Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00031
Hand Description:
Halantas. Final N is a slightly reduced na with headmark, plus a sinuous upward stroke at the top right: l25 pramukhāN.
Original punctuation marks are plain vertical bars the height of a character body. The opening symbol is wholly unclear in the scanned rubbing; Lakshmana Rao describes it as a floral design.
Other palaeographic observations. Lakshmana Rao (1927-1928: 138–139) gives a very detailed analysis of the palaeography of this grant and its companion the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa. Its main points are summarised here. The vowel marker of ā is a straight vertical like that in Devanagari, turned at a right angle down from the horizontal stroke on the head and extended up to or even below the baseline. According to Lakshmana Rao, the vowel marker for e, when attached to the top of a consonant, is sometimes notched, resembling ō. He points out instances in l6 Aśvamedha and l20 kleśā° (for this latter, his edition actually ready klaiśā°, probably a typo.). To my eye, these are nothing other than o markers (compare e.g. l8 suto for a very clear one) and I read them as such and emend, as does Lakshmana Rao in l5 lāṁchanokṣaṇa. Lakshmana Rao simply reads e in l32 goguṟovu. Several other e markers are also ambiguous, being rather notched than merely sinuous, but as a rule, they end with an upward slant rather than a downward bend as o does. Rare initial Ī occurs in line 35 and is clearly distinguished from I (l9). Anusvāra is never used before dental and retroflex stops, where the homorganic nasal appears instead. Its normal position is at headline height or above, after the character to which it belongs.
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1floretIndistinctsvasti[.] śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁs¿th?⟨t⟩ūyamāna-mā⟨⟨na⟩⟩vya-
2-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-la¿p?⟨b⟩dha-rājyā-
3nāṁ m¿a?⟨ā⟩◯tr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pā-
4dānu◯dhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samā-
5sādita-vara-varāha-lāṁchan¿o?⟨e⟩kṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-ma-
⎘ plate 2r 6ṇḍal¿a?⟨ā⟩nāṁ Aśvam¿o?⟨e⟩dhāvabhr̥¿t?⟨th⟩a-snāna-pavitrīk¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ta-vapuṣāṁ
7cāḷuky¿a?⟨ā⟩nāṁ ku¡ḷ!am a¡ḷ!aṁkariṣ¿n?⟨ṇ⟩os satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya
8bhrātā ◯ kubja-viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ| tat-suto jayasiṁha-va-
9llabhaḥ| ◯ tat-sūnur vviṣṇurājaḥ| tat-putraḥ I¿dri?⟨ndra⟩-bhaṭṭāra-
10kaḥ| tat-putro viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ| tat-sutaḥ satyāśrayaḥ| tat-sūnu⟨ḥ⟩
⎘ plate 2v 11maṁgi-yuvarāja⟨ḥ|⟩ tat-putraḥ ko¡k!i¿kra?⟨li⟩ḥ| tad-bhrātā viṣṇurājaḥ| tad-bhr(ā)-
12tā vijayādityaḥ| tat-putro viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ| t¿ā?⟨a⟩t-putro vijayādi-
13tya-bhaṭṭā◯rakaḥ| tat-putraḥ viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ⟨|⟩ tat-suto narendra-
14-vijay¿a?⟨ā⟩◯dityaḥ| tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuva⟨r⟩ddhanaḥ| tat-put⟨r⟩o
15guṇakkena¿llāta?-vijayādityaḥ| tad-anuja-suto bh¿i?⟨ī⟩marājaḥ|
