What the sources
establish.

Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica 1937–38, pp. 52–54, including p. 53 note 2. Original OCR checked against the independently retrieved text. Weathered marginal inscription; completion date is not a demolition day.

Open source ↗

Selected printed pp. 86, 91 note 43, 311–312. Follows the Poonamallee inscription and distinguishes pillage at Dewalgaon from occupation elsewhere.

Open source ↗

Utbi extract pp. 40–41; chronological discussion pp. 450–454. Translation and editorial reconstruction, not direct reading of the Persian or Arabic originals.

Open source ↗

Printed pp. 113–116, Sobhnath section. Original OCR consulted. The conquest attribution on p. 114 cites a ballad recorded by Hoey; the report is not contemporary testimony to the attack.

Open source ↗

Printed pp. 94–96. Physical description and Firishta quotation read. The proposed 1406 episode is qualified as probable. The accessed OCR reads Haidar Ali/1797, a problematic combination not used as event evidence; the printed numeral was not visually collated.

Open source ↗

Printed pp. 305–308. Retrospective court history. The ruler called Mahomed Shah Bahmuny II here is the late-fifteenth-century ruler generally numbered Muhammad III Lashkari today.

Open source ↗

Printed pp. 82–84, Bankapur campaign. Chronicle narrative checked; not a measured inventory of destroyed fabric.

Open source ↗

Jugut/Bet episode, printed p. 36 of this edition. Pagination differs from the edition cited by Commissariat.

Open source ↗

Printed pp. 173–175 read, with notes leading to Firishta IV, Bayley and the Arabic History. These are related accounts, not three independent eyewitnesses.

Open source ↗

Published 1916; printed pp. 3–4 read. Early interpretation of temple identity, conversion and loose inscriptions. Later scholarship contests the ruler attribution.

Open source ↗

Sultans of the South (2011), printed pp. 180–187 visually read in the publisher PDF, including note 9 on the loose Bodhan inscriptions. Firecrawl rejected the 80 MB PDF; publisher download and rendered pages were used.

Open source ↗

Printed pp. 59–60 read. Court chronicle names images and Sikandar/Suhabhatta; it does not measure destruction at each surviving ruin or securely locate every named shrine.

Open source ↗

The Mathura/Vrindavan account concerns a campaign and names Jahan Khan in the field; it does not identify every damaged shrine. The Golden Temple has a separate dossier. Do not turn a city-wide account into many unnamed temples.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Rudra Mahalaya is already mapped. The Delvada/Delwara campaign remains an aggregate claim; the individual earlier shrines and competing 1432/1433 dates need original-source reconciliation.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The matched passage concerns a shrine legend and an elephant episode; it is not evidence that this ruler attacked a temple.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

