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

SUPPLEMENTARY INSCRIPTIONS

>

_______________________
[1] What appears to have been intended is kṛiśānavē tōvam. The punctuation mark is redundant.
[2] What seems as the sign of anusvāra on ra in the impression is due to the fault of the plate, as seen from the original.
[3] This verb goes with mātā in line 4, which, however, cannot grammatically be connected with the word Satyabhāmā nor also with tayā. Moreover, after this verb, one expects an expression like yathā.
[4] That is, Ṭhakkura. The next akshara may also have been a misformed ja and thus its reading is not certain. Most of the names and some other words in this and the following lines are without case-endings and are also unnecessarily separated by punctuation marks. The corrections are not made every time lest the number of foot-notes should increase. The first akshara of the name is blurred and also seems as ma. It may also be noted that in the following lines some details with reference to the donees are dropped, and in some instances, nothing besides the names is found, as already stated.
[5] The numeral 3 probably represents the pravaras, or it may have been a misformed ya, as required here.
[6] The consonant of the first akshara of the name of the place may also be read as r or v.
[7] All the aksharas of the name after tathā are blurred and their reading is uncertain. [8] Grammatically it is incorrect.
[9] From the construction it is not possible to know anything about the names of the brothers, here and in some cases below. Perhaps Nimvāka and his brothers (?).
[10] An arrow-mark above this akshara probably indicates that the line in the left margin has to be supplied here, but the corresponding mark is not engraved.
[11] The consonant of the preceding akshara appears as l.
[12] The reading of the bracketed akshara is doubtful, and it is not known whether the mātrā of the third akshara of the name is of ē. One naturally expects the name of the village here.
[13] In this line, and also in some others below, the use of both the words pâda and padaka occurs side by side.
[14] This gōtra seems to refer to those mentioned previously. The letter tra is also written as tira in this line.

Home Page

>
>