Uccāti grant of Jayasiṁha I
Edition
Seal
1[...]
Plates
⎘ plate 1v 01svasti
1(śrī)mad-asanapura-nivāsa [?15+]-
2vikaṣatānā t¡r̥!⟨r̥⟩¿v?⟨bh⟩uvana-(mā?)[tr̥bhiḥ ?13+]-
3tr(ā)ṇāM calukyānā [?15+]-
4◯(sya) napt¿a?⟨ā⟩ vi(pu)[?15+]-
5maṇḍalasya śrī-viṣṇuvarddha(na) [?15+]-
6sta-sāmanta-maṇḍala(ḥ) sama[?15+]-
7pratihata-śaktitvāt sarvva-siddh¿a?⟨i⟩ḥ [?13+ jaya-]
⎘ plate 2r 8 si⟦(śā?)⟧⟨⟨(ṅ)ha⟩⟩a-vallabha-mahārāja(ḥ)
nātavāṭy(ā)M Uccāti nāma grāme pūrvva-¡sim(e)!⟨sīmāyāṁ⟩ sa(r?)(vva)-
9rddhi reṇḍuvaṭṭi nāma bhūmir dvi-dvādaśa-khaṇḍi¿r?⟨k⟩ā-bīja-pramāṇena vaṁgipaṟu-vā(sta)vya(sya)
10Āpastamba-sab⟨r⟩a¿p?⟨hm⟩ac¿a?⟨ā⟩r⟦ā⟧⟨⟨i⟩⟩ṇaḥ kaṇva-sagotrasya dvivedinaḥ durgga¡ṇ!⟨ṇ⟩andiśarmmaṇa(ḥ)-
11putrasya ◯ māt¡ri!⟨rir̥⟩śarmmaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ (ṣ)aḍ-a(ṁga)vida⟨ḥ⟩ putrāya veda-v¿ī?⟨i⟩de samāpta-vidy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya _
12mātr̥śa◯rmmaṇe Asman-m¿a?⟨ā⟩tā-p¿ī?⟨i⟩tr¿a?⟨o⟩r ātma¿ṇ?⟨ṇ⟩aś ca pu¿n?⟨ṇ⟩yābhivr̥ddhay(e) sa(r)v(v)a-kara-parihā-
13(re)ṇa vaiś(ākha-mā)si (vy)atīpāta-nimitt¡e!⟨a I⟩yam bhūmir ddattā
na k(e)naci¡t!⟨d⟩ bādhā karaṇī(y)[ā.]
14Api ca _ (vyā)sa-gītā⟨ḥ⟩ ślokā bhavanti
I. Anuṣṭubh
bahubhi⟨r⟩ vvasudhā dattā
bahu¿v?⟨bh⟩iś c¿a?⟨ā⟩nu ⎘ plate 3r 15 pā(l)it¿a?⟨ā⟩ _
yasya yasya yadā bhūmiḥ _
tasya tasya tadā ¿p?⟨ph⟩alaM
II. Anuṣṭubh
16ṣaṣṭiṁ varṣa-sahasrāṇi _
sva(r)gg(e) modati bhūmi-da(ḥ|)
Ācchett(ā) 17c{c}ānumantā c{c}a _
tāny ¿a?⟨e⟩va (nara)ke vaseT|
III. Anuṣṭubh
sva-dattām para-da18ttāṁ vā
yo hareta vasundhar(ā)M
gavāṁ śata-sa(hasras)ya
19hantuḫ pib¿i?⟨a⟩ti kilbiṣaM
traloka mahādevuḷa samm(ukha su)-
20(lva?) buggi Āṇati(|)
Apparatus
Seal
Plates
01 svasti • This word is written to the left of, and slightly below the level of, line 3. 1 -nivāsa • All known grants of Jayasiṁha I mentioning Asanapura use the term asanapura-vāsakāt. 2 vikaṣatānā ◇
vikāṣatānāṁ tr̥vu vāna NR • The reading is clear and may be a very bad corruption of the latter part of abhivarddhitānāṁ or perhaps vivarddhitānāṁ used in place of the former. If so, the intended expression would probably have been
mahāsenenābhivarddhitānāṁ. —
2 t¡r̥!⟨r̥⟩¿v?⟨bh⟩uvana-(mā?)[tr̥bhiḥ] ◇
tr̥vu vāna NR • Compare tribhuvana-mātr̥bhir mmātr̥bhir abhirakṣitānāṁ in line 2 of the Timmapuram plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I. 3 °tr(ā)ṇāM • The phrase ending here is probably to be restored as hāritī-putrāṇāṁ, but mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ is also possible. The latter phrase usually precedes the former (not always immediately),
but may occasionally come second. In this unusually short vaṁśa-praśasti, one or another of the two may have been omitted. 4 (°sya) • Jayasiṁha I’s grandfather was Kīrtīvarman, whose name, however, takes the standard
genitive kīrttīvarmaṇaḥ in all cognate plates where he is mentioned. Together with the end of this line (see
the next note), it seems possible that naptr̥ was used here in the sense of "great-grandson", and the person mentioned at the end
of line 3 was Pulikeśin I Raṇavikrama. —
4 vi(pu)° ◇
vi NR • Although pu is partly lost at the broken edge, the reading is quite unambiguous. It suggests
the continuation vipula-kīrtteḥ kīrttivarmaṇaḥ (as in the Timmapuram plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I), followed by a word meaning "grandson". However, this restoration leaves little
