North Indian Inscriptions

SUPPLEMENTARY INSCRIPTIONS

TEXT^[1]
[Metre : Anushṭubh].

No. 191 ; PLATE CLXVII
AJAYGAḌH STONE INCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF TRAILŌKYAVARMAN
[ Vikrama ] Year 1269

THIS inscription was found by Alexander Cunningham at Ajaygaḍh, in the working season of 1883-84, and he transcribed its portion containing the date and published the same with his comments in the Archaeological Survey of India Reports, Vol. XXI, for the same year, on p. 50, with Plate xii-D. From the same Plate it is edited here. The record consists of six complete lines. It has extremely suffered from weather, and consequently nothing except the portion containing the date and the name of the king in the beginning, is legible, besides a few letters here and there. The dimentions of the writing are not recorded.

The alphabet is Nāgarī of the 13th century A.C., to which the record belongs. The language is Sanskrit, and the inscription is all in prose. By way of orthography, nothing is noteworthy except that the letters ra and va are almost similar in form, for which, see vijayarajye, in l. 2.

The inscription refers itself to the victorious reign of the illustrious king Trailōkyavarman, who, from its provenance, can be no other than the Chandēlla ruler, the son of Paramardin and three of whose inscriptions have been edited above.^[11 The object of the record cannot be made out from its mutilated nature. As to its date the day is obliterated, but the month is given as Phālguna-vadi of the(Vikrama) year 1269. The week-day is mentioned as Saturday. From the data available, I agree with Cunningham in concluding that the date must be either
________________________

^[1] From a photograph supplied by the Chief Epigraphist.
^[2] Expressed by a symbol.
^[3] It seems that Dēvasvāmī- was a name and he was a younger brother of Svāmi. If so, the change of sutau to sutaḥ is not necessary. The construction here is faulty and nothing can be definitely said
^[4] This foot is metrically defective as it has one akshara more than necessary. Singular is also wrongly used instead of dual.
^[5] This word is wrongly put in the accusative instead of the nominative, as required by the construction.
^[6] Two aksharas are indistinct here.
^[7] The reading of the akshara in the brackets is not certain and the name of the family cannot be known definitely.
^[8] All the names in this line are without any case-ending, which is nominative.
^[9] I am unable to explain the meaning of this expression.
^[10] This is, Phālguna.
^[11] Nos. 141-143.