
brick wall were also unearthed at this time, but no sculp-ture or any other object of interest has been reported. On 18 September 1983 the slab was moved to the Naṭnāgar Śodh Saṃsthān in Sitamau, where it is still held, exhib-ited in the library. Photographs were immediately sent to V. S. Wakankar, V. V. Mirashi and D. C. Sircar. Recog-nising a trove of historical information in the text, each scholar promptly responded with an edition and there ensued a general flare of interest in the Risthal stone. The first edition, along with a rubbing, was published by K.
V. Ramesh and S. P. Tewari (1983). Sircar’s report (1984a) and detailed commentary (1984c) followed, simulta-neously with Mirashi’s edition (1984a, also published as 1984b, 27–41) who also added a new rubbing. Also simultaneously, Wakankar’s edition appeared in Hindi (Wakankar and Rajpurohit 1984). Jagannath Agrawal pub-lished a third inked impression (J. Agrawal 1986b, 91–94, also published as J. Agrawal 1990) along with his sug-gestions to correct some readings and translations of the inscription, then continued to discuss its import (1989).
Finally, Richard Salomon (1989) re-edited the text using all published facsimiles and discussing its historical
Chandra Pandey for showing me this article in the journal of the Mandsaur Government College, which is as far as I know the only scholarly account by a person who has actually been to the site. In addition to the exact date, which Mirashi (1984a, 27) wrongly reports as December 1983, Wakankar and Rajpurohit also give some addi-tional details such as whose tractor was used to transport the stone.
I have also relied on their description of the location of Risthal, since I have not visited the village and its location is not shown accurately in online maps. The coordinates I give seem to mark the most likely spot, but may be slightly off. See also Figure 28 on page 145.
A9 Risthal Inscription of Prakāśadharman 133
Figure 25: Risthal inscription of Prakāśadharman. Inked rubbing from Trivedi (2001, Plate 13).
Figure 26: Risthal inscription of Prakāśadharman. Composite digital photo by the author, 2017. Courtesy of the Naṭnāgar Śodh Saṃsthān, Sitamau.
A9 Risthal Inscription of Prakāśadharman 135
implications in detail. My present edition is based on photographs of the stone taken at the Naṭnāgar Śodh Saṃsthān in January 2017.
Script and Language
The writing is in the angular variety of the Malwa script.
In addition to the overall neatness of the execution, there is also a pervasive, though modest, level of calligraphic ornamentation. This includes a variance of line thickness:
apart from the clearly defined nail heads or serifs present in every character that affords them, most endpoints are also widened. The effect is that the majority of strokes are tapered triangles rather than lines. Subscript ya and ra are often ornamentally enlarged, sometimes extending back beyond the preceding character. Just as conspicuous are the vowel śiromātrās which are typically exaggerated in size and their ends are decorated by a bladelike widen-ing with a barb. The variation in the positionwiden-ing of vowel marks (horizontal or overhead or a combination) seems to be driven by no factor other than an aesthetic sense. The inscription was obviously “typeset” with attentive fore-sight, and some characters shift to make room for another one that follows them.
The stems of a, ka and ra are only slightly elongated;
occasionally, when a large subscript consonant of the following character needs to be accommodated, they do not even extend below the baseline. They have no hooks, but widen calligraphically at the bottom, so they resem-ble a narrow triangle with the base slanting down on the right.209 The right leg of śa and ta (but not ga) is occasion-ally also extended, as in northern scripts, but this exten-sion is very slight. Ma is open with a prominent tail and straight sides sloping inward; the left arm may be slightly bent. Ṇa has the open-mouthed northern form. Ya is tri-partite with a large upright loop on left arm, but when conjoined with a pṛṣṭhamātrā (udayaiḥ, l7; yena, l13), it takes a bipartite form with a large loop. There are two forms of la, one with a short stem ending in a serif (which makes the character a mirror image of ha) and another with a vertically elongated stem that tapers to a point without bending to the left at all (e.g. kulalalāma, l7).
The choice between the two forms may be partly governed by vowel attachment, since le and lo always use the short
209 Bose (1938, 330) points out the angular protuberances at the bottom of ka and ra as an innovation in the Sondhni pillar (A11, A12), which becomes the rule in the Gaya inscription of Mahānāman and even more prominently in the Aphsad inscription of Ādityasena. This widening is evidently the same phenomenon at an earlier date.
form, but la and lā take either form apparently randomly.
The short form predominates in the first few lines, but the long one takes precedence later on. Ca is triangular with a prominent beak and a sloped bottom. Bha is of the angular variety; its arm widens at the end like most open-ended strokes. Tha has a horizontal crossbar, but when used as the subscript component of a conjunct, the entire character changes its orientation, becoming wider than it is tall, with a vertical crossbar and the outline notched above and below the crossbar so that the grapheme looks like cha. Another curiosity is the horizontal composition of rggha (śikharair gghana°, l18): g and gh are placed side by side and merged so that the right leg of g is the left arm of gh. Moreover, the repha is attached to the central limb of gh instead of the top of g, much as in horizontally com-posed modern Devanagari conjuncts. Since the left arm of the g component is very close to the preceding character, it is possible that rgha was first engraved and the unusual form is a product of ingenious correction to rggha. It is also worth noting that subscript r is not a gentle rounded curve but begins with a straight vertical (or even right-slanting) line, which turns left and slightly up at an acute angle and extends quite far back in a line that curves slightly down, then at the very end curves up or turns upward at an angle.
