Ghagrahati Charter of the Time of Samācāradeva, Year 14
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨Page 1r⟩
⟨1⟩ svasty⟨.⟩ Asyām pr̥thivyām apratirathe nr̥ga-nahuṣa-yayāty-amvar(ī)ṣa-sama-
⟨2⟩ -dhr̥tau mahārājādhirāja-śrī-samācāradeve pratapaty etac-caraṇa-ka¿r?ala-
⟨3⟩ -yugalārādhanopātta navyāvakāśikāyāṁ suvarṇṇa-v(ī)thy-¿ā?dhikr̥tāntara-
⟨4⟩ ṅga Uparika-jīvadattas tad-anumoditaka-vāraka-maṇḍale viṣaya-
⟨5⟩ -pati pavittruko⟨.⟩ yato sya vyavaharataḥ supratīkasvāminā jyeṣṭhādhi-
⟨6⟩ karaṇika-dāmuka-pramukham adhikaraṇam viṣaya-mahattara-vatsa-
⟨7⟩ kuṇḍa-mahattara-śucipālita-mahattara-vihitaghoṣa-ś(urada)-
⟨8⟩ -mahattara-priyad¿ā?tta-mahattara-janārddanakuṇḍādayaḥ Anye ca
⟨9⟩ vahavaḥ pradhānā vyavahā⟨ri⟩naś ca vijñ¿ā?ptā⟨ḥ⟩ Icchāmy ahaṁ bhavatā⟨ṁ⟩ prasā-
⟨10⟩ dāc cir¿o?vasanna-khila-bhū-khaṇḍalakaṁ vali-caru-sattra-pravarttan¿i?ya
⟨11⟩ vrāhmaṇopayogāya ca tāmra-paṭṭī-kr̥tya⟨.⟩ tad arhatha prasāda⟨ṁ⟩ ka⟨r⟩ttu-
⟨12⟩ m iti yata E¿n?ad-abhyarthanam upalabhya (ya)thoparilikhitā-
⟨Page 1v⟩
⟨13⟩ nyair vyavahāribhiḥ sa[ṁ]¿s?an(try)a sā (khilā?) śvāpadair juṣṭā rājño (dha)(rmmā?)rtha-niṣphalā
⟨14⟩ (pāttra)-bhogyī-kr̥tā bhūmir nr̥pasyaivārtha-dharmma-kr̥⟨T⟩ tad asmai vrāhmaṇā⟨ya⟩ d¿ā?yatām i-
⟨15⟩ ty avadhr̥tya karaṇika-nayanāga-keśavādīn kula-vārān prakalpya prāk tāmra-paṭṭī-
⟨16⟩ -kr̥t{y}a-kṣettra-kulya-vāpa-ttraya{ṁ}m apāsya vyāghra-corak¿o? yac cheṣaṁ tac catuḥ-sīmā-
⟨17⟩ -liṅg¿ā?-nirddiṣṭaṁ kr̥tvāsya supratīkasvāminaḥ tāmra-paṭṭī-kr̥tya pratipādita⟨ṁ⟩
⟨18⟩ sīmā-liṅgāni cāttra{ḥ} pūrvvasyāṁ piśāca-parkkaṭṭī dakṣiṇena vidyā-
⟨19⟩ -dhara-joṭikā paścimāyāṁ candra-vamma-koṭa-k(o)ṇaḥ Uttare¿n?a go-
⟨20⟩ pendra-coraka grāma-sīmā ceti|| bhavanti cāttra ślokāḥ ṣaṣṭim varṣa-saha-
⟨21⟩ srāṇi svarge modati bhūmidaḥ Ākṣeptā cānumantā c¿ā? tāny eva narake vaseT|
⟨22⟩ sva-dat⟨t⟩āṁ para-dattām vā yo hareta vasundharāṁ sva-viṣṭhāy(āṁ) kr̥mi⟨r⟩ bhūtvā pitr̥bhi⟨ḥ⟩
⟨23⟩ saha pacyate||__
⟨27⟩ samvaT 10 4 __ kārtti di 1 ||
Bibliography
First reported and edited in Banerji 1910 (photograph in Plates 29 and 30); also edited by in Bloch 1911 (rubbing in Plate 82). Bloch’s work precedes Banerji’s in spite of the later publication date. Both editors deem the plate spurious. Re-edited in Pargiter 1911, arguing in the light of the three other Faridpur plates (INSSiddham00128, INSSiddham00129 and INSSiddham00130) that it is genuine. Banerji 1911 argues for forgery in spite of the Faridpur plates. Pargiter 1912 re-asserts his point. Banerji 1914 continues to argue for forgery. Edited yet again and discussed in Bhattasali 1925–1926 (arguing in favour of genuineness, further supported by the discovery of the Damodarpur plates).
