Sanjeli Charter of the Merchants
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ [svasti?]⟨.⟩ [saṁvat](sa)r[e] 3 śrāva śu di 2 parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahārājādhirāja-śrī{s}-toramāṇe pr̥thivīm anuśāsati tat-prasādād viṣayapati ⟨2⟩ -[mahā](rā)ja-bhūtasya śivabhāga-¿m?ure bhujyamānake vadrapālyāḥ pūrvvasyā¿n? diśi Etad-rājamā(tu)⟨r⟩ vvīrāḍhyikā-kārita ⟨3⟩ (ka)-d[e]va-jayasvāmi-pādānāṁ bali-caru-satra-dhūpa-gandha-puṣpa-dīpa-taila-khaṇḍa-sphuṭita-pra(ti)saṁskāraṇ¿ā?payogya{ṁ} ⟨4⟩ m ātmanaḥ puṇyābhivr̥ddhaye caturddiśābhyāgataka-vaideśya-vāṇijakāḥ vastavyāḥ poṭṭalikā-putrāś ca lekhayanti ⟨5⟩ yatra guḍa-lavana-karppāsa-bhāṇḍa-bharakeṣu Ācandrārkkārṇṇava-kṣiti-sthiti-sama-kāl(ī)yaṁ daśa-viṁśopa ⟨6⟩ kīnakaḥ bhāṇḍa-bharakaḥ Arddha-pādīnakaḥ lavaṇa-bharakaḥ setinakaḥ dhānya-bhallā setīnikā dhānya-śakaṭa ⟨7⟩ m arddha-kauṭubikaṁ garddabha-bhāṇḍa-bharako v¿ī?śopaka-divarddha-setakaḥ bhāṇḍa-p¿ā?ṭṭalikā viṁśopakiniki dhānya-bharakeṣu ⟨8⟩ dhānya-setikā Ato rddhaṁ garddabha-bharakeṣu dāsī-guṇṭhaṁ pad¿ū?na-rūpīnakaṁetāṁ cākṣayaṇīṁ Upari-likhita-nyāyena ⟨9⟩ dīyamānāṁ yaḥ vaṇi⟨g⟩-grāmābhyantaraḥ puṭṭalikā-putro vā kaścid apramāṇī-kariṣyati saḥ pañcabhir mmahā-pātakaiḥ saṁ ⟨10⟩ yukto ¿bhaviṣyanti?evaṁ cāsya pramāṇaṁ vāṇiyakāḥ sva-hastena lekhayanti⟨.⟩ dāgapura-vāstavya gomika (d/v)ematta⟨.⟩ māthura-saṁnihi ⟨11⟩ ta-māthurika-vāstavya senavarmmā⟨.⟩ kanyakuldāka pitr̥yaśa cirāyuṣa⟨.⟩ Aujjenaka(ṁtphuśūe)bhaśśama⟨.⟩ varuṇodarī-vāstavya poṭṭa ⟨12⟩ likā-putra droṇa soma bhakkala⟨.⟩ mahiṣahradaka bhannitya dhruvabhakṣaṇa Agniśarmma pracakāsaka bhakkūra śūra goṇḍata ⟨13⟩ raka rudradatta priya(ṇka)ra yaśaka bhāraṇabhaṭṭīśaśarmma kāloṭṭiyakabhaṭṭi vāsta⟦vā⟧⟨⟨vya⟩⟩sa{ṁ}ṅgāḍhyaka yajña goggabhaṭṭiyaka ⟨14⟩ bhagavadvinīta skāndavarmma bhāhasti harimata moha bha⊔dvija bhagguṇa rivāsula vāṇijaka vāstavya datta gujjara bharo ⟨15⟩ putra bhaṭṭi-mahattara bhaṭṭi-rudra maheśvara-svāmika maheśvara mallaka saṅgama karkkaṭa devaṭaatraiva cākṣayaṇī-hetoḥ vāṇija ⟨16⟩ ka ṣaṣṭhi gr̥⊔ha-⊔vastu (c)eti|||
Bibliography
First reported and edited in Mehta & Thakkar 1978. Also reported and discussed in Ramesh 1985, pp. 11–12. Re-edited in Ramesh [1986] 1973–1974. Discussed in Mirashi 1980, Chakravarti 2008.
