The Indian Analyst

North Indian Inscriptions







List of Plates



Inscriptions of the Chandellas of Jejakabhukti

An Inscription of the Dynasty of Vijayapala

Inscriptions of the Yajvapalas of Narwar



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





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

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



The inscription, which is incised on the sunken paned of a slab of black basalt, is fragmentary, containing seventeen imperfect lines, written in ornamental characters. The stone is broken on the proper left side and also at the bottom. The maximum height of the extant portion of writing is about 39 cms., while the length of the lines is irregular ; it begins with 24 cms. in the first line, and gradually increasing to 59∙5 cms. in line 14, with the exception of lines 11 and 12 in each of which some 2-3 letters are lost, and decreasing again from line 15, it is only 15 cms. in the last line where a major portion is again lost. It cannot be said how many more lines the inscription contained originally, but the length of the lines can be estimated by a calculation of space covered by the letters which are lost and comparing the same with those in the existing portion ; for example, the complete length of writing in l. 14, which now contains 60 letters and 2 other symbols and has lost 43 letters, must have been approximately of about 102 cms.; and this may have been the length of the writing in the whole inscription. However, whatever remains is well preserved, though the stone has also suffered from a crack measuring about 12 cms. and developed in the proper left corner at the bottom. Fortunately no letter is lost in this crack, which appears to have developed some time after Cunningham saw the inscription, as he does not refer to it.

The writing is well executed. The size of the letters varies from 1 to 2 cms. in height, including the mātrās, subscripts and the ornamental flourishes appearing occasionally above the tops. The characters are Nāgarī closely resembling those used in the Ajaygaḍh stone inscription of Kīrttivarman which has been noticed just above. The tendency of attaching a slight vertical stroke to the left of the top-strokes of some of the letters is further developed here, using the stroke in the cases of all letters.


Worthy of note are the forms of the following letters:─the initial i is represented by two hallow circles below a horizontal top-stroke, as in ity-, l. 10, and the initial ē resembles p only with the difference that the vertical is not completely drawn, as in ēvu, l. 16. K as a superscript has its loop joined to the vertical not directly but by a small horizontal stroke, for which see kshamā-, l. 15; is still devoid of its dot ; cf. –tvaṅgat-tuṅga-taraṅga-, l. 8 ; the initial horizontal stroke of ch is not drawn beyond its loop ; see chakāra, l. 7 ; dh begins with a curve but it is quite separate from the loop below ; see –sudhā- and –uddhata-, both in l. 15 ; b is represented by its own sign as in the Deogarḥ inscription of the time of Kīrttivarman ; see babhūva in ll. 6 and 8, but not in the same word in l. 14 and not also in –kuvja-, l. 13 ; and bh often resembles t, as in lēbhē, l. 15. R has assumed the modern form but occasionally it is incised as a vertical stroke with a horizontal stroke or a wedge attached to its left : cf. –rummajjat- and –ruddha-, respectively in ll. 9 and 11; and lastly, ś has its left limb often joined to the vertical by a stroke as of s, and the latter of these letters occasionally begins with a loop as ś; cf. śasvat, l. 2 and tasmād-, l. 11 respectively. The tail of letters like s and h are occasionally not developed, as can be seen in sudhā- and hari-, both in l. 15. The mātrās above are thin but ornamentally treated. The forms of the letters, however, indicate that the inscription belongs probably to the latter part of the eleventh century A.C., or to the early years of the twelfth.

The language is Sanskrit which is generally correct ; and excepting a small sentence paying obeisance to Śiva in the beginning, the record is composed in verses full of ornate style which often remind the reader of the works of our classical poets. Orthographically, we may note that only on two occasions, viz., in śasvat and śasi-, both in l. 1, we have the use of the dental sibilant for the palatal ; a class consonant following r is often doubled, e.g., in kīrttayaḥ, l. 4; and particularly noteworthy is the use of b in babhūva, occurring twice in ll. 6 and 8, but not in other cases as already stated above. The use of anusvāra and parasavarṇa may also be noted. e.g., in l. 8.

The inscription opens with the auspicious symbol for Siddham and, following the usual sentence paying obeisance to Śiva, Namaḥ Śivāya, it has two stanzas, the first of which invokes the blessings of Śiva, and the second, of the Moon-deity adorning his forehead. Stanzas 3-5, introducing the (Chandrātrēya) Dynasty sprung from the moon, are partially preserved ; and stanzas 6-9, which are all fragmentary, speak in glorification of the dynasty, probably also naming the earliest heroes thereof. The first of these heroes is explicitly stated to have been Nārāyaṇa, in stanza 8 ; possibly what the poet means in Nannuka (?), the earliest of the known kings belonging to this house. The name of Vākpat, who was Nannuka’s son, as we know from other records of the house, appears to have been lost in stanza 9, of which only three

Home Page