Land donation by Viṭrāju, muṭlu of Maṅgiyuvarāja

Editor: Jens Thomas.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSTelugu00101.

Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.

Repository: Telugu Inscriptions (tfb-telugu-epigraphy).

Version: 2024-05-22 10:49 (585a60b), last modified 2024-05-22 10:43 (d5dcd05).

Edition

Logical
Physical
Full

⟨Face A⟩ ⟨1⟩ svasti śrī magidogarajula muṭlu ⟨2⟩ viṭṟajula pratama-rā⟨3⟩jyaṁbuna kaḍu(mallu)⟨4⟩la Iccina reṇḍu vaṭi ⟨5⟩ miriyampu bōḷa⟨6⟩jakkuṟēgari pa⟨7⟩ḍaśina reṇḍu vaṭṭi ⟨8⟩ padēnduṁbu Āḍlu pa⟨9⟩ṭṭu druggādēvi nēlayu ⟨10⟩ Uṟuvuṭuri bōḷa ⟨11⟩ reṇḍūṭṭiyu tūṟpuN ⟨Face B⟩ ⟨12⟩ I reṇḍ[ū](ṭ)i ḻacuvaru ⟨13⟩ kaḷarēni bāranāsi ⟨14⟩ vēgavilāḷu vē⟨gu⟩ḍlu⟨15⟩mu vēśeṟuvuḷu ⟨16⟩ vēvuru paṟānu ⟨17⟩ campinavanṟ agu ⟨18⟩

⟨19⟩

I. Anuṣṭubh

ya¡ś!⟨s⟩ya ya¡ś!⟨s⟩ya ya⟨20⟩¡t!⟨d⟩ā bhūmi⟨s⟩

ta¡ś!⟨s⟩ya {(śa)} ⟨21⟩ ta¡ś!⟨s⟩ya ta¡th!⟨d⟩ā ¡p!⟨ph⟩a(la)[ṁ]

⟨22⟩

II. Anuṣṭubh

svadat(ā) pa(ra)da⟨23⟩tā va

yō [ha](r)[ē](t)[i] ⟨24⟩ {ṣa} vaśundara (ṣṭhi)

Apparatus

⟨1⟩ magidogarajula • Prabhākaraśāstri states in note no. 1 that it should be maṁgi. — ⟨1⟩ muṭlu ⬦ muḍlu PS • Prabhākaraśāstri remarks in note no. 2 that also muṭlu could be read. As far as I can say from the picture published in Prabhākaraśāstri’s edition the akṣara resembles ⟨ṭ⟩ in line 4. Other instances of the word in question show ⟨ṭ⟩.

⟨3⟩ kaḍu(mallu)⟨4⟩la ⬦ kaḍuvaṁ(ḍlu)⟨4⟩la PS • Prabhākaraśāstri notes that ⟨du⟩ could be read as well, and that the reading of ⟨ḍlu⟩ is uncertain and also could be ⟨jlu⟩ (notes nos. 3-4). The akṣara in question indeed looks like ⟨jlu⟩. As far as I can say from my bad scan the akṣara that was read as ⟨va⟩ by Prabhākara Śāstri could also be ⟨ma⟩. The following akṣara could be ⟨lla⟩ as spelled in the Zulakallu plates of Vijayāditya I (line 17) (Gai 1965–1966), i. e. with the right upward line of the superscript ⟨l⟩ drawn downwards on the left side ending into subscript ⟨l⟩. The single ⟨la⟩ is written in its fuller form in line 4 of our Telugu inscription but also occurs in a slightly more advanced form in line 14.

⟨4⟩ reṇḍu ⬦ renḍu PS.

⟨6⟩ jakkuṟēgari ⬦ jaku ṟeṁgari PS • Prabhākaraśāstri says in note no. 5 that it could also be ⟨kku⟩ instead of ⟨ku⟩. Jakkuṟē- seems to me to be one word consisting of two elements in which the anusvāra would be superfluous (see commentary). However, a dot can be seen on top of the akṣara ⟨ga⟩ that may be a damage on the stone though. — ⟨6⟩ pa⟨7⟩ḍaśina ⬦ pe⟨7⟩ḍaśina PS • According to Prabhākaraśāstri the spelling should be ⟨pa⟩ (note no. 6); the respective verb would be paḍayu. The line that Prabhākaraśāstri read as the vowel sign ⟨°e⟩ starts on the left side from the middle of the akṣara ⟨pa⟩. That would be very unusual because this vowel is normally written on the upper left line of the akṣara. The alleged vowel sign may therefore be simply a damage on the stone.

⟨8⟩ Āḍlu • Prabhākaraśāstri notes (no. 7) that on the left upper side of the akṣara ⟨Ā⟩ a line like the vowel sign ⟨°e⟩ is visible. This seems to me to be a mere damage on the stone.

⟨11⟩ reṇḍūṭṭiyu ⬦ renḍuṭṭiyu PS • In Prabhākaraśāstri’s edition renṭuṭḍiyu is printed but that seems to be a mere misprint. The vowel sign is written to the left side and has a hook on top drooping towards the left. Therefore, the vowel seems to be long /uː/ seems to be written. The form appears to be a contraction of /uva/ to /uː/ of the already mentioned reṇḍuvaṭṭi (i. e. reṇḍuvaṭṭi > reṇḍūṭṭi) — ⟨11⟩ tūṟpuN ⬦ tūṟpu PS • There seems to be a very faint halanta ⟨N⟩ written at the end of the line. It is written very small and without a "head". This consonant forms a locative, hence "in the east".

