Kākamrāṇu grant of Bhīma I

Metadata

Current Version:  draft, 2025-01-15Z

Editor:   Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00025

Hand Description:

Halantas. M may be the usual tick mark or J shape, or may be a diminutive Brahmi ma with the right-hand arm extended vertically upward. E.g. l9 uttamaM, l10 padaM. N is a small na-shape, with a stroke like an ā marker attached at the top right, and continuing in a long upward vertical, e.g. l8 āptavāN, l13 śrīmāN and l15 nāmavāN. T is formed like N, with a reduced and slightly simplified ta shape, the top of which bends right, then sharply up in an extended vertical (e.g. l20 apālayaT, l27 himācalātT, l28 IvābhavaT.). There is an instance of rare halanta K in the first prithaK of line 49, formed like a full-size ka which, instead of the headmark, has the usual stroke at the top left, which first bends right and down, then continues straight upward (for a shorter distance than in other halantas, since it starts at normal head level).

Original punctuation. The opening symbol, described simply as a spiral by Sankaranarayanan, is unclear in the published photo and not discernible at all in the estampage, but seems to be a clockwise spiral. The original punctuation marks are plain vertical bars, often slightly shorter than a typical character body and slightly raised from baseline.

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is normally at or slightly above headline height immediately to the right of the character to which it belongs. In some cases (l11 aṁbudhi, l26 gāmakāṁbā, l27 °āṁbhodheḥ, l27 gāmakāṁbā, possibly l30 atyaṁtaṁ [see apparatus note], l40 āṁbuṁ [where Sankaranarayanan reads āṁbuṁ, but I see no first anusvāra]) it is above the next character; these instances are not flagged in the edition. The dependent vowel o is in some combinations (e.g. l13 jayasiṁho, l14 nr̥pottamaḥ, l14 kokkili, l16 so) written cursively in a way similar to that common for lo: instead of two separate strokes for the vowel, the marker commences at the top left, but bends in a loop down and back to the right and continues without interruption in the right-hand part of the vowel marker. At least in the scanned photographs, ḻ and ṟ are difficult to tell apart, the cross-stroke of ṟ being faint. Sankaranarayanan reads ḻ only in l89 tāḻamaśarmmaṇe and reads all other instances of this kind of character as ṟ. I, conversely, see an indication of ṟ only in l37 Oṟeyūr and l37 Oṟeyūr and read ḻ in all other instances. However, Sankaranarayanan may be aware of words properly spelt with ṟ in some cases where the received character looks no different from ḻ, and a look at the original or a better facsimile may prove me wrong. Rare initial Ai occurs in l81, Ailamaśarmmaṇe.

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

¹śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates

^{⎘ plate 1v 1}(spiralR)O¡n! namo nārāyaṇāya|

svasti[.] śrīmatā(ṁ)
³sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrānāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-pra-
⁴sāda-labdha-rājyānām mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ
⁵bhagavan-nārāya◯ṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥-
⁶tārāti-maṇḍal(ā)◯nām aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ

t{r}atra cālukya-bhīma-nr̥patau rājya(ṁ kurvva)ti sat(i)(|?)

tasmai vai◯śyeśvarāya poleyanākhyāyaiva (guṇa-v)iśiṣṭāya sa rā(jā) cā(lu)-
⁴³kya-bhīma-nr̥patiḥ kākamrāṇu nāma grāmaṁ brāhmaṇebhyo dātum agrahāram a(dā)T| dat⟨t⟩vā ca (sa)
⁴⁴Eva rājā rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbina Āhūyettham ā(jñāpa)yati

viditam astu vo [’]smā(bhi)-
⁴⁵r o(ṁ)ger-mmārgga-viṣaye kākamrāṇu-nāma-grāmaḥ sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa brāhmaṇ(e)bhyo dātuṁ po-
⁴⁶leyana-śreṣṭhine datta Iti| sa ca poleyana-śre(ṣṭh)ī ta(d)ānīm eva brāhmaṇebhya{ḥ}s taṁ grāmam a(dā)-
⁴⁷T|

tatra samastaṁ grāmaṁ sama-pravibhā(ga)t(v)e(na dvau?) bh(āg)(au?) kr̥(tvā p)ū(r)vva-(svāmibh)y(ām) ¿(ā)?⟨e⟩(kam arddham a)-
^{⎘ plate 3v 48}nyān guṇavad-brāhmaṇāN ṣaṭ-karmma-niratān śruti-śāstra-pāragān anviṣya tebhy¡a!⟨aḥ⟩ Aparam arddhaṁ| te
⁴⁹ca brāhamaṇāḥ sva nāma gotrābhyāṁ labdhāṁśa-pramāṇena ca p¡ri!⟨r̥⟩thaK p¡ri!⟨r̥⟩thak kathyante|

