Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00072
Hand Description:
Halantas.
Original punctuation.
Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is a dot or small circle above headline, usually to the right of, but occasionally above the character to which it belongs and occasionally above the next character, especially when that next character is gha. In l7-8 saṁghaṭṭo° it may be pushed across a line and page break.
No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription
⎘ plate 1v 1svast(i)[.] (śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvanābhiṣṭū)yamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇā(ṁ)
2k(au)śik(ī)-vara-prasā(da)-labdha-rājy(ā)nāṁ sv(ā)mi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānām mātr̥-[ga-]
3ṇa-(pa)ri◯pā(litā)nām bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varā-
4ha-lā◯ñchanānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pav¿ī?⟨i⟩trīkr̥ta-vapuṣā(ṁ) ca-
5lukyānāṁ kula-jala⟨dhi⟩-samudi(t)endo(ḥ) naya-vinaya-v¿ī?⟨i⟩kr¿ā?⟨a⟩mopārjjita-cāru-
6-bhūri-k¿i?⟨ī⟩rte⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-jayasiṁha-vallabha-mahā⟨rā⟩jasya priy⟦(a-bhrātu)⟧⟨⟨ānuja⟩⟩sya Indra-sa-
7māna-vik(r)amasya śrī-Ind⟨r⟩a-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rakasya sūn¿e?⟨o⟩r aneka-samara-sa-
⎘ plate 2r 8 (ṁ)ghaṭṭ(o)palabdha-yuddha-vijaya-yaśaḥ-pras¿u?⟨ū⟩ty-āmoda-gandhādhivāsi-
9ta-sakala-di¡g!-maṇḍalasya śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājasya priya-tana-
10yaḥ samatiś¿e?⟨ayi⟩ta-pit¡ru!⟨r̥⟩-guṇa⟨ḥ⟩ śakti-sa⟨ṁ⟩panna⟨ḥ⟩ Ānv¿i?⟨ī⟩kṣiky-ādi-vidy(ā)-pra-
11yog(e)◯ṣ(u) śrī-vijayasiddhiḥ svāsi-dhārā-⟨namita-⟩ripu-nr̥{i}pati-vara-(ma)-
12kuṭa-ta(ṭa)-ghaṭitāneka-maṇi-kiraṇa-rāga-ra¿jñ?⟨ñj⟩ita-¿ch?⟨c⟩araṇa-yuga¡(ḷa)!⟨la⟩⟨ḥ⟩
13śrī-(sarvva)l(okāś)raya-(ma)hā(rā)jaḥ Evam ā¿ñj?⟨jñ⟩āpayati
Ayyavo(ḷu?)-
14-v¡a!s(t)avy(ā)ya bh¡a!⟨ā⟩radvāja-sa(g)otr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ¡tetriya!⟨taittirīya⟩-⟨sa⟩brahmacāriṇe v(iṣṇuśa)-
⎘ plate 2v 15 rmmaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ (p)¡avu!⟨au⟩trāya ven(n?)eśarm(m)aṇa⟨ḥ⟩ putrāya ¿śaṣ?⟨ṣaṭ⟩-ka(r)m(m)a-niratāya śr(ī)dharaśarmma-
16ṇe ve(ṁ)¡gh!⟨g⟩i-viṣaye Elū(ru nāma grā)m(e)[.] pūrvva-diś(āyāṁ)[.] (vālmī)ka pūrvvata⟨ḥ⟩[.] v(ā)lmīk¿i?⟨a⟩
17(d)akṣiṇata⟨ḥ⟩[.] vālmī⟨ka⟩ paścimata(ḥ)[. ja]¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a Utta(rata)⟨ḥ⟩[.] (Eta)¡(t)!⟨c⟩(-ca)tur-a(vadh)i dvāda-
18(śa)-¡k!⟨kh⟩a(ṇḍikā)◯-(ko)drava-bīja-paripramāṇa⟨ṁ⟩ kṣetra⟨ṁ⟩[.] (Uttara-diśā)⟨yāṁ⟩[.] m(ū)l(āṁ?)bu-ta-
19¿(dh)?⟨ṭ⟩āka (pūr)vvata⟨ḥ⟩[.] ja¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a dakṣiṇata⟨ḥ⟩[.] colivinthi-¿ś?⟨s⟩(ī)mā pa(ścima)ta⟨ḥ⟩[.] (ja?)¡(ḷ)!⟨l⟩(a)--
20ś¡(r)i!⟨r̥⟩(ṁ)¡gh!⟨gh⟩a Uttarataḥ[.] Eta(c-cat)ur-avadhi dvādaśa-¡k!⟨kh⟩aṇḍikā-kodrava-bīja-pa-
21ripramāṇa(ṁ) kṣetra(ṁ viṣṇu)varddhana-¡A!nnaprā¿s?⟨ś⟩a-nimitte ¿O?⟨U⟩daka-pūrvva⟨ṁ⟩ datta(ṁ)[.]
⎘ plate 3r 22 g¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ha-s¿t?⟨th⟩ānaṁ puṣ(p)a-(vāṭ)ik¿a?⟨ā⟩-sa(hitaṁ sarvva)-kara-parih(ā)re⟨ṇa⟩ p⟨r⟩ava[rddhamāna-]
23-vijaya-rājya-saṁva(tsa)re daśa (varṣe)
1-13Greetings. From the ocean that is the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world,↓1, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who acquired the superior Boar emblem by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—had arisen a moon [who was] His Majesty King (mahārāja) Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), who earned his great good reputation by his political acumen (naya), discipline (vinaya) and valour. His dear younger brother [was] Indra Bhaṭṭāraka whose valour equalled Indra’s. His son [was] His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (II), who perfumed the complete circle of the quarters with pleasant fragrance from the efflorescence of his glory [achieved by] martial victory attained in the clash of many a battle. His dear son, His Majesty King (mahārāja) Sarvalokāśraya (Maṅgi Yuvarāja), who surpasses the virtues of his father, who is endowed with [the three] power[s], who is His Majesty Vijayasiddhi {prevailing in victory} in applications of sciences such as critical investigation (ānvīkṣikī) and whose pair of feet are tinted by the hues of the rays from the many gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of prominent enemy kings bowed down by the blade of his sword, commands thus.