A Chittor victory-letter claim needs its underlying edition and chronology checked. A nearby 1575 date cannot be attached to the 1568 siege. Nagarkot remains in the earlier case review.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The matched violence is attributed to Marathas against Muslim religious buildings, not to Alamgir II against the sacred-site traditions in scope.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Orissa passage reports temple losses generally, through later historical writing. It does not establish a named temple, a surveyed location or the ruler’s personal participation.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Alias of the Bengal ruler article; its repeated Orissa claim is one source family, not independent corroboration.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Named campaign claims lead to the existing Somnath, Chidambaram and Madurai dossiers and the imperial review. The Jalor Jain-fair account does not by itself identify a demolished temple building.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Consult alongside the earlier source review and named dossiers. General orders, reported totals and protection grants are distinct from dated damage at an individually identified site.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Urwa image order is documented in the memoir. A metaphor about wine vessels is not a temple attack; the advice about protecting shrines is likewise not damage evidence. The memoir passage is dated 1528, despite a 1527 caption elsewhere.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Nepal raid chronology varies across reference accounts. The original inscription and chronicle chain need reconciliation before assigning an exact day to Pashupatinath or Swayambhu.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Vijayanagara/Hampi is already mapped. For Bankapur the newly consulted Firishta passage and Cousens survey support a separate, qualified dossier; the surviving hall prevents a claim of total loss.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The matched passage concerns the Golden Temple foundation tradition, not an attack by Dara Shikoh.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Sanchi statue anecdote blames his brother Aqil and says Dost Mohammad admonished him. The biography’s underlying conservation-history passage remains unverified; do not assign the damage to Dost Mohammad.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Duplicate/alias source for the Sanchi anecdote. Aqil, not Dost Mohammad, is the alleged damaging actor; the underlying passage still needs access.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Golden Temple damage account overlaps the Ahmad Shah Durrani biography and the existing Sikh dossier; repeated narrative is not another event.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Gaya Surya Kund item concerns repairs, not destruction there. The ruler’s memoir and Afif supply separately reviewed cases; each needs its own site identification.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Somnath and the Mathura campaign occur in an overview. The Chakrasvamin image at Thanesar now has a separately sourced dossier; generic Mathura totals are not converted into individual sites.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Banaras campaign is an aggregate. Bihar monastery attributions must retain the Nalanda/Odantapuri/Vikramashila identification problems in their dossiers.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The article describes Jain building activity and says no temple demolitions are recorded in its account. This is evidence about that account, not proof that no damage ever occurred during his reign.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Ujjain case is already mapped. The unnamed Bhilsa temple in the chronicle is not automatically the Bijamandal archaeological footprint.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Nepal raid is repeated under several names. Searches traced it to Nepali historical writing and an inscription cited in reporting; dates differ and the original inscription remains to be read.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Pushkar image order is read in his memoir. The Kangra/Sirhindi narrative contains citation and chronology problems and must not be used as an unqualified direct order.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Jhain account reports temple and image damage, but a campaign locality is not an identification of each earlier shrine. The source chain is retained in the imperial cases.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The matched Srirangam restoration passage concerns recovery after earlier conflict; it does not by itself identify a new damaging actor.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Commissariat and Firishta passages were followed for Dwarka/Bet. 14 May 1473 is the expedition’s departure date, not the exact demolition day. Bet’s earlier principal shrine remains an identity problem.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Thanesar’s Chakrasvamin image can be identified through al-Biruni; the raid’s chronology differs across accounts. Somnath is already mapped; Mathura’s aggregate losses remain separate.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Poonamallee leads to a bilingual inscription naming Rustam Beg under Mir Jumla and Abdullah Qutb Shah. Sarkar distinguishes pillage at Dewalgaon from occupation at other Assam shrines; occupation is not automatically demolition.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Nalanda, Odantapuri and Vikramashila are already mapped with source limitations. Retain uncertainty about which monastery an unnamed Bihar fort account describes.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Debal temple’s identification with a specific Banbhore footprint remains unsettled. At Multan, retention and desecration of the idol are different from the later destruction account.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Bodhan was checked against Yazdani and Eaton 2011: the conversion patron is disputed, and loose inscriptions do not record a mosque dedication. Kalyana’s Madhukesvara repair in 1326 is a counterexample to automatic attribution by reign. Sambhal/Chinese-embassy geography remains unresolved.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Kiradu case is already represented; Banaras is an aggregate campaign account. Tus is outside the confirmed geographic scope.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The Somnath account overlaps an existing dossier; different references give 1394/1395. Repetition under a title variant does not establish another shrine or an exact day.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The matched destruction is attributed to Rana Sanga and concerns mosques; it does not establish a temple attack by Muzaffar II.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Hasan Nizami’s Kuhram, Kol, Meerut and Kalinjar claims concern campaigns and groups of buildings. Keep them distinct from the individually documented Ajmer/Qutb architectural dossiers.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The frontier-temple conversion account gives no secure individually located shrine. Retain it as an aggregate claim needing the underlying Wink passage, not a point on the map.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The matched passage concerns Sikh gurdwara construction in 1783, not an attack by this emperor.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The 76 unfinished temples in the Benares district form a reported aggregate in the earlier review. The Ahmedabad Jain episode is attributed to Aurangzeb as governor, not automatically to Shah Jahan personally.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Jonaraja’s translated pp. 59–60 name images and Sikandar/Suhabhatta. Later interpretations of motivation differ. Vishaya, Ishana and other historical names require independent identification before mapping.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Alias/repeated account of the Nepal expedition; 1346, 1349 and 1350 appear in reference material. Do not count these as three invasions without reconciliation.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

General claims are linked to the existing imperial case review. Named places in the table still require individual building identification.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Kamakhya is already mapped. Hajo/Hayagriva Madhava is a lead with chronology and attribution questions; a later rebuilding date does not alone identify a destroyer.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The earlier 43-lead source review remains applicable. Sringeri damage is attributed to Maratha attackers and Tipu’s role there is restoration support; the two must not be inverted.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

The matched account concerns conflict with Narasimhadeva and city/campaign losses, not an individually identified temple destroyed by Tughan Khan.

Matched narrative passages and selected linked sources; not the entire bibliography or a complete reign history.

Eaton 2011 pp. 185–187 describes linga damage by unidentified people during a rebellion and repair authorized by Khwaja Ahmad, with a 10 November 1326 charter. Muhammad bin Tughluq is not established as the destroyer. Follow P. B. Desai 1957–58 pp. 165–170 and locate the historical shrine.

Reporting cites Acharya, Regmi and a Swayambhu inscription for damage in the Nepal raid. 1346/1349/1350 occur in reference material; exact chronology and the original inscription need reconciliation. The newspaper is read; cited originals are not.

Dutt’s Jonaraja translation pp. 59–60 names Tripureshvara among images broken under Sikandar/Suhabhatta. The modern footprint is not established. Do not substitute a similarly named shrine in Nepal.

Dutt pp. 59–60 reads Vishaya. The relationship to Vijayeshvara at Bijbehara requires a philological/geographic source; no automatic identification.

Sarkar pp. 311–312 describes pillage at Dewalgaon during Mir Jumla’s Assam campaign. It separately describes control of Kamakhya and other places. A secure modern shrine identity and coordinate remain unresolved.

Commissariat I p. 174 names a principal shrine destroyed at Bet in the 1473 campaign. Do not choose between modern Ranchhodji and Shankh Narayan shrines without evidence. Related Dwarka dossier is distinct.

Briggs II p. 308 describes storming and plundering a wealthy temple at Kanchi, but does not name its deity. Eaton’s approximate 1478 date and the narrative sequence require checking; no present-day temple is assumed.

The biography blames Aqil, the ruler’s brother, and says Dost Mohammad rebuked him. The cited conservation-history book was located only as metadata. Neither an attack by Dost Mohammad nor its date has been independently verified.

The retrieved Isanesvara Siva Temple is in Odisha. It does not identify the Ishana image in Jonaraja’s Kashmir account.