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 1116

... THE stone bearing this inscription is built into a wall of the temple of Maṇḍalēśvara (locally known by the corrupt name Maṇḍlēsar) Mahādēva at Pānāhēḍā,[1] a village in the former State of Bāṅswāḍā, which is now the chief town of a district of the same name in Rājasthān. The record was first brought to notice by Gaurishankar Ojha in the Annual Report of the Rājputānā Museum, Ajmer, for 1916-17, pages 2 ff. ; and subsequently it was edited by R.R. Halder, in the Epigraphia Indica, Volume XXI, pp. 41 ff., with text in the Nāgarī characters (pp. 44-9), but without a facsimile. But, besides the fact that Halder’s treatment of the record is not exhaustive, his reading of the text suffers from some minor imccuracies,[2] as will be known from the subjoined transcript; and though these inaccuracies do not affect the historical facts, they doubtless deteriorate the value of an elegant literary composition. The inscription is edited here, from inked impressions, which, at my request, were prepared and supplied to me by the Superintending Archaeologist of the Western Circle of the Archaeological Survey of India. The text was thereafter also revised from an impression which I owe to the Chief Epigraphist, Archaeological Survey of India.

...Unfortunately, the stone on which this record is incised is broken in three pieces, and only the portions on the right and left are now available.[3] The middle portion thereof has entirely disappeared from top to bottom. The writing, when the slab was entire, measured about 80 cms. broad by 50.4 cms. high ; whereas the part of the stone which is now lost is so irregular that it is calculated to measure 34 cms. broad in 11. 1-6, and widening in 11. 20 to 30 and also taking off along with it, an almost semi-circular fragment so as to show its breadth 26 and 11 cms., respectively in these lines, it again lessens in breadth which is 7.5 cms. in the end. But the extant portion of the record is satisfactorily preserved, except that a part of the surface of the stone in the right side thereof has altogether peeled off, taking away one or two aksharas in 1. 34-47, with it.

...The inscription consists of 38 lines of writing; and the characters are carefully drawn and well engraved. They are occasionally ornamental, as in khaḍga, 1. 5; but there are cases when some redundant strokes make their forms somewhat indistinct, for example, śāla in 1. 1 has become śāma; garala in 1. 3, śarala; chaṁchat in 1. 8, vāṁchat ; kāma in 1. 16, kāna; and mālavānāṁ in 1. 17, māvavānāṁ . The average size of the letters varies from 8 to 15 mms. including the flourishes and mātrās at the top.

... The characters are Nāgarī of the eleventh century. The initial short i is denoted by two hollow circles subscribed by the sign for the medial short u, as in iva, 1. 20. and the same vowel in its long from is to be seen only once, in Iśānēna, 1. 2, where it is distinguished by a horizontal stroke above. The left limb of g often resembles th , as in pannaga-, 1. 2; has not developed its dot; cf. paṅka, 1. 7; and the aksharas ch, dh and v are almost identical in form, though occasionally the loop of the first two of them is slightly angular; see chitta-chaura and daṇḍ-ādhīśa, both in 1. 26. The rare jh occurs only in one instance, jhaṁkāra, 1. 34, where it almost resembles the modern kra; the subscript forms of chh and th are similar; cf. sthānē kachchhōka, 1. 31 ; and ṇ is formed as l; see prayāṇē and chaturṇām =arṇṇavānāṁ, both in 1, 17. Kh and t have often no tail; e..g., in khura, 1. 9 and dyōtatē, 1. 38. The forms of the letters t.

[1] Now known as Pārāhēḍā, the place is about 8 kms. due east-northeast of Gaḍhī, the head-quarters of a tehsīl in the Bāṅswāḍā District and connected with it, by a cart-track.
[2] For example, he read tam=anu as tamava, in 1. 16; saṁślishṭā as saṁdṛishṭā(shṭvā), in 1. 37 and kūṭā as jūṭa, in 1. 38.
[3] In his notice of the inscription Ojha does not say anything about the break and thus it appears to have taken place after he wrote in 1916-17 but before 1932-33, when Halder noticed it while editing the record.