room for text expected before the extant beginning of the next line (e.g. śakti-traya-vaśīkr̥ta-sakala-mahī, from the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II). A shorter phrase of similar purport may have been used, e.g. vaśīkr̥ta-mahī. Alternatively, reading viṣṇu here is not impossible, but less likely than vipu. In this case, the introduction of Viṣṇuvardhana would presumably begin here (and
the genealogy would then start with Kīrtīvarman contrary to the previous note), but
I am not familiar with a description of Viṣṇuvardhana I beginning with the word viṣṇu. 6 sta-sāmanta-maṇḍala(ḥ) sama ◇
sta-sāmanta-maṇḍalaḥ samā NR • The beginning of this line suggests svāsidhārā-namita-samasta (Timmapuram plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I), while the end of the extant part suggests samadhigata-pañca-mahāśabdaḥ (Paḷḷivāḍa grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II). 7 sarvva-siddh¿a?⟨i⟩ḥ • I agree with NR that the title sarvasiddhi was used here. However, this title of Jayasiṁha I is never, as far as I am aware,
explained with apratihata-śaktitva. That term is frequently used in cognate grants, but always in the form X iva apratihata-śaktiḥ. 8 nātavāṭy(ā)M ◇
nātavādhyāM NR • The spelling of this name is nātavāḍi in the ARIE report and natavāḍi in NR’s discussion. Other Eastern Cālukya grants use nātavāḍi or nātāvāḍi. In my opinion the ṭ is unambiguous here. —
8 Uccāti- • The ARIE reports the name as Uccāṭi, but NR is correct in reading the dental t here. —
8 -¡sim(e)!⟨sīmāyāṁ⟩ • What I (and NR) take to be an e marker is in fact exactly like the subscript r in grāme just above in this line, and quite unlike the e marker in the same word. 9 reṇḍuvaṭṭi ◇
re(llu)vaṭṭi NR • Compare the possible village name Reṇḍubaḷḷi in the Peravali plates of Viṣṇuvardhana IV. —
9 bhūmir ◇
bhūmi⟨ṁ⟩ NR —
9 dvi-dvādaśa- • NR interprets this to mean twice 12 khaṇḍikās. This is possible, but not paralleled in any related grant that I know. The following
dvā may have been intended to correct and replace this, although dvi has a clear superscript r (syntactically correct), which dvā lacks. 11 (ṣ)aḍ-a(ṁga)vida⟨ḥ⟩ ◇
padagavida⟨ḥ⟩ NR —
11 samāpta- ◇
ṣa¿ch?⟨ṭ-ch⟩āstra- NR 12 ātma¿ṇ?⟨ṇ⟩aś • This could conceivably be read as ātmanoś, but such a strange variation to this stock phrase is unlikely to have been the composer’s
intent. 13 -nimitt¡e!⟨a I⟩yam • Scribal omission is also possible here; the composer’s intent may have been nimitteneyam. However, since related grants normally use nimitte in the locative, it is more likely that this is a case of non-standard sandhi, or
possibly of inaccurate gender use (nimitte + ayam). —
13 kenaci¡t!⟨d⟩ bādhā • The text is written with a tb conjunct. 19 mahādevuḷa ◇
mahādevuka NR • See also the commentary. —
19–20 samm(ukha su)/(lva?) buggi ◇
sammukhaṁ bu/[1×](ḍi) buggi NR • My reading of the end of line 19 is quite certain in spite of damage. It is, however,
conceivable that the character which looks like su is a very badly drawn jña. I am far less certain about the first character in line 20. Here, NR probably intended
to show in his edition a conjunct with a subscript ḍ and an i marker. The upper part of this glyph does not, however, resemble any i (or ī) in the inscription, and is also much larger than the lower component, implying that
it is the body belonging to a primary consonant rather than a superscript vowel marker.
