The Indian Analyst

South Indian Inscriptions







Additions and Corrections



Rev. J.E. Abbott

R.G. Bhandarkar

Prof. G. Buhler

W. Cartellieri

J.F. Fleet

E. Hultzsch

Prof. Kielhorn

Prof. Kielhorn, and
H. Krishna Sastri

H. Luders

G.V. Ramamurti

J. Ramayya

Vajeshankar G. Ojha, and
TH. Von Schtscherbatskoi

V. Venkayya

E.W. West


List of Plates

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



BY. J. F. FLEET, I.C.S., PH.D., C.I.E.

This inscription was first brought to notice in 1874, by the text and translation published by Mr. Rice in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. III. p. 153. The translation has also been given by him in his Mysore Inscription, p. 302, published in 1879. And the text and translation have finally been revised and reproduced by him, with lithographs, as No. 1 in his Inscriptions at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, published in 1889.[6] From ink-impressions received from Dr. Hultzsch in 1892, I published some remarks on Mr. Rice’s treatment of the record, and on its real meaning, in a paper entitled “ Bhadrabâhu, Chandragupta, and Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa,” in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXI. p. 156 ff. And I now edit it in full, with a lithograph, from some better ink-impressions more recently sent by him.[7]

[6] The lithograph attached to the text in Roman characters, is not a purely mechanical one ; and it does not represent the original with fidelity, though it suffices to give a general idea of the palӕographic standard of it. To the text in Kanarese characters, there is attached a mechanically produced lithograph ; but it is very indistinct, and is in fact practically useless.
[7] There are many aksharas, legible enough in the ink-impressions, which are hardly discernible, if at all, in the lithograph. And this interesting record doubtless deserves a better reproduction than that now offered. But the best that could be done with the ink-impression, without any tampering with them, has been done. And it is questionable whether any better materials, foe purely mechanical reproduction, can be obtained.

Home Page