Puloṁbūra grant of Jayasiṁha I

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00010.

Language: Sanskrit.

Repository: Eastern Cālukya (tfb-vengicalukya-epigraphy).

Version: (7554ccb), last modified (2df3c2c).

Edition

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩⟨left: 1⟩ ⟨1⟩ svasti śrī-vijaya-skandhāvārāT⟨.⟩ mātr̥-gaṇa-parirakṣitānāṁ mānavya-sagotrāṇ(ā)ṁ ⟨2⟩ hāritī-putrāṇāM Aśvamedha-yājināṁ calukyānāṁ kula-jalanidhi⟨3⟩-samutpa¿t?⟨n⟩na-rāja-ratnasya sakala-bhuvana{ṁ}-maṇḍala-maṇḍita-kīrtt¿i?⟨e⟩ḥ śrī⟨4⟩-kīrttivarmmaṇaḥ pautraḥ Aneka-samara-saṁghaṭṭa-vijayinaḥ pa(ra)-nara⟨5⟩pati-makuṭa-maṇi-mayūkhāvadāta-caraṇa-yugalasya śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana⟨6⟩-mahārājasya priya-tanayaḥ pravarddhamāna-pratāpopanata-samasta⟨Page 2r⟩⟨7⟩-sāmanta-maṇḍalaḥ sva-bāhu-bala-parākkramopārjjita-sa(kala)-yaśo⟨8⟩-vibhāsita-digantaraḥ sva-śakti-traya-triśūlāvabhinna-para-(na)rapati⟨9⟩-sakala-bala-cetanaḥ br̥haspatir iva naya-jño manur iva vinaya⟨10⟩-jñaḥ yudhiṣṭhira Iva dharmma-parāyaṇaḥ Arjunavad apara-nara⟨11⟩patibhir anabhilaṁghita-pauruṣyaḥ Aneka-śāstrārttha-tatva-jñaḥ para⟨12⟩ma-brahmaṇy¿ā?⟨o⟩ mātā-pitr̥-pādānudhyātaḥ śrī-¡prithivī!-jayasi¡ṅgha!-va⟨Page 2v⟩⟨left: (2)⟩ ⟨13⟩ llabha-mahārājaḥ guddavādi-viṣay⟦i⟧⟨⟨e⟩⟩ viṣaya-mahat(t)a(rān a)[dh](i)kāra-pu⟨14⟩ruṣāṁś ca Imam arttham ājñāpayaty {asti}

viditam astu vo ya(thās)mābhiḥ ⟨15⟩ guddavādi-viṣaye puloṁbūran nāma-grāmaḥ veda-vedāṁga⟨16⟩-vido dāmaśarmmaṇaḥ pautrāya sva-pitur adhika-guṇa-gaṇādhi⟨17⟩vāsasya śivaśarmmaṇaḥ putrāya taittirika-sabrahmacāriṇe veda⟨18⟩-dvayālaṁkr̥ta-śar¿i?⟨ī⟩rāya gautama-sagotrāya sva-karmmān(uṣṭh)āna⟨Page 3r⟩⟨19⟩-parāya pūrvvāgrahārika-rudraśarmmaṇe Asanapura-sthāna-v¿a?⟨ā⟩stavyāya ⟨20⟩ śrī-sarvvasiddhi-da¡t!yā sarvva-kara-parihāreṇāgrahārī-kr̥tya samprattaḥ

⟨21⟩ tathā bhavadbhir a¿ṇ?⟨n⟩yaiś ca dharmmādhi¿ś?⟨g⟩ata-buddhibhiḥ paripālanīyaḥ⟨.⟩ ⟨22⟩ na kaiścid bādhā karaṇīyā⟨.⟩ Ājñaptir atra hastikośa-vīrakoś¿a?⟨au⟩⟨.⟩ ⟦(yo)⟧⟨⟨(vyā)⟩⟩⟨23⟩sa-gītāḥ

I. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā

a

bahubhiś cānupālitā

b

yasya yasya ⟨24⟩ yadā bhūmis

c

tasya tasya tadā phalam

d

iti saṁ (||) (5) (| g)i (8) (| d)i (3)

⟨Page 3v⟩

Apparatus

⟨8⟩ -vibhāsita- • There is quite a lot of damage around these characters, though the characters themselves are all clear. There is also a rather wide space between bhā and si, filled with damage. Possibly something else was engraved here, then struck out and overwritten.

