JABALPUR SECOND PLATE OF YASAHKARNA : YEAR 529(?)
the Makundpur inscription¹ of the same king is dated K. 772. The date must, of course,
be referred to the Kalachuri era. As an expired year, it corresponds to 1037-38 A.C.
This falls in the reign of Gāṅgēyadēva, who we know, was ruling till the 22nd January
Success ! The Paramabhaṭṭāraka, Rājādhirāja and paramēsvara, the illustrious Gāṅgēyadēva, (who is) a devout worshipper of Mahēśvara, [constantly pays obeisance to] (the god)
Alaṅghyēśvara . . . . . .
In the year  . . . . . .
JABALPUR SECOND PLATE OF YASAHKARNA : (KALACHURI) YEAR 529 (?)
As stated before,¹⁷ the second copper-plate of the grant of Yaśaḥkarṇa discovered in the
Jabalpur District has long been lost. A transcript of the text on that plate has been
preserved in the Central Museum, Nagpur. The paper on which it was written has
1 Above, No.47, l .I
2Above, pp.239 ff.
3 From the lithograph (plate xxviii) in Cunningham’s A.S.I.R., Vol.XXI.
4 Expressed by a symbol.
5 Cunningham read Srimad-Gānggeya Deva here, but the reading is unlikely; for, the name of the
ruling king does not precede the title, but follows it.
6 This and the following akshara may be read as nāvā, but Śrī-Manāvā gives no sense. On the
other hand, the title paramabhaṭṭāraka generally precedes Mahārājādhirāja. See, e.g., No.48,11.33-4.
7 Two aksharas are illegible here.
8 As the two aksharas in the beginning of the next line are certainly
śvara, it appears quite likely
that the epithet paramamāhēśvara occurred here. Faint traces of māhē can be seen in the lithograph.
9 Of these three akshāras of the royal name, only ya is certain. The following two aksharas
appear to be dēva-.
10 Two aksharas are illegible here. The second may be read as ba.
11 Perhaps the name of the śiva-liṅga was Alaṅghyēśvara. This name occurs also in another
record of an earlier period. See No. 25, 1. 24. The following two aksharas which are gone may have
12 Two aksharas are illegible here, of which the second may be ya followed by a daṇḍa.
13 There are faint traces of half a dozen aksharas here. Cunningham read praṇamati which may
be correct. Compare [ni] tyaṁ praṇamanti in No. 69, 1. 4.
14 This word is completely gone.
15 The first figure of the date is probably 7. The second has become indistinct. The top portion
of the third figure, which is clear in the lithograph, shows
that the unit figure was 9.
16 Cunningham read Sri Dhāhalamitī here, but the lithograph shows that the aksharas are
completely gone. The record may have ended with the usual
17 See above, p. 299.