Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman

Seal

Plates

⟨4⟩ [calukyā]⟨5⟩[nāṁ kulam] ⬦ [ca]⟨5⟩[li](kyā)nāṁ kulam KR • Nothing to the left of the hole can now be made out in the original, and I doubt both that KR was able to obtain a clear reading and that so much text could have fitted in the line before the hole. There is also no reason to restore the name as Calikya.

⟨8⟩ ko{r}kkiliḥ ⬦ kokkiliḥ KR. — ⟨8⟩ vi(ṣ)ṇ(u)var(ddhana)[s tam] ⬦ viṣṇuvarddha(na)[m] KR • Probably a typo/oversight in KR.

⟨10⟩ -(v)igaṇa¿⟦(y)⟧⟨⟨ṇ⟩⟩?⟨n⟩ayā ⬦ -vigaṇa(na)yā KR • The received reading clearly has two cerebral ṇa-s, but the second of these, where dental na is expected, is a result of correction, probably from ya, the initial part of which has been redrawn as ṇa, while the final part was either never engraved or has been fully incorporated into the following ya.

⟨11⟩ -rama¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ī- ⬦ -ramaṇī- KR. — ⟨11⟩ -dhīro ⟨’⟩(ṣṭa)- • The reading dhīro is clear. Parallel attestations of this stanza read -dhīraṣṭa- in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II, and -dhīrāṣṭa- in the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant.

⟨12⟩ naren(draḥ||) • The final visarga and punctuation mark may well be a correction from an initially inscribed ṇa. — ⟨12⟩ (anū)[na-dā]⟨13⟩na- ⬦ anū⟨13⟩na- KR.

⟨13⟩ -¿c⟦ā⟧⟨⟨i⟩⟩?⟨vr̥⟩ṣṭ⟨y⟩ā ⬦ v¿i?⟨r̥⟩ṣṭ(iṁ) KR • The plate is quite clear here, but the engraving is difficult to make sense of. The second character certainly looks like c, not v, and it has vowel markers both for ā and i. I assume that the former has been corrected to the latter, but the inverse is also possible. My emendation is tentative; compare the differently corrupt vrissāM in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant — ⟨13⟩ dīnā◯n¿d?⟨dh⟩a- ⬦ dīnāṁdha- KR. — ⟨13⟩ -(ga)ṇikārt¿t?⟨th⟩i-sā(r)t¿t?⟨th⟩a-sasya(M) ⬦ -gaṇikār(tthī)-sārtha-sasy¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ| KR • KR’s emendation to sasyām does not seem necessary to me. — ⟨13⟩ (a)[vāpaya]⟨14⟩n⟨n⟩ ⬦ avāpa(ya)⟨14⟩n KR • Though KR prints only ya as unclear, most of this stretch is now illegible. The parallel in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant is differently corrupt. KR may have had access to a better version of this stanza, but none are known to me, and he refers only to “other well-known copper plate grants” of the Eastern Cālukyas. At any rate, his restoration (reading?) is plausible.

⟨14⟩ a¡ddh!⟨dh⟩ya◯(rddhaṁ) ⬦ atyarddhaṁ KR.

⟨15⟩ -la◯⟨sa⟩(d-) ⬦ la(sa)d- KR.

⟨16⟩ kan⟨n⟩arā⟨ṁ⟩ka(ṁ) ⬦ ka(nnarā)ṁkaM KR. — ⟨16⟩ -ja(na)padād ⟨d⟩durgg¿ā?⟨a⟩mān ⬦ janapadād (durggamān) KR • The parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant read durggaman and durggamaṁ respectively, so the former may have been intended here. The meaning is not affected, so I do not emend. — ⟨16⟩ [dāvaṁ] ⬦ [dhāvan] KR • The parallel in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant both clearly read dāvaṁ, though it was misread as dhāvaṁ by the former’s editor. — ⟨16⟩ [ya]⟨17⟩¿t?⟨ḫ⟩ ⬦ [ya]⟨17⟩t KR • The parallel in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the clearly reads yaḥ, which I find better in context. The form yaḫ in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant corroborates my emendation.

⟨17⟩ vi(jayāditya)-[bhūpati]⟨18⟩[r] ⬦ vijayā(ditya)-[ś caturbhi]⟨18⟩(r) KR • The parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II, the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant all read vijayāditya-bhūpatir here. KR’s discussion explicitly mentions four brothers, and he may have been familiar with another attestation of this stanza with that reading that I am not aware of. I prefer to restore on the basis of the parallels known to me.

⟨18⟩ (sa)mās ⟨s⟩ā(rdhaṁ) ⬦ samās (s)ārddhaṁ KR.