⎘ plate 3r 16tat-sutaḥ kollabi-vijayādityaḥ| tat-sūnur ammarājaḥ| tad-anu vi-
17kramādityaḥ⟨|⟩ tad-anu bhīmānujaḥ t¿a?⟨ā⟩ḻa-bhūpālaḥ| tat-putra⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-yu-
18ddhamalla⟨ḥ|⟩ ◯ tat-suto bāda¿b?⟨p⟩ākhya-mahārājādhirājaḥ parameśva-
19raḥ| tad-a◯nujo viṣṇuvarddhanas tāḻa-bhū¿r?⟨p⟩ālaḥ
sva-rājya-sa-
20maye parama-¿nirbhr̥tyasya?⟨nibhr̥tasya⟩ k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ta-kl¿o?⟨e⟩śā(cā)ra-jita-sv¿a?⟨ā⟩m¿a?⟨i⟩-h¡ri!⟨r̥⟩dayasya
⎘ plate 3v 21pal⟨l⟩avānvayasya catur-upadhā-śuddhasya mahā-sāmantāmātya-
22-pada-niyuktasya saka⟨la⟩-guṇa-gaṇāla⟨ṁ⟩k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩tasya pat(ī/i)hita-dhavala-
23sya nā◯nā-kiṁkurvvāṇatayā parama-karuṇāpanna-h¡ri!⟨r̥⟩-
24daya◯s san viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirājaḥ velanāṇḍu-
25-vi¿ḍ?⟨ṣ⟩aya-nivāsino rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-pramukhāN kuṭuṁbina Āhū-
⎘ plate 4r 26ya Ittham ājñāpayati sma|
viditam astu vo [’]smābhiḥ Asmai
27pallavamallānvayāya kalivarmma¡sya! p¿o?⟨au⟩trāya Asmat-pra-
28stāva◯-mr̥tasya k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ta-kleśasya makariya-rājasya
29putr¿a?⟨ā⟩◯ya kuppanayya-vara-nā⟦ma⟧⟨⟨mne⟩⟩ vāgaṟu-ma(dh)ye
30śrīpūṇḍi nāma-¿t?⟨g⟩r¿a?⟨ā⟩maṭikā may¿a?⟨ā⟩ datt¿a?⟨ā⟩|
tasy¡ā!⟨ā a⟩vadhayaḥ| pūrvva-
⎘ plate 4v 31ta⟨ḥ⟩ maṇḍimuṁka-cin¡d!⟨t⟩a[.] Āgn¿a?⟨e⟩yataḥ koḍamaduvu[.] dakṣinataḥ A-
32duri-sīmānto goguṟ¿o?⟨e⟩vu[.] nair¡i!⟨r̥⟩tyataḥ kadamukopu[.] paśc¿a?⟨i⟩¿vā?⟨ma⟩ta⟨ḥ⟩ ka-
33lave◯lalagula-pedda-cinta| vāyavyataḥ ciṟuśo-
34di-maddalu[.] Uttarataḥ goragapallamun-uttaramuna kaṭṭuṁbodalu[.]
35Īśānataḥ bādiyabolayaṇ(ṭ)a-pedariyāku-¿j?⟨c⟩inta|
Etat-s¿a?⟨ī⟩māntar-vva-
⎘ plate 5r 36rtti(nī) Ā(dū)ru-nām¡(ā)!⟨nī⟩ grāmaṭikā sarvva-kara-parihāreṇa mānyam mayā
37dattā Iti[.] Asyopari na kenac¿a?⟨i⟩d bādhā karttavyā[.] yaḥ karoti sa pa{ṁ}ñca-
38-mahā-pātaka-saṁyukto bhavati| tathā cokta⟨ṁ⟩ vyāsena|
raviva⟨r⟩mmācāryyeṇa likhita⟨M⟩
1-19Greetings. 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 Hārītī, 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 enemy territories 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. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I). His son Viṣṇurāja.↓1 His son Indra Bhaṭṭāraka. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (II). His son Satyāśraya. ↓2 His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja. His son Kokkili. ↓3 His brother Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana III). His brother Vijayāditya.↓4 His son Viṣṇuvardhana. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV). His son Narendra(mr̥garāja) Vijayāditya (II). His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V). His son Vijayāditya (III), ¿named Guṇakkenalla?.↓5 His younger brother’s son Bhīmarāja (Cālukya-Bhīma). His son Kollabi(gaṇḍa) Vijayāditya (IV). His son Ammarāja (I). After him, Vikramāditya.↓6 After him, Bhīma’s younger brother King (bhūpāla) Tāḻa.↓7 His son His Majesty Yuddhamalla. His son the Emperor (mahārājādhirāja) and supreme lord (parameśvara) called Bādapa. His younger brother Viṣṇuvardhana, [also called] King (bhūpāla) Tāḻa (II).