kauśika-gotr(ā)-
⁵⁰ya cāmyanabhaṭṭāya Ervvokotsava-prathama-hala-dhāvana-vināyakotsava-mūka-paṭala-
⁵¹(ka)-śulka-sahitam atra grāme daśa bhāgāḥ| kauṇḍinya-gotra-bhāskarabhaṭṭāya dvau bhāgau| kāśyapa-go-
⁵²(tra)-janneyabhaṭṭāya| harita-gotra-viṭṭeyabhaṭṭāya| bhāradvāja-vennamabhaṭṭāya| Etad-gotra-meḻe-
⁵³yabhaṭṭāya| harita◯-gotra vennamabhaṭṭāya| kauṇḍinya-gotra-govarddhanabhaṭṭāya| bhāradvāja-
⁵⁴-kāmadeva-tredi-bha◯ṭṭāya| tad-gotra-vennamabhaṭṭāya| harita-gotra-vennamabhaṭṭāya| kapi-
⁵⁵-gotra-dāmeyabha◯ṭṭāya| Ātreya-gotra-komareyabhaṭṭāya| bhāradvāja-vennamabhaṭṭā-
⁵⁶ya| kata-gotra-nandamabhaṭṭāya| kapi-gotra-cīḻamabhaṭṭāya| Etebhyaḥ pratyekam ekaiko bh(ā)-
⁵⁷gaḥ| gārgya-gotra-tūrkamabhaṭṭāya dvau bhāgau| bhāradvāja-revama-⟨⟨nāma⟩⟩-dvivedāya| Etad-go(tra)-
⁵⁸-divākara-dvivedāya| Etad-gotra-ḻuddapa-dvivedāya| bhāradvāja-sarvvaya-dvivedāya| Eta(d-go)-
⁵⁹(tra)-mādhava-dvivedāya| doṇapoḍi-caturvvedāya| cikita-gotra-revama-(dv)i(v)edāya| (bhāra)-
^{⎘ plate 4r 60}dvāja-ḻuddapa-dvivedāya| kauṇḍinya-poteya-dvivedāya| harita-cāmikuṟṟa-dviv(e)dāya| E(te)-
⁶¹bhyo dvivedebhyaḥ pratyekam ekaiko bhāgaḥ(|) bhāradvāja-gotra-kannama-kramavide Eko bhāgaḥ|
⁶²kāśyapa-gotra-vennamaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau| tad-anuja-kuṇḍiśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ| kāśyapa-vā-
⁶³manāya trayo bhāgā⟨ḥ⟩| tad-gotra-viddamaśarmmaṇe catvāro bhāgāḥ(|) harita-gotra-kandeya-krama-
⁶⁴vide arddha-bhāg¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ| kāśyapa-gotra-bhīmaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau| vatsa-gotra-potamaśarmmaṇe dvau bhā-
⁶⁵gau| kāśyapa-siddha◯śarmmaṇe ca¡⟦(tvāro|)⟧⟨⟨tu-bhāga⟩⟩!⟨catur-bhāgāḥ|⟩ vatsa-gotra-vikramaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau| kauśika-go-
⁶⁶tra-nāgadevāya ◯ dvau bhāgau| bhāradvāja-gotrāya dāmaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau| meṇḍeya-
⁶⁷-dvived¡e!⟨āya⟩ tri-khaṇḍik¿a?⟨ā⟩(ḥ|) meḻeyaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau| mūlaghaṭika-śubhākaraśarmmaṇe| kauṇḍinya-
⁶⁸-mayindamaśarmmaṇe| tad-gotra-koṇḍamaśarmmaṇe| kauśika-gotra-divākaraśarmmaṇe| tad-gotra-mā-
⁶⁹dhavaśarmmaṇe| tad-gotra-divākarapeddeyaśarmmaṇe| vennamaśarmmaṇe| harita-meḻeyaśa-
⁷⁰rmmaṇe(|) harita-nārāyaṇaśarmmaṇe| kauṇḍinya-vimalasamudrāya| harita-droṇaśarmma-
⁷¹ṇe| nārayaṇaśarmmaṇe| vatsa-gotra-sarvvadevaśarmmaṇe| Etebhy¡o! pratyekam ekaiko bh(ā)-
^{⎘ plate 4v 72}ga(ḥ)| kāśyapa-gotrāya bhavasvāmibhaṭṭāya dvau bhāgau(|) tad-gotrāya mahākālabhaṭṭā-
⁷³ya Eko bhāgaḥ| ⟦(kauśika-gotrāya )(meḻe?)(yaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ|)⟧ vājasaneyi-
⁷⁴-kāśyapa-gotrāya vikramayyaśarmmaṇe dvādaśa bhāgā(ḥ)| bhāradvāja-gotra-koṇḍya(ma)-
⁷⁵-ṣaḍaṁga-vedavide Eko bhāgaḥ| vājasaneyi-kauśika-gotra-beṇayaḍiśarmmaṇe tra-
⁷⁶yo bhāgāḥ| tad-go◯tra-bejayitaśarmmaṇe trayo bhāgāḥ| tad-gotra-bikyaṇaśa(rmma)-
⁷⁷ṇ(e) trayo bhā◯gāḥ| vatsāra-gotrāya nāgāṁba-putrāya kanīyase ku(ṇḍi)-
⁷⁸śarmmaṇe dvau bhā◯gau| pārāśara-gotrāya paṇḍaraṅgaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ| kau-
⁷⁹śika-gotrāya cāmyanabhaṭṭāya paṁca⟦ma⟧ bhāgāḥ| vājasaneyi-kāśyapa-gotrāya (cā)-
⁸⁰myaṇaśarmmaṇe trayo bhāgāḥ| vājasaneyi-kauśika-gotrāya potamayyaśarmma(ṇe)
⁸¹dvau bhāgau| bhāradvāja-gotrāya kāmaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ| tad-gotrāya Ailama-
⁸²(śa)rmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ| kauśika-gotrāya bhīmaśarmmaṇe paṁca bhāgāḥ| kāśyapa-go(trā)-
^{⎘ plate 5r 83}(ya) dāmaśarmmaṇe dvau bhāgau(|) gautama-gotrāya doṇeya-kramavide Eko bhāgaḥ| tad-go-
⁸⁴trāya cāmyana-kramavide sārddha-bhāgaḥ| kauṇḍinya-goleya-kramavide Eko bhāgaḥ| harita-(ve)-
⁸⁵nnama-kramavide Eko bhāgaḥ| bhāradvāja-sarvvadeva-kramavide kāśyapa-keśava-dvivedāya
⁸⁶kauṇḍinya-keśava-kramavide lohita-śrīdhara-kramavide pratyekam arddha-bhāgaḥ| kauśika-
⁸⁷-śrīdhara-kramavide khaṇḍikā-trayaṁ| bhāradvāja-nandiśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ| śrīvatsa-go(trā)-
⁸⁸ya bavvaṇaśarmma◯ṇe Eko bhāgaḥ| tad-gotra-mācyaṇabhaṭṭāya dvau bhāgau| bhāra(dvā)-
⁸⁹ja-gotrāya ◯ tāḻamaśarmmaṇe Eko bhāgaḥ| kauśika-gotra-kautamabhaṭṭāya
⁹⁰dvau bhāgau| harita◯-gotra-vennama-kramavide Eko bhāgaḥ| suva(rṇṇa)kāra-bhīmanāya A-
⁹¹kkasāla-sahitaṁ tri-khaṇḍika-kodrava-bīja-pramāṇa-kṣetraṁ dattaM|