⟨19⟩ -kaṇṭhikā-d¿a?⟨ā⟩ma ⬦ -(kaṇṭhikod)(d)āma- KR • The received reading is quite lefible as it is, and parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant clearly read kaṇṭhikā-dāma.

⟨21⟩ [bhuva]⟨22⟩m ⬦ [sama]⟨22⟩m KR • Restoring bhuvam is supported by the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II, the Masulipatam plates of Amma II, the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king, and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. I am not aware of any parallel of this stanza with samam.

⟨22⟩ -[ripu-kṣmābhr̥]⟨23⟩d ⬦[⏑–––]⟨23⟩d KR • The lost text is attested in the Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava, the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant.

⟨23⟩ pa¿t?⟨ṭ⟩i¿(ddh)?⟨(ṣṭh)⟩[o]{ḥ} ⬦ p⟨r⟩a-¿t?⟨s⟩iddho{ḥ} KR • I emend on the basis of the Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I, the Single Bhimavaram plate of a late Eastern Cālukya king and the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. A differently corrupt variant is found in the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava.

⟨24⟩ (kṣatriyair) mmitrābh¿ā?⟨aḥ⟩ ⬦ kṣatriye mitrābhā⟨ḥ⟩ KR.

⟨25⟩ samārddhaṁ ⬦ samārddhāṁ KR. — ⟨25⟩ -pari(cuṁ)[bi]⟨26⟩[ta]- • Both the end of line 25 and the beginning of line 26 have enough space for the lost character ta. I assume with KR that it was at the beginning of line 26, where there is a crack in the plate, and the following pā is quite narrow. It is also possible that the plate was already defective here and ta was at the end of the previous line, or that one or even two erroneous characters were inscribed there.

⟨30⟩ °āha⟨31⟩r¿ā?⟨a⟩t ⬦ °āha⟨31⟩rat KR.

⟨31⟩ bha(g)na◯-rathān ⬦ bh(in)na-(ra)thān KR • The text is metrically deficient by two syllables. The intended text may for instance have been bhagna-manorathān, but bhagna-rathān is in itself plausible and metrically correct where it is, so the missing syllables may need to be supplied after it (e.g. bhagna-rathān nr̥pān/arīn). The loosely parallel stanza XII of the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant reads Anyān apy ahitān samitsu sabalān nighnann. — ⟨31⟩ -kollabigaṇḍa- ⬦ -kollabhigaṇḍa- KR.

⟨33⟩ garbbhe ⬦ garbhe KR. — ⟨33⟩ -kaṇṭha-(yu)(jā?)⟨34⟩tta-vr̥¡t!⟨tt⟩yā ⬦ -kaṇṭha-yuj ā⟨34⟩tta-vr̥¡t!⟨tt⟩y¿a?⟨ā⟩ KR • KR’s a at the end of this locus is probably a typo. In other respects, his reading is the most plausible that I can arrive at, although I cannot make sense of it as received. The last consonant in line 33 could conceivably be ṣ, p or b and its vowel could be just about anything, but none of these yield a more interpretable text. As a desperate conjecture, I assume that the composer had intended kaṇṭha-yuj ātma-vr̥ttyā. See also the note to the translation.

⟨34⟩ -janapārc(c)ita- ⬦ -janapārtthika- KR.

⟨35⟩ (s)ādh¿ō?⟨ā⟩raṇādhika- ⬦ (Ā)dhōraṇādhika- KR. — ⟨35⟩ -gaj¿a?⟨ā⟩vasādāT ⬦ -gajāvasādā¡t!⟨n⟩ KR. — ⟨35⟩ (A)[–⏑]⟨36⟩(tāṁ) suciram ⬦ (Ā)[–⏑]⟨36⟩tāsu ciram KR • The last extant character in line 35 is in my opinion more likely to be A, but I cannot rule out KR’s Ā with absolute confidence. The lacuna may perhaps be restored as anvarthatāṁ, but options abound, and I am unable to make sense of the latter half of the stanza. See also the note to the translation.

