Image of Viṣṇu probably donated by Cōḷaṟaviti
Editors: Jens Thomas, J. Ramayya Pantulu.
Identifier: DHARMA_INSTelugu00004.
Summary: Probably the name of a female donor.
Language: Telugu.
Repository: Telugu Inscriptions (tfb-telugu-epigraphy).
Version: (585a60b), last modified (d5dcd05).
Apparatus
⟨1⟩ śrī cōḷaṟaviti ⬦ śrīcōḷōṟuvṛiti ARIE • I am not sure whether this spelling indicates that two vowel signs were read or rather simply renders r̥.
Translation by Jens Thomas
Śrī Cōḷaṟaviti
Bibliography
The inscription was noted and edited in the Annual Reports on Indian Epigraphy (1923, p. 79, № 265) and was re-edited by J. Ramayya Pantulu in 1948, p. 17, № 40 with few metadata and without translation.
Primary
[ARIE] Venkoba Rao, G. 1923. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for the year 1921-1922. Madras: Governement Press. Page 79, appendix C/1922, item 265.
[JRP] Ramayya Pantulu, J. 1948. South-Indian inscriptions (texts). Volume X: Telugu inscriptions from the Madras Presidency. South Indian Inscriptions 10. Delhi: Manager of Publications. Page 17, item 40.
Secondary
Sastri, Korada Mahadeva. 1969. Historical grammar of Telugu with special reference to Old Telugu c. 200 B.C. - 1000 A.D. Anantapur: Sri Vekateswara Univ. Page 327, item 55.
<?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>Image of Viṣṇu probably donated by Cōḷaṟaviti</title>
<respStmt>
<resp>EpiDoc Encoding</resp>
<persName ref="part:jeth">
<forename>Jens Christian</forename>
<surname>Thomas</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<respStmt>
<resp>intellectual authorship of edition</resp>
<persName>
<forename>J.</forename>
<surname>Ramayya Pantulu</surname>
<!-- J. Ramayya Pantulu is the editor of SII X. He appears to be the editor of all the inscriptions as well.-->
</persName>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>DHARMA</authority>
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSTelugu00004</idno>
<availability>
<licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
<p>This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.</p>
<p>Copyright (c) 2019-2025 by Jens Christian Thomas.</p>
</licence>
</availability>
<date from="2019" to="2025">2019-2025</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><!-- only the handDesc can be filled in at this stage -->
<msDesc><!-- //// NB: the msIdentifier had to be added for validation purposes ///. It will be edited later with the metadata spreadsheet -->
<msIdentifier>
<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
<idno/>
<!-- don't modify this -->
</msIdentifier>
<msContents><!-- describe the intellectual content of an inscription -->
<summary>Probably the name of a female donor.</summary>
<!-- offers the possibility to give a summary of the inscription's content -->
</msContents>
<physDesc>
<handDesc>
<p><!-- The script name(s) will be inserted here at a later stage from the metadata spreasheet. At this stage, you can mention here in a free-text paragraph any characteristics of the writing observed more than once in this inscription that seem unusual/uncommon or otherwise noteworthy given the general characteristics of the script in question. See EGD 11.2. --></p>
<!-- If you need to identify individual hands (EGD §7.5/) in addition to one or more paragraphs of general palaeographic description, wrap <summary> around the <p> or <p>s above, and, outside <summary>, create <handNote> elements for each hand as follows:
<summary><p><p/></summary>
<handNote xml:id="Pallava00001_hand1"></handNote>
<handNote xml:id="Pallava00001_hand2"></handNote>
-->
</handDesc>
</physDesc>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<projectDesc>
<p>The project DHARMA has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC)
under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant
agreement no 809994).</p>
</projectDesc>
<schemaRef type="guide" key="EGDv01" url="https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02888186"/>
<listPrefixDef>
<prefixDef ident="bib" matchPattern="([a-zA-Z0-9\-\_]+)" replacementPattern="https://www.zotero.org/groups/1633743/erc-dharma/items/tag/$1">
<p>Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named
ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.</p>
</prefixDef>
<prefixDef ident="part" matchPattern="([a-z]+)" replacementPattern="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/DHARMA_IdListMembers_v01.xml#$1">
<p>Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the
<ref>DHARMA_IdListMembers_v01.xml</ref> file.</p>
</prefixDef>
</listPrefixDef>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change who="part:jeth" when="2021-02-18" status="draft">Adding missing information according to the encoding template v03, changing the title and file name</change>
<change who="part:axja" when="2020-11-03" status="draft">Updating toward the encoding template v03</change>
<change who="part:jeth" when="2020-06-04" status="draft">Creation of the file</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text xml:space="preserve">
<body>
<div type="edition" xml:lang="tel-Latn">
<ab>
<lb n="1"/>śrī cōḷaṟaviti
</ab>
</div>
<div type="apparatus">
<!--apparatus encoded as per EGD §9.1, basic elements for apparatus below-->
<listApp><!-- one <app> for each apparatus entry -->
<app loc="1"><!-- update the value of @loc.-->
<lem>śrī cōḷaṟaviti</lem>
<rdg source="bib:ARIE1921-1922">śrīcōḷōṟuvṛiti</rdg>
<note>I am not sure whether this spelling indicates that two vowel signs were read or rather simply renders <foreign>r̥</foreign>.</note>
</app>
</listApp>
</div>
<div type="translation" resp="part:jeth">
<p>
Śrī Cōḷaṟaviti
</p>
</div>
<div type="commentary">
<p>
The Annual Report states that the inscription was found <cit><quote>[b]elow the image of Vishṇu carved in the first cave-temple at Bhairavakōna in Bhairavakonda</quote><bibl><ptr target="bib:ARIE1921-1922"/><citedRange unit="page">79</citedRange></bibl></cit>.