⟨12⟩ I reṇḍ[ū](ṭ)i ⬦ Ī renḍuṭṭi PS • The akṣara ⟨I⟩ looks like ⟨I⟩ in line 4. The intended meaning, however, must be "this" (ī). Prabhākaraśāstri had a the original and the original estampage at his disposal wherefore his reading may be correct. However, I cannot see any vowel sign on ⟨ṇḍ⟩ and it seems that the vowel simply was forgotten. On the other hand, the lower part of ⟨ṭi⟩ seems to be damaged on the scan available to me so that it is also possible that the vowel sign of ⟨ṇḍ⟩ may have been lost due to damage. I supplied a long ⟨°ū⟩ due to the reading reṇḍūṭṭi- in line 11. — ⟨12⟩ ḻacuvaru • Prabhākaraśāstri notes (note no. 8) that the form should be ḻaccu.

⟨14⟩ vē⟨gu⟩ḍlu⟨15⟩mu • Prabhākaraśāstri edits the text as it is written but states that it should be vēguḍlu (note 9).

⟨16⟩ paṟānu • Prabhākaraśāstri states in note no. 10 that it should be written pāṟanu.

⟨17⟩ campinavanṟ agu ⬦ campinacannaṁgu PS • According to Prabhākaraśāstri (note no. 11) the reading is unclear and also canvaṁ and candhaṁ are possible according to him (his alternative readings are very blurred in the bad scan at my disposal).The akṣara ⟨va⟩ is written in a little bit more elongated form than in e. g. line 14. The scribe forgot to write the horizontal line inside the akṣara ⟨ṟa⟩ so that it is an empty oval and thus resembles a ⟨dha⟩ or ⟨va⟩. The reading vanṟ agu is what to be expected as can be seen from other inscriptions.

⟨19⟩ ya¡ś!⟨s⟩ya ya¡ś!⟨s⟩ya ya⟨20⟩¡t!⟨d⟩ā bhūmi⟨s⟩ ta¡ś!⟨s⟩ya {(śa)} ⟨21⟩ ta¡ś!⟨s⟩ya ta¡th!⟨d⟩ā ¡p!⟨ph⟩a(la)[ṁ] ⬦ yaśya yaśy ya⟨20⟩tā bhūmi taśyaśya ⟨21⟩ taśya tadhā palaṁ PS • The scan of Prabhākaraśāstri’s article at my disposal is of a bad quality. On the picture I can see a shade of what could be interpreted as a ⟨śa⟩ but I can not see traces of subscript ⟨°ya⟩ in line 20. However, Prabhākaraśāstri may be right that the akṣara ⟨śa⟩ or ⟨śya⟩ was written twice by mistake. These two pādas normally are pāda 3 and 4 of a standard imprecation śloka. See commentary.

⟨22⟩ svadat(ā) pa(ra)da⟨23⟩tā va yō [ha](r)[ē](t)[i] ⟨24⟩ {ṣa} vaśundara (ṣṭhi) ⬦ svadattā parada⟨23⟩tā vā yō[…] ⟨24⟩ pavaśundarā PS • Prabhākaraśāstri read the first akṣara of line 24 as ⟨pa⟩ but in my opinion it more resembles ⟨ṣa⟩. I think that this ⟨ṣa⟩ is the first akṣara of the third pāda of the respective śloka the first two pādas of which have been encarved on the stone. The last akṣara of line 24 normally is the second akṣara of the third pāda 3 (together ṣaṣṭhi). See commentary.

Translation by Jens Thomas

Svasti! In the inital reign of Viṭṟāju, officer of Śrī Maṅgiyuvarāja: two plots of land (paṭṭi) given by Kaḍumallu, two plots of land obtained by Bōḷa Jakkuṟēgāru of Mariyampu; twelve tūmu, "handfull"/produce of millet.¹ The land of the goddess Durgā and the two plots of the Bōḷa of Uṟuvuṭūru (are) in the east.

If someone interferes with these two plots of land, he will have killed² thousand cows, thousand temples, thousand tanks and thousand brahmins of Vārāṇasī.

Whosoever owns the land at any time will have the profit (of it). Who takes land away, whether given by himself or by another (person).³

Translation by Prabhākaraśāstri 1928

⁴ తూర్పు చాళుక్యరాజగు మంగియువరాజు రాజ్యమేలుచుండఁగా నాతని క్రింది చిన్ని యేలికయో, మండలాధిపుఁడో, యుద్యోగియో అగు విట్రాజురాజ్యమున కడవండ్లులగ్రామమున మిరియంపు బోళజయనువానికొఱకయి ఱెంగఱియనువాఁడు పదునేదుము ఆళ్లవిత్తనాలు పట్టునట్టి రెండుపట్ల భూమిని పడసెననియు ఆభూమికిఁదూర్పు సీమాచిహ్నములు దుర్గాదేవి నేలయను, ఉఱువుటూరి బోలరెండుట్టి (రెండుపట్ల భూమిని)యు ననియు ఈ రెండుపట్ల భూమిని జెఱచువారు కలరేని వారు వారణాశిలో వేయి కపిలగోవులను, వేయిగుళ్లను, వేయిచెఱువులను, వేవురు బ్రాహ్మణులను జంపినపాపమును గుడుతురనియు, శాసనార్థముగా నాకుఁదోఁచివది. ’యస్య యస్య యదా భూమి’ రిత్యాది సర్వశాసన సాధారణశ్లోకము కడపటి నున్నది.

