Current Version: draft, 2024-05-22Z
Editor: Jens Christian Thomas.
DHARMA Identifier: INSTelugu00060
Hand Description:
Alternative identifier:
Origin: Written in 697-750.
Classification: donative-religious land grant
Languages: Telugu and Sanskrit
Corresponding Artefact: ARTTelugu000053 inscription on On four sides of a stone lying in a field on the borders of the village Cāmalūru
Layout: 21-35109106 lines are observed/preserved on the artifact.
A A1[svasti śrī prithivi-va-]
A2[llava-vijayāditya-]
A3[cōḻa-rājuḶ Iru-]
A4[vā]d[i]r[e]ṅdu ca[ṁ]va-
A5ccaraṁbuḶ pravartta-
a6llaN vāṇarājuL pā-
A7(bu)ḻigga Ēḷucu palla-
A8vādi⟨tya⟩rājula kūcapō -
A9ṟa yāri tāṁbuL cō-
A10ḻa mahārājula AmmaB
B1[1+](m)ukha
B2ḻaḷu(ru) kucapā (ṟa)ki
B3natū Icci ttra
B4rāca(m)[ā-]
B5[na](ṁ)bunaN Ēbhādi maṟu-
B6ntuṟlu nēla Alaghacinta U-
B7(ttara)ṁbun ka ṭṭu ṇṭ lya gōtrasya p¿a?¡e!-
B8nbāṟa
B9sarmārik iccina (da)tiC
C1svadatāṁD
D4yā[ṁ] j(ā)-
D5y¡ā!⟨a⟩t¿ō?⟨ē⟩-
D6krimi[ḥ]
1 • The line break of the supplied lines is approximate. The text is supplied according
to the notes of Colin Mackenzie (a picture of which is given in: Nilakanta Sastri and Venkataramayya 1947–1948: № 42 K).
5–6 pravartta/llaN • As for the verbal derivation via -alu, -ilu, and -ulu see Krishnamurti 1961: pages 142–145.
The numbering of the faces of the inscription offered by the editors might be wrong. Two reasons can be adduced: 1) When comparing the structure and content with other inscriptions there is too much space on the allegedly lost second face for too less possible information. Furthermore, the end of the imprecation is found on the fourth face with a width of two akṣaras per line. If the third face was indeed the third one, the beginning of the imprecation ought to be found on that very face; yet, the twenty lacking syllables (six syllables are lost on the fourth face) would make up almost three full lines (with seven to eight akṣaras per line). On the other hand, the estampage indicates that the narrow faces on both sides of the stone contained two akṣaras per line and that, if they followed the writing on the front side, 10 lines are to be expected on the face. Ten lines times two akṣaras makes 20 akṣaras, the number that we need. Therefore, it is very probable in my opinion that face three is face two and the lost face two is face three that can be fully reconstructed. The reconstruction of this face and of the three missing lines on the first face follows the copy of Colin Mackenzie’s manuscript that the editors also used and also printed in their edition. Since certain flaws cannot be unambiguously attributed to either C. Mackenzie or the scribe the supplied text is given in the form it can be expected according to other inscriptions.