⟨11⟩ -tatva-jñaḥ • Rangacharya notes that the visarga is cut twice. There is also quite extensive damage behind these otherwise clear characters; possibly, a previous reading (also ending in a visarga) was struck out and the current one engraved over it.

⟨13⟩ -viṣay⟦i⟧⟨⟨e⟩⟩ ⬦ -viṣay¿i?⟨e⟩ VR; -viṣaye RSR ? ? • According to Rangacharya’s editor, what Rangacharya saw as an i is only a crack in the plate, and the e is clearly present as the expected vowel marker. While the latter is correct, the crack seems to be there in addition to a fully formed i mātrā, so I assume the engraving was corrected.

⟨14⟩ ya(thās)mābhiḥ ? ? ⬦ ya(m a)smābhiḥ VR; yuṣmābhiḥ RSR.

⟨15⟩ puloṁbūran ⬦ pul(e)būṁran ?; pulībūṁran VR; pulibūṁran RSR; pulobūṁra{n} ?; puloṁbūra ? • The second character is definitely a cursive lo. The anusvāra is inded over bū, but it was in all probability intended to be read with lo, and moved to the right either accidentally or deliberately because of interference from the descenders (of ty asti in the previous line). I interpret the extra n at the end of the name in the present grant as the Sanskritised nominal ending ṁ in non-standard sandhi, not as a scribal error or a Dravidian ending. See the commentary for further discussion.

⟨19⟩ parāya • As Rangacharya notes, there is a dot before the first character, at the position of a headmark.

⟨22⟩ hastikośa-vīrakoś¿a?⟨au⟩⟨.⟩ ⟦(yo)⟧⟨⟨(vyā)⟩⟩⟨23⟩sa-gītāḥ ⬦ hastikoś¿a?⟨o⟩ vīrakośa (vyā)⟨23⟩sa-gītāḥ VR; hastikośa vīrakośā yo⟨23⟩sagītaḥ RSR; hastikośa vīrakoś¿a?⟨au⟩ byā⟨23⟩sa-gītaḥ ?; hastikośa-vīrakośayo⟨ḥ⟩⟨23⟩⟨vyā⟩sa-gītāḥ ? • Given the parallel in line 29 of the grant of Mādhavavarman I (see the commentary), the intent would have been hastikośa-vīrakośau in spite of the lack of agreement in number with ājñaptir. Incidentally, both instances of ś have conspicuous horns, which do not occur in any śa in these plates, all of which have plain, rounded tops. This may be irrelevant, but it also seems possible that hastikośa-vīrakośau was pre-written for the engraver, who in turn misinterpreted the final vowel mark as part of the consonant character, and applied the same to the earlier instance of the same consonant. What is perhaps even more likely is that the charter as a whole was adopted from the earlier Viṣṇukuṇḍin charter, and this section was copied without proper understanding. Rangacharya sees an indistinct vyā at the end of line 22, “beneath the punctuation mark and not separate.” I see no punctuation mark, nor does Rangacharya print one in his edition. In the scanned rubbing, yo seems to be clear, but there is a very faint loop below it that may perhaps be a subscript y. Since Sircar also reads a supposedly clear byā here, I assume that this is indeed a superscript y, but since there are very conspicuous strokes that do not belong to either vyā or byā, I believe the scribe had corrected yo to vyā, or possibly to byā.

⟨24⟩ saṁ (||) (5) (| g)i (8) (| d)i (3) ? ? ⬦ saṁ […] VR; saṁ 4 RSR • I accept the reading of Sircar and Sankaranarayanan, both of whom print it without any indication of unclarity or tentativeness. See the commentary for details.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

(1–14) Greetings from the majestic encampment of victory. The grandson of His Majesty Kīrtivarman, a jewel of a king whose reputation decorates the entire circle of the world and who arose from the ocean that is the family of the Calukyas—who are protected by the band of Mothers, who are of the Mānavya gotra, who are the sons of Hāritī and who have performed the Aśvamedha sacrifice—;the dear son of King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana, who is victorious in the clash of many a battle and whose two feet are bright with the rays of gems in the crowns of enemy kings; His Majesty the supremely pious Pr̥thivījayasiṁha Vallabha, who was deliberately appointed (as heir) by his mother and father, whose ever-increasing valour forces all subordinate rulers (sāmanta) to bow, whose reputation attained by the strength of his own arms illuminates all quarters of the sky,1 who breaks the entire army and [even] the mind of enemy kings with the trident comprised of his own three powers (śakti-traya), who is as versed in polity (naya) as Br̥haspati, as versed in discipline (vinaya) as Manu, as thoroughly devoted to righteousness (dharma) as Yudhiṣṭhira and as unsurpassed in prowess by other rulers as Arjuna, and who knows the essence of the meaning of many Śāstras, informs the district headmen (viṣaya-mahattara) and officials in the Guddavādi district (viṣaya) of the following matter.