[’While Mangiyuvarāju, ruler of the eastern Calukyas, was exerting (his) rule, during the rule of Viṭrāju, being either a small ruler under him (i. e. Mangiyuvarāju), a head of a district (maṅgalādhipa-), or an official’, a person called Ṟeṁgaṟi acquired⁵ for the sake of the person called Mariyaṁpu Bōḷaja in a village called Kaḍavaṁḍlula land of two paṭṭis⁶ that contain (పట్టునట్టి) grains of millet of fifteen tūmu. To the east of that land the signs of the border (are) the land of the goddess Durgā and the (land) of Uṟuvuṭūri Bōla of two paṭṭis. If someone spoils this land of two paṭṭis he will experience (కుడుతురు) the sins of having killed thousand cows⁷ thousand temples, thousand tanks and thousand brahmins in Vārāṇasī. That seems to me to be the meaning of the inscription. The śloka ’yasya yasya yadā bhūmir’ etc. that is common to all inscriptions is at the end. (translation by Jens Christian Thomas)]

Translation by Sastri 1969

Hail! In the first year of the reign of Viṭrajulu, officer of Magi Dogarajulu, Ṟengari having obtained two puṭṭis of land sowable with fifteen tūmus of paddy in the village of Kaḍavaṁḍlu, granted (it) to Miriyampu bōḷaja. The land belonging to Durgādēvi, and the two puṭṭis of land of Uṟuvuṭūri bōḷa (i.e. the bōḷa of Uṟuvuṭūru) are (the boundaries) on the east. If there are any who obstruct (the grant of) these two puṭṭis (paṭṭi ?) (they will suffer) in the manner (of those) who killed a thousand cows, destroyed a thousand temples, and a thousand tanks, and killed a thousand brahmins in Bāranāsi.⁸

Commentary

(1–18) I have to stress that my own reading is based on the picture in Prabhākaraśāstri’s edition. I only had access to a bad scan. That is why my reading might be faulty in one or the other place and I apologize if I mistakingly "corrected" Prabhākaraśāstri’s edition for the bad.

Prabhākaraśāstri interprets kaḍuvaṁ(ḍlu)la, as he reads it, in lines 3-4 as the name of a village in the locative (“కడువండ్లులగ్రామమున [kaḍuvaṁḍlulagrāmamuna]” (1928, p. 937)). He regards miriyampu bōḷaja (with the dative suffix -ku) as the donée and ṟeṁgari as the donor (1928, pp. 937–937). The semantics of paḍayu ("to obtain, possess"), however, are problematic in my opinion. According to my reading kaḍumallu is a person’s name which means something like "strong wrestler" (kaḍu + mallu). Prabhākaraśāstri interprets bōḷaja as consisting of bōḷa and an abbreviated Prakrit form of ajja (from ārya) (1928, p. 942). However, since double ⟨kku⟩ is written in line 6, which therefore can not be the dative suffix being written with a single ⟨k⟩, I would rather separate the usual designation bōḷa from the actual name that follows. The suffix -gari (i. e. -gāri) is the genitive of the honorific suffix -g/vāru. What remains is jakkuṟē- which consists of ṟē- "ruler" and jakku "yakṣa". Hence, jakkuṟē- means "ruler of the yakṣas" = Kubera.

The two words reṇḍuvaṭi and reṇḍuvaṭṭi seem to refer to the same thing. The spelling vaṭi seems to be a haplography of the fuller vaṭṭi which, in my opinion, corresponds to Sanskrit paṭṭī "a plot of land" (p > v / V(#)_ is a normal sandhi). The contracted form reṇḍūṭṭi is unusual. However, similar contractions sometimes occur, e. g. pandumbu from paḍudumbu.

The spelling druggādēvi seems to be a (spontaneous) metathesis of Durgādēvi "the goddess Durgā". The retainment of double ⟨gg⟩ rather serves to preserve the phonotactic structure of the word than simply being a remainder of the usual doubling of a consonant after repha because the preservation of the original phonotactic structure also seems to be the goal of vowel lengthening and consonant doubling after the usual metathesis in Telugu. Another example involving a loan word is uramu ~ rommu "chest, breast" (three morae each). Prabhākaraśāstri gives some more examples (1928, pp. 943–944).

The place name Uṟuvuṭuri (obl.) is identified by Prabhākaraśāstri with the modern village Uruṭūru, near Guḍivāḍa to the north of the Kr̥ṣṇā river (1928, p. 945).

(19–21) Ad lines 19-21: The śloka is not complete. The two pādas mentioned here normally form pādas c and d of a typical Sanskrit imprecation śloka one of several variants of which is: ⟨a⟩ bahubhir vvasudhā dattā ⟨b⟩ bahubhiś cānupālitā ⟨c⟩ yasya yasya yadā bhūmiḥ ⟨d⟩ tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ

(22–24) The next śloka is incomplete as well. This time because the last two pādas are missing. From the picture as published in the edition it is not possible to say whether there was more room on top of the stone for the effaced rest of the second śloka (because the inscription is written from the bottom to the top), or whether the stone is broken on top. Regarding the overall bad writing of the Sanskrit lines it is also possible that the scribe wanted to write only one single śloka but mixed up two pādas of different ślokas each. The misspelling in line 24 may corroborate this idea since the superfluous first and last akṣaras of the line together seem to form the first word of what should be the third pāda of this śloka: ṣaṣṭhi (this spelling, albeit wrong, occurs sometimes in other inscriptions, conf. INSTelugu00018, INSTelugu00027). The standard śloka would be: ⟨a⟩ svadattāṁ paradattāṁ vā ⟨b⟩ yo hareta vasundharāṁ ⟨c⟩ ṣaṣṭirvvarṣa-sahasrāṇi ⟨d⟩ viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ

I have edited these two śloka-parts as two different defective verses although they metrically form a single śloka because they do not form a coherent thought. The superfluous spellings of ⟨ṣa⟩ and ⟨ṣṭhi⟩ indicate that the scribe had the next lines of the second śloka at his disposal and seems to have intended to at least fill the line. That is why I think that the Sanskrit imprecation was mistakingly written as it is.

