Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I

Metadata

Current Version:  draft, 2024-09-02Z

Editor:   Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00024

Hand Description:

Halantas. M: if I am correct in reading l20 śāśvataM (see apparatus), then this is probably shaped like a tick mark. N: l21 dattavāN has a reduced body with an elongated stem and no headmark; l46 pratāpavāN seems to have either a headmark or a horizontal line attached to the stem, which may continue in a long straight vertical (a virāma sign?) upward.

Original punctuation marks are regular, plain vertical bars approximately from footline to headline, e.g. l25 ājñāpayati|. If Kielhorn is correct in reading a punctuation mark in line 21 (see apparatus), then that is of the same shape.

Other palaeographic observations. Oṁ in line 1 is written with a regular alphabetic character. The character ra is now teardrop-shaped, and those in l4, vara-varāha have dots in their centres. Kielhorn does not remark on this, but these characters differ from tha only in being slightly narrower. Rare initial Ai (if that is what it is; see apparatus) occurs in line 32, as well as the relatively rare initial Ī.

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

1śrī-tribhuvan¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁkuśa

Plates

⎘ plate 1v 1oṁ namo ¿nna?⟨nā⟩rāyaṇāya[.] svasti[.] śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-
2-mānavya-sagotrānāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mā-
3tr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nā-
4rāyaṇa-pra◯sāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lā{ṁ}ñchanekṣaṇa-
5-kṣaṇa-vaś(ī)kr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥-
6ta-vapuṣāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ sattyāśraya-valla-
7bhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano [’]ṣṭādaśa varṣāṇi[.] tat-putro ja-
⎘ plate 2r 8yasiṁgha-vallabhas trayas¡triṁśa{r}d! varṣāṇi[.] tad-anuj¡a-I!ndra-bhaṭṭārakasya
9priya-tanayo viṣṇuvarddhan¡a! nava saṁvatsarāṇi[.] tat-putro maṁgi-yu-
10varāj¡a! paṁ◯ca-viṁśa¡t! saṁvatsarāṇi[.] tat-putro jayasiṁgh¡a! tra-
11yodaśa ◯ saṁvatsar¡aḥ![.] tad-⟨d⟩vaimāturān¿ū?⟨u⟩jaḥ kokkil¡ī! ṣa¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ mā-
12s¡aḥ![.] tasya j⟨y⟩eṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuva⟨r⟩ddhan¡a! svānuja{mada}m uccāṭya sapta-
13triṁśa¡t! sam¡a!ḥ[.] tat-tanujo vijayādittya-bhaṭṭārakaḥ Aṣṭādaśa sam¡a!ḥ[.]
14tad-auraso viṣṇurājaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśa¡d! abdāni[.] tat-(suto) vijayādityaḥ catvāriṁśa-
⎘ plate 2v 15¡t! sam¡a!ḥ Aṣṭottaraśata-śrīm¿ā?⟨a⟩n-narendreśvara-kārakaḥ[.] tad-ātmajaḥ ka-
16li-viṣṇuvarddhanas sārddha sam¡a!ḥ[.] tan-nandano vijayāditya catu-
17ścatvāriṁśa◯¡d! varṣāṇi[.] tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramādi-
18tya-bhūpa◯teḥ putro bhīmaḥ

I. Śārdūlavikrīḍita
śrīmān kīrtti-śaśāṁka-raśmi-viśa19dībhūtākhilāśāvani-
-vyomā śrī-kusumāyudhena guṇinā vidvaj-ja20nānandanaḥ
vīro [’]sau nija-paṭṭa-bandha-samaye santuṣṭavāñ śāśvata(M?)
grā21maṁ śrī-jayadhāma-bhīma-nr̥patis sa⟨ṁ⟩prārt¿t?⟨th⟩ito dattavāN

sa sarvva-lo-
⎘ plate 3r 22kāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-
23-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇya Uttara-kaṇḍerṟvāḍi-viṣaya-nivāsino
24rāṣṭrakū◯ṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas sarvvān samāhūye-
25ttham ājñāpayati|

