The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Index

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Images

EDITION AND TEXTS

Inscriptions of the Chandellas of Jejakabhukti

An Inscription of the Dynasty of Vijayapala

Inscriptions of the Yajvapalas of Narwar

Supplementary-Inscriptions

Index

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27

Tiruvarur

Darasuram

Konerirajapuram

Tanjavur

Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Epigraphia
Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India

Pudukkottai

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

>

__________________________
1 This and the preceding akshara which were originally omitted were subsequently written in a smaller form below the line.
2 Above mā, there appears to have been the sign of anusvāra, which was engraved at first and second off later on.
3 This akshara is engraved as shṭha.
4 What is intended here is Śrīvāstavya which would not suit the metre.
5 The use of this word is not befitting here. Recast as .
6 Srivastava read : but I agree with Prinsep in my reading. The matra on va is faintly visible and the last of these aksharas, thought misformed, looks more like ndraḥ than ndhuḥ. The reading also suits the metre.
7 This letter has left only traces and it was read by Srivastava as shu, following Prinsep, but shāṁ may also be equally possible.
8 The daṇḍas are redundant and the visarga on ya is doubtful. Read . In the latter half of this verse the correction is made in view of the metre but grammatically it is wrong.
9 Perhaps is intended.

Home Page

>
>