Bibliography

The inscription was edited by V. Prabhākaraśāstri together with a picture, a paraphrased translation and a detailed discussion. The inscription was re-edited by C. Nārāyaṇarāvu who added a short word explanation, by K. M. Sastri who added a translation, and by B. Radha Krishna. The latter three referred to the text as edited by Prabhākaraśāstri.

Primary

[PS] Prabhākaraśāstri, Vēṭūri. 1928. “Prācīnāṁdhraśāsanamulu.” Bh 5 (6), pp. 933–949. Pages 933–949.

Secondary

Nārāyaṇarāvu, Cilukūri. 1937. Āṁdhrabhāṣacaritramu. Valtēru: Ānaṁdamudraṇālayamu. Pages 1309–1310.

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. Pages 294–295, item 20.

Radhakrishna, Budaraju. 1971. Early Telugu inscriptions (up to 1100 A.D.): with texts, glossary & brief linguistic history. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Akademi. Pages 15–16, item 19.

Notes

1. The syntax is sort of technical. But there are other inscriptions that exhibit a similar style, e. g. INSTelugu00008.
2. The semantic oddity of killing temples and tanks exists in Telugu as well. The verb refers to the last member which in the Telugu text are the brahmins.
3. The śloka does not make sense because two separate imprecation ślokas have been merged here; see the commentary.
4. Prabhākaraśāstri does not give a translation proper but rather a paraphrase in the form of an annotated translation. He later discusses each word separately and extensively. This annotated translation, however, is very valuable and briefly shows his interpretation of the inscription.
5. Prabhākaraśāstri does not paraphrase the verb paḍayu. As far as I know the semantics of paḍayu only cover "to take, obtain, possess" etc. but not the opposite. That means that, in the context of Prabhākaraśāstri’s translation, Ṟeṁgaṟi "took" the land for the donée.
6. Prabhākaraśāstri states that the meaning of reṁḍuvaṭi (being a dvigu) is unclear but that the following ideas could match: it could denote a landscape, a donation, a land size, or a specific type of land. Prabhākaraśāstri uses "land of two paṭṭis" without changing the term much or paraphrasing it (). That is why I kept it untranslated in the translation of Prabhākaraśāstri’s text.
7. The Telugu text has two words here, the first being that of the inscription and the second an explanation (కపిలగోవులను)
8. K. M. Sastri left out the Sanskrit part in both his translation and re-edition of the text.

Display Options Word Wrap Line Numbers Comments Processing Instructions

<?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_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"?>

<title>Land donation by Viṭrāju, muṭlu of Maṅgiyuvarāja</title>

<resp>EpiDoc Encoding</resp>

<forename>Jens Christian</forename>

<surname>Thomas</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

<resp>intellectual authorship of edition</resp>

<forename>Jens Christian</forename>

<surname>Thomas</surname></persName>

</respStmt>

</titleStmt>

<authority>DHARMA</authority>

<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>

<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSTelugu00101</idno> <availability>

<p>This work is licensed 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>

</licence>

</availability>

</publicationStmt>

<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>

</msIdentifier>

</msContents>

<p>The inscription is written from the bottom to the top. The <foreign>anusvāra</foreign> is placed on top of the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> that it is pronounced before, e. g. lines 3 and 8 ⟨ṁbu⟩ (written as if denoting ⟨buṁ⟩). This is a feature that can be observed in several early Telugu inscriptions. The head of the <foreign>akṣaras</foreign> is often, but not always, written in an ornate manner in form of a little circle. There <hi rend="italic">may</hi> be one <foreign>halanta</foreign> in line 11 (⟨N⟩), written very small and without a "head".</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:

-->

</handDesc>

</physDesc>

</msDesc>

</sourceDesc>

</fileDesc>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<change when="2022-04-06" who="part:jeth">Initial encoding of the file</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2020-10-12">Version 3.2 : movinng the xml:lang to the root</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2020-07-02">Version 3.1: adding the encodingDesc and linking the template with the DHARMA Schema</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2020-03-18">Version 2: addition of handDesc and summary</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2019-12-18" status="draft">Creation of the

template</change>

</revisionDesc>

</teiHeader>

<body>

<lb n="1"/>svasti śrī magidogarajula muṭlu

<lb n="2"/>viṭṟajula pratama-rā<lb break="no" n="3"/>jyaṁbuna kaḍu<unclear>mallu</unclear><lb break="no" n="4"/>la Iccina reṇḍu vaṭi

<lb n="5"/>miriyampu bōḷa<lb break="no" n="6"/>jakkuṟēgari pa<lb break="no" n="7"/>ḍaśina reṇḍu vaṭṭi

