Mastakaśvabhra Grant of the time of Pradyumnabandhu, year 5
Editors: Amandine Wattelier-Bricout, Arlo Griffiths.
Identifier: DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00063.
Hand description:
The script, which is identical on plate and seal, is a variety of Late Eastern Brāhmī that may palaeographically be assigned to about the 6th century CE. Among noteworthy features, I may mention the following. Vocalization ā is without exception in the form of a hook open toward the right placed on top of the akṣara, not recorded by Dani 1986 but well attested in Bengal epigraphy, for instance in the Kotalipada plate. For vocalization ī, we consistently find a shape, not represented by Dani 1986, which is formed by a wave first moving upwards, then turning downward and finally slanting again in upward direction, again a feature shared with the Kotalipada plate. The akṣaras ka and ra have long descenders; ṣa and sa are clearly distinct, ṣa being based on the shape of pa; the shape of ya is always tripartite, consistently with an outward curl at the left extremity. By contrast with the Kotalipada plate, the shape of ha is here consistently one that resembles the type “ha with its base dipping down” (Dani 1986, p. 289). The shape of dh has a pronounced dent in the left bulge, a type not recorded by Dani 1986. The opening symbol is that which current scholarship considers to represent the word siddham (see Griffiths and Southworth 2007, p. 352, note 10 for references); the final fleuron is a variant of the wheel motif (Sarkar and Pande 1999, p. 58), the best parallel known to me being found in a late-8th-century inscription of Campā in modern Vietnam (Griffiths and Southworth 2011 face A, end of l. 7, fig. 3).
Languages: Sanskrit, Source.
Repository: Bengal Copper Plates (tfb-bengalcharters-epigraphy).
Version: (b3cb286), last modified (32b4399).
Edition
Primary Seal
⟨1⟩ ghoṇādvīpaka-viṣaye ⟨2⟩ Adhikaraṇasya
Secondary Seal
⟨1⟩ [4×]
Plate
⟨Page 1r⟩ ⟨1⟩ @ svasti⟨.⟩ ma(hā)rājādhirāja-śrī-pradyumnavandhor vvijayādhirājya-samvatsar(e) pañcama Āśvayuja-māsasya dvāviṁśatime divase tad-viniyuktoparika-cellake śrī⟨2⟩-puṇḍravarddhana-bhuktau vyavaharati tat-sam¡v!⟨b⟩addha-ghoṇādvīpaka-viṣaye mahāpratīhārāvadhūtena bhoga-la¡v!⟨b⟩dhe janmāntaropātta-dharmmaprotsāhita-matinaitad-viṣaya-nivāsi-mahā⟨3⟩mahattara-mahattarādayo v(ai)ṣayikās sādhikaraṇā Abhyarthitā⟨.⟩
Icche ’haṁ bhavat-sakāśād viṣaya-maryyādayopakrīya mātā-pittror ātmanaś ca puṇy(ā)bh(i)vr̥ddhaye mastaka⟨4⟩(śvabhra)-grāma(ṁ) saha vījapūraka-vr̥ndena tāmra-paṭṭī-kr̥tya vrāhmaṇāya dātum⟨.⟩
evam-abhyarthitāḥ pratyuktavantas samavadya vijñāpayāma Iti⟨.⟩ yattra mahāmahattarādityadeva-jayadeva⟨5⟩-jāvabhad(r)¿o?⟨ā⟩ (ma)hāmahattara-śarvvadeva-pāṭaka-mahattara-yaśodeva-praśastarudra-mittradeva-bhiloṭa-nivāsi-mahattara-nātharudra-pāṭaka-mahattara-śāntirudra-dharmmarudra⟨6⟩-vār(ddhapriye)ya-mahattara-pavittrasoma-kṣemadeva-ṣaṇḍadvīpa-vāsi-mahattara-gorakakiraṇasvāmi-rudrasvāmi-pravaradvīpa-nivāsi-vrāhmaṇa-gu⟨ha⟩yaśanavadevakula-nivāsi⟨7⟩-mahattara-śambhusvāmi-pippalivanikā-vāstavya-mahattara-bhākideva-pāttravāṭeya-mahattara-gopasoma-śāṅkarapallikeya-bhaṭṭadharmmasvāmi -śivanagara-vāstavya⟨8⟩-bhadrasvāmi-śrīcandra-kṣemaśarmma-dvīpakīya-mahattarāmr̥taśāntanu-varāhakoṭṭaka-vāstavya-mahattara-dharmmakuṇḍa-śivagupta-khātaka-nivāsi-mahattara-jalla-Ārdraleya⟨9⟩-mahattara-jālacandra-śyāmadeva-Audumvarikeya-mahattarābhinandana-malayarudra-karaṇi-kanaradatta-(E/vā)ḍita-devasena-viṣayādhikaraṇika-śambhudatta-kr̥ṣṇadatta⟨10⟩-porudattā⟨⟨da⟩⟩yaḥ sa¡n!⟨ṁ⟩mantrayant¿ī?⟨i⟩⟨.⟩
