Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III

Metadata

Current Version:  draft, 2024-09-02Z

Editor:   Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00095

Hand Description:

Halantas. Final T (e.g. l16 anvapālayaT) is a full-sized or even larger ta with a vertical tail instead of a headmark. Final N (e.g. l9 māsāN) is a reduced na without a headmark but with a full-length stem. Final M (l51 pautrikaM) is a small circle with a vertical tail, tiny in size, but the only instance is probably a scribal addition, and thus smaller than it would have been otherwise.

There are no punctuation marks in the text, but visargas (or double dots looking indistinguishable from visargas) are repeatedly employed superfluously in place of punctuation.

Other palaeographic observations. A neat and clipped hand with beautiful orthogonal characters. Many subscript consonants (not only r and y but also e.g. n and m) are ornamentally enlarged and stylised. Markers for dependent i, when interfering with a subscript stroke from the previous line, are only partially drawn. Anusvāra may be above the pertinent character on the right, or to the right of the pertinent character at or above head height, or occasionally over the next character, especially in non-Sanskritic words (e.g. l7 maṁgi where, unusually, it is above rather than within the i marker).

---

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

¹śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates

^{⎘ plate 1v 1}svasti[.] śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārītī-putrāṇāṁ
²kauśik(ī)-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-par(i)pālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādā-
³nudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśī-
⁴kr̥◯tārāti-maṇḍalānā¿ma?⟨M⟩ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ cāḷukyā-
⁵nāṁ kulam ala⟨ṁ⟩kariṣṇoḥ satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ Aṣṭādaśa va⟨r⟩ṣāṇi[.]
⁶tasya sūnuḥ jayasiṁha-vallabhaḥ trayastriṁśad varṣ(ā)ṇ(i)[.] tasyānujasya Indra-bhaṭṭārakasya priya-
⁷-tanayaḥ viṣṇurājaḥ nava varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi[.] tasyātmajaḥ maṁgi-yuvarājaḥ pañcaviṁśat(i) varṣāṇi[.] tasya suta[ḥ]
^{⎘ plate 2r 8} sakala-lokāśrayaḥ jayasīha-vallabhaḥ trayodaśa va⟨r⟩ṣāṇi[.] tasyānujaḥ dvaimātura[ḥ ko-]
⁹kkiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN[.] tasyāgrajaḥ viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ saptatriṁśad varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇ(i)[.] tasya putraḥ vi(jayādityaḥ)
¹⁰Ekān(n)a(v)iṁśati-varṣāṇi[.] tasya sūnuḥ viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśad varṣāṇ¿ī?⟨i⟩[.] tasya priya-tanayaḥ (vi)-
¹¹(jayā)◯dityaḥ

Ekacatvāriṁśad varṣāṇi[.] tasya sutaḥ kali-[vi-]
¹⁷ṭṭara-nāmā viṁśati māsāN ve(ṁ)g(ī)-maṇḍalam anvapālayaT[.] tasya jyeṣṭho vijayādityaḥ dinaka[ra]
¹⁸I◯va padmānanda-karaḥ v¿e?⟨ai⟩nateya Iva vinatānanda-jananaḥ Aneka-dhanuṣmat-sah(ā)-
¹⁹yo [’]py utkhāta-niśāta-taravā⟨⟨ri⟩⟩-sanātha-karaika-sahāyaḥ rāma Iva s(ī)tānanda-karaḥ yudhiṣṭhira
²⁰Iva bhīmārjuna-yaśo-[’]dhikaḥ candra Iva san-mārgga-yāyī kalādharo [’]py adoṣākaraḥ la(kṣmī)-
²¹-priyo [’]pi ku-vadhū-priyaḥ ¿A?⟨Ā⟩yatimā⟨n a⟩pi suvr̥ttaḥ mātaṁga-priyo pi śuddhacaritaḥ (Ahi?)-[nā]⟨mā⟩-
^{⎘ plate 3r 22} py a-vyā¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a{ṁ}-sa⟨ṁ⟩grahaḥ yasya ca mātā rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭādhipasyendra-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rakasya hima⟨va⟩to bhav¿a?⟨ā⟩-
²³n¿i?⟨ī⟩va pitu⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩ bhūdhara-māny¿ā?⟨a⟩tāṁ janayantī jaladher llakṣm¿i?⟨ī⟩r iva janakāt sīteva śīlādi-guṇānvita-
²⁴tvāc chīlakety anvarttha-n¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ma⟩vaty ajani[.] tasyāḥ Umāyā Iva śaravaṇa-bhavo [’]pratihata-śakti⟨ḥ⟩ sva-ta-
²⁵nu-sa◯ma-dhr̥tāneka-tulābhāra-dāna-dhārā-prakṣālita-kalmaṣaḥ sva-vikrama-nyak⟨k⟩r̥tāne-
²⁶ka-vakrārāti-cakra-vikramaḥ

