Actually three fragments, found together and assembled. Dimensions above are for the assembly, which is a squarish slab. One fragment comprises the (viewer's) left-hand side, a bit more than half of the slab. The smaller right-hand portion is broken again in two; the location of this fracture is not described by Agrawala and cannot be seen in his facsimile. The slab has one inscription (%I-0068) covering the front face (of all three fragments), and another (%I-0069) on the right-hand side (of the two right-hand fragments). Lines are entire in the front inscription, while on the side only the beginnings of lines remain. This suggests that the slab was cut (or has split) off the side of an original pillar of square cross-section. #Agrawala_1983:111 says the side inscription is "apparently in continuation of the last line of the first side", but I see nothing that might warrant (or exclude) this, so I edit the inscriptions as separate.
Actually three fragments, found together and assembled. Dimensions above are for the assembly, which is a squarish slab. One fragment comprises the (viewer's) left-hand side, a bit more than half of the slab. The smaller right-hand portion is broken again in two; the location of this fracture is not described by Agrawala and cannot be seen in his facsimile. The slab has one inscription (%I-0068) covering the front face (of all three fragments), and another (%I-0069) on the right-hand side (of the two right-hand fragments). Lines are entire in the front inscription, while on the side only the beginnings of lines remain. This suggests that the slab was cut (or has split) off the side of an original pillar of square cross-section. #Agrawala_1983:111 says the side inscription is "apparently in continuation of the last line of the first side", but I see nothing that might warrant (or exclude) this, so I edit the inscriptions as separate.