13-23[I have granted land] in the Veṁgi district (viṣaya), at the village named Elūru, to Śrīdharaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra and the Taittirīya school, a resident of Ayyavoḷu, grandson of Viṣṇuśarman and son of Vennaśarman, engaged in the the six duties (of a Brahmin). [Item,] in the eastern direction [of the village]. A termite mound to the east. A termite mound to the south. A termite mound to the west. An oxbow lake↓2 to the north. A field [demarcated] with these four boundaries, comprising (an area sufficient for sowing) twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed. [Item,] in the northern direction [of the village]. The Mūlāṁbu↓3 pond to the east. An oxbow lake to the south. The border of (the village) Colivinthi↓4 to the west. An oxbow lake to the north. A field [demarcated] with these four boundaries, comprising (an area sufficient for sowing) twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed. [These have been] given, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water, on the occasion of the annaprāśa [ceremony] of (prince) Viṣṇuvardhana [III]. [Also,] a homestead plot together with a flower garden. [All these were donated] with an exemption from all taxes, in the year that is the tenth year of the progressive triumphant reign.
The boundary lists in lines 16-17 and 18-20 are somewhat problematic because of the inconsistent (and mostly missing) case endings. I am quite certain that the demarcation of two separate fields is presented here, both commencing with the location of the field with respect to the village Elūru. In each demarcation, this is followed by four pairs of “landmark” + “direction”, in the conventional order of East–South–West–North. It is therefore most likely that the landmarks are to be construed in the nominative, understood to mean that each landmark is to the specified direction of the field. With this interpretation, however, the syntax of the text is extremely fragmented, with several complete sentences inserted parenthetically as it were into the framing sentence that announces the grant.
Conversely, if the landmark–direction pairs are to be construed as compounds meaning that the field is to the specified direction of each landmark, the resulting sentence is syntactically more or less correct, although highly convoluted and complex. There are some cases in the Eastern Cālukya copperplate corpus where boundary demarcations are (or may be) presented in this manner. In the Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III, the demarcation likewise follows a statement of the field’s location with respect to the village. That grant, incidentally, is the only other Eastern Cālukya charter that I know of to use termite mounds as boundary markers. There, however, the directions come in the order West–North–South–East, whereby the conventional subjective order East–South–West–North obtains if the pairs are interpreted to mean that the field is to the said direction of the landmark. The Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II (but not the other two related sets from Peddāpurappāḍu) also situates the field relative to the landmarks, but there this is made explicit by putting the landmarks in the ablative case, although the actual order is still E–S–W–N, so the subjective order (of the boundaries relative to the field) is reversed. The Nutulapaṟu grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja demarcates three fields in two differently unconventional sequences of directions, one or both of which may also have to be understood as positioning the field relative to each landmark. In the Peñceṟekuru grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, the landmarks are likewise in the ablative, and their sequence is likewise erratic. Finally, the Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II also put the landmarks in the ablative case, but the sequence there is again unconventional (E–W–S–N).
It is thus possible that the demarcations are to be understood as situating the field relative to each landmark, but because the present charter employs the standard sequence of directions and does not use the ablative case for the landmarks, I think this is unlikely, and the demarcations are to be interpreted in the same way as those in the overwhelming majority of related grants, in spite of the syntactical difficulty involved.
Another possible complication in the boundary list ist that the word vālmīka is graphically quite similar to Elūru, and it is therefore not impossible that one or more of the many vālmīkas in the text are scribal mistakes for Elūru. This may, in particular, be the case for the vālmīka to the west of the first field (in line 17, inscribed only as vālmī), since this field lies to the east of Elūru.
Not noted by Krishna Rao, the recto of plate 3 is a palimpsest. No traces of earlier writing can be made out on any other page. On 3r, there were probably 4 lines of writing in larger characters than the present inscription, so that all of the fourth earlier line is below the last presently inscribed line, but there is still blank space below where there was probably no earlier writing. In this fourth line, the text varāha-lāñchanānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna can be made out without much difficulty, so this page had once been inscribed with the opening passage of Eastern Cālukya grants. Further legible bits of the earlier writing include (māna-mānavya-sa) in line 1 (slightly above the level of the present first line on this page), and (paripā)litānāṁ bhagava in line 3 (slightly above the level of the present inscription’s last line).
Reported in ARIE 1937-1938: page 7, appendix A/1937–38, № 6 with description at ARIE 1937-1938: pages 80–81, §41. Edited from the original by B. V. Krishna Rao (1938-1939), with a summary of the contents, followed immediately by a slight revision (1938-1939) accompanied by facsimiles.↓6 The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs of the original taken by myself in February 2023 at the Rallabandi Subba Rao Archaeological Museum, Rajahmundry, collated with Krishna Rao’s editions and his facsimiles. Minor typographic mistakes and oversights in either of the previous editions are not shown in the apparatus here.
↑1. The standard phrase “who are sons of Hāritī” was probably omitted by the scribe here.
↑2. See the apparatus to line 17 about this word.
↑3. Or perhaps “the pond in Mūla” if this word ends in a Telugu locative rather than the
Sanskrit word ambu.
↑4. The stem form of this name may be Colivinnu.
↑5. The text ends abruptly here.
↑6. The inscription has also been published in Bhārati, Vol. XVI, pp. 613 ff., not traced.