smāstīyaṁ maryyādā pūrvva-sādhubhir apy u⟨⟨pa⟩⟩krīya nānā-vaiṣ¿ai?⟨a⟩yika-janapadād devakula-vihāra-brāhmaṇa-viśeṣebhyo ’tisr̥ṣṭāni viṣaya-grāma-maṇḍa⟨11⟩la-kṣettrāṇi pūrvva-rājabhiś cānumoditāni śūnyā ca bhūmir avatiṣṭhamānā na kaṁ cid apy upakāraṁ rājñaḥ karoty evaṁ-prakāreṇa punar ddīyamānā dr̥ṣṭādr̥ṣṭa-phala-pradā bhava⟨12⟩ty asya ca grāmasyoparikarā bhāvya{ṁ}-varṣiṇa⟨ḥ⟩ pañcacatvāriṁśat kārṣāpaṇā yad anyad v[i]ṣayābhāvyaṁ tad asmābhir avacūrṇya voḍhavyaṁ kutaḥ yato vayaṁ viṣaya-nimittaṁ hira⟨13⟩ṇy(e)nārthino ’yaṁ ca mahāpratīhārāvadhūtaḥ prahvo ’bhyarthayati yuktam asya sa-phalaṁ vijñāpya-karmmam ity avadhr̥tavanto⟨.⟩
’vadhr̥tya ca viṣaya-vārikai⟨r⟩ grāma-mūlyaṁ cūrṇikā⟨14⟩-sahasra(ṁ) grāhayitvā śravaṇa-nimittaṁ ca gandha-puṣpa-vastrāṇi saha (v)ījapūraka-vr̥ndena mastakaśvabhra-grāma(ṁ) mahāpratīhārāvadhūta-haste vikrītavantas⟨.⟩
tenāpy upakr(ī)ya k(ā)⟨15⟩ty(ā)yana-sa-gottrāya vājasaneyasa-vrahmacāriṇe bhogadeva-puttrā⟨⟨ya⟩⟩ vrāhmaṇa-jayadevāya puttra-pauttrādi-bhogya-krameṇā-candrārkka-kālīnaḥ pañca-mah(ā)-yajña-pravarttan(ā)ya ⟨16⟩ {ya}⟨.⟩
pratipādito ’sya ca mastakaśvabhra-grāmasya sīmā-liṅgāni bhavanti⟨.⟩
yattra pūrvvasyāṁ diśi srotikā Uttarasyām iyam (e)va t¡r̥!⟨ri⟩ghaṭṭikāṁ praviśya śmaśānena paści⟨17⟩masyāṁ diśy omrakhātaḥ dakṣiṇasyāṁm apy (e)tad-anulagnena śr̥ṅgāṭaka-villikānusāreṇa vr̥hacchaṅka-joṭā tad-an(u)sāreṇa kāṇālatīya-śālmalī-samīpena punaḥ ⟨18⟩ srotikā yāvad iti⟨.⟩
l(i)khitaṁ kāraṇika-śam(bhudatte)na tāpitaṁ pusta-pāla-kr̥ṣṇadattena samvat· 5 Aśva di 20 2⟨.⟩
Asminn evārthe manvādayaḥ ślokān udāha⟨19⟩ranti sma⟨.⟩
I. Anuṣṭubh
sva-dattāṁ para(da)¿tt?⟨t⟩ām vā
ayo hareta vasundharā¿ṁ?⟨m⟩
bsa viṣṭhāyāṁ kr̥mir bhūtvā
cpitr̥bhis saha pac¿c?⟨y⟩ate||
dII. Anuṣṭubh
ṣaṣṭi⟨ṁ⟩ varṣa-sahasrāṇi
asvargge modati bhūmi⟨20⟩daḥ
bĀkṣeptā cānumantā ca
ctāny eva narake vaseT||
dIII. Anuṣṭubh
vahubhir vasudhā dattā
arājabhis sagarādibhiḥ
byasya yasya yadā bhūmis
ctasya tasya ⟨21⟩ tadā phala¡ṁ!⟨m⟩||
dIV. Anuṣṭubh
yānaśayyā-prado bhāryyāM
asukham akṣayyam anna-daḥ
bbhūmi-das sarvvam āpnoti
cgo-do vradhnasya viṣ¿ṭh?⟨ṭ⟩apa¡(ṁ)!⟨m⟩||◯||
dApparatus
Secondary Seal
⟨1⟩ [4×] • Given that only four akṣaras seem to be engraved, an hypothetical reading pradyumnabandhoḥ must be excluded.
Plate
⟨1⟩ samvatsar(e) pañcama • Or read -samvatsarapañcama? No trace of -e can be made out with certainty, and although it is possible to assume that it was originally written and since effaced, assuming its original absence could be supported, e.g., by the sequence vijayarājyasaṁvatsaraśate in the Karamdanda inscription of Kumāragupta (Bhandarkar et al. 1981, p. 285, l. 3, n. 5 and Balogh et al. 2019, № IN00025).
⟨2⟩ matinaitad ⬦ -matenaitad- ?.
