Nerūr plates of Pulakeśin II

⟨1⟩ [mu] ⟨2⟩ rāreḥ ⬦ [su] ⟨2⟩ rāreḥ JFF • Fleet translates, “who allayed … the hostile … enemies of the gods.” I believe that murāreḥ is a much more likely restoration. As Fleet agrees, the subject must be a lost word meaning “the form”, and it is easily conceivable that loka-bharttuḥ is in apposition to the possessor of that “form” in the genitive. The line may have run something like praśamita-ripu-śakti kroḍa-rūpaṁ murāreḥ, but I prefer not to show such a conjectural restoration in the text.

⟨2⟩ vi[–]tābhinna ⬦ vi(ghā?)tābhinna JFF • The gap does not seem to be wide enough for ghā (unless it was compressed horizontally), although there may have been three vertical strokes in this glyph. From the vestiges, the consonant p seems more likely, but vipāta is not attested, though vi-pat “burst asunder” is. The vowel may well be ā, though o and ī are also quite conceivable. See the commentary for further speculation. — ⟨2⟩ -bhuja-[⏑⏑⏑––] JFF • The lacuna may be restored along the lines of bala-gurutvā, again too conjectural to show in the edition.

⟨3⟩ bāhu[ḥ||] ⬦ bāhu[r] JFF.

⟨4⟩ a(ne)[ka-rāja-parājayopārjjita]- JFF • Fleet prints ne as clear, but none of it is discernible in the scanned estampage, and at least part of it must be broken off. Fleet’s restoration seems a bit long compared to the earlier lines.

⟨5⟩ -(g)[u](r)[u]-[ca. 6+] ⬦ -(guru)-[pādānuddhyātānāṁ] JFF • Since we now know that pādānuddhyāta does not normally mean “meditating at the feet of”, I think Fleet’s restoration must be discarded. Instead, I suggest vr̥ddhāpacāyināṁ on the basis of the Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II, but there are other possibilities such as sādhubhaktānāṁ, etc.

⟨6⟩ [ca. 5+]ṣāṁ ⬦ [ca. 3+]-[yaju]ṣāṁ JFF • Fleet’s suggestion does not seem very plausible. Compare aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrī-kr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ in numerous later Cālukya plates. All this would probably not have fit in the space at the end of l5 and beginning of l6, but something shorter may have, e.g. aśvamedha-pavitrī-kr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ. The problem is that this restoration is too similar to the compound with pavitrī-kr̥ta-śarīraḥ below, though that one is for Pulikeśin I, while this is for the dynasty as a whole.

⟨7⟩ (yā?)gāvabhr̥tha ⬦ ga[ṁ]gāvabhr̥tha JFF • The first character is indistinct in the scan but could well be the right-hand part of yā (most of the right limb, plus a vowel mark bending down on the right-hand side), and -yāgā° seems to be much more likely in view of related plates. — ⟨7⟩ [tasyātmajaḥ srī-sa]⟨8⟩tyāśrayaḥ JFF • While Fleet’s restoration is perfectly plausible, it is not necessarily accurate in every detail. Line 8 begins with an indent of 3 to 4 characters because of the binding hole, and while no vestiges are visible in the scanned facsimile to the left of the hole, it is possible that sa was in fact inscribed there. Moreover, Fleet apparently used this restoration as a basis for estimating the length of the lacunae at the ends of other lines, but it seems possible that each of those lacunae are in fact a few characters longer.

⟨8⟩ ¿kuva(ḷālaha?)su? [1×][ca. 6+] JFF • The characters Fleet tentatively reads as ḷāla are wholly indiscernible in the scan; the following ha (which Fleet prints as clear) is also unclear and could plausibly be h, ph, ḍh or ṣ with a or ā. For the last, partially extant character he notes that it “must be” c, ḍ, d, p, ph, m, ṣ or h, and he proposes nāmadheya-grāmaṁ for the lacuna (or for the remainder after the partial character). In the scan, the partial character looks likely to be va, which Fleet for some reason does not mention as a possibility. Perhaps something about suvarṇṇa rather than the name of a village? It also seems likely that the type of mahādāna would have been specified before the word. Moreover, if a village was mentioned here, I would expect boundaries and prerogatives, so I think Fleet’s restoration is unlikely. But then of course the extant unintelligible string needs to be interpreted; it could still be a place name, but in the locative, saying where the donation ceremony took place. (The extant su could even be the ending of that locative, in which case of course there is no suvarṇṇa.)

⟨9⟩ va(cca?)- ⬦ va(rcca?)- JFF • I see no r in the scan, but Fleet may have had a clearer reading. I assume vacca is a vernacular form of vatsa; reading vaccha may also be possible.

⟨10⟩ tatra pa JFF • No trace of these characters is visible in my scan. I adopt but Fleet’s reading, but suspect that tatrāghāṭāḥ may have been engraved, with Fleet’s pa being the left half of ghā.

⟨11⟩ -grāme JFF • Though the reading is clear, it is also possible that grāmo was engraved, with the right-hand part of the vowel marker lost in the lacuna. As the line may be concerned with the boundaries of the donated land, a nominative is distinctly possible. — ⟨11⟩ [ca. 15+] mahā-patha- • Fleet estimates the lacuna at 20 characters. This seems excessive: in the previous line there are about 15 characters across the same span. Also, mahā-patha (which Fleet prints as clear) is not visible at all in the scan. I do not know how clearly he could see these characters, but perhaps the end may rather have been mahā-pātakais saṁyuktas syāt.