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00103). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.
Secondary
Goyal, Śrīrām. 1993. गुप्तकालीन अभिलेख/Guptakālīna Abhilekha (Inscriptions of the Gupta Age). Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. Items 358-359.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_SQF.sch" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="eng">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Sanjeli Charter of the Merchants</title>
<respStmt>
<resp key="creator"/>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<funder>European Research Council (ERC), grant agreement no 809994</funder>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority><ref target="https://dharmalekha.info">DHARMA</ref></authority>
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSSiddham00103.xml</idno>
<!--
If this file is moved into a named DHARMA corpus, retain the Siddham identifier as <altIdentifier>
-->
<availability><licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA 4.0</licence></availability>
<date from="2019" to="2026">2019-2026</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<msDesc>
<msIdentifier>
<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
<idno/>
</msIdentifier>
<msContents>
<summary/>
</msContents>
<physDesc>
<handDesc>
<p/>
</handDesc>
</physDesc>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<p>Encoded in TEI/EpiDoc according to the <ref target="https://hal.science/halshs-02888186">DHARMA Encoding Guide for Documentary Editions, version 2</ref></p>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change who="part:daba" when="2023-05-15" status="draft">Additional global changes for compatibility with DHARMA</change>
<change who="part:axja" when="2021-07-06" status="draft">Updating toward the encoding template v03</change>
<change who="part:daba" when="2020-08-04" status="draft">Initial import: harmonising file structure with DHARMA inscription template v02. Text and comments as inherited from the Siddham archive of January 2019, unless otherwise indicated (by a name and date in the comment). Comments are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly considered or researched opinion.</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text xml:space="preserve">
<body>
<div type="edition" xml:lang="san-Latn" rendition="class:83225 maturity:83211"><!--
Digitally re-edited by Dániel Balogh. Version of January 2019. Comments below are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly researched or considered opinion.
--><p><!--
Unless otherwise noted, my edition follows Ramesh_1986.
--><lb n="1"/><supplied reason="lost" cert="low">svasti</supplied><supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> <supplied reason="lost">saṁvat</supplied><unclear>sa</unclear>r<supplied reason="lost">e</supplied> <num value="3">3</num> śrāva śu di <num value="2">2</num> parama-bhaṭṭāraka-mahārājādhirāja-śrī<surplus>s</surplus>-toramāṇe pr̥thivīm anuśāsati tat-prasādād viṣayapati<lb n="2" break="no"/>-<supplied reason="lost">mahā</supplied><unclear>rā</unclear>ja-bhūtasya śivabhāga-<choice><sic>m</sic><corr>p</corr></choice>ure bhujyamānake vadrapālyāḥ pūrvvasyā<sic>n</sic> diśi Etad-rājamā<unclear>tu</unclear><supplied reason="omitted">r</supplied> vvīrāḍhyikā-kārita<lb n="3" break="no"/><unclear>ka</unclear>-d<supplied reason="lost">e</supplied>va-jayasvāmi-pādānāṁ bali-caru-satra-dhūpa-gandha-puṣpa-dīpa-taila-khaṇḍa-sphuṭita-pra<unclear>ti</unclear>saṁskāraṇ<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>o</corr></choice>payogya<surplus>ṁ</surplus><lb n="4" break="no"/>m ātmanaḥ puṇyābhivr̥ddhaye caturddiśābhyāgataka-vaideśya-vāṇijakāḥ vastavyāḥ poṭṭalikā-putrāś ca lekhayanti <lb n="5"/>yatra guḍa-lavana-karppāsa-bhāṇḍa-bharakeṣu Ācandrārkkārṇṇava-kṣiti-sthiti-sama-kāl<unclear>ī</unclear>yaṁ daśa-viṁśopa<lb n="6" break="no"/>kīnakaḥ bhāṇḍa-bharakaḥ Arddha-pādīnakaḥ lavaṇa-bharakaḥ setinakaḥ dhānya-bhallā setīnikā dhānya-śakaṭa<lb n="7" break="no"/>m arddha-kauṭubikaṁ garddabha-bhāṇḍa-bharako v<sic>ī</sic>śopaka-divarddha-setakaḥ bhāṇḍa-p<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>o</corr></choice>ṭṭalikā viṁśopakiniki dhānya-bharakeṣu <lb n="8"/>dhānya-setikā Ato rddhaṁ garddabha-bharakeṣu dāsī-guṇṭhaṁ pad<sic>ū</sic>na-rūpīnakaṁ<!--
Mehta & Thakkar (hereafter MT) read the first character of l3 as sva, which is unlikely. Ramesh prints ka as clear, which it isn't, but the reading is almost certain. (They also print de as clear, though the e is completely lost to the broken-off corner.)