viditam astu vaḥ k(au)ṇḍinya-gotraḥ Umma-
26rakaṇṭhibol veda-vedāṁga-pāragaḥ revamayy¡a![.] tat-putro
⎘ plate 3v 27droṇabhaṭṭaḥ[.] tat-putr¡aḥ! potamayya-kramayita-nāmne k(ḻa?)kipa-
28ṟṟu nāma grām¡a! sarvva-kara-parihāram udaka-pūrvvaṁ kr̥tvāsmābhi⟨r⟩ datta-
29¡m! iti[.] A◯syāvadhayaḥ[.] pūrvvataḥ potaṟeṁgari-ceṟuvu[.] Āgn(e)-
30yataḥ paru◯vula-guṇṭha[.] dakṣ¿a?⟨i⟩ṇataḥ cāki-ceṟuvu[.] nai¡ri!⟨rr̥⟩tyataḥ sī-
31maiva sīm¿a?⟨ā⟩[.] paśc¿a?⟨i⟩mataḥ cintaṟeni-ceṟuvu[.] vāyavyataḥ juvvi-guṇṭha[.]
⎘ plate 4r 32Uttarataḥ ¡Ī!⟨Ai⟩śānataḥ Airiviya-guṇṭha[.] Asyopari ke-
33nacid bādhāṁ karoti yaḥ sa paṁcabhir mmahā-pātakair ll¿ī?⟨i⟩pyate[.] vyāsa-
34-gītāś ślo◯k¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ

II. Anuṣṭubh
bahubhir vvasudhā datt¿aḥ?⟨ā⟩
bahubhiś cānupāli 35tā
yasya yasya yadā bhūmiḥ
tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ|

III. Anuṣṭubh
ṣaṣ¿ṭh?⟨ṭ⟩i(ṁ) 36varṣa-saha¿ś?⟨s⟩rāṇi|
svargge mo(da)ti bhūmidaḥ|
Ākṣeptā cā⎘ plate 4v 37vamantā ca
tānny eva narake vase⟨T⟩|||

IV. Vasantatilakā
ma⟦p⟧⟨⟨d⟩⟩-vaṁśa-jā⟨ḥ⟩ para-mahīpati38-vaṁśa-jā vā|
pāpād apeta-manaso bhuvi bhāvi-bhūpā⟨ḥ⟩|
ye 39pālayanti mama dharmmam im¿ā?⟨a⟩ṁ sa{ṁ}mastaṁ|
40teṣāṁ m{m}ayā viracito [’]ṁjalir eṣa mūrdhni|

V. Śālinī
sāmā41nyo [’]yan dharmma-setur nr̥pāṇāṁ
kāle kāle pālanī⎘ plate 5r 42yo bhavadbhiḥ
sarvvān etān bhāvinaḥ pārt¿t?⟨th⟩ivendrān
bhūyo bhūyo 43yācate rāmabhadraḥ

VI. Indravajrā
yānīha dattāni purā narendr¿e?⟨ai⟩ḥ
dānāni dha44rmmārt¿t?⟨th⟩a-ya◯śas{s}-karāṇi
nirmmāl{l}ya-¿vargga?⟨vānta⟩-praṭimāni tāni
ko 45nāma sā¿d?⟨dh⟩uḥ (punar ādad)īt¿āḥ?⟨a⟩

VII. Anuṣṭubh
Ājñ¿ā?⟨a⟩ptir asya dharmmasya|
kaḍeya46-rājaḥ pratāpavāN|
pitāmaho bhavān{n} yasya
pāṇḍar¡a!⟨ā⟩ṁgaḥ parantapaḥ


