The Indian Analyst

North Indian Inscriptions






List of Plates

Additions And Corrections


Miscellaneous Inscriptions

Texts And Translations

Inscriptions of The Kalachuris of Sarayupara

Inscriptions of The Kalachuris of Ratanpur

Inscriptions of The Kalachuris of Raipur

Additional Inscriptions


Supplementary Inscriptions


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



headquarters of the territorial division in which the denated village was situated, may be Vānkaḍ, about 20 miles south by east of the town Chhota Udaipur. No place like Kupikā can, however, be traced in its neighbourhood.



Success ! Hail ! From Prachakāśā;_Īśvarāta, mediating on the feet of the Paramabhaṭṭāraka (Great Lord), is in good health. Having stated his good health, (he) informs all his (officers) such as the Āyuktas, Viniyuktas,¹² Kumārāmātyas, Uparikas,13 Dāṇḍīkas,14 Daṇḍapāśikas,¹⁵ those in charge of elephants, horses and men, chāṭas and bhaṭas,¹⁶ assembled at the village Kupikā, situated¹⁷ in the territorial division (paṭṭa) of Vaṅkikā, as well as the residents of the village, headed by the Brāhmaṇas (as follows):__

(The subsequent portion of the grant is lost.)


1From a photograph of the plate kindly supplied by Mr. Amrit Pandya as well as its lithograph facing p. 12 in the New Dynasties of Gujarat History.
2 Expressed by a symbol.
3 Pandya suggests ब्रह्मकाशायाः: as a possible reading of this word, but it is not supported by his lithograph.
4 The dot in the circle of the superscript dh is apparently due to a fault in the copper. Similar dots appear inside the curves of g, t and ś in some places below.
5 Pandya reads doubtfully ईश्‍वरराणकशकित. The last three aksharas are plainly कुशली. This word occurs in a similar context in several copper-plates of the Maitrakas, Rāshṭrakūṭas and others.
6 Pandya reads _ -भट्टि-. The first akshara is clearly प See - -प्रतिवासिनः in 1.4, below. The curve on the next aksharas is that of medial ē as in-सर्व्वनेवा- – further in this line. For the curve of medial i, see -kupikā-, 1.2.
7 Pandya reads भोव्य, which makes no sense. The second akshara of this word appears like ध्य, but it is probably a mistake for श्‍य. Compare प्रादेश्‍य which occurs in some Maitraka grants in the sense of ‘situated in'. See below, n. 17.
8 The photograph shows a dot joined to the left limb of the second akshara of this word, but it is plainly due to a fault in the copper. Pandya also gives the reading as here.
9 Read -भटादीन्व्राह्मणोत्तरांश्‍च. Curious as it may appear, a similar mistake occurs in 1. 2 of Nos. 2 and 3, above.
10 The same expression occurs in the Sunao Kala plates of Saṅgamasiṁha, above, No. 11, 1.3.
11 Read बौधयति. The following words may have been अस्तुवौ विदितम्‌ as in No. 11, 1.4.
12 Āyuktas and Viniyuktas were different kinds of officers. The latter may be those appointed to special posts (viśēshēṇa niyukta).
13 For Kumārāmātya and Uparika, see above, p. 36, notes 3 and 4.
14 Dāṇḍīkas may be Magistrates.
15 Daṇḍapāśīkas were probably Police Officers
16 For chāpas and bhaṭas, see above, p. 43, n. 9.
17 The text has vīśya, which corresponds to prāvēśya of the Maitraka grants. Hultzsch translated prāvēśya by ‘belonging to’. Sten Konow's rendering ‘which can be entered from,’ and Sukhtankar’s ‘which belongs to the pravēśa’ are both unsatisfactory; for, the former gives no good sense, and as for the latter, pravēśa occurs nowhere in the sense of ‘a territorial division’. Prāvēśya, like prāpīya, seems to have become current in the sense of ‘belonging to’ or ‘situated in‘.





Home Page