--><!--
In l4 Ramesh emends °diśābhyā° to °dig-abhyā°; overzealous in my opinion.
--><!--
In l5 Ramesh reads kāliyaṁ, emending to kālīyaṁ. The character is damaged by a crack; the mātrā is pretty clear and does look like i, but compare e.g. dīyamānāṁ at the beginning of l9 where the distinguishing stroke of ī is very faint - there could easily have been such a faint one here too.
--><!--
Ramesh observes that divarddha is probably meant to be dvyarddha.
--></p>
<p>etāṁ cākṣayaṇīṁ Upari-likhita-nyāyena <lb n="9"/>dīyamānāṁ yaḥ vaṇi<supplied reason="omitted">g</supplied>-grāmābhyantaraḥ puṭṭalikā-putro vā kaścid apramāṇī-kariṣyati saḥ pañcabhir mmahā-pātakaiḥ saṁ<lb n="10" break="no"/>yukto <choice><sic>bhaviṣyanti</sic><corr>bhaviṣyati</corr></choice><!--
In akṣayaṇīṁ l8, the anusvāra is over the right edge of the ya. There would have been no room for it above the nī, so this placement seems like a solution to a problem, not an error. Ramesh emends to akṣayiṇīṁ and believes the spelling was influenced by akṣaya-nīvī. I could go further and assume that akṣayaṇī is an abbreviation for akṣayaṇīvī.
--></p>
<p>evaṁ cāsya pramāṇaṁ vāṇiyakāḥ sva-hastena lekhayanti<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> dāgapura-vāstavya gomika <choice><unclear>d</unclear><unclear>v</unclear></choice>ematta<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> māthura-saṁnihi<lb n="11" break="no"/>ta-māthurika-vāstavya senavarmmā<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> kanyakuldāka pitr̥yaśa cirāyuṣa<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> Aujjenaka<unclear>ṁtphuśūe</unclear>bhaśśama<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> varuṇodarī-vāstavya poṭṭa<lb n="12" break="no"/>likā-putra droṇa soma bhakkala<supplied reason="subaudible">.</supplied> mahiṣahradaka bhannitya dhruvabhakṣaṇa Agniśarmma pracakāsaka bhakkūra śūra goṇḍata<lb n="13" break="no"/>raka rudradatta priya<unclear>ṇka</unclear>ra yaśaka bhāraṇabhaṭṭīśaśarmma kāloṭṭiyakabhaṭṭi vāsta<subst><del rend="corrected">vā</del><add place="overstrike">vya</add></subst>sa<surplus>ṁ</surplus>ṅgāḍhyaka yajña goggabhaṭṭiyaka <lb n="14"/>bhagavadvinīta skāndavarmma bhāhasti harimata moha bha<space type="descender"/>dvija bhagguṇa rivāsula vāṇijaka vāstavya datta gujjara bharo<lb n="15" break="no"/>putra bhaṭṭi-mahattara bhaṭṭi-rudra maheśvara-svāmika maheśvara mallaka saṅgama karkkaṭa devaṭa<!--
Ramesh treats the entire list as a compound. I think it is much closer to the original intent, not to mention easier to scan, to take the residences and names as separate nominatives without a case ending. (MT go further, also printing spaces within the residence expressions.) Where multiple personal names appear after a toponym, I follow Ramesh in the separation of names - alternatives abound.