⎘ plate 5v 47koṇḍ¡a!⟨ā⟩cāryya-likhitam

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

4 -lā{ṁ}ñchanekṣaṇa- • According to Kielhorn’s note, the superfluous anusvāra may have been struck out in the original.
5 -maṇḍalānāṁ • Kielhorn notes that originally -maṁṇḍalānāṁ may have been inscribed.
12 svānuja{mada}m FK • Again, I accept Kielhorn’s judgement but wonder: the extra mada seems to be a very unusual scribal mistake. Could svānujam adam be a solecism for svānujam amum, or a scribal mistake for svānujam aḷam (i.e. svānujam alam)? Compare also line 4 of the Nūtimaḍugu plates of Vikramāditya II, which reads (with some doubt) svānujam ājāv uccāṭya.
15 -śrīm¿ā?⟨a⟩n- FK • I follow Kielhorn in emending here, though I interpret the compound differently (see note to translation). The emendation is not strictly necessary, as the text would also be intelligible with -śrīmān in apposition to vijayādityaḥ, but I believe it was more likely intended to qualify the temple. See also the commentary on the possibility that this is part of a stanza.
20 śāśvata(M?) ◇ śāśvata⟨ṁ⟩⟦|⟧ FK • According to Kielhorn, a superfluous punctuation mark was struck out here. As far as I can see in the estampage, a slightly damaged final M is likewise possible and is slightly more likely in the context, though both an omitted anusvāra and a punctuation mark after the third pāda are entirely plausible.
23 -kaṇḍerṟuvāḍi- • Kielhorn suggests emending to kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi. While this is clearly the same name, I prefer not to alter the spelling used here.
26 revamayy¡a! • Kielhorn notes that what looks like an ā mātrā attached to ma is in fact the vestige of an earlier character ki, hammered out. In the published estampage, the visible remnant is clearly a headmark and not a vowel marker, but nothing else is visible.
27 -kramayita- • Kielhorn suggests that this word is a mistake for kramayuta, a word used to describe a Brahmin as conversant with kramapāṭha recitation (see Sircar IEG s.v.). It is very plausible to assume that this was the intended meaning, but I prefer not to make the emendation in the text itself, especially since this is said to be part of the name. — 27 k(ḻa?)kipaṟṟu- ◇ kūkipaṟṟu- FK • The character which Kielhorn confidently reads as kū is conspicuously different from that in rāṣṭrakūṭa (l. 24) and does not resemble any specimen of kū in Indoskript from a comparable region of space and time. It is most probably kḻa, though with some stretch it could perhaps be kva or another combination. I feel certain that kū can be ruled out.
29 potaṟeṁgari- ◇ potaṟyaṁgari- FK • I feel confident that the stroke attached to ṟ, starting at the left-hand side of the body, curling underneath, then bending up to slightly above headline height on the right is not a subscript y (which in my judgement would bulge slightly to the left and pass at a greater depth below the primary consonant) but an ornamentally extended e marker. What seems to be an extension of the tail of this stroke to the right and down is quite certainly a headmark left over from the deleted earlier inscription on the plate.
30 -guṇṭha • Kielhorn emends to -guṇṭa. — 30–31 sī/maiva • As Kielhorn observes, a toponym is missing before this word. There is a conspicuous dot between the top of s and the upper dot of the preceding visarga, which may be a remnant of the previous inscription on the plate (but which does not look like a headmark), or may be an editorial mark indicating that something needs to be inserted here.
31 -guṇṭha • Kielhorn emends to -guṇṭa.
32 Airiviya- • Kielhorn prints this reading without doubt, and it is definitely plausible. However, I have doubts about the presence of ai in what must be a toponym in a local language. What looks like Ai could well be ba, and the small stroke inside the hook at the top may be a remnant from the previous inscription. — 32 -guṇṭha • Kielhorn emends to -guṇṭa. — 32–33 ke/nacid bādhāṁ karoti yaḥ sa • Kielhorn suggests emending to yaḥ kaścid bādhāṁ karoti sa, which essentially takes over the composer’s job. I believe a scribal mistake is more likely, and the composer’s intent had been kenacid bādhā na karttavyā bādhāṁ karoti yaḥ sa, from which the received text was produced by eyeskip omission.
36–37 cā/vamantā • Kielhorn emends to cānumantā. While that is certainly the standard text of this stanza, the received reading is meaningful and unlikely to have been produced from the expected text by scribal error, so I assume it to have been intended so by the composer.
37 tānny • CHECK when a facsimile is available: is this the actual spelling or is this a typo in Kielhorn?
43 narendr¿e?⟨ai⟩ḥ • Not noted by Kielhorn, re seems to have been corrected from ri or rī. — 43 -¿vargga?⟨vānta⟩- • I emend here, as Kielhorn does, to the expected text of this stanza (cf. cāvamantā in line 36 above), since the received reading is plausibly obtained from the expected one by scribal error. However, it is possible that vargga was actually intended, in the sense of a dharmaśāstric category of things that are impure to reuse.
45–46 kaḍeya / -rājaḥ • I assume that this term, which makes the line hypermetrical, was pronounced with a short e, and thus the poet seems to have availed of licence permitting the use of three short syllables where two syllables are expected.
46 bhavān{n} yasya • Kielhorn emends to ’bhavad yasya, which I find overly invasive.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

