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

TEXT[1]

______________________
[1] From Plate xii-A in Cunningham’s A. S. I. R., Vol. XXI.
[2] Expressed by a variant of the symbol.
[3] The daṇḍa here, as in some of the lines below, is used only to separate the names, as in some other records of the house.
[4] Cunningham read a superscript r on the penultimate letter in this line ; but in the plate it is missing on this letter, though in some other instances the rēpha is distinct e.g. in Nos. 128 and 137, in the fifth line of each.
[5] Cunningham read annēna, which gives no meaning here. What looks like the sign of anusvāra on a is merely a fault of the stone, or a scratch, when compared with the other marks throughout the inscription.
[6] That is, in sham-fight.
[7] Cunningham read Sirothayena pralipādanam atam Bhadranantam, which gives no meaning. He also translated a part of the expression as “built a (Sirotha ?)”. The meaning of this word is still not known, but the third case makes me inclined to suggest that it should be combined with anēna.
[8] The sign of the medial ē on the fourth letter in the name is probably intended for the preceding letter.
[9] The sign of anusvāra appears to have been wrongly put on this akshara. There should be a visarga, or the word should not have a vibhakti, as the others below. See the next n.
[10] As stated above, all the names in this line and below, appear without a case-ending and separated by a horizontal stroke.
[11] The last two letters in this line cannot be definitely made out, and here I follow Cunningham who took them one and read as given here.
[12] The first of the daṇḍas is joined to the preceding akshara, so as to look as the sign of medial ā.
[13] The meaning of this expression is not known. The reading too is not certain.
[14] As above. The reading of a is doubtful. Cunningham took it as vi but gave no sense.
[15] The third letter in this line appears more likely to be cha, followed by a daṇḍa ; but it gives no meaning.
[16] That is, Ṭhakkura.
[17] Possibly the second letter of the name is pa. for which compare da, the second akshara in l. 8, above.

Home Page

>
>