It may be the name of the donor of this image. While <foreign>cōḷa</foreign> most certainly refers to the dynasty, <foreign>ṟaviti</foreign> may consist of <foreign>ṟava</foreign> 'jewel' and the female suffix -<hi rend="italic">iti</hi> 'woman' (confer <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sastri1969_01"/><citedRange unit="page">139</citedRange></bibl>).
Hence, the name probably means 'a jewel of a woman of the Cōḻa (dynasty)'. If this is the case <foreign>ṟaviti</foreign> parallels the skt. expression <foreign>kanyāratna</foreign>-.
The inscription, albeit short, is therefore of a certain importance because it is evidence of a donation made by a woman.
Since the dynasty is normally spelt <foreign>cōḻa</foreign> or <foreign>cōḍa</foreign> (with /ḍ/ from /ḻ/) and ‹ḍa› and ‹ḷa› are often spelt quite similarly, the intended spelling might have been <foreign>cōḍa</foreign>.
The following remarks were made in the Annual Report regarding the reading therein: <cit><quote>This probably means 'the work or style of Śrīchōḷōṟu. Might Chōḷōṟu be another form of Chōḷōju?</quote><bibl><ptr target="bib:ARIE1921-1922"/><citedRange unit="page">79</citedRange></bibl></cit>. Accordingly, Sastri summarizes the content as: <cit><quote>Records the work of Śrī Cōḻāṟu</quote><bibl><ptr target="bib:Sastri1969_01"/><citedRange unit="page">327</citedRange></bibl></cit>, but follows J. Ramayya Pantulu's edition.
</p>
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<p>
The inscription was noted and edited in the Annual Reports on Indian Epigraphy (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:ARIE1921-1922"/><citedRange unit="page">79</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">265</citedRange></bibl>) and was re-edited by J. Ramayya Pantulu in <bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:RamayyaPantulu1948_01"/><citedRange unit="page">17</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">40</citedRange></bibl> with few metadata and without translation.
</p>
<listBibl type="primary">
<bibl n="ARIE"><ptr target="bib:ARIE1921-1922"/><citedRange unit="page">79</citedRange><citedRange unit="appendix">C/1922</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">265</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl n="JRP"><ptr target="bib:RamayyaPantulu1948_01"/><citedRange unit="page">17</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">40</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl type="secondary">
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Sastri1969_01"/><citedRange unit="page">327</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">55</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>
Commentary
The Annual Report states that the inscription was found “[b]elow the image of Vishṇu carved in the first cave-temple at Bhairavakōna in Bhairavakonda” (Venkoba Rao 1923, p. 79). It may be the name of the donor of this image. While cōḷa most certainly refers to the dynasty, ṟaviti may consist of ṟava ’jewel’ and the female suffix -iti ’woman’ (confer Sastri 1969, p. 139). Hence, the name probably means ’a jewel of a woman of the Cōḻa (dynasty)’. If this is the case ṟaviti parallels the skt. expression kanyāratna-. The inscription, albeit short, is therefore of a certain importance because it is evidence of a donation made by a woman. Since the dynasty is normally spelt cōḻa or cōḍa (with /ḍ/ from /ḻ/) and ‹ḍa› and ‹ḷa› are often spelt quite similarly, the intended spelling might have been cōḍa. The following remarks were made in the Annual Report regarding the reading therein: “This probably means ’the work or style of Śrīchōḷōṟu. Might Chōḷōṟu be another form of Chōḷōju?” (Venkoba Rao 1923, p. 79). Accordingly, Sastri summarizes the content as: “Records the work of Śrī Cōḻāṟu” (Sastri 1969, p. 327), but follows J. Ramayya Pantulu’s edition.