Nūtimaḍugu plates of Vikramāditya II

⟨4⟩ svānujam ājā(v u)⟨5⟩[ccā]ṭya • The reading is plausible, but compare line 12 of the Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I, which have svānujam {adam} uccāṭya.

⟨7⟩ catvāriṁśata⟨7⟩[–⏑⏓] • NLR only observes that the text from aṣṭottara is half an anuṣṭubh stanza. I prefer to assume that we are dealing with a full stanza here, though it is possible that the first hemistich has indeed been converted into prose. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I, which contains a practically identical genealogy, has corrupt prose here: tat-suto vijayādityaḥ catvāriṁśat samaḥ. Other grants of the dynasty describe the length of Vijayāditya II’s reign in anuṣṭubh (though not juxtaposed to the extant hemistich here) as catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ or catvāriṁśat samās samaḥ. There is no way to determine whether a reign of forty or forty-eight years was assigned here. The last character in line 7 may perhaps be T or tsa rather than ta.

⟨8⟩ [-samāṁ| tat-suto] NLR • The meaning of the lost text was certainly as restored by NLR, but the words may have been different. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I have samaḥ tan-nandano here.

⟨9⟩ varṣ{v}āṇi ⬦ varṣāṇi NLR • rṣvā is the first legible character in this line after the palimpsest area, and it definitely has a subscript component, possibly ṭh but probably v. — ⟨9⟩ ⟦va⟧⟨⟨|⟩⟩ NLR • I accept NLR’s note on this correction, but cannot confirm it from the photo, where I see strokes that resemble a daṇḍa followed by ga.

⟨8⟩ vi⟨Page 2v⟩⟨9⟩[kramādityasya] NLR • I assume that NLR could read the text he prints as clear and could estimate the number of lost characters with some precision, in which case his restoration is perfectly plausible. But if he was guessing where he admits no doubt, then the text could have run somewhat differently. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I read tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ putro bhīmaḥ.

⟨9⟩ vijayādi⟨10⟩[tyaḥ ṣaṇ māsā]N| NLR • Again, I accept NLR’s reading and restoration but wonder if there was an anuṣṭubh hemistich here, to complete the following half stanza.

⟨10⟩ -bhū(bhu)⟨11⟩[ji] [⏑–] ⬦ -bhū(bhu)⟨11⟩[⏑⏑–] NLR • At the end of line 10 I see nothing recognisable beyond bhū, but I assume that NLR’s bhu is based on vestiges. He does not make the restoration I suggest, but surely had the same in mind. Unless the vestigial bhu is quite clear in the original, bhūbhr̥ti is also possible.

⟨11⟩ prāptābhiṣekas NLR • I would expect this word to be in the accusative but must accept NLR’s reading because nothing is legible in the published photo. — ⟨11⟩ [–⏑] vaśāt NLR • Perhaps restore kāla-vaśāt? — ⟨11⟩ [–⏑] vijayādityaṁ NLR • Perhaps restore bheka or beta?

⟨12⟩ [sma] [–⏑⏑⏑]taṁ ⬦ [⏑–⏑⏑⏑]taṁ NLR.

⟨13⟩ drutam āyata- NLR • I accept NLR’s reading with hesitation. If the reading m āya is correct, then there is at least one extra stroke (resembling a punctuation mark) to the right of mā.

⟨14⟩ -rudhirā[⏑]- NLR • Perhaps restore -rudhirākta-?.

⟨15⟩ eṣa paṭṭam avahac cū NLR • Again, this reading seems doubtful, but I cannot improve it.

⟨16⟩ viśālāvakāśam … ⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨17⟩ … saroruhāsanaḥ|| NLR • The reading is highly doubtful. This was almost certainly a stanza in the original. NLR suggests that its metre may have been āryā, but if his reading is largely correct, then this is prosodically impossible. Given the lengths of adjacent lines (29 characters each in lines 14 and 15; 31 in line 18), the total length of the stanza would have been about 40 characters, with about 2 in the first lacuna and about 13 in the second. It may perhaps have been in viyoginī (42 characters total), but this too is only possible if NLR’s reading is substantially incorrect.

⟨20⟩ labdha⟨21⟩-[⏑–] NLR • Perhaps restore labdha-jayo?

⟨21⟩ -kr̥tābhibhūtī NLR • I see no trace of an ī in this otherwise fairly legible word and cannot interpret the text with this ending. — ⟨21⟩ -vr̥¿rtī?⟨ttī⟩ NLR • I adopt NLR’s reading as printed, but there may be a typo in his intended emendation. In the photo, all I can see is an unclear t with a possible i on top.

⟨24⟩ samagraṁ NLR • I do not know whether the hypometrical prosody is a misprint in NLR’s edition or an omission in the original. The intended text may have been ca samagraṁ, susamagraṁ, etc. — ⟨24⟩ […] mādityā […] NLR • NLR prints eight dots for the first lacuna and two for the second. It is not clear to me whether he intends the number of dots to represent the length of lacunae; elsewhere in the text, some of his lacunae seem to correspond to my estimates of lacuna length at two dots per akṣara, but elsewhere at one dot per akṣara.