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00131). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.
Secondary
Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1927–1936. A list of the inscriptions of northern India in Brahmi and its derivative scripts, from about 200 A. C.: Appendix to Epigraphia Indica and record of the Archaeological Survey of India, volumes XIX to XXIII. Calcutta: Archaeological Survey of India. [URL]. Item 1725.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_SQF.sch" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="eng">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Ghagrahati Charter of the Time of Samācāradeva, Year 14</title>
<respStmt>
<resp key="creator"/>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<funder>European Research Council (ERC), grant agreement no 809994</funder>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority><ref target="https://dharmalekha.info">DHARMA</ref></authority>
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSSiddham00131.xml</idno>
<!--
If this file is moved into a named DHARMA corpus, retain the Siddham identifier as <altIdentifier>
-->
<availability><licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA 4.0</licence></availability>
<date from="2019" to="2026">2019-2026</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<msDesc>
<msIdentifier>
<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
<idno/>
</msIdentifier>
<msContents>
<summary/>
</msContents>
<physDesc>
<handDesc>
<p/>
</handDesc>
</physDesc>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<p>Encoded in TEI/EpiDoc according to the <ref target="https://hal.science/halshs-02888186">DHARMA Encoding Guide for Documentary Editions, version 2</ref></p>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change who="part:daba" when="2023-05-15" status="draft">Additional global changes for compatibility with DHARMA</change>
<change who="part:axja" when="2021-07-06" status="draft">Updating toward the encoding template v03</change>
<change who="part:daba" when="2020-08-04" status="draft">Initial import: harmonising file structure with DHARMA inscription template v02. Text and comments as inherited from the Siddham archive of January 2019, unless otherwise indicated (by a name and date in the comment). Comments are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly considered or researched opinion.</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text xml:space="preserve">
<body>
<div type="edition" xml:lang="san-Latn" rendition="class:83225 maturity:83211">
<p><pb n="1r"/><lb n="1"/>svasty<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> Asyām pr̥thivyām apratirathe nr̥ga-nahuṣa-yayāty-amvar<unclear>ī</unclear>ṣa-sama<lb n="2" break="no"/>-dhr̥tau mahārājādhirāja-śrī-samācāradeve pratapaty etac-caraṇa-ka<choice><sic>r</sic><corr>m</corr></choice>ala<lb n="3" break="no"/>-yugalārādhanopātta navyāvakāśikāyāṁ suvarṇṇa-v<unclear>ī</unclear>thy-<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>dhikr̥tāntara<lb n="4" break="no"/>ṅga Uparika-jīvadattas tad-anumoditaka-vāraka-maṇḍale viṣaya<lb n="5" break="no"/>-pati pavittruko<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> yato sya vyavaharataḥ supratīkasvāminā jyeṣṭhādhi<lb n="6" break="no"/>karaṇika-dāmuka-pramukham adhikaraṇam viṣaya-mahattara-vatsa<lb n="7" break="no"/>kuṇḍa-mahattara-śucipālita-mahattara-vihitaghoṣa-ś<unclear>urada</unclear><lb n="8" break="no"/>-mahattara-priyad<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>tta-mahattara-janārddanakuṇḍādayaḥ Anye ca <lb n="9"/>vahavaḥ pradhānā vyavahā<supplied reason="omitted">ri</supplied>naś ca vijñ<sic>ā</sic>ptā<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied></p><!--
There is definitely no opening mangala symbol on this plate, though Bhattasali (alone among its editors) shows one in his transcript.
--><!--
For pratapati in l2, Pargiter offers the translation "glowing (in majesty)" (Bhattasali follows suit with slightly changed wording). Bloch thinks it a mistake indicative of the plate being forged, and perhaps corrupted from pr̥thivīpatau. I would assume it to be an engraving mistake for praśāsati which, though not quite standard with a locative, would still be OK.