The inscription includes several initial vowels. A and ā have a hook turned to the left, so a essentially looks like the Devanagari form. I is composed of three circles, two above and one below. U again resembles Devanagari, looking essentially like a figure 3 with a large serif replac-ing the top prong. E is triangular with the point downward.
Vowel marks for ā, e, ai, o and au can appear as horizon-tal strokes turning downward at a right angle, as sloping śiromātrās, or a combination thereof. Their variation, as noted above, is probably driven by calligraphy. The general tendency seems to be a preference for horizontal marks when and only when these do not interfere with the con-sonant body, and for overhead marks in other cases. Thus, for instance, ā appears as an oblique śiromātrā when con-joined with p or s; e is a śiromātrā when attached to ṇ and s. Ai has a horizontal and an oblique stroke when attached to r, but two obliques when joined to ṇ. Some consonants combine with the right-hand horizontal stroke of ā and o to produce special forms. In this form of m the right arm curves down on the right, making the character very similar to ha (e.g. vighaṭṭyamānam, l1; śivam ādadhātu, l1;
kusumodgama, l7). Ṇ, when combined with these vowels, has its right leg turned up in a curve, which rises above the headline and bends to the right there (e.g. kiraṇās, l5;
°oṣmaṇā, l9; sthāṇos, l16). However, pauruṣāṇām in l10 has a regular śiromātrā instead of the special form, which may be calligraphic variation or may indicate that the ā
was omitted at first and added when the halanta m was already in place. In the case of j, the special form consists in an extension of the top (not the middle) prong, which first dips, then rises quite high, and finally curls to the right (e.g. rājā, l6; jyotsnā, l12). This form is not ubiqui-tous and is often replaced by a right-curling śiromātrā without the dip (e.g. gajā, l13; dhvajā°, l14; pūrvvajā°, l19).
Notably, lo does not have a special cursive form; instead, all instances use two plain horizontal marks attached to a short-stemmed body. The sign for medial i is a curve open on the bottom left; medial ī is its mirror image open on the right. The descending end of these curves may be quite vertical and may extend very slightly below the headline, but only rarely does so. Medial ṛ is not a curlier likeness of subscript r, but a C-shaped sign as in Devanagari.
The halanta forms of consonants (t, n and m) are sim-plified versions of the full forms, slightly lowered and always with a horizontal line above. Halanta m begins with a curl at the top left (so the character resembles a reduced la), while halanta t has an additional curl at the bottom resembling an u mātrā (see viyat, l4 and acīkarat, l19), which may be a precursor to the modern subscript halanta sign. There is neither upadhmānīya nor jihvāmūlīya in the inscription; the visarga is consistently used before labials and velars.
As in the inscription of the silk weavers (A6), a two-tiered system of punctuation is used. The ends of half-verses are marked with a short horizontal dash (transcribed below as a single daṇḍa), while full verse ends have a plain double vertical line (transcribed as a double daṇḍa). The half-verse dash is never employed after a halanta conso-nant, so the horizontal line marking halanta forms clearly doubles as a punctuation mark. The sign is also occasion-ally omitted after a visarga, but more often both appear in conjunction. Only in one instance is the half-verse sign omitted after a regular akṣara (v15b; also, the sign in v19b is small and not quite certain). The double vertical is consistently used at the end of every verse, including after a halanta consonant or a visarga.
Consonants are doubled after r with very few tions (e.g. kārmukam, l2; varṣasya, l17). Some of the excep-tions may occur because there is a word boundary after the r (nṛpair dhuram, l8; nṛpater nṛpa, l12; °āntar brahmaṇaś, l18). However, consonants before r are as a rule not gemi-nated, except for t which usually is (e.g. yattra, l3; śattru, l4; but śatru, l10). A single consonant is used where a double would be standard in ujvala, l7.
The visarga is rarely used before sibilants (śabdaḥ spṛhaṇīyatāṃ, l4; yaḥ svānvaya, l11); a conjunct conso-nant is preferred much more often (e.g. pinākinaś śānti, l1; bhūyassu, l1; vaś śivam, l1; setus sakala°, l2; dīdhitiś
śasāṅkaḥ, l3; etc.). Anusvāra use is close to standard, though velar ṅ is sometimes preferred before sibilants (vaṅśa, l3; tamāṅsi, l8, °āṅśu, l15) and palatal ñ before palatals (yatīnāñ ca, l18; °āvasathañ ca, l18).
The language is standard Sanskrit used eloquently and elegantly. The poet, Vāsula the son of Kakka, was obviously a talented man even if he was not in the first rank of poets.210 His language is rarely awkward (though for instance he seems overly fond of the word lalāman,
“ornament,” and three of the five words in the com-pound surabhikusumagandhāmodavāhī, verse 28, mean
“scent” or “scented”). His meanings are usually clearly expressed, and he uses devices of sound and meaning in a manner and quantity as pleasing to a modern European reader as it, presumably, was to the audience of the period.