⟨36⟩ gaja⟦sya⟧⟨⟨pri⟩⟩yatvaṁ ⬦ gaja-pr¿ī?⟨i⟩yatvaṁ KR • Part of the originally inscribed subscript y was converted to a subscript r, and the end of y was incorporated into the following ya. I am, however, uncertain whether the post-correction text really reflects the composer’s intention. Perhaps gajāpriyatvam or some third alternative was intended. — ⟨36⟩ [––⏑–]⟨Page 3v⟩ ⟨37⟩ [⏑⏑⏑–⏑] (t)(a?) [–⏑]-janmā ⬦[––⏑]⟨Page 3v⟩⟨37⟩[–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑]-janmā KR • In addition to heavy damage, scribal omission may well be present here. The broken-off end of line 36 could hardly have accommodated more than three characters, and the corroded beginning of line 37 is likely to have had 3, at most 4 before the passably preserved ta. The vestiges after ta suggest simi or siri, but both are metrically incorrect and uninterpretable. Given that Amma II was the younger son of Bhīma II, I wonder if this word may have been nimna-. See also the note to the translation.

⟨37⟩ u[r]vv[īṁ] ⬦ urvv¿ā?⟨ī⟩ṁ KR. — ⟨37⟩ dv(ai?)(māt)u(r)(o?) ⬦ dv¿au?⟨ai⟩(māt)ura KR. — ⟨37⟩ [⏑⏑⏑] ⟨38⟩ [–⏑](d-a?)(rāti-) ⬦ [⏑⏑] ⟨38⟩ [⏑–⏑](d-a)rāti- KR • Here too I believe the characters were distributed differently across the line break from KR’s edition. I accept his reading for the beginning of line 38, but am far from confident in it. The beginning of the lacuna may perhaps be restored as mma-nr̥pateḥ, but I cannot suggest an appropriate continuation for this. Compare dvaimāturo mma-nr̥pater ddānna-nr̥po rāja-bhīma-nr̥pa-tanayaḥ in the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya and amma-nr̥pater dvaimāturaḥ in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant.

⟨38⟩ -vargga⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -vargga- KR. — ⟨38⟩ ⟨⟨śrī-rājanā(rā)ya(ṇa?)⟩⟩[ca. 2+] • I accept KR’s reading of the epithet, but the last character is not recognisable. This segment, with the possible exception of the initial śrī, is engraved over partially deleted earlier text that I cannot restore. The character beneath ja was a conjunct with a superscript repha, possibly rgga. This was followed by ma (largely overlapping the PC nā), a conjunct involving a subscript s, another ma (mostly in the space between PC rā and ya), and something with the vowel i at the end. One or two characters are probably lost at the end, so the text may have been śrī-rājanārāyaṇākhyaḥ, śrī-rājanārāyaṇo yaḥ or śrī-rājanārāyaṇa Iti.

⟨40⟩ pradha◯na- ⬦ pra¿dh?⟨th⟩ana- KR • I do not find prathana better suited to the context and prefer to retain the received reading with a better sound effect. Compare pradhana-pradhāna-puruṣān (in a different context) in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant. — ⟨40⟩ t⟦r⟧is{s}ras ⬦ t{r}isras KR • The superfluous r has been hammered out in the original; the body of this character may also have been corrected.

⟨42⟩ -⟨⟨bhūmir atrā⟩⟩⟨tyandhā||⟩ ⟨Atrā⟩vasare|| ⬦ -bhūmir a⟨ndhaM|| A⟩trāvasare KR • The restoration proposed by KR is both metrically and syntactically inappropriate. My own restoration is offered as a possible one. I assume that the omission was the result of eyeskip at a repetition of trā, and that the stanza was an āryāgīti. Both assumptions may be wrong (the metre may have been a vallarī like stanzas 19 and 20, with two fewer morae in the second hemistich), and some other words to a similar effect may have stood here. The situation is complicated by the presence of scribal correction, but none of the pre-correction text can be made out except for what looks like a subscript ḍ below the space between PC mi and ra; and a possible subscript r or the curved lower part of a different subscript consonant slightly to the right of PC trā.

⟨44⟩ -maṇ¿ṭh?⟨ḍ⟩apasya ⬦ -maṇ¿c?⟨ḍ⟩apasya KR. — ⟨44⟩ -madhy⟦e⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩- ⬦ -madhye KR. — ⟨44⟩ śaśva¿M?⟨T⟩ ⬦ śaśvaT KR.

⟨45⟩ -sthagita- • This word does not seem to fit the context. I wonder if skhalita had been meant instead. Emending to °āsthagita (or even °otsthagita) would presuppose a simpler scribal error, but neither of these forms seem to be attested anywhere. See also the translation. — ⟨45⟩ kha¡ḻ!⟨ḍ⟩ga- ⬦ khaḍga- KR.

⟨46⟩ tāyā⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ tāyā KR • It would perhaps be better to supply an anusvāra here and to likewise emend the visarga at the end of the stanza to an anusvāra. — ⟨46⟩ sphuṭaṁ • KR’s editor (Sircar?) proposes emending this to sphuṭataraṁ for the sake of the metre. That would result in an āryāgīti stanza, but there is now plenty of evidence that the rare vallarī metre was used by the Cālukya court poets, including the next stanza of the present inscription.