(15–23) Let it be known to you that we have donated the village named Puloṁbūra in the Guddavādi district (viṣaya), converted into a rent-free holding (agrahāra) by a remission of all taxes by virtue of being a donation of His Majesty Sarvasiddhi,2 to Rudraśarman, a resident of the monastery3 of Asanapura who is already the proprietor of a rent-free holding (pūrvāgrahārika), who belongs to the Gautama gotra and the Taittirika4 school, whose body is adorned by the two Vedas and who is a devout performer of his duties, the grandson of Dāmaśarman, familiar with the Vedas and Vedāṅgas, and the son of Śivaśarman, a receptacle of a host of virtues exceeding [even] his own father. Therefore [this decree] must be respected by you sirs and by others whose mind inclines toward morality (dharma). Let no-one pose an obstacle [to this]. The executor (ājñapti) for this (grant) is the Hastikośa and the Vīrakośa5. (This verse) were (i.e. was) 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.

(24) The year ¿5?, [fortnight] ¿8? of the hot season, day ¿3?. […]

Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008

(1–14) Prospérité ! De l’illustre quartier général victorieux, le petit-fils de l’illustre Kīrtivarman, dont la gloire ornait le cercle de tous les êtres, joyau des rois né dans l’océan qu’est la lignée des Calukya,6 protégés par la troupe des Mères, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, fils de Hāriti, qui accomplirent le sacrifice de l’aśvamedha, fils aimé du grand roi illustre Viṣṇuvardhana, vainqueur dans les heurts des nombreux combats, dont les deux pieds sont illuminés par les pierres précieuses des diadèmes des rois ennemis, l’illustre grand roi Pr̥thivī Jayasiṁha Vallabha, devant l’auguste majesté duquel le cercle des feudataires est incliné, possesseur des horizons, illuminés par toute la gloire que lui ont procurée les exploits [remportés] par la force de ses bras, dont trident que sont ses trois pouvoirs brise les forces et le cœur des rois ennemis, - tel Br̥haspati, il connaît sagesse politique,7 tel Manu, il connaît la juste conduite,8 tel Yudhiṣṭhira, il est entièrement dévoué au dharma, tel Arjuna, sa bravoure n’est pas dépassée par les rois ennemis, il connaît la vérité du sens des différents traités, extrêmement pieux, - méditant aux pieds de sa mère et de son père, donne aux hommes et … dans le viṣaya de Guddavādi cet ordre :

(15–23) qu’il soit connu de vous que nous donnons ce village nommé Pulībūṁran, dans le viṣaya de Guddavādi, au moyen d’une donation sarvvasiddhi,9 exempté de toute taxe, en qualité d’agrahāra, au petit-fils de Dāmaśarman, qui connaissait les Veda et vedāṅga, au fils de Śivaśarman, séjour d’une multitude de vertus surpassant celles de son père, à Rudraśarman, déjà en possession d’un agrahāra,10 disciple de l’école des Taittirika, dont le corps est orné par les deux Veda, du gotra de Gotama, dévoué à la pratique de ses devoirs, habitant le camp d’Asanapura. Ainsi [ce don] doit être protégé par vous et par les autres, personnes sages vouées au dharma. Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée. L’ exécuteur est l’hastikośa11 et le vīrakośa12 que voici.13 Les vers de Vyāsa [disent] :

I
beaucoup ont donné une terre, beaucoup l’on protégée, celui qui possède la terre en possède le fruit .