⟨4⟩ samavadya • It seems that this needs to be emended samudya or (although neither of these forms would be acceptable in chaste Sanskrit) samodya or saṁvadya. — ⟨4⟩ Iti yattra • Perhaps to be read as ity attra. It seems that iti would have been better suited after dātum.
⟨5⟩ -jāvabhad(r)¿o?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ -[śi](vabhad)[r](o) ?.
⟨6⟩ -vār(ddhapriye)ya- ⬦ -vā(rṣagrime)ya- ?. — ⟨6⟩ ṣaṇḍadvīpa-vāsi-mahattara- • Perhaps emend ṣaṇḍadvīpa-nivāsi-mahattara. — ⟨6⟩ gu⟨ha⟩yaśa • Emend guhayaśa. Cf. the Kotalipada plate, line 5.
⟨7⟩ śāṅkara • Correct śaṅkara?
⟨9⟩ -(E/vā)ḍita-_ ⬦ -Eḍita(nu)- ?.
⟨12⟩ bhāvya{ṁ}-varṣiṇa⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ bhāvya{ṁ}-varṣiṇa ?. — ⟨12⟩ v[i]ṣayābhāvyaṁ • Is viṣaya-ābhāvyaṁ ‘unavailability of viṣaya’ intended?
⟨13⟩ vijñāpyakarmma • Or understand vijñāpya karmma? — ⟨13⟩ ’bhyarthayati • A middle verb form would have been better here. Maybe -ti is simply a mistake for -te.
⟨17⟩ omrakhātaḥ ⬦ o(ptr)akh(ā)taḥ ? • Is omrakhātaḥ an error for āmrakhātaḥ “Mango canal”? — ⟨17⟩ śr̥ṅgāṭaka-villikānusāreṇa • Correct śr̥ṅgāṭaka-villikā tadanusāreṇa?
⟨19⟩ ṣaṣṭi⟨ṁ⟩ varṣa° ⬦ ṣaṣṭi-varṣa° ?.
Translation by Arlo Griffiths
Primary Seal
(Seal) of the council in Ghoṇādvīpaka district
Secondary Seal
[…]
Plate : first translation
(1–3) Hail! In the fifth year of the victorious suzerainty of the suzerain of great kings Śrī Pradyumnabandhu, on the twenty-second day of the month Āśvayuja, when his appointee as governor, (named) Cellaka, was managing affairs (vyavaharati) 1 in Śrī Puṇḍravardhana province, when the Ghoṇā-island district falling under it had been obtained as fief by the great chamberlain Avadhūta, (at that time) the people of the district, beginning with the great notables and the notables, together with the council, were requested by him (i.e. Avadhūta) whose mind was inspired by merits acquired in a previous life: 2
(3–4) “I wish to make donation of the village Mastakaśvabhra along with its citron-grove to a Brahmin, after purchasing [it] from you, in accordance with the custom of the district, for the sake of increasing the merit of my parents and myself, and after making it a tract of land with copperplate (deed of purchase).”
(4–10) Having been thus requested, they answered: “We inform (as follows) after having spoken together.3 In this matter (yatra), the great notables Ādityadeva, Jayadeva and Jāvabhadra; the great notable Śarvadeva; the hamlet notables Yaśodeva, Praśastarudra and Mitradeva; residing in Bhiloṭa, the notable Nātharudra; the hamlet notables Śāntirudra and Dharmarudra; from Vr̥ddhapriya, the notables Pavitrasoma and Kṣemadeva; residing on Ṣaṇḍa-island, the notables Gaurakakiraṇasvāmin and Rudrasvāmin; residing on Pravara-island, the Brahmin Guhayaśas; residing in Navadevakula, the notable Śambhusvāmin; residing in Pippalivanikā, the notable Bhākideva; from Patravāṭa, the notable Gopasoma; from Śaṅkarapallika, Bhaṭṭadharmasvāmin; residing in Śivanagara, Bhadrasvāmin, Śrīcandra and Kṣemaśarman; from the island, the notable Amr̥taśāntanu; residing in Varāhakoṭṭaka, the notables Dharmakuṇḍa and Śivagupta; residing in Khātaka, the notable Jalla; from Ardrala, the notables Jālacandra and Śyāmadeva; from Audumvarika, the notables Abhinandana and Malayarudra [as well as] the scribes (karaṇika) Naradatta, Eḍita/Vāḍita and Devasena; the district councilors Śambhudatta, Kr̥ṣṇadatta, Paurudatta, and others, have deliberated.” 4
(10–13) They have confirmed (avadhr̥tavantas): “There is this custom — also by good people in the past, fields in the surroundings of district villages have been purchased donated to temples, monasteries and excellent Brahmins; and kings in the past have given their consent. And the land renders no benefit whatsoever to the king as long as it is lying fallow; if (on the other hand), it is once again, in the stated fashion, made the object of donation, it will yield fruit in this world and the next. 5 And this village’s additional taxes (uparikara) for the coming years are forty-five kārṣāpaṇas. What other income of the district there will be, that must be divided and borne by us. 6 From what source? (We do not have any source from which to pay these taxes.) Therefore, on account of the district, we are in need of cash. And this great chamberlain Avadhūta humbly requests an act that is proper and fruitful for this (village), object of (the present) report”. 7
(13–14) “And after having confirmed (this), we have let the district arbitrators 8 receive a thousand cūrṇikās 9 as price of the village as well as incense, flowers and garments on the occasion of hearing (of the king’s assent?), 10 and we have sold the village Mastakaśvabhra, along with its citron grove, into the hand of the great chamberlain Avadhūta.”
