Date of the Imadpur Image Inscriptions of Mahipala I

Summary

In this epigraphical study, D. C. Sircar re‑examines two image inscriptions from Imadpur (Muzaffarpur District) associated with Pāla king Mahīpāla I (c. 983‑1038). Hoernle and C. C. Das Gupta previously dated the inscriptions to the 48th year of Mahīpāla’s reign, while R. C. Majumdar argued that the inscriptions record the year 148 of the Newar era (879 CE + 148 = 1028 CE), reading the three characters preceding “48” as samatta (samanta). Sircar contends that Majumdar’s reading is improbable because the disputed characters resemble the conjunct “nta” and are consistent with spellings of samatta or samanta in other Pāla inscriptions. Drawing on palaeographical evidence, he argues that samatta/samanta in these inscriptions is an orthographic variant of samvat (era). Sircar demonstrates that medieval inscriptions often abbreviate samvat as samut, samvat, samvuṭ or similar forms, and that the initial sibilant can appear as sa‑, sam‑ or saṃ‑, while the dental consonant is sometimes written as ta or nta. He surveys examples from Pāla and Eastern Ganga inscriptions where samvat appears as samastā, samat, samta and samvāta. Sircar also argues that Majumdar’s attempt to identify the disputed symbol with the numeral 100 (as used in Gupta inscriptions) is unfounded. Concluding that the Imadpur inscriptions are dated to samvat 48 rather than 148, Sircar proposes that they correspond to the 48th regnal year of Mahīpāla I (c. 1031 CE). The article thus resolves a chronological discrepancy and highlights the importance of scriptural variants in epigraphic interpretation. Sircar’s analysis emphasises careful reading of palaeographic forms and warns against anachronistically applying numeral forms from other periods.