1-18Om! Obeisance to Nārāyaṇa! Greetings! Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, to whom the realms of adversaries instantaneously submit at the [mere] sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana [reigned] for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), for thirty-three years. His younger brother Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s dear son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five years. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen years. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning his younger brother, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen years. His son Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana IV), for thirty-six years. His son Vijayāditya (II), who erected a hundred and eight majestic Narendreśvara [temples], for forty years. His son Kali Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son Vijayāditya (III), for forty-four years. The son of his brother the heir-apparent (yuvarāja) Prince (bhūpati) Vikramāditya, [is] Bhīma (I).

I.
That majestic hero, His Majesty King (nr̥pati) Bhīma, the abode of triumph, the delighter of learned society, for whom the earth and heavens have turned brilliant in all directions with the rays of the moon that is his reputation [was] petitioned [for a donation] by the meritorious Śrī Kusumāyudha and, being well pleased, granted a village in perpetuity at the time of his coronation (paṭṭa-bandha).],↓1

21-25This shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana (Bhīma I), the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), the Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka), convokes and commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Northern Kaṇḍerṟvāḍi district (viṣaya) as follows:

25-34Let [this] be known to you: [there was] Revamayya, the bol of (the village) ¿Ummarakallu?,↓2 of the Kauṇḍinya gotra, thoroughly versed in the Vedas and Vedāṅgas. His son [was] Droṇabhaṭṭa. To his son named Potamayya Kramayita↓3 we have granted the village named Kḻakipaṟṟu with a remission of all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water. Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, Potaṟeṁgari-ceṟuvu. To the southeast, Paruvula-guṇṭha. To the south, Cāki-ceṟuvu. To the southwest, the perimeter is the perimeter itself. ↓4 To the west, Cintaṟeni-ceṟuvu. To the northwest, Juvvi-guṇṭha. To the north [and] northeast, Airiviya-guṇṭha. [Let no-]one pose an obstacle (to his enjoyment of his rights) over it. He who does so shall be tainted with the five great sins. [The following] verses [were] sung by Vyāsa:

II.
Many (kings) have granted land, and many have preserved it (as formerly granted). Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit {reward (accrued of granting it)} belongs to him at that time.

III.
A donor of land stays in heaven for thousands of millions of aeons, [while] a seizer (of granted land) and a disdainer (of a previous grant) shall reside in hell for just as long.

IV.
Hereby I offer my respectful obeisance (añjali) to [all] future kings on earth, [whether] born in my lineage or a different royal lineage, who with minds averted from sin observe this ruling (dharma) of mine in its integrity.

V.
“Each in your own time, you shall respect this framework of legality that is universally applicable to kings!”—[thus] Rāmabhadra begs all these future kings over and over again.

VI.
What decent man would ever partake again of those donations given by kings in the past to generate merit (dharma), wealth (artha) and fame, which are [now] comparable to discarded garlands or vomit? ↓5

VII.
The executor (ājñapti) of this ruling (dharma) is the valiant castellan (kaḍeya-rāja),↓6 whose grandfather was Lord Pāṇḍarāṅga, the scorcher of foes.

47Written (likhita) by Koṇḍācārya.

Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008

Seal

Plates

1-18Om ! Hommage à Nārāyaṇa ! Prospérité ! Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, frère de Satyāśraya Vallabhendra, ornement de la lignée des Calukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, honorés dans l’univers entier, fils de Hāritī, qui obtinrent leur royaume grâce à l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par la troupes des Mères, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, dont le cercle des ennemis fut soumis en un instant à la vue du signe illustre de l’excellent sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, dont les corps furent purifiés par le bain purificatoire de l’aśvamedha, [règna] pendant dix-huit années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha Vallabha, pendant trente-trois années ; le cher fils de son frère cadet Indra Bhaṭṭāraka, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant neuf années ; le fils de celui-ci, Maṁgi Yuvarāja, pendant vingt-cinq années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha, pendant treize années ; son demi-fère cadet, Kokkili, pendant six mois ; le frère aîné de celui-ci, Viṣṇuvardhana, ayant chassé son cadet, pendant trente-sept années ; son fils Vijayāditya Bhaṭṭāraka pendant dix-huit années ; le fils de celui-ci, Viṣṇurāja, pendant trente-six années ; son fils Vijayāditya pendant quarante années, lui qui fit construire cent huit [temples nommés] Narendreśvara↓7 ; le fils de ce dernier, Kali Viṣṇuvarddhana, une année et demi ; son fils Vijayāditya pendant quarante-quatre années ; du roi Vikramāditya, prince héritier et frère de ce dernier, Bhīma,

I.
[fut] illustre, dont la gloire, comme les rayons de la lune, illumine tous les horizons, la terre et le ciel tout entiers, qui réjouit les savants. ce héros, à l’occasion de son couronnement, l’illustre roi Bhīma, demeure de la victoire, ayant été sollicité par l’illustre et vertueux Kusumāyudha, et l’ayant satisfait, a donné pour toujours un village.

21-25Refuge de tous les hommes, l’illustre Viṣṇuvardhana, roi suprême des grands rois, émiment souverain, excellent seigneur, très pieux, ordonne ceci à tous les chefs de familles qu’il avait convoqués, les rāṣṭrakūṭa en tête, habitant dans le viṣaya d’Uttarakaṇḍeṟuvāḍi : qu’il soit connu de vous que Remayya, du gotra de Kauṇḍinya, [habitant à ] Ummarakaṇṭhibol, maîtrise parfaitement les Veda et Vedāṁga. Son fils [est] Droṇabhaṭṭa. Nous donnons au fils de celui-ci, nommé Potamayya, kramayuta,↓8 le village nommé Kūkipaṟṟu, exempté de toute taxe, après avoir fait une libation d’eau. Les limites de ce dernier sont, à l’est, Potaṟyaṁgari-Ceṟuvu, au sud est, Paruvula-Guṇṭa, au sud, Cāki-Ceṟuvu, au sud ouest, la limite est la même, à l’ouest Cintaṟeni-Ceṟuvu, au nord ouest, Juvvi-Guṇṭa, au nord et au nord est, Airiviya-Guṇṭa. Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée, celui qui en impose est souillé aux cinq grands crimes. [Voici] les stances de Vyāsa :

II.
beaucoup ont donné une terre, beaucoup l’ont protégée, celui qui possède la terre en possède le fruit.

III.
Le donateur d’une terre se réjouit pendant soixante mille ans dans le ciel, celui qui interrompt [la donation] ou le permet, gît aussi longtemps en enfer.

IV.
Qu’ils soient nés dans ma lignée ou dans la lignée d’autres souverains, pour les futurs rois sur terre, dont les pensées sont éloignées du mal, qui protègent ce don qui est le mien dans son intégrité, je fais cette añjali sur ma tête.

V.
Ce pont du dharma commun aux rois doit toujours être protégé par vous, Rāmabhadra demande ceci à tous les rois à venir, encore et encore.

VI.
Ces dons que firent ici-bas les rois autrefois, sources de dharma, d’artha et de gloire, semblables à des guirlandes usées, qui, portant le nom de saint homme, les reprendrait ?

VII.
L’exécuteur de ce don est le kaḍeyarāja,↓9 doué de majesté, dont le grand-père était Pāṇḍarāṁga, destructeur des ennemis.

47[Cet édit] a été gravé par Koṇḍācārya.

Commentary

The recto of the first plate contains, from the (viewer’s) left to right, depictions of a conch shell, the sun and a club. The plates are palimpsests (Kielhorn: “quasi-palimpsests”), with the possible exception of the first plate. The earlier writing is well beaten out on plates 2 to 4, but quite clear on both sides of plate 5. The script of the earlier writing is close to that of the principal text, and the earlier text contains (on 5 verso) the words sa sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-ma(hārā), so the earlier text was probably another grant of Bhīma I, unfinished or revoked for some reason. Kielhorn points out that this is the earliest record known (to his date) which gives a full Eastern Cālukya genealogy with lengths of reigns.