¿purāḥ? para-nr̥p(āṁ?)k¿ā?⟨a⟩k¿a?⟨ā⟩ri-vidā⟨ra⟩ṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩d arasaṁkakesar(i)
³⁰śrī-vijayāditya-mahārājaḥ gudrahāra-viṣaye{ḥ} rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-pramukhāN {n}kuṭu⟨ṁ⟩binaḥ sarvv(ā)n i-
³¹ttham ¿a?⟨ā⟩jñāpayati

viditam astu vo [’]smābhiḥ vaṁgipaṟṟu-vāstavyāya kuṇḍina-gotrāya kandadi-
³²śarmma◯ṇ[e] Eko [’]ṁśaḥ[.] Urppuṭūru-vāstavyāya kāśyapa-gotrāya ḻuddaśarmmaṇe Eko-
³³(ṁ)śaḥ[.] kārañceḍu-vāstvavyāya kuṇḍ(i)na-gotrāya caruvaśarmmaṇe Eko [’]⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ[.] I¡ng!aṇḍi-vāstavyā-
³⁴ya kuṇḍina-gotrāya ga¿n?⟨ṇ⟩eśvaraśarmmaṇe Eko [’]⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ[.] I¡ng!aṇḍi-vāstavyāya kutsa-gotrāya rudra-
³⁵śarmmaṇe Eko [’]ṁśaḥ[.] Urpuṭūru-vāstavyāya bhāradvāja-gotrāya nandiśarmmaṇe Eko [’]ṁśaḥ[.] va-
^{⎘ plate 4r 36} (ṁ?)gipaṟṟu-vāstavyāya gautama-gotrāya govindaśarmmaṇ(e) Eko [’]⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ[.] kārañceḍu-vāsta(v)yā-
³⁷ya kauśika-gotrāya keśavaśarmmaṇe Eko [’]ṁśaḥ[.] kuṇḍūru-vāstavyāya kuṇḍina-gotrāya bavva-
³⁸śarmmaṇ¿a?⟨e⟩ Eko [’]⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ[.] kārañceḍu-vāstavyāya bhāradvāja-gotrāya ¡I!⟨Ī⟩śvaraśarmmaṇe Eko [’]⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ[.] kāra-
³⁹ñceḍu◯-vāstavyāya harita-gotrāya bh¡i!⟨ī⟩maśarmmaṇ¿a?⟨e⟩ Eko [’]ṁśaḥ[.] krovaśiri-vāstavyāya
⁴⁰kuṇḍ¿a?⟨i⟩na-gotrāya droṇaśarmmaṇe Eko [’]ṁśaḥ[.] vaṁgipaṟṟu-vāstavyāya vatsa-gotrāya ¿ṇa?⟨nā⟩rāya-
⁴¹¿n?⟨ṇ⟩aśarmmaṇe Eko [’]ṁśaḥ[.] krāṁja-vāstavyāya kuṇḍina-gotrāya śi¡vv!aśarmmaṇe Eko [’]⟨ṁ⟩śaḥ

¡Ete!⟨Etebhyaḥ⟩ dvādaśa-
⁴²br¿a?⟨ā⟩hm¿ā?⟨a⟩ṇebhyaḥ veda-vedāṁgetihāsa-purāṇa-dharmmaśāstra-tattv¿ā?⟨a⟩-jñ¡āya!⟨ebhyaḥ⟩ pada-vākya-pramāṇa-
^{⎘ plate 4v 43} -vid¡e!⟨bhyaḥ⟩ sakal¿ā?⟨a⟩-k¿ā?⟨a⟩l¿a?⟨ā⟩bhijñ¡āya!⟨ebhyaḥ⟩ ṣaṭ-karmma-nirat¡āya!⟨ebhyaḥ⟩ Uttarāyaṇa-nimitte{ḥ} Udaka-pūrvva(ṁ?) sa(r)vva-ka-
⁴⁴ra-parihāraṁ kr̥tvā Uṟuvuṭūru nāma grāmo dattaḥ

