Pedda-Gāḻidipaṟṟu grant of Amma II

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ nirbbhar¿cc?⟨ts⟩ayann ⬦ nirbbhar¿cch?⟨ts⟩ayann KR.

⟨9⟩ kokkili¡ṣ! ⬦ kokili¡ṣ! KR.

⟨11⟩ (samā)[⏑⏓] KR • Two syllables have been omitted here. Variants of this stanza exist with the endings catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ (Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II, Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II AC), catvāriṁśat-samo ’ṣṭabhiḥ (Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa), catvāriṁśat samās samaḥ (Nammūru grant of Amma II, Koḻūru (spurious?) grant of Bhīma II) and sa-catvāriṁśad aṣṭakam (Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II PC). The prose versions of the genealogy predominantly assign 48 years to Narendra-Mr̥garāja, and the variants of this stanza may be explained by an effort to eliminate the non-standard sandhi in the presumable original catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ, I am tempted to restore this text here. The Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II records the length of his reign in a different metre and unambiguously as aṣṭa-yuktāś catvāriṁśat samāḥ. Scholars disagree about the length of Narendra-Mr̥garāja’s reign, and Krishna Rao (Krishna Rao 1937–1938, pp. 269–270; Krishna Rao 1934–1935, pp. 27–28) argues vehemently for 40. He apparently accepts this record as another piece of evidence for 40 years, which is definitely not admissible, since the omitted characters could have corresponded to any of the versions cited here. I thus prefer not to restore anything here.

⟨12⟩ yy¿o?⟨au⟩varājyo° ⬦ yyauvarājyo° KR.

⟨14⟩ kānīna-dāna⟦t⟧⟨⟨s⟩⟩thi◯ti-virasa-karaḥ ⬦ [––⏑––⏑⏑⏑]rasa-karaḥ KR • The reading is reasonably clear in my photographs, but not quite intelligible. I believe that stuti may have been intended where tthiti has been corrected to sthiti. The characters nīnadāna are all quite narrow and may have been written over slightly shorter erased text, but there is no clear evidence of erasure.

⟨15⟩ triṁśad-abda-pramā◯ṇa(ṁ) ⬦ (triṁśad-abdā)(krameṇa?) KR • The correct reading, confirmed by my photographs, is given in an editorial footnote to KR’s edition.

⟨16⟩ -kram¿a?⟨ā⟩yāta- ⬦ -kramāyāta- KR.

⟨18⟩ taj-jaḥ ⬦ taj-ja- KR • Though the verse is intelligible as received, I consider my emendation warranted. — ⟨18⟩ aj¿a?⟨e⟩yaḥ ⬦ ajeyaḥ KR.

⟨19⟩ a¿dh?⟨t⟩ibalaṁ ⬦ adhibalaṁ KR • Since adhibala seems to be attested only as a technical term in drama, I prefer to emend.

⟨20⟩ s⟨v⟩aḥ ⬦ saḥ KR.

⟨22⟩ veṁg(i)- ⬦ veṁgī- KR • The metre requires a short vowel here. The plate is too corroded to tell definitively whether the actually inscribed vowel was long or short. — ⟨22⟩ -rājādhir(ā)jaḫ para-nr̥pa- ⬦ -rājādhirājo (jita-ripu)- KR • The correct reading (confirmed by the photos) is indicated (as clear) in a footnote signed “N. L. R.” in KR’s edition.

⟨24⟩ -(kaṇṭha)¡(| n)!⟨| n⟩ ⬦ -(kaṇṭhaṁ)| {n} KR • The dot that KR reads as an anusvāra is above ṇṭha, so it is probably damage, and the punctuation mark was placed before the conjunct as in line 18 above and several times below. — ⟨24⟩ kṣattriyāditya- ⬦ kṣatriyāditya- KR.

⟨26⟩ tri-m(ū)⟨r⟩tter ⬦ tri-mūrtter KR.

⟨27⟩ nan¿u?⟨ya⟩- ⬦ nanya- KR.

⟨28⟩ gguṇa-vapur acalā-s(thai)r ⬦ gguṇa-vapur-acalā s(vai)r KR.

⟨29⟩ yasyoccaiḥ-(kīr)tti-r(aṁge?) (bha)-gaṇa Iva jagaty advitīyodaye ⬦ yasyoccaiḥ kīrtti-rā(śir bha)-gaṇa Iva jagaty advitīyodayo KR • The reading I propose is highly tentative and somewhat problematic (see the note to the translation). KR’s rāśir does not seem possible based on the vestiges.The r cannot have a full-sized ā attached on the right; an upward stroke for ā cannot be excluded with certainty, but only a dot, probably an anusvāra, is visible at the top right of the r. The vowel of the next character is almost certainly e; the consonant body could be ś as read by KR, but g and th are equally possible and other readings cannot be excluded.