<lb n="8"/>padēnduṁbu Āḍlu pa<lb break="no" n="9"/>ṭṭu druggādēvi nēlayu

<lb n="10"/>Uṟuvuṭuri bōḷa

<lb n="11"/>reṇḍūṭṭiyu tūṟpuN

<lb n="12"/>I reṇḍ<supplied reason="lost">ū</supplied><unclear>ṭ</unclear>i ḻacuvaru

<lb n="13"/>kaḷarēni bāranāsi

<lb n="14"/>vēgavilāḷu vē<supplied reason="omitted">gu</supplied>ḍlu<lb break="no" n="15"/>mu vēśeṟuvuḷu

<lb n="16"/>vēvuru paṟānu

<lb n="17"/>campinavanṟ agu

</p>

<l n="c">ya<choice><orig>ś</orig><reg>s</reg></choice>ya ya<choice><orig>ś</orig><reg>s</reg></choice>ya ya<lb break="no" n="20"/><choice><orig>t</orig><reg>d</reg></choice>ā bhūmi<supplied reason="omitted">s</supplied></l>

</lg>

<l n="a">svadat<unclear>ā</unclear> pa<unclear>ra</unclear>da<lb break="no" n="23"/>tā va</l> <l n="b">yō <supplied reason="lost">ha</supplied><unclear>r</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ē</supplied><unclear>t</unclear><supplied reason="lost">i</supplied>

<lb n="24"/><surplus>ṣa</surplus> vaśundara <unclear>ṣṭhi</unclear></l>

</lg>

</p>

</div>

<lem>magidogarajula</lem>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri states in note no. 1 that it should be <foreign>maṁgi</foreign>.</note>

</app>

<lem>muṭlu</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">muḍlu</rdg>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri remarks in note no. 2 that also <foreign>muṭlu</foreign> could be read. As far as I can say from the picture published in Prabhākaraśāstri's edition the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> resembles ⟨ṭ⟩ in line 4. Other instances of the word in question show ⟨ṭ⟩.</note>

</app>

<lem>kaḍu<unclear>mallu</unclear><lb break="no" n="4"/>la</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">kaḍuvaṁ<unclear>ḍlu</unclear><lb break="no" n="4"/>la</rdg>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri notes that ⟨du⟩ could be read as well, and that the reading of ⟨ḍlu⟩ is uncertain and also could be ⟨jlu⟩ (notes nos. 3-4). The <foreign>akṣara</foreign> in question indeed looks like ⟨jlu⟩. As far as I can say from my bad scan the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> that was read as ⟨va⟩ by Prabhākara Śāstri could also be ⟨ma⟩. The following <foreign>akṣara</foreign> could be ⟨lla⟩ as spelled in the Zulakallu plates of Vijayāditya I (line 17) (<bibl><ptr target="bib:Gai1965-1966_01"/></bibl>), i. e. with the right upward line of the superscript ⟨l⟩ drawn downwards on the left side ending into subscript ⟨l⟩. The single ⟨la⟩ is written in its fuller form in line 4 of our Telugu inscription but also occurs in a slightly more advanced form in line 14.</note>

</app>

<lem>reṇḍu</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">renḍu</rdg>

</app>

<lem>jakkuṟēgari</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">jaku ṟeṁgari</rdg>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri says in note no. 5 that it could also be ⟨kku⟩ instead of ⟨ku⟩. <foreign>Jakkuṟē</foreign>- seems to me to be one word consisting of two elements in which the <foreign>anusvāra</foreign> would be superfluous (see commentary). However, a dot can be seen on top of the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> ⟨ga⟩ that may be a damage on the stone though.</note>

</app>

<lem>pa<lb break="no" n="7"/>ḍaśina</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">pe<lb break="no" n="7"/>ḍaśina</rdg>

<note>According to Prabhākaraśāstri the spelling should be ⟨pa⟩ (note no. 6); the respective verb would be <foreign>paḍayu</foreign>. The line that Prabhākaraśāstri read as the vowel sign ⟨°e⟩ starts on the left side from the middle of the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> ⟨pa⟩. That would be very unusual because this vowel is normally written on the upper left line of the <foreign>akṣara</foreign>. The alleged vowel sign may therefore be simply a damage on the stone.</note>

</app>

<lem/>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">renḍu</rdg>

</app>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri notes (no. 7) that on the left upper side of the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> ⟨Ā⟩ a line like the vowel sign ⟨°e⟩ is visible. This seems to me to be a mere damage on the stone.</note>

</app>

<lem>reṇḍūṭṭiyu</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">renḍuṭṭiyu</rdg>

<note>In Prabhākaraśāstri's edition <foreign>renṭuṭḍiyu</foreign> is printed but that seems to be a mere misprint. The vowel sign is written to the left side and has a hook on top drooping towards the left. Therefore, the vowel seems to be long /uː/ seems to be written. The form appears to be a contraction of /uva/ to /uː/ of the already mentioned <foreign>reṇḍuvaṭṭi</foreign> (i. e. reṇḍuvaṭṭi > reṇḍūṭṭi)</note>

</app>

<lem>tūṟpuN</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">tūṟpu</rdg>

<note>There seems to be a very faint <foreign>halanta</foreign> ⟨N⟩ written at the end of the line. It is written very small and without a "head". This consonant forms a locative, hence "in the east".</note>