tasyāvadhayaḥ[.] pūrvvataḥ pabaṟṟu[.] dakṣ(i)ṇa-
⁴⁵taḥ pel(l)āgalānu[.] paścimataḥ kṣoppodi[.] Uttarataḥ kuṟumaddavalli[.] Eteṣāṁ madhya-va⟨r⟩tt¿iḥ?⟨ī⟩[.] A-
⁴⁶syo◯pari na kenacid bādhā k¿ā?⟨a⟩raṇīyā[.] yaḥ karoti sa pañca-mahāpātaka-sa⟨ṁ⟩yukto
⁴⁷bhavati[.] vy(ā)senāpy uktā⟨ḥ⟩ ś⟨l⟩okāḥ

vijay¿ā?⟨a⟩vāḍa-vāstavy¡āya!⟨ena⟩ śrīvijayācāryy¿a?⟨e⟩ṇālile¿k?⟨kh⟩a ¿saśāna?⟨śāsanaṁ⟩ likhita v(i)dy¿a?⟨ā⟩(dha)⟨⟨(ra)⟩⟩

Apparatus

¹¹ °(jayā)° • These characters are very small. It seems likely that only one character was first engraved to the left of the hole, then deleted and struck over with these.
¹³ Aṣṭottara⟨ṁ⟩ • The text is intelligible without the emendation, but the metre requires a long syllable here, and the anusvāra is present in the closely parellel Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III. — ¹³ -taravā⟨⟨ri⟩⟩- • ri was written over a previous di or vi.
²¹ ¿A?⟨Ā⟩yatimā⟨n a⟩pi • I emend tentatively; see also my translation. The Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant has the same reading. — ^21–22 (Ahi?)-[nā]⟨mā⟩/py • I emend even more tentatively than above, and I am uncertain of the intended meaning. See also my translation. The Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant has the same reading. — ^21–27 jīva¿nti?⟨nty a⟩ /dhanā⟨ḥ⟩ • I emend tentatively; jīvanti janāḥ may have been intended instead, and there may be other solutions as well. In the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant, the stanza is slightly different, and this locus reads jīvanti dhanaya (uninterpretable).
²⁴ anvarttha-n¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ma⟩vaty • My emendation may be unnecessary, as the text is interpretable without it. However, anvarthana is a barely attested word, and fits the context much less than the emended version. There is a small curved horizontal stroke between the headmarks of na and va, which may indicate that na has been corrected to nā, or that some other correction (not engraved anywhere) was to be made here.
²⁸ sa⟨ṁ⟩ghas • I emend tentatively and find the resulting expression quite awkward. On the basis of the approximate parallel in the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant, it is possible that ṣaṣṭhas was intended here, but I prefer the less invasive emendation.
²⁹ ¿purāḥ? • I believe this word is a redundant semi-repetition of purataḥ earlier in the line. The preceding text from yasya to svanati requires only cosmetic emendation to be a correct gaṇacchandas hemistich, but I see no way to fit the following passage to metre, with or without this purāḥ. I also do not feel that purāḥ is relevant to the following passage. — ²⁹ -nr̥p(āṁ?)k¿ā?⟨a⟩k¿a?⟨ā⟩ri-vidā⟨ra⟩ṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩d • I emend with help from the differently corrupt parallel phrase in line 33 of the Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant. I feel quite certain that nr̥pāṁkakāri was the composer’s intent here, but I am not entirely sure that the anusvāra is actually present, and if pā is inscribed rather than just pa, then the vowel marker partly overlaps the next character (so it may be a subsequent addition).
³² °śarmma◯ṇ[e] • While the ending should be śarmmaṇa with standard sandhi, the continuation is quite meticulous about not applying sandhi to the names. The e may have been omitted here, but I believe it was present and is now lost with a chip of the copper that has split off on the edge of the hole.
⁴⁷ vvasu⟨⟨dhā⟩⟩ • At first, dhā was omitted and the text continued after vasu with dattā. Then a plus-shaped mark was added above head height between su and da, and dhā was engraved in almost full size below da. — ⁴⁷ -pautrika⟨⟨M⟩⟩ • A minuscule final M is written above the line, to the right of ka. — ⁴⁷ ¿bhū⟦v⟧⟨⟨m⟩⟩i?⟨bhuvi⟩ • An originally inscribed bhūvi was corrected to bhūmi here by adding an arm to the v, partly overlapping the following character. The person reviewing the inscribed text thus recognised the mistake, but did not know the correct correction.
⁵⁶ śrīvijayācāryy¿a?⟨e⟩ṇālile¿k?⟨kh⟩a • I prefer to construe śrī as part of the writer’s name because I doubt that clerical staff would have had śrī as an honorary epithet, but the latter is of course also possible. The active verb lilekha is syntactically incorrect with the agent in the instrumental. The composer may have conceived of the verb as passive, or may have meant the name to be in the nominative (note the dative ending of the adjective qualifying the name). The Ciṁbuluru plates of Vijayāditya III, also inscribed by Śrīvijayācārya, spells this phrase in the same way, but does not add a second name or a second act of writing. I believe that the action performed by Śrīvijayācārya is in both texts reported with the verb ālikh- (see also my commentary), and do not emend to śrīvijayācāryyeṇa. — ⁵⁶ v(i)dy¿a?⟨ā⟩(dha)⟨⟨(ra)⟩⟩ • The i marker is not discernible in the estampage, but clear in the photos of the original. In the bottom right corner, dha is faint but clear in the photos, but only its left half is visible in the estampage due to the closeness of the rim. What I read as ra completing this word is engraved in smaller size below and to the left of vi. The upper part of this character is very clear in the estampage, but only visible in the photo when one looks closely at the exact spot. Then, the rest of the character may also be made out very faintly. It may also have a headmark, in which case it is ka, but I do not see how and where that might fit the text (unless we are supposed to read likhitaka?) See also the commentary.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