⟨47⟩ -badyemā¿dī?⟨dhi⟩pa- KR • I provisionally endorse KR’s emendation but since adhipa is rather redundant next to mahārāja, I wonder if Ādipa (or something similar) could instead be the name of another vanquished enemy. The closely parallel stanza 21 of the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant says, unmetrically: yenājāv ajitena badde-mahārājādayo nirjjitāḥ, where the name is probably to be emended to Baddema. — ⟨47⟩ -mahārāj¿a?⟨ā⟩day¿ā?⟨o⟩ ⬦ -mahārājādayo KR. — ⟨47⟩ urasā parikṣata- • KR remarks in a footnote that “The idea of this quarter of the stanza is not quite clear.” With the parallel in the Guṇḍipoduṟu grant, it is now certain that the passage speaks about assassins. Given that information, I wonder if aparīkṣita-caraḥ (plural nominative masculine) had been intended here. However, that would leave me unable to fit urasā into the sentence, so I retain the received reading and interpret parikṣata-caraḥ as a singular nominative masculine. See also the translation.

⟨48⟩ ⟨’⟩d⟦e⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩rśayad ⬦ darśayad KR • Scribal correction may be more extensive here. The characters loke da are compressed and have more background noise than the surrounding surface of the plate, but no other remnants of deleted characters can be made out. — ⟨48⟩ asamaṁ ⬦ asamaḥ KR. — ⟨48⟩ -śaktiva⟨r⟩mmādhipaḥ ⬦ -śaktivarmmādhipaḥ KR. — ⟨48⟩ parih⟦(u)⟧⟨⟨r̥⟩⟩tya d¿ye?⟨ai⟩tya- ⬦ parihr̥tya daitya- KR • Scribal correction may have been more extensive, possibly affecting each of the characters hr̥tya daitya.

⟨50⟩ cā◯l¡ū!⟨u⟩kya- ⬦ cālukya- KR.

⟨52⟩ °ādhināth¿i?⟨a⟩ ⬦ °ādhinā¿t?⟨th⟩a KR. — ⟨52⟩ -bāhā- ⬦ -bāhū- KR. — ⟨52⟩ -balā¿M?⟨T⟩ ⬦ -balāT KR.

⟨53⟩ -sarvvalokā¿t?⟨ś⟩raya- ⬦ sarvvalokā(śra)ya KR • The characters lokā are probably a correction from something else, and there also may be a corrected character beneath tra, but there is no sign of tra having been corrected to śra.

⟨54⟩ -bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩raka- ⬦ -bhaṭṭāraka- KR.

⟨56⟩ °(varāja-dauvārikādhyakṣam i)¿(th)?⟨t⟩(tham ājñāpayati)⟨.⟩ (yathā||) ⬦ [ca. 7×]rikāddhyakṣā[…] KR • The outer face of the last extant plate is badly corroded; see also the commentary. This passage, although barely legible, can be safely restored on the basis of the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya. — ⟨56⟩ (brahmānva)ye (va)r(īyāN bhā)radvā(ja-rṣi)° ⬦ […]py a. ye varīyāḥ (bhāra)dvājābdhi° KR.

⟨57⟩ (r apara) ¡(yi)!⟨I⟩va dha(rmm)¿(e?)?⟨i⟩(ṣ?)¿(ṭ?)?⟨ṭh⟩(a?)[ḥ] ⬦ °r ap(ā)ra[…] KR • The reading up to dharmm is quite secure, but I have doubts about reading dharmmeṣṭa and emending to dharmmiṣṭha. Also, the first noted ancestor does not appear to be named. — ⟨57⟩ [––](nvaya-varddhayitā puṇy?)[o] [–⏑⏑⏑](sa?)ka(la-śā)stro j¿a?⟨ā⟩taḥ|| ⬦ […]kala-śāstro jātaḥ KR.

⟨58⟩ °(t tas)ya sutas sat(āṁ kr̥?)[⏑⏑––](vennamayyāhvayaḥ|?) ⬦ t tasya sutas satyakā(ma vā) [ca. 3×] cāryyā(hvayaḥ|) sa(tya) [ca. 6×] karmma-nirato yo KR • The second instance of satya in KR’s reading is probably what I read as suta. I see nothing discernible where he reads cāryyāhvayaḥ|. — ⟨58⟩ (sādhus sā)(dhujanīna?)-(karmma-nirato ya)⟨59⟩(ś co)danā-co(ditaḥ||) ⬦ sa(tya) [ca. 6×] karmma-nirato yo⟨59⟩(r)tth(air dāna)-coditaḥ|| KR.