(14–16) And after he had bought it, by him it has been made over to the Brahmin Jayadeva, belonging to the Kātyāyana gotra, student of the Vājasaneya (school of the Yajurveda), son of Bhogadeva, to be enjoyed in sequence by his sons, grandsons, and so on, as long as moon and sun shall last, for purpose of the regular performance of the five great sacrifices.
(16–18) And the boundary markers of this village Mastakaśvabhra are, in this connection (yatra): in the East, the stream; in the North, the same, after it has entered the Trighaṭṭikā (river) by the cremation ground; in the West, the Omra canal; in the South, too, along the latter, after the Śr̥ṅgāṭaka (‘Crossroad’) pond, the Br̥hacchaṅkajoṭā (‘Great-Conch-Joṭā’); after the latter, down again to the stream near the silk cotton tree of Kāṇālatī.
(18) Engraved by the scribe Śambhudatta, 11 heated by the record-keeper Kr̥ṣṇadatta. Year 5, day 22.
(18–19) And Manu and so on used to cite stanzas in this same sense:
I
II
III
IV
Plate : new translation
(1–3) Hail! In the fifth year of the victorious suzerainty of the suzerain of great kings mahārājādhirāja Śrī Pradyumnabandhu, on the twenty-second day of the month Āśvayuja, when his appointee as governor, (named) Cellaka, was managing affairs (vyavaharati) 16 in Śrī Puṇḍravardhana province, when the Ghoṇā-island district falling under it had been obtained as fief by the great chamberlain Avadhūta, (at that time) the people of the district, beginning with the great notables and the notables, together with the council, were requested by him (i.e. Avadhūta) whose mind was inspired by merits acquired in a previous life: 17
(3–4) “I wish to make donation of the village Mastakaśvabhra along with its citron-grove to a Brahmin, after purchasing [it] from you, in accordance with the custom of the district, for the sake of increasing the merit of my parents and myself, and after making it a tract of land with copperplate (deed of purchase).”
(4–10) Having been thus requested , they answered : “We shall deliberate and inform.” On this matter (yattra), the great notables Ādityadeva, Jayadeva and Jāvabhadra; the great notable Śarvadeva; the hamlet notables Yaśodeva, Praśastarudra and Mitradeva; residing in Bhiloṭa,18 the notable Nātharudra; the hamlet notables Śāntirudra and Dharmarudra; from Vr̥ddhapriya, the notables Pavitrasoma and Kṣemadeva; residing on Ṣaṇḍa-island, the notables Gaurakakiraṇasvāmin and Rudrasvāmin; residing on Pravara-island, the Brahmin Guhayaśas; residing in Navadevakula, the notable Śambhusvāmin; residing in Pippalivanikā, the notable Bhākideva; from Patravāṭa, the notable Gopasoma; from Śaṅkarapallika, Bhaṭṭadharmasvāmin; residing in Śivanagara, Bhadrasvāmin, Śrīcandra and Kṣemaśarman; from Dvīpaki (the small island), the notable Amr̥taśāntanu; residing in Varāhakoṭṭaka, the notables Dharmakuṇḍa and Śivagupta; residing in Khātaka, the notable Jalla; from Ardrala, the notables Jālacandra and Śyāmadeva; from Audumvarika, the notables Abhinandana and Malayarudra [as well as] the scribes (karaṇika) Naradatta, Eḍita/Vāḍita and Devasena; the district councilors Śambhudatta, Kr̥ṣṇadatta, Paurudatta, and others, [then] deliberated.
(10–13) They ascertained (avadhr̥tavanto) (the following points) :
- There is this custom, — also (followed) by good people in the past : “After being purchased from various people of the district, fields in the surroundings of district villages are donated to (these) types (of recipients) -temples, monasteries and Brahmins- and in past, (these transactions) were ratified by kings; yet the land, as long as it is lying fallow, renders no benefit whatsoever to the king, if (on the other hand), it is once again made the object of donation in the stated fashion, it will yield fruit in this world and the next.”19
- And this village’s additional taxes (uparikara) for the coming years are forty-five kārṣāpaṇas.
- What other income of the district there will be, that must be divided and borne by us.20 From what source? (We do not have any source from which to pay these taxes.)
- Therefore, on account of the district, we are in need of cash.
- And this great chamberlain Avadhūta humbly requests an act that is proper and fruitful for this (village), object of (the present) report. 21
(13–14) And having ascertained (these points), they have let the district arbitrators22 receive a thousand cūrṇikās as price of the village as well as incense, flowers and garments under the auspicious sign of the constellation of Śravaṇa23 (and) they sold the village Mastakaśvabhra, along with its citron grove, into the hand of the great chamberlain Avadhūta.