^1-11Greetings! Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cāḷukyas—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 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 Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana II), for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (II), the shelter of the complete world (sakala-lokāśraya), for thirteen years. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. His elder brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya (I), for nineteen years. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six years. His dear son Vijayāditya (II)—

King Cāḷukyārjuna, a ruler born of the Cāḷukya dynasty, obtained glory and triumph by winning a hundred and eight battles.

He of the lineage of Satyāśraya, His Majesty King Vijayāditya Narendra-mr̥garāja, was ever generous, masterful and greatly endeavouring.

Renowned for his boldness, he shines for ever on the surface of the earth, [because] after fighting [his] hundred and eight battles, for the expulsion of the sin (accrued) therefrom, he also established a hundred and eight [temples] named Narendreśvara across the land of Veṅgī at the site of each of those battles, [complete] with Brahmanical settlements (agrahāra), roadside cisterns (prapā), wayrests (ārāma), ponds (taṭāka), gardens (upavana) and shrines of the Lord (īśvara, Śiva) with [facilities for] dance, song and with choultries (satra).

^16-26[This Vijayāditya II reigned for] forty-one years. His son, named Kali-Viṣṇu (Viṣṇuvardhana V), protected the kingdom of Veṅgī for twenty months. His eldest [son] Vijayāditya (III) gladdens Padmā (Lakṣmī) as the sun {gladdens lotuses}; generates joy in the humble as Vainateya (Garuḍa) {generates joy in his mother Vinatā}; even while supported by many bowmen, his only [true] support is his hand complete with a sharp drawn sword; he gladdens Sītā (Lakṣmī) as Rāma {gladdens his wife Sītā}; has an excess of fearsome [yet] fair glory as Yudhiṣṭhira {surpasses his brothers Bhīma and Arjuna in glory}; walks the true path as the moon {travels a consistent trajectory}; is not the moon {is not a mine of faults} even though he has moon-digits {possesses the arts}; is a lover of loose women {is the beloved of Lady Earth} even while he is the beloved of Fortune {of royal Lakṣmī}; is perfectly circular {virtuous in conduct} even though he is oblong {has a lineage}; is pure in demeanour even though he loves outcastes (mātaṁga) {is fond of elephants}; is not associated with snakes {does not associate with the wicked} even though he is verily a serpent {he is named after the Sun}.^↓1 His mother, with the name Śīlakā appropriate because she was endowed with qualities such as virtue (śīla), had been born of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Indra-bhaṭṭāraka, generating renown for her father as a king, as Bhavānī [was born] of Himavat {generating recognition among mountains for her father}, as Lakṣmī [was born] of the ocean, as Sītā was born of Janaka. He of indomitable power [was born of her] like the reed-thicket-born [Skanda] {with his invincible spear} [was born] from Umā. His sin has been washed off by a flood of many tulābhāra donations weighed against his own body. He is valiant against the armies of many crooked enemies laid low by his own valour.

“How do the penniless live now that the jar of plenty, the wish-fulfilling tree, the philosophers’ stone and the wishing cow are gone?”—with this in mind, as if with the intention to give, did Bhuvana-kandarpa (the love-god on earth) manifest.

