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




n, v and l are sometimes confounded with each other, which is an error on the part of the writer or the engraver; see nibhṛita 1. 14, nāmani,1. 22, samanvita, 1. 27 and tēn=ātra tatrih, 1. 35, where all these three letters appear almost alike. P has often the same form as y, as in visarppi, 1.11, and the latter of these letters occasionally shows a cursive bar as in sh ; see kāmayatē and sthalayēt, both in 1. 29. Bh is often confounded with h; cf. śvās-ōrmibhiḥ saṁbhṛitāh, 1. 3, and lēbhē, 1. 9, where the left limb of the first bh has an additional stroke below, making it appear as h. The slight distinction to be observed between the formation of ś and s is that the loop which begins the first of these letters assumes the form of a stroke curved above whereas that of the second is curved downwards; see Śaṁbhōḥ and saṁhṛitāḥ both in 1. 3, respectively. Both these letters are in a transitional state, occasionally assuming the modern forms; cf. vipaśchit and daṇḍādhīsa-, both in 1. 26.

...The language of the inscription is Sanskrit; and, with the exception of a short sentence in the beginning, one or two words in 11. 26 and 36 and the concluding portion in 1. 38, it is metrically composed, in high-sounding and dignified words and expressions, as the poet himself asserts in v. 60, using figures of speech like anuprāsa, upāmā, utprēkshā, rūpaka and atiśayōkti, and often reminding us of old poets. In all there are 61 verse; they are all numbered, But while marking them, the number 34 is inadvertently repeated and the error is continued; and thus the number of the last verse is marked 60 instead of 61. Versification involves a few mistakes; and sandhis are violated sometimes for metrical exigencies, as in Jayasiṁhēna asmai¸ in v. 45. All such errors are noted in the text that follows. The composition also shows a few grammatical errors , e.g., bhaktinā for bhaktyā, 1. 31; śrēyāya for śrēyasē, 1. 32 brahmachārir- for brahmachārī, 1. 34 ; and stōkaṁpi for stōkam=api, 1. 36. Such errors are to be noticed more in the later half of the record.

... The Orthography calls for the following remarks: (1) V throughout does the duty for b, as in kuṭuṁba-, 1. 4; (2) the consonant following r is generally doubled; e.g., in kīrtti-, 1. 8; the palatal sibilant is often replaced by the dental, and in rare examples the case is vice versa; see sirasi, 1.16, and tapaśvī, 1. 34; (3) the sign of anusvāra represents a class-nasal throughout, even wrongly at the end of a stich; see the one in v. 15 and (4) the medial dipthong or one of its elements is indicated by pṛishṭha-mātrā, with occasional exceptions as in bhōga, 1. 34. The word aṅghri is spelt as aṁhri in 11. 16, 26 and 237.

... The main object of the inscription is to record the construction of a temple of Smara-ripu (Śiva) and to show the endowments made to it, by the Paramāra king Maṇḍalīka, at Paṁśulākhēṭaka (1. 27), which is evidently the modern village of Pānāhēḍā, where the stone was discovered, as stated above. The year, which is expressed in numerical figures, is Vikrama 1116 (1.38); it corresponds to 1559 A.C. for the Northern Vikrama, expired. The figures showing the year appear to have been followed by the mention of the day and month ; but this portion of the stone is unfortunately lost.

... The inscription is a praśasti, a laudatory accounts, as shown by the use of this word in its v. 60. It consists of two parts, the first of which is devoted to the description of the main line of the Paramāra rulers of Mālava down to Jayasiṁha I, and the second, to the kings of the branch line, ending with Maṇḍalīka, in whose reign the record was set up. And though fragmentary, it is a valuable document, presenting a complete list of the rulers belonging to the subordinate branch, ruling over the territory known as Vāgaḍa and comprising, more or less, the area covered by the modern districts of Bāṅswāḍā and Ḍūṅgarpur on the southern border of Rājasthān. [1] The inscription which appears here immediately below and which too is likewise a praśasti, is not so exhaustive, since it omits one name, i.e., that of Maṇḍalīka’s elder brother Limbarājā, and though elaborate in its description, it is silent about the princes of the main line, except giving the name of Vairisiṁha during whose period of reign the junior branch began its political career, In the description of kings, the present praśasti more or less bears a resemblance to the Udaipur and Nagpur praśastis, edited above (Nos. 24 and 33 respectively).

...Beginning with a short sentence paying obeisance to Śiva, the inscription has five maṅgalaślokas in honour of the same deity under different names. Then in vv. 6-7 it gives the familiar legend of the origin of the Paramāras, viz., the creation by Vasishṭha of a hero who defeated

[1] Imp. Gaz. of India, Vol. XI, p. 380.

<< - 1 Page