Although its inner part differs from instances of l in the inscription, its shape is a plausible l for the time and region, and if it is indeed l, then no vowel marker is attached. The subscript part does look rather like ḍ, but taking it for a v is the only way I can extract some sense from the text. Alternatively, this character
may perhaps be a thoroughly botched pte (or pti), so that assuming a likewise botched jña in the previous line and a few smaller scribal errors, the intent may have been svamukhājñapti, although I cannot explain why another person would then be named as āṇati. The name of this latter executor (or the end of his name) may perhaps be buṁggi with an anusvāra within the i mātrā, and the text read as sulva may belong to this name.
Translation by Dániel Balogh
Seal
Plates
01Greetings!
1-8[From] the majestic residence at Asanapura. The ¿great-grandson? of [Raṇarāga ... the family of] the Calukyas—who are ¿empowered? [by Mahāsena], [who are protected by the Mothers who are mothers of] the three worlds
[...] —[the grandson of Kīrtivarman whose fame was] ¿extensive?; [the son of] His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana, who [...] circle [...] King [Jaya]siṁha
Vallabha, who [has subdued] the ¿complete? circle of rival rulers (sāmanta) [...] who prevails over all (sarva-siddhi) thanks to his incontestable power [...]↓1
8-13The [plot of] land named ¿Sarvvarddhi Reṇḍuvaṭṭi? on the eastern boundary of the village named Uccāti in Nātavāṭi [district], of an
extent [sufficient for sowing] ¿twice? twelve↓2 khaṇḍikās of seed—this [plot of] land has been given [by us, King Jayasiṁha] with exemption
from all taxes, in order to augment the merit of our mother and father and ourselves
on the occasion of vyatīpāta↓3 in the month of Vaiśākha, to Mātr̥śarman, a knower of the Veda who has completely
acquired learning, the son of Mātr̥śarman who was learned in the six limbs (ṣaḍ-aṁga) (of the Veda) [and who was in turn] son of Durganandiśarman,↓4 a knower of two Vedas residing in Vaṁgipaṟu, of the Āpastamba school and the Kaṇva
gotra.
13-14Let no-one pose an obstacle (to his enjoyment of his rights over it). There are moreover
[these] ślokas sung by Vyāsa.
I.
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.
II.
A donor of land stays in heaven for sixty millennia, [while] a seizer [of granted
land] and a condoner [of such seizure] shall reside in hell for just as many.
III.
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, imbibes the sin of
the slayer of a hundred thousand cows.
19-20¿Measurement in the presence of Traloka Mahādevuḷa?. The executor (āṇati) is ¿Buggi?.↓5
Bibliography
Reported in ARIE 1997-1998: page 18, appendix A/1997–98, № 5 without discussion of details. Edited from the
original plates by N. Ramesan (1988: № A), without facsimiles and without translation. The present edition by Dániel
Balogh is based on photographs taken by myself in 2023 at the Telangana State Archaeology
Museum, Hyderabad, collated with the above edition.↓6
Primary
Ramesan, N. 1988. “Three Eastern Chālukyan Copper Plate Grants from Nandigāma.” Epigraphia Āndhrica vol V, edited by N. Mukunda Rao, 18–29. Epigraphical Series 19. Hyderabad: Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh.
№ A.
[siglum NR]
Secondary
ARIE 1997-1998. Page 18, appendix A/1997–98, № 5.
Notes
↑1. See the apparatus to lines 2 to 6 for some possible restorations of the lost segments.
↑2. Or perhaps just twelve; see the apparatus to line 9.
↑3. Vyatīpāta is an astronomical moment at which the declinations of the moon and sun are of equal
magnitude, related to the prediction of eclipses (Shylaja and Kydala 2016).
↑4. The received text is grammatically correct and meaningful, but it is strange that
the donee and his father bore the same name, while their grandfather had a different
name. Normally, names recur every other generation, so they may have been mixed up
here.
↑5. See the apparatus to line 19 and the commentary.
↑6. Ramesan’s edition contains an inordinate number of typographic (or other) mistakes.
Divergence from my readings is only shown in the apparatus where it is meaningful
and potentially significant, or where neither of our readings is interpretable.