(14–16) And after he had bought it, by him it has been made over to the Brahmin Jayadeva, belonging to the Kātyāyana gotra, student of the Vājasaneya (school of the Yajurveda), son of Bhogadeva, to be enjoyed in sequence by his sons, grandsons, and so on, as long as moon and sun shall last, for purpose of the regular performance of the five great sacrifices.
(16–18) And the boundary markers of this village Mastakaśvabhra are, in this connection (yatra): in the East, the stream; in the North, the same, after it has entered the Trighaṭṭikā (river) by the cremation ground; in the West, the Omra canal; in the South, too, along the latter, after the Śr̥ṅgāṭaka (‘Crossroad’) pond, the Br̥hacchaṅkajoṭā (‘Great-Conch-Joṭā’); after the latter, down again to the stream near the silk cotton tree of Kāṇālatī.
(18) Engraved by the scribe Śambhudatta, 24 heated by the record-keeper Kr̥ṣṇadatta. Year 5, Āśvayuja month day 22.
(18–19) And Manu and so on used to cite stanzas in this same sense:
I
II
III
IV
Bibliography
First edited by Arlo Griffiths. Re-edited here with small improvements based on direct inspection of the plate, in particular the place names Jāvabhadra (line 5), Vr̥ddhapriya (line 6) and Omrakhāta (line 17). Therefore, a new translation including these new readings and some other improvments is proposed here by Arlo Griffiths and Amandine Wattelier-Bricout.
Primary
[G] Griffiths, Arlo. 2015. “New Documents for the Early History of Puṇḍravardhana: Copperplate Inscriptions from the Late Gupta and Early Post-Gupta Periods.” PSJA New Series 6, pp. 15–38. [URL]. Item II, pages 27–33.
Secondary
Griffiths, Arlo. 2015. “New Documents for the Early History of Puṇḍravardhana: Copperplate Inscriptions from the Late Gupta and Early Post-Gupta Periods.” PSJA New Series 6, pp. 15–38. [URL]. Item II, pages 27–33.
Notes
- 1. For similar expressions, see Damodarpur plate #1, lines 3–6 (emended): tan-niyuktaka-kumārāmātya-vetravarmaṇy adhiṣṭhāṇādhikaraṇañ ca nagara-śreṣṭhi-dhr̥tipāla-sārthavāha-bandhumitra-prathamakulika-dhr̥timitra-prathamakāyastha-śāmbapāla-puroge saṁvyavaharati; Damodarpur plate #3, lines 1–2 (emended): puṇḍravardhana-bhuktāv uparika-mahārāja-brahmadatte saṁvyavaharati.
- 2. Cf. the Jayarampur plate, line 7: sākṣād dharmma ivopāttajanmā. Despite the availability of this parallel, the idea of an embodied Dharma does not seem to suit our context.
- 3. The placement of iti in line 4 is somewhat problematic. In a personal communication, Yuko Yokochi suggests to me that the structure is strange because the content of the vijñapti comes after iti, due to the length of what was informed. I translate as though one more iti stood between dātum and evam.
- 4. In translating all the references to the places of residence of the members of council, I have assumed that no significant difference of meaning is conveyed by the choice of terms (ni)vāsin or vāstavya (both rendered as ‘residing in’), while both of these seem also to be synonymous with the use of a nominal derivative in -eya (‘from’)
- 5. Cf. The Panchrol plate, lines 23–25 (emended): cira-khila-śūnyāvaskarāyāṁ bhūmāv avatiṣṭhamānāyāṁ na kāñ cid artha-māttrāṁ rājñaḥ puṣṇāty asya ca rājño dharmma-phala-ṣaḍ-bhāga-prāptir asty eva yato dīyatām iti; and the Ghugrahati plate, line 13–15 (emended): rājño dharmārtha-niṣphalā yā tu bhogyā kr̥tā bhūmir nr̥pasyaivārtha-dharma-kr̥t tad asmai vrāhmaṇāya dīyatām iti.
- 6. On the sense of the word ābhāvya, see Furui 2011, p. 150: “accompanied by all the contributions supposed to go to the royal family (rāja-kulābhāvya-sarva-pratyāya-sameta)”. It is glossed as ‘income or proceeds’ by Sircar 1966, p. 1. In the present context, one might wonder if it means income from the district to the king, or separate revenue to be collected and used at district level, because the translation of voḍhavya depends on this. I settle in favor of the former interpretation by comparing the Mallasarul plate, lines 12–13 (emended): tat sampadyatām asyābhiprāya ity asmad-vāra-kr̥tair anena dattaka-dīnārān [saṁgr̥hya] vīthyāṁ samvibhajyāsmadvettra-garttāgrāme ’ṣṭābhyaḥ kulyavāpebhyo yathocitaṁ dānaṁ tad-vīthī-samudaya eva prāṇāyyaṁ voḍhavyam ity avacūrṇyāṣṭau kulyavāpā mahā-rāja-vijayasenasya dattāḥ. See Sircar 1942, p. 375, n. 5, who explains “prāṇāyyaṁ = honestly. vīthīsamudaye = in the revenue, i.e. revenue account, of the vīthī. voḍhavya = to be borne. dāna = deya = dues. avacūrṇya = apaviñchya”.