</app>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">Ī renḍuṭṭi</rdg>

<note>The akṣara ⟨I⟩ looks like ⟨I⟩ in line 4. The intended meaning, however, must be "this" (<foreign>ī</foreign>). Prabhākaraśāstri had a the original and the original estampage at his disposal wherefore his reading may be correct. However, I cannot see any vowel sign on ⟨ṇḍ⟩ and it seems that the vowel simply was forgotten. On the other hand, the lower part of ⟨ṭi⟩ seems to be damaged on the scan available to me so that it is also possible that the vowel sign of ⟨ṇḍ⟩ may have been lost due to damage. I supplied a long ⟨°ū⟩ due to the reading <foreign>reṇḍūṭṭi</foreign>- in line 11.</note>

</app>

<lem>ḻacuvaru</lem>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri notes (note no. 8) that the form should be <foreign>ḻaccu</foreign>.</note>

</app>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri edits the text as it is written but states that it should be <foreign>vēguḍlu</foreign> (note 9).</note>

</app>

<lem>paṟānu</lem>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri states in note no. 10 that it should be written <foreign>pāṟanu</foreign>.</note>

</app>

<lem>campinavanṟ agu</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">campinacannaṁgu</rdg>

<note>According to Prabhākaraśāstri (note no. 11) the reading is unclear and also <foreign>canvaṁ</foreign> and <foreign>candhaṁ</foreign> are possible according to him (his alternative readings are very blurred in the bad scan at my disposal).The <foreign>akṣara</foreign> ⟨va⟩ is written in a little bit more elongated form than in e. g. line 14. The scribe forgot to write the horizontal line inside the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> ⟨ṟa⟩ so that it is an empty oval and thus resembles a ⟨dha⟩ or ⟨va⟩. The reading <foreign>vanṟ agu</foreign> is what to be expected as can be seen from other inscriptions.</note>

</app>

<lem/>

<note>According to Prabhākaraśāstri (note no. 12) this line is effaced. However, it seems to me that this line was intentionally left blank since the Telugu imprecation is now followed by a Sanskrit imprecation. The Telugu imprecation ends in its typical way so that no information is lacking that could have been given in line 18.</note>

</app>

<lem>ya<choice><orig>ś</orig><reg>s</reg></choice>ya ya<choice><orig>ś</orig><reg>s</reg></choice>ya ya<lb break="no" n="20"/><choice><orig>t</orig><reg>d</reg></choice>ā bhūmi<supplied reason="omitted">s</supplied> ta<choice><orig>ś</orig><reg>s</reg></choice>ya <surplus><unclear>śa</unclear></surplus><lb n="21"/>ta<choice><orig>ś</orig><reg>s</reg></choice>ya ta<choice><orig>th</orig><reg>d</reg></choice>ā <choice><orig>p</orig><reg>ph</reg></choice>a<unclear>la</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ṁ</supplied></lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">yaśya yaśy ya<lb break="no" n="20"/>tā bhūmi taśyaśya<lb n="21"/>taśya tadhā palaṁ</rdg>

<note>The scan of Prabhākaraśāstri's article at my disposal is of a bad quality. On the picture I can see a shade of what could be interpreted as a ⟨śa⟩ but I can not see traces of subscript ⟨°ya⟩ in line 20. However, Prabhākaraśāstri may be right that the <foreign>akṣara</foreign> ⟨śa⟩ or ⟨śya⟩ was written twice by mistake. These two <foreign>pādas</foreign> normally are <foreign>pāda</foreign> 3 and 4 of a standard imprecation <foreign>śloka</foreign>. See commentary.</note>

</app>

<lem>svadat<unclear>ā</unclear> pa<unclear>ra</unclear>da<lb break="no" n="23"/>tā va yō <supplied reason="lost">ha</supplied><unclear>r</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ē</supplied><unclear>t</unclear><supplied reason="lost">i</supplied>

<lb n="24"/><surplus>ṣa</surplus> vaśundara <unclear>ṣṭhi</unclear></lem>

<rdg source="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01">svadattā parada<lb break="no" n="23"/>tā vā yō<gap reason="lost" extent="unknown"/><lb n="24"/>pavaśundarā</rdg>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri read the first <foreign>akṣara</foreign> of line 24 as ⟨pa⟩ but in my opinion it more resembles ⟨ṣa⟩. I think that this ⟨ṣa⟩ is the first <foreign>akṣara</foreign> of the third <foreign>pāda</foreign> of the respective <foreign>śloka</foreign> the first two <foreign>pādas</foreign> of which have been encarved on the stone. The last <foreign>akṣara</foreign> of line 24 normally is the second <foreign>akṣara</foreign> of the third pāda 3 (together <foreign>ṣaṣṭhi</foreign>). See commentary.</note>

</app>

</listApp>

</div>

<p>

Svasti! In the inital reign of Viṭṟāju, officer of Śrī Maṅgiyuvarāja: two plots of land (<foreign>paṭṭi</foreign>) given by Kaḍumallu, two plots of land obtained by Bōḷa Jakkuṟēgāru of Mariyampu; twelve <foreign>tūmu</foreign>, "handfull"/produce of millet.<note>The syntax is sort of technical. But there are other inscriptions that exhibit a similar style, e. g. INSTelugu00008.</note> The land of the goddess Durgā and the two plots of the Bōḷa of Uṟuvuṭūru (are) in the east.</p>

<p>If someone interferes with these two plots of land, he will have killed<note>The semantic oddity of killing temples and tanks exists in Telugu as well. The verb refers to the last member which in the Telugu text are the brahmins.</note> thousand cows, thousand temples, thousand tanks and thousand brahmins of Vārāṇasī.