Bali, Śibi, Dadhīci, Karṇa and Gupta: they stood out in renunciation.^↓2 As if to give them company, Guṇaga has [now] been born thanks to the good fortune of the needy throngs.

Ahead of him, the victor, the fusion of the five great sounds resonates.

^29-31[He is] the Royal Tournament Lion (arasaṁka-kesari) due to his hewing of the champions of enemy kings. [He,] His Majesty King Vijayāditya (III) commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—in Gudrahāra district (viṣaya) as follows:

^31-41Let it be known to you that we [have made a donation]:

• to Kandadiśarman of the Kuṇḍina gotra, resident of Vaṁgipaṟṟu, one share;
• to Ḻuddaśarman of the Kāśyapa gotra, resident of Urppuṭūru, one share;
• to Caruvaśarman of the Kuṇḍina gotra, resident of Kārañceḍu, one share;
• to Gaṇeśvaraśarman of the Kuṇḍina gotra, resident of Ingaṇḍi, one share;
• to Rudraśarman of the Kutsa gotra, resident of Ingaṇḍi, one share;
• to Nandiśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, resident of Urpuṭūru, one share;
• to Govindaśarman of the Gautama gotra, resident of Vaṁgipaṟṟu, one share;
• to Keśavaśarman of the Kauśika gotra, resident of Kārañceḍu, one share;
• to Bavvaśarman of the Kuṇḍina gotra, resident of Kuṇḍūru, one share;
• to Īśvaraśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra, resident of Kārañceḍu, one share;
• to Bhīmaśarman of the Harita gotra, resident of Kārañceḍu, one share;
• to Droṇaśarman of the Kuṇḍina gotra, resident of Krovaśiri, one share;
• to Nārāyaṇaśarman of the Vatsa gotra, resident of Vaṁgipaṟṟu, one share;
• to Śivvaśarman of the Kuṇḍina gotra, resident of Krāṁja, one share;

^41-44To these twelve Brahmins,^↓3 who comprehend the truths of the Vedas, Vedāṅgas, Itihāsas, Purāṇas and Dharmaśāstras who know words (grammatics, pada), sentences (linguistic analysis, vākya) and the means of knowledge (epistemology, pramāṇa), who are versed in all practical arts (kalā) and engaged in the the six duties (of a Brahmin), we have given the village named Uṟuvuṭūru on the occasion of the winter solstice, rendered fee of all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water.

^44-47Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, Pabaṟṟu. To the south, Pellāgalānu. To the west, Kṣoppodi. To the north, Kuṟumaddavalli. It is located amidst these [boundaries]. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to their enjoyment of rights) over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins. Vyāsa too has uttered [these] verses:

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.

He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.

A seizer of (granted) land cannot be purified [even] by donating ten million cows, nor by [performing] a hundred Aśvamedhas, [nor by constructing] a thousand tanks.

It is not [actual] poison that is [properly] called poison: it is the property of a Brahmin that is said to be poison. Poison kills just the one man, while [seizing] the property of a Brahmin [destroys] his progeny.

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

Over and over again, Rāmadeva^↓4 begs all these future kings: “Each in your own time, you shall respect this framework of legality that is universally applicable to kings!”

The executor (ājñapti) of this ruling (dharma) is Pāṇḍaraṅga of surpassing virtue, a bee at the lotus feet of King Vijayāditya.

⁵⁶The decree has been ¿drawn? (ālikh-) by Śrīvijayācārya residing in Vijavaḍa. ¿Engraved (likh-) by Vidyādhara?.

Commentary

The granted village, Uṟuvuṭūru, is in my opinion unlikely to be identical to Urp(p)uṭūru, the place of residence of two of the donees. The latter also appears in the Koṟṟapaṟṟu grant of Vijayāditya II as the residence of two donees, and in the Masulipatam plates of Vijayāditya III as the residence of the donee. It thus seems to be a major town with a Brahmanical school, and not an agrarian village that can be donated. Uṟuvuṭūru must be modern Uruturu at 16.31660772295342, 80.93557909586085. Its eastern neighbour Pabaṟṟu is modern Pamarru (2.8 km ENE, possibly identical to the subject of the Pāṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II, but more likely not). The southern neighbour Pellāgalānu may then be modern Pedasanagallu (4.8 km SSW). To the west, there are three villages with names ending in -pudi, but none that sounds close to our text’s Kṣoppodi. The northern neighbour Kuṟumaddavalli is modern Kurumaddali (2 km WNW). Lacking additional clues, the identification of Urpuṭūru (and confirmation that it is not the same locality) is not possible. Modern Upputur, 41 km SW of Guntur (which may be Kuṇḍūru, the residence of one donee), near Parchoor, and only 8 km NNW of Karanchedu (the residence of several donees) is a possible candidate.^↓5