- 7. It is difficult to know how to divide the text into sentences in line 13. I only know one Bengal inscription using yuktam in a similar context, i.e. the Panchrol plate, lines 21–23 (emended): etad-dharmma-sahita-vacanām upaśrutyāsmābhir yair uparilikhitakair anyonyāvadhāraṇayāvadhr̥taṁ yuktam ayaṁ prārthayate.
- 8. The term viṣayavārika is not found elsewhere in early Bengal inscriptions. Ryosuke Furui has recommended me to compare it with the functionaries named kulavārika and vārakr̥ta, appointed as arbitrators by the adhikaraṇa and mahattaras, in the Faridpur #3, Mallasarul and Ghugrahati plates. Sircar 1965, p. 371, n. 5, p. 375, n. 3 has suggested that kulavāra possibly means ‘arbitrator’, and that the meaning of vārakr̥ta seems related.
- 9. Comparison with line 12 suggests that taxes were calculated in the currency unit of kārṣāpaṇa (Sircar 1966, p. 149), whereas land was paid for in cowrie shells: according to Chattopadhyaya 1977, p. 53, the term cūrṇikā “possibly meant a sum of the value of 10 kapardas or cowries used as coins”. While the unit figures elsewhere in early Bengal epigraphy only in the Jayarampur plate (line 31), the unit kārṣāpaṇa seems not to be used anywere else in Bengal epigraphy at all (see Chattopadhyaya 1977, pp. 57–60). Our plate thus provides valuable new light on the monetary system of early post-Gupta Bengal.
- 10. The meaning of the expression śravaṇanimittam in this context is not clear to me, and I can find no parallels for it in other inscriptions. The phrase ājñāśravaṇavidheya, frequent e.g. in the Pāla corpus, is translated by Kielhorn 1896–1897, p. 254 (Khalimpur Plate, line 55) as ‘ready to obey our commands’.
- 11. Ryosuke Furui points out to me that karaṇika here could also be an abbreviation of adhikaraṇika, if this Śambhudatta is the same as the viṣayādhikaraṇika of that name who figures in line 9.
- 12. This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 132 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 13. This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 123 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 14. This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 23 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 15. This verse corresponds to the pādas ab and ef of the verse numbered 145 among the Stanzas on Bhūmidāna listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 16. For similar expressions, see Damodarpur plate #1, lines 3–6 (emended): tan-niyuktaka-kumārāmātya-vetravarmaṇy adhiṣṭhāṇādhikaraṇañ ca nagara-śreṣṭhi-dhr̥tipāla-sārthavāha-bandhumitra-prathamakulika-dhr̥timitra-prathamakāyastha-śāmbapāla-puroge saṁvyavaharati; Damodarpur plate #3, lines 1–2 (emended): puṇḍravardhana-bhuktāv uparika-mahārāja-brahmadatte saṁvyavaharati.
- 17. Cf. the Jayarampur plate, line 7: sākṣād dharmma ivopāttajanmā. Despite the availability of this parallel, the idea of an embodied Dharma does not seem to suit our context.
- 18. In translating all the references to the places of residence of the members of council, I have assumed that no significant difference of meaning is conveyed by the choice of terms (ni)vāsin or vāstavya (both rendered as ‘residing in’), while both of these seem also to be synonymous with the use of a nominal derivative in -eya (‘from’)
- 19. Cf. The Panchrol plate, lines 23–25 (emended): cira-khila-śūnyāvaskarāyāṁ bhūmāv avatiṣṭhamānāyāṁ na kāñ cid artha-māttrāṁ rājñaḥ puṣṇāty asya ca rājño dharmma-phala-ṣaḍ-bhāga-prāptir asty eva yato dīyatām iti; and the Ghugrahati plate, line 13–15 (emended): rājño dharmārtha-niṣphalā yā tu bhogyā kr̥tā bhūmir nr̥pasyaivārtha-dharma-kr̥t tad asmai vrāhmaṇāya dīyatām iti.
- 20. On the sense of the word ābhāvya, see Furui 2011, p. 150: “accompanied by all the contributions supposed to go to the royal family (rāja-kulābhāvya-sarva-pratyāya-sameta)”. It is glossed as ‘income or proceeds’ by Sircar 1966, p. 1. In the present context, one might wonder if it means income from the district to the king, or separate revenue to be collected and used at district level, because the translation of voḍhavya depends on this. I settle in favor of the former interpretation by comparing the Mallasarul plate, lines 12–13 (emended): tat sampadyatām asyābhiprāya ity asmad-vāra-kr̥tair anena dattaka-dīnārān [saṁgr̥hya] vīthyāṁ samvibhajyāsmadvettra-garttāgrāme ’ṣṭābhyaḥ kulyavāpebhyo yathocitaṁ dānaṁ tad-vīthī-samudaya eva prāṇāyyaṁ voḍhavyam ity avacūrṇyāṣṭau kulyavāpā mahā-rāja-vijayasenasya dattāḥ. See Sircar 1942, p. 375, n. 5, who explains “prāṇāyyaṁ = honestly. vīthīsamudaye = in the revenue, i.e. revenue account, of the vīthī. voḍhavya = to be borne. dāna = deya = dues. avacūrṇya = apaviñchya”.
