The Indian Analyst

North Indian Inscriptions






List of Plates

Addenda Et Corrigenda



Inscriptions of the Paramaras of Malwa

Inscriptions of the paramaras of chandravati

Inscriptions of the paramaras of Vagada

Inscriptions of the Paramaras of Bhinmal

An Inscription of the Paramaras of Jalor

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




[Vikrama] Year 1074

...THIS inscription which is engraved on two copper-plates was brought to notice for the first time by Shri V.S. Wakankar, an antiquarian of Ujjain, who wrote an article on it in a Hindi periodical known as Ushā (Bhōjāṅka), pp. 20 ff. published from Dhār, in Madhya Pradesh, and from a set of rubbings prepared by the same scholar, it was subsequently edited by Dr. D.C.Sircar,

[1] D.C.S : कन्तिका (कणिका). But the subscript of the second of these letters is clearly छ्. The word कच्छिका is a diminutive from of कच्छ meaning ‘margin or boundary region.’ The word भूमी is wrongly used, here and below, with long medial ī. There is a redundant punctuation mark following each word here and also in ll. 16-19 below.
[2] What appears to be intended is संयुक्ता.
[3] Sircar remarks that उपानस्य is a mistake for म्रौपमन्यव.
[4] Probably the fourth case-ending is intended here.
[5] D.C.S. : क(का)रेण. But the fourth letter is clearly चा, with the verticals in the middle, as in the case of धा. Shastri also read the letter as I do.
[6] Read पार्श्विका लिख्यन्ते. These persons were all known to the royal preceptor. Shastri restored the first of these letters to परीक्षिता.
[7] D.C.S. took two names here, तात and नाट, whereas Shastri only one name and read तातनाय. To me it appears to be one name and the last akshara in the line is so formed as to read either य or ट followed by a punctuation-mark Similarly the first letter in the following name may be read either प,as the photo shows. or as व. as in the facsimile.
[8] Restore गोग्गकादीनां पार्श्वकत्वे. Shastri restored the second of these words to परीक्ष्य. In these two lines each name is unnecessarily separated by a daṇḍa.
[9] All the three letters are damaged and probably can also be read as दत्रिता for दत्तेति.
[10] D.C.S. : Better read यथा.
[11] It is difficult to say whether the intended name is वैवस्वत. Sircar observed that the intended reading may also be वैवमुत. But the whole can also be read as तथा च इवशु[:*]. The following letter गु is equally doubtful and it is not known if गृहपति is intended.
[12] Reading uncertain. [13] Read समुत्कीर्ण्णम्.
[14] Read चैतत् लेखेकेन. It may be remarked here that the letter च shows a pṛishṭha-mātrā on the photograph
[15] The reading of the syllable in the brackets is not certain.
[16] There are two spiral symbols between the double daṇḍas.