19-26During the period of his (Tāḻa II’s) own reign, with a heart moved to supreme compassion by the diverse services of an extremely staunch man of Pallava lineage who has won his master’s heart by the travails he undertook and by his good conduct, who has proved worthy in the four trials (of honesty) (catur-upadhā) and has been appointed to the rank of Great Baronial Minister (mahā-sāmantāmātya), and who is ornamented with all the multitude of virtues and brilliant in [serving] the cause of his lord, the Emperor (mahārājādhirāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (Tāḻa II), has convoked all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Velanāṇḍu district (viṣaya) and has commanded them as follows:
26-30Let it be known to you [that] to this one with the excellent name Kuppanayya of the lineage of Pallavamalla, grandson of Kalivarma and son of Makariyarāja who had undertaken travails and died in our service, I↓8 have given the hamlet named Śrīpūṇḍī↓9 within (the region called) Vāgaṟu.↓10
30-35Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, maṇḍimuṁka-cinta↓11. To the southeast, koḍamaduvu.↓12 To the south, Goguṟevu,↓13 [which is also the southern] border of [the hamlet] Aduri.↓14 To the southwest, kadamukopu.↓15 To the west, kalavelalagula-pedda-cinta.↓16 To the northwest, ciṟuśodi-maddalu.↓17 To the north, the kaṭṭuṁbodalu northward of the goragapallamu.↓18 To the northeast, bādiyabolayaṇṭa-pedariyāku-cinta.↓19
35-38The hamlet named Ādūru, situated within these boundaries, has been granted by me as a rent-free holding (mānya) with a remission of all taxes. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to his enjoyment of his rights) over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins. So too Vyāsa has said:
40Written (likhita) by Master (ācārya) Ravivarman.
1-19Prospérité ! Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana fut frère de Satyāśraya Vallabhendra, qui ornait la lignée des Cālukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, loués dans l’univers entier, descendants de Hārīti, ayant reçu leur royaume par la faveur de l’excellente Kauśikī, protégés par les Mères réunies, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, eux dont les cercles des ennemis ont été soumis en un instant à la vue du signe illustre du sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, eux dont les corps ont été purifiés grâce aux bains consécutifs à l’aśvamedha ; son fils Jayasiṁha ; le fils de celui-ci, Viṣṇurāja ; son fils, Indra Bhaṭṭāraka ; le fils de ce dernier, Viṣṇuvardhana ; son fils, Satyāśraya ; le fils de celui-ci, Maṁgi Yuvarāja ; son fils, Kokkili ; son frère, Viṣṇurāja ; son frère, Vijayāditya ; le fils de ce dernier, Viṣṇuvardhana ; son fils, Narendra Vijayāditya ; le fils de celui-ci, Kali Viṣṇuvardhana ; son fils, Guṇakkenallāta Vijayāditya ; le fils de son frère cadet, Bhīmarāja ; son fils, Kollabigaṇḍa Vijayāditya ; son fils, Ammarāja ; après celui-ci, Vikramāditya ; après celui-ci, le frère cadet de Bhīma, le roi Tāḷa ; son fils, l’illustre Yuddhamalla ; le fils de ce dernier, nommé Bādapa, roi suprême des grands rois, seigneur suprême ; le frère cadet de celui-ci, le roi Viṣṇuvarddhana Tāḷa ;
19-26Pendant son règne, parce qu’un [homme] de la lignée de Pallavamalla, fidèle, avait conquis le cœur de celui-ci en se donnant du mal [à son service], dont la pureté était attestée par les quatre épreuves de vertu, élévé au rang éminent de grand feudataire et de ministre, paré de la multitude de toutes les qualités, que [son dévouement au] bien de son maître faisait resplendir, Viṣṇuvardhana, dont le cœur est empli d’une extrême compassion, roi suprême des grands rois, ayant rassemblé les chefs de familles habitant le viṣaya de Velanāṇḍu, rāṣṭrakūṭa en tête, ordonne ceci :
26-30qu’il soit connu de vous que nous donnons↓20 à celui-ci, de la lignée de Pallavamalla, petit-fils de Kalivarma, fils du roi Makariya, serviteur digne d’éloge↓21↓22 qui s’est donné du mal [à notre service], à celui qui porte le noble nom de Kuppanayya, le village nommé Śrīpūṇḍi, au milieu de Vāgaṟu.
30-35Ses limites [sont] : à l’est Maṇḍimuṁka-cinta, au sud-est Koḍamaduvu, au sud Goguṟevu, à la frontière d’Ādūru, au sud-ouest Kadamukopu, à l’ouest Kalavelalagula-pedda-cinta, au nord-ouest Ciṟuśodi-maddala, au nord Kaṭṭuṁbodalu, au nord de Goragapallamun, au nord-est Bādiyabolayaṇṭa-pedariyāku-cinta.