Apparatus

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008

Commentary

According to Venkataramanayya 1974: 16, there are two lines of writing on 1v, ‘which the scribe seems to have engraved by mistake’. No facsimile of that page has been published, so a look at the original is desirable.

The break between lines a and b of stanza 6 is fused in sandhi. V7a is one of the uncommon cases where the last syllable of an odd pāda is short by nature. V11ab are broken in the middle of a word. In v16 (sragdharā) the first caesura is fused in each of the first three pādas. In v26 (sragdharā) we have semivowel sandhi at the first caesura of pāda a.

Although according to Sankaranarayanan, the description of Bhīma’s conquests in stanza 26 is ‘nothing but a first rate hyperbole and serves nothing more than as an evidence to the knowledge of Indian geography of the Chālukyan praśasti-kāra’, I believe the explicit mention of a jaya-stambha erected in commemoration means he must have achieved at least some martial success along these lines. If I am correct to read etam in line 35 (along with Venkataramanayya), then it in fact seems probable that stanza 26 (perhaps along with others) is a verbatim copy of the inscription on that actual victory pillar. Interestingly, a jaya-stambha erected by Bhīma’s son Kollabigaṇḍa Vijayāditya after defeating the Kaliṅgas is also mentioned in line 22 of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II, which is corroborated by other sources as well. Could father and son have participated in the Kaliṅga campaign together?