The inscription is in verse throughout, and Vāsula shows off his skill by employing a wide variety of metres includ-ing some that rarely appear in inscriptions of the Gupta period, such as mālabhāriṇī and pramitākṣarā.211
Commentary
The purpose of the Risthal inscription is to record the con-struction of a lake and a temple to Śiva by the Aulikara king Prakāśadharman. Its outstanding historical signifi-cance is due to the fact that it contains this ruler’s geneal-ogy, which is the only presently known testimony for the Later Aulikara line.
There is no opening formula or symbol, but the first character is indented from the margin by about one char-acter width. The surface of the stone is smooth here: there is definitely no maṅgala symbol, but perhaps the intent had been to carve one here after the inauguration of the temple. The blank space may thus be an indication that the construction was never completed (see also page 6 about the opening formula siddham).
The opening stanza is a prayer to the Ardhanārīśvara form of Śiva. In it the goddess, though united in body with her husband, is in a fit of pique because he has shown respect to another lady, namely the twilight, which is sometimes personified as the goddess Sandhyā (who in turn is occasionally spoken of as Śiva’s consort). The verse 210 No composition of his has been preserved in manuscript form, nor are any verses attributed to him in subhāṣita anthologies that I am aware of, though the first stanza of this inscription (see the Com-mentary below) would in my opinion stand its ground with the best of them.
211 Ramesh and Tewari incorrectly identify the metre of verses 5 and 6 as āryāgīti, and that of verses 11 and 12 as gīti. The former are in pramitākṣarā and the latter are in viyoginī.
A9 Risthal Inscription of Prakāśadharman 137
involves double entendre, so that Śiva has in fact made a ritual prostration to the morning or evening twilight, and it is only Pārvatī’s jealous mind that perceives this as an act of unfaithfulness. At any rate, she is at the moment not amenable to requests. The male half, however, remains unruffled and kindly even while being physically split from his better half, hence the prayer is addressed to him. The word vāmetara, primarily describing the male half as “not left” i.e. the right-hand one, is probably also intentionally polyvalent: its additional meanings “other than a woman” and “not adverse” are both greatly appli-cable to the context. The situation described in the verse is reminiscent of the opening verse of the Mudrārākṣasa, a dialogue in which Pārvatī is jealous of the Gaṅgā, a feminine being that has the great honour of being on Śiva’s head, while Śiva obstinately misunderstands her probing questions.212
The second verse is in honour of the reigning king, Prakāśadharman, described as one who fights battles for the betterment of the world. He is referred to as bhagavat
prakāśaḥ, which is in all probability not to be understood to constitute an alternative name interchangeable with Prakāśadharman (“he whose essential nature is radi-ance”) and meaning “the radiance of the Lord.” Rather, Prakāśadharman has been truncated to Prakāśa,213 and bhagavat is prefixed to it as an honorific.
Verses 3 to 12 enumerate the genealogy of Prakāśadhar-man, starting with Drapavardhana.214 Stanza 3 calls him an ornament of the entire Aulikara lineage who defeated his enemies, while the following verse says he was a warlord (senāpati) of such stature that his title became desirable.
This is clearly an account of the founder of the dynasty, a chieftain carving out a kingdom for himself. For this reason I believe that the first half of the fifth stanza also
212 Mudrārākṣasa I.1, dhanyā keyaṃ sthitā te śirasi śaśikalā kiṃ nu nāmaitad asyā nāmaivāsyās tad etat paricitam api te vismṛtaṃ kasya hetoḥ| nārīṃ pṛcchāmi nenduṃ kathayatu vijayā na pramāṇaṃ yadīn
dur devyā nihnotum icchor iti surasaritaṃ śāṭhyam avyād vibhor vaḥ‖
“Who’s the privileged lady on your head?” “Moon Sliver.” “Is that her name?” “Of course it’s her name. What makes you forget even though you know it?” “It’s a woman I have in mind, not the Moon.” “Vijayā can confirm it if you don’t trust the Moon.” Thus the Lord hopes to conceal the Divine River from the Goddess—may his chicanery guard you.
213 Compare Rāṣṭravardhana, referred to as Rāṣṭra in the Chhoti Sadri inscription (A7); the Vibhīṣaṇa-saras mentioned in the present inscription and named after Vibhīṣaṇavardhana may also show that the former member of these compound names was viewed as prima-ry, with the latter member perceived as something like a family name.
214 See also page 140 for a discussion of alternative readings of the name and the identification of Drapavardhana with Dravyavardhana mentioned in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā.
refers to Drapavardhana, since it appears to be a contin-uation of this story: after taking control by main force, he consolidated his rule by wise policy. I interpret the instru-mentals here as expressing the circumstances or condi-tions of the finite verb udapādi. Salomon understands the first half to describe the son Jayavardhana, but in addition to being less likely in the context, this requires construing the instrumental with the participle hṛta in compound, which is more awkward than the parsing I suggest.215
Still in verse 5, we learn of the birth of
Still in verse 5, we learn of the birth of