The Indian Analyst
 

North Indian Inscriptions

 

 

Contents

Introduction

Contents

List of Plates

Addenda Et Corrigenda

Images

EDITION AND TEXTS

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

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

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PARAMARAS OF MALWA

images/60

No. 17; PLATE XIX-B
BHOJPUR FRAGMENTARY STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF BH- OJADEVA
( Date probably lost ?)

...THIS inscription was disovered in 1959-60 by Dr. D. C. Sircar, Government Epigraphist, who also edited it, with two others,[4] in the Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXV, p. 185 ff. It is edited here from an inked impression which I owe to the kindness of the Chief Epigraphist.[5]

...The record, which consists only of two lines, is engraved on the pedestal of a colossal image of a Jaina Tīrthaṅkara in an old Jaina temple at Bhōjpur in the Goharganj tehsīl of the Raisen District in Madhya Pradesh.[6] Both of its lines are fragmentary. The first line, which is about 53.40 cms. long, contains letters of about the height of 1.5 cms., while the second, which is only 38 cms. long, shows the letters of a slightly smaller size. While editing the record, Sircar has remarked in a general way that the extant part of the epigraph contains about ¾ of the original writing. A fair estimate of its original breadth, however, can be made from the portion lost in the beginning, which consisted of 12 aksharas of the first foot of a verse in the Vasantatilakā metre and which, to judge from the length of equal number of letters in the line, appears to show the length of about 15 cms., and accordingly, the original length of the whole line was about 68 cms. Calculating in the same way, the second line was, in all probability, about 52 cms. long, originally ; and it is not unreasonable to conclude that this line was engraved not from where the first line starts but in the middle, leaving an almost equal space vacant on either sides.

... The characters are Nāgarī of about the eleventh century A.C., resembling those of the inscriptions of the time of the Paramāra king Bhōja (c. 1000-1055 A.C.). The letters t and i are much alike ; cf. –nāmā and Nēmi-, both in 1.2 ;i has not developed a horn on its left limb ; see vidadhē, 1. 2 ; and due to the carelessness of the engraver, m occasionally resembles s, e.g., in –asama-, 1.1, where both these aksharas appear. The language is Sanskrit and the extant portion of the record contains only two verses. The orthography calls for no remark except that the pṛishṭha-mātrās are used throughout and the sign of anusvāra on ch in 1.1 is ornamentally treated. The extant portion of the record does not bear any date, as far as I can make out from the impression. If at all engraved, it is lost.
___________________

[1] Here the visarga is not changed to s, as required by the rule ; and this stanza is full of some other errors, e.g., the root jval is wrongly used in plural and in the Ātmanēpada ; the past participle rūḍha is put to denote the present tense ; sushati is used in place of śushyati ; and its use with the plural sarisaraḥ (for saritsarāṁsi) and chihnānīmāni for chinānīmāni is again wrong. The whole verse may be rectified as follows :–– किं सूर्यस्तीव्रतपो दहति, शशिकलाः पावको वा प्रदीप्तः भूमौ रोहेन्न सस्यं न च जनवसतिमैघकालेऽल्पवृष्टिः । गोषु क्षीरं प्रशुष्येज्जलमपि च तथा कूपवापीनदीनां यस्मिन् भूमिप्रहर्त्ता निवसति विषये तत्र दौर्गत्यमेतत् ॥
[2] Read जायते, but it would not suit in the metre.
[3] Read राजभिः.
[4] Below, Nos. 32 and 58.
[5] His No. B-252 of 1959-60
[6] The village is situated in Lat. 23° 6’ N. and Long. 77° 38’ E.