- 21. It is difficult to know how to divide the text into sentences in line 13. I only know one Bengal inscription using yuktam in a similar context, i.e. the Panchrol plate, lines 21–23 (emended): etad-dharmma-sahita-vacanām upaśrutyāsmābhir yair uparilikhitakair anyonyāvadhāraṇayāvadhr̥taṁ yuktam ayaṁ prārthayate.
- 22. The term viṣayavārika is not found elsewhere in early Bengal inscriptions. Ryosuke Furui has recommended me to compare it with the functionaries named kulavārika and vārakr̥ta, appointed as arbitrators by the adhikaraṇa and mahattaras, in the Faridpur #3, Mallasarul and Ghugrahati plates. Sircar 1965, p. 371, n. 5, p. 375, n. 3 has suggested that kulavāra possibly means ‘arbitrator’, and that the meaning of vārakr̥ta seems related.
- 23. In Griffiths 2015, the expression śravaṇanimittam has been translated by “on the occasion of hearing (of the king’s assent)” with the following note : “The meaning of the expression śravaṇanimittam in this context is not clear to me, and I can find no parallels for it in other inscriptions. The phrase ājñāśravaṇavidheya, frequent e.g. in the Pāla corpus, is translated by Kielhorn 1896–1897, p. 254 (Khalimpur Plate, line 55) as ‘ready to obey our commands’.”. Here we suggest three other understandings of this expression. The first possibility is to supply an other word instead of the ’king’s consent’ and to assume it is the hearing of the prescribed mantras that must be recited during the gift-ceremony. The second possibility is to translate it as an adverbial accusative in the sense of “according to the śruti (or Vedic texts)” (Monier-Williams et al. 1899 : nimitta “in fine compositi caused or occasioned by” and śravaṇa “the act of hearing, also ’that which is heard’ equals śruti-”). Finally, considering two specific meanings of each member of the coumpound - nimitta as omen and śravaṇa as the name of the 20th (or 23rd) nakṣatra presided over by Viṣṇu -, the expression śravaṇanimittam could be understand ’under the sign of Śravaṇa’ and could express the time during which the transation should be made. In order to choose between these several meanings, one could take a look on the procedure of making gift described in the Agnipurāṇa, chapter 209. The verses 209.49cd-50 mention what the donor and the donee should say. The verses 209.56-63 detail the qualities of the donee, the auspicious place and time for the gift. This latter is defined by the position of the moon and the sun in the sky (Agnipurāṇa 209.57 : somārkagrahaṇasaṅkrāntyādau ca kālake ’in a darkness (moment) as the passage or the eclipse of the moon or the sun etc.’). Finally the verses 209.61-63 quotes the formula which should be recited. And the chapter 209 ends on this sentence : anena dānavākyena sarvadānāni vai dadet ’One must give all gifts by using this sentence of donation’. As this source belongs to smr̥ti literature and as the words to be recited are not coming from the Veda, the translation ’in the occasion the hearing of the prescribed mantras’ could be accepted whereas the one ’according to the śruti’ is less likely. As the verses 209.49cd-50 of the Agnipurāṇa prescribe the time of the gift according to the planet positions, as the pāda 209.48d specifies that Viṣṇu is the presiding deity of all things given (sarveṣāṃ viṣṇudevatā), idea which seems to be shared by others sources and be quoted by several Dharmanibandha authors (see Kane 1941, book 2.2, p. 855) and finally, as the constellation Śravaṇa is presided over by Viṣṇu, the third translation “under the auspicious sign of the constellation of Śravaṇa” has been retained here.
- 24. Ryosuke Furui points out to me that karaṇika here could also be an abbreviation of adhikaraṇika, if this Śambhudatta is the same as the viṣayādhikaraṇika of that name who figures in line 9.
- 25. This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 132 among the Bhūmi Stanzas listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 26. This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 123 among the Bhūmi Stanzas listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 27. This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 23 among the Bhūmi Stanzas listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 28. This verse corresponds to the verse numbered 145ab and 145ef among the Bhūmi Stanzas listed by Sircar (see Sircar 1965, appendix II, pp. 170–200).
- 29. Cf. Furui 2015, p. 267: “The political condition of Pupdravardhana after the mid-sixth century is unclear, due to the lack of contemporary sources. It can be surmised retrospectively from the inscriptions of the ninth century that this sub-region also experienced some tendencies witnessed in the other sub-regions.” The inscription nicely confirms Furui’s surmise.
- 30. Liṅgapurāṇa, uttarabhāga, chapter 27, stanza 158. On the textual history and ritual context of this part of the Liṅgapurāṇa, see Sanderson 2009, pp. 250, 258. Yuko Yokochi points out to me that śoṇā might be the river Son, though it is usually denoted by the masculine noun śoṇa.