</p>

<p>

Whosoever owns the land at any time will have the profit (of it). Who takes land away, whether given by himself or by another (person).<note>The <foreign>śloka</foreign> does not make sense because two separate imprecation <foreign>ślokas</foreign> have been merged here; see the commentary.</note>

</p>

</div>

<p>

<note>Prabhākaraśāstri does not give a translation proper but rather a paraphrase in the form of an annotated translation. He later discusses each word separately and extensively. This annotated translation, however, is very valuable and briefly shows his interpretation of the inscription.</note>

తూర్పు చాళుక్యరాజగు మంగియువరాజు రాజ్యమేలుచుండఁగా నాతని క్రింది చిన్ని యేలికయో, మండలాధిపుఁడో, యుద్యోగియో అగు విట్రాజురాజ్యమున కడవండ్లులగ్రామమున మిరియంపు బోళజయనువానికొఱకయి ఱెంగఱియనువాఁడు పదునేదుము ఆళ్లవిత్తనాలు పట్టునట్టి రెండుపట్ల భూమిని పడసెననియు ఆభూమికిఁదూర్పు సీమాచిహ్నములు దుర్గాదేవి నేలయను, ఉఱువుటూరి బోలరెండుట్టి (రెండుపట్ల భూమిని)యు ననియు ఈ రెండుపట్ల భూమిని జెఱచువారు కలరేని వారు వారణాశిలో వేయి కపిలగోవులను, వేయిగుళ్లను, వేయిచెఱువులను, వేవురు బ్రాహ్మణులను జంపినపాపమును గుడుతురనియు, శాసనార్థముగా నాకుఁదోఁచివది. 'యస్య యస్య యదా భూమి' రిత్యాది సర్వశాసన సాధారణశ్లోకము కడపటి నున్నది.

</p>

<p>

['While Mangiyuvarāju, ruler of the eastern Calukyas, was exerting (his) rule, during the rule of Viṭrāju, being either a small ruler under him (i. e. Mangiyuvarāju), a head of a district (<foreign>maṅgalādhipa</foreign>-), or an official', a person called Ṟeṁgaṟi acquired<note>Prabhākaraśāstri does not paraphrase the verb <foreign>paḍayu</foreign>. As far as I know the semantics of <foreign>paḍayu</foreign> only cover "to take, obtain, possess" etc. but not the opposite. That means that, in the context of Prabhākaraśāstri's translation, Ṟeṁgaṟi "took" the land for the donée.</note> for the sake of the person called Mariyaṁpu Bōḷaja in a village called Kaḍavaṁḍlula land of two <foreign>paṭṭis</foreign><note>Prabhākaraśāstri states that the meaning of <foreign>reṁḍuvaṭi</foreign> (being a <foreign>dvigu</foreign>) is unclear but that the following ideas could match: it could denote a landscape, a donation, a land size, or a specific type of land. Prabhākaraśāstri uses "land of two <foreign>paṭṭis</foreign>" without changing the term much or paraphrasing it (<bibl rend="omitname"><citedRange unit="page">940-941</citedRange></bibl>). That is why I kept it untranslated in the translation of Prabhākaraśāstri's text.</note> that contain (పట్టునట్టి) grains of millet of fifteen <foreign>tūmu</foreign>. To the east of that land the signs of the border (are) the land of the goddess Durgā and the (land) of Uṟuvuṭūri Bōla of two <foreign>paṭṭis</foreign>. If someone spoils this land of two <foreign>paṭṭis</foreign> he will experience (కుడుతురు) the sins of having killed thousand cows<note>The Telugu text has two words here, the first being that of the inscription and the second an explanation (కపిలగోవులను)</note> thousand temples, thousand tanks and thousand brahmins in Vārāṇasī. That seems to me to be the meaning of the inscription. The <foreign>śloka</foreign> '<foreign>yasya yasya yadā bhūmir</foreign>' etc. that is common to all inscriptions is at the end. (translation by Jens Christian Thomas)]

</p>

</div>

<p>

Hail! In the first year of the reign of Viṭrajulu, officer of Magi Dogarajulu, Ṟengari having obtained two <hi rend="italic">puṭṭis</hi> of land sowable with fifteen <hi rend="italic">tūmus</hi> of paddy in the village of Kaḍavaṁḍlu, granted (it) to Miriyampu bōḷaja. The land belonging to Durgādēvi, and the two <hi rend="italic">puṭṭis</hi> of land of Uṟuvuṭūri bōḷa (i.e. the bōḷa of Uṟuvuṭūru) are (the boundaries) on the east. If there are any who obstruct (the grant of) these two <hi rend="italic">puṭṭis</hi> (<hi rend="italic">paṭṭi ?</hi>) (they will suffer) in the manner (of those) who killed a thousand cows, destroyed a thousand temples, and a thousand tanks, and killed a thousand brahmins in Bāranāsi.<note>K. M. Sastri left out the Sanskrit part in both his translation and re-edition of the text.</note>

</p>

</div>

I have to stress that my own reading is based on the picture in Prabhākaraśāstri's edition. I only had access to a bad scan. That is why my reading might be faulty in one or the other place and I apologize if I mistakingly "corrected" Prabhākaraśāstri's edition for the bad.</p>