Commentary

As pointed out in the apparatus, I agree with Sankaranarayanan in reading the donated village’s name. The second akṣara of the name is definitely a cursive lo. When lī is written in a similar form, the tail of the spiral-shaped vowel mark is on the left side, while le, when written cursively, does not have a tail at all. Compare the identical-looking lo in lokāśrayā°, line 9 of the Peddavegi plates, and the different (though unclear) lī in vimalīkr̥ta, line 17 of the Niḍupaṟu Grant. The ARIE report reads the name of the village as Pulebūṁra and reconstructs it as Pulebūru, while Rangacharya reconstructs it as Pulibūru, and tentatively identifies it as modern Polamūru in the erstwhile Bhīmavaram taluk. The reading of the name of the village is confirmed by the continuity with the Viṣṇukuṇḍin grant concerning the same village (Polamuru plates of Mādhavavarman I, ed. Subba Rao 1931-1932 and Sankaranarayanan 1977, pp. 178–181), as pointed out by Arlo Griffiths and Vincent Tournier (both in email, 23 April 2020). The findspot of that grant is said to be the village Polamūru in Ramachandrapuram taluk, East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh. This is in all probability the Polamuru at 16.891415 81.957187 in the Anaparthy taluk of East Godavari district. A nearby Mahendrawada is probably the Mayindavāṭaki mentioned in Mādhavavarman’s grant. The spelling of the name in the parallel text is Pulo(ṁbū)ru. Further, as indicated by Jens Thomas (also in email, 23 April 2020), the name in all probability contains the Telugu word pulombu, meaning a field, also confirming that the anusvāra is to be read with the syllable lo, and giving us a name that means “field-village.” For anusvāras shifted to the right without a discernible cause, compare the Modlimb plates of Pulakeśin II (l7, vaṁśe; l15, ṣaṣṭiṁ). Somasekara Sarma 1930, p. 183 argues in a similar vein that the correct form of the name is Puloṁbūru (probably without intending to claim that a final u is present here).

In the ARIE report, the date is recorded as “[1]5th year (in numerical symbols), [śu.] di. 6, [Sunday]”. Somasekara Sarma 1930, p. 183 proposes to read 5 gi 8 di 7 (with some additional characters that may be incorrectly typeset punctuation marks, and a tentative emendation of gi to grī) It seems that the fairly clear double daṇḍa was tentatively read as 10 for the ARIE report. For the next character, all editors agree on 5 (10 also seems possible to me, and it resembles neither the 5 nor the 10 in line 20 of the Cīpurupalle plates). This may be followed by another character or even two, squeezed underneath the descender of the first yasya in the previous line, and apparently interpreted by Sircar and Sankaranarayanan as a single daṇḍa. If this is correct, then the symbol is apparently not straight but curved like the right half of an O. For the next character, gi (for giṁha) is very plausible, but not clear. Next, the ARIE reader sees 6, while all others who venture a reading see 8, which does seem slightly more likely, but is far from clear to me in the scan. At the end, di is again very plausible, and was probably read as vi by the ARIE decipherer, possibly even as ravi in conjunction with what may be a daṇḍa before it. The final character is beyond blurred in the scan and I have no opinion on it.

The seal is lost, though the ring is extant. Page 1 is clearly paginated on the verso, with the number 1 in the upper part of the left margin, and with lines 2 and 3 on that page indented to leave some clear space around the number. There may be a numeral 2 in a similar position on the verso of page 2, but the text lines do not make way for this one, and it is a simpler glyph consisting of two straight lines, whereas the 1 is a strongly curved line. I assume it is also pagination (Rangacharya p254: “The plates are numbered, though the figure on the first plate alone is clear.”), but it may have been added after inscribing the text. I see no page number on the recto of page 3 (unless three dots in a rough triangle, in the left margin between the third and fourth line on that page qualify as one), and there is no facsimile of the verso.

Further to the apparatus entry on hastikoś(a/o) vīrakoś(a/o) yosa-gītāḥ in line 22. The ARIE report, Rangacharya and his editor all agree on understanding these two terms as the designations of two offices, and make no issue of the singular ājñapti being in apposition to them. Rangacharya notes, “The word kōśa has different meanings in Tamil classical literature. Dr. Krishnaswami Aiyangar identifies the Kōśar who invaded the Pāṇḍyan kingdom with the vanguards of the Vamba or later (or illegitimate) Mauryas and connects them with the Kōśakāras of Assam referred to in the Rāmāyaṇa. The Kōśars seem to have been not only a particular tribe but (1) soldiers in general; (2) followers or relatives of kings corresponding to the Sanskrit Rājanyas; (3) officers of justice in village courts, etc. In the present record the word seems to mean, as the Govt. Epigraphist points out, an officer.” (Rangacharya 1927-1928, p. 258, n. 4) Sircar (IEG s.vv. hastikośa, vīrakośa) endorses this interpretation. Given the uncertainty of the reading, possibly a dual genitive was intended instead, but I do not know of a parallel where the ājñapti is said to be someone’s (rather than someone). The intent may also have been hastikośo vīrakośaḥ, with one of these (most likely the latter) being a name, and only the other (the former) is an office. Less specifically, this interpretation was also raised by Estienne-Monod (see the note to her translation of this phrase).