--><!--
I deliberately treat upātta in l3 as standing for a nominative, not in compound with the next word.
--><!--
Pargiter reads vothyādhikr̥ta in l3, noting that he cannot interpret "vothyā" but it seems to be some branch of administration. The mātrā is not a regular o; nor is it a regular ī, but it is quite similar to e.g. that of keśavādīn in l15, so I am quite certain the reading is actually vīthyādhikr̥ta, for vīthy-adhikr̥ta. (Bloch: viśyādhikr̥ta [apparently with a short i, but my scan is not quite perfect], Banerji: vāśyādhikr̥ta). Bhattasali also reads vī, but does not emend to thya.
--><!--
At the end of l7, Pargiter reads śvarada (Bloch: śuida, Banerji: śūrada) and notes that the śvaradamahattara appears to be a more local official than the viṣayamahattara. I cannot offer an improvement. The first consonant is almost certainly ś, but g is not out of the question. Followed by u, ū, va or ca. The next character may be ra with some random dots to the left; I is also plausible, and I think ta is distinctly possible, and va is conceivable too. The last character may be da, or the left-hand part of another character such as pa, ṣa or even ma. And the word is not necessarily a prefix to mahattara; it may be another personal name. Bhattasali reads śūrada, emending to śūradatta and noting that the omission of the title mahattara before this name must have been due to carelessness - this sounds like a bit too much carelessness, omitting both mahattara and the tta at the end of the name (there is certainly no room for another character at the end of the line). (Could there be any connection to the title gośūra as in IN00121 an/or to the "pthuśūe/gghuśūra" funniness or whatever is prefixed to bhaśśama in the Sanjeli plate?)
--><!--
About priyadātta in l8, Bhattasali may be right in assuming that priyadāsa was engraved first, and corrected to priyadatta.
--><p>Icchāmy ahaṁ bhavatā<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> prasā<lb n="10" break="no"/>dāc cir<choice><sic>o</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>vasanna-khila-bhū-khaṇḍalakaṁ vali-caru-sattra-pravarttan<choice><sic>i</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>ya <lb n="11"/>vrāhmaṇopayogāya ca tāmra-paṭṭī-kr̥tya<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> tad arhatha prasāda<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied> ka<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied>ttu<lb n="12" break="no"/>m iti</p><!--
Bhattasali argues that pravarttaniya in l10 is actually nā, though it appears at first sight to be ni. I think the mātrā is very different from e.g. that of nā in pradhānā, l9.
--><p>yata E<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>t</corr></choice>ad-abhyarthanam upalabhya <unclear>ya</unclear>thoparilikhitā<pb n="1v" break="no"/><lb n="13" break="no"/>nyair vyavahāribhiḥ sa<supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ṁ</supplied><choice><sic>s</sic><corr>m</corr></choice>an<unclear>try</unclear>a
</p><!--
In l12 Pargiter reads enad (others read weirder things). I think we can be sure that etad was intended even if enad is grammatically correct. Bhattasali also emends to etad, while his editor thinks "This correction is unnecessary."
--><!--
At the end of l12, Pargiter reads śaṁthoparilikhitā, noting that the last vowel may also be o and taking śantha/śanthā as a personal name. (Bloch: śaṁloparilikhitā; Banerji: saṁ tho parilikhitā). I am confident that the correct reading is yatho. Indeed, Bhattasali also thinks so; strangely, he prints śaṁtho, but notes that the word "cannot be anything else than yatho" and that "The left loop of ya is clearly visible in the original plate, but is incised much shallower than the other letters".
--><!--
Pargiter believes that about two akṣaras have been obliterated at the end of l12. I see no traces whatsoever (though there is space for about two characters), and my reading makes sense without assuming any lost characters.
--><!--
In l13 Pargiter reads saṁsmr̥tya (Bloch: samanya; Banerji: samantya). smr̥ is out of the question; I am quite certain the second sa was intended for ma, and the next character is probably meant to be ntrya (though no distinct r component is visible); it may also be tya (for saṁmatya) executed in a strange way. Bhattasali also thinks it is "undoubtedly saṁsmr̥tya" except that he thinks the anusvāra was omitted (and what we see above the sa is just an upward extension of the right vertical of sa - but in the photo I see an anusvāra above and to the right of that). Bhattasali's editor, however, says that the reading is sammatya (sic) and no r̥ mātrā is visible. After reading these opinions, I believe that both Pargiter's sm and Bhattasali's editor's mm came about because the vertical of that character is double, so it resembles a ligature that may be sm or mm - but I still think it is not and hold out for my reading.
