Bibliographic information

First reported and edited in Banerji 1910 (photograph in Plates 29 and 30); also edited in Bloch 1911 (rubbing in Plate 82). Bloch’s work precedes Banerji’s in spite of the later publication date. Both editors deem the plate spurious. Re-edited in Pargiter 1911, arguing in the light of the three other Faridpur plates (IN00128, IN00129 and IN00130) that it is genuine. Banerji 1911 argues for forgery in spite of the Faridpur plates. Pargiter 1912 re-asserts his point. Banerji 1914 continues to argue for forgery. Edited yet again and discussed in Bhattasali 1925-26 (arguing in favour of genuineness, further supported by the discovery of the Damodarpur plates).

Inscription Concordance

Banerji (1910) 429-436

Bloch (1911) 255-259

Pargiter (1911) 475-502

Banerji (1911) 289-309

Pargiter (1912) 710-711

Banerji (1914) 425-437

Bhattasali (1925-26) 74-86

Bhandarkar (1929) 244, no. 1725