⟨59⟩ [–––⏑](ti-śāl?)¿ī?⟨i⟩nān nayavatā(ṁ?) [–](pū?)(rvva)m ā(śr)¿(ī)?⟨ā⟩vaṇa- ⬦ [ca. 9×] litan nayavatāṁ sārddham āśravaṇa KR.

⟨60⟩ -pratyā⟨60⟩śrāvaṇa-(pu?)◯(ṣṭa?) [–⏑⏑⏑–](mayyo?) (mahā-yajñiyaḥ|) ⬦ -pratyā⟨60⟩śrava(ṇa)yāṣṭa [ca. 8×] mahāyajñīyaḥ| KR.

⟨61⟩ tasya [⏑](sā?) ◯ [ca. 8×] ⬦ tasya sū […] KR. — ⟨61⟩ [ca. 2×](vir vvirājadeva?)⟦(Itya?)⟧⟨⟨(na?) I⟩⟩ty ajani dvija-kulo⟨62⟩t(t)amas (sū)(nuḥ|?) ⬦ […]m-ādityo jani dvija-kulo⟨62⟩t(ta)maḥ|| jāta KR • The reading shown as uncertain are extremely tentative and alternative possibilities abound, but I have found none that are more coherent. It seems quite certain that the characters Itya were first engraved, then deleted and re-engraved one position further to the right. The scope of the correction may have extended further to the left, but due to the amount of damage there, this cannot be ascertained. The character engraved over the PC I appears to be na with quite a bit of empty space to its left. The preceding character is very probably va, but the one before it may well be ḍ, ḷ or p, and the vowel e is very uncertain, although a long vowel is likely here on account of the metre. If the name is indeed Virājadevana, then the preceding text may for instance have been sukavir or, reading dvi instead of rvvi, nayavid.

⟨62⟩ (de)vā(n) ta(r)ppa(y)(itā pi?)t¡r̥!⟨r̥̄⟩(ṁś) ca v(i)¿(th)?⟨dh⟩(iva)[d yo] (havya-kavyā)(d?)i(bhir?) ⬦ [ca. 4×] ma [ca. 5×] (ta)t⟨⟩vaś ca va [ca. 4×] vyākara(ṇa) KR. — ⟨62⟩ (yyaḥ p)r¿ā?⟨a⟩kṣālana-vāriṇāti(th)i⟨63⟩-(padāṁ?) pra(kṣāli)tā(ṁ)gho-malaḥ ⬦ [ca. 2×] prakṣālana-vāriṇātiśī⟨63⟩[ca. 2×] prakṣāli(ta)-pā(pa)-malaḥ KR.

⟨63⟩ -vita(te)(r ṇṇe?)tā ⬦ -(vitate)r ṇṇa¿ti?⟨tyā⟩ KR • The character read as r ṇṇe is slightly awkward and the strokes comprising its top part are unclear, but there is little doubt that the scribe had meant it to be rṇṇe. The straightforward emendation would be r nne, but I am not happy with netā in the context and propose that the composer’s intention was probably -vitater nnātho. — ⟨63⟩ sāhāyya⟨64⟩(m u?)p(e)t¿e?⟨a⟩vān nija- ⬦ sāhāyyā⟨64⟩pate [1×] n nija- KR.

⟨64⟩ kha¡ḻ!⟨ḍ⟩gasya ⬦ khaḍgasya KR. — ⟨64⟩ (bhāra)dvā⟦dvā⟧⟨⟨ja⟩⟩- • The scope of correction is probably larger. I believe that bhā, ra or (most likely) ja had been omitted at first, then bhāradvāja was re-inscribed in the space formerly occupied by three characters, the last of which was dvā. — ⟨64⟩ pr(ā)g nāma-mātr(e)ṇa ⬦ [1×] ma māt¿rī?⟨r̥̄⟩ṇāṁ KR. — ⟨64⟩ svaṁ⟨65⟩(go)tra(ṁ) parivarttamā(na)m asamo (n)i(stā?)r(yy)a vist¿ā?⟨ā⟩r(i)-dhīḥ| ⬦ sva⟨65⟩-gotra-parivarttamāna-ma(mano) [3×] yudhi sthira-dhīḥ KR.

⟨65⟩ ⟨’⟩bhava¿n?⟨d⟩ guṇa-⟨ni⟩dhi(r) yyo va⟨ṁ⟩śa-ka ⬦ bhavan guṇa-vīryya-vasa(ka) KR.