⟨30⟩ -mahendra⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -mahendra- KR.

⟨31⟩ -bhogopahā◯si- • Possibly emend to -bhogopahāsī; see the note to the translation. — ⟨31⟩ -sandh¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ta- ⬦ -sāndrita- KR.

⟨33⟩ g(i)◯⟦(r)i⟧riśa ⬦ gi{vi}riśa KR • The superfluous character looks more like ri than vi to me. Its vowel is clear, while its body is very faint. It was probably deleted in the original, but it is strange that before the hole, the vowel of gi is all but invisible (and may have been hammered out) while the body is clear, so the two characters on either side of the hole together yield a clear gi.

⟨36⟩ -mahārāj¿a?⟨ā⟩dhirāja- ⬦ -mahārājādhirāja- KR.

⟨38⟩ -dharmm¿a?⟨ā⟩dhyakṣa- ⬦ -dharmmādhyakṣa- KR.

⟨39⟩ ettham ⬦ et¿t?⟨th⟩am KR • The subscript th resembles t with the tail extended into a nearly full circle. It is different from a standard th, but clearly distinct from t and identical to the specimens (read as th by KR too) in sthāna earlier in this line, and in dharmmārttham in line 55.

⟨40⟩ -sādhur ¿adivanaṁgrevyākhyo? gotr¡o! ⬦ -sādhura [3×] grevyākhyo gotr¿o?⟨aḥ⟩ KR • These characters omitted from KR’s edition are clear, but I am unable to interpret them, and presumably so was KR, hence his omission. The name of the gotra may be adivanaṁgrevya or even adivanaṁgre (assuming the next member is -vyākhyo rather than -ākhyo), but neither seems plausible. In KR’s interpretation, the gotra is called grevya, but this too does not seem to be attested anywhere else. I prefer not to emend the endings because the text is not properly understood, but on the basis of parallel grants, it would not be surprising if the donees’ lineage as a whole were introduced first. However, as gotra is normally neuter (and even if it was treated as masculine here, the sandhi is incorrect in gotro siṁhāsanato), a locative (°ākhye gotre) was probably intended here.

⟨41⟩ (calukyeśānāM) ⬦ cālukye(śānāM) KR • The metre requires a short syllable here.

⟨42⟩ āsī¡|n!⟨N|⟩ ⟨n⟩ya(k)⟨k⟩r̥ta- ⬦ āsīn nyakr̥ta- KR.

⟨43⟩ guṇavā¡|(n)!⟨N|⟩ elapa- ⬦ guṇavāN{|} melapa- KR • The reading is clear. KR further observes that the vowel of the character after the punctuation mark may be ai, since there is a "loop-like" stroke at its bottom. This can only be an artefact of the estampage; no such stroke is visible in the photos. — ⟨43⟩ -pradhāno ⬦ -pra(bhā?)vo KR • The correct reading was proposed by KR’s editor in a footnote.

⟨44⟩ -padmāliḥ| ⬦ -padmā(rcako)|| KR • KR’s reading is unmetrical. The correct reading was proposed in a note signed N. L. R. in KR’s edition. — ⟨44⟩ sat¿i?⟨ī⟩ ⬦ satī KR.

⟨45⟩ ⟨⟨jina-vrata⟩⟩- • This text was omitted due to eyeskip at vratā. There is a + plus-shaped mark above and to the right of vratā for the locus of insertion. The text to be inserted begins below tā, and is marked on the left with two plain vertical lines, on the right with one. — ⟨45⟩ -dharmm¿a?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ -dharmmā KR.

⟨48⟩ -kṣiti(pa-karuṇa)⟨49⟩(yā) ⬦ (-kṣitipati-kr̥pa)⟨49⟩yā KR • My reading is confident in spite of the poor condition of the writing.

⟨49⟩ ¿śrīdvāraurvvaṁbaraṣṭhīvanapada? ⬦ śrīdvārau (rvvabaraṣṭhīvana?)-pada- KR • This piece of text resists all my attempts to read an intelligible sequence into it. My photographs confirm that KR had read it correctly, except that an anusvāra is present. The characters are not effaced, although the form of some permits a degree of ambiguity. Thus, rau might be ro, pa might be ṣa, and da might be ḍa. With probable scribal error figured in, the number of possibilities increases. See the commentary for further details. — ⟨49⟩ -vilasac- ⬦ -vilasa¡t!⟨c⟩- KR • Unlike śrīma¡t!⟨c⟩- in the previous line, the text has c-c here. — ⟨49⟩ -l(ī?)l¡(ā|)!⟨au|⟩ ⬦ (līlau) KR • I am reasonably certain that līlā was inscribed here, with līlau intended, but joined in sandhi across the punctuation mark (see also the next apparatus entry) in spite of this being the end of a hemistich. — ⟨49⟩ ¡(vu?)!⟨U⟩⟨50⟩(ccair-vvis?)(tārikā)◯sthau ⬦[–]⟨50⟩[–––]rikasthau KR • The spelling vuccair may be simple vernacular influence, with several parallels in the corpus, but is probably the result of sandhi across a punctuation mark; see the previous note.

