434 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, [August, 1910. 



mixed up with what seems to be unintelligible gibberish. The 

 scribe's object most probably was to create an impression by 

 using high-sounding words. Dr. Bloch seems to have deci- 

 phered these two lines in a different manner, but I do not think 

 he succeeded in interpreting them. We have a mention of a 

 forged grant in the Madhuban grant of Harsavarddhana, in 

 which we find that the king, finding that a Brahmana named 

 Vamarathya was enjoying a village named Somakundaka in 

 the Sravasti bhukti by holding a forged grant, confiscated the 

 village and granted it to another man in the 25th year of his 

 reign, i.e., 631-32 A.D. The wording of the 10th line of the 

 plate is quite clear. 



Somakundakagramo Brahmana Vamarathyena kuta£a- 

 sanena bhuktaka iti vicarya yatas-tac-chasanam bhanktva 

 tasmadaksipya ca." 1 



The inscription is incised on a thin plate of copper measur- 

 ing 8%" x 4§". There is a projection to the proper right of the 

 inscription to which the seal was attached. The seal itself 

 has now disappeared revealing a triangular slit, the object of 

 which is inexplicable to me. Round holes are to be found in 

 grants which are incised on two or more plates, and the ring 

 holding together these plates passes through these holes, but 

 these holes are always round, and I do not remember having 

 ever seen or heard of an angular hole in a copper-plate. The 



average height of the letters are f". The record is incised on 



. . 



both sides of the plate, the obverse bearing 12 lines and the 

 reverse 11. The orthography scarcely needs any comment, 

 but the following forms should be noted : 



(1) The Suvarnda in line 3 was most probably meant to 

 be Suvarna. 



» 



(2) Vyavahanascha is most probably equivalent to Vyava- 

 h arina$-ca. 



(3) The word Patacca in line 16 seems to be the Prakrit 

 form of Praticya. The use of this word is another argument 

 against the genuineness of the grant. The language of the 

 grant is incorrect Sanskrit. Another strong argument against 

 the genuineness of the grant is that the scribe wanted to put 

 extra stress on the word Tamrapatta. It has been used at least 

 thrice, and it seems that the owner of the plate was over- 

 anxious to get the plate established as a regular grant ; com- 

 pare line 11 WTwfWg, lines 15—16 *T?fTWF?teiW and line 17 



s ^rwi^HT y Th m rf< *n 



i 



Nothing is known at present about Samacaradeva, the 

 king in whose reign the grant purports to have been issued. 

 The date at the end of the grant is 34, and this should be re- 



l Epi. Ind., vol. vii, p. 158. 