--><!--
As Ramesh notes, dāgapura may well be a mistake for daśapura/dāśapura (note the vr̥ddhi in several other place names).
--><!--
In l11 Ramesh reads dematta, MT read vematta. I agree with Ramesh that dematta is more likely: the vertical stem of the character extends below the top horizontal, but it is certainly not connected to the bottom horizontal.
--><!--
For Ramesh's kanyakuldāka in l11, MT read kanyakulyāka; both emend to kanyakubjāka. lda is certainly closer to what we have than lya (the end of the subscript letter does not turn upward). This is probably the work of an engraver who knew his letters but did not really understand or care what he was engraving; the text he copied almost certainly had bjā, with the middle horizontal stroke of the ja omitted or smudged.
--><!--
For aujjena, MT read ṇujjena. The character is certainly au.
--><!--
After aujjena, MT read °kaṁ gḍhuśūebhaśśama; Ramesh supplies another ka and thus reads aujjenaka kaṁgghuśūra bhaśśama. The anusvāra is in fact in empty space between ka and the strange ligature, which is very surprising. If it were meant to go with ka, the subscript u of dāgapura is slightly in the way, but there would have been plenty of room for an anusvāra to the left of this u (compare akṣayanīṁ in l8). Could this in fact be half a visarga rather than an anusvāra? There is also space above the weird ligature, so I think the most likely solution is that the anusvāra goes over a character that the engraver omitted, perhaps because he couldn't read it in the text he was copying from. Or, even more likely, it is not even an anusvāra but a disembodied headmark, indicating a character the engraver or scribe could not read. This could have been another ka (as Ramesh supplies), but I suspect something more complex or unusual. In the weird ligature, the first component does look like g, but t is also possible (and so is upadhmānīya, assuming that the engraver didn't execute it properly because he misidentified it in the text he was copying from). The second component doesn't look like gh; I would identify it as ph, but RT's ḍh is also an option. The third component is almost certainly a subscript u. It is also possible that the whole character is meant to be bhū, but given its complexity, this is not likely. The next character is quite certainly śū; compare śūra near the end of l12 and the subscript ū of bhakkūra just before that. The last character of the sequence is probably e (compare evaṁ in l10), as read by MT; Ramesh's ra looks tempting as it gives śūra, but the bottom of the letter is closed, not just hooked. We could add ambiguous markup to most of these phonemes; also we really should consider unclear @reason="form" or something along these lines, to distinguish from characters unclear due to damage. Also, Falk_2010 (Names and Titles) p75 mentions a title meaning "prince, son of family", Iranian viśpuhr, Indianised as guśūraka, gaśūra and gośūra. Is it possible we have this here? Perhaps spelt gghuśūra? (And compare gośūra in IN00121 - do we have that there?) Returning to this at a later time, I think the reading tphuśūe is practically beyond doubt, no matter how absurd. I could conceive of a scenario where the text to be inscribed was aujjainakaf phuśūe, and the engraver first started on a visarga (perhaps upon dictation), then looked at the written specimen and saw there was no visarga, but did not know an upadhmānīya so he engraved a superscript t. But phuśūe is still absurd.
--><!--
In l12 Ramesh prints sema instead of soma; this must be a typo.
--><!--
For the names I read as priyaṅkara+yaśaka in l13, MT read priyajñārayaṣaka(sic), while Ramesh reads priyajña-rayaśaka. The subscript part of the problematic character looks very much like ña, but the top is not like j at all. (Admittedly it is also different from ṅ in saṅgāḍhyaka later in this line; but then again, it is even more different from jña in yajña a bit further on. I think priyaṅkara is a very plausible solution, assuming that the engraver misidentified the bottom part as ña. There are also slight spaces before and after the characters yaśaka, which may be just random unevenness, but which also seem to suggest that yaśaka is a name on its own.