<p>Prabhākaraśāstri interprets <foreign>kaḍuvaṁ<unclear>ḍlu</unclear>la</foreign>, as he reads it, in lines 3-4 as the name of a village in the locative (<cit><quote>కడువండ్లులగ్రామమున [kaḍuvaṁḍlulagrāmamuna]</quote><bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01"/><citedRange unit="page">937</citedRange></bibl></cit>). He regards <foreign>miriyampu bōḷaja</foreign> (with the dative suffix -<foreign>ku</foreign>) as the donée and <foreign>ṟeṁgari</foreign> as the donor (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01"/><citedRange unit="page">937-937</citedRange></bibl>). The semantics of <foreign>paḍayu</foreign> ("to obtain, possess"), however, are problematic in my opinion. According to my reading <foreign>kaḍumallu</foreign> is a person's name which means something like "strong wrestler" (<foreign>kaḍu</foreign> + <foreign>mallu</foreign>). Prabhākaraśāstri interprets <foreign>bōḷaja </foreign> as consisting of <foreign>bōḷa</foreign> and an abbreviated Prakrit form of <foreign>ajja</foreign> (from <foreign>ārya</foreign>) (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01"/><citedRange unit="page">942</citedRange></bibl>). However, since double ⟨kku⟩ is written in line 6, which therefore can not be the dative suffix being written with a single ⟨k⟩, I would rather separate the usual designation <foreign>bōḷa</foreign> from the actual name that follows. The suffix -<foreign>gari</foreign> (i. e. -<foreign>gāri</foreign>) is the genitive of the honorific suffix -<foreign>g/vāru</foreign>. What remains is <foreign>jakkuṟē</foreign>- which consists of <foreign>ṟē</foreign>- "ruler" and <foreign>jakku</foreign> "yakṣa". Hence, <foreign>jakkuṟē</foreign>- means "ruler of the yakṣas" = Kubera.</p>

<p>The two words <foreign>reṇḍuvaṭi</foreign> and <foreign>reṇḍuvaṭṭi</foreign> seem to refer to the same thing. The spelling <foreign>vaṭi</foreign> seems to be a haplography of the fuller <foreign>vaṭṭi</foreign> which, in my opinion, corresponds to Sanskrit <foreign>paṭṭī</foreign> "a plot of land" (p > v / V(#)_ is a normal sandhi). The contracted form <foreign>reṇḍūṭṭi</foreign> is unusual. However, similar contractions sometimes occur, e. g. <foreign>pandumbu</foreign> from <foreign>paḍudumbu</foreign>.</p>

<p>The spelling <foreign>druggādēvi</foreign> seems to be a (spontaneous) metathesis of <foreign>Durgādēvi</foreign> "the goddess Durgā". The retainment of double ⟨gg⟩ rather serves to preserve the phonotactic structure of the word than simply being a remainder of the usual doubling of a consonant after <foreign>repha</foreign> because the preservation of the original phonotactic structure also seems to be the goal of vowel lengthening and consonant doubling after the usual metathesis in Telugu. Another example involving a loan word is uramu ~ rommu "chest, breast" (three morae each). Prabhākaraśāstri gives some more examples (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01"/><citedRange unit="page">943-944</citedRange></bibl>).</p>

<p>

The place name <foreign>Uṟuvuṭuri</foreign> (obl.) is identified by Prabhākaraśāstri with the modern village Uruṭūru, near Guḍivāḍa to the north of the Kr̥ṣṇā river (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Prabhākaraśāstri1928_01"/><citedRange unit="page">945</citedRange></bibl>).

</p>

<p n="19-21">Ad lines 19-21: The <foreign>śloka</foreign> is not complete. The two <foreign>pādas</foreign> mentioned here normally form <foreign>pādas</foreign> c and d of a typical Sanskrit imprecation <foreign>śloka</foreign> one of several variants of which is:

<lb n="a"/>bahubhir vvasudhā dattā

<lb n="b"/>bahubhiś cānupālitā

<lb n="c"/>yasya yasya yadā bhūmiḥ

<lb n="d"/>tasya tasya tadā phalaṁ

</p>

<p n="22-24">The next <foreign>śloka</foreign> is incomplete as well. This time because the last two <foreign>pādas</foreign> are missing. From the picture as published in the edition it is not possible to say whether there was more room on top of the stone for the effaced rest of the second <foreign>śloka</foreign> (because the inscription is written from the bottom to the top), or whether the stone is broken on top. Regarding the overall bad writing of the Sanskrit lines it is also possible that the scribe wanted to write only one single <foreign>śloka</foreign> but mixed up two <foreign>pādas</foreign> of different <foreign>ślokas</foreign> each. The misspelling in line 24 may corroborate this idea since the superfluous first and last <foreign>akṣaras</foreign> of the line together seem to form the first word of what should be the third <foreign>pāda</foreign> of this <foreign>śloka</foreign>: <foreign>ṣaṣṭhi</foreign> (this spelling, albeit wrong, occurs sometimes in other inscriptions, conf. INSTelugu00018, INSTelugu00027). The standard śloka would be:

<lb n="a"/>svadattāṁ paradattāṁ vā

<lb n="b"/>yo hareta vasundharāṁ

<lb n="c"/>ṣaṣṭirvvarṣa-sahasrāṇi

<lb n="d"/>viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ</p>

<p>I have edited these two <foreign>śloka</foreign>-parts as two different defective verses although they metrically form a single <foreign>śloka</foreign> because they do not form a coherent thought. The superfluous spellings of ⟨ṣa⟩ and ⟨ṣṭhi⟩ indicate that the scribe had the next lines of the second <foreign>śloka</foreign> at his disposal and seems to have intended to at least fill the line. That is why I think that the Sanskrit imprecation was mistakingly written as it is.

</p>

</div>

<p>

</p>

</listBibl>

</listBibl>

</div>

</body>

</text>

</TEI>