Commentary
Protagonists and date
This plate is the first document that will allow scholars to begin to fill the long gap in early Puṇḍravardhana history between the last Damodarpur plate (224 GE, i.e. 544 CE) and the first plate of Dharmapāla in the late 8th century.29 The name of the ruling sovereign (mahā-rājādhirāja) Pradyumnabandhu was not previously known from any historical sources, as far as I am aware. His name, with suffix bandhu, seems somewhat unusual for an Indian king, and may be intended as a synonym of Kr̥ṣṇa. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Harivaṁśa and several purāṇic sources situate in Koṭīvarṣa-Bāṇapura, an important site in the religious landscape of ancient Puṇḍravardhana, “a conflict between Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava forces, centring around the mythological Bāṇa, the demon king ruling the city” relating “how Kr̥ṣṇa and his companions attack Bāṇa and his demons in this city, in order to rescue the captive Aniruddha, Kr̥ṣṇa’s grandson” (Bakker 2014, p. 251 and Yokochi 2013). That said, there is nothing in the text of the inscription that obliges us to assume that Pradyumnabandhu’s center of power was in Puṇḍravardhana. His capital may have been elsewhere, as was that of the Gupta kings, and this is perhaps suggested by the fact that his appointee Cellaka is stated to have been serving as governor (uparika) in this province (bhukti), still quite in the style of all the locally found inscriptions of the Gupta period. This Cellaka and the great chamberlain (mahāpratīhāra) named Avadhūta are, just as their sovereign Pradyumnabandhu, entirely unknown from other historical sources.
It is impossible to be any more precise about the date of the present inscription than to say that it most likely dates after the complete dissolution of Gupta power in North Bengal, i.e. after 544 CE, and that it is unlikely, from palaeographic perspective, to be later than 650.
Toponyms and landscape indications
The name of the district (viṣaya), Ghoṇādvīpikā, suggests that Ghoṇā might have been the name of a river, an assumption that could be supported by a passage from the uttarabhāga of the Liṅgapurāṇa that figures several names of Śākta deities at least two of which known to be names of rivers: “añjanī mohinī māyā vikaṭāṅgī nalī tathā | gaṇḍakī daḍakī ghoṇā śoṇā satyavatī tathā ||”. 30 However, it is also possible that ghoṇā here has its lexical meaning of ‘nose’ or ‘beak’, and that we are dealing with a descriptive toponym ‘nose island’, perhaps suggestive of the shape of a formation in the landscape. I am unable to identify the precise location of this, or any of the other principal place names, on a map.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that the village whose donation, ‘along with its citron grove’ (if bījapūrakavr̥nda is not itself a toponym), is the object of this record is called Mastakaśvabhra, while two place names in -śvabhra and even a specific name landscape indication bījapūraka, are also found in the Khalimpur plate of Dharmapāla (Kielhorn 1896–1897, ll. 30-39), in the context of a village Krauñcaśvabhra that lay in śrīpuṇḍravardhana-bhukty-antaḥpāti-vyāghrataṭī-maṇḍala-sambaddha-mahantāprakāśa-viṣaya ‘the district Mahantāprakāśa forming part of the Vyāghrataṭī circle of the Śrī Puṇḍravardhana province’. I do not find toponyms in -śvabhra in any other inscriptions of Bengal, and hence infer that this element may have been in vogue for forming toponyms only on a local level. Since the find-spot of the Khalimpur plate lies within a few miles from the citadel of Gaur (cf. Bhattasali 1935, p. 76), there is reason to explore the possibility that the places intended in that plate — as well as ours — lay in the same area.
Landscape indicators or toponyms including the word śālmalī (here, line 17) are also observed in the Mallasarul (line 7) and Khalimpur plates (line 37). The element joṭā (or derivatives), indicating some kind of waterway or canal, is found repeatedly in the cited passage of the Khalimpur plate, as also in the Mallasarul (line 7) and Ghughrahati plates (lines 18–19). The word trighaṭṭikā (line 17) is also found in Faridpur plate #2 (lines 23–24), but Pargiter’s translation ‘three ghats’ does not fit in our context, and it seems Trighaṭṭikā must be a hydronym.
The toponym Audumvarika, which underlies the derivative adjective audumvarikeya in line 9, may have been the same as the viṣaya named Audumvarīka in the Vappaghoshavata grant of Jayanāga (Barnett 1925–1926, l. 3). It may further be asked whether Śivanagara (line 7) is identifiable with the aforementioned important Śaiva site at modern Bāṇgaḍh (Yokochi 2013, Bakker 2014), and whether Varāhakoṭṭaka (line 8) might be connected with the series of Vaiṣṇava foundations recorded in the Damodarpur plates #4 and #5 (Willis 2009, pp. 92–3). If so, it is necessary to assume that the administrative situation has changed vis-à-vis the Gupta period, when those sites lay in Koṭīvarṣa-district; in our plate, all toponyms mentioned in connection with the notables etc. are explicitly stated to lie within the Ghoṇādvīpa district (lines 2–3).