For eṟvvākotsava in line 50, Sankaranarayanan notes that the term must be connected to the Telugu word ēruvāka, meaning the commencement of cultivation. Both in his edition and in his discussion, the spelling is ēṟvvāka (once also ēṟuvāk-ōtsava), yet the reading is clearly with rvvo in the plate. See also line 27 of the Cevuru plates of Amma I, which mention an ervvoka-cenu (where cenu means a field), likewise spelt with rvvo and likewise linked by its editor to the Telugu word ēruvāka. Venkataramanayya cites Brown’s Telugu dictionary to record that in modern times, the ēruvāka festival is celebrated on Jyeṣṭha śukla 11. I add to this speculatively that the prathama-hala-dhāvana mentioned in the text may refer to the race now called kambala (ಕಂಬಳ) in Kannada. Concerning the vināyakotsava-mūka-paṭalaka-śulka, Sankaranarayanan notes that Vināyaka may have been a harvest deity originally, though this seems to add little of relevance except in tentatively identifying the time of this festival as‘at the time of the harvest or earlier’. He further adds that mūka could be a mistake for mūṣika, in which case the expression would mean ‘the dues (believed to serve as) a cover or veil (of the corns) against the rats’, which is rather far-fetched even if we assume an omitted character in the otherwise carefully written inscription. I have no better explanation of the term to offer, except to add that Telugu mūka (మూక) also seems to mean a crowd or a host in addition to its Sanskrit meaning of “dumb,” and that paṭala(ka) can, in addition to “veil,” mean a basket, a thatch and a lid. According to Venkataramanayya, Mūkā is a name of Durgā perceived as a goddess of vegetation, and in some parts of Andhra Pradesh an image of hers is carried in a basket from house to house.

Bibliography

Reported in ARIE 1960-1961: page 38, appendix A/1960–61, № 1 with discussion at ibid.: 13. Edited (from photos, impressions and the original) by S. Sankaranarayanan (1973: pages 81–95, № 1), with photographs of the plates and seal (no translation). Also edited by N. Venkataramanayya (1974) with photo of the seal and inked rubbings of the plates (no translation). The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of the previous editions and the visual aids published with them. Both editions contain plenty of typographic mistakes; only significant ones are shown in the apparatus here and others are silently assumed to have been correctly read by the original editors.

