Archaeological Survey of Mysore Annual Report: 1912 Vol. IV- A Study by S. Settar (An Old and Rare Book)

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

This is the Fourth Volume in our revised series; it includes the Aannual Report issued by R. Narasimhachar for the year 1912. The contents of this Report were originally covered within 68 pages and printed in F.C.1/2. The increase in the bulk of our edition is due as much to the changes made in the printing, Demi 1/4th, as to the addition of footnotes, incorporation of clarifications in the text, inclusion of three supplements and a comprehensive index.

1. GUIDE TO THE EDITORIAL METHODOLOGY

Although the original text has been reproduced here verbatim this is not merely a reprint of the Reports. We have been loyal to the original as far as the matter and methodology are concerned, but, in order to make the matter meaningful in the context of the research done in the last seventy-five years, we have introduced some minor alterations, modifications and additions. These fall into the following four categories: (4) minor alterations and additions in the text with or without indication of such changes; (6) addition of footnotes, detailing or drawing attention to the progress made in the field since the publication of the original Reports; (c) listing, in a tabular form or otherwise, clarifications, explanations and elucidations of words, names, contexts etc., come across in the texts, for the purpose of easy and ready reference; and (d) addition of a comprehensive index of the Reports or Report covered by each of our volume.

A detailed explanation of this has been given hereunder:

A: Additions and Alterations in the Text: Without explicit indication of the changes, the following minor modifications have been made in the original text:

1. Several thousands of diacritical marks, missing in the original Reports (partly for want of types, which were then imported), have been restored, and a greater uniformity in the spelling of names and terms has been achieved. No uniform system was maintained in the originals with regard to modern names of places and persons; in this edition, these also have been provided with diacritical marks in order to help scholars who are not quite familiar with the local linguistic forms and usages. We have not, however, tried to achieve complete uniformity, as words with Tamil affiliations: r, r, r. 1. 1. etc., presented some special difficulties for us, as there was not always uniformity in their usage both in the original texts and in their edited versions. Quantitative marks on the vowels (e and o) are retained or restored, as these are essential for the pronunciation of Kannada words.

2. An attempt has also been made to eliminate erratic spellings. For example, the taluk of the present edition, was spelt as "Taluka,' 'taluq', 'Taluq' etc., in the originals; the antiquated spelling 'show' has been replaced by 'show'. The spelling and pronunciation of several of the place-names were very badly or subtly corrupted by Western administrators and these were popularised in the writings of European Orientalists. Indian scholars have perpetuated these mistakes-out of ignorance, sheer laziness, or indifference although these corruptions have not only destroyed the original meaning, but also the euphony. We have tried to distinguish the most absurd corruptions from mere anglicisations, and restored the original form of the former. Chitaldrug and Seringapatam, for example, are respectively written here as Chitradurga and Srirangapattana (or Srirangapațņa). On the other hand, we have not attempted to change Hospet into Hosapete, Bangalore into Bengaļūru, Dharwar into Dharwada, because we thought that the change would be so fastidious that it would surprise not only scholars but even the laymen. The erratic spelling of some names: Channapațņa, Chanpatna or Channapattana; Krishņarajpet, Krishuräjpēt, Krishnarajapete; Malvalli, Maļavalli etc., are also retained as they were in the original Reports, but we have restored the diacritical marks wherever they were missing.

3. As with the diacritical marks, the original reporters followed no uniform method with regard to the italicisation of local and technical terms, as well as of titles of books, journals and manuscripts. For example, terms like dandanayaka, sukhanasi, mantapa are italicised on several pages; on several others, they are not. Similar disparities can be found in the spelling of literary works, (See, Karnataka Sabdanusasana). We have tried to bring about some uniformity in the use of these terms and names; however, in cases where the context is somewhat ambiguous (e.g., Janana-Manțap), we have retained the original, for we could not always be certain whether italicisation was desirable or not. We have been also forced to allow some words and names to appear in multiple ways. For example, matha, dannayaka etc., are italicised where they appear as independent terms, but not when they are part of names, e.g., Ankle-Matha, Amitaya-dannayaka, etc.

4. Another minor alteration made in the text relates to the citations. The cross-references given in the originals were only partially helpful to scholars who were not fully conversant with the source-books, the geography of the region, the details of publication etc. For example, mention of 'Arsikere-20' presupposed the following knowledge: that this is no. 20 of the inscriptions found in the taluk of that name; that Arsikere is in the Hassan District; that the Hassan District inscriptions are published in the Epigraphia Carnatica Vol. V: hence 'Arsikere-20 means 'EG V, Ak. 20'. There are a hundred and odd number of taluks; some of the taluks are not only now altered, reorganised and transferred to another or a newly created District, but new taluks have been created. These and several such factors presented immense difficulties in consulting the source with facility.