As Kielhorn notes, the text Aṣṭottaraśata-śrīmān-narendreśvara-kārakaḥ in line 15 qualifies as half of an anuṣṭubh stanza. Given that all the rest of the genealogy in prose, this is probably coincidence, and thus the text is encoded as prose. It is, however, quite possible that the phrase as a whole was (even unwittingly) lifted out of a well-known metrical composition in praise of Narendramr̥garāja. Another interesting detail is that the length of this king’s reign varies in records (see Fleet 1891: 11, 100). If Sircar (in Majumdar 1955: 133) is correct in asserting that the reign in fact lasted 48 years, then the preceding phrase can also be restored to anuṣṭubh metre by emending to tat-suto vijayādityo ’ṣṭacatvāriṁśataṁ samāḥ. Could there have been an official Purāṇa-style metrical version of the entire genealogy, of which this (and the parallels in other plates) are edited and slightly garbled versions? Many other parts of the genealogy can be easily manicured into verse, and the text tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ in lines 17-18 is again a perfect hemistich (and the following words, putro bhīmaḥ, may be perceived as the beginning of another hemistich). Kielhorn notes this too, and points to a parallel with a full anuṣṭubh stanza: tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramāditya-bhūbhujaḥ nandanaś śauca-kandarppa triṁśad varṣāṇi bhīma-rāṭ (ll 13-14 of the Guṇḍugolanu grant of Amma II). Another thing: can the variety of synonyms (for “year” and “son”) used in the genealogy be a remnant of a verse chronicle where the synonyms had been chosen on metrical grounds?

Bibliography

Edited from estampages by F. Kielhorn (1898-1899: pages 127–131, № C), with an abstract of the contents and with inked rubbings supplied by Hultzsch. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Kielhorn’s text with his facsimiles.↓10

Primary

Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz. 1898–1899. “Six Eastern Chalukya Copper-Plate Inscriptions.” EI 5: 118–42.
Pages 127–131, № C. [siglum FK]

Secondary


Notes

↑1. The clauses of this complex sentence are dispersed over the stanza, and the role of Śrī Kusumāyudha (the “flower-bannered,” i.e. Kāma) is obscure. Kielhorn translates ‘who gladdens the learned with the excellent god of love’ while admitting that he does not ‘see the exact force of this statement.’ On the basis of the syntax, Kusumāyudha was most likely the name of, or an allusion to, the person who suggested the donation to the king (i.e. kusumāyudhena is the agent of saṁprārtthito). He is probably the Raṇamarddaka chief who was instrumental in raising Bhīma to the throne.
↑2. Kielhorn understands the text here to mean Revamayya of the village Ummarakaṇṭhibol, but it seems more likely that the word also includes a term indicating his relation to that village. According to Jens Thomas (personal communication, 21/08/2020), the word bōḷu, probably meaning a village official, is attested as bolu in some Telugu inscriptions, and Ummarakaṇṭhi may be the oblique case of *Ummarakallu (containing kallu, “stone”). I therefore tentatively translate as above.
↑3. See also the apparatus to line 27.
↑4. A place name was probably omitted here, so that the southwestern boundary of the granted land is the perimeter of another feature.
↑5. I translated the stanza as emended to its standard text. The actual text might translate “comparable to the class of discarded garlands;” see also the apparatus to line 43.
↑6. The term kaḍeya-rāja, equivalent to kaḍa-eṟeya and kaṭaka-rāja, is normally understood to mean a chief officer of the royal camp (cf. Fleet 1902–1903: 183–185 and Sircar 1966: s.v. kaṭaka–rāja). However, as it seems to denote a very high hereditary office in the Cālukyan court, I believe it had in this case no direct association with any army camps.
↑7. Les temples portent les biruda de ceux qui ont ordonné leur construction, cf. introduction p.29. Les insc. n° 34, str.13-14, 38, 41 et 54, str.2, évoquent ces temples.
↑8. D’après F. Kielhorn, ce terme est un synomyme de kramaka ou kramavid (note 9 p. 129).
↑9. Variante de kaṭakarāja, « chef de camp de l’armée ».
↑10. The estampages do not include page 4 verso in the reprinted Epigraphia Indica, so this edition follows Kielhorn literally for that page.