⟨50⟩ -(mū)lau [1×] ⬦ (cūlau) KR • The illegible character at the end of the line (most resembling ba or ja) is hypermetrical and has probably been deleted in the original. My reading of mūlau is reasonably confident; see the translation for its interpretation.

⟨51⟩ (sa-maṇi?)- ⬦ [⏑⏑⏑] KR.

⟨52⟩ śi¿ś?⟨ṣ⟩yo¡|ś!⟨ś|⟩ ⬦ śi¿ś?⟨ṣ⟩y¿o|ś?⟨aś⟩ KR • I normalise only the placement of the punctuation mark (which, as elsewhere, must have been placed so as to interrupt a word in preference to interrupting an akṣara). I prefer not to emend the case ending, since I am not convinced that KR’s emendation corresponds to the intent of the composer. See also the next entry and the note to the translation. — ⟨52⟩ śāstra-jñ¡(o)r! nnāthasen¡o(r)! (mmu)ni- ⬦ śāstra-jño{r} n{n}āthaseno m{m}uni- KR • I am not convinced that KR’s emendation corresponds to the composer’s intent, though I am uncertain about the interpretation of this passage. See also the previous entry and the note to the translation.

⟨53⟩ -paṭu⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩ ⟨⟨sa⟩⟩n-nuto° • I believe that -paṭussannuto° was originally intended here, but ssa was omitted, probably due to the similarity of ssa and nnu. Next, a single sa was inserted below the line (with a plus-shaped cross above, between ṭu and nnu, marking the place it belongs. There would have been no space for inserting ssa in this way, so finally a visarga was squeezed in between ṭu and the plus-shaped mark. — ⟨53⟩ -pātra⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -pātraḥ KR • The visarga is not present in the original. The text would be interpretable without it, but I agree with KR that it is smoother with.

⟨54⟩ ¡-kṣullakarjyarjjakānāM! ⬦ -kṣullakār¿j?⟨y⟩yājjakānāM KR • The first two instances of ā in KR’s edition are not present in the original. I prefer not to emend, since the spelling appears to apply the two-mora rule and thus reflect an influence of Jain Prakrit.

⟨55⟩ ni⟨r⟩mmitam etad ⬦ nirmmitam etad KR • The character me has a superfluous vertical stroke down from the elbow of the right arm. The scribe probably began to write mm then aborted the subscript part.

⟨56⟩ -gāḻidipaṟṟu ⬦ -gāḻiḍipaṟṟu KR • As KR notes, he reads ḍi by a somewhat arbitrary "inclination". Indeed, d and ḍ are often indistinguishable in this script. However, the same word in line 61 appears with the prefix koḍa, where ḍ is written with a distinct upward curl at the end, whereas the similar character in the name gāḻidipaṟṟu ends on a downward bend.

⟨57⟩ yisupakaṭṭala- ⬦ yisu kaṭṭala- KR • A character is missing from KR’s edition.

⟨58⟩ pa(ḍuva?) • The last two characters are faintly visible in KR’s photo, but completely obliterated in the new photographs.

⟨61⟩ -gāḻidipaṟtiyuṁ ⬦ -gāḻiḍipaṟtiyuṁ KR • See the note on line 56 above.

⟨63⟩ (ca?) (sthi)ta- ⬦ (pālita)- KR • The reading I adopt is shown in a footnote signed N. L. R. in KR’s edition. He is certainly right about sthi and probably right about the rest of the locus. Another possibility, less likely, is to read śāsanāvasthita-, with a very small (possibly subsequently inserted) vowel marker instead of an anusvāra. — ⟨63⟩ -makarik⟦o⟧⟨⟨ā⟩⟩- ⬦ -makarik¿o?⟨ā⟩- KR • I am fairly positive that the correction was made in the original, by striking out the overhead element of the vowel marker and leaving only the right-hand stroke.

⟨66⟩ hareta vasundharāṁ • The characters tava and the left-hand side of su are compressed, probably a correction written over a shorter erased text, of which no trace is visible.