The colophon of the plates says they were written by Śrīvijayācārya of Vijayavāḍa, but in addition there is a second instance of a form of likh- and what I take to be another name: Vidyādhara. It seems most likely to me that these two people performed different actions associated with writing, and that the received text, although replete with incorrect vowels, is to be taken seriously as far as the boundary of Śrīvijayācārya’s name and the following verb is concerned. That is to say, I think the reading is not an erroneous spelling of ācāryyeṇa lilekha but a correct spelling of ācāryyeṇa+ālilekha. Śrīvijayācārya was also the writer of the Ciṁbuluru plates of Vijayāditya III, recorded in identical similar terms, śrīvijayācāryyeṇālilekhā saśāna, but without a second name and verb. Although the vowels are rather haphazard in both grants, this parallel may serve as some slight confirmation that the ā in question is to be accepted as deliberate. If my hunch that ālikh and likh denote different actions is correct, then the former probably refers to pre-drawing the text to be inscribed (in ink, in chalk, or with light scratches), given that its dictionary meanings (Monier-Williams 1899: s.v. ālikh) are specifically “to delineate by scratches” and “to mark, draw, write, delineate, paint.” The latter would then mean the actual engraving of the final text. This interpretation also fits my impression that the former action was done by a master (bearing the title ācārya and possibly the honorific śrī, though I prefer to see that as part of his name, and introduced at some length), and the latter by an apprentice or a less qualified artisan, whose name is added as a brief afterthought.

The ASI estampages are accompanied by two copies of a cover sheet, a draft with many insertions, and a largely identical clean copy. The latter says the following.

These are fine copper-plates the first and last of which are engraved on the inner sides only. They measure roughly 9½” by 3¾” and possess high rims which are evidently meant to protect the writing. Even the unwritten sides of the first and last plates have raised rims. Nearly ½” from the left margin of the plates are seen ring holes measuring ¾” in diameter. The ring with seal which holds these plates together is elliptical and measures 6 3/8” by 4½”. It is 5/8” thick. The round seal measuring 3½” in diameter has got an ornamental raised edge and is fashioned like a flower. It bears on a countersunk surface the legend Śrī-Tribhuvanāṁkuśa in the centre. Above it is a recumbent boar and over the boar is the symbol of the crescent with a dot within which may stand for the Sun. Below the legend is a floral device like a spreading lotus flower. The mass of metal at the bottom of the seal into which the ends of the ring are fixed is beaten out on either side of the ring and shaped with the face of a Yāli.

One of the plates was broken on the right edge and a small chip in continuation of the broken part came off by the application of pressure while taking impressions. There are small cracks seen on the top portion of the back of the last plate.

The plates weigh nearly 360 tolas.

[These were received from Mr. G. Ramayya Pantulu. To be published in the Epigraphia Indica by Prof. Hultzsch.]

Bibliography

Reported in ARIE 1912-1913: page 13, appendix A/1912–13, № 3 with description at ARIE 1912-1913: page 125, §64. I am not aware of a previous published edition. The present edition was created for DHARMA by Dániel Balogh, on the basis of photographs taken by myself in February 2023 at the Telangana State Archaeology Museum, Hyderabad and of estampages kept at the ASI, Mysore.

Primary

Secondary

Notes

↑1. I cannot make sense of the text as received here, see the apparatus to line 21. I emend it tentatively, but even so the interpretation is problematic. I am quite certain of my hunch about the essence of this virodhābhāsa, but not at all sure how ahi-nāmā is to be understood in the positive reading. Since ahi can mean the sun, I believe this is an allusion to the āditya in his name, but it is possible that some other name of the king is in some way associated with snakes.
↑2. I find the text awkward here and translate the only way I can construe it. The composer may, instead, have meant that each of them passed away in turn, but if so, then tyāge does not belong anywhere in the sentence.
↑3. The above list enumerates fourteen Brahmins.
↑4. The name in this stanza is normally Rāmabhadra.
↑5. CHECK: JESI 8 pp. 46ff is a 15th-century inscription according to which Trilocana Pallava settled 1000 Brahmins from Ahicchatra at this Upputur, called Lavaṇapura in the inscription.