Primary

Secondary

Notes

↑1. Or, alternatively, by the grace of Kauśikī’s bridegroom, i.e. Śiva. In spite of its slight awkwardness, I prefer the former interpretation because the Bādāmi Cālukyas refer to themselves as nourished (saṁvardhita) by Kauśikī.
↑2. See Sankaranarayanan 1973: 87–88 for some speculation on who this Durjaya may have been. The name, if a name it is, is said to occur only here and in the Kāṭlapaṟṟu grant of Vijayāditya III, but compare durjjayād balito hr̥tāṁ in line 7 of the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II. There remains the possibility that durjaya is to be understood metonymically in the vague sense of “a tough enemy,” and it is also quite possible that veṅgī-maṇḍala was not actually conquered by Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, this act being projected backward onto him.
↑3. Sankaranarayanan (1973: 88) is convinced that the name Bali signifies a victory of Viṣṇuvardhana over a king of the Bāṇa lineage, who traced themselves from the demon Bali. While the possibility of such an allusion cannot be ruled out, I find it more likely that Bali is to be understood as a name only in the context of Viṣṇu, and in the prima facie meaning it simply stands for “powerful enemies.”
↑4. In the word nirupama Sankaranarayanan (1973: 88–89) sees an implication that Vijayāditya’s maternal grandfather (known to be a Rāṣṭrakūṭa, but not identified precisely) was Nirupama Dhruva of Mānyakheṭa. Again, this is definitely possible, but must be taken with a pinch of salt, as nirupama may be simply another empty superlative. The occurrence of the same word in stanza 26, applied to Cālukya-Bhīma, appears even more likely to be innocuous, though Sankaranarayanan (1973: 83) does raise the possibility that it may mean he took after his grandfather. Cālukya-Bhīma is also called nirupama in line 15 of the Drujjūru grant of Amma I, where it may well be a fixed epithet.
↑5. This name is not otherwise known and probably belongs to an underlord of the Cālukya kings. He may, perhaps, be a descendant of the executor of some of Maṅgi Yuvarāja’s grants, whose name was read as /nissarami(ji?)/ by Fleet in the Nutulapaṟu grant and as /nissa(ra)(bh/n)i(nt?)i/ by me in the London Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarāja.
↑6. The reading for “this” is dubious (see the apparatus to line 35), but seems probable. The most straightforward explanation for the presence of this word here would be that this stanza (perhaps along with others) is a verbatim copy of the inscription on an actual victory pillar.
↑7. I understand dharma to refer to the temple itself as a manifestation of piety, much as the word is used in the phrase deya-dharma.
↑8. According to Sankaranarayanan (1973: 89), the temple is more likely to have been built in the land of Veṅgī, since we know of several Bhīmeśvara temples there, but of none around Ilahabad. He adds that Prayāga was Gurjara-Pratīhāra territory at the time, and there is no evidence of a close relationship of the Eastern Cālukyas with that dynasty. He therefore suggests that the locative prayāge be construed with the act of giving, i.e. dedicating the temple to the king (which the merchant would have performed while on pilgrimage), and not with that of commissioning the temple. This is not impossible, but I find it unlikely that the act of bestowing the temple (and the merit accruing therefrom) on the king, definitely a public relations affair, should have taken place in a distant land. The merchant may well have travelled to Prayāga for business as well as pilgrimage, and sponsored a shrine there. This need not have been large, prominent, or even long-lived and thus the fact that no Bhīmeśvara temple survives there has very little weight as evidence that one was not once established there. It is also possible that the Surasarit and the Prayāga of this stanza refer to a river and a place in South India, perhaps even in Veṅgī, where the sacred geography of the subcontinent was re-envisioned in local topography. Venkataramanayya believes the temple was built in Prayāga, but does not discuss this further.
↑9. The two previous landlords are apparently not named here and probably held copperplate grants of their own for this village.
↑10. See the commentary for some speculation about this obscure passage.
↑11. I.e. a Brahmin learned in the recitation method called krama.
↑12. For the word ghaṭikā, see IEG Sircar 1966: s.v. ghaṭikā, Kielhorn 1900–1901, and Sankaranarayanan 1977: 236–238. According to Sankaranarayanan (Sankaranarayanan 1973: page 85, note 1), mūlaghaṭikā means an institution of primary education, which seems anachronistic.
↑13. An item has been deleted here: “To ¿Meḻeya?śarman of the Kauśika gotra, one share.”
↑14. While Sankaranarayanan (1973: 86–87) is correct in pointing out that the word akṣaśālā and its variants are usually interpreted to mean a mint, I find it unlikely that a donated village could have included a mint and that a humble goldsmith would have been given charge of it or, as Sankaranarayanan suggests, of the dues payable by the village to the mint. It seems far more likely that the word means, here at least, the workshop of a goldsmith.
↑15. Les composés de ce paragraphe sont au génitif pluriel et qualifient les Cālukya.
↑16. Seule mention de cet événement dans l’ensemble de notre corpus.
↑17. śleṣopama, l’un des comparé ayant lui-même deux sens : bali désigne à la fois l’ennemi de Viṣṇu, les « puissants » et les « impôts ».
↑18. Cité des dieux gouvernée par Indra.
↑19. Lakṣmī est née de l’ocean de lait. (V. Mani, 2003, p. 449)
↑20. Le terme śreṣṭhin indique que ce personnage appartient à une famille de chef de marchands.
↑21. Nous fondons notre traduction sur les expressions comprenant le même terme relevées in D. C. Sircar, 1966, p. 360.
↑22. Gaṁgā.
↑23. L’emploi du datif bhūmi-pataye indique que le roi est le bénéficiaire, « yajamāna », en tant qu’ordonnateur de la donation, plus que le destinataire de celle-ci.
↑24. Poleyana est le vijnãpti de la donation.
↑25. Le sens du composé eṟvvākotsava-prathamahala-dhāvana-vināyakotsava-mūkapaṭalaka-śulka-sahitā est obscur. Les termes mūkapaṭalaka-śulka semblent désigner un type de taxes, mais ils n’apparaissent dans aucun index qui permette une étude comparative. Nous reprenons dans la traduction les explications données par l’éditeur de l’inscription p. 86.
↑26. Technique de récitation des Veda.
↑27. ou les revenus d’une taxe sur la frappe de la monnaie, D. C. Sircar, 1966, p. 14.