35-38Je donne le petit hameau↓23 nommé Ādūru, situé à la frontière de ce dernier en qualité de mānya, exempté de toute taxe. Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée, celui qui en impose est lié aux cinq grands crimes. Puis Vyāsa a dit :
40[Ceci a été] gravé par le maître Ravivarmma.
Lakshmana Rao speculates at some length, and not very clearly, about whether the object of the donation was ‘Śrīpūṇḍi or the adjoining Ādūru or both.’ He suggests, perhaps only to discard the suggestion, that either the words ādūru-grāmāntarvartinī were omitted before the name of Śrīpūṇḍī in line 30, or -sahita-śrīpūṇḍī- was omitted after the name of Ādūru in line 36. Then he objects, saying Ādūru was probably not part of the gift, for one because it is mentioned as a boundary to the donated village, and for another because the boundaries of Ādūru are not enumerated separately. His conclusion seems to be that a new hamlet was hereby carved out of the larger unit of Śrīpūṇdi (and/or Ādūru). He finds confirmation for this in the fact that Bādapa’s grant mentions Śrīpūṇdi as a southern boundary, whereas the present grant does not mention Ārumbāka as a northern boundary and indeed, does not mention any villages as boundaries except Ādūru.↓24 It seems to me most likely that Lakshmana Rao is essentially right, but the new hamlet carved out by this edict is none other than Ādūru. It is even possible that the intent in line 30 was śrīpūṇḍi nāma +grāme+ grāmaṭikā, an eyeskip omission far more likely than those suggested by Lakshmana Rao. Whether or not this was so, the expression etat-sīmāntarvarttinī applied to Ādūru in ll 35-36 leaves no doubt in my opinion that the boundaries listed are those of Ādūru. I agree with Lakshmana Rao that since most of or all of the boundaries are small landmarks rather than village names or large features, they cannot be the boundaries of the larger village Śrīpūṇḍi. I, however, disagree with his conclusion that the boundaries are not those of Ādūru. This toponym would have been in existence prior to the grant (and thus could have been used in the specification of the boundaries), but was in my understanding considered to be the southern part of Śrīpūṇḍi. At the southern extremity, Ādūru would thus have had a previously established boundary, namely Goguṟevu, which was either the southernmost part of (i.e. included within) Ādūru, bordering on uncultivated land, or (perhaps more likely), the next village (i.e. not included in Ādūru). Conversely, on all other sides, Ādūru would have melded into the rest of the larger village Śrīpūṇḍi. It had no pre-established boundaries on those sides, so these had to be stipulated by the present grant. There is, however, yet another alternative. It seems possible that Śrīpūṇdi as a whole was granted as a sort of fief, with obligations to the king not specified here, and only Ādūru, a smaller hamlet incorporated within Śrīpūṇdi, was made into a rent-free holding.
Reported in ARIE 1908-1909: page 10, appendix A/1908–1909, № 5 with discussion in ARIE 1908-1909: 104, 108–109.↓25 Edited (probably from the original) by K. V. Lakshmana Rao (1927-1928: pages 148–154, № 2), with translation and facsimile (and photo of the seal). The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Lakshmana Rao’s edition with his facsimiles.↓26
↑1. The genealogy is incorrect here, probably by mistake, possibly deliberately. This
Viṣṇurāja does not appear in the standard genealogy, where Indra Bhaṭṭāraka is a brother,
rather than grandson, of Jayasiṁha I.
↑2. This Satyāśraya is probably fictitious; in the standard genealogy, Maṅgi Yuvarāja
is the son of Viṣṇuvardhana II.
↑3. Between Maṅgi Yuvarāja and Kokkili (actually written Kokikra in this text), the standard genealogy mentions the reign of Kokkili’s eldest brother Jayasiṁha
II.
↑4. Two generations seem to be duplicated here. The standard genealogy does not know of
a Vijayāditya who was a brother of Viṣṇuvardhana III. Vijayāditya I Bhaṭṭāraka was
the son of Viṣṇuvardhana III rather than his brother’s grandson.
↑5. Or Guṇakkenallāta. See the apparatus to line 15.
↑6. This may be, as Lakshmana Rao suggests, Vikramāditya II, the son of Cālukya-Bhīma
who in fact reigned after Tāḷapa. It may also be intended for Vijayāditya V Beta,
Ammarāja’s son who followed him on the throne for a brief period of 15 days.
