Uccāti grant of Jayasiṁha I

Seal

Plates

⟨01⟩ svasti • This word is written to the left of, and slightly below the level of, line 3.

⟨1⟩ -nivāsa • All known grants of Jayasiṁha I mentioning Asanapura use the term asanapura-vāsakāt.

⟨2⟩ vikaṣatānā ⬦ vikāṣatānāṁ tr̥vu vāna NR • The reading is clear and may be a very bad corruption of the latter part of abhivarddhitānāṁ or perhaps vivarddhitānāṁ used in place of the former. If so, the intended expression would probably have been mahāsenenābhivarddhitānāṁ. — ⟨2⟩ t¡r̥!⟨r̥⟩¿v?⟨bh⟩uvana-(mā?)[tr̥bhiḥ] ⬦ tr̥vu vāna NR • Compare tribhuvana-mātr̥bhir mmātr̥bhir abhirakṣitānāṁ in line 2 of the Timmapuram plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I.

⟨3⟩ °tr(ā)ṇāM • The phrase ending here is probably to be restored as hāritī-putrāṇāṁ, but mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ is also possible. The latter phrase usually precedes the former (not always immediately), but may occasionally come second. In this unusually short vaṁśa-praśasti, one or another of the two may have been omitted.

⟨4⟩ (°sya) • Jayasiṁha I’s grandfather was Kīrtīvarman, whose name, however, takes the standard genitive kīrttīvarmaṇaḥ in all cognate plates where he is mentioned. Together with the end of this line (see the next note), it seems possible that naptr̥ was used here in the sense of "great-grandson", and the person mentioned at the end of line 3 was Pulikeśin I Raṇavikrama. — ⟨4⟩ vi(pu)° ⬦ vi NR • Although pu is partly lost at the broken edge, the reading is quite unambiguous. It suggests the continuation vipula-kīrtteḥ kīrttivarmaṇaḥ (as in the Timmapuram plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I), followed by a word meaning "grandson". However, this restoration leaves little room for text expected before the extant beginning of the next line (e.g. śakti-traya-vaśīkr̥ta-sakala-mahī, from the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II). A shorter phrase of similar purport may have been used, e.g. vaśīkr̥ta-mahī. Alternatively, reading viṣṇu here is not impossible, but less likely than vipu. In this case, the introduction of Viṣṇuvardhana would presumably begin here (and the genealogy would then start with Kīrtīvarman contrary to the previous note), but I am not familiar with a description of Viṣṇuvardhana I beginning with the word viṣṇu.

⟨6⟩ sta-sāmanta-maṇḍala(ḥ) sama ⬦ sta-sāmanta-maṇḍalaḥ samā NR • The beginning of this line suggests svāsidhārā-namita-samasta (Timmapuram plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I), while the end of the extant part suggests samadhigata-pañca-mahāśabdaḥ (Paḷḷivāḍa grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II).

⟨7⟩ sarvva-siddh¿a?⟨i⟩ḥ • I agree with NR that the title sarvasiddhi was used here. However, this title of Jayasiṁha I is never, as far as I am aware, explained with apratihata-śaktitva. That term is frequently used in cognate grants, but always in the form X iva apratihata-śaktiḥ.

⟨8⟩ nātavāṭy(ā)M ⬦ nātavādhyāM NR • The spelling of this name is nātavāḍi in the ARIE report and natavāḍi in NR’s discussion. Other Eastern Cālukya grants use nātavāḍi or nātāvāḍi. In my opinion the ṭ is unambiguous here. — ⟨8⟩ Uccāti- • The ARIE reports the name as Uccāṭi, but NR is correct in reading the dental t here. — ⟨8⟩ -¡sim(e)!⟨sīmāyāṁ⟩ • What I (and NR) take to be an e marker is in fact exactly like the subscript r in grāme just above in this line, and quite unlike the e marker in the same word.

⟨9⟩ reṇḍuvaṭṭi ⬦ re(llu)vaṭṭi NR • Compare the possible village name Reṇḍubaḷḷi in the Peravali plates of Viṣṇuvardhana IV. — ⟨9⟩ bhūmir ⬦ bhūmi⟨ṁ⟩ NR. — ⟨9⟩ dvi-dvādaśa- • NR interprets this to mean twice 12 khaṇḍikās. This is possible, but not paralleled in any related grant that I know. The following dvā may have been intended to correct and replace this, although dvi has a clear superscript r (syntactically correct), which dvā lacks.

⟨11⟩ (ṣ)aḍ-a(ṁga)vida⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ padagavida⟨ḥ⟩ NR. — ⟨11⟩ samāpta- ⬦ ṣa¿ch?⟨ṭ-ch⟩āstra- NR.

⟨12⟩ ātma¿ṇ?⟨ṇ⟩aś • This could conceivably be read as ātmanoś, but such a strange variation to this stock phrase is unlikely to have been the composer’s intent.

⟨13⟩ -nimitt¡e!⟨a I⟩yam • Scribal omission is also possible here; the composer’s intent may have been nimitteneyam. However, since related grants normally use nimitte in the locative, it is more likely that this is a case of non-standard sandhi, or possibly of inaccurate gender use (nimitte + ayam). — ⟨13⟩ kenaci¡t!⟨d⟩ bādhā • The text is written with a tb conjunct.

⟨19⟩ mahādevuḷa ⬦ mahādevuka NR • See also the commentary. — ⟨19⟩ samm(ukha su)⟨20⟩(lva?) buggi ⬦ sammukhaṁ bu⟨20⟩[1×](ḍi) buggi NR • My reading of the end of line 19 is quite certain in spite of damage. It is, however, conceivable that the character which looks like su is a very badly drawn jña. I am far less certain about the first character in line 20. Here, NR probably intended to show in his edition a conjunct with a subscript ḍ and an i marker. The upper part of this glyph does not, however, resemble any i (or ī) in the inscription, and is also much larger than the lower component, implying that it is the body belonging to a primary consonant rather than a superscript vowel marker. Although its inner part differs from instances of l in the inscription, its shape is a plausible l for the time and region, and if it is indeed l, then no vowel marker is attached. The subscript part does look rather like ḍ, but taking it for a v is the only way I can extract some sense from the text. Alternatively, this character may perhaps be a thoroughly botched pte (or pti), so that assuming a likewise botched jña in the previous line and a few smaller scribal errors, the intent may have been svamukhājñapti, although I cannot explain why another person would then be named as āṇati. The name of this latter executor (or the end of his name) may perhaps be buṁggi with an anusvāra within the i mātrā, and the text read as sulva may belong to this name.