--><!--
For the next bit, MT use the segmentation bhāraṇabhaṭṭiśa+śarmma (reading ṭṭi); Ramesh reads ṭṭī and segments bhāraṇa+bhaṭṭi+īśaśarmma. Since bhaṭṭi is repeated just a bit further on, I believe both are second members of names, thus bhāraṇabhaṭṭi+īśaśarmma+kāloṭṭiyakabhaṭṭi. This means that we do not have a place name to attach to vāstavya, but perhaps that is because here it just means "local" as vastavya does in l4 (to corroborate this, there is space between bhaṭṭi and vāstavya, which may be for more than śarmma in the previous line hanging down; though then again, I don't know what to do with vāstavya in l14 if this one is just "local").
--><!--
The vāstavya in l13 reads vāstavyā, but the subscript y is compressed and awkward, giving the impression that the i of vāṇijaka in the next line was already in place below this character when this subscript ya was incised. I believe the most likely scenario is that vā was inscribed first, and subsequently corrected to vya.
--><!--
For saṁṅgāḍhyaka in l13 MT read saṁ(jñā)ḍhyaka. I agree with Ramesh that ṅgā is the correct reading.
--><!--
The space in l14 is where the subscript ma of śarmma hangs down to this line; but there may be more to this space. I could imagine the segmentation mohabha, dvija-bhagguṇa; or, alternatively, dvi may be an erroneously executed ṭṭi, giving moha, bhaṭṭija, bhagguṇa. Further, given that vāsula is a known legitimate name (IN00095, IN00098), maybe bhagguṇari, vāsula?
--><!--
An idea for the structuring of the vāstavyas: 1. l11, varuṇodarī-vāstavya-poṭṭalikāputra: all the names after this may be retailers living in varuṇodarī (which would imply that varuṇodarī is close by); 2. vāstavya in l13: all names after this would be retailers living in Śivabhāgapura or wherever "local" is; 3. vāṇijaka vāstavya in l14: all names after this would be wholesale merchants living in Śivabhāgapura or wherever.
--></p>
<p>atraiva cākṣayaṇī-hetoḥ vāṇija<lb n="16" break="no"/>ka ṣaṣṭhi gr̥<space type="descender"/>ha-<space type="descender"/>vastu <unclear>c</unclear>eti|||<!--
Line 16 is short and could barely be squeezed into the remaining space at the bottom. The i mātrās in this line are also compressed and faint.
--><!--
The closing punctuation is a double vertical followed by a single horizontal.
--><!--
MT translates this last bit to mean "signed here at the house of Ṣaṣṭhi", while Ramesh offers no translation. I'm inclined to the view that it means that Ṣaṣṭhi is donating his house and land in addition to the above tithes. Also, see line 7 of IN00104 where it is explicitly mentioned that Ṣaṣṭhi has donated his house and land.
--></p>
</div>
<div type="apparatus">
<listApp>
<app loc="line">
<lem/>
<rdg source="bib:AuthorYear_01"/>
</app>
</listApp>
</div>
<div type="translation" source="bib:AuthorYear_01"><!--Indicate @resp or change @source when a translation is added -->
</div>
<div type="commentary">
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<p>First reported and edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mehta+Thakkar1978_01"/></bibl>. Also reported and discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Ramesh1985_01"/><citedRange>11-12</citedRange></bibl>. Re-edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Ramesh1973-1974_01"/></bibl>. Discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Mirashi1980_04"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Chakravarti2008_01"/></bibl>.</p>
<p>Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Balogh2019_03"/><citedRange unit="item">IN00103</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>
<listBibl type="primary">
<bibl n="siglum"><ptr target="bib:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl type="secondary">
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Goyal1993_01"/><citedRange unit="item">358-359</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>