--><lg n="1" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">sā <unclear cert="low">khilā</unclear> śvāpadair juṣṭā</l>
<l n="b">rājño <unclear>dha</unclear><unclear cert="low">rmmā</unclear>rtha-niṣphalā</l>
<l n="c"><lb n="14"/><unclear>pāttra</unclear>-bhogyī-kr̥tā bhūmir</l>
<l n="d">nr̥pasyaivārtha-dharmma-kr̥<supplied reason="omitted">T</supplied><!--
For my khilā in l13, Pargiter reads ṣaṭā and interprets it (with śvāpadair) as "by the six kinds of wild beasts". This does not seem very grammatical. Bloch reads sāgaṭaś ca padijñāṁ and more gibberish. Banerji: sāpaṭī śvāpadī. Bhattasali, convolutedly, says the reading may be b (though there is no other b in the plate), p or s, but should in any case be emended to v, giving sāvaṭā, where avaṭa means "hole". I am far from certain about khilā, but what remains of the letters does fit it more or less; there may even be a shadow of an i mātrā in the photograph (but not in the rubbing).
--><!--
For dharmmārtha in l13, Pargiter reads bhāvy-artha. Bhattasali correctly points out that this is unlikely; dha is quite clear and the next character could plausibly be an awkward mma. No superscript r or ā mātrā are discernible (so Bhattasali reads mma, not rmmā), but there certainly is something above this character, worn at the edge of the plate, which could have been a combination of r and ā.
--><!--
For my pāttra in l14, Pargiter reads vatsa, which he takes to mean fit for young animals, i.e. safe. Bloch: (i)cchatogyikr̥tā. Banerji: icchato vyākr̥tā. The first character does resemble an I consisting of a line with two dots above it, but icchāmy in l9 uses the character that consists of a vertical line with two dots to the left. Looking at both the photo and the rubbing, pāttra seems quite certain. The ā mātrā, if it is one, is very faint and visible only in the photograph; the second character may be tra instead of ttra. Bhattasali reads yā tu, saying the second character is clearly tu, while the first could be anything, but "the simplest and the most probable emendation is yā." I hold with my reading.
--></l>
</lg>
<p>tad asmai vrāhmaṇā<supplied reason="omitted">ya</supplied> d<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>ī</corr></choice>yatām i<lb n="15" break="no"/>ty avadhr̥tya karaṇika-nayanāga-keśavādīn kula-vārān prakalpya prāk tāmra-paṭṭī<lb n="16" break="no"/>-kr̥t<surplus>y</surplus>a-kṣettra-kulya-vāpa-ttraya<surplus>ṁ</surplus>m apāsya vyāghra-corak<choice><sic>o</sic><corr>e</corr></choice> yac cheṣaṁ tac catuḥ-sīmā<lb n="17" break="no"/>-liṅg<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice>-nirddiṣṭaṁ kr̥tvāsya supratīkasvāminaḥ tāmra-paṭṭī-kr̥tya pratipādita<supplied reason="omitted">ṁ</supplied><!--
In l16 Pargiter notes that instead of kr̥tya, "kr̥ta- would make better grammar, but the meaning is clear." I agree with him that the point is that this was fallow land, part of which had been copperplated away earlier, and this grant is about the rest of that stretch; I don't see how the sentence with kr̥tya could mean this.
--></p>
<p><lb n="18"/>sīmā-liṅgāni cāttra<surplus>ḥ</surplus> pūrvvasyāṁ piśāca-parkkaṭṭī dakṣiṇena vidyā<lb n="19" break="no"/>-dhara-joṭikā paścimāyāṁ candra-vamma-koṭa-k<unclear>o</unclear>ṇaḥ Uttare<choice><sic>n</sic><corr>ṇ</corr></choice>a go<lb n="20" break="no"/>pendra-coraka grāma-sīmā ceti||<!--
For candra-vamma in l19, Pargiter reads candra-campa. I adopt Bhattasali's vamma, which he wants to emend to garmma, evidently a typo for varmma.