↑7. In the standard genealogy, Tāḷa/Tāḍapa is Bhīma’s cousin, not brother. The present
genealogy may be wrong here as in many other details, or anuja, normally “younger brother,” may have been used in a lax sense of “close younger
kin of the same generation.”
↑8. The sentence has two pronouns in the instrumental expressing the donor, the plural
asmābhiḥ in line 26, and the singular mayā in line 30. This may be a simple oversight, or
the composer may have perceived the formulaic viditam astu vo’smābhiḥ to mean “be informed by us.”
↑9. I believe the intent here may rather have been “a hamlet in the village named Śrīpūṇḍī.”
See the commentary for my understanding of the topography.
↑10. According to Lakshmana Rao, this may describe the local topography of the village
as being on a spit of land at the confluence of two streams. His reasoning is that
vāgu means a stream in Telugu, and aṟu may be equivalent to Tamil āṟu and Telugu ēṟu, meaning a river. Whether or not this interpretation of the name is correct, I believe
Lakshmana Rao’s understanding of madhye as ‘in the middle of (or between)’ is incorrect: madhye is in my opinion used here in the weak sense of “in, within,” and Vāgaṟu is the name
of a territorial division smaller than the viṣaya but much larger than the village.
↑11. According to Lakshmana Rao, maṇḍi means bent, cinta (emended from cinda) means tamarind tree, and muṁka (which he shifts into moṅka in his discussion) means sprout or young tree. He therefore interprets the term to
mean ‘the young tamarind tree which is bent.’ Assuming that his interpretation of the individual words is correct, I would prefer
“the tamarind tree with bent branches.”
↑12. According to Lakshmana Rao, this may mean a sluice of a tank with a top sill, elaborated
as ‘a sluice with masonry construction, as contrasted with an ordinary sluice;’ or possibly ‘a sluice on the hill-side.’
↑13. According to Lakshmana Rao, gogu means hemp and ṟevu (normally revu) means a river landing or ford. This has the sound of a pre-established toponym,
possibly even the name of another village.
↑14. This is probably the same name as Ādūru in line 36 below. See the commentary for my
understanding of the topography.
↑15. Lakshmana Rao suggests this may mean ‘the trunk of a kadamba tree which was like a cone.’
↑16. According to Lakshmana Rao, who assumes that lala is a mistake for la, this means ‘the big tamarind tree adjoining the stone fencing.’
↑17. Lakshmana Rao says maddalu is a variety of tree he calls bricadelia retusa, probably Bridelia retusa. For ciṟuśodi he suggests that it may be the name of a village or a particular kind of maddalu tree.
↑18. According to Lakshmana Rao, goraga means a Śaiva mendicant (from gorakṣa?) and pallamu is a wetland or paddy field. He offers two alternative interpretations for kaṭṭuṁbodalu, of which “artificial embankment” seems most likely in the context.
↑19. Lakshmana Rao proposes to translate this phrase as ‘the dwarf-leafed tamarind tree which is near the boundary limits of Bādiya.’
↑20. Le pronom maya est redondant.
↑21. ou : « serviteur dont il est question ».
↑22. PEM’s translation is based on her text prastāva-bhr̥tasya which, however, seems to be a typo in her etext. The plate [and Lakshmana Rao] definitely reads prastāva-mr̥tasya.
↑23. Cf. D. C. Sircar, 1966, p. 121.
↑24. Though in fact some of the boundaries may be, or include, village names by Lakshmana
Rao’s own interpretation.
↑25. The plates were also copied (rubbings?) and catalogued much earlier (about 1800) for
the Mackenzie Collection of Manuscripts, record numbers Bk. No. (15-5-30), pp 179-182;
Bk. No. (5-6-21), pp 136-138; Bk. No. 15-5-35, pp 41-43. According to Lakshmana Rao
this catalogue is preserved in the Oriental MSS. Library, Madras. Also said to be
reported by V. Rangacharya (1919) As Ms. 165 (which I could not trace), and two of the Mackenzie copies reported by
him, not aware that they are the same document, as Gt. 589 (Rangacharya 1919: 820) and as Gt. 607 (Rangacharya 1919: 822)
↑26. The scanned facsimiles I work from are quite clear, but nothing is discernible in
the photograph of the seal.