Bibliography

First noticed in Krishna Sastri 1914, p. 10, appendices A/1913-1914, № 5 with a summary in Krishna Sastri 1914, p. 85. Edited from estampages by V. Rangacharya (1927-1928), with estampages of the plates and translation. Also edited (at an inferior standard) by R. Subba Rao (1929-1930), with estampages and a summary, from two sets of estampages, probably independently of Rangacharya. Re-edited from the previously published estampages by D. C. Sircar (1939, pp. 340–342), and again by S. Sankaranarayanan (1977, pp. 198–199). The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of the above editions with the published facsimiles.

Primary

[VR] Rangacharya, V. 1927-1928. “The Pulibumra plates of the Eastern Chalukya king Jaya Simha I (C. 632-63 A.D.)” EI 19, pp. 254–258.

[RSR] Subba Rao, R. 1929-1930. “The Pulimburu Plates of the E. Chalukya King Jayasimha I.” JAHRS 4 (1), pp. 72–76.

[DCS] Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1939. The successors of the Sātavāhanas in lower Deccan. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Pages 340–342.

[SS] Sankaranarayanan, S. 1977. The Vishṇukuṇḍis and their times: An epigraphical study. Delhi: Agam Prakashan. Pages 198–199.

Secondary

[ARIE] Krishna Sastri, H. 1914. G.O. No. 920, 4th August 1914. Epigraphy. Recording, with remarks, the progress report of the Assistant Archaeological Superintendent for epigraphy, Southern Circle, for the year 1913-1914. No place. Page 10, appendixes A/1913-1914, item 5.

Krishna Sastri, H. 1914. G.O. No. 920, 4th August 1914. Epigraphy. Recording, with remarks, the progress report of the Assistant Archaeological Superintendent for epigraphy, Southern Circle, for the year 1913-1914. No place. Page 85.

Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1939. The successors of the Sātavāhanas in lower Deccan. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Pages 107–110.

Sankaranarayanan, S. 1977. The Vishṇukuṇḍis and their times: An epigraphical study. Delhi: Agam Prakashan. Pages 8–9, 112.

Notes

  1. 1. I assume this is the intent of the composer, but the compound is rather awkward. Sankaranarayanan actually suggests emending to °opārjjita-yaśo-vibhāsita-sakala-digantaraḥ.
  2. 2. It seems that some previous scholars see sarvasiddhi-datti as a technical term signifying a particular kind of donation, or at least fail to make it explicit that it means a donation by the king bearing this name. Sankaranarayanan does understand the text as I do (1977, p. 138), but I would emphasise in addition that, as the same village was previously granted by Mādhavavarman I to the donee’s father, the point here is that Jayasiṁha is specifically claiming the donation as his own.
  3. 3. It seems likely that sthāna does not simply mean a place or locality here. Sankaranarayanan (1977, p. 74) suggests that sthāna may be equivalent to ghaṭikā-sthāna here, but the ghaṭikā is mentioned as clearly separate in the Niḍupaṟu Grant. I therefore assume that sthāna means a temple complex where Brahmans reside, semantically (though perhaps not physically) distinct from the ghaṭikā as an institution of learning.
  4. 4. Rangacharya’s editor notes that this should be emended to taittirīya, because taittirika means “one who catches partridges.” The form found here is, however, not uncommon in inscriptions, so I prefer not to alter it.
  5. 5. These terms, also found in at least two charters of the Viṣṇukuṇḍins (Sankaranarayanan 1977, p. 86), probably designate certain officials. See Sircar 1939, p. 110, n. 2 for details.
  6. 6. Pour ces composés cf. notre note in insc. n° 14. Même occurrence in insc. nos 14,15,16.
  7. 7. Br̥haspati est l’auteur mythique du Nītiśāstra, traité de politique.
  8. 8. Manu est l’auteur mythique du Dharmaśāstra.
  9. 9. D.C. Sircar, 1966, p.85 : datti , « don ».
  10. 10. ibid., p. 11.
  11. 11. ibid., p.127, officier d’un district en charge des éléphants.
  12. 12. ibid., p.375, officier d’un district en charge des soldats en place ou de l’infanterie.
  13. 13. Ce passage est délicat, le terme ājñapti étant au singulier, nous pouvons nous demander si le même personnage a deux charges, ce qui est assez étonnant. On peut aussi penser que l’un des deux termes est le nom du personnage, l’autre sa fonction.