--><!--
For koṇaḥ in l19 Pargiter reads keṇaḥ and thinks up a convoluted explanation for it. I adopt Bhattasali's koṇaḥ; he says "The right stroke of ī ... is represented by a series of short sallow strokes ... clearly visible on the original plate." Bhattasali makes much of these two improvements, positing that the Kotalipada fort was constructed by a Candravarman, whom he identifies with Candra of the Mehrauli pillar (IN00015) and with the author of the Susuniya inscription (IN00126). See #Bhattasali_1925-26:86 for details.
--><!--
The punctuation symbol in l19 is a double vertical.
--></p>
<p>bhavanti cāttra ślokāḥ</p>
<lg n="2" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">ṣaṣṭim varṣa-saha<lb n="21" break="no"/>srāṇi</l>
<l n="b">svarge modati bhūmidaḥ</l>
<l n="c">Ākṣeptā cānumantā c<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice></l>
<l n="d">tāny eva narake vaseT|<!--
The halanta T seems to be a regular t with a subscript virāma sign.
--><!--
The punctuation at the end of the verse is a single vertical.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="3" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="22"/>sva-dat<supplied reason="omitted">t</supplied>āṁ para-dattām vā</l>
<l n="b">yo hareta vasundharāṁ</l>
<l n="c">sva-viṣṭhāy<unclear>āṁ</unclear> kr̥mi<supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied> bhūtvā</l>
<l n="d">pitr̥bhi<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied> <lb n="23"/>saha pacyate||<space quantity="2" unit="character"/><!--
Pargiter reads vasū in l22; Bhattasali is probably right in saying that it's in fact vasu. It's the subscript dh of the next character that makes this mātrā unclear..
--><!--
The punctuation at the end of the verse is a double vertical.
--></l>
</lg>
<p><lb n="27"/>samvaT <num value="14"><g type="numeral">10</g> 4</num> <space quantity="2" unit="character"/> kārtti di <num value="1">1</num> ||<!--
There is a space of about two characters between the end of the verse and the beginning of the date. The characters of the date are also more widely spaced than normal text.
--><!--
Pargiter reads samvatsa. I cannot discern a subscript sa and take this to be a halanta T
--><!--
For the day, Bhattasali reads 2, sying that Banerji and Pargiter "have overlooked that there is a symbol like a comma below the usual mark for 1 which makes the figure 2". His editor notes that the comma may not be intentional. In the photograph I only see a couple of dots below the 1, quite far below and nothing like as clear as the stroke for 1. I'm certain 1 is correct.
--></p>
</div>
<div type="apparatus">
<listApp>
<app loc="line">
<lem/>
<rdg source="bib:AuthorYear_01"/>
</app>
</listApp>
</div>
<div type="translation" source="bib:AuthorYear_01"><!--Indicate @resp or change @source when a translation is added -->
</div>
<div type="commentary">
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<p>First reported and edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Banerji1910_01"/></bibl> (photograph in Plates 29 and 30); also edited by in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bloch1911_01"/></bibl> (rubbing in Plate 82). Bloch’s work precedes Banerji’s in spite of the later publication date. Both editors deem the plate spurious. Re-edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Pargiter1911_01"/></bibl>, arguing in the light of the three other Faridpur plates (<ref target="DHARMA_INSSiddham00128.xml">INSSiddham00128</ref>, <ref target="DHARMA_INSSiddham00129.xml">INSSiddham00129</ref> and <ref target="DHARMA_INSSiddham00130.xml">INSSiddham00130</ref>) that it is genuine. <bibl><ptr target="bib:Banerji1911_01"/></bibl> argues for forgery in spite of the Faridpur plates. <bibl><ptr target="bib:Pargiter1912_02"/></bibl> re-asserts his point. <bibl><ptr target="bib:Banerji1914_01"/></bibl> continues to argue for forgery. Edited yet again and discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhattasali1925-1926_01"/></bibl> (arguing in favour of genuineness, further supported by the discovery of the Damodarpur plates).</p>
<p>Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Balogh2019_03"/><citedRange unit="item">IN00131</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>
<listBibl type="primary">
<bibl n="siglum"><ptr target="bib:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl type="secondary">
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1927-1936_01"/><citedRange unit="item">1725</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>